A Comparison of the 

Long and Short Forms 

Used in the 2005 Census 

Content Test

Jaki S. McCarthy

United States 

Department of

Agriculture

National

Agricultural

Statistics

Service

Research and

Development Division

Washington DC 20250

RDD Research Report

Number RDD-07-06

December 2007

ADMINSTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL

This report has been prepared for limited distribution to the research community outside the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. The views expressed herein are not necessarily those of NASS or USDA.

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In preparation for the census of agriculture, NASS conducts a census content test. The purpose 

of the content test is to test the forms and procedures proposed for the census and to provide a 

pool of test data for census systems testing. During the 2005 Census Content Test, 2 forms were 

tested. The first ―long‖ form was modeled after previous census forms. In addition, a ―short‖ 

form was designed by reordering and reformatting the form. Blank space in the form was 

minimized and tables with pre-listed items were replaced with open tables where respondents 

had to write in their information. The short form contained 12 pages and the long form 

contained 24 pages. 

Contrary to expectations, the short form did not increase the response rate and actually prompted 

slightly fewer returns. In addition, there were several areas where data quality was worse on the 

short form. The 2005 Census Content Test provided valuable data and recommendations for 

planning the 2007 Census and is documented elsewhere in a comprehensive final report. Based 

on the results of the content test, changes have been made both to the short form and to the types 

of operations who will be eligible for the short form in the census. The purpose of this report is 

to document only the comparisons between the short and long forms tested in the content test. 

Therefore, no recommendations are included in this report.
ii

RECOMMENDATIONS

None
1

A Comparison of the Long and Short Forms 

Used in the 2005 Census Content Test

Jaki S. McCarthy1

Abstract

In advance of the census of agriculture, a content test is conducted to test 

procedures, systems and the report form(s) used to collect the data. During the 

2005 Census Content Test two proposed versions of the 2007 report forms were 

tested. The two forms differed in format and number of pages. One version of 

the form similar to that used in the past was 24 pages long and had more extensive 

instructions and more information pre-printed on the form. A shorter twelve page 

form reordered and combined some questions, required respondents to write in 

more information and had less room for recording information. Both forms, 

however, collected the same information (with a few minor exceptions). The 

intent of the short form was to increase response and reduce the burden of 

reporting for operations which produce few commodities or have very simple 

operating arrangements. While intended for different types of operations in the

2007 Census, a split sample in the 2005 Content Test provided a rare opportunity 

to directly compare forms collecting the same data but with differences in page 

length and format. Contrary to expectations, the shorter form did not increase the 

response rate. In addition, the quality of the data provided on the short form was 

lower in several key areas. Additional insights regarding differences between the 

forms were also gained from follow up interviews with a subset of respondents. 

Based on these results, recommendations for changes and use of the forms were 

made for the 2007 Census of Agriculture. 

1. Introduction

Many types of operations with very different types and amounts of agricultural production are 

contacted in the census of agriculture. However, only a handful of report form versions are used 

to collect their widely varying information. The traditional ―long‖ form pre-lists most of the 

major commodities on the pages where their production should be reported, leaves substantial 

space for writing in additional commodities, and separates major sections of the report form onto 

separate pages. Operations with few commodities may skip substantial amounts of the form 

when they do not have the items of interest. The primary mode of data collection for the census 

of agriculture is by mail out/mail back using paper forms. Forms may be mailed to 3 million or 

more potential agricultural operations, and initial non-response is followed by a postcard 

reminder and a second mailing of the form. Additional pages in the form increase the weight and 

subsequent cost of the mail out package. 

 

1

Jaki S. McCarthy is a statistician with the Research and Development Division of the National Agricultural 

Statistics Service, USDA, Room 305, 3251 Old Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA 22030; email: 

jaki_mccarthy@nass.usda.gov. The author would like to thank the entire 2005 Census Content Test Team, many of 

whom contributed the individual analyses cited. 
2

It was suggested that an additional version of the form could be designed which could contain 

fewer pages and enable some respondents to complete it more quickly, particularly if they had 

small amounts or little variety in their agricultural production. The hope is that this will increase 

response rates for those sent this form. However, the available evidence for form length 

increasing non-response rates is inconclusive at best. See for example, the review of the 

literature on this subject by Bogen (1996). Some studies have found that questionnaires with 

more pages have a negative but modest impact on response rates. For example, Heberlein and 

Baumgartner (1978), Adams and Gale (1982) and Kalantar and Talley (1999) all compared 

questionnaires differing in the number of pages. Importantly, in each case, the questionnaires 

compared differed in page length, but also differed in the amount of data collected. This is not 

the case for the content test forms, which differ in length, but collect the same amount of data.

It is widely believed that longer forms appear more intimidating and prompt higher levels of 

non-response. Questionnaires may have their content squeezed onto fewer pages in the belief 

that a smaller physical form will prompt higher response rates. There is little empirical evidence 

for or against this belief; the 2005 Content Test presented an opportunity to examine this. 

This research report is intended to document and discuss only the findings of comparisons 

between the short and long forms used in the 2005 Census Content Test. The full details of the 

2005 Census Content Test are documented elsewhere (USDA, 2006). The Content Test 

prompted recommendations for changes to the census forms and procedures so no specific 

recommendations will be contained in this report. 

2. Methods

Two versions of the 2005 Census Content Test form were designed. The first version designed 

was the ―long‖ form which was similar in format and layout to the previous census of agriculture 

form. The second version of the form, the ―short‖ form, was significantly condensed by 

eliminating many of the blank lines in the tables, combining some sections, rearranging sections 

to fill more of the pages instead of beginning new sections on new pages and omitting the 

production contracts page. With the exception of irrigated land and the production contracts 

(any operation likely to have production contracts would not be in the short form census sample) 

the information that should have been reported was the same for each form. That is, the forms 

differed in format, layout and question order but otherwise had the same content and were 

intended to collect the same data. Key differences between the long and short form are 

summarized below in Table 1, examples of some of the relevant sections of the forms are also 

shown in Appendix A. 
3

Table 1. Key Differences between Long and Short Content Test Forms

Short Form Long Form

Crop and Livestock 

Production

All Crops and Livestock 

collected in a single section 

in small tables; no items prelisted, most common listed 

as examples

Field Crops, Hay and Forage Crops, 

Woodland Crops, Nursery, 

Vegetables, Fruits and Nuts, Berries, 

Cattle and Calves, Sheep, Poultry, 

Hogs and Pigs, Aquaculture, Bees 

and Other Livestock, each in 

separate sections; most with 

common items (with units) 

preprinted, other items listed with 

item codes, and each section on a 

single page 

Value of Sales Value of sales collected in 

same tables as production

Value of sales by commodity or 

commodity grouping collected in 

one section separate from production

Land Acres operated by 

ownership, followed by 

combined crops and 

livestock section, followed 

by acres operated by use (or 

land type)

Acres operated by ownership 

collected immediately preceding 

acres operated by use (or land type)

Irrigated Land Not asked Acres irrigated for Harvested Land; 

Pastureland collected

Production Contracts Section excluded (no 

operations of this type 

expected in short form 

sample for the 2007 Census)

Additional page collected 

information on production contracts

Government 

Programs

Conservation and other 

government program 

information collected in 

abbreviated table with short 

list of examples

Conservation program acres and 

payments collected in one section, 

other government program payments 

by type (with full list specified in the 

question) collected in another 

section

Number of Pages 12 24

In the 2007 Census of Agriculture the short form will only be sent to a subset of operations. This 

subset will include operations expected to have few commodities and those not producing 

specialty commodities. However, to test how the form would be completed by all different types 

of operations (who may inadvertently get the short form in the census) a split sample, made up of

subsamples of many specific types of farms was included in the Content Test. Definitions and 

subsample sizes are described in Appendix B. Operations in all states except Alaska and Hawaii 

were eligible for selection. 
4

The National Processing Center (NPC) in Jeffersonville, IN mailed all the forms on 12/30/05. 

This was followed by a thank you/reminder postcard mailed to all operations on 1/17/06. 

Finally, a second form was mailed to all non-respondents on 2/9/06. Forms were returned to 

NPC where they were checked in, scanned (for image only) and data were keyed from electronic 

images. 

Response rates were tracked for all form types. In addition, a small sample of respondents was 

sent a form identical to that used in the 2002 Census of Agriculture, modified only by updating 

all reference dates. Therefore response rates for that form could be compared with the proposed 

2007 forms.

After responses were received from the mailout, a subset of respondents was recontacted and 

interviewed in person. These interviews verified some of the reported data and collected more 

detailed information for problem or suspicious data. There were also more general questions 

about completing the form. Three hundred re-interviews were targeted for operations in six 

target areas where it was felt that more information about reporting was needed. The six areas 

were: operations with production contracts, organic agriculture, berries, farms with land used on 

an Animal Unit Month (AUM) basis, farms on Indian reservations, and farms with government 

payments. Operations were selected from mail returns and contacted in re-interviews. (A small 

sample of respondents reporting via the Internet were also contacted in re-interviews, but will not 

be discussed here.) Re-interview samples were randomly selected from those with the target 

items and from the remaining returns received during December and January. (Early returns 

were used in order to complete the re-interviews in time for analysis before the deadline for 

finalization of the report forms.)

3. Results

Contrary to expectations, the short form did not have a higher response rate than either the long 

form or the 2002 version of the form. Overall response rates for the the three forms are shown 

below in Table 2. Response rates by form type and subsample are shown in Appendix C. 

Table 2. Response Rate by Form Type

Form Total

Mailed

Receipts Response Rate2 Unweighted 

(Weighted) (%)

Short 12808 6870 53.24 (52.73) 

Long 14860 8200 54.68

2002 Form Version 1978 1036 53.38

No additional analysis was done for the 2002 Form Version; all following comparisons are 

between the newly designed long and short forms.

 

2

Some of the sample categories (sample subgroups) did not have the same number of sample cases for the long and 

short forms. The weighted response rate for the short form shown in the table was calculated by reweighting the 

short form subsamples to the long form subsample sizes. This short form response rate is more comparable than the 

gross unweighted response rate.
5

3.1 Comparisons between reported data on the long and short form mail returns

While the two forms ask for the same data, reporting errors differed depending on the form 

completed. For the following analysis, data from 5773 short forms and 6960 long forms were 

included. (Data from responses received via the Internet are excluded from this analysis, due to 

problems processing that data. )

All results that follow are based on unweighted and unedited data so results should be viewed 

with caution.3 Differences in sample sizes and response rates across the two forms are listed in 

Appendix C. Chi-square tests of independence were performed to examine the relationship 

between potential problems on the form and form type. Results and significance levels are 

shown below each table.

Total Acres Operated

For both forms, both the Total Acres Operated based on ownership (K46) and Total Acres 

Operated based on land use (K798) must be reported. These two numbers should be equal (and 

this is explicitly stated on both forms). On the long form these two items appear on facing pages. 

On the short form, these two items appear 3 pages apart and are separated by the crop and 

livestock tables. 

There were significantly more missing data for both K46 and K798 on the short form. In 

addition, there were significantly more instances on the short form where K46 did not equal 

K798 when at least one of them was reported. 

Table 3. Problems with Total Acres Operated by Form Type

K46 missing* K798 missing** K46 or K798 

greater than 0

K46 <> K798***

Short 364 (6.3%) 841 (14.6%) Short 5503 2180 (39.61%)

Long 358 (5.1%) 790 (11.4%) Long 6702 1779 (26.54 %)

Total 12205 3959

*χ2 (1, N=12796) = 33.17, **χ2 (1, N=12690) = 324.0, ***χ2 (1, N=12205) = 15733.4; p<.0001

Crop Yield Reporting

For crops, respondents were to report acres harvested and the quantity harvested (bushels, tons, 

pounds, etc.). From this, yield per acre can be calculated. On the long form, the quantity 

harvested column includes the unit (bushel, tons) for the pre-listed crops. On the short form, 

there is a separate column where the respondent is to write in this unit. Some respondents 

mistakenly believed that the column for quantity harvested was acres, not the volume unit (i.e. 

bushels, tons, pounds, etc.) and reported the same number in both columns. For the crops prelisted on the long form crop table, a significantly higher percentage of short form respondents 

reported the same number in the acres and quantity harvested columns producing an unrealistic 

 

3 Differences due to some types of operations being selected or responding at a higher or lower rate for the two 

forms are expected to be minimal, but cannot be ruled out. In addition, it is clear that there are reporting errors in 

the data, but there was no attempt made to edit any of the data collected. Finally, since the sample was not drawn to 

allow population estimates, this analysis cannot be used to measure the impact of the forms on population estimates. 
6

yield per acre of 1. Shown are figures for corn and soybeans, similar results were found for oats 

(9% vs. 3%) and winter wheat (8% vs. 2%).

Table 4. Percent of respondents with commodity reporting a calculated yield of 1

Corn* Soybeans**

Short Form 11% 13%

Long Form 2% 2%

*χ2 (1, N=1824) = 1738.4, **χ2 (1, N=1545) = 2363.6; p<.0001

Reported hay yields also differed quite substantially between the forms. Current edit procedures 

will allow a calculated yield for tame hay (K110) between between 0.1 tons/ac and 13 tons/ac. 

Any yield falling outside the range will have that production removed and a new production 

(with an acceptable yield) will be imputed. The short form respondents had a much lower

percentage of records falling into an acceptable range than the long form, 79% versus 93%, 

respectively. 

Table 5. Percent of respondents with Low/High Tame Hay Yields

Yield less than 0.1 tons/ac Yield greater than 10 

tons/ac

Short Form 83 (8.5%) 206 (21%)

Long Form 12 (1%) 52 (4%)

Crop Sales Reporting

One advantage that the short form might have over the long form is that crop sales are reported 

in the same table as the acreage and production. This might prompt greater reporting of sales 

than the long form, which has all the sales items in a separate section many pages later than crop 

acreage and production. However, the short form prompted slightly fewer corn producers to 

report corn sales, (short form, 61.9%; long form 63.9%). In addition, no short form respondents 

reported corn sales without any production, as would be the case if producers were selling 

previous year’s production. In comparison, 1.6% of long form respondents reported corn sales 

and zero acres of corn production.

Milk Cows and Milk Sales

On the long form, milk cow inventory (K805) is collected in the Cattle and Calves section. Milk 

sales (K1340) are collected separately in the Value of Sales section, item 10 (Milk and other 

dairy products). In the short form, milk cow inventory should be reported in the cattle table and 

milk sales should be reported in the Livestock and Their Products table. ―Milk from cows‖ is 

listed in the examples for this table. 

While the number of milk cows reported is comparable across the 2 forms, it appears that milk 

sales are significantly underreported on the short form. A significantly lower percentage of 

operations reported milk sales on the short form than the long form (short form, 47.7%, long 

form 64.2%). The total value of sales and average sales of milk are also much higher for the 

long form respondents than the short form respondents. Full details are shown in Table 6.
7

Table 6. Milk cow operations and milk sales by size of operation and form type

Horses

Since horses are often not thought of as livestock, there was some concern that these might be 

omitted on the short form. For this reason, ―horses‖ was the first example listed in the other 

livestock table in the short form. Even so, it appears horses were erroneously omitted, with a 

much higher percentage of respondents who reported horses in 2002 not reporting any horses on 

the short form than on the long form. Correspondingly, far more respondents who had not 

reported horses in the 2002 Census, reported horses on the long form than the short form. Since 

we would also not expect any difference in the number of horses added to these respondent’s

operations, the assumption is that short form respondents are uniformly underreporting horses.

Table 7. Horses reported in 2002 Census and Content Test by form type

1 or more Horses 

reported in both 2002 

and Content Test*

No Horses reported 

in 2002 and 1 or 

more horses reported 

in Content Test **

Total number 

reporting horses in

either 2002 Census

or Content Test

Short Form 356 (30.9%) 43 (3.7%) 1151

Long Form 1056 (62.3%) 287 (16.9%) 1696

*χ2 (1, N=2517) =54859.4, **χ2 (1, N=2860) =5715.7; p<.0001

Short Form 

# Milk 

Cows

# 

Ops

# Ops 

w/

Sales

% Ops 

reporting

sales

List Frame 

Control 

Data Milk 

Cows

Reported 

Milk 

Cows 

(K805)

Reported 

Total Milk 

Sales

(K2146)

Avg Sales

Reported

(Per 

Operation 

reporting 

sales)

101+ 38 22 57.9 6,821 8,016 $11,710,496 $532,295

51-100 80 47 58.8 5,532 5,904 $9,349,871 $198,933

21-50 94 56 59.6 3,690 3,518 $4,543,562 $81,135

1-20 75 12 16.0 351 408 $180,449 $15,037

Overall 287 137 47.7% 16,394 17,846 $25,784,378 $188,207

Long Form 

# Milk 

Cows

# 

Ops

# Ops 

w/ 

Sales

% Ops 

reporting

sales

List Frame 

Control 

Data Milk 

Cows

Reported 

Milk 

Cows 

(K805)

Reported 

Total Milk 

Sales

(K1340)

Avg Sales

Reported

(Per 

Operation 

reporting 

sales)

101+ 38 32 84.2 7,874 8,457 $25,063,458 $783,233

51-100 78 68 87.2 5,217 5,519 $12,160,393 $178,829

21-50 87 66 75.9 3,332 3,392 $5,960,691 $90,314

1-20 96 26 27.1 416 538 $306,314 $11,781

Overall 299 192 64.2% 16,839 17,906 $43,490,856 $226,515
8

Landlord (LL) Shares and Rent

Respondents with landlords may pay cash rent and/or provide landlords with shares of the 

production. We would expect that the proportion doing either would be the same regardless of 

the form used to collect the data. On the long form the question asking for landlord’s share of 

the total sales (K1349) was the final question on the Value of Sales page. On the short form, it 

followed the series of crop and livestock tables which collected production and sales. Slightly 

fewer respondents who reported having rented land reported a positive value for K1349 on the 

short form. In addition, slightly more short form respondents reported having paid cash rent 

(K1513). However, overall the percent of respondents reporting rented land who reported either 

landlord share of sales, cash rent or both was comparable across the forms. In addition, on 41% 

of the short forms and 33% of the long forms the landlord shares equaled the total sales. This is 

inferred as an error and would be changed by the edit.

Table 8. Rented land and rent paid to landlords (LL) by form type

Total Reporting 

Rented Land

Rented Acres & 

LL Share

Reported (%)

Rented Acres 

& Cash Rent 

Reported (%)

Rented Acres & 

LL Share or 

Cash Rent Paid

Reported (%)*

Short form 2012 387 (19%) 1287 (64.0%) 1421 (70.6%)

Long Form 2527 589 (23%) 1526 (60.4%) 1767 (69.9%)

*χ2 (1, N=4539) = .02; p=.88

Government Payments

The short form collected government payments in a table with two empty lines and only a single 

line pre-printed with ―Conservation Reserve Program (CRP,WRP, FWP, and CREP)‖. Other 

programs were listed as examples preceding the table. The long form collected Conservation 

Program acreage and dollars received in a separate section, Commodity Credit Corporation Loan 

(CCC) dollars in a separate section, and other Federal, State and local agricultural program 

payments in a third section containing 4 distinct types of payments. Payments reported on the 

short form were assigned to one of the six items shown below. Overall, more long form than 

short form respondents reported any government payment (long form—35.1%, short form—

31.5%). In addition, long form respondents reported more government payments of all types 

except Conservation Programs (which were the sole type of payment preprinted on the short 

form in the table). Number of government payments reported by type are shown below.

Table 9. Number of payments reported (% of respondents), total and by type

Total 

Number of 

Payments 

Reported*

CCC 

Loan 

(K1411)

Direct 

Payments 

(K1420)

Counter 

Cyclical 

Payments 

(K1421)

Other 

Federal 

Payments 

(K1422)

State and 

Local 

Government 

Payments 

(K1423)

Conservation 

Program 

Payments 

(K685)

Short 

Form

2502 34 

(0.6%)

423 

(7.3%)

531 

(9.2%)

470 

(8.1%)

0 1044 (18.1%)

Long 

Form

4562 261 

(3.8%)

1252 

(18.0%)

1239 

(17.8%)

713

(10.2%)

224 

(3.2%)

873

(12.5%)

*A chi-square test was performed to compare total number of payments out of highest possible number of payments 

(6 types per respondent); χ

2 (1, N=76398) =40,090; p<.001
9

Long form respondents also reported more types of payments than short form respondents as 

shown here. These results are likely a combination of short form respondents omitting payments 

completely and writing in entries that could not be assigned to any of the payment types.

Table 10. Number of government payments reported by individual respondent

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Short 

Form

3952

(68.5%)

1254

(21.7%)

453

(7.9%)

114

(2.0%)

0 0 0

Long 

Form

4514

(64.9%)

1171 

(16.9%)

669

(9.6%)

416

(6.0%)

148 

(2.1%)

39

(1.0%)

3

(0.0%)

3.2 Manual Processing and Review Required

Forms received by the National Processing Center (NPC) in Jeffersonville were scanned to 

electronically capture the form images. These images were used to key enter the data for 

processing. If there was not enough room on the form for a respondent to enter all their 

information, respondents were instructed to use an additional sheet to record their data. This 

instruction appeared in each table on the form. These additional sheets (extension sheets) had to 

be processed manually by NPC. In addition, data that could not be keyed directly from the form

(that is, was not present in the pre-specified list of crops available to the keyers in a drop down 

menu) had to be manually processed by an analyst. This process, part of the Post Output Special 

Handling (POSH) requires additional NPC staff and time beyond the regular key entry process.

Short forms required substantial additional handling for both extension sheets and POSH, as 

shown below. Since a single form can have multiple problems, both the number of forms with 

problems and the total number of problems is shown. NPC estimated the potential work and 

resources this would translate to for the 2007 Census based on the sample size for the short form

which had been suggested at that time, which is shown in Table 12.

Table 11. Content Test Manual Processing by NPC

Number 

Keyed

Number of Forms 

with Extension 

Sheets (%)

Number of 

Forms With 

Problems

(total problems)

% Forms Needing 

review by POSH

Short 5780 191 (3.3%) 1305 (2211) 22.6%

Long 6965 29 (0.4%) 263 (407) 3.8%

Table 12. NPC processing projections for 2007 Census

Extension Sheets POSH 

Number 

Keyed Number Staff Days

$ Problems

Forms 

With 

Problems

Staff 

Days

$

Short 561,000 18,513 132 46,200 214,597 126,786 613 214,550

Long 1,139,000 4,556 33 11,550 66,557 43,282 190 66,500
10

In addition to the extra processing required by NPC staff for extension sheets, forms are also 

flagged for further review in the edit process. Under current plans for processing, each of these 

additional cases would have to be reviewed by a statistician in the edit review process. There are 

several types of flags that can be set, their definitions and number set by form are shown in the 

following table. (Any short forms reporting more than specified number of livestock or any 

greenhouse or nursery area will also be flagged for edit review.)

Table 13. Additional review flags set by NPC by form type

Flag Definition

Short Form 

(%)

Long Form 

(%) Total

A – Altered Stub Respondent crosses out a 

pre-printed entry and 

writes in something else

152 (2.6%) 244 (3.5%) 396

B – Bracketed Entry Respondent provides an 

entry and indicates it is for 

multiple items

67 (1.2%) 74 (1.1%) 141

D – Double Entry Two numbers entered in a 

single cell (only first entry 

is keyed)

401 (6.9%) 90 (1.3%) 491

R – Remarks Respondent writes remark 

to qualify item in a data 

cell

251 (4.3%) 220 (3.2%) 471

U – Altered Units Respondent crosses out 

pre-printed unit and writes 

another unit

148 (2.6%) 114 (1.6%) 262

Total Forms Keyed 5780 6965

Respondents on the short form crossed out fewer pre-printed entries, because fewer things are 

pre-printed on the report form. There are substantially more cases of short form respondents 

entering more than one number in a cell. This is likely a result of the limited number of lines in 

the tables. Instead of using a separate extension sheet to record this information, the respondent 

simply adds the information to the existing table. Processes are in place for extension sheets to 

be keyed by NPC, but double entries must be reviewed by a statistician before being keyed. It 

should be noted that there are already plans to add an additional line to the hay and field crop

table of the short form and fewer respondents known to have multiple crops will be included in 

the actual Census short form sample.

3.3 Comparisons from Follow Up Re-interviews

Follow up interviews were completed with 486 respondents (230 long form and 256 short form). 

(The numbers below include all respondents who answered that particular question. For many 

questions some respondents did not answer, so total responses will be less.)

Follow up respondents were asked to report how much time it took them to complete the form. 

There was very little difference between the average amount of time reported to complete the 
11

questionnaire. All answers keyed as 0 were omitted; average time was calculated for the 

remaining respondents. Similar proportions of respondents also reported using the instruction 

sheet (short form 65.2%, long form 64.5%).

Table 14. Respondent reported time to complete form by form type

Average Reported 

Time to Complete 

(minutes)

Range (minutes) Percent Reporting 

Use of Instruction 

Sheet

Short Form 44.46 2-300 65.2%

Long Form 47.87 10-480 64.5%

Note: if the one respondent who reported 480 is omitted, the average time for the remaining long form respondents 

is 45.49 minutes.

Similar to percentages found in the reported data, the percent of re-interview respondents who 

had Total Acres Operated by ownership that did not equal Total Acres Operated by land use

(K46 <> K798) was greater on the short form (short: 39.6%; long: 21.35%). Several comments 

by short form follow up interview respondents indicated that since they had reported their crop 

acreage in Section 2, that they did not include those acreages in K798 in Section 3. On the long 

form, the two series of Total Acres Operated questions appear directly facing each other and are 

not separated by production questions, as on the short form. The other major problem was short 

form respondents skipping over this section due to interpreting it to only apply to government 

payments since the Section title is ―Land and Government Payments‖.

Slightly more short form follow up respondents reported having agricultural activity that they did 

not include on the form and other problems completing the form. The specific comments given 

to these two questions are shown in Appendix D and E.

Table 15. Omitted production or problems reporting by form type

Respondents with 

unreported agricultural 

activity (percent)

Respondents with other 

reporting problems 

(percent)

Short Form 9.9% 22.3%

Long Form 7.4% 21.2%

3.4 Calls to the Census Toll Free Telephone Number

Both the long and short forms included a toll free number that respondents could call with 

questions or for help completing the form. The percentage of operations that called the toll free 

number was small overall. Operators answering the calls logged comments for problems or 

actions taken for the calls (multiple comments could be logged for a single call.) A significantly 

smaller number of comments were logged for the short form sample operations to the toll free 

number. (The percent of comments logged for operations mailed the updated 2002 form version 

was 2.4%, the same as the long form.)
12

Table 16. Comments logged by toll free number operators

Total Forms 

Mailed

Total Comments 

Logged (%)*

Short Form 12808 312 (2.4%)

Long Form 14860 418 (2.8%)

*χ2 (1, N=27668) = 6.9; p=.009

3.5 Follow Up Re-interview Information from Short Form Respondents

Follow up re-interview respondents who had completed the short form were asked several 

questions that applied to the short form only. The short form listed a limited set of example 

crops and livestock while the long form listed all major crops and livestock items. Twenty-three 

short form respondents (10.4%) said they had crops or livestock not listed in the printed 

examples. Fourteen of those reported that they did not include these in the tables. None reported 

using a separate sheet to report them, thirteen of the fourteen omitted crops/livestock entirely, 

and 4 reported including something on the form but outside the tables.

Short form tables also had considerably fewer rows in the tables for reporting. Eighteen 

respondents (8.2%) said they did not have enough rows to report all their crops or livestock. Of 

those, half reported that they omitted crops or livestock from the form. Four reported them on 

the form outside the table, and 2 put them on a separate sheet. Again, it should be noted that in 

the Census, operations known to have more commodities than can be reported in the short form 

tables will be omitted from the short form sample. 

Twenty-two short form respondents reported they raised specialty livestock. Of these, nine 

(41%) said they did not report the number on hand on the form. (Items included, bison, elk, 

alligators, horses, bees, rabbits and sheep.) Twenty-four reported producing livestock products,

with 12 reporting they did not enter them on the form. (Omitted livestock products included 

milk, wool, honey, semen, and chicken manure.) The number of operations for which these 

reporting errors might occur will be minimized in the census, since operations known to have 

multiple or specialty commodities will not be included in the short form sample. However, if 

these operations with these characteristics are inadvertently given short forms, there may be 

some underreporting.

4. Discussion and Conclusion

For many respondents, a large number of the questions on the census of agriculture long form do 

not have to be completed. Therefore, a substantially shorter form could be utilized and allow 

these respondents to move through the form more quickly. In the 2005 Census Content Test, our 

gross measures of the time to complete the form (self reported respondent estimates) indicate that 

the short form is slightly faster to complete. A short form with half the number of pages will 

also cost less to print and mail. There is potential for substantial savings with the large volume 

of postal mailings in the census.

However, reducing the size of the form did not increase the number of respondents who returned 

the forms. The response rate was similar across the two forms in the content test and was 
13

actually slightly lower for the short form than the long form. We should not expect the short 

form to prompt higher response rates in the census. 

The short form also did not perform as well as the long form in several key areas, including 

reporting of total acres operated, crop production, government payments, milk sales, and horses. 

The short form is also more likely to prompt omissions, both due to the limited list of examples 

on the form and limited space to report in the tables. The limited size of the tables is also more 

likely to increase processing costs both in NPC and NASS analyst review time. 

Based on these findings, several changes have been made in the forms and data collection plans 

for the 2007 Census of Agriculture. For example, the more detailed questions asking about 

government payments from the long form will be used on both versions of the form. Additional 

blank lines have also been added to several of the short form write in tables. In addition, the list 

of characteristics which will exclude operations from the short form sample has been expanded 

to include those for which we found major underreporting. This includes operations with horses, 

specialty commodities (such as goats, sheep, bees, aquaculture, mink, pecans, etc.), more than 4 

types of livestock or crops, operations with milk cows, operations with other livestock products, 

etc.

The changes made to the short form based on information gathered in the 2005 Content Test 

should reduce other reporting errors. In addition, the limited sample targeted for the short form 

will likely minimize some of the potential data problems (notably under reporting of rare or 

numerous commodities). However, there is still potential for some negative effect on data 

quality, and plans for analyzing and processing data from these forms should take this into 

consideration.
14

REFERENCES

Adams, L.L.M. and Gale, D. (1982). Solving the quandary between questionnaire length and 

response rate in educational research. Research in Higher Education, Vol 17 (3), pps 231-240.

Bogen, K. (1996). The effect of questionnaire length on response rates -- a review of the 

literature. 1996 Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods. Alexandria, VA: 

American Statistical Association, 1996. 1020-1025.

Heberlein, T. A. and Baumgartner, T. (1978). Factors affecting response rates to mailed 

questionnaires: A quantitative analysis of the published literature. American Sociological 

Review, Vol. 43, pps. 447-462.

Kalantar, J.S. and Talley, N. J. (1999). The effects of lottery incentive and length of 

questionnaire on health survey response rates: A randomized study. Journal of Clinical 

Epidemiology, Vol. 52(11), pp. 1117-1122.

United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2006). 2005 

Content Test Final Report. Washington, DC: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service.
15

APPENDIX A.: Examples of Major Differences Between the Long and Short Forms.

1a. Field Crops and Hay table – Short Form

Note: Respondent has to enter the unit of measure in column 4; sales are collected in last column.
16

1b. Field Crops Section – Long Form

Note: Unit of measure is pre-printed in Total Quantity Harvested column; Hay is collected in a 

separate section; sales are collected in another separate section.
17

2a. Other Livestock and Livestock Products Table – Short Form

Note: Horses listed as first example above table.

2b. Other Animals and Livestock Products Section – Long Form

Note: ―Horses and ponies‖ individually listed in table.
18

3a. Government Payments – Short Form
19

3b. Government Programs – Long Form
20

APPENDIX B: Sample Distribution by Form and Operation Type

GENERAL SAMPLE CATEGORIES

The table below describes the different subsamples of interest for the 2005 Census Content Test. 

Once a record was sampled for one of the categories below, it was removed from further 

sampling. List codes with small populations were sampled first with hopes that the needed 

sample sizes would be met for all categories.

Populations were sorted by Statepoid and then a systematic sample was created to ensure a 

geographic coverage in all States. Note: there were two exceptions below.

List Group 52 – Ten percent of the samples were from Oklahoma.

List Group 64 – Twenty-five percent of the sample were from North Carolina.

[List Groups 23, 87, & 88 – Poultry contractors, multi-county operations, and multi-state 

operations were originally included as target groups. However, these were subsequently 

removed and not sampled separately. To avoid renumbering all the assigned list codes, these 

groups remain in the listing with zero (0) as the number of samples pulled.]

General Sample

Category Criteria

Census 

Data Type

List 

Group

Count 

in pool

Long 

Form 

Sample

Short 

Form 

Sample

2002

Form

Sample

Direct sales K920>50 Rawdata 1 68252 200 200 25

Organics K1069, K1350, 

ELMO304: any > 0

Rawdata 2 7995 200 200 25

CCC loans K1411>20 all types 3 86628 200 100 25

Other government 

payments

K1412>20 all types 4 427912 200 300 25

Farm related income sum(K992, K993, 

K994, K1401, 

K1402, K1403)>20

Rawdata 5 382337 100 100 25

Other production 

expense>5000

K1518>5000 Rawdata 6 77507 100 50 25

Landlord expense K1519>20 all types 7 34243 200 100 25

Migrant workers K1573=1 Rawdata 8 10999 100 50 25

Reservation land use K1053>0 Edited 9 5669 100 50 25

Family corporation K1681=1 Rawdata 10 46597 50 20 25

10+ stockholders K1683=1 Rawdata 11 1846 50 20 25

Farm occup and >99 days 

off farm

K928=1, K929>3 Rawdata 12 175979 200 100 25

Other occup and < 50 days 

off farm

K928=2, K929<3 Rawdata 13 104577 200 100 25

No days off the farm K929=1 Rawdata 14 554431 200 100 25

Hispanic K927=1 Rawdata 15 19994 100 100 25

Hired manager K1576=1 or ELMO Rawdata 16 50339 200 20 25
21

General Sample

Category Criteria

Census 

Data Type

List 

Group

Count 

in pool

Long 

Form 

Sample

Short 

Form 

Sample

2002

Form

Sample

manager flag=1

Abnormal ELMO abmormal id 

> 0 

17 2801 50 25 0

Computer O/S record ELMO218=58 18 65705 200 200 25

Census I/S now O/S on 

ELMO

ELMO218=61 but 

AS (3, 4, 6, 11, 16, 

17, 50)

19 51385 200 200 0

Active Status = 08 ELMO active status 

= 08 with a List to 

List link

20 72835 150 150 0

Bison sum(K886,K887)>2 

or ELMO691>2

Rawdata 21 3396 100 50 25

Unlisted livestock on 

census

sum(K857,K858)>2 Rawdata 22 2044 150 150 25

Poultry contractor w/ birds ELMO759, 

ELMO764, 

ELMO771: 

any>1000

23 21 0 0 0

Poultry contractee ELMO759, 

ELMO764, 

ELMO771 = 1

24 24502 100 200 25

Short rotation woody 

crops

K1025>1 Rawdata 25 2689 100 100 25

Refusals ELMO person status 

contains 

'REFUSAL'

26 28983 100 100 25

Horse farms inactive on 

ELMO

Inactive horse farms 

with active 

websites: AS (3, 4, 

6, 11, 16, 17, 18, 50)

27 50 25 25 0

Rents in all land K44=K46 Rawdata 28 77162 200 200 25

Has AUM land K54 >0 in 1997 all types 29 28109 200 200 25

Has summer fallow K791>1 Rawdata 30 19789 100 100 25

Government payments 

only

TVP=0, TVPG>0 calculated 31 124055 300 300 25

Crop insurance K1067>1 Imputation

/rawdata

32 310018 150 150 25

Tobacco ELMO382>O 33 58437 400 200 25

Potatoes ELMO360>0 34 8688 300 200 25

Sweet potatoes ELMO380>0 35 2186 200 100 25

Ginseng K767>0 Rawdata 36 304 50 50 20

Cotton in TX, AZ, CA, 

NM

ELMO325>0 37 13192 200 50 25

Rice in AR, LA, CA, MO, 

TX

ELMO365>0 38 7101 200 200 25

Multiple types of wheat Count(K572, K728, 

K578)>1 in regions 

3, 8, 9, 10, 11

Rawdata 39 4970 200 300 25
22

General Sample

Category Criteria

Census 

Data Type

List 

Group

Count 

in pool

Long 

Form 

Sample

Short 

Form 

Sample

2002

Form

Sample

Has one wheat crop Count(K572, K728, 

K578)=1 in regions 

3, 8, 9, 10, 11

all types 40 42621 100 300 25

Has corn for grain and 

silage

K67>1 and K70>1 Rawdata 41 48666 100 300 25

Hay ELMO344>0 or 

ELMO345>0

42 890250 200 400 25

Christmas trees ELMO942>0 43 17906 100 200 25

Maple ELMO902>0 or 

ELMO903>0

44 7179 100 200 25

Tobacco transplants 

possibility

ELMO382>0 and 

(ELMO913>0 or 

ELMO916>0)

45 411 150 100 25

Nursery Nursery codes from 

Census and ELMO

46 56786 300 200 25

Asparagus ELMO515>0 47 2618 100 100 25

Squash ELMO558>0 48 10322 100 100 25

Peas Count(ELMO574, 

ELMO559, 

ELMO551)>0

49 7289 300 100 25

Processed vegetables VEGP>0 or 

Sum(ELMO517, 

ELMO522, 

ELMO537,ELMO5

41, ELMO549, 

ELMO556, 

ELMO562, 

ELMO565, 

ELMO573)>0

calculated 50 10611 200 100 25

Any vegetables ELMO500>0 51 56235 300 400 25

Pecans ELMO416 52 14561 200 100 25

Peaches CA and AZ: 

ELMO451>0 and 

ELMO452>0

53 317 50 50 20

Berries K1043>.1 or 

Sum(ELMO426, 

ELMO428, 

ELMO435, 

ELMO464, 

ELMO465, 

ELMO467, 

ELMO468, 

ELMO487, 

ELMO488) >0

Rawdata 54 16612 200 200 25

Beef cow total = cattle 

total

K803=K804, 

K804>20

Rawdata 55 16790 350 200 25

Edit changed cattle parts Sum(K804, K805, 

K1206)>0

edited/

imputed

56 59195 350 200 25

Milk K1340>20 Rawdata 57 47703 100 250 25
23

General Sample

Category Criteria

Census 

Data Type

List 

Group

Count 

in pool

Long 

Form 

Sample

Short 

Form 

Sample

2002

Form

Sample

Cattle in selected states: 

47, 1, 42, 19, 20, 48, 8, 6, 

4, 53

ELMO610>0 58 334566 350 200 25

COF capacity<100 ELMO621<100 59 81455 200 0 25

COF capacity>99 ELMO621>99 60 26261 200 0 25

Layers Sum(K892, 

K893)>2 or 

sum(ELMO758, 

ELMO759, 

ELMO760, 

ELMO761, 

ELMO762)>0

Rawdata 61 121321 200 200 25

Pullets Sum(K1221, 

K895)>2 or 

sum(ELMO757, 

ELMO763)>0

Rawdata 62 15901 200 150 25

Broilers Sum(K898, 

K899)>2 or 

sum(ELMO753, 

ELMO764, 

ELMO765, 

ELMO766)>0

Rawdata 63 42907 200 150 25

Turkeys Sum(K1223, 

K1224)>2 or 

sum(ELMO754, 

ELMO770, 

ELMO771, 

ELMO772, 

ELMO775)>0

Rawdata 64 16806 200 100 25

Poultry hatch K916>1 or 

sum(ELMO751, 

ELMO752, 

ELMO753, 

ELMO754)>0

Rawdata 65 18228 200 150 25

All other poultry Other poultry codes 

from Census and 

ELMO where 

sum>4

Rawdata 66 32547 200 400 25

Hogs in IA and NC K815>1 or 

ELMO633>1

Rawdata 67 10813 300 200 25

Sheep in selected states: 6, 

54, 51, 47, 30, 56

Sum(K824, 

K825)>2 or 

ELMO640>1

Rawdata 68 9785 200 100 25

Bees Sum(K839, K840, 

K841)>3 or 

sum(ELMO660, 

ELMO662, 

ELMO663)>0

Rawdata 69 27396 100 100 25

Horses in selected states: 

12, 51, 36, 21, 48, 19, 32 

Sum(K830, K831, 

K833, K834)>2 or 

Rawdata 70 128925 400 200 25
24

General Sample

Category Criteria

Census 

Data Type

List 

Group

Count 

in pool

Long 

Form 

Sample

Short 

Form 

Sample

2002

Form

Sample

sum(ELMO674, 

ELMO675)>0

Other listed livestock Other livestock 

codes from Census 

and ELMO 

Rawdata 71 113452 200 400 25

Livestock products exc. 

Milk

Sum(K828,K849,K8

41,K970,K1305)>3

Rawdata 72 29384 200 200 25

Vegetable contract K1312>500 Rawdata 73 109 50 0 20

Other livestock contract K1310>100 Rawdata 74 95 50 0 20

Custom fed cattle contract K1308>100 Rawdata 75 1567 100 0 25

Horses in selected states 

coded as services: 12, 51, 

36, 21, 48, 19, 32

[Sum(K830, K831, 

K833, K834)>2 or 

sum(ELMO674, 

ELMO675)>0] and 

ELMO674=2

Rawdata 76 190 50 50 20

Rangeland>10000 K796>10000 Rawdata 77 2554 200 100 25

Age>60 ELMO dtbirth < = 

01/01/46

78 717750 300 300 25

Peanuts ELMO354>0 79 9702 200 100 25

Fruits/nuts K121>.1 or 

ELMO400>0

Rawdata 80 116735 200 400 25

Other cattle=total cattle K803=K1206 Rawdata 81 62889 200 200 25

Hairsheep Hand provided list 

keyed into file

82 30 20 10 0

Landlord only Active status =04 83 238949 300 300 0

Operators>5 K1575>5 Rawdata 84 3267 50 0 25

85/45s (AS=0 and OD=85) 

with OD45

ignored 

farmflag

85 11415 100 100 0

Partnerships (AS=0 and OD in 

(0,45,85,99)) with 

OD=44

ignored 

farmflag

86 141953 100 100 0

Multi-county operations (AS=0 and OD = 

any), with 

polinktype 25 from 

AS=09 and (parent 

state = AS09 state 

for all AS09s)

ignored 

farmflag

87 443 0 0 0

Multi-state operations (AS=0 and OD = 

any), with 

polinktype 25 from 

AS=09 and (parent

state <> AS09 state 

for one or more 

AS09s)

ignored 

farmflag

88 179 0 0 0

Vegetables under glass K503>400 89 1418 75 50 25

Hispanic changed 91 523 100 100 25

Reservation county 92 1079 75 75 25

EDR respondents- I File provided by 

Gail Gregory

93 1567 50 50 13
25

General Sample

Category Criteria

Census 

Data Type

List 

Group

Count 

in pool

Long 

Form 

Sample

Short 

Form 

Sample

2002

Form

Sample

EDR respondents- II Sampled from 

remainder of LC 93

94 1567 50 50 12

Special Case

Aquaculture Hand provided list 90 10 0 10 0

Totals 14,995 12,905 2,000
26

APPENDIX C: Response rates by form type and subsample

List

Group

Long 

Form 

Sample

Long 

Form 

returns

Short 

Form 

Sample

Short 

form 

returns

Long Form 

Response 

Rate

Short form 

Response 

Rate

Diff. in 

Response 

Rate

1 Direct sales 200 132 200 115 66.00 57.50 8.50

2 Organics 200 130 200 123 65.00 61.50 3.50

3 CCC loans 200 111 100 48 55.50 48.00 7.50

4 Other government 

payments

200 119 300

169 59.50 56.33 3.17

5 Farm related income 100 61 100 60 61.00 60.00 1.00

6 Other production 

expense>5000

100 53 50

23 53.00 46.00 7.00

7 Landlord expense 200 117 100 49 58.50 49.00 9.50

8 Migrant workers 100 51 50 22 51.00 44.00 7.00

9 Reservation land use 100 45 50 19 45.00 38.00 7.00

10 Family corporation 50 33 20 9 66.00 45.00 21.00

11 10+ stockholders 50 33 20 12 66.00 60.00 6.00

12 Farm occup and >99 

days off farm

200 109 100

57 54.50 57.00 -2.50

13 Other occup and < 50 

days off farm

200 127 100

68 63.50 68.00 -4.50

14 No days off the farm 200 126 100 54 63.00 54.00 9.00

15 Hispanic 100 53 100 52 53.00 52.00 1.00

16 Hired manager 200 86 20 10 43.00 50.00 -7.00

17 Abnormal 50 24 25 12 48.00 48.00 0.00

18 Computer O/S record 200 121 200 130 60.50 65.00 -4.50

19 Census I/S now O/S on 

ELMO

200 131 200

109 65.50 54.50 11.00

20 Active Status = 08 150 65 150 67 43.33 44.67 -1.33

21 Bison 100 41 50 31 41.00 62.00 -21.00

22 Unlisted livestock on 

census

150 62 150

83 41.33 55.33 -14.00

24 Poultry contractee 100 62 200 95 62.00 47.50 14.50

25 Short rotation woody 

crops

100 62 100

56 62.00 56.00 6.00

26 Refusals 100 45 100 38 45.00 38.00 7.00

27 Horse farms inactive on 

ELMO

25 6 25

9 24.00 36.00 -12.00

28 Rents in all land 200 106 200 96 53.00 48.00 5.00

29 Has AUM land 200 93 200 102 46.50 51.00 -4.50

30 Has summer fallow 100 53 100 54 53.00 54.00 -1.00

31 Government payments 

only

300 209 300

212 69.67 70.67 -1.00

32 Crop insurance 150 84 150 77 56.00 51.33 4.67

33 Tobacco 400 211 200 108 52.75 54.00 -1.25

34 Potatoes 300 166 200 112 55.33 56.00 -0.67
27

35 Sweet potatoes 200 103 100 46 51.50 46.00 5.50

36 Ginseng 50 36 50 32 72.00 64.00 8.00

37 Cotton in TX, AZ, CA, 

NM

200 87 50

23 43.50 46.00-2.50

38 Rice in AR, LA, CA, 

MO, TX

200 85 200

60 42.50 30.00 12.50

39 Multiple types of wheat 200 101 300 156 50.50 52.00

-1.50

40 Has one wheat crop 100 65 300 168 65.00 56.00 9.00

41 Has corn for grain and 

silage

100 51 300

155 51.00 51.67-0.67

42 Hay 200 94 400 189 47.00 47.25

-0.25

43 Christmas trees 100 70 200 128 70.00 64.00 6.00

44 Maple 100 58 200 100 58.00 50.00 8.00

45 Tobacco transplants 

possibility

150 86 100

50 57.33 50.00 7.33

46 Nursery 300 200 200 108 66.67 54.00 12.6

7

47 Asparagus 100 60 100 54 60.00 54.00 6.00

48 Squash 100 49 100 48 49.00 48.00 1.00

49 Peas 300 127 100 49 42.33 49.00

-6.67

50 Processed vegetables 200 104 100 52 52.00 52.00 0.00

51 Any vegetables 300 149 400 189 49.67 47.25 2.42

52 Pecans 200 114 100 53 57.00 53.00 4.00

53 Peaches 50 26 50 16 52.00 32.00 20.00

54 Berries 200 107 200 104 53.50 52.00 1.50

55 Beef cow total = cattle 

total

350 182 200

94 52.00 47.00 5.00

56 Edit changed cattle 

parts

350 217 200

119 62.00 59.50 2.50

57 Milk 100 60 250 133 60.00 53.20 6.80

58 Cattle in selected states: 

47, 1, 42, 19, 20, 48, 8, 

6, 4, 53

350 183 200

105 52.29 52.50-0.21

59 COF capacity<100 200 1100

0 55.00

60 COF capacity>99 200 860

0 43.00

61 Layers 200 101 200 105 50.50 52.50

-2.00

62 Pullets 200 119 150 87 59.50 58.00 1.50

63 Broilers 200 97 150 81 48.50 54.00

-5.50

64 Turkeys 200 99 100 52 49.50 52.00

-2.50

65 Poultry hatch 200 129 150 75 64.50 50.00 14.50

66 All other poultry 200 121 400 221 60.50 55.25 5.25

67 Hogs in IA and NC 300 162 200 98 54.00 49.00 5.00

68 Sheep in selected states: 

6, 54, 51, 47, 30, 56

200 101 100

51 50.50 51.00-0.50

69 Bees 100 62 100 58 62.00 58.00 4.00

70 Horses in selected 

states: 12, 51, 36, 21, 

48, 19, 32 

400 193 200

89 48.25 44.50 3.75

71 Other listed livestock 200 112 400 203 56.00 50.75 5.25
28

72 Livestock products exc. 

Milk

200 117 200

125 58.50 62.50 -4.00

73 Vegetable contract 50 22 0 0 44.00

74 Other livestock contract 50 19 0 0 38.00

75 Custom fed cattle 

contract

100 47 0

0 47.00

76 Horses in selected 

states coded as services: 

12, 51, 36, 21, 48, 19, 

32

50 14 50

14 28.00 28.00 0.00

77 Rangeland>10000 200 94 100 42 47.00 42.00 5.00

78 Age>60 300 191 300 185 63.67 61.67 2.00

79 Peanuts 200 70 100 36 35.00 36.00 -1.00

80 Fruits/nuts 200 111 400 214 55.50 53.50 2.00

81 Other cattle=total cattle 200 121 200 118 60.50 59.00 1.50

82 Hairsheep 20 12 10 4 60.00 40.00 20.00

83 Landlord only 300 184 300 179 61.33 59.67 1.67

84 Operators>5 50 25 0 0 50.00

85 85/45s 100 48 100 52 48.00 52.00 -4.00

86 Partnerships 100 56 100 56 56.00 56.00 0.00

89 Vegetables under glass 75 42 50

27 56.00 54.00 2.00

91 Hispanic changed 100 58 100 51 58.00 51.00 7.00

92 Reservation county 75 33 75 30 44.00 40.00 4.00

93 EDR respondents- I 50 40 50 37 80.00 74.00 6.00

94 EDR respondents- II 50 37 50 42 74.00 84.00 -10.00

90 Aquaculture 0 0 10

7 70.00

Total 14,995 8,174 12,905 6851 54.51 53.09
29

APPENDIX D: Comments regarding agricultural activity not included on the report form

Form State Comment

short 5 HE SOLD A COUPLE OF GUARD DOGS.

short 6 NICE SIMPLE FORM-EASY TO FOLLOW-WROTE IN SOME MINOR IDEAS

short 16 BASICALLY LETTUCE & BERRIES & NURSERY STOCK REPOTTED AND

REGROWN TO LARGER SIZES, CHICKENS & EGGS-NOTHING ELSE;

ALTHOUGH OPERATION DOES VARY ITEMS GROWN EACH YEAR.

short 16

short 16

short 16 UNUSED PASTURE LAND.

short 16 DID NOT INCLUDE SMALL PIECES OF DRY LAND FARMS.

short

17

2 ACRES OF SOYBEANS PLANTED BY A NEIGHBOR ON PART OF

ACREAGE WHERE NON-BEARING STRAWBERRIES WERE LOCATED 

AFTER THE STRAWBERRY SEASON

short 17 HAIR SHEEP - 1/2 DOZ

AQUACULTURE ALLIGATOR INVENTORY WAS NOT REPORTED IN SECT 

2, ITEM 9. * NOTE THE WORD AQUACULTURE WAS NOT LISTED NOR 

short 22 WAS ALLIGATORS LISTED.

short 22 OPERATOR DECEASED AS OF JAN 25, 2006.

short 23 HOME GARDENS 

short 26 3 HORSES-3 SHEEP-3 RABBITS

DID NOT INCLUDE, CONSIDERED THEM PETS AND NOT AGRICULTURE

PRODUCTS.

short 30 WE EARN A SMALL AMT FOR BLOCK MGMT THROUGH FWP IN MT.

short 30 SEMEN SALES.

short 37 HAD 4 SHEEP BUT DID NOT SELL PRODUCE HAD SOME CHICKENS BUT

THEY WERE KILLED BY 12/31/05

short 39 HORSES FOR PERSONAL USE

short 40 BANTY CHICKENS - HOME USE

short 41 CHICKENS & HORSES - CONFUSION ON WHAT TO INCLUDE

short 41 KIWI & HART NUTS

short 42 ASPARAGUS 1 ACRE NOT LISTED. RASBERRY .05 ACRE TOO SMALL.

short 48 40 ACRES TIMBER LAND - PINE PLANTATION.

short 48 MADE COMMENT THAT QUESTIONNAIRE NEEDS TO BE KEPT SIMPLE.

short 48 OPERATOR GRAZED 100 ACRES OF CRP LAST YEAR. CATTLE BELONGED

short 53 DID NOT REPORT ACRES OF OATS FOR GRAIN.

short 53 HOBBY GREENHOUSE IS PERSONAL USE ONLY BY HIS WIFE.

long 16 THIS QUEST WAS COMPLETED OVER THE PHONE AFTER HE 

long 16 EXPLAINED TO ME THAT HE WAS A LANDLORD.

long 19 NOTHING ON HORSES EXCEPT COUNT

long 21 GOT 17 HEAD OF SHOW GOATS

long 21 CHRISTMAS TREES. STAT NOTE: REPORTED SALES BUT NOT ACRES

long 26 IF THE NUMBERS WERE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME THEY SAT 

DOWN THEN IT DID NOT GET REPORTED. I HAVE CORRECTED IT AS 

MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

long 26 SECTION 25-INCOME FROM RELATED SOURCE HAS ACRES

IN GRAVEL PIT PAID AS ROYALTY FEES
30

AS PER TONNAGE OF GRAVEL REMOVED

long 26 PA-116 MONIES NOT RECORDED, DID NOT REMEMBER TO DO SO.

long 29 FARM RELATED BUSINESS.

SOLD $2000 OF CUT FLOWERS, NOT INCLUDED IN ITEM 6 SECTION21

COST OF FIRE PREVENTION PROGRAMS ARE NOW REQUIRED OF 

long 41 URBAN & RURAL OPERATORS BY STATE & LOCAL GOV.

long 42 HAS 18 FRUIT TREES. THE SCREENER IN SECTION II ASKS FOR

20 OR MORE FRUIT TREES.

long 47 FARMERS CONCERNED ABOUT UPCOMING NEW REGULATIONS 

RAISING CATTLE; EXMAPLE:NEW REQUIREMENTS INVOLVING IN 

LIVESTOCK.

long 48 HE RECEIVED 12000 FOR PEANUT PAYMENT.

long 53 RAN OUT OF SPACE IN SECTION 10 BUT ADDED 2 ADDITIONAL LINES

DID THE RIGHT THING!

long 55 WOOL ADDED VALUE FOR SPINNING AND WEAVING.
31

APPENDIX E: Comments regarding any other problems reporting 

form state comment

short 1 HE HAD DIFFICULTY SEPARATING ACREAGE FOR VEGETABLES THERES NOT 

ENOUGH ROOM TO LIST EACH CROP HE ALSO THOUGHT THE HEADING FOR 

SECTION 3 WAS MISLEADING.

short 6 MOST OF THE QUESTIONS DO NOT APPLY

short 6 MISREAD QUESTION IN SEC. 1 ABOUT ACRES RENTED OUT

short 12 I DIDN'T HAVE INFORMATION FOR MY EXPENSES

short 13 WOULD HAVE HAD GREAT TROUBLE IF MORE HAD APPLIED TO ME.

short 16 TOO DETAILED; WOULDN'T HAVE EXPENSES, UNTIL TAXES DONE; DIFFICULT 

TO CONVERT SMALL QUANTITIES INTO ACRES

short 16 IF DATA DID NOT APPLY, OPERATOR CROSSED IT OUT.

short 17 TIME OF YEAR - RECORD BOOK - TAX MAN - FEBRUARY BETTER TIME

short 17 MR FISK WAS VERY RELUCTANT TO COMPLETE CENSUS FORM

BECAUSE HE FEELS IT IS NOBODY ELSE'S BUSINESS

short 19 REQUIRED A LOT OF TIME.

short 21 CONFUSSING

short 23 K1094--PUT BIRTHDATE (SECTION 15).

short 24 WHERE TO SPECIFY SHE HAS ONLY PERSONAL USE CROPS (GARDEN)

short 25 TIME--TAKES TOO MUCH TIME TO COMPLETE.

short 26 DID NOT TAKE THE TIME TO READ ALL ITEMS AS CLEARLY

AS POSSIBLE.

short 26 GREAT EDUCATION AND LANGUAGE PROBLEMS

short 26 HE DID NOT HAVE ALL OF HIS INFORMATION YET TO BE ABLE TO

COMPLETE THE FORM ACCURATELY.

short 26 DID NOT ALWAYS UNDERSTAND SOME QUESTIONS AND IF IT

WASN'T LISTED THEN NOT INCLUDED-JUST LEFT IT OUT.

short 27 NOT ENOUGH ROOM FOR VEGETABLE CROPS

short 27 SHOULD'VE SAID ON SEC3 THAT IT WAS FOR ALL LAND, RENT & OWN

short 28 HE HAD PROBLEMS UNDERSTANDING SOME OF THE QUESTIONS.

short 28 SOME OF QUESTIONS WERE REPEATING THEMSELVES AND TOO

LENGTHLY. MISTAKENLY REPORTED AUM ACRES BECAUSE DID NOT

UNDERSTAND.

short 29 WAS NOT SURE IF SHE WAS TO INCLUDE HER HOUSE AS PART OF THE

FARM? (SHE DID)

short 29 THERE WAS NO PLACE TO RECORD SALE OF COW-CALF PAIRS.

short 30 ABSENTEE LNDLRD, LIVE IN MT & HAVE 160 AC FARM IN TX I DO NOT 

ACTIVELY OPERATE. RNT ALL LND OUT ON SHARES. LND RNTD TO OTH NOT 

SUBTRCTD FROM TTL AC OWNED. SEC 2 OK, EX IN SEC3

short 34 SOME COST CATEGORIES IN QUESTION - LABOR QUESTIONS SPECIFIC

short 35 VERY STRAIGHT FORWARD EXPERIENCED REPORTING IN WORKING WITH 

USDA SOIL CONSERVATION IN THE PAST

short 37 WILL NOT GIVE FINANCIAL INFORMATION TO ANYONE NO AGRI-TOURISM 

ANIMALS NOT FOR SALE/SLAUGHTER

short 37 HER OPERATION IS SMALL, MANY CROPS HARD TO PUT ON FORM

short 38 I DID READ QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONS GOOD. MADE MISTAKES ON 

short 40 DID NOT UNDERSTAND ITEM 6 IN SEC. 1 ABD DID NOT UNDERSTAND THAT SEC. 
32

3 WAS FOR ALL LAND. THOUGHT IT WAS FOR GOV. PMT.

short 40 DID NOT UNDERSTAND SEC. 1, ITEM 6. DID NOT UNDERSTAND SEC. 3, ITEM 5 

SHOULD EQUAL SEC. 1 ITEM 4.

short 40 DIDN'T UNDERSTAND SOME OF IT, DIDN'T KNOW WHERE TO PUT SOME 

FIGURES. TOO MANY THINGS TO LOOK THROUGH, TOO CONFUSING.

short 41 WAS A BIT CONFUSING, TOOK TOO MUCH TIME

short 41 THOUGHT THIS OPERATION WAS TOO SMALL FOR THIS CENSUS

short 42 SECTION 4 - TYPE OF OPERATION K1671 COULD BE 1,2,3.

short 42 MULTIPLE CUTTINGS OF HAY.

short 47 CRP WHAT IT STANDS FOR (FORM LEAVE SPACE TO WRITE WHAT I TH

short 47 WHAT I THINK IS WRONG INSTEAD OF SENDING SOMEONE OUT.

short 48 LENGTHY TOOK ABOUT 1 HOUR.

short 48 JUST GETTING INFORMATION TOGETHER.

short 48 DID NOT FILL OUT SECTION 7 BECAUSE HE DID NOT FARM IN 2005.

short 48 AMBIGUOUS QUESTIONS.

TO A FEEDYARD. HE WAS PAID ON A PER GAIN BASIS.

short 53 DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE FORM.

short 53 VALUE OF SALES FOR PEARS HE HAD THE WRONG VALUE. SHOULD'VE BEEN 

$15,000.

short 55 DIDN'T SEE RENT FREE SECTION 1 QUESTION 2. NO PLACE FOR TENTH OF ACRE 

FOR TOTAL FARM ACRES.

short 55 PRODUCTION EXPENSES WERE A PROBLEM FOR ELAINE. LEE HAD TO FILL THIS 

OUT-ELAINE WAS NOT CLEAR ON THIS. (COULD NOT FIGURE OUT WHY THEY 

NEEDED TO KNOW ALL THIS STUFF)

short 56 TREATING AUM RENTAL INCOME AS SUCH IN THE REPORT SINCE IT IS FOR A 

FRIENDS HUNTING HORSE NOT REPORTED AS SUCH ON IRS

short 56

I DON'T THINK O FTHE UNIT AS AN AG UNIT. I INHERITED UNIT FROM FATHER.

short 56 EASIER THEN LAST YEAR

long 16 THIS QUEST WAS COMPLETED OVER THE PHONE AFTER HE EXPLAINED TO ME 

THAT HE WAS A LANDLORD.

long 19 NOTHING ON HORSES EXCEPT COUNT

long 21 GOT 17 HEAD OF SHOW GOATS

long 21 CHRISTMAS TREES. STAT NOTE: REPORTED SALES BUT NOT ACRES

long 26 IF THE NUMBERS WERE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME THEY SAT DOWN THEN 

IT DID NOT GET REPORTED.

I HAVE CORRECTED IT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

long 26 SECTION 25-INCOME FROM RELATED SOURCE HAS ACRES IN GRAVEL PIT PAID 

AS ROYALTY FEES

AS PER TONNAGE OF GRAVEL REMOVED

long 26 PA-116 MONIES NOT RECORDED, DID NOT REMEMBER TO DO SO.

long 29 FARM RELATED BUSINESS.

long 41 SOLD $2000 OF CUT FLOWERS, NOT INCLUDED IN ITEM 6 SECTION21 COST OF 

FIRE PREVENTION PROGRAMS ARE NOW REQUIRED OF URBAN

& RURAL OPERATORS BY STATE & LOCAL GOV.

long 42 HAS 18 FRUIT TREES. THE SCREENER IN SECTION II ASKS FOR 20 OR MORE 

FRUIT TREES.
33

long 47 FARMERS CONCERNED ABOUT UPCOMING NEW REGULATIONS RAISING CA

long 47 CATTLE; EXMAPLE:NEW REQUIREMENTS INVOLVING IN LIVESTOCK.

long 48 HE RECEIVED 12000 FOR PEANUT PAYMENT.

long 53 RAN OUT OF SPACE IN SECTION 10 BUT ADDED 2 ADDITIONAL LINES DID THE 

RIGHT THING!

long 55 WOOL ADDED VALUE FOR SPINNING AND WEAVING.