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

discrimination in all its programs and activities on th

basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion

age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, a

marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases ap

to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who requ

alternative means for communication of program in

mation (such as Braille, large print, audiotape) shou

contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600

(voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA

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

Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW,

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

(voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity

provider and employer. 

Mention or depiction of commercial products or 

organizations in this publication does not constitute

endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture

over other products and organizations not mentione

or depicted.

November 1998

Fact Book

1998

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-to-Retail Price Spread..........................................................................

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Nutrition Service ...................................................................................

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Investing in the Future Through Agricultural Research, Education, and Eco

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When Abraham Lincoln created the U.S. Department of Agricucore mission was “to provide information about agriculture i

comprehensive and general sense of the word.” The 1998 Agricultu

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

agriculture and rural America. 

The heart of USDA remains production agriculture, helping ou

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

ize, however, is the diversity of responsibilities under the USDA um

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

the school lunch and breakfast programs to the WIC program

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

tary efforts to protect soil, water, and wildlife on the 70 perce

America’s lands that are in private hands.

• Nearly half of USDA employees work for the Forest Service

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

munications, safe drinking water, and more to our country’s 

munities.

• We are responsible for the safety of the meat, poultry, and eg

on your plate.

• We are a research leader in everything from human nutrition 

technologies that allow us to grow more food and fiber using 

and less pesticides.

• We help ensure open markets for U.S. agricultural products, 

food aid to needy people overseas.

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

ping for information about U.S. agriculture, rural America, food, nu

consumer issues, trade, and more. 

I am pleased to note that the 1998 Agriculture Fact Book is hi

You can find this text and other helpful information on the Internet 

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

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

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

I

n 1996, each American consumed an average of 77 pounds more of co

grown vegetables than in 1970, 63 pounds more grain products, 54 pou

fruits, 32 pounds more poultry, 10 gallons more milk lower in fat than w

20.5 pounds less red meat, 73 fewer eggs, and 17 gallons less whole milk

(the latest year for which nutrient data are available), total meat, poultry, 

contributed nearly a third less saturated fat to the per capita food supply 

and beverage milk contributed 50 percent less saturated fat. Similarly, eg

bution to total dietary cholesterol declined by a fourth between 1970 and 

beverage milk’s contribution declined by a half.

Figure 1-1.

The U.S. per capita food supply changed markedly 

between 1970 and 1996

-35%

-23%

-22%

-15%

17%

21%

23%

24%

26%

46%

90%

114

Coffee 

Eggs

Beverage milk

Red meat

Alcoholic beverages

Fats and oils

Caloric sweeteners1

Fruits and vegetables

Fish

Flour and cereal products

Poultry

All carbonated soft drinks

Cheese

Includes caloric sweeteners used in soft drinks. 1
jp

for the poor. New products, particularly more convenient ones, also contribut

shifts in consumption, along with more imports, growth in the away-from-ho

market, expanded advertising programs, and changes in food enrichment stan

and fortification policy. Socio-demographic trends driving changes in food ch

include smaller households, more two-earner households, an aging populatio

increased ethnic diversity. An expanded scientific base relating diet and healt

Dietary Guidelines for Americans designed to help people make food choices 

promote health and prevent disease, improved nutrition labeling, and a burge

interest in nutrition also influence marketing and consumption trends.

Consistent with dietary and health recommendations, Americans now co

two-fifths more grain products and a fifth more fruits and vegetables per capi

they did in 1970, eat leaner meat, and drink lower fat milk. Many people have 

the typical high-fat eggs-and-bacon breakfast of 1970 for more convenient re

eat breakfast cereals, most of which are fortified with selected vitamins and m

Moreover, a steady increase in the proportion of refined flour that is enriched 

65 percent in 1970 to more than 90 percent today), changes in flour enrichme

dards in 1974 and 1983, along with big increases in grain product consumptio

1984, have boosted per capita supplies of five nutrients lost in the milling pro

approximately replaced by manufacturers—iron, niacin, thiamine, riboflavin, 

since January 1, 1998, folate.

The typical supermarket fresh produce department carries more than two

half times as many items today as in the mid-1970’s. Increases in domestic pr

tion, rising imports, and improved storage facilities afford year-round availab

many fresh foods. Thanks to genetic research, today’s carrots and squashes d

twice as much beta carotene (a nutrient that the body converts to vitamin A) a

did in 1970, and today’s grapes are much sweeter than years ago (and per cap

sumption has tripled since 1970).

But contrary to recommendations, Americans are consuming record-hig

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

amounts of added fats—including salad and cooking oils and baking and fryi

Moreover, a hefty increase in grain consumption reflects higher consumption 

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

the 148 pounds of wheat flour consumed per capita in 1996 was whole wheat 

(Most nutrients lost during processing, including fiber, vitamins, minerals, an

chemicals, are not restored to refined flour.) Potatoes used for fat-laden produ

frozen french fries (eaten mostly in fast-food eateries), potato chips, and shoe

accounted for 11 percent of total U.S. per capita fruit and vegetable supplies (

weight basis) in 1996, compared with 8 percent in 1970.

Evidence from various sources suggests that the average American now 

sumes more food, more snacks, bigger portions, and more calories than in 19

15-percent increase during1970-94 in the level of food energy (calories) in th

per capita food supply reflects higher levels of all three energy-yielding nutri

carbohydrates, fat, and protein. More calories, along with reductions in avera

2
y pq

USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) estimates food supply (d

ance) data based on the amount of food available for consumption in the 

States. Estimates of food for domestic human consumption usually are c

subtracting measurable uses such as exports, industrial consumption, farm 

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

ries, and imports). Accordingly, the data are indirect measures of actual c

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

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

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

Policy and Promotion (CNPP).

Today’s Per Capita Meat Supply Is Larger and Leaner. Now mo

we are a nation of meat eaters—but we are eating leaner meat. In 1997, t

consumption (red meat, poultry, and fish) amounted to 192 pounds (bone

trimmed-weight equivalent) per person, 1 pound below 1994’s record hig

pounds above the 1970 level. Each American consumed an average of 20 

red meat than in 1970, 32 pounds more poultry, and 3 pounds more fish a

Nutritional concern about fat and cholesterol has encouraged the pro

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

keting of a host of lower fat ground and processed meat products—signi

ering the meat, poultry, and fish group’s contribution to total fat and satu

the food supply. Despite record-high per capita consumption of total mea

the proportion of fat in the U.S. food supply contributed by meat, poultry

declined from 35 percent in 1970 to 25 percent in 1994. Similarly, the pr

saturated fat contributed by meat, poultry, and fish fell from 37 percent in 

percent in 1994.

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

supply in 1997, compared with 74 percent in 1970. By 1997, chicken and 

accounted for 34 percent of the total meat consumed, up from 19 percent 

Fish and shellfish accounted for 8 percent of total meat consumption in 1

percent in 1970.

Long-Term Decline in Egg Consumption Levels Off in the 1990’

1970 and 1989, total annual consumption of shell eggs and egg products 

declined by about 4 eggs per person per year, from 309 eggs to 237. Duri

1990’s, total egg consumption has leveled off, fluctuating between 234 a

per person per year. Per capita consumption was 238 eggs in 1997 and ha

jected to be 242 eggs in 1998. The record high for U.S. per capita consum

403 eggs in 1945.

A decline in per capita egg consumption over the last few decades re

very different and somewhat counterbalancing trends: a dominating, nea

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

tion of egg products during the 1980’s and 1990’s. Egg products are eggs 

been processed and sold primarily to food manufacturers and foodservic

in liquid or dried form. These pasteurized eggs reach consumers as ingre
4

Total

Red meat

Poultry

Fish

Pounds per capita

200

175

150

125

100

75

50

25

0

1

1972 77 82 87 92 

1 Boneless, trimmed equivalent.

Source: USDA/Economic Research Service.

Figure 1-3.

Long-term decline in total per capita egg consumption 

levels off in the 1990’s

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Number per capita

Shell

Total

Processed

Source: USDA/Economic Research Service

1972 77 82 87 92 
gg py gg y 

nonfat, no-cholesterol alternative to shell eggs.

Shell-egg consumption dropped from 276 eggs per capita per year in 

in 1997. The average rate of decline in per capita shell-egg consumption 

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

decline in per capita consumption of shell eggs has slowed to 2-1/2 eggs 

is expected to slow even more.

Much of the decline in shell-egg consumption since 1970 has been d

ing lifestyles (for example, less time for breakfast preparation in the mor

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

cholesterol intake associated with egg consumption. Total cholesterol in 

capita food supply declined 13 percent between 1970 and 1994, from 47

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

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

Consumption of egg products has grown consistently since 1983, re

equivalent of 66 eggs per person by 1997. The growth period followed m

decades of relatively level consumption, remaining between the equivale

36 eggs per person from 1960 to 1983. Egg product consumption will co

increase as consumers opt for more prepared foods and as any perception 

tially negative dietary attributes of processed eggs is lessened.

Milkfat Consumption. In 1996, Americans drank an average of 22 

milk but ate nearly 2-1/2 times as much cheese (excluding cottage types) 

Annual per capita consumption of milkfat from fluid milk products (beve

and yogurt) has declined by half since 1970 due to lower beverage milk c

and a trend toward lower fat milks. Americans cut their average consump

whole milk by two-thirds between 1970 and 1996, and nearly tripled the

lower fat milks. But, because of the growing yen for cheese and fluid cre

there was no overall reduction in the use of milkfat. Annual per capita co

of fluid milk declined from 31 gallons in 1970 to 24 gallons in 1996.

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

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

dropped to 36 percent in 1996. In 1996, plain whole milk accounted for 3

all plain beverage milk, 2-percent reduced fat milk for 35 percent, and lig

cent and 1-percent) and fat-free (skim) milks combined for 28 percent. In 

average consumption, light and fat-free milks increased 25 percent in 19

2-percent milk declined 12 percent, and whole milk declined 15 percent.

Total beverage milk contributed 50 percent less fat to the average Am

diet in 1996 than in 1970. In contrast, rising consumption of fluid cream 

meant that they contributed nearly two times as much milkfat to the aver

1996 as in 1970. Per capita consumption of fluid cream products—half-a

light cream, heavy cream, eggnog, sour cream, and dips—jumped from 9

in 1970 to 16.4 half pints in 1996. On balance, however, annual per capit

tion of milkfat from all fluid milk and cream products declined by 36 per

96, from 9.1 pounds per person to 5.8 pounds.
6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Gallons per capita

1972 77 82 87 92 

Total

Whole

2% reduced fat

Light and fat-free

1

Excludes flavored milk and buttermilk.

1

But cheese consumption continues to rise

0

7

14

21

28

1972 77 82 87 92 

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

Source: USDA/Economic Research Service.

Total

American

Italian

Other

Pounds per capita1
pppyp

major forces behind the higher consumption. In fact, two-thirds of our ch

comes in commercially manufactured and prepared foods (including foo

such as pizza, tacos, nachos, salad bars, fast-food sandwiches, bagel spre

for baked potatoes and other vegetables, and packaged snack foods. Adv

new products—such as reduced-fat cheeses and resealable bags of shred

including cheese blends tailored for use in Italian and Mexican recipes—

effect.

From 1970 to 1996, consumption of Cheddar cheese increased 59 pe

pounds per capita. Consumption of Italian cheeses quintupled during the 

period, to 10.8 pounds per person in 1996. For example, per capita consu

Mozzarella—the main pizza cheese—in1996 was 8.5 pounds, more than 

higher than in 1970.

Average Annual Use of Added Fats and Oils Has Begun to Declin

Remains Near Record-High Level. Americans’ overriding nutrition con

mid-1990’s with cutting dietary fat is apparent in the recent per capita fo

data, which shows a modest decline since 1993 in the use of added fats a

However, average use of added fats and oils in 1997 remained more than 

above the 1970 level. Added fats and oils include fats and oils used direc

sumers, such as butter on bread, as well as shortenings and oils used in c

prepared cookies, pastries, and fried foods. Excluded is all fat naturally p

foods, such as in milk and meat.

Annual per capita consumption of added fats and oils declined at lea

between 1993 and 1997, from a record-high 70 pounds per person to 66 p

content basis). This 7-percent decline reflects the following declines in p

(product-weight basis): 11percent for butter, 23 percent for margarine an

percent for shortening, and 35 percent for specialty fats used mainly in c

products and nondairy creamers. The only per capita consumption increa

added fats during 1993-97 were for lard and edible beef tallow (up 21 pe

pounds) and salad and cooking oils (up 7 percent, or 1.9 pounds). Lard a

beef tallow are used mainly for baking and frying in the commercially pr

and foodservice sectors; supermarket sales of lard, which accounted for o

cent of total lard consumption in 1997, have declined since 1993.

The 26-percent increase in per capita consumption of added fats and 

between 1970 and 1997 is probably due to the greatly expanded consump

foods in foodservice outlets, the huge increase in consumption of high-fa

foods, and the increased use of salad dressings. The average woman aged 

gets more fat from salad dressing than from any other food, according to 

USDA food intake surveys.

Average Consumption of Fruits and Vegetables Rises. As Americ

ingly embrace national health authorities’recommendation of consuming 

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

vegetables, prepackaged salads, locally grown items, and exotic produce
8

Pounds 

Total meats1 177.3 179.6 191.9 

Beef 79.6 72.1 65.0 

Pork 48.0 52.1 45.9 

Veal 2.0 1.3 1.0 

Lamb and mutton 2.1 1.0 .8 

Chicken 27.4 32.7 49.8 

Turkey 6.4 8.1 14.6 

Fish and shellfish 11.7 12.4 14.7 

Eggs (number) 308.9 271.1 236.9 

Cheese2 11.4 17.5 27.7 

Ice cream 17.8 17.5 15.9 

Fluid cream products 5.2 5.6 8.7 

All dairy products3 563.8 543.2 575.6 

Added fats and oils 52.6 57.2 65.8 

Peanuts and tree nuts4 7.2 6.6 7.8 

Fruit and vegetables5 564.4 594.4 695.6 

Fruit 229.0 257.9 283.2 

Vegetables 335.4 336.5 412.4 

Caloric sweeteners6 115.8 123.0 152.0 

Sucrose 101.8 63.6 66.2 

Corn sweeteners 16.7 38.2 84.5 

Grain products7 135.6 144.7 198.5 

Wheat flour 110.9 116.9 148.8 

Rice 6.7 9.4 18.9 

Corn products 11.1 12.9 22.9 

Other8 6.9 5.5 7.9 

Gallons

Beverage milks 31.3 27.6 24.4 

Whole 24.8 16.5 8.4 

Lower fat and skim 5.8 10.5 15.7 

Coffee 33.4 26.7 21.8 

Tea 6.8 7.3 8.0 

Carbonated soft drinks 24.3 35.1 52.0 

Fruit juices 5.5 6.8 8.7 

Bottled water na 2.4 12.4 

Beer 18.5 24.3 22.1 

Wine 1.3 2.1 1.9 

Distilled spirits 1.8 2.0 1.2 

na = not available.

1Boneless, trimmed weight. 2Excludes full-skim American, cottage, pot, and baker’s cheese. 3Milk eq

milkfat basis. 4Shelled basis. 5Fresh-weight equivalent. 6Dry basis. Includes honey and edible syrup

7Consumption of items at the processing level (excludes quantities used in alcoholic beverages and 

sweeteners). 8Oats, barley, and rye.
hundreds of new varieties and processed products—have been introduce

expanded in the last decade.

Supermarket produce departments carry over 400 produce items tod

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

gourmet, and natural foodstores—which highlight fresh produce—contin

Consumers increasingly have more access to local produce as well. 

of farmers markets reported to State agriculture departments has grown s

throughout the United States over the last several decades, numbering ar

in 1993 and eclipsing 2,400 in mid-1996. Some analysts say that the tota

farmers markets, including those not reported, is more than double that fi

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

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

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

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

consumption of iceberg lettuce fell by 5.4 pounds (or 19 percent) betwee

1996, while per capita consumption of romaine and leaf lettuces increase

(or 78 percent) during the same period. In addition, many specialty lettuc

tracked in USDA’s food supply database—such as radicchio, frisee, arug

oak—gained in popularity in the last several years because of inclusion i

salad mixes and in upscale restaurant menus.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Pounds per capita

1970

1982

1996

2

Fruit Vegetables Tot

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

the importance of fruits and vegetables in the daily diet.

Source: USDA/Economic Research Service.

1 2

1
py

which an expert scientific panel convened by the U.S. National Academy of S

published its landmark report Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer. The report emphas

importance of including fruits (especially citrus fruits), vegetables (especially

carotene-rich and cruciferous, or cabbage family, vegetables), and whole-grai

products in the daily diet, noting that these dietary guidelines were consistent 

good nutritional practices and likely to reduce the risk of cancer.

The rate of increase in per capita consumption of processed fruits and ve

bles, including potatoes, between 1970 and 1996 outpaced that for fresh prod

percent versus 21 percent. The trend is reversed and more pronounced, howev

potatoes are excluded. In that case, the rise in per capita use of processed frui

vegetables other than potatoes during the same time period was only 18 perce

compared to a 34-percent rise for fresh items. These divergent trends reflect t

important points. Potatoes constitute a significant portion of total estimated fr

vegetable consumption—21 percent in 1996, down from 22 percent in 1970.

Grain Consumption Up From 1970’s, But Far Below Early 1900’s. P

capita use of flour and cereal products reached 198 pounds in 1996, up from a

annual average of 145 pounds in 1980 and 136 pounds in 1970. The expansio

reflects strong consumer demand for variety breads and other instore bakery i

and increasing fast-food sales of products made with buns, doughs, and tortil

However, current use is far below the 300 pounds consumed per person in 19

earliest year for which data are available).

USDA’s nationwide food consumption surveys confirm the food supply 

also indicating Americans are eating more grain products. Consumption of gr

tures—such as lasagna and pizza—increased 115 percent between 1977-78 a

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

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

within the grain mixture group was the explosion of ethnic foods, especially M

foods. Mexican foods were consumed four times more often in 1994 than in t

1970’s.

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

below the minimum three per day the American Dietetic Association (ADA) 

mends. If a bread does not have whole wheat, oats, or some other whole grain 

first ingredient, much of its vitamin-and mineral-rich germ and bran have bee

away, along with most of its fiber. Enriched flour, from which most breads are 

is not a whole grain. The processor has added back four of the B vitamins (in

folic acid, beginning in 1998) and the iron that were lost when the wheat was 

Some companies that make “light” breads also add highly processed fiber to b

fiber content and cut the calories.

Beginning January 1, 1998, all enriched grain foods, including pasta, bre

rolls, flour, cakes, and cookies, must be fortified with the B-vitamin folic acid

is also lost during milling. That should reduce the risk of babies’ being born w

neural tube birth defects like spinabifida. It may also protect adults from hear

and reduce the chances of cervical cancer in women. Folic acid is found natu

10
0

50

100

150

200

Total

Wheat Flour

Corn Products Rice

Pounds per capita

1

1972 77 82 87 9

Includes oat, rye, and barley products. 1

But in 1996, it remained 100 pounds below the 1909 level

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Pounds per capita

1909 17 22 27 32 37 42 47 52 57 62

Source: USDA/Economic Research Service.

67 72 77 82 
legumes; liver; many vegetables, especially green leafy ones like spinach; cit

fruits and juices; whole-grain products; and eggs.

Most ready-to-eat breakfast cereals are fortified with folate. Fortified rea

eat cereals usually contain at least 25 percent of the U.S. Recommended Dail

Allowance (RDA) for folate(since cereals vary, check the label on the packag

percentage of the U.S. RDA).

Average Consumption of Caloric Sweeteners Hits Record High. Ame

have become conspicuous consumers of sugar and sweet-tasting foods and be

ages. Per capita consumption of caloric sweeteners (dry-weight basis)—main

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

fructose corn syrup, or HFCS)—increased 32 pounds, or 27 percent between 

and 1996. In 1996, each American consumed a record average 152 pounds of 

sweeteners. That amounted to more than two-fifths of a pound—or 47 teaspo

caloric sweeteners per person per day in 1996. USDA’s Food Guide suggests 

people on a 1,600-calorie diet limit their intake of added sugars to 6 teaspoon

day. The daily suggested limit increases to 12 teaspoons for those consuming 

calories a day, and to 18 teaspoons for those consuming 2,800 calories.

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

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

cent in 1970 to 44 percent in 1996, while corn sweeteners increased from 16 

12

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

Pounds per capita (dry weight) per year

1972 77 82 87 92 

Total 1

Sucrose

Corn sweeteners

Includes honey, molasses, and other refiner’s syrups.

Source: USDA/Economic Research Service

1
pp

than in 1909. In 1909, two-thirds of the sugar produced went directly int

In contrast, more than three-quarters of the refined and processed sugars 

today goes to food and beverage industries, and less than a quarter is bein

home.

Sugar—including sucrose, corn sweeteners, honey, and molasses—i

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

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

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

and some peanut butter. Carbonated softdrinks provided more than a fifth 

cent) of the refined and processed sugars in the 1994 American diet.

■ Cost of Food Services and Distribution

The estimated bill for marketing domestically grown and consumed f$441 billion in 1997. This amount covered all charges for transportin

ing, and distributing foods that originated on U.S. farms. It represented 7

the $561 billion consumers spent for these foods. The remaining 21 perc

billion, represents the gross return paid to farmers.

The cost of marketing food has increased considerably over the year

because of rising costs of labor, transportation, food packaging materials

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

increase in services provided with the food. In 1987, the cost of marketin

amounted to $285 billion. In the decade since, the cost of marketing rose 

percent. From 1996 to 1997, the marketing bill rose 4 percent.

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

food expenditures. From 1987 to 1997, consumer expenditures for dome

grown food rose $186 billion. Nearly 85 percent of this increase resulted 

increase in the marketing costs.

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 $216 billion in 1997. This w

cent higher than in 1996 and 66 percent more than in 1987. The total num

marketing workers in 1997 was about 13.7 million, about 19 percent mor

decade earlier. Nearly 70 percent of the growth in food industry employm

occurred in public eating places.

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

include packaging, transportation, energy, advertising, business taxes, ne

depreciation, rent, and repairs. Their relative proportions are illustrated i

panying dollar chart.
■ Food Expenditures and Prices

Total food expenditures, which include imports, fishery products, and domcally grown food, reached $709.2 billion in 1997, an increase of 2.6 perc

1996. Away-from-home meals and snacks captured 46 percent of the U.S. foo

in 1997, up from 38 percent in 1977and 44 percent in 1987.

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

consumers spend on food continues to decline. In 1996, U.S. consumers spen

percent of their disposable personal income on food, compared to 11.6 percen

1990, 13.4 percent in 1980, and 13.8 percent in 1970.

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

rose 38.6 percent over the last 10 years (1987-97). Prices of food eaten away 

home increased 34.2 percent, while retail foodstore prices increased 41.3 perc

comparison, prices of all goods and services, excluding food, in the Consume

Index climbed 41.8 percent over the same 10 years. Transportation was up 36

cent; housing 37.3 percent; medical care 80.3 percent; and apparel and upkee

percent.

14

Labor

Packaging

Transportation

Depreciation

Advertising

Fuels and electricity

Before-tax profits

Rent

Interest (

Rep

21¢ 38.5¢ 8.5¢

4¢

3.5¢

4¢

3.5¢

3.5¢

4¢ 3

Farm value Marketing bill

2.5¢

1.5
Table 1-2.

Farm value as a percentage of retail price for domestically 

foods, 1987 and 1997

Items 1987 1997

Percent

Livestock products:

Meats 47 37

Dairy 42 32

Poultry 45 41

Eggs 54 46

Crop Products:

Cereal and bakery 8 7

Fresh fruits 26 18

Fresh vegetables 31 21

Processed fruits and vegetables 24 19

Fats and oils 18 21

F

ppyp

vices. In1997, the farm value, or payment for the raw product, averag

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

other 77 percent, the farm-retail price spread, consisted of all processing

tion, wholesaling, and retailing charges incurred after farm products leav

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

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

In 1997, farm-to-retail spreads rose an average of 4.7 percent and farmer

4.4 percent less for the food they produced. The farm value as a percenta

prices was slightly lower in 1997 than in 1996. Meanwhile, retail food pr

percent. Widening farm-retail spreads continued to push up food costs in 

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

farm value of meat was 36 percent in 1997, while cereal and bakery prod

farm value of 7 percent. The additional manufacturing processes required 

and bakery products lower the farm value relative to the retail cost. Othe

influence the farm value percentage include transportation costs, product 

ity, and retailing costs.
16

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Billion dollars

70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 9

Farm

Marketing 
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

ducing areas. Climate and soil in these regions are suited to raising grain

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 area in the N

Peanuts, cattle, hog, 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, and sugarcane production areas in Florida are major suppliers 

tural goods. Cotton production is making a comeback.

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

and sugarcane are also grown. With improved pastures, livestock produc

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

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

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

Other feed grains 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 

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

for milk production. In the southern part, cotton is also a major crop.

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

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

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, and California leads the Nation in milk production

sugarcane and pineapples are the major crops. Greenhouse/nursery and d

ucts are Alaska’s top-ranking commodities.
18

■ Farms and Land in Farms

The United States had 2.06 million farms in 1997, down less than 1 percen1996. 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 1987 through 1997, except for 

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 7 percent.

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

is down 0.2 percent from a year earlier and down 3.1 percent from 1987. 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, with the 

farm increasing from 451 acres in 1987 to 471 acres in 1997.

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 acres In acr

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

1997 2,058 968,338 4

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

be sold during the year. 21987-1996 estimates are for a June 1 reference date. 1997 estimates are for the entire 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 Farms and Land in Farms rep

National Agricultural Statistics Service show that the greatest number of 

the lower sales classes, with over 61 percent reporting gross farm sales o

$20,000 in 1997. According to the survey, these small farms accounted f

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

duce the largest share of farm sales. Only 2.8 percent of the farms in 199

operations with sales of $500,000 or more, but they operated 16.5 percen

Average farm size increases consistently with sales class, ranging from 6

farm in the less than $2,500 category to 2,773 acres for farms with receip

$500,000 or more.
20

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

ships, or corporations (family and nonfamily). Agricultural Resource Manage

Study data indicate that individual operations are the most common type of fa

organization. Nine out of ten farms in the 1996 survey were classified as indi

operations. Partnerships and corporations make up a very small share of farm

About 89 percent of farm corporations are family corporations, with more tha

percent of the stock held by people related by blood or marriage.

Individual operations account for the largest share of farmland (71 perce

gross farm sales (74 percent). Corporate farms have the highest average farm 

The average value of gross farm sales by corporate farms in 1996 was $246,8

while partnerships averaged $201,205. Gross sales for individual operations a

$63,159, about one-quarter of the corporate level. Average acreage was also h

for corporate farms (1,165 acres) and for partnerships (856 acres) than for ind

operations (373 acres).

■ 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 

in the 1996 Agricultural Resource Management Study (53 percent) reported f

ership of the land they operated, while 38 percent owned part and rented part 

farmland they operated. Only 9 percent of operations reported that they rente

their land. 

Part owners generally operate the largest farms, averaging 732 acres in 1

lowed by tenants with 636 acres and full owners with 227 acres per farm. Pa

ers account for the largest share of acreage operated (61 percent of the total in 

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

gross farm sales in 1996). The average value of gross farm sales for part own

1996 was $114,443, about $31,900 less than the average for tenants at $146,3

Gross farm sales for full-owner operations were much smaller, averaging $47

■ Major Uses of U.S. Cropland

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

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

and was expected to reach 321 million acres for 1997. Summer fallow acreag

ranges between 22 million and 34 million acres per year. Cropland idled in F
Farms Land in fa

State 1992 1993 1994 1992 1993 

Number of farms 1,000 Ac

AL 46,000 46,000 46,000 9,800 10,000 

AK 540 530 520 950 940 

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

AR 45,000 45,000 44,000 15,300 15,300 

CA 82,000 79,000 79,000 30,200 30,000 

CO 25,500 25,500 25,300 32,800 32,800 

CT 4,000 3,800 3,800 410 400 

DE 2,700 2,500 2,500 590 570 

FL 39,000 39,000 39,000 10,500 10,300 

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

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

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

IL 81,000 79,000 77,000 28,200 28,100 

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

IA 103,000 102,000 101,000 33,400 33,300 

KS 67,000 65,000 65,000 47,800 47,800 

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

LA 29,000 29,000 28,000 8,700 8,600 

ME 7,300 7,300 7,600 1,420 1,400 

MD 15,600 15,000 14,500 2,200 2,200 

MA 6,400 6,200 6,000 630 610 

MI 54,000 52,000 52,000 10,800 10,700 

MN 88,000 87,000 85,000 29,800 29,700 

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

MO 107,000 106,000 105,000 30,300 30,200 

MT 24,300 23,800 22,500 60,000 59,800 

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

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

NH 2,700 2,500 2,400 440 440 

NJ 9,000 8,900 8,900 880 870 

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

NY 38,000 37,500 36,000 8,200 8,100 

NC 60,000 59,000 58,000 9,500 9,400 

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

OH 78,000 76,000 75,000 15,300 15,200 

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

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

PA 52,000 51,000 51,000 8,000 7,900 

RI 700 700 700 63 63 

SC 24,500 24,000 23,000 5,200 5,150 

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

TN 85,000 84,000 83,000 12,100 12,100 

TX 198,000 200,000 200,000 130,000 30,000 

UT 13,200 13,000 13,00011,30011,200

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

VA 45,000 45,000 46,000 8,700 8,600 

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

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

WI 79,000 79,000 79,000 17,300 17,100 

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

US 2,107,840 2,083,430 2,064,720 978,503 976,463 
22

Farms Land in farms

1995 1996 1997 1995 1996 

Number of farms 1,000 Acres

AL 47,000 45,000 45,000 10,200 9,800 

AK 520 510 510 920 920 

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

AR 43,000 43,000 42,500 15,000 15,000 

CA 80,000 82,000 84,000 30,000 30,000 

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

CT 3,800 3,800 3,900 380 380 

DE 2,500 2,500 2,400 570 565 

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

GA 45,000 43,000 43,000 12,000 11,800 

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

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

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

IN 62,000 60,000 62,000 15,900 15,900 

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

KS 66,000 66,000 64,000 47,800 47,800 

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

LA 27,000 27,000 26,500 8,500 8,700 

ME 7,600 7,400 7,300 1,350 1,340 

MD 14,300 13,700 13,000 2,200 2,100 

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

MI 54,000 53,000 51,000 10,700 10,600 

MN 87,000 87,000 87,000 29,800 29,800 

MS 42,000 44,000 43,000 13,000 12,600 

MO 105,000 104,000 102,000 30,000 30,000 

MT 22,000 22,000 24,000 59,700 59,700 

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

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

NH 2,300 2,400 2,400 440 430 

NJ 9,000 9,200 9,400 850 840 

NM 13,500 13,500 13,500 44,000 43,700 

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

NC 58,000 58,000 57,000 9,200 9,200 

ND 32,000 31,000 30,500 40,300 40,300 

OH 74,000 72,000 73,000 15,200 15,100 

OK 71,000 72,000 73,000 34,000 34,000 

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

PA 50,000 50,000 50,000 7,700 7,700 

RI 700 700 700 63 63 

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

SD 33,000 32,500 32,500 44,000 44,000 

TN 81,000 80,000 80,000 12,000 11,800 

TX 202,000 205,000 205,000 129,000 127,000 

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

VT 6,000 6,000 6,000 1,370 1,350 

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

WA 36,000 36,000 36,000 15,800 15,700 

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

WI 80,000 79,000 79,000 16,900 16,800 

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

US 2,071,520 2,063,010 2,057,910 972,253 968,048 

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

be sold during the year. Source: USDA/ National Agricultural Statistics Service, Farms and Land in 
commodity and conservation programs has ranged from none in 1980 an

million acres in 1983 and 1988. Crop failure generally varies within a ran

million acres per year. The noticeable differences are often the result of 

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

1993.

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

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

surplus commodities. The idle acreage in 1983 included nearly 49 millio

the PIK program and more than 29 million acres in the Acreage Reductio

and Paid Land Diversion programs. 

■ Acreage Harvested of Major Crops

The harvested acreage of corn in recent years has varied from 51.5 mi1983 to 75.2 million acres in 1985. Wheat acreage has ranged betw

80.6 million acres in 1981 to a low of 53.2 million acres in 1988. Barley 

acreage harvested have been declining since the early 1970’s. Acreage ha

shift away from barley and oats to the more profitable crops. Soybean ac

vested has fluctuated as the relative prices of soybeans and corn changed 

prices for soybeans in the world market were more or less favorable. Soy

vested acreage in 1997 of nearly 70 million acres was the second highest 

Increased planting flexibility provided under the Federal Agriculture Imp

and Reform Act of 1996, as well as favorable relative prices, caused man

expand soybean plantings in 1997.

Economic class

Percent of total 

(gross value Farms Land f

of sales) 1996 1997 1996 1997 199

$1,000 - $2,499 22.6 23.6 3.0 3.2 6

$2,500 - $4,999 14.3 14.2 3.1 3.2 10

$5,000 - $9,999 12.6 12.3 4.5 4.3 16

$10,000 - $19,999 11.4 11.0 6.5 6.2 26

$20,000 - $39,999 10.2 9.9 9.8 9.6 45

$40,000 - $99,999 12.6 12.1 19.9 19.0 74

$100,000 - $249,999 10.1 10.0 25.2 24.0 1,17

$250,000 - $499,999 3.8 4.1 12.9 14.0 1,59

$500,000 + 2.4 2.8 15.1 16.5 2,95

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 47

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

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

21996 estimates are for a June 1 reference date. 1997 estimates are for the entire year.

fa
Million acres

1974 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 

Cropland

harvested

Cropland

failure

Summer

fallow

Id

ac

500

400

300

200

100

0

Note: 1997 figures are preliminary.

Figure 2-3.

Cropland harvested of major crops

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Million bushels

1974 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 

Wheat 

Corn

Cotton Sorghum Oats Ba

All other

Soybeans

24
F

gp gy y 

through 1997—slightly above or below 1 percent of the privately ow

tural land in the United States. 

At the end of 1997, foreign persons owned 14.3 million acres—sligh

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

and forest land).

Forest land accounts for 45 percent of all foreign-owned acreage, cr

percent, pasture and other agricultural land for 35 percent, and nonagricu

for 3 percent.

Corporations own 79 percent of the foreign-held acreage, partnershi

percent, and individuals own 6 percent. The remaining 3 percent is held b

trusts, institutions, associations, and others.

About 61 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 57 percent of foreign-held acreage is owned by investors (

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

Germany, and France (in descending rank order). 

Maine is the State with the largest number of acres (3,037,198) own

persons. Foreign holdings in Maine account for 17 percent of that States

owned agricultural land and 21 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 a U

tion that is partially French owned, and the fourth is a U.S. corporation th

tially Canadian owned. Outside of Maine, foreign holdings are concentra

West and South, each containing 32 percent 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.
Interests excluding U.S. corporations with foreign shareholder

Country Acres Country 

Number N

Argentina 12,668 Kuwait 

Australia 8,259 Laos 

Austria 17,072 Lebanon 

Bahamas 36,310 Liberia 

Bahrain 0 Liechtenstein 

Belgium 66,085 Luxembourg 

Belize 549 Malaysia 

Bermuda 73,560 Mexico 

Bolivia 11 Morocco 

Brazil 10,336 Namibia 

British Virgin Islands 180,979 Nepal 

Canada 1,843,244 Netherlands 

Cayman Islands 34,173 Netherlands Antilles 

Chile 2,055 New Zealand 

China 833 Nicaragua 

Colombia 11,601 Norway 

Costa Rica 13,835 Oman 

Croatia 160 Pakistan 

Cuba 58 Panama 

Cyprus 516 Peru 

Czech Republic 347 Philippines 

Denmark 13,766 Poland 

Dominican Republic 2,108 Portugal 

Ecuador 951 Russia 

Egypt 1,562 St. Vincent 

El Salvador 128 Saudi Arabia 

Finland 80 Senegal 

France 129,878 Singapore 

Gambia 294 Somalia 

Germany 756,498 South Africa 

Gibraltar 678 Spain 

Greece 60,091 Sweden 

Guatemala 1,102 Switzerland 

Guyana 35 Syria 

Honduras 1,018 Taiwan 

Hong Kong 12,442 Tanzania 

Hungary 103 Thailand 

India 1,834 Trinidad & Tobago 

Indonesia 1,423 Turkey 

Iran 2,343 Turks Island 

Ireland 10,406 United Arab Emirates 

Israel 951 United Kingdom 

Italy 39,181 Uruguay 

Ivory Coast 119 Venezuela 

Jamaica 567 Vietnam 

Japan 207,367 Zimbabwe 

Jordan 1,580 Multiple 1/ 

Kampuchea 31 Third tier 2/ 

Korea (South) 1,696

Subtotal 3/ 5

See footnotes at end of table. —C

26
U.S. corporations with foreign shareholders

Country Acres Country 

Number 

US/Andorra 3,741 US/Lebanon 

US/Argentina 4,056 US/Liberia 

US/Australia 5,064 US/Libyan Arab Republic 

US/Austria 50,574 US/Liechtenstein 

US/Bahamas 66,269 US/Luxembourg 

US/Barbados 41 US/Malaysia 

US/Belgium 94,000 US/Malta 

US/Bermuda 11,528 US/Mexico 

US/Brazil 13,119 US/Namibia 

US/Brit. Virgin Islands 302,715 US/Netherlands 

US/Canada 1,869,009 US/Netherlands Antilles 

US/Cayman Islands 32,274 US/New Hebrides 

US/Chile 9,948 US/New Zealand 

US/China 13,091 US/Nicaragua 

US/Colombia 13,740 US/Norway 

US/Costa Rica 807 US/Pakistan 

US/Denmark 8,318 US/Panama 

US/Dominican Republic 589 US/Paraguay 

US/Ecuador 1,632 US/Peru 

US/Egypt 3,061 US/Philippines 

US/El Salvador 607 US/Portugal 

US/Finland 195,057 US/Qatar 

US/France 1,132,190 US/Saudi Arabia 

US/Germany 882,256 US/Singapore 

US/Greece 5,249 US/South Africa 

US/Guatemala 412 US/Spain 

US/Guyana 334 US/Sweden 

US/Honduras 37 US/Switzerland 

US/Hong Kong 130,498 US/Taiwan 

US/Indonesia 644 US/Thailand 

US/Iran 1,861 US/Trinidad & Tobago 

US/Iraq 800 US/Turkey 

US/Ireland 2,126 US/United Arab Emirates 

US/Israel 414 US/United Kingdom 

US/Italy 109,211 US/Uruguay 

US/Japan 322,744 US/Venezuela 

US/Jordan 434 US/Multiple 

US/Kenya 32 US/Third Tier 

US/Korea (South) 85

US/Kuwait 8,330 Subtotal 4/ 

Total all landholdings 

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. 

Source: USDA, ERS, Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act (AFIDA) data.
28

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

Territory agricultural land Territory agricultural land Territory agricu

Acres Acres 

Alabama 608,065 Louisiana 346,993 Oklahoma 

Alaska 195 Maine 3,037,198 Oregon 

Arizona 351,571 Maryland 51,694 Pennsylvania 

Arkansas 156,796 Massachusetts 2,643 Puerto Rico 

California 937,430 Michigan 315,548 Rhode Island 

Colorado 728,140 Minnesota 222,835 South Carolina 

Connecticut 1,216 Mississippi 201,050 South Dakota 

Delaware 5,878 Missouri 71,291 Tennessee 

Florida 682,402 Montana 491,084 Texas 

Georgia 504,564 Nebraska 74,881 Utah 

Hawaii 180,073 Nevada 436,190 Vermont 

Idaho 22,920 New Hampshire 18,919 Virginia 

Illinois 202,607 New Jersey 23,198 Washington 

Indiana 98,539 New Mexico 786,463 West Virginia 

Iowa 32,923 New York 286,445 Wisconsin 

Kansas 63,979 North Carolina 233,001 Wyoming 

Kentucky 119,617 North Dakota 24,081

Ohio 188,845 Total 1

Source: USDA, ERS, Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act data.
■ Farm Labor

Labor use on U.S. farms has changed dramatically over the past severaAverage annual farm employment dropped from 9.9 million in 1950 

lion in 1997. 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

the downward trend in farm numbers has slowed.

Family workers, including farm operators and unpaid workers, acco

percent of farm labor in 1997, while hired farmworkers accounted for 31 

Service workers, including crew leaders and custom crews, accounted fo

of all workers on farms in 1997.

The average wage rate for hired farmworkers in the United States in 

$7.36 per hour. Wages varied by State, ranging from a low of $5.69 per h

Wyoming to a high of $10.13 per hour in Hawaii. 

Labor comprises a significant portion of total farm production expen

1992 Census of Agriculture reported the expenditures for hired and contr

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

was greatest on horticultural specialty farms (45 percent), fruit and tree n

percent), and vegetable and melon farms (37 percent). These types of far

least mechanized, and many of the commodities they produce are still ha

hand. At the other extreme, labor expenses comprised less than 5 percent 

duction expenses on beef cattle, hog, sheep, poultry, and cash grain farm

Larger farms are more likely to have labor needs in excess of that pr

the family farm. Farms of 260 or more acres, which accounted for only 3

all farms, had 70 percent of all labor expenses in 1992. In terms of sales 

percent of all farms with $50,000 or more in value of products sold accou

percent of all labor expenses.
30

F

p 

1995. Farm real estate debt rose $2.4 billion from 1995 to $81.9 billion a

of 1996. Farm business non-real-estate debt was $74.2 billion at the end of 19

percent from 1995. The increase in farm debt in 1996 is slightly higher than t

recent trend of modest growth in outstanding loan balances. 

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. In this regard, a symbiotic relationship exists bet

agricultural producers and their lenders; the health of one depends on the con

the other.

Loans made to agricultural producers are classified as real estate and non

estate loans in the farm sector accounts. Real estate loans generally have term

to 40 years, and are ordinarily used to purchase farmland or to make major ca

improvements to farm property. Non-real-estate loans are typically made for 

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 1996, the Farm Credit System held $25.8 billion in farm bu

real estate loans and $14 billion in non-real-estate loans. In total, the Farm Cr

System held about 25 percent of farm business loans. While the Farm Credit 

has lagged behind commercial banks in increasing loan balances and in gaini

ket share, it continues to report improved financial performance. Favorable in

rate spreads improved their earnings during 1990-96. Improved borrower fina

conditions have translated into improved Farm Credit System performance.

Commercial banks held about 40 percent of all farm business debt by the 

1996, accounting for $23.4 billion in real estate loans (28 percent of total) an

billion in nonreal estate debt (52 percent). Life insurance companies maintain

presence in the agricultural credit market, as their total farm business debt ros

slightly to $9.5 billion, giving them a 12-percent share of the farm business m

market. Farm Service Agency (which includes part of the former Farmers Ho

Administration) direct loans to farm businesses dropped by $1 billion in 1996

“Individuals and others” classification is composed primarily of sellers financ

sale of farmland, input suppliers, farm machinery finance corporations, and s

minor lending agencies. These accounted for $18 billion in real estate loans a

$17.4 billion in non-real-estate loans at the end of 1996.
■ The Balance Sheet

Farm business asset values are estimated to have totaled $1,034.9 billiDecember 31, 1996, an increase of 5 percent over the preceding year

ness debt rose 3 percent during 1996, totaling $156.2 billion at year’s end

result, farm business equity is estimated to have risen 3 percent. Average 

farm on December 31, 1996, is estimated to have been $426,000.

The resulting debt-to-asset ratio for 1996 (expressed as a percentage

from 15.3 to 15.1. This ratio is substantially below the peak of 24 percen

1985. 

Real estate assets accounted for 78 percent of the value of farm busi

the end of 1996. Real estate assets were expected to have increased 6 per

the year. The average real estate value per farm was $390,000 on Decem

Non-real-estate assets are estimated to have increased 2 percent duri

Decreases in value were for machinery and motor vehicles, purchased in

financial assets. The value of crops stored, and of livestock and poultry w

mated to have increased in 1996.

1950 1960 1970 1980 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 

Real estate debt: $ Billion

Farm Credit

System 0.8 2.2 6.4 33.2 42.2 26.0 25.4 25.5 25.0 24.

Life insurance

companies 1.1 2.7 5.1 12.0 11.3 9.7 9.6 8.8 9.0 9.

Banks 0.8 1.4 3.3 7.8 10.7 16.3 17.5 18.8 19.7 21.

Farm Service

Agency 0.2 0.6 2.2 7.4 9.8 7.7 7.1 6.4 5.9 5.

Individuals

and others 2.1 4.5 10.5 29.3 28.1 15.2 15.7 16.1 16.8 17.

Total 5.2 11.3 27.5 89.7 100.1 74.9 75.1 75.6 76.3 78.

Non-real-estate debt:

Banks 2.4 4.7 10.5 30.0 33.7 31.3 32.9 32.9 34.9 36.

Farm Credit

System 0.5 1.5 5.3 19.8 14.0 9.8 10.2 10.3 10.5 11.

Farm Service

Agency 0.3 0.4 0.7 10.0 14.7 9.4 8.2 7.1 6.2 6.

Individuals and

others 2.5 4.5 4.8 17.4 15.1 12.7 13.0 13.2 14.2 15.

Total 5.7 11.1 21.3 77.1 77.5 63.2 64.3 63.6 65.9 69.

Total, all 10.9 22.4 48.8 166.8 177.6 138.1 139.4 139.3 142.2 147.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division.
32

0

50

100

150

200

1965 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 

Real estate1

Nonreal estate2

 Debt secured by farm real estate. Debt for operating purposes.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division

1 2

Figure 3-2.

Farm business debt by lender

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

CCC Storage &

Drying Facilities 

Individuals &

others

Banks

Life insurance

companies

Farm Service 

Agency1

Farm Credit

System

1965 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 

Billion dollars

Includes the former Farmers Home Administration’s loans.

Individuals and others include Commodity Credit Corporation real estate loans.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division.

1
p

Farm Credit System held 26 percent.

Table 3-2.

Farm business assets, debt, and equity 1

Item 1960 1970 1980 1990 

Billion

Assets 171.0 273.0 965.9 819.7 

Real estate 123.3 202.4 782.8 623.3 

Nonreal estate 2 47.7 70.6 183.0 196.4 

Debt 22.4 48.8 166.8 138.1 

Real estate 3 11.3 27.5 89.7 74.9 

Nonreal estate 4 11.1 21.2 77.1 63.2 

Equity (assets minus debt) 148.6 224.3 799.0 681.5 

1As of December 31. 2Crop inventory value is value of non-CCC crops held on farms plus valu

rate for crops held under CCC. 3Includes CCC storage and drying facilities loans. 4Excludes va

loans.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division.

■ Net Value-Added, Net Farm Income, and N

Income

Net value-added and net farm income reached record levels in 1996, rstantially from 1995. Net value-added for 1996 was $19.1 billion m

1995, up 25 percent, and $9.5 billion greater than its previous high in 19

value-added represents the total value of the farm sector’s output of good

vices (less payments to other, nonfarm, sectors of the economy) and prod

culture’s addition to national output. 

The $22.6-billion rise in final output (crop output, animal output, an

and forestry) far exceeded the $3.4 billion increase in out-of-pocket cost

The value of 1996 crop output soared $17 billion, reflecting rebounds in 

and yield for major crops, both of which had declined in 1995, following 

record harvest. The total value of livestock production in 1996 was $4.4 

higher than the previous year, the first increase in 3 years. Substantial inc

sales of hogs, poultry, and dairy products more than offset a $4-billion de

tle sales.

Compensation to hired workers was 6.1 percent more than in 1995 a

expenses increased by 3.9 percent. The earnings of nonoperator landlord

19.3 percent in 1996. 

Net farm income, which jumped $15.4 billion from 1995 to 1996, i

of net value-added earned by farm operators (defined as those individual

who share in the risks of production). In fact, the major share of the 1996 

to net value-added accrued to farm operators. Typically it is farm operato
34

py

increase in overall net value-added.

Net cash income rose by $8.8 billion, a 17.1-percent increase from 1995 

1996. Net cash income reflects the cash earnings generated by the farm busin

which are available for debt servicing, capital purchases, and distribution to f

households to cover family living expenses. Net cash income, unlike net farm

income, does not include the value of home consumption, changes in invento

capital replacement, or implicit rent and expenses related to the farm operator

dwelling. These categories do not reflect cash transactions during the current 

■ Farm Household Income 

Farm operators have been surveyed through the annual Agricultural ResouManagement Study (formerly the Farm Costs and Returns Survey) about 

finances and production on their farms since 1985. Beginning in 1988 USDA 

lected additional information about the operators’ households. In 1996, the m

recent year for which the survey data are available, about 98 percent of farms 

covered in the household definition. Included are those run by individuals, leg

nerships, and family corporations. Nonfamily corporations, cooperatives, and 

tional farms are not included in the household definition.

Like many other U.S. households, farm households receive income from 

ety of sources, one of which is farming. The 1996 average household income 

operators households was $50,360, which is on par with the average U.S. hou

About 84 percent of the average farm operator’s household income comes fro

farm sources, and many operators spent most of their work efforts in occupat

other than farming. Off-farm income includes earned income such as wages a

salaries from an off-farm job and net income from an off-farm business. Off-

income also includes unearned income, such as interest and dividends, and So

Security.

For the majority of farm operator households, off-farm income is critical

U.S. farms are small (less than $50,000 in gross sales) and are run by househo

depend mainly on off-farm income. About 39 percent of operators with small 

reported a nonfarm major occupation in 1996, and another 27 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 1996, slightly mo

quarter of farm households operated commercial-size farms with sales of mor

$50,000. These households provided most of U.S. farm production. However

households with the largest farms (sales of at least $500,000), off-farm incom

aged $34,950 per household.

Average household income and dependence on off-farm income also var

types of farm households. For example, 6 percent reported negative househol

income for 1996. On average, these households lost $36,060 from farming du

year. About 28 percent had household income of $50,000 or more, with farm 
Yea

Item 1993 1994 1995 1996 A

$ Million 

Final crop output 81,967 100,286 96,655 113,512 

Food grains 8,180 9,545 10,417 11,550 

Feed crops 20,211 20,351 24,282 28,114 

Cotton 5,250 6,738 6,851 7,461 

Oil crops 13,220 14,657 15,466 17,756 

Tobacco 2,948 2,656 2,548 2,796 

Fruits and tree nuts 10,284 10,335 11,074 11,714 

Vegetables 13,435 13,902 14,891 14,349 

All other crops 13,953 14,895 15,170 15,686 

Home consumption 69 72 104 92 

Value of inventory adjustment 2 (5,582) 7,135 (4,149) 3,996 

Final animal output 91,691 89,682 87,617 91,963 

Meat animals 50,823 46,785 44,828 44,382 

Dairy products 19,243 19,935 19,894 22,834 

Poultry and eggs 17,326 18,445 19,069 22,326 

Miscellaneous livestock 2,779 2,995 3,214 3,371 

Home consumption 451 409 365 333 

Value of inventory adjustment 2 1,070 1,112 248 (1,284) (

Services and forestry 16,583 17,882 19,375 20,737 

Machine hire and customwork 1,865 2,071 1,928 2,154 

Forest products sold 2,555 2,743 2,939 2,918 

Other farm income 4,609 4,392 5,213 5,894 

Gross imputed rental 

value of farm dwellings 7,554 8,676 9,294 9,771 

Final agricultural sector output 190,241 207,849 203,647 226,212 2

LESS: Intermediate consumption outlays 100,565 104,906 109,011 112,387 

Farm origin 41,194 41,277 41,628 42,495 

Feed purchased 21,431 22,631 23,829 25,234 

Livestock and poultry purchased 14,597 13,270 12,335 11,148 (

Seed purchased 5,165 5,376 5,463 6,112 

Manufactured inputs 23,147 24,398 26,175 28,393 

Fertilizers and lime 8,398 9,180 10,033 10,934 

Pesticides 6,723 7,225 7,726 8,525 

Petroleum fuel and oils 5,350 5,312 5,448 5,736 

Electricity 2,676 2,682 2,968 3,198 

Other intermediate expenses 36,225 39,230 41,208 41,499 

Repair and maintenance of capital items 9,193 9,083 9,458 10,304 

Machine hire and customwork 4,420 4,790 4,792 4,692 

Marketing, storage, transportation expenses 5,648 6,821 7,180 6,818 

Contract labor 1,771 1,805 1,969 2,129 

Miscellaneous expenses 15,192 16,731 17,808 17,557 

PLUS: Net government transactions 6,863 974 74 30 

+ Direct Government payments 13,402 7,879 7,253 7,286 

- Motor vehicle registration and licensing fees 362 415 462 428 

- Property taxes 6,177 6,490 6,717 6,828 

Gross value added 96,539 103,918 94,711 113,854 

LESS: Capital consumption 18,378 18,688 18,914 18,930 

Net value added 78,161 85,230 75,796 94,925 

LESS:Factor payments 35,066 36,958 39,057 42,730 

Employee compensation (total hired labor) 13,235 13,503 14,347 15,219 

Net rent received by nonoperator landlords 11,009 11,720 11,984 14,293 

Real estate and non-real-estate interest 10,822 11,735 12,726 13,218 

Net farm income 43,095 48,271 36,739 52,194 

1Final sector output is the gross value of the commodities and services produced within a yea

added is the sector’s contribution to the national economy and is the sum of the income from p

earned by all factors of production. Net farm income is the farm operators’ share of income fro

production activities. The concept presented is consistent with that employed by the Organizat

Cooperation and Development.

2A positive value of inventory change represents current-year production not sold by Decembe

value is an offset to production from prior years included in current-year sales. 

Source: USDA,Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division.
Item 1993 1994 1995 1996 Amoun

$ Million 

Gross farm income 203,643 215,728 210,901 233,498 22,597 

Gross cash income 200,081 198,324 205,037 220,590 15,553 

Farm marketings 177,650 181,239 187,704 202,339 14,635 

Crops 87,480 93,079 100,700 109,425 8,725 

Livestock and products 90,170 88,160 87,004 92,914 5,910 

Government payments 13,402 7,879 7,253 7,286 32 

Farm-related income 9,029 9,206 10,080 10,966 885 

Noncash income 8,073 9,157 9,764 10,196 432 

Value of home consumption 519 481 469 425 (45

Rental value of dwellings 7,554 8,676 9,294 9,771 477 

Operator and other dwellings 1 7,125 8,241 8,732 9,156 424 

Hired laborer dwellings 429 434 563 615 52 

Value of inventory adjustment (4,512) 8,247 (3,901) 2,712 6,613

Total production expenses 160,548 167,457 174,161 181,303 7,142 

Intermediate product expenses 99,156 103,515 107,504 110,687 3,183 

Farm origin 41,194 41,277 41,628 42,495 867 

Feed purchased 21,431 22,631 23,829 25,234 1,405 

Livestock and poultry purchased 14,597 13,270 12,335 11,148 (1,187

Seed purchased 5,165 5,376 5,463 6,112 649 

Manufactured inputs 23,147 24,398 26,175 28,393 2,218 

Fertilizer and lime 8,398 9,180 10,033 10,934 901 

Pesticides 6,723 7,225 7,726 8,525 799 

Fuel and oil 5,350 5,312 5,448 5,736 289 

Electricity 2,676 2,682 2,968 3,198 230 

Other 34,816 37,840 39,701 39,799 98 

Repair and maintenance 9,193 9,083 9,458 10,304 845 

Other miscellaneous 25,623 28,757 30,242 29,495 (747

Interest 10,822 11,735 12,726 13,218 492 

Real estate 5,489 5,782 6,042 6,357 315 

Non-real-estate 5,333 5,954 6,685 6,862 177 

Contract and hired labor expenses 15,006 15,308 16,316 17,348 1,032 

Net rent to nonoperator landlords 2 11,009 11,720 11,984 14,293 2,309 

Capital consumption 18,378 18,688 18,914 18,930 15 

Property taxes 6,177 6,490 6,717 6,828 111 

NET FARM INCOME 3 43,095 48,271 36,739 52,194 15,455 

Gross receipts of farms 196,518 207,487 202,169 224,341 22,173 

Farm production expenses 156,490 162,981 169,348 176,064 6,716 

Nonfactor payments 121,773 126,420 130,714 133,769 3,055 

Intermediate product expenses 98,332 102,566 106,551 109,476 2,925 

Capital consumption 16,164 16,321 16,312 16,187 (125

Property taxes 5,506 5,727 5,882 5,977 96 

Contract labor 1,771 1,805 1,969 2,129 160 

Factor payments 34,717 36,561 38,634 42,295 3,661 

Interest 10,473 11,338 12,303 12,783 479 

Hired labor compensation 13,235 13,503 14,347 15,219 872 

Net rent to nonoperator landlords 11,009 11,720 11,984 14,293 2,309 

RETURNS TO OPERATORS 4 40,027 44,506 32,821 48,277 15,457 

Gross cash income 200,081 198,324 205,037 220,590 15,553 

Cash expenses 141,247 147,600 153,860 160,649 6,789 

Cash expenses, excluding net rent 128,883 134,501 140,483 144,952 4,469 

Intermediate product expenses 98,332 102,566 106,551 109,476 2,925 

Interest 10,473 11,338 12,303 12,783 479 

Cash labor expenses 14,573 14,870 15,746 16,716 969 

Property taxes 5,506 5,727 5,882 5,977 96 

Net rent to nonoperator landlords 5 12,364 13,099 13,377 15,697 2,321 

NET CASH INCOME 58,834 50,724 51,178 59,941 8,763 

1Value added to gross income. Value added to net farm income equals difference in net farm incom

returns to operators.

2 Includes landlord capital consumption.

3Statistics in and above the Net Farm Income line represent the farm sector, defined as including far

tors’ dwellings located on farms. Statistics below the Net Farm Income line represent only the farm 

to the exclusion of the operators’ dwellings. 4Returns to operators is equivalent to net farm income excluding the income and expenses associat

farm operators’ dwellings. 5 Excludes landlord capital consumption.

Source: USDA/Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division.

36
Wages and salaries

$25,759

(51.1%)

Farm in

$7,9

(15.7

Other off-fa

$7,9

(15.

Interest and dividends

$2,718

(5.4%)

Off-farm business income

$5,982

(11.9%)

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service. 

Resource Economics Division, 1996 Agricultural Resource Management Study.

Figure 3-4. 

Average farm and off-farm income for farm operator househ

by size of farm, 1996

O

F

Source 

Size of farm:1

Less than 

$50,000

$50,000–

$249,999

$250,000–

$499,999

$500,000 

and over

-$3,419

$45,418

$17,313

$36,853

$53,265

$22,409

$34,951

 Based on gross value of farm sales, which includes farm businesses’, 

share landlords’, and production contractors’ shares of agricultural production.

Source: USDA Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division, 

1996 Agriculture Resource Management Study.

1
38

Number of Average Share 

Item households household income 1off-farm s

Number Dollars Perc

All operator households 2,036,810 44,392 8

Household income class:

Negative 170,331 (28,968) (40

0-$9,999 210,182 5,470 18

$10,000-$24,999 443,779 17,643 11

$25,000-$49,999 668,579 36,507 9

$50,000 and over 543,938 113,918 7

Operator’s major occupation:

Farm or ranch work 903,820 40,342 6

Other 797,718 53,425 10

Retired 335,272 33,815 9

Operator’s age class:

Less than 35 years 168,825 32,506 9

35-44 years 407,345 47,266 8

45-54 years 476,807 51,953 9

55-64 years 469,052 50,421 8

65 years or older 514,780 33,518 8

Operator’s educational level:

Less than high school 425,612 30,173 9

High school 819,087 41,479 8

Some college 443,374 48,726 8

College 348,736 63,075 9

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. 

2 Income from off-farm sources is more than 100 percent of total household income if farm income is 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division, 1996 Agricultural Reso

Management Study.

averaging $41,509. Among occupational categories, households of operators 

reported occupations other than farming or retired had the highest average ho

income, largely from off-farm sources. Data on operators’ age show that hous

associated with the oldest and youngest operators had the lowest average hou

income. Data on operators’ educational level show significant increases in av

income with each higher educational level.
M

y py 

the substantial declines of the prior year. In 1995, net farm income 

substantially in most States and particularly in the Corn Belt, Northern P

Southern Plains regions. A decrease in the value of crop output, compare

record harvest, accounted for most of the lower income in the Corn Belt 

Plains, while higher production expenses appear to be more responsible 

income change in the Southern Plains Region. In 1996, net value-added f

tion in the agricultural sector rose by $2.1 billion in Iowa, the most of an

was an increase of 45 percent, but seven additional States had percentage 

at least that much: Missouri (89%), Illinois (61%), South Dakota (60%), 

Dakota (59%), Minnesota (59%), Indiana (46%), and Nebraska (45%). N

cash receipts from sales of corn, soybeans, hogs, and milk were each up 

$2 billion in 1996 and are among the leading commodities in these eight 

the exception of North Dakota. Located in the country’s bread basket and 

cally contiguous, the eight States accounted for 55 percent of the $15.6 b

increase in U.S. net farm income accruing to producers. Producers in No

South Dakota also benefitted from increased wheat sales.

California continues to lead the Nation in cash receipts and farm inc

stantial amounts, reflecting both its substantial land mass and its commo

which is heavily weighted towards commodities with high value of prod

acre. California’s net farm income in 1996 rebounded to $5.6 billion, up 

billion in 1995. Iowa with $4.0 billion, representing a gain of $1.8 billion

second largest net farm income in 1996. Two additional States earned mo

billion in net farm income in 1996—North Carolina ($3.4) and Nebraska 

five more States exceeded $2 billion—Texas, Illinois, Minnesota, Georgi

Arkansas. In contrast, in 1995, only four States topped the $2 billion mar

California ($4.6), North Carolina ($2.7), Texas ($2.5), and Iowa ($2.2).

Florida, Kansas, and Washington round out the top dozen States in 1

by net farm income. These dozen States accounted for more than 60 perc

Nation’s net farm income. Of these States, only Florida failed to achieve 

farm income in 1996 than in the previous year. Collectively, net farm inc

top 12 States in 1996 was $9.6 billion above 1995. Illinois and Washingt

the top 12 grouping in 1996, displacing Kentucky and Ohio which had b

twelfth in the 1995 ranking. Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota m

doubled their net farm income in 1996 over that earned in the previous y

extensive set of value-added\farm income tables for States dating from 1

able on the ERS World Wide Web site (www.econ.ag.gov).

■ State Rankings by Cash Receipts

The top 10 States in cash receipts for all commodities in 1996 were CTexas, Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, Minnesota, Kansas, North Carolina

Wisconsin. The share of total cash receipts derived from crop or livestoc

ied greatly among these 10 top-ranked States. 
40

California led the Nation in crop sales with $17.1 billion, and was the top 

ducing State for 8 of the sector’s top 25 commodities: dairy products, greenh

nursery products, eggs, hay, grapes, tomatoes, lettuce, and almonds. Californ

vaulted from third to first place in egg sales with a 27-percent rise in a single 

Three-quarters of California’s farm sales were from crops; fruits and nuts 27 

vegetables 23 percent, and greenhouse and nursery 10 percent. 

Florida’s pattern of cash receipts is similar to California’s, with vegetabl

and nuts, and greenhouse and nursery accounting for 69 percent of agricultur

By contrast, 60 percent of Texas’ cash receipts were from livestock, and two-

that was cattle and calves. More than 8 percent of the Nation’s livestock sales 

was attributed to Texas. Iowa’s cash receipts are mostly opposite those of Tex

crops comprise 58 percent of the total and livestock 42 percent. Feed grains a

oilseeds represented 56 percent of Iowa’s 1996 sales, while hogs accounted f

percent. Iowa leads the Nation in both corn and hog sales.

Cattle and calves remained the top ranked commodity in generation of ca

receipts for 1996, even though their sales fell by $2.9 billion or 8.4 percent. I

the sales of cattle and calves have declined by $8.2 billion or 21 percent since 

due to lower prices. Texas led in cattle and calf receipts with $5.3 billion, dow

lion dollars (15%) from the prior year. Nebraska ($4.1 billion) and Kansas ($

lion) were the second and third leading producers of cattle. An extensive set o

ranking tables is available on the ERS World Wide Web site (www.econ.ag.go

Bottom 10 States in

net farm income

Top 10 States in

net farm income

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division
41

Table 3-6States ranked by cash receipts, 1996 1

Livestock

Total and products Crops 

Cash Cash Cash 

State Rank receipts Rank receipts Rank receipts 1 

Million dollars

Alabama 26 3,174 15 2,363 34 811 Broilers 

Alaska 50 29 50 6 50 23 Greenhouse/

Arizona 32 2,146 31 839 27 1,308 Cattle and ca

Arkansas 11 5,887 9 3,357 14 2,530 Broilers 

California 1 23,310 2 6,213 1 17,096 Dairy product

Colorado 17 4,229 12 2,759 25 1,470 Cattle and ca

Connecticut 42 489 43 237 40 252 Greenhouse/

Delaware 39 757 37 573 44 184 Broilers 

Florida 9 6,131 28 1,188 5 4,942 Oranges 

Georgia 12 5,687 10 3,279 16 2,408 Broilers 

Hawaii 44 483 48 66 38 417 Cane for sug

Idaho 25 3,410 26 1,329 19 2,081 Potatoes 

Illinois 5 9,050 16 2,061 3 6,989 Corn 

Indiana 14 5,558 20 1,895 9 3,663 Corn 

Iowa 3 12,853 3 5,457 2 7,396 Corn 

Kansas 7 7,869 5 4,570 11 3,299 Cattle and ca

Kentucky 22 3,550 21 1,719 21 1,831 Tobacco 

Louisiana 31 2,342 34 687 23 1,655 Cotton 

Maine 43 485 42 262 42 224 Potatoes 

Maryland 36 1,534 30 901 35 633 Broilers 

Massachusetts 45 478 46 109 39 369 Greenhouse/

Michigan 20 3,643 25 1,448 18 2,195 Dairy productMinnesota 6 8,809 8 4,168 6 4,641 Corn 

Mississippi 24 3,463 19 1,934 24 1,529 Broilers 

Missouri 16 4,950 13 2,450 15 2,500 Soybean 

Montana 33 2,027 32 797 29 1,230 Wheat 

Nebraska 4 9,454 4 5,277 7 4,177 Cattle and ca
42Table 3-6

States ranked by cash receipts, 19961 (continued)

Livestock

Total and products Crops 

Cash Cash Cash 

State Rank receipts Rank receipts Rank receipts 1 

Million dollars

Nevada 47 286 45 153 45 133 Cattle and ca

New Hampshire 48 161 47 72 47 89 Dairy product

New Jersey 38 801 44 196 36 605 Greenhouse/

New Mexico 34 1,709 27 1,197 37 512 Cattle and ca

New York 27 3,043 17 2,045 31 998 Dairy product

North Carolina 8 7,831 6 4,427 10 3,404 Hogs 

North Dakota 23 3,532 38 537 13 2,996 Wheat 

Ohio 15 5,122 18 1,945 12 3,177 Soybean Oklahoma 21 3,566 14 2,439 30 1,126 Cattle and ca

Oregon 28 2,977 35 657 17 2,320 Greenhouse/

Pennsylvania 18 4,143 11 2,865 28 1,278 Dairy product

Rhode Island 49 83 49 11 49 72 Greenhouse/

South Carolina 35 1,602 33 737 33 865 Broilers South Dakota 19 3,684 23 1,633 20 2,051 Cattle and ca

Tennessee 30 2,372 29 998 26 1,374 Cattle and ca

Texas 2 13,053 1 7,758 4 5,295 Cattle and ca

Utah 37 873 36 646 41 227 Cattle and ca

Vermont 41 535 40 437 46 98 Dairy product

Virginia 29 2,378 24 1,478 32 900 Broilers 

Washington 13 5,681 22 1,664 8 4,017 Apples 

West Virginia 46 388 41 308 48 80 Broilers Wisconsin 10 6,062 7 4,288 22 1,773 Dairy product

Wyoming 40 662 39 478 43 184 Cattle and ca1 All cash receipts data are in million dollars.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division.
43

Table 3-7.Ten leading States in cash receipts for top 25 commodities, 19

Top 10 states by their val

Commodity 1 Rank Value 1 2 3 4 

$ Million State and $ m

CA TX IA NE 

Total 202,339 23,310 13,053 12,853 9,454 

TX CA IA NE 

Livestock & poultry 1 92,814 7,758 6,213 5,457 5,277 

CA IA IL TX 

Crops 2 109,425 17,096 7,396 6,989 5,295 

TX NE KS CO 

Cattle and calves 1 31,138 5,331 4,082 3,995 2,072 

CA WI NY PA 

Dairy products 2 22,834 3,717 3,262 1,693 1,662 

IA IL NE IN 

Corn 3 21,573 4,290 3,546 2,491 1,784 

IA IL MN IN 

Soybeans 4 16,211 2,892 2,784 1,618 1,453 

GA AR AL NC 

Broilers 5 13,906 2,205 2,122 1,635 1,310 

IA NC MN IL 

Hogs 6 12,644 3,004 1,749 1,116 1,039 

CA FL NC TX 

Greenhouse\nursery2 7 10,887 2,224 1,140 889 838 

ND KS MT WA 

Wheat 8 9,956 1,607 1,184 861 775 

TX CA GA MS 

Cotton 9 7,461 1,810 1,191 782 726 

CA OH GA IN 

Chicken eggs 10 4,757 367 359 348 320 

CA WA OR ID 

Hay 11 3,574 565 231 220 198 
44Table 3-7. Ten leading States in cash receipts for top 25 commodities, 19

Top 10 states by their val

Commodity 1 Rank Value 1 2 3 4 

$ Million State and $ m

NC MN MO AR 

Turkeys 12 3,056 612 427 249 232 

NC KY TN SC 

Tobacco 13 2,796 1,021 813 219 215 

ID WA CA OR 

Potatoes 14 2,699 716 470 179 164 

CA WA NY AZ 

Grapes 15 2,334 2,154 58 44 20 

WA CA NY MI 

Apples 16 1,846 1,098 147 138 107 

KS TX NE MO 

Sorghum grain 17 1,813 678 558 203 111 

FL CA AZ TX 

Oranges 18 1,798 1,291 493 8 7

CA FL OH GA 

Tomatoes 19 1,603 908 382 47 44 

AR CA LA TX 

Rice 20 1,575 644 320 246 181 

CA AZ NJ FL 

Lettuce 21 1,427 1,084 306 13 7 

MN ID ND CA 

Sugar beets 22 1,017 303 184 165 95 

CA n.a n.a n.a 

Almonds 23 1,009 1,009

ND ID MT MN 

Barley 24 992 303 155 153 73 

GA TX AL NC 

Peanuts 25 969 389 171 119 96 n.a.=not applicable.1The 25 leading commodities ranked by value of farm marketings. 2/ Excludes mushrooms.

Source: USDA/Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division.
G

py

been since 1982. Total payments in both years were only 8 percent 

of 1994 but 41 percent lower than the $13.4 billion in 1993. Direct gover

ments were expected to begin declining after 1996, but are now expected 

declining in 1998. Payments in 1996 and later years were to have reflecte

tion flexibility payments provided under the 1996 Farm Act, but unantici

ments for deficiency payments owed to farmers in 1996 and repayments 

farmers under the previous farm program are included in 1996 payments 

influence also extended into 1997. After 1997, the influence of the deficie

ment adjustments should be concluded and the payment totals will begin 

the declining levels of production flexibility contract payments specified 

Farm Act. The payment totals will be constrained by the funding set forth 

Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act

year 2002.

The 1996 Act fundamentally redesigned income support and supply 

programs for producers of wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, rice, 

cotton. Government payments to producers who signed up for the progra

fixed and are scheduled to decline through 2002. Dairy policy was also c

price support is to be phased out and milk marketing orders consolidated

Act also altered the sugar and peanut programs. Farmers are freer to alter 

production in response to relative price signals from the marketplace. Fa

likely to become more variable under the Act in response to year-to-year 

the supply and demand for commodities. Marketing alternatives to mana

production risk are becoming more important for many farmers.

■ Number of Farms and Net Cash Income by 

Class

The number of farms decreased slightly to 2,063,910 in 1996. Almost ters of all U.S. farms have annual sales of less than $50,000, while a

mately 1 percent of all farms have sales greater than $1 million. Farms w

$250,000 in sales account for less than 8 percent of all farms but domina

agricultural output. These large farms sell over 65 percent of the Nation’

and over 66 percent of the crops. They have nearly 64 percent of the gros

income compared with 59 percent of the cash expenses. In 1996 they acc

more than 78 percent of the Nation’s net cash income from farming. App

42 percent of direct Government payments went to these farms
46

Table 3-8.Government payments, by program and State, 19961State Feed grain Wheat Rice Cotton Alabama 314 (212) 0 (4,119) 

Alaska (23) (0) 0 0 

Arizona 17 (1,166) 0 (7,082) 

Arkansas (93) (8,170) 68,240 (7,374) California (563) (4,526) 34,272 (13,668) 

Colorado (3,450) (17,015) 0 0 

Connecticut (106) 0 0 0 

Delaware (353) (149) 0 0 

Florida 134 (41) 5 (351) 

Georgia 358 (1,509) 0 (3,025) 

Hawaii 0 0 0 0 Idaho (4,477) (19,910) 0 0 

Illinois (66,086) (8,978) 0 0 

Indiana (23,350) (4,150) 0 0 

Iowa (112,123) (77) 0 0 

Kansas (14,443) (87,920) 0 (1) Kentucky (1,394) (2,224) 8 0 

Louisiana 324 (410) 26,744 (9,225) 

Maine (55) 0 0 0 

Maryland (1,123) (619) 0 0 

Massachusetts (27) 0 0 0 

Michigan (9,308) (4,476) 0 0 

Minnesota (42,070) (24,769) 0 0 

Mississippi 136 (1,261) 13,103 (15,530) 

Missouri (2,313) (9,615) 5,611 (1,666) 

Montana (6,295) (41,494) 0 0 Nebraska (47,314) (17,668) 0 0 

Nevada (26) (148) 0 0 
47

Table 3-8.Government payments, by program and State, 19961 (continueState Feed grain Wheat Rice Cotton New Hampshire (3) 0 0 0 

New Jersey (125) (84) 0 0 

New Mexico (534) (1,676) 0 (514) 

New York (2,045) (943) 0 0 

North Carolina (197) (1,342) 0 (1,369) 

North Dakota (12,319) (77,769) 0 0 

Ohio (10,239) (7,266) 0 0 

Oklahoma (673) (43,050) 63 (2,431) Oregon (588) (9,793) 0 0 

Pennsylvania (1,539) (302) 0 0 

Rhode Island (1) 0 0 0 

South Carolina 770 (1,452) 0 (1,858) 

South Dakota (2,267) (15,981) 0 0 

Tennessee (87) (1,889) 22 (4,291) 

Texas (6,536) (20,639) 26,727 (32,341) 

Utah (436) (1,196) 0 0 

Vermont (76) (0) 0 0 

Virginia (502) (920) 0 (39) 

Washington (2,203) (30,491) 0 0 

West Virginia (144) (20) 0 0 

Wisconsin (10,483) (644) 0 0 

Wyoming (456) (1,260) 0 0 

United States (384,393) (473,223) 174,795 (104,884) 1Includes both cash payments and payments-in-kind (PIK). 2Includes amount paid under agriculture and conservation programs (Conservation Reserve, Agricu3Includes Production Flexibility Contracts Payments under the 1996 Farm Act. Other programs incl

Annual, Dairy Indemnity, Dairy Termination, Extended Warehouse Storage, Extended Farm Storage

Market Gains, Naval Stores Conservation, Milk Marketing Fee, Options Pilot, Emergency Feed, Ric

Lake, Noninsured Assistance, Interest on NAP, Karnal Bunt Fungus, Production Flexibility, Disaster 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division.
48

Year grains Wheat Rice Cotton Wool vation 2 laneous 3 

$ Million

1950 np np np np np 246 37 

1951 np np np np np 246 40 

1952 np np np np np 242 33 

1953 np np np np np 181 32 

1954 np np np np np 217 40 

1955 np np np np np 188 41 

1956 np np np np 54 220 280 

1957 np np np np 53 230 732 

1958 np np np np 14 215 859 

1959 np np np np 82 233 367 

1960 np np np np 51 223 429 

1961 772 42 np np 56 236 387 

1962 841 253 np np 54 230 368 

1963 843 215 np np 37 231 370 

1964 1,163 438 np 39 25 236 278 

1965 1,391 525 np 70 18 224 235 

1966 1,293 679 np 773 34 231 267 

1967 865 731 np 932 29 237 284 

1968 1,366 747 np 787 66 229 268 

1969 1,643 858 np 828 61 204 199 

1970 1,504 871 np 919 49 208 166 

1971 1,054 878 np 822 69 173 149 

1972 1,845 856 np 813 110 198 140 

1973 1,142 474 np 718 65 72 136 

1974 101 70 np 42 4 192 125 

1975 279 77 np 138 13 193 107 

1976 196 135 4 108 39 209 47 

1977 187 887 130 89 5 328 192 

1978 1,172 963 3 127 27 239 499 

1979 494 114 59 185 33 197 294 

1980 382 211 2 172 28 214 276 

1981 243 625 2 222 35 201 605 

1982 713 652 156 800 46 179 946 

1983 1,346 864 278 662 84 188 5,874 

1984 367 1,795 192 275 118 191 5,493 

1985 2,861 1,950 577 1,106 98 189 924 

1986 5,158 3,500 423 1,042 112 254 1,325 

1987 8,490 2,931 475 1,204 144 1,531 1,972 

1988 7,219 1,842 465 924 117 1,607 2,306 

1989 3,141 603 671 1,184 81 1,771 3,436 

1990 2,701 2,311 465 441 96 1,898 1,386 

1991 2,649 2,166 550 407 154 1,858 431 

1992 2,499 1,403 512 751 188 1,899 1,916 

1993 4,844 1,909 650 1,226 173 1,967 2,633 

1994 1,447 1,156 337 826 202 1,978 1,933 

1995 3,024 587 784 30 98 1,896 834 

1996 5 (384) (473) 175 (105) 56 1,793 6,220 

np = no program. 

1Components may not add due to rounding. Includes both cash payments and payments-in-kind (PI

2Includes Great Plains and other conservation programs. 

3Through 1970, total amounts are for Soil Bank Programs, which was discontinued in 1971. Starting 

amounts include all other programs. 

4Less than $500,000.

5Commodity specific payments in 1996 reflect final deficiency payments due farmers under previous 

well as repayments by farmers of unearned deficiency payments disbursed in advance of final dete

Production flexibility payments under the 1996 Farm Act are included in the miscellaneous category

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division.
49

Table 3-10.Number of farms and net cash income by size class, 19961

$1,000,000 $500,000 $250,00

Item and to 

over $999,999 $499,99

Thousand

Number of farms 22 43 9

Million dolla

Gross cash income 63,505 33,870 43,56

Cash receipts from marketings 61,284 31,830 40,12

Crops 31,107 17,304 24,26

Government supported 8,835 11,522 18,27

Nonsupported 22,272 5,783 5,98

Livestock 30,176 14,525 15,86

Government payments 607 927 1,53

Farm-related income 1,614 1,113 1,90

Cash expenses 38,812 24,200 30,85Net cash income 24,692 9,669 12,70

Perce

Percent of total:Number of farms 1.1 2.1 4

Gross cash income 28.8 15.4 19

Cash receipts from marketings 30.3 15.7 19

Crops 28.4 15.8 22

Government supported 13.2 17.2 27Nonsupported 52.6 13.7 14

Livestock 32.5 15.6 17

Government payments 8.3 12.7 21

Farm-related income 14.7 10.1 17

Cash expenses 24.2 15.1 19

Net cash income 41.2 16.1 21
50Table 3-10. Number of farms and net cash income by size class, 19961 (co

$1,000,000 $500,000 $250,00

Item and to 

over $999,999 $499,99

Dolla

Per farm operation: 1

Gross cash income 2,899,244 790,552 444,11

Cash receipts from marketings 2,797,845 742,938 409,08

Crops 1,420,181 403,903 247,37

Government supported 403,353 268,929 186,32

Nonsupported 1,016,828 134,974 61,04

Livestock 1,377,664 339,035 161,70

Government payments 27,692 21,639 15,64

Farm-related income 73,708 25,975 19,39

Cash expenses 1,771,945 564,856 314,59

Net cash income 1,127,299 225,696 129,51

1Farm operations may have several households sharing in the earnings of the business farm corporation). The number of households per farm operation tends to increase as sales per farm Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division.
■ Nonmetropolitan Population

Today, the United States is primarily metropolitan. People who live in and their suburbs account for 80 percent of the total population.

Nonmetropolitan people outside large cities and submetro counties numb

54.3 million in 1997. Although nonmetro population continues to increas

tion of the total population has fallen slightly over the last several decade

the metro population grew even more rapidly.

A metro area, by definition, must have an urban nucleus of a least 50

and may include fringe counties that are linked to that nucleus because th

commute to the central area. All other counties are nonmetro. 

After 1970, most nonmetro counties that were losing population in t

began to grow again because of job development, commuting, or the dev

retirement communities that drew retirees in from other areas. However, 

low farm income and a slump in mining and manufacturing employment 

slow but widespread decline in nonmetro population, generally in the sam

declined before 1970. Some nonmetro counties, though, grew enough as 

or recreation areas, or from their proximity to metro jobs, to produce ove

metro population growth during the decade.

Since 1990, there is evidence once again of increased retention of pe

metro areas. From 1990 to 1996, the population of nonmetro counties gre

annual pace more than double that of the 1980’s, with far fewer counties 

This change has affected all types of counties and most regions of the co

Improvement in nonmetro economic conditions is thought to be generall

for this change. But, recreation and retirement counties continue to be th

rapidly developing group. Declining population is still characteristic of a

dependent on farming, three-fourths of which have continued to have mo

moving out than in.

■ Age and Race

Age distributions reflect past demographic events (births, deaths, and and provide important clues about future changes in the labor suppl

demand for goods and services. The age distribution of the U.S. populati

dominated by the post-World War II rise in fertility rates known as the ba

whose members were born in 1946-64. From the time the youngest “bab
52

pppg ggpp

country benefit from the current age structure.

Because of migration, which consists primarily of young adults and their 

dren, metro areas captured a much higher percentage of the baby boomers. Th

higher metro percentage of working-age adults has been a persistent pattern f

of this century. Metro/nonmetro differences among the youngest and oldest h

become increasingly large. In a reversal of previous trends, the birth rates in m

areas in the last 5 years have been greater than in nonmetro areas. In large me

this reversal is due to the delayed childbearing among women in the large me

boom segment. Birth rates for nonmetro women are higher at younger ages, p

larly for women in their twenties, an age group not well represented in nonme

areas.

Increases in life expectancy over the past 50 years and the aging of the la

ulation segment born in the 1920’s increased the proportion of elderly betwee

and 1997. The percentage of the population over age 75 rose dramatically, esp

in nonmetro areas. Retirement migration to nonmetro areas, coupled with his

high levels of nonmetro outmigration of young adults and their children, plac

higher proportion of older people in nonmetro areas: the percentage of nonme

ulation age 65 or older was 15 percent in 1997, compared with 12 percent in m

areas. For the first time since 1960, children under 10 outnumber preteens and

teenagers in metro areas. This is not true for nonmetro areas.

In 1990, 8.7 million nonmetro residents belonged to one of four minority 

Blacks, Hispanics, Asians (including Pacific Islanders), and Native American

Blacks made up close to two-thirds of the nonmetro minority population in 19

their share declined as other groups grew much faster during the 1980’s. Min

constituted 14 percent of the total nonmetro population in 1980, but they acco

for 50 percent of the people added during the 1980’s. Their 15 percent rate of 

was more than five times the rate for Whites. For all minorities except Native

Americans, however, growth rates were even higher in metro areas during the 

so that the share of U.S. minorities living in nonmetro areas declined slightly 

to 14 percent. Minorities are still much more likely than Whites to live in met

but their presence in nonmetro areas is increasing.
■ Nonmetropolitan Industry and Job Growth

Nonmetro areas gained jobs at a rate comparable to that of metro area1970’s, but fell far behind metro growth during the 1980’s. Nonmet

fered more in the two recessions of the early 1980’s and benefited less fr

89 recovery than did metro areas. As a result, employment growth was c

slower in nonmetro (1.3 percent annually) than in metro areas (2.5 perce

during 1979-89. More encouraging is the most recent performance of rur

contrast to the 1980’s trend, rural areas weathered the 1990-91 recession 

metro areas did. In nonmetro areas, total jobs grew at a 1.6 percent annua

1989-95; in metro areas, jobs grew at a 1.3 percent annual rate. Most of t

growth was in services-producing industries (1.8 million out of 2.4 millio

Goods-producing industries contributed 312,000 new nonmetro jobs whi

goods-producing jobs were lost by metro areas.

The number of rural services-producing jobs grew faster during the 

percent annually) than during the 1980’s (2.1 percent annually) and the e

(2.4 percent annually). Among the services-producing industries, genera

such as hotel accommodations, hair cuts, car repair, and entertainment—

largest number of new rural jobs (1 million) during 1989-95. Nonmetro r

firms added 621,000 new jobs, growing slightly faster (2.5 percent annua

they had grown in the two previous decades (2.4 percent annually in the 

percent annually in the 1980’s). In manufacturing, the largest goods-prod

try, nonmetro areas added jobs during 1989-95 while metro areas continu

jobs. 

Race/ethnic group 1980 1990 1980-90 1980 19

Thousands Perce

White 46,753 47,863 1,110 25.4 24

Minority 7,624 8,688 1,064 16.5 14

Black 4,770 4,923 153 18.0 16

Hispanic1 1,786 2,329 543 12.2 10

Native American2 759 971 212 49.5 49

Asian 309 465 156 8.3 6

1Hispanics can be of any race. 

2Native Americans include American Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts.

Source: 1980 and 1990 Censuses of Population.
54

Industry 1969 1979 1989 1995 

Thousands 

Nonmetro total 17,718 21,719 24,068 26,499 

Goods-producing 7,486 8,542 8,225 8,537 

Manufacturing 3,593 4,218 4,237 4,439 

Service-producing 7,145 9,587 11,846 13,664 

Services 2,723 3,627 5,011 6,017 

Government 3,088 3,591 3,997 4,298 

Metro total 73,278 91,634 113,867 122,791 

Goods-producing 22,750 24,648 24,682 24,066 

Manufacturing 16,953 17,279 15,761 14,787 

Service-producing 37,775 52,180 72,408 81,412 

Services 13,997 20,447 32,225 38,757 

Government 12,753 14,806 16,777 17,312 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis

Table 4-3.

Nonmetro job growth by industry, 1969-95, selected years

Industry 1969 1979 1989 1995 

Thousands 

Nonmetro 17,718 21,719 24,068 26,499 

Goods-producing 7,486 8,542 8,225 8,537 

Farming 2,564 2,352 1,969 1,831 

ASFF1 166 242 356 469 

Mining 361 550 433 376 

Construction 802 1,180 1,231 1,422 

Manufacturing 3,593 4,218 4,237 4,439 

Service-producing 7,145 9,587 11,846 13,664 

TCPU2 727 907 974 1,066 

Wholesale trade 424 755 783 850 

Retail trade 2,546 3,232 3,905 4,526 

FIRE3 725 1,066 1,173 1,206 

Services 2,723 3,627 5,011 6,017 

Government 3,088 3,591 3,997 4,298 

1Agricultural services, forestry, and fishing 2Transportation, communication, and public utilities

3Finance, insurance, and real estate

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
I

ppy

work force, either at work or looking for work. On average, 1.3 million 

cent of these workers were unemployed during the year. Unemployment 

ticularly high among nonmetro minorities and teenagers. In 1997, 15.4 p

teenagers, 11.6 percent of Blacks, and 8.5 percent of Hispanics in nonme

were unemployed. The official unemployment rate excludes those jobles

actively seeking work, but who indicate they want or are available for wo

ally attached workers), and part-time workers who want full-time jobs. T

adjusted unemployment rate, which includes marginally attached worker

untary part-time workers, was 9.5 percent.

Nonmetro unemployment fell from 7.2 percent in 1992 to 5.2 percen

rural areas participated in the continuing national economic expansion; t

was the lowest in 23 years. During the 1980’s, unemployment rates were 

higher in nonmetro areas than in metro. Although the nonmetro rate dipp

metro rate for a few years after the 1990-91 recession, metro and nonmet

ployment rates were similar in 1997 (4.9 and 5.2 percent, respectively). T

metro adjusted unemployment rate has remained higher than the metro ra

throughout the 1990’s. In 1997, the nonmetro unadjusted rate of 9.5 perc

somewhat above the 8.7 percent metro rate.

Nonmetro earnings failed to keep pace with inflation during the 198

inflation-adjusted, average nonmetro weekly earnings for wage and salar

fell 12.6 percent between 1979 and 1990, from $483 to $422 (1997 dolla

metro weekly earnings fell a smaller 1.4 percent between 1979 and 1990

the metro/nonmetro average weekly earnings gap grew by 73.6 percent, 

from $72 to $125 (1997 dollars). From 1990 to 1997, however, nonmetro 

earnings increased 3.3 percent, to $436 (1997 dollars), while metro earni

nearly unchanged, rising only 0.5 percent. About one-fifth of the widenin

metro/nonmetro earnings gap that occurred in the 1980’s closed after 199

Table 4-4. 

Average weekly earnings for metro and nonmetro wage and 

workers, 1979-97

United States Metro Nonmetro Rura

(1997 dollars)

1979 533 555 483 

1990 522 547 422 

1997 530 550 436 

(Percent)

1979-90 change -2.1 -1.4 -12.6 

1990-97 change 1.5 0.5 3.3 
56

Nonmetro Metro United S

Thousands

Civilian labor force 25,689 110,608 13

Total employment 24,360 105,199 12

Unemployed 1,330 5,410 

Unemployment rate:

Percent

All civilian workers 5.2 4.9 

Men 5.1 4.9 

Women 5.4 5.0 

Teenagers 15.4 16.4 

White 4.4 3.7 

Black 11.6 9.9 

Hispanic 8.5 7.8 

Adjusted unemployment rate1 9.5 8.7 

1Unemployment rate adjusted to include marginally attached workers and workers employed part-tim

nomic reasons.

Source: Current Population Survey, Bureau of the Census.

Figure 4-1.

Unemployment rates by residence, 1985-1997

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Percent

1985 87 89 91 93 95 

Nonmetro adjusted

Metro adjusted

Nonmetro 

Metro 

Source: Current population survey.
N

pgg 

remained unchanged from 1995 to 1996 when adjusted for inflation

income of metropolitan households increased 1.3 percent to $37,640, wid

income gap between nonmetro and metro households. Nonmetro househ

lagged behind metro household income by 25.4 percent in 1996. Median 

incomes also reflect the economic disadvantage of nonmetro minorities, 

headed by women, and women living alone (table 4-6). 

The poverty rate in nonmetro America stood at 15.9 percent in 1996

unchanged from the previous year, and higher than the metro poverty rat

percent. The nonmetro poverty rate has been quite stable over the last 8 y

remaining within a range of 1.6 percent (figure 4-2). The nonmetro-metr

gap, at 2.7 percentage points, widened for the second consecutive year. O

the nonmetro poor (52 percent) live in the South, a disproportionate conc

compared with the South’s 44 percent of the total nonmetro population.

Nonmetro poverty rates continued to be higher than metro poverty r

demographic groups (figure 4-3). Families headed by women experience

poverty rates of all family types (41.1 percent in nonmetro areas and 34.4 

metro), and a high proportion of nonmetro women living alone were also 

percent). Over one-fifth of nonmetro children lived in poor families.

The poverty rates among nonmetro minorities were much higher tha

nonmetro Whites and substantially higher than those of metro minorities

poverty rate was highest for nonmetro Blacks (35.2 percent), followed by 

Native Americans (33.7 percent) and nonmetro Hispanics (33.4 percent)

higher incidence of poverty among nonmetro minorities, almost two-thir

nonmetro poor were non-Hispanic Whites, because of the large White m

nonmetro population. Over the past 10 years, the Hispanic share of the n

poor has nearly doubled, growing from 5.8 percent in 1986 to 11.1 perce

■ Rural Public Services

Rural local governments face special problems in providing services fzens. The following are rural characteristics that affect how rural loc

ments 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.

■ Low population density means higher per unit costs of some s

the inability to supply specialized help (for example, for the han

because the area cannot support the services for so few clients.

■ Lack of fiscal resources puts many rural communities in a fina

with resulting service deprivation for local residents.
58

0

5

10

15

20

Percent

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 

Note: Change of metropolitan status of some counties caused a discontinuity in the data in 1994.

Source: Prepared by ERS using data from the Bureau of the Census’ Consumer

Income P-60 series (1986-96). 

Nonmetropolitan

Metropolitan

Figure 4-3.

Poverty rates by population group, 1996

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent poor

Nonmetro Metro

Women Elderly Children Black 

living

alone

Femaleheaded

families

Marriedcouple

families

Total Native

American

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Current Population Survey.
pyq

quantity suffer, and long-range planning becomes difficult.

Isolated rural communities often suffer from medical services and fa

are of lower quality than those found in metro areas. Even if medical car

were evenly distributed across the Nation, and were of equal quality, it is 

nonmetro residents with chronically low incomes would still have seriou

receiving adequate care in a complex medical system where access is ba

on the ability to pay.

Because many rural communities are small and isolated, and lack fin

resources and trained personnel, similar problems are encountered in the 

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

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

libraries, and 18 percent for assessing taxes.

■ 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 

higher level governments have made possible more and better programs 

governments.

The management capacity of rural governments to plan and carry ou

grams has improved. For example, in the 1960’s and 1970’s a nationwide 

multicounty substate regional agencies was developed to help rural comm

for and manage their new population growth. 

Still, the institutional base of rural governments is more fragile than 

areas, and these isolated governments remain more vulnerable to externa

than do metropolitan governments. 
60

Nonmetro Metro Met

——————-Dollars———————- Per

Total 28,089 37,640 25.

By family type:

Two-parent 38,908 53,310 27.

Female-headed 17,653 22,585 21.

Female living alone 12,865 17,534 26.

Male living alone 20,807 29,507 29.

By race/ethnicity:

White non-Hispanic 30,018 42,015 28.

Black 16,882 25,232 33.

Hispanic 20,115 25,456 21.

Native American 20,306 26,354 22.

1Percent by which nonmetro income is lower than metro.

Source: Prepared by ERS using data from the March 1997 Current Population Survey.

■ Federal Funding for Rural Area Development

I

n FY 1996, Federal funds reaching nonmetro counties averaged $4,523 per 

while metro counties averaged $5,243 per person (table 4-7). However, sig

regional differences exist. The nonmetro Midwest received the least amount o

Federal funds, $4,241 per person, while the nonmetro Northeast and South re

slightly higher amounts per person. The nonmetro West received the highest 

of Federal funds, $4,811 per person (table 4-8). 

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 large share of their funds from income sec

programs, especially retirement and disability programs. About 43 percent of 

metro funds were for such programs, compared with 32 percent of the metro 

The nonmetro West received the highest amounts of per capita loans, salary a

wages, and procurement contracts. However, the nonmetro West received onl

38 percent of its Federal funds per person for retirement and disability progra

compared to about 42 percent for the nonmetro Northeast, 44 percent for the 

metro South, and 45 percent for the nonmetro Midwest.
Table 4-8.

Distribution of Federal funds per capita in the nonmetro reg

1996

Object class of funds Northeast Midwest South 

Dollars

All Federal funds, including loans 4,622 4,241 4,59

Salaries and wages 424 288 31

Procurement contracts 370 176 25

Direct payments to individuals 2,858 2,724 3,01

For retirement and disability 1,961 1,905 2,01

Other than retirement & disability 897 819 1,00

Other direct payments 19 145 5

Grants 744 573 69

Loans 209 334 26

Direct loans 53 164 10

Guaranteed loans 156 170 15

All expenditures, excluding loans 4,413 3,907 4,33

Note: Details may not add due to rounding.

Source: Prepared by the Economic Research Service using data from the U.S. Bureau of the C

Object class of funds All counties counties 

Dollars

All Federal funds, including loans 5,097 5,243 

Salaries and wages 630 700 

Procurement contracts 676 777 

Direct payments to individuals 2,642 2,617 

For retirement and disability 1,749 1,700 

Other than retirement & disability 913 917 

Other direct payments 31 17 

Grants 692 699 

Loans 406 434 

Direct loans 44 25 

Guaranteed loans 362 409 

All expenditures, excluding loans 4,691 4,809 

Note: Details may not add due to rounding.

Source: Prepared by the Economic Research Service using data from the U.S. Bureau of the C
62

g

USDA is the third-largest civilian Department of the U.S. Government, oving 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 Department of Agric

Reorganization Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-354), signed into law in October 19

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 Office of Congressi

Intergovernmental Affairs serves as liaison between the Department and Mem

Congress and their staffs, State and local governments, and Indian tribes and 

members. 

■ Departmental Administration

Departmental Administration (DA) provides leadership and guidance to enthat USDA is managed effectively, efficiently, and fairly in its administra

programs and services. The Departmental Administration Staff Offices provid

port to policy officials of the Department, and overall direction and coordinat

the administrative programs and services of the Department. In addition, DA 

ages the Headquarters Complex and provides direct customer service to Wash

DC, employees.
gqpyppy 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 for certain programs and acti

This office is responsible for ensuring program delivery compliance

evaluating USDA agency programs and activities for civil rights concern

of Civil Rights has full responsibility for investigating and adjudicating c

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 

USDA’s civil rights policy, developed in 1998, requires that all employee

coworkers and customers fairly and equitably, with dignity and respect. 

Office of Human Resources Management

The Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM) provides ov

tion, leadership, and oversight of USDA human resources management p

initiatives. OHRM establishes departmental human resources manageme

represents USDA in governmentwide initiatives. It develops and adminis

lines, principles, and objectives supporting human resources managemen

health management, and labor management partnership for USDA. In ad

OHRM provides operational human resources management services for 

the Secretary, USDA Staff Offices, and the Departmental Administration 

OHRM manages an employee career management program to assist 

employees. The program was enhanced in 1997-98 by enabling field emp

access information available at two resource centers. Access by telephon

mail was provided to field employees, who can now use such services as 

career counseling via the telephone, review and critique of résumés and o

cation forms via the fax, and dissemination of information materials. 

OHRM also provides leadership for the Program Manager of the US

Scholars Program, in cooperation with the USDA 1890 Task Force and th

National Scholars Program, in cooperation with the 1890 Historically Bl

Grant Institutions, to recruit students interested in careers in agriculture. 

OHRM administers the USDA Summer Intern Program and 10 other stud

ships, which employed a total of 4,201 students in 1998. Of those studen

16 percent were African American, 9.6 percent were Hispanic, 4.1 percen

Asian, and 4 percent were Native American or Alaskan Native. Also incl

group were 27 students with severe disabilities.

In addition, OHRM administers the Summer Intern Program and 10 

dent internships, which employed a total of 4,201 students in 1998. This 

increase of more than 35 percent from the prior year. Of the students emp

percent were African American, 9.6 percent were Hispanic, 4.1 percent w

and 4 percent were American Indian or Alaskan Natives. Also included i

were 27 students with disabilities. 
64

General

Counsel

Chief Financial

Officer

Chief Information

Officer

Under Sec

Rural Dev

Assista

for Mar

Regulat

Assistant Secretary 

for Congressional 

Relations

Under Secretary for

Farm and Foreign 

Agricultural Services

Se

Dep

Under Secretary for

Natural Resources and

Environment
Inspector

General

Executive

Operations

Director of

Communications

tary for

opment

Under Secretary for

Food, Nutrition, and 

Consumer Services

Secretary 

ing and 

y Programs

Assistant Secretary 

for Administration

Nov

Under Secreta

Research, Edu

and Economic

Under Secretary for

Food Safety

cretary

y Secretary

A
66

Year USDA employees1

1948 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60,815

1949 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63,063

1950 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67,560

1951 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66,150

1952 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62,825

1953 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62,492

1954 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63,309

1955 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64,191

1956 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69,423

1957 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74,215

1958 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77,264

1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79,998

1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81,585

1961 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85,238

1962 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89,168

1963 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94,527

1964 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94,781

1965 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94,548

1966 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98,688

1967 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102,175

1968 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105,628

1969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101,848

1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100,860

1971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102,698

1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104,540

1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104,104

Year USDA emp

1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

19972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1998 (projected)2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1Full-time equivalent (FTE). For example, two half-time employees would count as one FTE.

21997 and 1998 figures are taken from the 1998 Budget Summary prepared by USDA’s Office of Bu

Program Analysis.
State USDA employees1

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,140

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .870

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,648

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,840

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7,239

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2,540

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .207

District of Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . .6,714

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,637

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2,404

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .429

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2,552

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,551

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .744

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,789

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,090

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,099

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2,877

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .234

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2,970

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .337

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,132

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,626

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,904

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3,923

State USDA 

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 employees1

American Samoa 6

Commonwealth of

Northern Mariana Islands 7

Guam 31

Territory 

Marshall Islands 

Puerto Rico 

Trust Territories of the Pacific 

U.S. Virgin Islands 
68

Country USDA employees1

Argentina 3

Australia 2

Austria 6

Bahamas 2

Belgium 6

Bermuda 1

Brazil 3

Bulgaria 1

Canada 2

Chile 3

China 7

Colombia 1

Costa Rica 5

Dominican Republic 3

Egypt 2

Ethiopia 1

France 6

Germany 4

Guatemala 4

Hong Kong 1

India 1

Indonesia 3

Italy 4

Ivory Coast 1

Japan 9

Kenya 2

Republic of Korea 4

Malaysia 1

Country USDA emp

Mexico 

Federated States of 

Micronesia 

Morocco 

Netherlands 

New Zealand 

Nicaragua 

Nigeria 

Pakistan 

Republic of Palau 

Panama 

Peru 

Philippines 

Poland 

Russia 

Saudi Arabia 

Singapore 

South Africa 

Spain 

Sweden 

Switzerland 

Thailand 

Turkey 

Ukraine 

United Kingdom 

Venezuela 

Vietnam 

■ In 1998, USDA had nearly 1,000 employees with targeted disabil

in permanent full-time positions.

1Permanent, full-time employees.
Black males

4.06%

Asian American males 1.37% 

American native males 1.54%

Black females

6.50%

W

48

White females

30.59%

Hispanic males

3.39%

Hispanic females

1.88%

Asian American females .87% 

American native females 1.0

Office of Procurement and Property Management

The Office of Procurement and Property Management (OPPM) prov

ship and policy guidance concerning procurement, property managemen

conservation, disaster management, and coordination of emergency prog

also promotes and establishes USDA policy for alternative fuel vehicles, 

chase of biobased, environmentally preferable, and recycled products. 

OPPM is working to simplify and reduce the cost of procurement, an

improve access to information about procurement and property managem

for businesses and other members of the public. The cost of procurement 

reduced by expanding the use of commercial credit cards to make small p

the end of FY 1997, over 16,000 credit cards had been issued to qualified 

throughout USDA. OPPM posts USDA procurement and property manag

icy and procedures on the Departmental Administration web site (www.u

html). Businesses interested in selling to USDA can view “Doing Busine

USDA” at the web site. OPPM also posts information about disaster relie

site.
70

Smokey Bear receives more mail than any other individual in the Depart

Each year, USDA receives over 180 million pieces of mail, and at the Washin

DC, headquarters alone, over 21 million pieces of mail are handled each year

average of about 84,000 pieces of mail processed each workday. 

The headquarters mail operation is an active employer of those with disa

Over one-third of its employees are people with disabilities. Working closely 

private and public placement organizations, the division has succeeded in bri

these employees into the work force. In recognition of its success in hiring th

abled, the division has received numerous government and private-sector awa

The mail center is one of USDA’s Reinvention Laboratories supporting V

President Gore’s National Performance Review, in which the Department has 

an active role. One advance is the implementation of computer-assisted mail 

systems, which will improve efficiency and reduce by five the number of emp

needed for this staff. Also, USDA is taking the lead in developing Governmen

mail management initiatives that are projected to save over $2 million.

Washington Area Strategic Space Plan

The Washington Area Strategic Space Plan has been developed to addres

Washington metropolitan area work space needs well into the 21st century. It 

strategy for moving employees from leased space (at 18 locations) into Gove

owned space in Beltsville, MD, and a modernized South Building headquarte

plex in Washington, DC. The first component of the plan, the construction of 

350,000-square-foot Beltsville Office Facility (BOF), was completed in Dece

1997. Approximately 600 employees occupied the complex as of August 199

relocation to the BOF will continue until the four buildings are fully occupied

The four-building complex is equipped with a state-of-the-art telecommu

tions infrastructure designed into the base building construction. Other featur

include a full-service cafeteria, the National Agricultural Research Center Cr

Union, and a health unit. A Child Development Center, fitness center, sundry 

nursing mothers room, and telecommuting center are planned. 

The second component of the plan is to modernize the 1.3-million-squar

60-year-old South Building, which is in need of renovation to make it a mode

office environment. The project will be completed in eight phases. The first-p

construction contract was awarded on July 30, 1998. Construction of Phase I 

take approximately 1 year. 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

Public Law 95-507, enacted October 1978, required the establishment of 

of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) in every Federal 

USDA established its OSDBU on June 26, 1979. OSDBU provides departme

leadership and oversight for implementing and executing Small Business Pro

prescribed under Sections 8 and 15 of the Small Business Act of 1958 as ame
pp

OSDBU develops policy to enhance the utilization of small, minorit

women-owned businesses in the contract and program opportunities of U

analyzes procurement trends and develops initiatives to improve contrac

small, minority, and women-owned businesses. It provides outreach to ra

ness and solicit small business interest in USDA programs, and it monito

reports the percentage of contract awards by USDA to small, minority, an

owned businesses.

OSDBU’s goal is to provide information, guidance, and technical as

ensure continuous growth in the rate of small business participation in U

grams and procurements.

If you are interested in business opportunities with the Department o

culture, visit our web site at www.usda.gov/da/smallbus.html or call (202

for more details.

■ Office of the Chief Economist

The Office of the Chief Economist advises the Secretary of Agriculturand programs affecting U.S. agriculture and rural areas. This advice 

assessments of USDA program proposals, legislative proposals, and econ

opments of importance to agriculture and rural areas. In addition, the Offi

Chief Economist is responsible for several programs, described below, th

nate activities across USDA agencies.

The World Wide Web address for the Office of the Chief Economist 

http://www.usda.gov/oce/

World Agricultural Outlook Board

The World Agricultural Outlook Board is USDA’s focal point for for

projections of global commodity markets. Each month the Board brings 

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 ensures 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 World Wide Web address for the World Agricultural Outlook Bo

http://www.usda.gov/oce/waob/waob.htm
72

yg

regulations of the Department. Major regulations are economically significan

an impact of at least $100 million each year) and have a primary effect on hu

health, human safety, or the environment. The office provides direction to US

agencies on appropriate methods for these analyses and serves as a focal poin

matters relating to risk assessment in interagency reviews.

The World Wide Web address for the Office of Risk Assessment and Cos

Benefit Analysis is http://www.usda.gov/oce/oracba/oracba.htm

Agricultural Labor Affairs

The coordinator of agricultural labor affairs is a focal point for agricultur

policy in USDA. Areas of concern include immigration, the H-2A temporary 

tural worker program, worker protection standards for pesticide use, farm lab

ply, and agricultural employment issues.

The World Wide Web address for this office is http://www.usda.gov/

labor-affairs/affairs.htm

Sustainable Development

The director of sustainable development coordinates USDA policies and 

grams in sustainable development, including sustainable agriculture, forestry

rural communities. The director chairs a sustainable development council wit

USDA and serves as a liaison for Federal sustainable development activities. 

The World Wide Web address for this office is http://www.usda.gov/oce/o

sustainable-development/sustain.htm

Global Change

Global climate change, whether from natural causes or human activity, c

have important consequences for farming, forestry, and rural areas. The Glob

Change Program Office functions as the USDA-wide coordinator of global ch

program and policy issues facing the Department. The Office coordinates acti

with other agencies, interacts with the legislative branch on climate change is

and represents USDA in international climate change discussions. It also is a 

of objective assessment of the economic effects of climate change and propos

gation strategies on agriculture and forestry.

The World Wide Web address for this office is http://www.usda.gov/oce/o

global-change/global.htm

■ Office of Inspector General

USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), the first civilian OIG in the FeGovernment, was established in 1962 and became fully operational in 1

OIG conducts and supervises audits and investigations relating to USDA’s pr

and operations. It provides leadership and coordination and recommends poli
y gy p

administration of USDA programs and operations, and of the actions des

rect such problems and deficiencies.

During the period April 1, 1997, through March 31, 1998, audit and 

efforts resulted in approximately $107.6 million in recoveries, collection

restitutions, claims established, administrative penalties, and costs avoid

Management agreed to put an additional $102.7 million to better use. OI

tified $913.2 million in questioned costs that cannot be recovered. Invest

efforts resulted in 624 indictments and 604 convictions.

OIG began work on Presidential initiatives to improve the efficiency 

USDA programs. The first initiative, Operation Talon, is already resultin

large-scale arrest of fugitive felons who are illegally receiving food stam

Operation Talon was designed to locate and apprehend fugitives who we

food stamps, and was made possible by legislative changes in welfare re

June 12, 1998, a total of 2,884 fugitive felons had been arrested, most of 

current or former food stamp recipients. The fugitives arrested during Op

Talon have included dangerous felons wanted for murder, child molestat

and kidnapping, and over one-third of those arrested were sought in conn

violent crimes or illegal drug activity. At a White House press announcem

December 1997, Vice President Al Gore announced the results of the firs

Operation Talon. Following the announcement, OIG and the Food and N

Service informed all States of the benefits of conducting similar matches

The second Presidential initiative is detecting significant fraud comm

number of Child and Adult Care Food Program sponsors around the coun

example, an official of a California sponsoring organization was sentenc

in prison, and her husband, the second sponsor official, was sentenced to 

couple was ordered to pay $2.2 million in restitution. Two additional spo

were sentenced to 7 months each in prison and ordered to pay a total of $

restitution.

The third Presidential initiative, which is being conducted jointly wi

Housing Service, is aimed at uncovering misuse of funds and hazardous 

tions in the Rural Rental Housing Program. Recent passage of amendme

Housing Act of 1949 enabled the Inspector General and the Under Secre

Rural Development to take aggressive action to identify and refer for pro

those owners/managers and management companies who fraudulently ch

expenses to their projects while allowing their projects to physically dete

■ Office of the Chief Information Officer

The USDA Secretary’s Memorandum 1030-30 established the Office Information Officer (OCIO). The CIO is independent of any other of

agency of the Department and reports directly to the Secretary. Its missio
74

py pyg

supervise and coordinate the design, acquisition, maintenance, use, and dispo

information technology by USDA agencies; to monitor the performance of U

information technology programs and activities; and to ensure that USDA inf

tion management is consistent with the principles of the Paperwork Reductio

and information security and privacy requirements. The CIO consults with th

Department’s Chief Financial Officer to ensure that USDA’s information tech

programs and activities are carried out in a cost-effective manner, and that fin

and related program information is reliable, consistent, and timely. The CIO a

deals with top-level officials in the Office of Management and Budget and oth

Federal agencies, and testifies before Congressional committees.

The OCIO is composed of an information resources management policy 

and an operations staff, known as the National Information Technology Cente

(NITC). NITC provides information management services and technology to 

the missions of USDA and its agencies, the Federal Aviation Administration, 

other Government clients. The NITC centralized computing facility of mainfr

and client/server platforms, software, and support represents “leading edge” c

ity, consistency, and reliability. The applications that run in the NITC environ

are national in scope and importance, directly serving approximately 70,000 

users.

■ Office of the 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 compl

throughout the Department with applicable accounting standards and principl

ensures adequate controls over asset management, including cash manageme

ations, real property, equipment, and inventories. Through partnerships, it pro

financial management leadership and service to support quality program deliv

the Department.

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

(TSP). The TSP currently services a $65 billion account for 2.3 million Feder

employees and retiree members. 
■ Office of Congressional and Intergovernm

Relations

Office of Congressional Relations

USDA’s Office of Congressional Relations serves as the Department

liaison with Members of Congress and their staffs, providing information 

Department’s legislative agenda, budget proposals, programs, and polici

Office of Intergovernmental Affairs 

The Office of Intergovernmental Affairs (OIA) works closely with th

governors and State Commissioners of Agriculture, and other State and l

officials, on various issues relating to their States. OIA is responsible for 

ing information on programs involving the implementation of USDA pol

procedures applicable to the Department’s intergovernmental relations. 

OIA participates with the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and the Assis

Secretary for Congressional Relations in the overall planning, formulatio

tion of the activities of the office relating to intergovernmental affairs. O

the USDA liaison with the White House and other executive branch agen

Departments with respect to intergovernmental affairs

American Indian and Alaska Native Programs

The Director of Native American Programs, located in the Office of

Intergovernmental Affairs, is USDA’s primary contact with tribal govern

their members. The director serves as the principal adviser and represent

matters related to USDA policy and programs which affect and are availa

American Indians and Alaska Natives. The director also chairs USDA’s N

American Working Group, which reports to the Secretary and provides a

port, and other assistance to the director. In 1992, USDA adopted an Am

and Alaska Native policy which guides USDA’s interactions with Indian 

USDA provides a wide range of programs and services in all missio

American Indian and Alaska Native communities. In recent years, the De

has reached out to inform American Indians and Alaska Natives about U

grams and services available to them, to deliver programs more effective

tribes, and to initiate new programs in response to the needs of Indian tri

October 1997, USDA published Guide to USDA Programs for American 

Alaska Natives to improve tribal communities’ access to USDA program

is also available on the USDA home page at the following address: www.

news/pubs/indians/open.htm
76

Departmental

Administration

Freedom of Info Act Liaison

Evelyn Davis

Rm 347-W Washington, DC 20250

202-720-7765

FAX 202-690-4728

Civil Rights Freedom of Information

Farook Sait

Rm 334-W Washington, DC 20250

202-720-5212

FAX 202-205-2891

National Appeals Division

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Larry Shrum

Rm 1113 Park Office Center

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-1164

FAX 703-305-1496

lshrum@usda.gov

Office of Budget and

Program Analysis

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Jacquelyn Patterson

Rm 118-E Washington, DC 20250

202-720-1272

FAX 202-690-3673

jcp@obpa.usda.gov

Office of the Chief

Economist

Public Information Officer

Raymond L. Bridge

Rm 5143-S Washington, DC 20250-3812

202-720-5447

FAX 202-690-1805

rbridge@oce.usda.gov

Office of the Chief Economist

ginny.taylor@usda.gov

Rm 112-A Washington, DC 20250-3810

202-720-4164

FAX 202-690-4915

Agricultural Labor Affairs

Al French

Rm 112-A Washington, DC 20250-3810

202-720-4737

FAX 202-690-4915

al.french@usda.gov

Sustainable Development

Adela Backiel

Rm 112-A Washington, DC 20250-3

202-720-2456

FAX 202-690-4915

adela.backiel@usda.gov

World Agricultural Outlook Boar

Rm5143-S Washington, DC 20250-

202-720-5447

FAX 202-690-1805

rbridge@oce.usda.gov

Chief Meteorologist

Albert Peterlin

Rm 5143-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-5447

FAX 202-720-4043

apeterlin@oce.usda.gov

Office of Risk Assessment 

and Cost-Benefit Analysis

Alwynelle (Nell) Ahl

Rm 5248-S Washington, D.C. 2025

202-720-8022

FAX 202-720-1815

aahl@oce.usda.gov

Global Change Program Office Margot Anderson

Rm 112-A Washington, DC 20250-3

202-720-6186

FAX 202-690-4915

manderson@oce.usda.gov

Office of Chief Financial

Officer

Freedom of Info Act Officer Gary Barber

Rm 4088-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-1221

FAX 202-690-2568

gbarber@usda.cfo.gov

Office of Chief Informati

Officer

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Howard Baker

Rm 423-W Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8657

FAX 202-205-2831

howard.baker@usda.gov
Freedom of Info Act Attorney

Kenneth Cohen

Rm 2321-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-5565

FAX 202-720-5837

Office of Inspector General

Director, Info Mngt Div

Dianne Smith

Rm 8-E Washington, DC 20250

202-720-6915

FAX 202-690-6305

diannes@oig.usda.gov

Rm 13-E Washington, DC 202

nancy@oig.usda.gov

202-720-5677

FAX 202-690-6305

Freedom of Info Act Officer (Vacant)

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-6915

FAX 202-690-6305
78

ppy 

USDA Rural Development is forging new partnerships with rural America funding development projects and providing technical assistance and inf

tion to create quality jobs, services, housing, and utilities. Revitalizing rural A

It is essential if it is to maintain or regain its posture as a place where millions 

people can achieve the American dream. This need is evident from the follow

■ More than 52 million people live in rural areas of the United States, 15

cent of whom live in households with income below the Federal pover

■ 55 percent of the nonmetropolitan population lives in counties with no 

even 10,000 residents; half of those people reside in remote areas that 

direct access to metropolitan areas.

■ During the last 20 years, the number of family and hired workers empl

farms has decreased by 35 percent, although farm employment appear

have stabilized in recent years as advances in mechanization and labor

technology have leveled off and the decline in farm numbers has slowe

Today, only 24 percent of all rural employment is in farm and farm-rel

industries. The relocation of new businesses or industries to rural areas 

help sustain the economic viability of rural areas as they adjust to chan

agricultural employment. Between 1990 and 1997, more than 75 perce

the approximately 2,300 nonmetro counties experienced some employ

growth.

■ Census figures from 1960-90 reveal that 535 rural counties endure pers

poverty, with more than 20 percent of their residents living below the p

level.

USDA Rural Development is comprised of three agencies. The Rural Uti

Service (RUS) addresses rural America’s need for basic services such as clean 

ning water, sewers and waste disposal, electricity, and telecommunications. T

Rural Housing Service (RHS) addresses rural America’s need for single-famil

multi-family housing as well as health facilities, fire and police stations, and o

community facilities. The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) provide

to rural areas that need to develop new economic opportunities, allowing busi

and cooperatives to remain viable in a changing economy.

In addition, the Federal Government is seeking to form partnerships with 

entities— such as State, local, and tribal governments, private and nonprofit o

zations, and member-owned cooperatives—to revitalize rural areas. Rural

Development programs are provided across the Nation through 47 State office

800 area and local offices. 
The following examples illustrate how USDA Rural Development is wserve rural citizens and bolster the quality of life in rural communitie

■ In Oklahoma, a long-term rehabilitation facility was financed with 

an $11 million guaranteed Rural Development loan. This 64-bed f

provide full service to trauma patients in a 20-county area of Okla

Texas, and Arkansas. The project will create a variety of professio

semiprofessional job opportunities, increase business and revenue

businesses and service establishments, and provide an economic b

surrounding communities.

■ Residents of a rural Missouri town are looking forward to getting 

never before available in their community: a sewer system. Funde

Rural Development, the sewer system will provide service to 103 

when completed. The project includes construction of a complete 

sewer collection and pumping system.

■ A rural North Dakota electric cooperative received a Rural Develo

to establish a revolving loan fund. The first loan was made to a ho

authority to aid in constructing and equipping a new outpatient cli

vice center to update the existing hospital facility. The project ben

dents of the town and surrounding counties who will receive healt

the new hospital and clinic.

■ Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman and a group of USDA emplo

raise walls at a Maryland rural housing development which will so

for 22 families or individuals, most of whom thought they would n

in the American dream of homeownership. The single-family hom

built under Rural Development’s Self-Help Housing program, in w

groups of low-income rural people become homeowners through t

ment of “sweat equity.”

■ A consortium of eight rural schools in California will use Rural D

funds to purchase equipment needed to create a distance-learning 

ferencing system. The eight schools will be connected with one an

many higher educational institutions. Through this network, the sc

be able to share resources, reduce expenses, provide advanced cla

seniors, increase all class offerings for K-12, and improve the read

guage skills of younger students. The teachers will be able to com

with others in their field of study, thus eliminating teacher isolatio

connecting with area colleges, adults will gain continuing-educati

nities. It is anticipated that 3,296 students, not counting the adults, 

from this project.

■ The Kentucky Department of Agriculture is concerned about the i

changes in the Federal tobacco program on small farmers in the St

obtained a Rural Development grant that provides assistance to gr

present a viable business plan to market alternative crops. USDA c

experts are also working with three vegetable marketing cooperati
■ A businessman was leasing a building to run a tire center in the

Scott/McCreary Enterprise Community in Tennessee. His business wa

well until the construction of a new highway, which cut his parking lot 

He started losing customers, was to the point of having to take out a se

mortgage on his home, and even had to lay off some of his employees. 

applied for an Intermediary Relending Program (IRP) loan and was ab

relocate and double his work force, and his parking area.

The following overviews describe the three Rural Development Agencie

their main programs.

■ Rural Business-Cooperative Service 

Creation of viable new and improved businesses and cooperatives in ruralAmerica is the top priority of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (R

This agency works through partnerships with public and private community-b

organizations to provide financial assistance, business planning, and technical 

tance to rural businesses. It also conducts research into rural economic issues, 

ing rural cooperatives, and provides educational material to the public

Business and Industry (B&I) Loan Guarantees help finance rural busi

and industry projects that create employment opportunities and improve the e

nomic and environmental climate in rural communities, including pollution ab

ment and control. Loan guarantees are made for projects that foster lasting

community benefits and bolster existing private credit structures. Priority for 

loan guarantees is given to applications for loans from rural areas or cities of 2

or less, with loans limited to areas not within the outer boundary of a city hav

population of 50,000 or more and its immediately adjacent urban area. Loans 

ited 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, or 

viduals to improve the rural economy. The program is an economic-stimulus t

which can help rural areas in greatest need.

Intermediary Relending Program Loans finance business facilities and 

munity development projects in rural areas, including cities of less than 25,00

Loans to intermediaries support new business facilities and community develo

projects in rural areas.

Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants promote rural econo

development and job creation projects, including feasibility studies, startup co

other reasonable project expenses. The maximum amount of a grant or loan is

$330,000. Loans have a maximum term of 10 years and are repaid without int

These loans and grants are available to existing Rural Utilities Service electric 

telecommunications borrowers.

Rural Business Enterprise Grants assist public bodies, nonprofit corpo

and federally recognized Indian tribal groups to finance and develop small and

80
streets and roads, parking areas, and utility and service extensions. In add

may be used for refinancing, fees for professional services, technical assi

startup costs and working capital, financial assistance to a third party, pro

television programs targeted to rural residents, and rural distance-learning 

Rural Cooperative Development Grants finance the establishment 

tion of centers for cooperative development. The program enhances the e

rural areas by developing new cooperatives and fostering improved opera

existing co-ops.

The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program p

information to farmers and other rural users on a variety of sustainable ag

practices, including crop and livestock operations. It helps agriculture by 

able, practical information on production techniques and practices that re

and that are friendly to the environment. Farmers can request information 

free telephone number.

The National Sheep Industry Improvement Center promotes stra

opment activities to strengthen and enhance production and marketing of 

goats, and their products in the United States. The center, which has a boa

tors to oversee its activities, operates a revolving fund for loans and grant

The Research on Rural Cooperative Opportunities and Problem

provides funding for cooperative research agreements with universities, S

cies, and nonprofit associations. Information and research findings from t

jects are published by the institution or by USDA Rural Development.

Cooperative Services helps improve the performance of the Nation’

tives and promotes understanding and use of the cooperative form of bus

working together for their mutual benefit in cooperatives, rural residents 

able to reduce costs for production supplies and consumer goods, obtain 

might otherwise be unavailable, and achieve greater returns for their prod

Cooperative Services accomplishes its mission by (1) responding to requ

nical assistance from rural residents who want to organize a cooperative o

operations of an existing cooperative, (2) providing information and educ

materials relating to cooperatives, (3) conducting research on cooperative 

structural, managerial, policy, member governance, legal, and social issue

collecting and disseminating statistics to support research and technical a

work.

The mission of the Alternative Agricultural Research and Comme

zation Corporation (AARC) is to expedite the commercialization of new 

products made from—or new uses for—agricultural and forestry materia

mal byproducts. The corporation makes repayable investments in small b

rural areas. Repayments go into a revolving fund for investment in other 

Applicants are expected to match AARC funds with an equal amount of f

other sources. 
development in rural areas.

A Rural Venture Capital Demonstration Program is being developed 

vide a guarantee for projects that serve as a catalyst to attract private investme

businesses in rural areas. The amount of the guarantee may not exceed 30 per

any pool of funds provided by up to 10 community development venture capi

nizations.

■ Rural Housing Service

Decent, safe, sanitary, affordable housing and essential community facilitieindispensable to vibrant rural communities. USDA’s Rural Housing Serv

(RHS) has the responsibility to make these essential elements available to rur

Americans. RHS programs help finance new or improved housing for more th

70,000 moderate- or low-income families each year. These programs also help 

communities finance construction, enlargement, or improvement of fire statio

libraries, hospitals, clinics, day-care centers, industrial parks, and other essent

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 

considered a showcase project for the reinvention of government, intended to 

government services work better and cost less. The service greatly expands se

to borrowers while substantially reducing the staff needed to operate the prog

nationally.

Home Ownership Loans provide opportunities and assistance to low-inc

households in rural communities, helping them to purchase, construct, repair, 

cate a home. Borrowers are offered 33-year loans at fixed interest rates as low 

percent, depending on the family’s adjusted income. Moderate-income rural r

can be assisted with loan guarantees offered through private lenders. The loan

direct and guaranteed, can cover up to 100 percent of market value or acquisit

cost, whichever is less. 

Home Improvement and Repair Loans and Grants enable very-low-in

rural homeowners to remove health and safety hazards from their homes and t

homes accessible for people with disabilities. Loans have a maximum interest 

1 percent. Grants are available for people age 62 and older who cannot afford 

repay a loan. A combination of funds from a loan and grant can be used by eli

elderly residents. Housing preservation grants are made to nonprofit groups an

ernment agencies to finance rehabilitation of rental units for low-income resid

Rural Rental Housing Loans finance construction of rental and coopera

housing for low-income individuals and families, including elderly or disable

sons. Loans have a maximum term of 30 years, can equal up to 100 percent of 

appraised value or development cost, whichever is less, and can be used to co

new housing or to purchase or rehabilitate existing structures. 

82
Community Facilities Loans, Loan Guarantees, and Grants finan

struction, enlargement, extension, or other improvements for community 

providing essential services in rural areas and towns with a population of 

less. Funds are available to public entities such as municipalities, countie

purpose districts, Indian tribes, and nonprofit corporations.

■ Rural Utilities Service 

Rural Utilities Service (RUS) programs touch the lives of tens of milliAmericans daily. Through project financing and technical assistance

infrastructure to provide rural businesses and households with modern tel

cations, electricity, and water. Today, this also means bringing the “inform

superhighway” to rural America.

The Water 2000 Initiative is an ambitious undertaking to extend saf

able drinking water to rural communities. At least 2.2 million rural Amer

with critical quality and accessibility problems with their drinking water, 

an estimated 730,000 people who have no running water in their homes. S

started in 1994, Water 2000 has already improved drinking water quality 

a public water supply for the first time to some 2.5 million people in more 

rural communities nationwide.

RUS is a partner with rural business and economic development effo

ing infrastructure that is the foundation for competitiveness. It is a techni

financial resource in a time of change for rural utilities.

Rural Telecommunications Loans and Loan Guarantees build mo

communications systems that provide rural areas with “on ramps” to the 

superhighway by making financing available for telecommunications fac

made to rural telephone cooperatives and companies help bring reliable a

able telecommunications services to more than 15 million rural American

Rural Electric Loans and Loan Guarantees provide reliable, safe, 

able electricity to rural America by financing power distribution, generati

transmission systems. Loans are made to nonprofit and cooperative assoc

lic bodies, and other utilities which serve more than 25 million rural Ame

Distance Learning and Medical Link Loans and Grants bring dis

ing and telemedicine to rural America. Education and adequate medical c

cial to the survival of rural communities, but are becoming increasingly d

provide. This program employs innovative ways to use existing telecomm

infrastructure to extend the reach of educational and medical expertise in

ties without that expertise. The new loan program is being developed to f

expand rural telecommunications infrastructure.

Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants develop water and w

posal systems (including solid waste disposal and storm drainage) in rura

towns with populations of less than 10,000. The funds are available to pu

such as municipalities, counties, special-purpose districts, Indian tribes, a
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 income 

more than 100 percent of the State’s median nonmetropolitan household incom

■ Rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise

Communities

USDA Rural Development is involved in an ambitious effort to help reviveconomies of some of the Nation’s most economically depressed rural ar

USDA Rural Development continues to work closely with three Rural Empow

Zones (EZ) and 30 Rural Enterprise Communities (EC) which are benefitting 

special economic stimulus programs to help overcome persistently high pover

rates. These EZ/EC designations are helping to revitalize local communities b

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 designat

means special consideration for various Federal programs and other assistanc

including social service block grants, new tax-exempt facility bonds, tax incen

for employment, and other special consideration for existing Federal program

Communities seeking designation under a second round of EZ/EC were r

to file nomination packages by October 9, 1998.

The current Rural Empowerment Zones are:

■ Kentucky Highlands (Clinton, Jackson, and Wayne Counties); 

■ Mid-Delta in Mississippi (Bolivar, Sunflower, Leflore, Washington,

Humphries, and Holmes Counties); 

■ Rio Grande Valley in Texas (Starr, Cameron, Hidalgo, and Willacy Cou

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 Dak

Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. 

Employers in the EZ qualify for tax credits for each qualified worker who 

in the zone. Each EZ receives $40 million and each EC receives $2.95 million 

implement the strategic plans. In addition, each EZ and EC receives priority f

tain programs available through Rural Development agencies.

84
Rural Development

Acting Director, Legislative & Public

Affairs

LaJaycee Brown

Rm 5039-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-9741

FAX 202-690-0311

lbrown@usda.gov

Deputy Public Affairs Director

Dan Campbell

Rm 6407-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-6483

FAX 202-690-0311

dcampbel@rurdev.usda.gov 

Deputy 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

Eric Schulz 

Rm 6417-S Washington, DC 20

202-720-9928

FAX 202-720-1161

eschulz@hq.usda.gov

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Dorothy Hinden

Rm0162-S Washington, DC 20

202-720-9638

FAX 202-720-1915
86

The Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services mission area includes three agthe Farm Service Agency (FSA), the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), 

Risk Management Agency (RMA). This mission area serves production agric

helping to keep America’s farmers and ranchers in business as they face the u

tainties of weather and markets.

These agencies deliver commodity, credit, conservation, and emergency a

tance programs that help improve the stability and strength of the agricultural 

omy, expand overseas markets for U.S. agricultural products, and promote wo

food security. They also sanction the provision by the private sector of a broad

crop insurance program and other risk management tools.

The ongoing evolution of the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services mi

area, through reorganization, crop insurance reform, and farm program chang

profoundly altered the way it operates. The Federal Agriculture Improvement 

Reform Act of 1996 replaced the traditional Federal role in some farm program

the economic forces of the marketplace. The management of risk in this volat

ting has moved more fully to an emerging partnership between Government a

private sector.

The public interest calls for a dynamic, efficient agriculture that provides 

tainable, safe, and affordable food and fiber supply. The challenge is to serve t

public interest at a time of diminishing resources and a decreased role for the 

Government. 

■ Farm Service Agency

FSA Mission

The FSA mission is to ensure the well-being of American agriculture and 

American public through efficient and equitable administration of agricultural 

modity, farm loan, conservation, environmental, emergency assistance, and do

and international food assistance programs. 

The FSA home page can be found at http://www.fsa.usda.gov

FSA Vision 

FSA is a customer-driven agency with a diverse and multitalented work f

empowered and accountable to deliver programs and services efficiently, and 

cated to promoting an economically viable and environmentally sound Ameri

agriculture.
grams from several agencies, including the Agricultural Stabilization and

Conservation Service, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (now a sep

Management Agency), and the Farmers Home Administration. Though it

changed over the years, the agency’s relationship with farmers dates back 

1930’s. 

At that time, Congress set up a unique system under which Federal f

grams are administered locally. Farmers who are eligible to participate in 

grams elect a three- to five-person county committee that reviews county 

operations and makes many of the decisions on how to administer the pro

grassroots approach gives farmers a much-needed say in how Federal act

their communities and their individual operations. After more than 60 yea

remains a cornerstone of FSA’s efforts to preserve and promote American 

1996 Act

The 1996 Act, which became law April 4, 1996, significantly change

cultural policy by removing the link between income support payments a

prices. Farmers who participated in the wheat, feed grains, cotton, and ric

in any one of the previous 5 years could enter into 7-year production flex

tracts and receive a series of fixed annual “transition payments.” These pa

independent of farm prices and specific crop production, in contrast to the 

deficiency payments were based on farm prices and the production of spe

The Federal Government no longer requires land to be idled, nor doe

payments if farmers switch from their historical crops. The contract, how

requires participating producers to comply with existing conservation pla

farm, wetland provisions, and planting flexibility provisions, and to keep 

agricultural uses. 

The law provided for a one-time signup, which ended August 1, 199

ducers to enter into production flexibility contracts. There will be no addi

signups except for land coming out of the Conservation Reserve Program

who entered into a contract are also eligible for market transition loans at 

offices.

Marketing Assistance Loan Programs

FSA administers commodity loan programs for wheat, rice, corn, gra

barley, oats, oilseeds, tobacco, peanuts, upland and extra-long-staple cott

sugar.

The agency provides the operating personnel for the Commodity Cre

Corporation (CCC), which provides assistance with respect to products o

agricultural commodities through loans and purchases. This provides farm

interim financing and helps maintain balanced and adequate supplies of f

modities and their orderly distribution throughout the year and during tim

plus and scarcity. Instead of immediately selling the crop after harvest, a 

grows an eligible crop can store the produce and take out a “nonrecourse” 
88

The nonrecourse loan allows farmers to pay their bills and other loan pay

when they become due, without having to sell crops at a time of year when pr

tend to be at their lowest. Later, when market conditions are more favorable, f

can sell crops and repay the loan with the proceeds. Or, if the prevailing price 

crop remains below the loan level set by CCC, farmers can keep loan proceed

forfeit the crop to CCC instead. The repayment rate may also be replaced by U

to minimize the costs of storing commodities and to allow commodities produ

the United States to be marketed freely and competitively, both domestically a

internationally. 

CCC loan rates are designed to keep crops competitive in the marketplac

producer must have entered into a production flexibility contract to be eligible 

nonrecourse marketing assistance loans for wheat, feed grains, rice, and uplan

ton. Any production of a contract commodity by a producer who has entered i

production flexibility contract is eligible for loans.

Nonrecourse loans are also available for oilseeds, tobacco, peanuts, extra

staple cotton, raw cane sugar, and refined beet sugar, regardless of whether th

ducer has entered into a production flexibility contract. Price support for the

marketing quota crops—tobacco and peanuts—is made available through pro

loan associations. By law, these programs must operate at no net cost to the U

Treasury, and no-net-cost and marketing assessments are applied to both prod

and purchasers.

If the tariff rate quota (TRQ) on imported sugar exceeds 1.5 million tons, 

loans are nonrecourse. If the TRQ is less than that amount, sugar loans are rec

which means borrowers cannot necessarily discharge their debts in full by sim

feiting the commodity to the Government.

Commodity Purchase Programs

Forfeitures under nonrecourse commodity loan programs are not the only 

by which CCC acquires inventory. Under the dairy price support program, CC

surplus butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk from processors at announced pric

support the price of milk. These purchases help maintain market prices at the 

lated support level. The 1996 Act eliminates dairy price support after Decemb

1999.

CCC can store purchased food in over 10,000 commercial warehouses ac

Nation approved for this purpose. However, commodity inventories are not si

kept in storage. FSA employees work to return stored commodities to private 

channels. At the agency’s Kansas City Commodity Office in Kansas City, Mis

FSA merchandisers regularly sell and swap CCC inventories using commerci

telecommunications trading networks.

Beyond the marketplace, CCC commodities fill the need for hunger relief 

the United States and in foreign countries. FSA employees work closely with

USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service to purchase and deliver foods for the Nat

School Lunch and many other domestic feeding programs. When donated to “
Disaster Assistance Available from FSA

The noninsured crop disaster assistance program (NAP) protects gro

many crops for which Federal crop insurance is not available (see Risk M

Agency). In addition, losses resulting from natural disasters not covered b

insurance policy may also be eligible.

NAP assistance is available for crops grown commercially for food a

Floriculture, ornamental nursery products, Christmas tree crops, turfgrass 

crops, aquaculture, and industrial crops are also included. 

A NAP crop is eligible when the expected “area yield” for the crop is 

more than 35 percent because of a natural disaster. In addition to other cr

NAP area must include, at least, five producers of approved crops on sepa

distinct farms.

To be eligible for NAP, producers must annually file an acreage and p

report with the local FSA office. If a farmer does not report acres and yiel

yearly deadline, NAP assistance may be withheld following a major crop 

Emergency Loans

FSA provides emergency loans to help cover production and physica

counties declared disaster areas by the President or designated by the Sec

Agriculture or the FSAAdministrator (physical loss loans only). Emergen

also are available in counties contiguous to such disaster areas. These loa

to qualifying established family farm operators. Loans for crop, livestock

real-estate losses are normally repaid in 1 to 7 years, and in special circum

to 20 years. Loans for physical losses to real estate and buildings are norm

in 30 years, and in special circumstances, up to 40 years.

Other Emergency Assistance

In the aftermath of a natural disaster, FSA makes available a variety 

gency assistance programs to farmers in counties that have been designat

declared disaster areas.

FSA has several programs that are activated, usually by congressiona

during certain types of disasters. Among these are the Tree Assistance Pro

which provides payments to eligible tree and vineyard growers who incur

due to natural disasters, including losses caused by freeze, excessive rain

drought, tornado, and earthquakes. 

Another such program, the Livestock Indemnity Program, helps live

ducers who suffered losses from recent natural disasters. It provides a par

bursement to eligible producers for livestock losses.

In the event of a national emergency, FSA is responsible for ensuring 

food production and distribution, as well as the continued availability of f

fertilizer, and farm machinery.
90

for farmers to rehabilitate farmland damaged by natural disasters that create n

servation problems which, if not treated, would:

• Impair or endanger the land,

• Materially affect the productive capacity of the land,

• Represent unusual damage which is not the type likely to recur freque

the same area,

• Be so costly to repair that Federal assistance is or will be required to re

the land to productive agricultural use.

The assistance may be used for: removing debris from farmland; grading

ing, and re-leveling farmland; restoring livestock fences; and restoring irrigati

structures.

Success Stories

Indiana Youth Loan Program

Several teenagers in Indiana qualified for FSA rural youth loans. One gir

used her loan to buy 10 Dorsett ewes and a ram to establish a breeding fl

and to obtain 2 sheep for 4-H show purposes. Another student used her lo

proceeds to establish a flock of six ewes and two sheep for show purposes

Both girls, high-school sophomores and first-time FSA borrowers, note th

“Without this program, they would have only been able to purchase one o

two of the animals.” Another loan involves a repeat borrower who used h

loan proceeds to expand her flock to the current level of 24 ewes, 2 rams,

and 14 counting lambs. She has been raising and showing sheep for seve

years. Each year, she has increased the number of shows that she attends

and is now starting to participate in several high-profile shows and sales

around the Midwest. Based on this reputation, she is starting to sell her a

mals at higher value club prices and as breeding stock. 

A Honey of a Success Story

An Alabama honey producer credits FSA youth and commodity loans wit

giving him his start more than 15 years ago. He obtained youth loans

through FSA’s predecessor, FmHA, and recalls that his mother had to sig

for the commodity loans that helped him expand his operation. Now the

third largest beekeeper in the State, with over 1,600 hives, he has a succe

ful retail business selling processed honey, beeswax candles, and other

honey-related byproducts. 

FSA Staff to the Rescue

During disasters, FSA is available to help farmers and ranchers save live

stock, trees, farmland, and much more. 

■ In 1997, after a 6-day snowstorm in New Mexico, over 184,000 head 

livestock were stranded for up to 15 days. FSA personnel dropped ha

out of airplanes to feed thousands of head of snowbound cattle, sheep
Farm Loans

FSA offers direct and guaranteed farm ownership and operating loan 

farmers who are temporarily unable to obtain private, commercial credit 

meet other regulatory criteria. Often, these are beginning farmers who ca

for conventional loans because they have insufficient net worth. The agen

helps established farmers who have suffered financial setbacks from natu

or whose resources are too limited to maintain profitable farming operatio

Under the guaranteed farm loan program, the agency guarantees loan

conventional agricultural lenders for up to 95 percent of principal, depend

circumstances. The lender may sell the loan to a third party; however, the 

always responsible for servicing the loan. All loans must meet certain qua

teria to be eligible for guarantees, and FSA has the right to monitor the le

vicing activities. Farmers interested in guaranteed loans must apply to a c

lender, who then arranges for the guarantee.

For those unable to qualify for a guaranteed loan, FSA also lends dir

loans are made and serviced by FSA officials who also provide borrowers 

vision and credit counseling. Funding authorities for direct loans are limi

applicants may have to wait until funds become available. To qualify for 

ownership or operating loan, the applicant must be able to show sufficien

ability, pledge enough collateral to fully secure the loan, and meet other r

criteria. 

Conservation Programs

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) protects our most fragile 

encouraging farmers to stop growing crops on highly erodible and other e

tally sensitive acreage. In return for planting a protective cover of grass o

vulnerable property, the owner receives a rental payment each year of a m

emergency loans were approved as well.

■ A major ice storm blanketed the Northeast in January 1998. The 

flattened trees, collapsed farm structures, and snapped power lin

Many FSA personnel spent long hours working to help their neig

some by working at a local emergency center, others by hand-de

generators and hunting down electricians for blacked-out farms

■ In California, torrential rain and flooding in February 1998 cau

Governor to declare a state of emergency in 31 counties and infl

damage to an estimated 90,700 acres. California FSA staff work

overtime to quickly survey the losses and offer Emergency Cons

Program funds to help restore fields and irrigation structures.

FSA is always standing by, waiting to help U.S. farmers and rancher

vive disasters and return to productivity.
92

ter and food to wildlife.

In the 16th CRP signup, held in 1997, 5.9 million acres of land were acce

into the program. The acreage USDA accepted into the CRP will allow for the

restoration of more than 300,000 acres of wetlands and protective upland area

57,000 acres of rare and declining habitat, 150,000 acres of trees, and 3 millio

in high-priority conservation areas.

A new conservation program, the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Pr

is part of the CRP. This program shields millions of acres of American topsoil 

erosion by encouraging the planting of protective vegetation. By reducing win

sion as well as runoff and sedimentation, it also protects air and groundwater 

and helps improve countless lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, and other bodies of 

State governments have the opportunity to participate in this groundbreak

environmental improvement effort. USDA provides incentives to agricultural 

ers to participate, while State governments contribute specialized local knowl

technical help, and financial assistance. The result is an environmental enhanc

effort tailored to the specific environmental needs of each State.

FSA works with USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service and ot

agencies to deliver other conservation programs, including the Environmental

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.

Where To Get More Information on FSA Programs

■ Further information and applications for the programs described in this ch

are available at local FSA offices. These are usually listed in telephone di

ries in the section set aside for governmental/public organizations under “

Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency.” FSA State offices sup

the agency’s local offices and are usually located in the State capital or ne

State land-grant university.

■ For information on commodity sales and purchases, contact:

USDA FSA Kansas City Commodity Office

P.O. Box 419205

Kansas City, MO 64141-6205

Telephone: 816-926-6364

■ FSA’s aerial photographs of U.S. farmlands are used extensively by Gove

and private organizations and the public. Order forms and an index are av

from FSA local offices. For more information on photographic services, i

ing high-altitude photography, contact:

USDA FSAAerial Photography Field Office

P.O. Box 30010

Salt Lake City, UT 84130-0010

Telephone: 801-975-3503
The Agency and Its Mission

The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) represents the diverse intere

farmers and the food and agricultural sector abroad. It collects, analyzes, 

inates information about global supply and demand, trade trends, and em

ket opportunities. FAS seeks improved market access for U.S. products a

implements programs designed to build new markets and to maintain the 

position of U.S. products in the global marketplace.

The agency’s mission is to serve U.S. agriculture’s international inter

expanding export opportunities for U.S. Agricultural, fish, and forest prod

promoting world food security. This mission directly supports USDA’s pr

opening, expanding, and maintaining global market opportunities for agr

producers. It is accomplished by partnering with other USDA and Federa

international organizations, State and local governments, and the U.S. pri

to level the playing field for U.S. agricultural producers and exporters in 

marketplace and ensure a safe, nutritious, and reliable food supply to con

worldwide. 

FAS also carries out food aid and market-related technical assistance 

and operates a variety of import and export programs. FAS helps USDA a

Federal agencies, U.S. universities, and others enhance the global compe

U.S. agriculture and helps increase income and food availability in devel

nations by mobilizing expertise for agriculturally led economic growth.

Formed in 1953 by executive reorganization, FAS is one of the small

agencies, with about 900 employees. FAS operates worldwide with staff 

75 posts covering more than 130 countries. Washington-based marketing 

trade policy analysts, economists, and others back up the overseas staff. 

In addition, FAS has four domestic outreach offices that provide a co

range of export services to new-to-export companies and trade organizati

expand their business knowledge of export opportunities and USDA expo

programs. 

Roughly 70 percent of the annual FAS budget is devoted to building 

overseas for U.S. farm products. This includes the funding for all FAS tra

attache offices overseas, as well as the agency’s work with U.S. commod

tions on cooperative promotion projects. The remaining funds cover othe

tions, including gathering and disseminating market information and trad

efforts. To get a complete picture of the services offered and information 

exporters, FAS invites you to visit its homepage at: http://www.fas.usda.g

U.S. Agricultural, Fishery, and Forest Product Exports

U.S. agricultural, fishery, and forest product exports totaled $67.4 bil

1997, down $2.3 billion or 3 percent from the record set a year earlier. M

affect trade. The most important of these are economic growth, currency 

rates, weather and crop conditions, barriers to market access, changing co

lifestyles and food preferences, national support programs, and public an

market promotion efforts.
94

incomes for agricultural producers, fishery and forest product harvesters, food 

cessing companies, and associated manufacturing, financing, marketing, and t

portation firms. Agricultural exports also enhance the Nation’s ability to make

efficient use of land, labor, and capital resources, and this efficiency increases 

United States’ comparative advantage in agricultural production.

U.S. agricultural exports alone (excluding fish and forest products) totale

billion and created an estimated 974,000 full-time jobs in FY 1997, roughly 1

jobs for every $1 billion in products shipped. Many of these jobs were created 

farm. About 362,000 workers, or 10 percent of the U.S. farm labor force, prod

agricultural goods for foreign markets. However, beyond farms and ranches, a

612,000 people in rural and urban areas work to process, package, store, mark

finance, and ship agricultural exports. USDA economists calculate that, at the 

least, each dollar earned from agricultural exports stimulates another $1.32 in 

ness activity for the economy. In FY 1997, U.S. agricultural exports generated 

billion in additional economic activity.

Agricultural products can be classified as bulk, intermediate, or consume

ented. Bulk commodities are essentially unprocessed, such as wheat, corn, soy

cotton, and tobacco leaf. Intermediate agricultural products (such as feeds and 

wheat flour, vegetable oils, and animal hides) receive some processing, but ge

are not ready for final consumption. Consumer-oriented agricultural products 

retail foods and beverages that have undergone various degrees of processing

as unprocessed products—such as fresh fruits and vegetables—that have relat

high per-unit values due to higher transportation, handling, or storage costs.

Commodity Highlights

U.S. agricultural exports turned in a mixed performance in FY 1997. Valu

added intermediate and consumer food export value rose, while bulk commod

sales fell. Intermediate and consumer-oriented products scored another record 

In FY 1997, U.S. exports of bulk agricultural commodities fell to $24.1 b

down $4.6 billion from the year before. Increased competition and lower price

grain markets accounted for most of the decline. Wheat exports fell to $4.1 bi

(down 40 percent) while coarse grain shipments fell to $6.9 billion (down 26 

cent).

U.S. exports of intermediate agricultural products rose to a record $12.3 b

in FY 1997, up $1.4 billion. Rising sales of soybean meal (up 34 percent) and 

bean oil (up 137 percent) accounted for most of the gain.

U.S. exports of consumer-oriented agricultural products set another recor

1997, with $20.8 billion in sales, up 4 percent from the record set just the year 

Snack foods, breakfast cereals and pancake mix, meats, dairy products, eggs a

products, fruits and vegetables, juices, wine and beer, nursery products, and p

all set export records.

Fishery product exports dropped 6 percent to $2.7 billion in FY 1997. Fo

product exports rose 5 percent to a record $7.5 billion.
Major Export Markets

U.S. exports of agricultural, fish, and forest products are shipped wo

top 10 markets for these exports accounted for three-quarters of total U.S

FY 1997. These markets were Japan, the European Union (EU), Canada, 

South Korea, Taiwan, China, Hong Kong, the Russian Federation, and th

Philippines.

U.S. fish and forest product exports are more highly concentrated am

markets. The top five markets for U.S. fishery product exports—Japan, C

EU, South Korea, and China—accounted for 90 percent of those exports 

As for forest product exports, Japan, Canada, the EU, South Korea, and M

accounted for 86 percent of sales.

Imports of U.S. Agricultural, Fish, and Wood Products

The United States ranks among the world’s largest importers of agric

and forest products, along with the European Union and Japan. However, 

products make up only a small portion of total U.S. merchandise imports

1997, the record $55.5 billion total in U.S. purchases of foreign agricultu

forest products accounted for only 8 percent of all U.S. merchandise imp

Imports provide consumers with products that are either not produce

available in sufficient quantities in the United States. Examples of major 

agricultural products include tropical spices, teas, cocoa, coffee, bananas

Domestic production of certain other agricultural products is insufficient 

Product Category 

Soybeans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Coarse grains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Red meats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Poultry meat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Logs & chips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Fruit, fresh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Fruits & vegs., processed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Animal feeds & fodders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Soybean meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Animal hides & skins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Tobacco, unmanufactured . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Hardwood lumber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Tree nuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Total U.S. exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

B = bulk agriculture, I = intermediate agriculture, C = consumer foods, F = forest products. Fisc

Sept 30.
96

year-round U.S. demand. This list includes certain cheeses, olives, olive oil, w

lumber, shrimp, tuna, and tobacco. Seasonal items, such as fresh and processe

and vegetables, are imported during periods when U.S. production cannot fill 

tic demand.

Agricultural, fish, and forest product imports provide U.S. consumers wit

wider variety of lower-priced goods than would be available solely from the d

market. Many of these products are used to manufacture high-value foods, be

and industrial products. Imports also support domestic jobs in the storage, pro

and distribution industries. U.S. imports provide foreign countries with neede

eign exchange which, in turn, can be used to purchase U.S. products.

Leading imports

Agricultural imports can be divided into three main categories based on l

processing and end-market use: bulk commodities, intermediate products, and 

sumer-oriented products. 

Bulk commodity imports for FY 1997 totaled $8.7 billion, up 14 percent 

the previous year. Intermediate products rose 6 percent to $6.8 billion. Consum

ented imports rose 10 percent to a record $20 billion, with gains in most majo

uct groups. Fish and seafood rose 12 percent to $7.3 billion, and forest produc

imports rose 16 percent to a record $12.8 billion.

Share 

Exports U.S. 

Market ($billion) (P

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

South Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Hong Kong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Russian Federation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.8

Total U.S. exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67.4
Product Category 

Softwood and treated lumber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Coffee, raw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Wine and beer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Shrimp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .FS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Panel products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Red meats, fresh, chilled, frozen . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Fruits/vegetables, processed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Vegetables, fresh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Snack foods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Animals, live . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Rubber and allied products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Fruits, fresh (excl. bananas) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Bananas and plantains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Raw beet and cane sugar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Nursery products/cut flowers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Total U.S. Imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

B = bulk, I = intermediate, C = consumer-oriented, F = forest, FS = fish & seafood. Fiscal year = 

September 30.

Major suppliers 

Although the United States imports products from around the world, 

country suppliers provided 63 percent by value of all U.S. agricultural, fi

est product imports in FY 1997. Purchases from Canada rose to a record 

lion, up 13 percent from a year earlier. Major imports from Canada includ

panel products, cattle, and red meats. Purchases from Mexico rose 7 perc

record $4.8 billion, with shipments of fresh vegetables, cocoa beans, tea, 

fresh fruits, snack foods, and beer. Indonesia, Italy, Colombia, Chile, Fran

China also posted records.

Data and analysis on U.S. agricultural exports are available through 

Home Page on the Internet: http://www.fas.usda.gov

International Trade Agreements

FAS works closely with other government agencies, including the O

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), to ensure that the trade interests of U

ers and processors are protected. For example, FAS played an instrument

ensuring that the Uruguay Round trade agreement, signed in 1994, led to 

and elimination of import bans on agricultural products in over 130 coun

final agreement also included disciplines on quarantine restrictions, expo

and trade-distorting production subsidies. FAS’s trade policy focus now i

and enforce this agreement and others, such as the North American Free T

Agreement (NAFTA), and to prepare for the next round of global multila

ations based on the success of the Uruguay Round. 
98

The vast majority of the thousands of individual commitments made by o

ing partners are being implemented faithfully and on time. To ensure that com

ments are fulfilled, FAS works with all interested parties to help identify appa

violations and address them at the appropriate level. In addition to working w

USTR, FAS works closely with agencies such as USDA’s Animal and Plant H

Inspection Service (APHIS), to field a team with the technical experience nee

resolve problems. 

In the past year, for example, the U.S. trade policy team ensured that the

Philippines would import pork and poultry, that Korea would open its market 

oranges, and that most countries would not block imports of wheat after karna

was discovered on wheat from Arizona and New Mexico. These and many oth

issues were resolved without initiating a formal World Trade Organization (W

legal process, but rather by using bilateral consultations and regular meetings 

WTO. Through the WTO dispute settlement process, the team also won a form

pute against the European Union regarding its ban on imports of most beef fro

United States.

Food Aid Programs

USDA administers a number of foreign food assistance programs in conju

with the U.S. Agency for International Development. Within USDA, the Fore

Agricultural Service is the leader in developing and executing these programs 

initiatives.

For FY 1998, commodity funding available for food aid under Pub. L. 83

(P.L. 480) programs totals $818 million, including $295 million for Title I cre

(including Title I/Food for Progress), $500 million for Title II donations (inclu

Title II/World Food Program), and 23 million for Title III.

S

Supplier Imports U.S. 

($billion) (P

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Top 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

World total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Fiscal year ‘97 = October 1, 1996 - September 30, 1997.
used the P.L. 480 Title I program to leverage the reduction of Cote dIvoi

brown rice from 15 percent to 5 percent and paddy rice from 10 percent t

reduction is expected to result in increased commercial sales of U.S. rice

introduced a Title I-funded Food for Progress program in Mongolia. This 

provided wheat to Mongolia when there was a shortage in local productio

drought and fires.

Under Title II emergency and private assistance donations program, 

tered by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), $28 m

be provided as overseas administrative support. For FY 1998, commoditi

approximately $500 million are planned for donations under Title II, incl

II donations through the World Food Program.

Accomplishments under the Title II program include: the implement

activities by CARE and “Projects in Agriculture, Rural Industry, Science 

Medicine, Inc./Peru (PRISMA),” which include health and nutrition inter

micro-enterprise development, and agricultural productivity; CARE in B

improve infrastructure, including road improvements that have led to incr

merce; and development activities in Ethiopia, including agricultural and 

savings programs.

The Title III Food for Development program, administered by USAI

government-to-government grant food assistance to least-developed coun

sales proceeds can be used to support a variety of economic development 

activities in recipient countries. For FY 1998, commodities valued at $23 

planned for donation under Title III.

Accomplishments under the Title III program include the use of Title 

ceeds in Bolivia to finance agricultural research, extension, credit, and m

vices, and to help finance the country’s successful immunization program

Ethiopia, Title III multi-year activities support agricultural policy reform

reduce government interventions. In Eritrea, Title III sales proceeds helpe

the Government’s rural roads, improving market access to agricultural inp

products.

Another program, Food for Progress, is carried out using commoditi

of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) or funds appropriated unde

480. The program, administered by USDA, provides commodities to nee

as a reward for undertaking economic or agricultural reform. The Food fo

program can provide assistance in the administration, sale, and monitorin

assistance programs to strengthen private sector agriculture in recipient c

FY 1998 Food for Progress bilateral agreements using the Title I fun

planned with Albania, Bangladesh, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kyrgyzstan, Mo

Mozambique, and Tajikistan, totaling about $50 million. In addition, a Fo

Progress agreement with a private entity using the Title I funding is plann

Russia totaling about $10 million. Food for Progress programs using CCC 

totaling about $94 million are planned with U.S. private voluntary organi

projects in 25 countries.
100

tries in FY 1998.

In May 1998, a first-ever Food for Progress Agreement was signed with A

a well-known Private Voluntary Organization, for donation of 12,600 metric t

worth of commodities for South Africa. Under the program (total value worth 

million), Africare will sell the commodities in South Africa and use the procee

toward development of rural enterprise and agricultural development in econo

deprived areas.

The Farmer-to-Farmer Program provides short-term U.S. agricultural tec

assistance, on a people-to-people basis, to developing and emerging markets c

tries worldwide. The program is managed by the Office of Private and Volunta

Cooperation, Bureau for Humanitarian Response at USAID. Since 1992, USA

provided P.L. 480 funding for farmer-to-farmer activities in the Newly Indepe

States of the former Soviet Union (NIS). More than 2,700 volunteer assignme

have been completed in the 12 NIS countries. 

Section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 authorizes the donation to 

countries of eligible commodities held by CCC. For FY 1998, there are 10,50

tons of nonfortified nonfat dry milk available for programming under this pro

Commercial Export Credit Guarantee Programs

The GSM-102 program guarantees repayment of short-term loans (90 day

years) made by U.S. financial institutions to eligible banks in countries or reg

purchase U.S. farm products. 

Under the GSM-102 program in FY 1998, about $5.6 billion worth of gu

were made available for approximately 93 countries, including 11 regional pr

grams—the Andean, Baltic, Caucasus, Central America, Central Europe, East 

East Caribbean, Southeast Europe, Southern Africa, West Africa, and West Ca

regions. 

Use of the GSM program on a regional basis has been successful in provi

flexibility for sales to be financed by a creditworthy bank in a third country in 

region, and in promoting U.S. agricultural exports to new markets. In the And

region, use of third-country banks has resulted in increased exports of U.S. ag

tural commodities. In FY 1997, USDA established a new GSM-102 regional p

in East Africa, supporting first-time sales of U.S. wheat, wheat flour, and whit

to the region. Expansion of the program in Turkey aided in a 600-percent incr

U.S. cotton exports to Turkey in 1997.

Guarantees issued under the GSM-103 program can cover financing perio

more than 3 and up to 10 years. This program is designed to help developing n

make the transition from concessional financing to cash purchases. For FY 19

credit guarantees were made available for sales to buyers in 34 countries, incl

regional programs for the Central America and Southern Africa regions. 

The Supplier Credit Guarantee Program (SCGP) guarantees repayment o

term loans (up to 180 days) that exporters have extended directly to importers 

purchase of U.S. agricultural commodities and products. SCGP allocations to

$293 million in coverage for sales to buyers in 34 countries, including regiona
trations of about $13 million provide coverage to U.S. exporters of goods 

and the Andean, Central American, and Southeast Asian regions.

The program has been targeted at high-value and value-added agricu

ucts, which are typically sold in smaller sized export transactions. The SC

generated significant interest among U.S. exporters and promises to beco

widely utilized as the private sector becomes more familiar with it. 

The Facility Credit Program extends credit guarantees for export sale

capital goods and services to improve agriculture-related facilities in eme

kets. 

Export Assistance Programs

The Export Enhancement Program (EEP), announced by USDA on M

1985, operates under the authority of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (

Act). The EEP permits CCC to provide cash bonuses to exporters to mak

modities more competitive in the world marketplace and to offset the adv

of unfair trade practices or subsidies. 

The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (the 

set the maximum amounts that CCC could make available for the EEP as 

1996, $350 million; FY 1997, $250 million; FY 1998, $500 million; FY 1

million; FY 2000, $579 million; FY 2001, $478 million; and FY 2002, $4

However, for FY 1998, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and D

Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, limited 

under the EEP to $150 million.

Dairy Export Programs

The Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP) helps exporters sell cert

dairy products at competitive prices. The DEIP is authorized by the Food 

Act of 1985 (the 1985 Act). The major objective of the program is to dev

markets for dairy products where U.S. products are not competitive becau

presence of subsidized products from other countries. 

Section 148 of the 1996 Act amended the 1985 Act to strengthen the 

focus on market development, with the objective of reaching the volume 

limits on export subsidies that are consistent with U.S. obligations as a m

World Trade Organization. The DEIP operates on a bid bonus system, wi

bonus payments.

Market Access Program

The Market Access Program (MAP), formerly the Market Promotion 

authorized by section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978. The MA

at $90 million annually for FY 1996 through 2002 and is designed to enc

development, maintenance, and expansion of foreign markets for U.S. ag

commodities. Since its inception, the MAP has provided cost-share funds 

mately 800 U.S. companies, cooperatives, and trade organizations to prom

products overseas. 
Program, fosters a trade promotion partnership between USDA and U.S. agri

producers and processors, represented by nonprofit commodity or trade assoc

called cooperators. Projects generally fall into one of four categories: market

research, trade servicing, technical assistance, and consumer promotions for t

market. The cooperator program has helped support growth in U.S. agricultur

exports by enlisting private sector involvement and resources in coordinated e

to promote U.S. products to foreign importers and consumers around the worl

International Links

The Foreign Agricultural Service is also responsible for coordinating, sup

ing, and delivering a diversified program of international agricultural coopera

development. Its purpose is to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. agricultur

serve natural resource ecosystems, and pursue sustainable economic developm

worldwide by mobilizing the resources of USDA and its affiliates.

Scientific Cooperation 

Short-term exchange visits between U.S. and foreign scientists, as well a

term collaborative research, focus on minimizing threats to U.S. agriculture an

forestry, developing new technologies, establishing systems to enhance trade, 

providing access to genetic diversity essential to maintaining crops that are co

tive in the world marketplace.

Technical Assistance 

Sponsored by such international donor institutions as the USAID, the Wo

Bank, regional development banks, specialized agencies of the United Nation

private organizations, technical assistance programs are designed to increase i

and food consumption in developing nations, help mitigate famine and disaste

help maintain or enhance the natural resource base. Technical assistance is pro

in areas such as food processing and distribution, plant and animal protection 

quarantine, soil and water conservation, and forest management.

Professional Development and Training

Career-related training for foreign agriculturists provides long-term bene

economic development, magnifying potential because those who learn teach o

Working collaboratively with USDA agencies, U.S. universities, and private s

companies and organizations, FAS designs and implements study tours, acade

programs, and short-term courses and training to meet specific needs of foreig

culturists in a variety of areas such as agribusiness, extension education, natur

resources, policy and economics, and human resource development. The prog

help expose senior and mid-level specialists and administrators from developi

middle-income, and emerging-market countries to U.S. expertise, goods, and 

vices, in order to promote broad-based development that is mutually beneficia

continued scientific, professional, and trade relationships.

102
agricultural policy and program issues in international organizations, in o

mote and enhance the interests of USDA and the U.S. agricultural sector. 

of diverse USDA agencies are synthesized into one voice, and that positio

coordinated with other U.S. Government agencies, most importantly the 

Department, and represented in international forums.

Trade and Development Missions

FAS promotes a vital, healthy private agricultural sector at home and 

organizing marketing workshops, in-country technical team visits, and tra

that link U.S. and foreign entrepreneurs and help them expand business a

opportunities.

■ Risk Management Agency 

The mission of the Risk Management Agency (RMA) is to provide ancost-effective means of managing risk for agricultural producers in o

improve the economic stability of agriculture. Crop insurance is USDA’s 

means of assisting farmers following a crop loss. For example, in 1997, n

billion in protection was provided on over 165 million acres through mor

million policies. Crop insurance helps farmers recover from crop losses, 

ating loans, and market a portion of their crop aggressively.

In 1997, an estimated 70 percent of acreage planted to major crops w

Crop insurance coverage is widely available on all major commodities, su

wheat, and cotton. Coverage is also available on a growing number of fru

and vegetable crops. Nationally, 80 crops are insurable, though not every

are grown.

To help ensure greater farmer access to this valuable risk managemen

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) Board of Directors expanded 

programs into an additional 187 counties for the 1999 crop year. This exp

added to the national total of 28,154 county crop programs in 2,983 coun

RMA continues to develop new pilot programs, such as insurance for cab

melons, and rangeland. By increasing the number and types of insurance 

program will help producers to better manage their production risks. 

Multiple-Peril Crop Insurance 

Multiple-Peril Crop Insurance (MPCI) policies insure producers aga

due to unavoidable causes such as drought, excessive moisture, hail, wind

insects, and disease. Indemnities are paid on the difference between what 

duced and the “yield guarantee” selected by the producer. Yield guarantee

selected by the producer and represent 50, 55, 60, 65 70, 75, and—for som

crops—85 percent of a producer’s actual production history. The prices u

losses are between 60 and 100 percent of the commodity price establishe

by RMA.
mining a loss. When the county yield for the insured crop, as determined by th

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), falls below the “trigger level

sen by the farmer, an indemnity is paid. Yield levels are available for up to 90 

of the expected county yield. GRP protection involves less paperwork and cos

than the farm-level coverage described above. However, individual crop losse

not be covered if the county yield does not suffer a similar level of loss.

Revenue Insurance Plans

Revenue Insurance Plans include three plans: Crop Revenue Coverage, In

Protection, and Revenue Assistance. Revenue policies are different from stand

MPCI policies in that they provide farmers with a measure of price risk protec

addition to covering yield loss. Two of the policies, Crop Revenue Coverage a

Revenue Assurance, were developed by private-sector insurance companies. T

Income Protection pilot was developed by RMA. Essentially, these policies gu

a level of revenue that is determined differently by each of the policies. Indem

are paid when any combination of yields and prices results in revenue that is l

the revenue guarantee.

Dairy Options Pilot Program (DOPP)

RMA launched an innovative cost-share initiative—the Dairy Options Pi

Program (DOPP)—to help producers create their own financial safety net by p

ing exchange-traded options on the price of their milk. When milk prices fall, 

ers offset losses based on projected future earnings—in effect, putting a floor 

their milk prices.

“The new dairy options pilot program is only one step we are taking 

help dairy farmers survive under current farm laws. We think it offer

promise to help farmers manage the risk they may face from increase

price volatility.”

—Dan Glickman

During each 6- to 8-month round of DOPP, producers in the seven selecte

States receive training and hands-on experience in trading their options on eit

New York Board of Trade or the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. USDA pays u

percent of the options premium costs and a $30 fee for transactions executed u

program guidelines.

Outreach

RMA has intensified its efforts to reach beginning, minority, and limitedresource farmers. Some highlights of these efforts include:

104
■ Partnering with the National FFA Foundation to produce risk manage

and teaching materials.

■ Funding development of risk management curriculums to meet the n

American Indian agricultural businesses. Instructional material will b

through 29 tribal colleges.

■ Improving the risk management skills of Hmong and Hispanic farme

California by funding risk management training.

Risk Management Education

Recent changes to farm policy have increased the risk borne by indiv

ducers. To help them acquire the risk management skills needed to compe

in the global marketplace, RMA funded over $3 million in educational gr

farmers and ranchers become active risk managers. The grants support pu

private-sector partnerships working to find improved risk management st

develop educational curricula and materials, and train producers and their 

The initiative is a cooperative effort by RMA; the Cooperative State Rese

Education, and Extension Service; the Commodity Futures Trading Comm

numerous private-sector agricultural organizations.

“This initiative is vitally important, because producers who do t

job of managing risk will be better prepared to compete in the p

Farm Bill market environment.”

—Dan Glickman

International Outreach

Increasingly, other countries are examining the crop insurance progr

alternative to farm subsidies. RMA regularly meets with representatives f

governments and private organizations to explain the U.S. program. This 

reach, which is primarily educational, is expected to grow in the future. 

For More Information

Farm Service Agency

USDA FSA Public Affairs Staff

1400 Independence Ave., SW

Washington, DC 20250-0506

Telephone: 202-720-5237

Director, Legislative Liaison

Secretariat and Public Affair

Larry Mitchell

Rm. 3615-S Washington, D.C. 

202-720-3865

FAX 202-720-4034

larry_mitchell@wdc.fsa.usda.
106

Rm. 3624S Washington, D.C. 202500506

202-720-7809

FAX 202-690-2828

eric_parsons@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

Section Head, Field Services Section

Gregory J. Hawkins

Rm. 3623-S Washington, D.C. 20250-0506

202-720-8768

FAX 202-690-2828

greg_hawkins@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

Section Head, Communications Services

Section

Danniel W. Stuart

Rm. 3631-S Washington, D.C. 20250-0506

202-690-0474

FAX 202-690-2839

dan_stuart@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

FOIA Coordinator

Bonnie Hart

Rm. 3620-S, Washington, D.C. 20250-0506

202-720-5875

FAX 202-690-2828

bonnie_hart@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

—Information on FSA can also be found on

the FSA home page at www.fsa.usda.gov

Foreign Agricultural Service

Director, Information Div.

Maureen Quinn

Rm. 5074-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-7115

FAX 202-720-1727

quinn@fas.usda.gov 

Deputy Director

Sally Klusaritz

Rm. 5074-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-3448

FAX 202-720-1727

klusaritz@fas.usda.gov

Team Leader

Lynn Goldsbrough

Rm. 5713-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-3930

FAX 202-720-3229

goldsbrough@fas.usda.gov 

g, 

202-720-0328

FAX 202-720-3229

goldich@fas.usda.gov

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Don Washington

Rm. 5709-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-3101

FAX 202-720-3229

washington@fas.usda.gov

Risk Management Agen

General Information

RMA Home Page 

www.act.fcic.usda.gov

Webmaster: Janet Stevens

202-690-3040

FAX: 202-690-5889

Janet_Stevens@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

Claims

Michael Hand

Claims and Underwriting Division

Rm. 6749-S Washington, DC 2025

202-720-3439

FAX: 202-690-2540

mhand@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

Risk Management Education (RM

Craig Witt

RME Division

Rm. 6751-S Washington, DC 2025

202-720-4770

FAX: 202-690-3605

cwitt@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

Product Development

Tim B. Witt

Research and Development

9435 Holmes Road

Kansas City, MO 64131

816-926-7394

FAX: 816-926-1803

timothy_witt@RM.fcic.usda.gov

FOIA Officer

Donna Bassett

Appeals, Litigation, and Legal Liais

Rm. 6704-S Washington, DC 20250

202-690-5701

FAX: 202-690-5890

dbasset@wdc.fsa.usda.gov
■ Food and Nutrition Service 

Nutrition is one of USDA’s central missions. The Food and Nutrition (FNS) administers USDA’s nutrition assistance programs, with the m

providing children and needy families better access to food and a more he

through the food assistance programs and comprehensive nutrition educa

USDA has elevated nutrition and nutrition education to top priorities 

programs. Rather than simply providing food, FNS also works to empow

participants with knowledge of the link between diet and health. 

At the same time, USDA is committed to ensuring that the programs 

accurately and efficiently. FNS works closely with the States to ensure th

are received only by those who are eligible, and to catch and punish peop

to abuse the programs for their own gain.

FNS works in partnership with the States in all its programs. States d

most administrative details regarding participant eligibility and distributi

benefits, and FNS provides funding to cover most of the States’ administr

FNS was established August 8, 1969, but many of the food programs 

long before it existed as a separate agency.

For FY 1998, the total appropriation for the nutrition assistance prog

$37.2 billion, nearly two-thirds of the entire USDA budget. 

Overall, the nutrition programs reach one out of every five American

the programs are directed at low-income people or school children. They 

•The Food Stamp Program

•The National School Lunch Program

•The School Breakfast Program

•The Nutrition Education and Training Program

•The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infan

Children (WIC)

•The WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program

•The Commodity Supplemental Food Program

•The Child and Adult Care Food Program

•The Homeless Children Nutrition Program

•The Summer Food Service Program

•The Special Milk Program

•The Nutrition Program for the Elderly

•The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations

•The Emergency Food Assistance Program

•The Nutrition Assistance Program in Puerto Rico and the Pacifi
108

Affairs.

The Food and Nutrition Service was formerly known as the Food and Co

Service.

The Food Stamp Program 

The Food Stamp Program is the cornerstone of USDA’s nutrition assistan

grams. The program helps low-income households increase their food purcha

power and obtain a better diet. It is the primary source of nutrition assistance 

income Americans. Initiated as a pilot program in 1961 and made permanent i

the program issues monthly allotments of coupons that are redeemable at reta

stores, or provides benefits through Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT). 

The Food Stamp Program serves the most needy among the Nation’s pop

More than half of all food stamp participants are children. More than 90 perce

food stamp households have incomes below the Federal poverty level, and 42 

have incomes that are half or less of the poverty level. Ten percent have no inc

all.

Increasingly, paper food stamp coupons are being replaced by Electronic 

Transfer, or EBT, a computerized system in which participants use magnetic s

cards to access their food stamp account at the point of sale. As of March 199

States were operating EBT systems statewide, and a total of 28 States had ope

EBT systems for all or part of their caseload. All other States were in some sta

EBT development. The 1996 welfare reform law requires all States to implem

EBT systems by 2002. By eliminating paper coupons and creating an electron

record of every food stamp transaction, EBT is a useful tool in improving pro

delivery and in reducing certain types of food stamp fraud and trafficking. 

EBT is only one component of FNS’s commitment to Food Stamp Progra

integrity. The agency works closely with the States to ensure that they issue b

in the correct amounts, and only to people who are eligible. EBT has enhance

ability to catch those who abuse the program by selling their benefits or purch

nonfood items, and penalties have been increased for people who are caught. 

tion, the agency now has broader authority to review the performance of food 

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

Determining eligibility: Most of USDA’s nutrition programs use hous

hold income as a guideline for program eligibility. Depending on the

program rules, household income of 100 percent, 130 percent, or

185 percent of the Federal poverty level may be used to determine

levels of eligibility. For FY 1998, 100 percent of the poverty guidelin

is $16,050 a year for a family of four; 130 percent is $20,865 a yea

and 185 percent is $29,693 a year. Federal poverty guidelines are

established by the Office of Management and Budget, and are

updated annually by the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services. 
USDA also provides educational materials and financial support to h

integrate nutrition into the Food Stamp Program and to help food stamp r

make better use of their benefits. 

Eligibility: Food stamp eligibility and allotments are based on house

and income, assets, and other factors. A household’s gross monthly incom

exceed 130 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines, and its net income 

exceed 100 percent of the guidelines. Illegal aliens are not eligible to rece

stamp benefits, and the welfare reform law of 1996 excluded many legal 

eligibility as well. In addition, the law limited many unemployed able-bo

without dependents to 3 months of benefits in a 36-month period.

Benefits: The level of benefits a household receives is based on its h

income. Average monthly benefits were more than $71 per person in 1997

Households with no income receive the maximum monthly allotment of f

stamps—$408 for a family of four in FY 1998. The allotment is based on 

the Thrifty Food Plan, a low-cost model diet plan. The Food Stamp Progr

an average of more than 20 million people each month in the first months 

1998. 

Funding: The total Food Stamp Program appropriation was $25.1 bi

1998. 

The National School Lunch Program 

The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is a federally assisted m

gram operating in more than 95,000 public and nonprofit private schools 

tial child care institutions. It provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or 

to more than 26 million children each school day.

The NSLP is usually administered by State education agencies, whic

the program through agreements with local school districts. FNS adminis

gram at the Federal level. School districts and independent schools that c

take part in the lunch program receive cash reimbursement and donated c

assistance from USDA for each meal they serve. In return, they must serv

that meet Federal nutrition requirements, and they must offer free and red

lunches to eligible children.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

How EBT works: Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) is a compu

system that allows food stamp customers to use a plastic card 

to a bank card to access their food stamp benefits. Eligible rec

have an account established for their monthly benefits. At the g

checkout, they present the card, which is used to debit their fo

stamp account for the amount of eligible purchases. The funds 

automatically transferred to the retailer’s account, and an elect

record is made of the transaction. No money and no food stam

change hands.
110

school meals will meet the recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines for

Americans. This is the first full-scale reform of the school lunch program sinc

established in 1946. The program also makes training and technical support av

to school nutrition and food service staffs.

In support of Team Nutrition, the Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans A

enacted in 1994, requiring that all school meals conform to the Dietary Guide

school year 1996-97. The Healthy Meals for Children Act, in 1996, expanded 

range of menu planning options for schools, and reinforced the requirement th

school meals must meet the Dietary Guidelines.

USDA has also placed special emphasis on improving the quality of com

ties donated to the National School Lunch Program. The Commodities Improv

Council was established in 1995 to promote the health of school children by i

ing the nutritional profile of USDA commodities while maintaining USDA’s s

for domestic agricultural markets. Based on the council’s recommendations, U

reduced the fat, sodium, and sugar content of commodities, and is now offerin

wider variety of new low-fat and reduced-fat products. 

USDA has also greatly increased the amount of fresh produce provided to

schools, and is now offering unprecedented amounts and varieties of fresh fru

vegetables. A cooperative project with the Department of Defense (DOD) has

allowed USDA to increase the variety of produce available to schools by utili

DOD’s buying and distribution system. The Department is also exploring way

connect schools to small-resource farmers in their areas, to help the schools p

fresh, local produce directly from the producers.

Eligibility: Any child, regardless of family income level, can purchase a 

through the NSLP. Children from families with incomes at or below 130 perce

the Federal poverty level are eligible to receive free meals. Children from fam

with incomes between 130 and 185 percent of poverty are eligible for reduced

meals. Children from families with incomes over 185 percent of poverty pay t

locally established price.

Benefits: Children receive meals free or at low cost because of USDA su

for the school meals programs. Most of the support USDA provides comes in 

form of cash reimbursements for meals served. The reimbursement is highest 

meals served to students who qualify to receive their meals free, and the lowe

bursement is for students who pay full price. The cash reimbursement rates fo

year 1997-98 are: free, $1.89; reduced price, $1.49; and full price, 18 cents. S

may charge no more than 40 cents for a reduced-price meal. They set their ow

for full-price meals.

In addition to cash reimbursements, schools are entitled to receive comm

foods, called “entitlement” foods, at an annually adjusted per-meal rate (curre

cents) for each meal they serve. Schools can receive additional commodities, 

as “bonus” commodities, when these are available from surplus stocks purcha

USDA under price support programs. USDA commodities make up approxim

percent of the cost of the food served by the average school food authority. Th

remaining 83 percent is purchased locally by the school food authority.
The School Breakfast Program 

The School Breakfast Program (SBP) provides cash assistance to Sta

ate nonprofit breakfast programs in eligible schools and residential child 

tions. The program operates in more than 68,000 schools and institutions

daily average of some 6.9 million children. The program is administered 

Federal level by FNS. State education agencies administer the program a

level, and local school food authorities operate it in schools.

Eligibility: Any child at a participating school may purchase a meal 

SBP. Children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the 

poverty level are eligible for free breakfasts. Children from families with 

between 130 and 185 percent of the poverty level are eligible for reduced

breakfasts. Children from families with incomes over 185 percent of pov

full locally established price for their breakfasts. 

Benefits: Students receive their meals free or at low cost because US

ports the School Breakfast Program with cash reimbursements for meals 

school year 1997-98, schools receive reimbursements of $1.045 for a free 

cents for a reduced-price meal; and 20 cents for a paid meal. Schools may 

more than 30 cents for a reduced-price breakfast. There is no Federal lim

how much a school may charge for breakfast served to students who pay 

price.

Funding: For FY 1998, Congress appropriated $1.3 billion for the S

The Nutrition Education and Training Program and Tea

Nutrition

The Nutrition Education and Training Program (NET) is a direct gra

program that provides the nutrition education and food service training co

the Child Nutrition Programs. Team Nutrition is a federally directed nutri

tion and technical assistance effort to support implementation of new nut

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

USDA commodity foods make up only about 17 percent of the 

foods that are served to children in the National School Lunch

Program. Nonetheless, nearly 1 billion pounds of food, valued 

more than $600 million, was provided to schools by USDA in F

1997.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

The vast majority of children who participate in the School Bre

Program—about 86 percent—receive their meals free or at a

reduced price. That compares to 57 percent of children who re

free or reduced-price meals in the National School Lunch Prog
112

94,000 schools across the Nation in an educationally effective and costefficie

Under NET, all funds are distributed to States. State and local school auth

leverage these limited resources into effective and innovative educational and 

ing programs for children, educators, food service personnel, and parents. Ov

past 19 years, NET has promoted an infrastructure and quality standards that s

local schools in providing nutritious meals and improving the health and nutri

behavior of our Nation’s children. State and local NET coordinators have been

responsible for much of the local success of the Team Nutrition effort.

Team Nutrition has been successful in gaining grassroots support for imp

tation of the new nutritional requirements and menu planning options at the lo

level, and has provided many high-quality training and technical assistance re

These resources enable NET to better accomplish its mandated mission to pro

technical assistance to food service professionals and teachers, and to educate 

dents on how to be informed consumers who have the necessary knowledge, s

and attitudes to choose a nutritious diet that can positively affect their long-ter

health outcomes, as well as their productivity as students and citizens.

Eligibility: All children participating in or eligible to participate in the U

Child Nutrition Programs may receive nutrition education through NET or Te

Nutrition. WIC and food stamp participants may receive nutrition information 

able through those programs.

Funding: In FY 1998, Congress appropriated $3.75 million for the NET

Program, and $8 million for Team Nutrition.

The WIC Program

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Ch

(WIC) is a grant program whose goal is to improve the health of low-income, 

pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women, infants, and children up to 5 

old, by providing supplemental foods, nutrition education, and access to healt

A few State agencies provide food directly to participants, but most States pro

WIC vouchers that can be redeemed at authorized food stores for approved fo

WIC provides each State with a grant of funds to serve its WIC populatio

Because of documented successes of the WIC Program in improving the nutri

well-being of participants, it has expanded significantly. In FY 1997, WIC ser

about 7.4 million people each month. 

Eligibility: To be eligible for WIC, an applicant must meet State residenc

requirements, meet an income standard (or be a member of a family receiving 

Stamps, Medicaid, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), and have be

determined by a health professional to be at nutritional risk.

Benefits: In most States, WIC participants receive vouchers that allow th

purchase a monthly food package specially designed to supplement their diets

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 cere
by a physician for a specified medical condition. 

The Food and Nutrition Service also encourages WIC mothers to bre

babies whenever possible, because it is the preferred infant feeding metho

who exclusively breastfeed their babies receive an enhanced WIC food p

includes tuna and carrots, as well as increased quantities of other WIC fo

Funding: The appropriation for the WIC program in FY 1998 was $

The WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program 

The WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (FMNP), established i

funded through the WIC appropriation. The program has two goals: To pr

nutritious, unprepared food, such as fruits and vegetables, from farmers m

WIC participants who are at nutritional risk; and to expand consumers’ aw

and use of farmers markets. This program, operated in conjunction with t

WIC Program, is offered in 35 States and other jurisdictions. 

■ Nutrition Program Fact: 

A 1990 USDA study showed WIC to be effective in five study S

in improving the health of newborns and infants as well as mot

Every $1.77 spent on WIC prenatal care, the study reported, s

up to $3.13 in Medicaid costs.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

FNS requires all States to take bids from or negotiate with man

turers for the best rebate on each can of WIC infant formula pu

chased. In 1997, infant formula rebates amounted to over $1.3 

nationwide.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

USDA estimates that WIC serves 45 percent of babies born in 

United States.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cited the WIC 

gram as a major ally in promoting immunization among WIC’s 

income children.
114

Benefits: Fresh produce can be purchased with FMNP coupons. State age

may limit FMNP sales to specific foods that are locally grown to encourage p

pants to support the farmers in their own State.

Funding: The amount set aside in the WIC appropriation for FMNP for F

was $12 million. 

The Commodity Supplemental Food Program

The Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) is administered by 

the Federal level. CSFP provides commodity foods to supplement the diets of 

income infants; children up to the age of 6; pregnant, postpartum, and breastfe

women; and persons 60 years of age and older.

CSFP operates at more than 70 sites in 17 States, the District of Columbia

two Indian tribal organizations. USDA donates commodity foods to the State 

cies for distribution, and provides funds to State and local agencies to cover c

administrative costs. The program served an average of more than 370,000 pe

each month in FY 1997.

Eligibility: State agencies that administer CSFP may establish a residenc

requirement and/or require applicants to be determined to be at nutritional risk 

order to be eligible for program participation. To be income eligible, women, 

and children must be eligible for benefits under existing Federal, State, or loca

health, or welfare programs, and must not currently be receiving WIC benefits

Income for elderly households cannot exceed 130 percent of the Federal Pove

Income Guidelines. 

Benefits: There are six food packages for different categories of participa

The food packages are not intended to provide a complete and balanced diet, b

rather are supplements that are good sources of the nutrients often lacking in p

pants’ diets.

Funding: The 1998 appropriation for CSFP was $96 million. 

The Child and Adult Care Food Program

The Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) provides healthy mea

snacks in 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 ad

trative expenses.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

Studies have shown that where the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition

Program has been available, WIC participants have consumed mo

fresh fruits and vegetables.
for Federal support, day care providers in the CACFP must serve meals th

Federal guidelines, and must offer free or reduced-price meals to eligible 

First authorized as a pilot project in 1975, the program was formerly 

the Child Care Food Program. It was made a permanent program in 1978

name was changed in 1989 to reflect the addition of an adult component. 

administered at the Federal level by FNS. State agencies or FNS regional 

oversee the program at the local level.

In June 1997, CACFP provided meals to some 2.3 million children a

58,000 adults. 

Eligibility: At child and adult day care centers, participants from fam

income at or below 130 percent of the Federal poverty level may qualify 

meals; those from families with income between 130 percent and 185 per

poverty level may qualify for reduced-price meals; and those from famili

income above 185 percent of the poverty level pay full price.

The program targets benefits with minimal means-testing burden, via 

system of reimbursements for family day care homes. Under the new sys

care providers located in low-income areas, or whose own households are 

income, are reimbursed at a single rate (tier 1 reimbursement). Other prov

reimbursed at a lower rate (tier 2 reimbursement) unless they choose to h

sponsoring organizations identify children who are income eligible to rec

reduced-price meals. Meals served to such income-eligible children are r

the higher tier 1 level.

Benefits: Children and adults who attend day care facilities receive n

meals and snacks. Care providers receive reimbursement for eligible mea

day care sponsoring organizations receive reimbursement for their admin

costs.

Funding: Congress appropriated $1.5 billion for the CACFP in FY 1

The Homeless Children Nutrition Program

The Homeless Children Nutrition Program is designed to provide fre

vice throughout the year to homeless children under the age of 6 in emerg

ters. Sponsoring organizations are reimbursed for the meals that they serv

established as a demonstration project by the Child Nutrition and WIC R

zation Act of 1989, the Homeless Children Nutrition Program was made 

by the Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994. A total of 86 sp

organizations operate the program in 117 shelters, providing meals to mo

2,500 preschool-age children every month.

■ Nutrition Program Fact: 

More than 190,000 family day care homes and 34,000 day car

ters participate in the Child and Adult Care Food Program.
116

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 sponso

reimbursed for the meals and snacks they serve. Meals are provided free to th

dren.

Funding: For FY 1998, Congress appropriated $3.4 million for the Hom

Children Nutrition Program. 

The Summer Food Service Program 

The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) provides free meals to low-in

children during school vacations. SFSP was first created as part of a larger pil

gram in 1968, and became a separate program in 1975. The SFSP served almo

million children a day during the summer of 1997. 

The program is administered at the Federal level by FNS. Locally, it is op

by approved sponsors, which receive reimbursement from USDA for the mea

serve. Sponsors provide meals at a central site such as a school or community 

All meals are served free.

The Summer Food Service Program operates primarily in low-income are

where half or more of the children are from households with income at or belo

percent of the Federal poverty guideline. Homeless feeding sites that primaril

homeless children may participate regardless of location. Residential children

camps also may get reimbursement for eligible children through the SFSP. 

Eligibility: Children age 18 and under, and people over age 18 who are d

mined by a State educational agency to be mentally or physically handicapped

who participate in a school program for the mentally or physically handicappe

receive meals through the Summer Food Service Program. 

Benefits: At most sites, participants receive either one or two meals a day

Residential camps and sites that primarily serve children from migrant househ

may be approved to serve up to four meals per day.

Sponsors are reimbursed for documented operating and administrative co

Funding: Congress appropriated $272.3 million for the Summer Food Se

Program in FY 1998. 

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

Some 25 million children eat school lunch every day when school i

in session, and more than half of them receive their meals free or a

reduced price. The Summer Food Service Program offers those ch

dren nutritious food when school is not in session. However, only

about 2.3 million children currently are able to participate, because

many communities do not sponsor the program.
institutions that do not participate in other Federal meal service programs

gram reimburses schools for the milk they serve.

Schools in the National School Lunch or School Breakfast Programs 

participate in the SMP to provide milk to children in half-day prekinderga

kindergarten programs where children do not have access to the school m

grams.

Eligibility: Any child at a participating school or kindergarten progr

milk through the SMP. Children may buy milk or receive it free, dependin

school’s choice of program options. When local officials offer free milk u

program, any child from a family that meets income guidelines for free m

milk is eligible. 

Benefits: Participating schools and institutions receive reimburseme

Federal Government for each half-pint of milk served. They must operate 

programs on a nonprofit basis. They agree to use the Federal reimbursem

the selling price of milk to all children. 

Funding: Congress appropriated $18.2 million for the program in FY 

Nutrition Program for the Elderly

The Nutrition Program for the Elderly (NPE) helps provide elderly p

nutritionally sound meals through meals-on-wheels programs or in senior 

ters and similar settings. 

The NPE is administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Hum

(DHHS) and receives about a quarter of its total financial support and com

foods from USDA under provisions of the Older Americans Act of 1965. 

vided reimbursement for more than 20 million meals a month in FY 1997

Eligibility: Age is the only factor used in determining eligibility. Peo

or older and their spouses, regardless of age, are eligible for NPE benefits

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 commodity 

organizations that provide meals through DHHS programs. Meals served 

specified percentage of the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA’s) i

qualify for cash or commodity assistance. 

Funding: Congress appropriated $140 million for NPE for 1998. 

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

In 1997, more than 140 million half-pints of milk were served th

the Special Milk Program.
118

The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations 

The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) provide

monthly food packages to low-income families living on reservations, and to 

American families living near reservations as an alternative to the Food Stamp

Program. An average of nearly 124,000 Native Americans received food throu

FDPIR each month in 1997.

The program is administered at the Federal level by FNS in cooperation w

State agencies and Indian Tribal Organizations (ITO’s). USDA provides food 

State agencies and ITO’s, which are responsible for program operations such 

age and distribution, eligibility certification, and nutrition education. 

The food packages were updated in 1997 in a cooperative effort by USDA 

tionists, tribal leaders, and health advocates. Changes will make the food pack

easier to use, and will better serve the health needs and preferences of Native

Americans. USDA also provides nutrition information in the monthly food pa

with suggestions for making the most nutritious use of the commodity foods. 

Eligibility: To participate in FDPIR, the household must meet Federal in

requirements, have assets within specified limits, and be located on or near an 

reservation. 

Benefits: USDA donates a variety of commodities to help participants m

balanced diet. These commodities include canned meats and fish products; ve

bles, fruits, and juices; dried beans; peanuts or peanut butter; milk, butter, and 

pasta, flour, or grains; adult cereals; corn syrup or honey; and vegetable oil an

ening.

Each participating household receives a monthly food package that weigh

75 pounds and contains a variety of foods. For FY 1997, the cost to USDA of 

monthly food package was almost $33 per person.

Funding: Congress appropriated $75 million for FDPIR in FY 1998. 

“older” person for their tribes for purposes of eligibility for the Nutrit

Program for the Elderly.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

A recipe book, Quick & Easy Commodity Recipes for the Food

Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, was released for use 

FDPIR participants in 1990. The book was developed as part of a 5

year nutrition education plan. USDA also distributes a series of nut

tion and health factsheets for FDPIR participants.
needy Americans through the distribution of USDA commodities. Under 

commodities are made available to States for distribution to organization

vide them to low-income households for home consumption, and to organ

that use them in congregate meal service for the needy, including the hom

agencies, usually food banks, shelters, and soup kitchens, are selected by 

participate in the program.

TEFAP was first authorized in 1981 to distribute surplus commoditie

holds. Its aim was to help reduce Federal food inventories and storage co

assisting the needy. The 1988 Hunger Prevention Act required the Secreta

Agriculture not only to distribute surplus foods, but also to purchase addi

for further distribution to needy households. Foods available vary depend

ket conditions. 

Eligibility: Each State sets its own income limits for household eligi

receive food for home use. No means test is applied to recipients of meal

gate feeding sites. 

Each State can adjust the income criteria based on the level of need i

ensure that assistance is provided only to those most in need.

Benefits: TEFAP has provided billions of pounds of food since its be

More than 1 billion pounds, valued at $846 million, was distributed at the 

height in 1987. In 1997, more than 290 million pounds of food, worth mo

$150 million, was distributed.

Funding: Congress appropriated $145 million for TEFAP in FY 199

The Nutrition Assistance Programs in Puerto Rico, Am

Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Maria

Islands

The Food Stamp Program in Puerto Rico was replaced in 1982 by a b

program. American Samoa and the Northern Marianas in the Pacific also 

benefits under block grants. The territories now provide cash and coupon

pants rather than food stamps or food distribution. The grant can also be u

administrative expenses or for special projects related to food production 

ution.

Eligibility: The territories determine eligibility and allotments for th

based on household size, income, assets, and other factors.

Benefits: The Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP) in Puerto Rico se

average of 1.37 million persons in FY 1995. Average monthly benefits we

per person.

In the Northern Marianas, the NAP served an average of 3,842 peopl

month in 1994, with average monthly benefits of $77.06 per person.

Funding: The appropriation for the NAP in Puerto Rico for FY 1998 

billion. The appropriation for the Northern Marianas was $3.7 million; an

American Samoa $5.3 million. 
120

response to disasters. FNS provides assistance through the Food Distribution

Program and the Disaster Food Stamp Program.

Food Distribution Program 

FNS can provide USDA-donated food assistance through State distributin

agencies. All States have some stocks of USDA food on hand for use in their c

modity programs for schools or needy people. These stocks can be released im

ately for use in a disaster situation. 

Upon request from a State, FNS will procure additional food to meet the 

people affected by a disaster. Nearby States also may be asked to release their 

of USDA food to help feed disaster victims. State distributing agencies then d

ute the food to preparation or distribution sites. Disaster relief agencies such a

American Red Cross prepare the food at shelters and other mass care facilities

The State may also request that food be made available for household dis

tion in cases where such assistance is warranted (for example when commerci

channels of food supply are not available because of the disaster).

Disaster Food Stamp Program

When commercial channels of food supply are still operable, or have bee

restored following a disaster, a State may request approval from the Secretary 

Agriculture to operate the Disaster Food Stamp Program.

If approval is granted, FNS provides on-site guidance for establishing and 

ating the disaster program. FNS ensures that an adequate supply of food stam

coupons is available. State and local officials are responsible for determining 

gibility of households to receive disaster food stamps, and for issuing the bene

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

In FY 1998, FNS provided $51.8 million in disaster food assistance 

victims of Hurricane Fran in North Carolina and to victims of severe

winter weather, tornadoes, and floods in several States. In FY 1996

FNS provided $18.9 million to victims of Hurricane Marilyn in the

Virgin Islands and to victims of floods in the Pacific Northwest.
Office of Consumer Affairs

The Office of Consumer Affairs (OCA) links FNS, consumer groups

program stakeholders. OCA advises the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrit

Consumer Services on consumer and constituent issues and concerns. 

OCA arranges periodic meetings, briefings, and roundtables on USD

policy for the public, consumer representatives, and program stakeholder

vides public access to a wide range of USDA and FNS documents such a

regulatory proposals, and studies, through the Internet and other electroni

and it responds to consumer requests for assistance and information on U

and procedures.

The OCA director reports to the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition

Consumer Services, and receives managerial and administrative support f

■ Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion

The Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP), established in 1994, provides direction and coordination for USDA’s nutrition educ

policy activities. The Center helps enhance the nutritional status of Amer

serving as the focal point for the Department in linking scientific research 

dietary needs of consumers. It translates nutrition research into informati

rials for health professionals, private companies, and consumers, to incre

knowledge and understanding of the importance of nutrition and healthfu

The Center works cooperatively with other parts of the Department t

strategic planning and coordination for nutrition policy. The Center’s Exe

Director reports to the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consume

tance programs that FNS operates must do so through the app

ate State agency, since the programs are administered at the S

and local levels by various public and private organizations. In 

eral, applicants for the largest programs should contact the fol

State or local agencies:

■ Food Stamp Program: State welfare agency. Food stamp of

may be listed in the telephone book under “food stamps,” “s

services,” “human services,” or some similar term.

■ National School Lunch Program or School Breakfast Progra

(free and reduced-price meals): Neighborhood school or loc

school authority

■ WIC program: State or local public health office

For programs not listed above, State and local welfare agencie

health departments, or education agencies can provide inform

about what programs are available and how and where to app
122

Brea

Ric

2-4 

Meat, Po

Dry Be

& N

2-3 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture/U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Vegetable 

Group 

3-5 SERVINGS

Milk, Yogurt,

& Cheese

Group 

2-3 SERVINGS

Fat (naturally occurring 

and added)

These symbols show fat and 

added sugars in foods.

Fats, Oils, & Sweets KEY

USE SPARINGLY

and receives administrative support from FNS. The Center’s funding is $2.77 

for FY 1999.

Publications

CNPP produces several consumer and technical publications, including th

lowing:

• Family Economics and Nutrition Review. The Center continues a lo

dition of publishing the Family Economics and Nutrition Review (form

the Family Economics Review). The quarterly journal, now in its 55th 

publication, has expanded its scope to include nutrition-related issues 

added an editorial board of distinguished scientists. Each journal is typ

in excess of 70 pages. The annual subscription rate is $12.00 ($15.00 f

• Dietary Guidelines for Americans (HG-232) and The Food Guide

Pyramid (HG-252). The 1995 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (HG

and The Food Guide Pyramid (HG-252) may be ordered in bulk from 

Government Printing Office and in single copies from the Consumer

Information Center in Pueblo, Colorado. The Guidelines and Pyramid 

the public domain, so they are not restricted by copyright provisions, a
Bread, Cereal, Rice, and Pasta 

Vegetable 

Fruit 

Milk, Yogurt, and Cheese 

1 slice of bread 1 ounce of readyto-eat cereal

1/2 cup of cooked

cereal, rice, or

pasta

1 medium apple,

banana, orange

1/2 cup of

chopped, cooked,

or canned fruit

3/4 cup of

fruit juice

1 cup of milk or

yogurt

1-1/2 ounces of 

natural cheese

2 ounces of 

process cheese

2-3 ounces of

cooked lean meat,

poultry, or fish

1/2 cup of cooked dry beans or 1 egg

counts as 1 ounce of lean meat.

2 tablespoons of peanut butter or 1/3 cup of

nuts count as 1 ounce of meat.

1 cup of raw

leafy vegetables

1/2 cup of other

vegetables, cooked

or chopped raw

3/4 cup of

vegetable juice

Meat, Poultry, Fish, Dry Beans, Eggs, and Nuts 

may be downloaded from the CNPP home page. Contact the Cent

ance on using the Pyramid graphic.

• The Healthy Eating Index. The Healthy Eating Index, a measure 

Americans are eating in relation to the Dietary Guidelines, is avai

gle copies from the Center and is also available on the CNPP hom

http://www.usda.gov/cnpp

• Expenditures on Children by Families and The Cost of Food a

The 1997 Expenditures on Children by Families and The Cost of F

Home Estimated for Food Plans at Four Cost Levels are currently 

print from CNPP and electronically from the CNPP home page. T

Food at Home is updated monthly.

• Nutrient Content of the U.S. Food Supply, 1909-1994. In 1997, 

lished the Nutrient Content of the U.S. Food Supply, 1909-1994. T

of the update indicate that the levels of most vitamins and mineral
124

data contained in this report are invaluable in monitoring the potential 

food supply to meet the Nation’s nutrient needs. The publication also p

strong evidence of the capacity of American agriculture to meet the ne

the Nation.

• “Nutrition Insights” for Media and Professionals. CNPP has initiat

series of fact sheets called Nutrition Insights, designed to give nutritio

media professionals timely and accurate insights and analyses on topic

nutrition issues of interest. The first issues of Nutrition Insights includ

Fruit Juice Dangerous for Children?,” “Are All Food Pyramids Create

Equal?,” “Dietary Guidance on Sodium: Should We Take It With a Gr

Salt?,” “Does Alcohol Have a Place in a Healthy Diet?,” “Is Total Fat

Consumption Really Decreasing?,” and “Report Card on the Diet Qua

African Americans.” 

A number of CNPP publications are available electronically via the Intern

the CNPP home page at http://www.usda.gov/cnpp For ordering information 

the Center at 1120 20th Street NW, Suite 200 North Lobby, Washington, DC 2

3475. Telephone (202) 418-2312, Fax (202) 208-2321.
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 activitymaintain or improve your 

weight

Choose a

diet moderate

in salt and

sodium

Choose a

diet moderate

in sugars

Dietary Guidelines

for Americans

U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
126

Food and Nutrition Service

Deputy Administrator, 

Office of Governmental Affairs 

and Public Information

Vacant

3101 Park Center Dr., #805PC

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-2039

FAX 703-305-2312

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

Vacant

3101 Park Center Dr., #819PC

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-2286

FAX 703-305-1117

@fcs.usda.gov

Chief, Publishing/AV Branch

Chris Kocsis

3101 Park Center Dr., #814PC

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-2000

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

FNS 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, 300 Corporate 

Robbinsville, NJ 08691-1598

609-259-5091

FAX 609-259-5147

walter_haake@fcs.usda.gov

Southeast Reg. PA Director

Sara Harding

61 Forsyth St., SW, Suite 112

Atlanta, GA 30303

404-562-1812

FAX 404-527-4502

sara_harding@fcs.usda.gov

Midwest Reg. PA Director

Lawrence Rudmann

77 W. Jackson Blvd., 20th Flr

Chicago, IL 60604

312-353-1044

FAX 312-353-0171

lawrence_rudmann@fcs.usda.gov

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 5C30

Dallas, TX 75242

214-290-9802

FAX 214-767-6249

judy_barron@fcs.usda.gov
Cordelia Morris

550 Kearny Street, Rm 400

San Francisco, CA 94108

415-705-1311

FAX 415-705-1364

cordelia_morris@fcs.usda.gov

and Promotion

Information Director

John Webster

Suite 200 North Lobby, 1120 20

Washington, DC 20036

202-418-2312 FAX 202-208-2322

john.webster@usda.gov
128

y

■ Food Safety and Inspection Service

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) ensures that the Nation’s ccial supply of meat, poultry, and egg products is safe, wholesome, and co

labeled and packaged as required by the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Pou

Products Inspection Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act. 

FSIS sets standards for food safety and inspects meat, poultry, and egg p

produced domestically and imported. FSIS inspects and regulates all raw bee

lamb, chicken, and turkey sold in interstate and foreign commerce. In FY 199

inspected more than 8 billion poultry and more than 130 million head of live

FY 1997, USDA inspected 2.116 million pounds of liquid egg products, whic

sold in liquid form, frozen, or as dried egg products. Continuous inspection o

U.S. plants was provided by 104 inspectors.

The task of inspecting meat and poultry is important because consumers 

$120 billion, or one-third of their annual food dollars, on meat and poultry pr

Inspectors check animals before and after slaughter, preventing diseased anim

from entering the food supply and examining carcasses for visible defects tha

affect safety and quality. 

Inspectors also test for the presence of drug and chemical residues that v

Federal law. Over the last 20 years, the violation rate for drug and chemical r

detected in FSIS testing programs has dropped dramatically, moving close to 

1996, only about 3 of every 1,000 samples routinely tested for residues excee

legal limit.

The activities of FSIS include:

■ Inspecting poultry and livestock, as well as processed products made 

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.

■ About 7,900 Inspection Operations employees carry out the inspe

tion laws in over 6,000 privately owned meat, poultry, and other

slaughtering or processing plants in the United States and U.S.

Territories. 
In addition, about 250,000 different processed meat and poultry prod

under FSIS inspection. These include hams, sausage, soups, stews, pizza

ners, and any product containing 2 percent or more cooked poultry or at 

cent raw meat. In addition to inspecting these products during processing

evaluates and sets standards for food ingredients, additives, and compou

prepare and package meat and poultry products. 

As part of their inspection duties, FSIS inspectors collect product sa

for the presence of pathogens and toxins such as Salmonella and Staphyl

enterotoxin in ready-to-eat and other processed products. Microbiologica

for raw products did not exist prior to the Pathogen Reduction HACCP R

(with the exception of the current “zero tolerance” for E. coli O157:H7 in 

beef). In 1996, FSIS began a comprehensive Salmonella testing program 

plants and plants that produce raw products.

Imported meat and poultry are also subject to FSIS scrutiny. The age

and monitors the foreign inspection systems in the products’ countries of 

ensure they are equivalent to the U.S. system. When the products reach t

States, selected products are reinspected at approximately 90 official imp

by import inspection personnel.

Cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Swine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Other livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,1

Liquid egg products (pounds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,1

■ In 1997 over 2.6 billion pounds of meat and poultry passed ins

for entry into the United States from 33 countries.

Labeling of Meat and Poultry Products

The Nutrition Facts panel was developed through a joint effort by FS

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the U.S. Department of Health 

Services (DHHS). The two agencies issued parallel regulations intended 

most uniform nutrition labels possible for virtually all foods. The labels h

sumers follow the Dietary Guidelines developed by the USDA and DHH

guidelines emphasize the importance of a well-balanced diet. Most pack

carry an up-to-date, easy-to-use nutrition panel. FSIS requires safe handl

tions on packages of all raw or partially cooked meat and poultry produc

comprehensive effort to protect consumers from foodborne illness. Some 

ucts may contain bacteria that could cause illness if the product is mishan

cooked improperly. To prevent bacterial growth and to reduce the risk of 
130

Food Safety Strategy and Goals

The FSIS strategic goal is to enhance the public health by minimizing fo

illness from meat, poultry, and egg products. The food safety goal is a 25-per

reduction in the number of foodborne illnesses associated with meat, poultry, 

products by the year 2000. Currently, the numbers of foodborne illnesses and 

are estimated to be up to 5 million and 4,500, respectively. The agency has de

five objectives to meet this goal:

1. Reduce pathogens on raw products by requiring meat and poultry plan

adopt the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system 

process controls to prevent chemical, physical, and biological food sa

ards. Specific regulatory requirements for plants for sanitation and mi

logical testing are now in place. 

2. Establish effective working partnerships with other public health agen

stakeholders to support the President’s National Food Safety Initiative

3. Promote food safety from farm to table through cooperation with State

producers as well as other Federal agencies, to expand knowledge and 

on-farm practices based on public health considerations.

4. Complete the necessary cultural change to support HACCP systems an

safety through training of the FSIS workforce and emphasis on indust

responsibility for food safety through regulatory reform.

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
Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis and Critical Co

Point (HACCP) Systems

On July 25, 1996, FSIS issued its landmark rule, Pathogen Reductio

Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems. The rule address

ous problem of foodborne illness in the United States associated with me

try products by focusing more attention on the prevention and reduction 

pathogens on raw products that can cause illness. It also clarifies the resp

of Government and industry in food safety. Industry is accountable for pr

food. Government is responsible for setting appropriate food safety stand

taining vigorous inspection oversight to ensure those standards are met, a

taining a strong enforcement program to deal with plants that do not mee

standards. 

The new, science-based system is designed to improve food safety a

ter use of agency resources. The system has four major components. Firs

requiring the plants it regulates to implement HACCP Systems as a tool 

ing and controlling contamination so products meet regulatory standards

FSIS established food safety performance standards that plants must mee

ducting testing and other activities to ensure those standards are met. Thi

training its inspectors to provide the oversight that is necessary to ensure 

is meeting regulatory standards. Fourth, FSIS reorganized to strengthen i

ment to deal with plants that do not meet regulatory standards. 

The HACCP regulatory system applies to the approximately 6,500 f

inspected and 2,550 State-inspected slaughter and processing plants in th

States. In addition, the rule applies to countries that export meat and pou

to the United States. Egg products are not covered by the final rule, but th

has developed a strategy, including HACCP, to improve the safety of egg

products.

The largest plants, those with 500 or more employees, were required 

HACCP systems in place on January 26, 1998. Large plants account for 

mately 75 percent of slaughter production and 45 percent of processed pr

duction. Small plants, defined as having 10 or more employees, but fewe

are required to implement HACCP by January 25, 1999. Very small plan

fewer than 10 employees or annual sales of less than $2.5 million, must i

HACCP by January 25, 2000. FSIS is encouraging plants to implement H

before the regulatory deadlines.

National Food Safety Initiative 

In January 1997, President Clinton announced a five-point plan to st

improve food safety for the American people. Working with consumers, 

industry, States, universities, and the public, the Administration has deve

sures to reduce foodborne illness from microbial contaminants. Food saf
132

ppppy 

pose preventive measures, including HACCP for egg products. 

• Increase research to develop new tests to detect foodborne pathogens 

assess risks in the food supply.

• Build a national early warning system to detect and respond to outbre

foodborne illness earlier, and to provide the data needed to prevent fu

breaks.

• Establish a national education campaign that will improve food handl

homes and retail outlets. USDA, FDA, the Centers for Disease Contro

(CDC), and the Department of Education will launch a new public-pr

partnership with industry, producer and consumer groups, and States t

public awareness of safe food practices.

• Strengthen coordination and improve efficiency. USDA, CDC, FDA, 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will form a new intergovern

group to improve Federal, State, and local responses to outbreaks of f

borne illnesses. For more information on the National Food Safety Ini

Program: http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fs-toc.html

Farm-to-Table Approach

In addition to the new regulatory approach in plants regulated by FSIS, t

agency is working with other government agencies, industry, and academia to

develop and take steps to improve food safety from farm to table. FSIS has hi

cally focused on the manufacturing of meat and poultry products through its i

tion program within plants, but the agency is also considering hazards before 

reach the plant and after products leave the plant, as part of its comprehensive 

health strategy to prevent foodborne illness. The farm-to-table approach to ris

assessment, as implemented by FSIS, provides a means by which various inte

tion and control strategies can be identified and evaluated throughout the food 

These changes from farm to table will reduce the incidence of foodborne illne

attributed to meat and poultry products. FSIS is developing similar changes f

products.

Regulatory Reform

FSIS is reforming its existing regulations to be consistent with HACCP p

ples, to shift to a greater reliance on performance standards, and to remove un

sary regulatory obstacles to innovation. For example, FSIS has eliminated the 

approval requirement for facility blueprints and equipment. In addition, the a

merging the meat and poultry sanitation regulations and simplifying them to b

compatible with the Sanitation Standard Operating Procedure (SSOP) require

of the Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HAC

Systems final rule. FSIS is also setting performance standards to replace the c

“command-and-control” requirements. 

For more information: http:// www.fsis.usda.gov/, under the section “HA

Implementation”
gy y 

incidence of foodborne illness in the United States. Through the Foodbor

Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet), the agencies involved are able t

track the incidence of foodborne illness and monitor the effectiveness of 

programs in reducing foodborne illness.

The program, originally known as the Sentinel Site Survey, began w

month trial in 1995, and has been actively collecting data since January 1

Coordinated by CDC, data are collected at sites in Georgia, California, C

Minnesota, Oregon, New York, and Maryland. The population currently 

veillance totals 14.7 million. 

Data are collected through population-based surveys, laboratory sur

cian surveys, and case-control studies. The FoodNet program specifically 

seven bacterial pathogens—Campylobacter, E. coli O157:H7, Listeria, S

Shigella, Vibrio, and Yersinia. In addition, the case-control studies seek t

better understanding of two of those pathogens, Salmonella and E. coli O

FSIS, FDA, CDC, and the project sites will use FoodNet informatio

the incidence of foodborne diseases in the United States. Outbreaks iden

this surveillance project will be investigated and appropriate control mea

An important benefit of the data collection is the identification of outbrea

might previously have gone undetected or treated as isolated cases. Also

will help identify new and emerging foodborne pathogens. FSIS will use 

pathogen data to evaluate the effectiveness of new food safety programs 

tions in reducing foodborne pathogens on meat and poultry.

For more information about the Foodborne Disease Active Surveilla

Network: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/ophs/fsisrep1.htm 

PulseNet—New Computer Network To Fight Foodborn

Addressing a problem that affects 33 million Americans each year, t

Administration announced this year a new national computer network to 

combat foodborne illness. PulseNet is a national computer network of pu

laboratories that will help rapidly identify and stop episodes of foodborn

new system enables epidemiologists to move up to five times faster than 

feasible in identifying serious and widespread food contamination proble

PulseNet is a national network of public health laboratories that perf

“fingerprinting” on bacteria that may be foodborne. The network permits 

parison of these “fingerprint” patterns through an electronic database at t

For more information: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/pulsenet/pu

Animal Production Food Safety Program

The FSIS Animal Production Food Safety Program (APFSP) has the 

ity for concentrating on the link between animal production and slaughte

cessing operations. As the slaughter/processing segment of the food prod

industry strives to meet specified targets for food safety, they may, in turn

assurances on production practices used for animals presented for slaugh
134

ppp p

concerns associated with animal production, transportation, marketing, and p

cessing preparation of livestock, eggs, and poultry. This program is responsib

outreach and liaison to create and sustain risk reduction strategies in the raisin

live animals intended for human consumption.

Food Safety and Consumer Education

FSIS conducts an extensive outreach program of consumer education to 

information needs for basic safe food handling advice to avoid foodborne illn

Information is disbursed to the media, information multipliers, and consumer

through the FSIS web site, printed materials, videos, personal contact via US

Meat and Poultry Hotline, and presentations by FSIS representatives. The age

consumer education programs focus on providing key food safety materials t

general public and special groups who face increased risks from foodborne il

the very young, the elderly, people who have chronic diseases, and people wi

promised immune systems. These materials are based on the latest scientific a

education and market research concerning foodborne illness. Educational ma

include a wide variety of specific safe food handling advice on E. coli O157:H

other pathogens, food safety information for seniors and children, and The Fo

Safety Educator—a free quarterly newsletter available in print or on the FSIS 

site. This office also produces news features, public service announcements, a

food safety projects with other government agencies and food associations co

See “ For More Information.”

Partnership for Food Safety Education 

The Partnership for Food Safety Education is a broad-based coalition com

to educating the public about safe food handling and preparation. The U.S. fo

ply is among the safest in the world. Yet, despite continued progress in impro

overall quality and safety of foods produced in this country, foodborne illness

remains a serious public health problem. And the related costs in health care a

human suffering are much too high. Combining the resources of the Federal

Government, industry, and consumer and public health organizations, the par

is conducting a multi-year food safety education campaign to bring American

to-face with the problem of foodborne illness and to motivate them to take ac

With the ultimate goal of encouraging behavioral change, the Partnership 

Food Safety Education is conducting a broad-based public education campaig

make the importance of safe food handling meaningful to American consume

Unveiled at a major Washington, DC, ceremony in October 1997, the campai

multi-year initiative to personalize the invisible enemy of foodborne bacteria

Cabinet Secretaries—Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman and Health and H

Services Secretary Donna E. Shalala—joined with the other members of the

Partnership for Food Safety Education to unveil the new character “BACTM.” 

green, slimy animated creation, BACTM is the cornerstone of one of the most 
reaching and ambitious public education campaigns ever focused on safe 

ling. 

Fight BAC!TM Campaign

Just as the public links “Smokey Bear” with preventing forest fires, 

the Fight BAC!TM campaign is to use the new character BACTM to educa

on the problem of foodborne illness and motivate them to take basic sani

food handling steps that will greatly reduce their risk of foodborne illnes

a face on foodborne illness, the campaign will be successful in engaging 

which is the first step in stimulating action. 

Underlying the campaign are four key principles for preparing food 

keeping it safe. They are: 1) wash hands and surfaces often, 2) prevent cr

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.
136

g ppp

More than 50 national, State, and local organizations from the public hea

government, consumer, and industry sectors have agreed to support the Fight

BAC!TM campaign and disseminate educational materials. These “BAC Fight

will maximize the campaign’s national outreach and provide important links 

thousands of communities nationwide.

The Partnership also developed Community and Supermarket Action Kit

effort to educate the public about safe food handling. These kits contain key m

sages and materials that will extend the Fight BAC!TM campaign to the State 

community levels. 

For more information: http://www.fightbac.org

USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline

Since July 1, 1985, consumers have called on USDA’s Meat and Poultry 

for answers to their food safety questions. The toll-free telephone service is s

home economists, registered dietitians, and food technologists with expertise 

safety. They frequently advise and consult with other professionals in govern

academia, and industry. In addition, the Hotline responds to hundreds of med

each year and is directly responsible for bringing food safety information to m

of consumers through these media outlets.

Questions to the Hotline have changed over the years. Early on, calls we

general in nature and almost always related to food handling. Today, many qu

concern food science, processing, and inspection. Callers are more familiar w

cific foodborne bacteria and technology. A total of 185,015 calls were receive

Meat and Poultry Hotline between January 1 and December 31, 1997, bringin

Hotline calls to over 1 million since 1985. 

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), an

3. Any uneaten portion of the food (refrigerate or freeze it).

Information you should be ready to tell the Hotline food safety specialist

includes:

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 

“USDA passed and inspected” phrase,

6. Name and location of store and date you purchased the product.
■ FOR HELP WITH MEAT, POULTRY, AND EGG PRODUCTS:

Call the toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 1-800-535-4

■ 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 y

local phone book under U.S. Government, Health and Human

Services, to find an FDA office in your area. The FDA’s Food

Information & Seafood Hotline number is 1-800-332-4010 

(or 202-205-4314 in the Washington, DC area). 

For More Information

USDA’s Meat and Poultry Hotline may be

reached by calling:

1-800-535-4555 (voice)

202-720-3333 (Washington, DC area), or

1-800-256-7072 (TTY)

Callers may speak with a food safety 

specialist from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. 

weekdays, Eastern Time. Recorded messages are available at all times.

FSIS Web site: http://www.fsis.usda.gov

FSIS Fast FAX: 800-238-8281, or in the

Washington, DC area: 202-690-3754.

Director, Food Safety

Education & Communications

Susan Conley

Rm 1175-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-7943

FAX 202-720-1843

susan.conley@usda.gov

Deputy Director, Food Safety

Education & Communications

Sandy Facinoli

Rm 1175-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-7943

FAX 202-720-1843

sandy.facinoli@usda.gov

Media Communication

Jacque Knight, Chief

Rm 1159-S Washington, DC 20

202-720-9113

FAX 202-690-0460

jacque.knight@usda.gov

Public Outreach

Sandy Facinoli, Acting Chief

Rm 1180-S Washington, DC 20

202-720-9352

FAX 202-720-9063

sandy.facinoli@usda.gov

Meat & Poultry Hotline

Bessie Berry, Chief

Rm 2925-S Washington, DC 20

202-720-5604

FAX 202-690-2859

bessie.berry@usda.gov

Freedom of Information Act (

Officer

Cheryl Hicks

Rm 3134-S Washington, DC 20

202-720-2109

FAX 202-690-3023

Electronic FOIA center:

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/foia/in
138

■ Forest Service

Mission

The Forest Service mission is “Caring for the Land and Serving People.” 

mission is further expressed in the Forest Service land ethic: “Promote the sus

ability of ecosystems by ensuring their health, diversity, and productivity,” wh

coupled with the service ethic: “Work collaboratively and use appropriate scie

information in caring for the land and serving people.”

These land and service ethics are applied by the Forest Service through e

tem management. Ecosystem management is the integration of ecological, ec

and social factors in order to maintain and enhance the quality of the environm

meet current and future needs.

The four strategic goals of the Forest Service are to: (1) protect ecosystem

restore deteriorated ecosystems, (3) provide multiple benefits for people withi

capabilities of ecosystems, and (4) ensure organizational effectiveness.

In 1998, the Forest Service Chief introduced the Forest Service Natural R

Agenda. The agenda identifies four key areas of national focus. They are:

■ Watershed health and restoration

■ Sustainable forest ecosystem management

■ Forest roads management

■ Recreation enhancement

Implementation of the agenda will help bring people together and help th

ways to live within the limits of the land. This in turn will ensure that future g

tions will forever be endowed with the rich natural bounty of our Nation.

Principal Laws

The Forest Service administers the lands and resources of the National Fo

System (NFS) under the Organic Administration Act of 1897, the Multiple Us

Sustained Yield Act of 1960, and the National Forest Management Act of 197

The agency also conducts research, provides assistance to State and priva

landowners, assesses the Nation’s natural resources, and provides internationa

tance and scientific exchanges. These activities are carried out under the Fore

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, the Renewable Resou

Extension Act of 1978, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Rese

of 1978, the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, and the Internation

Forestry Cooperation Act of 1990.
Secretary of Agriculture through the Under Secretary for Natural Resourc

Environment. The Forest Service typically is viewed as consisting of thre

components: (1) the National Forest System (NFS), (2) State and Private 

(S&PF), and (3) Research and Development (R&D). However, the agenc

many other programs, such as International Programs and Job Corps Civi

Conservation Centers. The NFS is organized into a Deputy Area within th

Washington Office, 9 regional offices, 155 national forests managed by 1

sors’ offices, and approximately 570 ranger districts and national grasslan

The Forest Service manages the 191.6-million-acre NFS and support

use; sustained yields of renewable resources such as water, livestock fora

habitat, wood, and recreation; and integration of mineral resource program

visual quality. The agency also mitigates, when appropriate and in a scien

ner, wildfires, epidemics of disease and insects, erosion, floods, water qua

dation, and air pollution. 

The NFS provides many recreational activities for the public. In 199

more than 800 million recreation experiences–43 percent of the outdoor r

use on public lands–including 60 percent of the Nation’s skiing and signi

centages of hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, and driving for pleasure. N

care of 4,385 miles of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System; 412 units of th

Wilderness Preservation System, 133,000 miles of trails; more than 250,0

sites; and over 18,000 campgrounds, picnic areas, and visitor facilities.

The National Forests and Grasslands contribute $134 billion to the g

tic product.

The Forest Service administers many S&PF programs to provide tec

financial conservation assistance to State and private nonindustrial forest 

programs serve as a link among many public and private organizations an

to promote the best use and conservation of America’s natural resources o

lands. Wildland fire protection on private and public lands, Smokey Bear

health protection, and natural resource education are examples of S&PF p

S&PF is organized into a Deputy Area within the Washington Office; it h

in Radnor, PA, to work with States and landowners in the Northeastern U

and has programs delivered from most NFS offices.

The R&D program is organized into a Deputy Area within the Washi

Office, including four program staffs and six geographically dispersed re

tions. R&D also includes the Forest Product Laboratory in Madison, WI. 

ducts and sponsors basic and applied research that generates credible, rel

knowledge and new technologies that are used to sustain the health, prod

diversity of the Nation’s forests and rangelands to meet the needs of prese

future generations. The R&D effort is focused on four broad themes: (1) 

the information necessary to improve management and protection of the v

on the Nation’s forest and rangeland ecosystems, (2) to provide the inform

essary to sustain ecological processes in the terrestrial, aquatic, and atmo

components of forest and rangeland ecosystems and enhance the biologic

of the water, wildlife, and fish resources, (3) to provide resource data, tec
140

condition, trends, and capabilities of forest and rangeland resources and provi

servation technologies that improve their use and reuse. 

International Program activities supported by the Forest Service, includin

grams at the International Institute of Tropical Forestry in Puerto Rico, promo

tainable development and global environmental stability. The director of Inter

Programs reports directly to the Chief.

The Office of Communication, Civil Rights Program, Reinvention Progra

Law Enforcement and Investigations Program also report directly to the Chief

The agency has received tentative approval from the Secretary to reorgan

Operations area of the Washington Office into three areas: Financial Managem

Business Operations, and Programs and Legislation. The Financial Managem

is led by the Chief Financial Officer to ensure proper allocation of funds, track

control, and reporting of expenditure of funds. The Business Operations Depu

Chief manages the human resource, information resource management, and p

ment programs. The Programs and Legislation Deputy Chief manages the dev

ment of the agency’s budget and coordinates legislative affairs. 

As a part of the Business Operations area and through agreement with the 

Department of Labor, the Forest Service operates 18 Job Corps Civilian Cons

Centers on Forest Service lands. This is the only Federal residential education

ing program for the Nation’s disadvantaged youth. Over 8,000 students enroll 

Forest Service centers each year.

Reinvention

Creating a Forest Service that works better and costs less—that’s what Fo

Service reinvention is all about. As one of 30 Federal agencies designated by 

National Partnership for Reinventing Government as a “High Impact Agency,

dedicated to delivering first-rate customer service, cutting red tape to do its jo

efficiently, and working with its partners—both in and out of government—to 

best job of caring for the land. Some recent highlights:

■ With the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service is creating o

natural resource centers to better serve mutual customers, and sharing 

and resources to enable both agencies to do their jobs better. In just tw

tions, this partnership is delivering better service and better resource s

ship while saving more than $1 million a year. In 1999, this effort will 

expanding agency-wide. 

■ In the Pacific Southwest Region and Research Station, the Forest Serv

began an experiment to let employees create internal enterprises that w

allow them to bring their entrepreneurial spirit and creativity to bear o

facets of their work. Over time, this will help us import the best practi

the business world and the efficiency of the free market place to raise t

of performance of the Forest Service in achieving its public sector mis

■ In partnership with six other Federal agencies, the Forest Service unve

Internet program that makes it possible for anyone with access to a com

to learn about outdoor recreation opportunities on all Federal public la
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
142

tos oe. y t out at www.eceation.gov ad see oyousew

reinvention at the Forest Service can do for you.

Key Facts About the Forest Service

■ The entire Nation has about 1.6 billion acres of forest and range

land, under all ownerships.

■ The entire Nation has 736.7 million acres of forest land area, no

including rangeland, under all ownerships; the owners/manager

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 o

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 Texa

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

■ There are 88 wilderness areas designated Class 1 for air quality

protection totaling 15 million acres.

■ The Forest Service manages 155 national forests for multiple

uses.

■ The national forest trail system is the largest in the Nation, with

133,000 miles of trails for hiking, riding, cross-country skiing,

snowmobiling, bicycling, and snowshoeing.

■ The Forest Service provides more recreation than any other

Federal agency. Visitors to national forests are attracted by:

5,800 campgrounds and picnic areas

328 swimming developments

1,222 boating sites

250 winter sports sites, including 135 downhill ski areas 

If all these sites were fully occupied at the same time, they woul

accommodate 1.8 million people.

■ Minerals found on Forest Service lands provide more than $3.3

billion in private sector revenue.
National Forest System—Conservation and Multiple U

Lands

Lands-related activities include land exchanges to protect and enhan

National Forest System, preventing encumbrances, protecting boundaries 

records, granting appropriate rights to others, and administering rights gr

retained by other agencies, governments, and landowners.

Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants

In 1996, wildlife and fish recreation expenditures tied to national for

$6.8 billion in association with 125.7 million visitor days of hunting, fish

wildlife/fish-associated viewing. Anglers spent $2.7 billion (46.8 million 

days), wildlife/fish viewers spent $2.1 billion (52 million activity days), a

spent $2.0 billion (27 million activity days) in pursuit of their pastimes. T

lion in direct spending translates to a total of $20 billion in local economi

226,000 jobs. Specific examples include:

■ Commercial salmon harvested from the Tongass National Forest a

million pounds per year, with an average annual earnings of $66 m

Meanwhile, sportfishing numbers in Southeast Alaska increased b

from 1984 to 1993, a significant revenue source for local econom

■ In 1997, nearly 183,000 people joined in “Celebrating Wildflower

national forests.

■ The Forest Service and its partners held 3,985 aquatic education e

1997 that landed 274,000 people. Events included National Fishin

Pathways to Fishing clinics, and classroom talks.

hours of recreation use)

■ Lands burned by wildfire: 530,000 acres

■ Insect and disease suppression: 1.7 million acres

■ Watershed improvements: 35,500 acres

■ Terrestrial acres restored or enhanced for wildlife: 638,663

■ Aquatic acres restored or enhanced for fisheries: 13,194

■ Stream miles restored or enhanced for fisheries: 2,740

■ Reforestation: 322,000 acres

■ Livestock grazing: 9.4 million animal unit months

■ Grazing allotments administered: 9,940

■ Timber sold: 3.7 billion board feet, enough to build over 300

homes

■ Timber harvested: 3.3 billion board feet 

■ Road system: 377,800 miles
144

Partnerships

In 1997, over $13 million in Federal funds was matched by partners’ cont

tions, for a total of $37 million to accomplish partnership projects on wildlife

and threatened, endangered, and sensitive species on the national forests and g

lands. Specific partnership examples include:

■ Quail will have terrific feasting grounds as a result of a partner project

designed to benefit bobwhite. Legumes flourish on the freshly mowed

fertilized, and seeded 35-acre opening within the Tombigbee National 

Mississippi. Other seed-eating birds will find both food and cover plen

too.

■ Skilled birders identified hundreds of species of birds by their calls to 

a breeding bird census in specified habitats on the Chequamegon-Nico

National Forest, Wisconsin. Now, forest management decisions can be

include the needs of birds.

■ High school students are making a difference in the recovery of the en

gered slender-petalled mustard. Their hard work counting and measuri

plants on the San Bernardino National Forest, California, contributed 

year monitoring effort that identifies precipitation as a primary factor i

encing population size. As a result, managers understand that maintain

good habitat and seedbank resources is key to recovery of this species

■ The lake sturgeon is a large, primitive fish that was once abundant in t

Great Lakes. Today it is a sensitive species on the Superior National F

Minnesota. Netting and electrofishing surveys conducted in the Sturge

River drainage in 1997 yielded only one fish. Managers are hopeful th

removal of a logjam that blocks migration of sturgeon into available h

will increase the number of sturgeon utilizing the river.

lakes, ponds, and reservoirs and more than 197,000 miles of

perennial streams.

■ National forests and grasslands support habitats for more than

3,000 species of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish

as well as some 10,000 plant species.

■ The national forests and grasslands also provide:

– 80 percent of the elk, mountain goat, and bighorn sheep hab

in the lower 48 States,

– 28 million acres of wild turkey habitat,

– 5.4 million acres of wetland habitat,

– Habitat for 250 species of neotropical migratory birds, and 

– More than 280 species of threatened or endangered plants, 

fish, or wildlife.
sad wde. og wtoy Scout oop 5, tey pated s

stabilize stream banks and channels.

Water, Soil, and Air

About 20 percent of the surface water supply in the United States flo

National Forest System (NFS) watersheds. Three major goals of the Fore

watershed management programs are to (1) maintain or improve water qu

tity, and timing consistent with hydrologic potential, (2) sustain soil prod

protect 88 Class I wilderness areas from air pollution, and (4) evaluate Fo

activities and mitigate any effects on air quality and water quality. (Class 

National Wilderness Areas that exceed 5,000 acres, as designated by the C

Act of 1977.) The task of mapping all soils within NFS, with the coopera

USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, is about 70 percent com

Forest Service improved 66,314 acres of watershed in FY 1996 using app

funds and other funding sources, primarily emergency supplemental fund

acres flooded in the 1995-96 winter floods.

Other significant activities include watershed analyses and watershed 

work, especially in the Pacific Northwest; participating in water right adj

eight Western States; assessing water quality problems from abandoned m

located on national forests with assistance from States and other Federal 

monitoring lichens, lakes, snow, vegetation, and the atmosphere to determ

lution impacts on visibility, water, and soil chemistry in wilderness areas.

Rangeland

NFS rangeland is managed to conserve the land and its vegetation w

ing food for both livestock and wildlife. Under multiple-use concepts, gra

also serve as watersheds, wildlife habitat, and recreation sites. Grazing pr

granted on national forests and grasslands through paid permits; permitte

with the Forest Service in range improvement projects.

Key Facts About Water, Soil, and Air

■ There are approximately 3,200 watersheds on NFS lands.

■ There are 902 municipal watersheds on NFS land, serving 

lion people.

■ 173 trillion gallons of water is supplied by 916 NFS municip

watersheds annually.

■ 500 remote weather data collection platforms are used in ag

tural, fire, weather, and streamflow forecasting.

■ Emergency restoration of 58 burned areas in 7 regions cost 

million in FY 1996. 

■ 88 wilderness areas, covering over 15 million acres, are cla

as Class I (special visibility protection) under the Federal C

Act.
146

Energy, Minerals, and Geology

Energy and mineral development fosters economic development, as does 

application of geologic principles on National Forest System lands, including 

opment of private minerals underlying these lands. Ecosystems are protected 

requiring appropriate design, mitigation, and reclamation measures, and by m

ing and inspecting operations to ensure compliance. Reclaiming abandoned m

Forest Service land restores deteriorated ecosystems, and the Forest Service h

reclaimed 38,000 abandoned mines. 

Exploration, development, and production of energy and minerals from N

Forest System lands contribute to economic growth, provide employment in r

communities, and raise revenues that are shared with the States. The energy a

erals component of the program is directed at obtaining these benefits while e

operations are conducted in an environmentally sound manner. In terms of the 

tude of the energy and minerals program, there are approximately 5.4 million 

leased for oil and gas, over 150,000 mining claims, about 7,000 mineral mater

and quarries, over 2,000 new operations proposed each year, and more than 20

operations to monitor and inspect. The largest coal mine in the United States i

NFS lands, and much of the Nation’s phosphate and lead production comes fr

NFS lands. The value of all energy and mineral production exceeds $2 billion 

year. Annual revenues are about $150 million, 25-50 percent of which is retur

the States where production occurs.

The geology and paleontology components of the program provide basic 

tific information about the Earth’s materials and processes. Forest Service geo

and paleontologists identify and interpret geologic and paleontological condit

and hazards for land management decisionmaking and cost-effective project d

inventory and evaluate sites with geologic and paleontological resources such 

groundwater, fossils, and caves for appropriate management; and interpret site

ing significance for scientific, educational, or recreational use. The interpretat

the legacy of all people, and the Forest Service recognizes its responsibility to 

age that part of the fossil record occurring on NFS lands as a public legacy for 

generations. Fossils are nonrenewable resources and their value may be greatl

diminished or lost entirely in the absence of proper management.

ments and provided 9.2 million animal head months of permitted

livestock grazing. (A head month is 1 month’s occupancy by an

adult animal.)

■ In FY 1997, a total of 114,300 acres were treated for noxious

weeds, 57,391 acres received forage improvements, and 2,388

had structural improvements made on NFS rangelands. These

accomplishments were made with appropriated dollars, Range

Betterment Funds, and private interests.
tional and interpretive values, and recreational and aesthetic values.

Key Facts About Forest Service Energy, Minerals, and Geology

Program 

■ 7 million acres where there is a possibility for coal leasing (9

lion tons)

■ 45 million acres where there is a possibility for oil and gas le

5.4 million acres leased

■ About 7,000 sand, gravel, and stone pits and quarries

■ Approximately 2,000 new operations requiring review each 

■ Over 20,000 existing operations requiring monitoring

■ 55 percent of the Nation’s production of lead

■ One of the world’s largest molybdenum deposits (Tongass

National Forest, AK)

■ Many of the Nation’s 100,000 rock hounds, recreational min

collectors, students, and geologic organizations use the nat

forests for education and recreational purposes.

■ Recreational panning for gold is an activity that is rapidly 

increasing.

■ The Forest Service manages fossil and geologic sites of int

as resources for present and future generations, scientific, 

tion, interpretive, recreational, and aesthetic values. 

■ The most complete Champsosaurus skeleton in the world 

(55 million years old) came off national grasslands and is on 

display at FS headquarters.

■ FS has partnerships with communities, States, and univers

managing the paleontological resource 

The following resources are produced annually on NFS lands: 

■ 10 million barrels of oil 

■ 250 billion cubic feet of gas 

■ 115 million tons of coal

■ 500 million pounds of lead

■ 200 million pounds of copper 

■ 11 million ounces of gold 

■ 20 million tons of sand and gravel
148

ered forested. Of that forested land, 35 percent is available for regularly sched

timber harvest and less than 1 percent of that area is subject to some form of h

in any year. The remaining 65 percent of the forested land is allocated to nont

uses such as wilderness, set aside for recreation, or cannot be harvested due to 

ronmental conditions such as steep slopes or fragile soils.

In most cases, forested ecosystems on the national forests are in a healthy

tioning condition due to past active management and environmental protectio

sures. These forests provide highly diverse and often unique resources, oppor

and experiences for the public. In some cases, ecosystems are not functioning 

way that can be sustained without unacceptable risk of losses to wildfire, inse

diseases. It is important that the agency assess each ecological situation at the 

level, establish management objectives based on ecological, social, and econo

information, and utilize the best tools available to achieve the established veg

objectives. There are critical reasons to retain timber harvest as a component o

national forest management. Restoration and maintenance of healthy forests i

best way to sustain resource production and provide goods and services while 

tecting the environment. Timber sales are one vegetation management tool us

foresters to achieve restoration and maintenance of healthy forests, sustain res

production, and provide goods and services while protecting the environment

The Forest Service is strongly committed to the management of NFS land

environmentally sensitive manner. One of the agency’s top priorities is to mai

and improve the health and vigor of forest ecosystems for the enjoyment of cu

and future generations. The Forest Service operates Federal timber sales unde

of the most substantial and effective environmental protection policies in the w

The Forest Service manages the national forests to achieve healthy and ec

cally sustainable ecosystem conditions. The agency is taking an active role in 

ing vegetation to help achieve the complex interrelated objectives of resource 

environmental protection. Along with helping to meet congressionally establi

objectives of harvesting national forest timber on a sustainable basis, timber s

provide an economic means of managing vegetation.

Passport in Time

Through the Passport in Time program, the Forest Service offers unique, 

ditional recreation opportunities such as archaeological excavation, historic st

restoration, and wilderness surveys. These experiences foster environmental s

ship while providing the public with unusual, educational experiences. 

Passport in Time has over 13,000 volunteers contributing over $5.2 millio

worth of time and effort to preserve our Nation’s history by restoring historic 

tures, stabilizing National Register eligible sites, evaluating sites for inclusion 

National Register of Historic Places, working on projects in wilderness, and d

ing heritage interpretive sites. Every activity is aimed at making our Nation’s 

history accessible to the public and preserving it for future generations. 
The State and Private Forestry programs represent important tools fo

toring, management, protection, and better use of America’s forests, with 

on non-Federal forest land stewardship. These programs connect forestry 

managers—whether small, urban woodlot owners, tribal foresters, State a

Federal—in efficient, nonregulatory ways. Through a coordinated effort i

ment, protection, and better use, the programs of State and Private Forest

facilitate sound forestry across ownerships on a landscape scale. 

About 70 percent of America’s forests are in State and private owner

percent of the wood fiber potential comes from these lands. These lands a

cal to watershed conditions, fish and wildlife habitat, and the aesthetic qu

Nation’s landscape; and they represent one of the best sources of carbon s

tion. Since these non-Federal forests represent most of the forests in our c

keeping these lands healthy, productive, and sustainable in the rural and u

on a cumulative basis is especially important to the Nation. With increasi

tation and development pressure, the unique Federal role in maintaining t

functions of these lands across ownership divisions has never been greate

important.

Through a partnership role of technical advice and focused financial 

the program leverages Federal resources to help produce a variety of fore

goods and services—including recreation, wildlife and fish, biological di

timber—to help meet domestic and international needs.

Forest Health Protection

The Forest Service provides technical and financial assistance to Fed

cies, tribal governments, States, and (through State foresters) to private la

In 1997, with the assistance of State foresters and others, the Forest Servi

ducted insect and disease detection surveys on 203 million acres of NFS, 

Federal land, and tribal lands, and 552 million acres of State and private l

addition, the Forest Service and State foresters participate in a forest heal

ing program. With USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 

Service works to protect the Nation’s forests from exotic insects, diseases

The Forest Service provides technical assistance in the safe and effective 

cides, shares the cost of insect and disease prevention and suppression pr

States, and funds prevention and suppression projects on Federal lands. T

also evaluates and applies new, more efficient and environmentally sensit

nologies for forest health protection. 

Cooperative Forestry—Providing Assistance to Nonindustrial Privat

Landowners and Community and Urban Areas

Cooperative Forestry (CF), in partnership with State forestry and oth

Federal forestry interests, provides for multidirectional links between Fed

forestry programs and objectives and the non-Federal forestry sector. CF 

ideas and people to resources and one another so they can better care for 
150

■ 

sue sustaabe ecosystes

■ Provide multiple benefits for people within the capabilities of ecosyste

■ Ensure organizational effectiveness

The Forest Stewardship Program provides technical assistance to nonin

trial private forest landowners interested in managing their forests for multipl

resources. More than two thirds of the Nation’s forests are non-Federal, owne

million nonindustrial private forest land owners. Since 1990, over 133,400 lan

ers have enrolled in the program and stewardship plans have been prepared on 

than 16.6 million acres of nonindustrial private forests. 

The Stewardship Incentives Program provides cost share assistance to

landowners implementing Forest Stewardship Landowner Plans. This program 

managed in cooperation with State forestry agencies and USDA’s Farm Servic

Agency to provide assistance on more than 250,000 acres annually. This inclu

approximately 50,000 acres of tree planting annually. Since 1990, Stewardshi

Incentives Program practices have been implemented on 1.5 million acres, inc

approximately 200,000 acres of tree planting.

The Forest Legacy Program is designed to effectively protect and conse

environmentally important forest areas that are threatened by conversion to no

uses. These lands can be protected through conservation easements and other 

nisms. This program is based on the concept of “willing seller and willing buy

is completely nonregulatory in its approach. No eminent domain authority or 

condemnation is authorized. To date, 15 States have completed an Assessmen

Need, which is the formal document that allows for entry into the Forest Lega

Program. Program partners include The Trust for Public Lands, State governm

and local land trusts. Since 1993, almost 62,000 acres in eight States have bee

tected from development. These lands have a value of more than $25 million 

have been protected with about $18 million of Federal funds. States with lega

include Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Yo

Vermont, and Washington.

Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF) is a key part of the agency’s 

in urban forest resources management; it helps people better manage the natur

resources where 80 percent of America lives. Through the National Tree Trust

Foundation, the National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council, U

Resources Partnerships, and State Forestry agencies, the U&CF program prov

support for ongoing, critical developments in urban ecosystem management th

improvements in urban forest policy, planning, assessment, tree planting, tech

standards, education, budgets, and financial management. Education activities

include support for the Treeture environmental education program through a p

ship with the International Society of Arboriculture, the National Tree Trust, a

American Forests. To assist with building local community forest managemen

bilities, technical and financial assistance is currently provided to more than 1

communities annually. 
the national to the local level. Matching grants generate more than $49.1 

private donations of cash, goods, and services for all activities supporting 

ing, care, and protection, approximately a 5:1 ratio of private to Federal fi

urban and community forestry activities. 

Economic Action Programs

A collection of long- and short-term programs together make up a str

all effort to help communities and businesses that depend on natural resou

sue self-sufficiency and sustainability. Through Economic Action Program

Forest Service provides technical and financial assistance to more than 3,

communities and businesses that are adversely affected by change in avai

natural resources or in natural resource policy. Of the total number assiste

than 130 were tribal and minority communities.

Rural Community Assistance

The Forest Service implements the national strategy on rural develop

coordination with USDA’s Rural Development mission area and other St

Federal agencies. The goal is to strengthen rural communities by helping 

sify and expand their economies through the wise use of natural resource

1997, the Forest Service initiated an outcomes measurement process for r

munity capacity building; over 150 communities have established indicat

measures to determine progress. 

Economic Recovery is a long-term program that targets areas with a

nomic problems associated with changes in Federal land management po

natural resource decisions. The purpose of the effort is to assist eligible n

dependent areas to diversify by developing new or different economic ac

FY 1997, over 600 eligible communities received technical and financial 

training, and education to help them diversify their forest-based economi

communities over 530 are taking action based on locally led strategic pla

Rural Development is a long-term program that provides technical 

assistance to help strengthen, diversify, and expand local economies, espe

experiencing long-term or persistent economic problems. Rural Developm

grant program that provides technical assistance and matching funds for l

ated and planned projects. They are designed to stimulate improvements 

nomic, environmental, or social well-being of rural citizens through fores

A short-term emphasis is the Pacific Northwest Assistance effort, w

ports the diversification of local economies experiencing reductions in Fe

harvest levels. This effort provides technical and financial assistance to o

communities. It is part of a larger, multi-agency effort to target resources 

areas facing acute economic problems. Over 90 percent of these Forest S

are granted directly to the communities, counties, and tribes for communi

projects to meet local needs. About 7.5 percent of the funds goes into age

cal assistance. In addition, for every dollar of Forest Service funding, ove

leveraged from partners.
152

ging, sawmilling, drying, processing, marketing, engineering, and wood techn

This assistance directly affects communities and businesses that foster conser

and ecosystem health through proper utilization of forest products. In FY 199

1,100 technical assists were provided and over 90 workshop presentations ma

leading directly and indirectly to over 100 jobs being created or retained. This 

is supported by regional and State specialists as well as a Technology Marketi

at the Forest Products Laboratory in Madison, WI.

The Wood in Transportation Program improves rural transportation ne

and demonstrates the commercial potential of using wood from undervalued t

species for bridges and other transportation structures in rural communities. T

demonstration program has built market value for these species, which in turn 

lates economic return and value for protecting the forest and its ecosystems. I

1997, 14 structures were funded, leveraging over $772,000, with nearly a 2:1 

private to Forest Service funding. More than 57,000 pieces of technical inform

were requested and disseminated to local and State officials responsible for tra

portation infrastructure.

Natural Resource Conservation Education

The Forest Service supports a lifelong learning process that promotes the 

standing of ecosystems and natural resources—their relationships, conservatio

management, and values to society. Our large partnership base assists the Nat

Resource Conservation Education (NRCE) program in about 200 projects acr

country each year, reaching about 2.4 million young people and more than 11

teachers. More than 40 separate program efforts are coordinated. They include

Project Learning Tree, which reaches 400,000 teachers. The Forest Service bu

leveraged through a variety of organizations and

groups to reach a 3.8:1 ratio of private to agency

funds.

Smokey Bear. Smokey Bear has been spreading

the forest fire prevention message for 54 years. The

Forest Service began a fire prevention program during

World War II, and in 1944, a bear was introduced as

the program symbol. Smokey is one of the most recognized symbols of fire prevention worldwide.

Educational programs using Smokey Bear are delivered to people of all age groups and backgrounds. The

message is primarily oriented toward elementaryschool-age children. Almost every State has a

Smokey suit that is used for a wide variety of fire prevention purposes from school programs to parades.

There is a Smokey Bear hot air balloon that is displayed at events across the Nation.

Smokey Bear
ing to young children. Woodsy is recognized by

over 83 percent of all American households and is

America’s leading symbol for environmental

improvement. Woodsy’s appearance and message

have recently been redesigned and revitalized. He

now sports a backpack, hiking shoes, and field

pants. His new slogan builds on his previous message: “Lend a hand—care for the land!” The

Woodsy Owl campaign was officially launched by

the Forest Service on September 15, 1971. In June

1974, Congress enacted a law establishing “Woodsy

Owl”—with his slogan, “Give a hoot! Don’t pollute!”—as a “symbol for a public service campaign to promote wise use o

ronment and programs that foster maintenance and improvement of envir

quality.”

Wildland Fire Management

The Wildland Fire Management program protects life, property, and 

resources on the 191 million acres of NFS lands. An additional 20 million 

adjacent State and private lands are also protected through fee or reciproc

tion agreements. Wildland fire activities are conducted with the highest re

public and firefighter safety.

Preparedness provides the basic fire organization and the capability 

forest fires and take prompt, effective initial attack suppression action on 

In FY 1997, 1.1 million acres of NFS lands received Hazardous Fue

Treatment to reduce the amount of hazardous fuels (combustible carbon 

understory growth, etc.). This was a 120-percent increase over the 1987-1

age of 0.5 million acres. Fuel treatment benefits the health of the forest an

reduce the danger of catastrophic wildfire.

Suppression Operations provide for the suppression of wildfires on 

ing NFS lands or other lands under fire protection agreement.

In 1997, over 7,800 fires burned approximately 129,000 acres of NF

protected lands. The annual average is approximately 11,500 fires burnin

634,000 acres.

Cooperative Fire Protection

The Cooperative Fire Protection (CFP) program provides technical a

assistance to State and volunteer fire departments to aid in the protection 

1 billion acres of State and private lands. 

The State Fire Assistance component of this program protects natur

from fire on State and private lands. This is done through fire prevention 

training and equipping fire organizations, and aggressive initial attack to 

land fire ignitions small. Federal funds are cost-shared with State and loc

help augment State protection needs. State and local fire organizations, ca

Woodsy Owl
154

pression.

The Volunteer Fire Assistance component of the CFP improves the abili

America’s 26,000 rural fire departments to protect lives, property, and natural

resources in rural and wildland/urban interface areas. The focus of the Federa

tance is to provide adequate fire and personal safety equipment, provide traini

to organize new fire departments in unprotected communities.

Federal Excess Personnel Property is acquired by the Forest Service an

loaned to State forestry agencies and their cooperators, rural fire departments, 

wildland and rural community fire protection. In 1997, 11,271 excess property 

valued at $128,008,876 were acquired and placed in service in the United Stat

the past 42 years, this program has saved taxpayers of the United States over $

lion.

Research and Development

Forests are critical to the global environment and the global economy. Th

the source of food, raw material, shelter, and income for millions, and they pr

sanctuary for people and habitat for wildlife. Forests filter and protect water s

and absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Agency research and develop

activities are conducted in areas requiring urgent policy and management acti

including studies related to watershed health and restoration, sustainable fores

agement, economic and social values, and forest health.

Since its establishment in 1876, Forest Service Research and Developme

become the world’s single largest source of natural resource information. It in

■ More than 550 scientists whose work is aimed at the productivity, hea

diversity of the temperate, boreal, and tropical forests;

■ Six regional experiment stations and one national Forest Products Lab

comprising 63 research lab locations, many collocated with universitie

■ Eighty-three experimental forests and ranges and 370 research natural 

devoted to long-term research;

■ An extensive portfolio of long-term research data bases, some more th

years old; and

■ Gateways for collaborative research in the Tropics, through the Intern

Institute of Tropical Forestry in Puerto Rico and the Institute of Pacific

Islands Forestry in Hawaii.

The Forest Service Research and Development Program provides:

■ Scientific information to natural resource managers, other scientists, a

public through more than 2,600 publications per year and many presen

at symposia and workshops,

■ Collaboration with university, industry, and other scientists; nongover

organizations; managers; and policymakers for work that transcends th

ties of any single organization,

■ More than $17 million per year in domestic grants, cooperative agreem

and contracts for research partnerships, and
more than 60 years old.

The Forest Service provides scientific and technological information 

the Nation’s forests and associated ecosystems. This includes studies in v

management, watersheds, fisheries, wildlife, forest products and recyclin

and diseases, economics, forest and rangeland ecology, silviculture, fire e

prevention, ecosystem functioning, and recreation.

Priority research items include:

■ Forest inventories, which were conducted on 42 million acres of f

across all ownerships in 1997, with status and trends reported in 9

reports. In 1998, forest inventory and analysis is planned for 19 S

forest health monitoring in 28 States.

■ Recycling and wood use, to solve technical problems that hinder w

recycling and to develop new products from agricultural and woo

byproducts.

■ Research to support the sustainable management of forests, includ

tion of how climate interacts with pollution, drought, and forest h

■ Large-scale ecosystem studies that support the conservation and r

watersheds, for example protecting watersheds, riparian zones, an

diversity in the Rio Grande basin and the Upper Columbia River B

■ Research to provide habitat management information and guides 

than 70 threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, and to help 

impacts of forest fragmentation on wildlife.

■ Research to support early eradication of non-native invasive insec

and weeds; for example, information on the biology of Asian long

tles supports successful control of this introduced pest in New Yo

newly developed DNA markers for viral control agents provide m

and cost-effective control of Asian gypsy moth.

Business Operations—Acquisition Management

The agency spent approximately $700 million for goods and services 

1997. Over 72 percent of total contract and purchase order dollars went to 

nesses. Awards included more than $49 million to small disadvantaged bu

and $29 million to women-owned firms.

Forest Service dollars benefited States, research, international organi

other organizations through a variety of grants and cooperative agreemen

more than $273 million. 

The agency managed approximately 22 million square feet of owned 

related space plus 6 million square feet of agency leased and General Ser

Administration-controlled space with an annual rental of $62 million. Th

also manages approximately 4,000 units of living quarters for employees 

$375 million.

Property managers oversee more than $2.7 billion worth of Forest Se

sonal property, including property on loan to State forestry departments. T

supports the President’s initiative on recycling and emphasizes procurem
http://www.fs.fed.us/land/recycle.html

Senior, Youth, and Volunteer Programs 

Senior, Youth, and Volunteer Programs provide job opportunities, training

education for the unemployed, underemployed, elderly, young, and others wit

cial needs, while benefiting high-priority conservation work. In FY 1997, thes

grams included more than 134,000 participants and accomplished over $116 m

in conservation work on Forest Service lands. 

Through an agreement with the U.S. Department of Labor, the Forest Ser

operates 18 Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers on Forest Service lan

Job Corps program is the only Federal residential education/training program 

Nation’s disadvantaged youth.

The Senior Community Service Employment Program is designed to p

useful part-time employment and training for persons age 55 and over.

In the Youth Conservation Corps summer employment program, person

15-18 accomplish projects that further the development and conservation of th

United States’ natural resources. 

156

Key Facts About Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers:

■ 18 Job Corps Centers, 16 co-ed

■ 8,903 enrolled, ages 16-24

■ $95 million budget

■ $20 million work accomplishment

■ 83 percent placed

■ Average starting salary, approximately $6.14 per hour

■ 46 percent minorities

Key Facts About the Senior Community Service Employment

Program:

■ 5,055 older workers participated

■ $24.2 million budget

■ $39.9 million work accomplishment

■ Only Federal agency among 10 national sponsors

■ 43 percent females

■ 18.2 percent placed in unsubsidized employment

■ $1.65 return on dollar invested 
The Volunteers in the National Forests program allows organizatio

viduals to donate their talents and services to help manage the Nation’s n

resources.

Hosted programs provide conservation training and work opportun

national forests or in conjunction with Federal programs. Programs are ad

through agreements with State and county agencies, colleges, universities

tribes, and private and nonprofit organizations. 

Through a partnership with the National Forest Foundation, the Fore

operated one Youth Forest Camp during the summer of 1997. Camp TIP

jobs, work training, and environmental education for persons aged 14-20

■ $1.8 million operating costs

■ $1.9 million work accomplishment

■ $1.05 return on dollar invested

■ 45 percent females 

Key Facts About Volunteers in the National Forests:

■ 112,384 volunteers have participated (including 129 interna

volunteers and 180 Touch America Project volunteers, ages 

17)

■ $38.6 million work accomplishment

■ 37 percent females

■ Over 1.2 million volunteers served since the 1972 legislatio

Key Facts About Hosted Programs:

■ 7,793 participants

■ $15.9 million work accomplishment

■ 25 percent females

■ 38 percent minorities

Key Facts About Youth Forest Camps:

■ 25 participants

■ Greater than $61,000 work accomplishment

■ 1 camp operated (Colorado)

■ 44 percent females

■ 24 percent minorities
158

Programs (IP) promotes technical cooperation and develops support for sustai

forest management practices worldwide. In addition, many individual researc

tionships exist between Forest Service researchers and managers and their cou

parts around the world. 

IP is divided into three program areas: technical cooperation, policy, and 

assistance support. Partners include other U.S. Government agencies, as well 

national organizations such as the International Tropical Timber Organization 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. In addition, IP has 

oped numerous country-specific partnerships that promote training and techni

exchange and tap into the diversity of experience within the Forest Service. 

IP is involved with a wide variety of activities. Some examples from 199

include: organizing a workshop on nontimber forest products in Central Afric

tating research to combat invasive pests in the United States; and coordinating 

Service technical participation in response to drought, flood, and fire disasters 

Africa, Asia, and Latin America. 

In addition, long-term partnerships include working with the Partners in F

program to support neotropical migratory bird habitat restoration in Mexico, w

with the Federal Forest Service of Russia to advance the ability of their fire ec

and managers to more effectively use fire as a management tool, and working 

the Indonesians to develop mapping technology for land management. 

In the policy area, IP is working to develop criteria and indicators for inte

tional and forest level monitoring. Further policy work includes issue briefs th

explore current issues affecting international and domestic forestry. Other effo

include providing Incident Command System training to foreign firefighters s

they are prepared to deal with wildfires when they arise, and promoting reduc

impact harvesting techniques through a network of forestry research organiza

Since October 1997, over 100 Forest Service employees representing eac

10 regions as well as research stations have been involved in international for

work. They have participated in international forestry meetings, conducted as

ments of disaster situations, coordinated interagency response teams, and con

original research. The partnerships that have developed and that are being enc

aged enable a great exchange of ideas and techniques, which lead to more sus

forestry practices, in this country and abroad. 

Key Facts About the Impact of International Programs:

■ Through involvement with industry, State foresters, and major

nongovernmental organizations, 12 countries forged a consens

on a set of criteria and indicators for assessing progress toward

sustainable forest management. 

■ International collaboration on research and monitoring help to

reduce the impact of invasive pests such as the Asian gypsy mo

and hemlock woolly adelgid, which have severe impacts on timb

resources.
Law Enforcement and Investigations

The objective of the Forest Service law enforcement program is to se

and protect natural resources and property within the authority and jurisd

Forest Service. The program focuses on activities such as vandalism, arch

resource violations, timber theft, wildland arson, and the cultivation and m

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 annually result in the seizure of several million 

worth of assets and the seizure and destruction of several million dollars’ 

marijuana and other drugs. 

In FY 1997, 540 cooperative law enforcement agreements enhanced 

with State and local law enforcement agencies and with other Federal age

increase the protection and service to forest visitors. About 170 drug enfo

agreements were set up between the Forest Service, State and local law e

agencies, and other Federal agencies or task forces to cooperate in elimin

drug activities in the National Forest System.

that migrate to the Western and Southwestern United State

Mexico and further south.

■ A program with the Federal Forest Service of Russia, the S

Alaska, and U.S. companies and nongovernmental organiz

will help to ensure that Russians have access to the best en

mental technology as petroleum resources on Sakhalin Isla

developed. This will promote increased employment in Alas

preserve salmon fisheries around Sakhalin Island and Alask

Key Facts About Law Enforcement and Investigations:

■ Nearly 300,000 incidents or criminal violations were reporte

handled by Forest Service (FS) officers in FY 1997. These v

tions resulted in many millions of dollars in damages and lo

FS property and natural resources.

■ Nearly 316,000 marijuana plants valued at nearly $950 mill

were removed from approximately 4,400 sites. Officers mad

2,400 arrests for drug-related offenses, seized nearly $14 m

worth of processed marijuana, and seized over $1.1 million 

assets. Growers assaulted 26 people, 211 weapons were fo

the possession of growers, and 48 booby traps were found 

growing sites.

■ About 450 uniformed law enforcement officers and 130 crim

investigators performed investigation and enforcement activ

that are unique to the FS and its resources.
160

As USDA

s lead private lands conservation agency, the Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS) provides technical assistance and adminis

wide range of programs to solve the Nation’s natural resource problems.

The well-being of our Nation depends on healthy, productive natural reso

and their sustainable use. Just as soil, water, and habitat are interrelated, the p

that address these resources are interrelated, and programs that help one resou

benefit others. If you stop erosion, for example, you enhance soil productivity 

protect water and air quality. Improving the environment enhances the econom

future of communities throughout the United States.

The mission of NRCS is to provide national leadership, using a cooperati

nership approach, to help people conserve, improve, and sustain their natural

resources and environment.

A Partnership Approach to Resource Conservation

For more than 6 decades, NRCS employees have worked side-by-side wi

landowners, conservation districts, Resource Conservation and Development

Councils, State and local governments, and urban and rural partners to restore 

enhance the American landscape. The agency helps landowners and communi

take a comprehensive approach in conservation planning, working toward an 

standing of how all natural resources—soil, water, air, plants, animals—relate 

other and to humans. The agency works to solve the natural resource challeng

the Nation’s private lands—reducing soil erosion, improving soil and rangelan

health, protecting water quality and supply, conserving wetlands, and providin

and wildlife habitat.

Most NRCS employees serve in USDA’s network of local, county-based 

including those in Puerto Rico and the Pacific Basin. The rest are at State, reg

and national offices, providing technology, policy, and administrative support

serve all people who live and work on the land. Nearly three-fourths of the ag

technical assistance goes to helping farmers and ranchers develop conservatio

tems uniquely suited to their land and their ways of doing business.

The agency helps rural and urban communities curb erosion, conserve an

tect water, and solve other resource problems. American Indian tribes, Alaska

Natives, Pacific Islanders, and other native groups work with NRCS on a vari

initiatives that include resource inventories and the adaptation of conservation 

grams to fit the special needs of their people and their land. Also, countries aro

the globe seek NRCS advice on building their own conservation delivery syst

in coping with severe natural resource problems.

NRCS Conservation Technical Assistance

NRCS provides conservation technical assistance (CTA) to improve and 

serve natural resources. This assistance is based on voluntary local landowner 

eration.
of natural resources. CTA is the intellectual capital of the agency; it is ma

people who are well-trained and competent in soils and other physical an

sciences, and who have the interpersonal skills and knowledge of local co

work with private landowners in the stewardship of our natural resources

CTA provides the infrastructure through which the agency is able to 

multitude of needs from natural resource disasters to complex, site-specifi

resource problems. CTA is the means by which this Nation is able to volu

bring about land stewardship that improves our soil, water, wildlife, and a

while providing for sustainable agricultural production. The investments 

return significant benefits to the American public—from an improved env

and quality of life to a safe and abundant food supply.

NRCS Programs

Following is an overview of NRCS programs:

Wetlands Reserve Program 

The Wetlands Reserve Program is a voluntary program to restore we

Participating landowners can establish conservation easements of either p

30-year duration, or can enter into restoration cost-share agreements whe

ment is involved. In exchange for establishing a permanent easement, the 

receives payment up to the agricultural value of the land, plus 100 percen

restoration costs for restoring the wetland. The 30-year easement paymen

cent of what would be provided for a permanent easement on the same si

percent of the restoration cost. The voluntary agreements are for a minim

duration and provide for 75 percent of the cost of restoring the involved w

Conservation Farm Option 

The Conservation Farm Option was authorized as a pilot program fo

producers of wheat, feed grains, cotton, and rice. The purpose of the prog

address the conservation of soil, water, and related resources; water quali

lands; wildlife habitat; and other resources. Producers who have contract 

under production flexibility contracts are given an option of a 10-year con

single annual payment equivalent to the amount of the combined paymen

Conservation Reserve Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, and the

Environmental Quality Incentives Program.

Environmental Quality Incentives Program 

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program works primarily in l

tified priority areas where there are significant natural resource concerns, 

erosion, water quality and quantity, wildlife habitat, wetlands, and forest 

lands. Priority is given to areas where State or local governments offer fin

technical, or educational assistance, and to areas where agricultural impro
162

install or implement structural, vegetative, and management practices called f

to 10-year contracts. Cost sharing may pay up to 75 percent of the costs of cer

conservation practices. Nationally, half of the funding for this program is targ

livestock-related natural resource concerns and the remainder to other signific

conservation priorities.

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program 

The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program provides financial incentives to 

habitat for fish and wildlife on private lands. Participants agree to implement 

wildlife habitat development plan, and USDA agrees to provide cost-share ass

for the initial implementation of wildlife habitat development practices. USDA 

program participants enter into 5- to 10-year cost-share agreements for wildlif

tat development.

Farmland Protection Program

The Farmland Protection Program provides funds to State, tribal, or local 

ernment entities to help purchase development rights to keep productive farm

agricultural use. Working through their existing programs, USDA joins with S

tribal, or local governments to acquire conservation easements or other intere

landowners. USDA provides up to 50 percent of the cost of purchasing the ea

ments. To qualify, farmland must be part of a pending offer from a State, tribe

local farmland protection program; be privately owned; have a conservation p

large enough to sustain agricultural production; be accessible to markets for w

land produces; have adequate infrastructure and agricultural support services; 

have surrounding parcels of land that can support long-term agricultural produ

Conservation of Private Grazing Land 

Conservation of Private Grazing Land will ensure that technical, educatio

and related assistance is provided to those who own private grazing lands. Th

Nation’s more than 600 million acres of private grazing lands produce food an

hold and carry important water resources, and offer wildlife habitat and recrea

opportunities.

Soil Surveys 

NRCS conducts soil surveys cooperatively with other Federal agencies, l

grant universities, State agencies, and local units of government. Soil surveys 

the public with local information on the uses and capabilities of their soil reso

Soil surveys are based on scientific analysis and classification of the soils, and 

used to determine land capabilities and conservation treatment needs. The pub

soil survey for a county or designated area includes maps and interpretations w

explanatory information that is the foundation of resource policy, planning, an

sionmaking for Federal, State, county, and local community programs. 
Telemetry (SNOTEL) and 1,000 traditional snow courses to provide 11 W

States and Alaska with water supply forecasts. The data are collected, ass

analyzed to make about 4,000 annual water supply forecasts, which provi

of available annual yield, spring runoff, and summer stream flow. Water s

casts are used by individuals, organizations, and State and Federal agenci

decisions relating to agricultural production, fish and wildlife managemen

control, recreation, power generation, and water quality management. Th

Weather Service presently includes the snow information in its river leve

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 qualit

ment, streambank and riparian area protection, coastal dune stabilization, 

meeting other special conservation treatment needs. The work is carried o

tively with State and Federal agencies, commercial businesses, and seed 

associations. After species are proven, they are released to the private sec

mercial production. In 1997, NRCS developed cultivars that were turned 

ers to produce plant stock that generated more than $175 million in reven

private sector nurseries and seed companies.

Small Watersheds Projects 

The Small Watershed Program works through local government spon

helps participants solve natural resource and related economic problems o

watershed. Project purposes include watershed protection, flood preventi

and sediment control, water supply, water quality, fish and wildlife habita

ment, wetlands creation and restoration, and public recreation in watershe

250,000 or fewer acres. Both technical and financial assistance are availa

Emergency Watershed Protection 

The Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program is designed to 

threats to life and property in the wake of natural disasters. It provides tec

cost-sharing assistance. Assistance includes establishing vegetative cover

gully control; installing streambank protection devices; removing debris 

ment; and stabilizing levees, channels, and gullies. In subsequent storms, 

jects protect homes, businesses, highways, and public facilities from furth

Floodplain easements under EWP may be purchased to help prevent futur

to natural disasters.
164

shed works of improvement. Flood prevention operations include planning an

installing works of improvement and land treatment measures for flood preve

for the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water; and for t

reduction of sedimentation and erosion damages. This may also include the de

ment of recreational facilities and the improvement of fish and wildlife habita

Activities are authorized in 11 specific flood prevention projects covering abo

million acres in 11 States.

River Basin Surveys and Investigations 

NRCS cooperates with other Federal, State, and local agencies in conduc

river basin surveys and investigations, flood hazard analysis, and flood plain m

ment assistance to aid in developing coordinated water resource programs, inc

their guiding principles and procedures. Cooperative river basin studies are m

of agricultural, rural, and upstream water and land resources to identify resour

problems and determine corrective actions needed. These surveys address a v

natural resource concerns, including water quality improvement, opportunitie

water conservation, wetland and water storage capacity, agricultural drought p

lems, rural development, municipal and industrial water needs, upstream flood 

ages, and water needs for fish, wildlife, and forest-based industries. Flood pla

management assistance includes the identification of flood hazards and the loc

and use of wetlands. NRCS represents USDA on river basin regional entities a

River Basin Interagency Committees for coordination among Federal Departm

and States.

Forestry Incentives Program 

The Forestry Incentives Program supports good forest management pract

privately owned, nonindustrial forest land nationwide. The program is design

benefit the environment while meeting future demand for wood products. Elig

practices are tree planting, timber stand improvement, site preparation for nat

regeneration, and related activities. The program is available in counties desig

by a Forest Service survey of eligible private timber acreage. 

Resource Conservation and Development Program 

The Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Program provide

framework for local people to join together to improve their community’s eco

environment, and living standards. RC&D areas are locally organized, sponso

and directed. USDA provides technical and financial assistance and helps spo

secure funding and services from Federal, State, and local sources. The major

emphases are environmental conservation and rural development. Currently th

more than 300 RC&D areas covering more than 75 percent of the United Stat

year, these locally organized and directed areas create thousands of new jobs, 

thousands of miles of water bodies, conserve hundreds of thousands of acres o

and improve the quality of life in hundreds of communities.
through this program. USDA provides a coordinator to work fulltime wi

to help them implement their objectives.

National Resources Inventory 

Every 5 years, NRCS develops an inventory of the condition and tren

ural resources on non-Federal land. The “National Resources Inventory,” 

contains the most comprehensive and statistically reliable data of its kind 

world. It measures trends in soil erosion by water and wind, wetland loss

farmland acreage, irrigation, and habitat and conservation treatment at na

regional, State, and sub-State levels.

Other Activities

National Conservation Buffer Initiative 

In April 1997, Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman announced a new 

private partnership called the National Conservation Buffer Initiative. Th

help landowners install 2 million miles of conservation buffers by the yea

Conservation buffers are areas or strips of land maintained in perman

tion and designed to intercept pollutants. Buffers can be installed along st

uplands—within crop fields, at the edge of crop fields, or outside the mar

field.

The National Conservation Buffer Initiative is a multi-year effort led 

in cooperation with other USDA agencies, State conservation agencies, c

districts, agribusinesses, and agricultural and environmental organization

national agricultural corporations have pledged nearly $1 million over the 

years to complement USDA’s efforts to promote conservation buffers.

To date, approximately 595,000 acres—or nearly 165,280 miles—of 

have been established under the Conservation Reserve Program continuo

Agricultural producers and other landowners who install buffers can imp

air, and water quality; enhance wildlife habitat; restore biodiversity; and c

landscapes.

International Programs 

NRCS helps improve the management and conservation of natural re

globally. Participation in collaborative efforts with other countries results 

to the United States. During FY 1997, NRCS specialists completed 490 a

in 47 countries. The objectives of the assignments were to provide short- 

term technical assistance and leadership for the development of natural re

servation programs and projects, and to exchange conservation technolog

countries that face soil and water conservation issues similar to those in t

NRCS provided opportunities for approximately 210 foreign nationa

more than 25 countries to gain a better understanding of natural resource 

tion activities by observing and discussing conservation programs in the U

States.
166

recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture with regard to the scientific 

for agriculture’s impact on air quality. This task force is to strengthen and coo

USDA air quality research efforts to determine the extent to which agricultura

ties contribute to air pollution and to identify cost-effective ways in which the 

cultural industry can improve air quality. The task force is also charged with e

that data quality and interpretation are sound. The Farm Bill requires that poli

ommendations made by any Federal agency with respect to agricultural air qu

issues must be based on sound scientific findings, subject to peer review, and 

consider economic feasibility.

Backyard Conservation Campaign 

NRCS has developed a new Backyard Conservation campaign to inform 

suburban, and rural residents of the good conservation work being done by fa

and ranchers. At the same time, it encourages them to adopt miniature version

same practices in their own backyards, such as composting, mulching, tree pla

nutrient management, and water conservation.

Farmers and ranchers are already making progress in natural resource con

tion by protecting and restoring wetlands, enhancing wildlife habitat, and curb

erosion. There are nearly 2 billion acres of land in the United States. Most of t

land, 1.4 billion acres, is managed by farmers and ranchers. More than 92 mil

acres, however, are privately developed and much of it is tended by homeown

These homeowners can join the conservation tradition of farmers and rancher

in their own backyards to curb water pollution and enhance wildlife habitat.

For more information on this campaign or on other agency programs, vis

NRCS web site at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov

168

Forest Service, Office of

Communications

Director

George Lennon

2Cen-Aud Washington, DC 20250

202-205-8333

FAX 202-205-0885

glennon/wo@fs.fed.us

Media Officer

Alan Polk

2Cen-Aud Washington, DC 20250

202-205-1134

FAX 202-205-0885

apolk/wo@fs.fed.us

Assistant Director (Acting)

Carl Holguin

2Cen-Aud Washington, DC 20250

202-205-1780

FAX 202-205-0885

cholguin/wo@fs.fed.us

Assistant Director

Denver James

2Cen-Aud Washington, DC 20250

202-205-1781

FAX 202-205-0885

djames/wo@fs.fed.us

Photo, Video Services(Acting)

Mary Jane Senter

2Cen-Aud Washington, DC 20250

202-205-1719

FAX 202-205-0885

msenter/wo@fs.fed.us

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Naomi Charboneau 

1012-RPE Arlington, VA 22209

703-235-9488

FAX 703-235-9498

naomi.charboneau/wo@fs.fed.us

FS Regional Communication Offices Northern Reg. CO Officer Beth Horn

P.O.Box 7669 - Federal Building

Missoula, MT 59807

406-329-3089

FAX 406-329-3411

bhorn/r1@fs.fed.us

Rocky Mtn. Reg. CO Officer

Lynn Young (Acting)

P.O.Box 25127 - 11177 W. 8th Ave

Lakewood, CO 80225

303-275-5346

FAX 303-275-5366

lyoung/r2@fs.fed.us

Southwest Reg. CO Officer

Carolyn Bye

517 Gold Avenue, SW, Fed.Bldg.

Albuquerque, NM 87l02

505-842-3290

FAX 505-842-3457

cbye/r3@fs.fed.us

Intermtn. Reg. CO Officer

Robert Swinford

324 25th St. Federal Building

Ogden, UT 84401

801-625-5347

FAX 801-625-5240

bob.swinford/r4@fs.fed.us

Pacific SW Reg. CO Officer Marilyn Hartley

630 Sansome Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111

415-705-2804

FAX 415-705-1097

mhartley/r5@fs.fed.us

Pacific NW Reg. CO Officer Al Matecko

P.O.Box 3623 - 333 S. First St

Portland, OR 97208

503-808-2971

FAX 503-808-2229

amatecko/r6@fs.fed.us

Southern Reg. CO Officer

Sue Muir

1720 Peachtree Rd, NW

Atlanta, GA 30367

404-347-7229

FAX 404-347-3808

smuir/r8@fs.fed.us

Eastern Reg. CO Officer

Sherry Wagner

310 W. Wisconsin Ave., Rm 500

Milwaukee, WI 53203

414-297-3640

FAX 414-297-3608

swagner/r9@fs.fed.us
P.O.Box 21628 - Federal Bldg.

Juneau, AK 99802-1628

907-586-8803

FAX 907-586-7892

pfinney/r10@fs.fed.us

NE Area State-Private CO Ofcr

Jill Cherpack

100 Matsonford Road, Rm 200

Radnor, PA 19087-4585

610-975-4186

FAX 610-975-4177

jcherpac/na@fs.fed.us

FS Research Stations Communications

Offices

Forest Products Laboratory

Debra Dietzman

One Gifford Pinchot Drive

Madison, WI 53705-2398

608-231-9314

FAX 608-231-9592

debra.dietzman/fpl@fs.fed.us

Intermountain Research Station

Dave Tippets

324 25th Street, Federal Bldg.

Ogden, UT 84401

801-625-5434

FAX 801-625-5129

dtippets/rmrs,ogden@fs.fed.us

North Central Research Station

Mike Prouty

1992 Folwell Avenue St. Paul, MN 55108

612-649-5276

FAX 612-649-5285

mprouty/nc@fs.fed.us

Northeastern Research Station

Deidra McGee

100 Matsonford Road, Rm 200

Radnor, PA 19087

610-975-4112

FAX 610-975-4200

dmcgee/ne@fs.fed.us

Pacific NW Research Station

Sherri Richardson

P.O.Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

503-808-2137

FAX 503-326-2455

sherri.richards/r6pnw@fs.fed.us

800 Buchanan Street, West Bldg

Albany, CA 94701-0011

916-246-5198

FAX 510-559-6440

cgill/psw@fs.fed.us

Rocky Mtn. Research Station

Rick Fletcher

240 W. Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526-2098

970-498-2340

FAX 970-498-1660

charlesr.fletcher/rmrs@fs.fed.us

Southern Research Station

Carol Ferguson

P.O.Box 2680 Asheville, NC 28

704-257-4389

FAX 704-257-4330

carol.ferguson/srs@fs.fed.us

Natural Resources

Conservation Service

Director, Conservation Comm

Staff

David C. White

Rm 6123-S Washington, DC 20

202-720-3210

FAX 202-720-1564

dave.white@usda.gov

Program Assistant 

Joyce Hawkins

Rm 6123-S Washington, DC 20

202-720-3210

FAX 202-720-1564

joyce.hawkins@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Mary Cressel

Rm 6123-S Washington, DC 20

202-690-0547

FAX 202-690-1221

mary.cressel@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

June Davidek

Rm 6123-S Washington, DC 20

202-720-3876

FAX 202-690-1221

june.davidek@usda.gov

Visual Information Specialist

Robert Gresh

Rm 6123-S Washington, DC 20

202-720-3933

FAX 202-720-9975

robert.gresh@usda.gov
170

Rm 6116-S Washington, DC 20013

202-720-6243

FAX 202-690-1221

sandy.grimm@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Fred Jacobs

Rm 6123-S Washington, DC 20013

202-720-4649

FAX 202-690-1221

fred.jacobs@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Ted Kupelian

Rm 6123-S Washington, DC 20013

202-720-5776

FAX 202-690-1221

ted.kupelian@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Tom Levermann

Rm 6111-S 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

202-720-5157

Rm 0054E-S Washington, DC 20013

Doug Wilson

doug.wilson@usda.gov

FAX 202-720-6009

Freedom of Info Act Office

Wilda Grant

Mez.1Cotton Anx.

Washington, DC 20013

202-720-9348

FAX 202-690-3174

wgrant@usda.gov

Conservation Service St

Public Affairs Contacts

AL

Joan Smith

665 Opelika Road, Auburn, AL 3683

334-887-4530

FAX 334-887-4551

jlsmith@al.nrcs.usda.gov

AK

Vacant

949 East 36th Avenue, Suite 400,

Anchorage, AK 99508-4362

907-271-2424

FAX 907-271-3951

@ak.nrcs.usda.gov

AZ

Mary Ann McQuinn

3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 80

Phoenix, AZ 85012-2945

602-280-8778

FAX 602-280-8809

mmcquinn@az.nrcs.usda.gov

AR

Suzanne Pugh

700 West Capitol Avenue,

Little Rock, AR 72201-3228

501-324-5464

FAX 501-324-6138

mpugh@ar.nrcs.usda.gov

Federal Building, Room 5404,

CA

Anita Brown

2121-C 2nd Street, Suite 102, 

Davis, CA 95616-5475

530-757-8241

FAX 530-757-8217

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

CT

Carolyn Miller, Acting

16 Professional Park Road, 

Storrs, CT 06268-1299

860-487-4029

FAX 860-487-4054

cmiller@ct.nrcs.usda.gov
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 East Hancock Avenue, 

Athens, GA 30601-2769

706-546-2273

FAX 706-546-2276

art@ga.nrcs.usda.gov

HI

Jolene Lau

300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 4316,

Honolulu, HI 96850-0002

808-541-2600

FAX 808-5412652

lau@hi.nrcs.usda.gov

ID

Sharon Norris

3244 Elder Street, Room 124, 

Boise, ID 83705-4711

208-378-5725

FAX 208-378-5735

snorris@id.nrcs.usda.gov

IL

Paige Mitchell

630-505-7808

FAX 630-505-7992

paige.mitchell@il.nrcs.usda.gov

1902 Fox Drive, 

Champaign, IL 61820-7335

IN

Michael McGovern

6013 Lakeside Boulevard, 

Indianapolis, IN 46278-2933

317-290-3222

FAX 317-290-3225

mmcgovern@in.nrcs.usda.gov

Des Moines, IA 50309-2180

515-284-4262

FAX 515-284-4394

lynn.betts@ia.nrcs.usda.gov

KS

(Vacant)

mschaffer@ks.nrcs.usda.gov

760 South Broadway, Salina, KS 

785-823-4570

FAX 785-823-4540

KY

Lois Jackson

771 Corporate Drive, Suite 110, 

Lexington, KY 40503-5479

606-224-7372

FAX 606-224-7393

ljackson@kcc.fsa.usda.gov

LA

Herb Bourque

3737 Government Street, 

Alexandria, LA 71302-3727

318-473-7762

FAX 318-473-7771

hbourque@las02.la.nrcs.usda.go

ME

Elaine Tremble

etremble@me.nrcs.usda.gov

5 Godfrey Drive, Orono, ME 04

207-866-7241

FAX 207-866-7262

MD

Carol Hollingsworth

John Hanson BC, 

339 Bucsh’s Frontage Road, Sui

Annapolis, MD 21401-5534

410-757-0861

FAX 410-757-0687

chollingsworth@md.nrcs.usda.g

MA

Alyssa Aldrich

aaldrich@ma.nrcs.usda.gov

451 West Street, Amherst, MA 0

978-692-1904

FAX 978-392-1305
172

Christina Coulon

517-337-6701

FAX 517-337-6905

ccoulon@miso.mi.nrcs.usda.gov

MN

Sylvia Rainford

600 Farm Credit Building, 

375 Jackson Street, 

St. Paul, MN 55101-1854

612-602-7859

FAX 612-602-7914

str@mn.nrcs.usda.gov

MS

Jeannine May

Federal Building, Suite 1321, 

100 West Capitol Street, 

Jackson, MS 39269-1399

601-965-4337

FAX 601-965-4536

jbm@ms.nrcs.usda.gov

MO

Norm Klopfenstein

Parkade Center, Suite 250, 

601 Business Loop, 70 West, 

Columbia, MO 65203-2546

573-876-0911

FAX 573-876-0913

normk@mo.nrcs.usda.gov

MT

Lori Valadez

Federal Building, Room 443, 

10 East Babcock Street, 

Bozeman, MT 59715-4704

406-587-6842

FAX 406-587-6761

lvaladez@mt.nrcs.usda.gov

NE

Pat McGrane

Federal Building, Room 152, 

100 Centennial Mall, North, 

Lincoln, NE 68508-3866

402-437-5328

FAX 402-437-5327

pat.mcgrane@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

Durham, NH 03824-1499

603-868-7581

FAX 603-868-5301

lhl@nh.nrcs.usda.gov

NJ

Irene Lieberman

1370 Hamilton Street, 

Somerset, NJ 08873-3157

732-246-1171

FAX 732-246-2358

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

Cynthia Portalatin Valles

441 South Salina Street, 5th Floor, 

Suite 354, Syracuse, NY 13202-245

315-477-6505

FAX 315-477-6550

cvalles@ny.nrcs.usda.gov

NC

Andrew Smith

4405 Bland Road, Suite 205, 

Raleigh, NC 27609-6293

919-873-2107

FAX 919-873-2156

asmith@nc.nrcs.usda.gov

ND

Arlene Deutscher

Federal Building, Room 278, 

220 East Rosser Avenue, 

Bismarck, ND 58502-1458

701-250-4768

FAX 701-250-4778

ajd@nd.nrcs.usda.gov

OH

Latawnya Dia

200 North High Street, Room 522,

Columbus, OH 43215-2748

614-469-6962

FAX 614-469-2083

latawnya.dia@oh.nrcs.usda.gov
Stillwater, OK 74074-2624

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

(Vacant)

671-472-7490

FAX 700-550-7288

pacbas@ite.net

BAS

FHB Building, Suite 301, 

400 Route 8, Maite, GU 96927

PA

Stacy Mitchell

1 Credit Union Place, 

Suite 340, Harrisburg, PA 17110-2993

717-237-2208

FAX 717-237-2238

smitchell@pa.nrcs.usda.gov

PR

Becky Fraticelli

IBM Building, 6th Fl, 

654 Munoz Riveria Ave., 

Hato Rey, PR 00918-7013

787-766-5206

FAX 787-766-5987

becky@pr.nrcs.usda.gov

RI

Vacant

60 Quaker Lane, Suite 46, 

Warwick, RI 02886-0111

401-828-1300

FAX 401-828-0433

SC

Perdita Belk

Strom Thurmond FB, 1835 Assembly

Street, Room 950, 

Columbia, SC 29201-2489

803-765-5402

FAX 803-253-3670

pbelk@sc.nrcs.usda.gov

Huron, SD 57350-2475

605-352-1227

FAX 605-352-1261

joyce.watkins@sd.nrcs.usda.gov

TN

Larry Blick

675 U.S. Courthouse, 801 Broad

Nashville, TN 37203-3878

615-736-5490

FAX 615-736-7764

lblick@tn.nrcs.usda.gov

TX

Harold Bryant

W.R. Poage Federal Building, 

101 South Main Street, 

Temple, TX 76501-7682

254-742-9811

FAX 254-298-1388

hbryant@tx.nrcs.usda.gov

UT

Ron Nichols

Wallace F. Bennett FB, 

125 South State Street, Room 44

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

VA

Pat Paul

Culpeper Building, Suite 209, 

1606 Santa Rosa Road, 

Richmond, VA 23229-5014

804-287-1681

FAX 804-287-1737

ppaul@va.nrcs.usda.gov

WA

Chris Bieker 

509-353-2336

509-353-2354

cbieker@wa.nrcs.usda.gov

Rock Pointe Tower II, 

W. 316 Boone Avenue, Suite 450

Spokane, WA 99201-2348
174

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

randerso@wi.nrcs.usda.gov

Room 3124, Casper, WY 82601-1911

307-261-6482

FAX 307-261-6490

nla@wy.nrcs.usda.gov
■ Investing in the Future Through Agricultur

Research, Education, and Economics

USDA leads the world in basic and applied research, as it looks for waproblems challenging America’s food and fiber production system, a

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 Research 

(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

discover and disseminate knowledge that spans the biological, physical, a

sciences related to agricultural research, economic analysis, statistics, ext

higher education. The Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education R

enacted in June 1998, establishes an Initiative for Future Agriculture and 

Systems targeted toward critical emerging agricultural issues related to fu

production, environmental protection, or farm income.

Getting Your Money’s Worth. How does the responsibility translat

that benefit Americans?

In the international trade arena, USDA research is an important tool 

ing the Nation’s economy. For example, the protocol developed for detec

seed bacterial disease early and accurately eliminates foreign quarantine 

rejected shipments—keeping markets open for U.S. farm products. Anoth

U.S. rice establishes the quality standard for the most important small gra

world. USDA research advances in agricultural biotechnology can help im

quality and yields of rice, as well as reduce losses from pest damage. Thi

United States build an agricultural system that is highly competitive in th

economy.

REE is also rising to the challenge of balancing agricultural producti

environment. For example, USDA agricultural research is behind Integra

Management (IPM), a system that relies on a variety of natural technique

tives to chemical pesticides in order to reduce health risks, sustain natura

and create new economic opportunities. USDA’s goal is to have IPM in p
176

which is stronger and better for the environment than petroleumbased plastic 

utensils. 

In an effort to meet the challenge of providing a safe and secure food sup

all citizens, USDA scientists created a product that was approved by the Food 

Drug Administration called PREEMPT. This product can help poultry produc

reduce Salmonella contamination in chickens and offers a better and safer pro

REE is delivering on its commitment to a healthy well-nourished populat

with the production of a substance called Z-trim which can be used in a numb

food products as a fat replacement that tastes good. 

Delivering the Goods. How does USDA take these technologies and pro

from the labs to the marketplace?

REE works with land-grant institutions and industry to move research res

into the marketplace to boost economic opportunity and improve the quality o

for all Americans. REE works in partnership with the State agricultural experi

station system, based at land-grant universities to carry out a balanced program 

fundamental and applied research. This critical connection—with extension e

tors identifying and communicating agricultural, environmental, and commun

problems to researchers at campuses and experiment stations—helps to provid

ting edge technologies and new products. 

USDA uses Cooperative Research And Development Agreements (CRAD

get many of its research accomplishments to farmers, business people, and co

sumers. Under these agreements, USDA and its private sector partners agree t

develop certain technologies jointly so they can be commercialized. With mor

650 such partnerships, USDA leads all Federal research organizations in CRA

activity. CRADAs combine government expertise with entrepreneurial ability

ing government and small business to do more than they could alone. CRADA

imize resources and deliver results, giving farmers and consumers products th

need, and giving small business and rural America Federal partnerships that e

products and stimulate the economy. 

USDA also collaborates with other Federal Departments on research and 

nology transfer activities with far-reaching benefits. USDA has worked with t

Department of Defense in investigating new methods to control pests and redu

ticide use. Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Servi

(HHS) includes close coordination of human nutrition research done by the tw

Departments. The CRADAs and the Federal partnerships are examples of how 

can stimulate economic opportunity and improve the quality of life of Americ

Putting It All Together. To build an informed citizenry, and to provide th

mation base for market decisions, REE also coordinates economic and social

research. This research supports programs and policies across USDA, providi

information, and economic and statistical analyses on a variety of topics: rura

opment, the environment and natural resources, food safety, food prices, farm 

farm income, financial conditions, commodity markets, and international trad

Forecasts and estimates for over 165 different crop and livestock commoditie

provided annually to farmers, ranchers, and other agribusinesses. This inform
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 rese

ence, and technology to the needs of people where they live and work. RE

information on issues ranging from community economic development a

care concerns to food safety, water quality, children, youth and families, a

able agriculture. For example, REE programs reach over 5.4 million yout

United States and the Territories. CSREES’ Families, 4-H, and Nutrition 

empower youth to become responsible contributing members of their com

while the Ag in the Classroom program reaches K-12 students. Programs 

healthy learning experiences, increased self-esteem, enhanced problem-s

and agricultural literacy. Almost 700,000 volunteers contribute to these p

which also draw on teachers, State and local government officials, agricu

nizations, and agribusiness, further enhancing their effect.

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 (NAL)—the 

cultural library in the world and one of three national libraries of the Unit

As the Nation’s chief resource providing agricultural information, NAL o

researchers, educators, policymakers, farmers, consumers, and the genera

approximately 48 miles of bookshelves to peruse in a 14-story building, a

access to the library’s 2 million volumes through its computerized networ

tronic bulletin board. 

Research—A Sound Investment. REE serves people along the enti

fiber chain—from the farm gate to the consumer’s kitchen table. Sound s

vides new technology and information useful to Americans as well as peo

the world in their daily lives. The REE agencies develop new products an

explore profitable marketing strategies, develop technologies to improve 

processing efficiency, increase food safety, improve human nutrition, and 

and enhance natural resources. Studies demonstrate that consumers reap 

of investing in agricultural research; every tax dollar invested in the U.S. 

system has paid back at least $1.35. Information about the REE mission a

respective agencies—Agricultural Research Service; Cooperative State R

Education, and Extension Service; Economic Research Service; and Nati

Agricultural Statistics Service—is available on the REE World Wide Web 

at http://www.reeusda.gov/ree/

■ Agricultural Research Service

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is the principal in-house resagency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

ARS research has contributed to improved crop yields and more env

sensitive farming techniques. But the impact of ARS research extends far 
178

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 b

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 soy

oil instead of petroleum solve more than one problem. Unlike petroleum, soyb

are a renewable resource, and this technology diversifies markets for soybean 

and choices for ink manufacturers and printers.

ARS research provides solutions to a wide range of problems related to a

ture—problems that require long-term commitment of resources or that are un

to have solutions with a quick commercial payoff that would tempt private ind

to do the research. These problems range from fighting the ongoing battle to p

crops and livestock from costly pests and diseases, to improving quality and s

agricultural commodities and products for humans, to making the best use of 

resources. All the while, the research results must help ensure profitability for 

ducers and processors while keeping costs down for consumers.

ARS: A Year in Research: Selected Highlights

■ Development of Biodegradable Lubricants

Petroleum-based products that are currently in use are not biodegra

able, and they often contaminate the environment or become a disposal problem. With a new process developed by ARS scientists in

Peoria, Illinois, vegetable oils can now yield biodegradable lubricant

that are environmentally friendly.

■ Development of Improved Varieties of Cotton Germplasm

ARS scientists at Stoneville, Mississippi, completed several years of

field tests showing that okra-leaf cotton plants are better suited for a

lower level of pesticide application than had been previously used.

Once transferred into commercial varieties, the okra-leaf trait is

expected to contribute significantly to decreased pesticide use.

■ Reducing Imported Fire Ant Population

ARS scientists at the South American Biological Control Laboratory 

Argentina have been collaborating with ARS researchers in

Gainesville, Florida, in testing natural control agents that have demo

strated promise in reducing the imported fire ant populations.

■ Linking Age-Associated Changes in Behavior to Oxidative Stres

ARS scientists at the Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at

Tufts University indicate that one of the major sites of action of oxida

tive stress is the membrane of neurological cells. Research showed

that increased consumption of fruits and vegetables might prevent o

reverse such neurological stress.
For more information about ARS, see its home page: http://www.ars.

National Agricultural Library

Established in 1862 under legislation signed by President Abraham L

National Agricultural Library (NAL) is one of four national libraries of th

States (with the Library of Congress, the National Library of Medicine, a

National Library of Education). 

The NAL mission is to ensure and enhance access to agricultural info

a better quality of life. The library serves national and international custo

including researchers, educators, policymakers, information providers, ag

producers, students, and the general public. 

NAL is the largest agricultural library in the world—with over 3.3 m

in its collection and 48 miles of bookshelves. Tens of thousands of new it

added to the collection each year. Materials date back several hundred ye

include books, journals, reports, theses, photographs, films, videotapes, m

work, artifacts, software, laser discs, CD-ROMs, and more. The library a

about 22,000 periodicals annually. The collection is international in scope 

includes items in nearly 40 foreign languages. 

Located in Beltsville, Maryland, NAL is part of USDA’s Agricultura

Service. In addition to being a national library, NAL is the departmental l

USDA, serving thousands of USDA employees around the world. NAL is 

resource of USDA scientific and research activities. 

ARS researchers in Morris, Minnesota, are conducting on-farm 

of a computer model that considers interactions between soil typ

growing season climate conditions in adjusting midsummer app

of fertilizers. Precision application of nutrients will lead to reduce

nutrient applications and lower off-site concentrations of nutrien

water.

■ Using Biological Control Agents To Reduce the Invasive We

Leafy Spurge

ARS scientists in Sidney, Montana, and Montpelier, France, in c

ation with USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, h

identified, tested, and released several beneficial spurge feeding

insects into North America. Ranchers and farmers, along with F

State, and local land managers, are now using these insects to 

leafy spurge over vast areas of range and pasture land.

■ Reducing Human Lyme Disease Risk

Scientists at Livestock Insects Research Laboratory at Kerrville, 

developed and patented the self-treatment device that controls t

both antlered and antlerless white-tailed deer. This technology is 

rently being used in Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New 

and Maryland to reduce the risk of humans being infected by tic

rying Lyme disease.
180

ranging from college students to retired persons work on various programs at 

library too. NAL also has an active visiting scholar program, which allows pro

sors, scientists and librarians from universities worldwide to work full-time at 

on projects of mutual interest. 

AGRICOLA (AGRICultural OnLine Access) is NAL’s bibliographic data

providing quick access to the NAL collection. AGRICOLA contains more tha

million citations to agricultural literature and is available on the World Wide W

through the NAL home page at http://www.nal.usda.gov

NAL: Selected Highlights

■ Expanding Access to Information Resources

Through its Electronic Media Center, NAL provides ARS scientists w

desktop computer access to over 30 databases pertaining to the agr

cultural and related sciences, enabling users to operate more efficiently by searching their own databases without leaving their offices

■ Ensuring Long Term Access to Agricultural Information

In 1997 NAL, in collaboration with other Government agencies and

land-grant universities, convened a conference to address the electronic preservation of USDA digital publications and developed a pre

liminary preservation plan. NAL’s accomplishments in preserving

USDA paper and digital publications will ensure that these materials

will not be lost to future generations.

■ Expanding the Agriculture Network Information Center (AgNIC)

Gateway to Electronic Information Relating to Agriculture.

AgNIC is a distributed information network on the Internet that was 

created by NAL and land-grant universities to provide access to onlin

reference services. Additional services and databases are continual

added to AgNIC, increasing its usefulness to the agricultural 

community.

■ Making USDA History Collection Available for Research 

Since the transfer of the USDA history collection to NAL in 1997, the

library has organized and rehoused the entire collection. The collect

is now being frequently used for research and reference purposes by

USDA employees and the general public.

■ NAL Database Available on the Web

AGRICOLA, NAL’s bibliographic database of over 3.3 million records

on the literature of agriculture, is now available on the World Wide W

through the NAL homepage at http://www.nal.usda.gov This allows

access via the web to the NAL collection at any time, anywhere, to

anyone.
tural knowledge. This is being done more and more through application o

tronic information technology (the Internet and World Wide Web, CD-RO

discs, etc.). NAL has gained international recognition as a leader in this a

NAL maintains specialized information centers in areas of particular 

the agricultural community. These centers provide a wide range of custom

mation services such as responding to specific reference requests, develop

mational materials, coordinating outreach activities, and establishing info

exchange and dissemination networks. Subjects covered by NAL informa

include alternative farming systems, animal welfare, food and nutrition, p

genome, technology transfer for rural information (including rural health

quality. 

For walk-in visitors, the library is open from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays. Many of NAL’s serv

available at anytime through the NAL home page.

NAL can be contacted at:

The National Agricultural Library

Agricultural Research Service, USDA

10301 Baltimore Avenue

Beltsville, MD 20705-2351

(301) 504-5755

E-mail: agref@nal.usda.gov

■ Cooperative State Research, Education, a

Extension Service 

The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (Cunites the research and higher education functions of the former USD

Cooperative State Research Service and the education and outreach funct

former Extension Service. 

CSREES links the research and education resources and activities of 

resulting in better customer service and an enhanced ability to respond to 

issues and national priorities. 

In cooperation with its partners and customers, CSREES advances a 

tem of research, higher education, and extension in the food and agricultu

and related environmental and human sciences to benefit people, commu

the Nation. 

CSREES programs increase scientific knowledge and provide key ac

knowledge; strengthen the research, higher education, and extension capa

land-grant and other institutions; increase access to and use of improved 

tion and network systems; and promote informed decisionmaking by prod

ilies, communities, and other customers that leads to a better quality of lif

brighter future. 
182

cultural productivity and development of new products; safer, cleaner food, w

and air; enhanced stewardship and management of natural resources; healthie

more responsible individuals, families, and communities; and a stable, secure

diverse, and affordable national food supply.

Partnership

The CSREES international research, education, and extension network is

strengthened by partnerships that maximize resources and program impact. A 

spectrum of partners includes other USDA agencies, Federal and State govern

departments, nonprofit organizations, and private sector entities. Working wit

land-grant universities and their representatives is critical to the effective shar

ning, delivery, and accountability for research, higher education and extension 

grams. CSREES partners include:

■ Over 130 colleges of agriculture, including land-grant institutions in e

State and territory,

■ 59 agricultural experiment stations,

■ 57 cooperative extension services,

■ 63 schools of forestry,

■ 16 1890 historically black land-grant institutions and Tuskegee Univer

■ 27 colleges of veterinary medicine,

■ 42 schools and colleges of family and consumer sciences,

■ 29 1994 Native American land-grant institutions,

■ 160 Hispanic-serving institutions, 

■ Federal and State governments, and 

■ Nonprofit organizations and the private sector.

Programs

CSREES research, education, and extension leadership is provided throu

grams in Plant and Animal Production, Protection, and Processing; Natural Re

and Environment; Rural, Economic, and Social Development; Families, 4-H, 

Nutrition; Partnerships; Competitive Research Grants and Awards Manageme

Science and Education Resources Development; and Communications, Techn

and Distance Education. 

Advanced Communication Technology

CSREES is a recognized leader in helping the Nation build the National

Information Infrastructure (NII) for agriculture. Cutting edge technologies an

cations are used to provide critical community access to the research, educatio

extension knowledge that empowers citizens to be active participants in resha

society and solving complex problems at the local level. CSREES enables acc

education through interactive distance education programs that relate to the va

ways people learn. With all State extension system offices and 75 percent of c

offices interconnected via interactive communication technology, CSREES is 

respond in a timely and credible manner to critical issues and public needs. 
■ 5.

oyoutvoved pogas tat cease seeste

enhance problem-solving skills in a positive, supportive environm

■ Managing Change in Agriculture, a national initiative to help U.S

producers respond to profound changes in how food is produced, 

distributed, and marketed in the United States and globally

■ The National Research Initiative supporting research in the biolog

cal, and social sciences to solve key agricultural and environment

■ Over 9,600 local extension agents working in 3,150 counties

■ Over 9,500 scientists conducting research at 59 State agricultural 

stations

■ Immediate electronic access to vital disaster safety and recovery i

in time critical disasters, such as hurricanes, wildfires, and floods

■ Higher education programs based on national needs to develop th

and professional expertise required to advance the food, agricultu

ural resource systems and maintain excellence in college and univ

ing programs

■ World Wide Web access to USDA research and agricultural statist

■ 3 million trained volunteers working with national outreach educa

programs 

■ Cutting-edge research programs on value-added product developm

and animal genome, integrated pest management, water quality, h

tion, food safety, and animal and plant systems

■ Model education programs in sustainable agriculture; water quali

safety; children, youth and families; health; environmental stewar

tance education; and community economic development 

CSREES: Selected Highlights

■ Increasing Registration of Pest Control Agents for Minor-Us

Crops

Accomplishments include the registration of a herbicide used fo

broadleaf weed control on cucumbers. Scientists at Washington 

estimate a savings of $1 million in herbicide and labor costs on 2

acres of the crop grown in that State, and potential savings are 

higher, when nationwide cucumber production is considered.

■ Extending the Shelf-Life of Fresh-Cut Fruit

Researchers at University of California, Davis, are carrying out a 

supported by the National Research Initiative (NRI) that will dete

the effects of oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations on fruit 

browning. This knowledge will be used to improve packaging an

handling of fresh-cut fruits, leading to increased availability of th

products for consumers and expanded markets for producers.
184

Agricultural economists at Purdue University in Indiana received an

NRI grant to study the relationship among different economic sectors

in the balance of trade. The results showed that restricting imports o

manufactured fiber products and textiles into North America had indi

rect impacts on NAFTA’s potential level of exports. Ultimately, the

research showed that imposing trade restrictions in one sector of the

economy can have dire consequences in another.

■ Establishing Networks To Enhance the Understanding of Risk

Management Alternatives

Extension specialists are conducting educational programs to help p

ducers and agribusinesses meet the added responsibility of risk man

agement they face as a result of the 1996 Farm Bill, increasingly

global markets, the changing structure of agriculture, and the use of

new and unproven technologies. State extension agents are commu

cating with USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) personnel to

determine the appropriate risk management alternatives.

■ Developing and Facilitating Hazard Analysis and Critical Contro

Points (HACCP) Training

Representatives from Texas A&M University, Virginia Polytechnic

Institute and State University, and Kansas State University collaborated with employees of the Food and Drug Administration and USD

Food Safety and Inspection Service in developing state planning

strategies for HACCP training and education. Such efforts are consid

ered essential for supporting the President’s Food Safety Initiative.

■ Improving Nutrition Education Instruction

Extension nutrition educators at the University of Massachusetts hav

enhanced the quality of nutrition education supported by the Expand

Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP). After completing 

the program, EFNEP participants increased their consumption of 

nutritious foods, and made improvements in food purchasing and 

meal preparation.

■ Providing Education for Environmental Project

In Connecticut, Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO)

programs have sparked changes in local public policy and environmental stewardship. Municipal plans for conservation and development, zoning regulations, and subdivision requirements have been

changed to address water resource protection. Watershed management plans have been initiated, and neighboring towns have pledge

to work together through watershed conservation compacts.

Development designs have been altered to better protect waterways
ment in the telephone directory), a landgrant university, or the Cooperati

Research, Education and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agricult

Washington, DC 20250-0900. Telephone: 202-720-3029, Fax: 202-690-0

Internet: csrees@reeusda.gov or World Wide Web: http://www.reeusda.go

Did You Know? 

Agriculture is one of the three most hazardous U.S. occupations.

CSREES-supported farm safety education programs in all 50 State

Puerto Rico teach volunteer firefighters and rescue crews how to re

to farm accidents, certify training for the safe operation of tractors a

other machinery, and instill in children a general awareness of farm 

ards including poisons, all-terrain vehicles, and other equipment. 

The CSREES Integrated Pest Management program uses a sustai

approach that manages crop pests through biological, cultural, phy

and chemical procedures to minimize economic, health, and enviro

tal risks. 

The CSREES Agricultural Telecommunications Program, establish

the 1990 Farm Bill, helps universities develop agricultural telecomm

tions capacity by funding projects in support of formal and nonform

courses, faculty and staff education, program delivery, community-

access to education, student training in food and agricultural caree

facilitation of scientific interaction, and expansion of agricultural ma

for farmers. 

CSREES international programs are building democracy through a

ture in Poland, Armenia, Bulgaria, Russia, and Ukraine by providing 

education and technical assistance needed to help these countries 

the transition to a market economy.

The CSREES Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (E

helps limited-resource youth, pregnant teens, and families with you

children in all 50 States and 6 territories improve their nutritional we

being and make better use of their food dollars, which decreases th

number of families participating in the Food Stamp and WIC Progra

CSREES collaborates with the Children’s Nutrition Research Cente

College of Medicine at Baylor University to improve the nutrition ed

provided from kindergarten through grade 12 and to link the medica

research, extension, and education communities.
186

■ Economic Research Service

As the Department’s economic research agency, the Economic Research S(ERS) provides information and analysis that is used by public officials i

oping, administering, and evaluating agricultural and rural policies and progra

well as by farmers and consumers. ERS has recently analyzed and reported on 

economics of issues and decisions associated with trade liberalization, food as

tance, climate change, rural credit, water quality, vertical coordination in agric

industries, rural empowerment zones, U.S. agricultural productivity, new mea

inspection systems, nutrition information, exports of U.S. farm products, rura

lation trends, and food safety concerns. 

Overall, the scope of the ERS research and monitoring program covers a 

spectrum including the following areas:

■ Domestic and international agriculture

■ Nutrition education and food assistance, food safety regulation, determ

of consumer demand for quality and safety of food, and food marketin

and developments

■ Agricultural resource and environmental issues

■ National, rural, and agricultural conditions affecting the rural economy

financial performance of the farm sector, and the implications of chang

farm credit and financial market structures

ERS-produced information is available to the public through research rep

situation and outlook reports, electronic media, newspapers, magazines, radio

frequent participation of ERS staff at public forums. In addition, ERS publish

health professionals on safely accommodating disability in agriculture. 

CSREES is a leader in developing training programs for public and priv

pesticide applicators that combine education with new technology to mi

mize pesticide drift. Current pesticide applicator programs train over ha

million people each year on the safe and environmentally sound use of

pesticides. 

CSREES promotes research and development of industrial products th

are environmentally friendly, biodegradable, recyclable, and manufactured from renewable resources grown domestically.

CSREES water quality programs include Farm*A*Syst, an award-winni

national water pollution prevention program which conducts surface an

ground water audits, and the Blue Thumb Project, which brings water

education into the community and empowers local residents to address

their own water problems. 
through a variety of formats. Printed reports can be ordered through the E

sales desk at 1-800-999-6779. Many reports, data bases, and other types o

tion are available on the ERS web site at www.econ.ag.gov and the ERS A

tem at 202-694-5700.

■ National Agricultural Statistics Service

The mission of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) is basic agricultural and rural data needs of the people of the United Sta

working in agriculture, and those living in rural communities by objectiv

ing important, usable, and accurate statistical information and services ne

make informed decisions.

NASS headquarters is located in Washington, DC, while the 45 State 

Offices (SSO’s) cover 120 crops and 45 livestock items annually in the 50 

Current and historical information is published in approximately 400 repo

feature:

■ Crop acreage, yield, production, and grain stocks,

■ Livestock, dairy, and poultry production and prospects,

■ Chemical use in agriculture, including post-harvest applications o

crops,

■ Labor use and wage rates,

■ Farms and land in farms, and

■ Prices, costs, and returns.

An abundance of agricultural information is available to data users th

NASS programs. In addition to the information above, estimates on more 

commodities, including hop stocks, mink, cherries, cranberries, lentils, an

mint oil, are also available. The information is geared toward producers a

them plan planting, feeding, breeding, and marketing programs. The data 

used by agricultural organizations, services, and businesses; trade groups

cial institutions to determine demand for inputs, resources, transportation

and livestock products related to storage. In addition, the data are used to 

carry out agricultural policy concerning farm program legislation, comm

grams, agricultural research, and rural development.

Most estimates are based on information gathered from producers su

through personal and telephone interviews or through mailed questionnai

tion, for major crops such as corn, wheat, soybeans, and cotton, in-the-fie

and measurement of plant development are made in top producing States

mates are based on surveys of grain elevators, hatcheries, and other agrib

well as on administrative data such as slaughter records.

Data collected from these varied sources are summarized by the NAS

serving that State and sent to the agency’s Agricultural Statistics Board in

Washington, DC, whose members determine and issue State and national 

estimates.
188

Year Census of Agriculture, previously administered by the Commerce Depar

Census Bureau. This will broaden the scope of agricultural statistics available

through the agency. Results from the 1997 Census of Agriculture survey will 

available in print and electronically in early 1999.

The census is a complete accounting of U.S. agricultural production and 

source of uniform, comprehensive agricultural data for every county in the Na

The 1997 Census of Agriculture survey results will include data on land use a

ership, operator characteristics, crops, machinery and equipment, livestock, fe

poultry, chemicals, market value of products, energy expenditures, irrigated la

production expenses, type of organization, farm programs, and corporate struc

For More Information

Agricultural Research

Service

Director, Information Staff

Sandy Miller Hays

Rm 450, 6303 Ivy Lane, 

Greenbelt, MD 20770

301-344-2340

FAX 301-344-2325

shays@ars-grin.gov

Current Info Branch Chief

Sean Adams (Acting)

Rm 441 6303 Ivy Lane, 

Greenbelt, MD 20770

301-344-2723

FAX 301-344-2311

sadams@asrr.arsusda.gov

Chief, Information Products and

Services Branch

Ruth Coy

Rm 400, 6303 Ivy Lane, 

Greenbelt, MD 20770

301-344-2152 

FAX 301-344-2325

rcoy@asrr.arsusda.gov

Nat’l Visitor Center Head

John Kucharski

Bldg 302, BARC-E, Beltsville, MD 20705

FAX 301-504-8069

301-504-9403

nvs@asrr.arsusda.gov

Freedom of Info Act Officers

Rm 456 6303 Ivy Lane

Greenbelt, MD 20770

Valerie Herberger

301-344-2066

FAX 301-344-2325

vherberg@asrr.arsusda.gov

Stasia Hutchison

301-344-2207

shutchis@asrr.arsusda.gov

Field Offices

ARS Information, USDA-ARS

Nat’l Center for Agricultural Utiliz

1815 N. University

Peoria, IL 61604

309-681-6534

FAX 309-681-6534

ARS Information, USDA-ARS

Western Regional Research Center

800 Buchanan St.

Albany, CA 94710

510-559-6070

FAX 510-559-6070

National Agricultural

Library

Public Affairs Officer

Brian Norris

204-NAL Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-6778

FAX 301-504-5472

bnorris@nal.usda.gov
(, g, )

301-504-5755

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Stasia Hutchison

Rm 456 6303 Ivy Lane, 

Greenbelt, MD 20770

301-344-2207

FAX 301-344-2325

shutchis@asrr.arsusda.gov

NALTDD/TTY

301-504-6856

DCRC TDD/TTY

202-720-3434

Information Centers Branch

Robyn Frank

304-NAL Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5414

FAX 301-504-6409

rfrank@nal.usda.gov

Agricultural Trade and Marketing

Information Center

Mary Lassanyi

304-NAL Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5509

FAX 301-504-6409

mlassany@nal.usda.gov

Alternative Farming Systems

Information Center

Jane Gates

304-NAL Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5724

FAX 301-504-6409

jgates@nal.usda.gov

Animal Welfare Information Center

Jean Larson

304-NAL Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5215

FAX 301-504-7125

jlarson@nal.usda.gov

Food and Nutrition Information Center

Vacant

304-NAL Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5719

FAX 301-504-6409

fnic@nal.usda.gov

, 

301-504-5372

FAX 301-504-5181

pjohn@nalusda.gov

Rural Information Center

DC area and International

304-NAL Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5547

All other U.S. calls 

304-NAL Beltsville, MD 20705

1-800-633-7701

Reference & User Service Bra

Leslie Kulp

4Flr-NAL Beltsville, MD 2070

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

Reference Desk

Librarian on Duty

1 Flr-NAL Beltsville, MD 2070

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 Projec

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 
190

, 

301-504-5204

FAX 301-504-6927

drichard@nal.usda.gov

Plant Genome Data and Information

Center

Susan McCarthy

4 Flr-NAL Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-6875

FAX 301-504-7098

pgenome@nal.usda.gov 

Special Collections Program

Susan Fugate

3 Flr-NAL Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-6503

FAX 301-504-5675

speccoll@nal.usda.gov 

Technology Transfer Information

Center

Kathleen Hayes

4 Flr-NAL Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-6875

FAX 301-504-7098

khayes@nal.usda.gov 

Water Quality Information Center

Joseph Makuch

4 Flr-NAL Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-6875

FAX 301-504-7098

jmakuch@nal.usda.gov

D.C. Reference Center

Janet Wright

Rm 1052-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-3434

FAX 202-720-3200

jwright@nal.usda.gov

Global Change

Roberta Rand

Rm 013NAL Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-6684

FAX 301-504-7098

rrand@nal.usda.gov

Extension Service

Dep Admin, Comm, Tech and Dista

Education

Barbara A. White

Rm 3328-S Washington, DC 20250

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

Senior OIRM Officer Curtis Clark

Rm 3328-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-4241

FAX 202-401-5174

cclark@reeusda.gov

Dir. Comm./Info. Access

Terry Meisenbach

Rm 3334-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-2677

FAX 202-690-0289

tmeisenbach@reeusda.gov

Media Relations—News

Len Carey

Rm 3320-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-1358

FAX 202-690-0289

lcarey@reeusda.gov

Media Relations—Features

Marti Asner

Rm 3324-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8188

FAX 202-690-0289

masner@reeusda.gov

Freedom of Info Act Officers

Valerie Herberger

Rm 456 6303 Ivy Lane, 

Greenbelt, MD 20770

301-344-2066

vherberg@asrr.arsusda.gov

Stasia Hutchison

301-344-2207

FAX 202-690-0289

shutchis@asrr.arsusda.gov
Adrie Custer

1800 M St. NW, Rm. S-2018 Washington, DC 20036-5831

202-694-5120

Fax 202-694-5638

acuster@econ.ag.gov

Media Services

Jack Harrison

1800 M St. NW, Rm. S-2037 Washington, DC 20036-5831

202-694-5119

Fax 202-694-5639

jackh@econ.ag.gov

Outlook

Diane Decker

1800 M St. NW, Rm. S-2043 Washington, DC 20036-5831

202-694-5116

Fax 202-694-5638

ddecker@econ.ag.gov

Periodicals

Linda Hatcher

1800 M St. NW, Rm. S-2042 Washington, DC 20036-5831

202-694-5121

Fax 202-694-5638

lhatcher@econ.ag.gov

Research Publishing Tom McDonald

1800 M St. NW, Rm. S-2038 Washington, DC 20036-5831

202-694-5129

Fax 202-694-5638

thomasm@econ.ag.gov

, 

Washington, DC 20036-5831

202-694-5131

Fax 202-694-5638

dparry@econ.ag.gov

Information Center/Publicatio

Distribution

1800 M St. NW, Rm. S-3100 Washington, DC 20036-5831

202-694-5050

Fax 202-694-5718

service@econ.ag.gov

FOIA Coordinators Valerie Herberger

6303 Ivy Lane, Rm. 456

Greenbelt, MD 20770

301-344-2066

Fax 301-344-2325

lnvherberg@assr.arsusda.gov

Stasia Hutchison

6303 Ivy Lane, Rm. 456

Greenbelt, MD 20770

301-344-2207

Fax 301-344-2325

shutchis@assr.arsusda.gov
192

the public in a variety of formats. The following table shows some methods by 

which NASS data can be accessed.

National Agricultural Statistics Service - Electronic Access

Internet:

NASS Home Page: http://www.usda.gov/nass/

NASS Gopher Site: usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

NASS Autofax: 202-720-2000

Place a call from your fax machine to receive highlights of selected NAS

reports. 

Listen to and respond to the voice prompts. You may request up to three 

documents per call.

Printed Reports or Data Products

(free catalog available on request)

Orders only 1-800-999-6779

Customer service and foreign orders 703-605-6220

Fax: 703-321-8547

Mail order requests to: ERS-NASS

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

Assistance

If you need general agricultural statistics or further information about NASS o

its products or services, please contact:

Agricultural Statistics Hotline 1-800-727-9540

(Operating hours: 7:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. ET Monday thru Friday)

Fax: 202-690-2090

E-Mail: NASS@NASS.USDA

Census of Agriculture Information 1-800-523-3215

(Operating Hours: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Monday thru Friday)

Local Walk-In Service

(Operating Hours: 7:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Monday thru Friday)

National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA

Room 5829, South Building

14th & Independence Ave. SW

Washington, DC 20250
pp

ticular State, call the State Statistician at

any of the following offices, or e-mail at

NASS**@NASS.USDA.GOV. 

Replace ** with the State abbreviation.

ALABAMA (AL)

Montgomery

800-832-4181

ALASKA (AK)

Palmer

800-478-6079

ARIZONA (AZ)

Phoenix

800-645-7286

ARKANSAS (AR)

Little Rock

800-327-2970

CALIFORNIA (CA)

Sacramento

800-851-1127

COLORADO (CO)

Lakewood

800-392-3202

DELAWARE (DE)

Dover

800-282-8685*

FLORIDA (FL)

Orlando

800-344-6277

GEORGIA (GA)

Athens

800-253-4419

HAWAII (HI)

Honolulu

800-804-9514

IDAHO (ID)

Boise

800-691-9987

ILLINOIS (IL)

Springfield

800-622-9865

IOWA (IA)

Des Moines

800-772-0825

KANSAS (KS)

Topeka

800-258-4564

KENTUCKY (KY)

Louisville

800-928-5277

LOUISIANA (LA)

Baton Rouge

800-256-4485

MARYLAND (MD)

Annapolis

800-675-0295

MICHIGAN (MI)

Lansing

800-453-7501

MINNESOTA (MN)

St. Paul

800-453-7502

MISSISSIPPI (MS)

Jackson

800-535-9609

MISSOURI (MO)

Columbia

800-551-1014

MONTANA (MT)

Helena

800-835-2612

NEBRASKA (NE)

Lincoln

800-582-6443*

NEVADA (NV)

Reno

1-800-456-7211

NEW ENGLAND (NH)

Concord, NH

800-642-9571

NEW JERSEY (NJ)

Trenton

800-328-0179
194

800-530-8810

NEW YORK (NY)

Albany

800-821-1276

NORTH CAROLINA (NC)

Raleigh

800-437-8451

NORTH DAKOTA (ND)

Fargo

800-626-3134

OHIO (OH)

Reynoldsburg

800-858-8144

OKLAHOMA (OK)

Oklahoma City

800-525-9226

OREGON (OR)

Portland

800-338-2157

PENNSYLVANIA (PA)

Harrisburg

800-498-1518

SOUTH CAROLINA (SC)

Columbia

800-424-9406

800-338-2557

TENNESSEE (TN)

Nashville

800-626-0987

TEXAS (TX)

Austin

800-626-3142

UTAH (UT)

Salt Lake City

800-747-8522

VIRGINIA (VA)

Richmond

800-772-0670

WASHINGTON (WA)

Olympia

800-435-5883

WEST VIRGINIA (WV)

Charleston

800-535-7088

WISCONSIN (WI)

Madison

800-789-9277

WYOMING (WY)

Cheyenne

800-892-1660

* Toll Free Within State Only
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 syste

possible to pick and choose from a variety of products, available all year 

lored to meet the demands of today’s lifestyles. Millions of people—from 

retailers—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

unsurpassed by any in the world. And USDA’s Agricultural Marketing S

(AMS) helps make sure the U.S. marketing system remains world-class.

Services to Promote Quality: Quality Standards, Grad

Certification

Wherever or whenever you shop, you expect good, uniform quality 

able prices for the food you purchase. AMS quality grade standards, grad

oratory services are voluntary tools that industry can use to help promote 

communicate quality and wholesomeness to consumers. Industry pays fo

vices and they are voluntary, so their widespread use by industry indicate

valuable tools in helping to market products.

USDA quality grade marks are usually seen on beef, lamb, veal, chic

butter, and eggs. For many other products, such as fresh and processed fr

etables, the grade mark isn’t always visible on the retail product. In these 

ties, the grading service is used by wholesalers, and the final retail packa

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

well as those involved in the marketing of agricultural products, benefit f

independent assessment of product quality provided by AMS grade stand

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.
196

ggyg

ton, and more than 312 fruit, vegetable, and specialty product standards.

The food testing side of the AMS program has nine “user fee” laboratori

forming numerous microbiological, chemical, and physical analyses on a hos

and fiber commodities, including processed dairy products, meat, poultry, egg 

ucts, fruits, and vegetables. This testing supports AMS purchases for the Nati

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 

products.

In addition to grading and laboratory services, USDA provides certificati

vices, for a fee, that facilitate ordering and purchase of products used by large

ume buyers. Certification assures buyers that the products they purchase will 

terms of their contracts—with respect to quality, processing, size, packaging, 

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. Gr

review and accept agricultural products to make sure they meet specifications 

private-sector purchasers. They also certify food items purchased for Federal 

programs.

Spreading the News 

Farmers, shippers, wholesalers, and retailers across the country rely on A

Market News for up-to-the-minute information on commodity prices and ship

Market News helps industry make the daily critical decisions about where an

to sell. Because this information is made so widely available, farmers and tho

market agricultural products are better able to compete, ensuring consumers a 

and reasonably priced food supply.

■ Facts about grading: 

From October 1997 through September 1998, USDA graded 30 pe

cent of the shell eggs and 95 percent of the butter produced in the

United States. Eighty-three billion pounds of fresh fruits and veget

bles and more than 12 billion pounds of processed fruits and vege

bles received a USDA grade mark. Nearly all of the meat industry

requests AMS grading services: USDA grades were applied to 82

percent of all beef, 87 percent of all lambs, 22 percent of all veal a

calves, 69 percent of all turkeys, and 45 percent of all chickens an

other poultry marketed in this country. USDA also graded more tha

98 percent of the cotton and 97 percent of the tobacco produced in

the United States.
ypygg

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

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 Internet; electron

direct contact with USDA reporters.

Buying Food: Helping Farmers, School Children, Need

Families, and Charitable Institutions

AMS serves farmers, as well as those in need of nutrition assistance

commodity procurement programs. By purchasing wholesome, high-qua

products, particularly when surpluses exist, AMS helps provide stable m

producers. The Nation’s food assistance programs benefit from these pur

because these foods go to low-income individuals, families, and instituti

might otherwise be unable to afford them.

Some of the programs and groups that typically receive USDA-dona

include: children in the National School Lunch, Summer Camp, and Sch

Breakfast Programs; Native Americans participating in the Food Distribu

Program on Indian Reservations; older Americans through the Nutrition 

the Elderly; and low-income and homeless persons through the Commod

Supplemental Food Program and the Emergency Food Assistance Progra

tion, USDA helps provide disaster relief by making emergency purchase

modities for distribution to disaster victims.

Once USDA determines that a purchase is appropriate, AMS publicl

bids, and makes sure that the food it purchases meets specified quality an

standards. As appropriate, AMS often specifies foods be within certain ra

sugar, and salt. By policy, AMS purchases only those products that are 10

domestic in origin.

Pesticides: Information and Records

The U.S. food supply is one of the safest in the world, but the public 

cerned about the effects of agricultural pesticides on human health and e

quality. The Pesticide Data Program (PDP), which is administered by AM

statistically reliable information on chemical residues found on agricultu

modities such as fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, grain, and mi

Federal-State partnership with 10 participating States using uniform proc

collect and test these commodities. The information gained helps form th

conducting realistic dietary risk assessments and evaluating pesticide tol

required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. The Environmental 
198

pg g

requires certified private applicators to keep records of their restricted use pes

applications for a period of 2 years. These records support collection of pestic

data to help analyze agricultural pesticide use and are used by health care pro

als when treating individuals who may have been exposed to a restricted use 

cide. AMS works with State pesticide regulatory agencies and Cooperative E

Services to provide the regulatory and educational aspects of the program.

Helping Farmers Promote Their Products

“The Touch...the Feel of Cotton...the Fabric of Our Lives,” “Beef...It’s W

Want,” “Got Milk?,” “The Incredible, Edible Egg.” If you’ve watched televis

read magazines lately, you’ve probably heard or read these slogans and other

host of agricultural commodities. All of these promotional campaigns are par

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

dairy products, eggs, fluid milk, honey, lamb, mushrooms, potatoes, soybeans

melons, and popcorn.

But, while advertising is one part of these programs, product research an

opment is also a major focus. Wrinkle-resistant cotton and low-cholesterol, lo

dairy products are just two examples of how these programs have benefitted c

sumers and expanded markets for producers.

New generic commodity promotion, research, and information legislatio

enacted as part of the 1996 Farm Bill to make Federal promotion and research 

grams available to more commodities.

■ Facts about marketing: 

The national fluid milk processors promotion program teamed up w

Dairy Management, Inc., to sponsor the “Got Milk?” campaign in

1998, featuring photographs of famous personalities wearing “milk

mustaches.” The board estimates that more than 200 million consumers have been reached by this promotion.
gg g py 

ally. Marketing orders are flexible tools that can be tailored to the needs o

market conditions for producing and selling. But they are also legal instr

have the force of law, with USDA ensuring an appropriate balance betwe

ests of producers looking for a fair price and consumers who expect an a

quality supply 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

etables, and specialty crops like nuts and raisins, to the benefit of produc

sumers. They help farmers produce for a market, rather than having to m

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

tion, marketing orders help maintain the quality of produce being market

ize packages or containers; and authorize advertising, research, and mark

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, and the bottom line is that fair trade and resolved disputes m

businesses of any size can operate in a better trade environment and cons

get a wider choice of reasonably priced, high-quality fruits and vegetable

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
200

gpg

shipper. USDA also tests seed for seed producers and seed buyers on a fee-fo

basis to determine quality.

The Plant Variety Protection Act provides patent-like protection to breed

plants that reproduce both sexually (that is, through seeds) and through tuber

Developers of new plant varieties can apply for certificates of protection. Thi

tion enables the breeder to market the variety exclusively for 20 years and, in 

doing, creates an incentive for investment in the development of new plant va

Since 1970, AMS’ Plant Variety Protection Office has issued more than 4,000 

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 t

coerce, intimidate, or discriminate against producers because they belong to s

groups. USDA helps to institute court proceedings when farmers’rights are fo

be so violated.

Organic Certification

AMS is responsible for developing and implementing an organic certific

program, which was authorized by the Organic Foods Production Act as part 

1990 Farm Bill. 

The goals of the organic certification program are to: 

■ Establish national standards governing the marketing of certain produ

organically produced, 

■ Assure consumers that organically grown products meet consistent sta

and 

■ Facilitate interstate commerce in fresh and processed food that is orga

produced. 

Under the act, a National Organic Standards Board was appointed in Jan

1992 to help develop standards for substances to be used in organic productio

In December 1997, USDA issued a proposed rule with a comment period 

closed at the end of April 1998. USDA received about 285,000 comments on 

posal and plans to issue a new proposal for further comment. 

Wholesale Market Development and Direct Marketing

The Wholesale and Alternative Markets program assists small, limited re

farmers in gaining access to markets. Two major areas of concentration are w

and collection markets, which help farmers gain access to the mass market, a

ers and public markets, which offers growers direct access to consumers.

The Wholesale and Collection Markets group conducts research related t

collection, analysis, and evaluation of data associated with wholesale and col

markets and publishes the results of these studies for use by decision makers 

agricultural community and others. Wholesale and collection markets are maj
gp 

tion, analysis, and evaluation of data associated with the development of 

public markets and publishes the results of these studies for use by rural 

decision makers. Farmers and public markets could become major sourc

fruits and vegetables offered directly to consumers, particularly inner-cit

support the Special Supplementary Nutrition Program for Women, Infan

Children (WIC); and serve as a major market outlet for small agricultura

The Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program (FSMIP) provi

funds to State Departments of Agriculture or other State agencies for ma

research or marketing service projects to improve marketing systems. Th

program is to reduce costs or identify new market opportunities for produ

mately benefiting consumers through lower food costs and more food ch

Projects include research on innovative marketing techniques, taking tho

findings into the marketplace to “test market” the results, and developing 

tise in providing service to marketers of agricultural products. In FY 199

FSMIP funded 26 projects in 22 States for 1.2 million.

Efficient Transportation for Agriculture

An efficient transportation system allows consumers access to a wid

agricultural products and commodities produced beyond their own locali

AMS, through its Transportation and Marketing Programs, conducts 

the availability and costs of transportation services for U.S. agricultural p

railroads, trucks, inland barges, and ocean-going vessels. AMS staff also 

transportation market reports and technical assistance to agricultural ship

marketing their products in domestic or international markets. Agricultur

producer groups, shippers, exporters, rural communities, carriers, and co

benefit from the analyses, technical assistance, and information provided 

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.

■ Fact about farmers markets: 

USDA defines a farmers market as a group of farmers and ven

leasing or renting space in a common facility on a temporary b

with an emphasis on the sale of fresh farm products, crafts, an

locally produced items. USDA estimates there are currently m

than 2,500 farmers markets in the United States.
202

g pqy 

that contract specifications have been met—in other words, that the buyer rec

the product in the condition and quantity described by the terms of the contra

commodity graders frequently support other USDA agencies involved in exp

tance, including the Farm Service Agency and the Foreign Agricultural Servi

U.S. companies often request certification services when exporting to a c

that has specific import requirements. Certification services provided by AMS 

avoid rejection of shipments or delay in delivery once the product reaches its 

destination. Delays lead to product deterioration and, ultimately, affect the im

U.S. quality. AMS’ Quality Systems Verification Program, a user-funded serv

the meat industry, provides independent, third-party verification of a supplier

mented quality management system. The program was developed to promote 

class quality and to improve the international competitiveness of U.S. livesto

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, other Pacific Rim countries, South Africa, several Eu

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 gr

are also often asked to demonstrate commodity quality to foreign firms and g

ments.

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, other Pacific Rim markets, Poland, Mexico, 

Australia, and New Zealand; information on fruits, vegetables, and ornament

France, Great Britain, Bulgaria, Poland, Mexico, New Zealand, Canada, Germ

Argentina, Japan, the Netherlands, Chile, and the Caribbean Basin; and inform

on 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 

abundant, high-quality products. And AMS will continue to work to help U.S

culture market its products in growing world markets, while assuring U.S. co

of an abundant supply of high-quality, wholesome food at reasonable prices.
Why are the farmers and ranchers of the United States able to producfood for the tables of America’s consumers? 

Of course, there’s no simple answer. But one key to this plentiful sup

can be summed up in a single phrase: “Healthy crops and livestock.”

And this is no accident. America’s agricultural health is a result of a 

effort—good husbandry by farmers and ranchers plus an organized effor

and eradicate pests and disease and to prevent the entry of devastating fo

plagues.

Just like frosts, floods, and droughts, pests and diseases can wreak h

cultural productivity, depressing farm incomes and driving up food costs 

sumers in the process. While we may not be able to prevent weather-rela

USDA plays a vital role in protecting our country’s agricultural health. T

more abundant, higher quality, and cheaper food supply than is found an

in the world. 

Agriculture is an important sector in our economy, and USDA’s Ani

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) helps to ensure that it remains h

strong. With the advent of free trade initiatives, a global network of coun

agreed that valid agricultural health concerns—not politics, not economi

only acceptable basis for trade restrictions. In this environment, our coun

cultural health infrastructure will be our farmers’ greatest ally in seeking 

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

access to our country in surprising ways. Their potential allies include ev

entering the United States and every American business importing agricu

ucts 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 could easily be passed to domestic 

serious epidemic could result. An outbreak of African swine fever in U.S

drive up the price of pork to consumers, cost hundreds of millions of dol

cate, and close many U.S. export markets.
204

pypy

the baggage of passengers for plant and animal products that could harbor pe

disease organisms. At international airports, detector dogs in APHIS’Beagle 

help find prohibited agricultural materials. PPQ officers also inspect ship and 

goes, rail and truck freight, and package mail from foreign countries. At anim

import centers, APHIS veterinarians check animals in quarantine to make sur

are not infected with any foreign pests or diseases before being allowed into t

country.

The following table provides selected inspection and interception da

FY 1994 1995 1996 

Ships inspected 53,270 52,661 52,974 

Aircraft inspected 451,342 401,741 410,318 

Passengers and crew inspected 62,548,979 65,645,734 66,119,960 68,

Interceptions of plant material 1,442,214 1,583,687 1,567,886 1,

Interceptions of pests 54,831 58,032 48,483 

Interceptions of meat/poultry

products 281,230 223,392 264,001 

Baggage civil penalties-number 22,164 21,813 20,716 

Baggage civil penalties-amount $1,186,310 $1,098,220 $1,080,000 $1,

From high-tech to a keen nose, APHIS uses a variety of means to safegu

American agriculture. PPQ officers augment visual inspection with some 85 x

units that help check passenger baggage and mail for prohibited agricultural m

als. They also have enlisted trained detector dogs and their keen sense of sme

help sniff out prohibited fruit and meat. On leashes and under the constant su

sion of their handlers, the friendly beagles in USDA’s Beagle Brigade have ch

the baggage of passengers arriving from overseas for 14 years. Currently, AP

about 60 canine teams at 21 airports, including 19 of America’s 20 busiest int

tional airports.

Preclearance—Checking at the Source

In addition to domestic exclusion efforts, APHIS’International Services 

a corps of experts stationed overseas or through the use of APHIS officers on 

rary duty to bolster the Nation’s defenses against exotic pests and diseases. O

more practical and effective to check and monitor commodities for pests or d

at the source through preclearance programs. APHIS has special arrangement

number of countries for preclearance programs, which are summarized in the 

ing table.
gppp

Australia Apples, nashi pears, pears, grapes

Belgium Bulb inspection

Brazil Mangoes (hot water treatment)

Chile Stonefruit, berries, grapes, cut flowers,

cherimoya, kiwifruit, other fruits & vegetable

Colombia Mangoes (hot water treatment)

Costa Rica Mangoes (hot water treatment)

Ecuador Mangoes (hot water treatment) & melons (fre

France Apples

Great Britain Bulb inspection

Guatemala Mangoes (hot water treatment) & melons

Haiti Mangoes (hot water treatment)

Ireland Bulb inspection

Israel Bulb inspection

Jamaica Ugli fruit, cut flowers, papaya & 46 other com

Japan Sand pears, Unshu oranges, Fuji apples

Korea Sand pears, mandarin oranges

Mexico Mangoes (hot water treatment), citrus (fumig

or from Sonora free zone), apples, apricots, p

persimmons, & pomegranates (Sonora free zo

New Zealand Apples, pears, Nashi pears

The Netherlands Bulb inspection

Nicaragua Mangoes (hot water treatment)

Peru Mangoes (hot water treatment)

Scotland Bulb inspection

South Africa Apples, pears, plums, grapes, peaches, nectar

Spain Lemons, clementines, Valencia oranges

Taiwan Mangoes (hot water treatment)

Turkey Bulb inspection

Venezuela Mangoes (hot water treatment)

International Programs

Through direct overseas contacts, IS employees gather and exchang

tion on plant and animal health; work to strengthen national, regional, an

tional agricultural health organizations; and cooperate in international pr

against certain pests and diseases that directly threaten American agricul

the latter are the MOSCAMED program—which combats Medfly infesta

Mexico and Guatemala—and a program to eradicate screwworms, a para

of warm-blooded animals. Screwworm flies lay their eggs on the edge of 

wounds, and the developing larvae feed on the living flesh of the host. Le

the infestation can be fatal.
206

y

Eggs produced through such matings do not hatch, and the insect literally bre

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, El

Salvador, and Nicaragua. Eradication is well advanced in Costa Rica. Eradica

will begin in Panama in 1998, and a new rearing facility is planned. Currently 

duction plant at Tuxtla Gutierrez in Chiapas in southern Mexico can produce 

500 million sterile flies weekly.

IS also works to prevent foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) from entering M

Central America, and Panama and works with Colombia to eliminate FMD fr

northern part of that country.

Coping With Invasions

If, despite our best efforts, foreign pests or diseases do manage to slip pa

border defenses, APHIS conducts appropriate control and eradication measur

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 PPQ has a special cadre of people who deal with introductions of 

plant pests. Known as “Rapid Response Teams,” these groups have been mob

on several occasions to combat costly infestations of Medflies and to perform 

tasks.

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

eases. Within 24 hours of diagnosis, one of two specially trained task forces i

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

been diagnosed in the United States. Since 1989, APHIS has restricted the im

tion of live ruminants and ruminant products—including animal feed made w

ruminant protein—from Great Britain and other countries where BSE is know

exist. In addition, APHIS has conducted a BSE surveillance program since 19

Import-Export Regulations

APHIS is responsible for enforcing regulations governing the import and 

of plants and animals and certain agricultural products. 
y pg ypy 

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 most countries must be quarantined at one of three animal import c

Newburgh, NY; Miami, FL; and Los Angeles, CA. A special high-securit

import center at Fleming Key, FL, provides a safe means of importing an

countries where foot-and-mouth disease exists.

Personally owned pet birds can enter through one of five USDA-ope

quarantine facilities: New York, NY; Miami, FL; San Ysidro, CA; Hidalg

Los Angeles, CA. Those that qualify as U.S.-origin birds may return thro

of entry when arrangements have been made for a USDA Veterinary Serv

narian to inspect their bird. 

Pet birds from Canada can enter without quarantine because Canada

disease programs and import rules are similar to those of the United Stat

Commercial shipments of pet birds can enter through one of the privately 

APHIS-supervised quarantine facilities. APHIS cooperates with the U.S. 

of the Interior in carrying out provisions of the Endangered Species Act t

imports and exports of endangered plant, animal, or bird species. APHIS 

ports of entry are trained to identify these species and to notify Interior o

protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Sp

(CITES) that are found during inspection. Also, at many ports, APHIS of

inspect and sample seed imported from foreign countries to ensure that it 

rately labeled and free of noxious weeds. 

APHIS also maintains 16 plant inspection stations, the largest of wh

Miami, FL, for commercial importation of plant materials. Smaller statio

Orlando, FL; San Juan, PR; JFK International Airport, Jamaica, NY; Eliz

Houston, El Paso, and Los Indios (Brownsville), TX; Nogales, AZ; San D

Angeles, and San Francisco, CA; Seattle, WA; Honolulu, HI; Beltsville, 

New Orleans, LA.

To facilitate agricultural exports, APHIS officials certify the health 

plants and animals that are shipped to foreign countries. PPQ provides as

U.S. plants and plant products meet the plant quarantine import requirem

eign countries. This assurance is in the form of a phytosanitary certificate

PPQ or its State cooperators. During FY 1997, 298,365 phytosanitary ce

were issued for exports of plants and plant products worth more than $20 

Veterinary Services (VS) officials and the National Center for Impor

negotiate animal health requirements for export of livestock, germplasm

animal products with the importing countries. These requirements are ma

the International Regulations Retrieval System (IRRS). VS area offices a

exporters have access to the system. IRRS is also available on the World 

www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ireg_txt
208

y gp

livestock is conducted by a VS port veterinarian at the port of embarkment. T

inspection is not required for livestock shipped to Canada and Mexico if it is 

through land border ports.

APHIS is of greatest help to the U.S. livestock industry in the area of for

health requirements. Through direct negotiations with foreign governments, A

has established approximately 450 livestock, semen, embryo, and poultry hea

agreements with more than 100 countries. These negotiations are a continuou

process, occurring wherever APHIS finds opportunities to open new markets 

reduce unnecessary impediments, or whenever changing disease conditions r

adjustments.

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

For instance, APHIS and Food Safety and Inspection Service officials coordin

negotiations to avert a Russian embargo on U.S. poultry exports worth $600 m

year. On the plant side, efforts by APHIS and Foreign Agricultural Service of

helped maintain U.S. wheat exports after the March 1996 discovery of an out

Karnal bunt, a fungal disease of wheat, in Arizona. The United States is the w

leading wheat exporter, accounting for 25 percent of world wheat exports in 

Domestic Plant Health Programs

In most cases, plant pest problems are handled by individual farmers, ran

and other property owners and their State or local governments. However, wh

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 PPQ programs are not native to 

United States. They gained entry into this country through commercial trade 

nels, international travelers, or other means.

When pests are new to this country, control techniques may not be availa

any case, PPQ applies interstate quarantines, cooperates with States, and take

steps to prevent spread 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—

import, rear, and release parasites and other biological control organisms.

Biocontrol—Nature’s Way

In its classic sense, biological control means using predators, parasites, a

pathogens to combat plant pests. Predators and parasites include insects, mite

nematodes that naturally attack a target pest. Pathogens include bacteria, viru

fungi that cause diseases specifically injurious to a target pest.

Biological control was first put to broad, practical use in the United State

1880’s. At that time, California citrus groves were being devastated by an exo
y gg g

kept the scale insect from causing economic damage ever since. 

To coordinate the important search for new and better biocontrol opp

National Biological Control Institute was established in APHIS in 1989. 

Institute’s mission is to promote, facilitate, and provide leadership for bio

trol. Its main work is to compile and release technical information and co

work needed to find, identify, and augment or distribute new biological c

agents. 

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

ple, several decades ago, ARS scientists found six species of stingless wa

Europe that keep alfalfa weevils in check. In 1980, APHIS took on the jo

lishing these beneficial wasps across the land. Between 1980 and 1989, A

its cooperators raised and distributed about 17 million wasps, and today 

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

potato beetle, brown citrus aphid, pink hibiscus mealybug, gypsy moth, i

ant, leafy spurge, purple loosestrife, Russian knapweed, dalmatian and y

flax, and diffuse and spotted knapweed. Promising biocontrol agents for 

are being tested at PPQ biocontrol labs located at Mission, TX; Niles, M

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

the number of adult weevils trapped around cotton fields. The traps conta

pheromone (insect attractant) and a small amount of insecticide that kills 

weevils. In eradication program areas, one to three traps are placed per a
pppg gg 

seasons, the weevils are eradicated within the defined program area, eliminati

further need to spray for this pest. As an indirect benefit of eliminating the bo

vil, growers are able to maintain beneficial insects that help control many sec

pests. This further reduces the amount of pesticide used each season to produ

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 1,10

1987 +GA/FL/AL 450,000 1,50

1994 +MS/TN/TX 50,000 2,00

1996 Same 1,300,000 4,60

1997 +LA 1,600,000 4,60

1998 +OK 2,000,000 4,60

In the cooperative boll weevil eradication program, APHIS provides tech

support, a portion of program funds, and some capital equipment and adminis

support. Grower assessments and/or State appropriations provided 87 percent 

total program cost in 1998, with APHIS providing the remaining 13 percent.

The economic benefit:cost ratio for the program has been projected to be 

nationwide, and as high as 40:1 in specific areas of the Cotton Belt. The succ

the program has brought a resurgence of cotton production and related indust

Acreage in the Southeast has increased nearly four-fold since the weevil’s era

tion. In eradicated areas, growers’ production costs—without the weevil—are 

lower than those in the infested areas.

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 when th

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 

visiting from India recognized the weed and told U.S. agricultural experts wh

was.

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

210
gy 

At the beginning of FY 1995, with fewer than 28,000 infested acres 

APHIS turned operation of the program over to North Carolina to compl

tion there, but continues to help finish the eradication effort in South Car

Grasshoppers and IPM

APHIS was the lead agency in a cooperative Integrated Pest Manage

initiative for grasshopper control in the Western United States. This IPM 

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 decision s

tem program called “HOPPER.” HOPPER is a user-friendly software pa

facilitates grasshopper predictions, time and selection of control options, 

of weather data, and analysis of the economics of range management pra

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

cial spread of the European gypsy moth from infested areas in the northe

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 APHIS’ Veterinary Services (VS).

VS veterinary medical officers and animal health technicians work w

counterparts in the States and with livestock producers to carry out coope

grams to control and eradicate certain animal diseases. The decision to b

nationwide campaign against a domestic animal disease is based on a nu

tors, the most important of which is: “Are producers and the livestock in

leading force in the campaign?”
212

ppg pg y 

domestic cattle. Within 8 years, contagious bovine pleuropneumonia had bee

cated and this campaign set the pattern for subsequent animal disease control 

eradication programs.

To date, 13 serious livestock and poultry diseases have been eradicated f

United States. They are: 

Year Disease

1892 Contagious bovine pleuropneumonia

1929 Foot-and-mouth disease 

1929 Fowl plague

1934 Glanders

1942 Dourine

1943 Texas cattle fever

1959 Vesicular exanthema (VE)

1959 & 66 Screwworms (southeast & southwest)

1971 Venezuelan equine encephalitis

1973 Sheep scabies

1974 Exotic Newcastle disease

1978 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 Cattle 

State Brucellosis* Brucellosis** TB*** Pseudorabie

AL FREE STAGE 2 FREE 

AK FREE FREE FREE 

AZ FREE FREE FREE 

AR FREE STAGE 2 FREE STAG

CA FREE FREE M-A STA

CO FREE FREE FREE 

CT FREE FREE FREE 

DE FREE FREE FREE 

FL FREE STAGE 2 FREE STA

GA FREE FREE FREE STA

HI FREE FREE SUSP.M-A STA

ID FREE FREE FREE 

IL FREE FREE FREE STA

IN FREE FREE FREE STAG

IA FREE FREE FREE STAG

KS CLASS A FREE FREE STA
MD FREE FREE FREE 

MA FREE FREE FREE 

MI FREE FREE FREE 

MN FREE FREE FREE 

MS CLASS A FREE FREE 

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 FREE 

ND FREE FREE FREE 

OH FREE FREE FREE 

OK CLASS A STAGE 2 FREE 

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 FREE 

WA FREE FREE FREE 

WV FREE FREE FREE 

WI FREE FREE FREE 

WY FREE FREE FREE 

* Class A (less than 0.25 percent herd infection rate) or Class Free

** Stage 1,2, or Free

*** Modified Accredited (M-A) or Accredited Free (Free) 

**** Stage 1,2,3,4, or Free 

Disease control and eradication measures include quarantines to stop 

ment of possibly infected or exposed animals, testing and examination to 

infection, destruction of infected (sometimes exposed) animals to preven

ease spread, treatment to eliminate parasites, vaccination in some cases, 
214

pp gy pp g

been enrolled in the certification program. A current listing of enrolled flocks

State and by breed, is available on the World Wide Web (http://www.aphis.us

vs/scrapie/status.html)

APHIS animal health programs are carried out by a field force of about 2

erinarians and 360 lay inspectors working out of area offices (usually located 

capitals). Laboratory support for these programs is supplied by APHIS’ Natio

Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) at Ames, IA, and Plum Island, NY, 

are centers of excellence in the diagnostic sciences and an integral part of AP

animal health programs. 

Under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act of 1913, APHIS enforces regulations t

that animal vaccines and other veterinary biologics are safe, pure, potent, and 

tive. Veterinary biologics are products designed to diagnose, prevent, or treat 

diseases. They are used to protect or diagnose disease in a variety of domestic 

mals, including farm animals, household pets, poultry, fish, and fur bearers.

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, IA.

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 79 genetically eng

biologics have been licensed; all but 20 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 2,379 active product l

for these animal vaccines and other biologics and 110 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, PPQ works with the States in a project called the

Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey, which started in 1982 as a pilot project

data on weeds, insects, and plant diseases and pests are entered into a nationw
y g p

assist pest forecasting, early pest warning, quicker and more precise deli

efforts, and better planning for plant pest eradication or control efforts. S

which can reflect the absence as well as the presence of pests—also help 

exports, assuring foreign countries that our commodities are free of spec

diseases.

There are more than a million records in the NAPIS database. Appro

200 Federal and State agencies use NAPIS, which contains survey data fi

as text and graphics files. The data can be downloaded and analyzed with 

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 bas

ers new data through short- and long-term targeted studies to present a b

ture of animal agriculture. This information then can be used to predict tr

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 nine national studies on U.S. animal population

dairy (2), beef cow/calf (2) , beef feedlot (1), sheep (1), and catfish (1). S

itoring of morbidity and mortality in beef feedlots is an ongoing monitor

as is bulk tank somatic cell count. Marek’s disease in broiler operations, 

Enteritis and Mortality Syndrome (PEMS) in turkeys were among NAHM

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

information in educational programs and in setting research priorities. 

NAHMS information is available through the World Wide Web

(http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah); see the Center for Animal Health M

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
216

gyppgpg

lines can safely test—outside of the physical containment of the laboratory—

cally engineered organisms. 

APHIS officials issue permits or acknowledge notification for the import

interstate movement, or field testing of genetically engineered plants, micro-o

isms, and invertebrates that are developed with components from plant patho

material. 

Since 1987, APHIS has issued more than 3,800 release permits and notifi

at more than 17,000 sites in the United States, and no environmental problem

resulted from these field tests. The biotechnology regulations also provide for 

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. In the past 21/2 years, 20 new engineered plant lines in 11 crops have be

proven safe and no longer need to be regulated by APHIS. The most recent of 

in April 1998—was the first genetically engineered sugar beet, which is herbi

tolerant. 

The four most recently deregulated include:

■ tomato line with insect resistance,

■ rapeseed (canola) line with herbicide tolerance,

■ corn line with herbicide tolerance, and

■ chicory (salad green) line with male sterility.

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 submission

new issues and events can be seen on the World Wide Web

(http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotech/html).

Controlling Wildlife Damage

The mission of APHIS’Wildlife Services (WS) program is to provide Fe

leadership in managing problems caused by wildlife. Wildlife is a significant 

resource that is greatly valued by the American public. But by its very nature

wildlife also can damage agricultural and industrial resources, pose risks to h

health and safety, and affect other natural resources. WS helps solve problem

occur when human activity and wildlife are in conflict with one another. In do

WS attempts to develop and use wildlife management strategies that are biolo

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, deer, and geese, pose increasing r
facility devoted entirely to the development of methods for managing wi

age, accounts for about one-fourth of the WS budget. In existence since t

NWRC has an integrated, multi-disciplinary research program that is uni

to provide scientific information and solutions to wildlife damage proble

A few examples of current NWRC projects include: 

■ developing chemosensory repellants and attractants for birds and 

■ finding methods to reduce threats to human safety when birds col

planes, 

■ 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 p

livestock from these predators, and

■ looking at ways to solve wildlife problems in urban areas involvi

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.

USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) surveyed 1

producers in January 1997. Results indicated that 68 percent of the respo

some effort to avoid wildlife-related losses to their catfish crops. Of all c

reported, 67 percent were depredated by wildlife, primarily birds. In Mis

where 81 percent of wildlife damage was reported, cormorants were cite

cause 53 percent of the time. The total cost to catfish producers of efforts 

wildlife-related damage was estimated to be $17 million in 1996.

APHIS deals with a wide variety of wildlife problems—ranging from 

coyote predation on lambs to protecting endangered species from predati

wildlife. Here are a few examples of WS efforts:

■ A farmer in Washington State requested WS assistance after thou

Canada geese congregated on his 43-acre field of carrots and beg

crop, which had a potential market value of more than $7,000 an 
Colorado was captured by a WS specialist and officials of the Colorad

Division of Wildlife. The lion was released unharmed in a remote site 

165 miles from the community where the attacks occurred.

■ In 1991, a plane carrying 350 passengers aborted takeoff at JFK Intern

Airport after gulls were drawn into one of its engines. Although no on

seriously injured, the aircraft lost its brakes and 10 tires in the acciden

Between 1988 and 1990, there was an average of 170 bird strikes aga

planes per year at this airport. After WS became involved in managing 

populations at the airport in 1990, laughing gull strikes were reduced 

percent in 1991, and by 89 percent in 1992 compared with the previou

period.

■ Livestock-guarding dogs, predator-proof fencing, and the “Electronic 

(a device developed by WS that combines a flashing strobe light and a 

scare coyotes) are examples of nonlethal ways to minimize damage fr

predators.

■ WS helps protect many threatened or endangered species from predat

including the California least tern and light-footed clapper rail, the Sa

Clemente Island loggerhead strike, the Louisiana black bear, the Aleu

Canada goose, the black-footed ferret, the Louisiana pearl shell (muss

two species of endangered sea turtles.

■ Since 1995, WS has cooperated with Texas officials to help combat a 

epidemic in the southern part of that State. WS cooperated in develop

ote bait units containing a genetically engineered rabies vaccine appro

APHIS for use in the project. More than 8 million bait units have been

dropped over a 14,400-square-mile area stretching from Maverick Co

the Mexican border to Calhoun County on the Gulf Coast. The goal o

project is to create a buffer zone of immunized coyotes to help preven

further spread of canine rabies across Texas into more heavily popula

areas. 

Humane Care of Animals

APHIS administers two laws that seek to ensure the humane handling of 

mals: the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and the Horse Protection Act (HPA). 

For more than a quarter century, USDA has enforced the AWA and its st

and regulations to prevent the trafficking in lost and stolen pets and to protect 

from inhumane treatment and neglect. Congress passed the AWA in 1966 and

strengthened the law through amendments in 1970, 1976, 1985, and 1990. 

The AWA prohibits staged dogfights, bear and raccoon baiting, and simil

mal fighting ventures. It also requires that minimum standards of care and tre

be provided for most warmblooded animals bred for commercial sale, used in

research, transported commercially, or exhibited to the public. This includes a

exhibited in zoos, circuses, and marine mammal facilities, as well as pets tran

on commercial airlines. 

218
ggy p

extremes of weather and temperature. They must also keep accurate acqu

disposition records and a description of every animal that comes into the

sion. In addition: 

■ Dealers must hold the animals they acquire for a period of 5-10 d

the animals’ origin and to give pet owners an opportunity to locat

pet. 

■ Research facilities must give dogs an opportunity to exercise, pro

psychological well-being of primates used in laboratories, and gi

lated animals anesthesia or pain-relieving medication to minimiz

distress caused by research if the experiment allows. 

■ Research facilities must establish an institutional animal care and 

tee to oversee the use of animals in experiments. This committee 

research protocols and facilities to ensure they are in compliance 

AWA. It also ensures that researchers explore alternatives to pain

ments and ways to reduce the numbers of animals used. The com

be composed of at least three members, including one veterinaria

person who is not affiliated with the facility in any way.

In enforcing the AWA, APHIS conducts prelicensing inspections of 

Before issuing a license, applicants must be in compliance with all stand

ulations under the AWA. 

APHIS also conducts randomly scheduled unannounced inspections 

that all regulated facilities continue to comply with the Act. If an inspect

deficiencies in meeting the AWA standards and regulations, the inspector 

licensee or registrant to correct the problems within a given amount of ti

ciencies remain uncorrected at the followup inspection, APHIS documen

ity’s deficiencies and considers possible legal action. Such action may in

and/or the suspension or revocation of licenses.

In FY 1997, APHIS pursued numerous cases against individuals wh

compliance with the AWA. Examples of these actions are: 

■ In April 1997, APHIS settled a case with a licensed animal exhib

citations included mistreatment and unsuitable facilities for anim

goal was to remove the animals from the person’s possession as q

possible. Accordingly, under the settlement, the agency required 

to immediately surrender his license and all of his animals that w

under the AWA.

■ In September 1997, APHIS’ case against a class B animal dealer 

than 1,500 AWA recordkeeping violations came to an end with a 

revocation of the dealer’s license and a record $175,000 fine to b

The dealer had been charged with, among other things, selling do

to research facilities under falsified documents and maintaining f

tion records for dogs. 

■ In a landmark case that was still pending at the end of FY 1997, A

sought a permanent revocation of an exhibitor’s license and subst
220

phants. The case is significant not only in terms of penalties sought bu

because of the swift manner in which it was handled. By making this 

top priority, APHIS was able to complete its investigation and file form

charges within 3 weeks, whereas this process typically takes several m

APHIS was also able to obtain an administrative hearing within 2 mo

process that normally takes more than a year.

The tables below provide data on APHIS’inspection and enforcement ef

FY 1995-97. 

Compliance Inspections, FY 1995–97

Total Total

facilities compliance

FY (sites) inspections

1997 7,789

(10,534) 12,056

1996 7,837

(10,366) 12,635

1995 7,721

(10,108) 14,722

Sanctions Imposed, FY 1995–97

Revocations, suspe

FY Fines Imposed and disqualifica

1997 $868,440 43

1996 $1,052,225 29

1995 $451,725 19

USDA also enforces the HPA, which prohibits horses subjected to a pro

called soring from participating in exhibitions, sales, shows, or auctions. In a

the Act prohibits drivers from hauling sored horses across State lines to comp

shows. The law was first passed in 1970 and amended in 1976.

Soring—a painful practice used to accentuate a horse’s gait—is accomp

by irritating a horse’s forelegs through the injection or application of chemica

mechanical irritants. When a sored horse walks, it responds by quickly lifting 

legs to relieve the pain. Although the HPA covers all horse breeds, Tennessee

Walking horses and other high-stepping breeds are the most frequent victims 

ing. 

To facilitate enforcement of the HPA, APHIS has established the Design

Qualified Person (DQP) program. DQP’s are trained and licensed by USDA-c
gq

DQP’s are responsible for barring from shows horses that do not me

regulations under the HPA. Without DQP’s, show management assumes 

responsibility for disqualifying sored horses before awarding prizes and 

tomers view horses at sales or auctions. Horse organizations can revoke t

DQP’s if their inspections do not meet HPA standards. 

To ensure that DQP’s continue to adhere to HPA standards, APHIS 

conduct randomly scheduled unannounced inspections. The APHIS insp

includes veterinarians and investigators. The veterinarians observe horse

show and can examine any horse for signs of soring or violation of the re

For those who violate the HPA, APHIS can impose criminal or civil 

convicted, violators can spend up to 2 years in prison, receive penalties o

$5,000, and be disqualified for 1 or more years from the right to show, ex

horses through auction sales. Trainers can be disqualified for life.

In addition to the AWA and HPA, many State and local government

passed additional animal welfare legislation. The public is encouraged to 

Federal, State, and local officials as well as local humane organizations t

nate inhumane treatment of animals.

Aquaculture

APHIS provides services to the aquaculture industry in a number of 

Aquaculture is the fastest growing segment of U.S. agriculture, surpassin

most domestic fruit, vegetable, and nut crops. Between 1980 and 1990, t

experienced a 400-percent increase in growth; it is now estimated to be w

approximately $1.5 billion. The aquaculture industry provides about 300

nationwide. 

Current APHIS services include licensing of fish vaccines and other 

under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act, controlling birds and damage-causing 

providing health certification services for exports. APHIS is currently wo

expand its aquatic animal health activities, its underlying authority to sup

try efforts to increase exports of aquacultural products around the world, 

tion of interstate regulation, and its protection of the industry from the en

animal pests and diseases. Examples include:

■ European Union (EU) animal health negotiators have been extrem

cerned that U.S. aquatic health regulations are not equivalent to t

EU; the main concern is that the United States does not have a sin

agency with legal authority to monitor, prevent, and control outbr

aquatic animal disease. Currently, U.S. responsibility in this area 

among four Federal departments (Agriculture, Interior, Commerc

Health and Human Services) and the 50 States. APHIS is workin

Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture’s Task Force on Aquatic Ani

to clarify Federal agency roles, avoid duplication of authority, an

adequate protection of U.S. aquatic animals, both wild and cultiv
222

mal health and natural resources officials and aquacultural producers 

model of how to implement an aquatic health protocol for exporting p

■ APHIS’Wildlife Services program hired three wildlife biologists and 

them in Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi to help aquaculture produc

bird depredation problems. These biologists are helping develop new 

for controlling fish-eating birds, providing onsite assistance to aquacu

producers experiencing depredation problems, and developing manag

plans for fish-eating bird species in the three States.

■ APHIS/Veterinary Services’Centers for Epidemiology and Animal H

(CEAH) completed an overview of the U.S. aquaculture industry, incl

an analysis of trends in farm size, geographic distribution of aquatic s

and industry diversity. During 1997, CEAH worked with USDA’s Nat

Agricultural Statistics Service on a comprehensive national study of t

catfish industry.

■ Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards

Administration

The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) fathe marketing of livestock, poultry, meat, cereals, oilseeds, and related ag

tural products and promotes fair and competitive trading practices for the ove

efit of consumers and American agriculture.

GIPSA, like its sister agencies in USDA’s Marketing and Regulatory Pro

is working to ensure a productive and competitive global marketplace for U.S

cultural products. The agency’s Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) prov

U.S. grain market with Federal quality standards and a uniform system for ap

them. GIPSA’s Packers and Stockyards Programs (P&S) ensure open and com

markets for livestock, meat, and poultry. 

Federal Grain Inspection Program

Through its Federal Grain Inspection Program, GIPSA facilitates the ma

of grain, oilseeds, pulses, rice, and related commodities. This program serves

American agriculture by providing descriptions (grades) and testing methodo

for measuring the quality and quantity of grain, rice, edible beans, and related 

modities. GIPSA also provides a wide range of inspection and weighing servi

a fee basis, through the official grain inspection and weighing system, a uniqu

nership of Federal, State, and private laboratories. In FY 1997, the official sy

performed over 2 million inspections on 226 million metric tons of grain and 

commodities.

Specifically, under the U.S. Grain Standards Act, and those provisions of 

Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA) that relate to inspection of rice, p

lentils, and processed grain products, the Federal Grain Inspection Program:
dry peas, and a variety of edible beans.

■ Provides American agriculture and customers of U.S. grain aroun

with a national inspection and weighing system that applies the o

ing and testing standards and procedures in a uniform, accurate, a

manner.

■ Inspects and weighs exported grain and oilseeds. Domestic and im

grain and oilseed shipments, and crops with standards under the A

inspected and weighed upon request.

■ Monitors grain handling practices to prevent the deceptive use of 

standards and official inspection and weighing results, and the de

grain quality through the introduction of foreign material, dockag

nongrain material to grain.

By serving as an impartial third party, and by ensuring that the Offic

Standards for Grain are applied and that weights are recorded fairly and 

GIPSA and the official grain inspection and weighing system advance th

efficient marketing and effective distribution of U.S. grain and other assi

modities from the Nation’s farms to destinations around the world.

Packers and Stockyards Programs

GIPSA’s Packers and Stockyards Programs administers the Packers 

yards (P&S) Act of 1921. The purpose of the P&S Act, which has been a

keep pace with changes in the industry, is to assure fair competition and 

practices, safeguard farmers and ranchers, and protect consumers and me

livestock, meat, and poultry industries from unfair business practices tha

affect meat and poultry distribution and prices.

Payment Protection

The P&S Act requires prompt payment for livestock purchased by d

ket agencies, and packers whose operations are subject to the Act. Pursua

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 1998, 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.
224

py py py gg g

inventories, and proceeds held by the packer or poultry dealer become trust a

These assets are held by the meat packer or live poultry dealer for the benefit 

unpaid cash sellers and/or poultry growers. Cash sellers of livestock and poul

growers receive priority payment in bankruptcy or in claims against trust asse

event of business failure.

Fair Competition

GIPSA works to eliminate unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive p

in the meat and poultry industries, with special emphasis on investigation of a

petitive activities. Practices such as apportioning of territories, price manipul

arrangements not to compete, and payoffs or kickbacks to buyers are violatio

Packers and Stockyards Act. GIPSA staff members immediately investigate a

tice that indicates a possible unfair or discriminatory practice.

Scales and Weighing Activities

GIPSA is concerned with two different elements that affect the integrity 

weights: (1) the accuracy of scales used for weighing livestock, meat, and po

and (2) the proper and honest operation of scales to assure that the weight on 

transaction is based is accurate.

The major emphasis is on detecting improper and fraudulent use of scale

investigative program uses several different procedures to determine whether 

ing activity is proper and honest. Agency investigators routinely visit livestoc

tion markets, buying stations, and packing plants for the purpose of checkwei

livestock, carcasses, and live poultry, and examining weight records and equi

Trade Practices

Fraudulent trade practices—such as price manipulations, weight manipu

livestock or carcasses, manipulation of carcass grades, misrepresentation of l

as to origin and health, and other unfair and deceptive practices—continue to 

cerns within the industry. GIPSA investigates these practices when complaint

received or when such practices are uncovered during other investigations.

Fair Treatment for Poultry Growers

GIPSA carries out enforcement of the trade practice provisions of the P&

relating to live poultry dealers. Its investigative program extensively examine

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 

ority basis.
pg

accurate and properly applied and that the producer receives an accurate 

of the sale.

Analysis of Structural Change

GIPSA examines structural changes in the livestock, meat packing, 

industries, and analyzes the competitive implications of these structural c

analyses assist in enforcing the P&S Act and in addressing public policy 

ing to the livestock and meat industries.

Clear Title

The Clear Title provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985 permit S

establish central filing systems to inform parties about liens on farm prod

purpose of this program is to remove an obstruction to interstate commer

products. GIPSA certifies when a State’s central filing system complies w

For More Information

Agricultural Marketing

Service

Director, Public Affairs

Billy Cox

Rm 3510-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8998

FAX202-720-7135

billy_a_cox@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Carol Blake

Rm 3510-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8998

FAX202-720-7135

cblake@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Alicia Ford

Rm 3510-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8998

FAX202-720-7135

aford@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Demaris Kogut

Rm 3510-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8998

FAX 202-720-7135

demaris_w_kogut@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Brad Marman

Rm 3510-S Washington, DC 20

202-720-8998

FAX 202-720-7135

1_brad.marman@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Becky Unkenholz

Rm 3510-S Washington, DC 20

202-720-8998

FAX202-720-7135

runkenholz@usda.gov

Freedom of Info Act Officer Sharon Kerr

Rm 3510-S Washington, DC 20

202-720-3203

FAX202-690-3767

sharonl.kerr@usda.gov

Animal and Plant Hea

Inspection Service

Director, Legislative & Public 

Patrick Collins

Rm 1147-S Washington, DC 20

202-720-2511

FAX202-720-3982

pcollins@aphis.usda.gov
226

g

202-720-9232

FAX202-720-3982

phenstridge@aphis.usda.gov

Program Specialist

Debbie Elder

Rm 1153-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-3977

FAX202-720-3982

delder@aphis.usda.gov

Asst. Dir., Public Affairs

Richard McNaney

4B21 Riverdale, MD 20782

301-734-7799

FAX301-734-5221

rmcnaney@aphis.usda.gov

Asst. Dir., Exec Corresp.

Lynn Quarles

4A83

Riverdale, MD 20782

301-734-7776

FAX301-734-5941

lquarles@aphis.usda.gov

Asst. Dir., Freedom of Info. 

and Resource Management

Michael Marquis

4A81

Riverdale, MD 20782

301-734-5267

FAX301-734-5941

mmarquis@aphis.usda.gov

Stuart McDonald

12345 W. Alameda Parkway

Lakewood, CO 80228

303-969-6560

FAX 303-969-6578

smcdonald@aphis.usda.gov

West Coast/Southern Border

Larry Hawkins 

606 Alamo Pintado, Suite 267

Solvang, CA 73463

805-693-0676

FAX 805-693-0676

lhawkins@aphis.usda.gov

Grain Inspection, 

Packers and Stockyards

Administration

Public Affairs Officer

Dana Stewart

Rm 1094-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-5091

FAX 202-205-9237

dstewart@fgis.usda.gov

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Tommy Morris

Rm3039-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-7063

FAX 202-205-3941

tmorris@usda.gov
■ How To Get Information From USDA’s Offic

Communications 

The Office of Communications is integral to USDA’s historical and 

sion. This office coordinates and assists with the flow of public informati

USDA program agencies, reviewing all publications and audiovisuals an

new information technology. It offers current information from the Offic

Secretary on programs and policy. This office ensures that adequate and 

channels are used to disseminate information to the public, and provides 

access to USDA information through the news media. 

OC administers USDA’s home page on the Internet World Wide Web 

AgNewsFax service. The Internet address for USDA’s home page is

http://www.usda.gov. From this page, you can access information about t

Department and also about programs in all mission areas. 

OC also offers an automated information line to answer questions fr

lic. The number for this service is 202-720-2791.

In addition, OC coordinates departmental responses under the Freed

Information Act, the Privacy Act, and its amendment, the Computer Mat

The following list of key Office of Communications staff is offered 

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

Andy Solomon

Rm 405-A

Washington, DC 20250-130

202-720-4623

FAX 202-720-5043

andy.solomon@usda.gov

Deputy Press Secretary

Laura Trivers

Rm 406-A

Washington, DC 20250-130

202-720-4623

FAX 202-720-5043

laura.trivers@usda.gov
228

Rm 408-A

Washington, DC 20250-1305

202-720-4623

FAX 202-720-5403

Speech Writers:

Christine Hagstrom

Rm 420-A

Washington, DC 20250-1340

202-720-4224

FAX 202-720-5043

christine.hagstrom@usda.gov

Cheryl Normile

Rm 423-A

Washington, DC 20250-1340

202-720-4239

FAX 202-720-5043

cheryl.normile@usda.gov

Richard Ades

Rm 425-A

Washington, DC 20250-1340

202-720-7819

FAX 202-720-5043

richard.ades@usda.gov

Director for Administration 

Vacant

Rm 536-A

Washington, DC 20250-1310

@usda.gov

202-720-5881

FAX 202-690-1131

Computer Specialist

Wayne Moore

Rm 534-A

Washington, DC 20250-1310

202-720-3989

FAX 202-690-1131

wayne.moore@usda.gov

p

Rm 530-A

Washington, DC 20250-1310

202-690-0468

FAX 202-690-1131

barbara.campbell@usda.gov

Management Analyst

Terry Logan

Rm 535-A

Washington, DC 20250-1310

202-720-3118

FAX 202-690-1131

terry.logan@usda.gov

Communications

Coordination and Review

Center

Director

Johna Pierce

Rm 440-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-5555

FAX 202-690-3611

johna.pierce@usda.gov

Communications Coordinator 

Administration, IG, CFO, CIO

Martha Cashion

Rm 442-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-3310

FAX 202-690-3611

martha.cashion@usda.gov 

Communications Coordinator 

Farm & Foreign Agricultural

Services

Wayne Baggett

Rm444-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-2032

FAX 202-690-3611

wayne.baggett@usda.gov
Services

Jim Borland

Rm 434-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

Rm 432-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-6959

FAX 202-690-3611

jerry.redding@usda.gov

Communications Coordinator for

Natural Resources & Environment

Janet Sledge

Rm 446-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

p

Jim Brownlee

Rm 436-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-2091

FAX 202-690-3611

jim.brownlee@usda.gov

“USDA NEWS” Coord/Ed

Ron Hall

Rm 430-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-5747

FAX 202-690-3611

ron.hall@usda.gov

Coord & Rev Asst/HTGI E

Shirley Adams

Rm 440-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-2882

FAX 202-690-3611

shirley.adams@usda.gov

Web Master

Victor Powell

Rm 528-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-7762

FAX 202-690-3611

victor.powell@usda.gov

Electronic Info. Coordinato

Charles Hobbs

Rm 456-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-9045

FAX 202-690-3611

charles.hobbs@usda.gov
230

y 

Rm 457-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-8138

FAX 202-720-5575

harry.leslie@usda.gov

“AgNews” Editor

Ed Moffett

Rm 457-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-9065

FAX 202-720-5575

ed.moffett@usda.gov

News Release Coordinator

Lena Hogan

Rm 460-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

Internet News Service

news@usda.gov

WWW URL http://www.usda.gov

Publishing & Info. Svs. Coord. 

Ed Poe

Rm 426-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-9081

FAX 202-720-4948

ed.poe@usda.gov

Rm 428-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-3298

FAX 202-690-3611

dennis.carroll@usda.gov

Writer-Editor

Carrie Pollard

Rm 428-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-6046

FAX 202-690-3611

carrie.pollard@usda.gov

Executive Correspondence

Sandie Stasiak

Rm 428-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-4105

FAX 202-690-3611

sandie.stasiak@usda.gov

Info Services Specialists

Barbara Robinson

Rm 506-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-2791

FAX 202-690-0228

barbara.robinson@usda.gov

Joyce Person

FAX 202-690-0228

joyce.person@usda.gov

Freedom of Info Act 

& Privacy Act Coordinator

Carolyn Harris

Rm532-A

Washington, DC 20250-1310

202-720-8164

FAX 202-690-1131

csharris@usda.gov
Director

Pat Lewis

Rm 412-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-2798

FAX 202-690-2164

pat.lewis@usda.gov

Public Liaison Coordinator

Dottie Click

Rm 415-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-4197

FAX 202-690-2164

dottie.click@usda.gov

Public Liaison Analyst

Mocile Trotter

Rm 418-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-5505

FAX 202-690-2164

Mocile.trotter@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Meg Evans

Rm 408-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-5247

FAX 202-690-2164

meg.evans@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Marci Hilt

Rm 410-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-3088

FAX 202-690-2164

marci.hilt@usda.gov

Rm 409-A

Washington, DC 20250-133

202-720-0622

FAX 202-690-2164

joan.shaffer@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Deborah Smith

Rm 419-A

Washington, DC 20250-133

202-720-9173

FAX 202-690-2164

ocnet.oc-post.debbie.smith2

@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Clyde Williams

Rm 407-A

Washington, DC 20250-133

202-720-7033

FAX 202-690-2164

clyde.williams@USDA.gov

Information Specialist

John Margelos

Rm 416-A

Washington, DC 20250-133

202-720-2058

FAX 202-690-2164

john.margelos@usda.gov

Information Specialist

Betty Briggs

Rm 417-A

Washington, DC 20250-133

202-720-4623

FAX 202-690-2164

betty.briggs@usda.gov
232

y

Rm 103-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

ocnet.oc-post.kathryn.hill@usda.gov

202-720-5505

FAX 202-690-2164

Craig Hall

Rm 103-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-5505

Hispanic Outreach Specialist

Robert Miranda

Rm 412-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-2914

FAX 202-690-2164

robert.miranda@usda.gov

Video, Teleconference, and

Radio Center

Director

Larry A. Quinn

Rm 1618-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-6072

FAX 202-720-5773

larry.quinn@usda.gov

Dep Dir/Broadcasting Coord

Garth Clark

Rm 1614-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-5376

FAX 202-720-5773

garth.clark@usda.gov

y

Rm 0095-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-7039

FAX 202-720-5773

patrick.oleary@usda.gov

Senior Television Producer

Debbie Janifer

Rm 1613-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-6446

FAX 202-720-5773

deboria.janifer@usda.gov

Senior Radio Producer

Gary Crawford

Rm 1623-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-7068

FAX 202-690-2165

gary.crawford@usda.gov

Senior Radio Producer

Brenda Curtis-Heiken

Rm 1623-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-7079

FAX 202-690-2165

brenda.curtis@usda.gov

Radio Reporter

Leslie Parker

Rm 1623-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-7884

FAX 202-690-2165

leslie.parker@usda.gov
Rm 1614-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-3068

FAX 202-720-5773

david.black@usda.gov

Senior Production Spec

Bob Stobaugh

Rm 0097-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-4753

FAX 202-720-5773

bob.stobaugh@usda.gov

Studio Mgr./Tech Dir

Larry Holmes

Rm 1623-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-4001

FAX 202-720-5773

larry.holmes@usda.gov

Duplic./Off Air recording

Evangeline Minor

Rm 1604-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-7501

FAX 202-720-5773

evangline.minor@usda.gov

Teleconference Coord

David Vennell

Rm 1617-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-5368

FAX 202-720-5773

david.vennell@usda.gov

y 

Rm 1615-S

Washington, DC 20250-136

202-720-2029

FAX 202-720-5773

mansy.pullen@usda.gov

Teleconference Scheduling

Anita Booth

(Audio)

Rm 1611-S

Washington, DC 20250-136

FAX 202-690-2042

202-720-6143

anita.booth@usda.gov

Liz Conley

(Compressed video)

Rm 1611-S

Washington, DC 20250-136

202-720-8690

FAX 202-720-2042

liz.conley@usda.gov

Training Center Schedulin

Michael Johnson

Rm 1623-S

Washington, DC 20250-136

202-720-2822

FAX 202-690-2704

ocnet.ocpost.mike.xjohnson@usda.g

Design Center

Director

Eva Cuevas

Rm 517-A

Washington, DC 20250-138

202-720-6641

FAX 202-720-8197

eva.cuevas@usda.gov
234

Rm 518-A

Washington, DC 20250-1380

202-720-6281

FAX 202-720-8197

david.sutton@usda.gov

Electronic Graphic Design

Julie Olson

Rm 524-A

Washington, DC 20250-1380

202-720-4339

FAX 202-720-8197

julie.olson@usda.gov

Exhibit Design Coordinator

Steve Ferretti

Rm 524-A

Washington, DC 20250-1380

202-690-0852

FAX 202-720-8197

steve.ferretti@usda.gov

Exhibit Fabrication Coord.

Larry Sullivan

Rm S-310

Washington, DC 20250-1380

202-720-3393

FAX 202-690-1799

larry.sullivan@usda.gov

Exhibit Shipping Coordinator

Cindy Haydon

Rm 517-A

Washington, DC 20250-1380

202-720-6641

FAX 202-720-8197

cindy.haydon@usda.gov

Bill Tarpenning

Rm 4404-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-6633

FAX 202-720-0902

bill.tarpenning@usda.gov

Photojournalists

Ken Hammond

Rm 4415-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-8929

FAX 202-720-0902

ken.hammond@usda.gov

Robert Nichols

Rm 4415-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-8903

FAX 202-720-0902

bob.nichols@usda.gov

Anson Eaglin

Rm 4409-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-0909

FAX 202-720-0902

anson.eaglin@usda.gov

Photo Reproduction/Review

Alice Welch

Rm 4423-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-4022

FAX 202-720-0902

alice.welch@usda.gov
Rm 4404-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-6633

FAX 202-720-0902

vivian.thomas@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

Forms

Ed McVerry

Rm501-A

Washington, D.C. 20250-1370

202-720-8137

FAX 202-720-8939

ed.mcverry@usda.gov

Rm501-A

Washington, D.C. 20250-13

202-720-8180

FAX 202-720-8939

lonnie.thomas@usda.gov

Composite/Rider Orders

Mary Hill

Rm 501-A

Washington, D.C. 20250-13

202-720-5983

FAX 202-720-8939

mary.hill@usda.gov
236

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
liters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . quarts 1.06

liters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . gallons .26

cubic meters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cubic feet 35

cubic meters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cubic yards 1.3

Temperature

Fahrenheit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Celsius .56 (after su

Celsius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fahrenheit 1.82 (then ad

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 w

1 bushel of: pounds k

wheat, soybeans, potatoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 

corn, grain sorghum, rye, flaxseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 

beets, carrots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 

barley, buckwheat, peaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 

oats, cottonseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 

weight in 

1 metric ton of: pounds of 

wheat, soybeans, potatoes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,204.6 

corn, grain sorghum, rye, flaxseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,204.6 

beets, carrots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,204.6 

barley, buckwheat, peaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,204.6 

oats, cottonseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,204.6 
238 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 fo

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harve

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest 

Plant

Plant

Plant

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. 

Plant

Plant

Plant

Plant

Plant

Plant

Plant

Plant

Plant

Harvest 
Acid soil. Soil with a pH of less than 7.0.

Acreage reporting date. The date by which

insureds must report their planted acreage to

their agent. These reports are essential

because they help determine premium and

liability. Reporting dates vary and are printed

in crop insurance policies.

Actual production history (APH). An APH

yield is a producer-certified report of the

planted acreage and harvested production for

each insured crop. MPCI coverage is based

on at least 4 years of APH yields. If records

are lacking, transitional yields (T-yields—a

percentage of local yield averages) are used

to help calculate coverage.

Actuarial table. The forms and related material for the crop year, which are available for

public inspection in the crop insurance

agent’s office, show the amounts of insurance

or production guarantees, coverage levels,

premium rates, prices for computing indemnities, practices, insurable acreage, and other

related information regarding crop insurance

in the county.

Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (P.L.

73-10). Signed May 12, 1933, this law introduced the price support programs, including

production adjustments, and the incorporation of the Commodity Credit Corporation

(CCC), under the laws of the State of

Delaware on October 17, 1933. The program

benefits were financed mostly by processing

taxes on the specific commodity. The Act also

made price support loans by the CCC mandatory for the designated "basic" (storable)

commodities: corn, wheat, and cotton.

Support for other commodities was authorized upon the recommendation by the

Secretary of Agriculture with the President's

approval.

Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (P.L.

75-430). Signed February 16, 1938, this law

was the first to make price support mandatory

for corn, cotton, and wheat to help maintain 

a sufficient supply for low prod

along with marketing quotas to 

in line with market demand. Th

considered part of permanent a

legislation. Provisions of this la

superseded by more current leg

However, if the current legislat

and new legislation is not enact

reverts back to the permanent p

the 1938 Act, along with the Ag

Act of 1949.

Agronomy. The science of crop 

and soil management.

Alfalfa. A valuable leguminous 

forage or hay used in livestock 

Alkaline soil. Soil with a pH of 

7.0.

Alternative farming. Producti

other than energy- and chemica

one-crop (monoculture) farmin

include using animal and green 

than chemical fertilizers, integr

management instead of chemic

reduced tillage, crop rotation (e

legumes to add nitrogen), altern

or diversification of the farm en

Animal unit. A standard measu

feed requirements, used to com

classes of livestock according t

age, and use.

Aquaculture. The production o

plants or animals in a controlled 

ment, such as ponds, raceways, 

cages, for all or part of their life 

United States, baitfish, catfish, 

fish, freshwater prawns, mussel

salmon, shrimp, tropical (or orn

and trout account for most of th

production. Less widely establi

growing species include alligat

striped bass, carp, eel, red fish, 

sturgeon, and tilapia.
240

irrigation.

Artificial insemination (AI). The mechanical injection of semen into the womb of the

female animal with a syringe-like apparatus.

Back hoe. A shovel mounted on the rear of a

tractor, hydraulically operated to dig trenches

or pits in soil.

Base acreage. A farm’s crop-specific acreage

of wheat, feed grains, upland cotton, or rice

eligible to enroll in commodity programs

under legislation prior to the 1996 Farm Bill.

Base acreage equalled land planted for harvest to the crop, plus any land enrolled in

acreage reduction programs, plus land considered planted to the crop in 0,50/85-92 or

under permitted normal flex or optional flex

acreage shifts during a specified period of

time. A farmer’s crop acreage base is reduced

by the portion of land placed in the Conservation Reserve Program, but is increased by

CRP base acreage leaving the CRP.

Basic commodities. Six crops (corn, cotton,

peanuts, rice, tobacco, and wheat) that are

covered by parity-based price support provisions, provisions which have been suspended

for the 1996 through 2002 crops of each of

these commodities.

Biological control of pests. Control, but not

total eradication, of insect pests achieved by

using natural enemies, either indigenous or

imported, or diseases to which the pest is susceptible. It includes such nontoxic pesticides

as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt).

Biologics. Immunization materials made

from living or "killed" organisms and their

products used for the detection and prevention of diseases; includes serums, vaccines,

bacterins, antigens, and antitoxins.

Biotechnology. The use of technology, based

on living systems, to develop processes and

products for commercial, scientific, or other

purposes. These include specific techniques

eded cedt. ooepot su

which combines direct Government 

credit and credit guarantees to reduc

effective interest rate.

Brucellosis. A contagious disease in 

and dairy cattle, which causes aborti

disease in humans is known as undu

fever.

BST (bovine somatotropin) (also c

BGH, for bovine growth hormone

protein hormone produced naturally 

pituitary gland of cattle. Recombina

or rBST, is BST produced using reco

DNA biotechnology. BST controls th

amount of milk produced by cows.

Cargo preference. A law that requir

certain portion of goods or commod

financed by the U.S. Government to 

shipped on U.S. flag ships. The law 

traditionally applied to P.L. 480 and 

concessional financing or donations 

grams.

Carryover. Existing supplies of a fa

modity not used at the end of a mark

year, and remaining to be carried ov

the next year. Marketing years gener

start at the beginning of a new harve

commodity, and extend to the same 

the following year.

Cash grain farm. A farm on which 

grain sorghum, small grains, soybea

field beans and peas account for at le

50 percent of value of products sold

Catastrophic risk protection (CAT

lowest level of Federal crop insuranc

age. It provides a coverage level at 5

of the actual yields at 55 percent of t

expected market price. Coverage is p

for an administrative fee.

Census of Agriculture. A count tak

5 years of the number of farms, land 

crop acreage and production, livesto

bers and production, farm expenses, 
), 

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 CCCowned commodities. With the exception of

the upland cotton loan program, CCC authority to issue such certificates in lieu of cash

payments was suspended for the 1996

through 2002 crops by the Federal

Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of

1996. Under the “special marketing loan provisions” for the upland cotton loan program,

however, cotton user marketing certificates

may be paid by CCC with commodity certificates.

Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).

A federally owned and operated corporation

within USDA created to stabilize, support,

and protect agricultural prices and farm

income through loans, purchases, payments,

and other operations. All money transactions

for agricultural price and income support 

and related programs are handled through 

the CCC.

Commodity loan rates. Price per unit

(pound, bushel, bale, or hundredweight) at

which the CCC provides nonrecourse loans to

farmers to enable them to hold program crops

for later sale. Commodity loans under the

1996 Act can be recourse for sugar and will

become recourse for dairy in 2000.

, , 

spices, and cordage fiber (see a

mentary imports).

Compost. Organic residues, or 

organic residues and soil, which 

piled, moistened, and allowed t

logical decomposition for use a

Concessional sales. Credit sale

modity in which the buyer is al

favorable payment terms than t

open market. For example, Titl

for Peace Program (P.L. 480) p

financing sales of U.S. commod

low-interest, long-term credit.

Conservation compliance. Th

portion of the Highly Erodible 

Conservation provisions of the 

Act of 1985 that is designed to 

the use of conservation practice

erodible cropland. To remain e

many USDA program benefits, 

required to crop highly erodible 

an approved conservation plan. 

"Sodbuster."

Conservation district. Any un

ernment formed to carry out a l

water conservation program.

Conservation plan. A combina

uses and practices to protect an

productivity and to prevent soil 

A conservation plan must be ap

local conservation district for a

in the Conservation Reserve Pr

plan sets forth the conservation 

maintenance that the owner or o

carry out during the term of the 

Conservation practices. Meth

reduce soil erosion and retain s

Major conservation practices in

vation tillage, crop rotation, con

strip cropping, terraces, diversi

grassed waterways.
242

qy 

land. Under the program, enrolled landowners agree to convert environmentally

sensitive land to approved conserving uses

for 10-15 years. In exchange, the landowner

receives an annual rental payment as well as

an initial cost-share payment for up to 50 percent of the cost of establishing permanent

vegetative cover.

Conservation tillage. Any of several farming

methods that provide for seed germination,

plant growth, and weed control yet maintain

effective ground cover throughout the year

and disturb the soil as little as possible. The

aim is to reduce soil loss and energy use

while maintaining crop yields and quality.

No-till is the most restrictive (soil-conserving) form of conservation tillage. Other 

practices include ridge-till, strip-till, and

mulch-till.

Contour farming. Field operations such as

plowing, planting, cultivating, and harvesting

on the contour, or at right angles to the natural slope, to reduce soil erosion, protect soil

fertility, and use water more efficiently.

Contract acreage. Enrolled 1996 commodity

base acreage under the 1996 Farm Act for

wheat, feed grains, upland cotton, and rice,

generally fixed for 1996 through 2002. A

farmer may voluntarily choose to reduce 

contract acreage in subsequent years. Land

leaving the CRP may be entered into a production flexibility contract if the land had 

an acreage base.

Contract crops. Crops eligible for production flexibility payments: wheat, corn,

sorghum, barley, oats, rice, and upland cotton.

Cooperative. An organization formed for the

purpose of producing and marketing goods 

or products owned collectively by members

who share in the benefits.

Cooperative Extension System. A national,

publicly funded, nonformal education net

is the Cooperative State Research, E

and Extension Service. This unique 

State, and local partnership focuses 

cal solutions to critical issues affecti

ple's daily lives.

Cost of production. The sum, meas

dollars, of all purchased inputs and o

expenses necessary to produce farm 

Cost of production statistics may be

expressed as an average per animal, 

or per unit of production (bushel, po

hundredweight) for all farms in an a

in the country.

County extension agent. An educa

employed by a county and/or a State 

tive extension service to bring resear

agriculture and quality of life educat

local people to help them address far

home, and community problems at t

level. 

Cover crop. A close-growing crop g

protect and improve soils between p

regular crops or between trees and v

orchards and vineyards.

Crop rotation. The practice of grow

ferent crops in recurring succession 

same land. Crop rotation plans are u

followed for the purpose of increasin

fertility and maintaining good yields

Crop year. Generally, the 12-month 

from the beginning of harvest of a p

crop.

Custom work. Specific farm operat

formed under contract between the f

and the contractor. The contractor fu

labor, equipment, and materials to p

the operation. Custom harvesting of 

spraying and picking of fruit, and sh

shearing are examples of custom wo

Dairy Export Incentive Program. 

gram that offers subsidies to exporte

dairy products to assist in competitio
gy y 

Act and reauthorized by the 1990 Farm Act.

The 1996 Farm Act extends the program

through 2002.

Disaster payments. Federal payments made

to farmers because of a natural disaster when

(1) planting is prevented or (2) crop yields

are abnormally low because of adverse

weather and related conditions. Disaster payments may be provided under existing legislation or under special legislation enacted

after an extensive natural disaster.

Distance Education. Delivery of instructional material over a wide geographical area

via one or more technologies, including

video, computer, and laser.

DNA. Deoxyribonucleic acid, a polymeric

chromosomal constituent of living cell nuclei,

composed of deoxyribose (a sugar), phosphoric acid, and four nitrogen bases--adenine,

cytosine, guanine, and thymine. It contains

the genetic information for living organisms,

and consists of two strands in the shape of 

a double helix. A gene is a piece of DNA.

Double crop. Two different crops grown on

the same area in one growing season.

Dryland farming. A system of producing

crops in semiarid regions (usually with less

than 20 inches of annual rainfall) without the

use of irrigation. Frequently, part of the land

will lie fallow in alternate years to conserve

moisture.

Erosion. The process in which water or wind

moves soil from one location to another.

Types of erosion are (1) sheet and rill—a general washing away of a thin uniform sheet of

soil, or removal of soil in many small channels or incisions caused by rainfall or irrigation runoff; (2) gully—channels or incisions

cut by concentrated water runoff after heavy

rains; (3) ephemeral—a water-worn, shortlived or seasonal incision, wider, deeper and

longer than a rill, but shallower and smaller

than a gully; and (4) wind—the carrying

Ethanol. An alcohol fuel that m

duced from an agricultural food

as corn, sugarcane, or wood, an

blended with gasoline to enhan

reduce automotive exhaust poll

reduce reliance on petroleum-b

Export Enhancement Progra

Started in May 1985 under the 

Credit Corporation Charter Act 

exporters meet competitors’ pri

dized markets. Under the EEP, 

awarded bonuses, enabling them 

for sales in specified countries.

Extra-long staple (ELS) cotto

having a staple length of 1-3/8 

more, characterized by fineness 

fiber strength. American types i

American Pima and Sea Island 

Family Farm. An agricultural 

which (1) produces agricultural 

for sale in such quantities so as 

nized as a farm rather than a rur

(2) produces enough income (in

farm employment) to pay famil

operating expenses, to pay debt

maintain the property; (3) is ma

operator; (4) has a substantial a

labor provided by the operator 

and (5) may use seasonal labor 

periods and a reasonable amoun

hired labor.

Farm. USDA defines a farm in 

place from which $1,000 or mo

tural products were produced a

mally would have been sold du

Farm Credit System. The syst

of cooperatively owned financi

in districts covering the United 

Puerto Rico that finance farm a

related mortgages and operatin

Institutions within each district 

farmland loans and operating c

ing to farmer-owned supply, ma
244

Federal Agriculture Improvement and

Reform Act of 1996 (1996 Farm Act)

(P.L.104-127). The omnibus food and agriculture legislation signed into law on April 4,

1996, that provided a 7-year framework

(1996-2002) for the Secretary of Agriculture

to administer various agricultural and food

programs. The 1996 Act fundamentally

redesigns income support and supply management programs for producers of wheat,

corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, rice, and

upland cotton. The 1996 Farm Act also

makes program changes for dairy, sugar, and

peanuts. Additionally, trade programs are

more targeted and environmental programs

are consolidated and extended in the 1996

Farm Act.

Feed grain. Any of several grains most commonly used for livestock or poultry feed,

including corn, grain sorghum, oats, rye, and

barley.

Fertilizer. Any organic or inorganic material

of natural or synthetic origin which is added

to soil to provide nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, necessary 

to sustain plant growth.

FFA. An organization for high school students studying vocational agriculture.

Flood plains. Lowland and relatively flat

areas adjoining inland and coastal waters,

including floodprone areas of islands. This

land includes, at a minimum, those areas that

are subject to a 1 percent or greater chance 

of flooding in any given year.

Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and

Trade Act of 1990 (1990 Farm Act) (P.L.

101-624). Signed November 28, 1990, this 5-

year farm bill applied to the 1991-95 crop

programs. This Act continued the transition,

started by the Food Security Act of 1985,

toward greater market orientation of domestic

commodity programs, the most notable

changes being frozen minimum target prices

and greater planting flexibility. Most of the

commodity program provisions of this Act

Food grain. Cereal seeds most com

used for human food, chiefly wheat 

Food Security Act of 1985 (1985 F

(P.L. 99-198). The omnibus food an

ture legislation signed into law on D

23, 1985, that provided a 5-year fram

(1986-90) for the Secretary of Agric

to administer various agricultural an

programs.

Forage. Vegetable matter, fresh or p

that is gathered and fed to animals a

roughage; includes alfalfa hay, corn 

and other hay crops.

Forward contracting. A method of 

crops before harvest by which the bu

agrees to pay a specified price to a g

a portion, or all, of the grower's crop

Fungicide. A chemical substance us

spray, dust, or disinfectant to kill fun

ing plants or seeds.

Futures contract. An agreement be

two people, one who sells and agree

deliver and one who buys and agree

receive a certain kind, quality, and q

product to be delivered during a spe

delivery month at a specified price.

General Agreement on Tariffs and 

(GATT). An agreement originally n

in 1947 to increase international trad

reducing tariffs and other trade barri

agreement provides a code of condu

international commerce and a frame

periodic multilateral negotiations on 

liberalization and expansion. The Ur

Round Agreement established the W

Trade Organization (WTO) to replac

GATT. The WTO officially replaced 

GATT on January 1, 1995. 

Genetic engineering. Genetic modi

of organisms by recombinant DNA, 

nant RNA, or other specific molecul

transfer or exchange techniques.
Gleaning. Collecting of unharvested crops

from the fields, or obtaining agricultural

products from farmers, processors, or retailers without charge.

Gopher. The Internet Gopher client/server 

is a distributed information delivery system

around which a campuswide information system can readily be constructed. While providing a delivery vehicle for local information,

Gopher facilitates access to other Gopher and

information servers throughout the world.

Grade A milk. Milk, also referred to as fluid

grade, produced under sanitary conditions

that qualify it for fluid (beverage) consumption. Only Grade A milk is regulated under

Federal milk marketing orders.

Grade B milk. Milk, also referred to as manufacturing grade, not meeting Grade A standards. Less stringent standards generally

apply.

Grafting. The process of inserting a scion of

a specified variety into a stem, root, or branch

of another plant so that a permanent union is

achieved.

Great Plains. A level to gently sloping

region of the United States that lies between

the Rockies and approximately the 98th

meridian. The area is subject to recurring

droughts and high winds. It consists of parts

of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana,

Nebraska, Wyoming, Kansas, Colorado,

Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico.

Green manure. Any crop or plant grown and

plowed under to improve the soil, by adding

organic matter and subsequently releasing

plant nutrients, especially nitrogen.

Ground water. Water beneath the Earth's

surface between saturated soil and rock,

which supplies wells and springs.

Group Risk Plan (GRP). A crop insurance

plan that uses an index—the expected county

yield—as the basis for protection. When the

pp

level coverage described above

individual crop losses may not 

the county yield does not suffer 

level of loss.

Hedgerow. Trees or shrubs gro

together so that branches intertw

a continuous row.

Herbicide. Any agent or chemi

destroy plants, especially weed

Humus. The well decomposed

ble portion of the partly or who

organic matter in a soil, which p

ents and helps the soil retain m

Hydroponics. Growing of plan

containing dissolved nutrients, 

in soil. This process is being us

houses for intensive off-season 

of vegetables.

Infrastructure. The transporta

communications systems, finan

tions, and other public and priv

necessary for economic activity

Integrated crop management

ture management system that in

controllable agricultural produc

for long-term sustained product

itability, and ecological soundn

Integrated pest management 

control of pests or diseases by u

of crop production strategies, c

careful monitoring of insect pes

populations and other methods

approaches include selection of 

varieties, timing of cultivation, 

control methods, and minimal u

cal pesticides so that natural en

are not destroyed. These approa

to anticipate and prevent pests a

from reaching economically da

International trade barriers. 

used by governments to restrict 
246

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.

g 

crops for later sale.

Market Access Program (MAP). F

the Market Promotion Program. Part

organizations include nonprofit trade 

tions, State and regional trade group

private companies. Fund authority is 

at $90 million annually for FY 1996

Market basket of farm foods. Aver

quantities of U.S. farm foods purcha

annually per household in a given pe

Retail cost of these foods used as a b

computing an index of retail prices f

domestically produced farm foods. E

are fishery products, imported foods

meals eaten away from home.

Marketing allotments. Provides ea

processor or producer of a particular 

modity a specific limit on sales for th

above which penalties would apply.

Marketing orders. Federal marketi

authorize agricultural producers to p

orderly marketing by influencing suc

as supply and quality, and to pool fu

promotion and research. Marketing 

initiated by the industry, and are app

the Secretary of Agriculture and by a 

among producers. Once approved, a 

ing order is mandatory.

Marketing spread. The difference b

the retail price of a product and the f

value of the ingredients in the produ

farm-retail spread includes charges f

assembling, storing, processing, tran

and distributing the products.

Marketing year. Year beginning at h

time during which a crop moves to m

Metropolitan statistical area (MSA

county or group of contiguous count

contain at least one city of 50,000 in

or more, or twin cities with a combin

lation of at least 50,000. In addition, 

ous counties are included in an MSA 
Migrant farmworker. A person who travels

across State or county boundaries to do agricultural work of a seasonal or other temporary nature, and who is required to be absent

overnight from his or her permanent place of

residence. Exceptions are immediate family

members of an agricultural employer or a

farm labor contractor, and temporary foreign

workers.

Multiple peril crop insurance (MPCI).

Refers to the numerous perils (drought,

excess moisture, cold and frost, wind, flood,

and unavoidable damage from insects and

disease) generally covered by a Federal crop

insurance policy. Policies covering one peril,

like hail, exist and are not federally subsidized.

National forest. A Federal reservation dedicated to protection and management of natural resources for a variety of benefits —

including water, forage, wildlife habitat,

wood, recreation, and minerals. National

forests are administered by USDA's Forest

Service, while national parks are administered by the Interior Department's National

Park Service.

National grassland. Land, mainly grass and

shrub cover, administered by the Forest

Service as part of the National Forest System

for promotion of grassland agriculture, watersheds, grazing wildlife, and recreation.

Nematode. Microscopic soil worm, which

may attack root or other structures of plants

and cause extensive damage.

Net farm income. A measurement of the

profit or loss associated with a given year's

production. It is an approximation of the net

value of agricultural production, regardless of

whether the commodities were sold, fed, or

placed in inventory during the year. Net farm

income equals the difference between gross

farm income and total expenses. It includes

nonmoney items such as depreciation, the

consumption of farm-grown food, and the net

Nitrogen. A chemical element 

life and one of the primary plan

Animals get nitrogen from prot

plants get it from soil; and som

it directly from air.

Nonfarm income. Includes all 

nonfarm sources (excluding mo

from working for other farmers

farm operator households.

Nonpoint source pollution. Po

that cannot be traced to a specifi

including stormwater runoff fro

agricultural areas.

Nonprogram crops. Crops—s

toes, vegetables, fruits, and hay

included in Federal price suppo

Nonrecourse loan program. P

ating capital to producers of wh

grains, cotton, peanuts, tobacco

oilseeds. Sugar processors are a

for nonrecourse loans. Farmers 

participating in government com

grams may pledge a quantity of 

as collateral and obtain a loan f

at a commodity-specific, per-un

The borrower may repay the lo

est within a specified period an

trol of the commodity, or forfei

commodity to the CCC after th

period as full settlement of the 

penalty. For those commodities 

marketing loan benefits, produc

the loan at the world price (rice 

cotton) or posted county price (

grains, and oilseeds).

Nutrient. A chemical element o

that is essential for the metabol

growth of an organism.

Off-farm income. Includes wa

salaries from working for other 

nonfarm income, for all owner 

lies (whether they live on a farm 
, , , p,

and mustard seeds used to produce edible

and/or inedible oils, as well as high-protein

animal meal.

Oilseed meal. The product obtained by

grinding the cakes, chips, or flakes that

remain after most of the oil is removed from

oilseeds. Used as a feedstuff for livestock and

poultry.

Organic farming. There is no universally

accepted definition, but in general organic

farming is a production system which avoids

or largely excludes the use of synthetically

compounded fertilizers, pesticides, growth

regulators, and livestock feed additives. 

To the maximum extent feasible, organic

farming systems rely on crop rotation, crop

residues, animal manures, legumes, green

manure, off-farm organic wastes, mechanical

cultivation, mineral bearing rocks, and

aspects of biological pest control to maintain

soil productivity and tilth; to supply plant

nutrients; and to control weeds, insects, and

other pests.

Payment limitations. Limitations set by law

on the amount of money any one person may

receive in Federal farm program payments

each year under the feed grain, wheat, cotton,

rice, and other farm programs.

Percolation. The downward movement of

water through soil under the influence of

gravity.

Permanent legislation. Legislation that

would be in effect in the absence of all 

temporary amendments (Farm Acts). The

Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 and the

Agricultural Act of 1949 serve as the basic

laws authorizing the major commodity 

programs. Technically, each new Farm Act

amends the permanent legislation for a 

specified period.

Plant germplasm. Living material such as

seeds, rootstock, or leaf plant tissue from

which new plants can grow.

Price index. An indicator of average 

change for a group of commodities t

pares price for those same commodi

some other period, commonly called 

period.

Price support level. The price for a 

of a farm commodity (pound, ton) th

Government will support through pr

support loans, purchases, and/or pay

Price support levels are determined b

and are set by the Secretary of Agric

Price support programs. Governm

programs that aim to keep farm pric

falling below specific minimum leve

support programs for selected comm

(peanuts, tobacco, sugar, and milk) a

carried out through loans or purchas

price-support loans, producers (or pr

in the case of sugar) use their produc

commodity as collateral for a loan w

Commodity Credit Corporation (CC

Loans enable the loan taker to store 

commodity during periods of low pr

loans may be redeemed later if comm

prices rise sufficiently to make the sa

commodity on the market profitable

loan taker may forfeit the commodit

as collateral for the loan to CCC in l

cash repayment. In the case of milk, 

authorized through December 31, 19

purchase manufactured dairy produc

order to support the price of fluid mi

statutorily prescribed levels.

Production Credit Associations. L

groups, owned by their farmer borro

that provide short and intermediate-t

loans for up to 10 years from funds o

from investors in money markets. Th

associations are an integral part of th

Credit System.

Production flexibility contract pay

The payments to be made to farmers 

tract crops in 1996 through 2002 und

1996 Farm Act. Payments for each c

allocated each fiscal year based on b

levels and crop-specific percentages 

1996 Farm Act.

248
yqy

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.

years. Donations for humanitar

needs are provided under Title 

authorizes “food for developme

Rangeland. Land which is pred

grasses, grasslike plants, or shr

for grazing and browsing. Rang

includes natural grasslands, sav

wetlands, some deserts, tundra, 

shrub communities. It also inclu

seeded to native or adapted and 

species that are managed like n

vegetation.

Renewable resources. Resourc

forests, rangeland, soil, and wa

be restored and improved.

Revenue insurance. RMA’s th

insurance plans all provide a gu

of revenue by different means. 

indemnities are paid when any 

of yield and price shortfalls res

that is less than the revenue gua

Revenue is determined differen

ticular plans of insurance. All th

vide traditional MPCI yield pro

include provisions to account fo

ability.

Riparian rights. Legal water r

son owning land containing or 

a water course or other body of 

to its banks, bed, or waters.

RNA (ribonucleic acid). A mo

to DNA that functions primarily 

instructions for protein synthes

carried by genes.

Ruminant. Animal having a st

four compartments (rumen, reti

sum, and abomasum). Their dig

is more complex than that of an

a true stomach. Ruminants incl

sheep, and goats, as well as dee

buffalo, camels, and giraffes.
250

py , 

a small town is rural as long as it meets the

above criteria.

Sales closing date. The final date that an

application for crop insurance may be filed.

This is the date for producers to make

changes in their crop insurance coverage for

the crop year.

Saline soil. A soil containing enough soluble

salts to impair its productivity for plants.

Silage. Prepared by chopping green forage

(grass, legumes, field corn, etc.) into an airtight chamber, where it is compressed to

exclude air and undergoes an acid fermentation that retards spoilage. Contains about 

65 percent moisture.

Silviculture. A branch of forestry dealing

with the development and care of forests.

Sodbuster. A portion of the Highly Erodible

Land Conservation provision of the Food

Security Act of 1985 that is designed to discourage the conversion of highly erodible

land from extensive conserving uses, such as

grasslands and woodlands, to intensive production of agricultural commodities. If

highly erodible grasslands or woodlands are

converted to intensive crop production without the application of appropriate conservation practices, producers may lose eligibility

for many USDA program benefits. Also see

“Conservation Compliance.”

Staple. Term used to designate length of fiber

in cotton, wool, or flax.

State Agricultural Experiment Station.

State-operated institutions, established under

the Hatch Act of 1887 and connected to landgrant universities in each State, which carry

out research of local and regional importance

in the areas of food, agriculture, and natural

resources.

Stubble mulch. A protective cover provided

by leaving plant residues of any previous

the emphasis is on production for us

operator and the operator's family ra

for sale.

Supplementary imports. Farm prod

shipped into this country that add to 

put of U.S. agriculture. Examples in

cattle, meat, fruit, vegetables, and to

(see complementary imports).

Sustainable agriculture. An integra

tem of plant and animal production p

having a site-specific application tha

over the long term, satisfy food and 

needs, enhance environmental qualit

natural resources, make the most effi

of nonrenewable resources and on-fa

resources, integrate natural biologica

and controls, sustain the economic v

of farm operations, and enhance the 

of life.

Swampbuster. This provision was a

by the Food Security Act of 1985; it 

ages the conversion of natural wetla

cropland use. With some exceptions

ers converting a wetland area to crop

may lose eligibility for many USDA 

benefits.

Terminal market. A metropolitan m

that handles agricultural commoditie

Tissue culture. The technique of gro

whole plant from a single engineered 

or piece of plant tissue.

Unit cost. The average cost to produ

single item. The total cost divided by 

number of items produced.

Upland cotton. A fiber plant develo

United States from stock native to M

and Central America. Includes all co

grown in the continental United Stat

Sea Island and American Pima cotto

length of upland cotton ranges from 

to 1 1/4 inches.
gy gy 

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.

gqy p

to prices received by wholesale

distributors. In agriculture, it is 

price received by farmers for th

commodities at the first point o

the commodity leaves the farm

Zoonotic diseases. Diseases th

natural conditions, are commun

animals to humans.

4-H. International youth organ

empowers young people 5-19 y

through programs and activities 

agricultural, science, and techn

literacy; citizenship; and other 

skills, such as self-esteem, care

sonal development. The nationa

located in the Families, 4-H, an

unit of the Cooperative State R

Education, and Extension Servi

stand for Head, Heart, Hands, a

1890 Land-Grant Colleges an

Universities and Tuskegee Un

Historically Black land-grant c

universities. Through the Act o

1890, and several other authori

institutions may receive Federa

agricultural research, extension
252

A

AARC. See Alternative Agricultural Research 

and Commercialization Corporation

ADA. See American Dietetic Association

Africare, 100

Age distribution of rural areas, 51-52

AgrAbility project, 186

AGRICOLA, 180

Agricultural Act of 1949, 100

Agricultural Air Quality Task Force, 166

Agricultural Fair Practices Act, 200

Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure

Act of 1978, 25

Agricultural Labor Affairs, 72

Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, 222

Agricultural Marketing Service

commodity procurement programs, 197

direct marketing, 200-201

fair trade programs, 199-200

global markets, 201-202

information sources, 225

Market News, 196-197

marketing orders, 199

organic certification, 200

pesticide information and records, 197-198

promotional campaigns, 198

quality standards, grading, and certification,

195-196

Transportation and Marketing Programs, 201

wholesale market development, 200-201

Agricultural Outlook, 187

Agricultural products. see also Crops; Livestock

export markets, 95, 96

exports, 93-95

imports, 95-97

Agricultural regions, 17

Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education

Reform Act, 175

Agricultural Research Service, 177-181, 188

Agricultural Resource Management Study, 20

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation

Service, 87

Agricultural Telecommunications Program, 185

Agricultural terms, 239-251

Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, 101

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug

Administration, and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act, 101

Air quality programs, 145

Alabama

animal disease eradication programs, 212

boll weevil eradication, 210

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 

cash receipts ranking, by commodity 

43-44

Enterprise Communities, 84

foreign ownership of agricultural lan

government payments (1996), 46

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 

number of farms and land in farms (1

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 193

Alaska

animal disease eradication programs, 

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 

foreign ownership of agricultural lan

government payments (1996), 46

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 

number of farms and land in farms (1

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 193

Alaska Natives. See American Indian an

Native programs

Alternative Agricultural Research and

Commercialization Corporation, 81

American Dietetic Association, 10

American Indian and Alaska Native Prog

See also Native Americans

American Samoa

nutrition assistance programs, 119

AMS. See Agricultural Marketing Servic

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Serv

aquaculture, 221-222

biotechnology regulation, 215-216

cooperation with other agencies, 98

domestic animal health programs, 21

domestic plant health programs, 208-

excluding foreign pests and diseases, 

forest health protection, 149

humane care of animals, 218-221

import-export regulations, 206-208

information sources, 225-226

international programs, 205-206

monitoring pests and diseases, 214-2

Rapid Response Teams, 206

wildlife damage control, 216-218

Animal Production Food Safety Prog

133-134

Animal Welfare Act, 218-221

Animals

damage control, 216-218

domestic animal health programs, 21
APFSP. See Animal Production Food Safety

Program

APHIS. See Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service

Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural 

Areas program, 81

Aquaculture, 221-222

Arizona

animal disease eradication programs, 212

boll weevil eradication, 210

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 41

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1996),

43-44

Enterprise Communities, 84

foreign ownership of agricultural land, 28

government payments (1996), 46

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 170

number of farms and land in farms (1992-

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 193

Arkansas

animal disease eradication programs, 212

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 41

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1996),

43-44

Enterprise Communities, 84

foreign ownership of agricultural land, 28

government payments (1996), 46

net farm income, 39

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 170

number of farms and land in farms (1992-

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 193

ARS. See Agricultural Research Service

Asians

rural population distribution, 52-53

AWA. See Animal Welfare Act

B

“Baby boomers,” 51-52

Backyard Conservation Campaign, 166-167

BACTM, 134-136

Barley. See also Grains

acreage harvested, 23-24

commodity loan programs, 87-88

Beagle Brigade, 204

Beef. See Meats

B&I Loans. See Business and Industry Loan

Guarantees

Biological control programs, 208-209

Biotechnology

regulating agricultural use, 215-216

unemployment rates, 55-56

Blue Thumb Project, 186

Boll weevil eradication program, 2

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy 

Bulk commodities, 94, 96

Bureau of Land Management, 140

Bushel/weight conversion chart, 23

Business and Industry Loan Guaran

Business development programs, 8

C

CACFP. See Child and Adult Care 

California

animal disease eradication prog

boll weevil eradication, 210

cash receipts from farm sales (1

cash receipts ranking, by comm

43-44

Enterprise Communities, 84

foreign ownership of agricultur

government payments (1996), 4

net farm income, 39

NRCS State Public Affairs Con

number of farms and land in far

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 193

Caloric sweeteners. See Sweetener

Calories

dietary changes, 2

Campylobacter, 133

Cancer

NAS report, 10

CARE program, 99

Cash income, 34

Cattle

animal disease eradication prog

cash receipts, 40, 43

Federal inspection, 129

Packers and Stockyards Progra

predation losses, 217

CCC. See Commodity Credit Corp

CEAH. See Centers for Epidemiolo

Health

Census of Agriculture, 29, 188

Center for Nutrition Policy and Pro

121-127

Center for Veterinary Biologics, 21

Centers for Epidemiology and Anim

Centralized Service Center, 82

Cereals. See Grains

Certification services, 195-196, 202

CF. See Cooperative Forestry
Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of

1989, 115

Child Nutrition Programs, 111-112

Children

nutrition assistance programs, 111-112

poverty rates, 57, 58

Children’s Nutrition Research Center, 185

Cholesterol, 1, 3, 5, 178

CITES. See Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species

Civil rights, 63

Clear Title provisions, 225

Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, 74

CNPP. See Center for Nutrition Policy and

Promotion

Colorado

animal disease eradication programs, 212

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 41

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1996), 

43-44

foreign ownership of agricultural land, 28

government payments (1996), 46

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 170

number of farms and land in farms (1992-

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 193

Commercial Export Credit Guarantee Programs,

100-101

Commodities. See Crops; Livestock

Commodities Improvement Council, 110

Commodity Credit Corporation, 87-88, 99-101

Commodity loan programs, 87-88

Commodity procurement programs, 197

Commodity Supplemental Food Program, 114

Community and Supermarket Action Kits, 136

Community Facilities Loans, Loan Guarantees, and

Grants, 83

Connecticut

animal disease eradication programs, 212

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 41

foreign ownership of agricultural land, 28

government payments (1996), 46

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 170

number of farms and land in farms (1992-

1997), 21-22

Conservation

Conservation Farm Option, 161

Conservation of Private Grazing Land, 162

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program,

92

Conservation Reserve Program, 87, 91-92, 165

Conservation Farm Option, 161

Conservation of Private Grazing Land, 1

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Pro

Conservation Reserve Program, 87, 91-9

Consumer Price Index, 14

Consumer-oriented agricultural products

Convention on International Trade in En

Species, 207

Conversion charts, 236-237

Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey, 21

Cooperative Fire Protection program, 15

Cooperative Forestry, 149-151

Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1

Cooperative Research and Development

Agreements, 176

Cooperative Services, 81

Cooperative State Research, Education, a

Extension Service

advanced communication technology

information sources, 185, 190

mission, 181-182

overview, 183-184

partnerships, 182

programs, 182, 185-186

web site, 185

Cooperator Program, 102

Corn

acreage harvested, 23-24

commodity loan programs, 87-88

Corn sweeteners, 12-13

Corporate farms, 20, 25

The Cost of Food at Home, 123

Cotton

boll weevil eradication, 209-210

commodity loan programs, 87-88

government payments, 46-48

production regions, 17

CRADAs. See Cooperative Research and

Development Agreements

Credit. See also specific loans and progr

agricultural, 30-33

Crop insurance, 87, 103

Crop Revenue Coverage, 104

Croplands

foreign ownership, 25

use of, 20, 23-24

Crops

cash receipts from sales, 39-44

noninsured crop disaster assistance 

program, 89

value of, 33

254
Education, and Extension Service

CTA. See Conservation technical assistance

Custodial account investigations, 223

D

DA. See Departmental Administration

Dairy Export Incentive Program, 101

Dairy Options Pilot Program, 104

Dairy products. See also Milk

dietary changes, 1-2, 5-7

export programs, 101

price support program, 88

Debt-to-asset ratio

for farms, 31

DEIP. See Dairy Export Incentive Program

Delaware

animal disease eradication programs, 212

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 41

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1996), 43

foreign ownership of agricultural land, 28

government payments (1996), 46

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 171

number of farms and land in farms (1992-

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 193

Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of

1994, 62

Departmental Administration, 62-71

Designated Qualified Person program, 220-221

DHHS. See U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services

Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer, 10

Dietary changes

cheese, 6-7

eggs, 3-4

factors contributing to change, 2

fat, 3

fats and oils, 7

fish, 3, 4

fruits, 7, 9-10

meats, 3, 4

milk, 5-6

poultry, 3, 4

U.S. per capita consumption, 18

vegetables, 7, 9-10

Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2, 110, 122-123,

125

Direct Business and Industry Loans, 80

Direct government payments, 45, 48

Disaster Assistance Programs, 89, 120

Disaster Food Stamp Program, 120

Disease

monitoring pests and diseases, 

Distance Learning and Medical Lin

and Grants, 83

DOD. See U.S. Department of Defe

DOPP. See Dairy Options Pilot Pro

DQP. See Designated Qualified Per

Ducks Unlimited, 159

E

E. coli, 129, 133

EBT. See Electronic Benefit Transf

Economic Action Programs, 151

Economic Recovery program, 151

Economic Research Service

food supply estimates, 3

information sources, 191

program scope, 186-187

web site, 39, 40, 187

Ecosystem management, 138

Education. See Research, Educatio

Economics

EEP. See Export Enhancement Prog

EFNEP. See Expanded Food and N

Education Program

Egg Products Inspection Act, 128

Eggs

dietary changes, 1, 3-4

egg products inspection, 129

grading, 195-196

Elderly

Nutrition Program for the Elder

poverty rates, 58

Electric service, rural areas, 83

Electronic Benefit Transfer, 108-10

Emergency Community Water Assi

Grants, 84

Emergency Conservation Program, 

Emergency Food Assistance Progra

Emergency loans, 89

Emergency Watershed Protection p

Employment. See also Labor

farm employment, 29

nonmetro job growth, 53-54

Empowerment Zones, 84

Empowerment Zones and Enterpris

Communities, 84

Endangered Species Act, 207

Energy, minerals, and geology prog

Enterprise Communities, 84

Entitlement foods, 110

Environmental Protection Agency, 
Program

Equal employment opportunity, 63

ERS. See Economic Research Service

Ethnic foods

U.S. consumption, 10

EWP. See Emergency Watershed Protection 

program

Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program,

184, 185

Expenditures on Children by Families, 123

Export Enhancement Program, 101

Exports

agricultural, fish, and forest products, 93-95

dairy export program, 101

grading and certification services, 202

markets for U.S., 95, 96

regulations, 206-208

Extension Services. See Cooperative State

Research, Education, and Extension Service

EZ/EC. See Rural Empowerment Zones 

and Enterprise Communities

F

Facility Credit Program, 101

Fair trade programs, 199-200

Family Economics and Nutrition Review, 122

Farm Bill of 1996. See Federal Agriculture

Improvement and Reform Act of 1996

Farm Costs and Returns Survey, 34

Farm Credit System, 30, 33

Farm income, net, 33-34, 39, 40

Farm loans, 91

Farm operators

definition, 33

household income, 34, 35-38

sources of income, 37

Farm production regions, 17-18

Farm Service Agency

commodity loan programs, 87-88

commodity purchase programs, 88-89

conservation programs, 90, 91-92

disaster assistance, 89

emergency assistance programs, 89-90

examples of successful programs, 90-91

farm loans, 30, 91

Forest Stewardship Landowner Plans, 150

information sources, 92, 105-106

mission, 86

the 1996 Farm Act, 86

purpose, 87

vision, 86

web site, 86

Farmer-to-Farmer Program, 100

Farmland Protection Program, 162

Farms

asset values, 31, 33

cash receipts from farm sales, 39-44

credit, 30

cropland use, 20, 23-24

debt, by lender, 32

debt, real estate and non-real estate, 3

debt-to-asset ratio, 31

definition, 18

equity, 31, 33

foreign ownership of U.S. farmland, 

government payments, 45, 46-48

household income, 34, 35-38

income indicators, 36

labor, 29

land in farms, 18-19, 21-23

land tenure, 20

legal structure, 20

net cash income, 34, 45, 49-50

net farm income, 33-34, 39, 40

net value-added, 33, 35, 39

number of farms, 18-19, 21-23, 45, 4

off-farm income, 34, 37-38

sales classes, 19, 23, 45, 49-50

size of, 19, 23

sources of income, 37

wage rates, 29

Farms and Land in Farms report, 19, 21-

Farm-to-retail price spread, 15

FAS. See Foreign Agricultural Service

Fat

dietary changes, 2

leaner meat trend, 3

milkfat consumption, 5-7

substitutes, 178

Fats and oils

dietary changes, 7

FCIC. See Federal Crop Insurance Corpo

FDA. See Food and Drug Administration

FDPIR. See Food Distribution Program o

Reservations

Federal Agriculture Improvement and Re

of 1996

effect on agricultural policy, 87

effect on government role in farm pro

elimination of dairy price support, 88

establishment of Task Force on Agric

Air Quality, 166

increase in planting flexibility, 23

256
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, 87, 103

Federal Excess Personnel Property program, 154

Federal Government. See Government; specific

departments and agencies

Federal Grain Inspection Program, 222-223

Federal Meat Inspection Act, 128

Federal Pesticide Recordkeeping Program, 198

Federal Seed Act, 199-200

Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program,

201

Fight BAC!TM Campaign, 135-136

Fire protection and management, 153-154

Fish and shellfish

conservation, 143

dietary changes, 3, 4

export markets, 95, 96

exports, 93-95

imports, 95-97

key facts, 143

Flock Certification program, 214

Flood Control Act of 1944, 164

Florida

animal disease eradication programs, 212

boll weevil eradication, 210

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 41

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1996),

43-44

Enterprise Communities, 84

foreign ownership of agricultural land, 28

government payments (1996), 46

net farm income, 39

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 171

number of farms and land in farms (1992-

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 193

Flour. See also Grains

enrichment, 2

U.S. consumption, 10

FMNP. See Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program

FNS. See Food and Nutrition Service

Folic acid, 10, 12

Food aid programs, international, 98-100

Food and Drug Administration, 129

Food and Nutrition Service

applying for nutrition assistance, 121

Child and Adult Care Food Program, 114-115

Commodity Supplemental Food Program, 114

cooperation with other agencies, 88

disaster assistance, 120

eligibility determination, 108

Emergency Food Assistance Program, 119

Food Distribution Program on Indian

international programs, 119

mission, 107

National School Lunch Program

121

Nutrition Assistance Programs, 

Nutrition Education and Trainin

111-112

Nutrition Program for the Elder

Office of Consumer Affairs, 12

School Breakfast Program, 111

Special Milk Program, 117

Summer Food Service Program

WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition 

113-114

WIC Program, 112-113

Food consumption. See Dietary cha

commodities

Food Distribution Program, 120

Food Distribution Program on Indi

118

Food for Development program, 99

Food for Peace program, 88-89

Food for Progress program, 99

The Food Guide Pyramid, 122-123

Food labeling, 129-130

Food prices

distribution of expenditures, 14

farm-to-retail price spread, 15

marketing costs, 13, 16

Food Quality Protection Act of 199

Food Safety and Inspection Service

activities of, 128-129

Animal Production Food Safety 

133-134

consumer education, 134

farm-to-table approach, 132

Fight BAC!TM Campaign, 135-

FoodNet, 133

HACCP systems, 131

information sources, 137

labeling of meat and poultry pro

Meat and Poultry Hotline, 136

National Food Safety Initiative

Partnership for Food Safety Ed

135

PulseNet, 133

regulatory reform, 132

strategic goal, 130-131

web sites, 132

The Food Safety Educator, 134

Food Safety Initiative, 130, 131-13

Food Security Act of 1985, 101, 22
production regions, 17-18

Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network

(FoodNet), 133

FoodReview, 187

Foot-and-mouth disease, 206

Foreign Agricultural Service

Commercial Export Credit Guarantee

Programs, 100-101

dairy export program, 101

export assistance programs, 101

export markets, 95, 96

exports of agricultural, fish, and forest 

products, 93-95

food aid programs, 98-100

Foreign Market Development program, 102

imports of agricultural, fish, and forest 

products, 95-97

information sources, 106

international links, 102-103

Market Access Program, 101

mission, 93

trade agreements, 97-98

web site, 93

Foreign Market Development Program, 102

Foreign ownership of farmland, 25-28

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources

Planning Act of 1974, 138

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources

Research Act of 1978, 138

Forest land

foreign ownership, 25

Forest Legacy Program, 150

Forest Product Laboratory, 139

Forest products

export markets, 95, 96

exports, 93-95

imports, 95-97

Forest Products Conservation and Recycling

Program, 152

Forest Service

business operations, 155-157

fact sheet, 142

information sources, 168-169

key figures for 1996, 143

law enforcement and investigations, 159

location of National Forests, 141

mission, 138

National Forest system, 143-148

Office of International Programs, 158-159

organizational structure, 139-140

principal laws, 138

reinvention, 140, 142

149-154

web site, 142

Forest Stewardship Landowner Plans, 15

Forest Stewardship Program, 150

Forestry assistance. See State and private 

assistance

Forestry Incentives Program, 164

4-H programs, 183

Fruits. See also Vegetables

dietary changes, 1-2, 7, 9-10

production regions, 17

FSA. See Farm Service Agency; Federal 

FSIS. See Food Safety and Inspection Se

FSMIP. See Federal-State Marketing Imp

Program

G

Geographic information systems, 215

Geology. See Energy, minerals, and geol

program

Georgia

animal disease eradication programs, 

boll weevil eradication, 210

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 

cash receipts ranking, by commodity 

43-44

Enterprise Communities, 84

foreign ownership of agricultural lan

government payments (1996), 46

net farm income, 39

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 

number of farms and land in farms (1

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 193

GIPSA. See Grain Inspection, Packers, a

Stockyards Administration

GIS. See Geographic information system

Glickman, Dan, 79, 104, 105, 134, 165

Global Change Program Office, 72

Glossary, 239-251

Gore, Al, 70, 73

Government

funding for rural area development, 6

idled farmland, 20, 23

metropolitan area funding, 60-61

payments to farmers, 45, 46-48

Grading standards and services, 195-196

Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyard

Administration

carcass merit purchasing, 225

Clear Title provisions, 225

fair competition, 224

258
payment protection, 223

scales and weighing activities, 224

structural change analysis, 225

trade practices, 224

trust activities, 224

Grains

commodity loan programs, 87-88

dietary changes, 1-2, 10-12

enriched grain products, 10

Federal Grain Inspection Program, 222-223

government payments, 46-48

production regions, 17

Grants. See specific grant programs

Grasshopper control program, 211

Group Risk Plan, 104

GRP. See Group Risk Plan

GSM programs, 100

Guide to USDA Programs for American Indians

and Alaska Natives, 75

H

HACCP. See Hazard Analysis and Critical Control

Point Systems

Harvested cropland, 20, 23-24

Harvesting calendar, 238

Hawaii

animal disease eradication programs, 212

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 41

foreign ownership of agricultural land, 28

government payments (1996), 46

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 171

number of farms and land in farms (1992-

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 193

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point

Systems, 130-132, 184

The Healthy Eating Index, 123

Healthy Meals for Children Act, 110

Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act, 

110, 115

Hispanics

household income, 60

poverty rates, 57, 58

rural population distribution, 52-53

unemployment rates, 55-56

Hogs

animal health programs, 212-215

Packers and Stockyards Programs, 223-225

Home Improvement and Repair Loans and Grants,

82

Home Ownership Loans, 82

Homeless Children Nutrition Program, 115-116

farm operator households, 34, 3

food expenditures, 14

metropolitan areas, 57, 60

off-farm income, 34, 37-38

rural areas, 57, 60

sources of income for farm ope

households, 37

Housing Act of 1949, 73

Housing programs

rural areas, 82-83

HPA. See Horse Protection Act

Human resources management, 63

Hunger Prevention Act, 119

I

Idaho

animal disease eradication prog

cash receipts from farm sales (1

cash receipts ranking, by comm

43-44

foreign ownership of agricultur

government payments (1996), 4

NRCS State Public Affairs Con

number of farms and land in fa

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 193

Idled farm land, 20, 23, 24

Illinois

animal disease eradication prog

cash receipts from farm sales (1

cash receipts ranking, by comm

43-44

foreign ownership of agricultur

government payments (1996), 4

net farm income, 39

NRCS State Public Affairs Con

number of farms and land in far

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 193

Imports

of agricultural, fish, and forest p

canine detector teams, 204

preclearance programs, 204-20

regulations, 206-208

Incident Command System, 158

Income. See Farms; Household inc

Income Protection insurance, 104

Indian Tribal Organizations, 118

Indiana

animal disease eradication prog

cash receipts from farm sales (1

cash receipts ranking, by comm
number of farms and land in farms (1992-

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 193

Individual farm operations, 20, 25

Industry, rural areas, 53-54

Infant formula rebates, 113

Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems,

175

Insects. See Pests

Inspection. See Food Safety and Inspection

Service; Grading standards and services

Integrated Pest Management, 175-176, 185, 211

Intermediary Relending Program Loans, 80

Intermediate agricultural products, 94, 96

International Forestry Cooperation Act of 1990,

138

International Institute of Tropical Forestry, 140

International issues

food aid programs, 98-100

foreign ownership of farmland, 25-28

international forestry activities, 158-159

marketing, 201-202

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

programs, 165

plant and animal health programs, 205-206

preclearance programs, 204-205

trade agreements, 97-98

International Programs, 139, 140, 158-159

International Regulations Retrieval System, 207

International Services, 204-206

Iowa

animal disease eradication programs, 212

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 41

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1996),

43-44

foreign ownership of agricultural land, 28

government payments (1996), 46

net farm income, 39

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 171

number of farms and land in farms (1992-

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 193

IP. See Office of International Programs

IPM. See Integrated Pest Management

IRP. See Intermediary Relending Program Loans

IRRS. See International Regulations Retrieval

System

IS. See International Services

ITO’s. See Indian Tribal Organizations

J

Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers, 139, 156

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 

cash receipts ranking, by commodity 

foreign ownership of agricultural lan

government payments (1996), 46

net farm income, 39

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 

number of farms and land in farms (1

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 193

Kentucky

animal disease eradication programs, 

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 

cash receipts ranking, by commodity 

foreign ownership of agricultural lan

government payments (1996), 46

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 

number of farms and land in farms (1

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 193

L

Labeling

of meat and poultry products, 129-13

Labor. See also Employment

farm labor, 29

food marketing costs, 13-14

wage rates, 29

Lamb. See Meats

Land in farms, 18-19, 21-23

Land retirement program, 23

Land tenure, 20

Land use, 20

Law enforcement programs

Forest Service, 159

Legal structure of farms, 20, 23

Lettuce. See also Vegetables

dietary changes, 9

Life insurance companies

farm loans, 30

Listeria, 133

Livestock

cash receipts from sales, 39-44

disease control, 212-215

Federal inspection, 129

payment protection, 223

production values, 33

Veterinary Services, 211-214

Livestock Indemnity Program, 89

Loans. See Credit; specific loans and pro

Louisiana

animal disease eradication programs, 

boll weevil eradication, 210

260
foreign ownership of agricultural land, 28

government payments (1996), 46

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 171

number of farms and land in farms (1992-

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 193

Lumber. See Forest products

M

“Mad cow disease,” 206

Maine

animal disease eradication programs, 213

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 41

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1996), 44

foreign ownership of agricultural land, 25, 28

government payments (1996), 46

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 171

number of farms and land in farms (1992-

1997), 21-22

Managing Change in Agriculture, 183

MAP. See Market Access Program

Market Access Program, 101

Market News, 196-197

Marketing

Agricultural Marketing Service, 195-202

assistance loan programs, 87-88

cost of food services and distribution, 13, 16

fair trade programs, 199-200

grading, quality standards, and certification,

195-196

Market News, 196-197

Maryland

animal disease eradication programs, 213

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 41

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1996), 43

foreign ownership of agricultural land, 28

government payments (1996), 46

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 171

number of farms and land in farms (1992-

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 193

Massachusetts

animal disease eradication programs, 213

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 41

foreign ownership of agricultural land, 28

government payments (1996), 46

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 171

number of farms and land in farms (1992-

1997), 21-22

Meat and Poultry Hotline, 136-137

Meats. See also Fish and shellfish; Poultry

dietary changes, 3, 4

quality standards and grading, 1

Medical care, rural areas, 83

Mediterranean fruit fly, 205-206

Metric conversion chart, 236-237

Metropolitan areas

population statistics, 51-53

Mexican foods

U.S. consumption, 10

Michigan

animal disease eradication prog

cash receipts from farm sales (1

cash receipts ranking, by comm

43-44

Enterprise Communities, 84

foreign ownership of agricultur

government payments (1996), 4

NRCS State Public Affairs Con

number of farms and land in far

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 193

Milk. See also Dairy products

dietary changes, 1, 5-6

export program, 101

production regions, 17

Special Milk Program, 117

Minerals. See Energy, minerals, and 

program

Minnesota

animal disease eradication prog

cash receipts from farm sales (1

cash receipts ranking, by comm

43-44

foreign ownership of agricultur

government payments (1996), 4

net farm income, 39

NRCS State Public Affairs Con

number of farms and land in far

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 193

Minorities. See also American Indi

Native programs

Business Enterprise Developme

poverty rates, 57, 58

rural population distribution, 52

unemployment rates, 55-56

Mississippi

animal disease eradication prog

boll weevil eradication, 210

cash receipts from farm sales (1

cash receipts ranking, by comm

43-44

Enterprise Communities, 84
1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 193

Missouri

animal disease eradication programs, 213

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 41

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1996),

43-44

Enterprise Communities, 84

foreign ownership of agricultural land, 28

government payments (1996), 46

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 172

number of farms and land in farms (1992-

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 193

Montana

animal disease eradication programs, 213

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 41

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1996),

43-44

foreign ownership of agricultural land, 28

government payments (1996), 46

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 172

number of farms and land in farms (1992-

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 193

MOSCAMED program, 205

MPCI. See Multiple-Peril Crop Insurance

Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960, 138

Multiple-Peril Crop Insurance, 103

N

NAFTA. See North American Free Trade

Agreement

NAHMS. See National Animal Health Monitoring

System

NAL. See National Agricultural Library

NAP. See Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance

Program

NAPIS. See National Agricultural Pest Information

System

NASS. See National Agricultural Statistics Service

National Academy of Sciences, 10

National Agricultural Library, 177, 179-181, 

188-190

National Agricultural Pest Information System, 215

National Agricultural Statistics Service, 187-188,

192, 217

National Animal Health Monitoring System, 215

National Biological Control Institute, 209

National Center for Import and Export, 207

National Conservation Buffer Initiative, 165

National Finance Center, 74

energy, minerals, and geology progra

146-147

lands-related activities, 143

location of national forests, 141

partnerships, 144-145

Passport In Time program, 148

rangeland, 145-146

timber, 148

water, soil, and air, 145

wildlife, fish, and rare plants, 143-14

National Information Infrastructure, 182

National Information Technology Center

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adm

71

National Organic Standards Board, 200

National Partnership for Reinventing Go

140

National Performance Review, 70

National Register of Historic Places, 148

National Research Initiative, 183

National Resources Inventory, 165

National Scholars Program, 63

National School Lunch Program, 88, 109

National Sheep Industry Improvement C

National Veterinary Services Laboratorie

National Wildlife Research Center, 217

Native American Working Group, 74

Native Americans. See also American In

Alaska Native programs

Food Distribution Program on Indian

Reservations, 118

household income, 60

poverty rates, 57, 58

rural population distribution, 52-53

Natural disasters, assistance programs, 8

Natural Resource Conservation Educatio

153

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Agricultural Air Quality Task Force, 

Backyard Conservation Campaign, 1

conservation technical assistance, 16

Environmental Quality Incentives Pr

information sources, 169-174

international programs, 165

mission, 160

National Conservation Buffer Initiati

partnerships, 160

programs, 161-165

Nebraska

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 

cash receipts ranking, by commodity 

43-44

262
number of farms and land in farms (1992-

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 193

NEMO. See Nonpoint Education for Municipal

Officials

NET. See Nutrition Education and Training

Program

Nevada

animal disease eradication programs, 213

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 42

foreign ownership of agricultural land, 28

government payments (1996), 46

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 172

number of farms and land in farms (1992-

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 193

New England region

State Statistical Office, 193

New Hampshire

animal disease eradication programs, 213

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 42

foreign ownership of agricultural land, 28

government payments (1996), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 172

number of farms and land in farms (1992-

1997), 21-22

New Jersey

animal disease eradication programs, 213

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 42

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1996), 44

foreign ownership of agricultural land, 28

government payments (1996), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 172

number of farms and land in farms (1992-

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 193

New Mexico

animal disease eradication programs, 213

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 42

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1996),

43-44

Enterprise Communities, 84

foreign ownership of agricultural land, 28

government payments (1996), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 172

number of farms and land in farms (1992-

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 194

New York

animal disease eradication programs, 213

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 42

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1996),

number of farms and land in far

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 194

NFC. See National Finance Center

NFS. See National Forest System

NII. See National Information Infra

The 1985 Act. See Food Security A

The 1996 Act. See Federal Agricult

Improvement and Reform Act o

NITC. See National Information Te

Center

Non-Governmental Organizations, 

Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistan

Nonpoint Education for Municipal 

Non-real-estate

assets, 31

debt, 33

loans, 30-31

Nonrecourse loans, 87-88

North American Free Trade Agreem

North Carolina

animal disease eradication prog

boll weevil eradication, 210

cash receipts from farm sales (1

cash receipts ranking, by comm

43-44

Enterprise Communities, 84

foreign ownership of agricultur

government payments (1996), 4

net farm income, 39

NRCS State Public Affairs Con

number of farms and land in far

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 194

witchweed eradication, 210-21

North Dakota

animal disease eradication prog

cash receipts from farm sales (1

cash receipts ranking, by comm

43-44

foreign ownership of agricultur

government payments (1996), 4

NRCS State Public Affairs Con

number of farms and land in far

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 194

Northern Mariana Islands

nutrition assistance program, 11

NPE. See Nutrition Program for the 

NRCE. See Natural Resource Cons

Education

NRCS. See Natural Resources Con
1994, 123-124

Nutrition Assistance Programs, 107, 119, 121. See

also Food and Nutrition Service; specific 

programs

Nutrition Education and Training Program, 111-

112

Nutrition Facts panel, 129

Nutrition Insights, 124

Nutrition labeling, 129-130

Nutrition Program for the Elderly, 117

NVSL. See National Veterinary Services

Laboratories

NWRC. See National Wildlife Research Center

O

Oatrim, 178

Oats. See also Grains

acreage harvested, 23-24

commodity loan programs, 87-88

Obesity, 3

OCA. See Office of Consumer Affairs

OCFO. See Office of the Chief Financial Officer

OCIO. See Office of the Chief Information Officer

Office of Civil Rights, 63

Office of Communications, 227-235

Office of Congressional Relations, 75

Office of Consumer Affairs, 121

Office of Human Resources Management, 63

Office of Inspector General, 72-73

Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, 75

Office of International Programs, 158-159

Office of Operations, 70

Office of Procurement and Property Management,

69

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business

Utilization, 70-71

Office of the Chief Economist, 71-72

Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 74

Office of the Chief Information Officer, 73-74

Ohio

animal disease eradication programs, 213

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 42

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1996),

43-44

Enterprise Communities, 84

foreign ownership of agricultural land, 28

government payments (1996), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 172

number of farms and land in farms (1992-

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 194

OIA. See Office of Intergovernmental Affairs

animal disease eradication programs, 

boll weevil eradication, 210

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 

cash receipts ranking, by commodity 

43-44

Enterprise Communities, 84

foreign ownership of agricultural lan

government payments (1996), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 

number of farms and land in farms (1

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 194

Operation Talon, 73

OPPM. See Office of Procurement and P

Management

Oregon

animal disease eradication programs, 

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 

cash receipts ranking, by commodity 

43-44

Enterprise Communities, 84

foreign ownership of agricultural lan

government payments (1996), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 

number of farms and land in farms (1

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 194

Organic Administration Act of 1897, 138

Organic certification, 200

Organic Foods Production Act, 200

OSDBU. See Office of Small and Disadv

Business Utilization

Ownership of farm land, 20

P

PACA. See Perishable Agricultural Comm

Act

Pacific Northwest Assistance, 151

Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, 223

Packers and Stockyards Programs, 223-2

Paid Land Diversion programs, 23

Paperwork Reduction Act, 74

Partnership for Food Safety Education, 1

Partnerships, 20, 25

Passport In Time program, 148

Pasture land

foreign ownership, 25

Pathogen Reduction and Hazard Analysi

Critical Control Point Systems, 129, 

Payment-in-kind program, 23

PDP. See Pesticide Data Program

Peanuts

264
cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 42

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1996),

43-44

Enterprise Communities, 84

foreign ownership of agricultural land, 28

government payments (1996), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 173

number of farms and land in farms (1992-

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 194

Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 199

Pesticide Data Program, 197-198

Pesticides

applicator programs, 186

Pests

biological control program, 208-209

boll weevil eradication, 209-210

coping with invasions, 206

domestic plant health programs, 208-211

excluding foreign pests and diseases, 203-204

grasshopper control program, 211

integrated pest management, 175-176, 185, 211

monitoring pests and diseases, 214-215

PIK program, 23

Plant Materials Centers, 163

Plant Protection and Quarantine, 204

Plant Variety Protection Act, 200

Planting and harvesting calendar, 238

Plants

conservation, 143

domestic plant health programs, 208-211

excluding foreign pests and diseases, 203-204

key facts, 144

monitoring pests and diseases, 214-215

witchweed eradication, 210-211

Population statistics, 51-53

Pork. See Hogs; Meats

Potatoes. See also Vegetables

dietary changes, 2, 10

Poultry. See also Meats

dietary changes, 1, 3, 4

disease control, 212, 215

Federal inspection, 129

grading, 195-196

Hotline, 136-137

Packers and Stockyards Programs, 223-225

PREEMPT, 176

production regions, 17

Veterinary Services, 211-214

Poultry Products Inspection Act, 128

Poverty rates

determining eligibility for nutrition programs,

Preclearance programs, 204-205

PREEMPT, 176

Price supports. See also Governme

phasing out, 45

Prices. See Food prices

PRISMA. See “Projects in Agricult

Industry, Science and Medicine

Private Voluntary Organizations, 10

Produce. See Fruits; Vegetables

Production flexibility contracts, 45

“Projects in Agriculture, Rural Indu

and Medicine, Inc./Peru,” 99

Proprietorships, 20

Public Markets, 201

Public services

rural areas, 57, 59

Puerto Rico

animal disease eradication prog

foreign ownership of agricultur

NRCS State Public Affairs Con

nutrition assistance programs, 1

PulseNet, 133

Q

Quality standards, 195-196

Quality Systems Certification Prog

Quarantine inspection, 203-204

Quick & Easy Commodity Recipes f

Distribution Program on Indian 

118

R

Race. See Minorities

Rangeland conservation, 145-146

Rapid Response Teams, 206

RBS. See Rural Business-Cooperat

RDA’s. See Recommended Dietary 

Real estate

assets, 31

debt, 33

loans, 30-31

Recommended Dietary Allowances

Red meats. See Meats

REE. See Research, Education, and 

Refined flour, 2. See also Grains

Renewable Resources Extension A

Rental Assistance Payments, 83

Research. See specific agencies

Research, Education, and Economi

Agricultural Research Service, 

Cooperative Research and Dev

Agreements, 176
mission, 175-177

National Agricultural Statistics Service, 187-

188

web site, 177

Research on Rural Cooperative Opportunities and

Problems program, 81

Resource Conservation and Development Program,

164-165

Restaurant meals

cost increases, 14

Retail food prices

farm-to-retail price spread, 15

increases in food costs, 14

Revenue Assistance, 104

Revenue Insurance Plans, 104

Rhode Island

animal disease eradication programs, 213

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 42

foreign ownership of agricultural land, 28

government payments (1996), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 173

number of farms and land in farms (1992-

1997), 21-22

RHS. See Rural Housing Service

Rice

commodity loan programs, 87-88

government payments, 46-48

international sales, 99

Risk Management Agency, 103-106

River basin surveys, 164

RMA. See Risk Management Agency

Rural areas

age distributions, 51-52

Federal funding for development, 60-61

Forest Service community assistance, 151-152

household income, 57, 60

housing, 53-54

industry, 53-54

job growth, 53-54

population statistics, 51-53

poverty rates, 57, 58

public services, 57, 59

Rural Development programs, 78-85

unemployment rates, 55-56

wage rates, 55

Rural Business Enterprise Grants, 80-81

Rural Business Opportunity Grants, 82

Rural Business-Cooperative Service, 78, 80-82

Rural Conditions and Trends, 187

Rural Cooperative Development Grants, 81

Rural Development Perspectives, 187

Rural Development program

Rural Housing Service, 78, 82-83

Rural Utilities Service, 78, 83-84

Rural Economic Development Loans and 

80

Rural Electric Loans and Loan Guarante

Rural Empowerment Zones and Enterpri

Communities, 84

Rural Housing Service, 78, 82-83

Rural Rental Housing Loans, 82

Rural Rental Housing Program, 73

Rural Telecommunications Loans and Lo

Guarantees, 83

Rural Utilities Service, 78, 83-84

Rural Venture Capital Demonstration Pro

RUS. See Rural Utilities Service

S

Sales classes, farms, 19, 23, 45, 59-50

Salmonella, 129, 133

Sanitation Standard Operating Procedure

SCGP. See Supplier Credit Guarantee Pr

School Breakfast Program, 111, 122

School Lunch Program, 88, 109-111, 121

Screwworms, 205-206

Seafood. See Fish and shellfish

Senior, Youth, and Volunteer Programs, 1

Senior Community Service Employment 

156

SFSP. See Summer Food Service Program

Shalala, Donna E., 134

Sheep and goats

Flock Certification program, 214

National Sheep Industry Improvemen

81

predation losses, 217

Shellfish. See Fish and shellfish

Shigella, 133

Small Business Act of 1958, 70

Small Business Programs, 70

Small Watersheds Program, 163

Smokey Bear, 70, 152

Snack foods

cost increases, 14

dietary changes, 10

SNOTEL. See Snow Telemetry

Snow surveys, 163

Snow Telemetry, 163

Soft drinks

sugar content, 13

Soil

conservation, 145

soil surveys, 162

266
animal disease eradication programs, 213

boll weevil eradication, 210

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 42

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1996),

43-44

Enterprise Communities, 84

foreign ownership of agricultural land, 28

government payments (1996), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 173

number of farms and land in farms (1992-

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 194

witchweed eradication, 210-211

South Dakota

animal disease eradication programs, 213

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 42

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1996),

43-44

Enterprise Communities, 84

foreign ownership of agricultural land, 28

government payments (1996), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 173

number of farms and land in farms (1992-

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 194

Soybeans

acreage harvested, 23-24

exports, 94-95

Special Milk Program, 117

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for

Women, Infants, and Children, 112-113

SSOP. See Sanitation Standard Operating

Procedure

SSO’s. See State Statistical Offices

Staphylococcal enterotoxin, 129

State and private forestry assistance

Cooperative Fire Protection program, 153-154

Cooperative Forestry, 149-151

Economic Action Programs, 151

forest health protection, 149

mission, 149

Natural Resource Conservation Education, 

152-153

rural community assistance, 151-152

Wildland Fire Management program, 153

State Fire Assistance, 153-154

State Statistical Offices, 187, 193-194

Stewardship Incentives Program, 150

Sucrose, 12

Sugar

commodity loan programs, 87-88

dietary changes, 2, 12-13

Supplemental Nutrition Program fo

Infants, and Children, 112-113

Supplier Credit Guarantee Program

Sustainable development, 72

Sweeteners, caloric

dietary changes, 2, 12-13

T

Tariff rate quota, 88

Team Nutrition, 110, 111-112

TEFAP. See The Emergency Food A

Program

Telecommunications facilities, rura

Tenants, 20

Tennessee

animal disease eradication prog

boll weevil eradication, 210

cash receipts from farm sales (1

cash receipts ranking, by comm

43-44

Enterprise Communities, 84

foreign ownership of agricultur

government payments (1996), 4

NRCS State Public Affairs Con

number of farms and land in far

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 194

Texas

animal disease eradication prog

cash receipts from farm sales (1

cash receipts ranking, by comm

43-44

foreign ownership of agricultur

government payments (1996), 4

net farm income, 39

NRCS State Public Affairs Con

number of farms and land in far

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 194

The Emergency Food Assistance P

Thrift Savings Plan, 74

Timber. See also Forest products

conservation, 148

Tobacco

commodity loan programs, 87-

production regions, 17

Trade agreements, 97-98

Transportation and Marketing Prog

Tree Assistance Program, 89

TRQ. See Tariff rate quota

TSP. See Thrift Savings Plan

Turkey. See Poultry
Urban and Community Forestry, 150-151

Uruguay Round trade agreement, 97

U.S. Agency for International Development, 98,

99, 100

U.S. Department of Agriculture. See also specific

programs and agencies

Beltsville Office Facility, 70

Departmental Administration, 62-71

headquarters organization, 64-65

information sources, 76-77

land retirement programs, 23

location of employees, 67-68

Meat and Poultry Hotline, 136-137

mission areas, 62

number of employees, 66

Office of Chief Financial Officer, 74

Office of Communications, 227-235

Office of Congressional Relations, 75

Office of Inspector General, 72-73

Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, 75

Office of the Chief Economist, 71-72

Office of the Chief Information Officer, 73-74

Reinvention Laboratories, 70

reorganization, 62

web site, 69, 227

workplace profile by race and gender group, 69

U.S. Department of Defense, 110

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

117, 129

U.S. Trade Representative, 97-98

USAID. See U.S. Agency for International

Development

USDA. See U.S. Department of Agriculture

User fee laboratories, 196

USTR. See U.S. Trade Representative

Utah

animal disease eradication programs, 213

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 42

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1996), 44

foreign ownership of agricultural land, 28

government payments (1996), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 173

number of farms and land in farms (1992-

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 194

Utilities service, rural areas, 83-84

V

Value-added, net, 33, 35, 39

Veal. See Meats

Vegetables. See also Fruits

dietary changes, 1-2, 7, 9-10

foreign ownership of agricultural lan

government payments (1996), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 

number of farms and land in farms (1

1997), 21-22

Veterinary Services, 207-208, 211-214

Vibrio, 133

Virgin Islands

animal disease eradication programs, 

Virginia

animal disease eradication programs, 

boll weevil eradication, 210

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 

cash receipts ranking, by commodity 

43-44

Enterprise Communities, 84

foreign ownership of agricultural lan

payments (1996), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 

number of farms and land in farms (1

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 194

Virus-Serum-Toxin Act of 1913, 214, 22

Vitamins and minerals

folic acid, 10, 12

Volunteer Fire Assistance, 154

Volunteers in the National Forests progra

W

Wages. See also Household income

comparing metro and rural workers (

55

farm wage rates, 29

off-farm income, 34, 37-38

Washington

animal disease eradication programs, 

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 

cash receipts ranking, by commodity 

43-44

Enterprise Communities, 84

foreign ownership of agricultural lan

government payments (1996), 47

net farm income, 39

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 

number of farms and land in farms (1

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 194

Washington Area Strategic Space Plan, 7

Waste disposal, rural areas, 83

Water

conservation, 145

Emergency Community Water Assist

268
Water 2000 Initiative, 83

Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants, 83-84

Watershed management

Emergency Watershed Protection program, 163

National Forest System programs, 145

operations, 164

river basin surveys, 164

Small Watersheds Program, 163

West Virginia

animal disease eradication programs, 213

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 42

Enterprise Communities, 84

foreign ownership of agricultural land, 28

government payments (1996), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 174

number of farms and land in farms (1992-

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 194

Wetlands Reserve Program, 161

Wheat. See also Grains

acreage harvested, 23-24

commodity loan programs, 87-88

exports, 94-95

government payments, 46-48

Whole-grain foods. See also Grains

U.S. consumption, 10

Wholesale and Alternative Markets program, 200

Wholesale and Collection Markets, 200-201

WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, 113-114

WIC Program, 112-113, 121

Wildfires. See Fire protection and management

Wildland Fire Management program, 153

Wildlife

conservation, 143

Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species, 207

damage control, 216-218

key facts, 144

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, 162

Wildlife Services program, 216-218

Wisconsin

animal disease eradication programs, 213

cash receipts from farm sales (1996), 42

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1996),

43-44

foreign ownership of agricultural land, 28

government payments (1996), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contacts, 174

number of farms and land in farms (1992-

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 194

Witchweed eradication, 210-211

unemployment rates, 56

Wood. See Forest products; Timber

Wood in Transportation Program, 1

Woodsy Owl, 153

Wool

government payments, 46-48

World Agricultural Outlook Board, 

World Food Program, 99

World Trade Organization, 98

WRP. See Wetlands Reserve Progra

WS. See Wildlife Services program

Wyoming

animal disease eradication prog

cash receipts from farm sales (1

cash receipts ranking, by comm

foreign ownership of agricultur

government payments (1996), 4

NRCS State Public Affairs Con

number of farms and land in far

1997), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 194

Y

Yersinia, 133

Youth Conservation Corps, 156-15

Youth Forest Camps, 157

Z

Z-trim, 176