U.S. Department

of Agriculture

Office of

Communications

Agriculture Fact Book 2000 U.S. Department of Agriculture • Office of Communications

Agriculture 

Fact Book

2000

Agriculture 

Fact Book

2000

For more information, log on to

our web site: 

http://www.usda.gov
Find more useful information about agriculture, food safety, nutrition, rural issues, research, 

education, natural resources, and all USDA programs at http://www.usda.gov

Within the USDA web site, here are just some of the popular and important places to get information on subjects that may be important to you:

USDA Kids page: http://www.usda.gov/news/usdakids/index.htm

Meat and poultry product recalls: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/news/xrecalls.htm

Gateway to Government Food Safety Information: http://www.foodsafety.gov

The Food Guide Pyramid: A Guide to Daily Food Choices: 

http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/pyramid.htm

The Children’s Food Guide Pyramid: http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/KidsPyra/

Nutrition Information: http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/nut_search.pl

Home Canning Guides: http://www.ext.usu.edu/publica/foodpubs.htm 

Civil Rights: http://www.usda.gov/da/cr.html

Millennium Green: http://www.millenniumgreen.usda.gov

Millennium Gardens: http://www.usda.gov/gardens

USDA Celebrating the Millennium: http://www.usda.gov/millennium/contents.htm

Home Gardening: http://www.usda.gov/news/garden.htm 

Millennium Calendar: http://www.recgov.org/usda/esra.html

Farmers Markets: http://www.ams.usda.gov/marketing.htm

Small Farms: http://www.usda.gov/oce/smallfarm/sfhome.htm

Market News: http://www.ams.usda.gov/marketnews.htm

Importing and Exporting Animals: http://www.usda.gov/news/animals.htm

Safeguarding Your Pet: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/oa/pettheft.html

Backyard Conservation: http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/CCS/Backyard.html 

National Resources Inventory: http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/CCS/NRIrlse.html

Forest Service Recreation Information: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/recreation.shtml 

Forest Service—2002 Winter Olympics: http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/2002/

U.S. National Arboretum: http://www.ars-grin.gov/ars/Beltsville/na/

USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map: http://www.ars-grin.gov/na/hardines.html

National Agricultural Library: http://www.nalusda.gov/

USDA History Collection: http://www.nalusda.gov/speccoll/collect/history/index.htm

Graphics of Agricultural Production: http://www.usda.gov/nass/aggraphs/graphics.htm

Employee Association: http://www.usdaesra.org 

This 2000 Agriculture Fact Book is at http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/fbook00/contents.htm

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328

ISBN 001-000-04690-0

web site: bookstore@gpo.gov
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits

discrimination in all its programs and activities on the

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

disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and

marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases 

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities 

who require alternative means for communication 

of program information (such as Braille, large print,

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET

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

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA,

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

Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, 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 mentioned 

or depicted.

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

at: http://www.usda.gov

November 2000

Agriculture 

Fact Book

2000

U.S. Department

of Agriculture

Office of

Communications

Contents

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

1. U.S. Agriculture–Food Consumption in America

Meat Consumption at Record High....................................................................................2

Eating Out Cuts Milk, Boosts Cheese Consumption..........................................................4

And Swells Use of Baking and Frying Fats .......................................................................5

Fruit and Vegetable Consumption Continues To Rise........................................................6

Consumers Eat Enough Grain Foods But Not Whole Grains.............................................8

Consumption of Caloric Sweeteners Hits Record High .....................................................9

Food Expenditures and Prices ..........................................................................................10

How Much of the Cost of Food Services and Distribution Goes to Farmers? .................10

2. American Farms

Share of Farms, Assets, and Production ...........................................................................12

Specialization and Diversification....................................................................................13

Government Program Participation..................................................................................16

Cost Control .....................................................................................................................16

Household Income............................................................................................................18

What Is a Small Farm? .....................................................................................................18

Defining Successful Farms...............................................................................................19

Characteristics of Successful Farms.................................................................................21

Learning From Successful Farms.....................................................................................23

3. Rural America: Highlighting Manufacturing Jobs and Housing

The New Markets Initiative..............................................................................................25

The Livability Initiative....................................................................................................26

Rural Manufacturing ........................................................................................................26

Rural Industry Takes Off ..................................................................................................27

The 1980’s and Beyond....................................................................................................27

Rural Housing ..................................................................................................................30

Growth in Federally Financed Homes in 2000.................................................................31

Multifamily Housing and Rental Assistance ....................................................................33

USDA’s Single-Family Housing Has Been Popular With Borrowers ..............................34

i
4. Highlights From Current Agricultural Issues: Risk, Organic Crops,

and Biotechnology Crops

Farmers Sharpen Tools To Confront Business Risks........................................................36

Price and Yield Swings Pose Primary Risk ......................................................................37

No Single Approach Suits All Farms................................................................................37

Organic Agriculture Gains Ground in the United States ..................................................41

Genetically Engineered Crops: Has Adoption Reduced Pesticide Use? ..........................43

Changing the Mix of Pesticides Used Also Matters .........................................................47

5. U.S. Department of Agriculture

Departmental Administration ...........................................................................................49

Office of the Chief Economist..........................................................................................62

Office of Inspector General ..............................................................................................64

Office of the Chief Information Officer............................................................................65

Office of Chief Financial Officer......................................................................................66

Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs...................................................67

National Appeals Division................................................................................................68

Community Food Security Initiative................................................................................68

For More Information.......................................................................................................69

6. Rural Development 

How Rural Development Works.......................................................................................72

Rural Business-Cooperative Service................................................................................72

Rural Housing Service......................................................................................................75

Rural Utilities Service ......................................................................................................79

Office of Community Development .................................................................................81

Community Empowerment ..............................................................................................81

For More Information.......................................................................................................86

ii
7. Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services

Farm Service Agency .......................................................................................................87

Foreign Agricultural Service ............................................................................................96

Risk Management Agency..............................................................................................109

For More Information.....................................................................................................114

8. Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services

Food and Nutrition Service.............................................................................................116

Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion ....................................................................131

For More Information.....................................................................................................138

9. Food Safety

Office of Food Safety and the Food Safety and Inspection Service ...............................139

For More Information.....................................................................................................156

10. Natural Resources and Environment

Forest Service.................................................................................................................157

Natural Resources Conservation Service .......................................................................187

For More Information.....................................................................................................203

11. Research, Education, and Economics

Agricultural Research Service........................................................................................204

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service....................................208

Economic Research Service ...........................................................................................212

National Agricultural Statistics Service .........................................................................217

For More Information.....................................................................................................220

12. Marketing and Regulatory Programs 

Agricultural Marketing Service......................................................................................227

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service..................................................................235

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration ............................................258

For More Information.....................................................................................................262

Appendix

How To Get Information from USDA’s Office of Communications ..............................264

Conversion Chart............................................................................................................271

Planting and Harvesting Calendar..................................................................................273

Glossary..........................................................................................................................274

Index.....................................................................................................................................287

iii
iv
v

Foreword

by Dan Glickman, Secretary

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), called “The People’sDepartment” by President Abraham Lincoln when it was founded in 1862,

touches the lives of every single American. You do not have to be a farmer or 

a rural resident to be a USDA customer. Everyone with an interest in good

nutrition, food safety, and the health of the American landscape has a stake 

in our programs and activities.

Inside the Agriculture Fact Book, you will learn about the breadth of our

mandate–about our stewardship of 192 million acres of national forest land;

about our efforts to fight hunger at home and abroad; about our support for 

land-grant colleges and universities; about our battles against bugs, pests, and

diseases that threaten American agriculture and ecosystems. You will learn more

about programs that are already household names, like the Food Stamp Program.

And, you can also get information about efforts like the Farmland Protection

Program and our regulation of biotechnology products.

The book also provides a broad look at American agriculture and includes

data on farm income, assets, production, commodities, and more. We also

outline the demographic features of rural America. And because USDA has

responsibilities for reporting on the consumption as well as the production 

end of agriculture, we devote an entire chapter to American eating habits.

We have designed this book to be user-friendly, with charts, graphs, and

visuals that help better convey key points. The book also includes a helpful

glossary and a calendar that explains the planting and harvesting schedules 

of different crops.

We also know that no one book can provide all the information one might

need. So we have included the names, telephone numbers, fax numbers, and 

e-mail addresses of contacts for additional information. Throughout these 

pages, you will also find web site addresses where you will be able to tap 

an even deeper well of USDA information.

Whether you are a farmer, a dietitian, a scientist, a public servant, or just 

a curious citizen, the Agriculture Fact Book is an invaluable resource and 

handy reference guide. You can access a digital version of this publication–

as well as a multitude of agricultural information–on USDA’s web site at

http://www.usda.gov. I encourage you to use it and to contact us if you need

more information.
vi
2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

1957 1967 1977 1987 1997

Total U.S. food supply1

U.S. food supply adjusted 

for spoilage and waste2

Calories per person per day

1

Rounded to the nearest hundred

2

Not calculated for years before 1970.

Source: USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion; USDA’s Economic Research Service

1.

U.S. Agriculture—Food 

Consumption in America

Americans at the beginning of the 21st century are consuming more food andseveral hundred more calories per person per day than did their counterparts 

in the late 1950’s (when per capita calorie consumption was at the lowest level in 

this century), or even in the 1970’s. The aggregate food supply in 1994 (the latest

year for which nutrient data from USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion

are available) provided 3,800 calories per person per day, 500 calories above the

1983 level and 800 calories above the record low in 1957 and 1958 .

Of that 3,800 calories, USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) estimates 

that roughly 1,100 calories were lost to spoilage, plate waste, and cooking and other

losses, putting dietary intake of calories in 1994 at just under 2,700 calories per

person per day. ERS data suggest that average daily calorie intake increased 14.7

1

Figure 1-1

Calories from the per capita U.S. food supply, adjusted for spoilage

and waste, increased 21 percent between 1970 and 1994
percent, or about 340 calories, between 1984 and 1994, and remained stable between

1994 and 1997. Of that 14.7-percent increase, grains (mainly refined grain products)

contributed 6.2 percentage points; added fats and oils, 3.4 percentage points; added

sugars, 3.4 percentage points; fruits and vegetables, 1.4 percentage points; and meats

and dairy products together, 0.3 percentage point.

Some of the observed increase in caloric intake may be associated with the

increase in eating out. Data from USDA’s food intake surveys show that the foodaway-from-home sector provided 34 percent of total food energy consumption in

1995, up from 19 percent in 1977-78. The data also suggest that, when eating out,

people either eat more or eat higher calorie foods—or both—and that this tendency

appears to be increasing.

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

in the last 50 years, including changes in relative prices, increases in real (adjusted

for inflation) disposable income, and more food assistance for the poor. New products, particularly more convenient ones, also contribute to shifts in consumption,

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

advertising programs, and increases in nutrient-enrichment standards and food

fortification. Sociodemographic trends also driving changes in food choices include

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

an aging population, and increased ethnic diversity. 

ERS estimates per capita food and nutrient supplies based on food disappearance

data. These data are used as a proxy to estimate human consumption. The data

reported in tables 1-1 through 1-6 are unadjusted for spoilage and waste, so they 

may overstate what is actually eaten. The data are used more appropriately as

indicators of trends in consumption over time. 

■ Meat Consumption at Record High 

Now more than ever, America is a Nation of meat eaters. In 1999, total meatconsumption (red meat, poultry, and fish) reached 197 pounds (boneless,

trimmed-weight equivalent) per person, 64 pounds above average annual consumption in the 1950’s (table 1-1). Each American consumed an average of 12 pounds

more red meat than in the 1950’s, 48 pounds more poultry, and 4 pounds more fish

and shellfish. Rising consumer incomes, especially with the increase in two-income

households, and meat prices in the 1990’s that were often at 50-year lows, when

adjusted for inflation, explain much of the increase in meat consumption. In addition,

the meat industry has provided scores of new brand-name, value-added products

processed for consumers’ convenience, as well as a host of products for foodservice

operators.

2
3

Nutritional concern about fat and cholesterol has encouraged the production of

leaner animals (beginning in the late 1950’s), the closer trimming of outside fat on

retail cuts of meat (beginning in 1986), the marketing of a host of lower fat ground

and processed meat products, and consumer substitution of poultry for red meats

since the late 1970’s—significantly lowering the meat, poultry, and fish group’s contribution to total fat and saturated fat in the food supply. Despite near record-high per

capita consumption of total meat in 1994, the proportion of fat in the U.S. food supply from meat, poultry, and fish declined from 32 percent in the 1950’s to 25 percent

in 1994. Similarly, the proportion of saturated fat contributed by meat, poultry, and

fish fell from 33 percent in the 1950’s to 26 percent in 1994.

Between 1950 and 1989, annual consumption of eggs steadily declined nearly 4

eggs per person per year, from 390 eggs to 237. This long-term decline in per capita

egg consumption leveled off in the early 1990’s. From a record low of 234 eggs per

person per year in 1990-91, egg consumption rose to 244 eggs in 1998, and is projected to rise to 249 eggs in 1999. The record high for U.S. per capita consumption

was 403 eggs in 1945. Much of the decline in egg consumption since 1950 was due

to changing lifestyles (for example, less time for breakfast preparation in the morning

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

of cholesterol intake associated with egg consumption.

Table 1-1

In the 1990’s, Americans consumed an average 57 pounds 

more meat per year than in the 1950’s, and a third fewer eggs

Annual averages

Item 1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 1998 1999

Pounds per capita, boneless-trimmed weight

Total meats 133.0 161.8 177.1 182.9 190.7 195.3 197.2

Red meats 102.3 123.4 129.4 121.9 113.3 115.6 113.9

Beef 52.8 69.1 80.9 71.8 63.7 64.9 63.5

Pork 41.0 47.9 45.0 47.7 48.0 49.1 49.1

Veal and lamb 8.5 6.4 3.5 2.4 1.6 1.6 1.3

Poultry 19.8 27.7 35.2 46.8 62.6 65.0 68.4

Chicken 16.2 22.5 28.4 36.9 48.5 50.8 54.4

Turkey 3.5 5.1 6.8 9.9 14.1 14.2 14.1

Fish and shellfish 10.9 10.7 12.5 14.2 14.8 14.8 14.8

Number per capita

Eggs 373 320 285 257 238 244 249

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding; 1999 projection as of July 1999.

Source: USDA=s Economic Research Service.
4

■ Eating Out Cuts Milk, Boosts Cheese

Consumption...

I

n 1998, Americans drank an average of 35 percent less milk and ate nearly 3 2/3

times as much cheese (excluding cottage, pot, and baker’s cheese) as in the 1950’s

(table 1-2).

Consumption of beverage milk declined from an annual average of 36 gallons

per person in the 1950’s to 24 gallons in 1998. Consumption of soft drinks, fruit

drinks and ades, and flavored teas may be displacing beverage milk in the diet. 

Big increases in eating away from home, especially at fast-food places, and in

consumption of salty snack foods favored soft drink consumption.

The beverage milk trend is toward lower fat milk. Whole milk represented 

92 percent of all beverage milk (plain, flavored, and buttermilk) in the 1950’s, 

but its share dropped to 35 percent in 1998. 

Average annual consumption of cheese (excluding full-skim American and

cottage, pot, and baker’s cheeses) increased 269 percent between the 1950’s and

1998, from 7.7 pounds per person to 28.4 pounds. Lifestyles that emphasize

convenience foods were probably major forces behind the higher consumption. 

In fact, two-thirds of our cheese now comes in commercially manufactured and

Table 1-2

Americans are drinking less milk, eating more cheese and frozen

dairy products

Per capita annual averages

1950- 1960 1970- 1980- 1990-

Item Unit 59 -69 79 89 98 1998

All dairy products1 lb 700 619 548 575 577 591

Cheese2 lb 7.7 9.5 14.4 21.5 26.7 28.4

Cottage cheese lb 3.9 4.7 4.9 4.1 2.9 2.7

Frozen dairy products lb 22.8 27.4 27.8 27.4 29.1 29.1

Ice cream lb 18.0 18.3 17.7 17.7 16.1 16.1

Lowfat ice cream lb 2.7 6.3 7.6 7.3 7.5 7.5

Sherbet lb 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.3

Other lb 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.2 4.3 4.3

Nonfat dry milk lb 4.9 5.9 4.1 2.4 3.1 3.4

Dry whey lb .2 .6 2.1 3.3 3.6 3.4

Condensed and evaporated milks lb 21.4 15.7 9.4 7.5 7.6 6.6

Cream products 2 pt 18.0 13.3 10.1 12.8 15.6 17.3

Yogurt 2 pt 0.1 0.7 3.2 6.5 8.5 9.3

Beverage milk gal 36.2 32.5 29.8 26.5 24.7 23.7

Whole gal 33.3 28.8 21.7 14.3 9.2 8.3

Lower fat gal 2.9 3.7 8.1 12.2 15.5 15.4

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

1Milk-equivalent, milkfat basis; includes butter. Individual items are on a product-weight basis.

2Natural equivalent of cheese and cheese products; excludes full-skim American, cottage, pot, and baker’s cheese.

Source: USDA’s Economic Research Service.
5

prepared foods (including foodservice), such as pizza, tacos, nachos, salad bars, fastfood sandwiches, bagel spreads, sauces for baked potatoes and other vegetables, and

packaged snack foods. Advertising and new products—such as reduced-fat cheeses

and resealable bags of shredded cheeses, including cheese blends tailored for use in

Italian and Mexican recipes—also boosted consumption.

...and Swells Use of Baking and Frying Fats

Americans’ mid-1990’s push to cut dietary fat is apparent in the recent per 

capita food supply data, which show a modest decline in the use of added fats and

oils since 1993. Annual per capita consumption of added fats and oils declined about

7 percent between 1993 and 1997, from a record-high 70.2 pounds (fat-content basis)

per person to 65.6 pounds. (The decline in calories from added fats since 1993 has

been more than offset by a rise in calories from grain products and added sugars.)

However, average use of added fats and oils in 1997 remained 47 percent above the

1950’s (table 1-3). Added fats and oils include those used directly by consumers, 

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

prepared cookies, pastries, and fried foods. All fat naturally present in foods, 

such as in milk and meat, are excluded.

Americans in 1997 consumed, on average, three times more salad and cooking

oils than they did in the 1950’s, and nearly twice as much shortening. Average use 

of table spreads declined by 25 percent during the same period.

In the 1950’s, the fats and oils group (composed of added fats and oils)

contributed the most fat to the food supply (41 percent), followed by the meat,

poultry, and fish group (32 percent). By 1994, the fats and oils group’s contribution 

to total fat had jumped 11 percentage points to 52 percent, probably due to the much

Table 1-3

Rising salad/cooking oils and shortening use boosted consumption of

added fats by 47 percent between 1950-59 and 1997

Annual averages

Item 1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-97 1997

Pounds per capita1

Total added fats and oils 44.6 47.9 53.6 61.1 66.6 65.6

Salad and cooking oils2 9.8 13.9 20.2 25.0 28.0 29.8

Baking and frying fats 21.3 20.8 20.7 23.8 26.9 25.6

Shortening 10.9 14.6 17.4 20.5 22.7 20.9

Lard and beef tallow3 10.4 6.2 3.3 3.4 4.1 4.7

Table spreads 17.0 16.5 15.9 15.3 14.5 12.8

Butter 9.0 6.6 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.2

Margarine 8.0 9.9 11.2 10.7 10.1 8.6

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

1Total added fats and oils is on a fat-content basis. Individual items are on a product-weight basis.

2Includes a small amount of specialty fats used mainly in confectionery products and nondairy creamers.

3Direct use; excludes use in margarine or shortening.

Source: USDA’s Economic Research Service.
6

higher consumption of fried foods in foodservice outlets, the huge increase in

consumption of high-fat snack foods, and the increased use of salad dressings.

Magarine, salad dressings and mayonnaise, cakes and other sweet baked goods, 

and oils continue to appear in the top 10 foods for fat contribution, according to

recent USDA food intake surveys, which indicates the ongoing prevalence of

discretionary fats in Americans’ diets.

In the last two decades, Americans have been more successful in reducing the 

fat density in home foods than in away-from-home foods, according to food intake

surveys. In 1977-78, both home and away-from-home foods provided slightly more

than 41 percent of their calories from fat. By 1987-88, the fat density of home foods

had declined to 36.4 percent of total calories from fat, compared with 38.7 for 

away-from-home foods. Since then, the fat density of home foods declined steadily 

to 31.5 percent of calories from fat, but fat from away-from-home foods declined

only slightly to 37.6 percent of calories.

■ Fruit and Vegetable Consumption Continues 

To Rise

Americans in 1997 consumed more than a fifth (22 percent) more fruit and vegetables than did their counterparts in the 1970’s (table 1-4). 

Restaurant salad bars became popular in the late 1970’s. Most supermarket chain

stores added salad bars in 1982-84. Fresh-cut fruits and vegetables, prepackaged salads, locally grown items, and exotic produce—as well as hundreds of new varieties

and processed products—have been introduced or expanded since the early 1980’s.

Supermarket produce departments carry over 400 produce items today, up from 250

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

and natural foodstores, which highlight fresh produce, continues to rise. Because

many exotic and specialty fruits and vegetables introduced to mainstream markets in

the last decade are not yet included in ERS’ database, the actual increase in fruit and

vegetable consumption is probably higher than the data indicate. For example,

imports of chayote, jicamas, dasheens, and cassava, if included, would add nearly a

pound to per capita vegetable consumption in 1998.

Total fruit consumption in 1997 was 19 percent above average annual fruit consumption in the 1970’s. Fresh fruit consumption (up 34 percent during the same

period) outpaced processed fruit consumption (up 10 percent). Noncitrus fruits

accounted for all of the growth in fresh fruit consumption.

Total vegetable consumption in 1997 was 23 percent above average annual vegetable consumption in the 1970’s. As in the case of fruit, fresh vegetable use (up 26

percent during the same period) outpaced processed vegetable use (up 21 percent).

The introduction of pre-cut and packaged value-added products and increasing health

consciousness among consumers boosted average fresh broccoli consumption by a
7

third between 1995 and 1998 and average fresh carrot consumption by more than a

fifth. Highly publicized medical research linking compounds in broccoli with strong

anti-cancer activity in the body has added a powerful incentive to consumption.

The popularity of pizza and other ethnic foods in the 1990’s boosted average

consumption of canned tomato products, but consumption of other canned vegetables

declined 13 percent between the 1970’s and 1997. The popularity of french fries,

eaten mainly in fast-food eateries, spawned a 63-percent increase in average consumption of frozen potatoes during the same period; consumption of other frozen

vegetables rose 41 percent.

Table 1-4

Per capita consumption of fruit and vegetables increased 22 percent

between 1970-79 and 1997

Annual averages

Item 1970-79 1980-89 1990-97 1997

Pounds per capita, 

fresh-weight equivalent

Total fruit and vegetables 584.5 622.9 682.4 710.8

Total fruit 246.7 271.2 281.0 294.7

Fresh fruit 99.5 113.2 123.9 133.2

Citrus 27.2 24.2 24.0 26.8

Noncitrus 72.3 89.0 99.9 106.4

Processed fruit 147.2 158.1 157.1 161.5

Frozen fruit, noncitrus 3.3 3.3 3.7 3.5

Dried fruit, noncitrus 9.8 12.0 12.0 10.8

Canned fruit, noncitrus 24.5 21.2 20.3 20.5

Fruit juices 109.0 121.2 120.8 126.1

Total vegetables 337.8 351.7 401.5 416.0

Fresh vegetables 146.9 155.8 174.7 185.6

Potatoes 52.5 48.5 49.1 47.9

Other 94.4 107.3 125.6 137.7

Processing vegetables 190.8 195.9 226.8 230.4

Vegetables for canning 101.0 99.0 110.0 105.9

Tomatoes 62.9 63.5 74.9 72.7

Other 38.2 35.4 35.1 33.2

Vegetables for freezing 52.1 61.1 76.3 81.5

Potatoes 36.1 42.8 54.3 59.0

Other 16.0 18.2 22.0 22.5

Dehydrated vegetables and chips 30.8 29.5 32.5 34.5

Pulses 7.0 6.6 8.0 8.5

Source: USDA’s Economic Research Service.
8

■ Consumers Eat Enough Grain Foods But 

Not Whole Grains

Per capita use of flour and cereal products reached 200 pounds in 1997 from anannual average of 155 pounds in the 1950’s and 138 pounds in the 1970’s, when

grain consumption was at a record low (table 1-5). The expansion in supplies reflects

ample grain stocks; strong consumer demand for variety breads, other instore bakery

items, and grain-based snack foods; and increasing fast-food sales of products made

with buns, doughs, and tortillas.

Many consumers’ diets now meet the Food Guide Pyramid serving recommendation for grain products. The Pyramid recommends 9 daily servings of grain products

for a 2,200-calorie diet. The food supply, adjusted for waste in the home and throughout the marketing system, provided an average of 10 daily servings of grain in 1997.

However, most people’s diets fall well short of the recommended several daily

servings of whole grain products. In 1992, the latest year for which data are available,

whole-wheat flour accounted for less than 2 percent of total wheat flour—or onetenth of a slice of bread per person per day. The mean daily intake of foods made

from whole grains was one serving in USDA’s 1996 Continuing Survey of Food

Intakes by Individuals. According to the survey, only 7 percent of Americans ate 

the recommended three or more servings of whole-grain foods a day.

Since July 1999, companies that produce grain products rich in whole grains 

and low in fat can advertise that their products may reduce the risk of heart disease

and certain cancers. This health claim, approved by the U.S. Food and Drug

Administration (FDA), is restricted to foods that contain at least 51 percent whole

grains by weight and list a whole grain as the first ingredient. Each serving of the

food must provide a minimum of 16 grams of whole grain and have less than 3 grams

of fat.

Beginning January 1, 1998, FDA has required that all enriched grain foods—

including ready-to-eat breakfast cereals, pasta, bread, rolls, flour, cakes, and cookies—be fortified with folic acid (the synthetic form of folate, a B-vitamin). Folic acid

fortification of grain foods should reduce the risk of neural tube birth defects like

Table 1-5

Consumption of grain products has been rising in the last 2 decades

Annual averages

Item 1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-97 1997

Pounds per capita

Total grain products1 155.4 144.8 138.2 157.5 191.0 200.1

Wheat flour 125.7 114.0 113.6 122.8 142.5 149.7

Corn products 15.4 15.0 11.0 17.3 22.4 23.1

Rice 5.4 7.2 7.3 11.5 18.2 19.5

1Includes oat products, barley products, and rye flour not shown separately.

Source: USDA’s Economic Research Service.
9

spina bifida, and may protect adults from heart disease and reduce the chances of

cervical cancer in women. Folate is found naturally in legumes; liver; many vegetables, especially green leafy ones like spinach; citrus fruits and juices; whole-grain

products; and eggs.

A study conducted by Tufts University researchers and published in the May 13,

1999, issue of the New England Journal of Medicine showed that since FDA’s folic

acid fortification regulation, the levels of folic acid in the bloodstream of study

participants have nearly doubled. In addition, the number of people with insufficient

folic acid levels declined from 22 percent to less than 2 percent. 

■ Consumption of Caloric Sweeteners 

Hits Record High

Americans have become conspicuous consumers of sugar and sweet-tasting foodsand beverages. Per capita consumption of caloric sweeteners (dry-weight

basis)—mainly sucrose (table sugar made from cane and beets) and corn sweeteners

(notably high-fructose corn syrup, or HFCS)—increased 45 pounds, or 41 percent,

between 1950-59 and 1997 (table 1-6). In 1997, each American consumed a record

average 154 pounds of caloric sweeteners. That amounted to more than two-fifths of

a pound—or 53 teaspoonfuls—of added sugars per person per day in 1997. Of that 53

teaspoons, ERS estimates that Americans wasted or otherwise lost 20 teaspoons,

putting added sugars intake at about 33 teaspoons per person per day. 

USDA recommends that the average person on a 2,000-calorie daily diet include

no more than 40 grams of added sugars. That’s about 10 teaspoons, or the amount of

sugar in a 12-ounce soft drink. Sugar—including sucrose, corn sweeteners, honey,

maple syrup, and molasses—is ubiquitous and often hidden. In a sense, sugar is the

number one food additive. It turns up in some unlikely places, such as pizza, bread,

Table 1-6

America’s sweet tooth increased 41 percent between 

1950-59 and 1997 

Annual averages

Item 1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-97 1997

Pounds per capita, dry weight

Total caloric sweeteners 109.6 114.4 123.7 126.5 145.3 154.1

Cane and beet sugar 96.7 98.0 96.0 68.4 65.1 66.5

Corn sweeteners 11.0 14.9 26.3 56.8 78.9 86.2

High fructose corn syrup .0 .0 5.5 37.3 55.5 62.4

Glucose 7.4 10.9 16.6 16.0 19.4 19.9

Dextrose 3.5 4.1 4.3 3.5 3.9 3.8

Other caloric sweeteners 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

1Edible syrups (sugarcane, sorgo, maple, and refiner’s), edible molasses, and honey.

Source: USDA’s Economic Research Service.
10

hot dogs, boxed mixed rice, soup, crackers, spaghetti sauce, lunch meat, canned

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

and some peanut butter. Carbonated sodas provided more than a fifth (22 percent) 

of the refined and added sugars in the 1994 American food supply. 

■ Food Expenditures and Prices

What does it cost Americans to eat what they eat? Total food expenditures, whichinclude imports, fishery products, and food originating on farms, were $788.6

billion in 1999, an increase of 4.9 percent over those in 1998. Average per capita food

spending came to $2,891 per capita, 4.0 percent above the 1998 average. Away-fromhome meals and snacks captured 48 percent of the U.S. food dollar in 1999, up from

44 percent in 1989 and 39 percent in 1979.

While personal food expenditures rose 4.9 percent, disposable personal income

increased 5.6 percent from 1998 to 1999. U.S. consumers in 1999 spent 10.4 percent

of their disposable personal income (after taxes) on food. This figure compares with

11.2 percent in 1989, 13.3 percent in 1979, and 13.7 percent in 1969.

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

rose 31.2 percent over the last 10 years (1989-99). Prices of food eaten away from

home increased 29.6 percent, while retail foodstore prices increased 32.2 percent.

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

35.0 percent over the same 10 years. Transportation was up 26.6 percent; housing,

33.3 percent; medical care, 67.8 percent; and apparel, 10.7 percent.

■ How Much of the Cost of Food Services and

Distribution Goes to Farmers?

The estimated bill for marketing domestic farm foods—which does not includeimported foods—was $498 billion in 1999. This amount covered all charges 

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

It represented 80 percent of the $618 billion consumers spent for these foods. The

remaining 20 percent, or $121 billion, represents the gross return paid to farmers.

The cost of marketing farm foods has increased considerably over the years,

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

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

the increase in services provided with the food.

In 1989, the cost of marketing farm foods amounted to $316 billion. In the

decade after that, the cost of marketing rose about 58 percent. In 1999, the marketing

bill rose 7.0 percent. These rising costs have been the principal factor affecting the

rise in consumer food expenditures. From 1989 to 1999, consumer expenditures for

farm foods rose $199 billion. Roughly 92 percent of this increase resulted from an

increase in the marketing bill. 
11

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

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

wholesalers, retailers, and eating places cost $240 billion in 1999. This was 4.4 percent higher than in 1998 and 65 percent more than in 1989. The total number of food

marketing workers in 1999 was about 14.0 million, about 16 percent more than a

decade ago. About 77 percent of the growth in food industry employment occurred in

public eating places. A wide variety of other costs comprise the balance of the marketing bill. These costs include packaging, transportation, energy, advertising, business taxes, net interest, depreciation, rent, and repairs. Their relative proportions are

illustrated in the accompanying dollar chart.

Figure 1-11.

What a dollar spent for food paid for in 1999

Labor

Packaging

Transportation

Energy

Profits

Advertising

Depreciation

RentInterest (net)

Repairs

20¢ 39¢ 8¢

4¢

3.5¢

4¢

4¢

3.5¢

Business Taxes

Other costs

4¢ 3.5¢

2.5¢

Farm value Marketing bill

2.5¢

1.5¢
12

2.

American Farms

Farms vary widely in size and other characteristics, ranging from very smallretirement and residential farms to establishments with sales in the millions. 

A new farm typology developed by USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS)

categorizes farms into more homogeneous groups than classifications based on 

sales volume alone.

The typology is based on the occupation of operators and the sales class of

farms. In the case of limited-resource farmers, the asset base and total household

income—as well as sales—are low. Compared with classification by sales alone, the

ERS typology is much more reflective of operators’ expectations from farming, stage

in the life cycle, and dependence on agriculture.

The typology identifies five groups of small family farms (sales less than

$250,000): (1) limited-resource farms, (2) retirement farms, (3) residential/ lifestyle

farm, (4) farming occupation/lower sales, and (5) farming occupation/higher sales. 

To cover the remaining farms, the typology identifies three groups of larger farms: 

(1) large family farms, (2) very large family farms, and (3) nonfamily farms.

The groups differ in their contribution to agricultural production, their product

specialization, farm program participation, and dependence on farm income.

Differences among farm typology groups (e.g., product specialization, program

participation) are illustrated in the following charts using 1997 data from the

Agricultural Resource Management Study (ARMS). The ARMS is an annual survey

conducted by ERS and by USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service.

■ Share of Farms, Assets, and Production

Most farms are small, but small farms account for a modest share of production(figure 2-1 ). 

■ More than 90 percent of farms are small, and small farms account for about

70 percent of the assets and land involved in farming (figure 2-2 ).

■ Large family farms, very large family farms, and nonfamily farms account for

61 percent of production. 
13

■ Specialization and Diversification 

Specialization and diversification vary among the farm typology groups.

■ Many small family farms specialize in beef cattle, an enterprise that often has

low labor requirements compatible with off-farm work and retirement (figure

2-3).

■ In contrast, two commodity groups—cash grains and dairy—account for

nearly two-thirds of all higher sales small farms and over half of large family

farms.

■ Many small farms specialize in a single commodity, but higher sales small

farms, large family farms, and very large family farms tend to produce multiple commodities (figure 2-4).

Defining the Farm Typology Groups

■ Small Family Farms (sales less than $250,000)

Limited-resource. Any small farm with gross sales less than

$100,000, total farm assets less than $150,000, and total operator

household income less than $20,000. Limited-resource farmers may

report farming, a nonfarm occupation, or retirement as their major

occupation.

Retirement. Small farms whose operators report they are retired

(excludes limited-resource farms operated by retired farmers).

Residential/lifestyle. Small farms whose operators report a major

occupation other than farming (excludes limited-resource farms with

operators reporting a nonfarm major occupation).

Farming occupation/lower sales. Small farms with sales less than

$100,000 whose operators report farming as their major occupation

(excludes limited-resource farms whose operators report farming as

their major occupation).

Farming occupation/higher sales. Small farms with sales between

$100,000 and $249,999 whose operators report farming as their

major occupation.

■ Other Farms

Large family farms. Farms with sales between $250,000 and

$499,999.

Very large family farms. Farms with sales of $500,000 or more.

Nonfamily farms. Farms organized as nonfamily corporations or

cooperatives, as well as farms operated by hired managers.

* The $250,000 cutoff for small farms was suggested by the National

Commission on Small Farms.
14

Figure 2-1.

Share of total farms and of production

0

20

40

60

80

100

Limited-resource

Retirement

Residential

Lower-sales

Higher-sales

Large

Very large

Nonfamily farms

Number of Farms Value of production

Percent

Other

family

farms

Small family

farms (sales

less than

$250,000)

Figure 2-2.

Share of farm assets and acres operated

0

20

40

60

80

100

Limited-resource

Retirement

Residential

Lower-sales

Higher-sales

Large

Very large

Nonfamily farms

Farm assets Acres operated

Percent

Other

family

farms

Small family

farms (sales

less than

$250,000)
15

Figure 2-3.

Share of farms specializing in cash grains, beef, and dairy

Figure 2-4.

Share of farms, by number of commodities produced

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dairy

Beef

Cash grain Nonfamily farms

Very large

Large

Higher-sales

Lower-sales

Residential

Retirement

Limited-resource

Percent

Small family

farms (sales

less than

$250,000)

Farming

occupation

Other 

family farms

Commodity accounts for at least half of the farm’s value of production. Estimates of dairy farms were

suppressed for selected groups, due to insufficient number of observations.

Based on 26 commodity groups

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

4 or more groups

2 or 3 groups

One commodity group

Nonfamily

Very large

Large

Higher-sales

Lower-sales

Residential

Retirement

Limited-resource

Percent

Small family

farms (sales

less than

$250,000)

Farming

occupation

Other

family farms
16

■ Government Program Participation

All farm typology groups participate in government farm programs to someextent, but the participation rates and share of program payments vary.

■ Transition payments are most important to higher-sales small farms and large

family farms (figure 2-5). 

■ The largest portion of government payments goes to higher-sales small farms

(figure 2-6).

■ Retirement and residential/lifestyle farms account for half of the acreage in

the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and Wetlands Reserve Program

(WRP).

■ Cost Control

Top-performing farms are defined as the top 25 percent of each typology group,ranked by returns to operators’ labor and management.

■ Top performers in each group control expenses, resulting in a 30- to 50-

percent gross cash margin (the expense ratio subtracted from 100 percent).

■ Each group includes farms earning positive returns.

Figure 2-5.

Share of farms receiving transition payments and payments from the

CRP or WRP

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Receive CRP or WRP payments*

Receive transition payments

Nonfamily farms

Very large

Large

Higher-sales

Lower-sales

Residential

Retirement

Limited-resource

Percent of farms

Small family

farms (sales

less than

$250,000)

Farming

occupation

Other 

family farms

*Payments to commodity-program participants under 1996 Farm Act.
17

Figure 2-6.

Distribution of total farm program payments and of conservation

program acreage

Figure 2-7.

Operating expense ratio for top-performing farms

0

20

40

60

80

100

Limited-resource

Retirement

Residential

Lower-sales

Higher-sales

Large farms

Very large farms

Nonfamily farms

Acres in 

CRP or WRP

Total farm 

program payment

Percent of payments/acres

Other family farms

Small family

farms (sales

less than

$250,000)

Farm program payments include payments from the Conservation Reserve and Wetlands Reserve programs,

transition payments, agricultural disaster payments. Environmental Quality Incentive Program payments, and

State and local program payments.

Income exceeds expenses when the ratio is less than 100 (returns are positive)

The operating expense ratio measures percentage of gross cash income absorbed by cash operating expense.

0 50 100 150 200

Other farms

Top performing farms

Nonfamily farms

Very large family

Large family

Small high sales

Small low sales

Residential

Retirement

Limited-resource

Percent

Small family

farms (sales

less than

$250,000)

Farming

occupation

Other 

family farms
■ Household Income

Dependence on farm income varies by farm size.

■ Households operating very large farms, large farms, and higher-sales small

farms receive a substantial share of their income from farming.

■ The remaining small farm households derive virtually all income from offfarm sources (fig. 2-8).

18

Figure 2-8.

Average farm household income, by source

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250

Total household income

Off-farm earnings

Farm earnings

Very large

Large

Higher-sales

Lower-sales

Residential

Retirement

Limited-resource

$1,000 per household

Small family

farms (sales

less than

$250,000)

Farming

occupation

Other 

family farms

U.S. average household

income: $49,692

■ What Is a Small Farm?

Farms and farm families remain powerful symbols in American culture. Despite

recent public attention to the difficulties faced by small-scale family farmers,

some operations are successfully negotiating current market conditions. Although

definitions of success may vary, these farmers have developed or adopted practices

that keep their small farms economically viable. Their experiences may suggest

strategies for success in small-scale farming that are transferable to other operations.

The U.S. farm sector consists of a highly diverse set of businesses and farm

households, and “small” means different things to different people. A variety of

small-farm definitions has been used by USDA over the years, including those based

on small acreage, low sales volume, and the ability of a farm to support a single family. However, the extent of acreage does not necessarily correlate with sales volume.

A berry farm of only a few acres, for example, can generate a very large volume of

sales; conversely, cattle operations may have a low volume of sales but encompass

many acres of pasture. 
19

Small farms are defined by ERS, based on the typology described above, as

operations with sales less than $250,000. While considerably expanding the traditional sales-class definition of small farms, operations with sales under $250,000 are

small businesses compared with other businesses in the general economy. 

Despite frequently documented constraints facing farmers with operations of this

size, small farms continue to be an important component in the U.S. agricultural sector. Distributed across all regions of the country, small farms make up 94 percent of

all U.S. farms and constitute one of the biggest single groups of U.S. business owners. Although large farms produce large volumes of agricultural products, small farms

still contribute a substantial portion (38 percent) of the value of U.S. farm production

and control the majority (73 percent) of farm assets.

Many small-scale farm operations raise cattle, but a sub-group of small farms,

particularly higher sales small farms, are more likely to produce cash grains. The

majority of the wheat, corn, rice, and other feed grains produced in the United States

come from these operations. Small-scale farm operators also hold much of the farmland of the United States and are key participants in certain environmentally based

government programs, such as the CRP and WRP.

Farms may meet this small-farm definition (sales under $250,000) for a variety

of reasons. For some, the farm may serve primarily as a residence, rather than as a

source of income. Some operators may be deliberately scaling down their farm businesses as they retire. For others, the farm may provide a significant portion of household income and/or a significant source of employment. Some remain small because

they have limited resources.

■ Defining Successful Farms

Not all farmers have the same goals for their farm businesses, for themselves, orfor their households. One family may concentrate on expanding its farm operation by leveraging the business, while another may consider the lifestyle that a farm

offers as adequate compensation for low farm income. Among small-scale farm operators and their households, each typology group contains stories of farm families

operating successful farming businesses based on their own definitions of success

(figure 2-9).

In USDA’s Agricultural Resource Management Study (ARMS), farmers were

asked to weigh the importance of selected measures of “success.” These measures

include: 

■ operation provides adequate income without having to work off farm; 

■ operation provides a rural lifestyle; 

■ operation would be able to survive adverse market or weather conditions;

■ gross sales are increasing;

■ equity or assets are increasing; 

■ acres operated is increasing; 

■ operation can be passed on to the next generation. 
20

For those operating limited-resource, retirement, and residential/lifestyle farms,

the farm providing a rural lifestyle was more important than the farm providing an

adequate income. On farms that are larger and where farming is a primary occupation, importance shifts to the farms’ ability to provide adequate income for the family.

Given these various measures and definitions of success, however, most economists would say that successful operations are those that are performing well based

on production, managerial, and financial measures. Good performance in this context

means that the business has low costs of production and earns an attractive family

income. By focusing on an “attractive family income,” the concept of good performance can go beyond simply adequate returns to the farm as a business to include the

relationship between the farm’s success as a business and the well-being of the operator’s household. 

Even at sales of $250,000 or more, a farm would have to be highly efficient for

the business alone to provide adequate income for a family. In fact, average farm

household income has been on a par with the average U.S. household for many years,

but not without income from off-farm sources. Like most U.S. households, farm

households also have multiple sources of income, and even households of larger

farms have substantial off-farm income on average. Most small farms have sales

much lower than $250,000, so not surprisingly, a larger share of average household

income on small farms comes from off-farm sources than is the case for larger farms.

In analyzing farming practices that support successful small farms, ERS focused

on the two groups of small-scale farms for which farming is the primary occupation

of the operator (higher-sales and lower-sales farms). Since farm earnings make up a

larger proportion of total household income for primary-occupation farms than for

other small-scale farm types, examining economic measures of success was particularly applicable to them.

Figure 2-9.

Farmers attach different levels of importance to measures 

of success

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Provide 

rural lifestyle

Provide 

adequate income

Higher-sales

Lower-sales

Residential

Retirement

Limited-resource

Percent of farm category

Farming

occupation

Measure of success:

Source: Agricultural Resource Management Study.

Economic Research Service, USDA
Farm-level data collected by USDA through the ARMS allowed identification of

top-performing farm businesses in the selected categories using standard measures of

income or profitability and cost structure. A ranking or distribution from high to low

returns or from low to high costs provided the basis for designating high-performing

farms. 

The analysis is national in scope, but based on data for only a single year—

1996—which might affect characterizations and comparisons of specific areas and/or

farm production types for which 1996 was not a representative year. 

■ Characteristics of Successful Farms

Top performers (successful farms) were defined as farms in the top 25 percent of

each selected category of small farms, based on either returns to assets or operating expense ratios. Using either standard, top performers in each small-farm category

were found in all major commodity groups and in all regions, although top performers from different farm categories tended to be concentrated in production of particular commodities (figure 2-10).

While many small farmers tend to emphasize cattle as their principal commodity,

farmers in the top 25 percent of the distribution by returns to assets were clustered in

the production of “other cash grains”—corn, soybeans, and grains other than wheat—

and “other crops”—vegetables, fruit, other field crops (those not classified separately)—and nursery or greenhouse specialties. In the higher-sales group, farmers

most commonly specialized in “other cash grains,” not cattle. Top-performing highersales farms were found in greater proportion in this specialty than in other specialties,

including other crops, cattle, other livestock, and wheat. Because this analysis is for a

single year, the recent financial circumstances of farms in the Plains, especially the

Northern Plains, may influence whether grain farms continue to dominate the “successful” farm categories.

Top-performing small farms are characterized by their successful application of

three critical management strategies: using production strategies that control costs,

actively marketing their products, and adopting effective financial strategies.

Controlling costs—variable, fixed, or economic costs (which provide a return to the

unpaid labor, machinery, equipment and other assets used in production)—is a main

feature of top-performing farms. Controlling inputs leads to lower costs per unit of

output and thus to higher profits per unit of output. Keeping fixed costs (such as mortgage payments or equipment costs) low by renting land or machinery permits flexibility when market conditions vary. 

Production strategies differ between operators of top-performing small farms and

operators of other small farms in the study groups. In addition to keeping an eye on

traditional production costs, producers in the top 25 percent of the lower-sales group

reported greater use of forward pricing of inputs, diversification into additional crop

or livestock enterprises, as well as renting land—particularly share renting—than did

other farmers in that group. Higher-sales farmers had similar characteristics. All these

21
22

Figure 2-10.

Crops are leading enterprises for top-performing small farms

0 10 20 30 40 50

Bottom quartile

Top quartile

Other livestock

Cattle

Other crops

Other cash grains

Wheat

0 10 20 30 40 50

Bottom quartile

Top quartile

Other livestock

Cattle

Other crops

Other cash grains

Wheat

Percent of quartile

Farming occupation, lower-sales

Percent of quartile

Farming occupation, higher-sales

Lower-sales = Farms with operator whose primary occupation is farming and with sales under 

$100,000. Higher-sales = Farms with operator whose primary occupation is farming and with sales 

of $100,000–$250,000. Quartiles of farms ranked by returns to assets and operating expense ratios.

“Other cash grains” include commodities such as corn, oats, and barley.

Source: Agricultural Resource Management Study.

Economic Research Service, USDA
strategies help farmers manage production risk. In both the higher-sales and lowersales groups, farmers in the top 25 percent are also more likely to allocate some of

their labor to off-farm work.

Top performers also actively engage in marketing their products. Active

marketing of crop and livestock commodities/products generally gathers additional

margins—which increases profits—through better timing of sales to receive higher

prices. Top-performing farms in both of the study groups were more likely than other

farms in those categories to use marketing strategies like hedging or futures/options

contracts, forward contracting of sales through the use of marketing contracts, and

spreading sales over the year (figure 2-11). Forward contracting of sales through

marketing contracts was not as useful for successful higher-sales farms, probably

because they concentrated in corn, soybeans, and grains—crops not typically grown

under contract.

Financial strategies enable top performers to respond to changes in the market.

Data available for the ERS study reflect relatively low-intensity financial practices

such as maintaining cash and credit reserves that help operators both meet

unexpected cash-flow difficulties and take advantage of unexpected business

opportunities. 

Crop insurance was included as a financial strategy in the study because its

purpose is income maintenance and assuring the farm’s ability to meet cash-flow

obligations. Successful higher-sales farms were more likely than other higher-sales

farms to maintain cash or credit reserves and to have purchased the additional buy-up

insurance that supplements basic catastrophic policies. In the lower-sales group, 

top-performing farms showed little difference in financial strategies from other farms

in that group, except that they were slightly more likely to use crop insurance—both

catastrophic and additional buy-up insurance. 

■ Learning From Successful Farms

The diversity of the small-scale farm sector and the complexity of business,household, and market connections for small-scale farms make it imperative to

understand what management practices seem to be behind successful small farms.

Tried-and-true management strategies such as controlling costs and increasing

efficiency and productivity are still important. But the current economic environment

demands more. Successful farming requires management strategies that reach beyond

production to planning and control of the marketing and financial aspects of the business. Organization and planning along these lines may require new skills, but they

will also provide greater opportunities for farmers. 

23
24

Figure 2-11.

Top-performing small farms rely more on marketing practices

0 10 20 30 40 50

Bottom quartile

Top quartile

Forward contract sales

Spread sales over years

Marketing contracts

Hedge or use futures

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Bottom quartile

Top quartile

Forward contract sales

Spread sales over year

Marketing contracts

Hedge or use futures

Percent of quartile

Farming occupation, lower-sales

Percent of quartile

Farming occupation, higher-sales

Farmers may use more than one strategy, Lower-sales = Farms with operator whose primary occupation is

farming and with sales under $100,000. Higher-sales = Farms with operator whose primary occupation is

farming and with sales of $100,000–$250,000. Quartiles of farms ranked by returns to assets and operating

expense ratios. “Other cash grains” include commodities such as corn, oats, and barley.

Source: Agricultural Resource Management Study.

Economic Research Service, USDA
25

3.

Rural America: Highlighting

Manufacturing Jobs and

Housing

The Administration’s budget proposals for fiscal year 2000 included twoinitiatives with significant implications for rural development: the New Markets

initiative and the Livable Communities initiative. The New Markets initiative is

aimed at stimulating development in economically distressed areas. The Livable

Communities (or Livability) initiative addresses sprawl, congestion, pollution, 

crime, and other quality-of-life issues that are important for community and

economic development. 

Both initiatives derive in large part from the long economic expansion of the

1990’s, which has produced uneven results, as some places have grown rapidly 

while others still suffer high unemployment or population decline. Rural America 

is diverse, containing both types of places: those trying to cope with rapid growth

(such as in the West and Rocky Mountains) and those still struggling with economic

stagnation or decline (such as in the northern Great Plains and in parts of the

Mississippi Delta and Appalachia). Some rural areas on the Southwest border 

are simultaneously experiencing both problems. 

■ The New Markets Initiative

The U.S. economy has grown so rapidly in recent years that labor shortages aresurfacing in many areas, threatening to limit economic growth and increase

inflation. The New Markets initiative would provide tax and credit incentives and

other forms of business assistance to encourage the private sector to invest more in

distressed inner cities, rural areas, and Indian reservations. These are “new markets”

in that many firms have overlooked them while expanding elsewhere. They may 

also be underserved by capital markets because they have underutilized labor and

land and are short of capital needed to put those resources to use. Targeting Federal

assistance to distressed areas is not new. However, the New Markets’ focus on tax

incentives, business credit, and technical assistance for distressed areas is relatively

new, building on some recently created programs that have grown in recent years. 
26

■ The Livability Initiative

Also called the Livable Communities initiative, the Livability initiative addressesa wide array of noneconomic issues associated with development and quality of

life. Two of these issues are particularly important from a rural development perspective: preservation of natural amenities and mitigation of sprawl-related problems. 

The preservation of natural amenities follows from the perspective that natural

amenities must be preserved for rural development to be sustained, since much of the

growth and development in rural areas in recent years derives from the attraction of

rural scenic landscapes, clean air and water, and outdoor recreation. Although many

rural areas possess valuable natural amenities, these tend to be greatest in the more

remote rural areas and near mountains and water. 

In contrast, sprawl mitigation tends to be of greatest concern in rural areas that

are close to growing metropolitan areas. Attracted by the combination of metropolitan job opportunities, low land prices, and rural amenities, many people and businesses are choosing to reside adjacent to growing metropolitan areas. While this may

be beneficial to the development of many rural areas, the typical sprawling form of

development along major transportation arteries radiating from urban centers creates

numerous problems for rural communities, including congested roads, crowded

schools, and strained water and waste.

People today expect more than just jobs from economic development. They want

to live and work in communities with a decent quality of life. Many are attracted to

rural areas because of the small-town lifestyle and natural rural landscape and environment, and they object to development that seriously erodes these rural amenities.

Many also find it hard to reconcile the long-term economic improvements enjoyed by

most Americans with the continued stagnation and poverty in distressed central cities,

rural areas, and Indian reservations. This represents not only inequity but also inefficiency, as land and labor resources are being wasted that might otherwise contribute

to sustaining national economic growth. The long-term solution is to better integrate

these communities into the national economy. The New Markets and Livability initiatives seek to achieve these objectives. 

■ Rural Manufacturing 

Rural manufacturing received a big impetus during World War II and has sincebecome an important part of the economy of rural America. After declining in

the 1980’s, rural manufacturing has rebounded in the 1990’s. The increasing use of

technology by manufacturers in rural areas, coupled with programs and policies such

as the New Markets Initiative, holds out hope that these areas will increase their share

of skilled and high-paying manufacturing jobs.

Of great significance for the future of rural industry was the work of New Deal

agencies, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and USDA’s Rural

Electrification Administration (REA), renamed Rural Utilities Service, as well as

State road-building commissions, which provided essential elements of infrastructure

that would be needed by manufacturers. As TVA and REA were beginning their
27

work, Mississippi in 1936 became the first State to offer subsidies to attract new

industries. In the next several years, many other Southern States followed suit. At

first, most migrating industries settled in Southern cities but, because the South was

the most rural region in the East, some branch plants of northern-based companies

also ended up in small rural towns. That rural industrialization began in the South

was the result of its proximity to Eastern cities and its abundance of labor. (Textile

mills began to move into the South as early as the 1890’s.) Although the rural South

experienced great outmigration in the 1930’s and beyond, it still had the most densely

settled rural areas with potential pools of cheap and available labor. 

During World War II, the groundwork for a much more expansive industrial

growth was laid in the South, as well as other parts of the country. Factories were

moved or newly built away from potential attack on the east and west coasts, military

posts sprang up in many rural areas, populations were redistributed, and millions of

rural people received training either in the military or in war-related industries. The

century-long clustering of industrial activity in the Northeast was beginning to break

down. In 1947, the South already had 39,699 manufacturing establishments, an

increase of 33 percent over the 1939 total. 

■ Rural Industry Takes Off

By the early 1950’s, improvements in agricultural technology and productivitywere having a powerful effect on the rural landscape. The number of farms 

was decreasing rapidly, threatening many small rural communities that depended 

on agriculture for their economic survival. By the mid-1950’s, a broad-based spatial

redistribution of American manufacturing was taking place and then, beginning

approximately in 1958, industry began to move increasingly into nonurban areas.

From 1960 to 1970, manufacturing grew by only 4 percent in metro areas but 22

percent in nonmetro areas with even stronger growth in sparsely populated areas. 

■ The 1980’s and Beyond

By the end of the 1970’s, four decades of industrial deconcentration had significantly altered the American economic landscape. In 1947, the “older” (census

definition as of 1963) metro areas of the Northeast and Midwest had 62.6 percent of

U.S. manufacturing employment, but in 1977, that figure had fallen to 45.5 percent.

On the other hand, the share of continuously nonmetro and new metro areas (counties

that had grown from nonmetro to metro status) in the South, Midwest, and West rose

from 15.4 percent to 22.4 percent. “Older” metro areas in the West and South also

increased their percentage share.

Employment in rural manufacturing peaked in 1974 during the recession period

of 1973-75. Full recovery was not attained until the end of the decade. In 1979,

manufacturing employed 21.4 million nationwide, of which 6 million worked in

nonmetro areas. In 1980-82, during the deepest recessionary period since World 

War II, manufacturing employment had declined to 18.4 million and 4.9 million,
28

respectively. Rural areas recovered more slowly than the rest of the country so that,

by the end of 1987, when national manufacturing employment had risen to 19.3

million, the nonmetro workforce had barely increased to 5 million. In other words,

nearly half of the losses in manufacturing employment since 1979 had come from

nonmetro areas. Remote and sparsely populated rural counties were hardest hit,

reversing the encouraging trend of the 1960’s. These figures, combined with the fact

that nonmetro areas had an unemployment rate 1.5 percentage points above the

national average throughout the 1980’s, provoked speculation about a decoupling 

of urban and rural economies. 

By the early 1990’s, rural manufacturing had recovered to its 1979 level amidst

an ongoing pattern of industrial dispersal. Nonmetro populations also began to grow

again. In 1992, the older metro areas of the Northeast and Midwest had only 36.2

percent of manufacturing employment, while continuously nonmetro and new metro

areas of the Midwest, South, and West had 24.8 percent. Remote and sparsely populated rural areas benefited the most from the recovery. In 1997, the South had the

largest number of nonmetro manufacturing jobs (table 3-1). “Metal products, equipment, and instruments” and “Textiles and apparel” accounted for 53.5 percent of the

nonmetro manufacturing jobs in the South.

Figure 3-1.

Manufacturing employment, metro and nonmetro counties, 1970-97—

After falling in the 1980’s, nonmetro manufacturing employment has

turned around in the 1990’s

50

75

100

125

150

1970 75 80 85 90 95 97

Nonmetro

Metro

Index (1970=100)

Note: Based on 1983 metro-nonmetro definition.

Source: ERS analysis of Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System data.
29

Manufacturing now accounts for a larger share of jobs in nonmetro areas than 

in metro areas (table 3-2). In 1996, USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS)

completed the most extensive national survey of rural manufacturing ever. The ERS

survey uncovered an apparent trend not picked up in analyses of aggregate employment data. The 3,909 establishments surveyed in metro and nonmetro locations were

surprisingly similar in their adoption of new technologies, worker skill requirements,

use of government programs and technical assistance. An increasing number of rural

manufacturers now rely on various computerized and electronic systems to control

virtually all phases of their production, marketing, and distribution. Strictly speaking,

these plants are not “high-tech” because they do not employ teams of innovationdriven engineers and research scientists, but they are “new tech” in the way their

adoption of technology requires more highly trained and skilled workers than in the

past. Rural enterprises are not in the vanguard of technological change, but their use

of technology can provide their employees with better lives. 

Table 3-1.

Nonmetro manufacturing employment by sector and region, 1996

Nonmetro region1

Item Northeast Midwest South West

1,000 jobs

Employment:

Total2 2,980 9,568 12,970 5,101

Manufacturing2 450 1,634 2,371 412

Percent

Manufacturing’s share of 

total employment 15.1 17.1 18.3 8.1

Manufacturing sector shares:3

Food and tobacco 6.2 13.0 11.7 18.3

Textiles and apparel 9.3 3.4 24.9 2.4

Lumber, furniture, paper, wood products 18.7 12.7 19.1 32.8

Chemicals, petroleum, rubber, plastics 8.8 10.1 10.0 5.8

Metal products, equipment, instruments 42.6 48.6 28.6 25.5

Other manufacturing 14.3 12.2 7.5 15.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1Census regions.

2Source: ERS analysis of Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System.

3Source: ERS analysis of Claritas, Inc., Enhanced Country Business Patterns 1996 data. Sector classifications

are groupings of two-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories.
30

■ Rural Housing

Rural and urban areas face broadly similar housing policy issues, with similarbudget priorities and many of the same housing programs. In addition, social and

economic similarities between urban and rural areas outnumber dissimilarities when

it comes to housing policy. Also universal is the challenge of increasing the stock of

affordable housing, while promoting greater tenant choice in where to live via

portable housing vouchers. 

At the beginning of 2000, homeownership was at a record high; over threefourths of nonmetro and two-thirds of all U.S. households owned their homes. While

the rate of homeownership is lowest for low-income and minority populations, it is

growing and at a more rapid rate than for other households. In both rural and urban

America, low-income and minority households are those most dependent on rental

housing, and their share of all renters continues to grow. Thus, most explicit housing

assistance expenditures (as opposed to tax expenditures associated with housing tax

breaks) are targeted at rental housing, despite the Federal goal of promoting homeownership. Only USDA operates a major program that promotes home purchase by

low- and very low-income households. 

Table 3-2.

Manufacturing-to-population ratio by metro and nonmetro region,

1920-97

1920 1970 1997

Jobs per 100 persons

Metro counties 11.7 10.6 7.0

Northeast 14.9 12.3 6.7

Midwest 12.7 13.3 9.6

South 6.3 8.2 6.1

West 7.3 7.9 6.3

Nonmetro counties 3.5 8.3 8.3

Northeast 9.4 11.1 7.8

Midwest 3.0 7.6 9.4

South 2.6 8.9 8.9

West 3.8 5.1 4.4

Note: Table shows ratio of manufacturing jobs to total population. The 1993 definition of metro counties was

used for each year.

Source: ERS analysis of data from Censuses of Population and Agriculture, 1920, and Bureau of Economic

Analysis, Regional Economic Information System.
31

■ Growth in Federally Financed Homes in 2000

One of the more significant areas of growth in rural economic developmentprogram activity in 2000 is in USDA’s Rural Housing Service’s (RHS)

programs, and much of this growth involves the programs that benefit low- and 

very low-income households through subsidized direct loans and rental assistance.

All references to funding levels refer to an October 1-September 30 fiscal year.

Section 502 is USDA’s main housing loan program, providing over $1 billion in

direct loans and over $3 billion in loan guarantees for the purchase of single-family

homes (table 3-3). As might be expected, this program is targeted to low-income

rural areas. In 1998, direct loans per capita were $9.75 in nonmetro areas and $2.47

in metro areas. Although the program benefits rural areas nationwide, the highest

benefits, in per capita dollars, were in low-income areas, such as in the South, and 

in rapidly growing areas, such as in the West. 

The section 502 guaranteed loan program requires less Federal money but

finances more homes because loans are made at market interest rates and receive no

interest subsidy. In 2000, this program is expected to guarantee $3.2 billion in singlefamily home loans, up 7 percent from 1999. In 1998, the per capita benefits from this

program were also highest in rural areas (nonmetro $24.01, metro $7.71), however

the distribution of program benefits shows a different regional pattern, with benefits

generally higher in the North than in the South.

The main U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) homeownership

program is the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) single-family home mortgage

program (financed by the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund). FHA projects that new

loan guarantees in 2000 will increase 8 percent over 1999, totaling about $122 billion. FHA was particularly active in rapidly growing nonmetro areas, many of them

retirement or commuting counties or in the West. Still, nonmetro areas received less

than 7 percent of the loan insurance provided by FHA in 1998. 

In contrast, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) guaranteed home loan

program is projected to reduce its disbursements of new loan guarantees by 22 percent, down to $32 billion in 2000. In 1998, about 10 percent of this program’s activity

was in nonmetro areas. Nonmetro VA loan levels were highest, per capita, in growing

areas such as the West and in retirement counties. And like the HUD programs, the

VA program particularly benefited the more urbanized nonmetro areas in 1998.
32

Table 3-3.

Federal funding for selected housing programs, by fiscal year

Rural area most

affected by 

Program 1999 2000 Change the program1

USDA/RHS: Single family 0.97 1.16 20 South, West, and 

(sec. 502) Direct loans poverty counties2

Guarantees 2.98 3.20 7 Outside the South2

Multifamily (sec. 515) 0.11 0.11 0 Northeast, South, 

totally rural, adjacent

and manufacturing

counties

Rental assistance 0.58 0.64 10 West, South, totally

rural, farming, and

poverty counties

VA: Loan guarantees 43.09 32.12 -22 West, urbanized and

retirement counties

HUD: FHA single-family 133.17 122.34 8 West, retirement, and

mortgage insurance commuting counties

Section 8 public housing 19.44 19.96 3 Northeast, urbanized,

government, and

services counties

Home Investment (HOME) 1.60 1.60 0 Northeast, West, and

government counties

State/small cities community 1.27 1.27 0 Small towns and rural

development block grants areas in farm and 

poverty States

Note: HUD=U.S. Housing and Urban Development: USDA=U.S. Department of Agriculture; RHS=Rural

Housing Service; VA=U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; FHA=Federal Housing Administration.

1County types are defined in the appendix.

2Information on loan distribution for the 502 program was obtained directly from RHS.

Source: Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2001
33

■ Multifamily Housing and Rental Assistance

USDA has two mortgage financing programs for rural multifamily rental housing.The section 515 direct loan program is the more significant, providing direct

subsidized interest rate loans for the construction, purchase, rehabilitation, or repair

of low-income rental housing. In 2000, this program will provide about $114 million

in loans, the same as 1999. The housing produced by this program is distributed

nationally, although the Northeast, South, and totally rural areas such as colonias and

Indian reservations particularly benefited in 1998. The section 538 guaranteed rental

housing loan program is expected to guarantee about $100 million of market-rate

loans in 2000, 25 percent more than in 1999. 

Funding for the RHS’s smaller Farm Labor Housing loan and grant programs is

higher in 2000. Loans are expected to rise from $20 million to $25 million in 2000,

and grants from $13 million to $14 million. A supplemental disaster appropriation

adds $5 million to loans and $3 million to grants in 2000. These programs, which

help to provide housing for migrant and year-round farmworkers, also benefited from

emergency assistance in 2000. 

Rural rental assistance payments account for $640 million, or about two-thirds of

RHS’s total program budget in 2000. Under this program, tenants pay 30 percent of

their income for rent, and the rural rental assistance payments make up the difference

between the tenant’s contribution and the rent. Funding for this program, which rose

10 percent from 1999, allows RHS to renew existing contracts with about $8 million

left to support repair and rehabilitation of Farm Labor Housing projects as well as

some new construction of Farm Labor Housing units. In 1998, payments from this

program were greatest in the West and South, and in totally rural, farming, and

poverty counties. 

HUD provides considerable rental housing assistance in both urban and rural

areas. Most HUD low-income rental assistance comes through its section 8 program,

which is expected to provide about $16 billion in 2000. HUD will spend another $3

billion in outlays on its public housing capital fund, $2.55 billion on its operating

fund, $610 million for its section 236 rental assistance program, and smaller amounts

for other related programs. The total of about $20 billion for subsidized housing is up

3 percent from 1999. Programs for the disabled and elderly have anticipated 2000

outlays of $784 million, up 3 percent. HUD’s section 8 low-income housing assistance provides funds nationwide. Nonmetro areas received about 12 percent of the

funding in1998, particularly in the Northeast and urbanized nonmetro areas. HUD

has various other programs that directly assist housing in rural and urban areas. 
■ USDA’s Single-Family Housing Program Has Been

Popular With Borrowers

The first comprehensive survey of recent homebuyers using USDA’s section 502Single Family Housing Program (Meeting the Housing Needs of Rural

Residents: Results of the 1998 Survey of USDA’s Single Family Direct Loan Housing

Program, RDRR-91) provided fresh insights. To participate in this program, households must have had low or very low incomes, been unable to obtain a home mortgage from another source, and not own an adequate home. Borrowers were typically

first-time homeowners, under age 40, and had children. One-third of the household

heads were single parents, 13 percent were Black, and 12 percent were Hispanic.

One-fourth had previously received government rental assistance. Most were

satisfied with their home, neighborhood, and the section 502 program (figure 3-2). 

34
35

Figure 3-2.

Participant satisfaction among recent single-family home borrowers

dealing with USDA’s loan program

0 20 40 60 80 100

Appearance

Construction quality

Adequacy of size

General satisfaction

0 20 40 60 80 100

School quality

Public service quality

Access to services

Safety and security

Appearance

General satisfaction

Percent

High satisfaction with current home...

Percent

...and high satisfaction with current neighborhood

80

77

70

81

75

81

81

68

69

75

Note: High general satisfaction is based on scores of 8, 9, or 10 on a scale of 1-10, with 1 the worst and 10 the

best. High satisfaction on the other neighborhood characteristics is based on ratings of good or very good on a

five-group scale from very poor to very good.

Source: 1998 Survey of USDA’s Single-Family Direct Loan Housing Program, ERS.
36

4.

Highlights From Current

Agricultural Issues: Risk,

Organic Crops, and

Biotechnology Crops

■ Farmers Sharpen Tools To Confront Business

Risks

As in any industry, risk is a part of the business of agriculture. Farmers face anever-changing landscape of weather, prices, yields, government policies, global

competition, and other factors that affect their financial returns and overall welfare.

With the shift toward less countercyclical government intervention following passage

of the 1996 Farm Act came recognition of the need for a more sophisticated understanding of farm risk and risk management. Risk management strategies can help

mitigate the effects of swings in supply, demand, and prices, so that farm business

returns can be closer to expectations.

Risk management is, in general, finding the combination of activities most

preferred by an individual farmer to achieve the desired level of return and an acceptable level of risk. Risk management strategies reduce risk within the farming operation (e.g., diversification or vertical integration), transfer a share of risk outside the

farm (e.g., production contracting or hedging), or build the farm’s capacity to bear

risk (e.g., maintaining cash reserves or evening out cash-flow). Using risk management does not necessarily avoid risk altogether, but instead balances risk and return

consistent with a farm operator’s capacity to withstand a wide range of outcomes.

Although farms vary widely with respect to enterprise mix, financial situation,

and other business and household characteristics, many sources of risk are common

to all farmers, ranging from price and yield risk to personal injury or poor health. 

But even when facing the same risks, farms vary in their ability to weather shocks. 

What do farmers themselves say about the risks they face? USDA’s 1996

Agricultural Resource Management Study (ARMS), conducted in the spring of 1997

(about a year after passage of the 1996 Farm Act), asked producers how concerned

they were that certain types of risk could affect the viability of their farms. Three risk

factors of greatest concern to farm operators were uncertainty regarding commodity

prices, declines in crop yields or livestock production, and changes in government

law and regulation. ARMS data show that producers specializing in wheat, corn,

soybeans, tobacco, and cotton were generally more concerned about the threat of low

yield and/or low price than any other risk. Producers of other field crops, nursery and

greenhouse crops, and poultry expressed greater concern about changes in laws and
37

regulations than about other risks. Livestock producers also expressed concern about

their ability to adopt new technology, perhaps because failure to invest in new production techniques could put them at a cost disadvantage to other producers. 

■ Price and Yield Swings Pose Primary Risk

The possibility of lower-than-expected yield is one of the risks identified in theARMS as a major concern to farmers, particularly those planting major field

crops. Yield variability for a given crop varies by geographic area and depends on

factors such as soil type and quality, climate, and use of irrigation. Risks associated

with high yield variability and the resulting income variability can be mitigated by

programs such as Federal crop insurance, as well as by diversification and other tools

to help spread farm-level risk.

Like yield variability, price variability differs among commodities. In 1987-96,

crop prices showed relatively more variability than livestock prices, largely because

crop supplies are affected by swings in crop yields while livestock supplies have been

more stable—although recent variability in the hog market illustrates that some

exceptions exist. Crops that exhibited the highest price variability (deviations exceeding 20 percent above or below the mean) include dry edible beans, pears, lettuce,

apples, rice, grapefruit, and grain sorghum (figure 4-1). The variability of beef cattle,

milk, and turkey prices was less than 10 percent, perhaps reflecting lower production

risk and, in the case of milk, the existence of a Federal dairy program.

Price variability can change across time depending on year-to-year differences in

crop prospects, changes in government program provisions, and shifts in world supply and demand conditions. For example, corn price variability was quite high during

the 1920’s and 1930’s, due largely to the collapse of grain prices after World War I

and very low yields in 1934 and 1936 (figure 4-2). Corn prices stabilized during the

1950’s and 1960’s, a period of high government support, stable yields, and consistent

demand. Sizable purchases of corn by Russia early in the 1970’s affected variability

during that decade, while low U.S. yields in 1983 and 1988 contributed to increased

corn price variability in the 1980’s. Variability returned to near long-term average

levels in 1990-96.

■ No Single Approach Suits All Farms

Because farmers face different degrees of variability and differ in their attitudestoward risk, there can be no single approach to suit all farms. Overall, farmers

appear to be relying increasingly on forward contracting and other risk management

tools to reduce their farm-level risks, due in part to the recent trend toward reduced

government intervention in farming. Even so, the 1996 ARMS indicates that keeping

cash (or liquid assets) on hand for handling emergencies and for taking advantage of

good business opportunities was the number-one strategy used by farms of every

size, every commodity speciality, and in every region.
38

Farm size apparently plays a role in choice of risk management strategy. The

ARMS found that operators with annual gross sales of $250,000 or more were more

likely than smaller operators to use hedging, forward contracting, and virtually all

other types of risk management strategies. In contrast, operators with sales under

$50,000 were less likely to use forward contracting or hedging, and fewer reported

using enterprise diversification to reduce risk. 

The ARMS data also indicated that producers in the Corn Belt and Northern

Plains were somewhat more likely to use risk management strategies than those in 

the Southern Plains, Northeast, and Appalachia. About 40 percent of producers in 

the Corn Belt and Northern Plains regions used forward contracting in 1996 and

about 25 percent used hedging in futures or options.

A period of financial stress may induce an operator to shift risk management

strategies. The 1996 ARMS questioned farmers about production, marketing, and

financial activities they might undertake if faced with financial difficulty (table 4-1).

A large proportion of producers with sales of $50,000 or more indicated they would

adjust costs, improve marketing skills, restructure debt, and spend more time on

management decisions. 

Figure 4-1.

Price variability is generally higher for crops than for livestock

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Cattle, all beef

Live broilers

All milk

Turkeys

All eggs

All hay

Lambs

Fresh tomatoes

Upland cotton

All hogs

Calves

Oranges, all uses

Soybeans

Corn

All wheat

Onions

Potatoes

Sorghum

Grapefruit, all uses

Rice

Apples for fresh use

Lettuce

Pears for fresh use

Dry edible beans

Percent of mean price

Price variability

Price variability measures deviation above and below the mean price for the period 1987-96.

Economic Research Service, USDA
39

Producers with sales under $50,000 (who generally receive a substantial share of

household income from off-farm sources) also responded that they would adjust costs

when faced with financial difficulties. But small-farm operators would be relatively

more likely than larger operators to sell farm assets or scale back operations. Further,

small-scale producers were much less likely to spend more time on management or

on improving their marketing skills. 

When individual efforts to deal with financial stress fail and large numbers of

farms face significant financial loss, the Federal Government has often stepped in

with assistance to agriculture in the form of direct payments, loans, and other types of

aid. In 1999, for example, the Agricultural Appropriations Act authorized emergency

financial assistance to farmers who suffered losses due to natural disasters. Under this

legislation, farmers were eligible for payments either for losses to their 1998 crop, or

for losses in any 3 or more crop years between 1994-98. Farmers with crop insurance

received slightly higher payments than those without, and those receiving emergency

benefits were required to buy crop insurance (if available) in 1999 and 2000. In addition, the legislation provides an incentive for purchasing higher levels of crop insurance coverage in 1999 by earmarking an estimated $400 million to subsidize farmers’

insurance premiums. The 2000 agricultural appropriations provided crop loss assistance and $400 million to continue through 2000 the incentives for purchasing high

levels of crop insurance. 

Price variability measures deviation above and below the mean price for the period 1987-96.

Economic Research Service, USDA

Figure 4-2.

Corn price variability in the 1990’s was near the level of the 1970’s

and 1980’s

0

20

40

60

1920's 1930's 1940's 1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990-96

Price variability

Percent of mean price
40

Table 4-1.

What steps would farmers take to manage financial difficulties?

Small farms * Large farms *

Less than $50,000– $250,000– $500,000+ Total

$50,000 $249,999 $499,999 or more U.S.

Percent of farms

Management/financial strategy:

Restructure debt 24 48 46 49 30

Sell assets to reduce debt 31 28 31 29 30

Use more custom services 7 18 17 20 10

Scale back farm business 26 23 20 24 25

Diversify into other farm enterprises 12 23 21 21 15

Spend more time on management 19 38 47 45 24

Use advisory services 19 22 28 26 20

Adjust operating costs 34 54 59 57 40

Improve marketing skills 30 47 53 53 35

* Determined by level of annual gross sales.

Source: 1996 Agricultural Resource Management Study, USDA.

Economic Research Service, USDA

A Selection of Strategies for Mitigating Risk

Farmers have many options in managing the types of risks they face. Most

producers use a combination of strategies and tools, because they address

different elements of risk or the same risk in a different way. Some of the

more widely used strategies are:

■ Enterprise diversification

■ Vertical integration

■ Production contracts

■ Marketing contracts

■ Futures contracts

■ Futures options contracts 

■ Liquidity

■ Crop yield insurance

■ Crop revenue insurance

■ Household off-farm employment
41

■ Organic Agriculture Gains Ground in the United

States

Organic farming became one of the fastest growing segments of U.S. agricultureduring the 1990’s, and producers, exporters, and retailers are still struggling 

to meet consumer demand for a wide range of organic products. Certified organic

cropland more than doubled in the United States during the 1990’s, and two organic

livestock sectors—eggs and dairy—grew even faster.

Organic produce, milk, eggs, pasta, frozen dinners, and pharmaceuticals are

among the many items that consumers count on finding in natural foods supermarkets

and are beginning to expect in mainstream supermarkets as well. The International

Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO (ITC) estimates that combined retail sales of organic

food and beverages in major world markets for these goods—primarily the United

States, Japan, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and

the United Kingdom—amounted to $11 billion in 1997 and $13-13.5 billion in 1998.

Organic food sales in 1997 accounted for 1 to 2 percent of total food sales in most of

these countries, including the United States, and medium-term growth rate forecasts

range from 5 to 10 percent annually for Germany, to 20-30 percent for the United

States and 30-40 percent for Denmark, according to the ITC. 

U.S. producers are turning to organic farming systems as a potential way to

lower input costs, decrease reliance on nonrenewable resources, capture high-value

markets and premium prices, and boost farm income. Farmers in 49 States dedicated

1,346,558 acres of farmland to organic production systems and used third-party

organic certification services in 1997 (table 4-2). Two-thirds of this farmland was

used for growing crops, with Idaho, California, North Dakota, Montana, Minnesota,

Wisconsin, Iowa, and Florida as the top producers (figure 4-3). Nearly half the States

were raising certified organic livestock. Colorado and Alaska had the largest amount

of organic pasture and rangeland. 

U.S. governmental efforts to facilitate organic production have focused primarily

on developing national certification standards to assure consumers that these commodities meet a consistent standard and to streamline interstate commerce in organically grown agricultural products. It was private organizations, mostly nonprofits,

which began developing certification standards in the early 1970’s as a way to support organic farming and thwart consumer fraud. Some States began offering organic

certification services in the late 1980’s for similar reasons. On the Federal level,

Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 to establish national

standards for organically produced commodities. This legislation requires that all

except the smallest organic growers must be certified by a State or private agency

accredited under national standards currently being finalized by USDA. 

While adoption of organic farming systems showed strong gains between 1992

and 1997 and the adoption rate continues high, the overall adoption level is still

small—only two-tenths of 1 percent of all U.S. cropland was certified organic in

1997. Obstacles to adoption include large managerial costs and risks of shifting to a

new way of farming, limited awareness of organic farming systems, lack of market-
42

Table 4-2.

U.S. organic agriculture has expanded

Change

U.S. certified organic 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1992-97 1995-97

1,000 acres Percent

Farmland

Total 935 956 992 918 — 1,347 44 47

Pasture & rangeland 532 491 435 279 — 496 -7 78

Cropland 403 465 557 639 — 850 111 33

Number Percent

Animals

Beef cows 6,796 9,222 3,300 — — 4,429 -35 —

Milk cows 2,265 2,846 6,100 — — 12,897 469 —

Hogs and pigs 1,365 1,499 2,100 — — 482 -65 —

Sheep and lambs 1,221 1,186 1,600 — — 705 -42 —

Layer hens 43,981 20,625 47,700 — — 537,826 1123 —

Broilers 17,382 26,331 110,500 — — 38,285 120 —

Unclassified/other — — — — — 226,105 — —

Number Percent

Growers 

(plants & animals) 3,587 3,536 4,060 4,856 — 5,021 40 3

Numbers may not add due to rounding.

Sources: 1992-94, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA; 1995 (including revisions of 1992-94 farmland),

Agrisystems International; 1997, Economic Research Service, USDA.

Economic Research Service, USDA

Figure 4.3

Organic crop acreage by leading States

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Unclassified/other crops

Herbs (including wild-harvest)

Fruits and vegetables

Field Crops

Nebraska

Florida

Iowa

Colorado

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Montana

N. Dakota

California

Idaho

1,000 acres

Certified organic cropland, top 10 States; U.S. total equals 850,177 acres. 1997 data.

Economic Research Service, USDA
ing and technical infrastructure, inability to capture marketing economies, insufficient numbers of processors and distributors, and limited access to capital. State and

private certifier fees for inspections, pesticide residue testing, and other services

represent an added production expense for organic producers. 

Several States in the United States have begun providing financial support for

conversion to organic farming systems as a way to capture environmental benefits 

of these systems. In Iowa, organic crop production has been an approved State

conservation practice since 1997 and is eligible for cost-share support from 

USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentive Program. In Minnesota, the Department 

of Agriculture implemented an Organic Cost Share Program in 1999, which is

designed explicitly to reimburse Minnesota producers for up to two-thirds of the 

cost for organic inspection and certification. Also, several of the State-run certification programs in the United States charge nominal or very low fees to encourage

organic production. 

In addition to government efforts in developing national certification standards,

and in expediting interstate commerce in organic products, USDA has been facilitating and promoting organic exports for several years. A pilot program to offer organic

crop insurance is also under development. Several other USDA research programs

have focused on organic and sustainable farming systems since the 1990’s, and more

such programs are beginning to take shape.

■ Genetically Engineered Crops: Has Adoption

Reduced Pesticide Use?

Development of new crop varieties through genetic engineering also offers a broad spectrum of potential benefits to farmers and consumers, including

reduced production costs, enhanced yields, and enhanced nutritional or other

characteristics that add to value. Among the first developments on the market were

changes in the genetic makeup of common field crops that made them tolerant to

commonly used glyphosate herbicides, or that incorporated genes of the natural

pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), so that plants produce a protein toxic to specific

insect pests.

These varieties appealed to producers because they promised to simplify pest

management and reduce pesticide use, while helping to control costs, enhance

effectiveness of pesticides (both herbicides and insecticides), and increase flexibility

in field operations. Evidence of that appeal lies in the rapid adoption of genetically

engineered (GE) crops, beginning with very little U.S. acreage in 1996 and reaching

41 percent of major crop acreage in 2000, down from 49 percent in 1999.

Data exist on pesticide use by producers who did and did not adopt genetically

engineered crops. But characteristics that affect the adoption decision may influence

pesticide use decisions as well, making simple comparisons suspect. In addition, the

changing mix of pesticides that accompanies adoption complicates the analysis,

because characteristics like toxicity and persistence in the environment vary across

pesticides used.

43
44

Table 4-3.

Soybeans: Farmer reported genetically modified varieties, by State

and United States, percent of all soybean planted acres, 2000

State Herbicide Resistant Only All GM Varieties

Percent Percent

AR 43 43

IL 44 44

IN 63 63

IA 59 59

KS 66 66

MI 50 50

MN 46 46

MS 48 48

MO 62 62

NE 72 72

ND 22 22

OH 48 48

SD 68 68

WI 51 51

Other States1 54 54

U.S. 54 54

1Other States includes all other States in the soybean estimating program.

Table 4-4.

Corn: Farmer reported genetically modified varieties, by State and

United States, percent of all corn planted acres, 2000

Insect Resistant Herbicide Stacked Gene All GM

State (Bt) Only Resistant Only Varieties Varieties

Percent Percent Percent Percent

IL 13 3 1 17

IN 7 4 * 11

IA 23 5 2 30

KS 25 7 1 33

MI 8 4 * 12

MN 28 7 2 37

MO 20 6 2 28

NE 24 8 2 34

OH 6 3 * 9

SD 35 11 2 48

WI 13 4 1 18

Other States1 10 6 1 17

U.S. 18 6 1 25

*Data rounds to less than 0.5 percent.

1Other States includes all other States in the corn estimating program.
45

Three statistical methods can offer several perspectives on estimating changes in

pesticide use associated with adoption of GE crops:

■ Same-year differences. Compares mean pesticide use between adopters and

nonadopters within 1997 and within 1998 for a given technology, crop, and

region, and applies that average to total acres producing each crop in each

year. 

■ Year-to-year differences. Estimates aggregate differences in pesticide use

between 1997 and 1998, based on increased adoption of GE crops between

those 2 years and average total pesticide use by both adopters and nonadopters. 

■ Regression analysis. Estimates differences in pesticide use between 1997 and

1998, with an econometric model controlling for factors other than GE crop

adoption that may affect pesticide use.

Same-year differences between average pesticide use of adopters and nonadopters revealed that adopters of GE corn, soybeans, and cotton combined used 7.6

million fewer acre-treatments (2.5 percent) of pesticides than nonadopters in 1997.

(An acre-treatment is the number of acres treated multiplied by the number of pesticide treatments.) The difference rose to nearly 17 million fewer acre-treatments (4.4

percent) by adopters in 1998 (figure 4-4). In terms of active ingredients applied,

however, adopters used only 331,000 pounds fewer than nonadopters (less than 0.1

percent of total pounds applied) in 1997. The difference narrowed to 153,000 fewer

pounds in 1998. 

Year-to-year differences in total pesticide use between 1997 and 1998, adjusted

for change in acres planted but including both adopters and nonadopters, amounted 

to 9 million fewer pesticide acre-treatments (a 2.9-percent reduction). 

Table 4-5.

Upland Cotton: Farmer reported genetically modified varieties, by

State and United States, percent of upland cotton planted acres,

2000

Insect Resistant Herbicide Stacked Gene All GM

State (Bt) Only Resistant Only Varieties Varieties

Percent Percent Percent Percent

AR 33 23 14 70

CA 3 17 4 24

GA 18 32 32 82

LA 37 13 30 80

MS 29 1336 78

NC 11 29 36 76

TX 7 33 6 46

Other States1 17 21 36 74

U.S. 15 26 20 61

1Other States includes all other States in the cotton estimating program.
46

Figure 4-4.

Reduction in pesticide use accompanies adoption of genetically

engineered crops

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

Bt corn

Bt cotton

H-T corn

H-T soybeans

HT-cotton

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

3

Bt corn

Bt cotton

H-T corn

H-T soybeans

HT-cotton

Same-year 

difference, 1997

(adopters vs. 

nonadopters)

Same-year 

difference, 1998

(adopters vs. 

nonadopters)

Year-to-year 

difference, 

1997 to 1998

(adopters vs. 

nonadopters)

Regression analysis, 

1997 to 1998

(controls for factors

beyond adoption)

Estimation method
These comparisons do not account for year-to-year changes in weather conditions, pest pressures, and other factors that may affect pesticide use, so it is inappropriate to attribute the results solely to adoption of GE crops. Still, the overall

downward trend in pesticide application rates on major U.S. crops from 1996 to 1998

appears to confirm the pesticide-reducing effect of GE crops. For example, as adoption of herbicide-tolerant soybean varieties increased from 7 to 45 percent, the average annual rate of glyphosate application increased from 0.17 pounds per acre in

1996 to 0.43 pounds per acre in 1998, while all other herbicides combined dropped

from about 1 pound per acre to 0.57 pounds per acre. That translates into a decline of

nearly 10 percent in the overall rate of herbicide use on soybeans during the period.

The regression analysis approach controlled for differences between adopters

and nonadopters, allowing estimation of changes in pesticide use associated with

increases in GE adoption between 1997 and 1998. The analysis estimated that

pesticide reductions related to increased GE adoption between 1997 and 1998 

were 19.1 million acre-treatments (6.2 percent of total 1997 treatments), excluding 

Bt corn. These estimates reflect reductions in other insecticides used on cotton,

acetamide herbicides used on corn, other synthetic herbicides used on soybeans, 

and offsetting increases in glyphosate herbicides used on soybeans 

■ Changing the Mix of Pesticides Used Also Matters

Changes in pesticide acre-treatments resulting from the adoption decision rangefrom -6.8 million acre-treatments to -19 million across the three estimation

methods. Reductions in pounds of active ingredients vary more widely, from a net

drop of just 0.3 million pounds in 1997 (using the same-year method to compare

adopters and nonadopters) to a net 8.2-million-pound decrease (using the year-toyear method to compare changes in total pesticide use between 1997 and 1998). 

Assessing the impact of the herbicide-tolerance trait (which enables use of

glyphosate herbicides) requires more than simply calculating whether more or less

pesticide will be used. Adoption of this technology changes the mix of pesticides

used in the cropping system, as well as the amounts used. When pesticide mixes are

changing, comparing the total number of acre-treatments or pounds of active ingredients of different pesticide compounds is like adding the proverbial apples and

oranges. Measuring pesticide use in pounds of active ingredient implicitly assumes

that a pound of any two ingredients has equal impact on human health and/or the

environment. However, the more than 350 active ingredients in use in pesticides over

the last 40 years vary widely in toxicity per unit of weight and in persistence in the

environment. Scaling (weighting) pounds of pesticides applied by measures of their

“toxicity/persistence” characteristics can provide an indication or index of pesticide

impact or potential risk.

47
Data indicate that adoption of herbicide-tolerant crops leads to substitution of

glyphosate herbicides for previously used herbicides. Based on regression results for

soybeans, an estimated 5.4 million pounds of glyphosate is substituted for 7.2 million

pounds of other synthetic herbicides, such as imazethapyr, pendimethalin, and trifluralin.

Glyphosate has a half-life in the environment of 47 days, compared with 60-90

days for the herbicides it commonly replaces. The herbicides that glyphosate replaces

are 3.4 to 16.8 times more toxic, according to a chronic risk indicator based on the

Environmental Protection Agency’s reference dose for humans. Thus, the substitution

enabled by genetic modifications conferring herbicide tolerance on soybeans results

in glyphosate replacing other synthetic herbicides that are at least 3 times as toxic and

that persist in the environment nearly twice as long as glyphosate.

48
49

5.

U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDA is the third-largest civilian Department of the U.S. Government, overseeing a variety of agencies, Government corporations, and other entities that

employ more than 100,000 people in all 50 States and 60 countries.

The Department has undergone a historic reorganization to improve coordination

among its broad range of programs and agencies. This reorganization, which affected

headquarters and field structures, was authorized by the Department of Agriculture

Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354), signed into law in October 1994.

The reorganization focused the Department’s work under the following seven

mission areas, which operate over 200 programs. These areas are described in chapters 6-12 of this Agriculture Fact Book:

■ Rural Development;

■ Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services;

■ Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services;

■ Food Safety;

■ Natural Resources and Environment;

■ Research, Education, and Economics; and

■ Marketing and Regulatory Programs.

Some organizations serve the entire U.S. Department of Agriculture, including

all mission areas. Among these are the Assistant Secretary for Administration

(Departmental Administration), Office of the Chief Economist, Office of Inspector

General, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Office of the Chief Information

Officer, Office of the General Counsel, and Office of Communications, all of which

report directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. The Office of Congressional and

Intergovernmental Affairs serves as liaison between the Department and Members 

of Congress and their staffs, State and local governments, and Indian tribes and their

members. 

■ Departmental Administration

Departmental Administration (DA) provides leadership and guidance in managingUSDA’s administrative programs and services effectively, efficiently, and fairly.

Departmental Administration staff offices provide support to policy officials of the

Department and overall direction and coordination for administrative programs and

services. In addition, DA manages the buildings that comprise the headquarters

complex, and provides direct customer service to Department-level Washington, DC,

employees.
50

Departmental Administration encompasses the following staff offices: Office of

Civil Rights; Office of Human Resources Management; Office of Procurement,

Property, and Emergency Preparedness; Office of Operations; Office of Small and

Disadvantaged Business Utilization; Office of Ethics; Office of Outreach; Conflict

Prevention and Resolution Center; Hazardous Material Management Group; Board of

Contract Appeals; Office of the Judicial Officer; and Office of Administrative Law

Judges. Visit our web site at http://www.usda.gov/da

Office of Civil Rights

The Office of Civil Rights (CR) provides overall leadership, coordination,

direction, and oversight for civil rights efforts throughout USDA to assure the fair

and equitable treatment of all USDA customers and employees. CR’s emphasis is 

on actions to enforce civil rights laws, executive orders, congressional mandates, 

and other rules, regulations, and policies relating to race, color, national origin, 

sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, protected genetic

information, and marital, family, and parental status. CR works in collaboration 

with the USDA mission areas and their agencies in implementing civil rights laws,

regulations, and best practices relating to both employment and program delivery.

In 2000, CR focused on improving civil rights accountability within USDA,

increasing diversity among the workforce, and increasing the participation of traditionally underserved customers in USDA programs and activities. 

Between January 1998 and March 2000, 94 disciplinary actions were taken

against employees for discrimination or misconduct related to civil rights. These

actions included 14 removals, 40 suspensions, 2 reductions in grade/pay, and 38

letters of reprimand.

The diversity of the USDA workforce is steadily improving. From 1993 to 1999,

African American employment increased from 9.4 to 10.8 percent; Hispanic employment, from 4.1 to 4.8 percent; Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, from 1.7 to 2.0

percent; American Indians, from 2.4 to 2.6 percent; and women, from 41.1 to 41.9

percent of the workforce.

Farm loans to women and minorities have increased significantly in both percentages and dollars. Through more outreach and targeting of funds, the number of

USDA, Farm Service Agency (FSA) direct and guaranteed farm loans made to

minorities and women in fiscal year (FY) 1999 increased 25 percent from the number

made in FY 1998 and 50 percent from the number made in FY 1997. The dollar

amount of loans in FY 1999 totaled $296 million, an increase of 59 percent over the

FY 1998 total of $187 million and 81 percent over the FY 1997 amount. 

In April 1999, USDA entered into a class action settlement with AfricanAmerican farmers, providing compensation and closure for those who felt they were

wronged by USDA in the past. As of August 2000, total payment of approximately

$357 million to 7,143 claimants had been provided by the U.S. Department of

Justice. 
In July 1999, the Director of Civil Rights appointed a USDA Task Force on

Sexual Orientation to update the 1994 Task Force Report and to make recommendations to address issues of sexual orientation. The Task Force submitted its report in

May 2000, with 20 recommendations, including additional training relating to sexual

orientation discrimination and broadening departmental regulations on civil rights to

strengthen the Department’s ability to prevent and process complaints on sexual orientation discrimination in both employment and program delivery.

CR continued to work with agencies to develop training modules so that all

USDA employees and many cooperators, volunteers, and advisory committee members will receive some civil rights and diversity training each year. This is one of

many actions USDA is taking to ensure that all USDA customers and employees are

treated fairly and equitably and with dignity and respect.

A strong CR program supports USDA’s goals. It ensures that customers have full

access to all USDA programs and activities, that program and equal employment

opportunity complaints are handled fairly and expeditiously, and that the best supervisory and management practices are followed to ensure a diverse, highly productive,

and effective staff of USDA employees. 

Office of Human Resources Management

The Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM) provides overall direction, leadership, guidance, analysis, and oversight for USDA human resources management programs and initiatives, establishes human resources management policy,

represents USDA in governmentwide initiatives, and provides liaison and coordination with the Office of Personnel Management and other central guidance agencies.

OHRM programs include employment, recruitment, merit promotion, compensation,

classification, position management, employee and executive development, employee

assistance, retirement, benefits, workers and unemployment compensation, employee

and labor relations, personnel and classified information security, executive

resources, safety and health, and organizational development. OHRM also provides

day-to-day operational personnel services for the Office of the Secretary and departmental staff offices.

Progress in Administrative Grievances: As of May 15, 2000, substantial

progress has been made toward eliminating the administrative grievance backlog

which existed at the beginning of FY 1998. At that time, there was an inventory of

197 cases (some of which were nearly 4 years old), and 177 additional cases were

received, resulting in a total inventory of 374 cases. A total of 302 cases have been

closed, leaving a current inventory of 72 grievances requiring adjudication. 

Hispanic Leadership Summit: On Thursday, May 4, 2000, USDA hosted its

first-ever Hispanic Leadership Summit with leaders of 15 of the largest Hispanic

organizations. Secretary Glickman spoke to a standing-room-only audience, including his Subcabinet, agency administrators, and human resources directors. He laid out

the Department’s progress to date in building a workforce that looks like America,

pledged further improvement, and asked for assistance in this area. During the day’s

lively discussions, the participants presented many promising ideas to increase hiring

of Hispanic college students and executives and to improve representation of

Hispanics in the USDA workforce.

51
52

Assessment of USDA Workforce Planning: OHRM commissioned the

National Academy of Public Administration, Center for Human Resources

Management (CHRM), to assist with an evaluation of the USDA workforce planning

process. An overall assessment of the current state of workforce planning in USDA

mission areas identified issues and opportunities for improvement, strategies to

develop a uniform approach for USDA, and ways to improve the current process.

Workforce planning assesses employment needs of the future and targets recruitment

to meet the specific needs.

USDA Work/Life Fair: OHRM sponsored the first Headquarters USDA

Work/Life Fair on April 11, 2000. The purpose of the fair was to provide information

to USDA employees in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area on balancing work

and life issues. There were a total of 25 vendors representing issues related to children, elder care, telework, mass transportation, aging, health, retirement, and social

security. 

The Leadership Challenge: On March 30, 2000, over 100 executives and

human resources professionals participated in a special, on-site presentation by a

senior researcher from the Corporate Leadership Council (CLC). This presentation

was the first of four on-site presentations to be conducted by CLC. “The Leadership

Challenge” topic covered the best practices of companies like General Electric and

Mobil as they identify future leaders, accelerate their development, recruit highpotential executives, and retain high-performance executives. The session highlighted the value of integrating leadership development with long-term organizational

strategies.

Welfare to Work (W2W): USDA has made 648 W2W hires since the program

began in 1998. This is 173 percent of the total USDA 4-year commitment to hire 375

welfare recipients by the end of FY 2000.

Office of Procurement, Property, and Emergency Preparedness

The Office of Procurement, Property, and Emergency Preparedness (OPPEP)

provides leadership and policy guidance concerning procurement, property management, energy conservation, disaster management, and coordination of emergency

programs. OPPEP also promotes and establishes USDA policy for alternative fuel

vehicles and the purchase of biobased, environmentally preferable, and recycled

products.

OPPEP is working to simplify and reduce the cost of procurement, and to

improve access to information about procurement and property management policy

for businesses and other members of the public. The cost of procurement has been

reduced by expanding the use of commercial credit cards (purchase cards) and the

Purchase Card Management System to make small purchases. Over 19,000 purchase

cards have been issued to qualified holders throughout USDA. OPPEP also introduced a Fleet Card Program so that cardholders may purchase fuel and service for

government vehicles. Over 42,000 fleet cards have been issued. OPPEP posts USDA

procurement and property management policy and procedures on the Departmental

Administration web site (http://www.usda.gov/da.html). Businesses interested in

selling to USDA can view “Doing Business with USDA” at the web site. OPPEP also

posts information about disaster relief at this web site.
53

1Full-time equivalent (FTE). For example, two half-time employees would count as one FTE.

Table 5-1.

Number of USDA employees, 1948-2000

Number of

Year USDA employees

1948 60,815

1949 63,063

1950 67,560

1951 66,150

1952 62,825

1953 62,492

1954 63,309

1955 64,191

1956 69,423

1957 74,215

1958 77,264

1959 79,998

1960 81,585

1961 85,238

1962 89,168

1963 94,527

1964 94,781

1965 94,548

1966 98,688

1967 102,175

1968 105,628

1969 101,848

1970 100,860

1971 102,698

1972 104,540

1973 104,104

1974 101,430

1975 103,779

1976 109,276

1977 113,085

1978 118,563

1979 122,809

1980 125,185

1981 117,440

1982 111,853

1983 109,773

1984 108,598

1985 106,665

1986 102,997

1987 102,579

1988 106,552

1989 109,567

1990 110,754

1991 110,357

1992 113,405

1993 112,458

1994 109,830

1995 103,848

1996 100,710

1997 98,457

1998 96,410

1999 95,491

2000 (projected) 98,155

Number of

Year USDA employees1

In October 1998, USDA published in the Federal Register Uniform Procedures

for the Acquisition and Transfer of Excess Personal Property, in accordance with the

provisions of Section 923 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act 

of 1996. Since then, OPPEP transferred excess personal property worth over $3.6

million to 1994 land-grant institutions (tribal), 1890 land-grant institutions, and

Hispanic-serving institutions.

Office of Operations

Mail

Smokey Bear receives more mail than any individual in the Department. Each

year, USDA receives more than 180 million pieces of mail, and at the Washington,

DC, headquarters alone, more than 21 million pieces of mail are handled each year—

for an average of about 84,000 pieces of mail processed each workday. 
54

Inspector

General

Execu

Operat

Chief Financial

Officer

Chief Information

Officer

Under Secretary for

Rural Development

Under 

Food, 

Consu

Assistant Secretary 

for Congressional 

Relations

Assistan

for Adm

Under Secretary for

Farm and Foreign 

Agricultural Services

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary

Under Secretary for

Natural Resources 

and Environment

Forest Service

Natural Resources

Conservation Service

Farm Service Agency

Foreign Agricultural 

Service

Risk Management 

Agency

Rural Utilities Service

Rural Housing Service

Rural BusinessCooperative Service

Food and

Center for

Policy and

Office of Congressional

and Intergovernmental

Relations

Civil Rights

Outreach

Human Res

Manageme

Procureme

Manageme

Small and D

Business U

Operations

Administrat

Administrat

Judicial Off

Board of Co

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Headquarters Organization
55

General

Counsel

utive

tions

Director of

Communications

Secretary for

Nutrition, and 

umer Services

Under Secretary 

for Marketing and 

Regulatory Programs

nt Secretary 

inistration

November 1998

Under Secretary for

Research, Education,

and Economics

Under Secretary 

for Food Safety

 Nutrition Sevice

r Nutrition

d Promotion

Food Safety and 

Inspection Service

Agricultural Research Service

Cooperative State 

Research, Education 

and Extension Service

Economic Research Service

National Agricultural

Statistics Service

Agricultural Marketing Service

Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service

Grain Inspection, Packers

and Stockyards

Administration

s

sources 

ent

nt and Property

ent

Disadvantaged

Utilization

tive Support

tive Law Judges

ficer

ontract Appeals
56

Figure 5-1.

USDA workplace profile by race and gender group, 2000

The headquarters mail operation is an active employer of people with disabilities. Over one-third of its employees are people with disabilities. Working closely

with private and public placement organizations, the Office of Operations (OO) has

succeeded in bringing these employees into the workforce. In recognition of its success in hiring persons with disabilities, OO has received numerous government and

private-sector awards.

The mail center is one of USDA’s reinvention laboratories, supporting Vice

President Gore’s National Partnership for Reinventing Government initiative, in

which the Department has taken an active role. One advance is the implementation of

computer-assisted mail sorting systems, which will improve efficiency and reduce the

number of employees needed for this staff. Also, USDA is taking the lead in developing governmentwide mail management initiatives that are projected to save more

than $2 million.

South Building Renovation

The Office of Operations continues to work on the renovation of the South

Building which, when complete, will provide modern, safe, and efficient office space

for USDA employees in theWashington, DC, metropolitan area.

The over-70-year-old South Building, which is 1.3 million-square feet, is undergoing much-needed renovation. The first phase of the renovation (Wing 3) is nearly

complete. Phased moves back into the newly renovated space began in May 2000.

Black males

4.07%

Asian American males 1.41% 

Native American males 1.54%

Black females

6.73%

White males

48.13%

White females

30.74%

Hispanic males

3.45%

Hispanic females

2.0%

Asian American females .90% 

Native American females 1.03%
57

Table 5-2.

Where do USDA employees work?

Montana 2,574

Nebraska 1,375

Nevada 340 

New Hampshire 280

New Jersey 486

New Mexico 1,348

New York 1,045

North Carolina 1,786

North Dakota 772

Ohio 792

Oklahoma 920

Oregon 4,464

Pennsylvania 1,483

Rhode Island 34

South Carolina 867

South Dakota 847

Tennessee 1,002

Texas 3,456

Utah 1,450

Vermont 240

Virginia 1,999

Washington 2,168

West Virginia 670

Wisconsin 1,435

Wyoming 690

Number of

State employees*

Alabama 1,128

Alaska 859

Arkansas 1,880

Arizona 1,597

California 7,061

Colorado 2,559

Connecticut 153

District of Columbia 6,558

Delaware 207

Florida 1,657

Georgia 2,364

Hawaii 420

Idaho 2,503

Illinois 1,491

Indiana 724

Iowa 1,833

Kansas 994

Kentucky 1,093

Louisiana 2,833

Maine 243

Maryland 2,970

Massachusetts 337

Michigan 1,108

Minnesota 1,650

Mississippi 1,891

Missouri 3,958

Number of

Territory employees*

American Samoa 8

Commonwealth of 

Northern Mariana Islands 7

Guam 28

Puerto Rico 557

Marshall Islands 1

Number of

State employees*

Number of

Territory employees*

Virgin Islands 22

Marshall Islands 1

Puerto Rico 561

Trust Territories of the Pacific 1

U.S. Virgin Islands 25
58

Number of

Country employees*

Argentina 3

Australia 3

Austria 5

Bahamas 1

Belgium 6

Bermuda 1

Brazil 5

Bulgaria 1

Canada 4

Chile 3

China 5

Columbia 2

Costa Rica 4

Dominican Republic 2

Egypt 2

Federated States of Micronesia 10

France 6

Germany 4

Guatemala 3

Haiti 1

Hong Kong 1

India 1

Indonesia 3

Italy 3

Ivory Coast 1

Jamaica 1

Japan 8

Kenya 2

Table 5-2.

Where do USDA employees work? (continued)

Malaysia 1

Mexico 20

Morocco 1

Netherlands 3

New Zealand 1

Nicaragua 3

Nigeria 1

Pakistan 1

Panama 6

Peru 2

Philippines 2

Poland 2

Republic of Korea 3

Republic of Palau 3

Russia 6

Saudi Arabia 1

Singapore 1

South Africa 3

Spain 2

Sweden 1

Switzerland 5

Thailand 1

Turkey 2

Ukraine 1

United Kingdom 2

Venezuela 3

Vietnam 1

*Permanent, full-time employees.

Number of

Country employees*

The second phase (Wing 4) of the renovation may start as soon as the end of this calendar year. When finished, this project, coupled with the George Washington Carver

Center, will enable USDA agencies in the metropolitan area to move out of more

expensive leased space into modern and efficient USDA-managed space.

George Washington Carver Center

The George Washington Carver Center in Beltsville, MD, was completed in

1998. This 350,000-square-foot modern office complex provides space for more than

1,200 USDA employees and contractors. Much of the day-to-day building operation

is done by Melwood, a community rehabilitation, nonprofit organization that provides employment opportunities for persons with severe disabilities.
59

Dedicated on October 6, 1999, by Secretary Dan Glickman, the Center operates

as a headquarters facility—an extension of USDA’s main headquarters facility

located in Washington, DC. The George Washington Carver Center is the first USDA

facility named for an African American.

The facility provides a number of on-site amenities for employees and visitors,

including a child development center, medical service unit, nursing mothers’ room,

credit union, fitness center, outdoor exercise trail, shuttle service, Telework Center,

and a full-service cafeteria. Future plans for the Center include a George Washington

Carver Education/Visitor Center.

The Center has received several awards, including a Citation for Architectural

Excellence from the Potomac Valley Chapter of the American Institute of Architects

(December 1998); Federal Energy and Water Management Award from the

Department of Energy (1998); Excellence in Construction Award from the Associated

Builders & Contractors (September 1998); and a NISH Government Award for

Outstanding Achievement - Employing Persons with Disabilities (May 1999).

Print on Demand

The Office of Operations’ Consolidated Forms and Publications Distribution

Center and the Mail and Reproduction Division are currently offering “Print on

Demand” services to all user agencies. Print on Demand is state-of-the-art technology

and the wave of the future in modern warehousing and forms management programs.

Substantial cost savings in printing and storage costs can be accrued by agencies by

utilizing this service. Cut sheets, non-carbon and double-sided forms, pamphlets, and

many other printed items no longer need to be stored for future use. Instead, these

items are scanned or otherwise inputted onto small optical storage discs, and then

hard copies are produced as needed and only in the quantity needed to fill a specific

order.

To date, the Consolidated Forms and Publications Distribution Center has

reduced its cut-sheet inventory items by more than 20 percent and anticipates that

Print on Demand technology will enable further reductions by as much as 50 percent.

Computers for Learning

The Office of Operations’ Centralized Excess Property Operation is an active

participant in Vice President Gore’s Computers for Learning Initiative. The

Centralized Excess Property Operation collects excess/surplus computer equipment

from USDA and 17 other Federal agencies in the Washington metropolitan area.

Initially, the equipment is offered for reuse by other agricultural agencies. Computer

equipment not needed by agencies is tested and, if possible, repaired.

Through the Computers for Learning Initiative, the Centralized Excess Property

Operation is also working with universities and community colleges by providing a

Student Internship Program in which students are given on-site training on computer

repairing, troubleshooting, and loading of software applications software.
60

Customer Ordering Web Site

The Landover Service Center has developed a user-friendly, interactive Internet

web site which affords customers an opportunity to browse through the inventory

items and place their orders directly online for next day processing.

For additional information, visit our web site at http://www.lsc.usda.gov, or call

301-436-8450 for more details.

TARGET Center

In October 1991, USDA opened the Technology Accessible Resources Gives

Employment Today (TARGET) Center to assist USDA agencies with providing an

accessible work environment. Located at USDA Headquarters in Washington, D.C.,

the TARGET Center provides technology and information services to ensure equal

access to electronic technology and automated systems essential to today’s jobs. A

second facility, the Midwest TARGET Center, opened in St. Louis, MO, in 1996. 

The USDA TARGET Center has an accessible conference room and a technology demonstration center. The demonstration center includes eight work stations

which are enhanced with a variety of hardware and software designed to provide

accessibility for employees who have sight, hearing, speech, mobility and dexterity

disabilities. Private sessions in which individuals with disabilities conduct hands-on

testing and evaluation of alternative solutions are available. 

A resources library is maintained to provide technical and services information

for research in designing appropriate solutions to meet accessibility requirements. 

The USDA TARGET Center staff is available to assist in identifying and obtaining computer and communications accommodations, and may be reached at 202-720-

2600 (Voice/TTY/TDD). 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) provides

departmentwide leadership and oversight for implementing the Small Business

Preference Programs prescribed under Sections 8 and 15 of the Small Business Act of

1958, as amended. OSDBU serves as USDA’s lead agency in providing an integrated

focus for the implementation and execution of programs to assist small, small disadvantaged, and women-owned businesses in supporting USDA’s missions. 

OSDBU develops policies, standards, and programs consistent with Federal

guidelines for developing, managing, evaluating, and improving USDAAffirmative

Procurement Programs. OSDBU also provides guidance to assist agencies and staff

offices in ensuring that outreach efforts involve all underrepresented groups and that 

the participation of small, small disadvantaged, and women-owned businesses in the

Department’s contracting and program activities is increased. Additionally, OSDBU

provides technical assistance designed to eliminate barriers that prevent or severely

restrict small business access and participation in USDA program and contract

activities. Through partnerships with USDA program offices, professional associations,

and universities, OSDBU promotes the growth and competitiveness of small, small disadvantaged, and women-owned businesses located in rural America through technical

assistance on topics such as how to do business with USDA, e-Commerce and how it

will affect doing business in the future, and best practices in marketing strategies.
61

OSDBU’s goal is to ensure continuous growth in the rate of small business

participation in USDA program and contract activities. To this end, OSDBU has

implemented the following programs:

■ Bringing Rural America Venture Opportunities (BRAVO). A business development program to assist tribal entities (Indian nations) in establishing small

startup information technology companies. Software development will be the

initial services provided by USDA.

■ The Small Business Education and Development Program (SBEDP). A

program to deliver technical assistance and outreach programs that promote

the growth and stability of small businesses located in rural America, identify

new markets, and provide access to technical assistance and resources to 

help sustain small business growth and development. 

■ Small Business Vendor Outreach Sessions(VOS). A monthly program for 

the small business community to meet with OSDBU coordinators to discuss

their capabilities and learn of potential procurement opportunities. If you are

interested in registering for a VOS session, visit our web site at

http://www.usda.gov/da/smallbus/vos1.htm. 

If you are interested in business opportunities with the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, visit our web site at http://www.usda.gov/da/smallbus.html or call 

202-720-7117 for more details.

Office of Ethics

The Office of Ethics was created in 1998 to direct and coordinate the ethics

programs within the various mission areas of the Department and to service headquarters staff directly. The Office develops departmentwide policies and regulations;

provides training to USDA staff on the various rules governing employee conduct,

conflicts of interest, and political activity; administers personal financial disclosure

reporting by senior staff; and counsels employees on ethics matters. Over the past

year, the Office has used Internet technology to provide online training modules for

USDA staff all over the world, and USDA was the first Federal agency to offer financial disclosure reporting through a secure, online, web-based system. In addition to

USDA staff, employees in other Federal agencies and the public have accessed the

Ethics web site located at http://www.usda.gov/ethics.

Office of Outreach

The Office of Outreach provides coordination and leadership in program delivery

outreach efforts throughout USDA. Outreach efforts are proactive activities to ensure

that USDA programs and services are available to all constituents, including those

traditionally underserved, and that internal and external partners work together to

ensure equal and timely access to USDA programs and services.

The Office of Outreach administers Section 2501 of the Food, Agriculture,

Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, which authorizes the Secretary to assist and

encourage socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers to own and operate farms 

and ranches, and to participate in agricultural programs. USDA provides outreach

and technical assistance through agreements with community-based organizations,

1890 land-grant colleges and universities (including Tuskegee Institute), Indian tribal
62

community colleges and Alaskan Native cooperative colleges, Hispanic-serving

educational institutions, and other post-secondary institutions with experience in

providing agricultural education or services to socially disadvantaged family farmers

and ranchers.

Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center 

The Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center (CPRC) was created in 1998 to

provide overall leadership, guidance, and coordination of USDA conflict management activities. CPRC issues departmentwide conflict management policy, regulations, and guidance on the appropriate use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) for

workplace and program disputes, develops and issues standards for mediators and

other ADR neutrals, and guides USDA agencies in the development and implementation of their ADR programs. Currently, CPRC is developing conflict management

training, establishing a departmentwide roster of neutrals, and establishing procedures for use of ADR in program disputes.

Through partnerships with other Federal agencies, CPRC has provided USDA

agencies with valuable resources needed for the development and implementation of

their ADR programs. CPRC and USDA’s Office of Communications recently produced a 20-minute video that describes mediation, an ADR process which USDA is

offering as an informal method of resolving workplace disputes early before they

escalate. The video, called “A Better Way,” can be viewed on the CPRC web site at

http://www.usda.gov/cprc, and is intended to familiarize USDA employees with the

mediation process and to encourage them to seek mediation early, as a means for

resolving workplace conflicts. 

■ Office of the Chief Economist 

The Office of the Chief Economist (OCE) advises the Secretary of Agriculture on

policies and programs affecting U.S. agriculture and rural areas. This advice

includes assessments of USDA program proposals, legislative proposals, and economic developments of importance to agriculture and rural areas. In addition, the

Office of the Chief Economist is responsible for several programs, described below,

that coordinate activities across USDA agencies.

The World Wide Web address for the Office of the Chief Economist is

http://www.usda.gov/oce/

World Agricultural Outlook Board 

The World Agricultural Outlook Board is USDA’s focal point for forecasts and

projections of global commodity markets. Each month the Board brings together

interagency committees of experts to forecast the supply, use, and prices of major

commodities in the United States and abroad. The committees also clear agricultural

forecasts published by other USDA agencies. This teamwork ensures that USDA

forecasts are objective and consistent.

Because the weather is vital to crop forecasts, specialists from the Board work

side by side with weather forecasters from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration to monitor the weather and assess its effect on crops. Their work

provides timely information on potential changes in global production. 

The Board also coordinates departmentwide activity on long-term economic

projections, remote sensing, and climate. The Department is one of the largest users

of remote sensing in the Federal Government. The Board coordinates remote sensing

activities at USDA and chairs the Department’s Remote Sensing Coordination

Committee. The Board also hosts the Department’s Chief Meteorologist, who serves

as the principle spokesperson on weather and climate issues and chairs a departmental weather and climate coordinating committee. 

The World Wide Web address for the World Agricultural Outlook Board is

http://www.usda.gov/oce/waob/index.htm

Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis

The Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis is responsible for

coordinating, reviewing, and approving all risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses of mitigation measures associated with major regulations of the Department.

Major regulations are economically significant (with an impact of at least $100 million each year) and have a primary effect on human health, human safety, or the

environment. The office provides direction to USDA agencies on appropriate methods for these analyses and serves as a focal point on matters relating to risk assessment in interagency reviews. 

The World Wide Web address for the Office of Risk Assessment and CostBenefit Analysis is http://www.usda.gov/oce/oracba/index.htm

Agricultural Labor Affairs

The coordinator of agricultural labor affairs is responsible for coordinating

USDA’s agricultural labor policy. Areas of concern include immigration, the H-2A

Temporary Agricultural Worker Program, worker protection standards for pesticide

use, farm labor supply, and agricultural employment issues.

The World Wide Web address for this office is

http://www.usda.gov/oce/oce/labor- affairs/affairs.htm

Sustainable Development 

OCE’s director of sustainable development works to integrate the principals of

sustainable development into the Department’s policies and programs, ensuring that

economic, social, and environmental considerations are balanced in decisionmaking.

The director also directs and coordinates the Department’s domestic and international

policies and programs in sustainable development, including sustainable agriculture,

forestry, and rural communities. 

The World Wide Web address for this office is

http://www.usda.gov/oce/osfsd/index.htm

63
Global Change Program Office 

Global climate change, whether from natural causes or human activity, could

have important consequences for farming, forestry, and rural areas. The Global

Change Program Office functions as the USDA-wide coordinator of global change

program and policy issues facing the Department. The Office coordinates activities

with other agencies, interacts with the legislative branch on climate change issues,

and represents USDA in international climate change discussions. It also is a source

of objective assessment of the economic effects of climate change and proposed mitigation strategies on agriculture and forestry. 

The World Wide Web address for this office is

http://www.usda.gov/oce/gcpo/index.htm

Office of Energy Policy and New Uses 

The Office of Energy Policy and New Uses assists with development of departmental energy policy and coordination of departmental energy programs and strategies. The Office provides economic analysis on energy policy issues, coordinates

USDA energy-related activities within and outside the Department, and studies the

feasibility of new uses of agricultural products. 

The World Wide Web address for this office is

http://www.usda.gov/oce/oepnu/index.htm

■ Office of Inspector General 

USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), the first civilian OIG in the FederalGovernment, was established in 1962 and became fully operational in 1963. The

Inspector General Act of 1978 expanded and provided specific authorities for the

activities of the Office of Inspector General which had previously been carried out

under the general authorities of the Secretary of Agriculture. OIG conducts and

supervises audits and evaluations, as well as investigations and law enforcement

efforts relating to USDA’s programs and operations. It provides leadership and coordination and recommends policies for activities that will prevent and detect criminal

violations and promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in USDA programs

and operations. Furthermore, OIG keeps the Secretary and Congress fully informed

of problems and deficiencies related to administration of USDA programs and operations, and of the actions designed to correct such problems and deficiencies. 

During the period April 1, 1999, through March 31, 2000, audit and investigative

efforts resulted in more than $205 million in recoveries, collections, fines, restitutions, claims established, administrative penalties, and costs avoided. In addition,

management agreed to put nearly $142 million to better use. OIG also identified

approximately $101 million in questioned costs that cannot be recovered.

Investigative efforts resulted in 449 indictments and 540 convictions. 

64
OIG’s work on three initiatives continues to yield notable results. OIG is intensifying an initiative to counteract smuggling of animals, plants, and agricultural products that could endanger the Nation’s food supply through the introduction of

diseases and plant pests. As of March 31, 2000, OIG had 37 smuggling cases under

investigation. 

In Operation “Kiddie Care,” OIG has been working closely with USDA’s Food

and Nutrition Service concerning needed regulatory and legislative changes in the

Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) recommended in an August 1999 audit

report. Twenty-six sponsors receiving over $46.7 million annually in food and

administrative funds have been terminated from CACFP. Sixty individuals have been

charged with crimes, with 45 found guilty and 37 sentenced. In a Michigan case, the

president of a multicenter day care operation was sentenced to 9 years in prison and

ordered to pay $13.5 million in restitution, a $10 million fine, and a special assessment of $3,150.

Operation Talon was designed and implemented by OIG to locate and apprehend

fugitives, many of them violent offenders, who are current or former food stamp

recipients, and was made possible by legislative changes in welfare reform. As of

March 31, 2000, this nationwide initiative had resulted in 6,007 arrests of fugitive

felons during joint OIG, State, and local law enforcement operations. Of that number,

40 fugitives were wanted for murder or attempted murder, 27 were wanted for child

molestation, and 14 were wanted for rape or attempted rape. The recognition of the

initiative’s outstanding success was recently certified when OIG received the Vice

President’s prestigious Hammer Award for making Government work better and

achieving results Americans care about.

■ Office of the Chief Information Officer

The Chief Information Officer is the Department’s senior information technology

official. The Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) supports program

delivery in USDA by overseeing the management of the Department’s information

technology (IT) resources.

In accordance with the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 and similar legislation, regulations, and executive orders, OCIO provides long-range-planning guidance, reviews

all major technology investments to ensure that they are economical and effective,

coordinates interagency Information Resources Management projects, and promotes

information exchange and technical interoperability.

OCIO also provides automated data processing (ADP) services to USDA and

other Federal agencies through its National Information Technology Center located

in Kansas City, MO; and telecommunications services through its

Telecommunications Services and Operations in Ft. Collins, CO, and Washington,

DC. Direct ADP services are provided to the Office of the Secretary, Office of the

General Counsel, Office of Communications, Office of the Chief Financial Officer,

and Executive Operations.

65
66

OCIO has responsibility for the information technology investments of the

Service Center Modernization Initiative (SCMI), which is the cornerstone of the

overall reorganization and IT modernization effort of the Department. The ultimate

goal of the SCMI is to create an environment of one-stop, quality service for customers of the Farm Service Agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and

the Rural Development mission area agencies.

■ Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) is responsible for overallfinancial management activities in USDA and for direct management of 1,750

employees in OCFO at USDA headquarters in Washington, DC, and the National

Finance Center (NFC) in New Orleans. OCFO’s duties include accounting and

reporting responsibilities for program funds totaling about $100 billion and management responsibility for nearly 41 percent of all debt owed to the U.S. Government. 

A major cross-servicing and operations facility, the NFC processes the payroll for

435,000 individuals of the Federal workforce and administers the Federal

Government’s $96 billion Thrift Savings Plan, which is the world’s largest retirement

plan with 2.4 million participants. In addition, OCFO administers and manages the

Department’s Working Capital Fund. 

OCFO maintains an integrated departmental accounting and financial management system that provides complete, reliable, consistent, and timely financial

information. OCFO is the chief architect of the departmentwide strategic plan 

and coordinates its distribution to Congress and other external entities. OCFO also

leads the Department’s efforts to produce auditable financial statements and comply

with congressional mandates related to financial management. 

OCFO directs credit reform and debt collection initiatives. In the credit reform

area, OCFO is working to ensure that USDA’s $103.4 billion loan portfolio, which

includes farm operating, housing, utilities, business cooperatives, and other forms of

economic assistance to rural residents and organizations, complies with all reporting

requirements and other standards that apply to lending programs. In debt collection,

recent examples of success include USDA’s collection of $136.2 million in delinquent debt through Treasury’s Administrative Offset Program and other debtcollection tools during FY 1999. This figure represents a 45-percent increase over 

the $93.9 million collected in FY 1998 and a 90-percent increase over the $71.5

million collected in FY 1997. In addition, USDA lowered the amount of delinquent

debt in its overall loan portfolio from $7.5 billion in delinquencies in FY 1997 to 

$6.4 billion in FY 1999, a drop of nearly 15 percent.
67

■ Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental

Relations

Office of Congressional Relations 

USDA’s Office of Congressional Relations serves as the Department’s primary

liaison with Members of Congress and their staffs, providing information on the

Department’s legislative agenda, budget proposals, programs, and policies.

Office of Intergovernmental Affairs

The Office of Intergovernmental Affairs (OIA) works closely with the Nation’s

Governors and State Commissioners of Agriculture, and other State and local elected

officials, on various issues relating to their States. OIA is responsible for disseminating information on programs involving the implementation of USDA policies and

procedures applicable to the Department’s intergovernmental relations. 

OIA participates with the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and the Assistant

Secretary for Congressional Relations in the overall planning, formulation, and direction of the activities of the office relating to intergovernmental affairs. OIA serves as

the USDA liaison with the White House and other executive branch agencies and

departments with respect to intergovernmental affairs. 

American Indian and Alaska Native Programs 

The Director of Native American Programs, located in the Office of

Intergovernmental Affairs, is USDA’s primary contact with tribal governments 

and their members. The director serves as the principal adviser and representative 

on all matters related to USDA policy and programs which affect and are available 

to American Indians and Alaska Natives. The director also chairs USDA’s Native

American Working Group, which reports to the Secretary and provides advice,

support, and other assistance to the director. In 1992, USDA adopted an American

Indian and Alaska Native policy which guides USDA’s interactions with Indian

tribes.

USDA provides a wide range of programs and services in all mission areas to

American Indian and Alaska Native communities. In recent years, the Department

has reached out to inform American Indians and Alaska Natives about USDA

programs and services available to them, to deliver programs more effectively to

Indian tribes, and to initiate new programs in response to the needs of Indian tribes.

In October 1997, USDA published a Guide to USDA Programs for American Indians

and Alaska Natives to improve tribal communities’ access to USDA programs. The

guide is also available on the USDA home page at the following address:

http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/indians/open.htm
■ National Appeals Division

The National Appeals Division was established in 1994 to conduct impartialadministrative appeal hearings and reviews of adverse program decisions made

by officers, employees, or committees of designated agencies of the Department of

Agriculture.

The World Wide Web address for the division is: http://www.nad.usda.gov

■ USDA Community Food Security Initiative 

The USDA Community Food Security Initiative is helping communities to buildtheir local food systems in order to decrease hunger, improve nutrition, and help

families move from poverty to self-sufficiency. The initiative will build vital links

directly between USDA and nonprofit groups, private businesses, and ordinary

citizens, as well as with State, local, and tribal governments—all with one goal in

mind: helping communities across America end hunger. 

The Initiative is targeting seven concrete goals: 

1. Catalyzing or enhancing local infrastructures to reduce hunger and food

insecurity;

2. Increasing economic and job security by helping low-income people obtain

living wage jobs and attain self-sufficiency; 

3. Strengthening the Federal nutrition assistance safety net by supporting the full

and efficient use of programs such as food stamps; supplemental food for

women, infants, and children; school meals; summer feeding; and emergency

food assistance. 

4. Bolstering supplemental food provided by nonprofit groups by aiding food

recovery, gleaning, and food donation programs; 

5. Improving community food production and marketing by aiding projects that

grow, process, and distribute food locally; 

6. Boosting education and awareness by increasing efforts to inform the public

about nutrition, food safety, and community food security; 

7. Improving research, monitoring, and evaluation efforts to help communities

assess and strengthen food security. 

The initiative is using four basic methods to achieve those goals: 

■ Catalyzing the development of new partnerships on the local, State, and

Federal levels to help communities reduce hunger and food insecurity; 

■ Improving the coordination between existing USDA programs—such as

nutrition assistance programs, community food grants, ongoing research,

farmers’ markets, and food recovery projects—and related Federal, State, 

and community initiatives; 

■ Expanding technical assistance to States, communities, and nonprofit groups

to build long-term local structures to increase food security; 

■ Educating the public to increase their awareness of the causes of food

insecurity and highlight innovative community solutions to hunger.

68
69

Departmental

Administration

Freedom of Info Act Liaison

Evelyn M. Davis

Rm 0612-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-7765

FAX 202-690-4728

Civil Rights Freedom of Information

M. Farook Sait

Rm 334-W

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-7569

FAX 202-205-2891

National Appeals Division

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Larry Shrum

Park Office Center

Rm 1113

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-1164

FAX 703-305-2825

lshrum@usda.gov

Office of Budget and

Program Analysis

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Jacquelyn Chandler

Rm 147-E

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-1516

FAX 202-690-3673

jyc@obpa.usda.gov

Office of the Chief

Economist

Public Information Officer

Raymond L. Bridge

Rm 5143-S

Washington, DC 20250-3812

202-720-5447

FAX 202-690-1805

rbridge@oce.usda.gov

Agricultural Labor Affairs

Al French

Rm 112-A

Washington, DC 20250-3810

202-720-4737

FAX 202-690-4915

al.french@usda.gov

World Agricultural Outlook Board

Public Information Officer

Raymond L. Bridge

Rm 5143-S

Washington, DC 20250-3812

202-720-5447

FAX 202-690-1805

rbridge@oce.usda.gov

Chief Meteorologist

(Vacant)

Rm 5143-S

Washington, DC 20250-3812

202-720-8651

FAX 202-720-4043

Office of Risk Assessment 

and Cost-Benefit Analysis

(Vacant)

Rm 5248-S

Washington, D.C. 20250-3811

202-720-8022

FAX 202-720-1815

Global Change Program Office

Jim Hrubovcak

Rm 112-A

Washington, DC 20250-3814

202-720-6699

FAX 202-401-1176

jhrubovcak@oce.usda.gov

Sustainable Development

Adela Backiel

Rm 112-A

Washington, DC 20250-3810

202-720-2456

FAX 202-690-4915

adela.backiel@usda.gov

Office of Energy Policy and New Uses

James Duffield

Rm 112-A

Washington, DC 20250-3815

202-401-0523

FAX 202-401-0533

jduffield@oce.usda.gov

For More Information
70

Office of Chief Financial

Officer

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Ken Kessler

Rm 4082-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-1179

FAX 202-690-2568

kkessler@usda.cfo.gov

Office of Chief Information

Officer

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Howard Baker

Rm 404-W

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8657

FAX 202-205-2831

howard.baker@usda.gov

Office of the General

Counsel

Freedom of Info Act Attorney

Kenneth Cohen

Rm 1547-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-5565

FAX 202-720-5837

Office of Inspector General

Director, Info Mgmt Div

Sharon Friend

Rm 9-E

Washington, DC 20250-2309

202-720-6915

FAX 202-690-6305

sjfriend@oig.usda.gov

Chief, Policy Dev & Info

Nancy Bartel

Rm 9-E

Washington, DC 20250-2309

202-720-5677

FAX 202-690-6305

nabartel@oig.usda.gov

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Carol Martin

Rm 29-E

Washington, DC 20250-2309

202-720-5677

FAX 202-690-6305

cjmartin@oig.usda.gov

Community Food Security

Initiative

Coordinator

Joel Berg

Rm 536-A

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-5746 

FAX 202-690-1131

joel.berg@usda.gov
71

6.

USDA Rural Development:

Creating Opportunity for Rural

Americans

Helping the people of rural America develop sustainable communities andimprove their quality of life is the goal of USDA’s Rural Development mission

area. USDA believes rural people have a right to the same quality of life as is enjoyed

by people who live in suburban and urban areas.

USDA Rural Development is working to eliminate substandard housing from

rural America by helping rural people buy, build, repair, or rent decent housing. 

It also creates jobs by providing funding and technical assistance to support the

growth and creation of rural businesses and cooperatives. In a typical year, Rural

Development programs create or preserve more than 150,000 rural jobs, enable

60,000 to 70,000 rural people to buy homes, and help more than 450,000 low-income

rural people rent apartments or other housing.

Other Rural Development programs help rural communities build or improve

community facilities, such as schools, health clinics, and fire stations. Rural

Development also has programs that help rural communities build or extend utilities,

including water, electricity, and telecommunications services. Rural Development 

is also charged with leadership in national, State, and local strategic planning.

Program assistance is provided in many ways, including direct or guaranteed

loans, grants, technical assistance, research and educational materials. To accomplish

its mission, USDA Rural Development often works in partnership with State, local,

and tribal governments, as well as rural businesses, cooperatives, and nonprofit

agencies.

USDA Rural Development programs are delivered through its three agencies:

Rural Utilities Service (RUS), Rural Housing Service (RHS), and Rural BusinessCooperative Service (RBS), and branch, the Office of Community Development

(OCD). RUS addresses rural America’s need for basic utility services such as clean

running water, sewers and waste disposal, electricity, and telecommunications. RHS

addresses rural America’s need for single-family and multi-family housing as well 

as health facilities, fire and police stations, and other community facilities. RBS

provides help to rural areas that need to develop new job opportunities, allowing

businesses and cooperatives to remain viable in a changing economy. The Office 

of Community Development, a branch of Rural Development, is working with these

three agencies to improve the economy and living conditions in the Nation’s rural

Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities.

In addition, the Federal Government is seeking to form partnerships with 

other entities— such as State, local, and tribal governments; private and nonprofit

organizations; and member- owned cooperatives—to revitalize rural areas. Rural

Development programs are provided across the Nation through 47 State offices 

and 800 field offices. 
The following overviews describe the three Rural Development agencies and the

Office of Community Development, and their main programs.

■ Rural Business-Cooperative Service 

Creation of viable new and improved competitive businesses and sustainablecooperatives in rural America is the top priority of the Rural BusinessCooperative Service (RBS). This agency works through partnerships with public and

private community-based organizations to provide financial assistance, business planning, and technical assistance to rural businesses. It also conducts research into rural

72

■ How Rural Development Works 

The following examples illustrate how USDA Rural Development is working toserve rural citizens and bolster the quality of life in rural communities:

Earth Day, April 22, 2000. In celebration of Earth Day 2000,

Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman announced 11 new USDAfinanced rural clean water initiatives funded under the USDA Rural

Development Water and Wastewater Program. The wastewater projects, totaling $72.6 million, will significantly improve water quality

across America and protect several designated wild and scenic rivers

and other environmentally sensitive bodies of water.

“From the Bering Sea to the Chesapeake Bay and wild and scenic

rivers of the South, these projects help protect some of our Nation’s

most precious water resources,” Glickman said. “As we celebrate

Earth Day, all Americans should recognize that proper disposal of

wastewater is a vital health issue not only for humans, but for the

environment and wildlife.”

The projects include replacement of deteriorated water and sewer

mains in Nome, AK, on the Bering Sea and a new sewage collection

system in Shawnee Hills, OH, that will end the discharge of untreated

effluent into the Scioto River, used as a water supply by the City of

Columbus.

Also included is a $6 million project in Hazle Township, PA, to construct a centralized sewer system that will end the dumping of raw

sewage into the Susquehanna River, which is designated a Heritage

River system and empties into the Chesapeake Bay.

Other new USDA-financed projects include wastewater improvements in Gadsden, AR; Concordia, LA; St. Peter, MN; the Three

Affiliated Tribes Reservation in North Dakota; Jefferson County, NY;

Orangeburg County, SC; Green River City, UT; and Huttonsville, WV.
73

The Burris Mill and Feed Company in Franklinton, LA, is an example

of a company that has benefitted from USDA Rural Development’s

Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan and Rural Economic

Development Loan Programs.

Burris Mill and Feed, a custom manufacturer of animal feed that primarily makes fish food, is a small rural business employing 33 people,

of which about 65 percent are minorities. The company, which has

international sales of 55 to 65 percent, wanted to expand its operations, and it turned to USDA Rural Development for help. In January

1999, the Washington-St. Tammany Electric Cooperative, Inc., was

awarded a $450,000 rural economic development loan that was

subsequently re-loaned to Burris Mill and Feed to help the company

buy machinery and equipment. In addition to the Rural Economic

Development Loan, USDA Rural Development also approved a 

$1.7 million Business and Industry Guaranteed loan to give Burris

Mill and Feed more financial assistance. The company received

$700,000 for machinery and equipment, and $1 million for the

purchase of real estate.

economic issues, including rural cooperatives, and provides educational material to

the public.

Business and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed Loans help to finance rural business

and industry projects that create employment opportunities and improve the economic and environmental climate in rural communities, including pollution abatement and control. Guaranteed loans are made for projects that foster sustained

community benefits and open private credit markets. B&I loan guarantees can be

extended to loans made by commercial or other authorized lenders in rural areas 

(this includes all areas other than cities of more than 50,000 people and their

immediately adjacent urban or urbanizing areas).

Under the B&I Guaranteed Loan Program, the Cooperative Stock Purchase

Authority provides financial assistance for the purchase of startup cooperative stock

for family-sized farms where the commodities produced are to be processed by the

cooperative.

Direct Business and Industry (B&I) Loans are made to public entities and

private parties who cannot obtain credit from other sources. Loans to private parties

can be made for improving, developing, or financing business and industry, creating

jobs, and improving the economic and environmental climate in rural communities

(including pollution abatement). This type of assistance is available in rural areas

(this includes all areas other than cities of more than 50,000 people and their

immediately adjacent urban or urbanizing areas).

Intermediary Relending Program Loans finance business facilities and

community development projects in rural areas, including cities of less than 25,000.

Loans to intermediaries are reloaned to support the establishment of new business

facilities and community development projects in rural areas.
74

Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants finance economic development and job creation projects in rural areas based on sound economic plans. This

financing is available to any Rural Utilities Service electric or telecommunications

borrower to assist in developing rural areas from an economic standpoint, to create

new job opportunities, and to help retain existing employment. Loans at zero-interest

are made primarily to finance business startup ventures and business expansion projects. Grants are made to these telephone and electric utilities to establish revolving

loan programs operated at the local level by the utility.

Rural Business Enterprise Grants help public bodies and nonprofit corporations finance and facilitate the development of small and emerging private business

enterprises located in rural areas (this includes all areas other than cities of more than

50,000 people and their immediately adjacent urban or urbanizing areas). Grants

may be used to acquire and develop land and to construct buildings, plants, equipment, access streets and roads, parking areas, and utility and service extensions. In

addition, funds may be used for refinancing, fees for professional services, technical

assistance, startup costs and working capital, financial assistance to a third party,

production of television programs targeted to rural residents, and rural distancelearning networks.

Rural Business Opportunity Grants can be made to provide economic planning for rural communities, technical assistance for rural businesses, or training for

rural entrepreneurs or economic development officials. Funding must result in economic development of a rural area. This program is available to public bodies, nonprofit corporations, Indian tribes, or cooperatives with members who are primarily

rural residents.

Rural Cooperative Development Grants finance the establishment and operation of centers for cooperative development. The program enhances the economy of

rural areas by developing new cooperatives and fostering improved operations for

existing co-ops.

The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program provides

information to farmers and other rural users on a variety of sustainable agricultural

practices, including crop and livestock operations. It helps agriculture by giving

reliable, practical information on production techniques and practices that reduce

costs and are friendly to the environment.

The National Sheep Industry Improvement Center promotes strategic

development activities to strengthen and enhance production and marketing of 

sheep, goats, and their products in the United States. The Center, which has a board

of directors to oversee its activities, make loans and grants.

Cooperative Services helps improve the performance of the Nation’s cooperatives and promotes understanding and use of the cooperative form of business. By

working together for their mutual benefit in cooperatives, rural residents are often

able to reduce costs for production supplies and consumer goods, obtain services 

that might otherwise be unavailable, and achieve greater returns for their products.

Cooperative Services accomplishes its mission by (1) responding to requests for technical assistance from rural residents who want to organize a cooperative or improve

operations of an existing cooperative; (2) providing information and educational

materials relating to cooperatives; (3) conducting research on cooperative financial,
structural, managerial, policy, member governance, legal, and social issues; and (4)

collecting and disseminating statistics to support research and technical assistance

work.

75

Cooperative Solutions for Rural Challenges

■ USDA has a long history of promoting cooperatives—businesses that

are owned and controlled by the people who use them. Co-ops help

rural people maintain control of local resources and improve their

standard of living. In the United States, there are an estimated 40,000

cooperatives that do everything from helping farmers market and

process their crops to providing electricity and credit services.

■ Cooperatives are organized by people who want to: (a) improve their

bargaining power, (b) reduce their costs for goods or services, (c)

obtain products or services otherwise unavailable to them, (d)

expand their marketing opportunities, (e) improve their product

service or quality, or (f) increase their income.

■ For 65 years, USDA has been providing ideas and leadership to the

cooperative community through its prize-winning magazine, “Rural

Cooperatives,” published bimonthly. Each issue carries news, features, and columns that report on issues impacting cooperatives and

highlighting successful co-op practices. USDA Rural Development

also provides the public with more than 100 publications and videos

about cooperatives—ranging from “How to Start a Cooperative” to

“Tax Treatment for Cooperatives.” To order a free publication and

video catalog or to request a magazine subscription order form, call

202-720-8381.

■ Rural Housing Service

Decent, safe, sanitary, affordable housing and essential community facilities are

indispensable to vibrant rural communities. USDA’s Rural Housing Service

(RHS) has the responsibility to make these essential elements available to rural

Americans. RHS programs help finance new or improved housing for more than

60,000 moderate-, low- or very low-income families each year. These programs also

help rural communities finance construction, enlargement, or improvement of fire

stations, libraries, hospitals, medical clinics, day care centers, industrial parks, and

other essential community facilities.

Single Family Housing Loans provide assistance to very low-, low-, and moderate- low-income households in rural communities, helping them to purchase, construct, repair, or relocate a home. Very low- and low-income borrowers are offered

33- to 38-year direct loans (depending on income) at fixed interest rates with annual

subsidy to bring the effective interest rate to as low as 1 percent, depending on the
76

family’s adjusted income. Moderate-income rural residents can be assisted with loan

guarantees, which require no downpayment or mortgage insurance, that are offered

through private lenders at terms up to 30 years. The loans, both direct and guaranteed, can cover up to 100 percent of market value or acquisition cost, whichever is

less. This eliminates the need for a downpayment and provides homeownership

opportunities to many more rural Americans.

The innovative Mutual Self-Help Housing Program makes homes more

affordable by enabling low- and very low-income families to perform 65 percent of

the labor to construct their homes. The family’s investment or “sweat equity” reduces

the total amount of money to be borrowed. Grants are awarded to nonprofit and local

government organizations that provide technical assistance. They supervise groups 

of families in the construction of their homes. The families work on homes together,

moving in only when all homes are completed. Usually, the homes are financed

through an RHS Single Family Housing direct loan. In 1999, RHS made 83 technical

assistance grants and 22 pre-development grants, for about $26 million, to nonprofit

organizations in 44 States that helped about 1,350 families build their own homes. 

A total of $106 million was loaned to these families to help them pay for their new

homes.

Home Improvement and Repair Loans and Grants enable very low-income

rural homeowners to remove health and safety hazards from their homes and to make

homes accessible for people with disabilities. Loans have a maximum interest rate of

1 percent and are available to very low-income homeowners regardless of their age.

Grants are available for people age 62 and older who cannot afford to repay a loan. A

combination of funds from a loan and grant can be used by eligible elderly residents. 

Rural Rental Housing Loans finance construction of rental and cooperative

housing for low-income individuals and families with an average annual income of

$7,300, including elderly or disabled persons. Loans have a maximum term of 30

years, can equal up to 100 percent of the appraised value or development cost,

whichever is less, and can be used to construct new housing or to purchase or rehabilitate existing structures. In addition to the direct lending program, USDA offers loan

guarantees to multi-family housing developers to extend the reach of Federal

resources to moderate- and low-income working families and elderly individuals.

Housing Preservation Grants are made to nonprofit groups and government

agencies to finance rehabilitation of rental units for low-income residents.

Rental Assistance payments subsidize rent costs to ensure that low-income

tenants will pay no more than 30 percent of their income for rent.

Community Facilities Loans, Loan Guarantees, and Grants finance the

construction, enlargement, extension, or other improvements for community facilities

providing essential services in rural areas and towns with a population of 50,000 or

less. Funds are available to public entities such as municipalities, counties, specialpurpose districts, Indian tribes, and nonprofit corporations. Projects commonly

financed include child care centers, schools, and libraries. In addition, funding may

be used for the purchase of firefighting equipment.
Housing for Farm Workers

Farm workers are among the most poorly housed and lowest paid workers in the

United States. RHS provides housing for migrant and farm laborers through several

programs. The Farm Labor Housing program, the only national farm labor housing

program, provides loans to public or nonprofit agencies or to farmers to enable them

to build farm labor housing. In States, such as California, many farm laborers are able

to build their own homes through our Mutual Self-Help Housing Program.

Outreach to Native Americans

The Rural Housing Service is reaching out to better inform Native Americans

about its programs and is working to overcome institutional barriers to lending on

tribal land. In FY 1999, Single Family Housing direct loans and grants worth $11.5

million were made to buy or to repair homes for 250 Native Americans, including $2

million, to build approximately 37 single family houses on tribal lands. An additional

$16.3 million guaranteed another 232 housing loans made to Native Americans by

private sector lenders. Loans and grants made through the Housing Repair program

totaled over $1.5 million and repaired 270 dwellings.

The Community Facilities Program provided more than $5.5 million in direct

and guaranteed loans and grants to fund 22 essential community facilities benefitting

20 Native American tribes in 13 States. These projects included infrastructure for a

tribal housing project, tribal college classroom buildings, physicians’ clinics, child

care centers, a museum, fire trucks, a well for water, a food preparation center, and

several community centers and general office buildings.

In FY 1999, 3 States used $4 million in Multi-Family Housing funds to build 5

rental housing complexes containing 77 apartments on Native American reservations

or in communities where most tenants are Native Americans. Another $7.7 million in

guaranteed rural rental loans funded 4 complexes with 286 apartments in Arizona and

Alaska. Almost $600,000 in Housing Preservation Grants was provided to nonprofits or tribes in 8 States for the repair of 112 deteriorating single- or multi-family units

that house low-income Native American families. 

Expanding the Reach of Federal Resources

Building Partnerships

Partnerships with public bodies, such as towns, counties, and federally recognized Indian tribes, and the private and nonprofit sectors, form the foundation of

several RHS programs. For example, USDA’s private, nonprofit partners operate

USDA-funded multi-family housing complexes, looking after the needs of the tenants and maintaining the properties. Partners deliver USDA Community Facilities,

Multi-Family and Single Family Guaranteed Loan programs. They provide funds to

leverage our loans and help us serve more people. They provide valuable services,

such as loan packaging and homebuyer education and outreach. As Federal human

and monetary resources shrink, these partnerships will become even more crucial to

77
78

daily operations. Therefore, USDA is actively reaching out to organizations whose

goals and missions complement those of the Department. This section describes a

number of different types of partnerships found in RHS programs, from homeownership to child care, and multi-family housing managers to leveraging.

Guaranteed Loan Programs

Some of USDA’s most important partnerships are created through its loan

guarantees. RHS has loan guarantee programs in the Single Family, Multi-Family

Housing, and Community Facilities programs. This type of loan guarantee is a

collaboration with local lenders by which the lender funds the loan and RHS issues 

a guarantee for up to 90 percent of the amount of the loan. With the assurance of RHS

to protect them in case of default, banks are more confident and willing to extend

eligibility to a wider range of customers. For example, a prospective homeowner

unable to afford a downpayment could still buy a home because he or she could

borrow the full amount using a lender backed by a USDA guarantee.

President’s National Partners in Homeownership

In 1996, the Rural Housing Service joined President Clinton’s National Partners

in Homeownership, as part of the Presidential initiative to provide the American

dream of homeownership to as many Americans as possible by the year 2000. In the

third quarter of 1999, 8.7 million more families owned homes than when President

Clinton took office in 1993.

This homeownership initiative sets up a partnership between government and the

private sector to address homeownership issues at the local level. The partners work

to enhance the relationship between Federal, State, and local government and the

private sector and to expand homeownership opportunities. This has been a great

success with the homeownership rate currently at the highest rate in recorded history.

RHS has helped realize President Clinton’s homeownership goals ahead of schedule.

As of May 2000, more than 75 percent of rural households currently own their

homes.

The Rural Home Loan Partnership

The Rural Home Loan Partnership (RHLP), begun in 1996 under the President’s

National Partners for Homeownership initiative, makes private credit more accessible

for eligible low-income borrowers. The founding partners included RHS, Rural Local

Initiatives Support Corporation (Rural LISC), and the Federal Home Loan Bank

System. However, RHLP has expanded each year since its inception due to its

success. In 1999, the partnership at the national level grew to include Neighborhood

Reinvestment, Rural Alliance, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. 

The partnership delivers a new single-family mortgage product which enables

families earning 80 percent of area median income or below to achieve homeownership. RHS provides a subsidized mortgage to cover part of the cost of a house, while

a local bank finances the remainder. Private, nonprofit community development

corporations identify and counsel eligible borrowers. RHS’s partnership with
79

community development corporations helps direct resources to needy areas, provides

technical assistance, and builds partnerships for other Rural Development initiatives.

Since RHLP began in 1996, it has provided more than $50 million to help 1,100

families in 36 States attain the American dream of homeownership. As of May 2000,

there are 177 local partnerships in 45 States and two territories, projected to finance

1,348 new homeowners in 2000.

Community Development Financial Institution Partnership

The Community Development Financial Institution Partnership was created 

in 1998 between RHS and various community development financial institutions

(CDFI’s) throughout the country. The purpose of the partnership is to provide

homeownership opportunities to low-income applicants by combining the resources

of RHS and CDFI’s.

CDFI’s are specialized private institutions that serve populations whom traditional financial institutions are not serving. They provide a wide range of financial

products and services to underserved communities. Some of these services include

mortgage financing for first-time homebuyers and basic financial services needed 

by low-income households. RHS and the CDFI’s have a common goal of working 

to build stronger communities through creating healthy local economies, restoring

communities, generating local tax revenues, and empowering residents by increasing

homeownership. In most cases, other partners are included in the partnerships to

provide homeownership counseling and sometimes additional sources of leveraged

funds.

In FY 2000, the Rural Housing Service set aside more than $63 million for

RHLP and CDFI initiatives, which will leverage about $40 million in private

financing and other funds, for a total program level in excess of $100 million.

■ Rural Utilities Service 

USDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS) programs, including Rural Telephone Bank(RTB) programs administered by RUS, touch the lives of tens of millions of

rural people daily. Through project financing and technical assistance, RUS builds

infrastructure to provide rural businesses and households with modern telecommunications, electricity, and water. Today, this also means bringing the “information

superhighway” to rural America.

RUS is a partner with rural business and economic development efforts,

providing infrastructure that is the foundation for competitiveness. It is a technical

and financial resource in a time of change for rural utilities.

Rural Telecommunications Loans and Loan Guarantees build modern rural

communications systems that provide rural areas with “on ramps” to the information

superhighway by making financing available for telecommunications facilities. Loans

made to rural telephone cooperatives and companies help bring reliable and affordable telecommunications services to more than 15 million rural Americans.
Rural Electric Loans and Loan Guarantees provide reliable, safe, and affordable electricity to rural America by financing power distribution, generation, and

transmission systems. Loans are made to nonprofit and cooperative associations,

public bodies, and other utilities which serve more than 25 million rural Americans.

Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loans and Grants bring distance learning and telemedicine to rural America. Education and adequate medical care are

crucial to the survival of rural communities, but are becoming increasingly difficult 

to provide. This program employs innovative ways to use telecommunications infrastructure to extend the reach of educational and medical expertise into communities

80

Welfare to Work at the USDA Centralized Service Center

■ In July 1997, in response to President Clinton’s Federal Welfare to

Work initiative, the Centralized Service Center (CSC) in St. Louis,

MO, hired its first Welfare to Work employee. Since then, the CSC 

has hired 22 more employees under this program, and 20 are still

employed by USDA – a 90-percent success rate. Several factors

contribute to the success of this program.

■ The CSC works in partnership with Hope House, a transitional service agency. Hope House refers candidates for the initiative, providing

day care, skill training, and even housing for them. At USDA, trainees

complete an orientation session that helps them understand how the

working world operates. Each trainee is assigned a mentor who

assists and advises him or her on work-related problems, as well as

personal ones.

■ Currently, all Welfare to Work employees at CSC are initially hired 

as Customer Service Representatives in the CSC Customer Service

Telephone Center. Working in the Telephone Center helps the

trainees because they receive indepth training on all areas of 

CSC operations. Additionally, they can take advantage of the flexible

scheduling available in the Telephone Center and rely on a special

supervisory team to give them individual support and training. Once

trainees have made the transition into a working environment, they

have the opportunity to apply for other positions.

■ Here is an example of the success of the CSC’s Welfare to Work

program. When one employee started as a trainee, she found it

difficult to handle her work schedule and meet the demands of 

her family. Her CSC mentor and supervisor gave her the support,

encouragement, and flexible schedule she needed to succeed, and

gave her advice regarding several important personal decisions. Now,

this employee has a permanent position in the Telephone Center and

is attending junior college. She plans to earn her associate degree in

computer science by the end of the year 2000.
81

without those resources. The loan program has been expanded to broaden the use of

rural telecommunications infrastructure.

Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants develop water and waste

disposal systems (including solid waste disposal and storm drainage) in rural areas

and towns with populations of less than 10,000. The funds are available to public

entities such as municipalities, counties, special-purpose districts, Indian tribes, and

nonprofit corporations. RUS also guarantees water and waste disposal loans made by

banks and other eligible lenders.

The Water 2000 Initiative is an ambitious undertaking to extend safe, dependable drinking water to rural communities. At least 2.2 million rural people live with

critical quality and accessibility problems with their drinking water, including an

estimated 730,000 people who have no running water in their homes. Since it started

in 1994, Water 2000 has already improved drinking water quality or provided a

public water supply for the first time to some 2.5 million people in more than 1,300

rural communities nationwide.

■ Office of Community Development

USDA Rural Development’s Office of Community Development administers theEmpowerment initiative, a Presidential initiative designed to provide economically depressed rural areas and communities with real opportunities for growth and

revitalization. Its mission: to create self-sustaining, long-term economic development

in areas of pervasive poverty, unemployment, and general distress, and to demonstrate how distressed communities can achieve self-sufficiency through innovative

and comprehensive strategic plans developed and implemented by alliances among

private, public, and nonprofit entities.

In the first selection round, announced in December 1994, 3 rural Empowerment

Zones (EZ) and 30 rural Enterprise Communities (EC) were designated by President

Clinton and Vice President Gore. Each EZ is receiving $40 million and each EC $3

million in a Federal grant. This one-time, 10-year grant is in addition to funding benefits and tax incentives. In the second round, announced in December 1998, Clinton

and Gore designated an additional 5 rural Empowerment Zones and 20 rural

Enterprise Communities. Each of these EZ’s has so far received $2 million and each

EC received $500,000 in two initial Federal grants. Additional funding benefits and

tax incentives are also available to Round II communities. Further, designated communities qualify for earmarks of program funds from Rural Development agencies.

Community Empowerment 

There are no written guidelines or formulas to give to communities regarding

community empowerment. Community empowerment is a flexible, evolving process

that is different for each community. It includes a number of tangible and intangible

benefits that will enable a community to achieve its goals. The basic elements of

community empowerment include:
82

■ Learning to use its own initiative to secure resources from many sources

(Federal, State, local, corporate, foundations, etc.) to implement its strategic

plan, and

■ Using citizen participation on the board and in program administration to

improve, through experience, the community’s ability to manage its programs

and monitor the programs of its sub-grantees.

Round I Empowerment

Zones

Kentucky Highlands—KY

Mid-Delta—MS

Rio Grande Valley—TX

Round I Enterprise

Communities

Chambers County—AL

Greene & Sumter Counties Rural—AL

East Central Arkansas—AR

Mississippi County—AR 

Arizona Border Region—AZ

Imperial County—CA

City of Watsonville—CA

Jackson County, Florida—FL

Crisp/Dooly—GA

Central Savannah River Area—GA

Northeast Louisiana Delta—LA

Macon Ridge—LA

Lake County—MI

City of East Prairie,—MO

North Delta Mississippi—MS

Halifax/Edgecombe/Wilson—NC

Robeson County—NC

La Jicarita—NM

Greater Portsmouth—OH

Southeast Oklahoma—OK

Josephine County—OR

City of Lock Haven Federal—PA

Williamsburg-Lake City—SC

Beadle/Spink/South Dakota—SD

Fayette County/Haywood County—TN

Scott/McCreary Area—TN

Accomack-Northampton, Virginia—VA

Lower Yakima County Rural—WA

Central Appalachia —WV

McDowell County—WV

Round II Empowerment

Zones

Desert Communities—CA

Southwest Georgia United—GA

Southernmost Illinois Delta—IL

Lake Aggasiz—ND

Oglala Sioux Tribe—SD

Round II Enterprise

Communities

Metlakatla Indian—AK

Four Corners—AZ

Central California—CA

Empowerment Alliance of Southwest

Florida—FL

Molokai—HI

Town of Austin—IN

Wichita County—KS

Bowling Green—KY

City of Lewiston—ME

Clare County—MI

Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribe—MT

City of Deming—NM

Tri County Nations—OK

Fay-Penn—PA

Allendale ALIVE—SC

Clinch-Powell—TN

Middle Rio Grande—TX

Tri-County Rural—WA

Northwoods Niijii—WI
Champion Communities

More than 200 rural communities organized and completed the valuable strategic

planning process as part of their application for the initiative. To assure that their

important work produced continuing benefits to these communities, USDA has

offered them special designations as “Champion Communities” and provided continuing assistance to them. As of May 2000, 99 communities have accepted this challenge and have signed agreements with USDA.

National Centers of Excellence: College and University Partnership Project

Local capacity building to help communities sustain their economies is being

enhanced through a 1-year partnership between six rural colleges and USDA. The six

colleges and universities assist EZ/EC communities with strategic plan implementation through training programs and other sources of expertise. 

National Centers of Excellence: Tribal College Partnership

A related initiative helps tribal communities develop empowerment programs

through the technical assistance of four tribal colleges. With assistance from USDA,

the four colleges are developing programs of training and community service to

address the critical needs of the communities they serve. The initiative responds to

President Clinton’s Executive Order 13021, which asked Federal departments and

agencies to integrate American Indian tribal colleges into their programs.

Rural Economic Area Partnership (REAP) Zones

Rural areas in the Northern Great Plains face unique challenges due to their

isolation, low-density populations, and changing economic base. Rather than high

poverty, these areas are challenged by declining populations slowing economic activity, and growing difficulty in providing public services. To counter these troubling

trends, two REAP zones were established in multi-county areas of North Dakota.

Rural areas in the southern tier of New York face unique challenges due to their

isolation, low-density populations, and changing economic base. Rather than high

poverty, these areas are challenged by declining populations, job loss, slowing

economic activity, and growing difficulty in providing public services. To counter

these troubling trends, two REAP Zones were established in multi-county areas of

New York.

Southwest Border Regional Partnership

In response to Vice President Gore’s challenge that EZ/EC adopt regional

approaches to planning and problem-solving, Empowerment Zones, Enterprise

Communities, and Champion Communities from the Southwest border region formed

the Southwest Border Region Partnership.

A challenge that the Vice President issued in April 1997 at the White House

Empowerment Conference in Detroit was a primary catalyst in the creation of the

Southwest Border Task Force. During this conference, the Vice President asked

Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities to combine their efforts and adopt

a regional approach to revitalize their communities. The Southwest Border

Partnership, a regional organization composed of EZ’s, EC’s, and Champion

83
Communities from Texas to California, was created in response. This partnership,

along with efforts undertaken by a number of other groups, inspired Executive Order

13122 which created the President’s Interagency Task Force on the Economic

Development of the Southwest Border on May 25, 1999. 

The task force reports to the Vice President and is chaired by Dan Glickman,

Secretary of Agriculture, with Lawrence Summers, Secretary of the Treasury, and

Alexis Herman, Secretary of Labor, serving as co-chairs. Its primary mission is to

promote increased coordination between Federal agencies and better leverage

existing programs and initiatives to create the conditions necessary for sustainable

economic development in the Southwest Border Region—one of the most 

economically distressed areas of the country. 

On May 25, 2000, the first anniversary of the task force’s creation, the task force

submitted its first annual report which contains approximately 14 new initiatives and

48 recommendations aimed at filling existing gaps in current Federal programs

targeted at the border and opening new avenues through which to encourage sustainable development in the region. 

Delta Regional Initiative

The Mississippi Delta also has a similar regional initiative to eliminate poverty

and economic distress in the counties of the lower Mississippi Delta. Seven Delta

States were involved in a Lower Mississippi Delta Development Commission study

of poverty that began in 1989. The Delta Regional Initiative joins the Southern

EZ/EC forum, The Lower Mississippi Delta Development Center (formerly

Commission), The Foundation for the Mid-South, and The Enterprise Cooperation 

of the Delta in a partnership agreement to develop a long-range strategic plan and

implement the recommendations from the Lower Mississippi Delta Development

Commission’s Report—“The Delta Initiative.” The Delta Regional Initiative includes

both urban and rural EZ and EC from 219 counties in 7 States.

Over the past 7 years, USDA Rural Development has provided nearly $3.5

billion in financial assistance to the Delta region. The USDA investments announced

in May 2000 include $30.3 million for clean drinking water and safe wastewater disposal systems, $14.5 million for rural businesses, $470,000 for community facilities,

and $228,000 for self-help housing developments, where low-income people become

homeowners by providing most of the labor needed to build their homes. Specific

projects include:

■ A $3 million business loan for the Bethel Grain Company in Franklin County,

IL, to make building modifications and purchase equipment needed to manufacture value-added corn products, including those used in cereals and corn

meal for export markets. This loan will help the company create or save 63

jobs in a high-unemployment part of the State and will help boost corn prices

for corn growers in the area.

■ A $1.56 million loan and grant combination to help expand a water treatment

plant in Lauderdale County, TN, which will provide a safe, dependable drinking water supply for 3,600 residents. 

84
■ A $420,000 business loan to the Arkansas Rural Water Association to

construct a training facility in Lonoke, AR, where water technicians from

small, rural water districts can be trained.

■ A $31,000 grant to make repairs and improvements at a rural day care center

in Caldwell County, KY, which provides service to a community of 1,500

people.

■ A $50,000 business grant to Alcorn State University in Mississippi to add 

a refrigeration system at a farm and craft market in Natchez, benefitting

vegetable growers and crafts people in a five-county area.

85

Selected Accomplishments by Rural Empowerment Zones and

Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC) as of April 2000

New businesses attracted to Rural Empowerment Zones 

and Enterprise Communities 255

Businesses served through Intermediary Relending

Programs/Revolving Loans/Micro Loans 448

Businesses served through business development 

and job training initiatives 1,576

Businesses started through incubators and entrepreneurial initiatives 167

Clients placed in jobs through career planning

and job placement programs 2,133

Clients served through business development 

and job training initiatives 12,021

Jobs created or saved 12,041

New loan funds established for business development and job training 36

Loans provided for business development and job training 638

New electric, gas, and water/drainage hookups 513

New or improved water/drainage system 47

New/upgraded computers provided 746

Number of new staff members hired to work in EZ/EC Communities 158

Number of staff trained in EZ/EC Communities 1,693

Number of new houses constructed and houses rehabilitated 1,979

Number of new health care professionals hired and health care 

providers trained 89
86

Rural Development

Acting Director, Legislative & Public

Affairs

Gladys Rodriguez

Rm 5039-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-1019

FAX 202-690- 4083

gladys.rodriguez@usda.gov

Deputy Public Affairs Director

Dan Campbell

Rm 5040-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-6483

FAX 202-690-4083

dan.campbell@usda.gov 

Deputy Legislative Director

Brenda Morton

Rm 2123-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-2367

FAX 202-690-0311

bmorton@rurdev.usda.gov

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Dorothy Hinden

Rm 0361-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-690-0031

FAX 202-692-0034

dhinden@rdmail.rural.usda.gov

For More Information:
87

7.

Farm and Foreign Agricultural

Services

■ Farm Service Agency 

Mission

The Farm Service Agency (FSA) mission is to ensure the well-being of

American agriculture and the American public through efficient and equitable administration of agricultural commodity, farm loan, conservation, environmental, emergency assistance, and domestic and international food assistance programs. 

Vision Statement

FSA is a customer-driven agency with a diverse and multi-talented workforce,

empowered and accountable to deliver programs and services efficiently, and dedicated to promoting an economically viable and environmentally sound American

agriculture.

What Is FSA?

FSA was established under an USDA reorganization in 1994, incorporating programs from several agencies, including the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation

Service, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (now a separate Risk Management

Agency), and the Farmers Home Administration. Though its name has changed over the

years, the agency’s relationship with farmers dates back to the 1930’s. 

Congress set up a unique system under which Federal farm programs are locally

administered. Farmers who are eligible to participate in these programs elect a threeto five-person county committee that reviews county office operations and makes

many of the decisions on how to administer the programs. This grassroots approach

gives farmers a much-needed say in how Federal actions affect their communities

and their individual operations. After more than 60 years, it remains a cornerstone of

FSA’s efforts to preserve and promote American agriculture.

1996 Farm Bill 

The Federal Agriculutre Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act)

significantly changed U.S. agricultural policy by removing the link between income

support payments and farm prices. Farmers who participated in the wheat, feed

grains, cotton, and rice programs in any one of the previous 5 years could enter into

7-year production flexibility contracts and receive a series of fixed annual “transition

payments.” These payments are independent of farm prices and specific crop production, in contrast to the past, when deficiency payments were based on farm prices and

the production of specific crops.
88

The Federal Government no longer requires land to be idled, nor does it deny

payments if farmers switch from their historical crops. The contract, however,

requires participating producers to comply with existing conservation plans for the

farm, wetland provisions, and planting flexibility limits, such as restrictions on

planting fruits and vegetables, and to keep the land in agricultural uses. 

The 1996 Act provided for a one-time signup in 1996 for producers to enter into

production flexibility contracts. There will be no additional signups except for certain

lands coming out of the Conservation Reserve Program. Farmers who entered into a

contract are also eligible for market transition loans and loan deficiency payments.

Recently, Congress made all farms eligible for loan deficiency payments for the 2000

crop year.

Marketing Assistance Loan Programs

FSA administers commodity loan programs for barley, corn, honey, grain

sorghum, mohair, oats, oilseeds, peanuts, rice, sugar, tobacco, wheat, and upland and

extra-long-staple cotton.

The agency provides the operating personnel for the Commodity Credit

Corporation (CCC), which provides assistance with respect to products of certain

agricultural commodities through loans and purchases. This provides farmers with

interim financing and helps maintain balanced and adequate supplies of farm commodities and their orderly distribution throughout the year and during times of surplus and scarcity. 

Instead of immediately selling the crop after harvest, a farmer who grows an eligible crop can store the produce and, normally, take out a “nonrecourse” loan for its

value, pledging the crop itself as collateral. “Nonrecourse” means that the producer

can discharge debts in full by forfeiting or delivering the commodity to the Federal

Government.

The nonrecourse loan, where available, allows farmers to pay their bills and

other loan payments when they become due, without having to sell crops at a time of

year when prices tend to be at their lowest. Later, when market conditions are more

favorable, farmers can sell their crops and repay the loan with the proceeds. Or, if the

prevailing price of the crop remains below the loan level set by CCC, farmers can

keep loan proceeds and forfeit the crop to CCC instead. The repayment rate may also

be adjusted, in some instances, by USDA to minimize forfeitures and the costs of

storing commodities and to allow commodities produced in the United States to be

marketed freely and competitively, both domestically and internationally. When

repayment rates are set below the loan level during periods of low prices, producers

realize a marketing loan gain. Loan deficiency payments may also be offered in lieu

of marketing assistance loans when repayment rates are below the loan level.

CCC loan rates will be designed to keep crops competitive in the marketplace. 

A producer must have entered into a production flexibility contract to be eligible for

nonrecourse marketing assistance loans for wheat, feed grains, rice, and upland

cotton. Any production of a contract commodity by a producer who has entered into 

a production flexibility contract is eligible for loans.
89

Nonrecourse loans are also generally available for extra-long-staple cotton,

honey, mohair, oilseeds, peanuts, tobacco, raw cane sugar, and refined beet sugar,

regardless of whether or not the producer has entered into a production flexibility

contract. Price support for the marketing quota crops—tobacco and peanuts—is made

available through producer loan associations. By law, these programs must operate at

no net cost to the U.S. Treasury other than costs associated with all price support programs, and no-net-cost and various assessments are applied to accomplish the result.

Commodity Purchase Programs

Humanitarian assistance under the President’s Wheat Initiative reached record

levels in 2000, removing 5 million metric tons of wheat, valued at $600.2 million,

from the domestic market and sending it to feed hungry people in needy countries. 

During Fiscal Year (FY)1999, FSA furnished about 8.5 million metric tons (MT)

of U.S. commodities under food aid programs, more than five times the previous

year’s 1.6 million MT, and the largest tonnage in at least 25 years.

Forfeitures under nonrecourse commodity loan programs are not the only means

by which CCC acquires inventory. Under the dairy price support program, CCC buys

surplus butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk from processors at announced prices to

support the price of milk. These purchases help maintain market prices at the legislated support level.

CCC can store purchased food in over 10,000 commercial warehouses across the

Nation approved for this purpose. However, commodity inventories are not simply

kept in storage. FSA employees work to return stored commodities to private trade

channels. At the agency’s Kansas City Commodity Office in Kansas City, MO, FSA

merchandisers regularly sell and swap CCC inventories using commercial telecommunications trading networks.

Beyond the marketplace, CCC commodities fill the need for hunger relief both 

in 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 National

School Lunch Program and many other domestic feeding programs. CCC also

administers the Food for Peace Program and other humanitarian activities utilizing

the resources of private voluntary organizations in order to use these farm products to

fight hunger worldwide. 

Disaster Assistance Available From FSA

The year 1999 saw natural disasters from coast to coast. USDA’s Farm Service

Agency helped farmers who grow crops that are not eligible for crop insurance to

recover from disasters by providing $50 million through the Non-insured Assistance

Program (NAP).

The noninsured crop disaster assistance program (NAP) provides producers 

of eligible crops with protection comparable to the catastrophic risk protection plan

of crop insurance (see USDA’s Risk Management Agency). NAP helps reduce

production risks faced by producers of crops for which Federal crop insurance 

is not available. It also reduces financial losses that occur when natural disasters

cause a catastrophic loss of production or prevented planting of an eligible crop.
90

Eligible crops include certain commercial crops or other agricultural commodities (except livestock):

■ for which catastrophic risk protection under section 508(b) of the Federal

Crop Insurance Act is not available; and

■ that are produced for food or fiber.

Crops specifically included by statute include floricultural, ornamental nursery,

and Christmas tree crops, turfgrass sod, seed crops, aquaculture (including ornamental fish), and industrial crops.

When damage to a crop or commodity occurs as a result of a natural disaster,

producers requesting NAP assistance must meet certain requirements.

Emergency Loans

From the historic East Coast drought to raging fires in the West, Mother Nature

was particularly harsh in 1999. Responding to this crisis, FSA increased emergency

lending by 222 percent, making $303 million available to 3,970 farmers, the highest

level since fiscal year 1985.

FSA provides emergency loans to help cover production and physical losses in

counties declared disaster areas by the President, or designated as such by the

Secretary of Agriculture or the FSA Administrator (physical loss loans only).

Emergency loans also are available in counties contiguous to such disaster areas.

These loans are made to qualifying established family farm operators. Loans for crop,

livestock, and non-real-estate losses are normally repaid in 1 to 7 years, and in special

circumstances, up to 20 years. Loans for physical losses to real estate and buildings

are normally repaid in 30 years, and in special circumstances, up to 40 years.

Other Assistance

The continued plunge in commodity prices caused a tremendous increase in

Loan Deficiency Payments (LDP), a previously little used provision of the 1996

Farm Bill. FSA delivered $3,835,816,000 in LDP payments to U.S. farmers, a 20-fold

increase over 1997.

U.S. farmers also received more than $5.6 billion under the Production

Flexibility Contract program.

Hog prices in 1999 continued to remain at low levels not seen since the Great

Depression. USDA responded to this situation and used section 32 funds for the first

time in four decades, paying hog farmers over $123 million under the Small Hog

Operators Payment Program.

U.S. dairy farmers benefitted from nearly $200 million paid through the Dairy

Market Loss Assistance Program, following the steepest decline in wholesale prices

in history.

In 1999, record-low commodity prices and a seemingly endless string of natural

disasters made it one of the toughest years ever for America’s farmers and ranchers.

A record $21.5 billion in direct payments, the highest in history, was provided in

assistance to America’s farmers and ranchers in calendar year (CY)1999, including

over $5 billion in market loss assistance payments, over $600 million in livestock and
91

dairy assistance, and over $1.4 billion in Conservation Reserve Program payments.

Almost $2 billion in Crop Loss Disaster Assistance Program payments were issued,

the largest crop loss disaster program ever administered by USDA. The previous high

was $16.7 billion in 1987. 

USDA implemented several programs to assist farmers and ranchers. One of these,

the Flood Compensation Program, disbursed $42 million to producers whose agricultural land was subject to long-term flooding and was therefore unable to be used for 

crop production or grazing. This assistance was provided to producers in five States, 

and especially to producers in North and South Dakota. Flooding in these areas began 

as early as 1993 and continued through 1999. This financial relief helped support the

family farmer in this time of great hardship in the agricultural community.

Another such disaster relief program, the Livestock Indemnity Program, helps

livestock producers who suffered losses from recent natural disasters. It provides a

partial reimbursement to eligible producers for livestock losses. The $200 million

funding was authorized by the Agriculture Rural Development, Food and Drug

Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, and compensated

roughly 168,000 livestock producers for losses that occurred in 1999 because natural

disasters destroyed their livestock.

FSA and CCC have several programs that are activated and funded by congressional action during certain types of disasters. Among these are the Tree Assistance

Program, which provides payments to eligible tree and vineyard growers who

incurred losses due to natural disasters, including losses caused by freeze, excessive

rainfall, floods, drought, tornado, and earthquakes. 

Congress also authorized the expenditure of $225 million to help dairy producers

who suffered economic losses in calendar year (CY) 1999.

Emergency Conservation Program

The Emergency Conservation Program provides emergency cost-share funding

for farmers to rehabilitate farmland damaged by natural disasters that create new

conservation problems which, if not treated, would:

■ impair or endanger the land,

■ materially affect the productive capacity of the land,

■ represent unusual damage which is not the type likely to recur frequently 

in the same area,

■ be so costly to repair that Federal assistance is or will be required to return 

the land to productive agricultural use.

The assistance may be used for: removing debris from farmland; grading,

shaping, and releveling farmland; restoring livestock fences; and restoring irrigation

structures.

FSA issued $93 million in Emergency Conservation Program assistance to 42

States in CY 1999 to help farmers and ranchers rehabilitate farmland damaged by the

year’s droughts, floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters.
92

Farm Loans

The downturn in the farm economy created cash-flow problems for many producers in 1999. FSA was there, processing over $3.8 billion in credit to 37,500 family

farmers, an increase of 77 percent over last year and a 15-year high. In fact, FSA

loaned more money in the first 6 months of fiscal year 1999 than all of fiscal year

1998.

FSA offers direct and guaranteed farm ownership and operating loan programs to

farmers who are temporarily unable to obtain private, commercial credit and who

meet other regulatory criteria. Often, these are beginning farmers who cannot qualify

for conventional loans because they have insufficient net worth. The Agency also

helps established farmers who have suffered financial setbacks from natural disasters,

or whose resources are too limited to maintain profitable farming operations.

Under the guaranteed farm loan program, the Agency guarantees loans made by

conventional agricultural lenders for up to 95 percent of principal, depending on the

circumstances. The lender may sell the loan to a third party; however, the lender is

always responsible for servicing the loan. All loans must meet certain qualifying criteria to be eligible for guarantees, and FSA has the right to monitor the lender’s servicing activities. Farmers interested in guaranteed loans must apply to a conventional

lender, who then arranges for the guarantee.

For those unable to qualify for a guaranteed loan, FSA also lends directly. Direct

loans are made and serviced by FSA officials who also provide borrowers with supervision and credit counseling. Funding authorities for direct loans are limited, and

applicants may have to wait until funds become available. To qualify for a direct farm

ownership or operating loan, the applicant must be able to show sufficient repayment

ability, pledge enough collateral to fully secure the loan, and meet other regulatory

criteria. 

In 1999, FSA dealt with an unprecedented demand for farm loans and farm guarantees from farmers and ranchers unable to obtain vital credit elsewhere. FSA provided over 37,000 loans and loan guarantees, totaling $3.9 billion–an increase of 77

percent over the previous year, and a 15-year high. Along with that, emergency lending increased to $329 million (3,970 farmers), the highest level since 1985. FSA provided 21,900 direct loans, ($1.4 billion) and 15,690 guaranteed loans ($2.5 billion).

The Farm Service Agency staff processed 21,900 direct loans totaling $1.28 billion, and 15,680 guaranteed loans totaling $2.5 billion.

USDA’s FSA processed over 8,436 loans totaling $688.7 million to beginning

farmers, an increase of 38 percent from fiscal year 1998. FSA provides both direct

and guaranteed loans to beginning farmers and ranchers, helping bridge the gap to

commercial credit sources.

The current farm crisis also highlighted the need for a strong farm and home

plan. FSA staff put special emphasis on assisting qualified applicants in developing

sound farm management practices, analyzing problems, and planning the best use of

available resources essential for success in farming or ranching.

Between 1995 and 1999, FSA increased its lending to Native Americans by 175

percent, making 544 direct loans last year (up from 308 in 1995), totaling over $29

million (up from $11 million in 1995), a 265-percent increase in direct lending. FSA
increased overall lending to the socially disadvantaged by 44 percent, from

$186,704,000 in 1998 to $269,284,000 in 1999.

Conservation Programs

In the vital conservation arena, CCC continued its progress in saving our natural

resources. During 1999, CCC accepted 253,000 acres in the Conservation Reserve

Program (CRP) continuous sign-up (wherein producers can sign up at any time for

certain high-priority conservation practices, such as filter strips and riparian buffers.)

Also enrolled were 5 million acres in the regular (competitive) CRP, the Federal

Government’s single largest environmental improvement program.

CRP protects our most fragile farmland by encouraging farmers to stop growing

crops on highly erodible and other environmentally sensitive acreage. In return for

planting a protective cover of grass or trees on vulnerable property, the owner

receives a rental payment each year of a multiyear contract. Cost-share payments are

also available to help establish permanent areas of grass, legumes, trees, windbreaks,

or plants that improve water quality and give shelter and food to wildlife.

Another conservation program, the Conservation Reserve Enhancement

Program, is part of the CRP. This program shields millions of acres of American topsoil from erosion by encouraging the planting of protective vegetation. By reducing

wind erosion as well as runoff and sedimentation, it also protects air and groundwater

quality and helps improve countless lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, and other bodies of

water.

State governments have the opportunity to participate in this groundbreaking

environmental improvement effort. CCC provides incentives to agricultural producers to participate, while State governments contribute specialized local knowledge,

technical help, and financial assistance. The result is an environmental enhancement

effort tailored to the specific environmental needs of each State.

In 1999, North Carolina and Delaware signed agreements with FSA under the

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, which provides for the protection of

nationally significant estuaries and rivers. This Federal and State partnership restores

riparian areas to reduce sediment and nutrients from entering our Nation’s waters.

Thus far, 11 States have signed agreements with USDA.

FSA works with USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service and other

agencies to deliver other conservation programs, including the Environmental

Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). EQIP helps farmers and ranchers improve 

their property to protect the environment and conserve soil and water resources.

Participants can take advantage of education in new conservation management

practices, 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 chapter

are available at local FSA offices. These are usually listed in telephone directories

under “U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency.” FSA State offices

supervise the Agency’s local offices and are usually located in the State capital or

near the State land-grant university.

For further information on FSA programs, contact:

93
94

Success Stories

Mike and Jodie Madison from Seymour, WI, have always had a passion for

farming, and FSA played a big part in making their dream to purchase their

own farm come true. Since the Madisons did not have sufficient cash-flow or

collateral, they were unable to meet the required commercial standards to

obtain a conventional loan from local lending institutions. They sought and

secured a beginning farmer loan from FSA. Mike, 28, and Jodie, 25, feel that

investing money wisely is important and won’t move ahead on any project

unless it is something they can afford to do. All funds received from FSA go

toward farm improvements. The Madisons feel FSA helped fulfill their dreams

of owning and operating Mike’s parents’farm by providing funds at terms that

would have been difficult to get from a conventional lender.

A program for at-risk high school students, jointly funded by FSA and Alcorn

State University, recently concluded in Mississippi. FSA provided $40,000 in

funding which reached 125 students in North Bolivar, MS. Many residents of the

town and county, an historic all-Black community, grow sweet potatoes, peppers, and peanuts; and the program was developed to interest students in agricultural careers other than farming. Using cooperative studies, career

awareness seminars, study tours, mentoring, and hands-on experience, the program exposed the students to a comprehensive survey of agricultural and business experiences.

Helping Feed the Hungry

California FSA sponsored a major small farm conference in partnership with

the University of California. The conference focused on urban-rural interface

and the State’s small-scale and family farms. It brought together farmers and

teachers, agency professionals, scientists and policymakers, food professionals,

environmentalists, and community activists. More than 40 workshops covered

sustainable farming practices, farmers markets, specialty products, alternative

marketing, successful farm-to-city models, agriculture and food policy, and

agriculture and food education. 

California FSA launched a high-profile ag-for-kids program in an effort to

reach the increasingly urban population in California. FSA launched this program to improve the understanding of the importance and value of agriculture.

FSA developed an expanding Internet site with information related to the State’s

agriculture. Within FSA, the site consistently has the top readership of all field

sites. 

The USDA Field Gleaning and Food Recovery Team received the Vice

President’s Hammer Award. FSA, other Federal agencies, and nonprofit organizations pioneered an innovative and cost-effective way to recover food from

orchards and fields owned by FSA producers. The partnership has helped

recover over 4 million pounds of food, enough food to fill 200 Boeing 767 cargo

holds, and and has helped give millions of meals to hungry Americans.
95

Tailoring Programs for Specific Needs

A large number of Hmong, Cambodian, and Latino immigrants—many with

agricultural backgrounds—have settled in Massachusetts. The New Entry

Sustainable Farming Project helps these “new entrants” employ their agricultural talents. The project involves FSA, Tufts University, Massachusetts

Department of Food and Agriculture, Extension Service, land-grant universities, farmers, small farm organizations, farm cooperatives, marketing, community and business groups. The project provides access and instruction to many

groups, from recently arrived immigrants to socially disadvantaged groups

seeking a life in farming. Focusing on a “mentor farmer” approach, the program partners with existing farm operations to initiate or expand small-scale

production and apprenticeship training.

Using “micro-loans” provided by FSA and other organizations, program

leaders work with organizations and individuals to identify participants, secure

farmland, develop marketing and enterprise linkages, and provide education,

training, and technical assistance.

Nuestras Raices, Holyoke, MA: Spanish for “Our Roots,” Nuestras Raices

has been providing community gardens for very low-income Latino immigrant

residents, who rely on them for vegetables in the summer/fall months. It was

discovered that many of these Latinos had farming backgrounds and wanted to

begin farming in their area. The first step was to find suitable sites that could be

available.

Nuesta Raices hired a graduate student to survey around Holyoke to identify

land that the new-entry farmers could use. He determined the availability of the

land, rental costs, and its suitability. This information will provide an important

database for many future farm development opportunities. Nuestras Raices is a

valuable resource, providing important information to program planners, while

providing fertile ground for these aspiring farmers.

Massachusetts Cambodian Aquaculture Cooperative: Responding to the

need for a local specialty fish source, the Cambodian Mutual Assistance

Association launched an aquaculture cooperative in Lowell, where 100 pounds

of tilapia are raised every 2 months. The fish are grown in tanks housed in an

early 19th century mill building. Begun with seed money provided through the

USDA 2501 fund, this cooperative will be an important local source for these

specialty fish, which until now had to be purchased from outside the New

England area.

The FSA Small Farmer Outreach Training and Technical Assistance

Program graduated 85 Puerto Rican limited-resource farmers. The program,

begun in 1997 in partnership with the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez,

was designed to assist underserved limited-resource farmers by teaching management and financial skills, and by improving access to FSA and USDA programs and services. The graduates will continue to receive regular farm visits

and technical assistance. The program is in the second year of a 5-year program, pending available funding.
FSA–Public Affairs

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, DC 20250-0506

Telephone: 202-720-5237

The FSA home page can be found at http://www.fsa.usda.gov

For information on commodity sales and purchases, contact:

FSA Kansas City Commodity Office 

P.O. Box 419205

Kansas City, MO 64141-6205

Telephone: 816-926-6301

FSA’s aerial photographs of U.S. farmlands are used extensively by Government

and private organizations and the public. Order forms and an index are available from

FSA local offices. For more information on photographic services, including highaltitude photography, contact:

FSA Aerial Photography Field Office

2222 West 2300 South

Salt Lake City, UT 84119-2020

Telephone: 801-975-3500

■ Foreign Agricultural Service

The Agency and Its Mission

USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) represents the diverse interests of

the U.S. food and agricultural sector abroad. FAS serves U.S. farmers and other agricultural interests by working to expand markets for U.S. agricultural products,

including fish and forest products, overseas and promoting world food security.

The agency collects, analyzes, and distributes information about global supply

and demand, trade trends, and emerging market opportunities. FAS seeks improved

market access for U.S. products and implements programs designed to build new

markets and to maintain the competitive position of U.S. products in the global marketplace.

FAS also carries out food aid programs; operates a variety of congressionally

mandated import and export programs; and manages international technical assistance, research, and economic development activities. FAS helps USDA and other

Federal agencies, U.S. universities, and others enhance the global competitiveness 

of U.S. agriculture by mobilizing expertise for agriculturally led economic growth to

increase income and food availability in the developing world. FAS also coordinates

and articulates USDA views on a number of agricultural policy and program issues 

in international organizations to promote and enhance the interests of USDA and the

U.S. agricultural community.

Formed in 1953 by executive reorganization, FAS is one of the smaller USDA

agencies, with about 950 employees. FAS operates worldwide with staff in 59 posts

96
covering more than 130 countries. Washington-based marketing specialists, trade

policy analysts, economists, and others work closely with the overseas staff. 

Roughly 70 percent of the annual FAS budget is used to build markets overseas

for U.S. farm products. This includes the funding for all of FAS’ trade and attaché

offices overseas, and its work with U.S. commodity associations on cooperative

promotion projects. The remaining funds cover other trade functions, including

gathering and distributing market information, trade policy efforts, international

training and research of mutual benefit, and representation of U.S. agricultural

interests in multilateral organizations. To get a complete picture of the services

offered and information available for exporters, visit the home page at

http://www.fas.usda.gov

Overseas Representation

FAS’ foreign service officers wear many hats, serving as diplomats, negotiators,

analysts, and marketing representatives for U.S. agricultural producers, processors,

and exporters. The officers provide information used to plan and develop strategies

for improving market access, promoting world food security, protecting U.S. interests

under trade agreements, and developing programs and policies to make U.S. farm

products more competitive. They work with other USDA and Federal agencies, international organizations, State and local governments, and the U.S. private sector. For

example, in FY 1999, FAS offices overseas submitted more than 3,800 reports from

88 countries, covering 29 different agricultural commodities of interest to the United

States. They also advise U.S. ambassadors on agricultural matters and represent U.S.

agriculture before the government, trade groups, and public of their host countries.

U.S. Agricultural Trade

U.S. agricultural exports closed out the decade at $49 billion in fiscal 1999,

down 9 percent from 1998 and a full 18 percent below the 1996 record.

Pressures from large supplies and subsequent low prices maintained their grip on

farm commodity markets, although most countries affected by the global financial

crisis were on the path to recovery.

U.S. solid wood products and seafood products fared generally better than agricultural products in 1999. Wood product sales were down only about 1 percent from

the previous year, while seafood netted a 19-percent increase in export value.

U.S. agricultural imports continued to grow in fiscal 1999, edging up to a new

record of $37.5 billion. Despite the combination of lower exports and rising imports,

agriculture posted its 40th straight annual trade surplus–albeit the lowest surplus

since 1987–at $11.5 billion. The highest was $27.2 billion in 1996 

97
Bulk Agricultural Exports Off 11 Percent in FY 1999

Bulk commodities took a plunge in fiscal 1999, as sagging demand and large

global production brought some of the lowest prices in decades. While total export

volume for major bulk commodities rose 15 percent, to 114 million tons, weak prices

more than offset added tonnage. Corn was an exception: a 38-percent increase in

tonnage lifted coarse grains to a 12-percent value gain. The major factor was reduced

competition from China and Argentina. Aid donations helped prop up wheat export

volume, but export value still dropped 4 percent. Soybean exports plummeted 23

percent, reflecting large global supplies, weak demand, and rock-bottom prices.

Cotton fared worse, with sharply reduced volume from the small U.S. crop and low

prices. Total U.S. bulk commodity exports were $10 billion below fiscal 1996’s

$28.8 billion.

98

Figure 7-1

Nineties close with U.S. agricultural exports at 5-year low, 

but well above decade’s start

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Billion $

Fiscal years

1990 98 91 92 93 94 99 95 96 97
99

Table 7-1.

U.S. bulk commodity exports, FY 1998-99

FY 1998 FY 1999 1998-99 change

Commodity —$ million— Percent

Coarse grains 4,991 5,607 +12

Soybeans 6,137 4,748 -23

Wheat 3,805 3,664 -4

Tobacco 1,448 1,376 -5

Cotton 2,543 1,323 -48

Rice 1,138 1,015 -11

Pulses 319 270 -15

Peanuts 203 188 -7

Other 359 376 +5

Total 20,942 18,566 -11

Note: Fiscal years are October-September (i.e., fiscal 1999 ran Oct. 1, 1998-Sept. 30, 1999).

Exports of Intermediate Agricultural Products Down 

12 Percent

U.S. exports of intermediate agricultural products dropped 12 percent in fiscal

1999 to the lowest level since 1994. Most product categories were down, with sharp

declines for soy meal, soy oil, hides, and animal fats. Large South American supplies,

intense competition, and lackluster world demand were the major factors affecting

soybean product prices and volumes. Animal hide exports suffered from sluggish

Asian demand paired with a slowdown from Europe. Wheat flour exports surged 52

percent, mainly from U.S. donations to Bangladesh, Yemen, and other destinations,

and $10 million in sales to Israel. Among the top four U.S. markets, intermediate

product sales fell 25 percent to the European Union (EU), 4 percent to Canada, 10

percent to Mexico, and 11 percent to Japan. The record high remains at $12.2 billion

in exports, set in 1997.
Consumer Food Exports Not Yet Back on Track

U.S. exports of food, beverages and other consumer-oriented agricultural products eased for a second year, following 12 record-setting years. The modest 4-percent

drop left consumer food sales at $1 billion below 1997’s all-time high–but still $8-$9

billion higher than when the decade began. The collapse in Russian buying accounted

for the 26-percent falloff in poultry meat exports. On the plus side, juices and breakfast cereals set new records, with juices benefitting from strong Asian, European, and

North American Free Trade Agreement sales. For consumer foods overall, records

were set for exports to Canada and Mexico, and to some smaller markets, including

China. Fiscal year 1999 marked the first time that consumer foods topped bulk

commodities in export value. Consumer foods accounted for 40 percent of total U.S.

agricultural exports, up from 24 percent in 1990.

Most Major Markets Caught in Downtrend 

Most U.S. export markets were in a tailspin that contributed to the 1999 downturn. U.S. agricultural exports to Japan fell for the third straight year, while both

Canada and Mexico backed off from 1998 records and several years of growth. Weak

prices and sales of bulk and semi-processed commodities were mainly responsible, as

consumer food sales set new highs in Canada and Mexico. Financial crisis pushed

Russia out of the top 10, with a 58-percent dive despite U.S. food aid. China and

Hong Kong led a drop in U.S. exports to Asia’s Pacific Rim, but South Korea and

Taiwan were notable exceptions. A recovering Korean economy helped turn 1998’s

32-percent U.S. export plunge into a 9-percent rebound for fiscal 1999.

100

Table 7-2.

U.S. intermediate agricultural product exports, FY 1998-99

FY 1998 FY 1999 1998-99 change

Commodity —$ million— Percent

Feeds & fodder 1,675 1,552 -7

Hides & skins 1,337 1,102 -18

Soybean meal *1,944 1,065 -45

Veg. oils (excl. soy oil) *1,027 919 -11

Planting seeds 807 810 0

Sugar, sweeteners, & beverage bases 716 689 -4

Live animals 655 621 -5

Soybean oil *882 608 -31

Animal fats 629 529 -16

Wheat flour 115 175 +52

Other 2,308 2,558 +11

Total 12,096 10,628 -12

*Denotes a record-high export value.
101

Table 7-3.

U.S. consumer food exports, FY 1998-99

FY 1998 FY 1999 1998-99 change

Commodity —$ million— Percent

Meat, poultry, dairy 

Red meats 4,405 4,369 -1

Poultry meat 2,347 1,743 -26

Dairy products *931 887 -5

Eggs & products *225 184 -18

Fruits & vegetables

Proc. fruit/veg. *2,086 2,084 0

Fresh fruit 1,853 1,843 -1

Fresh vegetables 1,114 1,101 -1

Fruit/veg. juices 684 *769 +12

Snack foods *1,326 1,296 -2

Tree nuts 1,218 1,077 -12

Wine & beer *785 743 -5

Pet foods 734 689 -6

Breakfast cereals & pancake mix 365 *371 +2

Nursery products & cut flowers *250 249 0

Other 2,282 *2,406 +5

Total 20,605 19,810 -4

*Denotes a record-high export value.

Table 7-4.

U.S. agricultural exports by major markets, 1998-99

FY 1998 FY 1999 1998-99 change

Market —$ million— Percent

Japan 9,444 8,916 -6

Canada *7,006 6,937 -1

European Union 8,318 6,820 -18

Mexico *5,951 5,661 -5

South Korea 2,244 2,449 +9

Taiwan 1,964 2,044 +4

Hong Kong 1,557 1,259 -19

China 1,505 979 -35

Egypt 939 946 +1

Philippines 740 730 -1

Rest of world 13,974 12,263 -12

Total 53,642 49,004 -9

Data include bulk, intermediate, and consumer-oriented agricultural exports.

*Denotes a record-high export value.
Wood Product Sales Remain in a Slump

Fiscal year 1999 marked a second year of weakness for exports of solid wood

products. Robust domestic demand kept U.S. prices up, while housing starts in Japan

remained slow. Export value dipped below $6 billion to the lowest in the 1990’s. This

was off 20 percent from 1997’s $7.5 billion record high. Canada overtook Japan as

our top market. Sales to Japan slumped another 4 percent, adding up to a 50-percent

drop since 1996 (an unusually strong year in that market). Exports to Canada continued to grow, gaining 5 percent to a record $1.6 billion, with strong demand for U.S.

hardwoods. Sales to the European Union were off 11 percent, but sales were up 10

percent to Mexico and 38 percent to South Korea.

102

Table 7-5.

U.S. wood product exports, FY 1998-99

FY 1998 FY 1999 1998-99 change

Commodity —$ million— Percent

Logs & chips 1,711 1,716 0

Lumber

Hardwood 1,240 1,322 +7

Softwood/treated 768 786 +2

Panel products 1,026 918 -11

Other 1,264 1,226 -3

Total 6,009 5,968 -1

Seafood Exports Show Solid Gains 

After a 3-year decline, foreign sales of U.S. fishery products increased a solid 19

percent to $2.6 billion in fiscal 1999, recovering nearly half the value lost since 1995.

Although all major product categories registered increases, a recovery in salmon had

the largest impact. Exports of U.S. whole/eviscerated salmon climbed 43 percent,

mainly due to a larger Alaskan harvest. Japan, the dominant market for salmon, also

accounted for most of the $102-million increase in U.S. fish egg exports. For crabs

and crabmeat, record sales to China (up 316 percent to $20 million) and Canada were

key factors. Fiscal year 1992 was the decade’s high point for this commodity, when

U.S. seafood product exports totaled $3.3 billion.

International Trade Agreements

FAS works closely with other government agencies, including the Office of the

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), to protect the trade interests of U.S. producers

and processors. FAS monitors the agricultural provisions of existing agreements

such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) Uruguay Round Trade Agreement, and

the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and works to develop the U.S.

position on agriculture in negotiations on new agreements. 
FAS works to help identify violations and address them at the appropriate level.

Besides working with the USTR, FAS works closely with USDA agencies such as 

the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the Food Safety and Inspection

Service to field a team with the technical and policy experience needed to resolve

problems. This team supports U.S. export interests in the day-to-day activities of

multilateral organizations such as the CODEX Alimentarius Commission in the Food

and Agriculture Organization and the WTO Committees on Agriculture, and Sanitary

and Phytosanitary Standards. These groups help develop international standards that

affect trade in agricultural products and monitor compliance with existing trade

agreements.

FAS represents American agriculture in our relations with foreign countries. 

In recent years, for example, FAS has ensured that the Philippines honors its WTO

commitments to import pork and poultry, that Korea opens its market for oranges,

and that most countries not block imports of U.S. wheat. We resolved these and

many other bilateral trade issues without initiating a formal WTO legal process, using

bilateral consultations and regular meetings of the WTO committees. FAS has also

used the WTO dispute settlement process to successfully challenge several foreign

unfair trade practices, including the European Union’s hormone ban, Japan’s varietal

testing requirements, and Canada’s dairy export subsidies. FAS also represents 

U.S. agriculture in negotiating with countries seeking membership in the WTO. The

United States and Taiwan signed a market access agreement that has Taiwan lifting

its import bans and allowing access for U.S. pork, poultry, and variety meats. Upon

Taiwan’s accession to the WTO, Taiwan will cut tariffs and open tariff-rate quotas 

on a range of agricultural products. In November 1999, the United States and China

signed a comprehensive bilateral trade agreement in Beijing under which China

committed to opening its agricultural import market and eliminating export subsidies

upon its accession to the WTO.

On June 30, 2000, the United States presented its negotiating proposal in

Geneva, Switzerland, for the next round of World Trade Organization agricultural

talks. The U.S. proposal is ambitious and comprehensive. It moves all WTO

103

Table 7-6.

U.S. seafood product exports, FY 1998-99

FY 1998 FY 1999 1998-99 change

Commodity —$ million— Percent

Salmon

Whole/eviscerated 246 353 +43

Canned 140 145 +4

Roe & urchin (fish eggs) 270 372 +37

Surimi (fish paste) 270 288 +7

Crab/crabmeat 120 151 +26

Other 1,125 1,272 +13

Total 2,172 2,581 +19
members beyond the Uruguay Round to accelerate world agricultural reform and create a level playing field for farmers and ranchers worldwide. It establishes a blueprint

for eliminating export subsidies; lowering tariffs and expanding tariff-rate quotas;

disciplining state trading enterprises, and facilitating trade in the products of new

technologies.

Food Assistance Programs

Within USDA, the Foreign Agricultural Service is the leader in developing and

executing a number of food assistance activities under Title I of Public Law 83-480

(P.L. 480), the Food for Progress Act of 1985, and Section 416(b) of the Agricultural

Act of 1949 (Section 416(b)). These programs help developing nations make the transition from concessional financing and donations to cash purchases. The U.S. Agency

for International Development (USAID) is responsible for administering Titles II and

III of P.L. 480.

P.L. 480 Title I—The objectives of the P.L. 480 Title I concessional credit program include providing food assistance to developing countries and promoting the

development of future markets in these countries. The program promotes market

development by encouraging importers in the recipient country to become familiar

with U.S. trade practices and to establish long-term trade relationships. Title I funds

also support the Food for Progress (FFP) program, which is a grant program

designed to assist countries working to make the transition to more market-oriented

economies. Attention is given to shifting countries from Title I/FFP grant funding to

regular Title I long-term concessional credit terms. 

Several Title I programs were initiated to address particular needs such as supporting recovery efforts for Central America following the devastation of Hurricane

Mitch and providing commodities to Russia to ensure adequate food and feed supplies following the financial crisis. 

In fiscal year 1999, Title I and Title I-funded Food for Progress (FFP) agreements were signed for 2.2 million metric tons of commodities valued at about $656.1

million. Of this, about 1.4 million metric tons of commodities valued at about $507.6

million were programmed to Russia as part of the food assistance package announced

by the Secretary of Agriculture on November 6, 1998. Ocean freight financing,

including grants for ocean transportation, totaling $94.0 million were also provided

to ship these commodities to Russia under the food assistance package.

In addition to FFP activities carried out with P.L. 480 Title I funds, the funds and

facilities of the CCC may also be used to support FFP programming. In all FFP, cooperating sponsors (governments and private voluntary organizations (POV’s)) may

monetize the commodities received under an agreement with CCC to generate local

currencies to fund development projects. In fiscal year 1999, USDA continued FFP

programming in countries beyond the republics of the former Soviet Union, including

countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. PVO’s received about 164,000 tons of

commodities with a value of about $71 million to use in, or sell to use the proceeds to

support, planned activities in 21 countries. Additional program efforts also resulted in

broadening the geographical base for the PVO participation in the Food for Progress

program to include, for example, a greater participation in Africa consistent with the

President’s Africa Initiative. 

104
Under the Title II emergency and private assistance donations program, administered by USAID, $28 million can be provided as overseas administrative support.

For fiscal year 1999, Title II activities, valued at almost $950 million, moved a total

of about 1.9 million metric tons and assisted more than 45 million beneficiaries in 

57 countries and two regions (the Sahel and South Balkans). Funding for Title II

increased slightly over the fiscal year 1998 levels, with spending on emergency

programming ($513 million) continuing to exceed that of development (nonemergency) programming ($435 million).

USAID-administered Title III donation activities totaled $21.7 million in fiscal

year 1999 and moved over 116,000 metric tons of commodities to three countries:

Ethiopia and Mozambique in Africa, and Haiti in Latin America/Caribbean.

The Section 416(b) program allows for the donation of surplus commodities,

made available through CCC stocks, to assist needy people overseas. In fiscal year

1999, approximately 5.5 million metric tons valued at about $794 million were programmed under Section 416(b), including more than 5.0 million metric tons of wheat

and wheat products under the President’s special food aid initiative. CCC purchased

these commodities under section 5(d) of the CCC Charter Act, its surplus removal

authority. Of the 5.5 million metric tons programmed in fiscal year 1999, about 1.6

million were donated to the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) to be

used in WFP emergency operations, protracted relief and recovery operations, and

development projects. Beneficiaries included refugees, the internally displaced, and

the hungry in areas such as Ethiopia, Kosovo, and North Korea. The balance of about

3.9 million metric tons was programmed through government-to-government agreements and agreements with PVO’s. 

Commercial Export Credit Guarantee Programs

The primary objective of the export credit guarantee programs is to improve 

the competitive position of U.S. agricultural commodities in international markets 

by facilitating exports to middle-income countries that do not have access to adequate

commercial credit. These CCC programs encourage U.S. lenders (typically commercial banks) to extend credit to overseas customers. These guarantee programs encourage the involvement of foreign private-sector banks and private-sector importers in

commercial trade transactions with the United States. 

The GSM-102 program guarantees repayment of short-term credit (90 days to 3

years) extended by U.S. financial institutions in connection with exports of U.S. agricultural products. For fiscal year 1999, GSM-102 allocations of about $5.1 billion

were announced for exports to 24 countries and 11 regional groupings, including the

Andean, Baltic, Central American, Central Europe, East Africa, East Caribbean,

Southeast Asia, Southeast Europe, Southern Africa, West African, and West

Caribbean regions. Under this availability, GSM-102 registrations totaled about $3.0

billion for exports to 13 countries and 8 regions.

The GSM-103 program is designed to help developing nations make the transition from concessional financing to cash purchases. Guarantees issued under the

GSM-103 program can cover financing periods of more than 3 and up to 10 years.

For fiscal year 1999, $377 million in intermediate credit guarantees was made available for exports to 12 countries and two regions—Central America and Southern

105
Africa. Under this availability, GSM-103 registrations totaled $44.2 million of U.S.

agricultural exports to five countries and one region. 

The Supplier Credit Guarantee Program (SCGP) provides export credit guarantees for sales financed by foreign importers rather than financial institutions. Under

the program, CCC guarantees a portion of payments due from importers under shortterm financing (up to 180 days) that exporters have extended directly to importers for

the purchase of U.S. agricultural commodities and products. In fiscal year 1999, allocations under the SCGP totaled $361 million in coverage for sales to 12 countries and

8 regions, including the Andean, Baltic, Central America, Central Europe, East

Africa, East Caribbean, Southeast Asia, and Southeast Europe regions. Under the

announced fiscal year 1999 availability, registrations totaled $46.02 million.

The Facilities Guarantee Program is designed to provide payment guarantees in

connection with projects that it determines will benefit exports of U.S. agricultural

commodities and emerging markets. In supporting these facilities, USDA intends to

enhance sales of U.S. agricultural commodities and products to emerging markets

where the demand for them may be constricted due to inadequate storage, processing,

or handling capabilities. 

Export Bonus Programs

The Export Enhancement Program (EEP) permits USDA to provide bonuses to

make U.S. commodities more competitive in the world marketplace and to offset the

adverse effects of unfair trade practices or subsidies. Fiscal year 1999 bonuses of

about $1.4 million were awarded to facilitate the export of 2,446 metric tons of

frozen poultry.

The Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP) helps exporters sell certain U.S.

dairy products at prices lower than the exporter’s cost of acquiring them. The major

objective of the program is to increase exports of U.S. dairy products. This is done by

developing export markets for dairy products where U.S. products are not competitive because of the presence of subsidized products from other countries. The DEIP

operates on a bid bonus system similar to EEP, with cash bonus payments. The major

markets targeted under the DEIP in fiscal year 1999 included Asia and Latin America,

with $145 million in bonuses awarded, to facilitate the export of about 136,000 metric tons of dairy products.

Market Access Program

The Market Access Program (MAP) is designed to encourage the development,

maintenance, and expansion of foreign markets for U.S. agricultural commodities.

The MAP is a cost-share program, with all MAP funds for promotion of branded

products allocated to cooperatives and small U.S. companies to help them expand

their sales in the international marketplace. USDA reaches out to small companies,

with a special emphasis on minority and disadvantaged groups. For example, five

American Indian tribes were represented at FOODEX ‘99 in Tokyo, Japan. As a

result of its participation in this trade show, one company confirmed sales of nearly

$200,000 of fresh seafood products.

106
Foreign Market Development Program

The Foreign Market Development Program, also known as the “Cooperator

Program,” fosters a trade promotion partnership between USDA and U.S. agricultural

producers and processors, represented by nonprofit commodity or trade associations

called cooperators. Projects generally fall into one of four categories: market

research, trade servicing, technical assistance, and consumer promotions for the retail

market. The Cooperator Program has helped support growth in U.S. agricultural

exports by enlisting private sector involvement and resources in coordinated efforts

to promote U.S. products to foreign importers and consumers around the world.

International Cooperation

The Foreign Agricultural Service coordinates, supports, and delivers a diversified program of international agricultural cooperation and development. These programs enhance the competitiveness of U.S. agriculture, preserve natural resource

ecosystems, and help partner countries pursue sustainable economic development

worldwide by mobilizing the resources of USDA and its affiliates throughout the U.S.

agricultural community.

Food Security

USDA released the U.S. Action Plan on Food Security in March 1999. This plan,

which FAS coordinated, is the United States’ official response to the 1996 World

Food Summit, where 186 nations committed to reducing global undernutrition by

half by 2015. Based on a partnership between government and civil society, the plan

provides a road map for U.S. policy to overcome hunger, undernutrition, and food

insecurity, both in the United States and abroad. 

Scientific Collaboration

Short-term exchange visits between U.S. and foreign scientists, as well as longer

term collaboration on research projects, allow participants to use science to help

solve critical problems affecting food, agriculture, and the environment in both the

United States and in collaborating countries. The activities reduce threats to U.S.

agriculture and forestry, develop new technologies, establish systems to enhance

trade, and provide access to genetic diversity essential to maintaining crops that are

competitive in the world marketplace. They promote the safe and appropriate development and application of new technologies for food safety, improve the nutritive

value and resistance of crops and livestock, develop new and improved agricultural

products, and foster environmental sustainability. Other mutually beneficial priority

food and agriculture issues addressed this year ranged from reducing barriers to marketing and trade to preventing introduction of new pests, to developing practices that

meet the needs of limited-resource and small farmers.

An important 1999 activity focused on China, where FAS helped facilitate a

number of collaborative activities, including a water resources forum. These activities gave special attention to agricultural policies and water resource and land use

management practices that can foster more sustainable development in both the

United States and China.

107
Technical Assistance

Various technical assistance programs exist to increase income and food consumption in developing nations, help mitigate famine and disasters, and help maintain or enhance the natural resource base. The programs are sponsored by such

international donor institutions as the U.S. Agency for International Development

(USAID), the World Bank, regional development banks, specialized agencies of the

United Nations, and private organizations. Technical assistance is provided in areas

such as food processing and distribution, plant and animal protection and quarantine,

soil and water conservation, and forest management.

FAS’ technical assistance contributed to hurricane recovery efforts in the

Caribbean and Central America. When hurricanes hit with devastating effect in the

fall of 1998, USDA took immediate action to save lives and offer recovery assistance.

FAS then coordinated long-term recovery assistance among nine USDA agencies to

promote better environmental practices, food security, and food safety in the affected

region. Using resources provided by section 416(b) donations program and USAID,

USDA funded a small grants program for low-income farmers recovering from

Hurricane Georges in the Dominican Republic.

Training

Career-related training for foreign agriculturists provides long-term benefits to

economic development, magnifying potential because those who learn teach others.

Working collaboratively with USDA agencies, U.S. universities, and private-sector

companies and organizations, FAS designs and implements study tours, academic

programs, and short-term courses and training in a variety of areas such as agribusiness, extension education, natural resource management, policy and economics, and

human resource development. FAS’ Cochran Fellowship Program helps expose

senior- and mid-level specialists and administrators from developing, middle-income,

and emerging market countries to U.S. expertise, goods, and services, to promote

broad-based development that is mutually beneficial to continued scientific, professional, and trade relationships. 

One example of FAS’ training efforts is a regional workshop on biosafety and

plant genetic engineering the agency co-sponsored with the Egyptian Ministry of

Agriculture. Designed to provide a forum for Middle East and Northern Africa

policymakers to learn about biotechnology and biosafety issues, the workshop

educated key officials, researchers, producers, consumers, and local media about 

the development and regulation of genetically modified organisms. USDA officials

worked with 37 counterparts from 17 Sub-Saharan African countries to discuss the

importance of the next round of WTO negotiations and Africa’s role in implementing

food safety and other sanitary or phytosanitary international standards.

108
■ Risk Management Agency

The mission of the Risk Management Agency (RMA) is to provide and supportcost-effective means of managing risk for agricultural producers in order to

improve the economic stability of agriculture. Crop insurance is USDA’s primary

means of helping farmers survive a major crop loss. In 1999, nearly $30.9 billion in

protection was provided on 196 million acres through more than 1.8 million policies;

this level of protection is almost 2-1/2 times the $13.6 billion protection on the 100

million acres insured in 1994. 

Crop insurance helps farmers recover from crop losses, secure operating loans,

and aggressively market a portion of their crop. In 1998, about two-thirds of the

acreage planted to major U. S. crops was insured. To help ensure that producers carried an adequate level of protection, USDA offered farmers an estimated 30 percent

premium discount on their insured 1999 crops. The discount increased the number of

insurance policies sold by 5 percent, and insured acreage was up 9 percent. Liability

for buy-up policies also increased as producers used the discount to increase coverage levels. An estimated 25 percent discount for the 2000 crop year is expected to

help maintain a high level of participation. Crop insurance is sold and serviced by 17

insurance companies in conjunction with a network of 15,000 agents.

Crop insurance is widely available for major commodities such as corn, wheat,

and cotton. Coverage is also available on a growing number of fruit, nut, and vegetable crops. Nationally, over 100 crops are insurable (counting all insurable varieties

109

Figure 7-2

Crop insurance triples

Crop insurance liability, American total, 1993-99

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Billion $

1993 94 95 96 97 98 99
would greatly increase the number of crops insured), although not everywhere they

are grown. Crop information is available at http://www.rma.usda.gov/policies/

To help ensure greater farmer access to this beneficial risk management tool, the

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) Board of Directors (FCIC’s policymaking panel with private-sector and public representation) expanded 35 crop programs

into an additional 283 counties for the 1999 crop year. This expansion added to the

national total of 28,437 county crop programs. Further, RMA continues to develop

new pilot programs, such as insurance for avocado, cabbage, cherry, pecan, processing chili pepper, forage seed, hay, rangeland, and raspberry/blackberry crops. By

increasing the number and types of insurance plans, the program will help producers

to better manage their production risks. 

Insurance Plans Available

Multiple-Peril Crop Insurance 

Multiple-Peril Crop Insurance (MPCI) policies insure producers against losses

due to unavoidable causes such as drought, excessive moisture, hail, wind, frost,

insects, and disease. Indemnities are paid on the difference between what was produced and the yield guarantee. Yield guarantees are selected by the producer and generally range from 50 to 75 percent, but up to 85 percent of a producer’s actual

production history for some areas and crops. The prices used to pay losses are

between 55 and 100 percent of the commodity price established annually by RMA.

110

More Products and Choices

1993: One Choice—Multiple-Peril Crop Insurance

Today:

■ Catastrophic coverage

■ Buy-up coverage

■ Limited buy-up

■ Revenue insurance plans

■ Crop Revenue Coverage

■ Revenue Assurance

■ Group Risk Income Plan

■ Income Protecton

■ Adjusted Gross Revenue pilot

■ Specialty crop revenue

■ Group Risk Plan

■ Dairy Options Pilot Program

■ Prevented planting coverage

■ New covered crops

■ Over 70 crops, representing large bulk of American production

■ Expansions of existing crops into new areas

■ New nursery program
Group Risk Plan

The Group Risk Plan (GRP) policies use a county index as the basis for determining a loss. When the county yield for the insured crop, as determined by USDA’s

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), falls below the trigger level chosen

by the farmer, an indemnity is paid. Yield levels are available for up to 90 percent of

the expected county yield. GRP protection involves less paperwork and costs less

than the farm-level coverage described above. However, individual crop losses may

not be covered if the county yield does not suffer a similar level of loss.

Revenue Insurance Plans

Revenue Insurance policies include three plans: Crop Revenue Coverage,

Income Protection, and Revenue Assurance. Revenue policies are different from standard MPCI policies in that they provide farmers with a measure of price risk protection in addition to covering yield loss. Two of the policies, Crop Revenue Coverage

and Revenue Assurance, were developed by private-sector insurance companies.

Income Protection was developed by RMA. These policies guarantee a level of revenue that is determined differently by each of the policies. Indemnities are paid when

any combination of yield and price results in revenue that is less than the revenue

guarantee.

Adjusted Gross Revenue Plan

In its first year of testing in 1999, the Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) pilot

insurance plan, a nontraditional whole farm risk management tool, provides an insurance safety net for multiple agricultural commodities in one insurance product. The

plan uses a producer’s historic Schedule F tax form information to calculate a level of

guaranteed revenue for the insurance period. Qualifying producers can choose the 65,

75, or 80 percent coverage level, and all levels have a 75-percent payment rate.

111

...And Still More Choices

■ New pilot programs 1999

■ Adjusted gross Rev.

(AGR)

■ Avocado APH

■ Cabbage

■ Cherries

■ Crambe

■ Cultivated Wild Rice

■ IP Barley 

■ Mustard

■ Rand-land GRP

■ Winter Squash

■ 85% coverage

■ Approved for 2000

■ Cultivated clams

■ Coverage Enhancement

option (CEO) on apples,

canola, potatoes, grapes,

rice, citrus fruit, others,

■ Chile peppers

■ Cucumbers (processing)

■ Florida fruit trees (citrus

canker)

■ Onion stage removal

■ Pumpkins

■ Strawberries

■ Several major expansions

of existing programs

■ Livestock, pending legislation
Dairy Options Pilot Program

RMA currently operates the innovative Dairy Options Pilot Program (DOPP) to

help dairy producers protect their income against the risk of falling milk prices.

During each round of DOPP, producers in selected pilot counties receive training in

the use of futures and options as price risk management tools. Within program guidelines, they may then purchase dairy put options (right to sell) through futures brokers

registered with U.S. exchanges. When prices fall, the value of put options increase,

thereby protecting the value of at least a portion of the producer’s dairy production.

USDA assists participating farmers by funding 80 percent of the cost of the options

and by paying $30 per contract toward the commission charged by the broker. 

Outreach

RMA is intensifying its efforts to reach beginning, small, traditionally underserved, and limited-resource farmers. Some highlights of these efforts include:

■ Training and providing technical assistance in risk management with

community-based organizations, 1890 land-grant institutions and 1994 tribal

colleges, through partnerships and funding of 17 cooperative agreements.

■ Funding development of risk management curriculums to meet the needs of

American Indian agricultural businesses. Instructional material will be

delivered through 29 tribal colleges. 

■ Improving the risk management skills of Hmong and Hispanic farmers in

California by funding risk management training.

■ Creating new policies—such as those for sweet potatoes and rangeland—to

meet the needs of minority farmers. Many new vegetable and fruit policies

will be tested in pilot programs in the next few years. 

■ Partnering with the national FFA foundation to produce risk management

videos and teaching materials. 

■ Providing computers with current nursery program software to the Florida

Korean Nurserymen Association and local FSA county office. The software

will simplify the inventory reporting requirements under the nursery policy.

Risk Management Education

Current farm policy increases the risk borne by producers. To help them acquire

the risk management skills needed to compete and win in the global marketplace,

RMA is leading a risk management education initiative. This initiative leverages

government funds for education with the resources of public and private-sector partners to find improved risk management strategies, develop educational curricula and

materials, and train producers in effective use of risk management tools. 

RMA facilitates local training with the help of extension specialists and privatesector partners. The initiative is a cooperative effort between RMA; USDA’s

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service and National Office 

of Outreach; and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. 

RMA is also helping to make information on risk management more accessible

to farmers and educators by funding the National Ag Risk Education Library, 

a powerful Internet resource developed by the Center for Farm Financial

Management at the University of Minnesota: http://www.agrisk.umn.edu/

112
International Outreach

Increasingly, other countries are examining crop insurance as an alternative to

farm subsidies. Since the beginning of 1998, RMA staff have met with representatives from over 20 foreign governments and private organizations to explain the U.S.

program. 

Following a request by the Republic of South Africa and under the sponsorship

of the U.S.-South Africa Binational Commission, RMA and its private insurance partners will introduce the concept of crop insurance as a safety net for majority population farmers in the Republic of South Africa. “Train the Trainer” workshops, funded

by a grant from the U.S. Agency for International Development, will include in-country representatives from industry, government, and legislators. 

More Growth Anticipated

Responding to USDA’s proposal to strengthen the program, Congress passed legislation that will address the following issues: affordability, multi-year losses, outreach to areas of low participation, the non-insured crop disaster assistance program

(NAP), livestock insurance, revenue insurance plans, rating methodologies, and program oversight. While crop insurance can’t provide farmers a good price for their

crops, coverage is a vital component of USDA’s plan to strengthen the overall farmer

safety net. More information on RMA and its programs is available at:

http://www.rma.usda.gov/

113

Clam Growers Catch a Wave

Bill Thompson of Indian River County, FL, knows the cultivation of clams

has changed a lot in the 10 years he’s been in the business. “We’ve

learned how to protect our crop better. We stake a second layer of mesh

over the seeds to protect them better from predators. Also new techniques to provide better circulation for the young clams help them grow

off faster.”

Better production methods aren’t the only changes for clam producers

in the Florida counties of Brevard, Indian River, Dixie, and Levy. Bill was

one of the first clam producers to sign up for the pilot cultivated clam

insurance program. “Back in 1995, Hurricane Erin caused a lot of losses

among producers in Indian River. With this new program, I plan to have

my own insurance to cover any future losses.”

Leslie Sturmer of the University of Florida Cooperative Extension

Service was instrumental in bringing together RMA offices with Florida

producers and insurance representatives to help provide input into program development and promote the advantages of the insurance.

The pilot program, which covers the hard-shell or quahog species, is

RMA’s first experience with aquaculture. Also available in select counties in Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Virginia, the program design

aims to document the diverse cultivation cultures in the different climates that will become the basis for a nationwide program.
114

Farm Service Agency

Director, Public Affairs, Legislative

Liaison, and Executive Secretariat

Tade Sullivan

Rm 3615-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-3865

FAX 202-720-4034

tade_sullivan@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

Public Affairs Branch Chief

Eric L. Parsons

Rm 3624-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-7809

FAX 202-690-2828

eric_parsons@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

Communications Services

Section Chief

Danniel W. Stuart

Rm 3633-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-690-0474

FAX 202-690- 2839

dann.stuart_@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

Field Services Section Head

Greg Hawkins

Rm 3621-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8768

FAX 202-690- 2828

greg_hawkins@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

FOIA Coordinator

Diane Korwin

Rm 3623-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-5534

FAX 202-690- 2828

diane_korwin@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

Farm Service Agency State

Public Affairs Contacts

CA

Erica Szlosek

430 G Street #4161

Davis, CA 95616-4161

530-792-5537

FAX 530-792-5555

Erica_Szlosek@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

GA

Cynthia Valles

355 E. Hancock Avenue

Stop 107

Athens, GA 30601- 2775

706-5463177

FAX 706-546-2151

Cynthia_Valles@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

IA

Bruce Cordes 

10500 Buena Vista Court

Des Moines, IA 50322

515-254-1540 x 602

FAX 515-254-1573

Bruce_Cordess@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

MN

Jim Meisenheimer 

400 Agribank Building

375 Jackson Street

St Paul, MN 55115

651-602 7719

FAX 651-602-7743

Jim_Meisenheimer@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

MS

David Reagan

6310 I-55 North

Jackson, MS 39211

601-965-4774 x108

FAX 601-965-4184

David_Reagan@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

OH

Mike Kauffman

200 N High Street

Room 540 Federal Building

Columbus, OH 43215

614-255-2500

FAX 614- 255-2542 

Mike_Kauffman@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

For More Information
115

SD

Kathy Lindquist

200 4th St SW

Room 308, Federal Building

Huron, SD 57350-2478

605-352-1163

FAX 605-352-1195

Kathy_Lindquist@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

WA

Scott Hallett

West 316 Boone Avenue

Rock Pointe Tower, Suite 568

Spokane, WA 99201-2350

509-323-3002

FAX 509-323-3074

Scott_Hallett@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

WI

Susan Hunter

Madison, WI 53719

6515 Watts Road

608-276-8732 x141

FAX 608-271-9425

Susan_Hunter@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

—Information on FSA can also be 

found on the FSA Home Page at

http://www.fsa.usda.gov

Foreign Agricultural Service

Director, Information Div.

Maureen Quinn

Rm 5074-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-7115

FAX 202-720- 1727

quinn@fas.usda.gov

Deputy Director

Sally Klusaritz

Rm 5074-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-3448

klusaritz@fas.usda.gov

Team Leader

Lynn Goldsbrough

Rm 5713-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-0328

FAX 202-720-3229

goldsbrough@fas.usda.gov

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Donald Washington

Rm 5709-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-3101

FAX 202-720-3229

washington@fas.usda.gov

Risk Management Agency

Director of External Affairs

Pat Engel

Rm 3058-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-7956

FAX 202-690-2002

Pat_Engel@WDC.USDA.GOV

Director, Regulatory

Diana Moslak

Rm 6624-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-2832

FAX 202-690-5879

Diana_Moslak@WDC.USDA.GOV

Dir, Claims&Underwriting Srvcs

Mike Hand

Rm 6749-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-3439

FAX 202-690-2540

MHAND@WDC.USDA.GOV

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Donna Bassett

Rm 6606-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-690-5701

FAX 202-690-5890

Donna_Bassett@WDC.USDA.GOV
116

8.

Food, Nutrition, and 

Consumer Services

■ Food and Nutrition Service 

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is the gateway to adequate access forappropriate nutrition and nutrition education for all Americans. FNS administers

USDA’s domestic nutrition assistance programs, and for more than 30 years the

agency has worked to accomplish an unusually complex mission—reducing hunger

and food insecurity by providing children and needy families better access to food, a

healthful diet, and nutrition education.

FNS works in partnership with the States to ensure that its programs operate

effectively and efficiently. This partnership allows the States to determine most

administrative details regarding participant eligibility and distribution of nutrition

benefits, and FNS provides funding to cover some of the States’ administrative costs.

For Fiscal Year (FY) 2000, the funding for FNS and its programs is $35.5 billion.

Overall, the nutrition assistance programs reach one out of every six Americans

and touch every community in the United States. Most of the programs are directed at

low-income people or schoolchildren. They include:

■ The Food Stamp Program

■ The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and

Children (WIC)

■ The National School Lunch Program

■ The School Breakfast Program

■ Team Nutrition

■ The Emergency Food Assistance Program

■ The Child and Adult Care Food Program

■ The Afterschool Snack Program

■ The Commodity Supplemental Food Program

■ The Summer Food Service Program

■ The Special Milk Program

■ The Nutrition Program for the Elderly

■ The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations

■ The WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program

■ The Nutrition Assistance Program in Puerto Rico and the Pacific Islands

FNS is also the primary Federal agency that delivers food assistance in response

to domestic natural disasters and other crises.

Additional information on FNS and its programs can be found on the World

Wide Web at http://www.fns.usda.gov
117

The Food Stamp Program 

The Food Stamp Program is the cornerstone of USDA’s nutrition assistance programs. The program helps low-income households increase their food purchasing

power and their choices for a better diet. It is the primary source of nutrition assistance for low-income Americans. The program was initiated as a pilot program in

1961 and made permanent in 1964.

The first line of defense against hunger for millions of families, the Food Stamp

Program provides critical support for families making the transition from welfare to

work and the elderly and disabled. The program issues monthly allotments of

coupons or electronic benefits through Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) that are

redeemable at authorized retail food stores, farmers’ markets, and certain other

providers. 

The Federal Government pays for the benefits issued and shares with the States

the cost of administrative expenses. An average of 18.2 million people received benefits each month in FY 1999. Participation has fallen steadily from a high of 28. 0 million in March 1994.

President Clinton announced a major, new initiative last summer to ensure that

eligible people know they are eligible and how to access program benefits. FNS is

working with the States to provide information about the program to the public. An

800 number (800-221-5689) for information was activated in April 1999.

Most States have converted food stamp issuance to EBT systems. EBT allows

food stamp customers, using a magnetic stripe card, to buy groceries by transferring

funds directly from a food stamp benefit account to a retailer’s account. The Personal

Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 requires all States

to convert to EBT issuance by the year 2002.

EBT is only one component of FNS’ commitment to Food Stamp Program efficiency and integrity. The agency works closely with the States to ensure that they

issue benefits in the correct amounts and only to people who are eligible. EBT has

enhanced FNS’ ability to catch those who abuse the program, and penalties have been

increased for people who are caught. In addition, FNS now has broader authority to

review the performance of food retailers who participate in the program and to

quickly remove those who fail to follow program rules.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

Determining eligibility: Many of USDA’s nutrition assistance programs

use household 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. As of July 1, 2000, 100 percent of the

poverty guideline is $17,050 a year for a family of four; 130 percent is

$22,165 a year; and 185 percent is $31, 543 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.
118

USDA also provides educational materials to help States integrate nutrition into

the Food Stamp Program. States may use program administrative funds for nutrition

education to help food stamp recipients make healthier food choices as they use their

benefits. 

Eligibility: Eligibility and allotments are based on household size, income,

assets, and other factors. In Fiscal Year 2000, the maximum benefit for a family of

four is $426 per month; the average household benefit is about $170 per month; and

the average per-person benefit is about $73 per month.

Benefits: The level of benefits an eligible household receives is based on its

household income and expenses. Households with no countable net income receive

the maximum monthly allotment of food stamps. The allotment is based on the cost

of the Thrifty Food Plan, a low-cost model food plan. The Federal Government pays

for the benefits issued and shares with the States the cost of administrative expenses. 

Funding: For FY 2000, the Food Stamp Program appropriation is $19.6 billion.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

Participation in the Food Stamp Program has fallen steadily from a

high of 27.5 million in 1994.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

How EBT works: Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) is a computerized

system that allows food stamp customers to use a plastic debit card

similar to a bank card to access their food stamp benefits. Eligible

recipients have an account established for their monthly benefits. At

the grocery checkout, they present the card, which is used to debit

their food stamp account for the amount of eligible purchases. The

funds are automatically transferred to the retailer’s account, and an

electronic record is made of the transaction. No money and no food

stamps change hands.

The National School Lunch Program 

The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is a federally assisted meal program operating in nearly 97,000 public and nonprofit private schools and residential

child care institutions. It provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches and

afterschool snacks to almost 27 million children each school day.

NSLP is usually administered by State education agencies, which operate the

program through agreements with local school districts. FNS administers the program at the Federal level. School districts and independent schools that choose to

take part in the lunch program receive cash reimbursement and donated commodity

foods from USDA for each meal they serve. In return, they must serve meals that

meet Federal nutrition requirements, and they must offer free and reduced-price

lunches to eligible children. 
119

The afterschool snack component of NSLP provides reimbursement for nutritious snacks served to children through age 18 in eligible afterschool care programs.

In order to qualify for these reimbursements, the school districts must operate the

lunch component of NSLP and must sponsor or operate an afterschool care program

that provides children with regularly scheduled educational or enrichment activities

in an organized, structured, and supervised environment.

Sites in which more than 50 percent of the students qualify for free or reducedprice breakfasts or lunches are referred to as “area eligible,” and these sites serve all

snacks free. Otherwise, eligibility for free, reduced-price, and full-price snacks is

based on income. To qualify for reimbursement, the snacks must meet meal pattern

requirements.

USDA’s School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children was launched in June 1994

and is a public policy blueprint to ensure that school meals meet the Dietary

Guidelines for Americans, that we motivate children to make food choices for a

healthful diet, and that we support these changes through training and technical assistance for school food service professionals.

In support of this commitment for healthier schoolchildren, Team Nutrition

evolved as the implementation tool for this initiative. Extensive training and technical

assistance has been provided to all school food service professionals for preparing

meals that meet the new nutrition standards and for educating children about nutrition

so they have the knowledge to choose foods that are good for them.

The Department has placed special emphasis on improving the quality of USDA

commodity foods donated to NSLP, as well as their consistent and timely availability.

The Commodities Improvement Council promotes the health of schoolchildren by

improving the nutritional profile of USDA commodities while maintaining USDA’s

support for domestic agricultural markets. Based on the council’s recommendations,

USDA has reduced the fat, sodium, and sugar content of commodities and has

increased the variety of low-fat and reduced-fat products. 

USDA has greatly increased the amount of fresh produce available to schools

and is now offering unprecedented amounts and varieties of fresh fruits and vegetables. A cooperative project with the Department of Defense (DOD) has allowed

USDA to increase the variety of produce available to schools by utilizing DOD’s

buying and distribution system. USDA is also exploring ways to connect schools to

small-resource farmers in their areas to help the schools purchase fresh, local produce

directly from the producers.

Eligibility: Any child, regardless of family income level, can receive a meal

through NSLP. Children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the

Federal poverty level are eligible to receive free meals. Children from families with

incomes between 130 and 185 percent of poverty are eligible for reduced-price

meals. Children from families with incomes over 185 percent of poverty pay the full

price, which is established by the local school food authority.

Benefits: Children receive meals free or at low cost because of USDA support

for the school meals programs. Most of that support comes in the form of cash reimbursements to schools for meals served. USDA’s per-meal reimbursement rates for

the contiguous United States for School Year 1999-2000 were $1.99 for free meals;
120

$1.59 for reduced-price meals; and 19 cents for full-price meals. Reimbursement

rates are slightly higher in Alaska and Hawaii. Schools may charge no more than 40

cents for a reduced-price meal. They set their own prices for full-price meals, though

they must operate their meal services on a nonprofit basis.

In addition to cash reimbursements, schools are entitled to receive commodity

foods, called “entitlement” foods, at an annually adjusted per-meal rate (14.75 cents

per meal in School Year 1999-2000) for each meal they serve. Schools can receive

additional commodities, known as “bonus” commodities, when these are available

from surplus stocks purchased by USDA under surplus removal and price support

programs. USDA commodities make up approximately 17 percent of the cost of the

food served by the average school food authority. The rest of the food served is purchased locally by the school food authority.

Funding: For FY 2000, Congress appropriated $6.34 billion for NSLP. 

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

The value of USDA commodity foods makes up only about 17 percent of the cost of the foods that are served to children in the National

School Lunch Program. Nonetheless, USDA provided nearly 1 billion

pounds of food, valued at almost $700 million, to schools in School

Year 1999-2000.

The School Breakfast Program 

The School Breakfast Program (SBP) provides cash assistance to States to operate nonprofit breakfast programs in schools and residential child care institutions. The

program operates in more than 72,000 schools and institutions, serving a daily average of some 7.4 million children. It is administered at the Federal level by FNS. State

education agencies administer the SBP at the State level, and local school food

authorities operate it in schools.

Eligibility: Any child at a participating school may receive a meal through SBP.

Children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the Federal poverty

level are eligible for free breakfasts. Children from families with incomes between

130 and 185 percent of the poverty level are eligible for reduced-price breakfasts.

Children from families with incomes over 185 percent of poverty pay the full, locally

established price for their breakfasts. 

Benefits: Students receive their meals free or at low cost because USDA supports the School Breakfast Program with cash reimbursements for meals served. For

School Year 1999-2000, schools in the contiguous United States received reimbursements of $1.09 for a free meal; 80 cents for a reduced-price meal; and 21 cents for a

full-price meal. As with the National School Lunch Program, reimbursements are

slightly higher in Alaska and Hawaii. Schools may charge no more than 30 cents for a

reduced-price breakfast. Local schools set their own prices for full-price meals, but

must operate on a nonprofit basis.

Funding: For FY 2000, Congress appropriated $1.4 billion for SBP. 
121

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

About 85 percent of children who participate in SBP receive their

meals free or at a reduced price. That compares to 57 percent of children who receive free or reduced-price meals in NSLP. However, FNS

promotes the benefits of a healthy breakfast for all children, regardless of income status. Teachers have long reported that their students

are more alert and perform better in class if they eat breakfast.

Studies have shown that students who ate breakfast had improved

math grades, reduced hyperactivity, and decreased absence and tardiness rates.

Team Nutrition 

FNS provides nutrition education through Team Nutrition.

Team Nutrition is a multifaceted nutrition education program delivered in

schools, WIC, and child care sites, with ongoing expansion to encompass all the

nutrition assistance programs administered by USDA. The goal of Team Nutrition is

to continuously improve children’s lifelong eating and physical activity habits

through public-private partnerships that promote the health and education of children

nationwide in accordance with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the Food

Guide Pyramid.

Team Nutrition engages three behavior-oriented strategies:

■ Empower school food service professionals through a variety of training and

technical assistance to serve meals that meet the Dietary Guidelines for

Americans and that appeal to children.

■ Motivate and build skills for children to make food and physical activity

choices for a healthy lifestyle through a comprehensive, integrated nutrition

education program designed for children, parents, teachers, and school food

service professionals.

■ Support from school administrators and other school and community partners

is vital to the success of Team Nutrition’s goal. Persons in these positions can

actively support Team Nutrition activities and can help create a healthy school

environment.

Six communication channels are involved, and they offer a comprehensive network of delivering consistent nutrition messages to children and their caretakers that

will educate them about the importance of food and physical activity choices for a

healthy lifestyle where they live, work, and play. These message are delivered and

reinforced through a variety of sources. They include: (1) food service initiatives, (2)

classroom activities, (3) schoolwide events, (4) home activities, (5) community programs and events, and (6) media events and coverage.

Eligibility: All children participating in or eligible to participate in the USDA

Child Nutrition Programs may receive nutrition education through Team Nutrition.

Professional school food service staffs can also receive training and technical

support. 
122

Funding: In FY 2000, Congress appropriated $10 million for Team Nutrition.

The WIC Program 

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children

(WIC) is a grant program for States intended to improve the health of pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women; and infants and children up to 5 years old by providing supplemental foods, nutrition education, and access to health care. A few State

agencies provide food directly to participants, but most States provide WIC recipients

vouchers that they can use at authorized food stores for approved foods at no cost to

the recipient.

WIC provides each State with a grant of funds to serve its most needy eligible

population. Because of documented successes of the WIC program in improving the

nutritional well-being of participants, it has been expanded to serve more eligible

people. In FY 1999, WIC served an average of more than 7.3 million people each

month. 

Eligibility: To be eligible for WIC, an applicant must be a pregnant, breastfeeding, or postpartum woman, or an infant or child under age 5 and must meet State residency requirements, meet an income standard, and be determined by a health

professional to be at nutritional risk. This nutrition evaluation is done at no cost to the

applicant.

Benefits: In most States, WIC participants receive vouchers that allow them to

purchase a monthly food package especially designed to supplement their diets. The

foods provided are high in protein, calcium, iron, and vitamins A and C. WIC foods

include iron-fortified infant formula and infant cereal; iron-fortified adult cereal; vitamin C-rich fruit or vegetable juice; eggs, milk, and cheese; and legumes such as

peanut butter, dried beans, or peas. Special therapeutic formulas and foods are provided when prescribed by a physician for a specified medical condition. 

WIC mothers are encouraged to breastfeed their babies whenever possible.

Women who breastfeed their babies receive an enhanced WIC food package that

includes tuna, carrots, cheese, legumes, and extra juice. Those who do not breastfeed

their babies receive infant formula for the babies and a regular food package for

themselves.

Funding: The appropriation for the WIC Program in FY 2000 is $4.032 billion. 

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

Involving partners at the Federal, State, and local levels, WIC has

undertaken a dynamic new initiative called Revitalizing Quality

Nutrition Services. This initiative refocuses attention on delivering

meaningful, user-friendly nutrition services as one of the fundamental

benefits of the WIC Program to all WIC participants.
123

The WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program 

The WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) was established in 1992.

The program has two goals: to provide fresh, nutritious, unprepared food, such as

fruits and vegetables, from farmers’ markets to WIC participants who are at nutritional risk; and to expand consumers’ awareness and use of farmers’ markets. This

program, operated in conjunction with the regular WIC Program, is offered in 33

States, the District of Columbia, Guam, and 4 Indian tribal organizations. 

Eligibility: Women, infants over 4 months old, and children who receive WIC

program benefits or who are WIC-eligible, may purchase foods at farmers’ markets

through FMNP.

Benefits: Fresh produce can be purchased with FMNP coupons. State agencies

may limit FMNP sales to specific produce that is locally grown to encourage participants to support the farmers in their own State.

Funding: Congress made up to $15 million available for FMNP under the FY

2000 WIC appropriation. 

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

“WIC and the Nutrient Intake of Children,” a study by USDA’s

Economic Research Service released April 18, 2000, shows that WIC

significantly boosts children’s intakes of iron, vitamin B-6, and folate.

These nutrients are essential to children’s overall health and play an

important role in preventing disorders and illnesses that can have

long-term detrimental effects.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

Studies have shown that where the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition

Program has been available, WIC participants have consumed more

fresh fruits and vegetables.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

How satisfied are WIC customers? In December 1999, when the

results were announced for the first governmentwide customer satisfaction survey, the WIC Program received a customer satisfaction

index rating of 83. That’s 10 points higher than the national average.

This survey was commissioned by the President’s Management

Council and was rated by the American Customer Satisfaction Index,

which is used by more than 200 U.S. private companies to measure

the quality of their goods and services.
124

The Commodity Supplemental Food Program 

The Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) is a program of grants to

States, administered by FNS at the Federal level. CSFP provides commodity foods to

supplement the diets of low-income; pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding

women; their infants and children up to the age of 6; and persons 60 years of age and

older.

In 1999, CSFP operated at more than 70 sites in 17 States, the District of

Columbia, and 2 Indian tribal organizations. In 2000, the program was expanded to

include five new States. USDA donates commodity foods to the State agencies for

distribution and provides funds to State and local agencies to cover certain administrative costs. The program served an average of more than 381,000 people each

month in FY 1999, including more than 269,000 elderly people and more than

112,000 women, infants, and children..

Eligibility: State agencies that administer CSFP may establish a residency

requirement and/or require applicants to be determined to be at nutritional risk in

order to be eligible for program participation. To be income eligible, women, infants,

and children must be eligible for benefits under existing Federal, State, or local food,

health, or welfare programs and must not currently be receiving WIC benefits.

Elderly persons must meet a low-income standard.

Benefits: There are six food packages for different categories of participants.

The food packages are not intended to provide a complete and balanced diet, but

rather they are supplements that are good sources of the nutrients often lacking in

participants’ diets.

Funding: The FY 2000 appropriation for CSFP is $88.3 million. 

The Child and Adult Care Food Program 

The Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) provides healthful meals and

snacks in child care centers, family day care homes, and adult day care facilities. 

By reimbursing participating day care operators for their meal costs and providing them with USDA commodity food and nutrition information materials, CACFP

helps ensure that children and adults in day care receive healthful meals. Family day

care homes must be overseen by sponsoring organizations that also receive reimbursements from USDA for their administrative expenses.

The program generally operates in child care centers, outside-school-hours care

centers, family and group day care homes, homeless shelters, and some adult day

care centers. In return for Federal support, care providers in CACFP must serve

meals that meet Federal nutritional guidelines and must offer free or reduced-price

meals to eligible people. Afterschool care centers can also be reimbursed for snacks

served to children through age 18 in afterschool educational or enrichment programs.

First authorized as part of a larger pilot project in 1968, the program was formerly known as the Child Care Food Program. It was made a permanent program in

1978, and the name was changed in 1989 to reflect the addition of an adult component. CACFP is administered at the Federal level by FNS. State agencies or FNS

regional offices oversee the program at the local level.
125

The Summer Food Service Program 

The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) provides free meals to low-income

children during school vacations. 

SFSP was first created as part of a larger pilot program in 1968 and became a

separate program in 1975. SFSP served over 2.2 million children a day during the

summer of 1999. 

In FY 1999, CACFP provided meals to nearly 2.9 million participants. 

Eligibility: At child and adult day care centers, participants from families with

incomes at or below 130 percent of the Federal poverty level qualify for free meals;

those from families with incomes between 130 percent and 185 percent of the

poverty level qualify for reduced-price meals; and those from families with incomes

above 185 percent of the poverty level pay full price. 

For family day care homes, Congress instituted a two-tier system of reimbursements under the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. Under this system, a higher reimbursement rate (tier 1 reimbursement) is paid to providers located in areas where 50

percent of the children are eligible for free and reduced-price meals or where the

provider’s household meets established income criteria for free or reduced-price

meals. All other providers are reimbursed at a lower rate (tier 2 reimbursement)

unless they choose to have their sponsoring organizations identify children who are

income eligible. Meals served to such income-eligible children are reimbursed at the

higher tier 1 level.

Afterschool care centers are eligible for CACFP on the basis of the income in

their area. All snacks are reimbursed at the “free” rate of reimbursement.

Benefits: Children and adults who attend day care facilities receive nutritious

meals and snacks. Care providers receive reimbursement for eligible meals and

snacks. Family day care sponsoring organizations receive reimbursement for their

administrative costs.

Funding: Congress appropriated $1.74 billion for the CACFP in FY 2000. 

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

Congress expanded reimbursement in 1998 to provide snacks for

educational and enrichment afterschool care programs for at-risk

children through age 18. Funding for snacks in afterschool programs

is provided through the National School Lunch Program and the Child

and Adult Care Food Program.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

More than 175,000 family day care homes and nearly 40,000 day

care centers participated in the Child and Adult Care Food Program

in Fiscal Year 1999.
126

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

Some 27 million children eat school lunch every day when school is

in session, and more than half of them receive their meals free or at a

reduced price. The Summer Food Service Program offers those

needy children nutritious food when school is not in session. However,

only about 2.2 million children currently participate in SFSP, in part,

because many communities do not sponsor the program.

The program is administered at the Federal level by FNS. Locally, it is operated

by approved sponsors who receive reimbursement from USDA for the meals they

serve.

Sponsors provide meals at a central site such as a school or community center.

All meals are served free.

SFSP operates in low-income areas where half or more of the children are from

households with incomes at or below 185 percent of the Federal poverty guideline.

Residential children’s camps also may get reimbursement through SFSP for meals

served to income-eligible children. 

Eligibility: Children age 18 and under who participate in a school program for

the mentally or physicall handicapped and people over age 18 who are determined by

a State educational agency to be mentally or physically handicapped may receive

meals through SFSP.

Benefits: At most sites, participants receive either one or two meals a day.

Residential camps and sites that primarily serve children from migrant households

may be approved to serve up to three meals per day.

Sponsors are reimbursed for documented operating and administrative costs. 

Funding: Congress appropriated $300 million for the SFSP in FY 2000. 

The Special Milk Program

The Special Milk Program (SMP) provides milk to children in schools and child

care institutions who do not participate in other Federal meal service programs. The

program reimburses schools for the milk they serve.

Schools in the National School Lunch or School Breakfast Programs may also

participate in SMP to provide milk to children in half-day pre-kindergarten and kindergarten programs where children do not have access to the school meal programs.

Expansion of the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs, which

include milk, and the prohibition against using SMP to fund extra milk for lunch and

breakfast program activities, has led to a substantial reduction in SMP since its peak

in the late 1960’s.

Eligibility: Any child at a participating school or kindergarten program can get

milk through SMP. Children may buy milk or receive it free, depending on the

school’s choice of program options. When local officials offer free milk under the

program, any child from a family that meets income guidelines for free meals and

milk is eligible. 
127

Nutrition Program for the Elderly

The Nutrition Program for the Elderly (NPE) helps provide elderly persons with

nutritionally sound meals through meals-on-wheels programs or in senior citizen centers and similar settings. 

NPE is administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

(DHHS) through the Administration on Aging but receives commodity foods and

financial support from USDA under provisions of the Older Americans Act of 1965.

USDA provided reimbursement for more than 21 million meals a month in FY 1999.

Eligibility: Age is the only factor used in determining eligibility. People age 60

or older and their spouses, regardless of age, are eligible for NPE benefits. There is

no income requirement to receive meals under NPE, although the program targets

lower income areas.

Benefits: Each recipient can contribute as much as he or she wishes toward the

cost of the meal, but meals are free to those who cannot make any contribution.

Under NPE, USDA provides cash reimbursements and/or commodity foods to

organizations that provide meals through DHHS programs. Meals served must meet a

specified percentage of the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA’s) in order to

qualify for cash or commodity assistance. 

Funding: Congress appropriated $140 million for NPE in FY 2000. 

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

In 1999, approximately 127 million half-pints of milk were served

through the Special Milk Program.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

Indian tribal organizations may select an age below 60 for defining an

“older” person for their tribes for purposes of eligibility for the Nutrition

Program for the Elderly.

Benefits: Participating schools and institutions receive reimbursement from the

Federal Government for each half-pint of milk served. They must operate their milk

programs on a nonprofit basis and agree to use the Federal reimbursement to reduce

the selling price of milk to all children. 

Funding: Congress appropriated $17.2 million for SMP in FY 2000. 

The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations 

The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) provides

monthly food packages to low-income families living on reservations and to Native

American families living near reservations. Many Native Americans participate in

FDPIR as an alternative to the Food Stamp Program if their tribe has been authorized

to run the program. An average of 129,000 people received food through FDPIR each

month in 1999.
128

The program is administered at the Federal level by FNS in cooperation with

State and tribal agencies. USDA provides food to these agencies, which are responsible for program operations such as storage and distribution, eligibility certification,

and nutrition education. 

The food packages distributed through FDPIR were updated in 1997 in a cooperative effort by USDA nutritionists, tribal leaders, and health advocates. Changes have

made the food packages easier to use and they better serve the health needs and preferences of Native Americans. USDA also provides nutrition information in the

monthly food package, along with suggestions for making the most nutritious use of

the commodity foods. 

Eligibility: To participate in FDPIR, the household must have low income

within program requirements, have assets within specified limits, and be located on

or near an Indian reservation. 

Benefits: USDA donates a variety of foods to help FDPIR participants maintain

a balanced diet. These commodities include canned meats and fish products; vegetables, fruits, and juices; dried beans; peanuts or peanut butter; milk, butter, and cheese;

pasta, flour, or grains; adult cereals; corn syrup or honey; and vegetable oil and shortening. Frozen chicken and ground beef are increasingly available as tribes are able to

store and handle these products safely, and the 1997 review of food packages resulted

in the addition of noodles, spaghetti sauce, crackers, reduced-salt soups, and low-fat

refried beans.

Each participant receives a monthly package that contains a variety of foods. For

FY 1999, the value of the monthly food package was about $33 per person.

Funding: Congress appropriated $75 million for FDPIR in FY 2000. 

The Emergency Food Assistance Program 

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) provides food assistance to

needy Americans through the distribution of USDA commodities. Under TEFAP,

commodities are made available to States for distribution to organizations that provide them to low-income households for home consumption and to organizations that

use them in congregate meal service for the needy, including the homeless. Local

agencies, usually food banks, shelters, and soup kitchens, are designated by the States

to distribute the food. 

TEFAP was first authorized in 1981 to distribute surplus commodities to households. Its aim was to help reduce Federal food inventories and storage costs while

assisting the needy. The Hunger Prevention Act of 1988 required the Secretary of

Agriculture not only to distribute surplus foods but also to purchase additional foods

for further distribution to needy households. Funds are also provided for State and

local administrative expenses. Foods available vary, depending on market conditions. 

Eligibility: Each State sets its own income limits for household eligibility to

receive food for home use. States can adjust the income criteria based on the level of

need in order to ensure that assistance is provided only to those most in need.

No income test is applied to people who receive meals at soup kitchens and other

congregate feeding sites that make use of TEFAP foods.
129

Benefits: TEFAP has provided many billions of pounds of food since its beginning. More than 1 billion pounds of food, valued at $846 million, was distributed at the program’s height in 1987. In 1999, more than 311 million pounds

of food, valued at more than $198 million, was distributed.

Funding: Congress appropriated $143 million for TEFAP in FY 2000. 

The Nutrition Assistance Programs in Puerto Rico, American

Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana

Islands 

The Food Stamp Program in Puerto Rico was replaced in 1982 by a block grant

program. American Samoa and the Northern Marianas in the Pacific also provide

benefits under block grants. 

Eligibility: The territories determine eligibility and allotments for their programs

based on household size, income, assets, and other factors.

Benefits: The territories provide cash and coupons to participants rather than

food stamps or food distribution. The grant can also be used for administrative

expenses or for special projects related to food production and distribution. 

Funding: In FY 2000, Congress appropriated $1.3 billion for Puerto Rico, $5.3

million for American Samoa, and $2.5 million for the Northern Marianas.

USDA Disaster Assistance

FNS is the primary agency responsible for providing Federal food assistance in

response to domestic disasters such as fires, floods, storms, and earthquakes. 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 food distribution agencies. All States have stocks of USDA food on

hand for use in their commodity programs for schools or needy people. These stocks

can be released immediately for use in a disaster situation. 

Upon request from a State, FNS will procure additional food to meet the needs of

people affected by a disaster. Nearby States may be asked to release their stocks of

USDA food to help feed disaster victims, and USDA will provide replacement of the

foods. State agencies then distribute the food to emergency shelters and other mass

feeding sites operated by disaster relief agencies such as the American Red Cross. 

The State may also request that food be made available for household distribution if commercial 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 been restored following a disaster, a State may request

approval from the Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service to operate the

Disaster Food Stamp Program.

If approval is granted, FNS may provide on-site guidance for establishing and

operating the disaster program. FNS ensures that funding for food stamp benefit

issuance is available. State and local officials are responsible for determining the eligibility of households to receive disaster food stamp benefits and for issuance.
130

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

In FY 1999, FNS provided approximately $45.6 million in disaster

food stamp assistance to victims of natural disasters, including hurricane victims in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, and victims of severe winter storms, tornadoes, droughts, and flooding in

several States.

The Office of Communications and Governmental Affairs

In 1999, FNS’s Governmental Affairs, Community Affairs, and Public Affairs

offices merged to form a single office called the Office of Communications and

Governmental Affairs. This office is responsible for providing news, information to

consumers, constituents, Congress, and the media. In addition, this is the office that

manages the agency’s web site, publications, and outreach efforts.

Small Farms/School Meals Initiative

The Small Farms/School Meals Initiative, popularly known as the farm-toschool initiative, began in the summer of 1997. The initiative depends on the cooperation of Federal, State, and local governments, as well as local farm and educational

organizations. It encourages small farm operators to sell fresh fruits and vegetables to

schools and schools to buy this wholesale produce from small farm operators.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

How to apply: People who want to apply for any of the nutrition assistance programs that FNS operates must do so through the appropriate State or local agency. In general, applicants for the largest

programs should contact the following State or local agencies:

■ Food Stamp Program: Contact the State welfare agency. Food

stamp offices may be listed in the telephone book under “food

stamps,” “social services,” “human services,” or some similar term.

■ National School Lunch or School Breakfast Program’s free and

reduced-price meals: Contact the neighborhood school or local

school district.

■ WIC Program: Contact State or local public health offices.

For programs not listed above, State and local welfare agencies,

health departments, or education agencies can provide information

about what programs are available and how and where to apply.

Local congressional representatives’ offices may also be able to

provide assistance in contacting the appropriate agency.
131

■ Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion

The Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion was established in December 1994to provide direction and coordination for USDA’s nutrition research and policy

activities. The Center’s mission is to enhance the nutritional status of Americans by

linking scientific research to the nutritional needs of the American consumer.

Nutrition research is translated into information and materials for nutrition educators

and policy makers, health professionals, private companies, and consumers to

increase public knowledge and understanding of the importance of nutrition and how

to improve diet quality. 

The Center is best known for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the Food

Guide Pyramid, the Food Guide Pyramid for Young Children, the Healthy Eating

Index, USDA’s Food Plans, and Expenditures on Children by Families. These and

other products developed by the Center are available at the Center’s web site at

http://www.usda.gov/cnpp

The Center is an independent resource in USDA which reports to the Under

Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services and works cooperatively with

other parts of the Department to provide strategic planning and coordination for education and nutrition policy. The Center receives administrative support from FNS. Its

funding for FY 2000 is $2.5 million.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

In the 1994-95 School Year, FNS partnered with USDA’s Agricultural

Marketing Service and the Department of Defense to buy and deliver

fresh fruits and vegetables to schools in 8 States; and by the 1998-99

School Year, the project had expanded to 31 States and Guam.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

“Small Farms/School Meals Initiative Town Hall Meetings, A Stepby-Step Guide on How to Bring Small Farms and Local Schools

Together,” shares successes and offers a “how-to” to local producers

and local school food service staff working together for mutual

benefit.
132

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

CENTER FOR NUTRITION POLICY AND PROMOTION

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
133

Bread, Cereal,

Rice, & Pasta

Group

6-11

SERVINGS

Fruit

Group

2-4 SERVINGS

Meat, Poultry, Fish,

Dry Beans, Eggs,

& Nuts Group

2-3 SERVINGS

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture/U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Vegetable 

Group 

3-5 SERVINGS

Milk, Yogurt,

& Cheese

Group 

2-3 SERVINGS

The Food Guide Pyramid

Fat (naturally occurring 

and added)

Sugars

(added) 

These symbols show fat and 

added sugars in foods.

Fats, Oils, & Sweets KEY

USE SPARINGLY
134

WHAT COUNTS AS A SERVING?

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 

Food Groups
135

Eat a

variety of

foods

Choose

a diet

with plenty of

grain products,

vegetables,

and fruits

Choose a 

diet low

in fat,

saturated fat,

and cholesterol

If you drink

alcoholic beverages,

do so in

moderation

Balance

the food you eat with 

physical activitymaintain or improve your 

weight

Choose a

diet moderate

in salt and

sodium

Choose a

diet moderate

in sugars

Nutrition and Your Health:

Dietary Guidelines

for Americans

U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
136

Table 8-1.

Food Stamp Program participation and costs 

(data as of August 29, 2000)

Average Average Total All Other Total 

Fiscal Participation Benefit Benefits Costs Costs

Year {Thousands} {Dollars} {$ in Millions} {$ in Millions} {$ in Millions}

1990 20,067 58.92 14,186.7 1,304.4 15,491.1

1991 22,624 63.86 17,338.7 1,430.4 18,769.1

1992 25,406 68.57 20,905.7 1,556.6 22,462.3

1993 26,982 67.96 22,006.0 1,647.0 23,653.0

1994 27,468 69.01 22,748.6 1,744.1 24,492.7

1995 26,619 71.26 22,764.1 1,855.5 24,619.6

1996 25,542 73.21 22,441.5 1,885.5 24,327.0

1997 22,858 71.27 19,550.2 1,936.7 21,486.9

1998 19,788 71.12 16,889.1 2003.5 18,892.6

1999 18,183 72.20 15,755.4 1,946.2 17,701.6

Table 8-2.

WIC Program participation and average monthly benefit (data as of

August 29, 2000)

Fiscal Year Total Participation Average Monthly Benefit Per Person

{in thousands} {Actual Dollars}

1990 4,517 30.20

1991 4,893 29.84

1992 5,403 30.21

1993 5,921 29.76

1994 6,477 29.91

1995 6,894 30.41

1996 7,188 31.19

1997 7,407 31.67

1998 7,367 31.75

1999 7,311 32.53
137

Food and Nutrition Service

Director, Office of Communications and

Governmental Affairs

Joyce Willis

3101 Park Center Dr.,#805PC

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-2281

FAX 703-305-2312

joyce.willis@fns.usda.gov

Deputy Director, Office of

Communications and Governmental

Affairs

Mike Haga

3101 Park Center Dr., #926PC

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-2039

mike.haga@fns.usda.gov

Director, Governmental Affairs

Frank Ippolito

3101 Park Center Dr., #806PC

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-2010

FAX 703-305-2464

frank.ippolito@fns.usda.gov

Director, Public Information

Jean Daniel

3101 Park Center Dr.,#819PC 

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-2286

FAX 703-305-1117

jean.daniel@fns.usda.gov

Team Leader, Publishing/AV Branch

Chris Kocsis

3101 Park Center Dr.,#814PC

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-2286

FAX 703-305-1117

chris.kocsis@fns.usda.gov

Team Leader, News Branch

vacant

3101 Park Center Dr., #815PC

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-2286

FAX 703-305-1117

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Sara Bradshaw

3101 Park Center Dr.,#308PC

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-2244

FAX 703-305-2921

sara.bradshaw@fns.usda.gov

FNS Regional Public 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@fns.usda.gov

Mid-Atlantic Reg. PA Director

Margarita Maisterrena

Mercer Corp. Park, 300 Corporate Blvd

Robbinsville, NJ 08691-1598

609-259-5091

FAX 609-259-5147

margarita.maisterrena.@fns.usda.gov

Southeast Reg. Public Affairs

Karen Dean

61 Forsyth St.,SW,Suite 112

Atlanta, GA 30303

404-562-1812

FAX 404-527-4502

karen.dean@fns.usda.gov

Midwest Reg. PA Director

Lawrence Rudmann

77 W. Jackson Blvd., 20th Flr

Chicago, IL 60604

312-353-1044

FAX 312-353-0171

lawrence.rudmann@fns.usda.gov

Mtn. Plains Reg. PA Director

Craig Forman

1244 Speer Boulevard, Rm903

Denver, CO 80204

303-844-0312

FAX 303-844-6203

craig.forman@fns.usda.gov

For More Information:
138

Southwest Reg. PA Director

Judy Barron

1100 Commerce Street,Rm5C30

Dallas, TX 75242

214-290-9802

FAX 214-767-6249

judy.barron@fns.usda.gov

Western Reg. PA Director

Cordelia Morris

550 Kearny Street, Rm 400

San Francisco, CA 94108

415-705-1311

FAX 415-705-1364

cordelia.morris@fns.usda.gov

Center for Nutrition Policy

and Promotion

Information Director

John Webster

Suite 200 North Lobby, 

1120 20th St., NW

Washington, DC 20036

202-418-2312

FAX 202-208-2322

john.webster@usda.gov
139

9.

Food

Safety

■ Office of Food Safety and the Food Safety and

Inspection Service

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is the agency within the U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA) responsible for ensuring the safety, wholesomeness, and correct labeling and packaging of meat, poultry, and egg products.

FSIS operates under the authority of the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry

Products Inspection Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act. FSIS sets public health

performance standards for food safety and inspects and regulates all raw and

processed meat and poultry products, and egg products sold in interstate and foreign

commerce, including imported products. FSIS is implementing a strategy for change

to reduce the incidence of foodborne illness attributable to meat, poultry, and egg

products. The Office of Food Safety, headed by USDA’s Under Secretary for Food

Safety, provides oversight of the agency. 

In FY 1999, FSIS inspected over 8.3 billion poultry, 155 million head of livestock, and 3.4 billion pounds of egg products.

The activities of FSIS include:

■ Inspecting poultry and livestock, as well as carcasses and processed products

made from them;

■ Inspecting all liquid, frozen, and dried egg products;

■ Setting standards for plant sanitation, process controls, product contents 

(standards of identity), packaging and labeling, and microbial and chemical

contamination;

■ Analyzing products for microbiological and chemical adulterants;

■ Conducting risk assessments, as well as epidemiologic and other scientific

studies, to estimate human health outcomes associated with the consumption

of meat, poultry, and egg products. These risk assessments and studies provide science-based information for risk management and communication; and

■ Educating consumers about foodborne illness by way of publications, educational campaigns, and a toll-free, nationwide USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline

(1-800-535-4555).

FSIS inspectors examine animals before and after slaughter, preventing diseased

animals from entering the food supply and examining carcasses for visible defects

that can affect safety and quality. Inspectors also test for the presence of drug and

chemical residues that violate Federal law. Over the last 20 years, FSIS has made

significant progress in reducing the violation rate for drug residues. 

(See corrected table 9-2.)
140

In addition, about 250,000 different processed meat and poultry products fall

under FSIS inspection. These include hams, sausages, soups, stews, pizzas, frozen

dinners, and other products containing 2 percent or more cooked poultry or at least 3

percent raw meat. In addition to inspecting these products during processing, FSIS

evaluates and sets standards for food ingredients, additives, and compounds used to

prepare and package meat and poultry products.

As part of the inspection process, FSIS inspectors test for the presence of

pathogens and toxins such as Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes, and

Staphylococcal enterotoxin in ready-to-eat and other processed products. No

pathogens are permitted in such products.

FSIS also tests for pathogens in some raw products. In 1994, USDA declared 

E. coli O157:H7 an adulterant in raw ground beef and established a monitoring program for the pathogen in raw ground beef. As part of the Pathogen Reduction/Hazard

Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems final rule issued on July 25,

1996, FSIS for the first time set pathogen reduction performance standards for

Salmonella that slaughter plants and plants producing raw ground products must

meet. The final rule also requires meat and poultry slaughter plants to conduct

microbial testing for generic E. coli to verify the adequacy of their process controls

for the prevention of fecal contamination.

Imported meat and poultry products are also subject to FSIS scrutiny. The

agency reviews and monitors foreign inspection systems to ensure they are equivalent to the U.S. inspection system before those countries are allowed to export to the

United States. When the products reach the United States, products are reinspected at

120 active import locations by import inspection personnel.

More than 7,500 FSIS inspectors carry out the inspection laws in over

6,000 privately owned meat, poultry, egg product, and other slaughtering or processing plants in the United States and U.S. Territories.

Nearly 3 billion pounds of meat and poultry passed inspection for

entry into the United States from 32 countries during 1999.

Table 9.1

Livestock, poultry, and egg products federally inspected in 1999

Cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43,891,921

Swine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105,755,405

Other livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5,420,077

Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8,365,372,345

Egg products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3,400,000,000
141

Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point

(HACCP) Systems—Implementation

FSIS issued its landmark rule, Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis and Critical

Control Point (HACCP) Systems on July 25, 1996. The rule addresses the serious

problem of foodborne illness in the United States associated with meat and poultry

products by focusing more attention on the prevention and reduction of microbial

pathogens on raw products that can cause illness. It also clarifies the respective roles

of government and industry in food safety. Industry is accountable for producing safe

food. Government is responsible for setting appropriate food safety standards, maintaining vigorous oversight and verification to ensure those standards are met, and

operating a strong enforcement program to, among other things, deal with plants that

do not meet regulatory standards. 

The Pathogen Reduction and HACCP rule: (1) requires all meat and poultry

plants to develop and implement written standard operating procedures for sanitation

(SSOP’s); (2) requires meat and poultry slaughter plants to conduct microbial testing

for generic E. coli to verify the adequacy of their process controls for the prevention

of fecal contamination; (3) requires all meat and poultry plants to develop and implement a system of preventive controls, known as HACCP, to improve the safety of

their products; and (4) sets pathogen reduction performance standards for Salmonella

that slaughter plants and plants producing raw ground products must meet.

The Pathogen Reduction and HACCP rule applies to over 6,000 federally

inspected and 2,400 State-inspected slaughter and processing plants in the United

States. Countries that export meat and poultry products to the United States must also

meet the requirements of the final rule. Egg products are not covered by the final rule,

but FSIS has developed a strategy that would include HACCP to improve the safety

of egg products.

Implementation of the new science-based, prevention-oriented food safety system began on January 27, 1997, when all plants, regardless of size, were required to

have in place written SSOP’s, and slaughter plants were required to begin testing for

generic E. coli. On January 26, 1998, large plants, those with 500 or more employees,

were required to have HACCP systems in place and meet the performance standards

for Salmonella. Small plants, defined as having between 10 and 500 employees, were

required to implement HACCP by January 25, 1999. Very small plants, defined as

having less than 10 employees or less than $2.5 million in sales, were required to

implement HACCP by January 25, 2000.

Implementation in all plants has been smooth. The new prevention-oriented meat

and poultry inspection system is showing positive results. New data from the first 2

years of testing in large plants and the first year of testing in small plants show that

the prevalence of Salmonella in most categories was substantially lower after

HACCP implementation. Large plants had a 90-percent compliance rate with the

Salmonella performance standards for 1999, and the compliance rate for small plants

was 84 percent. Data for very small plants are not yet available.

The tables on the next page illustrate Salmonella prevalence and compliance

rates for broilers, swine, ground beef, and ground turkey in large plants; and broilers,

swine, cows and bulls, and ground beef in small plants. 
142

For more information on HACCP and compliance, visit the FSIS web site at:

http://www.fsis.usda.gov, and access “HACCP Implementation.” 

Table 9-2.

Prevalence of Salmonella in meat and poultry products: Post-HACCP

implementation results from large plants—January 26, 1998, through

January 24, 2000.

Pre-HACCP Post-HACCP implementation 

Baseline Salmonella Prevalence 

Class of Product Studies (%)** (%, n=no. samples)

Broilers 20.0% 10.9% (n=9,639)

Swine 8.7% 4.4% (n=2,475)

Ground Beef 7.5% 5.8% (n=1,696)

Ground Turkey 49.9% 34.6% (n=1,537)

Table 9-3.

Percentage of complete data sets from large plants meeting the

Salmonella performance standards—January 26, 1998, through

January 24, 2000

Number of Percent (Number) 

Number Complete Meeting Salmonella 

Class of Product of Plants Data Sets Performance Standard

Broilers 129 189 91% (171)

Swine 32 45 87% (39)

Ground Beef 25 32 88% (28)

Ground Turkey 21 29 93% (27)

Total 207 295 90% (265)

Table 9-4.

Prevalence of Salmonella in meat and poultry products: Post-HACCP

implementation results from small plants—January 25, 1999, through

January 24, 2000

Post-HACCP Implementation

Pre-HACCP Salmonella Prevalence 

Class of Product Baseline Studies (%, n=number of samples)

Broilers 20% 16.3% (n=2,193)

Swine 8.7% 18.2% (n=825)

Ground Beef 7.5% 4.3% (n=14,522)

Cows and Bulls 2.7% 2.3% (n=1,276)
143

Food Safety From Farm to Table

Ensuring the safety of food is the first priority of the Office of Food Safety and

FSIS. As industry has complied with the new pathogen reduction and HACCP

requirements, FSIS is continuing to move more effectively to protect consumers from

unsafe meat and poultry. First, as effective implementation occurs within plants,

inspection resources can be focused more directly on food safety concerns. Second,

FSIS will be able to expand its efforts beyond the four walls in slaughter and processing plants to other parts of the farm-to-table food safety chain. The agency is working

cooperatively with other agencies, producers, and various organizations to minimize

hazards throughout the farm-to-table continuum and thereby reduce foodborne illness. 

HACCP-Based Inspection Models Project

HACCP does not currently apply to all activities associated with the slaughter

process. Therefore, FSIS has developed new inspection models for plants that

slaughter young, healthy, and uniform animals. The project is a natural extension of

HACCP in all meat and poultry plants and will allow FSIS to better focus on public

health concerns. The project is an effort to more fully integrate the principles of a

science-based, preventive food safety system into slaughter operations.

Approximately 25 volunteer plants that slaughter young chickens, market hogs, and

young turkeys are participating in the project.

Under the project, FSIS has established performance standards for food safety

and non-food safety conditions that volunteer plants must meet. In order to meet

these standards, plants are extending their HACCP systems to address the food safety

conditions, and they are developing process control plans to address non-food safety

conditions. Plants are responsible for identifying and removing meat and poultry carcasses that do not meet these standards. FSIS inspectors conduct oversight inspection

and verification inspection to ensure that plants are meeting regulatory requirements

and are producing food that is safe for consumers. Baseline organoleptic and microbial data are being collected to document the accomplishments of the current inspecTable 9-5.

Percentage of complete data sets from small plants meeting the

Salmonella performance standards—January 25, 1999, through

January 24, 2000

Number of Percent (Number) 

Number Complete Meeting Salmonella 

Class of Product of Plants Data Sets Performance Standard

Broilers 49 43 79% (34)

Swine 28 15 47% (7)

Ground Beef 356 274 87% (239)

Cows and Bulls 37 22 77% (17)

Total 470 354 84% (297)
144

tion system. Once each plant completes a transition to the new plant controls and

slaughter inspection procedures, data are again collected to provide a before-andafter picture. 

The achievements of the new system must meet or exceed the achievements of

the current system in order for FSIS to consider the new system to be successful. The

project is being carried out through an open public process that allows all interested

constituents the opportunity to provide input. The agency intends to redeploy a small

number of inspectors currently assigned within plants to verify the safety and wholesomeness of meat and poultry products in the storage, transportation, and retail sale

stages of the food production chain. FSIS will cooperate very closely with the States

on this project to achieve the agency’s goal of establishing one fully integrated

system that utilizes all available resources to improve food safety.

Workforce of the Future

Having developed the food safety regulatory system of the future, FSIS must

also reshape its workforce, and the way it deploys that workforce to achieve its goal.

The agency needs to redeploy its resources, to improve the skills and qualifications of

its workforce, and to take full advantage of these skills to meet its goal of reducing

foodborne illness and to provide appropriate regulatory oversight within its statutory

authorities along the farm-to-table continuum. The agency has identified core competencies in food production practices, auditing skills, and production systems verification. The agency will develop these skills in two ways. It will educate and retrain

current employees, and it will recruit and hire employees in occupational series that

focus on these skills and qualifications. The workforce of the future will be more

versatile and better trained, with opportunities for higher grades. 

FSIS would like to introduce and use the professional series, consumer safety

officer (CSO), as a major occupation in its workforce. Consumer safety officers possess the needed scientific qualifications for employees at the field level. The conversion of the major part of the agency’s workforce from inspectors to CSO’s would be

accomplished over a period of time. FSIS is also in the process of strengthening the

role of veterinarians in the agency. FSIS believes the skills of its veterinary medical

officers are underutilized and wants to make better use of the veterinarians’ skills in

epidemiology, microbiology, toxicology, and other scientific areas throughout the

regulated food production and distribution process. A Workforce of the Future

Steering Committee was established in 1999 to lead, coordinate, and oversee FSIS

workforce planning activities and to guide the transition to the workforce of the

future. 

FSIS Training and Education Committee (TEC2001)

To complement the Workforce of the Future Initiative, on August 5, 1999, FSIS

formed a Training and Education Committee (TEC2001), which will conduct a comprehensive examination of the agency’s training and education needs for the coming

years. 

In support of the FSIS mission, TEC2001 will develop a program designed to

ensure a well-educated, competent FSIS workforce, and explore and establish educational partnerships in the community FSIS serves, including other Federal agencies,
145

State agriculture and public health departments, the international trading arena,

industry, and consumer groups. In addition, TEC2001 will explore technology-based

approaches to training delivery, such as state-of-the-art technical training, distance

learning, and continuing education. 

All FSIS employees, including employee organizations, and other stakeholders

who share an interest in and commitment to food safety, will have the opportunity to

provide input into this program. The wealth of experience from these groups beyond

the agency will ensure that all interests are represented. 

Federal-State Cooperation

Recognizing the key role that State and local government agencies play in a

seamless national food safety system, FSIS launched a Regulator’s Food Safety

Information Line for State food and public health agencies (1-800-233-3935) in

September 1999. Located at FSIS’ Technical Service Center in Omaha, NE, the site

of the successful HACCP Hotline (1-800-233-3935), the new service answers food

safety questions related to meat, poultry, and egg products. The information line is

expected to improve cooperation and communication at all levels of government and

to provide timely, authoritative answers to State colleagues’ questions. 

As part of the National Food Safety System (50 States Program) project that

began in September 1998, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and representatives from several States are

working to more fully integrate their laboratories. Six workgroups are working to

implement these top three goals: (1) to lead a national movement toward laboratory

accreditation under international acceptance standards (ISO standards 17025); (2) to

implement a pilot project to efficiently document and validate modified and new analytical methodology; and (3) to promote data exchange. In 1999, eight Federal, State,

and local laboratories began a pilot project, in which information is shared among the

participating laboratories. 

On February 23, 1999, FSIS and FDA signed a Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU) to facilitate the exchange of information at the field level about food establishments and operations that are subject to the jurisdiction of both agencies. A recent

evaluation of how this MOU is working has shown it to be a great success and found

that communication was greatly improved at the local level. 

Interstate Shipment

Another example of cooperation between the Federal Government and the States

is the Department’s bill, S. 1988, on the interstate shipment of meat and poultry products that was introduced by Senators Daschle (D-SD) and Hatch (R-UT) in

November 1999. The key objective of the bill is to eliminate the prohibition on the

interstate shipment of State-inspected meat and poultry products by ensuring that all

meat and poultry products produced in the United States are inspected under a seamless national system enforcing a single set of requirements. 
146

Regulatory Reform

FSIS continues to make progress on regulatory reform. This initiative began in

1995 to improve food safety, allow a more productive use of Federal resources, eliminate unnecessary burdens, and expand consumer choice in the marketplace. One

direction in which the agency is headed is a shift away from “command and control”

regulations toward performance standards, which provide companies with the flexibility needed to innovate. 

In January 1999, FSIS converted into performance standards the regulations governing the production of cooked beef, roast beef, corned beef products, fully and partially cooked meat patties, and certain fully and partially cooked poultry products.

Unlike the previous requirements for these products, which mandated step-by-step

processing measures, the new performance standards spell out the objective level of

food safety performance that establishments must meet, but they allow establishments to develop and implement processing procedures customized to the nature and

volume of their production. 

FSIS issued a final rule in October 1999 on updated sanitation regulations for

official meat and poultry establishments. The rule converts many highly prescriptive

sanitation requirements to performance standards, while streamlining and consolidating sanitary regulations applicable to both official meat and poultry establishments. 

In November 1999, FSIS issued a final rule that defines each type of enforcement

action and procedure it may take against a meat or poultry plant that violates inspection regulations. The rule is part of FSIS’ ongoing effort to consolidate, streamline,

and clarify meat and poultry product inspection regulations. 

In December 1999, FSIS amended the Federal meat and poultry products inspection regulations to harmonize and improve the efficiency of the procedures used by

FSIS and FDA for reviewing and listing or approving the use of food ingredients and

sources of radiation in the production of meat and poultry products. Except in very

limited circumstances, FDA will list in its regulations in title 21 of the Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR) food ingredients and sources of radiation that are safe for

use in the production of meat and poultry products. Requests for approval to use food

ingredients and sources of radiation that are not currently permitted under title 9 or

title 21 of the CFR in the production of meat and poultry products will have to be

submitted to FDA. 

Irradiation of Meat and Poultry

In December 1999, FSIS amended its regulations to permit the use of ionizing

radiation for treating refrigerated or frozen uncooked meat, meat byproducts, and certain other meat food products to reduce levels of foodborne pathogens and to extend

shelf life. FSIS also amended its regulations governing the irradiation of poultry

products so that they would be as consistent as possible with the regulations for the

irradiation of meat products. 
147

Emerging Issues

Over the past several years, FSIS has enhanced the public health focus of its food

safety program, helping the agency address emerging and re-emerging issues, such as

Campylobacter, E. coli O157:H7, and Listeria monocytogenes.

Campylobacter

Based on current data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC), Campylobacter is still the number one cause of sporadic cases of foodborne

illness. In January 1999, FSIS began a baseline data collection in young chickens to

update a previous baseline study. The information from the baseline study will be

made available to support the establishment of a performance standard for

Campylobacter.

E. coli O157:H7

Another emerging cause of foodborne illness is E. coli O157:H7. The CDC

estimates that 73,000 cases of infection and 60 deaths occur in the United States 

each year as a result of this pathogen. In January 1999, FSIS announced the availability of its revised guidance document intended to assist processors of ground beef,

especially small processors, in developing procedures to minimize the risk of E. coli

O157:H7 and other pathogens in ground beef products produced in their establishments. This was an updated version of the guide that FSIS made available to the

public in March 1998, and presented in a public meeting on April 22, 1998. To better

ensure the safety of the Nation’s food supply, FSIS, in January 1999, published a

Federal Register notice clarifying its policy regarding raw non-intact beef products

contaminated with the E. coli O157:H7 pathogen.

Listeria monocytogenes

According to the CDC, an estimated 1,100 people in the United States become ill

from listeriosis caused by Listeria monocytogenes each year, and approximately 20

percent die as a result of the illness. Because pregnant women and newborns, older

adults, and people with weakened immune systems caused by cancer treatments,

AIDS, diabetes, kidney disease, etc., are at risk for becoming seriously ill from eating

foods that contain Listeria monocytogenes, FSIS consumer education programs

specifically target those groups. 

In May 1999, FSIS announced three near-term and four long-term initiatives to

help industry control Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat products and, thus,

better protect public health. First, FSIS published a notice in the Federal Register

advising plants to reassess their HACCP preventive control plans to ensure they are

adequately addressing the pathogen. Second, the agency provided guidance to industry recommending environmental and end-product testing. And third, FSIS carried

out extensive educational efforts targeted to at-risk consumers.

New information about Listeria has been distributed in many forms: a brochure,

Listeriosis and Food Safety Tips (available through the Federal Consumer

Information Center in Pueblo, CO), a video news release, newspaper features, 
148

and radio interviews. To reach those at risk, a letter from USDA’s Under Secretary for

Food Safety was sent along with a video news release to more than 50 groups that

work with at-risk populations. Publications were distributed through USDA’s Food

and Nutrition Service at regional meetings with school nurses, and videos were provided for Extension food safety leaders. Outreach to vulnerable populations, and

those involved in patient care, is ongoing. 

FSIS also has the following four longer term initiatives:

■ The agency is drafting a protocol to study the post-production growth of

Listeria monocytogenes in a wide variety of ready-to-eat products and will

ask USDA’s Agricultural Research Service to conduct the study; 

■ FSIS is developing an in-depth verification protocol that can be used to evaluate plants’ HACCP plans for ready-to-eat products, particularly regarding

Listeria monocytogenes;

■ A risk assessment of Listeria monocytogenes, in conjunction with the Food

and Drug Administration, is focusing on all foods, particularly refrigerated,

ready-to-eat foods; and 

■ FSIS is developing food safety standards for ready-to-eat products that will

address the need to control all pathogens, including Listeria monocytogenes.

For more information on the Listeria strategy, visit the FSIS web site at:

http://www.fsis.usda.gov, and access “Listeria.” 

President’s Council on Food Safety

In August 1998, President Clinton signed an Executive Order establishing the

President’s Council on Food Safety. The Council was established to enhance the

coordinated approach to food safety in this country and create a seamless, sciencebased food safety inspection system. The primary functions of the Council are: to

develop a comprehensive strategic Federal food safety plan; advise agencies of

priority areas for investment in food safety; ensure that Federal agencies annually

develop coordinated food safety budgets; and oversee the recently established Joint

Institute for Food Safety Research, ensuring that it addresses the highest priority

research needs. The Council is jointly chaired by Agriculture Secretary Glickman,

U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Shalala, and Neal Lane, the President’s

science advisor and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology

Policy (OSTP). 

The Council has been involved in two major activities during the past year. First,

it is developing a comprehensive strategic plan for Federal food safety activities that

will help Federal agencies address the most important food safety challenges. To

develop the strategic plan, due to the President in 2000, food safety officials worked

together throughout 1999 delineating a vision and core goals. Agency staff were

actively engaged in this strategic planning process. Second, the Council is developing

a coordinated food safety budget in order to more fully integrate the budget process

among the various agencies with food safety responsibilities. It also provided the

President with a response to the 1998 National Academy of Sciences’ food safety

system study. For more information on the Council and the President’s Food Safety

Initiative, visit the web site at: http://www.foodsafety.gov, and access “President’s

Council on Food Safety.” 
149

Egg Safety Action Plan

Continuing their joint efforts to combat foodborne illness, FSIS and FDA, in

June 1999, announced three important new measures to prevent illnesses caused by

contaminated eggs. The FDA proposed to require safe handling statements on labels

of shell eggs to warn consumers about the risk of illness caused by Salmonella

Enteritidis (SE). In addition, for the first time, there is a uniform Federal requirement

that all eggs and egg products packed for consumers be refrigerated at 45 degrees or

below. Retail establishments governed by the proposed FDA regulation include

supermarkets, restaurants, delicatessens, caterers, vending operations, hospitals, nursing homes, and schools. Also, FSIS is issuing a directive applying the refrigeration

requirement to warehouses and other distribution locations that store shell eggs

packed into containers destined for consumers, including transport vehicles. A joint

USDA-HHS risk assessment identified the relationships between refrigeration and SE

growth. 

Finally, the President’s Council on Food Safety developed an action plan,

announced by the President in December, to further improve the safety of shell eggs

and processed egg products. The strategic plan addresses the issue of controlling

pathogens, including SE, and suggests further steps to help better coordinate egg

safety from the farm to the table. 

Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet)

and PulseNet

Through the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet), FSIS,

FDA, and the CDC, in collaboration with State and local health departments at nine

sites across the country to date, are better able to track the incidence of foodborne

illness. The agencies can also monitor the effectiveness of food safety programs or

control measures, such as USDA’s pathogen reduction and HACCP rule, in reducing

foodborne illness. FoodNet does not replace, but rather augments, the many longstanding activities of the Federal and State agencies that are used to identify, control,

and prevent foodborne disease hazards. USDA, in conjunction with the other Federal

and State agencies, submits an annual report to Congress on FoodNet activities. For

more information on FoodNet or for copies of this report, visit the FoodNet web site

at: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/foodnet

PulseNet is a national computer network of public health laboratories that helps

to rapidly identify and stop episodes of foodborne illness. The laboratories perform

DNA “fingerprinting” on bacteria that may be foodborne and the network permits

rapid comparison of these “fingerprint” patterns through an electronic database at the

CDC. PulseNet is an early warning system that links seemingly sporadic human illnesses together, and, as a result, more outbreaks can be recognized, especially those

that involve many States. Investigation of these outbreaks should result in the identification of hazards and implementation of new measures to increase the safety of the

food supply. For more information, visit the PulseNet web site at:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/pulsenet/pulsenet.htm
150

International Food Safety

In today’s global marketplace, the food consumers eat is likely to come from a

number of different countries. Consumers must have confidence in the safety of their

food, whether it is produced domestically or imported. The Codex Alimentarius

Commission (Codex), established in 1962, is the major international organization

responsible for protecting the health of consumers, developing international food

standards, and encouraging fair international trade in food. Codex is jointly supported

by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the

World Health Organization. There are many Codex committees that set standards for

a variety of commodities and that address a number of general issues. The work of

Codex, along with national food safety agencies, is important to maintaining consumer confidence in the safety of the food supply.

In March 1999, FSIS made available a background paper which explains the

process for determining whether exporting countries have meat and poultry systems

and measures in place that are equivalent to the U.S. inspection system with respect

to the requirements of the pathogen reduction and HACCP rule. Only countries that

have been certified as having equivalent systems are eligible to export meat and poultry products to the United States. The availability of this document, titled FSIS

Process for Evaluating the Equivalence of Foreign Meat and Poultry Regulatory

Systems, was announced in the Federal Register. To date, 32 countries are certified as

eligible to export meat and poultry to the United States. The agency is also working

through Codex’s Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification

Systems to develop international guidelines on determining equivalence to better protect the public health and facilitate trade.

In June 1999, the FSIS Administrator was elected to a 2-year term as Chairman

of Codex Alimentarius. Currently, there are 165 member countries in Codex

Alimentarius, representing 98 percent of the world’s population. In the United States,

officials from the USDA, FDA, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

participate in Codex activities. The U.S. Manager for Codex reports to the USDA

Under Secretary for Food Safety. The Under Secretary for Food Safety chairs the

U.S. Codex Policy Committee. For more information on Codex, visit the FSIS Web

site: http://www.fsis.usda.gov, and access “U.S. Codex Office.”

The Office of Food Safety was active in 2000 in several international areas. 

The Under Secretary chaired an Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development Food Safety Working Group. The group produced papers describing

food safety systems in developed countries, which had been requested by the G8

(heads of state or government of the world’s leading industrialized nations). The

Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety cochaired a Committee of the TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue organization. 
151

Civil Rights Activities

Several town hall meetings were held in 1999 and 2000 to enhance communications on civil rights matters. The meetings addressed civil rights accountability and

disability awareness. Personnel at headquarters and field personnel participated via

audio conference. In September 1999 and 2000, FSIS held its first two diversity

conferences. More than 150 headquarters employees attended, and others were able 

to view portions of the conferences by videotapes that were distributed. This year, 

the Agency employed more than 55 students under various employment programs,

including: the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities Summer Intern

Program, the Washington Internship for Native Students, the USDA/1890 Scholars

Program, the DC Federal Job Initiative, and the Minorities in Agriculture, Natural

Resources, and Related Sciences Program. The goal of each program is to help build

and diversify the applicant pool at the USDA. 

Food Safety and Consumer Education

FSIS conducts an extensive outreach program of consumer education to meet

information needs on basic safe food handling to avoid foodborne illnesses. One way

in which the agency works to reduce foodborne illness is by providing consumers

with the information they need to safely handle meat, poultry, and egg products.

Communication projects and educational campaigns are solidly science based, drawn

from epidemiological studies concerning foods and behaviors that contribute to food

safety risks. Projects are also based on research derived from educational theory,

market and consumer research, and focus group testing. Information is disseminated

to the media, information multipliers, and consumers through the FSIS web site,

printed materials, videos, personal contact via USDA’s Meat and Poultry Hotline, and

presentations by FSIS representatives.

The agency’s consumer education programs focus on providing key food safety

materials to the general public and special groups who face increased risks from

foodborne illness—the very young, the elderly, pregnant women, people who have

chronic diseases, and people with compromised immune systems. These materials 

are based on the latest scientific advice in education and market research concerning

foodborne illness. Educational materials include specific safe food handling advice

on E. coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes and other pathogens, food safety

information for seniors and children, and The Food Safety Educator—a free quarterly

newsletter available in print or on the FSIS web site. FSIS also produces news

features, public service announcements, and joint food safety projects with other

government agencies and food associations. See “For More Information.”

Partnership for Food Safety Education

The Partnership for Food Safety Education is a national organization dedicated

to educating consumers about the importance of food safety. The USDA serves as

Federal Government liaison to the Partnership, along with the U.S. Departments of

Education, Health and Human Services, and the EPA. The Partnership, formed in

1996 in response to an independent panel report calling for a public-private partnership of industry, government, and consumer groups to educate the public about safe
152

food handling to reduce foodborne illness, was officially launched with an MOU in

1997. Government agencies, including FSIS, provide expert guidance and in-kind

support to the Partnership. 

To date, here are some of the accomplishments of the Partnership. It has:

■ built a network of partners—comprised of more than 500 national, State, and

local organizations from the public health, government, consumer, and industry sectors—who support the Fight BAC!TM campaign and assist in the distribution of educational materials;

■ produced an animated television public service announcement (PSA) featuring the BAC! character, which aired on more than 100 television stations

reaching more than 310 million viewers in the early stages of the campaign.

The PSA has been translated into other languages, including Spanish,

Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese;

■ created and distributed a Fight BAC!TM brochure in both English and Spanish

outlining the basics of fighting foodborne bacteria;

■ developed a web site (http://www.fightbac.org) that has generated millions of

hits from the United States and 50 other countries;

■ developed and distributed a new curriculum for grades 4-6, “Your Game Plan

for Food Safety,” which is an educational package that includes a teaching

guide, a video, and an interactive web site;

■ developed teachers’ kits, such as the Fight BAC!TM “Presenter’s Guide,”

which teaches young children in grades K-3 about the importance of safe food

practices; and 

■ developed Community and Supermarket Action Kits. 

Fight BAC!TM Campaign

The Partnership for Food Safety Education’s Fight BAC!TM campaign, which

began in 1997, is a far-reaching, ambitious and consumer-friendly public education

campaign focused on safe food handling. The Fight BAC!TM campaign’s goal is to

educate consumers on the four simple steps they can take to fight foodborne bacteria

and reduce their risk of foodborne illness. These steps are:

■ Clean—wash hands and surfaces often;

■ Separate—don’t cross-contaminate;

■ Cook—cook to proper temperatures; and

■ Chill—refrigerate promptly. 

The Fight BAC!TM campaign, developed in conjunction with the 1997 National

Food Safety Initiative, is designed to make the importance of safe food handling

meaningful to American consumers and to motivate them to take action against foodborne pathogens. The campaign is represented by the character “BACTM” (bacteria),

the invisible enemy who tries his best to spread contamination wherever he goes. By

giving foodborne bacteria a personality, BACTM makes the learning process more

meaningful and memorable for consumers of all ages.

For more information about the Partnership for Food Safety Education and Fight

BAC!TM, visit http://www.fightbac.org/
153
154

USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline

Consumers have been calling USDA’s toll-free Meat and Poultry Hotline (1-800-

535-4555) for answers to their food safety questions since 1985. The hotline is

staffed by home economists, registered dietitians, and food technologists with expertise in food safety. Consumers are the primary users of the Hotline, but by no means

the only ones. Hotline specialists frequently advise and consult with other professionals in government, academia, and industry, and respond to hundreds of media calls

each year. To further assist reporters, writers, educators, and other information multipliers, the hotline develops and periodically mails educational materials to several

thousand newspaper and magazine food and health editors and some consumer affairs

professionals.

The Meat and Poultry Hotline provides direct answers to specific questions on a

wide variety of food safety concerns. Between January 1 and December 31, 1999, the

hotline received approximately 110,800 calls (including after-hours calls). In addition

to basic food handling, storage and preparation questions, the hotline addressed the

latest issues: outbreaks of foodborne illness; pathogens such as Listeria monocytogenes, Campylobacter, and E. coli O157:H7; recalls of meat and poultry products;

egg safety, and many others. Its nationwide service area enables the Hotline to serve

as an early warning system, detecting possible public health threats. An analysis of

caller questions and concerns allows FSIS to plan effective educational campaigns,

and data collected by the Hotline helps the Agency discern gaps in consumer

knowledge.

National Food Safety Information Network

FSIS and other agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture belong to 

the National Food Safety Information Network, which connects the Federal

Government’s primary mechanisms for providing food safety information to the

public. The network includes: http://www.FoodSafety.gov; the “Government Gateway

to Food Safety Information;” the USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline; the FDA’s Center 

for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN); the USDA/FDA Foodborne Illness

Education Information Center; National Food Safety Educators Network (EdNet);

and FoodSafe, an online discussion group with 1,800 subscribers from more than 

50 countries around the world. The FoodSafety.gov web site is an important part of

this growing network. In FY 1999, this web site was expanded and enhanced, with

additions including the President’s Council on Food Safety home page. See

http://www.foodsafety.gov.

National Food Safety Education MonthSM

September is National Food Safety Education MonthSM, and it is another activity

within the National Food Safety Initiative. The goals of the Month are: (1) to reinforce food safety education and training among restaurant and foodservice workers;

and (2) to educate the public to handle and prepare food properly at home, where

food safety is equally important—whether cooking from scratch or serving take-out

meals or leftovers. In 1999, a proclamation was signed by Agriculture Secretary Dan

Glickman, Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala, and OSTP Director

Neal Lane, co-chairs of the President’s Council on Food Safety, to recognize the
155

“many educators and consumers who actively promote safe food products and the

safe handling of food.” FSIS helped develop and distribute thousands of copies of 

a Consumer Education Planning Guide. To further focus public attention on food

safety, the Under Secretary for Food Safety visited a Washington, DC, area

elementary school to demonstrate the use of thermometers to check for safe 

internal temperatures. 

Use of Food Thermometers 

Building upon the success of Fight BAC!TM, FSIS has introduced a new

character, ThermyTM, as part of a multi-year campaign to promote food thermometers. FSIS used focus group testing to develop the campaign slogan, graphics, and

character. In preparation for the campaign rollout, FSIS developed materials for a

variety of media. FSIS has also facilitated meetings and information exchange with

the Food Temperature Industry Association, an alliance of manufacturers. As a result,

several large grocery store chains have launched their own thermometer promotions.

Year 2000 Outreach

The Under Secretary for Food Safety co-chaired USDA’s Food Supply Working

Group, an interagency creation of the President’s Council on Year 2000 Conversion.

The working group led an effort to prepare the food and agriculture industries for

possible computer and equipment disruptions caused by the calendar rollover to

January 1, 2000.

What To Do If You Have a Problem With Food Products

■ FOR HELP WITH MEAT, POULTRY, AND EGG PRODUCTS: 

Call the toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 1-800-535-4555;

(202-720-3333 in the Washington, DC, area; TTY, 1-800-256-7072).

■ FOR HELP WITH RESTAURANT FOOD PROBLEMS: 

Call your city, county, or State Health Department.

■ FOR HELP WITH NONMEAT FOOD PRODUCTS:

Call or write the FDA. Check your local phone book under U.S.

Government, Health and Human Services, to find an FDA office in your area.

The FDA’s Food and Information & Seafood Hotline is 1-800-332-4010 

(202-205-4314 in the Washington, DC, area). Or, call the FDA’s Outreach and

Information Center (O&IC), operated by CFSAN at 1-888-SAFEFOOD.
156

Food Safety and Inspection

Service

USDA’s Meat and Poultry Hotline may

be reached by calling: 1-800-535-4555

(voice)

202-720-3333 (Washington, DC area), 

or 1-800-256-7072 (TTY).

Callers may speak with a food safety

specialist from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

weekdays, Eastern Time. Recorded

messages are available at all times.

FSIS web site: http://www.fsis.usda.gov

Director, Congressional and 

Public Affairs

Linda Swacina

Rm 1175-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-3897

FAX 202-720-5704

linda.swacina @usda.gov

Deputy Director, Congressional and

Public Affairs

Christopher Church

Rm 1175-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-9113

FAX 202-720- 5704

christopher.church@usda.gov

Director, Food Safety Education 

Susan Conley

Rm 2932-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-7943

FAX 202-720-1843

susan.conley@usda.gov

Media Staff

Elizabeth Gaston

Rm 1175-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-9113

FAX 202-720-5704

elizabeth.gaston@usda.gov

Carol Blake

Rm 1175-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-9113

FAX 202-720-5704

carol.blake@usda.gov

Constituent Affairs Staff

Marianne Elbertson

Rm. 1175-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-5418

FAX 202-720-5704

marianne.elbertson@usda.gov

Manager, Meat and Poultry Hotline

Bessie Berry

Rm 2925-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-5604

FAX 202-690-2859

bessie.berry@usda.gov

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Cheryl Hicks

Rm 3134-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-2109

FAX 202-690-3023

cheryl.hicks@usda.gov

For More Information
157

10.

Natural Resources

and Environment

■ Forest Service

Mission

The Forest Service mission is “Caring for the Land and Serving People.” The

mission is further expressed in the Forest Service land ethic: “Promote the sustainability of ecosystems by ensuring their health, diversity, and productivity,” which is

coupled with the service ethic: “Work collaboratively and use appropriate scientific

information in caring for the land and serving people.”

The Forest Service through ecosystem management applies these land and service ethics. Ecosystem management is the integration of ecological, economic, and

social factors in order to maintain and enhance the quality of the environment to meet

current and future needs.

The four strategic goals of the Forest Service are to: (1) protect ecosystems, (2)

restore deteriorated ecosystems, (3) provide multiple benefits for people within the

capabilities of ecosystems, and (4) ensure organizational effectiveness.

In 1998, the Forest Service Chief introduced the Forest Service Natural Resource

Agenda, which 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 them find

ways to live within the limits of the land. This, in turn, will ensure that future generations 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 Forest

System (NFS) under the Organic Administration Act of 1897, the Multiple UseSustained Yield Act of 1960, and the National Forest Management Act of 1976,

among others.

The agency also conducts research, provides assistance to State and private

landowners, assesses the Nation’s natural resources, and provides international

assistance and scientific exchanges. These activities are carried out under the 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, the Renewable

Resources Extension Act of 1978, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources

Research Act of 1978, the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, and the

International Forestry Cooperation Act of 1990.
158

Organizational Structure

The Chief, the top administrative official of the Forest Service, reports to the

Secretary of Agriculture through the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and

Environment. The Forest Service typically is viewed as consisting of three major

components: (1) the National Forest System (NFS), (2) State and Private Forestry

(S&PF), and (3) Research and Development (R&D). However, the agency supports

many other programs, such as International Programs and Job Corps Civilian

Conservation Centers. The NFS is organized into six Deputy Areas within the

Washington Office, 9 regional offices, 155 national forests managed by 115 supervisors’ offices, and approximately 570 ranger districts and 20 national grasslands.

The Forest Service manages the 192 million-acre NFS and supports multiple use;

sustained yields of renewable resources such as water, livestock forage, wildlife,

habitat, wood, and recreation; and integration of mineral resource programs and

visual quality. The agency also mitigates, when appropriate and in a scientific manner, wildfires, epidemics of disease and insects, erosion, floods, water quality degradation, and air pollution.

The NFS provides many recreational activities for the public. In 1999, it hosted

more than 800 million recreation experiences—43 percent of the outdoor recreation

use on public lands—including 60 percent of the Nation’s skiing and significant percentages of hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, and driving for pleasure. NFS takes

care of 4,418 miles of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System; 412 units of the National

Wilderness Preservation System, 133,000 miles of trails; more than 250,000 heritage

sites; and over 23,000 campgrounds, picnic areas, and visitor facilities.

The national forests and grasslands contribute $134 billion to the gross domestic

product.

The Forest Service administers many S&PF programs to provide technical and

financial conservation assistance to State and private nonindustrial forest land. These

programs serve as a link among many public and private organizations, and they help

to promote the best use and conservation of America’s natural resources on private

lands. Wildland fire protection on private and public lands, Smokey Bear, forest

health protection, and natural resource education are examples of S&PF programs.

S&PF is organized into a Deputy Area within the Washington Office; it has an office

in Newtown Square, PA, to work with States and landowners in the Northeastern

United States, and has programs delivered from most NFS offices.

Forest Service Research & Development (R&D) is one of the world’s leading

forestry research organizations, conducting and sponsoring basic and applied scientific research. This research provides both credible and relevant knowledge about

forests and rangelands and exciting new technologies that can be used to sustain the

health, productivity, and diversity of private and public lands to meet the needs of

present and future generations. The FS R&D program is planned and implemented

with a focus on accountability through the Government Performance Review Act

(GPRA) under goal 3, which states for the 2000 GPRA: “Science and Technical

Assistance: Develop and use the best scientific information available to deliver technical and community assistance and support ecological, economic, and social sustainability.” The desired outcome is to “...improve the knowledge base provided through
159

research, inventory, and monitoring to enhance scientific understanding of ecosystems including human uses, roles, and interactions, and to support effective management of the Nation’s forests and rangelands.” 

International Program activities supported by the Forest Service, including programs at the International Institute of Tropical Forestry in Puerto Rico, promote sustainable development and global environmental stability. The director of International

Programs reports directly to the Chief.

The Office of Communication, Civil Rights Program, Reinvention Program, and

Law Enforcement and Investigations Program also report directly to the Chief. 

The Operations area of the Washington Office is organized into three areas:

Financial Management, Business Operations, and Programs and Legislation. The

Financial Management area is led by the Chief Financial Officer to ensure proper

allocation of funds, tracking, control, and reporting of expenditure of funds. The

Business Operations Deputy Chief manages the human resource, information

resource management, and procurement programs. The Programs and Legislation

Deputy Chief manages the development of the agency’s budget and coordinates legislative affairs.

As part of the Business Operations area and through agreement with the U.S.

Department of Labor, the Forest Service operates 18 Job Corps Civilian Conservation

Centers on Forest Service lands. This is the only Federal residential education/training program for the Nation’s disadvantaged youth. Over 9,000 students enroll in

Forest Service centers each year.

Reinvention

Creating a Forest Service that works better and costs less—that’s what Forest

Service reinvention is all about. As one of 30 Federal agencies designated by the

National Partnership for Reinventing Government as a “High Impact Agency,” it is

dedicated to delivering first-rate customer service, cutting red tape to do its job more

efficiently, and working with its partners—both in and out of government—to do the

best job of caring for the land. Some recent highlights:

■ With the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service is creating one-stop

natural resource centers to better serve mutual customers, and sharing people

and resources to enable both agencies to do their jobs better. In just two locations, this partnership is delivering better service and better resource stewardship while saving more than $1 million a year.

■ In the Pacific Southwest Region and Research Station, the Forest Service

began an experiment to let employees create internal enterprise teams that

will allow them to bring their entrepreneurial spirit and creativity to bear on

all facets of their work. Over time, this will help us import the best practices

of the business world and the efficiency of the free market place to raise the

level of performance of the Forest Service in achieving its public sector mission.

■ In partnership with six other Federal agencies, the Forest Service unveiled an

Internet program that makes it possible for anyone with access to a computer

to learn about outdoor recreation opportunities on all Federal public lands.
160

This new one-stop source lets customers discover for themselves the

tremendous recreation options in “America’s Great Outdoors” and to plan

their vacations online. Try it out at http://www.recreation.gov and see for

yourself what 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 rangeland, under all ownerships.

■ The entire Nation has 736.7 million acres of forest land area, not

including rangeland, under all ownerships; the owners/managers

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, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S.

Department of Energy, & other Federal: 72.6 million acres 

Non-Federal total: 487.5 million acres 

State: 54.7 million acres 

9.9 million private landowners: 422.3 million acres

County and municipal: 10.5 million acres 

There are 192.0 million acres of National Forest System land. This

is 8.3 percent of the United States’ land area, or about the size of

Texas. The Forest Service manages:

National Forests: 187.6 million acres

National Grasslands: 3.8 million acres 

National Primitive Areas: 173,762 acres 

National Scenic-Research Areas: 6,630 acres 

National Wild & Scenic Rivers: 4,418 miles—95 rivers 

National Recreation Areas: 2.7 million acres 

National Monument Areas: 3.3 million acres 

National Historic Areas: 6,540 acres 

Congressionally Designated Wilderness: 34.7 million acres 

■ There are 88 wilderness areas designated Class 1 for air quality

protection totaling 15 million acres.

■ The marginal value of the water from national forest lands is over

$3.7 billion per year.

■ Approximately 14 percent of the Nation’s water runoff (about 190

million acre- feet annually) comes from national forest lands

(excluding Alaska).

■ The Forest Service manages 155 national forests for multiple

uses:

Miles of property boundary line: 249,000

Number of property corners: approximately 1 million

■ The national forest trail system is the largest in the Nation, with

133,000 miles of trails for hiking, riding, cross-country skiing,

snowmobiling, bicycling, and snowshoeing.
161

Key Forest Service Figures For 1999:

■ 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 would

accommodate 1.8 million people.

■ Recreation use: 341.2 million visitor days 

(1 visitor day equals 12 hours of recreation use) 

■ Lands burned by wildfire: 530,000 acres 

■ Insect and disease suppression: 1.7 million acres 

■ Watershed improvements: 35,562 acres 

■ Terrestrial acres restored or enhanced for wildlife: 600,670 

(of which 146,567 was kilovolt (kV)) 

■ Aquatic acres restored or enhanced for fisheries: 20,389 

(of which 682 was kV)

■ Stream miles restored or enhanced for fisheries: 2,741 

(of which 147 was kV) 

■ Reforestation: 268,520 acres 

■ Livestock grazing: 9.3 million animal head months 

■ Grazing allotments administered: 8,783

■ Timber sold: 2.2 billion board feet, enough to build about 

150,000 homes 

■ Timber harvested: 2.9 billion board feet 

■ Road system: 386,000 miles

National Forest System—Conservation and Multiple Use

Lands and Realty Management

Lands and Realty Management activities include:

■ Purchasing land to protect critical resources areas and provide increased

public recreation opportunities;

■ Authorizing powerlines to provide electricity to communities;

■ Ensuring that hydro-electric projects protect riparian areas on the national

forests;

■ Exchanging lands to achieve a desired national forest landownership pattern

that supports forest land and resource goals and objectives;

■ Surveying national forest boundaries to identify and protect private and public

lands;

■ Determining the fair market value of lands purchased or exchanged, so that

transaction is fair to the public and the landowner involved;

■ Authorizing right-of-ways for roads to private in-holdings within the forest;
162

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

Missoula Helena

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

ArapahoDenver

Roosevelt

Fort Collins Routl

White 

River

Grand 

Mesa

Gunnison

Nebraska

Cimarron

Black Kettle

Lyndon B Johnson

Dav

Lake

McClellan

Rita Blanca

Mazperce

Wallowa

Whitman

Malheur

Pacific

Northwest

Region

Intermountain 

Region

Southwestern

Region

Pacific

Southwest

Region

Northern Region

Rocky Mountain Region

Ochoco

Deschutes

Fremont

Winema

Klamath

Shasta 

Lassen

Trinity

Plumas

Mendocino Tahoe

Eldorado

Stanislaus

Toiyabe

Toiyabe

Toiyabe

Modac

Modac

Humboldt

Humboldt

Wasatch

Wasatch

Bridger

Teton

Shoshono

Shoshono

Medicine Bow

Big Horn

Medicine 

Bow

Thunder Basin

Ogden

Cache

Curlaw

Sawtooth

Sawtooth

Boise

Chalis

Caribou

Targhee

Fishlake

Dixie

Dixie

Kaibab

Kaibab

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

Uinta Ashley

San Francisco Humboldt

Berkeley

Sierra

Sequoia Inyo Los Padres

Los Padres

Angeles

San

Bernadino

Cleveland

NEVADA IDAHO

UTAH

NORTH DAKOTA

MONTANA

SOUTH DAKOTA

NEBRASKA

MIN

TEXAS

WYOMING

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

ARIZONA

CALIFORNIA

Six 

Rivers

Rogue

River

Siskiyou

Umpqua

Williamette

Sluslaw

OREGON

Portland

Uncompahgre

San Juan

Pacific Southwest Region

HAWAII

Alaska Region

Chugach

Chugach

National Forest and Grasslands Regional Boundaries Regiona; Headquarters

Tongass

Juneau

ALASKA

Forest and Range Experiment Station Headquareters Forest Products Laboratory State and Private Forestry Area Headquarters ▲ In other Regions S.&P.F. activities are directed from Regional headquarters

Figure 10-1.

Location of National Forests
163

Caddo

Quachita

St. Francis

Kisatchie

Ozark Ozark

Sabine

Angelina

Sam Houston

vy Crockett

Kisatchie

New Orleans

Homochitto

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

Eastern Region

Southern Region

KA

OKLAHOMA

KANSAS

MISSOURI

NNESOTA

WISCONSIN

ILLINOIS

INDIANA

OHIO

MICHIGAN

WEST VIRGINIA

VIRGINIA

NORTH CAROLINA

KENTUCKY

TENNESSEE

PENNSYLVANIA MARYLAND

NEW YORK

VERMONT

NEW HAMPHIRE

MAINE 

MASSACHUSETTS 

CONNECTICUTT

RHODE ISLAND

NEW JERSEY 

DELEWARE

SOUTH CAROLINA

ARKANSAL

MISSISSIPPI

LOUISIANA

ALABAMA

GEORGIA

FLORIDA

★

▲

Southern Region

Caribbean

Rio Piedras

PUERTO RICO
164

■ Accepting donations of land to protect archeological, historical, or other

significant sites;

■ Maintaining records of national forest land areas, land transactions, land status, permitted uses, and easements;

■ Securing public road and trail access to existing NFS lands;

■ Responding to congressional request drafting services for land ownership

adjustment activities.

Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants

In 1996, a baseline study revealed that wildlife and fish recreation expenditures

tied to national forests tallied $6.8 billion in association with 125.7 million visitor

days of hunting, fishing, and wildlife/fish-associated viewing. Anglers spent $2.7 billion (46.8 million visitor days), wildlife/fish viewers spent $2.1 billion (52 million

activity days), and hunters spent $2.0 billion (27 million activity days) in pursuit of

their pastimes. This $6.8 billion in direct spending translates to a total of $20 billion

in local economic output and 226,000 jobs. Specific examples include the following:

■ Commercial salmon harvested from the Tongass National Forest averages 120

million pounds per year, with an average annual earnings of $66 million. In

1999, estimates were at 150 million pounds. Meanwhile, sportfishing numbers in Southeast Alaska increased by 62 percent from 1984 to 1993, a significant revenue source for local economies. 

■ In 1999, over 179,000 people joined in “Celebrating Wildflower” events on

national forests. 

■ The Forest Service and its partners held 2,750 aquatic education events in

1999 that landed 397,000 people. Events included National Fishing Week,

Pathways to Fishing clinics, and classroom talks.

Key Facts About Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants

■ The National Forest System includes 2.3 million acres of fishable

lakes, ponds, and reservoirs and more than 197,000 miles of

perennial streams.

■ National forests and grasslands support habitats for more than

3,000 species of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish, 

as well as some 10,000 plant species.

■ The national forests and grasslands also provide:

—80 percent of the elk, mountain goat, and bighorn sheep habitat

in the lower 48 States, 

—28 million acres of wild turkey habitat, 

—5.4 million acres of wetland habitat, 

—Habitat for 250 species of neotropical migratory birds, and 

—More than 366 for FY 1999 and 2,800 species classified as

sensitive, threatened, or endangered plants, fish, or wildlife.
165

Partnerships

In 1999, $16.8 million in Federal funds was matched by partners’ $26.7 million,

for a total of $43.5 million to accomplish partnership projects for wildlife, fish, and

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species on the national forests and grasslands.

A small sampling of partnerships include the following:

■ In a combined effort, the Audubon Society; Ruffed Grouse Society; and

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks have joined with the Custer

National Forest in a long-term aspen restoration effort by removing invading

conifers and restoring fire in order to rejuvenate declining aspen stands. This

effort will make significant improvement to grouse habitat as well as many

other wildlife species.

■ The black-footed ferret project is continuing to gain momentum in the Conata

Basin of the Buffalo gap national grassland in South Dakota. By the fall of

1999, the population on the grassland included over 200 females with over 40

wild-born litters. About 50 captive-reared females and 20 wild-born were

released in three reintroduction sites. Partners in this continuing effort include

South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks; National Park Service; Fish and

Wildlife Service; and Geological Survey.

■ WOW! Wings Over Willcox, a 3-day birding festival, has become one of the

largest yearly tourism events for the small southern Arizona town of Willcox.

The festival is a partnership effort that includes the Coronado National Forest

and 10 other organizations, businesses, and agencies.

■ The Ouachita National Forest has been co-sponsoring kids fishing derbies and

senior derbies for years in Arkansas and Oklahoma. Some are held on the forest; others on nearby State-owned lakes. State wildlife and fish agencies provide catchable-sized catfish. Derby “kits” are provided by Hooked on Fishing

International, and 208 cases of baits were provided by the Magic Baits

Company in 1999. Over 2,200 kids and seniors participated in the 10 derbies

in 1999. Over 100 volunteers assisted, and another 100 sponsors played a

vital role in making these popular events a success.

■ The Lac Vieux Desert Tribe and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife

Commission teamed with the Ottawa National Forest in Michigan to begin

restoration of wild rice stands in lakes where wild rice grew in the past, but

was eliminated by past changes in lake levels. From boats, members of the

tribe collected wild rice seed in nearby marshes and then broadcast them by

hand onto suitable shorelines in areas targeted for restoration. Wild rice

marshes typically attract large numbers of waterfowl in the fall and are used

year-round by muskrats.

■ Over 400 structures were submerged in a flood-control reservoir on the

Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania to improve habitat for warm water

fish. The Kinzua Fish and Wildlife Association, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat

Commission, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers joined in the effort.
Water, Soil, and Air

About 14 percent of the surface water supply in the United States flows from

NFS watersheds. The goals of the Forest Service’s watershed, soil, and air management programs are to (1) manage watersheds to maintain or improve watershed

conditions to sustain forestland and rangeland health for multiple uses; (2) sustain

soil productivity, (3) protect 88 Class I wilderness areas from air pollution, and (4)

evaluate Forest Service activities and their effect on air quality, watershed, and soil

condition. 

The task of mapping all soils within NFS, with the cooperation with USDA’s

Natural Resources Conservation Service, is about 50 percent complete. In FY 1999,

the Forest Service completed 35,562 acres to improve water and soil resources. 

Other significant ongoing activities include watershed inventory and analyses to

better understand the capability of watersheds to sustain forestland and rangeland

health; participating in water rights adjudications; restoring desired watershed

conditions by cleaning up abandoned mines and hazardous materials sites located 

on national forests; monitoring to determine air pollution impacts on visibility, water,

and soil chemistry in wilderness areas; and leading collaboration on large-scale

watershed restoration efforts.

Key Facts About Water, Soil, and Air:

■ There are approximately 6,000 watersheds on NFS lands that

produce an average 190 million acre-feet of water annually.

■ There are 3,336 municipalities, serving 60 million people, which

get their tap water from NFS lands.

■ 173 trillion gallons of water are supplied by National Forest System

municipal watersheds annually.

■ There are 88 wilderness areas designated Class I for air quality

protection, totaling 15 million acres.

■ About 600 remote weather data collection platforms are used in

agricultural, fire, weather, and streamflow forecasting.

Rangeland

NFS rangeland is managed to conserve the land and its vegetation while providing food for both livestock and wildlife. Under multiple-use concepts, grazing areas

also serve as watersheds, wildlife habitat, and recreation sites. Grazing privileges are

granted on national forests and grasslands through paid permits; permittees cooperate

with the Forest Service in range improvement projects.

NEPA process decisions were made on allotments across the country in adherence to the Rescissions Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-19). The first 3-year time block

in the 15-year Rescissions Act schedule, 1996 through 1999, ended with approximately one-third of all the livestock grazing allotments that needed environmental

analyses being analyzed on schedule. Implementation of improved management was

undertaken on these allotments. Monitoring both implementation and effectiveness of

the management actions has been undertaken and will continue into the future. 

166
167

The noxious weed management program was a success in FY 1999 with 110,683

acres treated. This was accomplished by the Forest Service in cooperation with the

States, counties, and cities working together to prevent the spread of noxious weeds,

treat existing infestations, and educate citizens about noxious weed problems.

Key Facts About Rangeland1:

■ In FY 1999, the Forest Service administered 8,783 grazing

allotments.

■ Permitted livestock grazing totaled 9.3 million animal head months.

(A head month is 1 month’s occupancy by an adult animal.) 

■ By the end of 1999, 1,978 allotments underwent environmental

analyses in the first Recissions Act 3-year time block. Management

decisions made on these analyses resulted in improved rangeland

vegetation.

■ In FY 1999, 110,683 acres of rangelands were treated to control

noxious weeds infestations.

■ Forage improvement took place on 28,123 acres of rangelands.

■ In FY 1999, 1,322 structural improvements were constructed on

NFS rangelands to implement management changes prescribed in

recent decisions. 1Rangeland improvements were accomplished with appropriated dollars, range betterment funds, trust funds, challenge cost agreements, permit holder cooperation, and

other private cooperation.

Energy, Minerals, and Geology

Energy and mineral development fosters economic development, as does the

application of geologic principles on National Forest System lands, including development of private minerals underlying these lands. Ecosystems are protected by

requiring appropriate design, mitigation, and reclamation measures, and by monitoring and inspecting operations to ensure compliance. Cleaning up abandoned mines on

Forest Service land restores deteriorated ecosystems. Over 38,000 abandoned mines

exist on National Forest System land. Of that, 6,000 required clean up. As of 1999, 28

sites have been cleaned up, 30 sites have safety hazards fixed, and work has begun on

an additional 100 sites. 

An Ecosystem Restoration Technology Center has been established to make

technology available at the field level for cleanup actions at both active and inactive

abandoned mines. This is a partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency,

the Bureau of Land Management, the Office of Surface Mining, the State of Montana,

and several academic institutions.

Exploration, development, and production of energy and minerals from National

Forest System lands contribute to economic growth, provide employment in rural

communities, and raise revenues that are shared with the States. The energy and

minerals component of the program is directed at obtaining these benefits while

ensuring operations are conducted in an environmentally sound manner. In terms of

the magnitude of the energy and minerals program, there are approximately 5.8 mil-
168

lion acres leased for oil and gas, over 150,000 mining claims, about 7,000 mineral

material pits and quarries, over 2,000 new operations proposed each year, and more

than 20,000 operations to monitor and inspect. The largest coal mine in the United

States is on NFS lands, and much of the Nation’s phosphate and lead production

comes from NFS lands. The value of all energy and mineral production exceeds $2.4

billion per year. Annual revenues are about $170 million, 25-50 percent of which is

returned to the States where production occurs.

The geology and paleontology components of the program provide basic scientific information about the Earth’s materials and processes. Forest Service geologists

and paleontologists identify and interpret geologic and paleontological conditions

and hazards for land management decisionmaking and cost-effective project design.

They inventory and evaluate sites with geologic and paleontological resources such

as groundwater, fossils, and caves for appropriate management; and interpret sites

having significance for scientific, educational, or recreational use. The interpretation

is the legacy of all people, and the Forest Service recognizes its responsibility to

manage that part of the fossil record occurring on NFS lands as a public legacy for

future generations. Fossils are nonrenewable resources, and their value may be

greatly diminished or lost entirely in the absence of proper management.

The USDA Forest Service recognizes multiple-use values for fossil resources

that include: legacy value for present and future generations, scientific value, educational and interpretive values, and recreational and aesthetic values.

Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness Resources

America’s national forests and grasslands are the “gold crown” of outdoor settings where American and international visitors alike enjoy a wide variety of premier

recreation activities. From the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, where glaciers and

coniferous forests abound, through the wild and scenic rivers of Idaho, to the heritage

sites of the Jemez Mountains in New Mexico and the tropical forest of the Caribbean

National Forest in Puerto Rico, recreation is outdoor fun on our national forests and

grasslands.

Forest Service Recreation Portfolio

■ 43 percent of all public land outdoor recreation on NFS lands

■ 60 percent of the Nation’s skiing

■ Significant percentages of hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing

■ World-class hiking, camping, and driving for pleasure

■ 50 percent of habitat for salmon and trout (lower 48 States)

■ 80 percent of habitat for elk, bighorn sheep, and mountain goat (lower 48

States)

■ 50 percent of public lands trail miles in the country
169

Key Facts About Forest Service Energy, Minerals, and Geology

Program

■ Minerals found on Forest Service lands provide more than $3.3 billion in private sector revenue.

■ 7 million acres where there is a possibility for coal leasing (95 billion tons) 

■ 45 million acres where there is a possibility for oil and gas leasing;

5.4 million acres leased 

■ About 7,000 sand, gravel, and stone pits and quarries 

■ Approximately 2,000 new locatable mineral operations requiring

review each year 

■ Over 95 percent of domestic platinum/palladium comes from the

Custer National Forest

■ Over 20,000 existing locatable mineral operations requiring monitoring 

■ 45 percent of the Nation’s production of lead 

■ One of the world’s largest molybdenum deposits (Tongass

National Forest, AK) 

■ Many of the Nation’s 100,000 rock hounds, recreational mineral

collectors, students, and geologic organizations use the national

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 interest

as resources for present and future generations, scientific, education, interpretive, recreational, and aesthetic values.

■ The most complete Champsosaurus skeleton in the world (55 million years old) came off Little Missouri National Grasslands and is

on display at FS headquarters.

■ FS has partnerships with communities, States, and universities on

managing the paleontological resource.

The following resources are produced annually on NFS lands:

■ 8.5 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 
170

Key Recreation Facts:

■ 399 wilderness areas (34.7 million acres)

■ 63 percent of National Wilderness Preservation System managed

by Forest Service in lower 48 States 

■ 34 percent of National Wilderness Preservation System managed

by Forest Service in total United States.

■ 20 national recreation areas (NRA) (includes land between the

lakes NRA)

■ 9 national scenic areas (NSA)

■ 4 national monuments and volcanic monuments (NM)

■ 6.7 million acres of NRA, NSA and NM (includes land between the

lakes NRA)

Recreation Roads, Trails, and Rivers

■ 136 (9,126 miles) national forest scenic byways

■ 95 (4,418 miles) wild and scenic rivers 

■ 133,087 miles of trails 

■ 6,709 miles of scenic and historic trails

Sites, Facilities, and Services

■ 277,000 heritage sites

■ 4,300 campgrounds

■ 23,000 developed recreation sites

■ 135 Alpine ski areas 

■ 1,496 picnic sites 

■ 1,222 boating sites

■ 140 swimming areas

■ 18,000 recreation facilities

■ 14,900 recreation residences

■ 480 resorts

National Forest System Inventory, Assessment, and Planning

Sustainable and effective management of National Forest System lands is dependent upon scientifically credible information and collaborative planning. Sustainable

management includes the continued existence and use of resources to meet human

physical, economic, and social needs; the desire to preserve the health of ecosystems

in perpetuity; and the ethical choice of preserving options for future generations

while meeting the needs of the present.

Regulations for National Forest System planning activities are currently being

revised to reflect experience gained in developing Land and Resource Management

Plans for 127 administrative units. The focus of the revision is to enhance the use of

collaborative planning principles and techniques and to establish sustainability as an

overarching management goal for resource management direction.

National Forest System planning consists of four basic activities that constitute a

continuous planning framework: inventory, assessment, land management planning,

and monitoring. Inventories locate, characterize, and document resource features and
conditions across each national forest and grassland. Data from inventories are analyzed in assessments that span broad areas (broad-scale) and watersheds to provide

the ecological context of issues facing the agency. The knowledge gained from

assessments provide focus to land and resource management plans (LRMP’s). Land

management planning activities identify desired resource conditions to achieve longterm sustainability; management goals and objectives; and land allocations that provide uses, values, products, and services the public desires. Monitoring is critical for

evaluating trends in resource conditions and assuring management actions are effective and implemented as designed, planning assumptions are valid, and short- and

long-term sustainability and land management objectives are being accomplished.

Inventories provide information necessary to evaluate the context and consequences of management options being addressed in the planning process and must be

scientifically and legally defensible. Development and management of agency-wide

standards for inventory, storage, and analysis of resource information reduces longterm information management costs, and promotes exchange of information with

partners and the public. Geographic information systems provide analytical capability and a medium for data exchange with our land management partners and the public. The agency has established a goal to bring inventories of national forests and

grasslands into compliance with a 10-year “refreshment” cycle.

Assessments are characterizations of ecosystems that provide ecological context

and information for a broad range of land management decisions, including LRMP

revision or amendment. Assessments document and evaluate current land and

resource conditions, including ecosystem composition, function, and structure;

ecosystem capabilities; and limits to sustained production of goods and services.

Assessments provide a fundamental opportunity for initiating collaborative planning

activities and developing long-term working relationships necessary to update and

implement LRMP’s. 

The need to complete a new LRMP or change an existing LRMP is determined

by an evaluation of the effectiveness of current direction, and the consideration of

desired conditions of national forest and grassland resources and values. Revision of

an LRMP is required whenever circumstances affecting the entire plan area or major

portions of the plan area have changed significantly, or at least every 15 years as

required by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). Plan revision activities

are initiated and completed through integrated, interdisciplinary planning; collaboration with all interested parties; and by using a science-based approach in meeting the

requirements of the NFMA and other environmental laws, regulations, and policies.

Plans are also kept current by the use of amendments.

Monitoring is our primary avenue for adapting management from lessons

learned and progressively improving the quality of natural resource programs and

services. The Forest Service has made significant progress in developing more credible methods for storing data for use in monitoring activities. The Forest Service collaborates with other agencies and organizations to acquire data, expertise, and use

protocols devised by other groups (e.g., NASA, The Nature Conservancy, EPA, and

Census) to fulfill monitoring needs. These efforts help offset significant expenses

associated with having to gather information and monitor ecosystems with greater

scientific and technical credibility.

171
172

Collaborative planning activities have improved relationships with local communities and land management partners. Resource management decisions are made

using the procedures of the National Environmental Policy Act and are documented

in environmental impact statements, environmental assessments, or decision memorandums. However, as the significance of National Forest System resources continues

to increase, controversy over management activities is reflected in administrative

appeals and lawsuits. These administrative procedures provide the opportunity for

higher level review of management decisions and afford an opportunity for recourse

that is part of our democratic process.

Key Facts about Inventory, Assessment and Planning:

■ Inventories of National Forest System resources are currently

being conducted at a refreshment rate of 15-18 years and total

10,432,000 acres/year.

■ A total of 130 watersheds and 18 broad-scale assessments were

completed.

■ Land and resource management plans have been prepared for 126

administrative units and include all national forests and grasslands.

Revisions were initiated or completed on 11 units.

■ Annual reports of monitoring results were prepared for 126 administrative units.

■ Each year the Forest Service produces:

—10,000 decision memorandums

—5,000 environmental assessments

2—50 environmental impact statements

■ Over 1,200 projects, plans, and permit decisions were administratively appealed.

■ On average, the Forest Service had over 200 lawsuits, pending at

any given time, challenging resource management decisions.

Forest Vegetation Management

Approximately 73 percent of the 192 million acres of national forests is considered forested. Of the forested land, 29 percent is available for regularly scheduled

timber harvest and less than 1 percent is subject to some form of timber harvest treatment in any given year. The remaining 71 percent of the forested land is protected as

wilderness, used for recreation, or cannot be harvested due to environmental or economic conditions such as steep slopes, fragile soils, and lack of feasible access.

In most cases, forested ecosystems on the national forests are in a healthy, functioning condition due to past active management and environmental protection measures. These forests provide highly diverse and often unique resources, opportunities,

and experiences for the public. In some cases, ecosystems are not functioning in a

way that can be sustained without unacceptable risk of losses to wildfire, insects, or

diseases. It is important that the agency assesses each ecological situation at the local

level; establish management objectives based on ecological, social, and economic

information; and utilize the best tools available to achieve established vegetation

objectives.
The removal of woody biomass through the Forest Service’s timber sale program

is an essential component of national forest management. Restoration and maintenance of healthy forests is the best way to sustain the production of goods and services and protect the environment. Timber sales represent one tool that can be used to

achieve forestland restoration and maintenance goals. Furthermore, since timber sales

generate some financial return, they are oftentimes the least net cost means of

implementing desired vegetation management treatments.

The Forest Service is strongly committed to managing NFS lands in an ecologically sensitive manner. One of the agency’s top priorities is to maintain and improve

the health and vigor of forest ecosystems for the enjoyment of current and future generations. The Forest Service operates Federal timber sales under some of the most

substantial and effective environmental protection policies in the world. The agency

is taking an active role in managing vegetation to help achieve the complex interrelated objectives of resource use and environmental protection.

Stewardship Demonstration Projects

Experience has shown that the agency’s traditional tools for managing vegetation, i.e., the standard timber sale and service contracts, are oftentimes not well suited

to addressing many of today’s most pressing vegetative management needs, or to

implementing truly integrated resource management projects. The standard timber

sale contract was designed to dispose of commercially valuable timber, but many of

today’s most important treatment needs— e.g., reducing excessive fuel loadings -

often involve managing wood of little or no commercial value. The standard service

contract can be a flexible and powerful tool, but funding frequently limits the amount

of work that can be accomplished in this manner.

Recognizing the problems associated with its traditional vegetative management

tools, Congress gave the Forest Service the authority to test an array of new processes

and procedures through a series of 28 stewardship contracting end-results demonstration projects. Under the terms of this legislation, the projects that are undertaken are

to address one or more of the following resource management objectives: 

■ road and trail maintenance or obliteration to restore or maintain water quality; 

■ soil productivity, habitat for wildlife and fisheries, or other resource values;

■ setting of prescribed fires to improve the composition, structure, condition,

and health of stands or improve wildlife habitat;

■ noncommercial cutting or removing of trees or other activities to promote

healthy forest stands, reduce fire hazards, or achieve other noncommercial

objectives;

■ watershed restoration and maintenance;

■ restoration and maintenance of wildlife and fish habitat; and

■ control of noxious weeds and reestablishing native plant species.

New processes and procedures the agency may test include the following: award

of contracts on the basis of best value, service contracts of up to 10 years’ duration,

exchange of goods for services, retention of receipts, offer of sales valued at over

$10,000 without advertisement, designation of timber to be cut by description, and

use of State foresters as Federal agents in helping to prepare and administer national

forest timber sales.

173
174

Key Facts About the Forest Vegetation Management Program

Accomplishments:

■ 2.3 BBF (billion board feet) of timber offered for sale in FY 1999

■ 2.2 BBF of timber sold and awarded in FY 1999

■ 2.9 BBF of timber harvested in FY 1999

■ 448,746 acres subject to some type of harvesting operation in FY

1999

■ 268,520 acres naturally or artificially regenerated in FY 1999

■ 264,182 acres of timber stand improvement treatments in FY 1999

■ 757,206 in value of free use forest products in FY 1999

■ 227,688 Christmas trees sold in FY 1999

■ $2.7 million in special forest products sold in FY 1999

■ 221,200 families assisted through personal use sales in FY 1999

■ 4,119 miles of existing forest roads reconstructed in FY 1999

■ 192 miles of new forest roads constructed in FY 1999

■ 22 new bridges constructed

■ 64 bridges reconstructed

■ 2,907 miles of road decommissioned

Passport in Time

Through the Passport in Time program, the Forest Service offers unique, nontraditional recreation opportunities such as archaeological excavation, historic structure

restoration, and wilderness surveys. These experiences foster environmental stewardship while providing the public with unusual, educational experiences. 

Passport in Time has over 13,000 volunteers contributing over $5.2 million

worth of time and effort to preserve our Nation’s history by restoring historic structures, stabilizing National Register eligible sites, evaluating sites for inclusion in the

National Register of Historic Places, working on projects in wilderness, and developing heritage interpretive sites. Every activity is aimed at making our Nation’s unique

history accessible to the public and preserving it for future generations.

State and Private Forestry—Providing Assistance to

Nonindustrial Private Landowners

The State and Private Forestry programs represent important tools for the monitoring, management, protection, and better use of America’s forests, with emphasis

on non-Federal forest land stewardship. These programs connect forestry to all land

managers—whether small, urban woodlot owners, tribal foresters, State agencies, or

Federal—in efficient, nonregulatory ways. Through a coordinated effort in management, protection, and better use, the programs of State and Private Forestry help

facilitate sound forestry across ownerships on a landscape scale. 

About 70 percent of America’s forests are in State and private ownership, and 80

percent of the wood fiber potential comes from these lands. These lands are also critical to watershed conditions, fish and wildlife habitat, and the aesthetic quality of the

Nation’s landscape; and they represent one of the best sources of carbon sequestration. Since these non-Federal forests represent most of the forests in our country,
175

keeping these lands healthy, productive, and sustainable in the rural and urban areas

on a cumulative basis is especially important to the Nation. With increasing fragmentation and development pressure, the unique Federal role in maintaining the value and

functions of these lands across ownership divisions has never been greater or more

important.

Through a partnership role of technical advice and focused financial assistance,

the program leverages Federal resources to help produce a variety of forest-based

goods and services— including recreation, wildlife and fish, biological diversity, and

timber—to help meet domestic and international needs.

Forest Health Protection

The Forest Service provides technical and financial assistance to Federal agencies, tribal governments, States, and (through State foresters) to private landowners.

In 1998, with the assistance of State foresters and others, the Forest Service conducted insect and disease detection surveys on 213 million acres of NFS, other

Federal land, and tribal lands, and 552 million acres of State and private lands. In

addition, the Forest Service and State foresters participate in a forest health monitoring program. With USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Forest

Service works to protect the Nation’s forests from exotic insects, diseases, and plants.

The Forest Service provides technical assistance in the safe and effective use of pesticides, shares the cost of insect and disease prevention and suppression projects with

States, and funds prevention and suppression projects on Federal lands. The agency

also evaluates and applies new, more efficient and environmentally sensitive technologies for forest health protection.

Cooperative Forestry—Providing Assistance to Nonindustrial Private

Landowners and Community and Urban Areas

Cooperative Forestry (CF), in partnership with State forestry and other nonFederal forestry interests, provides for multidirectional links between Federal

forestry programs and objectives and the non-Federal forestry sector. CF connects

ideas and people to resources and one another so they can better care for forests to

sustain their communities. Since the 1990 Farm Bill, all programs have strategic

plans in place to guide nationwide delivery. CF has three major goals:

■ Ensure sustainable ecosystems 

■ Provide multiple benefits for people within the capabilities of ecosystems 

■ Ensure organizational effectiveness

The Forest Stewardship Program provides technical assistance to nonindustrial private forest landowners interested in managing their forests for multiple

resources. More than two-thirds of the Nation’s forests are non-Federal, owned by 9.9

million nonindustrial private forest landowners. Since 1990, over 133,400 landowners have enrolled in the program, and stewardship plans have been prepared on more

than 18.4 million acres of nonindustrial private forests. 

The Stewardship Incentives Program provides cost share assistance to

landowners implementing Forest Stewardship Landowner Plans. This program is

managed in cooperation with State forestry agencies and USDA’s Farm Service

Agency to provide assistance on more than 250,000 acres annually. This includes
176

approximately 50,000 acres of tree planting annually. Since 1990, Stewardship

Incentives Program practices have been implemented on 1.5 million acres, including

approximately 200,000 acres of tree planting.

The Forest Legacy Program is designed to effectively protect and conserve

environmentally important forest areas that are threatened by conversion to nonforest

uses. These lands can be protected through conservation easements and other mechanisms. This program is based on the concept of “willing seller and willing buyer” and

is completely nonregulatory in its approach. No eminent domain authority or adverse

condemnation is authorized. To date, 15 States have completed an Assessment of

Need, which is the formal document that allows for entry into the Forest Legacy

Program. Program partners include The Trust for Public Lands, State governments,

and local land trusts. Since 1993, almost 62,000 acres in eight States have been protected from development. These lands have a value of more than $25 million and

have been protected with about $18 million of Federal funds. States with legacy lands

include Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,

Vermont, and Washington.

Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF) is a key part of the agency’s interest

in urban forest resources management; it helps people better manage the natural

resources where 80 percent of America lives. Through the National Tree Trust

Foundation, the National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council, Urban

Resources Partnerships, and State Forestry agencies, the U&CF program provides

support for ongoing, critical developments in urban ecosystem management through

improvements in urban forest policy, planning, assessment, tree planting, technical

standards, education, budgets, and financial management. Education activities

include support for the Treeture environmental education program through a partnership with the International Society of Arboriculture, the National Tree Trust, and

American Forests. To assist with building local community forest management capabilities, technical and financial assistance is currently provided to more than 11,600

communities annually.

Grants made available through Federal funding from U&CF totaled more than

$9.9 million in 1997 to support a full range of program development activities from

the national to the local level. Matching grants generate more than $49.1 million in

private donations of cash, goods, and services for all activities supporting tree planting, care, and protection, approximately a 5:1 ratio of private to Federal financing of

urban and community forestry activities.

Economic Action Programs

A collection of long- and short-term programs together make up a strategic overall effort to help communities and businesses that depend on natural resources to pursue self-sufficiency and sustainability. Through Economic Action Programs, the

Forest Service provides technical and financial assistance to more than 3,240 rural

communities and businesses that are adversely affected by change in availability of

natural resources or in natural resource policy. Of the total number assisted, more

than 175 were tribal and minority communities.
177

Rural Community Assistance

The Forest Service implements the national strategy on rural development in

coordination with USDA’s Rural Development mission area and other State and

Federal agencies. The goal is to strengthen rural communities by helping them diversify and expand their economies through the wise use of natural resources. In FY

1998, the over 269 communities have established indicators and measures to determine progress.

Economic Recovery is a long-term program that targets areas with acute economic problems associated with changes in Federal land management policies and

natural resource decisions. The purpose of the effort is to assist eligible naturaldependent areas to diversify by developing new or different economic activities. In

FY 1998, over 2,500 eligible communities received technical and financial assistance,

training, and education to help them diversify their forest-based economies. Of these

communities, over 690 are taking action based on locally led strategic plans.

Rural Development is a long-term program that provides technical and financial

assistance to help strengthen, diversify, and expand local economies, especially those

experiencing long-term or persistent economic problems. Rural Development is a

grant program that provides technical assistance and matching funds for locally initiated and planned projects. They are designed to stimulate improvements in the economic, environmental, or social well-being of rural citizens through forest resources.

A short-term emphasis is the Pacific Northwest Assistance effort, which supports the diversification of local economies experiencing reductions in Federal timber

harvest levels. This effort provides technical and financial assistance to over 900

communities. It is part of a larger, multi-agency effort to target resources to rural

areas facing acute economic problems. Over 90 percent of these Forest Service funds

are granted directly to the communities, counties, and tribes for community-identified

projects to meet local needs. About 7.5 percent of the funds goes into agency technical assistance. In addition, for every dollar of Forest Service funding, over $2 is

leveraged from partners.

The Forest Products Conservation and Recycling Program continually provides a cadre of Federal forest products technology transfer specialists trained in logging, sawmilling, drying, processing, marketing, engineering, and wood technology.

This assistance directly affects communities and businesses that foster conservation

and ecosystem health through proper utilization of forest products. In FY 1997, over

1,100 technical assists were provided and over 90 workshop presentations made,

leading directly and indirectly to over 100 jobs being created or retained. This work

is supported by regional and State specialists as well as a Technology Marketing Unit

at the Forest Products Laboratory in Madison, WI.

The Wood in Transportation Program improves rural transportation networks

and demonstrates the commercial potential of using wood from undervalued tree

species for bridges and other transportation structures in rural communities. This

demonstration program has built market value for these species, which in turn stimulates economic return and value for protecting the forest and its ecosystems. In FY

1997, 14 structures were funded, leveraging over $772,000, with nearly a 2:1 ratio of
178

private to Forest Service funding. More than 57,000 pieces of technical information

were requested and disseminated to local and State officials responsible for transportation infrastructure.

Natural Resource Conservation Education

The Forest Service supports a lifelong learning process that promotes the understanding of ecosystems and natural resources—their relationships, conservation, use,

management, and values to society. Our large partnership base assists the Natural

Resource Conservation Education (NRCE) program in about 200 projects across the

country each year, reaching about 2.4 million young people and more than 118,700

teachers. More than 40 separate program efforts are coordinated. They include

Project Learning Tree, which reaches 400,000 teachers. The Forest Service budget is 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 elementary

school-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.

Woodsy Owl. Woodsy Owl is a colorful and fanciful character designed to be especially appealing to

young children. Woodsy is recognized by over 83

percent of all American households and is America’s

leading symbol for environmental improvement.

Woodsy’s appearance and message have recently

been redesigned and revitalized. He now sports a

backpack, hiking shoes, and field pants. His new

slogan builds on his previous message: “Lend a

hand—care for the land!” The Forest Service officially launched the Woodsy Owl campaign on

September 15, 1971. In June 1974, Congress

enacted a law establishing “Woodsy Owl”—with his

slogan, “Give a hoot! Don’t pollute!”—as a “symbol

for a public service campaign to promote wise use

of the environment and programs that foster maintenance and improvement of environmental quality.”

Smokey Bear

Woodsy Owl
179

Wildland Fire Management

The Wildland Fire Management program protects life, property, and natural

resources on the 192 million acres of NFS lands. An additional 20 million acres of

adjacent State and private lands are also protected through fee or reciprocal protection agreements. Wildland fire activities are conducted with the highest regard for

public and firefighter safety.

Preparedness provides the basic fire organization and the capability to prevent

forest fires and take prompt, effective initial attack suppression action on wildfires.

In FY 1998, 1.5 million acres of NFS lands received Hazardous Fuel

Treatment to reduce the amount of hazardous fuels (combustible carbon from trees,

understory growth, etc.). This was a 120-percent increase over the 1987-1996 average of 0.5 million acres. Fuel treatment benefits the health of the forest and can

reduce the danger of catastrophic wildfire.

Suppression Operations provide for the suppression of wildfires on or

threatening NFS lands or other lands under fire protection agreement.

In 1997, over 7,800 fires burned approximately 129,000 acres of NFS and other

protected lands. The annual average is approximately 11,500 fires burning on

634,000 acres.

Cooperative Fire Protection

The Cooperative Fire Protection (CFP) program provides technical and financial

assistance to State and volunteer fire departments to aid in the protection of over 

1 billion acres of State and private lands.

The State Fire Assistance component of this program protects natural resources

from fire on State and private lands. This is done through fire prevention efforts,

training and equipping fire organizations, and aggressive initial attack to keep wildland fire ignitions small. Federal funds are cost-shared with State and local funds and

help augment State protection needs. State and local fire organizations, capable of

quickly and efficiently extinguishing wildland and wildland/urban interface fires,

reduce risk to public safety, prevent resource loss, and help contain costs of fire suppression.

The Volunteer Fire Assistance component of the CFP improves the ability of

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 Federal assistance is to provide adequate fire and personal safety equipment, provide training, and

to organize new fire departments in unprotected communities.

Federal Excess Personnel Property is acquired by the Forest Service and loaned

to State forestry agencies and their cooperators, rural fire departments, for wildland 

and rural community fire protection. In 1997, 11,271 excess property items valued at

$128,008,876 were acquired and placed in service in the United States. In the past 42

years, this program has saved taxpayers of the United States over $1 billion.

Research and Development

Forestry research in the U.S. Department of Agriculture goes back a long way. 

In 1876, Congress appropriated $2,000 to USDA to gather forestry information, and

thus the Federal forestry research program was born. In 1908, Gifford Pinchot estab-
180

lished the first research station within the newly formed Forest Service in Fort Valley,

AZ. The Forest Products Laboratory, which was established in Madison, WI, in 1910,

distinguished itself in meeting the Nation’s demands during two World Wars and the

housing needs of the booming economy after that.

Currently, Forest Service Research and Development has 77 laboratories in 

67 locations across the country. They are organized within 6 research stations, the

national Forest Products Laboratory, and the International Institute of Tropical

Forestry in Puerto Rico. Of the 192 million acres of forest and rangeland managed by

the Forest Service, 408,600 acres are officially designated as Experimental Forests.

Key Facts About Research and Development:

■ Research and Development develops and maintains key databases for enhancing forest health, productivity, and conservation,

including an extensive portfolio of long-term research databases

with many more than 60 years old.

■ About 550 permanent full-time scientists are working on the productivity, health, and diversity of the temperate, boreal, and tropical

forests.

■ Research and Development scientists are held to high standards

of scientific ethics and many are recognized worldwide for the

quality of their work. All three of the U.S. scientists who received

the prestigious Marcus Wallenberg Award (the forestry equivalent

of the Nobel prize) are research and development scientists.

■ Research and Development manages 83 experimental forests and

ranges and 444 research natural areas devoted to long-term

research.

■ Research and Development works with the National Forest System

and university partners on a network of 62 long-term soil productivity sites across the United States and Canada with the goal of

monitoring management effects on sustainability and productivity.

■ The Forest Service provides leadership in tropical forestry through

collaborative research programs at the International Institute of

Tropical Forestry in Puerto Rico and the Institute of Pacific Islands

Forestry in Hawaii.

■ Scientific products in 1999 include more than 2,505 publications,

including patents, computer models, videos, and books, that

address the questions and needs of natural resource managers,

other scientists, and the public.

■ Collaboration with research partners through 807 domestic grants,

agreements, and contracts total about $23 million of extramural

funding.

■ In 1999, the Forest Inventory and Analysis program conducted

inventory on 47 million acres of forest lands across all ownerships

in 24 states and reported status and trends in 90 inventory reports.

In addition, forest health monitoring was conducted in 32 States.

■ Large-scale ecosystem studies to support planning and conservation efforts included the Rio Grande basin, the Upper Columbia

River Basin, and the Sierra Nevada.
181

To provide scientific and technological information to manage the Nation’s

forests and rangelands, Research and Development maintains a strong base program

which includes a wide range of studies in vegetation management, watersheds, fisheries, wildlife, forest products and recycling, insects and diseases, economics,

ecosystem functioning, silviculture, fire ecology and prevention, urban forestry and

recreation. In addition, Research and Development focuses on initiatives that address

urgent and critical national problems. Some of them are:

■ Landscape change—to understand and respond to the effects of urban sprawl,

forest fragmentation, and population growth pressures.

■ Recycling and wood use—to solve technical problems that hinder wastepaper

recycling and develop new products from agricultural and wood fibers and

byproducts.

■ Short rotation woody cropping systems—to increase forest productivity,

ensure long-term carbon sequestration, conserve and restore forest and marginal lands, and produce revenue.

■ Utilization for small diameter and low-value material—to reduce fire risks in

the wildland urban interface areas, increase forest productivity, and improve

efficient use of resources.

■ Non-native invasive species—to understand and respond to the numerous

non-native invasive insects, diseases, and weeds that may have severe adverse

effects on ecosystems and economy.

■ Water quality—to maintain and restore water quality in streams emanating on

or flowing through forests and range lands that supply a large part of the

Nation’s drinking water.

■ Forest inventory and analysis—In addition to expanding the program to cover

more States, R&D will develop new inventory technologies in remote sensing

and geospatial tools and techniques. 

Financial Management

The Forest Service’s first Chief Financial Officer (CFO) was appointed during

FY 1999 and a new Deputy Chief area was formed. The CFO organization was created to improve the Forest Service’s outstanding accountability problems and the

quality of financial management systems and information by consolidating all of the

financial management functions within the Washington office. In developing the new

organization, the CFO analyzed Forest Service’s financial management needs,

assessed the requirements in implementing the new accounting system, Foundation

Financial Information System (FFIS), and other initiatives. A set of key themes was

developed which became the driving force behind the design of the organization and

became the basis for a strategy that outlines a clear vision and a set of goals that will

deliver the processes, systems, tools, and people with the skills to improve Forest

Service’s financial management. 

■ Financial Systems Management

■ Nationwide Policy Management

■ Quality Assurance and Compliance Review

■ Financial Analysis
182

■ National Financial Operations Management

■ Financial Statement Preparation and Financial Management Audit

Four staffs were formed around these themes:

■ Program and Budget Analysis: Develops and presents the agency’s budget

with a focus on the Government and Performance Results Act and manages

the allocation and use of funds; provides leadership in analysis and formulation of policies for developing, allocating, and managing annual agency budgets.

■ Financial Management: Develops national policies and procedures, oversees

national resource accounting operations, and provides financial and accounting services for the Washington office.

■ Financial Reports and Analysis: Prepares financial statements, conducts financial analysis, and manages a nationwide Quality Assurance Program.

■ Financial Management Systems: Manages the FFIS and oversees financial

systems development and operations.

The new organization has accomplished much during FY 1999 toward establishing accountability in the agency, and the General Accounting Office commended the

Agency on its progress. Examples of these accomplishments:

■ First, CFO defined and began to implement goals aimed to improve financial

accountability.

■ A new integrated, standard general ledger compliant accounting system,

FFIS, was implemented.

■ Business process reengineering efforts were undertaken to improve the current budget and financial processes.

■ Primary Purpose was implemented to more accurately reflect how to plan and

spend the agency’s budget. Primary Purpose allows for a realignment of funding around the central purpose for an activity instead of multiple activities

that might benefit from the work.

■ Coordinated efforts were made with the congressional staff and the Office of

Management and Budget toward simplification of the Forest Service’s budget

structure, and development of new land-health performance measures.

■ Major steps were taken toward obtaining a clean audit opinion including: significant improvement in assuring an accurate and complete inventory and valuation of real and personal property, and development of an indepth project

management timeline for preparing financial statements.

Business Operations—Acquisition Management

The agency spent nearly $900 million in over 728,000 actions for goods and services in FY 1998. Over 69 percent of the total procurement dollars were awarded to

small businesses. Awards included more than $52 million to small disadvantaged

businesses and $32 million to women-owned small business firms. Forest Service

dollars benefited States, research, international organizations and other organizations

through a variety of grants and cooperative agreements totaling more than $414 million. (This expenditure is not included in the figures cited above.) The agency managed approximately 22 million square feet of owned office and related space plus 6

million square feet of agency-leased and General Services Administration-controlled
183

space with an annual rental of $62 million. The Forest Services also manages approximately 4,000 units of living quarters for employees valued at $375 million. Property

managers oversee more than $2.7 billion worth of Forest Service personal property,

including property on loan to State forestry departments. The agency supports the

President’s initiative on recycling with emphasis on both procurement of and efficient

collection and recycling of recyclable materials. The agency national strategy for

waste prevention and recycling is available via the Internet’s World Wide Web at:

http://www.fs.fed.us/land/recycle.html.

Senior, Youth, and Volunteer Programs 

Senior, Youth, and Volunteer Programs provide job opportunities, training, and

education for the unemployed, underemployed, elderly, young, and others with special needs, while benefiting high-priority conservation work. In FY 1998, these programs included more than 125,600 participants and accomplished over $109 million

in conservation work on Forest Service lands. 

Through an agreement with the U.S. Department of Labor, the Forest Service

operates 18 Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers on Forest Service lands. The

Job Corps program is the only Federal residential education/training program for the

Nation’s disadvantaged youth.

Key Facts About Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers:

■ 18 Job Corps Centers, 17 co-ed 

■ 9,373 enrolled, ages 16-24 

■ $98.6 million budget 

■ 17.2 million work accomplishment 

■ 82 percent placed 

■ Average starting salary, approximately $7 per hour 

■ 45 percent minorities

The Senior Community Service Employment Program is designed to provide

useful part- time employment and training for persons age 55 and over.

Key Facts About the Senior Community Service Employment

Program:

■ 5,484 older workers participated 

■ $28.4 million budget 

■ $40.7 million work accomplishment 

■ Only Federal agency among 10 national sponsors 

■ 44 percent females 

■ 24 percent placed in unsubsidized employment 

■ $1.43 return on dollar invested
184

In the Youth Conservation Corps summer employment program, persons aged

15-18 accomplish projects that further the development and conservation of the

United States’ natural resources.

Key Facts About the Youth Conservation Corps:

■ 594 enrollees, ages 15-18 

■ $1.8 million operating costs 

■ $1.6 million work accomplishment 

■ $.88 return on dollar invested 

■ 43 percent females

The Volunteers in the National Forests program allows organizations and individuals to donate their talents and services to help manage the Nation’s natural

resources.

Key Facts About Volunteers in the National Forests:

■ 98,271 volunteers have participated (including 105 international

volunteers and 265 Touch America Project volunteers, ages 14-17) 

■ $38.3 million work accomplishment 

■ 33 percent females 

■ Over 1.3 million volunteers served since the 1972 legislation

Hosted programs provide conservation training and work opportunities on

national forests or in conjunction with Federal programs. Programs are administered

through agreements with State and county agencies, colleges, universities, Indian

tribes, and private and nonprofit organizations.

Key Facts About Hosted Programs:

■ 11,976 participants 

■ $11.3 million work accomplishment 

■ 30 percent females 

■ 24 percent minorities 

Office of International Programs

The Forest Service promotes technical cooperation and develops support for sustainable forest management practices worldwide. In addition, many individual

research relationships exist between Forest Service researchers and managers and

their counterparts around the world. 

The Office of International Programs (IP) is divided into three program areas:

technical cooperation, policy, and disaster assistance support. Partners include other

U.S. Government agencies, as well as international organizations such as the

International Tropical Timber Organization and the Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations. In addition, IP has developed numerous countryspecific partnerships that promote training and technical exchange and tap into the

diversity of experience within the Forest Service. 
185

IP is involved with a wide variety of activities. Some examples from 1997

include: organizing a workshop on nontimber forest products in Central Africa; facilitating research to combat invasive pests in the United States; and coordinating Forest

Service technical participation in response to drought, flood, and fire disasters in

Africa, Asia, and Latin America. 

In addition, long-term partnerships include working with the Partners in Flight

program to support neotropical migratory bird habitat restoration in Mexico, working

with the Federal Forest Service of Russia to advance the ability of their fire ecologists

and managers to more effectively use fire as a management tool, and working with

the Indonesians to develop mapping technology for land management. 

In the policy area, IP is working to develop criteria and indicators for international and forest level monitoring. Further policy work includes issue briefs that

explore current issues affecting international and domestic forestry. Other efforts

include providing Incident Command System training to foreign firefighters so that

they are prepared to deal with wildfires when they arise, and promoting reduced

impact harvesting techniques through a network of forestry research organizations.

Since October 1997, over 100 Forest Service employees representing each of the

10 regions as well as research stations have been involved in international forestry

work. They have participated in international forestry meetings, conducted assessments of disaster situations, coordinated interagency response teams, and conducted

original research. The partnerships that have developed and that are being encouraged enable a great exchange of ideas and techniques, which lead to more sustainable

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 consensus on a

set of criteria and indicators for assessing progress towards sustainable forest management.

■ International collaboration on research and monitoring help to

reduce the impact of invasive pests such as the Asian gypsy moth

and hemlock woolly adelgid, which have severe impacts on timber

resources.

■ Partnerships with organizations such as Ducks Unlimited to restore

waterfowl habitat will increase the populations of waterfowl that

migrate to the Western and Southwestern United States from

Mexico and further south.

■ A program with the Federal Forest Service of Russia, the State of

Alaska, and U.S. companies and nongovernmental organizations

will help to ensure that Russians have access to the best environmental technology as petroleum resources on Sakhalin Island are

developed. This will promote increased employment in Alaska and

preserve salmon fisheries around Sakhalin Island and Alaska.
186

Law Enforcement and Investigations

The objective of the Forest Service law enforcement program is to provide for

public and employee safety, and to protect natural resources and property within the

authority and jurisdiction of the Forest Service. The program focuses on activities

such as vandalism, archaeological resource violations, timber theft, wildland arson,

and the cultivation and manufacture of illegal drugs. 

Forest Service drug control efforts continue to focus on the detection, apprehension, and prosecution of persons responsible for illegal drug activities on the forests.

Drug enforcement efforts annually result in the seizure of several million dollars’

worth of assets and the seizure and destruction of nearly $1 billion worth of marijuana and other drugs. 

In FY 1998, 520 cooperative law enforcement agreements enhanced cooperation

with State and local law enforcement agencies and with other Federal agencies to

increase the protection and service to forest visitors. About 160 drug enforcement

agreements were set up between the Forest Service, State and local law enforcement

agencies, and other Federal agencies or task forces to cooperate in eliminating illegal

drug activities in the National Forest System.

Key Facts About Law Enforcement and Investigations:

■ Nearly 290,000 incidents or criminal violations were reported and

handled by Forest Service (FS) officers in FY 1999. These violations resulted in many millions of dollars in damages and losses to

FS property and natural resources.

■ Nearly 338,000 marijuana plants valued at over $1.0 billion were

eradicated from approximately 3,900 sites. Officers and agents

made over 2,800 arrests for drug-related offenses, seized nearly

$12 million in processed marijuana, and seized over $4.8 million in

assets. There were 14 incidents of assault, 23 incidents of intimidation, and 174 firearms seized in relation to drug activities.

■ About 460 uniformed officers and 135 criminal investigators performed investigation and enforcement activities unique to the FS,

the resources, and its nearly 191 million acres.
■ Natural Resources Conservation Service

Introduction

As the Nation’s lead Federal agency addressing private lands conservation, the

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides technical assistance and

administers a wide range of programs to help solve this country’s natural resource

problems.

Our well-being depends on healthy, productive natural resources and their sustainable use. Just as soil, water, and habitat are interrelated, the programs that address

these resources are interrelated, and programs that help one resource also benefit others. If you stop erosion, for example, you also enhance soil productivity and protect

water and air quality. Improving the environment enhances the economic future of

communities throughout the United States.

The mission of NRCS is to provide national leadership, in a partnership effort, to

help people conserve, improve, and sustain the Nation’s natural resources and environment.

NRCS’ authorizing legislation directs the agency to assist resource owners, operators, and managers in conserving soil, water, and related resources. Conservation of

natural resources is necessary to ensure that the Nation’s people enjoy the benefits of:

■ A productive resource base supporting a strong agricultural sector

■ A high-quality natural environment

■ Watersheds and water supplies protected against risks imposed by weather

and climate

■ A healthy economy and high quality of life in rural communities 

A Partnership Approach to Resource Conservation

For more than 6 decades, NRCS employees have worked side by side with

landowners, conservation districts, Resource Conservation and Development

Councils, tribes, State and local governments, and urban and rural partners to restore

and enhance the American landscape. The agency helps landowners and communities

take a comprehensive approach in conservation planning, working toward an understanding of how all natural resources—soil, water, air, plants, and animals—relate to

each other and to humans. The agency works to solve the natural resource challenges

on the Nation’s private lands—reducing soil erosion, improving soil and rangeland

health, protecting water quality and supply, conserving wetlands, and providing fish

and wildlife habitat.

Most NRCS employees serve in USDA’s network of local, county-based offices,

including those in Puerto Rico and the Pacific Basin. The rest are at State, regional,

and national offices, providing technology, policy, and administrative support. They

serve all people who live and work on the land. Nearly three-fourths of the agency’s

technical assistance goes to helping farmers and ranchers develop conservation systems uniquely suited to their land and their ways of doing business.

The agency helps rural and urban communities curb erosion, conserve and protect water, and solve other resource problems. American Indian tribes, Alaska

Natives, Pacific Islanders, and other Native groups work with NRCS on a variety of

187
initiatives that include resource inventories and the adaptation of conservation programs to fit the special needs of their people and their land. Also, countries around

the globe seek NRCS’ advice on building their own conservation delivery systems

and in coping with severe natural resource problems.

NRCS carries out the agency mission in cooperation and coordination with

numerous partners. NRCS assistance to private landowners is provided through conservation districts, which are units of government created by State law. NRCS works

in a long-standing partnership with State conservation agencies and other State and

local agencies, resource conservation and development councils, Federal agencies,

tribal governments, and private sector organizations such as the National Association

of Conservation Districts (NACD) and the Soil and Water Conservation Society

(SWCS).

NRCS also collaborates with many others in pursuit of the agency mission:

In research and education, NRCS works primarily with USDA’s Agricultural

Research Service (ARS); Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension

Service (CSREES); and Forest Service (FS); the Department of the Interior’s U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife

Service (FWS), and Bureau of Reclamation (BOR); Department of Defense (DOD);

U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA); and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Major collaborators in data collection and analysis include USDA’s National

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Economic Research Service (ERS), and FS;

USGS, FWS, BLM, EPA, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 

For program delivery, NRCS primarily works with USDA’s FS, Rural

Development (RD)mission area, Farm Service Agency, and CSREES. Internationally,

NRCS cooperates with agencies such as USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service, ARS,

the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and other organizations

such as the InterAmerican Development Bank, World Bank, and the Inter-American

Institute of Cooperation in Agriculture, among others.

Many Federal and State agencies also rely on NRCS’ technical expertise to plan

and implement their programs that affect rural residents and natural resources. Within

USDA, the major interagency relationship on conservation involves NRCS and the

Farm Service Agency (FSA). FSA administers the Conservation Reserve Program

(CRP) and the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP), and NRCS provides the

technical assistance that landowners need to accomplish the conservation goals of 

the programs. NRCS has signed Memoranda of Understanding with USDA’s

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service for water quality 

data and training and with USDA’s Agricultural Research Service for cooperation on

water quality research. Examples of coordination with non-USDA agencies include:

the Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Programs of the U.S. Department of the

Interior (DOI); the Coastal Zone Management Program of the U.S. Department of

Commerce; and the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, National Estuary Program, and

Clean Lakes Program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). NRCS

has signed Memoranda of Understanding with EPA for cooperation on nonpoint

source control and with DOI’s U.S. Geological Survey for cooperation on water

quality research.

188
189

Major Activities

NRCS provides locally based conservation assistance in cooperation with conservation districts, through a nationwide network of local field offices. Locally based

NRCS technical staff work directly with individual farmers, ranchers, local and State

officials and employees, and community groups, providing them technical, financial,

and information assistance. Specifically, NRCS: 

Helps individual land users plan, apply, and maintain conservation systems that

are economically and environmentally sustainable. Assistance in applying conservation systems includes advice on the design, layout, construction, management, operation, maintenance, and evaluation of the practices in a conservation plan. Practices

may be applied with cost share assistance from the USDA programs or other Federal,

State, or local programs or entirely with the resource manager’s own funds. NRCS

administers programs that provide financial incentives for protecting natural

resources and environmental quality. 

Assists units of government, tribes, and community groups to protect the environment and improve the standard of living and quality of life for the people they

represent. This includes providing information and technical assistance to local officials so that they can set standards, develop plans for resource management, implement programs, and develop and provide technical training to employees of local,

State, and tribal agencies. NRCS administers programs that provide financial assistance for impleneting certain measures that benefit watershed and farmland protection.

Conducts inventories and assesses natural resource conditions, and trends and

makes thisinformation available to landowners and communities for use in individual

and community resource planning processes. NRCS inventories and monitors

resource conditions through soil surveys, conservation needs assessments, and natural resource inventories. These science-based efforts present an accurate, unbiased

look at the condition of key natural resources. 

Develops conservation standards, specifications, and guidelines to ensure that

conservationsystems are technically sound. These technical standards ensure that

conservation is based on sound and up-to-date science. NRCS technical guides are

used not only by NRCS staff, but also by private consultants and engineers, conservation district staff, State agencies, and Federal agencies.

Erosion and Sediment Control

While NRCS has cut erosion on cropland by 38 percent between 1982 and 1997,

soil erosion continues to threaten agricultural productivity on about one-third of our

Nation’s cropland.

During fiscal year 1999, conservation plans were applied on 8,680,000 acres of

cropland to the Resource Management System level. As a result, 5,320,000 acres of

cropland that were eroding above two times the soil’s tolerable level are now protected against excessive erosion.
Farmland

Prime farmland—land best suited to agricultural production—continues to be

converted to non-agricultural or natural resource uses. In the past 5 years, there has

been a significant increase of conversion of agricultural land to development.

NRCS has been able to protect a small amount of prime or unique farmland from

development through local partnerships with State, tribal, or local governments.

Since 1996, NRCS has entered into agreements with State, local, and tribal governments in 19 States to leverage funds to protect over 127,000 acres of agricultural

lands from being converted to non-agricultural uses.

Wetlands, Fish and Wildlife

Wetlands provide vital wildlife habitat and help trap nutrients and sediment

before they enter our streams. Loss of wetlands is still a concern; however, landowners have begun to restore, protect, and enhance this resource in a serious way. Since

1992, the net loss of wetland acreage on agricultural land has decreased dramatically.

Continuing the reduction in net loss trend, in 1999 wetlands were created or restored

on 270,000 acres with NRCS technical and financial assistance.

Conservation Buffers

During 1999, conservation plans also resulted in the establishment of 73,400

milesof conservation buffers for water quality and wildlife. These buffers slow water

runoff, trapsediment, and enhance water infiltration. They also trap fertilizers, pesticides, pathogens, and heavy metals, which minimize the potential of these pollutants

from reaching surfaceandgroundwater. Conservation buffers offer protection for livestock from harsh weather and provide valuable wildlife habitat. Conservation buffer

practices include: alley cropping, contour buffer strips; field windbreaks/shelterbelts;

riparian forest buffers; filter strips; grassed waterways; streambank protection;

hedgerows, herbaceous wind barriers; and cross wind trap strips.

■ Overview of NRCS Programs

NRCS Technical Assistance

NRCS provides conservation technical assistance (CTA) to improve and conserve natural resources. This assistance is based on voluntary local landowner cooperation.

CTA is the foundation upon which NRCS delivers its services through local conservation districts, to private landowners, communities, and others who care for natural resources. CTA is the intellectual capital of the agency; experts in soils and other

physical and biological sciences, with knowledge of local conditions, work with private landowners in the stewardship of our natural resources. 

CTA provides the infrastructure through which the agency is able to respond to a

multitude of needs, from natural resource disasters to complex site specific natural

resource problems. CTA is the means by which this Nation is able to voluntarily

bring about land stewardship that improves our soil, water, wildlife, and air resources

190
while providing for sustainable agricultural production. The investments in CTA

return the American public significant benefits from an improved environment and

quality of life to a safe and abundant food supply.

Wetlands Reserve Program 

The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) is a voluntary program to restore wetlands. Participating landowners can establish conservation easements of either permanent or 30-year duration or can enter into restoration cost-share agreements where

no easement is involved. In exchange for establishing a permanent easement, the

landowner receives payment up to the agricultural value of the land and 100 percent

of the restoration costs for restoring the wetland. The 30-year easement payment is 75

percent of what would be provided for a permanent easement on the same site and 75

percent of the restoration cost. The restoration cost-share agreements are for a minimum 10-year duration and provide for 75 percent of the cost of restoring the involved

wetlands. 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program 

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) works primarily in

locally identified priority areas where there are significant natural resource concerns,

such as soil erosion, water quality and quantity, wildlife habitat, wetlands, and forest

and grazing lands. Priority is given to areas where State, tribal, or local governments

offer financial, technical, or educational assistance, and to areas where agricultural

improvements will help meet water quality objectives. Activities must 

be carried out according to a conservation plan. The program offers financial, educational, and technical help to install or implement structural, vegetative, and management practices called for in 5- to 10-year contracts. Cost sharing may pay up to 75

percent of the costs of certain conservation practices. Nationally, half of the funding

for this program is targeted to livestock-related natural resource concerns and the

remainder to other significant conservation priorities.

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)

The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) provides financial incentives to

develop habitat for fish and wildlife on private lands. Participants agree to implement

a wildlife habitat development plan, and USDA agrees to provide cost-share assistance for the initial implementation of wildlife habitat development practices. USDA

and program participants enter into 5- to 10-year cost-share agreements for wildlife

habitat development.

Farmland Protection Program 

The Farmland Protection Program (FPP) provides assistance to State, tribal, or

local government entities to help purchase development rights to keep productive

farmland in agricultural use. USDA joins with State, tribal, or local governments,

working through their existing programs, to acquire conservation easements or other

interests from landowners. USDA provides up to 50 percent of the costs of the easements. To qualify, farmland must: be part of a pending offer from a State, tribe, or

local farmland protection program; be privately owned; have a conservation plan; be

191
192

large enough to sustain agricultural production; be accessible to markets for what the

land produces; have adequate infrastructure and agricultural support services; and

have surrounding parcels of land that can support long-term agricultural production.

Soil Surveys 

The year 1999 marked the centennial of the soil survey in the United States—

perhaps the largest and most valuable natural resource database in the world. NRCS

conducts soil surveys cooperatively with other Federal agencies, land-grant universities, State agencies, and local units of government. Soil surveys provide the public

with local information on the uses and capabilities of their soil resource. Soil surveys

are based on scientific analysis and classification of the soils, and are used to determine land capabilities and conservation treatment needs. The published soil survey

for a county or designated area includes maps and interpretations with explanatory

information that is the foundation of resource policy, planning, and decisionmaking

for Federal, State, county, and local community programs. Soil survey mapping has

been completed on more than 90 percent of the Nation’s private land, 48 percent of

American Indian lands, and 47 percent of public lands. In addition, over 700 soil

surveys have been digitized and made available for resource assessments.

Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasts

NRCS field staff collect snow information through a network of about 655 Snow

Telemetry (SNOTEL) and 1,100 manual snow courses to provide 13 Western States

with water supply forecasts. The data are collected, assembled, and analyzed to make

about 6,300 annual water supply forecasts, which provide estimates of available

annual yield, spring runoff, and summer stream flow. Snowmelt provides approximately 80 percent of the streamflow in the West. Water supply forecasts are used by

individuals, organizations, and State and Federal agencies to make decisions relating

to agricultural production, fish and wildlife management, flood control, recreation,

power generation, and water quality management.

Plant Materials Centers

NRCS employees at 26 Plant Materials Centers assemble, test, and encourage

increased plant propagation and usefulness of plant species for biomass production,

carbon sequestration, erosion reduction, wetland restoration, water quality improvement, streambank and riparian area protection, coastal dune stabilization, and to meet

other special conservation treatment needs. The work is carried out cooperatively

with State and Federal agencies, universities, commercial businesses, and seed and

nursery associations. After species are proven effective for conservation purposes,

they are released to the private sector for commercial production. NRCS has released

almost 400 varieties of conservation plants to commercial producers. Nearly 250

improved varieties are now in commercial production and used in conservation programs. Forty-two new plants have been released since 1997.
193

Small Watershed Program

The Small Watershed Program works through local government sponsors and

helps participants solve natural resource and related economic problems on a specific

watershed. Project purposes include watershed protection, flood prevention, erosion

and sediment control, water supply, water quality, fish and wildlife habitat enhancement, wetlands creation and restoration, and public recreation in watersheds of

250,000 or fewer acres. Both technical and financial assistance are available.

Emergency Watershed Protection 

The Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program is designed to reduce

threats to life and property in the wake of natural disasters. It provides technical and

cost-sharing assistance. Assistance includes establishing vegetative cover; installing

streambank protection devices; removing debris and sediment; and stabilizing levees,

channels, and gullies. In subsequent storms, EWP projects protect homes, businesses,

highways, and public facilities from further damage. Floodplain easements under

EWP may be purchased to help prevent future losses due to natural disasters.

Watershed Operations

Under the Flood Control Act of 1944, NRCS is authorized to administer

watershed works of improvement. Flood prevention operations include planning 

and installing improvements and land treatment measures for flood prevention; for

the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water; and for the reduction of sedimentation and erosion damages. This may also include the development

of recreational facilities and the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat. Activities

are authorized in 11 specific flood prevention projects covering about 35 million

acres in 11 States.

Watershed Surveys and Planning

NRCS cooperates with other Federal, State, and local agencies in conducting

river basin surveys and investigations, flood hazard analysis, and flood plain management assistance to aid in the development of coordinated water resource programs,

including the development of guiding principles and procedures. Cooperative river

basin studies are made up of agricultural, rural, and upstream water and land

resources to identify resource problems and determine corrective actions needed.

These surveys address a variety of natural resource concerns including water quality

improvement, opportunities for water conservation, wetland and water storage capacity, agricultural drought problems, rural development, municipal and industrial water

needs, upstream flood damages, and water needs for fish, wildlife, and forest-based

industries. Flood plain management assistance includes the identification of flood

hazards and the location and use of wetlands. NRCS represents USDA on river basin

regional entities and River Basin Interagency Committees for coordination among

Federal departments and States.
Forestry Incentives Program 

The Forestry Incentives Program (FIP) supports good forest management practices on privately owned, non-industrial forest lands nationwide. The program is

designed to benefit the environment while meeting future demands for wood products. Eligible practices are tree planting, timber stand improvement, site preparation

for natural regeneration, and related activities. The program is available in counties

designated by a Forest Service survey of eligible private timber acreage. 

Resource Conservation and Development Program

The Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Program provides a

framework for local people to join together to improve their community’s economy,

environment, and living standards. RC&D areas are locally organized, sponsored,

and directed. USDA provides technical and financial assistance and helps sponsors

secure funding and services from Federal, State, and local sources. The major emphasis is environmental conservation and rural development. Currently, there are 315

RC&D areas covering more than 75 percent of the United States. Each year, these

locally organized and directed areas create thousands of new jobs, protect thousands

of miles of water bodies, conserve hundreds of thousands of acres of land, and

improve the quality of life in hundreds of communities.

RC&D areas are run by a council of volunteers who serve without pay. Currently

more than 20,000 people donate 78,000 days per year to improve their communities

through this program. USDA provides a person to work full-time with each area to

help implement local objectives.

Other Activities

National Resources Inventory 

Every 5 years, NRCS develops an inventory on the condition and trends of

natural resources on non-Federal land. The National Resources Invnetory (NRI)

contains the most comprehensive and statistically reliable data of its kind in the

world. It measures trends in soil erosion by water and wind, wetland losses, prime

farmland acreage, irrigation, habitat and conservation treatment at national, regional,

State, and sub-State levels.

Conservation of Private Grazing Land Initiative

The Conservation of Private Grazing Land Initiative ensures that technical,

educational, and related assistance is provided to those who own private grazing

lands. The Nation’s more than 600 million acres of private grazing lands produce

food and fiber, sustain important water resources, and offer wildlife habitat and

recreational opportunities.

National Conservation Buffer Initiative

In April 1997, Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman announced a new public-private partnership called the National Conservation Buffer Initiative. The goal of the

initiative is to help landowners install 2 million miles of conservation buffers by the

year 2002. Agricultural producers and other landowners who install buffers can

194
195

improve soil, air, and water quality; enhance wildlife habitat; restore biodiversity;

and create scenic landscapes.

Conservation buffers are areas or strips of land maintained in permanent vegetation and designed to intercept pollutants. Buffers can be installed along streams or in

uplands—within crop fields, at the edge of crop fields, or outside the margins of a

field.

The National Conservation Buffer Initiative is a multi-year effort led by NRCS

in cooperation with other USDA agencies, State conservation agencies, conservation

districts, agribusinesses, and agricultural and environmental organizations. Seven

national agricultural corporations have pledged nearly $1 million over 3 years to

complement USDA’s efforts to promote conservation buffers.

To date, about 753,000 miles of buffers, or 38 percent of the national goal, have

been established under the Conservation Reserve Program, Environmental Quality

Incentives Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, and other USDA programs. 

International Programs

NRCS helps improve the management and conservation of natural resources

globally. Participation in collaborative efforts with other countries results in benefits

to the United States and in accomplishment of the NRCS mission. During fiscal year

1998, NRCS specialists completed 253 assignments to 49 countries. The objectives

of the assignments were to provide short- and long-term technical assistance and

leadership for the development of natural resource conservation programs and projects and exchange conservation technology with countries that face soil and water

conservation issues similar to those in this country.

NRCS provided opportunities for approximately 205 foreign nationals from

more than 25 countries to gain a better understanding of natural resource conservation activities by observing and discussing conservation programs in the United

States.

Agricultural Air Quality 

The 1996 Farm Bill established a Task Force on Agricultural Air Quality to make

recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture with regard to the scientific basis

for agriculture’s impact on air quality. The task force is charged with strengthening

and coordinating USDA air quality research efforts to determine the extent to which

agricultural activities contribute to air pollution and to identify cost-effective ways in

which the agricultural industry can improve air quality.

Backyard Conservation Campaign

In 1998, NRCS developed a national Backyard Conservation campaign to tell

non-farm audiences about the good conservation work being done by America’s

farmers and ranchers. The campaign features 10 common conservation practices,

such as composting, mulching, tree planting, nutrient management, and water conservation, and shows how miniature versions can work in just about any backyard—

whether measured in acres, feet, or flower pots.
196

Farmers and ranchers are already making progress in natural resource conservation by protecting and restoring wetlands, enhancing wildlife habitat, and reducing

soil erosion. There are nearly 2 billion acres of land in the United States. Most of that

land, 1.4 billion acres, is managed by farmers and ranchers. However, more than 92

million acres are privately developed, and much of this land is tended by homeowners. These homeowners can join the conservation tradition right in their own backyards to curb water pollution and improve wildlife habitat.

For more information on this campaign or agency programs, visit the NRCS web

site at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov

Clean Water Action Plan

USDA works with State and local governments and other Federal agencies to

continue implementation of the Vice President’s Clean Water Action Plan. In March

1999, USDA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released the United

National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations (AFO’s). The strategy established 

a national performance expectation that all AFO’s will develop and be implementing

comprehensive nutrient management plans by 2009. This goal will be accomplished

primarily through voluntary efforts of AFO owners and operators, with technical and

financial assistance from NRCS, other USDA agencies, other Federal agencies, State

and local entities, and the private sector.

A series of Federal-tribal regional workshops to assist tribes with their unified

watershed assessments and watershed restoration action strategies also took place. 

In FY 1999, producers completed installation of 6,100 animal waste management

systems with NRCS assistance.
197
198

Public Affairs Contacts

Natural Resources

Conservation Service

Interim Director, Conservation

Communications Staff

June Davidek

Rm 6121-S

Washington, DC 20013

202-720-3210

FAX 202-720-1564

june.davidek@ca.usda.gov

Program Assistant 

Joyce Hawkins

Rm 6121-S

Washington, DC 20013

202-720-3210

FAX 202-720-1564

joyce.hawkins@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Mary Cressel

Rm 6121-S

Washington, DC 20013

202-690-0547

FAX 202-690-1221

mary.cressel@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Brad Fisher

Rm 6121-S

Washington, DC 20013

202-720-4024

FAX 202-720-1564

brad.fisher@usda.gov

Visual Information Specialist

Robert Gresh

Rm 6109-S

Washington, DC 20013

202-720-3933

FAX 202-720-9975

robert.gresh@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Fred Jacobs

Rm 6121-S

Washington, DC 20013

202-720-4649

FAX 202-690-1221

fred.jacobs@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Ted Kupelian

Rm 6121-S

Washington, DC 20013

202-720-5776

FAX 202-690-1221

ted.kupelian@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Tom Levermann

Rm 6116-S

Washington, DC 20013

202-720-7570

FAX 202-690-1221

tlevermann@usda.gov

Visual Information Specialist

Chris Lozos

Rm 6121-S

Washington, DC 20013

202-720-4244

FAX 202-690-1221

chris.lozos@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Diana Morse

Rm 6121-S

Washington, DC 20013

202-720-4772

FAX 202-690-1221

diana.morse@usda.gov

Printing Specialist

Doug Wilson

Rm 6116-S

Washington, DC 20013

202-720-6243

FAX 202-720-6009

doug.wilson@usda.gov

Freedom of Info Act Office

Wilda Grant

5601 Sunnyside Avenue

Beltsville, MD 20705-5000

301-504-2168

FAX 301-504-2161

wilda.grant@usda.gov

For More Information
199

Natural Resources

Conservation Service State

Public Affairs Contacts

AL

Joan Love Smith 

665 Opelika Road, 

Auburn, AL 36830-0311

334-887-4530

FAX 334-887-4551

joan.smith@al.nrcs.usda.gov

AK

Jeanette Colville

949 East 36th Avenue, Suite 400,

Anchorage, AK 99508-4362

907-271-2424

FAX 907-271-3951

jeanette.colville@ak.usda.gov

AZ

Mary Ann McQuinn

3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 800,

Phoenix, AZ 85012-2945

602-280-8778

FAX 602-280-8809

mmcquinn@az.nrcs.usda.gov

AR

Sonja Coderre

700 West Capitol Avenue, 

Little Rock, AR 72201-3228

501-301-3133

FAX 501-301-3189

scoderre@ar.nrcs.usda.gov

CA

Anita Brown

430 G Street, Suite 4164, 

Davis, CA 95616-4164

530-792-5644

FAX 530-792-5791

anita.brown@ca.usda.gov

CO

Petra Barnes

655 Parfet Street, Room E200C,

Lakewood, CO 80215-5517

303-236-2886, ext 216

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

carolyn.miller@ct.nrcs.usda.gov

DE

Paul Petrichenko

1203 College Park Drive, Suite 101, 

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

Pat Hood-Greenberg

Federal Building,

Box 13, 355 East Hancock Avenue, 

Athens, GA 30601-2769

706-546-2272

FAX 706-546-2120

pat.hood- greenberg@ga.nrcs.usda.gov

HI

Lynn Howell

300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 4316,

Honolulu, HI 96850-0002

808-541-2600, ext 118

FAX 808-541-2652

lhowell@hi.nrcs.usda.gov

ID

Sharon Norris

9173 W. Barnes Drive, Suite C, 

Boise, ID 83705-4711

208-378-5725

FAX 208-378-5735

snorris@id.nrcs.usda.gov
200

IL

Paige Mitchell Buck 

1902 Fox Drive, 

Champaign, IL 61820-7335

217-353-6606

FAX 217-353-6675

paige.mitchell@il.nrcs.usda.gov

IN

Michael McGovern

6013 Lakeside Boulevard, 

Indianapolis, IN 46278-2933

317-290-3222, ext 324

FAX 317-290-3225

mmcgovern@in.nrcs.usda.gov

IA

Lynn Betts

693 Federal Building, 210 Walnut Street, 

Des Moines, IA 50309-2180

515-284-4262

FAX 515-284-4394

lynn.betts@ia.nrcs.usda.gov

KS

Mary Shaffer

760 South Broadway,

Salina, KS 67401

785-823-4571

FAX 785-823-4540

mary.shaffer@ks.nrcs.usda.gov

KY

Lois Jackson

771 Corporate Drive, Suite 110, 

Lexington, KY 40503-5479

606-224-7372

FAX 606-224-7399

ljackson@kystate.ky.nrcs.usda.gov

LA

Herb Bourque

3737 Government Street,

Alexandria, LA 71302-3727

318-473-7762

FAX 318-473-7682

hbourque@laso2.la.nrcs.usda.gov

ME

Elaine Tremble

5 Godfrey Drive, Orono, 

ME 04473

207-990-9100

FAX 207-990-9599

etremble@me.nrcs.usda.gov

MD

Carol Hollingsworth

John Hanson BC, 339 Bucsh’s Frontage

Road, Suite 301, 

Annapolis, MD 21401-5534

410-757-0861

FAX 410-757-0687

carol.hollingsworth@md.usda.gov

MA

Wendi Kroll

451 West Street, 

Amherst, MA 01002-2995

413-253-4371

FAX 413-253-4375

wendi.kroll@ma.usda.gov

MI

Christina Coulon

301 Coolidge Road, Suite 250, 

East Lansing, MI 48823-6350

517-324-5244

FAX 517-324-5171

ccoulon@miso.mi.nrcs.usda.gov

MN

Sylvia Rainford

600 Farm Credit Building, 

375 Jackson Street,

St. Paul, MN 55101-1854

651-602-7859

FAX 651-602-7914

str@mn.nrcs.usda.gov

MS

Jeannine May

Federal Building, Suite 1321, 

100 West Capitol Street, 

Jackson, MS 39269-1399

601-965-4337

FAX 601-965-4536

jbm@ms.nrcs.usda.gov
201

MO

Norm Klopfenstein

Parkade Center, Suite 250, 

601 Business Loop, 70 West, 

Columbia, MO 65203-2546

573-876-0911

FAX 573-876-0913

norm.klopfenstein@mo.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.usda.gov

NV

Liz Warner

5301 Longley Lane, 

Building F, Suite 201, 

Reno, NV 89511-1805

775-784-5288

FAX 775-784-5939

lwarner@nv.nrcs.usda.gov

NH

Laura Morton

Federal Building, 2 Madbury Road,

Durham, NH 03824-2043

603-868-7581

FAX 603-868-5301

NJ

Irene Lieberman

1370 Hamilton Street, Somerset, NJ

08873-3157

732-246-1171

FAX 732-246-2358

irene.lieberman@nj.usda.gov

NM

Betty Joubert

6200 Jefferson Street, NE, Suite 305, 

Albuquerque, NM 87109-3734

505-761-4406

FAX 505-761-4463

betty.joubert@nm.usda.gov

NY

Kathy Carpenter

441 South Salina Street, 

5th Floor, Suite 354, 

Syracuse, NY 13202-2450

315-477-6524

FAX 315-477-6550

kathy.carpenter@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

701-530-2099

FAX 701-530-2112

ajd@nd.nrcs.usda.gov

OH

Latawnya Dia

200 North High Street

Room 522

Columbus, OH 43215-2748

614-255-2471

FAX 614-469-2083

latawnya.dia@oh.nrcs.usda.gov

OK

Terri Daniel

100 USDA, Suite 203, 

Stillwater, OK 74074-2624

405-742-1244

FAX 405-742-1201

terri.daniel@ok.usda.gov
202

OR

Gayle Norman

101 SW Maine Street, Suite 1300,

Portland, OR 97204-3221

503-414-3236

FAX 503-414-3103

gnorman@or.nrcs.usda.gov

*PACBAS 

Marie Mundheim

FHB Building, Suite 301, 400 Route 8,

Maite, GU 96927

671-472-7375

FAX 671-472-7288

marie1@ite.net

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 00918-4123

787-766-5206

FAX 787-766-5987

becky@pr.nrcs.usda.gov

RI

Jeanne Comerford

60 Quaker Lane, Suite 46, 

Warwick, RI 02886-0111

401-828-1300

FAX 401-828-0433

jcomerford@ri.nrcs.usda.gov

SC

Perdita Belk

Strom Thurmond FB, 1835 

Assembly Street, Room 950

Columbia, SC 29201-2489

803-765-5402

FAX 803-253-3670

pbelk@sc.nrcs.usda.gov

SD

Joyce Watkins

Federal Building, Room 203, 

200 4th Street, SW, 

Huron, SD 57350-2475

605-352-1228

FAX 605-352-1261

joyce.watkins@sd.nrcs.usda.gov

TN

Larry Blick

675 U.S. Courthouse, 801 Broadway, 

Nashville, TN 37203-3878

615-736-5490

FAX 615-736-7764

lblick@tn.nrcs.usda.gov

TX

Harold Bryant

W.R. Poage Federal Building, 

101 South Main Street, 

Temple, TX 76501-7682

254-742-9811

FAX 254-742-9819 

harold.bryant@tx.usda.gov

UT

Ron Nichols

Wallace F. Bennett FB, 

125 South State Street, Room 4402, 

Salt Lake City, UT 84138

801-524-4556

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
203

WA

Betty Schmitt

Rock Pointe Tower II

W. 316 Boone Avenue, Suite 450, 

Spokane, WA 99201-2348

509-323-2912

FAX 509-323-2909

betty.schmitt@wa..usda.gov

WV

Peg Reese

75 High Street, Room 301, 

Morgantown, WV 26505

304-284-7547

FAX 304-284-4839

preese@wv.nrcs.usda.gov

WI

Renae Anderson

6515 Watts Road, Suite 200, 

Madison, WI 53719-2726

608-276-8732

FAX 608-276-5890

randerso@wi.nrcs.usda.gov

WY

Nancy Atkinson

Federal Building, 100 East B Street, 

Room 3124, Casper, WY 82601-1911

307-261-6482

FAX 307-261-6490

nancy.atkinson@wy.usda.gov

*Pacific Basin
204

11.

Research, Education, and

Economics

Agricultural Research Service

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is the principal in-house research

agency of the USDA. The agency is committed to providing access to agricultural

information and developing new knowledge and technology needed to solve technical agricultural problems. Research is done to ensure an abundance of high-quality,

safe food and other agricultural products to meet the nutritional needs of the

American consumer, to sustain a viable economy, and to maintain a quality environment and natural resource base. Research is conducted at the ARS headquarters in

Beltsville, MD, as well as throughout over 100 national laboratories in the United

States.

ARS research has contributed to improved crop yields and more environmentally

sound farming techniques. In addition to enhancing productivity, today’s agricultural

research is as much about human health as it is about crop production.

For example, a powerful but expensive anticancer drug could become more plentiful, thanks to a new process developed by ARS scientists. The process makes the

drug—called taxol—from laboratory-cultured cells of its increasingly rare natural

source, the yew tree. The new process is 100 times more productive than the original

process for deriving taxol, which was patented by USDA in 1991. Taxol is a potent

chemotherapy drug for breast, ovarian, lung, and other cancers. Under the original

process, it took about 6,700 pounds of bark from rare yew trees to make a pound of

taxol.

ARS research is also as much about development of new products and new crop

varieties. One environmentally friendly product now on the market grew out of ARS

research showing that adding alum to poultry litter helps reduce runoff of nutrients

from the litter into groundwater and surface waterways. The alum reduces phosphorus runoff by 70 percent, reduces the litter’s ammonia vapors—which can physically

damage the chickens and cause respiratory problems for poultryhouse workers—and

reduces heavy metal runoff such as copper, zinc, and iron by up to 50 percent. The

ARS-patented technology is now used by poultry growers across the United States

and in Canada.

On the crops side, a new potato variety known as AWN86514-2 is highly

resistant to attack by late blight, the disease that caused the Irish potato famine of 

the 1840’s. Late blight is caused by a fungus, Phytophthora infestans. New, more

aggressive strains of the fungus that are fungicide- resistant have appeared in recent

years, so breeders have been scrambling to find potatoes with natural resistance. 

The new potato held up well in tests when attacked by the newest and most virulent

strains of the fungus. That’s good news for consumers, because the average American

eats about 143 pounds of potatoes a year, making potatoes the Nation’s favorite

vegetable. ARS released the new potato in collaboration with agricultural experiment

stations in Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. 
205

ARS research provides solutions to a wide range of problems related to agriculture—problems that require the long-term commitment of resources or that are

unlikely to have solutions with a quick commercial payoff that would tempt private

industry to do the research. These problems range from fighting the ongoing battle to

protect crops and livestock from costly pests and diseases, to improving the quality

and safety of agricultural commodities and products for humans, to making the best

use of natural resources. All the while, the research results must help ensure profitability for producers and processors while keeping down costs for consumers.

For more information about ARS, see its home page: http://www.ars.usda.gov

ARS Research: Selected Highlights

■ ARS scientists in Peoria, IL, and in New Orleans and Philadelphia

have found a way to extract a health-enhancing oil from a waste

byproduct of the corn processing industry. The scientific team started

with corn fiber, a low-value byproduct of corn milling that’s now sold

as a low-cost ingredient in cattle rations. From that corn fiber, they’ve

extracted an oil that, in tests with hamsters, lowered total serum cholesterol levels and LDL cholesterol, the type that clogs arteries.

They’ve also extracted a second product from corn fiber, a white gum

that could be used in a variety of products—in food as an emulsifier,

as a soluble dietary fiber or thickener, or as industrial adhesives and

water-based paint thickeners.

■ The latest twist in alternatives to using chemicals to combat crop

pests: plants designed to give insects a stomach ache. ARS scientists

teamed up with researchers at Kansas State University to insert an

insect enzyme into rice plants. The enzyme—chitinase—causes

digestive problems for insects that swallow it. Chitinase causes chitin,

a key component in insect skin and gut tissue, to break down. In lab

studies, the scientists found that the genetically engineered plants

significantly suppressed the growth of feeding insect larvae. Insect

chitinase in plants is harmless to humans or animals. Several agricultural biotechnology companies are working with the scientists to

transform other plants, such as corn, sorghum, and wheat.

■ ARS studies in Boston, MA, have shown that certain foods contain

higher levels of compounds that could help slow the processes associated with aging in both body and brain. In the studies, eating plenty

of foods with these beneficial substances, called antioxidants, raised

the power of human blood to defuse harmful internal substances

called oxidants by up to 25 percent. Fruits and vegetables found to

have the highest amounts of these beneficial antioxidants were

prunes, raisins, blueberries, blackberries, kale, strawberries, spinach,

raspberries, brussel sprouts, plums, and alfalfa sprouts.
206

■ ARS research at the U.S. National Arboretum has yielded two new

elm trees resistant to the Dutch elm disease that has ravaged the

American elm population since the 1940’s, wiping out an estimated

77 million elms. The two new resistant elms from ARS are called

Valley Forge and New Harmony. Also, ARS researchers recently

unveiled two new maple trees for American streets and yards: Red

Rocket, a fiery-red maple cultivar with pest resistance and the ability

to grow where temperatures dip to –40 degrees, and New World,

which also has pest and cold resistance and is an excellent shade

tree, as well as an ideal choice for city landscaping.

■ ARS research on natural resources uncovered a reason to celebrate:

American farmers have crossed an auspicious environmental boundary and begun reducing the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide

rather than adding to it. CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases thought

to cause global warming. The ARS study showed that U.S. farmers

have shifted from being net producers of carbon dioxide to net accumulators of carbon, in the form of valuable soil organic matter. The

changeover was due largely to farmers’ increasing abandonment of a

cherished symbol of past American agriculture, the moldboard plow

used to break up the prairies. Instead, many farmers now leave crop

residue on or near the soil surface, where the residue readily decays

to organic matter.

■ For decades, USDA has battled scrapie, a fatal brain disease of

sheep and goats. Now, the first preclinical, noninvasive test for

scrapie should be available in a few years as a result of ARS

research. Reliable diagnosis of scrapie is the first step to eradicating

the disease, which would greatly improve U.S. sheep and goat export

opportunities. ARS scientists discovered that the nictitating membrane, or third eyelid, in sheep collects proteins known as prions.

Abnormal prions are the infectious agents believed to cause scrapie.

The researchers developed a new laboratory-built molecule, called a

monoclonal antibody, that detects the presence of the abnormal prions. The test will eventually allow veterinarians to detect scrapie

before animals show clinical signs.

National Agricultural Library

The National Agricultural Library (NAL) was established as part of the

Department of Agriculture in 1862 under legislation signed by President Abraham

Lincoln. Part of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, NAL is the largest agricultural library in the world with a collection of

over 3.3 million items. 
207

It is the mission of the National Agricultural Library to serve as the chief agricultural information resource of the United States, ensuring and enhancing access to

agricultural information for a better quality of life.

The library serves national and international customers, including researchers,

farmers, educators, policymakers, agricultural producers, and the general public. A

key NAL goal is to become a “library without walls,” a library whose collection and

services are available electronically throughout the world. By adapting electronic

information technology to its needs, the library is well on its way to meeting this goal

with worldwide accessibility over the Internet. 

Over 48 miles of bookshelves hold the NAL collection. Materials in the collection include the latest electronic resources as well as books, journals, reports, photographs, films, videotapes, maps, artwork, and historic materials dating to the 16th

century. Tens of thousands of new items are added each year. The collection is international in scope and includes items in nearly 75 foreign languages.

The library is located in Beltsville, MD, on the grounds of the ARS Beltsville

Agricultural Research Center. In addition to being the agricultural library for the

Nation, NAL is also the departmental library for USDA, serving thousands of USDA

employees around the globe. NAL is a key resource in USDA’s scientific and

research activities. About 170 people work at NAL, including librarians, computer

specialists, information specialists, administrators, and clerical personnel. Volunteers

ranging from college students to retired persons work on various programs at NAL

too. The library has an active visiting scholar program as well, which allows professors, scientists, and librarians from universities worldwide to intern at NAL on projects of mutual interest.

AGRICOLA (AGRICultural OnLine Access) is NAL’s bibliographic database

providing access to the NAL collection. AGRICOLA contains nearly 3.5 million citations to agricultural literature and is available on the Internet through the NAL home

page at http://www.nal.usda.gov.

NAL provides reference and document delivery services in all aspects of agriculture. It also includes specialized information centers that provide customized information services on topics such as alternative farming systems, animal welfare, food

and nutrition, technology transfer, rural development, and water quality.

For walk-in visitors, the library is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., eastern time,

Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Many of NAL’s services are available 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 
208

■ Cooperative State Research, Education, 

and Extension Service 

The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES)works with land-grant universities, historically black colleges and universities

(HBCU’s), Hispanic institutions, Native American institutions, as well as universities

and other public and private organizations to advance research, extension, and higher

education in the food and agricultural sciences and in related environmental and

human sciences. Its programs increase and provide access to scientific knowledge,

strengthen the capabilities of State universities, expand accessibility and use of

improved communication and network systems, and promote informed decisionmaking.

CSREES links the research and education resources and activities of USDA,

improving customer service and responsiveness to emerging issues and national

priorities. CSREES programs focus on improving economic, environmental, and

social conditions in the United States and globally. These conditions include

NAL Selected Highlights:

■ NAL Websites Log Over 11 Million Hits

Recent records show that NAL’s home page, AGRICOLA on the

Internet, and Agricultural Network Information Center, received nearly

11.5 million hits from Internet users last year. This points to both the

worldwide demand for electronic information on agriculture and NAL’s

role as the prime resource for this information.

■ Electronic Delivery of Documents Expands

Working toward its goal of becoming a “library without walls,” NAL

encourages its patrons to send requests and receive materials electronically. Requests submitted electronically to NAL account for about

80 percent of all document delivery requests received. NAL has also

significantly increased its electronic delivery of materials to patrons.

This number is approaching 40 percent.

■ Electronic Preservation Plans Developed

NAL has taken the lead in developing plans to preserve USDA electronic publications. USDA has made electronic formats the preferred

method of releasing information to the public. Preservation and longterm access of these publications are an important issue due to the

ephemeral nature of electronic formats.

■ Dietary Supplement Database Established

In its continuous effort to keep abreast of key issues affecting U.S.

food and nutrition, NAL, working with the National Institutes of Health,

has launched an Internet site on dietary supplements. The userfriendly database helps researchers and consumers find current

information on the growing number of supplements available.
209

improved agricultural productivity and development of new products; safer food;

cleaner water and air; enhanced stewardship and management of natural resources;

healthier and more responsible individuals, families, and communities; and a stable,

secure, diverse, and affordable food supply. 

Partnerships

The CSREES domestic and international research, education, and extension networks are strengthened with partnerships that maximize resources and program

impact. The array of CSREES partners includes other USDA agencies, Federal and

State government departments, nonprofit organizations, and private-sector entities.

Working closely with the nationwide land- grant university system is central to

CSREES programs. CSREES partners include:

■ More than 130 colleges of agriculture, including land-grant institutions in

each State and territory

■ 59 agricultural experiment stations

■ 57 State or territorial cooperative extension services 

■ 63 schools of forestry

■ 16 historically black land-grant colleges and universities (HBCU’s), 

plus Tuskegee University

■ 27 colleges of veterinary medicine

■ 42 schools and colleges of family and consumer sciences

■ 30 1994 Native American land-grant institutions

■ 160 Hispanic-serving institutions

■ Federal and State governments

■ Nonprofit organizations 

■ the private sector 

Programs

CSREES research, education, and extension leadership is provided through

programs in:

■ Plant and Animal Systems

■ Natural Resources and Environment

■ Economic and Community Systems

■ Families, 4-H, and Nutrition

■ Partnerships with State Universities

■ Competitive Research Grants and Awards Management

■ Science and Education Resources Development

■ Communications, Technology, and Distance Education 

What Is CSREES?

■ Development of knowledge leading to advancement in agriculture, the environment, and community and individual well-being through problem-focused

integrated research and education and targeted scientific efforts, including

cutting-edge research programs on value-added product development, plant
210

and animal genome mapping and biotechnology, integrated pest management,

water quality, human nutrition, food safety, and animal and plant systems 

■ Model education programs in sustainable agriculture, water quality, food

safety, risk management, children and families, health, environmental

stewardship, distance education, and community economic development 

■ Higher education programs to develop the scientific and professional expertise needed to advance the food, agricultural, and natural resource systems

and maintain excellence in college and university teaching programs 

■ Cooperative partnerships involving:

—over 9,600 scientists engaged in research at 59 State agricultural experiment stations, 16 1890 historically black land-grant colleges and

universities, and Tuskegee University

—over 9,600 local extension agents working in 3,150 counties 

—3 million trained volunteers working with national outreach education

programs 

—6.5 million youth involved in 4-H programs that increase self-esteem and

enhance problem-solving skills in a positive, supportive environment 

■ The National Research Initiative supporting research in the biological, physical, and social sciences to solve key agricultural and environmental problems

■ A Small Business Innovation Research program to support high-quality

research proposals containing advanced concepts related to important scientific problems and opportunities in agriculture that could lead to significant

public benefit if the research is successful

■ Immediate electronic access to vital information on safety and disaster recovery during time-critical disasters, such as hurricanes, wildfires, and floods

CSREES Highlights

The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service works in

partnership with the land- grant university system and other organizations to further

research, education, and extension in the food, agricultural, environmental, and

human sciences. Below are examples of success stories reflecting this partnership:

Thinking Globally

To help combat a shortage of bilingual veterinarians, several veterinary students

at Washington State learned Spanish, and several serve as interns in Central and

South America each year. In Arkansas, students can earn a “trans-Atlantic” master’s

degree through a program developed by Arkansas and Scottish Agricultural College

agricultural economists. Students from the United States and the United Kingdom

study at each university, working or interning in the host country. 

Adding Value to New and Old Agricultural Products

Virginia scientists found that corn fiber, a byproduct of the milling industry, can

be converted into Xylitol, a sugar alcohol sweetener that helps prevent tooth decay

and ear infections in children and acts as a safe food sweetener for diabetics. These

findings could raise the value of corn fiber from 5 cents per pound to nearly $2 per
211

pound. Research at Colorado found that a canola-based motor oil works just as well

as the petroleum version, but without environmental drawbacks; the motor oil will be

produced by a farmer-owned plant in Michigan. Wisconsin Extension provided assistance to food-grade soybean producers in one area to improve their harvest and

postharvest management skills, which resulted in increased earnings. 

Roadmaps to Better Crops and Animals

Iowa researchers identified two pig genes that influence litter size and developed

methods to identify pigs carrying the genes. Herds improved with these pigs could

help producers with 1,000-sow operations see a $20,000 annual increase in profits. In

New York, researchers have completed genetic maps for wheat and oats that identify

locations of key genes for resistance to insects and to diseases such as leaf rust and

powdery mildew. These maps will cut the time and costs associated with breeding,

saving U.S. cereal breeders up to $10 million per year.

Looking Out for the Small Farm

Five small farmers worked with North Carolina A&T extension specialists to add

irrigation systems to their vegetable farms. The farmers then teamed up to buy irrigation equipment at a bargain rate and shared expenses and labor to install the systems.

Each operation can expect increased sales of $2,000 to $3,000 per year from the collaboration. To beat the high cost of controlled atmospheric storage, Minnesota scientists developed the “Honeycrisp” apple variety, which keeps two to four times longer

under normal refrigeration than other apples. Orchards are adopting the new variety

at a record pace.

Safer Food

Louisiana researchers developed a method to pasteurize fresh oysters so that

people can still eat them raw without fear of a naturally occurring bacterium that was

linked to 69 deaths between 1992 and 1996. Under Florida’s leadership, a national

alliance of Federal, State, academic, and private organizations worked together to

train nationwide more than 80 percent of the seafood industry and regulatory personnel in Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point methods. In Washington, 90 cases

of food poisoning were linked to a homemade cheese called queso fresco, traditionally made with unpasteurized milk. Scientists found they could easily modify the

recipe so that cheesemakers could use pasteurized milk to ensure that the cheese is

safe to eat. Mississippi researchers found that natural organic acids can extend the

refrigerated shelf life of catfish fillets by six days and help control the spread of the

foodborne pathogen Listeria monocytogenes.

Protecting Water Quality

New Mexico Extension personnel launched a homeowner education campaign

about the dangers of pouring pesticides down the drain. As a result, no Diazinon contamination problems have been detected in the wastewater treatment facility in Las

Cruces for the past year. Minnesota researchers have discovered a soil bacterium that

can remove atrazine from municipal drinking water. Alabama A&M researchers,

using remote sensing, geographic information systems, and global positioning sys-
212

tems, are monitoring and predicting excessive phosphorus and nitrogen levels in cotton that could adversely affect the water supply. California Extension personnel are

helping reduce sediment that was trapping 1,300 pounds of pesticide residues in the

ecosystem and harming river wildlife in the San Joaquin River and Sacramento Delta.

Healthier Lives Through Research and Education

In Georgia, participants in Extension’s Teenage Mothers Nutrition Education

Program completed a year with no infant deaths, compared to a statewide rate of 10

percent. Researchers in Ohio discovered that some cancers can be reduced or prevented by eating more canned, rather than fresh, vegetables such as carrots, spinach,

and tomatoes. Apparently, effects of the canning process make it easier for the body

to absorb the cancer-fighting carotenoids in these foods. Nebraska and Texas

researchers found that putting hens on flax seed diets increases the ratio of good to

bad cholesterol and reduces serum triglycerides, another heart disease risk factor, by

14 percent.

Pest Management

California researchers found that methyl iodide is an alternative for methyl bromide, an ozone-degrading soil fumigant that will be banned worldwide. Maine

Extension helped potato growers adopt ecologically beneficial farming methods,

resulting in a reduction of pesticide use by 50 percent. 

Local Problem Solving

Guidance from Mississippi Extension enabled a catfish producer to build and

expand a catfish processing facility that now employs 100 people and processes

75,000 pounds of fish a day. Eighty percent of businesses that involved Oklahoma

Extension programs to help entrepreneurs start their own businesses are still in business after four years, while the national average is only 60 percent. Iowa Extension

helped establish 85 child-care home businesses serving 2,250 children.

Managing Agricultural Waste

In Mississippi, research and extension faculty helped dairy farmers meet “no discharge” wastewater requirements by finding the most affordable, efficient, and environmentally sound ways to dispose of wastewater. North Carolina researchers helped

the processed egg industry recover protein and fat for use as a feed additive, potentially reducing city water-treatment costs by $1 million per year.

■ Economic Research Service

Are you a congressional staffer who wants to know how U.S. agriculture would beaffected if China joined the World Trade Organizaiton? Are you a reporter seeking insights on future patterns of adoption of genetically engineered crops? Are you

an industry analyst who has heard the meatpacking industry has fewer and fewer

firms and wonders why this increasing concentration occurred and what it means?

Are you looking for farm income and farm program payment information to use in
213

designing a new safety net program for small or limited resource farmers? Are you a

nutrition educator who wonders what Americans eat and why they make the food

choices they do?

If so, you are in luck. These are just a few of the many timely issues addressed

by the Economic Research Service (ERS) — USDA’s premier source of social

science information and research — just this last year. 

ERS conducts social science research for a purpose. That purpose is to build 

the knowledge base for informed and effective decisionmaking on economic issues

related to agriculture, food, natural resources, and rural economies. 

ERS publications are easy to find. They are posted in their entirety, and

summarized for easy access to the main ideas, on the ERS web site

(http://www.ers.usda.gov). Copies are also available from the USDA Order 

Desk (1-800-999-6779 or 703-605-6220). For assistance in locating specific

publications, periodicals, or data products, please call the ERS Information 

Center at (202) 694-5050 or email service@ers.usda.gov.

Finding the Facts

Commodity Markets. What’s up and what’s down in the crop and livestock

markets? The ERS commodity situation and outlook series includes monthly and

quarterly reports containing current and prospective information on commodity supply, demand, and price conditions. Annual situation and outlook yearbooks that

include historical data series on acreage, yield, supply, domestic use, foreign trade,

and price, as well as topical articles pertinent to understanding the U.S. and global

markets, are also available. From the ERS Web site, you will find links to situation

and outlook reports for cotton and wool, feed, fruit and tree nuts; livestock, dairy and

poultry; aquaculture; oil crops, rice, sugar and sweeteners; tobacco, vegetable and

specialty crops, and wheat. Commodity briefing rooms can also be found on the ERS

web site. These sites provide one-stop-shopping entrees into commodity data from all

USDA agencies.

Agricultural Trade. Are prospects bright or dim for U.S. agricultural trade? To

find out, visit the ERS web site where you will find the Outlook for U.S. Agricultural

Trade, which offers the latest value and volume of U.S. farm exports by commodity

and region, and also the agricultural trade balance, import commodities, and export

outlook. Or take a look at the Trade Briefing Room, which will hook you directly into

the Foreign Agricultural Trade of the United States—a trade data base that you can

search according to the commodity, country or region, and time period that interests

you.

Farm Income and Finance. Are farmers doing better or worse economically

than in the past? How many farmers make a living “just farming” these days? What

percentage of farm income comes from government payments? You can find the

answer to these questions in the ERS periodical Agricultural Income and Finance.

Issued 3 times a year, this report provides historical estimates and forecasts of farm

sector financial information that will allow you to gauge the financial wellbeing of

the nation’s farmers and ranchers. It includes farm sector receipts, expenses, debt,
214

assets, and costs of producing crops and livestock. Or visit the Farm Sector

Performance Briefing Room, where you will find links to the latest farm income

forecasts, other farm financial data, and related research reports. 

Food Consumption and Prices. How much of their personal income do

Americans spend on food these days? (Answer: 10 percent) How much of their food

expenditures are on “food away from home”? (Answer: 47.5 percent) For direct

access to data on retail food prices, food expenditures and food costs, and access to

numerous publications on America’s eating habits, visit the Food Markets Briefing

Room on the ERS web site.

Resource Trends and Indicators. How much cropland is being lost to urban

uses? The answer—it turns out that acres in cropland have remained quite stable over

time, varying from 440-460 million acres since 1945—can be found in the ERS Land

Use and Value Briefing Room. Are farmers using more or fewer chemicals today than

in the past? For the answer to this and many other questions about how natural

resources (land and water) and commercial inputs (energy, nutrients, pesticides, and

machinery) are used in the agricultural sector, see the Agricultural Resources and

Environmental Indicators report, which is posted on our web site. 

Rural Economic Indicators. Which rural counties are experiencing population

growth? What is the median household income in your county? What proportion of

your State’s rural jobs are in farm and farm related industries? Does commercial bank

restructuring impair local rural economic growth? The Rural Development Briefing

Room provides a rich source of information about rural population dynamics,

employment change, jobs by industry, and credit and finance. You can also learn

about Federal funds going to rural America simply by going to the ERS web site. 

ERS Periodicals: Get the Big Picture in a Short Story

ERS publishes several nationally recognized magazines designed to deliver the

findings of economic analysis in concise, readable articles to commodity and trade

associations, the media, public interest groups, Congressional and Executive Branch

policymakers and their staffs, foreign embassies, and any interested member of the

general public. 

You can subscribe to ERS periodicals by calling the order desk (1-800-999-

6779). Or you can access the PDF versions of these magazines free of charge on the

ERS web site (http://www.ers.usda.gov). 

Agricultural Outlook Magazine. Ag Outlook is published 10 times a year. It

highlights the short-term outlook for all major areas of the agricultural economy and

each month includes a “spotlight” on the commodities currently at critical stages in

the marketing year. This magazine also presents syntheses of longer term analyses of

commodity and natural resource policies, international trade issues and agreements,

and farm financial conditions and institutions. A recent issue, for example, included

an analysis of whether persistent low commodity prices preclude a “fair income” for

all U.S. farmers.
215

FoodReview. In ERS’ FoodReview magazine, trends in food consumption, food

assistance, nutrition, food product development, food safety, and food product trade

are analyzed in depth for those who manage, monitor, or have other interests in the

food system. FoodReview, which is published three times a year, also includes key

indicators of the food sector and updates on Federal policies and programs affecting

food. The January-April 2000 issue, for example, contains a series of articles on how

American cuisine evolved during the 20th century. It may not surprise you to find out

that America’s cooking trends have echoed the changing roles of women in the U.S.

economy.

RuralAmerica. ERS’ newest periodical demonstrates the practical application of

research in rural banking, the changing demographics of the American population,

housing, the nonmetro labor force, poverty, and the effect of farm policies on rural

areas. Using succinct text and sharp graphics Rural America gives an overview of

current rural economic and social trends. The January 2000 issue, for example, contains an article showing that child poverty in the 1990s remains higher in nonmetro

areas than in metro areas. 

Staying on Top of Special Topics

At ERS you can get more than just the economic facts. ERS’ unique contribution

in USDA is to bring the perspective of economic analysis to many critical issues facing farmers, agribusinesses, consumers, and policy makers. For example, ERS can

tell you the economic benefits to society and the costs to the food industry of implementing food safety protections. Or ERS can tell you which sectors of the economy

have gained the most economically, and by how much, from implementation of the

North American Free Trade Agreement. 

Many special topics are highlighted on the ERS Web Site Briefing Rooms.

Among the topics covered are:

Domestic Conservation and Environmental Policies. Find out what policy

instruments are available to encourage farmers to adopt conservation and environmental practices, and how effective they have been.

Food Safety. Learn that foodborne illnesses from a few selected pathogens cost

society from $6.6 to $37.1 billion annually in medical costs and lost productivity.

Foodborne illnesses from just meat and poultry account for $5.2 to $28.3 billion of

these costs.

Food Security and Hunger. Find out that although most households in the

United States are food secure, during the period 1996-98 some 10 million U.S.

households (9.7 percent of total) were food insecure—that is, they did not always

have access to enough food to meet basic needs.
216

World Trade Organization. Find discussions of the three pillars of agricultural

trade negotiations: export subsidies, domestic support, and tariffs as well as other

trade negotiation issues. The web site also contains analysis of China’s potential

membership in the WTO; for example, did you predict that the largest increases in

China’s agricultural imports after full accession are likely to be for corn ($587 million), wheat ($543 million), and cotton ($359 million)? 

Research Reports: In-depth Understanding of Complex Issues

ERS underpins its contributions to understanding the topics of the day with 

peer-reviewed social science research. The results of many research projects are

published as ERS research reports as well in professional journals. All ERS reports

are available in PDF format on the ERS web site at http://www.ers.usda.gov.

The following is a selection of in-depth research reports published in 2000:

Genetically Engineered Crops for Pest Management in U.S. Agriculture.

Agricultural Economic Report (AER-786). April 2000. Adoption of genetically engineered crops with traits for pest management has risen dramatically since their commercial introduction in the mid-1990’s. The farm-level impacts of such crops on

pesticide use, yields, and net returns vary with the crop and technology examined. 

WIC and the Nutrient Intake of Children. Food Assistance and Nutrition

Research Report (FANRR-5). March 2000. After controlling for self-selection bias,

participation in the WIC program (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for

Women, Infants, and Children) has a significant positive effect on children’s intakes

of iron, folate, and vitamin B-6. 

Consolidation in U.S. Meatpacking. Agricultural Economic Report No. 785

(AER-785). February 2000. Meatpacking consolidated rapidly in the last two

decades: slaughter plants became much larger, and concentration increased as smaller

firms left the industry. Establishment-based data from the U.S. Census Bureau is used

to describe consolidation and to identify the roles of scale economies and technological change in driving consolidation. 

The International Financial Crisis and Agriculture. International Agriculture and

Trade Report (WRS-99-3). March 2000. The international financial upheaval that

began in Thailand in July 1997 and subsequently spread to other countries set back

economic growth and trade worldwide. The international financial crises led to depreciated currencies, reduced growth, and higher interest rates in Indonesia, Thailand,

South Korea, Russia, Brazil, and other Latin American countries. Currency depreciation helped agricultural producers, but hurt consumers in the crisis countries. 

Changes in the Older Population and Implications for Rural Areas. Rural

Development Research Report (RDRR-90). January 2000. This analysis presents data

on changes in the age distribution and socioeconomic status of the older population

by rural-urban residence and examines the implications for resources, services, and

programs in rural areas. 
217

What Does ERS Look Like?

Located in Washington, D.C., ERS has approximately 500 employees. The

agency’s work is structured among three program divisions:

■ Food and Rural Economics (Betsey Kuhn, Director)

■ Market and Trade Economics (Neil Conklin, Director)

■ Resource Economics (Kitty Smith, Director)

For more information about ERS, contact:

Susan E. Offutt, Administrator

Economic Research Service

1800 M St. NW

Washington, DC 20036

202-694-5000

For locating specific publications, periodicals, or data series, contact:

The ERS Information Center

202-694-5050

■ National Agricultural Statistics Service

The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), “The Fact Finders for U.S.Agriculture,” is the official source of comprehensive agricultural statistics in the

U.S. Department of Agriculture. The only way to “tell the story” of the phenomenal

success of “American agriculture” is by having data available that measure productivity. Having accurate, timely information available is not only important to tell the

success story of American agriculture, but it is vital to support the efficient handling

of commodities in today’s global market.

The NASS mission is to serve the basic agricultural and rural data needs of the

people of the United States, those working in agriculture, and those living in rural

communities by objectively providing important, usable, and accurate statistical

information and services needed to make informed decisions.

The NASS program has successfully met many challenges over the last 137

years to provide data to meet the changing demands from a growing multitude of data

users. These data are geared toward producers to help them plan planting, feeding,

breeding, and marketing programs. Other major uses of these statistical data include

the following:

■ Timely, accurate data are essential for a market place where price is determined by real facts rather than speculation and rumors.

■ Sound data are needed to resolve environmental issues, rather than basing

decisions on worst case scenarios.

■ Exports of American farm products rely on accurate supply information.

■ Our transportation-storage industry relies on the statistics to efficiently move

agricultural products to market.

■ Suppliers use the data to allocate the necessary inputs farmers need to grow

their crops or raise livestock.
218

■ Government policymakers rely on accurate data to address natural disasters,

crop insurance, and depressed farm prices.

■ Other USDA agencies use the statistical data to accomplish important programs for the Department, whether it be carrying out agricultural policy concerning farm program legislation, commodity programs, agricultural research,

or rural development.

NASS headquarters is located in Washington, DC, and 45 State Statistical

Offices cover 120 crops and 45 livestock items annually in the 50 States, and are

complemented by additional State reports. In 1999, NASS also established an office

in Puerto Rico, in cooperation with the Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture.

Current and historical information is published in approximately 400 reports which

feature:

■ Crop acreage, yield, production, and grain stocks;

■ Livestock , dairy, and poultry production and prospects;

■ Chemical use in agriculture, including post-harvest applications on selected

crops;

■ Labor use and wage rates;

■ Farms and land in farms; and

■ Prices, costs, and returns.

The NASS network of 45 field offices, plus Puerto Rico, operate through cooperative agreements with State departments of agriculture or universities. This enables

NASS to be responsive to “grassroots” data needs, while eliminating duplication of

effort and ensuring statistical products are consistent with national-level standards.

An abundance of agricultural information is available through NASS programs.

In addition to the information above, statistics on more specialized commodities,

including hop stocks, mink, cherries, cranberries, lentils, and peppermint oil, are also

available. Enhanced statistics for the nursery, equine, and aquaculture industries

have been enthusiastically received by data users. Most estimates are based on information gathered from producers surveyed through personal and telephone interviews

or through mailed questionnaires. Other estimates are based on surveys of grain elevators, hatcheries, and other agribusinesses, and on administrative data such as

slaughter records. Their cooperation is absolutely vital to a workable and meaningful

statistical program; NASS relies on survey respondents to voluntarily supply data for

the reports. The success of this cooperative relationship can be attributed to producers’ recognition of the importance of the survey results and to the confidential treatment NASS accords all reported information. Other estaimates are based on surveys

of grain elevators, hatcheries, and other agribusinesses, and on administrative data

such as slaughter records. In addition, NASS relies on actual field counts and measurements for some crop forecasts. 

Data collected from these varied sources are summarized by the NASS State

Statistical Offices and then sent to the Agency’s Agricultural Statistics Board in

Washington, DC, whose members determine and issue State and national official statistics. Reports are released to the public according to a published calendar.
219

Census of Agriculture

The census of agriculture conducted by NASS every 5 years is a complete

accounting of U.S. agricultural production and the only source of uniform, comprehensive agricultural data for every county in the Nation. The 1997 Census of

Agriculture results provide data on the number of farms and land in farms, land use

and ownership, operator characteristics, crops, machinery and equipment, livestock,

fertilizer, poultry, chemicals, market value of products, energy expenditures, irrigated

land, production expenses, type of organization, farm programs, and corporate structure. Data are also published for Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the

Norther Mariana Islands. Information is available in print, CD-Rom format, and on

the Internet. The next census of agriculture will be conducted in 2002.

How To Get More Information

NASS reports are released at scheduled times in a variety of formats. The NASS

table shows how to obtain information from NASS.
220

Agricultural Research

Service

Director, Information Staff

Sandy Miller Hays

Rm 2251

5601 Sunnyside Ave., Bldg. 1

Beltsville, MD 20705- 5128

301-504-1638 

FAX 301-504-1648

shays@asrr.arsusda.gov

Current Info Branch Chief

Sean Adams

Rm 2210

5601 Sunnyside Ave., Bldg. 1

Beltsville, MD 20705-5129

301-504-1622

FAX 301-504-1641

sadams@asrr.arsusda.gov

Chief, Information Products and

Services Branch

Ruth Coy

Rm 2234

5601 Sunnyside Ave., Bldg. 1

Beltsville, MD 20705- 5130

301-504-1660

FAX 301-504-1641

rcoy@asrr.arsusda.gov

Nat’l Visitor Center Head

John Kucharski

Bldg 302, BARC-E, 

Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-9403

FAX 301-504-8069

nvc@asrr.arsusda.gov

Freedom of Info Act Officers

Valerie Herberger

5601 Sunnyside Ave., Bldg. 1

Rm 2248b

Beltsville, MD 20705-5128

301-504-1640

FAX 301-504-1648

vherberg@asrr.arsusda.gov

Stasia Hutchison

Rm 2248a

5601 Sunnyside Ave., Bldg. 1

Beltsville, MD 20705-5128

301-504-1655

FAX 301-504-1648

hutchisn@asrr.arsusda.gov

Field Offices

ARS Information, USDA-ARS Nat’l

Center for Agricultural Utilization

1815 N. University St.

Peoria, IL 61604

FAX 309-681-6690

309-681-6530

510-559-6069

ARS Information, USDA-ARS

Western Regional Research Center

800 Buchanan St.

Albany, CA 94710

FAX 510-559-5882

National Agricultural Library

Public Affairs Officer

Brian Norris

204-NAL

Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-6778

FAX 301-504-5472

bnorris@nal.usda.gov

Library Services

1st Fl.-NAL

Beltsville, MD 20705

(reference, lending, etc.)

301-504-5755

Freedom of Info Act Officers

Valerie Herberger

5601Sunnyside Ave., Bldg. 1

Rm 2248b

Beltsville MD 20705

301-504-1640

FAX 301-504-1648

vherberg@asrr.arsusda.gov

For More Information
221

Stasia Hutchison

5601 Sunnyside Ave., Bldg. 1

Rm 2248a

Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-1655

FAX 301-504-1641

hutchisn@asrr.arsusda.gov

NAL TDD/TTY

DCRC TDD/TTY

301-504-6856

202-720-3434

Information Research Services Branch

Alvetta S. Pindell

304-NAL

Beltsville, MD 20705

30l-504-5204

FAX 301-504-6409

apindell@nal.usda.gov

Alternative Farming Systems

Information Center

Jane Gates

304-NAL

Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5724

FAX 301-504-6409

jgates@nal.usda.gov

Animal Welfare Information Center

Jean Larson

304-NAL

Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-6212

FAX 301-504-7125

jlarson@nal.usda.gov

Food and Nutrition Information Center

Shirley Evans

304-NAL

Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5719

FAX 301-504-6409

sevans@nal.usda.gov

Rural Information Center

Patricia John

304-NAL

Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5372

FAX 301-504-5181

pjohn@nal.usda.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 Section

Stan Kosecki

4th Fl.-NAL Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5204

FAX 301-504-6927

skosecki@nal.usda.gov

Reference Desk

Librarian on Duty

1Fl.-NAL Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5479

FAX 301-504-6927

agref@nal.usda.gov

Russian Wheat Aphids Project

Wayne Olson

100-NAL Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5204

FAX 301-504-6927

wolson@nal.usda.gov

Special Collections Program

Susan Fugate

3Flr-NAL Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-6503

FAX 301-504-5675

speccoll@nal.usda.gov

Technology Transfer Information

Center

Kathleen Hayes

4Flr-NAL

Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5218

FAX 301-504-7098

khayes@nal.usda.gov

Water Quality Information Center

Joseph Makuch

4Flr-NAL

Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-6077

FAX 301-504-7098

jmakuch@nal.usda.gov
222

D.C. Reference Center

Vacant

Rm 1052-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-3434

FAX 202-720-3200

dcrc@nal.usda.gov

Global Change

Roberta Rand

Rm 013 NAL

Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-6684

FAX 301-504-7098

rrand@nal.usda.gov

Cooperative State

Research, Education, and

Extension Service

(CSREES is located at Waterfront Center,

800 9th Street, S.W.)

Director, Communication &

Information Access

Terry Meisenbach

Rm 4306

Washington, DC 20250-2207

202-720-2677

FAX 202-690-0289

tmeisenbach@reeusda.gov

National Media Liaison

Marti Asner

Rm 4301

Washington, DC 20250-2207

202-720-8188

FAX 202- 690-0289

masner@reeusda.gov

Public Affairs Officer

Len Carey

Rm 4314

Washington, DC 20250-2207

202-720-1358

FAX 202-690-0289

lcarey@reeusda.gov

Public Inquiries

Joyce Tonigan

Rm 4000C

Washington, DC 20250-2207

202-690-1899

FAX 202-690-0289

jtonigan@reeusda.gov

Webmaster

202-720-4112

Rm 4302

Washington, DC 20250-2207

Joe Fulks

jfulks@reeusda.gov

FAX 202-690-0289

Freedom of Info Act Officers

Valerie Herberger

Rm 2248b

5601 Sunnyside Ave., Bldg. 1

Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-1640

FAX 301-504-1648

vherberg@asrr.arsusda.gov

Stasia Hutchison

5601 Sunnyside Ave., Bldg. 1

Rm 2248a

Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-1655

FAX 301-504-1641

hutchisn@asrr.arsusda.gov

Economic Research Service

Chief, Publishing & Communications

Adrie Custer

1800 M St., NW

Rm S2018

Washington, DC 20036-5831

202-694-5120

FAX 202-694-5638 

acuster@ers.usda.gov

Media Services

John Snyder

1800 M St., NW

Rm S2010

Washington, DC 20036-5831

202-694-5138

FAX 202-694-5638

jsnyder@ers.usda.gov
223

Outlook

Diane Decker

1800 M St., NW

Rm S2043

Washington, DC 20036-5831

202-694-5116

FAX 202-694-5638

ddecker@ers.usda.gov

Periodicals & Annual Reports

Linda Hatcher

1800 M St., NW

Rm S2042

Washington,DC 20036-5831

202-694-5121

FAX 202-694-5638

lhatcher@ers.usda.gov

Research Publishing

Thomas McDonald

1800 M St., NW

Rm S2038

Washington,DC 20036- 5831

202-694-5129

FAX 202-694-5638

thomasm@ers.usda.gov

Design and Technology

Douglas Parry

1800 M St., NW

Rm S2013

Washington,DC 20036-5831

202-694-5131

FAX 202-694-5638

dparry@ers.usda.gov

Information Center/Publications

Distribution

1800 M St., NW

Rm S3100

Washington,DC 20036-5831

202-694-5050

FAX 202-694-5638

service@ers.usda.gov

Freedom of Information Act Officers

Valerie Herberger

5601 Sunnyside Ave., Bldg. 1

Rm 2248b

Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-1640

FAX 301-504-1648

vherberg@asrr.arsusda.gov

Stasia Hutchison

5601 Sunnyside Ave., Bldg. 1

Rm 2248a

Greenbelt, MD 20770

301-504-1655

FAX 301-504-1641

hutchisn@asrr.arsusda.gov
224

National Agricultural Statistics Service Electronic Access

Internet:

http://www.usda.gov/nass/

(Free electronic subscription service)

NASS Autofax:

202-720-2000

Call from your fax machine to receive highlights of selected NASS reports, including

individual State Highlights from the 1997 Census of Agriculture. Voice prompts will 

guide you. You may request up to three documents per call.

Printed Reports or Data Products

(Free catalog available upon request)

Orders Only

1-800-999-6779 or 703-605-6000

Customer Service

1-888-584-8332 or 703-605-6050

Fax: 703-605-6900

Mail order requests to:

ERS-NASS

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

Assistance

If you need general agricultural statistics or further information about NASS or its 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)

E-Mail: nass@nass.usda.gov

Fax: 202-690-2090
225

State Statistical Offices often have additional data breakouts not found in national

publications. For information about a particular State, call the State Statistician at

any of the folllowing offices, or e-mail at

NASS**@NASS.USDA.GOV. Replace

** with the State abbreviation. 

Alabama (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

Indiana (IN)

West Lafayette

800-363-0469

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, MD)

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
226

Nevada (NV)

Reno

888-456-7211

New England (NH)

Concord, NH

800-642-9571**

New Jersey (NJ)

Trenton

800-328-0179

New Mexico (NM)

Las Cruces

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

888-525-9226

Oregon (OR)

Portland

800-338-2157

Pennsylvania (PA)

Harrisburg

800-498-1518

Puerto Rico (PR)

San Juan

787-722-0817***

South Carolina (SC)

Columbia

800-424-9406

South Dakota (SD)

Sioux Falls

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

** For Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts,

Connecticut, and Rhode Island also.

*** Field Office
227

12.

Marketing and Regulatory

Programs

■ Agricultural Marketing Service

When you visit the grocery store, you know you’ll find an abundance and varietyof top-quality produce, meats, and dairy products. If you’re like most people,

you probably don’t give a second thought to the marketing system that brings that

food from the farm to your table. Yet, this state-of-the-art marketing system makes 

it possible to pick and choose from a variety of products, available all year around,

tailored to meet the demands of today’s lifestyles. Millions of people—from grower

to retailer—make this marketing system work. Buyers, traders, scientists, factory

workers, transportation experts, wholesalers, distributors, retailers, advertising

firms—in addition to the Nation’s farmers—all help create a marketing system that 

is unsurpassed by any in the world. And USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS) helps make sure the U.S. marketing system remains world-class.

Services to Promote Quality: Grading, Quality Standards, 

and Certification

Wherever or whenever you shop, you expect good, uniform quality and reasonable prices for the food you purchase. AMS quality grade standards, grading, certification, inspection, and laboratory analysis are voluntary tools that industry can use to

help promote and communicate quality and wholesomeness to consumers. Industry

pays for these services and since they are voluntary, their widespread use by industry

indicates they are valuable tools in helping market their products.

USDA quality grade marks are usually seen on beef, lamb, chicken, turkey,

butter, and eggs. For many other products, such as fresh and processed fruits and

vegetables, the grade mark isn’t always visible on the retail product. In these commodities, the grading service is used by wholesalers, and the final retail packaging

may not include the grade mark. However, quality grades are widely used—even if

they are not prominently displayed—as a “language” among traders. They make

business transactions easier whether they are local or made over long distances.

Consumers, as well as those involved in the marketing of agricultural products,

benefit from the greater efficiency permitted by the availability and application of

grade standards. 

Grading is based on standards, and standards are based on measurable attributes

that describe the value and utility of the product. Beef quality standards, for instance,

are based on attributes such as marbling (the amount of fat interspersed with lean

meat), color, firmness, texture, and age of the animal, for each grade. In turn, these

factors are a good indication of tenderness, juiciness, and flavor of the meat—all
228

characteristics important to consumers. Prime, Choice, and Select are all grades

familiar to consumers of beef.

Standards for each product describe the entire range of quality for a product, 

and the number of grades varies by commodity. There are eight grades for beef, and

three each for chickens, eggs, and turkeys. On the other hand, there are 45 grades 

for cotton, 26 grade standards or specifications for dairy products, and more than 

312 fruit, vegetable, and specialty product standards.

■ Facts about grading:

From October 1998 through September 1999, USDA graded 33 percent of the shell eggs and 95 percent of the butter produced in the

United States. Nearly 83 billion pounds of fresh fruits and vegetables

and more than 11 billion pounds of processed fruits and vegetables

received a USDA grade mark. Nearly all of the meat industry requests

AMS grading services: USDA grades were applied to 83 percent of all

beef, 91 percent of all lambs, 23 percent of all veal and calves, 64 percent of all turkeys, and 39 percent of all chickens and other poultry

marketed in this country. USDA also graded more than 98 percent of

the cotton and 97 percent of the tobacco produced in the United

States. In addition 88 percent of the butter sold in consumer size

packages is marketed bearing the USDA grade shield.

The food testing side of the AMS program has 9 user-funded laboratories performing numerous microbiological, chemical, and physical analyses on a host of food

and fiber commodities, including processed dairy products, meat, poultry, egg products, and fruits and vegetables. This testing supports AMS purchases for the National

School Lunch Program and other domestic feeding programs, troop ration specifications for the Department of Defense, export of U.S. food to foreign countries, laboratory quality control and assurance programs, and testing for aflatoxin in peanut

products.

In addition to grading and laboratory services, USDA provides certification services, for a fee, that facilitate ordering and purchase of products used by large-volume buyers. Certification assures buyers that the products they purchase will meet the

terms of their contracts—with respect to quality, processing, size, packaging, and

delivery. If a large buyer—such as a school district, hospital, or prison—orders huge

volumes of a particular product such as catsup or processed turkey or chicken, it

wants to be sure that the delivered product meets certain needs. Graders review and

accept agricultural products to make sure they meet contract requirements and specifications set by private-sector purchasers. They also certify food items purchased for

Federal feeding programs.

AMS has developed quality assurance (QA)services that include Hazard

Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) and International Organization for

Standardization (ISO)-based programs. These programs ensure and document that

companies’ operations are in compliance with provisions of contracts and/or their

own standards and procedures. QA services are voluntary, hourly-fee-based, and
229

value-added. HACCP concepts and procedures have been recommended by the

National Academy of Sciences for application in the food industry, and ISO

procedures are becoming an international norm for some processes. Another 

Quality Assurance activity performed by AMS is the accreditation or certification 

of laboratories whose customers need the testing service of these laboratories to

facilitate the export or marketing of U.S. products. In addition, AMS’ laboratories 

are currently pursuing accreditation under ISO Standard 17025, an internationally

recognized standard for quality systems in laboratory operations.

AMS’ Dairy programs conducts comprehensive evaluations of dairy and related

products manufacturing plant facilities and equipment to assure their eligibility to

receive grading service and display the grade shield on products. Associated with 

this service is a sanitary design evaluation service for processing equipment. Under

this service, processors can have the sanitary aspects of the design and the cleanability of a machine or process evaluated prior to installation in their facility. A similar

service is being developed by AMS for the meat and poultry industry.

Spreading the News

Farmers, shippers, wholesalers, and retailers across the country rely on AMS

Market News for up-to-the-minute information on commodity prices and shipments.

Market News helps industry make the daily critical decisions about where and when

to sell, and what price to expect. Because this information is made so widely available, farmers and those who market agricultural products are better able to compete,

ensuring consumers a stable and reasonably priced food supply.

AMS Market News reporters generate approximately 700 reports each day, collected from more than 100 U.S. locations. Reports cover local, regional, national, and

international markets for dairy, livestock, meat, poultry, grain, fruit, vegetables,

tobacco, cotton, and specialty products. Weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, and annual

reports track the longer-range performance of cotton, dairy products, poultry and

eggs, fruits, vegetables, specialty crops, livestock, meat, grain, floral products, feeds,

wool, and tobacco. Periodically, AMS issues special reports on such commodities as

olive oil, pecans, peanuts, and honey.

USDA’s commodity market information in Market News is easily accessible—

via newspapers, television, and radio; printed reports mailed or faxed directly to the

user; telephone recorders; electronic access through the Market News

Communication System and the Internet; through electronic mail; and by direct contact with USDA reporters.

Buying Food: Helping Farmers, School Children, 

and Needy Persons

AMS serves both farmers and those in need of nutrition assistance through its

commodity procurement programs. By purchasing wholesome, high-quality food

products that are in abundance, AMS helps provide stable markets for producers. The

Nation’s food assistance programs benefit from these purchases, because these foods

go to low-income individuals who might otherwise be unable to afford them.
230

Some of the programs and groups that typically receive USDA-purchased food

include: children in the National School Lunch, Summer Camp, and School

Breakfast Programs; Native Americans participating in the Food Distribution

Program on Indian Reservations; older Americans through the Nutrition Program for

the Elderly; and low income and homeless persons through the Commodity

Supplemental Food Program and the Emergency Food Assistance Program. In addition, USDA helps provide disaster relief by making emergency purchases of commodities for distribution to disaster victims.

Once USDA determines that a purchase is appropriate, AMS publicly invites

bids, and makes sure that the food it purchases meets quality and nutrition standards.

Often, AMS specifies that foods be low in fat, sugar, and sodium. Compliance with

specification requirements is ensured through in-plant USDA certification agents and

testing in AMS-approved laboratories. AMS only purchases products that are 100

percent domestic in origin.

Pesticides: Information and Records

The U.S. food supply is one of the safest in the world, but the public is still concerned about the effects of agricultural pesticides on human health and environmental

quality. The Pesticide Data Program (PDP) which is administered by AMS, provides

statistically reliable information on chemical residues found on agricultural commodities such as fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, grain, and milk. PDP is a

Federal-State partnership where 10 participating States using uniform procedures collect and test these commodities. The information gained helps form the basis for conducting realistic dietary risk assessments and evaluating pesticide tolerances as

required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. The Environmental Protection

Agency uses PDP data to address reregistration of pesticides. Other Federal agencies

use the data to respond more quickly and effectively to food safety issues. PDP’s data

are also used to support the export of American commodities in the competitive

global marketplace and to assess integrated pest management activities. 

AMS also administers the Federal Pesticide Recordkeeping Program, which

requires certified private applicators to keep records of their restricted use pesticide

applications for a period of two years. These records support collection of pesticide

use data to help analyze agricultural pesticide use and are used by health care professionals when treating individuals who may have been exposed to a restricted use pesticide. AMS works with State pesticide regulatory agencies and Cooperative

Extension Services to provide the regulatory and education aspects of the program.

Helping Farmers Promote Their Products

“The Touch...the Feel of Cotton...the Fabric of Our Lives,” “Got Milk?,”

“Pork...the Other White Meat,” “Beef...It’s What’s for Dinner.” If you’ve watched

television or read magazines lately, you’ve probably heard or read these slogans and

others for a host of agricultural commodities. All of these promotional campaigns are

part of the research and promotion programs that AMS oversees.
Federal research and promotion programs are designed to strengthen the industry’s position in the marketplace and to maintain and expand domestic and foreign

markets. The programs are all fully funded by industry assessments. Board members

are nominated by industry and appointed officially by the Secretary of Agriculture.

AMS oversees the activities of the boards or councils and approves budgets, in order

to assure compliance with the legislation.

Currently, there are research and promotion programs for beef, pork, cotton, 

fluid milk, dairy products, eggs, honey, mushrooms, potatoes, soybeans, watermelons, popcorn, and peanuts.

But, while advertising is one part of these programs, product research and development is also a major focus. Wrinkle-resistant cotton and low-fat dairy products are

just two examples of how these programs benefit consumers and help expand markets

for producers.

Marketing Orders: Solving Producers’ Marketing Problems

Marketing agreements and orders help dairy, fruit, vegetable, and peanut

producers come together to work at solving marketing problems they cannot solve

individually. Marketing orders are flexible tools that can be tailored to the needs of

local market conditions for producing and selling. But they are also legal instruments

that have the force of law, with USDA ensuring an appropriate balance between the

interests of producers looking for a fair price and consumers who expect an adequate,

quality supply at a reasonable price.

Federal milk marketing orders, for example, establish minimum prices that milk

handlers or dealers must pay to producers for milk, depending on how that milk is

used—whether fluid milk, ice cream, cheese, or other storable product. Federal milk

orders help build more stable marketing conditions by operating at the first level of

trade, where milk leaves the farm and enters the marketing system. They are flexible

in order to cope with market changes. They assure that consumers will have a steady

supply of fresh milk at all times. 

Marketing agreements and orders also help provide stable markets for fruit, vegetable, and specialty crops like nuts and raisins, to the benefit of producers and consumers. They help farmers produce for a market, rather than having to market

whatever happens to be produced. A marketing order may help an industry smooth

the flow of crops moving to market, to alleviate seasonal shortages and surpluses. In

addition, marketing orders help maintain the quality of produce being marketed; standardize packages or containers; and authorize advertising, research, and market

development. Each program is tailored to the individual industry’s marketing needs. 

Ensuring Fair Trade in the Market

AMS also administers several programs that ensure fair trade practices among

buyers and sellers of agricultural products.

The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) program promotes fair

trading in the fresh and frozen fruit and vegetable industry. Through PACA, buyers

and sellers are required to live up to the terms of their contracts, and procedures are

available for resolving disputes outside the civil court system.

231
Fruit and vegetable buyers and sellers need this assurance because of the highly

perishable nature of their products. Trading in produce is considerably different than

trading for a car, a computer, or even grain. When a vegetable grower doesn’t get

paid, the product usually can’t be reclaimed before it spoils—or before it has already

been consumed.

Although PACA was initiated to protect producers, it benefits consumers and the

entire produce industry. Over the past decade, AMS has handled nearly 40,000 PACA

complaints, not just from growers, but also from grower-agents, grower-shippers,

brokers, wholesalers, retailers, and processors. PACA is funded by license fees paid

by industry, but the bottom line is that fair trade and resolved disputes mean businesses of any size can operate in a better trade environment and consumers can get a

wider choice of reasonably priced, high-quality fruits and vegetables.

The Federal Seed Act (FSA) protects everyone who buys seed by prohibiting

false labeling and advertising of seed in interstate commerce. The FSA also complements State seed laws by prohibiting the shipment of seed containing excessive noxious weed seeds. Labels for agricultural seed must state such information as the kinds

and percentage of seed in the container, percentages of foreign matter and weed

seeds, germination percentage and the date tested, and the name and address of the

shipper. USDA also tests seed for seed growers and seed buyers on a fee-for-service

basis to determine quality.

The Plant Variety Protection Act provides intellectual property rights protection

to breeders of plants that reproduce both sexually, that is, through seeds, and through

tubers. Developers of new plant varieties can apply for certificates of protection. This

protection enables the breeder to market the variety exclusively for 20 years and, in

so doing, creates an incentive for investment in the development of new plant varieties. Since 1970, AMS’ Plant Variety Protection Office has issued more than 4,200

certificates of protection.

The Agricultural Fair Practices Act allows farmers to file complaints with USDA

if a processor refuses to deal with them because they are members of a producers’

bargaining or marketing association. The act makes it unlawful for handlers to

coerce, intimidate, or discriminate against producers because they belong to such

groups. USDA helps to institute court proceedings when farmers’ rights are found to

be so violated.

The Shell Egg Surveillance Program protects consumers and producers from

those who would pack eggs for consumers with more low-quality shell eggs, such as

dirty, cracked, and leaking eggs, than permitted by U.S. Consumer Grade B standards. Producers that would do so, intentionally or otherwise, are able to gain a financial advantage over other producers who do not. When mixed in with high-quality

eggs, these low-quality eggs can be sold at a higher price, instead of being diverted

for production of liquid and frozen egg products. Also consumers suffer by receiving

lower quality eggs at high-quality prices. 

Organic Certification

AMS is responsible for developing and implementing an organic certification

program, which was authorized by the Organic Foods Production Act as part of the

1990 Farm Bill. 

232
233

The goals of the organic certification program are to: 

■ Establish national standards governing the marketing of certain products as

organically produced, 

■ Assure consumers that organically grown products meet consistent standards,

and 

■ Facilitate interstate commerce in fresh and processed food that is organically

produced.

Under the act, a National Organic Standards Board was appointed in January

1992. Its job is to help develop standards and recommend substances to be used in

organic production and handling. 

In December 1997, USDA issued a proposed rule with a comment period that

closed at the end of April 1998. USDA received more than 275,000 comments on the

proposal. AMS published three additional issue papers October 1998, and received

more than 10,000 comments. A revised proposal was published March 13, 2000 for

further comment. AMS expects to publish a final rule in 2000.

Direct Marketing and Wholesale Market Development

AMS continually seeks ways to help farmers and marketers improve the U.S.

food marketing system. For example, AMS’ Federal-State Marketing Improvement

Program (FSMIP) provides matching funds to State Departments of Agriculture or

other State agencies for marketing research or marketing service projects to improve

marketing systems. The aim of the program is to reduce costs or identify new market

opportunities for producers, ultimately benefitting consumers through lower food

costs and more food choices. Projects include research on innovative marketing techniques, taking those research findings into the marketplace to “test market” the

results, and developing State expertise in providing service to marketers of agricultural products. In FY 1999, the FSMIP program funded 25 projects in 20 States for

$1.2 million dollars. 

The Wholesale and Alternatives Program conducts research studies and provides

technical assistance to develop alternative marketing strategies and facilitate expansion of direct marketing opportunities for small farmers. The program also works to

improve the handling, processing, packaging, storage, and distribution of agricultural

products. AMS researchers work with local governments and food industry groups to

develop modern, efficient, wholesale food distribution centers and farmers markets.

■ Fact about farmers markets:

USDA defines a farmers market as a group of farmers and vendors

leasing or renting space in a common facility on a temporary basis,

with an emphasis on the sale of fresh farm products, crafts, and other

locally produced items. USDA estimates there are currently more than

2,700 farmers markets in the United States.
Efficient Transportation for Agriculture

An efficient transportation system allows consumers access to a wide variety of

agricultural products and commodities produced beyond their own localities.

AMS, through its Transportation and Marketing Programs, conducts research on

the logistical requirements and constraints involved in transporting and distributing

U.S. agricultural products to destination markets by railroads, trucks, inland barges,

and ocean vessels, and monitors the adequacy of existing infrastructure to support

efficient commerce. The research reports and technical assistance provided by AMS

transportation and marketing specialists are designed to help agricultural growers,

processors, shippers, and exporters respond more effectively to emerging changes in

both the domestic and international marketplace and are specifically targeted to help

the smaller grower, processor, shipper, or exporter who may lack easy access to relevant market research. AMS also provides seed money to academic institutions and

nonprofit organizations, in the form of cooperative agreements, for the purpose of

investigating alternative marketing channels for agricultural items produced by limited-resource farmers and processors. Agricultural producers, producer groups, shippers, exporters, rural communities, carriers, and consumers all benefit from the

analyses, technical assistance, and information provided by AMS.

Produce Locally, Think Globally

To remain competitive in today’s world, American agriculture has become more

global, and AMS has striven to be a strong partner in expanding markets for U.S.

agricultural products.

The AMS role in the international marketing of U.S. commodities centers on its

quality grading and certification programs, which are user-funded. Grading involves

determining whether a product meets a set of quality standards. Certification ensures

that contract specifications have been met—in other words, that the buyer receives

the product in the condition and quantity described by the terms of the contract. AMS

commodity graders frequently support other USDA agencies involved in export assistance, including the Farm Service Agency and the Foreign Agricultural Service. 

U.S. companies often request certification services when exporting to a country

that has specific import requirements. Certification services provided by AMS help

avoid rejection of shipments or delay in delivery once the product reaches its foreign

destination. Delays lead to product deterioration and, ultimately, affect the image of

U.S. quality. AMS’ Quality Systems Verification Program, a user-funded service for

the meat industry, provides independent, third-party verification of a supplier’s documented quality management system. The program was developed to promote worldclass quality and to improve the international competitiveness of U.S. livestock and

meat. AMS also certifies that all dairy products exported to the European Union meet

specified requirements. 

AMS also provides laboratory testing for exporters of domestic food commodities on a fee basis in keeping with sanitary and phytosanitary requirements of foreign

countries. To date, this service has been requested by exporters of products destined

for Japan, South Korea, and other Pacific Rim countries, South Africa, European

Union member countries, and countries of the former Soviet Union.

234
235

For selected fruits, vegetables, nuts (including peanuts), and specialty crops, the

grading of imports is mandatory. For the most part, however, firms importing agricultural products into the United States use grading services voluntarily. AMS graders

are also often asked to demonstrate commodity quality to foreign firms and governments.

In addition to export grading and certification services, AMS market news offices

provide information on sales and prices of both imports and exports. Today, U.S.

market participants can receive market information on livestock and meat from

Venezuela, Japan, Poland, Mexico, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and other

Pacific Rim markets; poultry from Canada, Mexico, Japan, Germany, and the

Netherlands; fruits and vegetables from France, Great Britain, Bulgaria, Poland,

Mexico, New Zealand, and Canada; ornamentals from Germany, France, and

Mexico; dairy products from Eastern and Western Europe and Oceania; and a host of

products from Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Russia.

AMS participates in a number of international forums that aim to facilitate world

agricultural trade and avoid potential trade barriers. Technical assistance has been

provided to countries in Eastern and Central Europe, and elsewhere around the globe,

to improve their marketing systems. With improved transportation, distribution, and

marketing information systems, these countries will become better customers for

U.S. food and fiber products.

Whether at home or abroad, AMS strives to help U.S. agriculture market its

abundant, high-quality products. And AMS will continue to work to help U.S. agriculture market its products in growing world markets, while assuring U.S. consumers

an abundant supply of high-quality, wholesome food at reasonable prices.

■ Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:

Protecting Agricultural Health and Productivity

Why are the farmers and ranchers of the United States able to produce so muchfood for the tables of America’s consumers?

Of course, there’s no simple answer. But one key to this plentiful supply of food

can be summed up in a single phrase: “Healthy crops and livestock.”

And this is no accident. America’s agricultural health is a result of a team

effort—good husbandry by farmers and ranchers plus an organized effort to control

and eradicate pests and disease and to prevent the entry of devastating foreign

plagues.

Just like frosts, floods, and droughts, pests and diseases can wreak havoc on agricultural productivity, depressing farm incomes and driving up food costs for consumers in the process. While we may not be able to prevent weather-related disasters,

USDA plays a vital role in protecting our country’s agricultural health. The result is a

more abundant, higher quality, and cheaper food supply than is found anywhere else

in the world.
236

If agriculture is the foundation of manufacture and commerce, there is perhaps

no greater mission than making sure that foundation remains healthy and strong. With

the advent of free trade initiatives, a global network of countries has agreed that valid

agricultural health concerns—not politics nor economics—are the only acceptable

basis for trade restrictions. In this environment, our country’s agricultural health

infrastructure will be our farmers’ greatest ally in seeking new export markets.

Excluding Invasive Species

Agriculture, America’s biggest industry and its largest employer, is under constant threat of attack by invasive species. Invasive species are countless and often

microscopic, and they gain access to our country in surprising ways. Their potential

allies are every traveler entering the United States and every American business

importing agricultural products from other countries.

Invasive species are nonindigenous organisms that cause, or are likely to cause,

harm to the economy, the environment, plant and animal health, or public health if

introduced into the country. Organisms considered to be invasive species can include

terrestrial or aquatic plants, animals, and disease agents. The estimated economic

harm to the United States from these biological invaders runs in the tens of billions of

dollars and may exceed $120 billion annually.

Problems associated with invasive species are national in scope and are becoming more and more widespread. For instance, conservation experts have found that

invasive plant infestations cover about 100 million acres of land throughout the

United States. An average of 3 million acres are estimated to be lost to invasive plants

each year. This constitutes an area twice the size of Delaware.

While the United States faces an ever-increasing challenge in managing invasive

species that are currently thriving across our Nation, preventing the introduction of

new invasive species also has become more challenging in today’s global environment. Worldwide opportunities for international commerce and travel have reached

unprecedented levels. Unfortunately, this global activity has increased greatly the

number of pathways for the movement and introduction of foreign, invasive agricultural pests and diseases.

APHIS historically has worked hard to safeguard American agricultural

resources and prevent damage to our natural ecosystems from the introduction and

establishment of those invasive species that threaten the health and vitality of domestic plants and animals. In fact, as reflected by the Agency’s name, this is APHIS’ core

mission.

In fulfilling this mission, APHIS ensures that U.S. agricultural resources remain

healthy and productive. In addition, APHIS facilitates trade by ensuring that both

U.S. agricultural products exported throughout the world and foreign agricultural

imports are free of plant and animal pests and diseases. This is a mission that benefits

farmers and consumers at home and abroad.

Through its Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Veterinary Services (VS),

International Services (IS), and Wildlife Services (WS) programs, APHIS is one of

about 20 Federal agencies that deal with invasive species. These units, and their

activities, contribute to APHIS’ overall strategy to protect the United States from

these invaders.
237

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection

Many passengers entering the United States do not realize that one piece of fruit

packed in a suitcase has the potential to cause millions of dollars in damage to U.S.

agriculture. Forbidden fruits and vegetables can carry a whole range of invasive plant

diseases and pests. Oranges, for example, can introduce diseases like citrus canker or

pests like the Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly).

Similarly, sausages and other meat products from many countries can contain

animal disease organisms that can live for many months and even survive processing.

Meat scraps from abroad could end up in garbage that is fed to swine. If the meat

came from animals infected with a disease, such as African swine fever or hog

cholera, it could easily be passed to domestic swine, and a serious epidemic could

result. An outbreak of African swine fever in U.S. hogs would drive up the price of

pork to consumers, cost hundreds of millions of dollars to eradicate, and close many

U.S. export markets.

APHIS safeguards U.S. borders against the entry of foreign agricultural pests

and diseases. At all airport terminals, seaports, and border stations, about 1,600 PPQ

employees inspect international conveyances and the baggage of passengers for plant

and animal products that could harbor pests or disease organisms. At international

airports, detector dogs in APHIS’ Beagle Brigade help find prohibited agricultural

materials. PPQ officers also inspect ship and air cargoes, rail and truck freight, and

package mail from foreign countries. At animal import centers, APHIS veterinarians

check animals in quarantine to make sure they are not infected with any foreign pests

or diseases before being allowed into the country.

The following table provides selected inspection and interception data:

Fiscal Year (FY) 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999*

Ships Inspected 52,661 52,974 52,348 50,778 53,978

Aircraft Inspected 401,741 410,318 461,927 422,735 442,500

Passengers and

Crew Inspected 65,645,734 66,119,960 68,448,289 72,191,992 69,000,720

Interceptions of

Plant Material 1,583,687 1,567,886 1,609,370 1,480,773 1,582,890

Interceptions of 

Pests 58,032 48,483 62,830 52,761 57,039

Interceptions of

Meat/Poultry

Products 223,392 264,001 294,674 331,616 287,351

Baggage Civil

Penalties-Number 21,813 20,716 21,498 19,302 21,732

Baggage Civil

Penalties-Amount

of Fines $1,098,220 $1,080,000 $1,107,670 $1,004,725 $1,128,247

*Note: 1999 data is based on a projected 3-percent increase. Projections were required due to data gaps

attributable to administrative confusion during the 1999 consolidation of PPQ’s Northeast and Southeast

Regions.
238

From high-tech to a keen nose, APHIS uses a variety of means to safeguard

American agriculture. PPQ officers augment visual inspection with some 85 x-ray

units that help check passenger baggage and mail for prohibited agricultural materials. They also have enlisted trained detector dogs and their keen sense of smell to

help sniff out prohibited fruit and meat. On leashes and under the constant supervision of their handlers, the friendly beagles in USDA’s Beagle Brigade have checked

the baggage of passengers arriving from overseas since 1984. Currently, APHIS has

about 57 canine teams at 20 airports and 5 land-border crossings.

Preclearance - Checking at the Source

In addition to domestic exclusion efforts, APHIS has a corps of experts stationed

overseas, sometimes with the help of APHIS officers on temporary duty, that bolsters

the Nation’s defenses against exotic pests and diseases. Often it is more practical and

effective to check and monitor commodities for pests or diseases at the source

through preclearance programs. APHIS has special arrangements with a number of

countries for preclearance programs, which are summarized in the following table.

Country Commodities

Argentina Apples, pears

Belgium Flower bulbs

Brazil Mangoes

Chile Stonefruit, berries, grapes, cut flowers, cherimoya, 

kiwifruit, other fruits and vegetables

Costa Rica Mangoes

Ecuador Mangoes, melons (free zone)

Great Britain Flower bulbs

Guatemala Mangoes

Haiti Mangoes

Ireland Flower bulbs

Jamaica Ugli fruit, cut flowers, papaya, 46 other commodities

Japan Sand pears, Unshu oranges, Fuji apples

Korea Sand pears, mandarin oranges

Mexico Mangoes, citrus (fumigation or from Sonora free zone), apples, 

apricots, peaches, persimmons, pomegranates (Sonora free zone)

New Zealand apples, pears, Nashi pears

The Netherlands Flower bulbs

Nicaragua Mangoes

Peru Mangoes

Scotland Flower bulbs

South Africa Apples, pears, plums, grapes, peaches, nectarines, citrus

Spain Lemons, clementines, Valencia oranges

Turkey Flowers bulbs

Venezuela Mangoes
239

International Programs

Through direct overseas contacts, IS employees gather and exchange information on plant and animal health; work to strengthen national, regional, and international agricultural health organizations; and cooperate in international programs

against certain pests and diseases that directly threaten American agriculture. Two of

the latter are the MOSCAMED program—which combats Medfly infestations in

Mexico and Guatemala—and a program to eradicate screwworms, a parasitic insect

of warm-blooded animals. Screwworm flies lay their eggs on the edge of open

wounds, and the developing larvae feed on the living flesh of the host. Left untreated,

the infestation can be fatal.

Screwworms were eradicated from the United States through the use of the sterile insect technique. With this method, millions of screwworm flies are reared in captivity, sterilized, and then released over infested areas to mate with native fertile flies.

Eggs produced through such matings do not hatch, and the insect literally breeds

itself out of existence.

To provide further protection to U.S. livestock, starting in 1972, eradication

efforts were moved southward from the U.S.-Mexican border, with the eventual goal

of establishing a barrier of sterile flies across the Isthmus of Panama. To date, screwworms have been eradicated from Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El

Salvador, and Nicaragua. Eradication is well advanced in Costa Rica; and as of June

1999, no new cases had been reported since March 18, 1999. Eradication in Panama

began in 1998, and a new rearing facility is planned. Currently, the production plant

at Tuxtla Gutierrez, Chiapas, in Mexico is producing 143 million sterile flies weekly.

The plant has the capacity to produce 500 million sterile flies weekly.

IS also works to prevent foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) from entering Mexico,

Central America, and Panama and works with Colombia to eliminate FMD from the

northern part of that country.

Coping With Invasions

If, despite our best efforts, foreign pests or diseases do manage to slip past our

phytosanitary defenses, APHIS establishes appropriate quarantine and eradication

programs. Current examples include: 1) citrus canker eradication in Florida; 2) plum

pox eradication in Pennsylvania, and 3) Asian longhorned beetle eradication in metropolitan Chicago and New York City.

APHIS PPQ has a special cadre of people who deal with introductions of exotic,

invasive plant pests. Known as “rapid response teams,” these groups have been mobilized on several occasions to combat costly infestations of Medflies and to perform

other tasks.

Early detection of exotic animal diseases by alert livestock producers and practicing veterinarians who contact specially trained State and Federal veterinarians is

the key to their quick detection and elimination. More than 300 such trained veterinarians are located throughout the United States to investigate suspected foreign diseases. Within 24 hours of diagnosis, one of two specially trained task forces in VS

can be mobilized at the site of an outbreak to implement the measures necessary to

eradicate the disease.
240

Currently, APHIS officials are actively working to prevent the entry of bovine

spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)—sometimes referred to as “mad cow disease.”

This disease has had a serious impact on the British livestock industry. BSE has never

been diagnosed in the United States. Since 1989, APHIS has restricted the importation of live ruminants and ruminant products—including animal feed made with

ruminant protein—from Great Britain and other countries where BSE is known to

exist. In addition, APHIS has conducted a BSE surveillance program since 1989.

Specialists have examined brain specimens from more than 10,062 cattle and have

found no evidence of BSE.

In an effort to evaluate and ultimately improve pest exclusion efforts, APHIS

contracted with the National Plant Board to conduct a thorough review of all components of the Agency’s safeguarding system. The review group, which was comprised

of State, industry, and university representatives, reviewed APHIS’ pest exclusion

efforts, international pest information systems, pest permits, and detection and

response efforts. After concluding its review, the group made approximately 300 recommendations, published in a safeguarding report, that they believe will assist

APHIS in adapting its safeguarding efforts to better manage drastic increases in trade

and international travel.

APHIS’ PPQ program has already formed a leadership group to assess the safeguarding report’s recommendations and develop strategies for their implementation.

PPQ leadership group formed committees to address the specific recommendations.

These committees plan to have implementation strategies ready for Agency consideration by the summer of 2000.

Import-Export Regulations

APHIS is responsible for enforcing regulations governing the import and export

of animals and plants and certain agricultural products.

Importation requirements depend on both the product and the country of origin.

Certain restrictions, ranging from processing to total import prohibition, are placed

on both animals and animal products—such as meats and hides—if they originate in

countries that have a different disease status from the United States. Livestock and

poultry must be accompanied by a health certificate issued by an official of the

exporting country.

Imports of livestock and poultry from most countries must enter the United

States through APHIS-approved quarantine facilities. Animals from Mexico and

Canada may cross at land ports along the borders as long as they have met certain

specified requirements and are accompanied by the appropriate paperwork.

Personally owned pet birds can enter through one of four USDA-operated bird

quarantine facilities: New York, NY; Miami, FL; San Ysidro, CA; and Hidalgo, TX.

Those that qualify as U.S.-origin birds may return through any port of entry when

arrangements have been made for an APHIS-VS veterinarian to inspect their bird.

Pet birds from Canada can enter without quarantine because Canada’s animal

disease programs and import rules are similar to those of the United States.

Commercial shipments of pet birds can enter through one of the privately owned,

APHIS-supervised quarantine facilities. APHIS cooperates with the U.S. Department

of the Interior in carrying out provisions of the Endangered Species Act that deal with
241

imports and exports of endangered plant, animal, or bird species. APHIS inspectors at

ports of entry look out for and identify these species and notify Interior of

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)-protected species

found during inspection. Also, at many ports, APHIS officials inspect and sample

seed imported from foreign countries to ensure that it is accurately labeled and free of

noxious weeds.

Imported plants must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by an

official of the exporting country. APHIS maintains 16 plant inspection stations, the

largest of which is in Miami, FL, for commercial importation of plant materials.

Smaller stations are at Orlando, FL; San Juan, PR; John F. Kennedy International

Airport, Jamaica, NY; Linden, NJ; Houston, El Paso, and Los Indios (Brownsville),

TX; Nogales, AZ; San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, CA; Seattle, WA;

Honolulu, HI; Beltsville, MD (used strictly for importations of plants for research

purposes); and New Orleans, LA.

To facilitate agricultural exports, APHIS officials certify the health of both plants

and animals that are shipped to foreign countries. APHIS PPQ provides assurance

that U.S. plants and plant products meet the plant quarantine import requirements of

foreign countries. This assurance is in the form of a phytosanitary certificate issued

by PPQ or its State cooperators. During FY 1999, more than 313,000 phytosanitary

certificates were issued for exports of plants and plant products.

VS officials and the National Center for Import and Export negotiate animal

health requirements for export of livestock, germplasm, poultry and animal products

with the importing countries. These requirements are maintained in the International

Regulations Retrieval System (IRRS). VS area offices and major exporters have

access to the system. IRRS is also available on the World Wide Web.

USDA accredited veterinarians issue health certificates in order to meet U.S.

requirements and the requirements of the recipient country. These health certificates

are endorsed by VS area veterinarians in the State of origin. The final inspection of

livestock is conducted by a VS port veterinarian at the port of embarkation. This

inspection is not required for livestock shipped to Canada and Mexico if they are

shipped through land border ports.

It is in the area of foreign health requirements that APHIS is of greatest help to

the U.S. livestock industry. Through direct negotiations with foreign governments,

APHIS has established approximately 450 livestock, semen, embryo, and poultry

health agreements with more than 100 countries in the world. These negotiations are

a continuous process wherever APHIS finds opportunities to open new markets and

to reduce unnecessary impediments or changing disease conditions require adjustments. In 1996, APHIS averted a ban of U.S. poultry meat to Russia and China worth

more than $2 billion.

In addition to certifying the health of agricultural exports, APHIS officials mount

a proactive approach to the marketing of U.S. crops and livestock overseas. For

instance, APHIS and Food Safety and Inspection Service officials coordinated negotiations to avert a Russian embargo on U.S. poultry exports worth $600 million a year.

On the plant side, efforts by APHIS and Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) officials

helped maintain U.S. wheat exports after the March 1996 discovery of an outbreak of
242

Karnal bunt, a fungal disease of wheat, in Arizona. The United States is the world’s

leading wheat exporter, accounting for 27 percent of world wheat exports in 1999.

U.S. wheat exports in calendar 1999 were valued at $3.5 billion.

APHIS and FAS officials also helped to achieve an agreement with China in

April 1999 that lifted that country’s ban on the importation of U.S. citrus from the

citrus-producing States of Arizona, California, Florida, and Texas. As a result, in

March 2000, the first shipments of U.S. citrus to China departed from California.

Citrus will now be exported from Arizona, California, Florida, and Texas because

APHIS was able to demonstrate the effectiveness of U.S. phytosanitary security

measures. Industry experts predict that citrus exports to China will exceed $500

million annually by the year 2004.

■ Domestic Plant Health Programs

I

n most cases, plant pest problems are handled by individual farmers, ranchers, and

other property owners and their State or local governments. However, when an

insect, weed, or disease poses a particularly serious threat to a major crop, the

Nation’s forests, or other plant resources, APHIS may join in the control work.

Most pests and weeds that are targets of APHIS-PPQ programs are not native 

to America. They gained entry into this country through commercial trade channels,

international travelers, or other means.

When invasive pests are new to this country, control techniques may not be

available. In any case, PPQ applies interstate quarantines and takes other steps to

prevent spread until effective control measures can be developed.

In many cases, foreign pests are only minor problems in their native lands

because they are kept in check by native parasites, predators, and diseases. Since

many of these natural enemies may not exist in the United States, one of PPQ’s control techniques—in cooperation with USDA’s Agricultural Research Service—is the

importation, rearing, and release of parasites and other biological control organisms.

Biocontrol—Nature’s Way

In its classical sense, biological control means using predators, parasites, and

pathogens to combat invasive pests. Predators and parasites include insects, mites,

and nematodes that naturally attack a target pest. Pathogens include bacteria, viruses,

or fungi that cause diseases specifically injurious to a target pest.

Biological control was first put to broad, practical use in the United States in 

the 1880’s. At that time, California citrus groves were being devastated by an exotic

insect, the cottony-cushion scale. A USDA scout working in Australia found the

vedalia beetle feeding on the scale insect. The beetle, part of the lady beetle family,

was successfully introduced into California and other citrus-growing regions and has

kept the scale insect from causing economic damage ever since.

To coordinate the important search for new and better biocontrol opportunities, 

a National Biological Control Institute was established in APHIS in 1989. The
Institute’s mission is to promote, facilitate, and provide leadership for biological

control. Its main work is to compile and release technical information and coordinate

the work needed to find, identify, and augment or distribute new biological control

agents.

The Institute relies on scientists from USDA’s Agricultural Research Service

(ARS) and elsewhere to identify potentially useful biological control agents. These

agents are carefully screened at quarantine centers before being put to use.

Various agencies have successfully cooperated on biocontrol projects. For example, several decades ago, ARS scientists found six species of stingless wasps in

Europe that keep alfalfa weevils in check. In 1980, APHIS took on the job of establishing these beneficial wasps across the land. Between 1980 and 1989, APHIS and

its cooperators raised and distributed about 17 million wasps, and today there are

beneficial wasps within reach of virtually every alfalfa field in the country. It is estimated that the benefits of the alfalfa weevil biocontrol program amount to about $88

million per year, representing a return of about $87 for each $1 spent on the project.

Other APHIS biocontrol programs currently underway in cooperation with State

agencies include efforts against the cereal leaf beetle, sweet potato whitefly, Colorado

potato beetle, brown citrus aphid, pink hibiscus mealybug, gypsy moth, imported fire

ant, leafy spurge, purple loosestrife, Russian knapweed, dalmatian and yellow toadflax, and diffuse and spotted knapweed. Promising biocontrol agents for other pests

are being tested at PPQ biocontrol labs located at Mission, TX; Niles, MI; and

Bozeman, MT.

“Deliver Us From Weevil”—Boll Weevil Eradication

One major domestic program PPQ is coordinating is the effort to eradicate boll

weevils from the United States. The boll weevil entered this country from Mexico in

the late 1890’s and soon became a major pest of cotton. It has caused an estimated

$12 billion in losses to the Nation’s economy. In 1973, it was estimated that insecticides applied to control boll weevils accounted for about one-third of the total applied

to agricultural crops in the United States.

The success of a 1971-73 cooperative boll weevil eradication experiment in portions of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama involving Federal and State agencies

and grower associations led to two 3-year demonstration projects. One was an eradication trial in North Carolina and Virginia; the second was an optimum pest management trial in Mississippi. The eradication trial was a success in 1980, and the program

has undergone regular, incremental expansion since that time. 

The current boll weevil eradication effort judiciously applies pesticides based on

the number of adult weevils trapped around cotton fields. The traps contain a

pheromone (insect attractant) and a small amount of insecticide that kills all captured

weevils. In eradication program areas, traps are placed at a rate of one trap per 1 to 3

acres and are checked weekly. Pesticide is applied only to fields that reach a predetermined number of trapped weevils. This selective use of pesticides results in fields

requiring minimal pesticide applications—sometimes none—during the growing

season. After several seasons, the weevils are eradicated within the defined program

area, eliminating any further need to spray for this pest. As an indirect benefit of

eliminating the boll weevil, growers are able to maintain beneficial insects that help

243
244

control many secondary pests. This further reduces the amount of pesticide used each

season to produce the cotton crop.

The table below shows the progress in eradicating boll weevils from U.S. cottongrowing areas.

States Involved Eradication Acres Weevil-free Acres

1983 VA/NC/SC 160,000 35,000

1985 +CA/AZ 1,400,000 1,100,000

1987 +GA/FL/AL 450,000 1,500,000

1994 +MS/TN/TX 50,000 2,000,000

1996 Same 1,300,000 4,600,000

1997 +LA 1,600,000 4,600,000

1998 +OK 2,000,000 4,600,000

2000 +AR/NM 7,200,000 4,700,000

In the cooperative boll weevil eradication program, APHIS provides technical

support, a portion of program funds, and some capital equipment and administrative

support. Grower assessments and/or State appropriations will provide 96 percent of

total program costs in 2000, with APHIS providing the remaining 4 percent.

The economic benefits-to-cost ratio for the program has been projected to be 21

to 1 nationwide, and as high as 40 to 1 in specific areas of the Cotton Belt. The success of the program has brought a resurgence of cotton production and related industries. Acreage in the Southeast has increased nearly fourfold since the weevil’s

eradication. Cotton growers in eradicated areas are better able to withstand difficult

economic times, such as the low market prices of 1998-2000, because their production costs–without the weevil–are much lower than those in the infested areas.

Witchweed—A Success Story

Witchweed is a parasitic invasive plant that attaches itself to the roots of crops

such as corn, sorghum, sugar cane, and other members of the grass family, robbing

them of water and vital nutrients. Each plant can produce up to 500,000 seeds per

year, and the seeds can remain viable in the soil for up to 15 years, germinating when

they come into contact with the root of a host plant.

Witchweed was introduced into the Carolinas from Africa in the mid-1950’s.

When the parasite first struck, corn plants mysteriously withered and died. A student

visiting from India recognized the weed and told U.S. agricultural experts what it

was.

Over the course of an eradication effort that began in 1974, some 450,000 acres

have been infested. The eradication program was based on surveillance to locate

infested fields, quarantines to prevent spread, and a combination of herbicides and

germination stimulants to actually eradicate the weed.

At the beginning of FY 1995, with fewer than 28,000 infested acres remaining,

APHIS turned operation of the program over to North Carolina to complete eradication there, but continues to help finish the eradication effort in South Carolina. In the

spring of 2000, infested areas have been reduced to 5,416 acres in North Carolina and

943 acres in South Carolina.
245

Grasshoppers and IPM

APHIS was the lead agency in a cooperative Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

initiative for grasshopper control in the Western United States. This IPM project,

which began in 1987 and closed down in 1994, was aimed at finding better and more

acceptable ways of preventing grasshopper damage, while protecting the environment. Activities included developing means to predict and manage grasshopper outbreaks, developing biological control alternatives that minimize the use of chemicals,

and integrating proven control techniques into guidelines for APHIS rangeland

grasshopper programs.

All this information was integrated into a computer-based decision support system program called “HOPPER.” HOPPER is a user-friendly software package that

facilitates grasshopper predictions, time and selection of control options, compilation

of weather data, and analysis of the economics of range management practices. An

example of how HOPPER is used was provided by a Logan County, CO, official in

August 1996. He wrote: “I was recently asked to utilize the district’s resources to

help ranchers save grass pasture obviously threatened by grasshoppers.” Using the

HOPPER computer model (previously downloaded from the Internet) he estimated

the return and decided on the best treatment method.

“We discovered that we would spend $4 per acre in an effort to save $1.50 per

acre of grass. The ranchers quickly realized they could purchase hay to replace lost

forage and save money. The program showed us we would also have very little effect

on next year’s population. It also showed us that we should initiate any control effort

sooner in the year than we have done in the past.” 

APHIS is conducting surveys in order to assess how extensive crop protection

activities must be to prevent the migration of grasshoppers from public to private

lands and the subsequent destruction of high value crops. APHIS officials estimate

that crop protection activities in the Western States—including Utah, Idaho, North

Dakota, and Oregon—could cost as much as $1.3 million. APHIS officials are working with Bureau of Land Management and USDA’s Forest Service to prepare appropriate environmental documentation that will allow Federal officials to deal with any

high grasshopper populations that may develop in the spring or summer of 2000.

Such documentation will supplement a 1987 environmental impact statement and

allow officials to use all available and appropriate technologies—such as Dimilin, an

insecticide—during periods of elevated grasshopper populations.

Other domestic PPQ programs include a quarantine program to prevent the artificial spread of the European gypsy moth from infested areas in the Northeastern

United States through movement of outdoor household goods and other articles;

quarantines to prevent the spread of imported fire ants through movement of plant

nursery material from infested areas; and releasing irradiated sterile pink bollworm

moths to keep this insect out of cotton in California’s San Joaquin Valley.

Asian Longhorned Beetle (ALB)

Since 1996, infestations of the ALB, a destructive pest of hardwood, have been

detected in and around five areas of New York, including Amityville, Brooklyn, Long

Island, Manhattan, and Queens. There have also been several finds in the vicinity and
246

city of Chicago, Illinois. The most significant recent find in New York occurred on

August 19, 1999. A dead adult ALB was found in a New York City playground

approximately 1 mile from the east side of Central Park and 2 miles from the site of

the Brooklyn infestation. Since that time, 23 infested trees have been removed and

destroyed in this area, and APHIS officials continue surveillance activities.

In Chicago, Illinois, APHIS and its city, State, and USDA cooperators continue

with the ALB eradication program in Ravenswood, Addison, Summit, and Park

Ridge to prevent the pest’s spread. On February 2, 2000, APHIS published an interim

rule amending the ALB quarantine areas in Chicago and added two new areas in

Cook County, Illinois. To date, approximately 1,200 infested trees have been identified and removed from the four ALB infested areas; of these, slightly more than

1,100 were from the Ravenswood area, 51 from Addison, 25 from Summit, and 4

from Park Ridge. Public relations and education efforts via television, newspapers,

and radio have greatly assisted the cooperative ALB eradication program. For example, local residents were responsible for the ALB identifications in Summit and

Addison. 

In other efforts to address this invasive pest, Secretary Glickman signed a declaration of emergency in March 1999 and transferred $5.5 million from the Commodity

Credit Corporation (CCC) to APHIS for ALB eradication programs in Illinois and

New York. In March 2000, $14.1 million in CCC funds was provided for USDA

efforts to eradicate the pest and replace damaged trees.

In September 1998, APHIS published an interim rule in the Federal Register

banning entry into the United States of untreated solid wood packing materials from

the Peoples’ Republic of China—the probable source of the ALB introductions—and

Hong Kong. In January 1999 APHIS officials published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to solicit public suggestions regarding additional regulatory action

concerning solid wood packing materials. APHIS is also helping coordinate ALB

research programs. In addition, APHIS initiated a pilot control program using imidacloprid, a systemic insecticide applied by soil or trunk injection, in the late spring of

2000.

Citrus Canker

Citrus canker is a devastating bacterial disease that greatly reduces production in

citrus trees by causing fruit and leaves to drop prematurely. It was first detected in

residential trees in Florida’s Dade County in 1995; since then, it has been detected in

commercial and residential trees in five other counties: Manatee, Collier, Broward,

Hendry, and Hillsborough. APHIS officials have worked with Florida officials since

1995 to conduct an eradication program in quarantined areas now totaling nearly 600

square miles. 

The most recent detections of citrus canker have occurred in lime groves in the

Florida City area of Dade County. This is the first detection of the disease in limes in

the United States. The Florida City area accounts for nearly all the limes grown in the

United States—about 3,500 acres—and provides approximately 10 percent of the

limes used in this country. To date, 710 of the 803 acres of lime groves surveyed have

been found positive for citrus canker. This will significantly impact lime producers
247

and packers in the area. APHIS is working with the State to revise the quarantine

boundaries; in addition to affecting lime producers, the quarantines will also affect

numerous area nurseries.

Effective March 15, 1999, Secretary Glickman issued a declaration of emergency enabling the release of Federal emergency funding for citrus canker eradication and control efforts in Florida. $25 million was made available for control efforts

in FY 1999.

Additionally, on February 11, 2000, Florida Governor Jeb Bush declared a citrus

canker state of emergency in Collier, Broward, Hendry, Hillsborough, Manatee, and

Miami-Dade Counties. Recent scientific information has caused both Federal and

State officials to consider more intensive disease efforts. Accordingly, APHIS worked

with the State to develop an eradication program estimated to cost $170.9 million. 

On February 22, USDA officials, along with Deputy Secretary Richard E.

Rominger, met in Orlando, Florida, with State and citrus industry representatives to

consider the appropriate response to the spread of citrus canker in Florida. In particular, it was resolved that Florida would take full responsibility for tree removal, implementing a recommended 1,900 foot buffer area. Tree removal will begin at the north

and south borders of the infestation, working toward the center. The plan is to accomplish this exhaustive tree removal program within 1 year. In addition, APHIS and

affected industry representatives continue work on an agreeable operational plan for

tree removal.

Domestic Animal Health Programs

Protecting the health of the Nation’s livestock and poultry industries is the

responsibility of APHIS-VS.

VS veterinary medical officers and animal health technicians work with their

counterparts in the States and with livestock producers to carry out cooperative programs to control and eradicate certain animal diseases. The decision to begin a

nationwide campaign against a domestic animal disease is based on a number of factors, the most important of which is: “Are producers and the livestock industry a

leading force in the campaign?”

This organized effort against livestock diseases began in 1884 when Congress

created a special agency within USDA to combat bovine pleuropneumonia—a

dreaded cattle disease that was crippling exports as well as taking a heavy toll on

domestic cattle. Within 8 years, contagious bovine pleuropneumonia had been eradicated and this campaign set the pattern for subsequent animal disease control and

eradication programs.
248

To date, 13 serious livestock and poultry diseases have been eradicated from the 

United States. They are: 

Diseases Eradicated from the United States

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

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-Federal

efforts directed at cattle and swine brucellosis, bovine tuberculosis, and pseudorabies

in swine. The following table shows the status of States in these programs.

Cattle Swine Cattle Swine

State Brucellosis* Brucellosis** TB*** Pseudorabies****

AL FREE FREE FREE FREE

AK FREE FREE FREE FREE

AZ FREE FREE FREE FREE

AR FREE STAGE 2 FREE FREE

CA FREE FREE FREE STAGE 4

CO FREE FREE FREE FREE

CT FREE FREE FREE FREE

DE FREE FREE FREE FREE

FL CLASS A STAGE 2 FREE STAGE 3

GA FREE FREE FREE FREE

HI FREE FREE FREE FREE

ID FREE FREE FREE FREE

IL FREE FREE FREE A = STAGE

3/4

IN FREE FREE FREE STAGE 3

IA FREE FREE FREE STAGE 2/3

KS FREE FREE FREE FREE

KY FREE FREE FREE FREE

LA CLASS A STAGE 2 FREE STAGE 3

ME FREE FREE FREE FREE

MD FREE FREE FREE FREE

MA FREE FREE FREE STAGE 3

MI FREE FREE FREE & M-A STAGE 4

MN FREE FREE FREE STAGE 3
249

MS FREE FREE FREE FREE

MO CLASS A FREE FREE FREE

MT FREE FREE FREE FREE

NE FREE FREE FREE STAGE 3

NV FREE FREE FREE FREE

NH FREE FREE FREE FREE

NJ FREE FREE FREE STAGE 3/4

NM FREE FREE M-A FREE

NY FREE FREE FREE FREE

NC FREE FREE FREE STAGE 4

ND FREE FREE FREE FREE

OH FREE FREE FREE STAGE 4

OK CLASS A FREE FREE FREE

OR FREE FREE FREE FREE

PA FREE FREE FREE STAGE 4

PR FREE FREE FREE FREE

RI FREE FREE FREE FREE

SC FREE FREE FREE FREE

SD CLASS A FREE FREE STAGE 4

TN FREE FREE FREE FREE

TX CLASS A STAGE 2 M-A STAGE 3

UT FREE FREE FREE FREE

VT FREE FREE FREE FREE

VI FREE FREE FREE FREE

VA FREE FREE FREE FREE

WA FREE FREE FREE FREE

WV FREE FREE FREE FREE

WI FREE FREE FREE STAGE 4

WY FREE FREE FREE FREE

* Class A (less than 0.25 percent herd infection rate) or Class Free

** Stage 2 (infected herds/State has met eradication program requirements established by United States

Animal Health Association), or Free (no infected herds)

*** Modified Accredited (M-A) (confirmed tuberculosis in two or more herds within the last 5 years) or

Accredited Free (not had tuberculosis within at least a 5-year period). Split State status in MI includes

Accredited Free zone and M-A zone

**** Stage 2 (eradication program initiated, more than 1 percent of herds in State infected), Stage 3 (eradication

program initiated, less than 1 percent of herds in State infected), Stage 4 (no known infections in State for

at least 1 year), or Free (no known infections for 1 year or more) 

Disease control and eradication measures include quarantines to stop the

movement of possibly infected or exposed animals, testing and examination to detect

infection, destruction of infected (sometimes exposed) animals to prevent further

disease spread, treatment to eliminate parasites, vaccination in some cases, and

cleaning and disinfection of contaminated premises. In addition to the programs

listed above, APHIS also cooperates with States in a voluntary Flock Certification

program to combat scrapie in sheep and goats. By April 1998, 260 sheep and goat

flocks had been enrolled in the certification program. A current listing of enrolled

flocks, by State and by breed, is available on the World Wide Web:

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/scrapie/status.html.
250

APHIS animal health programs are carried out by a field force of about 250 veterinarians and 360 lay inspectors working out of area offices (usually located in State

capitals). Laboratory support for these programs is supplied by APHIS’ National

Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) at Ames, IA, and Plum Island, NY, which

are centers of excellence in the diagnostic sciences and an integral part of APHIS’

animal health programs.

Under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act of 1913, APHIS enforces regulations to assure

that animal vaccines and other veterinary biologics are safe, pure, potent, and effective. Veterinary biologics are products designed to diagnose, prevent, or treat animal

diseases. They are used to protect or diagnose disease in a variety of domestic animals, including farm animals, household pets, poultry, fish, and fur bearers.

In contrast to animal medicines, drugs, or chemicals—all of which are regulated

by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration—veterinary biologics are derivatives of

living organisms. Unlike some pharmaceutical products, most biologics leave no

chemical residues in animals. Furthermore, most disease organisms do not develop

resistance to the immune response produced by a veterinary biologic.

Veterinarians and other professionals in the APHIS VS Center for Veterinary

Biologics regulate and license all veterinary biologics as well as the facilities where

they are produced. They also inspect and monitor the production of veterinary biologics, including both genetically engineered products and products produced by conventional means. Necessary tests of veterinary biologics are conducted at NVSL.

APHIS also regulates the licensing and production of genetically engineered

vaccines and other veterinary biologics. These products range from diagnostic kits

for feline leukemia virus to genetically engineered vaccines to prevent pseudorabies,

a serious disease affecting swine. With the pseudorabies vaccines, tests kits have

been developed to distinguish between infected animals and those vaccinated with

genetically engineered vaccines.

Since the first vaccine was licensed in 1979, a total of 79 genetically engineered

biologics have been licensed; all but 20 are still being produced.

More than a half-century ago, there were perhaps half a dozen animal vaccines

and other biologics available to farmers. Now there are 2,379 active product licenses

and 110 licensed manufacturers.

Monitoring Plant and Animal Pests and Diseases

In order to combat invasive plant pests and animal diseases, APHIS PPQ works

with the States in a project called the Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey, which

started in 1982 as a pilot project. Survey data on invasive species such as weeds,

insects, and plant diseases and pests are entered into a nationwide database, the

National Agricultural Pest Information System (NAPIS). This database can be

accessed from anywhere in the country by persons with an authorized account.

By accessing NAPIS, users can retrieve the latest data on pests. NAPIS data 

can assist pest forecasting, early pest warning, quicker and more precise delimiting

efforts, and better planning for plant pest eradication or control efforts. Survey 

data—which can reflect the absence as well as the presence of pests—also help U.S.

exports, assuring foreign countries that our commodities are free of specific invasive

pests and diseases.
251

There are more than a million records in the NAPIS database. Approximately

200 Federal and State agencies use NAPIS, which contains survey data files as well

as text and graphics files. The data can be downloaded and analyzed with geographic

information systems to provide graphic representation of information. For example,

locations of pine shoot beetle detections can be shown graphically as well as where

and how often surveys have been conducted for the beetle. This information is used

by the State and Federal agencies regulating this pest.

Describing animal health and management in the United States is the goal of the

APHIS National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS). This program, which

is conducted by VS, began in 1983.

NAHMS compiles statistics and information from existing data bases and gathers new data through short- and long-term targeted studies to present a baseline picture of animal agriculture. This information then can be used to predict trends and

improve animal production efficiency and food quality. NAHMS provides statistically sound data concerning U.S. livestock and poultry diseases and disease conditions, along with their costs and associated production practices. By the end of 1999,

NAHMS had conducted 11 national studies on U.S. animal populations: swine (2),

dairy (2), beef cow/calf (2) , beef feedlot (2), sheep (1), table egg layer chickens (1),

and catfish (1). Sentinel monitoring of morbidity and mortality in beef feedlots is an

ongoing monitoring project, as is bulk tank somatic cell count, the National Animal

Health Reporting System, and the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring

System.

Information from NAHMS aids a broad group of users throughout agriculture.

For instance, baseline animal health and management data from NAHMS national

studies are helping analysts identify associations between Salmonella and cattle management. NAHMS data are also helping researchers evaluate management practices

that contribute to the occurrence of Johne’s disease and digital dermatitis in cattle.

State and national officials, industry groups, and producers apply NAHMS data and

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 Monitoring.

Regulating Biotechnology in Agriculture

Scientists use agricultural biotechnology with a variety of laboratory techniques,

such as genetic engineering, to improve plants, animals, and micro-organisms.

Recent discoveries have led to virus-resistant crops such as cucumbers, tomatoes, and

potatoes; to better vaccines and diagnostic kits used for diseases of horses, chickens,

and swine; and even to new and improved varieties of commercial flowers.

Since 1987, APHIS’ role in agricultural biotechnology has been to manage and

oversee regulations to ensure the safe and rapid development of the products of

biotechnology. Applicants under APHIS’ effective regulations and practical guidelines can safely test—outside of the physical containment of the laboratory—genetically engineered organisms.
252

APHIS officials issue permits or acknowledge notification for the importation,

interstate movement, or field testing of genetically engineered plants, microorganisms, and invertebrates that are developed from components of plant pathogenic

material.

Since 1987, APHIS has issued more than 5,400 release permits and notifications

at more than 24,000 sites in the United States. The biotechnology regulations also

provide for an exemption process once it has been established that a genetically engineered product does not present a plant pest risk. Under this process, applicants can

petition APHIS for a determination of nonregulated status for specific genetically

engineered products. Over 2-1/2 years, 20 new engineered plant lines in 11 crops

have been proven safe and no longer need to be regulated by APHIS. One was the

first genetically engineered sugar beet, which is herbicide tolerant.

Recent deregulated commodities include:

■ tomato line with insect resistance

■ rapeseed (canola) line with herbicide tolerance

■ corn line with herbicide tolerance

■ flax line tolerant to herbicide residues in soils. 

APHIS biotechnology personnel meet with regulatory officials from other

nations on a regular basis to foster regulatory harmonization. These discussions are

intended to help ensure that requirements imposed by other countries are as consistent as possible with U.S. requirements and that our trading partners are kept

informed of biotechnology regulatory developments.

Controlling Wildlife Damage

The mission of APHIS’ Wildlife Services (WS) program is to provide Federal

leadership in managing problems caused by wildlife. Wildlife is a significant public

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 human

health and safety, and affect other natural resources. WS helps solve problems that

occur when human activity and wildlife are in conflict with one another. In doing so,

WS attempts to develop and use wildlife management strategies that are biologically,

environmentally, and socially sound.

The need for effective and environmentally sound wildlife damage management

is rising dramatically. There are several reasons for this. Increased suburban development is intruding upon traditional wildlife habitats. Population explosions among

some adaptable wildlife species—such as coyotes, deer, and geese—pose increasing

risks to human activities. At the same time, advances in science and technology are

providing alternative methods for solving wildlife problems.

More than half of U.S. farmers experience economic loss from damage caused

by wildlife. WS plays a leadership role in cooperative efforts with the States and agriculture producers across the country to protect farm crops, livestock, aquaculture, and

forest resources from damage caused by wildlife. Annual wildlife depredation losses

to selected agricultural commodities in the United States have been documented by

the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). The losses include predator
253

losses of cattle, sheep, and goats estimated at more than $65 million; over $110 million for corn, blueberries, and sunflowers; and more than $14 million for farm-raised

catfish and trout. Wildlife damage to U.S. agriculture excluding forest resources is

estimated at between $600 million and $1.6 billion annually.

WS has a long history of supporting rural America by providing assistance to

thousands of small farm and property owners. Small farms, many struggling under a

nationwide small farm crisis, depend on the vital service WS provides to protect their

livelihood. By providing assistance through cooperative agreements, WS helps minimize the negative impacts wildlife cause on agriculture, property, and natural

resources.

APHIS deals with a wide variety of wildlife problems, ranging from reducing the

threat of wildlife-borne diseases such as rabies to managing hazards caused by

wildlife to aviation safety at airports, to protecting endangered species from predation

by other wildlife. Here are a few examples of WS efforts in 1999:

■ Livestock herds in Michigan were placed at great risk from an outbreak of

bovine tuberculosis. The disease was confirmed in a deer herd on a private

ranch. The Michigan Department of Agriculture issued a depopulation order

to help slow the spread of the disease to cattle and free-ranging deer. WS

developed a depopulation plan and completed the depopulation in March,

1999, a year and a half ahead of schedule.

■ In Utah, livestock sales totaled 75 percent of all agricultural cash receipts. WS

provides protection from predator losses for approximately 95 percent of the

State’s domestic sheep and 20 percent of the newborn calves. Increasingly,

WS is providing protection for domestic turkey flocks, goats, and exotic livestock including ostrich and emu in Utah. Major predators include coyotes,

mountain lions, and black bears. In 1999, the Utah WS program was able to

keep cooperator predation loss for sheep below 5 percent for lambs and below

3 percent for adult sheep. WS monitors the predator management methods

practiced by Utah livestock production and provides technical assistance to

producers regarding nonlethal management strategies.

■ WS coordinated a cooperative cormorant roost dispersal program across the

primary catfish production region of the Mississippi Delta designed to reduce

cormorant depredation at catfish farms. Beginning in November, several hundred aquaculture producers, Federal and State employees, sportsmen, and

interested citizens participated in monitoring and dispersing 75 cormorant

night roosts away from fish production areas. This nonlethal management

strategy developed by WS and used for the past several years has been effective in reducing damage and is well accepted by producers. Cormorant populations were reduced in the region by as much as 75 percent.

■ As wolf populations continue to expand their range in Montana, Wyoming,

Idaho, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, management of wolf predation

continues to be a concern for livestock producers. In Minnesota, WS

responded to 78 requests for assistance that were verified to be wolf damage

and captured 106 wolves in 1999. WS also continues to play an important role

in gray wolf recovery in the northern Rocky Mountains. Since the reintroduction of 66 wolves in Idaho and Yellowstone National Park in 1995 and 1996,
254

wolf numbers increased to 340 animals by August 1999. Wolf-human conflicts have verified wolf predation, captured problem wolves, helped to mediate conflicts between agencies and livestock owners, and disseminated

information about predator damage management to producers and the general

public. APHIS contingency funds were again required to accomplish damage

management activities in 1999. Many wolves are expected to disperse from

both the Idaho and Yellowstone recovery areas in 2000 and cause further discontent among ranchers in surrounding areas. As a result, demands on WS are

expected to continue to increase.

■ The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service (NPS), Florida

Department of Environmental Protection, and several private conservation

organizations relied on WS to protect 10 endangered and threatened species

including sea turtles, endemic beach mice, shorebirds, and one fish species

from other wildlife on public lands in the Florida panhandle. WS efforts to

protect endangered sea turtles in one area resulted in an all-time low in nest

depredation. In FY 1999, 170 sea turtle nests were laid with only one nest predation incident.

■ In Ohio, New York, and Vermont, WS assisted in the distribution of more than

1,786,320 oral raccoon rabies vaccine baits in FY 1999 distributed over more

than 4,519 square miles. This program was designed to stop the westward

spread of the racoon strain of rabies by creating buffer zones where the rabies

virus will die out and prevent the westward movement of the virus.

Cooperative monitoring and surveillance has shown good uptake of the vaccine baits by raccoons, resulting in a significant reduction in the number of

rabies-positive raccoons in the treated areas.

■ During 1999, cooperative funding was provided to WS by the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Defense, airports, counties,

municipalities, and waste-handing facilities to conduct direct assistance activities on civil and military airports. Technical assistance provided by WS to

airport managers and military airbase commanders in 1999 included 210 initial consultations and the development of 42 wildlife hazards assessments, 17

wildlife hazard management plans, and 7 environmental assessments. WS

provided direct hazard management assistance to 110 airports and technical

assistance to 316 airports and military air bases in 47 States and Guam. On

airports and military airfields where WS operational projects were conducted,

the presence of wildlife was reduced by up to 95 percent. WS also provided

training to 410 airport personnel in recognizing and managing wildlife hazards to air traffic safety, and with the FAA, WS co-authored a wildlife hazard

management manual for airport personnel. The partnership formed by WS

and FAA to improve aviation safety provides an outstanding model of cooperation and efficiency between Federal agencies.

APHIS’ National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC), the world’s only research

facility devoted entirely to the development of methods for managing wildlife damage, accounts for about one-fourth of WS’s budget. In existence since the 1940’s,

NWRC has an integrated, multi-disciplinary research program that is uniquely suited

to provide scientific information and solutions to wildlife damage problems.
255

A few examples of current NWRC projects include: 

■ developing chemosensory repellants and attractants for birds and mammals 

■ finding methods to reduce threats to human safety, such as bird collisions with

airplanes 

■ finding ways to control the brown tree snake on Guam

■ engineering immunocontraceptive vaccines and delivery systems to help

resolve problems caused by wildlife overpopulation

■ reducing bird damage to fish hatcheries and cereal crops 

■ studying coyote biology and behavior to develop techniques for protecting

livestock from these predators

■ looking at ways to solve wildlife problems in urban areas—such as deer in

backyards and geese on golf courses—and reducing beaver damage

■ developing methods to reduce wildlife damage to forest resources

■ finding effective methods for reducing rodent damage to agricultural crops

Humane Care of Animals

APHIS administers two laws that seek to ensure the humane handling of

animals: the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and the Horse Protection Act (HPA).

For more than a quarter century, USDA has enforced the AWA and its standards

and regulations to prevent trafficking in lost and stolen pets and protect covered

animals 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 similar animal fighting ventures. It also requires that minimum standards of care and treatment

be provided for most warmblooded animals bred for commercial sale, used in

research, transported commercially, or exhibited to the public. This includes animals

exhibited in zoos, circuses, and marine mammal facilities as well as pets transported

on commercial airlines.

Individuals who operate regulated businesses must be licensed or registered with

USDA and provide their animals with adequate care and treatment in the areas of

housing, handling, sanitation, nutrition, water, veterinary care, and protection from

extremes of weather and temperature. They must also keep accurate acquisition and

disposition records and a description of every animal that comes into their possession. In addition:

■ Dealers must hold the animals they acquire for a period of 5 to 10 days to

verify the animals’ origin and allow pet owners an opportunity to locate a

missing pet.

■ Research facilities must provide dogs with the opportunity for exercise;

promote the psychological well-being of primates used in laboratories; and

give all regulated animals anesthesia or pain-relieving medication to minimize any pain or distress caused by research if the experiment allows. 

■ Research facilities must establish an institutional animal care and use

committee to oversee the use of animals in experiments. This committee

reviews research protocols and facilities to ensure they are in compliance 

with the AWA. It also ensures that researchers explore alternatives to painful

experiments and ways to reduce the numbers of animals used. The committee
256

must be composed of at least three members, including one veterinarian and

one person who is not affiliated with the facility in any way.

■ Exhibitors, such as circuses and zoos, must enforce handling requirements

designed, among other things, to prevent mistreatment of animals during

training and performances. In general, a handler is expected to have at least 2

years of experience or training involving the species being exhibited.

In enforcing the AWA, APHIS conducts prelicensing inspections of licensees.

Before issuing a license, applicants must be in compliance with all standards and regulations under the AWA. 

APHIS also conducts randomly scheduled unannounced inspections to ensure

that all regulated facilities continue to comply with the Act. If an inspection reveals

minor deficiencies in meeting the AWA standards and regulations, the inspector

instructs the licensee or registrant to correct the problems within a given timeframe.

If there are serious deficiencies, or if minor deficiencies remain uncorrected at the

followup inspection, APHIS documents the facility’s deficiencies and considers possible legal action. Such action could include fines and/or license suspensions or revocations.

In FY 1998, APHIS pursued numerous cases against individuals who were not in

compliance with the AWA. The tables below provide data on APHIS’ inspection and

enforcement efforts for FY 1996-98.

Compliance Inspections, FY 1996–98

FY Total facilities (sites) Total compliance inspections

1998 7,773

(10,393) 10,709

1997 7,789

(10,534) 12,056

1996 7,837

(10,336) 12,635

Sanctions Imposed, FY 1996–98

FY Fines Imposed Revocations, suspensions, and disqualifications

1998 $378,900 34

1997 $868,440 43

1996 $1,052,225 29

USDA also enforces the HPA, which prohibits horses subjected to a process

called soring from participating in exhibitions, sales, shows, or auctions. In addition,

the Act prohibits drivers from hauling sored horses across State lines to compete in

shows. The law was first passed in 1970 and amended in 1976.

Soring—a painful practice used to accentuate a horse’s gait—is accomplished by

irritating a horse’s forelegs through the injection or application of chemicals or mechanical irritants. When a sored horse walks, it responds by quickly lifting its front 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 of soring.
257

To facilitate enforcement of the HPA, APHIS has established the Designated

Qualified Person (DQP) program. DQP’s are trained and licensed by USDA-certified

horse industry organizations or association to detect sored horses. DQP’s are APHISaccredited veterinarians with equine experience, or they are farriers, horse trainers, or

other knowledgeable equestrians.

DQP’s are responsible for barring from shows horses that do not meet Federal

regulations under the HPA. Without DQP’s, show management assumes full legal

responsibility for disqualifying sored horses before awarding prizes and before customers view horses at sales or auctions. Horse organizations can revoke the license of

DQP’s if their inspections do not meet HPA standards.

To ensure DQP’s continue to adhere to HPA standards, APHIS personnel conduct

randomly scheduled unannounced inspections. The APHIS inspection team includes

veterinarians and investigators. The veterinarians observe horses during a show and

can examine any horse for signs of soring or violation of the regulations.

For those who violate the HPA, APHIS can impose criminal or civil charges. 

If convicted, violators can spend up to 2 years in prison, receive penalties of up to

$5,000, and be disqualified for 1 or more years from the right to show, exhibit, or sell

horses through auction sales. Trainers can be disqualified for life.

In addition to the AWA and HPA, many State and local governments have passed

additional animal welfare legislation. The public is encouraged to work with Federal,

State, and local officials as well as local humane organizations to help eliminate inhumane treatment of animals.

Aquaculture

APHIS provides services to the aquaculture industry in a number of areas.

Aquaculture is the fastest growing segment of U.S. agriculture, surpassing in value

most domestic fruit, vegetable, and nut crops. Between 1980 and 1990, the industry

experienced a 400-percent increase in growth; it is now estimated to be worth

approximately $1.5 billion. The aquaculture industry provides about 300,000 jobs

nationwide.

Current APHIS services include licensing of fish vaccines and other biologics

under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act; managing bird and mammal depredation to commercial fish stocks; and providing health certification services for exports. We are

currently working to expand our aquatic animal health activities and underlying

authority to support industry efforts to increase exports of aquacultural products

around the world, for coordinating interstate regulation, and for protection from the

entry of animal pests and diseases. Examples include:

■ European Union (EU) animal health negotiators have been extremely concerned that U.S. aquatic health regulations are not equivalent to those of the

EU, with the main concern centering around the fact that the United States

does not have a single Federal agency with legal authority to monitor, prevent, and control outbreaks of aquatic animal disease. Currently, U.S. responsibility in this area is divided among four Federal departments (Agriculture,

Interior, Commerce, and Health and Human Services) and the 50 States.

APHIS is working with the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture’s Task Force
258

on Aquatic Animal Health to clarify Federal agency roles, avoid duplication

of authority, and achieve adequate protection of U.S. aquatic animals, both

wild and cultivated.

■ APHIS has produced a video about health certification procedures for the

export of aquacultural products. The goal of the video—which uses the example of exporting trout eggs from Washington State to Chile—is to provide animal health and natural resources officials and aquacultural producers with a

model of how to implement an aquatic health protocol for exportation of

products to a foreign country.

■ In the catfish-production region of the Mississippi delta, APHIS continued its

cooperative cormorant roost-dispersal program to reduce depredation to commercial fish stocks. Beginning in November 1999, several hundred aquaculture producers, Federal, State employees, sportsman, and interested citizens

organized to monitor cormorant night roosts and disperse the birds away from

fish-production areas. The roosts were moved to natural water areas with

abundant native fish available for forage. Through this nonlethal management

strategy, cormorant populations have been reduced in the region by as much

as 75 percent.

■ Predation on commercial catfish stocks by wading birds, primarily great blue

herons and great egrets, is perceived to be a major constraint on production.

Surveys of these species have shown that their populations have at least

tripled in the last 5 years. Recent field investigations by NWRC scientists,

however, revealed that only 8 percent of the diet of great egrets was comprised of live catfish, and heron predation had a negligible impact on catfish

populations. The research concluded that herons were inefficient foragers on

healthy catfish, and that most live catfish captured by herons from commercial

catfish farms are diseased.

■ APHIS’ VS Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health (CEAH) completed

an overview of the U.S. aquaculture industry, including an analysis of focus

on trends in farm size, geographic distribution of aquatic species, and a

description of the industry’s diversity. During 1997, CEAH worked with

USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service on a comprehensive national

study of the U.S. catfish industry.

■ Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards

Administration

The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) facilitatesthe marketing of livestock, poultry, meat, cereals, oilseeds, and related agricultural products and promotes fair and competitive trading practices for the overall

benefit of consumers and American agriculture.

GIPSA, like its sister agencies in USDA’s Marketing and Regulatory Programs

mission area, is working to ensure a productive and competitive global marketplace

for U.S. agricultural products. The agency’s Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS)
259

provides the U.S. grain market with Federal quality standards and a uniform system

for applying them. GIPSA’s Packers and Stockyards Programs ensure open and competitive markets for livestock, meat, and poultry.

Federal Grain Inspection Program

Through its Federal Grain Inspection Program, GIPSA facilitates the marketing

of grain, oilseeds, pulses, rice, and related commodities. This program serves

American agriculture by providing descriptions (grades) and testing methodologies

for measuring the quality and quantity of grain, rice, edible beans, and related commodities. GIPSA also provides a wide range of inspection and weighing services, on

a fee basis, through the official grain inspection and weighing system, a unique partnership of Federal, State, and private agencies. In FY 1999, the official system performed over 2 million inspections on 228 million metric tons of grain and related

commodities.

Specifically, under the U.S. Grain Standards Act, and those provisions of the

Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA) that relate to inspection of rice, pulses,

lentils, and processed grain products, the Federal Grain Inspection Service:

■ Establishes official U.S. grading standards and testing procedures for eight

grains (barley, corn, oats, rye, sorghum, triticale, wheat, and mixed grain), for

oilseeds (canola, flaxseed, soybeans, and sunflower seed), rice, lentils, dry

peas, and a variety of edible beans.

■ Provides American agriculture and customers of U.S. grain around the world

with a national inspection and weighing system that applies the official grading and testing standards and procedures in a uniform, accurate, and impartial

manner.

■ Inspects and weighs exported grain and oilseeds. Domestic and imported

grain and oilseed shipments, and crops with standards under the AMA, are

inspected and weighed upon request.

■ Monitors grain handling practices to prevent the deceptive use of the grading

standards and official inspection and weighing results, and the degradation of

grain quality through the introduction of foreign material, dockage, or other

nongrain material to grain.

By serving as an impartial third party, and by ensuring that the Official U.S.

Standards for Grain are applied and that weights are recorded fairly and accurately,

GIPSA and the official grain inspection and weighing system advance the orderly and

efficient marketing and effective distribution of U.S. grain and other assigned commodities from the Nation’s farms to destinations around the world. GIPSA is working

on establishing a biotechnology reference library and commodity standards testing

procedures to identify traits desirable for new markets.

Packers and Stockyards Programs

GIPSA’s Packers and Stockyards Programs administers the Packers and

Stockyards (P&S) Act of 1921. The purpose of the P&S Act is to ensure fair

competition and fair trade practices, safeguard producers and ranchers, and protect
260

consumers and members of the livestock, meat, and poultry industries from unfair

business practices that can affect meat and poultry distribution and prices.

Payment Protection

The P&S Act requires prompt payment for livestock purchased by dealers,

market agencies, and packers whose operations are subject to the Act. Pursuant to 

this requirement, subject firms must pay for livestock before the close of the next

business day following the purchase and transfer of possession. In addition, the Act

establishes specific payment deliver requirements for livestock purchased for slaughter. Also, packers, market agencies, and dealers operating in commerce are required

to maintain and file a surety bond or its equivalent. At the beginning of FY 1998,

bonds totaling $631 million were in place to cover the livestock purchases of packers,

market agencies, and dealers.

GIPSA also emphasizes custodial account investigations as a means of payment

protection for consignors of livestock. All market agencies selling on a commission

basis are required to establish and maintain a separate bank account designated as

Custodial Account for Shippers Proceeds to be used for deposits from livestock

purchasers and disbursements to consignors of livestock. The custodial audit program

has been very successful in protecting funds due livestock sellers.

Packer and Poultry Trust Activities

If a meat packer fails to pay for livestock in a cash sale, or a live poultry dealer

fails to pay for live poultry from a poultry growing arrangement, then receivables,

inventories, and proceeds held by the packer or poultry dealer become trust assets.

These assets are held by the meat packer or live poultry dealer for the benefit of all

unpaid cash sellers and/or poultry growers. Cash sellers of livestock and poultry

growers receive priority payment in bankruptcy or in claims against trust assets in 

the event of business failure.

Fair Competition

GIPSA works to eliminate unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practices

in the meat and poultry industries, with special emphasis on investigation of anticompetitive activities. Practices such as apportioning of territories, price manipulation,

and arrangements not to compete are potential violations of the Packers and

Stockyards Act. GIPSA deploys a rapid response team to immediately investigate 

any practice that could constitute unfair, unjustly discriminatory or deceptive practice

under the act. A number of new regulatory measures will be proposed in the Federal

Register to address certain trade and anticompetitive practices in the livestock and

poultry sectors.

Scales and Weighing Activities

GIPSA is concerned with two different elements that affect the integrity of

weights: (1) the accuracy of scales used for weighing livestock, meat, and poultry,

and (2) the proper and honest operation of scales to assure that the weight on which 

a transaction is based is accurate.
The major emphasis is on detecting improper and fraudulent use of scales. An

investigative program uses several different procedures to determine whether weighing activity is proper and honest. Agency investigators routinely visit livestock auction markets, buying stations, and packing plants for the purpose of checkweighing

livestock, carcasses, and live poultry, and examining weight records and equipment.

Trade Practices

Fraudulent trade practices, such as price manipulations, weight manipulation of

livestock or carcasses, manipulation of carcass grades, misrepresentation of livestock

as to origin and health, and other unfair and deceptive practicesBcontinue to be concerns within the industry. GIPSA investigates these practices when complaints are

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&S Act

relating to live poultry dealers. Its investigative program extensively examines the

records of poultry integrators to determine the existence of any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practices in its dealings with poultry growers and sellers.

Complaints alleging unfair termination of growing contracts are investigated on a priority basis.

Analysis of Structural Change

GIPSA examines structural changes in the livestock, meat packing, and poultry

industries, and analyzes the competitive implications of these structural changes. The

analyses assist in enforcing the P&S Act and in addressing public policy issues relating to the livestock and meat industries.

Clear Title

The Clear Title provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985 permit States to

establish central filing systems to inform parties about liens on farm products. The

purpose of this program is to remove an obstruction to interstate commerce in farm

products. GIPSA certifies that a State’s central filing system complies with the Act.

Violation Hotline

GIPSA has instituted a hotline where callers can report potential violations and

abuses in the grain, livestock, meat and poultry industries. GIPSA’s toll-free telephone number is 1-800-998-3447.

Home Page 

For further details about GIPSA, visit our home page at

http://www.usda.gov/gipsa.

261
262

Agricultural Marketing

Service

Director, Public Affairs

Billy Cox

Rm 3510-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8998

FAX 202-720-7135ˆ

billy.cox@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Demaris Kogut

Rm 3510-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8998

FAX 202-720-7135

demaris.kogut@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Becky Unkenholz

Rm 3510-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8998

FAX 202-720-7135

becky.unkenholz@usda.gov

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Sharon Kerr

Rm 3510-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-2498

FAX 202-690-3767

sharonl.kerr@usda.gov

Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service

Director, Legislative & Public Affairs

Ralph Harding

Rm 1147-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-2511

FAX 202-720- 3982

ralph.r.harding@aphis.usda.gov

Deputy Director, Legislative & 

Public Affairs 

Lynn Quarles

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-2511 Rm 1147-S

FAX 202-720-3982

lynn.t.quarles@aphis.usda.gov 

Asst. Dir., Public Affairs

Richard McNaney

4B21

Riverdale, MD 20782

301-734-7799

FAX 301-734-5221

rmcnaney@aphis.usda.gov

Asst. Dir., Exec Corresp. & FOIA Office

Michael Marquis

4A81

Riverdale, MD 20782

301-734-5267

FAX 301-734-5941

mmarquis@aphis.usda.gov

For More Information
263

APHIS Regional Information Offices

Mountain/Western 

Stuart McDonald

Suite 204

12345 W. Alameda Parkway

Lakewood, CO 80228

303-969-6560

FAX 303-969-6973

smcdonald@aphis.usda.gov

West Coast/Southern Border

Larry Hawkins 

606 Alamo Pintado, Suite 267

Solvang, CA 73463

805-693-0676

FAX 805-693-0676

lhawkins@aphis.usda.gov

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

Bruce Boor

Rm 3406-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-690-3842

FAX 202-205-3941

bruce_m.boor@usda.gov
264

Director of Communications

Sedelta Verble

Rm 402-A

Washington, DC 20250-1301

202-720-4623

FAX 202-720-5043

sedelta.verble@usda.gov

Press Secretary and Director of Public

Affairs

Andy Solomon

Rm 402-A

Washington, DC 20250-1305

202-720-4623

FAX 202-720-5043

andy.solomon@usda.gov

Adm. Asst. to OC Director

Tamika Powell

Rm 402-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330 

202-720-4623

FAX 202-690-2164

tamika.powell@usda.gov

Deputy Director

Jody Jaeger

Rm 412-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-4623

FAX 202-690-2164

jody.jaeger@usda.gov

Appendix

■ How To Get Information From USDA’s Office of

Communications

The Office of Communications (OC) is integral to USDA’s historical and currentmission. This office coordinates and assists with the flow of public information

from USDA program agencies, reviewing all publications and audiovisuals and evaluating new information technology. It offers current information from the Office of

the Secretary on programs and policy. This office ensures that adequate and appropriate channels are used to disseminate information to the public, and provides public

access to USDA information through the news media. 

OC administers USDA’s home page on the Internet World Wide Web and the

AgNewsFax service. The Internet address for USDA’s home page is

http://www.usda.gov. From this page, you can access information about the

Department and also about programs in all mission areas. 

OC also offers an automated information line to answer questions from the

public. The number for this service is 202-720-2791.

In addition, OC coordinates departmental responses under the Freedom of

Information Act, the Privacy Act, and its amendment, the Computer Matching Act.

The following list of key Office of Communications staff is offered for your

convenience:

Office of the Director
265

Deputy Press Secretary

Susan McAvoy

Rm 405-A

Washington, DC 20250-1305

202-720-4623

FAX 202-720-5403

susan.mcavoy@usda.gov

Deputy Press Secretary

Mary Beth Schultheis

Rm 402-A

Washington, DC 20250-1305

202-720-4623

FAX 202-720-5043

mary_beth.schultheis@usda.gov

Speech Writers:

Bart Acocella

Rm 425-A

Washington, DC 20250-1340

202-720-7819

FAX 202-690-1378

bart.acocella@usda.gov

Cheryl Normile

Rm 423-A

Washington, DC 20250-1340

202-720-4239

FAX 202-690-1378

cheryl.normile@usda.gov

Richard Ades

Rm 422-A

Washington, DC 20250-1340

202-720-9091

FAX 202-690-1378

richard.ades@usda.gov

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 for

Administration, IG, CFO, CIO

Janet Sledge

Rm 446-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-2065

FAX 202-690-3611

janet.sledge@usda.gov

Communications Coordinator for Farm

and Foreign Agricultural Services

Wayne Baggett

Rm 444-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-2032

FAX 202-690-3611

wayne.baggett@usda.gov

Communications Coordinator for Food,

Nutrition, and Consumer Services

vacant

Rm 444-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-690-0469

FAX 202-690-3611

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
266

Communications Coordinator for

Natural Resources and Environment

Martha Cashion Abrams

Rm 442-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-3310

FAX 202-690-3611

martha.abrams@usda.gov

Communications Coordinator for

Research, Education, and Economics

Maria Bynum

Rm 448-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-5192

FAX 202-690-3611

maria.bynum@usda.gov

Communications Coordinator for

Rural Development

Jim Brownlee

Rm 436-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-2091

FAX 202-690-3611

jim.brownlee@usda.gov

“USDA NEWS” Coord/Editor

Ron Hall

Rm 430-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-5747

FAX 202-690-3611

ron.hall@usda.gov

Coord & Rev Asst/HTGI Editor

Shirley E. Adams

Rm 440-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-2882

FAX 202-690-3611

shirley.adams@usda.gov

Webmaster

Victor Powell

Rm 528-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-7762

FAX 202-690-3611

vic.powell@usda.gov

Electronic Info. Coordinator

Charles Hobbs

Rm 456-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-9045

FAX 202-690-3611

charles.hobbs@usda.gov

“AgNews” Editor

Phil Shanholtzer

Rm 457-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-8138

FAX 202-720-5575

phil.shanholtzer@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Marci Hilt

Rm 421-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-3088

FAX 202-690-3611 

marci.hilt@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Deborah Smith

Rm 410-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350 

202-720-2914

FAX 202-690-3611

debbie.smith@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Katherine Gibney

Rm 428-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-9173

FAX 202-690-3611

katherine.gibney@usda.gov

Publishing & Info. Svs. Coord.

Ed Poe

Rm 426-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-9081

FAX 202-720-4948

ed.poe@usda.gov
267

Senior Pubs. Clearance Editor

Dennis Carroll

Rm 428-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-3298

FAX 202-690-3611

dennis.carroll@usda.gov

Publications Clearance Editor

Carrie Pollard

Rm 419-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-6046

FAX 202-690-3611

carrie.pollard@usda.gov

Exec. Corres./FOIA Asst.

Sandie Stasiak

Rm 541-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-4105

FAX 202-690-3611

sandie.stasiak@usda.gov

Information Response Team

Barbara Robinson

Rm 506-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-690-4069

FAX 202-690-0228

barbara.robinson@usda.gov

Joyce Tyler

Rm 506-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-3365

FAX 202-690-0228

joyce.person@usda.gov

General Information Hotline

202-720-2791

Freedom of Info. Act Officer

Andrea Fowler

Rm 532-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-8164

FAX 202-720-7808

andrea.fowler@usda.gov

Public Liaison Center

Director

Meg Evans

Rm 412-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

meg.evans@usda.gov

202-720-4623

FAX 202-690-2164

Public Liaison Coordinator

Kathryn Hill

Rm 415-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-690-4750

FAX 202-690-2164

ocnet.oc-post.kathryn.hill@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

Robert Miranda-Acevedo

Rm 417-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-0494

FAX202-690-2164

robert.miranda@usda.gov

Admin. Support Specialist

Sandy Odom

Rm 416-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-8891

FAX 202-690-2164

sandy.odom@usda.gov

News Distribution

Gayle Turner

Rm 460-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-9035

FAX 202-690-2164

gayle.turner@usda.gov

AgNewsFax Service

Use FAX telephone to call

202-690-3944
268

Internet News Service

news@usda.gov WWW URL

http://www.usda.gov

Video, Teleconference, 

and Radio Center

Director

Larry A. Quinn

Rm 1618-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

larry.quinn@usda.gov

202-720-6072

FAX 202-720-5773

Dep Dir/ Broadcasting Coord

Garth Clark

Rm 1614-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-5376

FAX 202-720-5773

garth.clark@usda.gov

Senior Television Producer

Patrick O’Leary

Rm 0095-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-7039

FAX 202-720-5773

patrick.oleary@usda.gov

Senior Radio Producer

Gary Crawford

Rm 1623-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-7068

FAX 202-690-2165

gary.crawford@usda.gov

Senior Radio Producer

Brenda Curtis-Heiken

Rm 1623-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-7079

FAX 202-690-2165

brenda.curtis@usda.gov

Video Production Coord

David Black

Rm 1614-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-3068

FAX 202-720-5773

david.black@usda.gov

Senior Production Spec

Bob Stobaugh

Rm 0097-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-4753

FAX 202-720-5773

bob.stobaugh@usda.gov

Studio Mgr./Tech Dir

Larry Holmes

Rm 1623-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-4001

FAX 202-720-5773 

larry.holmes@usda.gov

Duplic./Off Air Recording

Evangeline Minor

Rm 1604-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-7501

FAX 202-720-5773

evangline.minor@usda.gov

Teleconference Coordinator

David Vennell

Rm 1617-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-5368

FAX 202-720-5773

david.vennell@usda.gov

Teleconference Assistant

Mansy Pullen

Rm 1615-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-2029

FAX 202-720-5773

mansy.pullen@usda.gov
269

Teleconference Scheduling

Anita Booth (Audio)

Rm 1611-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-6143

FAX 202-690-2042

anita.booth@usda.gov

Liz Conley (Compressed video)

Rm 1611-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-8690

FAX 202-720-2042

liz.conley@usda.gov

Training Center Scheduling

Michael Johnson

Rm 1623-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-2822

FAX 202-690-2704

ocnet.oc-post.mike.xjohnson@usda.gov

Design Center

Director

Eva Cuevas

Rm 517-A

Washington, DC 20250-1380

202-720-6641

FAX 202-720-8197

eva.cuevas@usda.gov

Deputy Director

David Sutton

Rm 518-A

Washington, DC 20250-1380

202-720-6281

FAX 202-720-8197

david.sutton@usda.gov

Electronic Graphic Design Coordinator

Julie Olson

Rm 524-A

Washington, DC 20250-1380

202-720-4339

FAX 202-720-8197

julie.olson@usda.gov

Exhibit Fabrication Coord.

Larry Sullivan

Rm S-310

Washington, DC 20250-1380

202-720-3393

FAX 202-690-1799

larry.sullivan@usda.gov

Exhibit Shipping Coordinator

Cindy Haydon

Rm 517-A

Washington, DC 20250-1380

202-720-6641

FAX 202-720-8197

cindy.haydon@usda.gov

Photography Center

Director

Bill Tarpenning

Rm 4404-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-6633

FAX 202-720-0902

bill.tarpenning@usda.gov

Photojournalists

Ken Hammond

Rm 4415-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-8929

FAX 202-720-0902

ken.hammond@usda.gov

Robert Nichols

Rm 4415-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-8903

FAX 202-720-0902

bob.nichols@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
270

Eartha Harried

Rm 4423-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-4022

FAX 202-720-0902

eartha.harried@usda.gov

Photo Library

Anson Eaglin

Rm 4409-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-0909

FAX 202-720-0902

anson.eaglin@usda.gov

Stanley Harrison

Rm 4409-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-8905

FAX 202-720-0902

stan.harrison@usda.gov

Photo Assignments

Vivian Thomas

Rm 4404-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-6633

FAX 202-720-0902

vivian.thomas@usda.gov

Printing Management

Center

Director

Al Senter

Rm 501-A

Washington, D.C. 20250-1370 

202-720-7175

FAX 202-720-8939

al.senter@usda.gov

Forms

Ed McVerry 

Rm 501-A

Washington, D.C. 20250-1370

202-720-8137

FAX 202-720-8939

ed.mcverry@usda.gov

Gail Merriman

Rm 501-A

Washington, D.C. 20250-1370

202-720-8146

FAX 202-720-8939

gail.merriman@usda.gov

Publications

Lonnie Thomas

Rm 501-A

Washington, D.C. 20250-1370

202-720-8180

FAX 202-720-8939

lonnie.thomas@usda.gov

Mark Emery

Rm 501-A

Washington, D.C. 20250-1370

202-720-8194

FAX 202-720-8939

mark.emery@usda.gov

Cynthia McNeill

Rm 501-A

Washington, D.C. 20250-1370

202-720-8189

FAX 202-720-8939

cynthia.mcneill@usda.gov

Composite/Rider Orders

Mary Hill

Rm 501-A

Washington, D.C. 20250-1370

202-720-5983

FAX 202-720-8939

mary.hill@usda.gov
271

■ Conversion Chart

Metric Conversions

to this

To convert this multiply by (rounded to hundredths)

Length

inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . millimeters (mm) 25.4

feet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . centimeters (cm) 30.48

yards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . meters (m) 0.91

miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kilometers (km) 1.61

millimeters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inches 0.04

centimeters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inches 0.39

meters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inches 39.37

meters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yards 1.09

kilometers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . miles 0.62

Weight

ounces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . grams(g) 28.35

pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kilograms (kg) 0.45

short tons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . metric tons 0.91

kilograms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pounds 2.20

metric tons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pounds 2,204.6

metric tons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . short tons 1.10

Area

square inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . square centimeters 6.45

square feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . square meters 0.09

square miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . square kilometers 2.59

acres. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . hectares 0.40

square centimeters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . square inches 0.16

square meters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . square yards 1.20

square kilometers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . square miles 0.39

hectares. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . acres 2.47

Volume

teaspoons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . milliliters 4.93

tablespoons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . milliliters 14.79

fluid ounces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . milliliters 29.58

cups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . liters 0.24

pints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . liters 0.47

quarts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . liters 0.95

gallons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . liters 3.79

cubic feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cubic meters 0.03

cubic yards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cubic meters 0.76
272

multiply by 

To convert this to this (rounded to hundredths)

milliliters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fluid ounces 0.03

liters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pints 2.11

liters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . quarts 1.06

liters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . gallons 0.26

cubic meters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cubic feet 35.31

cubic meters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cubic yards 1.31

Temperature

Fahrenheit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Celsius .56 (after subtracting 31)

Celsius. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fahrenheit 1.82 (then add 32)

Farm products

pounds per acre . . . . . . . . . . kilograms per hectare 1.12

short tons per acre . . . . . . . . kilograms per hectare 2.24

kilograms per hectare . . . . . metric tons per hectare .001

kilograms per hectare . . . . . . . . . . pounds per acre 0.89

tons per hectare. . . . . . . . . . . . . short tons per acre 0.45

tons per hectare . . . . . . . . . . kilograms per hectare 1,000

Bushel/Weight Conversions

weight in weight in 

1 bushel of: pounds kilograms

wheat, soybeans, potatoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 27

corn, grain sorghum, rye, flaxseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 25

beets, carrots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 23

barley, buckwheat, peaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 22

oats, cottonseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 14

weight in number 

1 metric ton of: pounds of bushels

wheat, soybeans, potatoes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,204.6 36.74

corn, grain sorghum, rye, flaxseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,204.6 39.37

beets, carrots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,204.6 44.09

barley, buckwheat, peaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,204.6 45.93

oats, cottonseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,204.6 68.89

Prepared by USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service
273

Figure A-1.Planting and Harvesting Calendar for Most Major U.S. Crop Areas1

Hard Red Winter Wheat

Soft Red Winter Wheat 

White Winter Wheat 

Hard Red Spring Wheat 

Durum Spring Wheat 

Corn

Sorghum

Barley

Oats

Soybeans

Peanuts

Sunflowerseed

Cotton

Sugarbeets

Sugar Cane*

Tobacco

*Planting coincides with harvesting.1Represents areas where production is concentrated, but not full spectrum of planting and harvesting periods for each crop.

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest Harvest

Plant

Plant

Plant

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.

Plant

Plant

Plant

Plant

Plant

Plant

Plant

Plant

Plant

Plant

Plant

Harvest Plant

■ Planting and Harvesting Calendar 
274

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 production times

along with marketing quotas to keep supply

in line with market demand. The 1938 Act is

considered part of permanent agriculture 

legislation. Provisions of this law are often

superseded by more current legislation.

However, if the current legislation expires

and new legislation is not enacted, the law

reverts back to the permanent provisions of

the 1938 Act, along with the Agricultural 

Act of 1949.

Agronomy. The science of crop production

and soil management.

Alfalfa. A valuable leguminous crop for 

forage or hay used in livestock feeding.

Alkaline soil. Soil with a pH of more than

7.0.

Alternative farming. Production methods

other than energy- and chemical intensive

one-crop (monoculture) farming. Alternatives

include using animal and green manure rather

than chemical fertilizers, integrated pest 

management instead of chemical pesticides,

reduced tillage, crop rotation (especially with

legumes to add nitrogen), alternative crops,

or diversification of the farm enterprise.

Animal unit. A standard measure based on

feed requirements, used to combine various

classes of livestock according to size, weight,

age, and use.

Aquaculture. The production of aquatic

plants or animals in a controlled environment, such as ponds, raceways, tanks, or

cages, for all or part of their life cycle. In the

United States, baitfish, catfish, clams, crawfish, freshwater prawns, mussels, oysters,

salmon, shrimp, tropical (or ornamental) fish,

and trout account for most of the aquacultural

production. Less widely established but

growing species include alligator, hybrid

striped bass, carp, eel, red fish, northern pike,

sturgeon, and tilapia.

■ Glossary of Agricultural Terms
275

Arid climate. A dry climate with an annual

precipitation usually less than 10 inches. 

Not suitable for crop production without 

irrigation.

Artificial insemination (AI). The mechanical injection of semen into the womb of the

female animal with a syringe-like apparatus.

Back hoe. A shovel mounted on the rear of a

tractor, hydraulically operated to dig trenches

or pits in soil.

Base acreage. A farm’s crop-specific acreage

of wheat, feed grains, upland cotton, or rice

eligible to enroll in commodity programs

under 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

of plant regeneration and gene manipulation

and transfer (see also genetic engineering).

Blended credit. A form of export subsidy

which combines direct Government export

credit and credit guarantees to reduce the

effective interest rate.

Brucellosis. A contagious disease in beef

and dairy cattle, which causes abortion. Same

disease in humans is known as undulant

fever.

BST (bovine somatotropin) (also called

BGH, for bovine growth hormone). A

protein hormone produced naturally in the

pituitary gland of cattle. Recombinant BST,

or rBST, is BST produced using recombinant

DNA biotechnology. BST controls the

amount of milk produced by cows.

Cargo preference. A law that requires a 

certain portion of goods or commodities

financed by the U.S. Government to be

shipped on U.S. flag ships. The law has 

traditionally applied to P.L. 480 and other

concessional financing or donations programs.

Carryover. Existing supplies of a farm commodity not used at the end of a marketing

year, and remaining to be carried over into

the next year. Marketing years generally 

start at the beginning of a new harvest for a

commodity, and extend to the same time in

the following year.

Cash grain farm. A farm on which corn,

grain sorghum, small grains, soybeans, or

field beans and peas account for at least 

50 percent of value of products sold.

Catastrophic risk protection (CAT). The

lowest level of Federal crop insurance coverage. It provides a coverage level at 50 percent

of the actual yields at 55 percent of the

expected market price. Coverage is provided

for an administrative fee.

Census of Agriculture. A count taken every

5 years of the number of farms, land in farms,

crop acreage and production, livestock numbers and production, farm expenses, farm
276

facilities and equipment, farm tenure, value

of farm products sold, farm size, type of

farm, farm operator characteristics (age, race,

sex), etc. Data are obtained for States and

counties. USDA now administers the Census

of Agriculture, which was previously done 

by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. 

Checkoff programs. Research and promotion programs authorized by law and financed

by assessments. The programs are paid for by

specified industry members such as producers, importers, and handlers.

Combine. A self-propelled machine for 

harvesting grain and other seed crops. In 

one operation, it cuts, threshes, separates, 

and cleans the grain and scatters the straw.

Commodity certificates. Payments issued

by the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)

in lieu of cash payments to program participants. Holders of the certificates may

exchange them with the CCC for 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.

Complementary imports. Agricultural

import items not produced in appreciable

commercial volume in the United States,

such as bananas, coffee, rubber, cocoa, tea,

spices, and cordage fiber (see also supplementary imports).

Compost. Organic residues, or a mixture of

organic residues and soil, which have been

piled, moistened, and allowed to undergo biological decomposition for use as a fertilizer.

Concessional sales. Credit sales of a commodity in which the buyer is allowed more

favorable payment terms than those on the

open market. For example, Title I of the Food

for Peace Program (P.L. 480) provides for

financing sales of U.S. commodities with

low-interest, long-term credit.

Conservation compliance. This represents a

portion of the Highly Erodible Land

Conservation provisions of the Food Security

Act of 1985 that is designed to encourage 

the use of conservation practices on highly

erodible cropland. To remain eligible for

many USDA program benefits, farmers are

required to crop highly erodible land under 

an approved conservation plan. Also see

"Sodbuster."

Conservation district. Any unit of local government formed to carry out a local soil and

water conservation program.

Conservation plan. A combination of land

uses and practices to protect and improve soil

productivity and to prevent soil deterioration.

A conservation plan must be approved by the

local conservation district for acreage offered

in the Conservation Reserve Program. The

plan sets forth the conservation measures and

maintenance that the owner or operator will

carry out during the term of the contract.

Conservation practices. Methods which

reduce soil erosion and retain soil moisture.

Major conservation practices include conservation tillage, crop rotation, contour farming,

strip cropping, terraces, diversions, and

grassed waterways.
277

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). A

major provision of the Food Security Act of

1985 designed to reduce erosion and protect

water quality on millions of acres of farmland. Under the program, enrolled landowners agree to convert environmentally

sensitive land to approved conserving uses

for 10-15 years. In exchange, the landowner

receives an annual rental payment as well as

an initial cost-share payment for up to 50 percent of the cost of establishing permanent

vegetative cover.

Conservation tillage. Any of several farming

methods that provide for seed germination,

plant growth, and weed control yet maintain

effective ground cover throughout the year

and disturb the soil as little as possible. The

aim is to reduce soil loss and energy use

while maintaining crop yields and quality.

No-till is the most restrictive (soil-conserving) form of conservation tillage. Other 

practices include ridge-till, strip-till, and

mulch-till.

Contour farming. Field operations such as

plowing, planting, cultivating, and harvesting

on the contour, or at right angles to the natural slope, to reduce soil erosion, protect soil

fertility, and use water more efficiently.

Contract acreage. Enrolled 1996 commodity

base acreage under the 1996 Farm Act for

wheat, feed grains, upland cotton, and rice,

generally fixed for 1996 through 2002. A

farmer may voluntarily choose to reduce 

contract acreage in subsequent years. Land

leaving the CRP may be entered into a production flexibility contract if the land had 

an acreage base.

Contract crops. Crops eligible for production flexibility payments: wheat, corn,

sorghum, barley, oats, rice, and upland cotton.

Cooperative. An organization formed for the

purpose of producing and marketing goods 

or products owned collectively by members

who share in the benefits.

Cooperative Extension System. A national,

publicly funded, nonformal education network that links the educational and research

resources and activities of USDA with landgrant universities in every State, territory, and

the District of Columbia. The Federal partner

is the Cooperative State Research, Education,

and Extension Service. This unique Federal,

State, and local partnership focuses on practical solutions to critical issues affecting people's daily lives.

Cost of production. The sum, measured in

dollars, of all purchased inputs and other

expenses necessary to produce farm products.

Cost of production statistics may be

expressed as an average per animal, per acre,

or per unit of production (bushel, pound, or

hundredweight) for all farms in an area or 

in the country.

County extension agent. An educator

employed by a county and/or a State cooperative extension service to bring research-based

agriculture and quality of life education to

local people to help them address farm,

home, and community problems at the local

level. 

Cover crop. A close-growing crop grown to

protect and improve soils between periods of

regular crops or between trees and vines in

orchards and vineyards.

Crop rotation. The practice of growing different crops in recurring succession on the

same land. Crop rotation plans are usually

followed for the purpose of increasing soil

fertility and maintaining good yields.

Crop year. Generally, the 12-month period

from the beginning of harvest of a particular

crop.

Custom work. Specific farm operations performed under contract between the farmer

and the contractor. The contractor furnishes

labor, equipment, and materials to perform

the operation. Custom harvesting of grain,

spraying and picking of fruit, and sheep

shearing are examples of custom work.

Dairy Export Incentive Program. A program that offers subsidies to exporters of U.S.

dairy products to assist in competition with
278

other nations. Under the DEIP, exporters are

awarded bonuses, enabling them to compete

for sales in specified countries. The program

was originally authorized by the 1985 Farm

Act and reauthorized by the 1990 Farm Act.

The 1996 Farm Act extends the program

through 2002.

Disaster payments. Federal payments made

to farmers because of a natural disaster when

(1) planting is prevented or (2) crop yields

are abnormally low because of adverse

weather and related conditions. Disaster payments may be provided under existing legislation or under special legislation enacted

after an extensive natural disaster.

Distance Education. Delivery of instructional material over a wide geographical area

via one or more technologies, including

video, computer, and laser.

DNA. Deoxyribonucleic acid, a polymeric

chromosomal constituent of living cell nuclei,

composed of deoxyribose (a sugar), phosphoric acid, and four nitrogen bases--adenine,

cytosine, guanine, and thymine. It contains

the genetic information for living organisms,

and consists of two strands in the shape of 

a double helix. A gene is a piece of DNA.

Double crop. Two different crops grown on

the same area in one growing season.

Dryland farming. A system of producing

crops in semiarid regions (usually with less

than 20 inches of annual rainfall) without the

use of irrigation. Frequently, part of the land

will lie fallow in alternate years to conserve

moisture.

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

away of dust and sediment by wind in areas

of high prevailing winds or low annual rainfall.

Ethanol. An alcohol fuel that may be produced from an agricultural foodstock such 

as corn, sugarcane, or wood, and may be

blended with gasoline to enhance octane,

reduce automotive exhaust pollution, and

reduce reliance on petroleum-based fuels.

Export Enhancement Program (EEP).

Started in May 1985 under the Commodity

Credit Corporation Charter Act to help U.S.

exporters meet competitors’ prices in subsidized markets. Under the EEP, exporters are

awarded bonuses, enabling them to compete

for sales in specified countries.

Extra-long staple (ELS) cotton. Cottons

having a staple length of 1-3/8 inches or

more, characterized by fineness and highfiber strength. American types include

American Pima and Sea Island cotton.

Family Farm. An agricultural business

which (1) produces agricultural commodities

for sale in such quantities so as to be recognized as a farm rather than a rural residence;

(2) produces enough income (including off

farm employment) to pay family and farm

operating expenses, to pay debts, and to

maintain the property; (3) is managed by the

operator; (4) has a substantial amount of

labor provided by the operator and family;

and (5) may use seasonal labor during peak

periods and a reasonable amount of full-time

hired labor.

Farm. USDA defines a farm in 1997 as any

place from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were produced and sold or normally would have been sold during the year.

Farm Credit System. The system made up

of cooperatively owned financial institutions

in districts covering the United States and

Puerto Rico that finance farm and farmrelated mortgages and operating loans.

Institutions within each district specialize in

farmland loans and operating credit, or lending to farmer-owned supply, marketing, and
279

processing cooperatives. FCS institutions rely

on the bond market as a source of funds.

Federal Agriculture Improvement and

Reform Act of 1996 (1996 Farm Act)

(P.L.104-127). The omnibus food and agriculture legislation signed into law on April 4,

1996, that provided a 7-year framework

(1996-2002) for the Secretary of Agriculture

to administer various agricultural and food

programs. The 1996 Act fundamentally

redesigns income support and supply management programs for producers of wheat,

corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, rice, and

upland cotton. The 1996 Farm Act also

makes program changes for dairy, sugar, and

peanuts. Additionally, trade programs are

more targeted and environmental programs

are consolidated and extended in the 1996

Farm Act.

Feed grain. Any of several grains most commonly used for livestock or poultry feed,

including corn, grain sorghum, oats, rye, and

barley.

Fertilizer. Any organic or inorganic material

of natural or synthetic origin which is added

to soil to provide nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, necessary 

to sustain plant growth.

FFA. An organization for high school students studying vocational agriculture.

Flood plains. Lowland and relatively flat

areas adjoining inland and coastal waters,

including floodprone areas of islands. This

land includes, at a minimum, those areas that

are subject to a 1 percent or greater chance 

of flooding in any given year.

Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and

Trade Act of 1990 (1990 Farm Act) (P.L.

101-624). Signed November 28, 1990, this 5-

year farm bill applied to the 1991-95 crop

programs. This Act continued the transition,

started by the Food Security Act of 1985,

toward greater market orientation of domestic

commodity programs, the most notable

changes being frozen minimum target prices

and greater planting flexibility. Most of the

commodity program provisions of this Act

were superseded by the Federal Agriculture

Improvement and Reform Act of 1996.

Food grain. Cereal seeds most commonly

used for human food, chiefly wheat and rice.

Food Security Act of 1985 (1985 Farm Act)

(P.L. 99-198). The omnibus food and agriculture legislation signed into law on December

23, 1985, that provided a 5-year framework

(1986-90) for the Secretary of Agriculture 

to administer various agricultural and food

programs.

Forage. Vegetable matter, fresh or preserved,

that is gathered and fed to animals as

roughage; includes alfalfa hay, corn silage,

and other hay crops.

Forward contracting. A method of selling

crops before harvest by which the buyer

agrees to pay a specified price to a grower for

a portion, or all, of the grower's crops.

Fungicide. A chemical substance used as a

spray, dust, or disinfectant to kill fungi infesting plants or seeds.

Futures contract. An agreement between

two people, one who sells and agrees to

deliver and one who buys and agrees to

receive a certain kind, quality, and quantity of

product to be delivered during a specified

delivery month at a specified price.

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

(GATT). An agreement originally negotiated

in 1947 to increase international trade by

reducing tariffs and other trade barriers. The

agreement provides a code of conduct for

international commerce and a framework for

periodic multilateral negotiations on trade

liberalization and expansion. The Uruguay

Round Agreement established the World

Trade Organization (WTO) to replace the

GATT. The WTO officially replaced the

GATT on January 1, 1995. 

Genetic engineering. Genetic modification

of organisms by recombinant DNA, recombinant RNA, or other specific molecular gene

transfer or exchange techniques.
280

Genome. All the genetic material in the 

chromosomes of a particular organism.

Gleaning. Collecting of unharvested crops

from the fields, or obtaining agricultural

products from farmers, processors, or retailers without charge.

Gopher. The Internet Gopher client/server 

is a distributed information delivery system

around which a campuswide information system can readily be constructed. While providing a delivery vehicle for local information,

Gopher facilitates access to other Gopher and

information servers throughout the world.

Grade A milk. Milk, also referred to as fluid

grade, produced under sanitary conditions

that qualify it for fluid (beverage) consumption. Only Grade A milk is regulated under

Federal milk marketing orders.

Grade B milk. Milk, also referred to as manufacturing grade, not meeting Grade A standards. Less stringent standards generally

apply.

Grafting. The process of inserting a scion of

a specified variety into a stem, root, or branch

of another plant so that a permanent union is

achieved.

Great Plains. A level to gently sloping

region of the United States that lies between

the Rockies and approximately the 98th

meridian. The area is subject to recurring

droughts and high winds. It consists of parts

of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana,

Nebraska, Wyoming, Kansas, Colorado,

Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico.

Green manure. Any crop or plant grown and

plowed under to improve the soil, by adding

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

yield for the insured crop in the county falls

below the yield level chosen by the farmer, an

indemnity is paid. GRP protection involves

less paperwork and costs less than the farmlevel coverage described above. However,

individual crop losses may not be covered if

the county yield does not suffer a similar

level of loss.

Hedgerow. Trees or shrubs grown closely

together so that branches intertwine to form 

a continuous row.

Herbicide. Any agent or chemical used to

destroy plants, especially weeds.

Humus. The well decomposed, relatively stable portion of the partly or wholly decayed

organic matter in a soil, which provides nutrients and helps the soil retain moisture.

Hydroponics. Growing of plants in water

containing dissolved nutrients, rather than 

in soil. This process is being used in greenhouses for intensive off-season production 

of vegetables.

Infrastructure. The transportation network,

communications systems, financial institutions, and other public and private services

necessary for economic activity.

Integrated crop management. An agriculture management system that integrates all

controllable agricultural production factors

for long-term sustained productivity, profitability, and ecological soundness.

Integrated pest management (IPM). The

control of pests or diseases by using an array

of crop production strategies, combined with

careful monitoring of insect pests or weed

populations and other methods. Some

approaches include selection of resistant 

varieties, timing of cultivation, biological

control methods, and minimal use of chemical pesticides so that natural enemies of pests

are not destroyed. These approaches are used

to anticipate and prevent pests and diseases

from reaching economically damaging levels.

International trade barriers. Regulations

used by governments to restrict imports from
281

other countries. Examples include tariffs,

embargoes, import quotas, and unnecessary

sanitary restrictions.

Internet. The global connection of interconnected local, mid-level, and wide-area

automated information/communications 

networks.

Land-grant universities. Institutions,

including State colleges and universities and

Tuskegee University, eligible to receive funds

under the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890. 

The Federal Government granted land to each

State and territory to encourage practical 

education in agriculture, homemaking, and

mechanical arts.

Land-use planning. Decisionmaking process

to determine present and future uses of land.

The resulting plan is the key element of a

comprehensive plan describing recommended

location and intensity of development of public and private land uses such as residential,

commercial, industrial, recreational, and 

agricultural.

Leaching. The process of removal of soluble

materials by the passage of water through

soil.

Legumes. A family of plants that includes

many valuable food and forage species such

as peas, beans, soybeans, peanuts, clovers,

alfalfas, and sweet clovers. Legumes can 

convert nitrogen from the air to nitrates in 

the soil through a process known as nitrogen

fixation. Many of these species are used as

cover crops and are plowed under for soil

improvement.

Lint. Cotton fiber remaining after the seeds

have been ginned out.

Loan deficiency payments. A provision

begun in the 1985 Farm Act to provide direct

payments to producers who, although eligible

to obtain price support loans for wheat, feed

grains, upland cotton, rice, or oilseeds and

thereby receive marketing loan gains, agree

not to obtain loans.

Loan rate. The price per unit (bushel, bale,

pound, or hundredweight) at which the

Commodity Credit Corporation will provide

loans to farmers enabling them to hold their

crops for later sale.

Market Access Program (MAP). Formerly

the Market Promotion Program. Participating

organizations include nonprofit trade associations, State and regional trade groups, and

private companies. Fund authority is capped

at $90 million annually for FY 1996-2002.

Market basket of farm foods. Average

quantities of U.S. farm foods purchased

annually per household in a given period.

Retail cost of these foods used as a basis for

computing an index of retail prices for

domestically produced farm foods. Excluded

are fishery products, imported foods, and

meals eaten away from home.

Marketing allotments. Provides each

processor or producer of a particular commodity a specific limit on sales for the year,

above which penalties would apply.

Marketing orders. Federal marketing orders

authorize agricultural producers to promote

orderly marketing by influencing such factors

as supply and quality, and to pool funds for

promotion and research. Marketing orders are

initiated by the industry, and are approved by

the Secretary of Agriculture and by a vote

among producers. Once approved, a marketing order is mandatory.

Marketing spread. The difference between

the retail price of a product and the farm

value of the ingredients in the product. This

farm-retail spread includes charges for

assembling, storing, processing, transporting,

and distributing the products.

Marketing year. Year beginning at harvest

time during which a crop moves to market.

Metropolitan statistical area (MSA). A

county or group of contiguous counties that

contain at least one city of 50,000 inhabitants

or more, or twin cities with a combined population of at least 50,000. In addition, contiguous counties are included in an MSA if they
282

are socially and economically integrated with

a central city.

Migrant farmworker. A person who travels

across State or county boundaries to do agricultural work of a seasonal or other temporary nature, and who is required to be absent

overnight from his or her permanent place of

residence. Exceptions are immediate family

members of an agricultural employer or a

farm labor contractor, and temporary foreign

workers.

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

imputed rental value of operator dwellings.

Additions to inventory are treated as income.

Nitrogen. A chemical element essential to

life and one of the primary plant nutrients.

Animals get nitrogen from protein feeds;

plants get it from soil; and some bacteria get

it directly from air.

Nonfarm income. Includes all income from

nonfarm sources (excluding money earned

from working for other farmers) received by

farm operator households.

Nonpoint source pollution. Pollutants 

that cannot be traced to a specific source,

including stormwater runoff from urban and

agricultural areas.

Nonprogram crops. Crops—such as potatoes, vegetables, fruits, and hay—that are not

included in Federal price support programs.

Nonrecourse loan program. Provides operating capital to producers of wheat, feed

grains, cotton, peanuts, tobacco, rice, and

oilseeds. Sugar processors are also eligible

for nonrecourse loans. Farmers or processors

participating in government commodity programs may pledge a quantity of a commodity

as collateral and obtain a loan from the CCC

at a commodity-specific, per-unit loan rate. 

The borrower may repay the loan with interest within a specified period and regain control of the commodity, or forfeit the

commodity to the CCC after the specified

period as full settlement of the loan with no

penalty. For those commodities eligible for

marketing loan benefits, producers may repay

the loan at the world price (rice and upland

cotton) or posted county price (wheat, feed

grains, and oilseeds).

Nutrient. A chemical element or compound

that is essential for the metabolism and

growth of an organism.

Off-farm income. Includes wages and

salaries from working for other farmers, plus

nonfarm income, for all owner operator families (whether they live on a farm or not).
283

Oilseed crops. Primarily soybeans, and other

crops such as peanuts, cottonseed, sunflower

seed, flaxseed, safflower seed, rapeseed,

sesame seed, castor beans, canola, rapeseed,

and mustard seeds used to produce edible

and/or inedible oils, as well as high-protein

animal meal.

Oilseed meal. The product obtained by

grinding the cakes, chips, or flakes that

remain after most of the oil is removed from

oilseeds. Used as a feedstuff for livestock and

poultry.

Organic farming. There is no universally

accepted definition, but in general organic

farming is a production system which avoids

or largely excludes the use of synthetically

compounded fertilizers, pesticides, growth

regulators, and livestock feed additives. 

To the maximum extent feasible, organic

farming systems rely on crop rotation, crop

residues, animal manures, legumes, green

manure, off-farm organic wastes, mechanical

cultivation, mineral bearing rocks, and

aspects of biological pest control to maintain

soil productivity and tilth; to supply plant

nutrients; and to control weeds, insects, and

other pests.

Payment limitations. Limitations set by law

on the amount of money any one person may

receive in Federal farm program payments

each year under the feed grain, wheat, cotton,

rice, and other farm programs.

Percolation. The downward movement of

water through soil under the influence of

gravity.

Permanent legislation. Legislation that

would be in effect in the absence of all 

temporary amendments (Farm Acts). The

Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 and the

Agricultural Act of 1949 serve as the basic

laws authorizing the major commodity 

programs. Technically, each new Farm Act

amends the permanent legislation for a 

specified period.

Plant germplasm. Living material such as

seeds, rootstock, or leaf plant tissue from

which new plants can grow.

Pomology. The science or study of growing

fruit.

Price index. An indicator of average price

change for a group of commodities that compares price for those same commodities in

some other period, commonly called the base

period.

Price support level. The price for a unit 

of a farm commodity (pound, ton) that the

Government will support through pricesupport loans, purchases, and/or payments.

Price support levels are determined by law

and are set by the Secretary of Agriculture. 

Price support programs. Government 

programs that aim to keep farm prices from

falling below specific minimum levels. Price

support programs for selected commodities

(peanuts, tobacco, sugar, and milk) are 

carried out through loans or purchases. With

price-support loans, producers (or processors

in the case of sugar) use their production of a

commodity as collateral for a loan with the

Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).

Loans enable the loan taker to store the 

commodity during periods of low prices. The

loans may be redeemed later if commodity

prices rise sufficiently to make the sale of the

commodity on the market profitable, or the

loan taker may forfeit the commodity used 

as collateral for the loan to CCC in lieu of

cash repayment. In the case of milk, CCC is

authorized through December 31, 1999, to

purchase manufactured dairy products in

order to support the price of fluid milk at

statutorily prescribed levels.

Production Credit Associations. Lending

groups, owned by their farmer borrowers,

that provide short and intermediate-term

loans for up to 10 years from funds obtained

from investors in money markets. These 

associations are an integral part of the Farm

Credit System.

Production flexibility contract payments.

The payments to be made to farmers for contract crops in 1996 through 2002 under the

1996 Farm Act. Payments for each crop are

allocated each fiscal year based on budgetary

levels and crop-specific percentages in the

1996 Farm Act.
284

Production flexibility contract payment

quantity. The quantity of production eligible

for production flexibility contract payments

under the 1996 Farm Act. Payment quantity

is calculated as the farm’s program yield (per

acre) multiplied by 85 percent of the farm’s

contract acreage. 

Production flexibility contract payment

rate. The amount paid per unit of production

to each participating farmer for eligible payment production under the 1996 Farm Act.

Productive capacity. The amount that could

be produced within the next season if all the

resources currently available were fully

employed using the best available technology. Productive capacity increases whenever

the available resources increase or the 

production of those resources increases.

Productivity. The relationship between the

quantity of inputs (land, labor, tractors, feed,

etc.) employed and the quantity of outputs

produced. An increase in productivity means

that more outputs can be produced from the

same inputs or that the same outputs are produced with fewer inputs. Both single-factor

and multifactor indexes are used to measure

productivity. Single-factor productivity

indexes measure the output per unit of one

input at the same time other inputs may be

changing. Multifactor productivity indexes

consider all productive resources as a whole,

netting out the effects of substitution among

inputs. Crop yield per acre, output per work

hour, and livestock production per breeding

animal are all single-factor productivity indicators. The Total Farm Output per Unit of

Input Index is a multifactor measure.

Program crops. Crops for which Federal

support programs are available to producers,

including wheat, corn, barley, grain sorghum,

oats, extra long staple and upland cotton, rice,

oilseeds, tobacco, peanuts, and sugar.

Public Law 480 (P.L. 480). Common name

for the Agricultural Trade Development and

Assistance Act of 1954, which seeks to

expand foreign markets for U.S. agricultural

products, combat hunger, and encourage economic development in developing countries.

Title I of P.L. 480, also called the Food for

Peace Program, makes U.S. agricultural commodities available through long-term dollar

credit sales at low interest rates for up to 30

years. Donations for humanitarian food 

needs are provided under Title II. Title III

authorizes “food for development” grants.

Rangeland. Land which is predominantly

grasses, grasslike plants, or shrubs suitable

for grazing and browsing. Rangeland

includes natural grasslands, savannahs, many

wetlands, some deserts, tundra, and certain

shrub communities. It also includes areas

seeded to native or adapted and introduced

species that are managed like native 

vegetation.

Renewable resources. Resources such as

forests, rangeland, soil, and water that can 

be restored and improved.

Revenue insurance. RMA’s three revenue

insurance plans all provide a guaranteed level

of revenue by different means. Generally,

indemnities are paid when any combination

of yield and price shortfalls results in revenue

that is less than the revenue guarantee.

Revenue is determined differently by the particular plans of insurance. All three plans provide traditional MPCI yield protection and

include provisions to account for price variability.

Riparian rights. Legal water rights of a person owning land containing or bordering on 

a water course or other body of water in or 

to its banks, bed, or waters.

RNA (ribonucleic acid). A molecule similar

to DNA that functions primarily to decode

instructions for protein synthesis that are 

carried by genes.

Ruminant. Animal having a stomach with

four compartments (rumen, reticulum, omasum, and abomasum). Their digestive process

is more complex than that of animals having

a true stomach. Ruminants include cattle,

sheep, and goats, as well as deer, bison, 

buffalo, camels, and giraffes.
285

Rural. An area that has a population of fewer

than 2,500 inhabitants and is outside an urban

area. A rural area does not apply only to farm

residences or to sparsely settled areas, since 

a small town is rural as long as it meets the

above criteria.

Sales closing date. The final date that an

application for crop insurance may be filed.

This is the date for producers to make

changes in their crop insurance coverage for

the crop year.

Saline soil. A soil containing enough soluble

salts to impair its productivity for plants.

Silage. Prepared by chopping green forage

(grass, legumes, field corn, etc.) into an airtight chamber, where it is compressed to

exclude air and undergoes an acid fermentation that retards spoilage. Contains about 

65 percent moisture.

Silviculture. A branch of forestry dealing

with the development and care of forests.

Sodbuster. A portion of the Highly Erodible

Land Conservation provision of the Food

Security Act of 1985 that is designed to discourage the conversion of highly erodible

land from extensive conserving uses, such as

grasslands and woodlands, to intensive production of agricultural commodities. If

highly erodible grasslands or woodlands are

converted to intensive crop production without the application of appropriate conservation practices, producers may lose eligibility

for many USDA program benefits. Also see

“Conservation Compliance.”

Staple. Term used to designate length of fiber

in cotton, wool, or flax.

State Agricultural Experiment Station.

State-operated institutions, established under

the Hatch Act of 1887 and connected to landgrant universities in each State, which carry

out research of local and regional importance

in the areas of food, agriculture, and natural

resources.

Stubble mulch. A protective cover provided

by leaving plant residues of any previous

crop as a mulch on the soil surface when

preparing for the following crop.

Subsistence farm. A low-income farm where

the emphasis is on production for use of the

operator and the operator's family rather than

for sale.

Supplementary imports. Farm products

shipped into this country that add to the output of U.S. agriculture. Examples include 

cattle, meat, fruit, vegetables, and tobacco

(see complementary imports).

Sustainable agriculture. An integrated system of plant and animal production practices

having a site-specific application that will,

over the long term, satisfy food and fiber

needs, enhance environmental quality and

natural resources, make the most efficient use

of nonrenewable resources and on-farm

resources, integrate natural biological cycles

and controls, sustain the economic viability

of farm operations, and enhance the quality

of life.

Swampbuster. This provision was authorized

by the Food Security Act of 1985; it discourages the conversion of natural wetlands to

cropland use. With some exceptions, producers converting a wetland area to cropland

may lose eligibility for many USDA program 

benefits.

Terminal market. A metropolitan market

that handles agricultural commodities.

Tissue culture. The technique of growing a

whole plant from a single engineered cell 

or piece of plant tissue.

Unit cost. The average cost to produce a 

single item. The total cost divided by the

number of items produced.

Upland cotton. A fiber plant developed in the

United States from stock native to Mexico

and Central America. Includes all cotton

grown in the continental United States except

Sea Island and American Pima cotton. Staple

length of upland cotton ranges from 3/4 inch

to 1 1/4 inches.
286

Urban. A concept defining an area that has 

a population of 2,500 or more inhabitants.

Uruguay Round. The Uruguay Round of

Multilateral Trade Negotiations (UR) under

the auspices of the GATT; a trade agreement

designed to open world agricultural markets.

The UR agricultural agreement covers four

areas: export subsidies, market access, internal supports, and sanitary and phytosanitary

rules. The agreement is implemented over 

a 6-year period, 1995-2000.

Vegetative cover. Trees or perennial grasses,

legumes, or shrubs with an expected lifespan

of 5 years or more.

Viticulture. The science and practice of

growing grapes.

Watershed. The total land area, regardless of

size, above a given point on a waterway that

contributes runoff water to the flow at that

point. A major subdivision of a drainage

basin. The United States is generally divided

into 18 major drainage areas and 160 principal river drainage basins containing some

12,700 smaller watersheds.

Water table. The upper limit of the part 

of the soil or underlying rock material that 

is wholly saturated with water.

Wetlands. Land that is characterized by an

abundance of moisture and that is inundated

by surface or ground water often enough to

support a prevalence of vegetation typically

adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.

Wholesale price index. Measure of average

changes in prices of commodities sold in 

primary U.S. markets. “Wholesale” refers 

to sales in large quantities by producers, not

to prices received by wholesalers, jobbers, or

distributors. In agriculture, it is the average

price received by farmers for their farm 

commodities at the first point of sale when

the commodity leaves the farm.

Zoonotic diseases. Diseases that, under 

natural conditions, are communicable from

animals to humans.

4-H. International youth organization that

empowers young people 5-19 years old

through programs and activities that foster

agricultural, science, and technology 

literacy; citizenship; and other lifelong living

skills, such as self-esteem, career and personal development. The national 4-H staff is

located in the Families, 4-H, and Nutrition

unit of the Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service. The 4-H’s

stand for Head, Heart, Hands, and Health. 

1890 Land-Grant Colleges and

Universities and Tuskegee University.

Historically Black land-grant colleges and

universities. Through the Act of August 30,

1890, and several other authorities, these

institutions may receive Federal funds for

agricultural research, extension, and teaching.
287

A

Adjusted Gross Revenue plan, 111

Administrative grievances, 51

Administrative Offset Program, 66

ADP. See Automated data processing

ADR. See Alternative dispute resolution

Adult care

Child and Adult Care Food Program, 65,

124–125

Advertising

food marketing costs and, 11

Affirmative Procurement Programs, 60

AFOs. See Animal Feeding Operations strategy

AGR. See Adjusted Gross Revenue plan

AGRICOLA, 207

Agricultural Act of 1949, 104

Agricultural Air Quality Task Force, 195

Agricultural Appropriations Act, 39

Agricultural Fair Practices Act, 232

Agricultural Labor Affairs, 63

Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, 259

Agricultural Marketing Service

commodity procurement programs, 229–230

direct marketing, 233

fair trade programs, 231–232

global markets, 234–235

grading, quality standards, and certification

promotion, 227–229

information sources, 262

Market News, 229

marketing orders, 231

organic certification, 232–233

pesticide information and records, 230

promotional campaigns, 230–231

Transportation and Marketing Programs, 234

wholesale market development, 233

Agricultural Outlook, 214

Agricultural products. See also Crops; Livestock

imports and exports, 97–101

Agricultural Research Service, 204–206, 220–222,

243

Agricultural Resource Management Study, 12, 19,

36–38

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation

Service, 87

Agricultural terms, 274–286

Agriculture Rural Development, Food and Drug

Administration and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act, 2000, 63

Air quality programs, 166

Alabama

animal disease eradication programs, 248

boll weevil eradication, 243–244

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 199

State Statistical Office, 225

Alaska

animal disease eradication programs, 248

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 199

State Statistical Office, 225

Alaska Natives. See American Indian and Alaska

Native programs

ALB. See Asian Longhorned Beetle

Alternative dispute resolution, 62

AMA. See Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946

American Forests, 176

American Indian and Alaska Native Programs, 67.

See also Native Americans

American Red Cross, 129

American Samoa

nutrition assistance program, 129

AMS. See Agricultural Marketing Service

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

agricultural quarantine inspection, 237–238

aquaculture, 257–258

biotechnology regulation, 251–252

domestic animal health programs, 247–250

domestic plant health programs, 242–247

humane care of animals, 255–257

import-export regulations, 240–242

information sources, 262–263

international programs, 239

invasive species, 236

mission, 235–236

monitoring pests and diseases, 250–251

preclearance, 238

rapid response teams, 239–240

wildlife damage control, 252–255

Animal fats

exports, 99–100

Animal Feeding Operations strategy, 196

Animal Welfare Act, 255–256

Animals

domestic animal health programs, 247–250

exports, 100

humane care of, 255–257

import-export regulations, 240–242

invasive species, 236

monitoring pests and diseases, 250–251

APHIS. See Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

Apparel

expenditures for, 10

Index
Appeal hearings, 68

Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas

program, 74

Aquaculture, 257–258

Aquaculture cooperative, 95

Arizona

animal disease eradication programs, 248

boll weevil eradication, 243–244

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 199

State Statistical Office, 225

Arkansas

animal disease eradication programs, 248

boll weevil eradication, 243–244

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 199

State Statistical Office, 225

ARMS. See Agricultural Resource Management

Study

ARS. See Agricultural Research Service

Asian Longhorned Beetle, 245–246

Automated data processing, 65

AWA. See Animal Welfare Act

Away-from-home foods

dietary changes, 2, 4–6

expenditures for, 10

B

Backyard Conservation campaign, 195–196, 197

Beagle Brigade, 238

Beef. See also Meats

dietary changes, 2–3

pathogen reduction in ground beef, 140

Beer

exports, 101

Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, 207

B&I Loans. See Business and Industry Guaranteed

Loan Program

Biological control programs, 242–243

Biotechnology

regulating agricultural use, 251–252

Boll weevil eradication program, 243–244

Bonus commodities, 120

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, 240

BRAVO. See Bringing Rural America Venture

Opportunities

Breakfast cereals

exports, 101

Bringing Rural America Venture Opportunities, 61

Brucellosis

eradication programs, 248–249

BSE. See Bovine spongiform encephalopathy

Bulk commodities

exports, 98–99

Bushel/weight conversion chart, 272

Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program,

73

Business assistance, 25

Business development programs, 72–75

Business Enterprise Grants, 74

Business Opportunity Grants, 74

Butter. See Fats and oils

C

CACFP. See Child and Adult Care Food Program

Calendar, planting and harvesting, 273

California

animal disease eradication programs, 248

boll weevil eradication, 243–244

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 199

State Statistical Office, 225

Caloric sweeteners

dietary changes, 2, 9–10

Cambodian Mutual Assistance Association, 95

Campylobacter, 147

Cattle. See also Beef

disease eradication programs, 248–249

Federal inspection, 139–140

Packers and Stockyards Programs, 259–260

price variability, 37, 38

CCC. See Commodity Credit Corporation

CCC Charter Act, 105

CDC. See Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention

CDFI. See Community Development Financial

Institution Partnership

CEAH. See Centers for Epidemiology and Animal

Health

Census of Agriculture, 219

Center for Farm Financial Management, 112

Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, 1, 131,

138

Center for Veterinary Biologics, 250

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 145,

147

Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health, 258

Centralized Excess Property Operation, 59

Centralized Service Center, 80

Cereals. See also Grains

exports, 101

Certification services, 227–229

CF. See Cooperative Forestry

CFO. See Chief Financial Officer

CFP. See Cooperative Fire Protection program

CFR. See Code of Federal Regulations

Champion Communities, 83

Changes in the Older Population and Implications

for Rural Areas, 216

Cheese. See also Dairy products

dietary changes, 4–5

Chicken. See Poultry

Chief Economist, Office of, 62–64

Chief Financial Officer

Forest Service, 181–182

Chief Financial Officer, Office of, 66

Chief Information Officer, Office of, 65–66

288
Chief Meteorologist, 63

Child and Adult Care Food Program, 65, 124–125

Child Care Food Program. See Child and Adult

Care Food Program

Children

nutrition assistance programs, 118–127, 136

Cholesterol

leaner meat trend, 3

CITES. See Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species

Citrus canker, 246–247

Civil rights, 151

Civil Rights, Office of, 50–51

CLC. See Corporate Leadership Council

Clean Water Action Plan, 196

Clear Title provisions, 261

Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, 65

Clinton, Bill

community empowerment programs, 81, 83

homeownership initiative, 78

President’s Council on Food Safety, 148

Clothing

expenditures for, 10

Cochran Fellowship Program, 108

Code of Federal Regulations, 146

Codex Alimentarius Commission, 103, 150

College and University Partnership Project, 83

Colorado

animal disease eradication programs, 248

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 199

State Statistical Office, 225

Commercial export credit guarantee programs,

105–106

Commodities. See Crops; Livestock

Commodities Improvement Council, 119

Commodity Credit Corporation, 88–89, 93, 105,

246

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

risk management education, 112

Commodity purchase programs, 89

Commodity Supplemental Food Program, 124

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

nutrition assistance program, 129

Communications, Office of, 62, 264–270

Communications and Governmental Affairs,

130–131

Communications Coordination and Review Center,

265–267

Community Development, Office of, 81–85

Community Development Financial Institution

Partnership, 79

Community empowerment, 81–85

Community Facilities Programs, 76, 77

Community Food Security Initiative, 68

Computer Matching Act, 264

Computers for Learning Initiative, 59

Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center, 62

Congressional Relations, Office of, 67

Connecticut

animal disease eradication programs, 248

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 199

Conservation. See also Natural Resources

Conservation Service

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program,

93

Conservation Reserve Program, 16, 91, 93

Emergency Conservation Program, 91

technical assistance, 190–191

Wetlands Reserve Program, 16, 191

Conservation buffers, 194–195

Conservation of Private Grazing Land Initiative,

194

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, 93

Conservation Reserve Program, 16, 91, 93

Conservation technical assistance, 190–191

Consolidated Forms and Publications Distribution

Center, 59

Consolidation in U.S. Meatpacking, 216

Consumer education

food safety, 151

Consumer expenditures

distribution of, 10–11

Consumer foods

exports, 100, 101

Consumer Price Index, 10

Consumer safety officers, 144

Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species, 241

Conversion charts, 271–272

Cooking oils. See Fats and oils

Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey, 250

Cooperative Development Grants, 74

Cooperative Fire Protection program, 179

Cooperative Forestry, 175–176

Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, 157

Cooperative Services, 74–75

Cooperative State Research, Education, and

Extension Service

functions, 208–209

information sources, 222

partnerships, 209

programs, 209–212

risk management education, 112

Cooperative Stock Purchase Authority, 73

Cooperator Program, 107

Corn

exports, 98

genetically modified varieties, 44

price variability, 37, 38, 39

Corporate Leadership Council, 52

Cost-Benefit Analysis, Office of Risk Assessment

and, 63

289
Cotton

boll weevil eradication, 243–244

exports, 98–99

CPRC. See Conflict Prevention and Resolution

Center

CR. See Office of Civil Rights

Credit guarantee programs, 105–106

Crop insurance, 23, 39, 109–113

Crop Loss Disaster Assistance Program, 91

Crop Revenue Coverage, 111

Crops

genetically engineered, 43–47

organic, 41–43

price variability, 37, 38, 39

yield variability, 37

CRP. See Conservation Reserve Program

CSC. See Centralized Service Center

CSFP. See Commodity Supplemental Food

Program

CSOs. See Consumer safety officers

CSREES. See Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service

CTA. See Conservation technical assistance

Customer ordering web site, 60

D

DA. See Departmental Administration

Dairy Export Incentive Program, 106

Dairy Market Loss Assistance Program, 90

Dairy Options Pilot Program, 112

Dairy products. See also Milk

dietary changes, 2, 4–5

exports, 101, 106

Day care

Child and Adult Care Food Program, 65,

124–125

DEIP. See Dairy Export Incentive Program

Delaware

animal disease eradication programs, 248

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 199

State Statistical Office, 225

Delta Regional Initiative, 84–85

Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of

1994, 49

Department of Veterans Affairs

home loan program, 31–32

Departmental Administration, 49–62

Design Center, 269

Designated Qualified Persons, 257

DHHS. See U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services

Dietary changes

caloric sweeteners, 9–10

calories consumed per person per day, 1–2

dairy products, 4–5

factors contributing to change, 2

fats and oils, 5–6

food consumed away from home, 2

fruits, 6–7

grains, 8–9

meat, 2–3

vegetables, 6–7

Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 121, 131, 135

Direct Business and Industry Loans, 73

Disadvantaged business programs, 60–61

Disaster Assistance programs, 89–90, 129–130

Disaster Food Stamp Program, 129–130

Diseases

animal diseases eradication programs, 248–249

domestic animal health programs, 247–250

invasive species, 236

monitoring pests and diseases, 250–251

Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loans and

Grants, 80–81

DOD. See U.S. Department of Defense

“Doing Business with USDA,” 52

DOPP. See Dairy Options Pilot Program

DQP. See Designated Qualified Persons

E

E. coli, 141

E. coli O157:H7, 140, 147

Earth Day, 72

Eating out. See Away-from-home foods

EBT. See Electronic Benefit Transfer

EC. See Enterprise Communities

Economic Action Programs, 176

Economic Development Loans and Grants, 74

Economic Recovery program, 177

Economic Research Service

daily calorie intake estimates, 1–2

farm typology, 12, 13

functions, 212–214

information sources, 222–223

periodicals, 214–215

research reports, 216

rural manufacturing survey, 29

structure of, 217

topics covered, 215–216

web site, 213

Ecosystem Restoration Technology Center, 167

EEP. See Export Enhancement Program

Egg Products Inspection Act, 139

Eggs

dietary changes, 3

exports, 101

Federal inspection, 139–140

grading, 227–229

safety action plan, 149

Elderly

Nutrition Program for the Elderly, 127

Electric Loans and Loan Guarantees, 80

Electronic Benefit Transfer, 117, 118

Emergency Conservation Program, 91

290
Emergency loans, 90

Emergency Watershed Protection program, 193

Employment. See also Labor

in manufacturing for metro and nonmetro areas,

27–30

Empowerment initiative, 81–85

Empowerment Zones, 81–85

Endangered Species Act, 240

Energy, minerals, and geology program, 167–168,

169

Energy Policy and New Uses, Office of, 64

Energy use

food marketing costs and, 11

Enterprise Communities, 81–85

Entitlement foods, 120

Environmental Quality Incentives Program, 43, 93,

191

EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EQIP. See Environmental Quality Incentives

Program

ERS. See Economic Research Service

Ethics, Office of, 61

EWP. See Emergency Watershed Protection program

Expenditures on Children by Families, 131

Export Enhancement Program, 106

Exports

agricultural products, 97–101

bulk commodities, 98–99

consumer foods, 100, 101

credit guarantee programs, 105–106

Food Import and Export Inspection and

Certification Systems, 150

grading and certification services, 227–229

intermediate agricultural products, 99–100

international trade agreements, 102–104

regulations for animals and plants, 240–242

seafood products, 102, 103

wood products, 102

Extension Services. See Cooperative State

Research, Education, and Extension Service

EZ. See Empowerment Zones

F

Facilities Guarantee Program, 106

Family farms, 13

Farm Bill of 1996. See Federal Agriculture

Improvement and Reform Act of 1996

Farm Labor Housing programs, 33, 77

Farm loans, 92–93. See also specific loans and programs

Farm Service Agency

assistance programs, 90–91

commodity purchase programs, 89

conservation programs, 93

disaster assistance, 89–90

Emergency Conservation Program, 91

emergency loans, 90

farm loans, 50, 92–93

Forest Stewardship Landowner Plans, 175

information sources, 93, 96, 114–115

marketing assistance loan programs, 88–89

mission, 87

the 1996 Farm Bill, 87–88

program successes, 94–95

purpose, 87

vision statement, 87

Farm-to-school initiative, 130–131

Farmers

distribution of food costs, 10–11

Farmers Home Administration, 87

Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, 123

Farmers’ markets, 233

Farming occupation farms, 13

Farmland Protection Program, 191–192

Farms

asset values, 12, 14

cost control, 16–17, 21

crops grown by top performers, 21–22

ERS typology, 12, 13

genetically engineered crops, 43–47

government program participation, 16, 17

household income, 18

management strategies of successful farms,

21–24

measuring success, 19–21

organic farming, 41–43

pesticide use, 47–48

risk management strategies, 36–40

share of production, 12, 14

size of, 12–24, 38

small farms, 18–19

specialization and diversification, 13, 15

top performers, 16–17, 21–24

Farmworkers

Agricultural Labor Affairs, 63

Farm Labor Housing programs, 33, 77

FAS. See Foreign Agricultural Service

Fast food. See Away-from-home foods

Fats and oils

dietary changes, 2, 5–6

leaner meat trend, 3

milkfat consumption, 4

vegetable oil exports, 100

FCIC. See Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

FDA. See Food and Drug Administration

FDPIR. See Food Distribution Program on Indian

Reservations

Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act

of 1996

redesign of farm programs, 87–88

transfer of excess personal property, 53

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, 87, 110

291
Federal Excess Personnel Property, 179

Federal Government. See specific departments and

agencies

Federal Grain Inspection Program, 259

Federal Grain Inspection Service, 258–259

Federal Home Loan Bank System, 78

Federal Housing Administration

mortgage program, 31

Federal Meat Inspection Act, 139

Federal Pesticide Recordkeeping Program, 230

Federal Register, 53, 150

Federal Seed Act, 232

Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program,

233

Feeds

exports, 100

FFIS. See Foundation Financial Information

System

FFP. See Food for Progress program

FGIS. See Federal Grain Inspection Service

FHA. See Federal Housing Administration

Field Gleaning and Food Recovery Team, 94

Fight BAC!TM Campaign, 152–153

FIP. See Forestry Incentives Program

Fish and shellfish

dietary changes, 2–3

exports, 102, 103

Forest Service programs, 164–165

Flavored teas

dietary changes, 4

Fleet Card Program, 52

Flock Certification program, 249

Flood Compensation Program, 91

Flood Control Act of 1944, 193

Florida

animal disease eradication programs, 248

boll weevil eradication, 243–244

citrus canker eradication program, 246–247

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 199

State Statistical Office, 225

Flour. See Grains

Flowers

exports, 101

FMD. See Foot-and-mouth disease

FMNP. See Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program

Folic acid, 8–9

Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of

1990, 61

Food and Agriculture Organization, 150

Food and Drug Administration, 8–9, 150

Food and Nutrition Service

Child and Adult Care Food Program, 65,

124–125

Commodity Supplemental Food Program, 124

disaster assistance, 129–130

eligibility determination, 117, 118

The Emergency Food Assistance Program,

128–129

Food Distribution Program on Indian

Reservations, 127–128

Food Stamp Program, 117–118, 136

information sources, 137–138

mission, 116

National School Lunch Program, 89, 118–120

nutrition assistance programs in Puerto Rico,

American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana

Islands, 129

Nutrition Program for the Elderly, 127

Office of Communications and Governmental

Affairs, 130–131

School Breakfast Program, 120–121

Special Milk Program, 126–127

Summer Food Service Program, 125–126

Team Nutrition, 121–122

web site, 116

WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, 123

WIC Program, 122–123, 136

Food assistance programs, 104–105

Food consumption. See Dietary changes; specific

commodities

Food Distribution Program, 129

Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations,

127–128

Food exports, 100, 101

Food for Peace Program, 89

Food for Progress Act, 104

Food for Progress program, 104

Food Guide Pyramid, 8, 121, 131, 133–134

Food Guide Pyramid for Young Children, 132

Food Import and Export Inspection and

Certification Systems, 150

Food Plans, 131

Food prices

distribution of expenditures, 10–11

marketing costs, 10–11

Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, 230

Food Safety, Office of, 139

Food Safety and Inspection Service

activities, 139–140

civil rights activities, 151

consumer education, 151

consumer safety officers, 144

egg safety action plan, 149

emerging issues, 147–148

farm-to-table food safety continuum, 143

federal-state cooperation, 145

Fight BAC!TM Campaign, 152–153

Food Supply Working Group, 155

food thermometer use campaign, 153, 155

Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance

Network, 149

HACCP systems, 141–144

292
information sources, 156

inspection models project, 143–144

international issues, 150

interstate shipment of meat and poultry products, 145

irradiation of meat and poultry, 146

Meat and Poultry Hotline, 154

National Food Safety Education Month,

154–155

National Food Safety Information Network,

154

Partnership for Food Safety Education,

151–153

President’s Council on Food Safety, 148

PulseNet, 149

regulatory reform, 146

Technical Service Center, 145

Training and Education Committee, 144–145

web site, 142

workforce redesign, 144

The Food Safety Educator, 151

Food Security Initiative, 68

Food Stamp Program, 117–118, 136

Food supply

food security, 107

Food Supply Working Group, 155

Food thermometer use campaign, 153, 155

Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network,

149

FoodNet, 149

FoodReview, 215

Foot-and-mouth disease, 239

Foreign Agricultural Service

agricultural exports, 97–104

bulk commodity exports, 98–99

Commercial Export Credit Guarantee

Programs, 105–106

consumer food exports, 100, 101

export bonus programs, 106

food assistance programs, 104–105

food security, 107

Foreign Market Development Program, 107

information sources, 115

intermediate agricultural product exports,

99–100

international cooperation, 107

international trade agreements, 102–104

Market Access Program, 106

mission, 96–97

overseas representation, 97

scientific collaboration, 107

seafood exports, 102, 103

technical assistance, 108

training, 108

web site, 97

wood product exports, 102

Foreign Market Development Program, 107

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources

Planning Acts, 157

Forest Legacy Program, 176

Forest Product Laboratory, 180

Forest Products Conservation and Recycling

Program, 177

Forest Service

business operations, 182–184

fact sheets, 160–161

financial management, 181–182

International Program, 159

law enforcement and investigations, 186

location of National Forests, 162–163

mission, 157

National Forest System, 158, 161–174

Natural Resource Agenda, 157

Office of International Programs, 184–185

organizational structure, 158–159

principal laws, 157

reinvention, 159–160

Research and Development, 158–159, 179–181

Senior, Youth, and Volunteer Programs,

183–184

State and Private Forestry programs, 158,

174–179

web sites, 160, 183

Forest Stewardship Landowner Plans, 175

Forest Stewardship Program, 175

Forestry Incentives Program, 194

Forward contracting, 38

Foundation Financial Information System,

181–182

FPP. See Farmland Protection Program

Freedom of Information Act, 264

Fruit drinks

dietary changes, 4

Fruits

dietary changes, 2, 6–7

exports, 101

Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act,

231–232

WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, 123

FSA. See Farm Service Agency; Federal Seed Act

FSIS. See Food Safety and Inspection Service

FSIS Process for Evaluating the Equivalence of

Foreign Meat and Poultry Regulatory Systems,

150

FSMIP. See Federal-State Marketing Improvement

Program

Fugitive apprehension, 65

G

Genetically engineered crops, 43–47

Genetically Engineered Crops for Pest

Management in U.S. Agriculture, 216

Geology. See Energy, minerals, and geology pro293
gram

George Washington Carver Center, 58–59

Georgia

animal disease eradication programs, 248

boll weevil eradication, 243–244

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 199

State Statistical Office, 225

GIPSA. See Grain Inspection, Packers, and

Stockyards Administration

Glickman, Dan, 51, 59, 72, 84, 148, 154, 194

Global Change Program Office, 64

Glossary of agricultural terms, 274–286

Glyphosate herbicides, 47–48

Goats

Flock Certification program, 249

Goods and services

expenditures for, 10

Gore, Al

community empowerment programs, 81, 83

Computers for Learning initiative, 59

National Partnership for Reinventing

Government initiative, 56

Government funding

payments to farmers, 16

Government Performance Review Act, 158

Governmental Affairs. See Office of

Communications and Governmental Affairs

GPRA. See Government Performance Review Act

Grading standards and services, 227–229

Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards

Administration

Clear Title provisions, 261

fair competition, 260

fair treatment for poultry growers, 261

Federal Grain Inspection Program, 259

information sources, 263

Packers and Stockyards Programs, 259–260

payment protection, 260

scales and weighing activities, 260–261

structural change analysis, 261

trade practices, 261

trust activities, 260

violation hotline, 261

web site, 261

Grains

dietary changes, 2, 8–9

exports, 99

Federal Grain Inspection Program, 259

folic acid fortification, 8–9

health claims, 8

Grants. See specific grant programs

Grasshopper control program, 245

Ground beef

pathogen reduction, 140

Group Risk Plan, 111

GRP. See Group Risk Plan

GSM programs, 105–106

Guam

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 202

Guaranteed Loan Programs

Business and Industry, 73

farm loans, 92

Rural Housing Service, 78

Guide to USDA Programs for American Indians

and Alaska Natives, 67

H

HACCP. See Hazard Analysis and Critical Control

Point Systems

HACCP Hotline, 145

Harvesting calendar, 273

Hawaii

animal disease eradication programs, 248

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 199

State Statistical Office, 225

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point

Systems, 140, 141–145, 228

Healthy Eating Index, 131

Heart disease

grain product health claims, 8

Hedging, 38

Herbicide-tolerance trait, 47–48

Herman, Alexis, 84

Hides

exports, 99–100

Hispanic Leadership Summit, 51

Hogs. See also Pork

disease eradication programs, 248–249

Packers and Stockyards Programs, 259–260

Home Improvement and Repair programs, 76

Homeownership

loan programs, 31–35

rates of, 30

Homeownership initiative, 78

Hope House, 80

HOPPER program, 245

Horse Protection Act, 255–256

Hosted programs

Forest Service, 184

Hotlines

Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards

Administration violations, 261

HACCP Hotline, 145

Meat and Poultry Hotline, 154

Household income

determining eligibility for USDA nutrition programs, 117, 118

farm averages, 18

Housing

expenditures for, 10

loan programs, 30–35

Housing Preservation Grants, 76, 77

Housing Repair program, 77

294
HPA. See Horse Protection Act

HUD. See U.S. Housing and Urban Development

Human Resources Management, Office of, 51–52

Hunger Prevention Act, 128

Hurricane recovery assistance, 108

I

Idaho

animal disease eradication programs, 248

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 199

State Statistical Office, 225

Illinois

animal disease eradication programs, 248

Asian Longhorned Beetle eradication program,

245–246

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 200

State Statistical Office, 225

Imports

agricultural products, 97

Food Import and Export Inspection and

Certification Systems, 150

inspection of meat and poultry products, 140

preclearance programs, 238

regulations for animals and plants, 240–242

Incident Command System, 185

Income. See Household income

Income Protection plans, 111

Indiana

animal disease eradication programs, 248

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 200

State Statistical Office, 225

Indians. See American Indian and Alaska Native

programs; Native Americans

Industry. See Manufacturing

Infants

WIC Programs, 122–123, 136

Information Resources Management, 65

Information technology resources, 65

Insects. See Pests

Inspection. See Food Safety and Inspection

Service; Grading standards and services

Inspector General, Office of, 64–65

Inspector General Act of 1978, 64

Integrated Pest Management, 245

Intergovernmental Affairs, Office of, 67

Intermediary Relending Program Loans, 73

Intermediate agricultural products

exports, 99–100

The International Financial Crisis and Agriculture,

216

International Forestry Cooperation Act of 1990,

157

International Institute of Tropical Forestry, 159,

180

International issues. See also Foreign Agricultural

Service

crop insurance, 113

food safety, 150

grading and certification services, 234–235

Natural Resources Conservation Service programs, 195

plant and animal health, 239

preclearance programs, 238

trade agreements, 102–104

International Organization for Standardization,

228–229

International Regulations Retrieval System, 241

International Services, 236

International Society of Arboriculture, 176

International Trade Centre, 41

Internet. See Web sites

Invasive species, 236

Iowa

animal disease eradication programs, 248

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 200

State Statistical Office, 225

IP. See Office of International Programs

IPM. See Integrated Pest Management

Irradiation of meats, 146–147

IRRS. See International Regulations Retrieval

System

IS. See International Services

ISO. See International Organization for

Standardization

ITC. See International Trade Centre

J

Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers, 183

Joint Institute for Food Safety Research, 148

K

Kansas

animal disease eradication programs, 248

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 200

State Statistical Office, 225

Karnal bunt, 242

Kentucky

animal disease eradication programs, 248

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 200

State Statistical Office, 225

L

Labor. See also Employment

Agricultural Labor Affairs, 63

food marketing costs and, 11

Lamb. See Meats

Land and Resource Management Plans, 170–172

Landover Service Center, 60

Lands and Realty Management, 161, 164

Lane, Neal, 148, 154

Law enforcement programs

Forest Service, 186

LDP. See Loan Deficiency Payments

Leadership Challenge, 52

Lifestyle farms, 13

Limited-resource farms, 13

295
Listeria monocytogenes, 140, 147–148

Livable Communities initiative, 26

Livestock

disease eradication programs, 248–249

federal inspection, 139–140

organic, 41–43

price variability, 37, 38

Veterinary Services, 236, 241, 247

yield variability, 37

Livestock Indemnity Program, 91

Loan Deficiency Payments, 90

Loan programs. See also specific loans and programs

business and industry loans, 73–74

emergency loans, 90

Farm Service Agency, 88–89, 90, 92–93

housing, 31–35, 75–79

nonrecourse loans, 88–89

Rural Utilities Service, 79–81

Louisiana

animal disease eradication programs, 248

boll weevil eradication, 243–244

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 200

State Statistical Office, 225

LRMPs. See Land and Resource Management

Plans

M

“Mad cow disease,” 240

Mail and Reproduction Division, 59

Mail center, 53, 56

Maine

animal disease eradication programs, 248

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 200

Manufacturing

in rural areas, 26–30

MAP. See Market Access Program

Margarine. See Fats and oils

Market Access Program, 106

Market News, 229

Marketing

Agricultural Marketing Service, 227–235

commodity loan programs, 88–89

cost of food services and distribution, 10–11

Market News, 229

strategies of top performers, 23–24

Maryland

animal disease eradication programs, 248

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 200

State Statistical Office, 225

Massachusetts

animal disease eradication programs, 248

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 200

Meat and Poultry Hotline, 154

Meats. See also Fish and shellfish; Poultry

dietary changes, 2–3

exports, 101

Federal inspection, 139–140

Hotline, 154

interstate shipment, 145

irradiation, 146–147

Packers and Stockyards Programs, 259–260

pathogen reduction, 141–148

quality standards and grading, 227–229

Medical care

expenditures for, 10

Mediterranean fruit fly, 237, 239

Melwood, 58

Memorandum of Understanding, 145

Metric conversion chart, 271–272

Metropolitan areas

manufacturing employment, 27–30

Michigan

animal disease eradication programs, 248

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 200

State Statistical Office, 225

Migrant workers

Farm Labor Housing programs, 33, 77

Milk. See also Dairy products

dietary changes, 4–5

Special Milk Program, 126–127

Minerals. See Energy, minerals, and geology program

Minnesota

animal disease eradication programs, 248

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 200

Organic Cost Share Program, 43

State Statistical Office, 225

Mississippi

animal disease eradication programs, 248

boll weevil eradication, 243–244

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 200

State Statistical Office, 225

Mississippi Delta

Regional Initiative, 84–85

Missouri

animal disease eradication programs, 249

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 201

State Statistical Office, 225

Montana

animal disease eradication programs, 249

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 201

State Statistical Office, 225

Mortgage programs, 31–35

MOSCAMED program, 239

MOU. See Memorandum of Understanding

MPCI. See Multiple-Peril Crop Insurance

Multifamily housing assistance, 33–35, 77

Multiple-Peril Crop Insurance, 110

Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960, 157

Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund, 31

Mutual Self-Help Housing Program, 76, 77

296
N

NACD. See National Association of Conservation

Districts

NAFTA. See North American Tree Trade

Agreement

NAHMS. See National Animal Health Monitoring

System

NAL. See National Agricultural Library

NAP. See Non-insured Assistance Program

NAPIS. See National Agricultural Pest Information

System

NASS. See National Agricultural Statistics Service

National Ag Risk Education Library, 112

National Agricultural Library, 206–208

National Agricultural Pest Information System,

250–251

National Agricultural Statistics Service, 12, 111,

217–219, 224–226, 252

National Animal Health Monitoring System, 251

National Appeals Division, 68

National Association of Conservation Districts, 188

National Biological Control Institute, 242–243

National Center for Import and Export, 241

National Centers of Excellence, 83

National Conservation Buffer Initiative, 194–195

National Environmental Policy Act, 172

National Finance Center, 66

National Food Safety Education Month, 154–155

National Food Safety Information Network, 154

National Food Safety Initiative, 152

National Food Safety System, 145

National Forest Management Act, 157, 171

National Forest System. See also Forest Service

energy, minerals, and geology, 167–168, 169

forest vegetation management, 172–173, 174

inventory, assessment, and planning, 170–174

Lands and Realty Management, 161, 164

location of national forests, 162–163

partnerships, 165

Passport In Time program, 174

rangeland, 166–167

recreation, heritage and wilderness resources,

168, 170

stewardship demonstration projects, 173

water, soil, and air, 166

wildlife, fish, and rare plants, 164–165

National Information Technology Center, 65

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

62–63

National Office of Outreach

risk management education, 112

National Organic Standards Board, 233

National Partners in Homeownership, 78

National Partnership for Reinventing Government,

56

National Resources Inventory, 194

National School Lunch Program, 89, 118–120

National Sheep Industry Improvement Center, 74

National Tree Trust Foundation, 176

National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory

Council, 176

National Veterinary Services Laboratories, 250

National Wildlife Research Center, 254–255

Native American Working Group, 67

Native Americans. See also American Indian and

Alaska Native programs

Food Distribution Program on Indian

Reservations, 127–128

housing loans and grants, 77

Tribal College Partnership, 83

Natural disasters. See Disaster assistance programs

Natural Resource Conservation Education, 178

Natural Resources Conservation Service

conservation technical assistance, 190–191

Environmental Quality Incentives Program, 93

information sources, 198–203

international programs, 195

mission, 187

partnerships, 187–188

programs, 189–197

public affairs contacts, 198–203

web site, 196

Nebraska

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 201

State Statistical Office, 225

Nevada

animal disease eradication programs, 249

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 201

State Statistical Office, 226

New England

State Statistical Office, 226

New Entry Sustainable Farming Project, 95

New Hampshire

animal disease eradication programs, 249

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 201

New Jersey

animal disease eradication programs, 249

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 201

State Statistical Office, 226

New Markets initiative, 25

New Mexico

animal disease eradication programs, 249

boll weevil eradication, 243–244

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 201

State Statistical Office, 226

New York

animal disease eradication programs, 249

Asian Longhorned Beetle eradication program,

245–246

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 201

State Statistical Office, 226

NFC. See National Finance Center

297
NFMA. See National Forest Management Act

NFS. See National Forest System

The 1996 Act. See Federal Agriculture

Improvement and Reform Act of 1996

1996 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by

Individuals, 8

Non-insured Assistance Program, 89–90

Nonfamily farms, 13

Nonmetropolitan areas. See also Rural areas; Rural

Development

manufacturing employment, 27–30

Nonrecourse loans, 88–89

North American Tree Trade Agreement, 102

North Carolina

animal disease eradication programs, 249

boll weevil eradication, 243–244

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 201

State Statistical Office, 226

witchweed eradication, 244

North Dakota

animal disease eradication programs, 249

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 201

State Statistical Office, 226

Northern Mariana Islands

nutrition assistance program, 129

Noxious weed management program, 167

NPE. See Nutrition Program for the Elderly

NRCE. See Natural Resource Conservation

Education

NRCS. See Natural Resources Conservation

Service

NRI. See National Resources Inventory

NSLP. See National School Lunch Program

Nuestras Raices, 95

Nursery products

exports, 101

Nutrition assistance programs. See Food and

Nutrition Service; specific programs

Nutrition Program for the Elderly, 127

Nuts

exports, 101

NVSL. See National Veterinary Services

Laboratories

NWRC. See National Wildlife Research Center

O

OC. See Office of Communications

OCE. See Office of Chief Economist

OCIO. See Office of the Chief Information Officer

Office of Chief Economist, 62–64

Office of Chief Financial Officer, 66

Office of Civil Rights, 50–51

Office of Communications, 62, 264–270

Office of Communications and Governmental

Affairs, 130–131

Office of Community Development, 81–85

Office of Congressional Relations, 67

Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, 64

Office of Ethics, 61

Office of Food Safety, 139, 150

Office of Human Resources Management, 51–52

Office of Inspector General, 64–65

Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, 67

Office of International Programs

Forest Service, 184–185

Office of Operations, 53, 56, 58–60

Office of Outreach, 61–62

Office of Procurement, Property, and Emergency

Preparedness, 52–53

Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit

Analysis, 63

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business

Utilization, 60–61

Office of the Chief Information Officer, 65–66

Office of the Director

Office of Communications, 264–265

Ohio

animal disease eradication programs, 249

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 201

State Statistical Office, 226

OHRM. See Office of Human Resources

Management

OIA. See Office of Intergovernmental Affairs

OIG. See Office of Inspector General

Oils. See Fats and oils

Oklahoma

animal disease eradication programs, 249

boll weevil eradication, 243–244

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 201

State Statistical Office, 226

Older Americans Act of 1965, 127

OO. See Office of Operations

Operation “Kiddie Care,” 65

Operation Talon, 65

Operations, Office of, 53, 56, 58–60

OPPEP. See Office of Procurement, Property, and

Emergency Preparedness

Oregon

animal disease eradication programs, 249

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 202

State Statistical Office, 226

Organic Administration Act of 1897, 157

Organic certification, 232–233

Organic Cost Share Program, 43

Organic farming, 41–43

Organic Foods Production Act, 41, 232

OSDBU. See Office of Small and Disadvantaged

Business Utilization

Outreach, Office of, 61–62

P

PACA. See Perishable Agricultural Commodities

Act

Pacific Northwest Assistance program, 177

298
Packaging

food marketing costs and, 10–11

Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, 259

Packers and Stockyards Programs, 259–260

Partners in Flight program, 185

Partnership for Food Safety Education, 151–153

Partnerships

housing programs, 77–79

Passport In Time program, 174

Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis and Critical

Control Point Systems, 140, 141–145, 228

PDP. See Pesticide Data Program

Peanuts

exports, 99

Pennsylvania

animal disease eradication programs, 249

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 202

State Statistical Office, 226

Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 231–232

Personal property

transfer of excess, 53

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act, 118

Pesticide Data Program, 230

Pesticides

changes in use, 45–48

Pests

biological control program, 242–243

boll weevil eradication, 243–244

domestic plant health programs, 242–247

grasshopper control program, 245

integrated pest management, 245

invasive species, 236

monitoring pests and diseases, 250–251

Pet foods

exports, 101

Photography Center, 269–270

Plant Materials Centers, 192

Plant Protection and Quarantine, 236–241

Plant Variety Protection Act, 232

Planting and harvesting calendar, 273

Plants

domestic plant health programs, 242–247

Forest Service programs, 164–165

import-export regulations, 240–242

invasive species, 236

monitoring pests and diseases, 250–251

witchweed eradication, 244

Pork. See also Hogs; Meats

dietary changes, 2–3

pathogen reduction, 141–148

Poultry. See also Meats

dietary changes, 2–3

exports, 101

fair treatment for poultry growers, 261

Federal inspection, 139–140

grading, 227–229

Hotline, 154

interstate shipment, 145

irradiation, 146–147

Packers and Stockyards Programs, 259–260

pathogen reduction, 141–148

Poultry Products Inspection Act, 139

PPQ. See Plant Protection and Quarantine

Preclearance programs, 238

Presidential homeownership initiative, 78

President’s Council on Food Safety, 148

Price variability, 37, 38, 39

Prices. See Food prices

Print on Demand, 59

Printing Management Center, 270

Privacy Act, 264

Private voluntary organizations, 104

Procurement, Property, and Emergency

Preparedness, Office of, 52–53

Produce. See Fruits; Vegetables

Production Flexibility Contract program, 90

Project Learning Tree, 178

Pseudorabies

eradication programs, 248–249

Public affairs. See Office of Communications and

Governmental Affairs

Public Liaison Center, 267–268

Puerto Rico

animal disease eradication programs, 249

International Institute of Tropical Forestry, 159

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 202

nutrition assistance program, 129

State Statistical Office, 226

PulseNet, 149

Pulses

exports, 99

Purchase Card Management System, 52

PVOs. See Private voluntary organizations

Q

QA. See Quality assurance

Quality assurance, 228–229

Quality standards, 227–229

Quality Systems Verification Program, 234

Quarantine inspection, 237–238

R

Rangeland conservation, 166–167

Rapid response teams, 239

RBS. See Rural Business-Cooperative Service

RC&D. See Resource Conservation and

Development Program

REA. See Rural Electrification Administration

REAP Zones. See Rural Economic Area

Partnership Zones

Recreation

Forest Service options, 160, 168, 170

Red meats. See Meats

299
Regulator’s Food Safety Information Line, 145

Remote Sensing Coordination Committee, 63

Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978, 157

Rental assistance programs, 33, 76

Rescissions Act of 1995, 166

Research. See specific agencies

Residential farms, 13

Resource Conservation and Development Program,

194

Resource Management System, 189

Retirement farms, 13

Revenue Assurance, 111

Revenue Insurance plans, 111

Revitalizing Quality Nutrition Services, 122

RHLP. See Rural Home Loan Partnership

Rhode Island

animal disease eradication programs, 249

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 202

RHS. See Rural Housing Service

Rice

exports, 99

Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis, Office

of, 63

Risk management, 36–40

Risk Management Agency

Adjusted Gross Revenue, 111

anticipated growth, 113

crop insurance liability, 109

Dairy Options Pilot Program, 112

Group Risk Plan, 111

information sources, 115

international outreach, 113

mission, 109

Multiple-Peril Crop Insurance, 110

outreach, 112

Revenue Insurance plans, 111

risk management education, 112

River Basin Interagency Committees, 193

RMA. See Risk Management Agency

RTB. See Rural Telephone Bank

Rural areas. See also Nonmetropolitan areas

housing, 30–35

Livable Communities initiative, 26

manufacturing, 26–30

New Markets initiative, 25

Rural Business-Cooperative Service, 72–75

Rural Business Enterprise Grants, 74

Rural Business Opportunity Grants, 74

Rural Cooperative Development Grants, 74

Rural Development

clean water initiatives, 72

Forest Service programs, 177–178

goals and mission, 71

information sources, 86

Office of Community Development, 81–85

Rural Business-Cooperative Service, 72–75

Rural Housing Service, 75–79

Rural Utilities Service, 79–81

Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones, 83

Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants,

74

Rural Electric Loans and Loan Guarantees, 80

Rural Electrification Administration, 26

Rural Home Loan Partnership, 78–79

Rural Housing Service, 31, 33, 75–79

Rural LISC. See Rural Local Initiatives Support

Corporation

Rural Local Initiatives Support Corporation, 78

Rural Telecommunications Loans and Loan

Guarantees, 79–80

Rural Telephone Bank, 79

Rural Utilities Service, 26, 79–81

RuralAmerica, 215

RUS. See Rural Utilities Service

S

Salad oils. See Fats and oils

Salmonella, 140–143, 149

Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures, 141

SBEDP. See Small Business Education and

Development Program

SBP. See School Breakfast Program

SCGP. See Supplier Credit Guarantee Program

School Breakfast Program, 120–121

School Lunch Program, 89, 118–120

School Meals Initiative, 130

School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children, 119

Scientific collaboration activities, 107

SCMI. See Service Center Modernization Initiative

Screwworms, 239

Seafood products. See Fish and shellfish

Section 502 loan program, 31–32, 34–35

Section 515 loan program, 33

Section 8 program, 32–33

Section 538 program, 33

Seeds

exports, 100

Federal Seed Act, 232

Senior, Youth, and Volunteer Programs, 183–184

Senior citizens. See Elderly

Senior Community Service Employment Program,

183

Service Center Modernization Initiative, 66

Sexual Orientation Task Force, 51

SFSP. See Summer Food Service Program

Shalala, Donna, 148, 154

Share renting, 21

Sheep

Flock Certification program, 249

Sheep Industry Improvement Center, 74

Shell Egg Surveillance Program, 232

Shellfish. See Fish and shellfish

Shortening. See Fats and oils

300
Single Family Housing Program, 31–32, 34–35,

75–76

Slaughter plants

pathogen reduction performance standards,

140–144

Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization,

Office of, 60–61

Small Business Act of 1958, 60

Small Business Education and Development

Program, 61

Small Business Preference Programs, 60

Small Farmer Outreach Training and Technical

Assistance Program, 95

Small farms, 18–19

Small Farms/School Meals Initiative, 130

Small Hog Operators Payment Program, 90

Small Watershed Program, 193

Smokey Bear, 53, 178

SMP. See Special Milk Program

Smuggling operations, 65

Snack foods

afterschool nutrition assistance programs, 119,

125

exports, 101

SNOTEL. See Snow Telemetry

Snow Telemetry, 192

Soft drinks

dietary changes, 4, 10

Soil

conservation, 166

soil surveys, 192

Soil and Water Conservation Society, 188

Soring, 256

South Building renovation, 56, 58

South Carolina

animal disease eradication programs, 249

boll weevil eradication, 243–244

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 202

State Statistical Office, 226

witchweed eradication, 244

South Dakota

animal disease eradication programs, 249

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 202

State Statistical Office, 226

Southwest Border Regional Partnership, 83–84

Soy meal

exports, 99–100

Soybeans

exports, 98–99

genetically modified varieties, 44

Special Milk Program, 126–127

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for

Women, Infants, and Children, 122–123

SSOPs. See Sanitation Standard Operating

Procedures

Staphylococcal enterotoxin, 140

State and Private Forestry programs

Cooperative Fire Protection, 179

cooperative forestry, 175–176

Economic Action Programs, 176

forest health protection, 175

natural resource conservation education, 178

purpose of, 174–175

rural community assistance, 177–178

Wildland Fire Management program, 179

State Fire Assistance, 179

State Forestry agencies, 176

State Statistical Offices, 225–226

Stewardship demonstration projects, 173

Stewardship Incentives Program, 175–176

Student Internship Program, 59

Sugar

dietary changes, 2, 9–10

exports, 100

Summer Food Service Program, 125–126

Summers, Lawrence, 84

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,

Infants, and Children, 122–123

Supplier Credit Guarantee Program, 106

Sustainable Development, 63

SWCS. See Soil and Water Conservation Society

Sweeteners. See Caloric sweeteners

Swine. See Hogs; Pork

T

TARGET Center, 60

Task Force on Sexual Orientation, 51

Team Nutrition, 121–122

Teas. See Flavored teas

TEC2001. See Training and Education Committee

Technical assistance programs, 108

Technical Service Center, 145

Technology Accessible Resources Gives

Employment Today Center, 60

TEFAP. See The Emergency Food Assistance

Program

Telecommunications Loans and Loan Guarantees,

79–80

Telecommunications Services and Operations, 65

Telemedicine Loans and Grants, 80–81

Tennessee

animal disease eradication programs, 249

boll weevil eradication, 243–244

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 202

State Statistical Office, 226

Tennessee Valley Authority, 26

Texas

animal disease eradication programs, 249

boll weevil eradication, 243–244

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 202

State Statistical Office, 226

The Emergency Food Assistance Program,

128–129

301
Thermometer use campaign, 153, 155

Thrift Savings Plan, 66

Thrifty Food Plan, 118

Tobacco

exports, 99

Trade agreements, 102–104

Training and Education Committee, 144–145

Transportation

expenditures for, 10

food marketing costs and, 10–11

Transportation and Marketing Programs, 234

Tribal College Partnership, 83

Tuberculosis

eradication programs, 248–249

Turkey. See also Poultry

TVA. See Tennessee Valley Authority

U

U&CF. See Urban and Community Forestry

Uniform Procedures for the Acquisition and

Transfer of Excess Personal Property, 53

United National Strategy for Animal Feeding

Operations, 196

United Nations

World Food Programme, 105

Upland cotton

genetically modified varieties, 45

Urban and Community Forestry, 176

Urban Resources Partnerships, 176

Uruguay Round Trade agreement, 102

U.S. Action Plan on Food Security, 107

U.S. Agency for International Development, 104,

108

U.S. Department of Agriculture. See also specific

programs and agencies

Agricultural Resource Management Study, 12,

19, 36–38

American Indian and Alaska Native programs,

67

Codex Alimentarius, 150

Departmental Administration, 49–62

Environmental Quality Incentive Program, 43

Field Gleaning and Food Recovery Team, 94

headquarters organization, 54–55

housing loan programs, 31–35

information sources, 69–70

Meat and Poultry Hotline, 154

mission areas, 49

National Agricultural Statistics Service, 12

National Appeals Division, 68

number of employees, by state, territory or

country, 57–58

number of employees, by year, 1948-2000, 53

Office of Communications, 264–270

Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental

Relations, 67

Office of Inspector General, 64–65

Office of the Chief Economist, 62–64

Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 66

Office of the Chief Information Officer, 65–66

reorganization, 49

Rural Electrification Administration, 26

USDA Community Food Security Initiative, 68

web site, 264

workplace profile by race and gender group,

2000, 56

U.S. Department of Defense, 119

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

127

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 150

U.S. Grain Standards Act, 259

U.S. Housing and Urban Development

homeownership program, 31–32

rental housing assistance, 33

U.S. Trade Representative, 102–103

USAID. See U.S. Agency for International

Development

USDA. See U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDA Community Food Security Initiative, 68

USDA Work/Life Fair, 52

USTR. See U.S. Trade Representative

Utah

animal disease eradication programs, 249

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 202

State Statistical Office, 226

Utilities service, 79–81

V

VA. See Department of Veterans Affairs

Veal. See Meats

Vegetable oil. See Fats and oils

Vegetables

dietary changes, 2, 6–7

exports, 101

Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act,

231–232

WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, 123

Vegetation management, 172–173, 174

Vendor Outreach Sessions, 61

Vermont

animal disease eradication programs, 249

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 202

Veterans Affairs. See Department of Veterans

Affairs

Veterinary Services, 236, 241, 247

Video, Teleconference, and Radio Center, 268–269

Virgin Islands

animal disease eradication programs, 249

Virginia

animal disease eradication programs, 249

boll weevil eradication, 243–244

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 202

State Statistical Office, 226

Virus-Serum-Toxin Act of 1913, 250, 257

302
Volunteer Fire Assistance, 179

Volunteers in the National Forests program, 184

VOS. See Vendor Outreach Sessions

VS. See Veterinary Services

W

Washington

animal disease eradication programs, 249

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 203

State Statistical Office, 226

Waste disposal, 81

Water

Clean Water Action Plan, 196

conservation, 166

rural area initiatives, 72

Water 2000 Initiative, 81

Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants, 81

Water and Wastewater Program, 72

Watershed management programs, 193

Web sites

American Indian and Alaska Native programs,

67

Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, 131

Codex Alimentarius Commission, 150

Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center, 62

customer ordering, 60

Departmental Administration, 50

Economic Research Service, 213

Fight BAC!TM Campaign, 152

Flock Certification program, 249

Food and Nutrition Service, 116

Food Safety and Inspection Service, 142

FoodNet, 149

Foreign Agricultural Service, 97

Forest Service recreation options, 160

Forest Service waste prevention and recycling

strategy, 183

Global Change Program Office, 64

Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards

Administration, 261

National Ag Risk Education Library, 112

National Agricultural Library, 207

National Animal Health Monitoring System,

251

National Appeals Division, 68

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 196

Office of Chief Economist, 62

Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, 64

Office of Ethics, 61

Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit

Analysis, 63

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business

Utilization, 61

President’s Council on Food Safety, 154

PulseNet, 149

Risk Management Agency, 110

Sustainable Development, 63

USDA, 264

World Agricultural Outlook Board, 63

Welfare Reform Act, 125

Welfare to Work program, 52, 80

West Virginia

animal disease eradication programs, 249

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 203

State Statistical Office, 226

Wetlands Reserve Program, 16, 191

WFP. See World Food Programme

Wheat. See also Grains

exports, 99

Wheat flour

exports, 99–100

Wheat Initiative, 89

WHIP. See Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program

Wholesale and Alternative Markets Program, 233

WIC and the Nutrient Intake of Children, 216

WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, 123

WIC Program, 122–123, 136

Wildland Fire Management program, 179

Wildlife

Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species, 241

damage control, 252–255

Forest Service programs, 164–165

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, 191

Wildlife Services, 236, 252–255

Wine

exports, 101

Wisconsin

animal disease eradication programs, 249

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 203

State Statistical Office, 226

Witchweed eradication, 244

Women

Commodity Supplemental Food Program, 124

WIC Programs, 122–123, 136

Wood in Transportation Program, 177–178

Wood products

exports, 102

Woodsy Owl, 178

Work/Life Fair, 52

Workforce of the Future Initiative, 144

Workforce planning, 52

Working Capital Fund, 66

World Agricultural Outlook Board, 62–63

World Bank, 108

World Food Programme, 105

World Food Summit, 107

World Health Organization, 150

World Trade Organization, 102–104, 216

World Wide Web. See Web sites

WRP. See Wetlands Reserve Program

WS. See Wildlife Services

WTO. See World Trade Organization

303
W2W. See Welfare to Work program

Wyoming

animal disease eradication programs, 249

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 203

State Statistical Office, 226

Y

Yield variability, 37

Youth Conservation Corps, 184

304