Agriculture

 Counts

 The Founding and Evolution of the 

National Agricultural Statistics Service

 1957-2007

Rich Allen

U.S. Department of Agriculture

National Agricultural Statistics Service

 

 CONTENTS 

NOTE FROM THE AUTHOR v

 

FOREWORD vii 

 

PART 1 

Implementing Improved Survey Procedures - 

 New Directions for Agricultural Statistics 1 

 PROLOGUE

 Chapter 1: The 1957 Long-Range Plan 3

 Research in the Mid-1950s 4

 Objective Yield Approaches 4

 U.S. Agriculture, Circa 1957 5

 Agricultural Statistics Staffing, Circa 1957 7

 Training in the 1950s 8

 Testing Project A Approaches 8

 Chapter 2: A New Agency Is Formed 11

 The First SRS National Conference 11

 Making Project A Fully Operational 12

 New Technology in the 1960s 13

 Training in the 1960s 14

 The 1966 SRS Reorganization 14

 U.S. Agriculture, Circa 1967 15

 Research in the 1960s 17

 Remote Sensing Research 19

 Estimating Program Additions in the 1960s 19

 International Assistance Before 1970 20

 Staffing in the 1960s 20

i
PART 2 

Improving Survey Procedures by Creating Multiple Frame Estimators 

and an Enhanced List Frame 23

 PROLOGUE

 Chapter 3: Changes and Improvements in the Early 1970s 25

 Multiple Frame Estimation Description 25 

 Fine-Tuning Enumerative Survey Applications 25

 Initiating Multiple Frame Surveys 26

 Program Modification Proposals 26

 New Technology in the Early 1970s 27

 Training in the Early 1970s 29

 Response to a Crop Disease Emergency 29

 Early Satellite Remote Sensing Research 30

 Estimating Program Additions in the Early 1970s 31

 Chapter 4: A Leadership Change in the Late 1970s 33

 List Sampling Frame, the Next Major Improvement 33

 List Sampling Frame Development 34

 U.S. Agriculture, Circa 1977 35

 Estimating Program Additions in the Mid- to Late 1970s 37

 Crop Reporting Board Improvements 38

 Project B Breakthroughs 38

 Remote Sensing Research in the Mid- to Late 1970s 40

 Other Research Efforts in the Mid- to Late 1970s 41

 New Technology in the Mid- to Late 1970s 42

 Training in the Late 1970s 42

 International Assistance in the 1970s 42 

 Staffing in the 1970s 43

 Adjusting to a New Organization Structure 43

PART 3 

Creating and Implementing a New Long-Range Plan 45

 PROLOGUE

 Chapter 5: Developments in the 1980s 47

 Redesigning the Estimating Program Over a Weekend 47

 Other Budget and Program Adjustments During the 1980s 48

 Creating the New Long-Range Plan 48

ii
 Chapter 5: (continued) 

 Developing Agency Standards 49

 Reviewing Agency Structure 50

 Implementing the Integrated Survey Program 51

 The “Other” Integrated Survey Program 53

 The Ebb and Flow of Objective Yield Surveys 53

 Remote Sensing Developments in the 1980s 54

 SRS Leadership of the AgRISTARS Program 55

 New Technology in the 1980s 56

 Training in the 1980s 57

 Research in the 1980s 58

 Data Users Meetings 59

 Lock-Up Briefings 61

 Customer-Driven Quality 61

 Passing the Torch: a New Agency Administrator 62

 U.S. Agriculture, Circa 1987 63

 International Assistance in the 1980s 65

 Staffing in the 1980s 65

PART 4 

Branching Into New Data Series 67

 PROLOGUE

 Chapter 6: Applying Agency Strengths to New Statistical Series 69

 Creating the New Environmental Surveys 69

 Other New Surveys in the Early 1990s 70

 Evaluating the 1993 Floods 70

 Modernizing Prices Indexes 72

 Continuing to Document Agency Standards 72

 Expanding Customer Service Efforts 73

 Remote Sensing Developments in the Early to Mid-1990s 73

 New Technology in the Early to Mid-1990s 75

 Training in the Early to Mid-1990s 76

 Research in the Early to Mid-1990s 76

 A New Administrator and the 1995 Reorganization 78

 U.S. Agriculture, Circa 1997 78

 International Assistance in the 1990s 81

 Staffing, Circa 1997 82

iii
PART 5

Completing the Agricultural Statistics Package 83

 PROLOGUE

 Chapter 7: Adjustments To Incorporate Censuses of Agriculture 85

 Smoothing the Transition 85

 What Should Be the Farm Definition? 85

 Improvements for the 1997 Census of Agriculture 86

 Results From the 1997 Census of Agriculture 88

 Improvements for the 2002 Census of Agriculture 89

 A New Organization Structure and New Leadership 90

 Results From the 2002 Census of Agriculture 90

 Improvements for the 2007 Census of Agriculture 91

 Chapter 8: Accomplishments in the Past Decade 93

 Estimating Program and Reimbursable Activities 93 

 Federal Farm Programs and NASS 95

 Integrating Surveys, One More Time 95

 New Technology Developments in the Past 10 Years 96

 Training Developments in the Past 10 Years 99

 Remote Sensing Developments in the Past 10 Years 101

 Other Research Directions in the Past 10 Years 102

 U.S. Agriculture, Circa 2007 103

 International Assistance in the Past 10 Years 104

 NASS Staffing, Circa 2007 105

 Family Organizational Values 106

EPILOGUE 107 

 

REFERENCES 109 

 

 

 

iv
NOTE FROM THE AUTHOR

Preparing this publication has been a labor of love. It was particularly a joy to trace how 

original research or new ideas later became incorporated into the agency’s estimating programs and standards.

The publication is dedicated to past and present USDA statistical programs staff members. 

Those employees have always embodied teamwork, and most new programs and activities 

resulted from many people working together. In keeping with that teamwork philosophy, 

this report concentrates on accomplishments and minimizes mention of specific individual’s 

names. This approach was also taken to avoid unintentional omission of key individuals—if 

attribution had been attempted. Thus, past and present staff members reading the publication will have the opportunity to reminisce and personally relish their role(s) in the developments.

This publication is a written history of a statistical organization rather than a statistical publication. Thus, there are no formulas, explanations of complex estimating methods or detailed graphs included. Two types of data tables are included for each key time period. They 

summarize changes in U.S. cash receipts from farm marketings and per capita consumption 

of meat, poultry, and fish as those measurements do track important changes in the supply 

of and demand for agricultural products over time.

In preparing any detailed history, it is surprising how many contradictions are found when 

reviewing multiple documents from a specific period of time. When those types of discrepancies were uncovered, an effort was made to find additional sources to clarify the situation. 

However, there will be some details that individual readers disagree with—and likely some 

that escaped this research for which a reader has correct answers.

Thousands of pages of past publications, correspondence, and documents were reviewed 

in preparing this summary. The goal was to be informative and evenhanded in presenting a 

picture of the past 50 years. It would not have been possible, in this document, to cover all 

the developments.

Any history publication is shaped by the author. Thus, events based on my personal experiences are likely covered in more detail than others. Hopefully, all accounts are treated as 

impartially as possible.

I do want to recognize the contributions and encouragement of a number of people. First of 

all, there would not have been a publication without the initial invitation from Ron Bosecker 

and Jay Johnson’s coordination and liaison efforts. 

Bill Arends was my number one reviewer, clarifier, and consultant who suggested several 

alternative data sources. I received the legendary NASS “customer service” from Customer 

Service Coordinator Pat Joyce and her staff. Pat greatly assisted by contacting Larry Traub at 

the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) to determine the best access to cash receipts and 

other databases that helped track U.S. agricultural changes. Another important customer 

service contact was David Stallings of the USDA World Agricultural Outlook Board (WAOB) 

who, in typical fashion, knew of an obscure USDA publication that documented Federal Farm 

Program changes.

v
John Ranek uniquely contributed to the research for this publication upon his retirement by 

donating two, three-ring binders of agency staffing and position rosters. These materials 

answered a number of questions about timing of specific events and subunit names at specific points in time. Jim Olson provided an important explanation of the reason why a large 

number of staff members retired just before the major increase in agency staff that occurred 

around 1990. Paul Walsh added a number of reminiscences from his career, which helped to 

round out details of Survey Division activities. 

Because this publication sought to trace ongoing themes such as technology, research, international assistance, and training, several individuals were key contributors. Jerry Clampet’s 

draft summary of agency technology efforts and developments up to 1986 was drawn upon 

substantially. Bob Young, Arnie Wilcox, and Jack Nealon helped clarify technology details 

in recent years, and George Patton clarified the agency’s early electronic report access and 

Internet efforts.

Mike Craig provided invaluable details on the agency’s remote sensing research efforts—

from the earliest explorations through the significant changes in recent years. Clare Boryan 

assisted by demonstrating how some new techniques were being implemented. Other Research and Development Division assistance came from Denise Abreu and Zulma Riberas 

working on an objective yield research history, which complemented efforts for this publication.

Paul E. Williams and Linda Raudenbush of the Training and Career Development Office were 

willing contributors of background information and details of agency training developments 

over the past 20 years. Larry Sivers provided a number of summaries of past international 

training and assistance efforts, as well as firsthand explanations of recent activities that have 

not yet been fully documented. Larry also provided comments on the short-lived Economics, 

Statistics, and Cooperatives Service, as he was in a key staff position at that time.

Other important contributors included Rafael Sánchez, who provided agency civil rights accomplishments data tables; Dania Ferguson, who tracked some NASS/ERS financial arrangements; and Daryl Brinkman, who created a helpful table of annual Prices Received and Prices 

Paid Indexes. Dave Aune also provided opinions and suggestions whenever a new topic area 

was being pursued.

I would certainly be remiss if I didn’t thank Amanda Pomicter for her efforts to categorize 

and organize the materials that have been donated to the Charles E. Caudill Library. Documentation for most events and activities recounted in this publication came from the library. 

Special thanks go to Karin Meyers, Debbie Norton, and Krissy Young for assisting with editing the publication, and to the staff in Administrative Support for printing.

Rich Allen

vi
FOREWORD

The United States has long been regarded as having the world’s foremost official agricultural 

statistics system. Early efforts to establish U.S. agricultural statistics starting in the late 

18th century, and the establishment of a statistics unit in the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) in 1862, are well-detailed in “The Story of U.S Agricultural Estimates,” published in 

1969 by USDA’s Statistical Reporting Service (SRS). That publication masterfully highlighted 

key demographic, political, climatic, and agricultural factors that led to changes and improvements in the widely available official agricultural statistics. 

Pages 100 to 104 of “The Story” briefly cover some USDA agricultural statistics development 

from 1957 to 1966. However, this publication starts with 1957 because it was the pivotal year 

Congressional approval was received for a long-range plan to implement probability-based 

survey procedures. Work on that plan was one factor that led to the establishment of the 

Statistical Reporting Service—now the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)—as a 

USDA agency in 1961.

“Agriculture Counts” follows a format similar to “The Story” by dividing the past 50 years 

into five time periods—each marked by new programs or other advances—and highlighting 

the major developments that occurred in each period. A prologue is provided for each time 

period in order to identify factors leading to the significant changes. This publication differs 

from “The Story,” however, by describing ongoing developments (such as personnel changes, 

training programs, research efforts, and new technologies adopted) in each time period. In 

this way, readers might better grasp how the working environment and staff responsible for 

agricultural statistics have changed and evolved.

Part 1 of “Agriculture Counts” starts with the 1957 Long-Range Plan and highlights the efforts to implement probability based area frame surveys. It also describes the role of the SRS 

in developing USDA data processing capabilities.

Part 2 of this chronicle explains how the new area frame survey capabilities were very helpful 

for improving and stabilizing major crop estimates, but were not as successful for livestock 

estimates. The solution was to apply additional probability-based survey techniques and to 

incorporate list and area frame surveys into a new, multiple frame estimation program.

Part 3 describes another new long-range plan established for the agency in 1982. This plan 

again had significant technology and statistical implications but primarily emphasized how a 

statistical agency and its staff should be organized for the most effective response to outside 

developments. The plan’s emphasis on developing standards for all agency operations provided an important basis for introspection and improvement.

One lesson of “The Story” was that factors causing great concerns in the United States (such 

as preparation for World War I, the Great Depression, the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, and World 

War II) often led to expanding agricultural statistics needed for public policy and program 

implementation. This is again evidenced in Part 4, which describes how food safety and water 

quality concerns in the late 1980s led to funding and the creation of new survey programs.

The last portion of this publication (Part 5) covers the past 10 years, when U.S. census of agriculture responsibility was merged with the ongoing agricultural statistics programs of NASS. 

vii
The merger of the two organizations’ staffs and their missions has been helpful in standardizing agricultural statistics for all data users.

Most of this publication has been based on available program, budget, and personnel files. 

Significant budget numbers are presented both in actual dollars and in 2007 equivalents (using a simple Consumer Price Index adjustment). Another important addition was the review 

of a vast array of national conference summaries, task force reports, research reports, outside review recommendations, and other special analyses of internal and external proposals 

throughout the 50-year period. Specific historical accounts were used to round out details of 

events during each period.

viii
Part 1: Implementing Improved Survey Procedures -

 New Directions for Agricultural Statistics

PROLOGUE

By the mid-1950s, the United States had benefi ted from 90 years of United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) agricultural estimates. Th e 

statistical program had evolved from providing 

mainly annual production and price estimates at 

the national level to a system of monthly State 

forecasts of major crop yields, and monthly price 

and livestock production (e.g., milk, eggs, and 

hatchings) estimates. Sub-State estimates had 

been established for a number of commodities. 

All State offi ces were operating under FederalState cooperative agreements, which avoided duplication of eff orts and provided additional statistical products of interest within most States.

In spite of an enviable record of timely, onschedule forecasts and estimates, plus top-quality security, concerns were often raised about the 

accuracy of some forecasts and estimates and the 

size of needed revisions. A major USDA statistical system limitation was the near total reliance 

on non-probability survey methodologies. Major crop and livestock surveys employed large 

sample sizes selected from all portions of each 

State, but sampling frames that could enable 

selection of units with known probabilities of 

selection did not exist. Also, sophisticated models did not exist for predicting fi nal production 

from early season observations.

Some signifi cant concerns about the agricultural 

statistics system arose from the challenging cotton crop season of 1951. A detailed explanation 

of the weather and crop conditions in 1951 and 

the subsequent hearings held by a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Agricultural 

Committee is found in “Th e Story of U.S Agricultural Estimates.” One major outcome of the 

hearings was the acceptance of a recommendation (and provision of funds) for establishing a 

research unit within the Bureau of Agricultural 

Economics. Th at unit specifi cally focused on 

the possibility of utilizing the Master Sample 

developed at Iowa State University (then Iowa 

State College). Th e Master Sample was a cooperative eff ort of Iowa State, the U.S. Bureau of 

the Census, and USDA to create a probabilitybased sampling frame for selecting survey samples. When completed in 1945, it provided an 

area sampling frame sample that would include 

about 300,000 farms—if all area frame segments 

were included. Th e Master Sample had been used 

to conduct the 1945 Census of Agriculture and 

for a few special national surveys.

Th e House of Representatives Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations of the Appropriations Committee had been particularly 

interested in the hearings on the 1951 cotton 

crop estimates. On July 31, 1956, Subcommittee Chairman Jamie L. Whitten of Mississippi 

wrote Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson 

to express his interest. He specifi cally asked for 

USDA recommendations for development and 

improvement of agricultural estimating work. 

Th e response to Chairman Whitten provides the 

starting point for this publication—and the improvements that have been made in the past 50 

years.

1
2
Th e 1957 Long-Range Plan entitled “A Program for 

the Development of the Agricultural Estimating Service,” which was presented to the Subcommittee on 

Agricultural Appropriations of the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations on February 7, 1957, was revolutionary. Instead of off ering 

a “quick fi x” to concerns about consistency of agricultural statistics forecasts and estimates (or just new 

surveys), the plan made the case for the orderly development of probability-based surveys to establish 

State and national estimates and forecasts for major 

topics and to integrate those surveys with existing, 

large-scale surveys, which would provide improved 

sub-State estimates.

Implementing the plan would change the size, structure, and character of the agricultural statistics organization. Funding was needed for the new surveys 

and associated research eff orts. New sampling and 

survey techniques meant employees needed broader 

understanding of statistical techniques and alternative estimators. Advanced statistical skills were particularly essential for research and survey-testing efforts. A cadre of part-time interviewers needed to be 

hired. Trainers needed to be developed at both the 

headquarters and State offi ce levels to instruct and 

supervise the interviewers. New analytic skills were 

required to interpret survey estimators and marry 

probability and nonprobability surveys into the best 

possible estimates and forecasts. 

Considering its signifi cance, “A Program for the 

Development of the Agricultural Estimating Service” was an extremely short, effi ciently stated document—less than 15 pages. One reason for its brevity was that no timetables or budget estimate details 

were included. Instead, a detailed background of the 

improvement needs was provided, followed by descriptions of the recommended new programs. (Th e 

entire document is reprinted in “AS WE RECALL: 

Th e Growth of Agricultural Estimates, 1933–1961,” 

which was published by SRS in 1977.)

Th e proposed program consisted of four “Projects” 

(A, B, C, and D, in order of priority). Project A was to 

develop operational enumerative and objective yield 

surveys (building on research eff orts already underway) to improve midyear and end-of-year farm 

3

numbers, and crop and livestock estimates, as well as 

to form a basis for special surveys.

Project B was designed to improve agricultural price 

statistics. It called for establishment of a corps of 

price enumerators in each State and modernization 

of the prices received and prices paid by farmers survey items that would be collected. Project C had the 

goals of speeding up transmission of data from State 

offi ces to headquarters and improving dissemination 

of reports to farmers and the general public. It also 

proposed to add procedures for creating quicker and 

more frequent evaluations of adverse impacts such 

as freezes, droughts, and fl oods. Project D broadly 

aimed to provide new or more detailed estimates of 

items of interest such as employment on farms, fruit 

tree numbers, crop variety data and other variables.

Th e presentation to the Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations in February 1957 emphasized 

the plan itself and did not mention funding. Subcommittee Chairman Whitten expressed appreciation for the comprehensive response to his request, 

but he stated that funding requests needed to proceed through the normal annual budgetary processes. In 1957, annual funding received for research and 

development had increased to about $500,000 ($3.6 

million in 2007 dollars), which allowed continued 

research.

Defi nition of Probability Area Sampling

To better appreciate the long-range plan and the new 

procedures to be tested, it is helpful to consider the 

basic concepts. Probability sampling requires that a 

sampling frame exist and the probability of selection 

of any specifi c sampling unit can be calculated. Th e 

basic sampling frame to be used for the agricultural, 

statistics improvements was the Master Sample for 

agriculture, which had been constructed at Iowa 

State College between 1943 and 1945. Th e Master 

Sample covered all land in the 48 States (incorporated and unincorporated areas, as well as open country 

areas where most farms were located).

Physical boundaries were used for defi ning all sampling units (segments). Th e original total sample of 

the Master Sample was expected to include 300,000 

farms if all segments were visited. Th e sample design 

Chapter 1: Th e 1957 Long-Range Plan
4

was defi ned such that smaller sample sizes could be 

selected and still maintain the probability selection 

criteria.

Two basic estimators were created from the interview results. Th e fi rst was referred to as the “open” 

segment. For this estimator, data were summarized 

and expanded only for farms that had their physical 

headquarters within the segment. Th is estimator was 

particularly appropriate for estimating total farm 

characteristics, such as farm numbers, economic 

data, and livestock numbers. For the “closed” estimator, expansions were made of all data located within 

the segment. Th is approach was effi cient for estimating crop acreages, as all fi elds in the segments were 

drawn out on aerial photos and enumerated whether 

the headquarters compound was in the segment or 

elsewhere. Th e fi eld-by-fi eld collected data also provided an up-to-date frame of the current season’s 

fi elds and crop types used to select objective yield 

samples for observation during the growing season.

Research in the Mid-1950s

Using funds provided earlier ($100,000 added to 

the base in 1954, an additional $104,000 in 1956, 

and an additional $289,000 in 1957), an ongoing 

research and development program was underway. 

Th e spring 1954 sample size was 703 area segments 

in 100 counties within 10 Southern States. A December 1954 survey of actual acreage planted and yields 

was conducted in 325 “tracts” (i.e., areas operated by 

one entity within a sample segment) selected from 

the spring survey. 

Modifi cations to procedures were made annually 

based on experiences to date. For example, it was 

soon found that a “skip” technique, in which residents within a segment were asked about the farming 

status of neighbors within the segment, was helpful 

in reducing the costs of developing a list of possible 

farm operators if a random segment fell into a small 

town. Th e pilot work was extended to additional 

States each year in order to study possible diff erences 

in application of the new procedures by region of the 

country.

In 1954, a selection of 200 cotton fi elds in 76 counties 

was made from the spring acreage contacts. Monthly 

counts and observations were made in those fi elds in 

order to develop models for forecasting the average 

yield of cotton. Similar objective yield research projects were implemented in subsequent years for corn, 

soybeans, and wheat. In addition to the studies on 

these major fi eld crops, exploratory research work 

was conducted on potatoes in several States, oranges 

in Florida, hazelnuts in Oregon, tobacco in Kentucky, and a number of crops in California including 

peaches, pears, lemons, grapes, and walnuts. 

Objective Yield Approaches

Th e concept of determining crop yields per unit of 

area had long attracted attention in many countries. 

In some areas of the world where producers have 

very small holdings of land and may not know their 

amount of area harvested or their total production, 

some type of objective approach might be the only 

way to get a meaningful estimate of the total crop. In 

those situations, an approach called crop cutting is 

often employed. Th e actual boundaries of a producer’s crop fi elds are marked and the area is carefully 

measured. At harvest, yield per unit of area is estimated by physically harvesting a portion of the crop. 

For small grains in areas where the crop was randomly sown instead of being in fi xed rows, sample 

harvest areas are often determined by tossing a hoop 

and harvesting all the plants with stems within the 

boundaries of the hoop. Th en the grain from those 

plants is weighed.

In the United States, the normal goal of an objective 

yield survey was to develop an early-season indication (at least two to three months ahead of harvest) 

of the yield at harvest time. Because the June Enumerative Survey pilot testing provided a probability-selected listing of fi elds of major crops, most objective yield research was done by selecting samples 

from those fi elds. Cotton, corn, and soybean fi elds 

were selected, and fi eld visits were made in late July 

to provide yield indications for the annual August 

“Crop Production” report. Sample fi elds were visited 

each month until harvest in order to provide information for new monthly yield forecasts. Some fi elds 

were revisited after harvest to measure harvesting 

losses. 

To control nonsampling errors, the sample units in 

major fi eld crop yields were quite small. Th e original 

operational-size sampling units were two adjacent 

rows, 15 feet long for corn; two adjacent rows, 10 

feet long for cotton; two adjacent rows, 3 feet long 

for soybeans; and three adjacent rows 26.1 inches 

long for wheat. Metal U-shaped frames of exactly 
5

the right length were developed for the soybean and 

wheat samples to further control nonsampling 

errors. 

Separate models were developed for projecting both 

the number of fruit (soybean pods, cotton bolls, 

wheat heads, and corn ears) to be harvested and the 

weight per fruit. All information from previous years 

was retained and forecast models were created based 

on those data. It was easier to forecast the number of 

fruit to be harvested (particularly for corn) than the 

weight per fruit. Th e simplest August forecast model 

for ears at harvest was to multiply the current year’s 

number of plants per acre by the previous fi ve-year 

ratio of ears harvested per plant. Th e simplest August 

weight per ear forecast model was to use the previous fi ve-year average ear weight. Statistical analyses 

of previous years’ data were able to improve on these 

simplistic fruit and weight-per-fruit models. Objective yield approaches forecast biological yield for a 

sampling unit. It is essential to adjust that yield for 

the expected harvesting losses. 

Many other factors were used to improve objective 

yield forecasts. When samples of fi elds were selected, each producer was asked for permission to visit 

his/her fi elds. Additional information was collected 

about the fi eld, such as: the acreage of any areas 

within the fi eld that were not planted with the crop 

of interest or that had been destroyed after planting; 

planting date; variety planted; and other data. Th e 

collected data were important in making sure that 

the sample plots would be established within areas 

of the fi eld that would be harvested for the crop of 

interest. For example, if part of a corn fi eld was to 

be harvested for silage instead of grain, that portion 

would be excluded from sampling and an adjustment in the forecast of acres for corn for grain would 

be made.

One important factor in formulating forecasting 

models was maturity stage of each unit at the time of 

the observation. Late-developing fi elds might have 

lower yield potential than normal fi elds. By retaining 

all information from previous years, diff erent models 

were developed by monthly maturity stage in order 

to create appropriate forecasts in case of an early or 

late planting season.

Sample optimization calculations for objective yield 

surveys usually indicated that fi eld-to-fi eld variation 

had greater impact than within-fi eld yield variation. 

Th at would argue for observing only one plot per 

fi eld. However, because the cost of visiting a second 

unit in the same fi eld was so much less than driving to a new fi eld, the operational procedure was to 

establish two random plots in each fi eld. Th is also 

permitted calculation of within-fi eld variation for 

future optimization studies. 

U.S. Agriculture, Circa 1957

American agriculture was undergoing a number of 

signifi cant changes by the mid-1950s. Mechanical 

tractors, mostly very large steam tractors best suited 

to plowing and harvesting of small grain crops in the 

Great Plains, had been introduced about the turn of 

the 20th century. Th ey were not practical for most 

farms, and the number of horses and mules on farms 

to provide power for fi eld operations peaked at about 

27 million at the end of World War I. Gasoline tractors that were smaller and more suited to tillage operations of row crops were developed around 1930, 

but the dire fi nancial climate of the Great Depression limited the adoption of this new mechanization. 

Animal power was still the primary mode of operation for many U.S. farms up to and through World 

War II, with some 12 million horses and mules still 

used on farms. 

Following World War II, raw materials were again 

available to increase the production of tractors and 

related machinery, and gasoline was in good supply. 

Use of the smaller tractors allowed many small farms 

to move away from animal power. Th e number of 

tractors on farms increased from 2 million in 1945 

to nearly 4.5 million in 1957. Along with more tractors came the increased use of grain combines and 

hay balers.

Farm numbers declined rapidly after World War II, 

as many farmers turned to other vocations. Th e total 

number of U.S. farms declined from nearly 6 million 

in 1945 to less than 4.4 million in 1957—a decline 

of nearly 1.6 million (26.7 percent) in the 12 years. 

In general, crop yields increased greatly in the postwar years as farmers increased the use of hybrid and 

other improved seeds. Th e use of commercial fertilizers also became more common. Th e U.S. average 

yield of corn for grain increased from 36 bushels per 

acre during 1945–49 to 48.7 bushels per acre average during 1955–59, an increase of 35.3 percent. 

Th e U.S. yield per acre for all winter wheat increased 
6

from 17.8 bushels per acre during 1945–49 to 23.2 

bushels per acre during 1955–59, an increase of 30.3 

percent.

Th ere were two signifi cant changes occurring in 

U.S. cotton production. Average acreage harvested 

declined some 32.5 percent between the 1945–49 

average of 21.3 million acres and the 1955–59 average of 14.6 million acres. At the same time (and 

possibly due in part to not planting much of the less 

productive acreage), average yield per harvested acre 

increased from 270 pounds per acre to 428.2—an increase of 58.6 percent.

Perhaps the biggest postwar-period fi eld-crop story 

was the tremendous increase in acreage planted and 

harvested of soybeans for beans. Soybean production 

had increased during World War II when imports of 

fats and oils to the United States were cut off . After 

the war, the Nation became an exporter of oils, proteins, and oilseeds. At that time, soybean meal was 

also becoming an important ingredient in balancing 

animal and poultry feed rations. Th e average acreage 

harvested of soybeans for beans increased from 10.5 

million acres during 1945–49 to 21.3 million acres 

during 1955–59, an increase of 102.9 percent. 

Much of the acreage increase was due to shifts from 

corn for grain to soybeans. Soybean production affi xes nitrogen in the soil, so it is a benefi cial crop to 

use in a planting rotation with corn. In spite of the 

huge increase in soybean acreage from 1945 to 1949 

and from 1955 to 1959, the combined total acres 

harvested of corn for grain plus soybeans for beans 

changed only from an average of 87.3 million to 

87.8 million. Th e average yield of soybeans increased 

from 19.7 bushels per acre during 1945–49 to 22.6 

bushels per acre during 1955–59, a 14.7-percent increase.

Th e second largest postwar agricultural crop theme 

was likely the decline in the harvest of oats. A good 

share of the traditional oat harvest went to the feeding of horses and mules being used for power on 

farms. With the rapid replacement of horse power 

with tractors, the average acreage of oats harvested 

in the United States declined from 39.9 million acres 

during 1945–49 to 33.1 million acres during 1955–

59, a 17-percent decrease. 

One livestock story in the making was the behindthe-scenes developments in the broiler chicken industry. Before World War II, chickens were mainly 

produced for eggs. Most farms purchased baby 

chicks in the spring to become the laying fl ocks for 

that fall through the following summer. Th e baby 

cockerels were sought after for meat when they were 

large enough because chicken meat available later 

in the year was not usually very tender or fl avorful. 

Poultry was not rationed during World War II, and 

interest had developed in growing chickens for meat. 

New self-feeding and watering technologies were developed along with improved disease-control techniques. Around 1955, some national feed companies 

started contracting with farmers to produce broiler 

chickens. Before that time, no operations were selling 100,000 broilers per year, but by 1964, 12.5 percent of all chicken farms were selling 100,000 birds 

or more.

Table 1. Per Capita Consumption of Meat, Poultry, 

 and Fish, United States, 1957 

 

Total Population 171,274,000 

 

Category Total Percent

 Consumption of Total

 (Pounds/person) 

 

 Beef 65.6 37.6

 Veal 7.8 4.5

 Lamb 3.7 2.1

 Pork 56.7 32.5

 Chicken 24.5 14.0

 Turkey 5.9 3.4

 Total Fish 10.2 5.8

 

Total Meat, Poultry & Fish 174.4 100.0

Table 1 summarizes the U.S. average per capita consumption levels of various “meats” in 1957. Beef 

and pork accounted for more than two-thirds of the 

meat, poultry, and fi sh consumption. Th e country 

was primed to eat more meat, poultry, and fi sh in 

total, but the relative shares of consumption were going to change.
7

Table 2. Cash Receipts from Farm Marketings, by 

 Commodity Groups, United States 1957

 

Category Total Cash Percent

 Receipts of Total 

 (Million dollars) 

 

All Cash Receipts 29,692 100.0

 

Total Crops 12,312 41.5

 

 Food Grains 1,868 6.3

 Feed Grains 2,394 8.1

 Cotton 1,755 5.9

 Oil-bearing Crops 1,181 4.0

 Tobacco 971 3.3

 Fruits and Tree Nuts 1,287 4.3

 Vegetables 1,711 5.8

 Nursery, Greenhouse, Flowers 529 1.8

 Other Crops 616 2.1

 

 

Total Livestock and Products 17,380 58.5

 

 Cattle and Calves 6,187 20.8

 Hogs and Pigs 2,854 9.6

 Sheep and Lambs 297 1.0

 Dairy Products 4,630 15.6

 Eggs 1,686 5.7

 Broilers and Farm Chickens 1,041 3.5

 Turkeys and Other Poultry 349 1.2

 Wool 104 0.4

 Other Livestock and Products 232 0.8

As shown in Table 2, 58.5 percent of all 1957 farm 

cash receipts came from livestock and products (such 

as eggs and milk). Th e 41.5 percent of cash receipts 

from crops included 5.8 percent from vegetables; 4.3 

percent from fruit; and 1.8 percent from greenhouse, 

fl oral, and other nursery products.

Th e average U.S. value of farmland in 1957 was 

$97 per acre. However, there was great fl uctuation 

from State-to-State. Average values per acre were in 

the $70 to $80 range for many Plains States such as 

Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas. Average value per acre 

was $276 in California and $275 in Illinois. In Indiana and Iowa, 1957 average farmland values per acre 

were $230 and $221, respectively.

Agricultural Statistics Staffi ng, Circa 1957

Th e USDA Agricultural Marketing Service’s (AMS) 

Agricultural Estimates Division State fi eld offi ces in 

the late 1950s were specifi cally staff ed for the survey 

and summarization procedures at the time. Each offi ce had a relatively small staff of statisticians who 

reviewed the survey summaries, submitted recommended forecasts and estimates to headquarters, 

and prepared State releases for most reports after the 

national reports were published. Field offi ce Federal 

statisticians were all male. Field offi ce directors recruited most of the new professional employees at 

agricultural colleges and, at the time, few women 

studied agricultural fi elds. Th ere were a few women 

in statistician positions in headquarters and some 

in State payroll statistician or analyst positions in a 

small number of fi eld offi ces.

Each offi ce had a sizable cadre of experienced Comptometer operators who sorted survey questionnaires 

as they were received, added survey responses to subtotals and totals for each geographic division, and 

calculated State totals, averages, and percent changes, as appropriate. All calculations were checked by 

another person. 

For greater computational speed and to improve 

accuracy, a technique known as pegstripping was 

used for many surveys. Questionnaires were printed 

on paper that had a series of precisely placed holes 

across the top of the page. Questions to be answered 

were on the left side of each page, and the answer 

blanks were placed in a column along the right border. When completed questionnaires were returned 

to the offi ce, they were sorted by county (i.e., for major surveys requiring county estimates). Th e sorted 

questionnaires were then placed on special metal 

bars that had a row of embedded pegs matched to 

the pattern of holes in the questionnaires. A fully assembled pegstrip was held in place by another bar, 

which clamped tightly over the row of pegs. A summary questionnaire from a specifi c county (often a 

diff erent color than the survey questionnaire) was 

placed fi rst and returned questionnaires from that 

county were overlaid such that only the answer cells 

were visible. 

A pegstrip could hold only about 20 questionnaires, 

so multiple subtotals were needed for counties with 

many responses. Each pegstrip was not taken apart 

until all item counts and totals had been added and 
8

checked. County subtotals were added to county totals, if necessary, and the county answer sheets were 

placed on pegstrips by Crop Reporting Districts 

(CRDs). Similarly, after calculating CRD item counts 

and totals, those answer sheets were assembled in the 

same fashion in order to calculate State results. Th e 

process proceeded effi ciently, as most offi ces utilized 

many large tables as staging areas to coordinate all 

the pegstrips during various stages of the tabulation 

process.

Offi ce Comptometer operator staff s were usually 

large enough to handle monthly operations, but additional help was needed for large-sample quarterly, 

semiannual, and annual surveys such as crop-planted 

acreage in the spring and crop acreage and production surveys at harvest. To handle the added volume 

of tabulation work, each offi ce had a separate cadre of 

individuals who would work during those peak periods. Th ose individuals were known as WAE (when 

actually employed) employees. WAE employees did 

not receive some benefi ts of full-time employees and 

were limited in the number of total days they could 

be employed each year.

When the enumerative survey and objective yield 

research eff orts began, fi eld enumerators and supervisors were hired under the WAE provisions. It was 

not envisioned that the new enumerative approaches 

would become a source of full-time employment.

Training in the 1950s

Until work started on the enumerative and objective 

yield procedures, there was little need for ongoing 

training schools. Survey due dates and submission 

schedules were transmitted in written instructions. 

Whenever a national or regional conference was held, 

there might be topics on analysis techniques, such as 

interpreting statistical regression relationships when 

submitting recommendations to headquarters after 

conducting mail surveys. In addition, training sessions on modern statistical methodology had been 

held for statisticians in charge of State offi ces at Iowa 

State College in 1939 and 1940.

Th e addition of personal interview and fi eld observation surveys, as well as the use of part-time enumerators, meant that training schools would be needed on 

an ongoing basis. Th ere were some past experiences 

to draw upon, as some special surveys had been conducted using the Master Sample area frame sample. 

Th ree nationwide interview surveys on farm employment and wages had been conducted in 1945. In 

1946, a Special Statistics Branch had been created in 

order to better focus on improvement of survey procedures. Branch employees took the lead in planning 

and carrying out a nationwide Enumerative Survey 

in January 1947; about 10,000 short-form questionnaires and 5,000 long-form questionnaires were collected. Th e Branch also assisted on special projects 

such as corn yield surveys in Virginia and North 

Carolina in 1949, 1950, and 1951, and the census of 

agriculture pretests. 

Other major projects included the Farm Housing 

Survey of 1950 and the 1955–56 Farm Expenditure 

Survey, which provided information for updating 

the indices of prices paid and received. Th e Expenditure Survey had two components—farm production 

expenses and family living expenses—with about 

two-thirds of the sample devoted to farm production 

questionnaires. As a result of the USDA 1953 reorganization—which abolished the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and established the statistical work 

at AMS—the planning of and training for enumerative surveys fell under the Special Statistics Branch.

Th e Special Statistics Branch led the training for 

the 1954 June Enumerative Survey by conducting a 

training school in the spring for State supervisors. 

Each subsequent year, questionnaires and instructions were improved and updated in time for new 

training sessions. Trainers soon realized one of the 

most diffi cult tasks was to reorient experienced enumerators to new practices when required. 

Testing Project A Approaches

Although the implementation of probability-based 

surveys was defi nitely the right course for improving 

agriculture statistics, there was no unanimous agreement within the Agricultural Estimates Division 

about this new approach. One concern was cost; proposals in the late 1940s for an annual sample census 

of agriculture (which would have involved the Census Bureau and USDA) were dismissed when it was 

discovered that operational costs would be about 10 

times the original projections.

Another concern in many State offi ces was the possible disruption of the present data series and data 

relationships. Many offi ces had annual State farm 

census programs that provided detailed district and 
9

county data for crops and livestock and served as 

convenient sources of new names for mail- survey 

sample replacements. An additional and likely concern was that direct adoption of new probability indications as estimates might lessen the role and prestige of State statisticians.

Perhaps one of the biggest underlying issues was that 

a new culture might be taking over. Most statisticians 

in the State offi ces at the time had developed their 

skills mainly through on-the-job training. Th erefore, 

they were skeptical of having mathematical statisticians, who lacked the same practical experience, directing the new procedures.

Given the internal concerns in the agency, it was fortunate that a measured approach was taken in developing and proving the value of the new surveys. As 

mentioned earlier, the initial research sample size in 

1954 was 703 area segments in 100 counties in 10 

Southern States. A number of States were involved 

in learning the new procedures and there was opportunity for comparing results and survey problems 

across States. Th e scope was not overwhelming—a 

small group of survey trainers could keep in good 

contact with all 10 States. A similar approach was 

taken in testing cotton objective- yield procedures in 

1954; a subsample of only 200 cotton fi elds were selected from the spring enumerative survey fi eld listings.
10
11

Chapter 2: A New Agency Is Formed

From 1922 (when the Bureau of Markets and Crop 

Estimates became part of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics (BAE )) through 1960, the statistics 

function within USDA was part of another parent 

organization alternately called the Bureau of Agricultural Estimates or the Agricultural Marketing 

Service (AMS). When Orville L. Freeman became the 

Secretary of Agriculture in 1961, he reorganized the 

functions of the Department into four groupings of 

program agencies, plus a fi fth grouping to include 

statistical reporting and agricultural economics research. Th is grouping was under the director of agricultural economics, instead of the Assistant Secretary 

of Agriculture.

Th e reorganization established two new agencies: the 

Statistical Reporting Service (SRS) and the Economic Research Service (ERS). SRS’s functions included 

those that had been performed by the Agricultural 

Estimates Division and the Statistical Standards Division of the former AMS. ERS combined a number 

of activities formerly under AMS with some functions 

of the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) 

and the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). 

Th e reorganization was eff ective April 3, 1961.

When SRS was formed, it essentially received only 

one new professional employee, Dr. Harry C. Trelogan, who was named as its administrator. Dr. Trelogan received his Ph.D. in Agricultural Economics 

at the University of Minnesota in 1938 and subsequently served in a number of USDA positions. At 

the time of the reorganization, he was serving as the 

assistant administrator for marketing research in 

AMS. Dr. Trelogan was quite familiar with the statistics programs of the Department, though formerly 

he had had no responsibility for those programs.

Th e original SRS structure was comprised of three 

divisions and the Crop Reporting Board (CRB). Th e 

Agricultural Estimates Division had fi ve branches: 

Agricultural Prices, Dairy, Field Crops, Fruit and 

Vegetables, and Livestock and Poultry. Th e Field 

Operations Division included 43 State offi ces and 

the Survey Operations Group. Th e Standards and 

Research Division included the four branches of 

Research and Development, Special Surveys, Statistical Clearance, and Data Processing. Th e Statistical 

Clearance Branch carried out a number of functions 

for the Department and coordinated all Department 

forms and surveys with the Bureau of the Budget.

Th e First SRS National Conference

In February 1961, at the same time that Secretary 

Freeman issued a Secretary’s Memorandum establishing the SRS, the Agricultural Estimates Division 

State statisticians and branch chiefs were meeting in 

Biloxi, MS. Word of the upcoming change came during the Biloxi meeting, but participants continued 

their discussion of the important issues of proceeding with implementation of the 1957 Long-Range 

Plan. Th ey were working to explore alternatives for 

better using producer lists and discussing ways to automate data processing. 

Because of the reorganization, another national conference was scheduled for Denver, CO, in March of 

1962. Th is conference again included all State statisticians, with wider participation from headquarters 

units.

One conference highlight was Dr. Trelogan’s fi rst 

address to the agency. He used the title “To Acquire 

and Diff use Information” based on wording from 

the Organic Act that created USDA. He emphasized 

throughout the presentation that all staff members 

in the agency were important to its mission and success.

Dr. Trelogan compared the agricultural statistics system to electrical wiring in a house. Houses once existed without electricity and were built with just basic features when circuits were fi rst installed. As new 

housing features such as improved appliances, heating devices, and air conditioning were installed, improvements were made in the capacity and effi ciency 

of the wiring. He added that the house’s existing wiring could not be discontinued as new improvements 

were awaited.

Th e speaker provided a good summary on the size 

and scope of the estimating and publication program as of 1961 and the basic methods being employed. Th e presentation then turned to the goals of 

the Long-Range Plan, the present status of research 

and funding, and his vision for the advantages and 

likely outcomes of implementing Projects A, B, C, 
12

and D.

Dr. Trelogan would become particularly associated 

with eff orts to expand the use of modern data processing technology, and during his presentation he 

did touch on the need to adopt improved procedures. 

However, his emphasis then was that automatic 

data processing (ADP) techniques were specifi cally 

needed to best calculate sampling errors and create 

improved estimating models, rather than for all the 

current procedures of the day.

Making Project A Fully Operational

Th e funding levels received since 1957 had permitted the expansion of enumerative and objective yield 

pilot eff orts from 10 Southern States to include two 

more Southern States, 12 North Central States, and 

4 Mountain States. Th e pilot eff orts were generally 

encouraging. Th ey demonstrated that enumeration 

was successful when enumerators used an enlarged 

aerial photograph to show interviewees the defi ned 

segment and to mark the boundaries of operations 

and fi elds within each individual’s holdings. Th e 

enumerative survey approach also allowed calculation of sampling errors. Th e aerial photograph provided fi rm control of potential non-sampling errors, 

such as enumerating the wrong location, including 

too much land, or missing areas that should have 

been enumerated. 

No additional funding was received until the 1961 

budget. In that year, the AMS submitted a request for 

$2.2 million specifi cally for Project A. USDA submitted $500,000 in its request to the Bureau of the 

Budget, but noted it would be willing to recommend 

an increase of $700,000 for a total of $1.2 million if 

additional ceiling positions would be allowed. Th e 

Bureau of the Budget allowed only the request for 

$500,000, but the House Committee on Appropriations provided a total of $750,000. Th is appropriation was actively supported by Senator Milton Young 

of North Dakota. Th us, $750,000 ($5.1 million in 

2007 dollars) became available July 1, 1960. It was 

the fi rst funding installment needed to fully implement the new survey methods.

Th e 1961 funding allowed the enumeration of operational size samples in 15 States: Alabama, Arkansas, 

Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, 

South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. In addition, 

expansions were also made for Ohio, as a signifi cant 

amount of research work on Project B price-improvement approaches was happening there.

Th e 1961 summary approach required State offi ces 

to add data responses within sample segments to segment totals and to expand those totals to State totals. 

Segment listing sheets were transmitted to Washington, DC, for conversion to input into the available 

electronic computer used for calculating sampling 

errors at the State and 16-State levels. Th e computer 

summaries also provided a check on the State expansions. Th e timing was tight because the June Enumerative Survey was conducted between May 27 and 

June 9, and the CRB needed the hog inventory and 

pig-crop expansions for the report to be issued June 

19.

Expansions and sampling errors from the 1961 survey fell mainly within expectations, except for high 

sampling errors in Oklahoma and wider diversity 

than expected between traditional survey results and 

the enumerative survey acreage for cotton in Texas 

and Georgia. Intentions-to-farrow expansions also 

were hard to interpret compared to ongoing survey 

levels. Th e coeffi cient of variation (relative sampling 

error) for total numbers of farms in the 16 States was 

an encouraging 1.5 percent.

Th e high sampling errors in Oklahoma may have 

been symptomatic of problematic relationships 

noted in early testing of the enumerative survey 

procedures in Western States. Th e Master Sample 

of Agriculture was based on a concept of segments 

containing somewhat uniform numbers and types 

of farm operations. Th e approach worked quite well 

in the Midwest, Eastern, and Southern States in the 

1940s and 1950s, but many of the Western States 

had a dichotomy of cropland and rangeland agriculture. In addition, many of those States had large 

areas devoted to American Indian Reservations, Federal parks and installations, and State land holdings. 

Th e answer for the Western States was to create area 

frames that fi rst stratifi ed land based on the intensity of cultivation. Sample selections would then be 

made within each of the land use strata. 

Th ere was quite a diff erent concern in the Northeastern States. As those States became more and more 

urbanized, traditional segments varied considerably 

in the number of farm operations. For sampling effi ciency, those States were also stratifi ed by land use 
13

before sample selection, but the key stratifi cation 

variable was the amount of urbanization.

Th e basic enumerative survey design called for a systematic rotation of segments (normally one-fi fth of 

the segments per year) to prevent respondent fatigue. 

Because of the new area frame construction work 

that was needed in addition to the preparation of 

new rotation segments between 1961 and 1965, an 

area frame unit was created in headquarters to supplement work continuing at Iowa State University.

Th e June Enumerative Survey was operational in 48 

States in 1965; it provided the fi rst probability-based 

estimates of national crop acreages.

New Technology in the 1960s

Th e biggest technology emphasis in the 1960s was 

to improve the summarization of agency data collection eff orts by automating data processing procedures. Th e enumerative and objective yield surveys 

required statistical measures of survey variances and 

changes from previous surveys, which could only be 

provided in a timely manner through automation.

One of the earliest discussions of data processing advances occurred at the 1957 AMS Agricultural Estimates Division (AED) National Conference. Glenn 

Simpson, Agricultural Estimates Division deputy 

director, “spun a little pipe dream” as part of his presentation on “Possibilities for Electronic Computing.” Although Simpson expressed his view that no 

one could foretell all innovations to come, his thinking was based on technology that had recently come 

into being. His vision was that the agency might 

develop a regional approach with small or midsized 

computers in three or four locations, each serving 

about 10 States. Individual offi ces would create survey outputs on paper tape and send the tape overnight to their regional center. Results would then be 

sent back to the originating offi ces on paper tape for 

the creation of estimates and recommendations for 

headquarters. In addition, the submission of materials on paper tape would be summarized on the larger 

computer—an IBM 650.

Th ere were many complicating factors in addition to 

the technology itself. All State offi ces operated under Federal-State cooperative agreements and some 

State departments of agriculture were interested in 

computer technology. In some cases, State-owned 

computers became available to fi eld offi ces and some 

offi ces received State funding and staffi ng that would 

allow them to take a leadership role.

Computer operations actually began in 1958 when 

AMS acquired an IBM 650 computer and established 

a Data Processing Branch within the Agricultural Estimates Division. Much of the initial staffi ng came 

from the Division, but many employees, including 

the branch chief, came from other parts of AMS. 

Some of the earliest programming eff orts were to develop routines for processing monthly surveys such 

as for cold storage and livestock slaughter. However, 

a major priority was to automate summarization 

of the enumerative and objective yield surveys that 

were being pilot tested and that required detailed 

calculations for evaluating various estimators and 

approaches.

By 1961, when SRS was formed, at least 26 fi eld offi ces had some access to computing facilities. However, the types of equipment and formats for input and 

output varied greatly; many of the capabilities used 

electronic accounting machine (EAM) equipment 

instead of what was normally considered as a computer. Th e State processing capabilities were largely 

used for State or cooperatively funded projects, or 

for Federal surveys that did not have specifi c formats 

for submitting results to headquarters in machinereadable media. One decision made in 1961 was to 

install EAM equipment in two States (Illinois and 

Wyoming) to determine the types of applications 

that might be feasible for other States.

Th e 1961 June Enumerative Survey pilot testing for 

16 State offi ces was processed in headquarters by having those offi ces submit all segment-level raw data on 

listing sheets. Th ose data were keyed and processed 

on an IBM 360 computer. Th e processing time for 

data from 12,000 farms in the pilot study was 150 

hours, which required around-the-clock shifts. Th e 

need for extra shifts continued for several years. In 

spite of incremental increases in computing power, 

the June Enumerative Survey size and workload was 

increasing each year, as the agency worked towards 

an operational 48-State implementation.

Th e data processing role of SRS was broadened 

in 1962 when the Washington Computer Center 

(WCC) was created by USDA from the original Data 

Processing Branch. A few months later, USDA defi ned the WCC as one of three USDA computer 
14

centers around the country.

Th e WCC was originally located outside the USDA 

South Building, but for greater data security was 

eventually relocated to here in 1966 to a space adjacent to the Crop Reporting Board (CRB). At that 

time, the WCC was renamed as the Washington Data 

Processing Center (WDPC) and was established as a 

division in the new reorganization of SRS.

Training in the 1960s

One of the major culture changes for USDA’s statistical eff ort in the 1960s was the largely expanded emphasis on training. As mentioned, regional training 

schools operated each year to prepare State fi eld offi ce supervisors for conducting the enumerative and 

objective yield surveys and training of enumerators. 

Th ose schools were expanded each year up to 1966 as 

more fi eld offi ces were added.

Th e agency developed a new program to provide 

selected staff members with a yearlong program of 

graduate-level statistics training. Th e program started with two people attending North Carolina State 

University (NCSU) for the 1960–61 academic year, 

followed by two people each at NCSU and Iowa State 

University (ISU) for 1961–62. NCSU and ISU were 

specifi cally chosen for their strong sampling programs. Th e selected participants started during the 

summer session in order to get more familiar with 

the school, and then they were transferred to headquarters to work on research and methodology issues after completing their studies the next spring. 

Th e program was designed for up to four slots per 

year and is still in operation. A variety of graduate 

schools have been used over the years, but most participants have attended or currently attend either 

NCSU or ISU.

In addition to the full-time program, the agency 

developed two statistics correspondence programs 

(basic and advanced). For those hired under an alternative standard because of a defi ciency of undergraduate statistics coursework, the completion of 

both programs met the additional training requirements. For someone who met the college coursework 

requirements, the advanced correspondence course 

off ered good background for the statistical applications being adapted for the enumerative and objective yield programs. Taking the correspondence 

courses might also encourage an individual to apply 

for the full-time training program. Approximately 

222 staff members took these courses between 1963 

and 1968; an undetermined number took local 

mathematics and statistics courses. Many staff members in headquarters also took courses at the USDA 

Graduate School.

Th e new surveys and statistical applications not only 

aff ected the work of statisticians in the State offi ces, 

but also changed workloads and procedures for the 

clerical support staff s. In recognition of these facts, 

training sessions were provided for the support staff 

leaders in each State offi ce.

Supervision and management training was another 

agency priority. A summary presented at the 1968 

SRS National Conference showed 187 training sessions in the broad category of administration, management, and supervision; 151 of those were seminars organized and presented by USDA in which 

SRS participants were exposed to other USDA agency personnel.

During the 1960s, however, more people probably 

received training in data processing than in any 

other subject. Nearly every fi eld offi ce and headquarters staff unit provided some basic data processing 

training for their staff members. From 1957 onward, some individuals received specifi c programming training to assist with computer and EAM 

equipment being acquired. In 1964, fi ve agency staff 

members were selected for an intensive six-month, 

full-time ADP Systems training program; they were 

then assigned to the fi ve branches in the AED. A year 

later, a 12-month WCC intern program was started. 

It provided eight months of language and computerconcepts training and four months of WCC experience. Th e intern program was geared for four to six 

participants a year, and 15 SRS staff had completed 

the program by the time it ended in 1970. 

Th e 1966 SRS Reorganization

During its fi rst fi ve years of operation, SRS experienced nearly constant change. Project A pilot testing involved additional States and new geographic 

challenges each year. Th ese surveys were creating 

new indications that needed to be evaluated and interpreted in concert with the traditional survey indications. Total staff numbers were rapidly increasing 

and many new staff members had more diverse backgrounds than members hired 10 to 30 years earlier. 
15

Data processing techniques were becoming more 

and more important for the smooth transition to the 

probability-based surveys and estimators. In addition to SRS priorities, the establishment of the WCC 

meant that attention had to be paid to a number of 

outside demands. 

Concerns about these demands and about how to 

best manage communications and the technical statistical programs for the next 10 years or so were a 

major topic for the State statisticians in charge of 

fi eld offi ces and branch chiefs who attended the SRS 

regional conferences in early 1965. Comments and 

discussions from those conferences led to a detailed 

study of the agency and a reorganization that was effective November 10, 1966.

Subsequently, many suggestions for improving agency structure and communication were received; one 

included grouping the fi eld offi ces into regions led 

by regional directors. Th e 1966 reorganization continued to have all State fi eld offi ces reporting to one 

person, but that position was given to an assistant 

administrator instead of a division director from the 

former structure. 

Th e AED now included the Methods Staff , with responsibility for the enumerative and objective yield 

survey specifi cations and summaries. Th e former fi ve 

commodity branches were reduced to three by including Dairy in the new Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Statistics Branch, and creating a new Field Crop, 

Fruit, and Vegetable Statistics Branch by combining 

two former branches. To recognize the growing interest in farm labor statistics, the Agricultural Prices 

Branch became the Agricultural Prices and Farm Labor Branch. 

A new Survey and Data Division included the following: the Data Collection Branch with responsibility for questionnaires, instructions, manuals, 

and training for the new surveys; the Data Services 

Branch, with responsibilities for receiving data and 

recommendations from fi eld offi ces, preparing materials for the CRB, and printing and issuing all national SRS statistical publications; and the Systems 

Development and Programming Branch, which took 

the lead role in all agency data processing applications. Th e Standards and Research Division no longer oversaw the WCC but retained the Research and 

Development Branch, the Special Surveys Branch, 

and the Statistical Clearance Branch. Th e WCC was 

renamed as the Washington Data Processing Center 

(WDPC) and was considered to be the fourth agency 

division. 

U.S. Agriculture, Circa 1967 

Th e number of farms in the United States continued 

to decline at a rapid rate. By 1967, the total was down 

to about 3.2 million—a decline of 1.2 million (27.7 

percent) from 1957 and about one-half the number 

remaining at the end of World War II. Th e amount 

of land for farms had not changed at the same rate. 

In 1967, 1.1 billion acres were dedicated to farms, 

down about 5 percent from 1957.

Crop yields were continuing to increase signifi cantly 

as farmers planted improved varieties and increased 

the use of fertilizers. Th e fi ve-year average corn yield 

for 1965–69 was 78.5 bushels an acre, an increase of 

more than 60 percent from 10 years earlier. Acres of 

corn harvested for grain declined in the 1960s compared to the 1950s (the 1965–69 average harvested 

acreage was 56.7 million acres compared to 66.4 

million acres 10 years prior). But, acreage would increase again in the 1970s. A good part of the corn 

acreage decline was due to provisions of the Farm 

Bill in eff ect. Because of corn surpluses, acreage diversion programs were in place during most of the 

1960s; farmers would receive dollar payments or 

“payments-in-kind” (i.e., titles to certain amounts 

of corn in Federal Government storage) for diverting 

specifi c amounts of their corn base to conservation 

practices. Th is type of program was not in place in 

the late 1950s. 

Th e soybean crop average yield for 1965–69 was 25.7 

bushels per acre, up nearly 14 percent from 10 years 

earlier. Acreage of soybeans harvested continued to 

increase signifi cantly. Th e 1965–69 average of 38.7 

million acres refl ected an increase of more than 80 

percent from 10 years earlier. Th e increased acreages 

and yields resulted in the fi rst 1-billion-bushel soybean crop in 1968.

Cotton yields for the 1965–69 period averaged 480.8 

pounds per acre, up 12.3 percent from 10 years prior. Acres harvested fl uctuated greatly during the 10-

year period from the late 1950s to the late 1960s, 

and declined to less than 10 million acres in 1966 

and 1967. For the 1965–69 period, the average acres 

harvested were 10.5 million, down nearly 28 percent 

from 10 years earlier. 
16

Winter wheat yields continued to increase in the 

1960s. Th e fi rst U.S. average yield above 30 bushels per acre occurred in 1969. Th e average yield for 

1965–69 was 28.2 bushels per acre—a near 22-percent increase from 10 years earlier. 

Production of oats in the United States continued its 

rapid decline. Acres harvested during the 1965–69 

period averaged only 17.6 million acres, down nearly 

50 percent from 10 years earlier. Yield per acre was 

increasing to an average of 50.4 bushels per acre for 

1965–69, but the total annual production dipped 

below 1 billion bushels in 1962 for the fi rst time 

since the 1930s. Total annual production will probably never reach that level again. 

Table 3. Per Capita Consumption of Meat, Poultry,

 and Fish, United States 1967 

 

Total Population 198,712,000 

 

Category Total Percent

 Consumption of Total

 (Pounds/person) 

 

 Beef 79.8 40.4

 Veal 3.3 1.7

 Lamb 3.4 1.7

 Pork 55.0 27.8

 Chicken 36.7 18.6

 Turkey 8.7 4.4

 Total Fish 10.6 5.4

 

Total Meat, Poultry & Fish 197.5 100.0

 As shown in Table 3, total per capita consumption of 

meat, poultry, and fi sh in 1967 was up considerably 

from 174.4 pounds noted in 1957. Consumption of 

poultry was up almost 50 percent to 36.7 pounds per 

person. Inspection of all broilers traded across State 

lines had started in 1959, and retail broiler prices 

were very low between 1958 and 1961 when the 

industry was overproducing. Per capita consumption of beef rose from 65.6 pounds in 1957 to 79.8 

pounds in 1967 (partly due to a decline in veal consumption from 7.8 to 3.3 pounds), and turkey consumption was up from 5.9 to 8.7 pounds during the 

same period. Th ere were only small changes in pork 

(56.7 to 55 pounds), lamb (3.7 to 3.4 pounds), and 

fi sh (10.2 to 10.6 pounds) consumption during the 

1957–67 period.

Farmland values were up considerably across the 

country from 1957. Th e average U.S. value per acre 

was $168 ($1,018 in 2007 dollars) compared to $97 

($699 in 2007 dollars) 10 years earlier. Prices increased 50 percent or greater in almost all States.

Table 4. Cash Receipts from Farm Marketings, by

 Commodity Groups, United States 1967 

 

Category Total Percent 

 Cash Receipts of Total

 (Million dollars) 

 

All Cash Receipts 42,817 100.0

 

Total Crops 18,434 43.1

 

 Food Grains 2,361 5.5

 Feed Grains 4,393 10.3

 Cotton 1,095 2.6

 Oil-bearing Crops 2,795 6.5

 Tobacco 1,391 3.2

 Fruits and Tree Nuts 1,817 4.2

 Vegetables 2,680 6.3

 Nursery, Greenhouse, Flowers 861 2.0

 Other Crops 1,041 2.4 

 

Total Livestock and Products 24,383 56.9

 

 Cattle and Calves 10,550 24.6

 Hogs and Pigs 3,809 8.9

 Sheep and Lambs 302 0.7

 Dairy Products 5,742 13.4

 Eggs 1,765 4.1

 Broilers and Farm Chickens 1,314 3.1

 Turkeys and Other Poultry 460 1.1

 Wool 75 0.2

 Other Livestock and Products 268 0.6

Cash receipts from farming in 1967 were signifi -

cantly higher than in 1957, even when Consumer 

Price Index changes were factored in. Th e 1957 cash 

receipts had been $29.7 billion (in 1957 dollars) 

and the 1967 total was $42.8 billion (in 1967 dollars). In 2007 dollars, the totals are $213.9 billion 

and $259.5 billion for 1957 and 1967, respectively. 

Livestock cash receipts again accounted for more 

than half the total (56.9 percent). Some of the biggest percentage total increases from 1957 were for 
17

feed grains (mostly corn), oil-bearing crops (mostly 

soybeans), and cattle and calves.

Research in the 1960s

A wide variety of research studies were conducted 

during the 1960s. Even though the enumerative and 

objective yield surveys were becoming operational, 

there were signifi cant research eff orts underway to 

improve procedures. One of the most important 

studies concerned the count units used for soybean 

objective yield plots. Th e original design called 

for detailed fruit counts for each plant per month 

within each of the 3-foot row spaces that made up 

the sample plots. Often by the fi rst visit in late July, 

the plants had not yet started to bloom, so only the 

number of plants was counted. However, many fi elds 

might have been in full bloom by late August, and 

it might have taken four hours or so to count all the 

blooms on the plants in the four 3-foot sections of 

row. In later months, when only pods were present, 

the counts would not be as high. (Pods were easier 

to count.) Enumerators with a large soybean sample 

assignment might not be able to complete the full 

workload, and State offi ce personnel were often assigned to help them. 

Th ere were two other major concerns: working outside in a hot crop fi eld for three to four hours was a 

potential health issue, and the accuracy of diffi cult, 

detailed counts was in question.

Controlled, detailed studies were conducted using 

plant-by-plant counts compared to the plant averages from the 3-feet units. Th e studies searched for 

an optimum number of plants or fi xed length of row 

(smaller than 3 feet) to use for counting fruit. After 

studying all correlation analyses, a new 6-inch fruitcount section was added. All plants were counted 

in each 3-foot section every month. Detailed fruit 

counts were made only in the next 6 inches of each 

row. To maintain strict control of nonsampling errors, new metal soybean frames were fabricated with 

three fi xed tines (i.e., one at the start of the unit, 

one at the 36-inch point, and the third at the 42-

inch mark). Because the tines were 4 inches long, the 

frame clearly indicated which plants should be included in each count. 

Another important type of soybean analysis was proceeding in the Research and Development Branch. 

Detailed monthly counts of blooms, pods, pods with 

beans from previous years, and the fi nal yield results 

from the same fi elds were subjected to a vast number 

of regression analyses. Th e goal was to fi nd maturity 

breakpoints better related to the fi nal yield levels 

than to just group all samples as pre-bloom, blooming, and podding. New maturity categories were created based on the relative percentages of fruit present 

in the bloom, the pods without beans, and the pods 

with beans stages. Th ose maturity categories were an 

important advance in creating improved forecasts of 

yields, particularly for the September 1 “Crop Production Report.”

A few key 1960s corn objective yield research studies were yield validation eff orts. Forecasted yields per 

acre tended to be higher than farmer-reported average yields for the same fi elds, particularly in the case 

of corn. Two types of studies were conducted. Th e 

fi rst type was a 1965 corn-weighing project in which 

portable scales were used to measure all the corn harvested from special samples of fi elds in four States. 

Numerous objective yield units were laid out and 

harvested in those sample fi elds just ahead of harvest 

to form the objective yield estimate of average yield 

per acre. 

A second type of study involved row-by-row, plantby-plant inventory of two corn fi elds in Maryland 

and the establishment of 80 sample units in each fi eld 

in 1969. Many Research and Development Branch 

offi ce staff members, including the area frame construction unit staff , assisted in those detailed counts. 

Th at study also checked the weekly afterharvest to 

determine how fast the grain left on the ground at 

harvest time disappeared. 

One interesting conclusion came out of the cornweighing eff orts. Although the calculated yield per 

acre was normally higher than the farmer-reported 

yield per acre for the same fi eld, the calculated production from the objective yield approach was often 

close to the weighed production. Th e diff erence was 

in the acreage concepts. When a fi eld was selected 

from the June Enumerative Survey for objective yield 

observations, the fi eld and crop acreage fi gures from 

June were used as starting points. Th e farm operator was then asked about the size of any areas within 

the fi eld that were not in the crop area planted (e.g., 

lanes and waterways). Th e operator was also asked 

about planted areas that would not be harvested at 

all (e.g., areas drowned out or destroyed by some mechanical problem). Th e resulting objective yield crop 
18

fi eld often had less net acreage than operators originally thought. When operators reported production 

fi gures at the end of the season, they were still using a 

larger acreage and, thus, a lower yield per acre.

Th e gross versus net acreage diff erences did not account for all diff erences between objective yield and 

farmer-reported yields, but they did narrow the gap. 

Another reason cited for possible diff erences in harvested yield levels is that the objective yield approach 

calculates biological yield and then subtracts out an 

estimate for harvesting loss. Th ere was a concern that 

all harvesting losses could not be measured, especially as corn harvest shifted from harvesting in the ears 

to using combines that shelled the kernels from the 

ears. 

One intriguing theory about diff erences in objective 

yield and farmer yield levels concerned treatment of 

the units themselves. Enumerators were trained to 

not do any damage within the count units. (Th ey 

also were not to enhance the unit by pulling weeds 

or making other changes.) Enumerators did all 

their observations and counts from outside the unit 

and did not get between the two rows of the unit. 

(It should not be a factor for corn, but for soybean, 

wheat, and cotton units it has been speculated that 

working around the units tends to push back the 

plants in the adjoining rows and perhaps gives the 

plants within the unit the added benefi t of more sunlight and even more rainfall. Th us, there might be a 

positive conditioning eff ect.)

Although defi nite evidence could not be found to 

support any theory of nonsampling errors when 

enumerators were establishing the initial units, an 

additional precaution was added. Th e original instructions were to walk the predetermined number 

of paces, lay down a dowel stick at that point, and 

then mark out the unit. Enumerators were not to notice anything about the plants before stopping and 

were not to increase or decrease their fi nal steps to 

avoid anything atypical. To deter any human tendency to pick a convenient stopping point, a buffer-zone concept was added. Th e enumerators would 

proceed with their rows and paces as before and lay 

down their dowel sticks. However, they would then 

measure an additional 15 feet down the row to fi nd 

the starting point for the unit.

Research into some diff erent objective measurement 

approaches started in the early 1960s. Apple and 

peach objective yield studies in Virginia were conducted largely using Research and Development Division staff members who could drive out to one of 

the main fruit-growing areas. In addition to the usual limb count and fruit-size observations, these studies incorporated ground-based color photography. 

Th e concept was that if fruit could be counted from 

the photos, then a double sampling approach could 

be used. Many trees could be photographed, which 

would require less detailed limb counts of fruit. Because many photos could be taken in a day’s time, 

the counts from the photos could be made in the evenings and on rainy days, thus increasing productivity over a set number of days. One approach was to 

use a lightweight aluminum frame in the shape of 

a large plus sign to divide the side of each tree into 

four quadrants for the photos. Photos were taken of 

diff erent sides of the trees to determine if the counts 

varied by quadrant and by side.

A feasibility study using low-level aerial photography to count livestock was conducted in 1966 over 

a 3,800-square-mile area in California. Th e study included enumeration of sample segments within that 

area, and ground-level oblique photos were taken of 

all visible livestock in the segments. Several photographic shortcomings were noted, such as: no presence of livestock in vast portions of the area; large 

numbers of non-visible livestock taking shelter from 

the Sun in shaded areas; and animals lying on the 

ground in some areas being confused with large 

rocks.

One of the most successful objective yield research 

eff orts was the development of procedures for estimating Florida citrus production. Research was 

originally conducted on a number of diff erent citrus 

fruits, but the eff orts had been focused on forecasting 

the size of the early and midseason orange crop and 

the Valencia orange crop. Th ere was such great interest in Florida that the Florida Department of Citrus 

provided funding to the SRS Florida fi eld offi ce by 

levying a tax on every fi eld box of oranges harvested. Th at funding provided for a complete fruit-tree 

inventory every two years as well as the fi eld work 

for making sample fruit counts on random trees and 

monthly surveys to determine fruit-size development 

and droppage. By the end of the 1960s, the Florida 

orange estimates had been completely converted to 

the objective methods. With the continuous surveys 
19

in place, Florida also had a good base for special 

follow-up surveys that could determine the impact 

of freezes, hurricanes, and other widespread crop 

stresses.

Remote Sensing Research 

A major addition to the research program started in 

midyear 1968 when a remote sensing research unit 

was formed. Th e fi rst satellite designed for measuring crop-related phenomena would not be launched 

for another four years, but some remote sensing proponents were already predicting what major changes 

would occur because of satellite-based observations. 

Th ese claims were based on very broad assumptions, without regard to the diffi culties of obtaining 

and processing the vast amounts of data created by 

sensors on an earth-rotating satellite or the rigor 

required to interpret the signals and create quality 

estimates. 

Most initial remote sensing research conducted by the 

agency was in conjunction with the ARS laboratory 

at Weslaco, TX. ARS specialists had done pioneering 

studies that demonstrated how diff erent living plants 

varied in their refl ection of light across the spectrum 

of wavelengths. Th eir studies started with just one 

leaf at a time, and they were planning to test the refl ection signatures under fi eld conditions. Th e laboratory had an aircraft and a variety of cameras that 

could collect photographic data in the near-infrared 

light range as well as normal true color. Th e statisticians hoped to persuade the ARS scientists to set up 

specifi c experiments ahead of photo acquisitions so 

that defensible conclusions could be reached.

Th e important crops in the Rio Grande Valley were 

citrus, cotton, sorghum, and vegetables. Samples of 

the four types of crops were selected and objective 

yield procedures used to estimate crop yields or fruit 

per tree. For the citrus studies, counting fruit from 

current photography (as had been tried with Virginia apple and peach trees) was explored. In addition, a 

new two-stage sampling approach to selecting limbs 

for fruit counts was developed as an alternative to the 

traditional random-path selection method, which 

required counting about 10 percent of the fruit on 

each sample tree. One unexpected result of the Rio 

Grande Valley remote sensing research was that a 

pilot test of an operational objective yield program 

was performed in the third year of research. Proposals for creating an operational program were then 

presented to members of the Texas Citrus Mutual to 

see if they would be willing to fund the new operations approach. 

Estimating Program Additions in the 1960s

Although the implementation of the enumerative 

and objective yield survey programs greatly changed 

the culture of the 1960s, there were a number of other modifi cations to the overall agricultural statistics 

program. Some changes were prompted by new or 

increased Congressional funding. In the mid-1960s, 

funding became available to expand the annual cutfl ower estimation program to 11 States. As a result, 

77 percent of fi ve fl ower types produced in the U.S. 

and surveyed at the time were covered by detailed 

estimates. During the same period, a mushroom-estimation program was funded for the major producing States of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware. 

Later in the decade, a quarterly farm-labor pilot program and quarterly probability surveys for estimating grain stocks were launched. In addition, responsibility and funding for the annual fertilizer program 

were transferred from ARS to SRS. 

Some new or enhanced surveys came about through 

the AMS Matching Fund Program. Th e program 

provided Federal funding if a State department of 

agriculture (or State extension service or State experiment stations) initiated an approved project and 

contributed at least as much funding as the budget 

request to AMS. Th e AMS goal was the creation of 

either one-time or continuous data summaries that 

would improve the marketing of agricultural products. Projects usually were approved for two years 

with the understanding that matching funds for a 

specifi c project would not be provided for more than 

fi ve years (though longer-term projects could be renewed after an intensive review). Some approved 

projects were for industry structure analyses, such as 

separating egg production into hatchery fl ocks and 

commercial egg-production fl ocks. Th e Matching 

Fund Program was instrumental in starting wheatquality surveys for many major winter wheat-producing States in the 1960s and a potato-grade and 

yield survey in Idaho in 1965.

One important program addition in 1965 was the 

fi rst-ever Agricultural Chemical-Use Survey that 

provided three signifi cant features. First, there had 

not ever been any eff ort to evaluate which insecticides, herbicides, and other chemicals were actually 
20

being used by farmers—and at what rates. Secondly, 

this survey was conducted for (and in conjunction 

with) ERS, SRS’s sister agency. ERS had economists 

assigned to many of the State land-grant institutions, 

but they normally did not work directly with the 

State SRS offi ces. ERS fi eld staff members attended 

the national training with SRS state supervisors and 

were expected to help with State training schools and 

data review. Th e third interesting aspect was the approach used to create the edit specifi cations. As this 

was truly the fi rst survey of its type, there was no 

previous set of edit limits available. SRS state supervisors were encouraged to do a preliminary edit/review of early survey returns and develop suggested 

edit parameters by crop and type of chemical. Th ose 

suggestions were shared with the Survey Operations 

Group staff members in charge of the survey, and a 

fi nal set of edit specifi cations was created.

Some estimating programs were enhanced based on 

analyses of the quality of the existing survey data 

even if new funding did not become available. For 

example, the “Pig Crop Report” was renamed the 

“Hogs and Pigs Report,” and features were added 

such as estimates by weight groups in June and estimates of quarterly farrowings for all states. Another 

important new feature for data users was the creation 

of cattle slaughter estimates by sex.

Congressional funding did not always increase from 

year to year. Several specifi c estimates were discontinued in Fiscal Year (FY) 1969 because of funding 

shortfalls. However, almost all of the cuts were restored in FY 1970. Th ese included early-season lamb 

crop estimates for Kansas, Texas, and California; the 

May maple syrup estimate; and May and September 

broomcorn production forecasts. Additional restorations were the annual estimates and two forecasts for 

apricots and nectarines, as well as annual estimates 

for avocados, dates, fi gs, limes, persimmons, pomegranates, and tung nuts. 

International Assistance Before 1970

Th e National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 

and its predecessor organizations did not have responsibility for creating agricultural estimates for 

any country other than the United States. However, 

the agency has always been quite open to hosting 

foreign visitors and discussing survey and estimation 

procedures. In addition, assistance has been provided 

to foreign countries through reimbursable programs 

sponsored by organizations such as the U.S. Agency 

for International Development (USAID), the Food 

and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations 

(FAO), the World Bank, and development organizations in specifi c countries. Agency personnel also assisted with the Bureau of the Census international 

training center, which included conducting training 

on area frame construction.

Most foreign assignments included assistance to 

create area sampling frames as a starting point for 

improving agricultural estimates. However, some 

projects have concentrated more on evaluations of 

existing survey and estimation programs and making improvement suggestions.

 

Some assistance has been provided via resident assignments of two years or more in a specifi c country. 

Since the 1960s, however, assistance has usually been 

provided through a series of temporary duty visits 

by a team of NASS employees, which is occasionally 

supplemented by other USDA staff members.

Th e fi rst documented resident assignment was to 

Puerto Rico starting in 1949, followed by a Guatemala assignment that began in 1957. During the 

1960s, resident assignments included two residents 

to Argentina and one each to Turkey and Pakistan. 

Five people participated in six-month assignments 

to Vietnam, which began in 1967. Other single-resident assignments included Chile, Ecuador, Dominican Republic, and Paraguay.

Staffi ng in the 1960s

At the time SRS was formed as an agency, the Civil 

Service Commission (CSC) issued new standards for 

statisticians. Th e basic hiring requirements were 15 

semester hours of mathematics and statistics, with at 

least nine semester hours of statistics. A person could 

be provisionally hired if they had the combined 15 

semester hours with only three semester hours of statistics, but they needed to complete two more statistics courses within the fi rst three years of being hired. 

Th e new standards allowed the hiring of qualifi ed 

candidates who met the mathematics and statistics 

requirements at the GS-7 pay level if they had more 

than a 3.0 grade point average (on a 4-point scale). 

One other provision allowed an individual hired as a 

GS-5 to progress to a GS-7 in six months by completing a qualifying training program.

 
21

Many new statisticians were needed to implement 

the additional workloads as the phased implementation of the enumerative and objective yield surveys 

progressed. With the annual additions to the budget 

($500,000 for 1962; $780,000 for 1963; $860,000 

for 1964; $591,000 for 1965; and $112,000 in 1966 

specifi cally for the Long-Range Plan) considerable 

new hiring occurred, particularly in 1963 and 1964. 

Most new hires came from State land-grant institutions with which State statisticians were used to 

working.

Th ere had been signifi cant expansion of the professional staff during the testing of the Project A procedures. Th ere were 246 statisticians on board in 1955 

(183 in fi eld offi ces). Th at number had increased to 

317 by 1961, along with the fi eld offi ces count totaling 249. By early 1965, the total professional staff 

had grown to 451 (331 in the fi eld offi ces and 120 

in headquarters), which represented a 43-percent increase from 1961. Much of the staffi ng increase in 

headquarters was due to the evolving data processing 

work and expansion of the mathematical statistician 

ranks.

Many new fi eld offi ce statisticians were assigned to 

enumerative and objective yield surveys, as well as 

to other duties. Th is meant they were attending regional and national training schools and had the 

opportunity to meet many of their new peers. One 

of their fi rst tasks was to organize and present the 

training program to the fi eld enumerators and supervisors. To be out of college for a year or so and 

then be asked to present a training program to experienced workers possibly three times your age could 

be a daunting task. 

A number of guidelines for conducting state training schools were given at the regional and national 

schools, such as sample agendas and training tips. 

However, the newly hired statisticians usually were 

given a lot of latitude as well as responsibility for the 

entire school. 

Participation in enumerator training schools by the 

fi eld offi ce directors varied by State. Some directors enjoyed participating and would openly engage 

questions from the enumerators. Others felt that 

enumerators should not be given much information 

about the sensitive work that went on in the offi ce 

(i.e., estimating and forecasting); their presentations 

were normally not as well-received by enumerators.

Promotion and transfer decisions in the 1960s were 

made through a committee deliberation process, not 

via an announcement and application procedure. All 

employees at each grade level were evaluated based 

on annual performance reviews. A data table presented at the 1968 National Conference summarized the 

evaluations of 292 professional employees between 

the grade levels of 7 and 14. Of the total, 185 (63 

percent) were on the best-qualifi ed lists. More than 

half of the remaining employees (61 percent) were 

considered as having potential for promotion. Th e 

CSC had just issued guidelines for ranking employees for promotion, which closely paralleled the SRS 

approach. Th e National Conference presentation 

used a case study to illustrate how an employee previously considered to have no promotion potential 

could improve their work habits and advance to the 

best-qualifi ed list.

Promotions were made only from the best-qualifi ed 

lists. Th e assistant administrator, deputy administrator, agricultural estimates director, survey and data 

division director, and staff offi cer for career development would identify individuals from the best-qualifi ed list who they felt were best suited for specifi c vacancies in branch chief, section head, and fi eld offi ce 

director positions. From that selection, they created 

a ranked list. Th at list would be discussed with the 

administrator, and possibly adjusted based on his input, before off ering the position to the fi rst person 

on the list. If that person did not accept the position, off ers would be made to the other candidates 

in ranked order. 
22
23

PROLOGUE

Th e enumerative and objective yield survey procedures tested and implemented between 1957 and the 

late 1960s were more successful for crop estimates 

than for livestock. Because livestock holdings vary 

greatly from operation to operation, it was diffi cult 

to pinpoint estimates levels—and sampling errors 

were larger. Th e shortcomings of making livestock 

estimates from the ongoing nonprobability surveys 

and the June and December enumerative surveys 

were evident when livestock estimates for the 1960–

65 period were made following release of the 1964 

Census of Agriculture (which was completed by the 

Bureau of the Census). 

Th e 1964 Census data were released later than expected and revisions were published in late 1966 that 

covered six years instead of the normal fi ve-year period. Th e upward revision in the total U.S. cattle herd 

received much attention and criticism. Th e January 

1, 1965 estimate of total cattle and calves was raised 

from 107.2 million head to 109 million. Analyses of 

all survey indications and livestock movement data 

(e.g., slaughter and exports) revealed that estimates 

had been too low throughout the period. Also, the 

discrepancy was widening because too much reliance 

had been placed on year-to-year, survey-level changes. (Th erefore, the January 1, 1966 total rose by more 

than 2 million head.) Many people in the cattle industry were extremely critical of the new estimates 

and at least one person wrote about “the phantom 

cattle herd” that SRS must have found. 

SRS was already aware of an improved procedure for 

livestock estimates— the development of a multiple 

sampling frame approach that would combine list 

sampling with the area frame. Plans were already in 

the works to request Congressional funding for multiple frame testing, and the livestock industry frustrations infl uenced approval of the funding request.

Th ere were also some crop estimation concerns. Th e 

June Enumerative Survey estimates were not demonstrating the same sampling effi ciency that was 

initially expected. Th e Master Sample of Agriculture 

was developed in the early 1940s when there were 

roughly 6 million farms in the United States. By the 

late 1960s, the number of farms was down to 3 million, which resulted in fewer operations being contacted for the June Enumerative Survey and fewer 

choices being available for follow-on surveys.

Part 2: Improving Survey Procedures by Creating Multiple Frame 

 Estimators and an Enhanced List Frame
24
25

Chapter 3: Changes and Improvements in the Early 1970s

Multiple Frame Estimation Description 

Although some use of combined-area and list frame 

sampling had been applied as early as 1949 and the 

SRS June Enumerative Survey area frame procedures 

did use a small list of livestock extreme operators to 

minimize sampling variances, the defi nitive theoretical work on multiple frame sampling was performed 

at Iowa State University by Professor H.O. Hartley 

(with support from USDA). Hartley’s early results 

were published in 1962. In 1966, he was a keynote 

speaker at a dinner that celebrated 100 years of 

USDA statistical programs.

Multiple frame estimation requires two or more sampling frames. One frame must contain all sampling 

units, and it must be possible to determine overlap 

between the other frame(s) and the complete frame. 

Th e SRS area-sampling frame was a complete frame 

of all land in the United States, and it was possible to 

determine operators of land within sample segments. 

However, it is expensive to conduct area frame surveys because of the costs for materials and for visiting new segments to fi nd the farm operators. If a 

good list frame was available, it should be possible 

to collect highly sought data directly by mail or by 

telephone at lower costs.

Hartley’s original multiple frame survey approach 

was based on new surveys from all frames at each 

point in time. However, SRS wanted to limit area 

frame surveys to just June and December due to 

cost. Th us, the SRS approach was to sample from 

both the area frame and list frame for the base June 

survey. Farm operators found in the area frame were 

matched against the entire list, which had been sampled. Any area frame operators not found on the list 

frame would constitute the “non-overlap” (or, “not 

on list”) domain. Selection and expansion factors for 

the non-overlap domain were known, and follow-up 

surveys consisted of sampling both the list frame and 

non-overlap domains. Expansions were made for 

each domain, and the results were aggregated for the 

total estimates.

Th e multiple frame theory is relatively straight forward. However, actual practice requires clear, easyto-apply rules for accurately determining overlap. 

Also, if the list frame is not very complete, then the 

process will not be very effi cient; expansion factors 

and sampling variances are usually higher for the 

area frame. 

Fine-Tuning Enumerative Survey Applications

From 1965 on, the June Enumerative Survey was 

regarded as the largest and perhaps most important 

survey eff ort of the year. Its acceptance as an excellent measure of U.S. agriculture was evidenced by 

the request from the Bureau of the Census to use the 

1969 June Enumerative Survey as a quality- control 

measure for the periodic census of agriculture.

Th ere were still a number of June Enumerative Survey adjustments and improvements made in the late 

1960s and 1970s. Th e smaller-than-expected numbers of farm operators in the area frame segments 

meant that individual operators were contacted 

more often than desired for follow-on contacts, such 

as the objective yield, December Enumerative, and 

farm employment surveys. As an interim improvement, a faster rotation of segments (50 percent per 

year instead of 20 percent) was employed for the 

North Central States by 1970. Th is change in rotation pattern did not increase costs greatly or require 

the creation of many new materials because the original sample allocation created “clusters” of four segments, and rotation was within the original clusters. 

New land-use area frame samples were also created 

for those States, starting with Iowa in 1971.

In addition to calculating both the “closed” estimators (which accounted for crops and livestock only 

within the segment boundaries) and “open” estimators (which accounted for the total operations of farm 

operators living within each segment), SRS started 

creating weighted estimators in the late 1960s. For 

this estimator, whole farm information is needed for 

each farm operation that has any land within a sample segment. In creating expansions, those totals are 

adjusted by the proportion of the operation located 

in the segment. Th e weighted-segment estimator has 

smaller sampling errors than the open estimator, but 

it does require more information collected from the 

nonresident operators. Th is estimator can also increase nonsampling errors if a nonresident operator 

can not be found and if estimates are entered for the 

total operation data.
26

By 1970, the June Enumerative Survey was regarded 

as mainly a crop and farm-numbers data collection 

survey; data collection had been moved back about 

a week to occur around the fi rst of June. Also, only 

livestock inventory and calves born data were collected instead of detailed livestock information. 

Th is change provided less information for both the 

June hogs-and-pigs estimates and the July cattleand-sheep estimates, but it did provide more current 

crop-acreage data. However, all plantings were not 

completed by the June Enumerative Survey interviews, and a July Update Survey was used to create 

harvested acreage estimates. 

Initiating Multiple Frame Surveys

SRS started some evaluations of multiple frame surveys as early as 1963 in Ohio and Mississippi. Evaluations began in Wyoming and Mississippi in 1965, 

and in Texas between 1966 and 1967. Th e Research 

and Development Branch started quarterly research 

eff orts to improve hog estimates studies in Illinois, 

Iowa, Missouri, and Nebraska in 1968 and in Kansas in 1969, which resulted in quite favorable results. 

Th e fi rst Congressional multiple frame sampling appropriation of $250,000 ($681,000 in 2007 dollars) 

was received in 1970, and a January 1 Cattle Survey 

was added for the fi ve States that had been in research 

mode. Th e major multiple frame funding of $1.05 

million ($2.7 million in 2007 dollars) was received 

in 1971. Five additional hog States were added to the 

March 1971 Hogs Survey, and six more States were 

added to the July Cattle Multiple Frame Survey. By 

1974, multiple frame livestock surveys had expanded 

to 14 hog States and 28 cattle States. 

In addition to improving the precision of multiple 

frame survey estimates, the multiple frame appropriation had one important and permanent impact on 

SRS. At the time the multiple frame appropriation 

was received, the agency also received strict ceilings 

on the numbers of Federal Government employees. 

Because the intent of the multiple frame approach 

was to conduct more surveys and all enumerators 

were Federal employees, it seemed that Congress had 

thrown the agency quite a curve. Th e agency established a contract-work task force to explore alternatives that could provide the necessary enumerator 

corps.

Th e task force considered many alternatives for providing and paying enumerators, including agreements with State departments of agriculture, universities, private businesses, or with the National 

Association of State Departments of Agriculture 

(NASDA). Because there would be signifi cant cost 

and paperwork benefi ts by contracting with one organization that covered all States, the NASDA-type 

approach was particularly appealing. Th e task force 

also identifi ed desirable contract features such as 12-

month contracts that spanned Federal Government 

fi scal years and fi xed administrative costs for each 

contract year, instead of payments to the contractor being determined by the total amount of survey 

work in a specifi c year. 

 

A formal contract was prepared and issued through 

Federal Government procedures. Organizations bidding on the contract needed to show that they had 

the administrative structure to handle hiring and 

employee payroll in all States. NASDA bid on and 

received the initial contract, and it has been able 

to keep the contract ever since. Th e initial contract 

covered work in the 12 North Central States, but it 

worked so smoothly that new predator loss surveys 

in eight Western States were added to the contract 

in 1974. Th e agreement was eventually extended to 

cover all enumerator hiring. 

It was necessary for the agency to alter operating 

procedures to properly implement the contract. Hiring of enumerators in each State is done by NASDA 

through one designated coordinator. Supervisory 

enumerators hire new enumerators in their areas as 

needed for specifi c surveys. Th e NASDA agreement 

allows for a new person to be interviewed today and 

then be on the payroll tomorrow—a great advantage 

over the typical Federal hiring process. Staff members in each fi eld offi ce determine the total enumeration workloads and the NASDA coordinator distributes the workloads to the supervisory enumerators. 

Even though fi eld offi ces do not hire enumerators, 

they are involved in evaluation and can request that 

poorly performing interviewers not be used for future surveys. 

Program Modifi cation Proposals

Two interesting and important SRS priorities in 1970 

were a detailed program review and the wide distribution of proposals for modifi cations in the content 

and timing of reports, primarily to collect comments. 

Th e reviewing programs and activities concept was 

a key topic at the SRS National Conference in Sep-
27

tember 1968. Th e SRS Planning Committee, in a 

December 1969 report to the administrator, called 

for a careful and objective evaluation of the entire 

program of reports because of changes in agriculture 

and statistical methodology. Th at evaluation was to 

include changes needed to CRB laws and regulations 

and to the frequency of estimates and forecasts.

Administrator Harry Trelogan established a planning committee subcommittee on program priorities 

and laid out nine historic concepts (e.g., frequency 

of reports, coverage by States, and survey indications 

to use) that should be evaluated. Th e fi rst subcommittee responsibility was to evaluate the fi eld crops 

program—nine hypotheses were provided as the 

starting point for evaluation. Th e subcommittee was 

given one constraint: total cost of the new program 

of reports was not to exceed current budget levels.

Preliminary subcommittee recommendations were 

presented to an April 1970 SRS National Conference and discussed in small group break-out sessions. Th ere were considerable diff erences of opinion among the statisticians in charge and the deputy 

statisticians in charge at the conference, which were 

infl uenced by the location and types of agriculture in 

their respective States.

In August 1970, SRS distributed a series of proposals 

for changes in the statistical reports for fi eld, fruit, 

and nut crops. Th e proposals were sent to nearly 800 

contacts by the administrator’s offi ce, and fi eld offi ce statisticians in charge were encouraged to also 

distribute the materials. A memo from the planning 

committee to the administrator in January 1971 summarized 285 written responses. A small group of 28 

responses showed opposition to any changes; 94 favored all listed changes and perhaps some additional 

changes; and 163 responders provided thoughtful 

evaluations of the proposals.

A fi nal list of program modifi cations was published 

February 4, 1971. Major changes and recommendations included continuing the December “Winter 

Wheat Seedings Report” and the March “Planting 

Intentions Report;” discontinuing the “Rye Seeding 

Report,” the April winter wheat production forecast and the July forecasts of corn and selected other 

crops; and continuing to publish acres planted and 

acres to be harvested, in July. Also, the date for the 

“Crop Production Annual Summary” was changed 

to mid-January from mid-December. 

Perhaps the two most signifi cant conclusions of the 

review process were not to replace the September 

and October “Crop Production” reports with one 

late September report but to shift to a limited-forecast concept. For States with less than 1 percent of 

the total U.S. production of a crop, only one earlyseason forecast and end-of-season estimate would be 

published. Th e total production of limited-forecast 

States was capped at no more than 5 percent of U.S. 

production for each crop. 

Th e subcommittee continued its review activities. 

A detailed set of proposals for the livestock, dairy, 

and poultry programs was sent to a wide set of data 

users whose comments were requested by August 1, 

1971. Th at review resulted in the closing of the Chicago dairy offi ce; its duties were divided between the 

Wisconsin fi eld offi ce and headquarters. [Historical note: Th e Chicago dairy offi ce was created during World War II by Dr. Trelogan when he was in 

charge of War Food Orders covering dairy products.] 

Other changes included classifying cattle inventories by weight and sex (instead of the traditional age 

and sex) and starting a midyear inventory report by 

classes in 1973. Th e agency also adopted the national 

board concept for setting national and regional livestock estimates in 1972. Use of the national board 

approach held up well when 1973 and early 1974 

cattle-and-hog estimates were criticized by some inventory sources. 

Th e livestock review was followed fi rst by similar efforts for the seeds, vegetables, and potato programs 

and then by the farm labor and wage-rates program. 

Th e fi nal review was of the prices program, which 

began in 1975. 

New Technology in the Early 1970s

Th ere was tremendous interest and considerable activity related to data processing advances in the early 

1970s, but little agreement and progress. An SRS request for proposal (RFP) was issued in 1968 to acquire IBM 360/20 computers for fi eld offi ces, and a 

machine was acquired for the Mississippi fi eld offi ce. 

However, USDA delayed additional equipment purchases until SRS developed long-range ADP plans. 

Th e fi rst proposed long-range ADP plan was very 

ambitious; it had six major subsystems and 44 projects. It was regarded as a working plan and a new 

RFP was prepared that called for six regional centers 
28

with IBM 360/40 type computers and either 360/20 

computers or data terminals for other fi eld offi ces 

and headquarters. However, USDA would not issue 

that RFP either. Similarly, SRS proposed buying a 

360/40 machine that the WDPC had been renting, 

but USDA would not agree due to the cost and the 

fact that part of the SRS justifi cation involved nonUSDA needs.

Th ere was interest around 1970 in sharing computer 

programs across fi eld offi ces, but existing programs 

had been written for a wide variety of equipment and 

often would need considerable reworking to be used 

in other offi ces. Th ere was also interest in creating an 

agency mailing system, but the fi eld offi ces did not 

want to give up systems they had developed.

An ADP Priority Committee was created in 1971, 

led by a division director and populated with staff 

members from each division. A task force to create 

a universe fi le system to build and maintain a list 

sampling frame was chartered in 1971. One eff ort 

that paid very quick returns was a push to create a 

parameter-driven generalized edit system that could 

be adapted to any type of statistical data. Work on 

specifi cations and coding started in September 1971, 

and the system was used in June 1972 for processing 

the farm production expenditure survey. Th e system 

was further tested that August by rerunning the 1972 

June Enumerative Survey data and was used operationally to edit the 1972 December Enumerative 

Survey. A companion generalized summary system 

was also created.

A variety of diff erent programming languages had 

been used by various individuals and agency offi ces. 

Th ose included Assembler Language, COBOL (Common Business-Oriented Language), FORTRAN 

(Formula Translator Language), and RPG (Report 

Program Generator). In 1972, COBOL was adopted 

as the agency’s standard programming language and 

most new programs were developed in COBOL. Statistical analysis software (SAS) was introduced to SRS 

in 1971 by the Research and Development Division 

and installed at the WDPC. SRS contracted with the 

SAS developers to enhance SAS for the agency’s survey processing needs (e.g., handling multiple input 

data sets to support edit and analysis of data from 

multiple States). New division statisticians learned 

to use SAS to conduct complex data analysis. As statisticians rotated to other SRS positions, such as those 

in Methods Staff , they spread the use of SAS into the 

operational program. In the decades to follow, SAS 

would serve as the primary survey processing system 

to sample, edit, analyze, and summarize survey and 

census data.

An organizational meeting was held in February 

1972 to create the fi rst multi-State data processing 

and mailing center. Th is Common Services group 

included the Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, 

and Wyoming fi eld offi ces; Colorado was deemed the 

hub offi ce. Arizona was later added to the group. In 

June of that year, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska entered into a diff erent type of cooperation 

eff ort called the “4-State Project” where each fi eld 

offi ce created computer programs to be used in all 

four States. Another key 1972 eff ort was a task force 

to implement the use of the generalized edit and generalized summary systems for all acreage surveys.

A signifi cant change came about in 1972 when the 

WDPC was transferred to the USDA Offi ce of Information Services, thus ending SRS’s role and responsibility for data processing activities for USDA and 

other Federal agencies. Th e change did not impact 

the SRS operational budget since nearly all data processing work had been paid for through reimbursements from other organizations. 

Separate from the transfer of the WDPC, SRS began 

testing use of INFONET, a commercial nationwide 

teleprocessing network. Th e testing was successful and SRS proceeded by adding a few offi ces every few months. Th e new system provided much of 

the standardized processing capability that had been 

lacking and would provide additional security and 

backup for SRS data and systems. It also provided 

temporary increases in storage and computer power 

available for SRS peak processing needs, which were 

diffi cult for WDPC to accomplish. Additionally, 

with terminal access to the central computers, the 

new system provided quicker transmission of CRB 

reports and instructions from headquarters to the 

fi eld offi ces. In 1973, fi eld offi ces received generalized edit training, and 19 offi ces were operational in 

time for the June Acreage Survey. An Automation of 

County Estimates Task Force was created to identify 

desirable features to include in a system that could 

handle county estimate processes for all fi eld offi ces. 

After the main features were identifi ed, a separate 

Systems Design Subgroup was named to outline the 

needed programs and interfaces. A few fi eld offi ce 

programmers were then assigned to write the new 
29

programs under the subgroup’s direction. Th e key 

new advance in the county estimates system was the 

creation of composite estimators. Th e system created estimates for yields, birth rates, and total production, as well as acreages and livestock inventories. 

As long as survey or check-data indications could be 

converted to ratios of previous indications or estimates, the new system created composite estimates 

using various options for weighting factors.

By 1974, all CRB reports were sent directly to data 

terminals in each fi eld offi ce through the INFONET 

connections. Work started on designing an SRS data 

system that would operate from an offi cial estimates 

database. Th is eff ort led to a shift to a database systems approach for creating new programs such as for 

the new “Export Sales Report.”

Training in the Early 1970s

As in the 1960s, much of the agency training emphasis in the early 1970s was on data processing. Staff 

members took courses from universities, vocational 

schools, data processing vendors, and programmed 

instruction sources, which were helpful for the 

most basic introductory courses. A wide variety of 

regional and national agency training sessions were 

provided for fi eld-offi ce ADP staff members. Early 

in the decade, courses covered basics such as job control language and systems analysis techniques. Later, 

training sessions emphasized network processing 

techniques.

One new training emphasis in the 1970s was civil 

rights training that focused on equal opportunity. 

Civil rights was one of the six themes for the 1970 SRS 

National Conference. At the conference, Administrator Trelogan presented strong support for expanding 

employment opportunities across the country. One 

signifi cant part of the conference presentations was 

a resource panel of SRS professionals and support 

personnel sharing their fi rst-hand experiences with 

civil rights issues. Training programs were developed 

for supervisors, which included suggestions for developing civil rights sessions for all employees in the 

fi eld offi ces. 

A new, upward mobility program for computer training was announced. Field offi ces needed considerable 

data processing assistance, so existing support offi ce 

staff members could apply for training opportunities 

to develop the needed skills.

Response to a Crop Disease Emergency

Th e 1970 national corn crop was struck by a severe 

outbreak of southern corn leaf blight (SCLB). Th is 

disease, caused by the Helminthosporium maydis 

fungus, had normally been a minor problem, but a 

new fungus race adapted itself by 1969 to Texas malesterile (TMS) cytoplasm corn. Hybrid corn breeders 

had used TMS to eliminate the need for hand detasseling the plants, which was costly and not error 

proof. By 1970, an estimated 85 to 90 percent of all 

corn was based on TMS cytoplasm. Th e disease was 

noted early in the 1970 crop year in Southeastern 

States, as spores were carried by southerly winds to 

the Corn Belt during July and August.

Th e blight problem was noticed shortly after the August 1 crop production forecast. Th e U.S. September 

1 corn yield forecast was reduced by fi ve bushels per 

acre (from 80.9 to 75.9) from August, but there were 

concerns that the situation was still greatly deteriorating. SRS conducted a special forecast as of September 23, which was based on visits to the corn objective yield samples in the 24 States in the program, 

and it released the results on October 2. Th ere was 

additional crop-condition deterioration, but that 

special forecast was within 2 percent of the fi nal crop 

size. In total, the crop prospects declined 15 percent 

from August 1 to harvest, but this was due in part to 

drought conditions in some producing areas.

SRS conducted seed corn surveys to determine what 

supplies of hybrid corn would be available for the 

1971 crop and what percentage would be susceptible to SCLB. Industry surveys were conducted in 

September and October 1970 and in January 1971. 

In spite of eff orts to produce additional non-TMS 

cytoplasm seed, more than half of the hybrid seed 

available in 1971 was either TMS or blends of TMS 

with normal cytoplasm. SRS also conducted an intentions-to-plant survey in January 1971.

Th e disease problem presented an ideal scientifi c 

research opportunity. Th e launch of the fi rst Earth 

Resources satellite was not scheduled until 1972, 

but the SCLB concerns for the 1971 crop encouraged the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to sponsor a major research project 

to simulate information that would be available in 

the future from the new satellite. Th e SCLB experiment was a complex, well-designed study that was 

conceived, planned, and delivered on a tight timeta-
30

ble. SRS took the lead for USDA and worked closely 

with NASA and the Laboratory for Applications of 

Remote Sensing at Purdue University in program 

planning and execution. In total, some 17 Federal 

and State agencies and more than 1,000 people participated in the eff ort.

Th e experiment’s goal was to observe and track the 

severity of SCLB throughout the 1971 crop year. 

One of the fi rst decisions was to defi ne the area of 

the Corn Belt. Th e study area was determined as the 

entire States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa; the 

southern three Minnesota Crop Reporting Districts 

(CRDs); the eastern three Nebraska CRDs; and the 

northern Missouri three CRDs as well as the State’s 

eastern and southeastern CRDs. Th is provided a 

study area that normally had at least 60 percent of 

U.S. corn production; it spanned 1,500 miles from 

east to west and up to 1,000 miles from south to 

north. Since the satellite simulations were going to 

be provided by high-altitude, near-infrared photography across the entire Corn Belt and low-altitude 

scanner data in western Indiana, north-to-south 

fl ight lines were needed to simulate the paths of 

Earth-rotating satellites.

Data collection plans were based on the SRS June 

Enumerative and Corn Objective Yield surveys. SRS 

created the sample of areas to be observed and all survey materials; led the training of ground observation 

personnel; and summarized ground data collected 

every two weeks. It was fortunate that a temporary 

area frame construction unit had been established in 

Hagerstown, MD, to create a new economic-surveys 

area sample. Th at unit created 6-mile wide (east to 

west) fl ight lines with sample segments that were 6 

miles wide and 1 mile from north to south. Th e June 

Enumerative Survey type interviews, which mainly 

concentrated on identifying all 1971 crop fi elds in 

the sample segments on the baseline aerial photographs, were conducted by county employees of 

USDA’s Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation 

Service. Th is group was particularly experienced in 

working with aerial photography.

Once the basic data on all corn fi elds were collected, 

samples of the fi elds in each segment were selected for 

observations by Extension Service personnel. Observations were made every two weeks—about the same 

day that the aerial photography and scanner data 

were acquired. Th e main sample-plot data collected 

were blight-severity ratings on a 4-point scale, which 

ranged from “none” to “slight” and up to “severe.” 

Photos of 1970 plants in the diff erent severity ranges 

were included in the training materials.

SCLB was indeed prevalent in 1971, but farmers were 

able to plant early in most producing areas. Early 

season growing conditions were quite favorable, and 

the weather was cool and dry from mid-July to midAugust—all of which contributed to minimizing the 

blight’s impact. By late August, only 5 percent of the 

acreage had “very severe” infections, and less than 20 

percent was in the “moderate” or “severe” categories. 

Th e crop matured earlier than normal in most producing areas, and infections that occurred late in the 

growing season had little crop yield impact.

Early Satellite Remote Sensing Research 

Because of the early SRS remote sensing work and its 

lead role in the SCLB experiment, SRS was selected 

by NASA to study the potential of satellite imagery 

to collect agricultural data. Specifi cally, SRS was to 

focus on developing methods for identifying crop 

species and estimating crop areas. 

Th e fi rst project selected CRD study sites in Idaho, 

Kansas, Missouri, and South Dakota. High-altitude 

photography was collected in addition to the satellite data. June Enumerative Survey segments were 

used as the data collection units within each study 

site. A sample of segments was used for training photo interpreters and a computer classifi cation model. 

Th e remaining segments were then classifi ed by the 

two methods. Th ose results were compared with the 

actual crop acreages. Monthly fi eld visits to observe 

crop conditions were made from August 1972 to October 1972 and from August 1973 to October 1973. 

Th e 1972 satellite data were not usable for the key 

months of interest, but the 1973 satellite data were 

nearly cloud-free, especially for Kansas and South 

Dakota. Overall, satellite data crop-classifi cation results in Kansas and Missouri were nearly as good as 

photo interpretations based on aircraft data.

Some basic conclusions had become obvious. Nearly 

cloud-free satellite data would be needed for acceptable crop classifi cations. Atmospheric conditions 

varied enough from day-to-day and from one satellite overpass to the next; specifi c training was needed 

for each satellite-data acquisition, rather than applying classifi cation parameters from one date or one 

satellite scene to other dates and scenes. Th e most en-
31

couraging conclusions were that June Enumerative 

Survey segments were ideal for developing training 

samples for analyzing satellite data, and that most 

satellite scenes in the North Central States had large 

numbers (20 or more) of segments per scene.

SRS was asked to participate in and help evaluate 

a project called the Large Area Crop Inventory Experiment (LACIE). Th is eff ort primarily focused on 

wheat, and it selected large segments (5 miles by 6 

miles) that would be studied each year in an eff ort 

to estimate U.S. and Canadian wheat acreage, yield, 

and production. A secondary goal of LACIE was to 

be able to use the segment information and satellite 

data to draw conclusions about other areas of the 

world that produced the same crops, but normally 

did not publish any crop yield information. 

Estimating Program Additions in the Early 1970s

One signifi cant new survey in the 1970s was initiation of an annual farm production expenditure survey (FPES). Th e last data collection of farmers’ expenditures had been in 1955. Congress appropriated 

$80,000 for FY 1971 ($398,000 in 2007 dollars) for 

the survey preparation eff orts. One of the keys was 

work at Hagerstown, MD, to create a new area frame 

sample (separate from the June Enumerative Survey 

sample) for the survey program. Congress appropriated $1.15 million ($5.57 million in 2007 dollars) in 

FY 1972 to begin the operational program.

At the request of the U.S. mink industry, Congressional funding of $40,000 was provided in the FY 1970 

budget. Most survey information came from lists provided by the mink industry, but the grower lists were 

compared with all respondents in the June Enumerative Survey to measure possible list incompleteness. 

Another example of Congressional funding based on 

industry input was $100,000 in the FY 1971 budget 

for white corn estimates in 10 States. White corn was 

added to the March Prospective Plantings and July 

Acreage surveys.

An operational Michigan tart cherry objective yield 

survey began in 1972. Th e survey used fruit-size 

growth and fruit-droppage parameters from tart 

cherry research eff orts in the 1960s to forecast total 

crop size from spring fruit counts to harvest. However, a two-stage sampling technique developed for 

Texas grapefruit in the remote sensing work was used 

to estimate the initial fruit set. Each randomly selected sample tree was divided into primary limbs based 

on cross-sectional area measurements; one primary 

limb was randomly selected on a probability proportional-to-size basis. All count limbs on the selected 

primary limb were then marked, and two limbs were 

randomly selected for the fruit counts. Th e Michigan 

fi eld offi ce arranged to have limb-selection gauges 

fabricated from quarter-inch Plexiglas®. Each gauge 

was 8 inches long and 3 inches wide at the widest 

point. Th e gauge looked like a large key with a convenient handle at one end and two sets of step-down 

openings—one at the end of the gauge and the other on one side. If a limb did not fi t into the largest opening, it was too large to be a count limb and 

needed to be subdivided. If a limb fi t into the larger 

opening but was too large for the small opening, it 

was the right size to be marked as a possible count 

limb. Having the openings at both the end and the 

side made it easier for an enumerator on a ladder to 

reach the limbs at all angles.

Potato objective work was started in 1970. It was 

not feasible to collect much data during the growing season in order to forecast numbers and weight 

of potatoes per plant, so the survey was essentially 

an objective- harvest survey. Numbers of potatoes, 

size distributions, and weights were determined. 

Samples were often taken for grade and yield determinations. Much of the original funding for potato 

objective yield work came from the AMS Matching 

Funds Program. Congress did appropriate $100,000 

($203,000 in 2007 dollars) in FY 1974.

In late 1973, SRS received a new USDA responsibility. Th ere was great interest to improve the monitoring of U.S. export trade, and a new export sales report was requested. SRS staff members created the 

procedures to receive, edit, and summarize all weekly 

certifi cates relating to planned shipments. Th e fi rst 

weekly report was issued November 2, 1973. SRS 

issued the reports until October 7, 1974, when the 

responsibility for the report and the staff members 

working on it were transferred to USDA’s Foreign 

Agricultural Service (FAS). 
32
33

Dr. Harry Trelogan, the fi rst SRS administrator, retired in late 1975, and was replaced by William E. 

(Bill) Kibler. In contrast to Dr. Trelogan, Administrator Kibler had an almost exclusively USDA statistics 

career, starting as a Georgia fi eld offi ce student assistant in 1951. After graduation, he joined the North 

Carolina fi eld offi ce and later transferred to Georgia. 

He was in the fi rst Math/Stat program during the 

1960–61 school year at North Carolina State. After 

the year in school, he transferred to the Standards 

and Research Division (SRD) in headquarters and 

subsequently held several positions, including chief 

of the Research and Development Branch. He was 

selected as the Research and Development Division 

director in 1970 and became the Survey and Data 

Division director in 1972. Kibler had transferred to 

the North Carolina fi eld offi ce as state statistician in 

late 1974 before being called back to headquarters to 

take over as administrator in November 1975.

Selecting a new administrator from within might 

have meant few changes in the agency. However, 

there were a number of other retirees in 1975 and 

many changes in headquarters and fi eld offi ce assignments. At the September 1976 National Conference, Kibler remarked that nearly 30 percent of conference participants were in diff erent positions than 

12 months earlier. One-fi fth of the state statisticians 

had changed during that period. In a small front-offi ce reorganization, the former program planning offi cer and career development offi cer positions were 

phased out. Th e assistant administrator was now responsible for agency administrative management as 

well as managing State statistical offi ce operations. 

A new deputy assistant administrator position was 

established to aid with the new duties. Th e deputy 

administrator continued to direct the agency’s technical program and chair the CRB. 

List Sampling Frame—the Next Major Improvement

Since its inception in the 1860s, the USDA statistics unit had utilized list surveys. Th e earliest procedures contacted lists of county reporters monthly 

and utilized township reporters lists for the bigger 

acreage surveys. A hundred years later, headquarters and fi eld offi ces had multiple lists for diff erent 

purposes. In the 1960s, a monthly farm report list 

was maintained, along with larger lists for plantings 

and acreage and production surveys. Separate lists of 

livestock, fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop producers were also maintained. 

Th e Bureau of the Census also relied on lists of farmers—particularly since they shifted to conducting 

the periodic census of agriculture almost entirely by 

mail. A new list of farmers was created for each census of agriculture by acquiring lists, such as USDA 

Farm Program participants, and adding to the list 

used for the previous census four or fi ve years earlier. 

In the early 1970s, it appeared that Bureau of the 

Census (Census Bureau) and SRS might be able to 

work together and develop one list of farm operators. A Presidential Executive Order of January 17, 

1973 created the standard statistical establishment 

list (SSEL) concept. SSEL would allow Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and other organizations that did business surveys to create commonstandard sampling lists. Part of the SSEL would be a 

farm operators list that both the Census Bureau and 

SRS could utilize. List creation and maintenance 

costs should have been lowered and list coverage improved.

However, the SSEL concept could not be pursued for 

agriculture since it was determined that the special 

provisions that allowed the Census Bureau to receive 

names and addresses of farm income tax fi lers from 

the Internal Revenue Service would prevent the Bureau from sharing any lists with SRS. If SRS was to 

improve its lists of farm operators—and thereby improve its multiple frame surveys—it must develop its 

own procedures.

Th e list sampling frame concept went well beyond 

just an improved list of farm operator names. An 

effi cient list sampling frame would be complete, 

have detailed and correct contact information such 

as address and telephone numbers, and have up-todate information on commodities being produced 

and size of production. Operation size information 

would be especially important. With such a frame, 

eff ective stratifi cation could be used to select effi cient 

surveys for specifi c purposes, as well as to provide 

good coverage for multi-purpose surveys. It would 

be the perfect partner, in conjunction with the SRS

Chapter 4: A Leadership Change in the Late 1970s
34

area frame, to create top-quality multiple frame 

estimates. 

Th e February 1975 SRS National Conference themed 

“Maintaining Statistics with Integrity” introduced 

the SRS list sampling frame (LSF) approach. One 

presentation discussed the model to be used to create an unduplicated list. Th e underlying record linkage theory had been created by I.P. Fellegi and A.B. 

Sunter of Statistics Canada and had been published 

in the Journal of the American Statistical Association 

in 1969—but had not been used operationally for 

as challenging an application as the SRS LSF. Funding for developing the LSF was included in the FY 

1976 budget submission, and new funding of nearly 

$1.23 million ($4.36 million in 2007 dollars) was 

received.

Th ere were a number of greater problems in creating 

a top-quality farm operators list frame, compared 

to creating a list frame for other types of businesses. 

Many farms did not have a name, and ones that did 

often conducted business using individual names. 

Many farm business transactions were relatively informal; companies dealing with farmers might keep 

records under nicknames instead of given names 

used for farm programs and other formal purposes. 

Many farms were family operations where transactions might take place under various family members’ names. Many individuals on farm program lists 

were farm owners instead of active farm operators. In 

addition to these problems, many lists that contained 

farm operators were being kept in relatively informal 

fashions and in many diff erent formats. Another diffi culty for SRS was that many fi eld offi ce lists were 

maintained on State-owned computer systems and 

needed to be converted.

A fully integrated system of software programs and 

subsystems was needed, but there were few commercially available programs. (SRS was able to acquire a 

version of Soundex software that was used by law enforcement agencies to help match names that might 

have been misspelled.) Th us, many agency programmers were added to the eff ort along with mathematical statisticians working on specifi cations of each 

subsystem and agricultural statisticians preparing 

instruction manuals and helping fi eld offi ces with 

research, testing, and implementation.

List Sampling Frame Development

Th e initial subsystem standardized names and addresses within each list source and classifi ed each 

record as individual, partnership, or other (mainly 

corporate). Th e next major subsystem was record 

linkage, which used the agreement and disagreement 

of name and address information in the records to 

create linkage groups that should have referred to the 

same record. Agreement/disagreement weights were 

the key to the entire approach and would be set for 

each State based on a detailed analysis of input list 

samples. For example, two similar records from the 

same town would not get much agreement weight if 

each was listed just as RFD or RR1. However, if they 

had diff ering mailbox numbers, they would have a 

high disagreement weight. Once all list sources for 

a State were standardized and run through record 

linkage, manual resolution was used to determine if 

all records in a linkage group did actually relate to 

the same person (or operation), and if the automated-resolution computer programs had created the 

best name and address. A separate program matched 

records specifi cally on address to identify names that 

appeared to be diff erent, but were likely related to 

the same operation. 

In addition to the necessary features needed to build 

a list frame, additional subsystems were needed for 

overlap/non-overlap checking, sample select, mailing, maintenance, and others. Th ose routines were 

to have enhanced features, such as improved stratifi -

cation capabilities, and the possibility of using a response-burden index during sampling to reduce the 

numbers of surveys for which an operation would be 

contacted. Work on all aspects of the total system was 

progressing at one time because it was hoped that the 

early programs could be written and tested in relative short periods of time.

South Carolina was the LSF test bed. An extremely 

wide collection of possible list sources was identifi ed 

and acquired. Th ese included rural electric poweruser mailing lists, State commodity association lists, 

marketing program lists, a Farm Program tobacco 

list, County Extension agents’ lists, and all existing South Carolina fi eld offi ce mailing lists. Nearly 

200,000 mail records were used as input at a time 

when South Carolina was estimating 47,000 farms. 

One conclusion from the South Carolina experience 

was that using so many marginal list sources created 

excessive workload for little or no benefi t.
35

Much of the September 1976 National Conference 

was devoted to detailed explanations of the list sampling frame system and plans. Some contractors had 

been brought in to help with the programming effort. At the time, it was projected that most list-build 

routines would soon be fi nished and an interim update system would be available within a year. However, the contract programmers were not eff ective, 

and additional agency staff members were added. 

Programming and testing of nearly every subsystem 

took much longer than expected due to complexity 

challenges, and most schedules for fi eld offi ce operations were missed. 

Frustrations grew during 1977, and an intensive review session was held in February 1978 to re-evaluate plans and consider alternatives. During that session, it was recommended that nonessential features 

of the system should be dropped or postponed for 

future consideration. Following the review session, 

Administrator Kibler announced the formation of a 

temporary agency unit, named the List Frame Project Team (LFPT), to fi nish the LSF. Few personnel 

assignment changes were made, but all Survey Division and Research Division employees working 

on the system were now assigned to the same team 

and not reporting to diff erent supervisors. Since the 

South Agriculture Building area frame construction 

and maintenance staff had recently been relocated 

to Fairfax, VA, there was space to co-locate all LFPT 

members in the same area. Formerly, the mathematical statistician designers and the agricultural statisticians assisting the fi eld offi ces were located three 

fl oors away from the data programmers and system 

analysts.

Th e most important LFPT adjustment was having 

the key specifi cations designer and the main programming supervisor share the same physical offi ce. 

Th e timelag in getting these two individuals together 

whenever a new idea or problem arose was now eliminated. Th ey also now had the responsibility—and 

authority—to make fi nal decisions.

Th e LFPT approach was quite successful in encouraging improved communications within the team 

and with fi eld offi ces. Th e team was soon able to 

have the resolution subsystem outputs ready for fi eld 

offi ce action and to reschedule fi eld offi ce training 

sessions. Additional thinking solved some technical problems, such as creating an aff ordable crossmatching of individual type records with partnership and other records. Th e LFPT was dissolved in 

early December 1979, and all members returned to 

their operational unit positions. 

U.S. Agriculture, Circa 1977 

One illustration of how U.S. agriculture had changed 

by the mid-1970s occurred in 1975 when milk production, egg production, and farm labor and wage 

rates questions were removed from the monthly farm 

report survey. Milk and egg questions had been asked 

since the late 1920s, and labor questions started in 

the 1930s. During those eras, most U.S. farms produced much of their own food and needed considerable human power (family supplied or other) to operate a farm. As agriculture changed with fewer and 

larger farms, more mechanization, and specialization 

of commodities produced, the nonprobability farm 

report survey was no longer an eff ective vehicle for 

these questions. Th us, the farm report survey now 

had no standard monthly questions, but it focused 

on crop production, grain stocks, and special oncea-year questions.

Th e rate of decline in total numbers of farms slowed 

somewhat between 1967 and 1977. Th ere were nearly 2.46 million farms in 1977, down 705,900 farms 

or 22.3 percent from 1967. During that same period, the numbers of hog farms dropped almost 40 

percent, sheep farms dropped 50 percent, and cattle 

farms fell nearly 25 percent. However, the total numbers of both hogs and cattle on farms increased during those years. Th e number of farms with at least 

one dairy cow decreased less than 5 percent during 

the period. Th e total number of dairy cows on farms 

did decline by nearly 25 percent, but milk produced 

(per cow) increased by about a third, so milk production remained almost constant.

In the 1970s, most feed companies left the broiler 

contracting industry, but poultry processing plants 

were increasingly taking over ownership of the birds. 

Th is concept, referred to as vertical integration, 

ensured the processors steady supplies of broilers. 

Farmers were paid on a contract basis, with specifi c 

provisions based on weight gains and survivability of 

the birds that were placed on their farms. Some processors also were acquiring feed mills and hatcheries, 

in order to integrate the whole process from birth to 

slaughter. 
36

Table 5. Per Capita Consumption of Meat, Poultry, 

 and Fish, United States 1977 

 

Total Population 220,239,000 

 

Category Total Percent

 Consumption of Total

 (Pounds/person) 

 

 Beef 91.5 44.2

 Veal 3.2 1.5

 Lamb 1.5 0.7

 Pork 46.7 22.6

 Chicken 42.7 20.6

 Turkey 8.7 4.2

 Total Fish 12.6 6.1

 

Total Meat, Poultry & Fish 206.9 100.0

Table 5 indicates that 1977 per capita consumption 

of beef was 91.5 pounds, up more than 14 percent 

from 1967. Beef supplies were at a record high in 

1976, and per capita consumption of beef peaked 

at 94.1 pounds in that year. Chicken consumption 

in 1977 was 42.7 pounds per person, up 16 percent 

from 1977. Pork consumption in 1977 was 46.7 

pounds, down 8.3 pounds, or 15 percent, from 1967. 

Lamb consumption per person continued its decline 

in the 1970s, dropping to 1.5 pounds per person. 

Veal per capita consumption in 1977, at 3.2 pounds, 

was nearly the same as in 1967, but it would quickly 

drop after 1977. Turkey per capita consumption in 

1977 (8.7 pounds) was the same as in 1967, but fi sh 

consumption was up 2 pounds to 12.6 pounds.

In general, crop yields continued their steady increase 

from the late 1960s to the late 1970s. Average corn 

yields for 1975–1979 were 94.1 bushels per acre, up 

15.6 bushels (or 20 percent) from 1965–1969. Average acreage of corn harvested was also up about 

25 percent to more than 71 million acres. Th e comparable yield increases for soybeans and all wheat, 

respectively, were 3.7 bushels (14 percent) and 4.6 

bushels (16 percent). Average acres of soybeans harvested increased more than 50 percent during the 

period to an average of 59 million acres—and a record of more than 70 million acres in 1979. Average 

acreage harvested of all wheat in 1975–1979 (at 46.3 

million acres) returned to the approximate levels of 

the early 1950s, and they were up 6.4 million acres 

(16 percent) from 10 years earlier. Th e average yield 

of all cotton per acre was essentially unchanged between the two periods, but the acreage harvested did 

increase 11 percent.

In 1977, about 30 percent of the corn utilized was 

being exported. A new use for corn in the 1970s was 

the production of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). 

Th is thick liquid made from corn starch tasted sweeter than refi ned sugar, so smaller amounts could be 

used compared to sugar. It was also easier to blend 

into beverages than sugar. A specifi c total of the corn 

used for HFCS was not found for 1977, but 165 million bushels of corn were used in 1980.

Prices received by farmers increased rapidly from 

1970 to 1974, then leveled off before increasing 

again in 1978. In 1977, the cash receipts to farmers 

from crops were slightly higher than from livestock 

and livestock products ($48.6 billion vs. $47.6 billion), a reverse from the usual relationship. Because 

of the higher crop yields, proportional marketings of 

feed grains, oil-bearing crops, and food grains were 

all higher than 10 years earlier. Fruit and nursery 

cash receipts made up slightly higher percentages of 

the total cash receipts than 10 years earlier.

Table 6. Cash Receipts from Farm Marketings, by

 Commodity Groups, United States 1977 

Category Total Percent

 Cash Receipts of Total

 (Million dollars) 

 

All Cash Receipts 96,235 100.0

 

Total Crops 48,600 50.5

 

 Food Grains 6,055 6.3

 Feed Grains 11,906 12.4

 Cotton 3,470 3.6

 Oil-bearing Crops 9,722 10.1

 Tobacco 2,331 2.4

 Fruits and Tree Nuts 4,603 4.8

 Vegetables 5,609 5.8

 Nursery, Greenhouse, Flowers 2,251 2.3

 Other Crops 2,652 2.8

 [table continues on next page]
37

Total Livestock and Products 47,635 49.5

 

 Cattle and Calves 20,225 21.0

 Hogs and Pigs 7,281 7.6

 Sheep and Lambs 386 0.4

 Dairy Products 11,752 12.2

 Eggs 2,919 3.0

 Broilers and Farm Chickens 3,235 3.4

 Turkeys and Other Poultry 1,059 1.1

 Wool 77 0.1

 Other Livestock and Products 700 0.7

Th e average value of U.S. farmland in 1977 was $474 

per acre, more than double the $168 for 1967. In 

2007 dollars, the value was $1,583, which represented a 50-percent increase from 1967 and a higher 

fi gure than those for 1987 and 1997. Average farmland value from 1967 to 1977 in California increased 

only about 50 percent, but average values in Illinois, 

Indiana, and Iowa more than tripled. Average values 

in the Plains States were up about 2.5 times the 1967 

averages.

Estimating Program Additions in the Mid- to Late 

1970s

One government-wide emphasis in the mid-1970s 

was “metrifi cation.” Because of added interest in international trade, government agencies were to prepare for possible conversion to metric units or the 

necessity of providing information in both metric 

and English units. SRS responded by adding metricconverted data summary tables to its “Crop Production” reports. No questionnaire or data collection 

procedure changes were made. Th e philosophy was 

that questions about metric units would only be 

added if American agriculture started conducting 

domestic trading in metric units.

Th e wheat marketing year was changed to begin 

June 1 instead of July 1, in order to better measure 

changes occurring in harvest and marketing practices. With the change in wheat, all other grain and 

soybean stocks reports were changed from July 1 to 

June 1. 

Th e farm labor surveys were changed to a probability 

basis in the mid-1970s. Broad nonprobability surveys were not eff ective when so few farms were actually hiring labor most months of the year.

In 1975, the white corn program was expanded by 

adding an acreage and production survey in the 12 

estimating States. However, two years later, Congress 

withdrew the annual white corn and mink funding. 

Within three years, Congress again provided funding 

for mink statistics.

A signifi cant portion of the SRS total budget each 

year came from reimbursements from other organizations (mostly Federal agencies and State cooperators). Around 1970, reimbursements (excluding work done by the WDPC) exceeded $3 million 

and added nearly 19 percent to the agency budget. 

By 1979, reimbursements exceeded $5 million and 

added 14.4 percent to the total budget. One important ongoing reimbursements source was funding of 

county estimates by the USDA Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and the Agricultural Stabilization 

and Conservation Service, which needed the estimates to administer their programs.

Another important source of reimbursable funding 

was ERS. Some 1970s ERS funding was for fertilizer 

practices, cropland use, and farm population numbers. In the late 1970s, funding came from ERS for 

cost of production surveys (of specifi c commodities) 

mandated by Congress. In addition, ERS sponsored 

and funded a number of special and one-time data 

collection eff orts, such as a survey in the late 1970s 

on the extent of farmers’ direct marketing practices. 

Because of the wide variety of survey and analysis efforts for ERS and its status as a sister agency, both 

agencies established data coordinator positions. Th is 

change improved communications about defi nite 

and possible upcoming projects, and led to better 

survey planning and execution.

Th e increased numbers of requested surveys for ERS 

and other organizations led to a reorganization of 

the Data Collection Branch. A new Economic and 

Special Surveys Section was created with responsibility for the annual farm production expenditure survey (FPES) and cost of production surveys, as well to 

take the lead in most new survey requests. Th e mail 

surveys and objective yield sections were combined. 

Th e enumerative surveys section now concentrated 

on all SRS surveys involving enumeration, except for 

FPES. 
38

Crop Reporting Board Improvements

Th e Crop Reporting Board (CRB) had been known, 

since its inception in 1905, for its strict attention to 

security and for providing equal access to all users of 

published information. It also continually examined 

its procedures for possible improvements.

Once the June and December Enumerative Surveys 

became operational, the CRB adopted a nationalboard approach for major crop acreages, yield, and 

production estimates, as well as for cattle and hog 

inventory reports. Because the probability surveys 

were selected separately by State, there was no between-States sampling variance component when 

summarizing expansions to regional or national levels. Th us, State sampling variances were additive and, 

when divided by the national expanded totals, sampling errors were often in the order of 1 or 2 percent. 

State sampling errors for most of the major States 

might be on the order of 2–4 percent and higher for 

other States.

In a national-board approach for crop-planted acreage, the national indications are presented along 

with the sum of the State recommendations. CRB 

members then concentrate on reviewing the current, indicated level and performance of the surveys 

in past years compared with end-of-season revisions, 

and a tentative national (or regional) recommended 

total is set. If there is a large discrepancy between 

the national target and State recommendations, the 

entire board might review comments from the States 

that seem to be contributing to the diff erence. If not, 

a subset of CRB members closely reviews the indications and recommendations from each State offi ce. 

Once the review of the State indications and the setting of a total for each State are fi nished, the new 

summed total should be within rounding of the target; that summed total becomes the estimate to publish.

Th e national-board approach has performed quite 

well for the agency. Even in the case of severe droughts, 

fl ooding, or other unusual conditions, having a standard, disciplined approach provides a helpful starting point for reviewing the new information.

In the mid-1970s, an important change in CRB 

analysis procedures was made. Past analyses were 

mainly based on linear regression of indications on 

fi nal estimates. Th e change was shifting to a time 

series-based approach. Th ere had been a number of 

concerns with reliance on the regression approach. 

If past indications had not shown much variation, 

regression tended to provide estimates that were always close to the average. If there had been an extremely unusual year in the data set, it likely had too 

much infl uence and distorted future regression indications. Another time-series benefi t was improved 

crop-breeding technology, which meant that yields 

were constantly improving for the same crop-condition appearance levels. 

Most textbook time-series procedures preferred to 

have at least 30 time periods of observation. However, since crop yields, milk per cow, and other factors 

were changing so rapidly in U.S. agriculture, timeseries analysis for SRS usually meant a review of the 

past 10 years (or 10-20 quarters, in the case of hog 

and pig estimates). 

Th e time-series approach was particularly helpful for 

setting crop yield forecasts. Farmer responses early in 

the growing season were known to be quite conservative, with the level of conservatism declining as the 

harvest neared. Th us, the hope (and reality) was that 

farmer reporters were consistently conservative from 

year to year.

A more visible CRB improvement occurred in 1977 

when a feature referred to as the root mean square 

error (RMSE) was added to report summary tables. 

Th e RMSE calculates the diff erence between past 

forecasts or estimates (such as the August 1 U.S. corn 

yield forecast) and the fi nal estimate (such as the 

end-of-season corn yield estimate, after revisions a 

year later). Th ose diff erences are squared, summed 

to a total, and divided by the number of years in the 

data set. Th e square root of this calculation becomes 

the RMSE. Presenting the RMSE provided an answer 

to data users who wanted to know how a particular 

data series had performed in the past. For additional 

information, an accompanying table was usually included, which summarized the average change from 

the forecast to fi nal, the largest and smallest past 

changes, and the number of times a forecast had 

been below and above the fi nal.

Project B Breakthroughs

Most of the funding, research, and new innovation 

following the introduction of the 1957 Long-Range 

Plan through the mid-1970s was devoted to Project 
39

A (Introduction of Enumerative and Objective Yield 

Procedures). Signifi cant progress was also made on 

Project C goals to improve data communications 

between headquarters and State offi ces and to provide CRB reports to State offi ces within minutes of 

release. Th e new enumerative and objective yield surveys in place also provided excellent approaches for 

quickly responding to adverse weather impacts, as 

called for under Project C. Quite a variety of new estimating programs, such as for farm labor, had been 

established as specifi ed under Project D. At the 1975 

SRS National Conference, one speaker referenced 34 

Project D data needs that had been identifi ed during 

a 1963 review of the 1957 Plan. Th ose data needs 

had been placed in four priority groups, from highest to lowest. By 1975, 12 of the 34 priority items 

had been essentially satisfi ed and four were now high 

priority. It was suggested that eight of the original 34 

should be retained at a lower priority level, and 10 

might be deleted.

However, in the fi rst 15 years after the 1957 plan, 

little was accomplished toward the major Project 

B goals of improving the prices paid and prices received programs. Some early research on using enumerators was done in Ohio in the late 1950s, and 

the farm production expenditure survey was tested 

and implemented in the early 1970s, but little work 

was done on improving the methods used for prices 

paid and received. At the same time, SRS-published 

price estimates were being used for the administration of many Federal Government programs such as 

the milk price program and target price programs 

for cotton, soybeans, and grain crops.

Starting in late 1974, a probability survey of cotton 

buyers was tested, and operational surveys for cotton 

and rice were started in 1976. Funding of $310,000 

(a little more than $1.10 million in 2007 dollars) 

was received in FY 1977; $500,000 (more than $1.55 

million in 2007 value) in FY 1978; more than $1.16 

million (nearly $3.24 million in 2007 terms) in FY 

1979; $800,000 (almost $1.97 million in 2007 value) 

in FY 1980; and $341,000 ($759,000 in 2007 terms) 

in FY 1981. Th e new funding covered probability 

grain price and probability livestock price surveys, 

special point of sales surveys (to create better weights 

for probability surveys), and improvements in prices 

paid surveys.

Th e probability grain price survey concept was quite 

simple. Major purchasers of grain directly from farmers, such as local rural elevators and soybean crushers, were identifi ed and stratifi ed by size and type of 

operation. Samples were selected in each strata and 

each operation was asked to report monthly on the 

amount of grain purchased from farmers, and the 

total dollars paid. Since both the grain amount and 

dollars were expanded by the inverse of the sampling 

fractions, the resultant total expansion provided an 

average price weighted by volume. Sampling errors 

of the calculated averages were often less than one 

percent of the calculated price. Th e new grain price 

survey meant that one third of U.S. cash receipts from 

farming were now collected on a probability basis.

Th e concept was simple, but because dealings between farmers and rural elevators often involved 

storage of grain, drying, and other arrangements, it 

was essential to determine the actual price for just 

the grain. Each selected sample operation was visited 

to explain the program and to discuss proper handling of items, such as drying and storage costs.

Th e original 1957 Plan concept of collecting most 

price information through the use of enumerators 

was abandoned. However, enumerators were used 

for collection of some data, such as sales at selected 

livestock auction markets when no summaries were 

available, and it was necessary to copy specifi c records.

Other signifi cant prices work was also progressing 

during the same period. SRS worked closely with 

agricultural price experts at the University of Minnesota to review all price indices and update them to 

a 1971–73 base period. As part of that review, some 

minor prices received estimates were discontinued, 

and States that had very minor levels of production 

and sales were dropped from the monthly prices received estimating program. In total, the number of 

monthly State estimates was reduced from 1,178 to 

787.

Another signifi cant prices program change was implemented in 1977. SRS had traditionally conducted 

a number of family-living surveys, such as the prices 

farmers paid for food and clothing. Analyses of those 

price levels in the 1970s indicated that the levels and 

shifts in prices for farm families were now similar 

to all U.S. families. Th us, the decision was made to 

discontinue the SRS surveys and use the appropriate 

Consumer Price Index (CPI) sub-indices for calculating indices of farmers prices paid.
40

Remote Sensing Research in the Mid- to Late 1970s

Th e early CRD studies in four States, which matched 

SRS ground data from June Enumerative Survey segments with satellite data, were quite encouraging. 

Improvements were quickly made in the procedures 

for digitizing fi eld boundaries and handling such 

large data fi les. A joint agreement was written with 

the University of Illinois Center for Advanced Computation (CAC) to design and enhance a software 

system to process such large fi les. Various alternatives were considered for processing the satellite data 

fi les. Initially, computers at CAC were used. Th en, 

larger computers at the Bolt, Beranek, and Newman 

Data Processing Center (BBN) in Cambridge, MA, 

were employed. Finally, even larger supercomputers 

at the NASA-Ames facility in California were used. 

Both the BBN and NASA-Ames computers were accessed through the ARPANET, which was the original version of the present Internet. 

Th e SRS approach for making land cover type and 

crop acreage estimates from satellite data was not 

based on classifying whole fi elds correctly. Instead, 

all satellite data pixels (with each pixel representing 

the refl ectance reading of a ground area of 60 by 80 

meters in size for the fi rst satellites) falling within the 

boundaries of a June Enumerative Survey corn fi eld 

would be classifi ed as corn. All pixels within each 

segment used for training would be labeled in the 

same fashion. Th e multivariate data routines being 

used would then determine various clusters of energy 

readings in 4-dimensional space; energy refl ectance 

readings in 4 wavelengths were collected for the sensors aboard the early satellites, which was increased 

to 7 wavelengths for advanced sensors on some 

later satellites, which corresponded to each crop or 

fi eld type. Once clustering of the training samples 

was completed, all satellite pixels within all counties wholly contained in the same data pass would 

be classifi ed. A regression estimation approach was 

used to form acreage estimates for each crop type, 

which were based on the relative percentages of pixels of each type in the whole population relative to 

the training data. 

A major 1975 research project was the collection and 

classifi cation of satellite data for the entire State of 

Illinois. Th e Illinois State statistical offi ce was extremely interested in the project, and it added to 

the eff ort by developing data processing programs 

that captured fi eld-level data (normally only tractlevel fi eld data were keypunched) during the June 

Enumerative Survey. Th is was so forms could be 

automatically printed for follow-up visits to verify 

original crop data before training the satellite data 

classifi er. 

Th e Illinois experiment was quite successful. Satellite data with acceptably low cloud-cover levels and 

close-to-optimum crop progress dates were acquired 

for all but two counties. State-level estimates of acreages for all crop types could still be created by using 

the June Enumerative Survey data relationships for 

the missing counties.

As SRS had expected, satellite data could not replace 

the existing data series based on sample surveys. For 

example, data users expected planted acreage estimates by early July at the latest, and the fi rst yield 

forecasts for major crops by about August 10. Remote sensing studies indicated that the optimum 

time for satellite acquisition of corn versus soybeans 

diff erentiation data in the Midwest States was late 

August. Th ere still would be lag time as satellite data 

were acquired, registered against the ground training data, and run through the training and clustering routines to form estimates. Th us, satellite data 

could not match the timing of the existing statistical reports, but the tremendous information value of 

collecting data for entire States could likely be used 

to improve major crop acreage estimates by the end 

of the crop-season estimating cycle. Th e relative effi ciencies calculated by dividing the June Enumerative Survey sampling error estimate by the regression 

estimator sampling error) of using the satellite data 

in the 1975 Illinois study in most analysis districts 

were about 3.0. Achieving the same improvement in 

precision of the acreage estimates by using conventional survey procedures would require nine times 

(3.0 squared) as many resources to hire enumerators, 

collect data, and create estimates from ground-based 

surveys. 

Th e Illinois pilot research project took nearly two 

years to complete. To determine if satellite data 

could be obtained and processed in time for fi nal 

end-of-season estimates to be published in early 

January, a full State study was conducted in Iowa in 

1978. Estimates of major crop acreages were created 

and available to the Iowa State statistical offi ce and 

the CRB in time for the “Annual Crop Production 

Report.” Improvements in data handling and other 

procedures between 1975 and 1978 meant that the 
41

Iowa pilot study cost only 40 percent of the Illinois 

research eff ort conducted three years earlier.

Th ere was another benefi t from the remote sensing 

research that aided ongoing procedures. Improvements in digitization equipment and software that 

aided the satellite interpretation eff orts were used to 

digitize area frame land-use strata and primary sampling-unit boundaries starting in 1979. Doing so 

resulted in more accurate and cost-effi cient measurements, and the storage of critical materials on computer fi les, as well as paper.

Other Research Eff orts in the Mid- to Late 1970s 

As multiple frame survey procedures became the norm 

for major data series, there were many continuing research eff orts to study and minimize non-sampling 

errors. Re-interview surveys were commonly used to 

verify original survey responses on enumerative surveys. Th ese commonly showed that the respondent 

was often the major source of nonsampling errors. If 

the primary farm operator was not available during 

the survey interview, another family member or farm 

employee might answer the questions. Th is alternate 

respondent might know most information for crops 

and land use within the segment, but did not have 

complete information on the total farm size, livestock breakouts, and other details. Th ere normally 

were not many diff erences in the answers given by 

the primary respondent at both the time of the initial 

survey and on a re-interview survey.

A special type of re-interview survey involved intensive review of the procedures and rules used for determining if list frame names were overlapping with 

the operations contacted on the current area frame 

survey. Studies showed that even small changes in 

the instructions or the rules for determining overlap 

could change the resulting estimates more than the 

sampling errors of the original estimates. Th is led to 

even more rigor used for defi ning overlap/non-overlap procedures. 

A related line of research was how to handle overlap 

determinations when a person contacted in the area 

frame was involved in a partnership operation. Th e 

issue was complicated because some individuals did 

have separate individual farming operations, as well 

as involvement in partnership arrangements. Study 

of many operating arrangements led to the decision 

to consider a partnership as overlap with the area 

frame if any of the partners were in the area frame 

survey.

Several techniques were tried in eff orts to reduce nonsampling errors. Original June Enumerative Survey 

questionnaires contained all possible questions, and 

enumerators needed to follow somewhat-complicated skip instructions for items that did not apply to a 

particular respondent, such as a nonresident operator. A later approach was to have supplies of separate 

questionnaires for resident, nonresident, and nonoverlap operators, along with a screening form used 

to direct the enumerator to the correct form. An even 

later approach was to use only one questionnaire version to improve the internal coding.

For more effi ciency, programs were written to capture all area frame tracts in one master fi le, which 

could be used for sample selections and to create expansion factors. Various methods of imputation for 

missing tracts or missing items were tested. It was 

quickly found that imputation was greatly improved 

by having enumerators indicate the presence or absence of various crops and livestock species for tracts 

that were refusals, or for which no respondent could 

be found. If livestock presence was noted, imputation 

would be based on the average livestock numbers for 

that species in the survey, rather than the average of 

all reports, which would include zeroes. 

Another key methodological study aspect was how 

to handle new information received on follow-on 

surveys. Incorporating all corrections for previously 

missing or incorrect information could greatly alter 

expansion weights and new survey expansions. Testing indicated that the most prudent approach was to 

freeze the original sampling rates, and the tract and 

farm acres, during an estimation cycle.

Additional research was devoted to area frame sample-selection alternatives. Starting in 1974, replicated sampling was used for all samples. Th is meant 

a number of independent subsamples or replicates 

were selected instead of one fi xed-sized sample. Selecting the replicates provided benefi ts such as allowing for simpler rotation schemes, providing 

fl exibility to quickly increase total sample size, and 

providing information to determine within land-use 

stratum-sampling variances. Study also went into determining the most effi cient approach for arraying 

primary sampling units within land-use strata before sample selection. Th e fi nal approach was to cre-
42

ate paper strata, rather than using a strict ordering 

scheme for each sample selection. Use of the paper 

strata led to interpenetrating samples, which again 

provided minimum estimation variance.

New Technology in the Mid- to Late 1970s

In addition to the remote sensing research and the 

list sampling frame (LSF) development eff orts, there 

were many other initiatives to improve the use of 

data processing technology in the mid-1970s. Several of these had goals of improving transmission of 

fi les and creating more effi cient estimates and reports 

with fewer chances for errors.

In 1974, the SRS data system was designed with the 

major component being the offi cial estimates database (OEDB). Besides the estimates, the OEDB was 

to contain survey data and indications. It would 

have diff erent levels of access, as it could be used 

by agency personnel for creating new estimates and 

forecasts. However, public users could only access 

the published estimates. It was hoped that use of the 

new data-system approach would allow electronic 

transmission from and to State statistical offi ces, and 

replace reliance on the U.S. Postal Service (USPS).

In 1977, the June Enumerative Survey was processed 

on INFONET for the fi rst time—the last major project to be moved from the old WDPC. Some major 

reports were now available through INFONET. 

Training in the Late 1970s

In 1977, a new ADP training plan was issued. Agricultural and mathematical statisticians could apply 

for specifi c training to become qualifi ed as ADP statisticians, and they could be considered for positions 

throughout the agency. Support staff could be selected for upward-mobility ADP training for positions 

in their present fi eld offi ce.

Th e annual training calendar in the late 1970s provided for national or regional June Enumerative Survey training schools each year, along with objective 

yield survey schools for wheat and a combined corn, 

soybeans, and cotton school. Th e latter school was 

held in a southern location each year that had fi elds 

of all three crops available for fi eld practice. All State 

survey coordinators were trained regardless of how 

many years they had already attended those same 

training schools. 

By the late 1970s, a program of new statistician orientation programs was in place. New professional 

employees were brought to headquarters when they 

had at least six months agency experience. Th ese sessions were held whenever there were enough new employees to form two groups of 20 or so participants. 

Employees spent the week learning more about agency history and structure, receiving briefi ngs on the 

headquarters units’ functions, and participating in 

a question-and-answer session meeting with agency 

managers.

A diff erent type of training program was started 

around 1974—a live presentation on the SRS program and procedures. It was dubbed the “Road 

Show,” and it usually involved the administrator and 

two or three agency offi cials, including the statistician in charge of the State where a session was being 

held. A large number of 35mm slides had been prepared, which illustrated the agency’s history, organizational structure, and policies. Security in handling 

individually reported data and the release of information to everyone at the same time were always 

stressed.

International Assistance in the 1970s

Th e increasing interest in improving agricultural 

statistics around the world led to more coordination 

of SRS assistance eff orts in the 1970s. Several books 

for use in international assistance were written, and 

some were translated into Spanish. Th ose included 

“Expected Value of a Sample Estimate,” “Area Frame 

Sampling in Agriculture,” and “A Training Course 

in Sampling Concepts for Agricultural Surveys.” 

Many foreign visitors visited SRS offi ces for training in Washington, DC, and often visited State fi eld 

offi ces. SRS also had a cooperative training program 

with the Bureau of the Census International Statistical Program Center. One SRS employee was detailed 

to that center, and other staff members participated 

in teaching fi ve courses.

Th e in-country emphasis on training largely shifted 

to providing assistance on a temporary duty (TDY) 

basis in the 1970s. However, resident assignments 

continued in some countries such as Afghanistan, 

Liberia, Paraguay, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, 

and Saudi Arabia.
43

When a TDY approach was used, the team usually 

started with a mathematical statistician and a sampling frame technician. Teams often found that it was 

easier to get meetings scheduled and activities started 

when they were in the country for only specifi c periods, in contrast to when a person was stationed full 

time and country counterparts did not feel a need to 

rush. If a TDY project got off to a good start, team 

personnel would change as help was needed on questionnaires, manuals, and supervision. In some cases, 

a TDY approach was used following an earlier resident assignment.

TDY projects in the early and mid-1970s included 

work in Bolivia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, 

Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Th ailand, and Tunisia. Th e 

Jamaica area frame project resulted in an unusual 

construction sidelight. Area frame construction in 

the United States normally started by creating primary sampling units (PSUs), which contained about 

10 possible segments. Normal sampling rates were 

about 1 in 150 segments, so only every 15 PSUs 

would need to be divided into actual segments. 

When the Jamaica project was conducted, the U.S. 

PSU size was used, but it turned out that the optimum segment sampling rate was 1 in 10, so all PSUs 

had to be divided.

In 1979, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) started funding the Remote Sensing 

for Agriculture Program, which led to projects in a 

number of countries. Th e SRS approach was that 

four stages of development were needed to build an 

agricultural statistics system. First was area frame 

construction, followed by data collection, analysis, 

and summarization. If the country moved through 

the fi rst two stages, computerized classifi cation of 

agricultural areas using remote sensing data would 

be added. Th e fi nal stage was the development of 

agricultural crop yield models, including the use of 

weather data.

Staffi ng in the 1970s

By 1975, about 10 percent of SRS professional staff 

members were mathematical statisticians, which 

was largely due to the full-time Math/Stat training 

program and direct hires. Th ere was also a marked 

need for experienced data processing specialists, so 

13 staff members were hired from a Department of 

Defense (DOD) location in Ohio that was closing 

down and from the USDA Agricultural Stabilization 

and Conservation Service (ASCS). 

An emphasis on hiring minority agricultural statisticians for fi eld offi ces began in 1965. In 1973, an SRS 

employee was stationed at Tennessee State University 

in a cooperative eff ort to broaden that institution’s 

mathematics and statistics off erings, with the goal 

of developing minority graduates qualifi ed for SRS 

statistician positions. 

Th e fi rst professional women staff members for fi eld 

offi ces were hired in the late 1960s. By 1975, at least 

25 women were in professional statistician or data 

processing positions in the fi eld offi ces, and a number of women had been hired as mathematical statisticians for headquarters positions.

A summary in 1979 showed that the agency had 

406 agricultural statisticians on board, including 

14 women and 23 minority employees. At the same 

time, eight of the 68 mathematical statisticians were 

women, and two were minorities.

By the end of the 1970s, all of the State statisticians 

from 1961 (the year SRS was founded) had retired or 

moved to other positions. One development unforeseen in 1961 was that some individuals completing 

the Math/Stat full-time training program in order to 

strengthen the agency’s research and methodology 

capabilities had become State statisticians or deputy 

State statisticians.

Adjusting to a New Organization Structure

In 1977, Secretary of Agriculture Bob Bergland wanted to reduce the number of agencies that reported to 

his offi ce, and he announced a USDA reorganization. 

Many existing agencies were merged into new organizations. For example, ARS, Extension Service, and 

Cooperative States Research Service were combined 

as the Science and Education Administration (SEA). 

SRS was combined with ERS and Farmer Cooperatives Service (FCS) to form the Economics, Statistics, 

and Cooperatives Service (ESCS). Th e new organizational structure was eff ective January 1, 1978.

Th e ESCS structure led to new titles with the agency 

administrators becoming deputy administrators who 

reported to the ESCS administrator (a former ERS 

administrator). However, day-to-day statistical program and the State offi ce operations did not change.
One key consistency was that all statistical reports 

from headquarters were still released through the 

CRB, thus avoiding confusion to data users.

Th ere now was a sizable infrastructure at the top level of ESCS. A Program Evaluation and Development 

Staff , a large Information Staff , and an Equal Employment Opportunity Staff were all part of the ESCS 

front offi ce. One aspect of the new structure that was 

very positive was continuation and strengthening 

of the Economics Management Staff (EMS). EMS 

had been formed earlier to coordinate many of the 

personnel, budget submission, and other necessary 

administrative duties for SRS and ERS. By having a 

larger size and serving more than one agency, EMS 

was able to attract more highly trained staff members 

and to develop backup procedures when staff members left or were promoted.

From the start, there was considerable feeling that 

the cooperatives function did not logically fi t within 

ESCS. In 1980, the cooperatives function was removed, and the agency was now known as the Economics and Statistics Service (ESS).

In 1981, ESS was disbanded, and ERS and SRS were 

once again designated as individual agencies reporting to the Assistant Secretary for Economics. Th e 

EMS organization continued to provide management services to the two agencies and the Assistant 

Secretary.

44
45

 PROLOGUE

Improvements to the prices received and prices paid 

programs in the mid- to late 1970s essentially completed work on the 1957 Long-Range Plan. At least 

as early as 1976, at the fi rst SRS National Conference 

after Dr. Trelogan retired as administrator, there was 

interest expressed in creating a new long-range plan. 

At that conference, Deputy Administrator Bruce 

Graham outlined the benefi ts of a long-range plan, 

recounted the agency’s strengths, enumerated current problems facing the agency, and listed alternative activities that might be appropriate for the SRS 

of the future.

One key benefi t highlighted was that a formal plan 

sets a direction and provides consistency for creating 

annual plans. For example, the detailed 1957 Plan 

goals had been helpful in presenting coordinated 

funding requests to Congress. Another benefi t cited 

was that such a plan essentially marked SRS territory 

and possibly avoided duplication of eff orts within 

the statistical agencies. It was also mentioned that a 

long-range plan would be essential for setting priorities and allocating scarce resources.

SRS statisticians were described as highly competent employees who exercised informed judgment 

and creativity in handling subject matter problems. 

Agency personnel were particularly skilled in dealing with quantitative biological and economic issues. 

SRS had developed eff ective survey design, sampling, 

and data processing techniques. Th ose had been applied to collecting information for other State and 

Federal agencies’ needs as well as for the SRS estimating program. In particular, SRS was a leader in 

crop yield forecasting, international agricultural 

statistics assistance, and agricultural remote sensing 

applications. One of the agency’s greatest attributes 

was its ability to respond quickly to weather or other 

emergency situations.

Th e number one problem cited in Graham’s presentation was deteriorating response rates at a time when 

the numbers of farms were declining. Infl ation aff ecting both Federal and State cooperators’ budgets was 

another concern. A perennial weakness mentioned 

was the inability to forecast future weather and measure its potential impact on crop yields.

Th e fi rst alternate activity mentioned was the census of agriculture. Although not advocating that 

SRS seek the census, Graham pointed out that SRS 

should have a contingency plan in case Congress 

suddenly shifted the census responsibility. Because 

of the SRS remote sensing expertise, expanding to 

international agricultural statistics was suggested 

as a possible future role. New reports and services 

to better meet emerging agricultural industry needs 

was another broad area of future activities. Th e presentation ended with an interesting discussion of appropriate policy considerations should the Federal 

Government shift to requiring data users to pay for 

products.

In early 1978, the USDA Offi ce of Audit issued its 

survey results that identifi ed a large number of issues that aff ected agricultural statistics, such as the 

impact of refusals and low response rates, the exclusion of outliers, and the use of statistical judgment. 

An audit conducted about the same time by the Government Accounting Offi ce (GAO) recommended an 

outside review be conducted of SRS procedures. A 

contract was issued for a review by a small group of 

nongovernment statisticians, and a task force was established in 1980 to evaluate the fi ndings from that 

review group.

Th us, as the agency entered the 1980s, the climate 

was right to create a new long-range plan and set 

new directions for the agency. As it turned out, it 

was benefi cial to get an early start because the 1980s 

presented a number of budget and weather-related 

challenges.

Part 3: Creating and Implementing a New Long-Range Plan
46
47

Redesigning the Estimating Program Over a Weekend

Th e FY 1982 budget year was extremely challenging. 

Agency budget levels had been determined, but there 

were concerns and rumors about a possible funding 

rescission. A fi nal decision was presented to agencies 

March 5, 1982, nearly half way through the budget 

year. Th e 4-percent rescission amounted to more 

than $2 million (more than $4 million in 2007 dollars) for SRS.

Administrator Kibler and other agency offi cials had 

reviewed and evaluated all estimating program aspects in preparing earlier years’ budget submissions 

and had anticipated that rescissions might be made. 

However, most scenarios assumed that cuts and adjustments would be made at the start of a fi scal year 

and not at a time when much of the budget had already been spent.

Kibler and Estimates Division Director Don Barrowman reviewed and reshaped the agency’s estimates 

program over the weekend. Th e emphasis was on “...

maintaining timely and reliable data series judged to 

be the most important in monitoring changes in the 

agriculture sector.” Th us, many changes were made 

that individually conserved relatively small resources, instead of taking out large programs that would 

have saved more enumerator salaries and travel costs, 

but would have had critical impacts on major estimating series. Also, much of the savings would come 

from reducing hiring and not fi lling vacancies, so it 

was benefi cial to remove programs and activities that 

required considerable offi ce time. At a national program review meeting held in June 1982 to discuss 

the budget realities with all agency managers, Kibler 

pointed out that the number of permanent, full-time 

staff members had declined from 1,061 at the start 

of FY 1982 in October 1981, to 1,030 in mid-May 

1982. He expected that fi gure to drop to approximately 1,000 members by the end of September and 

to be about 990 for most of FY 1983. 

A typical budget adjustment process is to announce 

proposed changes and allow public comment before 

making fi nal changes. However, delaying changes 

meant more money would be spent and even larger 

program cuts would be needed. Th us, a press release 

was issued March 10, 1982, which specifi ed changes 

to be made immediately. All changes were announced 

as permanent—not just for the 1982 budget year—

because the reduced funding level would be the new 

base for future agency operations.

A total of 26 reports were eliminated. Some like “Floriculture Crops,” “Honey,” “Maple Syrup,” “Mink,” 

“Popcorn,” “Sheep and Lambs on Feed,” “Sugar 

Market Statistics,” “Catfi sh,” “Trout,” and eight different seed reports provided the only information for 

specifi c commodities. Other eliminated reports such 

as the weekly “Butter and American Cheese Production” and “Field Crops Production, Disposition, and 

Value” had provided additional breakouts for commodities about which some information would still 

be available.

Some data series were removed from ongoing reports. Th ose included forecasts of winter wheat yield 

and production for the following year from the December “Small Grains Report;” July 1 forecasts of 

corn, durum wheat, and other spring wheat yields; 

and estimates of 13 fresh market vegetables and six 

processing vegetables from upcoming “Vegetables” 

reports. Information that was not to be published 

would not be collected. 

Perhaps the biggest impact on most agricultural 

data users came from cutting back the frequency 

of a number of reports. Report series that changed 

from monthly to quarterly included “Cold Storage,” 

“Dairy Products,” “Livestock Slaughter,” “Milk Production,” and “Eggs, Chickens, and Turkeys.” Th e 

“Peanut Stocks and Processing Report” was changed 

from monthly to twice yearly.

Th e coverage frequency for some commodities was 

also reduced. Th ese included cranberries, tobacco, 

and peppermint and spearmint for oil.

One aspect not mentioned in the press release was 

the review and trimming of objective yield sample 

sizes to save enumeration costs. For example, cotton 

samples were reduced from 2,400 in 1981 to 1,650 

in 1982; soybean samples went from 2,400 in 1981 

to 1,765 in 1982; and 1,920 corn samples were selected in 1982, compared with 2,000 for 1981. 

Chapter 5: Developments in the 1980s
48

Th e press release emphasized that SRS would still 

publish over 300 reports annually. It also clarifi ed 

that USDA would be willing to work with commodity groups, local organizations, and State agencies to 

re-establish curtailed programs if suffi cient funding 

were provided by those groups.

Other Budget and Program Adjustments During the 

1980s

Since the rescission impacted the 1982 budget, the 

agency prepared a revised FY 1983 budget submission that would make most program changes permanent; it off ered more than $1 million in budget cuts. 

However, Congress restored more than $500,000 with 

the direction that it be used for shifting the “Cold 

Storage,” “Dairy Products,” “Livestock Slaughter,” 

“Milk Production,” and “Eggs, Chickens, and Turkeys” back to monthly series, and for restoring the 

“Mink” and “Catfi sh” reports.

Th e Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget 

and Emergency Defi cit Control Act of 1985 provided “binding constraint of Federal spending” and 

set spending caps on subsequent U.S. budgets. Th e 

FY 1986 SRS budget received a Gramm-Rudman 

reduction of nearly $2.53 million (more than $4.66 

million in 2007 dollars), in addition to an already 

imposed 0.6-percent Congressional cut of $354,000. 

Many estimating program adjustments were made 

for FY 1986, such as removing stock estimates for 

barley, oats, sorghum, sunfl ower, and rye; reducing 

the number of States covered monthly in the “Milk 

Production” and “Egg Production” reports; and reducing the number of States included in the “Weekly 

Broiler Hatchery Report.” In addition, the December Enumerative Survey was discontinued in 1987. 

Gramm-Rudman provisions also reduced the FY 

1990 funding by $925,000. One budget adjustment 

at that time was sample-size reductions for objective 

yield crops. Gramm-Rudman was supplanted after 

1990 by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.

Th ere were a number of other SRS estimating program and services changes in the 1980s. Th e FY 1983 

budget was reduced by a little more than $1.21 million (more than $2.46 million in 2007 dollars) because of a new Federal Government Pay for Publications policy. Up to that point, anyone could request 

free copies of any or all SRS publications. Providing 

all the requested publications resulted in large postage, printing, handling, and storage expenses.

Pay for Publications was not designed for SRS to 

make a profi t, but created to avoid costs. However, 

the USDA director of agricultural economics was able 

to insert a provision in the Farm Bill legislation that 

allowed SRS to retain the publication subscriptions 

to off set printing and mailing costs, instead of forwarding that money to the general treasury. Postage 

costs did drop by more than $1 million, and paper 

and printing costs were greatly reduced. Procedures 

were quickly put in place to advertise how to order 

reports, and prices were set to recover the printing, 

paper, ink, and mailing costs. Survey respondents 

would still receive free copies of State publications 

by request. 

Another reduction in the FY 1983 budget was funding for the Farmline publication. Th at had been 

started by the ESCS Information Staff when that organizational structure was in place.

Creating the New Long-Range Plan

Once SRS was again constituted as a separate organization, Administrator Kibler started action on a new 

long-range plan for the agency. In doing so, he chose 

an unconventional approach. Instead of establishing 

a team of senior agency members, he selected fi ve 

people, who had about 15 years or so of professional 

experience, as the planning group. Kibler wanted 

the plan prepared by people who could be expected 

to spend the next 15 years or so with the plan, instead of by individuals who were ready to retire. His 

charge memo was dated July 21, 1982; the new plan 

was to be presented at the March 1983 meeting of 

the agency’s Program Planning Committee.

Administrator Kibler, in naming the Long-Range 

Planning Group, did not place restrictions or conditions on the new plan’s format or contents. Group 

members attempted to take a broad view of the charge 

it had been given and not be restricted to approaches 

in other planning documents. Th e group made two 

important early decisions. First, they kept detailed 

notes of all discussions and fact-fi nding eff orts, but 

they did not write anything in recommendation form 

during early deliberations. Th e concern was that documenting any recommendations too early could be a 

barrier to open thinking and innovation. Th e second 

decision was to collect new planning process input. 

Th e country was divided into fi ve geographic areas, 

and each group member concentrated on interviews 

with agricultural producers, university economists, 
49

and data users in their assigned area. Core questions 

were used as well as questions meant to expound on 

personal viewpoints. Interviews included some major agricultural producers and businesses that had 

been reluctant survey participants or had refused the 

surveys.

Some respondent questions asked about future U.S. 

agriculture structure and technologies. Although this 

was interesting, the answers were quite diverse. After 

summarizing interview impressions, group members 

decided not to base the plan on one specifi c future 

view for the United States, agriculture, and SRS. Instead, the emphasis was on steps and activities the 

agency should take that would allow it to properly 

adjust to whatever the future held.

A number of diff erent types of contacts were made 

with agency staff members. Questionnaires were sent 

to all State statisticians in charge and headquarters’ 

branch chiefs. During regional meetings of assistant 

State statisticians in charge, small group brainstorming exercises were successful in gaining new offi ce 

structure perspectives. A similar approach was then 

utilized for headquarters section heads, and input 

was received from supervisory enumerators.

Th e 1957 Long-Range Plan had been essentially a 

technology prescription—it had outlined advances 

to be made in sampling, surveys, and communications. Th e new plan was an organization strengthening formula and was named “Framework for the 

Future.” Th e key approach was to develop and maintain standards for all agency operations.

Th e plan was presented to the March 1983 Program 

Planning Committee meeting, as requested. No copies were made available ahead of time, and group 

members made presentations on each section of the 

plan before handing out printed copies. Th e plan was 

overwhelmingly accepted by Administrator Kibler 

and the Program Planning Committee.

Developing Agency Standards

Standards were described in the “Framework” as the 

fi rst building block for all future SRS activities. A 

two-step process was described for defi ning proper 

standards for each aspect and then organizing eff orts 

to meet the standards. One main reason for establishing standards was because the agency was working under a dichotomy of approaches. Th e probability surveys created after the 1957 Long-Range Plan 

were based on optimal sampling procedures and 

fairly well-defi ned edit and summary procedures. 

However, the agency still depended on a number of 

nonprobability surveys with little coordination and 

consistency of variables such as sampling, data collection, and edit and summary procedures. 

Th e plan specifi cally honed in on standards for nine 

essential objectives for providing consistent, statistically defensible results. Th e nine, which were enumerated and for which goals were set, consisted of: 

sample design, sample frame maintenance, data collection, data editing, survey summary, analysis, quality control, CRB, and documentation and publication.

One of the most diligent eff orts to develop and document standards was for the CRB. SRS and the World 

Agricultural Outlook Board (WAOB) received severe criticism in January 1984 because of apparent 

inconsistencies between stocks and crop-production 

reports. A Crop Reporting Procedures Task Group 

was immediately established, which reviewed past 

estimates and procedures, and presented general recommendations at an SRS National Conference later 

in 1984. Th ose recommendations included concurrently releasing end-of-year crop production and 

grain-stocks fi gures, and having a working group 

develop and document CRB operational standards. 

Th e CRB Policy and Procedures Working Group was 

formed and issued its “CRB Standards Report” in 

July 1985.

Th e working group took a very broad view of its 

charge, including examining the review, security, and 

release procedures of other Federal statistical organizations; conducting a literature review; and visiting 

with commodity analysts. One beginning tenet for 

the working group was to determine statistically defensible review procedures, if survey indications were 

to be adjusted.

Th e group divided its report summary and recommendations into seven parts. It also provided fullcolor examples of improved graphic analyses that 

would assist the CRB.

Under Board Identity, Defi nition, and Membership 

it recommended specifi c roles and scopes for National Commodity Boards versus State Commodity 

Review Boards (for non-speculative commodities), 
50

and recommended a formal training program for 

commodity statisticians. One striking recommendation was to select the most knowledgeable State analysts for national commodity boards and have them 

serve for a year for their assigned commodities. Th is 

would provide additional consistency and strength 

to Board reviews.

Under Standards for CRB Data and Indications, it 

was recommended that a national probability-based 

crop-estimation program be implemented. It was 

also recommended that characteristics of external 

survey and administrative data used by the CRB be 

documented and standards for data collection be 

enforced. Additional review of the grain stocks program and indication levels was recommended.

Under Standards for Analysis it was recommended 

that new edit, analysis, and summary systems be designed and developed for assisting the CRB. Some 

of the components would retain all original-reported 

data for later study of edit impacts, build in frequency distribution displays, and examine the impact of 

outliers. 

Th e Standards for Estimation recommendations 

were to rely upon composite estimation with confi dence bands if multiple indications were available 

and statistical analyses principles for interpreting 

balance sheets. Th e CRB should also determine the 

maximum balance sheet residuals size allowed.

Several CRB Database Standards recommendations 

were made. Th e key was to have all indications, estimates, and supporting data available for immediate 

board analyses. Board members needed training on 

both the database and its strong graphics capability. 

Th e CRB database should be created as soon as possible, but become part of the agency data management system.

Under Standards for Published Data, the emphases 

were to enhance the usefulness of reports, and publish periodic reports of auxiliary survey data and balance sheet components as one way of educating data 

users. Th e CRB Secretary of Agriculture briefi ngs 

were addressed by having the most qualifi ed staff 

members present the briefi ngs, by having the CRB 

chairperson remain in the briefi ngs instead of carrying reports to the release room, and by strengthening 

the briefi ng contents.

Key CRB Operating Procedures recommendations 

were to formalize the national commodity board preboard briefi ngs and improve the comments available 

for board review. A controversial recommendation 

was to drop the speculative commodity designation 

so the Crops Branch would have more time to review 

commodity data and to review all States at the same 

time. 

Nearly all working group recommendations were accepted and many improvements resulted. Th e speculative designation was not changed but more security 

procedures, such as electronic decryption of State 

recommendations and comments, were added. Th e 

concept of naming State members of national commodity boards was implemented, but it was found to 

limit training career opportunities for other State offi ce commodity statisticians (particularly since database and other improvements meant fewer total state 

offi ce representatives were needed for board calls). 

Th erefore, it was modifi ed to select the most experienced commodity statisticians only for key reports 

such as the August “Crop Production Report.”

Reviewing Agency Structure

Also in 1984, a task group on Structure and Identifi cation was formed to review agency structure. It 

included Professor Jim Bonnen of Michigan State 

University and Professor Simon Goldberg, who represented the American Statistical Association Committee on Federal Statistics. Th eir report (“Structure 

for Service”) issued in July 1985 made many recommendations for changes and improvements. 

Th e report’s key recommendations included a new 

name for the agency. One of the long-range plan 

recommendations was to address the agency identity 

crisis. Th e name Statistical Reporting Service (SRS) 

did not signify what type of statistics were reported, 

did not imply the broad services of the agency, and 

did not match with operating names, such as (State) 

Crop Reporting Service or (State) Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, which were being used by 

fi eld offi ces. Renaming the agency as the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) would clarify 

the scope and type of statistics. 

Part of the new standards was to designate each 

fi eld offi ce as the (State) Agricultural Statistics Service—providing a logical link with the NASS name. 

In keeping with the new agency name, the CRB be-
51

came the Agricultural Statistics Board (ASB), and 

the CRDs in each State were now referred to as Agricultural Statistics Districts (ASDs).

Th e recommended reorganization structure established two deputy administrator positions. Th is part 

of the recommendation was accepted, but the suggested titles of deputy administrator for operations 

and methodology, and the deputy for estimates and 

analysis, were changed before implementing a new 

organizational structure. Th e recommendation to 

separate the Estimates Division into two divisions 

was not accepted. 

In the adopted organization structure, the deputy 

administrator for operations coordinated the State 

Statistical and Research and Applications Divisions 

and chaired the Agency Personnel Selection and 

Training Committees. Th e deputy administrator for 

programs coordinated the work of the Estimates and 

Data Management Divisions, and chaired the ASB 

and the Program Planning Committee. One important new addition was a small Statistical Standards 

staff assigned to the deputy for programs. Th at staff 

took the lead in working with agency units to document standards for various aspects of operations. 

Th e standards offi cer served as the secretary of the 

Program Planning Committee. Th e new organizational structure and agency name were eff ective as 

of September 29, 1986, but the Data Management 

Division was renamed the Systems and Information 

Division in 1987.

Implementing the Integrated Survey Program

Th e one signifi cant methodology innovation recommended in the “Framework” publication was 

to develop an integrated survey program. Th e major reason was to place the major crop acreage and 

production surveys (prospective plantings, midyear 

acreage, small grains acreage and production, and 

fall acreage and production) on a probability sampling basis. By combining the samples for the present nonprobability surveys into one coordinated 

survey program with the hogs and pigs surveys, it 

appeared that suffi cient sample size would be available for probability crop surveys.

Th e original proposal was for an annual, extremely 

large “omnibus” survey that would provide data for 

all midyear crop and livestock estimates. All other major survey contacts for the year would be subsamples 

of operations in the omnibus list and area samples. It 

would be necessary to shift the timing of some data 

series (most notably the reference dates for the quarterly hogs and pigs surveys and some grain stocks 

surveys). Th e proposal would also select samples 

for surveys, such as farm production expenditures, 

farm labor, prices paid, and egg production, from 

the larger omnibus survey. Most re-contacts during 

the year could be made by mail or by telephone, but 

an operation would be visited in person for the fi rst 

contact after the omnibus survey. Th is visit would 

explain what surveys the operation had been selected 

for and when they would be contacted.

Since the proposed integrated concept was such a 

major operational departure, thorough testing was 

needed. A full-time Integrated Survey Program (ISP) 

coordinator position was created and fi lled by a statistician with extensive survey and estimates experience to be sure all details were built into the testing 

and analysis program. Th e coordinator identifi ed the 

special analyses needed, such as an analysis of how 

well farm acreage data were reported on the base survey and one for detailed enumerator time and mileage costs. Testing of the ISP concept started in 1984 

in three States (Arizona, Illinois, and Tennessee), and 

the ISP was a major topic at the May 1984 and October 1985 SRS National Conferences. 

Many operational questions arose from the testing. 

Th ere were concerns about an acceptable length and 

format for the omnibus questionnaire. Would every 

State need its own questionnaire version because of 

variations in important commodities? Would some 

later questionnaires be integrated if an operation 

was selected for two contacts, such as hogs and grain 

stocks, in the same month? Could the monthly “Farm 

Report” be replaced as part of the ISP?

Two factors were important in shaping the fi nal ISP 

design. First, the concept of the omnibus crop and 

livestock base survey was replaced with a coordinated, replicated sample design. Th e omnibus survey 

had much larger sample sizes than were needed for 

midyear estimates as well as greatly increased costs. 

Also, research studies indicated that a balance of repeat samples and new replicates for livestock surveys 

helped avoid biases. 

Th e second factor was new thinking regarding survey dates for crop-related estimates following the release of 1983 end-of-year reports in January 1984. 
52

Because of large Government-owned grain stocks, a 

Payment in Kind (PIK) program was announced for 

1983. Th e program encouraged producers to reduce 

their corn-planted acreage in exchange for PIK certifi cates equal to 80 percent of the grain they normally would have produced. Th e PIK program was 

very successful—total acreage planted to corn was 

reduced from 81.9 million acres in 1982 to 60.2 

million acres in 1983. (Offi cially, the PIK program 

removed 78 million acres of all crops from production.) Unfortunately, 1983 was an extremely poor 

weather year; it had the lowest U.S. average cornfor-grain yield since 1974. Th e total U.S. 1983 corn 

production of 4.2 billion bushels was essentially half 

the 1982 production of 8.2 billion. Th us, concerns 

about excessive supplies shifted to concerns about a 

fairly tight supply situation in just one year.

Soybean acreage and yields were also down in 1983 

from 1982, and the 1.6-billion-bushels crop was the 

smallest since 1976. When the annual “Crop Production Summary” was issued January 12, soybean 

totals were somewhat of a surprise to many industry 

sources. Th ere was confusion in the interpretation of 

that report as soon as the WAOB issued their evaluation of probable ending supplies in the “World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates Report” 

(“WASDE”) for January 16. Unfortunately, when 

the January 1 “Grain Stocks Report” was released 

January 23, and a new “WASDE” was released the 

next day, the implications changed quite a bit. Now 

there were many complaints about mixed USDA 

messages. One theme from data users, who were trying to be positive about USDA information, was that 

there were not too many reports necessarily, but too 

many release dates.

Based on the January 1984 outcry and the fact that 

cropping and marketing practices had been changing to earlier planting and harvest, SRS and WAOB 

developed a new crop estimates calendar. Th e start of 

the corn marketing year was now defi ned as September 1 (the same as for soybeans), and it was now logical to establish grain-stocks reports on a true quarterly basis (i.e., September 1, December 1, March 1, 

and June 1). Th is schedule fi t well with a March 1 

Prospective Plantings Survey, plantings information 

as of early June, small grains acreage and production 

surveys in early September, and the fall grains acreage and production surveys in early December. Th us, 

the major crop surveys could be integrated with the 

ongoing hogs-and-pigs survey schedule.

Th e new schedule of reports was announced by 

USDA, along with the change that only one “WASDE Report” would be issued each month. Th at report 

would be coordinated with the release of SRS’s “Crop 

Production Report”; in eff ect, both reports would be 

released at the same time from the SRS CRB lock-up 

facility. Th e WAOB had been co-located with SRS as 

of 1982, and SRS now coordinated security, printing, and release of the “WASDE”.

Th ere were some key decisions made in implementing the new crops survey and release schedules. Data 

collection was not to start until the fi rst of the month, 

so a true fi rst-of-the-month reference date approach 

could be used for grain stocks, and hogs and pigs 

inventories. Data collection was to occur during the 

fi rst two weeks of the month, and the release of the 

relevant crops, stocks, and hogs-and-pigs reports 

would occur by the end of the month. An exception 

was made for December. Because of holiday schedules when markets were not open, the original plan 

was to release December “Hogs and Pigs Report” in 

early January, and the “Annual Crop Production Report” with the January “Crop Production Report” 

on or about January 10. Th e January “WASDE Report” would be released at the same time. Based on 

strong livestock industry appeals, the December 

“Hogs and Pigs Report” was eventually timed to be 

released no later than the next-to-last full December 

business day.

Th us, the integrated survey program was put in place 

relatively quickly but without the omnibus survey 

approach and without coordinating all livestock survey reference dates on the same months. By 1985, the 

quarterly Agricultural Survey had expanded into the 

27 major hog, cattle, crops, and grain stocks states 

and was fully operational by December 1986.

[Historic Clarifi cation: One response to the January 

1984 crop and grain- stocks estimates concerns was 

the establishment, by Secretary of Agriculture John 

R. Block, of a Blue Ribbon Panel to review USDA 

statistical and economic-reporting procedures. Th at 

panel was formed in December 1984 and it began 

its review in late January 1985. Th e panel’s report, 

issued in late June 1985, was likely credited for consolidating crop-acreage and stocks report releases, 

and for establishing the joint releases of “WASDE” 

and “Crop Production” reports. However, NASS and 

WAOB had announced those decisions before the 

Blue Ribbon Panel began operations, so the panel 
53

focused on other aspects. For example, one recommendation was to develop a monthly “Hog Farrowings Intentions” report.] 

Th e “Other” Integrated Survey Program

Th e Framework publication suggested that an annual farm labor survey be integrated with the farm production expenditure survey (FPES). Th at was never 

done as such, but the SRS and Economic Research 

Service (ERS) branch chiefs responsible for the specifi cations of the FPES and the cost of production 

surveys (COPS) conducted each year for ERS saw the 

opportunity to enhance the two survey programs by 

integration. 

Th e FPES collected total farm expenditure data while 

the COPS zeroed in on the expenses for specifi c 

farm enterprises (such as corn or cattle production). 

If global expenditure questions were added to the 

COPS, the eff ective sample size would be increased 

for FPES-type data. Adding some commodity questions to FPES would allow better cross-classifi cation 

and analyses of diff erent types of operations (e.g., 

crops only operations and crops and livestock operations). Another integration advantage was that coordinating sample selection would avoid selecting any 

operations for both surveys.

Th e branch chiefs worked out the basic details for 

integrating the basic sampling design and the necessary questionnaire changes. While testing was being implemented for the crops/livestock ISP, the two 

economic surveys were already integrated as the new 

farm costs and returns survey (FCRS). Th e fi rst FCRS 

was for 1985, with data collected in early 1986.

ERS and NASS did create data summaries (not estimates) at the State and regional levels from the 1987 

FCRS that were published and mailed to survey respondents. Th e summaries were broken out by fi -

nancial conditions (positive or negative income) and 

debt levels (low or high). Th ose four income/debt 

categories were then used to provide breakouts of 

farms in the State (or region) for characteristics such 

as economic class, type of farm, ownership, and age. 

Financial characteristics, such as average crop and 

livestock sales, non-farm income, total assets, and 

total debt were also presented for each of the four income/debt categories, along with ratios such as average debt to asset level. Th ese summaries were created 

if a State had 300 usable survey reports. Data items 

were included if there were at least 30 observations, 

with a coeffi cient of variation less than 50 percent for 

the specifi c data item. 

Since the target population was only 24,000 operations, many States could not be summarized separately. Th e new summaries were of particular interest to economists, farm organizations, and probably 

farm lenders. However, since some NASS State statisticians were concerned the summary details might 

be confusing to many individual respondents, the 

summaries were not sent in the future.

Th e Ebb and Flow of Objective Yield Surveys

Research on objective yield models for rice, grain 

sorghum, and sunfl ower crops had begun in the late 

1970s. Early research was promising and actually led 

to a re-evaluation of sorghum yield levels. A cropdata improvement initiative in the FY 1984 budget 

provided funding to start operational objective yield 

surveys for the three crops. Th ere had been pilot studies the year before in two rice and sorghum States 

and one sunfl ower State. Objective yield data were 

collected in 1984 in fi ve rice and sorghum States and 

three sunfl ower States. Th e new programs’ performance was not as helpful and consistent as had been 

hoped and, under continued budget pressure, sorghum and sunfl ower surveys were discontinued after 

1987. Rice surveys continued until 1992, but they 

involved only two States in those last three years.

Other objective yield program adjustments were 

made in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Operational 

corn objective yield surveys were conducted for as 

many as 24 States in the early 1970s, but some States 

were dropped as their portion of the national corn 

production declined. Surveys were conducted in 19 

or 20 States in the mid-1970s, and the total later declined to 18. Th e number of States covered was reduced to 16 for 1980 and then to 10 States for 1981. 

Coverage of 10 States remained until 1996, when it 

was reduced to seven. In 1980, the top-10 corn States 

accounted for 81 percent of production. Th e next 

eight States accounted for another 14.7 percent of 

production, but no State had more than 2 percent of 

the national production. 

Cotton objective yield coverage also changed over 

time as production declined greatly in some States, 

mainly those in the south east. Fourteen States were 

covered starting in 1963; this number was reduced to 
54

12 by 1977. Th e total number of States with cotton 

objective yield surveys was cut to six in 1979, and it 

remained at that level through 1995. 

Soybean objective yield coverage peaked at 17 States 

by the mid-1970s, but fell to 15 States in 1982, 14 

States in 1988, and 11 States in 1990. Reductions 

were made as relative production levels of some 

Southeast States declined.

Once wheat objective yield surveys were fully operational in 1972 for winter, durum, and other spring 

wheat, the number of total States stayed at 17 until 

1984. Th e number of States declined in 1984, including reducing durum wheat collection to only North 

Dakota. Some increases in coverage were made for 

1985 and stayed at that level for most years until 

1993. Since 1993, there have been fl uctuations in the 

States included as wheat acreages changed.

Once fall potato objective yield surveys were established in 11 States sometime in 1978, the program 

stayed stable until 1996, when it was reduced to seven States. However, some additional functions such 

as size and grade evaluation of the samples have been 

added to the program. 

Remote Sensing Developments in the 1980s

During the late 1970s and the 1980s, SRS continued to develop and enhance its ability to utilize full 

LANDSAT scenes to improve estimates of acreages 

of major crops in important producing States. Th e 

Center for Advanced Computation at the University 

of Illinois closed in 1978 and SRS was fortunate to 

hire the lead programmer working on SRS applications. He took the lead in creating the EDITOR 

software system, which incorporates all routines for 

processing both SRS segment-level training data 

and LANDSAT data. Routines for properly registering and overlaying the training data on the satellite 

data were written and revised as the satellite data 

registration and recertifi cation improved over time. 

EDITOR also contained clustering and classifi cation 

software, as well as routines to create the regression 

estimate of crop acreages. 

Th e regression estimator was one feature which set 

the EDITOR system apart from other remote sensing 

eff orts, as only one other research center attempted 

a regression approach. EDITOR was based on inputting probability-sample ground data for training. However, when the EDITOR system was later 

adapted for use in France and Italy, those countries 

used systematically selected ground data as if they 

had been probability selected.

In the early 1980s, a number of technical improvements were made. An improved clustering algorithm 

called CLASSY was tested and incorporated into 

EDITOR. Starting in 1981, a video camera and image processing system were used to capture segment 

and fi eld boundaries instead of having to manually 

digitize the boundaries. By the late 1980s, technology had evolved to be able to use a super-microcomputer workstation to overlay crop fi eld boundaries 

onto a satellite-data graphic representation.

Th roughout the 1980s, more States and crops were 

added to the crop-acreage estimation eff orts. From 

1985 to 1987, eight States were included. State level 

crop acreage estimates were completed by mid-December or so each year. From 1985 on, county acreage calculations for major crops were available by 

February for use in setting offi cial county estimates. 

Th e cost per State in 1987 was $129,000 ($230,000 

in 2007 dollars), compared to $750,000 (more than 

$2.82 million) for the 1975 Illinois project and 

$300,000 ($931,000) for the fi rst 1978 project for 

Iowa that was fi nished prior to the end of the estimating season. 

In 1983, a multi-temporal approach (which combined a spring satellite scene with a summer scene in 

order to control for trees and other permanent vegetation) was used for the fi rst time in order to improve 

late-season crop estimates. Many preprocessing steps 

could now be done in SRS offi ces using a combination of mini- and microcomputer components that 

saved considerably on mainframe computer costs. 

Another key advancement in 1983 was the start of 

the conversion of the EDITOR software to a more 

portable program language. Th e new version would 

allow the software to be used on many computer 

platforms. Th e new system was referred to as P-EDITOR (for Portable EDITOR). When it was fi nished 

by 1986, many routines could be run on personal 

computers of the era.

During most of the 1980s, the SRS remote sensing 

eff orts were coordinated as part of the Joint Program for Agriculture and Resources Inventory Surveys Th rough Aerospace Remote Sensing Program 

(AgRISTARS) discussed below. As that formal pro-
55

gram came to a close, less research funding was available, and there were serious concerns about future 

availability of satellite multi-spectral scanner (MSS) 

data. (Th e P-EDITOR system was specifi cally based 

on MSS data but could be adapted to other satellite 

formats that had diff erent spatial pixel resolutions 

and wavelengths.) In addition, a number of foreign 

satellite systems were being developed that would 

provide higher resolution data—but at higher costs. 

A decision was made to discontinue (at least temporarily) the full State crop-estimate projects, and to 

concentrate on evaluating other satellites and sensors in some smaller test areas. 

SRS Leadership of the AgRISTARS Program

Th e most prominent and visible agriculture-related 

remote sensing research eff ort of the late 1970s and 

1980s was the unprecedented AgRISTARS program. 

Th is was a cooperative eff ort of USDA, NASA, the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) of the Department of Commerce, and the 

U.S. Department of the Interior, along with USAID 

as an observer and possible future user.

AgRISTARS had its beginnings in 1978 when the 

USDA Secretary of Agriculture issued an initiative 

that led to discussions and joint planning by the 

participating agencies. Th e initiative identifi ed seven 

diff erent types of information of interest to USDA 

for which aerospace remote sensing might be applicable. Th e seven areas of interest were: early warning 

of changes aff ecting production and quality of commodities; commodity production forecasts; land use 

classifi cation; renewable resources (mostly forest) inventories; land productivity estimates; conservation 

practices assessments; and pollution detection and 

evaluation. 

Two years of intense and detailed planning were invested in program development. SRS Administrator 

Kibler and Statistical Research Division Director 

Caudill led the USDA negotiations and planning 

eff orts. Kibler served as the USDA representative, 

and chair, of the Interagency Coordinating Committee responsible for establishing priorities, assessing progress, and coordinating resources assigned 

to the program. Th ere were tremendous program 

resources; the participating organizations devoted 

large numbers of full-time personnel and issued 

contracts for services in many cases. Caudill was the 

chief USDA negotiator and planner in establishing 

program structure details, and he chaired the fulltime Program Management Group that coordinated 

all program and project progress, tracked all changes 

to plans and specifi cations, and arranged all formal 

written and symposia documentation. AgRISTARS 

was originally planned as a six-year eff ort—it would 

run October 1, 1979 to September 30, 1985, but was 

later extended an extra year to September 30, 1986.

AgRISTARS used the NASA space-program management model. Some employees and contractors who 

had worked on space program documentation were 

included in the Program Management Group and 

the individual projects. All plans, progress, and individual accomplishments were documented in detail. 

For example, 1,235 separate program documents 

were inventoried in the “FY 1983 AgRISTARS Annual Report.”

Eight separate AgRISTARS projects were created: 

Early Warning and Crop Condition Assessment; 

Inventory Technology Development; Supporting 

Research; Yield Model Development; Soil Moisture; 

Domestic Crops and Land Cover; Renewable Resources Inventory; and Conservation and Pollution. 

SRS was the lead agency and major contributor for 

the Domestic Crops and Land Cover (DC/LC) project. One SRS benefi t was the evaluation of alternative aerospace sensors such as the thematic mapper 

technology being developed to provide fi ner spatial 

resolution on future LANDSAT satellites; synthetic 

aperture radar; and advanced, very high-resolution 

radiometer data from weather satellites. Th e rigor 

of the AgRISTARS program also resulted in SRS researchers creating more detailed documentation of 

results than would have normally occurred.

In addition to the DC/LC project, SRS staff members were valuable contributors to the Yield Model 

Development and Early Warning and Crop Condition Assessment projects. An SRS yield-research unit 

was temporarily established in Columbia, MO. One 

of the SRS staff members’ key contributions was creating a simplistic “strawman” yield model. If a proposed new model using weather and satellite data inputs could not outperform the strawman, it usually 

was excluded from future consideration. SRS stationed some employees at the Johnson Space Center 

in Houston, TX, for work on the Early Warning and 

Crop Condition Assessment project. Th ey brought 

a statistical design perspective to that project along 

with practical experience with use of ground training 

data and the EDITOR remote sensing system.
56

Th ere were several agency benefi ts from AgRISTARS. 

Th e program provided extra staff funding to greatly 

advance development and testing of remote sensing 

interpretation procedures. It established SRS as the 

leading organization in the world for agricultural 

remote sensing applications. Just as earlier studies verifi ed that satellite data could not replace the 

established acreage reports calendar, yield model 

development eff orts demonstrated that weather/remote sensing models would not replace fi eld-level 

and farmer-based yield forecasts. Th e Early Warning 

and Crop Condition Assessment project led to the 

establishment of the Production Estimates and Crop 

Assessment Division (PECAD) in USDA’s Foreign 

Agricultural Service (FAS). PECAD served the interests of FAS and the Agricultural Stabilization and 

Conservation Service (ASCS). Working with PECAD 

has enabled agency access to satellite data products 

at aff ordable rates. 

New Technology in the 1980s

One major data-processing challenge in the late 

1970s had been the re-competition of the network 

data processing contract held by INFONET, which 

was expiring. Th at was essentially a two-year eff ort 

for an agency task force. Detailed descriptions of 

all agency operations and processing requirements 

were prepared along with packages of materials that 

could be used by bidding vendors to demonstrate the 

speed and costs of their off erings. Th e new contract 

was awarded to Martin Marietta Data Systems on 

October 19, 1979—thus, the fi rst 1980s technology 

challenge was the shift to the new processing system. 

About the same time, the agency was also starting to 

utilize cluster data-entry operations through a new 

contract.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, one line of research 

and technology interest was to develop the capability 

for computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) 

as an improvement to the agency survey program. 

Some CATI systems were being used by publicopinion and other polling organizations. However, 

they were designed for questions like “yes or no” or 

“Which of these candidates do you prefer?” No computer system had yet been created that could perform 

all of the mathematical operations important to SRS 

questionnaires. Th ose operations included verifying 

numerical breakout of some totals into component 

parts, checking logical mathematical relationships 

between questions (such as acreage harvested and total production), and performing internal consistency 

checks during telephone interviews to avoid errors. 

If a CATI system could be developed that was successful for agricultural producers’ interviews, it 

would automatically capture reported data. Th is 

would provide time savings and good, non-sampling 

error control. A cooperative agreement was written 

in 1981 with the University of California at Berkeley 

to adapt and modify Berkeley’s software system to 

SRS needs.

Th e concept of acquiring minicomputers for fi eld 

offi ces was once again revisited in the early 1980s. 

A proposal was presented to the Program Planning 

Committee in November 1980 to install minicomputers in three fi eld offi ces, plus one in headquarters 

for testing and development, in order to demonstrate 

the capabilities. Th ere were concerns raised about 

the amount of training needed to support the minicomputers and the compatibility of minicomputers 

with the network-processing system in place. A new 

Minicomputer Request for Proposal Task Force was 

established in 1981.

Some minicomputers were already in fi eld offi ces, often through State department of agriculture arrangements. Th ey were used for a number of diff erent 

applications, including data entry, but there was no 

standardization of machine types or systems being 

used. Also, remote sensing work underway utilized a 

wide variety of minicomputers, super-minicomputers, and super-microcomputers for various aspects of 

the ground-data and segment-boundary digitization 

operations. One new minicomputer application was 

testing the use of CATI software in California. 

A signifi cant improvement in customer service technology had to do with computer access to SRS reports. Since 1976, the public could access statistical 

reports through INFONET, but it was not an immediate-release capability—and it was not user-friendly. As more individuals and businesses began using 

computers, there was increased interest in computer 

access to reports. In 1980, the Nebraska and Wyoming fi eld offi ces began to redistribute CRB information through the AgNet electronic network at the 

University of Nebraska. In 1982, some CRB summaries and a few full reports were placed on the Dialcom 

electronic mail system that the USDA News Center 

was using, and the Cooperative Extension Service 

(CES) created a network that also redistributed some 
57

CRB reports. A number of new agricultural information services, similar to AgNet, were popping up, 

and they were all interested in CRB reports. SRS decided not to enter into an agreement with any such 

service. Providing reports to one service meant SRS 

would be obliged to treat the others equally. Th is 

would require considerable resources because each 

organization preferred diff erent formats. 

Th e distribution of electronic reports to the public 

seemed to be solved in 1984 when USDA issued an 

Electronic Dissemination of Information (EDI) contract. Th e winning vendor had to establish two levels of customers. “Level-one” customers were other 

electronic information vendors; “level two” were all 

other parties paying the winning vendor for new 

electronic releases. Th e contract required that all new 

electronic releases had to be provided to level-one users before (or at the same time) they were released to 

level-two customers. 

SRS was pleased to have one standard for electronic 

releases, but it was not user-friendly. Most customer 

printers were slow and were restricted to printing no 

more than 79 characters without wrapping the text 

over to the next line. Th e original EDI contract did 

not allow the vendor to off er any value-added features, such as dividing the “Crop Production Report” into segments so users could select and print 

only what they were interested in. Because of user 

complaints, SRS restructured the printed “Crop Production Report” format. All data and narrative lines 

were restricted to no more than 79 characters. In 

addition, the report was rearranged to place detailed 

narratives at the end instead of the front. Printed 

and electronic reports now started with a page of 

narrative highlights followed by individual crop-data 

tables showing the major crops fi rst, then the crops 

summary tables, which formerly preceded the individual crops. Th e back of the reports contained the 

narratives and all related boilerplate information. 

Data users were pleased with SRS eff orts to provide 

quicker access to the most requested “Crop Production Report” information, and to minimize the number of pages that users had to print. After the fi rst 

year, the EDI contract was modifi ed to allow SRS to 

segment electronic report off erings so users could 

select just major crop tables or narratives without 

downloading entire reports.

In the 1980s the SAS software system, which started 

for research applications in the early 1970s, became 

a key fi xture of SRS operational programs. SAS analysis programs were developed for grain stocks, hogs, 

and other survey data. Objective yield summaries 

were written in SAS, and in 1986, a SAS edit replaced 

the former generalized edit routines for national surveys. It became known as the SPS Edit.

Training in the 1980s

Th ere were a number of changes in agency training 

during the 1980s, mostly after the “Framework” report was released with its emphasis on standards. In 

the 1986 agency reorganization, a Survey Training 

Section was identifi ed for the fi rst time. 

As in the two previous decades, much training was 

needed on data- processing skills. Th e concept of 

upward mobility was revisited to identify fi eld offi ce 

support staff individuals who would take additional data-processing training, but who would not be 

subject to transfers to other offi ces. In 1982, an advanced data-processing training graduate program 

was announced, and the fi rst two individuals were 

selected.

Th e “Framework” report had a goal of providing additional training for survey statisticians. One person 

was selected for a full year at the University of Michigan survey program in 1985, and other individuals 

later took part in University of Michigan summer 

programs. Another individual was selected for fulltime training in 1989–90. 

One emphasis of the “Framework” report was to 

justify the content of the estimating program. Th e 

individual in charge of cotton estimates tied content 

justifi cation and survey-training goals together at a 

national objective yield training school. At the time, 

he presented a question-by-question justifi cation of 

every cotton question in the survey. Th at provided an 

excellent example for survey designers and trainers at 

both the headquarters and fi eld-offi ce levels.

By 1988, a NASS Survey Training Program Proposal 

had been prepared. Th e study identifi ed signifi cant 

problems with present agency training approaches 

such as: too many topics covered in each school; the 

backgrounds of participants were too variable for a 

one-size-fi ts-all approach; almost all training was by 

lecture; and the instructors for fi eld-offi ce training 
schools were not selected on training ability. Training staff s in headquarters started to address those 

agenda and presentation style concerns. 

To further aid in the training improvement eff orts, 

the University of Maryland Center for Instruction 

Development and Evaluation was contracted to do 

a program needs assessment. Th e center’s assessment 

and recommendations were received in mid-1990, 

and it formed the basis for many training changes 

and improvements.

Because of the work underway to develop CATI capability, some new types of training were needed in 

fi eld offi ces. Many individuals hired to make the telephone calls did not have the agricultural background 

of most personal interview enumerators. Th us, new 

individuals not only needed training on the questionnaires being used and the computer systems, but 

also needed to understand the meaning and pronunciation of agricultural terms like barrows, gilts, ewes, 

and others.

Research in the 1980s

Th is chapter has already mentioned some major research eff orts of the 1980s: remote sensing, CATI, 

and testing the integrated survey program. However, 

there was a wide variety of other research eff orts conducted by the Survey Research Branch. 

One notable addition to the agency’s research capabilities was establishment of joint American Statistical Association (ASA)/ NASS Fellowship and Associate programs. Th e Fellowship program was an 

opportunity for experienced academics to spend a 

sabbatical year with NASS working on research of 

mutual interest. Linking with ASA provided broad 

publicity of the program, and the association handled the administrative and fi nancial details. However, NASS provided most of the funding for the 

program. To apply, applicants needed to submit a 

research proposal for review and consideration. Th e 

Associate program was intended for more junior academics looking for experience and exposure to new 

statistical research areas. 

To date, the new program has not received an overwhelming number of applicants, but many talented 

academics have participated. Many found it quite 

benefi cial because the NASS quarterly and monthly 

surveys provided opportunities to not only propose a 

line of research, but actually do some testing during 

a year’s period of time. Several fellows did continue 

their research connections with the agency after returning to their universities. 

One outgrowth of the ASA/NASS Fellows Program 

was organization of a special two-and-a-half-day conference on survey research methods in agriculture. 

Th e 1986 Conference on Survey Research Methods 

in Agriculture, held in an off site training facility in 

the Washington, DC area, was designed to bring together leading researchers in advanced-survey methodology topics that could be valuable in improving 

agricultural statistics. Five conference topics (Small 

Area Estimation, Cognitive Aspects of Surveys, the 

Infl uence of Computers on Survey Methods, Experimental Design and Survey Sampling, and Costs and 

Errors in Surveys) each were considered for half a 

day. 

Th e conference used a unique format: one speaker 

gave a general, overview presentation of a designated 

topic area, which was followed by another person’s 

specifi c, current research presentation. Th is was followed by comments from a NASS discussant. A fair 

amount of time was available for comments and discussion. Th e audience of 70 people was comprised of 

nearly half academics, with government and survey 

organizations from the United States, Canada, Australia, Yemen, and the U.N. Food and Agriculture 

Organization (FAO) in Rome, Italy. NASS and ASA 

were successful in obtaining funding for most of the 

conference costs.

Being able to attract notable speakers and other research conference participants proved that NASS 

was a major statistical organization. Presentations 

and discussions at the conference led to additional 

applied research on the conference topics and some 

future working relationships.

Some of the early ASA/NASS Fellows Program research studies focused on re-interview surveys to 

provide measures of response bias, and robust estimation techniques to smooth the impact of survey 

outliers. Another area of particular research interest 

to NASS was additional study of composite estimation, which would provide the best statistical weighting of multiple indications.

One research eff ort quickly put into operation was 

the development of a profi le edit for “Livestock 

58
Slaughter” reports. For quite some time, NASS had 

received the weekly, federally inspected livestockslaughter plant reports. NASS key-entered those 

data, ran basic consistency edits, summarized the 

edited data, and published the results. Because of the 

large number of plants and delays in receiving data 

by mail, the summary was published two weeks after 

each reference week. 

Livestock slaughter lent itself very well to a profi le approach. Nearly every plant specialized in the 

slaughter of a particular species (e.g., cattle, hogs, or 

sheep) and normally focused on animals of specifi c 

weight ranges. Because extensive past-performance 

data were available from the weekly reports, the 

number of animals slaughtered in a particular week 

and the total weight could be predicted with a fair 

level of accuracy. Th e new livestock slaughter publication system focused on getting responses from 

all large slaughter plants (via telephone or fax, if a 

mailed copy was not received) by the Tuesday following the end of the reporting week. Data for those 

large plants were combined with reports of all smaller plants received by mail in time for a midweek edit. 

Reports not received in time were added in based on 

their profi le, and a preliminary summary was run 

and published on Friday—one week after the close 

of the reporting week. Th e following Friday, a fi nal 

summary was published that included late reports, 

but those totals were almost always within a fraction 

of a percent of the preliminary.

Objective yield validation studies were conducted 

again in the 1980s—with one change in procedures. 

By the mid-1980s, most corn was harvested by grain 

combines that shelled the kernels as harvest proceeded, instead of harvesting whole ears that were stored 

in corn cribs. Arrangements for validation test fi elds 

were made, through each farmer, to have the crop 

from the fi eld harvested separately and to have each 

wagon or truckload weighed at a grain elevator. Th e 

farmer was reimbursed for the extra time and expense of the weighing.

Other types of research studies in the 1980s included 

computer-assisted area frame stratifi cation and sampling, computer-assisted personal interviewing, and 

small-area estimation. In a joint technology/research 

eff ort between SRS and Netherlands Central Bureau 

of Statistics (NCBS), the use of the Blaise software 

system developed by NCBS was explored for interactive survey editing.

Data Users Meetings 

Before the mid-1980s, the agency often hosted listening meetings with producers and data users around 

the country. Each meeting attendee was given the opportunity to describe their experiences with USDA 

statistical data and present suggestions for additions 

or changes to programs. Sessions had been held in 

a variety of locations. All sessions were widely announced, and some major agricultural organizations 

usually attended the sessions regardless of the location.

During work on the 1982 Long-Range Plan, it became obvious that even individuals and organizations regularly using agricultural statistics reports 

often had misconceptions about survey and estimation procedures. Th is was particularly brought to 

light when one of the Long-Range Planning Group 

members had a lengthy meeting with about 30 analysts from a major, diversifi ed agricultural company. 

One of that company’s analysts, responsible for hog 

industry analyses, knew of the agency’s enumerative 

survey program and falsely assumed that all statistics 

were based on area- frame interviews. He went on 

to describe what he thought would be an improved 

procedure of developing as complete a list of producers as possible to provide the bulk of the data, and 

then using the area frame mainly for completeness. 

Th e analyst did an excellent job of outlining his proposal, not realizing that was exactly what the agency 

had put into operation 10 years earlier.

Th e Long-Range Planning Group’s interviews also 

indicated that an agricultural- or economic researchanalyst position in many large agricultural organizations was only a temporary assignment; often that 

person was training for other opportunities. Th us, 

many analysts (other than senior research analysts) 

were not in their jobs long enough to really get to 

know how data series were compiled. 

Uncovering the lack of knowledge about survey and 

estimation procedures led to three responses. Most 

quarterly and annual reports would now include 

some information on sample sizes and survey procedures. In addition, most reports would also include 

summaries of past performance results (numbers and 

sizes of revised estimates or changes from forecasts to 

fi nal estimates). Th e third response was would be a 

new approach to meetings with producers and data 

analysts.

59
60

Th e agency started a series of data users meetings. 

Th e original concept was to have four or more meetings a year at diff erent locations around the country. 

Meetings would serve two purposes. Th e fi rst afternoon was designed for new or recent analysts and 

data users, and it focused on survey and estimation 

procedures. Th e next morning was the more traditional listening session, and it was hoped that senior 

analysts would take part. Th us, junior analysts attending would learn both from agency presentations 

and from comments made by more experienced data 

users.

Th e new plan also set up a four-year rotation of topics with presentations on fi eld crops, livestock, fruits 

and vegetables, and economic surveys in specifi c 

years, rather than a presentation of all of the reports 

for each year. NASS made the meeting arrangements, 

but representatives from the WAOB, ERS, AMS, and 

FAS usually participated, as many of the questions 

and comments related to data series or programs of 

other agencies. NASS summarized the major issues 

discussed at each session and distributed the summary to all participants.

Th e new format was tried for the fi rst four-year cycle 

but altered after that. Th e fi rst day’s instructional 

session was usually not well-attended; if a company 

needed to travel for the meeting, they would often 

send only one person—the senior analyst. Even organizations in the same city often did not avail themselves of the learning opportunity. Th us, the typical 

format for the meetings shifted from being split 

across two days to one day only. Short instructional sessions open to all participants were held in the 

morning. After an early lunch, the afternoon session 

would invite comments from all participants. 

Th e listening format was also improved. Instead of 

just proceeding around the room from person to 

person, the moderator would ask for other comments on the same topic each time someone fi nished 

raising a new topic. Once all discussion on that topic 

had been exhausted, the next person in order would 

be asked for comments on other topics. Th e new format resulted in a shorter session and one that avoided 

repetition. It created a better-focused discussion of 

specifi c topics. Th e four-year cycle approach was still 

basically in play, but participants could comment on 

any and all data series, regardless.

Various locations and times of the year were tried for 

data user meetings, but participation declined over 

time. However, meetings on fruit, vegetable, and 

specialty commodities normally were very well-attended, particularly if they were held in a State such 

as Michigan, which had many specifi c commodity 

production associations.

Typical requests at data users meetings were pleas for 

more and more data for specifi c commodities. Rarely 

were there suggestions of data series that were not 

useful or could be dropped. Occasionally, there were 

some profound comments, such as from the grain 

elevator operator who pointed out that NASS did 

him and producers disservice whenever it released 

a “Crop Production” report at 3 p.m. eastern time 

on a Friday during harvest season. Because he did 

not know how the markets would react on Monday 

morning, he would take protection all weekend and 

pay less for grain than he might have, if he had known 

the market reaction. Th at was an extremely insightful, simple observation, but no one had ever raised 

it. Th e “Crop Production” report guidelines were to 

release the report between the 8th and the 12th of 

each month. NASS added a guideline to avoid Friday 

afternoons during harvest to the planning considerations for future years. When “Crop Production” 

reports were later shifted to 8:30 a.m., Fridays were 

once again available as potential release days.

Avoiding crop-related Friday releases led NASS to ask 

if livestock industry offi cials had similar concerns. 

As it turned out, the preferences were essentially the 

opposite. Most of the live livestock marketings are 

referred to as “frontloaded.” Th at is, decisions are 

made late in the week or over the weekend on how 

many animals to market the next week and when. 

Many livestock industry representatives felt the best 

service would be to release major livestock-related 

reports (such as “Cattle,” “Hogs and Pigs,” “Livestock Slaughter,” and “Cattle on Feed”) on Fridays—even if reports could have been released a day 

or two earlier. Some even claimed that prices suff ered 

when NASS livestock reports were issued midweek. 

ERS analyzed that claim and found no price impact. 

However, they did fi nd that typical daily marketing 

patterns of slaughter livestock were aff ected when a 

major livestock report was issued midweek.

Th ose who dissented from the call to release major 

livestock reports on Friday afternoons were largely 

analysts who traditionally published their updated 
61

interpretations and recommendations on Fridays. 

Th e change would not allow them to meet their usual 

schedule. However, NASS did go to the Friday schedule for most livestock marketing-related reports. Due 

to a later modifi cation, monthly “Livestock Slaughter” reports are now released at 8:30 a.m. on Fridays, 

so there are not so many pieces of information to be 

analyzed at 3 p.m.

With lower participation and tight budgets, NASS 

discontinued the multiple annual meetings pattern. 

Specifi c data users meetings have been held in recent years to discuss environmental data needs and 

to gather information in preparation for upcoming 

censuses of agriculture.

However, an annual USDA Data Users Session meeting continues to this day. It is held in conjunction 

with the annual Industry Outlook meeting in Chicago, which is organized by professional agricultural 

market analysts. Many participants make their living 

by analyzing commodity and futures markets, as well 

as Federal Government reports, to advise their clients 

of what actions to take. Other participants are from 

the commodity futures and mercantile markets.

Th e USDA Data Users Session is held the afternoon 

before the Industry Outlook meeting. Th e meeting 

starts with short “what’s new or will be changing” 

presentations from NASS, WAOB, FAS, AMS, ERS, 

and staff members from the Bureau of the Census 

responsible for import- and export-data reports. Th e 

rest of the afternoon is spent fi elding comments from 

the industry participants by using the topic-focused 

approach. Th e industry participants have sometimes 

been referred to as “power” users because quick analyses are particularly important. Th is group has been 

instrumental in encouraging NASS and the other 

Federal agencies to expand format off erings, such as 

spread sheet-ready electronic fi les and historic databases.

Lock-Up Briefi ngs

One type of data users meetings that has been extremely successful is when producer groups attend 

the briefi ng for the Secretary of Agriculture in conjunction with “Crop Production” or other major 

reports. Th e fi rst group of agricultural producers 

known to participate was from North Carolina in the 

late 1970s. In August 1982, the Illinois Farm Bureau 

Federation (IFBF) brought a group of producers to 

the release of the August “Crop Production Report,” 

and IFBF has returned every August since. Groups 

from Iowa and Mississippi normally visit for each 

September “Crop Production Report,” and many 

other groups have visited on occasion. A number 

of international visitors and other groups have also 

taken part. 

Visitors for “Crop Production” and other 8:30 a.m. 

report releases check in with the NASS associate administrator’s offi ce about an hour before the release. 

Th ey are briefed on the security procedures and the 

rules for attending the lock-up briefi ng. Th is includes leaving all electronic devices outside the lockup, staying with the group, refraining from photography unless approved in advance, and not asking 

questions while the Secretary (or Acting Secretary) is 

being briefed. Th ey must sign that they have read the 

rules and will abide by them before receiving a pass 

to enter lock-up.

Once inside, visitors are permitted to visit the room 

where the reporters are working on their reports and 

preparing for outside communications to be activated at 8:30 a.m. Th ey also visit the Agricultural 

Statistics Board (ASB) analysis room for a discussion 

of fi nal report preparation activities that occurred 

overnight.

Once the report is released and the Secretary leaves, 

visitors often spend the rest of the morning with 

NASS staff members to learn more about reports and 

survey procedures. Th e session normally concludes at 

lunchtime. One usual activity included before lunch 

is to have someone bring in the opening futures market numbers to see what impact interpretations of 

the “Crop Production” and the “World Agricultural 

Supply and Demand Estimates” reports have had on 

the markets.

Visitors waiting to attend a 3 p.m. release for reports such as “Cattle” or “Hogs and Pigs” will meet 

with agency staff members outside of the secured 

work area in the morning. After lunch, they will go 

through the same clearance procedures required for 

morning releases and then receive similar briefi ngs 

while they wait for the Secretary to arrive.

Customer-Driven Quality

Th e examples of listening to data users and setting 

new policies on the days of the week for report re-
62

leases are typical of the types of improvements that 

were made based on input from customers. NASS 

seriously considers all suggestions for changes in 

data collection, survey and release timing, and the 

amount of detail included in publications. Some 

changes, such as adding reliability write-ups to most 

major reports, have already been mentioned.

Th ere must be enough consistent, underlying data 

available for NASS to make a change or add new features to their reports. NASS will not make changes 

based on requests from some data users that will disadvantage others. For example, one State-level peach 

producers’ organization requested a later production 

forecast date for their State. It was not clear whether 

the change would unfairly benefi t that State in marketing their crop compared to other neighboring 

States, but NASS would not make a change until the 

other State organizations had the chance to consider 

the proposal and comment on it. 

Customer-driven quality is one term that has been 

used to describe the willingness to make changes in 

content, timing, and other variables without new 

funding. Below are some other examples of changes 

from the 1980s. 

One of the best examples of improving report contents was for “Crop Progress” reports. Th roughout 

the growing season, each State conducts a weekly 

survey that measures not only crop maturity information (e.g., percent planted, corn tasseling, and 

soybean blooming), but also the conditions of major 

crops. Until the 1980s, State fi eld offi ces basically set 

their own weekly questionnaires. Often, adjoining 

States would not start asking specifi c progress questions at the same time. States varied as to whether 

they asked for four or fi ve condition descriptors (“excellent,” “good,” “fair,” “poor,” and “very poor”) 

and whether they listed the adjectives from best to 

worse or worse to best. Th us, it was diffi cult for data 

users to draw conclusions about the progress of and 

conditions in diff erent regions of the country. Progress question timing and the format for condition 

questions are now coordinated. As a further service 

to data users, State data for each crop are now presented in data tables, which provide comparisons 

with last week, last year, and average progress to a 

specifi c date. Th ose tables in the “Crop Progress Report” issued every Monday afternoon also include 

weighted averages.

NASS has often been able to improve report usability 

by providing fi ner breakouts, such as splitting hired 

farm-worker estimates into fi eld and livestock workers. Finer breakouts of “Cold Storage Report” categories, such as pork, cherries, and caneberries, were 

provided when it was determined that there were 

suffi cient data for consistent publication. As other 

examples, new, larger-size groups for farms, hog inventories, and milk-cow inventories were added. 

Sometimes data tradeoff s have been made with specifi c industry groups. For example, Congressional 

funding for the “Commercial Floriculture Report” 

was suffi cient at one period in time to cover all operations in only 28 States with $10,000 or more in 

sales. Some industry groups wanted the survey expanded to 36 States. Th e compromise was to add 

more States, but also to collect fully detailed data for 

only operations with $100,000 in sales. For operations with sales between $10,000 and $100,000, the 

survey would ask just a few classifi cation questions.

Passing the Torch: a New Agency Administrator

Bill Kibler retired as NASS administrator in May 

1987. Th e USDA Assistant Secretary for Economics interviewed only in-house candidates to select 

Charles E. (Charlie) Caudill as the third agency 

administrator. Th e process was very orderly; the interview and selection process was completed early 

enough so that Kibler left the offi ce one day, and 

Caudill was in place the next day.

Caudill received a B.S. degree in agricultural economics in 1957 from North Carolina State College 

(now University). He worked as a student trainee in 

the North Carolina fi eld offi ce, and started his fulltime career there before transferring to the Maryland-Delaware offi ce in 1959. Caudill was part of the 

second group of agency personnel in the full-time, 

mathematical statistics training program. He spent 

the 1961–62 academic year at Iowa State University. 

After Iowa State, he transferred to agency headquarters where he worked on research and methodology 

issues. 

In 1967, Caudill became the chief of the Statistical 

Methods Staff responsible for the ongoing probability surveys’ sampling and estimation procedures. He 

was one of the visionaries who proposed the creation 

of the generalized edit and generalized summary 

data-processing systems; he also led the development 
eff orts. He was the statistician in charge of the Texas 

State statistical offi ce from 1972–75. Caudill then returned to headquarters as the statistical research division director. 

As mentioned earlier, one major responsibility for 

the director was the development and management 

of AgRISTARS (the Joint Program for Agriculture 

and Resources Inventory Surveys Th rough Aerospace Remote- Sensing). While still carrying out his 

AgRISTARS functions, Caudill shifted to the director of the State Statistical Division position in April 

1984 and then to the deputy administrator for programs position in October 1986.

Caudill brought broad agency experience and technical training to the administrator position. However, 

he is particularly remembered by agency personnel 

for his emphasis on balancing family and faith with 

a person’s career. One of his signature activities was 

personally hosting a discussion session with family 

members who attended agency national conferences. 

U.S. Agriculture, Circa 1987

Th e 1980s will be remembered for the Farm Crisis. 

Many farmers had purchased additional farmland 

and greatly expanded their production due to the 

high commodity prices and expanded exports of the 

1970s. Net farm income was $27.4 billion in 1979, 

and farmland values were extremely high (recall 

chapter 4). However, the U.S. economy changed in 

the 1980s to extremely high interest rates and lower 

exports. Farmland values increased to a U.S. average 

of $823 per acre in 1982, and some States saw further increases for the next two years. However, U.S. 

average farmland value decreased 25 percent from 

1984 to 1987 (from $801 to $599), with the biggest 

declines in top crop-producing States. Th e average 

farmland value in Iowa dropped almost 50 percent, 

and values declined by about 40 percent in Illinois, 

Indiana, Kansas, and Nebraska. Th e value per acre of 

California farmland declined 22 percent, while that 

for Texas dropped 11 percent.

Th e large debt load and extremely high interest rates 

led to unprecedented rates of farm bankruptcies—

higher than during the economic Depression of the 

late 1920s and the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s. 

Th e U.S. rate of bankruptcies in 1987 was 23.05 per 

10,000 farms, which was artifi cially high because 

many farmers had waited for new legislation that established Chapter 12 bankruptcy provisions. Th ose 

provisions encouraged lenders to write down part of 

the farm debt and allowed up to fi ve years to pay off 

the present debts. Chapter 12 only applied if 80 percent of the debt was farm-related, and if 50 percent of 

gross household income came from farming. Given 

this, there were still some other bankruptcy proceedings. Th e highest rate of 1987 Chapter 12 bankruptcies was in the Northern Plains States (78.43 per 

10,000 farms). Rates in the Delta States (43.24) and 

in the Corn Belt (27.73) were also above the U.S. average.

U.S. Farm Program changes and weather impacts 

resulted in extreme variations in crop acreages and 

yields during the 1980s. For example, the corn-forgrain harvested acreage varied 8 percent or more (up 

or down) from year to year for a total of fi ve times 

between 1982 and 1989. U.S. average corn yields fell 

below 100 bushels per acre three times in the 1980s 

(with a low of 81.1 in 1983), but they rose above 115 

bushels per acre four times, with a record high of 

119.8 in 1987. Th e average corn yield for 1985–89 

was 111.6 bushels per acre, up 17.3 percent from 10 

years earlier. (Th e 84.6 bushels-per-acre average for 

corn in 1988 had reduced the 1985–89 period average by 6.8 bushels.) Th e average acreage harvested 

during that period was 65.3 million acres, which fell 

8 percent from 10 years earlier.

Soybean acreage harvested in the 1980s did not fl uctuate as much as corn, but it did decline 10 percent 

in 1983 during the corn Payment in Kind Program 

(PIK). However, it rebounded 5.7 percent in the next 

year. During 1985–89, the average acreage harvested 

was 58.8 million acres—almost the same as 10 years 

prior. Th e average yield per harvested acre was 32.1 

bushels per acre, an increase of 9.2 percent in 10 

years.

Cotton acreage harvested averaged 10 million acres 

during 1985–89 (down 14 percent from 10 years 

earlier), but the fi ve-year period included a low of 

8.5 million in 1986 and a high of 11.9 million in 

1988. Yield per acre during 1985–89 averaged 624.2 

pounds per acre, an increase of 29.8 percent in 10 

years. 

Acres of all wheat harvested averaged 42.3 million 

acres during 1985–89, with an average yield per harvested acre of 37.5 bushels. Th e average harvested 

acreage fell 4 million acres (8.6 percent), but the 

63
average yield was up 14.3 percent in 10 years from 

the 1975–79 average. Th e resultant average wheat 

crop of nearly 1.59 billion bushels rose 4.8 percent 

over the average crop size of 1.51 billion bushels during 1975–79.

Utilization of corn for high-fructose corn syrup more 

than doubled from 1980 to 1987 (from the equivalent of 165 million bushels of corn to 358 million). 

In addition, the fi rst eff orts to convert corn to ethanol for use as a fuel additive were underway. Some 

35 million bushels of corn were used in 1980, which 

rose to 279 million bushels by 1987. Corn exports 

dropped from 30.5 percent of total utilization in 

1977 to 22.1 percent in 1987.

Th ere were slightly more than 2.21 million farms in 

the United States in 1987—a reduction of 332,870 

farms (or 13.6 percent) from 1977. From 1977 to 

1987, the number of farms with cattle declined by 

375,470 (a 21-percent drop). Farms with hogs in 

1987 fell to 328,640, and had declined 49.2 percent 

in 10 years. Farms with milk cows in 1987 numbered 

at 227,880 (a 42-percent drop). Th e number of cattle 

in 1987 fell 23 percent because of the cattle cycle. 

However, the number of hogs decreased only 3.8 

percent, and the number of milk cows fell only by 

5.6 percent (though the total milk produced actually 

rose by 16.4 percent).

Table 7. Per Capita Consumption of Meat, Poultry, 

 and Fish, United States 1987 

 

Total Population 242,804,000 

 

Category Total Percent

 Consumption of Total

 (Pounds/person) 

 

 Beef 73.7 34.6

 Veal 1.5 0.7

 Lamb 1.3 0.6

 Pork 48.8 22.9

 Chicken 56.6 26.6

 Turkey 14.7 6.9

 Total Fish 16.1 7.6

 

 Total Meat, Poultry & Fish 212.7 100.0

Table 7 documents major changes in meat-, poultry-, and fi sh-consumption patterns in the United 

States between 1977 and 1987. In the early 1980s, 

there was considerable progress in broiler genetics, 

and a larger, more easily deboned bird with more 

breast meat was developed. Consumption of chicken 

increased from 42.7 pounds per capita in 1977 to 

56.6 pounds in 1987. Beef consumption per capita 

dropped during the same period from 91.5 pounds 

to 73.7 pounds. Veal consumption dropped from 3.2 

pounds per person to 1.5 pounds, and lamb continued its decline from 1.5 to 1.3 pounds. Both turkey 

consumption (8.7 to 14.7 pounds per person) and 

fi sh consumption (12.6 to 16.1 pounds) increased 

during the same 10-year period of 1977–87.

Pork consumption was now lower than chicken, 

even though it increased slightly from 1977 to 1987 

(from 46.7 pounds per person to 48.8). In the 1980s, 

most hogs were still raised on farrow-to-fi nish operations, although some early contracts were being 

written for farmers to feed out hogs that had been 

farrowed elsewhere.

Table 8. Cash Receipts from Farm Marketings, by

 Commodity Groups, United States 1987 

 

Category Total Percent 

 Cash Receipts of Total

 (Million dollars) 

 

All Cash Receipts 141,797 100.0

 

Total Crops 65,801 46.4

 

 Food Grains 5,790 4.1

 Feed Grains 14,635 10.3

 Cotton 4,189 3.0

 Oil-bearing Crops 11,283 8.0

 Tobacco 1,816 1.3

 Fruits and Tree Nuts 8,056 5.7

 Vegetables 9,891 7.0

 Nursery, Greenhouse, Flowers 6,737 4.8

 Other Crops 3,404 2.4

 

 [table continues on next page]

64
 

Total Livestock and Products 75,996 53.6

 

 Cattle and Calves 33,583 23.7

 Hogs and Pigs 10,336 7.3

 Sheep and Lambs 558 0.4

 Dairy Products 17,727 12.5

 Eggs 3,208 2.3

 Broilers and Farm Chickens 6,289 4.4

 Turkeys and Other Poultry 2,018 1.4

 Wool 77 0.1

 Other Livestock and Products 2,199 1.6

Table 8 indicates that U.S. cash receipts from farm 

marketings in 1987 returned to the point where livestock and products marketings exceeded crops marketings. Even though the $141.8 million dollars of 

total cash receipts in 1987 (in 1987 dollars) is nearly 

50 percent higher than the $96.2 million in 1977 

(in 1977 dollars), the eff ective level of cash receipts 

in 2007 equivalent dollars actually decreased from 

$321.4 million in 1977 to $252.7 in 1987. Th is 

refl ects impacts on the U.S. economy during the 

1980s. All of the major fi eld-crop categories (feed 

grains, food grains, cotton, tobacco, and oil-bearing crops) accounted for lower percentages of total 

U.S. cash receipts in 1987 than in the 10 years prior. 

Cash receipts for fruits and tree nuts, vegetables, and 

nursery, greenhouse and fl owers were all proportionally higher in 1987 than in 1977. Th e proportion 

of nursery, greenhouse and fl owers cash receipts to 

total cash receipts more than doubled in the 10-year 

period. 

For the livestock cash-receipts side, the cattle and 

calves group and the broilers and farm chickens 

group had signifi cant proportional increases from 

1977 to 1987. Th e proportion of cash receipts for 

the other livestock and products category more than 

doubled during the 10-year period, largely from increases in receipts from aquaculture, honey, horses 

and mules, and goats.

International Assistance in the 1980s

Th e SRS International Assistance Program was quite 

active in the early 1980s. More than 20 countries 

were visited each year between 1980 and 1982, and 

about $500,000 in reimbursements ($1.1 million in 

2007 dollars) was received each year. Ten countries 

had completed the fi rst two demonstration stages 

of the Remote Sensing for Agriculture Project (area 

frame construction and data collection). Th ree of the 

countries were planning to move from the demonstration level to countrywide area frames.

Even though most assistance in the 1980s was provided by individuals or teams on a temporary duty 

(TDY) basis, there were still several resident assignments. Th ose included Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Peru, 

Liberia, Morocco, Pakistan, Cameroon, and Honduras. Most assignments were two to three years, but 

the projects in Morocco and Pakistan were in place 

for 10 years, which required a rotation of agency resident personnel.

One of the largest TDY activity projects of the 1980s 

was in Egypt. USAID established an Agricultural 

Data Collection/Analysis Project that included ERS 

and some private contractors. Egypt did not want an 

area frame constructed for the entire country, but it 

did request a wide variety of pilot surveys for diff erent 

commodities. Other TDY assignments in the 1980s 

included Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, 

Peru, the Philippines, Sierra Leone, and Turkey. 

In 1984, the agency started off ering a six-week Basic Agricultural Statistics and Survey Procedures 

training course in Washington, DC. Th e course was 

taught by headquarters’ staff members and included 

visits to nearby fi eld offi ces. Th e course was extremely 

successful and was modifi ed to be presented in other 

countries such as Pakistan and Sudan. 

Staffi ng in the 1980s

Because of the budget cuts early in the decade, and 

the resultant hiring freezes, staffi ng levels fl uctuated 

quite a bit in the 1980s. By October 1987, staffi ng 

levels were lower than the start of the decade. 

In October 1987, there were 393 agricultural statisticians on board, compared to the 406 in 1979. Th irty-fi ve were women and 38 were minority employees. At the same time, there were 64 mathematical 

statisticians, including 10 women and two minority 

employees. Eighty-six employees were in computer 

specialist positions in October 1987, including 37 

women and 14 minority employees. 

65
Th e fourth employee series for which detailed breakouts are available is statistical assistants. Th ere were 

a total of 174 in October 1987, comprised of 163 

women and 36 minority employees.

66
PROLOGUE

During the 1980s, environmental concerns were 

growing in the United States. Th ere were concerns 

about water quality and the eff ects of chemicals getting into rivers, streams, lakes, and the water supply. 

Although individual cases of businesses dumping 

chemicals were brought to light, complaints were often lodged at farmers using herbicides, insecticides, 

and other pesticides.

Th ere were also increasing food safety concerns. 

Again the focus was on farming practices. Th e public 

wondered what chemicals were being used to produce fruits and vegetables, and what chemical residues were found in the produce. Food safety complaints peaked when it was reported in 1986 that 

residue traces of Alar detected in apple juice and 

applesauce might be harmful to people. Alar was a 

chemical sometimes used as a ripening agent to ensure that red apples would ripen evenly and have the 

best appearance for fresh market sales.

Th e Alar reports created a great uproar and many 

articles called for a ban. Some grocery store chains 

and apple product manufacturers stopped accepting 

Alar-treated apples. Much of the attention was based 

on the compelling thought that Alar residues might 

be found in applesauce for babies. Th ose claims carried a lot of weight and led to a halt in the use of 

Alar. Articles that pointed out there were no reasons 

to apply a ripening agent to apples harvested for processing didn’t receive much media attention. Because 

of the publicity, the manufacturer of Alar halted all 

domestic sales of the chemical in 1989. Tests for Alar 

exposure on laboratory animals showed a possible 

connection to cancer, but only at rates equivalent to 

a person consuming a boxcar of apples each day. 

Th e environmental complaints and health concerns 

of the time led to a Presidential water quality initiative and a Secretary of Agriculture’s food safety initiative. Th e Secretary announced a $25 million data 

initiative that would include measuring chemical 

residues in food as well as collecting information on 

farm-level chemical usage. Both initiatives needed 

valid data on what chemicals were being used by 

American farmers, and which residues were present 

Part 4: Branching Into New Data Series

in food being produced. NASS had conducted only

a few general purpose chemical-use surveys, so the 

main agricultural chemicals data available were ambiguous reports of chemical production and sales. 

To answer both food safety and water quality concerns, new and targeted surveys were needed along 

with detailed analyses of all other related data. Th ese 

tasks would become the responsibility of NASS and 

its sister agency, ERS. 

ERS requested water-quality funding largely for 

fi eld-crops surveys. NASS took the lead in requesting food safety funding, largely for fruit and vegetables surveys. Th e agency developed a three-year 

survey plan that would cover 90 percent of the U.S. 

production of 30 commodities and create State-level 

estimates. NASS fi rst requested food safety funding 

of $7.0 million in the FY 1990 budget, but no money was received. When the request was repeated for 

FY 1991, $3.5 million was received. Th at enabled 

NASS to begin its survey plan, and with the money 

available, it was decided to rotate surveys between 

fruits and vegetables in alternate years.

ERS had a small food-safety analysis program underway and received $2.6 million in FY 1990 for water-quality analyses and some data collection eff orts. 

NASS conducted the fi rst water-quality surveys for 

ERS in 1990. ERS requested an additional $2.125 

million in the FY 1991 budget and planned to concentrate data collection in the Midwestern States.

By the end of calendar year 1990, NASS staffi ng was 

at a very low level. Th e tight 1980s budgets had led 

to reduced hiring, and many staff members hired 

before the 1957 Long-Range Plan had now retired. 

In addition, there was a special Federal employee incentive to retire on or before November 30, 1990. 

Up to that point, retiring employees covered under 

the Civil Service Retirement System could request 

a lump-sum payment of their retirement contributions and still receive 90 percent of their normal retirement annuity. Th at option was very attractive to 

many people, but it ended after November 30, 1990. 

Nineteen NASS employees retired on that date; in 

total, 20 agricultural and mathematical statisticians

67
and 25 other employees retired between December 

30, 1989, and November 30, 1990.

Th e funding made available for chemical-use surveys 

led to broadening NASS survey and reporting eff orts. 

It also created an expansion in statistician staffi ng 

similar to the corn/hog program of the 1930s and 

the hiring eff ort in the early 1960s to carry out enumerative and objective yield surveys. Hiring started 

right away, with 96 agricultural statisticians and 18 

mathematical statisticians hired between October 

1, 1990, and September 30, 1991. In addition, 84 

other new employees were hired during that period, 

including 12 data processing specialists and 30 statistical assistants. 

Th ere were two noticeable diff erences in FY 1991 

hiring compared to the 1930s and 1960s. All statisticians in the earlier periods were men, but 37.5 

percent of agricultural statisticians and 38.9 percent 

of mathematical statisticians hired in FY 1991 were 

women. In addition, many FY 1991 hires (one-third 

of the agricultural statisticians and all but one mathematical statistician) had master’s-level degrees and 

were hired at GS-9 or higher salaries.

68
Creating the New Environmental Surveys

NASS had previously conducted occasional chemical-use surveys, but now it needed to build an ongoing, detailed data-collection program. In order to 

achieve the best start, a temporary Environmental 

Statistics Group, which reported to the Research 

and Applications Division director, was established 

in early 1990. Th e group engaged in many activities 

to develop the best survey instruments and training 

for staff members and enumerators.

Group members collected all available agricultural 

chemical-usage data and publications. Th ey met 

with offi cials from the U.S. Environmental Protection Administration (EPA), USDA, and other organizations to summarize applicable agricultural 

chemical-use laws and regulations. One major effort was compiling a detailed database of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and other agricultural 

chemicals. Th e database needed to be searchable by 

technical composition name, brand name, and active ingredient because it was expected that survey 

respondents might refer to specifi c chemicals in 

multiple ways. Group members started by matching available database fi les and adding new chemical products information in order to create the most 

useful database for NASS purposes.

Th e fi rst surveys conducted were fi eld crop chemical-use surveys for ERS in support of the President’s 

Initiative on Water Quality. Th ese surveys requested 

fertilizers and pesticides used on the fi elds selected 

for 1990 objective yield surveys. In order to broaden 

the coverage, “quasi objective yield” samples were 

selected in additional corn- and soybean-producing States. Th us, information was collected the fi rst 

year for 47 corn States, 29 soybean States, six cotton 

States, 14 wheat States, 11 potato States, and two 

rice States. A data collection summary was published in March 1991.

Th e fi rst surveys to support NASS eff orts under the 

Secretary’s Food Safety Initiative covered 1990 vegetable and melon production in Arizona, Florida, 

Michigan, and Texas. Th ese results were issued in 

June 1991. For the 1991 crop year, surveys shifted 

to fruits and nuts, thus establishing an alternative 

year pattern that provided good quality chemicalusage information and avoided annual contact of the 

largest fruit or vegetable growers. 

Section 1491 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (commonly referred to 

as the FACT Act or the 1990 Farm Bill) called for an 

annual report to Congress on uses of restricted-use 

pesticides that require specifi c training and precautions prior to purchase and use. Th e FACT Act section was all encompassing; it included commodities 

that NASS was not covering in the food safety and 

water-quality surveys, as well as usage on livestock, 

seed treatments, forestry, and non-agriculture categories (e.g., parks and golf courses). NASS requested 

$1.0 million in the FY 1992 budget as the fi rst of 

two installments to collect restricted-use chemical 

information. Congress provided only $100,000 in 

FY 1992 and did not add any additional funds in 

FY 1993. With the limited funds, NASS started a series of annual reports that summarized the uses of 

restricted-use pesticides that had been documented 

the previous calendar year in surveys that NASS did 

conduct.

Even though most chemical-use surveys were time 

consuming, NASS received good cooperation from 

producers. Producers, in general, had a story they 

wanted to tell. Th ere was great concern in the press 

about overuse of agricultural chemicals, and producers wanted to demonstrate how prudent their chemical usage actually was. Th e EPA approach, in the 

absence of documented statewide chemical-usage 

survey data, was to assume that each producer used 

all authorized chemicals and at maximum rates. Th is 

approach assumed that multiple herbicides and insecticides would be used on the same fi eld; however, 

producers usually applied only one insecticide or 

herbicide, often at less than the maximum-allowable 

application rates.

When NASS started chemical-use surveys, counterpart agricultural statistical organizations in Europe 

were amazed that U.S. farmers would report agricultural chemicals-usage data. Th ose countries were experiencing very low response rates. However, it was 

clarifi ed that those countries were using quite complicated mail questionnaires instead of the NASS 

personal interview system. To gain good cooperation 

and provide the most complete report, NASS 

Chapter 6: Applying Agency Strengths to New Statistical Series

69
enumerators often were invited to sit down and tally 

a producer’s records. Th is was particularly the case 

for some fruits and vegetables that received a number of diff erent treatments during a growing season.

NASS and ERS did adjust the water-quality survey 

emphases somewhat from year to year. For the 1991 

crop year, in addition to collecting chemical- usage 

data for all ongoing objective yield surveys, objective yield-style samples were selected in three peanut States and three grain sorghum States. In addition, a special, more inclusive survey of chemical 

use was conducted in 1991 for the Delmarva (Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia) Peninsula. In 1992, 

chemical-usage information was collected for some 

watersheds in Indiana, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and 

Washington State.

In addition to the farm-level surveys, agency staff 

members played an important role in assisting AMS 

of USDA with their assigned role of testing agricultural products for chemical residues. A valid sampling plan for selecting samples of commodities for 

testing was designed, and guidelines for proper calculation of testing results were provided. 

Other New Surveys in the Early 1990s

Although the chemical-use surveys and reports made 

the biggest splash in the early 1990s, there were 

some additional new or expanded surveys. Th e Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1989 

stipulated new information that was needed about 

seasonal labor, and Congress appropriated funds 

in the FY 1990 and FY 1991 budgets for survey expansion. Th e fi rst step was an annual survey for all 

States, followed by quarterly estimates for all States 

and monthly data for selected, major States.

In 1990, the monthly crop yield surveys for the 48 

contiguous States had all been converted to the probability-based Monthly Agricultural Survey Program. 

Sorghum and oats grain-stocks were again restored 

to a quarterly basis and exports were added to the 

“Catfi sh” reports. 

In 1991, NASS took over the responsibility for collecting and processing the twice-monthly “Cotton 

Ginnings Report.” Information for those reports 

was formerly collected and summarized by the Bureau of the Census. 

Because of changes in Farm Bill provisions, NASS 

was asked to start production estimates of minor 

oilseeds (canola, rapeseed, saffl ower, and mustard) 

and end-of-marketing-season estimates of stocks on 

hand. Because of renewed Congressional interest in 

the U.S. sheep and lamb industry, NASS was asked 

to create State estimates of sheep operations by size 

and to publish March and November “Sheep and 

Lambs on Feed” reports.

State-level wage rates were added to the farm-labor 

estimating program in 1993, and a series of selected 

pesticide prices was added to the prices paid program.

In addition to new surveys, two signifi cant estimation procedural changes were made in 1993. Farm 

production expenditure estimates were now published, by interpreting indications from the farm 

costs and returns survey, along with information 

from prices paid surveys, farm-input cost data, and 

Bureau of Census benchmark data. Grazing fee estimates were now set for 17 Western States, instead of 

published survey averages.

FY 1993 and 1994 turned out to be particularly 

tight budget years. NASS made cuts in the forage 

and commodity statistics estimating programs. Th e 

rice objective yield program was dropped for the last 

two States, the number of soybean objective yield 

program States fell from 11 to eight, and the winter 

wheat objective yield program States fell from 15 to 

13. Post-harvest surveys for all objective yield crops 

were eliminated for one year. Other reductions included dropping the June Vegetables Annual Summary and the monthly “Celery Report,” along with 

six monthly “Vegetables” reports and the Fall Maple 

Syrup Survey. Some planned State-level fruit tree 

and vine inventory surveys were postponed.

Evaluating the 1993 Floods

NASS crop-survey procedures, forecasts, and estimates received considerable attention in 1993 

when a cool, wet spring turned into heavy July rains 

and fl ooding in nine Midwestern States. Th e previous year had been a cool year with slow, early crop 

progress. However, 1992 was a long crop year, with 

later-than-normal killing frosts, and U.S. corn and 

soybean yields both exceeded their previous record 

yields by 10 percent. Th us, Midwestern farmers 

likely were not too concerned about the slow 1993 

70
planting season start. Plantings were two weeks behind normal in early May and remained behind by 

the fi rst of June. At the time producers were interviewed for the June Enumerative Survey, 5 percent 

of the corn crop and 35 percent of the soybean crop 

had not been planted. 

Weather remained cool and damp during June and 

there became concerns that the last intended corn 

and soybean plantings might not materialize. Heavy 

rains in early July resulted in extensive fl ooding in 

North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, 

Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Illinois. 

Much of the greatest concern was for Iowa and Missouri.

Even in more normal crop seasons, there are often 

a few States with late plantings. NASS commonly 

added follow-up survey eff orts in July so acreage for 

harvest totals in the August “Crop Production Report” would be as accurate as possible. For 1993, 

the follow-up survey work was greatly expanded. 

All June Enumerative Survey operators in the nine 

States who had not completed plantings when interviewed were re-contacted, and all operations selected 

for corn and soybeans objective yield surveys were 

contacted in late July. Th e sample size for the August 

Agricultural Yield Survey was expanded by selecting 

an extra replicate; operations scheduled to be contacted for chemical-use data later in the season were 

also contacted in late July. In total, more than 8,000 

extra contacts were made in late July to collect information on fi nal plantings and on acreages of corn 

and soybeans that would be harvested.

Th e NASS survey procedures provided strong evidence for acreage estimates in the August “Crop Production Report” that indicated 600,000 acres of corn 

and nearly 2 million acres of soybeans had not been 

planted in the nine States. In addition, 2.5 million 

acres of corn and nearly 2 million acres of soybeans 

that had been planted in the nine States would not 

be harvested. NASS research staff aided the evaluation eff orts by creating weekly weather satellite-produced vegetative index maps, which demonstrated 

the extent of the fl ooding and compared the relative 

healthiness of the crops after the fl oods with that for 

1992.

Th e objective yield surveys indicated that 1993 corn 

and soybeans plant populations, and corn ears per 

acre, were quite high in most States. Th e fi rst corn 

yield forecast for Iowa was 32 bushels below its record yield in 1992, but Illinois was expecting a yield 

within nine bushels of its record. Th e crop potentials 

remained mixed throughout the rest of the growing 

season, with record high soybean pod counts in Illinois and Indiana, but with record low counts in Iowa 

and Minnesota. Corn pollination was poor in Iowa 

and Minnesota, which resulted in shorter-than-normal kernel row lengths. 

Killing frosts in the northern Corn Belt occurred on 

October 2 and 3; by mid-month, they had moved 

across most of the Corn Belt. Corn and soybean 

harvests started soon after the freezes, and 50 percent of the corn and 80 percent of the soybean acres 

were harvested by the fi rst of November. Corn kernel weights turned out to be extremely low, and the 

7.2-bushel drop in U.S. forecasted corn yield from 

October to November was the greatest it had been in 

20 years.

Soybean yields were not aff ected as much as corn, 

and Illinois and Indiana both had good soybean harvests. However, the corn yields and weights per ear 

for Iowa and Minnesota turned out to be even lower 

than had been experienced during two years of severe 

drought in the 1980s.

NASS and WAOB were asked by the Secretary of 

Agriculture, and by many others, to shed additional 

light on the low 1993 yields and the impacts of the 

fl ooding. Based on the March “Prospective Plantings 

Report” issued by NASS coupled with early season 

conditions, WAOB had projected the third- largest 

U.S. corn crop and fi fth-largest soybean crop on 

record. However, the corn crop ended up 25.4 percent lower (9.1 percent lower acreage harvested and 

17.9 percent lower yield) and the soybean crop 11.9 

percent lower (3.1 percent lower harvested acreage 

and 8.9 percent lower yield) than the WAOB projections. 

However, all losses could not directly be attributed 

to the fl oods. Detailed analyses of weather and weekly crop-progress data indicated that there was not 

enough time in some States between the 50-percent 

corn-silking date and the killing frost. 

Th e 1993 frost was not particularly early, but crop 

progress was late enough that there was not suffi cient 

time for the crop to fully mature. Graphs for Iowa 

demonstrated that there were only 60 days between 

71
72

the 50-percent silking date and the frost in 1993, 

compared with the 1992 record crop that had 87 

days. 

Modernizing Prices Indexes 

One of the most signifi cant agency advances in the 

early 1990s was reconstructing the indexes of prices 

paid and prices received by farmers. Th e last previous revision to these index series had been in 1976, 

and it was more of a minor update. Th e new eff ort 

improved the index weighting procedure and established a new technique that would keep the relative 

weights of index items current, as the mix of commodities produced and inputs purchased change 

over time.

Th e new indexes are based on a 1990–92 reference 

period, which had relatively stable levels of prices 

paid and prices received. Because of a legal requirement that parity prices be computed with a base period of 1910–14, calculations continue to be made 

and published each month for that reference period. 

Perhaps the greatest advance in the new index procedures was shifting from a fi xed set of annual weights 

for the prices received indexes to monthly weights, 

which were based on relative marketings of each 

commodity for the previous fi ve years. Th e former 

fi xed-weight approach, though an unbiased procedure, often created prices received index-calculation 

anomalies. For example, oranges had a fi xed weight 

of 1.5 out of 100 in the former system, which fairly 

well-represented its proper share of annual cash receipts. However, late in the marketing year, few sales 

of oranges occurred, and they were often at an extremely high price for export. Because those late-season sales were overweighted in the old index series, 

the price increase for oranges might have raised the 

U.S. monthly prices received index calculation a few 

points higher than it should have been with better 

weighting. Th e new system provides an appropriate 

marketing weight for oranges each month, which is 

important when January marketings are normally 10 

times higher than August marketings. 

In addition to instituting monthly weights, the 

weights are now recalculated each year based on relative marketings for the previous fi ve years. Th us, if 

production and sales of a particular commodity increase and remain stable, marketing weights will refl ect the change. Th ere will be a bit of a lag as the 

weights adjust, which is preferable to having signifi -

cant year-to-year changes in the index calculations 

based on short-term weather or other production 

anomalies.

For the prices paid index reconstruction, expenditure 

data from the annual farm costs and returns survey 

(FCRS) were used to create moving average weights. 

Annual weights are used for prices paid instead of 

monthly weights. Th e major component weights are 

now updated annually, based on purchases the previous fi ve years. However, subcomponent weights, 

such as types of seeds purchased, are updated only 

every fi ve years.

Th e biggest change in the prices paid index calculations, when the shift was made from the 1971–73 

base to the 1990–92 base, was the reduction of 

weight for the family-living component. Again, the 

FCRS provided information on household expenditures, as well as all other expenditures. Th e relative 

weight for the family-living expenditures declined 

from 30.4 percent for 1971–73 to 19.0 for 1990–92. 

Th is was due to the decline in the number of farm 

households and the corresponding increase in proportion of production expenditures.

A great amount of thought, planning, and hard work 

went into the index reconstruction eff ort. Much of 

the work was performed by a statistician from Statistics Canada, who was on a two-year exchange program with NASS. Assistance was also received from 

staff members from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the University of Maryland, and ERS. Th e new 

procedures and approaches are well-outlined in the 

publication, “Reweighting and Reconstructing USDA’s Indexes of Prices Received and Paid by Farmers,” which was issued by NASS in January 1995.

Continuing to Document Agency Standards

By 1991, much of the early work on defi ning agency 

standards had been completed. A total of 52 “Policy 

and Standards Memoranda” (PSMs) had been completed and issued. Twenty had been revised and reissued, as staff members continued to evaluate the best 

standards for the agency.

Technical Review Teams (TRTs) were reviewing the 

operations of eight or nine fi eld offi ces a year. Th e 

fi rst cycle of all State fi eld offi ces, except Alaska, was 

completed in 1992. Th e fi rst edition of “Common
73

Th reads,” which summarized the fi ndings and suggested improvements from the fi rst 26 TRTs, was

published in April 1991. Th e TRT approach was expanded to review selected headquarters’ units starting in 1992.

Th e PSM and TRT approaches fi t in well with the 

agency’s emphasis on “Total Quality Management” 

(TQM) in the late 1980s and early 1990s. One TQM 

approach was establishing Survey Quality Teams 

(SQT) to identify statistical-process control methods, which could improve agency operations. Th e 

most challenging SQT analyzed all aspects of the agricultural survey program. Th at team’s draft report, 

with its baseline quality measures, formed one of the 

key discussion topics at an agency national conference in April 1990. Many recommendations had to 

do with establishing and defi ning additional operational standards.

Among the quality/standards accomplishments of 

the early 1990s were the creation of a 10-volume 

commodity-estimation manual; the addition of reliability statements to all major releases; and the 

selection of a Report Survey Quality Team (RSQT) 

that implemented almost all recommended improvements in the course of completing its review. 

Expanding Customer Service Eff orts

When most Federal Government agencies discovered 

customer service in the 1990s, the typical reaction 

from NASS staff members (particularly State statisticians) was, “We have always provided good customer 

service.” Th at attitude was correct—NASS had been 

a leader in customer service. Th e previous chapter 

highlighted some examples of customer-driven quality improvements that the agency had implemented. 

However, even NASS could enhance its level of customer service at that time.

One change in the May 1995 agency reorganization 

was the creation of a customer service offi ce—and a 

customer service pledge. Th e most prominent feature of the offi ce was a well-functioning, toll-free information number. Every call during business hours 

was answered in person, instead of by an answering 

machine. People assisting with the toll-free service 

received customer service training, which included 

extensive training on NASS reports and data products. Commodity specialists were available to answer 

particularly challenging questions.

Customers using the service were often shocked 

that they had reached a “real person.” Th e quality 

of service was high, even when requests did not involve NASS data products. In fact, about half of the 

calls were not about NASS data—this included an 

estimated 20 percent of calls requesting data that 

probably had never been collected by any organization. Many other Federal agencies were not willing to provide toll-free service, and some data users 

called NASS and asked that their calls be transferred 

to those agencies. Staff members assisting with the 

toll-free service kept track of the types of calls and, in 

particular, the detailed references they uncovered as 

they pursued requests for non-NASS-related data. 

Th e toll-free service was established before many 

people had electronic transmission and Internet access. As technology and customer access preferences 

changed, individuals helping with the toll-free service received training on electronic searches and Internet-access techniques. Early on, when customers 

acquired Internet connections, they often could not 

be on the telephone and connected to their computer at the same time. Staff members had to provide 

detailed descriptions of what choices the customer 

should take and what online screens would come up. 

Th e toll-free service was quickly expanded to include 

e-mail requests and an auto-fax capability for sending short NASS reports available in electronic formats.

Remote Sensing Developments in the Early to Mid1990s

As mentioned in chapter 5, the main remote sensing 

eff orts of the late 1980s had retracted from State-level and county estimates for multiple States to basic 

research and evaluation of new sensors and satellites. 

Research in 1991 focused on Arkansas and Mississippi; Louisiana was added in 1992. However, when the 

NASS budget became even tighter and Landsat data 

costs skyrocketed (due to the Government’s decision 

to privatize sales of Landsat data), NASS reduced the 

research eff orts to concentrate mainly on Craighead 

County, Arkansas. Th is is a fairly large county that 

has extensive acreages of cotton, soybeans, and rice.

A new, non-Landsat research eff ort was the evaluation of vegetative index data being produced from 

NOAA weather satellites. Th e Advanced Very HighResolution Radiometer (AVHRR) sensor measured 

chlorophyll activity (or “greenness”), as the weather 
74

satellites orbited the earth 14 times a day. Th e term 

“very high resolution” seemed a misnomer because 

individual AVHRR readings represented pixel sizes 

of 1.1 kilometers at best, compared with 30- to 60-

meter resolutions that NASS had worked with for 

crop-acreage research eff orts. However, the daily, 

high-frequency coverage of the weather satellites did 

provide a potentially useful data source.

Th e main data product created from the AVHRR 

sensor was referred to as the Normalized Diff erence 

Vegetation Index (NDVI). Various types of data sets 

could be created, but the most common was a fi le 

that recorded the highest reading every two weeks 

for each ground location. Th e product was usually 

presented as a color map of the United States that 

showed various shades of green depicting the relative 

healthiness of vegetation. 

Th e NASS AVHRR research approach was to convert 

the photo-type product into a statistical product. 

Once multiple years of AVHRR data (with basically 

comparable data quality) were available, NASS staff 

members created side-by-side displays for the current year and the preceding year at the same time 

of the season. Additionally, instead of just national 

maps, it was possible to showcase particular States 

or regions and provide more detailed displays. NASS 

staff members also created maps that presented the 

greenness changes, both positive and negative, from 

one year to the next. 

Th e year-to-year comparisons were appropriate, but 

it would not be reasonable to make many comparisons within a season, as the vegetation index declines 

later in each growing season as crops mature and go 

into normal senescence. In addition to visually evaluating drought impacts, the AVHRR products were 

of great interest in 1993, when early July fl oods impacted much of the Corn Belt, as mentioned earlier. 

Another emphasis in the early 1990s was to explore 

uses of remote sensing classifi cations in conjunction 

with other Geographic Information System (GIS) 

data layers. When Landsat data costs declined and it 

became possible to return to analysis of data for entire States, NASS researchers started creating a Cropland Data Layer (CDL) product. Th e CDL was a 

complete, geographically referenced classifi cation of 

all satellite data pixels within a State by crop or land 

use. By using Landsat scenes from multiple times of 

the year, the CDL did an excellent job of classifying 

pastures, trees, and other permanent vegetation separately from annual crops.

Th e CDL product would be valuable to a wide variety of researchers and policy offi cials looking at 

land-use planning, water quality, environmental issues, and other conditions. Before NASS released 

any CDL products, it carefully considered whether 

any confi dentiality or proprietary data relationships 

were being compromised. NASS did use fi eld-byfi eld data from the June Enumerative Survey, with 

the current crop type identifi ed, as training data for 

the P-EDITOR classifi er. However, once training was 

completed, the CDL product became a classifi cation 

interpretation for every data pixel in the State, and it 

did not display any originally reported data. Th us, 

the confi dentiality concerns were satisfi ed and CDL 

products could be released.

Another key policy decision was implemented in regards to the CDL. Since a person purchasing a CDL 

product for a State could summarize all pixels and essentially create crop county estimates, NASS decided 

to not release any CDL products until offi cial crop 

county estimates were released for that crop season. 

(Th ose estimates are normally issued in February following the end of the crop season).

A continuing research emphasis throughout the early 

1990s was to improve the functionality of the P-EDITOR system. Specifi cally, P-EDITOR was further 

automated when it was enhanced by some expert 

systems, which enabled it to be used by less-skilled 

analysts. By 1995, NASS had created an extremely 

powerful remote sensing land-use classifi cation system, but it hadn’t the staffi ng, budget, or mandate 

to produce many State-level GIS data products. Instead, because of the great interest from State cooperators and others, NASS developed the concept of 

GIS partnerships.

Th e partnership approach established agreements 

with non-private entities, such as State Government 

agencies or public universities, to create CDL data 

products. Th e partner organization needed to obtain the basic computer workstation with appropriate processing power and to provide a data analyst 

who could be trained to use the P-EDITOR system. 

NASS would provide the training, the data system, 

and the Landsat data.
75

New Technology in the Early to Mid-1990s 

Th e technology emphases in the late 1980s and early 1990s were to provide all offi ces with enhanced, 

standardized data-processing capabilities. In 1989, a 

new eight-year teleprocessing contract was fi nalized, 

and a contract was awarded for the installation of 

microcomputers and local area networks for all fi eld 

offi ces. Microcomputers were installed in the fi rst 11 

States in 1990 and in 24 more States in 1991. All 

State fi eld offi ces were equipped by the end of 1992. 

In 1990, satellite dishes were installed in 32 offi ces 

for remote job-entry communications.

An improved Survey Processing System (SPS) Summary was implemented in 1991 to enhance the analysis of probability-survey data and to expand the 

capability of generating complex survey estimators. 

Th e SPS Summary replaced the Enumerative Summary System (ESS) and could handle the summarization of all agency probability surveys, including 

the new Agricultural Chemical-Use Surveys. Th e SPS 

Summary and the SPS Edit (implemented in 1986) 

have served the agency’s national survey processing 

needs throughout the 1990s and 2000s.

Eff orts were well underway for an online database 

system that would eventually contain all historical 

estimates. One early database module, which would 

greatly help the ASB, contained all grain-stocks estimates. Th e last 17 fi eld offi ces received real-time access to the operational database in 1992. NASS was 

now making all regular statistical reports, including 

“Agricultural Chemical Use” and special reports such 

as “Farm Employment & Wage Rates, 1910-1990,” 

available through the USDA Computerized Information Delivery System (CIDS). 

Diligent data-retrieval and verifi cation eff orts on 

the part of headquarters units and all fi eld offi ces resulted in the upload of an 18-year history of county 

estimates into the Published Estimates Database 

(PEDB). It would now be a simpler procedure to 

add new and revised county estimates each year.

CATI capabilities were increased from 21 to 34 fi eld 

offi ces in 1991. Th e offi ces had approximately 600

calling stations that were used for more than 200,000 

interviews.

One signifi cant agency structure change in 1992 

was the creation of the Field Services Section in the 

Colorado fi eld offi ce. Th is offi ce, staff ed with dataprocessing staff members and supervisors, provided 

several benefi ts. Field offi ces in the most western of 

time zones could contact the new offi ce if there were 

data-processing problems late in the day when most 

headquarters staff were off duty. Th e section was attached to the State Statistical Division and worked 

to create new data-processing systems, which would 

specifi cally benefi t the fi eld offi ces. Among the major projects for the section were improvements to the 

County Estimates Processing System and the development of a microcomputer-based Off -Farm GrainStocks System, an agency Time and Attendance 

Recording System, an improved Crop Progress and 

Condition Estimation System, and an improved Survey Management System.

Another change in 1992 was utilizing the new Federal Governmentwide FTS 2000 Communication 

System to standardize all Wide Area Network communications to Martin Marietta Data Systems, the 

agency’s contract data-processing vendor. Also in 

that year, the PEDB was enhanced by the addition of 

prices estimates for most major commodities.

A new business-processing reengineering approach 

was adopted by the agency in 1993. One project was 

improving the list sampling frame (LSF) by shifting access and operations to the local area networks 

(LANs). Th e most signifi cant aspect of the change 

was to place all LSF records in one accessible database. Two studies were underway to consider shifting 

operations such as manual review, editing, analysis, 

and summary to the LANs. In addition, the Wide 

Area Network, which connected to all LANs, provided electronic mail capability for the agency. In 

a forerunner of things to come, the agency explored 

loading “Crop Production Reports” to the Internet.

Th e fi rst NASS Internet homepage was created between the fall of 1994 and June of 1995. One person 

took the lead for the agency in deciding on initial 

features and formats. Advice and consultation was 

received from the Cornell University Mann Library 

staff and a staff member at ERS. Some NASS staff 

members began other construction projects, including a team of four or fi ve people who created default 

fi eld offi ce homepages to help develop an Internet 

presence for special State reports and features.
Training in the Early to Mid-1990s 

Th e “Program Needs Assessment Report” from the 

University of Maryland Center for Instructional Development and Education, mentioned in chapter 5, 

was received in June 1990. It verifi ed concerns about 

and weaknesses in agency training approaches that 

had been identifi ed in 1988, and it also recommended some practical approaches to improve future 

training. A follow-up activity was the selection of 

one agency trainer for a full-time training program 

at the University.

Th e University of Maryland report provided the survey training group additional leverage to strengthen 

agency training. One key approach was to conduct 

annual training needs assessments, which focused on 

all-agency training. Th is broad look at needs led to a 

shift in training from being primarily devoted to specifi c survey programs, such as an annual June Enumerative Survey training school, to concentrating on 

providing workshop-type training for all professional staff members on survey and estimation principles. 

Th e emphasis on training was strengthened further 

by the establishment of the Training and Career Development Offi ce (TCDO) in mid-1992.

More training emphasis needed to be given to the 

large number of new employees being hired for the 

new environmental surveys. Th is was particularly 

true, as many were hired at higher grade levels and 

had less agency training than their counterparts, 

who had been hired earlier. Th e new employees were 

prime candidates to receive the basic survey and basic estimation training workshops. 

Th e NASS role as a Federal Government statistical 

agency leader in employee training was demonstrated in 1992 and 1993 when a new training program 

for Government statistics was developed. Th e Joint 

Program in Survey Methodology (JPSM) was established with start-up funding from the National 

Science Foundation (NSF). It would off er graduate-level courses and degrees in statistics and survey 

methodology, which were aimed at improving the 

level of statistical methodology in Federal statistical agencies. Th e winning proposal was from a colloquium that included the University of Maryland, 

the University of Michigan, and the Westat statistical 

organization. 

Th e JPSM directors started visiting major Federal 

statistical agencies to encourage agency offi cials to 

send staff members for training on a full-time basis. 

Th e directors were met with concerns and reservations from some of their fi rst contacts. When they 

presented to NASS, they started to sell the benefi ts 

of full-time training. NASS offi cials quickly stopped 

the presentation and pointed out that the agency had 

been investing in full-time training for more than 30 

years. Th e rest of the discussion turned to how NASS 

could help encourage other Federal statistical agencies to develop criteria for selecting individuals for 

full-time training and for handling their assignments 

once they completed full-time programs. Because of 

this NASS assistance, the program directors selected 

a NASS employee as the fi rst offi cial JPSM student.

By 1995, TCDO published a survey training program 

document that summarized agency employee-development principles. Th is document emphasized that 

survey populations and types of surveys that NASS 

would conduct were expanding. Employees had the 

opportunity—through annual, individual development plans—to work with supervisors to plan and 

develop their careers. Th e document also presented 

the diff erent types of training that would be planned 

and presented by the agency.

Research in the Early to Mid-1990s 

Remote sensing research eff orts were highlighted 

earlier in this chapter, but there were many other 

signifi cant research eff orts underway in the early 

1990s. Many had to do with improving quality and 

consistency of basic agency procedures. Microcomputers were evaluated for interactive editing and detection of suspicious reported data. Specifi c statistical methodologies were created for improved review 

of livestock-slaughter data. Cooperative research was 

established with Oregon State University to develop 

improved estimators for hogs, soybeans, and evaluation of time-series estimates.

One new, key approach was the establishment of a 

Quality Assurance Team comprised of research and 

operational program members. Th e goals were to develop error profi les and to improve the use of graphic 

methods for analyzing agency survey data.

Continued research and development eff orts resulted in a computer-assisted area-sampling frame 

construction technician capability. Th is approach 

76
reduced the time requirements for many area frame 

construction operations and, at the same time, reduced the human analyst eff orts.

A signifi cant development of the statistical researchers approach started in 1991 with the creation of a 

new research unit in the Ohio fi eld offi ce. Th e agency 

had always benefi ted from having researchers, who 

had started in fi eld offi ces and later had taken additional statistical training, matched with direct hires 

with more statistical training, but who lacked the 

agency background. With the high cost of living in 

the Washington, DC area, it was diffi cult for individuals with new master’s or Ph.D. degrees in statistics to move directly to the agency’s research offi ces. 

However, those who had devoted so much eff ort to 

their academic training did not want to take what 

they regarded as a “side trip” to a typical fi eld offi ce 

for three or four years before coming to headquarters. Th e Ohio unit was designed as a compromise. 

Individuals would be engaged in agency research 

projects, but they’d also have operational responsibilities for the regular statistical program. Th us, they 

would gain fi rsthand knowledge of the strengths and 

weaknesses of operational procedures, and should be 

able to make informed contributions to the research 

eff orts.

One continuing research eff ort in the early 1990s was 

the use of microcomputers for computer-assisted survey operations. A small pilot was conducted in 1989 

for computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) 

for the June Enumerative Survey. Th e approach was 

also used for objective- yield surveys but, given the 

devices available at that time, CAPI worked best if 

one person made the counts and measurements, and 

another person recorded the results. 

In 1991, new CAPI testing for June Enumerative 

Survey interviews was conducted, followed by testing 

for farm costs and returns survey (FCRS) in 1992. A 

pilot study was performed in 1993 involving three 

enumerators using the electronic equipment for 

three surveys. Again, the enumerators enjoyed using 

the approach, but there were too many operational 

hurdles such as: fi nding suffi cient funding for equipment, creating and maintaining the electronic questionnaire versions, and uploading proper versions to 

a multitude of diff erent devices.

One landmark research project was the fi rst-ever 

trial of incentivizing survey respondents. A trial was 

designed for the FCRS in three States. A subsample 

of operations was to receive a special pre-survey letter that explained the survey purpose. Th e letter included a credit card-sized electronic calculator and 

a small notepaper portfolio that had the FCRS and 

NASS logos on the front. Th e survey was carefully 

planned to ensure all Federal Government incentives 

regulations were being followed. 

Th e incentive trial was quite controversial. Participating States were allowed to exclude very large operations or ones for which they had special contact 

arrangements from the sample. Th e trial was successful, however, and did not create the negative respondent reactions that some had predicted. Response 

rates for all income-size groups of respondents were 

higher. One very important fi nding was that the 

“screen out” rates were improved. In each FCRS survey, there were expected to be a number of small operations that could never be reached by telephone or 

in person. It was believed that many were probably 

not farming operations—and should be removed (or 

screened out) from sampling lists—but that could 

not be verifi ed. Because the pre-survey letter calculator got their attention, many of the operations actually read the letter, realized that they did not belong 

in the survey, and responded to NASS with requests 

to be deleted from future selection lists.

A number of other research topics were being pursued in the early 1990s. Several of them involved the 

study of possible biases in the multiple frame acreage 

surveys and in the FCRS sampling. Other research 

studied the potential use of expert systems for editing FCRS data and interactively editing CATI data 

responses. Some of the new techniques considered 

were a pilot study of Washington State apple objective yield procedures and the use of administrative 

data to replace many of the monthly Milk Production Survey contacts.

One promising new research eff ort involved chemical-use data being reported to the California EPA 

(under a new State law) in lieu of conducting new 

chemical-use surveys. However, there were many 

hurdles to overcome because of diff erent defi nitions, 

diff erent levels of detail (fi eld-level versus farm-level), 

and timing diff erences. Th at California State law was 

also creating an enormous amount of data, so there

were concerns about capturing and summarizing all 

of the data on a reasonable schedule.

77
A New Administrator and the 1995 Reorganization 

Administrator Charlie Caudill lost his battle with a 

brain tumor May 17, 1993. Donald M. (Don) Bay, 

who had served as Acting Administrator since April 

1992, was subsequently named as the fourth SRS/

NASS administrator. 

Bay grew up on a farm near Springfi eld, Illinois. He 

graduated from the University of Illinois in 1957 and 

joined the agency in the Illinois fi eld offi ce in 1959. 

He later worked in the Tennessee fi eld offi ce before 

transferring to headquarters in 1965. His fi rst headquarters’ assignments were in the Livestock, Dairy, 

and Poultry Branch; he later served on the Statistical Clearance Staff before being named as head of 

the Cotton and Special Crops Section in 1971. Bay 

was also the Missouri State statistician from 1975 to 

1987. 

With his strong background in both crop and livestock statistics, Bay was selected as the Estimates 

Division director in 1987. He became the deputy administrator of operations in 1990. In addition to his 

regular agency assignments, Bay assisted the agency’s 

international assistance programs in Rwanda, Cameroon, and Th ailand. He also led an Economic and 

Statistics Delegation to the People’s Republic of China in 1981.

Administrator Bay did not make any immediate 

changes in agency structure, but some signifi cant 

changes were made in 1995. During Caudill’s illness, the two deputy administrators worked closely 

together to handle all the acting administrator’s duties. Since the issues coming to the administrator 

were a combination of internal NASS and external 

requests, it seemed appropriate to have two people 

who could fully react to all issues and speak for the 

agency. Th us, the new 1995 structure removed the 

deputy for operations and deputy for programs positions; rather, it established one associate administrator position. 

Th ere now was a new deputy administrator position—the deputy administrator for fi eld operations, 

which was responsible for all fi eld offi ces. 

Th e headquarters’ divisions reported to the Offi ce of 

the Administrator instead of through a deputy administrator.

U.S. Agriculture, Circa 1997

Th e rapid loss of U.S. farms stalled in the 1990s. 

Th ere were 2.19 million farms in 1997, down only 

0.9 percent from the 2.21 million farms of a decade 

earlier. However, there were signifi cant diff erences 

among the regions of the country. Because of the 

continued consolidation of farms in the North Central States, the number of farms there declined 7.3 

percent from 1987 to 1997. Th e number of Northeastern farms dropped slightly by 0.5 percent during 

the period. Farm numbers in the South and the West 

actually increased between 1987 and 1997, as more 

people moved to those regions of the country. Th e 

number of farms in the South in 1997 was 923,800, 

a rise of 2.9 percent from 10 years earlier. Th ere were 

302,660 farms in the West, an increase of 6.1 percent 

from 1987.

Farmland values steadily recovered from the low levels of 1987. Th e U.S. average value climbed from the 

$599-per-acre level of 1987 to about $700 per acre 

by 1990. It rose to nearly $800 per acre in 1994. Th e 

1997 U.S. average value per acre was $926 ($1,168 

in 2007 dollars). California’s value per acre was now 

$2,500—higher than for any of the pre-1990 years. 

Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa values were now at $1,980, 

$1,870, and $1,600 per acre, respectively—up signifi cantly from 1987—but not quite as high as 1981 

fi gures. Similarly, Kansas and Nebraska rose about 

50 percent from 1987, which was still lower than the 

early 1980s. Farmland values in Texas declined from 

1987 to 1990, but they recovered to $554 per acre 

in 1997.

Th e amount of cultivated cropland in the United 

States had peaked at about 383 million acres in 

1982. Th at total declined to 331 million acres in 

1987 and to 326.8 million in 1997. A sizable portion of the decline is accountable to the Cropland 

Reserve Program (CRP) that had been authorized 

by the Food Security Act of 1985 to remove highly 

erodible cropland from cropping and to maintain 

that cropland under certain conservation practices. 

Land was enrolled in 10-year CRP contracts through 

a bidding procedure. On one hand, some 101 million acres of highly erodible cropland was eligible for 

the program, but a provision that normally limited 

the amount of CRP land to no more than 25 percent 

of the cropland in a county reduced the eff ective eligibility to about 70 million acres.

78
Th e CRP has been opened every year for new bids. 

Th e original goal of the CRP was to enroll 45 million acres. Some 25.5 million acres were enrolled by 

February 1988, and by 1997 the total was 35 million 

acres. In the late 1990s, the total land in the CRP was 

holding steady, but some of the cropland originally 

enrolled had been replaced by new enrollments.

One new crop-production trend was well established 

by 1997 and another had just started. Th e change 

that had occurred was the replacement of conventional tillage, which involved plowing the soil in 

preparation for new crops, with reduced or conservation tillage practices that leave much of the crop residue on the land to conserve moisture and minimize 

water and wind erosion. By 1995, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) estimated that 

25 percent of U.S. cropping was conducted through 

reduced tillage; 35 percent used conservation tillage; and 40 percent used conventional tillage. Conservation and reduced tillage practices were being 

used particularly in the North Central and Northern Plains States. However, the Southeast States, the 

Delta States, and Texas were still using conventional 

tillage for half or more of their acreage.

In 1996, biotechnology-developed seeds were just 

becoming commercially available for planting. Two 

types of seeds were being developed. One type was 

resistant to insects, and the other was tolerant to 

chemicals that could be applied to kill weeds. Later, “stacked gene” seeds were developed, which had 

both features.

Total agricultural productivity in 1997 was 118.5 

percent higher than it was in 1957. Productivity had 

also increased 20 percent from 1987.

Despite the signifi cant Midwest fl ooding of 1993 and 

related losses, yields of corn, soybeans, and wheat 

were quite high in the 1990s. Th ere were few Government program-mandated planting restrictions, and 

acreages had generally increased. 

Th e U.S. average corn yield for 1995-99 was 127.1 

bushels per acre, 13.8 percent higher than the 1985-

89 average. In 1994, the fi rst 10-billion-bushel corn 

crop was produced. Annual average yields topped 

125 bushels per acre six times in the 1990s. Th e previous U.S. record yield had been 119.8 bushels per 

acre in 1987. Average acreage harvested for grain 

during 1995-99 was 70.7 million acres, compared 

with 65.3 million in 1985-89.

Soybean average yield for 1995-99 was 37.5 bushels 

per acre, an increase of 16.8 percent from 10 years 

earlier. Average U.S. yields topped 35 bushels per 

acre seven times in the 1990s, compared with the 

record yield of 34.1 bushels per acre before 1990. 

Th e average acreage harvested for soybeans was 67.4 

million acres between 1995 and 1999—an increase 

of 8.6 million acres (14.6 percent) from 1985–89. A 

new record was set in 1999 when acreage hit 72.4 

million acres.

Th e big story for winter wheat in the late 1990s was 

the introduction of a new, higher-yielding variety. 

Th e average U.S. yield during 1995–99 was 42.8 

bushels per acre, an increase of 14.1 percent from the 

37.5 bushels per acre of 10 years earlier. However, 

average yields in 1995 and 1996 were 37.7 and 37.1 

bushels per acre, respectively. Th us, the average was 

driven by the yields of 44.6, 46.9, and 47.8 bushels 

per acre for 1997, 1998 and 1999, respectively. Each 

of those years saw a new record for U.S. average yield 

per acre. Harvested acreage was around 40 million 

acres for the period of 1995–98, but that dropped 

to 35.4 million acres in 1999. For the fi ve-year period, harvested acreage averaged 39.5 million acres, 

a decrease of 2.8 million acres (6.6 percent) from the 

1985–89 average. (Th e 1985–89 average had been affected greatly by the 47.9 million acres that had been 

harvested in 1985.) 

Th e last fi ve years of the 1990s might best be described as turbulent for U.S. cotton production. Th e 

fi rst fi ve years were marked by relatively stable cotton harvested acres. Th e average price for the 1994 

crop was 72 cents per pound, the highest since 1980. 

Perhaps due to the high price, cotton planted acreage 

jumped to 16.9 million acres in 1995, which resulted 

in 16 million acres harvested. With the larger acreage 

harvested, yield per acre declined from 708 pounds 

to 537, but the price was even higher at 76.5 cents 

per pound. Cotton crop abandonment was higher 

in 1996, but dipped to a low level in 1997. At that 

point, a record high 2.7 million acres was planted 

(but not harvested) for cotton in 1998. Much of the 

land initially planted to cotton was able to be replanted to sorghum or another crop with a shorter 

season. Th e abandonment in 1998 was even higher 

than the high-abandonment years of 1951–53, when 

twice as many acres were planted as compared with 

1998. On average, acreage harvested for cotton in 

79
1995–99 was 33 percent higher than 10 years earlier. 

Th e average yield of 629.4 pounds per acre during 

that period was 0.8 percent higher than the average 

in 1985–89.

Th e percentage of corn utilized for exports in 1997 

was down from 1987 in terms of total bushels (1.5 

billion) and percent of total utilization (17.1 percent 

compared with 22.1 percent in 1987 and 30.5 percent in 1977). Th e big utilization change was due to 

the amounts of corn going to food, alcohol, and 

industrial uses—then more than 20 percent of all utilization. High-fructose corn syrup accounted for 5.8 

percent of all corn utilized at the time. Corn utilized 

for ethanol production (for fuel use) had risen to 

nearly half a billion bushels—only slightly less than 

that used for producing high-fructose corn syrup.

Table 9. Per Capita Consumption of Meat, Poultry, 

 and Fish, United States 1997 

 

Total Population 272,912,000 

 

Category Total Percent

 Consumption of Total

 (Pounds/person) 

 

 Beef 65.5 30.0

 Veal 1.0 0.5

 Lamb 1.1 0.5

 Pork 47.6 21.8

 Chicken 71.4 32.7

 Turkey 17.2 7.9

 Total Fish 14.3 6.6

 

 Total Meat, Poultry & Fish 218.1 100.0

As indicated in Table 9, U.S. average diets around 

1997 included more total meat (red meat, poultry, 

and fi sh) than any time in the previous 40 years. 

However, the percent of fat in the total diet from 

meat had dropped from 35 percent in 1979 to 25 

percent in 1994. Both beef and pork producers had 

developed improved genetics and had shifted to leaner, faster-growing animals. Th e per capita consumption of chicken exceeded that of beef for the fi rst time 

in 1992, as beef declined and chicken consumption 

increased each year. In 1997, per capita consumption 

of chicken was 71.4 pounds (versus 56.6 in 1987) 

and beef was 65.5 (versus 73.7 in 1987). Pork consumption was down slightly in the 10-year period, 

from 48.8 pounds in 1987 to 47.6 pounds in 1997. 

Turkey per capita consumption increased from 14.7 

to 17.2 pounds between 1987 and 1997, but total 

fi sh consumption declined from 16.1 to 14.3 pounds. 

Veal and lamb consumption continued to decline to 

1 and 1.1 pounds per person, respectively. 

Th e U.S. hog industry changed rapidly between 

1987 and 1997. Before 1990, few hog operations 

had inventories as large as 2,000 head or more. However, those larger operations became common in the 

early 1990s. In fact, 4,335 operations with inventories of 1,000 to 4,999 head, and 1,825 operations of 

5,000 head or more, were in place by 1997. Th ese 

operations accounted for 60.5 percent of the 1997 

hog inventory even though they accounted for only 

5.8 percent of the 106,060 hog farms in the country. Concentration in the hog industry diff ered from 

that of the broiler industry. Th e broiler industry was, 

primarily, a vertically integrated industry where the 

processors owned the birds. Th ere were a few instances of where hog slaughter operations owned some of 

the animals they would be slaughtering, but most 

large hog-producing organizations owned their own 

hogs and had marketing contracts with processors. 

Newer, larger hog operations were mainly climatecontrolled, and, with improved genetics, were able 

to yield higher pigs-per-litter rates. By 1997, the industry was achieving 2,500 pounds of pork per sow, 

compared with about 1,500 pounds in 1970.

Table 10. Cash Receipts from Farm Marketings, by

 Commodity Groups, United States 1997 

 

Category Total Percent 

 Cash Receipts of Total

 (Million dollars) 

 

All Cash Receipts 207,790 100.0

 

Total Crops 111,315 53.6 

 Food Grains 10,411 5.0 

 Feed Grains 27,087 13.0

 Cotton 6,346 3.1 

 Oil-bearing Crops 19,758 9.5 

 Tobacco 2,873 1.4 

 Fruits and Tree Nuts 12,958 6.2

 Vegetables 14,669 7.1

 Nursery, Greenhouse, Flowers 12,355 5.9

 Other Crops 4,858 2.3

 

 [table continues on next page]

80
Total Livestock and Products 96,475 46.4 

 Cattle and Calves 36,000 17.3

 Hogs and Pigs 13,054 6.3

 Sheep and Lambs 633 0.3

 Dairy Products 20,940 10.1

 Eggs 4,540 2.2

 Broilers and Farm Chickens 14,230 6.8

 Turkeys and Other Poultry 3,490 1.7

 Wool 45 0.0

 Other Livestock and Products 3,544 1.7

Table 10 indicates that the 1997 percentage relationship between total crops cash receipts and total livestock and products cash receipts was exactly reversed 

from 1987. Crops cash receipts now made up 53.6 

percent of the total. Because of the increases in crop 

production and the changes in the livestock industries, crops cash receipts exceeded livestock cash receipts in 1994 for the fi rst time in nine years. Th is 

pattern continued until 1999.

Cash receipts from farming in 1997 were $207.8 billion ($262.0 billion in 2007 dollars). Th e proportions of total cash receipts from fruits and tree nuts 

(6.2 percent), vegetables (7.1 percent), and nursery, 

greenhouse and fl owers (5.9 percent) were all higher than in the earlier, once-per-decade snapshots. 

Broilers and farm chickens also now accounted for a 

higher share (6.8 percent) of total cash receipts than 

in any of the earlier comparisons. Wool cash receipts 

made up only 0.02 percent of total cash receipts.

International Assistance in the 1990s 

With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the direction and 

scope of the agency’s international assistance eff orts 

greatly changed. Th e U.S. State Department was very 

interested in establishing improved relationships 

with many of the countries in Eastern Europe, and 

funding became available for a number of NASS assistance eff orts through the Emerging Democracies 

Program.

Some of the earliest projects were in Poland and Bulgaria. By 1994, a pilot area frame survey had been 

completed for one state in Poland, and a number of 

staff members of the Poland central statistical offi ce 

had received training. Poland was particularly interested in developing farm income surveys. Bulgaria 

had completed a successful crop area and livestock 

list frame survey by 1994 with NASS assistance. 

Th ere were many interesting survey aspects uncovered by working with the Eastern European countries. Concepts of land ownership and operatorship 

needed to be worked out in countries that had had 

mainly large state farms. Also, it was important to 

conduct household surveys—grain production was 

viewed as farming, but home production of potatoes 

accounted for a large amount of the sales for the entire country.

Some of the Eastern European countries interested 

in agricultural statistics projects included Romania, 

Russia, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine. Many visitors 

from those countries came to the United States for 

training, and NASS employees visited the countries 

for discussion of possible development projects.

Some of the longer-term NASS assistance projects fi nished in the early 1990s. Th e 10-year, USAID-assistance project in Morocco ended in September 1994. 

It had been considered extremely successful because 

Morocco had developed and improved agricultural 

survey programs and established a strong data-processing capability, in addition to implementing an 

operational area frame. Th e 10-year USAID project 

in Pakistan ended at nearly the same time. Area sampling frames had been constructed for most of the 

country, and pilot objective yield programs had been 

put in place. 

A quite diff erent, but extremely benefi cial, activity took place in Nicaragua. Th is was a joint eff ort 

funded by the Central Bank of Nicaragua, the UN 

Development Program, and USAID. Th e Nicaragua 

Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry was vitally 

interested in obtaining better information on food 

production and consumption. NASS assistance to 

this fi ve-year eff ort included consultation, sample 

design, enumerator training, data analysis, and the 

design, summary, and dissemination of results. A 

point-sample approach was used for area frame construction, instead of normal mapping techniques. 

Surveys were conducted that produced state-level estimates of corn, beans, sorghum, rice, and coff ee production, and cattle, hog, and equine numbers. Th e 

Nicaraguan government was extremely pleased with 

the new statistical system; special, well-publicized 

ceremonies were held for the fi rst release of survey

81
data, which also included participation by the NASS 

administrator. 

Th e Nicaragua survey results were signifi cant. Th e 

country had long been regarded as having one of the 

lowest food supply and food energy consumption 

levels in all of the Caribbean. Th e new survey system demonstrated that the country was producing 

and consuming much more food than had originally 

been estimated. Actual food energy levels available 

to Nicaraguans compared well with other countries 

in the region.

By the mid-1990s, other possible areas of assistance 

were on the horizon. At the time, USDA was working with South Africa toward a number of development eff orts on which NASS could be asked to assist. 

Th ere was strong interest in sampling from Taiwan 

in order to reduce their high, complete census datacollection costs. Countries such as Haiti and Albania 

had also expressed similar interest. One change made 

in the mid-1990s was to rework the agenda and the 

agency training program materials for foreign visitors. Also, the training program would be shortened 

from six weeks to four weeks.

Staffi ng, Circa 1997

As noted in the preface to this portion of the publication, FY 1991 was an extremely signifi cant year for 

agency hiring. At the start of FY 1992, 19 percent of 

the 495 agricultural statisticians and 25 percent of 

the 71 mathematical statisticians on board had been 

hired in the previous 12 months. In addition, 12 

percent of the 101 data-processing specialists and 17 

percent of the 179 statistical assistants were new to 

the agency. Th ose total counts were essentially peaks, 

except for mathematical statisticians. 

After FY 1993, budgets became quite tight and Congress approved few program additions; Congress 

did not usually grant infl ation adjustment funding. 

Administrator Bay became concerned that salaries 

and benefi ts had become too large a percentage of 

the budget. Hiring, travel, and a number of other expenditures were tightly controlled until some budget 

relief could be found.

By 1997, many staff members hired during the development of the enumerative and objective yield survey programs had either retired or were then eligible 

for retirement. Th us, staff levels started to decline

again as people retired and the hiring of entry-level 

replacements was slowed.

82
PROLOGUE

Deputy Administrator Bruce Graham’s 1976 admonition, of NASS being prepared to take over the census of agriculture responsibility should the agency 

be given short notice to do so, certainly seemed prophetic 20 years later when it actually happened. In 

preparing for the 1997 Economic Censuses, which 

included the 1997 Census of Agriculture, the Commerce Department and the Bureau of the Census 

proposed to change the U.S. farm defi nition from 

an operation with $1,000 in agricultural sales to one 

with $10,000 in sales, as a cost savings measure. 

Based on the 1992 Census of Agriculture results, 

such a change in the farm defi nition would have excluded 47 percent of all U.S. farms. It would have 

had a great impact on some States. For example, it 

would have excluded 78 percent of West Virginia’s 

farms and more than 65 percent of the farms in Tennessee, South Carolina, Alaska, and New Hampshire. In addition, the tentative plans of the Bureau 

of the Census would have discontinued agricultural 

censuses in U.S. outlying areas (Puerto Rico, Guam, 

the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands) as well as follow-on horticultural and irrigation data collections.

Th e large, potential impacts of such a change led to 

complaints and protests from farm and rural sociology organizations and from members of Congress. 

Based on the critical reaction, the Offi ce of Management and Budget transferred the responsibility for 

the census of agriculture to NASS. Congress followed 

suit by shifting the census of agriculture funding to 

NASS.

At the time the controversy about the farm defi nition, the resulting complaints and OMB action occurred, preparations for the 1997 data collection 

were three years into the fi ve-year cycle. It would 

have been impossible to make any major changes in 

the questionnaire or the basic data collection plan. 

However, NASS staff members had already worked 

closely with Ag Census staff members on the 1997 

Census of Agriculture content to standardize the detailed defi nitions used for both the census and for 

NASS data collection eff orts.

Th e transfer of the census of agriculture to NASS 

meant that all major collection eff orts relating to 

farms and farming fell under one organization. It 

paved the way for eff orts after 1997 to clarify and 

eliminate the diff erences between census of agriculture published totals and offi cial USDA agricultural 

statistics estimates maintained by NASS. 

Part 5: Completing the Agricultural Statistics Package

83
84
Smoothing the Transition

As soon as it seemed likely that the census of agriculture transfer was going to occur, several actions were 

put into place. NASS Administrator Bay met with 

Bureau of the Census staff members working on 1997 

Census of Agriculture preparations to emphasize that 

NASS welcomed them and their suggestions on how 

to smooth the transition. NASS had usually named 

a liaison to work directly with Bureau of the Census 

staff for the later stages of each census of agriculture. 

As of April 1996, an experienced NASS statistician 

was now onsite at the Bureau to help with preparations and to informally answer questions about both 

the agency and its personnel procedures.

Top NASS staff members had other meetings with 

Bureau of the Census staff members to answer administrative questions. Meetings included data-processing staff members from the Bureau of the Census 

because they were to be included in the personnel 

transfer to NASS. However, they were not currently 

onsite with other census of agriculture staff members. Th e intention was a marriage of two organizational cultures, rather than Bureau of the Census 

staff members being absorbed into NASS culture.

Th e transfer to NASS would be voluntary, as the Bureau of the Census would fi nd positions for those 

who chose not to do so. Bureau of the Census had 

also indicated that people not currently working on 

the census of agriculture could be part of the transfer 

if they were able to exchange positions with someone 

on the current census staff . Th e “even swap” requirement meant that only a few people who wanted a 

transfer could take advantage. Th ere were some early 

predictions that perhaps only half of eligible Bureau 

of the Census staff members would transfer due to 

established commuting arrangements, concerns 

about joining a new organization, and other factors. 

However, 70 staff members (85 percent of the staff 

designated for the changeover) transferred to NASS 

on February 2, 1997, to form the temporary Census 

Division. Most employees did not actually change 

locations because arrangements had been made for 

them to remain at the former location in Suitland, 

MD, through the 1997 Census of Agriculture processing cycle. NASS was able to hire 15 additional 

people, including some former agricultural census 

employees who had left Federal service. As there were 

still many vacancies, additional NASS staff members 

were detailed to Suitland for the census of agriculture operations. 

What Should Be the Farm Defi nition?

Th e very fi rst U.S. Census of Agriculture in 1840 

did not include a specifi c farm defi nition. However, 

the United States was such an agrarian society at the 

time that everyone would likely have agreed on what 

constituted a farm. During 1850–60, a farm was defi ned as an operation with agricultural production 

worth $100 or more per year. A modifi cation for 

1870, 1880, and 1890 was to defi ne any agricultural 

operation on three or more acres as a farm, and to 

defi ne operations smaller than three acres as farms 

if they sold $500 or more of agricultural products 

per year.

An interesting defi nition revised for 1900 removed 

both acreage and dollar values. According to the new 

defi nition, a farm was any agricultural operation requiring the continuous services of at least one person. During 1910–20, the defi nition combined the 

approaches from 1890 and 1900 to defi ne a farm as 

any agricultural operation with three or more acres 

or, if less than three acres, it must produce $250 of 

agricultural products per year or require the constant services of at least one person. For 1925, 1930, 

1935, and 1940, the constant services provision was 

dropped and the farm defi nition was revised to an 

agriculture operation producing $250 or more of agricultural products for sale or home use, or one with 

three acres or more.

Th e 1945 farm defi nition may have been the most 

complicated of all. An agricultural operation of three 

or more acres was classifi ed as a farm if it had three 

or more acres of cropland or pasture, or $150 worth 

of agricultural production. If an operation was less 

than three acres, it qualifi ed as a farm if it had $250 

or more of agricultural production.

Th e defi nition used in 1950 and 1954 defi ned an 

operation of three acres or more as a farm if it had 

$150 or more of agricultural products for home use 

Chapter 7: Adjustments To Incorporate the Censuses of 

 Agriculture

85
or sale. If it was less than three acres, the operation 

must have had $150 or more of agricultural products 

produced for sale.

Th e defi nition used in 1959, 1964, and 1969 was 

that an operation of 10 acres or more was a farm if it 

had $50 or more of agricultural products produced 

for sale. If it was less than 10 acres, an operation was 

considered a farm if it had at least $150 of agricultural products produced for sale.

Th e defi nition adopted in 1974, and the one used 

ever since, was “any place from which $1,000 or 

more of agricultural products were produced and 

sold or normally would have been sold during the 

census year.” Th e move away from an acreage defi nition did two things: it included atypical operations 

such as herb producers in a city, and it excluded rural residences of considerable size that might sell just 

a few berries or other sideline produce. Th e $1,000 

value limit was much higher than had been used for 

the 1950–69 time period.

Th e wording “normally would have been sold” was 

intended to avoid the exclusion of small farms, which 

typically would have had more than $1,000 in sales 

but had had poor yields in the census year or had 

delayed their sales until the next year. Because asking 

what an operation usually would sell might result in 

inconsistent answers, a point system was created to 

calculate sales. Points, or dollar values, were assigned 

to the various land uses and livestock reported on a 

census of agriculture questionnaire. Some qualifi cations were built in; for example, no points assigned 

to pasture if there were no livestock.

Before 1997, there had been some diff erences in 

interpretations between NASS and the Bureau of 

the Census. For example, if a farm enrolled all of 

its cropland into a long-term program, such as the 

Cropland Reserve Program, and received an annual 

payment (of more than $1,000), NASS considered 

that to still be a farm, but the Bureau of the Census 

did not. If the only livestock on an operation were 

equine, NASS did not assign points for pasture, but 

the Bureau did. NASS extended its farm defi nition to 

operations that sold more than $1,000 of Christmas 

trees as their only cash crop, but the Bureau would 

not. Th ankfully, these diff erences in defi nitions between the two organizations were reconciled early in 

the 1997 Census of Agriculture planning cycle.

When questions about the farm defi nition arise, people not involved in agriculture generally assume some 

indexing of the dollar value of sales should be used. 

Th e fi rst suggestion is usually that the Consumer 

Price Index (CPI) be used. However, others suggest 

that would not be appropriate because prices of individual farm products, such as a bushel of grain, do 

not increase with the CPI but are determined by the 

supply and demand situations at a particular point 

in time.

If a CPI adjustment is applied to the 1974 minimum farm defi nition of $1,000, the 1997 equivalent 

would be $3,256. However, if the more appropriate Prices Received by Farmers Index is used with a 

1974 base of $1,000, the 1997 calculation would be 

$1,370. Prices farmers pay for their necessary equipment and supply items do track somewhat with the 

CPI. Using the Prices Paid by Farmers Index, $1,000 

in 1974 would equal $2,860 in 1997.

Effi ciency has been the key factor that allowed operations to continue farming when prices paid nearly 

tripled in a 25-year period and the prices received 

increased 37 percent. Th rough advances such as increased crop yields, greater livestock weight-gains, 

and increased milk production per cow, and by using lower amounts of labor and other inputs, farmers have greatly improved their output. Put another 

way, because corn prices per bushel averaged about 

$2.50 in both 1974 and 1997, it took 5.56 acres of 

corn harvested in 1974 to equal $1,000 in value, but 

it took only 3.16 acres to do the same in 1997. Th e 

comparable calculations for soybeans, at $6.60 per 

bushel each year, were 6.39 acres in 1974 and 3.89 

acres in 1997.

Because indexing the farm defi nition to the Prices 

Received by Farmers Index would mean only a relatively small increase from the current $1,000 yearly 

sales defi nition, there might not be much savings in 

the number of contacts to conduct the census of agriculture. Also, the calculated value of production 

would likely go down from time to time. Th us, keeping the $1,000 value of sales or normal sales does appear to be a reasonable compromise.

Improvements for the 1997 Census of Agriculture

Although the overall agricultural view on the census 

responsibility transfer was positive, there were some 

skeptical individuals and organizations. Some felt 

86
that NASS might adopt more sampling methods and 

depart from the traditional census approach. Th ere 

also were concerns about the agency’s ability to carry 

out the 1997 Census of Agriculture collection with 

the transfer of responsibility having occurred so 

close to the data collection. 

One NASS goal for the 1997 Census of Agriculture 

was to make it as comparable as possible to previous census collections. Although signifi cant changes, 

such as revising the planned census questionnaires, 

would not be made, NASS was able to implement 

a number of quality improvements, in large part 

because there were additional staff members to devote to census issues. For example, NASS fi eld offi ces participated in a census mailing list duplication 

review based on better address linkage and utilization of some telephone follow-up. Th at exercise removed 500,000 mailing list names, which saved $1 

million in mailing costs. A screening questionnaire 

was mailed to another 500,000 addresses that were 

unlikely to qualify as farms. Th is removed another 

400,000 addresses from the census mail-out list. 

Field offi ces also conducted a special minority farm 

list-building eff ort by contacting 1992 Census of Agriculture minority operators for help in improving 

the mailing list. Plans were also made to request the 

number of farm operators on each American Indian 

Reservation, in addition to creating one total Reservation census form.

NASS did restore plans for censuses of agriculture 

in outlying areas. Th e agency met with offi cials from 

Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands to craft memoranda of understanding. Th ere had been a tentative plan to change 

the farm defi nition for Puerto Rico from its historic 

requirement of $500 agricultural sales per year to 

$1,000. NASS decided to keep the $500 defi nition 

and implement an area frame sample to aid in determining census undercoverage.

Th e mailing of all census of agriculture forms in December 1997, receipt of completed forms, and data 

entry were all contracted to the Bureau of the Census processing center in Jeff ersonville, IN. Th e center 

would mail and process the other economic censuses 

at the same time. NASS contracted to pay for two key 

entry shifts, six days a week, in order to get the data 

prepared more quickly for fi eld offi ce review and editing. 

NASS fi eld offi ces met strict security provisions and 

NASS employees received clearances to access 1992 

and 1997 Census of Agriculture fi les through a special census fi rewall. Being able to work on fi les in 

all fi eld offi ces was a great time saver, and NASS decided to work towards the goal of releasing all 1997 

Census of Agriculture U.S. and State publications on 

the same date. Previous censuses of agriculture, for 

which only a small number of analysts were available, were summarized and released a few States at 

a time.

NASS fi eld offi ces were able to add local fl avor to 

many of the public service announcements and other publicity vehicles ahead of the mail-out. Th is appeared helpful because initial responses came in faster than expected. In addition, the total response rate 

was higher than that for the 1992 Census of Agriculture, and the last follow-up mailing was cancelled.

NASS fi nalized plans for a toll-free information 

number that was prominently displayed on the mailing materials. Arrangements were made to control 

the routing of those calls, which led to a number of 

effi ciencies. When forms were fi rst mailed out, the 

toll-free number connected callers (during the week) 

to their respective NASS fi eld offi ces. On weekends, 

calls would be connected to the few fi eld offi ces that 

handled calls. As the volume of telephone calls decreased, the number of fi eld offi ces handling calls 

was again reduced. 

Most calls were easy enough to handle. Th ey typically came from small operations that wondered why 

they received the mailing or from operations that 

had received multiple forms. Nearly 135,000 tollfree calls were received during the time the service 

was in operation. Many actions were accomplished 

while the caller was on the line. One measure of the 

success of the toll-free number was a reduction in 

the usual number of Congressional inquiries made 

on behalf of upset constituents about the census of 

agriculture.

NASS fi eld offi ces used their CATI capabilities in several ways during the data collection phase. After the 

February 1, 1998 due date for forms was exceeded, 

operations that had not responded at all in 1992 and 

had not returned the fi rst 1997 mailing were contacted by telephone. Calls to large operators and to 

counties with low response rates started earlier than

87
planned because responses came in faster than 

predicted.

Results From the 1997 Census of Agriculture

Because of the earlier-than-predicted return of census forms and a 2-percent increase in response rates, 

the processing of the 1997 Census of Agriculture ran 

ahead of schedule. However, not all of the processing 

went smoothly. A number of patches had been made 

to the old census of agriculture processing system, 

and it was sometimes necessary to wait until a modifi cation was in place. Other times, fi eld offi ces were 

ready for a particular task more quickly than expected and earlier than staff members from headquarters had planned to travel. Th ere were several phases 

to the data review and editing process that diff ered 

from typical NASS monthly, quarterly, and annual 

surveys. One reaction sometimes received from State 

statisticians after their State had just fi nished an intensive two-week operation was, “Oh, if we had fully 

understood what we were going to do, we could have 

done it even better.”

Th e 1997 Census of Agriculture results for the United States and for each of the 50 States were released 

February 1, 1999. Th is was 12 months after the deadline for farmers to mail back their census forms and 

about 10 months earlier than the original schedule. 

Because fi eld offi ces and NASS headquarters’ units 

were so familiar with the 1997 Census data, a decision was made during 1998 to proceed with the traditional, fi ve-year historic review and revision of all 

NASS estimates at the same time as the fi nal review 

of census data. A national board review of existing 

U.S.-level 1997 compared with preliminary census 

results was used to set revision targets before the review of State-level 1997 Census data. 

By performing the fi ve-year review of commodity estimates ahead of the 1997 Census release, revisions 

were published a week or so before the major 1998 

end-of-the-year report and the January 1, 1999 “Agricultural Statistics Board (ASB) reports.” Th is provided data users with revisions, if any, one year earlier than expected, and it prevented confusion when 

new estimates levels did not match up with previously published fi gures. Th ere was some apprehension 

about publishing revisions ahead of the end-of-year 

commodity reports. However, there were not many 

signifi cant data-series revisions to 1997 Census of 

Agriculture data. Th e biggest changes were for farm 

numbers, which are not market sensitive. Th e new 

revision publications were advertised ahead of time 

and were very well-received by data users, as they 

could update their databases ahead of the end-ofyear reports.

NASS was able to electronically release not only 

national and State data on February 1, but also all 

12,000 national, State, and county data fi les. Th ose 

included special State and county profi les and highlights. 

Th e county, State, and national data released were 

adjusted for nonresponses from operations included 

on the census mail list. Th e tables were also broken 

out by size of farm and farm-income size groups. 

Th ey did not adjust for list incompleteness, which 

was measured by using the names and addresses of 

operators in the June area frame sample segments. 

One appendix table did summarize the list incompleteness for farms, land in farms, farm income and 

expenditures, and selected major commodities.

Th ere was considerable consideration given to the use 

of the list incompleteness data to create a table of adjusted census totals for the front of the publication. 

However, that was rejected for the 1997 Census, as it 

might have created confusion about having three sets 

of numbers: census-tabulated results, NASS offi cial 

estimates, and census-adjusted numbers.

Along with the general data products, NASS also 

created a number of special, multicolor Quick Facts 

brochures. In addition to a brochure that highlighted 

changes in a number of farm characteristics, Quick 

Fact brochures were also created on topics such as 

Hispanic farms, Puerto Rico agriculture, aquaculture, and horticulture. Census of agriculture results 

for Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, and the 

Northern Mariana Islands were also available electronically as soon as the summaries were complete.

NASS received Congressional funding to conduct 

some follow-on studies after the main census had 

been summarized. In FY 2000, the 1998 Farm and 

Ranch Irrigation Survey, the 1998 Census of Horticultural Specialties, and the 1998 Census of Aquaculture were released. Th e Agricultural Economics 

and Land Ownership Survey, which is normally conducted every 10 years to provide fi nancial information on agricultural producers and landlords, was 

released in FY 2001.

88
Improvements for the 2002 Census of Agriculture

As mentioned above, the 1997 Census of Agriculture focus was to be as comparable as possible. Th e 

goal for the 2002 Census of Agriculture was to be 

as relevant as possible. Th e shortcomings of previous censuses had included the fact that demographic 

information was only collected for one operator per 

farm, and not total operators per farm. Th is led to the 

common misunderstanding that the United States 

must have only 2 million farmers if it has 2 million 

farms. Little information had been collected on true 

income and expenses for operators contracted by 

others to raise broilers, hogs, or other commodities. 

Th ere were similar concerns about other important 

farm business relationships that had been omitted in 

the past.

One signifi cant planning development for the 2002 

Census of Agriculture (and for those that followed) 

was the creation of a formal advisory committee. 

Th ere had been many recommendations in the past 

that called for NASS to charter such a committee, 

but USDA already had its maximum number of formal advisory committees under the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA). In transferring the census of 

agriculture responsibility to NASS, the Bureau of the 

Census agreed to transfer their FACA authority for a 

census of agriculture advisory committee to USDA. 

Instead of mimicking the Census Advisory Committee, NASS established the Advisory Committee 

on Agriculture Statistics to ensure that the census of 

agriculture would be coordinated with other agricultural statistics programs. 

NASS instead established new membership guidelines. Th e Census Advisory Committee included a 

number of organizations that had permanent membership. To serve agriculture more broadly, NASS 

established several categories of membership such 

as producers, agricultural economists, rural sociologists, farm policy experts, agricultural-related 

business and marketing experts, and representatives 

of the larger group of national farm organizations. 

One position was intended for a representative of the 

State departments of agriculture. 

Committee members are selected to serve the larger interests of agriculture and not just the organization(s) 

they belong to. Members serve staggered two-year 

terms, and they can serve on the committee for up to 

six years. In selecting the initial Advisory Committee 

on Agriculture Statistics, a mix of new members and 

former Census Committee members were selected. 

Half the members started with one-year terms to begin the rotation process.

Th e new committee has been interested in census 

of agriculture issues, but it also has provided good 

counsel on other issues, such as environmental statistics and the poor performance of the monthly Hogs 

and Pigs Survey. Th e committee has also favored expanding the coverage of specialty commodities and 

the improvement of information on women and minority farm operators.

A fresh look at the census of agriculture planning 

process was implemented for 2002 through the Project to Reengineer and Integrate Statistics Methods 

(PRISM). PRISM had one underlying goal of standardizing methodology and procedures for the ongoing current estimation program and the periodic 

censuses whenever possible. PRISM identifi ed 15 

component parts that should be coordinated into 

one effi cient processing system. A new software system was defi nitely needed; it had been diffi cult during the 1997 Census of Agriculture to fi nd anyone 

who could modify the existing programs.

One major goal for the 2002 Census of Agriculture 

was to use optical character- recognition techniques 

for capturing data. If this was feasible, it would provide faster data entry and create electronic records for 

NASS fi eld offi ces to use for editing and analysis.

Another important aspect included in the PRISM effort was to explore improved methodology for adjustment of census data for nonresponse and incomplete 

mailing lists. Th e Research and Development Division took the lead in exploring alternatives for both 

adjustments. One solution to the nonresponse problem was to implement a nearest-neighbor approach 

for selecting a report that had most of the same size, 

location, and farm-type characteristics to represent a 

missing operation. Th e approach under study for the 

mailing list incompleteness was to collect as much 

high-level control data, such as total certifi ed acreage 

for crops in Federal Farm programs, total acreage of 

farmland, and production of livestock. A multivariable calibration could then, theoretically, be created 

to better estimate for operations not on the mailing 

list. 

89
A New Organization Structure and New Leadership

After the 1997 Census of Agriculture results were 

released in early 1999, NASS managers were able 

to address the issues of a permanent organizational 

structure that would best serve the production of 

current agricultural statistics and censuses of agriculture. Instead of creating a new program-based 

organization, which would keep the census and ongoing estimation programs separate, it was decided 

to expand the functional organization structure that 

NASS had employed. Th e changeover was scheduled 

for the start of FY 2000; it became eff ective October 

10, 1999.

One change in organizational structure was the creation of a new deputy administrator for programs and 

products (DAPP). Th is position was essentially parallel to the deputy administrator for fi eld operations 

(DAFO). All fi eld offi ces reported to the DAFO, and 

the headquarters divisions reported to the DAPP. A 

marketing and information services offi ce (MISO) 

was also created and reported to the DAPP. 

MISO was to take over all ASB administrative functions such as security, printing of reports, coordination and improvement of the agency Internet presence, and coordination with reporters and other 

visitors for special secured releases. MISO also had 

a new Marketing Section, which would take the lead 

on census of agriculture and other products and 

publicity. Th e well-functioning customer service offi ce was included within the Marketing Section.

All divisions now had some census responsibilities. 

Th e new Census and Survey Division added the Census Planning Branch to the existing Data Collection, 

Sampling, and Survey Administration branches. 

Th e newly named Information Technology Division 

now had a Census and Survey Systems Branch along 

with Data Services, Estimation and Support Systems, and Technical Services branches. Th e Research 

and Development Division had a Census and Survey Research Branch and a renamed Geospatial Information Branch. Th e Statistics Division now had 

an Environmental, Economics, and Demographics 

Branch along with the Crops, Livestock, and Statistical Methods branches.

Administrator Bay retired in December 1999. He 

had taken a leadership role on all aspects of the shift 

in the census of agriculture responsibility. He was 

responsible for strengthening the 1997 Puerto Rico 

Census of Agriculture and establishing a NASS fi eld 

offi ce in Puerto Rico. He also had worked diligently 

on the arrangements for the new Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics.

Once again, only NASS managers were considered in 

the selection of a new administrator. R. Ronald (Ron) 

Bosecker was chosen, and he was installed December 19, 1999, as the fi fth SRS/NASS administrator. 

Bosecker grew up on a small farm in southeastern 

Illinois and received his undergraduate degree from 

Southern Illinois University. His fi rst agricultural 

statistics experience was as a student trainee in the 

Illinois fi eld offi ce. After graduation, he transferred 

to the Ohio fi eld offi ce. While in Ohio, he went to 

Ohio State University and completed a master’s degree in agricultural economics through a cooperative 

program. He then completed a master’s in mathematical statistics through the full-time SRS program. 

Bosecker held various positions in the Research Division during his fi rst tour in headquarters; he rose 

to a Section head position before transferring to the 

California State statistical offi ce as the deputy state 

statistician in 1981. He returned to headquarters 

in 1985 as the statistical methods branch chief and 

moved to the Research and Development Division 

the next year as the sampling branch chief. He served 

in two senior executive service positions, Research 

Division director and deputy administrator for fi eld 

operations, before being selected for administrator. 

Results from the 2002 Census of Agriculture

Although the new 2002 Census of Agriculture questions were successful in improving information relevance, they were overshadowed by a publication 

decision. Research into the calibration approach for 

adjusting mailing list incompleteness was extremely 

promising. A tentative decision was made to publish 

traditional “as tabulated” results and to later publish 

results adjusted to the county level, as a research or 

proof-of-concept product.

Th e internal debate on how many summaries to publish was reminiscent of the debate over publishing a 

table of adjusted 1997 results. To publish more than 

one 2002 Census of Agriculture summary would be 

confusing to many data users. Individuals who did 

not agree with some results might be extremely critical of the adjusted product or might use the diff er90
ences in the products to embarrass NASS about incompleteness in the traditional product. 

Administrator Bosecker made the decision to publish one product: the fully adjusted county, State and 

U.S. results. All fi eld offi ces had the opportunity to 

review the fi rst calibration trials and suggest specifi c 

variables and control data that should be included 

for their States. Improvements were made to the calculation procedures and summaries prepared, which 

included adjustments at the county level. In order 

to complete all necessary review of the new results, 

a preliminary summary was issued in February and 

fi nal results were published in June. 

Th e new product was fairly well-accepted, in part 

because it was the only product available. Based on 

requests from individuals who wanted to do further 

study of trends, the 1997 county and State results 

were retabulated using the new methodology.

Most internal procedures added for the 2002 Census 

of Agriculture processing worked fairly well. However, entering the data through the optical character-recognition (OCR) procedure was not as successful as hoped. Many respondents put lines through 

answer boxes that did not apply to them. Th e OCR 

process usually considered that each cell with a line 

through it had received an answer of one. Fortunately, an electronic image of each page was captured and 

forms went through a “correct from image” review. 

Th e OCR approach was eventually dropped from the 

2007 Census of Agriculture plans.

Th e extra 2,400 June area frame segments that had 

been enumerated in June 2002 were extremely valuable for providing improved estimates of the mailing list incompleteness. Four telephone call centers 

were used, and more operators were contacted by 

telephone or personal contacts than for other recent 

censuses of agriculture.

One major advantage of the census of agriculture 

over the ongoing commodity statistics program is 

the measurement of the demographics of U.S agriculture. Th e added questions regarding numbers of 

operators per farm and the demographics of multiple operators presented a new picture. More than 3.1 

million farm operators were reported on nearly 2.13 

million farms in the 2002 Census of Agriculture. Of 

the total, 847,832 (27.2 percent) were women. Another new demographic result was that 13.6 percent 

of operations reported multiple households sharing 

the farm income. 

Th e operator demographic questions on gender and 

age, which were asked of the fi rst three operators per 

farm, provided new information for rural sociologists and organizations interested in a fuller picture 

of farming in the 21st century. 

Other new questions also worked well. New production contracts questions provided a clearer picture of 

farm operator income from contract operations. A 

pilot project in Montana, North Dakota, and South 

Dakota presented more information about agriculture on American Indian Reservations for those 

States.

One of the fi rst users of the new demographic information on farm operators was USDA. Th e 2002 

Census of Agriculture data on race, gender, and ethnicity of farm operators at the county level were used 

in preparing the fi rst annual “USDA Program Participation by Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and 

Ranchers” report to Congress.

Special reports such as “Operators by Race” and 

“Women Principal Operators” were created and 

released. Th e “2002 Census of Agriculture Agricultural Atlas” was released as an electronic product; it 

contains 276 maps and graphs illustrating agricultural trends across the United States. Based on the 

Research and Development Division work, a new 

interactive mapping tool on the agency’s Web site allowed users to customize their own maps.

Finally, new procedures were also deployed for the 

2002 Puerto Rico Census of Agriculture. A toll-free 

telephone number was made available for the census 

(as it had been for the 50 States) that helped improve 

response. In addition, personal interviewers were 

used to collect reports not returned by mail.

Improvements for the 2007 Census of Agriculture

A census content test was conducted in 2006 that 

included a short questionnaire version. Th ree agricultural identifi cation surveys were conducted; they 

were aimed at removing non-farms from the census 

mailing list. Many eff orts were made to improve the 

mailing list coverage of minority and small farm operators. Pilot testing of improved procedures for contacting American Indian farm operators was done in 

91
New Mexico. One signifi cant change for the 2007 

Census of Agriculture was that an electronic data-reporting instrument was off ered for the fi rst time. 

92
Estimating Program and Reimbursable Activities 

In the past 10 years, there have been many additions 

to both the estimates created and the reports issued 

by NASS. Some additions have been due to changes 

in U.S. agriculture and to improvements in customer service; other additions expanded the coverage 

of topics of interest. Also, NASS is now publishing 

agricultural statistics for Puerto Rico and including 

Puerto Rico commodity statistics in ongoing NASS 

reports such as “Farms, Land in Farms, and Livestock 

Operations.” Improvements in sample sizes and/or 

geographic coverage have been made for some surveys. 

NASS started a series of “Farm Computer Usage and 

Ownership” reports in 1997, based on questions 

added to the June Area Frame Survey. Questions are 

asked only every two years because within-State sample variations might be greater than the true annual 

changes. Th e 1997 survey asked if the operation had 

computer access (38 percent had); if the operation 

owned or leased a computer (31 percent did); if the 

operator was using a computer for the farm business 

(20 percent were); and if the operation had Internet 

access (13 percent had). Questions have been added 

in subsequent years about the types of high-speed Internet access being used and the types of business being conducted over the Internet (e.g., purchasing inputs, selling products, and/or accessing reports and 

services). Th e 2007 survey indicated that 63 percent 

of farms had computer access; 59 percent owned or 

leased a computer; 35 percent were using a computer 

for the farm business; and 55 percent had Internet 

access. However, these results varied widely by region, economic class, and type of farm.

Another survey change that had been due to new agricultural trends was the reporting of corn, soybean, 

and cotton acreage planted with biotechnology seed. 

Biotechnology seeds have been modifi ed for resistance to herbicides, insects, or both. Questions related to biotechnology were fi rst asked in 2000 and 

are now repeated annually. Th e results are included 

in the annual “Acreage Report” at the end of June.

In 1997, the Secretary of Agriculture requested that 

NASS develop a weekly survey to estimate the weekly 

price of un-aged cheddar cheese sold by cheese makers. (Th is is a major determinant in the price for different classes of milk produced by farmers.) Because 

less than 100 cheese plants produced about 95 percent of all un-aged cheddar, NASS was able to contact just those plants and implement the survey in 

short order. When the survey procedures had been 

verifi ed, NASS started releasing prices and volumes 

sold for the previous fi ve weeks each Friday. Th e survey was quite successful, and the next year NASS was 

asked to expand data collection to a “Dairy Product 

Prices” report, which also included butter, nonfat 

dry milk, and dry whey.

Due to changes in the Federal support program for 

peanuts, NASS was asked to start a weekly “Peanut 

Prices” report in 2006, which covered purchases from 

farmers. Another new report series that was created 

in 2006, which provides information for producers and analysts to use in forecasting supplies, was a 

monthly “Catfi sh Feed Deliveries” report. Th e report 

breaks out data by State and by feed for food-size fi sh 

versus fi ngerlings and brood fi sh.

Th e large increase in dairy and meat goats in the 

United States prompted the change from “Sheep” reports to a “Sheep and Goats” report in 2006.

One report change that did not work well was a 

monthly “Hogs and Pigs” report, which was started 

in 1997. Analysts hoped more frequent hog breeding 

coverage would improve the ability to forecast future 

supplies and prices of pork. Survey cooperation was 

much poorer than for standard quarterly surveys. 

Monthly results were inconsistent, and they seemed 

to be aff ecting the quality of the quarterly survey, 

so the monthly survey and reports were dropped in 

2003 after considerable discussion and industry input.

Combined U.S. and Canada livestock reports were 

also added to the NASS program. In the past, there 

had been frequent complaints about both the diffi culty of obtaining Canadian livestock supply information and the fact that everyone had to pay for 

those reports (in contrast to the free U.S. electronic 

reports). NASS worked with Statistics Canada to 

develop a combined cattle report. Because neither 

country changed survey procedures nor timing, the

Chapter 8: Accomplishments in the Past Decade

93
approach was to combine both countries’ information into a consolidated release that would be electronically available to everyone, free of charge. Th e 

fi rst “U.S. and Canadian Cattle” report was issued in 

1999. Because Canadian hog and pigs information 

was collected and issued by a diff erent group than 

that for cattle, it took some time to make similar 

joint release arrangements. However, the fi rst “U.S. 

and Canadian Hogs and Pigs” report was issued in 

2004 and has been continued on a quarterly basis 

since.

One new, signifi cant NASS procedure was the use 

of data warehousing to analyze all data on hand and 

create a number of structure reports. Th ese included 

“U.S. Hog Breeding Structure” and “U.S. Cattle Supplies and Disposition” in 2001, followed by “U.S. 

Dairy Herd Structure” and “U.S. Broiler Industry 

Structure” in 2002, and “Licensed Dairy Herds” in 

2004. 

Another new report was issued in February 2003. 

Questions had been asked about crop marketing 

contracts on the 2001 Agricultural Resource Management Survey, which typically would have been 

used for special economic analyses. NASS made sure 

that the results received wider coverage by issuing 

the “Corn, Soybeans, and Wheat Sold Th rough Marketing Contracts 2001 Report.” 

One other new endeavor was the annual updating of 

the “Track Record” reports for crops, grain stocks, 

and livestock. Th ese updates summarize record highs 

and lows for the various commodities and show the 

changes from each forecast or preliminary estimate 

to the fi nal estimates. A similar type of report now 

routinely published is “Price Reactions,” which 

tracks market price changes following major NASS 

statistical reports.

Examples of expanded coverage reports included the 

1999 “Equine” and the 2001 “Nursery” reports. In 

both cases, all available information was provided 

for these two industries at one point in time.

NASS took on some changes in the spirit of governmental effi ciency. Starting in 1997, NASS coordinated the sampling and summarization of its California agricultural labor surveys with the California 

Economic Development Department (EDD). Since 

EDD was contacting even more operations than 

NASS and asking basically the same questions, the 

coordination between the two groups reduced the 

contact burden on farm operators.

NASS took over the “Farmland Values” report from 

ERS in 1997 to ensure that annual publications 

would be continued. NASS later added cash rents to 

that report.

NASS has long provided statistical services to other 

Government agencies on a cost-reimbursable basis. 

Often this involved one-of-a-kind surveys or analyses. Th ose types of requests still occur today, but a 

major shift took place in the past 10 years, as NASS 

worked almost every year to help specifi c agencies 

implement new programs. 

In the late 1990s, NASS conducted a number of customer service surveys for other USDA agencies and 

assisted on some organizational climate surveys. 

NASS also conducted the Childhood Agricultural 

Injury Study for the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Th at study was 

parlayed into a series of NASS surveys for NIOSH on 

childhood injuries, minority childhood injuries, and 

adult occupational health issues on farms. As the full 

analyses of NIOSH surveys often take a few years, 

NASS requested that a short summary report of results of each survey be published. NASS normally 

drafts the summary after the data quality review is 

fi nished, and then NIOSH reviews and approves it 

before release.

Another ongoing eff ort since 1999 is a series of surveys for the National Animal Health Monitoring 

System (NAHMS) of the USDA Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS). NASS conducted 

NAHMS surveys for layers and egg operations, feedlots, swine, sheep, cattle, catfi sh, non-ambulatory 

cattle and calves, backyard poultry fl ocks, and nonambulatory sheep and goats. NASS also conducted a 

number of surveys for the APHIS Wildlife Services 

program on death losses due to predators and other 

causes for cattle, sheep and goats, and catfi sh.

NASS also assists the USDA Agricultural Research 

Service (ARS) Nutrient Lab with their sampling issues for dietary and other food-related surveys on an 

annual basis.

94
Federal Farm Programs and NASS

NASS does not have any USDA regulatory, payment, 

or inspection authorities. Th us, it has been able to 

build and maintain its reputation for providing consistent, unbiased statistical information regardless of 

each administration’s politics or present Farm Bill 

legislation. 

However, NASS program off erings have been impacted by new Farm Program legislation. At times, 

the agency has been asked to provide reports of marginal statistical value. One example was the July 1 

forecasts of the current corn crop. July 1 is too early 

for producers to fully interpret their crop’s potential 

and too early to collect meaningful objective yield 

information. At various times in the past, USDA 

policy offi cials wanted a July 1 evaluation of the crop 

size so they could be ready to act if low (or perhaps 

high) production levels triggered Farm Program 

provisions later in the season. Th e agency usually 

suggested discontinuation of the July 1 corn forecast whenever budgets were tight, in order to save as 

much funding as possible for more statistically defensible forecasts and estimates. 

In 1980, the July 1 corn forecast issue was handled 

through the establishment of the World Agricultural Outlook Board (WAOB) and the creation of the 

monthly “World Agricultural Supply and Demand 

Estimates” (“WASDE”) report. Each May, WOAB 

starts analyzing the current year’s crop potential. 

Th ey use available NASS reports to make projections 

when it is too early to statistically forecast production. For example, the July 1 corn production number now available in the July “WASDE” for policy 

analysts is based on the NASS “June Acreage” report 

estimate of corn acreage expected to be harvested. It’s 

also based on a trend yield that might be somewhat 

adjusted by the WAOB if plantings were particularly 

early or late.

New Farm Program provisions often have led to estimating program expansions. For example, inclusion 

of minor oilseeds for special Farm Program provisions led to funding for improved estimates of those 

crops. Most of the county estimates that NASS routinely creates and publishes (particularly the cropping practices data on irrigated, non-irrigated, and 

following summer fallow) are paid for by either the 

USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) or Risk Manage

ment Agency. NASS usually has to increase sample 

sizes to provide these county estimates.

Occasionally, NASS has needed to deal with requests 

for changing the timing of specifi c reports in order 

for USDA to implement Farm Program provisions. 

One example was an eff ort to issue advanced soybean 

crop yield insurance payments. In this approach, a 

portion of the expected payment would be issued before harvest was completed. Final payments would 

be based on NASS county estimates that are not 

available until February. Th e compromise reached 

was for NASS to create Agricultural Statistics District (ASD) yield forecasts based on the October 1 

“Crop Production” report. Th e advanced payments 

to producers would then be based on the normal relationship of yields in specifi c counties to the ASD 

yields. Th e new procedure was implemented and 

was successful in most areas. However, some counties ended up with higher-than-typical yields related 

to the fi nal ASD average yield, and producers had to 

return the advance payments.

One new experience for NASS was the fact that mandatory reporting requirements for the “Dairy Product Prices” report were written into legislation. Th e 

agency hadn’t needed to write offi cial regulations 

before; it’s a rigid and time-consuming procedure. 

Th ere was also diffi culty in implementing the spirit 

of the legislation because NASS is not a regulatory 

agency and has no audit authority. Th e question of 

how to implement auditing without violating confi -

dentiality of reporting is still being resolved.

Integrating Surveys, One More Time

One decision that greatly shaped the past 10 years 

or so was the creation of the Agricultural Resource 

Management Survey (ARMS) by NASS and ERS. 

In 1996, the annual cropping practices survey was 

integrated with the Farm Costs and Returns Survey Program. Because of the integration, total farm 

economic data were usually collected for operations 

included in the chemical-use surveys. Th is created 

larger sample sizes for the annual farm production 

expenditures analyses and allowed analyses of chemical-use practices related to diff erent sizes and types 

of farm operations.

ARMS was originally named the Agricultural Resource Management Study by ERS, although NASS 

staff members usually referred to it as a survey 

95
program. ARMS became so well known that it usually went by its acronym and was rarely spelled out. 

However, when the two agencies were documenting the need for additional funding for the program 

around 2001, it became clear that the reluctance 

from the Offi ce of Management and Budget (OMB) 

reviewers to agree to funding increases was due, in 

part, to the ARMS name. OMB viewed the study as 

a one-time, relatively small program. Th e term “survey” might imply a broader, more ongoing program. 

At that point, ARMS was renamed as the Agricultural 

Resource Management Survey in all ERS communications, and the program’s expansion was approved 

by OMB the next year.

Several increases in chemical-use coverage occurred 

under ARMS. Th e fi rst after-harvest chemical applications survey was conducted for apples and potatoes 

in 1997. Later agricultural practices surveys covered 

post-harvest chemical applications for commodities such as fruits and vegetables, peanuts and rice, 

and oranges. A survey of adoption of integrated pest 

management practices was conducted for pastures. 

Another new chemical-use approach was to collect 

information on chemicals applied to animals and 

animal facilities.

NASS fi eld offi ces became concerned with the extreme length of many ARMS interviews. Complaints 

were particularly aimed at the long, complicated economic questionnaire that was administered to all operations, even those primarily selected for chemicaluse or cost-of-production data surveying. Requests 

were made to ask more global questions instead of 

asking for full details at each interview. A short question version was tested for one quarter of the 2004 

core sample and was expanded to all core samples in 

2005. Th e shorter version led to partial use of mail 

contacts. Mail response was low, but it was cost eff ective because personal interview costs are high.

When NASS began collecting data on the Conservation Eff ects Assessment Project (CEAP) for the USDA 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) during 2003–07, ERS requested that ARMS-type data be 

included. Th is would allow for a broader analysis of 

the CEAP, rather than one that focused only on the 

environmental benefi ts from conservation programs. 

After negotiations, an integrated ARMS/CEAP questionnaire was developed in 2004. 

In addition to broadening the ARMS scope, improvements were made to publications and to the 

presentation of the summary data. For example, all 

agricultural chemical-use summaries now have distribution tables that show medians, averages, and 

10th and 90th percentiles for each chemical’s rates 

of application and number of applications data distribution.

New Technology Developments in the Past 10 Years

Data technology emphases from 1997 to 2007 might 

best be summarized as having continually updated 

to state-of-the-art processing, security, and access 

procedures. Many changes and upgrades have been 

made to enhance the tools that agency personnel 

have to do their jobs, which have also ensured that 

proper security for data and processing systems is 

in place. Innovations have been added to improve 

NASS customer access and analytic capabilities. To 

make these improvements, NASS often needed to 

hire employees with specifi c training and mandatory 

certifi cations.

At the same time, USDA (and other Federal organizations such as the Offi ce of Management and Budget) has had some impact on NASS technology programs since the late 1960s. As mentioned in part 

2 of this account, some agency acquisition plans in 

the late 1960s and 1970s were delayed because longrange data processing plans were either not in place 

or were not acceptable to USDA. Th e Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (CCA) specifi ed that Government 

information technology offi ces should be operated 

just as effi cient and profi table businesses would be 

operated. Th e CCA emphasis was on departments, 

not individual agencies, and called for leadership by 

Department chief information offi cers. 

Th e CCA called for the creation of an integrated 

framework of technology for carrying out the business of each department and for considering all facets of capital planning for acquisition of new hardware and software systems. Following CCA, USDA 

emphasized the need for agencies to align their information technology (IT) strategy with their business goals, and to demonstrate sound IT investment 

portfolio management that would be linked to good 

project management practices. Th ose initiatives 

were very sound approaches, but they often required 

extensive NASS documentation to clarify the appropriate eff orts that were already underway. It was also 

96
time consuming to fully justify NASS requirements 

for specially enhanced processing and security software in order to acquire necessary waivers.

One signifi cant agency change in the past 10 years 

was the 1998 migration of mainframe processing activities from an outside contractor to the USDA National Information Technology Center (NITC). Th is 

ended more than 25 years of contract arrangements. 

Not only was NITC able to provide the level of support that NASS required and meet peak workload demands, but processing costs were also reduced. Th e 

NITC processing system also off ered improved fi le 

and processing management and gave NASS users 

more control over the timing and priority of processing jobs.

One special technology eff ort was the review of all 

agency data systems in order to identify and repair 

any that might not function properly come the year 

2000. Since NASS did not have many accountingtype systems that performed operations based on 

calendar dates, there were probably fewer systems to 

repair than for many other organizations. Th is “Year 

2000” (known as Y2K) eff ort provided an impetus to 

review all NASS programs and operating systems for 

those which should be retired and for those needing 

to be replaced or rewritten. NASS also scrutinized 

all commercial software that had become part of its 

standard processing technology to be sure those programs were compliant. Th e review and assessment 

was necessarily thorough and extended to all workstations and to non-data processing computerized 

applications, such as security systems for entering 

offi ces. NASS tackled the Y2K concerns aggressively 

and accomplished all the necessary steps on or ahead 

of schedule.

A number of past decade improvements provided 

new or enhanced tools for agency personnel. Completing the agency’s wide area network (WAN) in 

1997 gave all employees Internet access and provided 

each fi eld offi ce access to needed data for effi ciently 

carrying out the 1997 Census of Agriculture. Also, 

1997 marked the completion of the enhanced list 

maintenance operations (ELMO) system, which replaced the existing list- sampling frame software and 

greatly improved operations. As part of the ongoing 

ELMO development eff orts, a full list frame database 

was available at the time NASS acquired the census of 

agriculture responsibilities. Th e ELMO system provided invaluable query capabilities during processing of the 1997 Census of Agriculture.

New Windows-based CATI and interactive editing 

software were introduced in 1999, which were easy 

to learn and use. A questionnaire repository system (QRS) was added in 2003, which provided all 

fi eld offi ces full access to all standard questions for 

preparing new questionnaires. Th e QRS has been 

powerful in standardizing questions for surveys that 

use multiple modes of collection, including paper, 

telephone, personal interviews, and online survey 

responses.

Many steps have continued to be taken to improve 

customer access to NASS reports. Portable Document Format (PDF) versions of major reports were 

added in 1997, in addition to text fi les for immediate Internet releases. Also in 1997, the USDA computerized information delivery service contract expired. However, NASS was already providing better 

access through its Internet home page and through 

a multi-agency contract with the Mann Library at 

Cornell University. Th e Mann Library provided 

archival access to all NASS electronic reports and 

maintained the customer subscription service for 

online reports. Th e Mann Library wanted to become known as the leading agricultural information 

center, and it was providing this excellent service 

to NASS, ERS, WAOB, and the USDA Extension 

Service for a total cost equivalent to hiring one entry-level Federal statistical assistant. In 2001, the 

agency began off ering spreadsheet-ready data fi les 

in addition to the text and PDF formats.

Data users were provided direct access to NASS 

historical data by adding the online “Quick Stats” 

reports database as an agency homepage feature in 

1998. Users select commodities or data series, time 

periods, and geographic areas to create data fi les for 

viewing, printing, or down loading. Th e “Quick 

Stats” design has not worked as well internally as 

hoped, and it will likely be replaced by an improved 

application.

Another database feature was added in 2004 when 

NASS and ERS introduced an online query system 

that allowed Agricultural Resource Management 

Survey database users to create their own special 

tabulations of data. In 2006, NASS began using 

Rich Site Summary (RSS) feeds of news and announcements to provide better public access. Th e 

agency developed full text scans of many historic 

97
reports not previously available in electronic accessible formats.

One signifi cant success story of the past decade was 

NASS’s leadership role in data warehousing for statistical applications. In the early 1990s, several internal NASS reports addressed the need to improve 

the agency’s data management of historical survey 

data so that NASS could enhance its sampling capabilities, reduce survey respondent burden, improve 

data quality, broaden analytical capabilities, and expand estimation methods. Th e NASS Strategic Plan, 

published in late 1994, called for a data system that 

would permit maximum use of historical data and 

that would be easily accessible by all NASS users. 

Th e Data System 2000 Steering Committee was then 

formed in 1995 as a spin-off to the NASS Strategic 

Plan to pursue development of an enterprise database containing historical survey data. In 1998, over 

600 staff members used the easy-to-access data warehouse system to carry out analyses during the 1997 

Census of Agriculture processing. It was also used 

by many agency personnel for improved analyses of 

survey data and estimates. By the end of 2007, the 

NASS data warehouse contained over 5 billion survey responses from farmers and ranchers from 1997 

through 2007.

Th e agency has often been called upon by other statistical organizations for advice and guidance in creating data warehouse systems. Staff members participated in a number of data warehousing conferences, 

and NASS hosted the second International Conference on Statistical Data Warehousing and Business 

Intelligence. Th e conference showcased presentations 

from seven countries.

A small, but signifi cant, realignment in 2004 added 

the Field Services Section and the Data Warehousing Group to the Information Technology Division 

(ITD). Th e realignment promoted a more unifi ed 

and cohesive approach to information technology 

products and services. More employees are now involved in broader IT applications instead of focusing on just specifi c contributions. Th e change has 

strengthened the support for fi eld offi ce activities by 

having a wider cadre of people to call upon.

New technologies were also used to improve data 

collection options. Beginning in 1999, weekly crop 

progress survey responses were collected over the Internet. Th is was feasible because most reporters were 

USDA Extension Service personnel who had Internet access. Th ey would sign on to get the current 

questionnaire and submit their observations by early 

Monday morning in order for NASS fi eld offi ces to 

summarize, analyze, and issue the current week’s report at 4 p.m. eastern time. Th e present crop progress and condition system handles questionnaires 

that change weekly and require fast turnaround for 

both mail and Web versions. Th e system leverages all 

historic reported data for week-to-week comparisons 

and can even off er multiple questionnaire versions 

within a State during the same week. Th e system also 

effi ciently handles multiple modes of data collection 

and often receives 2,000 or more Web-based responses each week. 

Because nearly all NASS surveys are voluntary, it was 

not expected that many people would respond over 

the Internet, except for special cases such as the crop 

progress survey. However, some agricultural-related 

businesses, as they automated their own records, preferred to transmit electronic information for reports 

such as “Cold Storage” instead of copying data to 

questionnaires. Th ese early transmissions often were 

e-mail messages, as electronic questionnaires had not 

been created. Th e fi rst test of electronic data reporting (EDR), other than for crop progress surveys, was 

for the “Cotton Ginnings” report in 2001. By 2004, 

NASS had developed a well- functioning EDR software system that was integrated with the questionnaire repository system to create eff ective survey instruments. Th e NASS system fully met the objectives 

of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act to 

provide the public with reporting options in dealing 

with Federal organizations. EDR applications were 

fi rst prepared for smaller, business- type surveys, but 

they have been expanded to all surveys. EDR was 

available for the 2007 Census of Agriculture data collection for the fi rst time.

As mentioned above, security has been a major focus. 

As soon as electronic communications between headquarters and fi eld offi ces were feasible, electronic encryption (using National Institute of Standards and 

Technology-approved protocols) was used for transferring the speculative data and recommendation 

fi les for Agricultural Statistics Board (ASB) reports. 

In 2001, a personal computer-based local area network (LAN) was assembled as an ASB reports backup processing alternative. In a later security upgrade, 

all ASB data fi les were encrypted. 

98
Because of Federal Governmentwide electronic security concerns, NASS was successful in receiving 

specifi c funding for strengthening security, starting 

in FY 2001. A full risk assessment of all agency processing and communications was completed in 2003. 

About that time, a virtual private network (VPN) 

was created for encrypting all non-primary network 

communications (such as for telecommuters). Security training was conducted for all employees and 

new intrusion detection features were added to all 

facilities. 

Many state-of-the-art security features have been 

added to ensure proper security of the NASS network 

and its data, equipment, and facilities. Vulnerability scanning software has been installed, along with 

implementation of an automated security-dispatch 

management system. An intrusion detection system 

has been installed to detect any unusual network activity. Outside contractors have been hired to certify 

that all systems have adequate security controls and 

penetration testing has been done to monitor for potential security improvements. One key factor has 

been to install advanced network auditing tools to 

validate that proper security controls are always in 

place and functioning. 

NASS has been a leader in creating and testing disaster recovery and continuity of operations systems. It 

initiated a number of new activities in order to comply with the Best Enterprise Architecture Practices. 

It upgraded the encryption procedures being used in 

order to strengthen the VPN. All operations also have 

been migrated to a more secure operating system and 

plans are in the works to encrypt all fi les on work 

stations. 

One other improvement in the past decade was a 

new approach for implementing agency technology 

priorities and communicating the status of planned 

eff orts. Th e agency’s Information Technology Council meets every two years to set strategic and longerterm priorities and directions. Th e agency’s Senior 

Executive Team addresses tactical and shorter term 

technology issues every month. Th e signifi cant new 

agency management approach was creation of the 

agency’s Business Council. Th e Business Council is 

composed of the branch chiefs of each headquarter 

division, plus representation from the fi eld offi ces. 

Th e branch chiefs control day-to-day assignments of 

personnel and are acutely aware of progress on most 

agency survey, estimation, and personnel operations. Business Council members do not set technology priorities, but they can provide up-to-date time 

tables for implementing the priority decisions that 

have been set.

One new approach implemented in response to the 

Clinger-Cohen Act was the creation of the NASS Enterprise Architecture Council (NEAC). USDA has 

defi ned four levels of architecture: the business layer, 

the applications and services layer, the data layer, and 

the technology layer. One example of the Department’s standardization eff orts to improve operations, 

reduce costs, and avoid redundancies was the time 

and attendance reporting system that NASS created 

in the 1990s. It was considered for use by all agencies 

as part of the applications and services layer. However, the Department’s fi nal decision was to acquire a 

commercial system.

As stated at the start of this section, NASS technology is being continually updated to take advantage 

of improved processing advances. One good example is the work underway to create what has been 

dubbed GENESIS (generalized enhanced sampling 

and information system). Th is new system will enhance and replace the mainframe classify and sampling programs. It will build on present ELMO and 

data warehouse eff orts, and it will specifi cally add 

features that had been proposed in the past but were 

not achievable.

Training Developments in the Past 10 Years

Training in recent years has essentially been a technology story in itself. NASS has taken advantage of 

online and other computer-based training methods. 

Many new methodologies off er employees the fl exibility to complete required training on their own 

schedule. For example, USDA has purchased or internally developed several thousand online employee 

training modules. Examples include modules for 

required annual ethics and security training. USDA 

normally requires all employees to complete certain 

modules each fi scal year, but other modules are available to employees when specifi c questions or needs 

arise. 

NASS has a learning culture that is committed to 

proper training for all employees. A typical agency 

allocation to training is 3 percent of the total budget. Th e 2000 calculation showed that the training 

expenditure that year was actually 3.4 percent. Train99
ing programs are constantly evaluated and modifi ed 

as needed. For example, the New Statistician Orientation, which brought groups of new professional 

employees to headquarters after they had worked six 

months or so, has been changed to New Employees 

Orientation. Th is program includes all new fi eld offi ce and headquarters employees. Orientation timing 

and content were adjusted to fi t the expanded goals.

One long-standing commitment has been to develop communication, supervision, and management 

skills. At one time, the U.S. Offi ce of Personnel Management (OPM) required 80 hours of training for all 

Federal supervisors. During the 1990s, it was reduced 

to 40 hours. NASS, however, has kept a two-part, 

80-hour guideline for its entire professional staff . 

Th e fi rst 40 hours are provided through contracted 

courses for newer NASS employees. Th e second 40 

hours are normally provided through USDA, OPM, 

or other training opportunities in which NASS employees participate with employees from other organizations.

Training on census of agriculture procedures has 

been a major NASS emphasis. Soon after it was 

known that the census responsibility would be coming to NASS, national training sessions were held for 

200 State directors, deputy State directors, census coordinators, and census support leaders. One sign of 

ongoing training improvements was evidenced in the 

1997 Census seminar for all agency managers. It was 

announced that overhead transparencies would not 

be allowed, and all presenters had to use computerbased presentation tools. Th is forced many presenters to examine new tools for the fi rst time and devote considerable eff ort to their message, visual aids, 

and delivery. Th e result was one of the most eff ective 

training sessions the agency had ever presented.

One key agency self-evaluation approach has been a 

long series of climate surveys that ask all employees 

to evaluate a wide variety of organizational issues, 

such as work place, personnel relations, communications, management and others. To ensure confi dentiality, the organizational climate surveys have normally been conducted by outside organizations such as 

survey research centers at the University of Maryland 

and George Mason University, or through the Joint 

Program in Survey Methodology. Climate surveys are 

now conducted using secure, Web-based methods.

One refl ection of management’s desire to truly learn 

from climate surveys (as well as to respond to employees’ reactions like “What diff erence does the 

survey make?”) was the appointment of an Organizational Climate Survey Evaluation Team. Th is team 

was designed to thoroughly study current results in 

light of earlier surveys and to make specifi c recommendations to management. Many recommendations involve training, and those recommendations 

are implemented by the training and career development offi ce (TCDO).

In 2000, TCDO took the lead in contracting for an 

agency leadership- eff ectiveness inventory evaluation 

of all supervisors and managers. Th is included evaluation of each individual by supervisors, subordinates, 

and peers. Th e process, led by experienced contractors, formed the backdrop for an agency leadership 

workshop. Th e analyses highlighted the agency’s 

leadership strengths and weaknesses as it prepared 

for the future. TCDO also used the results to identify 

and implement additional leadership training.

TCDO has also added many new training features. 

“Train the trainer” sessions have been held for headquarters and fi eld offi ce survey leaders to better prepare them to help with offi ce training. TCDO leads 

agency personnel in using best practices to prepare 

detailed agendas and learning objectives for each 

training program. Because the agency is using online 

and interactive editing, summary, and analysis routines, TCDO has scheduled many training sessions 

at the USDA Farm Service Agency facility in Kansas 

City. Th is facility off ers NASS attendees opportunities to train on new computerized tools. 

Because of the constant assessment of employee 

training needs and the innovative approaches used to 

providing that training, NASS was nominated during the 1990s for the W. Edwards Deming Award for 

Excellence in Federal Government Education, sponsored by the Graduate School, USDA. Th e nomination acknowledged the “cradle to grave” attention 

that NASS gives to employee needs, and it was wellreceived by the selection committee. In 2006, NASS 

received another Deming Award nomination for TCDO’s design, development and delivery of an online 

leadership course on performance management for 

all supervisors. 

Several new action-learning approaches have been 

successfully implemented by TCDO since 2003. 

Field offi ce and headquarters staff members have 

100
worked together to learn new problem-solving techniques while learning about leadership. Th e fi rst approach included four face-to-face sessions, followed 

by individual introspection and action follow-ups. 

A later approach included face-to-face, online, and 

teleconference sessions for the participants, which 

utilized electronic white board technology. Participants were very pleased with the confi dence they 

gained by using new problem-solving and leadership 

skills; they also increased their comfort with technology. Th e agency’s cutting edge eff orts to employ these 

new learning methods have been recognized across 

Federal agencies. TCDO has been invited to speak at 

several human resource sessions and to consult with 

other organizations on implementing innovative 

leadership training. 

Remote Sensing Developments in the Past 10 Years

A 2001 remote sensing paper suggested that the 

Cropland Data Layer (CDL) Partnership Program 

might expand to cover the top 15 to 20 cropland 

States. Indeed, this idea did seem to have strong interest from many sources, particularly State government agencies looking at watershed issues. By 2001, 

data analysts were located in Illinois, North Dakota, 

Mississippi, and New Mexico. Th ere also were ongoing negotiations for a partnership with Florida A&M 

University and one to create a CDL product for the 

Middle Atlantic States.

However, the partnership program did not expand 

as anticipated. Few State governments had research 

or information staff s with remote sensing interests 

or skills. State government organizations seemed to 

be interested in tackling a few specifi c research questions, but they often did not seek additional applications. If one person was designated and trained for 

the CDL project, there was usually no technology 

transfer when the analyst moved on to other assignments—and the entire eff ort would close. In university settings, only one or two people were trained; 

when those individuals completed their studies and 

moved on, they were not usually replaced. Another 

factor was that having the CDL for one point in time 

seemed suffi cient for many other research interests 

because cropland does not change much from year 

to year. 

Th ere was, however, some excellent CDL partnership 

program work done. Th e State of Illinois added additional ground data to the eff ort and created a land 

cover layer, instead of just a cropland data layer. CDL 

products were helpful in making some agribusiness 

economic decisions in North Dakota by adding data 

layers such as transportation. Much of the documented use of the CDL products related to within-State 

watershed and other water-quality eff orts for which 

the CDL approach was extremely appropriate.

Th rough 2006, CDL products had been created for 

Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North 

Dakota, and Wisconsin (with multiple dates for 

all but Idaho, Louisiana, and Wisconsin). In addition, combined States products are available for the 

Midwestern States, which cover crop years 2005 and 

2006 (the State of Washington is included in the 

2006 product), and the Mid-Atlantic States for the 

2002 crop year. Th ere has been considerable interest in these products—198 requests were made in 

2005; 139 in 2006; and 118 in the fi rst seven months 

of 2007. As of midyear 2007, products were available over the Internet through the USDA Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Geospatial 

Gateway. 

An interesting new line of remote sensing and Geographical Information System (GIS) research and 

application has arisen in the past three years or so. 

Th ere is a great amount of interest in building an expanded information system for citrus fruit. Th is includes using remote sensing products (perhaps from 

satellites with higher-resolution sensors) to identify 

plantings of citrus trees and, perhaps, to count or estimate the numbers of trees. Th ere is also interest in 

being able to judge the maturity and health of individual blocks of trees as possible indicators of crop 

size. Th e Florida citrus industry, the State of Florida 

Department of Citrus, and major citrus companies 

are all interested in the research, and they have obtained research funding from NASA. NASS is contracting to do much of the basic GIS research. Because the new goals are to not only improve Florida 

industry information but also evaluate citrus industries in Brazil or elsewhere in the world, the research 

is bringing in concepts from both the LACIE of the 

1970s (discussed in chapter 3) and the AgRISTARS 

early warning and crop condition assessment project 

of the 1980s (discussed in chapter 5).

Th e NASS remote sensing eff orts and the research 

into uses of GIS-registered data fi les, such as USDA 

Farm Service Agency’s (FSA) digitized fi eld boundar101
ies for all farms signed up for Federal farm programs, 

have both reached an advanced level of maturity and 

have set the stage for new research in 2007. Many 

of the time-consuming technical issues involved in 

rectifying and registering ground and satellite data 

have been solved by registering new satellite data to a 

standard available mosaic of the entire United States, 

which is based on 30-meter Th ematic Mapper data. 

For the fi rst time in 2007, remote sensing interpretations of current-season crop acreages for major States 

were available by October 1, instead of by the end of 

the harvest season. Th ose interpretations were based 

on samples selected from FSA’s digitized fi eld boundaries and certifi ed crop uses for 2007. Th e satellite 

data were from the moderate resolution imaging 

spectroradiometer (MODIS) sensor aboard NASA’s 

Aqua and Terra satellites, which provide more scenes 

than Landsat satellites.

Th e biggest development is that P-EDITOR, which 

has been a tremendous workhorse research and application system, may soon be replaced. A new artifi cial intelligence system built on the classifi cation 

and regression tree (CART) analysis approach is 

being tested. Th e CART approach is non-parametric and uses decision tree techniques, which should 

improve on the P-EDITOR parameter-driven approach. CART can handle many satellite- imagery 

dates at once (P-EDITOR was limited to two) and 

can combine other data sources, such as slope and 

elevation data, at the same time. Th e CART approach 

will also be able to accept cloudy satellite scenes by 

ignoring cloud problems, assuming there are other 

non-cloudy scenes in the same analysis.

Other Research Directions in the Past 10 Years

Many Research and Development Division (RDD) 

activities over the past 10 years have already been 

covered in chapter 7 and in the remote sensing and 

reimbursable material sections discussed earlier in 

this chapter. However, there were many other active 

research eff orts.

Several important results came out of ongoing sampling and estimation investigations. A new State-byState sample allocation for the June Area Frame Survey (using a national sampling approach) reduced the 

total number of area segments by 20 percent while 

maintaining the same U.S.-level precision. A key 

breakthrough was the implementation of multivariate probability proportional to size (MPPS) sample 

designs for surveys such as quarterly crop/stocks and 

for environmental surveys that have multiple crops 

of interest. Th e new design provided better targeting 

of rare commodities, lowered overall sample sizes and 

survey costs, and reduced respondent burden.

A number of other eff orts were aimed at reducing 

respondent burden. An approach to better communicate with large producers called the “Top 100” was 

started. Th is method would summarize data for the 

top producers of specifi c commodities, evaluate their 

impact on estimates, and develop communication 

strategies to establish rapport, in order to collect the 

best, most consistent data for each operation. An improved, more detailed respondent-burden tracking 

and management system was also developed to better understand and hopefully minimize respondent 

burden. A related eff ort tested the eff ectiveness of 

designating personal enumerators for some large or 

otherwise important producers.

Cognitive research methods were used in a number 

of investigations. Small group meetings were held 

with producers to gain their evaluations of NASS 

survey approaches to make data collection more 

convenient. Th ese interviews were also designed to 

identify services and information that the respondents desire. Cognitive interviews were conducted 

with reluctant survey respondents in South Dakota, 

which led to a new enumerator training program for 

handling reluctant respondents. RDD staff members 

also participated in the testing and evaluation of a 

new short version of the Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) core questionnaire and the 

2007 Census of Agriculture form design pretesting.

A special respondent-incentives research eff ort was 

conducted in conjunction with the 2005 ARMS data 

collection. A debit card was used as the incentive, and 

various treatments were tested, such as providing the 

debit card with the mail questionnaire versus promising to deliver a debit card when the questionnaire 

was returned. All incentive treatments resulted in 

higher response rates than mailings without incentives; they were, therefore, cost eff ective. Th e largest 

additional increase in treatment response was measured at 9 percent.

An ongoing research theme for NASS is the improvement of data analysis tools for fi eld-offi ce and headquarters statisticians. In the late 1990s, new graphic 

tools were developed and added to the interactive 

102
data analysis system. A new agricultural generalized 

imputation edit system (AGGIES) was developed 

and tested that had many advantages over traditional 

editing procedures. Since editing and imputation 

were fully automated, manual operations inconsistencies were avoided. Functions were performed objectively and more consistently than with multiple, 

independent operations. Other statistical agencies in 

the United States and several other countries have requested information on the system.

U.S. Agriculture, Circa 2007

Th e biggest story in American agriculture in 2007 

was the tremendous increase in the acreage planted 

to corn for the production of ethanol. Government 

policies promoting the blending of ethanol with 

gasoline for automotive fuel and the construction of 

ethanol plants led to a proliferation of such plants. 

Th e amount of corn being used to produce ethanol 

has increased tremendously. Some 3 billion bushels 

of the 2007 corn crop were used for ethanol—42 

percent more than a year earlier and double the fi gure from 2005. Economic projections predict the 

amount of corn used for ethanol will increase for another three years before leveling off . 

Th e 93.6 million acres planted to corn in 2007 was 

the highest total since 1944, an increase of 20 percent from 2006. (Th e 86.5 million acres harvested 

in 2007 represent the highest total on record since 

1933.) Much of the extra acreage came from a 16-

percent decline in the acreage of soybeans planted. 

Th e 63.6 million acres of soybeans planted in 2007 

was the lowest since 1995. In spite of the large increase in corn acreage and hot, dry conditions in 

many Eastern States, the average U.S. corn yield for 

2007 was the second highest on record. 

In general, crop yields have continued to increase 

over the past 10 years. Soybean average yields have 

been above 40 bushels per acre ever since 2004—a 

level that had only been reached once before 2000. 

Average corn yields have been above 140 bushels 

per acre since 2003, with a record 160.4 bushels per 

acre in 2004. All winter wheat average yields seemed 

to have leveled off since the big increases of the late 

1990s. 

U.S. cotton acreage harvested had stayed between 12 

and 13.8 million acres for 2000–06 before dropping 

to 10.5 million acres in 2007. Cotton yields have varied from 632 to 871 pounds per acre for 2000–07; 

the 2004–07 yields all stayed above 800 pounds per 

acre. Th e 2007 average cotton yield of 871 pounds 

per acre set a new record.

Most of the corn, cotton, and soybean acreages are 

planted to biotechnology varieties, which have been 

modifi ed for resistance to insects, herbicides, or both. 

In 2007, 73 percent of the corn acreage, 83 percent 

of the cotton acreage, and 91 percent of the soybean 

acreage were of biotechnology varieties. Th e varieties contributed greatly to further increases in farm 

operator effi ciencies. In 2004, the effi ciency had improved 16 percent from 1997 and stood at 253 percent of the 1957 effi ciency level.

Farmland values have essentially doubled across the 

country in the past 10 years. Th e 2006 U.S. average 

value of farmland was $1,900 per acre, compared to 

$926 in 1997 ($1,168 in 2007 dollars). Some States 

selected for comparisons of 2006 values with those 

for 1997 were: California ($5,390 vs. $2,500); Illinois ($3,800 vs. 1,980); Indiana ($3,630 vs. $1,870); 

Iowa ($2,930 vs. $1,600); Kansas ($930 vs. $565); 

Nebraska ($1,090 vs. $524); and Texas ($1,250 vs. 

$554).

Livestock production continued to become more 

specialized. Cattle continued to be the agricultural 

commodity raised on more farms than any other, but 

the number of farms with cattle was under 1 million (971,400 compared with nearly 1.15 million 

in 1997). Most cattle operations (762,880 in 2006) 

had beef cows. Given this, there were 75,140 farms 

with milk cows in 2006. Hog farms totaled 65,540 

in 2006, a decrease from 122,160 in 1997 and from 

more than 1 million in 1965. Sheep farms declined 

from 72,680 to 69,090 between 1997 and 2006.

Table 11 indicates that per capita consumption of 

meat, poultry, and fi sh increased in total from 1997 

to 2005 by 17.2 pounds (7.9 percent). Chicken consumption continued its steady rise and totaled 86.2 

pounds per person (up from 71.4 pounds). Th us, the 

average per capita chicken consumption has increased 

252 percent in slightly less than 50 years. Total beef 

consumption changed little during the period (65.5 

pounds in 1997 and 65.3 pounds in 2005), but pork 

consumption increased almost 2 pounds (from 47.6 

to 49.5). Total fi sh consumption rebounded from 

14.3 pounds in 1997 to 16.1 pounds in 2005, the 

same level as in 1987. Turkey consumption declined 

103
slightly (17.2 to 16.6 pounds), lamb held steady at 

1.1 pounds, and veal consumption continued to decline (from 1.0 to 0.5 pounds per person) between 

1997 and 2005.

Table 11. Per Capita Consumption of Meat, Poultry, 

 and Fish, United States 2005 

 

Total Population 296,639,000 

 

Category Total Percent 

 Consumption of Total

 (Pounds/person) 

 

 Beef 65.3 27.8

 Veal 0.5 0.2

 Lamb 1.1 0.5

 Pork 49.5 21.0

 Chicken 86.2 36.6

 Turkey 16.6 7.1

 Total Fish 16.1 6.8

 

 Total Meat, Poultry & Fish 235.3 100.0

Table 12. Cash Receipts from Farm Marketings, by

 Commodity Groups, United States 2006 

Category Total Percent 

 Cash Receipts of Total

 (Million dollars) 

 

All Cash Receipts 239,272 100.0

 

Total Crops 119,951 50.1

 

 Food Grains 9,106 3.8

 Feed Grains 27,962 11.7

 Cotton 6,173 2.6

 Oil-bearing Crops 18,193 7.6

 Tobacco 1,156 0.5

 Fruits and Tree Nuts 17,011 7.1 

 Vegetables 17,935 7.5

 Nursery, Greenhouse & Flowers 16,892 7.1

 Other Crops 5,524 2.3

Total Livestock and Products 119,320 49.9

 

 Cattle and Calves 49,148 20.5

 Hogs and Pigs 14,085 5.9

 Sheep and Lambs 473 0.2

 Dairy Products 23,422 9.8

 Eggs 4,340 1.8

 Broilers and Farm Chickens 18,905 7.9

 Turkeys and Other Poultry 4,248 1.8

 Wool 24 0.0

 Other Livestock and Products 4,674 2.0

Cash receipts from livestock and crops were almost 

equal in 2006 (i.e., 50.1 percent of receipts were from 

crops). However, there has been considerable shifting in the livestock/crops mix since 1997. Crops cash 

receipts were 51 percent or more of all cash receipts 

in 1998, 2002, and 2003, but they were 49 percent or 

below in 1999–2001, 2004 and 2005. 

Cash receipts for fruits and tree nuts, vegetables, and 

nursery, greenhouse and fl owers were all up from 

1997 to 2006, in terms of dollars received and percent of total cash receipts. Nursery, greenhouse and 

fl owers products now accounted for 7.1 percent of 

total cash receipts, which equaled fruits and tree nuts 

and neared the contribution from vegetables (7.5 

percent).

Cattle and calves cash receipts once again exceeded 

20 percent of total receipts (20.5 percent). Hogs and 

pigs cash receipts continued their pattern of increasing in dollar values during each decade since 1957. 

However, they made up a lower percentage of total 

receipts in each subsequent period. Cash receipts 

for broilers and farm chickens continued to increase 

their proportionate share of total receipts to 7.9 percent. Wool cash receipts, at $24 million, made up 

only 0.01 percent of total cash receipts.

International Assistance in the Past 10 Years

Th ere has been a wide variety of international assistance eff orts in the past 10 years. All assistance 

was provided through a temporary duty (TDY) and 

training approach, except for a resident assignment 

in Ethiopia early in the period. Much of the work 

continued to be funded through the U.S. Government Emerging Markets Program.

104

[table continues on next column]
Some contact and assistance was provided to countries such as China, Ecuador, Kazakhstan, Mexico, 

Russia, and Ukraine nearly every year of the past decade. Th ree to fi ve years of TDY eff orts were provided 

to South Africa, Ethiopia, Brazil, and El Salvador. 

TDY visits in only one or two years were made to 

Armenia, Belize, Chile, Costa Rica, Georgia, Ghana, 

Guatemala, Honduras, Mongolia (which was funded 

through the World Bank), Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Oman, Panama, Pakistan, Philippines, Romania, and Sudan.

Discussions are well underway for assistance to Brazil, and a project for Argentina may open up. One 

interesting new development is a three-year agreement to aid Madagascar, which is being well-funded 

by the U.S. PL-480 program. Th e Agricultural Trade 

Development and Assistance Act of 1954 established 

the U.S. policy of using the Nation’s abundant agricultural resources to enhance food security in the 

developing world. Th is was commonly referred to as 

the PL-480 Food-for-Peace Program.

NASS continued to actively provide training to foreign visitors. Every year NASS hosted a minimum of 

150 to 200 visitors from 20 or more countries (30 in 

2005). For instance, 219 people visited in 2004, and 

220 came in 2005. 

In addition to making recommendations for improvements to a country’s ongoing agricultural statistical 

program, NASS also assisted with the preparation, 

conduct, and evaluation of censuses of agriculture in 

China and Russia. 

Th e 1997 China Census of Agriculture was likely 

the largest statistical data collection eff ort in history. 

Some 6 million enumerators were trained for contacting over 200 million households, and the total 

amount of data processed and tabulated was staggering. For example, 335 computer centers were created; 

they were staff ed by 10,000 newly trained people. 

Th e Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of 

the United Nations was an active participant in the 

Chinese agriculture census, along with statistical 

personnel from several countries. Th e Italian government contributed $17 million to the project. For 

its part, NASS assisted by presenting data collection 

seminars and helping design questionnaires. NASS 

staff also participated in data collection monitoring. 

China conducted its second census of agriculture in 

2007; it has been billed as an even larger eff ort despite the fact that less thorough planning and coordination were done. 

NASS Staffi ng, Circa 2007 

Th e present profi le of NASS employees is signifi cantly diff erent than the USDA statistical unit of 50 years 

ago. As of FY 2005, there were 513 agricultural statisticians and 95 mathematical statisticians on board, 

compared with 246 total statisticians (agricultural 

and mathematical) in 1955 and 451 in 1965. Nearly 

all the statisticians in 1955 and 1965 were white men. 

As of 2005, 164 of the agricultural statisticians and 

34 of the mathematical statisticians were women. In 

addition, 93 of the agricultural statisticians and nine 

of the mathematical statisticians were racial or ethnic 

minorities. 

Th ere have been considerable changes in the past 10 

years—particularly the past two years. As of midyear 

2007, eight of the 46 NASS State directors (including Puerto Rico) were nonminority women, and fi ve 

were minority employees. Only 4 State directors in 

mid-2007 had been in the same positions 10 years 

earlier. Five 1997 State directors are in diff erent positions than 10 years ago, and the rest of the 1997 

cadre have retired. Six of the nine people in NASS Senior Executive Service (SES) positions in 1997 have 

retired, and the remaining three employees each are 

in diff erent SES positions. Nearly half of the 2007 

mid year State directors attained their positions in 

the past two years.

An even bigger change in 50 years is that 132 individuals were employed as information technology 

specialists in 2005—a career that did not exist in the 

1950s. Nearly half (65) are women, and 56 are racial 

or ethnic minority employees.

As of mid-2005, the agency had 163 statistical assistants on board, which is much lower than 50 years 

prior, but down only slightly from 20 years ago. 

However, statistical assistants today are using different skills and taking on more responsibility than 

they did 20 or 50 years ago.

Reimbursable activities have a major impact on 

NASS staffi ng. Eleven percent of the total NASS 2007 

budget comes from reimbursements (8 percent from 

USDA agencies, 1 percent from other Federal agencies, and 2 percent from other sources). More than

105
10 percent of NASS staff years are currently paid with 

the reimbursable funding. 

Family Organizational Values

Th roughout the past 50 years NASS has been known 

as a family organization. Early in the period, most 

professional employees hired for agricultural statistics work had similar backgrounds. Even as hiring changed and new practices provided a diversity 

of educational backgrounds and gender, racial and 

ethnicity composition, the NASS career development 

approach has off ered all employees comparable career experiences. Employees are encouraged to try 

various types of positions in order to fi nd a comfortable, rewarding role within the agency.

One factor that has helped to nurture a family atmosphere is that NASS has a single, well-defi ned mission to provide timely, accurate, and useful statistics. 

Although there are many occupational specialties at 

NASS, all employees feel a connection to the mission 

and know that their eff orts are supporting agency 

goals. In contrast, many other Government agencies 

have several missions or are administering a broad 

array of unconnected programs. Th is often results in 

employees having little in common with one another 

from offi ce to offi ce.

Th e NASS functional organizational structure also 

brings people together to carry out most operational 

surveys and planning eff orts. Th is provides a good 

understanding of and appreciation for the backgrounds, talents, and eff orts of other team members. 

Th e team approach has become the modus operandi 

for informal activities as well as for accomplishment 

of major new projects. For example, in the mid1990s when interest was growing in telecommuting 

or fl exible workplace options, NASS management 

did not set policies unilaterally. Instead, a small committee that represented all major NASS occupations 

was formed to create the parameters and provisions 

for the agency. Th e committee did a thorough review 

of Government policies and considered the unique 

confi dentiality and security concerns of NASS operations. Th eir review eff orts were very thorough and resulted in a well- defi ned pilot program proposal.

As the agency has evolved in the past 50 years, so 

have personnel selection procedures. No longer does 

a small group of managers create its own list of bestqualifi ed candidates for each new opening. Positions 

are announced and all interested individuals are 

encouraged to apply. Management referrals are accepted for nonsupervisory positions, but individuals 

must apply for supervisory positions. Since the 1995 

reorganization, the associate administrator chairs 

the Human Resources Council (HRC) that makes 

the fi nal selection decisions and serves as an advocate 

to ensure that each applicant receives full consideration. Each of the four headquarters division directors serves on the HRC, along with the two deputy 

administrators for fi eld operations.

People working with NASS often comment on the 

professionalism and esprit de corps of the organization. Several recent outside evaluations have documented the organization’s positive spirit. In 2005, 

the Partnership for Public Service ranked NASS 26th 

out of 277 Federal subagencies in the Offi ce of Personnel Management (OPM) Best Places to Work in 

the Federal Government Survey. In the same year, the 

American Customer Satisfaction Index showed the 

NASS overall index score to be 77.5 points—higher 

than the average private sector score. (NASS had an 

index score of 91 for courtesy and professionalism.) 

In 2006, NASS received a Telly Award for Outstanding Documentation of an eight-minute fi lm entitled 

“Safeguarding America’s Agricultural Statistics.” In 

2007 OPM ranked NASS higher than any other Federal Government statistical organization, and ranked 

the agency 27th out of 222 Government units included in the 2007 Best Places to Work in the Federal 

Government Survey.

 

106
 EPILOGUE

Th e foreword of this publication asserted that by 1957 the United States had the world’s foremost agricultural 

statistics organization. Hopefully, this account has documented how the Statistical Reporting Service/National Agricultural Statistics Service has constantly improved survey and sampling techniques, report contents 

and formats, and customer service awareness in order to further enhance that standing.

However, this publication has also demonstrated that the agency’s impact has been much greater than just on 

U.S. agricultural statistics. NASS is truly a world-class Federal Government statistical organization. 

NASS has demonstrated its statistical procedures leadership in many ways. It was the organization that brought 

common sense, proper statistical sampling designs, and improved estimation approaches to the application of 

satellite remote sensing techniques for agricultural and land resources inventories. It even took on leadership 

roles for other Federal and international organizations. Th ose eff orts also greatly improved the creation and 

documentation of area sampling frames.

In addition, NASS was the leading organization in the development of computer-assisted survey techniques 

that could handle the intricacies of agricultural and economic surveys with many internal survey logic relationships. Also, procedures were developed for the proper use of previously reported survey data without 

biasing the present survey responses.

NASS became a leader in the development of data warehouse techniques to capture myriad data fi les, survey 

indications, and offi cial estimates created by the agency. Th ese techniques also improved editing, summarization, and estimation procedures. Data warehousing is an excellent example of one of the critical roles statisticians play in designing NASS systems. Th e NASS data warehouse was designed, developed, and implemented 

by statisticians with consultation from private industry data-warehouse experts. Th e system was therefore 

designed from the statistician vantage point with a full understanding of the business needs for ready access to 

historical data—data that would improve NASS survey and census operations. Th is data warehouse expertise 

then paved the way for exploring the use of additional sampling frames, such as Federal Farm Program geographic fi eld boundary fi les, and for creating calibration estimators for census of agricultural publications.

Particularly because of the unique Federal and State agricultural statistics responsibilities, NASS has always 

been extremely customer service- oriented. Th e agency listened to data users and other customers, and constantly improved data products and assistance eff orts. It also embraced electronic data services ahead of most 

USDA and Federal statistical organizations. 

NASS has always been a leader in employee-based programs—in great part because all employees realize that 

they have an important role to play in accomplishing the NASS mission. Th e movement of many agency 

personnel from offi ce to offi ce as part of the career development experience also provides employees with a 

greater appreciation for the diverse roles and abilities of their colleagues. New approaches to training, awards 

and other recognition, and benefi ts such as telecommuting have been implemented with input from all employees, and not from management-imposed mandates.

Fifty years ago, the USDA statistical organization faced many challenges in modernizing to probability survey 

procedures and developing proper staffi ng to properly conduct and interpret the new surveys. Twenty-fi ve 

years ago, SRS had implemented most of the feasible goals of the 1957 Long-Range Plan and set out to improve operations through a new approach for documenting standards for all operations. Th e 1982 LongRange Plan did prepare the organization for new surveys and challenges as the United States and world’s 

information needs changed. 

107
Ten years ago, NASS embraced the addition of the agricultural census responsibilities to its ongoing current 

statistical programs. Instead of maintaining two diff erent statistical systems, a new combined culture resulted. 

Th e result was creation of some of the most signifi cant additions to U.S. agricultural statistics in history. Th ese 

include information on multiple farm operators, a better understanding of livestock and poultry production 

contractees, and creation of agricultural census publications adjusted for list frame incompleteness and nonresponse. 

NASS has once again reached a maturity level similar to that of 1982, and the agency should reconsider its future emphases. It seems certain that the next few years will be eventful. However, there is an experienced staff 

in place to maintain the present quality of operations, tackle new challenges, and develop new approaches that 

will improve procedures.

 

108
 REFERENCES

A wide variety of materials, publications, and databases were reviewed in compiling this publication. Most 

items were from the Charles E. Caudill Library located at the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 

headquarters. A collection of nearly all past agency research reports has been compiled in the HousemanHuddleston Research Library in the agency’s Statistical Research Division. 

Some of the invaluable reference materials used included annual budget submissions to Congress. Th ese documents contained summaries of year-to-year changes in programs, budgets, and staffi ng, as well as explanatory 

staffi ng and budget data tables for each fi scal year, and “Status of Programs” narratives recounting program 

increases and decreases.

Many internal NASS documents also served as useful references. Th ese documents included: archived agency 

staffi ng and position rosters, annual listings of employee names and addresses, agency staff letters, and posted 

personnel changes. Th ese materials clarifi ed changes in organization subunit names, timing of specifi c individual’s relocation to new positions, and fl uctuations in the agency’s number of employees.

Many non-agency references were also essential for this publication. 

109
110
References

American Soybean Association (2001). ASA Study Confi rms Environmental Benefi ts of Biotech Soybeans. 

CAESAR Conference (Second International Conference on Agricultural Statistics) (2001). Th e New 

Econom-ics of Remote Sensing for Agricultural Statistics in the United States. By George Hanuschak, et 

al. Rome, Italy.

Conference of European Statisticians (1996). Analytical Editing: Th e NASS Interactive Data Analysis System 

(IDAS). By R. Ronald Bosecker. Geneva, Switzerland. 

EH.Net Encyclopedia (2007). Economic History of Tractors in the United States

Journal of Offi cial Statistics, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 161-180 (1995). Th e Evolution and Development of 

Agri-cultural Statistics at the United States Department of Agriculture. By Frederic A. Vogel. Statistics 

Sweden. Örebro, Sweden.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index Data Sets. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (April 17, 1986). Establishment of the National Agricultural Statistics 

Ser-vice, USDA Secretary’s Memorandum 1020-24. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, (February 24, 1961). Transfers of Functions Incident to 

Reorganization, Secretary of Agriculture Memorandum No. 1446. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (December 3, 1984). USDA Announces Improvements in Statistical and 

Eco-nomic Reporting Procedures, USDA Press Release 1275-84. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (March 10, 1982). USDA’s Statistical Reporting Service Changes Crop, 

Live-stock Estimating Program, USDA Press Release 272-82. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (March 24, 1982). USDA’s Statistical Reporting Service Releases To Be 

Avail-able for a Fee, USDA Press Release 341-82. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (February 6, 1986). Reorganization of the Statistical Reporting Service, 

As-sistant Secretary Memorandum to USDA Director of Personnel. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service Agricultural Estimates Division (1957). 

Quo Vadis, National Conference Proceedings, Part A & Part B. Kansas City, Missouri.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service (1979). Digest of ESCS 

Re-gional Conferences, Tucson, Arizona; Memphis, Tennessee; Harpers Ferry, West Virginia.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service (1979). Obtaining 

Timely Crop Area Estimates Using Ground-Gathered and LANDSAT Data. Technical Bulletin No. 1609. 

Washing-ton, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic and Statistics Review Panel (1985). Report to Secretary of 

Agri-culture John R. Block. Washington, D.C.

111
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Cash Receipts Data Sets. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Crop Utilization Data Sets. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (1990). Th e Cropland Reserve Program, An 

Economic Assessment, Agricultural Economics Report No.ER-626. Prepared by C. Edwin Young and C. Tim 

Osborn. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (2005). Factors Aff ecting U.S. Beef Consumption, Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Report No. LDP-M-135-02. Prepared by Christopher G. Davis and BiingHwan Lin. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (2004). Farmer Bankruptcies and Farm Exits in 

the United States, 1899-2002, Agriculture Information Bulletin No. AIB 788. Prepared by Jerome M. Stam 

and Bruce L. Dixon. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (2007). Productivity Growth in U.S. Agriculture, Economic Brief No.EB-9. Prepared by Keith O. Fuglie, James M. MacDonald, and Eldon Ball. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (1990). Program Provisions for Program Crops, 

a Database for 1961-1990. Prepared by Robert C. Green. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (1999). Vertical Coordination in the Broiler and 

Pork Industries: Implications for Pork and Chicken Products, Agricultural Economics Report No.AER-777. 

Prepared by Steve W. Martinez. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (1989). Agricultural Production and 

Prices – 125 Years, A Historical Review. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (1987). Area Frame Design for Agricultural Surveys. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, (1977). AS WE RECALL: Th e 

Growth of Agricultural Estimates, 1933-1961. Prepared by Emerson M. Brooks. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, (1999). Cash Receipts: U.S. Farm 

Cash Receipts, 1993-1997, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (1997). Census Seminar Proceedings. 

Louisville, Kentucky.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (1988). A Challenging Future From 

a Distinguished Past, National Conference Proceedings. San Francisco, California.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (1999). Charter for the New Millennium, Report of the Reorganization-2000 Team. Washington, D.C.

112
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Crops Planted, Harvested. 

Yield, Production, Price (MYA), Value of Production.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (1994). Customer Service Plan. 

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (1991). A Diverse Team-Unified in its 

Mission, National Conference Proceedings. Orlando, Florida.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Farm Numbers.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (1997). Flexible Workplace 

Program Pilot Evaluation. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (2007). Historical Roots of 

Auto-mation in USDA Agricultural Statistics, Draft Special NASS Publication. Compiled by Gerald L. 

Clampet. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (1989). Th e History of Survey 

Meth-ods in Agriculture. Prepared by R.R. Bosecker, Frederic A. Vogel, R.D. Tortora, and G.A. 

Hanuschak. Wash-ington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (1996). Middle Managers 

Seminar Proceedings. San Diego, California.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (1998). Missions, Visions, 

Targets, NASS Action Plan 1998. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (1997). NASS Technical 

Training Plan 1998, Survey Training Group, Data Collection Branch. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (2000). Organizational Climate 

Sur-vey Evaluation Team’s Report. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (1986). Proceedings of the 

Confer-ence on Survey Research Methods in Agriculture. Leesburg,Virginia.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (1990). Prospecting for the 

Future, National Conference Proceedings. San Francisco, California.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (1990). Question by Question Justifi cation of the Quarterly and Semi-Annual Agricultural Survey Program, Statistical Standards Staff 

Report SSS-90-01. Prepared by Roberta Pense, Ralph Mittl, and Stan Hoge. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (1988). Th e Remote Sensing 

Appli-cations Program of the National Agricultural Statistics Service: 1980-1987. Prepared by J. Donald 

Allen and George A. Hanuschak, SRB Staff Report SRB-88-08, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (1995). Reweighting and 

Recon-structing USDA’s Indexes of Prices Received and Paid by Farmers, Economic Statistics Branch 

Report No. ESB-95-01. Prepared by Bob Milton, Doug Kleweno, and Herb Vanderberry. Washington, D.C.

113
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (1994). Service to Agriculture 

Th r ough Statistics, Strategic Plan 1994. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (1990). Staffing Proposals for the 

1990s, Working Group Report. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, (1969). Th e Story of U.S. Agricultural Estimates, USDA Miscellaneous Publication No.1088.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (1991). A Strategy for Service, Recommendations for the National Agricultural Statistics Service in the 1990s, NASS Program Planning Committee Summary Report. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (2001). Trends in U.S. Agriculture, A 

Walk Th r ough the Past and a Step Into the New Millennium, Special NASS Publication. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service and Economic Research Service 

(1989). 1987 Farm Costs and Returns Survey Data: Selected State and Region Highlights, Staff Report No. 

AGES 89-1. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service (1962). Agricultural Statisticians in a Changing 

World, National Conference Proceedings. Denver, Colorado.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service (1968). Agricultural Statistics in the Next Decade, National Conference Proceedings. Blacksburg, Virginia.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service (1987). Th e Challenge of Change, National 

Conference Proceedings. Houston, Texas.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service (1970). Civil Rights, Management, Automation, Multiple Frame, Program Evaluation, and Research, National Conference Proceedings. Airlie House, 

Warrenton, Virginia.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service (1985). Crop Reporting Board Standards, Report of the Crop Reporting Board Policy and Procedures Working Group. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service (1983). Framework for the Future, Report of 

the Long-Range Planning Group. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service (1985). Gateway to the Future, National Conference Proceedings. St. Louis, Missouri.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service (1975). Maintaining Statistics with Integrity, 

National Conference Proceedings. Dulles Airport, Virginia.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service (1976). National Conference Proceedings. 

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service (1982). National Program Review, National 

Conference Summary. Dulles Airport, Virginia.

114
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service (1984). Quo Vadis Revisited-Whither Goest 

Th ou?, N ational Conference Proceedings. San Antonio, Texas.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service (January 18, 1971). Recommended Changes in 

the Program of Statistical Reports for Field, Fruit and Nut Crops, Memorandum to Administrator Harry C. 

Trelogan from SRS Planning Committee. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service (1984). Report of the Task Group on Crop 

Reporting Board Procedures. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service (1987). State of Standards Survey. Report to the 

Deputy Administrator for Programs. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service (1965). Statistical Progression in SRS, Regional 

Conferences Proceedings. College Park, Maryland, and Lincoln, Nebraska.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service (1985). Structure For Service, Report of the 

Task Group on Structure and Identification. St. Louis, Missouri.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service (1984). Yield Review Task Force Final Report. 

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Weekly Weather & Crop Bulletin Special Centennial Edition (1972). Weather 

and Corn Blight. Prepared by Marvin Bauer, Purdue University, and Richard Allen, Statistical Reporting Service. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (1984). Agriculture and Resources Inventory Surveys 

Th r ough Aerospace Remote Sensing: FY 1983 Research Report. Houston, Texas. 

University of Maryland, University College Center for Instructional Development and Evaluation (1990). 

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Survey Training Program Needs Assessment. College Park, 

Maryland.

Th e Washington Post Company (2003). Sweet but Not So Innocent? High-Fructose Corn Syrup May Act 

More Like Fat Th an Sugar in the Body. Article by Sally Squires, March 11, 2003; Page HE01.

Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia (2007). Baler 

Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia (2007). Daminozid (ALAR) 

Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia (2007). Integrated Pest Management. 

115
Th e U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital 

status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance 

program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) 

should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To fi le a complaint of 

discrimination write to USDA, Director, Offi ce of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is 

an equal opportunity provider and employer.