The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohib

discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, c

national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, politica

beliefs, and marital or familial status. (Not all prohib

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabiliti

who require alternative means for communication o

program information (braille, large print, audiotape, 

should contact the USDA’s TARGET Center at (202

720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agricultur

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC,

20250, or call (800) 245-6340 (voice) or (202) 720-

(TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity

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 mentione

or depicted.

Fact Book

1997

U.S. Department

of Agriculture

Office of

Communications
Blank page here
Foreword, by Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture...

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

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

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

Food Expenditures and Prices .....................................................................

Farm/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. Land...............................................................................

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

Foreign Ownership of U.S. Farmland .........................................................

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

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

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

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

Net Cash Income and Net Farm Income ......................................................

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

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

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

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

Federal Government Program Participation and Direct Payments ..............

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

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

Rural Population ..........................................................................................

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

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

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

Rural Income and Poverty ...........................................................................

Rural Public Services ..................................................................................

Federal Funding for Rural Area Development .............................................
Office of Chief Financial Officer .........................................................................

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

Departmental Administration ..............................................................................

American Indian and Alaska Natives Programs ..................................................

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

6. Rural Development: Creating Opportunity for Rural America

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

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

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

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

Rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities ..................................

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 Consumer Service ................................................................................

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

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

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

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

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

ii
in Harmony with a Quality Environment ...................................................

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

11. Investing in the Future Through Research, 

Education, and Economics ...........................................................

Getting Your Money’s Worth ......................................................................

Delivering The Goods .................................................................................

Putting It All Together .................................................................................

Research—A Sound Investment ..................................................................

What’s New? ...............................................................................................

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: 

Protecting Agricultural Health and Productivity .......................................

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

When Abraham Lincoln created the U.S. Department of Agricuits core mission was “to provide information about agricultur

most comprehensive and general sense of the word.” The 1997 Agr

Fact Book carries on with that charge, offering thousands of useful 

about U.S. agriculture and rural America. 

The heart of USDAremains production agriculture, helping ou

ers feed America and the world in a sustainable way. What many fo

not realize, however, is the diversity of responsibilities under the U

umbrella:

• We run the Federal anti-hunger effort—everything from food 

to the school lunch and breakfast programs to the WIC progr

• We are the country’s largest conservation agency—carrying 

untary efforts to protect soil, water, and wildlife on the 70 pe

America’s lands that are in private hands.

• Nearly half of USDA employees work for the U.S. Forest Se

• As the department of rural America, we bring housing, mode

telecommunications, safe drinking water, and more to our co

communities.

• We are largely responsible for the safety of the food on your 

• We are a research leader in everything from human nutrition 

crop technologies that allow us to grow more food and fiber 

less water and less pesticides.

This book is a handy reference tool that offers convenient, one

shopping for information about U.S. agriculture, rural America, foo

tion and consumer issues, trade, and more. 

I am pleased to note that the 1997 Agriculture Fact Book is hi

too. You can find this text and other helpful information on the Inte

USDA’s Home Page at HTTP://www.usda.gov

In today’s world, information is power. Whether you are a farm

rancher, or simply a curious citizen, this book holds something of v

for you.

President Lincoln called USDA “the people’s department.” We 

hard every day to live up to this name.
vi
■ What Do Americans Eat?

The American diet has changed considerably over the last 25 years. Reconsumption, for example, fell 13 percent between 1970 and 1995, w

consumption rose 86 percent and fish and shellfish 27 percent. Egg use de

nearly a fourth, while cheese consumption more than doubled to 27 pound

in 1995. Consumption of coffee and milk has given way to icy cold carbon

drinks; bottled water; beer; canned iced tea; and fruit juices, drinks, cockta

Change has been driven by various factors: prices, consumer income

assistance for the poor, convenience, new products, more imports, more 

from home, more snacking, expanded advertising programs, smaller hou

more two-earner households, increased ethnic diversity, an aging popula

expanded scientific base relating diet and health, new Dietary Guidelines 

-60-30

0

306090

120150

-41%

-24%

-22%

-13%

16%

22%

22%

23%

27%

42%

86%

111%

140%

Coffee (green bean equivalent)

Eggs

Beverage milk

Red meat

Alcoholic beverages

Fruits and vegetables

Caloric sweeteners1

Fats and oils

Fish

Flour and cereal products

Poultry

Carbonated soft drinks

Cheese

Figure 1-1.

Changes in U.S. per capita consumption, 1970-1995

1Includes caloric sweeteners used in soft drinks.
USs cooc eseacSevces (S) ood suppy (dsappeaac

data are based on the amount of food available for consumption in the United 

Estimates of food for domestic human consumption usually are calculated by 

tracting measurable uses such as exports, industrial consumption, farm inputs

end-of-year inventories from total supply (the sum of production, beginning i

ies, and imports). Accordingly, the data are indirect measures of actual consu

They may overstate what is actually eaten because they represent food suppli

able in the market and do not account for waste. Food supply nutrient estimat

derived from the disappearance data by researchers in USDA’s Center for Nu

Policy and Promotion (CNPP).

Food Supply Providing More Grains, Vegetables, and Fruits and Les

Saturated Fat and Cholesterol. Consistent with dietary and health recomme

tions, Americans now consume, on average, two-fifths more grain products a

one-fifth more fruits and vegetables than did their 1970 counterparts. They dr

lower fat milk than they did then; annual per capita butterfat consumption fro

beverage milk now is half what it was in 1970. And, they eat leaner meats—l

meat (leaner red meat, too) and more chicken and fish. Meat, poultry, and fish 

contribute 25 percent of the total fat and 26 percent of the total saturated fat i

U.S. food supply, compared with 35 percent and 37 percent in 1970. This is s

even though per capita total meat consumption now is roughly a tenth higher 

1970. Declining use of eggs, red meat (especially liver and other variety mea

whole milk is behind a 13-percent decline since 1970 in per capita levels of d

2

0

50

100

150

Fish/Shellfish

Poultry

Red Meat

1970 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94

1.05 2

Pounds

1

200 Total Meat

Figure 1-2.

Per capita consumption of meat, poultry, and fish, boneless,

trimmed,equivalent

1Includes skin, neck meat, and giblets.
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

929088868482807876747270

Gallons

2-Percent

Whole

Total

1-Percent & Skim

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Frozen Products

Cream Products

Cheese

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

1

Pounds

Figure 1-4.

Per capita consumption of selected dairy products

1Excludes full-skim American and cottage, pot, and baker’s cheese.
4

Cotay to det ad eatecoedatos, oweve, ecas ae co

ing, on average, record-high amounts of added sugars and some high-fat dairy 

ucts and near record-high amounts of added fats and oils. The increase in add

and oils probably results from the greatly expanded consumption of fried foo

foodservice outlets and high-fat snack foods, and the increased use of salad o

salads consumed both at home and away.

We Are a Nation of Meat Eaters—Now More Than Ever. In 1996, tot

consumption (red meat, poultry, and fish) was 191 pounds (boneless, trimmed 

alent) per person, only 2 pounds below 1994's record high and 12 pounds abo

1980-84 annual average. Half-pound hamburgers and “value-priced” buckets 

chicken draw slews of customers to foodservice outlets. Rotisserie chicken an

Buffalo wings have become so popular that they have made inroads across the 

even in pizzarias. Americans love to barbecue meat on outdoor grills—boosti

capita consumption in warm months—and, increasingly, on indoor grills year 

A host of new lean-meat products cater to saturated-fat-wary consumers. Sea

ready-to-cook meats available in the fresh and frozen food cases and cooked 

in the self-serve and service delicatessens appeal to time-crunched consumer

Long-Term Decline in Egg Consumption Levels Off in the 1990's. Be

1970 and 1989, annual consumption of eggs steadily declined from 309 eggs 

person to 237. The average annual rate of decline during those 20 years was 3

During the 1990's total egg consumption has fluctuated between 234 and 238 

per person per year, but has shown an upward trend since 1991. Per capita co

tion was 236 eggs in 1996 and has been projected to be 240 eggs in 1997. Th

high for U.S. per capita egg consumption was 403 eggs in 1945.

Much of the decline in egg consumption since 1970 was due to changing 

styles (for example, less time for breakfast preparation in the morning as larg

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

cholesterol intake associated with egg consumption.

Declining retail egg prices between 1990 and 1994 may have spurred egg 

those years. The average retail price for a dozen large, Grade A eggs declined 

$1.01 in 1990 to $0.86 in 1992 and 1994. Changing consumer attitudes towar

may also be responsible. New tests show eggs to contain less cholesterol than 

ously documented, leading the American Heart Association to increase its ma

recommended consumption from three eggs per week to four. Also, various r

studies indicate that some Americans are relaxing their healthy eating habits a

indulging themselves in more traditional and flavorful foods.

Americans Drink Less Milk, Eat More Cheese. In 1996, Americans, o

age, drank 22 percent less milk and ate nearly two and a half times as much c

(excluding cottage types) as in 1970.

Annual per capita consumption of beverage milk declined from 31 gallon

1970 to 24 gallons in 1996. Consumption of soft drinks may be displacing be

milk in the diet. Big increases in eating away from home, especially at fast-fo

places, and in consumption of salty snack foods favored soft drink consumpti
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Fruits Vegetables Total

Pounds 1970 1980 1995

0

50

100

150

200

70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 9

Total2

Wheat Flour

Corn Products

Ric

Pounds

Figure 1-6.

Per capita consumption of grain products1

1Excludes quantities used in alcoholic beverages, fuel, and corn sweeteners.

2Includes oats, rye, and barley products.

1Farm-weight equivalent.
6

We ecas ae swtcg to oweat , tey ae aso usg o

cream products (half-and-half, light cream, heavy cream, eggnog, sour cream

dips). Per capita consumption of fluid cream products jumped from an annual 

of 10 half pints in 1970-74 to 16 half pints in 1996.

On balance, however, per capita consumption of milk-fat from all fluid m

and cream products declined 36 percent between 1970 and 1996, from 9.1 po

per person to 5.8 pounds. 

Average consumption of cheese—excluding full-skim American and cot

pot, and baker’s cheeses—increased 140 percent between 1970 and 1996, fro

pounds per person to 27 pounds. The growth is concentrated in the ingredient 

away-from-home markets. Rapidly expanding pizza sales and lifestyles that e

size convenience foods are probably major forces behind the higher consump

Advertising and new products—such as frozen broccoli and cheese combos a

resealable bags of shredded cheeses—also had an effect.

Fruits and Vegetables—The Array of Choices Widens. As Americans 

ingly embrace national health authorities’recommendation of consuming five 

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

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

hundreds of new varieties and processed products—have been introduced or ex

in the last decade.

Per capita use of fruits and vegetables rose in the early 1980's in respons

higher consumer incomes, increased ethnic diversity, and burgeoning interest 

healthful diets. By 1995, per capita consumption was 15 percent higher than i

and 22 percent higher than in 1970. This trend is likely to continue expanding 

the next decade as consumers heed nutritionists’ message on healthful eating

Supermarket produce departments carry over 400 produce items today, u

250 in the late 1980's and 150 in the mid-1970's. Also, the number of ethnic, 

and natural foodstores—which highlight fresh produce—continues to rise.

Consumers continue to have more access to fresh, local produce as well. 

number of farmers’markets has grown substantially throughout the United St

over the last several decades, and increased from 1,755 in 1993 to 2,116 by th

of 1995, according to USDA surveys.

Average Grain Consumption Up From 1970's But Far Below Early 1

Highs. Per capita consumption of flour and cereal products reached 192 poun

1995 from an annual average of 147 pounds in 1980-84 and 135 pounds in 19

The increase is far below the 300 pounds consumed per person in 1909 (the e

year for which data are available). The expansion in supplies reflects ample g

stocks; strong consumer demand for variety breads and other bakery items; b

increases in grain-based snack foods, breakfast cereals, and ethnic foods; and 

ing sales of fast-food products made with buns, doughs, and tortillas. Grain p

have overtaken caloric sweeteners to become the leading source of carbohydr

the food supply.

Wheat is the major grain product eaten in the United States, with wheat fl

and other wheat products representing 74 percent of U.S. grain consumption 
However, wheat’s share of total grain consumption declined 6 percentag

1985 as rice, corn products, and oat products gained momentum.

Americans Eating Record-High Amounts of Sugars. Total per cap

sumption of caloric sweeteners (dry-weight basis)—comprised mainly o

(table sugar made from cane and beets) and corn sweeteners (notably hig

corn syrup, or HFCS)—increased 28 pounds, or 22 percent, during 1970

each American consumed, on average, 150 pounds of caloric sweeteners

with 122 pounds per person in 1970.

A striking change in the availability of specific sugars has occurred i

two and half decades. Sucrose’s share in total caloric sweetener consump

from 83 percent in 1970 to 44 percent in 1995. In contrast, corn sweetene

increased from 16 percent in 1970 to 55 percent in 1995. All other calori

including honey, maple syrup, and molasses, maintained a 1-percent shar

Food Supply Providing More Calories and Higher Levels of Mo

and Minerals. Evidence from various sources suggests that Americans 

ing, on average, more food, more snacks, bigger portions, and more calo

they did in 1970. The level of food energy (calories) in the food supply in

from 3,300 calories per person in 1970 to 3,800 calories in 1994. This 15

increase reflects higher levels of all three energy-yielding nutrients: carb

fat, and protein. The proportion of calories from carbohydrate increased fr

percent, while the share from fat decreased from 42 to 38 percent. Protein 

tently accounted for about 11 percent of calories.

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

Refined Sugar (sucrose)

Corn Sweeteners

Total Caloric Sweeteners

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

1

2

Pounds

1Includes small quantities of honey, and molasses and other refiner’s syrups. 2Dry basis
8

Pounds

Beef1 79.6 72.1 64.0

Pork1 48.0 52.1 49.1

Veal1 2.0 1.3 .8

Lamb and mutton1 2.1 1.0 .9

Chicken1 27.4 32.7 48.8

Turkey1 6.4 8.1 14.1

Fish and shellfish 11.7 12.4 14.9

Eggs (number) 308.9 271.1 234.6

Cheese2 11.4 17.5 27.3

Ice cream 17.8 17.5 15.7

Fluid cream products 5.2 5.6 8.4

All dairy products3 563.8 543.2 585.8

Fats and oils 52.6 57.2 64.1

Peanuts and tree nuts4 7.2 6.6 7.8

Fruits and vegetables5 564.4 594.4 685.9

Fruits 229.0 257.9 280.9 

Vegetables 335.4 336.5 405.0

Caloric sweeteners6 122.3 123.0 150

Refined sugar (sucrose) 101.8 83.6 65.5

Corn sweeteners 19.1 38.2 83.2

Flour and cereal products7 135.6 144.7 192.4

Wheat flour 110.9 116.9 141.7

Rice 6.7 9.4 20.1

Corn products 11.1 12.9 22.7

Other8 6.0 4.9 7.2

Cocoa9 3.1 2.7 3.6

Gallons

Beverage milks 31.3 27.6 24.3

Whole 25.5 17.0 8.8

Lowfat and skim 5.8 10.5 15.6

Coffee 33.4 26.7 20.5

Tea 6.8 7.3 8.0

Soft drinks 24.3 35.1 51.2

Fruit juices 5.7 7.2 8.7

Bottled water NA 2.4 11.6

Beer 18.5 24.3 22.0

Wine 1.3 2.1 1.8

Distilled spirits 1.8 2.0 1.2

NA = Not available. 

1

Boneless, trimmed equivalent. 2Excludes full-skim American, cottage, pot, and baker’s cheese. 3Mi

lent, milkfat basis. 4

Shelled basis. 5Farmgate weight. 6Dry basis. Includes honey and edible syrups. 7

tion of items at the processing level (excludes quantities used in alcoholic beverages and corn swee

8

Oats and barley. 9Chocolate liquor equivalent; what remains after cocoa beans have been roasted a
970 ad 99, aasoucessae ototaat deced o6to 8 

while vegetable sources’share jumped from 39 to 52 percent. 

In 1970, the meat, poultry, and fish group contributed the most satur

the U.S. food supply—37 percent, followed by the fats and oils group at 

By 1994, the fats and oils group’s contribution to total saturated fat had j

8 percentage points, to 41 percent, and the meat, poultry, and fish group’s 

had dropped 11 percentage points, to 26 percent.

CNPP calculates the amounts per capita per day of food energy and 

and food components in the U.S. food supply. Vitamin B12 is the only mi

(includes vitamins and minerals) whose level in the U.S. food supply dec

between 1970 and 1994; the 19-percent decline in vitamin B12 reflects lo

sumption of organ meats (for example, liver) and egg yolks. All other vit

C, E, B6, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, and folate) and all minerals (calcium

rus, magnesium, iron, zinc, copper, and potassium) show gains in per cap

from 1970 to 1994. For example, a 16-percent increase in vitamin C con

reflects higher fruit consumption spurred by improvements in variety and 

availability of many fresh fruits. Increases in thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, 

reflect hikes in enrichment levels of flour called for by revisions in Feder

in the 1970's as well as increased grain consumption in more recent year

■ Cost of Food Services and Distribution

The estimated bill for marketing domestic farm foods—which does nimported foods—was $421 billion in 1996. This amount covered all 

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

It represented 77 percent of the $544 billion consumers spent for these fo

remaining 23 percent, or $123 billion, represents the gross return paid to 

The cost of marketing farm foods has increased considerably over th

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

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

the increase in services provided with the food.

In 1986, the cost of marketing farm foods amounted to $271 billion. 

following decade, the cost of marketing rose about 55 percent. In 1996, t

bill rose 1 percent.

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

food expenditures. From 1986 to 1996, consumer expenditures for farm 

$184 billion. About 80 percent of this increase resulted from an increase 

keting bill. 

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

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

wholesalers, retailers, and eating places cost more than $200 billion in 19

was 5 percent higher than in 1995 and 67 percent more than in 1986. T

number of food marketing workers in 1996 was about 13.5 million, abou
more than a decade earlier. Over two-thirds of the growth in food industry em

ment occurred in public eating places. 

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

include packaging, transportation, energy, advertising, business taxes, net inte

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

panying dollar chart.

■ Food Expenditures and Prices

Total food expenditures, which include imports, fishery products, and food nating on farms, were $691.2 billion in 1996, an increase of 3.3 percent o

these expenditures in 1995. The average was $2,605 per capita, 2.3 percent ab

the 1995 average.

Away-from-home meals and snacks captured 46 percent of the U.S. food 

in 1996, up from 38 percent in 1976 and 43 percent in 1986.

The percentage of disposable personal income (income after taxes) that 

consumers spend on food continues to decline. From 1995 to 1996, disposab

sonal income increased 5.0 percent, a faster pace than the rise in food expen

10

Includes food eaten at home and away from home. Other costs include property taxes and insuranc

ing and professional services, promotion, bad debts, and many miscellaneous items.

Labor

Packaging

Intercity transportation

Depreciation

Advertising

Fuels and electricity

Before-tax profits

Rent

Interest (net)

Repairs

23¢ 38¢ 8¢

4.5¢

3.5¢

3.5¢

3.5¢

4¢

3.5¢

2.0¢

1.5

Farm Value Marketing Bill

B
970.

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

rose 40.8 percent over the last 10 years (1986-96). Prices of food eaten a

home increased 35.6 percent, while retail foodstore prices increased 43.8 

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

climbed 43.4 percent over the same 10 years. Transportation was up 39.8 

housing 37.8 percent; medical care 87.0 percent; and apparel and upkeep 

■ Farm-Retail Price Spread

Food prices include payments for both the raw farm product and markeIn 1996, the farm value, or payment for the raw product, averaged 25 

of the retail cost of a market basket of U.S. farm foods sold in foodstores

75 percent, the farm-retail price spread, consisted of all processing, trans

wholesaling, and retailing charges incurred after farm products leave th

Figure 1-9.

Distribution of food expenditures

The marketing bill is 77 percent of 1996 food expenditures

Data for foods of U.S. farm origin purchased by or for consumers for consumption both at hom

from home.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

farm marketing

'93

92

'91

90

'89

88

'87

86

'85

84

'83

82

'81

80

'79

78

'77

76

'75

74

'73

72

'71

70

Billion 

dollars
12

0

20

40

60

80

100 

1994


Total Calories=3,800


per capita per day

1970


Total Calories=3,300


per capita per day

1909


Total Calories=3,400


per capita per day

Protein


12%

Protein


11%

Protein


11%

Carbohydrate


56%

Carbohydrate


47%

Carbohydrate


51%

Fat


32%

Fat


42%

Fat


38%

Figure 1-11.

Sources of total fat in the U.S. food supply

0

20

40

60

80

100

'70 '94

Other


9%

Other


11%

Dairy products


13%

Dairy products


12%

Meat, poultry, fish


35% Meat, poultry, fish


25%

Fats and oils


43%

Fats and oils


52%

1970


Total fat=154 grams


per capita per day

1994


Total fat=159 grams


per capita per day
Farm-retail spreads have increased every year for the past 30 years, 

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

In 1996, farm-retail spreads rose an average of 3.3 percent and farmers r

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

prices was slightly higher in 1996 than in 1995. Meanwhile, retail food p

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

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

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

and smaller for foods that require considerable processing and packaging

centage generally decreases as the degree of processing increases. For ex

the farm value of meat was 36 percent in 1996, while cereal and bakery p

had a farm value averaging only 7 percent. The farm inputs needed to fee

and maintain the health of livestock are greater than the inputs required t

crops. The additional manufacturing processes required for cereal and ba

ucts also result in a lower farm value than for meats. Most other foods al

fewer inputs at the farm level. Other factors that influence the farm value 

include transportation costs, product perishability, and retailing costs. Hi

of these marketing factors tend to lower the farm value percentage.

0

20

40

60

80

100

'70 '94

Other


8%

Other


9%

Dairy products


22%

Dairy products


24%

Meat, poultry, fish


37%

Meat, poultry, fis

26%

Fats and oils


33%

Fats and oils


41%

1970


Total saturated fat=54 grams


per capita per day

1994


Total saturated fat=52 grams


per capita per day
Items 1986 1996 

Percent

Livestock products:

Meats 47 36

Dairy 43 36 

Poultry 54 44

Eggs 61 52

Crop products:

Cereal and bakery 8 7

Fresh fruits 27 20

Fresh vegetables 28 20

Processed fruits and vegetables 23 19

Fats and oils 19 22

14
■ What Do Americans Eat?

The American diet has changed considerably over the last 25 years. Reconsumption, for example, fell 13 percent between 1970 and 1995, w

consumption rose 86 percent and fish and shellfish 27 percent. Egg use de

nearly a fourth, while cheese consumption more than doubled to 27 pound

in 1995. Consumption of coffee and milk has given way to icy cold carbon

drinks; bottled water; beer; canned iced tea; and fruit juices, drinks, cockta

Change has been driven by various factors: prices, consumer income

assistance for the poor, convenience, new products, more imports, more 

from home, more snacking, expanded advertising programs, smaller hou

more two-earner households, increased ethnic diversity, an aging popula

expanded scientific base relating diet and health, new Dietary Guidelines 

-60-30

0

306090

120150

-41%

-24%

-22%

-13%

16%

22%

22%

23%

27%

42%

86%

111%

140%

Coffee (green bean equivalent)

Eggs

Beverage milk

Red meat

Alcoholic beverages

Fruits and vegetables

Caloric sweeteners1

Fats and oils

Fish

Flour and cereal products

Poultry

Carbonated soft drinks

Cheese

Figure 1-1.

Changes in U.S. per capita consumption, 1970-1995

1Includes caloric sweeteners used in soft drinks.
USs cooc eseacSevces (S) ood suppy (dsappeaac

data are based on the amount of food available for consumption in the United 

Estimates of food for domestic human consumption usually are calculated by 

tracting measurable uses such as exports, industrial consumption, farm inputs

end-of-year inventories from total supply (the sum of production, beginning i

ies, and imports). Accordingly, the data are indirect measures of actual consu

They may overstate what is actually eaten because they represent food suppli

able in the market and do not account for waste. Food supply nutrient estimat

derived from the disappearance data by researchers in USDA’s Center for Nu

Policy and Promotion (CNPP).

Food Supply Providing More Grains, Vegetables, and Fruits and Les

Saturated Fat and Cholesterol. Consistent with dietary and health recomme

tions, Americans now consume, on average, two-fifths more grain products a

one-fifth more fruits and vegetables than did their 1970 counterparts. They dr

lower fat milk than they did then; annual per capita butterfat consumption fro

beverage milk now is half what it was in 1970. And, they eat leaner meats—l

meat (leaner red meat, too) and more chicken and fish. Meat, poultry, and fish 

contribute 25 percent of the total fat and 26 percent of the total saturated fat i

U.S. food supply, compared with 35 percent and 37 percent in 1970. This is s

even though per capita total meat consumption now is roughly a tenth higher 

1970. Declining use of eggs, red meat (especially liver and other variety mea

whole milk is behind a 13-percent decline since 1970 in per capita levels of d

2

0

50

100

150

Fish/Shellfish

Poultry

Red Meat

1970 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94

1.05 2

Pounds

1

200 Total Meat

Figure 1-2.

Per capita consumption of meat, poultry, and fish, boneless,

trimmed,equivalent

1Includes skin, neck meat, and giblets.
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

929088868482807876747270

Gallons

2-Percent

Whole

Total

1-Percent & Skim

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Frozen Products

Cream Products

Cheese

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

1

Pounds

Figure 1-4.

Per capita consumption of selected dairy products

1Excludes full-skim American and cottage, pot, and baker’s cheese.
4

Cotay to det ad eatecoedatos, oweve, ecas ae co

ing, on average, record-high amounts of added sugars and some high-fat dairy 

ucts and near record-high amounts of added fats and oils. The increase in add

and oils probably results from the greatly expanded consumption of fried foo

foodservice outlets and high-fat snack foods, and the increased use of salad o

salads consumed both at home and away.

We Are a Nation of Meat Eaters—Now More Than Ever. In 1996, tot

consumption (red meat, poultry, and fish) was 191 pounds (boneless, trimmed 

alent) per person, only 2 pounds below 1994's record high and 12 pounds abo

1980-84 annual average. Half-pound hamburgers and “value-priced” buckets 

chicken draw slews of customers to foodservice outlets. Rotisserie chicken an

Buffalo wings have become so popular that they have made inroads across the 

even in pizzarias. Americans love to barbecue meat on outdoor grills—boosti

capita consumption in warm months—and, increasingly, on indoor grills year 

A host of new lean-meat products cater to saturated-fat-wary consumers. Sea

ready-to-cook meats available in the fresh and frozen food cases and cooked 

in the self-serve and service delicatessens appeal to time-crunched consumer

Long-Term Decline in Egg Consumption Levels Off in the 1990's. Be

1970 and 1989, annual consumption of eggs steadily declined from 309 eggs 

person to 237. The average annual rate of decline during those 20 years was 3

During the 1990's total egg consumption has fluctuated between 234 and 238 

per person per year, but has shown an upward trend since 1991. Per capita co

tion was 236 eggs in 1996 and has been projected to be 240 eggs in 1997. Th

high for U.S. per capita egg consumption was 403 eggs in 1945.

Much of the decline in egg consumption since 1970 was due to changing 

styles (for example, less time for breakfast preparation in the morning as larg

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

cholesterol intake associated with egg consumption.

Declining retail egg prices between 1990 and 1994 may have spurred egg 

those years. The average retail price for a dozen large, Grade A eggs declined 

$1.01 in 1990 to $0.86 in 1992 and 1994. Changing consumer attitudes towar

may also be responsible. New tests show eggs to contain less cholesterol than 

ously documented, leading the American Heart Association to increase its ma

recommended consumption from three eggs per week to four. Also, various r

studies indicate that some Americans are relaxing their healthy eating habits a

indulging themselves in more traditional and flavorful foods.

Americans Drink Less Milk, Eat More Cheese. In 1996, Americans, o

age, drank 22 percent less milk and ate nearly two and a half times as much c

(excluding cottage types) as in 1970.

Annual per capita consumption of beverage milk declined from 31 gallon

1970 to 24 gallons in 1996. Consumption of soft drinks may be displacing be

milk in the diet. Big increases in eating away from home, especially at fast-fo

places, and in consumption of salty snack foods favored soft drink consumpti
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Fruits Vegetables Total

Pounds 1970 1980 1995

0

50

100

150

200

70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 9

Total2

Wheat Flour

Corn Products

Ric

Pounds

Figure 1-6.

Per capita consumption of grain products1

1Excludes quantities used in alcoholic beverages, fuel, and corn sweeteners.

2Includes oats, rye, and barley products.

1Farm-weight equivalent.
6

We ecas ae swtcg to oweat , tey ae aso usg o

cream products (half-and-half, light cream, heavy cream, eggnog, sour cream

dips). Per capita consumption of fluid cream products jumped from an annual 

of 10 half pints in 1970-74 to 16 half pints in 1996.

On balance, however, per capita consumption of milk-fat from all fluid m

and cream products declined 36 percent between 1970 and 1996, from 9.1 po

per person to 5.8 pounds. 

Average consumption of cheese—excluding full-skim American and cot

pot, and baker’s cheeses—increased 140 percent between 1970 and 1996, fro

pounds per person to 27 pounds. The growth is concentrated in the ingredient 

away-from-home markets. Rapidly expanding pizza sales and lifestyles that e

size convenience foods are probably major forces behind the higher consump

Advertising and new products—such as frozen broccoli and cheese combos a

resealable bags of shredded cheeses—also had an effect.

Fruits and Vegetables—The Array of Choices Widens. As Americans 

ingly embrace national health authorities’recommendation of consuming five 

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

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

hundreds of new varieties and processed products—have been introduced or ex

in the last decade.

Per capita use of fruits and vegetables rose in the early 1980's in respons

higher consumer incomes, increased ethnic diversity, and burgeoning interest 

healthful diets. By 1995, per capita consumption was 15 percent higher than i

and 22 percent higher than in 1970. This trend is likely to continue expanding 

the next decade as consumers heed nutritionists’ message on healthful eating

Supermarket produce departments carry over 400 produce items today, u

250 in the late 1980's and 150 in the mid-1970's. Also, the number of ethnic, 

and natural foodstores—which highlight fresh produce—continues to rise.

Consumers continue to have more access to fresh, local produce as well. 

number of farmers’markets has grown substantially throughout the United St

over the last several decades, and increased from 1,755 in 1993 to 2,116 by th

of 1995, according to USDA surveys.

Average Grain Consumption Up From 1970's But Far Below Early 1

Highs. Per capita consumption of flour and cereal products reached 192 poun

1995 from an annual average of 147 pounds in 1980-84 and 135 pounds in 19

The increase is far below the 300 pounds consumed per person in 1909 (the e

year for which data are available). The expansion in supplies reflects ample g

stocks; strong consumer demand for variety breads and other bakery items; b

increases in grain-based snack foods, breakfast cereals, and ethnic foods; and 

ing sales of fast-food products made with buns, doughs, and tortillas. Grain p

have overtaken caloric sweeteners to become the leading source of carbohydr

the food supply.

Wheat is the major grain product eaten in the United States, with wheat fl

and other wheat products representing 74 percent of U.S. grain consumption 
However, wheat’s share of total grain consumption declined 6 percentag

1985 as rice, corn products, and oat products gained momentum.

Americans Eating Record-High Amounts of Sugars. Total per cap

sumption of caloric sweeteners (dry-weight basis)—comprised mainly o

(table sugar made from cane and beets) and corn sweeteners (notably hig

corn syrup, or HFCS)—increased 28 pounds, or 22 percent, during 1970

each American consumed, on average, 150 pounds of caloric sweeteners

with 122 pounds per person in 1970.

A striking change in the availability of specific sugars has occurred i

two and half decades. Sucrose’s share in total caloric sweetener consump

from 83 percent in 1970 to 44 percent in 1995. In contrast, corn sweetene

increased from 16 percent in 1970 to 55 percent in 1995. All other calori

including honey, maple syrup, and molasses, maintained a 1-percent shar

Food Supply Providing More Calories and Higher Levels of Mo

and Minerals. Evidence from various sources suggests that Americans 

ing, on average, more food, more snacks, bigger portions, and more calo

they did in 1970. The level of food energy (calories) in the food supply in

from 3,300 calories per person in 1970 to 3,800 calories in 1994. This 15

increase reflects higher levels of all three energy-yielding nutrients: carb

fat, and protein. The proportion of calories from carbohydrate increased fr

percent, while the share from fat decreased from 42 to 38 percent. Protein 

tently accounted for about 11 percent of calories.

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

Refined Sugar (sucrose)

Corn Sweeteners

Total Caloric Sweeteners

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

1

2

Pounds

1Includes small quantities of honey, and molasses and other refiner’s syrups. 2Dry basis
8

Pounds

Beef1 79.6 72.1 64.0

Pork1 48.0 52.1 49.1

Veal1 2.0 1.3 .8

Lamb and mutton1 2.1 1.0 .9

Chicken1 27.4 32.7 48.8

Turkey1 6.4 8.1 14.1

Fish and shellfish 11.7 12.4 14.9

Eggs (number) 308.9 271.1 234.6

Cheese2 11.4 17.5 27.3

Ice cream 17.8 17.5 15.7

Fluid cream products 5.2 5.6 8.4

All dairy products3 563.8 543.2 585.8

Fats and oils 52.6 57.2 64.1

Peanuts and tree nuts4 7.2 6.6 7.8

Fruits and vegetables5 564.4 594.4 685.9

Fruits 229.0 257.9 280.9 

Vegetables 335.4 336.5 405.0

Caloric sweeteners6 122.3 123.0 150

Refined sugar (sucrose) 101.8 83.6 65.5

Corn sweeteners 19.1 38.2 83.2

Flour and cereal products7 135.6 144.7 192.4

Wheat flour 110.9 116.9 141.7

Rice 6.7 9.4 20.1

Corn products 11.1 12.9 22.7

Other8 6.0 4.9 7.2

Cocoa9 3.1 2.7 3.6

Gallons

Beverage milks 31.3 27.6 24.3

Whole 25.5 17.0 8.8

Lowfat and skim 5.8 10.5 15.6

Coffee 33.4 26.7 20.5

Tea 6.8 7.3 8.0

Soft drinks 24.3 35.1 51.2

Fruit juices 5.7 7.2 8.7

Bottled water NA 2.4 11.6

Beer 18.5 24.3 22.0

Wine 1.3 2.1 1.8

Distilled spirits 1.8 2.0 1.2

NA = Not available. 

1

Boneless, trimmed equivalent. 2Excludes full-skim American, cottage, pot, and baker’s cheese. 3Mi

lent, milkfat basis. 4

Shelled basis. 5Farmgate weight. 6Dry basis. Includes honey and edible syrups. 7

tion of items at the processing level (excludes quantities used in alcoholic beverages and corn swee

8

Oats and barley. 9Chocolate liquor equivalent; what remains after cocoa beans have been roasted a
mainly because of rising costs of labor, transportation, food packaging m

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

the increase in services provided with the food.

In 1986, the cost of marketing farm foods amounted to $271 billion. 

following decade, the cost of marketing rose about 55 percent. In 1996, t

bill rose 1 percent.

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

food expenditures. From 1986 to 1996, consumer expenditures for farm 

$184 billion. About 80 percent of this increase resulted from an increase 

keting bill. 

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

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

wholesalers, retailers, and eating places cost more than $200 billion in 19

was 5 percent higher than in 1995 and 67 percent more than in 1986. T

number of food marketing workers in 1996 was about 13.5 million, abou
for transporting, processing, and distributing foods that originated on U.S

It represented 77 percent of the $544 billion consumers spent for these fo

remaining 23 percent, or $123 billion, represents the gross return paid to 

The cost of marketing farm foods has increased considerably over th

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

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

the increase in services provided with the food.

In 1986, the cost of marketing farm foods amounted to $271 billion. 

following decade, the cost of marketing rose about 55 percent. In 1996, t

bill rose 1 percent.

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

food expenditures. From 1986 to 1996, consumer expenditures for farm 

$184 billion. About 80 percent of this increase resulted from an increase 

keting bill. 

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

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

wholesalers, retailers, and eating places cost more than $200 billion in 19

was 5 percent higher than in 1995 and 67 percent more than in 1986. T

number of food marketing workers in 1996 was about 13.5 million, abou
more than a decade earlier. Over two-thirds of the growth in food industry em

ment occurred in public eating places. 

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

include packaging, transportation, energy, advertising, business taxes, net inte

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

panying dollar chart.

■ Food Expenditures and Prices

Total food expenditures, which include imports, fishery products, and food nating on farms, were $691.2 billion in 1996, an increase of 3.3 percent o

these expenditures in 1995. The average was $2,605 per capita, 2.3 percent ab

the 1995 average.

Away-from-home meals and snacks captured 46 percent of the U.S. food 

in 1996, up from 38 percent in 1976 and 43 percent in 1986.

The percentage of disposable personal income (income after taxes) that 

consumers spend on food continues to decline. From 1995 to 1996, disposab

sonal income increased 5.0 percent, a faster pace than the rise in food expen

10

Includes food eaten at home and away from home. Other costs include property taxes and insuranc

ing and professional services, promotion, bad debts, and many miscellaneous items.

23¢ 38¢ 8¢

4.5¢

3.5¢

3.5¢

3.5¢

4¢

3.5¢

2.0¢

1.5

Farm Value Marketing Bill
these expenditures in 1995. The average was $2,605 per capita, 2.3 percent ab

the 1995 average.

Away-from-home meals and snacks captured 46 percent of the U.S. food 

in 1996, up from 38 percent in 1976 and 43 percent in 1986.

The percentage of disposable personal income (income after taxes) that 

consumers spend on food continues to decline. From 1995 to 1996, disposab

sonal income increased 5.0 percent, a faster pace than the rise in food expen

10
Data for foods of U.S. farm origin purchased by or for consumers for consumption both at hom

from home.

'93'91'89'87'85'83'81'79'77'75'73'71
ote etacost oa aet baset oU.S. aoods sod oodstoes

75 percent, the farm-retail price spread, consisted of all processing, trans

wholesaling, and retailing charges incurred after farm products leave th

Figure 1-9.

Distribution of food expenditures

The marketing bill is 77 percent of 1996 food expenditures

Data for foods of U.S. farm origin purchased by or for consumers for consumption both at hom

from home.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

farm marketing

'93

92

'91

90

'89

88

'87

86

'85

84

'83

82

'81

80

'79

78

'77

76

'75

74

'73

72

'71

70

Billion 

dollars
12

0

20

40

60

80

100 

1994


Total Calories=3,800


per capita per day

1970


Total Calories=3,300


per capita per day

1909


Total Calories=3,400


per capita per day

Protein


12%

Protein


11%

Protein


11%

Carbohydrate


56%

Carbohydrate


47%

Carbohydrate


51%

Fat


32%

Fat


42%

Fat


38%

Figure 1-11.

Sources of total fat in the U.S. food supply

0

20

40

60

80

100

'70 '94

Other


9%

Other


11%

Dairy products


13%

Dairy products


12%

Meat, poultry, fish


35% Meat, poultry, fish


25%

Fats and oils


43%

Fats and oils


52%

1970


Total fat=154 grams


per capita per day

1994


Total fat=159 grams


per capita per day
Farm-retail spreads have increased every year for the past 30 years, 

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

In 1996, farm-retail spreads rose an average of 3.3 percent and farmers r

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

prices was slightly higher in 1996 than in 1995. Meanwhile, retail food p

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

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

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

and smaller for foods that require considerable processing and packaging

centage generally decreases as the degree of processing increases. For ex

the farm value of meat was 36 percent in 1996, while cereal and bakery p

had a farm value averaging only 7 percent. The farm inputs needed to fee

and maintain the health of livestock are greater than the inputs required t

crops. The additional manufacturing processes required for cereal and ba

ucts also result in a lower farm value than for meats. Most other foods al

fewer inputs at the farm level. Other factors that influence the farm value 

include transportation costs, product perishability, and retailing costs. Hi

of these marketing factors tend to lower the farm value percentage.

0

20

40

60

80

100

'70 '94

Other


8%

Other


9%

Dairy products


22%

Dairy products


24%

Meat, poultry, fish


37%

Meat, poultry, fis

26%

Fats and oils


33%

Fats and oils


41%

1970


Total saturated fat=54 grams


per capita per day

1994


Total saturated fat=52 grams


per capita per day
Items 1986 1996 

Percent

Livestock products:

Meats 47 36

Dairy 43 36 

Poultry 54 44

Eggs 61 52

Crop products:

Cereal and bakery 8 7

Fresh fruits 27 20

Fresh vegetables 28 20

Processed fruits and vegetables 23 19

Fats and oils 19 22

14
g

■ Farming Regions

The 10 major farm production regions in the United States differ in soland, climate, distance to market, and storage and marketing facilitie

they comprise the agricultural face of the Nation.

The Northeastern States and the Lake States are the Nation’s princip

producing areas. Climate and soil in these States are suited to raising gra

age for cattle and for providing pastureland for grazing.

Broiler farming is important in Maine, Delaware, and Maryland. Fru

etables are also important to the region.

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

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

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

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

vegetable production areas in Florida are major suppliers of agricultural 

Cotton production is making a comeback.

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

sugarcane are also grown. With improved pastures, livestock production 

in importance. This is a major broiler-producing region.

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

cattle, hogs, and dairy products are the major outputs of farms in the regi

feed grains, soybeans, and wheat are also important.

Agriculture in the northern and southern Plains, which extend north 

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

winters and short growing seasons in the northern part. About three-fifth

Nation’s winter and spring wheat is produced in this region. Other small 

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

produced in the southern part.

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

suited to raising cattle and sheep. Wheat is important in the northern part

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

vegetables.

The Pacific region includes the three Pacific Coast States plus Alask

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

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

throughout the region. In Hawaii, sugarcane and pineapples are the majo

Greenhouse/nursery and dairy products are Alaska’s top-ranking commo
16

■ Farms and Land in Farms

The United States had 2.06 million farms in 1996, down less than 1 percen1995. A farm is defined as any establishment from which $1,000 or more 

cultural products was sold or would normally be sold during the year. The nu

farms declined annually about 1 percent from 1986 through 1996 except for a

increase in 1995 of less than half a percent which was due in part to a change 

nition; the overall decline for the period was 8 percent. 

Land in farms continues to decline slowly; the total of 968 million acres 

is down 0.4 percent from a year earlier and down 3.7 percent from 1986. Lan

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

The number of farms has declined at a faster rate than land in farms; the 

size of farms increased from 447 acres in 1986 to 469 acres in 1996.

Southern


Plains

Lake States Pacific

Mountain

Northern


Plains

Corn Belt

Appalachia

Northeast

Southeast

Delta


States
Number Avera

Year of Farms Land in Farms Farm S

In 1,000 In 1,000 of acres In acr

1986 2,250 1,005,333 4

1987 2,213 998,923 4

1988 2,201 994,423 4

1989 2,175 990,723 4

1990 2,146 986,850 4

1991 2,117 981,736 4

1992 2,108 978,503 4

1993 2,083 976,463 4

1994 2,065 973,403 4

1995 2,072 972,253 4

1996 2,063 968,048 4

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

be sold during the year.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Farms and La

■ Farms by Sales Class

Farms are commonly classified in size groups based on the total value gross farm sales. Data from the annual Farm Costs and Returns Surv

conducted by ERS and the National Agricultural Statistics Service, show 

greatest number of farms is in the lowest sales class, with over 60 percen

gross farm sales of less than $20,000 in 1994. According to the survey, th

farms accounted for only 16.2 percent of the acreage operated and 5 perc

cash receipts from marketings.

A relatively small number of very large farms produce the largest sh

sales. Only 2.3 percent of the farms in 1994 were large operations with s

$500,000 or more, but they generated 38 percent of cash receipts from m

and operated 14.8 percent of the land.

Average farm size increases consistently with sales class, ranging fro

per farm in the less than $20,000 category to 3,032 acres for farms with r

$500,000 or more. The average farm in the $500,000 or more sales class 

farm sales of more than $1.4 million in 1994, compared with sales of mo

$7,200 for the average farm in the less than $20,000 sales class.
18

Farms Land in farms

State 1991 1992 1993 1991 1992 

Number of farms 1,000 Acres

AL 46,000 46,000 46,000 9,900 9,800 

AK 560 540 530 970 950 

AZ 7,600 7,500 7,400 35,800 35,600 

AR 46,000 45,000 45,000 15,500 15,300 

CA 83,000 82,000 79,000 30,500 30,200 

CO 26,000 25,500 25,500 32,800 32,800 

CT 3,900 4,000 3,800 420 410 

DE 2,900 2,700 2,500 600 590 

FL 40,000 39,000 39,000 10,500 10,500 

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

HI 4,700 4,800 4,800 1,630 1,590 

ID 21,400 21,000 20,500 13,500 13,500 

IL 82,000 81,000 79,000 28,300 28,200 

IN 65,000 65,000 63,000 16,000 16,000 

IA 103,000 103,000 102,000 33,500 33,400 

KS 69,000 67,000 65,000 47,900 47,800 

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

LA 30,000 29,000 29,000 8,800 8,700 

ME 7,100 7,300 7,300 1,420 1,420 

MD 15,400 15,600 15,000 2,250 2,200 

MA 6,400 6,400 6,200 630 630 

MI 54,000 54,000 52,000 10,800 10,800 

MN 88,000 88,000 87,000 30,000 29,800 

MS 40,000 39,000 39,000 12,800 12,800 

MO 107,000 107,000 106,000 30,400 30,300 

MT 24,700 24,300 23,800 60,300 60,000 

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

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

NH 2,700 2,700 2,500 440 440 

NJ 8,500 9,000 8,900 880 880 

NM 13,500 13,500 13,500 44,300 44,200 

NY 38,000 38,000 37,500 8,300 8,200 

NC 60,000 60,000 59,000 9,600 9,500 

ND 33,000 33,000 32,500 40,400 40,400 

OH 80,000 78,000 76,000 15,500 15,300 

OK 70,000 71,000 70,500 33,000 34,000 

OR 37,000 37,500 37,500 17,800 17,500 

PA 53,000 52,000 51,000 8,100 8,000 

RI 700 700 700 66 63 

SC 24,500 24,500 24,000 5,200 5,200 

SD 35,000 35,000 34,500 44,200 44,200 

TN 85,000 85,000 84,000 12,100 12,100 

TX 197,000 198,000 200,000 131,000 130,000 

UT 13,300 13,200 13,000 11,300 11,300 

VT 6,400 6,400 6,400 1,430 1,430 

VA 45,000 45,000 45,000 8,800 8,700 

WA 37,000 37,000 36,000 16,000 16,000 

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

WI 79,000 79,000 79,000 17,500 17,300 

WY 9,000 9,200 9,200 34,700 34,600 

US 2,116,760 2,107,840 2,083,430 981,736 978,503 

See footnotes at end of table. —continued
Farms Land in fa

1994 1995 1996 1994 1995 

Number of farms 1,000 Acre

AL 46,000 47,000 45,000 10,200 10,200 

AK 520 520 510 930 920 

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

AR 44,000 43,000 43,000 15,100 15,000 

CA 79,000 80,000 82,000 29,900 30,000 

CO 25,300 25,000 24,500 32,700 32,700 

CT 3,800 3,800 3,800 390 380 

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

FL 39,000 39,000 40,000 10,300 10,300 

GA 45,000 45,000 43,000 12,100 12,000 

HI 4,800 4,800 4,600 1,590 1,590 

ID 20,500 21,500 22,000 13,500 13,500 

IL 77,000 77,000 76,000 28,100 28,100 

IN 63,000 62,000 60,000 16,000 15,900 

IA 101,000 100,000 98,000 33,200 33,200 

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

KY 89,000 89,000 88,000 14,100 14,000 

LA 28,000 27,000 27,000 8,400 8,500 

ME 7,600 7,600 7,400 1,360 1,350 

MD 14,500 14,300 13,700 2,200 2,200 

MA 6,000 6,000 6,200 600 570 

MI 52,000 54,000 53,000 10,700 10,700 

MN 85,000 87,000 87,000 29,700 29,800 

MS 39,000 42,000 44,000 12,800 13,000 

MO 105,000 105,000 104,000 30,100 30,000 

MT 22,500 22,000 22,000 59,700 59,700 

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

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

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

NJ 8,900 9,000 9,200 860 850 

NM 13,500 13,500 13,500 44,200 44,000 

NY 36,000 36,000 36,000 7,900 7,700 

NC 58,000 58,000 58,000 9,300 9,200 

ND 32,000 32,000 31,000 40,400 40,300 

OH 75,000 74,000 72,000 15,200 15,200 

OK 70,000 71,000 72,000 34,000 34,000 

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

PA 51,000 50,000 50,000 7,800 7,700 

RI 700 700 700 63 63 

SC 23,000 22,000 21,500 5,100 5,050 

SD 34,000 33,000 32,500 44,200 44,000 

TN 83,000 81,000 80,000 12,000 12,000 

TX 200,000 202,000 205,000 129,000 129,000 

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

VT 6,200 6,000 6,000 1,400 1,370 

VA 46,000 47,000 48,000 8,600 8,600 

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

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

WI 79,000 80,000 79,000 16,900 16,900 

WY 9,200 9,200 9,100 34,600 34,600 

US 2,064,720 2,071,520 2,063,010 973,403 972,253 

1A farm is any establishment from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were sold or no

be sold during the year. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics 

and Land in Farms.
20

■ Legal Structure of U.S. Farms (Individual,

Partnership, Corporation)

Type of organization refers to the farm’s form of business organization. Famay broadly be classified as individual operations (proprietorships), part

ships, or corporations (family and nonfamily). Farm Costs and Returns Surve

indicate that individual operations are the most common type of farm organiz

Nine out of ten farms in the 1995 survey were classified as individual operati

Partnerships and corporations make up a very small share of farms. About 87 

of farm corporations are family corporations, with more than 50 percent of th

held by people related by blood or marriage. Individual operations account fo

largest share of farmland (74 percent) and gross farm sales (62 percent).

Corporate farms have the highest average farm sales. The average value 

farm sales by corporate farms in 1995 was $576,900, while partnerships aver

$218,800. Gross sales for individual operations averaged $54,300, about one

the corporate level. Average acreage was also higher for corporate farms (1,6

acres) and for partnerships (1,154 acres) than for individual operations (351 a

■ Land Tenure

Land tenure describes the farm operator’s ownership interest in the land faThe major land tenure categories are (1) full owners, who own all the lan

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 1995 Farm Costs and Returns Survey (55 percent) reported full owners

Ave

Economic class

Percent of total siz

(gross value Farms Land farms 

of sales) 1995 1996 1995 1996 1995 

$1,000 - $2,499 21.5 22.5 2.7 3.0 59 

$2,500 - $4,999 14.4 14.3 2.9 3.1 94 

$5,000 - $9,999 13.0 12.6 4.1 4.5 148 

$10,000 - $19,999 11.7 11.4 6.6 6.5 265 

$20,000 - $39,999 10.5 10.2 9.8 9.8 438 

$40,000 - $99,999 12.8 12.6 20.2 19.9 734 

$100,000 - $249,999 10.3 10.2 25.7 25.2 1,170 

$250,000 - $499,999 3.5 3.8 13.1 12.9 1,755 

$500,000 + 2.3 2.4 14.9 15.1 3,038 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 469 

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

sold during the year. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service
the land they operated, while 36 percent owned part and rented part of th

they operated. Only 9 percent of operations reported that they rented all o

Part owners generally operate the largest farms, averaging 714 acres 

lowed by tenants with 602 acres and full owners with 223 acres per farm

account for the largest share of acreage operated (59 percent of the total i

Gross farm sales are also concentrated on part-owner operations (51 

gross farm sales in 1995). The average value of gross farm sales for part 

1995 was $114,400, about $32,000 less than the average for tenants at $1

Gross farm sales for full-owner operations were much smaller, averaging 

■ Major Uses of U.S. Land

The major uses of U.S. cropland include cropland harvested, summer idled in Federal programs and crop failure. Cropland harvested peak

about 351 million acres. Harvested cropland declined to 287 million acre

and is expected to have reached 314 million acres in 1996. Summer fallo

ranges between 22 million and 34 million acres per year. Cropland idled 

0

100

200

300

400

500

I

a

Summer 

fallow

Crop 

failure

Cropland 

harvested

'94

'93

'92

'91

'90

'89

'88

'87

'86

'85

'84

'83

'82

'81

'80

'79

'78

'77

'76

'75

1974

 Million

 acres
22

oaces peyea. e otceabe deeces ae otete esut oweat

ditions such as the drought in 1988, or the flood and wet weather at planting t

1993.

In 1983, the sharp decline in cropland harvested was the result of “PIK” 

ment-in-kind), a USDA land retirement program that paid for the land retirem

surplus commodities. The idle acreage in 1993 included nearly 49 million acr

PIK program and more than 29 million acres in the Acreage Conservation Re

and Paid Land Diversion programs. 

■ Acreage Harvested of Major Crops

The harvested acreage of corn in recent years has varied from 74.5 million in 1981 to 51.5 million acres in 1983, largely as the result of Federal acre

reduction programs. The PIK program idled nearly 22 million acres of corn a

in 1983. Wheat acreage has ranged between a high of 80.6 million acres in 19

low of 53.2 million acres in 1989. The PIK program removed about 18 millio

of wheat base from production in 1983. Barley and oat acreage harvested hav

declining since the early 1970’s. Acreage has tended to shift out of barley and 

the more profitable crops. Soybean acreage harvested has fluctuated as the re

prices of soybeans and corn changed and as prices for soybeans in the world 

were more or less favorable.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

  yyyyyyy yyyyyyy

Wheat Corn Sorghum

Soybeans Cotton

Oats

Barley

'96

'95

'94

'93

'92

'91

'90

'89

'88

'87

'86

'85

'84

'83

'82

'81

'80

'79

'78

'77

'76

'75

1974

Million 

bushels

yy

Figure 2-3.

Cropland Harvested
Fo

egowesp oU.S. agcutuaad eaed eatvey steady 

through 1995—slightly above or below 1 percent of the privately ow

tural land in the United States. 

At the end of 1995, foreign persons owned 15.1 million acres—sligh

than 1 percent of the 1.3 billion acres of privately owned U.S. agricultura

(farm and forest land).

Forest land accounts for 49 percent of all foreign-owned acreage, cr

16 percent, pasture and other agricultural land for 32 percent, and nonagr

land for 3 percent.

Corporations own 72 percent of the foreign-held acreage, partnershi

percent, and individuals own 6 percent. The remaining 2 percent is held b

trusts, institutions, associations, and others.

About 56 percent of the reported foreign holdings involve land actua

by U.S. corporations. The law requires them to register their land holding

if as little as 10 percent of their stock is held by foreign investors. The re

percent of the foreign-held land is owned by investors not affiliated with 

A total of 63 percent of foreign-held acreage is owned by investors (

individuals, corporations, partnerships, etc.) from Canada, the United Ki

Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands Antilles, and the British Virgin Is

(in descending rank order). Japanese investors own only 3 percent of for

acreage.

Maine is the State with the largest number of acres (2,968,434) own

persons. Foreign holdings in Maine account for 16 percent of that States

owned agricultural land and 20 percent of all the reported foreign-owned 

land nationwide. Four companies own 91 percent of the foreign-held acr

almost all in forest land. Two of these companies are Canadian, one is Fr

the fourth is a U.S. corporation that is partially Canadian owned.

Outside of Maine, foreign holdings are concentrated in the West and 

containing 34 and 32 percent, respectively, of all reported foreign holdin

agricultural land.

These findings are based on reports submitted to USDA under the A

Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978.
24

Country Acres Country 

Number 

Lebanon 

Argentina 12,578 Liberia 

Australia 6,106 Liechtenstein 

Austria 29,336 Luxembourg 

Bahamas 36,325 Malaysia 

Bahrain 313 Mexico 

Belgium 65,586 Morocco 

Belize 549 Namibia 

Bermuda 73,835 Netherlands 

Bolivia 11 Netherlands Antilles 

Brazil 10,336 New Zealand 

British Virgin Islands 124,062 Nicaragua 

Canada 1,571,341 Norway 

Cayman Islands 39,028 Oman 

Chile 2,055 Pakistan 

China 924 Panama 

Colombia 11,414 Peru 

Costa Rica 13,835 Philippines 

Croatia 1,023 Poland 

Cuba 58 Portugal 

Czech Republic 347 Russia 

Denmark 12,948 St. Vincent 

Dominican Republic 2,108 Saudi Arabia 

Ecuador 971 Senegal 

Egypt 2,076 Singapore 

El Salvador 128 Somalia 

France 128,663 South Africa 

Gambia 294 Spain 

Germany 753,530 Sweden 

Greece 60,491 Switzerland 

Guatemala 1,102 Syria 

Guyana 35 Taiwan 

Honduras 1,018 Tanzania 

Hong Kong 15,061 Thailand 

Hungary 103 Trinidad & Tobago 

India 1,754 Turkey 

Indonesia 1,392 Turks Island 

Iran 2,343 United Arab Emirates 

Ireland 10,490 United Kingdom 

Israel 951 Uruguay 

Italy 81,477 Venezuela 

Ivory Coast 119 Vietnam 

Jamaica 567 Zimbabwe 

Japan 199,980 Multiple 1 

Jordan 1,580 Third tier 2 

Kampuchea 31

Korea (South) 1,570

Kuwait 20,188

Laos 31 Subtotal 3 

See footnotes at end of table. —continued

Interests excluding U.S. Corporations with foreign shareholde
U.S. Corporations with foreign shareholders

1A report is processed as “multiple” when no single country predominates—for example, an eq

between a Canadian and a German.

2A report is processed as “third tier” if three or more levels of ownership are reported with no fo

stated.

3Total interests excluding U.S. corporations with foreign shareholders.

4Total interest of U.S. corporations with foreign shareholders.

Country Acres Country 

Number 

US/Lebanon 

US/Andorra 3,741 US/Liberia 

US/Argentina 4,056 US/Libyan Arab Republic 

US/Australia 5,030 US/Liechtenstein 

US/Austria 26,138 US/Luxembourg 

US/Bahamas 61,500 US/Malaysia 

US/Barbados 41 US/Malta 

US/Belgium 88,553 US/Mexico 

US/Bermuda 37,571 US/Netherlands 

US/Brazil 14,396 US/Netherlands Antilles 

US/Brit. Virgin Islands 424,704 US/New Hebrides 

US/Canada 1,799,034 US/New Zealand 

US/Cayman Islands 52,536 US/Nicaragua 

US/Chile 9,948 US/Norway 

US/China 13,151 US/Pakistan 

US/Colombia 11,435 US/Panama 

US/Costa Rica 407 US/Paraguay 

US/Denmark 8,228 US/Peru 

US/Dominican Republic 589 US/Philippines 

US/Ecuador 1,632 US/Portugal 

US/Egypt 4,264 US/Qatar 

US/El Salvador 607 US/Saudi Arabia 

US/Finland 2,419 US/Singapore 

US/France 1,100,081 US/South Africa 

US/Germany 872,745 US/Spain 

US/Greece 5,249 US/Sweden 

US/Guatemala 412 US Switzerland 

US/Guyana 334 US/Taiwan 

US/Honduras 37 US/Thailand 

US/Hong Kong 131,139 US/Trinidad & Tobago 

US/Indonesia 644 US/Turkey 

US/Iran 1,861 US/United Arab Emirates 

US/Iraq 800 US/United Kingdom 

US/Ireland 1,942 US/Uruguay 

US/Israel 414 US/Venezuela 

US/Italy 23,547 US/Multiple 

US/Japan 290,936 US/Third Tier 

US/Jordan 434

US/Kenya 32 Subtotal 4 

US/Korea (South) 85

US/Kuwait 8,330 Total all landholdings 

1

A report is processed as “multiple” when no single country predominates—for example, an eq

between a Canadian and a German.

2

A report is processed as “third tier” if three or more levels of ownership are reported with no fo

stated.

3

Total interests excluding U.S. corporations with foreign shareholders. 4

Total interest of U.S. corporations with foreign shareholders. 

Source: USDA, ERS, Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act data.
26

State or Foreign-owned State or Foreign-owned State or 

Territory agricultural land Territory agricultural land Territory a

Acres Acres 

Alabama 299,579 Louisiana 682,366 Oklahoma 

Alaska 75 Maine 2,968,434 Oregon 

Arizona 338,653 Maryland 51,260 Pennsylvania 

Arkansas 155,691 Massachusetts 2,029 Puerto Rico 

California 954,052 Michigan 444,239 Rhode Island 

Colorado 678,173 Minnesota 221,971 S. Carolina 

Connecticut 881 Mississippi 444,286 S. Dakota 

Delaware 5,878 Missouri 73,354 Tennessee 

Florida 620,559 Montana 474,496 Texas 

Georgia 558,953 Nebraska 74,769 Utah 

Hawaii 180,058 Nevada 388,393 Vermont 

Idaho 22,624 New Hampshire 16,477 Virginia 

Illinois 209,549 New Jersey 18,369 Washington 

Indiana 94,395 New Mexico 785,355 W. Virginia 

Iowa 33,105 New York 280,614 Wisconsin 

Kansas 69,490 N. Carolina 153,962 Wyoming 

Kentucky 121,151 N. Dakota 27,839

Ohio 185,935 Total 

Source: USDA, ERS, Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act data.
Tland, climate, distance to market, and storage and marketing facilitie

they comprise the agricultural face of the Nation.

The Northeastern States and the Lake States are the Nation’s princip

producing areas. Climate and soil in these States are suited to raising gra

age for cattle and for providing pastureland for grazing.

Broiler farming is important in Maine, Delaware, and Maryland. Fru

etables are also important to the region.

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

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

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

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

vegetable production areas in Florida are major suppliers of agricultural 

Cotton production is making a comeback.

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

sugarcane are also grown. With improved pastures, livestock production 

in importance. This is a major broiler-producing region.

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

cattle, hogs, and dairy products are the major outputs of farms in the regi

feed grains, soybeans, and wheat are also important.

Agriculture in the northern and southern Plains, which extend north 

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

winters and short growing seasons in the northern part. About three-fifth

Nation’s winter and spring wheat is produced in this region. Other small 

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

produced in the southern part.

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

suited to raising cattle and sheep. Wheat is important in the northern part

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

vegetables.

The Pacific region includes the three Pacific Coast States plus Alask

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

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

throughout the region. In Hawaii, sugarcane and pineapples are the majo

Greenhouse/nursery and dairy products are Alaska’s top-ranking commo
16

ad as cotues to dece sowy; te totao968 oaces 

is down 0.4 percent from a year earlier and down 3.7 percent from 1986. Lan

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

The number of farms has declined at a faster rate than land in farms; the 

size of farms increased from 447 acres in 1986 to 469 acres in 1996.
16

T

p

1995. A farm is defined as any establishment from which $1,000 or more 

cultural products was sold or would normally be sold during the year. The nu

farms declined annually about 1 percent from 1986 through 1996 except for a

increase in 1995 of less than half a percent which was due in part to a change 

nition; the overall decline for the period was 8 percent. 

Land in farms continues to decline slowly; the total of 968 million acres 

is down 0.4 percent from a year earlier and down 3.7 percent from 1986. Lan

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

The number of farms has declined at a faster rate than land in farms; the 

size of farms increased from 447 acres in 1986 to 469 acres in 1996.
,, y gpp

and operated 14.8 percent of the land.

Average farm size increases consistently with sales class, ranging fro

per farm in the less than $20,000 category to 3,032 acres for farms with r

$500,000 or more. The average farm in the $500,000 or more sales class 

farm sales of more than $1.4 million in 1994, compared with sales of mo

$7,200 for the average farm in the less than $20,000 sales class.
geatest ubeoas s te owest saes cass, wtove60 pece

gross farm sales of less than $20,000 in 1994. According to the survey, th

farms accounted for only 16.2 percent of the acreage operated and 5 perc

cash receipts from marketings.

A relatively small number of very large farms produce the largest sh

sales. Only 2.3 percent of the farms in 1994 were large operations with s

$500,000 or more, but they generated 38 percent of cash receipts from m

and operated 14.8 percent of the land.

Average farm size increases consistently with sales class, ranging fro

per farm in the less than $20,000 category to 3,032 acres for farms with r

$500,000 or more. The average farm in the $500,000 or more sales class 

farm sales of more than $1.4 million in 1994, compared with sales of mo

$7,200 for the average farm in the less than $20,000 sales class.
18

Farms Land in farms

State 1991 1992 1993 1991 1992 

Number of farms 1,000 Acres

AL 46,000 46,000 46,000 9,900 9,800 

AK 560 540 530 970 950 

AZ 7,600 7,500 7,400 35,800 35,600 

AR 46,000 45,000 45,000 15,500 15,300 

CA 83,000 82,000 79,000 30,500 30,200 

CO 26,000 25,500 25,500 32,800 32,800 

CT 3,900 4,000 3,800 420 410 

DE 2,900 2,700 2,500 600 590 

FL 40,000 39,000 39,000 10,500 10,500 

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

HI 4,700 4,800 4,800 1,630 1,590 

ID 21,400 21,000 20,500 13,500 13,500 

IL 82,000 81,000 79,000 28,300 28,200 

IN 65,000 65,000 63,000 16,000 16,000 

IA 103,000 103,000 102,000 33,500 33,400 

KS 69,000 67,000 65,000 47,900 47,800 

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

LA 30,000 29,000 29,000 8,800 8,700 

ME 7,100 7,300 7,300 1,420 1,420 

MD 15,400 15,600 15,000 2,250 2,200 

MA 6,400 6,400 6,200 630 630 

MI 54,000 54,000 52,000 10,800 10,800 

MN 88,000 88,000 87,000 30,000 29,800 

MS 40,000 39,000 39,000 12,800 12,800 

MO 107,000 107,000 106,000 30,400 30,300 

MT 24,700 24,300 23,800 60,300 60,000 

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

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

NH 2,700 2,700 2,500 440 440 

NJ 8,500 9,000 8,900 880 880 

NM 13,500 13,500 13,500 44,300 44,200 

NY 38,000 38,000 37,500 8,300 8,200 

NC 60,000 60,000 59,000 9,600 9,500 

ND 33,000 33,000 32,500 40,400 40,400 

OH 80,000 78,000 76,000 15,500 15,300 

OK 70,000 71,000 70,500 33,000 34,000 

OR 37,000 37,500 37,500 17,800 17,500 

PA 53,000 52,000 51,000 8,100 8,000 

RI 700 700 700 66 63 

SC 24,500 24,500 24,000 5,200 5,200 

SD 35,000 35,000 34,500 44,200 44,200 

TN 85,000 85,000 84,000 12,100 12,100 

TX 197,000 198,000 200,000 131,000 130,000 

UT 13,300 13,200 13,000 11,300 11,300 

VT 6,400 6,400 6,400 1,430 1,430 

VA 45,000 45,000 45,000 8,800 8,700 

WA 37,000 37,000 36,000 16,000 16,000 

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

WI 79,000 79,000 79,000 17,500 17,300 

WY 9,000 9,200 9,200 34,700 34,600 

US 2,116,760 2,107,840 2,083,430 981,736 978,503 

See footnotes at end of table. —continued
Farms Land in fa

1994 1995 1996 1994 1995 

Number of farms 1,000 Acre

AL 46,000 47,000 45,000 10,200 10,200 

AK 520 520 510 930 920 

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

AR 44,000 43,000 43,000 15,100 15,000 

CA 79,000 80,000 82,000 29,900 30,000 

CO 25,300 25,000 24,500 32,700 32,700 

CT 3,800 3,800 3,800 390 380 

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

FL 39,000 39,000 40,000 10,300 10,300 

GA 45,000 45,000 43,000 12,100 12,000 

HI 4,800 4,800 4,600 1,590 1,590 

ID 20,500 21,500 22,000 13,500 13,500 

IL 77,000 77,000 76,000 28,100 28,100 

IN 63,000 62,000 60,000 16,000 15,900 

IA 101,000 100,000 98,000 33,200 33,200 

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

KY 89,000 89,000 88,000 14,100 14,000 

LA 28,000 27,000 27,000 8,400 8,500 

ME 7,600 7,600 7,400 1,360 1,350 

MD 14,500 14,300 13,700 2,200 2,200 

MA 6,000 6,000 6,200 600 570 

MI 52,000 54,000 53,000 10,700 10,700 

MN 85,000 87,000 87,000 29,700 29,800 

MS 39,000 42,000 44,000 12,800 13,000 

MO 105,000 105,000 104,000 30,100 30,000 

MT 22,500 22,000 22,000 59,700 59,700 

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

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

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

NJ 8,900 9,000 9,200 860 850 

NM 13,500 13,500 13,500 44,200 44,000 

NY 36,000 36,000 36,000 7,900 7,700 

NC 58,000 58,000 58,000 9,300 9,200 

ND 32,000 32,000 31,000 40,400 40,300 

OH 75,000 74,000 72,000 15,200 15,200 

OK 70,000 71,000 72,000 34,000 34,000 

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

PA 51,000 50,000 50,000 7,800 7,700 

RI 700 700 700 63 63 

SC 23,000 22,000 21,500 5,100 5,050 

SD 34,000 33,000 32,500 44,200 44,000 

TN 83,000 81,000 80,000 12,000 12,000 

TX 200,000 202,000 205,000 129,000 129,000 

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

VT 6,200 6,000 6,000 1,400 1,370 

VA 46,000 47,000 48,000 8,600 8,600 

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

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

WI 79,000 80,000 79,000 16,900 16,900 

WY 9,200 9,200 9,100 34,600 34,600 

US 2,064,720 2,071,520 2,063,010 973,403 972,253 

1A farm is any establishment from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were sold or no

be sold during the year. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics 

and Land in Farms.
20

,pg,, 

the corporate level. Average acreage was also higher for corporate farms (1,6

acres) and for partnerships (1,154 acres) than for individual operations (351 a

■ Land Tenure

Land tenure describes the farm operator’s ownership interest in the land faThe major land tenure categories are (1) full owners, who own all the lan

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 1995 Farm Costs and Returns Survey (55 percent) reported full owners
20

■ Land Tenure

Land tenure describes the farm operator’s ownership interest in the land faThe major land tenure categories are (1) full owners, who own all the lan

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 1995 Farm Costs and Returns Survey (55 percent) reported full owners
20

p, () p, , 

tenants, who rent all of their land or work on shares for others. The majority o

in the 1995 Farm Costs and Returns Survey (55 percent) reported full owners
the land they operated, while 36 percent owned part and rented part of th

they operated. Only 9 percent of operations reported that they rented all o

Part owners generally operate the largest farms, averaging 714 acres 

lowed by tenants with 602 acres and full owners with 223 acres per farm

account for the largest share of acreage operated (59 percent of the total i

Gross farm sales are also concentrated on part-owner operations (51 

gross farm sales in 1995). The average value of gross farm sales for part 

1995 was $114,400, about $32,000 less than the average for tenants at $1

Gross farm sales for full-owner operations were much smaller, averaging 

■ Major Uses of U.S. Land

The major uses of U.S. cropland include cropland harvested, summer idled in Federal programs and crop failure. Cropland harvested peak

about 351 million acres. Harvested cropland declined to 287 million acre

and is expected to have reached 314 million acres in 1996. Summer fallo

ranges between 22 million and 34 million acres per year. Cropland idled 

0

100

200

'94

'93

'92

'91

'90

'89

'88

'87

'86

'85

'84

'83

'82

'81

'80

'79

'78

'77

'76

'75

1974
and is expected to have reached 314 million acres in 1996. Summer fallo

ranges between 22 million and 34 million acres per year. Cropland idled 
22

 yyyyyyy 

Wheat Corn Sorghum

Soybeans Cotton

Oats

Barley

'96

'95

'94

'93

'92

'91

'90

'89

'88

'87

'86

'85

'84

'83

'82

'81

'80

'79

'78

'77

'76

'75

1974

yy
22

pgpgy 

in 1983. Wheat acreage has ranged between a high of 80.6 million acres in 19

low of 53.2 million acres in 1989. The PIK program removed about 18 millio

of wheat base from production in 1983. Barley and oat acreage harvested hav

declining since the early 1970’s. Acreage has tended to shift out of barley and 

the more profitable crops. Soybean acreage harvested has fluctuated as the re

prices of soybeans and corn changed and as prices for soybeans in the world 

were more or less favorable.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

  yyyyyyy yyyyyyy

Wheat Corn Sorghum

Soybeans Cotton

Oats

Barley

'96

'95

'94

'93

'92

'91

'90

'89

'88

'87

'86

'85

'84

'83

'82

'81

'80

'79

'78

'77

'76

'75

1974

Million 

bushels

yy

Figure 2-3.

Cropland Harvested
Fo

egowesp oU.S. agcutuaad eaed eatvey steady 

through 1995—slightly above or below 1 percent of the privately ow

tural land in the United States. 

At the end of 1995, foreign persons owned 15.1 million acres—sligh

than 1 percent of the 1.3 billion acres of privately owned U.S. agricultura

(farm and forest land).

Forest land accounts for 49 percent of all foreign-owned acreage, cr

16 percent, pasture and other agricultural land for 32 percent, and nonagr

land for 3 percent.

Corporations own 72 percent of the foreign-held acreage, partnershi

percent, and individuals own 6 percent. The remaining 2 percent is held b

trusts, institutions, associations, and others.

About 56 percent of the reported foreign holdings involve land actua

by U.S. corporations. The law requires them to register their land holding

if as little as 10 percent of their stock is held by foreign investors. The re

percent of the foreign-held land is owned by investors not affiliated with 

A total of 63 percent of foreign-held acreage is owned by investors (

individuals, corporations, partnerships, etc.) from Canada, the United Ki

Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands Antilles, and the British Virgin Is

(in descending rank order). Japanese investors own only 3 percent of for

acreage.

Maine is the State with the largest number of acres (2,968,434) own

persons. Foreign holdings in Maine account for 16 percent of that States

owned agricultural land and 20 percent of all the reported foreign-owned 

land nationwide. Four companies own 91 percent of the foreign-held acr

almost all in forest land. Two of these companies are Canadian, one is Fr

the fourth is a U.S. corporation that is partially Canadian owned.

Outside of Maine, foreign holdings are concentrated in the West and 

containing 34 and 32 percent, respectively, of all reported foreign holdin

agricultural land.

These findings are based on reports submitted to USDA under the A

Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978.
24

Country Acres Country 

Number 

Lebanon 

Argentina 12,578 Liberia 

Australia 6,106 Liechtenstein 

Austria 29,336 Luxembourg 

Bahamas 36,325 Malaysia 

Bahrain 313 Mexico 

Belgium 65,586 Morocco 

Belize 549 Namibia 

Bermuda 73,835 Netherlands 

Bolivia 11 Netherlands Antilles 

Brazil 10,336 New Zealand 

British Virgin Islands 124,062 Nicaragua 

Canada 1,571,341 Norway 

Cayman Islands 39,028 Oman 

Chile 2,055 Pakistan 

China 924 Panama 

Colombia 11,414 Peru 

Costa Rica 13,835 Philippines 

Croatia 1,023 Poland 

Cuba 58 Portugal 

Czech Republic 347 Russia 

Denmark 12,948 St. Vincent 

Dominican Republic 2,108 Saudi Arabia 

Ecuador 971 Senegal 

Egypt 2,076 Singapore 

El Salvador 128 Somalia 

France 128,663 South Africa 

Gambia 294 Spain 

Germany 753,530 Sweden 

Greece 60,491 Switzerland 

Guatemala 1,102 Syria 

Guyana 35 Taiwan 

Honduras 1,018 Tanzania 

Hong Kong 15,061 Thailand 

Hungary 103 Trinidad & Tobago 

India 1,754 Turkey 

Indonesia 1,392 Turks Island 

Iran 2,343 United Arab Emirates 

Ireland 10,490 United Kingdom 

Israel 951 Uruguay 

Italy 81,477 Venezuela 

Ivory Coast 119 Vietnam 

Jamaica 567 Zimbabwe 

Japan 199,980 Multiple 1 

Jordan 1,580 Third tier 2 

Kampuchea 31

Korea (South) 1,570

Kuwait 20,188

Laos 31 Subtotal 3 

See footnotes at end of table. —continued

Interests excluding U.S. Corporations with foreign shareholde
U.S. Corporations with foreign shareholders

1A report is processed as “multiple” when no single country predominates—for example, an eq

between a Canadian and a German.

2A report is processed as “third tier” if three or more levels of ownership are reported with no fo

stated.

3Total interests excluding U.S. corporations with foreign shareholders.

4Total interest of U.S. corporations with foreign shareholders.

Country Acres Country 

Number 

US/Lebanon 

US/Andorra 3,741 US/Liberia 

US/Argentina 4,056 US/Libyan Arab Republic 

US/Australia 5,030 US/Liechtenstein 

US/Austria 26,138 US/Luxembourg 

US/Bahamas 61,500 US/Malaysia 

US/Barbados 41 US/Malta 

US/Belgium 88,553 US/Mexico 

US/Bermuda 37,571 US/Netherlands 

US/Brazil 14,396 US/Netherlands Antilles 

US/Brit. Virgin Islands 424,704 US/New Hebrides 

US/Canada 1,799,034 US/New Zealand 

US/Cayman Islands 52,536 US/Nicaragua 

US/Chile 9,948 US/Norway 

US/China 13,151 US/Pakistan 

US/Colombia 11,435 US/Panama 

US/Costa Rica 407 US/Paraguay 

US/Denmark 8,228 US/Peru 

US/Dominican Republic 589 US/Philippines 

US/Ecuador 1,632 US/Portugal 

US/Egypt 4,264 US/Qatar 

US/El Salvador 607 US/Saudi Arabia 

US/Finland 2,419 US/Singapore 

US/France 1,100,081 US/South Africa 

US/Germany 872,745 US/Spain 

US/Greece 5,249 US/Sweden 

US/Guatemala 412 US Switzerland 

US/Guyana 334 US/Taiwan 

US/Honduras 37 US/Thailand 

US/Hong Kong 131,139 US/Trinidad & Tobago 

US/Indonesia 644 US/Turkey 

US/Iran 1,861 US/United Arab Emirates 

US/Iraq 800 US/United Kingdom 

US/Ireland 1,942 US/Uruguay 

US/Israel 414 US/Venezuela 

US/Italy 23,547 US/Multiple 

US/Japan 290,936 US/Third Tier 

US/Jordan 434

US/Kenya 32 Subtotal 4 

US/Korea (South) 85

US/Kuwait 8,330 Total all landholdings 

1

A report is processed as “multiple” when no single country predominates—for example, an eq

between a Canadian and a German.

2

A report is processed as “third tier” if three or more levels of ownership are reported with no fo

stated.

3

Total interests excluding U.S. corporations with foreign shareholders. 4

Total interest of U.S. corporations with foreign shareholders. 

Source: USDA, ERS, Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act data.
26

State or Foreign-owned State or Foreign-owned State or 

Territory agricultural land Territory agricultural land Territory a

Acres Acres 

Alabama 299,579 Louisiana 682,366 Oklahoma 

Alaska 75 Maine 2,968,434 Oregon 

Arizona 338,653 Maryland 51,260 Pennsylvania 

Arkansas 155,691 Massachusetts 2,029 Puerto Rico 

California 954,052 Michigan 444,239 Rhode Island 

Colorado 678,173 Minnesota 221,971 S. Carolina 

Connecticut 881 Mississippi 444,286 S. Dakota 

Delaware 5,878 Missouri 73,354 Tennessee 

Florida 620,559 Montana 474,496 Texas 

Georgia 558,953 Nebraska 74,769 Utah 

Hawaii 180,058 Nevada 388,393 Vermont 

Idaho 22,624 New Hampshire 16,477 Virginia 

Illinois 209,549 New Jersey 18,369 Washington 

Indiana 94,395 New Mexico 785,355 W. Virginia 

Iowa 33,105 New York 280,614 Wisconsin 

Kansas 69,490 N. Carolina 153,962 Wyoming 

Kentucky 121,151 N. Dakota 27,839

Ohio 185,935 Total 

Source: USDA, ERS, Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act data.
■ Farm Labor

Labor use on U.S. farms has changed dramatically over the last severaAverage annual farm employment dropped from 9.9 million in 1950 

lion in 1995. This decrease resulted largely from the trend toward fewer 

farms, increased farm mechanization and other technological innovation

off-farm wages. However, farm employment appears to have stabilized i

years as increases in mechanization and labor-saving technology have le

and the downward trend in farm numbers has slowed.

Family workers, including farm operators and unpaid workers, acco

percent of farm labor in 1995, while hired workers accounted for 31 perc

workers, including crew leaders and custom crews, accounted for 9 perce

workers on farms in 1995.

The average wage rate for hired farm workers in the United States in 

$6.54 per hour. Wages varied by type of worker: livestock workers avera

field workers averaged $6.13, and supervisors averaged $10.27 in 1995.

A significant portion of total farm production expenses is spent on la

1992 Census of Agriculture reported that expenditures for hired and cont

U.S. farms were $15.3 billion in 1992, or almost 12 percent of total farm 

expenses. About 36 percent of all farms had hired labor expenses and 12 

contract labor expenses.

The importance of labor varied significantly by farm type and size o

proportion of total farm production expenses attributed to hired and cont

expenses was greatest on horticultural specialty farms (45 percent), fruit 

nut farms (40 percent), and vegetable and melon farms (37 percent). The

farms are the least mechanized, and many of the commodities they produ

harvested by hand. At the other extreme, labor expenses comprised less t

cent of all production expenses on beef cattle, hogs, sheep, poultry, and c

farms.

Larger farms are more likely to have labor needs in excess of that pr

the farm family. Farms of 260 or more acres, which accounted for only 3

of all farms, had 70 percent of all labor expenses in 1992. In terms of sal

27 percent of all farms with $50,000 or more in value of products sold ac

95 percent of all labor expenses.
28

Fa

busess debt at te ed o995 was $50.6 bo, up $3.9 bo

1994. Farm real estate debt rose $1.5 billion from 1994 to $79.1 billion a

end of 1995. Farm business nonreal estate debt was $71.5 billion at the end o

up 3 percent from 1994.

Farmers and lenders, despite concern about reduced short-term profitabil

some livestock enterprises, maintain confidence in the long-run profitability o

culture. The availability and use of credit play a significant role in the sustain

itability of farm enterprises. A symbiotic relationship exists between agricultu

producers and their lenders; the health of one depends on the condition of the 

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

10 to 40 years, and are ordinarily used to purchase farmland or to make majo

improvements to farm property. Nonreal 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 purcha

machinery and equipment or livestock may run for 7 years or more.

At the end of 1995, the Farm Credit System held $24.8 billion in farm bu

real estate loans and $12.5 billion in nonreal estate loans. In total, the Farm C

System held about 25 percent of farm business loans. While the Farm Credit 

experienced difficulty in increasing loan balances and in regaining market sh

continued to report improved financial performance. Falling interest rates im

their earnings during 1990-95. Improved borrower financial conditions streng

Farm Credit System performance.

Commercial banks held more than 40 percent of all farm business debt b

end of 1995, accounting for $22.2 billion in real estate loans (28 percent of to

and $37.7 billion in nonreal estate debt (53 percent). Life insurance companie

tained their presence in the agricultural credit market, as their total farm busi

debt rose slightly to $9.1 billion, giving them an 11-percent share of the farm b

mortgage market. The Farm Service Agency (which includes the former Farm

Home Administration) direct loans to farm businesses dropped by $1.4 billio

1995 as the Agency reduced its problem loan portfolio. The "Individuals and 

classification is composed primarily of sellers financing the sale of farmland, 

suppliers, and some minor lending agencies. These accounted for $18.0 billio

estate loans and $16.2 billion in nonreal estate loans at the end of 1995.
■ The Balance Sheet

Farm business asset values totaled $978.0 billion on December 31, 19increase of 4 percent over the preceding year. Farm business debt ros

during 1995, reaching $150.8 billion at year’s end. As a result, farm busi

rose 3 percent. Average equity per farm on December 31, 1995, was $39

The debt-to-asset ratio (expressed as a percent) decreased from 15.6 

ing 1995. The ratio was substantially below the peak of 23 percent reach

Real estate assets accounted for 77 percent of the value of farm busi

the end of 1995. Real estate assets increased 7 percent during the year. T

real estate value per farm was $365,000 on December 31, 1995. 

Nonreal estate assets decreased 4 percent during 1995. The year-end 

farm business livestock and poultry, machinery and motor vehicles, and p

inputs fell, while only the value of crops stored and financial assets increa

g, 

1950 1960 1970 1980 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 

Real estate debt: $ Billion

Farm Credit

System 0.8 2.2 6.4 33.2 42.2 25.9 25.3 25.4 24.9 

Life insurance

companies 1.1 2.7 5.1 12.0 11.3 9.7 9.5 8.8 9.0 

Banks 0.8 1.4 3.3 7.8 10.7 16.3 17.4 18.8 19.6 

Farm Service

Agency 0.2 0.6 2.2 7.4 9.8 7.6 7.0 6.4 5.8 

Individuals

and others 2.1 4.4 10.3 27.8 25.8 15.2 15.6 16.1 16.7 

Total 5.2 11.3 27.5 89.7 100.1 74.7 74.9 75.4 76.0 

Nonreal estate debt:

Banks 2.4 4.7 10.5 30.0 33.7 31.3 32.9 32.9 34.9 

Farm Credit

System 0.5 1.5 5.3 19.7 14.0 9.8 10.2 10.3 10.5 

Farm Service

Agency 0.3 0.4 0.7 10.0 14.7 9.4 8.2 7.1 6.2 

Individuals and

others 2.5 4.5 4.8 17.4 15.1 12.7 13.0 13.2 14.2 

Total 5.7 11.1 21.2 77.1 77.5 63.2 64.3 63.6 65.9 

Total 10.9 22.4 48.8 166.8 177.6 138.0 139.2 139.1 142.0 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Rural Economy Division.
30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

CCC Storage &

Drying Facilities Loans

Individuals &

others

All operating banks

Life insurance

companies

Farm Service 

Agency1

Farm Credit

System

1965 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 

Billion dollars

1Debt secured by farm real estate. 2 Debt for operating purposes.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Rural Economy Division.

1Includes the former Farmers Home Administration’s loans.

Individuals and others include Commodity Credit Corporation real estate loans.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Rural Economy Division.

Figure 3-2.

Farm business debt by lender

0

50

100

150

200

Real estate Nonreal estate

65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95

Billion dollars
ecebe3, 995, coecabas ed 0 pecet oabusess 

the Farm Credit System held 25 percent. 

Table 3-2. 

Farm business assets, debt, and equity1

Item 1960 1970 1980 1990 

Billion of current dollars

Assets 174.2 278.9 981.5 839.

Real estate 123.3 202.4 782.8 620.

Nonreal estate 3 51.1 76.4 198.7 219.

Debt 22.4 48.8 166.8 138.

Real estate 4 11.3 27.5 89.7 74.

Nonreal estate 5 11.1 21.2 77.1 63.

Equity (assets minus debt) 151.9 230.1 814.7 701.

1As of December 31. 2Preliminary. 3Crop inventory value is value of non-CCC crops held on fa

above loan rate for crops held under CCC. 4Includes CCC storage and drying facilities loans. 5

of CCC crop loans.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Rural Economy Division (now eliminated).

■ Net Cash Income and Net Farm Income

I

n 1995, both net cash income and net farm income reached low levels 

since 1986. Although crop cash receipts reached a record high in 1995

income from farming fell to $48.8 billion in 1995. Gross cash income wa

billion, but it was offset by a $7.7 billion rise in cash expenses. Net farm 

sharply in 1995 as gross farm income declined by $5.4 billion and total p

expenses rose by $8.1 billion. Increases in feed, cotton, and vegetable ca

boosted gross cash income while gross farm income declined due to the 

value of inventory adjustment. Increases in purchased feed and other mis

expenses boosted expenses.

Crop receipts rose $6.3 billion to reach $98.9 billion in 1995 while l

receipts declined by $1.3 billion to $86.8 billion. Corn receipts rose $2.8 

cotton increased by $0.8 billion, and vegetables were up $1.0 billion. Th

in corn receipts resulted from higher corn prices in 1995 as corn product

due to the 7.5 percent acreage reduction requirement and lower average 

Cotton prices in 1995 averaged higher than in 1994 as production declin

increase in vegetable cash receipts was led by lettuce sales as prices clim

the flooding in California’s prime lettuce production areas. Cattle and ca

receipts fell $2.4 billion in 1995 as ample supplies kept prices low.

The value of inventory adjustment was a negative $3.4 billion in 199

ucers reduced their holdings of commodities due to lower grain producti

grain supplies that kept grain prices high. In 1994, the value of inventory 

was $8.2 billion as producers held on to more crops due to the record cro
32

te pay easowy et acoe deced by $3.6 bowe et 

income declined by $1.7 billion.

Cash expenses rose to $155.1 billion in 1995. Purchased feed expenses r

$1.9 billion primarily due to increased corn prices. Other expenses rose $3.3 

due to increases in general production and management expenses and a boost 

custom feeding expenses. Interest expenses rose $1.0 billion as the prices pai

interest index rose 12 percent in 1995.

Net cash income measures the farm sector's cash income generated from 

businesses during a calendar year. Farm businesses use the net cash income g

from farming to purchase farm assets, reduce farm debt, and meet living expe

Net cash income is the sum of farm marketings, Government payments, and f

related income minus cash expenses. Cash expenses include purchased feed, 

livestock, fertilizer, lime, pesticides, fuel, oil, repair and maintenance, and oth

cellaneous expenses. Cash expenses for interest, property taxes, labor, and ne

nonoperator landlords are also included.

Net farm income measures the net value of agricultural commodities and 

vices produced by the farm sector during a calendar year. It includes the inco

expenses associated with the farmers' onfarm dwellings. The farm sector con

sole proprietorships, multifamily farms, partnerships, contractors, and vertica

grated corporations involved in farming. Gross farm income is computed by 

ming the gross cash income from farming, noncash income, and the value of

inventory adjustment. Total production expenses are the sums of intermediate 

duction expenses, interest, labor, net rent to nonoperator landlords, capital co

tion, and property taxes. Net farm income is the residual.

■ Farm Household Income

Farm operators have been surveyed by the annual Farm Costs and Returns about the finances and production of their farms since 1985. Beginning in 

USDA has collected additional information about operator households. In 19

most recent year for which the survey data are available, about 98 percent of 

were covered in the household definition. Included are those run by individua

partnerships, and family corporations. Nonfamily corporations, cooperatives

institutional farms are not included in the household definition.

Like many other U.S. households, farm households receive income from a 

of sources, one of which is farming. The 1995 average household income for f

operator households was $44,400, which is on par with the average U.S. house

About 89 percent of the average farm operator’s household income came from 

farm sources, and many operators spent most of their work efforts in occupatio

than farming. Off-farm income includes earned income such as wages and sala

from an off-farm job and net income from an off-farm business. Off-farm inco

includes unearned income, such as interest and dividends, and Social Security.
Items 1994 1995 199

Million dollars

Gross farm income 215,840 210,399 205,75

Gross cash income 197,808 203,883 188,56

Farm marketings 180,775 185,750 172,33

Crops 92,646 98,906 88,31

Livestock and products 88,129 86,844 84,01

Government payments 7,879 7,252 7,51

Farm-related income 9,154 10,881 8,72

Noncash income 9,808 9,892 9,35

Value of home consumption 481 495 45

Gross rental value of dwellings 9,327 9,397 8,89

Operator and other dwellings 8,893 8,834 8,47

Hired laborer dwellings 434 563 41

Value of inventory adjustment 8,224 (3,376) 7,84

Total production expenses 167,444 175,581 159,62

Intermediate product expenses 103,365 109,667 98,53

Farm origin 41,250 42,548 39,32

Feed purchased 22,628 24,528 21,57

Livestock and poultry purchased 13,250 12,557 12,63

Seed purchased 5,373 5,463 5,12

Manufactured inputs 21,723 23,440 20,70

Fertilizer and lime 9,181 10,034 8,75

Pesticides 7,219 7,719 6,88

Fuel and oil 5,323 5,687 5,07

Other 40,392 43,679 38,50

Repair and maintenance 9,185 9,427 8,75

Other miscellaneous 31,207 34,252 29,74

Interest 11,807 12,757 11,25

Real estate 5,853 6,067 5,58

Nonreal estate 5,954 6,690 5,67

Contract and hired labor expenses 15,308 16,285 14,59

Net rent to nonoperator landlords2 11,525 10,873 10,98

Capital consumption 18,780 19,107 17,90

Property taxes 6,659 6,891 6,34

NET FARM INCOME 48,396 34,819 46,13

Gross cash income 197,808 203,883 188,56

Cash expenses 147,357 155,121 140,47

Cash expenses, excluding net rent 134,446 142,840 128,16

Intermediate product expenses 102,315 108,761 97,53

Interest 11,391 12,326 10,85

Cash labor expenses 14,874 15,723 14,17

Property taxes 5,866 6,030 5,59

Net rent to nonoperator landlords3 12,912 12,280 12,30

NET CASH INCOME4 50,451 48,762 48,09

1Gross domestic product implicit price deflators are used to deflate the accounts to real dollars

lord capital consumption. 3Excludes landlord capital consumption. 4Excludes noncash items a

expenses of farm operator dwellings located on farms.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Rural Economy Division.
34

deped ay ooacoe. bout 9 pecet oopeatos wtsa

reported a nonfarm major occupation in 1995, and another 21 percent were re

Most operators of larger farms reported farming as their major occupation, an

households were more likely to depend on farm income. In 1995, about a qua

farm households operated commercial-size farms with sales of more than $50

These households provided most of U.S. farm production. However, even in 

holds with the largest farms (sales of at least $500,000), off-farm income ave

$31,300 per household.

Average household income and dependence on off-farm income also var

among types of farm households. For example, 8 percent reported negative h

hold income for 1995. On average, these households lost $40,700 from farmi

ing the year. About 27 percent had household income of $50,000 or more, wi

income averaging $32,300. Among occupational categories, households of op

who reported occupations other than farming or retired had the highest averag

household income, largely from off-farm sources. Data on operators’ age sho

households associated with the oldest and youngest operators had the lowest 

household income. Data on operators’ educational level show significant incr

average income with each higher educational level.

Wages and salaries


$23,443


(52.8%)

Farm incom

$4,720


(10.6%)

Other off-f

income

$6,988

(15.7%

Interest and dividend

$3,421


(7.7%)

Off-farm business income


$5,820


(13.1%)

Figure 3-3.

Sources of income for average farm operator household, 1995

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Rural Economy Division, 1995 Farm Costs and Return
Size class of farm: Source of income: Farm Off farm 1

Less than $50,000

$50,000–$249,999

$250,000–$499,999

$500,000 and over

-$3,373

$43,187

$11,295

$29,320

$43,010

$29,298

$31,261

■ Net Farm Income by State

The ranking of States by the aggregate value of net farm income refleof the State, the proportion of its land that can be cultivated, the ferti

land and climate within the State, and the State's comparative advantage 

and marketing high-valued commodities. Because these factors do not re

change, the ranking of States remains stable over a period of years.

California led the Nation in 1995 with a net farm income of $4.3 bil

lowed by North Carolina with $2.9 billion, Texas with $2.4 billion, Geor

billion, and Iowa with $1.8 billion.

California, at $22.3 billion in cash receipts, led the Nation in the val

receipts from all commodities. California's diversity in agricultural produ

denced by the State's top five commodities from agricultural sales includ

products, greenhouse and nursery products, grapes, cotton, and lettuce. T

modities accounted for 44 percent of the State's cash receipts. California 

top producing State for agricultural sales from seven commodities: dairy 

greenhouse and nursery products, hay, grapes, tomatoes, lettuce, and alm

California also had the highest production expenses of $19.1 billion.

North Carolina, the second leading State in net farm income, ranked 

gross farm income and ninth in production expense. North Carolina's top 

ties include hogs, broilers, and tobacco. These commodities accounted fo

of the State's agricultural commodity sales in 1995. North Carolina led th

sales from tobacco and turkeys.

1Based on gross value of farm sales, which includes farm businesses’, share landlords’, and p

contractors’ shares of agricultural production.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Rural Economy Division, 1995 Farm Costs and 
36

Number Average Share f

Item of households household income1 off-farm s

Number Dollars Perce

All operator households 2,036,810 44,392 89.4

Household income class:

Negative 170,331 (28,968) (40.4)

0-$9,999 210,182 5,470 183.0

$10,000 $24,999 443,779 17,643 112.7

$25,000 $49,999 668,579 36,507 96.2

$50,000 and over 543,938 113,918 71.7

Operator's major occupation:

Farm or ranch work 903,820 40,342 64.8

Other 797,718 53,425 108.9

Retired 335,272 33,815 94.9

Operator's age class:

Less than 35 years 168,825 32,506 93.4

35-44 years 407,345 47,266 89.3

45-54 years 476,807 51,953 91.6

55-64 years 469,052 50,421 87.7

65 years or older 514,780 33,518 87.2

Operator's educational level:

Less than high school 425,612 30,173 94.4

High school 819,087 41,479 87.3

Some college 443,374 48,726 85.8

College 348,736 63,075 93.1

1The household income of farm operator households includes the net cash farm income that accrue

farm operation, less depreciation, as well as wages paid to household members for work on the farm

income from farmland rentals, and net income from another farm business, plus all sources of off-fa

accruing to the household. In cases where the net income from the farm was shared by two or more 

holds, the net cash income was allocated to the primary operator's household based on the share th

operator reported receiving. 2Income from off-farm sources is more than 100 percent of total househ

if farm is negative.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Rural Economy Division, 1995 Farm Costs and Return
stocs ecepts ($8.5 bo) ad outcop ecepts ($.8 bo) o

Texas is a more specialized State: 47 percent of its agricultural sales in 1

from the State's top commodity, cattle and calves. Texas also led the Nat

sales. Texas ranked second in production expenses, $15.7 billion.

Georgia was the fourth leading State in net farm income. Georgia ra

eleventh in gross farm income and sixteenth in production expenses. The 

ranked eleventh in cash receipts with $5.2 billion. The State's five leadin

ties in 1995 were broilers, cotton, peanuts, eggs, and cattle and calves. G

the Nation in the production of broilers and peanuts.

Iowa ranked fifth in net farm income, third in gross farm income and 

production expenses. Iowa's top five commodities—corn, hogs, soybean

calves, and dairy products—comprised 81 percent of the State's sales fro

tural production in 1995. Iowa led the Nation in corn and hog sales.

Though Arkansas ranked eighth in net farm income and twenty-nint

receipts from the sales of all agricultural commodities, the State led the N

sales from chicken eggs and rice in 1995.

Bottom 10 States in

net farm income

Top 10 States in

net farm income

Figure 3-5.

Net farm income, 1995

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Rural Economy Division
38Table 3-5. States ranked by cash receipts, 19951

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 1 2 3 4 5Alabama 26 2,908 15 2,168 34 741 Broilers Cattle/calves Eggs Cotton Grnh

Alaska 50 30 50 6 50 24 Grnhs/nrs Potatoes Hay Dairy prods Barle

Arizona 13 5,065 9 3,023 18 2,042 Lettuce Cattle/calves Cotton Dairy prods Canta

Arkansas 29 2,256 31 810 22 1,446 Broilers Cotton Soybean Rice Cattle

California 1 22,261 2 5,549 1 16,713 Dairy prods Grnhs/nurs Grapes Cotton Lettu

Colorado 17 3,985 11 2,624 26 1,361 Cattle/calves Wheat Corn Dairy prods Hay

Connecticut 41 484 43 257 40 228 Grnhs/nrs Eggs Dairy prods Aquaculture Cattle

Delaware 40 676 39 516 44 159 Broilers Soybean Grnhs/nurs Corn Dairy 

Florida 9 5,849 27 1,130 5 4,719 Oranges Grnhs/nurs Cane/sugar Tomatoes Dairy 

Georgia 11 5,166 10 2,789 14 2,377 Broilers Cotton Peanuts Eggs CattleHawaii 42 483 47 72 38 412 Cane/sugar Pineapples Grnhs/nurs Macad. nuts Dairy Idaho 22 3,166 26 1,221 19 1,945 Potatoes Cattle/calves Dairy prods Wheat Hay

Illinois 5 7,887 18 1,710 2 6,177 Corn Soybean Hogs Cattle/calves Dairy 

Indiana 14 4,981 17 1,741 10 3,240 Corn Soybean Hogs Dairy prods Cattle

Iowa 3 10,959 4 5,068 3 5,891 Corn Hogs Soybean Cattle/calves Dairy 

Kansas 6 7,521 5 4,693 12 2,829 Cattle/calves Wheat Corn Sorghum grain Soyb

Kentucky 25 3,059 21 1,616 23 1,444 Tobacco Horses/mules Cattle/calves Corn Dairy 

Louisiana 32 2,025 34 630 25 1,395 Cotton Cane/sugar Rice Soybean Dairy 

Maine 43 479 42 281 42 198 Eggs Potatoes Dairy prods Aquaculture Grnh

Maryland 36 1,402 30 830 36 572 Broilers Grnhs/nurs Dairy prods Soybean Cattle

Massachusetts 45 430 46 103 39 327 Grnhs/nurs Cranberries Dairy prods Christ. trees Apple

Michigan 20 3,521 25 1,324 15 2,197 Dairy prods Grnhs/nurs Corn Soybean Cattle

Minnesota 7 7,002 8 3,451 7 3,551 Corn Dairy prods Soybean Hogs Cattle

Mississippi 24 3,126 19 1,685 24 1,441 Broilers Cotton Soybean Aquaculture Cattle

Missouri 16 4

399 14 2

265 16 2

134 Soybean Cattle/calves Hogs Corn Dairy 
Table 3-5 continued.States ranked by cash receipts, 19951 (continued)

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 1 2 3 4 5Nevada 47 286 45 164 45 122 Cattle/calves Hay Dairy prods Potatoes Onion

New Hampshire 48 152 48 64 47 88 Dairy prods Grnhs/nurs Apples Christ. trees CattleNew Jersey 38 773 44 200 35 573 Grnhs/nrs Dairy prods Eggs Tomatoes Blueb

New Mexico 35 1,415 28 963 37 452 Cattle/calves Dairy prods Hay Pecans Onion

New York 27 2,877 16 1,865 31 1,012 Dairy prods Grnhs/nurs Cattle/calves Potatoes CornNorth Carolina 8 6,987 7 3,735 9 3,251 Hogs Broilers Tobacco Grnhs/nurs TurkeNorth Dakota 23 3,154 37 566 13 2,588 Wheat Cattle/calves Barley Sunflower Suga

Ohio 15 4,576 23 1,589 11 2,987 Soybean Corn Dairy prods Grnhs/nurs Hogs

Oklahoma 19 3,705 12 2,571 29 1,133 Cattle/calves Wheat Broilers Grnhs/nurs HogsOregon 28 2,720 33 665 17 2,055 Grnhs/nurs Cattle/calves Wheat Hay Dairy 

Pennsylvania 18 3,738 13 2,552 28 1,186 Dairy prods Cattle/calves Grnhs/nurs Mushrooms EggsRhode Island 49 80 49 10 49 70 Grnhs/nurs Dairy prods Eggs Corn, sweet PotatSouth Carolina 34 1,441 35 611 33 830 Broilers Tobacco Grnhs/nurs Cotton Cattle

South Dakota 21 3,384 20 1,676 20 1,707 Cattle/calves Corn Soybean Wheat HogsTennessee 31 2,127 29 868 27 1,258 Cattle/calves Cotton Dairy prods Tobacco Soyb

Texas 2 13,288 1 8,454 4 4,834 Cattle/calves Cotton Grnhs/nurs Dairy prods BroileUtah 37 815 36 592 41 223 Cattle/calves Dairy prods Hay Grnhs/nurs Whea

Vermont 44 472 40 380 46 92 Dairy prods Cattle/calves Grnhs/nurs Hay Chris

Virginia 30 2,248 24 1,393 32 855 Broilers Dairy prods Cattle/calves Turkeys Tobac

Washington 12 5,158 22 1,594 6 3,564 Apples Dairy prods Cattle/calves Wheat PotatW

t Vi

i

i

46 386 41 312 48 74 B

il

C

ttl

/

l

T

k

D

i

d

E
40Table 3-6. Leading States for cash receipts, 19951

Top 10 States by their value of cash receipts

Commodities Rank Value 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

Million State and 

dollars million dollars

CA TX IA NE IL KS MN NC FL 

Total 185,750 22,261 13,288 10,959 8,690 7,887 7,521 7,002 6,987 5,849 

Livestock 1 TX CA NE IA KS WI NC MN AR 

& poultry 86,843 8,454 5,549 5,187 5,068 4,693 3,926 3,735 3,451 3,023 

Crops 2 CA IL IA TX FL WA MN NE NC 

98,906 16,713 6,177 5,891 4,834 4,719 3,564 3,551 3,503 3,251 

Cattle and 1 TX KS NE CO OK IA CA SD MN calves 33,983 6,296 4,235 4,158 2,081 1,759 1,705 1,290 1,046 835 

Dairy 2 CA WI NY PA MN TX MI WA OH 

products 19,923 3,078 2,916 1,494 1,456 1,186 792 717 684 599 

Corn 3 IA IL NE IN MN OH WI TX KS 

17,400 3,368 3,116 2,021 1,590 1,196 924 623 603 579 

Soybeans 4 IL IA IN MN OH MO NE AR SD 

13,203 2,334 2,318 1,198 1,168 956 886 651 591 444 

Broilers 5 GA AR AL NC MS TX DE MD VA 

11,760 1,772 1,769 1,438 1,162 992 646 474 462 401 

Greenhouse 6 CA FL NC TX OH MI OR PA OK 

& nursery 10,407 2,172 1,093 858 792 491 425 399 314 264 

Hogs 7 IA NC MN NE IN IL MO SD OH 
Table 3-6 continued.Leading States for cash receipts, 19951 (continued)

Top 10 States by their value of cash receipts

Commodities Rank Value 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

Million State and 

dollars million dollars

Wheat 8 ND KS MT WA OK CO ID SD NE 

8,769 1,388 1,262 714 607 458 385 383 362 335 

Cotton 9 TX CA MS GA AR LA AZ NC TN 

7,566 1,666 1,393 806 767 611 538 387 314 308 

Chicken 10 AR GA CA PA OH IN TX AL NC 

eggs 3,958 294 290 288 265 253 236 218 216 203 

Hay 11 CA OR WA ID CO TX SD KS MN 

3,617 633 233 215 209 171 127 116 113 108 

Turkeys 12 NC MN AR MO CA VA IN PA IA 

2,774 582 299 241 232 213 199 141 92 89 

Tobacco 13 NC KY TN VA SC GA OH FL IN 

2,594 1,049 636 233 191 189 149 32 31 22 

Potatoes 14 ID WA CA WI OR CO ND ME MN 

2,594 702 440 177 148 135 125 114 99 94 

Grapes 15 CA WA NY AZ MI OR PA AR GA 

2,022 1,837 74 36 23 15 13 11 4 3 

Lett

ce 16 CA AZ NJ FL NM CO WA OH NY 
42Table 3-6 continued.

Leading States for cash receipts, 19951 (continued)

Top 10 States by their value of cash receipts

Commodities Rank Value 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

Million State and 

dollars million dollars

Oranges 17 FL CA TX AZ n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

1,605 1,166 423 9 7

Apples 18 WA CA MI PA VA NC OH OR WV 

1,601 877 152 102 47 38 23 22 18 16 

Tomatoes 19 CA FL GA VA OH SC NJ MI IN 

1,577 865 388 57 44 37 31 27 20 19 

Rice 20 AR CA LA TX MS MO n.a. n.a. n.a. 

1,280 507 279 197 130 123 45

Sorghum 21 KS TX NE MO AR OK IL LA SD grain 1,221 422 351 171 86 39 34 31 18 17 

Sugar 22 MN ND MI CA MT WY NE OR WA 

beets 1,083 311 158 112 108 50 48 43 14 14 

Peanuts 23 GA TX AL NC VA OK FL NM SC 

1,013 417 155 139 103 62 60 52 14 9

Cane for 24 FL LA HI TX n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

sugar 886 458 257 129 42

Almonds 25 CA n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

857 857
A

ag by casecepts oeadg coodtes wtStates cove

information about the product mix within a State. Similarly, a ranking 

by cash receipts from sales of a specific commodity or commodity group c

information about the relative importance of the commodity to individual 

geographic regions. Such rankings are an aid in analyzing the effects of w

changes in farm programs, or economic conditions affecting commodity p

■ Government Payments by Program and St

Government payments were $7.3 billion in 1995, down 8 percent ($0from the previous year. Government payments comprised 3.6 perce

cash farm income in 1995. Government payments for cotton reached a re

1995 due to high cotton prices. Some cotton producers had to refund a po

previous fiscal year’s advanced deficiency payments because cotton mar

exceeded the established target price. Strong wheat prices kept 1995 whe

ment payments to a low level not seen since 1980. Government payment

grains more than doubled in 1995 as record corn production in the fall of 

corn prices low in 1995.

Government payments are direct, nonrecoverable transfer payments t

ing producers. The roles of farm commodity programs and conservation p

tuted through direct Government payments are to support prices through r

supply of specific commodities (Acreage Reduction Program, etc.), to dire

farm incomes through cash transfers to farm operators (deficiency paymen

to support farm income in times of adverse weather or natural catastroph

payments), and to maintain quality production and environmental contro

conservation reserve programs (Wetlands Reserve Program, etc.).

Annual changes in the payment distribution among States reflect far

U.S. economic environment changes, crop yields, weather conditions, m

and farm legislation modifications. Farm businesses that participate in co

programs vary in type and size across States depending on the State's pro

cialty, environmental and conservational needs, and the number of acres 

The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, whi

signed into law in April 1996, fundamentally redesigns income support a

management programs for producers of wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barl

and upland cotton. Government payments to producers who signed up fo

gram are now fixed and are scheduled to decline through 2002. Dairy po

changes dramatically as price supports are phased out and milk marketin

consolidated. The 1996 Act also alters the sugar and peanut programs. Fa

freer to alter their crop production in response to relative price signals fro

ketplace. Farm income is likely to become more variable under the Act in 

year-to-year changes in the supply and demand for covered commodities

alternatives to manage price and production risk will become more impo

many farmers.
44

Table 3-7.Government payments, by program and State, 1995State Feed Grain Wheat Rice Cotton1 Wool Act Conservation2 Miscellaneous3 

1,000 dollars

Alabama 3,368 1,740 0 1,611 42 31,713 14,912 

Alaska 57 0 0 0 1 1,056 621 

Arizona 1,904 2,115 0 2,166 771 1,787 758 

Arkansas 6,332 9,759 312,711 1,307 128 15,330 37,698 3

California 8,606 11,743 155,898 5,278 5,797 15,379 35,059 2

Colorado 43,505 21,733 0 0 4,838 83,149 13,828 

Connecticut 720 0 0 0 20 382 1,260 

Delaware 2,178 151 0 0 1 373 406 

Florida 1,638 215 163 14 4 10,249 43,433 

Georgia 9,812 3,713 0 -176 27 32,169 20,921 Hawaii 0 0 0 0 0 406 541 

Idaho 7,555 22,513 0 0 3,078 40,914 

89,536 Illinois 453,034 9,270 0 0 384 15,029 543,735 Indiana 200,255 4,348 0 0 180 

5,539246,066 Iowa 590,872 87 0 0 1,391 

8,604784,639Kansas 154,847 96,786 0 -3 911 157,489 12,991 4

Kentucky 34,005 2,618 33 0 94 28,217 2,406 

Louisiana 4,320 2,259 122,172 2,187 14 9,045 17,318 

Maine 577 0 0 0 54 3,575 9,874 

Maryland 9,724 667 0 0 85 2,370 2,301 

Massachusetts 425 0 0 0 38 498 1,497 

Michigan 86,348 5,190 0 0 475 22,829 36,167 

Minnesota 268,636 27,763 0 0 1,057 106,098 64,347 4

Mississippi 3,438 2,588 61,397 4,471 16 38,555 18,696 

Missouri 84

974 11

379 25

097 340 588 119

044 14

574 2
Table 3-7 continued.Government payments, by program and State, 1995 (continued)State Feed Grain Wheat Rice Cotton1 Wool Act Conservation2 Miscellaneous3 

New Hampshire 267 0 0 0 32 575 309 

New Jersey 2,209 129 0 0 28 402 2,724 

New Mexico 7,977 3,412 0 -82 4,753 20,615 18,483 

New York 25,591 1,367 0 0 306 6,157 10,067 

North Carolina 19,860 1,944 0 -666 67 9,213 9,741 

North Dakota 48,132 88,001 0 0 1,761 113,714 44,594 2Ohio 121,510 7,604 0 0 792 28,865 8,536 

Oklahoma 9,631 55,781 227 945 932 52,854 44,304 

Oregon 2,641 12,104 0 0 1,853 28,800 6,652 

Pennsylvania 16,538 432 0 0 434 9,638 14,013 Rhode Island 5 0 0 0 4 206 103 

South Carolina 10,165 2,937 0 671 5 12,995 7,009 

South Dakota 104,102 28,629 0 0 5,614 75,900 30,790 2Tennessee 13,236 2,652 177 496 52 25,807 4,918 Texas 128,230 40,614 106,755 11,397 38,284 174,099 143,499 6

Utah 1,622 1,839 0 0 4,759 10,510 5,777 

Vermont 796 0 0 0 100 1,783 1,643 Virginia 9,645 1,261 0 -36 466 6,526 7,531 Washington 9,709 33,311 0 0 507 55,912 16,488 

West Virginia 1,470 29 0 0 245 1,635 1,857 

Wisconsin 110,848 717 0 0 354 51,180 20,741 Wyoming 2,113 1,714 0 0 8,403 11,717 7,279 

United States 3,024,563 588,605 784,630 29,920 98,277 1,891,568 834,707 7,21Negative values indicate that the current fiscal year's advanced deficiency payments are less than the refunds from producers to the government because advanced defic

ments in the previous fiscal year exceeded the final determination of the deficiency payments. 2Includes amount paid under agriculture and conservation programs (Conse

Reserve, Agriculture Conservation, Emergency Conservation, and Great Plains Program). 3The programs included Rural Clean Water, Forestry Incentive Annual, Forestry 

Long Term, Water Bank Annual, Water Bank Practice Cost Share, Dairy Indemnity, Dairy Termination, Extended Warehouse Storage, Extended Farm Storage, Colorado R
46

More than half of the farms specializing in crops were enrolled in Goverprograms in 1995, and they accounted for three-quarters of the direct

Government payments received by farmers. Cash grain farms, including corn 

wheat farms, had the highest participation rates.

About 20 percent of farms specializing in livestock received direct Gove

payments during 1995; dairy farms had the highest participation rate among 

farms (43 percent). Many farmers growing program-eligible crops fed the gr

their livestock.

Direct Government payments were higher for crop farms, on average, th

livestock farms. The U.S. average direct payment to all participating farms w

$8,207, but ranged from a low of $3,895 for poultry farms to $11,938 for cor

■ Number of Farms and Net Cash Income 

by Sales Class

The number of farms increased slightly to 2,071,520 in 1995, and the percfarms in each major sales class remained relatively constant. Almost thr

ters of all U.S. farms have annual sales of less than $50,000, while less than 

of all farms have sales greater than $1 million. 

Farms with over $250,000 in sales account for less than 6 percent of all 

but dominate American agricultural output. These large farms sell over 62 p

of the Nation's livestock and over 57 percent of the crops. They have 58 perc

the gross cash income compared with 53 percent of the cash expenses. In 199

approximately 75 percent of the Nation's net cash income was earned by them

Less than one-third of the direct Government payments went to these farms. 

Farms in the largest sales class category, those with gross sales over $1 m

tend to be specialized in certain commodities. In 1995, nearly one-third of th

farms were classified as fruit, vegetable, greenhouse, and nursery farms, mea

50 percent or more of their gross sales were derived from these products. Ca

dairy operations were tied for second place, with each accounting for slightly 

17 percent of the largest farms. 

More than a third of the largest farms were located in the Pacific region 

due to the heavy concentration of farms specializing in fruit, vegetable, green

and nursery in that region. Each of the remaining regions contained less than 

cent of the largest farms, with the Delta region accounting for the smallest nu

of the largest farms. 

Large farms, those with sales from $500,000 to $999,999, have different 

teristics from the largest farms. More than 25 percent of the large farms focu

cash grain production. Next in importance were farms specialized in fruit, ve

greenhouse, and nursery products. Each of the following farm types account 

12 percent of the large farms: corn and soybeans, poultry, hogs, and dairy. 
wtpecet ote tota995. e acc ego, wtage ub

fruit, vegetable, greenhouse and nursery farms, has the second largest nu

large farms, followed by the Southeast region, where large poultry opera

concentrated.

Mid-sized farm operations, those with sales of $50,000 or more but 

$500,000, are dominated by operations specializing in cash grains. Corn 

and other cash grain operations account for roughly 38 percent of these f

dairy and cattle operations account for more than 10 percent of the total 

farms. Not surprisingly, the Corn Belt also has the largest number of mid

followed by the Northern Plains and the Lake States regions.

Small farm operations, those with sales under $50,000, are dominate

operations, which accounted for 40 percent of these farms. Field crop op

other livestock operations each account for slightly more than 15 percen

small farms. Cash grain farms make up 13 percent of the total. The Corn 

Appalachian, and Southern Plains regions each have over 15 percent of t

farm operations due to the large number of small cattle operations in eac

regions. 
48Table 3-8. Direct Government payments, by program, 1950-951

Year Feed grains Wheat Rice Cotton1 Wool Conservation 2 Miscellaneous 3 

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 
Table 3-8.Direct Government payments, by program, 1950-951 (continued)Year Feed grains Wheat Rice Cotton1 Wool Conservation 2 Miscellaneous 3 

Million dollars

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 1

1987 8,490 2,931 475 1,204 144 1,531 1,972 1

1988 7,219 1,842 465 924 117 1,607 2,306 1

1989 3,141 603 671 1,184 81 1,771 3,436 1

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 1

1994 1

447 156 337 826 202 1

978 1

933 
50Table 3-9.

Number of farms and net cash income by value of sales class, 1995

$1,000,000 $500,000 to $250,000 to $100,000 to $50,000 to $20,000 to Les

Year and over $999,999 $499,999 $249,999 $99,999 $49,999 $2

Thousands

Number of farms 17 30 75 219 195 261 

Million dollars

Total:

Gross cash income 59,011 26,750 32,389 44,967 18,951 11,308 

Cash receipts from marketings 56,391 24,683 29,455 40,490 17,134 9,762 

Crops 24,091 14,424 18,338 22,928 9,719 5,749 Livestock 32,300 10,259 11,117 17,563 7,415 4,013 

Direct Government paymentcommodities 2,208 6,194 9,802 11,874 4,122 2,116 Price support only commodities 543 1,871 3,455 4,619 2,076 1,117 

Nonsupported commodities 53,640 16,618 16,198 23,997 10,936 6,529 

Government payments 281 688 1,372 2,115 838 805 

Farm-related income 2,339 1,380 1,563 2,361 979 741 

Cash expenses 39,490 17,955 23,490 33,461 14,913 10,265 1

Net cash income 19,521 8,795 8,900 11,506 4,039 1,043 (

Percent 

Percent of total:Number of farms 0.8 1.5 3.6 10.6 9.4 12.6 

Gross cash income 29.0 13.2 15.9 22.1 9.3 5.6 

C

h 

i

f

k

i
Table 3-9 continued.Number of farms and net cash income by value of sales class, 1995 (continued)

$1,000,000 $500,000 to $250,000 to $100,000 to $50,000 to $20,000 to Les

Year and over $999,9991 $499,9992 $249,9993 $99,999 $49,999 $2

Direct Government paymentcommodities 5.9 16.7 26.4 32.0 11.1 5.7 

Price support only commodities 3.8 13.2 24.3 32.5 14.6 7.9 

Nonsupported commodities 40.1 12.4 12.1 17.9 8.2 4.9 

Government payments 3.9 9.5 18.9 29.2 11.6 11.1 

Farm-related income 21.5 12.7 14.4 21.7 9.0 6.8 

Cash expenses 25.5 11.6 15.1 21.6 9.6 6.6 

Net cash income 40.5 18.2 18.5 23.9 8.4 2.2 

Dollars

Per farm operation:1

Gross cash income 3,392,377 883,252 429,923 205,008 97,324 43,324 

Cash receipts from marketings 3,241,742 814,993 390,967 184,600 87,992 37,402 

Direct Government payment commodities 126,935 204,531 130,101 54,136 21,168 8,107 

Price support only 

commodities 31,208 61,769 45,862 21,060 10,661 4,279 

Nonsupported 

commodities 3,083,600 548,693 215,004 109,405 56,163 25,016 

G

t 

t

16

176 22

706 18

213 9

645 4

305 3

084 
LAverage annual farm employment dropped from 9.9 million in 1950 

lion in 1995. This decrease resulted largely from the trend toward fewer 

farms, increased farm mechanization and other technological innovation

off-farm wages. However, farm employment appears to have stabilized i

years as increases in mechanization and labor-saving technology have le

and the downward trend in farm numbers has slowed.

Family workers, including farm operators and unpaid workers, acco

percent of farm labor in 1995, while hired workers accounted for 31 perc

workers, including crew leaders and custom crews, accounted for 9 perce

workers on farms in 1995.

The average wage rate for hired farm workers in the United States in 

$6.54 per hour. Wages varied by type of worker: livestock workers avera

field workers averaged $6.13, and supervisors averaged $10.27 in 1995.

A significant portion of total farm production expenses is spent on la

1992 Census of Agriculture reported that expenditures for hired and cont

U.S. farms were $15.3 billion in 1992, or almost 12 percent of total farm 

expenses. About 36 percent of all farms had hired labor expenses and 12 

contract labor expenses.

The importance of labor varied significantly by farm type and size o

proportion of total farm production expenses attributed to hired and cont

expenses was greatest on horticultural specialty farms (45 percent), fruit 

nut farms (40 percent), and vegetable and melon farms (37 percent). The

farms are the least mechanized, and many of the commodities they produ

harvested by hand. At the other extreme, labor expenses comprised less t

cent of all production expenses on beef cattle, hogs, sheep, poultry, and c

farms.

Larger farms are more likely to have labor needs in excess of that pr

the farm family. Farms of 260 or more acres, which accounted for only 3

of all farms, had 70 percent of all labor expenses in 1992. In terms of sal

27 percent of all farms with $50,000 or more in value of products sold ac

95 percent of all labor expenses.
28

Fa

busess debt at te ed o995 was $50.6 bo, up $3.9 bo

1994. Farm real estate debt rose $1.5 billion from 1994 to $79.1 billion a

end of 1995. Farm business nonreal estate debt was $71.5 billion at the end o

up 3 percent from 1994.

Farmers and lenders, despite concern about reduced short-term profitabil

some livestock enterprises, maintain confidence in the long-run profitability o

culture. The availability and use of credit play a significant role in the sustain

itability of farm enterprises. A symbiotic relationship exists between agricultu

producers and their lenders; the health of one depends on the condition of the 

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

10 to 40 years, and are ordinarily used to purchase farmland or to make majo

improvements to farm property. Nonreal 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 purcha

machinery and equipment or livestock may run for 7 years or more.

At the end of 1995, the Farm Credit System held $24.8 billion in farm bu

real estate loans and $12.5 billion in nonreal estate loans. In total, the Farm C

System held about 25 percent of farm business loans. While the Farm Credit 

experienced difficulty in increasing loan balances and in regaining market sh

continued to report improved financial performance. Falling interest rates im

their earnings during 1990-95. Improved borrower financial conditions streng

Farm Credit System performance.

Commercial banks held more than 40 percent of all farm business debt b

end of 1995, accounting for $22.2 billion in real estate loans (28 percent of to

and $37.7 billion in nonreal estate debt (53 percent). Life insurance companie

tained their presence in the agricultural credit market, as their total farm busi

debt rose slightly to $9.1 billion, giving them an 11-percent share of the farm b

mortgage market. The Farm Service Agency (which includes the former Farm

Home Administration) direct loans to farm businesses dropped by $1.4 billio

1995 as the Agency reduced its problem loan portfolio. The "Individuals and 

classification is composed primarily of sellers financing the sale of farmland, 

suppliers, and some minor lending agencies. These accounted for $18.0 billio

estate loans and $16.2 billion in nonreal estate loans at the end of 1995.
■ The Balance Sheet

Farm business asset values totaled $978.0 billion on December 31, 19increase of 4 percent over the preceding year. Farm business debt ros

during 1995, reaching $150.8 billion at year’s end. As a result, farm busi

rose 3 percent. Average equity per farm on December 31, 1995, was $39

The debt-to-asset ratio (expressed as a percent) decreased from 15.6 

ing 1995. The ratio was substantially below the peak of 23 percent reach

Real estate assets accounted for 77 percent of the value of farm busi

the end of 1995. Real estate assets increased 7 percent during the year. T

real estate value per farm was $365,000 on December 31, 1995. 

Nonreal estate assets decreased 4 percent during 1995. The year-end 

farm business livestock and poultry, machinery and motor vehicles, and p

inputs fell, while only the value of crops stored and financial assets increa

Total 10.9 22.4 48.8 166.8 177.6 138.0 139.2 139.1 142.0 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Rural Economy Division.
during 1995, reaching $150.8 billion at years end. As a result, farm busi

rose 3 percent. Average equity per farm on December 31, 1995, was $39

The debt-to-asset ratio (expressed as a percent) decreased from 15.6 

ing 1995. The ratio was substantially below the peak of 23 percent reach

Real estate assets accounted for 77 percent of the value of farm busi

the end of 1995. Real estate assets increased 7 percent during the year. T

real estate value per farm was $365,000 on December 31, 1995. 

Nonreal estate assets decreased 4 percent during 1995. The year-end 

farm business livestock and poultry, machinery and motor vehicles, and p

inputs fell, while only the value of crops stored and financial assets increa
30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

CCC Storage &

Drying Facilities Loans

Individuals &

others

All operating banks

Life insurance

companies

Farm Service 

Agency1

Farm Credit

System

1965 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 

Billion dollars

1Debt secured by farm real estate. 2 Debt for operating purposes.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Rural Economy Division.

1Includes the former Farmers Home Administration’s loans.

Individuals and others include Commodity Credit Corporation real estate loans.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Rural Economy Division.

Figure 3-2.

Farm business debt by lender

0

50

100

150

200

Real estate Nonreal estate

65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95

Billion dollars
epeses boosted epeses.

Crop receipts rose $6.3 billion to reach $98.9 billion in 1995 while l

receipts declined by $1.3 billion to $86.8 billion. Corn receipts rose $2.8 

cotton increased by $0.8 billion, and vegetables were up $1.0 billion. Th

in corn receipts resulted from higher corn prices in 1995 as corn product

due to the 7.5 percent acreage reduction requirement and lower average 

Cotton prices in 1995 averaged higher than in 1994 as production declin

increase in vegetable cash receipts was led by lettuce sales as prices clim

the flooding in California’s prime lettuce production areas. Cattle and ca

receipts fell $2.4 billion in 1995 as ample supplies kept prices low.

The value of inventory adjustment was a negative $3.4 billion in 199

ucers reduced their holdings of commodities due to lower grain producti

grain supplies that kept grain prices high. In 1994, the value of inventory 

was $8.2 billion as producers held on to more crops due to the record cro
coe oag eto $8.8 bo995. Goss cascoe wa

billion, but it was offset by a $7.7 billion rise in cash expenses. Net farm 

sharply in 1995 as gross farm income declined by $5.4 billion and total p

expenses rose by $8.1 billion. Increases in feed, cotton, and vegetable ca

boosted gross cash income while gross farm income declined due to the 

value of inventory adjustment. Increases in purchased feed and other mis

expenses boosted expenses.

Crop receipts rose $6.3 billion to reach $98.9 billion in 1995 while l

receipts declined by $1.3 billion to $86.8 billion. Corn receipts rose $2.8 

cotton increased by $0.8 billion, and vegetables were up $1.0 billion. Th

in corn receipts resulted from higher corn prices in 1995 as corn product

due to the 7.5 percent acreage reduction requirement and lower average 

Cotton prices in 1995 averaged higher than in 1994 as production declin

increase in vegetable cash receipts was led by lettuce sales as prices clim

the flooding in California’s prime lettuce production areas. Cattle and ca

receipts fell $2.4 billion in 1995 as ample supplies kept prices low.

The value of inventory adjustment was a negative $3.4 billion in 199

ucers reduced their holdings of commodities due to lower grain producti

grain supplies that kept grain prices high. In 1994, the value of inventory 

was $8.2 billion as producers held on to more crops due to the record cro
32

■ Farm Household Income

Farm operators have been surveyed by the annual Farm Costs and Returns about the finances and production of their farms since 1985. Beginning in 

USDA has collected additional information about operator households. In 19

most recent year for which the survey data are available, about 98 percent of 

were covered in the household definition. Included are those run by individua

partnerships, and family corporations. Nonfamily corporations, cooperatives

institutional farms are not included in the household definition.

Like many other U.S. households, farm households receive income from a 

of sources, one of which is farming. The 1995 average household income for f

operator households was $44,400, which is on par with the average U.S. house

About 89 percent of the average farm operator’s household income came from 

farm sources, and many operators spent most of their work efforts in occupatio

than farming. Off-farm income includes earned income such as wages and sala

from an off-farm job and net income from an off-farm business. Off-farm inco

includes unearned income, such as interest and dividends, and Social Security.
32

most recent year for which the survey data are available, about 98 percent of 

were covered in the household definition. Included are those run by individua

partnerships, and family corporations. Nonfamily corporations, cooperatives

institutional farms are not included in the household definition.

Like many other U.S. households, farm households receive income from a 

of sources, one of which is farming. The 1995 average household income for f

operator households was $44,400, which is on par with the average U.S. house

About 89 percent of the average farm operator’s household income came from 

farm sources, and many operators spent most of their work efforts in occupatio

than farming. Off-farm income includes earned income such as wages and sala

from an off-farm job and net income from an off-farm business. Off-farm inco

includes unearned income, such as interest and dividends, and Social Security.
Items 1994 1995 199

Million dollars

Gross farm income 215,840 210,399 205,75

Gross cash income 197,808 203,883 188,56

Farm marketings 180,775 185,750 172,33

Crops 92,646 98,906 88,31

Livestock and products 88,129 86,844 84,01

Government payments 7,879 7,252 7,51

Farm-related income 9,154 10,881 8,72

Noncash income 9,808 9,892 9,35

Value of home consumption 481 495 45

Gross rental value of dwellings 9,327 9,397 8,89

Operator and other dwellings 8,893 8,834 8,47

Hired laborer dwellings 434 563 41

Value of inventory adjustment 8,224 (3,376) 7,84

Total production expenses 167,444 175,581 159,62

Intermediate product expenses 103,365 109,667 98,53

Farm origin 41,250 42,548 39,32

Feed purchased 22,628 24,528 21,57

Livestock and poultry purchased 13,250 12,557 12,63

Seed purchased 5,373 5,463 5,12

Manufactured inputs 21,723 23,440 20,70

Fertilizer and lime 9,181 10,034 8,75

Pesticides 7,219 7,719 6,88

Fuel and oil 5,323 5,687 5,07

Other 40,392 43,679 38,50

Repair and maintenance 9,185 9,427 8,75

Other miscellaneous 31,207 34,252 29,74

Interest 11,807 12,757 11,25

Real estate 5,853 6,067 5,58

Nonreal estate 5,954 6,690 5,67

Contract and hired labor expenses 15,308 16,285 14,59

Net rent to nonoperator landlords2 11,525 10,873 10,98

Capital consumption 18,780 19,107 17,90

Property taxes 6,659 6,891 6,34

NET FARM INCOME 48,396 34,819 46,13

Gross cash income 197,808 203,883 188,56

Cash expenses 147,357 155,121 140,47

Cash expenses, excluding net rent 134,446 142,840 128,16

Intermediate product expenses 102,315 108,761 97,53

Interest 11,391 12,326 10,85

Cash labor expenses 14,874 15,723 14,17

Property taxes 5,866 6,030 5,59

Net rent to nonoperator landlords3 12,912 12,280 12,30

NET CASH INCOME4 50,451 48,762 48,09

1Gross domestic product implicit price deflators are used to deflate the accounts to real dollars

lord capital consumption. 3Excludes landlord capital consumption. 4Excludes noncash items a

expenses of farm operator dwellings located on farms.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Rural Economy Division.
34

deped ay ooacoe. bout 9 pecet oopeatos wtsa

reported a nonfarm major occupation in 1995, and another 21 percent were re

Most operators of larger farms reported farming as their major occupation, an

households were more likely to depend on farm income. In 1995, about a qua

farm households operated commercial-size farms with sales of more than $50

These households provided most of U.S. farm production. However, even in 

holds with the largest farms (sales of at least $500,000), off-farm income ave

$31,300 per household.

Average household income and dependence on off-farm income also var

among types of farm households. For example, 8 percent reported negative h

hold income for 1995. On average, these households lost $40,700 from farmi

ing the year. About 27 percent had household income of $50,000 or more, wi

income averaging $32,300. Among occupational categories, households of op

who reported occupations other than farming or retired had the highest averag

household income, largely from off-farm sources. Data on operators’ age sho

households associated with the oldest and youngest operators had the lowest 

household income. Data on operators’ educational level show significant incr

average income with each higher educational level.

Wages and salaries


$23,443


(52.8%)

Farm incom

$4,720


(10.6%)

Other off-f

income

$6,988

(15.7%

Interest and dividend

$3,421


(7.7%)

Off-farm business income


$5,820


(13.1%)

Figure 3-3.

Sources of income for average farm operator household, 1995

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Rural Economy Division, 1995 Farm Costs and Return
lowed by North Carolina with $2.9 billion, Texas with $2.4 billion, Geor

billion, and Iowa with $1.8 billion.

California, at $22.3 billion in cash receipts, led the Nation in the val

receipts from all commodities. California's diversity in agricultural produ

denced by the State's top five commodities from agricultural sales includ

products, greenhouse and nursery products, grapes, cotton, and lettuce. T

modities accounted for 44 percent of the State's cash receipts. California 

top producing State for agricultural sales from seven commodities: dairy 

greenhouse and nursery products, hay, grapes, tomatoes, lettuce, and alm

California also had the highest production expenses of $19.1 billion.

North Carolina, the second leading State in net farm income, ranked 

gross farm income and ninth in production expense. North Carolina's top 

ties include hogs, broilers, and tobacco. These commodities accounted fo

of the State's agricultural commodity sales in 1995. North Carolina led th

sales from tobacco and turkeys.
and marketing high-valued commodities. Because these factors do not re

change, the ranking of States remains stable over a period of years.

California led the Nation in 1995 with a net farm income of $4.3 bil

lowed by North Carolina with $2.9 billion, Texas with $2.4 billion, Geor

billion, and Iowa with $1.8 billion.

California, at $22.3 billion in cash receipts, led the Nation in the val

receipts from all commodities. California's diversity in agricultural produ

denced by the State's top five commodities from agricultural sales includ

products, greenhouse and nursery products, grapes, cotton, and lettuce. T

modities accounted for 44 percent of the State's cash receipts. California 

top producing State for agricultural sales from seven commodities: dairy 

greenhouse and nursery products, hay, grapes, tomatoes, lettuce, and alm

California also had the highest production expenses of $19.1 billion.

North Carolina, the second leading State in net farm income, ranked 

gross farm income and ninth in production expense. North Carolina's top 

ties include hogs, broilers, and tobacco. These commodities accounted fo

of the State's agricultural commodity sales in 1995. North Carolina led th

sales from tobacco and turkeys.
36

Number Average Share f

Item of households household income1 off-farm s

Number Dollars Perce

All operator households 2,036,810 44,392 89.4

Household income class:

Negative 170,331 (28,968) (40.4)

0-$9,999 210,182 5,470 183.0

$10,000 $24,999 443,779 17,643 112.7

$25,000 $49,999 668,579 36,507 96.2

$50,000 and over 543,938 113,918 71.7

Operator's major occupation:

Farm or ranch work 903,820 40,342 64.8

Other 797,718 53,425 108.9

Retired 335,272 33,815 94.9

Operator's age class:

Less than 35 years 168,825 32,506 93.4

35-44 years 407,345 47,266 89.3

45-54 years 476,807 51,953 91.6

55-64 years 469,052 50,421 87.7

65 years or older 514,780 33,518 87.2

Operator's educational level:

Less than high school 425,612 30,173 94.4

High school 819,087 41,479 87.3

Some college 443,374 48,726 85.8

College 348,736 63,075 93.1

1The household income of farm operator households includes the net cash farm income that accrue

farm operation, less depreciation, as well as wages paid to household members for work on the farm

income from farmland rentals, and net income from another farm business, plus all sources of off-fa

accruing to the household. In cases where the net income from the farm was shared by two or more 

holds, the net cash income was allocated to the primary operator's household based on the share th

operator reported receiving. 2Income from off-farm sources is more than 100 percent of total househ

if farm is negative.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Rural Economy Division, 1995 Farm Costs and Return
stocs ecepts ($8.5 bo) ad outcop ecepts ($.8 bo) o

Texas is a more specialized State: 47 percent of its agricultural sales in 1

from the State's top commodity, cattle and calves. Texas also led the Nat

sales. Texas ranked second in production expenses, $15.7 billion.

Georgia was the fourth leading State in net farm income. Georgia ra

eleventh in gross farm income and sixteenth in production expenses. The 

ranked eleventh in cash receipts with $5.2 billion. The State's five leadin

ties in 1995 were broilers, cotton, peanuts, eggs, and cattle and calves. G

the Nation in the production of broilers and peanuts.

Iowa ranked fifth in net farm income, third in gross farm income and 

production expenses. Iowa's top five commodities—corn, hogs, soybean

calves, and dairy products—comprised 81 percent of the State's sales fro

tural production in 1995. Iowa led the Nation in corn and hog sales.

Though Arkansas ranked eighth in net farm income and twenty-nint

receipts from the sales of all agricultural commodities, the State led the N

sales from chicken eggs and rice in 1995.

Bottom 10 States in

net farm income

Top 10 States in

net farm income

Figure 3-5.

Net farm income, 1995

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Rural Economy Division
38Table 3-5. States ranked by cash receipts, 19951

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 1 2 3 4 5Alabama 26 2,908 15 2,168 34 741 Broilers Cattle/calves Eggs Cotton Grnh

Alaska 50 30 50 6 50 24 Grnhs/nrs Potatoes Hay Dairy prods Barle

Arizona 13 5,065 9 3,023 18 2,042 Lettuce Cattle/calves Cotton Dairy prods Canta

Arkansas 29 2,256 31 810 22 1,446 Broilers Cotton Soybean Rice Cattle

California 1 22,261 2 5,549 1 16,713 Dairy prods Grnhs/nurs Grapes Cotton Lettu

Colorado 17 3,985 11 2,624 26 1,361 Cattle/calves Wheat Corn Dairy prods Hay

Connecticut 41 484 43 257 40 228 Grnhs/nrs Eggs Dairy prods Aquaculture Cattle

Delaware 40 676 39 516 44 159 Broilers Soybean Grnhs/nurs Corn Dairy 

Florida 9 5,849 27 1,130 5 4,719 Oranges Grnhs/nurs Cane/sugar Tomatoes Dairy 

Georgia 11 5,166 10 2,789 14 2,377 Broilers Cotton Peanuts Eggs CattleHawaii 42 483 47 72 38 412 Cane/sugar Pineapples Grnhs/nurs Macad. nuts Dairy Idaho 22 3,166 26 1,221 19 1,945 Potatoes Cattle/calves Dairy prods Wheat Hay

Illinois 5 7,887 18 1,710 2 6,177 Corn Soybean Hogs Cattle/calves Dairy 

Indiana 14 4,981 17 1,741 10 3,240 Corn Soybean Hogs Dairy prods Cattle

Iowa 3 10,959 4 5,068 3 5,891 Corn Hogs Soybean Cattle/calves Dairy 

Kansas 6 7,521 5 4,693 12 2,829 Cattle/calves Wheat Corn Sorghum grain Soyb

Kentucky 25 3,059 21 1,616 23 1,444 Tobacco Horses/mules Cattle/calves Corn Dairy 

Louisiana 32 2,025 34 630 25 1,395 Cotton Cane/sugar Rice Soybean Dairy 

Maine 43 479 42 281 42 198 Eggs Potatoes Dairy prods Aquaculture Grnh

Maryland 36 1,402 30 830 36 572 Broilers Grnhs/nurs Dairy prods Soybean Cattle

Massachusetts 45 430 46 103 39 327 Grnhs/nurs Cranberries Dairy prods Christ. trees Apple

Michigan 20 3,521 25 1,324 15 2,197 Dairy prods Grnhs/nurs Corn Soybean Cattle

Minnesota 7 7,002 8 3,451 7 3,551 Corn Dairy prods Soybean Hogs Cattle

Mississippi 24 3,126 19 1,685 24 1,441 Broilers Cotton Soybean Aquaculture Cattle

Missouri 16 4

399 14 2

265 16 2

134 Soybean Cattle/calves Hogs Corn Dairy 
Table 3-5 continued.States ranked by cash receipts, 19951 (continued)

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 1 2 3 4 5Nevada 47 286 45 164 45 122 Cattle/calves Hay Dairy prods Potatoes Onion

New Hampshire 48 152 48 64 47 88 Dairy prods Grnhs/nurs Apples Christ. trees CattleNew Jersey 38 773 44 200 35 573 Grnhs/nrs Dairy prods Eggs Tomatoes Blueb

New Mexico 35 1,415 28 963 37 452 Cattle/calves Dairy prods Hay Pecans Onion

New York 27 2,877 16 1,865 31 1,012 Dairy prods Grnhs/nurs Cattle/calves Potatoes CornNorth Carolina 8 6,987 7 3,735 9 3,251 Hogs Broilers Tobacco Grnhs/nurs TurkeNorth Dakota 23 3,154 37 566 13 2,588 Wheat Cattle/calves Barley Sunflower Suga

Ohio 15 4,576 23 1,589 11 2,987 Soybean Corn Dairy prods Grnhs/nurs Hogs

Oklahoma 19 3,705 12 2,571 29 1,133 Cattle/calves Wheat Broilers Grnhs/nurs HogsOregon 28 2,720 33 665 17 2,055 Grnhs/nurs Cattle/calves Wheat Hay Dairy 

Pennsylvania 18 3,738 13 2,552 28 1,186 Dairy prods Cattle/calves Grnhs/nurs Mushrooms EggsRhode Island 49 80 49 10 49 70 Grnhs/nurs Dairy prods Eggs Corn, sweet PotatSouth Carolina 34 1,441 35 611 33 830 Broilers Tobacco Grnhs/nurs Cotton Cattle

South Dakota 21 3,384 20 1,676 20 1,707 Cattle/calves Corn Soybean Wheat HogsTennessee 31 2,127 29 868 27 1,258 Cattle/calves Cotton Dairy prods Tobacco Soyb

Texas 2 13,288 1 8,454 4 4,834 Cattle/calves Cotton Grnhs/nurs Dairy prods BroileUtah 37 815 36 592 41 223 Cattle/calves Dairy prods Hay Grnhs/nurs Whea

Vermont 44 472 40 380 46 92 Dairy prods Cattle/calves Grnhs/nurs Hay Chris

Virginia 30 2,248 24 1,393 32 855 Broilers Dairy prods Cattle/calves Turkeys Tobac

Washington 12 5,158 22 1,594 6 3,564 Apples Dairy prods Cattle/calves Wheat PotatW

t Vi

i

i

46 386 41 312 48 74 B

il

C

ttl

/

l

T

k

D

i

d

E
40Table 3-6. Leading States for cash receipts, 19951

Top 10 States by their value of cash receipts

Commodities Rank Value 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

Million State and 

dollars million dollars

CA TX IA NE IL KS MN NC FL 

Total 185,750 22,261 13,288 10,959 8,690 7,887 7,521 7,002 6,987 5,849 

Livestock 1 TX CA NE IA KS WI NC MN AR 

& poultry 86,843 8,454 5,549 5,187 5,068 4,693 3,926 3,735 3,451 3,023 

Crops 2 CA IL IA TX FL WA MN NE NC 

98,906 16,713 6,177 5,891 4,834 4,719 3,564 3,551 3,503 3,251 

Cattle and 1 TX KS NE CO OK IA CA SD MN calves 33,983 6,296 4,235 4,158 2,081 1,759 1,705 1,290 1,046 835 

Dairy 2 CA WI NY PA MN TX MI WA OH 

products 19,923 3,078 2,916 1,494 1,456 1,186 792 717 684 599 

Corn 3 IA IL NE IN MN OH WI TX KS 

17,400 3,368 3,116 2,021 1,590 1,196 924 623 603 579 

Soybeans 4 IL IA IN MN OH MO NE AR SD 

13,203 2,334 2,318 1,198 1,168 956 886 651 591 444 

Broilers 5 GA AR AL NC MS TX DE MD VA 

11,760 1,772 1,769 1,438 1,162 992 646 474 462 401 

Greenhouse 6 CA FL NC TX OH MI OR PA OK 

& nursery 10,407 2,172 1,093 858 792 491 425 399 314 264 

Hogs 7 IA NC MN NE IN IL MO SD OH 
Table 3-6 continued.Leading States for cash receipts, 19951 (continued)

Top 10 States by their value of cash receipts

Commodities Rank Value 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

Million State and 

dollars million dollars

Wheat 8 ND KS MT WA OK CO ID SD NE 

8,769 1,388 1,262 714 607 458 385 383 362 335 

Cotton 9 TX CA MS GA AR LA AZ NC TN 

7,566 1,666 1,393 806 767 611 538 387 314 308 

Chicken 10 AR GA CA PA OH IN TX AL NC 

eggs 3,958 294 290 288 265 253 236 218 216 203 

Hay 11 CA OR WA ID CO TX SD KS MN 

3,617 633 233 215 209 171 127 116 113 108 

Turkeys 12 NC MN AR MO CA VA IN PA IA 

2,774 582 299 241 232 213 199 141 92 89 

Tobacco 13 NC KY TN VA SC GA OH FL IN 

2,594 1,049 636 233 191 189 149 32 31 22 

Potatoes 14 ID WA CA WI OR CO ND ME MN 

2,594 702 440 177 148 135 125 114 99 94 

Grapes 15 CA WA NY AZ MI OR PA AR GA 

2,022 1,837 74 36 23 15 13 11 4 3 

Lett

ce 16 CA AZ NJ FL NM CO WA OH NY 
42Table 3-6 continued.

Leading States for cash receipts, 19951 (continued)

Top 10 States by their value of cash receipts

Commodities Rank Value 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

Million State and 

dollars million dollars

Oranges 17 FL CA TX AZ n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

1,605 1,166 423 9 7

Apples 18 WA CA MI PA VA NC OH OR WV 

1,601 877 152 102 47 38 23 22 18 16 

Tomatoes 19 CA FL GA VA OH SC NJ MI IN 

1,577 865 388 57 44 37 31 27 20 19 

Rice 20 AR CA LA TX MS MO n.a. n.a. n.a. 

1,280 507 279 197 130 123 45

Sorghum 21 KS TX NE MO AR OK IL LA SD grain 1,221 422 351 171 86 39 34 31 18 17 

Sugar 22 MN ND MI CA MT WY NE OR WA 

beets 1,083 311 158 112 108 50 48 43 14 14 

Peanuts 23 GA TX AL NC VA OK FL NM SC 

1,013 417 155 139 103 62 60 52 14 9

Cane for 24 FL LA HI TX n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

sugar 886 458 257 129 42

Almonds 25 CA n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

857 857
alternatives to manage price and production risk will become more impo

many farmers.
cash farm income in 1995. Government payments for cotton reached a re

1995 due to high cotton prices. Some cotton producers had to refund a po

previous fiscal year’s advanced deficiency payments because cotton mar

exceeded the established target price. Strong wheat prices kept 1995 whe

ment payments to a low level not seen since 1980. Government payment

grains more than doubled in 1995 as record corn production in the fall of 

corn prices low in 1995.

Government payments are direct, nonrecoverable transfer payments t

ing producers. The roles of farm commodity programs and conservation p

tuted through direct Government payments are to support prices through r

supply of specific commodities (Acreage Reduction Program, etc.), to dire

farm incomes through cash transfers to farm operators (deficiency paymen

to support farm income in times of adverse weather or natural catastroph

payments), and to maintain quality production and environmental contro

conservation reserve programs (Wetlands Reserve Program, etc.).

Annual changes in the payment distribution among States reflect far

U.S. economic environment changes, crop yields, weather conditions, m

and farm legislation modifications. Farm businesses that participate in co

programs vary in type and size across States depending on the State's pro

cialty, environmental and conservational needs, and the number of acres 

The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, whi

signed into law in April 1996, fundamentally redesigns income support a

management programs for producers of wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barl

and upland cotton. Government payments to producers who signed up fo

gram are now fixed and are scheduled to decline through 2002. Dairy po

changes dramatically as price supports are phased out and milk marketin

consolidated. The 1996 Act also alters the sugar and peanut programs. Fa

freer to alter their crop production in response to relative price signals fro

ketplace. Farm income is likely to become more variable under the Act in 

year-to-year changes in the supply and demand for covered commodities

alternatives to manage price and production risk will become more impo

many farmers.
44

Table 3-7.Government payments, by program and State, 1995State Feed Grain Wheat Rice Cotton1 Wool Act Conservation2 Miscellaneous3 

1,000 dollars

Alabama 3,368 1,740 0 1,611 42 31,713 14,912 

Alaska 57 0 0 0 1 1,056 621 

Arizona 1,904 2,115 0 2,166 771 1,787 758 

Arkansas 6,332 9,759 312,711 1,307 128 15,330 37,698 3

California 8,606 11,743 155,898 5,278 5,797 15,379 35,059 2

Colorado 43,505 21,733 0 0 4,838 83,149 13,828 

Connecticut 720 0 0 0 20 382 1,260 

Delaware 2,178 151 0 0 1 373 406 

Florida 1,638 215 163 14 4 10,249 43,433 

Georgia 9,812 3,713 0 -176 27 32,169 20,921 Hawaii 0 0 0 0 0 406 541 

Idaho 7,555 22,513 0 0 3,078 40,914 

89,536 Illinois 453,034 9,270 0 0 384 15,029 543,735 Indiana 200,255 4,348 0 0 180 

5,539246,066 Iowa 590,872 87 0 0 1,391 

8,604784,639Kansas 154,847 96,786 0 -3 911 157,489 12,991 4

Kentucky 34,005 2,618 33 0 94 28,217 2,406 

Louisiana 4,320 2,259 122,172 2,187 14 9,045 17,318 

Maine 577 0 0 0 54 3,575 9,874 

Maryland 9,724 667 0 0 85 2,370 2,301 

Massachusetts 425 0 0 0 38 498 1,497 

Michigan 86,348 5,190 0 0 475 22,829 36,167 

Minnesota 268,636 27,763 0 0 1,057 106,098 64,347 4

Mississippi 3,438 2,588 61,397 4,471 16 38,555 18,696 

Missouri 84

974 11

379 25

097 340 588 119

044 14

574 2
Table 3-7 continued.Government payments, by program and State, 1995 (continued)State Feed Grain Wheat Rice Cotton1 Wool Act Conservation2 Miscellaneous3 

New Hampshire 267 0 0 0 32 575 309 

New Jersey 2,209 129 0 0 28 402 2,724 

New Mexico 7,977 3,412 0 -82 4,753 20,615 18,483 

New York 25,591 1,367 0 0 306 6,157 10,067 

North Carolina 19,860 1,944 0 -666 67 9,213 9,741 

North Dakota 48,132 88,001 0 0 1,761 113,714 44,594 2Ohio 121,510 7,604 0 0 792 28,865 8,536 

Oklahoma 9,631 55,781 227 945 932 52,854 44,304 

Oregon 2,641 12,104 0 0 1,853 28,800 6,652 

Pennsylvania 16,538 432 0 0 434 9,638 14,013 Rhode Island 5 0 0 0 4 206 103 

South Carolina 10,165 2,937 0 671 5 12,995 7,009 

South Dakota 104,102 28,629 0 0 5,614 75,900 30,790 2Tennessee 13,236 2,652 177 496 52 25,807 4,918 Texas 128,230 40,614 106,755 11,397 38,284 174,099 143,499 6

Utah 1,622 1,839 0 0 4,759 10,510 5,777 

Vermont 796 0 0 0 100 1,783 1,643 Virginia 9,645 1,261 0 -36 466 6,526 7,531 Washington 9,709 33,311 0 0 507 55,912 16,488 

West Virginia 1,470 29 0 0 245 1,635 1,857 

Wisconsin 110,848 717 0 0 354 51,180 20,741 Wyoming 2,113 1,714 0 0 8,403 11,717 7,279 

United States 3,024,563 588,605 784,630 29,920 98,277 1,891,568 834,707 7,21Negative values indicate that the current fiscal year's advanced deficiency payments are less than the refunds from producers to the government because advanced defic

ments in the previous fiscal year exceeded the final determination of the deficiency payments. 2Includes amount paid under agriculture and conservation programs (Conse

Reserve, Agriculture Conservation, Emergency Conservation, and Great Plains Program). 3The programs included Rural Clean Water, Forestry Incentive Annual, Forestry 

Long Term, Water Bank Annual, Water Bank Practice Cost Share, Dairy Indemnity, Dairy Termination, Extended Warehouse Storage, Extended Farm Storage, Colorado R
46

cent of the largest farms, with the Delta region accounting for the smallest nu

of the largest farms. 

Large farms, those with sales from $500,000 to $999,999, have different 

teristics from the largest farms. More than 25 percent of the large farms focu

cash grain production. Next in importance were farms specialized in fruit, ve

greenhouse, and nursery products. Each of the following farm types account 

12 percent of the large farms: corn and soybeans, poultry, hogs, and dairy. 
46

as eacajosaes cass eaed eatvey costat. ost t

ters of all U.S. farms have annual sales of less than $50,000, while less than 

of all farms have sales greater than $1 million. 

Farms with over $250,000 in sales account for less than 6 percent of all 

but dominate American agricultural output. These large farms sell over 62 p

of the Nation's livestock and over 57 percent of the crops. They have 58 perc

the gross cash income compared with 53 percent of the cash expenses. In 199

approximately 75 percent of the Nation's net cash income was earned by them

Less than one-third of the direct Government payments went to these farms. 

Farms in the largest sales class category, those with gross sales over $1 m

tend to be specialized in certain commodities. In 1995, nearly one-third of th

farms were classified as fruit, vegetable, greenhouse, and nursery farms, mea

50 percent or more of their gross sales were derived from these products. Ca

dairy operations were tied for second place, with each accounting for slightly 

17 percent of the largest farms. 

More than a third of the largest farms were located in the Pacific region 

due to the heavy concentration of farms specializing in fruit, vegetable, green

and nursery in that region. Each of the remaining regions contained less than 

cent of the largest farms, with the Delta region accounting for the smallest nu

of the largest farms. 

Large farms, those with sales from $500,000 to $999,999, have different 

teristics from the largest farms. More than 25 percent of the large farms focu

cash grain production. Next in importance were farms specialized in fruit, ve

greenhouse, and nursery products. Each of the following farm types account 

12 percent of the large farms: corn and soybeans, poultry, hogs, and dairy. 
wtpecet ote tota995. e acc ego, wtage ub

fruit, vegetable, greenhouse and nursery farms, has the second largest nu

large farms, followed by the Southeast region, where large poultry opera

concentrated.

Mid-sized farm operations, those with sales of $50,000 or more but 

$500,000, are dominated by operations specializing in cash grains. Corn 

and other cash grain operations account for roughly 38 percent of these f

dairy and cattle operations account for more than 10 percent of the total 

farms. Not surprisingly, the Corn Belt also has the largest number of mid

followed by the Northern Plains and the Lake States regions.

Small farm operations, those with sales under $50,000, are dominate

operations, which accounted for 40 percent of these farms. Field crop op

other livestock operations each account for slightly more than 15 percen

small farms. Cash grain farms make up 13 percent of the total. The Corn 

Appalachian, and Southern Plains regions each have over 15 percent of t

farm operations due to the large number of small cattle operations in eac

regions. 
48Table 3-8. Direct Government payments, by program, 1950-951

Year Feed grains Wheat Rice Cotton1 Wool Conservation 2 Miscellaneous 3 

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 
Table 3-8.Direct Government payments, by program, 1950-951 (continued)Year Feed grains Wheat Rice Cotton1 Wool Conservation 2 Miscellaneous 3 

Million dollars

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 1

1987 8,490 2,931 475 1,204 144 1,531 1,972 1

1988 7,219 1,842 465 924 117 1,607 2,306 1

1989 3,141 603 671 1,184 81 1,771 3,436 1

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 1

1994 1

447 156 337 826 202 1

978 1

933 
50Table 3-9.

Number of farms and net cash income by value of sales class, 1995

$1,000,000 $500,000 to $250,000 to $100,000 to $50,000 to $20,000 to Les

Year and over $999,999 $499,999 $249,999 $99,999 $49,999 $2

Thousands

Number of farms 17 30 75 219 195 261 

Million dollars

Total:

Gross cash income 59,011 26,750 32,389 44,967 18,951 11,308 

Cash receipts from marketings 56,391 24,683 29,455 40,490 17,134 9,762 

Crops 24,091 14,424 18,338 22,928 9,719 5,749 Livestock 32,300 10,259 11,117 17,563 7,415 4,013 

Direct Government paymentcommodities 2,208 6,194 9,802 11,874 4,122 2,116 Price support only commodities 543 1,871 3,455 4,619 2,076 1,117 

Nonsupported commodities 53,640 16,618 16,198 23,997 10,936 6,529 

Government payments 281 688 1,372 2,115 838 805 

Farm-related income 2,339 1,380 1,563 2,361 979 741 

Cash expenses 39,490 17,955 23,490 33,461 14,913 10,265 1

Net cash income 19,521 8,795 8,900 11,506 4,039 1,043 (

Percent 

Percent of total:Number of farms 0.8 1.5 3.6 10.6 9.4 12.6 

Gross cash income 29.0 13.2 15.9 22.1 9.3 5.6 

C

h 

i

f

k

i
Table 3-9 continued.Number of farms and net cash income by value of sales class, 1995 (continued)

$1,000,000 $500,000 to $250,000 to $100,000 to $50,000 to $20,000 to Les

Year and over $999,9991 $499,9992 $249,9993 $99,999 $49,999 $2

Direct Government paymentcommodities 5.9 16.7 26.4 32.0 11.1 5.7 

Price support only commodities 3.8 13.2 24.3 32.5 14.6 7.9 

Nonsupported commodities 40.1 12.4 12.1 17.9 8.2 4.9 

Government payments 3.9 9.5 18.9 29.2 11.6 11.1 

Farm-related income 21.5 12.7 14.4 21.7 9.0 6.8 

Cash expenses 25.5 11.6 15.1 21.6 9.6 6.6 

Net cash income 40.5 18.2 18.5 23.9 8.4 2.2 

Dollars

Per farm operation:1

Gross cash income 3,392,377 883,252 429,923 205,008 97,324 43,324 

Cash receipts from marketings 3,241,742 814,993 390,967 184,600 87,992 37,402 

Direct Government payment commodities 126,935 204,531 130,101 54,136 21,168 8,107 

Price support only 

commodities 31,208 61,769 45,862 21,060 10,661 4,279 

Nonsupported 

commodities 3,083,600 548,693 215,004 109,405 56,163 25,016 

G

t 

t

16

176 22

706 18

213 9

645 4

305 3

084 
52

■ Rural Population

Today, the United States is primarily metropolitan. People who live in large and their suburbs account for 80 percent of the total population. Nonmet

politan people outside large cities and suburban counties numbered about 53.

million in 1996.

Although nonmetro population increased in both the 1970's and 1980's, i

portion of the total population fell slightly because the metro population grew 

more rapidly. 

After 1970, most nonmetro counties that were losing population in the 19

began to grow again because of job development, commuting, or the develop

retirement communities that drew retirees in from other areas. However, after 

low farm income conditions and a slump in mining and manufacturing emplo

led to a slow but widespread decline in rural population. From 1980 to 1990, 

half of all nonmetro counties decreased in population, generally in the same a

that declined before 1970. Some nonmetro counties, though, grew enough as 

ment or recreation areas, or from commuting to metro jobs, to produce overal

metro population growth during the decade.

Since 1990, there is evidence once again of increased retention of people 

areas. From 1990 to 1996, the population of nonmetro counties grew at an an

pace more than double that of the 1980's, with far fewer counties declining. T

change has affected all types of counties and most regions of the country. Imp

ment in rural economic conditions is thought to be generally responsible for t

change. But, recreation and retirement counties continue to be the most rapid

developing group. Declining population is still characteristic of areas that are 

dent on farming, three-fourths of which have continued to have more people 

out than in.

■ Age and Race 

Age distributions reflect past demographic events (births, deaths, and migand 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 boo
graduated from high school and began their entry into the labor force in 

the oldest members reach 65 in 2011, the United States has had and will 

have a favorable balance of people in income-producing age groups. All 

country benefit from the current age structure.

A metro area, by definition, must have an urban nucleus of at least 50

people, and may include fringe counties that are linked to that nucleus bec

workers commute to the central area. All other counties are nonmetro. Bec

migration, which consists primarily of young adults and their children, me

captured a much higher percentage of the “baby boomers.” The higher me

age of working-age adults has been a persistent pattern for most of this cen

nonmetro differences among the youngest and oldest have become increas

In a reversal of previous trends, the birth rates in metro areas in the last 5 

been greater than in nonmetro areas. In large measure, this reversal is du

delayed childbearing among women in the large metro baby boom segm

rates for nonmetro women are higher at younger ages, particularly for wo

their twenties, an age group not well represented in nonmetro areas.

Increases in life expectancy over the past 50 years and the aging of t

ulation segment born in the 1920's increased the proportion of elderly be

and 1990. The percentage of the population over age 75 rose dramaticall

in nonmetro areas. Retirement migration to nonmetro areas, coupled with 

high levels of nonmetro outmigration of young adults and their children, 

higher proportion of older people in nonmetro areas; the percentage of no

population age 60 or older was 18 percent in 1996, compared with 15 pe

metro areas. For the first time since 1960, metro children under 10 outnu

preteens and teenagers. This is not true for nonmetro areas.

for 75 and older category

0

5

10

15

20

Total U.S.

Nonmetro

Metro

0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-74 
54

acs ade up cose to twotds ote oeto oty popuato9

their share declined as other groups grew much faster during the 1980's. Mino

constituted only 14 percent of the total nonmetro population in 1980, but they

accounted for 50 percent of the people added during the 1980's. Their 15 perc

of growth was more than five times the rate for Whites. For all minorities exc

Native Americans, however, growth rates were even higher in metro areas du

1980's, so that the share of U.S. minorities living in nonmetro areas declined 

from 16 to 14 percent. Minorities are still much more likely than Whites to liv

metro areas, but their presence in nonmetro areas is increasing. 

■ Nonmetropolitan Industry and Job Growth 

Goods-Producing Industries

Manufacturing, natural resource-based industries such as farming and m

and other goods-producing industries have historically been the mainstay of t

economy. Growth in the number of rural goods producing jobs was stronger d

the 1970's than during the 1980's or early 1990's. Much of the growth during 

1970's was attributable to national manufacturing firms that opened branch pl

in rural areas and also to booming construction activities. While goods-produ

industries normally spring back during economic recovery, in more recent ye

periods of recession and recovery, job growth in these industries has been slu

nonmetro areas during the 1980's, jobs in farming declined by 386,000 (1.8 p

annually) and jobs in mining declined by 119,000 (2.4 percent annually), whi

ufacturing increased slightly by 15,000 jobs. Nonmetro areas also lost goods-

ing jobs during the 1990-91 recession, but have gained jobs in more recent ye

the early 1990's as a whole, the number of nonmetro goods-producing jobs in

Table 4-1. 

Nonmetro population by race and ethnicity, 1980-1990

Share of U.S. pop

Population in nonmetro a

Change Change

Race/ethnic group 1980 1990 1980–90 1980–90 1980 

Thousands Percent

White 46,753 47,863 1,110 2.4 25.4 

Minority 7,624 8,688 1,064 14.0 16.5 

Black 4,770 4,923 153 3.2 18.0 

Hispanic1 1,786 2,329 543 30.4 12.2 

Native American2 759 971 212 27.9 49.5 

Asian 309 465 156 50.5 8.3 

1Hispanics can be of any race.

2Native Americans include American Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts.

Source: 1980 and 1990 Censuses of Population.
Service-Producing Industries

Nonmetro service-producing industries grew steadily during 1969-9

almost 6.2 million new jobs in the period. Local consumer activities, bus

services, recreational services, and retailing accounted for most of the jo

rural areas. Similar to the goods producing industries, the number of rura

producing jobs grew faster during the 1970's (3 percent annually) than du

1980's (2 percent annually). But during the early 1990's nonmetro servic

jobs nearly regained their rapid growth rate of the 1970's, adding about 1

jobs during 1989-94 (2.8 percent). 

Total Employment

Nonmetro areas gained jobs at a rate comparable to that of metro area

1970's, but fell far behind metro growth during the 1980's. Nonmetro area

more in the two recessions of the early 1980's and benefited less from the 

recovery than did metro areas. As a result, employment growth was consid

slower in nonmetro (0.9 percent annually) than in metro areas (2.1 percen

during 1979 89. More encouraging is the most recent performance of rura

contrast to the 1980's trend, rural areas weathered the 1990-91 recession b

urban areas. In nonmetro areas, total jobs grew at a 1.8 percent annual rate 

1989-94; in metro areas, jobs grew at only a 1.0 percent annual rate. Most 

metro growth was in services producing industries, 1.7 million out of 2.2 m

new jobs. Goods producing industries contributed 230,000 new nonmetro 

nearly 1.2 million goods-producing jobs were lost by metro areas.

Table 4-2.

Nonmetro and metro job growth in selected industries, 196

Industry 1969 1979 1989 1994 

Thousands 

Nonmetro total 17,738 21,713 23,849 26,054 

Goods-producing 7,467 8,553 8,227 8,457 

Manufacturing 3,599 4,229 4,244 4,411 

Services-producing 7,107 9,521 11,605 13,299 

Services 2,673 3,567 4,812 5,775 

Government 3,163 3,639 4,018 4,299 

Metro total 73,140 91,250 112,565 118,337 

Goods-producing 22,698 24,610 24,614 23,462 

Manufacturing 16,944 17,264 15,786 14,614 

Services-producing 37,523 51,743 71,211 77,548 

Services 13,757 20,153 31,452 36,464 

Government 12,919 14,897 16,740 17,326 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis
56

■ Nonmetropolitan Employment and Wages

I

n 1996, 25.3 million people 16 years old and older were in the nonmetropo

work force, either at work or looking for work. On average, 5.6 percent or 

lion of these workers were unemployed during the year. Unemployment rates 

ticularly high among nonmetro minorities and teenagers. In 1996, 15.2 percen

teenagers, 12.9 percent of Blacks, and 8.4 percent of Hispanics in nonmetro a

were unemployed. The official unemployment rate excludes those jobless peo

actively seeking work, but who indicate they want or are available for work (

ally attached workers), and part-time workers who want full-time jobs. The n

adjusted unemployment rate, which includes marginally attached workers and 

untary part-time workers, was 9.1 percent.

Nonmetro unemployment fell from 7.2 percent in 1992 to 5.6 percent in 

rural areas participated in the continuing national economic expansion. Durin

1980's, unemployment rates were consistently higher in nonmetro areas than 

metro. Although the nonmetro rate dipped below the metro rate for a few yea

the 1990-91 recession, metro and nonmetro unemployment rates were similar 

(5.4 and 5.6 percent, respectively). The nonmetro adjusted unemployment rat

remained higher than the metro rate throughout the 1990's. In 1996, the nonm

unadjusted rate was 9.1 percent, slightly above the 8.8 percent metro rate.

Industry 1969 1979 1989 1994 

Thousands 

Nonmetro 17,738 21,713 23,849 26,054 

Goods-producing 7,467 8,553 8,227 8,457 

Farming 2,542 2,355 1,968 1,834 

ASFF* 165 241 363 470 

Mining 360 549 430 376 

Construction 801 1,179 1,221 1,366 

Manufacturing 3,599 4,229 4,244 4,411 

Services-producing 7,107 9,521 11,605 13,299 

TCPU** 729 909 987 1,094 

Wholesale trade 426 757 787 843 

Retail trade 2,545 3,235 3,916 4,439 

FIRE*** 734 1,053 1,103 1,148 

Services 2,673 3,567 4,812 5,775 

Government 3,163 3,639 4,018 4,299 

*Agricultural services, forestry, and fishing

**Transportation, communication, and public utilities

***Finance, insurance, and real estate

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
e.5 pecet betwee979 ad 990, o$7to $3 (996 doa

metro weekly earnings fell a smaller 1.3 percent between 1979 and 1993

the metro/nonmetro average weekly earnings gap grew by 74.3 percent, 

from $70 to $122 (1996 dollars). From 1990 to 1996, however, nonmetro 

earnings increased 4.8 percent, to $432 (1996 dollars), while metro earni

ued to fall. About half the widening of the metro/nonmetro earnings gap 

in the 1980's closed after 1990.

Table 4-4. 

Average weekly earnings for metro and nonmetro wage and 

workers, 1979-96

Year U.S. Metro Nonmetro Rura

1996 dollars

1979 521 542 472 

1990 510 535 413 

1996 510 527 432 

Percent

1979-90 change -2.1 -1.3 -12.5 

1990-96 change 0.0 -1.4 4.8 

Source: Current Population Survey, Bureau of the Census

Table 4-5.

Unemployment rates among various metro and nonmetro g

1996

Nonmetro Metro Unit

Thousands

Civilian labor force 25,318 108,540 

Total employment 23,904 102,656 

Unemployed 1,414 5,883 

Unemployment rate: Percent

All civilian workers 5.6 5.4 

Men 5.4 5.4 

Women 5.8 5.4 

Teenagers 15.2 17.3 

White 4.7 4.1 

Black 12.9 10.3 

Hispanic 8.4 9.0 

Adjusted unemployment rate1 9.1 8.8 

1

Unemployment rate adjusted to include marginally attached workers and workers employed p

nomic reasons.

Source: Current Population Survey, Bureau of the Census.
58

0

4

8

12

16

Metro

Nonmetro

Metro, adjusted1

Nonmetro, adjusted1

1980 85 90 

Percent

 1Separate metro and nonmetro estimates are not available for 1994 and 1995.

substantial economic disadvantage.

Nonmetro- Real chang

metro

Race-ethnicity gap* Nonmetro No

Nonmetro Metro 1993-94 1

———Dollars——— ———————Percent———

Total 26,280 34,518 23.9 1.6 

White non-Hispanic 27,746 38,286 27.5 2.4 

Black 15,780 22,220 29.0 NA 

Hispanic 18,759 23,917 21.6 NA 

Note: Nonmetro-metro difference is statistically significant in each race ethnic category. Change in n

income is statistically significant only for white non-Hispanics from 1990-94. Sample sizes are too sm

ably estimate change over time for Blacks and Hispanics.

*Percent by which nonmetro income is lower than metro.

Figure 4-2.

Unemployment rates by residence, 1979-96

Household income

 1994 
■ Rural Income and Poverty

Rural median household income was $26,280 in 1994, up 1.6 percent after adjusting for inflation, but still slightly below the median at the 

of the decade. Median rural household income continues to fall short of t

areas by nearly 24 percent. Incomes were substantially lower for rural m

families headed by women, and for women living alone.

The poverty rate in rural America was 16.4 percent in 1994. The rur

poverty gap, at 2.4 percentage points, was as small as it has been since p

tics have been calculated. Although the decrease of nearly a percentage p

rural poverty rate from 1993-94 was not statistically significant, the trend 

ally increasing poverty observed during the previous years appears to ha

Over half of the rural poor (52 percent) live in the South, a disproportion

tration compared with the South's 44 percent of the total rural population

Families headed by women experienced the highest poverty rates of 

types (45.0 percent in rural areas and 36.8 percent in urban), and a high p

rural women living alone were also poor (33.0 percent). Nearly one-four

children lived in poor families.

Poverty among Blacks in inner cities receives much more public atte

does that among rural Blacks, yet the 1994 poverty rate for rural blacks (

was comparable to that for central-city Blacks (33.6 percent). And nearly 

rural Black children (48.2 percent) lived in families with below-poverty-le

■ Rural Public Services

Rural local governments face special problems in providing services fzens. The following are rural characteristics that affect ways in whic

governments provide services:

■ Isolation, the geographic separation of rural areas from metrop

ters, leads to low utilization rates for rural public services, inade

response times for emergency services, and the detachment of s

ery professionals from their colleagues.

Household type Nonmetro Metro 

Dollars 

Married-couple household 35,535 49,490 

Male householder with family 26,357 32,277 

Female householder with family 15,962 21,156 

Male living alone 11,192 16,556 

Note: Nonmetro-metro difference is statistically significant in each category.

*Percent by which nonmetro income is lower than metro.

Source: prepared by ERS using U.S. Bureau of the Census Current Population Survey data. 
60

because te aea caot suppot te sevces oso ew cets.

■ Lack of fiscal resources puts many rural communities in a financial s

with resulting service deprivation for local residents.

■ The lack of an adequate supply of trained personnel has several i

tions for service delivery in rural communities. Critical functions ma

understaffed, scarce employees are often overworked, service qualit

quantity suffer, and long-range planning becomes difficult.

Isolated rural communities often suffer from medical services and facilit

are of lower quality than those found in metro areas. Even if medical care ser

were evenly distributed across the Nation, and were of equal quality, it is like

nonmetro residents with chronically low incomes would still have serious dif

receiving adequate care in a complex medical system where access is based m

on the ability to pay.

Because many rural communities are small and isolated, and lack financi

resources and trained personnel, similar problems are encountered in the prov

0

10

20

30

40

Nonmetro

Metro

1959 69 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 

Percent poor

* Poverty rates for 1985 to 1994 are based on the 1983 metropolitan area delineatio

Source: Prepared by ERS using data from U.S. Bureau of the Census P-60 series 

and Current Population Survey data March 1995.

Figure 4-3.

Poverty rate by residence, 1959-1994
other rural public services. Various approaches have been taken to deal w

problems:

■ Some communities contract with private-sector firms to provide 

For example, 36 percent of rural localities contract out legal ser

for-profit firms rather than perform such services themselves.

■ Some communities that want to attract new residents and busine

find it beneficial to cooperate with other towns and share in the 

nishing services they cannot afford by themselves. Rural comm

work together in a variety of ways, and mutual aid is one way. S

approach is commonly used for fire and police protection.

■ Another approach is for one community to sell a particular serv

another. About 23 percent of isolated rural governments contrac

governments for solid waste disposal, about 19 percent for the o

of libraries, and 18 percent for tax assessing.

■ Still another method of cooperation is joint action, especially fo

jects such as building and operating hospitals or airports. Variou

of dividing costs and creating joint committees or governing bo

worked out for such projects.

Although most rural community residents do not enjoy the same lev

services available to urban area residents, much progress has been made 

some rural services over the last 30 years. Rising incomes and increased 

0

10

20

30

40

50

Nonmetro Metro

Women Children Black Hispa

living

alone

Men

living

alone

Femaleheaded

families

Marriedcouple

families

Total

Percent poor

oeo esdece ceased poey soagoups

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Current Population Survey
62

e aageet capacty ouagoveets to paad cay out te

grams has improved. For example, in the 1960’s and 1970’s a nationwide sys

multicounty substate regional agencies was developed to help rural communi

for and manage their new population growth.

Still, the institutional base of rural governments is more fragile than that 

areas, and these isolated governments remain more vulnerable to external cha

than do metropolitan governments.

■ Federal Funding for Rural Area Development

I

n 1994, Federal funds reaching nonmetro counties averaged $4,469 per per

while funding to metro counties averaged $5,261 per person.

Federal funding includes grants, loans, and other payments to support ag

ture, forest management, housing, transportation, education, health, public as

Social Security, veterans’ benefits, defense, energy, and so on. Figures on the 

nonmetro distribution of funds are based on the share of Federal funds that ca

reliably traced to county levels. Interest on the national debt has been exclude

analytic purposes.

Nonmetro counties received a much larger share of their funds from inco

security programs, especially retirement and disability programs. About 40 p

of nonmetro funds were for such programs, compared with 30 percent of the 

funds. However, significant regional differences exist. The nonmetro Midwes

received the least amount of Federal funds, $4,304 per person, while the nonm

Northeast and South received only slightly higher amounts per person. The no

West received the highest amount of Federal funds, $4,833 per person. The no

West received the highest amounts of per capita loans, salary and wages, and 

curement contracts from the Federal Government. However, the nonmetro W

received only about 35 percent of its Federal funds per person for income sec

programs, compared to about 40 percent for the nonmetro Northeast, 41 perc

nonmetro Midwest, and 42 percent for the nonmetro South.
Object class of funds All counties counties 

Dollars

All Federal funds, including loans 5,100 5,261 

Salaries and wages 643 712 

Procurement contracts 669 771 

Direct Payments to individuals 2,530 2,494 

For retirement and disability 1,643 1,601 

Other than retirement 887 893 

Other direct payments 44 16 

Grants 645 641 

Loans 568 627 

Direct loans 59 43 

Guaranteed loans 509 584 

All expenditures, excluding loans 4,532 4,634 

Note: Details may not add due to rounding.

Source: Prepared by the ERS/RED staff using data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Table 4-9. 

Distribution of Federal funds per capita in the nonmetro reg

FY 1994

Northeast Midwest South 

Object class of funds Region Region Region 

Dollars

All Federal funds, 

including loans 4,453 4,304 4,463 

Salaries and wages 457 309 324 

Procurement contracts 308 164 235 

Direct Payments 

to individuals 2,712 2,669 2,760 

For retirement disability 1,801 1,769 1,878 

Other than retirement 911 900 882 

Other direct payments 13 269 111 

Grants 663 541 736 

Loans 229 353 297 

Direct loans 62 157 122 

Guaranteed loans 167 196 175 

All expenditures, 

excluding loans 4,224 3,954 4,166 

Note: Details may not add due to rounding.

Source: Prepared by the RED/ERS staff using data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census.
52

metro population growth during the decade.

Since 1990, there is evidence once again of increased retention of people 

areas. From 1990 to 1996, the population of nonmetro counties grew at an an

pace more than double that of the 1980's, with far fewer counties declining. T

change has affected all types of counties and most regions of the country. Imp

ment in rural economic conditions is thought to be generally responsible for t

change. But, recreation and retirement counties continue to be the most rapid

developing group. Declining population is still characteristic of areas that are 

dent on farming, three-fourths of which have continued to have more people 

out than in.

■ Age and Race 

Age distributions reflect past demographic events (births, deaths, and migand 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 boo
52

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 boo
graduated from high school and began their entry into the labor force in 

the oldest members reach 65 in 2011, the United States has had and will 

have a favorable balance of people in income-producing age groups. All 

country benefit from the current age structure.

A metro area, by definition, must have an urban nucleus of at least 50

people, and may include fringe counties that are linked to that nucleus bec

workers commute to the central area. All other counties are nonmetro. Bec

migration, which consists primarily of young adults and their children, me

captured a much higher percentage of the “baby boomers.” The higher me

age of working-age adults has been a persistent pattern for most of this cen

nonmetro differences among the youngest and oldest have become increas

In a reversal of previous trends, the birth rates in metro areas in the last 5 

been greater than in nonmetro areas. In large measure, this reversal is du

delayed childbearing among women in the large metro baby boom segm

rates for nonmetro women are higher at younger ages, particularly for wo

their twenties, an age group not well represented in nonmetro areas.

Increases in life expectancy over the past 50 years and the aging of t

ulation segment born in the 1920's increased the proportion of elderly be

and 1990. The percentage of the population over age 75 rose dramaticall

in nonmetro areas. Retirement migration to nonmetro areas, coupled with 

high levels of nonmetro outmigration of young adults and their children, 

higher proportion of older people in nonmetro areas; the percentage of no

population age 60 or older was 18 percent in 1996, compared with 15 pe

metro areas. For the first time since 1960, metro children under 10 outnu

preteens and teenagers. This is not true for nonmetro areas.

for 75 and older category

0

5

10

15

20

Total U.S.

Nonmetro

Metro

0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-74 
54

■ Nonmetropolitan Industry and Job Growth 

Goods-Producing Industries

Manufacturing, natural resource-based industries such as farming and m

and other goods-producing industries have historically been the mainstay of t

economy. Growth in the number of rural goods producing jobs was stronger d

the 1970's than during the 1980's or early 1990's. Much of the growth during 

1970's was attributable to national manufacturing firms that opened branch pl

in rural areas and also to booming construction activities. While goods-produ

industries normally spring back during economic recovery, in more recent ye

periods of recession and recovery, job growth in these industries has been slu

nonmetro areas during the 1980's, jobs in farming declined by 386,000 (1.8 p

annually) and jobs in mining declined by 119,000 (2.4 percent annually), whi

ufacturing increased slightly by 15,000 jobs. Nonmetro areas also lost goods-

ing jobs during the 1990-91 recession, but have gained jobs in more recent ye

the early 1990's as a whole, the number of nonmetro goods-producing jobs in

Hispanics can be of any race.

2Native Americans include American Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts.

Source: 1980 and 1990 Censuses of Population.
54

gg 

and other goods-producing industries have historically been the mainstay of t

economy. Growth in the number of rural goods producing jobs was stronger d

the 1970's than during the 1980's or early 1990's. Much of the growth during 

1970's was attributable to national manufacturing firms that opened branch pl

in rural areas and also to booming construction activities. While goods-produ

industries normally spring back during economic recovery, in more recent ye

periods of recession and recovery, job growth in these industries has been slu

nonmetro areas during the 1980's, jobs in farming declined by 386,000 (1.8 p

annually) and jobs in mining declined by 119,000 (2.4 percent annually), whi

ufacturing increased slightly by 15,000 jobs. Nonmetro areas also lost goods-

ing jobs during the 1990-91 recession, but have gained jobs in more recent ye

the early 1990's as a whole, the number of nonmetro goods-producing jobs in
Service-Producing Industries

Nonmetro service-producing industries grew steadily during 1969-9

almost 6.2 million new jobs in the period. Local consumer activities, bus

services, recreational services, and retailing accounted for most of the jo

rural areas. Similar to the goods producing industries, the number of rura

producing jobs grew faster during the 1970's (3 percent annually) than du

1980's (2 percent annually). But during the early 1990's nonmetro servic

jobs nearly regained their rapid growth rate of the 1970's, adding about 1

jobs during 1989-94 (2.8 percent). 

Total Employment

Nonmetro areas gained jobs at a rate comparable to that of metro area

1970's, but fell far behind metro growth during the 1980's. Nonmetro area

more in the two recessions of the early 1980's and benefited less from the 

recovery than did metro areas. As a result, employment growth was consid

slower in nonmetro (0.9 percent annually) than in metro areas (2.1 percen

during 1979 89. More encouraging is the most recent performance of rura

contrast to the 1980's trend, rural areas weathered the 1990-91 recession b

urban areas. In nonmetro areas, total jobs grew at a 1.8 percent annual rate 

1989-94; in metro areas, jobs grew at only a 1.0 percent annual rate. Most 

metro growth was in services producing industries, 1.7 million out of 2.2 m

new jobs. Goods producing industries contributed 230,000 new nonmetro 

nearly 1.2 million goods-producing jobs were lost by metro areas.

Table 4-2.

Nonmetro and metro job growth in selected industries, 196

Industry 1969 1979 1989 1994 

Thousands 

Nonmetro total 17,738 21,713 23,849 26,054 

Goods-producing 7,467 8,553 8,227 8,457 

Manufacturing 3,599 4,229 4,244 4,411 

Services-producing 7,107 9,521 11,605 13,299 

Services 2,673 3,567 4,812 5,775 

Government 3,163 3,639 4,018 4,299 

Metro total 73,140 91,250 112,565 118,337 

Goods-producing 22,698 24,610 24,614 23,462 

Manufacturing 16,944 17,264 15,786 14,614 

Services-producing 37,523 51,743 71,211 77,548 

Services 13,757 20,153 31,452 36,464 

Government 12,919 14,897 16,740 17,326 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis
56

I

n 1996, 25.3 million people 16 years old and older were in the nonmetropo

work force, either at work or looking for work. On average, 5.6 percent or 

lion of these workers were unemployed during the year. Unemployment rates 

ticularly high among nonmetro minorities and teenagers. In 1996, 15.2 percen

teenagers, 12.9 percent of Blacks, and 8.4 percent of Hispanics in nonmetro a

were unemployed. The official unemployment rate excludes those jobless peo

actively seeking work, but who indicate they want or are available for work (

ally attached workers), and part-time workers who want full-time jobs. The n

adjusted unemployment rate, which includes marginally attached workers and 

untary part-time workers, was 9.1 percent.

Nonmetro unemployment fell from 7.2 percent in 1992 to 5.6 percent in 

rural areas participated in the continuing national economic expansion. Durin

1980's, unemployment rates were consistently higher in nonmetro areas than 

metro. Although the nonmetro rate dipped below the metro rate for a few yea

the 1990-91 recession, metro and nonmetro unemployment rates were similar 

(5.4 and 5.6 percent, respectively). The nonmetro adjusted unemployment rat

remained higher than the metro rate throughout the 1990's. In 1996, the nonm

unadjusted rate was 9.1 percent, slightly above the 8.8 percent metro rate.
56

ticularly high among nonmetro minorities and teenagers. In 1996, 15.2 percen

teenagers, 12.9 percent of Blacks, and 8.4 percent of Hispanics in nonmetro a

were unemployed. The official unemployment rate excludes those jobless peo

actively seeking work, but who indicate they want or are available for work (

ally attached workers), and part-time workers who want full-time jobs. The n

adjusted unemployment rate, which includes marginally attached workers and 

untary part-time workers, was 9.1 percent.

Nonmetro unemployment fell from 7.2 percent in 1992 to 5.6 percent in 

rural areas participated in the continuing national economic expansion. Durin

1980's, unemployment rates were consistently higher in nonmetro areas than 

metro. Although the nonmetro rate dipped below the metro rate for a few yea

the 1990-91 recession, metro and nonmetro unemployment rates were similar 

(5.4 and 5.6 percent, respectively). The nonmetro adjusted unemployment rat

remained higher than the metro rate throughout the 1990's. In 1996, the nonm

unadjusted rate was 9.1 percent, slightly above the 8.8 percent metro rate.
e.5 pecet betwee979 ad 990, o$7to $3 (996 doa

metro weekly earnings fell a smaller 1.3 percent between 1979 and 1993

the metro/nonmetro average weekly earnings gap grew by 74.3 percent, 

from $70 to $122 (1996 dollars). From 1990 to 1996, however, nonmetro 

earnings increased 4.8 percent, to $432 (1996 dollars), while metro earni

ued to fall. About half the widening of the metro/nonmetro earnings gap 

in the 1980's closed after 1990.

Table 4-4. 

Average weekly earnings for metro and nonmetro wage and 

workers, 1979-96

Year U.S. Metro Nonmetro Rura

1996 dollars

1979 521 542 472 

1990 510 535 413 

1996 510 527 432 

Percent

1979-90 change -2.1 -1.3 -12.5 

1990-96 change 0.0 -1.4 4.8 

Source: Current Population Survey, Bureau of the Census

Table 4-5.

Unemployment rates among various metro and nonmetro g

1996

Nonmetro Metro Unit

Thousands

Civilian labor force 25,318 108,540 

Total employment 23,904 102,656 

Unemployed 1,414 5,883 

Unemployment rate: Percent

All civilian workers 5.6 5.4 

Men 5.4 5.4 

Women 5.8 5.4 

Teenagers 15.2 17.3 

White 4.7 4.1 

Black 12.9 10.3 

Hispanic 8.4 9.0 

Adjusted unemployment rate1 9.1 8.8 

1

Unemployment rate adjusted to include marginally attached workers and workers employed p

nomic reasons.

Source: Current Population Survey, Bureau of the Census.
58

0

4

8

12

16

Metro

Nonmetro

Metro, adjusted1

Nonmetro, adjusted1

1980 85 90 

Percent

 1Separate metro and nonmetro estimates are not available for 1994 and 1995.

substantial economic disadvantage.

Nonmetro- Real chang

metro

Race-ethnicity gap* Nonmetro No

Nonmetro Metro 1993-94 1

———Dollars——— ———————Percent———

Total 26,280 34,518 23.9 1.6 

White non-Hispanic 27,746 38,286 27.5 2.4 

Black 15,780 22,220 29.0 NA 

Hispanic 18,759 23,917 21.6 NA 

Note: Nonmetro-metro difference is statistically significant in each race ethnic category. Change in n

income is statistically significant only for white non-Hispanics from 1990-94. Sample sizes are too sm

ably estimate change over time for Blacks and Hispanics.

*Percent by which nonmetro income is lower than metro.

Figure 4-2.

Unemployment rates by residence, 1979-96

Household income

 1994 
es. e oowg ae uacaactestcs tat aect ways wc

governments provide services:

■ Isolation, the geographic separation of rural areas from metrop

ters, leads to low utilization rates for rural public services, inade

response times for emergency services, and the detachment of s

ery professionals from their colleagues.
does that among rural Blacks, yet the 1994 poverty rate for rural blacks (

was comparable to that for central-city Blacks (33.6 percent). And nearly 

rural Black children (48.2 percent) lived in families with below-poverty-le

■ Rural Public Services

Rural local governments face special problems in providing services fzens. The following are rural characteristics that affect ways in whic

governments provide services:

■ Isolation, the geographic separation of rural areas from metrop

ters, leads to low utilization rates for rural public services, inade

response times for emergency services, and the detachment of s

ery professionals from their colleagues.
governments provide services:

■ Isolation, the geographic separation of rural areas from metrop

ters, leads to low utilization rates for rural public services, inade

response times for emergency services, and the detachment of s

ery professionals from their colleagues.
60

because te aea caot suppot te sevces oso ew cets.

■ Lack of fiscal resources puts many rural communities in a financial s

with resulting service deprivation for local residents.

■ The lack of an adequate supply of trained personnel has several i

tions for service delivery in rural communities. Critical functions ma

understaffed, scarce employees are often overworked, service qualit

quantity suffer, and long-range planning becomes difficult.

Isolated rural communities often suffer from medical services and facilit

are of lower quality than those found in metro areas. Even if medical care ser

were evenly distributed across the Nation, and were of equal quality, it is like

nonmetro residents with chronically low incomes would still have serious dif

receiving adequate care in a complex medical system where access is based m

on the ability to pay.

Because many rural communities are small and isolated, and lack financi

resources and trained personnel, similar problems are encountered in the prov

0

10

20

30

40

Nonmetro

Metro

1959 69 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 

Percent poor

* Poverty rates for 1985 to 1994 are based on the 1983 metropolitan area delineatio

Source: Prepared by ERS using data from U.S. Bureau of the Census P-60 series 

and Current Population Survey data March 1995.

Figure 4-3.

Poverty rate by residence, 1959-1994
other rural public services. Various approaches have been taken to deal w

problems:

■ Some communities contract with private-sector firms to provide 

For example, 36 percent of rural localities contract out legal ser

for-profit firms rather than perform such services themselves.

■ Some communities that want to attract new residents and busine

find it beneficial to cooperate with other towns and share in the 

nishing services they cannot afford by themselves. Rural comm

work together in a variety of ways, and mutual aid is one way. S

approach is commonly used for fire and police protection.

■ Another approach is for one community to sell a particular serv

another. About 23 percent of isolated rural governments contrac

governments for solid waste disposal, about 19 percent for the o

of libraries, and 18 percent for tax assessing.

■ Still another method of cooperation is joint action, especially fo

jects such as building and operating hospitals or airports. Variou

of dividing costs and creating joint committees or governing bo

worked out for such projects.

Although most rural community residents do not enjoy the same lev

services available to urban area residents, much progress has been made 

some rural services over the last 30 years. Rising incomes and increased 

0

10

20

30

40

50

Nonmetro Metro

Women Children Black Hispa

living

alone

Men

living

alone

Femaleheaded

families

Marriedcouple

families

Total

Percent poor

oeo esdece ceased poey soagoups

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Current Population Survey
62
62

ture, forest management, housing, transportation, education, health, public as

Social Security, veterans’ benefits, defense, energy, and so on. Figures on the 

nonmetro distribution of funds are based on the share of Federal funds that ca

reliably traced to county levels. Interest on the national debt has been exclude

analytic purposes.

Nonmetro counties received a much larger share of their funds from inco

security programs, especially retirement and disability programs. About 40 p

of nonmetro funds were for such programs, compared with 30 percent of the 

funds. However, significant regional differences exist. The nonmetro Midwes

received the least amount of Federal funds, $4,304 per person, while the nonm

Northeast and South received only slightly higher amounts per person. The no

West received the highest amount of Federal funds, $4,833 per person. The no

West received the highest amounts of per capita loans, salary and wages, and 

curement contracts from the Federal Government. However, the nonmetro W

received only about 35 percent of its Federal funds per person for income sec

programs, compared to about 40 percent for the nonmetro Northeast, 41 perc

nonmetro Midwest, and 42 percent for the nonmetro South.
Object class of funds All counties counties 

Dollars

All Federal funds, including loans 5,100 5,261 

Salaries and wages 643 712 

Procurement contracts 669 771 

Direct Payments to individuals 2,530 2,494 

For retirement and disability 1,643 1,601 

Other than retirement 887 893 

Other direct payments 44 16 

Grants 645 641 

Loans 568 627 

Direct loans 59 43 

Guaranteed loans 509 584 

All expenditures, excluding loans 4,532 4,634 

Note: Details may not add due to rounding.

Source: Prepared by the ERS/RED staff using data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Table 4-9. 

Distribution of Federal funds per capita in the nonmetro reg

FY 1994

Northeast Midwest South 

Object class of funds Region Region Region 

Dollars

All Federal funds, 

including loans 4,453 4,304 4,463 

Salaries and wages 457 309 324 

Procurement contracts 308 164 235 

Direct Payments 

to individuals 2,712 2,669 2,760 

For retirement disability 1,801 1,769 1,878 

Other than retirement 911 900 882 

Other direct payments 13 269 111 

Grants 663 541 736 

Loans 229 353 297 

Direct loans 62 157 122 

Guaranteed loans 167 196 175 

All expenditures, 

excluding loans 4,224 3,954 4,166 

Note: Details may not add due to rounding.

Source: Prepared by the RED/ERS staff using data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census.
g

USDA is the third-largest civilian Department of the U. S. Government, oing a variety of agencies, Government corporations, and other entities th

employ more than 100,000 people at over 15,000 locations in all 50 States an

countries.

The Department has undergone a historic reorganization to improve coor

among its broad range of programs and agencies. This reorganization, which 

headquarters and field structures, was authorized by the Federal Crop Insuran

Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (P.L. 103

signed into law in October 1994. 

The reorganization focused the Department’s work under the following s

mission areas, which are described in chapters 6-12 of this Agriculture Fact B

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 programs serve the entire Department of Agriculture, including all 

areas. Among these are the Assistant Secretary for Administration (Departme

Administration), Office of the Chief Economist, Office of Inspector General, 

of the Chief Financial Officer, and Office of the Chief Information Officer, al

which report directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. The Director of Native

American Programs also works with all mission areas in the role of liaison w

Indian tribes and their members. 

■ Office of the Chief Economist

The Office of the Chief Economist advises the Secretary of Agriculture on and programs affecting U.S. agriculture and rural areas. This advice incl

assessments of USDA program proposals, legislative proposals, and economi

opments of importance to agriculture and rural areas. In addition, the Office o

Chief Economist is responsible for four programs, described below, that coor

activities across USDA agencies.

The WorldWide Web address for the Office of the Chief Economist is:

http://www.usda.gov/oce/

64
pojectos ogobacoodty aets. acotte oad bgs 

interagency committees of experts to forecast the supply, use, and prices 

commodities in the United States and abroad. The committees also clear 

forecasts published by other USDA agencies. This teamwork assures tha

forecasts are objective and consistent.

Because the weather is vital to crop forecasts, specialists from the B

side-by-side with weather forecasters from the National Oceanic and Atm

Administration to monitor the weather and assess its effect on crops. The

vides timely information on potential changes in global production. In re

the Board also coordinates department-wide activity on long-term econo

tions, remote sensing, and climate.

The WorldWide Web address for the World Agricultural Outlook Bo

http://www.usda.gov/oce/waob/waob.htm

Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis

This office is responsible for coordinating, reviewing, and approving 

assessments and cost-benefit analyses of mitigation measures associated 

regulations of the Department. Major regulations are economically signi

an impact of at least $100 million each year) and have a primary effect o

health, human safety, or the environment. The office provides direction t

agencies on appropriate methods for these analyses and serves as a focal 

matters relating to risk assessment in interagency reviews.

The WorldWide Web address for the Office of Risk Assessment and 

Analysis is : http://www.usda.gov/oce/oracba/oracba.htm

Agricultural Labor Affairs

The coordinator of agricultural labor affairs is a focal point for agric

policy in USDA. Areas of concern include immigration, the H-2A tempo

tural worker program, worker protection standards for pesticide use, farm 

ply, and agricultural employment issues.

The World Wide Web address for this office is: 

http://www.usda.gov/oce/oce/labor-affairs/affairs.htm

Sustainable Development

The director of sustainable development coordinates USDA policies 

grams in sustainable development, including sustainable agriculture, fore

rural communities. The director chairs a sustainable development counci

USDA and serves as a liaison for Federal sustainable development activi

The World Wide Web address for this office is:

http://www.usda.gov/oce/oce/sustainable-development/sustain.htm
66

General


Counsel

Chief Financial


Officer

Chief Information


Officer

Under Secr

Rural Deve

Assistan

for Mark

Regulato

Assistant Secretary 


for Congressional 


Relations

Under Secretary for


Farm and Foreign 


Agricultural Services

Se

Depu

Under Secretary for


Natural Resources and


Environment
Inspector


General

Executive


Operations

Director of


Communications

retary for


elopment

Under Secretary for


Food, Nutrition, and 


Consumer Services

nt Secretary 


keting and 


ory Programs

Assistant Secretary 


for Administration

No

Under Secre

Research, E

and Econom

Under Secretary for


Food Safety

cretary 


uty Secretary

A
68

US

s Oce ospectoGeea(OG), te st cvaOG te e

Government, was established in 1962 and became fully operational in 1

was created after a well-knit agricultural fraud scheme showed that better coo

tion between audit and investigative organizations was needed, and it has evo

into its current structure through successive changes in legislation and leader

OIG conducts and supervises audits and investigations relating to USDA

grams and operations. It provides leadership and coordination and recommen

cies for activities that will prevent and detect fraud and abuse and promote ec

efficiency, and effectiveness in USDA programs and operations. Furthermore

keeps the Secretary and Congress fully informed of problems and deficiencie

ing to administration of USDA programs and operations, and the actions desi

correct such problems and deficiencies.

During the period April 1, 1996, through March 31, 1997, audit and inve

efforts resulted in approximately $101.5 million in recoveries, collections, fin

restitutions, claims established, administrative penalties, and costs avoided. M

ment agreed to put an additional $278.2 million to better use. OIG also identi

$935 million in questioned costs that cannot be recovered. Investigative effor

resulted in 846 indictments and 753 convictions.

■ Office of Chief Financial Officer

The Chief Financial Officer has responsibility for oversight of all financial agement activities relating to USDA programs and operations. The Offic

Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) directs, manages, provides policy guidance, 

coordinates financial management activities and operations. It ensures comp

throughout the Department with applicable accounting standards and principl

and ensures adequate controls over asset management, including cash manag

operations, real property, equipment, and inventories.

OCFO is responsible for developing and maintaining an integrated depar

accounting and financial management system which provides complete, relia

sistent, and timely financial information that is responsive to the needs of pro

managers. OCFO is also responsible for ensuring auditable financial statemen

OCFO operates the largest automated administrative servicing operation 

Federal Government—the National Finance Center (NFC) in New Orleans, L

NFC processes salary and benefit payments for more than 450,000 Federal em

ees, performs administrative services for more than 100 Federal departments 

agencies, and acts as recordkeeper for the Federal Government’s Thrift Savin

Plan (TSP). The TSP currently services a $46 billion account for 2.3 million F

employees and retiree members.
E

ectve ugust 996, te oatoecoogy aageet e

(ITMRA) of 1996, subsequently renamed the Clinger-Cohen Act, re

each executive agency designate a Chief Information Officer (CIO) who 

directly to the head of the Agency and who has information resources ma

duties as the official’s primary duty.

In compliance with Clinger-Cohen requirements, the Secretary of A

designated a CIO and established the supporting organizational structure

of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) at USDA. The OCIO is indepen

other Agency. The CIO has primary responsibility for supervising and co

the design, acquisition, maintenance, use, and disposal of information tec

USDA agencies, and for monitoring the performance of USDA’s informa

grams and activities.

The OCIO is composed of an information resources management (IR

staff and an operations staff known as the National Information Technolo

(NITC). NITC provides information management and telecommunicatio

technology, and expertise to support the mission and programs of USDA

cies, and a growing list of external customers. NITC systems supporting 

USDA programs include the Dedicated Loan Origination Servicing Syst

Data Bank for Food Stamps, Weather Information Management System, 

Sales, and the Residue Violation Information System. NITC’s centralized 

and client server computing facilities serve over 40,000 end users in mor

locations nationwide. 

■ Departmental Administration

Civil Rights

The Office of Civil Rights provides overall leadership, oversight, dir

coordination for USDA civil rights and equal employment opportunity p

goal of this office is to ensure equal opportunity for women, minorities, a

with disabilities in the work force, and to ensure equal opportunity in the 

USDA programs and services to all customers without regard to race, sex

origin, disability, and other protected bases dependent upon certain progr

activities.

This office is responsible for ensuring program delivery compliance 

tion of USDAAgency programs and activities for civil rights concerns. T

has full responsibility for investigation, adjudication, and resolution of c

discrimination arising out of USDA employment activities or in the cont

ducted or assisted programs, including complaints made by USDA emplo

cants for employment, and USDA program participants and customers. 

The Office of Civil Rights proactively promotes civil rights at USDA

guidance and oversight to USDA agencies, and conducts compliance rev

audits to ensure enforcement of all applicable civil rights laws, rules, and 
povdes eadesp, cosutato, pocy, aayss, ad coodatotougo

Department in the areas of human resource management, as well as safety an

management.

Table 5-1.

USDA staff year history

*Full-time equivalent (FTE). For example, two half-time employees would count as one FTE.

**Projections from USDA Streamlining Plan, February 1995.

70

■ In 1996, USDA had nearly 1,100 employees with targeted disabil

in permanent full-time positions.

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

Nu

Year USDA emp

1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1997**. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Number of

State employees*

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,204

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,002

Arkansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,942

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,691

California. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,615

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,587

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

District of Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,001

Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,579

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,588

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416

Idaho. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,720

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,601

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 750 

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,805

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,167

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,159

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,921

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,034

Massachusetts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,242

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,650

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,974

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,708

State 

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

Territory employees*

American Samoa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Commonwealth of 

Northern Mariana Islands . . . . . . . . . . .7

Federated States of Micronesia . . . . . .2

Territory 

Guam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Marshall Island . . . . . . . . . . 

U.S. Virgin Islands . . . . . . 
72

Modernization of Administrative Processes (MAP) 

The Modernization of Administrative Processes (MAP) program is USD

tiative to improve and streamline the processes and systems involved in the a

trative functions of the Department. These functions include procurement, hu

resources management/civil rights, information resources management (IRM

erty, and administrative leadership and management. MAP helps USDA fulfil

highest priorities in administrative improvements, carrying out its work throu

ness modernization initiatives. Through these efforts, MAP plans to achieve a

$250 million in cost savings/redistribution by 1999.

MAP has six major ongoing initiatives. In the area of procurement, these 

purchase card and convenience checking as well as procurement systems mo

tion. In human resources management/civil rights, one initiative is on time an

ubeo

Country employees*

Argentina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Bermuda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Bahamas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Bulgaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Costa Rica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Dominican Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Federated States of Micronesia . . . . .10

France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Guatemala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Hong Kong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Honduras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Ivory Coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

u

Country emp

Korea, Republic of . . . . . . . . . . . 

Morocco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Nicaragua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Panama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Trust Territories of the Pacific . . 

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Saudi Arabia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

United Arab Emirates . . . . . . . . . 

Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Tunisia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Venezuela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

*Permanent, full-time employees in 1996
dance and the other is on human resources management analysis. One IR

is on redesigning telecommunications services, and another is on analysi

business processes.

Hazardous Waste Management Group 

The Hazardous Waste Management Group, in Departmental Admini

manages the USDA Hazardous Waste Central Account, conducts environ

agement and compliance oversight reviews at USDA facilities, represent

the National Response Team, and provides advice and guidance on hazar

and pollution prevention issues.

■ American Indian and Alaska Native Progra

The Director of Native American Programs, located in the Office of Cand Intergovernmental Relations, is USDA’s primary contact with tr

ments and their members. The director serves as the principal adviser an

ative on all matters related to USDA policy and programs which benefit 

American Indians and Alaska Natives. The director also chairs USDA’s N

American Working Group, which reports to the Secretary and provides a

an f

American native males 1.6%

a f

Asian American males 1.4% 

Hispanic females 2.1%

Hispanic males 3.3%

Black females 6.2%

b m

White females

White m

31.7%

Asian American females 0.9% 

American native females 1.0%

Black males 3.7%
74

USpovdes a wde age osevces to ecadaad asa 

communities. In recent years, the Department has reached out to advise Amer

Indians and Alaska Natives about USDAservices available to them, to delive

grams more effectively to Indian tribes, and to initiate new programs in respo

to the needs of tribes. Following are highlights of recent agency activities an

programs in USDA mission areas which serve Indian tribes and their member

Natural Resources and Environment

Several USDA agencies—including the Natural Resources Conservation 

(NRCS) as the lead agency, the Farm Service Agency (FSA), the Foreign Agr

Service (FAS), and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)—

implementing an extensive 2-year joint outreach effort with the Intertribal Agr

Council (IAC) to heighten awareness of USDA services available to America

and Alaska Native communities. With 65 member tribes, the IAC is a nonpro

poration devoted to improving agriculture as a source of economic developm

Indian people. NRCS has designated a full-time American Indian Liaison in o

to work more closely with the IAC. NRCS has worked with the IAC to help 

establish 33 full-time and 73 part time NRCS offices at tribal headquarters an

American Indian Conservation Districts under tribal law, with an additional 2 D

in the development phase. NRCS has conducted 20 “Working Effectively wit

American Indians” workshops which focus on historical, legal, and cultural i

that are significant for effective program delivery to Native Americans.

The Forest Service has an American Indian and Alaska Native policy ref

to as Forest Service American Indian/Alaska Native Policy—Friends and Par

The Forest Service has also published a national tribal resource book entitled 

Service National Resource Book on American Indian and Alaska Native Rela

to promote cooperative relations with Indian tribes and Alaska Natives. The F

Service works with Indian tribes to coordinate the management of National F

lands and resources with adjacent Indian tribes; to honor Indian water rights a

reserved rights to hunt, fish, gather, and graze on present-day National Forests 

consultation and agreement with affected Indian tribes; to engage in ongoing c

ation with tribes to accommodate traditional, cultural sites on public lands; an

provide research, technology transfer, and technical assistance to tribes.

Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services

Much of the 54 million acres of Indian land is cropland and grazing land 

the U.S. Government holds in trust for Indian people. USDA is working more 

sively to help tribes and individual Indian farmers realize the agricultural pot

of their landholdings. In order to increase farm services to tribes, FSA is cond

formal outreach campaign with other USDA agencies and the IAC to host me

and presentations at reservation sites. The communication campaign helps tri

and Indian farmers become more familiar with the current array of farm crop

vation, financial credit, and crop insurance programs, as well as the farm prog
Saso povdes sevces at suboces estabsed oesevatos

cooperating with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to increase tribal pa

in USDA farm programs. In 1996,USDA and the BIA worked together to 

Indian lands had the full opportunity to be enrolled in production flexibilit

authorized by the 1996 Act. The two agencies are continuing to help trib

conservation practices on reservation land and resolve the credit problem

dual Indian farmers. FSA also administers the Indian Tribal Land Acqui

Program, which provides long term loans to Indian Tribes to acquire land 

their reservations.

Rural Development

USDA’s Rural Development programs are administered through thre

development services: the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), th

Housing Service (RHS), and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS). The eligi

requirements vary according to each program. 

Increased emphasis has been placed on economic and rural developm

ties and programs on reservations. RBS, RHS, and RUS have increased t

ments in tribal water and waste, community facilities, and business proje

Development has established Native American Program Coordinators in 

States with significant American Indian populations. 

RHS is striving to expand its role in financing needed housing on tri

conjunction with the President’s Home Ownership Initiative, RHS identi

to delivery of the Section 502 Direct Single Family Housing Loan Progr

vation trust lands and developed recommendations to resolve these barri

increase home ownership of tribal members living on trust lands. The RH

American pilot loan program was designed to meet the home ownership 

Native Americans residing on trust lands. Under the pilot, 25 tribes will w

nership with USDA and Fannie Mae to assist tribal members to obtain gu

Section 502 housing loans for homes on these reservations. 

RHS developed a handbook for Rural Development staff regarding le

tribal lands in order to better serve tribal customers.

Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services

The Food and Consumer Service (FCS) administers the Food Distrib

Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), which is offered in lieu of foo

FY 1996, an estimated 120,000 American Indian and Alaska Native parti

received FDPIR food packages, and FCS distributed food valued at an es

$51.3 million to Native American households through FDPIR. About 125

Native American households receive food stamps each month. FCS is un

FDPIR food package review, in full partnership with Indian cooperators. 

established a pilot project under which fresh produce is made available to 

ticipating in FDPIR. The FCS Supplemental Nutrition Program for Wom

and Children (WIC) developed a new packet of materials to increase awa

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) among American Indians and Alaska Nat
76

adstes te tesodaesevatooga, wcpovdes ete

agents to selected Indian tribes. The extension agents conduct education prog

reservations in response to tribally identified needs. CSREES also has an end

fund for the 29 Tribal Colleges designated as 1994 land-grant institutions und

103-382. Interest earned is distributed to these institutions to facilitate teachin

grams in the food and agricultural sciences. The Tribal Colleges Education E

Grants Program provides a $50,000 award to each of the 29 designated 1994 l

grant institutions to strengthen instruction programs in the food and agricultural 

The Extension Services at the 1994 Institutions program provide compet

grants to address a wide range of agricultural issues, including crop and anim

production, farm business management, marketing techniques, decisionmakin

skills, and environmental considerations. This program can also be used to en

community resource and economic development; family development and re

management; 4-H and youth development; leadership and volunteer developm

natural resources and environment; and nutrition, diet, and health.

Since 1991 the Children, Youth, and Families at Risk Initiative, supporte

CSREES, has provided funding and technical support to Native American an

underserved populations for a broad spectrum of prevention-oriented educati

grams to strengthen individuals and families with children, prenatal to late te

goal of this national initiative is to empower the whole family to enable those 

to develop necessary life skills and become strong, productive adults.

Marketing and Regulatory Programs

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has ongoing p

with Indian tribes that generally focus on agricultural, natural resource, facili

human health and safety protection. Examples include the vaccination of dog

livestock on reservations by Veterinary Services, control of noxious weeds an

grasshoppers on several reservations, and protection of sheep and cattle from 

sive loss to predators. As mentioned above, APHIS has joined other USDA ag

to fund an outreach program with the Intertribal Agriculture Council to tribes

has chartered a Native American Working Group within the Agency and has a 

Wide Web page on this topic. The address is http://www.aphis.usda.gov/anawg

amerind.html

Food Safety

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), in coordination with the I

tribal Basin Council and USDA’s Rural Business-Cooperative Service, provide

expertise, approval, and funding for mobile livestock slaughtering units to be u

reservations. In addition, the Emergency Programs Office offers expertise in pl

and training for Tribal and State Radiological Emergency Preparedness progra
Office of the Chief Economist

Public Information Officer

Raymond L. Bridge

Rm 5143-S Washington, DC 20250-3812

202-720-5447

FAX 202-690-1850

rbridge@oce.usda.gov

Office of the Inspector Genera

Director, Info Mngt Div

Diane Smith

Rm 8-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-6915

FAX 202-720-8081
opets opotace to agcutue ad uaaeas. addto, te Oce o

Chief Economist is responsible for four programs, described below, that coor

activities across USDA agencies.

The WorldWide Web address for the Office of the Chief Economist is:

http://www.usda.gov/oce/

64
pojectos ogobacoodty aets. acotte oad bgs 

interagency committees of experts to forecast the supply, use, and prices 

commodities in the United States and abroad. The committees also clear 

forecasts published by other USDA agencies. This teamwork assures tha

forecasts are objective and consistent.

Because the weather is vital to crop forecasts, specialists from the B

side-by-side with weather forecasters from the National Oceanic and Atm

Administration to monitor the weather and assess its effect on crops. The

vides timely information on potential changes in global production. In re

the Board also coordinates department-wide activity on long-term econo

tions, remote sensing, and climate.

The WorldWide Web address for the World Agricultural Outlook Bo

http://www.usda.gov/oce/waob/waob.htm

Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis

This office is responsible for coordinating, reviewing, and approving 

assessments and cost-benefit analyses of mitigation measures associated 

regulations of the Department. Major regulations are economically signi

an impact of at least $100 million each year) and have a primary effect o

health, human safety, or the environment. The office provides direction t

agencies on appropriate methods for these analyses and serves as a focal 

matters relating to risk assessment in interagency reviews.

The WorldWide Web address for the Office of Risk Assessment and 

Analysis is : http://www.usda.gov/oce/oracba/oracba.htm

Agricultural Labor Affairs

The coordinator of agricultural labor affairs is a focal point for agric

policy in USDA. Areas of concern include immigration, the H-2A tempo

tural worker program, worker protection standards for pesticide use, farm 

ply, and agricultural employment issues.

The World Wide Web address for this office is: 

http://www.usda.gov/oce/oce/labor-affairs/affairs.htm

Sustainable Development

The director of sustainable development coordinates USDA policies 

grams in sustainable development, including sustainable agriculture, fore

rural communities. The director chairs a sustainable development counci

USDA and serves as a liaison for Federal sustainable development activi

The World Wide Web address for this office is:

http://www.usda.gov/oce/oce/sustainable-development/sustain.htm
66

General


Counsel

Chief Financial


Officer

Chief Information


Officer

Under Secr

Rural Deve

Assistan

for Mark

Regulato

Assistant Secretary 


for Congressional 


Relations

Under Secretary for


Farm and Foreign 


Agricultural Services

Se

Depu

Under Secretary for


Natural Resources and


Environment
Inspector


General

Executive


Operations

Director of


Communications

retary for


elopment

Under Secretary for


Food, Nutrition, and 


Consumer Services

nt Secretary 


keting and 


ory Programs

Assistant Secretary 


for Administration

No

Under Secre

Research, E

and Econom

Under Secretary for


Food Safety

cretary 


uty Secretary

A
68

accounting and financial management system which provides complete, relia

sistent, and timely financial information that is responsive to the needs of pro

managers. OCFO is also responsible for ensuring auditable financial statemen

OCFO operates the largest automated administrative servicing operation 

Federal Government—the National Finance Center (NFC) in New Orleans, L

NFC processes salary and benefit payments for more than 450,000 Federal em

ees, performs administrative services for more than 100 Federal departments 

agencies, and acts as recordkeeper for the Federal Government’s Thrift Savin

Plan (TSP). The TSP currently services a $46 billion account for 2.3 million F

employees and retiree members.
68

CeacaOce(OCO) dects, aages, povdes pocy gudace, 

coordinates financial management activities and operations. It ensures comp

throughout the Department with applicable accounting standards and principl

and ensures adequate controls over asset management, including cash manag

operations, real property, equipment, and inventories.

OCFO is responsible for developing and maintaining an integrated depar

accounting and financial management system which provides complete, relia

sistent, and timely financial information that is responsive to the needs of pro

managers. OCFO is also responsible for ensuring auditable financial statemen

OCFO operates the largest automated administrative servicing operation 

Federal Government—the National Finance Center (NFC) in New Orleans, L

NFC processes salary and benefit payments for more than 450,000 Federal em

ees, performs administrative services for more than 100 Federal departments 

agencies, and acts as recordkeeper for the Federal Government’s Thrift Savin

Plan (TSP). The TSP currently services a $46 billion account for 2.3 million F

employees and retiree members.
Civil Rights

The Office of Civil Rights provides overall leadership, oversight, dir

coordination for USDA civil rights and equal employment opportunity p

goal of this office is to ensure equal opportunity for women, minorities, a

with disabilities in the work force, and to ensure equal opportunity in the 

USDA programs and services to all customers without regard to race, sex

origin, disability, and other protected bases dependent upon certain progr

activities.

This office is responsible for ensuring program delivery compliance 

tion of USDAAgency programs and activities for civil rights concerns. T

has full responsibility for investigation, adjudication, and resolution of c

discrimination arising out of USDA employment activities or in the cont

ducted or assisted programs, including complaints made by USDA emplo

cants for employment, and USDA program participants and customers. 

The Office of Civil Rights proactively promotes civil rights at USDA

guidance and oversight to USDA agencies, and conducts compliance rev

audits to ensure enforcement of all applicable civil rights laws, rules, and 
goal of this office is to ensure equal opportunity for women, minorities, a

with disabilities in the work force, and to ensure equal opportunity in the 

USDA programs and services to all customers without regard to race, sex

origin, disability, and other protected bases dependent upon certain progr

activities.

This office is responsible for ensuring program delivery compliance 

tion of USDAAgency programs and activities for civil rights concerns. T

has full responsibility for investigation, adjudication, and resolution of c

discrimination arising out of USDA employment activities or in the cont

ducted or assisted programs, including complaints made by USDA emplo

cants for employment, and USDA program participants and customers. 

The Office of Civil Rights proactively promotes civil rights at USDA

guidance and oversight to USDA agencies, and conducts compliance rev

audits to ensure enforcement of all applicable civil rights laws, rules, and 
povdes eadesp, cosutato, pocy, aayss, ad coodatotougo

Department in the areas of human resource management, as well as safety an

management.

Table 5-1.

USDA staff year history

*Full-time equivalent (FTE). For example, two half-time employees would count as one FTE.

**Projections from USDA Streamlining Plan, February 1995.

70

■ In 1996, USDA had nearly 1,100 employees with targeted disabil

in permanent full-time positions.

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

Nu

Year USDA emp

1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1997**. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Number of

State employees*

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,204

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,002

Arkansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,942

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,691

California. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,615

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,587

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

District of Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,001

Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,579

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,588

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416

Idaho. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,720

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,601

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 750 

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,805

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,167

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,159

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,921

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,034

Massachusetts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,242

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,650

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,974

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,708

State 

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

Territory employees*

American Samoa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Commonwealth of 

Northern Mariana Islands . . . . . . . . . . .7

Federated States of Micronesia . . . . . .2

Territory 

Guam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Marshall Island . . . . . . . . . . 

U.S. Virgin Islands . . . . . . 
72

Modernization of Administrative Processes (MAP) 

The Modernization of Administrative Processes (MAP) program is USD

tiative to improve and streamline the processes and systems involved in the a

trative functions of the Department. These functions include procurement, hu

resources management/civil rights, information resources management (IRM

erty, and administrative leadership and management. MAP helps USDA fulfil

highest priorities in administrative improvements, carrying out its work throu

ness modernization initiatives. Through these efforts, MAP plans to achieve a

$250 million in cost savings/redistribution by 1999.

MAP has six major ongoing initiatives. In the area of procurement, these 

purchase card and convenience checking as well as procurement systems mo

tion. In human resources management/civil rights, one initiative is on time an

ubeo

Country employees*

Argentina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Bermuda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Bahamas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Bulgaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Costa Rica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Dominican Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Federated States of Micronesia . . . . .10

France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Guatemala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Hong Kong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Honduras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Ivory Coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

u

Country emp

Korea, Republic of . . . . . . . . . . . 

Morocco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Nicaragua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Panama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Trust Territories of the Pacific . . 

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Saudi Arabia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

United Arab Emirates . . . . . . . . . 

Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Tunisia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Venezuela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

*Permanent, full-time employees in 1996
dance and the other is on human resources management analysis. One IR

is on redesigning telecommunications services, and another is on analysi

business processes.

Hazardous Waste Management Group 

The Hazardous Waste Management Group, in Departmental Admini

manages the USDA Hazardous Waste Central Account, conducts environ

agement and compliance oversight reviews at USDA facilities, represent

the National Response Team, and provides advice and guidance on hazar

and pollution prevention issues.

■ American Indian and Alaska Native Progra

The Director of Native American Programs, located in the Office of Cand Intergovernmental Relations, is USDA’s primary contact with tr

ments and their members. The director serves as the principal adviser an

ative on all matters related to USDA policy and programs which benefit 

American Indians and Alaska Natives. The director also chairs USDA’s N

American Working Group, which reports to the Secretary and provides a

b m

White females

31.7%
ments and their members. The director serves as the principal adviser an

ative on all matters related to USDA policy and programs which benefit 

American Indians and Alaska Natives. The director also chairs USDA’s N

American Working Group, which reports to the Secretary and provides a
74

USpovdes a wde age osevces to ecadaad asa 

communities. In recent years, the Department has reached out to advise Amer

Indians and Alaska Natives about USDAservices available to them, to delive

grams more effectively to Indian tribes, and to initiate new programs in respo

to the needs of tribes. Following are highlights of recent agency activities an

programs in USDA mission areas which serve Indian tribes and their member

Natural Resources and Environment

Several USDA agencies—including the Natural Resources Conservation 

(NRCS) as the lead agency, the Farm Service Agency (FSA), the Foreign Agr

Service (FAS), and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)—

implementing an extensive 2-year joint outreach effort with the Intertribal Agr

Council (IAC) to heighten awareness of USDA services available to America

and Alaska Native communities. With 65 member tribes, the IAC is a nonpro

poration devoted to improving agriculture as a source of economic developm

Indian people. NRCS has designated a full-time American Indian Liaison in o

to work more closely with the IAC. NRCS has worked with the IAC to help 

establish 33 full-time and 73 part time NRCS offices at tribal headquarters an

American Indian Conservation Districts under tribal law, with an additional 2 D

in the development phase. NRCS has conducted 20 “Working Effectively wit

American Indians” workshops which focus on historical, legal, and cultural i

that are significant for effective program delivery to Native Americans.

The Forest Service has an American Indian and Alaska Native policy ref

to as Forest Service American Indian/Alaska Native Policy—Friends and Par

The Forest Service has also published a national tribal resource book entitled 

Service National Resource Book on American Indian and Alaska Native Rela

to promote cooperative relations with Indian tribes and Alaska Natives. The F

Service works with Indian tribes to coordinate the management of National F

lands and resources with adjacent Indian tribes; to honor Indian water rights a

reserved rights to hunt, fish, gather, and graze on present-day National Forests 

consultation and agreement with affected Indian tribes; to engage in ongoing c

ation with tribes to accommodate traditional, cultural sites on public lands; an

provide research, technology transfer, and technical assistance to tribes.

Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services

Much of the 54 million acres of Indian land is cropland and grazing land 

the U.S. Government holds in trust for Indian people. USDA is working more 

sively to help tribes and individual Indian farmers realize the agricultural pot

of their landholdings. In order to increase farm services to tribes, FSA is cond

formal outreach campaign with other USDA agencies and the IAC to host me

and presentations at reservation sites. The communication campaign helps tri

and Indian farmers become more familiar with the current array of farm crop

vation, financial credit, and crop insurance programs, as well as the farm prog
Saso povdes sevces at suboces estabsed oesevatos

cooperating with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to increase tribal pa

in USDA farm programs. In 1996,USDA and the BIA worked together to 

Indian lands had the full opportunity to be enrolled in production flexibilit

authorized by the 1996 Act. The two agencies are continuing to help trib

conservation practices on reservation land and resolve the credit problem

dual Indian farmers. FSA also administers the Indian Tribal Land Acqui

Program, which provides long term loans to Indian Tribes to acquire land 

their reservations.

Rural Development

USDA’s Rural Development programs are administered through thre

development services: the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), th

Housing Service (RHS), and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS). The eligi

requirements vary according to each program. 

Increased emphasis has been placed on economic and rural developm

ties and programs on reservations. RBS, RHS, and RUS have increased t

ments in tribal water and waste, community facilities, and business proje

Development has established Native American Program Coordinators in 

States with significant American Indian populations. 

RHS is striving to expand its role in financing needed housing on tri

conjunction with the President’s Home Ownership Initiative, RHS identi

to delivery of the Section 502 Direct Single Family Housing Loan Progr

vation trust lands and developed recommendations to resolve these barri

increase home ownership of tribal members living on trust lands. The RH

American pilot loan program was designed to meet the home ownership 

Native Americans residing on trust lands. Under the pilot, 25 tribes will w

nership with USDA and Fannie Mae to assist tribal members to obtain gu

Section 502 housing loans for homes on these reservations. 

RHS developed a handbook for Rural Development staff regarding le

tribal lands in order to better serve tribal customers.

Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services

The Food and Consumer Service (FCS) administers the Food Distrib

Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), which is offered in lieu of foo

FY 1996, an estimated 120,000 American Indian and Alaska Native parti

received FDPIR food packages, and FCS distributed food valued at an es

$51.3 million to Native American households through FDPIR. About 125

Native American households receive food stamps each month. FCS is un

FDPIR food package review, in full partnership with Indian cooperators. 

established a pilot project under which fresh produce is made available to 

ticipating in FDPIR. The FCS Supplemental Nutrition Program for Wom

and Children (WIC) developed a new packet of materials to increase awa

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) among American Indians and Alaska Nat
76

adstes te tesodaesevatooga, wcpovdes ete

agents to selected Indian tribes. The extension agents conduct education prog

reservations in response to tribally identified needs. CSREES also has an end

fund for the 29 Tribal Colleges designated as 1994 land-grant institutions und

103-382. Interest earned is distributed to these institutions to facilitate teachin

grams in the food and agricultural sciences. The Tribal Colleges Education E

Grants Program provides a $50,000 award to each of the 29 designated 1994 l

grant institutions to strengthen instruction programs in the food and agricultural 

The Extension Services at the 1994 Institutions program provide compet

grants to address a wide range of agricultural issues, including crop and anim

production, farm business management, marketing techniques, decisionmakin

skills, and environmental considerations. This program can also be used to en

community resource and economic development; family development and re

management; 4-H and youth development; leadership and volunteer developm

natural resources and environment; and nutrition, diet, and health.

Since 1991 the Children, Youth, and Families at Risk Initiative, supporte

CSREES, has provided funding and technical support to Native American an

underserved populations for a broad spectrum of prevention-oriented educati

grams to strengthen individuals and families with children, prenatal to late te

goal of this national initiative is to empower the whole family to enable those 

to develop necessary life skills and become strong, productive adults.

Marketing and Regulatory Programs

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has ongoing p

with Indian tribes that generally focus on agricultural, natural resource, facili

human health and safety protection. Examples include the vaccination of dog

livestock on reservations by Veterinary Services, control of noxious weeds an

grasshoppers on several reservations, and protection of sheep and cattle from 

sive loss to predators. As mentioned above, APHIS has joined other USDA ag

to fund an outreach program with the Intertribal Agriculture Council to tribes

has chartered a Native American Working Group within the Agency and has a 

Wide Web page on this topic. The address is http://www.aphis.usda.gov/anawg

amerind.html

Food Safety

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), in coordination with the I

tribal Basin Council and USDA’s Rural Business-Cooperative Service, provide

expertise, approval, and funding for mobile livestock slaughtering units to be u

reservations. In addition, the Emergency Programs Office offers expertise in pl

and training for Tribal and State Radiological Emergency Preparedness progra

78

6.Oppotuty ouae

USDA Rural Development is forging new partnerships with rural Amfunding development projects and providing technical assistance an

tion to create quality jobs, services, housing, and utilities. The need to re

rural America is essential if it is to maintain or regain its posture as a pla

millions of rural people can achieve the American dream. This need is ev

the following:

■ More than 53 million people live in rural areas of the United Stat

percent of whom live in households with income below the Fede

level.

■ 45 percent of the rural population lives in relatively isolated com

which often lack access to the same level of services as are availa

urbanized areas.

■ During the last 20 years, the number of rural workers employed o

been cut approximately in half; 80 percent of all rural Americans 

their living from nonfarm sources. To sustain the economic viabi

areas, jobs lost to more efficient farming methods need to be repl

new businesses or industries.

■ 535 rural counties endure persistent poverty, with more than 20 p

their residents living below the poverty level.

USDA’s Rural Development mission area was created in 1994 as a r

reorganization of the Farmers Home Administration, the Rural Developm

stration, and the Rural Electrification Administration. Agencies that prov

to rural America were put together so they look alike, act alike, and work 

Rural Development is comprised of three sister agencies. The Rural 

Service (RUS) addresses rural America’s need for basic services such as 

ning water, sewers and waste disposal, electricity, and telecommunicatio

Rural Housing Service (RHS) addresses rural America’s need for single-

multi-family housing as well as health facilities, fire and police stations, 

community facilities. The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) ad

America’s need for help in developing new economic opportunities and 

businesses and cooperatives to remain viable in a changing economy.

In addition, the Federal Government is seeking to form partnerships 

entities—such as State, local, and tribal governments, private and nonpro

tions, and member-owned cooperatives—to engage in rural revitalization 

Rural Development programs are provided across the Nation through 47 

and 1,222 area and local offices. During 1997, Rural Development plans 

consolidate 399 of its field (area and local) offices. 
T

e oowg eapes ustate ways wcuaeveopet a

working to serve rural citizens and bolster the quality of life in rural c

■ In Woodland, CA, a plastic bag manufacturing plant which emplo

workers closed down. With the help of financing secured under th

Business and Industry Loan Guarantee program, the plant was ab

under new ownership and rehire many of the workers who lost the

town’s mayor says the reopening of the plant symbolizes what can 

when private industry and Government work as partners. 

■ In Indianola, MS, residents are fulfilling their dreams of homeown

by participating in the RHS Self-Help Housing program. Participa

basic construction skills which enable them to invest “sweat equit

the down payment on their own homes. In this way, the program h

about 25,000 low-income families acquire homes. In Coahoma (p

390), another Mississippi Delta town, USDA/RHS secured fundin

multi-family elderly rental project, the area’s first Federal assistan

housing in more than 50 years. 

■ In East Prairie, MO, the unemployment rate has decreased from 1

percent thanks to economic stimulus programs made possible by i

in the Rural Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities (EZ/E

of USDA. The dramatic decrease is due to the establishment of a 

employs 161 people to manufacture small motors. The EZ/EC pro

it possible to renovate the plant and nearby access roads.

■ In Villa Ridge, IL, residents have always obtained drinking water 

rain water in a cistern or by buying costly bottled water. Under th

program of RUS, they are being supplied with a community wate

will bring safe, clean drinking water into their homes.

■ In Frisco City, AL, more than 250 workers lost their jobs when fir

garment factory. The local electrical cooperative obtained an inter

from RUS, which it used to attract a medical garment factory to to

210 new jobs with a possibility of 200 more jobs to be added later

■ In Zeeland, MI, an $8 million loan guarantee from RBS is financi

tion and purchase of machinery and equipment for a new soybean 

plant. The new plant is expected to add 25 new employees and ex

facilities of Zeeland Farm Services, giving it the capacity to proce

percent of the soybeans grown within an 80-mile area of the plant

provide the region with a soybean meal processing facility to help 

needs of the rapidly expanding poultry and livestock industries of 

Michigan. 

■ In Chico, CA, a small pinto bean-marketing cooperative was suffe

declining membership and changing market conditions. RBS staff 

led management of Chico Bean Growers through an extensive str

ning process. The co-op then launched a new business to serve a g

fertilizer market while continuing to process pinto beans. The coo

returned to profitability and has a bright future.
togetewtoe ta$.opvate udg, to ae oe

ship possible for families earning about $9,200 annually. This helped t

stabilize the community by providing jobs (which the project created) 

an increased tax base.

■ A medical crisis was created when the last doctor serving 11 communi

a rural area of Massachusetts retired. A modern clinic was built with fu

provided by RHS, enabling community leaders to recruit several docto

This would not have been possible without the new clinic. 

■ In the Bristol Bay area of Alaska, children from several isolated villag

to be flown to school daily. Using technology grants from RUS, Bristo

establishing a distance-learning link which will allow students to parti

in classes without the daily flight to school. 

The following overviews describe the three Rural Development Agencie

their main programs.

■ Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS)

Creation of viable new and improved businesses and cooperatives in ruralAmerica is the top priority of this Agency. RBS works through partnersh

public and private community-based organizations to provide financial assist

business planning, and technical assistance to rural businesses. It also conduc

research into rural economic issues, including rural cooperatives, and provide

educational material to the public

Business and Industry (B&I) Loan Guarantees help finance rural busi

and industry projects that enhance employment opportunities and improve the 

nomic and environmental climate in rural communities, including pollution ab

and control. Loan guarantees are made for projects that foster lasting commu

benefits and bolster existing private credit structures. Priority for B&I loan gu

tees is given to applications for loans from rural areas or cities of 25,000 or le

loans limited to areas not within the outer boundary of a city having a popula

50,000 or more and its immediately adjacent urbanized or urbanizing area. Lo

limited to $25 million for any one borrower.

Direct Business and Industry (B&I) Loans are made to public, private

cooperative organizations, Indian Tribes or tribal groups, corporate entities, o

viduals to improve the economic climate in rural areas. The program is an eco

stimulus tool which can be delivered to areas of rural America in greatest nee

Intermediary Relending Program Loans finance business facilities an

community development projects in rural areas, including cities of less than 2

Funds loaned by RBS to intermediaries support new business facilities and com

development projects in rural areas.

Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants promote rural econo

development and job creation projects, including feasibility studies, startup c

80
ese oas ad gats ae avaabe to estg uaUttes Sevce e

telecommunications borrowers.

Rural Business Enterprise Grants assist public bodies, nonprofit c

and federally recognized Indian Tribal groups to finance small and emer

business enterprises located in rural areas. A rural area is defined as an ar

the boundary of a city with a population of 50,000 or more and its imme

cent urbanized or urbanizing area. Funds may be used to finance and dev

and emerging private business enterprises. Grant funds may be used for 

and development of land and the construction of buildings, plants, equip

streets and roads, parking areas, and utility and service extensions. In ad

may be used for refinancing, fees for professional services, technical ass

startup costs and working capital, financial assistance to a third party, pro

television programs targeted for rural residents, and rural distance-learni

Rural Cooperative Development Grants finance the establishmen

tion of centers for cooperative development. The primary purpose of the 

to enhance the economic conditions of rural areas through the developm

cooperatives and improved operations of existing ones.

The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program p

information to farmers and other rural users on a variety of sustainable a

practices, including crop and livestock operations. It helps agriculture by 

able, practical information on production techniques and practices that re

and that are friendly to the environment. Farmers can request informatio

free telephone number.

The National Sheep Industry Improvement Center, authorized in 

Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (called the 1996 Farm 

promotes strategic development activities to strengthen and enhance pro

marketing of sheep and goat products in the United States. The center, w

have a board of directors to oversee its activities, operates a revolving fu

and grants. 

Cooperative Services helps improve the performance of the Nation

tives and promotes understanding and use of the cooperative business sy

working together for their mutual benefit in cooperatives, rural residents 

able to reduce costs for production supplies and consumer goods, obtain 

that might otherwise be unavailable, and achieve greater returns for their 

Cooperative Services accomplishes its mission by (1) responding to requ

nical assistance from rural residents who want to organize a cooperative 

operations of an existing cooperative, (2) providing information and edu

materials relating to cooperatives, (3) conducting research on cooperativ

structural, managerial, policy, member governance, legal, and social issu

(4) collecting and disseminating statistics to support research and techni

work.

The mission of the Alternative Agricultural Research and Comme

Corporation (AARC) is to expedite the commercialization of new indu
epayets go to a evovg ud ovestet otepojects. ppc

expected to match AARC funds with an equal amount of funding from other 

Rural Business Opportunity Grants, authorized by the 1996 Farm Bill

be made annually for up to $1.5 million to establish centers for training, techn

and trade to provide assistance to rural businesses for interactive communicat

technologies to be used to develop export markets. 

A Rural Venture Capital Demonstration Program, authorized by the 

Farm Bill, is being developed to provide a guarantee for projects that serve as 

catalyst to attract private investments in businesses in rural areas. The amoun

the guarantee may not exceed 30 percent of any pool of funds provided by up 

10 community development venture capital organizations.

■ Rural Housing Service

Decent, safe, sanitary, affordable housing and essential community facilitiindispensable to vibrant rural communities. USDA's Rural Housing Serv

the responsibility to make these essential elements available to rural America

programs help finance new or improved housing for more than 70,000 moder

low-income families each year. These programs also help rural communities 

construction, enlargement, or improvement of fire stations, libraries, hospitals, 

day-care centers, industrial parks, and other essential community facilities.

In October 1996, a Centralized Service Center in St. Louis, MO, opened 

vide automated loan servicing to RHS single-family housing borrowers. This 

is considered a showcase project for the reinvention of government, intended 

government services work better and cost less. The new service, when fully i

mented in October 1997, will greatly expand services to borrowers while subst

reducing the amount of staff needed to operate the program nationally.

Home Ownership Loans provide opportunities and assistance to low in

households in rural communities, helping them to purchase, construct, repair, 

relocate a home. Borrowers are offered 33-year loans at fixed interest rates as 

1 percent, depending on the family's adjusted income. Moderate-income rura

dents can be assisted with loan guarantees offered through private lenders. Th

both direct and guaranteed, can cover up to 100 percent of market value or acq

cost, whichever is less. 

Home Improvement and Repair Loans and Grants enable very-low-i

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 el

elderly residents. Housing preservation grants are made to nonprofit groups a

ernment agencies to finance rehabilitation of rental units for low-income resid

82
sos. oas ave a auteo50 yeas, caequaup to 00 pec

appraised value or development cost, and can be used to construct new h

to purchase or rehabilitate existing structures. 

Rental Assistance payments subsidize rental costs to ensure that lo

tenants will pay no more than 30 percent of their income for rent.

Community Facilities Loans, Loan Guarantees, and Grants are 

finance the construction, enlargement, extension, or other improvements 

munity facilities providing essential services in rural areas and towns wi

tion of 20,000 or less. Funds are available to public entities such as mun

counties, special-purpose districts, Indian Tribes, and nonprofit corporat

■ Rural Utilities Service

The programs of the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) touch the lives of tlions of rural Americans daily. Through project financing and techni

tance, RUS builds infrastructure to provide rural businesses and househo

modern telecommunications, electric energy, and water. Today, this also 

ing the "information superhighway" to rural America.

A new initiative, Water 2000, is an ambitious undertaking by RUS t

dependable drinking water to the 1.4 million rural Americans who curren

service, and to the 2.4 million people who consistently experience water

health problems, dry or shallow drinking wells, or frequent orders to boi

ing water. In the last 2 years, RUS has invested $300 million in loans and 

the Nation’s highest priority Water 2000 projects. 

RUS is more than a new name for the successful programs of predec

cies. It is a partner with rural business and economic development effort

infrastructure that is the foundation for competitiveness. It is a technical 

resource in a time of change for rural utilities.

Rural Telecommunications Loans and Loan Guarantees build m

communications systems. They provide rural areas with "ramps" to the i

superhighway by making financing available for telecommunications fac

are made to rural telephone cooperatives and companies which bring rel

affordable telecommunications services to more than 15 million rural Am

Rural Electric Loans and Loan Guarantees provide reliable, safe

able electric energy to rural America by financing power distribution, ge

and transmission systems. Loans are made to nonprofit and cooperative 

public bodies, and other utilities which serve more than 25 million rural 

Distance Learning and Medical Link Loans and Grants bring di

ing and telemedicine to rural America. Education and adequate medical 

crucial to the survival of rural communities, but are becoming increasing

to provide. This program employs innovative ways to use existing teleco

tions infrastructure to extend the reach of educational and medical experti

munities without that expertise. The new loan program, authorized in the 

Bill, is being developed to further expand rural telecommunications infras
ad tows wtpopuatos ude0,000. e uds ae avaabe to pubc e

such as municipalities, counties, special purpose districts, Indian Tribes, and 

profit corporations. RUS also guarantees water and waste disposal loans mad

banks and other eligible lenders.

Emergency Community Water Assistance Grants help rural communi

have experienced a significant decline in drinking water quantity or quality to 

emergency repairs and replace existing facilities. Grants can be made in rural 

and towns with a population of 10,000 or less and a median household incom

more than 100 percent of the State’s median nonmetropolitan household inco

■ Rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise

Communities

USDA Rural Development is involved in an ambitious new effort to help the rural economies of some of the Nation's most economically depresse

rural areas. USDA Rural Development is now working closely with three Rur

Empowerment Zones (EZ) and 30 Rural Enterprise Communities (EC) which 

benefiting from special economic stimulus programs to help overcome persis

high poverty rates. These EZ/EC designations are helping to revitalize local c

nities by putting Americans to work. 

The EZ/EC designations are based on strategic plans developed by local 

organizations, State officials, and the private sector. Each EZ and EC designa

means special consideration for various Federal programs and other assistanc

including social service block grants, new tax-exempt facility bonds, tax ince

for employment, and other special consideration for existing Federal program

Authority for a second round of EZ/EC designations will be sought in 19

The Rural Empowerment Zones are:

■ Kentucky Highlands (Clinton, Jackson, and Wayne Counties), 

■ Mid-Delta in Mississippi (Bolivar, Sunflower, Leflore, Washington,

Humphries, and Holmes Counties), and 

■ Rio Grande Valley in Texas (Starr, Cameron, Hidalgo, and Willacy Co

The 30 Enterprise Communities include counties and towns across the N

States with one or more ECs include: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California

Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, N

Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Da

Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. 

Employers in the EZ will qualify for tax credits for each qualified worke

resides in the zone. Each EZ receives $40 million and each EC receives $2.95 

to implement the strategic plans. In addition, each EZ and EC receives priorit

certain programs available through Rural Development agencies.

84
Rural Development

Director, Legislative & Public Affairs

Clark Ray

Rm 5039-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-6903

FAX 202-690-0311

clark.ray@usda.gov

Dep. Pub. Aff. Director

Dan Campbell

Rm 6407-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-6483

FAX 202-690-0311

dcampbell@rurdev.usda.gov

Dep. Legislative Director

Steve Hart

Rm 6406-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-2446

FAX 202-690-0311

steve.hart@usda.gov

Acting Deputy Director

Correspondence Branch

Anne Todd

Rm 6417-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-1021

FAX 202-720-1161

anne.todd@hq.usda.gov

FOIA

Dorothy Hinden

Rm 0162-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-9638

FAX 202-690-0311
T

e oowg eapes ustate ways wcuaeveopet a

working to serve rural citizens and bolster the quality of life in rural c

■ In Woodland, CA, a plastic bag manufacturing plant which emplo

workers closed down. With the help of financing secured under th

Business and Industry Loan Guarantee program, the plant was ab

under new ownership and rehire many of the workers who lost the

town’s mayor says the reopening of the plant symbolizes what can 

when private industry and Government work as partners. 

■ In Indianola, MS, residents are fulfilling their dreams of homeown

by participating in the RHS Self-Help Housing program. Participa

basic construction skills which enable them to invest “sweat equit

the down payment on their own homes. In this way, the program h

about 25,000 low-income families acquire homes. In Coahoma (p

390), another Mississippi Delta town, USDA/RHS secured fundin

multi-family elderly rental project, the area’s first Federal assistan

housing in more than 50 years. 

■ In East Prairie, MO, the unemployment rate has decreased from 1

percent thanks to economic stimulus programs made possible by i

in the Rural Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities (EZ/E

of USDA. The dramatic decrease is due to the establishment of a 

employs 161 people to manufacture small motors. The EZ/EC pro

it possible to renovate the plant and nearby access roads.

■ In Villa Ridge, IL, residents have always obtained drinking water 

rain water in a cistern or by buying costly bottled water. Under th

program of RUS, they are being supplied with a community wate

will bring safe, clean drinking water into their homes.

■ In Frisco City, AL, more than 250 workers lost their jobs when fir

garment factory. The local electrical cooperative obtained an inter

from RUS, which it used to attract a medical garment factory to to

210 new jobs with a possibility of 200 more jobs to be added later

■ In Zeeland, MI, an $8 million loan guarantee from RBS is financi

tion and purchase of machinery and equipment for a new soybean 

plant. The new plant is expected to add 25 new employees and ex

facilities of Zeeland Farm Services, giving it the capacity to proce

percent of the soybeans grown within an 80-mile area of the plant

provide the region with a soybean meal processing facility to help 

needs of the rapidly expanding poultry and livestock industries of 

Michigan. 

■ In Chico, CA, a small pinto bean-marketing cooperative was suffe

declining membership and changing market conditions. RBS staff 

led management of Chico Bean Growers through an extensive str

ning process. The co-op then launched a new business to serve a g

fertilizer market while continuing to process pinto beans. The coo

returned to profitability and has a bright future.
Direct Business and Industry (B&I) Loans are made to public, private

cooperative organizations, Indian Tribes or tribal groups, corporate entities, o

viduals to improve the economic climate in rural areas. The program is an eco

stimulus tool which can be delivered to areas of rural America in greatest nee

Intermediary Relending Program Loans finance business facilities an

community development projects in rural areas, including cities of less than 2

Funds loaned by RBS to intermediaries support new business facilities and com

development projects in rural areas.

Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants promote rural econo

development and job creation projects, including feasibility studies, startup c

80
public and private community-based organizations to provide financial assist

business planning, and technical assistance to rural businesses. It also conduc

research into rural economic issues, including rural cooperatives, and provide

educational material to the public

Business and Industry (B&I) Loan Guarantees help finance rural busi

and industry projects that enhance employment opportunities and improve the 

nomic and environmental climate in rural communities, including pollution ab

and control. Loan guarantees are made for projects that foster lasting commu

benefits and bolster existing private credit structures. Priority for B&I loan gu

tees is given to applications for loans from rural areas or cities of 25,000 or le

loans limited to areas not within the outer boundary of a city having a popula

50,000 or more and its immediately adjacent urbanized or urbanizing area. Lo

limited to $25 million for any one borrower.

Direct Business and Industry (B&I) Loans are made to public, private

cooperative organizations, Indian Tribes or tribal groups, corporate entities, o

viduals to improve the economic climate in rural areas. The program is an eco

stimulus tool which can be delivered to areas of rural America in greatest nee

Intermediary Relending Program Loans finance business facilities an

community development projects in rural areas, including cities of less than 2

Funds loaned by RBS to intermediaries support new business facilities and com

development projects in rural areas.

Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants promote rural econo

development and job creation projects, including feasibility studies, startup c

80
ese oas ad gats ae avaabe to estg uaUttes Sevce e

telecommunications borrowers.

Rural Business Enterprise Grants assist public bodies, nonprofit c

and federally recognized Indian Tribal groups to finance small and emer

business enterprises located in rural areas. A rural area is defined as an ar

the boundary of a city with a population of 50,000 or more and its imme

cent urbanized or urbanizing area. Funds may be used to finance and dev

and emerging private business enterprises. Grant funds may be used for 

and development of land and the construction of buildings, plants, equip

streets and roads, parking areas, and utility and service extensions. In ad

may be used for refinancing, fees for professional services, technical ass

startup costs and working capital, financial assistance to a third party, pro

television programs targeted for rural residents, and rural distance-learni

Rural Cooperative Development Grants finance the establishmen

tion of centers for cooperative development. The primary purpose of the 

to enhance the economic conditions of rural areas through the developm

cooperatives and improved operations of existing ones.

The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program p

information to farmers and other rural users on a variety of sustainable a

practices, including crop and livestock operations. It helps agriculture by 

able, practical information on production techniques and practices that re

and that are friendly to the environment. Farmers can request informatio

free telephone number.

The National Sheep Industry Improvement Center, authorized in 

Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (called the 1996 Farm 

promotes strategic development activities to strengthen and enhance pro

marketing of sheep and goat products in the United States. The center, w

have a board of directors to oversee its activities, operates a revolving fu

and grants. 

Cooperative Services helps improve the performance of the Nation

tives and promotes understanding and use of the cooperative business sy

working together for their mutual benefit in cooperatives, rural residents 

able to reduce costs for production supplies and consumer goods, obtain 

that might otherwise be unavailable, and achieve greater returns for their 

Cooperative Services accomplishes its mission by (1) responding to requ

nical assistance from rural residents who want to organize a cooperative 

operations of an existing cooperative, (2) providing information and edu

materials relating to cooperatives, (3) conducting research on cooperativ

structural, managerial, policy, member governance, legal, and social issu

(4) collecting and disseminating statistics to support research and techni

work.

The mission of the Alternative Agricultural Research and Comme

Corporation (AARC) is to expedite the commercialization of new indu
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 el

elderly residents. Housing preservation grants are made to nonprofit groups a

ernment agencies to finance rehabilitation of rental units for low-income resid

82
programs help finance new or improved housing for more than 70,000 moder

low-income families each year. These programs also help rural communities 

construction, enlargement, or improvement of fire stations, libraries, hospitals, 

day-care centers, industrial parks, and other essential community facilities.

In October 1996, a Centralized Service Center in St. Louis, MO, opened 

vide automated loan servicing to RHS single-family housing borrowers. This 

is considered a showcase project for the reinvention of government, intended 

government services work better and cost less. The new service, when fully i

mented in October 1997, will greatly expand services to borrowers while subst

reducing the amount of staff needed to operate the program nationally.

Home Ownership Loans provide opportunities and assistance to low in

households in rural communities, helping them to purchase, construct, repair, 

relocate a home. Borrowers are offered 33-year loans at fixed interest rates as 

1 percent, depending on the family's adjusted income. Moderate-income rura

dents can be assisted with loan guarantees offered through private lenders. Th

both direct and guaranteed, can cover up to 100 percent of market value or acq

cost, whichever is less. 

Home Improvement and Repair Loans and Grants enable very-low-i

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 el

elderly residents. Housing preservation grants are made to nonprofit groups a

ernment agencies to finance rehabilitation of rental units for low-income resid

82
g g 

ing and telemedicine to rural America. Education and adequate medical 

crucial to the survival of rural communities, but are becoming increasing

to provide. This program employs innovative ways to use existing teleco

tions infrastructure to extend the reach of educational and medical experti

munities without that expertise. The new loan program, authorized in the 

Bill, is being developed to further expand rural telecommunications infras
odeteecoucatos, eectc eegy, ad wate. oday, ts aso 

ing the "information superhighway" to rural America.

A new initiative, Water 2000, is an ambitious undertaking by RUS t

dependable drinking water to the 1.4 million rural Americans who curren

service, and to the 2.4 million people who consistently experience water

health problems, dry or shallow drinking wells, or frequent orders to boi

ing water. In the last 2 years, RUS has invested $300 million in loans and 

the Nation’s highest priority Water 2000 projects. 

RUS is more than a new name for the successful programs of predec

cies. It is a partner with rural business and economic development effort

infrastructure that is the foundation for competitiveness. It is a technical 

resource in a time of change for rural utilities.

Rural Telecommunications Loans and Loan Guarantees build m

communications systems. They provide rural areas with "ramps" to the i

superhighway by making financing available for telecommunications fac

are made to rural telephone cooperatives and companies which bring rel

affordable telecommunications services to more than 15 million rural Am

Rural Electric Loans and Loan Guarantees provide reliable, safe

able electric energy to rural America by financing power distribution, ge

and transmission systems. Loans are made to nonprofit and cooperative 

public bodies, and other utilities which serve more than 25 million rural 

Distance Learning and Medical Link Loans and Grants bring di

ing and telemedicine to rural America. Education and adequate medical 

crucial to the survival of rural communities, but are becoming increasing

to provide. This program employs innovative ways to use existing teleco

tions infrastructure to extend the reach of educational and medical experti

munities without that expertise. The new loan program, authorized in the 

Bill, is being developed to further expand rural telecommunications infras
Employers in the EZ will qualify for tax credits for each qualified worke

resides in the zone. Each EZ receives $40 million and each EC receives $2.95 

to implement the strategic plans. In addition, each EZ and EC receives priorit

certain programs available through Rural Development agencies.

84
Uthe rural economies of some of the Nations most economically depresse

rural areas. USDA Rural Development is now working closely with three Rur

Empowerment Zones (EZ) and 30 Rural Enterprise Communities (EC) which 

benefiting from special economic stimulus programs to help overcome persis

high poverty rates. These EZ/EC designations are helping to revitalize local c

nities by putting Americans to work. 

The EZ/EC designations are based on strategic plans developed by local 

organizations, State officials, and the private sector. Each EZ and EC designa

means special consideration for various Federal programs and other assistanc

including social service block grants, new tax-exempt facility bonds, tax ince

for employment, and other special consideration for existing Federal program

Authority for a second round of EZ/EC designations will be sought in 19

The Rural Empowerment Zones are:

■ Kentucky Highlands (Clinton, Jackson, and Wayne Counties), 

■ Mid-Delta in Mississippi (Bolivar, Sunflower, Leflore, Washington,

Humphries, and Holmes Counties), and 

■ Rio Grande Valley in Texas (Starr, Cameron, Hidalgo, and Willacy Co

The 30 Enterprise Communities include counties and towns across the N

States with one or more ECs include: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California

Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, N

Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Da

Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. 

Employers in the EZ will qualify for tax credits for each qualified worke

resides in the zone. Each EZ receives $40 million and each EC receives $2.95 

to implement the strategic plans. In addition, each EZ and EC receives priorit

certain programs available through Rural Development agencies.

84
78

6.Oppotuty ouae

USDA Rural Development is forging new partnerships with rural Amfunding development projects and providing technical assistance an

tion to create quality jobs, services, housing, and utilities. The need to re

rural America is essential if it is to maintain or regain its posture as a pla

millions of rural people can achieve the American dream. This need is ev

the following:

■ More than 53 million people live in rural areas of the United Stat

percent of whom live in households with income below the Fede

level.

■ 45 percent of the rural population lives in relatively isolated com

which often lack access to the same level of services as are availa

urbanized areas.

■ During the last 20 years, the number of rural workers employed o

been cut approximately in half; 80 percent of all rural Americans 

their living from nonfarm sources. To sustain the economic viabi

areas, jobs lost to more efficient farming methods need to be repl

new businesses or industries.

■ 535 rural counties endure persistent poverty, with more than 20 p

their residents living below the poverty level.

USDA’s Rural Development mission area was created in 1994 as a r

reorganization of the Farmers Home Administration, the Rural Developm

stration, and the Rural Electrification Administration. Agencies that prov

to rural America were put together so they look alike, act alike, and work 

Rural Development is comprised of three sister agencies. The Rural 

Service (RUS) addresses rural America’s need for basic services such as 

ning water, sewers and waste disposal, electricity, and telecommunicatio

Rural Housing Service (RHS) addresses rural America’s need for single-

multi-family housing as well as health facilities, fire and police stations, 

community facilities. The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) ad

America’s need for help in developing new economic opportunities and 

businesses and cooperatives to remain viable in a changing economy.

In addition, the Federal Government is seeking to form partnerships 

entities—such as State, local, and tribal governments, private and nonpro

tions, and member-owned cooperatives—to engage in rural revitalization 

Rural Development programs are provided across the Nation through 47 

and 1,222 area and local offices. During 1997, Rural Development plans 

consolidate 399 of its field (area and local) offices. 
T

e oowg eapes ustate ways wcuaeveopet a

working to serve rural citizens and bolster the quality of life in rural c

■ In Woodland, CA, a plastic bag manufacturing plant which emplo

workers closed down. With the help of financing secured under th

Business and Industry Loan Guarantee program, the plant was ab

under new ownership and rehire many of the workers who lost the

town’s mayor says the reopening of the plant symbolizes what can 

when private industry and Government work as partners. 

■ In Indianola, MS, residents are fulfilling their dreams of homeown

by participating in the RHS Self-Help Housing program. Participa

basic construction skills which enable them to invest “sweat equit

the down payment on their own homes. In this way, the program h

about 25,000 low-income families acquire homes. In Coahoma (p

390), another Mississippi Delta town, USDA/RHS secured fundin

multi-family elderly rental project, the area’s first Federal assistan

housing in more than 50 years. 

■ In East Prairie, MO, the unemployment rate has decreased from 1

percent thanks to economic stimulus programs made possible by i

in the Rural Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities (EZ/E

of USDA. The dramatic decrease is due to the establishment of a 

employs 161 people to manufacture small motors. The EZ/EC pro

it possible to renovate the plant and nearby access roads.

■ In Villa Ridge, IL, residents have always obtained drinking water 

rain water in a cistern or by buying costly bottled water. Under th

program of RUS, they are being supplied with a community wate

will bring safe, clean drinking water into their homes.

■ In Frisco City, AL, more than 250 workers lost their jobs when fir

garment factory. The local electrical cooperative obtained an inter

from RUS, which it used to attract a medical garment factory to to

210 new jobs with a possibility of 200 more jobs to be added later

■ In Zeeland, MI, an $8 million loan guarantee from RBS is financi

tion and purchase of machinery and equipment for a new soybean 

plant. The new plant is expected to add 25 new employees and ex

facilities of Zeeland Farm Services, giving it the capacity to proce

percent of the soybeans grown within an 80-mile area of the plant

provide the region with a soybean meal processing facility to help 

needs of the rapidly expanding poultry and livestock industries of 

Michigan. 

■ In Chico, CA, a small pinto bean-marketing cooperative was suffe

declining membership and changing market conditions. RBS staff 

led management of Chico Bean Growers through an extensive str

ning process. The co-op then launched a new business to serve a g

fertilizer market while continuing to process pinto beans. The coo

returned to profitability and has a bright future.
togetewtoe ta$.opvate udg, to ae oe

ship possible for families earning about $9,200 annually. This helped t

stabilize the community by providing jobs (which the project created) 

an increased tax base.

■ A medical crisis was created when the last doctor serving 11 communi

a rural area of Massachusetts retired. A modern clinic was built with fu

provided by RHS, enabling community leaders to recruit several docto

This would not have been possible without the new clinic. 

■ In the Bristol Bay area of Alaska, children from several isolated villag

to be flown to school daily. Using technology grants from RUS, Bristo

establishing a distance-learning link which will allow students to parti

in classes without the daily flight to school. 

The following overviews describe the three Rural Development Agencie

their main programs.

■ Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS)

Creation of viable new and improved businesses and cooperatives in ruralAmerica is the top priority of this Agency. RBS works through partnersh

public and private community-based organizations to provide financial assist

business planning, and technical assistance to rural businesses. It also conduc

research into rural economic issues, including rural cooperatives, and provide

educational material to the public

Business and Industry (B&I) Loan Guarantees help finance rural busi

and industry projects that enhance employment opportunities and improve the 

nomic and environmental climate in rural communities, including pollution ab

and control. Loan guarantees are made for projects that foster lasting commu

benefits and bolster existing private credit structures. Priority for B&I loan gu

tees is given to applications for loans from rural areas or cities of 25,000 or le

loans limited to areas not within the outer boundary of a city having a popula

50,000 or more and its immediately adjacent urbanized or urbanizing area. Lo

limited to $25 million for any one borrower.

Direct Business and Industry (B&I) Loans are made to public, private

cooperative organizations, Indian Tribes or tribal groups, corporate entities, o

viduals to improve the economic climate in rural areas. The program is an eco

stimulus tool which can be delivered to areas of rural America in greatest nee

Intermediary Relending Program Loans finance business facilities an

community development projects in rural areas, including cities of less than 2

Funds loaned by RBS to intermediaries support new business facilities and com

development projects in rural areas.

Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants promote rural econo

development and job creation projects, including feasibility studies, startup c

80
ese oas ad gats ae avaabe to estg uaUttes Sevce e

telecommunications borrowers.

Rural Business Enterprise Grants assist public bodies, nonprofit c

and federally recognized Indian Tribal groups to finance small and emer

business enterprises located in rural areas. A rural area is defined as an ar

the boundary of a city with a population of 50,000 or more and its imme

cent urbanized or urbanizing area. Funds may be used to finance and dev

and emerging private business enterprises. Grant funds may be used for 

and development of land and the construction of buildings, plants, equip

streets and roads, parking areas, and utility and service extensions. In ad

may be used for refinancing, fees for professional services, technical ass

startup costs and working capital, financial assistance to a third party, pro

television programs targeted for rural residents, and rural distance-learni

Rural Cooperative Development Grants finance the establishmen

tion of centers for cooperative development. The primary purpose of the 

to enhance the economic conditions of rural areas through the developm

cooperatives and improved operations of existing ones.

The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program p

information to farmers and other rural users on a variety of sustainable a

practices, including crop and livestock operations. It helps agriculture by 

able, practical information on production techniques and practices that re

and that are friendly to the environment. Farmers can request informatio

free telephone number.

The National Sheep Industry Improvement Center, authorized in 

Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (called the 1996 Farm 

promotes strategic development activities to strengthen and enhance pro

marketing of sheep and goat products in the United States. The center, w

have a board of directors to oversee its activities, operates a revolving fu

and grants. 

Cooperative Services helps improve the performance of the Nation

tives and promotes understanding and use of the cooperative business sy

working together for their mutual benefit in cooperatives, rural residents 

able to reduce costs for production supplies and consumer goods, obtain 

that might otherwise be unavailable, and achieve greater returns for their 

Cooperative Services accomplishes its mission by (1) responding to requ

nical assistance from rural residents who want to organize a cooperative 

operations of an existing cooperative, (2) providing information and edu

materials relating to cooperatives, (3) conducting research on cooperativ

structural, managerial, policy, member governance, legal, and social issu

(4) collecting and disseminating statistics to support research and techni

work.

The mission of the Alternative Agricultural Research and Comme

Corporation (AARC) is to expedite the commercialization of new indu
programs help finance new or improved housing for more than 70,000 moder

low-income families each year. These programs also help rural communities 

construction, enlargement, or improvement of fire stations, libraries, hospitals, 

day-care centers, industrial parks, and other essential community facilities.

In October 1996, a Centralized Service Center in St. Louis, MO, opened 

vide automated loan servicing to RHS single-family housing borrowers. This 

is considered a showcase project for the reinvention of government, intended 

government services work better and cost less. The new service, when fully i

mented in October 1997, will greatly expand services to borrowers while subst

reducing the amount of staff needed to operate the program nationally.

Home Ownership Loans provide opportunities and assistance to low in

households in rural communities, helping them to purchase, construct, repair, 

relocate a home. Borrowers are offered 33-year loans at fixed interest rates as 

1 percent, depending on the family's adjusted income. Moderate-income rura

dents can be assisted with loan guarantees offered through private lenders. Th

both direct and guaranteed, can cover up to 100 percent of market value or acq

cost, whichever is less. 

Home Improvement and Repair Loans and Grants enable very-low-i

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 el

elderly residents. Housing preservation grants are made to nonprofit groups a

ernment agencies to finance rehabilitation of rental units for low-income resid

82
odeteecoucatos, eectc eegy, ad wate. oday, ts aso 

ing the "information superhighway" to rural America.

A new initiative, Water 2000, is an ambitious undertaking by RUS t

dependable drinking water to the 1.4 million rural Americans who curren

service, and to the 2.4 million people who consistently experience water

health problems, dry or shallow drinking wells, or frequent orders to boi

ing water. In the last 2 years, RUS has invested $300 million in loans and 

the Nation’s highest priority Water 2000 projects. 

RUS is more than a new name for the successful programs of predec

cies. It is a partner with rural business and economic development effort

infrastructure that is the foundation for competitiveness. It is a technical 

resource in a time of change for rural utilities.

Rural Telecommunications Loans and Loan Guarantees build m

communications systems. They provide rural areas with "ramps" to the i

superhighway by making financing available for telecommunications fac

are made to rural telephone cooperatives and companies which bring rel

affordable telecommunications services to more than 15 million rural Am

Rural Electric Loans and Loan Guarantees provide reliable, safe

able electric energy to rural America by financing power distribution, ge

and transmission systems. Loans are made to nonprofit and cooperative 

public bodies, and other utilities which serve more than 25 million rural 

Distance Learning and Medical Link Loans and Grants bring di

ing and telemedicine to rural America. Education and adequate medical 

crucial to the survival of rural communities, but are becoming increasing

to provide. This program employs innovative ways to use existing teleco

tions infrastructure to extend the reach of educational and medical experti

munities without that expertise. The new loan program, authorized in the 

Bill, is being developed to further expand rural telecommunications infras
Uthe rural economies of some of the Nations most economically depresse

rural areas. USDA Rural Development is now working closely with three Rur

Empowerment Zones (EZ) and 30 Rural Enterprise Communities (EC) which 

benefiting from special economic stimulus programs to help overcome persis

high poverty rates. These EZ/EC designations are helping to revitalize local c

nities by putting Americans to work. 

The EZ/EC designations are based on strategic plans developed by local 

organizations, State officials, and the private sector. Each EZ and EC designa

means special consideration for various Federal programs and other assistanc

including social service block grants, new tax-exempt facility bonds, tax ince

for employment, and other special consideration for existing Federal program

Authority for a second round of EZ/EC designations will be sought in 19

The Rural Empowerment Zones are:

■ Kentucky Highlands (Clinton, Jackson, and Wayne Counties), 

■ Mid-Delta in Mississippi (Bolivar, Sunflower, Leflore, Washington,

Humphries, and Holmes Counties), and 

■ Rio Grande Valley in Texas (Starr, Cameron, Hidalgo, and Willacy Co

The 30 Enterprise Communities include counties and towns across the N

States with one or more ECs include: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California

Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, N

Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Da

Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. 

Employers in the EZ will qualify for tax credits for each qualified worke

resides in the zone. Each EZ receives $40 million and each EC receives $2.95 

to implement the strategic plans. In addition, each EZ and EC receives priorit

certain programs available through Rural Development agencies.

84

86

■ Farm Service Agency

What Is the Farm Service Agency?

Stabilizing farm income, helping farmers conserve land and water resour

providing credit to new or disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, and helping f

operations recover from the effects of disaster: These are the missions of USD

Farm Service Agency (FSA).

FSA was set up when the Department was reorganized in 1994, incorpor

programs from several agencies, including the Agricultural Stabilization and

Conservation Service, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (now a separa

Management Agency), and the Farmers Home Administration. Though its na

changed over the years, the Agency’s relationship with farmers goes back to t

1930’s. 

At that time, Congress set up a unique system under which Federal farm 

grams are administered locally. Farmers who are eligible to participate in the

grams elect a three- to five-person county committee, which reviews county o

operations and makes many of the decisions on how to apply the programs. T

grassroots approach gives farmers a much-needed say in how Federal actions 

their communities and their individual operations. After more than 60 years, i

remains a cornerstone of FSA’s efforts to preserve and promote American agr

1996 Farm Bill

The 1996 Farm Bill, which became law on April 4, 1996, significantly ch

U.S. agricultural policy by removing the link between income support payme

farm prices. Farmers who participated in the wheat, feed grains, cotton, and r

grams in any one of the previous 5 years could enter into 7-year production fl

contracts and receive a series of fixed annual “transition payments.” These pa

are independent of farm prices and specific crop production, in contrast to the 

when deficiency payments were based on farm prices and the production of s

crops.

The Federal Government no longer requires land to be idled or denies pa

if farmers switch from their historical crop. The contract, however, requires p

pating producers to comply with existing conservation plans for the farm, we

provisions, and planting flexibility provisions, as well as to keep the land in a

tural uses. 
sgups ecept oad cog out ote Cosevatoeseve oga

who entered into a contract also are eligible for market transition loans a

offices.

Commodity Loan Programs

FSA administers commodity loan programs for wheat, rice, corn, grai

barley, oats, oilseeds, tobacco, peanuts, upland and extra-long-staple cotto

The Agency provides the operating personnel for the Commodity Cr

Corporation (CCC), which supports the prices of some agricultural comm

through loans and purchases. This provides farmers with interim financin

helps maintain balanced and adequate supplies of farm commodities, and 

orderly distribution, throughout the year and during times of surplus and 

Instead of immediately selling the crop after harvest, a farmer who g

or more of most field crops can store the produce and take out a “nonreco

loan for its value, pledging the crop itself as collateral. Nonrecourse mea

producer can discharge debts in full by forfeiting, or delivering, the comm

the Government.

The nonrecourse loan allows farmers to pay their bills and other loan 

when they come due, without having to sell crops at a time of year when 

to be at their lowest. Later, when market conditions are more favorable, f

sell crops and repay the loan with the proceeds. Or, if the prevailing price 

remains below the loan level set by USDA, farmers can keep loan procee

the crop to the CCC instead.

CCC loan rates are designed to keep crops competitive in the marke

producer must have entered into a production flexibility contract to be el

nonrecourse marketing assistance loans for wheat, feed grains, rice, and 

ton. Any production of a contract commodity by a producer who has ente

production flexibility contract is eligible for loans.

Nonrecourse loans are also available for oilseeds, tobacco, peanuts, 

staple cotton, raw cane sugar, and refined beet sugar, regardless of wheth

ducer has entered into a production flexibility contract. Price support for 

marketing quota crops—tobacco and peanuts—is made available through 

loan associations. By law, these programs must operate at no-net-cost to 

Treasury, and no-net-cost and marketing assessments are applied to both 

and purchasers.

If the tariff rate quota (TRQ) on imported sugar exceeds 1.5 million 

loans are nonrecourse. If the TRQ is less than that amount, sugar loans ar

which means borrowers cannot necessarily discharge their debts in full b

feiting the commodity to the Government.
88

by wcCCC acques vetoy. Udete day pce suppot poga, 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. The 1996 Farm Bill eliminates dairy price support after

December 31, 1999.

CCC can store purchased food in over 10,000 commercial warehouses ac

Nation approved for this purpose. However, commodity inventories are not s

kept in storage. FSAemployees work to return stored commodities to private 

channels. At the Agency’s Kansas City Commodity Office in Kansas City, M

FSA merchandisers regularly sell and swap CCC inventories, using commerc

telecommunications trading networks.

Beyond the marketplace, CCC commodities fill the need for hunger relie

the United States and in foreign countries. FSA employees work closely with

USDA’s Food and Consumer Service to purchase and deliver foods for the N

School Lunch and many other domestic feeding programs. And, donated to “

Peace” and programs administered by voluntary organizations, these U.S. far

ucts and foods help USDA fight hunger worldwide. 

Crop Insurance

Federal crop insurance protects farmers and ranchers from unexpected pr

tion losses from natural causes, including drought, excessive moisture, hail, w

flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes, and lightning. It does not cover losses resulti

neglect, poor farming practices, theft, or low prices. At this time, insurance is 

able for 64 different crops. 

Recent legislation replaced traditional crop disaster assistance with new,

enhanced crop insurance programs. These are the Catastrophic (CAT) Progra

the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP). 

Catastrophic coverage compensates a farmer for crop losses greater tha

percent of the operation’s average yield, at 60 percent of the expected market 

CAT can be obtained at local FSA offices in most States or from private crop 

ance agents for a nominal processing fee. This fee may be waived for limited

resource farmers.

Higher levels of insurance protection are available through private crop i

ance agents. USDA subsidizes the premiums for these policies to encourage f

to take advantage of them. Buying this additional coverage is the only way fa

can benefit from attractive policy features permitting smaller operational unit

replanting payments, and coverage for certain quality losses. 

Producers who decide not to buy crop insurance when it is available still 

participate in USDA’s commodity, conservation, and credit programs. Howev

must sign a waiver agreeing to give up eligibility for emergency crop disaster 

tance. This waiver does not disqualify an eligible producer from getting an FS

emergency loan or a payment under NAP. Any producer who signs a waiver, 

sequently decides to buy crop insurance, becomes eligible for disaster assista

the insured crop.
be. Nassstace s avaabe ocops gowcoecay oood a

Floriculture, ornamental nursery products, Christmas tree crops, turfgras

crops, aquaculture, and industrial crops are also included. 

FSA makes NAP payments to eligible producers when both the expe

yield is less than 65 percent of normal, and individual crop losses are in e

percent of the average yield. If these conditions are met, the Agency pay

of the expected market price for each unit of production lost above 50 pe

Unlike previous disaster assistance programs, to be eligible for NAP

must annually file an acreage and production report with the local FSA o

farmer does not report acres and yields by the yearly deadline, NAP assis

be withheld following a major crop loss.

Other Emergency Assistance

In the aftermath of a natural disaster, FSA makes available a variety 

gency assistance programs to farmers in counties that have been designa

declared disaster areas. The Agency can offer cost-share assistance to pro

do not have enough feed to maintain their eligible livestock because of a 

substantial amount of their normal feed production. Emergency loans are 

eligible farmers who suffer qualifying losses as a result of a natural disas

help rehabilitate farmland damaged by a natural disaster, FSA can often 

of some emergency conservation practices.

In the event of a national emergency, FSA is responsible for assuring 

food production and distribution, as well as the continued availability of 

fertilizer, and farm machinery.

Farm Loans

FSA offers direct and guaranteed farm ownership and operating loan 

farmers who are temporarily unable to obtain private, commercial credit

are beginning farmers who can’t qualify for conventional loans because 

insufficient net worth. The Agency also helps established farmers who ha

financial setbacks from natural disasters, or whose resources are too limi

tain profitable farming operations.

Under the guaranteed loan program, the Agency guarantees loans m

ventional agricultural lenders for up to 95 percent of principal. The lende

the loan to a third party; however, the lender is always responsible for se

loan. All loans must meet certain qualifying criteria to be eligible for gua

FSA has the right to monitor the lender’s servicing activities. Farmers int

guaranteed loans must apply to a conventional lender, who then arranges 

antee.

For those unable to qualify for a guaranteed loan, FSA also lends dir

loans are made and serviced by FSA officials, who also provide borrowe

supervision and credit counseling. Funding authorities for direct loans ar
90

epayet abty ad pedge eougcoateato uy secue te oa.

Conservation Programs

The Conservation Reserve Program protects our most fragile farmland b

encouraging farmers to stop growing crops on highly erodible and other envi

tally sensitive acreage. In return for planting a protective cover of grass or tre

vulnerable property, the owner receives a rental payment each year of a multi

contract. Cost-share payments are also available to help establish permanent 

grass, legumes, trees, windbreaks, or plants that improve water quality and gi

ter and food to wildlife.

FSA works with USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service and o

agencies to deliver other conservation programs, including the Environmenta

Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). EQIP helps farmers and ranchers improv

property to protect the environment and conserve soil and water resources.

Participants can take advantage of education in new conservation managemen

tices, technical support, cost-share assistance, and incentive payments.

Congress has authorized $1.3 billion for EQIP over 7 years, and the prog

expected to maximize environmental benefits per dollar expended. At least ha

funding is earmarked for addressing environmental concerns associated with 

stock production. The program awards 5- to 10-year cost-share or incentive p

contracts for certain land management and structural practices, based on a co

tive application and evaluation process.

Where to Go for More Information

Further information and applications for the programs described in abov

available at local FSA county offices. These are usually listed in telephone di

in the section set aside for governmental/public organizations under “U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency.”

FSA State offices supervise the Agency’s county offices, and are usually 

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

For general information about the Agency and its programs, contact:

USDA FSA Public Affairs Staff

1400 Independence Ave., S.W. STOP 0506

Washington, DC 20250-0506

Telephone: (202) 720-5237

Information on FSAcan also be found on the FSA home page at www.fsa.u
ad pvate ogaatos ad te pubc. Odeos ad adeae a

FSA county offices. For more information on photographic services, incl

altitude photography, contact:

USDA FSA Aerial Photography Field Office

P.O. Box 30010

Salt Lake City, UT 84130-0010

Telephone: (801) 975-3503

■ Foreign Agricultural Service

The Agency and Its Mission

The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) is a USDAAgency that repr

diverse interests of U.S. farmers and the food and agricultural sector abro

collects, analyzes, and disseminates information about global supply and 

trade trends, and emerging market opportunities. FAS seeks improved m

for U.S. products and implements programs designed to build new marke

maintain the competitive position of U.S. products in the global marketp

FAS also carries out food aid and market-related technical assistance 

and operates a variety of Congressionally mandated import and export pr

FAS helps USDA and other Federal agencies, U.S. universities, and othe

the global competitiveness of U.S. agriculture and helps increase income 

availability in developing nations by mobilizing expertise for agricultura

nomic growth. 

Formed in 1953 by executive reorganization, FAS is one of the smal

agencies, with a personnel strength of about 900. FAS operates worldwid

sonnel located in more than 75 posts covering more than 130 countries. I

staff is backed up by a team of analysts, negotiators, and marketing speci

located in Washington, DC. 

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 f

including the gathering and dissemination of market information and trad

efforts. 

To get a complete picture of the services offered and information av

exporters, the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) invites you to visit its h

address at: http://www.fas.usda.gov
92

poductswtsaes o$69.7 bo996. ay actos aect tade 

products, including economic growth, currency exchange rates, national supp

grams, changing food preferences and consumer lifestyles, public and private 

market promotion efforts, and tariff and nontariff barriers.

Agricultural, fish, and wood product exports are vitally important to the N

economy as a whole; they represent 11 percent of total U.S. exports. Exports 

agricultural producers, harvesters of fish and wood products, food processing 

nies, and associated manufacturing firms and transport companies an expande

ket for their products and a better income. Exports also enhance our ability to 

land, labor, and capital more efficiently. This, in turn, allows our producers an

tries to produce at a lower cost and transport efficiently, giving the United Sta

comparative advantage in the production of these goods.

U.S. exports of agricultural products (excluding wood and fish products) 

$59.8 billion and created an estimated 958,000 full-time domestic jobs in 199

16,000 jobs for every $1 billion in products shipped. With respect to agricultu

products, many of these jobs are created off the farm, and many of those emp

live in urban areas. About 330,000 workers, or 9 percent of the U.S. farm labo

are employed to produce agricultural products for the overseas market. Howe

beyond the farm gate, another 628,000 people work to finance, store, package

process, and ship agricultural exports. USDA economists calculate that, at the 

least, each dollar received from agricultural exports stimulates another $1.38 

ness activity for the economy. In 1996, U.S. agricultural exports generated $8

lion in additional economic activity. Of the 11 major U.S. industrial sectors,

agriculture generated the largest trade surplus of $27.5 billion in 1996.

Agricultural products moving into the world market can be classified as b

intermediate, or consumer-oriented products. Bulk products include those com

ties free from processing, such as wheat, corn, barley, and soybeans. Intermed

products (such as wheat flour, vegetable oils, and hides and skins) receive som

cessing, but are generally not yet ready for final consumption. Consumer-orie

foods and beverages include products that have undergone various degrees of 

cessing or unprocessed commodities that have relatively high per unit costs d

transportation or storage, like fresh fruit.

In FY 1996, U.S. exports of bulk commodities surged to $28.8 billion, up 

billion from the previous year. Strong wheat, corn, and soybean prices and lar

wheat shipments accounted for much of the growth. Coarse grain exports ros

billion, up $1.9 billion, while wheat exports jumped 39 percent to $6.9 billion

value of soybean exports rose 20 percent, reaching $6.3 billion.

U.S. exports of intermediate products reached nearly $11 billion in FY 1

down $500 million from 1995. Declines for soybean oil, animal fats, and whe

(down $537 million, $173 million, and $100 million, respectively) more than 

the record export levels of feeds and fodder and planting seeds (up $59 millio

$47 million, respectively).

U.S. exports of consumer-oriented products continued their strong growt

FY 1996, reaching a new record of $20 billion and represented one-third of to
agricultural exports. Increases in FY 1996 were broad-based with 13 of t

product categories setting new record highs. 

U.S. exports of fish and seafood products climbed 10 percent to $2.9 

FY 1996. U.S. exports of wood products declined from the previous year

level to $7 billion in FY 1996.

Major Markets

Although U.S. exports of agricultural, fish, and wood products are sh

tually every country in the world, the top 10 markets account for over thr

of all sales. U.S. exports rose to new records in eight of 1996’s top 10 ma

Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Egypt, and Russia. 

Canada increased slightly (up $48 million) while those to Mexico increa

31 percent (up $1.2 billion). Sales to China fell $586 million from the pr

record level, due mostly to lower corn exports.

gy 

Coarse grains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Soybeans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Red meats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Poultry meat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Lumber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Logs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Fruit, fresh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Feeds & fodders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Fruit & vegetables, processed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Hides & skins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Tree nuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Soybean meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Total U.S. exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Note: (B) bulk, (I) intermediate, (C) consumer-oriented, (W) wood
94

FY 1996 

Share 

Exports U.S. 

Market (Billion dollars) (

Japan* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

European Union-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Canada* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Mexico* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

South Korea* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Taiwan* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Hong Kong* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Egypt* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Russian Federation* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Subtotal ...........................................................53.5

Total U.S. exports............................................69.7

* Record exports in FY 1996

Imports of U.S. Agricultural, Fish, and Wood Products

Along with the European Union and Japan, the United States ranks amon

world’s largest importers of agricultural, fish, and wood products. However, u

these other major importers, these products make up only a small portion of t

merchandise imports. In FY 1996, the $49.8 billion in U.S. purchases of agric

fish, and wood products accounted for only 6 percent of total U.S. merchandi

imports.

Imports provide consumers with products that are either not produced or 

available in sufficient quantities in the United States. Major agricultural impo

erally not domestically produced include spices, teas, cocoa, coffee, bananas, 

rubber, and silk. Domestic production of other products, such as certain chees

olives, olive oil, wools, lumber, shrimp, tuna, and tobacco, is insufficient to m

domestic demand. Some seasonal items, such as fresh fruits and vegetables, a

imported during periods when U.S. production cannot meet domestic demand

Finally, certain products such as some spices and sugar are purchased in their 

form for processing and packaging in the United States because foreign produ

have a cost advantage over U.S. producers.

Agricultural, fish, and wood product imports provide U.S. consumers wi

wider variety of lower priced goods than would be available by relying solely 

domestic market. Many of these products are used as ingredients in high-valu

beverages, and industrial products that are purchased at home and abroad. Im

also support domestic jobs in the storage, processing, distribution, and retail i

tries. U.S. imports also provide foreign countries with needed foreign exchan

in turn, can be used to purchase U.S. products.
996. sad seaood pots epecet ote pevous yeas e

$65 billion, while wood product imports increased 13 percent to a record 

billion.

Agricultural imports can be divided into three main categories based 

processing and end market use: bulk commodities, high-value intermedia

and high-value consumer-oriented foods and beverages. In FY 1996, bul

imports remained stable at $6.6 billion, with higher tobacco and cocoa be

$198 and $227 million, respectively) offsetting declines in coffee and su

$449 and $77 million, respectively). 

Intermediate products rose 14 percent in 1996 to a record $7.4 billio

of rising purchases of sugar/sweeteners and vegetable oils (up $522 milli

million, respectively). Consumer food and beverage imports rose 10 perc

record $18.3 billion based on gains across most major product groups. 

Table 7-3.

Top 15 U.S. agricultural, fish, and wood product imports, FY 

Product Category 

Lumber* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Raw coffee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Shrimp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .FS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Red meats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Wine & beer* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Panel products* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Fruit & vegs., processed* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Vegetables, fresh* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Live animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Rubber & allied products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Snack foods* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Sugars & sweeteners* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Bananas* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Fruit, fresh (excl. bananas)* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Nursery products* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Total U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Note: (B) bulk agriculture, (I) intermediate agriculture, (C) consumer-orien

ture, (W) wood, (FS) fish & seafood. *Record import value in 1996.
96

wod, te top 5 coutes supped oe ta85 pecet oU.S. agcutua

and forest imports in FY 1996. Canada was the top supplier, with record sales 

$15.8 billion. The major products imported from Canada were lumber, wood 

products, live cattle, red meats, and snack foods. At $6.8 billion, the Europea

ranked second, mainly supplying high-value consumer foods. The major prod

were wine and malt beverages, snack foods (including confectioneries and bi

processed fruits and vegetables, and cheeses. Other major suppliers include: M

(fresh fruits and vegetables, raw coffee beans, and shrimp); Thailand (shrimp

rubber, and processed fruit and vegetables); Indonesia (rubber, wood panel pr

raw coffee beans, and tropical spices); and Brazil (raw coffee beans, tobacco, 

juices, tree nuts, and wood panel products).

Many important suppliers of agricultural, fish, and wood products to the 

States are developing countries. These countries depend heavily on the expor

these products to generate foreign exchange that, in turn, is used to purchase 

In FY 1996 imports from developing countries accounted for nearly 40 perce

U.S. purchases of agricultural, fish, and wood products.

Table 7-4.

Top 15 suppliers of agricultural, fish, and wood products, FY 1

Share 

Imports U.S

Supplier (Billion dollars) (

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

European Union-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Ecuador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Argentina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Costa Rica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Top 15...............................................................42.6 

World Total ......................................................49.8

Food Aid Programs

The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (the 1996 

Bill) reauthorized and added activities to one of the oldest U.S. export assista

grams—Public Law (P.L.) 480, also known as Food for Peace.
ogess), $5oote (cudg te /Wod ood oga

$22.5 million for Title III.

The 1996 Farm Bill reauthorized Title I government-to-government 

sales, and included authority to sign agreements with private entities. Th

modified the repayment terms for Title I credit, including elimination of 

mum repayment period of 10 years and reduction of the maximum grace 

7 to 5 years. Agricultural trade organizations will be allowed to carry out 

programs in developing countries using funds from the sales of Title I co

if the organization has a market development plan approved by the Secre

1997 planned programming for P.L. 480, Title I, as of April 18, 1997, pro

$185.6 million for 18 countries. Under these planned programs, approxim

774,350 metric tons of commodities are expected to be exported. These t

reflect ocean freight costs for Title I. Thus far in FY 1997, $18.8 million 

funds for commodities have been set aside to fund a number of Food for 

country programs. 

The 1996 Farm Bill reauthorized the Title II emergency and private 

donations program. It increased the maximum level of funding that can b

as overseas administrative support from $13.5 million to $28 million and 

intergovernmental organizations such as the World Food Program to the 

nizations eligible to receive these funds. For FY 1997, about 2.2 million 

commodities, valued at approximately $542 million, are planned for don

Title II, including Title II donations through the World Food Program.

The Act also reauthorized the Title III Food for Development progra

gram provides government-to-government grant food assistance to least-

countries. Local sales proceeds can be used to support a variety of econo

ment and related activities in recipient countries. For FY 1997, about 117

tons of commodities valued at $22.5 million are planned under Title III.

Another program, Food for Progress, is carried out using commoditi

for distribution under Section 416(b), or funds available to the Commodi

Corporation (CCC) or appropriated under Title I, P.L. 480. The program 

commodities to needy countries as a reward for having undertaken econo

cultural reform. The 1996 Farm Bill extended the authority for the Food 

program to provide assistance in the administration, sale, and monitoring 

assistance programs to strengthen private sector agriculture in recipient c

through the year 2002. The authority is also expanded to include intergov

organizations in Food for Progress programming, to make sales on credit 

eligible countries in addition to the newly independent states of the form

Union, and to include the provision of technical assistance for monetizat

grams. In FY 1997, Food for Progress bilateral agreements using the Titl

are planned with Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, totaling about 97

tons, valued at $18.8 million (excluding transportation). Food for Progre

using CCC funds are planned with U.S. private voluntary organizations f

in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bosnia-Hercegovina, El Salvador, Equat
98

7,700 tos ocoodtes, vaued at about $57.o. e ood o

program is limited by a global 500,000-metric-ton legislative ceiling, and by 

noncommodity costs paid directly by CCC (primarily transportation) of $30 m

The 1996 Farm Bill reauthorized the Farmer-to-Farmer Program, which 

include middle-income countries and emerging markets. This Act also increa

minimum percentage of P.L. 480 funding for the Farmer-to-Farmer Program 

0.2 to 0.4 percent.

The Section 416(b) Program (of the Agricultural Act of 1949) provides f

donation to needy countries of eligible commodities held by CCC. There are 

Section 416(b) commodities available for programming in FY 1997.

Commercial Export Credit Guarantee Programs

The 1996 Farm Bill mandates annual program levels for the Export Cred

Guarantee Program (GSM-102) and the Intermediate Credit Guarantee Progr

(GSM-103), but allows flexibility in how much is made available for each pro

The GSM-102 program guarantees repayment of short-term loans (90 days to 

years) made by U.S. financial institutions to eligible banks in countries that p

U.S. farm products. As of May 2, 1997, under the GSM-102 program some $

worth of guarantees were made available for approximately 88 countries incl

seven regional programs—for the Andean region, Central America, East Afri

Caribbean, Southern Africa, West Africa, and West Caribbean—for FY 1997. 

May 2, 1997, registrations under the GSM-102 credit guarantee program for 

totaled $1.7 billion for 14 countries and those same seven regions.

Guarantees issued under the GSM-103 program can cover financing peri

more than 3 and up to 10 years. This program is designed to help developing 

make the transition from concessional financing to cash purchases. As of May 

1997, $373 million worth of intermediate guarantees were made available for 

1997. As of May 2, 1997, registrations under the GSM-103 credit guarantee p

for FY 1997 totaled $7.3 million for two countries.

The new Suppliers Credit Guarantee Program (SCGP) became operation

FY 1996. As of May 2, 1997, $100 million worth of guarantees were made av

under this program for FY 1997. As of May 2, 1997, registrations under SCG

FY 1997 totaled $2.95 million for two countries and the Southeast Asia regio

Export Assistance Programs

The Export Enhancement Program (EEP) was extended by the 1996 Farm 

permit USDA to provide bonuses to make U.S. commodities more competitiv

world marketplace and to offset the adverse effects of unfair trade practices o

dies. The 1996 Act provides minimum funding levels for CCC to make availa

the EEP each fiscal year through 2002. Since Nov. 6, 1991, USDA has paid E

bonuses in cash. In the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade implementin

lation, the focus of the EEP was changed to allow the EEP to be used as a ma

promotion and expansion tool. 
s uded at $90 oauay oscaea996 toug00

designed to encourage the development, maintenance, and expansion of fo

kets for U.S. agricultural commodities. Since its inception, the MAP has p

share funds to nearly 800 U.S. companies, cooperatives, and trade organiz

promote their products overseas. For 1996, $90 million was allocated to 6

organizations. For 1997, $90 million was allocated to 64 U.S. trade organi

The Foreign Market Development Program, also known as the coop

gram, fosters a trade promotion partnership between USDA and U.S. agr

producers and processors, represented by approximately 40 nonprofit com

or trade associations called cooperators. Projects generally fall into one o

categories: market research, trade servicing, technical assistance, and con

promotions for the retail market. The cooperator program has helped sup

in U.S. agricultural exports by enlisting private sector involvement and r

coordinated efforts to promote U.S. products to foreign importers and co

around the world.

Dairy Export Programs

As amended by Section 148 of the 1996 Farm Bill, the Dairy Export 

Program (DEIP) is mandated through the year 2002. The DEIP operates 

bonus system similar to EEP, with cash bonus payments.

The current DEIP was announced on July 18, 1996. Bonuses under t

are available to 112 countries totaling 100,222 metric tons of nonfat dry 

countries totaling 38,611 metric tons of butterfat; and to 109 countries to

metric tons of cheddar, feta, Gouda, mozzarella, processed American che

cream. The allocations were valid until June 30, 1997, as provided in the 

for offers. 

International Links

The International Cooperation and Development (ICD) area of USD

Agricultural Service is responsible for coordinating, supporting, and deli

diversified program of international cooperation and development. It aim

the competitiveness of U.S. agriculture, preserve natural resource ecosys

pursue sustainable economic development worldwide by mobilizing the 

USDA and its affiliates.

ICD programs provide links to world resources and build a spirit of 

and goodwill that serves U.S. agriculture. These links help U.S. agricultu

access to emerging technologies and to a wide array of genetic material, 

crucial in creating new or improved agricultural products, practices, and 

These international partnerships are the germinating seeds that can produ

diverse harvest of scientific advances and business ventures. 

ICD helps increase income and food availability in developing natio

the technical expertise of the U.S. agricultural community with those nat

cooperative effort helps developing nations surmount the barriers of hun

poverty and build more stable economies. As industrialized nations have 
100

ddecoe status ow oete bgtest pospects oU.S. agcutuap

a trend that is likely to continue, so USDA helps foster economic growth, stro

diplomatic ties, and durable trade relationships with these nations.

■ Risk Management Agency

The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 created a nindependent Risk Management Agency (RMA). The 1996 Act also remo

requirement that producers obtain at least the catastrophic level of crop insura

to be eligible for most USDA farm programs and assigned responsibility for t

insured assistance program to the Farm Service Agency.

RMA improves the economic stability of agriculture by offering produce

sound system of crop insurance. Federal crop insurance covers losses due to u

able causes such as drought, excessive moisture, hail, wind, frost, insects, and 

Currently 62 major crops are insurable. Crop insurance is available from crop 

ance agents. Insurance protection must be purchased prior to sales closing da

vary by crop and region.

In addition to administering the multiple peril crop insurance program, R

responsible for coordinating an educational outreach program to help produce

age the financial risks inherent in the production and marketing of agricultura

modities. This cooperative effort involves the resources of the Cooperative St

Research, Education and Extension Service, the Commodity Futures Trading

Commission, and numerous private sector organizations.

Further, new risk management products will continue to be developed by 

in conjunction with the private sector and other Government agencies. For ex

two popular revenue insurance programs, Income Protection and Crop Reven

Coverage (CRC), were fashioned in this manner. Income Protection pays pro

when gross income is less than the level of income protection selected by the 

ducer. CRC also pays for production losses below the yield guarantee at the h

of two prices determined at different times of the year. The programs are curr

available on corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, and grain sorghum in selected Sta
Farm Service Agency

Dir., Pub. Aff. Staff

Marlyn Aycock 

Rm 3624-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-5237

FAX 202-690-2828

maycock@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

Deputy Director

Marlyn Aycock

Rm 3625-S Washington, DC 20250

202-690-1767

FAX 202-690-2828

maycock@wdc.fsa.usda.gov 

Communications Chief 

Danniel W. Stuart 

Rm 3633-S Washington, DC 20250

202-690-0474

FAX 202-690-2839

dstuart@wdc.fsa.usda.gov 

Field Services Chief 

Greg Hawkins 

Rm 3623-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-5237

FAX 202-690-2828

ghawkins@wdc.fsa.usda.gov 

Program Services Chief 

Eric L. Parsons 

Rm 3624-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-7807

FAX 202-690-2828

eparsons@wdc.fsa.usda.gov 

FOIA Coordinator

Jim Jamison 

Rm 3620-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-5875

FAX 202-690-2828

jjamison@wdc.fsa.usda.gov 

FOIA Coordinator

Amy P. Jones 

Rm 3620-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-7757

FAX 202-690-2828

ajones@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

Foreign Agricultural S

Dir., Information Div. 

Maureen Quinn

Rm 5074-S Washington, DC 202

202-720-7115

FAX 202-720-1727

quinn@fas.usda.gov 

Deputy Director

Sally Klusaritz 

Rm 5074-S Washington, DC 202

202-720-3448

FAX 202-720-1727

klusaritz@fas.usda.gov 

Team Leader

Lynn Goldsbrough

Rm 5713-S Washington, DC 202

202-720-3930

FAX 202-720-3229

goldsbrough@fas.usda.gov 

Team Leader

Judy Goldich 

Rm 5717-S Washington, DC 202

202-720-0328

FAX 202-720-3229

goldich@fas.usda.gov

FOIA Officer

Carolyn Harris 

Rm 5711-S Washington, DC 202

202-690-1851

FAX 202-720-3229

harrisc@fas.usda.gov

Risk Management Ag

General Information 

Eric Edgington 

Rm 3611-S Washington, DC 202

202-690-2539

FAX 202-690-2828

eedgingt@wdc.fsa.usda.gov 

General Information 

Marian Jenkins 

Rm 6713-S Washington, DC 202

202-720-5290

FAX 202-690-2095

mjenkins@wdc.fsa.usda.gov 
86

povdg cedt to ew odsadvataged aes ad aces, ad epg 

operations recover from the effects of disaster: These are the missions of USD

Farm Service Agency (FSA).

FSA was set up when the Department was reorganized in 1994, incorpor

programs from several agencies, including the Agricultural Stabilization and

Conservation Service, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (now a separa

Management Agency), and the Farmers Home Administration. Though its na

changed over the years, the Agency’s relationship with farmers goes back to t

1930’s. 

At that time, Congress set up a unique system under which Federal farm 

grams are administered locally. Farmers who are eligible to participate in the

grams elect a three- to five-person county committee, which reviews county o

operations and makes many of the decisions on how to apply the programs. T

grassroots approach gives farmers a much-needed say in how Federal actions 

their communities and their individual operations. After more than 60 years, i

remains a cornerstone of FSA’s efforts to preserve and promote American agr

1996 Farm Bill

The 1996 Farm Bill, which became law on April 4, 1996, significantly ch

U.S. agricultural policy by removing the link between income support payme

farm prices. Farmers who participated in the wheat, feed grains, cotton, and r

grams in any one of the previous 5 years could enter into 7-year production fl

contracts and receive a series of fixed annual “transition payments.” These pa

are independent of farm prices and specific crop production, in contrast to the 

when deficiency payments were based on farm prices and the production of s

crops.

The Federal Government no longer requires land to be idled or denies pa

if farmers switch from their historical crop. The contract, however, requires p

pating producers to comply with existing conservation plans for the farm, we

provisions, and planting flexibility provisions, as well as to keep the land in a

tural uses. 
sgups ecept oad cog out ote Cosevatoeseve oga

who entered into a contract also are eligible for market transition loans a

offices.

Commodity Loan Programs

FSA administers commodity loan programs for wheat, rice, corn, grai

barley, oats, oilseeds, tobacco, peanuts, upland and extra-long-staple cotto

The Agency provides the operating personnel for the Commodity Cr

Corporation (CCC), which supports the prices of some agricultural comm

through loans and purchases. This provides farmers with interim financin

helps maintain balanced and adequate supplies of farm commodities, and 

orderly distribution, throughout the year and during times of surplus and 

Instead of immediately selling the crop after harvest, a farmer who g

or more of most field crops can store the produce and take out a “nonreco

loan for its value, pledging the crop itself as collateral. Nonrecourse mea

producer can discharge debts in full by forfeiting, or delivering, the comm

the Government.

The nonrecourse loan allows farmers to pay their bills and other loan 

when they come due, without having to sell crops at a time of year when 

to be at their lowest. Later, when market conditions are more favorable, f

sell crops and repay the loan with the proceeds. Or, if the prevailing price 

remains below the loan level set by USDA, farmers can keep loan procee

the crop to the CCC instead.

CCC loan rates are designed to keep crops competitive in the marke

producer must have entered into a production flexibility contract to be el

nonrecourse marketing assistance loans for wheat, feed grains, rice, and 

ton. Any production of a contract commodity by a producer who has ente

production flexibility contract is eligible for loans.

Nonrecourse loans are also available for oilseeds, tobacco, peanuts, 

staple cotton, raw cane sugar, and refined beet sugar, regardless of wheth

ducer has entered into a production flexibility contract. Price support for 

marketing quota crops—tobacco and peanuts—is made available through 

loan associations. By law, these programs must operate at no-net-cost to 

Treasury, and no-net-cost and marketing assessments are applied to both 

and purchasers.

If the tariff rate quota (TRQ) on imported sugar exceeds 1.5 million 

loans are nonrecourse. If the TRQ is less than that amount, sugar loans ar

which means borrowers cannot necessarily discharge their debts in full b

feiting the commodity to the Government.
88

by wcCCC acques vetoy. Udete day pce suppot poga, 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. The 1996 Farm Bill eliminates dairy price support after

December 31, 1999.

CCC can store purchased food in over 10,000 commercial warehouses ac

Nation approved for this purpose. However, commodity inventories are not s

kept in storage. FSAemployees work to return stored commodities to private 

channels. At the Agency’s Kansas City Commodity Office in Kansas City, M

FSA merchandisers regularly sell and swap CCC inventories, using commerc

telecommunications trading networks.

Beyond the marketplace, CCC commodities fill the need for hunger relie

the United States and in foreign countries. FSA employees work closely with

USDA’s Food and Consumer Service to purchase and deliver foods for the N

School Lunch and many other domestic feeding programs. And, donated to “

Peace” and programs administered by voluntary organizations, these U.S. far

ucts and foods help USDA fight hunger worldwide. 

Crop Insurance

Federal crop insurance protects farmers and ranchers from unexpected pr

tion losses from natural causes, including drought, excessive moisture, hail, w

flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes, and lightning. It does not cover losses resulti

neglect, poor farming practices, theft, or low prices. At this time, insurance is 

able for 64 different crops. 

Recent legislation replaced traditional crop disaster assistance with new,

enhanced crop insurance programs. These are the Catastrophic (CAT) Progra

the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP). 

Catastrophic coverage compensates a farmer for crop losses greater tha

percent of the operation’s average yield, at 60 percent of the expected market 

CAT can be obtained at local FSA offices in most States or from private crop 

ance agents for a nominal processing fee. This fee may be waived for limited

resource farmers.

Higher levels of insurance protection are available through private crop i

ance agents. USDA subsidizes the premiums for these policies to encourage f

to take advantage of them. Buying this additional coverage is the only way fa

can benefit from attractive policy features permitting smaller operational unit

replanting payments, and coverage for certain quality losses. 

Producers who decide not to buy crop insurance when it is available still 

participate in USDA’s commodity, conservation, and credit programs. Howev

must sign a waiver agreeing to give up eligibility for emergency crop disaster 

tance. This waiver does not disqualify an eligible producer from getting an FS

emergency loan or a payment under NAP. Any producer who signs a waiver, 

sequently decides to buy crop insurance, becomes eligible for disaster assista

the insured crop.
be. Nassstace s avaabe ocops gowcoecay oood a

Floriculture, ornamental nursery products, Christmas tree crops, turfgras

crops, aquaculture, and industrial crops are also included. 

FSA makes NAP payments to eligible producers when both the expe

yield is less than 65 percent of normal, and individual crop losses are in e

percent of the average yield. If these conditions are met, the Agency pay

of the expected market price for each unit of production lost above 50 pe

Unlike previous disaster assistance programs, to be eligible for NAP

must annually file an acreage and production report with the local FSA o

farmer does not report acres and yields by the yearly deadline, NAP assis

be withheld following a major crop loss.

Other Emergency Assistance

In the aftermath of a natural disaster, FSA makes available a variety 

gency assistance programs to farmers in counties that have been designa

declared disaster areas. The Agency can offer cost-share assistance to pro

do not have enough feed to maintain their eligible livestock because of a 

substantial amount of their normal feed production. Emergency loans are 

eligible farmers who suffer qualifying losses as a result of a natural disas

help rehabilitate farmland damaged by a natural disaster, FSA can often 

of some emergency conservation practices.

In the event of a national emergency, FSA is responsible for assuring 

food production and distribution, as well as the continued availability of 

fertilizer, and farm machinery.

Farm Loans

FSA offers direct and guaranteed farm ownership and operating loan 

farmers who are temporarily unable to obtain private, commercial credit

are beginning farmers who can’t qualify for conventional loans because 

insufficient net worth. The Agency also helps established farmers who ha

financial setbacks from natural disasters, or whose resources are too limi

tain profitable farming operations.

Under the guaranteed loan program, the Agency guarantees loans m

ventional agricultural lenders for up to 95 percent of principal. The lende

the loan to a third party; however, the lender is always responsible for se

loan. All loans must meet certain qualifying criteria to be eligible for gua

FSA has the right to monitor the lender’s servicing activities. Farmers int

guaranteed loans must apply to a conventional lender, who then arranges 

antee.

For those unable to qualify for a guaranteed loan, FSA also lends dir

loans are made and serviced by FSA officials, who also provide borrowe

supervision and credit counseling. Funding authorities for direct loans ar
90

epayet abty ad pedge eougcoateato uy secue te oa.

Conservation Programs

The Conservation Reserve Program protects our most fragile farmland b

encouraging farmers to stop growing crops on highly erodible and other envi

tally sensitive acreage. In return for planting a protective cover of grass or tre

vulnerable property, the owner receives a rental payment each year of a multi

contract. Cost-share payments are also available to help establish permanent 

grass, legumes, trees, windbreaks, or plants that improve water quality and gi

ter and food to wildlife.

FSA works with USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service and o

agencies to deliver other conservation programs, including the Environmenta

Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). EQIP helps farmers and ranchers improv

property to protect the environment and conserve soil and water resources.

Participants can take advantage of education in new conservation managemen

tices, technical support, cost-share assistance, and incentive payments.

Congress has authorized $1.3 billion for EQIP over 7 years, and the prog

expected to maximize environmental benefits per dollar expended. At least ha

funding is earmarked for addressing environmental concerns associated with 

stock production. The program awards 5- to 10-year cost-share or incentive p

contracts for certain land management and structural practices, based on a co

tive application and evaluation process.

Where to Go for More Information

Further information and applications for the programs described in abov

available at local FSA county offices. These are usually listed in telephone di

in the section set aside for governmental/public organizations under “U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency.”

FSA State offices supervise the Agency’s county offices, and are usually 

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

For general information about the Agency and its programs, contact:

USDA FSA Public Affairs Staff

1400 Independence Ave., S.W. STOP 0506

Washington, DC 20250-0506

Telephone: (202) 720-5237

Information on FSAcan also be found on the FSA home page at www.fsa.u

The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) is a USDAAgency that repr

diverse interests of U.S. farmers and the food and agricultural sector abro

collects, analyzes, and disseminates information about global supply and 

trade trends, and emerging market opportunities. FAS seeks improved m

for U.S. products and implements programs designed to build new marke

maintain the competitive position of U.S. products in the global marketp

FAS also carries out food aid and market-related technical assistance 

and operates a variety of Congressionally mandated import and export pr

FAS helps USDA and other Federal agencies, U.S. universities, and othe

the global competitiveness of U.S. agriculture and helps increase income 

availability in developing nations by mobilizing expertise for agricultura

nomic growth. 

Formed in 1953 by executive reorganization, FAS is one of the smal

agencies, with a personnel strength of about 900. FAS operates worldwid

sonnel located in more than 75 posts covering more than 130 countries. I

staff is backed up by a team of analysts, negotiators, and marketing speci

located in Washington, DC. 

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 f

including the gathering and dissemination of market information and trad

efforts. 

To get a complete picture of the services offered and information av

exporters, the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) invites you to visit its h

address at: http://www.fas.usda.gov
92

poductswtsaes o$69.7 bo996. ay actos aect tade 

products, including economic growth, currency exchange rates, national supp

grams, changing food preferences and consumer lifestyles, public and private 

market promotion efforts, and tariff and nontariff barriers.

Agricultural, fish, and wood product exports are vitally important to the N

economy as a whole; they represent 11 percent of total U.S. exports. Exports 

agricultural producers, harvesters of fish and wood products, food processing 

nies, and associated manufacturing firms and transport companies an expande

ket for their products and a better income. Exports also enhance our ability to 

land, labor, and capital more efficiently. This, in turn, allows our producers an

tries to produce at a lower cost and transport efficiently, giving the United Sta

comparative advantage in the production of these goods.

U.S. exports of agricultural products (excluding wood and fish products) 

$59.8 billion and created an estimated 958,000 full-time domestic jobs in 199

16,000 jobs for every $1 billion in products shipped. With respect to agricultu

products, many of these jobs are created off the farm, and many of those emp

live in urban areas. About 330,000 workers, or 9 percent of the U.S. farm labo

are employed to produce agricultural products for the overseas market. Howe

beyond the farm gate, another 628,000 people work to finance, store, package

process, and ship agricultural exports. USDA economists calculate that, at the 

least, each dollar received from agricultural exports stimulates another $1.38 

ness activity for the economy. In 1996, U.S. agricultural exports generated $8

lion in additional economic activity. Of the 11 major U.S. industrial sectors,

agriculture generated the largest trade surplus of $27.5 billion in 1996.

Agricultural products moving into the world market can be classified as b

intermediate, or consumer-oriented products. Bulk products include those com

ties free from processing, such as wheat, corn, barley, and soybeans. Intermed

products (such as wheat flour, vegetable oils, and hides and skins) receive som

cessing, but are generally not yet ready for final consumption. Consumer-orie

foods and beverages include products that have undergone various degrees of 

cessing or unprocessed commodities that have relatively high per unit costs d

transportation or storage, like fresh fruit.

In FY 1996, U.S. exports of bulk commodities surged to $28.8 billion, up 

billion from the previous year. Strong wheat, corn, and soybean prices and lar

wheat shipments accounted for much of the growth. Coarse grain exports ros

billion, up $1.9 billion, while wheat exports jumped 39 percent to $6.9 billion

value of soybean exports rose 20 percent, reaching $6.3 billion.

U.S. exports of intermediate products reached nearly $11 billion in FY 1

down $500 million from 1995. Declines for soybean oil, animal fats, and whe

(down $537 million, $173 million, and $100 million, respectively) more than 

the record export levels of feeds and fodder and planting seeds (up $59 millio

$47 million, respectively).

U.S. exports of consumer-oriented products continued their strong growt

FY 1996, reaching a new record of $20 billion and represented one-third of to
agricultural exports. Increases in FY 1996 were broad-based with 13 of t

product categories setting new record highs. 

U.S. exports of fish and seafood products climbed 10 percent to $2.9 

FY 1996. U.S. exports of wood products declined from the previous year

level to $7 billion in FY 1996.

Major Markets

Although U.S. exports of agricultural, fish, and wood products are sh

tually every country in the world, the top 10 markets account for over thr

of all sales. U.S. exports rose to new records in eight of 1996’s top 10 ma

Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Egypt, and Russia. 

Canada increased slightly (up $48 million) while those to Mexico increa

31 percent (up $1.2 billion). Sales to China fell $586 million from the pr

record level, due mostly to lower corn exports.

gy 

Coarse grains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Soybeans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Red meats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Poultry meat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Lumber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Logs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Fruit, fresh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Feeds & fodders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Fruit & vegetables, processed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Hides & skins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Tree nuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Soybean meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Total U.S. exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Note: (B) bulk, (I) intermediate, (C) consumer-oriented, (W) wood
94

FY 1996 

Share 

Exports U.S. 

Market (Billion dollars) (

Japan* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

European Union-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Canada* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Mexico* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

South Korea* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Taiwan* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Hong Kong* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Egypt* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Russian Federation* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Subtotal ...........................................................53.5

Total U.S. exports............................................69.7

* Record exports in FY 1996

Imports of U.S. Agricultural, Fish, and Wood Products

Along with the European Union and Japan, the United States ranks amon

world’s largest importers of agricultural, fish, and wood products. However, u

these other major importers, these products make up only a small portion of t

merchandise imports. In FY 1996, the $49.8 billion in U.S. purchases of agric

fish, and wood products accounted for only 6 percent of total U.S. merchandi

imports.

Imports provide consumers with products that are either not produced or 

available in sufficient quantities in the United States. Major agricultural impo

erally not domestically produced include spices, teas, cocoa, coffee, bananas, 

rubber, and silk. Domestic production of other products, such as certain chees

olives, olive oil, wools, lumber, shrimp, tuna, and tobacco, is insufficient to m

domestic demand. Some seasonal items, such as fresh fruits and vegetables, a

imported during periods when U.S. production cannot meet domestic demand

Finally, certain products such as some spices and sugar are purchased in their 

form for processing and packaging in the United States because foreign produ

have a cost advantage over U.S. producers.

Agricultural, fish, and wood product imports provide U.S. consumers wi

wider variety of lower priced goods than would be available by relying solely 

domestic market. Many of these products are used as ingredients in high-valu

beverages, and industrial products that are purchased at home and abroad. Im

also support domestic jobs in the storage, processing, distribution, and retail i

tries. U.S. imports also provide foreign countries with needed foreign exchan

in turn, can be used to purchase U.S. products.
996. sad seaood pots epecet ote pevous yeas e

$65 billion, while wood product imports increased 13 percent to a record 

billion.

Agricultural imports can be divided into three main categories based 

processing and end market use: bulk commodities, high-value intermedia

and high-value consumer-oriented foods and beverages. In FY 1996, bul

imports remained stable at $6.6 billion, with higher tobacco and cocoa be

$198 and $227 million, respectively) offsetting declines in coffee and su

$449 and $77 million, respectively). 

Intermediate products rose 14 percent in 1996 to a record $7.4 billio

of rising purchases of sugar/sweeteners and vegetable oils (up $522 milli

million, respectively). Consumer food and beverage imports rose 10 perc

record $18.3 billion based on gains across most major product groups. 

Table 7-3.

Top 15 U.S. agricultural, fish, and wood product imports, FY 

Product Category 

Lumber* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Raw coffee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Shrimp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .FS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Red meats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Wine & beer* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Panel products* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Fruit & vegs., processed* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Vegetables, fresh* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Live animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Rubber & allied products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Snack foods* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Sugars & sweeteners* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Bananas* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Fruit, fresh (excl. bananas)* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Nursery products* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Total U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Note: (B) bulk agriculture, (I) intermediate agriculture, (C) consumer-orien

ture, (W) wood, (FS) fish & seafood. *Record import value in 1996.
96

wod, te top 5 coutes supped oe ta85 pecet oU.S. agcutua

and forest imports in FY 1996. Canada was the top supplier, with record sales 

$15.8 billion. The major products imported from Canada were lumber, wood 

products, live cattle, red meats, and snack foods. At $6.8 billion, the Europea

ranked second, mainly supplying high-value consumer foods. The major prod

were wine and malt beverages, snack foods (including confectioneries and bi

processed fruits and vegetables, and cheeses. Other major suppliers include: M

(fresh fruits and vegetables, raw coffee beans, and shrimp); Thailand (shrimp

rubber, and processed fruit and vegetables); Indonesia (rubber, wood panel pr

raw coffee beans, and tropical spices); and Brazil (raw coffee beans, tobacco, 

juices, tree nuts, and wood panel products).

Many important suppliers of agricultural, fish, and wood products to the 

States are developing countries. These countries depend heavily on the expor

these products to generate foreign exchange that, in turn, is used to purchase 

In FY 1996 imports from developing countries accounted for nearly 40 perce

U.S. purchases of agricultural, fish, and wood products.

Table 7-4.

Top 15 suppliers of agricultural, fish, and wood products, FY 1

Share 

Imports U.S

Supplier (Billion dollars) (

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

European Union-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Ecuador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Argentina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Costa Rica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Top 15...............................................................42.6 

World Total ......................................................49.8

Food Aid Programs

The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (the 1996 

Bill) reauthorized and added activities to one of the oldest U.S. export assista

grams—Public Law (P.L.) 480, also known as Food for Peace.
ogess), $5oote (cudg te /Wod ood oga

$22.5 million for Title III.

The 1996 Farm Bill reauthorized Title I government-to-government 

sales, and included authority to sign agreements with private entities. Th

modified the repayment terms for Title I credit, including elimination of 

mum repayment period of 10 years and reduction of the maximum grace 

7 to 5 years. Agricultural trade organizations will be allowed to carry out 

programs in developing countries using funds from the sales of Title I co

if the organization has a market development plan approved by the Secre

1997 planned programming for P.L. 480, Title I, as of April 18, 1997, pro

$185.6 million for 18 countries. Under these planned programs, approxim

774,350 metric tons of commodities are expected to be exported. These t

reflect ocean freight costs for Title I. Thus far in FY 1997, $18.8 million 

funds for commodities have been set aside to fund a number of Food for 

country programs. 

The 1996 Farm Bill reauthorized the Title II emergency and private 

donations program. It increased the maximum level of funding that can b

as overseas administrative support from $13.5 million to $28 million and 

intergovernmental organizations such as the World Food Program to the 

nizations eligible to receive these funds. For FY 1997, about 2.2 million 

commodities, valued at approximately $542 million, are planned for don

Title II, including Title II donations through the World Food Program.

The Act also reauthorized the Title III Food for Development progra

gram provides government-to-government grant food assistance to least-

countries. Local sales proceeds can be used to support a variety of econo

ment and related activities in recipient countries. For FY 1997, about 117

tons of commodities valued at $22.5 million are planned under Title III.

Another program, Food for Progress, is carried out using commoditi

for distribution under Section 416(b), or funds available to the Commodi

Corporation (CCC) or appropriated under Title I, P.L. 480. The program 

commodities to needy countries as a reward for having undertaken econo

cultural reform. The 1996 Farm Bill extended the authority for the Food 

program to provide assistance in the administration, sale, and monitoring 

assistance programs to strengthen private sector agriculture in recipient c

through the year 2002. The authority is also expanded to include intergov

organizations in Food for Progress programming, to make sales on credit 

eligible countries in addition to the newly independent states of the form

Union, and to include the provision of technical assistance for monetizat

grams. In FY 1997, Food for Progress bilateral agreements using the Titl

are planned with Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, totaling about 97

tons, valued at $18.8 million (excluding transportation). Food for Progre

using CCC funds are planned with U.S. private voluntary organizations f

in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bosnia-Hercegovina, El Salvador, Equat
98

7,700 tos ocoodtes, vaued at about $57.o. e ood o

program is limited by a global 500,000-metric-ton legislative ceiling, and by 

noncommodity costs paid directly by CCC (primarily transportation) of $30 m

The 1996 Farm Bill reauthorized the Farmer-to-Farmer Program, which 

include middle-income countries and emerging markets. This Act also increa

minimum percentage of P.L. 480 funding for the Farmer-to-Farmer Program 

0.2 to 0.4 percent.

The Section 416(b) Program (of the Agricultural Act of 1949) provides f

donation to needy countries of eligible commodities held by CCC. There are 

Section 416(b) commodities available for programming in FY 1997.

Commercial Export Credit Guarantee Programs

The 1996 Farm Bill mandates annual program levels for the Export Cred

Guarantee Program (GSM-102) and the Intermediate Credit Guarantee Progr

(GSM-103), but allows flexibility in how much is made available for each pro

The GSM-102 program guarantees repayment of short-term loans (90 days to 

years) made by U.S. financial institutions to eligible banks in countries that p

U.S. farm products. As of May 2, 1997, under the GSM-102 program some $

worth of guarantees were made available for approximately 88 countries incl

seven regional programs—for the Andean region, Central America, East Afri

Caribbean, Southern Africa, West Africa, and West Caribbean—for FY 1997. 

May 2, 1997, registrations under the GSM-102 credit guarantee program for 

totaled $1.7 billion for 14 countries and those same seven regions.

Guarantees issued under the GSM-103 program can cover financing peri

more than 3 and up to 10 years. This program is designed to help developing 

make the transition from concessional financing to cash purchases. As of May 

1997, $373 million worth of intermediate guarantees were made available for 

1997. As of May 2, 1997, registrations under the GSM-103 credit guarantee p

for FY 1997 totaled $7.3 million for two countries.

The new Suppliers Credit Guarantee Program (SCGP) became operation

FY 1996. As of May 2, 1997, $100 million worth of guarantees were made av

under this program for FY 1997. As of May 2, 1997, registrations under SCG

FY 1997 totaled $2.95 million for two countries and the Southeast Asia regio

Export Assistance Programs

The Export Enhancement Program (EEP) was extended by the 1996 Farm 

permit USDA to provide bonuses to make U.S. commodities more competitiv

world marketplace and to offset the adverse effects of unfair trade practices o

dies. The 1996 Act provides minimum funding levels for CCC to make availa

the EEP each fiscal year through 2002. Since Nov. 6, 1991, USDA has paid E

bonuses in cash. In the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade implementin

lation, the focus of the EEP was changed to allow the EEP to be used as a ma

promotion and expansion tool. 
s uded at $90 oauay oscaea996 toug00

designed to encourage the development, maintenance, and expansion of fo

kets for U.S. agricultural commodities. Since its inception, the MAP has p

share funds to nearly 800 U.S. companies, cooperatives, and trade organiz

promote their products overseas. For 1996, $90 million was allocated to 6

organizations. For 1997, $90 million was allocated to 64 U.S. trade organi

The Foreign Market Development Program, also known as the coop

gram, fosters a trade promotion partnership between USDA and U.S. agr

producers and processors, represented by approximately 40 nonprofit com

or trade associations called cooperators. Projects generally fall into one o

categories: market research, trade servicing, technical assistance, and con

promotions for the retail market. The cooperator program has helped sup

in U.S. agricultural exports by enlisting private sector involvement and r

coordinated efforts to promote U.S. products to foreign importers and co

around the world.

Dairy Export Programs

As amended by Section 148 of the 1996 Farm Bill, the Dairy Export 

Program (DEIP) is mandated through the year 2002. The DEIP operates 

bonus system similar to EEP, with cash bonus payments.

The current DEIP was announced on July 18, 1996. Bonuses under t

are available to 112 countries totaling 100,222 metric tons of nonfat dry 

countries totaling 38,611 metric tons of butterfat; and to 109 countries to

metric tons of cheddar, feta, Gouda, mozzarella, processed American che

cream. The allocations were valid until June 30, 1997, as provided in the 

for offers. 

International Links

The International Cooperation and Development (ICD) area of USD

Agricultural Service is responsible for coordinating, supporting, and deli

diversified program of international cooperation and development. It aim

the competitiveness of U.S. agriculture, preserve natural resource ecosys

pursue sustainable economic development worldwide by mobilizing the 

USDA and its affiliates.

ICD programs provide links to world resources and build a spirit of 

and goodwill that serves U.S. agriculture. These links help U.S. agricultu

access to emerging technologies and to a wide array of genetic material, 

crucial in creating new or improved agricultural products, practices, and 

These international partnerships are the germinating seeds that can produ

diverse harvest of scientific advances and business ventures. 

ICD helps increase income and food availability in developing natio

the technical expertise of the U.S. agricultural community with those nat

cooperative effort helps developing nations surmount the barriers of hun

poverty and build more stable economies. As industrialized nations have 
100
100

to be egbe oost USapogas ad assged esposbty ot

insured assistance program to the Farm Service Agency.

RMA improves the economic stability of agriculture by offering produce

sound system of crop insurance. Federal crop insurance covers losses due to u

able causes such as drought, excessive moisture, hail, wind, frost, insects, and 

Currently 62 major crops are insurable. Crop insurance is available from crop 

ance agents. Insurance protection must be purchased prior to sales closing da

vary by crop and region.

In addition to administering the multiple peril crop insurance program, R

responsible for coordinating an educational outreach program to help produce

age the financial risks inherent in the production and marketing of agricultura

modities. This cooperative effort involves the resources of the Cooperative St

Research, Education and Extension Service, the Commodity Futures Trading

Commission, and numerous private sector organizations.

Further, new risk management products will continue to be developed by 

in conjunction with the private sector and other Government agencies. For ex

two popular revenue insurance programs, Income Protection and Crop Reven

Coverage (CRC), were fashioned in this manner. Income Protection pays pro

when gross income is less than the level of income protection selected by the 

ducer. CRC also pays for production losses below the yield guarantee at the h

of two prices determined at different times of the year. The programs are curr

available on corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, and grain sorghum in selected Sta
Farm Service Agency

Dir., Pub. Aff. Staff

Marlyn Aycock 

Rm 3624-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-5237

FAX 202-690-2828

maycock@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

Deputy Director

Marlyn Aycock

Rm 3625-S Washington, DC 20250

202-690-1767

FAX 202-690-2828

maycock@wdc.fsa.usda.gov 

Communications Chief 

Danniel W. Stuart 

Rm 3633-S Washington, DC 20250

202-690-0474

FAX 202-690-2839

dstuart@wdc.fsa.usda.gov 

Field Services Chief 

Greg Hawkins 

Rm 3623-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-5237

FAX 202-690-2828

ghawkins@wdc.fsa.usda.gov 

Program Services Chief 

Eric L. Parsons 

Rm 3624-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-7807

FAX 202-690-2828

eparsons@wdc.fsa.usda.gov 

FOIA Coordinator

Jim Jamison 

Rm 3620-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-5875

FAX 202-690-2828

jjamison@wdc.fsa.usda.gov 

FOIA Coordinator

Amy P. Jones 

Rm 3620-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-7757

FAX 202-690-2828

ajones@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

Foreign Agricultural S

Dir., Information Div. 

Maureen Quinn

Rm 5074-S Washington, DC 202

202-720-7115

FAX 202-720-1727

quinn@fas.usda.gov 

Deputy Director

Sally Klusaritz 

Rm 5074-S Washington, DC 202

202-720-3448

FAX 202-720-1727

klusaritz@fas.usda.gov 

Team Leader

Lynn Goldsbrough

Rm 5713-S Washington, DC 202

202-720-3930

FAX 202-720-3229

goldsbrough@fas.usda.gov 

Team Leader

Judy Goldich 

Rm 5717-S Washington, DC 202

202-720-0328

FAX 202-720-3229

goldich@fas.usda.gov

FOIA Officer

Carolyn Harris 

Rm 5711-S Washington, DC 202

202-690-1851

FAX 202-720-3229

harrisc@fas.usda.gov

Risk Management Ag

General Information 

Eric Edgington 

Rm 3611-S Washington, DC 202

202-690-2539

FAX 202-690-2828

eedgingt@wdc.fsa.usda.gov 

General Information 

Marian Jenkins 

Rm 6713-S Washington, DC 202

202-720-5290

FAX 202-690-2095

mjenkins@wdc.fsa.usda.gov 
102

■ Food and Consumer Service

Nutrition is one of USDA’s central missions, and it is the bridge betwfarmer and consumer. The Food and Consumer Service (FCS) admi

USDA’s nutrition assistance programs, with the dual mission of improvin

Nation’s health by getting food to people who need it, and strengthening 

agricultural economy.

USDA has made nutrition and nutrition education integral compone

its domestic nutrition programs. These programs provide access to health

for many needy Americans, and important markets for agricultural comm

Overall, the nutrition programs reach one out of every five Americans.

At the same time, USDA is committed to ensuring that the programs 

accurately and efficiently. FCS 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.

For FY 1996, the total appropriation for the nutrition assistance prog

$39.9 billion—or nearly 65 percent of the entire USDA budget of $61.9 

1997 FCS appropriation is $40.4 billion.

Most of the programs are directed at low-income Americans or scho

They include:

•The Food Stamp Program

•The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infa

and Children (WIC)

•The National School Lunch Program

•The School Breakfast Program

•The Nutrition Education and Training Program

•The Emergency Food Assistance Program

•The Child and Adult Care Food Program

•The Homeless Children Nutrition 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 Commodity Distribution Program for Charitable Institutio

•The Nutrition Assistance Program in Puerto Rico and the North

Mariana Islands
The Food Stamp Program

The Food Stamp Program is the cornerstone of USDA’s nutrition as

programs. The program helps low-income households increase their food 

power and obtain a better diet. It is the primary source of nutrition assista

income Americans. Initiated as a pilot program in 1961 and made perma

the program issues monthly allotments of coupons that are redeemable a

stores, or provides benefits through Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT). 

The Food Stamp Program serves the most needy among the Nation’

More than half of all food stamp participants are children. Almost 90 per

food stamp households have incomes below the Federal poverty level, an

have incomes that are half or less of the poverty level. Ten percent have n

all.

Increasingly, paper food stamp coupons are being replaced by EBT, 

ized system in which participants use magnetic strip cards to access their 

account at the point of sale. As of August 1996, 5 States were operating E

statewide, and a total of 14 States had operational EBT systems for all or 

caseload. Almost all other States were in some stage of EBT developmen

nating paper coupons and creating an electronic record of every food stam

tion, EBT will be a useful tool in improving program delivery and in red

types of food stamp fraud and trafficking. 

EBT is only one component of FCS’s commitment to Food Stamp P

integrity. The Agency works closely with the States to ensure that they is

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 in

people who are caught. In addition, the Agency now has broader authorit

the performance of food retailers who participate in the program, and to 

remove those who fail to follow program rules.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

Determining eligibility: Many of USDA’s nutrition programs use

household income as a guideline for program eligibility. Depen

the program rules, household income of 100 percent, 130 perc

185 percent of the Federal poverty level may be used to deter

levels of eligibility. For FY 1996, 100 percent of the poverty gu

was $15,600 a year for a family of four; 130 percent was $20,2

year; and 185 percent was $28,860 a year. Federal poverty gu

lines are established by the Office of Management and Budge

are updated annually by the Department of Health and Human

Services.
104

oe ta30 States ave appoved uttoeducatopas, ad eceve ed

reimbursement for half of the cost of nutrition education and promotion activ

FCS provided seed money to 12 States in 1995 and to 10 States in 1996 for th

opment and evaluation of State nutrition support networks to foster public an

partnerships to extend nutrition promotion to more program participants. 

Eligibility: Food stamp eligibility and allotments are based on household 

and income, assets, and other factors. A household’s gross monthly income ca

exceed 130 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines, and its net income cann

exceed 100 percent of the guidelines. Illegal aliens are not eligible to receive 

stamp benefits, and the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 excluded many legal alie

eligibility as well. In addition, the Act limited many able-bodied adults witho

dependents to 3 months of benefits in a 36-month period.

Benefits: The level of benefits a household receives is based on its house

income. Average monthly benefits were more than $73 per person in 1996.

Households with no income receive the maximum monthly allotment of food

stamps—$400 for a family of four in FY 1997. The allotment is based on the 

the Thrifty Food Plan, a low-cost model diet plan. The Food Stamp Program 

an average of more than 25 million people each month in FY 1996. 

Funding: The total Food Stamp Program appropriation was $26.5 billion 

FY 1996. For FY 1997, the appropriation is $26.3 billion.

The National School Lunch Program

The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is a federally assisted meal 

gram operating in more than 94,000 public and nonprofit private schools and 

tial child care institutions. It provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free 

to almost 26 million children each school day.

The NSLP is usually administered by State education agencies, which op

the program through agreements with local school districts. FCS administers 

program at the Federal level. School districts and independent schools that ch

take part in the lunch program receive cash reimbursement and donated comm

assistance from USDA for each meal they serve. In return, they must serve lu

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

How EBT works: Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) is a computeriz

system that allows food stamp customers to use a plastic card sim

to a bank card to access their food stamp benefits. Eligible recipie

have an account established for their monthly benefits. At the groc

checkout, they present the card, which is used to debit their food

stamp account for the amount of eligible purchases. The funds are

automatically transferred to the retailer’s account, and an electron

record is made of the transaction. No money and no food stamps

change hands. 
99, aeot to pove te uttoaquaty oscooea

launched the School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children, the first full-s

of the school lunch program since it was established in 1946. The centerp

initiative was new regulations to update nutrition standards so that all sch

will meet the recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans

regulations became final in June 1995, and took effect at the beginning o

1996-97.

In support of USDA’s School Meals Initiative, on October 6, 1994, C

passed the Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act, requiring that all s

conform to the Dietary Guidelines by school year 1996-97. The Healthy 

Children Act, passed in May 1996, expanded the range of menu planning 

schools, and reinforced the requirement that all school meals must meet 

Guidelines.

Other elements of the initiative will teach and motivate children to m

food choices, cut administrative red tape, and continue to improve the qu

commodities USDA provides to schools. 

Recognizing that improved nutrition education empowers students t

healthy food choices, USDA established Team Nutrition as a part of the S

Initiative. Team Nutrition brings together public/private partnerships to i

a nutrition education program for children, as well as a training and techn

tance program to help school foodservice professionals deliver healthy s

The campaign has produced significant results. USDA formed a gro

partnership with the Walt Disney Company to develop healthy eating me

be used on television. USDA also entered into a partnership with Scholas

to deliver age-appropriate nutrition information to children in school and 

parents at home. 

The second component of Team Nutrition, the Training and Technic

Program, was designed to ensure that school nutrition and food service p

have the education, motivation, training, and skills necessary to serve me

USDA’s nutrition standards and appeal to children. 

The Department has also placed special emphasis on improving the 

commodities donated to the National School Lunch Program. The Comm

Improvement Council was established in 1995 to promote the health of s

dren by improving the nutritional profile of USDA commodities while m

USDA’s support for domestic agricultural markets. Based on the council

mendations, USDA reduced the fat, sodium, and sugar content of commo

is now offering a wider variety of new low-fat and reduced-fat products. 

USDA has made enormous progress in increasing the amount of fres

given to schools, and is now offering unprecedented amounts and varieti

fruit and vegetables. A cooperative project with the Department of Defen

has allowed USDA to increase the variety of produce available to school

DOD’s buying and distribution system. 

Eligibility: Any child, regardless of family income level, can purcha

through the NSLP. Children from families with incomes at or below 130 
106

Cdeoaes wtcoes ove85 pecet opovety pay te u

established price.

Benefits: Most of the support USDA provides to schools comes in the fo

cash reimbursements for meals served. The reimbursement is highest for mea

served to students who qualify to receive their meals free, and the lowest reim

ment is for students who pay full price. The cash reimbursement rates for sch

1996-97 were: Free, $1.84; reduced price, $1.44; and full price, $.18. Schools 

charge no more than 40 cents for a reduced-price meal.

In addition to cash reimbursements, schools are entitled to receive comm

foods, called “entitlement” foods, at an annually adjusted per-meal rate (curre

15 cents) for each meal they serve. Schools can receive additional commoditi

known as “bonus” commodities, when these are available from surplus stock

purchased by USDA under price support programs. USDA commodities mak

approximately 17 percent of the cost of the food served by the average schoo

authority. The remaining 83 percent is purchased locally by the school food au

Funding: For FY 1996, Congress appropriated $4.4 billion for the Natio

School Lunch Program. Additional funding, totaling more than $673 million, 

included for the purchase of entitlement commodity foods. The 1997 appropr

is $5.02 billion, plus an additional amount totaling more than $700 million fo

entitlement commodity purchases.

The School Breakfast Program

The School Breakfast Program (SBP) provides cash assistance to States 

ate nonprofit breakfast programs in eligible schools and residential child care 

tions. The program operates in more than 65,000 schools and institutions, ser

daily average of more than 6.3 million children. The program is administered 

Federal level by FCS. State education agencies administer the program at the 

level, and local school food authorities operate it in schools.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

USDA commodity foods make up only about 17 percent of the cost 

foods that are served to children in the National School Lunch

Program. Nonetheless, more than 1 billion pounds of food, valued a

more than $670 million, was provided to schools by USDA in FY 19
eveae egbe oee beaasts. Cdeoaes wtcoe

130 and 185 percent of the poverty level are eligible for reduced-price br

Children from families with incomes over 185 percent of poverty pay the 

established price for their breakfasts. 

Benefits: USDA supports the School Breakfast Program with cash r

ments for meals served. For school year 1996-97, schools received reimb

of $1.02 for a free meal, $.72 for a reduced-price meal, and $.20 for a pa

Schools may charge no more than 30 cents for a reduced-price breakfast

Federal limit placed on how much a school may charge for breakfast serv

students—those from families with incomes above 185 percent of povert

Funding: For FY 1996, Congress appropriated $1.2 billion for the S

FY 1997 appropriation is also $1.2 billion.

The Nutrition Education and Training Program

The Nutrition Education and Training (NET) Program is the nutritio

component of the food assistance programs for children: the National Sc

Program, School Breakfast, Summer Food Service, and Child and Adult 

Programs.

The goal of NET is to provide leadership in promoting healthy eatin

our Nation’s children by offering effective educational experiences to he

make informed food choices as part of a healthy lifestyle.

The Secretary of Agriculture allocates funds to States each year in th

grants, usually to the State education agency. The States use their grant f

administer their NET programs. Each State employs a NET coordinator w

the needs for nutrition education in the State and develops a plan to addr

tified needs, establishing priorities for use of the funds available in a give

Eligibility: All children participating in or eligible to participate in t

Child Nutrition Programs may receive nutrition education through NET.

Funding: In FY 1996, Congress appropriated $10 million for the NE

For FY 1997, Congress made NET funding “discretionary,” and the actu

level has not been determined.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

The vast majority of children who participate in the School Bre

Program—about 90 percent—receive their meals free or at a

reduced price. That compares to 54 percent of children who re

free or reduced-price meals in the National School Lunch Prog
108

(WC) s a gat pogawose goas to pove te eatopegat, po

tum, and breastfeeding women, and infants and children up to 5 years old, by 

ing supplemental foods, nutrition education, and access to health care. A few 

agencies provide food directly to participants, but most States provide WIC v

that can be used at authorized food stores for approved foods.

WIC provides each State with a set amount of money to serve its most nee

population. Because of documented successes of the WIC Program in improvi

nutritional well-being of participants, it has received continuing political suppo

enabling it to expand to serve more eligible people. In FY 1996, preliminary fig

showed that WIC served an average of more than 7.1 million people each mon

Eligibility: To be eligible for WIC, an applicant must meet State residen

requirements, meet an income standard, and have been determined by a healt

professional to be at nutritional risk.

Benefits: In most States, WIC participants receive vouchers that allow the

purchase a monthly food package specially designed to supplement their diet

foods provided are high in protein, calcium, iron, and vitamins A and C. WIC 

include iron-fortified infant formula and infant cereal; iron-fortified adult cer

vitamin C-rich fruit or vegetable juice; eggs, milk, and cheese; and peanut bu

dried beans, or peas. Special therapeutic formulas and foods are provided w

prescribed by a physician for a specified medical condition. 

The Food and Consumer Service also encourages WIC mothers to breast

their babies whenever possible. WIC women who exclusively breastfeed thei

receive an enhanced food package that includes tuna and carrots.

Funding: The total appropriation for the WIC program in FY 1996 was 

billion. For FY 1997, Congress also appropriated $3.7 billion.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

A 1990 USDA study showed WIC to be effective in improving the

health of newborns and infants as well as mothers. Every $1 spen

WIC, the study reported, saved up to $3 in Medicaid costs.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

FCS requires all States to take bids from or negotiate with manufa

turers for the best rebate on each can of WIC infant formula purchased. In 1995, infant formula rebates amounted to over $1 billio

nationwide and funded services for nearly 1.6 million persons each

month.
The WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program

The WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (FMNP), established 

funded through a Congressionally mandated set-aside in the WIC approp

program has two goals: To provide fresh, nutritious, unprepared food, su

and vegetables, from farmers’markets to WIC participants who are at nu

and to expand consumers’ awareness and use of farmers’ markets. This p

operated in conjunction with the regular WIC Program, is offered in 31 S

other jurisdictions. 

Eligibility: Women, infants over 4 months old, and children who rec

program benefits, or who are WIC-eligible, may participate.

Benefits: Fresh produce can be purchased with FMNP coupons. Sta

may limit FMNP sales to specific foods that are locally grown to encoura

pants to support the farmers in their own State.

Funding: The amount set aside in the WIC appropriation for FMNP 

was $6.75 million. The same amount was provided for FY 1997.

The Commodity Supplemental Food Program

The Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) is a program o

States, administered by FCS at the Federal level. CSFP provides commo

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 at more than 70 sites in 17 States, the District of Colu

two Indian Tribal Organizations. USDA donates commodity foods to the 

cies for distribution, and provides funds to State and local agencies to co

administrative costs. The program served an average of more than 352,0

each month in FY 1996.

Eligibility: State agencies that administer CSFP may establish a res

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

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

Studies have shown that where the WIC Farmers’ Market Nut

Program has been available, WIC participants have consume

fresh fruits and vegetables.

United States.
110

eets: ee ae sood pacages odeet categoes opatcp

The food packages are not intended to provide a complete and balanced diet, 

rather are supplements that are good sources of the nutrients often lacking in 

pants’ diets.

Funding: The 1996 appropriation for CSFP was $86 million. For FY 199

Congress appropriated $166 million to be divided as the Secretary of Agricul

sees fit between CSFP and the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP

The Child and Adult Care Food Program

The Child and Adult Care Food Program provides healthy meals and sna

child and adult day care facilities. 

CACFP ensures that children and adults in day care receive healthy meal

reimbursing participating day care operators for their meal costs and providin

with USDA commodity food. Family day care homes must be overseen by sp

ing organizations, which also receive reimbursements from USDA for their a

trative expenses.

The program generally operates in child care centers, outside-school-hou

centers, family and group day care homes, and some adult day care centers. I

for Federal support, day care providers in the CACFP must serve meals that m

Federal guidelines, and must offer free or reduced-price meals to eligible peo

First authorized as a pilot project in 1975, the program was formerly kno

the Child Care Food Program. It was made a permanent program in 1978, and 

name was changed in 1989 to reflect the addition of an adult component. CAC

administered at the Federal level by FCS. State agencies or FCS regional offi

oversee the program at the local level.

In June 1996, CACFP provided meals to more than 2 million children an

45,000 adults. 

Eligibility: At child and adult day care centers, participants from families 

income at or below 130 percent of the poverty level may qualify for free meals

from families with income between 130 percent and 185 percent of the pover

may qualify for reduced-price meals; and those from families with income ab

185 percent of the poverty level pay full price.

Under the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, Congress instituted a two-tier sy

of reimbursements for family day care homes. Under the new system, day car

providers located in low-income areas, or whose own households are low inc

will be reimbursed at a single rate (tier 1 reimbursement). Other providers wi

reimbursed at a lower rate (tier 2 reimbursement) unless they choose to have 

sponsoring organizations identify children who are income-eligible to receive 

or reduced-price meals. Meals served to such income-eligible children will be 

reimbursed at the higher tier I level.

Benefits: Children and adults who attend day care facilities receive nutr

meals and snacks. Care providers receive reimbursement for eligible meals. F
udg: Cogess appopated $.6 boote CC

1997 appropriation is $1.7 billion.

The Homeless Children Nutrition Program

The Homeless Children Nutrition Program is designed to provide fre

service throughout the year to homeless children under the age of 6 in em

shelters. Sponsoring organizations are reimbursed for the meals that they 

First established as a demonstration project by the Child Nutrition and W

Reauthorization Act of 1989, the Homeless Children Nutrition Program w

permanent by the Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994. A t

79 sponsoring organizations operate the program in 104 shelters, providi

to more than 2,000 preschool-age children every month.

Eligibility: Public and private nonprofit organizations that operate e

shelters may participate, but they may operate no more than five food ser

and may feed no more than 300 children per day at each site. 

Benefits: Children may receive up to three meals and a snack, and s

are reimbursed for the meals and snacks they serve. Meals are provided f

children.

Funding: For FY 1996, Congress appropriated $2.6 million for the 

Children Nutrition Program. For FY 1997, the appropriation is $3.1 milli

The Summer Food Service Program

The Summer Food Service Program provides free meals to low-incom

during school vacations. 

SFSP was first created as part of a larger pilot program in 1968, and 

a separate program in 1975. The SFSP served more than 2 million childr

during the summer of 1995. 

The program is administered at the Federal level by FCS. 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

Any child, or any adult with a disability, within the program’s operating 

participate. 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 p

Federal poverty guideline. Feeding sites that primarily serve homeless ch

■ Nutrition Program Fact: 

More than 185,000 family day care homes and 30,000 day ca

centers participate in the Child and Adult Care Food Program.
112

gbty: Cde8 ad ude, ad peope ove8 wo ae adcap

who participate in a program established for the mentally or physically handi

may receive meals through the Summer Food Service Program. 

Benefits: At most sites, participants receive either one or two meals a da

Residential camps and sites that primarily serve children from migrant house

may be approved to serve up to four meals per day. Sponsors are reimbursed 

documented operating and administrative costs. 

Funding: Congress appropriated $280.3 million for the Summer Food S

Program in FY 1996. For FY 1997, the appropriation is $288.4 million.

The Special Milk Program

The Special Milk Program provides milk to children in schools and child 

institutions that do not participate in other Federal meal service programs. Th

program reimburses schools for the milk they serve.

Schools in the National School Lunch or School Breakfast Programs may 

participate in the SMPto provide milk to children in half-day prekindergarten 

kindergarten programs where children do not have access to the school meal p

Expansion of the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs

include milk, has led to a substantial reduction in the SMP since its peak in th

1960’s.

Eligibility: Any child at a participating school or kindergarten program c

milk through the SMP. Children may buy milk or receive it free, depending o

school’s choice of program options. When local officials offer free milk unde

program, any child from a family that meets income guidelines for free meals 

milk is eligible. 

Benefits: Participating schools and institutions receive reimbursement fr

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 $18.6 million for the program in FY 19

The 1997 appropriation is $19.2 million.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

Some 25 million children eat school lunch every day when school 

in session, and about half of them receive their meals free or at a

reduced price. The Summer Food Service Program offers those ch

dren nutritious food when school is not in session. However, only

about 2 million children currently are able to participate, because

many communities do not sponsor the program.
Nutrition Program for the Elderly 

The Nutrition Program for the Elderly helps provide elderly persons 

tionally sound meals through meals-on-wheels programs or in senior citi

and similar settings. 

The NPE is administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Hum

but receives commodity foods and financial support from USDA under p

the Older Americans Act of 1965. USDA provided reimbursement for m

million meals in FY 1995.

Eligibility: Age is the only factor used in determining eligibility. Pe

or older and their spouses, regardless of age, are eligible for NPE benefit

no income requirement to receive meals under NPE.

Benefits: Each recipient can contribute as much as he or she wishes 

cost of the meal, but meals are free to those who cannot make any contrib

Under NPE, USDA provides cash reimbursements and/or commodit

organizations that provide meals through DHHS programs. Meals served 

specified percentage of the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA’s) 

qualify for cash or commodity assistance. 

Funding: Congress appropriated $150 million for NPE for 1996. Th

appropriation is $140 million.

The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservation

This program provides monthly food packages to Indians living on o

vations and in the Marshall Islands of the Pacific. Many Native American

in the FDPIR as an alternative to the Food Stamp Program if they do not 

access to food stores. An average of nearly 114,000 Native Americans an

Marshall Islanders received food through FDPIR each month in 1995.

The program is administered at the Federal level by FCS in coopera

State agencies. USDA provides food to the State agencies, which are resp

program operations such as storage and distribution, eligibility certificati

nutrition education. 

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

Indian tribal organizations may select an age below 60 for defi

“older” person for their tribes for purposes of eligibility for the N

Program for the Elderly.

the Special Milk Program. 
114

povdes uttooatote oty ood pacage, wtsuggestos 

making the most nutritious use of the commodity foods. 

Eligibility: To participate in FDPIR, the household must be low-income

assets within specified limits, and be located on or near an Indian reservation

income limits used to determine FDPIR eligibility are based on Food Stamp P

monthly income limits, but are slightly higher. 

Benefits: USDA donates a variety of foods to help participants maintain a 

anced diet. These commodities include canned meats and fish products; vegeta

fruits, and juices; dried beans; peanuts or peanut butter; milk, butter, and chees

flour, or grains; adult cereals; corn syrup or honey; and vegetable oil and shorte

Each program recipient receives a monthly food package that weighs 50 

pounds and contains a variety of foods. 

Funding: Congress appropriated $65 million for FDPIR in FY 1996. For F

Congress provided $73.8 million under Food Stamp Program funding for FDPI

The Emergency Food Assistance Program

Originally named the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program, T

provides food assistance to needy Americans through the distribution of USD

modities. Under TEFAP, commodities are made available to States for distrib

households for use in preparing meals for home consumption, or to organizat

prepare and provide meals for needy people. Foods distributed for home use 

but recipients must meet program eligibility criteria set by the States. Local a

usually food banks, shelters, and soup kitchens, are designated by the States t

tribute 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 addition

for further distribution to needy households. 

Available foods vary depending on market conditions. Typically, canned 

dried fruits, canned vegetables, canned meats, peanut butter, butter, and cornm

available. Quantities of any particular commodity food vary, and States may r

distribution of some foods from area to area so that each county receives its f

at some time during the year.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

A recipe book, Quick & Easy Commodity Recipes for the Food

Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, was released for use 

by FDPIR participants in 1990. The book was developed as part o

a 5-year nutrition education plan. USDA also distributes a series o

12 nutrition and health fact sheets for FDPIR participants. 
oteestg edea, State, oocaood, eat, oweae pogao

income is considered as a basis for eligibility. 

Each State can adjust the income criteria based on the level of need 

ensure that assistance is provided only to those most in need.

Benefits: An estimated 1.8 million households were served by TEFA

month in FY 1995. TEFAP has provided billions of pounds of food since 

ning. More than 1 billion pounds, valued at $846 million, was distributed 

gram’s height in 1987. In 1995, nearly 96 million pounds of food, worth 

$52 million, was distributed.

Funding: Congress appropriated $40 million for TEFAP in 1996. U

Welfare Reform Act of 1996, $100 million of the Food Stamp Program a

is earmarked specifically for the purchase of TEFAP commodities for fis

1997 through 2002. For FY 1997, Congress appropriated $100 million un

Stamp Program funding to purchase commodity foods for TEFAP. Anoth

lion was also appropriated, to be divided between TEFAP and the Comm

Supplemental Food Program as the Secretary sees fit. The additional TEF

could be used for additional food purchases, or to provide administrative 

the local agencies that handle TEFAP distribution. 

Food Donations to Charitable Institutions, Soup Kitch

and Food Banks

Thousands of charitable institutions throughout the country rely on f

donated by USDA to help provide meals to needy people. These charitab

range from churches operating community kitchens for the homeless and 

orphanages and homes for the elderly. Other eligible groups include mea

programs, soup kitchens, temporary shelters, correctional institutions off

bilitative activities, group homes for the mentally retarded, and hospitals 

general and long-term health care. 

Foods donated to charitable institutions come from agricultural surp

acquired by USDA as part of its price stabilization and surplus removal a

addition, States generally make commodities from TEFAP available to fo

food pantries, shelters, and soup kitchens for use in providing food assist

needy.

Eligibility: To participate, charitable institutions must be nonprofit a

serve meals on a regular basis. They may be either public or nonprofit pr

tions that have Federal tax-exempt status. Interested groups apply for par

their State’s distributing agency, which determines eligibility based on st

by USDA.

Benefits: Throughout the year, USDA acquires a variety of foods th

programs designed to stabilize farm prices. USDA has this food processe

and transported to designated locations within each State. State distributi

supply the food to eligible institutions and other users of donated foods. 
116

ucts as caed uts, juces, ad vegetabes, oead caed eats, ass

and butter. Other foods may become available when there is a surplus, but su

pluses are usually limited in quantity. Many of the same foods are available f

kitchens and food banks.

Funding: Congress appropriated $40 million for FY 1996 specifically to 

food to soup kitchens and food banks. The cost of foods donated to other cha

institutions varies depending on market conditions. For FY 1997, soup kitche

food banks will receive food through TEFAP. 

The Nutrition Assistance Programs in Puerto Rico and th

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

The Food Stamp Program in Puerto Rico and the Northern Marianas was

replaced in 1982 by a block grant program. The two territories now provide c

coupons to participants rather than food stamps or food distribution. The Nut

Assistance Program (NAP) grant can also be used to fund up to 50 percent of 

Rico’s administrative expenses for the program, or to fund special projects re

food production and distribution.

The NAP for the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas provides ann

block grant funds for food assistance to the needy. The Northern Marianas NA

food coupons, similar to food stamps used in the 50 States.

Eligibility: Puerto Rico and the Northern Marianas determine eligibility a

ments for their programs based on household size, income, assets, and other fa

Benefits: The NAP in Puerto Rico served an average of 1.37 million per

FY 1995. Average monthly benefits were $66.30 per person.

In the Northern Marianas, the NAP served an average of 3,842 people ea

month in 1994, with average monthly benefits of $77.06 per person.

Funding: The total appropriation for the NAP in Puerto Rico for FY 199

$1.143 billion. For 1997, the appropriation is $1.174 billion. The appropriatio

the Northern Marianas was $5.1 million in FY 1996. 

USDA Disaster Assistance

FCS is the primary Agency responsible for providing Federal food assist

response to disasters. FCS provides assistance through the Food Distribution

Program and the Disaster Food Stamp Program.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

In 1995, USDA provided more than 185 million pounds of food to

charitable institutions, soup kitchens, and food banks.
ad ouse tecoodty pogas oscoos oeedy peope. 

can be released immediately for use in a disaster situation. 

Upon request from a State, FCS will procure additional food to mee

people affected by a disaster. Nearby States also may be asked to release 

of USDA food to help feed disaster victims. State distributing agencies th

ute the food to preparation or distribution sites. Disaster relief agencies s

American Red Cross prepare the food at shelters and other mass care fac

The State may also request that food be made available for househol

tion, if commercial channels of food supply are not available because of 

Disaster Food Stamp Program: When commercial channels of foo

are still operable, or have been restored following a disaster, a State may 

approval from the Secretary of Agriculture to operate the Disaster Food S

Program.

If approval is granted, FCS provides on-site guidance for establishin

operating the disaster program. FCS ensures that an adequate supply of f

coupons is available. State and local officials are responsible for determi

eligibility of households to receive disaster food stamps, and for issuing 

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

In FY 1995, FCS provided nearly $1 million in commodities to 

struck by natural disasters:

State Commodities

Texas $610,200

(floods)

California $303,950

(floods)

Total $914,150

FY 1996 was a much harder year for natural disasters. According 

estimates, FCS provided more than $18 million during FY 1996 in 

dities and disaster-related food stamp benefits to victims of flood

hurricanes.
118

The Office of Consumer Affairs

The Office of Consumer Affairs (OCA) links FCS, consumer groups, and 

program stakeholders. OCA advises the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, 

Consumer Services on consumer and constituent issues and concerns. 

OCA arranges periodic meetings, briefings, and roundtables on USDA an

policy for the public, consumer representatives, and program stakeholders. It 

vides public access to a wide range of USDA and FCS documents such as spe

regulatory proposals, and studies, through the Internet and other electronic m

and it responds to consumer requests for assistance and information on USDA 

and procedures.

The OCA 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 mission of the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion is to improvnutritional status of Americans by serving as USDA’s focal point for link

scientific research to the consumer.

The center was established in December 1994 at the direction of the Secr

Agriculture. It is an independent resource in USDA working cooperatively w

departments and agencies to assist in providing strategic planning and coordi

for nutrition policy and promotion. Through CNPP’s nutrition promotion init

nutrition research is translated into information and materials for health profes

corporations, and consumers to increase public knowledge and understanding 

importance of good nutrition.

The Center, which receives administrative support from the Food and Co

Service, was funded at $2.53 million for FY 1996. 

tance programs that FCS operates must do so through the approp

ate State agency, since the programs are administered at the Stat

and local levels by various public and private organizations. In gen

eral, applicants for the largest programs should contact the followi

State or local agencies:

■ Food Stamp Program: State welfare agency

■ School Lunch or School Breakfast (free and reduced-price mea

Neighborhood school or local school authority

■ WIC program: State or local public health office

For programs not listed above, State and local welfare agencies,

health departments, or education agencies can provide informatio

about what programs are available and how and where to apply.
oowg: 

• Family Economics and Nutrition Review. The Center continu

dition of publishing the Family Economics and Nutrition Review 

the Family Economics Review). The quarterly journal, now in it

of publication, has expanded its scope to include nutrition-relate

has added an editorial board of distinguished scientists. Each jo

cally in excess of 70 pages. The annual subscription rate is $8.0

• Dietary Guidelines for Americans (HG-232) and The Food G

Pyramid (HG-252). The 1995 Dietary Guidelines for American

and The Food Guide Pyramid (HG-252) may be ordered in bulk 

Government Printing Office and in single copies from the Cons

Information Center in Pueblo, Colorado. The Guidelines and Py

the public domain, so they are not restricted by copyright provis

they may be downloaded from the CNPP Home Page. Contact t

guidance on using the Pyramid graphic.

• The Healthy Eating Index. The Healthy Eating Index, a measu

Americans are eating in relation to the Dietary Guidelines, is av

single copies from the Center and is also available on the CNPP 

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

The Food Guide Pyramid

Fat (naturally occur

and added)

These symbols show 

added sugars in foods

Fats, Oils, & Sweets
 KEY

USE SPARINGLY
ome stimated foood lans at ouCost evels ae cuety a

in print from CNPP and electronically from the CNPP Home Page. T

of Food at Home is updated monthly.

A number of CNPP publications are available electronically via the Inter

the CNPP Home Page at: http://www.usda.gov/fcs/cnpp.htm For ordering inf

tion contact the center at 1120 20th Street, NW, Suite 200 North Lobby, Wash

DC 20036-3475. Telephone (202) 418-2312, Fax (202) 208-2321. 

120

Eat a

variety of

foods

Choose

a diet

with plenty of

grain products,

vegetables,

and fruits

Choose a 

diet low

low in fat,

saturated fat,

and cholesterol

If you drink

alcoholic beverages,

do so in

moderation

Balance

the food you eat with 

physical activity-

maintain or improve your 

weight

Choose a

diet moderate

in salt and

sodium

Choose a

diet moderate

in sugars

Nutrition and Your Health:

Dietary Guidelines

for Americans

U.S. Department of Agriculture


U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Consumer Services

Acting Deputy Administrator, Office of

Governmental Affairs/Public Infor.

Darlene Barnes 

3101 Park Center Dr.,#805PC

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-2039 FAX 703-305-2312

darlene_barnes@fcs.usda.gov 

Director, Governmental Affairs 

Frank Ippolito 

3101 Park Center Dr., #806PC

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-2010 FAX 703-305-2464

frank_ippolito@fcs.usda.gov 

Director, Public Information 

Darlene Barnes 

3101 Park Center Dr.,#819PC

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-2286 FAX 703-305-1117

darlene_barnes@fcs.usda.gov 

Chief, Publishing/AV Branch 

Chris Kocsis 

3101 Park Center Dr.,#814PC

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-2290 FAX 703-305-1117

chris_kocsis@fcs.usda.gov 

Chief, News Branch 

Phil Shanholtzer 

3101 Park Center Dr.,#815PC

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-2286 FAX 703-305-1117

phil_shanholtzer@fcs.usda.gov 

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Joseph Scordato 

3101 Park Center Dr.,#308PC

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-2244 FAX 703-305-2921

joe_scordato@fcs.usda.gov 

FCS Regional Public

Information Offices

Northeast Reg. PA Director

Charles De Julius 

10 Causeway Street

Boston, MA 02222-1068

617-565-6395 FAX 617-565-6472

charles_Dejulius@fcs.usda.gov 

Mid-Atlantic Reg. PA Director

Walt Haake 

Mercer Corp. Park, CN 02150

300 Corporate Blvd

Robbinsville, NJ 08691-1598

609-259-5091 FAX 609-259-5

walter_haake@fcs.usda.gov 

Southeast Reg. PA Director

Sara Harding 

77 Forsyth St.,SW,Suite 112

Atlanta, GA 30303

404-730-2588 FAX 404-527-4

sara_harding@fcs.usda.gov 

Midwest Reg. PA Director

Lawrence Rudmann 

77 W. Jackson St., 20th Flr

Chicago, IL 60604

312-353-1044 FAX 312-353-0

lawrence_rudmann@fcs.usda.go

Mtn. Plains Reg. PA Director

Craig Forman 

1244 Speer Boulevard, Rm 903

Denver, CO 80204

303-844-0312 

FAX 303-844-6203

craig_forman@fcs.usda.gov 

Southwest Reg. PA Director

Judy Barron 

1100 Commerce Street, Rm 5C3

Dallas, TX 75242

214-290-9802 FAX 214-767-6

judy_barron@fcs.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@fcs.usda.gov 

Center for Nutrition P

and Promotion

Information Director

John Webster 

Suite 200N, 1120 20th St., NW

Washington, DC

202-418-3139 FAX 202-208-2
102

USDAs nutrition assistance programs, with the dual mission of improvin

Nation’s health by getting food to people who need it, and strengthening 

agricultural economy.

USDA has made nutrition and nutrition education integral compone

its domestic nutrition programs. These programs provide access to health

for many needy Americans, and important markets for agricultural comm

Overall, the nutrition programs reach one out of every five Americans.

At the same time, USDA is committed to ensuring that the programs 

accurately and efficiently. FCS 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.

For FY 1996, the total appropriation for the nutrition assistance prog

$39.9 billion—or nearly 65 percent of the entire USDA budget of $61.9 

1997 FCS appropriation is $40.4 billion.

Most of the programs are directed at low-income Americans or scho

They include:

•The Food Stamp Program

•The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infa

and Children (WIC)

•The National School Lunch Program

•The School Breakfast Program

•The Nutrition Education and Training Program

•The Emergency Food Assistance Program

•The Child and Adult Care Food Program

•The Homeless Children Nutrition 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 Commodity Distribution Program for Charitable Institutio

•The Nutrition Assistance Program in Puerto Rico and the North

Mariana Islands
The Food Stamp Program

The Food Stamp Program is the cornerstone of USDA’s nutrition as

programs. The program helps low-income households increase their food 

power and obtain a better diet. It is the primary source of nutrition assista

income Americans. Initiated as a pilot program in 1961 and made perma

the program issues monthly allotments of coupons that are redeemable a

stores, or provides benefits through Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT). 

The Food Stamp Program serves the most needy among the Nation’

More than half of all food stamp participants are children. Almost 90 per

food stamp households have incomes below the Federal poverty level, an

have incomes that are half or less of the poverty level. Ten percent have n

all.

Increasingly, paper food stamp coupons are being replaced by EBT, 

ized system in which participants use magnetic strip cards to access their 

account at the point of sale. As of August 1996, 5 States were operating E

statewide, and a total of 14 States had operational EBT systems for all or 

caseload. Almost all other States were in some stage of EBT developmen

nating paper coupons and creating an electronic record of every food stam

tion, EBT will be a useful tool in improving program delivery and in red

types of food stamp fraud and trafficking. 

EBT is only one component of FCS’s commitment to Food Stamp P

integrity. The Agency works closely with the States to ensure that they is

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 in

people who are caught. In addition, the Agency now has broader authorit

the performance of food retailers who participate in the program, and to 

remove those who fail to follow program rules.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

Determining eligibility: Many of USDA’s nutrition programs use

household income as a guideline for program eligibility. Depen

the program rules, household income of 100 percent, 130 perc

185 percent of the Federal poverty level may be used to deter

levels of eligibility. For FY 1996, 100 percent of the poverty gu

was $15,600 a year for a family of four; 130 percent was $20,2

year; and 185 percent was $28,860 a year. Federal poverty gu

lines are established by the Office of Management and Budge

are updated annually by the Department of Health and Human

Services.
104

oe ta30 States ave appoved uttoeducatopas, ad eceve ed

reimbursement for half of the cost of nutrition education and promotion activ

FCS provided seed money to 12 States in 1995 and to 10 States in 1996 for th

opment and evaluation of State nutrition support networks to foster public an

partnerships to extend nutrition promotion to more program participants. 

Eligibility: Food stamp eligibility and allotments are based on household 

and income, assets, and other factors. A household’s gross monthly income ca

exceed 130 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines, and its net income cann

exceed 100 percent of the guidelines. Illegal aliens are not eligible to receive 

stamp benefits, and the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 excluded many legal alie

eligibility as well. In addition, the Act limited many able-bodied adults witho

dependents to 3 months of benefits in a 36-month period.

Benefits: The level of benefits a household receives is based on its house

income. Average monthly benefits were more than $73 per person in 1996.

Households with no income receive the maximum monthly allotment of food

stamps—$400 for a family of four in FY 1997. The allotment is based on the 

the Thrifty Food Plan, a low-cost model diet plan. The Food Stamp Program 

an average of more than 25 million people each month in FY 1996. 

Funding: The total Food Stamp Program appropriation was $26.5 billion 

FY 1996. For FY 1997, the appropriation is $26.3 billion.

The National School Lunch Program

The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is a federally assisted meal 

gram operating in more than 94,000 public and nonprofit private schools and 

tial child care institutions. It provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free 

to almost 26 million children each school day.

The NSLP is usually administered by State education agencies, which op

the program through agreements with local school districts. FCS administers 

program at the Federal level. School districts and independent schools that ch

take part in the lunch program receive cash reimbursement and donated comm

assistance from USDA for each meal they serve. In return, they must serve lu

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

How EBT works: Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) is a computeriz

system that allows food stamp customers to use a plastic card sim

to a bank card to access their food stamp benefits. Eligible recipie

have an account established for their monthly benefits. At the groc

checkout, they present the card, which is used to debit their food

stamp account for the amount of eligible purchases. The funds are

automatically transferred to the retailer’s account, and an electron

record is made of the transaction. No money and no food stamps

change hands. 
99, aeot to pove te uttoaquaty oscooea

launched the School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children, the first full-s

of the school lunch program since it was established in 1946. The centerp

initiative was new regulations to update nutrition standards so that all sch

will meet the recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans

regulations became final in June 1995, and took effect at the beginning o

1996-97.

In support of USDA’s School Meals Initiative, on October 6, 1994, C

passed the Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act, requiring that all s

conform to the Dietary Guidelines by school year 1996-97. The Healthy 

Children Act, passed in May 1996, expanded the range of menu planning 

schools, and reinforced the requirement that all school meals must meet 

Guidelines.

Other elements of the initiative will teach and motivate children to m

food choices, cut administrative red tape, and continue to improve the qu

commodities USDA provides to schools. 

Recognizing that improved nutrition education empowers students t

healthy food choices, USDA established Team Nutrition as a part of the S

Initiative. Team Nutrition brings together public/private partnerships to i

a nutrition education program for children, as well as a training and techn

tance program to help school foodservice professionals deliver healthy s

The campaign has produced significant results. USDA formed a gro

partnership with the Walt Disney Company to develop healthy eating me

be used on television. USDA also entered into a partnership with Scholas

to deliver age-appropriate nutrition information to children in school and 

parents at home. 

The second component of Team Nutrition, the Training and Technic

Program, was designed to ensure that school nutrition and food service p

have the education, motivation, training, and skills necessary to serve me

USDA’s nutrition standards and appeal to children. 

The Department has also placed special emphasis on improving the 

commodities donated to the National School Lunch Program. The Comm

Improvement Council was established in 1995 to promote the health of s

dren by improving the nutritional profile of USDA commodities while m

USDA’s support for domestic agricultural markets. Based on the council

mendations, USDA reduced the fat, sodium, and sugar content of commo

is now offering a wider variety of new low-fat and reduced-fat products. 

USDA has made enormous progress in increasing the amount of fres

given to schools, and is now offering unprecedented amounts and varieti

fruit and vegetables. A cooperative project with the Department of Defen

has allowed USDA to increase the variety of produce available to school

DOD’s buying and distribution system. 

Eligibility: Any child, regardless of family income level, can purcha

through the NSLP. Children from families with incomes at or below 130 
106

Cdeoaes wtcoes ove85 pecet opovety pay te u

established price.

Benefits: Most of the support USDA provides to schools comes in the fo

cash reimbursements for meals served. The reimbursement is highest for mea

served to students who qualify to receive their meals free, and the lowest reim

ment is for students who pay full price. The cash reimbursement rates for sch

1996-97 were: Free, $1.84; reduced price, $1.44; and full price, $.18. Schools 

charge no more than 40 cents for a reduced-price meal.

In addition to cash reimbursements, schools are entitled to receive comm

foods, called “entitlement” foods, at an annually adjusted per-meal rate (curre

15 cents) for each meal they serve. Schools can receive additional commoditi

known as “bonus” commodities, when these are available from surplus stock

purchased by USDA under price support programs. USDA commodities mak

approximately 17 percent of the cost of the food served by the average schoo

authority. The remaining 83 percent is purchased locally by the school food au

Funding: For FY 1996, Congress appropriated $4.4 billion for the Natio

School Lunch Program. Additional funding, totaling more than $673 million, 

included for the purchase of entitlement commodity foods. The 1997 appropr

is $5.02 billion, plus an additional amount totaling more than $700 million fo

entitlement commodity purchases.

The School Breakfast Program

The School Breakfast Program (SBP) provides cash assistance to States 

ate nonprofit breakfast programs in eligible schools and residential child care 

tions. The program operates in more than 65,000 schools and institutions, ser

daily average of more than 6.3 million children. The program is administered 

Federal level by FCS. State education agencies administer the program at the 

level, and local school food authorities operate it in schools.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

USDA commodity foods make up only about 17 percent of the cost 

foods that are served to children in the National School Lunch

Program. Nonetheless, more than 1 billion pounds of food, valued a

more than $670 million, was provided to schools by USDA in FY 19
eveae egbe oee beaasts. Cdeoaes wtcoe

130 and 185 percent of the poverty level are eligible for reduced-price br

Children from families with incomes over 185 percent of poverty pay the 

established price for their breakfasts. 

Benefits: USDA supports the School Breakfast Program with cash r

ments for meals served. For school year 1996-97, schools received reimb

of $1.02 for a free meal, $.72 for a reduced-price meal, and $.20 for a pa

Schools may charge no more than 30 cents for a reduced-price breakfast

Federal limit placed on how much a school may charge for breakfast serv

students—those from families with incomes above 185 percent of povert

Funding: For FY 1996, Congress appropriated $1.2 billion for the S

FY 1997 appropriation is also $1.2 billion.

The Nutrition Education and Training Program

The Nutrition Education and Training (NET) Program is the nutritio

component of the food assistance programs for children: the National Sc

Program, School Breakfast, Summer Food Service, and Child and Adult 

Programs.

The goal of NET is to provide leadership in promoting healthy eatin

our Nation’s children by offering effective educational experiences to he

make informed food choices as part of a healthy lifestyle.

The Secretary of Agriculture allocates funds to States each year in th

grants, usually to the State education agency. The States use their grant f

administer their NET programs. Each State employs a NET coordinator w

the needs for nutrition education in the State and develops a plan to addr

tified needs, establishing priorities for use of the funds available in a give

Eligibility: All children participating in or eligible to participate in t

Child Nutrition Programs may receive nutrition education through NET.

Funding: In FY 1996, Congress appropriated $10 million for the NE

For FY 1997, Congress made NET funding “discretionary,” and the actu

level has not been determined.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

The vast majority of children who participate in the School Bre

Program—about 90 percent—receive their meals free or at a

reduced price. That compares to 54 percent of children who re

free or reduced-price meals in the National School Lunch Prog
108

(WC) s a gat pogawose goas to pove te eatopegat, po

tum, and breastfeeding women, and infants and children up to 5 years old, by 

ing supplemental foods, nutrition education, and access to health care. A few 

agencies provide food directly to participants, but most States provide WIC v

that can be used at authorized food stores for approved foods.

WIC provides each State with a set amount of money to serve its most nee

population. Because of documented successes of the WIC Program in improvi

nutritional well-being of participants, it has received continuing political suppo

enabling it to expand to serve more eligible people. In FY 1996, preliminary fig

showed that WIC served an average of more than 7.1 million people each mon

Eligibility: To be eligible for WIC, an applicant must meet State residen

requirements, meet an income standard, and have been determined by a healt

professional to be at nutritional risk.

Benefits: In most States, WIC participants receive vouchers that allow the

purchase a monthly food package specially designed to supplement their diet

foods provided are high in protein, calcium, iron, and vitamins A and C. WIC 

include iron-fortified infant formula and infant cereal; iron-fortified adult cer

vitamin C-rich fruit or vegetable juice; eggs, milk, and cheese; and peanut bu

dried beans, or peas. Special therapeutic formulas and foods are provided w

prescribed by a physician for a specified medical condition. 

The Food and Consumer Service also encourages WIC mothers to breast

their babies whenever possible. WIC women who exclusively breastfeed thei

receive an enhanced food package that includes tuna and carrots.

Funding: The total appropriation for the WIC program in FY 1996 was 

billion. For FY 1997, Congress also appropriated $3.7 billion.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

A 1990 USDA study showed WIC to be effective in improving the

health of newborns and infants as well as mothers. Every $1 spen

WIC, the study reported, saved up to $3 in Medicaid costs.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

FCS requires all States to take bids from or negotiate with manufa

turers for the best rebate on each can of WIC infant formula purchased. In 1995, infant formula rebates amounted to over $1 billio

nationwide and funded services for nearly 1.6 million persons each

month.
The WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program

The WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (FMNP), established 

funded through a Congressionally mandated set-aside in the WIC approp

program has two goals: To provide fresh, nutritious, unprepared food, su

and vegetables, from farmers’markets to WIC participants who are at nu

and to expand consumers’ awareness and use of farmers’ markets. This p

operated in conjunction with the regular WIC Program, is offered in 31 S

other jurisdictions. 

Eligibility: Women, infants over 4 months old, and children who rec

program benefits, or who are WIC-eligible, may participate.

Benefits: Fresh produce can be purchased with FMNP coupons. Sta

may limit FMNP sales to specific foods that are locally grown to encoura

pants to support the farmers in their own State.

Funding: The amount set aside in the WIC appropriation for FMNP 

was $6.75 million. The same amount was provided for FY 1997.

The Commodity Supplemental Food Program

The Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) is a program o

States, administered by FCS at the Federal level. CSFP provides commo

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 at more than 70 sites in 17 States, the District of Colu

two Indian Tribal Organizations. USDA donates commodity foods to the 

cies for distribution, and provides funds to State and local agencies to co

administrative costs. The program served an average of more than 352,0

each month in FY 1996.

Eligibility: State agencies that administer CSFP may establish a res

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

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

Studies have shown that where the WIC Farmers’ Market Nut

Program has been available, WIC participants have consume

fresh fruits and vegetables.

United States.
110

eets: ee ae sood pacages odeet categoes opatcp

The food packages are not intended to provide a complete and balanced diet, 

rather are supplements that are good sources of the nutrients often lacking in 

pants’ diets.

Funding: The 1996 appropriation for CSFP was $86 million. For FY 199

Congress appropriated $166 million to be divided as the Secretary of Agricul

sees fit between CSFP and the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP

The Child and Adult Care Food Program

The Child and Adult Care Food Program provides healthy meals and sna

child and adult day care facilities. 

CACFP ensures that children and adults in day care receive healthy meal

reimbursing participating day care operators for their meal costs and providin

with USDA commodity food. Family day care homes must be overseen by sp

ing organizations, which also receive reimbursements from USDA for their a

trative expenses.

The program generally operates in child care centers, outside-school-hou

centers, family and group day care homes, and some adult day care centers. I

for Federal support, day care providers in the CACFP must serve meals that m

Federal guidelines, and must offer free or reduced-price meals to eligible peo

First authorized as a pilot project in 1975, the program was formerly kno

the Child Care Food Program. It was made a permanent program in 1978, and 

name was changed in 1989 to reflect the addition of an adult component. CAC

administered at the Federal level by FCS. State agencies or FCS regional offi

oversee the program at the local level.

In June 1996, CACFP provided meals to more than 2 million children an

45,000 adults. 

Eligibility: At child and adult day care centers, participants from families 

income at or below 130 percent of the poverty level may qualify for free meals

from families with income between 130 percent and 185 percent of the pover

may qualify for reduced-price meals; and those from families with income ab

185 percent of the poverty level pay full price.

Under the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, Congress instituted a two-tier sy

of reimbursements for family day care homes. Under the new system, day car

providers located in low-income areas, or whose own households are low inc

will be reimbursed at a single rate (tier 1 reimbursement). Other providers wi

reimbursed at a lower rate (tier 2 reimbursement) unless they choose to have 

sponsoring organizations identify children who are income-eligible to receive 

or reduced-price meals. Meals served to such income-eligible children will be 

reimbursed at the higher tier I level.

Benefits: Children and adults who attend day care facilities receive nutr

meals and snacks. Care providers receive reimbursement for eligible meals. F
udg: Cogess appopated $.6 boote CC

1997 appropriation is $1.7 billion.

The Homeless Children Nutrition Program

The Homeless Children Nutrition Program is designed to provide fre

service throughout the year to homeless children under the age of 6 in em

shelters. Sponsoring organizations are reimbursed for the meals that they 

First established as a demonstration project by the Child Nutrition and W

Reauthorization Act of 1989, the Homeless Children Nutrition Program w

permanent by the Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994. A t

79 sponsoring organizations operate the program in 104 shelters, providi

to more than 2,000 preschool-age children every month.

Eligibility: Public and private nonprofit organizations that operate e

shelters may participate, but they may operate no more than five food ser

and may feed no more than 300 children per day at each site. 

Benefits: Children may receive up to three meals and a snack, and s

are reimbursed for the meals and snacks they serve. Meals are provided f

children.

Funding: For FY 1996, Congress appropriated $2.6 million for the 

Children Nutrition Program. For FY 1997, the appropriation is $3.1 milli

The Summer Food Service Program

The Summer Food Service Program provides free meals to low-incom

during school vacations. 

SFSP was first created as part of a larger pilot program in 1968, and 

a separate program in 1975. The SFSP served more than 2 million childr

during the summer of 1995. 

The program is administered at the Federal level by FCS. 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

Any child, or any adult with a disability, within the program’s operating 

participate. 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 p

Federal poverty guideline. Feeding sites that primarily serve homeless ch

■ Nutrition Program Fact: 

More than 185,000 family day care homes and 30,000 day ca

centers participate in the Child and Adult Care Food Program.
112

gbty: Cde8 ad ude, ad peope ove8 wo ae adcap

who participate in a program established for the mentally or physically handi

may receive meals through the Summer Food Service Program. 

Benefits: At most sites, participants receive either one or two meals a da

Residential camps and sites that primarily serve children from migrant house

may be approved to serve up to four meals per day. Sponsors are reimbursed 

documented operating and administrative costs. 

Funding: Congress appropriated $280.3 million for the Summer Food S

Program in FY 1996. For FY 1997, the appropriation is $288.4 million.

The Special Milk Program

The Special Milk Program provides milk to children in schools and child 

institutions that do not participate in other Federal meal service programs. Th

program reimburses schools for the milk they serve.

Schools in the National School Lunch or School Breakfast Programs may 

participate in the SMPto provide milk to children in half-day prekindergarten 

kindergarten programs where children do not have access to the school meal p

Expansion of the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs

include milk, has led to a substantial reduction in the SMP since its peak in th

1960’s.

Eligibility: Any child at a participating school or kindergarten program c

milk through the SMP. Children may buy milk or receive it free, depending o

school’s choice of program options. When local officials offer free milk unde

program, any child from a family that meets income guidelines for free meals 

milk is eligible. 

Benefits: Participating schools and institutions receive reimbursement fr

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 $18.6 million for the program in FY 19

The 1997 appropriation is $19.2 million.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

Some 25 million children eat school lunch every day when school 

in session, and about half of them receive their meals free or at a

reduced price. The Summer Food Service Program offers those ch

dren nutritious food when school is not in session. However, only

about 2 million children currently are able to participate, because

many communities do not sponsor the program.
Nutrition Program for the Elderly 

The Nutrition Program for the Elderly helps provide elderly persons 

tionally sound meals through meals-on-wheels programs or in senior citi

and similar settings. 

The NPE is administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Hum

but receives commodity foods and financial support from USDA under p

the Older Americans Act of 1965. USDA provided reimbursement for m

million meals in FY 1995.

Eligibility: Age is the only factor used in determining eligibility. Pe

or older and their spouses, regardless of age, are eligible for NPE benefit

no income requirement to receive meals under NPE.

Benefits: Each recipient can contribute as much as he or she wishes 

cost of the meal, but meals are free to those who cannot make any contrib

Under NPE, USDA provides cash reimbursements and/or commodit

organizations that provide meals through DHHS programs. Meals served 

specified percentage of the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA’s) 

qualify for cash or commodity assistance. 

Funding: Congress appropriated $150 million for NPE for 1996. Th

appropriation is $140 million.

The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservation

This program provides monthly food packages to Indians living on o

vations and in the Marshall Islands of the Pacific. Many Native American

in the FDPIR as an alternative to the Food Stamp Program if they do not 

access to food stores. An average of nearly 114,000 Native Americans an

Marshall Islanders received food through FDPIR each month in 1995.

The program is administered at the Federal level by FCS in coopera

State agencies. USDA provides food to the State agencies, which are resp

program operations such as storage and distribution, eligibility certificati

nutrition education. 

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

Indian tribal organizations may select an age below 60 for defi

“older” person for their tribes for purposes of eligibility for the N

Program for the Elderly.

the Special Milk Program. 
114

povdes uttooatote oty ood pacage, wtsuggestos 

making the most nutritious use of the commodity foods. 

Eligibility: To participate in FDPIR, the household must be low-income

assets within specified limits, and be located on or near an Indian reservation

income limits used to determine FDPIR eligibility are based on Food Stamp P

monthly income limits, but are slightly higher. 

Benefits: USDA donates a variety of foods to help participants maintain a 

anced diet. These commodities include canned meats and fish products; vegeta

fruits, and juices; dried beans; peanuts or peanut butter; milk, butter, and chees

flour, or grains; adult cereals; corn syrup or honey; and vegetable oil and shorte

Each program recipient receives a monthly food package that weighs 50 

pounds and contains a variety of foods. 

Funding: Congress appropriated $65 million for FDPIR in FY 1996. For F

Congress provided $73.8 million under Food Stamp Program funding for FDPI

The Emergency Food Assistance Program

Originally named the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program, T

provides food assistance to needy Americans through the distribution of USD

modities. Under TEFAP, commodities are made available to States for distrib

households for use in preparing meals for home consumption, or to organizat

prepare and provide meals for needy people. Foods distributed for home use 

but recipients must meet program eligibility criteria set by the States. Local a

usually food banks, shelters, and soup kitchens, are designated by the States t

tribute 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 addition

for further distribution to needy households. 

Available foods vary depending on market conditions. Typically, canned 

dried fruits, canned vegetables, canned meats, peanut butter, butter, and cornm

available. Quantities of any particular commodity food vary, and States may r

distribution of some foods from area to area so that each county receives its f

at some time during the year.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

A recipe book, Quick & Easy Commodity Recipes for the Food

Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, was released for use 

by FDPIR participants in 1990. The book was developed as part o

a 5-year nutrition education plan. USDA also distributes a series o

12 nutrition and health fact sheets for FDPIR participants. 
oteestg edea, State, oocaood, eat, oweae pogao

income is considered as a basis for eligibility. 

Each State can adjust the income criteria based on the level of need 

ensure that assistance is provided only to those most in need.

Benefits: An estimated 1.8 million households were served by TEFA

month in FY 1995. TEFAP has provided billions of pounds of food since 

ning. More than 1 billion pounds, valued at $846 million, was distributed 

gram’s height in 1987. In 1995, nearly 96 million pounds of food, worth 

$52 million, was distributed.

Funding: Congress appropriated $40 million for TEFAP in 1996. U

Welfare Reform Act of 1996, $100 million of the Food Stamp Program a

is earmarked specifically for the purchase of TEFAP commodities for fis

1997 through 2002. For FY 1997, Congress appropriated $100 million un

Stamp Program funding to purchase commodity foods for TEFAP. Anoth

lion was also appropriated, to be divided between TEFAP and the Comm

Supplemental Food Program as the Secretary sees fit. The additional TEF

could be used for additional food purchases, or to provide administrative 

the local agencies that handle TEFAP distribution. 

Food Donations to Charitable Institutions, Soup Kitch

and Food Banks

Thousands of charitable institutions throughout the country rely on f

donated by USDA to help provide meals to needy people. These charitab

range from churches operating community kitchens for the homeless and 

orphanages and homes for the elderly. Other eligible groups include mea

programs, soup kitchens, temporary shelters, correctional institutions off

bilitative activities, group homes for the mentally retarded, and hospitals 

general and long-term health care. 

Foods donated to charitable institutions come from agricultural surp

acquired by USDA as part of its price stabilization and surplus removal a

addition, States generally make commodities from TEFAP available to fo

food pantries, shelters, and soup kitchens for use in providing food assist

needy.

Eligibility: To participate, charitable institutions must be nonprofit a

serve meals on a regular basis. They may be either public or nonprofit pr

tions that have Federal tax-exempt status. Interested groups apply for par

their State’s distributing agency, which determines eligibility based on st

by USDA.

Benefits: Throughout the year, USDA acquires a variety of foods th

programs designed to stabilize farm prices. USDA has this food processe

and transported to designated locations within each State. State distributi

supply the food to eligible institutions and other users of donated foods. 
116

ucts as caed uts, juces, ad vegetabes, oead caed eats, ass

and butter. Other foods may become available when there is a surplus, but su

pluses are usually limited in quantity. Many of the same foods are available f

kitchens and food banks.

Funding: Congress appropriated $40 million for FY 1996 specifically to 

food to soup kitchens and food banks. The cost of foods donated to other cha

institutions varies depending on market conditions. For FY 1997, soup kitche

food banks will receive food through TEFAP. 

The Nutrition Assistance Programs in Puerto Rico and th

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

The Food Stamp Program in Puerto Rico and the Northern Marianas was

replaced in 1982 by a block grant program. The two territories now provide c

coupons to participants rather than food stamps or food distribution. The Nut

Assistance Program (NAP) grant can also be used to fund up to 50 percent of 

Rico’s administrative expenses for the program, or to fund special projects re

food production and distribution.

The NAP for the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas provides ann

block grant funds for food assistance to the needy. The Northern Marianas NA

food coupons, similar to food stamps used in the 50 States.

Eligibility: Puerto Rico and the Northern Marianas determine eligibility a

ments for their programs based on household size, income, assets, and other fa

Benefits: The NAP in Puerto Rico served an average of 1.37 million per

FY 1995. Average monthly benefits were $66.30 per person.

In the Northern Marianas, the NAP served an average of 3,842 people ea

month in 1994, with average monthly benefits of $77.06 per person.

Funding: The total appropriation for the NAP in Puerto Rico for FY 199

$1.143 billion. For 1997, the appropriation is $1.174 billion. The appropriatio

the Northern Marianas was $5.1 million in FY 1996. 

USDA Disaster Assistance

FCS is the primary Agency responsible for providing Federal food assist

response to disasters. FCS provides assistance through the Food Distribution

Program and the Disaster Food Stamp Program.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

In 1995, USDA provided more than 185 million pounds of food to

charitable institutions, soup kitchens, and food banks.
ad ouse tecoodty pogas oscoos oeedy peope. 

can be released immediately for use in a disaster situation. 

Upon request from a State, FCS will procure additional food to mee

people affected by a disaster. Nearby States also may be asked to release 

of USDA food to help feed disaster victims. State distributing agencies th

ute the food to preparation or distribution sites. Disaster relief agencies s

American Red Cross prepare the food at shelters and other mass care fac

The State may also request that food be made available for househol

tion, if commercial channels of food supply are not available because of 

Disaster Food Stamp Program: When commercial channels of foo

are still operable, or have been restored following a disaster, a State may 

approval from the Secretary of Agriculture to operate the Disaster Food S

Program.

If approval is granted, FCS provides on-site guidance for establishin

operating the disaster program. FCS ensures that an adequate supply of f

coupons is available. State and local officials are responsible for determi

eligibility of households to receive disaster food stamps, and for issuing 

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

In FY 1995, FCS provided nearly $1 million in commodities to 

struck by natural disasters:

State Commodities

Texas $610,200

(floods)

California $303,950

(floods)

Total $914,150

FY 1996 was a much harder year for natural disasters. According 

estimates, FCS provided more than $18 million during FY 1996 in 

dities and disaster-related food stamp benefits to victims of flood

hurricanes.
118

OCA arranges periodic meetings, briefings, and roundtables on USDA an

policy for the public, consumer representatives, and program stakeholders. It 

vides public access to a wide range of USDA and FCS documents such as spe

regulatory proposals, and studies, through the Internet and other electronic m

and it responds to consumer requests for assistance and information on USDA 

and procedures.

The OCA 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 mission of the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion is to improvnutritional status of Americans by serving as USDA’s focal point for link

scientific research to the consumer.

The center was established in December 1994 at the direction of the Secr

Agriculture. It is an independent resource in USDA working cooperatively w

departments and agencies to assist in providing strategic planning and coordi

for nutrition policy and promotion. Through CNPP’s nutrition promotion init

nutrition research is translated into information and materials for health profes

corporations, and consumers to increase public knowledge and understanding 

importance of good nutrition.

The Center, which receives administrative support from the Food and Co

Service, was funded at $2.53 million for FY 1996. 
118

The center was established in December 1994 at the direction of the Secr

Agriculture. It is an independent resource in USDA working cooperatively w

departments and agencies to assist in providing strategic planning and coordi

for nutrition policy and promotion. Through CNPP’s nutrition promotion init

nutrition research is translated into information and materials for health profes

corporations, and consumers to increase public knowledge and understanding 

importance of good nutrition.

The Center, which receives administrative support from the Food and Co

Service, was funded at $2.53 million for FY 1996. 
oowg: 

• Family Economics and Nutrition Review. The Center continu

dition of publishing the Family Economics and Nutrition Review 

the Family Economics Review). The quarterly journal, now in it

of publication, has expanded its scope to include nutrition-relate

has added an editorial board of distinguished scientists. Each jo

cally in excess of 70 pages. The annual subscription rate is $8.0

• Dietary Guidelines for Americans (HG-232) and The Food G

Pyramid (HG-252). The 1995 Dietary Guidelines for American

and The Food Guide Pyramid (HG-252) may be ordered in bulk 

Government Printing Office and in single copies from the Cons

Information Center in Pueblo, Colorado. The Guidelines and Py

the public domain, so they are not restricted by copyright provis

they may be downloaded from the CNPP Home Page. Contact t

guidance on using the Pyramid graphic.

• The Healthy Eating Index. The Healthy Eating Index, a measu

Americans are eating in relation to the Dietary Guidelines, is av

single copies from the Center and is also available on the CNPP 

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

The Food Guide Pyramid

Fat (naturally occur

and added)

These symbols show 

added sugars in foods

Fats, Oils, & Sweets
 KEY

USE SPARINGLY
ome stimated foood lans at ouCost evels ae cuety a

in print from CNPP and electronically from the CNPP Home Page. T

of Food at Home is updated monthly.

A number of CNPP publications are available electronically via the Inter

the CNPP Home Page at: http://www.usda.gov/fcs/cnpp.htm For ordering inf

tion contact the center at 1120 20th Street, NW, Suite 200 North Lobby, Wash

DC 20036-3475. Telephone (202) 418-2312, Fax (202) 208-2321. 

120

Eat a

variety of

foods

Choose

a diet

with plenty of

grain products,

vegetables,

and fruits

Choose a 

diet low

low in fat,

saturated fat,

and cholesterol

If you drink

alcoholic beverages,

do so in

moderation

Balance

the food you eat with 

physical activity-

maintain or improve your 

weight

Choose a

diet moderate

in salt and

sodium

Choose a

diet moderate

in sugars

Nutrition and Your Health:

Dietary Guidelines

for Americans

U.S. Department of Agriculture


U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Consumer Services

Acting Deputy Administrator, Office of

Governmental Affairs/Public Infor.

Darlene Barnes 

3101 Park Center Dr.,#805PC

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-2039 FAX 703-305-2312

darlene_barnes@fcs.usda.gov 

Director, Governmental Affairs 

Frank Ippolito 

3101 Park Center Dr., #806PC

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-2010 FAX 703-305-2464

frank_ippolito@fcs.usda.gov 

Director, Public Information 

Darlene Barnes 

3101 Park Center Dr.,#819PC

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-2286 FAX 703-305-1117

darlene_barnes@fcs.usda.gov 

Chief, Publishing/AV Branch 

Chris Kocsis 

3101 Park Center Dr.,#814PC

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-2290 FAX 703-305-1117

chris_kocsis@fcs.usda.gov 

Chief, News Branch 

Phil Shanholtzer 

3101 Park Center Dr.,#815PC

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-2286 FAX 703-305-1117

phil_shanholtzer@fcs.usda.gov 

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Joseph Scordato 

3101 Park Center Dr.,#308PC

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-2244 FAX 703-305-2921

joe_scordato@fcs.usda.gov 

FCS Regional Public

Information Offices

Northeast Reg. PA Director

Charles De Julius 

10 Causeway Street

Boston, MA 02222-1068

617-565-6395 FAX 617-565-6472

charles_Dejulius@fcs.usda.gov 

Mid-Atlantic Reg. PA Director

Walt Haake 

Mercer Corp. Park, CN 02150

300 Corporate Blvd

Robbinsville, NJ 08691-1598

609-259-5091 FAX 609-259-5

walter_haake@fcs.usda.gov 

Southeast Reg. PA Director

Sara Harding 

77 Forsyth St.,SW,Suite 112

Atlanta, GA 30303

404-730-2588 FAX 404-527-4

sara_harding@fcs.usda.gov 

Midwest Reg. PA Director

Lawrence Rudmann 

77 W. Jackson St., 20th Flr

Chicago, IL 60604

312-353-1044 FAX 312-353-0

lawrence_rudmann@fcs.usda.go

Mtn. Plains Reg. PA Director

Craig Forman 

1244 Speer Boulevard, Rm 903

Denver, CO 80204

303-844-0312 

FAX 303-844-6203

craig_forman@fcs.usda.gov 

Southwest Reg. PA Director

Judy Barron 

1100 Commerce Street, Rm 5C3

Dallas, TX 75242

214-290-9802 FAX 214-767-6

judy_barron@fcs.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@fcs.usda.gov 

Center for Nutrition P

and Promotion

Information Director

John Webster 

Suite 200N, 1120 20th St., NW

Washington, DC

202-418-3139 FAX 202-208-2
122

y

■ Food Safety and Inspection Service

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) protects consumers by ensthat meat, poultry, and egg products are safe, wholesome, and accurately 

The Agency has a 90-year history of protecting the public from unwholesome 

unsafe products.

FSIS is pursuing a broad and long-term science-based strategy to improv

safety of meat, poultry, and egg products to better protect public health. The A

is changing the Federal meat and poultry inspection system from a system ba

primarily on sight, touch, and smell to one incorporating scientific testing and 

tematic prevention of contamination. In addition, the Agency is broadening it

by focusing on the entire food safety chain, from farm to table, rather than on

what happens within inspected establishments. 

On July 25, 1996, the Agency finalized the most significant changes in m

poultry inspection rules since Congress enacted the Meat Inspection Act of 1

The final rule on Pathogen Reduction and Hazard Analysis and Critical Contr

(HACCP) Systems targets pathogens that cause foodborne illness, strengthen

try responsibility to produce safe food, and focuses inspection and plant activ

on prevention objectives.

FSIS is also making fundamental internal changes required to successful

out its HACCP-based, farm-to-table food safety strategy. First, FSIS is under

a reorganization designed to streamline its management structure and better f

Agency activities on public health and policy and program development. Sec

FSIS is reforming its existing regulations to be consistent with HACCP princ

and greater reliance on performance standards.

FSIS Activities

The activities of FSIS include:

■ Inspecting birds and livestock, as well as processed products made fro

them,

■ Continuous inspection of all liquid, frozen, and dried egg products,

■ Setting standards for plant facilities, product contents, processing pro

packaging, and labeling,

■ Analyzing products for microbiological and chemical adulterants, and

■ Educating consumers about foodborne illness by way of publications, 

educational campaigns, and a toll-free Meat and Poultry Hotline.
FSIS inspects and regulates all raw beef, pork, lamb, chicken, and tu

interstate and foreign commerce, including imported products. In FY 199

inspected more than 7 billion poultry and more than 136.5 million head o

The task of inspecting meat and poultry is imposing because consumers 

billion, or one-third of their annual food dollars, on meat and poultry pro

Inspectors check animals before and after slaughter, preventing dise

from entering the food supply and examining carcasses for visible defect

affect safety and quality. Inspectors also test for the presence of drug and 

residues that violate Federal law. Over the last 20 years, the violation rate 

and chemical residues detected in FSIS testing programs has dropped dra

moving close to zero. Only about 3 of every 1,000 samples routinely test

residues exceed the legal limit.

provisions. 

■ First, all plants that slaughter animals and process meat an

try products will be required to adopt HACCP, a system of p

control designed to prevent food safety hazards. Under HA

companies must identify critical control points where contam

tion can occur and develop strategies to prevent and contro

■ Second, to verify that HACCP systems are effective in redu

contamination with harmful bacteria, FSIS is setting pathog

reduction performance standards for Salmonella that slaug

plants and plants that produce raw, ground meat and poultr

fresh pork sausage will have to meet. Plants must ensure t

Salmonella contamination rate is below the current nationa

line incidence. 

■ Third, slaughter plants will be required to conduct microbia

for generic E. coli to verify that their process control system

working as intended to prevent fecal contamination, the pri

avenue of contamination for harmful bacteria. 

■ Fourth, FSIS is requiring all plants to adopt and follow writte

Standard Operating Procedures for sanitation to reduce the 

hood that harmful bacteria will contaminate the finished pro

Inspectors will shift their roles from inspecting for sanitation

defects to enforcement of the sanitation standards.

■ In addition, FSIS is taking steps at other points on the farm

table chain. FSIS is working with the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) to adopt standards to control the grow

harmful bacteria during transportation and storage and is w

with FDA and State and local authorities to improve food sa

practices at the retail level. 
124

Table 9-1.

Livestock, poultry and egg products federally inspected in 199

Cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Swine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Other livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,770

Liquid egg products (pounds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,931

In addition, about 250,000 different processed meat and poultry products 

under FSIS inspection. These include hams, sausage, soups, stews, pizzas, fro

dinners, and any product containing 2 percent or more cooked poultry or at le

percent raw meat. In addition to inspecting these products during processing, 

evaluates and sets standards for food ingredients, additives, and compounds u

prepare and package meat and poultry products. As part of the inspection pro

inspectors test for the presence of Salmonella and Listeria in ready-to-eat pro

No pathogens are permitted in such products. The Agency also sets labeling s

and approves labels for meat, poultry, and egg products.

In FY 1995, USDA inspected 1,931 million pounds of liquid egg produc

were sold in liquid form, frozen, or as dried egg products. Continuous inspec

82 U.S. plants was provided by 143 inspectors, supervisors, and support staff 

Egg Products Inspection Division. 

Imported meat and poultry arriving by ship or air are also subject to FSIS

scrutiny. The Agency reviews and monitors the foreign inspection systems in 

products’ countries of origin to ensure they are equivalent to the U.S. system. 

the products reach the United States, selected products are reinspected at 160 

import facilities by import inspection personnel.

privately owned meat, poultry, and other slaughtering or processin

plants in the United States and U.S. Territories.

■ More than 1,400 foreign plants are authorized to export products t

the United States. In 1995 over 2.6 billion pounds of meat and pou

passed inspection for entry into the United States from 34 countrie
s te esposbty odusty to poduce sae eat ad pouty poduct

HACCP, FSIS’s role will change from one of pointing out problems to se

priate food safety standards and maintaining vigorous inspection oversig

that those standards are met. FSIS is reforming its existing regulations to 

emphasis on performance standards.

For the future, FSIS will be further examining the work that its inspe

determine what changes would improve food safety and make better use 

resources.

■ Testing For Pathogens

Between 1906 and 1993, the inspection system was based la

what inspectors could see: diseases, defects, and contaminat

meat and poultry carcasses. FSIS has strict standards for the b

pathogens Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes on ready-

products, but it has up to now had no standards for bacterial pa

on raw products.

In 1994, for the first time, the Agency declared a bacterium in 

meat to be a contaminant. The bacteria E. coli O157:H7 were

responsible for four deaths and hundreds of illnesses in severa

Northwestern States in 1993. Zero tolerance for E. coli O157:H

ground beef was established, and FSIS began testing for its p

ence in samples of raw product collected from plants under Fe

inspection and retail stores.

Under the final rule on Pathogen Reduction and HACCP, slaug

plants will be required to routinely test for the generic form of 

to verify the effectiveness of their procedures to prevent and r

fecal contamination. 

And slaughter plants and plants producing raw ground produc

fresh pork sausage will be required to meet pathogen reductio

formance standards for Salmonella to determine whether targe

being met or remedial measures are necessary. FSIS, rather th

plants, will test for Salmonella, a pathogenic bacteria that is the 

common cause of foodborne illness in the United States.
126

ssued Jauay 6, 993, eques adatoy uttoabeg oost eat a

poultry products except raw, single-ingredient products such as raw poultry. S

implementation of the rule in August 1994, FSIS has provided consumers wit

useful educational tool to help them choose a healthful diet.

The Nutrition Facts panel was developed through a joint effort by FSIS a

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the U.S. Department of Health and H

Services (DHHS). The two agencies issued parallel regulations intended to cr

most uniform nutrition labels possible for virtually all foods.

The labels help consumers follow the Dietary Guidelines developed by t

USDA and HHS. The guidelines emphasize the importance of a well-balance

Most packaged foods carry an up-to-date, easy-to-use nutrition panel. See the 

ing example. 

Nutrition Facts

Calories 000

% Daily Value*

Total Fat 00g

 Saturated Fat 0g


Cholesterol 00mg


Sodium 000mg

Total Carbohydrate 00g

 Dietary Fiber 0g

 Sugars 00g

Protein 00g

00%


00%


00%


00%


00%


0%

Vitamin A 0%

Calcium 00%

Vitamin C 0%

Iron 0%

*

Percent Daily Values are based on a 2,000 calorie 


diet. Your daily values may be higher or lower 


depending on your calorie needs:

Calories: 2,000 2,500

Total Fat


 Sat Fat


Cholesterol


Sodium


Total Carbohydrate


 Dietary Fiber

Calories per gram:


Fat 9 • Carbohydrate 4 • Protein 4

Less than


Less than


Less than


Less than

65g


20g


300mg


2,400mg


300g


25g

80g


25g


300mg


2,400mg


375g


30g

Calories from Fat 000

•

•

Serving Size 0 cup (000g)


Servings Per Container 0

Amount Per Serving

set specc equeets ousg te oowg tes: 

■ free 

■ less

■ low

■ good source of

■ extra lean 

■ light (lite)

■ high

■ reduced

■ lean

■ more

Safe Food Handling Label

In 1994, FSIS issued a rule requiring safe handling instructions on p

all raw or partially cooked meat and poultry products as part of a compre

effort to protect consumers from foodborne illness. Some food products 

bacteria that could cause illness if the product is mishandled or cooked im

To prevent bacterial growth and to reduce the risk of foodborne illne

directs consumers to follow safe food handling practices from the time p

products are purchased until they have been cooked and stored.

A Safe Food Handling Label:

Safe Handling Instructions

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.
128

ad pouty opoductotouguse. ood saety depeds o:

■ Properly growing the animals at the farm or feedlot,

■ Processing at the plant incorporating pathogen reduction and HACCP

measures,

■ Handling the food safely during transportation and distribution,

■ Storing the food safely in the store, and

■ Safe food handling at home by consumers.

At the Farm

Quality control programs are being used to control pathogens on the farm

works closely with the producers of food animals as well as other governmen

cies to explore, develop, and implement food safety measures that can be take

the farm and before animals enter the slaughter facility to reduce the risk of h

contamination of meat and poultry products.

Inside the Plant

Changing a live animal into food that is conveniently packaged for consu

occurs inside a federally inspected meat or poultry plant. To improve the safe

meat and poultry products, the Pathogen Reduction and HACCP Final Rule o

25, 1996, is intended to reduce levels of bacteria which can be on meat and p

products as a result of contamination from the live animal.

The purpose of HACCP systems is to identify potential food safety hazar

ing in slaughter and processing plants. HACCP is a system of steps used to id

and prevent problems from occurring during food processing and to correct th

soon as they are detected. With HACCP in place, FSIS can verify that the pla

controlling its processes and consistently producing products that comply wit

safety requirements.

The HACCP system consists of seven principles that plants must incorpo

into their operation plans. They include (1) hazard analysis, (2) critical contro

identification, (3) establishment of critical limits, (4) monitoring procedures, 

rective actions, (6) record keeping, and (7) verification procedures.

From the Plants to Retail Establishments

FSIS is working closely with the Food and Drug Administration to ensur

safety at the retail level. This includes establishing Federal standards for the s

handling of food during transportation, distribution, and storage. Particular em

is being placed on the importance of temperature control in minimizing the g

of harmful microorganisms. 

At the Table

Helping ensure that consumers handle food safely at home is an ongoing 

for the Agency carried out by the Food Safety and Consumer Education Offic

the USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline. Consumers, school children, the media, 
Food Safety, Consumer Education, and the USDA Mea

Poultry Hotline

FSIS has an extensive program of consumer education to meet infor

needs for basic safe food handling advice to avoid foodborne illnesses. In

is disbursed through printed materials and personal contact via the USDA

and Poultry Hotline.

The Agency’s consumer education programs focus on providing key 

materials to the general public and also special groups who face increase

foodborne illness—the very young, the elderly, and people who have chro

These materials are based on the latest scientific advice concerning foodb

as well as the latest in education and market research.

This office writes and distributes packets of food safety educational 

through outreach campaigns targeted at reducing foodborne illness. Pack

encompassed information on E. coli O157:H7, the safety of hamburgers, 

safety for seniors and children. The Food Safety Educator, a quarterly ne

a publication of this office.

News features, public service announcements, and joint food safety 

other government agencies and food associations comprise some of the o

done by the Food Safety and Consumer Education office. It reaches out t

information multipliers, and consumers through print and video. Staff m

attend and conduct presentations at various association conferences relat

safety issues and the prevention of foodborne illness. They also participa

food safety task forces, working with members drawn from industry, gov

and academe.

FSIS reaches people directly through its toll-free USDA Meat and P

Hotline, a service that directly answers specific consumer questions. The 

staff of home economists, dietitians, and food technologists inform the p

how to properly handle, prepare, and store meat and poultry products to m

the growth of foodborne pathogens.

More than 114,000 people called the Hotline in 1995. Some of their 

concerns included E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella enteritidis, cutting board

safe handling of already cooked foods.

The Hotline staff can be reached at 800-535-4555 Monday through F

round from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time; in the Washington DC

720-3333. Callers can hear their choices of recorded food safety message

day by calling the same toll-free number. Using a touch-tone phone, they 

from about 50 food safety messages under eight "menu" headings which 

periodically to include seasonal topics and the latest recalls of meat and p

products.
o

2. Received by fax from FSIS’ Fast FAX machine at 800-238-9281, or in

Washington, DC, at 202-690-3754.

In order for USDA to investigate a problem with meat, poultry, or egg pr

you must have:

1. The original container or packaging,

2. The foreign object (the plastic strip or metal washer, for example), and

3. Any uneaten portion of the food (refrigerate or freeze it).

Information you should be ready to tell the Hotline on the phone include

1. Your name, address, and phone number,

2. The brand name, product name, and manufacturer of the product,

3. The size and package type,

4. Can or package codes (not UPC codes) and dates,

5. Establishment number (EST) usually found in the circle or shield near 

the "USDA passed and inspected" phrase,

6. Name and location of store and date you purchased the product.

If an injury or illness allegedly resulted from use of the product, you will 

need to tell about the type, symptoms, time of occurrence, and name of attend

health professional (if applicable).

130

■ What To Do If You Have a Problem With Food Products

■ FOR HELP WITH MEAT, POULTRY, AND EGG PRODUCTS:C

the toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 1 (800) 535-4555

■ 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 yo

local phone book under U.S. Government, Health and Human

Services, to find an FDA office in your area. The FDA's Seafood

Hotline is 1 (800) 332-4010.
Food Safety and 

Inspection Service

Director, Food Safety 

Education & Communications 

Susan Conley 

Rm 1175-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-7943 

FAX 202-720-1843

susan.conley@usda.gov 

Media Communication 

Jacque Lee Knight 

Rm 1159-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-9113 

FAX 202-690-0460

jacque.knight@usda.gov 

Food Safety Education 

Marjorie Davidson 

Rm 1180-S Washington, DC 20250

202-690-0351 

FAX 202-720-9063

marjorie.davidson.@usda.gov 

Public Outreach 

Sandy Facinoli 

Rm 1180-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-9352 

FAX 202-720-1843

sandy.facinoli@usda.gov 

Meat & Poultry Hotline 

Bessie Berry 

Rm 2925 Washington, DC 20250

1-800-535-4555 

FAX 202-690-2859

bessie.berry@usda.gov 

FOIA Officer

Cheryle Hicks 

Rm 327-E Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8169 

FAX 202-690-1030

cheryle.hicks@usda.gov 

FSIS Regional 

Information Offices

Southeastern Reg. Inf. Officer

Michael Groutt 

100 Alabama St., SW

1924 Building, Suite 3R90

Atlanta, GA 30303

404-562-5927 

FAX 404-562-5878

mgroutt@usda.gov 

Southwestern Reg. Inf. Officer

Yves Gerem 

1100 Commerce St., Rm 5F41

Dallas, TX 75242

214-767-1054 

FAX 214-767-5267

ygerem@usda.gov 

NorthCentral Reg.Inf.Officer

J.P. Porter 

11338 Aurora Avenue

Des Moines, IA 50322

515-284-6300 

FAX 515-284-6307

jporter@usda.gov 

Northeastern Reg.Inf.Officer

Anne McGuigan 

701 Market Street, 2-B South

Philadelphia, PA 19106

215-597-3778 

FAX 215-597-4214

amcguigan@usda.gov 
122

gy yy pg p

unsafe products.

FSIS is pursuing a broad and long-term science-based strategy to improv

safety of meat, poultry, and egg products to better protect public health. The A

is changing the Federal meat and poultry inspection system from a system ba

primarily on sight, touch, and smell to one incorporating scientific testing and 

tematic prevention of contamination. In addition, the Agency is broadening it

by focusing on the entire food safety chain, from farm to table, rather than on

what happens within inspected establishments. 

On July 25, 1996, the Agency finalized the most significant changes in m

poultry inspection rules since Congress enacted the Meat Inspection Act of 1

The final rule on Pathogen Reduction and Hazard Analysis and Critical Contr

(HACCP) Systems targets pathogens that cause foodborne illness, strengthen

try responsibility to produce safe food, and focuses inspection and plant activ

on prevention objectives.

FSIS is also making fundamental internal changes required to successful

out its HACCP-based, farm-to-table food safety strategy. First, FSIS is under

a reorganization designed to streamline its management structure and better f

Agency activities on public health and policy and program development. Sec

FSIS is reforming its existing regulations to be consistent with HACCP princ

and greater reliance on performance standards.

FSIS Activities

The activities of FSIS include:

■ Inspecting birds and livestock, as well as processed products made fro

them,

■ Continuous inspection of all liquid, frozen, and dried egg products,

■ Setting standards for plant facilities, product contents, processing pro

packaging, and labeling,

■ Analyzing products for microbiological and chemical adulterants, and

■ Educating consumers about foodborne illness by way of publications, 

educational campaigns, and a toll-free Meat and Poultry Hotline.
FSIS inspects and regulates all raw beef, pork, lamb, chicken, and tu

interstate and foreign commerce, including imported products. In FY 199

inspected more than 7 billion poultry and more than 136.5 million head o

The task of inspecting meat and poultry is imposing because consumers 

billion, or one-third of their annual food dollars, on meat and poultry pro

Inspectors check animals before and after slaughter, preventing dise

from entering the food supply and examining carcasses for visible defect

affect safety and quality. Inspectors also test for the presence of drug and 

residues that violate Federal law. Over the last 20 years, the violation rate 

and chemical residues detected in FSIS testing programs has dropped dra

moving close to zero. Only about 3 of every 1,000 samples routinely test

residues exceed the legal limit.

provisions. 

■ First, all plants that slaughter animals and process meat an

try products will be required to adopt HACCP, a system of p

control designed to prevent food safety hazards. Under HA

companies must identify critical control points where contam

tion can occur and develop strategies to prevent and contro

■ Second, to verify that HACCP systems are effective in redu

contamination with harmful bacteria, FSIS is setting pathog

reduction performance standards for Salmonella that slaug

plants and plants that produce raw, ground meat and poultr

fresh pork sausage will have to meet. Plants must ensure t

Salmonella contamination rate is below the current nationa

line incidence. 

■ Third, slaughter plants will be required to conduct microbia

for generic E. coli to verify that their process control system

working as intended to prevent fecal contamination, the pri

avenue of contamination for harmful bacteria. 

■ Fourth, FSIS is requiring all plants to adopt and follow writte

Standard Operating Procedures for sanitation to reduce the 

hood that harmful bacteria will contaminate the finished pro

Inspectors will shift their roles from inspecting for sanitation

defects to enforcement of the sanitation standards.

■ In addition, FSIS is taking steps at other points on the farm

table chain. FSIS is working with the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) to adopt standards to control the grow

harmful bacteria during transportation and storage and is w

with FDA and State and local authorities to improve food sa

practices at the retail level. 
124

Table 9-1.

Livestock, poultry and egg products federally inspected in 199

Cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Swine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Other livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,770

Liquid egg products (pounds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,931

In addition, about 250,000 different processed meat and poultry products 

under FSIS inspection. These include hams, sausage, soups, stews, pizzas, fro

dinners, and any product containing 2 percent or more cooked poultry or at le

percent raw meat. In addition to inspecting these products during processing, 

evaluates and sets standards for food ingredients, additives, and compounds u

prepare and package meat and poultry products. As part of the inspection pro

inspectors test for the presence of Salmonella and Listeria in ready-to-eat pro

No pathogens are permitted in such products. The Agency also sets labeling s

and approves labels for meat, poultry, and egg products.

In FY 1995, USDA inspected 1,931 million pounds of liquid egg produc

were sold in liquid form, frozen, or as dried egg products. Continuous inspec

82 U.S. plants was provided by 143 inspectors, supervisors, and support staff 

Egg Products Inspection Division. 

Imported meat and poultry arriving by ship or air are also subject to FSIS

scrutiny. The Agency reviews and monitors the foreign inspection systems in 

products’ countries of origin to ensure they are equivalent to the U.S. system. 

the products reach the United States, selected products are reinspected at 160 

import facilities by import inspection personnel.

privately owned meat, poultry, and other slaughtering or processin

plants in the United States and U.S. Territories.

■ More than 1,400 foreign plants are authorized to export products t

the United States. In 1995 over 2.6 billion pounds of meat and pou

passed inspection for entry into the United States from 34 countrie
s te esposbty odusty to poduce sae eat ad pouty poduct

HACCP, FSIS’s role will change from one of pointing out problems to se

priate food safety standards and maintaining vigorous inspection oversig

that those standards are met. FSIS is reforming its existing regulations to 

emphasis on performance standards.

For the future, FSIS will be further examining the work that its inspe

determine what changes would improve food safety and make better use 

resources.

■ Testing For Pathogens

Between 1906 and 1993, the inspection system was based la

what inspectors could see: diseases, defects, and contaminat

meat and poultry carcasses. FSIS has strict standards for the b

pathogens Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes on ready-

products, but it has up to now had no standards for bacterial pa

on raw products.

In 1994, for the first time, the Agency declared a bacterium in 

meat to be a contaminant. The bacteria E. coli O157:H7 were

responsible for four deaths and hundreds of illnesses in severa

Northwestern States in 1993. Zero tolerance for E. coli O157:H

ground beef was established, and FSIS began testing for its p

ence in samples of raw product collected from plants under Fe

inspection and retail stores.

Under the final rule on Pathogen Reduction and HACCP, slaug

plants will be required to routinely test for the generic form of 

to verify the effectiveness of their procedures to prevent and r

fecal contamination. 

And slaughter plants and plants producing raw ground produc

fresh pork sausage will be required to meet pathogen reductio

formance standards for Salmonella to determine whether targe

being met or remedial measures are necessary. FSIS, rather th

plants, will test for Salmonella, a pathogenic bacteria that is the 

common cause of foodborne illness in the United States.
126

ssued Jauay 6, 993, eques adatoy uttoabeg oost eat a

poultry products except raw, single-ingredient products such as raw poultry. S

implementation of the rule in August 1994, FSIS has provided consumers wit

useful educational tool to help them choose a healthful diet.

The Nutrition Facts panel was developed through a joint effort by FSIS a

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the U.S. Department of Health and H

Services (DHHS). The two agencies issued parallel regulations intended to cr

most uniform nutrition labels possible for virtually all foods.

The labels help consumers follow the Dietary Guidelines developed by t

USDA and HHS. The guidelines emphasize the importance of a well-balance

Most packaged foods carry an up-to-date, easy-to-use nutrition panel. See the 

ing example. 

Nutrition Facts

Calories 000

% Daily Value*

Total Fat 00g

 Saturated Fat 0g


Cholesterol 00mg


Sodium 000mg

Total Carbohydrate 00g

 Dietary Fiber 0g

 Sugars 00g

Protein 00g

00%


00%


00%


00%


00%


0%

Vitamin A 0%

Calcium 00%

Vitamin C 0%

Iron 0%

*

Percent Daily Values are based on a 2,000 calorie 


diet. Your daily values may be higher or lower 


depending on your calorie needs:

Calories: 2,000 2,500

Total Fat


 Sat Fat


Cholesterol


Sodium


Total Carbohydrate


 Dietary Fiber

Calories per gram:


Fat 9 • Carbohydrate 4 • Protein 4

Less than


Less than


Less than


Less than

65g


20g


300mg


2,400mg


300g


25g

80g


25g


300mg


2,400mg


375g


30g

Calories from Fat 000

•

•

Serving Size 0 cup (000g)


Servings Per Container 0

Amount Per Serving

set specc equeets ousg te oowg tes: 

■ free 

■ less

■ low

■ good source of

■ extra lean 

■ light (lite)

■ high

■ reduced

■ lean

■ more

Safe Food Handling Label

In 1994, FSIS issued a rule requiring safe handling instructions on p

all raw or partially cooked meat and poultry products as part of a compre

effort to protect consumers from foodborne illness. Some food products 

bacteria that could cause illness if the product is mishandled or cooked im

To prevent bacterial growth and to reduce the risk of foodborne illne

directs consumers to follow safe food handling practices from the time p

products are purchased until they have been cooked and stored.

A Safe Food Handling Label:

Safe Handling Instructions

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.
128

ad pouty opoductotouguse. ood saety depeds o:

■ Properly growing the animals at the farm or feedlot,

■ Processing at the plant incorporating pathogen reduction and HACCP

measures,

■ Handling the food safely during transportation and distribution,

■ Storing the food safely in the store, and

■ Safe food handling at home by consumers.

At the Farm

Quality control programs are being used to control pathogens on the farm

works closely with the producers of food animals as well as other governmen

cies to explore, develop, and implement food safety measures that can be take

the farm and before animals enter the slaughter facility to reduce the risk of h

contamination of meat and poultry products.

Inside the Plant

Changing a live animal into food that is conveniently packaged for consu

occurs inside a federally inspected meat or poultry plant. To improve the safe

meat and poultry products, the Pathogen Reduction and HACCP Final Rule o

25, 1996, is intended to reduce levels of bacteria which can be on meat and p

products as a result of contamination from the live animal.

The purpose of HACCP systems is to identify potential food safety hazar

ing in slaughter and processing plants. HACCP is a system of steps used to id

and prevent problems from occurring during food processing and to correct th

soon as they are detected. With HACCP in place, FSIS can verify that the pla

controlling its processes and consistently producing products that comply wit

safety requirements.

The HACCP system consists of seven principles that plants must incorpo

into their operation plans. They include (1) hazard analysis, (2) critical contro

identification, (3) establishment of critical limits, (4) monitoring procedures, 

rective actions, (6) record keeping, and (7) verification procedures.

From the Plants to Retail Establishments

FSIS is working closely with the Food and Drug Administration to ensur

safety at the retail level. This includes establishing Federal standards for the s

handling of food during transportation, distribution, and storage. Particular em

is being placed on the importance of temperature control in minimizing the g

of harmful microorganisms. 

At the Table

Helping ensure that consumers handle food safely at home is an ongoing 

for the Agency carried out by the Food Safety and Consumer Education Offic

the USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline. Consumers, school children, the media, 
Food Safety, Consumer Education, and the USDA Mea

Poultry Hotline

FSIS has an extensive program of consumer education to meet infor

needs for basic safe food handling advice to avoid foodborne illnesses. In

is disbursed through printed materials and personal contact via the USDA

and Poultry Hotline.

The Agency’s consumer education programs focus on providing key 

materials to the general public and also special groups who face increase

foodborne illness—the very young, the elderly, and people who have chro

These materials are based on the latest scientific advice concerning foodb

as well as the latest in education and market research.

This office writes and distributes packets of food safety educational 

through outreach campaigns targeted at reducing foodborne illness. Pack

encompassed information on E. coli O157:H7, the safety of hamburgers, 

safety for seniors and children. The Food Safety Educator, a quarterly ne

a publication of this office.

News features, public service announcements, and joint food safety 

other government agencies and food associations comprise some of the o

done by the Food Safety and Consumer Education office. It reaches out t

information multipliers, and consumers through print and video. Staff m

attend and conduct presentations at various association conferences relat

safety issues and the prevention of foodborne illness. They also participa

food safety task forces, working with members drawn from industry, gov

and academe.

FSIS reaches people directly through its toll-free USDA Meat and P

Hotline, a service that directly answers specific consumer questions. The 

staff of home economists, dietitians, and food technologists inform the p

how to properly handle, prepare, and store meat and poultry products to m

the growth of foodborne pathogens.

More than 114,000 people called the Hotline in 1995. Some of their 

concerns included E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella enteritidis, cutting board

safe handling of already cooked foods.

The Hotline staff can be reached at 800-535-4555 Monday through F

round from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time; in the Washington DC

720-3333. Callers can hear their choices of recorded food safety message

day by calling the same toll-free number. Using a touch-tone phone, they 

from about 50 food safety messages under eight "menu" headings which 

periodically to include seasonal topics and the latest recalls of meat and p

products.
o

2. Received by fax from FSIS’ Fast FAX machine at 800-238-9281, or in

Washington, DC, at 202-690-3754.

In order for USDA to investigate a problem with meat, poultry, or egg pr

you must have:

1. The original container or packaging,

2. The foreign object (the plastic strip or metal washer, for example), and

3. Any uneaten portion of the food (refrigerate or freeze it).

Information you should be ready to tell the Hotline on the phone include

1. Your name, address, and phone number,

2. The brand name, product name, and manufacturer of the product,

3. The size and package type,

4. Can or package codes (not UPC codes) and dates,

5. Establishment number (EST) usually found in the circle or shield near 

the "USDA passed and inspected" phrase,

6. Name and location of store and date you purchased the product.

If an injury or illness allegedly resulted from use of the product, you will 

need to tell about the type, symptoms, time of occurrence, and name of attend

health professional (if applicable).

130

■ What To Do If You Have a Problem With Food Products

■ FOR HELP WITH MEAT, POULTRY, AND EGG PRODUCTS:C

the toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 1 (800) 535-4555

■ 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 yo

local phone book under U.S. Government, Health and Human

Services, to find an FDA office in your area. The FDA's Seafood

Hotline is 1 (800) 332-4010.
Food Safety and 

Inspection Service

Director, Food Safety 

Education & Communications 

Susan Conley 

Rm 1175-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-7943 

FAX 202-720-1843

susan.conley@usda.gov 

Media Communication 

Jacque Lee Knight 

Rm 1159-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-9113 

FAX 202-690-0460

jacque.knight@usda.gov 

Food Safety Education 

Marjorie Davidson 

Rm 1180-S Washington, DC 20250

202-690-0351 

FAX 202-720-9063

marjorie.davidson.@usda.gov 

Public Outreach 

Sandy Facinoli 

Rm 1180-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-9352 

FAX 202-720-1843

sandy.facinoli@usda.gov 

Meat & Poultry Hotline 

Bessie Berry 

Rm 2925 Washington, DC 20250

1-800-535-4555 

FAX 202-690-2859

bessie.berry@usda.gov 

FOIA Officer

Cheryle Hicks 

Rm 327-E Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8169 

FAX 202-690-1030

cheryle.hicks@usda.gov 

FSIS Regional 

Information Offices

Southeastern Reg. Inf. Officer

Michael Groutt 

100 Alabama St., SW

1924 Building, Suite 3R90

Atlanta, GA 30303

404-562-5927 

FAX 404-562-5878

mgroutt@usda.gov 

Southwestern Reg. Inf. Officer

Yves Gerem 

1100 Commerce St., Rm 5F41

Dallas, TX 75242

214-767-1054 

FAX 214-767-5267

ygerem@usda.gov 

NorthCentral Reg.Inf.Officer

J.P. Porter 

11338 Aurora Avenue

Des Moines, IA 50322

515-284-6300 

FAX 515-284-6307

jporter@usda.gov 

Northeastern Reg.Inf.Officer

Anne McGuigan 

701 Market Street, 2-B South

Philadelphia, PA 19106

215-597-3778 

FAX 215-597-4214

amcguigan@usda.gov 
132

■ Forest Service: Caring for the Land and Servi

People

The Forest Service considers the American people its owners, customers, partners in caring for the Nation’s natural resources. The Forest Service 

sters statutes that guide:

■ Construction and maintenance of roads and trails where needed to allo

for timber harvesting and public access to outdoor recreation areas;

■ Construction and maintenance of facilities at outdoor recreation areas

■ Timber harvesting methods that protect other natural resources;

■ Removal of oil, gas, uranium, and other minerals of strategic importan

as well as coal and geothermal steam;

■ Use of national forest and range land as a refuge for threatened and end

species of birds, animals, fish, and plants; and 

■ Use of national forests and grasslands for livestock grazing.

Mission

The Forest Service mission is “Caring for the Land and Serving People.” 

Forest Service’s mission is further expressed in its land ethic: “Promote the su

ability of ecosystems by ensuring their health, diversity, and productivity.” Th

coupled with the service ethic: “Tell the truth, obey the law, work collaborativ

use appropriate scientific information in caring for the land and serving peopl

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 four strategic goals of the Forest Service are to: (1) protect ecosystem

(2) restore deteriorated ecosystems, (3) provide multiple benefits for people w

the capabilities of ecosystems, and (4) ensure organizational effectiveness.

The Forest Service’s Draft 1995 Resources Planning Act Program, its lon

strategic plan, sets forth the programs and management actions that will be ca

out under each of the four strategic goals. The Forest Service works toward th

primary outcomes: healthy ecosystems; vital communities; and an effective, m

disciplinary, multicultural organization.
Systeudete Ogac ct o897, te utpe UseSustaed ed 

and the National Forest Management Act of 1976. 

The Agency also conducts research, provides assistance to State and 

landowners, assesses the Nation’s natural resources, and provides interna

tance and scientific exchanges. These activities are carried out under the 

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, The Renewable 

Extension Act of 1978, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Act of 1978, the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, and the In

Forestry Cooperation Act of 1990.

Organizational Structure

The top administrative official of the Forest Service is the Chief who

the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, reports to t

of Agriculture. The Forest Service is responsible for administering progr

vide services to the general public and other users in five areas: (1) Natio

System, (2) State and Private Forestry, (3) Research, (4) International Fo

(5) Administration.

The National Forest System (NFS) operates under the concept of m

providing sustained yields of renewable resources such as water, livestoc

wildlife habitat, wood, and recreation, and ensuring the integration of mi

resource programs and activities. The Forest Service is also committed to 

wilderness, biodiversity, and visual quality. Scientific management of wi

epidemics of disease and insect pests, erosion, floods, and water and air p

also a major activity.

State and Private Forestry programs advance the Forest Service’s 

contributing to sound management of State and private nonindustrial for

programs serve as a link among many public and private organizations a

ownership boundaries to promote the best use of America’s natural resou

Forest Service Research covers a wide range of forest-related subje

new scientific knowledge regarding ecosystem restoration and managem

helps to protect and enhance productivity on all of America’s forests and 

with special attention to long-term natural resource issues of national and 

tional scope. 

International Forestry activities promote sustainable development 

environmental stability, particularly in countries important in global clim

This mandate includes setting a national goal for sustainable managemen

forests by the year 2000, researching topics with implications for global 

agement, and facilitating the exchange of resource management experien

the world.

Forest Service Administration provides direction, quality assurance

customer service in carrying out the Forest Service business and human r

programs.
134

a case study ggtg edeaageces dog t gt.Sgcat poge

been made in three categories: (1) determining what Forest Service employee

about their work and how they think it can be improved, (2) streamlining Age

processes, and (3) restructuring and downsizing Agency organization. Specifi

actions include these:

■ The Agency has received 15,000 customer response cards and used th

improve customer service. 

■ The Forest Service and other Federal and State agencies have partnere

reduce costs and improve efficiency. In Oregon, the Bureau of Land

Management and the Forest Service share offices, equipment, and peo

provide a common-sense, “one-stop shopping” approach to land mana

and customer service.

■ The Agency has redesigned the campground reservation system based 

customer feedback from 1996. A record number of customers used the 

system in 1997.

■ The Forest Service has planned for a reduction in overall work force f

about 43,000 full-time employees in 1993 to about 37,500 in 1999. 

National Forest Foundation

The National Forest Foundation was authorized by Congress in 1990 as 

profit corporation to:

■ Encourage and accept donations and gifts for the benefit of the Forest 

■ Conduct activities that further the purposes of national forest and nati

grassland management,

■ Encourage educational and other assistance that supports multiple use

research, cooperative forestry, and other programs administered by th

Service, and

■ Promote cooperation among the Forest Service, the private sector, and 

governmental and educational institutions. 

During FY 1996, the Foundation helped the Forest Service expand its Ch

Cost-Share program by identifying and working with private sector partners. 

“Firefighter Fund” has been established to provide financial assistance to fire

who were severely injured in the 1994 fires and to the families of those men a

women who were killed in the line of duty. A pilot program is underway to de

interactive kiosk technology and update interpretive exhibits at visitor inform

centers through corporate sponsorships and fund raising efforts. The foundati

ported tree planting, watershed restoration, universal accessibility to national 

and trail repair and maintenance, including $50,000 for the Continental Divid

in the Rocky Mountains.
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
136

land, under all ownerships.

■ The entire Nation has 736.7 million acres of forest land area, no

including rangeland, under all ownerships; the owners/manage

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, Department of

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 191.6 million acres of national forest land. This is 8.3

percent of the United States’ land area, or about the size of Tex

plus 10 percent. 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 acre

■ National Monument Areas: 3.3 million acres

■ National Historic Areas: 6,540 acres

■ Congressionally Designated Wilderness: 34.6 million acres

■ The Forest Service manages 155 national forests for multiple

uses.

■ The national forest trail system is the largest in the Nation, with

more than 125,000 miles of trails for hiking, riding, and crosscountry skiing.

■ The Forest Service provides more recreational opportunities tha

any other Federal Agency. Visitors to national forests are

attracted by:

■ 5,885 campgrounds and picnic areas

■ 328 swimming developments

■ 1,222 boating sites

■ 250 winter sports sites, including 120 downhill ski areas

■ If all these sites were fully occupied at the same time, they wou

accommodate 1.8 million people.

■ Minerals found on Forest Service lands provide more than $3.3

billion in private sector revenue each year.
National Forest System—Conservation and Multiple U

Lands 

Lands-related activities include land exchanges to protect and enhan

National Forest System, protecting boundaries and records, granting app

rights to others, and administering rights granted to or retained by other a

governments, and landowners.

Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants

In 1995, people made more than 86 million visits to national forests 

and view wildlife, fish and plants, with a total net value of nearly $4.3 bi

than $1.7 billion in annual economic benefits result from recreational and 

harvest of fish resources on National Forest System lands.

The Agency’s threatened, endangered, and sensitive species program 

conserve and restore habitat and thus avoid the need to list additional rar

partnership with other Federal agencies, State fish and wildlife agencies, 

conservation groups, habitat management efforts are currently underway 

steelhead and cutthroat trout, spotted owl, marbled murrelet, and grizzly 

to reintroduce species or increase their numbers are planned in collabora

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State agencies for gray wolf, black-fo

California condor, Mexican wolf, thick-billed parrot, and red-cockaded w

hours of recreation use)

■ Lands burned by wildfire: 530,000 acres

■ Insect and disease suppression: 1.7 million acres

■ Watershed improvements: 35,500 acres

■ Wildlife and fish habitat improvements: 242,761 acres

■ Reforestation: 492,000 acres

■ Livestock grazing: 9.3 million animal unit months

■ Grazing allotments administered: 9,940

■ Mineral operations processed: 9,157 

■ Timber sold: 3.1 billion board feet

■ Timber harvested: 4.8 billion board feet (some had been so

previous years)

■ Road system: 377,800 miles
138

Partnerships

In 1995, more than 3,150 partners joined the Forest Service through the

Challenge Cost-Share Program to complete more than 3,000 wildlife and fish 

improvement projects on national forests and grasslands. Through these partn

efforts, many species have returned to habitats once abandoned. Fragile plant 

have been identified and protected. Wetlands for waterfowl and other species 

been improved by the construction of nesting islands and platforms. Fisheries 

benefited from improved cover, construction of fish ladders and barriers, and 

tion of watersheds.

Since 1986, wildlife and fish conservation partner contributions of labor, 

als, expertise, and funds have approached $106 million, more than matching 

Service monetary contributions of over $77 million.

Water, Soil, and Air

About 20 percent of the surface water supply in the United States flows f

National Forest System watersheds. Three major goals of the Forest Service’s 

shed management programs are to (1) assure adequate yields of high-quality 

(2) sustain soil productivity, and (3) manage air quality within standards. The 

of mapping all soils within the National Forest System, with the cooperation 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, is about 70 percent complete. The F

Service improved 35,500 acres of watershed in FY 1995 with appropriated fu

and an additional 14,000 acres from other funding sources.

Other significant activities include watershed analyses and watershed res

work, especially in the Pacific Northwest; participating in water right adjudic

in eight Western States; assessing water quality problems from abandoned mi

located on national forests with assistance from States and other Federal agen

and monitoring lichens, lakes, snow, vegetation, and the atmosphere to determ

pollution impacts to wilderness areas.

e atoaoest Systecudes 3 oaces osab

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 per cent of the elk, mountain goat, and bighorn sheep habita

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 

■ Habitat for more than 280 species of threatened or endangered

plants, fish, or wildlife.
Rangeland

National Forest System rangeland is managed to conserve the land a

tation while providing food for both livestock and wildlife. Forage produ

primary use of these lands. Under multiple-use concepts, grazing areas a

watersheds, wildlife habitat, and recreation sites. Grazing privileges are g

national forests and grasslands through paid permits; permittees coopera

Forest Service in range improvement projects.

Energy and Minerals 

Facilitating energy and mineral development on National Forest Sys

including development of private minerals underlying these lands, foster

development. Ecosystems are protected by requiring appropriate design, 

and reclamation measures, and by monitoring/inspecting operations to en

pliance. Reclaiming abandoned mines restores deteriorated ecosystems.

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 prog

directed at obtaining these benefits while ensuring operations are conduc

environmentally sound manner. In terms of the magnitude of the program

approximately 8 million acres leased for oil and gas, over 150,000 minin

about 7,000 mineral material pits and quarries, over 4,000 new operation

each year, and more than 25,000 operations to monitor and inspect. The l

mine in the United States is on National Forest System lands, and much 

Key Facts about Rangeland 

■ In FY 1995, the Forest Service administered almost 9,500 g

allotments and provided 9.3 million animal unit months of li

grazing. (An animal unit month is the amount of forage it ta

sustain a 1,000-pound animal or its equivalent for one mon

System lands.

■ There are 902 municipal watersheds on National Forest Sy

land, serving 25 million people.

■ 173 trillion gallons of water is supplied by the National Fore

System to municipal watersheds annually.

■ 500 remote weather data collection platforms are used in a

tural, fire, weather, and streamflow forecasting.

■ Emergency restoration of burned areas in FY 1995 covered 

than 198,385 acres.

■ 88 wilderness areas, covering almost 15 million acres, are 

fied as Class I (special visibility protection) under the Fede

Clean Air Act.
140

eveues ae about $00 o, 550 pecet owcs etued to te St

where production occurs.

Key Facts about the Forest Service Energy and Minerals Program

■ 7 million acres where there is possibility for coal leasing (95 billio

tons)

■ 45 million acres where there is possibility for oil and gas leasing; 

9 million acres leased

■ Substantial geothermal energy potential

■ World-class deposits of coal, copper, silver, lead, molybdenum

■ Nation’s largest carbon dioxide project (Bridger-Teton National

Forest, WY)

■ Nation’s largest coal mine (Thunder Basin National Grasslands, W

■ Western Hemisphere’s only platinum mine (Custer National Fores

MT)

■ Most lead production in the United States (Mark Twain National

Forest, MO)

■ World-class quartz crystals (Ouachita National Forest, AR)

■ About 7,000 sand, gravel, and stone pits and quarries

■ Approximately 4,000 new operations requiring review each year

■ Over 25,000 existing operations requiring monitoring

■ Nation’s largest phosphate mines

■ 55 percent of the Nation’s production of lead

■ Total value of energy and minerals produced exceeds $3.3 billion 

per year

■ Annual royalties to government exceed $200 million

■ Thousands of jobs created in rural communities

■ Substantial effect on local tax bases

■ One of the world’s largest molybdenum deposits (Tongass Nationa

Forest, AK)

■ The following resources are produced annually on National Forest

System lands:

■ 12 million barrels of oil 

■ 325 billion cubic feet of gas 

■ 114 million tons of coal

■ 500 million pounds of lead

■ 200 million pounds of copper 

■ 1 million ounces of gold 

■ 20 million tons of sand and gravel
coecaoest ad. Coecaoest ad s avaabe oad capa

producing crops of industrial wood. Commercial forests help furnish the 

the lumber and plywood needed for housing and industrial uses and pulp 

products. Timber management involves preparing sales by selecting the m

harvest most appropriate for protecting the environment.

Passport in Time

Through Passport In Time, the Forest Service offers unique, nontrad

ation experiences such as archaeological excavation, historic structure re

and wilderness surveys. These experiences foster environmental steward

providing the public with unusual experiences.

Passport In Time volunteers have contributed more than $2.5 million 

time and effort to help preserve our Nation’s history by:

■ Restoring 45 historic structures,

■ Stabilizing 11 National Register eligible sites,

■ Evaluating 143 sites for inclusion in National Register of Historic 

■ Working at 28 projects in wilderness, and

■ Developing 12 heritage interpretive sites.

State and Private Forestry—Providing Assistance to

Nonindustrial Private Landowners

The Forest Stewardship Program provides technical assistance to n

private forest landowners interested in managing their forests for multipl

Since 1990, over 100,000 landowners have enrolled in the program and s

plans have been prepared for more than 13.2 million acres of nonindustri

forests.

The Stewardship Incentives Program provides cost-share assistan

eration with State Foresters and the USDA’s Farm Service Agency, to lan

implementing Forest Stewardship Landowner Plans on over 378,000 acr

This includes approximately 50,000 acres of tree planting annually. Sinc

ardship incentives practices have been implemented on more than 1.3 mi

including over 140,000 acres of tree planting.

Forest Health Protection

The Forest Service offers technical and financial assistance to Feder

American Indian tribes, and (through the State Foresters) to private lando

conducts insect and disease detection surveys on 175 million acres of Fe

and 482 million acres of State and private lands in cooperation with State 

and participates in a forest health monitoring program with the State For

Forest Service works with USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection S

protect the Nation’s forests from exotic insects and diseases. It also prov

cal assistance in the safe and effective use of pesticides, shares the cost o

and disease prevention and suppression projects with States, funds preve
142

State Lightning Equipment Smoking Campfire 

Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acr

Alabama 283 23 0 1 2 138 6 

Alaska 3 0 3 8 25 

Arizona 39,614 824 377 55 1,456 67 1,853 374 1

Arkansas 167 12 1 2 20 10 13 5 2

California 271 365 2,793 152 2,504 79 3,689 207 3

Colorado 782 128 0 56 13 8 54 

Florida 1,106 27 4 0 10 8 

Georgia 2 3 0 5 2 3 

Idaho 2,169 674 4 6 13 15 36 64 

Illinois 0 0 0 1 3 

Indiana 0 0 0 2 

Kansas 140 11 2 0 0 

Kentucky 104 2 2 2 18 4 101 8 

Louisiana 0 0 0 13 8 

Maine 1 0 0 0 

Michigan 212 5 1 5 7 4 25 11 

Minnesota 2,388 40 4 9 2 5 3,387 53 

Mississippi 0 2 3 27 3 19 3 1

Missouri 5 3 91 7 21 5 15 2 3

Montana 318 216 5 8 1 11 60 84 

Nebraska 1,665 12 0 0 0 

Nevada 7,805 47 4 16 1 461 26 

New Hampshire 3 0 0 1 8 

New Mexico 22,752 368 1 5 58 17 14,342 116 

New York 0 0 1 2 0 

North Carolina 12 5 1 23 6 86 5 

North Dakota 40 1 2 1 0 0 

Ohio 0 4 2 2 0 

Oklahoma 5 2 2 0 1 

Oregon 1,845 565 874 14 112 55 412 148 

Pennsylvania 0 2 0 4 

South Carolina 20 12 10 8 3 3 2 3

South Dakota 128 72 0 6 3 5 38 

Tennessee 332 6 166 3 1 35 2 

Texas 204 3 1 4 3 44 11 

Utah 1,681 235 845 4 31 8 698 47 

Vermont 0 0 0 1 

Virginia 8 2 1 1,755 3 1 2 

Washington 877 106 77 9 3 21 11 76 

West Virginia 22 1 0 0 4 

Wisconsin 5 3 3 21 4 

Wyoming 422 65 188 3 3 3 23 

1 There were no fires reported on National Forest lands in Maine or New York 2 National Forest acreage in Connecticut and Hawaii is research and/or experimental land only. 3 There are no National Forest lands in Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, or R

Island.
Total acres Total no. Total a

Railroad Arson Children Misc. caused by Caused by all ca

Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. people people

21 1 755 64 0 107 9 1,026 86 1

0 1 0 1 2 10 37 

13 2 995 37 50 32 14,027 258 18,874 842 58

1 1 1,448 131 20 1 76 18 1,788 186 1

1 4,843 187 13 59 5,667 417 19,837 1,173 20

2 2 2 12 2 419 20 497 96 1

0 941 31 3 5 44 18 1,005 74 2

11 2 77 13 0 193 11 363 48 

3 3,041 4 2 71 29 3,176 138 5

0 582 19 0 1 668 34 

0 4 2 0 0 10 5 

0 0 0 175 3 175 5 

0 1,961 137 4 1 77 7 2,255 169 2

16 2 1,600 77 0 178 13 1,820 103 1

0 0 0 0 1 

1 89 11 4 8 36 6 172 84 

6 5 54 29 1 5 2 12 3,463 182 5

1 1 1,186 104 0 1,939 46 3,333 176 3

50 1 6,620 233 66 2 235 9 7,405 303 7

9 6 3 236 37 400 420 

0 0 0 0 12 1

3 2 228 7 2 8 26 8 724 69 8

0 1 0 4 2 5 11 

0 239 14 70 3 3,060 39 17,787 198 40

0 1 0 0 1 3 

2 1 860 37 1 38 7 1,021 78 1

0 0 0 0 2 1 

0 30 22 0 3 2 70 47 

108 6 1,078 36 2 9 5 1,210 58 1

4 2 667 35 1 5 69 67 2,164 340 4

0 0 0 4 11 

1 161 47 0 173 15 663 105 

0 1 3 1 `1 4 2 25 124 

0 835 54 0 46 82 1,106 82 1

0 421 31 0 12 64 503 64 

0 1 17 7 211 336 1,786 336 3

0 0 0 1 2 1 2 

0 3,045 26 2 22 51 4,822 51 4

0 1 1 10 257 111 257 

0 0 0 6 6 

1 1 0 5 22 26 22 

0 66 3 0 2 102 259 102 

1 There were no fires reported on National Forest lands in Maine or New York 2 National Forest acreage in Connecticut and Hawaii is research and/or experimental land only

3 There are no National Forest lands in Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jerse

Island.

Railroad
144

Fire Management

The Forest Service works in cooperation with States and their local wildl

protection agencies to protect State and private lands nationwide. Fire protect

emergency firefighting programs protect 192 million acres of National Forest 

lands and an additional 20 million acres of State and private lands under prot

exchanges and agreements.

Federal Excess Personal Property

In 1995, the Forest Service loaned used Federal property to State Foreste

rural and wildland fire protection; this property had an original acquisition co

$189 million. Former military cargo trucks that are built into tanker trucks rep

a large portion of the property, along with aircraft, heavy equipment, and sho

machinery.

Rural Community Fire Protection

This program to organize, train, and equip rural fire departments in comm

with populations under 10,000 is funded at $3.5 million annually. In 1995, th

funds were awarded in over 3,000 grants that attracted $6.4 million in matchi

department funds. More than 80 percent of the money funded purchases of eq

such as communications devices, nozzles, hoses, and protective clothing.

Fire Season

In 1995, over 9,000 fires burned approximately 200,000 acres of Nationa

System lands. The annual average is 11,500 fires and 725,000 acres. 

Fuels Treatment

In 1995, over 570,000 acres of National Forest System lands received tre

such as thinning and prescribed burns, for forest fuels—vegetation such as br

grass, and small trees. This compares to an average annual program of 358,00

Fuels treatment benefits the health of the forest and can prevent catastrophic w

Rural Community Assistance

The Forest Service implements the national initiative on rural developme

coordination with USDA’s Rural Development area and State rural developm

councils. The goal is to strengthen rural communities by helping them diversi

expand their economies through the wise use of natural resources. Through e

action programs, the Forest Service provides technical and financial assistanc

more than 850 rural communities that are adversely affected by changes in ava

of natural resources or in natural resource policy.

Pacific Northwest rural community assistance provides economic adjustm

assistance to almost 150 communities affected by the President’s Forest Plan 

Pacific Northwest. This community assistance is part of a larger, multi-Agenc

to target resources for rural areas with acute economic problems.
State, National forests, purchase

Commonwealth, units, research areas, and National Land utilization

or Territory other areas grasslands projects 

Acres

Alabama 663,123 0 40 

Alaska 21,971,245 0 0 

Arizona 11,251,424 0 0 

Arkansas 2,553,892 0 0 

California 20,617,261 18,425 0 

Colorado 13,876,192 628,419 0 

Connecticut 24 0 0 

Florida 1,146,668 0 0 

Georgia 864,993 0 0 

Hawai 1 0 0 

Idaho 20,410,527 47,756 0 

Illinois 276,676 0 0 

Indiana 194,264 0 0 

Kansas 0 108,175 0 

Kentucky 691,963 0 0 

Louisiana 603,786 0 0 

Maine 53,040 0 0 

Michigan 2,855,899 0 959 

Minnesota 2,837,240 0 0 

Mississippi 1,157,013 0 0 

Missouri 1,493,198 0 0 

Montana 16,879,677 0 0 

Nebraska 257,653 94,480 0 

Nevada 5,818,569 0 0 

New Hampshire 724,049 0 0 

New Mexico 9,190,265 36,417 240 

New York 15,825 0 0 

North Carolina 1,243,139 0 0 

North Dakota 743 1,105,030 0 

Ohio 227,239 0 0 

Oklahoma 257,395 46,286 0 

Oregon 15,552,932 111,348 856 

Pennsylvania 513,264 0 0 

Puerto Rico 27,831 0 0 

South Carolina 612,023 0 0 

South Dakota 1,145,010 868,156 0 

Tennessee 633,481 0 0 

Texas 637,280 117,620 0 

Utah 8,112,564 0 0 

Vermont 359,289 0 0 

Virgin Islands 147 0 0 

Virginia 1,656,282 0 0 

Washington 9,175,831 0 738 

West Virginia 1,032,573 0 0 

Wisconsin 1,520,464 0 0 

Wyoming 8,687,871 560,166 0 

Total 187,799,825 3,842,278 2,833 
146

Commonwealth, FY 1996 FY 1995 F

or Territory 

Dollars

Alabama 2,049,877.80 1,468,155.91 1,271

Alaska 5,905,519.94 7,600,541.26 8,782

Arizona 1,631,749.08 3,182,123.93 3,949

Arkansas 6,648,382.02 4,938,171.81 4,535

California 36,157,525.82 43,045,670.58 50,981

Colorado 5,955,613.62 5,584,256.33 6,318

Florida 1,066,315.90 1,334,477.12 1,068

Georgia 907,778.79 758,829.26 892

Idaho 17,457,711.74 15,031,321.37 25,227

Illinois 27,727.21 32,531.32 37

Indiana 7,410.94 13,755.32 18

Kentucky 494,031.96 311,288.83 446

Louisiana 2,735,547.25 2,174,763.33 2,577

Maine 34,773.87 33,068.56 32

Michigan 2,384,195.64 2,504,904.39 1,964

Minnesota 3,179,462.34 2,977,331.33 2,818

Mississippi 8,276,153.99 7,224,011.21 5,928

Missouri 1,231,668.46 1,170,273.33 1,235

Montana 9,383,236.30 10,555,715.38 14,482

Nebraska 30,563.25 36,887.86 67

Nevada 298,540.38 322,014.89 520

New Hampshire 510,233.26 485,115.81 480

New Mexico 652,646.23 1,102,857.41 1,458

New York 6,375.28 5,776.98 7

North Carolina 692,308.54 941,657.23 678

North Dakota 82.02 122.88 

Ohio 11,399.70 15,554.61 30

Oklahoma 883,416.06 643,567.28 595

Oregon 95,238,952.66 109,647,413.38 119,791

Pennsylvania 6,207,364.12 5,362,116.42 5,301

Puerto Rico 20,837.85 14,555.48 25

South Carolina 960,281.44 1,359,265.06 1,586

South Dakota 2,349,598.42 2,839,734.94 2,631

Tennessee 319,484.79 441,952.31 385

Texas 4,337,308.72 2,893,393.24 3,599

Utah 1,831,244.84 1,553,366.88 2,373

Vermont 256,960.60 177,634.44 166

Virginia 822,089.27 996,568.42 820

Washington 29,429,025.66 30,089,073.00 31,913

West Virginia 1,860,935.47 1,403,962.13 761

Wisconsin 1,621,386.26 1,327,757.01 1,206

Wyoming 1,844,048.53 1,881,106.70 2,191

Total 255,719,766.02 273,482,644.93 309,162

1Data Source: All Service Receipts - ASR-09-3.
Urban and Community Forestry

The Forest Service provides technical and financial assistance to mo

7,200 cities and communities in all States, the District of Columbia, and 

for the purpose of building local capacity to manage natural resources.

Natural Resource Conservation Education (NRCE)

The Forest Service supports a lifelong learning process that promote

standing of ecosystems and natural resources—their relationships, conse

use, management, and values to society. Our large partnership base assis

NRCE program in about 200 projects across the country each year, reach

200,000 young people and 10,000 teachers. When television is added, N

reaches 5 million people. The program includes support for Project Lear

which reaches 400,000 teachers.

Less than 10 acres 10,352 

10 to 999 acres 1,051 

1,000+ acres 82 

Total 11,485 

Average Av

■Major causes of fires: % of starts % of acres b

Lightning 51 

Human caused 49 

■Acres burned: Average 

National Forest protected lands 725,265 21

■Appropriations: 1994 

Presuppression 

and fire use $276,407,000 $295,29

Emergency suppression

expenditures $686,000,000 $224,30

Total $519,595,000 $962,40

State and private

appropriations $17,148,000 $13,68

■Natural Fuels Treatment: Average 1994 

Acres treated 357,974 384,707 9

Program cost $10,704,000 $12,696,000 $16,40

■USFS Personnel on Wildfires: 1994 

Fire Management (full time) 1,714 

Fire Management (part time) 1,843 

Fire Management (temporary) 5,446 

Other FS personnel 27,897 

Emergency Hires (AD) 38,858 1

Hotshot Crews 53 

Smokejumpers 290 

Helitack 200 

Rowpellers 240 
begaa oest e pevetopogadug Wod

War II, and in 1944, a bear was introduced as the program symbol. In 1950, a bear cub survived a forest

fire in the Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico, and

after being nursed back to health, came to live in the

National Zoo in Washington, DC, as the living fire

prevention symbol. 

Woodsy Owl. Woodsy Owl is a colorful and 

fanciful character who was designed to be especially

appealing to young children. Woodsy Owl is recognized by over 83 percent of all American households

and is America’s leading symbol for environmental

improvement. Woodsy was created in response 

to increased public awareness of environmental 

problems during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. 

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 which foster maintenance and

improvement of environmental quality.” Woodsy’s

message and appearance have recently been revitalized. He now sports a backpack, hiking shoes, and

field pants, and a new slogan builds on his previous

message: “Lend a hand—care for the land!” 

Research

Forests are critical to the global environment and

the global economy. They are the source of food,

raw materials, shelter, and income for millions, and

they provide sanctuary for people and habitat for

wildlife. Forests filter and protect water supplies and absorb carbon dioxide f

atmosphere. Agency research is being conducted in areas requiring urgent po

management action, including studies related to sustainable development, biod

economic and social values, ecological management, and forest health.

148

Smokey Bear

Woodsy Owl
Table 10-4.State summary of total recreation use on National Forest System lands by activity—fiscal year 1996State, Camping Mechanized Hiking, Horse- Resorts, cabins Nonconsumptive Other

Commonwealth picknicking & travel & back riding & Winter & organization fish & recreation

or Territory1 swimming viewing scenery water travel Sports camps Hunting Fishing wildlife use activities Total T

1,000 RVD3 1,0

Alabama 175.0 125.0 67.0 0.0 0.0 162.0 69.0 7.0 84.0 689.0 

Alaska 368.0 4,777.0 368.0 89.0 181.0 145.0 510.0 45.0 479.0 6,962.0 

Arizona 7,911.0 15,731.0 3,109.0 169.0 1,006.0 1,052.0 1,031.0 558.0 4,433.0 35,500.0 

Arkansas 619.0 555.0 215.0 0.0 42.0 510.0 106.0 28.0 135.0 2,210.0 

California 18,824.0 25,492.0 5,915.0 4,246.0 7,696.0 1,742.0 3,356.0 416.0 3,478.0 71,165.0 1

Colorado4 6,079.8 10,212.1 2,726.9 6,525.1 766.1 1,756.4 1,697.5 176.5 1,030.3 30,970.7 

Florida 1,536.0 459.0 178.0 0.0 213.0 243.0 183.0 22.0 126.0 2,960.0 

Georgia 832.0 1,004.0 386.0 2.0 21.0 345.0 199.0 37.0 99.0 2,925.0 

Idaho 4,472.0 4,506.0 1,421.0 821.0 610.0 1,154.0 1,071.0 201.0 1,109.0 15,365.0 

Illinois 262.0 443.0 190.0 0.0 9.0 140.0 44.0 19.0 81.0 1,188.0 

Indiana 242.0 102.0 119.0 2.0 18.0 104.0 55.0 6.0 36.0 684.0 

Kansas 17.0 27.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 9.0 14.0 3.0 12.0 86.0 

Kentucky 685.0 755.0 283.0 4.0 8.0 217.0 230.0 14.0 130.0 2,326.0 

Louisiana 198.0 161.0 29.0 0.0 24.0 114.0 29.0 5.0 39.0 599.0 

Maine 31.0 65.0 19.0 4.0 6.0 9.0 16.0 2.0 6.0 158.0 

Michigan 1,537.0 1,676.0 302.0 76.0 115.0 538.0 433.0 26.0 163.0 4,866.0 

Minnesota 1,983.0 1,116.0 886.0 112.0 441.0 366.0 897.0 35.0 146.0 5,982.0 

Mississippi 318.0 562.0 153.0 0.0 27.0 487.0 110.0 16.0 155.0 1,828.0 
150 Table 10-4 continued. State summary of total recreation use on National Forest System lands by activity—fiscal year 1996

State, Camping Mechanized Hiking, Horse- Resorts, cabins Nonconsumptive Other

Commonwealth picknicking & travel & back riding & Winter & organization fish & recreation

or Territory1 swimming viewing scenery water travel Sports camps Hunting Fishing wildlife use activities Total T

1,000 RVD3 1,0

New Mexico 2,979.0 2,202.0 724.0 751.0 256.0 541.0 341.0 186.0 1,346.0 9,326.0 1

New York 16.0 8.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 39.0 

North Carolina 1,710.0 2,460.0 1,210.0 15.0 100.0 793.0 342.0 42.0 307.0 6,979.0 2North Dakota 16.0 30.0 18.0 1.0 0.0 56.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 133.0 

Ohio 50.0 93.0 23.0 0.0 0.0 233.0 56.0 5.0 64.0 524.0 Oklahoma 56.0 179.0 56.0 0.0 0.0 66.0 15.0 10.0 11.0 393.0 

Oregon 5 11,289.5 11,719.1 3,889.7 1,583.9 2,027.7 2,024.1 1,976.4 594.2 1,924.7 37,029.3 9

Pennsylvania 866.0 1,521.0 348.0 10.0 42.0 178.0 164.0 32.0 107.0 3,268.0 1

Puerto Rico 92.0 17.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.0 11.0 171.0 

South Carolina 272.0 241.0 143.0 0.0 1.0 211.0 60.0 15.0 68.0 1,011.0 

South Dakota 282.0 2,580.0 206.0 18.0 118.0 91.0 147.0 13.0 116.0 3,571.0 

Tennessee 1,251.0 1,023.0 336.0 6.0 102.0 265.0 206.0 31.0 89.0 3,309.0 

Texas 640.0 414.0 111.0 0.0 30.0 223.0 742.0 27.0 115.0 2,302.0 

Utah 6,334.0 6,611.0 1,294.0 1,329.0 932.0 863.0 1,102.0 69.0 844.0 19,378.0 

Vermont 131.0 319.0 110.0 584.0 56.0 87.0 22.0 2.0 84.0 1,395.0 

Virginia 1,175.0 1,642.0 480.0 33.0 20.0 878.0 370.0 76.0 253.0 4,927.0 1

Washington 5 5,165.5 11,490.7 3,384.2 1,090.6 1,119.9 853.3 420.0 120.2 1,152.5 24,796.9 9

West Virginia 556.0 306.0 159.0 8.0 38.0 225.0 132.0 10.0 65.0 1,499.0 

Wisconsin 615.0 807.0 125.0 29.0 20.0 258.0 503.0 9.0 161.0 2,527.0 

Wyoming 2

069

0 2

688

0 1

389

0 522

0 805

0 688

0 396

0 100

0 457

0 9

114

0 1
Commonwealth, Lightning Person-caused Total 

or Territory fires fires fires 

Number

Alabama 45 4,436 4,481 

Alaska 29 298 327 

Arizona 105 691 796 

Arkansas 58 3,400 3,458 

California 163 6,282 6,445 

Colorado 245 1,979 2,224 

Connecticut 0 0 0 

Delaware 3 30 33 

Florida 468 2,875 3,343 

Georgia 242 7,853 8,095 

Guam 0 622 622 

Hawaii 0 217 217 

Idaho 151 125 276 

Illinois 1 814 815 

Indiana 17 3,242 3,259 

Iowa 0 1,244 1,244 

Kansas 139 3,200 3,339 

Kentucky 6 2,091 2,097 

Louisiana 6 3,567 3,573 

Maine 154 900 1,054 

Maryland 12 1,052 1,064 

Massachusetts 15 6,364 6,379 

Michigan 22 532 554 

Minnesota 23 1,121 1,144 

Mississippi 4 3,479 3,483 

Missouri 24 3,156 3,180 

Montana 155 214 369 

Nebraska 191 1,072 1,263 

Nevada 23 91 114 

New Hampshire 13 466 479 

New Jersey 9 1,999 2,008 

New Mexico 164 483 647 

New York 17 391 408 

North Carolina 48 5,200 5,248 

North Dakota 27 229 256 

Ohio 1 1,026 1,027 

Oklahoma 11 2,526 2,537 

Oregon 252 715 967 

Pennsylvania 3 1,031 1,034 

Puerto Rico 0 19,485 19,485 

Rhode Island 0 132 132 

South Carolina 80 3,487 3,567 

South Dakota 44 449 493 

Tennessee 24 3,445 3,469 

Texas 22 1,511 1,533 

Utah 253 326 579 

Vermont 7 232 239 

Virginia 16 1,640 1,656 

Washington 115 771 886 

West Virginia 16 1,217 1,233 

Wisconsin 38 1,699 1,737 

Wyoming 165 432 597 

Virgin Islands 0 53 53 

Total 3,626 109,892 113,518 
152

oe ta600 scetsts wose wos aed at te poductvty, ea

diversity of the temperate, boreal, and tropical forests,

■ Seven Regional Experiment Stations and one National Forest Products

Laboratory comprising 77 research lab locations, many collocated wit

versities, and 

■ Gateways for collaborative research in the Tropics, through the Interna

Institute of Tropical Forestry in Puerto Rico and the Institute of Pacific 

Forestry in Hawaii.

The Forest Service Research program provides:

■ More than 2,700 publications per year, and numerous presentations at 

posia and workshops,

■ Collaboration with university, industry, and other scientists; nongovern

organizations; managers; and policy makers for work that transcends t

abilities of any single organization, 

■ More than $20 million per year in domestic grants, cooperative agreem

and contracts for research partnerships, and 

■ Key databases for enhancing forest health, productivity, and conservat

The Forest Service provides scientific and technological information to m

the Nation’s forests and associated ecosystems. This includes studies in veget

management, watersheds, fisheries, wildlife, forest products and recycling, in

and diseases, economics, forest and rangeland ecology, silviculture, fire ecolo

prevention, ecosystem functioning, and recreation. 

Priority items include:

■ Forest inventory and analysis across the United States and forest healt

toring in 18 States, 

■ Global change research, to learn how climate change interacts with po

drought, and forest health, 

■ Recycling and wood use, to solve technical problems that hinder waste

recycling and to develop new products from agricultural and wood fib

byproducts, and

■ Large-scale ecosystem studies, for example on restoring mixed-oak fo

southern Ohio, evaluating impacts of silvicultural treatment on biologi

diversity in northern hardwood forests, and protecting watersheds, ripa

zones, and biological diversity in the Rio Grande Basin.
coecavabty ogobaoest esouces. e oest Sevce s a g

conservation leader and the U.S. Government’s main advocate for scient

based sustainable forest management. 

The United States is the world’s largest importer of wood, and it exp

than $18 billion worth of wood products each year. The Forest Service, i

international counterparts are developing international policies and guide

reduce barriers to U.S. exports. The Forest Products Laboratory and its C

counterparts have addressed product standards which had previously inh

As a result, tariffs on U.S. plywood have been reduced 50 percent and ex

Canada have increased steadily.

The Forest Service has been instrumental in preventing the Asian gy

from entering the United States and has cooperated with scientists from t

Republic of China in finding natural predators for an imported pest, the w

gid, which threatens eastern hemlock in 10 U.S. States and cannot be con

pesticides.

In cooperation with Latin American countries, the Forest Service pro

habitat of migratory birds—250 out of 750 bird species in the United Sta

to other countries. 

International cooperation in forestry has human health implications. 

vincristine, a compound derived from a tropical dry forest plant from Ma

improved the survival odds for thousands who have Hodgkin’s disease o

leukemia.

The Forest Service develops and shares new technology in utilizing 

itoring forest resources, and understanding the forests’role in global clim

with other countries.

The support that International Forestry’s Disaster Assistance Suppor

gives to international disaster prevention, preparedness, and response is c

our country’s ability to save lives and alleviate human suffering inflicted 

and human-caused global disasters.

Human Resource Programs

Human Resource Programs provide job opportunities, training, and 

for the unemployed, underemployed, elderly, young, and others with spe

while benefiting high-priority conservation work. In FY 1995, these prog

included more than 107,000 participants and accomplished over $127 mi

conservation work on Forest Service lands. 

Through an agreement with the U.S. Department of Labor, the Fores

operates eighteen Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers on Forest 

lands. The Job Corps program is the only Federal residential education/tr

program for the Nation’s disadvantaged youth.
154

The Senior Community Service Employment Program is designed to 

useful part-time employment and training for persons age 55 and over.

In the Youth Conservation Corps summer employment program, perso

15-18 accomplish projects that further the development and conservation of 

United States’ natural resources.

The Volunteers in the National Forests program allows organizations 

individuals to donate their talents and services to help manage the Nation’s n

resources.

Key facts about the Senior Community Service Employment

Program:

■ 5,554 older workers participated

■ $26.8 million budget

■ $40.8 million work accomplishment

■ Only Federal Agency among 10 national sponsors

■ 41 percent females

■ 18.4 percent placed in unsubsidized employment

■ $1.52 return on dollar invested

Key facts about the Youth Conservation Corps:

■ 712 enrollees, ages 15-18

■ $1.3 million operating costs

■ $2.1 million work accomplishment

■ $1.62 return on dollar invested

■ 41 percent females

8,eoed, ages 6

■ $91.4 million budget

■ $22.1 million work accomplishment

■ 93 percent placed

■ Average starting salary, approximately $6.10 per hour

■ 44 percent minorities

Key facts about Volunteers in the National Forests :

■ 82,349 volunteers have participated, (including 86 internationa

volunteers and 169 Touch America Project volunteers, age 14-

■ $38.4 million work accomplishment

■ 34 percent females

■ Over 1 million volunteers served since the 1972 legislation
tougageeets wtState ad couty ageces, coeges, uveste

tribes, and private and nonprofit organizations.

Through a partnership with the National Forest Foundation, the Fore

operated three Youth Forest Camps during the summer of 1995. These 

provided jobs, work training, and environmental education for persons a

Law Enforcement and Investigations

The objective of the Forest Service law enforcement program is to s

and protect natural resources and property within the authority and jurisd

the Forest Service. The program focuses on activities such as vandalism, 

ical resource violations, timber theft, wildland arson, and the cultivation 

facture of illegal drugs.

Forest Service drug control efforts continue to focus on the detection

sion, and prosecution of persons responsible for illegal drug activities on 

Drug enforcement efforts resulted in the seizure of several million dollar

assets and the destruction of several billion dollars’ worth of drugs. 

In FY 1995, 520 cooperative law enforcement agreements allowed t

Service to cooperate with State and local law enforcement agencies and w

Federal agencies to increase the protection and service to forest visitors. 

drug control agreements were set up between the Forest Service, State an

enforcement agencies, and other Federal agencies or task forces to coope

eliminating illegal drug activities on the National Forest System.

■ Key Facts About Hosted Programs

■ 9,636 participants

■ $23.7 million work accomplishment

■ 20 percent females

■ 31 percent minorities

■ 11 agreements on national forests with the Federal Bureau 

Prisons

■ Key Facts About Youth Forest Camps

■ 83 participants

■ Greater than $200,000 work accomplishment

■ 3 camps operated (Oregon, Virginia, and Colorado)

■ 36 percent females 

■ 55 percent minorities 
156

■ Natural Resources Conservation Service—A

Productive Nation in Harmony with a Quality

Environment

Introduction

As USDA’s lead Agency for conservation technical assistance, the NaturaResources Conservation Service (NRCS) works closely with other USD

agencies involved in conservation, including the Farm Service Agency (FSA)

Agricultural Research Service; Forest Service; and the Cooperative State Res

Education, and Extension Service. Through these agencies, USDA administe

wide range of programs to solve this country’s natural resource problems as t

affect private lands in agricultural and other uses.

Our well-being depends on healthy, productive, and diverse ecosystems 

sustainable use. Just as soil, water, and habitat are interrelated, the programs t

address these resources are interrelated, and programs that help one resource 

benefit others. If you stop erosion, for example, you also enhance soil produc

and protect water and air quality. Improving the environment can enhance the 

nomic future of communities throughout the United States.

The mission of NRCS is to provide leadership and administer programs t

landowners and land users to conserve, improve, and sustain our natural reso

and the environment, while enabling the United States to continue as the wor

preeminent producer of food and fiber.

tions were reported. These violations resulted in many millions o

dollars in damages and losses to National Forest System proper

and resources.

■ Nearly 264,299 cannabis plants were eradicated from 5,742 site

on the national forests.

■ 2,095 individuals were arrested for illicit controlled-substance 

production and distribution on National Forest System land.

■ About 162 special agents and 485 full-time uniformed law enforc

ment officers performed investigation and enforcement activities

that are unique to the National Forest System and its resources. 
cosevatodstcts, State ad ocagoveets, ad ubaad uap

restore and enhance the American landscape. The Agency helps landown

munities take a comprehensive approach in conservation planning, going 

to an understanding of how all natural resources—soil, water, air, plants, 

relate to each other and to humans. The Agency works to solve the natura

challenges on the Nation’s private lands—reducing soil erosion, improvi

health and rangeland health, protecting water quality and supply, conservi

and providing fish and wildlife habitat.

Most NRCS employees serve in USDA’s network of local, county-b

including those in Puerto Rico and the Pacific Basin. The rest are at State

and national offices, providing technology, policy, and administrative sup

serve all people who live and work on the land. Nearly three-fourths of th

technical assistance goes to helping farmers and ranchers develop conser

systems uniquely suited to their land and their ways of doing business.

The agency helps rural and urban communities curb erosion, conser

protect water, and solve other resource problems. American Indian tribes

Natives, Pacific Islanders, and other native groups work with NRCS on a 

initiatives that include resource inventories and the adaptation of conserv

grams to fit the special needs of their people and their land. Also, countri

the globe seek NRCS advice on building their own conservation delivery 

and in coping with severe natural resource problems.

Conservation is the work of many—no one can do it alone. NRCS re

many partners to help set conservation goals, work with people on the la

vide services. In addition to local conservation districts, State conservati

and other State and Federal agencies, the partners include NRCS Earth T

teers, AmeriCorps members, agricultural and environmental groups, and 

societies.

NRCS Programs

Through various programs, NRCS provides conservation technical a

to land users, communities, units of State and local government, and othe

agencies in planning and implementing natural resource solutions to redu

improve soil and water quantity and quality, improve and conserve wetla

fish and wildlife habitat, improve air quality, improve pasture and range 

reduce upstream flooding, and improve woodlands. The purpose is to sus

tural productivity and protect and enhance the natural resource base. Thi

is based on voluntary local landowner cooperation and recognizes the va

tional, technical, and financial assistance. 

Conservation Provisions of the 1996 Farm Bill

The conservation provisions of the Federal Agriculture Improvemen

Reform Act of 1996—also known as the 1996 Farm Bill—simplified exi

vation programs and improved their flexibility and efficiency. The bill al

new programs to address high-priority environmental protection goals.
158

eseve oga, ad ceated ew tatves to pove atuaesouces o

America’s private lands.

Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program

The Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program (ECARP) en

passes the FSA’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and NRCS’s Wetland

Reserve Program (WRP) and Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQ

Under ECARP, the Secretary of Agriculture may designate watersheds, multi

areas, or regions of special environmental sensitivity as conservation priority 

These areas may be eligible for special assistance to get them into complianc

nonpoint source pollution requirements of the Clean Water Act and other Fed

State environmental laws and to meet other conservation needs. 

Conservation Reserve Program

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which is administered by FS

technical assistance given by NRCS, protects highly erodible and environmen

sensitive lands with grass, trees, and other long-term cover. Now under CRP:

■ Up to 36.4 million acres can be enrolled at any one time;

■ New enrollments must focus on the most environmentally sensitive la

■ Expired or terminated contracts may be replaced with new enrollment

■ Landowners who entered into a contract before January 1, 1995, may 

nate contracts after giving written notice. Contracts must have been in 

at least 5 years and meet other eligibility criteria.

Wetlands Reserve Program

The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) is a voluntary program to restore 

protect wetlands on private property. It is an opportunity for landowners to re

marginal agricultural land in exchange for receiving financial incentives to en

wetlands.

Congress authorized WRP with the Food Security Act of 1985 and amen

the 1990 and 1996 Farm Bills. NRCS administers the program in consultation 

other Federal agencies.

Landowners who choose to participate in WRP may sell a conservation e

or enter into a cost-share restoration agreement with USDA to restore and pro

wetlands. The landowner voluntarily limits future use of the land, yet retains 

ownership. The landowner and NRCS develop a plan for the restoration and m

nance of the wetland.

The program offers landowners three options: permanent easements, 30-

easements, and restoration cost-share agreements of a minimum 10-year dura

Permanent Easement. This is a conservation easement in perpetuity. Ea

payment will be the lesser of: the agricultural value of the land, an established 

payment cap, or an amount offered by the landowner. In addition to paying fo

easement, USDA pays 100 percent of the costs of restoring the wetland.
aso pays 75 pecet oestoatocosts.

Restoration Cost-Share Agreement. This is an agreement (general

mum of 10 years in duration) to re-establish degraded or lost wetland hab

pays 75 percent of the cost of the restoration activity. This does not place 

on the property. The landowner provides the restoration site without reim

Other agencies and private conservation organizations may provide 

assistance for easement payment and wetland restoration costs as a way t

landowner’s share of the costs. Such special partnership efforts are encou

States were authorized to begin a continuous sign-up as of October 1

offer a conservation easement, the landowner must have owned the land 

1 year prior to enrolling the land in the program unless the land was inhe

landowner can prove the land was not obtained for the purpose of enrolli

program. To participate in a restoration cost-share agreement, the landow

show evidence of ownership.

To be eligible for WRP, land must be restorable and be suitable for w

fits. This includes:

■ Wetlands farmed under natural conditions;

■ Farmed wetlands;

■ Prior converted cropland;

■ Farmed wetland pasture;

■ Farmland that has become a wetland as a result of flooding;

■ Rangeland, pasture, or production forestland where the hydrology 

significantly degraded and can be restored;

■ Riparian areas which link protected wetlands;

■ Lands adjacent to protected wetlands that contribute significantly 

functions and values; and

■ Previously restored wetlands (Conservation Reserve Program [C

eligible if it meets WRP requirements).

Ineligible land includes wetlands converted after December 23, 198

timber stands established under a CRP contract; Federal lands; and lands 

ditions make restoration impossible.

New Programs Authorized

The 1996 Farm Bill created new initiatives to improve natural resou

America’s private lands:

Environmental Quality Incentives Program

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) was establis

1996 Farm Bill to provide a single, voluntary conservation program for f

ranchers who face serious threats to soil, water, and related natural resou

vides technical, financial, and educational assistance.

EQIP also represents USDA’s commitment to streamlining and impr

vices. USDA combined four of its conservation programs into EQIP: the 

Conservation Program, Water Quality Incentives Program, Great Plains C

Program, and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program.
potat oes peetg te pogaat te ocaeve. State ecc

Committees offer advice on establishing EQIP activities at the State level.

EQIP will:

■ Focus on conservation priority areas where there are significant natur

resource problems;

■ Provide technical assistance and up to 75 percent of the costs of apply

conservation practices;

■ Give high priority to assisting areas where State or local governments 

offer assistance or where conservation practices will help meet water 

objectives; and

■ Be administered through multiyear contracts based on conservation p

EQIP was funded at $130 million in fiscal year 1996 and $200 million th

until 2002. Fifty percent of funding is marked for livestock-related conservat

tices. Total cost shares and incentive payments to any person may not exceed 

for any fiscal year. There is a $50,000 limit for multiyear contracts.

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program

The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) helps participants deve

improve wildlife habitat on private lands. WHIP is authorized to provide cost 

to participants to offset expenses incurred for developing habitat for fish and 

NRCS administers the program. The Chief of NRCS may implement WHIP i

the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, G

the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Norther

Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territories of the Pacific.

WHIP will provide cost sharing to develop habitat for upland and wetlan

wildlife, threatened and endangered species, fish, and other types of wildlife. 

for cost sharing total $50 million to the year 2002.

Under WHIP, participants or leasees who have a lease for the duration of 

contract agree to implement a wildlife habitat development plan for lands tha

made available, without cost, to NRCS. In turn, NRCS agrees to provide cost

assistance for the initial implementation of wildlife habitat development prac

In some States, other wildlife agencies or nongovernment organizations may 

expertise or additional funding to carry out a project.

Farmland Protection Program

The Farmland Protection Program provides funds to help purchase devel

rights to keep productive farmland in use. Working through existing program

USDA joins with State, tribal, or local governments to acquire conservation e

ments or other interests from landowners. USDA provides up to 50 percent o

costs of purchasing the easements. To qualify, farmland must: be part of a pen

offer from a State, tribe, or local farmland protection program; be privately o

have a conservation plan; be large enough to sustain agricultural production; 

accessible to markets for what the land produces; have adequate infrastructur

160
Conservation of Private Grazing Land

Conservation of Private Grazing Land, which is administered by NR

ensure that technical, educational, and related assistance is provided to th

own private grazing lands. The Nation’s more than 600 million acres of p

ing lands produce food and fiber, hold and carry important water resourc

wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities.

This assistance will offer opportunities for:

■ Better grazing land management;

■ Protecting soil from erosive wind and water;

■ Using more energy-efficient ways to produce food and fiber;

■ Conserving water;

■ Providing habitat for wild animals;

■ Sustaining forage and grazing plants;

■ Using plants to clear carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses 

air; and

■ Using grazing lands as a source of biomass energy and raw mater

industrial products.

In fiscal year 1996, $20 million was authorized from conservation te

assistance funds. The amount increases to $60 million by the third year.

Additional Conservation Provisions

Conservation Compliance

The 1996 Farm Bill has brought changes to how conservation comp

ates. These changes will encourage land users to slow soil erosion on hig

land (HEL), protect wetlands, and build on conservation compliance suc

achieved under previous Farm Bills.

Conservation compliance policies are now more farmer friendly tha

previous Farm Bills while still achieving high levels of environmental pr

Farmers have greater flexibility in choosing the conservation methods th

tect their highly erodible land. More decisions regarding conservation co

can be made at the local level and decisions can now be made faster and 

staff resources.
162

tose seeg USpogabeets by pesevg te evoetauct

values of wetlands. These values include wildlife habitat, flood control, esthe

recreation, sediment control, groundwater recharge, and improving water qua

The 1996 Farm Bill changed Swampbuster to give farmers greater flexib

complying with wetland conservation requirements and in making wetlands m

valuable and functional. The following Swampbuster provisions have change

■ Wetland determinations will be made upon request. These determinati

in effect as long as the land is used for agricultural purposes (unless a 

tion occurs) or until the owner or operator requests a review.

■ There are more options for mitigation. These options include the kind

locations of restoration, enhancement, or creation activities that maint

wetland’s functions and values.

■ Landowners who desire to convert or alter wetlands may enhance exis

wetlands, restore former wetlands, or create new wetlands to offset fu

and values that are lost from conversions or alterations.

■ Wetland conversions authorized by Section 404 of the Clean Water Ac

be accepted if the conversion activities were properly mitigated.

■ A pilot program for wetland mitigation banking may be established. T

program would allow USDAto assess how well mitigation banking as

USDA participants comply with Swampbuster.

■ Practices that alter wetlands can now be put on a “fast track” for comp

NRCS determines that a planned activity will have a minimal effect o

wetland functions and values in the area under the “categorical” minim

effect exemption.

Agricultural Air Quality

The 1996 Farm Bill includes a provision requiring the establishment of a 

Force on Agricultural Air Quality to make recommendations to the Secretary 

Agriculture with regard to the scientific basis for agriculture’s impact on air q

The Task Force is to be chaired by the NRCS Chief, and, unless renewed, the 

Force will be terminated 2 years from the date of establishment.

The Task Force is to strengthen and coordinate USDA air quality researc

to determine the extent to which agricultural activities contribute to air pollut

to identify cost-effective ways in which the agricultural industry can improve 

quality. The Task Force also is charged with ensuring that data quality and int

tion are sound. The Farm Bill states that policy recommendations made by an

Federal Agency with respect to agricultural air quality issues are to be based o

scientific findings, subject to peer review, and should consider economic feas

The Task Force will work to ensure intergovernmental (Federal, State, an

cooperation to establish policy for agricultural air quality and to avoid duplic

The Task Force is to be convened and chaired by the Chief of NRCS and 

prised of USDA employees, industry representatives, and outside experts in th

of agriculture, air quality, and human health. The Task Force will be an adviso

mittee and will operate under the terms of the Federal Advisory Committee A
SoSuveys

NRCS conducts soil surveys cooperatively with other Federal agenc

grant universities, State agencies, and local units of government. Soil sur

the public with local information on the uses and capabilities of their soi

Soil surveys are based on scientific analysis and classification of the soil

used to determine land capabilities and conservation treatment needs. Th

soil survey for a county or designated area includes maps and interpretat

explanatory information that is the foundation of resource policy, plannin

sionmaking for Federal, State, county, and local community programs. 

Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasts

NRCS field staff collect snow information through a network of abo

Telemetry (SNOTEL) and 850 traditional snow courses to provide 11 We

and Alaska with water supply forecasts. The data are collected, assemble

lyzed to make about 4,000 annual water supply forecasts, which provide 

of available annual yield, spring runoff, and summer stream flow. Water 

casts are used by individuals, organizations, and State and Federal agenc

decisions relating to agricultural production, fish and wildlife manageme

control, recreation, power generation, and water quality management. Th

Weather Service presently includes the snow information in its river fore

Plant Materials Centers

NRCS employees at 26 Plant Materials Centers assemble, test, and e

increased plant propagation and usefulness of plant species for biomass p

carbon sequestration, erosion reduction, wetland restoration, water quali

ment, streambank and riparian area protection, coastal dune stabilization

other special conservation treatment needs. The work is carried out coop

with State and Federal agencies, commercial businesses, and seed and nu

ations. After species are proven, they are released to the private sector fo

production. In 1995, NRCS developed cultivars that were turned over to 

others to produce plant stock that generated more than $88 million in rev

vate sector nurseries and seed companies.

■ Major Accomplishments - FY 1995

■ Decisions receiving technical services annually - 814,000

■ Acres treated annually through conservation technical assi

28.2 million

■ Tons of soil erosion reduced annually through conservation 

technical assistance - 258 million

■ Acres mapped annually by NRCS - 21.9 million

■ Number of soil surveys ready for production - 59 
164

Watershed Surveys and Planning

NRCS provides assistance to local communities in watershed planning in

response to requests by sponsoring local organizations. The Agency works w

sponsors to develop watershed plans which meet sponsors’ priorities and prov

natural resource benefits.

Small Watersheds Projects. 

NRCS provides technical and financial assistance, in cooperation with lo

sponsoring organizations, State, and other public agencies, to voluntarily plan 

install watershed-based projects on private lands. The program empowers loc

ple or decisionmakers, builds partnerships, and requires local and State fundi

Water supply forecasting is enhanced by automated snow survey data collectio

through a snowpack telemetry (SNOTEL) network. This figure depicts the mete

technique used to transmit data from remote SNOTEL sites.

Billions of sand-sized meteorites enter the atmosphere daily. As each part

heats and burns in the region 50 to 75 miles above the Earth’s surface, its disi

tion creates a trail of ionized gases. The trails diffuse rapidly, usually disappe

within a second, but their short lifespan is adequate for SNOTEL communicat

be completed.

The process has three major steps: (1) master stations request data from r

sites; (2) sites respond by transmitting their current data; and (3) finally a mas

tion acknowledges receipt and signals the site transmitter to stop. This compl

exchange, taking place in a fraction of a second, is possible thanks to

microprocessors.
dustawatesuppy; gatowateaageet; sedetatoco

wildlife habitat enhancement; and creation and restoration of wetlands an

functions.

Emergency Watershed Protection

Under the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program, NRCS 

assistance to reduce hazards to life and property in watersheds damaged 

natural events. An emergency exists when floods, fire, drought, or other n

causes result in life or property being endangered. During the past 8 year

gram has been needed and used in an average of 26 States per year. Eme

includes establishing quick vegetative cover on denuded land, sloping ste

and eroding banks; opening dangerously restricted channels; repairing di

and levees; and other emergency work. The emergency area need not be 

national disaster area to be eligible for technical and financial assistance. 

watershed protection is applicable to small-scale, localized disasters as w

ters of national magnitude. NRCS provides technical and financial assist

disaster cleanup and subsequent rebuilding; stream corridor, wetland, an

area restoration; and urban planning and site location assistance to the Fe

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) when relocating communities 

floodplains. Local people are generally employed on a short-term basis t

disaster recovery.

Watershed Operations

Under the Flood Control Act of 1944, NRCS is authorized to admini

shed works of improvement. Flood prevention operations include planni

installing works of improvement and land treatment measures for flood p

for the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water; and 

reduction of sedimentation and erosion damages. This may also include t

ment of recreational facilities and the improvement of fish and wildlife h

Activities are authorized in 11 specific flood prevention projects covering 

million acres in 11 States.

■ Watershed Surveys and Planning Major Accomplishments - 

Applications available for planning 

Approved for planning 

Planning completed 

Planning in process 

Cooperative studies initiated 

Cooperative studies completed 

Cooperative studies in progress at end of year 

Floodplain management studies completed (cumulative total) 

Floodplain management studies completed during fiscal year 

Floodplain management studies in progress at end of year 
166

vebassuveys ad vestgatos, ood aad aayss, ad ood pa

ment assistance to aid in the development of coordinated water resource prog

including the development of guiding principles and procedures. Cooperative 

basin studies are made up of agricultural, rural, and upstream water and land

resources to identify resource problems and determine corrective actions need

These surveys address a variety of natural resource concerns including water 

improvement, opportunities for water conservation, wetland and water storag

ity, agricultural drought problems, rural development, municipal and industri

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 the Departme

river basin regional entities and River Basin Interagency Committees for coo

tion among Federal departments and States.

Forestry Incentives Program

The objectives of this program are to increase the Nation’s production of 

timber and pulpwood on nonindustrial, private forest lands; to decrease expec

shortages and rising prices of timber; and to help ensure effective use of avai

forest lands. Program objectives are met by providing cost-share and technical 

tance to landowners to encourage voluntary installation of forestry practices. 

program shares up to 65 percent of the cost incurred by the landowner for tre

planting and timberstand improvement.

Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Progra

The Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Program helps p

care for and protect their natural resources in a way that will improve an area

omy, environment, and living standards. The RC&D Program is a unique blen

private enterprise and creative federalism. It is based on a number of concept

including the value of public/private partnerships in making the best use of li

resources; the value of grassroots involvement in making decisions about loc

the need to bring USDA agencies together to focus on the same problems and 

tunities; the need to leverage limited Federal dollars with private funds to acc

goals; and the importance of achieving a balance between rural economic dev

ment and natural resource protection. RC&D involves more than a single pro

effort and builds upon long-range resource development plans. To implemen

RC&D, diverse groups of local people are brought together in an RC&D Cou

an RC&D Area. An RC&D Area can include one or more adjacent counties th

big enough to have substantial natural resources to use for economic improve

and community betterment. The RC&D Councils, nationwide, are comprised 

than 20,000 volunteers. There are currently 289 authorized RC&D areas invo

2,092 counties across the country.
atuaesouces ooedeaad. Caed te Natoaesouces 

NRI, this report card contains the most comprehensive and statistically r

of its kind in the world. It measures trends in soil erosion by water and w

losses, prime farmland acreage, irrigation, and conservation treatment ne

national, regional, State, and sub-State levels.

In 1994, NRCS released the NRI data comparing resource condition

in 1982 and 1992. Key findings include:

■ Between 1982 and 1992, the Nation’s cropland acreage decreased 

9 percent (from 421 million to 382 million acres), most of it going into th

Conservation Reserve Program; rangeland acreage decreased by about 2 

(from 409 million to 399 million acres); and developed land increased by 

(from 78 million to 92 million acres).

■ The average annual rate of soil erosion for the Nation dropped sub

between 1982 and 1992, largely attributable to the success of the Nation

meeting the conservation provisions of the 1985 farm bill.

■ Prime farmland decreased by 6 million acres between 1982 and 19

most of the losses due to rural and urban development.

■ Wetland loss due to agriculture has slowed significantly.

The NRI contributes to resource appraisals authorized by the Soil an

Resources Conservation Act of 1977. These “RCA” appraisals, led by N

basis for USDA’s National Conservation Program as well as farm and en

legislation.

In 1994, NRI data and analytical software were made available to th

CD-ROM for the first time. To obtain the NRI database, Data Analysis S

spatial data sets, contact: NRCS National Cartography and Geospatial Ce

Worth Federal Center, Bldg. 23, Room 60, P.O. Box 6567, Fort Worth, T

0567; telephone (817) 334-5559, extension 3135.

Each NRI has built and improved upon the previous one. For examp

NRI added a data element to look specifically at Earth cover. Major impr

planned for the 1997 NRI include a broader resource assessment focus to 

emerging Agency initiatives, such as soil quality and grazing lands health

and other data collection efforts are being coordinated to achieve a contin

ment of natural resource conditions and trends.

NRI information can be used to formulate policy and evaluate progr

national, regional, and State levels. Because the NRI’s 800,000 sample p

linked to geographic coordinates, natural resource estimates and maps ca

duced for user-defined areas of interest. When combined with other Fede

and local government inventories, the NRI can provide a snapshot of the 

land and identify natural resource trends. NRCS field offices and new inf

dissemination systems, such as the Internet, will become increasingly im

getting this information to the people who most need it: landowners and 

resource managers.
168

Forest Service

Director, Public Affairs 

Vacant 

2CEN-Aud Washington, DC 20250

202-205-1760 

FAX 202-205-0885

/s=pao/ou1=w01b@mhs-fswa.attmail.com

Media Officer

Alan Polk 

2CEN-Aud Washington, DC 20250

202-205-1134 

FAX 202-205-0885

/s=a.polk/ou1=w01b@mhs-fswa.attmail.com

Asst. Dir., Pub. Aff. 

Chris Holmes 

2CEN-Aud Washington, DC 20250

202-205-1006

FAX 202-205-0885

/s=c.holmes/ou1=w01b@mhsfswa.attmail.com

Photo, Video Services

Yuen-Gi Yee (Bernie) 

2CEN-Aud Washington, DC 20250

202-205-1438

FAX 202-205-0885

Asst. Dir., Pub. Aff.

Denver James

2CEN-Aud Washington, DC 20250

202-205-1781

FAX 202-205-0885

/s=d.james/ou1=w01b@mhsfswa.attmail.com

FOIA Office

Naomi Charboneau

51LL-RPE Arlington, VA 22209

703-235-9488

FAX 703-235-9498

/s=n.charboneau/ou1=w01b@mhs

fswa.attmail.com

FS Regional 

Information Offices

Northern Reg. PA Officer

Beth Horn

P.O.Box 7669-Fed. Building

Missoula, MT 59807

406-329-3089 

FAX 406-329-3411

/s=io/ou1=r01a@mhs-fswa.attmail.com

Rocky Mtn. Reg. PA Officer

Steve Deitemeyer 

\P.O.B. 25127-11177 W.8th Ave

Lakewood, CO 80225

\303-275-5135

FAX 303-275-5366

/s=rpst/ou1=r02a@mhs-fswa.attmail.c

Southwest Reg. PA Officer

Carolyn Bye

517 Gold Ave., SW, Fed.Bldg.

Albuquerque, NM 87l02 

505-842-3290 

FAX 505-842-3457

/s=is/ou1=r03a@mhs-fswa.attmail.com

Intermtn. Reg. PA Officer

Robert Swinford 

324 25th St. Fed. Bldg. 

Ogden, UT 84401

801-625-5347 FAX 801-625-5240

/s=pao/ou1=r04a@mhs-fswa.attmail.c

Pacific SW Reg. PA Officer

Marilyn Hartley

630 Sansome Street

San Francisco, CA 94111

415-705-2804 

FAX 415-705-1097

/s=oi/ou1=r05a@mhs-fswa.attmail.com

Pacific NW Reg. PA Officer

Sylvia Brucchi 

P.O.B 3623-333 S. First St 

Portland, OR 97208

503-326-2971 

FAX 503-326-5044

/s=pao/ou1=r06a@mhs-fswa.attmail.c
Atlanta, GA 30367 

404-347-7240 

FAX 404-347-3608 

/s=pao/ou1=r08a@mhs-fswa.attmail.com

Eastern Reg. PA Officer

Sherry Wagner 

310 W. Wisconsin Ave., Rm 500

Milwaukee, WI 53203 

414-297-3640 

FAX 414-297-3808 

/s=pcr_r09a/ou1=r09a@mhsfswa.attmail.com

Alaska Reg. PA Officer

Kimberly Bown 

P.O.Box 21628 - Fed. Bldg.

Juneau, AK 99802 

907-586-8806 

FAX 907-586-7892 /s=pao/ou1=r10a@mhsfswa.attmail.com

NE Area State-Private PA

Jill Cherpack

100 Matsonford Road, Rm 200

Radnor, PA 19087-4585 

610-975-4111 

FAX 610-975-4200 

/s=j.cherpack/ou1=s24a@mhsfswa.attmail.com

FS Research Stations

Forest Products Lab. Inf. 

Debra Dietzman 

One Gifford Pinchot Drive

Madison, WI 53705-2398 

608-231-9236 

FAX 608-231-9592 

/s=p.green/ou1=s32a@mhsfswa.attmail.com

Intermtn. Stat. Res. Inf. 

Dave Tippets 

324 25th Street

Ogden, UT 84401

801-625-5431 

FAX 801-625-5434 

/s=ri/ou1=s22a@mhs-fswa.attmail.com

St. Paul, MN 55108

612-649-5276 

FAX 612-649-5285 

/s=re/ou1=s23a@mhs-fswa.attma

Northeast Stat. Res. Inf. 

Mary Buchanan 

100 Matsonford Rd., Rm 200

Radnor, PA 19087

614-368-0123 

FAX 614-368-0152 

/s=im/ou1=s24a@mhs-fswa.attm

Pacific NW Stat. Res. Inf. 

Cynthia Miner 

P.O.Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208 

503-326-7127 

FAX 503-326-2455 

/s=ris/ou1=r6/pnw@mhs-fswa.a

Pacific SW Stat. Res. Inf. 

Sherri Richardson 

1960 Addison Street

Berkeley, CA 94704 

503-326-7132 

FAX 510-559-6440 

/s=ris/ou1=s27a@mhs-fswa.attm

Rocky Mtn. Stat. Res. Inf. 

Richard Schneiber 

240 W. Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526-2098

970-498-1798 

FAX 303-498-1660 

/s=r.schneiber/ou1=s28a@mhsfswa.attmail.com

Southern Res. Station Inf.

Rod Kindlund 

P.O.B. 2680 - 200 Weaver Blvd.

Asheville, NC 28802 

704-257-4389 

FAX 704-259-0509 

/s=pmis/ou1=s29a@mhs-fswa.at
170

Dir., Conservation Comm. Staff 

David C. White 

Rm 6103-S Washington, DC 20013

202-720-3210

FAX 202-720-1564

dave.white@usda.gov 

Program Assistant 

Joyce Hawkins 

Rm 6105-S Washington, DC 20013

202-720-3210 

FAX 202-720-1564

joyce.hawkins@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist 

Mary Cressel 

Rm 6111-S Washington, DC 20013

202-690-0547

FAX 202-690-1221

mary.cressel@usda.gov 

Public Affairs Specialist 

June Davidek

Rm 6119-S Washington, DC 20013

202-720-3876 

FAX 202-690-1221

june.davidek@usda.gov

Visual Information Specialist 

Robert Gresh

Rm 0054ES Washington, DC 20013

202-720-5157 

FAX 202-720-9925

robert.gresh@usda.gov 

Editorial Assistant 

Sandy Grimm 

Rm 6116-S Washington, DC 20013

202-720-6243 

FAX 202-690-1221

sandy.grimm@usda.gov 

Public Affairs Specialist 

Fred Jacobs

Rm 6113-S Washington, DC 20013

202-720-4649 

FAX 202-690-1221

fred.jacobs@usda.gov 

g

202-720-5776

FAX 202-690-1221

ted.kupelian@usda.gov 

Public Affairs Specialist 

Judith Ladd 

Rm 6116-S Washington, DC 20013

202-720-2536 

FAX 202-690-1221

judy.ladd@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist 

Tom Levermann 

Rm 6111 Washington, DC 20013

\202-720-7570 

FAX 202-690-1221 

tlevermann@usda.gov 

Visual Information Specialist 

Chris Lozos 

Rm 6123-S Washington, DC 20013

202-720-4244

FAX 202-690-1221

chris.lozos@usda.gov 

Public Affairs Specialist 

Diana Morse 

Rm 6119-S Washington, DC 20013

202-720-4772

Fax 202-690-1221 

diana.morse@usda.gov 

Printing Specialist 

Doug Wilson 

Rm 4243-S Washington, DC 20013

202-720-7769 

Fax 202-720-9975

Doug.wilson@usda.gov 

Freedom of Info Act Office 

Wilda Grant 

Rm 5236-S Washington, DC 20013

FAX 202-690-3174 

wgrant@usda.gov 
Public Affairs Contacts

AL

Joan Smith

665 Opelika Road, 

Auburn, AL 36830-0311-4362

334-887-4530 

FAX 334-887-4551 j.

smith@al.nrcs.usda.gov

AK 

Lois Jackson 

949 East 36th Avenue, Suite 400, 

Anchorage, AK 99508-4302

907-271-2424 

FAX 907-271-3951

ljackson@ak.nrcs.usda.gov

AZ 

Mary Ann McQuinn 

3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 800,

Phoenix, AZ 85012-2945

602-280-8778 

FAX 602-280-8809

mmcquinn@az.nrcs.usda.gov

AR 

Suzanne Pugh 

Fed. Bldg., Rm 5404, 700 W. Capitol Ave., 

Little Rock, AR 72201-3228 

501-324-5464 

FAX 501-324-6138 

spugh@ar.nrcs.usda.gov

CA

Anita Brown 

2121-C 2nd Street, Suite 102, 

Davis, CA 95616-5475 

916-757-8241 

FAX 916-757-8217

abrown@ca.nrcs.usda.gov

CO 

Petra Barnes 

655 Parfet Street, Room E200C, 

Lakewood, CO 80215-5517 

303-236-2886 

FAX 303-236-2896

pbarnes@co.nrcs.usda.gov

Storrs, CT 06268-1299

860-487-4062 

FAX 860-487-4054 

cmiller@ct.nrcs.usda.gov

DE 

Paul Petrichenko 

1203 College Park Drive, Suite 1

Dover, DE 19904-8713 

302-678-4178 

FAX 302-678-0843

ppetrichenko@de.nrcs.usda.gov

FL

Dorothy Staley 

2614 N.W. 43rd Street, 

Gainesville, FL 32606-6611 

352-338-9565 

FAX 352-338-9574

dstaley@fl.nrcs.usda.gov

GA

Art Greenberg 

Federal Building, Box 13, 355 Ea

Ave., Athens, GA 30601 2769 

706-546-2273 

FAX 706-546-2276

agreenberg@ga.nrcs.usda.gov

HI 

Lee Ozawa 

300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 

Honolulu, HI 96850-0002 

808-541-2651 

FAX 808-541-1335 

lozawa@hi.nrcs.usda.gov

ID 

Sharon Norris 

3244 Elder Street, Room 124, Bo

83705-4711 

208-378-5725 

FAX 208-378-5735 

snorris@id.nrcs.usda.gov

IL

Kay Kitchen-Maran 

1902 Fox Drive, Champaign, IL 

217-398-5273 

FAX 217-398-5310 

kktchenmaran@il.nrcs.usda.gov
172

p

46278-2933 

317-290-3222 

FAX 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 

FAX 515-284-4394 

lbetts@ia.nrcs.usda.gov

KS 

Tim Christian 

760 South Broadway, 

Salina, KS 67401 

913-823-4570

FAX 913-823-4540

tchristian@ks.nrcs.usda.gov

KY

Vacant 

771 Corporate Drive, Suite 110, 

Lexington, KY 40503-5479 

606-224-7403 

FAX 606-224-7393

LA

Herb Bourque 

3737 Government Street,

Alexandria, LA 71302-3727 

318-473-7762 

FAX 318-473-7771

hbourque@la.nrcs.usda.gov

ME 

Elaine Tremble 

5 Godfrey Drive, Orono, ME 04473 

207-866-7241 

FAX 207-866-7262 

etremble@me.nrcs.usda.gov

MD

Carol Hollingsworth 

John Hanson BC, 339 Bucsh's Frontage Rd.,

#30, Annapolis, MD 21401 5534 

410-757-0861 

FAX 410-757-0687

chollingsworth@md.nrcs.usda.gov

Amherst, MA 01002-2995

508-692-0790 

FAX 508-392-1305

aaldrich@ma.nrcs.usda.gov

MI 

Bob Baetsen (Acting)

1405 South Harrison Road, Room 101

Lansing, MI 48823-5243 

517-543-1539 

FAX 517-543-5962

bbaetsen@mi.nrcs.usda.gov

MN 

Vacant 

600 Farm Credit Building, 

375 Jackson Street, 

St. Paul, MN 55101-1854 

612-290-3677 

FAX 612-290-3375

MS 

Jeannine May 

Fed. Bldg., Suite 1321, 100 W. Capito

Jackson, MS 39269-1399 

601-965-4337 

FAX 601-965-4536

jmay@ms.nrcs.usda.gov

MO 

Norm Klopfenstein 

Parkade Ctr., #250, 

601 Business Loop, 70 West, 

Columbia, MO 65203 2546 

314-876-0911 

FAX 314-876-0913

nklopfenstein@mo.nrcs.usda.gov

MT

Lori Valadez 

Fed. Bldg., Room 443, 

10 East Babcock Street, 

Bozeman, MT 59715-4704 

406-587-6842 

FAX 406-587-6761

lvaladez@mt.nrcs.usda.gov
g

100 Centennial Mall, North, 

Lincoln, NE 68508-3866 

402-437-5328 

FAX 402-437-5327

pmcgrane@ne.nrcs.usda.gov

NV

Liz Warner 

5301 Longley Lane, Building F, Suite 201, 

Reno, NV 89511 

702-784-5288 

FAX 702-784-5939

lwarner@nv.nrcs.usda.gov

NH 

Lynn Howell 

Federal Building, 2 Madbury Road, 

Durham, NH 03824-1499 

603-868-7581 

FAX 603-868-5301

lhowell@nh.nrcs.usda.gov

NJ 

Irene Lieberman 

1370 Hamilton Street, 

Somerset, NJ 08873-3157 

908-246-1171 

FAX 908-246-2358

ilieberman@nj.nrcs.usda.gov

NM 

Rebecca de la Torre 

6200 Jefferson, NE, Suite 305,

Albuquerque, NM 87109-3734 

505-761-4404 

FAX 505-761-4463

rdelatorre@nm.nrcs.usda.gov

NY

Vacant 

441 S. Salina Street, 5th Floor, Suite 354, 

Syracuse, NY 13202-2450 

315-477-6505 

FAX 315-477-6550

NC 

Andrew Smith 

4405 Bland Road, Suite 205, 

Raleigh, NC 27609-6293 

919-873-2107 

FAX 919-873-2156

asmith@nc.nrcs.usda.gov

g

220 East Rosser Avenue, 

Bismarck, ND 58502 1458 

701-250-4768 

FAX 701-250-4778

adeutscher@nd.nrcs.usda.gov

OH 

Latawnya Dia 

200 North High Street, Room 52

Columbus, OH 43215-2748 

614-469-6962 

FAX 614-469-2083 

ldia@oh.nrcs.usda.gov

OK 

Dwain Phillips 

100 USDA, Suite 203, 

Stillwater, OK 74074-2654 

405-742-1243 

FAX 405-742-1201

dphillips@ok.nrcs.usda.gov

OR 

Gayle Norman 

101 SW 3rd Ave., Rm. 1640, 

Portland, OR 97204-2881 

503-414-3236 

FAX 503-414-3101

gnorman@or.nrcs.usda.gov

PAC 

Joan Perry 

BAS FHB Building, Suite 301, 4

Maite, GU 96927 

671-472-7490 

FAX 700-550-7288

jperry@pac.nrcs.usda.gov

PA

Sylvia Rainford 

1 Credit Union Place, Suite 340,

Harrisburg, PA 17110-2993 

717-782-2290 

FAX 717-782-4469

srainford@pa.nrcs.usda.gov

PR 

Becky Fraticelli 

IBM Bldg., 6th fl. 654 Munoz Ri

Hato Rey, PR 00918-7013 

787-766-5206

FAX 787-766-5987

bfraticelli@pr.nrcs.usda.gov
174

Q

Warwick, RI 02886-0111 

401-828-1300 

FAX 401-828-0433

SC 

Perdita Belk 

Strom Thurmond FB, 

1835 Assembly St., Rm 950, 

Columbia, SC 29201 2489 

803-765-5402 

FAX 803-253-3670 

pbelk@sc.nrcs.usda.gov

SD 

Joyce Watkins 

Federal Building, 200 4th Street, SW, 

Huron, SD 57350-2475 

605-352-1227 

FAX 605-352-1261

jwatkins@sd.nrcs.usda.gov

TN 

Larry Blick 

675 U.S. Courthouse, 801

Broadway,Nashville, TN 37203-3878 

615-736-5490 

FAX 615-736-7764 

lblick@tn.nrcs.usda.gov

TX 

Harold Bryant 

W.R. Poage Fed. Bldg., 101 South Main

Street, Temple, TX 76501-7682 

817-298-1228 

FAX 817-298-1388

hbryant@tx.nrcs.usda.gov

UT

Ron Nichols 

W. F. Bennett FB, 125 S. State St., Rm 4402,

Salt Lake City, UT 84138 

801-524-5050

FAX 801-524-4403

rnichols@ut.nrcs.usda.gov

VT

Anne Hilliard 

69 Union Street, 

Winooski, VT 05404-1999 

802-951-6796 

FAX 802-951-6327

ahilliard@vt.nrcs.usda.gov

ppg

Richmond, VA 23229-5014 

804-287-1681 

FAX 804-287-1737 

ppaul@va.nrcs.usda.gov

WA

Chris Bieker (acting) 

Rock Pointe Tower II, W. 

316 Boone Ave., #450, 

Spokane, WA 99201 2348

509-353-2336 

FAX 509-353-2354

cbielcer@wa.nrcs.usda.gov

WV

Peg Reese 

75 High Street, Room 301, 

Morgantown, WV 26505 

304-291-4152 

FAX 304-291-4628

preese@wv.nrcs.usda.gov

WI 

Renae Anderson 

6515 Watts Road, Suite 200, 

Madison, WI 53719-2726 

608-264-5341 

FAX 608-264-5483

randerson@wi.nrcs.usda.gov

WY

Nancy Atkinson 

Fed. Bldg., 100 East B Street, Room 3

Casper, WY 82601-1911 

307-261-6482 

FAX 307-261-6490

natkinson@wy.nrcs.usda.gov
132

Tpartners in caring for the Nation’s natural resources. The Forest Service 

sters statutes that guide:

■ Construction and maintenance of roads and trails where needed to allo

for timber harvesting and public access to outdoor recreation areas;

■ Construction and maintenance of facilities at outdoor recreation areas

■ Timber harvesting methods that protect other natural resources;

■ Removal of oil, gas, uranium, and other minerals of strategic importan

as well as coal and geothermal steam;

■ Use of national forest and range land as a refuge for threatened and end

species of birds, animals, fish, and plants; and 

■ Use of national forests and grasslands for livestock grazing.

Mission

The Forest Service mission is “Caring for the Land and Serving People.” 

Forest Service’s mission is further expressed in its land ethic: “Promote the su

ability of ecosystems by ensuring their health, diversity, and productivity.” Th

coupled with the service ethic: “Tell the truth, obey the law, work collaborativ

use appropriate scientific information in caring for the land and serving peopl

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 four strategic goals of the Forest Service are to: (1) protect ecosystem

(2) restore deteriorated ecosystems, (3) provide multiple benefits for people w

the capabilities of ecosystems, and (4) ensure organizational effectiveness.

The Forest Service’s Draft 1995 Resources Planning Act Program, its lon

strategic plan, sets forth the programs and management actions that will be ca

out under each of the four strategic goals. The Forest Service works toward th

primary outcomes: healthy ecosystems; vital communities; and an effective, m

disciplinary, multicultural organization.
Systeudete Ogac ct o897, te utpe UseSustaed ed 

and the National Forest Management Act of 1976. 

The Agency also conducts research, provides assistance to State and 

landowners, assesses the Nation’s natural resources, and provides interna

tance and scientific exchanges. These activities are carried out under the 

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, The Renewable 

Extension Act of 1978, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Act of 1978, the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, and the In

Forestry Cooperation Act of 1990.

Organizational Structure

The top administrative official of the Forest Service is the Chief who

the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, reports to t

of Agriculture. The Forest Service is responsible for administering progr

vide services to the general public and other users in five areas: (1) Natio

System, (2) State and Private Forestry, (3) Research, (4) International Fo

(5) Administration.

The National Forest System (NFS) operates under the concept of m

providing sustained yields of renewable resources such as water, livestoc

wildlife habitat, wood, and recreation, and ensuring the integration of mi

resource programs and activities. The Forest Service is also committed to 

wilderness, biodiversity, and visual quality. Scientific management of wi

epidemics of disease and insect pests, erosion, floods, and water and air p

also a major activity.

State and Private Forestry programs advance the Forest Service’s 

contributing to sound management of State and private nonindustrial for

programs serve as a link among many public and private organizations a

ownership boundaries to promote the best use of America’s natural resou

Forest Service Research covers a wide range of forest-related subje

new scientific knowledge regarding ecosystem restoration and managem

helps to protect and enhance productivity on all of America’s forests and 

with special attention to long-term natural resource issues of national and 

tional scope. 

International Forestry activities promote sustainable development 

environmental stability, particularly in countries important in global clim

This mandate includes setting a national goal for sustainable managemen

forests by the year 2000, researching topics with implications for global 

agement, and facilitating the exchange of resource management experien

the world.

Forest Service Administration provides direction, quality assurance

customer service in carrying out the Forest Service business and human r

programs.
134

a case study ggtg edeaageces dog t gt.Sgcat poge

been made in three categories: (1) determining what Forest Service employee

about their work and how they think it can be improved, (2) streamlining Age

processes, and (3) restructuring and downsizing Agency organization. Specifi

actions include these:

■ The Agency has received 15,000 customer response cards and used th

improve customer service. 

■ The Forest Service and other Federal and State agencies have partnere

reduce costs and improve efficiency. In Oregon, the Bureau of Land

Management and the Forest Service share offices, equipment, and peo

provide a common-sense, “one-stop shopping” approach to land mana

and customer service.

■ The Agency has redesigned the campground reservation system based 

customer feedback from 1996. A record number of customers used the 

system in 1997.

■ The Forest Service has planned for a reduction in overall work force f

about 43,000 full-time employees in 1993 to about 37,500 in 1999. 

National Forest Foundation

The National Forest Foundation was authorized by Congress in 1990 as 

profit corporation to:

■ Encourage and accept donations and gifts for the benefit of the Forest 

■ Conduct activities that further the purposes of national forest and nati

grassland management,

■ Encourage educational and other assistance that supports multiple use

research, cooperative forestry, and other programs administered by th

Service, and

■ Promote cooperation among the Forest Service, the private sector, and 

governmental and educational institutions. 

During FY 1996, the Foundation helped the Forest Service expand its Ch

Cost-Share program by identifying and working with private sector partners. 

“Firefighter Fund” has been established to provide financial assistance to fire

who were severely injured in the 1994 fires and to the families of those men a

women who were killed in the line of duty. A pilot program is underway to de

interactive kiosk technology and update interpretive exhibits at visitor inform

centers through corporate sponsorships and fund raising efforts. The foundati

ported tree planting, watershed restoration, universal accessibility to national 

and trail repair and maintenance, including $50,000 for the Continental Divid

in the Rocky Mountains.
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
136

land, under all ownerships.

■ The entire Nation has 736.7 million acres of forest land area, no

including rangeland, under all ownerships; the owners/manage

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, Department of

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 191.6 million acres of national forest land. This is 8.3

percent of the United States’ land area, or about the size of Tex

plus 10 percent. 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 acre

■ National Monument Areas: 3.3 million acres

■ National Historic Areas: 6,540 acres

■ Congressionally Designated Wilderness: 34.6 million acres

■ The Forest Service manages 155 national forests for multiple

uses.

■ The national forest trail system is the largest in the Nation, with

more than 125,000 miles of trails for hiking, riding, and crosscountry skiing.

■ The Forest Service provides more recreational opportunities tha

any other Federal Agency. Visitors to national forests are

attracted by:

■ 5,885 campgrounds and picnic areas

■ 328 swimming developments

■ 1,222 boating sites

■ 250 winter sports sites, including 120 downhill ski areas

■ If all these sites were fully occupied at the same time, they wou

accommodate 1.8 million people.

■ Minerals found on Forest Service lands provide more than $3.3

billion in private sector revenue each year.
National Forest System—Conservation and Multiple U

Lands 

Lands-related activities include land exchanges to protect and enhan

National Forest System, protecting boundaries and records, granting app

rights to others, and administering rights granted to or retained by other a

governments, and landowners.

Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants

In 1995, people made more than 86 million visits to national forests 

and view wildlife, fish and plants, with a total net value of nearly $4.3 bi

than $1.7 billion in annual economic benefits result from recreational and 

harvest of fish resources on National Forest System lands.

The Agency’s threatened, endangered, and sensitive species program 

conserve and restore habitat and thus avoid the need to list additional rar

partnership with other Federal agencies, State fish and wildlife agencies, 

conservation groups, habitat management efforts are currently underway 

steelhead and cutthroat trout, spotted owl, marbled murrelet, and grizzly 

to reintroduce species or increase their numbers are planned in collabora

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State agencies for gray wolf, black-fo

California condor, Mexican wolf, thick-billed parrot, and red-cockaded w

hours of recreation use)

■ Lands burned by wildfire: 530,000 acres

■ Insect and disease suppression: 1.7 million acres

■ Watershed improvements: 35,500 acres

■ Wildlife and fish habitat improvements: 242,761 acres

■ Reforestation: 492,000 acres

■ Livestock grazing: 9.3 million animal unit months

■ Grazing allotments administered: 9,940

■ Mineral operations processed: 9,157 

■ Timber sold: 3.1 billion board feet

■ Timber harvested: 4.8 billion board feet (some had been so

previous years)

■ Road system: 377,800 miles
138

Partnerships

In 1995, more than 3,150 partners joined the Forest Service through the

Challenge Cost-Share Program to complete more than 3,000 wildlife and fish 

improvement projects on national forests and grasslands. Through these partn

efforts, many species have returned to habitats once abandoned. Fragile plant 

have been identified and protected. Wetlands for waterfowl and other species 

been improved by the construction of nesting islands and platforms. Fisheries 

benefited from improved cover, construction of fish ladders and barriers, and 

tion of watersheds.

Since 1986, wildlife and fish conservation partner contributions of labor, 

als, expertise, and funds have approached $106 million, more than matching 

Service monetary contributions of over $77 million.

Water, Soil, and Air

About 20 percent of the surface water supply in the United States flows f

National Forest System watersheds. Three major goals of the Forest Service’s 

shed management programs are to (1) assure adequate yields of high-quality 

(2) sustain soil productivity, and (3) manage air quality within standards. The 

of mapping all soils within the National Forest System, with the cooperation 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, is about 70 percent complete. The F

Service improved 35,500 acres of watershed in FY 1995 with appropriated fu

and an additional 14,000 acres from other funding sources.

Other significant activities include watershed analyses and watershed res

work, especially in the Pacific Northwest; participating in water right adjudic

in eight Western States; assessing water quality problems from abandoned mi

located on national forests with assistance from States and other Federal agen

and monitoring lichens, lakes, snow, vegetation, and the atmosphere to determ

pollution impacts to wilderness areas.

e atoaoest Systecudes 3 oaces osab

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 per cent of the elk, mountain goat, and bighorn sheep habita

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 

■ Habitat for more than 280 species of threatened or endangered

plants, fish, or wildlife.
Rangeland

National Forest System rangeland is managed to conserve the land a

tation while providing food for both livestock and wildlife. Forage produ

primary use of these lands. Under multiple-use concepts, grazing areas a

watersheds, wildlife habitat, and recreation sites. Grazing privileges are g

national forests and grasslands through paid permits; permittees coopera

Forest Service in range improvement projects.

Energy and Minerals 

Facilitating energy and mineral development on National Forest Sys

including development of private minerals underlying these lands, foster

development. Ecosystems are protected by requiring appropriate design, 

and reclamation measures, and by monitoring/inspecting operations to en

pliance. Reclaiming abandoned mines restores deteriorated ecosystems.

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 prog

directed at obtaining these benefits while ensuring operations are conduc

environmentally sound manner. In terms of the magnitude of the program

approximately 8 million acres leased for oil and gas, over 150,000 minin

about 7,000 mineral material pits and quarries, over 4,000 new operation

each year, and more than 25,000 operations to monitor and inspect. The l

mine in the United States is on National Forest System lands, and much 

Key Facts about Rangeland 

■ In FY 1995, the Forest Service administered almost 9,500 g

allotments and provided 9.3 million animal unit months of li

grazing. (An animal unit month is the amount of forage it ta

sustain a 1,000-pound animal or its equivalent for one mon

System lands.

■ There are 902 municipal watersheds on National Forest Sy

land, serving 25 million people.

■ 173 trillion gallons of water is supplied by the National Fore

System to municipal watersheds annually.

■ 500 remote weather data collection platforms are used in a

tural, fire, weather, and streamflow forecasting.

■ Emergency restoration of burned areas in FY 1995 covered 

than 198,385 acres.

■ 88 wilderness areas, covering almost 15 million acres, are 

fied as Class I (special visibility protection) under the Fede

Clean Air Act.
140

eveues ae about $00 o, 550 pecet owcs etued to te St

where production occurs.

Key Facts about the Forest Service Energy and Minerals Program

■ 7 million acres where there is possibility for coal leasing (95 billio

tons)

■ 45 million acres where there is possibility for oil and gas leasing; 

9 million acres leased

■ Substantial geothermal energy potential

■ World-class deposits of coal, copper, silver, lead, molybdenum

■ Nation’s largest carbon dioxide project (Bridger-Teton National

Forest, WY)

■ Nation’s largest coal mine (Thunder Basin National Grasslands, W

■ Western Hemisphere’s only platinum mine (Custer National Fores

MT)

■ Most lead production in the United States (Mark Twain National

Forest, MO)

■ World-class quartz crystals (Ouachita National Forest, AR)

■ About 7,000 sand, gravel, and stone pits and quarries

■ Approximately 4,000 new operations requiring review each year

■ Over 25,000 existing operations requiring monitoring

■ Nation’s largest phosphate mines

■ 55 percent of the Nation’s production of lead

■ Total value of energy and minerals produced exceeds $3.3 billion 

per year

■ Annual royalties to government exceed $200 million

■ Thousands of jobs created in rural communities

■ Substantial effect on local tax bases

■ One of the world’s largest molybdenum deposits (Tongass Nationa

Forest, AK)

■ The following resources are produced annually on National Forest

System lands:

■ 12 million barrels of oil 

■ 325 billion cubic feet of gas 

■ 114 million tons of coal

■ 500 million pounds of lead

■ 200 million pounds of copper 

■ 1 million ounces of gold 

■ 20 million tons of sand and gravel
coecaoest ad. Coecaoest ad s avaabe oad capa

producing crops of industrial wood. Commercial forests help furnish the 

the lumber and plywood needed for housing and industrial uses and pulp 

products. Timber management involves preparing sales by selecting the m

harvest most appropriate for protecting the environment.

Passport in Time

Through Passport In Time, the Forest Service offers unique, nontrad

ation experiences such as archaeological excavation, historic structure re

and wilderness surveys. These experiences foster environmental steward

providing the public with unusual experiences.

Passport In Time volunteers have contributed more than $2.5 million 

time and effort to help preserve our Nation’s history by:

■ Restoring 45 historic structures,

■ Stabilizing 11 National Register eligible sites,

■ Evaluating 143 sites for inclusion in National Register of Historic 

■ Working at 28 projects in wilderness, and

■ Developing 12 heritage interpretive sites.

State and Private Forestry—Providing Assistance to

Nonindustrial Private Landowners

The Forest Stewardship Program provides technical assistance to n

private forest landowners interested in managing their forests for multipl

Since 1990, over 100,000 landowners have enrolled in the program and s

plans have been prepared for more than 13.2 million acres of nonindustri

forests.

The Stewardship Incentives Program provides cost-share assistan

eration with State Foresters and the USDA’s Farm Service Agency, to lan

implementing Forest Stewardship Landowner Plans on over 378,000 acr

This includes approximately 50,000 acres of tree planting annually. Sinc

ardship incentives practices have been implemented on more than 1.3 mi

including over 140,000 acres of tree planting.

Forest Health Protection

The Forest Service offers technical and financial assistance to Feder

American Indian tribes, and (through the State Foresters) to private lando

conducts insect and disease detection surveys on 175 million acres of Fe

and 482 million acres of State and private lands in cooperation with State 

and participates in a forest health monitoring program with the State For

Forest Service works with USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection S

protect the Nation’s forests from exotic insects and diseases. It also prov

cal assistance in the safe and effective use of pesticides, shares the cost o

and disease prevention and suppression projects with States, funds preve
142

State Lightning Equipment Smoking Campfire 

Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acr

Alabama 283 23 0 1 2 138 6 

Alaska 3 0 3 8 25 

Arizona 39,614 824 377 55 1,456 67 1,853 374 1

Arkansas 167 12 1 2 20 10 13 5 2

California 271 365 2,793 152 2,504 79 3,689 207 3

Colorado 782 128 0 56 13 8 54 

Florida 1,106 27 4 0 10 8 

Georgia 2 3 0 5 2 3 

Idaho 2,169 674 4 6 13 15 36 64 

Illinois 0 0 0 1 3 

Indiana 0 0 0 2 

Kansas 140 11 2 0 0 

Kentucky 104 2 2 2 18 4 101 8 

Louisiana 0 0 0 13 8 

Maine 1 0 0 0 

Michigan 212 5 1 5 7 4 25 11 

Minnesota 2,388 40 4 9 2 5 3,387 53 

Mississippi 0 2 3 27 3 19 3 1

Missouri 5 3 91 7 21 5 15 2 3

Montana 318 216 5 8 1 11 60 84 

Nebraska 1,665 12 0 0 0 

Nevada 7,805 47 4 16 1 461 26 

New Hampshire 3 0 0 1 8 

New Mexico 22,752 368 1 5 58 17 14,342 116 

New York 0 0 1 2 0 

North Carolina 12 5 1 23 6 86 5 

North Dakota 40 1 2 1 0 0 

Ohio 0 4 2 2 0 

Oklahoma 5 2 2 0 1 

Oregon 1,845 565 874 14 112 55 412 148 

Pennsylvania 0 2 0 4 

South Carolina 20 12 10 8 3 3 2 3

South Dakota 128 72 0 6 3 5 38 

Tennessee 332 6 166 3 1 35 2 

Texas 204 3 1 4 3 44 11 

Utah 1,681 235 845 4 31 8 698 47 

Vermont 0 0 0 1 

Virginia 8 2 1 1,755 3 1 2 

Washington 877 106 77 9 3 21 11 76 

West Virginia 22 1 0 0 4 

Wisconsin 5 3 3 21 4 

Wyoming 422 65 188 3 3 3 23 

1 There were no fires reported on National Forest lands in Maine or New York 2 National Forest acreage in Connecticut and Hawaii is research and/or experimental land only. 3 There are no National Forest lands in Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, or R

Island.
Total acres Total no. Total a

Railroad Arson Children Misc. caused by Caused by all ca

Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. people people

21 1 755 64 0 107 9 1,026 86 1

0 1 0 1 2 10 37 

13 2 995 37 50 32 14,027 258 18,874 842 58

1 1 1,448 131 20 1 76 18 1,788 186 1

1 4,843 187 13 59 5,667 417 19,837 1,173 20

2 2 2 12 2 419 20 497 96 1

0 941 31 3 5 44 18 1,005 74 2

11 2 77 13 0 193 11 363 48 

3 3,041 4 2 71 29 3,176 138 5

0 582 19 0 1 668 34 

0 4 2 0 0 10 5 

0 0 0 175 3 175 5 

0 1,961 137 4 1 77 7 2,255 169 2

16 2 1,600 77 0 178 13 1,820 103 1

0 0 0 0 1 

1 89 11 4 8 36 6 172 84 

6 5 54 29 1 5 2 12 3,463 182 5

1 1 1,186 104 0 1,939 46 3,333 176 3

50 1 6,620 233 66 2 235 9 7,405 303 7

9 6 3 236 37 400 420 

0 0 0 0 12 1

3 2 228 7 2 8 26 8 724 69 8

0 1 0 4 2 5 11 

0 239 14 70 3 3,060 39 17,787 198 40

0 1 0 0 1 3 

2 1 860 37 1 38 7 1,021 78 1

0 0 0 0 2 1 

0 30 22 0 3 2 70 47 

108 6 1,078 36 2 9 5 1,210 58 1

4 2 667 35 1 5 69 67 2,164 340 4

0 0 0 4 11 

1 161 47 0 173 15 663 105 

0 1 3 1 `1 4 2 25 124 

0 835 54 0 46 82 1,106 82 1

0 421 31 0 12 64 503 64 

0 1 17 7 211 336 1,786 336 3

0 0 0 1 2 1 2 

0 3,045 26 2 22 51 4,822 51 4

0 1 1 10 257 111 257 

0 0 0 6 6 

1 1 0 5 22 26 22 

0 66 3 0 2 102 259 102 

1 There were no fires reported on National Forest lands in Maine or New York 2 National Forest acreage in Connecticut and Hawaii is research and/or experimental land only

3 There are no National Forest lands in Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jerse

Island.

Railroad
144

Fire Management

The Forest Service works in cooperation with States and their local wildl

protection agencies to protect State and private lands nationwide. Fire protect

emergency firefighting programs protect 192 million acres of National Forest 

lands and an additional 20 million acres of State and private lands under prot

exchanges and agreements.

Federal Excess Personal Property

In 1995, the Forest Service loaned used Federal property to State Foreste

rural and wildland fire protection; this property had an original acquisition co

$189 million. Former military cargo trucks that are built into tanker trucks rep

a large portion of the property, along with aircraft, heavy equipment, and sho

machinery.

Rural Community Fire Protection

This program to organize, train, and equip rural fire departments in comm

with populations under 10,000 is funded at $3.5 million annually. In 1995, th

funds were awarded in over 3,000 grants that attracted $6.4 million in matchi

department funds. More than 80 percent of the money funded purchases of eq

such as communications devices, nozzles, hoses, and protective clothing.

Fire Season

In 1995, over 9,000 fires burned approximately 200,000 acres of Nationa

System lands. The annual average is 11,500 fires and 725,000 acres. 

Fuels Treatment

In 1995, over 570,000 acres of National Forest System lands received tre

such as thinning and prescribed burns, for forest fuels—vegetation such as br

grass, and small trees. This compares to an average annual program of 358,00

Fuels treatment benefits the health of the forest and can prevent catastrophic w

Rural Community Assistance

The Forest Service implements the national initiative on rural developme

coordination with USDA’s Rural Development area and State rural developm

councils. The goal is to strengthen rural communities by helping them diversi

expand their economies through the wise use of natural resources. Through e

action programs, the Forest Service provides technical and financial assistanc

more than 850 rural communities that are adversely affected by changes in ava

of natural resources or in natural resource policy.

Pacific Northwest rural community assistance provides economic adjustm

assistance to almost 150 communities affected by the President’s Forest Plan 

Pacific Northwest. This community assistance is part of a larger, multi-Agenc

to target resources for rural areas with acute economic problems.
State, National forests, purchase

Commonwealth, units, research areas, and National Land utilization

or Territory other areas grasslands projects 

Acres

Alabama 663,123 0 40 

Alaska 21,971,245 0 0 

Arizona 11,251,424 0 0 

Arkansas 2,553,892 0 0 

California 20,617,261 18,425 0 

Colorado 13,876,192 628,419 0 

Connecticut 24 0 0 

Florida 1,146,668 0 0 

Georgia 864,993 0 0 

Hawai 1 0 0 

Idaho 20,410,527 47,756 0 

Illinois 276,676 0 0 

Indiana 194,264 0 0 

Kansas 0 108,175 0 

Kentucky 691,963 0 0 

Louisiana 603,786 0 0 

Maine 53,040 0 0 

Michigan 2,855,899 0 959 

Minnesota 2,837,240 0 0 

Mississippi 1,157,013 0 0 

Missouri 1,493,198 0 0 

Montana 16,879,677 0 0 

Nebraska 257,653 94,480 0 

Nevada 5,818,569 0 0 

New Hampshire 724,049 0 0 

New Mexico 9,190,265 36,417 240 

New York 15,825 0 0 

North Carolina 1,243,139 0 0 

North Dakota 743 1,105,030 0 

Ohio 227,239 0 0 

Oklahoma 257,395 46,286 0 

Oregon 15,552,932 111,348 856 

Pennsylvania 513,264 0 0 

Puerto Rico 27,831 0 0 

South Carolina 612,023 0 0 

South Dakota 1,145,010 868,156 0 

Tennessee 633,481 0 0 

Texas 637,280 117,620 0 

Utah 8,112,564 0 0 

Vermont 359,289 0 0 

Virgin Islands 147 0 0 

Virginia 1,656,282 0 0 

Washington 9,175,831 0 738 

West Virginia 1,032,573 0 0 

Wisconsin 1,520,464 0 0 

Wyoming 8,687,871 560,166 0 

Total 187,799,825 3,842,278 2,833 
146

Commonwealth, FY 1996 FY 1995 F

or Territory 

Dollars

Alabama 2,049,877.80 1,468,155.91 1,271

Alaska 5,905,519.94 7,600,541.26 8,782

Arizona 1,631,749.08 3,182,123.93 3,949

Arkansas 6,648,382.02 4,938,171.81 4,535

California 36,157,525.82 43,045,670.58 50,981

Colorado 5,955,613.62 5,584,256.33 6,318

Florida 1,066,315.90 1,334,477.12 1,068

Georgia 907,778.79 758,829.26 892

Idaho 17,457,711.74 15,031,321.37 25,227

Illinois 27,727.21 32,531.32 37

Indiana 7,410.94 13,755.32 18

Kentucky 494,031.96 311,288.83 446

Louisiana 2,735,547.25 2,174,763.33 2,577

Maine 34,773.87 33,068.56 32

Michigan 2,384,195.64 2,504,904.39 1,964

Minnesota 3,179,462.34 2,977,331.33 2,818

Mississippi 8,276,153.99 7,224,011.21 5,928

Missouri 1,231,668.46 1,170,273.33 1,235

Montana 9,383,236.30 10,555,715.38 14,482

Nebraska 30,563.25 36,887.86 67

Nevada 298,540.38 322,014.89 520

New Hampshire 510,233.26 485,115.81 480

New Mexico 652,646.23 1,102,857.41 1,458

New York 6,375.28 5,776.98 7

North Carolina 692,308.54 941,657.23 678

North Dakota 82.02 122.88 

Ohio 11,399.70 15,554.61 30

Oklahoma 883,416.06 643,567.28 595

Oregon 95,238,952.66 109,647,413.38 119,791

Pennsylvania 6,207,364.12 5,362,116.42 5,301

Puerto Rico 20,837.85 14,555.48 25

South Carolina 960,281.44 1,359,265.06 1,586

South Dakota 2,349,598.42 2,839,734.94 2,631

Tennessee 319,484.79 441,952.31 385

Texas 4,337,308.72 2,893,393.24 3,599

Utah 1,831,244.84 1,553,366.88 2,373

Vermont 256,960.60 177,634.44 166

Virginia 822,089.27 996,568.42 820

Washington 29,429,025.66 30,089,073.00 31,913

West Virginia 1,860,935.47 1,403,962.13 761

Wisconsin 1,621,386.26 1,327,757.01 1,206

Wyoming 1,844,048.53 1,881,106.70 2,191

Total 255,719,766.02 273,482,644.93 309,162

1Data Source: All Service Receipts - ASR-09-3.
Urban and Community Forestry

The Forest Service provides technical and financial assistance to mo

7,200 cities and communities in all States, the District of Columbia, and 

for the purpose of building local capacity to manage natural resources.

Natural Resource Conservation Education (NRCE)

The Forest Service supports a lifelong learning process that promote

standing of ecosystems and natural resources—their relationships, conse

use, management, and values to society. Our large partnership base assis

NRCE program in about 200 projects across the country each year, reach

200,000 young people and 10,000 teachers. When television is added, N

reaches 5 million people. The program includes support for Project Lear

which reaches 400,000 teachers.

Less than 10 acres 10,352 

10 to 999 acres 1,051 

1,000+ acres 82 

Total 11,485 

Average Av

■Major causes of fires: % of starts % of acres b

Lightning 51 

Human caused 49 

■Acres burned: Average 

National Forest protected lands 725,265 21

■Appropriations: 1994 

Presuppression 

and fire use $276,407,000 $295,29

Emergency suppression

expenditures $686,000,000 $224,30

Total $519,595,000 $962,40

State and private

appropriations $17,148,000 $13,68

■Natural Fuels Treatment: Average 1994 

Acres treated 357,974 384,707 9

Program cost $10,704,000 $12,696,000 $16,40

■USFS Personnel on Wildfires: 1994 

Fire Management (full time) 1,714 

Fire Management (part time) 1,843 

Fire Management (temporary) 5,446 

Other FS personnel 27,897 

Emergency Hires (AD) 38,858 1

Hotshot Crews 53 

Smokejumpers 290 

Helitack 200 

Rowpellers 240 
begaa oest e pevetopogadug Wod

War II, and in 1944, a bear was introduced as the program symbol. In 1950, a bear cub survived a forest

fire in the Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico, and

after being nursed back to health, came to live in the

National Zoo in Washington, DC, as the living fire

prevention symbol. 

Woodsy Owl. Woodsy Owl is a colorful and 

fanciful character who was designed to be especially

appealing to young children. Woodsy Owl is recognized by over 83 percent of all American households

and is America’s leading symbol for environmental

improvement. Woodsy was created in response 

to increased public awareness of environmental 

problems during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. 

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 which foster maintenance and

improvement of environmental quality.” Woodsy’s

message and appearance have recently been revitalized. He now sports a backpack, hiking shoes, and

field pants, and a new slogan builds on his previous

message: “Lend a hand—care for the land!” 

Research

Forests are critical to the global environment and

the global economy. They are the source of food,

raw materials, shelter, and income for millions, and

they provide sanctuary for people and habitat for

wildlife. Forests filter and protect water supplies and absorb carbon dioxide f

atmosphere. Agency research is being conducted in areas requiring urgent po

management action, including studies related to sustainable development, biod

economic and social values, ecological management, and forest health.

148

Smokey Bear

Woodsy Owl
Table 10-4.State summary of total recreation use on National Forest System lands by activity—fiscal year 1996State, Camping Mechanized Hiking, Horse- Resorts, cabins Nonconsumptive Other

Commonwealth picknicking & travel & back riding & Winter & organization fish & recreation

or Territory1 swimming viewing scenery water travel Sports camps Hunting Fishing wildlife use activities Total T

1,000 RVD3 1,0

Alabama 175.0 125.0 67.0 0.0 0.0 162.0 69.0 7.0 84.0 689.0 

Alaska 368.0 4,777.0 368.0 89.0 181.0 145.0 510.0 45.0 479.0 6,962.0 

Arizona 7,911.0 15,731.0 3,109.0 169.0 1,006.0 1,052.0 1,031.0 558.0 4,433.0 35,500.0 

Arkansas 619.0 555.0 215.0 0.0 42.0 510.0 106.0 28.0 135.0 2,210.0 

California 18,824.0 25,492.0 5,915.0 4,246.0 7,696.0 1,742.0 3,356.0 416.0 3,478.0 71,165.0 1

Colorado4 6,079.8 10,212.1 2,726.9 6,525.1 766.1 1,756.4 1,697.5 176.5 1,030.3 30,970.7 

Florida 1,536.0 459.0 178.0 0.0 213.0 243.0 183.0 22.0 126.0 2,960.0 

Georgia 832.0 1,004.0 386.0 2.0 21.0 345.0 199.0 37.0 99.0 2,925.0 

Idaho 4,472.0 4,506.0 1,421.0 821.0 610.0 1,154.0 1,071.0 201.0 1,109.0 15,365.0 

Illinois 262.0 443.0 190.0 0.0 9.0 140.0 44.0 19.0 81.0 1,188.0 

Indiana 242.0 102.0 119.0 2.0 18.0 104.0 55.0 6.0 36.0 684.0 

Kansas 17.0 27.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 9.0 14.0 3.0 12.0 86.0 

Kentucky 685.0 755.0 283.0 4.0 8.0 217.0 230.0 14.0 130.0 2,326.0 

Louisiana 198.0 161.0 29.0 0.0 24.0 114.0 29.0 5.0 39.0 599.0 

Maine 31.0 65.0 19.0 4.0 6.0 9.0 16.0 2.0 6.0 158.0 

Michigan 1,537.0 1,676.0 302.0 76.0 115.0 538.0 433.0 26.0 163.0 4,866.0 

Minnesota 1,983.0 1,116.0 886.0 112.0 441.0 366.0 897.0 35.0 146.0 5,982.0 

Mississippi 318.0 562.0 153.0 0.0 27.0 487.0 110.0 16.0 155.0 1,828.0 
150 Table 10-4 continued. State summary of total recreation use on National Forest System lands by activity—fiscal year 1996

State, Camping Mechanized Hiking, Horse- Resorts, cabins Nonconsumptive Other

Commonwealth picknicking & travel & back riding & Winter & organization fish & recreation

or Territory1 swimming viewing scenery water travel Sports camps Hunting Fishing wildlife use activities Total T

1,000 RVD3 1,0

New Mexico 2,979.0 2,202.0 724.0 751.0 256.0 541.0 341.0 186.0 1,346.0 9,326.0 1

New York 16.0 8.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 39.0 

North Carolina 1,710.0 2,460.0 1,210.0 15.0 100.0 793.0 342.0 42.0 307.0 6,979.0 2North Dakota 16.0 30.0 18.0 1.0 0.0 56.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 133.0 

Ohio 50.0 93.0 23.0 0.0 0.0 233.0 56.0 5.0 64.0 524.0 Oklahoma 56.0 179.0 56.0 0.0 0.0 66.0 15.0 10.0 11.0 393.0 

Oregon 5 11,289.5 11,719.1 3,889.7 1,583.9 2,027.7 2,024.1 1,976.4 594.2 1,924.7 37,029.3 9

Pennsylvania 866.0 1,521.0 348.0 10.0 42.0 178.0 164.0 32.0 107.0 3,268.0 1

Puerto Rico 92.0 17.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.0 11.0 171.0 

South Carolina 272.0 241.0 143.0 0.0 1.0 211.0 60.0 15.0 68.0 1,011.0 

South Dakota 282.0 2,580.0 206.0 18.0 118.0 91.0 147.0 13.0 116.0 3,571.0 

Tennessee 1,251.0 1,023.0 336.0 6.0 102.0 265.0 206.0 31.0 89.0 3,309.0 

Texas 640.0 414.0 111.0 0.0 30.0 223.0 742.0 27.0 115.0 2,302.0 

Utah 6,334.0 6,611.0 1,294.0 1,329.0 932.0 863.0 1,102.0 69.0 844.0 19,378.0 

Vermont 131.0 319.0 110.0 584.0 56.0 87.0 22.0 2.0 84.0 1,395.0 

Virginia 1,175.0 1,642.0 480.0 33.0 20.0 878.0 370.0 76.0 253.0 4,927.0 1

Washington 5 5,165.5 11,490.7 3,384.2 1,090.6 1,119.9 853.3 420.0 120.2 1,152.5 24,796.9 9

West Virginia 556.0 306.0 159.0 8.0 38.0 225.0 132.0 10.0 65.0 1,499.0 

Wisconsin 615.0 807.0 125.0 29.0 20.0 258.0 503.0 9.0 161.0 2,527.0 

Wyoming 2

069

0 2

688

0 1

389

0 522

0 805

0 688

0 396

0 100

0 457

0 9

114

0 1
Commonwealth, Lightning Person-caused Total 

or Territory fires fires fires 

Number

Alabama 45 4,436 4,481 

Alaska 29 298 327 

Arizona 105 691 796 

Arkansas 58 3,400 3,458 

California 163 6,282 6,445 

Colorado 245 1,979 2,224 

Connecticut 0 0 0 

Delaware 3 30 33 

Florida 468 2,875 3,343 

Georgia 242 7,853 8,095 

Guam 0 622 622 

Hawaii 0 217 217 

Idaho 151 125 276 

Illinois 1 814 815 

Indiana 17 3,242 3,259 

Iowa 0 1,244 1,244 

Kansas 139 3,200 3,339 

Kentucky 6 2,091 2,097 

Louisiana 6 3,567 3,573 

Maine 154 900 1,054 

Maryland 12 1,052 1,064 

Massachusetts 15 6,364 6,379 

Michigan 22 532 554 

Minnesota 23 1,121 1,144 

Mississippi 4 3,479 3,483 

Missouri 24 3,156 3,180 

Montana 155 214 369 

Nebraska 191 1,072 1,263 

Nevada 23 91 114 

New Hampshire 13 466 479 

New Jersey 9 1,999 2,008 

New Mexico 164 483 647 

New York 17 391 408 

North Carolina 48 5,200 5,248 

North Dakota 27 229 256 

Ohio 1 1,026 1,027 

Oklahoma 11 2,526 2,537 

Oregon 252 715 967 

Pennsylvania 3 1,031 1,034 

Puerto Rico 0 19,485 19,485 

Rhode Island 0 132 132 

South Carolina 80 3,487 3,567 

South Dakota 44 449 493 

Tennessee 24 3,445 3,469 

Texas 22 1,511 1,533 

Utah 253 326 579 

Vermont 7 232 239 

Virginia 16 1,640 1,656 

Washington 115 771 886 

West Virginia 16 1,217 1,233 

Wisconsin 38 1,699 1,737 

Wyoming 165 432 597 

Virgin Islands 0 53 53 

Total 3,626 109,892 113,518 
152

oe ta600 scetsts wose wos aed at te poductvty, ea

diversity of the temperate, boreal, and tropical forests,

■ Seven Regional Experiment Stations and one National Forest Products

Laboratory comprising 77 research lab locations, many collocated wit

versities, and 

■ Gateways for collaborative research in the Tropics, through the Interna

Institute of Tropical Forestry in Puerto Rico and the Institute of Pacific 

Forestry in Hawaii.

The Forest Service Research program provides:

■ More than 2,700 publications per year, and numerous presentations at 

posia and workshops,

■ Collaboration with university, industry, and other scientists; nongovern

organizations; managers; and policy makers for work that transcends t

abilities of any single organization, 

■ More than $20 million per year in domestic grants, cooperative agreem

and contracts for research partnerships, and 

■ Key databases for enhancing forest health, productivity, and conservat

The Forest Service provides scientific and technological information to m

the Nation’s forests and associated ecosystems. This includes studies in veget

management, watersheds, fisheries, wildlife, forest products and recycling, in

and diseases, economics, forest and rangeland ecology, silviculture, fire ecolo

prevention, ecosystem functioning, and recreation. 

Priority items include:

■ Forest inventory and analysis across the United States and forest healt

toring in 18 States, 

■ Global change research, to learn how climate change interacts with po

drought, and forest health, 

■ Recycling and wood use, to solve technical problems that hinder waste

recycling and to develop new products from agricultural and wood fib

byproducts, and

■ Large-scale ecosystem studies, for example on restoring mixed-oak fo

southern Ohio, evaluating impacts of silvicultural treatment on biologi

diversity in northern hardwood forests, and protecting watersheds, ripa

zones, and biological diversity in the Rio Grande Basin.
coecavabty ogobaoest esouces. e oest Sevce s a g

conservation leader and the U.S. Government’s main advocate for scient

based sustainable forest management. 

The United States is the world’s largest importer of wood, and it exp

than $18 billion worth of wood products each year. The Forest Service, i

international counterparts are developing international policies and guide

reduce barriers to U.S. exports. The Forest Products Laboratory and its C

counterparts have addressed product standards which had previously inh

As a result, tariffs on U.S. plywood have been reduced 50 percent and ex

Canada have increased steadily.

The Forest Service has been instrumental in preventing the Asian gy

from entering the United States and has cooperated with scientists from t

Republic of China in finding natural predators for an imported pest, the w

gid, which threatens eastern hemlock in 10 U.S. States and cannot be con

pesticides.

In cooperation with Latin American countries, the Forest Service pro

habitat of migratory birds—250 out of 750 bird species in the United Sta

to other countries. 

International cooperation in forestry has human health implications. 

vincristine, a compound derived from a tropical dry forest plant from Ma

improved the survival odds for thousands who have Hodgkin’s disease o

leukemia.

The Forest Service develops and shares new technology in utilizing 

itoring forest resources, and understanding the forests’role in global clim

with other countries.

The support that International Forestry’s Disaster Assistance Suppor

gives to international disaster prevention, preparedness, and response is c

our country’s ability to save lives and alleviate human suffering inflicted 

and human-caused global disasters.

Human Resource Programs

Human Resource Programs provide job opportunities, training, and 

for the unemployed, underemployed, elderly, young, and others with spe

while benefiting high-priority conservation work. In FY 1995, these prog

included more than 107,000 participants and accomplished over $127 mi

conservation work on Forest Service lands. 

Through an agreement with the U.S. Department of Labor, the Fores

operates eighteen Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers on Forest 

lands. The Job Corps program is the only Federal residential education/tr

program for the Nation’s disadvantaged youth.
154

The Senior Community Service Employment Program is designed to 

useful part-time employment and training for persons age 55 and over.

In the Youth Conservation Corps summer employment program, perso

15-18 accomplish projects that further the development and conservation of 

United States’ natural resources.

The Volunteers in the National Forests program allows organizations 

individuals to donate their talents and services to help manage the Nation’s n

resources.

Key facts about the Senior Community Service Employment

Program:

■ 5,554 older workers participated

■ $26.8 million budget

■ $40.8 million work accomplishment

■ Only Federal Agency among 10 national sponsors

■ 41 percent females

■ 18.4 percent placed in unsubsidized employment

■ $1.52 return on dollar invested

Key facts about the Youth Conservation Corps:

■ 712 enrollees, ages 15-18

■ $1.3 million operating costs

■ $2.1 million work accomplishment

■ $1.62 return on dollar invested

■ 41 percent females

8,eoed, ages 6

■ $91.4 million budget

■ $22.1 million work accomplishment

■ 93 percent placed

■ Average starting salary, approximately $6.10 per hour

■ 44 percent minorities

Key facts about Volunteers in the National Forests :

■ 82,349 volunteers have participated, (including 86 internationa

volunteers and 169 Touch America Project volunteers, age 14-

■ $38.4 million work accomplishment

■ 34 percent females

■ Over 1 million volunteers served since the 1972 legislation
tougageeets wtState ad couty ageces, coeges, uveste

tribes, and private and nonprofit organizations.

Through a partnership with the National Forest Foundation, the Fore

operated three Youth Forest Camps during the summer of 1995. These 

provided jobs, work training, and environmental education for persons a

Law Enforcement and Investigations

The objective of the Forest Service law enforcement program is to s

and protect natural resources and property within the authority and jurisd

the Forest Service. The program focuses on activities such as vandalism, 

ical resource violations, timber theft, wildland arson, and the cultivation 

facture of illegal drugs.

Forest Service drug control efforts continue to focus on the detection

sion, and prosecution of persons responsible for illegal drug activities on 

Drug enforcement efforts resulted in the seizure of several million dollar

assets and the destruction of several billion dollars’ worth of drugs. 

In FY 1995, 520 cooperative law enforcement agreements allowed t

Service to cooperate with State and local law enforcement agencies and w

Federal agencies to increase the protection and service to forest visitors. 

drug control agreements were set up between the Forest Service, State an

enforcement agencies, and other Federal agencies or task forces to coope

eliminating illegal drug activities on the National Forest System.

■ Key Facts About Hosted Programs

■ 9,636 participants

■ $23.7 million work accomplishment

■ 20 percent females

■ 31 percent minorities

■ 11 agreements on national forests with the Federal Bureau 

Prisons

■ Key Facts About Youth Forest Camps

■ 83 participants

■ Greater than $200,000 work accomplishment

■ 3 camps operated (Oregon, Virginia, and Colorado)

■ 36 percent females 

■ 55 percent minorities 
156

nomic future of communities throughout the United States.

The mission of NRCS is to provide leadership and administer programs t

landowners and land users to conserve, improve, and sustain our natural reso

and the environment, while enabling the United States to continue as the wor

preeminent producer of food and fiber.
156

Introduction

As USDA’s lead Agency for conservation technical assistance, the NaturaResources Conservation Service (NRCS) works closely with other USD

agencies involved in conservation, including the Farm Service Agency (FSA)

Agricultural Research Service; Forest Service; and the Cooperative State Res

Education, and Extension Service. Through these agencies, USDA administe

wide range of programs to solve this country’s natural resource problems as t

affect private lands in agricultural and other uses.

Our well-being depends on healthy, productive, and diverse ecosystems 

sustainable use. Just as soil, water, and habitat are interrelated, the programs t

address these resources are interrelated, and programs that help one resource 

benefit others. If you stop erosion, for example, you also enhance soil produc

and protect water and air quality. Improving the environment can enhance the 

nomic future of communities throughout the United States.

The mission of NRCS is to provide leadership and administer programs t

landowners and land users to conserve, improve, and sustain our natural reso

and the environment, while enabling the United States to continue as the wor

preeminent producer of food and fiber.
cosevatodstcts, State ad ocagoveets, ad ubaad uap

restore and enhance the American landscape. The Agency helps landown

munities take a comprehensive approach in conservation planning, going 

to an understanding of how all natural resources—soil, water, air, plants, 

relate to each other and to humans. The Agency works to solve the natura

challenges on the Nation’s private lands—reducing soil erosion, improvi

health and rangeland health, protecting water quality and supply, conservi

and providing fish and wildlife habitat.

Most NRCS employees serve in USDA’s network of local, county-b

including those in Puerto Rico and the Pacific Basin. The rest are at State

and national offices, providing technology, policy, and administrative sup

serve all people who live and work on the land. Nearly three-fourths of th

technical assistance goes to helping farmers and ranchers develop conser

systems uniquely suited to their land and their ways of doing business.

The agency helps rural and urban communities curb erosion, conser

protect water, and solve other resource problems. American Indian tribes

Natives, Pacific Islanders, and other native groups work with NRCS on a 

initiatives that include resource inventories and the adaptation of conserv

grams to fit the special needs of their people and their land. Also, countri

the globe seek NRCS advice on building their own conservation delivery 

and in coping with severe natural resource problems.

Conservation is the work of many—no one can do it alone. NRCS re

many partners to help set conservation goals, work with people on the la

vide services. In addition to local conservation districts, State conservati

and other State and Federal agencies, the partners include NRCS Earth T

teers, AmeriCorps members, agricultural and environmental groups, and 

societies.

NRCS Programs

Through various programs, NRCS provides conservation technical a

to land users, communities, units of State and local government, and othe

agencies in planning and implementing natural resource solutions to redu

improve soil and water quantity and quality, improve and conserve wetla

fish and wildlife habitat, improve air quality, improve pasture and range 

reduce upstream flooding, and improve woodlands. The purpose is to sus

tural productivity and protect and enhance the natural resource base. Thi

is based on voluntary local landowner cooperation and recognizes the va

tional, technical, and financial assistance. 

Conservation Provisions of the 1996 Farm Bill

The conservation provisions of the Federal Agriculture Improvemen

Reform Act of 1996—also known as the 1996 Farm Bill—simplified exi

vation programs and improved their flexibility and efficiency. The bill al

new programs to address high-priority environmental protection goals.
158

eseve oga, ad ceated ew tatves to pove atuaesouces o

America’s private lands.

Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program

The Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program (ECARP) en

passes the FSA’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and NRCS’s Wetland

Reserve Program (WRP) and Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQ

Under ECARP, the Secretary of Agriculture may designate watersheds, multi

areas, or regions of special environmental sensitivity as conservation priority 

These areas may be eligible for special assistance to get them into complianc

nonpoint source pollution requirements of the Clean Water Act and other Fed

State environmental laws and to meet other conservation needs. 

Conservation Reserve Program

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which is administered by FS

technical assistance given by NRCS, protects highly erodible and environmen

sensitive lands with grass, trees, and other long-term cover. Now under CRP:

■ Up to 36.4 million acres can be enrolled at any one time;

■ New enrollments must focus on the most environmentally sensitive la

■ Expired or terminated contracts may be replaced with new enrollment

■ Landowners who entered into a contract before January 1, 1995, may 

nate contracts after giving written notice. Contracts must have been in 

at least 5 years and meet other eligibility criteria.

Wetlands Reserve Program

The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) is a voluntary program to restore 

protect wetlands on private property. It is an opportunity for landowners to re

marginal agricultural land in exchange for receiving financial incentives to en

wetlands.

Congress authorized WRP with the Food Security Act of 1985 and amen

the 1990 and 1996 Farm Bills. NRCS administers the program in consultation 

other Federal agencies.

Landowners who choose to participate in WRP may sell a conservation e

or enter into a cost-share restoration agreement with USDA to restore and pro

wetlands. The landowner voluntarily limits future use of the land, yet retains 

ownership. The landowner and NRCS develop a plan for the restoration and m

nance of the wetland.

The program offers landowners three options: permanent easements, 30-

easements, and restoration cost-share agreements of a minimum 10-year dura

Permanent Easement. This is a conservation easement in perpetuity. Ea

payment will be the lesser of: the agricultural value of the land, an established 

payment cap, or an amount offered by the landowner. In addition to paying fo

easement, USDA pays 100 percent of the costs of restoring the wetland.
aso pays 75 pecet oestoatocosts.

Restoration Cost-Share Agreement. This is an agreement (general

mum of 10 years in duration) to re-establish degraded or lost wetland hab

pays 75 percent of the cost of the restoration activity. This does not place 

on the property. The landowner provides the restoration site without reim

Other agencies and private conservation organizations may provide 

assistance for easement payment and wetland restoration costs as a way t

landowner’s share of the costs. Such special partnership efforts are encou

States were authorized to begin a continuous sign-up as of October 1

offer a conservation easement, the landowner must have owned the land 

1 year prior to enrolling the land in the program unless the land was inhe

landowner can prove the land was not obtained for the purpose of enrolli

program. To participate in a restoration cost-share agreement, the landow

show evidence of ownership.

To be eligible for WRP, land must be restorable and be suitable for w

fits. This includes:

■ Wetlands farmed under natural conditions;

■ Farmed wetlands;

■ Prior converted cropland;

■ Farmed wetland pasture;

■ Farmland that has become a wetland as a result of flooding;

■ Rangeland, pasture, or production forestland where the hydrology 

significantly degraded and can be restored;

■ Riparian areas which link protected wetlands;

■ Lands adjacent to protected wetlands that contribute significantly 

functions and values; and

■ Previously restored wetlands (Conservation Reserve Program [C

eligible if it meets WRP requirements).

Ineligible land includes wetlands converted after December 23, 198

timber stands established under a CRP contract; Federal lands; and lands 

ditions make restoration impossible.

New Programs Authorized

The 1996 Farm Bill created new initiatives to improve natural resou

America’s private lands:

Environmental Quality Incentives Program

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) was establis

1996 Farm Bill to provide a single, voluntary conservation program for f

ranchers who face serious threats to soil, water, and related natural resou

vides technical, financial, and educational assistance.

EQIP also represents USDA’s commitment to streamlining and impr

vices. USDA combined four of its conservation programs into EQIP: the 

Conservation Program, Water Quality Incentives Program, Great Plains C

Program, and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program.
potat oes peetg te pogaat te ocaeve. State ecc

Committees offer advice on establishing EQIP activities at the State level.

EQIP will:

■ Focus on conservation priority areas where there are significant natur

resource problems;

■ Provide technical assistance and up to 75 percent of the costs of apply

conservation practices;

■ Give high priority to assisting areas where State or local governments 

offer assistance or where conservation practices will help meet water 

objectives; and

■ Be administered through multiyear contracts based on conservation p

EQIP was funded at $130 million in fiscal year 1996 and $200 million th

until 2002. Fifty percent of funding is marked for livestock-related conservat

tices. Total cost shares and incentive payments to any person may not exceed 

for any fiscal year. There is a $50,000 limit for multiyear contracts.

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program

The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) helps participants deve

improve wildlife habitat on private lands. WHIP is authorized to provide cost 

to participants to offset expenses incurred for developing habitat for fish and 

NRCS administers the program. The Chief of NRCS may implement WHIP i

the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, G

the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Norther

Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territories of the Pacific.

WHIP will provide cost sharing to develop habitat for upland and wetlan

wildlife, threatened and endangered species, fish, and other types of wildlife. 

for cost sharing total $50 million to the year 2002.

Under WHIP, participants or leasees who have a lease for the duration of 

contract agree to implement a wildlife habitat development plan for lands tha

made available, without cost, to NRCS. In turn, NRCS agrees to provide cost

assistance for the initial implementation of wildlife habitat development prac

In some States, other wildlife agencies or nongovernment organizations may 

expertise or additional funding to carry out a project.

Farmland Protection Program

The Farmland Protection Program provides funds to help purchase devel

rights to keep productive farmland in use. Working through existing program

USDA joins with State, tribal, or local governments to acquire conservation e

ments or other interests from landowners. USDA provides up to 50 percent o

costs of purchasing the easements. To qualify, farmland must: be part of a pen

offer from a State, tribe, or local farmland protection program; be privately o

have a conservation plan; be large enough to sustain agricultural production; 

accessible to markets for what the land produces; have adequate infrastructur

160
Conservation of Private Grazing Land

Conservation of Private Grazing Land, which is administered by NR

ensure that technical, educational, and related assistance is provided to th

own private grazing lands. The Nation’s more than 600 million acres of p

ing lands produce food and fiber, hold and carry important water resourc

wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities.

This assistance will offer opportunities for:

■ Better grazing land management;

■ Protecting soil from erosive wind and water;

■ Using more energy-efficient ways to produce food and fiber;

■ Conserving water;

■ Providing habitat for wild animals;

■ Sustaining forage and grazing plants;

■ Using plants to clear carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses 

air; and

■ Using grazing lands as a source of biomass energy and raw mater

industrial products.

In fiscal year 1996, $20 million was authorized from conservation te

assistance funds. The amount increases to $60 million by the third year.

Additional Conservation Provisions

Conservation Compliance

The 1996 Farm Bill has brought changes to how conservation comp

ates. These changes will encourage land users to slow soil erosion on hig

land (HEL), protect wetlands, and build on conservation compliance suc

achieved under previous Farm Bills.

Conservation compliance policies are now more farmer friendly tha

previous Farm Bills while still achieving high levels of environmental pr

Farmers have greater flexibility in choosing the conservation methods th

tect their highly erodible land. More decisions regarding conservation co

can be made at the local level and decisions can now be made faster and 

staff resources.
162

tose seeg USpogabeets by pesevg te evoetauct

values of wetlands. These values include wildlife habitat, flood control, esthe

recreation, sediment control, groundwater recharge, and improving water qua

The 1996 Farm Bill changed Swampbuster to give farmers greater flexib

complying with wetland conservation requirements and in making wetlands m

valuable and functional. The following Swampbuster provisions have change

■ Wetland determinations will be made upon request. These determinati

in effect as long as the land is used for agricultural purposes (unless a 

tion occurs) or until the owner or operator requests a review.

■ There are more options for mitigation. These options include the kind

locations of restoration, enhancement, or creation activities that maint

wetland’s functions and values.

■ Landowners who desire to convert or alter wetlands may enhance exis

wetlands, restore former wetlands, or create new wetlands to offset fu

and values that are lost from conversions or alterations.

■ Wetland conversions authorized by Section 404 of the Clean Water Ac

be accepted if the conversion activities were properly mitigated.

■ A pilot program for wetland mitigation banking may be established. T

program would allow USDAto assess how well mitigation banking as

USDA participants comply with Swampbuster.

■ Practices that alter wetlands can now be put on a “fast track” for comp

NRCS determines that a planned activity will have a minimal effect o

wetland functions and values in the area under the “categorical” minim

effect exemption.

Agricultural Air Quality

The 1996 Farm Bill includes a provision requiring the establishment of a 

Force on Agricultural Air Quality to make recommendations to the Secretary 

Agriculture with regard to the scientific basis for agriculture’s impact on air q

The Task Force is to be chaired by the NRCS Chief, and, unless renewed, the 

Force will be terminated 2 years from the date of establishment.

The Task Force is to strengthen and coordinate USDA air quality researc

to determine the extent to which agricultural activities contribute to air pollut

to identify cost-effective ways in which the agricultural industry can improve 

quality. The Task Force also is charged with ensuring that data quality and int

tion are sound. The Farm Bill states that policy recommendations made by an

Federal Agency with respect to agricultural air quality issues are to be based o

scientific findings, subject to peer review, and should consider economic feas

The Task Force will work to ensure intergovernmental (Federal, State, an

cooperation to establish policy for agricultural air quality and to avoid duplic

The Task Force is to be convened and chaired by the Chief of NRCS and 

prised of USDA employees, industry representatives, and outside experts in th

of agriculture, air quality, and human health. The Task Force will be an adviso

mittee and will operate under the terms of the Federal Advisory Committee A
SoSuveys

NRCS conducts soil surveys cooperatively with other Federal agenc

grant universities, State agencies, and local units of government. Soil sur

the public with local information on the uses and capabilities of their soi

Soil surveys are based on scientific analysis and classification of the soil

used to determine land capabilities and conservation treatment needs. Th

soil survey for a county or designated area includes maps and interpretat

explanatory information that is the foundation of resource policy, plannin

sionmaking for Federal, State, county, and local community programs. 

Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasts

NRCS field staff collect snow information through a network of abo

Telemetry (SNOTEL) and 850 traditional snow courses to provide 11 We

and Alaska with water supply forecasts. The data are collected, assemble

lyzed to make about 4,000 annual water supply forecasts, which provide 

of available annual yield, spring runoff, and summer stream flow. Water 

casts are used by individuals, organizations, and State and Federal agenc

decisions relating to agricultural production, fish and wildlife manageme

control, recreation, power generation, and water quality management. Th

Weather Service presently includes the snow information in its river fore

Plant Materials Centers

NRCS employees at 26 Plant Materials Centers assemble, test, and e

increased plant propagation and usefulness of plant species for biomass p

carbon sequestration, erosion reduction, wetland restoration, water quali

ment, streambank and riparian area protection, coastal dune stabilization

other special conservation treatment needs. The work is carried out coop

with State and Federal agencies, commercial businesses, and seed and nu

ations. After species are proven, they are released to the private sector fo

production. In 1995, NRCS developed cultivars that were turned over to 

others to produce plant stock that generated more than $88 million in rev

vate sector nurseries and seed companies.

■ Major Accomplishments - FY 1995

■ Decisions receiving technical services annually - 814,000

■ Acres treated annually through conservation technical assi

28.2 million

■ Tons of soil erosion reduced annually through conservation 

technical assistance - 258 million

■ Acres mapped annually by NRCS - 21.9 million

■ Number of soil surveys ready for production - 59 
164

Watershed Surveys and Planning

NRCS provides assistance to local communities in watershed planning in

response to requests by sponsoring local organizations. The Agency works w

sponsors to develop watershed plans which meet sponsors’ priorities and prov

natural resource benefits.

Small Watersheds Projects. 

NRCS provides technical and financial assistance, in cooperation with lo

sponsoring organizations, State, and other public agencies, to voluntarily plan 

install watershed-based projects on private lands. The program empowers loc

ple or decisionmakers, builds partnerships, and requires local and State fundi

Water supply forecasting is enhanced by automated snow survey data collectio

through a snowpack telemetry (SNOTEL) network. This figure depicts the mete

technique used to transmit data from remote SNOTEL sites.

Billions of sand-sized meteorites enter the atmosphere daily. As each part

heats and burns in the region 50 to 75 miles above the Earth’s surface, its disi

tion creates a trail of ionized gases. The trails diffuse rapidly, usually disappe

within a second, but their short lifespan is adequate for SNOTEL communicat

be completed.

The process has three major steps: (1) master stations request data from r

sites; (2) sites respond by transmitting their current data; and (3) finally a mas

tion acknowledges receipt and signals the site transmitter to stop. This compl

exchange, taking place in a fraction of a second, is possible thanks to

microprocessors.
dustawatesuppy; gatowateaageet; sedetatoco

wildlife habitat enhancement; and creation and restoration of wetlands an

functions.

Emergency Watershed Protection

Under the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program, NRCS 

assistance to reduce hazards to life and property in watersheds damaged 

natural events. An emergency exists when floods, fire, drought, or other n

causes result in life or property being endangered. During the past 8 year

gram has been needed and used in an average of 26 States per year. Eme

includes establishing quick vegetative cover on denuded land, sloping ste

and eroding banks; opening dangerously restricted channels; repairing di

and levees; and other emergency work. The emergency area need not be 

national disaster area to be eligible for technical and financial assistance. 

watershed protection is applicable to small-scale, localized disasters as w

ters of national magnitude. NRCS provides technical and financial assist

disaster cleanup and subsequent rebuilding; stream corridor, wetland, an

area restoration; and urban planning and site location assistance to the Fe

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) when relocating communities 

floodplains. Local people are generally employed on a short-term basis t

disaster recovery.

Watershed Operations

Under the Flood Control Act of 1944, NRCS is authorized to admini

shed works of improvement. Flood prevention operations include planni

installing works of improvement and land treatment measures for flood p

for the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water; and 

reduction of sedimentation and erosion damages. This may also include t

ment of recreational facilities and the improvement of fish and wildlife h

Activities are authorized in 11 specific flood prevention projects covering 

million acres in 11 States.

■ Watershed Surveys and Planning Major Accomplishments - 

Applications available for planning 

Approved for planning 

Planning completed 

Planning in process 

Cooperative studies initiated 

Cooperative studies completed 

Cooperative studies in progress at end of year 

Floodplain management studies completed (cumulative total) 

Floodplain management studies completed during fiscal year 

Floodplain management studies in progress at end of year 
166

vebassuveys ad vestgatos, ood aad aayss, ad ood pa

ment assistance to aid in the development of coordinated water resource prog

including the development of guiding principles and procedures. Cooperative 

basin studies are made up of agricultural, rural, and upstream water and land

resources to identify resource problems and determine corrective actions need

These surveys address a variety of natural resource concerns including water 

improvement, opportunities for water conservation, wetland and water storag

ity, agricultural drought problems, rural development, municipal and industri

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 the Departme

river basin regional entities and River Basin Interagency Committees for coo

tion among Federal departments and States.

Forestry Incentives Program

The objectives of this program are to increase the Nation’s production of 

timber and pulpwood on nonindustrial, private forest lands; to decrease expec

shortages and rising prices of timber; and to help ensure effective use of avai

forest lands. Program objectives are met by providing cost-share and technical 

tance to landowners to encourage voluntary installation of forestry practices. 

program shares up to 65 percent of the cost incurred by the landowner for tre

planting and timberstand improvement.

Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Progra

The Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Program helps p

care for and protect their natural resources in a way that will improve an area

omy, environment, and living standards. The RC&D Program is a unique blen

private enterprise and creative federalism. It is based on a number of concept

including the value of public/private partnerships in making the best use of li

resources; the value of grassroots involvement in making decisions about loc

the need to bring USDA agencies together to focus on the same problems and 

tunities; the need to leverage limited Federal dollars with private funds to acc

goals; and the importance of achieving a balance between rural economic dev

ment and natural resource protection. RC&D involves more than a single pro

effort and builds upon long-range resource development plans. To implemen

RC&D, diverse groups of local people are brought together in an RC&D Cou

an RC&D Area. An RC&D Area can include one or more adjacent counties th

big enough to have substantial natural resources to use for economic improve

and community betterment. The RC&D Councils, nationwide, are comprised 

than 20,000 volunteers. There are currently 289 authorized RC&D areas invo

2,092 counties across the country.
atuaesouces ooedeaad. Caed te Natoaesouces 

NRI, this report card contains the most comprehensive and statistically r

of its kind in the world. It measures trends in soil erosion by water and w

losses, prime farmland acreage, irrigation, and conservation treatment ne

national, regional, State, and sub-State levels.

In 1994, NRCS released the NRI data comparing resource condition

in 1982 and 1992. Key findings include:

■ Between 1982 and 1992, the Nation’s cropland acreage decreased 

9 percent (from 421 million to 382 million acres), most of it going into th

Conservation Reserve Program; rangeland acreage decreased by about 2 

(from 409 million to 399 million acres); and developed land increased by 

(from 78 million to 92 million acres).

■ The average annual rate of soil erosion for the Nation dropped sub

between 1982 and 1992, largely attributable to the success of the Nation

meeting the conservation provisions of the 1985 farm bill.

■ Prime farmland decreased by 6 million acres between 1982 and 19

most of the losses due to rural and urban development.

■ Wetland loss due to agriculture has slowed significantly.

The NRI contributes to resource appraisals authorized by the Soil an

Resources Conservation Act of 1977. These “RCA” appraisals, led by N

basis for USDA’s National Conservation Program as well as farm and en

legislation.

In 1994, NRI data and analytical software were made available to th

CD-ROM for the first time. To obtain the NRI database, Data Analysis S

spatial data sets, contact: NRCS National Cartography and Geospatial Ce

Worth Federal Center, Bldg. 23, Room 60, P.O. Box 6567, Fort Worth, T

0567; telephone (817) 334-5559, extension 3135.

Each NRI has built and improved upon the previous one. For examp

NRI added a data element to look specifically at Earth cover. Major impr

planned for the 1997 NRI include a broader resource assessment focus to 

emerging Agency initiatives, such as soil quality and grazing lands health

and other data collection efforts are being coordinated to achieve a contin

ment of natural resource conditions and trends.

NRI information can be used to formulate policy and evaluate progr

national, regional, and State levels. Because the NRI’s 800,000 sample p

linked to geographic coordinates, natural resource estimates and maps ca

duced for user-defined areas of interest. When combined with other Fede

and local government inventories, the NRI can provide a snapshot of the 

land and identify natural resource trends. NRCS field offices and new inf

dissemination systems, such as the Internet, will become increasingly im

getting this information to the people who most need it: landowners and 

resource managers.
168

Forest Service

Director, Public Affairs 

Vacant 

2CEN-Aud Washington, DC 20250

202-205-1760 

FAX 202-205-0885

/s=pao/ou1=w01b@mhs-fswa.attmail.com

Media Officer

Alan Polk 

2CEN-Aud Washington, DC 20250

202-205-1134 

FAX 202-205-0885

/s=a.polk/ou1=w01b@mhs-fswa.attmail.com

Asst. Dir., Pub. Aff. 

Chris Holmes 

2CEN-Aud Washington, DC 20250

202-205-1006

FAX 202-205-0885

/s=c.holmes/ou1=w01b@mhsfswa.attmail.com

Photo, Video Services

Yuen-Gi Yee (Bernie) 

2CEN-Aud Washington, DC 20250

202-205-1438

FAX 202-205-0885

Asst. Dir., Pub. Aff.

Denver James

2CEN-Aud Washington, DC 20250

202-205-1781

FAX 202-205-0885

/s=d.james/ou1=w01b@mhsfswa.attmail.com

FOIA Office

Naomi Charboneau

51LL-RPE Arlington, VA 22209

703-235-9488

FAX 703-235-9498

/s=n.charboneau/ou1=w01b@mhs

fswa.attmail.com

FS Regional 

Information Offices

Northern Reg. PA Officer

Beth Horn

P.O.Box 7669-Fed. Building

Missoula, MT 59807

406-329-3089 

FAX 406-329-3411

/s=io/ou1=r01a@mhs-fswa.attmail.com

Rocky Mtn. Reg. PA Officer

Steve Deitemeyer 

\P.O.B. 25127-11177 W.8th Ave

Lakewood, CO 80225

\303-275-5135

FAX 303-275-5366

/s=rpst/ou1=r02a@mhs-fswa.attmail.c

Southwest Reg. PA Officer

Carolyn Bye

517 Gold Ave., SW, Fed.Bldg.

Albuquerque, NM 87l02 

505-842-3290 

FAX 505-842-3457

/s=is/ou1=r03a@mhs-fswa.attmail.com

Intermtn. Reg. PA Officer

Robert Swinford 

324 25th St. Fed. Bldg. 

Ogden, UT 84401

801-625-5347 FAX 801-625-5240

/s=pao/ou1=r04a@mhs-fswa.attmail.c

Pacific SW Reg. PA Officer

Marilyn Hartley

630 Sansome Street

San Francisco, CA 94111

415-705-2804 

FAX 415-705-1097

/s=oi/ou1=r05a@mhs-fswa.attmail.com

Pacific NW Reg. PA Officer

Sylvia Brucchi 

P.O.B 3623-333 S. First St 

Portland, OR 97208

503-326-2971 

FAX 503-326-5044

/s=pao/ou1=r06a@mhs-fswa.attmail.c
Atlanta, GA 30367 

404-347-7240 

FAX 404-347-3608 

/s=pao/ou1=r08a@mhs-fswa.attmail.com

Eastern Reg. PA Officer

Sherry Wagner 

310 W. Wisconsin Ave., Rm 500

Milwaukee, WI 53203 

414-297-3640 

FAX 414-297-3808 

/s=pcr_r09a/ou1=r09a@mhsfswa.attmail.com

Alaska Reg. PA Officer

Kimberly Bown 

P.O.Box 21628 - Fed. Bldg.

Juneau, AK 99802 

907-586-8806 

FAX 907-586-7892 /s=pao/ou1=r10a@mhsfswa.attmail.com

NE Area State-Private PA

Jill Cherpack

100 Matsonford Road, Rm 200

Radnor, PA 19087-4585 

610-975-4111 

FAX 610-975-4200 

/s=j.cherpack/ou1=s24a@mhsfswa.attmail.com

FS Research Stations

Forest Products Lab. Inf. 

Debra Dietzman 

One Gifford Pinchot Drive

Madison, WI 53705-2398 

608-231-9236 

FAX 608-231-9592 

/s=p.green/ou1=s32a@mhsfswa.attmail.com

Intermtn. Stat. Res. Inf. 

Dave Tippets 

324 25th Street

Ogden, UT 84401

801-625-5431 

FAX 801-625-5434 

/s=ri/ou1=s22a@mhs-fswa.attmail.com

St. Paul, MN 55108

612-649-5276 

FAX 612-649-5285 

/s=re/ou1=s23a@mhs-fswa.attma

Northeast Stat. Res. Inf. 

Mary Buchanan 

100 Matsonford Rd., Rm 200

Radnor, PA 19087

614-368-0123 

FAX 614-368-0152 

/s=im/ou1=s24a@mhs-fswa.attm

Pacific NW Stat. Res. Inf. 

Cynthia Miner 

P.O.Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208 

503-326-7127 

FAX 503-326-2455 

/s=ris/ou1=r6/pnw@mhs-fswa.a

Pacific SW Stat. Res. Inf. 

Sherri Richardson 

1960 Addison Street

Berkeley, CA 94704 

503-326-7132 

FAX 510-559-6440 

/s=ris/ou1=s27a@mhs-fswa.attm

Rocky Mtn. Stat. Res. Inf. 

Richard Schneiber 

240 W. Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526-2098

970-498-1798 

FAX 303-498-1660 

/s=r.schneiber/ou1=s28a@mhsfswa.attmail.com

Southern Res. Station Inf.

Rod Kindlund 

P.O.B. 2680 - 200 Weaver Blvd.

Asheville, NC 28802 

704-257-4389 

FAX 704-259-0509 

/s=pmis/ou1=s29a@mhs-fswa.at
170

Dir., Conservation Comm. Staff 

David C. White 

Rm 6103-S Washington, DC 20013

202-720-3210

FAX 202-720-1564

dave.white@usda.gov 

Program Assistant 

Joyce Hawkins 

Rm 6105-S Washington, DC 20013

202-720-3210 

FAX 202-720-1564

joyce.hawkins@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist 

Mary Cressel 

Rm 6111-S Washington, DC 20013

202-690-0547

FAX 202-690-1221

mary.cressel@usda.gov 

Public Affairs Specialist 

June Davidek

Rm 6119-S Washington, DC 20013

202-720-3876 

FAX 202-690-1221

june.davidek@usda.gov

Visual Information Specialist 

Robert Gresh

Rm 0054ES Washington, DC 20013

202-720-5157 

FAX 202-720-9925

robert.gresh@usda.gov 

Editorial Assistant 

Sandy Grimm 

Rm 6116-S Washington, DC 20013

202-720-6243 

FAX 202-690-1221

sandy.grimm@usda.gov 

Public Affairs Specialist 

Fred Jacobs

Rm 6113-S Washington, DC 20013

202-720-4649 

FAX 202-690-1221

fred.jacobs@usda.gov 

g

202-720-5776

FAX 202-690-1221

ted.kupelian@usda.gov 

Public Affairs Specialist 

Judith Ladd 

Rm 6116-S Washington, DC 20013

202-720-2536 

FAX 202-690-1221

judy.ladd@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist 

Tom Levermann 

Rm 6111 Washington, DC 20013

\202-720-7570 

FAX 202-690-1221 

tlevermann@usda.gov 

Visual Information Specialist 

Chris Lozos 

Rm 6123-S Washington, DC 20013

202-720-4244

FAX 202-690-1221

chris.lozos@usda.gov 

Public Affairs Specialist 

Diana Morse 

Rm 6119-S Washington, DC 20013

202-720-4772

Fax 202-690-1221 

diana.morse@usda.gov 

Printing Specialist 

Doug Wilson 

Rm 4243-S Washington, DC 20013

202-720-7769 

Fax 202-720-9975

Doug.wilson@usda.gov 

Freedom of Info Act Office 

Wilda Grant 

Rm 5236-S Washington, DC 20013

FAX 202-690-3174 

wgrant@usda.gov 
Public Affairs Contacts

AL

Joan Smith

665 Opelika Road, 

Auburn, AL 36830-0311-4362

334-887-4530 

FAX 334-887-4551 j.

smith@al.nrcs.usda.gov

AK 

Lois Jackson 

949 East 36th Avenue, Suite 400, 

Anchorage, AK 99508-4302

907-271-2424 

FAX 907-271-3951

ljackson@ak.nrcs.usda.gov

AZ 

Mary Ann McQuinn 

3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 800,

Phoenix, AZ 85012-2945

602-280-8778 

FAX 602-280-8809

mmcquinn@az.nrcs.usda.gov

AR 

Suzanne Pugh 

Fed. Bldg., Rm 5404, 700 W. Capitol Ave., 

Little Rock, AR 72201-3228 

501-324-5464 

FAX 501-324-6138 

spugh@ar.nrcs.usda.gov

CA

Anita Brown 

2121-C 2nd Street, Suite 102, 

Davis, CA 95616-5475 

916-757-8241 

FAX 916-757-8217

abrown@ca.nrcs.usda.gov

CO 

Petra Barnes 

655 Parfet Street, Room E200C, 

Lakewood, CO 80215-5517 

303-236-2886 

FAX 303-236-2896

pbarnes@co.nrcs.usda.gov

Storrs, CT 06268-1299

860-487-4062 

FAX 860-487-4054 

cmiller@ct.nrcs.usda.gov

DE 

Paul Petrichenko 

1203 College Park Drive, Suite 1

Dover, DE 19904-8713 

302-678-4178 

FAX 302-678-0843

ppetrichenko@de.nrcs.usda.gov

FL

Dorothy Staley 

2614 N.W. 43rd Street, 

Gainesville, FL 32606-6611 

352-338-9565 

FAX 352-338-9574

dstaley@fl.nrcs.usda.gov

GA

Art Greenberg 

Federal Building, Box 13, 355 Ea

Ave., Athens, GA 30601 2769 

706-546-2273 

FAX 706-546-2276

agreenberg@ga.nrcs.usda.gov

HI 

Lee Ozawa 

300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 

Honolulu, HI 96850-0002 

808-541-2651 

FAX 808-541-1335 

lozawa@hi.nrcs.usda.gov

ID 

Sharon Norris 

3244 Elder Street, Room 124, Bo

83705-4711 

208-378-5725 

FAX 208-378-5735 

snorris@id.nrcs.usda.gov

IL

Kay Kitchen-Maran 

1902 Fox Drive, Champaign, IL 

217-398-5273 

FAX 217-398-5310 

kktchenmaran@il.nrcs.usda.gov
172

p

46278-2933 

317-290-3222 

FAX 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 

FAX 515-284-4394 

lbetts@ia.nrcs.usda.gov

KS 

Tim Christian 

760 South Broadway, 

Salina, KS 67401 

913-823-4570

FAX 913-823-4540

tchristian@ks.nrcs.usda.gov

KY

Vacant 

771 Corporate Drive, Suite 110, 

Lexington, KY 40503-5479 

606-224-7403 

FAX 606-224-7393

LA

Herb Bourque 

3737 Government Street,

Alexandria, LA 71302-3727 

318-473-7762 

FAX 318-473-7771

hbourque@la.nrcs.usda.gov

ME 

Elaine Tremble 

5 Godfrey Drive, Orono, ME 04473 

207-866-7241 

FAX 207-866-7262 

etremble@me.nrcs.usda.gov

MD

Carol Hollingsworth 

John Hanson BC, 339 Bucsh's Frontage Rd.,

#30, Annapolis, MD 21401 5534 

410-757-0861 

FAX 410-757-0687

chollingsworth@md.nrcs.usda.gov

Amherst, MA 01002-2995

508-692-0790 

FAX 508-392-1305

aaldrich@ma.nrcs.usda.gov

MI 

Bob Baetsen (Acting)

1405 South Harrison Road, Room 101

Lansing, MI 48823-5243 

517-543-1539 

FAX 517-543-5962

bbaetsen@mi.nrcs.usda.gov

MN 

Vacant 

600 Farm Credit Building, 

375 Jackson Street, 

St. Paul, MN 55101-1854 

612-290-3677 

FAX 612-290-3375

MS 

Jeannine May 

Fed. Bldg., Suite 1321, 100 W. Capito

Jackson, MS 39269-1399 

601-965-4337 

FAX 601-965-4536

jmay@ms.nrcs.usda.gov

MO 

Norm Klopfenstein 

Parkade Ctr., #250, 

601 Business Loop, 70 West, 

Columbia, MO 65203 2546 

314-876-0911 

FAX 314-876-0913

nklopfenstein@mo.nrcs.usda.gov

MT

Lori Valadez 

Fed. Bldg., Room 443, 

10 East Babcock Street, 

Bozeman, MT 59715-4704 

406-587-6842 

FAX 406-587-6761

lvaladez@mt.nrcs.usda.gov
g

100 Centennial Mall, North, 

Lincoln, NE 68508-3866 

402-437-5328 

FAX 402-437-5327

pmcgrane@ne.nrcs.usda.gov

NV

Liz Warner 

5301 Longley Lane, Building F, Suite 201, 

Reno, NV 89511 

702-784-5288 

FAX 702-784-5939

lwarner@nv.nrcs.usda.gov

NH 

Lynn Howell 

Federal Building, 2 Madbury Road, 

Durham, NH 03824-1499 

603-868-7581 

FAX 603-868-5301

lhowell@nh.nrcs.usda.gov

NJ 

Irene Lieberman 

1370 Hamilton Street, 

Somerset, NJ 08873-3157 

908-246-1171 

FAX 908-246-2358

ilieberman@nj.nrcs.usda.gov

NM 

Rebecca de la Torre 

6200 Jefferson, NE, Suite 305,

Albuquerque, NM 87109-3734 

505-761-4404 

FAX 505-761-4463

rdelatorre@nm.nrcs.usda.gov

NY

Vacant 

441 S. Salina Street, 5th Floor, Suite 354, 

Syracuse, NY 13202-2450 

315-477-6505 

FAX 315-477-6550

NC 

Andrew Smith 

4405 Bland Road, Suite 205, 

Raleigh, NC 27609-6293 

919-873-2107 

FAX 919-873-2156

asmith@nc.nrcs.usda.gov

g

220 East Rosser Avenue, 

Bismarck, ND 58502 1458 

701-250-4768 

FAX 701-250-4778

adeutscher@nd.nrcs.usda.gov

OH 

Latawnya Dia 

200 North High Street, Room 52

Columbus, OH 43215-2748 

614-469-6962 

FAX 614-469-2083 

ldia@oh.nrcs.usda.gov

OK 

Dwain Phillips 

100 USDA, Suite 203, 

Stillwater, OK 74074-2654 

405-742-1243 

FAX 405-742-1201

dphillips@ok.nrcs.usda.gov

OR 

Gayle Norman 

101 SW 3rd Ave., Rm. 1640, 

Portland, OR 97204-2881 

503-414-3236 

FAX 503-414-3101

gnorman@or.nrcs.usda.gov

PAC 

Joan Perry 

BAS FHB Building, Suite 301, 4

Maite, GU 96927 

671-472-7490 

FAX 700-550-7288

jperry@pac.nrcs.usda.gov

PA

Sylvia Rainford 

1 Credit Union Place, Suite 340,

Harrisburg, PA 17110-2993 

717-782-2290 

FAX 717-782-4469

srainford@pa.nrcs.usda.gov

PR 

Becky Fraticelli 

IBM Bldg., 6th fl. 654 Munoz Ri

Hato Rey, PR 00918-7013 

787-766-5206

FAX 787-766-5987

bfraticelli@pr.nrcs.usda.gov
174

Q

Warwick, RI 02886-0111 

401-828-1300 

FAX 401-828-0433

SC 

Perdita Belk 

Strom Thurmond FB, 

1835 Assembly St., Rm 950, 

Columbia, SC 29201 2489 

803-765-5402 

FAX 803-253-3670 

pbelk@sc.nrcs.usda.gov

SD 

Joyce Watkins 

Federal Building, 200 4th Street, SW, 

Huron, SD 57350-2475 

605-352-1227 

FAX 605-352-1261

jwatkins@sd.nrcs.usda.gov

TN 

Larry Blick 

675 U.S. Courthouse, 801

Broadway,Nashville, TN 37203-3878 

615-736-5490 

FAX 615-736-7764 

lblick@tn.nrcs.usda.gov

TX 

Harold Bryant 

W.R. Poage Fed. Bldg., 101 South Main

Street, Temple, TX 76501-7682 

817-298-1228 

FAX 817-298-1388

hbryant@tx.nrcs.usda.gov

UT

Ron Nichols 

W. F. Bennett FB, 125 S. State St., Rm 4402,

Salt Lake City, UT 84138 

801-524-5050

FAX 801-524-4403

rnichols@ut.nrcs.usda.gov

VT

Anne Hilliard 

69 Union Street, 

Winooski, VT 05404-1999 

802-951-6796 

FAX 802-951-6327

ahilliard@vt.nrcs.usda.gov

ppg

Richmond, VA 23229-5014 

804-287-1681 

FAX 804-287-1737 

ppaul@va.nrcs.usda.gov

WA

Chris Bieker (acting) 

Rock Pointe Tower II, W. 

316 Boone Ave., #450, 

Spokane, WA 99201 2348

509-353-2336 

FAX 509-353-2354

cbielcer@wa.nrcs.usda.gov

WV

Peg Reese 

75 High Street, Room 301, 

Morgantown, WV 26505 

304-291-4152 

FAX 304-291-4628

preese@wv.nrcs.usda.gov

WI 

Renae Anderson 

6515 Watts Road, Suite 200, 

Madison, WI 53719-2726 

608-264-5341 

FAX 608-264-5483

randerson@wi.nrcs.usda.gov

WY

Nancy Atkinson 

Fed. Bldg., 100 East B Street, Room 3

Casper, WY 82601-1911 

307-261-6482 

FAX 307-261-6490

natkinson@wy.nrcs.usda.gov
11.

g

Education, and Economics

USDA leads the world in basic and applied research, as it looks for wproblems challenging America’s food and fiber production system, 

to improve food supply, safety and quality. Five major challenges face U

ture in the next decade: (1) maintaining an agricultural system that’s high

tive in the global economy, (2) balancing agricultural production and the

environment, (3) providing a safe and secure food supply for all citizens, 

taining a healthy, well-nourished population,and (5) increasing economic 

ties and improving the quality of life of all Americans. USDA’s Research

and Economics (REE) mission helps meet these challenges.

Four USDA agencies make up the mission: the Agricultural Researc

(ARS), the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Servic

(CSREES), the Economic Research Service (ERS), and the National Agr

Statistics Service (NASS). Together, these agencies have the Federal resp

to discover and disseminate knowledge that spans the biological, physica

sciences related to agricultural research, economic analysis, statistics, ex

higher education. 

■ Getting Your Money’s Worth

How does the responsibility translate into results that benefit Americainternational trade arena, USDAresearch is an important tool for sti

Nation’s economy. For example, the protocol developed for detecting co

terial disease early and accurately eliminates foreign quarantine barriers 

shipments—keeping markets open for U.S. farm products. Another exam

rice establishes the quality standard for the most important small grain in 

USDA research advances in agricultural biotechnology can help improve 

and yields of rice, as well as reduce losses from pest damage. This helps 

States build an agricultural system that is highly competitive in the globa

REE is also rising to the challenge of balancing agricultural product

environment. For example, USDAagricultural research is behind Integra

Management, a system that relies on a variety of natural techniques as al

to chemical pesticides in order to reduce health risks, sustain natural reso

create new economic opportunities. USDA’s goal is to have IPM in pract

percent of U.S. agricultural acres by the year 2000. Another example clo

home for many consumers is the research behind the development of bio

100-percent-cornstarch cutlery, which is stronger and better for the envir

petroleum-based plastic utensils.
bactea oeat. t as cut te od 3day eat quaty test to detect . coli co

nation down to 8 hours—a benefit for both industry and consumers. In anoth

USDA is continuing research to understand the possible transfer of infectious d

from animals to humans—mad cow disease, for example.

REE is delivering on its commitment to a healthy, well-nourished popula

with the production of a substance called Z-trim which can be used in many f

products as a fat replacement that tastes good. Another example: soybeans wi

reduced fat content that could eventually lead to a grocery shopping cart full 

“smart heart” products.

■ Delivering the Goods

How does USDA take these technologies and products from the labs to thmarketplace? REE works with land-grant institutions and industry to mo

research results into the marketplace to boost economic opportunities and imp

the quality of life for all Americans. REE works in partnership with the State 

tural experiment station system, based at land-grant universities to carry out a 

anced program of fundamental and applied research. This critical connection

extension educators identifying and communicating agricultural, environmen

community problems to researchers at campuses and experiment stations—he

vide cutting-edge technologies and new products. 

USDA uses Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRAD

to get many of its research accomplishments to farmers, business people, and 

sumers. Under these agreements, USDA and its private sector partners agree 

develop certain technologies jointly so they can be commercialized. With mo

650 such partnerships, USDAleads all Federal research organizations in CRA

activity. CRADAs combine government expertise with entrepreneurial ability

allowing government and small business to do more together than they could 

CRADAs maximize resources and deliver results, giving farmers and consum

products they need, and giving small business and rural America Federal part

that enhance products and stimulate the economy. 

USDA also collaborates with other Federal Departments. Several joint pr

have been initiated between USDA agencies and the National Laboratories op

by the Department of Energy for research and development, technology trans

technology utilization, and technology commercialization activities. USDA h

collaborated with the Department of Defense in investigating new methods to 

pests and reduce pesticide use, as well as finding ways to replace critical mate

that are not available from domestic producers. Cooperation with the Departm

Health and Human Services (DHSS) includes close coordination of human nu

research done by the two Departments. The CRADAs and the Federal partner

are examples of how REE can stimulate economic opportunity and improve t

quality of life of Americans.

176
To bu

d aoed ctey, ad to povde te oatobase o

decisions, REE coordinates economic and social research. This rese

programs and policies across USDA, providing data, information, and ec

statistical analyses on a variety of topics: rural development, the environ

natural resources, food safety, food prices, farm labor, farm income, finan

tions, commodity markets, and international trade. REE serves American 

and rural communities by providing meaningful, accurate, and objective 

information—such as the information in Chapters 1-4 of this 1997 Agric

Book. Forecasts and estimates for over 165 different crop and livestock c

are provided annually to farmers, ranchers, and other agribusinesses. Thi

tion helps policymakers, Congress, and the public make informed decisio

issues related to food and fiber production.

REE also focuses on practical education that Americans can use in d

critical issues that affect their lives and the Nation’s future by linking res

ence, and technology to the needs of people where they live and work. R

information on issues ranging from community economic development a

care concerns to food safety; water quality; children, youth, and families

able agriculture. For example, REE programs reach over 5.4 million you

United States and the Territories. CSREES’ Families, 4-H, and Nutrition 

empower youth to become responsible contributing members of their com

with programs that focus on health learning experiences, increased self-e

enhanced problem-solving skills, and agriculture and science literacy. Ag 

Classroom helps K-12 students gain a greater awareness of the role of ag

in the economy and society, so they may become citizens who promote w

tural policies. 

In a society in which information access is crucial, REE is working w

communities to connect them to the information superhighway. From the

have access to much of the information the four REE agencies generate a

vast resources available at the National Agricultural Library—the largest 

library in the world and one of three national libraries of the United State

Nation’s chief resource providing agricultural information, NAL offers r

educators, policymakers, farmers, consumers, and the general public abo

of bookshelves to peruse in a 14-story building. NAL’s computer networ

tronic bulletin board also provide information that improves access to its 

volumes. 

■ Research—A Sound Investment

REE serves people along the entire food and fiber chain—-from the fathe consumer’s kitchen table. Sound science provides new technolo

mation useful to Americans as well as people all over the world in their d

The REE agencies develop new products and new uses, improve farming 

cessing efficiency, explore profitable marketing strategies, increase food 
178

vested te U.S. agcutuasysteas pad bacat east $.35. ese e

have been broadly shared through lower prices for American consumers, incr

international competitiveness for farmers, jobs for working families, and incr

profitability in agricultural industries.

■ What’s New?

The newly created Fund for Rural America provides a competitive researcprogram for a variety of projects such as developing new crops and new 

uses, conserving and enhancing natural resources, and expanding locally own

value-added processing. The research will help agricultural producers manag

risk associated with market-driven provisions of new U.S. farm legislation.

REE’s newly created National Agricultural Research, Extension, Educati

Economics Advisory Board advises the Secretary and land-grant colleges and 

sities on agricultural research, extension, education, and economics policy an

ties. In addition, a task force has been created to develop a 10-year strategic p

federally funded agricultural research facilities. REE’s strategic plan, mandat

the Government Performance and Results Act, will measure the effectiveness 

Federal Government activities and will use the annual budget process to link 

Agency activities with Agency missions.

Information about the REE mission and its respective agencies—Agricu

Research Service; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Ser

Economic Research Service; and National Agricultural Statistics Service—is a

on the REE World Wide Web home page at www.reeusda.gov/ree/

■ Agricultural Research Service

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is the principal in-house researcAgency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

ARS research has long been associated with higher yields and more envi

mentally sensitive farming techniques. But the impact of ARS research exten

beyond the farm gate and the dinner table. Agricultural research is as much ab

human health as it is about growing corn.

For example, ARS recently developed a fat substitute called Oatrim. Not 

does this technology benefit farmers by providing a new use for oats, it also e

processors to produce tastier low-fat foods. Consumers may reap the biggest 

Oatrim-rich diets lower the bad (LDL) type of cholesterol without decreasing 

good (HDL) type, and they improve glucose tolerance.

ARS research is also as much about development of industrial products s

printing ink from soybeans and other crops as it is about development of high

ing wheat varieties. And like Oatrim, printing inks made from 100-percent so
ad coces oauactues ad ptes.

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 priva

to do the research. 

These problems range from fighting the ongoing battle to protect cro

stock from costly pests and diseases, to improving quality and safety of a

commodities and products for humans, to making the best use of natural 

All the while, the research results must help ensure profitability for produ

processors while keeping costs down for consumers.

To develop solutions to these problems, ARS scientists carry out bas

and developmental research. These are inextricably linked. Scientists can

applied and developmental research without the foundation provided by 

research; and ARS basic research must point toward specific uses for new 

resulting from the research. Also, basic research is necessary because it h

anticipating new problems and providing information needed for rationa

policies.

For more information about ARS, see its Home Page at www.ars.usd

■ A Year in Research: Selected Highlights

■ Stopping Lyme Disease at Its Source

Ticks that transmit Lyme disease to humans may find it dea

hop on a white-tailed deer. That’s because of a new deer fe

dubbed “the four poster” and patented by ARS. The feeder 

name from four pesticide-loaded rollers that rub tick-killing 

cals on a deer’s head and neck as it sticks its head inside t

on corn. 

Eliminating adult ticks prevents egg laying, thus preventin

another generation. Treated deer help eliminate ticks from 

areas rather than leaving the pests behind to find another h

■ What We Eat in America

American diets are changing in content and variety, and in 

location where the foods are bought and eaten, according t

from the first year of the ongoing 3-year survey, “What We 

America.”

This statistical snapshot of the American diet reveals that 

sumption of dietary fat has continued a downward trend.

Vegetable consumption is low, especially consumption of d

green and deep-yellow vegetables. And fruit consumption h

risen 20 percent since the late 1970’s, mostly because of a

increase in fruit juices.

The biggest change is an increase in grain products.

Consumption of grain mixtures such as lasagna and pizza 
180

■ Bringing Forth a Better Tomato

Tomato plants grown from tissue culture promise fruit that’s co

sumer-friendly. ARS scientists developed a special tissue cultu

medium that’s unfriendly to plants with a low sugar/solids content. Survivors in the medium bear fruit with enhanced sweetness, increased meatiness, and extended shelf life. Testing is

being conducted by an Oakland, CA, firm under a Cooperative

Research and Development Agreement. 

■ Parasite-Free Pork

A genetically engineered protein provides a rapid and sensitive

test for diagnosing pigs carrying Trichinella spiralis, the organis

that causes trichinosis in humans. ARS scientists isolated a na

urally derived parasite protein, called an antigen, that triggers t

body’s immune system to send out antibodies to fight off the pa

asite. In studies, the natural antigen detected 98 percent of

cases in experimentally infected swine. To improve the test, sc

entists have copied and reproduced the parasite’s gene that

makes the antigen. The improved antigen will aid the pork indu

try in making parasite-free pork available to consumers.

■ Online Window to ARS Research

TEKTRAN, an online database of information from ARS resear

labs, contains about 13,000 summaries of research findings.

Available on the World Wide Web, TEKTRAN also offers links 

for investigating new ARS technologies available for licensing.

Browsers can conduct a full-text search of the summaries,

including titles, keywords, and author information. They can 

also search by categories such as nutrition, germplasm, 

pests, and soil management. The address is:

http://www.nal.usda.gov/ttic/tektran/tektran.html

■ Remote-Sensing System

A remote-sensing system developed by ARS is the scientific

launch pad for a four-satellite commercial network planned for

Earth orbit in 1999. It is expected to reveal such details as too

much or too little soil moisture; nutrient deficiency in a crop; an

emerging weed, insect, and disease outbreaks. The system

would be the first commercial system to deliver data, up to twic

daily, to farmers within 24 hours of being obtained from satellite

■ New Test for Rice

A new test will help breeders find rice plants that have genes f

greater resistance to zinc deficiency, a condition that costs

farmers millions of dollars in lost yields annually. ARS scientist

developed the test in which rice seedlings grow in a special 
needed nutrients except the one being tested for, the solution 

the risk of creating a deficiency of another nutrient that could c

confusing results. Field tests have borne out the lab results.

■ Befriending a Foe of the Gypsy Moth

Two decades of persistence by ARS scientists have renewe

attempts to establish a small Asian wasp in the United State

Gypsy moth caterpillars are the worst insect pests of forest a

shade trees in the East. But after an egg of a Rogas indiscre

wasp hatches inside the caterpillar, the young wasp eats the 

insides. From 1968 to 1977, scientists released about 30,00

wasps, which promptly vanished. But in 1994, the last year o

year monitoring study, scientists spotted several Rogas coco

The discovery led to the first new Rogas shipment in decade

about 200 cocoons collected in India and shipped to an ARS 

Delaware. Several thousand wasps are planned for release i

Maryland, Michigan, and Pennsylvania in 1997.

■ Tracing Leptospirosis to Its Source

An outbreak of human leptospirosis in Nicaragua was traced 

its source—dogs—using a diagnostic test developed by ARS 

narians. Before ARS diagnostic work, other researchers and 

officials suspected rats as the source of the bacteria. The dis

produced pulmonary hemorrhaging leading to illness and de

thousands of Nicaraguans. Humans can get leptospirosis fro

exposure to animal urine through contaminated soil or water

■ Cotton With Built-in Odor Resistance

A new antibacterial agent for cotton products uses peroxide 

magnesium to kill microbes and retain the antibacterial prop

for over 50 washes. Normally, industries such as diaper serv

use a chemical wash every time they clean diapers to impar

qualities. But now, the odor resistance can be built in. Other 

tial markets for the treatment, which is available for commer

licensing, could include athletic wear such as socks or shoe 

■ Good Reasons To Encapsulate Herbicides

When ARS scientists measured vapor losses after applicatio

alachlor and atrazine to unplowed cornfields, the results ver

advantages of encapsulating herbicides in cornstarch. Herb

that are sprayed on crop fields are exposed to wind, rain, an

temperatures that facilitate herbicide loss into the air as a va

Scientists found that these airborne herbicides can land in w

ways as far as 150 miles away. Encapsulating herbicides in 

starch packaging delivers them to the right spot in the soil, re

the chance that they’ll be lost in the air. Encapsulating also

decreases the risk of ground water contamination.
182

■ Cooperative State Research, Education, a

Extension Service 

The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREunites the research, higher education, and extension education and outrea

resources of USDA, resulting in better customer service and an enhanced abi

respond to emerging issues and current national priorities. 

Mission

The mission of CSREES is to achieve significant and equitable improvem

domestic and global economic, environmental, and social conditions by adva

creative and integrated research, education, and extension programs in food, 

tural, and related sciences in partnership with both the public and private sect

CSREES leadership increases innovative scientific knowledge and provi

access to this knowledge; strengthens the research, higher education, and exte

capabilities of land-grant and other partnering institutions; increases access to 

use of improved communication and network systems; and enhances science

decisionmaking by producers, families, communities, and other customers. 

CSREES is committed to creating relevant, excellent, and useful researc

cation, and extension programs that improve economic, environmental, and s

conditions in the United States and globally. Critical quality of life issues add

include: improved agricultural productivity and new product development; s

cleaner food, water, and air; enhanced stewardship and management of our la

other natural resources; healthier, more responsible individuals, families, and 

munities; and a secure, diverse, and affordable national food supply.

Partnerships 

CSREES contributions are strengthened by a broad spectrum of public a

private partnerships that maximize resources and program impact. Partners in

other USDA agencies, Federal and State government departments, nonprofit 

zations, and private sector entities. Working closely with the land-grant unive

and their representatives enables more effective shared planning, delivery, an

now unproductive or produces poor crops because it’s overload

with mineral salts. ARS geneticists have identified genes in a

species of wild sunflower called Helianthus paradoxus that ena

seedlings to withstand the salts. That salinity tolerance trait has

been bred into some experimental sunflower lines. This trait cou

also provide drought tolerance that would boost acreages capa

of producing sunflowers. Salts usually build up in soils of dry are

that have been irrigated excessively.
Ove30 coeges oagcutue, cudg adgat sttuto

State and Territory,

■ 59 agricultural experiment stations with over 9,500 scientists con

research,

■ 57 cooperative extension services with over 9,600 local extension 

working in 3,150 counties,

■ CSREES Is

■ 5.4 million youth involved in 4-H programs that increase se

esteem, promote science literacy, and enhance problem-so

skills in a positive, supportive environment,

■ Managing Change in Agriculture, a national initiative to help 

agricultural producers respond to profound changes in how 

produced, processed, distributed, and marketed in the Unit

States and globally,

■ The National Research Initiative supporting research in the 

logical, physical, and social sciences to solve key agricultu

environmental problems,

■ World Wide Web access to seven national science-based d

sionmaking support databases (beef, dairy, pig, sheep, catfi

goat, and poultry) that help farmers, ranchers and produce

sound decisions in the face of increasing economic, enviro

tal, and social demands and the increasing complexity of te

gies and information management,

■ State-of-the-art competitive research programs on value-ad

product development, plant and animal genomes, integrate

management, water quality, human nutrition, food safety, a

and animal systems,

■ Higher education programs based on identified national ne

develop the scientific and professional expertise required to

advance the food, agricultural, and natural resources syste

maintain excellence in college and university teaching prog

■ Immediate electronic access to vital disaster safety and rec

information in time-critical disasters, such as hurricanes, w

and floods,

■ 3 million trained volunteers working with national outreach 

tion programs, 

■ Research-based, hands-on education programs in sustaina

agriculture; natural resource management and environmen

stewardship; water quality; food safety; children, youth, and 

lies; health; community economic development; and distan

education.
7 coeges oveteay edce,

■ 42 schools and colleges of family and consumer sciences,

■ 29 1994 Native American land-grant institutions,

■ 190 Hispanic-Serving Institutions 

Programs

CSREES research, higher education, and extension leadership is provide

through programs in Plant and Animal Production, Protection, and Processing

Natural Resources and Environment; Rural, Economic, and Social Developm

Families, 4-H, and Nutrition; Partnerships; Competitive Research Grants and 

Management; Science and Education Resources Development; and Commun

Technology, and Distance Education. 

Telecommunications Leadership 

CSREES advances cutting-edge technologies, applications, and interacti

tance education capabilities to provide key community access to the research

tion, and extension knowledge that empowers citizens to be active participan

reshaping society and solving complex problems at the local level. With all S

extension system and county offices interconnected through an interactive co

cation network, CSREES can respond in a timely and credible manner to crit

issues and public needs. 

For Further Information

Contact your local county extension office (offices are listed under local 

ment in the telephone directory), a land-grant university, or the Cooperative S

Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Washington, DC 20250-0900. Telephone: 202-720-3029; Fax: 202-690-0289

Internet: csrees@reeusda.gov or World Wide Web: http://www.reeusda.gov

Other CSREES URLs: http://www.reeusda.gov/statepartners/usa.htm

http://www.reeusda.gov/success/sum97.htm

■ Economic Research Service

The bottom-line benefits of biotech cotton and soybeans. Rising sales of nally improved foods. Hedge-to-arrive contracts, clause by clause. Prospe

U.S. grain sales in Asia. What happens when we change the Food Stamp prog

the welfare system. The outlook for wheat prices, and milk prices, and lettuce 

and pork belly prices, and sugar prices. The legacy of polluted creeks and riv

effects of tomato imports on U.S. producers. The formulas for Farm Act paym

The ebb and flow of rural population trends. Society’s burden from E. coli an

salmonella. 

It’s all economics. And USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) stays 

on top of it, dissects it, parses it, and tells the Nation and the world all about i

184
■ Agriculture is one of the three most hazardous U.S. occupa

CSREES-supported farm safety education programs in all 5

States and Puerto Rico teach volunteer firefighters and res

crews how to respond to farm accidents, certify training for 

safe operation of tractors and other machinery, and instill in 

dren a general awareness of farm hazards, including poiso

terrain vehicles, and other equipment. 

■ The CSREES AgrAbility project provides on-farm assistanc

over 2,000 farmers with disabilities and educates agricultur

rehabilitation, and health professionals on safely accommo

disability in agriculture. 

■ The CSREES Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program 

sustainable approach that manages crop pests through bio

cultural, physical, and chemical procedures to minimize eco

health, and environmental risks. 

■ CSREES is a leader in developing training programs for pu

and private pesticide applicators that combine education w

technology to minimize pesticide drift. Current pesticide app

programs train over half a million people each year on the s

and environmentally sound use of pesticides. 

■ CSREES water quality programs include Farm*A*Syst, an 

winning water pollution prevention program which conducts 

face and groundwater audits, and the Blue Thumb Project, 

brings water education into the community and empowers 

residents to address their own water problems.

■ CSREES environmental management flagship programs a

nationally recognized forexcellence in education for individu

and businesses seeking to improve management of air, wa

forests, rangelands, and fish and wildlife resources.

■ CSREES rural manufacturing modernization programs prov

technical assistance, business education, and training to sm

manufacturers in food processing, wood products, and othe

enterprises.

■ The CSREES Agricultural Telecommunications Program, e

lished in the 1990 Farm Bill, helps universities develop agri

telecommunications capacity by funding projects in support 

mal and nonformal courses, faculty and staff education, pro

delivery, community-based access to education, student tra

food and agricultural careers, facilitation of scientific interac

and expansion of agricultural markets for farmers. 

■ CSREES small farm programs include on-farm research to 

and incorporate new practices and technologies into smalle

agriculture.
ERS is USDA’s economic research Agency, providing information and a

on agriculture, food, natural resources, and rural America. The information pr

by ERS is used by farmers and consumers in the decisions they make and by 

officials in developing, administering, and evaluating agricultural and rural p

and programs.

The topics that ERS researches, analyzes, and monitors include:

■ Domestic and international agriculture,

■ Nutrition education and food assistance, food safety regulation, determ

of consumer demand for quality and safety, and food marketing trend

developments,

■ Agricultural resource and environmental issues, and 

■ National rural and agricultural conditions affecting the rural economy

financial performance of the farm sector, and the implications of chan

farm credit and financial market structures

ERS-produced information is available to the public through research rep

commodity and trade reports, electronic media, newspapers, magazines, radio

frequent participation of ERS staff at public forums. In addition, ERS publish

several periodicals, including Agricultural Outlook, FoodReview, Rural Cond

and Trends, and Rural Development Perspectives.

ERS has four principal functions: research, development of economic an

indicators, commodity and trade forecasting, and analysis of policy and progr

alternatives.

Research, together with economic and data indicators, provides the know

and the data base for the commodity and trade forecasting and policy and pro

analysis. The products are periodic reports for major agricultural commoditie

cultural exports, agricultural finance, agricultural resources, and world agricu

and analyses assessing issues requiring policy decisions by the Administratio

Congress.

ERS reports are available in a variety of formats. Printed reports can be o

through the ERS Information Center by calling (202) 219-0515. Many report

186

providing the education and technical assistance needed to hel

these countries make the transition to a market economy.

■ The CSREES Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program

(EFNEP) helps limited-resource youth, pregnant teens, and fam

lies with young children in all 50 States and 6 Territories improv

their nutritional well-being, make better use of their food dollars

and decrease the number of families on Food Stamps and WIC

■ CSREES collaborates with the ARS Children’s Nutrition Resear

Center, located at the College of Medicine at Baylor University, 

improve the nutrition education provided from kindergarten

through grade 12 and to link the medical, research, extension, a

education communities.
■ National Agricultural Statistics Service

The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) administers USDfor collecting and publishing timely national and State agricultural s

1862, the first Commissioner of the newly formed Department of Agricu

Newton, established a goal “to collect, arrange, and publish statistical an

ful agricultural information.” A year later, in July 1863, the Department’s 

Statistics issued the Nation’s first official Crop Production report. 

The structure of farming, ranching, and the agricultural industry has 

dramatically during the succeeding 135 years. The need for accurate, tim

objective statistical information about the Nation’s agriculture has becom

important as the country has moved from subsistence agriculture to a hig

alized business that produces food and fiber for the world market.

NASS is a world leader in the use of statistical methodology to prod

about agriculture. NASS statisticians provide consulting services to a lar

developing countries around the world, helping them develop statistical i

about their agriculture. NASS has also been a leader in making informati

through electronic media. Globalization of markets is expanding as buye

have nearly instant access to market information from around the world.

The 1997 U.S. Census of Agriculture will be conducted by NASS an

in January 1998. The Census of Agriculture functions have been transfer

Census Bureau in the Department of Commerce to NASS in the Departm

Agriculture. This move will link all major statistical services for agricult

county, State, and U.S.-level data provided in previous Census periods w

available from the 1997 Census of Agriculture. 

NASS headquarters is located in Washington, DC, and 45 State Stat

Offices (SSO’s) cover 120 crops and 45 livestock items annually in the 5

Current and historical information is published in approximately 400 rep

which feature:

■ Crop acreage, yield, production, and grain stocks,

■ Livestock, dairy, and poultry production and prospects,

■ Chemical use in agriculture,

■ 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 t

programs. In addition to the information above, estimates on more specia

modities, including hop stocks, mink, cherries, cranberries, lentils, and p

oil are also available. The information is geared toward producers and ca

plan planting, feeding, breeding, and marketing programs. The data are a

agricultural organizations, services, and businesses; trade groups; and fin
188

agcutuapocy coceg apogaegsato, coodty poga

cultural research, and rural development.

Most estimates are based on information gathered from producers, who a

veyed through personal and telephone interviews or through mailed questionn

In addition, for major crops such as corn, wheat, soybeans, and cotton, in-the

counts and measurement of plant development are made in the top producing 

Other estimates are based on surveys of grain elevators, hatcheries, and other 

businesses, as well as on administrative data such as slaughter records.

Data collected from these varied sources are summarized by the NASS SS

serving that State and sent to the Agency’s Agricultural Statistics Board in Was

DC, whose members determine and issue State and national official estimates.

All NASS reports are released at scheduled times, and the information is 

to the public in a variety of formats.

For More Information

Agricultural Reasearch

Service

Dir., Infor. Staff 

Robert Norton 

Rm 450, 6303 Ivy Ln, Greenbelt,MD 20770

301-344-2340 

FAX 301-344-2325

rnorton@ars-grin.gov 

Audiovisual Br. Chief

Vacant 

6303 Ivy Lane, Greenbelt, MD 20770

301-344-2152 

FAX 301-344-2325

Current Info Br. Chief

Sandy Miller Hays 

Rm 441, 6303 Ivy Ln, Greenbelt,MD 20770

301-344-2303 

FAX 301-344-2311

shays@asrr.arsusda.gov 

Pubs. Branch Chief

Ruth Coy

Rm 400, 6303 Ivy Ln, Greenbelt,MD 2

301-344-2152 

FAX 301-344-2325

rcoy@asrr.arsusda.gov

Nutrition Infor Team

Dianne Odland 

Rm420, 6303 Ivy Ln, Greenbelt,MD 20

301-436-5196 

FAX 301-436-7626

dodland@asrr.arsusda.gov

Nat'l Visitor Ctr Head

Jay Green 

Bldg 302, BARC-E, Beltsville, MD 20

301-504-9403 

FAX 301-504-8069

jgreen@asrr.arsusda.gov

FOIA Officer

Stasia Hutchison

Rm405, 6303 Ivy Ln, Greenbelt,MD 20

301-344-2207 

FAX 301-344-2325

shutchis@asrr.arsusda.gov
Public Affairs Officer

Brian Norris

204-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-6778

FAX 301-504-5472

bnorris@nal.usda.gov 

Special Services & Comm.

Joseph Swab

204-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-6778

FAX 301-504-5472

jswab@nal.usda.gov 

Library Services 

(reference, lending, etc.)

1Flr-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5755 

FOIA Officer

Stasia Hutchison 

Rm405, 6303 Ivy Ln, Greenbelt,MD 20770

301-344-2207 

FAX 301-344-2325

shutchis@asrr.arsusda.gov 

NAL TDD/TTY

301-504-6856

DCRC TDD/TTY

202-720-3434

Information Centers Branch

Robyn Frank 

304-NAL,Beltsville, MD 20705

30l-504-5414

FAX 301-504-6409

rfrank@nal.usda.gov

Agricultural Trade and Marketing

Information Center

Mary Lassanyi

304-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

30l-504-5509

FAX 301-504-6409

mlassany@nal.usda.gov

Center

Jane Gates 

304-NAL Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5724

FAX 301-504-6409

jgates@nal.usda.gov

Animal Welfare Information C

Jean Larson 

304-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5215

FAX 301-504-7125

jlarson@nal.usda.gov

Food and Nutrition Informatio

Vacant

304-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5719 

FAX 301-504-6409

fnic@nal.usda.gov 

Rural Information Center

Patricia John

304-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5372 

FAX 301-504-5181

pjohn@nalusda.gov 

Rural Information Center

DC area & International 

301-504-5547 

304-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

All other U.S. calls 1-800-633-7

304-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

Reference & User Service Bran

Leslie Kulp

4Flr-NAL , Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-6875 

FAX 301-504-7098

lkulp@nal.usda.gov

Reference Section

Alvetta Pindell

100-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5204 

FAX 301-504-6927

apindell@nal.usda.gov 
190

1Flr-NAL , Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5479 

FAX 301-504-6927

agref@nal.usda.gov

Grain Dust Project

Sheldon Cheney 

100-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5204 

FAX 301-504-6927

scheney@nal.usda.gov 

Russian Wheat Aphids Project

Wayne Olson 

100-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5204 

FAX 301-504-6927

wolson@nal.usda.gov 

Educational Programs Unit

Deborah Richardson

100-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5204 

FAX 301-504-6927

drichard@nal.usda.gov 

Tours and Demonstrations

Deborah Richardson 

100-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5204 

FAX 301-504-6927

drichard@nal.usda.gov 

Biotechnology Information Center

Raymond Dobert 

4Flr-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-6875 

FAX 301-504-7098

rdobert@nal.usda.gov

Plant Genome Data and Infor. Center

Susan McCarthy 

4Flr-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-6875 

FAX 301-504-7098

pgenome@nal.usda.gov

3Flr-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-6503 

FAX 301-504-5675

speccoll@nal.usda.gov 

Technology Transfer Infor. Center

Kathleen Hayes 

4Flr-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-6875 

FAX 301-504-7098

khayes@nal.usda.gov 

Water Quality Information Center

Joseph Makuch

4Flr-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-6875

FAX 301-504-7098

jmakuch@nal.usda.gov

D.C. Reference Center

Janet Wright 

Rm1052-S, Washington, DC 20250

202-720-3434 

FAX 202-720-3200

jwright@nal.usda.gov

Global Change

Janet Wright 

Rm1052-S, Washington, DC 20250

202-720-3434 

FAX 202-720-3200

jwright@nal.usda.gov

Cooperative State

Research, Education, an

Extension Service

Dep Admin, Comm., Tech.and Dista

Education 

Barbara A. White 

Rm 3328-S Washington, DC 2025

202-720-6133

FAX 202-690-0289

bwhite@reeusda.gov

Distance Education 

Barbara A. White 

Rm 3328-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-6133

FAX 202-690-0289

bwhite@reeusda.gov
Rm 348 Aerosp Washington, DC 20250

202-401-4186 

FAX 202-401-5174

jmcnamara@reeusda.gov 

Communications/Info. Access 

Jane Dodds 

Rm 3331-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-3401

FAX 202-690-0289

jdodds@reeusda.gov

Media Relations 

Len Careyc

Rm 3333-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-1358

FAX 202-690-0289

arey@reeusda.gov 

FOIA Officer

Jane Dodds 

Rm 3331-S Washington, DC 20250

301-720-3401

FAX 202-690-0289

jdodds@reeusda.gov

Economic Research

Service

Chief, Publishing & Communications

Adrie Custer 

301 N.Y. Ave.,NW, Rm. 237,

Washington,DC 20005-4788

202-219-05121

FAX 202-501-6250

acuster@econ.ag.gov 

Media Services

Jack Harrison

1301 N.Y. Ave.,NW, Rm. 237

Washington,DC 20005-4788

202-219-0510

FAX 202-501-6156

jackh@econ.ag.gov 

Outlook 

Diane Decker 

1301 N.Y. Ave.,NW, Rm. 237

Washington,DC 20005-4788

202-219-0509

FAX 202-219-0308

ddecker@econ.ag.gov

1301 N.Y. Ave.,NW, Rm. 237

Washington,DC 20005-4788

202-219-0519

FAX 202-501-6250

lhatcher@econ.ag.gov 

Research Publishing 

Thomas McDonald

1301 N.Y. Ave.,NW, Rm. 237

Washington,DC 20005 4788

202-219-0518

FAX 202-501-6250

thomasm@econ.ag.gov 

Design and Technology 

Douglas Parry

1301 N.Y. Ave.,NW, Rm. 237

Washington,DC 20005-4788

202-219-0585

FAX 202-501-6250

dparry@econ.ag.gov

Office of Energy & New Uses

Public Information Contact

James Duffield

1301 N.Y. Ave.,NW, Rm 1212

Washington,DC 20005-4788

202-501-6255

FAX 202-501-6338

duffield@econ.ag.gov 

ERS Information Center

Publications Dist. 

1301 N.Y. Ave.,NW, Rm. 110

Washington,DC 20005-4788

202-219-0515

FAX 202-219-0112

service@econ.ag.gov 

FOIA Coordinators

Valerie Herberger

Rm 456, 6303 Ivy Greenbelt, MD 

301-344-2066

FAX 301-344-2325

Lnvherberg@assr.arsusda.gov 

Stasia Hutchison

Rm 456, 6303 Ivy Ln

Greenbelt, MD 20770

301-344-2207

FAX 301-344-2325

shutchis@asrr.arsusda.gov 
192

Statistics Service

There are a variety of ways to obtain NASS

reports, data products, and services:

Reports/Publications Sales Order Desk 

1-800-999-6779 

FAX:703-834 0110

(Free catalog available upon request)

Internet World Wide Web:

http://www.usda.gov/nass/

Gopher Site/Telenet/FTP:

HOST=usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

NASSFax (Autofax)

202-720-2000

(To obtain current U. S. summary pages andhighlights of selected reports, pick up the

receiver on your facsimile machine, dial the

number, listen and follow the voice

prompts.Ask for Document Number 0411 for

a completelisting of NASS reports/highlights

available from the autofax.)

Information Hotline

1-800-727-9540

FAX:202-690-2060

For general agricultural statistics or 

further information about NASS or 

its products or services

Hours: 7:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. M-F

nass@nass.usda.gov

Census of Agriculture Information 

1-800-523-3215

FAX:301-763 8499

Hours: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. M-F

nass@nass.usda.gov

CONTACTS:

Agricultural Statistics Board Release

Schedule

William Pratt 

Rm. 5805-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-7017 

FAX 202-690-1311

Bpratt@nass.usda.gov

Census Division

Statistical Methods and Programming 

301-763-8571

Forecasts and Estimates

U.S. and State crop statistics

202-720-2127

U.S. and State livestock, dairy,

and poultry statistics 

202-720-6146

U.S. and State farm and labor statistic

202-720-3570

Statistical Consulting and Surveys

202-720-4557

Reimbursable Public Agricultural Sur

202-720-2248

Statistical Research

703-235-7511

NASSFreedom of Information Officer

Valerie Herberger 

301-344-2066

State-Specific Agricultural Statistic

nass-*@nass.usda.gov

(Replace asterisks with State code, 

such as AL for Alabama)

State Statistical Offices

State Statistical Offices can offer som

additional data breakouts not found in

national publications. For information 

about a particular State, Call the State

Statistician at any of the following offi

Alabama (Montgomery, AL) 

334-279-3555

Alaska (Palmer, AK) 

907-745-4272

Arizona (Phoenix, AZ) 

602-280-8850

Arkansas (Little Rock, AR) 

501-296-9926

California (Sacramento, CA) 

916-498-5161
303-236-2300

Delaware (Dover, DE) 

302-739-4811

Florida (Orlando, FL) 

407-648-6013

Georgia (Athens, GA) 

706-546-2236

Hawaii (Honolulu, HI) 

808-973-2907

Idaho (Boise, ID) 

208-334-1507

Illinois (Springfield, IL) 

217-492-4295

Indiana (West Lafayette, IN) 

765-494-8371

Iowa (Des Moines, IA) 

515-284-4340

Kansas (Topeka, KS) 

913-233-2230

Kentucky (Louisville, KY) 

502-582-5293

Louisiana (Baton Rouge, LA) 

504-922-1362

Maryland (Annapolis, MD) 

410-841-5740

Michigan (Lansing, MI) 

517-377-1831

Minnesota (St. Paul, MN) 

612-296-2230

Mississippi (Jackson, MS) 

601-965-4575

Missouri (Columbia, MO) 

573-876-0950

406-441-1240

Nebraska (Lincoln, NE) 

402-437-5541

Nevada (Reno, NV) 

702-784-5584

New England (Concord, NH) 

603-224-9639

New Jersey (Trenton, NJ) 

609-292-6385

New Mexico (Las Cruces, NM) 

505-522-6023

New York (Albany, NY) 

518-457-5570

North Carolina (Raleigh, NC) 

919-856-4394

North Dakota (Fargo, ND) 

701-239-5306

Ohio (Reynoldsburg, OH) 

614-728-2100

Oklahoma (Oklahoma City, O

405-525-9226

Oregon (Portland, OR) 

503-326-2131

Pennsylvania (Harrisburg, PA

717-787-3904

South Carolina (Columbia, SC

803-765-5333

South Dakota (Sioux Falls, SD

605-330-4235

Tennessee (Nashville, TN) 

615-781-5300

Texas (Austin, TX) 

512-916-5581
194

801-524-5003

Virginia (Richmond, VA) 

804-771-2493

Washington (Olympia, WA) 

360-902-1940

304-345-5958

Wisconsin (Madison, WI) 

608-224-4848

Wyoming (Cheyenne, WY) 

307-772-2181
terial disease early and accurately eliminates foreign quarantine barriers 

shipments—keeping markets open for U.S. farm products. Another exam

rice establishes the quality standard for the most important small grain in 

USDA research advances in agricultural biotechnology can help improve 

and yields of rice, as well as reduce losses from pest damage. This helps 

States build an agricultural system that is highly competitive in the globa

REE is also rising to the challenge of balancing agricultural product

environment. For example, USDAagricultural research is behind Integra

Management, a system that relies on a variety of natural techniques as al

to chemical pesticides in order to reduce health risks, sustain natural reso

create new economic opportunities. USDA’s goal is to have IPM in pract

percent of U.S. agricultural acres by the year 2000. Another example clo

home for many consumers is the research behind the development of bio

100-percent-cornstarch cutlery, which is stronger and better for the envir

petroleum-based plastic utensils.
Health and Human Services (DHSS) includes close coordination of human nu

research done by the two Departments. The CRADAs and the Federal partner

are examples of how REE can stimulate economic opportunity and improve t

quality of life of Americans.

176
the quality of life for all Americans. REE works in partnership with the State 

tural experiment station system, based at land-grant universities to carry out a 

anced program of fundamental and applied research. This critical connection

extension educators identifying and communicating agricultural, environmen

community problems to researchers at campuses and experiment stations—he

vide cutting-edge technologies and new products. 

USDA uses Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRAD

to get many of its research accomplishments to farmers, business people, and 

sumers. Under these agreements, USDA and its private sector partners agree 

develop certain technologies jointly so they can be commercialized. With mo

650 such partnerships, USDAleads all Federal research organizations in CRA

activity. CRADAs combine government expertise with entrepreneurial ability

allowing government and small business to do more together than they could 

CRADAs maximize resources and deliver results, giving farmers and consum

products they need, and giving small business and rural America Federal part

that enhance products and stimulate the economy. 

USDA also collaborates with other Federal Departments. Several joint pr

have been initiated between USDA agencies and the National Laboratories op

by the Department of Energy for research and development, technology trans

technology utilization, and technology commercialization activities. USDA h

collaborated with the Department of Defense in investigating new methods to 

pests and reduce pesticide use, as well as finding ways to replace critical mate

that are not available from domestic producers. Cooperation with the Departm

Health and Human Services (DHSS) includes close coordination of human nu

research done by the two Departments. The CRADAs and the Federal partner

are examples of how REE can stimulate economic opportunity and improve t

quality of life of Americans.

176
critical issues that affect their lives and the Nations future by linking res

ence, and technology to the needs of people where they live and work. R

information on issues ranging from community economic development a

care concerns to food safety; water quality; children, youth, and families

able agriculture. For example, REE programs reach over 5.4 million you

United States and the Territories. CSREES’ Families, 4-H, and Nutrition 

empower youth to become responsible contributing members of their com

with programs that focus on health learning experiences, increased self-e

enhanced problem-solving skills, and agriculture and science literacy. Ag 

Classroom helps K-12 students gain a greater awareness of the role of ag

in the economy and society, so they may become citizens who promote w

tural policies. 

In a society in which information access is crucial, REE is working w

communities to connect them to the information superhighway. From the

have access to much of the information the four REE agencies generate a

vast resources available at the National Agricultural Library—the largest 

library in the world and one of three national libraries of the United State

Nation’s chief resource providing agricultural information, NAL offers r

educators, policymakers, farmers, consumers, and the general public abo

of bookshelves to peruse in a 14-story building. NAL’s computer networ

tronic bulletin board also provide information that improves access to its 

volumes. 

■ Research—A Sound Investment

REE serves people along the entire food and fiber chain—-from the fathe consumer’s kitchen table. Sound science provides new technolo

mation useful to Americans as well as people all over the world in their d

The REE agencies develop new products and new uses, improve farming 

cessing efficiency, explore profitable marketing strategies, increase food 
The REE agencies develop new products and new uses, improve farming 

cessing efficiency, explore profitable marketing strategies, increase food 
178
178

beyond the farm gate and the dinner table. Agricultural research is as much ab

human health as it is about growing corn.

For example, ARS recently developed a fat substitute called Oatrim. Not 

does this technology benefit farmers by providing a new use for oats, it also e

processors to produce tastier low-fat foods. Consumers may reap the biggest 

Oatrim-rich diets lower the bad (LDL) type of cholesterol without decreasing 

good (HDL) type, and they improve glucose tolerance.

ARS research is also as much about development of industrial products s

printing ink from soybeans and other crops as it is about development of high

ing wheat varieties. And like Oatrim, printing inks made from 100-percent so
178

mentally sensitive farming techniques. But the impact of ARS research exten

beyond the farm gate and the dinner table. Agricultural research is as much ab

human health as it is about growing corn.

For example, ARS recently developed a fat substitute called Oatrim. Not 

does this technology benefit farmers by providing a new use for oats, it also e

processors to produce tastier low-fat foods. Consumers may reap the biggest 

Oatrim-rich diets lower the bad (LDL) type of cholesterol without decreasing 

good (HDL) type, and they improve glucose tolerance.

ARS research is also as much about development of industrial products s

printing ink from soybeans and other crops as it is about development of high

ing wheat varieties. And like Oatrim, printing inks made from 100-percent so
ad coces oauactues ad ptes.

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 priva

to do the research. 

These problems range from fighting the ongoing battle to protect cro

stock from costly pests and diseases, to improving quality and safety of a

commodities and products for humans, to making the best use of natural 

All the while, the research results must help ensure profitability for produ

processors while keeping costs down for consumers.

To develop solutions to these problems, ARS scientists carry out bas

and developmental research. These are inextricably linked. Scientists can

applied and developmental research without the foundation provided by 

research; and ARS basic research must point toward specific uses for new 

resulting from the research. Also, basic research is necessary because it h

anticipating new problems and providing information needed for rationa

policies.

For more information about ARS, see its Home Page at www.ars.usd

■ A Year in Research: Selected Highlights

■ Stopping Lyme Disease at Its Source

Ticks that transmit Lyme disease to humans may find it dea

hop on a white-tailed deer. That’s because of a new deer fe

dubbed “the four poster” and patented by ARS. The feeder 

name from four pesticide-loaded rollers that rub tick-killing 

cals on a deer’s head and neck as it sticks its head inside t

on corn. 

Eliminating adult ticks prevents egg laying, thus preventin

another generation. Treated deer help eliminate ticks from 

areas rather than leaving the pests behind to find another h

■ What We Eat in America

American diets are changing in content and variety, and in 

location where the foods are bought and eaten, according t

from the first year of the ongoing 3-year survey, “What We 

America.”

This statistical snapshot of the American diet reveals that 

sumption of dietary fat has continued a downward trend.

Vegetable consumption is low, especially consumption of d

green and deep-yellow vegetables. And fruit consumption h

risen 20 percent since the late 1970’s, mostly because of a

increase in fruit juices.

The biggest change is an increase in grain products.

Consumption of grain mixtures such as lasagna and pizza 
180

■ Bringing Forth a Better Tomato

Tomato plants grown from tissue culture promise fruit that’s co

sumer-friendly. ARS scientists developed a special tissue cultu

medium that’s unfriendly to plants with a low sugar/solids content. Survivors in the medium bear fruit with enhanced sweetness, increased meatiness, and extended shelf life. Testing is

being conducted by an Oakland, CA, firm under a Cooperative

Research and Development Agreement. 

■ Parasite-Free Pork

A genetically engineered protein provides a rapid and sensitive

test for diagnosing pigs carrying Trichinella spiralis, the organis

that causes trichinosis in humans. ARS scientists isolated a na

urally derived parasite protein, called an antigen, that triggers t

body’s immune system to send out antibodies to fight off the pa

asite. In studies, the natural antigen detected 98 percent of

cases in experimentally infected swine. To improve the test, sc

entists have copied and reproduced the parasite’s gene that

makes the antigen. The improved antigen will aid the pork indu

try in making parasite-free pork available to consumers.

■ Online Window to ARS Research

TEKTRAN, an online database of information from ARS resear

labs, contains about 13,000 summaries of research findings.

Available on the World Wide Web, TEKTRAN also offers links 

for investigating new ARS technologies available for licensing.

Browsers can conduct a full-text search of the summaries,

including titles, keywords, and author information. They can 

also search by categories such as nutrition, germplasm, 

pests, and soil management. The address is:

http://www.nal.usda.gov/ttic/tektran/tektran.html

■ Remote-Sensing System

A remote-sensing system developed by ARS is the scientific

launch pad for a four-satellite commercial network planned for

Earth orbit in 1999. It is expected to reveal such details as too

much or too little soil moisture; nutrient deficiency in a crop; an

emerging weed, insect, and disease outbreaks. The system

would be the first commercial system to deliver data, up to twic

daily, to farmers within 24 hours of being obtained from satellite

■ New Test for Rice

A new test will help breeders find rice plants that have genes f

greater resistance to zinc deficiency, a condition that costs

farmers millions of dollars in lost yields annually. ARS scientist

developed the test in which rice seedlings grow in a special 
needed nutrients except the one being tested for, the solution 

the risk of creating a deficiency of another nutrient that could c

confusing results. Field tests have borne out the lab results.

■ Befriending a Foe of the Gypsy Moth

Two decades of persistence by ARS scientists have renewe

attempts to establish a small Asian wasp in the United State

Gypsy moth caterpillars are the worst insect pests of forest a

shade trees in the East. But after an egg of a Rogas indiscre

wasp hatches inside the caterpillar, the young wasp eats the 

insides. From 1968 to 1977, scientists released about 30,00

wasps, which promptly vanished. But in 1994, the last year o

year monitoring study, scientists spotted several Rogas coco

The discovery led to the first new Rogas shipment in decade

about 200 cocoons collected in India and shipped to an ARS 

Delaware. Several thousand wasps are planned for release i

Maryland, Michigan, and Pennsylvania in 1997.

■ Tracing Leptospirosis to Its Source

An outbreak of human leptospirosis in Nicaragua was traced 

its source—dogs—using a diagnostic test developed by ARS 

narians. Before ARS diagnostic work, other researchers and 

officials suspected rats as the source of the bacteria. The dis

produced pulmonary hemorrhaging leading to illness and de

thousands of Nicaraguans. Humans can get leptospirosis fro

exposure to animal urine through contaminated soil or water

■ Cotton With Built-in Odor Resistance

A new antibacterial agent for cotton products uses peroxide 

magnesium to kill microbes and retain the antibacterial prop

for over 50 washes. Normally, industries such as diaper serv

use a chemical wash every time they clean diapers to impar

qualities. But now, the odor resistance can be built in. Other 

tial markets for the treatment, which is available for commer

licensing, could include athletic wear such as socks or shoe 

■ Good Reasons To Encapsulate Herbicides

When ARS scientists measured vapor losses after applicatio

alachlor and atrazine to unplowed cornfields, the results ver

advantages of encapsulating herbicides in cornstarch. Herb

that are sprayed on crop fields are exposed to wind, rain, an

temperatures that facilitate herbicide loss into the air as a va

Scientists found that these airborne herbicides can land in w

ways as far as 150 miles away. Encapsulating herbicides in 

starch packaging delivers them to the right spot in the soil, re

the chance that they’ll be lost in the air. Encapsulating also

decreases the risk of ground water contamination.
182

private partnerships that maximize resources and program impact. Partners in

other USDA agencies, Federal and State government departments, nonprofit 

zations, and private sector entities. Working closely with the land-grant unive

and their representatives enables more effective shared planning, delivery, an
182

resources of USDA, resulting in better customer service and an enhanced abi

respond to emerging issues and current national priorities. 

Mission

The mission of CSREES is to achieve significant and equitable improvem

domestic and global economic, environmental, and social conditions by adva

creative and integrated research, education, and extension programs in food, 

tural, and related sciences in partnership with both the public and private sect

CSREES leadership increases innovative scientific knowledge and provi

access to this knowledge; strengthens the research, higher education, and exte

capabilities of land-grant and other partnering institutions; increases access to 

use of improved communication and network systems; and enhances science

decisionmaking by producers, families, communities, and other customers. 

CSREES is committed to creating relevant, excellent, and useful researc

cation, and extension programs that improve economic, environmental, and s

conditions in the United States and globally. Critical quality of life issues add

include: improved agricultural productivity and new product development; s

cleaner food, water, and air; enhanced stewardship and management of our la

other natural resources; healthier, more responsible individuals, families, and 

munities; and a secure, diverse, and affordable national food supply.

Partnerships 

CSREES contributions are strengthened by a broad spectrum of public a

private partnerships that maximize resources and program impact. Partners in

other USDA agencies, Federal and State government departments, nonprofit 

zations, and private sector entities. Working closely with the land-grant unive

and their representatives enables more effective shared planning, delivery, an
Ove30 coeges oagcutue, cudg adgat sttuto

State and Territory,

■ 59 agricultural experiment stations with over 9,500 scientists con

research,

■ 57 cooperative extension services with over 9,600 local extension 

working in 3,150 counties,

■ CSREES Is

■ 5.4 million youth involved in 4-H programs that increase se

esteem, promote science literacy, and enhance problem-so

skills in a positive, supportive environment,

■ Managing Change in Agriculture, a national initiative to help 

agricultural producers respond to profound changes in how 

produced, processed, distributed, and marketed in the Unit

States and globally,

■ The National Research Initiative supporting research in the 

logical, physical, and social sciences to solve key agricultu

environmental problems,

■ World Wide Web access to seven national science-based d

sionmaking support databases (beef, dairy, pig, sheep, catfi

goat, and poultry) that help farmers, ranchers and produce

sound decisions in the face of increasing economic, enviro

tal, and social demands and the increasing complexity of te

gies and information management,

■ State-of-the-art competitive research programs on value-ad

product development, plant and animal genomes, integrate

management, water quality, human nutrition, food safety, a

and animal systems,

■ Higher education programs based on identified national ne

develop the scientific and professional expertise required to

advance the food, agricultural, and natural resources syste

maintain excellence in college and university teaching prog

■ Immediate electronic access to vital disaster safety and rec

information in time-critical disasters, such as hurricanes, w

and floods,

■ 3 million trained volunteers working with national outreach 

tion programs, 

■ Research-based, hands-on education programs in sustaina

agriculture; natural resource management and environmen

stewardship; water quality; food safety; children, youth, and 

lies; health; community economic development; and distan

education.
etesosystead couty oces tecoected tougateactve co

cation network, CSREES can respond in a timely and credible manner to crit

issues and public needs. 

For Further Information

Contact your local county extension office (offices are listed under local 

ment in the telephone directory), a land-grant university, or the Cooperative S

Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Washington, DC 20250-0900. Telephone: 202-720-3029; Fax: 202-690-0289

Internet: csrees@reeusda.gov or World Wide Web: http://www.reeusda.gov

Other CSREES URLs: http://www.reeusda.gov/statepartners/usa.htm

http://www.reeusda.gov/success/sum97.htm

■ Economic Research Service

The bottom-line benefits of biotech cotton and soybeans. Rising sales of nally improved foods. Hedge-to-arrive contracts, clause by clause. Prospe

U.S. grain sales in Asia. What happens when we change the Food Stamp prog

the welfare system. The outlook for wheat prices, and milk prices, and lettuce 

and pork belly prices, and sugar prices. The legacy of polluted creeks and riv

effects of tomato imports on U.S. producers. The formulas for Farm Act paym

The ebb and flow of rural population trends. Society’s burden from E. coli an

salmonella. 

It’s all economics. And USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) stays 

on top of it, dissects it, parses it, and tells the Nation and the world all about i

184
the welfare system. The outlook for wheat prices, and milk prices, and lettuce 

and pork belly prices, and sugar prices. The legacy of polluted creeks and riv

effects of tomato imports on U.S. producers. The formulas for Farm Act paym

The ebb and flow of rural population trends. Society’s burden from E. coli an

salmonella. 

It’s all economics. And USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) stays 

on top of it, dissects it, parses it, and tells the Nation and the world all about i

184
■ Agriculture is one of the three most hazardous U.S. occupa

CSREES-supported farm safety education programs in all 5

States and Puerto Rico teach volunteer firefighters and res

crews how to respond to farm accidents, certify training for 

safe operation of tractors and other machinery, and instill in 

dren a general awareness of farm hazards, including poiso

terrain vehicles, and other equipment. 

■ The CSREES AgrAbility project provides on-farm assistanc

over 2,000 farmers with disabilities and educates agricultur

rehabilitation, and health professionals on safely accommo

disability in agriculture. 

■ The CSREES Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program 

sustainable approach that manages crop pests through bio

cultural, physical, and chemical procedures to minimize eco

health, and environmental risks. 

■ CSREES is a leader in developing training programs for pu

and private pesticide applicators that combine education w

technology to minimize pesticide drift. Current pesticide app

programs train over half a million people each year on the s

and environmentally sound use of pesticides. 

■ CSREES water quality programs include Farm*A*Syst, an 

winning water pollution prevention program which conducts 

face and groundwater audits, and the Blue Thumb Project, 

brings water education into the community and empowers 

residents to address their own water problems.

■ CSREES environmental management flagship programs a

nationally recognized forexcellence in education for individu

and businesses seeking to improve management of air, wa

forests, rangelands, and fish and wildlife resources.

■ CSREES rural manufacturing modernization programs prov

technical assistance, business education, and training to sm

manufacturers in food processing, wood products, and othe

enterprises.

■ The CSREES Agricultural Telecommunications Program, e

lished in the 1990 Farm Bill, helps universities develop agri

telecommunications capacity by funding projects in support 

mal and nonformal courses, faculty and staff education, pro

delivery, community-based access to education, student tra

food and agricultural careers, facilitation of scientific interac

and expansion of agricultural markets for farmers. 

■ CSREES small farm programs include on-farm research to 

and incorporate new practices and technologies into smalle

agriculture.
ERS is USDA’s economic research Agency, providing information and a

on agriculture, food, natural resources, and rural America. The information pr

by ERS is used by farmers and consumers in the decisions they make and by 

officials in developing, administering, and evaluating agricultural and rural p

and programs.

The topics that ERS researches, analyzes, and monitors include:

■ Domestic and international agriculture,

■ Nutrition education and food assistance, food safety regulation, determ

of consumer demand for quality and safety, and food marketing trend

developments,

■ Agricultural resource and environmental issues, and 

■ National rural and agricultural conditions affecting the rural economy

financial performance of the farm sector, and the implications of chan

farm credit and financial market structures

ERS-produced information is available to the public through research rep

commodity and trade reports, electronic media, newspapers, magazines, radio

frequent participation of ERS staff at public forums. In addition, ERS publish

several periodicals, including Agricultural Outlook, FoodReview, Rural Cond

and Trends, and Rural Development Perspectives.

ERS has four principal functions: research, development of economic an

indicators, commodity and trade forecasting, and analysis of policy and progr

alternatives.

Research, together with economic and data indicators, provides the know

and the data base for the commodity and trade forecasting and policy and pro

analysis. The products are periodic reports for major agricultural commoditie

cultural exports, agricultural finance, agricultural resources, and world agricu

and analyses assessing issues requiring policy decisions by the Administratio

Congress.

ERS reports are available in a variety of formats. Printed reports can be o

through the ERS Information Center by calling (202) 219-0515. Many report

186

providing the education and technical assistance needed to hel

these countries make the transition to a market economy.

■ The CSREES Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program

(EFNEP) helps limited-resource youth, pregnant teens, and fam

lies with young children in all 50 States and 6 Territories improv

their nutritional well-being, make better use of their food dollars

and decrease the number of families on Food Stamps and WIC

■ CSREES collaborates with the ARS Children’s Nutrition Resear

Center, located at the College of Medicine at Baylor University, 

improve the nutrition education provided from kindergarten

through grade 12 and to link the medical, research, extension, a

education communities.

1862, the first Commissioner of the newly formed Department of Agricu

Newton, established a goal “to collect, arrange, and publish statistical an

ful agricultural information.” A year later, in July 1863, the Department’s 

Statistics issued the Nation’s first official Crop Production report. 

The structure of farming, ranching, and the agricultural industry has 

dramatically during the succeeding 135 years. The need for accurate, tim

objective statistical information about the Nation’s agriculture has becom

important as the country has moved from subsistence agriculture to a hig

alized business that produces food and fiber for the world market.

NASS is a world leader in the use of statistical methodology to prod

about agriculture. NASS statisticians provide consulting services to a lar

developing countries around the world, helping them develop statistical i

about their agriculture. NASS has also been a leader in making informati

through electronic media. Globalization of markets is expanding as buye

have nearly instant access to market information from around the world.

The 1997 U.S. Census of Agriculture will be conducted by NASS an

in January 1998. The Census of Agriculture functions have been transfer

Census Bureau in the Department of Commerce to NASS in the Departm

Agriculture. This move will link all major statistical services for agricult

county, State, and U.S.-level data provided in previous Census periods w

available from the 1997 Census of Agriculture. 

NASS headquarters is located in Washington, DC, and 45 State Stat

Offices (SSO’s) cover 120 crops and 45 livestock items annually in the 5

Current and historical information is published in approximately 400 rep

which feature:

■ Crop acreage, yield, production, and grain stocks,

■ Livestock, dairy, and poultry production and prospects,

■ Chemical use in agriculture,

■ 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 t

programs. In addition to the information above, estimates on more specia

modities, including hop stocks, mink, cherries, cranberries, lentils, and p

oil are also available. The information is geared toward producers and ca

plan planting, feeding, breeding, and marketing programs. The data are a

agricultural organizations, services, and businesses; trade groups; and fin
188

FAX 301-344-2311

shays@asrr.arsusda.gov 

FOIA Officer

Stasia Hutchison

Rm405, 6303 Ivy Ln, Greenbelt,MD 20

301-344-2207 

FAX 301-344-2325

shutchis@asrr.arsusda.gov
188

Agricultural Reasearch

Service

Dir., Infor. Staff 

Robert Norton 

Rm 450, 6303 Ivy Ln, Greenbelt,MD 20770

301-344-2340 

FAX 301-344-2325

rnorton@ars-grin.gov 

Audiovisual Br. Chief

Vacant 

6303 Ivy Lane, Greenbelt, MD 20770

301-344-2152 

FAX 301-344-2325

Current Info Br. Chief

Sandy Miller Hays 

Rm 441, 6303 Ivy Ln, Greenbelt,MD 20770

301-344-2303 

FAX 301-344-2311

shays@asrr.arsusda.gov 

Pubs. Branch Chief

Ruth Coy

Rm 400, 6303 Ivy Ln, Greenbelt,MD 2

301-344-2152 

FAX 301-344-2325

rcoy@asrr.arsusda.gov

Nutrition Infor Team

Dianne Odland 

Rm420, 6303 Ivy Ln, Greenbelt,MD 20

301-436-5196 

FAX 301-436-7626

dodland@asrr.arsusda.gov

Nat'l Visitor Ctr Head

Jay Green 

Bldg 302, BARC-E, Beltsville, MD 20

301-504-9403 

FAX 301-504-8069

jgreen@asrr.arsusda.gov

FOIA Officer

Stasia Hutchison

Rm405, 6303 Ivy Ln, Greenbelt,MD 20

301-344-2207 

FAX 301-344-2325

shutchis@asrr.arsusda.gov
Public Affairs Officer

Brian Norris

204-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-6778

FAX 301-504-5472

bnorris@nal.usda.gov 

Special Services & Comm.

Joseph Swab

204-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-6778

FAX 301-504-5472

jswab@nal.usda.gov 

Library Services 

(reference, lending, etc.)

1Flr-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5755 

FOIA Officer

Stasia Hutchison 

Rm405, 6303 Ivy Ln, Greenbelt,MD 20770

301-344-2207 

FAX 301-344-2325

shutchis@asrr.arsusda.gov 

NAL TDD/TTY

301-504-6856

DCRC TDD/TTY

202-720-3434

Information Centers Branch

Robyn Frank 

304-NAL,Beltsville, MD 20705

30l-504-5414

FAX 301-504-6409

rfrank@nal.usda.gov

Agricultural Trade and Marketing

Information Center

Mary Lassanyi

304-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

30l-504-5509

FAX 301-504-6409

mlassany@nal.usda.gov

Center

Jane Gates 

304-NAL Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5724

FAX 301-504-6409

jgates@nal.usda.gov

Animal Welfare Information C

Jean Larson 

304-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5215

FAX 301-504-7125

jlarson@nal.usda.gov

Food and Nutrition Informatio

Vacant

304-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5719 

FAX 301-504-6409

fnic@nal.usda.gov 

Rural Information Center

Patricia John

304-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5372 

FAX 301-504-5181

pjohn@nalusda.gov 

Rural Information Center

DC area & International 

301-504-5547 

304-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

All other U.S. calls 1-800-633-7

304-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

Reference & User Service Bran

Leslie Kulp

4Flr-NAL , Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-6875 

FAX 301-504-7098

lkulp@nal.usda.gov

Reference Section

Alvetta Pindell

100-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5204 

FAX 301-504-6927

apindell@nal.usda.gov 
190

1Flr-NAL , Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5479 

FAX 301-504-6927

agref@nal.usda.gov

Grain Dust Project

Sheldon Cheney 

100-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5204 

FAX 301-504-6927

scheney@nal.usda.gov 

Russian Wheat Aphids Project

Wayne Olson 

100-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5204 

FAX 301-504-6927

wolson@nal.usda.gov 

Educational Programs Unit

Deborah Richardson

100-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5204 

FAX 301-504-6927

drichard@nal.usda.gov 

Tours and Demonstrations

Deborah Richardson 

100-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5204 

FAX 301-504-6927

drichard@nal.usda.gov 

Biotechnology Information Center

Raymond Dobert 

4Flr-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-6875 

FAX 301-504-7098

rdobert@nal.usda.gov

Plant Genome Data and Infor. Center

Susan McCarthy 

4Flr-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-6875 

FAX 301-504-7098

pgenome@nal.usda.gov

3Flr-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-6503 

FAX 301-504-5675

speccoll@nal.usda.gov 

Technology Transfer Infor. Center

Kathleen Hayes 

4Flr-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-6875 

FAX 301-504-7098

khayes@nal.usda.gov 

Water Quality Information Center

Joseph Makuch

4Flr-NAL, Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-6875

FAX 301-504-7098

jmakuch@nal.usda.gov

D.C. Reference Center

Janet Wright 

Rm1052-S, Washington, DC 20250

202-720-3434 

FAX 202-720-3200

jwright@nal.usda.gov

Global Change

Janet Wright 

Rm1052-S, Washington, DC 20250

202-720-3434 

FAX 202-720-3200

jwright@nal.usda.gov

Cooperative State

Research, Education, an

Extension Service

Dep Admin, Comm., Tech.and Dista

Education 

Barbara A. White 

Rm 3328-S Washington, DC 2025

202-720-6133

FAX 202-690-0289

bwhite@reeusda.gov

Distance Education 

Barbara A. White 

Rm 3328-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-6133

FAX 202-690-0289

bwhite@reeusda.gov
Rm 348 Aerosp Washington, DC 20250

202-401-4186 

FAX 202-401-5174

jmcnamara@reeusda.gov 

Communications/Info. Access 

Jane Dodds 

Rm 3331-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-3401

FAX 202-690-0289

jdodds@reeusda.gov

Media Relations 

Len Careyc

Rm 3333-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-1358

FAX 202-690-0289

arey@reeusda.gov 

FOIA Officer

Jane Dodds 

Rm 3331-S Washington, DC 20250

301-720-3401

FAX 202-690-0289

jdodds@reeusda.gov

Economic Research

Service

Chief, Publishing & Communications

Adrie Custer 

301 N.Y. Ave.,NW, Rm. 237,

Washington,DC 20005-4788

202-219-05121

FAX 202-501-6250

acuster@econ.ag.gov 

Media Services

Jack Harrison

1301 N.Y. Ave.,NW, Rm. 237

Washington,DC 20005-4788

202-219-0510

FAX 202-501-6156

jackh@econ.ag.gov 

Outlook 

Diane Decker 

1301 N.Y. Ave.,NW, Rm. 237

Washington,DC 20005-4788

202-219-0509

FAX 202-219-0308

ddecker@econ.ag.gov

1301 N.Y. Ave.,NW, Rm. 237

Washington,DC 20005-4788

202-219-0519

FAX 202-501-6250

lhatcher@econ.ag.gov 

Research Publishing 

Thomas McDonald

1301 N.Y. Ave.,NW, Rm. 237

Washington,DC 20005 4788

202-219-0518

FAX 202-501-6250

thomasm@econ.ag.gov 

Design and Technology 

Douglas Parry

1301 N.Y. Ave.,NW, Rm. 237

Washington,DC 20005-4788

202-219-0585

FAX 202-501-6250

dparry@econ.ag.gov

Office of Energy & New Uses

Public Information Contact

James Duffield

1301 N.Y. Ave.,NW, Rm 1212

Washington,DC 20005-4788

202-501-6255

FAX 202-501-6338

duffield@econ.ag.gov 

ERS Information Center

Publications Dist. 

1301 N.Y. Ave.,NW, Rm. 110

Washington,DC 20005-4788

202-219-0515

FAX 202-219-0112

service@econ.ag.gov 

FOIA Coordinators

Valerie Herberger

Rm 456, 6303 Ivy Greenbelt, MD 

301-344-2066

FAX 301-344-2325

Lnvherberg@assr.arsusda.gov 

Stasia Hutchison

Rm 456, 6303 Ivy Ln

Greenbelt, MD 20770

301-344-2207

FAX 301-344-2325

shutchis@asrr.arsusda.gov 
192

Statistics Service

There are a variety of ways to obtain NASS

reports, data products, and services:

Reports/Publications Sales Order Desk 

1-800-999-6779 

FAX:703-834 0110

(Free catalog available upon request)

Internet World Wide Web:

http://www.usda.gov/nass/

Gopher Site/Telenet/FTP:

HOST=usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

NASSFax (Autofax)

202-720-2000

(To obtain current U. S. summary pages andhighlights of selected reports, pick up the

receiver on your facsimile machine, dial the

number, listen and follow the voice

prompts.Ask for Document Number 0411 for

a completelisting of NASS reports/highlights

available from the autofax.)

Information Hotline

1-800-727-9540

FAX:202-690-2060

For general agricultural statistics or 

further information about NASS or 

its products or services

Hours: 7:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. M-F

nass@nass.usda.gov

Census of Agriculture Information 

1-800-523-3215

FAX:301-763 8499

Hours: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. M-F

nass@nass.usda.gov

CONTACTS:

Agricultural Statistics Board Release

Schedule

William Pratt 

Rm. 5805-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-7017 

FAX 202-690-1311

Bpratt@nass.usda.gov

Census Division

Statistical Methods and Programming 

301-763-8571

Forecasts and Estimates

U.S. and State crop statistics

202-720-2127

U.S. and State livestock, dairy,

and poultry statistics 

202-720-6146

U.S. and State farm and labor statistic

202-720-3570

Statistical Consulting and Surveys

202-720-4557

Reimbursable Public Agricultural Sur

202-720-2248

Statistical Research

703-235-7511

NASSFreedom of Information Officer

Valerie Herberger 

301-344-2066

State-Specific Agricultural Statistic

nass-*@nass.usda.gov

(Replace asterisks with State code, 

such as AL for Alabama)

State Statistical Offices

State Statistical Offices can offer som

additional data breakouts not found in

national publications. For information 

about a particular State, Call the State

Statistician at any of the following offi

Alabama (Montgomery, AL) 

334-279-3555

Alaska (Palmer, AK) 

907-745-4272

Arizona (Phoenix, AZ) 

602-280-8850

Arkansas (Little Rock, AR) 

501-296-9926

California (Sacramento, CA) 

916-498-5161
303-236-2300

Delaware (Dover, DE) 

302-739-4811

Florida (Orlando, FL) 

407-648-6013

Georgia (Athens, GA) 

706-546-2236

Hawaii (Honolulu, HI) 

808-973-2907

Idaho (Boise, ID) 

208-334-1507

Illinois (Springfield, IL) 

217-492-4295

Indiana (West Lafayette, IN) 

765-494-8371

Iowa (Des Moines, IA) 

515-284-4340

Kansas (Topeka, KS) 

913-233-2230

Kentucky (Louisville, KY) 

502-582-5293

Louisiana (Baton Rouge, LA) 

504-922-1362

Maryland (Annapolis, MD) 

410-841-5740

Michigan (Lansing, MI) 

517-377-1831

Minnesota (St. Paul, MN) 

612-296-2230

Mississippi (Jackson, MS) 

601-965-4575

Missouri (Columbia, MO) 

573-876-0950

406-441-1240

Nebraska (Lincoln, NE) 

402-437-5541

Nevada (Reno, NV) 

702-784-5584

New England (Concord, NH) 

603-224-9639

New Jersey (Trenton, NJ) 

609-292-6385

New Mexico (Las Cruces, NM) 

505-522-6023

New York (Albany, NY) 

518-457-5570

North Carolina (Raleigh, NC) 

919-856-4394

North Dakota (Fargo, ND) 

701-239-5306

Ohio (Reynoldsburg, OH) 

614-728-2100

Oklahoma (Oklahoma City, O

405-525-9226

Oregon (Portland, OR) 

503-326-2131

Pennsylvania (Harrisburg, PA

717-787-3904

South Carolina (Columbia, SC

803-765-5333

South Dakota (Sioux Falls, SD

605-330-4235

Tennessee (Nashville, TN) 

615-781-5300

Texas (Austin, TX) 

512-916-5581
194

801-524-5003

Virginia (Richmond, VA) 

804-771-2493

Washington (Olympia, WA) 

360-902-1940

304-345-5958

Wisconsin (Madison, WI) 

608-224-4848

Wyoming (Cheyenne, WY) 

307-772-2181
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 b

food from the farm to your table. Yet, this state-of-the-art marketing syst

it possible to pick and choose from a variety of products, available all ye

tailored to meet the demands of today’s lifestyles. Millions of people—fr

to retailer—make this marketing system work. Buyers, traders, scientists

workers, transportation experts, wholesalers, distributors, retailers, adver

firms—in addition to the Nation’s farmers—all help create a marketing s

is unsurpassed by any in the world. And USDA’s Agricultural Marketing 

(AMS) helps make sure the U.S. marketing system remains world-class.

Services to Promote Quality: Grading, Quality Standa

and Certification 

Wherever or whenever you shop, you expect good, uniform quality 

able prices for the food you purchase. AMS quality grade standards, grad

laboratory services are voluntary tools that industry can use to help prom

and to communicate that quality to consumers. Industry pays for these se

they are voluntary, so their widespread use by industry indicates they are 

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 fruit

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 

transactions easier whether they are local or made over long distances. C

as well as those involved in the marketing of agricultural products, benefi

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 m

characteristics important to consumers. Prime, Choice, and Select are all 

familiar to consumers of beef.
tee eacocces, eggs, ad tueys. Ote otead, tee ae 5 ga

cotton, and more than 300 fruit, vegetable, and specialty product standards.

The food testing side of the AMS program has 11 “user fee” laboratories 

forming numerous microbiological, chemical, and physical analyses on a hos

and fiber commodities, including processed dairy products, meat, poultry, egg 

ucts, and fruits and vegetables. This testing supports AMS purchases for the N

School Lunch Program and other domestic feeding programs, troop ration sp

tions for the Department of Defense, foreign government food contract purch

laboratory quality control and assurance programs, and testing for aflatoxin 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

the terms of their contracts—with respect to quality, processing, size, packag

delivery. If a large buyer—such as a school district, hospital, prison, or the m

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 me

be postponed while the mistake gets corrected. Graders review and accept ag

tural products to make sure they meet specifications set by private-sector purc

They also certify food items purchased for Federal feeding programs.

AMS has developed quality assurance (QA) services that include Hazard

Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) and International Organization of

Standardization (ISO)-based programs. These programs ensure and documen

companies’ operations are in compliance with provisions of contracts and/or 

own standards and procedures. QA services are voluntary, hourly-fee-based, 

value-added. HACCP concepts and procedures have been recommended by t

National Academy of Sciences for application in the food industry, and ISO pr

are becoming an international norm for some processes.

196

■ Facts about grading: 

From October 1995 through September 1996, USDA graded 35 per

cent of the shell eggs and 95 percent of the butter produced in the

United States. Ninety-one billion pounds of fresh fruits and vegetable

and more than 13 billion pounds of processed fruits and vegetables

received a USDAgrade mark. Nearly all of the meat industry reques

AMS grading services: USDAgrades were applied to 82 percent of a

beef, 86 percent of all lambs, 18 percent of all veal and calves, 71 pe

cent of all turkeys, and 49 percent of all chickens and other poultry m

keted in this country. USDA also graded more than 98 percent of the

cotton and 97 percent of the tobacco produced in the United States.
aet News ouptoteute oatoocoodty pces ad 

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 

ensuring consumers a stable and reasonably priced food supply.

AMS Market News reporters generate approximately 700 reports ea

collected from more than 100 U.S. locations. Reports cover local, region

and international markets for dairy, livestock, meat, poultry, grain, fruit, 

tobacco, cotton, and specialty products. Weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, and 

reports track the longer-range performance of cotton, dairy products, pou

eggs, fruits, vegetables, specialty crops, livestock, meat, grain, floral pro

wool, and tobacco. Periodically, AMS issues special reports on such com

as 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 dir

user; telephone recorders; electronic access through the Market News Com

System, the Market News Bulletin Board, and the Internet; and by direct 

USDA reporters.

Buying Food: Helping Farmers, School Children, and 

Needy 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 pr

The Nation’s food assistance programs benefit from these purchases, bec

foods go to low-income individuals who might otherwise be unable to af

Some of the programs and groups that typically receive USDA-purc

include: children in the National School Lunch, Summer Camp, and Scho

Programs; Native Americans participating in the Food Distribution Progr

Indian Reservations; older Americans through the Nutrition Program for 

and low-income and homeless persons through the Commodity Supplem

Program and the Emergency Food Assistance Program. In addition, USD

provide disaster relief by making emergency purchases of commodities f

tion to disaster victims.

Once USDA determines that a purchase is appropriate, AMS publicl

bids, and makes sure that the food it purchases meets quality and nutritio

Often, AMS specifies that foods be low in fat, sugar, and sodium. By pol

only purchases products that are 100 percent domestic in origin.

Pesticides: Information and Records 

Many Americans are concerned about the use and potential negative 

agricultural pesticides. Recognizing this concern, AMS began coordinati

Pesticide Data Program (PDP) in 1991. Through agreements with nine S

collects and analyzes samples of fresh and processed produce and grain f
198

te pubc oed about te saety ote Natos ood suppy. e vo

Protection Agency (EPA) uses PDP data to support pesticide reregistration an

special review decisions, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) uses 

data to enforce EPA-established tolerances and FDA guidelines for food safe

In addition to the PDP, AMS also has the primary responsibility for the P

Recordkeeping Program. This program requires all certified private applicato

federally restricted-use pesticides to maintain records of all applications. The

records will support collection of data to help analyze agricultural pesticide u

will also be helpful to health care professionals when treating individuals wh

have been exposed to an agricultural chemical. AMS strives to provide outrea

educational support to States and private applicators to broaden their understa

and participation in the program.

Helping Farmers Promote Their Products 

“The Touch...the Feel of Cotton...the Fabric of Our Lives,” “Beef...It’s W

for Dinner,” “Milk—Where’s your mustache?”, “Think Flowers” If you’ve w

television or read magazines lately, you’ve probably heard or read these sloga

others for a host of agricultural commodities. All of these promotional campa

part of the Research and Promotion Programs that AMS oversees.

Federal research and promotion programs, each authorized by separate le

tion, are designed to improve farmers’incomes through promotion of their pr

The programs are all fully funded by industry assessments. Board members a

nated by industry and appointed officially by the Secretary of Agriculture. AM

sees the activities of the boards or councils and approves budgets, in order to 

compliance with the legislation.

Currently, there are research and promotion programs for beef, pork, cott

cut flowers and greens, dairy products, eggs, fluid milk, honey, mushrooms, p

soybeans, and watermelons.

But, while advertising is one part of these programs, product research an

development is also a major focus. Wrinkle-resistant cotton and low-choleste

fat dairy products are just two examples of how these programs have benefitt

consumers and expanded markets for producers.

New generic commodity promotion, research, and information legislatio

was enacted as part of the 1996 Farm Bill to make Federal promotion and res

programs available to more commodities.

■ Facts about marketing: The national Fluid Milk Processors Promot

program began its “Milk—Where’s your mustache?” campaign in

1995, featuring photographs of famous personalities wearing “milk

mustaches.” The board estimates that 147 million consumers have

already been reached by this promotion
es coe togeteto woat sovg aetg pobes tey caot so

ally. Marketing orders are flexible tools that can be tailored to the needs of 

conditions for producing and selling. But they are also legal instruments th

force of law, with USDAensuring an appropriate balance between the inte

ducers looking for a fair price and consumers who expect an adequate, qu

at a reasonable price.

Federal milk marketing orders, for example, establish minimum pric

handlers or dealers must pay to producers for milk, depending on how th

be used—whether fluid milk or cheese. Federal milk orders help build m

marketing conditions by operating at the first level of trade, where milk l

farm and enters the marketing system. They are flexible in order to cope 

changes. They assure that consumers will have a steady supply of fresh m

times. 

Marketing agreements and orders also help provide stable markets f

vegetable, and specialty crops like nuts and raisins, to the benefit of prod

consumers. They help farmers produce for a market, rather than having t

whatever happens to be produced. A marketing order may help an indust

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, 

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.

The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) program prom

trading in the fresh and frozen fruit and vegetable industry. Through PAC

and sellers are required to live up to the terms of their contracts, and proc

available for resolving disputes outside the civil court system.

Fruit and vegetable buyers and sellers need this assurance because o

perishable nature of their products. Trading in produce is considerably di

trading for a car, a computer, or even grain. When a vegetable grower do

paid, the product usually can’t be reclaimed before it spoils—or before it 

been consumed.

Although PACA was initiated to protect producers, it benefits consu

entire produce industry. Over the past decade, AMS has handled nearly 4

complaints, not just from growers, but also from grower-agents, grower-

brokers, wholesalers, retailers, and processors. PACA is funded by licens

by industry, but the bottom line is that fair trade and resolved disputes m

nesses of any size can operate in a better trade environment and consume

a wider choice of reasonably priced, high-quality fruits and vegetables.

The Federal Seed Act (FSA) protects everyone who buys seed by pr

false labeling and advertising of seed in interstate commerce. The FSA a

ments State seed laws by prohibiting the shipment of seed containing exc
seeds, geatopecetage ad te date tested, ad te ae ad addess 

shipper. USDA also tests seed for seedsmen and seed buyers on a fee-for-serv

basis to determine quality.

The Plant Variety Protection Act provides patent-like protection to breed

of plants that reproduce both sexually, that is, through seeds, and through tub

Developers of new plant varieties can apply for certificates of protection. Thi

tection enables the breeder to market the variety exclusively for 20 years and

doing, creates an incentive for investment in the development of new plant va

Since 1970, AMS’ Plant Variety Protection Office has issued more than 3,000 

cates of protection.

The Agricultural Fair Practices Act allows farmers to file complaints with 

if a processor refuses to deal with them because they are members of a produ

bargaining or marketing association. The Act makes it unlawful for handlers 

coerce, intimidate, or discriminate against producers because they belong to s

groups. USDA helps to institute court proceedings when farmers’rights are f

to be so violated.

Organic Certification 

AMS is responsible for implementing an organic certification program, w

was authorized by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) as part of the 1

Farm Bill. The OFPA requires that all agricultural products labeled as organic 

duced and handled according to national standards and that organic productio

handling practices be certified by a State or private certifying agent accredite

USDA. AMS also would evaluate foreign certification programs to determine 

imported organic agricultural products are produced and handled under equiv

standards.

The goals of the national organic certification program are to

■ Establish national standards governing the marketing of certain produ

organically produced,

■ Assure consumers that organically grown products meet uniform stan

and

■ Facilitate interstate commerce in fresh and processed food that is orga

produced.

The OFPA also established the National Organic Standards Board, which 

first appointed in January 1992, to provide AMS with recommendations for th

national program and specifically to review substances that may be used in th

production and handling of organic food. 

Direct Marketing and Wholesale Market Development 

AMS continually seeks ways to help farmers and marketers improve the 

food marketing system. For example, AMS’ Federal-State Marketing Improv

Program (FSMIP) provides matching funds to State Departments of Agricultu

conduct research that will help develop or improve local marketing systems. 

of the program is to reduce costs or expand markets for producers, ultimately b

200
pace to test aette esuts, ad deveopg State epetse pov

to marketers of agricultural products. In FY 1996, the FSMIP program fu

projects in 21 States for $1.2 million. 

The Wholesale and Alternative Markets Program (W&AM) works t

the handling, processing, packaging, storage, and distribution of agricult

ucts. AMS researchers work with local governments and food industry g

develop modern, efficient, wholesale food distribution centers and farme

In FY 1996, W&AM initiated eight market studies, completed nine, and 

work on five other long-term projects. 

Moving U.S. Agricultural Products to Consumers 

An efficient transportation system allows consumers access to a wid

of agricultural products and commodities produced beyond their own loc

AMS, through its Transportation and Marketing Division, conducts 

the availability and costs of transportation services for U.S. agricultural p

addressing policy issues which affect movement of agricultural products 

trucks, inland barges, and ocean-going vessels. AMS staff also provide te

assistance to agricultural shippers who are marketing their products in do

international markets. Agricultural producers, producer groups, shippers

rural communities, carriers, and consumers benefit from the analyses, tec

assistance, and information provided by AMS transportation staff. 

Produce Locally, Think Globally 

To remain competitive in today’s world, American agriculture has b

global, and AMS has striven to be a strong partner in expanding markets 

agricultural products.

The AMS role in the international marketing of U.S. commodities ce

quality grading and certification programs, which are user-funded. Gradi

determining whether a product meets a set of quality standards. Certifica

that contract specifications have been met—in other words, that the buye

the product in the condition and quantity described by the terms of the co

commodity graders frequently support other USDA agencies involved in 

assistance, including the Farm Service Agency and the Foreign Agricultu

U.S. companies often request certification services when exporting t

that has specific import requirements. Certification services provided by 

avoid rejection of shipments or delay in delivery once the product reache

destination. Delays lead to product deterioration and, ultimately, affect th

■ Fact about farmers’ markets: USDA defines a farmers’ market 

group of farmers and vendors leasing or renting space in a co

facility on a temporary basis, with an emphasis on the sale of 

farm products, crafts, and other locally produced items. USDA 

mates there are currently 2,410 farmers’ markets in the U.S.
202

docueted quaty aageet syste. e pogawas deveoped to po

world-class quality and to improve the international competitiveness of U.S. li

and meat.

AMS also provides laboratory testing for exporters of domestic food com

ties on a fee basis in keeping with sanitary and phytosanitary requirements of 

countries. To date, this service has been requested by exporters of products de

for Japan, South Korea, and other Pacific Rim countries, South Africa, severa

European Union countries, and countries of the former Soviet Union.

For selected fruits, vegetables, nuts (including peanuts), and specialty cro

grading of imports is mandatory. For the most part, however, firms importing 

tural products into the United States use grading services voluntarily. AMS gra

also often asked to demonstrate commodity quality to foreign firms and govern

In addition to export grading and certification services, AMS market new

provide information on sales and prices of both imports and exports. Today, U

market participants can receive market information on livestock and meat fro

Venezuela, New Zealand, Japan and other Pacific Rim markets, Poland, Mex

Canada, and Australia; fruits and vegetables from France, Great Britain, Bulg

Poland, Mexico, New Zealand, and Canada; ornamentals from Germany, Fra

and Mexico; and a host of products from Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Russia.

AMS participates in a number of international forums that aim to facilita

agricultural trade and avoid potential trade barriers. Technical assistance has 

provided to countries in Eastern and Central Europe, and elsewhere around th

to improve their marketing systems. With improved transportation, distributio

marketing information systems, these countries will become better customers 

U.S. food and fiber products.

Whether at home or abroad, AMS strives to help U.S. agriculture market i

dant, high-quality products. And AMS will continue to work to help U.S. agric

market its products in growing world markets, while assuring U.S. consumers 

abundant supply of high-quality, wholesome food at reasonable prices.

■ Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:

Protecting Agricultural Health and Productiv

Why are the farmers and ranchers of the United States able to produce so food for the tables of America’s consumers? 

Of course, there’s no simple answer. But one key to this plentiful supply 

food 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 team

effort—good husbandry by farmers and ranchers plus an organized effort to c

and eradicate pests and disease and to prevent the entry of devastating foreign

plagues.

Just like frosts, floods, and droughts, pests and diseases can wreak havoc 

agricultural productivity, depressing farm incomes and driving up food costs 
potectg oucoutys agcutuaeat. e esut s a oe abuda

quality, and cheaper food supply than is found anywhere else in the worl

Agriculture is an important sector in our economy, and APHIS helps 

that it remains healthy and strong. With the advent of free trade initiative

network of countries has agreed that valid agricultural health concerns—

not economics—are the only acceptable basis for trade restrictions. In th

ment, our country’s agricultural health infrastructure will be our farmers

seeking new export markets. 

Excluding Foreign Pests and Diseases

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection

Agriculture, America’s biggest industry and its largest employer, is u

stant threat of attack. The enemies are countless and often microscopic, a

gain access to our country in surprising ways. Their potential allies are e

entering the United States and every American business importing agricu

products from other countries. 

Many passengers entering the United States don’t realize that one pi

packed in a suitcase has the potential to cause millions of dollars in dama

agriculture. Forbidden fruits and vegetables can carry a whole range of p

and pests. Oranges, for example, can introduce diseases like citrus canke

like the Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly).

Similarly, sausages and other meat products from many countries ca

animal disease organisms that can live for many months and even surviv

Meat scraps from abroad could end up in garbage that is fed to swine. If 

came from animals infected with a disease, such as African swine fever, 

or foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), it easily could be passed to domestic 

a serious epidemic could result.

Agricultural quarantine inspection is the first line of defense against 

pests and diseases. Seven days a week, approximately 1,300 APHIS insp

on duty at international airports, seaports, and border stations to inspect p

and baggage for plant and animal products that could be harboring pests 

organisms. These APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) inspect

millions of passengers and their baggage each year for plant or animal pe

diseases that might harm U.S. agriculture. They also inspect ship cargoes

truck freight, and mail from foreign countries.
Ships Inspected 52,119 53,374 47,887 53,270 55,205 

Aircraft Inspected 356,915 378,643 378,634 451,342 401,741 

Passengers and 

Crew Inspected 53,999,523 58,103,711 56,920,156 62,548,979 65,645,734 66

Interceptions of 

Plant Material 1,527,922 1,723,004 1,474,569 1,442,214 1,583,687 1

Interceptions 

of Pests 56,213 54,831 51,829 54,831 58,032 

Interceptions of 

Meat/Poultry Products 205,407 246,878 224,340 281,230 223,392 

Baggage Civil 

Penalties-Number -29,089 29,700 27,137 22,164 21,813 

Baggage Civil 

PenaltiesAmount 

of Fines $1,299,270 $1,537,590 $1,407,000 $1,186,310 $1,098,220 $1

204

■ From high-tech to a keen nose, APHIS uses a variety of means to exclude 

eign pests and protect American agriculture. PPQ inspectors augment visu

inspection with some 75 x-ray units that help check passenger baggage an

mail for prohibited agricultural materials. They also have enlisted trained

detector dogs and their keen sense of smell to help sniff out prohibited frui

and meat. On leashes and under the constant supervision of their handlers

the friendly beagles in USDA’s “Beagle Brigade” have checked the baggag

of passengers arriving from overseas for the past 10 years.

■ Currently, APHIS has about 50 canine teams at 21 airports, including 19 of

America’s 20 busiest international airports. Dogs also are used at three pos

offices. In addition to their actual function, the Beagle Brigade serves as an

effective symbol of the need to protect American agriculture and the Nation

food supply from foreign pests. The Beagle Brigade program was responsib

for approximately 60,000 seizures of prohibited agriculture products in FY 1

■ From Taffy at Los Angeles to Abbott in Miami, the Beagle Brigade spans th

United States. At Los Angeles International Airport, beagle Taffy is 3 years 

and was trained at John F. Kennedy International Airport, NY. Her favorite

treats are rawhide treats, and she likes looking for apples and oranges. In 

1995 Taffy worked 690 flights and made 490 seizures. Her hobbies are pla

ing with colleagues, especially fellow USDA detector dog Kojak, and her b

trick is shaking hands.

■ Abbott (nicknamed “The Little Prince of PPQ”) is 5 years old and works at

Miami International Airport. His favorite smells are beef and pork, and in 19

he worked 815 flights and made 1,315 seizures. Abbott’s proudest momen

include finding 30 pounds of pork and a 25–pound ham.
a cops oepets statoed oveseas, as weas S oces otepo

to bolster the Nation’s defenses against exotic pests and diseases. Often i

practical and effective to check and monitor commodities for pests or dis

source through preclearance programs. APHIS has special arrangements 

ber of countries for preclearance programs, which are summarized in the 

table.

Country Commodities

Argentina Apples & pears

Australia Apples, nashi pears, pears, grapes

Belgium Bulbs

Brazil Mangoes (hot water treatment)

Chile Stonefruit, berries, grapes, cut flowe

fruits & vegetables

Colombia Mangoes (hot water treatment)

Costa Rica Mangoes (hot water treatment), papa

Ecuador Mangoes (hot water treatment), melo

zone)

France Apples

Great Britain Bulbs

Guatemala Mangoes (hot water treatment)

Haiti Mangoes (hot water treatment)

Ireland Bulbs

Israel Bulbs

Jamaica Ugli fruit, cut flowers, papaya, & 28 

other commodities

Japan Sand pears, Unshu oranges, Fuji app

Korea Sand pears, mandarin oranges

Mexico Mangoes (hot water treatment), citru

(fumigation or from free zone), appl

New Zealand Apples, pears, Nashi pears

The Netherlands Bulbs

Nicaragua Mangoes (hot water treatment)

Peru Mangoes (hot water treatment)

Scotland Bulbs

South Africa Apples, pears, plums, grapes

Spain Lemons, clementines, Valencia oran

Taiwan Mangoes (hot water treatment)

Turkey Bulbs

Venezuela Mangoes (hot water treatment)
toopat ad aaeat; woto stegteatoa, egoa, ad t

tional agricultural health organizations; and cooperate in international progra

against certain pests and diseases that directly threaten American agriculture. 

of the latter are the MOSCAMED program—which combats Medfly infestati

Mexico and Guatemala—and a program to eradicate screwworms, a parasitic 

of warm-blooded animals. Screwworm flies lay their eggs on the edge of ope

wounds, and the developing larvae feed on the living flesh of the host. Left un

the infestation can be fatal.

Screwworms were eradicated from the United States through the use of t

sterile insect technique. With this method, millions of screwworm flies are re

captivity, sterilized, and then released over infested areas to mate with native 

flies. Eggs produced through such matings do not hatch, and the insect literal

breeds itself out of existence.

To provide further protection to U.S. livestock, starting in 1972, eradicat

efforts were moved southward from the U.S.-Mexico border, with the eventu

of establishing a barrier of sterile flies across the Isthmus of Panama. To date

worms have been eradicated from Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, and 

Salvador. Eradication efforts continue in Nicaragua and Costa Rica. An agree

has been signed to start an eradication program and construct a new rearing f

in Panama. Currently a production plant at Tuxtla-Gutierrez in Chiapas in sou

Mexico can produce up to 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

the northern part of that country.

Coping with Invasions

If, despite our best efforts, foreign pests or diseases do manage to slip pa

our border defenses, APHIS conducts appropriate control and eradication me

Examples include Mediterranean fruit fly eradication projects in California in 

early 1990’s and outbreaks of exotic Newcastle disease in pet birds in several 

during the 1980’s.

APHIS has a special cadre of people who deal with introductions of exot

pests. Known as “Rapid Response Teams,” these groups have been mobilized 

several occasions to combat costly infestations of Medflies. 

Early detection of exotic animal diseases by alert livestock producers and 

ticing veterinarians who contact specially trained State and Federal veterinari

the key to their quick detection and elimination. More than 300 such trained v

narians are located throughout the United States to investigate suspected fore

diseases. Within 24 hours of diagnosis, one of two specially trained task force

APHIS’ Veterinary Services can be mobilized at the site of an outbreak to imp

the measures necessary to eradicate the disease.

Currently, APHIS officials are actively working to prevent the entry of bo

spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)—sometimes referred to as “mad cow dise

This disease has had a serious impact on the British livestock industry. BSE h

206
uat poteoGeat taad otecoutes wee Ss 

exist. In addition, APHIS has conducted a BSE surveillance program sin

Specialists have examined brain specimens from more than 3,300 cattle 

found no evidence of BSE.

Import-Export Regulations

APHIS is responsible for enforcing regulations governing the impor

of plants and animals and certain agricultural products. 

Import requirements depend on both the product and the country of 

and plant materials usually must be accompanied by a phytosanitary cert

by an official of the exporting country. Livestock and poultry must be ac

by a health certificate, also issued by an official of the exporting country. 

products, such as meats and hides, are restricted if they originate in coun

have a different disease status than 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 other countries must be quarantined at one of four animal import ce

Newburgh, NY; Miami, FL; Los Angeles, CA; and Honolulu, HI. A spec

security animal import center at Key West, FL, provides a safe means of 

animals from countries where foot-and-mouth disease exists.

Personally owned pet birds can enter through one of six USDA-oper

quarantine facilities: New York, NY; Miami, FL; San Ysidro, CA; Hidalg

Los Angeles, CA; and Honolulu, HI. 

Pet birds from Canada can enter without quarantine because Canada

disease programs and import rules are similar to those of the United Stat

mercial shipments of pet birds can enter through one of 60 privately own

supervised quarantine facilities. 

APHIS cooperates with the U.S. Department of the Interior in carryi

provisions of the Endangered Species Act that deal with imports and exp

endangered plant, animal, or bird species. APHIS inspectors at ports of e

trained to identify these species and to notify Interior of any species prot

the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) f

inspection. Also, at many ports, APHIS officers inspect and sample seed im

foreign countries to ensure that it is accurately labeled and free of noxious 

APHIS also maintains 14 plant introduction stations, the largest of w

Miami, FL, for commercial importation of plant materials. Smaller statio

Orlando, FL; San Juan, PR; JFK International Airport, Jamaica, NY; Hob

Houston, El Paso, and Los Indios (Brownsville), TX; Nogales, AZ; San D

Los Angeles, and San Francisco, CA; Seattle, WA; and Honolulu, HI.

To facilitate agricultural exports, APHIS officials certify the health o

and animals that are shipped to foreign countries. APHIS assures that U.

plant products meet the plant quarantine import requirements of foreign 

This assurance is in the form of a phytosanitary certificate, issued by APH
208

s wttecoutepats Q wo deawtpat ateaepots, 

Veterinary Services (VS) officials and its National Center for Import and Exp

provide health certification for animals and animal products designated for ex

Examinations and tests—usually done by USDA-accredited veterinarians—c

both U.S. export health requirements and the frequently complex import requ

ments of the receiving nation. A VS veterinarian endorses export health certifi

after all tests and other requirements have been met. Then a final examination 

conducted by a VS veterinarian at the port of export before the livestock or p

leave the country. During 1994, livestock exports increased by 30 percent ove

previous year.

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

In 1996. for instance, APHIS and Food Safety and Inspection Service official

dinated negotiations to avert a Russian embargo on U.S. poultry exports wort

million a year. On the plant side, efforts by APHIS and Foreign Agricultural S

officials helped maintain U.S. wheat exports after the March 1996 discovery 

outbreak of Karnal bunt, a fungal disease of wheat, in Arizona. The United St

the world’s leading wheat exporter, accounting for one-third of world wheat e

U.S. wheat exports in calendar 1995 were valued at $5.5 billion.

Domestic Plant Health Programs

In most cases, plant pest problems are handled by individual farmers, ran

other property owners, and their State or local governments. However, when 

insect, weed, or disease poses a particularly serious threat to a major crop, the

Nation’s forests, or other plant resources, APHIS may join in the control work

Most pests and weeds that are targets of APHIS’ Plant Protection and Qu

programs are not native to America. They gained entry into this country throu

commercial trade channels, international travelers, or other means.

When pests are new to this country, control techniques may not be availa

any case, PPQ applies interstate quarantines and takes other steps to prevent s

until effective control measures can be developed.

In many cases, foreign pests are only minor problems in their native land

because they are kept in check by native parasites, predators, and diseases. Si

many of these natural enemies may not exist in the United States, one of PPQ

trol techniques—in cooperation with USDA’s Agricultural Research Service—

importation, rearing, and release of parasites and other biological control org

Biocontrol—Nature’s Way

In its classical sense, biological control means using predators, parasites, 

pathogens to combat plant pests. Predators and parasites include insects, mite

nematodes that naturally attack a target pest. Pathogens include bacteria, viru

or fungi that cause diseases specifically injurious to a target pest.

Biological control was first put to broad, practical use in the United State

the 1880’s. At that time, California citrus groves were being devastated by an 

insect, the cottony-cushion scale. A USDA scout working in Australia found t
as ept te scae sect ocausg ecooc daage evesce. 

To coordinate the important search for new and better biocontrol opp

a National Biological Control Institute was established in APHIS in 1989

Institute’s mission is to promote, facilitate, and provide leadership for bio

control. Its main job is to compile and release technical information and 

the work needed to find, identify, and augment or distribute new biologic

agents. 

The Institute relies on scientists from ARS and elsewhere to identify 

useful biological control agents. These agents are carefully screened at q

centers before being put to use.

Various agencies have successfully cooperated on biocontrol project

example, several decades ago, ARS scientists found six species of stingl

in Europe that keep alfalfa weevils in check. In 1980, APHIS took on the 

establishing these beneficial wasps across the land. Between 1980 and 19

and its cooperators raised and distributed about 17 million wasps, and to

beneficial wasps within reach of virtually every alfalfa field in the countr

mated that the benefits of the alfalfa weevil biocontrol program amount t

million per year, representing a return of about $87 for each $1 spent on 

Other APHIS biocontrol programs currently underway in cooperatio

agencies include efforts against the cereal leaf beetle, sweet potato white

wheat aphid, Colorado potato beetle, euonymus scale, brown citrus aphid

spurge, diffuse and spotted knapweed, and common crupina. Promising b

agents for other pests are being tested at PPQ biocontrol labs located at M

Niles, MI, and Bozeman, MT.

“Deliver Us from Weevil”—Boll Weevil Eradication

One major domestic program PPQ is coordinating is the effort to era

weevils from the United States. The boll weevil entered this country from 

the late 1890’s and soon became a major pest of cotton. It has caused an 

$12 billion in losses to the Nation’s economy. In 1973, it was estimated t

cides applied to control boll weevils accounted for about one-third of the 

to agricultural crops in the United States. 

The success of a 1971-73 cooperative boll weevil eradication experi

tions of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama involving Federal and State 

and grower associations led to two 3-year demonstration projects. One w

cation trial in North Carolina and Virginia; the second was an optimum p

ment trial in Mississippi. The eradication trial was a success in 1980, and 

has undergone regular, incremental expansion since that time. 

The current boll weevil eradication effort judiciously applies pestici

on the number of adult weevils trapped around cotton fields. The traps co

pheromone (insect attractant) and a small amount of insecticide that kills 

weevils. In eradication program areas, one to three traps are placed per a

checked weekly. Pesticides are applied only to fields that reach a predete

number of trapped weevils. This selective use of pesticides results in fiel
g ay uteeed to spay ots pest. s adect beet oeat

boll weevil, growers are able to maintain beneficial insects that help control m

secondary pests. This further reduces the amount of pesticide used each seaso

produce the cotton crop.

The table below shows the progress in eradicating boll weevils from U.S

growing areas.

States Eradication Weev

involved Acres 

1983 VA/NC/SC 160,000 3

1985 +CA/AZ 1,400,000 9

1987 +GA/FL/AL 450,000 1,50

1994 +MS/TN/TX 550,000 2,00

1996 Same 1,200,000 4,60

In the cooperative boll weevil eradication program, APHIS supplies equi

technical and administrative support, and a portion of program funds. Grower 

assessments and/or State appropriations finance the great majority of the prog

70 percent or more.

The success of the program has brought a resurgence of cotton productio

supporting industries. Planting intentions reported by the National Cotton Co

indicated more than a 13.5-percent increase in cotton acreage in 1995 compar

with 1994.

Witchweed—A Success Story

Witchweed is a parasitic plant that attaches itself to the roots of crops suc

corn, sorghum, sugar cane, and other members of the grass family, robbing th

water and vital nutrients. Each plant can produce up to 500,000 seeds per yea

the seeds can remain viable in the soil for up to 15 years, germinating only w

they come into contact with the root of a host plant.

Witchweed was introduced into the Carolinas from Africa in the mid-195

When the parasite first struck, corn plants mysteriously withered and died. A st

visiting from India recognized the weed and told U.S. agricultural experts wha

Over the course of an eradication effort that began in 1974, some 450,00

have been infested. The eradication program was based on surveillance to loc

infested fields, quarantines to prevent spread, and a combination of herbicide

germination stimulants to actually eradicate the weed.

At the beginning of FY 1995, with fewer than 28,000 infested acres rema

APHIS turned operation of the program over to North Carolina to complete e

tion there, but continues to help finish the eradication effort in South Carolina

late 1996, the infested area was reduced to less than 10,000 acres.

210
tatve ogassoppecotote WesteUted States. s 

which began in 1987 and closed down in 1994, was aimed at finding bett

acceptable ways of preventing grasshopper damage, while protecting the 

ment. Activities included developing means to predict and manage grass

breaks, developing biological control alternatives that minimize the use o

and integrating proven control techniques into guidelines for APHIS rang

grasshopper programs. 

All this information was integrated into a computer-based decisionm

gram called “HOPPER.” HOPPER is a user-friendly software package th

grasshopper predictions, selection and timing of control options, compila

weather data, and analysis of the economics of range management practi

example of how HOPPER is used was provided by a Logan County, CO

August 1996. He wrote: “I was recently asked to utilize the district’s reso

help ranchers save grass pasture obviously threatened by grasshoppers.” 

HOPPER computer model (previously downloaded from the Internet), h

the return and decided on the best treatment method.

“We discovered that we would spend $4 per acre in an effort to save 

acre of grass. The ranchers quickly realized they could purchase hay to r

forage and save money. The program showed us we would also have ver

on next year’s population. It also showed us that we should initiate any c

sooner in the year than we have done in the past.” 

Other domestic PPQ programs include a quarantine program to prev

artificial spread of the European gypsy moth from infested areas in the N

United States through movement of outdoor household goods and other a

quarantines to prevent the spread of imported fire ants through movemen

nursery material from infested areas, and releasing irradiated sterile pink 

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 

responsibility of the APHIS Veterinary Services (VS) program. VS veter

ical officers and animal health technicians work with their counterparts i

and with livestock producers to carry out cooperative programs to contro

cate certain animal diseases. The decision to begin a nationwide campaig

a domestic animal disease is based on a number of factors, the most impo

which is: “Are producers and the livestock industry a leading force in the 

This organized effort against livestock diseases began in 1884 when 

created a special Agency within USDA to combat bovine pleuropneumon

dreaded cattle disease that was crippling exports as well as taking a heav

domestic cattle. Within 8 years, contagious bovine pleuropneumonia had 

eradicated and this campaign set the pattern for subsequent animal disea

and eradication programs.
212

eaisease

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 Hog cholera

1985 Lethal avian influenza

Current VS disease eradication programs include cooperative State-Fede

efforts directed at cattle and swine brucellosis, bovine tuberculosis, and pseud

in swine. The following table shows the status of States in these programs.

Cattle Swine 

Swine

State Brucellosis* Brucellosis** TB*** Pseudorab

AL Class A Stage 2 Free S

AK Free Free Free 

AZ Free Free Free 

AR Class A Stage 2 Free S

CA Class A Free M-A S

CO Free Free Free 

CT Free Free Free 

DE Free Free Free 

FL Class A Stage 2 Free S

GA Class A Free Free S

HI Free Free Free S

ID Free Free Free 

IL Free Free Free S

IN Free Free Free Sta

IA Class A Free Free Sta

KS Class A Free Free S

KY Class A Free Free S

LA Free Stage 2 Free S

ME Free Free Free 

MD Free Free Free 

MA Free Free Free S

MI Free Free Free 

MN Free Free Free Sta
MO Class A Free Free 

MT Free Free Free 

NE Free Free Free 

NV Free Free Free 

NH Free Free Free 

NJ Free Free Free 

NM Free Free M-A 

NY Free Free Free 

NC Free Free M-A 

ND Free Free Free 

OH Free Free Free 

OK Class A Stage 2 M-A 

OR Free Free Free 

PA Free Free M-A 

PR Free Free M-A 

RI Free Free Free 

SC Free Stage 2 Free 

SD Class A Free Free 

TN Free Free Free 

TX Class A Stage 2 M-A 

UT Free Free Free 

VT Free Free Free 

VI Free Free Free 

VA Free Free M-A 

WA Free Free Free 

WV Free Free Free 

WI Free Free Free 

WY Free Free Free 

* Class A (less than .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

Disease control and eradication measures include quarantines to sto

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, 

and disinfection of contaminated premises. In addition to the programs l

APHIS also cooperates with the States in a Voluntary Flock Certification 

combat scrapie in sheep and goats. By October 1996, 302 sheep and goa

been enrolled in the certification program. A current listing of enrolled fl

State and by breed, is available on the World Wide Web (http://www.aph

vs/scrapie/status.html). 

APHIS animal health programs are carried out by a field force of ab

erinarians and 360 lay inspectors working out of area offices (usually loc
ae cetes oeceece te dagostc sceces ad ategapat o

animal health programs. 

Under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act of 1913, APHIS enforces regulations t

assure that animal vaccines and other veterinary biologics are safe, pure, pote

effective. Veterinary biologics are products designed to diagnose, prevent, or 

animal diseases. They are used to protect or diagnose disease in a variety of d

animals, including farm animals, household pets, poultry, fish, and fur bearer

In contrast to animal medicines, drugs, or chemicals—all of which are re

by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration—veterinary biologics are derivati

living organisms. Unlike some pharmaceutical products, most biologics leave 

chemical residues in animals. Furthermore, most disease organisms do not de

resistance to the immune response produced by a veterinary biologic.

Veterinarians and other professionals in the APHIS VS Center for Veterin

Biologics regulate and license all veterinary biologics as well as the facilities 

they are produced. They also inspect and monitor the production of veterinary 

ics, including both genetically engineered products and products produced by 

ventional means. Necessary tests of veterinary biologics are conducted at the 

National Veterinary Services Laboratories at Ames, Iowa.

APHIS also regulates the licensing and production of genetically enginee

vaccines and other veterinary biologics. These products range from diagnosti

for feline leukemia virus to genetically engineered vaccines to prevent pseud

a serious disease affecting swine. With the pseudorabies vaccines, tests kits h

been developed to distinguish between infected animals and those vaccinated 

genetically engineered vaccines. 

Since the first vaccine was licensed in 1979, a total of 63 genetically eng

biologics have been licensed; all but 12 are still being produced.

More than a half-century ago, there were perhaps a half a dozen animal v

and other biologics available to farmers. Now there are 2,341 active product l

and 120 licensed manufacturers.

Monitoring Plant and Animal Pests and Diseases

In order to combat plant pests and animal diseases, it’s important to know 

number and where they are located.

To monitor plant pests, APHIS works with the States in a project called t

Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey, which started in 1982 as a pilot project

data on weeds, insects, and plant diseases and pests is entered into a nationwi

base, the National Agricultural Pest Information System (NAPIS). This datab

be accessed from anywhere in the country by persons with an authorized acco

By accessing NAPIS, users can retrieve the latest data on pests. NAPIS d

assist with forecasting, early pest warning, quicker and more precise delimiti

efforts, and better planning for plant pest eradication or control efforts. Surve

which can reflect the absence as well as the presence of pests—also helps U.S

exports, assuring foreign countries that our commodities are free of specific p

and diseases.

214
as tet ad gapcs es. e data cabe dowoaded ad aayed wt

information systems (GIS) to provide graphic representation of informat

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 th

APHIS National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS). This pro

is conducted by APHIS’ Veterinary Services, began in 1983. 

NAHMS compiles statistics and information from existing data base

ers new data through short- and long-term targeted studies to present a b

picture of animal agriculture. This information then can be used to predic

improve animal production efficiency and food quality. NAHMS provide

cally sound data concerning U.S. livestock and poultry diseases and dise

tions, along with their costs and associated production practices. By the e

NAHMS had conducted seven national studies on U.S. animal populatio

(2), dairy (2), beef cow/calf, beef feedlot, and sheep. Sentinel monitoring 

ity and mortality in beef feedlots and Marek’s disease in broiler operation

among NAHMS’ short-term projects.

Information from NAHMS aids a broad group of users throughout a

For instance, baseline animal health and management data from NAHMS 

studies are helping analysts identify associations between Salmonella an

agement. NAHMS data are also helping researchers evaluate manageme

that contribute to the occurrence of Johne’s disease and digital dermatitis 

State and national officials, industry groups, and producers apply NAHM

and information in educational programs and in setting research prioritie

NAHMS information is available through the WorldWide Web:

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah

Regulating Biotechnology in Agriculture

Scientists use agricultural biotechnology with a variety of laboratory 

such as genetic engineering, to improve plants, animals, and micro-organ

Recent discoveries have led to virus-resistant crops such as cucumbers, t

potatoes; to better vaccines and diagnostic kits used for diseases of horse

and swine; and even to new and improved varieties of commercial flowe

Since 1987, APHIS’role in agricultural biotechnology has been to m

oversee regulations to ensure the safe and rapid development of the prod

biotechnology. Applicants under APHIS’ effective regulations and practi

lines can safely test—outside of the physical containment of the laborato

cally engineered organisms. 

APHIS officials issue permits or acknowledge notification for the im

interstate movement, or field testing of genetically engineered plants, mi

isms, and invertebrates that are developed from components from plant p

material. 
exemption process once it has been established that a genetically engineered 

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. To date, 23 engineered plant lines have been proven safe and no longer n

to be regulated by APHIS. The most recent of these—in September 1996—w

genetically engineered virus-resistant papaya developed by Cornell Universit

Besides the papaya, crops deregulated include:

■ Five tomato lines for delayed ripening,

■ Four cotton lines, one for insect resistance and four for herbicide toler

■ Two soybean lines for herbicide tolerance,

■ One rapeseed line for increased production of laurate,

■ Two squash lines for disease resistance,

■ Two potato lines for insect resistance, and

■ Six corn lines, three for herbicide tolerance and three for insect resista

APHIS biotechnology personnel meet with regulatory officials from othe

nations on a regular basis to foster regulatory harmonization. These discussio

intended to help ensure that requirements imposed by other countries are as c

tent as possible with U.S. requirements and that our trading partners are kept

informed of biotechnology regulatory developments.

Information about APHIS’ biotechnology regulations, current submissio

and new issues and events can be seen on the WorldWide Web:

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/oa/new/ab.html

Controlling Wildlife Damage

The mission of APHIS’Animal Damage Control (ADC) program is to pr

Federal leadership in managing problems caused by wildlife. Wildlife is a sig

public resource that is greatly valued by the American public. But by its very 

wildlife also can damage agricultural and industrial resources, pose risks to h

health and safety, and affect other natural resources. ADC helps solve problem

occur when human activity and wildlife are in conflict with one another. In do

ADC attempts to develop and use wildlife management strategies that are bio

cally, environmentally, and socially sound.

The need for effective and environmentally sound wildlife damage mana

is rising dramatically. There are several reasons for this. Increasing suburban 

opment intrudes upon traditional wildlife habitats. Population explosions of s

adaptable wildlife species, such as coyotes and deer, pose increasing risks to 

activities. At the same time, advances in science and technology are providin

native methods for solving wildlife problems.

APHIS’ National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC), the world’s only re

facility devoted entirely to developing methods for managing wildlife damag

accounts for about one-fourth of ADC’s budget. In existence since the 1920’s

NWRC has an integrated, multidisciplinary research program that is uniquely 

to provide scientific information and solutions to wildlife damage problems.

216
dg etods to educe teats to uasaety webds co

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 bird damage to fish hatcheries and cereal crops, 

■ Studying coyote biology and behavior to develop techniques for 

livestock from these predators, and 

■ Looking at ways to solve wildlife problems in urban areas involv

things as deer in backyards, raccoons in gardens, squirrels in attic

on golf courses.

More than half of U.S. farmers experience economic loss from anim

In 1994, sheep and goat producers lost an estimated $17.7 million due to 

In 1995, cattle producers’losses to predators were worth $39.6 million. C

alone caused $11.5 million in sheep losses and $21.8 million in cattle los

wide. A survey in 1993 showed that wildlife caused $92 million in losses 

ducers in the top 10 corn-producing States.

Additionally, beavers in the Southeastern United States cause an esti

million in damage each year to public and private property, while Missis

farmers lose nearly $6 million worth of fingerlings to fish-eating birds. D

in Pennsylvania, white-tailed deer caused crop losses totaling $30 millio

bird populations cause an estimated annual loss to U.S. agriculture of $1

In 1994, the annual dollar loss to agriculture in the United States from w

about $600 million.

Humane Care of Animals

A number of local, State, and Federal laws deal with the humane tre

care of animals. 

An important Federal law in this area is the Animal Welfare Act, wh

the care and treatment of animals that are used for research or exhibition 

as pets at the wholesale level. This Act, which APHIS administers, does 

retail pet stores. The Act also specifically excludes animals raised for foo

(including fur-bearing animals). USDA has long had a concern for the he

well-being of animals. The first Federal humane law, which mandated fe

for farm animals being transported by barge or rail, was passed in 1873. 

responding to complaints about suffering and neglected dogs and cats su

research institutions and focusing on the problem of “petnapping,” Cong

the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act. 

Four years later, a much more comprehensive piece of legislation—

Welfare Act—was enacted. This law expanded coverage to most other w

animals used in research, to animals in zoos and circuses and marine mam

life shows and exhibits, and to animals sold in the wholesale pet trade. T

not cover retail pet shops, game ranches, livestock shows, rodeos, State o

fairs, or dog and cat shows. 
The Animal Welfare Act has been amended three times. A 1976 amendm

extended the scope of the Act to include care and treatment while animals are 

transported via common carriers. It also outlawed animal fighting ventures, s

dog or cock fights, unless specifically allowed by State law. 

218

dation by other wildlife. Here are a few examples of Animal Dama

Control efforts:

■ A farmer in Washington requested ADC assistance after thousa

of Canada geese congregated on his 43-acre field of carrots an

began eating his crop, which had a potential market value of m

than $7,000 an acre. Noise-making devices and other scare ta

recommended by ADC were successful in frightening the gees

keeping them out of his field.

■ A mountain lion that killed a dog and attacked another dog and 

mule in Colorado was captured by an ADC specialist and officia

from the Colorado Division of Wildlife. The lion was released

unharmed in a remote site about 165 miles from the community

where the attacks occurred.

■ In 1991, a plane carrying 350 passengers aborted takeoff at JF

International Airport after gulls were drawn into one of its engin

Although no one was seriously injured, the aircraft lost its brake

and 10 tires in the accident. Between 1988 and 1990, there we

average of 170 bird strikes against airplanes per year at that ai

After ADC became involved in managing bird populations at the 

port in 1990, laughing gull strikes were reduced by 66 percent 

1991, and by 89 percent in 1992 compared with the previous 2

period.

■ Livestock guarding dogs, predator-proof fencing, and the “Elec

Guard” (a device developed by ADC that combines a flashing s

light and a siren to scare coyotes) are examples of nonlethal w

to minimize damage from predators.

■ ADC helps protect many threatened or endangered species fro

predation, including the California least tern and light-footed cla

rail, the San Joaquin kit fox, the Aleutian Canada goose, the

Louisiana pearlshell (mussel), and two species of endangered 

turtles.

■ In 1995, ADC cooperated with Texas officials to help combat a

rabies epidemic in the southern part of that State. ADC-develop

coyote baits laced with a genetically engineered rabies vaccine

approved by APHIS for use in the project were dropped over a

14,400-square-mile area stretching from Maverick County, at th

Mexican border, to Calhoun County, on the Gulf Coast. The go

the project is to create a buffer zone of immunized coyotes to h

prevent the further spread of canine rabies across Texas into m

heavily populated areas. 
tos to povde oeecse odogs ad te psycoogcawebeg o

primates.

In 1993, the Act was further amended to help prevent the use of lost 

pets in research by giving pet owners more time to find their pets and by 

more documentation from dealers who sell animals to researchers. Unde

regulations, pounds and animal shelters must hold dogs and cats for at le

including a Saturday, before releasing them to dealers.

The table below shows some animal welfare statistics for fiscal 1996

Regulatory Enforcement and Animal Care officials within APHIS en

Animal Welfare Act through a system of licensing and registration of reg

nesses. Inspectors check to make sure that licensees and registrants are c

with the standards for proper care and handling of animals covered by th

If violations are noted, inspectors set deadlines for correcting the sit

extreme situations, APHIS can seize and take custody of animals whose 

imminent danger. If the problem isn’t corrected, the person responsible m

charged with a violation and prosecuted through civil procedures. Penalt

fines, suspension or revocation of licenses, and cease-and-desist orders to 

future violations. The table below summarizes penalties over the past 4 fi

Animal Welfar

________________________________________________________

e Sanctions Imposed, FY 1993-96

1993 1994 1995 

Fines imposed $165,250 $345,900 $451,725 $

License revocations,

suspensions, and 

refusals 13 23 19 

Animal Welfare Accomplishments, FY 1996

———————————————————————————

Animals used in research 1

Registered research facilities 

Licensed animal dealers 

Licensed and registered exhibitors 

Compliance inspections 
peded because oaWeae ct voatos te aeas oeco

ing, veterinary care, housing, storage, sanitation, identification, and tr

■ A Florida dolphin exhibitor was fined $10,000 and had his license sus

because of Animal Welfare Act violations. His four remaining dolphin

transferred to other organizations better equipped to handle these mam

■ A university in New York agreed to the issuance of a consent decision 

order to pay a civil penalty of $450,000, all but $25,000 of which mus

either used to improve housing for its nonhuman primates, at its prem

elsewhere, or donated to a nonprofit sanctuary for nonhuman primates

As part of its outreach activities, APHIS’Animal Care home page on the

Internet’s WorldWide Web includes a “missing and found pets” page

(http://www.aphis.usda.gov/reac/anlost.html) that lets people advertise missin

found cats and dogs. The service, which includes photos, also helps research 

tions check to make sure they do not accept lost or stolen animals.

APHIS also enforces the Horse Protection Act, which prohibits the cruel 

of “soring” show horses. The primary enforcement tool is inspection of horse

shows by APHIS personnel and by “Designated Qualified Persons” who are l

by industry organizations and certified and monitored by APHIS.

Aquaculture

APHIS provides services to the aquaculture industry in a number of area

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

approximately $1.5 billion. The aquaculture industry provides about 300,000 

nationwide. 

Current APHIS services include licensing of fish vaccines and other biol

under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act, controlling birds and damage-causing anim

and providing health certification services for exports. APHIS is currently wo

expand its aquatic animal health activities, its underlying authority to support 

try efforts to increase exports of aquacultural products around the world, its c

tion of interstate regulation, and its protection of the industry from the entry o

animal pests and 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; the main concern is that the United States does not have a single 

Agency with legal authority to monitor, prevent, and control outbreak

aquatic animal disease. Currently, U.S. responsibility in this area is di

among four Federal departments (Agriculture, Interior, Commerce, an

Health and Human Services) and the 50 States. APHIS is working wit

Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture’s Task Force on Aquatic Animal 

to clarify Federal Agency roles, avoid duplication of authority, and ac

adequate protection of U.S. aquatic animals, both wild and cultivated

220
pe oepotg tout eggs oWasgtoState to Ces to 

health and natural resource officials and aquacultural producers a 

how to implement an aquatic health protocol for exporting produ

■ APHIS’Animal Damage Control program placed three wildlife b

Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi to assist aquaculture producer

predation problems. These biologists are helping develop new me

controlling fish-eating birds, providing onsite assistance to aquac

ducers experiencing predation problems, and developing manage

for fish-eating bird species in the three States.

■ APHIS/Veterinary Services’ Centers for Epidemiology and Anim

completed an overview of the U.S. aquaculture industry, includin

trends in farm size, geographic distribution of aquatic species, an

of the industry’s diversity. During 1997, APHIS will work with U

National Agricultural Statistics Service on a comprehensive natio

the U.S. catfish industry.

While APHIS is authorized to prevent the introduction and dissemin

pests and diseases that can harm U.S. livestock and crops, it has no statut

ity to take similar actions to protect the aquaculture industry from foreign 

diseases. Such deficiencies are already having serious consequences. For 

recent outbreaks of Taura Syndrome Virus in Texas and Hawaii have cau

of dollars in losses to shrimp producers in those States. This disease is th

have been introduced via shrimp products imported from South America

absence of specific legal authority, APHIS officials have been providing 

assistance to the extent possible to the producers affected by this outbrea

efforts to control and prevent spread of the disease being very limited. A

therefore exploring the best ways to achieve a coordinated Federal regula

program to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic plants, animal

isms that could harm commercial aquaculture production.

■ Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards

Administration 

The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSAthe marketing of livestock, poultry, meat, cereals, oilseeds, and relat

tural products and promotes fair and competitive trading practices for the 

benefit of 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 fo

cultural products. GIPSA’s Packers and Stockyards Programs ensure ope

competitive markets for livestock, meat, and poultry. The Federal Grain 

Program provides the U.S. grain market with Federal quality standards a

system for applying them. 
222

oga, oseeds, puses, ce, ad eated coodtes. s pogaseves

American agriculture by providing descriptions (grades) and testing methodo

for measuring the quality and quantity of grain, rice, edible beans, and relate

modities. GIPSA also provides a wide range of inspection and weighing serv

a fee basis, through the official grain inspection and weighing system, a uniq

nership of Federal, State, and private laboratories. In FY 1996, the official sy

performed over 2.3 million inspections on 250 million metric tons of grain an

related commodities.

Specifically, under the U.S. Grain Standards Act, and those provisions o

Agricultural Marketing Act (AMA) of 1946 that relate to inspection of rice, p

lentils, and processed grain products, GIPSA:

■ Establishes official U.S. grading standards and testing procedures for 

grains (barley, corn, oats, rye, sorghum, triticale, wheat, and mixed gr

four oilseeds (canola, flaxseed, soybeans, and sunflower seed), rice, l

dry peas, and a variety of edible beans.

■ Provides American agriculture and customers of U.S. grain around th

with a national inspection and weighing system that applies the offici

ing and testing standards and procedures in a uniform, accurate, and i

manner.

■ Inspects and weighs exported grain and oilseeds. Domestic and impo

grain and oilseed shipments, and crops with standards under the AMA

inspected and weighed upon request.

■ Monitors grain handling practices to prevent the deceptive use of the 

standards and official inspection and weighing results, and the degrad

grain quality through the introduction of foreign material, dockage, o

nongrain material to grain.

By serving as an impartial third party, GIPSA and the official grain inspe

and weighing system ensure that the Official U.S. Standards for Grain are ap

and that weights are recorded fairly and accurately. In this way, GIPSA advan

the orderly and efficient marketing and effective distribution of U.S. grain an

assigned commodities from the Nation’s farms to destinations around the wo

Packers and Stockyards Programs 

GIPSA’s Packers and Stockyards Programs administers the Packers and 

yards (P&S) Act of 1921. The purpose of the P&S Act, which has been amen

keep pace with changes in the industry, is to assure fair competition and fair 

practices, safeguard farmers and ranchers, and protect consumers and memb

the livestock, meat, and poultry industries from unfair business practices that 

unduly affect meat and poultry distribution and prices.
et ageces, ad paces wose opeatos ae subject to te ct. usua

requirement, subject firms must pay for livestock before the close of the 

ness day following the purchase and transfer of possession. In addition, t

lishes specific payment delivery requirements for livestock purchased fo

Also, packers, market agencies, and dealers operating in commerce are r

file a surety bond or its equivalent. At the beginning of FY 1997, bonds t

million were in place to cover the livestock purchases of packers, market 

and dealers.

GIPSA also emphasizes custodial account investigations as a means 

protection for consignors of livestock. All market agencies selling on a c

basis are required to establish and maintain a separate bank account desig

“Custodial Account for Shippers’Proceeds,” to be used for deposits from 

purchasers and disbursements to consignors of livestock. The custodial a

has been very successful in protecting funds due livestock sellers.

Packer and Poultry Trust Activities 

If a meat packer fails to pay for livestock or a live poultry dealer for 

then receivables, inventories, and proceeds derived from such purchases 

or by poultry growing arrangement become trust assets by operation of l

assets are held by the meat packer or live poultry dealer for the benefit of 

cash sellers and/or poultry growers. Cash sellers of livestock and poultry 

legally in a priority payment position in bankruptcy or in claims against 

in the event of business failure.

Open Competition 

Competition for livestock, either in direct trading or at public marke

open and free of restrictions. Any practice, agreement, or understanding 

potential buyers from bidding in open competition would be considered 

on competition. Practices resulting in the lessening of competition for pr

livestock include apportioning of territories, price agreements or arrange

to compete, and payoffs or kickbacks to buyers. GIPSA staff members im

investigate any practice that indicates a possible restriction of competitio

Scales & Weighing Activities 

GIPSA’s Scales and Weighing program is concerned with two differ

that affect the integrity of transactions: (1) the accuracy of scales used fo

livestock, meat, and poultry, and (2) the proper and honest operation of s

assure that the weight on which a transaction is based is accurate.

The major emphasis in the Scales and Weighing program is on detec

improper and fraudulent use of scales. An investigative program uses sev

ent procedures to determine whether weighing activity is proper and hon

investigators routinely visit livestock auction markets, buying stations, a

plants for the purpose of checkweighing livestock, carcasses, and live po

with examining weight records and equipment.
eatg to ve pouty deaes. ts vestgatve pogaetesvey eae

records of poultry integrators to determine the existence of any unfair, unjust

criminatory, or deceptive practices in its dealings with poultry growers and se

Complaints alleging unfair termination of growing contracts are investigated 

priority basis.

Carcass Merit Purchasing 

GIPSA monitors the use of electronic evaluation devices by hog slaughte

who purchase hogs on a carcass merit basis, in order to ensure that the electro

measuring is accurate and properly applied and that the producer receives an 

accounting of the sale.

Analysis of Structural Change 

GIPSA examines structural changes in the livestock, meat packing, and p

industries, and analyzes the competitive implications of these structural chan

The analyses assist in enforcing the P&S Act and in addressing public policy 

relating to the livestock and meat industries.

Clear Title 

The Clear Title provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985 permit State

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

224

For More Information

Agricultural Marketing

Service

Director, Public Affairs 

Connie Crunkleton 

Rm 3510-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8998 

FAX 202-720-7135

ccrunkleton@usda.gov 

Public Affairs Specialist 

Carol Blake 

Rm 3510-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8998 

FAX 202-720-7135

cblake@usda.gov 

Public Affairs Specialis 

Alicia Ford 

Rm 3510-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8998 

FAX 202-720-7135

aford@usda.gov 

Public Affairs Specialist 

Becky Unkenholz 

Rm 3510-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8998 

FAX 202-720-7135

runkenholz@usda.gov 
Rm 3510-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-3203

FAX 202-720-7135

sharonl.kerr@usda.gov 

Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service

Acting Director, Legislative & Public

Affairs 

Patrick Collins 

Rm 1147-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-2511 

FAX 202-720-3982

pcollins@aphis.usd 

Deputy Director

Paula Henstridge 

Rm 1147-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-9232 

FAX 202-720-3982

phenstridge@aphis.usda.gov 

Asst. to Director

Larry Mark 

Rm 1153-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-3977 

FAX 202-720-3982

lmark@aphis.usda.gov 

Asst. Dir., Pub. Affairs 

Richard McNaney 

4B21 Riverdale, MD 20782

301-734-7799

FAX 301-734-5221

rmcnaney@aphis.usda.gov 

Asst. Dir., Exec Corresp. 

Lynn Quarles 

4A83 Riverdale, MD 20782

301-734-7776 

FAX 301-734-5941

lquarles@aphis.usda.gov 

Michael Marquis 

4A81 Riverdale, MD 20782

301-734-5267 

FAX 301-734-5941

mmarquis@aphis.usda.gov 

APHIS Regional Infor

Offices

Mountain/Western 

Stuart McDonald 

12345 W. Alameda Parkway

Lakewood, CO 80228

303-969-6565 

FAX 303-969-6578

smcdonald@aphis.usda.gov 

West Coast/Southern Border

Larry Hawkins 

P.O. Box 80483

Ontario, CA 91758

909-395-8666 

FAX 909-393-8665

lhawkins@aphis.usda.gov 

Grain Inspection, Pac

Stockyards Administr

Public Affairs Officer

Dana Stewart 

Rm 1094-S Washington, DC 20

202-720-5091 

FAX 202-205-9237

dstewart@fgis.usda.gov 

FOIA Officer

Tommy Morris 

Rm 3039-S Washington, DC 20

202-720-7063 

FAX 202-205-3941

tmorris@usda.gov 
ypy ggg y

food from the farm to your table. Yet, this state-of-the-art marketing syst

it possible to pick and choose from a variety of products, available all ye

tailored to meet the demands of today’s lifestyles. Millions of people—fr

to retailer—make this marketing system work. Buyers, traders, scientists

workers, transportation experts, wholesalers, distributors, retailers, adver

firms—in addition to the Nation’s farmers—all help create a marketing s

is unsurpassed by any in the world. And USDA’s Agricultural Marketing 

(AMS) helps make sure the U.S. marketing system remains world-class.

Services to Promote Quality: Grading, Quality Standa

and Certification 

Wherever or whenever you shop, you expect good, uniform quality 

able prices for the food you purchase. AMS quality grade standards, grad

laboratory services are voluntary tools that industry can use to help prom

and to communicate that quality to consumers. Industry pays for these se

they are voluntary, so their widespread use by industry indicates they are 

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 fruit

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 

transactions easier whether they are local or made over long distances. C

as well as those involved in the marketing of agricultural products, benefi

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 m

characteristics important to consumers. Prime, Choice, and Select are all 

familiar to consumers of beef.
tee eacocces, eggs, ad tueys. Ote otead, tee ae 5 ga

cotton, and more than 300 fruit, vegetable, and specialty product standards.

The food testing side of the AMS program has 11 “user fee” laboratories 

forming numerous microbiological, chemical, and physical analyses on a hos

and fiber commodities, including processed dairy products, meat, poultry, egg 

ucts, and fruits and vegetables. This testing supports AMS purchases for the N

School Lunch Program and other domestic feeding programs, troop ration sp

tions for the Department of Defense, foreign government food contract purch

laboratory quality control and assurance programs, and testing for aflatoxin 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

the terms of their contracts—with respect to quality, processing, size, packag

delivery. If a large buyer—such as a school district, hospital, prison, or the m

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 me

be postponed while the mistake gets corrected. Graders review and accept ag

tural products to make sure they meet specifications set by private-sector purc

They also certify food items purchased for Federal feeding programs.

AMS has developed quality assurance (QA) services that include Hazard

Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) and International Organization of

Standardization (ISO)-based programs. These programs ensure and documen

companies’ operations are in compliance with provisions of contracts and/or 

own standards and procedures. QA services are voluntary, hourly-fee-based, 

value-added. HACCP concepts and procedures have been recommended by t

National Academy of Sciences for application in the food industry, and ISO pr

are becoming an international norm for some processes.

196

■ Facts about grading: 

From October 1995 through September 1996, USDA graded 35 per

cent of the shell eggs and 95 percent of the butter produced in the

United States. Ninety-one billion pounds of fresh fruits and vegetable

and more than 13 billion pounds of processed fruits and vegetables

received a USDAgrade mark. Nearly all of the meat industry reques

AMS grading services: USDAgrades were applied to 82 percent of a

beef, 86 percent of all lambs, 18 percent of all veal and calves, 71 pe

cent of all turkeys, and 49 percent of all chickens and other poultry m

keted in this country. USDA also graded more than 98 percent of the

cotton and 97 percent of the tobacco produced in the United States.
aet News ouptoteute oatoocoodty pces ad 

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 

ensuring consumers a stable and reasonably priced food supply.

AMS Market News reporters generate approximately 700 reports ea

collected from more than 100 U.S. locations. Reports cover local, region

and international markets for dairy, livestock, meat, poultry, grain, fruit, 

tobacco, cotton, and specialty products. Weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, and 

reports track the longer-range performance of cotton, dairy products, pou

eggs, fruits, vegetables, specialty crops, livestock, meat, grain, floral pro

wool, and tobacco. Periodically, AMS issues special reports on such com

as 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 dir

user; telephone recorders; electronic access through the Market News Com

System, the Market News Bulletin Board, and the Internet; and by direct 

USDA reporters.

Buying Food: Helping Farmers, School Children, and 

Needy 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 pr

The Nation’s food assistance programs benefit from these purchases, bec

foods go to low-income individuals who might otherwise be unable to af

Some of the programs and groups that typically receive USDA-purc

include: children in the National School Lunch, Summer Camp, and Scho

Programs; Native Americans participating in the Food Distribution Progr

Indian Reservations; older Americans through the Nutrition Program for 

and low-income and homeless persons through the Commodity Supplem

Program and the Emergency Food Assistance Program. In addition, USD

provide disaster relief by making emergency purchases of commodities f

tion to disaster victims.

Once USDA determines that a purchase is appropriate, AMS publicl

bids, and makes sure that the food it purchases meets quality and nutritio

Often, AMS specifies that foods be low in fat, sugar, and sodium. By pol

only purchases products that are 100 percent domestic in origin.

Pesticides: Information and Records 

Many Americans are concerned about the use and potential negative 

agricultural pesticides. Recognizing this concern, AMS began coordinati

Pesticide Data Program (PDP) in 1991. Through agreements with nine S

collects and analyzes samples of fresh and processed produce and grain f
198

te pubc oed about te saety ote Natos ood suppy. e vo

Protection Agency (EPA) uses PDP data to support pesticide reregistration an

special review decisions, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) uses 

data to enforce EPA-established tolerances and FDA guidelines for food safe

In addition to the PDP, AMS also has the primary responsibility for the P

Recordkeeping Program. This program requires all certified private applicato

federally restricted-use pesticides to maintain records of all applications. The

records will support collection of data to help analyze agricultural pesticide u

will also be helpful to health care professionals when treating individuals wh

have been exposed to an agricultural chemical. AMS strives to provide outrea

educational support to States and private applicators to broaden their understa

and participation in the program.

Helping Farmers Promote Their Products 

“The Touch...the Feel of Cotton...the Fabric of Our Lives,” “Beef...It’s W

for Dinner,” “Milk—Where’s your mustache?”, “Think Flowers” If you’ve w

television or read magazines lately, you’ve probably heard or read these sloga

others for a host of agricultural commodities. All of these promotional campa

part of the Research and Promotion Programs that AMS oversees.

Federal research and promotion programs, each authorized by separate le

tion, are designed to improve farmers’incomes through promotion of their pr

The programs are all fully funded by industry assessments. Board members a

nated by industry and appointed officially by the Secretary of Agriculture. AM

sees the activities of the boards or councils and approves budgets, in order to 

compliance with the legislation.

Currently, there are research and promotion programs for beef, pork, cott

cut flowers and greens, dairy products, eggs, fluid milk, honey, mushrooms, p

soybeans, and watermelons.

But, while advertising is one part of these programs, product research an

development is also a major focus. Wrinkle-resistant cotton and low-choleste

fat dairy products are just two examples of how these programs have benefitt

consumers and expanded markets for producers.

New generic commodity promotion, research, and information legislatio

was enacted as part of the 1996 Farm Bill to make Federal promotion and res

programs available to more commodities.

■ Facts about marketing: The national Fluid Milk Processors Promot

program began its “Milk—Where’s your mustache?” campaign in

1995, featuring photographs of famous personalities wearing “milk

mustaches.” The board estimates that 147 million consumers have

already been reached by this promotion
es coe togeteto woat sovg aetg pobes tey caot so

ally. Marketing orders are flexible tools that can be tailored to the needs of 

conditions for producing and selling. But they are also legal instruments th

force of law, with USDAensuring an appropriate balance between the inte

ducers looking for a fair price and consumers who expect an adequate, qu

at a reasonable price.

Federal milk marketing orders, for example, establish minimum pric

handlers or dealers must pay to producers for milk, depending on how th

be used—whether fluid milk or cheese. Federal milk orders help build m

marketing conditions by operating at the first level of trade, where milk l

farm and enters the marketing system. They are flexible in order to cope 

changes. They assure that consumers will have a steady supply of fresh m

times. 

Marketing agreements and orders also help provide stable markets f

vegetable, and specialty crops like nuts and raisins, to the benefit of prod

consumers. They help farmers produce for a market, rather than having t

whatever happens to be produced. A marketing order may help an indust

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, 

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.

The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) program prom

trading in the fresh and frozen fruit and vegetable industry. Through PAC

and sellers are required to live up to the terms of their contracts, and proc

available for resolving disputes outside the civil court system.

Fruit and vegetable buyers and sellers need this assurance because o

perishable nature of their products. Trading in produce is considerably di

trading for a car, a computer, or even grain. When a vegetable grower do

paid, the product usually can’t be reclaimed before it spoils—or before it 

been consumed.

Although PACA was initiated to protect producers, it benefits consu

entire produce industry. Over the past decade, AMS has handled nearly 4

complaints, not just from growers, but also from grower-agents, grower-

brokers, wholesalers, retailers, and processors. PACA is funded by licens

by industry, but the bottom line is that fair trade and resolved disputes m

nesses of any size can operate in a better trade environment and consume

a wider choice of reasonably priced, high-quality fruits and vegetables.

The Federal Seed Act (FSA) protects everyone who buys seed by pr

false labeling and advertising of seed in interstate commerce. The FSA a

ments State seed laws by prohibiting the shipment of seed containing exc
seeds, geatopecetage ad te date tested, ad te ae ad addess 

shipper. USDA also tests seed for seedsmen and seed buyers on a fee-for-serv

basis to determine quality.

The Plant Variety Protection Act provides patent-like protection to breed

of plants that reproduce both sexually, that is, through seeds, and through tub

Developers of new plant varieties can apply for certificates of protection. Thi

tection enables the breeder to market the variety exclusively for 20 years and

doing, creates an incentive for investment in the development of new plant va

Since 1970, AMS’ Plant Variety Protection Office has issued more than 3,000 

cates of protection.

The Agricultural Fair Practices Act allows farmers to file complaints with 

if a processor refuses to deal with them because they are members of a produ

bargaining or marketing association. The Act makes it unlawful for handlers 

coerce, intimidate, or discriminate against producers because they belong to s

groups. USDA helps to institute court proceedings when farmers’rights are f

to be so violated.

Organic Certification 

AMS is responsible for implementing an organic certification program, w

was authorized by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) as part of the 1

Farm Bill. The OFPA requires that all agricultural products labeled as organic 

duced and handled according to national standards and that organic productio

handling practices be certified by a State or private certifying agent accredite

USDA. AMS also would evaluate foreign certification programs to determine 

imported organic agricultural products are produced and handled under equiv

standards.

The goals of the national organic certification program are to

■ Establish national standards governing the marketing of certain produ

organically produced,

■ Assure consumers that organically grown products meet uniform stan

and

■ Facilitate interstate commerce in fresh and processed food that is orga

produced.

The OFPA also established the National Organic Standards Board, which 

first appointed in January 1992, to provide AMS with recommendations for th

national program and specifically to review substances that may be used in th

production and handling of organic food. 

Direct Marketing and Wholesale Market Development 

AMS continually seeks ways to help farmers and marketers improve the 

food marketing system. For example, AMS’ Federal-State Marketing Improv

Program (FSMIP) provides matching funds to State Departments of Agricultu

conduct research that will help develop or improve local marketing systems. 

of the program is to reduce costs or expand markets for producers, ultimately b

200
pace to test aette esuts, ad deveopg State epetse pov

to marketers of agricultural products. In FY 1996, the FSMIP program fu

projects in 21 States for $1.2 million. 

The Wholesale and Alternative Markets Program (W&AM) works t

the handling, processing, packaging, storage, and distribution of agricult

ucts. AMS researchers work with local governments and food industry g

develop modern, efficient, wholesale food distribution centers and farme

In FY 1996, W&AM initiated eight market studies, completed nine, and 

work on five other long-term projects. 

Moving U.S. Agricultural Products to Consumers 

An efficient transportation system allows consumers access to a wid

of agricultural products and commodities produced beyond their own loc

AMS, through its Transportation and Marketing Division, conducts 

the availability and costs of transportation services for U.S. agricultural p

addressing policy issues which affect movement of agricultural products 

trucks, inland barges, and ocean-going vessels. AMS staff also provide te

assistance to agricultural shippers who are marketing their products in do

international markets. Agricultural producers, producer groups, shippers

rural communities, carriers, and consumers benefit from the analyses, tec

assistance, and information provided by AMS transportation staff. 

Produce Locally, Think Globally 

To remain competitive in today’s world, American agriculture has b

global, and AMS has striven to be a strong partner in expanding markets 

agricultural products.

The AMS role in the international marketing of U.S. commodities ce

quality grading and certification programs, which are user-funded. Gradi

determining whether a product meets a set of quality standards. Certifica

that contract specifications have been met—in other words, that the buye

the product in the condition and quantity described by the terms of the co

commodity graders frequently support other USDA agencies involved in 

assistance, including the Farm Service Agency and the Foreign Agricultu

U.S. companies often request certification services when exporting t

that has specific import requirements. Certification services provided by 

avoid rejection of shipments or delay in delivery once the product reache

destination. Delays lead to product deterioration and, ultimately, affect th

■ Fact about farmers’ markets: USDA defines a farmers’ market 

group of farmers and vendors leasing or renting space in a co

facility on a temporary basis, with an emphasis on the sale of 

farm products, crafts, and other locally produced items. USDA 

mates there are currently 2,410 farmers’ markets in the U.S.
202

AMS participates in a number of international forums that aim to facilita

agricultural trade and avoid potential trade barriers. Technical assistance has 

provided to countries in Eastern and Central Europe, and elsewhere around th

to improve their marketing systems. With improved transportation, distributio

marketing information systems, these countries will become better customers 

U.S. food and fiber products.

Whether at home or abroad, AMS strives to help U.S. agriculture market i

dant, high-quality products. And AMS will continue to work to help U.S. agric

market its products in growing world markets, while assuring U.S. consumers 

abundant supply of high-quality, wholesome food at reasonable prices.

■ Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:

Protecting Agricultural Health and Productiv

Why are the farmers and ranchers of the United States able to produce so food for the tables of America’s consumers? 

Of course, there’s no simple answer. But one key to this plentiful supply 

food 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 team

effort—good husbandry by farmers and ranchers plus an organized effort to c

and eradicate pests and disease and to prevent the entry of devastating foreign

plagues.

Just like frosts, floods, and droughts, pests and diseases can wreak havoc 

agricultural productivity, depressing farm incomes and driving up food costs 
202

Wfood for the tables of Americas consumers? 

Of course, there’s no simple answer. But one key to this plentiful supply 

food 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 team

effort—good husbandry by farmers and ranchers plus an organized effort to c

and eradicate pests and disease and to prevent the entry of devastating foreign

plagues.

Just like frosts, floods, and droughts, pests and diseases can wreak havoc 

agricultural productivity, depressing farm incomes and driving up food costs 
potectg oucoutys agcutuaeat. e esut s a oe abuda

quality, and cheaper food supply than is found anywhere else in the worl

Agriculture is an important sector in our economy, and APHIS helps 

that it remains healthy and strong. With the advent of free trade initiative

network of countries has agreed that valid agricultural health concerns—

not economics—are the only acceptable basis for trade restrictions. In th

ment, our country’s agricultural health infrastructure will be our farmers

seeking new export markets. 

Excluding Foreign Pests and Diseases

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection

Agriculture, America’s biggest industry and its largest employer, is u

stant threat of attack. The enemies are countless and often microscopic, a

gain access to our country in surprising ways. Their potential allies are e

entering the United States and every American business importing agricu

products from other countries. 

Many passengers entering the United States don’t realize that one pi

packed in a suitcase has the potential to cause millions of dollars in dama

agriculture. Forbidden fruits and vegetables can carry a whole range of p

and pests. Oranges, for example, can introduce diseases like citrus canke

like the Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly).

Similarly, sausages and other meat products from many countries ca

animal disease organisms that can live for many months and even surviv

Meat scraps from abroad could end up in garbage that is fed to swine. If 

came from animals infected with a disease, such as African swine fever, 

or foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), it easily could be passed to domestic 

a serious epidemic could result.

Agricultural quarantine inspection is the first line of defense against 

pests and diseases. Seven days a week, approximately 1,300 APHIS insp

on duty at international airports, seaports, and border stations to inspect p

and baggage for plant and animal products that could be harboring pests 

organisms. These APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) inspect

millions of passengers and their baggage each year for plant or animal pe

diseases that might harm U.S. agriculture. They also inspect ship cargoes

truck freight, and mail from foreign countries.
Ships Inspected 52,119 53,374 47,887 53,270 55,205 

Aircraft Inspected 356,915 378,643 378,634 451,342 401,741 

Passengers and 

Crew Inspected 53,999,523 58,103,711 56,920,156 62,548,979 65,645,734 66

Interceptions of 

Plant Material 1,527,922 1,723,004 1,474,569 1,442,214 1,583,687 1

Interceptions 

of Pests 56,213 54,831 51,829 54,831 58,032 

Interceptions of 

Meat/Poultry Products 205,407 246,878 224,340 281,230 223,392 

Baggage Civil 

Penalties-Number -29,089 29,700 27,137 22,164 21,813 

Baggage Civil 

PenaltiesAmount 

of Fines $1,299,270 $1,537,590 $1,407,000 $1,186,310 $1,098,220 $1

204

■ From high-tech to a keen nose, APHIS uses a variety of means to exclude 

eign pests and protect American agriculture. PPQ inspectors augment visu

inspection with some 75 x-ray units that help check passenger baggage an

mail for prohibited agricultural materials. They also have enlisted trained

detector dogs and their keen sense of smell to help sniff out prohibited frui

and meat. On leashes and under the constant supervision of their handlers

the friendly beagles in USDA’s “Beagle Brigade” have checked the baggag

of passengers arriving from overseas for the past 10 years.

■ Currently, APHIS has about 50 canine teams at 21 airports, including 19 of

America’s 20 busiest international airports. Dogs also are used at three pos

offices. In addition to their actual function, the Beagle Brigade serves as an

effective symbol of the need to protect American agriculture and the Nation

food supply from foreign pests. The Beagle Brigade program was responsib

for approximately 60,000 seizures of prohibited agriculture products in FY 1

■ From Taffy at Los Angeles to Abbott in Miami, the Beagle Brigade spans th

United States. At Los Angeles International Airport, beagle Taffy is 3 years 

and was trained at John F. Kennedy International Airport, NY. Her favorite

treats are rawhide treats, and she likes looking for apples and oranges. In 

1995 Taffy worked 690 flights and made 490 seizures. Her hobbies are pla

ing with colleagues, especially fellow USDA detector dog Kojak, and her b

trick is shaking hands.

■ Abbott (nicknamed “The Little Prince of PPQ”) is 5 years old and works at

Miami International Airport. His favorite smells are beef and pork, and in 19

he worked 815 flights and made 1,315 seizures. Abbott’s proudest momen

include finding 30 pounds of pork and a 25–pound ham.
a cops oepets statoed oveseas, as weas S oces otepo

to bolster the Nation’s defenses against exotic pests and diseases. Often i

practical and effective to check and monitor commodities for pests or dis

source through preclearance programs. APHIS has special arrangements 

ber of countries for preclearance programs, which are summarized in the 

table.

Country Commodities

Argentina Apples & pears

Australia Apples, nashi pears, pears, grapes

Belgium Bulbs

Brazil Mangoes (hot water treatment)

Chile Stonefruit, berries, grapes, cut flowe

fruits & vegetables

Colombia Mangoes (hot water treatment)

Costa Rica Mangoes (hot water treatment), papa

Ecuador Mangoes (hot water treatment), melo

zone)

France Apples

Great Britain Bulbs

Guatemala Mangoes (hot water treatment)

Haiti Mangoes (hot water treatment)

Ireland Bulbs

Israel Bulbs

Jamaica Ugli fruit, cut flowers, papaya, & 28 

other commodities

Japan Sand pears, Unshu oranges, Fuji app

Korea Sand pears, mandarin oranges

Mexico Mangoes (hot water treatment), citru

(fumigation or from free zone), appl

New Zealand Apples, pears, Nashi pears

The Netherlands Bulbs

Nicaragua Mangoes (hot water treatment)

Peru Mangoes (hot water treatment)

Scotland Bulbs

South Africa Apples, pears, plums, grapes

Spain Lemons, clementines, Valencia oran

Taiwan Mangoes (hot water treatment)

Turkey Bulbs

Venezuela Mangoes (hot water treatment)
toopat ad aaeat; woto stegteatoa, egoa, ad t

tional agricultural health organizations; and cooperate in international progra

against certain pests and diseases that directly threaten American agriculture. 

of the latter are the MOSCAMED program—which combats Medfly infestati

Mexico and Guatemala—and a program to eradicate screwworms, a parasitic 

of warm-blooded animals. Screwworm flies lay their eggs on the edge of ope

wounds, and the developing larvae feed on the living flesh of the host. Left un

the infestation can be fatal.

Screwworms were eradicated from the United States through the use of t

sterile insect technique. With this method, millions of screwworm flies are re

captivity, sterilized, and then released over infested areas to mate with native 

flies. Eggs produced through such matings do not hatch, and the insect literal

breeds itself out of existence.

To provide further protection to U.S. livestock, starting in 1972, eradicat

efforts were moved southward from the U.S.-Mexico border, with the eventu

of establishing a barrier of sterile flies across the Isthmus of Panama. To date

worms have been eradicated from Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, and 

Salvador. Eradication efforts continue in Nicaragua and Costa Rica. An agree

has been signed to start an eradication program and construct a new rearing f

in Panama. Currently a production plant at Tuxtla-Gutierrez in Chiapas in sou

Mexico can produce up to 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

the northern part of that country.

Coping with Invasions

If, despite our best efforts, foreign pests or diseases do manage to slip pa

our border defenses, APHIS conducts appropriate control and eradication me

Examples include Mediterranean fruit fly eradication projects in California in 

early 1990’s and outbreaks of exotic Newcastle disease in pet birds in several 

during the 1980’s.

APHIS has a special cadre of people who deal with introductions of exot

pests. Known as “Rapid Response Teams,” these groups have been mobilized 

several occasions to combat costly infestations of Medflies. 

Early detection of exotic animal diseases by alert livestock producers and 

ticing veterinarians who contact specially trained State and Federal veterinari

the key to their quick detection and elimination. More than 300 such trained v

narians are located throughout the United States to investigate suspected fore

diseases. Within 24 hours of diagnosis, one of two specially trained task force

APHIS’ Veterinary Services can be mobilized at the site of an outbreak to imp

the measures necessary to eradicate the disease.

Currently, APHIS officials are actively working to prevent the entry of bo

spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)—sometimes referred to as “mad cow dise

This disease has had a serious impact on the British livestock industry. BSE h

206
uat poteoGeat taad otecoutes wee Ss 

exist. In addition, APHIS has conducted a BSE surveillance program sin

Specialists have examined brain specimens from more than 3,300 cattle 

found no evidence of BSE.

Import-Export Regulations

APHIS is responsible for enforcing regulations governing the impor

of plants and animals and certain agricultural products. 

Import requirements depend on both the product and the country of 

and plant materials usually must be accompanied by a phytosanitary cert

by an official of the exporting country. Livestock and poultry must be ac

by a health certificate, also issued by an official of the exporting country. 

products, such as meats and hides, are restricted if they originate in coun

have a different disease status than 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 other countries must be quarantined at one of four animal import ce

Newburgh, NY; Miami, FL; Los Angeles, CA; and Honolulu, HI. A spec

security animal import center at Key West, FL, provides a safe means of 

animals from countries where foot-and-mouth disease exists.

Personally owned pet birds can enter through one of six USDA-oper

quarantine facilities: New York, NY; Miami, FL; San Ysidro, CA; Hidalg

Los Angeles, CA; and Honolulu, HI. 

Pet birds from Canada can enter without quarantine because Canada

disease programs and import rules are similar to those of the United Stat

mercial shipments of pet birds can enter through one of 60 privately own

supervised quarantine facilities. 

APHIS cooperates with the U.S. Department of the Interior in carryi

provisions of the Endangered Species Act that deal with imports and exp

endangered plant, animal, or bird species. APHIS inspectors at ports of e

trained to identify these species and to notify Interior of any species prot

the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) f

inspection. Also, at many ports, APHIS officers inspect and sample seed im

foreign countries to ensure that it is accurately labeled and free of noxious 

APHIS also maintains 14 plant introduction stations, the largest of w

Miami, FL, for commercial importation of plant materials. Smaller statio

Orlando, FL; San Juan, PR; JFK International Airport, Jamaica, NY; Hob

Houston, El Paso, and Los Indios (Brownsville), TX; Nogales, AZ; San D

Los Angeles, and San Francisco, CA; Seattle, WA; and Honolulu, HI.

To facilitate agricultural exports, APHIS officials certify the health o

and animals that are shipped to foreign countries. APHIS assures that U.

plant products meet the plant quarantine import requirements of foreign 

This assurance is in the form of a phytosanitary certificate, issued by APH
208

s wttecoutepats Q wo deawtpat ateaepots, 

Veterinary Services (VS) officials and its National Center for Import and Exp

provide health certification for animals and animal products designated for ex

Examinations and tests—usually done by USDA-accredited veterinarians—c

both U.S. export health requirements and the frequently complex import requ

ments of the receiving nation. A VS veterinarian endorses export health certifi

after all tests and other requirements have been met. Then a final examination 

conducted by a VS veterinarian at the port of export before the livestock or p

leave the country. During 1994, livestock exports increased by 30 percent ove

previous year.

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

In 1996. for instance, APHIS and Food Safety and Inspection Service official

dinated negotiations to avert a Russian embargo on U.S. poultry exports wort

million a year. On the plant side, efforts by APHIS and Foreign Agricultural S

officials helped maintain U.S. wheat exports after the March 1996 discovery 

outbreak of Karnal bunt, a fungal disease of wheat, in Arizona. The United St

the world’s leading wheat exporter, accounting for one-third of world wheat e

U.S. wheat exports in calendar 1995 were valued at $5.5 billion.

Domestic Plant Health Programs

In most cases, plant pest problems are handled by individual farmers, ran

other property owners, and their State or local governments. However, when 

insect, weed, or disease poses a particularly serious threat to a major crop, the

Nation’s forests, or other plant resources, APHIS may join in the control work

Most pests and weeds that are targets of APHIS’ Plant Protection and Qu

programs are not native to America. They gained entry into this country throu

commercial trade channels, international travelers, or other means.

When pests are new to this country, control techniques may not be availa

any case, PPQ applies interstate quarantines and takes other steps to prevent s

until effective control measures can be developed.

In many cases, foreign pests are only minor problems in their native land

because they are kept in check by native parasites, predators, and diseases. Si

many of these natural enemies may not exist in the United States, one of PPQ

trol techniques—in cooperation with USDA’s Agricultural Research Service—

importation, rearing, and release of parasites and other biological control org

Biocontrol—Nature’s Way

In its classical sense, biological control means using predators, parasites, 

pathogens to combat plant pests. Predators and parasites include insects, mite

nematodes that naturally attack a target pest. Pathogens include bacteria, viru

or fungi that cause diseases specifically injurious to a target pest.

Biological control was first put to broad, practical use in the United State

the 1880’s. At that time, California citrus groves were being devastated by an 

insect, the cottony-cushion scale. A USDA scout working in Australia found t
as ept te scae sect ocausg ecooc daage evesce. 

To coordinate the important search for new and better biocontrol opp

a National Biological Control Institute was established in APHIS in 1989

Institute’s mission is to promote, facilitate, and provide leadership for bio

control. Its main job is to compile and release technical information and 

the work needed to find, identify, and augment or distribute new biologic

agents. 

The Institute relies on scientists from ARS and elsewhere to identify 

useful biological control agents. These agents are carefully screened at q

centers before being put to use.

Various agencies have successfully cooperated on biocontrol project

example, several decades ago, ARS scientists found six species of stingl

in Europe that keep alfalfa weevils in check. In 1980, APHIS took on the 

establishing these beneficial wasps across the land. Between 1980 and 19

and its cooperators raised and distributed about 17 million wasps, and to

beneficial wasps within reach of virtually every alfalfa field in the countr

mated that the benefits of the alfalfa weevil biocontrol program amount t

million per year, representing a return of about $87 for each $1 spent on 

Other APHIS biocontrol programs currently underway in cooperatio

agencies include efforts against the cereal leaf beetle, sweet potato white

wheat aphid, Colorado potato beetle, euonymus scale, brown citrus aphid

spurge, diffuse and spotted knapweed, and common crupina. Promising b

agents for other pests are being tested at PPQ biocontrol labs located at M

Niles, MI, and Bozeman, MT.

“Deliver Us from Weevil”—Boll Weevil Eradication

One major domestic program PPQ is coordinating is the effort to era

weevils from the United States. The boll weevil entered this country from 

the late 1890’s and soon became a major pest of cotton. It has caused an 

$12 billion in losses to the Nation’s economy. In 1973, it was estimated t

cides applied to control boll weevils accounted for about one-third of the 

to agricultural crops in the United States. 

The success of a 1971-73 cooperative boll weevil eradication experi

tions of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama involving Federal and State 

and grower associations led to two 3-year demonstration projects. One w

cation trial in North Carolina and Virginia; the second was an optimum p

ment trial in Mississippi. The eradication trial was a success in 1980, and 

has undergone regular, incremental expansion since that time. 

The current boll weevil eradication effort judiciously applies pestici

on the number of adult weevils trapped around cotton fields. The traps co

pheromone (insect attractant) and a small amount of insecticide that kills 

weevils. In eradication program areas, one to three traps are placed per a

checked weekly. Pesticides are applied only to fields that reach a predete

number of trapped weevils. This selective use of pesticides results in fiel
g ay uteeed to spay ots pest. s adect beet oeat

boll weevil, growers are able to maintain beneficial insects that help control m

secondary pests. This further reduces the amount of pesticide used each seaso

produce the cotton crop.

The table below shows the progress in eradicating boll weevils from U.S

growing areas.

States Eradication Weev

involved Acres 

1983 VA/NC/SC 160,000 3

1985 +CA/AZ 1,400,000 9

1987 +GA/FL/AL 450,000 1,50

1994 +MS/TN/TX 550,000 2,00

1996 Same 1,200,000 4,60

In the cooperative boll weevil eradication program, APHIS supplies equi

technical and administrative support, and a portion of program funds. Grower 

assessments and/or State appropriations finance the great majority of the prog

70 percent or more.

The success of the program has brought a resurgence of cotton productio

supporting industries. Planting intentions reported by the National Cotton Co

indicated more than a 13.5-percent increase in cotton acreage in 1995 compar

with 1994.

Witchweed—A Success Story

Witchweed is a parasitic plant that attaches itself to the roots of crops suc

corn, sorghum, sugar cane, and other members of the grass family, robbing th

water and vital nutrients. Each plant can produce up to 500,000 seeds per yea

the seeds can remain viable in the soil for up to 15 years, germinating only w

they come into contact with the root of a host plant.

Witchweed was introduced into the Carolinas from Africa in the mid-195

When the parasite first struck, corn plants mysteriously withered and died. A st

visiting from India recognized the weed and told U.S. agricultural experts wha

Over the course of an eradication effort that began in 1974, some 450,00

have been infested. The eradication program was based on surveillance to loc

infested fields, quarantines to prevent spread, and a combination of herbicide

germination stimulants to actually eradicate the weed.

At the beginning of FY 1995, with fewer than 28,000 infested acres rema

APHIS turned operation of the program over to North Carolina to complete e

tion there, but continues to help finish the eradication effort in South Carolina

late 1996, the infested area was reduced to less than 10,000 acres.

210
tatve ogassoppecotote WesteUted States. s 

which began in 1987 and closed down in 1994, was aimed at finding bett

acceptable ways of preventing grasshopper damage, while protecting the 

ment. Activities included developing means to predict and manage grass

breaks, developing biological control alternatives that minimize the use o

and integrating proven control techniques into guidelines for APHIS rang

grasshopper programs. 

All this information was integrated into a computer-based decisionm

gram called “HOPPER.” HOPPER is a user-friendly software package th

grasshopper predictions, selection and timing of control options, compila

weather data, and analysis of the economics of range management practi

example of how HOPPER is used was provided by a Logan County, CO

August 1996. He wrote: “I was recently asked to utilize the district’s reso

help ranchers save grass pasture obviously threatened by grasshoppers.” 

HOPPER computer model (previously downloaded from the Internet), h

the return and decided on the best treatment method.

“We discovered that we would spend $4 per acre in an effort to save 

acre of grass. The ranchers quickly realized they could purchase hay to r

forage and save money. The program showed us we would also have ver

on next year’s population. It also showed us that we should initiate any c

sooner in the year than we have done in the past.” 

Other domestic PPQ programs include a quarantine program to prev

artificial spread of the European gypsy moth from infested areas in the N

United States through movement of outdoor household goods and other a

quarantines to prevent the spread of imported fire ants through movemen

nursery material from infested areas, and releasing irradiated sterile pink 

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 

responsibility of the APHIS Veterinary Services (VS) program. VS veter

ical officers and animal health technicians work with their counterparts i

and with livestock producers to carry out cooperative programs to contro

cate certain animal diseases. The decision to begin a nationwide campaig

a domestic animal disease is based on a number of factors, the most impo

which is: “Are producers and the livestock industry a leading force in the 

This organized effort against livestock diseases began in 1884 when 

created a special Agency within USDA to combat bovine pleuropneumon

dreaded cattle disease that was crippling exports as well as taking a heav

domestic cattle. Within 8 years, contagious bovine pleuropneumonia had 

eradicated and this campaign set the pattern for subsequent animal disea

and eradication programs.
212

eaisease

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 Hog cholera

1985 Lethal avian influenza

Current VS disease eradication programs include cooperative State-Fede

efforts directed at cattle and swine brucellosis, bovine tuberculosis, and pseud

in swine. The following table shows the status of States in these programs.

Cattle Swine 

Swine

State Brucellosis* Brucellosis** TB*** Pseudorab

AL Class A Stage 2 Free S

AK Free Free Free 

AZ Free Free Free 

AR Class A Stage 2 Free S

CA Class A Free M-A S

CO Free Free Free 

CT Free Free Free 

DE Free Free Free 

FL Class A Stage 2 Free S

GA Class A Free Free S

HI Free Free Free S

ID Free Free Free 

IL Free Free Free S

IN Free Free Free Sta

IA Class A Free Free Sta

KS Class A Free Free S

KY Class A Free Free S

LA Free Stage 2 Free S

ME Free Free Free 

MD Free Free Free 

MA Free Free Free S

MI Free Free Free 

MN Free Free Free Sta
MO Class A Free Free 

MT Free Free Free 

NE Free Free Free 

NV Free Free Free 

NH Free Free Free 

NJ Free Free Free 

NM Free Free M-A 

NY Free Free Free 

NC Free Free M-A 

ND Free Free Free 

OH Free Free Free 

OK Class A Stage 2 M-A 

OR Free Free Free 

PA Free Free M-A 

PR Free Free M-A 

RI Free Free Free 

SC Free Stage 2 Free 

SD Class A Free Free 

TN Free Free Free 

TX Class A Stage 2 M-A 

UT Free Free Free 

VT Free Free Free 

VI Free Free Free 

VA Free Free M-A 

WA Free Free Free 

WV Free Free Free 

WI Free Free Free 

WY Free Free Free 

* Class A (less than .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

Disease control and eradication measures include quarantines to sto

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, 

and disinfection of contaminated premises. In addition to the programs l

APHIS also cooperates with the States in a Voluntary Flock Certification 

combat scrapie in sheep and goats. By October 1996, 302 sheep and goa

been enrolled in the certification program. A current listing of enrolled fl

State and by breed, is available on the World Wide Web (http://www.aph

vs/scrapie/status.html). 

APHIS animal health programs are carried out by a field force of ab

erinarians and 360 lay inspectors working out of area offices (usually loc
ae cetes oeceece te dagostc sceces ad ategapat o

animal health programs. 

Under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act of 1913, APHIS enforces regulations t

assure that animal vaccines and other veterinary biologics are safe, pure, pote

effective. Veterinary biologics are products designed to diagnose, prevent, or 

animal diseases. They are used to protect or diagnose disease in a variety of d

animals, including farm animals, household pets, poultry, fish, and fur bearer

In contrast to animal medicines, drugs, or chemicals—all of which are re

by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration—veterinary biologics are derivati

living organisms. Unlike some pharmaceutical products, most biologics leave 

chemical residues in animals. Furthermore, most disease organisms do not de

resistance to the immune response produced by a veterinary biologic.

Veterinarians and other professionals in the APHIS VS Center for Veterin

Biologics regulate and license all veterinary biologics as well as the facilities 

they are produced. They also inspect and monitor the production of veterinary 

ics, including both genetically engineered products and products produced by 

ventional means. Necessary tests of veterinary biologics are conducted at the 

National Veterinary Services Laboratories at Ames, Iowa.

APHIS also regulates the licensing and production of genetically enginee

vaccines and other veterinary biologics. These products range from diagnosti

for feline leukemia virus to genetically engineered vaccines to prevent pseud

a serious disease affecting swine. With the pseudorabies vaccines, tests kits h

been developed to distinguish between infected animals and those vaccinated 

genetically engineered vaccines. 

Since the first vaccine was licensed in 1979, a total of 63 genetically eng

biologics have been licensed; all but 12 are still being produced.

More than a half-century ago, there were perhaps a half a dozen animal v

and other biologics available to farmers. Now there are 2,341 active product l

and 120 licensed manufacturers.

Monitoring Plant and Animal Pests and Diseases

In order to combat plant pests and animal diseases, it’s important to know 

number and where they are located.

To monitor plant pests, APHIS works with the States in a project called t

Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey, which started in 1982 as a pilot project

data on weeds, insects, and plant diseases and pests is entered into a nationwi

base, the National Agricultural Pest Information System (NAPIS). This datab

be accessed from anywhere in the country by persons with an authorized acco

By accessing NAPIS, users can retrieve the latest data on pests. NAPIS d

assist with forecasting, early pest warning, quicker and more precise delimiti

efforts, and better planning for plant pest eradication or control efforts. Surve

which can reflect the absence as well as the presence of pests—also helps U.S

exports, assuring foreign countries that our commodities are free of specific p

and diseases.

214
as tet ad gapcs es. e data cabe dowoaded ad aayed wt

information systems (GIS) to provide graphic representation of informat

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 th

APHIS National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS). This pro

is conducted by APHIS’ Veterinary Services, began in 1983. 

NAHMS compiles statistics and information from existing data base

ers new data through short- and long-term targeted studies to present a b

picture of animal agriculture. This information then can be used to predic

improve animal production efficiency and food quality. NAHMS provide

cally sound data concerning U.S. livestock and poultry diseases and dise

tions, along with their costs and associated production practices. By the e

NAHMS had conducted seven national studies on U.S. animal populatio

(2), dairy (2), beef cow/calf, beef feedlot, and sheep. Sentinel monitoring 

ity and mortality in beef feedlots and Marek’s disease in broiler operation

among NAHMS’ short-term projects.

Information from NAHMS aids a broad group of users throughout a

For instance, baseline animal health and management data from NAHMS 

studies are helping analysts identify associations between Salmonella an

agement. NAHMS data are also helping researchers evaluate manageme

that contribute to the occurrence of Johne’s disease and digital dermatitis 

State and national officials, industry groups, and producers apply NAHM

and information in educational programs and in setting research prioritie

NAHMS information is available through the WorldWide Web:

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah

Regulating Biotechnology in Agriculture

Scientists use agricultural biotechnology with a variety of laboratory 

such as genetic engineering, to improve plants, animals, and micro-organ

Recent discoveries have led to virus-resistant crops such as cucumbers, t

potatoes; to better vaccines and diagnostic kits used for diseases of horse

and swine; and even to new and improved varieties of commercial flowe

Since 1987, APHIS’role in agricultural biotechnology has been to m

oversee regulations to ensure the safe and rapid development of the prod

biotechnology. Applicants under APHIS’ effective regulations and practi

lines can safely test—outside of the physical containment of the laborato

cally engineered organisms. 

APHIS officials issue permits or acknowledge notification for the im

interstate movement, or field testing of genetically engineered plants, mi

isms, and invertebrates that are developed from components from plant p

material. 
exemption process once it has been established that a genetically engineered 

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. To date, 23 engineered plant lines have been proven safe and no longer n

to be regulated by APHIS. The most recent of these—in September 1996—w

genetically engineered virus-resistant papaya developed by Cornell Universit

Besides the papaya, crops deregulated include:

■ Five tomato lines for delayed ripening,

■ Four cotton lines, one for insect resistance and four for herbicide toler

■ Two soybean lines for herbicide tolerance,

■ One rapeseed line for increased production of laurate,

■ Two squash lines for disease resistance,

■ Two potato lines for insect resistance, and

■ Six corn lines, three for herbicide tolerance and three for insect resista

APHIS biotechnology personnel meet with regulatory officials from othe

nations on a regular basis to foster regulatory harmonization. These discussio

intended to help ensure that requirements imposed by other countries are as c

tent as possible with U.S. requirements and that our trading partners are kept

informed of biotechnology regulatory developments.

Information about APHIS’ biotechnology regulations, current submissio

and new issues and events can be seen on the WorldWide Web:

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/oa/new/ab.html

Controlling Wildlife Damage

The mission of APHIS’Animal Damage Control (ADC) program is to pr

Federal leadership in managing problems caused by wildlife. Wildlife is a sig

public resource that is greatly valued by the American public. But by its very 

wildlife also can damage agricultural and industrial resources, pose risks to h

health and safety, and affect other natural resources. ADC helps solve problem

occur when human activity and wildlife are in conflict with one another. In do

ADC attempts to develop and use wildlife management strategies that are bio

cally, environmentally, and socially sound.

The need for effective and environmentally sound wildlife damage mana

is rising dramatically. There are several reasons for this. Increasing suburban 

opment intrudes upon traditional wildlife habitats. Population explosions of s

adaptable wildlife species, such as coyotes and deer, pose increasing risks to 

activities. At the same time, advances in science and technology are providin

native methods for solving wildlife problems.

APHIS’ National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC), the world’s only re

facility devoted entirely to developing methods for managing wildlife damag

accounts for about one-fourth of ADC’s budget. In existence since the 1920’s

NWRC has an integrated, multidisciplinary research program that is uniquely 

to provide scientific information and solutions to wildlife damage problems.

216
dg etods to educe teats to uasaety webds co

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 bird damage to fish hatcheries and cereal crops, 

■ Studying coyote biology and behavior to develop techniques for 

livestock from these predators, and 

■ Looking at ways to solve wildlife problems in urban areas involv

things as deer in backyards, raccoons in gardens, squirrels in attic

on golf courses.

More than half of U.S. farmers experience economic loss from anim

In 1994, sheep and goat producers lost an estimated $17.7 million due to 

In 1995, cattle producers’losses to predators were worth $39.6 million. C

alone caused $11.5 million in sheep losses and $21.8 million in cattle los

wide. A survey in 1993 showed that wildlife caused $92 million in losses 

ducers in the top 10 corn-producing States.

Additionally, beavers in the Southeastern United States cause an esti

million in damage each year to public and private property, while Missis

farmers lose nearly $6 million worth of fingerlings to fish-eating birds. D

in Pennsylvania, white-tailed deer caused crop losses totaling $30 millio

bird populations cause an estimated annual loss to U.S. agriculture of $1

In 1994, the annual dollar loss to agriculture in the United States from w

about $600 million.

Humane Care of Animals

A number of local, State, and Federal laws deal with the humane tre

care of animals. 

An important Federal law in this area is the Animal Welfare Act, wh

the care and treatment of animals that are used for research or exhibition 

as pets at the wholesale level. This Act, which APHIS administers, does 

retail pet stores. The Act also specifically excludes animals raised for foo

(including fur-bearing animals). USDA has long had a concern for the he

well-being of animals. The first Federal humane law, which mandated fe

for farm animals being transported by barge or rail, was passed in 1873. 

responding to complaints about suffering and neglected dogs and cats su

research institutions and focusing on the problem of “petnapping,” Cong

the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act. 

Four years later, a much more comprehensive piece of legislation—

Welfare Act—was enacted. This law expanded coverage to most other w

animals used in research, to animals in zoos and circuses and marine mam

life shows and exhibits, and to animals sold in the wholesale pet trade. T

not cover retail pet shops, game ranches, livestock shows, rodeos, State o

fairs, or dog and cat shows. 
The Animal Welfare Act has been amended three times. A 1976 amendm

extended the scope of the Act to include care and treatment while animals are 

transported via common carriers. It also outlawed animal fighting ventures, s

dog or cock fights, unless specifically allowed by State law. 

218

dation by other wildlife. Here are a few examples of Animal Dama

Control efforts:

■ A farmer in Washington requested ADC assistance after thousa

of Canada geese congregated on his 43-acre field of carrots an

began eating his crop, which had a potential market value of m

than $7,000 an acre. Noise-making devices and other scare ta

recommended by ADC were successful in frightening the gees

keeping them out of his field.

■ A mountain lion that killed a dog and attacked another dog and 

mule in Colorado was captured by an ADC specialist and officia

from the Colorado Division of Wildlife. The lion was released

unharmed in a remote site about 165 miles from the community

where the attacks occurred.

■ In 1991, a plane carrying 350 passengers aborted takeoff at JF

International Airport after gulls were drawn into one of its engin

Although no one was seriously injured, the aircraft lost its brake

and 10 tires in the accident. Between 1988 and 1990, there we

average of 170 bird strikes against airplanes per year at that ai

After ADC became involved in managing bird populations at the 

port in 1990, laughing gull strikes were reduced by 66 percent 

1991, and by 89 percent in 1992 compared with the previous 2

period.

■ Livestock guarding dogs, predator-proof fencing, and the “Elec

Guard” (a device developed by ADC that combines a flashing s

light and a siren to scare coyotes) are examples of nonlethal w

to minimize damage from predators.

■ ADC helps protect many threatened or endangered species fro

predation, including the California least tern and light-footed cla

rail, the San Joaquin kit fox, the Aleutian Canada goose, the

Louisiana pearlshell (mussel), and two species of endangered 

turtles.

■ In 1995, ADC cooperated with Texas officials to help combat a

rabies epidemic in the southern part of that State. ADC-develop

coyote baits laced with a genetically engineered rabies vaccine

approved by APHIS for use in the project were dropped over a

14,400-square-mile area stretching from Maverick County, at th

Mexican border, to Calhoun County, on the Gulf Coast. The go

the project is to create a buffer zone of immunized coyotes to h

prevent the further spread of canine rabies across Texas into m

heavily populated areas. 
tos to povde oeecse odogs ad te psycoogcawebeg o

primates.

In 1993, the Act was further amended to help prevent the use of lost 

pets in research by giving pet owners more time to find their pets and by 

more documentation from dealers who sell animals to researchers. Unde

regulations, pounds and animal shelters must hold dogs and cats for at le

including a Saturday, before releasing them to dealers.

The table below shows some animal welfare statistics for fiscal 1996

Regulatory Enforcement and Animal Care officials within APHIS en

Animal Welfare Act through a system of licensing and registration of reg

nesses. Inspectors check to make sure that licensees and registrants are c

with the standards for proper care and handling of animals covered by th

If violations are noted, inspectors set deadlines for correcting the sit

extreme situations, APHIS can seize and take custody of animals whose 

imminent danger. If the problem isn’t corrected, the person responsible m

charged with a violation and prosecuted through civil procedures. Penalt

fines, suspension or revocation of licenses, and cease-and-desist orders to 

future violations. The table below summarizes penalties over the past 4 fi

Animal Welfar

________________________________________________________

e Sanctions Imposed, FY 1993-96

1993 1994 1995 

Fines imposed $165,250 $345,900 $451,725 $

License revocations,

suspensions, and 

refusals 13 23 19 

Animal Welfare Accomplishments, FY 1996

———————————————————————————

Animals used in research 1

Registered research facilities 

Licensed animal dealers 

Licensed and registered exhibitors 

Compliance inspections 
peded because oaWeae ct voatos te aeas oeco

ing, veterinary care, housing, storage, sanitation, identification, and tr

■ A Florida dolphin exhibitor was fined $10,000 and had his license sus

because of Animal Welfare Act violations. His four remaining dolphin

transferred to other organizations better equipped to handle these mam

■ A university in New York agreed to the issuance of a consent decision 

order to pay a civil penalty of $450,000, all but $25,000 of which mus

either used to improve housing for its nonhuman primates, at its prem

elsewhere, or donated to a nonprofit sanctuary for nonhuman primates

As part of its outreach activities, APHIS’Animal Care home page on the

Internet’s WorldWide Web includes a “missing and found pets” page

(http://www.aphis.usda.gov/reac/anlost.html) that lets people advertise missin

found cats and dogs. The service, which includes photos, also helps research 

tions check to make sure they do not accept lost or stolen animals.

APHIS also enforces the Horse Protection Act, which prohibits the cruel 

of “soring” show horses. The primary enforcement tool is inspection of horse

shows by APHIS personnel and by “Designated Qualified Persons” who are l

by industry organizations and certified and monitored by APHIS.

Aquaculture

APHIS provides services to the aquaculture industry in a number of area

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

approximately $1.5 billion. The aquaculture industry provides about 300,000 

nationwide. 

Current APHIS services include licensing of fish vaccines and other biol

under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act, controlling birds and damage-causing anim

and providing health certification services for exports. APHIS is currently wo

expand its aquatic animal health activities, its underlying authority to support 

try efforts to increase exports of aquacultural products around the world, its c

tion of interstate regulation, and its protection of the industry from the entry o

animal pests and 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; the main concern is that the United States does not have a single 

Agency with legal authority to monitor, prevent, and control outbreak

aquatic animal disease. Currently, U.S. responsibility in this area is di

among four Federal departments (Agriculture, Interior, Commerce, an

Health and Human Services) and the 50 States. APHIS is working wit

Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture’s Task Force on Aquatic Animal 

to clarify Federal Agency roles, avoid duplication of authority, and ac

adequate protection of U.S. aquatic animals, both wild and cultivated

220
of dollars in losses to shrimp producers in those States. This disease is th

have been introduced via shrimp products imported from South America

absence of specific legal authority, APHIS officials have been providing 

assistance to the extent possible to the producers affected by this outbrea

efforts to control and prevent spread of the disease being very limited. A

therefore exploring the best ways to achieve a coordinated Federal regula

program to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic plants, animal

isms that could harm commercial aquaculture production.

■ Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards

Administration 

The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSAthe marketing of livestock, poultry, meat, cereals, oilseeds, and relat

tural products and promotes fair and competitive trading practices for the 

benefit of 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 fo

cultural products. GIPSA’s Packers and Stockyards Programs ensure ope

competitive markets for livestock, meat, and poultry. The Federal Grain 

Program provides the U.S. grain market with Federal quality standards a

system for applying them. 
Tthe marketing of livestock, poultry, meat, cereals, oilseeds, and relat

tural products and promotes fair and competitive trading practices for the 

benefit of 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 fo

cultural products. GIPSA’s Packers and Stockyards Programs ensure ope

competitive markets for livestock, meat, and poultry. The Federal Grain 

Program provides the U.S. grain market with Federal quality standards a

system for applying them. 
222

oga, oseeds, puses, ce, ad eated coodtes. s pogaseves

American agriculture by providing descriptions (grades) and testing methodo

for measuring the quality and quantity of grain, rice, edible beans, and relate

modities. GIPSA also provides a wide range of inspection and weighing serv

a fee basis, through the official grain inspection and weighing system, a uniq

nership of Federal, State, and private laboratories. In FY 1996, the official sy

performed over 2.3 million inspections on 250 million metric tons of grain an

related commodities.

Specifically, under the U.S. Grain Standards Act, and those provisions o

Agricultural Marketing Act (AMA) of 1946 that relate to inspection of rice, p

lentils, and processed grain products, GIPSA:

■ Establishes official U.S. grading standards and testing procedures for 

grains (barley, corn, oats, rye, sorghum, triticale, wheat, and mixed gr

four oilseeds (canola, flaxseed, soybeans, and sunflower seed), rice, l

dry peas, and a variety of edible beans.

■ Provides American agriculture and customers of U.S. grain around th

with a national inspection and weighing system that applies the offici

ing and testing standards and procedures in a uniform, accurate, and i

manner.

■ Inspects and weighs exported grain and oilseeds. Domestic and impo

grain and oilseed shipments, and crops with standards under the AMA

inspected and weighed upon request.

■ Monitors grain handling practices to prevent the deceptive use of the 

standards and official inspection and weighing results, and the degrad

grain quality through the introduction of foreign material, dockage, o

nongrain material to grain.

By serving as an impartial third party, GIPSA and the official grain inspe

and weighing system ensure that the Official U.S. Standards for Grain are ap

and that weights are recorded fairly and accurately. In this way, GIPSA advan

the orderly and efficient marketing and effective distribution of U.S. grain an

assigned commodities from the Nation’s farms to destinations around the wo

Packers and Stockyards Programs 

GIPSA’s Packers and Stockyards Programs administers the Packers and 

yards (P&S) Act of 1921. The purpose of the P&S Act, which has been amen

keep pace with changes in the industry, is to assure fair competition and fair 

practices, safeguard farmers and ranchers, and protect consumers and memb

the livestock, meat, and poultry industries from unfair business practices that 

unduly affect meat and poultry distribution and prices.
et ageces, ad paces wose opeatos ae subject to te ct. usua

requirement, subject firms must pay for livestock before the close of the 

ness day following the purchase and transfer of possession. In addition, t

lishes specific payment delivery requirements for livestock purchased fo

Also, packers, market agencies, and dealers operating in commerce are r

file a surety bond or its equivalent. At the beginning of FY 1997, bonds t

million were in place to cover the livestock purchases of packers, market 

and dealers.

GIPSA also emphasizes custodial account investigations as a means 

protection for consignors of livestock. All market agencies selling on a c

basis are required to establish and maintain a separate bank account desig

“Custodial Account for Shippers’Proceeds,” to be used for deposits from 

purchasers and disbursements to consignors of livestock. The custodial a

has been very successful in protecting funds due livestock sellers.

Packer and Poultry Trust Activities 

If a meat packer fails to pay for livestock or a live poultry dealer for 

then receivables, inventories, and proceeds derived from such purchases 

or by poultry growing arrangement become trust assets by operation of l

assets are held by the meat packer or live poultry dealer for the benefit of 

cash sellers and/or poultry growers. Cash sellers of livestock and poultry 

legally in a priority payment position in bankruptcy or in claims against 

in the event of business failure.

Open Competition 

Competition for livestock, either in direct trading or at public marke

open and free of restrictions. Any practice, agreement, or understanding 

potential buyers from bidding in open competition would be considered 

on competition. Practices resulting in the lessening of competition for pr

livestock include apportioning of territories, price agreements or arrange

to compete, and payoffs or kickbacks to buyers. GIPSA staff members im

investigate any practice that indicates a possible restriction of competitio

Scales & Weighing Activities 

GIPSA’s Scales and Weighing program is concerned with two differ

that affect the integrity of transactions: (1) the accuracy of scales used fo

livestock, meat, and poultry, and (2) the proper and honest operation of s

assure that the weight on which a transaction is based is accurate.

The major emphasis in the Scales and Weighing program is on detec

improper and fraudulent use of scales. An investigative program uses sev

ent procedures to determine whether weighing activity is proper and hon

investigators routinely visit livestock auction markets, buying stations, a

plants for the purpose of checkweighing livestock, carcasses, and live po

with examining weight records and equipment.
224

Agricultural Marketing

Service

Director, Public Affairs 

Connie Crunkleton 

Rm 3510-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8998 

FAX 202-720-7135

ccrunkleton@usda.gov 

Public Affairs Specialist 

Carol Blake 

Rm 3510-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8998 

FAX 202-720-7135

cblake@usda.gov 

Public Affairs Specialis 

Alicia Ford 

Rm 3510-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8998 

FAX 202-720-7135

aford@usda.gov 

Public Affairs Specialist 

Becky Unkenholz 

Rm 3510-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8998 

FAX 202-720-7135

runkenholz@usda.gov 
224

, 

Connie Crunkleton 

Rm 3510-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8998 

FAX 202-720-7135

ccrunkleton@usda.gov 

Public Affairs Specialist 

Carol Blake 

Rm 3510-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8998 

FAX 202-720-7135

cblake@usda.gov 

202-720-8998 

FAX 202-720-7135

aford@usda.gov 

Public Affairs Specialist 

Becky Unkenholz 

Rm 3510-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8998 

FAX 202-720-7135

runkenholz@usda.gov 
Rm 3510-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-3203

FAX 202-720-7135

sharonl.kerr@usda.gov 

Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service

Acting Director, Legislative & Public

Affairs 

Patrick Collins 

Rm 1147-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-2511 

FAX 202-720-3982

pcollins@aphis.usd 

Deputy Director

Paula Henstridge 

Rm 1147-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-9232 

FAX 202-720-3982

phenstridge@aphis.usda.gov 

Asst. to Director

Larry Mark 

Rm 1153-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-3977 

FAX 202-720-3982

lmark@aphis.usda.gov 

Asst. Dir., Pub. Affairs 

Richard McNaney 

4B21 Riverdale, MD 20782

301-734-7799

FAX 301-734-5221

rmcnaney@aphis.usda.gov 

Asst. Dir., Exec Corresp. 

Lynn Quarles 

4A83 Riverdale, MD 20782

301-734-7776 

FAX 301-734-5941

lquarles@aphis.usda.gov 

Michael Marquis 

4A81 Riverdale, MD 20782

301-734-5267 

FAX 301-734-5941

mmarquis@aphis.usda.gov 

APHIS Regional Infor

Offices

Mountain/Western 

Stuart McDonald 

12345 W. Alameda Parkway

Lakewood, CO 80228

303-969-6565 

FAX 303-969-6578

smcdonald@aphis.usda.gov 

West Coast/Southern Border

Larry Hawkins 

P.O. Box 80483

Ontario, CA 91758

909-395-8666 

FAX 909-393-8665

lhawkins@aphis.usda.gov 

Grain Inspection, Pac

Stockyards Administr

Public Affairs Officer

Dana Stewart 

Rm 1094-S Washington, DC 20

202-720-5091 

FAX 202-205-9237

dstewart@fgis.usda.gov 

FOIA Officer

Tommy Morris 

Rm 3039-S Washington, DC 20

202-720-7063 

FAX 202-205-3941

tmorris@usda.gov 
226

Appendix

■ How To Get Information From USDA’s Office of

Communications 

The Office of Communications is integral to USDA’s historical and current 

mission. This office coordinates and assists with the flow of public information from

USDA program agencies, reviewing all publications and audiovisuals and evaluating

new information technology. It offers current information from the Office of the

Secretary on programs and policy. This office ensures that adequate and appropriate

channels are used to disseminate information to the public, and provides public

access to USDA information through the news media. 

OC administers USDA’s home page on the Internet World Wide Web 

and the 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 about programs in all mission areas.

OC also offers an automated information line to answer questions from the 

public. The number for this service is 202-720-2791.

In addition, OC coordinates departmental responses under the Freedom of

Information Act, the Privacy Act, and its amendment, the Computer Matching Act.

The following list of key Office of Communications staff is offered for your 

convenience:

Office of the Director

Director of Communications 

and Press Secretary 

Tom Amontree

Rm 402-A

Washington, DC 20250-1301

202-720-4623

FAX 202-720-5043

tom.amontree@usda.gov

Deputy Director

Sedelta Verble

Rm 412-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-4623

FAX 202-690-2164

sedelta.verble@usda.gov

Deputy Press Secretary 

Jim Petterson

Rm404-A

Washington, DC 20250-1305

202-720-4623

FAX 202-720-5043

jim.petterson@usda.gov

Deputy Press Secretary

Johna Pierce

Rm405-A

Washington, DC 20250-1305

202-720-4623

FAX 202-720-5043

johna.pierce@usda.gov
227

Deputy Press Secretary

Laura Trivers

Rm406-A

Washington, DC 20250-1305

202-720-4623

FAX 202-720-5043

laura.trivers@usda.gov

Speech Writers:

Christine Hagstrom 

Rm425-A

Washington, DC 20250-1340

202-720-7819

FAX 202-720-5043

christine.hagstrom@usda.gov

Cheryl Normile

Rm423-A

Washington, DC 20250-1340

202-720-4239

FAX 202-720-5043

cheryl.normile@usda.gov

Director of Administration 

Samuel E. Thornton 

Rm536-A

Washington, DC 20250-1310

202-720-5881

FAX 202-690-1131

sam.thornton@usda.gov

Computer Specialist

Wayne Moore 

Rm534-A

Washington, DC 20250-1310

202-720-3989

FAX 202-690-1131

wayne.moore@usda.gov

Budget Officer

Barbara Campbell

Rm530-A

Washington, DC 20250-1310

202-690-0468

FAX 202-690-1131

barbara.campbell@usda.gov

Management Analyst

Terry Logan 

Rm535-A

Washington, DC 20250-1310 

202-720-3118

FAX 202-690-1131

terry.logan@usda.gov

Freedom of Info Act & Privacy

Act Coordinator

Andrea Fowler

Rm532-A

Washington, DC 20250-1310

202-720-8164

FAX 202-690-1131 

andrea.fowler@usda.gov

Communications 

Coordination & 

Review Center

Director

Stan Prochaska

Rm440-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-7454

FAX 202-690-3611

stan.prochaska@usda.gov

Deputy Director and

Communications Coordinator

for Administration, IG, CFO,

CIO

Martha Cashion

Rm442-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-3310

FAX 202-690-3611

martha.cashion@usda.gov 

Communications Coordinator

for Farm & Foreign 

Agricultural Services

Wayne Baggett

Rm444-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-2032

FAX 202-690-3611

wayne.baggett@usda.gov
228

Communications Coordinator

for Food, Nutrition & 

Consumer Services

Jim Borland 

Rm434-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-690-0469

FAX 202-690-3611

jim.borland@usda.gov

Communications Coordinator

for Food Safety, and

Marketing & 

Regulatory Programs

Jerry Redding

Rm432-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-6959

FAX 202-690-3611

jerry.redding@usda.gov

Communications Coordinator

for Natural Resources & 

Environment

Janet Sledge

Rm446-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-2065

FAX 202-690-3611

janet.sledge@usda.gov

Communications Coordinator

for Research, Education & 

Economics

Maria Bynum

Rm448-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-5192

FAX 202-690-3611

maria.bynum@usda.gov

Communications Coordinator

for Rural Development

Jim Brownlee

Rm436-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-2091

FAX 202-690-3611

jim.brownlee@usda.gov

“USDA News” 

Coordinator/Editor

Ron Hall 

Rm430-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-5747

FAX 202-690-3611

ron.hall@usda.gov

“Ag Calendar” & “How To Get 

Info. From USDA” Editor

Shirley Adams 

Rm 440-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-2882 

FAX 202-690-3611

shirley.adams@usda.gov

Internet Coordinator & 

Web Master

Victor Powell

Rm528-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-7762

FAX 202-690-3611 

victor.powell@usda.gov

Electronic Information 

Coordinator

Charles Hobbs 

Rm456-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-9045

FAX 202-690-3611

charles.hobbs@usda.gov

News Release Coordinator

Lena Hogan

Rm460-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-9035

FAX 202-720-0539 

lena.hogan@usda.gov

AgNewsFax Service

Use FAX Telephone to call 

202-690-3944
229

Internet News Service

news@usda.gov WWW URL

http://www.usda.gov

Publishing & Information 

Services Coordinator

Ed Poe

Rm426-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-9081

FAX 202-720-4948 

ed.poe@usda.gov

Senior Writer-Editor

Dennis Carroll

Rm428-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-3298

FAX 202-690-3611

dennis.carroll@usda.gov

Writer-Editor

Carrie Pollard

Rm428-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-6046

FAX 202-690-3611

carrie.pollard@usda.gov

Executive Correspondence

Sandie Stasiak

Rm428-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-4105

FAX 202-690-3611

sandie.stasiak@usda.gov

Information Services 

Specialists:

Barbara Robinson 

Rm507-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-2791

FAX 202-690-0228 

barbara.robinson@usda.gov

Joyce Person

Rm507-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-2791 

FAX 202-690-0228

joyce.person@usda.gov

Public and Media 

Outreach Center

Director

Pat Lewis

Rm412-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-2798

FAX 202-690-2164 

pat.lewis@usda.gov

Constituent OutreachSpecialist

Dottie Click

Rm415-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-4197

FAX 202-690-2164

dottie.click!usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialists:

Deborah Smith 

Rm419-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330 

202-720-9173

FAX 202-690-2164 

ocnet.ocpost.debbie.smith@usda.gov

Joan Shaffer 

Rm409-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330 

202-720-0622

FAX 202-690-2164 

ocnet.oc-post.joan.shaffer@usda.gov

Meg Evans

Rm408-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-5247

FAX 202-690-2164 

meg.evans@usda.gov
230

Public Affairs Specialist, Civil 

Rights Implementation Team:

Marci Hilt

Rm410-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-3088

FAX 202-690-2164 

ocnet.oc-post.marci.hilt@usda.gov

Information Specialists:

John Margelos

Rm416-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-2058

FAX 202-690-2164 

john.margelos@usda.gov

Betty Briggs

Rm417-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-4623

FAX 202-690-2164 

betty.briggs@usda.gov

“AgNews” Lead Editor

Harry Leslie

Rm457-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-8138

FAX 202-720-5575

harry.leslie@usda.gov

“AgNews” Editor

Ed Moffett

Rm457-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-9065 

FAX 202-720-5575

ed.moffett@usda.gov

Visitor Information Center

Kathryn Hill

Rm103-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-5505

FAX 202-690-2164 

ocnet.oc-post.kathryn.hill@usda.gov

Hispanic Radio Newsline

Robert Miranda-Acevedo 

Rm 412-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-2914

FAX 202-690-2164 

robert.miranda@usda.gov

Design Center

Director

Eva Cuevas 

Rm517-A

Washington, DC 20250-1380

202-720-6641

FAX 202-720-8197

eva.cuevas@usda.gov

Deputy Director

David Sutton

Rm518-A

Washington, DC 20250-1380

202-720-6281

FAX 202-720-8197 

david.sutton@usda.gov

Electronic Graphic Design 

Coordinator

Julie Olson

Rm524-A

Washington, DC 20250-1380

202-720-4339

FAX 202-720-8197 

julie.olson@usda.gov

Exhibit Design Coordinator

Steve Ferretti

Rm524-A

Washington, DC 20250-1380

202-690-0852

FAX 202-720-8197 

steve.ferretti@usda.gov

Exhibit Fabrication 

Coordinator

Larry Sullivan

RmS-310

Washington, DC 20250-1380

202-720-3393

FAX 202-690-1799 

larry.sullivan@usda.gov
231

Exhibit Shipping Coordinator

Cindy Haydon

Rm517-A

Washington, DC 20250-1380

202-720-6641

FAX 202-720-8197 

cindy.haydon@usda.gov

Finance Coordinator

Skip Benton

Rm515-A

Washington, DC 20250-1380

202-720-6641

Video, Teleconference 

and Radio Center

Director

Larry A. Quinn

Rm1618-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-6072

FAX 202-720-5773

larry.quinn@usda.gov

Deputy Director/ Broadcasting 

Coordinator

Garth Clark

Rm1614-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-5376

FAX 202-720-5773

garth.clark@usda.gov

Senior Television Producer

Patrick O’Leary

Rm0095-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-7039

FAX 202-720-5773 

patrick.oleary@usda.gov

Senior Television Producer

Debbie Janifer

Rm1613-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-6446 

FAX 202-720-5773 

deboria.janifer@usda.gov

Senior Radio Producer

Gary Crawford 

Rm1623-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-7068

FAX 202-690-2165

gary.crawford@usda.gov

Senior Radio Producer

Brenda Curtis-Heiken 

Rm1623-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-7079

FAX 202-690-2165 

brenda.curtis@usda.gov

Radio Reporter

Leslie Parker

Rm1623-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-7884

FAX 202-690-2165 

leslie.parker@usda.gov

Video Production Coordinator

David Black

Rm1614-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-3068

FAX 202-720-5773

david.black@usda.gov

Senior Production Specialist

Bob Stobaugh

Rm0097-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-4753

FAX 202-720-5773 

bob.stobaugh@usda.gov

Studio Manager/Technical 

Director

Larry Holmes

Rm1623-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-4001

FAX 202-720-5773

larry.holmes@usda.gov
232

Duplication/Off Air recording

Evangline Minor

Rm1604-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-7501

FAX 202-720-5773 

evangline.minor@usda.gov

Teleconference Coordinator

David Vennell

Rm1617-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-5368

FAX 202-720-5773 

david.vennell@usda.gov

Teleconference Assistant

Mansy Pullen

Rm1615-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-2029

FAX 202-720-5773 

mansy.pullen@usda.gov

Teleconference Scheduling 

(Audio)

Anita Booth 

Rm1611-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-6143

FAX 202-690-2042

anita.booth@usda.gov

Teleconference Scheduling 

(Compressed video)

Liz Conley

Rm1611-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-8690

FAX 202-720-2042 

liz.conley@usda.gov

Training Center Scheduling

Michael Johnson

Rm1623-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-2822

FAX 202-690-2704 

ocnet.ocpost.mike.xjohnson@usda.gov

Photography Center

Director

Bill Tarpenning

Rm4404-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-6633

FAX 202-720-0902 

bill.tarpenning@usda.gov

Senior Photojournalists:

Ken Hammond

Rm4415-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-8929

FAX 202-720-0902

ken.hammond@usda.gov

Robert Nichols

Rm4415-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-8903

FAX 202-720-0902

bob.nichols@usda.gov

Larry Rana

Rm4404-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-2010

FAX 202-720-0902

larry.rana@usda.gov

Photo Reproduction/Review

Alice Welch

Rm4423-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-4022

FAX 202-720-0902 

alice.welch@usda.gov

Printing Management 

Center

Director

Al Senter

Rm501-A

Washington, D.C. 20250-1370 

202-720-7509

FAX 202-720-8939

al.senter@usda.gov 
233

Forms

Ed McVerry 

Rm501-A

Washington, D.C. 20250-1370

202-720-8137

FAX 202-720-8939 

ed.mcverry@usda.gov 

Publications

Lonnie Thomas

Rm501-A

Washington, D.C. 20250-1370

202-720-8180

FAX 202-720-8939 

lonnie.thomas@usda.gov 

Composite Orders

Mary Hill

Rm 501-A

Washington, D.C. 20250-1370

202-720-5983

FAX 202-720-8939

mary.hill@usda.gov
234

■ Conversion Chart

Metric Conversions

To convert this to this multiply by

Length

inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . millimeters (mm) 25.4

feet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . centimeters (cm) 39

yards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . meters (m) .91

miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kilometers (km) 1.61

millimeters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inches .04

centimeters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inches .4

meters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inches 39.37

meters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yards 1.1

kilometers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . miles .6

Weight

ounces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . grams(g) 28

pounds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kilograms (kg) .45

short tons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . metric tons .9

kilograms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pounds 2.2

metric tons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pounds 2,204.6

metric tons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . short tons 1.1

Area

square inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . square centimeters 6.5

square feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . square meters .09

square miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . square kilometers 2.6

acres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . hectares .4

square centimeters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . square inches .16

square meters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . square yards 1.2

square kilometers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . square miles .4

hectares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . acres 2.5

Volume

teaspoons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . milliliters 5

tablespoons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . milliliters 15

fluid ounces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . milliliters 30

cups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . liters .24

pints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . liters .47

quarts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . liters .95

gallons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . liters 3.8

cubic feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cubic meters .03

cubic yards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cubic meters .76
To convert this to this multiply by

milliliters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fluid ounces .03

liters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pints 2.1

liters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . quarts 1.06

liters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . gallons .26

cubic meters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cubic feet 35

cubic meters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cubic yards 1.3

Temperature

Fahrenheit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Celsius .56 (after subtracting 31)

Celsius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fahrenheit 1.82 (then add 32)

Farm products

pounds per acre . . . . . . . . . . kilograms per hectare 1.14

short tons per acre . . . . . . . . kilograms per hectare 2.25

kilograms per hectare . . . . . metric tons per hectare .001

kilograms per hectare . . . . . . . . . . pounds per acre .88

tons per hectare. . . . . . . . . . . . . short tons per acre .44

tons per hectare . . . . . . . . . . kilograms per hectare 1,000

Bushel/Weight Conversions

weight in weight in 

1 bushel of: pounds kilograms

wheat, soybeans, potatoes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 27

corn, grain sorghum, rye, flaxseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 25

beets, carrots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 23

barley, buckwheat, peaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 22

oats, cottonseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 14

weight in number 

1 metric ton of: pounds of bushels

wheat, soybeans, potatoes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,204.6 36.74

corn, grain sorghum, rye, flaxseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,204.6 39.37

beets, carrots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,204.6 44.09

barley, buckwheat, peaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,204.6 45.93

oats, cottonseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,204.6 68.89

235
236 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*

Tobacco

*Planting coincides with harvesting.1Represents areas where production is concentrated, but not full spectrum of planting and harvesting periods for each crop.

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest Harvest

Plant

Plant

Plant

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.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

■ Planting and Harvesting Calendar 
237

Acid soil. Soil with a pH of less than 7.0.

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 production times

along with marketing quotas to keep supply

in line with market demand. The 1938 Act is

considered part of permanent agriculture 

legislation. Provisions of this law are often

superseded by more current legislation.

However, if the current legislation expires

and new legislation is not enacted, the law

reverts back to the permanent provisions of

the 1938 Act, along with the Agricultural 

Act of 1949.

Agronomy. The science of crop production

and soil management.

Alfalfa. A valuable leguminous crop for 

forage or hay used in livestock feeding.

Alkaline soil. Soil with a pH of more than

7.0.

Alternative farming. Production methods

other than energy- and chemical intensive

one-crop (monoculture) farming. Alternatives

include using animal and green manure rather

than chemical fertilizers, integrated pest 

management instead of chemical pesticides,

reduced tillage, crop rotation (especially with

legumes to add nitrogen), alternative crops,

or diversification of the farm enterprise.

Animal unit. A standard measure based on

feed requirements, used to combine various

classes of livestock according to size, weight,

age, and use.

Aquaculture. The production of aquatic

plants or animals in a controlled environment, such as ponds, raceways, tanks, or

cages, for all or part of their life cycle. In the

United States, baitfish, catfish, clams, crawfish, freshwater prawns, mussels, oysters,

salmon, shrimp, tropical (or ornamental) fish,

and trout account for most of the aquacultural

production. Less widely established but

growing species include alligator, hybrid

striped bass, carp, eel, red fish, northern pike,

sturgeon, and tilapia.

Arid climate. A dry climate with an annual

precipitation usually less than 10 inches. 

Not suitable for crop production without 

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 previous legislation. Base acreage

equals 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

■ Glossary of Agricultural Terms
238

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

of plant regeneration and gene manipulation

and transfer (see also genetic engineering).

Blended credit. A form of export subsidy

which combines direct Government export

credit and credit guarantees to reduce the

effective interest rate.

Brucellosis. A contagious disease in beef

and dairy cattle, which causes abortion. Same

disease in humans is known as undulant

fever.

BST (bovine somatotropin) (also called

BGH, for bovine growth hormone). A

protein hormone produced naturally in the

pituitary gland of cattle. Recombinant BST,

or rBST, is BST produced using recombinant

DNA biotechnology. BST controls the

amount of milk produced by cows.

Cargo preference. A law that requires a 

certain portion of goods or commodities

financed by the U.S. Government to be

shipped on U.S. flag ships. The law has 

traditionally applied to P.L. 480 and other

concessional financing or donations programs.

Carryover. Existing supplies of a farm commodity not used at the end of a marketing

year, and remaining to be carried over into

the next year. Marketing years generally 

start at the beginning of a new harvest for a

commodity, and extend to the same time in

the following year.

Cash grain farm. A farm on which corn,

grain sorghum, small grains, soybeans, or

field beans and peas account for at least 

50 percent of value of products sold.

Census of Agriculture. A count taken every

5 years of the number of farms, land in farms,

crop acreage and production, livestock numbers and production, farm expenses, farm

facilities and equipment, farm tenure, value

of farm products sold, farm size, type of

farm, farm operator characteristics (age, race,

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 provi-
239

sions” 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.

Complementary imports. Agricultural

import items not produced in appreciable

commercial volume in the United States,

such as bananas, coffee, rubber, cocoa, tea,

spices, and cordage fiber (see also supplementary imports).

Compost. Organic residues, or a mixture of

organic residues and soil, which have been

piled, moistened, and allowed to undergo biological decomposition for use as a fertilizer.

Concessional sales. Credit sales of a commodity in which the buyer is allowed more

favorable payment terms than those on the

open market. For example, Title I of the Food

for Peace Program (P.L. 480) provides for

financing sales of U.S. commodities with

low-interest, long-term credit.

Conservation compliance. This represents a

portion of the Highly Erodible Land

Conservation provisions of the Food Security

Act of 1985 that is designed to encourage 

the use of conservation practices on highly

erodible cropland. To remain eligible for

many USDA program benefits, farmers are

required to crop highly erodible land under 

an approved conservation plan. Also see

"Sodbuster."

Conservation district. Any unit of local government formed to carry out a local soil and

water conservation program.

Conservation plan. A combination of land

uses and practices to protect and improve soil

productivity and to prevent soil deterioration.

A conservation plan must be approved by the

local conservation district for acreage offered

in the Conservation Reserve Program. The

plan sets forth the conservation measures and

maintenance that the owner or operator will

carry out during the term of the contract.

Conservation practices. Methods which

reduce soil erosion and retain soil moisture.

Major conservation practices include conservation tillage, crop rotation, contour farming,

strip cropping, terraces, diversions, and

grassed waterways.

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). A

major provision of the Food Security Act of

1985 designed to reduce erosion and protect

water quality on up to 45 million 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.
240

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 network that links the educational and research

resources and activities of USDA with landgrant universities in every State, territory, and

the District of Columbia. The Federal partner

is the Cooperative State Research, Education,

and Extension Service. This unique Federal,

State, and local partnership focuses on practical solutions to critical issues affecting people's

daily lives.

Cost of production. The sum, measured in

dollars, of all purchased inputs and other

expenses necessary to produce farm products.

Cost of production statistics may be

expressed as an average per animal, per acre,

or per unit of production (bushel, pound, or

hundredweight) for all farms in an area or 

in the country.

County extension agent. An educator

employed by a county and/or a State cooperative extension service to bring research-based

agriculture and quality of life education to

local people to help them address farm,

home, and community problems at the local

level. 

Cover crop. A close-growing crop grown to

protect and improve soils between periods of

regular crops or between trees and vines in

orchards and vineyards.

Crop rotation. The practice of growing different crops in recurring succession on the

same land. Crop rotation plans are usually

followed for the purpose of increasing soil

fertility and maintaining good yields.

Crop year. Generally, the 12-month period

from the beginning of harvest of a particular

crop.

Custom work. Specific farm operations performed under contract between the farmer

and the contractor. The contractor furnishes

labor, equipment, and materials to perform

the operation. Custom harvesting of grain,

spraying and picking of fruit, and sheep

shearing are examples of custom work.

Dairy Export Incentive Program. A program that offers subsidies to exporters of U.S.

dairy products to assist in competition with

other nations. Payments are made by the

Commodity Credit Corporation on a bid basis

either in cash or through certificates

redeemable for commodities. The program

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.
241

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, short-lived or

seasonal incision, wider, deeper and longer

than a rill, but shallower and smaller than a

gully; and (4) wind—the carrying away of

dust and sediment by wind in areas of high

prevailing winds or low annual rainfall.

Ethanol. An alcohol fuel that may be produced from an agricultural foodstock such 

as corn, sugarcane, or wood, and may be

blended with gasoline to enhance octane,

reduce automotive exhaust pollution, and

reduce reliance on petroleum-based fuels.

Export Enhancement Program (EEP).

Started in May 1985 under the Commodity

Credit Corporation Charter Act to help U.S.

exporters meet competitors’ prices in subsidized markets. Under the EEP, exporters are

awarded bonuses, enabling them to compete

for sales in specified countries.

Extra-long staple (ELS) cotton. Cottons

having a staple length of 1-3/8 inches or

more, characterized by fineness and highfiber strength. American types include

American Pima and Sea Island cotton.

Family Farm. An agricultural business

which (1) produces agricultural commodities

for sale in such quantities so as to be recognized as a farm rather than a rural residence;

(2) produces enough income (including off

farm employment) to pay family and farm

operating expenses, to pay debts, and to

maintain the property; (3) is managed by the

operator; (4) has a substantial amount of

labor provided by the operator and family;

and (5) may use seasonal labor during peak

periods and a reasonable amount of full-time

hired labor.

Farm. USDA defines a farm in 1997 as any

place from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were produced and sold or normally would have been sold during the year. 

Farm Credit System. The system made up

of cooperatively owned financial institutions

in districts covering the United States and

Puerto Rico that finance farm and farmrelated mortgages and operating loans.

Institutions within each district specialize in

farmland loans and operating credit, or lending to farmer-owned supply, marketing, and

processing cooperatives. FCS institutions rely

on the bond market as a source of funds.

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.
242

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

were superseded by the Federal Agriculture

Improvement and Reform Act of 1996.

Food grain. Cereal seeds most commonly

used for human food, chiefly wheat and rice.

Food Security Act of 1985 (1985 Farm Act)

(P.L. 99-198). The omnibus food and agriculture legislation signed into law on December

23, 1985, that provided a 5-year framework

(1986-90) for the Secretary of Agriculture 

to administer various agricultural and food

programs.

Forage. Vegetable matter, fresh or preserved,

that is gathered and fed to animals as

roughage; includes alfalfa hay, corn silage,

and other hay crops.

Forward contracting. A method of selling

crops before harvest by which the buyer

agrees to pay a specified price to a grower for

a portion, or all, of the grower's crops.

Fungicide. A chemical substance used as a

spray, dust, or disinfectant to kill fungi infesting plants or seeds.

Futures contract. An agreement between

two people, one who sells and agrees to

deliver and one who buys and agrees to

receive a certain kind, quality, and quantity of

product to be delivered during a specified

delivery month at a specified price.

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

(GATT). An agreement originally negotiated

in 1947 to increase international trade by

reducing tariffs and other trade barriers. The

agreement provides a code of conduct for

international commerce and a framework for

periodic multilateral negotiations on trade

liberalization and expansion. The Uruguay

Round Agreement established the World

Trade Organization (WTO) to replace the

GATT. The WTO officially replaced the

GATT on January 1, 1995. 

Genetic engineering. Genetic modification

of organisms by recombinant DNA, recombinant RNA, or other specific molecular gene

transfer or exchange techniques.

Genome. All the genetic material in the 

chromosomes of a particular organism.

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
243

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.

Hedgerow. Trees or shrubs grown closely

together so that branches intertwine to form 

a continuous row.

Herbicide. Any agent or chemical used to

destroy plants, especially weeds.

Humus. The well decomposed, relatively stable portion of the partly or wholly decayed

organic matter in a soil, which provides nutrients and helps the soil retain moisture.

Hydroponics. Growing of plants in water

containing dissolved nutrients, rather than 

in soil. This process is being used in greenhouses for intensive off-season production 

of vegetables.

Infrastructure. The transportation network,

communications systems, financial institutions, and other public and private services

necessary for economic activity.

Integrated crop management. An agriculture management system that integrates all

controllable agricultural production factors

for long-term sustained productivity, profitability, and ecological soundness.

Integrated pest management (IPM). The

control of pests or diseases by using an array

of crop production strategies, combined with

careful monitoring of insect pests or weed

populations and other methods. Some

approaches include selection of resistant 

varieties, timing of cultivation, biological

control methods, and minimal use of chemical pesticides so that natural enemies of pests

are not destroyed. These approaches are used

to anticipate and prevent pests and diseases

from reaching economically damaging levels.

International trade barriers. Regulations

used by governments to restrict imports from

other countries. Examples include tariffs,

embargoes, import quotas, and unnecessary

sanitary restrictions.

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.

Loan rate. The price per unit (bushel, bale,

pound, or hundredweight) at which the

Commodity Credit Corporation will provide

loans to farmers enabling them to hold their

crops for later sale.
244

Market Access Program (MAP). Formerly

the Market Promotion Program. Participating

organizations include nonprofit trade associations, State and regional trade groups, and

private companies. Fund authority is capped

at $90 million annually for FY 1996-2002.

Market basket of farm foods.Average

quantities of U.S. farm foods purchased

annually per household in a given period.

Retail cost of these foods used as a basis for

computing an index of retail prices for

domestically produced farm foods. Excluded

are fishery products, imported foods, and

meals eaten away from home.

Marketing allotments. Provides each

processor or producer of a particular commodity a specific limit on sales for the year,

above which penalties would apply.

Marketing orders. Federal marketing orders

authorize agricultural producers to promote

orderly marketing by influencing such factors

as supply and quality, and to pool funds for

promotion and research. Marketing orders are

initiated by the industry, and are approved by

the Secretary of Agriculture and by a vote

among producers. Once approved, a marketing order is mandatory.

Marketing spread. The difference between

the retail price of a product and the farm

value of the ingredients in the product. This

farm-retail spread includes charges for

assembling, storing, processing, transporting,

and distributing the products.

Marketing year. Year beginning at harvest

time during which a crop moves to market.

Metropolitan statistical area (MSA). A

county or group of contiguous counties that

contain at least one city of 50,000 inhabitants

or more, or twin cities with a combined population of at least 50,000. In addition, contiguous counties are included in an MSA if they

are socially and economically integrated with

a central city.

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.

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

imputed rental value of operator dwellings.

Additions to inventory are treated as income.

Nitrogen. A chemical element essential to

life and one of the primary plant nutrients.

Animals get nitrogen from protein feeds;

plants get it from soil; and some bacteria get

it directly from air.

Nonfarm income. Includes all income from

nonfarm sources (excluding money earned

from working for other farmers) received by

farm operator households.

Nonpoint source pollution. Pollutants 

that cannot be traced to a specific source,

including stormwater runoff from urban and

agricultural areas.
245

Nonprogram crops. Crops—such as potatoes, vegetables, fruits, and hay—that are not

included in Federal price support programs.

Nonrecourse loan program. Provides operating capital to producers of wheat, feed

grains, cotton, peanuts, tobacco, rice, and

oilseeds. Dairy processors (until 2000) and

sugar processors are also eligible for nonrecourse loans. Farmers or processors participating in government commodity programs

may pledge a quantity of a commodity as 

collateral and obtain a loan from the CCC at 

a commodity-specific, per-unit loan rate. 

The borrower may repay the loan with interest

within a specified period and regain control

of the commodity, or forfeit the commodity

to the CCC after the specified period as full

settlement of the loan with no penalty. For

those commodities eligible for marketing

loan benefits, producers may repay the loan 

at the world price (rice and upland cotton) 

or posted county price (wheat, feed grains,

and oilseeds).

Nutrient. A chemical element or compound

that is essential for the metabolism and

growth of an organism.

Off-farm income. Includes wages and

salaries from working for other farmers, plus

nonfarm income, for all owner operator families (whether they live on a farm or not).

Oilseed crops. Primarily soybeans, and other

crops such as peanuts, cottonseed, sunflower

seed, flaxseed, safflower seed, rapeseed,

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.

Pomology. The science or study of growing

fruit.

Price index. An indicator of average price

change for a group of commodities that compares price for those same commodities in

some other period, commonly called the base

period.

Price support level. The price for a unit 

of a farm commodity (pound, ton) that the

Government will support through pricesupport loans, purchases, and/or payments.

Price support levels are determined by law

and are set by the Secretary of Agriculture. 

Price support programs. Government 

programs that aim to keep farm prices from

falling below specific minimum levels. Price

support programs for selected commodities
246

(peanuts, tobacco, sugar, and milk) are 

carried out through loans or purchases. With

price-support loans, producers (or processors

in the case of sugar) use their production of a

commodity as collateral for a loan with the

Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).

Loans enable the loan taker to store the 

commodity during periods of low prices. The

loans may be redeemed later if commodity

prices rise sufficiently to make the sale of the

commodity on the market profitable, or the

loan taker may forfeit the commodity used 

as collateral for the loan to CCC in lieu of

cash repayment. In the case of milk, CCC is

authorized through December 31, 1999, to

purchase manufactured dairy products in

order to support the price of fluid milk at

statutorily prescribed levels.

Production Credit Associations. Lending

groups, owned by their farmer borrowers,

that provide short and intermediate-term

loans for up to 10 years from funds obtained

from investors in money markets. These 

associations are an integral part of the Farm

Credit System.

Production flexibility contract payments.

The payments to be made to farmers for contract crops in 1996 through 2002 under the

1996 Farm Act. Payments for each crop are

allocated each fiscal year based on budgetary

levels and crop-specific percentages in the

1996 Farm Act.

Production flexibility contract payment

quantity. The quantity of production eligible

for production flexibility contract payments

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.

Title I of P.L. 480, also called the Food for

Peace Program, makes U.S. agricultural commodities available through long-term dollar

credit sales at low interest rates for up to 30

years. Donations for humanitarian food 

needs are provided under Title II. Title III

authorizes “food for development” grants.

Rangeland. Land which is predominantly

grasses, grasslike plants, or shrubs suitable

for grazing and browsing. Rangeland

includes natural grasslands, savannahs, many

wetlands, some deserts, tundra, and certain

shrub communities. It also includes areas

seeded to native or adapted and introduced

species that are managed like native 

vegetation.
247

Renewable resources. Resources such as

forests, rangeland, soil, and water that can 

be restored and improved.

Riparian rights. Legal water rights of a person owning land containing or bordering on 

a water course or other body of water in or 

to its banks, bed, or waters.

RNA (ribonucleic acid). A molecule similar

to DNA that functions primarily to decode

instructions for protein synthesis that are 

carried by genes.

Ruminant. Animal having a stomach with

four compartments (rumen, reticulum, omasum, and abomasum). Their digestive process

is more complex than that of animals having

a true stomach. Ruminants include cattle,

sheep, and goats, as well as deer, bison, 

buffalo, camels, and giraffes.

Rural. An area that has a population of fewer

than 2,500 inhabitants and is outside an urban

area. A rural area does not apply only to farm

residences or to sparsely settled areas, since 

a small town is rural as long as it meets the

above criteria.

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 as a mulch on the soil surface when

preparing for the following crop.

Subsistence farm. A low-income farm where

the emphasis is on production for use of the

operator and the operator's family rather than

for sale.

Supplementary imports. Farm products

shipped into this country that add to the output of U.S. agriculture. Examples include 

cattle, meat, fruit, vegetables, and tobacco

(see complementary imports).

Sustainable agriculture. An integrated system of plant and animal production practices

having a site-specific application that will,

over the long term, satisfy food and fiber

needs, enhance environmental quality and

natural resources, make the most efficient use

of nonrenewable resources and on-farm

resources, integrate natural biological cycles

and controls, sustain the economic viability

of farm operations, and enhance the quality

of life.

Swampbuster. This provision was authorized

by the Food Security Act of 1985; it discourages the conversion of natural wetlands to

cropland use. With some exceptions, producers

converting a wetland area to cropland may

lose eligibility for many USDA program 

benefits.

Terminal market. A metropolitan market

that handles all agricultural commodities.
248

Tissue culture. The technique of growing a

whole plant from a single engineered cell 

or piece of plant tissue.

Unit cost. The average cost to produce a 

single item. The total cost divided by the

number of items produced.

Upland cotton. A fiber plant developed in the

United States from stock native to Mexico

and Central America. Includes all cotton

grown in the continental United States except

Sea Island and American Pima cotton. Staple

length of upland cotton ranges from 3/4 inch

to 1 1/4 inches.

Urban. A concept defining an area that has 

a population of 2,500 or more inhabitants.

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.

Wholesale price index. Measure of average

changes in prices of commodities sold in 

primary U.S. markets. "Wholesale" refers 

to sales in large quantities by producers, not

to prices received by wholesalers, jobbers, or

distributors. In agriculture, it is the average

price received by farmers for their farm 

commodities at the first point of sale when

the commodity leaves the farm.

Zoonotic diseases. Diseases that, under 

natural conditions, are communicable from

animals to humans.

4-H. International youth organization that

empowers young people 5-19 years old

through programs and activities that foster

agricultural, science, and technology 

literacy; citizenship; and other lifelong living

skills, such as self-esteem, career and personal development. The national 4-H staff is

located in the Families, 4-H, and Nutrition

unit of the Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service. The 4-Hs

stand for Head, Heart, Hands, and Health. 

1890 Land-Grant Colleges and

Universities and Tuskegee University.

Historically Black land-grant colleges and

universities. Through the Act of August 30,

1890, and several other authorities, these

institutions may receive Federal funds for

agricultural research, extension, and teaching.
226

■ How To Get Information From USDA’s Office of

Communications 

The Office of Communications is integral to USDA’s historical and current 

mission. This office coordinates and assists with the flow of public information from

USDA program agencies, reviewing all publications and audiovisuals and evaluating

new information technology. It offers current information from the Office of the

Secretary on programs and policy. This office ensures that adequate and appropriate

channels are used to disseminate information to the public, and provides public

access to USDA information through the news media. 

OC administers USDA’s home page on the Internet World Wide Web 

and the 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 about programs in all mission areas.

OC also offers an automated information line to answer questions from the 

public. The number for this service is 202-720-2791.

In addition, OC coordinates departmental responses under the Freedom of

Information Act, the Privacy Act, and its amendment, the Computer Matching Act.

The following list of key Office of Communications staff is offered for your 

convenience:

Office of the Director

Director of Communications 

and Press Secretary 

Tom Amontree

Rm 402-A

Washington, DC 20250-1301

202-720-4623

FAX 202-720-5043

tom.amontree@usda.gov

Deputy Director

Sedelta Verble

Rm 412-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-4623

FAX 202-690-2164

sedelta.verble@usda.gov

Deputy Press Secretary 

Jim Petterson

Rm404-A

Washington, DC 20250-1305

202-720-4623

FAX 202-720-5043

jim.petterson@usda.gov

Deputy Press Secretary

Johna Pierce

Rm405-A

Washington, DC 20250-1305

202-720-4623

FAX 202-720-5043

johna.pierce@usda.gov
227

Deputy Press Secretary

Laura Trivers

Rm406-A

Washington, DC 20250-1305

202-720-4623

FAX 202-720-5043

laura.trivers@usda.gov

Speech Writers:

Christine Hagstrom 

Rm425-A

Washington, DC 20250-1340

202-720-7819

FAX 202-720-5043

christine.hagstrom@usda.gov

Cheryl Normile

Rm423-A

Washington, DC 20250-1340

202-720-4239

FAX 202-720-5043

cheryl.normile@usda.gov

Director of Administration 

Samuel E. Thornton 

Rm536-A

Washington, DC 20250-1310

202-720-5881

FAX 202-690-1131

sam.thornton@usda.gov

Computer Specialist

Wayne Moore 

Rm534-A

Washington, DC 20250-1310

202-720-3989

FAX 202-690-1131

wayne.moore@usda.gov

Budget Officer

Barbara Campbell

Rm530-A

Washington, DC 20250-1310

202-690-0468

FAX 202-690-1131

barbara.campbell@usda.gov

Management Analyst

Terry Logan 

Rm535-A

Washington, DC 20250-1310 

202-720-3118

FAX 202-690-1131

terry.logan@usda.gov

Freedom of Info Act & Privacy

Act Coordinator

Andrea Fowler

Rm532-A

Washington, DC 20250-1310

202-720-8164

FAX 202-690-1131 

andrea.fowler@usda.gov

Communications 

Coordination & 

Review Center

Director

Stan Prochaska

Rm440-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-7454

FAX 202-690-3611

stan.prochaska@usda.gov

Deputy Director and

Communications Coordinator

for Administration, IG, CFO,

CIO

Martha Cashion

Rm442-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-3310

FAX 202-690-3611

martha.cashion@usda.gov 

Communications Coordinator

for Farm & Foreign 

Agricultural Services

Wayne Baggett

Rm444-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-2032

FAX 202-690-3611

wayne.baggett@usda.gov
228

Communications Coordinator

for Food, Nutrition & 

Consumer Services

Jim Borland 

Rm434-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-690-0469

FAX 202-690-3611

jim.borland@usda.gov

Communications Coordinator

for Food Safety, and

Marketing & 

Regulatory Programs

Jerry Redding

Rm432-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-6959

FAX 202-690-3611

jerry.redding@usda.gov

Communications Coordinator

for Natural Resources & 

Environment

Janet Sledge

Rm446-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-2065

FAX 202-690-3611

janet.sledge@usda.gov

Communications Coordinator

for Research, Education & 

Economics

Maria Bynum

Rm448-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-5192

FAX 202-690-3611

maria.bynum@usda.gov

Communications Coordinator

for Rural Development

Jim Brownlee

Rm436-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-2091

FAX 202-690-3611

jim.brownlee@usda.gov

“USDA News” 

Coordinator/Editor

Ron Hall 

Rm430-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-5747

FAX 202-690-3611

ron.hall@usda.gov

“Ag Calendar” & “How To Get 

Info. From USDA” Editor

Shirley Adams 

Rm 440-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-2882 

FAX 202-690-3611

shirley.adams@usda.gov

Internet Coordinator & 

Web Master

Victor Powell

Rm528-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-7762

FAX 202-690-3611 

victor.powell@usda.gov

Electronic Information 

Coordinator

Charles Hobbs 

Rm456-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-9045

FAX 202-690-3611

charles.hobbs@usda.gov

News Release Coordinator

Lena Hogan

Rm460-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-9035

FAX 202-720-0539 

lena.hogan@usda.gov

AgNewsFax Service

Use FAX Telephone to call 

202-690-3944
229

Internet News Service

news@usda.gov WWW URL

http://www.usda.gov

Publishing & Information 

Services Coordinator

Ed Poe

Rm426-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-9081

FAX 202-720-4948 

ed.poe@usda.gov

Senior Writer-Editor

Dennis Carroll

Rm428-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-3298

FAX 202-690-3611

dennis.carroll@usda.gov

Writer-Editor

Carrie Pollard

Rm428-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-6046

FAX 202-690-3611

carrie.pollard@usda.gov

Executive Correspondence

Sandie Stasiak

Rm428-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-4105

FAX 202-690-3611

sandie.stasiak@usda.gov

Information Services 

Specialists:

Barbara Robinson 

Rm507-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-2791

FAX 202-690-0228 

barbara.robinson@usda.gov

Joyce Person

Rm507-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-2791 

FAX 202-690-0228

joyce.person@usda.gov

Public and Media 

Outreach Center

Director

Pat Lewis

Rm412-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-2798

FAX 202-690-2164 

pat.lewis@usda.gov

Constituent OutreachSpecialist

Dottie Click

Rm415-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-4197

FAX 202-690-2164

dottie.click!usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialists:

Deborah Smith 

Rm419-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330 

202-720-9173

FAX 202-690-2164 

ocnet.ocpost.debbie.smith@usda.gov

Joan Shaffer 

Rm409-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330 

202-720-0622

FAX 202-690-2164 

ocnet.oc-post.joan.shaffer@usda.gov

Meg Evans

Rm408-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-5247

FAX 202-690-2164 

meg.evans@usda.gov
230

Public Affairs Specialist, Civil 

Rights Implementation Team:

Marci Hilt

Rm410-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-3088

FAX 202-690-2164 

ocnet.oc-post.marci.hilt@usda.gov

Information Specialists:

John Margelos

Rm416-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-2058

FAX 202-690-2164 

john.margelos@usda.gov

Betty Briggs

Rm417-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-4623

FAX 202-690-2164 

betty.briggs@usda.gov

“AgNews” Lead Editor

Harry Leslie

Rm457-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-8138

FAX 202-720-5575

harry.leslie@usda.gov

“AgNews” Editor

Ed Moffett

Rm457-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-9065 

FAX 202-720-5575

ed.moffett@usda.gov

Visitor Information Center

Kathryn Hill

Rm103-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-5505

FAX 202-690-2164 

ocnet.oc-post.kathryn.hill@usda.gov

Hispanic Radio Newsline

Robert Miranda-Acevedo 

Rm 412-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-2914

FAX 202-690-2164 

robert.miranda@usda.gov

Design Center

Director

Eva Cuevas 

Rm517-A

Washington, DC 20250-1380

202-720-6641

FAX 202-720-8197

eva.cuevas@usda.gov

Deputy Director

David Sutton

Rm518-A

Washington, DC 20250-1380

202-720-6281

FAX 202-720-8197 

david.sutton@usda.gov

Electronic Graphic Design 

Coordinator

Julie Olson

Rm524-A

Washington, DC 20250-1380

202-720-4339

FAX 202-720-8197 

julie.olson@usda.gov

Exhibit Design Coordinator

Steve Ferretti

Rm524-A

Washington, DC 20250-1380

202-690-0852

FAX 202-720-8197 

steve.ferretti@usda.gov

Exhibit Fabrication 

Coordinator

Larry Sullivan

RmS-310

Washington, DC 20250-1380

202-720-3393

FAX 202-690-1799 

larry.sullivan@usda.gov
231

Exhibit Shipping Coordinator

Cindy Haydon

Rm517-A

Washington, DC 20250-1380

202-720-6641

FAX 202-720-8197 

cindy.haydon@usda.gov

Finance Coordinator

Skip Benton

Rm515-A

Washington, DC 20250-1380

202-720-6641

Video, Teleconference 

and Radio Center

Director

Larry A. Quinn

Rm1618-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-6072

FAX 202-720-5773

larry.quinn@usda.gov

Deputy Director/ Broadcasting 

Coordinator

Garth Clark

Rm1614-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-5376

FAX 202-720-5773

garth.clark@usda.gov

Senior Television Producer

Patrick O’Leary

Rm0095-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-7039

FAX 202-720-5773 

patrick.oleary@usda.gov

Senior Television Producer

Debbie Janifer

Rm1613-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-6446 

FAX 202-720-5773 

deboria.janifer@usda.gov

Senior Radio Producer

Gary Crawford 

Rm1623-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-7068

FAX 202-690-2165

gary.crawford@usda.gov

Senior Radio Producer

Brenda Curtis-Heiken 

Rm1623-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-7079

FAX 202-690-2165 

brenda.curtis@usda.gov

Radio Reporter

Leslie Parker

Rm1623-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-7884

FAX 202-690-2165 

leslie.parker@usda.gov

Video Production Coordinator

David Black

Rm1614-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-3068

FAX 202-720-5773

david.black@usda.gov

Senior Production Specialist

Bob Stobaugh

Rm0097-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-4753

FAX 202-720-5773 

bob.stobaugh@usda.gov

Studio Manager/Technical 

Director

Larry Holmes

Rm1623-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-4001

FAX 202-720-5773

larry.holmes@usda.gov
232

Duplication/Off Air recording

Evangline Minor

Rm1604-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-7501

FAX 202-720-5773 

evangline.minor@usda.gov

Teleconference Coordinator

David Vennell

Rm1617-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-5368

FAX 202-720-5773 

david.vennell@usda.gov

Teleconference Assistant

Mansy Pullen

Rm1615-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-2029

FAX 202-720-5773 

mansy.pullen@usda.gov

Teleconference Scheduling 

(Audio)

Anita Booth 

Rm1611-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-6143

FAX 202-690-2042

anita.booth@usda.gov

Teleconference Scheduling 

(Compressed video)

Liz Conley

Rm1611-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-8690

FAX 202-720-2042 

liz.conley@usda.gov

Training Center Scheduling

Michael Johnson

Rm1623-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-2822

FAX 202-690-2704 

ocnet.ocpost.mike.xjohnson@usda.gov

Photography Center

Director

Bill Tarpenning

Rm4404-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-6633

FAX 202-720-0902 

bill.tarpenning@usda.gov

Senior Photojournalists:

Ken Hammond

Rm4415-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-8929

FAX 202-720-0902

ken.hammond@usda.gov

Robert Nichols

Rm4415-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-8903

FAX 202-720-0902

bob.nichols@usda.gov

Larry Rana

Rm4404-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-2010

FAX 202-720-0902

larry.rana@usda.gov

Photo Reproduction/Review

Alice Welch

Rm4423-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-4022

FAX 202-720-0902 

alice.welch@usda.gov

Printing Management 

Center

Director

Al Senter

Rm501-A

Washington, D.C. 20250-1370 

202-720-7509

FAX 202-720-8939

al.senter@usda.gov 
233

Forms

Ed McVerry 

Rm501-A

Washington, D.C. 20250-1370

202-720-8137

FAX 202-720-8939 

ed.mcverry@usda.gov 

Publications

Lonnie Thomas

Rm501-A

Washington, D.C. 20250-1370

202-720-8180

FAX 202-720-8939 

lonnie.thomas@usda.gov 

Composite Orders

Mary Hill

Rm 501-A

Washington, D.C. 20250-1370

202-720-5983

FAX 202-720-8939

mary.hill@usda.gov
234

■ Conversion Chart

Metric Conversions

To convert this to this multiply by

Length

inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . millimeters (mm) 25.4

feet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . centimeters (cm) 39

yards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . meters (m) .91

miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kilometers (km) 1.61

millimeters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inches .04

centimeters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inches .4

meters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inches 39.37

meters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yards 1.1

kilometers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . miles .6

Weight

ounces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . grams(g) 28

pounds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kilograms (kg) .45

short tons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . metric tons .9

kilograms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pounds 2.2

metric tons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pounds 2,204.6

metric tons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . short tons 1.1

Area

square inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . square centimeters 6.5

square feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . square meters .09

square miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . square kilometers 2.6

acres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . hectares .4

square centimeters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . square inches .16

square meters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . square yards 1.2

square kilometers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . square miles .4

hectares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . acres 2.5

Volume

teaspoons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . milliliters 5

tablespoons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . milliliters 15

fluid ounces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . milliliters 30

cups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . liters .24

pints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . liters .47

quarts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . liters .95

gallons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . liters 3.8

cubic feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cubic meters .03

cubic yards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cubic meters .76
To convert this to this multiply by

milliliters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fluid ounces .03

liters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pints 2.1

liters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . quarts 1.06

liters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . gallons .26

cubic meters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cubic feet 35

cubic meters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cubic yards 1.3

Temperature

Fahrenheit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Celsius .56 (after subtracting 31)

Celsius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fahrenheit 1.82 (then add 32)

Farm products

pounds per acre . . . . . . . . . . kilograms per hectare 1.14

short tons per acre . . . . . . . . kilograms per hectare 2.25

kilograms per hectare . . . . . metric tons per hectare .001

kilograms per hectare . . . . . . . . . . pounds per acre .88

tons per hectare. . . . . . . . . . . . . short tons per acre .44

tons per hectare . . . . . . . . . . kilograms per hectare 1,000

Bushel/Weight Conversions

weight in weight in 

1 bushel of: pounds kilograms

wheat, soybeans, potatoes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 27

corn, grain sorghum, rye, flaxseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 25

beets, carrots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 23

barley, buckwheat, peaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 22

oats, cottonseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 14

weight in number 

1 metric ton of: pounds of bushels

wheat, soybeans, potatoes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,204.6 36.74

corn, grain sorghum, rye, flaxseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,204.6 39.37

beets, carrots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,204.6 44.09

barley, buckwheat, peaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,204.6 45.93

oats, cottonseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,204.6 68.89

235
236 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*

Tobacco

*Planting coincides with harvesting.1Represents areas where production is concentrated, but not full spectrum of planting and harvesting periods for each crop.

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest Harvest

Plant

Plant

Plant

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.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

■ Planting and Harvesting Calendar 
237

Acid soil. Soil with a pH of less than 7.0.

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 production times

along with marketing quotas to keep supply

in line with market demand. The 1938 Act is

considered part of permanent agriculture 

legislation. Provisions of this law are often

superseded by more current legislation.

However, if the current legislation expires

and new legislation is not enacted, the law

reverts back to the permanent provisions of

the 1938 Act, along with the Agricultural 

Act of 1949.

Agronomy. The science of crop production

and soil management.

Alfalfa. A valuable leguminous crop for 

forage or hay used in livestock feeding.

Alkaline soil. Soil with a pH of more than

7.0.

Alternative farming. Production methods

other than energy- and chemical intensive

one-crop (monoculture) farming. Alternatives

include using animal and green manure rather

than chemical fertilizers, integrated pest 

management instead of chemical pesticides,

reduced tillage, crop rotation (especially with

legumes to add nitrogen), alternative crops,

or diversification of the farm enterprise.

Animal unit. A standard measure based on

feed requirements, used to combine various

classes of livestock according to size, weight,

age, and use.

Aquaculture. The production of aquatic

plants or animals in a controlled environment, such as ponds, raceways, tanks, or

cages, for all or part of their life cycle. In the

United States, baitfish, catfish, clams, crawfish, freshwater prawns, mussels, oysters,

salmon, shrimp, tropical (or ornamental) fish,

and trout account for most of the aquacultural

production. Less widely established but

growing species include alligator, hybrid

striped bass, carp, eel, red fish, northern pike,

sturgeon, and tilapia.

Arid climate. A dry climate with an annual

precipitation usually less than 10 inches. 

Not suitable for crop production without 

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 previous legislation. Base acreage

equals 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

■ Glossary of Agricultural Terms
238

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

of plant regeneration and gene manipulation

and transfer (see also genetic engineering).

Blended credit. A form of export subsidy

which combines direct Government export

credit and credit guarantees to reduce the

effective interest rate.

Brucellosis. A contagious disease in beef

and dairy cattle, which causes abortion. Same

disease in humans is known as undulant

fever.

BST (bovine somatotropin) (also called

BGH, for bovine growth hormone). A

protein hormone produced naturally in the

pituitary gland of cattle. Recombinant BST,

or rBST, is BST produced using recombinant

DNA biotechnology. BST controls the

amount of milk produced by cows.

Cargo preference. A law that requires a 

certain portion of goods or commodities

financed by the U.S. Government to be

shipped on U.S. flag ships. The law has 

traditionally applied to P.L. 480 and other

concessional financing or donations programs.

Carryover. Existing supplies of a farm commodity not used at the end of a marketing

year, and remaining to be carried over into

the next year. Marketing years generally 

start at the beginning of a new harvest for a

commodity, and extend to the same time in

the following year.

Cash grain farm. A farm on which corn,

grain sorghum, small grains, soybeans, or

field beans and peas account for at least 

50 percent of value of products sold.

Census of Agriculture. A count taken every

5 years of the number of farms, land in farms,

crop acreage and production, livestock numbers and production, farm expenses, farm

facilities and equipment, farm tenure, value

of farm products sold, farm size, type of

farm, farm operator characteristics (age, race,

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 provi-
239

sions” 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.

Complementary imports. Agricultural

import items not produced in appreciable

commercial volume in the United States,

such as bananas, coffee, rubber, cocoa, tea,

spices, and cordage fiber (see also supplementary imports).

Compost. Organic residues, or a mixture of

organic residues and soil, which have been

piled, moistened, and allowed to undergo biological decomposition for use as a fertilizer.

Concessional sales. Credit sales of a commodity in which the buyer is allowed more

favorable payment terms than those on the

open market. For example, Title I of the Food

for Peace Program (P.L. 480) provides for

financing sales of U.S. commodities with

low-interest, long-term credit.

Conservation compliance. This represents a

portion of the Highly Erodible Land

Conservation provisions of the Food Security

Act of 1985 that is designed to encourage 

the use of conservation practices on highly

erodible cropland. To remain eligible for

many USDA program benefits, farmers are

required to crop highly erodible land under 

an approved conservation plan. Also see

"Sodbuster."

Conservation district. Any unit of local government formed to carry out a local soil and

water conservation program.

Conservation plan. A combination of land

uses and practices to protect and improve soil

productivity and to prevent soil deterioration.

A conservation plan must be approved by the

local conservation district for acreage offered

in the Conservation Reserve Program. The

plan sets forth the conservation measures and

maintenance that the owner or operator will

carry out during the term of the contract.

Conservation practices. Methods which

reduce soil erosion and retain soil moisture.

Major conservation practices include conservation tillage, crop rotation, contour farming,

strip cropping, terraces, diversions, and

grassed waterways.

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). A

major provision of the Food Security Act of

1985 designed to reduce erosion and protect

water quality on up to 45 million 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.
240

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 network that links the educational and research

resources and activities of USDA with landgrant universities in every State, territory, and

the District of Columbia. The Federal partner

is the Cooperative State Research, Education,

and Extension Service. This unique Federal,

State, and local partnership focuses on practical solutions to critical issues affecting people's

daily lives.

Cost of production. The sum, measured in

dollars, of all purchased inputs and other

expenses necessary to produce farm products.

Cost of production statistics may be

expressed as an average per animal, per acre,

or per unit of production (bushel, pound, or

hundredweight) for all farms in an area or 

in the country.

County extension agent. An educator

employed by a county and/or a State cooperative extension service to bring research-based

agriculture and quality of life education to

local people to help them address farm,

home, and community problems at the local

level. 

Cover crop. A close-growing crop grown to

protect and improve soils between periods of

regular crops or between trees and vines in

orchards and vineyards.

Crop rotation. The practice of growing different crops in recurring succession on the

same land. Crop rotation plans are usually

followed for the purpose of increasing soil

fertility and maintaining good yields.

Crop year. Generally, the 12-month period

from the beginning of harvest of a particular

crop.

Custom work. Specific farm operations performed under contract between the farmer

and the contractor. The contractor furnishes

labor, equipment, and materials to perform

the operation. Custom harvesting of grain,

spraying and picking of fruit, and sheep

shearing are examples of custom work.

Dairy Export Incentive Program. A program that offers subsidies to exporters of U.S.

dairy products to assist in competition with

other nations. Payments are made by the

Commodity Credit Corporation on a bid basis

either in cash or through certificates

redeemable for commodities. The program

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.
241

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, short-lived or

seasonal incision, wider, deeper and longer

than a rill, but shallower and smaller than a

gully; and (4) wind—the carrying away of

dust and sediment by wind in areas of high

prevailing winds or low annual rainfall.

Ethanol. An alcohol fuel that may be produced from an agricultural foodstock such 

as corn, sugarcane, or wood, and may be

blended with gasoline to enhance octane,

reduce automotive exhaust pollution, and

reduce reliance on petroleum-based fuels.

Export Enhancement Program (EEP).

Started in May 1985 under the Commodity

Credit Corporation Charter Act to help U.S.

exporters meet competitors’ prices in subsidized markets. Under the EEP, exporters are

awarded bonuses, enabling them to compete

for sales in specified countries.

Extra-long staple (ELS) cotton. Cottons

having a staple length of 1-3/8 inches or

more, characterized by fineness and highfiber strength. American types include

American Pima and Sea Island cotton.

Family Farm. An agricultural business

which (1) produces agricultural commodities

for sale in such quantities so as to be recognized as a farm rather than a rural residence;

(2) produces enough income (including off

farm employment) to pay family and farm

operating expenses, to pay debts, and to

maintain the property; (3) is managed by the

operator; (4) has a substantial amount of

labor provided by the operator and family;

and (5) may use seasonal labor during peak

periods and a reasonable amount of full-time

hired labor.

Farm. USDA defines a farm in 1997 as any

place from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were produced and sold or normally would have been sold during the year. 

Farm Credit System. The system made up

of cooperatively owned financial institutions

in districts covering the United States and

Puerto Rico that finance farm and farmrelated mortgages and operating loans.

Institutions within each district specialize in

farmland loans and operating credit, or lending to farmer-owned supply, marketing, and

processing cooperatives. FCS institutions rely

on the bond market as a source of funds.

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.
242

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

were superseded by the Federal Agriculture

Improvement and Reform Act of 1996.

Food grain. Cereal seeds most commonly

used for human food, chiefly wheat and rice.

Food Security Act of 1985 (1985 Farm Act)

(P.L. 99-198). The omnibus food and agriculture legislation signed into law on December

23, 1985, that provided a 5-year framework

(1986-90) for the Secretary of Agriculture 

to administer various agricultural and food

programs.

Forage. Vegetable matter, fresh or preserved,

that is gathered and fed to animals as

roughage; includes alfalfa hay, corn silage,

and other hay crops.

Forward contracting. A method of selling

crops before harvest by which the buyer

agrees to pay a specified price to a grower for

a portion, or all, of the grower's crops.

Fungicide. A chemical substance used as a

spray, dust, or disinfectant to kill fungi infesting plants or seeds.

Futures contract. An agreement between

two people, one who sells and agrees to

deliver and one who buys and agrees to

receive a certain kind, quality, and quantity of

product to be delivered during a specified

delivery month at a specified price.

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

(GATT). An agreement originally negotiated

in 1947 to increase international trade by

reducing tariffs and other trade barriers. The

agreement provides a code of conduct for

international commerce and a framework for

periodic multilateral negotiations on trade

liberalization and expansion. The Uruguay

Round Agreement established the World

Trade Organization (WTO) to replace the

GATT. The WTO officially replaced the

GATT on January 1, 1995. 

Genetic engineering. Genetic modification

of organisms by recombinant DNA, recombinant RNA, or other specific molecular gene

transfer or exchange techniques.

Genome. All the genetic material in the 

chromosomes of a particular organism.

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
243

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.

Hedgerow. Trees or shrubs grown closely

together so that branches intertwine to form 

a continuous row.

Herbicide. Any agent or chemical used to

destroy plants, especially weeds.

Humus. The well decomposed, relatively stable portion of the partly or wholly decayed

organic matter in a soil, which provides nutrients and helps the soil retain moisture.

Hydroponics. Growing of plants in water

containing dissolved nutrients, rather than 

in soil. This process is being used in greenhouses for intensive off-season production 

of vegetables.

Infrastructure. The transportation network,

communications systems, financial institutions, and other public and private services

necessary for economic activity.

Integrated crop management. An agriculture management system that integrates all

controllable agricultural production factors

for long-term sustained productivity, profitability, and ecological soundness.

Integrated pest management (IPM). The

control of pests or diseases by using an array

of crop production strategies, combined with

careful monitoring of insect pests or weed

populations and other methods. Some

approaches include selection of resistant 

varieties, timing of cultivation, biological

control methods, and minimal use of chemical pesticides so that natural enemies of pests

are not destroyed. These approaches are used

to anticipate and prevent pests and diseases

from reaching economically damaging levels.

International trade barriers. Regulations

used by governments to restrict imports from

other countries. Examples include tariffs,

embargoes, import quotas, and unnecessary

sanitary restrictions.

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.

Loan rate. The price per unit (bushel, bale,

pound, or hundredweight) at which the

Commodity Credit Corporation will provide

loans to farmers enabling them to hold their

crops for later sale.
244

Market Access Program (MAP). Formerly

the Market Promotion Program. Participating

organizations include nonprofit trade associations, State and regional trade groups, and

private companies. Fund authority is capped

at $90 million annually for FY 1996-2002.

Market basket of farm foods.Average

quantities of U.S. farm foods purchased

annually per household in a given period.

Retail cost of these foods used as a basis for

computing an index of retail prices for

domestically produced farm foods. Excluded

are fishery products, imported foods, and

meals eaten away from home.

Marketing allotments. Provides each

processor or producer of a particular commodity a specific limit on sales for the year,

above which penalties would apply.

Marketing orders. Federal marketing orders

authorize agricultural producers to promote

orderly marketing by influencing such factors

as supply and quality, and to pool funds for

promotion and research. Marketing orders are

initiated by the industry, and are approved by

the Secretary of Agriculture and by a vote

among producers. Once approved, a marketing order is mandatory.

Marketing spread. The difference between

the retail price of a product and the farm

value of the ingredients in the product. This

farm-retail spread includes charges for

assembling, storing, processing, transporting,

and distributing the products.

Marketing year. Year beginning at harvest

time during which a crop moves to market.

Metropolitan statistical area (MSA). A

county or group of contiguous counties that

contain at least one city of 50,000 inhabitants

or more, or twin cities with a combined population of at least 50,000. In addition, contiguous counties are included in an MSA if they

are socially and economically integrated with

a central city.

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.

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

imputed rental value of operator dwellings.

Additions to inventory are treated as income.

Nitrogen. A chemical element essential to

life and one of the primary plant nutrients.

Animals get nitrogen from protein feeds;

plants get it from soil; and some bacteria get

it directly from air.

Nonfarm income. Includes all income from

nonfarm sources (excluding money earned

from working for other farmers) received by

farm operator households.

Nonpoint source pollution. Pollutants 

that cannot be traced to a specific source,

including stormwater runoff from urban and

agricultural areas.
245

Nonprogram crops. Crops—such as potatoes, vegetables, fruits, and hay—that are not

included in Federal price support programs.

Nonrecourse loan program. Provides operating capital to producers of wheat, feed

grains, cotton, peanuts, tobacco, rice, and

oilseeds. Dairy processors (until 2000) and

sugar processors are also eligible for nonrecourse loans. Farmers or processors participating in government commodity programs

may pledge a quantity of a commodity as 

collateral and obtain a loan from the CCC at 

a commodity-specific, per-unit loan rate. 

The borrower may repay the loan with interest

within a specified period and regain control

of the commodity, or forfeit the commodity

to the CCC after the specified period as full

settlement of the loan with no penalty. For

those commodities eligible for marketing

loan benefits, producers may repay the loan 

at the world price (rice and upland cotton) 

or posted county price (wheat, feed grains,

and oilseeds).

Nutrient. A chemical element or compound

that is essential for the metabolism and

growth of an organism.

Off-farm income. Includes wages and

salaries from working for other farmers, plus

nonfarm income, for all owner operator families (whether they live on a farm or not).

Oilseed crops. Primarily soybeans, and other

crops such as peanuts, cottonseed, sunflower

seed, flaxseed, safflower seed, rapeseed,

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.

Pomology. The science or study of growing

fruit.

Price index. An indicator of average price

change for a group of commodities that compares price for those same commodities in

some other period, commonly called the base

period.

Price support level. The price for a unit 

of a farm commodity (pound, ton) that the

Government will support through pricesupport loans, purchases, and/or payments.

Price support levels are determined by law

and are set by the Secretary of Agriculture. 

Price support programs. Government 

programs that aim to keep farm prices from

falling below specific minimum levels. Price

support programs for selected commodities
246

(peanuts, tobacco, sugar, and milk) are 

carried out through loans or purchases. With

price-support loans, producers (or processors

in the case of sugar) use their production of a

commodity as collateral for a loan with the

Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).

Loans enable the loan taker to store the 

commodity during periods of low prices. The

loans may be redeemed later if commodity

prices rise sufficiently to make the sale of the

commodity on the market profitable, or the

loan taker may forfeit the commodity used 

as collateral for the loan to CCC in lieu of

cash repayment. In the case of milk, CCC is

authorized through December 31, 1999, to

purchase manufactured dairy products in

order to support the price of fluid milk at

statutorily prescribed levels.

Production Credit Associations. Lending

groups, owned by their farmer borrowers,

that provide short and intermediate-term

loans for up to 10 years from funds obtained

from investors in money markets. These 

associations are an integral part of the Farm

Credit System.

Production flexibility contract payments.

The payments to be made to farmers for contract crops in 1996 through 2002 under the

1996 Farm Act. Payments for each crop are

allocated each fiscal year based on budgetary

levels and crop-specific percentages in the

1996 Farm Act.

Production flexibility contract payment

quantity. The quantity of production eligible

for production flexibility contract payments

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.

Title I of P.L. 480, also called the Food for

Peace Program, makes U.S. agricultural commodities available through long-term dollar

credit sales at low interest rates for up to 30

years. Donations for humanitarian food 

needs are provided under Title II. Title III

authorizes “food for development” grants.

Rangeland. Land which is predominantly

grasses, grasslike plants, or shrubs suitable

for grazing and browsing. Rangeland

includes natural grasslands, savannahs, many

wetlands, some deserts, tundra, and certain

shrub communities. It also includes areas

seeded to native or adapted and introduced

species that are managed like native 

vegetation.
247

Renewable resources. Resources such as

forests, rangeland, soil, and water that can 

be restored and improved.

Riparian rights. Legal water rights of a person owning land containing or bordering on 

a water course or other body of water in or 

to its banks, bed, or waters.

RNA (ribonucleic acid). A molecule similar

to DNA that functions primarily to decode

instructions for protein synthesis that are 

carried by genes.

Ruminant. Animal having a stomach with

four compartments (rumen, reticulum, omasum, and abomasum). Their digestive process

is more complex than that of animals having

a true stomach. Ruminants include cattle,

sheep, and goats, as well as deer, bison, 

buffalo, camels, and giraffes.

Rural. An area that has a population of fewer

than 2,500 inhabitants and is outside an urban

area. A rural area does not apply only to farm

residences or to sparsely settled areas, since 

a small town is rural as long as it meets the

above criteria.

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 as a mulch on the soil surface when

preparing for the following crop.

Subsistence farm. A low-income farm where

the emphasis is on production for use of the

operator and the operator's family rather than

for sale.

Supplementary imports. Farm products

shipped into this country that add to the output of U.S. agriculture. Examples include 

cattle, meat, fruit, vegetables, and tobacco

(see complementary imports).

Sustainable agriculture. An integrated system of plant and animal production practices

having a site-specific application that will,

over the long term, satisfy food and fiber

needs, enhance environmental quality and

natural resources, make the most efficient use

of nonrenewable resources and on-farm

resources, integrate natural biological cycles

and controls, sustain the economic viability

of farm operations, and enhance the quality

of life.

Swampbuster. This provision was authorized

by the Food Security Act of 1985; it discourages the conversion of natural wetlands to

cropland use. With some exceptions, producers

converting a wetland area to cropland may

lose eligibility for many USDA program 

benefits.

Terminal market. A metropolitan market

that handles all agricultural commodities.
248

Tissue culture. The technique of growing a

whole plant from a single engineered cell 

or piece of plant tissue.

Unit cost. The average cost to produce a 

single item. The total cost divided by the

number of items produced.

Upland cotton. A fiber plant developed in the

United States from stock native to Mexico

and Central America. Includes all cotton

grown in the continental United States except

Sea Island and American Pima cotton. Staple

length of upland cotton ranges from 3/4 inch

to 1 1/4 inches.

Urban. A concept defining an area that has 

a population of 2,500 or more inhabitants.

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.

Wholesale price index. Measure of average

changes in prices of commodities sold in 

primary U.S. markets. "Wholesale" refers 

to sales in large quantities by producers, not

to prices received by wholesalers, jobbers, or

distributors. In agriculture, it is the average

price received by farmers for their farm 

commodities at the first point of sale when

the commodity leaves the farm.

Zoonotic diseases. Diseases that, under 

natural conditions, are communicable from

animals to humans.

4-H. International youth organization that

empowers young people 5-19 years old

through programs and activities that foster

agricultural, science, and technology 

literacy; citizenship; and other lifelong living

skills, such as self-esteem, career and personal development. The national 4-H staff is

located in the Families, 4-H, and Nutrition

unit of the Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service. The 4-Hs

stand for Head, Heart, Hands, and Health. 

1890 Land-Grant Colleges and

Universities and Tuskegee University.

Historically Black land-grant colleges and

universities. Through the Act of August 30,

1890, and several other authorities, these

institutions may receive Federal funds for

agricultural research, extension, and teaching.
A

AARC. See Alternative Agricultural Research 

and Commercialization Corporation

Acreage Conservation Reserve program, 22

ADC. See Animal Damage Control program

Aerial photographs, 91

Age distribution of rural population, 52-53

AgrAbility project, 185

Agricultural Act of 1949, 98

Agricultural Air Quality Task Force, 162

Agricultural Conservation Program, 159

Agricultural Fair Practices Act, 200

Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure 

Act of 1978, 23

Agricultural Labor Affairs, 65

Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, 222

Agricultural Marketing Service

commodity procurement programs, 197

direct marketing and wholesale market 

development, 200-201

fair trade practices, 199-200

global markets, 201-202

grading, quality standards, and certification, 

195-196, 201-202

information sources, 224-225

Market News, 197, 202

marketing agreements and orders, 199

organic certification, 200

pesticide information and records, 197-198

promotional campaigns, 198

transportation policy and research, 201

Agricultural Outlook, 186

Agricultural regions, 15, 16

Agricultural Research Service

cooperation with other agencies, 208

information sources, 188

overview, 175, 178-179

selected highlights, 179-182

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation 

Service, 86

Agricultural Statistics Board, 188

Agricultural Telecommunications Program, 185

Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, 99

Air quality programs, 138, 162

Alabama

acres of State and private lands burned (1995), 151

boll weevil eradication, 209

cash receipts ranking (1995), 38

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1995), 40-42

Enterprise Communities, 84

Government payments by program (1995), 44

lands administered by the Forest Service, 145

number and acres of wildfires on National Forest

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms (1991-96), 18-19

payments from national forest receipts (FY

1994-96), 146

recreation use on National Forest System lands by . 

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 192

status of certain animal diseases, 2

Alaska

acres of State and private lands bu

cash receipts ranking (1995), 38

Government payments by program 

lands administered by the Forest S

number and acres of wildfires on N

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farm

payments from national forest rec

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest 

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 192

status of certain animal diseases, 2

Alcoholic beverages

dietary changes (1970-95), 1

Alternative Agricultural Research an

Commercialization Corporation, 8

American Indian and Alaska Native 

Director of Native American Prog

farm and foreign agricultural serv

food, nutrition, and consumer serv

Food Distribution Program on Ind

75, 113-114, 197

food safety, 76

marketing and regulatory program

natural resources and environmen

Nutrition Program for the Elderly 

policy, 74

research, education, and economic

rural development, 75

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Animal Care home page, 220

aquaculture, 220-221

biotechnology regulation, 215-216

cooperation with other agencies, 7

domestic animal health programs, 

domestic plant health programs, 2

excluding foreign pests and diseas

forest health protection, 141-144

humane care of animals, 217-220

information sources, 225

International Services, 205, 206

mission, 203

monitoring plant and animal pests 

214-215

overview, 202-203

Rapid Response Teams, 206

Veterinary Services, 76, 211, 212

wildlife damage control, 216-217

Animal Damage Control program, 2

Animal vaccines, 214, 220

Animal welfare. See Animals

Animal Welfare Act, 217-219, 220

Animals

Animal Care home page, 220

animal welfare accomplishments 

animal welfare sanctions (FY 199

damage control, 216-217
250

monitoring pests and diseases, 214-215

APHIS. See Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas 

program, 81

Aquaculture, 220-221

Arizona

acres of State and private lands burned (1995), 151

cash receipts ranking (1995), 38

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1995), 40-42

Enterprise Communities, 84

Government payments by program (1995), 44

lands administered by the Forest Service, 145

number and acres of wildfires on National Forest . . 

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms (1991-96), 18-19

payments from national forest receipts (FY1994-

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest System lands by

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 192

status of certain animal diseases, 212

Arkansas

acres of State and private lands burned (1995), 151

cash receipts ranking (1995), 37, 38

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1995), 40-42

Enterprise Communities, 84

Government payments by program (1995), 44

lands administered by the Forest Service, 145

number and acres of wildfires on National Forest

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms (1991-96), 18-19

payments from national forest receipts (FY1994- . . 

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest System lands by

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 192

status of certain animal diseases, 212

ARS. See Agricultural Research Service

B

Barley

acreage harvested, 22

commodity loan programs, 87

price supports, 43

Beverages

dietary changes (1970-95), 1, 4

BIA. See Bureau of Indian Affairs

Biocontrol of pests, 208-209

Biologics, veterinary, 214, 220

Biotechnology

genetically engineered plants proven safe, 216

regulating in agriculture, 215-216

Blue Thumb Project, 185

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, 206-207

Bureau of Indian Affairs, 75

Bureau of Land Management, 134

Bushel/weight conversion chart, 235

Business and Industry loans, 80

loan guarantees, 80

Business development programs, 80-82

cash receipts ranking (1995), 35, 38

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (19

diversity in agricultural production, 35

Enterprise Communities, 84

Government payments by program (1995

lands administered by the Forest Service, 

number and acres of wildfires on Nationa

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms (1991

payments from national forest receipts (F

96), 146

production expenses ranking, 35

recreation use on National Forest System 

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 192

status of certain animal diseases, 212

Calories

dietary changes (1970-95), 7

sources of food energy in the U.S. food s

Carbohydrates

dietary changes (1970-95), 6, 7, 12

Catastrophic Program (CAT), 88

Cattle

animal health programs, 211-214

cash receipts, 31

Packers and Stockyards Programs, 222

predation losses, 217

status of certain diseases in States, 212-2

CCC. See Commodity Credit Corporation

Census of Agriculture, 187

Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, 

120, 121

Center for Veterinary Biologics, 214

Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Heal

Certification services, 195-196, 201-202, 20

Challenge Cost-Share program, 134

Charitable institutions

USDA food donations to, 115-116

Cheese

dietary changes (1970-95), 1, 3, 4, 6

export programs, 99

price supports, 88

Child and Adult Care Food Program, 110-1

Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization A

1989, 111

Children

age distribution in rural areas, 53

foodborne illness risk, 129

nutrition assistance programs, 104-113

poverty and, 59, 61

Children, Youth, and Families at Risk Initia

Children’s Nutrition Research Center, 186

CITES. See Convention on International Tr

Endangered Species

Civil rights, 69

Civilian Conservation Centers, 153-154

Clean Water Act, 162

Clinger-Cohen Act, 69

CNPP. See Center for Nutrition Policy and 

Coffee

dietary changes (1970-95), 1

Colorado
lands administered by the Forest Service, 145

number and acres of wildfires on National Forest . . 

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms (1991-96), 18-19

payments from national forest receipts (FY1994- . . 

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest System lands by . 

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 212

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, 159

Commercial export credit guarantee programs, 98

Commodities Improvement Council, 105

Commodity Credit Corporation, 87, 88, 97, 98

Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 100

Commodity loan programs, 87

Commodity purchase programs, 88, 197

Commodity Supplemental Food Program, 109-110,

115, 197

Community facilities loans, loan guarantees, and

grants, 83

Computer Matching Act, 226

Connecticut

acres of State and private lands burned (1995), 151

cash receipts ranking (1995), 38

Government payments by program (1995), 44

lands administered by the Forest Service, 145

number of farms and land in farms (1991-96), 18-19

status of certain animal diseases, 212

Conservation

Conservation Reserve Program, 87, 90, 158, 167

National Forest System lands, 137-141

NRCS programs, 156-167

Conservation Reserve Program, 87, 90, 158, 167

Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species, 207

Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey, 214

Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, 133

Cooperative Research and Development Agreements,

176

Cooperative Services, 81

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension

Service, 76, 100

information sources, 184, 190-191

mission, 175, 182

Native American programs, 76

partnerships, 182-184

profile, 183

programs, 184, 185-186

telecommunications leadership, 184

Cooperator program, 99

Corn

acreage harvested, 22

cash receipts, 31

commodity loan programs, 87

corn seed bacterial disease detection, 175

dietary changes (1970-95), 7

price supports, 43

risk management programs, 100

wildlife damage, 217

Cotton

acreage harvested, 22

risk management programs, 100

CRADAs. See Cooperative Research 

Development Agreements

CRC. See Crop Revenue Coverage

Credit, 28-29, 89-90. See also specific 

programs

Crop failure, 22

Crop insurance, 88-89, 100

Crop Production report, 187

Crop Revenue Coverage, 100

CRP. See Conservation Reserve Prog

CSFP. See Commodity Supplemental 

CSREES. See Cooperative State Rese

and Extension Service

D

Dairy Export Incentive Program, 99

Dairy products. See also Cheese; Mil

dietary changes (1970-95), 3, 4-6, 

export programs, 99

grading and quality standards, 196

price supports, 43, 88

Dedicated Loan Origination Servicin

DEIP. See Dairy Export Incentive Pro

Delaware

acres of State and private lands bur

cash receipts ranking (1995), 38

cash receipts ranking, by commodi

Government payments by program 

number of farms and land in farms 

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 2

Dietary changes (1970-95)

beverages, 1, 4

caloric intake, 7

caloric sweeteners, 4, 7

carbohydrates, 6, 7, 12

cheese, 1, 3, 4, 6

dairy products, 3, 4-6, 12

eggs, 1, 2-4

factors in, 1-2

fat, 2-4, 7, 9, 12, 13

fats and oils, 4, 9, 12

fruits and vegetables, 2, 5, 6

grain products, 2, 5, 6-7

major foods, 8

meat, poultry, and fish, 1, 2-4, 9, 12

milk, 1, 2-4, 6

U.S. per capita consumption, 1, 8

vitamins and minerals, 9

Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 1-

Disaster assistance, 88-89, 116-117, 1

Disaster Assistance Support Program

Disaster Food Stamp Program, 116, 1

Disease

animal diseases eradicated from the 

coping with invasions, 206-207

current disease eradication program

domestic animal health programs, 2

excluding foreign pests and disease

“mad cow disease,” 206-207

monitoring pests and diseases, 214
252

Drug control efforts, 155

E

E. coli, 123, 125, 129, 176. See also Food safety

EBT. See Electronic Benefit Transfer

ECARP. See Environmental Conservation Acreage

Reserve Program

Economic Research Service, 2, 17, 175, 184-187, 191

EEP. See Export Enhancement Program

EFNEP. See Expanded Food and Nutrition Education

Program

Eggs

dietary changes (1970-95), 1, 2-4

egg products inspection, 122, 124

grading and quality standards, 195, 196

livestock, poultry, and egg products federally

inspected (1995), 124

Elderly

age distribution in rural areas, 53

foodborne illness risk, 129

Nutrition Program for the Elderly, 113

poverty rates, 61

Electronic Benefit Transfer, 103, 104

Emergency community water assistance grants, 84

Emergency Food Assistance Program, 110, 114-115,

197

Emergency Watershed Protection, 165

Employment. See also Labor

farm employment, 27

nonmetro and metro job growth in selected 

industries (1969-94), 55

nonmetro job growth by industry (1969-94), 56

rural areas, 54-59, 78

USDA employees, 70-72, 73

Empowerment Zones, 84

Endangered Species Act, 207

Endangered species program, 137

Energy and minerals

development on National Forest System lands, 

139-140

key facts, 140

Enterprise Communities, 84

Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve

Program, 158-159

Environmental Protection Agency, 198

Environmental Quality Incentives Program, 90, 158,

159-160

EPA. See Environmental Protection Agency

EQIP. See Environmental Quality Incentives Program

Equal employment opportunity, 69

ERS. See Economic Research Service

EWP. See Emergency Watershed Protection

Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program, 186

Expenditures on Children by Families and The Cost of

Food at Home, 120

Export assistance programs, 98-99

Export Credit Guarantee Program, 98

Export Enhancement Program, 98

Exports

certification of, 201-202

dairy export programs, 99

export assistance programs, 98-99

products (FY1996), 93-94

top 15 U.S. agricultural, fish, and wood p

exports (FY 1996), 93

of U.S. agricultural, fish, and wood produ

Extension Indian Reservation Program, 76

Extension Services. See Cooperative State R

Education, and Extension Service

F

Fair trade practices, 199-200

Family Economics and Nutrition Review, 1

Farm Bill of 1996. See Federal Agriculture

Improvement and Reform Act of 1996

Farm business

assets, debt, and equity (1960-95), 29-31

credit availability and use, 28-29

debt, by lender, 28, 30

debt, real estate and nonreal estate, 28, 29

debt, selected years, 29

debt-to-asset ratio, 29

Government payments by program and S

43-45

Government program participation and d

payments (1950-95), 46, 48-49

household income, 32-35, 36

labor, 27

net cash income (1994-95), 31-32, 33

net farm income (1994-1995), 31-32, 33

net farm income, by State (1995), 35-37

number of farms and net cash income, by 

(1995), 46-47, 50-51

State rankings by cash receipts (1995), 38

State rankings by cash receipts, by comm

(1995), 40-42

Farm Costs and Returns Survey, 17

Farm Credit System, 28

Farm loans, 28-29, 89-90

Farm production regions, 15, 16

Farm-retail price spread, 11-14

Farm sector. See Farm business; Farms

Farm Service Agency

aerial photographs, 91

commodity loan programs, 87

commodity purchase programs, 88

conservation programs, 90

cooperation with other agencies, 141, 160

crop insurance, 88-89

emergency assistance programs, 89

establishment of, 86

farm loans, 28, 89-90

information sources, 90, 101

missions of, 86

Native Americans, 74-75

1996 Farm Bill, 86-87

overview, 86

Farm size, 16-17, 46-47

Farm*A*Syst, 185

Farmer-to-Farmer Program, 98

Farmers Home Administration, 28, 78, 86

Farmers’Market Nutrition Program, 109

Farmers’markets, 201

Farmland Protection Program, 160-161
land tenure, 20-21

land use, 21-22

legal structure of, 20

number of farms, land in farms, average farm size . 

(1986-96), 16-17

number of farms and land in farms, by State and . . . 

U.S. (1991-96), 18-19

number of farms and net cash income, by sales class

(1995), 46-47, 50-51

percent of farms and land in farms, by sales class . . 

(1995-96), 17, 20

FAS. See Foreign Agricultural Service

Fat

dietary changes (1970-95), 2-4, 7, 9, 12, 13

sources of saturated fat in the U.S. food supply, 13

sources of total fat in the U.S. food supply, 12

substitutes, 176, 178

Fats and oils

dietary changes (1970-95), 4, 9, 12, 13

FCS. See Food and Consumer Service

FDA. See Food and Drug Administration

FDPIR. See Food Distribution Program on Indian

Reservations

Federal Advisory Committee Act, 162

Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of

1996, 43, 75, 86-87

authorization of National Sheep Industry . . . . . . . . . 

Improvement Center, 81

changes to conservation programs, 157-158, 159, . . 

161, 162

changes to Dairy Export Incentive, 99

changes to Food for Peace and Food for Progress, 

96-98

changes to promotion and research programs, 198

creation of Risk Management Agency, 100

elimination of dairy price support, 88

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, 86

Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of

Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, 64

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 165

Federal Government. See Government; specific

departments and agencies

Federal Seed Act, 199-200

Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program, 200-

201

FEMA. See Federal Emergency Management Agency

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome

materials promoting awareness, 75

Fire protection and management

acres of State and private lands burned (1995), 151

fire season 1995, 144

Forest Service fire facts, 147

fuels treatment, 144

National Forest System lands, 144

number and acres of wildfires on National Forest . . 

System lands (1995), 142-143

rural communities, 144

State and private lands, 144

Firefighter Fund, 134

Fish/shellfish

conservation, 137

dietary changes (1970-95), 1, 2, 9, 12, 13

Flood plain management assistance, 

Florida

acres of State and private lands bur

cash receipts ranking (1995), 38

cash receipts ranking, by commodi

Enterprise Communities, 84

Government payments by program 

lands administered by the Forest Se

number and acres of wildfires on N

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms 

payments from national forest rece

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest S

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 2

FMNP. See Farmers’Market Nutritio

Food aid programs, 96-98

Food and Consumer Service

applying for nutrition assistance, 1

appropriations, 102

Child and Adult Care Food Program

Commodity Supplemental Food Pr

115

disaster assistance, 116-117

eligibility for programs, 103

Emergency Food Assistance Progra

Food Distribution Program on Indi

75, 113-114

food donations to charitable institu

Food Stamp Program, 103-104, 10

Homeless Children Nutrition Progr

information sources, 121

mission, 102

National School Lunch Program, 1

nutrition assistance programs in Pu

Northern Mariana Islands, 116

Nutrition Education and Training P

Nutrition Program for the Elderly, 

Office of Consumer Affairs, 118

overview, 102-103

School Breakfast Program, 106-10

Special Milk Program, 112-113

Summer Food Service Program, 11

WIC Farmers’Market Nutrition Pr

WIC Program, 108-109

Food and Drug Administration, 123, 

214

Food banks

USDA food donations to, 115-116

Food consumption. See also Dietary c

commodities calculating, 2

Food Distribution Program, 116, 117

Food Distribution Program on Indian 

75, 113-114, 197

Food expenditures

away-from-home meals and snacks

distribution of, 11

percentage of disposable income, 1

total increase, 10

what a dollar spent on food paid fo
254

Food labeling. See Labeling

FoodReview, 186

Food safety

consumer education, 129-130

current initiatives, 128-129

Food Safety and Inspection Service, 122-131

inspection, 122-125

Meat and Poultry Hotline, 128, 129-130

standards and labeling, 126-127

what to do if you have a problem, 130

Food Safety and Consumer Education Office, 128, 129

Food Safety and Inspection Service

activities, 122-127

cooperation with other agencies, 76, 208

current food safety initiatives, 128-129

information sources, 131

mission, 122

overview, 122

standards and labeling, 126-127

The Food Safety Educator, 129

Food Security Act of 1985, 158, 224

Food Stamp Program, 103-104, 115

applying for benefits, 118

Native American households, 75

Forage production, 139

Foreign Agricultural Service, 208

commercial export credit guarantee programs, 98

cooperation with other agencies, 201, 208

dairy export programs, 99

export assistance programs, 98-99

exports of U.S. agricultural, fish, and wood 

products, 92-94

food aid programs, 96-98

imports of U.S. agricultural, fish, and wood 

products, 94-96

information sources, 101

international links, 99-100

mission, 91

overview, 91

Foreign Market Development Program, 99

Foreign ownership, 23-26

U.S. agricultural landholdings by country of owner 

(1995), 24-25

U.S. agricultural landholdings by State (1995), 26

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning

Act of 1974, 133

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research

Act of 1978, 133

Forest health protection, 141-144

Forest Service

fact sheet, 136

fire facts, 147

Forest Service American Indian/Alaska Native . . . . 

Policy—Friends and Partners, 74

Human Resource Programs, 153-155

information sources, 168-169

international forestry activities, 153

key figures for 1995, 137

law enforcement and investigations, 155-156

mission, 132

National Forest Foundation, 134

National Forest System, 137-141

research, 133, 148-152

State and private forestry assistance, 141

Forest Service Draft 1995 Resources Plann

Program, 132

Forest Service National Resource Book on A

Indian and Alaska Native Relations, 74

Forest Stewardship Program, 141

Forestry assistance, State and private. See S

private forestry assistance

Forestry Incentives Program, 166

4-H programs, 177, 183, 184

Freedom of Information Act, 226

Fruits and vegetables

agricultural quarantine inspection, 203-2

dietary changes (1970-95), 2, 5, 6

fair trade practices, 199

grading and quality standards, 195, 196

marketing agreements and orders, 199

preclearance programs, 205

FSA. See Farm Service Agency; Federal Se

FSIS. See Food Safety and Inspection Servi

FSMIP. See Federal-State Marketing Impro

Program

Fund for Rural America, 178

G

Georgia

acres of State and private lands burned (1

cash receipts ranking (1995), 35, 37, 38

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (19

Enterprise Communities, 84

Government payments by program (1995

lands administered by the Forest Service, 

number and acres of wildfires on Nationa

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms (1991

payments from national forest receipts (F

96), 146

production expenses ranking, 37

recreation use on National Forest System 

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 212

GIPSA. See Grain Inspection, Packers, and 

Administration

Glossary of agricultural terms, 237-248

Government

direct payments, by program (1950-95), 

distribution of Federal funds per capita in 

nonmetro regions (FY 1994), 63

Federal excess personal property, 144

Federal funds per capita (FY 1994), 63

funding for rural area development, 62-6

payments by program and State (1995), 4

program participation and direct paymen

rural public services, 59-62

Government Performance and Results Act, 

Grading standards and services, 195-196, 2

222. See also Inspection

Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards

Administration

Federal Grain Inspection Program, 222
Grains

acreage harvested, 22

commodity loan programs, 87

dietary changes (1970-95), 2, 5, 6-7

Federal Grain Inspection Program, 222

inventory adjustment and, 31

price supports, 43, 86

risk management programs, 100

Grants. See specific grant programs

Grazing, 139, 161

Great Plains Conservation Program, 159

GSM-102 program. See Export Credit Guarantee

Program

GSM-103 program. See Intermediate Credit Guarantee

Program

Guam

acres of State and private lands burned (1995), 151

H

Habitat management, 137

HACCP. See Hazard Analysis and Critical Control

Point Systems

Hawaii

acres of State and private lands burned (1995), 151

cash receipts ranking (1995), 38

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1995), 40-42

Government payments by program (1995), 44

Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry, 152

lands administered by the Forest Service, 145

number of farms and land in farms (1991-96), 18-19

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 212

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Systems,

122, 123, 125, 128, 196

Hazardous Waste Management Group, 73

The Healthy Eating Index, 119

Healthy Meals for Children Act, 105

Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994,

105, 111

Hogs

animal health programs, 211-214

carcass merit purchasing, 224

Packers and Stockyards Programs, 222

status of certain diseases in States, 212-213

Home improvement and repair loans and grants, 82

Home ownership loans, 82

Homeless Children Nutrition Program, 111

HOPPER program, 211

Horse Protection Act, 220

Hosted programs, 155

Household income, 32-34. See also Wages

average farm and off-farm income, by size of farm . 

(1995), 35

farm operator households, 32-34

farm operator households and household income, 

by selected characteristics (1995), 36

median household income by household type, 59

median household income by race and Hispanic 

ethnicity, 58

nutrition program eligibility and, 103

rural areas, 59

rural areas, 78, 79, 80, 82-83

Hunger Prevention Act, 114

I

IAC. See Intertribal Agriculture Coun

ICD. See International Cooperation a

programs

Idaho

acres of State and private lands bur

cash receipts ranking (1995), 38

cash receipts ranking, by commodi

Government payments by program 

lands administered by the Forest Se

number and acres of wildfires on N

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms 

payments from national forest rece

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest S

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 2

Illinois

acres of State and private lands bur

cash receipts ranking (1995), 38

cash receipts ranking, by commodi

Government payments by program 

lands administered by the Forest Se

number and acres of wildfires on N

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms 

payments from national forest rece

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest S

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 2

Imports

of agricultural, fish, and wood prod

canine detector teams, 204

global market promotion, 201-202

grading of, 202

inspection, 124, 203-204

preclearance programs, 205

regulations, 207-208

top 15 suppliers of agricultural, fish

products (FY1996), 96

top 15 U.S. agricultural, fish, and w

imports (FY 1996), 95

Income. See Farm business; Househo

Income Protection insurance, 100

Indian reservations. See also America

Alaska Native programs

Food Distribution Program on Indi

75, 113-114, 197

Indian Tribal Land Acquisition Progr

Indiana

acres of State and private lands bur

cash receipts ranking (1995), 38

cash receipts ranking, by commodi

Government payments by program 
256

payments from national forest receipts (FY1994-

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest System lands by 

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 212

Information Technology Management Reform Act, 69

Insects. See Pests

Inspection. See also Grading standards and services

agricultural quarantine inspection, 203-204

canine detector teams, 204

egg products, 122, 124

Federal Grain Inspection Program, 222

Food Safety and Inspection Service, 122-131

of imports, 124, 203-204

inspection and interception data, 204

meat and poultry, 122-125

for pathogens, 125

preclearance programs, 205

Integrated Pest Management, 175, 185, 211

Intermediary Relending Program loans, 80

Intermediate Credit Guarantee Program, 98

International Cooperation and Development programs,

99-100

International Forestry Cooperation Act of 1990, 133

International Institute of Tropical Forestry, 152

International issues

aquaculture standards, 220

biotechnology regulation, 216

foreign ownership, 23-26

grading and certification, 201-202

import-export regulations, 207-208

international forestry activities, 133, 153

marketing, 201-202

plant and animal health programs, 206

preclearance programs, 205

Intertribal Agriculture Council, 74, 76

Intertribal Basin Council, 76

Iowa

acres of State and private lands burned (1995), 151

cash receipts ranking (1995), 38

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1995), 40-42

Government payments by program (1995), 44

number of farms and land in farms (1991-96), 18-19

production expenses ranking, 37

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 212

IPM. See Integrated Pest Management

ISO procedures, 196

ITMRA. See Information Technology Management

Reform Act

J

Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers, 153-154

K

Kansas

acres of State and private lands burned (1995), 151

cash receipts ranking (1995), 38

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1995), 40-42

Government payments by program (1995), 44

lands administered by the Forest Service, 145

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 212

Kentucky

acres of State and private lands burned (1

cash receipts ranking (1995), 38

Government payments by program (1995

lands administered by the Forest Service, 

number and acres of wildfires on Nationa

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms (1991

payments from national forest receipts (F

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest System 

activity (FY1996), 149-150

Rural Empowerment Zone, 84

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 212

L

Labeling

food safety labeling, 124

nutrition labeling, 126-127

safe food handling label, 127

Labor. See also Employment

family workers, 27

share of farm production expenses, 27

share of food marketing cost, 9-10

use on U.S. farms, 78

wage rate, 27

Laboratory Animal Welfare Act, 217

Land in farms. See Farms

Land retirement programs, 22

Land tenure, 20-21

Land use, 21-22

Legal structure of farms, 20

Listeria, 124, 125

Loans. See Credit; specific loans and progra

Louisiana

acres of State and private lands burned (1

boll weevil eradication, 209

cash receipts ranking (1995), 38

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (19

Enterprise Communities, 84

Government payments by program (1995

lands administered by the Forest Service, 

number and acres of wildfires on Nationa

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms (1991

payments from national forest receipts (F

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest System 

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 212

M

“Mad cow disease,” 206-207

Maine

acres of State and private lands burned (1

cash receipts ranking (1995), 38

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (19
System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms (1991-96), 18-19

payments from national forest receipts (FY1994-

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest System lands by 

activity (FY1996), 149-150

status of certain animal diseases, 212

Managing Change in Agriculture initiative, 183

MAP. See Market Access Program; Modernization of

Administrative Processes program

Market Access Program, 99

Market News, 197, 202

Marketing

Agricultural Marketing Service, 195-202

cost of food services and distribution, 9-10, 11

direct marketing and wholesale market 

development, 200-201

fair trade practices, 199-200

global markets, 201-202

grading, quality standards, and certification, 195-

196, 201-202

Market News, 197, 202

marketing agreements and orders, 199

organic certification, 200

promotional campaigns, 198

transportation, 201

Maryland

acres of State and private lands burned (1995), 151

cash receipts ranking (1995), 38

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1995), 40-42

Government payments by program (1995), 44

number of farms and land in farms (1991-96), 18-19

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 212

Massachusetts

acres of State and private lands burned (1995), 151

cash receipts ranking (1995), 38

Government payments by program (1995), 44

number of farms and land in farms (1991-96), 18-19

status of certain animal diseases, 212

Meat. See also Poultry

agricultural quarantine inspection, 203-204

dietary changes (1970-95), 1, 2-4, 9, 12, 13

grading and quality standards, 195, 196

Hotline, 122, 128, 129-130

inspection, 122-125

livestock, poultry, and egg products federally 

inspected (1995), 124

nutrition labeling, 126-127

Packers and Stockyards Programs, 222-224

safe food handling label, 127

Meat and Poultry Hotline, 122, 128, 129-130

Meat Inspection Act of 1906, 122

Metric conversion chart, 234

Michigan

acres of State and private lands burned (1995), 151

cash receipts ranking (1995), 38

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1995), 40-42

Enterprise Communities, 84

Government payments by program (1995), 44

lands administered by the Forest Service, 145

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest S

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 2

Milk

dietary changes (1970-95), 1, 2-4, 

export programs, 99

marketing agreements and orders, 

“Milk—Where’s your mustache?” 

price supports, 43, 88

Special Milk Program, 112-113

Minerals, 139-140

Minnesota

acres of State and private lands bur

cash receipts ranking (1995), 38

cash receipts ranking, by commodi

Government payments by program 

lands administered by the Forest Se

number and acres of wildfires on N

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms 

payments from national forest rece

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest S

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 2

Minorities. See also American Indian 

Native programs

distribution of rural population, 54

median household income by race 

ethnicity, 58

nonmetro population by race and e

90), 54

poverty and, 59, 61

USDA workforce profile by race an

73

Mississippi

acres of State and private lands bur

boll weevil eradication, 209

cash receipts ranking (1995), 38

cash receipts ranking, by commodi

Enterprise Communities, 84

Government payments by program 

lands administered by the Forest Se

number and acres of wildfires on N

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms 

payments from national forest rece

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest S

activity (FY1996), 149-150

Rural Empowerment Zone, 84

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 2

wildlife damage, 217

Missouri

acres of State and private lands bur

cash receipts ranking (1995), 38

cash receipts ranking, by commodi
258

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms (1991-96), 18-19

payments from national forest receipts (FY1994-

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest System lands by 

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 213

Modernization of Administrative Processes program,

72-73

Montana

acres of State and private lands burned (1995), 151

cash receipts ranking (1995), 38

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1995), 40-42

Government payments by program (1995), 44

lands administered by the Forest Service, 145

number and acres of wildfires on National Forest 

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms (1991-96), 18-19

payments from national forest receipts (FY1994-

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest System lands by 

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 213

MOSCAMED program, 206

Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960, 133

N

NAHMS. See National Animal Health Monitoring

System

NAP. See Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance

Program

NAPIS. See National Agricultural Pest Information

System

NASS. See National Agricultural Statistics Service

National Academy of Sciences, 196

National Agricultural Library, 177, 189-190

National Agricultural Pest Information System, 214-

215

National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education,

and Economics

Advisory Board, 178

National Agricultural Statistics Service, 17, 175, 187-

188, 192, 221

National Animal Health Monitoring System, 215

National Biological Control Institute, 209

National Center for Import and Export, 208

National Conservation Program, 167

National Data Bank for Food Stamps, 69

National Finance Center, 68

National Forest Foundation, 134

National Forest Management Act of 1976, 133

National Forest Products Laboratory, 152

National Forest System. See also Forest Service

energy and minerals, 139-140

land management, 137

lands administered by the Forest Service, 145

location of national forests, 135

partnerships, 138

Passport In Time, 141

payments from national forest receipts (FY1994-

timber, 141

water, soil, and air, 138-139

wildlife, fish, and rare plants, 137-138

National Information Technology Center, 6

National Laboratories, 176

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini

National Organic Standards Board, 200

National Performance Review, 134

National Research Initiative, 183

National Resources Inventory, 167

National Response Team, 73

National School Lunch Program, 88, 104-1

197

applying for benefits, 118

National Sheep Industry Improvement Cen

National Veterinary Services Laboratories, 

National Wildlife Research Center, 216-217

Native American programs. See American I

Alaska Native programs

Native American Working Group, 73, 76

Natural Resource Conservation Education, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service

agricultural air quality, 162

conservation compliance, 161

Conservation of Private Grazing Land, 1

conservation provisions of 1996 Farm Bi

Conservation Reserve Program, 158

cooperation with other agencies, 74, 90

Environmental Conservation Acreage Re

Program, 158

Environmental Quality Incentives Progra

159-160

Farmland Protection Program, 160-161

Forestry Incentives Program, 166

information sources, 170-174

major accomplishments (FY 1995), 163

mission, 156, 157

National Resources Inventory, 167

overview, 156

partnership approach to conservation, 15

Plant Materials Centers, 163

Resource Conservation and Developmen

166

river basin surveys and investigations, 16

snow survey and water supply forecasts, 

soil surveys, 138, 163

Swampbuster, 162

watershed surveys and planning, 164-165

Wetlands Reserve Program, 158-159

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, 160

Nebraska

acres of State and private lands burned (1

cash receipts ranking (1995), 38

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (19

Government payments by program (1995

lands administered by the Forest Service, 

number and acres of wildfires on Nationa

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms (1991

payments from national forest receipts (F

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest System 
Nevada

acres of State and private lands burned (1995), 151

cash receipts ranking (1995), 39

Government payments by program (1995), 44

lands administered by the Forest Service, 145

number and acres of wildfires on National Forest 

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms (1991-96), 18-19

payments from national forest receipts (FY1994-

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest System lands by 

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 213

New England region, State Statistical Office, 193

New Hampshire

acres of State and private lands burned (1995), 151

cash receipts ranking (1995), 39

Government payments by program (1995), 45

lands administered by the Forest Service, 145

number and acres of wildfires on National Forest 

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms (1991-96), 18-19

payments from national forest receipts (FY1994-

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest System lands by

activity (FY1996), 149-150

status of certain animal diseases, 213

New Jersey

acres of State and private lands burned (1995), 151

cash receipts ranking (1995), 39

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1995), 40-42

Government payments by program (1995), 45

number of farms and land in farms (1991-96), 18-19

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 213

New Mexico

acres of State and private lands burned (1995), 151

cash receipts ranking (1995), 39

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1995), 40-42

Enterprise Communities, 84

Government payments by program (1995), 45

lands administered by the Forest Service, 145

number and acres of wildfires on National Forest

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms (1991-96), 18-19

payments from national forest receipts (FY1994-

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest System lands by 

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 213

New York

acres of State and private lands burned (1995), 151

cash receipts ranking (1995), 39

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1995), 40-42

Government payments by program (1995), 45

lands administered by the Forest Service, 145

number and acres of wildfires on National Forest 

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms (1991-96), 18-19

payments from national forest receipts (FY1994-

status of certain animal diseases, 2

NFC. See National Finance Center

NFS. See National Forest System

NITC. See National Information Tech

Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistan

88, 89

North Carolina

acres of State and private lands bur

boll weevil eradication, 209

cash receipts ranking (1995), 35, 3

cash receipts ranking, by commodi

Enterprise Communities, 84

Government payments by program 

lands administered by the Forest Se

number and acres of wildfires on N

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms 

payments from national forest rece

96), 146

production expenses ranking, 35

recreation use on National Forest S

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 2

witchweed eradication, 210

North Dakota

acres of State and private lands bur

cash receipts ranking (1995), 39

cash receipts ranking, by commodi

Government payments by program 

lands administered by the Forest Se

number and acres of wildfires on N

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms 

payments from national forest rece

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest S

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 2

Northern Mariana Islands

nutrition assistance programs, 116

NPE. See Nutrition Program for the E

NRCE. See Natural Resource Conser

NRCS. See Natural Resources Conse

Nutrition assistance programs, 102-1

also specific programs

Nutrition Education and Training Pro

Nutrition Facts panel, 126

Nutrition labeling

as factor in dietary changes, 2

meat and poultry, 126-127

Nutrition Program for the Elderly, 11

NVSL. See National Veterinary Servi

NWRC. See National Wildlife Resear

O

Oats

acreage harvested, 22

commodity loan programs, 87

dietary changes (1970-95), 7

price supports, 43
260

Office of Civil Rights, 69

Office of Communications, 226-233

Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental

Relations, 73

Office of Consumer Affairs, 118

Office of Human Resources Management, 70

Office of Inspector General, 68

Office of Management and Budget, 103

Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis,

65

OFPA. See Organic Foods Production Act

Ohio

acres of State and private lands burned (1995), 151

cash receipts ranking (1995), 39

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1995), 40-42

Enterprise Communities, 84

Government payments by program (1995), 45

lands administered by the Forest Service, 145

number and acres of wildfires on National Forest 

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms (1991-96), 18-19

payments from national forest receipts (FY1994-

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest System lands by 

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 213

Oilseeds

commodity loan programs, 87

Oklahoma

acres of State and private lands burned (1995), 151

cash receipts ranking (1995), 39

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1995), 40-42

Enterprise Communities, 84

Government payments by program (1995), 45

lands administered by the Forest Service, 145

number and acres of wildfires on National Forest 

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms (1991-96), 18-19

payments from national forest receipts (FY1994-

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest System lands by 

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 213

Older Americans Act of 1965, 113

Oregon

acres of State and private lands burned (1995), 151

cash receipts ranking (1995), 39

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1995), 40-42

Enterprise Communities, 84

Government payments by program (1995), 45

lands administered by the Forest Service, 145

number and acres of wildfires on National Forest 

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms (1991-96), 18-19

payments from national forest receipts (FY1994-

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest System lands by 

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 213

P

PACA. See Perishable Agricultural Commo

Packaging

share of food marketing cost, 10

Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, 222, 2

Packers and Stockyards Programs, 222-224

Paid Land Diversion program, 22

Passport In Time, 141

Pathogen Reduction and HACCP Final Rul

Pathogen Reduction and Hazard Analysis a

Control Point Systems, 122, 123, 125, 12

PDP. See Pesticide Data Program

Peanuts

commodity loan programs, 87

price supports, 43, 87

testing for aflatoxin, 196

Pennsylvania

acres of State and private lands burned (1

cash receipts ranking (1995), 39

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (19

Enterprise Communities, 84

Government payments by program (1995

lands administered by the Forest Service, 

number and acres of wildfires on Nationa

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms (1991

payments from national forest receipts (F

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest System 

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 213

wildlife damage, 217

Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1

Pesticide Data Program, 197-198

Pesticide Recordkeeping Program, 198

Pests

biocontrol, 208-209

boll weevil eradication, 209-210

coping with invasions, 206-207

domestic plant health programs, 208-211

excluding foreign pests and diseases, 203

grasshopper control initiative, 211

insect and disease detection surveys, 141

insect and disease prevention and suppre

projects, 141-144

integrated pest management, 175, 185, 2

international programs, 206

monitoring pests and diseases, 214-215

PIK program, 22

Plant Materials Centers, 163

Plant Protection and Quarantine programs, 

208, 209, 211

Plant Variety Protection Act, 200

Planting and harvesting calendar, 236

Plants

conservation, 137

domestic plant health programs, 208-211

excluding foreign pests and diseases, 203

import-export regulations, 207-208

key facts, 138

monitoring pests and diseases, 214-215
dietary changes (1970-95), 1, 2, 9, 12, 13

grading and quality standards, 195, 196

inspection, 122-125

livestock, poultry, and egg products federally

inspected (1995), 124

nutrition labeling, 126-127

Packers and Stockyards Programs, 222-224

safe food handling label, 127

Poverty

Federal poverty guidelines, 103

and nutrition programs eligibility, 103

poverty rates by population group (1994), 61

poverty rates by residence (1959-94), 60

rural income and, 59

Preclearance programs, 205

President’s Forest Plan, 144

President’s Home Ownership Initiative, 75

Price supports, 86-87. See Government

Prices. See also Food expenditures

farm-retail price spread, 11-14

farm value as a percentage of retail price (1986 and 

1996), 14

retail food prices (1986-96), 11

Printing ink, 178-179

Privacy Act, 226

Production flexibility contracts, 43, 86-87

Project Learning Tree, 147

Protein

dietary changes (1970-95), 7, 12

Puerto Rico

acres of State and private lands burned (1995), 151

International Institute of Tropical Forestry, 152

lands administered by the Forest Service, 145

nutrition assistance programs, 116

payments from national forest receipts (FY1994-

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest System lands by 

activity (FY1996), 149-150

status of certain animal diseases, 213

Q

Quality standards, 195-196

Quality Systems Certification Program, 202

Quarantine inspection, 203-204

Quick & Easy Commodity Recipes, 114

R

Race. See Minorities

Radiological Emergency Preparedness programs, 76

Rangeland

conservation, 139

key facts, 139

RBS. See Rural Business-Cooperative Service

RC&D. See Resource Conservation and Development

Program

Regional Experiment Stations, 152

Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978, 133

Rental assistance payments, 83

Research. See also specific agencies

benefits of, 175-176, 177-178

Forest Service, 133, 148-152

market applications, 176

Cooperative State Research, Educa

Extension Service, 182-184

Economic Research Service, 184-1

information sources, 178, 188-194

mission, 175

National Agricultural Statistics Ser

new programs, 178

overview, 175-178

Research and Promotion Programs, 1

Residue Violation Information System

Resource Conservation and Developm

166

Resource Conservation and Developm

166

Resources Conservation Act of 1977, 

Rhode Island

acres of State and private lands bur

cash receipts ranking (1995), 39

Government payments by program 

number of farms and land in farms 

status of certain animal diseases, 2

RHS. See Rural Housing Service

Rice

commodity loan programs, 87

dietary changes (1970-95), 7

price supports, 43, 86

quality standards, 175

Risk Management Agency, 100, 101

River Basin Interagency Committees

River basin surveys and investigation

RMA. See Risk Management Agency

Rural areas

age and race, 52-54

community assistance in resource m

employment and wage rates, 56-59

Federal funding for development, 6

fire protection, 144

Fund for Rural America, 178

housing, 78, 79, 80, 82-83

industry and job growth, 54-56

population statistics, 52-54

poverty, 59, 78

public services, 59-62

Rural Development programs, 75

Rural Business-Cooperative Service, 

80-82

Rural business enterprise grants, 81

Rural business opportunity grants, 82

Rural Conditions and Trends, 186

Rural cooperative development grant

Rural Development

community assistance in resource m

examples of program successes, 79

information sources, 85

need for, 78

overview, 78

Rural Business-Cooperative Servic

Rural Empowerment Zones and En

Communities, 84

Rural Housing Service, 82-83

Rural Utilities Service, 83-84

Rural Development Administration, 7
Rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise

Communities, 79, 84

Rural Housing Service

mission, 78, 82

Native American programs, 75

overview, 82-83

program examples, 79, 80

Rural rental housing loans, 83

Rural telecommunications loans and loan guarantees,

83

Rural Utilities Service

mission, 78

Native American programs, 75

overview, 83-84

program examples, 79, 80

Rural Venture Capital Demonstration program, 82

RUS. See Rural Utilities Service

S

Safe food handling label, 127

Salmonella, 123, 124, 125, 129, 215. See also 

Food safety

Scales and Weighing program, 223

SCGP. See Suppliers Credit Guarantee Program

Scholastic, Inc., 105

School Breakfast Program, 106-107, 197

applying for benefits, 118

School Lunch Program, 88, 104-106, 196, 197

applying for benefits, 118

School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children, 105

Seafood. See Fish/shellfish

Section 502 Direct Single Family Housing Loan

Program, 75

Section 416(b) Program, 98

Senior Community Service Employment Program, 154

SFSP. See Summer Food Service Program

Sheep and goats

predation losses, 217

Voluntary Flock Certification Program, 213

Shellfish. See Fish/shellfish

Smokey Bear, 148

SNOTEL. See Snow Telemetry

Snow surveys, 163, 164

Snow Telemetry, 163, 164

Soft drinks

dietary changes (1970-95), 1, 4

Soil

conservation, 138

surveys, 138, 163

Sorghum

acreage harvested, 22

commodity loan programs, 87

price supports, 43

risk management programs, 100

Soup kitchens

USDA food donations to, 115-116

South Carolina

acres of State and private lands burned (1995), 151

cash receipts ranking (1995), 39

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1995), 40-42

Enterprise Communities, 84

number of farms and land in farms (1991

payments from national forest receipts (F

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest System 

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 213

witchweed eradication, 210

South Dakota

acres of State and private lands burned (1

cash receipts ranking (1995), 39

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (19

Enterprise Communities, 84

Government payments by program (1995

lands administered by the Forest Service, 

number and acres of wildfires on Nationa

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms (1991

payments from national forest receipts (F

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest System 

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 213

Soybeans

acreage harvested, 22

printing ink from, 178-179

reduced fat content, 176

risk management programs, 100

Special Milk Program, 112-113

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program fo

Infants, and Children, 108-109

applying for benefits, 118

State and private forestry assistance

Federal excess personal property, 144

fire protection and management, 144

fire season, 1995, 144

forest health protection, 141-144

Forest Stewardship Program, 141

fuels treatment, 144

mission, 133

Natural Resource Conservation Educatio

payments from national forest receipts (F

96), 146

rural community assistance, 144

rural community fire protection, 144

Stewardship Incentives Program, 141

urban and community forestry, 147

State Foresters, 141

State Statistical Offices, 192-194

Stewardship Incentives Program, 141

Sugars

dietary changes (1970-95), 4, 7

price supports, 43

Summer Food Service Program, 111-112, 1

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Wome

and Children, 75

Suppliers Credit Guarantee Program, 98

Sustainable Development, 65

Swampbuster, 162

Sweeteners (caloric)

262
TEFAP. See Emergency Food Assistance Program

TEKTRAN, 180

Tennessee

acres of State and private lands burned (1995), 151

cash receipts ranking (1995), 39

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1995), 40-42

Enterprise Communities, 84

Government payments by program (1995), 45

lands administered by the Forest Service, 145

number and acres of wildfires on National Forest 

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms (1991-96), 18-19

payments from national forest receipts (FY1994-

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest System lands by 

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 213

Texas

acres of State and private lands burned (1995), 151

cash receipts ranking (1995), 35, 37, 39

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1995), 40-42

Government payments by program (1995), 45

lands administered by the Forest Service, 145

number and acres of wildfires on National Forest 

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms (1991-96), 18-19

payments from national forest receipts (FY1994-

96), 146

production expenses ranking, 37

recreation use on National Forest System lands by 

activity (FY1996), 149-150

Rural Empowerment Zone, 84

State Statistical Office, 193

status of certain animal diseases, 213

Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species 

program, 137

Thrift Savings Plan, 68

Timber. See Wood

Timber Sales, 69

Tobacco

commodity loan programs, 87

price supports, 87

Training and Technical Assistance Program, 105

Transportation, 201

Tribal Colleges Education Equity Grants Program, 76

TSP. See Thrift Savings Plan

U

Unemployment

rates among various metro and nonmetro groups 

(1996), 57

rates by residence (1979-96), 58

rural rates of, 56

Urban and community forestry, 147

U.S. Department of Agriculture. See also specific 

programs and agencies

American Indian and Alaska Native Programs, 

73-76

civil rights and EEO programs, 69

Departmental Administration, 69-73

mission areas, 64

number of employees, by year, 70

number of employees with disabili

Office of the Chief Economist, 64-

Office of Chief Financial Officer, 6

Office of Communications, 226-23

Office of Inspector General, 68

Office of the Chief Information Offi

programs serving all mission areas

reorganization, 64

responsibilities, v

where USDAemployees work, 71-

workforce profile by race and gend

U.S. Department of Commerce, 187

U.S. Department of Defense, 105, 17

U.S. Department of Energy, 176

U.S. Department of Health and Huma

113, 126, 176

U.S. Department of Labor, 153

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 137

U.S. Grain Standards Act, 222

USDA. See U.S. Department of Agric

Utah

acres of State and private lands bur

cash receipts ranking (1995), 39

Government payments by program 

lands administered by the Forest Se

number and acres of wildfires on N

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms 

payments from national forest rece

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest S

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 194

status of certain animal diseases, 2

V

Vegetables

agricultural quarantine inspection, 

cash receipts, 31

dietary changes (1970-95), 2, 5, 6

fair trade practices, 199

grading and quality standards, 195

preclearance programs, 205

Vermont

acres of State and private lands bur

cash receipts ranking (1995), 39

Government payments by program 

lands administered by the Forest Se

number and acres of wildfires on N

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms 

payments from national forest rece

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest S

activity (FY1996), 149-150

status of certain animal diseases, 2

Veterinary biologics, 214, 220

Veterinary Services, 76, 211, 212

Virgin Islands
acres of State and private lands burned (1995), 151

boll weevil eradication, 209

cash receipts ranking (1995), 39

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1995), 40-42

Enterprise Communities, 84

Government payments by program (1995), 45

lands administered by the Forest Service, 145

number and acres of wildfires on National Forest 

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms (1991-96), 18-19

payments from national forest receipts (FY1994-

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest System lands by 

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 194

status of certain animal diseases, 213

Virus-Serum-Toxin Act of 1913, 214, 220

Vitamins and minerals

dietary changes (1970-95), 9

Voluntary Flock Certification Program, 213

Volunteers in the National Forests program, 154

W

Wages. See also Household income

average weekly earnings for metro and nonmetro 

wage and salary workers (1976-96), 57

rural wage gap, 57

Walt Disney Company, 105

W&AM. See Wholesale and Alternative Markets

Program

Washington

acres of State and private lands burned (1995), 151

cash receipts ranking (1995), 39

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1995), 40-42

Enterprise Communities, 84

Government payments by program (1995), 45

lands administered by the Forest Service, 145

number and acres of wildfires on National Forest 

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms (1991-96), 18-19

payments from national forest receipts (FY1994-

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest System lands by 

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 194

status of certain animal diseases, 213

Water

conservation, 138

Emergency Community Water Assistance Grants, 84

key facts, 139

river basin surveys and investigations, 166

supply forecasts, 163, 164

Water 2000, 83

Water and waste disposal loans and grants, 84

Water Quality Incentives Program, 159

Watershed management

emergency watershed protection, 165

river basin surveys and investigations, 166

surveys and planning, 138, 164-165

surveys and planning major accomplishments 

(FY 1995), 165

cash receipts ranking (1995), 39

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (19

Enterprise Communities, 84

Government payments by program (1995

lands administered by the Forest Service, 

number and acres of wildfires on Nationa

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms (1991

payments from national forest receipts (F

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest System 

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 194

status of certain animal diseases, 213

Wetlands

Swampbuster, 162

Wetlands Reserve Program, 158-159

Wetlands Reserve Program, 158-159

Wheat

acreage harvested, 22

commodity loan programs, 87

dietary changes (1970-95), 6-7

exports, 208

price supports, 43, 86

risk management programs, 100

WHIP. See Wildlife Habitat Incentives Prog

Wholesale and Alternative Markets Program

WIC Farmers’Market Nutrition Program, 1

WIC Program, 108-109

applying for benefits, 118

Wildfires. See Fire protection and managem

Wildlife

conservation, 137

Convention on International Trade in End

Species, 207

damage control, 216-217

habitat development, 160

key facts, 138

reintroduction of species, 137

threatened, endangered, and sensitive spe

program, 137

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, 160

Wisconsin

acres of State and private lands burned (1

cash receipts ranking (1995), 39

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (19

Government payments by program (1995

lands administered by the Forest Service, 

number and acres of wildfires on Nationa

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms (1991

payments from national forest receipts (F

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest System 

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 194

status of certain animal diseases, 213

Women

poverty and, 59, 61

USDA workforce profile by race and gen

73

264
World Agricultural Outlook Board, 65

World Food Program, 97

WRP. See Wetlands Reserve Program

Wyoming

acres of State and private lands burned (1995), 151

cash receipts ranking (1995), 39

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1995), 40-42

Government payments by program (1995), 45

lands administered by the Forest Service, 145

number and acres of wildfires on National Forest 

System lands (1995), 142-143

number of farms and land in farms (1991-96), 18-19

payments from national forest receipts (FY1994-

96), 146

recreation use on National Forest System lands by 

activity (FY1996), 149-150

State Statistical Office, 194

status of certain animal diseases, 213

Y

Youth Conservation Corps, 154

Youth Forest Camps, 155