' %m* i^Sî

ASz^¿-<>

Oi^f *+ j

ïgrïcultural History Branch, ESA

U.S. AGRICULTURAL ESTIMATES

xi$*s:>5

Sí&íCíS?;

1

1 ft

I I

icülíure / jîûi sfîca! Reporting Service



THE STORY

OF

U.S. AGRICULTURAL ESTIMATES

NALDB¡d

N

g

at/0na,A^^a,

¿

0

f1 Baltimore ßivd

library

Prepared by the

Statistical Reporting Service

U S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

«ATIONAL AGRICULTURAL LI BRAKY

RECEIVED

Miscellaneous Publication No. 1088 DEC 18 ..«

U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PROCUREMENT SECTION U.5. ULfAKIMtNl Ul-AüKILULIUKt CURRENT SERIAL RECOfiOS

Washington, D.C. 20250 April 1969

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402 Price $1.75 (paper cover)

1)5

FOREWORD

Throughout the history of the United States

there has been need for reliable and timely

information on the agriculture of the Nation.

In the early days of the young Republic, the

concern centered largely on obtaining information on better farming methods and results

obtained from different cultural practices in

terms of greater yield.

Requirements for information changed as

the frontier pushed further inland, as manufacturing began to move from the farm to

shops and factories with the inevitable development of a consuming population, and as the

need for a more effective marketing system

evolved. Farmers everywhere were being

pushed into the long and painful shift from

subsistence to commercial agriculture. Gradually demand developed for more specific statistics that would serve the needs of the

marketplace and guide national policy.

The first part of this chronicle, covering the

period between Washington and Lincoln, is a

summary of the efforts of early leaders to obtain information about the farms of the new

Republic. Out of their efforts evolved several

ideas and schemes for collection of current statistical information; some of them were the

basis for the methods employed in the early

efforts to provide a regular crop reporting

service. This part of the story was prepared

by Walter H. Ebling, who served as Statistician for Wisconsin from 1927 until he retired

in 1960.

The second part of the story covers the period from the establishment of the Department

of Agriculture in 1862 to about 1905, i.e., from

Lincoln to Theodore Roosevelt. This may be

characterized as the "founding period" of the

Crop and Livestock Reporting Service (later

the Statistical Reporting Service). The program found its footing; overall policies and

objectives were crystallized, and an operating

organization was shaped and reshaped. It was

during this period that the long time series of

statistics of crop and livestock production were

started, marking the beginning of a century

of continuous statistical service to agriculture

and the Nation. Emerson M. Brooks wrote

the section of this book that covers the founding period. Brooks began work with the Crop

Reporting Service in 1933, and was on the

headquarters staff of the Administrator of

SRS when this history was prepared.

The next 40 years or so saw an accelerating

emphasis upon more efficient production for

the market. New tools and new machines

marked the decline of horse and mule power

and reduction in manpower needed to provide

food and fiber for the Nation. These changes,

together with population growth, the development of great urban areas, and the requirements for a marketing system to distribute

the food to these areas, exerted an increasing

demand for more comprehensive, more precise, and more timely information on supplies

of food. A great depression and two world

wars stimulated the need for agricultural statistics.

Beginning around 1940 a new trend in agriculture began to be recognized and was accentuated by the exigencies of World War II.

Agribusiness became a popular word to denote

the common interests of the farm and the business enterprises dependent upon the farm. A

natural development of this concept was integration of functions. Vertical integration of

agriculture typifies the most recent trend.

With this development the problems of meeting the needs for agricultural statistics have

become more complex. Users have become

more sophisticated. With the increase in

size of enterprise and greater investment

of capital, business decisions have become

more critical. The Statistical Reporting Service is now called upon for greater

accuracy and more detailed statistics as a

basis for these decisions. S. R. Newell prepared the history of the period from 1905 to

1966. W. F. Callander, long-time Chief of the

Crop and Livestock Reporting Service and

m
Chairman of the Crop Reporting Board, did a

great deal of research and prepared voluminous notes that were a great help in the task

of completing the story.

Personnel files in the National Archives

provided a mine of useful material. Letters,

speeches, comments, and papers written byparticipants for various purposes, and usually

not considered at the time as documents of

historical significance, were equally useful. In

addition to these sources, Newell drew heavily on his close association with the crop and

livestock estimating program since the early

1920's. His contribution was prepared after his

retirement as Chairman of the Crop Reporting Board in 1966.

Wayne D. Rasmussen and Vivian Wiser of

the Agricultural History Branch, Economic

Research Service, were most generous in providing guidance, furnishing materials from

their files, and assisting with the manuscript

and the format. Emerson M. Brooks made

many suggestions and helped in the final organization of the book. Joseph A. Becker and

Charles E. Gage contributed by providing

Newell with firsthand information on many

episodes in the history of the Service.

This volume does not deal with the technical aspects of the Statistical Reporting Service

as it is presently operated. For a complete

discussion of this aspect of the service see

"Statistical Reporting Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture—Scope and Methods,"

U.S.D.A. Miscellaneous Publication No. 967,

1964, 234 pages.

Harry C. Trelogan

Administrator

IV
CONTENTS

Page

PART I. EARLY EFFORTS TO GATHER AGRICULTURAL

STATISTICS, 1781-1861 1

Prologue ^

Chapter 1. Evolution of Agricultural Data Systems 2

PART IL THE FOUNDING PERIOD, 1862 to 1905 16

Prologue ^

Chapter 2. A Beginning Is Made, 1862-65 IS

Chapter 3. Regular Reports Are Established, 1866-81 29

Chapter 4. An Era of Progress, 1882-93 34

Chapter 5. A Decade of Confusion 1894-1905 39

PART III. A PERIOD OF GROWTH, 1905-30 48

Prologue - - - - ^

Chapter 6. Crop Reporting from 1905 Through World War I _ _ 50

Chapter 7. Post World War I—The Decade of the 1920,s 65

PART IV. AN ERA OF TURBULENT EXPANSION, 1930-66 _- 76

Prologue 11

Chapter 8. A New Era Starts with Henry A. Wallace 77

Chapter 9. Post World War II 88

Chapter 10. Inauguration of a Long-Range Plan for Development of the Statistical Reporting Service 95

PART V. APPENDIX JJJ8

Chapter 11. A Century of Agriculture in Charts and Pictures _ 108

Chapter 12. A Chronology of Development and Progress 125

Chapter 13. Heads of Agricultural Statistics 129

Chapter 14. Statutes Establishing and Enlarging the Department of Agriculture 129

Chapter 15. Laws Governing Crop Reports 131

Chapter 16. Crop Reporting Regulations 134

Chapter 17. Commissioners and Secretaries of Agriculture _. 137

PART I. EARLY EFFORTS TO GATHER AGRICULTURAL

STATISTICS, 1781-1861

PROLOGUE

The United States became a Nation when

the Articles of Confederation were ratified in

1781. The business of the new Nation was

largely agriculture. In 1790, the census showed

about 4 million people; over 90 percent gainfully employed were in agriculture. Farmers,

particularly those in the North, were thinking

in terms of their own and local needs first,

while in the South agriculture had tended to

develop along more commercial lines. In 1790,

tobacco alone accounted for 44 percent of total

exports. Cotton soon began to take the limelight

and by the middle of the 19th century accounted

for 54 percent of the value of total exports.

Invention of new farm machinery and improvement of the old were receiving active attention. Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin

in 1793 and in the same year Thomas Jefferson

invented a moldboard plow based on scientific

principles. Four years later, Charles Newbold

of New Jersey received a patent for the first

cast-iron plow. In 1833, John Lane began the

manufacture of steel plows and Oberd Hursy

patented the first successful horse-drawn grain

reaper. A few years later, in 1837, John

Deere began manufacturing plows with steel

share and smooth wrought-iron moldboard. A

patent was granted to G. W. Brown for a

widely used corn planter in 1853 and the next

year a patent was granted for a two-wheeled

jointed bar mower. In 1856, a two-horse

straddle row cultivator was patented and in

1858 a harvester which gathered grain into

bundles was patented by C. W. and W. W.

Marsh.1

'Rasmussen, Wayne D., Readings in the History of

American Agriculture. Univ. 111. Press, 1960, pp. 35-60,

295-301.

Transportation was also developing. In 1805

the first corn-fat cattle were driven over the

mountains from the Ohio Valley to eastern

markets. Building turnpikes started about

1790. The first one of importance, the Philadelphia-Lancaster Turnpike, was completed in

1794. The most celebrated turnpike was built

by the Federal Government. This was the

Cumberland Road, or National Pike, that ran

west from Cumberland, Md. The first appropriation for this road was made in 1806 and work

started in 1811. By 1818 it had reached Wheeling on the Ohio River and in 20 years, it had

been pushed across Ohio and Indiana and on to

Vandalia in central Illinois. The original plan

was to extend the Cumberland Road to St.

Louis, but by the time it reached Vandalia the

superiority of railroads had been established

and the extension was abandoned.

From the earliest times, rivers had been the

principal means of transportation. The limitations of river transportation became an increasing problem in meeting the needs of the

new Nation as population increased, and as

industrial growth drew increasing numbers of

industrial workers into urban centers. Canalization of the rivers in some instances alleviated the problem of long and difficult portages

around the rapids, but the problem of upstream traffic was the greatest limitation. The

solution of this problem came in 1807 when

Robert Fulton succeeded in running his Clermont up the Hudson from New York to Albany, demonstrating the practicability of

using steam power to propel ships. Steamboats

were introduced on the Ohio River in 1811,

but it was not until 1815 that a steamboat

succeeded in ascending the Mississippi River

as far as the falls at Louisville, Ky.

Problems of east-west transportation still

remained. This limitation encouraged the
building of canals. One of the first to be built

was the Santee Canal connecting Charleston,

S.C., with the Santee River; it opened in 1800.

Another early enterprise was the Middlesex

Canal, connecting Boston with the Merrimac

River a little north of Lowell, Mass. Many

States embarked on extensive canal building

programs, but by far the most commercially

important canal was the Erie Canal from Albany to Buffalo. This project was started in

1817 and completed in 1825.

Canalization was the most significant development of the age, connecting the farming

areas in western New York State and the

great new agricultural areas of the Central

States with the growing industrial areas of the

Atlantic Coast.2

Development of rail transportation overlapped the canal building era. The opening of

the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad in 1830 might

be regarded as the beginning of the decline of

canal transportation. Actually, the Erie Canal

is the only one built during the period that

has survived the competition of the railroad

and later transportation developments. The

total mileage of railroads in the United States

in 1840 was 2,818 miles. By 1860, just 2 years

before the U.S. Department of Agriculture was

established, the railroad net amounted to

30,626 miles.3

Interest of the farmers in improved practices, new crops, and breeds of livestock dates

to the first colonists. Agricultural societies

started early, beginning with the American

Philosophical Society organized in 1743 to

promote scientific agriculture. The movement

grew after the Revolution. The societies were

influential in promoting improved agriculture

and giving expression to the concern of farmers with the political actions of the new Government and the need for national recognition of the problems of agriculture.

The shift from manpower to horsepower,

the opening of new lands accelerated by development of transportation, and the awakening of interest in experimentation with fertilizer and new varieties of crops and breeds of

livestock all had significant impacts on the activities of the Government in agriculture. The

first action of the Government came in 1839

when the Patent Office started collecting agricultural statistics and distributing seed. In

1862, with the establishment of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the work was expanded.

CHAPTER 1. EVOLUTION OF AGRICULTURAL

DATA SYSTEMS

Efforts to establish facts about U.S. agriculture trace back to colonial days. In colonial

times, nearly everyone was concerned with

land and the production of things needed to

sustain life, and attempts were made to collect

information on farming methods and to generalize about responses in production. Efforts

to quantify production and populations became

more frequent and more effective with the

passing decades. Indeed, historic roots and

prototypes of modern Government surveys

seeking agricultural information can be traced

to periods long before the U.S. Government

itself assumed this type of responsibility. Various fields of work now carried on by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture had early origins.

Much of our latterday progress was made

possible by the efforts of our forefathers to

deal with the issues of their day. They left a

heritage upon which much has been built, including our present agricultural data collecting systems.

Knowledge of agriculture which early settlers brought from Europe was often of little

service to them.4In a sense pioneers began

life anew, and for years many were short of

tools, shelter, food, and animals. For a time,

life in most places was indeed a struggle for

existence.5 The first permanent settlers in

America were caught in a great transition.

While land was often free, the problems of

clearing and of producing a crop were many

and often quite unrelated to Old World

experience.

In their European background the newcomers were not hunters nor fishermen, nor

2

Jones, Eliot. Principles of Railway Transportation.

The Macmillan Co., 1929, pp. 38-43.

a U.S. Department of Commerce. Historical Statistics

of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957, p. 427.

4 Eliot, Jared. Essays on New England Husbandry.

Killingworth, Conn., 1747. Essays reprinted by Mass.

Soc. for Promoting Agr., 1811, Part I, p. 5.

5

Ibid.
had they experience in land clearing.6

Likewise, they were unaccustomed to using native

fruits and other plants for subsistence. Gradually they improved their equipment and shelter, while producing crops from European

seeds as well as learning to clear land and

grow corn and other native crops as the Indians had done before them. Livestock, which

was scarce in the early periods, became more

numerous, especially after the introduction of

European forage crops such as bluegrass and

clover.

As better farming methods were developed,

more knowledge of agriculture in all its phases

was eagerly sought, especially by men in positions of leadership. They experimented with

improvements in farm practices and ,often corresponded with men of learning and influence

in distant colonies or in Europe, exchanging

views and experience so that they might improve their own farming methods and those

of others. The writings on agriculture by

Washington, Jefferson, and other leaders in

our early history are illustrative.

The early search for knowledge of agriculture often involved concepts of yields per acre.

Jared Eliot's essays (first published in 1747)

mention 20 bushels of wheat per acre as a

middling crop.7 Long before 1747, the first

year official averages could be obtained, yield

expectations were expressed quantitatively.

Likewise an interest existed in size and utilization of landholdings of farmers, but official

data summarizing such subjects had yet to

come into being.

Data on animal inventories, such as those

obtained on cattle by tax lists of Connecticut

in 1648 or Essex County, Mass., even earlier,

were recorded,8but collection of data on agriculture in the modern sense had not evolved.

Local inventories of livestock, etc., as obtained

from early tax lists have perhaps more interest to historians than they had for people of

that time.

6 Bidwell, P. W. and Falconer, J. D. History of Agriculture in the Northern United States, 1620-1860. Carnegie Institution, 1925, p. 5.

7 Eliot, Jared. Essays on New England Husbandry.

Killingworth, Conn., 1747. Essays reprinted by Mass.

Soc. for Promoting Agr., 1811, Part I, p. 5.

8 Bidwell and Falconer, pp 26, 105.

Early American farmers, like those of England, showed little concern about markets, the

environment being one of food deficits rather

than surpluses. The market usually seemed to

be assumed and emphasis was mainly on how

to achieve more production. Farming was an

individual matter, with much of the production for home consumption and only a small

amount for market. Self-sufficiency as a concept applied to local communities as well as to

the individual farm. Questions in agriculture

were mostly about "farming and farming

methods," about practices in use and results

obtained, rather than about general supply and

location of products. Because nearly everyone

had land, the distinction between producers

and consumers of farm products was not as

clear as it has since become.

President Washington's Mailed Inquiry

An early use of letters to farmers to obtain

information on agriculture was undertaken by

Washington while he was President of the

United States. In "George Washington,

Farmer" 9it is recorded : 'These letters were

the result of inquiries made of Washington by

Arthur Young (of England) in 1791." The

report further states that:

. . . because of this service and of his general

interest in agricultural matters Washington was

elected a foreign honorary member of the English

Board of Agriculture and received a diploma,

which is still preserved among his papers.

The following circular letter was addressed to

several gentlemen, the best informed of the agriculture, value of lands, and the prices of produce,

&c. in the States of New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia; and the answers

which have been received are thereunto subjoined.

Philadelphia, August 25, 1791.

Dear Sir,

Some inquiries having been made of me by important characters, on the state of agriculture in

America, comprehending its several relations, and

intended to ascertain the value of our lands, with

their yield in the several kinds of grain, grass,

&c. the prices of farming stock; the prices of

produce, &c. together with a list of the taxes in

the different States, which may in any way affect

the farmer: as an object highly interesting to our

country, I have determined to render the most just

and satisfactory answers that the best information

I can obtain from different parts of the United

States will enable me to give.

0 Haworth, Paul Leiand. George Washington, Farmer,

p. 84. Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1915.
With this view, my confidence in your disposition and knowledge, leads me to offer to your

inquiry, and to request from your intelligence as

early information as may be convenient, on the

following heads:

1. The fee-simple prices of farming lands in

such part of the State of as are neither

so near to large towns as to enhance their value,

nor so distant from market as greatly to reduce

it, or to make the situation inconvenient. In your

answer to this inquiry, be pleased to note, generally, the situations, the soil, and, if it be practicable, the proportions of arable, pasture, and

woodland.

2. The rents of the same lands, when leased,

and, generally, the terms of lease.

3. The average product of the same lands in

wheat, rye, barley, oats, buckwheat, beans, pease,

potatoes, turnips, grasses, hemp, flax, &c. in the

common mode of husbandry now practised.

4. The average prices of these articles, when

sold at the farm, or carried to the nearest market.

5. The average prices of good working horses,

working oxen, milch cows, sheep, hogs, poultry, &c.

6. The average prices of beef, veal, mutton, pork,

butter, and cheese, in the neighbourhood, or at the

nearest markettowns.

7. The price of wrought iron, whence the price

of farming utensils may be inferred.

8. A list of the Taxes laid in the State of

The tendency of this inquiry, will be my apology

for the trouble it may give to you.

I am, dear, Sir, with great regard,

Your most obedient servant,

G. Washington10

He obtained enough information from his

inquiry to write fully to his English correspondent. As agricultural surveys evolved they

were mainly designed to bring together information to answer questions of interest at a

particular time. And while the early surveys

were often prototypes of inquiries that were

used later, they can be best understood in

terms of what was wanted in the way of information at the time the surveys were made.

Inquiries by Early Agricultural Societies

A spirit of improvement was promoted

largely through agricultural societies. These

came into existence in England early in the

18th century, the first one being credited to

Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1723.11 The movement

spread in the British Isles, then to Europe and

America.

10 Letters from George Washington to Arthur Young

and Sir John Sinclair. Printed by Cottom and Stewart,

Alexandria, 1803, pp. 19-50.

11 True, R. H. The Early Development of Agricultural

Societies in the United States.

In England, the societies became a device

for promoting interest in agriculture by the

well-to-do landowners for whom agriculture

became a special interest during the last half

of the 18th century. Improvement of agriculture was a social as well as a practical economic endeavor with men of standing, and

various ways were developed to popularize the

movement. A development that did much to

stimulate this interest was the creation of the

English Board of Agriculture in 1793. Sir

John Sinclair, with the aid of Pitt, secured an

act of Parliament and a charter from the

King for such a Board.12In this way the Government became a party to the collection of

information and the making of statistical surveys, thereby adding dignity and standing to

the agricultural revolution. This was one of a

long series of events which led to similar action by the U.S. Congress nearly seven decades

later, when the Department of Agriculture

was created with statistical work as a major

and continuing activity. In fact, at the urging

of Sir John Sinclair, with whom he corresponded, George Washington proposed in his

last annual message to Congress the establishment of a Board of Agriculture and the use of

public financial aid for its work.13

Agricultural societies in the United States

took various forms, but generally they provided a means by which people in public leadership who were interested in agriculture

could work and express themselves concerning

improvement in this broad field. Leading

citizens undertook to popularize knowledge

about agriculture and better farming methods

in an effort to improve their communities.

Actually, in their general objectives, the

early » agricultural societies covered various

areas of work which later became recognized

Government functions in the Department of

Agriculture. Some of the objectives and their

outcomes are as follows:

1. Educational efforts of the societies may

be considered a response to a need which ultimately brought the Morrill Act of 1862 and

the land grant colleges.

12 Neely, W. C. The Agricultural Fair. p. 39. Columbia

Univ. Press, New York, 1935.

13 Ibid., p. 42.
2. Payments of premiums for improved

crops and animals, as well as experiments and

demonstrations, were forerunners of agricultural experiment station efforts which came

with the Hatch Act of 1887.

3. Educational fairs, shows, exhibits, and

contests may be looked upon as forerunners of

agricultural extension work that became a cooperative Government responsibility under the

Smith-Lever Act of 1914.

4. Inquiry for the collection of information

was a major part of the societies' efforts on

behalf of agriculture, and their surveys first

brought State support for statistical work.

This in turn led to congressional support for

statistics, first in the Patent Office and, 23

years later, in the establishment of this function as a part of the Department of Agriculture. Through inquiries, statistical and other

information was sought which made generalization possible in agricultural matters.

The Massachusetts Society for Promoting

Agriculture and Agricultural Inquiry

Just as they pioneered early work in other

important public efforts in agriculture, so certain early agricultural societies undertook the

making of inquiries to collect a wide range of

information and data on farming. A notable

early effort in this area was that of the Massachusetts Society for Promoting Agriculture

about 1800, when it distributed a set of 50

queries, answers to which were published in

1807.

While the inquiries dealt largely with farming methods, experience, and results, numerical values had a place in describing such items

as production per acre, numbers of animals

usually kept on a farm, and prices. Also there

were questions on straw and fodder; land

values; seed used per acre; and days of labor

used per acre in raising and shelling corn. One

respondent stated that shelling corn took 7

days per acre and was done by rubbing the

corn cobs against a spade and over a tub.

Inquiry by the Albemarle Agricultural

Society

Another agricultural society that undertook

the collection of information was the Albemarle Agricultural Society of Virginia. The

society was organized on May 5, 1817, in

Charlottesville by a small group whose objectives were to promote the interests of agriculture and domestic economy. Among the leading names listed was that of Thomas Jefferson,

who according to R. H. True may be justly

regarded as the founder of this society.14 Á

committee of five, one of whom was Jefferson,

was named to prepare rules and regulations

for the government of the society. When this

committee reported on October 7, 1817, nine

objects for attention and inquiry by the society

were stated. These included the cultivation of

primary crops—wheat, tobacco, and hemp—

for market, and also subsidiary items for the

support of the farm and household, such as

other crops and livestock. The emphasis on

the three crops for market reflected the greater importance of the market aspect of production in this region, as well as the growing

importance of a market economy in the agriculture of the time. The fact that inquiry is

stressed among the objectives of the society

may be associated with accomplishments by

inquiries of other early societies, notably the

one in Massachusetts. The subject matter of

the inquiry was broad; it included "Calendars

of Work" relating to organization of farm

operations, requirements of labor, "draught

animals: employed throughout the year," etc.

The Albemarle Society undertook various

other projects for the advancement of agriculture. For the purpose of

carrying into effect the views of the Society with

regard to implements of Husbandry, it is expedient to establish a manufactory of such; to be

in part under the patronage and guidance of the

Society; to have in view particularly improvements

in the construction of ploughs.15

Another undertaking of the society was the

establishment of a professorship of agriculture

at the University of Virginia,16

to hasten and perpetuate the march of Agricultural improvement already so happily commenced. . . . This Society could not make an appropriation of its funds more conducive to the

14 True, R. H. Early Days of the Albemarle Agricultural Society. Amer. Hist. Assoc. Ann. Rpt. 1:244, 246.

1918.

16 True, R. H. Minute Book of the Albemarle (Virginia) Agricultural Society. Amer. Hist. Assoc. Ann.

Rpt. Vol I, p. 277. 1918.

16 Ibid., pp. 298-299.
permanent attainment of the primary objects of

its institution—and as it is reasonable to expect

that all the Agricultural Societies, the Farmers

and Planters of the State generally will cheerfully contribute to an Establishment of such universal Interest—Therefore. . . . Resolved, That

One Thousand Dollars of the sum now in the

Hands of the Treasurer of this Society be appropriated to the establishment of a Fund, the profits

of which shall go to the support of a professorship

of Agriculture at the University of Virginia.

Early Statistical Efforts by the States

In addition to State support of agricultural

societies, State governments contributed to

the agricultural data field by direct action

programs. The inclusion of certain agricultural items in a New York State census in

1825 was an early State contribution.

The Massachusetts Agricultural Survey—

1837-41

One of the best-known and most extensive

State agricultural surveys was made by the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts over a 4-year

period, 1837-41. The State government undertook to collect information on agriculture and

associated items in each county of the State.

In addition to the contributions by the Massachusetts Society for Promoting Agriculture,

much more was done in that State through

the survey begun in 1837 and reported in four

publications between 1838 and 1841.

Early Growth of State Censuses

When Washington's proposal to Congress in

1796 to establish a National Board of Agriculture failed to be accepted, public support of

agriculture was left to the States. The Massachusetts Society for Promoting Agriculture, in

1792, had been the first to receive such help.

In time, various States supported the work of

these organizations and other projects.

Censuses were a popular form of State statistical work. Even in colonial times some of

these were taken, one for Massachusetts being

reported as early as 1643, one in Rhode Island

in 1708, and one in New Hampshire in 1767.

After independence, more States gradually

undertook some kind of census enumerations,

and in the 1850 census compendium published

in 1854, Superintendent of the Census J. D. B.

DeBow found that 20 of the 31 States had

some type of census. While these were mainly

for the enumeration of population, other items

were included. Not only were State censuses

found in some of the older States, but some of

the new States provided for censuses in their

constitutions and others made legislative provision for them later. These older censuses

were quite unlike the more recent agricultural

enumerations by assessors, which are still

carried on in 14 States.

In the years of rapid westward expansion

and of rapid increases in population due both

to immigration and natural increase, the interval between the decennial U.S. censuses was

longer than many States wanted to wait for a

new record of their growth. A number of

States took their own censuses 10 years apart,

midway between the Federal population

censuses. Gradually, however, the State censuses of population disappeared.

State Statistical Bureaus Proposed

In the 1840,s there was interest in the establishment of a national statistical bureau

similar to those existing in some European

nations. There were also efforts to establish

State statistical bureaus. DeBow reported that

such bureaus had been proposed in South

Carolina, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Illinois,

and that one had been actually established in

Louisiana.17 Working in Louisiana, DeBow

prepared a circular proposing—under 14 inclusive heads—the desired functions of such

a bureau for that State. He believed that the

outline was also suitable for other States. In

the light of changes taking place in agriculture

at midcentury, it is a little surprising that the

statistical proposals of the period were wholly

in the nature of long-interval descriptions.

Early Agricultural Data in the U.S. Government

The U.S. Government did practically no

work in agriculture for a half-century after

independence. President Washington and

others had urged it, but the Congress had not

responded. Interest seemed to be mainly in

local aspects of the industry, and, since farming was highly individualistic, the demand for

Compendium of the 7th Census (1850), pp. 18-20.
a national program in agriculture developed

slowly. However, in the decade after 1830,

with the rapid growth of the Nation and the

great westward expansion, as well as more

evidence of agricultural surpluses and price

problems, the need for more information on

agricultural resources became apparent. The

efforts of States were uncoordinated, and

while some of them were locally important,

national data for agriculture were not available. Two extraordinary individuals, Archibald Russell and Henry L. Ellsworth, came

forward with proposals for a national program for agricultural data in the U.S. census

and in the Patent Office.

Archibald Russell and His Census Proposals

An important event in 1839 was the appearance of a book entitled, "Principles of Statistical Inquiry as Illustrated in Proposals for

Uniting an Examination Into the Resources of

the United States With the Census to Be

Taken in 1840." Its contributions were many.

The author, Archibald Russell, was a native

of Scotland who had been educated in Europe,

and he transported to the American scene

viewpoints based largely upon European experience. He proposed ideas about the need for

national inventory data as well as State data

on agriculture and other parts of the economy.

Russell was 28 years old when his book was

published, only 3 years after he settled in New

York. His education at Edinburgh and Bonn

in philosophy, law, and medicine, plus his experience, somehow combined to produce this

remarkable treatise after only a few years in

this country. He saw in the mechanism of the

U.S. census, provided for in the Constitution

to enumerate the inhabitants, a means of

measuring the Nation's various resources of

which agriculture at that time was the leading one.

Russell proposed that an inventory of resources of the Nation be taken along with the

1840 Census of Population. He believed that

economic understanding would be helped

greatly by such data. Because the Nation had

already enumerated its people at 10-year intervals, beginning with 1790, Russell argued

that agriculture, manufactures, and other subject matter could be enumerated along with

the sixth census of population. President Van

Buren, in his message to Congress in December 1838, recommended the adoption of

provisions for taking the population census of

1840 and possibly extending it to include

additional information. The President's recommendation was:

In recommending to Congress the adoption of the

necessary provisions at this session for taking the

next census or enumeration of the inhabitants of

the United States, the suggestion presents itself

whether the scope of the measure might not be

usefully extended by causing it to embrace authentic statistical returns of the great interest

specially entrusted to, or necessarily affected by,

the legislation of Congress.

The President's statement provided the opportunity for Russell to write detailed proposals for including other subjects with the

population enumeration in 1840. He quoted

the statement in full in his book. In fact, the

statement reads as though Russell might have

had something to do with writing it.

Midcentury U.S. Census of Agriculture

Congress adopted President Van Buren's

recommendation, and the first census of agriculture was taken in 1840. The enumeration,

containing 37 items, was included in a Schedule of Mines, Agriculture, Commerce, Manufactures, etc. In 1850, a separate Schedule No.

3, Productions of Agriculture, listed 46 items.

In 1860, Schedule 4, Productions of Agriculture, had 48 items and in 1870, Schedule 3,

Production in Agriculture, had 52 items.

During 1840-70, while changes were not as

great as in decades that followed, some progress was made. The separate listing provided

for each farm beginning in 1850 was a major

improvement. After the 1840 experience, a

census committee studied methods and content

of the various census questionnaires, and better enumerations were the result. Archibald

Russell was involved in this work, especially

in the census of 1850 when the first individual

farm schedule for agriculture was employed.

The census of 1840 provided the first national inventory of agricultural production. In

spite of its shortcomings, it became the basis

of a remarkable undertaking in agricultural

estimates in the Patent Office beginning in

1841.
Annual Agricultural Estimates by Ellsworth

in the U.S. Patent Office

Development of agricultural data in the

United States was greatly advanced by the

work of the U.S. Patent Office. This had its

beginning during the 9-year administration of

Henry L. Ellsworth from Connecticut, who

while trained in the law was also deeply interested in agriculture. He was Commissioner of

Patents from 1836 to 1845. In his report to

Congress for the year 1837, he commented on

the fact that commerce and manufacture had

received help from the Patent Office, but that

agriculture had been taken for granted and

had received no aid from legislation. He expressed optimism about what could be done for

agriculture and mentioned specifically the introduction of new varieties of wheat and other

seeds from foreign climates. He indicated that,

selection of seeds and experiments with crops

might substantially increase the yields. He

implied that space in the new building occupied by the Patent Office might well be set

aside for agriculture.18

To further his ideas Ellsworth prevailed

upon Congress to appropriate $1,000 from the

Patent Office fund in 1839 for the following

purposes :

(1) Collecting and distributing seeds.

(2) Carrying out agricultural investigations.

(3) Procuring agricultural statistics.

In his report for 1839, he reported that he

had found it necessary to expend a small

amount of the appropriation for procuring

agricultural statistics in conjunction with the

inquiries propounded by the Secretary of

State in taking the census. Also, the U.S. diplomatic corps had been solicited to procure seeds,

and the officers of the Navy had been requested

to convey to the Patent Office such seeds as

might be offered.

In his report for 1840, he reported on progress made as a result of the 1839 appropriation: Over 30,000 packages of seed had been

distributed, and these had been well received

by the agricultural community. On the matter

of statistics he merely reported that these "are

in a state of forwardness but can not be completed within the time permitted for the annual report from the Patent Office." 19

The Emergence of Annual Crop Production

Estimates by States

When the census totals for 1839 crops and

other data for 1840 appeared, Ellsworth had a

basis for estimates of production by States

and Territories which he made yearly through

1844.20 Because the interest had now shifted

more to data for the Nation, such data were

obtained by adding the totals estimated separately for each of the States and Territories.

Ellsworth's painstaking efforts provided the

general pattern of annual agricultural estimates which continues to the present time in

the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Many

improvements have been made. However, the

idea of using enumerated quantities for each

State or Territory as a base or benchmark,

and projecting' estimates for later dates by

applying a rate of change estimated from current information, was the method used by

Ellsworth. It was a prototype of the methods

that continued after the work was taken up

by the Department of Agriculture.

In the Patent Office report for 1841, Commissioner Ellsworth shows tabular estimates

of the production of the principal crops and

the populations of livestock and other items

on the farms by States and Territories.21In

commenting on these tables Ellsworth stated,

"These annual statistics will, it is hoped,

guard against monopoly or an exorbitant

price." 22

Statistical Work in the U.S. Patent Office

After Ellsworth

Ellsworth left the Patent Office on April 30,

1845. His successor, Edmund Burke, served a

4-year term. In general, Burke continued the

statistical work which had been undertaken

by Ellsworth (except in 1846, because no ap18 U.S. Senate Document No. 105. 25th Cong., 2d. Sess.

19 U.S. Congress. Senate Documents. 26th Cong. 2d.

Sess., Vol. 4, p. 152.

20 U.S. Congress. House of Representatives Document

No. 109. 27th Cong., 3rd Sess., pp. 4 and 5 1842.

21 U.S. Congress. House of Representives Document

No. 74. 27th Cong., 2nd Sess., pp. 64-67.

22 Ibid., p. 5.
«H B . O« c

S O O

£ a S

ja

s-gl 3 g «

fi-S

Ä S

5

5

o g

¡ 8

S S-2

«M fi

SI

C m

3'S

o g s e «

Il15*s &5*

w 2o

-AS

"S0"

0

3^ g

Ci Ift CO (N TH a CD

Tí* t> t^- <N Ci iH Iß

LO (N 04 O TH fM (N

00 TH IC TH rH r^ iH

00 Oi o t> <N <£) Tf

OÍ TH Oi TÎ* ia iH Tj«

ÇDC<Ï t-rflCCOn* t-T|«Tt<fc-Cï

ço t- o -- -~ - - -- * — -" '^

CO "^ LO

T^ oT "^

co ço ço

rH O TH

TH rH iH LO ^ C<l

^^ "..> (.'j ^sr c

-

^r "^r v.— WJ S_^ T—I UW T "ü^ <^3 ^ us ^i 1X3 LO

(MlOlOt* C^LO(NT1*LO «MÇOOt-T^LCi OiO^rHCM

rH C^ N Tf C<1 CO^ l> rH CO rH^ rH rH Tf rH TÍ< C<ï C<! C<I Od todi>çoi> aTTiTLCr^ko t-^cgiorirLoar oon^rHt^co

OiOOrHOO TfCSOOCvJOO 00lOa><MCqC0 lOOC^TfTf

O^O^tH^a^ï^lOCy^C^C^I^Tl^rH^Tj^t-O O CDlC Iß

CD CO ^T Tt rH rH Iß" CO tÙ O Iß CO*" CO oT <£ CO rH"

COOaTHC<ï<M TfTÍíOOCOINrH

O rH CO ?£> 00

C<¡ O I> t> o

O CO (M^ w O

00 «5 rf CO TjT

Iß O OÍ 00

TH CO

Wi-IOfrlt-CDOiCaißiNOO} ikßOirHTHOilßO^

C<IrHTliCO<MÇOOiC>00'«!Î«ÇC,tD iTPO^t-TíCOrHO

r-^O^OO^rHr-^O^rHTÍ^ Iß lr"l^Li^

C

'^U^

r

"ir,"

llß

rHißt-^^ßcoo^t-^ocT 'aTarçoçooTtr-T i>r

COíNOOOrHOOO^rH TH COlßCOrH 04

M CO O ^ C4 <£> TH

c<r r-T c<r

Iß CO C<l

<N t> i-t

Iß 00 CO

co" t>

OOOOlßCOCQ iHTHr^COC^OrJiißT^COOOOOt-OiOOrHcOOT^Cq ÇÔOC<IW05

lLßrHOC-C<J ÇO^tOOTÎ« ç£>(Mt>^OtD C<l*ßt-Ot> OOäC<|LßTi<l> OC<lTft-0

^Tj^C^O^C^OC<^O^^TH^Ttu5l>C^t>lßO^OO^J^rHTHO^THt> COCOCOOD ~

it^aTt^lßrHCOOOC^rijC^rHt^COarT^lLßrHr^ciwT^ C^TTÍ"

i<THO00OTi<C«lOT»<C0tr-THLßT|<C0LßrH «MjßlßCDtHt- Tj<

I

S

Ti< TH O 00 O

TH CO IG 00

Lß t> rH 00 "^

(N <M OS «D Iß

TJ4 r-^ Tl^ «D ^

OT C<f CD OCT rH"

rH rH t> 00 00

rH CO <N TH rf

W'J V^«/ »^ »* •' T 1 1»^- V^/ —- ^,

^ WOT»« COtr-rHLßTf CDLß

(N t-^ Oi <Ä «D 00 <M

(M" rH «D ^T

I >•>. v.^ -sj' v.^ ^J- V.NI

C<l iß lß CD tH CrCO «D 00 rH rH

<N Tí lß

IßlßrHTH IßlßOOOiOJ COOlßlßOO TfC<I«DOrHiH C<|THt>0OTj<

(MOÇDCi OÇDO(MtD (Mt>CO<MrH t-rHOOTH^rt 0«DC<I050i

rHCDlußC<r t^t^C^resT'^' lßCDt>Orr> Lß" lß ÇO TjT o *£ IßCO^rHi-Toi

— -- C^t>05OLß<N0iOC000C0rHiHT-IOrH

--"'* ''faoatDOïioQto) ißco

<—» Oi ri t-* COCMCDCOI^* CM

ODOOC^OOOiOOO^OO^COlß

.r —r co o c^ c<r CO" rH TH TH

CD

C<l

(N «N

t> CD lß CD CD <N C<I

C— Tf 00 Oi Tf

CD ÍD O CO Ci

..OiOO OiCOLßOOTf t>rHTj<

CDCDOCOOi TTT^OLßi<OL THt--(MOPi T-(t-(MOOi Oi'^00iTOD

«NC^O^rH^Lß C^OO00r-^t>O<N l>^00a^l>

Olßt-^oTrH IßrHCOCOLiToOCOriroo'oit-^r-r

CDCqißCDCOLßOiH© Lß O iH O X TH

oo cq

OlßOOCDlßO COOOsCit«

CDOrHC<lTHlß CDlßC^^iH

OOO^CDO^lßOSC^ Lß^COCO

CD lß CO Cvf TH" T-Í TjT rH

i-i Tf C0 O TH »ß rH

C<l iH TH

C<IÇDTHt>0 rHrHCOC*

rHrHt-005 ÇDTPTfrH

^ 00 iß^ ^t O^ TJ^ O O N

t> CD" aT co in (NcTcTc^r

00<N00 OitH©rHl>

05 ^ TH lß 00 Oi 00

c<r <N"

LßC<lLßCD<N <NTÍ<rHt-TÍl C0t-Tj*t>0aO TH^rHlßlß

OLßOtMCD CDLßCbCDOO rHTl<<D00TÍ<CO C<lC<lTÍ<iHO

rHCDiHOrHrH^lßO LßrHCDOO^rHlßOC^CDlßrHrH

t-t-OCOCO rHOiLß

rJ^rHOOCD OiCDO

C0I>OTH05 O^OOCO

co" O CÍ TH

CO ÇD05C<ICOOC<J CD

t- O5t>00C<IrHCO Oi

0q_ O O^ C^ O rH rH 00

" lß TjT rH ei ei

|> Tf O

05 CO rH

Oi(Nt>CDO «DCOC<ICO rHCOlßlßO CDCDt-t-O 005<Ml>00 rHlßCO^OO

LßtNLßLß^ OOOOi IßrHC-Ort 005Lß^>t> rHl>00r-tlßTH CO<NCOCOt>

OCDC^rHTl^ <AO00ÍH CÔçDT^IO Ö

C<r«DC<frHC<r OOiHCOOr OOririßciri^

C^OOCDTHTH oicooooi i>t>Tjíin»05

lßCvII>THC0C^lßCOt> ""tfNC-LO

C<r rH

t 005«3^C?C- rHI>OOr-ILQr-l COOJCOCOD5 LßO^T^O^CDWt^C^O^COO^COT^rHOOO^

- ÇDÇDCOaToO OOt^TfTfeîrH" O0O0t>rH<D

ft rHTi<Ti<t-Lß OiTtlßOOCOTH TflßCOlß^

3 t-ÇDTÎCOOO t-CDt-LßTfrH d

COTj<C}©00 OOrHÇDCO LßCfit>Oi00 WCDrHrHO OO^CDCOC^^ t-fc-lßC^OJ

t>I>O5C0l> TfClOCO OOTHOTHO^ OilßLßrHrH C<lt£>aD00©r> CDt-TÍ<rHrH

O5Lß«500Oi 0505COO OOt-TPCO COt-^O^W OO^OOrHrHLß Ca^OiTHtrHTl<t>00OS rHOOCOTf OOOC5COT!« rHO"5<MOi OiOilßCDCOtOOOCOOO OaC^Ï>C<I Ot-COLßCJ Oi05t-LßC<I

lßC<It-iHCOC<lTjiCOt> Ti<cat>LßCDLßCO0000

Cd" rH rH

t- TH 00 I> 00 Oi

I> Lß CD "tf 00

04 Tt O CO CO

rH Lß 00 ^ ^

s^s

03

fr'3

w § * X>

Ä >» S * H

^ g « & '60 -g

a? Q; o) ^ .H o

03

"So cö

S JS

g cö s

53 es &o CÖ rn w

«.s

c

m c 08 o

ta

o g r

1 .S

*4

^ •§ "c

»4

OS 1

tí 'o

«a *; O

tí P2*H

.S £ «

Ti<ißCDt>OOC50rHC<JOOTj<LßCDl>00050iHC^COTi<lßCDt>00050

iHrHiHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHc^c^iMC^NNiMtNCgCaCO
n

ES

tt> S <« lâ-S

Ils

COTHNCÄO^THTHcOrHC^t^aßujcOTHCO — — -- - —

Ci TH UO OT «O t> CO r-T 00

TH TH 00

Ä «O W TH I> ^>

oî ci r-T cT

CO

C^O>THIOC<|T1»OI>çD

lO iO CO CO C^ ©^ O

CQ aï tû <£ oT oî TjT

CD CD Oi àO iH O O

G* iH -^ iH iH 00

lO rH ci

'C^ÇOriiTHr-iol>lOl>C^CO,^ÇDiÛI><N^ÎOlO

OaOC^ÇOr-llOWrHlOt-C^OOàOÇDTlit^-^rHCq

Oat-^ocTTHt-O or^oTcTTl^lOt^ îNT ^ /^T rC s

CO m COiOiH OOC-OOîHIHOÎ

co 'l ^ ^ ri ^ ^ ^

00 r-T t> CO

00

I Iß

IG

Tí« Ci tO) CO

00 <N

:Í92£2r"

,

£35£E:ri

,

<Ní?aoo©iQoo<N©t>oj''tfcoi>oot><N '»H ÇOÇÔT^r^COO^ÇOCOO^t^THO^iHOOt^^Cg^COTHTHOiCO iO>

coiococo'c»ciioio'Tir'^i£r-Hr LOCOCO CsT '

t* (M (M lO

Q$ Oi GO ^

kßco^fcoo co\£coco£r?Q$iGia-*$'*£i£-*£

Oi Ci —'

if*

•s

MS

at?« So« 'ö »ft

0)

s

fl ,

•FH ÇJ .

o

o s«*

Ss8

O 08 ft

S S fi

1-

^11

^¿ft

^«M^OiOirHrHïAOO

OOCOTî<OçOTH"^LOTî<

OTHWC<I "^ I>IOT1^00

COrjTt^t-^çÔTHlOOOÇO

W Oi TH àO <D <£> rH

CO 00 ^ TH 00 C^

CO CO CO CO

CO TH

lOl'^t-iHiHTHOOlOCOCOCO

00 IÄ c«

Oi CO 00

i IO > i i

¡g : : :

00

CO

*o

IG

s

, v,-^ ^j- u— y—, 1—, r—, ^^^ ^j w,#; çTJ ^^ i ^^ rn çJJ ^y , ,__,

1

' ' IILOOOTHOOC-THTHCRCOOOIÄ IÇOCO©00 I©

I

,co',íl1

~ll^

T

~l0l

r

*lc^

c

^

T,

l',!íl

lrHcqT^T

i. IC^

' ' iOC<II>í>TííTí<rí<^.^^_ tfT ci l> t-" TjT xf rjT TH ci fc-* ' co ci 00 ' oT

©COWTHIO©THI>©

^T^O^LOOO^lAàOOOCO

ci TjT co co ^T oo ci <S

00 Tji TH 00 "^ rH <N

Oi CO CO ©

©

co"

lO^iarí<TÍ<©5JC000lA©<M©'^THCOt>í>©'^'^W)CO Tf>. 00w Ci _ CO TH

-^ n« co TH

CO

-CDlAkOCaTHOOCO©COTHCiCOC<ÏTHl>o^,,5l4l>ÇOÇOC<IlO'^TÎ<ÇO

C<lC^^COt>C5aOC^COOOrHOC^lßr^(ÄcOlL0©^>rHCOCOTj<lCC<IC5

è- t^ ci »o c^©co"criocoio"cioooocovococr»Äciris

00 T* i-l U3^<MçOC"-00i£)C^ÇOt-00t-ÇOTÎ<00 •*-

^© THC^rH^-iTH^CO^COOOt^rH

«o cT ©

oa t- (M

CO 00

iH tco io

cT oT

Iß CO*" CO <N

00 lO

^5

©OOCi LOiHOOt-t^^C^^HlO

Tl<CQ T}<CO©C500»Ä©Tf©

Lß i-^ C^ LO rH l>

rH ci Ci CO ©

(N rH

t- rH Tt*t-Tt<©COt>íuOTÍ<C<|COCi (MC<IO0rHTÍ<TJ<TÍ<Tl< IO

t^OOißT-^r-^iOlOCi Tí4

co oo cT oT ci cT TH

lßl>COTHTj<Oi00CO<Mt-THC<lTHCSt«COT*

00r-|Ç000©t>THC0C0©IO©.t«-C<l©Ln)O

C^C^COOO^C^CO^r-^OOrHC^CO^CO ^Ät> là CO CO

c^irTc^cTi^TjrciTHTiriot^i^r^^iCuî

TH©iHÇOCa(Mt-©©(M00çOrH(MiHTH

t^-lOCO TfOi^Tf© COrH

oo ci

THCO©iHTi<r-lTl<lOkÄlOCOlO<Ä

r-(OCOiOCOiH©C5C<l't©^'^

t^rHCOCO^CO^C^CO lO©COl>r^

CO CO © OÍ CO" TjT l> ri r-T IG cT rH

C<ICOC5THrHTHlO T* COrH

iH (M <N rH

TH iO IO

(M © ©

00 "^ 00

ci CO t>

iH t> ri

C^ »Ä C5

©^ CO -^

© CM 00

t> "«* ©

rH rH ©

oo ci ci

© © TH

© © rH

CJ <M

© 00

t-T ço

rH X

CO ^

00©COlOCOlLßlßCOrHco(M(ÄCO<MCOCi©l>lOCiCOU5

TtCiCOCOOOC^COOCOcOCOTHOOißlOlOrH©©^©^

CO©OOC^OT^Wt>^ioçOlArHC^rHW©lOrHOOCOl>

t- CO .t> cT rH CO ^ OO" Iß ci 00 cT rt" ©" CO" IO t-" ri rH TjT rH Co" TÍ<rHC<lOOCOrHTÍ<C5©t>rHt-OCOCOTHCOrHt-»ÍDCOTf

l>(N OOOO^rHt^COt^t^oOC^C^ÖOOCOOOCOC^N^C^

CT Ci 00 Ci rH IH" rH" ci rH CO rH ci ci

2 £ CQ +>

SCQ

13

S -M

o

TJ fi

i*-S

* s

t-a >» g cö

5t g J

O o

_. oJ CÖ .2 ü ü

.2 Ä J3

. H §

&iaamaissippijiana

essee

ucky

îH ^D to .ï: c -Ü ©

o oö w s ö c -g •5 -S .« -g « o .22 ¿ w

rHC<IC0',*lßCOt-00Ci©rH(MCO'^LßCOC,-00Ci©T-IC^COTt<lßCOt>00<Ä©

rHrHrHrHrHrHTHrHrHrHCOCqC^lMCMC^C^íNlNC^OO

10
^

HO

Ö

Os

&

o

00

^ s

-tí ^

^ so

"O

í3oo

Soo

S "5

Ö

Iso

1

CO

CO

00

oo

CO Tí LO

t> "^ rH

00 C^ O

TH 00 l>

a m co

00 O iO

(N O

Oí 00

TH 00

rf 00

00 00

IO TH

rH O

C^ TH

ÇO r-T

LO r>

00 ©í

Tí (N

^ Tí

CD 00

ÇD 00

O 00^

TjT 00

o

IO TH

iO 00 ï> 00

»Ä Oí C5 TH

^ r>-^ oo

OÍ LO 00 o

LO TJH TH iH

t-^ T^ 00^

Oí c<r LO

oa oa oa o o tTí LO w oa iO» o

c^ Oí o^ i> o o^

i-T <D l> 00 CD 00

(M TH Oí IO Oí t-

(M LO ^ 00 00 00

c<r C0 Tf TjT 00

LO TH TH

o oo

00 ^

(M LO

t- 00

OIOOOOO _ _ _ _____ __ ___>©OOTHLOC£>C<1©0-----

ÇD^ O^ O^ LO O^ O

^ 0^ O TH 00 O "••> ".j v-^ wo — w —- — —' — — —-

C0C<IOL0<ML0t-00OOO0íOOoOír>00 O^C^LOO^^TH^T^l^rHOí^O^THTÍiOLO

CíTco'LOCÍCvroo'nrLO OOCOoT ^5 OT-T LO^OOLOLO

<M OOCOíHOOTHIH THCOr-l t- CD TH<N0O

TH IH LOTH (MOTH <N

OOOOOOOOOOOOO — ^^. •-«_-, _ _

- - - -OOOOOOOOOOO<MOOOOOO

^ O O ©^ O O LO o o o O^ 00 LO^ LO^ ^ o o

"LOLoooToorooooçoaroTriroo

t-OOOOOOíOOoOíUOOrHiHOO LO O TF C- O O

Oí CU Tí

Oí 00 Tí

rH iH CD

TH 00 00

00 <M Oí

00^ ï> «^

oo" t> t>

iH €«- (N

(M 00 O

rH LO 00

IO^ t> rH

O" 00 T-T

00 CO tCO (N O

r-T c<r oT

rH Tí

O

00

o"

00

(M

O

O

o

o

o

o

o O o O O ^ © © © © © ,3, ,3 © ©

o o LO o o © © LO © © ©

Tí^ LO^ ai o l> LO © Gl t> ©^ ©^ LO CO LO

CO LO oT t> (NT 00 © LO Oí" t> Tí" © © TjT ©

Tí Tí Tí CO (M l> LO CO rH <M CO © Tí © Tí

I> (M co 00 <M^ CO co Oí 00 rH LO © Tí Oí

-v o" ^ LO t> oT r-T oT ©~ 00 © T-H CO ^

(N TH CO (M TH CO © rH (M Tí © <M

TH rH LO TH <M ©^

r-T

rH 00

O O o O O © © © © © © © © © ©

o O o O O © © © © © © © 00 ©

LO o CO ©^ ©^ © © © ©, LO © © LO ©** <M 00 o" 00 LO oo" oT CN LO fc- <M 00 LO CO CO

O Tí CO o t- CO Oí Oí CO co (M 00 CO 00 <M

CD LO rH cq rH (M 00 CO © ^ © t> Tí ©^ »V ^ oT CD LO CO »" © r> 00 Tí" t> CO oT CO

TH O CO

rH

(M TH rH

Tí

00 rH 00

rH

00

Oí

00 (M

(M

s«

«O © TH CO © ©

OS © <M CO © ©

rH O I> O^ ©^ ©^

(N I> © OT © i-T

IO O CM <M IO t>

IO ÇO c^ o^ Tí^ ©^

oT lS CQ cS <£ Oí"

iH Oí t> (M

© © © o

© © © ©

©^ © © 00

CO 00 LO ci

IO Oí rH <N

O^ ^ l>

rH Oí" t>

<M Oí rH

Tí

© © © © ©

© © © Oí ©

©^ O © t> ©

LO" t-^ oT CO tr-

© © LO Oí ©

l> rH^ t> 00 rH^

rH ci rH rH"

LO t> TH ©

rH 00 TH (N

00 CO TH CO rH

00 LO <N CO tIO^ 00 t> Oí^ W

oo" © cT cT ©

00 r-i (N <N 00

rH 00 <N Oí^ C^

oT cT co* LO Tí

rH © Tí (M

O CO 00 CrH © 00 ©

"tf 00^ rH^ 00^

oT oo" co" oT

UO rH LO rH

Oí^ CO t-^ Tí^

t> Tí" LO" LO"

Oí © rH

Tí TH

r> Tí o io LO © ©

O IO Oí "^ CO rH Tí

O IO © rH^ Oí^ 00^ C^

rH rH O Oí" LO" ©" oT

CO CO CO t> T-H © 00

rH I> CO 00^ CO "* rH

LO t> Oí" CO

00 Tí 00 CO

rH t>

^ rH

l> CO

oo" oí

rH O

<N r> <M Oí

(M ,H LO ©

CO CO Oí^ Tí^

' r-T 00 C<f 00

t> 00 CO 00

00 00 t> Tí^

oo © «N" oT

LO <M

COrHLOOirH^TÍTÍOíOO TÍ00IOcoOí0000(N|OSTÍ

(M^ CO^ 00^ LO 00 <N Tí^ rH rH |>

oT oo" oo" 00 "^ 00 l> Tí" IO O

0q00LOlOOí00©TÍTÍC0

00 00^©rH ^ CO © ©q ^rH

rH IO" Tí" Tí QQ ^jT ONT

Tí 00 TH Oí 00 Oí Tí

Tí rH rH CO rH

rH LO

C^ Oí^

io"(Nr

00 Tí

00 CO

t-" rH"

rH Oí

rH CO TÍ

00 <N t>

l> CO Tí

^" i> oo"

CN © 0O

O CO 00

LO o oT

00 rH

TÍ LO OS

Tí 00 rH

LO rH CO

00 © 00

IO 00 00

OS 00 rH

IO rH 00

© 00 rH

I> rH rH

Tf T* l>

o o oo

00 rH rH

<N

C000<NTí)L0Tí<N000íC0Tí00©00TíO t-COt-TÍTH^HOOCOOOt-OírH©©©©

Tí O^NCOC- rH LOOq^CO^LOOOOqTj^Q^O^OO

'-^A"'^Tí"LO(>Í000CriOrHrHrHTÍt>COC0 C0(MO00(M00tr-rH©TÍ00IO(M

rH^ rH 00 <N COCOOíC0CO00^l>0^©

co LOTH" ^"TíaTcoaroot^or

(M CO rH rH (M 00 (M

00 (M OS

© LO tO Oí CO

00 od

t- 00

IO

CO

OS

©

CO

<N"

Tí 00

00 LO

LO LO

00 00

Oí

IO

LO

00 <M Tí

IO t> o

^ C^ LO

OT 00 rH

CO (M CO

© 00 rH

rH t-

^ CO

CO IO

rH IO

o «o^

co" oo"

<N rH

00 IO © 00 rH OS

Tí t- CO © LO rH

t> 00 © rH O^ CO

rH" rH 00 00 LO CO

Oí 00 Oí Tí Oí CO

O^ IO (NL O^ rH^

t^ t> oo" ©" oT

t^- © rH rH

CO rH <N

^

LO (N (M OS

t- (M LO ©

C^ Tí^ LO^ 00

oT i-T i-T ©

t- Tí CO rH

© ©

Oí 00

^

r^ r^H <N CO Oí

00 rH © © CO

t^ rH LO^ 00 CO

" oí oo" 00 LO

o oo ©a oo

00 ©^ CO 00^

LO rH Tí"

CO

CO TÍ CO © 00 Tí ©

00 t> OS rH O © 00

LO^ oq Ol^ Tí^ ©^ OS Oq

rH rH" rH Tí" t-" CO 00

t> rH O Tí 00 LO Oí

os^ 00 CO 00 t> ©^ ©

Tí" oT ccT oT co i> oT

TH rH OÍ 00 ©i

§^ TI

» A

0

O S3 .

PH PQ

e8

Oí

Otó«

ft

s

o

<+H «H C n

0

o o HH PH

-M 0CS

O

O

o

o

«

CQ

^ r-H ^ .s §

S «H U2 o

!3

fe O

a, x

09 0O

5* *

^

ft

13

â> -g "3 '5 - - ^3HM ^i^ OW - ~ O

5 W^aj-cßPkQoW

S ^

fe o

TS

&

3

S s-â-Sfi

g g

ce 5

.2 ö

ai

_ V.>l .PH eLj

"S ^

M

.ÍÍ 03 4J ^

^

0

rH .22

^ -E^

© .S « rH

» ^

5 S

»2 _X SH i-L

a» O o DG

il
propriation was made by Congress for that

year). In addition to the work on agricultural

statistics, the agricultural material in the

Patent Office was substantially expanded in

the years after Ellsworth's departure. However, the annual estimates of agricultural production by States and Territories were continued only through 1848 and discontinued

thereafter.

Subsequent Commissioners of the Patent

Office, while they were concerned with other

types of agricultural data, did not resume the

efforts to produce annual estimates. Under the

third Commissioner of Patents, Thomas Ewbank, who served for about 21/2 years, agricultural work in the Patent Office expanded

steadily, but mainly in directions other than

statistics.

The bold attempts of Ellsworth and his successor, Burke, to make national estimates of

production for the important agricultural

products and to estimate animal populations

each year, were not looked upon with favor by

Patent Office leadership after 1849. While the

work in agriculture grew, reports covering

much technical material and data on trade

prices, etc., were published. There were no

further attempts by the Patent Office to estimate agricultural production in the years between the census enumerations. In fact Orange

Judd, editor of the American Agriculturist,

derided the whole effort as a "seed store in

Washington."

Development after 1850

The years from 1850 to 1863 were indeed a

period of great transition in American agriculture. In the first place the decade of the

ISSO's was one of unusual prosperity and vast

changes. Foreign migration to the United

States was tremendous. The census of 1850

showed that more than 1,700,000 people had

come to the country during the last decade.

The census of 1860 showed nearly 6,200,000

had come since 1850. Many of these newcomers

were lured by agriculture.

In this period, the West drew heavily on the

people of the older colonies. In 1850, for

example, the census reported that 154,891

people born in Connecticut were now living

outside that State. This was more than half

the number of native-born people still living

in Connecticut at the time of the census.23For

North Carolina likewise, more than half of the

people who had been born in that State were

living in other States. The westward migration

of the people in the century following the end

of the American Revolution has been referred

to as the greatest single fact in American

history.24In this movement agriculture was

transformed completely, from the old selfsufficient type that was known at the beginning of that century to a more commercial

agriculture, increasingly dependent upon

national and international markets.

The westward movement of agricultural

production before 1860 is shown by census comparisons. For example, in 1840 the census

showed that the New England and Middle

Atlantic States produced one-third of the

Nation's wheat; in the 1860 census these

States had only one-seventh of the wheat production. During this period the Nation's wheat

crop doubled. For barley, in the 1840 census

the Northeastern States had 85 percent of the

production. In the following two decades

national production increased nearly fourfold,

but in the 1860 census the Northeastern

States had less than 38 percent of the barley

production. For cattle, the 1840 census found

over 32 percent of production in the Northeastern States but in 1860 only 20 percent.

While these changes were occurring, the Northeastern region developed other lines of output

such as more dairying (especially cheesemaking) , and more feed crops such as oats, hay,

and corn, as well as special items like tobacco,

hops, and flax.

The vast developments of the decades preceding 1860 in American agriculture may be

summed up as follows:25

1. The great westward movement of the people

in the United States.

2. The development of a public land policy which

resulted in the Homestead Act of 1862.

3. The growth of cotton production in the South.

4. Application of science and invention to farm

machinery.

5. The development, especially after 1830, of

transportation.

23 U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1850 Census Compendium, p. 114.

24 Learned, H. B. The President's Cabinet, p. 293.

1912.

25 Ibid., p. 305.

12
Out of the great changes which American

agriculture experienced in this period there

emerged needs for information on agriculture

other than that already provided by the census.

Since there was no experience anywhere which

offered a pattern, it had to emerge bit by bit

as men wrestled with the problems of the

period. In this process, movements to deal with

the troubles of farm producers in a time of

agricultural abundance and the trend toward

more exports and more commercialization of

the industry appeared in various places. The

political climate favored more Government

work in agriculture, and efforts were made

during the decade of the ISSO's and earlier to

create a national bureau of agriculture and

statistics. The evolution of a second major data

system in agriculture can be better understood

if some of these are reviewed.

James T. Earle and Agricultural Societies

In the middle of the 19th century there was

a revival of the agricultural society movement,

especially State agricultural societies. The influence of these societies was important.

The Maryland State Agricultural Society

made notable efforts to develop the collection

of agricultural statistics. On October 5, 1854,

at the society's annual meeting in Baltimore,

a resolution by J. T. Earle for the appointment

of a special committee of the society to collect

statistics on crops was adopted. A circular

(questionnaire) was sent by the committee to

county agricultural societies in Maryland as

well as to the officers of other State agricultural societies, but few bothered to reply.26

Earle also sent a questionnaire to individuals

and to county agricultural societies, to report

by October 10 on the state of crops. While

the results of the effort are not known, it may

have influenced later efforts. It appears to have

been an attempt at annual estimates similar,

perhaps, to those which the Patent Office discontinued after 1848.

John Jay's Statistical View of American

Agriculture

On the evening of August 25, 1858, following

the establishment of an agricultural section of

the American Geographical and Statistical

Society of New York, John Jay, the first chairman of the new section, gave an address.27

In this address the author undertook to

"glance over the field which the Agricultural

Statistics of our country are destined to embrace."

STATISTICS AS A BASIS OF POLICY.—Jay believed that statistics, if adequately provided,

would be useful in guiding our policy in agriculture as well as in all social matters. He

quoted Lord Stanley as follows:

When, therefore, in discussing social questions, we

apply the statistical test, we are really doing

nothing more than appealing from imagination

to fact, from conjecture to certainty, from an imperfect to a perfect method of observation.

His was a plea for the performance of statistical work involving Government at all

levels, but he recognized that the efforts by

States so far had been unequal and perhaps

inadequate on this subject.

Jay's paper was a gem from the standpoint

of bringing together much current thought

of the period. It was an able plea for improved descriptive analysis of the rural economy at 10-year intervals by the Federal census, and for a Federal program in general. However, it failed to record the parallel

development during that decade of a need for

current information to guide farm plans in

production and marketing.

Headway Through Journalism

While John Jay in his New York address

made no mention of the farmers' need for

current data, a breakthrough was brewing in

the correspondence of editor Orange Judd at

the office of the American Agriculturist on

'The American Farmer 10(9): 278-279, Mar. 1855.

27 Jay, John. American Agriculture, A Statistical

View. p. 5.

13
Water Street, only city blocks away. The recognition of public interest in crop information

as the growing season progressed, and short

reports on the situation in issues of the

American Agriculturist, were the beginning

of a new pattern that was to develop into a

major agricultural data system. The new system, when combined with the census, was to

serve the Nation's agriculture for the century to follow. Other editors had, of course,

discussed crop prospects, and price prospects

based on the crop outlook, but the work of the

American Agriculturist led to a major development.

As near as is known, Judd began in the

middle ISSO's to get from his subscribers

brief summary reports of observations on the

condition and prospect of crops as the season

advanced. He got a considerable volume of

mail from which he distilled the essential

facts. This is shown in the September 1858

issue of the paper, "Reports on Crops—A

Model.,,

In 1857, after an extensive trip through the

Middle West, editor Judd wrote on "The Crop

Prospects" in the September issue.28 By 1859

two reports on crops appeared—one in July

(page 200) on "The Crops—The Frost" and

another in the August issue (page 252) under

the title "Reports on the Crops." In the latter,

16 short statements from respondents from

various places were printed. Each was a short

summary of crop conditions and prospects in

the area where the respondent was located.

Evolution of Monthly Crop Reports

After some years of reporting on crops by

subscribers of the paper, a larger project was

proposed by Judd in the March 1862 issue of

the "American Agriculturist."29 He proposed

that:

1. Let the readers of the Agriculturist in every

town counsel together, and select some man who

may be relied upon for good judgment, and general

ability to estimate with some degree of accuracy in

regard to the leading crops, wheat, corn, etc., (a),

what is the amount of surface (area) sown or

28 Judd, Orange. The American Agriculturist 16: 175,

Mar. 1862.

29 Ibid., 72.

planted, as compared with previous years; and

(b), the prospect at any date. Wherever there is

a Farmer's Club, let the Club choose the reporter.

Let it be understood by him that he is desired

to keep on the look-out, and be able to respond

to all questions as to the prospect of the crops.

Where any subscriber stands alone, and can get

no one to cooperate with him, let him volunteer

to act himself, and the very fact that his report

is to go out to the country will lead him to be

observant and make inquiries.

2. Let the name of such persons be forwarded to

the Editor of the Agriculturist without delay.

3. To every such person we will send out a sheet

of blank forms, to be filled up with a brief summary of the amount and condition of the leading

crops of the different kinds. The blanks will be so

arranged as to require very little writing in filling

up, and therefore involve but little labor aside

from that required to be well informed as to the

condition of the crops.30

4. One of these blanks to be filled up at given

dates, say May 10, June 10, July 10, and August

10, and forwarded to this office.

5. These reports will be published in tabular form

in the Agriculturist, either in full or in a welldigested summary.

So, in 1862, five monthly crop reports were

published—May through September—by the

American Agriculturist. The U.S. Department of Agriculture was established in May

1862 and its first crop report appeared in

July 1863, using much of the pattern Orange

Judd had worked out.

Rarely, indeed, has an individual diagnosed

a need in agriculture and met it as directly as

editor Judd in his five monthly crop reports

in 1862. His was the genius which saw beyond previous writers to the need for current

monthly information, as well as for annual estimates which had been accomplished in the

early work of the Patent Office. By having

voluntary respondents report by mail early in

each month, Judd was able to measure currently both the acreage and the yield variables in crop production. He asked respondents for comparative estimates on "area" and

"prospects" for selected crops, and his journalistic opportunity to work with voluntary

correspondents who were his readers and subscribers accomplished much in a single crop

season. Orange Judd and those who worked

with him made crop reports news and they

have been news ever since. The pattern used

by the Department of Agriculture from the

beginning of its statistical work in 1863 to

the present employs Judd's method.

30 The original questionnaire used for this purpose,

presumably in sets of 5 for the 5 months to be reported, has not been located and was not available

for this study.

14
The U.S. Department of Agriculture and Agricultural Statistics

Beginning with the early proposal of George

Washington in 1796, various efforts were

made to establish an agricultural bureau in

the U.S. Government. At least four Presidents

—Washington, Van Buren, Taylor, and Lincoln—mentioned the subject in their messages

to Congress. The proposal of Washington in

December 1796 was not acted on in Congress.

That of Van Buren in December 1838 resulted in the inclusion of agricultural data in

the U.S. census in 1840. The recommendation of Zachary Taylor in 1849 got no immediate results, but that of Lincoln in December

1861 resulted in enactment by Congress on

May 15, 1862, of a law to create what has become the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

During the period many others, including

men in the Patent Office, the agricultural

societies, and the agricultural press, suggested and urged that an agricultural and

statistical bureau be created in the Government. However, Congress was divided on the

issue. It was not until the Civil War year of

1862 that legislation was passed to establish

a Department of Agriculture and transfer to

it the agricultural work of the Patent Office.

15
PART II. THE FOUNDING PERIOD, 1862-1905

PROLOGUE

In retrospect, the period from May 15, 1862,

when the U.S. Department of Agriculture was

established by act of Congress to 1905 when

the Crop Reporting Board was set up stands

out as a distinct chapter in the history of the

estimating service.

The new Department under the Commissioner of Agriculture was immediately confronted with the problem of laying the foundation for a service fundamental to the development of agriculture, the basic enterprise of

the Nation. The problems were tremendous

and compounded by the chaos brought on by

a devastating war which was still in progress.

The accomplishments of the first few years

were nothing short of amazing considering

the difficulty of communication and the disruption of farm operations.

Two laws that were to have a profound effect on agriculture were passed in 1862: the

Homestead Act was approved on May 20 and

the Morrill Land Grant College Act was approved on July 2.

Demand for food between 1861 and 1865

stimulated interest in agricultural statistics.

It was also responsible for more commercialization of northern agriculture and temporary

diversification of southern agriculture. This

gave impetus to the first American agricultural revolution.

The most significant development following

the close of the Civil War was the rapid

growth of the railroad system. An act of Congress, approved on July 1, 1862, granted land

to the Union Pacific Railroad Company and

the Central Pacific Railroad Company for construction of a transcontinental railroad. The

road was completed with the joining of the

rails of the two companies at Promontory

Point, Utah, on May 10, 1869. By 1870 the

total mileage of railroads had reached nearly

53,000 miles. The Pennsylvania Railroad had

developed a through route between Philadelphia and Chicago, and the New York Central

had worked out a through connection from

New York and Chicago. The consolidation of

a railroad net, by providing end-to-end connections, was not always a simple matter because of the diversity of gages. New England

and New York roads were generally standard

gage—4 feet, 8Va inches. Southern railroads

followed the plans of the South Carolina Railroad of 5 feet, while in Pennsylvania and

Ohio there were a variety of gages. Changing

the gage involved changing the roadbed and

the equipment. The standard gage did not become universal until the ISSO's and by 1900

the total mileage operated had increased to

193,346 miles.31

The completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869 stimulated the movement of agriculture into the Great Plains. The Wheat

Belt began to move across the Mississippi

River and the Corn Belt began to be stabilized

in its present area. The Cotton Belt also

started to move westward and by 1890 Texas

was becoming the chief cotton State.

New farm equipment became available.

Gang plows and sulky plows came into use

shortly after the Civil War. Springtooth harrows also became available. In 1880, 3,000

twine binders were marketed and horsedrawn

combines came into use in the Pacific Coast

wheat areas between 1890 and 1900. By 1890

most of the basic potentiality of agricultural

machinery dependent on horsepower had been

discovered. Agriculture was becoming increasingly mechanized and commercialized. For example, it required 8 to 10 man-hours of labor

to produce 1 acre (20 bushels) of wheat using

a gang plow, seeder, harrow, binder, thresher,

wagons, and horses as contrasted with 50 to

60 man-hours in the period from 1825 to 1895.

81 Jones, Eliot. Principles of Railway Transportation,

pp. 43-66. The MacMillan Co., 1929.

16
It required 14 to 16 man-hours of labor to

produce 1 acre (40 bushels) of corn using 2

bottom gang plows, disc and peg tooth harrows, and a 2-row planter. This compares with

about 30 to 35 hours of man-labor with walking plow, harrow, and hand planting during

the period of the ISSO's.32

The growth of the urban population necessitated bringing food supplies from increasingly distant areas. This, of course, created the

need for facilities to assemble, ship, process,

and distribute food in the growing cities. To

perform this service, the commission merchants, brokers, and all of that group generally

referred to as "middlemen" became increasingly important.

A critical situation developed in 1893. The

eastern cities were flooded with grain, pork,

and beef. Farm prices sank very low and the

business depression of 1893 added to the already depressed farm situation so that debt

paying became almost impossible, and mortgage foreclosures were common.

These difficulties brought forth many suggestions as to what should be done to avoid

recurrence. Questions were raised as to the

cost of production, railway rates, policies of

large-scale processors, marketing methods, and

market prices. There was criticism of the exchanges—particularly the operations on the

futures market. There were also suggestions

for low-interest farm credit, regulation of

the meatpacking industry, low loans on commodities in storage, better crop reports, adjustments of production by individuals, and

many more, some of which seemed "far out"

at the time, but not so strange 40 years later.

In 1894, Senator W. A. Peffer offered the

following explanation for the depressed agricultural situation:

Over trading tends to create extravagant estimates

of the supply and that in itself depresses prices.

When prices are regulated by a market which

appears to be very full, they will tend downward.33

32 U.S. Department of Agriculture. A Chronology of

American Agriculture, 1790-1965. Econ. Res. Serv.,

SI. rev. 1966. (A fold-out chart.)

33 U.S. Congress. Agricultural Depression: Causes

and Remedies. Sen. Com. on Agr. and For. Report by

Senator W. A. Peifer, Feb. 15, 1894, 53rd Cong., 3rd

Sess., Sen. Rpt. 787.

The first of four remedies suggested by the

Senator was an improved system of crop estimates and market information so that

farmers might be informed on market supply.

This collapse in the economy highlighted an

area to which the new Department of Agriculture had given little attention. The office

of the Statistician had subsisted on $10,000 to

$20,000 a year for the first 20 years of its

existence. This office was actually providing

the first and basic marketing service for

American agriculture. From 1882 to 1902, the

appropriations increased from $94,000 to

$146,000, which was below the rate of increase

for the overall appropriation. The emphasis

in the Department had turned to more glamorous work, such as: research in the physical

sciences, development of new seed, introduction of new varieties, and learning to grow

''two blades of grass where one grew before."

The Depression of 1893 brought to the fore

the need for attention to the problems of

marketing and distribution, for development

of laws providing for rules of fair play in the

marketplace, and for regulation of the means

of transportation between the farm and the

marketplace. Forty years later the Statistician and his bureau were the principal ones

in the Department of Agriculture giving attention to the economic problems of agriculture.

It would seem that the difficulties and criticisms interspersed with the successes during the founding period acted as the forge

that tempered and strengthened the metal

out of which the Crop Reporting Service

was formed. There is one question, at least,

that seems to have been answered with some

finality during the 43-year period. Objections

during the early part of that period were often

a broadside blast, seeking to eliminate the service entirely. These kinds of complaints often

served to bring out support, and more often

than not, gave the Statistician an opportunity

to "unhinge" the generalizations on which

such tirades were frequently based. Other criticisms often proved helpful in correcting

deficiencies and improving the service. At least

by the turn of the century the question was

no longer, "Shall there be a statistical reporting service?", but rather, "What should be

17
done to improve and strengthen the service to

better meet the ever changing needs of the

people?" This attitude was most dramatically

proven in 1905 when the basic principles of

the service were severely threatened.

CHAPTER 2. A BEGINNING IS MADE,

1862-65

Department of Agriculture Founded, 1862

When Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860, the United States had 2 million

farms valued at over $7 billion, on which there

were some 9 million cattle and which produced

839 million bushels of corn, 173 million bushels

of wheat, and many other crops.34

The new President understood this only in

a general way, as these statistics from the

1860 census would not be available to the

public for another two years due to the ponderous process of tabulating and summarizing

the voluminous returns. It was this lack of

knowledge of current conditions that sparked

the efforts of farmers, agricultural societies,

and editors of farm journals35 to establish

what Lincoln called "an agricultural and statistical bureau."36

The long struggle to establish a separate

Department of Agriculture of Cabinet rank

and devoted to the interests of agriculture was

part of the campaign to provide reliable statistics concerning the Nation's sprawling agriculture. This concern was wide and deep as it

was commonly believed that the farmer was

systematically fleeced by speculators who possessed knowledge of crop conditions not available to thousands of individual and isolated

countrymen.

After the term of Ellsworth's successor as

Commissioner of Patents, Edmund C. Burke,

ended in 1849, attempts of the agricultural

division of the Patent Office to provide facts

about crop production had become so anemic

they were treated with scorn and derision.

84 U.S. Bureau of the Census. Historical Statistics of

the U.S., 1789-1945. Washington, D.C., 1949, pp.

95-106.

95 Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture for

1866, p. 526. Washington, 1867.

36 True, Alfred C. A History of Agricultural Experimentation and Research in the United States, 1607-

1925. Washington, D.C., Gov. Printing Off., 1937, p. 40

(quoting Lincoln's Message to Congress, Dec. 3, 1861).

Such criticisms should not obscure the fact

that the Patent Office data were used by the

public. For example, in the only extensive talk

Lincoln ever gave on agriculture he said,

"Many years ago I saw it stated in a Patent

Office Report that eighteen bushels was the

average crop of wheat throughout the United

States."37 Bad as the Patent Office statistics

may have been, they were the best available

and so were used. An Indiana farmer, Lewis

Bollman, later the Departmental Statistician,

said:

The Patent Office reports of transactions of foreign societies, or scientific essays are so unconnected with practical matters, and written in such

technical and scholastic language as to be not only

distasteful to the farmers, but unintelligible to

them. This was the legitimate result of the fact

that the chief clerk was usually a mere writer

without any particular acquaintance with agriculture. They knew nothing of farmers or of

farming.38

Such grass-roots clamor, swelled by the angry

voice of the farm press,39became so persistent

that a succession of Commissioners of the

Patent Office urged that the statistical work

be shifted elsewhere, perhaps to a new Department of Agriculture.40

Withdrawal of Southern members of Congress following secession made possible the

passage of the Homestead Act, the Land-Grant

College Act, and the Act of May 15, 1862, establishing the Department of Agriculture.

Congress provided for a separate Department

headed by a Commissioner who was responsible to the President but who did not have

Cabinet status.

Next to interest in seeing a Department of

Agriculture established, the farm journals

were most concerned as to who would head the

new establishment. Their hopes and expectations were high. The American Agriculturist

in its issue of March 1862 under the caption

"Who Shall Be Head of It?" declared that the

Commissioner must be "an intelligent, capable,

honest man, with special talent and qualifi37 Wisconsin State Fair, Sept. 30, 1859 In Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Agriculture, U.S. Dept.

Agr., 1937. p. 43.

38 Lewis Bollman to Senator H. S. Lane of Indiana,

Dec. 26, 1862, National Archives.

30 Working Farmer 4:125, 169 (1852), 8:25-26, 217

(1856).

40 U.S. Commissioner of Patents, Report (Washington, 1851), Pt. 2, p. 653-656.

18
cations for the post; one who can take in a

broad view of the general agricultural and

horticultural interests of the whole country."

In May the editor again stressed the need for

a competent head of the new Department and

pointed out that the incumbent would receive

"the comfortable salary of $3,000 a year."41

A decision was not long in coming.

On July 1, 1862, Isaac Newton, who had

headed the agricultural work of the Patent

Office, was appointed the first Commissioner

of the Department of Agriculture by President Lincoln. The reactions to this appointment were mixed and sometimes caustic. The

"Rural New Yorker" greeted the news with a

derisive headline, "Who is Isaac Newton?" It

then followed with a sarcastic editorial that

castigated the new Commissioner and alleged

he was so illiterate his writings included such

words as "lettis, shoogar, inons (onions) and

sausgee (sausage)."42

The American Agriculturist evidenced its

chagrin in its issue of August 1862, with this

bleak announcement:

The Bureau of Agriculture—Isaac Newton of

Pennsylvania, Commissioner, and Richard C.

McCormick, of New York, Chief Clerk. This is the

state of the case. It is our duty to our readers

to announce the fact. We wish to say nothing

more on the subject at present.48

Since Newton was the first head of the Department of Agriculture and inaugurated its

statistical service, it is appropriate to probe

a little further into the story of this controversial figure. According to his granddaughter,

Issac Newton was born in Burlington County,

N.J., March 31, 1800, to Isaac and Mary

(Newton) Newton, a family of English ancestry and Quaker faith. The young father

soon died leaving an 18-year old widow and

baby son Isaac. The mother and son lived for

years in the farm home of her prosperous

father-in-law. The growing boy attended

41 American Agriculturist, Mar. 1862, p. 68; May

1862, p. 136.

42 Rural New Yorker (Aug. 30, 1862). This appears

to have been grossly unfair in view of Newton's accomplishments as Commissioner.

48 American Agriculturist, Aug. 1862, p. 228. The

Chief Clerk, McCormick, later became Governor of

Arizona and contributed comments on the agricultural

situation to his old colleagues in the Department. See

Monthly Report (November-December 1866), p. 442.

"county and state" schools, but apparently did

not continue on to college. When 21 years of

age, Newton married Dorothy Birdsall, and

took over management of two adjoining farms

in Delaware County, Pa., which he developed

into a model of "neatness, order and productiveness."44 Casting about for additional income Newton opened an "ice cream and confectionary shop in Philadelphia."45

About 1854, Newton "against his wife's advice"46

bought a 1,000-acre tract of land in

Virginia. When his wife refused to move to

Virginia, Newton was compelled to operate

his farm through overseers. A combination of

absentee management, malaria, and war devastation brought disaster and in 1861 Newton

was in Washington, D.C., looking for a Government job. Over the years Newton had sent

butter and other choice products47from his

farm to the White House and more recently

had become acquainted with President Lincoln.

In August 1861 Newton was made superintendent48

of the Agricultural Division of the

Patent Office and the next spring he found it

a short step to the Commissionership of the

new Department of Agriculture.

Thus the Department of Agriculture made

its start in borrowed basement rooms—headed

by a politically minded, bankrupt farmer, under a President who considered himself "...

no sort of a farmer."49

Although the Department's beginning was

hardly auspicious, the times were indeed

"pregnant with mighty events." 50 The Organic

Act gave wide latitude for action and Newton

proved to be energetic and basically sound in

"Amanda A. Newton. Typed statement in Library

of U.S.D.A. Perhaps unconsciously Miss Newton used

the same words to describe the model farm as had

been employed in 1872 by James M. Swank in his Department of Agriculture, Its History and Objects

(Washington, D.C., Gov. Printing Off., 1872), p. 27.

45 Amanda Newton. Ibid.

46 Ibid.

47 These included a "fatted calf" to President-elect

Fillmore according to Amanda Newton's typed statement.

48 Swank, James M., p. 24.

49U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Agriculture. Washington, D.C.,

Gov. Printing Off., 1937.

50 Swank, James M., p. 24.

19
his proposals. The Commissioner adopted these

"objects" for the Department :

51

1. Collecting, arranging, publishing, and

disseminating, for the benefit of the Nation,

statistical and other useful information in regard to agriculture in its widest acception.

2. Collecting, from different parts of our

own and foreign lands, such valuable animals,

cereals, seeds, plants, slips, and cuttings as

may be obtained by exchange, purchase, or

gift.

3. Answering the inquiries of farmers and

others on all matters relating to agriculture.

4. Testing, by experiment, the value of different agricultural implements and their adaptation to the purposes intended, as well as

testing the value of cereals, seeds, and plants,

and their adaptation to our soil and climate.

5. Analysis, by means of a chemical laboratory, of various soils, grains, fruits, plants,

vegetables, and manures, and publishing the

results.

6. Establishing a professorship of botany

and entomology.

7. Establishing an agricultural library and

museum.

First Annual Report

The first "object" listed by Newton pertained to the collection of agricultural statistics and was in keeping with Section 3 of the

Act establishing the Department, which read

in part as follows:

It shall be the duty of the Commissioner of

Agriculture to acquire and preserve in his department all information concerning agriculture which

he can obtain by means of books and correspondence and by practical and scientific experiments

(accurate records of which experiments shall be

kept in his office), by the collection of statistics,

and by any other appropriate means within his

power.52

Commissioner Newton energetically pursued

this object throughout his period in office and

was responsible for the start of the statistical

services of the Department. One of his first

actions was to utilize the talents of Jacob

Richards Dodge, who had been working in

the Agricultural Division of the Patent Office,

to assist in preparing the Commissioner's report to the President.53 This first Annual Report of the Department of Agriculture was

submitted by Commissioner Newton to President Lincoln with a letter of transmittal dated

January 1, 1863.

The Commissioner's report was preceded by

the full text of the Act of May 15, 1862,

establishing the Department. Newton then reviewed the history of agriculture, and claimed

that *'there has been no great and general advance in agriculture in modern times till within the past thirty years.,, 54 The report itself,

however, was a notable achievement for a

fledgling agency with a small staff operating

under wartime conditions. Articles on many

phases of agriculture written by various authors were incorporated as part of the Commissioner's report, comprising in all a volume of

632 pages. A distinctive feature was the section on agricultural statistics.

Statistics from Census of 1860

The pages devoted to statistics included information from the Census of 1860 pertaining

to agriculture for the year 1859, estimates of

production for 1863, weather data, and export

records. Although Newton's letter of transmittal was dated January 1, 1863, delays in

printing made it possible to include estimates

for the 1863 crop year. In keeping with the

times, the census data were shown separately

for "Loyal" and "Disloyal" States. Apparently

it was believed necessary to explain why the

Department was publishing Census Bureau

data and Newton did so in these words:

The Census returns for 1860 having been published, it is due to agriculture that at the earliest

moment returns of the principal agricultural products should be republished in the annual report

of the Department of Agriculture.55

The Census figures were historical data,

that is, they referred to conditions 2 years

previous rather than to the present or to pros51 U.S. Commissioner of Agriculture Report, 1862.

Washington, 1863, p. 20. They had originally been suggested some 20 years earlier by Jesse Buell.

52 See full text in appendix.

53 True, Alfred Charles. A History of Agricultural

Experimentation and Research in the U.S., 1607-1925.

p. 45.

54 U.S. Commissioner of Agriculture, Report 1862,

Washington, 1863, p. 7.

55 Ibid., p. 546.

20
pects for the future. Although such data were

useful they failed to meet many needs. As the

Commissioner's report states :

The census returns give the amount only of the

crops, and when an estimate of value is made,

the prices of a seaport, usually of New York,

have been selected, and by these the value declared. In this way values have been exhibited

far above the real value, having no other existence

than in this false mode of estimating them. The

census has never returned the yield per acre, nor

the number of acres under cultivation. Whether the

comparative number of acres was increasing and

the yield per acre decreasing, or the contrary,

thus showing whether our agricultural production,

represented by immense crops, was at the expense

of the soil, or whether an improved system of

farming was gradually restoring the exhausted

soils of past years, were questions of the highest

magnitude but of which no one could speak with

any certainty.66

The Commissioner clearly felt that he had a

mandate from Congress and the public to provide agricultural statistics that would be

timely and of practical usefulness. Facilities

for collecting extensive and reliable data were

nonexistent but the Commissioner, aided by

J. R. Dodge and James S. Frinnell, Chief Clerk

of the Department, took energetic action,

which he recorded in these words :

With means totally inadequate for the collection

of statistics by which any of these important

purposes might be accomplished, the Commissioner

of Agriculture, nevertheless, sought to obtain those

within his power, and for useful objects. During

last winter he issued circulars to every county

in the loyal States, making inquiries relative to

the prices of agricultural products in them and

the average yield per acre of the leading crops.

He issued others, during the summer and fall

months, to make known the monthly condition of

the crops, their amounts, etc. The medium, for

communicating the knowledge obtained through

the latter to the public, was monthly reports. . . .

These few sentences show that the Commissioner displayed intelligence in planning these

first statistical surveys. With commendable restraint the subject matter of the circulars was

limited to two "useful objects," prices of farm

products and average yields per acre of leading crops. The effort was to get returns from

"every county in the loyal States," thus making the returns of national significance. The

surveys were repeated monthly to keep abreast

of changes in crop conditions. Reports were

published to inform the public of the agricultural situation. No doubt Commissioner

Newton was guided by the experience of

Orange Judd the previous season57and by

the skilled hand and solid judgment of his

statistical assistant, Jacob R. Dodge, but even

so Newton must be given credit for recognizing and accepting good advice.

There is some confusion as to just when

this first report of the U.S. Commissioner of

Agriculture was written. The Commissioner's

letter transmitting his first Annual Report is

dated January 1, 1863, but the report includes

a record of donations to the Department up to

June 30, 1863. The data referred to were for

crops of 1862, hence information had to be

obtained near or after harvest. Therefore,

the evidence seems conclusive that "last winter" referred to the winter of 1862-63 and

the "summer and fall" of 1863.

First Crop Estimates

Having collected information from farmers

in every county concerning yield per acre and

value of crops for 1862, the Department was

still confronted with the formidable task of

converting the sample information into meaningful State data. The most recent "complete"

data available were those from the Census

for the year 1859, but these were faulty because the usual incompleteness was compounded by the "indifferent" crops of that

year. On the other hand, the crops of 1862

were the "best ever grown."58 To help bridge

this gap the statisticians had available the returns from the circulars sent during the winter

of 1862-63 to "every county in the loyal

States" and special State reports for Ohio,

which was believed to have a quite reliable

statistical service. The indications of crop conditions in the various States revealed by these

statistics and by comments of correspondents

guided the statistician in arriving at a production figure for each State. These data were

considered by Department statisticians to be

"an approximation to correctness." The statisticians felt compelled to defend them, however, by pointing out that differences in the

1 Ibid., p. 575.

57 American Agriculturist 21:26, June 1862.

58 U.S. Commissioner of Agriculture Report, 1862,

(Washington, 1863) p. 574; also pages 575 and 576

for further details of estimating methods.

21
data between States had real significance.

They explained:

Again, there is a striking difference between the

price of corn in Ohio and Indiana, which are

neighboring States, with nearly equal market facilities in many respects. But large quantities of

corn in Ohio are consumed in distilleries, and

much shipped eastward. Indiana, although much

smaller than her neighbors in square miles, is the

largest hog-producing State in the Union. Its corn

is fed chiefly to this stock, and hence its market

price represents the value of corn fed to hogs,

while in Ohio it exhibits its value when hauled to

the nearest railroad depot.

The significance of such "local peculiarities,,

and the importance of understanding them

was fully appreciated by the Department

staff and characteristically they included in

their first report comments on the economic

implications of the statistics.

After determination of total production of

selected crops by States, acreages for 1862

were computed by dividing by the appropriate

yields per acre. These yields had been adopted

from averages shown by the circulars returned by county correspondents.59

Such methods can be criticized as highly subjective and

unscientific, but they were valuable as indicating a level of production adequate for the

needs of the Northern States in the war effort.

Division of Statistics Organized

The increased interest in collecting statistics led to the establishment of the Division of

Statistics in the spring of 1863. The Commissioner decided that Lewis Bollman, a farmer

from near Bloomington, Ind., was the man to

head the Division. Perhaps his decision was

influenced because Bollman had written, on

December 26, 1862, to "Friend Lane" (Senator

H. S. Lane of Indiana), stoutly defending the

creation of a separate Department of Agriculture and expressing a willingness to wait

and see how the new Commissioner performed

before condemning him.60 Bollman was sworn

in on May 28, 1863, and thus became the first

person to serve as Chief Statistician of the

Department.61

He was born in New Boston, N. H., September 28, 1823, and was educated in local schools

and academies. In 1879 he was awarded an

honorary A.M. degree by Dartmouth College.

He had wide experience as a teacher and

journalist.62

Bollman was soon heavily engaged in his

new duties. For example, for the Report of the

Commissioner for 1862, he wrote an article

on cultivation of sorghum; an "Article on the

Wheat Plant"; a letter of transmittal to the

Commissioner; a report on statistics in which

he discussed census data of 1860; a report on

statistics of 1862 giving details of procedures

used in collecting and analyzing the statistics ;

and finally a report on the agriculture of California.63

Monthly Reports Started July 10, 1863

Despite the agonies inherent in setting up

a new organization, the Division of Statistics

moved rapidly ahead with the effort to collect

and publish monthly reports of crop conditions.64 On July 10, 1863, the Commissioner

submitted "to the consideration of the farming community" a report covering the condition of crops for May and June, and promised

that "a similar report will be issued on the

tenth of every month/' The Report states in

part:

59 No record is available as to the number of respondents to these circulars but in the Monthly Report

for September 1863, p. 14, it is stated that the circulars

were sent "to about two thousand correspondents."

60 Original letter in Library of Congress. Photostatic

copy in USDA Library.

61 See letter in Bollman personnel file in National

Archives, Christensen to Richardson, 1940.

62 Alfred C. True. A History of Agriculture Experimentation and Research in the U.S., 1607-1925.

68 U.S. Commissioner of Agriculture Report, 1862. pp.

65-95, 140-47, 547-99.

64 U.S. Department of Agriculture Monthly Report,

May, June, and July, 1863.

Publishing Record of Monthly Reports

May-Dec, 1863 (Monthly) Issued by the Department

of Agriculture. Jan.-Dec, 1864 (Bi-Monthly) Issued by

the Department of Agriculture. Jan. 1865-Dec. 1876

(Monthly) Issued by the Department of Agriculture.

New Series, Misc. Pub. Jan. 1877-1882 Issued by the

Dept. of Agriculture. New Series, 1-10 Oct. 1883-Aug.

1884 Issued by the Division of Statistics. New Series,

26-36, Jan. 1886-Dec. 1886 Issued Report of Statistician. New Series, 48-58, Jan. 1887-Dec. 1888 Issued

Report of Statistician. New Series 70-80, Jan. 1890-

Dec. 1890 Issued Report of Statistician.

22
The Agricultural Department in issuing its first

monthly report of the condition of crops, desires

to make known its purpose in preparing these reports and the means it has adopted to collect the

information embraced in them.

1. The relationships between agriculture, manufactures, and commerce, demand that something

should be done to obtain and publish, at brief

intervals during the crop season, reliable information of the amount and condition of these

crops. . . . Ignorance of the state of our crops invariably leads to speculation, in which oftentimes,

the farmer does not obtain just prices and . . .

the consumer is not benefited.

2. Holding these views the Commissioner of

Agriculture believed it was his duty to adopt some

plan to obtain each month during the months

from May to October inclusive, general information of the amount and condition of our leading

agricultural products. ... It was desirable to

avoid perplexing interrogatories and to select those

only which could be answered briefly and definitely. . . . the questions relate to but two matters, the amount sown in 1863 compared with

that in 1862, and the appearance of the crops in

May and June. The answers are given in figures,

by adopting 10 as the representative of an average

of the amount of acres sown; making each number

below or above it represent one-tenth of a decrease or increase. So 10 represents also an average appearance. The figure 9 would be one-tenth

below the average appearance, and 11 would be

one-tenth above it. . . . as farmers communicate

to each other and to persons in town, especially

to dealers in produce, the state and amount of their

crops, there soon obtains in every county a knowledge of their condition, whether more or less than

an average has been planted, whether injured, and

by what cause and to what extent. With no great

trouble, this information can be collected and

transmitted through the plan adopted. From no

other source can the condition of growing crops

be ascertained.

It is designed to issue the circulars about the

tenth day of each month, and have them mailed

for their return on the first day of the ensuing

month. This will give time to take averages of the

answers, to prepare the [meteorological] tables,

and to make such statements in the report as may

be desired, and have it printed and distributed to

correspondents, with the next circular by the tenth.

The above statements and plans were eminently sensible and established a pattern of

reports that has been followed ever since. The

questionnaire was restricted to two basic questions; they were plainly worded, a simple

means of reporting in lOths was provided, a

reasonable period was allowed for reply, the

return postage was prepaid to encourage response, and the inquiries went to farmers familiar with crop conditions. There were, of

course, many difficulties; enough to delay issuance of the first report. Some of these were

the irregularities of the mails, delay in the

printing of the circulars, and time required by

correspondents to make arrangements to procure the desired information. All of these

difficulties are very familiar to anyone experienced in the collection, tabulation, analysis,

and publication of agricultural statistics.

The Commissioner pointed out to his correspondent that:

The envelopes accompanying the circulars for July

are prepaid. This course was rendered necessary

by the construction given by the Post-master General to the law of last session of Congress, regulating the franking privilege. That law declares

that 'all official communications addressed to the

several executive departments by an officer responsible to that department, who shall mark it

'official' with his signature thereto, shall be free

of charge, but all others must be prepaid/ ....

Rather than be unfaithful to the duties demanded

of him by the act of Congress and by the interests

of agriculture, the Commissioner has determined

to prepay all postage of his regular correspondents. . .

This arrangement was essential if adequate

returns were to be forthcoming from the farmer reports. The Commissioner had moved

promptly to arrange a system compatible with

the law. The legal ruling requiring the sending

of "prepaid envelopes instead of franks for

returns" 65 to the 2,000 correspondents added

greatly to the expense of operating the statistical service. However, in his Bi-Monthly Report issued in July 1864, Newton was finally

able to inform his correspondents that the

Congress had restored free postal communication between them and the Department.66

The first Monthly Report actually covered 2

months, May and June. A table for May gave

the condition in lOths by States and a "general average" for grains, potatoes, sorghum,

and cotton. After the table was set up for

printing, a few late returns came in from California and Utah and these were presented in

a brief narrative statement below the table.

There was a similar condition table for June

that included, in addition to the items for

May, data on tobacco, grass, flax, and wool.

Correspondents in 21 Northern and Border

States and the Nebraska Territory reported

for June. The meteorological observations provided by the Smithsonian Institution were an

additional feature of the June report. These

weather data were obtained from observers in

various parts of the "loyal" States who were

65 U.S. Department of Agriculture Monthly Report.

Nov. 1863, p. 1.

66 U.S. Department of Agriculture Bi-Monthly Report.

April and May 1864, July 1864, p. 5.

23
"imsalaried and unpaid, save in the consciousness of doing a good work." 67

The inauguration of monthly reports by the

Division of Statistics was welcomed by the

agricultural press, including the American

Agriculturist, which printed the tables with

appropriate credit lines and commented editorially :

Beyond all question, the Agricultural Department can confer a great benefit upon the entire

country by an extended and properly executed

labor of this kind. . . . We hope the hew Department of Agriculture will spare no effort or expense

to carry out, on an extended, comprehensive scale,

the system of gathering these important statistics.

Let them be so carefully collected and collated as

to be absolutely reliable, and we can promise

both hearty cooperation, and the grateful appreciation of the entire country—not only of farmers

but of all other classes. Comprehensive, accurate,

and prompt reports of this kind, collected at the

expense of a few thousands, or tens of thousands

of dollars, as the case may be, will save many

millions.68

The Patent Office had been severely criticized for its agricultural reports and Commissioner Newton from the outset seemed fearful

of continuation of like treatment. He was

sensitive to critical comments, actual or anticipated, and from the beginning took a defensive attitude in nearly all instances of criticism. In his first Monthly Report, July 10, 1863,

he wrote, "Whatever imperfections it (the

statistical system) may now have will be

speedily overcome." In his second Monthly Report, August 10, 1863, Newton put up a shield :

If the farmers of counties having such delinquent societies do not receive these reports and

seeds, they will know that the blame does not rest

on this Department.

In his third report, September 10, 1863, the

Commissioner delivered an essay on "Different

Modes of Reporting the Crops" in which he

took to task those critics who made a train

trip and then supposed that their casual observations could be compared to those of the

Department's correspondents. The sensitive

nature of the Commissioner was further revealed in subsequent reports as criticism

of his conduct of the office mounted. Men

pioneering in any new work can expect a barrage of criticism as failures inevitably occur,

particularly where complaints can be based on

mere difference of opinion as in Newton's day.

However, as the statistical work developed, it

continued to be lambasted when its forecasts

and estimates made significant deviations

from known production or inventories.69

Special Articles Added to Monthly Reports

Farmers from all over the North turned to

the young Department for "information running the whole range of agricultural learning." 70 So that

. . . these matters may be understood by all,

and that the information sought by one may be

known to all, it is the intention of the Commissioner to give, in the monthly reports, material

that shall serve as a general reply to intelligent

questioners.

The first of such articles dealt with mildew of

the grape and was carried in the report of

August 10, 1863. Thus the Monthly Report

early became an omnibus carrying agricultural

information on a variety of subjects in addition to crop conditions and inventory statistics.

Agricultural conditions abroad also commanded attention. The October 1863 Report

carried a long and involved analysis of "The

Foreign Markets for American Breadstuffs.,,

The concern with foreign statistics was to

continue and to make them more meaningful

to our farmers the Commissioner converted

foreign terms such as "quarters," "shillings,"

etc., into American weights, measures, and

currency.71

A review of the monthly reports shows the

alertness of the Division of Statistics to the

needs of the farmer. Following the severe and

widespread freezes in August and September

67 U.S. Department of Agriculture Monthly Report,

July 1862, p. 1, May and June 1863.

68 American Agriculturist, p. 200. May 1863.

69 See Reports of the Keep Commission on Department methods, Senate Doc. 464, 59th Cong., 1st Sess.,

1906; also the Abernethy Report, 1952. Although

critical of methods, these congressional investigations

always resulted in an improved and expanded statistical service.

70 U.S. Department of Agriculture Monthly Report,

August 1863, p. 12.

71 Ibid., p. 22.

24
1863,72

the September, October, and November reports included correspondents' answers

to questions about "the condition of all the

fall crops," 73 "value of the injured corn" and

information concerning "stock hogs," ''4outlook for crops in 1864, and amount and appearance indicated for fall-sown wheat, rye,

and barley, and for timothy meadows.75 Answers to questions about "the existence of hog

cholera" and "the number and condition of

the fattening hogs and cattle" were also included. These items were considered of vital

importance "because they constitute the provision trade of the country, and supply so great

consumption of our armies." 76

It is not surprising that a schedule of this

magnitude could not be maintained. As a result, the Monthly Report for November (issued in December 1863) stated:

No monthly report will be made for December

and from a monthly it will be changed to one

issued every two months. This change is rendered

necessary because these reports are now embracing too many and too important subjects to

be properly prepared in so short a time

Hereafter the circulars (questionnaires) will be

issued in the beginning of the month, and not returned until near the close of it, thus giving the

desired time to obtain information.

The desire was to answer important questions asked of the Department without "occupying any ground that belonged to the

agricultural press."

Plans for an Improved Statistical Service

In the fall of 1863, having had several

months of experience with statistical surveys,

Newton presented a discussion of the problem

and made recommendations for future development that, in retrospect, appear quite sound.77

His proposals in brief were :

1. Authority be given the Department to collect current statistics on manufacturers and

commerce as well as on agriculture.

2. A quinquennial census to be taken by the

Department of Agriculture.

72 Ibid, p. 22.

78 Ibid, Sept. 1863, p. 1.

74 Ibid, pp. 24 and 25.

75 Ibid, Nov. 1863, p. 2.

78 U.S. Department of Agriculture Monthly Report,

Oct. 1863, p. 5.

77 U.S. Department of Agriculture Bi-Monthly Report, Sept.-Oct., 1963. p. 5.

3. Two thousand copies of an "unabridged

report of the Census,,,and other documents

and reports to be sent to correspondents as

"payment" for their assistance.

4. Rain-gages and thermometers be sent to

correspondents voluntarily reporting weather

observations.

5. Authority to send circulars to American

consuls overseas to elicit statistics on foreign

agriculture.

6. Authority to send an agent to visit principal countries of Europe to establish a systematic reporting service "and to learn more

about the agricultural capabilities of the various nations."

7. Restoration of franking privilege to the

Department.

8. Increase in number of copies of monthly

reports—perhaps to 50,000.

9. Sale of statistical reports to the public

at cost.

County Correspondents Selected

By April 1864 the Statistical Division had

concluded that, instead of an indiscriminate

and indefinite number of correspondents in

the counties, one outstanding correspondent

should be selected for each county. He would

in turn select up to five assistants. Circulars

would be sent to the county correspondent,

who would distribute them to his assistants,

summarize their returns to him, and forward

one consolidated report for the county to the

Department in Washington.78Instructions to

this eifect were given in the Bi-Monthly Report for April 1864. Exceptions were the Confederate States and also the Far West where

"mail communications between the seat of

government and the Pacific States and Territories do not allow them to be placed in the

tables with those of the Atlantic States."79

Also included was a 10-page discussion entitled "English, Prussian and American Modes

of Estimating Their Annual Agricultural Production.,, 80 The system used here was rated

superior and belief was expressed "that before

78 Ibid.

79 U.S. Department of Agriculture Bi-Monthly Report, Sept.-Oct., p. 5.

80 Ibid, March and April, 1864, p. 7-18.

25
long this plan will be adopted in all commercial nations." 81

Monthly Reports Resumed

Beginning with January 1865 monthly reports were resumed by the Department. An

indication of some of the difficulties involved

can be gained from the Commissioner's statement:

The return day of the circulars (questionnaires), by which information of the condition of

the crops, stocks, etc. is communicated the 1st day

of the month, but it is usually the 18th or 20th

before all of them are received. It requires from

fifteen to twenty days to have the reports printed,

folded, stitched and trimmed. This cannot be

shortened until the war is over. A monthly report

cannot, therefore, be published with this delay,

each month, for the circulars. It often, too, requires a week or more to prepare the tables that

are based on the circulars.82

J. R. Dodge Appointed Chief Statistician

In the spring of 1866, Lewis Bollman, who

had served as Chief Statistician of the Department since early in 1863, resigned and his

place was taken by a most remarkable person,

the redoubtable Jacob Richards Dodge.83For

nearly 30 years, before he resigned on March

20, 1893, Dodge was a dominant figure in the

Department. His great energy, sound knowledge of agriculture, flair for statistics, and

facile pen made him "truly a wheel horse in

the building of the United States Department

of Agriculture." 84 Dodge had been with the

Agricultural Division of the Patent Office and

when the Department of Agriculture was established, he accepted an appointment as a

clerk at a salary of $1,600 per annum.85 He

worked closely with Chief Statistician Bollman in inaugurating the statistical program86

,

83 Ibid., p. 16.

82 U.S. Department of Agriculture Monthly Report,

Jan. 1865, p. 3.

83 Effective date of his appointment was Sept. 30,

1867, according to his personnel folder in National

Archives. The Dictionary of American Biography,

Vol. 5, pp. 349-350, gives the date as May 1866; this

coincides with the Monthly Report for that month

which carries a statement signed by J. R. Dodge that

"the first four numbers, up to April, were under the

editorship of my predecessor as statistician, Mr. Lewis

Bollman," appeared in the 1867 Volume.

84 Taylor, H. C. and Taylor, Anne Dewees. The Story

of Agricultural Economics, 1840-1932. Iowa State Col.

Press, Ames, 1952, p. 183.

85 Dodge personnel file in National Archives.

and prepared the estimates for 1862 published

in the first Annual Report of the Department.

Prior to his work with the Department, Dodge

had been Head of an Academy in Mississippi,

editor and publisher of the "Oasis" in his

home town of Nashua, N. H., and of the

"American Ruralist" of Springfield, Ohio, and

had served as Senate Reporter of the "Washington National Intelligencer,, and of the "National Republican.,,

All States Covered and Continuous Series on

Major Crops and Livestock

The year 1866 was notable in the development of the statistical service of the Department, as regular reports were started on

numbers of livestock and on condition, acreage, yield per acre, and production of principal

crops, which have been continued to the

present.87

The January 1866 Monthly Report gave, for

22 loyal States and the Nebraska Territory,

average yield per acre for 1864 and 1865 and

average price per bushel on January 1, 1865,

and January 1, 1866, for winter wheat, rye,

barley, oats, corn, buckwheat, potatoes, leaf

tobacco, hay, and sorghum molasses. Tables

also showed the amount and condition of the

fall-sown crops—wheat, rye, and barley—in

percentages of the previous year. The "condition of the weather" in November and December was indicated by recording the number of

reports received as favorable, wet, very wet,

dry, very dry, snow.

Statistics on livestock were presented for

the first time in the March report.88For

horses, mules, cattle, and oxen, milch cows,

sheep, and hogs, these items were reported:

Average number of cattle and oxen compared with

that of January 1864.

Average number of cattle and oxen compared with

that of February 1865.

Average price per head of same under 1 year

old, 1865.

Average price per head of same between 1 and 2

years old, 1865.

86 Swank, op. cit., p. 27.

87 U.S.D.A. The Crop and Livestock Reporting Service

of the U.S., (Washington: Government Printing

Office), 1933, p. 3.

88 U.S.D.A. Monthly Report, March 1866, pp. 148-152.

26
Average price per head of same between 1 and 2

years old, 1866.

Average price per head of same between 2 and 3

years old, 1865.

Average price per head of same between 2 and 3

years old, 1866.

Average price per head of same over 3 years

old, 1865.

Average price per head of same over 3 years

old, 1866.

In the September 1866 issue of the Monthly

Report the Department announced: "For the

first time all portions of the country are included .... In a month or two the crops of

southern correspondents will be more complete

and better organized/'89 The Report stated in

respect to its estimates for the South,

The returns may not be sufficiently numerous

to afford entirely accurate basis for estimates, but

it is believed that fair approximations have been

made. They make estimates of farm stock as compared with the numbers of 1860 as follows : horses,

68 percent; mules, 70; cattle, 65; sheep, 80; hogs,

56 percent.90

The returns for September 1866 indicated a

cotton crop of "about 1,800,000 bales." 91 The

estimate of probable cotton production was

based on reports of county correspondents who

estimated cotton production for their county

"in tenths, not of an average crop, but of the

excessive and never-equalled crop which the

Census reports." 92 Official estimates for that

year are now shown at 1,948,000 bales. The

report commented that Texas was swarming

with cattle accumulated by lack of markets

during the war :

Immense numbers of cattle are already collected

for driving or shipping to a market .... Beeves

may be had for $15 (in specie) per head and

steers at $4 to $5. It has been estimated that

$1,000,000 worth of stock is ready to go to market

from Texas at the present time.

Despite the tenuous nature of Newton's crop

and livestock reporting service in the wartorn

South, it revealed the fact that the Texas

cattle situation was ripe for the start of the

famous cattle drives soon to be begun over the

Chisholm Trail and others leading north to

railroads.

Information provided by the statistical surveys was augmented by observations of travelers such as Theodore C. Peters, who was commissioned by Newton to travel through the

South in the spring of 1867 and arrange for

the distribution of seeds. Peters submitted a

long narrative that was published in the

Monthly Report for May and June of 1867 describing conditions he had seen on a circuitous journey to Louisiana and back to the

Capitol.93

Brickbats and Bouquets

As already noted, Newton's appointment as

the first Commissioner of Agriculture had

been greeted with reservations and in some

cases open hostility. Some of this may have

resulted from the normal reactions of disappointed candidates for the office and their adherents. Perhaps this accounted, in part at

least, for the lack of continuing support of

Orange Judd, editor of the American Agriculturist, who was himself a candidate for the

position.94 The opposition of the agricultural

press increased until, in its issue of 1866, The

Cultivator and Country Gentleman declared:

"Every leading Agricultural and Horticultural Society in the country has publicly urged

the removal of the Commissioner, a unanimity

of sentiment which we have never before

known to be shown in such a way." This appears to indicate an overwhelming condemnation of the Commissioner, but this too may

have had a basis other than Newton's alleged

incompetence. The fact is the Annual and

Monthly Reports had proven popular with

farmers and the hundreds of thousands of

copies distributed free of charge represented

a competitive threat to the farm journals.95

The personality and certain practices of

Isaac Newton appear to have been major

causes of the resentment against him. The

Commissioner could not resist fighting back

when his actions were criticized and the pages

of his reports were filled with spirited and

caustic defenses of his work. The statistical

reports came in for their share of censure and

89 U.S.D.A. Monthly Report, September 1866, p. 350.

90 Ibid., September 1866, p. 328.

91 Ibid.

92 Ibid., p. 356.

93 U.S.D.A. Monthly Report, May-June 1867, pp.

192-203.

94 Harding, T. Swann. Two Blades of Grass. Univ.

Okla. Press, 1947, p. 18.

95 Resolutions were presented in every Congress from

1863 to 1866 to publish 120,000 to 165,000 additional

copies of the Annual Report of the Department. See

flyleaf of each of the annual reports.

27
Newton defended them stoutly. An example of

this type of controversy evolved from criticism of an estimate of the 1865 Minnesota

wheat crop. In the January report for 1866

Mr. Newton presented his rebuttal:

In this report will be found an article in reply

to complaints from individuals in Minnesota

against the estimate made by this Department of

the wheat crop in 1865 from several localities in

that State, amounting to between seven and eight

millions of bushels; yet the most prominent objector to the correctness of estimate of the department, in a published letter says:

Owing to the low stage of water in the Minnesota river for the last three years immense

quantities of wheat have accumulated in the

southern and western sections of the State.

This declaration sweeps away the very grounds

upon which an error is alleged in the estimates

of the department.

This handling of the situation seems characteristic of Newton. After giving an answer

that may have been sound and fully adequate

by quoting a statement of one of his tormentors, Newton could not be satisfied but

went on in a self-righteous diatribe in which

he charged his critics with a lack of "good

faith," accused them of "selfish purposes,"

and of complaining in "general terms, that

present nothing to be answered." Characteristically the Commissioner closed with a paragraph of self-praise and with plaudits for the

Department's work.

Such missiles inserted in the report for selfglorification purposes irked the editors of

agricultural papers and contributed to the feeling of ill will toward the conscientious but

exasperating Commissioner.96

Charges of nepotism also fanned the flames

of resentment against the Commissioner. Newton had put his son in charge of the experimental garden97

and had twice appointed his

nephew, J. W. Stokes, to the important post

of Chief Clerk of the Department.98 There

were no Civil Service career employees in

those times; politics was the order of the day

96 For further examples of this trait of Mr. Newton

see U.S.D.A. Monthly Report, November 1863, p. 2;

Bi-Monthly Report, Jan.-Feb. 1864, p. 2; Ibid, MarApr., p. 6; Apr.-May, p. 5; Monthly Report, June 1866,

p. 255.

97 True. A History of Agriculture Experimentation

and Research in the U.S., 1607-1925, p. 42.

98 U.S.D.A. Monthly Report, May and June, 1867, p.

190.

and Newton played the game according to his

lights.

Despite the widespread and quite vocal opposition to Newton he retained the support of

President Lincoln who in 1864 said, "The Agricultural Department, under the supervision of

its present energetic and faithful head, is

rapidly commending itself to the great and

vital interest it was created to advance." "

In the spring of 1866 the Farmer's Club of

the American Institute of New York passed a

resolution "to remove the present head of the

Department of Agriculture and appoint, to fill

the office, a man of well-known ability."1

Shortly afterward Mr. Newton suffered an

accident from which he never fully recovered.

Greathouse, in his Historical Sketch of the

United States Department of Agriculture,2

gave the essential facts:

In July, 1866, Commissioner Newton suffered a

sunstroke while in the field on the experimental

farm. A large number of varieties of wheat—

Tappahannock, Mediterranean, and others new in

general use—were being tried. The grain had been

cut and was lying on the ground when a thunder

shower suddenly appeared. Commissioner Newton

was in his room at the Patent Office. He hastened

over to the farm, a mile away, to instruct the

workmen how to save the wheat free from any

injury. The sun was hot and he was wearing a

high silk hat. In moving hurriedly about the

grounds he became overheated. His son took him

to the little office on the farm and summoned medical assistance. Restoratives were applied and he

partially recovered, but was never well again.

That Isaac Newton was a controversial figure is obvious, but this should not obscure the

fact that his basic objectives, concepts, and

principles in founding the Department have

been proven sound by a hundred years of experience. The agricultural statistician owes

him a special debt of gratitude for recognizing

the need of farmers and the general public for

timely, accurate, and comprehensive statistics.

His early appointment of competent statisticians and energetic support of their pioneering efforts made possible the founding and

99 Messages and Papers of the Presidents, VI, pp. 133,

188, 251.

1 Cultivator and Country Gentleman, March 1, 1866,

p. 145.

2 Greathouse, Charles H., Historical Sketch of the

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Its Objects and Present Organization. Division of Publication, Washington

Govt. Printing Off., 1898, p. 11.

28
development of the large and scientific statistical service of today.

CHAPTER 3. REGULAR REPORTS ARE

ESTABLISHED, 1866-81

First Appropriation for Statistical Work

Although the collection, analysis, and publication of statistics had been an important

phase of the Department's work since it was

established in 1862, there was no specific appropriation for this activity until fiscal year

1865. During the intervening years the statistical program was paid for out of the Department's appropriation of $64,000 for 1862,

$80,000 for 1863, and $119,770 for 1864.3For

1865, however, $20,000 was appropriated specially for "Collecting Agricultural Statistics

and Information for Reports."4The total expenditures by the Department amounted to

$150,604, including $54,000 for distribution of

seeds; expenditures for statistical work represented about 13 percent of the total and some

20 percent of the operating budget. Such affluence was not to last, however, as the statistical budget sagged to $10,000 in 1867 and

ranged from that sum to $15,000 for the next

13 years.5

Farm Wage Rate Statistics

In submitting his report in January 1867

Commissioner Newton presented the results

of the first inquiry made in 1866 to determine

the rate of wages of farm labor. The report

gave the average rate of wages per month for

farm laborers with board and without board

for the northern, western, and southern States.

A total of 1,510 returns were received, each

representing the composite judgment of several local correspondents and other individuals.6 The principal questions dealt with:

1. Average wages per month (without

board) of farm laborers hired for the year.

2. Average wages per month (with board)

of farm laborers hired for the year.

3. Average wages per month (without

8U.S.D.A., Office of Budget and Finance, Appropriations, Reappropriations, etc., 1839-1936.

4

Ibid.

5 See table in appendix for appropriations from 1862

to 1962 for statistical work of the Department.

6 USDA Monthly Report, January 1867. p. 6.

board) of farm laborers hired for the season

or a portion of the year.

Dodge's interest in the broader aspects of

the survey is illustrated by his effort to present an interesting analysis of local variations

in wage rates in such a manner as to indicate

their validity and usefulness. Statistical tables,

accompanied by appropriate comments,

showed comparisons of four types of wage

rates with some characteristic considered significant.7 The factors thus analyzed in relation

to variations in wage rates were:

The "Panhandle" of West Virginia vs. the State

as a whole.

The dairy region of Ohio vs. the State as a whole.

The southern part of Indiana vs. the State as a

whole.

The southern part of Illinois vs. the State as a

whole.

Nearness to cities, i.e., river counties of Kentucky

vs. the State of Kentucky.

Newly freed labor vs. long-established labor, e.g.,

Virginia rate vs. Missouri rates.

One illustration—that of the effect of easy

transportation and skilled labor—should suffice to indicate the approach used in presenting these analyses:

Easy Transportation and Skilled Labor8: The advantage of facilities for transportation are shown

by the increased rates of wages near navigable

rivers and lines of railroad. This is conspicuously

seen in a comparison of the river counties of

Kentucky with those of other portions of the State.

Other elements of difference appear in a comparison of the river counties of the Kentucky side

with those of the Ohio shore. A more diversified

industry in Ohio, and the employment of free instead of slave labor, enter into the calculation

and make a material advance in the rate. The

following table exhibits nearly as great a difference between the river counties of Ohio and those

of Kentucky as exists between the latter and those

of the entire State :

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4

State of $20.23 $13.65 $23.80 $17.06

Kentucky.

River counties, 24.23 16.36 28.79 20.36

Kentucky.

River counties, 28.27 17.36 32.81 22.33

Ohio.

Modern labor economists, while applauding

the ingenuity and resourcefulness of the analyst, might question a bit as to whether some

of the differences shown were statistically significant. These studies, however, are further

7

Ibid., p. 9.

s

Ibid., p. 8.

29
evidence of the desire of the meager statistical

staff to provide meaningful data in the annual

reports.9

Condition of the Farm Stock of the United

States

Statistics on number, average price, and

value of livestock on farms that had been published regularly by the Department10

did not

satisfy the demands for information concerning the livestock industry. The Department

argued :

An interest involving a capital of fourteen hundred

millions, without reference to investments in lands,

buildings, and incidentals, demands the watchful

care of public guardians of our national resources.

Accordingly, the following queries were included in a circular which was made returnable April 15, 1867 : "

1. Has there been any prevailing disease among

cattle in your county during the past year? If so,

what disease, and to what extent?

2. Has the Spanish fever prevailed among cattle

in your county? If so, when did it appear, what

has been the loss, and what method of treatment

has been followed?

3. Has the hog cholera prevailed? If so, what has

been the loss, and what remedies employed?

4. What diseases have prevailed among sheep, and

to what extent?

5. Has any unusual disease prevailed among sheep,

and to what extent?

6. What proportion of wool remains on hand compared with the whole amount of last year's clip?

7. In what condition have sheep come out of winter

quarters ?

8. Are Cotswolds, Leicesters, South Downs, and

other mutton breeds, more or less abundant than

formerly? Please state definite facts, in actual experience, of the cost of keeping, amount of wool,

etc., of these breeds, in comparison with Merinoes.

No estimates are wanted, but actual facts, as full

as may be practicable, from individuals who have

bred both long and fine wool sheep.

9. What is the comparative condition of winter

wheat? of winter rye?

Obviously it would be difficult and time consuming to answer such questions in detail

concerning one's own farm. To do so for an

entire county, as the correspondents were

asked to do, would be practically impossible.

Apparently, however, the results were considered quite satisfactory as the report states:

These circulars were sent to all our regular correspondents, and the returns were very complete,

both in point of numbers and of particular details.

Very few cases of omission, even of a single item

occurred.12

A good response to such an inquiry, despite

the laborious task placed on respondents,

might be expected due to the tremendous interest in the subject matter. Judging from

comments of the correspondents, losses of cattle from "Spanish fever" and of hogs from

"cholera" had been severe and widespread,

especially in the South and Southwest.13Such

disasters always stimulate response to official

inquiries regarding the situation.

Sheep-Killing Dogs

Statisticians in 1867, as before and since,14

were sometimes asked to provide statistics on

unusual topics. An instance of this kind was

the request for information on the "depredation of dogs," 15 that is, the extent of sheep

killing by dogs. Resentment of such losses

was widespread and bitter, and sentiment for

drastic measures—severe taxes or restraint—

was mounting.16Factual information was lacking although the Department had some data

"obtained at different times from different

sources under different auspices." In order to

provide a more systematic and realistic view of

the situation the Department asked its regular

correspondents to estimate the number of

sheep killed by dogs in their county during

1866. The returns from 539 counties scattered from Maine to Utah indicated a loss of

130,427 sheep from this cause. As about onefourth of the counties were reported, it was

estimated that "the total number killed would

be more than half a million yearly." Such statistics did not need to be precise in order to be

useful. An indication of the relative magnitude

of the losses was all that was necessary in

order for the data to be of value to those

fighting to curb sheep-killing dogs.

9 The farm wage rate series thus begun has been

continued without significant change to the present.

10 U.S.D.A. Monthly Reports, 1867.

"U.S.D.A. Monthly Reports, April 1867, p. 132.

12 Ibid., p. 132.

13 Ibid., pp. 135, 137-153.

14 For example, the 1961 statistician for Wisconsin

provided data for estimating the pheasant population in

the State for the benefit of hunters.

15 U.S.D.A. Monthly Report, July 1867, p. 246.

16 See excerpts of letters quoted on pp. 85-86, Monthly

Report, March 1867.

30
Commissioner Newton Dies

Commissioner Newton died on June 19, 1867.

For about 6 months, from June 20, 1867, to

December 4, 1867, John W. Stokes served as

Acting Commissioner. President Johnson then

filled the position by appointing Horace Capron from a field of about 30 active applicants.

Capron, a native of New England, had been

a successful farmer and manufacturer in Maryland, an officer in the Union Army, and a

noted livestock leader in Illinois.

Beginning with the July report in 1867, the

returns from the Statistical Division were

signed by J. R. Dodge, Statistician, with simply an endorsing signature of the Commissioner.17 This recognition of the status of the

Heads of Agricultural Statistics has continued

to the present time. Dodge had been "Statistician and Editor of the Report" and had been

referred to as such by the Commissioner in

his Report for the previous month (April),

but recognition of a separate status for the

"Report of the Statistician" did not come until after the passing of the first Commissioner.

This first signed "Report of the Statistician"

included data on wool prices in New York and

Boston ; imports of wool at New York ; exports

of breadstuifs ; revenues of Great Britain ; the

cotton caterpillar; culture of flowers and manufacture of perfumery; Angora and Cashmere

goats; temperature of the soil; culture of

sugarbeets; farm products and domestic animals in Europe; mineral phosphate of lime;

statistics of Bavaria; crops of Europe; and

meteorological tables. Here again is demonstrated the wide range of subject matter for

which statistics were believed to be needed.

Field Travel of Statisticians

The value of personal observation of field

conditions by statisticians was recognized at

the start of the statistical work in the Department. In 1867 Mr. Dodge made

... a tour to the Northwest,18 undertaken for the

purpose of increasing and improving facilities for

the collection of agricultural statistics and for conference with professional or other intelligent agriculturists relative to Department cooperation in aid

of the interest of that great section.19

On this trip the Department Statistician

was "struck particularly with the ruinous

tendency of the current system (or want of

system) of wheat culture." He wrote a detailed

report describing what he considered a "blind,

senseless, and suicidal system of agriculture." 20

The concentration on wheat to the exclusion of other crops is indicated by this comment from a Wheat Belt agricultural paper:

"If a pound of butter comes into the city before Thanksgiving every clergyman should especially name it as a cause of thankfulness." 21

Extracts such as this from correspondents

were a favorite means of enlivening the reports and imparting information concerning

various sections of the country. Each monthly

issue carried several pages of comments taken

from reports of field correspondents.

The attitude of Commissioner Capron toward the Department's statistical program

was anxiously awaited by J. R. Dodge and his

staff. They were soon relieved as the Commissioner wrote in his special report to Congress

in January 1868:

Among the chief purposes connected with the

proper fulfilment of the objects of the Department of Agriculture, it must be conceded, is this:

the obtaining of reliable statistical information,

to be secured by a complete system of correspondence, leading out through the various State organizations—agricultural, horticultural, and pomological—and extending to the county and local

societies in each State, where such exist; and

where these do not exist, then through such reliable channels as may be most available and

efficient.22

In his report as Department Statistician,

Dodge stated that agriculturally 1867 had been

more productive than 1866. In addition to the

customary tables on acreage, yield, production, and value of crops, and numbers and

value of livestock, the Annual Report included

statistics of foreign trade and showed the results of a special survey made during the year.

This survey, entitled "Special Statistics of

Farm Resources and Products," was sent to

the Department's corps of statistical correspondents. Two questions of great interest

were these :

23

17 U.S.D.A. Monthly Report, July 1867, p. 237.

18 From the comments in his report he apparently

visited the Great Plains area.

19 U.S.D.A. Monthly Report, October 1867, p. 321.

20 Ibid., pp. 321-322.

21 Ibid., p. 366.

22 U.S. Commissioner of Agriculture, Report, 1867.

Washington, D.C., 1868, p. 20.

23 Ibid., p. 102.

31
1. What is the average percentage of increase

(or decrease, if cases of decrease exist) in the

price of farm lands in your county since 1860?

2. What is the average value of wild or unimproved tracts of land; and what is the character,

quality, and capabilities of such land?

The Chief Statistician wrote an "epitome"

giving information from the survey by States,

which covered 18 pages of his Report. The

data indicated increases between 1860 and

1866 in values of farmland ranging from 10

percent in Kentucky to 175 percent in Nebraska, whereas decreases varied from 18 percent in Tennessee to 70 percent in Louisiana.24

In a separate section Dodge reviewed the

chaotic agricultural situation in the South

during its first full year after Appomattox.

His report was based on statistics obtained

from a special inquiry sent to "our regular

corps of reporters and agricultural editors and

planters distinguished in their vocation."25

The purpose of the inquiry was stated as being

... to ascertain the pressing wants of this section, to furnish information and advice suited to

the exigencies of the case, and to initiate a new era

in the history of its productive industry.26

The questions, 15 of them, were long and

complex, often involving several concepts and

a series of answers. The returns were informative, however, and provided the basis for an

absorbing and instructive report on Southern

agriculture in the immediate postwar period.

Frederick Watts Appointed Commissioner

President Grant named Frederick Watts of

Pennsylvania Commissioner of Agriculture,

and he took office on August 1, 1871. He was

widely known for his dedication to improved

agriculture. He had introduced Mediterranean

wheat in Pennsylvania in 1839 and the first

trial of the McCormick reaper in the State

took place on his farm in 1840. Watts was a

moving spirit in the organization of the

Pennsylvania State Agricultural Society in

1851, and was active in organizing the United

States Agricultural Society. He was called "the

father,,of the Pennsylvania Farmers High

School, which later became the Pennsylvania

State University.27

Dodge Goes to Europe

The persistent desire to improve the subject

matter, breadth, and technical quality of statistical reports at home, as well as to expand

the coverage of foreign agricultural statistics,

resulted in Dodge making a tour of Europe in

1872. Commissioner Watts, in his annual report to President Grant, said the purposes of

Dodge's trip were:

To perfect exchanges, to establish relations of statistical reciprocity, investigate statistical methods,

and thus increase and perfect the resources of

the statistical division.28

The demand for better knowledge of the agricultural situation abroad was whetted by the

mounting value of our agricultural exports,

which in fiscal 1872

.... amounted to the magnificent sum of

$406,394,254, induding $1,773,716 for living

animals; $75,287,133 for animal products;

$15,240,872 for wool in various forms, and

$46,352,010 for oils, vegetables, tobacco, and miscellaneous products of agriculture, either raw or

manufactures.29

Dodge visited Government offices in London, Paris, Berlin, and Vienna, where he investigated the statistical methods being used

and programs to aid agriculture. In Vienna he

also served as a U.S. Representative to the

International Exhibition. He found, of course,

a great diversity in the attention given to

agricultural statistics and in their scope and

quality. Generally he discovered that funds for

statistical work were more liberally bestowed

than in this country.30 He was particularly impressed by the fact that, unlike the United

States, most European countries endeavored

to obtain the area of principal crops. Dodge

considered the determination of crop acreages

an "initial point in statistical inquiry."31 The

use abroad of police and tax assessors to collect

census data met Dodge's disfavor.

24 Ibid., p. 119.

25 Ibid., p. 412.

28 Ibid.

27 Fletcher, Stevenson W. Pennsylvania Agriculture

and Country Life, 1840-1940. p. 482. 1955.

28 U.S. Commissioner of Agriculture Report, 1872.

Washington, D.C., 1873.

29 Ibid., p. 11.

30 Ibid., p. 15, and Monthly Report, August-September

1873, p. 418.

81 U.S. Commissioner of Agriculture Report, 1873.

Washington, D.C., 1874, p. 150.

32
Appropriation Problems

The European tour stimulated Dodge's

thinking concerning statistical methods and

he undertook to garner support for an improved program in the United States. In a

speech before the National Agricultural Congress at Atlanta, Ga., May 14, 1874, he said :

There is great activity of statistical inquiry at

the present time, and but little patience of investigation; there is frequency and flippancy in statement, but less of accuracy and thoroughness. There

is a feverish desire to accomplish the census of a

continent in one day, and proclaim its results the

next. Few take time to weigh facts, sift error

from truth, and reach broad and philosophical

conclusions. What is wanted in statistics is more

of thought and less of flurry, more industry and

less precipitancy, sounder judgment and less zeal

without knowledge. Few have yet learned the logic

of statistics, and some even of our law givers

are prone to build by proxy the framework of

their political economy, and liable to give it a

fantastic and incongruous finish.32

Dodge carried on the campaign for more

funds for about 2 years before Commissioner

of Agriculture Watts supported the harassed

Division of Statistics in his report of 1875 to

President Grant:

The attention of Congress is called to the proposed

organization of this division as indicated in the

schedule of annual estimates. This division of the

Department has about five thousand regular, appointed correspondents. I know of no branch of

the public service in which so much is accomplished with so small an expenditure. It is literally

true that nine tenths of the labor performed is

gratuitous, that of our correspondents being entirely uncompensated, except by the reports of the

Department and seeds sent them for experiment.33

The appropriation proposed for fiscal year

1877 was $5,000, a cut from $10,000 in the

previous year and $15,000 in 1875. The Report

of the Statistician for the year 1876 stressed

the need for augmenting the funds for the

Department's statistical program. The statement became progressively more irate in tone.

In his statement requested by the Committee

on Agriculture, Dodge waxed eloquent in

places and reached the extreme of proposing

that they cut out the $5,000 proposed for

the statistical work in the fiscal year 1877 and

blot out the division and with it the Department of Agriculture.

The efforts of Dodge and Commissioner

Watts resulted in a restoration of funds to the

usual amount of $15,000 which apparently

silenced Dodge for the time as his subsequent

annual report carried no comments on the

fund situation. According to his personnel record in the National Archives, Dodge received

a cut in salary from $2,000 to $1,900 at this

time.

Dodge Leaves the Department and Returns

A new Commissioner of Agriculture, William Gates LeDuc of Minnesota, was appointed

by President Hayes, and took office July 1,

1877. Relations between LeDuc and Dodge did

not prosper. In his Annual Report for 1878,

Commissioner LeDuc listed seven ^immediate necessities,,

of the Department, but significantly an increase of funds for statistical

work was not among them.34 The unfortunate

discord between the two men continued to

worsen and LeDuc apparently became convinced that Dodge was attempting to undercut

him by ridicule and criticism.35 Dodge denied

all such charges. Coming on top of his recent

appropriation problems, the strained relations

with the Commissioner culminated in his decision to resign his position in 1878. For a few

months Jacob Dodge worked for the Treasury

Department, and then General Francis A.

Walker, Superintendent of the Census, put

him in charge of agricultural statistics for the

Tenth Census.36

Dodge was to be recalled to the Department

as Chief Statistician in 1881. Meanwhile the

position was held by Charles Worthington

aided by an assistant Statistician and five

clerks.37 There was no increase in funds, but

in his Annual Report for 1880 Commissioner

LeDuc, at last convinced, declared that the statistical staff should be "enlarged to double its

82 U.S. Commissioner of Agriculture, Report, 1873, p.

146. 1874.

88 Commissioner of Agriculture, Report, 1875, pp. 10,

19.

34 U.S. Commissioner of Agriculture. Report, 1878,

Washington, D.C., 1879, p. 39.

35 Ross, Earle D., The U.S.D.A. During the Commissionership. In Agr. Hist. 20:137, July 1946.

38 Dictionary of American Biography, Vol. 5, pp.

349-350.

87 True, Alfred C. A History of Agriculture Experimentation and Research in the United States, 1607-

1925. p. 54.

33
present strength." 38 Nothing of the kind occurred, however, and when James A. Garfield

became President, he replaced LeDuc as Commissioner with George Bailey Loring on July

1, 1881. This signaled the return on the same

day of Jacob R. Dodge as Chief Statistician.

Dodge worked at a per diem rate of $6.00 until

his appointment was finalized on July 1,

1883.39 He did not resume his duties as editor,

for which he had never been paid,40and at

last was free to devote his very considerable

talents to the improvement of the Department's statistical program.

CHAPTER 4. AN ERA OF PROGRESS,

1882-93

Guidelines for Development

An eventful and constructive decade followed the reinstatement of Jacob Dodge as

Chief Statistician. Commissioner George B.

Loring in his Annual Report to President

Arthur for 1881 sounded the keynote:

The time has arrived when the crop reporting

system should be made more thorough and accurate and its results communicated to the public

at the earliest possible moment.41

He proposed that a telegraphic synopsis of the

report be furnished the press of the Nation

and he favored cooperation with State authorities to provide "uniformity and public confidence." Dodge made a personal pledge:

Believing that the unadorned truth will best

promote the interests of producer and consumer,

it will be my endeavor to eliminate bias and prejudice from returns and from the work of interpreting and averaging these local estimates.42

Dodge devoted a portion of his Report of

the Statistician to the Division and its work.

He laid down guidelines for future development and announced steps being taken to

achieve the desired goals.

38 U.S. Commissioner of Agriculture. Report, 1880.

Washington, D.C., 1881, p. 14.

39 Jacob R. Dodge personnel file in National Archives.

40 U.S. Commissioner of Agriculture. Report, 1876.

Washington, D.C., 1877, p. 18.

41 U.S. Commissioner of Agriculture Report, 1881.

Washington, D.C., 1882, p. 15.

42 Ibid, p. 577.

With a range through the entire field of rural

effort, and of science applied to agriculture, the

ground occupied by agricultural statistics is practically measureless and the demand for statistical

service limitless. Hence the work of the division

has neither cessation nor respite.

General and special statistics, domestic and foreign, national and international, are required for

use of officials connected with the legislative and

executive departments of the government, boards

of agriculture, chambers of commerce, educational

institutions, editors, and others in representative

positions. Much service of this tenor is constantly

performed, limited only by practical possibilities

and the endurance of a small corps of clerical

assistants.

The crop-reporting work of this division covers

an area of nearly 200,000,000 acres of crops harvested by the hand of man, and includes in cattle

industries a range of several hundred millions

more. The spirit of the age demands prompt, frequent, and reasonably accurate reports of these vast

interests; the unreasoning haste of greedy impulsiveness demands a minute census weekly, simultaneous in collection, and instantaneous in consolidation and distribution. The tendency of the unthinking public is to statistical pretense, inaccuracy, and looseness of statement. It will be the

aim of the direction of this service to render it

thorough, efficient, and reliable in results; to use

systematic scientific methods; to reach practical

and exact conclusions, and present them conscientiously.

To this end the Commissioner of Agriculture

has obtained an increased appropriation from

Congress; and among the means adopted for improvement of this service is the appointment of a

statistical agent for each State and Territory, to

act as head of a State corps of correspondents, as

a lieutenant of the statistician in directing and

executing the work of such district. Among these

agents are several experienced officers of State

departments or boards of agriculture, heretofore

in charge of a State corps of statistical reporters

upon precisely the same plan in operation in this

department. Thus duplication of work is avoided,

discrepancies are harmonized, results are verified,

avoiding the confusion of a double series of reports, and securing greater accuracy and higher

public appreciation of the value of the results.

Unfortunately, there are few States that have an

organization for the collection of statistics, and

in the others it becomes necessary to select agents

who have not been educated in statistical collection by such experience; yet there are persons

possessed of judgment in agricultural affairs, capacity for organization, a taste for statistical collection, and a "genius for work," from whom to

select these agents, in the expectation of developing trained and skilled assistants.48

State Statistical Agents Appointed

The appointment of part-time State statistical agents in 1882 was a significant step in

the long development of the Department's

statistical service. It brought to each report a

knowledge of local conditions that could be

provided only by competent people, trained in

agriculture, familiar with statistical tech43 Ibid, p. 666.

34
niques, and following prescribed scientific

methods under centralized direction. An invaluable part of their work was the establishment

of lists of names of "représentative" farmers

throughout each State. These cooperative reporters provided the information about their

communities which helped make the State and

national reports much more meaningful than

they would otherwise have been.

The proposed expanded program and the facilities and methods employed were realistic

and sound. Especially noteworthy was the fact

that the State statistical agents were appointed, paid, and supervised by the Division

of Statistics in Washington, D.C. In this way

a coordinated series of periodic reports giving

details by States, Territories, and the country

as a whole could be published in accordance

with strict timetables. This organizational

structure, embodying a chain of command, accounts in large part for the orderly development of the U.S. statistical service and its

superiority to that of many countries. To get

appropriate questions included in a circular,

to have them worded properly, and to get inquiries mailed, tabulated, analyzed, and the results published on time requires a highly synchronized operation and a concert of action that

is practically impossible to achieve without

central direction. It is to the credit of Dodge

and his colleagues that they understood this

important principle and were able to implement

it, especially in a day when "States' Rights"

were so jealously guarded.

Agency Set Up in Europe to Report on Agriculture

Concern with the domestic statistical program was not allowed to obscure the need for

adequate statistics relating to European agriculture. Accordingly, an agency was established in Europe headed by Edmund J. Moffat,

who was quartered in the office of the Consul

General in London. The new agency was expected to provide "accurate reports of crop

prospects, valuable statistical exchanges, and

miscellaneous information of value to this department and the agriculture of the country." 44

Moffat furnished regular reports summarizing

and reviewing European agricultural conditions; these were published in the Department releases under the caption "European

Crop Report" and bearing his name or initials.45

The program on foreign agricultural statistics was strengthened by an Act of Congress

of June 18, 1888, which required U.S. Consular

officers to make monthly reports on crop conditions in their area to the Department of

State for the use of the Agriculture Department.46

Portions of the reports, considered of

interest to American farmers, were required

by the Act to be included in the monthly report

of the Division of Statistics.47 These were

usually given under "Notes on Foreign Agriculture."

Dodge could also report that "under requirement of Congress" a section had been created

for the monthly publication of freight rates,

special work in dairy statistics had been

started, and other special investigations were

in progress.48 The appropriation for collecting

statistics for the fiscal year ending June 30,

1883, was $94,000—six times as much as had

usually been available for such work. A breakthrough in the budgetary stalemate that had

existed for years had finally been accomplished.

Statistics of State Agencies

Writing in 1881, Dodge said: "Few of the

States, through assessors or other officers,

make any pretense of obtaining annual statistics of farm crops, or even farm animals." 49

He went on to point out, however, that some

of the more enterprising States had collected

and published statistics and that much good

had come of their efforts. It had, he thought,

educated the people in "statistical methods

and the profitable uses of farm statistics."50

44 U.S. Commissioner of Agriculture, Report, 1881-82,

p. 667.

45 U.S. Division of Statistics, Statistician's Reports,

May 1884, p. 21. Also, ibid., June 1884, p. 26.

46 The Department was raised to cabinet status in

1889. See Appendix B for text.

47 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Div. of Statis.,

Report for August 1889. p. 279. 50 Stat. 186.

48 Ibid., p. 667.

49 U.S. Commissioner of Agriculture Report, 1881-82,

p. 647.

50 Ibid.

35
For the collection of annual statistics the assessors were usually utilized despite the fact

it was "an extra, vexatious, unpaid and thankless service," for which no penalty was levied

for neglect. The results were almost universally poor, even in Ohio whose system was

rated the most efficient. In that State a comparison of assessors' returns for 1879 with

those from the Census Bureau showed the assessors' data "fell short" 14 percent in corn,

9 in wheat, 8 in oats, 10 in rye, 10 in barley,

and 19 in buckwheat. A fear that taxes might

somehow be proportional to the acres and

bushels reported caused fields "to be reported

smaller than they are" and estimates "at a

minimum figure." Such attitudes were attributed to the lingering antagonism of some

immigrants to "exactions of home governments" and to "some natives whose appreciation of statistical utilities is tinctured with

similar suspicions." Other difficulties were

caused by confusion of terms. For example,

discrepancies resulted from reports of corn

measured "in the ear" versus "shelled."51

Some States, such as Iowa, attempted to establish crop reporting services based on reports from farmers or other informed individuals. The Iowa Horticultural Society was

a leader in such activities, and as early as 1872

tried to get data on conditions and quantities

produced from its county correspondents. The

State persisted, under various of its agencies,

in attempts to provide adequate statistics concerning its agriculture for more than half a

century before discontinuing its efforts and

placing reliance on Government crop reports.51a

The Division of Statistics deplored the poor

quality of data obtained by State agencies, especially by the local assessors,52

but lacking

jurisdiction there was little it could do to

bring about improvements.53

51 U.S.D.A. Division of Statistics, Reports, September

1885, pp. 24-25.

51a Iowa Horticultural Society Transactions, 1935,

Vol. 70, pp. 54-55.

52 U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Report, 1892, (Washington: 1893), pp. 466-467.

53 Education and persuasion are the principal means

of encouraging a high standard of statistical work by

tax assessors. Beginning in 1917, cooperative agreements between State and Federal Governments have

resulted in most States having a unified statistical

system which has eliminated duplication of effort and

improved the quality of work done by assessors.

Graphic Presentation

Improvements in all phases of the statistical program were constantly being sought

by Dodge and his associates.54 The Chief

Statistician had long been intrigued

by graphic illustrations such as charts and

diagrams and he encouraged their use, especially in the Annual Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture. His first major use of

graphic illustration involved the preparation

of exhibits for the 1876 Centennial Celebration

in Philadelphia. For this purpose, a series of

maps, diagrams, charts, black and tint lithographs, and wood upon lithographic tint engravings was prepared. Some of the maps

were 12 by 17 feet. Acreage, yield, and production of crops by States were depicted along

with woodland density, farm wage rates, fruit

areas, per capita production data, exports, and

so on through 43 items, ending with engravings of principal buildings of a number of

colleges.55

Another ambitious endeavor of this kind

was the exhibit prepared under Dodge's direction for the New Orleans Exposition of 1884.

Dodge was delighted with the assignment, especially since he considered it another indication that "a spirit of statistical inquiry is

abroad, accompanying the schoolmaster, invading the press, and sometimes the pulpit." 56

"Crop reporting," Dodge said, "is counting

in advance by instantaneous generalization." 57

He proposed to make it possible for the average person to achieve an instantaneous under5

* A new series of statistical reports was inaugurated

in October 1883, to be published monthly and to provide information of current interest rather than the

more permanent material reserved for the Annual

Report. Included were the usual reports on condition

of crops, livestock, transportation rates, etc. In 1892

the crop report was separated from the general report

of the statistician "as being more ephemeral in character and requiring more prompt issue than miscellaneous statistics." U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Report 1893 (Washington: 1894), p. 34. The Monthly

Reports, New Series, 1 to 10 were issued by the Division of Statistics Nos. 11 to 25 by the Bureau of

Statistics; Nos. 26 to 36 under the label "Report of

the Statistician."

55 U.S. Commissioner of Agriculture Report, 1875,

Washington, D.C., 1876, p. 466.

55 Ibid., 1884, p. 466.

57 U.S. Commissioner of Agriculture Report, 1887.

p. 22.

36
standing of his statistical reports. Accordingly, in 1889 the Division of Statistics published an "Album of Agricultural Statistics

of the United States." That same year the

Paris Exposition awarded Dodge a gold medal

for graphic illustrations of agricultural statistics.58

International Statistical Institute Established,

1885

At the 50th anniversary meeting of the

Statistical Society of London in 1885, an International Statistical Institute was organized

and J. Richards Dodge was elected a member

although he was not present at the London

meeting.59 The initial session was scheduled to

be held in Rome in September 1886, but because of an outbreak of cholera the conference

was postponed until April 1887. Dodge represented the United States at the gathering and

wrote a preliminary account of the session,

which was carried in the Department's June

Report. In a statement concerning the need

for an International Statistical Institute Mr.

Dodge said:

In these days of international commingling, by

commerce, immigration, and travel, demand for

statistics more comprehensive than national statements have arisen, and international comparisons

have therefore become an urgent necessity of

progress in government, industry, and the arts.

"A Clear and Searching Glance into the

Future"

Any temptation Dodge may have had to relax his efforts to expand and improve the statistical service of the Department was countered by the stimulation of his European tour,

criticism at home by the National Board of

Trade,60and his concern with mounting crop

surpluses. Writing in 1889, Dodge declared

that "the vital need of today is a clear and

searching glance into the future, a forecast of

crop results which shall fairly indicate them

in advance."61 Dodge had no illusions as to

the difficulties involved in making such estimates. In fact, the staff, field organization,

and statistical methods available were not adequate for such a task nor would they be for

many years to come.

In his report the previous year, Dodge had

said: "The county correspondents now number

2,331, their assistants are fully three times

as many, and the State agencies have a large

list of correspondents. Altogether over twelve

thousand persons are connected with the work

of statistical investigation." 62 The implication

is that this constituted a powerful staff and

it was for the time but, looking back, it seems

woefully inadequate.

That Jacob Dodge labored incessantly to

satisfy the demands of his day is indicated by

the variety of subjects for which he obtained

and published statistics, his efforts to provide

information on foreign agricultural conditions,

his emphasis on use of scientific statistical

tools, the innovations he made to popularize

statistics, and his articles such as "The Agricultural Depression and Its Causes (1890),"

"Permanency of Agricultural Production

(1891)," "Agricultural Production for American Consumption (1884)," "Foreign Markets

for Dairy Products." 63 The economist, Henry

C. Taylor, and his wife, Anne Dewees Taylor,

in their "Story of Agricultural Economics in

the United States, 1840-1932," stress the role

of J. R. Dodge as an economist and laud his

attention to the economic problems of the times.

Repeatedly in the Monthly Reports, Mr.

Dodge endeavored to convince his farmer respondents that in reporting to him concerning

farming conditions they were serving their

own best interests. In an article on the subject

in the report for November 1889, Dodge said,

in part: "The farmer has everything to gain

and nothing to lose by publicity of the results

of his labors. He cannot keep these results a

secret if he would, and it would be extremely

injurious to his interest if he should."

58 Dictionary of American Biography 5: 349-350.

59 U.S. Division of Statistics, Reports, September

1885, p. 45. Francis A. Walker, President of Massachusetts Institute of Tech., attended the London meeting

and was an original member of the Institute.

60 National Board of Trade. Proceedings, 1887. p. 12.

61 U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. Report, 1889. Washington, D.C., 1889, p. 201.

83 U.S. Commissioner of Agriculture. Report, 1888.

Washington, D.C., 1889, p. 405.

63 Each is included in the Report of the U.S. Commissioner of Agriculture for the year indicated.

37
National Board of Trade Criticism of Reports

Criticism now and then from editors of

farm journals and similar "experts" could be

expected. More disturbing was that from

members of such an organization as the National Board of Trade. In a meeting in January

1887, Mr. McLaren, a Member of the Board

from Milwaukee, introduced a resolution stating that since the monthly statistical reports

of the Department served no useful purpose

for the agricultural and commercial interests

of this country but, on the contrary, aided our

foreign customers, that the Department

should "report on the acreage as soon as it is

definitely ascertained, and on the yield of

grain and cotton only at the end of the calendar year."64 The purpose, good faith, and desirability of continuing the Government reports was vigorously defended by a number

of Board members, especially by Charles B.

Murray of Cincinnati, whose son Nat C. Murray 40 years later served as Head of the

Bureau of Statistics of the U.S. Department

of Agriculture. After considerable discussion,

Mr. Goodale from Cincinnati proposed a substitute resolution which reads as follows:

Whereas, The monthly crop reports formulated

by the United States Government have in the past

contained numerous inaccuracies, which inaccuracies as we believe, are mainly due to poorly informed and careless correspondents; and

Whereas, Congress is proposing to establish the

Department of Agriculture upon a more serviceable foundation than heretofore; therefore be it

RESOLVED, That the Bureau having in charge

the crop statistics be memorialized to furnish the

necessary money and to take proper steps towards securing more efficient correspondents in

agricultural districts, to the end that a greater

degree of accuracy may be reached in formulating

statistics on growing crops, more especially on

those of grain and cotton.65

The substitute resolution was unanimously

adopted by the Board.66 Although there was

no immediate increase in congressional appropriations for the Department's statistical program, the resolution indicated the attitude of

a segment of the trade and supported the arguments for increased funds.

Dodge had never claimed infallibility for

his statistics. In 1866 when he became Chief

Statistician he wrote:

The crop estimates are only intended to be approximate, for current use in supplying early information in foiling the purposes of reckless speculation. They should not be authoritatively quoted

as fully ascertained and precise facts. In general

terms, they have proved far more reliable than

other reports and estimates.67

In 1892, in submitting his 24th and final Annual Report as Statistician for the Department, Dodge said : "The crop-reporting system

of this division is the most systematic and

extensive known. It would be folly to claim for

it perfection . . . ."68

Dodge Retires

During the quarter of a century between

these two statements, Jacob Richards Dodge

had worked conscientiously and persistently

to develop a statistical service adequate for

the needs of the times. The goal was not

reached nor has it yet been, but there was

much for which Dodge could be proud. As

he said:

The work of the division at first, very limited

in scope and area, now includes, besides organized

original investigation in this country and Europe,

the collection and coordination of the official and

commercial statistics of the world. Instead of one

clerk, the office force including compilers, translators, computers, and copyists now include

60 ....

69

The annual appropriation for the Division

of Statistics had grown to $136,000. Reports

were being received from some 15,000 regular

monthly respondents and about 125,000 "representative farmers." Publications included a

4-page "synopsis" of the crop report in an

edition of 125,000 copies for the exclusive benefit of farmers ;

70

20,000 copies of the monthly

report sent to regular crop reporters, the

press, and officials; and a monthly report incorporating miscellaneous items.

64 National Board of Trade. Proceedings, 1887. Boston, 1887, p. 12.

65 Proceedings, op. cit.

66 Ibid., pp. 14-20.

67 U.S. Monthly Report, 1866. Washington, D.C., 1887.

Statement on flyleaf, under label Notice.

68 U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. Report, 1892. Washington, D.C., 1893, p. 404.

69 Ibid.

70 Ibid, 1893, p. 406.

38
Although Dodge thought that improvements

in statistical methods and operating procedures were possible and desirable, he believed

that the great obstacle to reliable statistics

was the lack of accuracy in the original data.

Dodge argued:

A stream cannot rise higher than its source;

pure mathematics and immaculate judgment combined cannot cure the inaccuracy of erroneous

original data. This is today the supreme difficulty

in obtaining correct statistical results, whether in

a census that requires years of time and millions

of money, or in any other official or unofficial crop

investigations.71

The cure for this seemed to Dodge to lie in

education of the public, especially farmers, as

to the importance of accurate reporting.72

On March 15, 1893, Jacob R. Dodge signed

his last monthly Report of the Statistician. Five

days later he submitted his resignation to the

new Secretary of Agriculture, the Hon. J.

Sterling Morton of Nebraska. Dodge gave as

his reason "a cherished desire to terminate

my long and exacting service as Statistician,

and carry out my plans for more agreeable

work in agricultural literature." 73 He was in

his 70th year. Until his death nearly a decade

later J. R. Dodge served as Statistical Editor

of the "Country Gentleman,,,a magazine which

had a wide circulation among farm people.74

CHAPTER 5. A DECADE OF CONFUSION,

1894-1905

Henry A. Robinson Appointed Chief Statistician

When J. Sterling Morton took office as the

third Secretary of Agriculture on March 7,

1893, he selected Henry A. Robinson as Chief

Statistician. Robinson took office on April 1.

Nat C. Murray characterized him as "a purely

political appointee without qualification as a

statistician.,,According to Murray, a letter

written by Robinson in the files of the Division

71 Ibid., 1892, p. 405.

73 Ibid., p. 406.

73 A copy of this letter is in Mr. Dodge's personnel

file in National Archives. Secretary Morton took office

March 7, accepted Dodge's resignation on March 23,

to take effect at the close of business March 31, 1893.

Morton was the ninth Commissioner or Secretary of

Agriculture under whom Dodge had served.

74 Dictionary of American Biography 5: 349-350.

indicated that Robinson thought that the data

from crop reporters should be tabulated and

given to the public "for what they were worth"

without regard to accuracy.75 As a result of

this policy the accuracy of the reports steadily

declined.

This not only created trouble that was not

fully apparent until the Census of 1900, but

the inaccuracies in the current estimates soon

became evident to users, particularly to the

National Board of Trade.

Criticism of National Board of Trade

In January 1895 the Board passed two resolutions. The first was submitted to the Board

by Charles B. Murray and read as follows:

Whereas, the monthly and yearly crop reports

of the United States Department of Agriculture

have in recent years been confusing, misleading,

and manifestly erroneous in important particulars,

therefore,

RESOLVED, That if the crop-reporting service

of the Government is to be continued, it should

be required that every needful effort be made for

insuring the fullest degree of efficiency in the

work, with reference to completeness and accuracy

of data, and that the dissemination of the information should be conducted in such a manner as

to preclude misunderstanding in regard to the import of such reports and their relation to or comparison with previous statements.76

The second resolution, presented by A. C.

Raymond of Detroit, read:

RESOLVED, That a committee of seven be appointed by the President, to wait upon the Secretary of Agriculture and the Statistician of that

department, with a view to arranging a conference with them by representatives from commercial

organizations of the United States, for the purpose

of devising a system of agricultural reports which

shall regularly furnish to the public the most

accurate, reliable and complete information concerning the agricultural products of the United

States."

As a result of these resolutions a Committee

on Crop Reports was appointed, with Charles

B. Murray as Chairman. Members included

W. J. Boyd of St. Louis, Blanchard Randall of

Baltimore, A. C. Raymond of Detroit, Breedlove Smith of New Orleans, D. B. Smith of

75 Murray, Nat C. A Close-up View of the Development of Agricultural Statistics from 1900 to 1920.

(4) : 708, Nov. 1939.

76 Taylor, Henry C. and Anne D. Taylor. The Story

of Agriculture Economics in the United States, 1840-

1932; Men, Services, Ideas, p. 204. 1952.

77 Ibid., p. 204.

39
Toledo, and G. F. Stone of Chicago.78

Following

a session of the Committee with the members

of the Division of Statistics in Washington

on April 15, 1895, the following resolutions

were adopted:

This conference, called to consider means by

which the crop-reporting service of the Department of Agriculture may be improved and the

official results made more satisfactory to the

public, beg to submit for the consideration of the

honorable Secretary of Agriculture the following suggestions:

That it is the judgment of the interests represented in this conference that the official cropreporting service should be maintained, and that

the reports now regularly issued be continued,

with such modifications as hereinafter suggested.

(1) That the April report on winter grain be

discontinued, but that all other features now embodied in that report be continued.

(2) That in all reports concerning acreage of

the various crops reported upon, the Department

give the area by States in acres, as well as by

the percentage of the previous year's area.

(3) That the Department, instead of having a

principal correspondent and three assistants in

each county, as at present, make an effort to secure the regular service of one or more reporters

in each township, all to make their reports directly to the Department at Washington.

(4) That in the selection of these correspondents

they should not be taken from farming classes

exclusively, but should include, so far as possible,

representatives of all classes of rural industry.

(5) That the Department discontinue the employment of salaried State agents in the regular

crop-reporting work.

(6) That the returns of reserves of wheat, corn,

oats, and cotton be had for dates representing the

close of the crop year; wheat on July 1, oats on

August 1, corn on November 1, and cotton on

September 1.

(7) That arrangements be perfected with the

United States consular service for sending by cable

to the Department, on or about the 9th of each

month, a statement giving the best available information concerning prospects for crops of

grain and cotton in their respective districts, to

be published in connection with the domestic

crop report when issued.

(8) That it is the sense of this conference that

a law should be enacted punishing by fine and

imprisonment any employee of the Department of

Agriculture who divulges to any one outside of

the Department of Agriculture any statistical or

other general information of the Department previous to the time appointed for officially presenting

the same to the public.79

Corps of Township Reporters Set Up

The most immediate and perhaps most important result of these resolutions was the establishment of a corps of township correspondents who reported directly to Washington.

This carried out resolution number 3 except

that the system of county correspondents was

continued.80Paid State agents were also maintained despite the recommendation that the

Department discontinue their employment.

Periodic stocks reports were inaugurated in

1895 as proposed; they have continued as recommended. Nothing was done during Robinson's regime to provide monthly cable reports

from the consular service concerning foreign

grain and cotton prospects. Also no regulations

were promulgated for punishment by fine or

imprisonment of a Department employee

guilty of divulging information prior to its

official release. As we will see, both of these

developments were to come later. Nevertheless,

Robinson felt that progress was being made.

In the Report of the Secretary for 1896 he

pointed with pride:

With county correspondents varying from 9,000

to 10,000 in number, with state statistical agents

and assistants numbering 6,000 to 7,000 and with

a corps of township correspondents having about

28,000 members, each group working independently

of the others, the Department has at its service

the amplest resources it has ever commanded.81

The Committee on Crop Reports of the National Board of Trade was not so sanguine,

however, and continued to urge that positive

action be taken on its recommendations.82

An Annual Census of Agriculture

Robinson was of the opinion that his experienced county crop correspondents could

make an annual farm-to-farm survey that

would provide much more reliable data than

that obtained by the casual, part-time enumerators of the decennial census. His farsighted

plans included "self-enumeration" by the

more educated and cooperative farmers, and

interview followup of nonrespondents by paid

interviewers. In the Secretary's Report for

1895, Robinson outlined his proposal. It was

much too extensive to meet the requirements

' Ibid.

» Ibid., pp. 204-205.

80 In 1925 the lists of township reporters and county

correspondents were combined comprising a corps of

nearly 40,000 U.S. Dept. of Agr. reporters. See the

Crop and Livestock Reporting Service of the U.S.,

Misc. Pub. 703, Washington, D.C., 1933, p. 4.

81 U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Report, 1896, Washington, D.C., 1896, p. 115.

82 National Board of Trade. Proceedings. Jan. 1897,

and Dec. 1897.

40
of a current reporting system, even if the

tremendous expense of enumerations could

have been eliminated by securing voluntary

enumerators, to say nothing of the cost of

processing the questionnaires after the field

enumerations.

His objective to secure more accurate reports as a basis for annual estimates was commendable. Dodge, before him, had felt the

same need as did many Chief Statisticians to

follow him. More than half a century was to

elapse before a workable plan that would accomplish the objectives which he sought would

be developed and put into operation.

James Wilson Appointed Secretary of Agriculture

When the Republicans were returned to

the White House by the election of 1896,

President McKinley appointed James Wilson

as Secretary of Agriculture. He retained that

position for 16 years, a record never achieved

by any Cabinet officer before or since.83Secretary Wilson, or "Tama Jim," as he was known

because of his residence in the county of that

name in Iowa, wrote in his first annual report :

I am impressed with the extreme cumbrousness

of the system of crop reporting that has been

in use in this division during the last few years.

Instead of conducing to completeness and accuracy, it would appear from the report of the

Statistician to in some measure defeat its own

object by its unwieldiness and by the fact that

the indefinite multiplication of crop reporters

weakens the sense of individual responsibility. I

strongly favor the making of some slight pecuniary acknowledgement of the services of a carefully selected corps of correspondents located

mainly in the principal agricultural States, and

that reliance be placed upon the State statistical

agents for information regarding the States of

minor agricultural importance.84

John Hyde Appointed Chief Statistician

To renovate the Department's statistical

service, Secretary Wilson chose John Hyde,

who, like Wilson, had been born a British

subject but had become a naturalized citizen

of the United States and claimed Omaha,

Nebr., as his home.85 Hyde had been in charge

of agricultural statistics for the Census of

1890 and had joined the staff of the Department of Agriculture in 1895 as an editor or

"expert compiler,,in the Division of Statistics.86 He was, therefore, a holdover from the

previous Administration when appointed Statistician and Chief of the Division of Statistics

on May 5, 1897. In a biographical statement

Hyde said that he had not been trained for any

particular field but that, prior to Government

employment, he had been engaged primarily

in "banking and journalism."87

Hyde went to work energetically to

strengthen the work of his Division. The new

Statistician believed that the primary function of the Division was to shed a true light

on agricultural conditions so that farmers

would not be fleeced by speculators. He expressed his philosophy thus; "In every sphere

of human thought uncertainty is the mother

of speeulations."88 Hyde sought to convince farmers of the importance of agricultural statistics by writing a rather lengthy

article entitled "Of What Service are Statistics

to the Farmer.,,The article was published as

a part of the Report of the Secretary of Agriculture for 1897, and 15,000 reprints were

placed on sale at 5 cents apiece by the Government Printing Office.89

Secretary Wilson proposed that "brief reports" be displayed in rural postoffices so that

farmers could be kept quickly informed of

crop prospects.90In about 4 years, this suggestion was put into effect, when cards carrying

pertinent cotton data were mailed to 24,000

Southern postoffices within 3 hours of publication of the telegraphic summary, with the request that the cards be prominently displayed.91 The publicity given the reports was

83 From Mar. 6, 1897, to Mar. 5, 1913, according to

official records of the Department of Agriculture.

84 U.S. Department of Agriculture. Yearbook, 1897.

Washington, D.C., 1898, p. 56.

85 Personnel folder of John Hyde in National Archives. For reference to Wilson see Arthur C. True,

History of Agriculture Experimentation and Research

in the U.S., 1607-1925, p. 186.

^Ibid. His annual salary as "Expert Compiler" was

raised to $2,250 the next year.

57 Ibid.

88U.S.D.A. Yearbook, 1897. Washington, D.C., 1898,

p. 265.

89U.S.D.A. Yearbook, 1898. Washington, D.C., 1899,

p. 608.

90 Op. cit., p. 57.

91U.S.D.A. Yearbook, 1901. Washington, D.C., 1902,

p. 524.

41
considered so valuable that the plan was extended to include grain.92

The "Crop Reporter" Established

Hyde's determined effort to provide timely

information concerning the Nation's agriculture resulted in a new monthly publication,

"The Crop Reporter." The publication was

billed as for "the exclusive use of the Department's crop correspondents," but only "so long

as ... . (they continue) to supply the Statistician with the information asked for."93

During its first year, 362,800 copies of the

Crop Reporter were published94and 4 years

later distribution totaled 1,300,000.95

Traveling Field Agents Employed

One of John Hyde's first efforts to improve

the statistical service was the appointment of

20 additional State Agents, making a total of

41 by July 1, 1898. In addition, Hyde was of

the opinion he needed five "traveling inspectors" to coordinate the work of the State

Agents and to keep abreast of agricultural

changes in the areas assigned to them. A reduction in funds for 1899 96 postponed such appointments but gradually Hyde created a staff

of roving assistants.97 Nat C. Murray, later

Chief of the Bureau of Statistics, started work

with the crop reporting service in 1904 as one

of these special field agents with a territory

that included Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Kentucky.98 Of this experience Mr.

Murray has written :

I was required to make a report upon the condition of the various crops as of the first of the

month for each of five States, similar to reports

92 Ibid.

93 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Yearbook, 1899. Washington, D.C., 1900, p. 685.

94 Ibid. The Crop Reporter was superseded in 1913

by a similar publication "Crops and Markets."

95 Ibid. 1903, p. 76.

96 Ibid. 1898, p. 60.

97 Two were enrolled in 1900 (U.S.D.A. Yearbook,

1900, Washington, D.C., 1901, p. 73); 2 more in 1902

(Secretary of Agriculture Report, 1902, p. 72); 2 in

1903 (Secretary of Agriculture Report, 1903, p. 88).

According to Nat C. Murray three of these were Ed.

S. Holmes, John Darg, and Tom Baldwin (see footnote,

Jour. Farm. Econ., Nov. 1939, p. 709).

98 Jour. Farm. Econ. XXI(4) : 709, Nov. 1939.

being made by the State statistical agents. It was

not long before I learned from experience that

it was impracticable, if not impossible, to report

satisfactorily upon the condition of crops in each

of five States as of a certain date by travel and

observation alone. Questions as to percentage of

increase or decrease of acreage, or of yield per

acre, which did not relate to a specific date, could

be investigated in this way, by contacting specialists in certain crops in various parts of the States

covered. After some time I was authorized to maintain several hundred select correspondents, who

reported to me as of the first of each month.99

The work of the regional field agents was

considered very valuable. The number was increased and the system of regional agents continued until in 1914, fulltime State agricultural statisticians were appointed.

The Census of 1900 vs. Current Estimates

Publication of agricultural data from the

Census of 1900 was eagerly awaited by Hyde

and his staff as this would afford a direct

comparison of the Department's estimates

made currently and the census enumerations.1

Because of the importance of this relationship,

Hyde announced late in 1901 that the usual

year-end estimates of crop production for that

season would not be published pending receipt

of Census data the following summer. This decision aroused dissent, especially from the

Committee on Crop Reports of the National

Board of Trade, which declared:

If the Crop Reporting Service of the Department of Agriculture is unable, without undue delay, to offer an approximately correct statement of

the situation or results as a comparison with the

preceding year, it has little claim for existence

.... The conscientious work of the statistician

of the Department of Agriculture has been and is

recognized. It is his method which is open to

criticism.2

When the results of the Census became

available in 1902, a controversy immediately

arose because of the wide differences shown

for many crops between acreages and production for 1899 as shown by the Census and the

estimates made currently for that year by the

Division of Statistics of the Department of

Agriculture. In almost all instances the De99 Ibid.

1 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Yearbook, 1900. Washington, D.C., 1901, p. 54.

2 National Board of Trade. Proceedings, 1902. P.

119.

42
partment's estimates were significantly lower

than comparable census figures.3For the Nation's two largest crops, acreage differences

showed Department estimates about 16 percent lower for corn and 18 percent lower for

wheat.4 Discrepancies of such magnitude

could not be ignored by either agency, nor by

the public, and the question arose as to which

set of data, if either, was correct. The National Board of Trade formed a Committee of

Inquiry on Agricultural Statistics that held a

series of meetings with the Census Bureau

and the Department of Agriculture in which

the techniques and procedures used by each

agency were carefully reviewed.5 This Committee recognized difficulties and weaknesses

of both the census enumerations and Department estimates but concluded that the primary difficulties might be "a possibly faulty

area basis as a starting point, accepted from

the latest census returns ; a tendency to underestimate on the part of correspondents, in application of percentage comparisons; and a

cumulative divergence from the true line by

progressive application of such underestimates." 6

These findings by the committee underscored the basic weakness in the estimating

procedures that were followed. The census

base figures were established every 10 years.

Each year the statisticians gathered by mail

inquiry from a large number of farmers their

opinions of the percentage of change in the

current year as compared with the past year.

The percentage change for the current year

was applied to the estimate for the previous

year to give a current year estimate. Continuing this procedure for 10 years—until a new

census was taken—meant that the current estimates were subject to the error that might

be present in the beginning census base, the

error or bias that was present in the currently

reported figures by the crop correspondent,

and the error in the census figures at the end

of the 10-year period.

From the beginning, the statisticians had

recognized these problems and had given particular attention to the analysis of the yearto-year percentage changes derived from the

combined judgment of the corps of crop correspondents. Obviously, if this combined judgment was biased, and was not corrected, the

resulting acreage estimate would be in error.

Moreover, because each succeeding estimate

was based on the preceding years the error

would be cumulative.

Robinson, when Chief Statistician from

1893 to 1897, had been inclined to accept the

reported figures from correspondents without

change. Because of this lack of critical appraisal during his term, the crop reports had

indicated a continuous decline in acreage and

production of corn and wheat. When Hyde

became head of the Division of Statistics, he

attempted to correct this situation but was

not fully able to do so.7

It appears, therefore, that the wide variation between the Department's estimates for

1899 and the census enumerations for that

year resulted primarily from a low base as established for 1889 by the Census Bureau, and

from accumulated errors in the Department's

estimated yearly percentage change during the

subsequent decade. Thus the data of both agencies appear to have been faulty.

Surveys to Collect Farm Management Statistics

The engrossment of the Division of Statistics from its beginning with the collection

and analysis of data relating to economic aspects of agriculture has been frequently noted

in these pages. In 1902, this interest found

new expression in a cooperative project undertaken with the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station to provide statistics pertaining

to the cost of producing farm products.8

The methods used to collect data were

unique. Three college students were hired to

make daily interviews with 15 farmers along

specified routes in 3 Minnesota counties. The

route statisticians, as the young interviewers

were called, boarded in the home of one of

their cooperators. Records were made of "each

hour of labor performed by each man and each

horse, and giving the field crop or other enter3 Official records of Crop Reporting Board.

4

Ibid.

5 National Board of Trade. Proceedings, 1903, p. 81.

6

Ibid., pp. 94-95.

7

Jour. Farm Econ. XXI (4) : 708-709. Nov. 1939.

8 This brief sketch of a pioneer project is based on

a report entitled "The Cost of Producing Farm Products," Bureau of Statistics Bui. 48, Washington, D.C.,

1906, p. 22.

43
prise upon which the labor was used."9

Scale

drawings of each field were made so that cost

per acre could be computed for each crop on

each farm and route, and for the State. Complete inventories of livestock, machinery, etc.,

were made at the beginning of each year. Receipts and expenditures for field crops, machinery, horses, and labor during the year

were secured from the cooperative farmers.

In the third year of the project the number

of farmers interviewed was reduced from 15 to

8, and the route statisticians were required to

live with each farm family 3 days each month

for a total of 30 days during the year. During

the 3-day residence at a farm the route statistician helped with the chores and recorded

the amount of feed used by each group of

animals, and the amount, and butterfat content, of milk produced by each cow. A card

was left in each home on which were recorded

the number of eggs laid, and the number of

eggs, pounds of butter, poultry, and other

farm produce consumed by the family. The

purchase of eight wagon scales for use on one

of the routes to obtain more accurate data indicates the lengths gone to by the Department

to make the project a success.

The results of the 3-year study were considered "to be more valuable than any data on

this subject heretofore collected, because they

represent actual farm conditions and have

been gathered by exact methods." 10

End of the Founding Period

Bureau of Statistics Established

On July 1, 1903, a Bureau of Statistics was

established which merged the Division of Statistics and Division of Foreign Markets. Although it was expected that the work would

continue along "practically the same lines as

heretofore,,,it was hoped that the Bureau

would be strengthened so that it would become "the principal source of reliable information on the agricultural resources of the country." " As reorganized, the Bureau included a

Division of Domestic Crop Reports, a Division

of Foreign Markets, and a Miscellaneous Division. The Miscellaneous Division was

charged with the conduct of special investigations and the collection of statistics on rural

economics. Some 205,000 voluntary reporters,

consisting of county correspondents, township

correspondents, individual farmers, and special cotton correspondents, supplied information pertaining to agricultural conditions.

State Statistical Agents submitted their appraisal of conditions in their State and traveling agents reported for their territory covering several States. Final conclusions based on

an analysis of indications from all these efforts

were published monthly in The Crop Reporter.12

Appraisal of Statistical Techniques and Procedures 13

The statistical program seemed to be

broadly based, efficiently organized, and

effectively meeting the needs of the times.

Such a roseate picture was not universally accepted. As Hyde said:

Criticism is not lacking. On the contrary, it is

one of the curious features of this work that the

more closely reports represent the actual facts

and the wider the appreciation of their accuracy

the more subject they become to criticism. This

is undoubtedly due to the fact that as their general accuracy is more and more widely recognized

they necessarily exercise a greater influence upon

the markets, thus inevitably favoring or antagonizing, as the case may be, some of those who are

engaged in the game of speculation in agricultural

products. This immediately attracts the adverse

comments of the losers. This result is unavoidable, and is apparently the inevitable penalty the

Department must pay for issuing reports so reliable and so generally appreciated as to have

instant effect on the markets. Were the reverse

true, and were these reports regarded as unreliable, they would not influence prices, and criticisms would be reduced to a minimum.14

Although this statement has self-righteous

overtones, it is basically true. Throughout its

history, the tattoo of criticism leveled at the

agricultural estimating service has stemmed

9

Ibid., p. 23.

10 Ibid., p. 84.

11 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Yearbook, 1903. Washington, D.C., 1904, p. 70.

12 U.S. Department of Agriculture Yearbook, 1905.

Washington, D.C., 1906, p. 105.

13 See U.S. Department of Agriculture Yearbook,

1907, Rules for the Crop Reporting Board, pp. 106-

113 for a comprehensive account of the crop reporting

system. Also Reports of the Keep Commission, Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, Senate Document No. 464, 59th Cong., 1st Sess., 1906.

14 Ibid., 1904, p. 88.

44
from the fact that its estimates actually are

relied upon by farmers, business people, college professors, and Government officials.

When the reports err, these consumers of statistics vent their resentment.

Statistical techniques and procedures used

during the founding years of the Department's

statistical service were creditable for their

time and place. The science and practice of

sampling had been, as Professor Bowley said

as late as 1906, "persistently neglected.,, 15 The

Department's statisticians had little formal

training in statistical methodology and although they learned some procedures from

European statisticians, especially those in

Germany, for the most part they were statistical <<landlubbers,,

sailing uncharted seas.

The decennial census, which provided State

totals of crop production, livestock numbers,

etc., was the foundation upon which the

monthly and annual crop reports of the Department of Agriculture were based. The

county correspondents submitted their judgment of the percentage change from the previous year in production of specified crops in

their county. These were weighted by census

totals, and the weighted percentage changes

were applied to the previous year's production to obtain an estimate of the crop for the

current season. Such techniques have the virtue of simplicity but they carry seeds of disaster. For such unadorned procedures to be

successful two conditions must be met. First,

the census data used as a base for subsequent

estimates must be complete and accurate. This

degree of precision could not be expected in

1900 nor in any other census enumeration.

Secondly, the indications of percentage change

from the previous year must be sound. This

was not possible under the methods employed

during the founding years. The county correspondents and their assistants simply did not

have the facts upon which to base precise reports. Their judgment of the situation was

adequate for a general appraisal but not for

the precise estimates desired and expected by

the public.

The making of consistently accurate estimates and forecasts of agricultural production

is a formidable undertaking. The reasons are

many but some are readily apparent. To select

a relatively small, representative sample of

farms from a multitude varying in size and

type and scattered over vast distances is a

highly scientific and herculean task. It is one

that would tax the most modern facilities and

skills, few of which were available or even

dreamed of in the period under discussion.

The problems of crop estimating were compounded for Chief Statisticians Bollman,

Dodge, Worthington, Robinson, and Hyde by

the drastic changes in acreages and in the

whole farm situation that took place between

the presidential terms of Abraham Lincoln

and Theodore Roosevelt. During those turbulent years, the first railroad pushed West to

the Pacific, dragging in its wake the cattleman's frontier that soon was overrun and submerged by the "nesters." To keep abreast of

such rampaging changes was impossible and

the marvel is that the beleaguered statisticians

managed, as they did, to follow the main

trends and to measure their relative magnitude.16

A Blot on the Escutcheon

The possibility had long existed and rumors

had circulated that advance information from

the crop reports had gotten to outsiders who

had used it for personal profit.17In 1905, it

came to light that E. S. Holmes, Jr., Associate

Statistician, had actually collaborated with a

New York cotton speculator named Louis Van

Riper in stock-market manipulations which

reportedly netted them several hundred thousand dollars.18 The basis for their stock dealing was advance information concerning the

Government reports which Holmes was in a

position to "leak." Chief Statistician Hyde had

delegated a great deal of his responsibility

and authority to his assistant. This misplaced

15 Bowley, A. L. Address to the Economic Service

and Statistics Section of the British Association for

the Advancement of Service. In Jour. Royal Soc. 69:

540. 1906.

16 This judgment seems justified as a general proposition, however, it can be argued in respect to particular commodities and items. For a highly controversial

example see Working, Holbrook. Wheat Acreage and

Production in the United States Since 1866 : A Revision

of Official Estimates in Wheat Studies of Food Research Institute 11(7), June 1926, Stanford Univ.

17 U.S. Department of Agriculture Yearbook, 1898.

Washington, D.C., 1899, p. 60.

18 The discussion of this unfortunate incident is based

on the Yearbook of Agriculture, 1905, p. 95, and unpublished material in the Department.

45
trust enabled Holmes to manipulate the reports, especially those on cotton, to suit his

speculative needs. Rumors of leakage of crop

information had brought about a tightening

of precautions surrounding the preparation

and release of the reports, including the locking of the rooms when the estimates were being finalized. When Holmes could no longer

leave his office to send his New York confederate advance information, a signaling system

was devised involving the raising or lowering

of a window shade in the "lockup." If the

shade was halfway down, it was a sign that

the report would show conditions as Holmes

had previously informed his accomplice they

would be. If it was halfway up the upper sash,

it meant that Holmes' accomplice should sell.

If halfway down on the lower sash, it was a

signal that the report was even better than

Holmes had anticipated.

Failure to get word to the market operator,

Van Riper, of a late change in the June 1905

report caused him to lose some $20,000 to

$30,000. In retaliation Van Riper charged in

a telegram to the Secretary of the Southern

Cotton-Grower's Association in Atlanta that

the Government report for June had been

falsified. An investigation followed; Holmes

was removed from office and a corrected report

was released. Legal grounds for prosecution of

the conspirators were tenuous; however, 11

grand jury indictments were made and the

case ricocheted around the courts for several

years. Eventually Holmes was fined $5,000

and others received similar penalties.

John Hyde Retires

John Hyde had served 8 eventful years as

Chief Statistician of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture and although cleared of implication in the cotton scandal, the time had come

for him to depart. His letter of resignation to

Secretary James Wilson reveals some of the

flesh wounds he had suffered during his tenure

of office:

ble to the agricultural and commercial interests

of the country, my administration of the office I

have the honor to hold has been constantly under

fire from one side of the market or the other. Five

times it has been investigated and on every occasion I have been vindicated. In January, 1903,

I was awarded $2,500 damages in a libel suit

against a prominent firm of cotton brokers by a

jury of their own friends and fellow-citizens.

These results have been very gratifying to me,

but I have the highest medical authority for the

statement that the continued fight upon me has

already considerably shortened my life. At the

present time it is an accepted fact that a powerful

organization is bent upon bringing about my retirement, by one means or another. Now, I do not

think the position I hold is worth the fight necessary to its retention, and the organization in

question is welcome to whatever satisfaction it can

derive from my withdrawal from the unequal

struggle. If any of my friends think that I ought

not to retire under fire, I would have them remember that there is never a time when I am not under

fire. I have the honor therefore to tender you

herewith my resignation of my appointment as

Statistician and Chief of the Bureau of Statistics

of this Department.

With much appreciation of the uniform courtesy

and kindness you have shown me and of the many

tokens of confidence I have received from you, I am

Most respectfully yours,

(signed) John Hyde

Hon. James Wilson

Secretary of Agriculture

Hyde's resignation was accepted by Secretary Wilson the same day it was submitted,

to take effect after the customary 30 days of

terminal leave.19

U.S. Crop Reporting Board Formed

The precipitate departure of John Hyde

heralded the end of the founding period of

the Department's statistical service. Pending

the appointment of Hyde's successor, the

duties of Chief Statistician were assigned to

the energetic Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, Willet M. Hays. This assignment provided interim leadership to the Bureau of Statistics by a man who had worked with the

statisticians in connection with the farm

management program and had a high regard

for the work being done.20

Dear Mr. Secretary :- July 18, 1905

During the last four years, or since I succeeded

m making the crop reports of the Department

reasonably accurate and correspondingly valua19 Letter, Hyde to Wilson, July 18, 1905. In National

Archives.

20 Murray, N.C., A Close-up View of the Development

of Agricultural Statistics from 1900 to 1920 Jour

Farm Econ. XXI(4), Nov. 1939.

46
Hays was not a trained statistician but he

was enthusiastic and full of ideas. Traditionally the final estimate for each State and for

the country as a whole had been determined

by the Chief Statistician, with perhaps an

occasional assist from one of the staff.21 When

Hays became the temporary head of the Bureau of Statistics, he recognized that he was

a tyro at the intricate business of making

crop estimates. To offset his lack of experience, Hays began the practice of inviting two

of his Section Heads and two Special Field

L

Ibid.

Agents to sit with him as a committee to review the State data and make final estimates

as a group. Thus in this casual fashion was

created the Crop Reporting Board, which became the "rock" upon which the Department's

nationwide and complex statistical service of

today was built. For more than half a century

the Board has weathered the storms that

periodically swirl about it when an errant estimate stirs public wrath. With the formation

of the Crop Reporting Board in 1905, agricultural estimating did, indeed, come to the end

of its founding days.

47
PART III. A PERIOD OF GROWTH, 1905-30

PROLOGUE

The progress made in agricultural research

during the latter part of the 19th century

affected every aspect of agricultural production. Development of new varieties and disease-resistant strains of plants was having a

tremendous influence on crop production. Invention of new farm machinery and improvement of the old were enabling farmers to shift

from manpower to horsepower. Steam engines

were of use in threshing of grain, but they

were not the answer to the farm power needs.

This led to experimentation with the gasoline

engine. A system of dryland farming had been

developed in the ISQO's and by the end of the

century, dryfarming was hailed as the solution

of the agricultural problems of the Great

Plains.

All of these developments were coincident

with the need for commercial agriculture. As

a result, there was an increasing awareness of

the importance of marketing and a pressing

demand for reliable information on the supplies of food and fiber. The significance of

this information and need for protecting the

crop reports was dramatically demonstrated

in the episode of 1905, and the creation of the

Crop Reporting Board operating under strict

law, rules, and regulations was the answer.

The period from 1905 through the First

World War was a period of tremendous development in all phases of agricultural production and marketing. Plow agriculture was increasing in the Great Plains. Dryland farming

pushed into the arid sections of the region,

developing the dryland farming boom. The

cattle industry expanded into the southern

Great Plains.22

Agricultural research expanded significantly. The theory of selective breeding for plants

resistant to disease, developed in connection

with research for control of cotton wilt, was

applied to most of the major crops and extended to resistance to insects and to drought,

adaptation to different climates, improved

flavor, better market qualities, and increased

food value.23

Research on breeding of new varieties of

crops was having a significant impact. Turkey

red and durum wheat were becoming commercially successful, but probably the most

important development was the introduction

of Canadian Marquis wheat. This variety had

resulted from crossing Red Fife from Poland

with Red Calcutta from India. By 1909, the

Canadian farmers were producing this variety, and in about 1912 it was introduced in

the Dakotas and Minnesota. This was the

wheat that helped to alleviate the food shortage during World War I. Later, it was used in

the development of many new varieties, including Thatcher in 1934.24

Studies that led to the introduction of hybrid seed corn started around 1904. This work

was based on the work of two great European

scientists, Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel.

It was not until about 1900 that the importance of MendeFs work was recognized. Finally, in the midtwenties, largely through the

efforts of Henry A. Wallace, hybrid seed corn

became available to farmers. Hybrid seed

brought about a revolution in corn production that not only affected systems of farm

management, but required the development of

new techniques in the corn estimating procedures used by the Crop Reporting Board.25

The internal combustion engine was improved rapidly. The increased use of automobiles and trucks revolutionized normal trans22 U.S. Dept. Agr. A Chronology of American Agriculture, 1790-1965. Econ. Res. Serv. SI. rev. 1966.

23 Rasmussen, Wayne D. Readings in the History of

Agriculture, p. 162. Univ. 111. Press, 1960.

24 Wheat Flour Institute. From Wheat to Flour.

The Story of Man—in a Grain of Wheat, p. 11. Chicago,

111., 1965 edition.

25 Rasmussen, Wayne D. Ibid., pp. 214, 243.

48
portation. The big open-geared gasoline tractor

was introduced in the extensive farming

areas in the Great Plains in 1912. It was followed rapidly by lighter, less cumbersome

machines, which by the First World War were

used in many agricultural areas.

The county agent system got its start as the

result of the work of Seaman A. Knapp in connection with efforts to combat the ravages of

the cotton boll weevil. The Division of Entomology of the Department of Agriculture

had developed the "cultural" remedy by 1897.

Knapp had endeavored to extend the methods

of control which he had demonstrated on a

farm near Terrell, Tex. To expand this demonstration work, he secured funds from farmers,

businessmen, railroads, and banks, and the

first county agent was employed in Smith

County, Tex., on November 12, 1906. The

work expanded mostly in the Southern States.

The development in the North was somewhat

slower, but the plan gained widespread support

of many business organizations, chambers of

commerce, and the agricultural colleges. Agitation developed for Federal aid. The first bill

was drafted by the Agricultural College Association and introduced in 1908. Others followed and finally the Smith-Lever Act for

cooperative extension work was approved on

May 8, 1914.26

The depression of 1907 was followed by a

fairly normal period from 1909 to 1912, and

then another depression in 1913. These ups and

downs in business were disrupting to the

whole economy, and served to emphasize prices

in the minds of farmers and the speculative

nature of the markets in general.

Farmers were consequently becoming more

and more aware of economic problems relating primarily to market prices and methods

and practices in the market place.

Complaints had long been heard with regard to the damage and loss incurred in shipping livestock. Death losses were high from

injury; losses also resulted from lack of feed

and water on long hauls. In 1906, the so-called

"28-hour law" requiring humane treatment of

livestock in transit was passed. Under this

law, carriers were required to provide for

feed, rest, and water at intervals of not more

than 28 hours for all interstate shipment of

26 Baker, Gladys L. The County Agent. Univ. Chicago

Press, 1939, pp. 15-37.

livestock. Another law involving livestock was

the new Meat Inspection Act of 1906. The Act

of 1890 had been limited to the inspection of

salt pork and bacon and live animals for export, and the quarantine of imported animals.

The Meat Inspection Act of 1906 expanded the

1890 law to include inspection of processing

plants and requirements for antemortem inspection of animals for slaughter and postmortem inspection of carcasses. Supervision

of meat processing and labeling of products

were also required.

The Cotton Futures Act, the first major attempt to regulate the marketing of farm

products, was approved in 1914. This Act was

declared unconstitutional because it was predicated on the taxing power of the Constitution.

It was redrafted on the basis of the commerce

clause, reenacted, and approved on August 11,

1916. On the same day, the Grain Standards

Act and the U.S. Warehouse Act were approved. On August 31, the Standard Container

Act was approved. The "Act authorizing the

Secretary of Agriculture to collect and publish

statistics of the grade and staple length of

cotton" was approved on March 3, 1927.

The purpose of the Packers and Stockyards

Act, approved on August 15, 1921, was to

assure fair competition and fair trade practices in livestock marketing and the meatpacking industry. It is the broadest of the

marketing regulatory acts administered by

the Department. Under it the Secretary may

prescribe rates for stockyards services and

marketing fees. The definition of interstate

commerce is broad and was sustained in an

opinion of Chief Justice Taft in 1922 which in

effect declared that all of the posted yards

were in interstate commerce. The object

sought by the regulation of marketing at the

stockyards, Chief Justice Taft stated, "is the

free and unburdened flow of livestock,,in interstate commerce, and the "chief evil feared

is the monopoly of packers, enabling them to

unduly and arbitrarily lower the prices to the

shipper who sells, and unduly and arbitrarily

increase the prices to the consumer who buys"

(Stafford vs. Wallace 258 U.S. 495, 515-516).

The increased interest in marketing accelerated studies of grades and standards and plans

for a market news service. The first market

reports covered strawberries and were issued

at Hammond, La., in 1915. Livestock market

49
news was started 2 years later, in 1917. World

War I created a heavy demand for quality

grades for farm products, and special funds

were provided for a substantial increase in

market reports on many commodities.

All of these regulatory laws and marketing

services added emphasis to the importance of

adequate and accurate market information.

The crop and livestock reports were the basic

market information service, and therefore

came under additional scrutiny in the marketing process. Trading on commodities exchanges became increasingly sensitive to the

estimates of production, particularly the

monthly forecasts of production inaugurated

in 1911.

CHAPTER 6. CROP REPORTING FROM 1905

THROUGH WORLD WAR I

First Request for Laws Governing the Crop

Reports Not Approved

Following the "Cotton Leak" of 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt and the Secretary of

Agriculture sought legislation to guard

against a recurrence of such a disclosure. At

the request of the Secretary, Congressman

Arthur J. Burleson of Texas introduced a bill

to make the premature divulgence of the statistical reports of the Bureau a crime. His

law was passed unanimously by the House. The

Senate made some minor changes and then

passed it, also unanimously. The conferees

met and apparently agreed to the amendments,

but when the conferees' report was taken up

on the floor of the House, there was considerable confusion over the inclusion of wording

in the second section of the bill that made the

law applicable to Members of Congress. In the

course of discussion it developed that Burleson

had inserted that language because, as he said,

he intended to make the original bill include

Members of Congress anyway. Objection to

the revised bill arose from both sides. There

were some rather sharp clashes during the

discussion on the floor, which continued for

several hours, that seemed to boil down to the

feeling on the part of many Congressmen, that

Burleson had made the law much broader

than originally intended. As the time for debate drew to a close, a motion to table the

conferees' report was presented and passed,

107 to 66. This killed the bill and nothing more

was done until 1909.

In the interim between 1905 and 1909 the

Board operated under rules and regulations

promulgated by the Department of Agriculture. The Department published several articles to acquaint the public with the precautions that were being taken. One such article,

that appeared in the Yearbook of 1907, is reproduced here.

Rules for the Crop Reporting Board 27

The Bureau of Statistics issues each month

detailed reports relating to agricultural conditions throughout the United States, the data

upon which these facts are based being obtained through a special field service, a corps

of State statistical agents, and a large body of

voluntary correspondents composed of the following classes: county correspondents, township correspondents, individual farmers, and

special cotton correspondents.

The special field service is composed of 17

traveling agents, who are especially qualified

by statistical training and practical knowledge

of crops, each assigned to report for a given

group of States. They systematically travel

over the districts assigned to them, carefully

noting the development of each crop, keeping

in touch with best-informed opinion, and reporting monthly and at such other times as

are required.

There are 45 State statistical agents, each

located in a different State. Each of these reports for his State as a unit, and maintains a

corps of correspondents entirely independent

of those reporting directly to the Department

at Washington. These State statistical correspondents report each month directly to the

State agent on schedules furnished them.

These are then tabulated and weighted according to the relative product or area of the given

crop in each county represented, and summarized by the State agent, who coordinates and

analyzes them in the light of knowledge of

conditions derived from personal observation

and other sources, and prepares his monthly

and other written and telegraphic reports to

the Department.

27 This section and its subsections reproduced from

Yearbook of Agriculture, 1907, pp. 107-110.

50
There are approximately 2,800 counties of

agricultural importance in the United States.

In each of these counties, the Department has

a principal county correspondent, who maintains an organization of several assistants.

These county correspondents are selected with

special reference to their qualifications and

constitute an efficient branch of the crop reporting service. They make the county the geographical unit of their reports, and, after obtaining data each month from their assistants

and supplementing these with information

obtained from their own observation and

knowledge, report directly to the Department

at Washington.

In the township and voting precincts of the

United States in which farming operations

are extensively carried on, the Department

has township correspondents who make the

township or precinct the basis of reports,

which they also send to the Bureau of Statistics each month.

Finally, at the end of the growing season a

large number of individual farmers and

planters report on the results of their own

individual farming operations during the year,

and valuable data are also secured from 30,000

mills and elevators.

With regard to cotton all the information

secured from the foregoing sources is supplemented by that furnished by special cotton

correspondents, embracing a large number of

persons intimately concerned in the cotton

industry, and, in addition, inquiries in relation

to acreage and yield per acre of cotton are

addressed to the list of cotton ginners through

the courtesy of the Bureau of the Census.

Scope of Crop Reports

Eleven monthly crop reports on the principal crops are received yearly from each of the

special field agents, county correspondents,

State statistical agents, and township correspondents, and one report relating to the acreage and production of general crops is received

during the year from individual farmers.

Six special cotton reports are received during the growing season from the special field

agents, from the county correspondents, from

the State statistical agents, and from township correspondents, and the first and last of

these reports are supplemented by returns

from individual farmers, special correspondents, and cotton ginners.

Transmission of Reports to Bureau by Correspondents

Previous to the preparation and issuance of

the Bureau's reports each month, the several

classes of correspondents send their reports

separately and independently to the Department at Washington.

In order to prevent any possible access to

reports which relate to speculative crops, and

to render it absolutely impossible for premature information to be derived from them, all

of the reports from the State statistical

agents, as well as those of the special field

agents relating thereto, are sent to the Secretary of Agriculture. By an agreement with the

postal authorities these envelopes are delivered

to the Secretary of Agriculture in sealed mail

pouches. These pouches are opened only by the

Secretary or Assistant Secretary, and the reports, with seals unbroken, immediately placed

in the safe in the Secretary's office, where they

remain sealed and guarded until the morning

of the day on which the reports are issued,

when they are delivered to the Statistician by

the Secretary or the Assistant Secretary. Reports from special field agents and State statistical agents residing at points more than

500 miles from Washington are sent by telegraph in cipher. Those in regard to speculative

crops are addressed to the Secretary of Agriculture, by whom they are placed in the safe in

his office.

Reports from the State statistical agents

and special field service in relation to nonspeculative crops are sent to the Bureau of

Statistics and are kept securely in a safe until

the data contained in them are used by the

Statistician in compiling estimates regarding

the crops to which they relate. The reports

from the county correspondents, township

correspondents, and other voluntary agents

are sent to the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics by mail in sealed envelopes.

Preparation of Reports

The plan of placing the final preparation of

the reports in a crop reporting board has been

continued during the past year, and after 2

51
full years of trial it has been demonstrated

that it is a satisfactory method. It relieves one

man of the strain and responsibility and

secures the benefits of consultation and the

consensus of judgment of men who have been

on the ground.

The crop reporting board is composed of the

Chief of the Bureau as chairman and four

other members whose services are brought into

requisition each crop reporting day from

among the statisticians and officials of the

Bureau and the special field and State statistical agents who are called to Washington for

the purpose.

The personnel of the board is changed each

month. The meetings are held in the office of

the Statistician, which is kept locked during

its session, no one being allowed to enter or

leave the room or the Bureau, telephones

being disconnected.

When the board has assembled, reports and

telegrams regarding speculative crops from

State and field agents, which have

been placed unopened in a safe in the office

of the Secretary of Agriculture, are delivered

by the Secretary, opened, and tabulated, and

the reports, by States, from the several classes

of correspondents and agents relating to all

crops dealt with are brought together in convenient parallel columns on final tabulation

slips. The board is thus provided with several

separate estimates covering each State and

each separate crop, made independently by the

respective classes of correspondents and agents

of the Bureau, each reporting for a territory

or geographical unit with which he is

thoroughly familiar.

Abstracts of the weather condition reports

in relation to the different crops, by States,

are also prepared from the weekly bulletins of

the Weather Bureau. With all these data before the board, each individual member computes independently, on a separate sheet or

final computation slip, his own estimate of the

acreage, condition, or yield of each crop, or of

the number, condition, etc., of farm animals

for each State separately. These results then

are compared and discussed by the board

under the supervision of the chairman, and

the final figures for each State are decided

upon. It has been interesting to note how often

the reports of the different classes of correspondents and agents are very nearly identical,

and how closely the figures arrived at

independently by the individual members of

the board agree. The estimates by States as

finally determined by the board are weighted

by the acreage figures for the respective

States, the result for the United States being

a true weighted average for each subject.

Request for Laws Renewed in 1908

The impact of crop reports on the market

had been dramatically demonstrated by the

1905 cotton leak. As time went on, the reports

became an increasingly significant influence in

the market, and it was recognized that substantive law protecting the reports was

needed.

The request for legislation was renewed on

January 8, 1908, and was included in an act

to codify, revise, and amend penal laws of the

United States (Senate Bill 2982). It was reported out of committee by Senator Heyburn.

Sections 123 and 124 contained the essence of

the law that had been proposed earlier, but

made it applicable specifically to officers,

employees, or others acting on behalf of the

Government with access to information affecting the market.

Senate Bill 2982 was a voluminous document that took some time to progress through

the Senate and House. It was finally approved

on March 4, 1909. The wording of the sections

of the law as related to crop reports is as follows:

Title 18, Section 1902

DISCLOSURE OP CROP INFORMATION AND SPECULATION THEREON.—Whoever, being an officer, employee or person acting for or on behalf of the

United States . . . and having by virtue of his

office, employment or position, become possessed

of information which might influence or affect

the market value of any product of the soil grown

within the United States, which information is

by law or by the rules of such department or

agency required to be withheld from publication

until a fixed time, willfully imparts, directly or

indirectly, such information or any part thereof,

to any person not entitled under the law or the

rules of the department or agency to receive the

same; or, before such information is made public

through regular official channels, directly or indirectly speculates in any such product by buying

or selling the same in any quantity, shall be fined

not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than

ten years, or both.

No person shall be deemed guilty of a violation of any such rules, unless prior to such alleged violation he shall have had actual knowledge

thereof. June 25, 1948, c. 645 § 1, 62 Stat. 790.

(18 U.S.C. 1902)

52
Title 18, Section 2072

FALSE CROP REPORTS.—Whoever, being an officer

or employee of the United States or any of its

agencies, whose duties require the compilation or

report of statistics or information relating to the

products of the soil, knowingly compiles for issuance, or issues, any false statistics or information as a report of the United States or any of

its agencies, shall be fined not more than $5,000

or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

June 25, 1948, c. 645, § 1, 62 Stat. 795. (18

U.S.C. 2072)

Relevant legislation was also passed as a

proviso to the Appropriations Act for the

fiscal year 1910. It was reported to the House

on January 25, 1909, and was signed on

March 4, 1909. This law states:

Title 7, Section 411a

MONTHLY CROP REPORTS; CONTENTS; ISSUANCE;

APPROVAL BY SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.—The

monthly crop report, which shall be printed and

distributed on or before the twelfth day of each

month, and shall embrace statements of the conditions of crops by States, in the United States,

with such explanations, comparisons, and information as may be useful for illustrating the above

matter, and it shall be submitted to and officially

approved by the Secretary of Agriculture, before

being issued or published. March 4, 1909, c. 301,

35 Stat. 1053; March 4, 1917, c. 179 39 Stat.

1157. (7 U.S.C. 411a)

These laws strengthened the Department

and the Crop Reporting Board in enforcing the

security regulations and protecting the employees and the public from premature release

and issuance of false reports. In the 61 years

since the organization of the Crop Reporting

Board, there has not been a single leak of information contained in reports of the Board.

Essentially, the procedure set forth in the

1907 Yearbook article is followed at present.

The security provisions have been extended

and tightened up considerably in subsequent

years. The official approval of all reports by

the Secretary was added after the act of 1909.

As the number of commodities expanded,

membership on the monthly boards increased.

Cotton Acreage Law of 1912

Cotton has been and is still a very sensitive

crop. As a result, there is more specific legislation concerning cotton than any other crop.

The first of the cotton laws, approved on May

27, 1912, required that the regular acreage report issued on July 1 should show the cotton

acres in cultivation on that date rather than

the acres planted as shown for all other crops.

Thus, the basis for estimates or forecasts of

cotton during the season were in fact a planted

acreage discounted for possible abandonment

up to July 1, while all other estimates were

based on the acres planted.

This law reflects the extreme sensitiveness

at the time to anything that might adversely

affect the cotton market. The immediate objective of advocates of this law was to eliminate the larger acreage-planted figure which

they believed exerted a depressing influence

on the market. The prohibition on estimating

planted acres created a number of problems.

Crop reporters were often confused by the

definition of "acreage in cultivation." Reports

from farmers were, therefore, a mixture of

planted acres including acres that might be

abandoned and acres expected to be carried

through to harvest.

Another and more serious problem was that

those having need for the acreage estimates

in various studies, such as land utilization,

found that the cotton acreage in cultivation

could not be combined directly with planted

acreage of other crops.

This 1921 cotton law remained on the books,

however, until amended by a law approved

May 29, 1958, which changed the basis to

planted acres and thereby brought cotton in

line with all other crops.

In addition, the security measures have

been applied to the major livestock reports.

Owing to the sensitivity that developed around

the monthly farm price reports and parity

prices, these reports were placed under the

same security regulations beginning in 1942.

The Keep Commission 29

In 1905 Theodore Roosevelt established the

U.S. Committee on Department Methods to

investigate the statistical work of the Government. The committee was composed of

C. H. Keep, Chairman, Assistant Secretary of

the Treasury; Lawrence O. Murray, Assistant

Secretary, Department of Commerce; James

Rudolph Garfield, Commissioner of Corporations, Department of Commerce and Labor;

and Gifford Pinchot, Chief, Forest Service,

U.S. Department of Agriculture.

29 Taylor and Taylor. The Story of Agricultural Economics in the United States, 1840-1932, pp. 220-225.

53
The committee sent to the President a document known as the "Reports of the Keep Commission," dated January 6, 1906. The Keep

Commission gave special attention to the

methods used in making cotton crop estimates.

It went into some detail in setting forth the

sources of information on which the cotton

estimates were based and how the data were

appraised. The Commission observed that the

information principally relied fupon by the

Crop Reporting Board was furnished by the

traveling field agents and the State agents;

therefore, it concluded that there was little

gain from the reports from some 85,000

farmers and other special correspondents. It

recommended that the Bureau discontinue the

collection of these reports and rely solely on

paid traveling field agents. It was rather

critical of the fact that the State agents

were not able to travel and recommended that

they be given such authority. It also thought

that in the cotton areas the State agents

should be essentially cotton men and should be

provided with periodic training by the

Washington staff of specialists. While the

commission had recommended that all reports

from the farm be done away with, at a later

point in the report it suggested that the

traveling field agents and the corps of trained

State agents might be justified in maintaining

a well-organized corps of correspondents

reporting directly to them. It furthermore

suggested that the Bureau of Statistics might

have one direct correspondent in each county,

and that the correspondent should have three

or four correspondents located at different

points in the county. This coincided with the

pattern established back in the ISSO's.

It has not been uncommon for an investigating group in the first instance to be quite critical of some methods, but after further deliberations to modify its opinion substantially.

The statistician in the crop and livestock estimating service has always been required to

know agriculture. The Keep Commission probably recognized that because of his experience

and knowledge the statistician was better able

to judge the significance of the farmers' reports than the members of the Commission.

A number of the Commission's recommendations had an influence on the development of

the service, particularly the changes that were

made later in the field service.

Crop Estimates Start Expansion

When Willet Hays, Assistant Secretary of

Agriculture, was assigned as acting chief of

the Bureau of Statistics in 1905, Victor H.

Olmsted, who had been chief of the Division

of Domestic Crop Reports, was designated associate statistician. C. C. Clark, who had been

chief clerk, was appointed assistant statistician and assistant chief. He was also designated acting chief of the Division of Domestic

Crop Reports. George K. Holmes continued as

chief of the Division of Foreign Markets, and

E. J. Lundy was appointed chief clerk.

In June 1906, Olmsted, became chief of the

Bureau. C. C. Clark became associate statistician, and Nat C. Murray, who entered the service August 1, 1904, as field agent assigned to

Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Kentucky,

was brought to Washington as assistant statistician and assistant chief. F. J. Blair, who

had been with the organization for some years,

was made Division Chief of Domestic Crop

Reports.

The Division of Domestic Crop Reports directed the work of preparing the estimates,

and issuing the crop reports. Two developments reported during Olmsted's first year as

Chief of the Bureau are significant in his report of 1906: (1) 45 States were being served

by a State statistical agent and services had

been placed upon a uniform and scientific basis; (2) the scope of the reports had been expanded to cover 25 additional crops, an increase of about 100 percent. The chief of the

Bureau commented with some pride that this

additional work had been handled with no increase in personnel because the employees had

been willing to put in a very considerable

amount of time over and above their usual

work hours.

Field Services Strengthened

In 1905 the special field services had been

composed of 10 special fulltime regional statistical agents traveling in a group of States,

1 special cotton agent, and 1 special tobacco

agent. These agents were not supposed to

maintain a list of reporters, but one, Nat Murray, at that time a regional agent, in writing

later 31 of his assignment said :

31 Murray, Nat. C, Jour. Form Econ. XXI (4) : 711,

Nov. 1939.

54
It was not long before I learned from experience that it was impracticable, if not impossible,

to report satisfactorily upon the condition of crops

in each of five states as of a certain date by

travel and observation alone. . . . After some time

I was authorized to maintain several hundred select

correspondents, who reported to me as of the

first of each month. These reports also helped me

in planning my travels, because I generally went

to those sections where my mailed reports were

most conflicting, and this experience demonstrated

the value of the now widely used combination of

personal field observation with reports from correspondents.32

The State statistical agents were part-time

employees, who maintained offices in their

homes and were paid $300 to $1,100 a year.

At that time these agents maintained lists aggregating about 15,000 reporters. Each agent

summarized the reports for his State and forwarded the results and his recommendations

to Washington.33

None of the field statistical agents were

under Civil Service. They were all, therefore,

vulnerable to political changes and patronage

pressures, as State agents had been before

1900. They were often political appointees

with a variety of backgrounds. Several had

been school teachers, superintendents of

schools, and college professors. One, at least,

acted as statistical agent as an adjunct to his

job as professor in a State agricultural college.

Some came from the newspaper field, others

were auditors, one was a sheriff, another an

ex-governor of the State, and some were just

farmers. Nearly all of them had a solid knowledge of crops and livestock and farm operations, but very few had statistical training.

Statistics at that time was not taught except

in engineering and possibly a little in connection with plant and livestock breeding. There

was no application of statistical methods to

speak of in the field of social sciences.

Many of the men were extremely proficient

in appraising crop prospects and analyzing

crop conditions as reported by farmers. This

was, in fact, the main qualification of most of

the crop and livestock estimators both in private and public work. One of the best in the

service was almost uncanny in his ability to

estimate, or guess, the yield on a field of

onions or tomatoes and many other truck

crops. Another, the State agent in Arkansas,

was an experienced fruit man who rarely

missed an estimate of the Ozark peach crop.

Most of the long-time statisticians in the

Corn Belt were quite proficient in estimating

the yield of corn and other grain.

The fact is that this knowledge of crops and

livestock and agricultural practices, rather

than proficiency in statistical techniques, was

depended upon most heavily from the beginning of the service up through the late twenties. So much of the information furnished by

reporters was of a subjective nature, it was

doubly important that those who used and interpreted that data be thoroughly familiar

with the agriculture and crops in their assigned areas.

In 1909 the corps of field agents was increased to 19, and State agents were given

some funds for travel within their assigned

States.

The township reporter list was increased

from about 28,000 to 45,000.^116 county reporter list was continued with some 2,800 reporters. Schedules from these two lists were

sent direct to Washington.

The State aid list was increased from about

10,000 to around 15,000, and additional special

lists for cotton, tobacco, and rice were developed.

There was recognition that to be of most

use the complex quadruple reporting system

needed greater coordination and supervision

between the field and Washington. In the annual report of 1910 Olmsted wrote of

. . .the urgent necessity for personal supervision,

inspection, and instruction of state statistical

agents and special field agents. With the beginning of the current fiscal year this work has been

carried on in a systematic manner. Each state

statistical agent and special field agent is visited

by an official of the Bureau, who is thoroughly

familiar with all requirements pertaining to the

collection of information regarding crop acreages,

conditions, and yields, and who possesses ^ comprehensive knowledge of agricultural statistical

methods ; the agents' records and methods are carefully examined, and proper instructions given when

necessary. These inspections have a stimulating influence upon the agents, and will certainly result

in raising the standard of accuracy and efficiency

of our salaried employees whose duties are performed away from Washington.84

82 Ibid., p. 709.

83 "Review of Important Events in History of Crop

Reporting," a typed report, written by Leon Estabrook,

in the files of SRS.

A year later he reported:

1 U.S.D.A. Annual Report for 1910, p. 700.

55
The assistant statistician is particularly concerned with the inspection, supervision, and instruction of the field service of the bureau. This is

a vitally necessary work, because upon the efficiency of these agents, as reflected in their reports to the bureau, depends largely the accuracy

of the Government crop reports.85

This was the first attempt to provide supervision and coordination of the reporting system on which the reports were based. It also

foreshadows changes that were to come in

1914.

Program Development

Murray, a good manager, sought ways to

keep informed on happenings in other fields of

work and improve the service. He made

changes that enhanced the position of the

Bureau in the Department. He revised the

system for weighting county reports. With

several young men around the Department he

was active in a "Rural Economics Club." At

the meetings of this club he picked up many

suggestions for special investigations that

could be made without extra cost to the

Bureau. He said that other bureaus of the Department had been making surveys of the extensive type which the Bureau of Statistics

was admirably equipped to handle. As a result,

the officials of the Bureau encouraged cooperation with other divisions in the Department

and several valuable surveys were made.36

Murray had noted that the clerical force in

the office was fully occupied for about 10 days

of each month, extending from the last few

days of one month into the first few days of

the next, during the time the crop report was

being prepared. Between reports there was a

very light workload, and, as Murray observed,

there was more or less idling away of time.

To utilize the personnel more efficiently, a number of special investigations were started. One

of the most important projects undertaken

was the development of the farm price reports.

Prices for Farm Products

The continued and growing interest in

marketing and in economic problems generally

emphasized the need for information on prices

received by farmers for their products. George

85 U.S.D.A. Annual Report for 1911, p. 643.

38 Murray, op. cit., p. 713.

K. Holmes was considerably interested in this

subject and prepared a good many papers and

reports covering the production and value of

crops. A report was presented in 1908 on

"Wealth Production on Farms." Many workers

in the State colleges were also beginning to

request more price information.

Murray said that of all the questions put

to the Bureau which could not be answered,

those relating to prices which farmers received for their products were the most frequent. Accordingly, questions on monthly

prices of principal crops were added to the

general crop schedule.37

Beginning in 1908, local market prices of

principal crops were solicited from regular

crop reporters on the general crop schedule as

of the first of each month until about 1923.

Since that time, special lists of merchants

have been used, and the reference date for

price reports has been changed to the 15th of

each month. Supplemental lists of merchants

also were circularized for the first time in

1910 to obtain information on prices paid by

farmers for a long list of items for family

living and production. This was the beginning

of the farm price series that later became important in determining parity prices used in

administering the Agricultural Adjustment

Act.

Quantitative Estimates of Crop Prospects

As a result of increasing concern with problems of marketing, a pressing demand arose

for more definitive reports of prospective production during the growing season. Condition

figures alone provided useful information on

the progress of the crops, but individual users

of the reports had to make their own appraisal

of the portents for harvest. Murray recognized

the desirability of a quantitative estimate and

felt strongly that the Bureau of Statistics was

best qualified to interpret conditions data and

that one official forecast would eliminate the

confusion of many individual forecasts and

exert a stabilizing influence on the market.

Murray had been experimenting with methods for making quantitative estimates of production prospects. When he made the proposal

to Secretary Wilson that the monthly reports

include a quantitative estimate, the Secretary

37 Ibid.

56
said, "All right, but try it out on grain before

you touch cotton because cotton is dynamite."38

The first forecast in terms of actual prospective yield and production was published in

the report of June 1, 1911, and included winter

wheat, spring wheat (these were combined to

show a figure for all wheat), oats, barley, and

rye. In July, corn, white potatoes, tobacco,

flax, rice, and hay were added.39

These forecasts were given for the total

U.S. crop and being the first venture into this

field, there might be some slight question

whether Murray, who signed the reports as

Acting Chief of the Bureau and chairman of

the Board, was feeling his way in the matter

of the form of release or being just a little

cautious. The reason for this bit of speculation

is that the report was presented in two tables.

The first table showed the acreage as a percentage of 1910 acreage and the actual acres.

This was followed by the condition of the crop

for June 1, 1911, compared with June 1, 1910,

the average June 1 condition for the past 10

years, and the condition for the previous

month, May 1, 1911. The second table showed

in successive columns the yield per acre indicated by condition for June 1, 1911, the final

yield for 1910, and the 5-year (1906-10)

average yield. The next two columns showed

the indicated total production in terms of percentages compared with total production of

1910 and the 5-year average (1906-10).

Since Murray said in his article 40 that interpretation of the condition figures into quantitative amounts started in 1912, the Board

probably did not consider the 1911 report as a

quantitative forecast. In any case, the report

of June 1, 1912, showed indicated yield and

total production in adjacent columns, the same

as has been done since that time.41

Par Method Used for Forecast

The basic method for interpreting conditions that was developed and used up to about

1929 was the so-called "par" method. This was

essentially a system by which monthly conditions reported for each crop in each State were

converted to 100 percent equivalents; that is,

if the July 1 condition figure for winter wheat

in Kansas was reported at 80 percent and the

yield per acre for that year was 28 bushels, the

100 percent equivalent would be 28 + 80 X 100

or 35 bushels. Figures for a series of years

would be combined into 5- and 10-year running

averages, and the statistician would then review the series and adopt a 100 percent equivalent or "par" for each month of the current

year. In other words, it was simply a method

of relating average yields to average conditions with a correction or allowance for trend.

The term "forecast" was used, but the statisticians and the Board regularly called attention to the fact that the term was really a

misnomer, that the more accurate term would

be "production indications." The indicated

yield of corn, for example, on August 1 for a

given State is an interpretation of the potential yield as of that date, assuming normal

weather from that date to harvest. In 1926,

Joseph Becker, chief statistician for the

Board, explained the basis for the so-called

forecasts very well when he spoke before the

Southwestern Political Science Association :

42

This state of progress, at a given date, we call

condition. It has significance as indicating the

ability of the plant to withstand future unfavorable conditions or profit by future favorable conditions. With each successive day nearer to harvest, the menace of disaster becomes less and also

the opportunity for bumper yields depreciates.

The recording of progress or condition, therefore,

as the season advances tells us something of

value,—marks a succession of mile-stones passed

upon the road to harvest.

Does a condition report tell us anything as to

the probable outturn, or may a high condition on

a certain date be as likely to be associated with a

low yield as a high one? Correlation studies between condition and yield indicate that high conditions are more often associated with high yields

than with low yields, and correlation coefficients

for later dates are higher than for earlier ones.

In other words, having passed a given milestone

in above-average condition, the chances are better

than even that the crop will yield above average

at harvest.

This is the basis of crop indications (forecasts

is really an inaccurate word) put forth by this

Bureau. We do not predict the final yield, we do

not predict future influences upon the crop,—we

merely state that with the progress the crop has

made to this date and with average influences

hereafter, a yield of so much may be expected. Our

present method has merit, as demonstrated by the

fact that in practically every year in which "forecasts" have been made, the forecast was closer to

the final yield than was the average yield.

88 Ibid., 716.

89 Crop Reporter, 13: 41, June 1911.

40 Murray, op. cit., p. 716.

41 Crop Reporter 14(6): 41.

42 "Cotton Crop Reports," an unpublished paper by

Joseph A. Becker, given before the Southwestern Political Science Association meeting at Dallas, Tex., April

2, 1926. In files of Statistical Reporting Service.

57
Despite this and similar qualifications that

were repeated often from the time the quantitative interpretations were started, most

users of the reports regarded them as forecasts

of final production. In either case, it soon developed that the forecasts became the principal

targets for "pointing with pride and viewing

with alarm" on the part of the makers and

users of the reports.

Beginning with the forecasting program,

the search for ways to improve the monthlyreports became a major concern of the Bureau.

This, of course, emphasized as well the necessity for continuing and intensifying the work

on improving the basis for estimating final

acreage and yield estimates. The par method

was discontinued in 1929 when it was replaced by direct correlation between condition

and final yield for each month.

Embarking into the area of quantitative

forecasting during the growing season was to

have a profound effect on the entire program. Up to this time, the primary objective

of the service was to measure the total production. To accomplish this end, the first requirement was to determine as precisely as possible

the acreage planted to a given crop. As the

season progressed and crops were harvested,

the job was to measure how much was produced. This called for determining yields per

acre and the acres harvested. Prices, wages of

farm labor, fertilizer used, and all other factors contributing to production were objects

of inquiry by the statistician. To round out

the picture of total supply, stocks on farms,

in warehouses, and other points of storage at

specific times were needed.

Secretary Houston Takes Over From James

Wilson

The inauguration of Woodrow Wilson and

the appointment of David F. Houston as Secretary of Agriculture on March 6, 1913, was

an important event in the history of the Department of Agriculture. Secretary Houston

was an educator. He had a degree from the

University of South Carolina, and had done

graduate work in government, economics, and

history at Harvard. He taught economics and

government and served as dean of the faculty

at the University of Texas. In 1902 he became

President of Texas Agricultural and Mechanical College. In 1905 he returned to the University of Texas as President. In 1908 he

moved to the Chancellorship of Washington

University in St. Louis. As Secretary of Agriculture, he emphasized administrative policy,

economic research, regulatory activities, and

extension work.43

Houston appointed as his first assistant secretary Beverly T. Galloway, who had served in

the Department of Agriculture since 1887.

Galloway was a scientist, and had been chief

of the Bureau of Plant Industry since its establishment in 1901.44

Bureau of Statistics Changed to Bureau of

Crop Estimates

Secretary Houston displayed a great interest in the work of the Crop Reporting Board,

and on July 28, 1913, he appointed a committee

consisting of Milton Whitney, Chief of Bureau

of Soils ; J. L. Coulter, Economist, Bureau of the

Census; C. W. Thompson of Rural Organization Service; L. M. Estabrook, then Chief

Clerk of the Department; and W. J. Spillman

of the Office of Farm Management to consider

the work and organization of the Bureau of

Statistics. The committee of which Whitney

was chairman made its report on August 16,

1913, and recommended that the Bureau's

title be "Bureau of Crop Estimates." 45

State Statistical Offices Established

In March 1913, Assistant Secretary Galloway started an investigation of the Bureau of

Statistics leading to reorganization. Olmsted,

who had been chief of the Bureau, was appointed State field agent for Virginia. Nat C.

Murray, Associate Chief, was designated acting chief, pending the appointment of a new

chief.

43 Baker, Gladys L., Wayne D. Rasmussen, Vivian

Wiser, and Jane Porter. A Century of Service—The

First 100 Years of the United States Department of

Agriculture. USDA, Feb. 1963, pp. 63-65.

44 Ibid.

45 The name was officially changed July 1, 1914. Records of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, comp. by

Vivian Wiser, p. 38. Nati. Arch. 1958.

58
Galloway asked Murray to submit changes

he would suggest if he were made Chief of the

Bureau. His plan of reorganization was approved46

and Leon Estabrook, who had been

Galloway's secretary, was named Chief of the

Bureau, In accordance with the plan, the position of State statistical agent was established as a full-time job under the provisions

of the Civil Service regulations.

With certain exceptions an office was set

up for each State. In the six New England

States, one office was established in Boston to

prepare estimates for each of the six States.

Similarly, one statistical agent served Maryland and Delaware and another served Utah

and Nevada.

Establishment of State offices with career

men in charge was an important step in the

future development of the crop reporting

work. The State statistical agent immediately

became the focal point for improving State

data and for establishing closer working relationships with State agencies. Coordination of

programs and methods by the central office in

Washington—a need that had been emphasized by the Keep Commission in 1906—was

facilitated.

The reorganization plan seemed to be well

accepted by the personnel of the Bureau except

for one complaint from some State statistical

agents. They preferred the more dignified title

of statistician.47In 1920 the title was changed

to agricultural statistician, but there was no

significant change in the functions of the position.

Comments from some of the State statistical

agents and records of some of the budget presentations indicate that in the reorganization

of 1914 the newly designated or appointed

agents were given very little in the way of

guidance beyond rather broad instructions for

developing lists of reporters, summarizing the

monthly returns, and submitting the report to

Washington by a specified date. The budget

presentation of 1916 showed no expenditures

for rent outside of Washington in 1914 nor

any allowance for such costs for 1915 and 1916.

The State Agent was, therefore, on his own in

48 Letter from Murray to Assistant Secretary Galloway—in files of SRS.

47 Memoirs of V. C. Church, Statistician for Michigan, 1914 to 1941. Typed report in files of the Statistical Reporting Service.

securing free space for his office. Most

frequently the postmaster in the headquarters

town provided a room and desk, but some

agents worked from their homes.

All of the agents were taken from the Civil

Service register. Salaries varied from $1,608

to $2,400 per annum. For 36 agents listed in

the budget for 1914, the average salary was

about $1,740.48 The State agents were required

to travel in their States. Some of the travel

was by automobile, but most of it was by train.

By 1917 appropriations reached $316,436.

Steps were taken to improve field organization, equipment, and methods. Provision was

being made to obtain suitable offices for the

State statistical agents either by rental or by

using appropriate space in the post office

buildings. Later, as cooperation with the State

was developed, some of the States provided

office space. Telephones were being installed,

and mimeographs, addressing machines, and

envelope sealers were being provided.

In many States, at the time of mailing the

monthly questionnaires and then tabulating

the returns as they came in, the statistician

pressed his wife and children into service. By

1917 this situation was beginning to be corrected by the addition of clerical help. Calculating machines were yet to come. Computing was all done by head and hand. Contrary

to the popular idea that a statistician couldn't

add a column of figures, statisticians of that

day became extremely proficient in this department. In fact, some of the "old timers,,

were hard to sell on the efficiency of an adding

machine.

Methodology Investigations

The Bureau did not have funds for research, but it was possible for the statisticians

to devote some time between monthly report

periods to experimenting with ideas for improving techniques and expanding the usefulness of the sevice. The consuming problem

of the service from its beginning was how to

improve the sample on which the reports were

based. The principal effort was to get more

objective information on acreage and yield on

which to base the estimates. States that had

annual tax assessors' enumerations of acreage, yield, or livestock numbers had consider-

' Budget presentation for 1914-15 and 1916.

59
able advantage. Field statisticians were encouraged by the technical staff in Washington

to give all the assistance possible to improve

and expand this technique.

Information on railroad shipments, receipts

at mills and elevators, receipt of livestock at

stockyards, volume of slaughter at packing

plants, and many other sources of information

at concentration points were being developed.

This kind of collateral check data was of great

value in verifying annual estimates. Because

the estimating technique used was predicated

on the change from the previous year, it was

of paramount importance that the annual estimates be checked out as closely as possible.

The census base provided once every 10 years

was the starting point. If the current sample

was selective, that is, if it contained a disproportionate number of farms of a specific

size or type, the ratio of change when applied

to all farms would not represent the true situation. The statisticians therefore were constantly analyzing the samples, comparing them

with the census base for number of farms,

size of farms, ratio of size of farm to various

kinds of crops, and many other factors.

A considerable amount of the statisticians'

time was given to solving problems that were

inherent in the methods used. Some of the

statisticians developed ingenious ways of measuring bias in the reported figures. Others

sought ways of obtaining more definitive reports from correspondents, and others experimented in ways to get independent indications

or checks on the opinion reports.

Collection of individual farm reports, begun

in 1911, was an effort to give each reporter a

more clearly defined basis for comparison in

reporting production changes than when he

responded to a locality judgment type of

question. Apparently, these data were not

used extensively until after 1920 when Joseph

A. Becker, who was statistician in Wisconsin

and later the chief technician for the Crop

Reporting Board, demonstrated that data representing individual farms provided more accurate information for the determination of

acreage change. Inquiries on an individual

farm basis were not used much until after 1923.

Statistics Conference of 1917

Leon Estabrook and Nat Murray gave attention to training men for better service. To

this end, a general conference of the Bureau

was held in Washington in January 1917.

Leaders' comments are extracted below:

In July, 1914, the title of the Bureau of Statistics was changed to the Bureau of Crop Estimates, in order to indicate to the public more

clearly the real nature of its work. Civil Service

examinations were held in all the States, and from

the list of eligibles thus secured new Field Agents

were appointed in many of the States. . . .

It was and is the desire of the Bureau to appoint

as Field Agents and Crop Specialists only men

who have had practical experience in farming,

men of mature years,, men well educated in the

fundamental principles of agriculture and statistics, men of the highest character and ability

who would command the respect and be able to secure the cooperation of all State and local officials

and prominent farmers in their States. ... We

would also expect that as these well qualified

Agents become familiar with crop conditions and

with the people of their States, and as they gradually accumulated data for every part of their

States, they would come to be recognized as the

leading authorities on agricultural production in

their States. This has been our theory in the past

and it is our hope for the future. . . .

The next plan we have in mind is to urge upon

Congress the desirability of furnishing each Field

Agent with a clerk to attend to routine correspondence, look after the mail during the absence of the

Field Agent, and to assist him in the preparation

of his monthly report. ...

Of especial importance is the question of estimating acreage and numbers of livestock and I

can not too strongly urge upon you the necessity

for devoting a large share of your time and attention to these two subjects. . . . Our better organization and service may result in a closer approximation to the totals of the next census, and that

following the census the Bureau can avoid serious

deviation from the facts with respect to acreage,

production and numbers of live stock.49

A statement made by W. F. Callander,

Federal Statistician in Wisconsin, indicates

his eagerness for truth, native intelligence,

purposefulness, and untiring energy. Under

the title of his remarks "Travel—on Foot,"

Callander said:

There are times, I believe, when the field agent

can with advantage and at a considerable saving

of expense, make short trips of inspection on foot.

On a walking trip one is not confined to fields along

the road but is able to strike out across the country

and in so doing will meet men working in the field

whom it would not be possible, or at least convenient to interview, if the trip was being made by

automobile or otherwise. But unless conditions are

right and there is plenty of time at one's disposal,

I would not advocate using "shank's mare" as a

mode of conveyance.50

49 U.S. Bureau of Crop Estimates, Meeting of Field

Agents, Crop Specialists and Administrative Officials,

January, 1917, mimeographed.

50 Ibid.

60
Murray elaborated on Estabrook's statement on the importance of acreage estimates

when he said:

... in making the final estimates last December

the Bureau attacked the problem in several different ways. Assessors' figures were consulted

wherever available. Comparisons with the reports

of "usual" acreage were made. Individual farm

reports of actual acreage in 1916 and 1915 were

consulted. The relation between the acreage of one

crop and the acreage of others was calculated. An

inquiry was made among reporters as to the proportion of total crop area devoted to different

crops. No single method of ascertaining acreage is

without some defect. This composite method of estimating acreage is far from being perfected. The

Field Agent, with his intimate knowledge of his

State, is better able to analyze the various data

and account for or harmonize differences than is

the Statistician at Washington. Therefore it is contemplated that during the present year the Statistician will confer with each Agent individually,

and go over with him the various data and the

method of coming to a final acreage estimate.51

Cooperative Crop Reporting with States

Beginning as far back as 1852, some States

had been utilizing the tax assessors to collect

agricultural statistics each year. State statistical agents and special field agents had made

use of these data to check on annual estimates.

Many technical problems arose in using the

data. Differences in definitions and methods

of collecting and compiling had to be carefully

analyzed in making comparisons between

States or with national census data and national estimates» State statisticians were in a

position to work more closely with the States

and help in solving some of the problems.

A number of States issued their own agricultural estimates. This not only caused confusion but actually duplicated the national

service. As the Federal-State statistician became established and known in a State, these

conflicts and differences became more evident.

The statistician was in position to discuss

these matters with the State officials, usually

the commissioner of agriculture, the State college, or experiment station officials that were

heavy users of the statistics. A number of parttime statistical agents and special field agents

had recognized the advantages of developing

closer working relations with the States. The

designation of a full-time State statistician in

a State improved the opportunity to arrange a

closer, harmonious relationship.

In 1917, W. F. Callander developed a cooperative agreement with Wisconsin Agricultural Commissioner Alan Norgord, under

which the Federal Statistician for the State

compiled the agricultural statistics for both

State and Federal purposes. This met with immediate approval by all concerned. At the annual meeting of the National Association of

Commissioners, Secretaries, and Directors of

Agriculture in 1917, Commissioner Norgord

reported the signing of the cooperative agreement in glowing terms:

The St. Louis meeting in 1917 was when we

started a federal-state crop reporting service. William Callander was the federal reporting man

(state statistical agent) in Wisconsin while I was

Commissioner. He and I had talked over forming

a cooperative crop reporting service before Wor^

War One, but we did not get down to business

until this meeting called by Secretary Houston at

St. Louis to organize agriculture for war. Then it

occurred to me that while the war was going on we

needed the best kind of crop reporting service

possible to report the prospective production each

year. I went to St. Louis and suggested to Secretary

Houston that we form such an organization in

Wisconsin. He was interested and sent a wire to

Mr. Estabrook, head of the Crop Reporting Service,

asking him to draw up a plan of cooperation between the U.S. Department of Agriculture and

the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture as a

basis for forming a cooperative crop reporting

service in Wisconsin and have it on my desk when

I got back from the meeting in St. Louis. The

agreement was there and I called Mr. Callander,

signed it, and Mr. Callander started in my office

as the first head of a cooperative crop reporting

service in the United States.52

Cooperation with the States ushered in a

new dimension in the crop and livestock estimating program. The cooperative work grew

rapidly after 1917 as other States joined the

plan within a very few years. Cooperative

agreements with States are based on the principle that the two can work together more

economically than either can work alone. The

plan is entirely voluntary. Each party to the

cooperation is at liberty to discontinue with

30 days formal notice to the other. This plan

of operation has resulted in the elimination of

duplication of effort between the States and

the Federal Government, making possible

more service for less cost.53

51 Ibid.

52 Holton, John C. Proceedings of the National Association of Commissioners, Secretaries, and Directors of

Agriculture—1916-1955. 1960, pp. 151-52.

53 Report of the Chief of the Bureau of Crop Estimates, Fiscal Year 1919. Leon M. Estabrook, Chief.

61
Bureau of Crop Estimates in World War I

Between the time of reorganization of the

Bureau in 1914 and entry of the United States

into the war in 1917, there was an increase in

the demand for coverage of additional crops.

Reports on two important truck crops, cabbage and onions, were started in 1914. In 1916

the coverage was extended to include potatoes,

cantaloups, watermelons, celery, strawberries,

sweet corn, peas, tomatoes for canning, and

cucumbers for pickles. Forecasts of cotton production during the growing season were

started in 1915.

By 1917 the one truck crop specialist that

had been appointed in 1914 was supplemented

by three additional truck crop men assigned

to the Atlantic and Gulf Coast States. At the

same time, three assistant fruit specialists

were assigned to survey the important fruit

areas, and set up an estimating program for

apples.

The war created an urgent demand for statistical information on practically all phases

of agricultural production. The Bureau was allotted $117,040 from the Food Production Act

to meet the unusual demands for special information. The Chief of the Bureau summarized the work of the Bureau during the war

in his annual report for fiscal year 1919:

A vast amount of information was compiled and

furnished in response to inquiries received by telephone, telegraph, letter, or personal call of representatives of the Food Administration, the War

Trade Board, the War Industries Board, the Military Intelligence Office of the War Department,

the Tariff Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Council of National Defense, other departments of the Federal and State Governments,

Congress, and private individuals. . . .

The Bureau compiled innumerable statements

showing the production, consumption, surplus and

deficiency, exports and imports, and prices of important agricultural products for all the principal

countries before the war, and of production and

requirements during the war, for the information

of administrative officials of the Department of

Agriculture, of other Federal departments, and

various war-emergency organizations. . . . Many

special inquiries were made, including:

Quantity of commercial fertilizers used per acre

of cotton and proportion of fields upon which used.

Percentage of various crops to which commercial

fertilizer and manure was supplied and quantity

used per acre.

Binder twine requirements for the grain crops of

1918 for use of the Grain Corporation.

Emergency live-stock survey, to determine the

number of farms, July 1, 1918 and January 1919.

Uses made of wheat crop, for the United States

Food Administration.

Quantities of various crops fed to different classes of live-stock.

Live-stock survey of January, 1919.

Fertilizer inquiry of January, 1919, to ascertain

quantity of commercial fertilizers and manure used

for various crops.

Wages of farm help.

Prices farmers pay for equipment, machinery,

and supplies.54

Following the armistice, November 11, 1918,

there was a decline in the demand for special

surveys by the various war agencies. Demand

for food for shipment to Europe continued

heavy, however, and there was reluctance to

relinquish some of the service that had been

developed during the war. Commercial potato

production estimates were continued and expanded to include monthly stock reports. Estimates of poultry on farms were begun in 1919.

Estimates of production of vegetables were

continued at the wartime level until 1921 when

a sharp drop in appropriations forced curtailment of this program. The war conditions and

the position of the United States as the food

basket for war-torn Europe emphasized the

requirement not only for more statistics on

more crops but for more accurate statistics.

By 1920, the Bureau was estimating production on 29 crops as compared with 13 crops

10 years earlier, and condition reports were

being issued on 44 crops—just about double

the number in 1910.

George K. Holmes and the Division of Foreign

Markets 55

The Division of Foreign Markets deserves

special attention here because of its significant

contribution to the development of the crop

and livestock estimating work. This Division

was the outgrowth of Jacob R. Dodge's interest in statistics over and beyond the estimates of production for the United States.

By 1892, there was a section within his Division compiling information to increase exports to Latin America. Before he retired in

1893, he made a report to Secretary Rusk that

resulted in the establishment of a separate

Foreign Markets Section in 1894 that became

a division in 1904.55a

54 Ibid., p. 3.

55 Discussion on this section is based largely on H. C.

and Anne Dewees Taylor's book, The Story of Agricultural Economics in the United States, 1840-1932.

(College Press, Ames, Iowa, 1952, pp. 524-533).

55a U.S. Department of Agriculture, Annual Report,

1892, p. 35.

62
This Division was responsible for gathering

information and compiling statistics on foreign crop production, on exports and imports,

and on various aspects of the manufacturing

and processing industry. In addition, the Division made special studies on a wide range of

subjects. Investigations were made of the

world meat trade; the comparative healthfulness of meat animals in different countries;

world cotton production; the British market

for dairy products and sources of supply;

freight rates and world production and trade

in meat, barley, rye, potatoes, tobacco, and

various other products.

Foreign trade in agricultural products was

an important part of the economy of the Nation, so there was great interest in these investigations. But the Division held an important place in the Department for another

reason. The Chief, George K. Holmes, was a

man of unusual ability and breadth of knowledge. He had joined the Division of Statistics

in 1895 and soon made an important place for

himself. When he became Chief of the Division

of Foreign Markets, he found himself thinking

in terms of marketing and distribution as well

as production, both foreign and domestic. In an

article in the Yearbook of 1903 entitled "The

Nation's Farm Surplus" he described the distribution to foreign markets of surpluses produced by the farmers of the United States. He

prepared annual estimates of gross value of

farm products together with the text for the

Secretary of Agriculture's Annual Report. This

report stimulated great interest in the importance of egg production from the "Great

American Hen," a term quoted in the papers

for some time. In 1907 he published a bulletin

on the cost of handling produce from farm to

shipping point and another on the U.S. meat

supply and surplus.

The interest of the Department of Agriculture in marketing during this period continued to grow. The Bureau of Plant Industry

had been developing standards for cotton, and

in 1906 a specialist had been employed to

study the quality factors in grain with a view

to establishing quality standards that could be

used in commerce. Holmes had been thinking

about this subject also. In the Yearbook of

1904 he published an article on fruits entitled

"Consumers' Fancies."

In 1908 the name of the Division of Foreign

Markets was changed to the Division of Production and Distribution. The name of the Division was the same as the title of the report

that Dodge presented to Secretary Rusk just

before he retired in 1893.

In 1910 and in 1911 Congress expressed an

interest in the marketing work, asking the

Department to study the subject, but no funds

were appropriated for the project. In 1912 the

Appropriations Act for 1913 again directed

the Secretary to study the matter and make

such recommendations to the Congress as he

deemed necessary. Secretary Wilson asked

each branch of the Department of Agriculture

to indicate what was being done in the Department and what might be done in a new

division of markets. Heads of business concerns were called upon to supply information

also. George K. Holmes was assigned to supervise the study and prepare a report.

On December 26, 1912, Secretary Wilson

endorsed a publication prepared by the experts

of the Department concerning systems of

marketing farm products and the demand for

such products at trade centers. It was a voluminous report that discussed the marketing

work that was underway in the Department,

and most of the ideas then current with respect to the problems and what might be done

to alleviate them. Some special attention was

given to the problem of market reporting.

Studies had been made of the method of reporting in some of the European markets, particularly the Berlin market. After a discussion of the many problems that might be encountered, the report concluded that to maintain a market news service at each of the main

trading centers it would be necessary to employ men to be in constant touch with the

markets. These men would need to report by

telegraph, daily or oftener, the prices of farm

products and the state of the market with regard to supplies. The cost of such a service

would be enormous—as much as $1 million—

and the report did not recommend establishing

the service. It did recommend that the Crop

Reporting Service provide forecasts of probable production on crops. It also stated that a

division of markets, if established, should be

equipped for ascertaining in connection with

other crop reporting services prospective quan63
titles of vegetables, fruit, berries, and other

crops.55b

In his summary for the year ending June

30, 1912, Secretary Wilson reported the work

of George K. Holmes under the subject heading "Agricultural Economics." In this report,

the Secretary said:

The Division of Production and Distribution has

developed a scope of work in directions heretofore

little, if at all, explored. It has created a general

survey of agricultural conditions and accomplishments in the United States composed of the more

important elements of production in quantity and

value ; of national surplus, deficiency, and consumption; of farm wealth and labor; and of economic

achievement and agricultural progress.650

Thus did the work of this division presage

the establishment of the Office of Markets and

probably to some extent the Bureau of Agricultural Economics.

A Growing Interest in Agricultural Economics

Developments in the other Bureaus of the

Department were having an influence on the

Bureau of Crop Estimates in a number of

ways. As farm management work developed,

demand for more crop and livestock estimates

rose but it tended to emphasize the need for

greater accuracy in the estimates.

Murray noted that in the period from 1910

to 1914 several young men in the Department

formed a "Rural Economics Club" at the meetings of which he obtained many suggestions

for special investigations. Among those members mentioned was E. A. Goldenweiser, a

well-trained statistician and economist, who

later became director of statistics and economics for the Federal Reserve Board. Another

member mentioned was B. B. Hare.56 Hare had

taught economics and history at Leesville College (defunct) in South Carolina from 1906 to

1908. He came to the Department of AgriculBBb Holmes, George K., Systems of Marketing Farm

Products and Demand for Such Products at Trade

Centers, USDA, Departmental Report 98, 1912; Caroline B. Sherman, "The Legal Basis of the Marketing

Work of the United States Department of Agriculture," Agr. Hist. 11 (Oct. 1937): 289-301; Gladys L.

Baker, Wayne D. Rasmussen, Vivian Wiser, and Jane

Porter, Century of Service, pp. 35, 56-61.

550 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Annual Report,

1912, p. 195.

56 Murray, op. cit.

ture as assistant in agricultural education in the

Office of Experiment Stations in 1911. He was

appointed State statistical agent in South Carolina with the reorganization in 1914. He served

as a Congressman from 1924 to 1940. In 1966 he

helped celebrate the Centennial of the Statistical Reporting Service. George K. Holmes of

the Bureau of Statistics was also a member of

the group. Undoubtedly, W. J. Spillman, Chief

of the Office of Farm Management, was a member. The significant point is that there was

active interest on the part of a group of

leaders in the broad implications of many

widespread developments in more or less disassociated units in the Department that were

related to the economic development of agriculture. These men recognized the desirability

of improving communication among men

working in these related fields.

The first step toward bringing together

some of the activities was taken when H. C.

Taylor, Professor of Agricultural Economics

at the University of Wisconsin, came to the

Department as chief of the Office of Farm

Management in 1919. On July 1 of that year

the name was changed to the Office of Farm

Management and Farm Economics. On July 1,

1920, the Office was removed from the Secretary's office and set up as a separate unit.57

Another move in the direction of bringing

together related lines of work was taken in

1915 when the Office of Markets combined

with the Rural Organization Service to become the Office of Markets and Rural Organization. The program developed rapidly under

the direction of Charles Brand.

As previously noted, the Grain Standards

Act, the Warehouse Act, and the Standard

Container Act were approved in 1916 and

their administration assigned to the Office of

Markets and Rural Organization. This greatly

expanded the responsibilities of the Office. The

Grain Standards Act carried an appropriation

of $250,000 and the Warehouse Act, $50,000,

which, with the regular appropriation of

$872,590, made a total of $1,172,590 available

for the Office. Marketing work from other

bureaus had also been transferred to the Office.

With this expanded program the Office offi57 Wiser, Vivian. Preliminary Inventory of the Records of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Nati.

Arch, and Records Serv., Publ. 59-1, 1958, p. 3.

64
daily became the Bureau of Markets in July

1917.

CHAPTER 7. POST WORLD WAR I, THE

DECADE OF THE 1920'S

Henry C. Wallace Appointed Secretary of

Agriculture

Henry C. Wallace was appointed Secretary

of Agriculture March 5, 1921. When he came

to Washington, he was described as one who

made it his business to know farmers' needs

and to further "good farming and good thinking on problems connected with food production and distribution." 58 He had been editor of

Wallace's Farmer and in that position had become thoroughly familiar with the crop reporting activities.

When Wallace took the oath of office, U.S.

agriculture had entered upon a sharp and damaging depression, and agricultural groups

were turning to the Government for aid.

President Harding's cabinet was divided on

agricultural policy. His Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover, represented the conservative attitude. He considered the proper

scope of the Department of Agriculture to be

limited to production. He indicated that the

Department of Commerce should be concerned with the marketing of agricultural

products. Wallace, on the other hand, took a

broader view of the functions of the Department of Agriculture. At a dinner that the

Standard Farm Paper Publishers* Association

gave for New York businessmen, Wallace

said, "The Department of Agriculture is

charged with the duty of promoting agriculture in its broadest sense." To him, this meant

any aspect of production or marketing of agricultural commodities.59

Bureau of Markets and Crop Estimates

There was some discussion, particularly after Charles Brand left as Chief of the Bureau

of Markets in 1919, concerning the community of interest between the Bureau of Crop

Estimates and the Bureau of Markets. Nat

Murray, Assistant Chief of the Bureau of

58 "A Century of Service—The First 100 Years of the

United States Department of Agriculture." p. 101. 1963.

69 Ibid., p. 102.

Crop Estimates, credits George Livingston,

who succeeded Brand as Chief of the Bureau

of Markets, with suggesting the combination

of the two Bureaus. The Bureau of Markets

and Crop Estimates was established in 1921,

and H. C. Taylor became Chief of the

Bureau.60 Estabrook was named Associate

Chief but continued to act as chairman of the

Crop Reporting Board. Nat Murray was placed

in charge of the rest of the crop reporting

work that in the course of the year had at

least four different designations.

Consolidation of Economic Work—Bureau of

Agricultural Economics

When Henry C. Taylor became chief of the

Bureau of Markets and Crop Estimates, it was

only an intermediate step toward his ultimate

objective of combining all agricultural economics in one Bureau. On May 25, 1921, the

Secretary of Agriculture appointed an economic committee composed of bureau chiefs. The

committee was directed to study economic conditions of agriculture, consult with agricultural

leaders, draw up recommendations for dealing

with the problems, and study the economic

work within the Department. Economists consulted by the committee included Thomas F.

Hunt, Andrew Boss, G. F. Warren, G. T.

Christie, and Thomas P. Cooper. The report,

made on June 18, 1921, recommended the consolidation of all economic research and service activities in a Bureau of Agricultural

Economics. Taylor developed plans for the establishment of the Bureau of Agricultural

Economics, but formal consolidation had to

await legal authorization. On July 9, 1921, he

issued instructions for integrating the Bureau

of Markets and Crop Estimates with the Office

of Farm Management and Farm Economics.

G. F. Warren, Head of the Department of

Agricultural Economics at Cornell University,

was appointed in 1921 as a consulting specialist to assist Taylor, Chief of the Bureau of

Markets and Crop Estimates, in the reorganization and consolidation.

The Bureau of Agricultural Economics was

formally established on July 1, 1922, under

authority of the Agricultural Appropriation

Act. The Bureau was organized around three

' Murray, op. cit., p. 717.

65
functional headings : production, marketing,

and general. The production divisions included

Farm Management, Cost of Production, and

Crop and Livestock Estimates. The marketing

divisions were : Cotton ; Fruits and Vegetables ;

Warehousing; Livestock, Meats and Wool;

Hay, Feed, and Seed; City Markets-Washington Center Market; Grain; Dairy and Poultry Products; and Cost of Marketing. Divisions assigned more general functions were

Agricultural Finance, Agricultural Cooperation, Farm Population and Rural Life, Land

Economics, Statistical and Historical Research,

and Information.61 The foreign work, in which

Holmes had been so interested, was assigned

to the Division of Statistical and Historical

Research. Holmes, however, remained with

the Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates.

Callander Appointed Chief of the Division of

Crop and Livestock Estimates

Nat C. Murray continued as chief of the

Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates of

the Bureau of Agricultural Economics until he

resigned in 1922 to return to private industry.

W. F. Callander, who had been statistician in

charge of Wisconsin and later in charge of

Ohio, had been brought to Washington in 1921

as Assistant to the Chief of the Bureau of

Markets and Crop Estimates. He was appointed

Chief of the Division of Crop and Livestock

Estimates in 1923.62 William A. Schoenfield,

Assistant Chief of BAE, was designated chairman of the Crop Reporting Board and served

until 1924 when Callander was appointed chairman.

Joseph A. Becker, who had been the agricultural statistician in Wisconsin, was transferred to Washington after the reorganization

in 1922. Becker had experience in farm management work, including the conduct of farm

management survey activities, and taught farm

accounting and cost accounting before becoming a statistical field agent in 1918. He was

attached to the Washington staff to head research on methods and serve on the Crop Reporting Board. He operated as Assistant Chief

of the Division.

61 Century of Service, pp. 107-108.

62 Personnel records of SRS—personnel action signed

by Estabrook, May 1922.

Statistics Conference of 1923

The consolidation of the economic work in

the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, had an

immediate effect on the full interchange between workers in related fields. Henry C. Taylor was concerned with knitting the new organization together. To this end, he took an

active part in organizing a national conference

of the Crop and Livestock Estimates Division

held at Indianapolis October 22 to 24, 1923.

Arrangements were made to have members of

other Divisions of the Bureau participate by

presenting papers and entering into discussions.

The most discussed items centered around

the problems of estimating numbers of livestock and acreage of crops. This called for considerable discussion of sampling and sample

analysis. Two papers were of particular significance, one by Howard R. Tolley and one

by Bradford B. Smith.

Tolley, in charge of the Division of Farm

Management and an accomplished statistician,

devoted his paper to "Testing Crop Reports

for Accuracy.,,He dealt with the problem of

statistical accuracy and, characteristic of the

good teacher, discussed in a simple, understandable manner, standard deviation, the probable error, and the probable error of the difference between two averages. All simple

enough concepts, but Tolley knew his audience

was largely unfamiliar with the statistical

terms and techniques, so his purpose was to

introduce the subject and stir up interest in

learning the use of the tools of the statistician.

He was successful in his objective as evidenced

by later developments.

Bradford B. Smith, a trained statistician

and at that time in charge of the Machine

Tabulation Section, gave a paper on "The Use

of Correlation Methods in Forecasting." Smith,

new in the Bureau, attracted interest to the

use of correlation techniques. He had considerable influence, not only on the statisticians

in attendance at the conference, but on research people in the whole Bureau.

These papers by Tolley and Smith dealt

specifically with problems of particular concern

to Callander, and several other members of

the Division. Joseph A. Becker and Charles

F. Sarle contributed to the objective of en66
couraging study of statistical methods by all

members of the staff.

Becker presented a paper, "The Representative Sample in Relation to Agricultural Data."

He went into the question of the adequacy of

the sample data on which current estimates

were based and pointed out statistical bias in

the data. Becker presented the value of the

individual farm inquiry and from the comments made by several statisticians it was evident that the individual farm inquiry (though

collection of such data was started in 1911)

was not in general use at the time of the conference.63

Becker also indicated that the bias involved

in reports of livestock numbers was similar

to that encountered in the acreage samples.

He presented a brief analysis of the new procedure for collecting information on the pig

crop under a cooperative arrangement with the

rural mail carriers that had been started in

June 1922. He showed that this sample also

tended to be selective because it included a

disproportionate number of the larger farms

and therefore had to be analyzed carefully in

using the survey results. The fact that an inquiry is biased does not mean that it is of no

value.

The Agricultural Statistician for Iowa,

Charles F. Sarle, presented several papers dealing with sampling and correlation methods in

forecasting. Sarle was keenly interested in

statistics as a tool in the service and was

shortly to be transferred to the Washington

office to take over the price reporting work.

From this position he provided active stimulation for the development of an in-service

training program in statistics.

D. A. McCandliss, Statistician for Mississippi, reported on the development of the "crop

meter.,,This was a device with 12 keys and

dials that was connected to the speedometer

cable of a car. As the statistician drove along

the road and came abreast of a field of corn

he depressed the corn key. If the next field

was cotton, he depressed the cotton key, which

automatically threw the corn key out of gear

and recorded the cotton frontage, and so on

for other crops or other types of land use. This

63 This was checked in a personal interview with

Becker in March 1966, and he verified the fact that

these individual farm data did not come into general

use until after 1920.

device to secure an objective measure of change

of acreage from year to year proved quite useful for a number of years.

Another man who figured prominently in

the 1923 conference was C. L. Harlan. He had

come to the Division of Crop and Livestock

Estimates from long experience in Iowa with

the Corn Belt Meat Producers' Association

and with the market news service of the Department of Agriculture. He had worked in

the Chicago Stockyards where he dealt with

market statistics. To Harlan belongs most of

the credit for improvement of the livestock reporting during this period.

Crop Estimates in the Twenties

The decade of the 1920,s was a period when

agricultural thinking was turning to economic

questions. There was an upsurge in the cooperative movement. The American Farm Bureau

Federation, as well as the Farmers Union, was

promoting the idea. The Secretary was asked

to speak at a meeting in Chicago on April 6,

1921, at which a plan for a grain marketing

cooperative supported by the Farm Bureau

Federation was presented. In his speech the

Secretary said:

It is not the business of the Department to

organize marketing associations, but it is properly

its business to make available the most reliable

information it can concerning the organization and

operation of such associations.6*

After July 1922, the Bureau of Agricultural

Economics expanded economic research. Land

grant universities were also expanding activities in agricultural economics research. There

was growing pressure for the development of

a national agricultural policy.

All these developments in cooperative marketing and economic research were creating an

increasing pressure for more and more statistical information on all aspects of- agricultural

production and marketing.

Prospective Planting Reports

Taylor had promoted the idea of an annual

outlook report. His immediate purpose was to

provide information on the probable supplies

and price trends early enough in the season

64 USDA Press Release 705-21.

67
to permit farmers to adjust production and

plans in light of prospective trends. Of primary value in preparing the analysis necessary

for the report would be some information early

in the year on what the farmers were planning

to do. The Crop and Livestock Estimates Division set about plans to provide the kind of information that was needed for the outlook program. The Pig Crop Report, started in 1922,

was an important part of the basic information. To meet the additional need for data on

cropping plans, a survey was introduced in

April 1923 on farmers' intentions to plant nine

of the principal spring-sown crops. Cotton was

one of the crops included. The report showed

that farmers were planning to increase cotton

acreage by 12 percent. A decline in cotton

price which followed was blamed on the acreage increase shown by the intentions report.

Actually, the increase as shown by the July

acreage report was greater than the intentions

report had indicated. Despite this, Congress in

May 1924 enacted legislation prohibiting the

inclusion of cotton in intentions to plant reports. This legislation remained in effect until

1958 when the law was repealed.

The first outlook conference was held April

20-21, 1923. In the development of the outlook

reports, the statisticians of the Crop and Livestock Estimates Division took a leading part

as committee chairmen in the preparation of

the analysis and writing the reports for presentation to the conference.

The report of planting intentions for other

crops was made a permanent part of the program, and the coverage has been expanded

through the years. The first reports showed

only the percentage changes as shown by the

sample. Later, about 1929, it became obvious

that the optimism of farmers led to an overstatement of the acreage intended. The 1931

reports, therefore, made allowances for the observed departures between intentions and harvested acreage. The next year the report showed

farmers intended to increase spring wheat

acreage by 53 percent over the harvested acreage in 1931. Because of heavy abandonment,

the harvested acreage turned out only slightly

more than 1931. This pointed up the need for

using planted acreage for comparison with the

intention reports. Estimates of planted acreage were started, and by 1938 sufficient series

had been developed to analyze relationships between planted acres and intentions. At this

time, the report of intentions for planting became a report of "prospective plantings" wherein the intentions were interpreted in relation

to actual plantings.65

Livestock Program Expanded

Prior to 1920, reports on livestock were

limited chiefly to estimates of the number and

value of the different species on farms January

1, by States. Subjective reports from crop reporters giving their judgment of the percentage of change were the principal source of information used in the estimates. A beginning

had been made in 1919, when individual farm

reports as of January 1 were made, covering

numbers "this year" and "last year" from

which percentage change was computed, and

in 1920 when the number of livestock for the

current year was reported by age and sex

classes. In 1918, a special livestock reporters'

list had been built up. These reporters were

asked to submit reports of the numbers on their

farms at the beginning and end of each month,

showing the items of increase (births and purchases) and the items of decrease (sales,

slaughter, and deaths). Because of the small

size and nonrepresentativeness of the sample,

the results were not dependable.

Following World War I, the need and demand for more adequate statistics on livestock

numbers and the production of livestock and

livestock products grew apace. This was a period of rapid organization of farmers into general and commodity bureaus, unions, associations, and cooperatives. In the livestock industry, this was reflected in the development of

local livestock shipping associations, the beginning of the invasion of stockyard markets by

cooperative selling agencies, and the setting up

of special livestock sections in the general farm

organizations. This was a time, too, when the

packing industry, both as organized in the Institute of American Meat Packers, and as individual packers, began to expand commercial

research.

The postwar decline in prices of livestock

and livestock products resulted in heavy losses

to both producers and packers. This emphasized

65 Becker, J. A. and Harlan, C. L., Developments in

Crop and Livestock Reporting Since 1920. Jour. Farm

Econ. 21 (4): 803-804, Nov. 1939.

68
the demand that something be done to stabilize the livestock industry, both as to production and marketing.

The problem of the hog crop was of immediate concern. The 1921 crop had been marketed without adequate information, and early

in 1922 the supply ran out before packers had

accumulated stocks sufficient for spring and

summer demands. Hog prices soared but too

late to benefit the farmer. Something needed

to be done immediately to provide adequate

information. The question was how to expand

the sample to get the needed information.

The Division, with the support of the Chief

of the Bureau, was giving attention to the

problem. Secretary Wallace was much interested, and recognizing the necessity for additional funds to expand the program, he appeared before the House Committee on Appropriations and appealed for funds for livestock

estimates. The additional appropriation was

granted in the Appropriation Act of 1922-23,

and work on expanding the livestock estimating work was begun.

Taylor tells the story of the beginning of the

so-called "Rural Mail Carrier" survey which

was brought to bear on the problem:

One morning in the spring of 1922 Secretary

Wallace and Postmaster General Work rode to the

office together. The result was a suggestion that

the rural mail carriers assist in gathering livestock statistics. It appears that the Postmaster

General was happy to cooperate. Secretary Wallace at once took the matter up with the Bureau

of Agricultural Economics and the suggestion was

referred to the associate chief in charge of crop

and livestock estimates, L. M. Estabrook, whose

reaction was that the rural mail carriers had been

tried and found wanting. The chief of the bureau

then asked W. F. Callander, one of the younger

members of the Division of Crop and Livestock

Estimates, to find a way to use the rural mail

carriers in collecting livestock statistics.

Callander prepared a card of inquiry and suggested that the carrier leave one card in the mailbox of each of ten farmers on his route. The card

called for facts regarding pig production on the

farm of the farmer who made the report for the

present and the preceding year, and asked for no

information from the rural carriers themselves.

No effort was made to make a census covering all

farmers. Sample data was the aim. . . . The proposal was taken to Secretary Wallace who liked it

and took the matter up with the Post Office Department where the plan of procedure was approved.68

A livestock section was established in 1922,

and the name of the Division of Crop Estimates was changed to the Division of Crop

and Livestock Estimates. Before deciding on a

program for the new section, a number of conferences were held in different parts of the

country, at which representatives of the Department, farm and livestock organizations,

marketing agencies, railroads, and packers discussed the character of the information needed.

As a result of these discussions, a program of

reports was decided upon, and the reports

were gradually developed during the next few

years. The first pig crop report based on the

rural carrier sample was issued in June 1922.

Another innovation was the acquisition of

information from stockyard companies and

direct buyers, railroad records of cars of livestock received and forwarded by stations,

brand inspections covering shipment by States,

and sanitary inspection records covering

shipments into and (in some cases) from different States. These records of the movement

of livestock to and from States were used in

the development of the annual balance sheets

for different species of livestock by States.

These sheets showed as supply items the number on hand at the beginning of the year, the

number born, and the number shipped into

the States; and as disposition items the number shipped out, slaughtered on farms or locally, and death losses. The difference between

the supply and disposition items was the indicated number at the end of the year. Preparation of the balance sheets and estimates

began about 1926; estimates by States have

been available since 1924.

An experimental individual farm inquiry on

"milk cows on hand" and "milk produced yesterday," tried in Wisconsin in 1923, proved

successful. It was adopted for the United States

in the fall of the following year. The individual farm samples for one day of each month

formed the principal basis for monthly reports

of milk production per cow and annual estimates of milk production. The first quantitative estimates of milk production by States

and the United States were published in March

1930 as part of the income report for 1924-

28.67

Individual farm sampling of hens and eggs

for one day each month was begun in 1924.

The first estimate of chickens on farms and

'Taylor, op. cit., p. 248.

m

Farm Value, Gross Income, and Cash Income from

Farm Production. Mimeographed Report, Bur. Agr.

Econ., Mar. 1930.

69
egg production for the United States by States

was also part of the March 1930 income report.68

Objective Measures for Cotton

In 1925 Frank Parker, statistician for North

Carolina, presented a plan for collecting counts

on the number of plants, bolls of cotton, and

other objective measurements of the cotton

crop. The procedure established consisted of

laying out definite routes through the cotton

area. Usually, a two-man team traveled these

routes in August and September. A stop was

made every 10 miles, and the cotton fields were

examined on each side of the road. Each of

the men carried a pole 5 feet long, and they

moved into the field a prescribed number of

paces and measured off 15 feet of row. A record was made of the number of plants in the

15 feet, the number of large bolls, small bolls,

burs, blooms, and squares. A sample of 10

open bolls, 10 large bolls, and 10 small bolls

was taken. Observations with respect to other

significant features of the field were also noted.

While one man drove, the other's job was to

cut the bolls and record the results of the observations before reaching the 10-mile point

for the next stop and count. The cotton counts

were started in 1928 in most cotton producing

States.

The counts on cotton provided an independent indication of probable yield. Corn and

wheat counts were developed later and used in

a similar manner. The counts were continued

up to World War II. Difficulty in securing gasoline and tires and limitation of travel funds

necessitated discontinuance of the procedure.

An important aspect of field counts was the

opportunity afforded the statistician to observe

crop conditions in a systematic manner. One

of the important requirements for an agricultural statistician has always been that he know

and understand agriculture. A trained and experienced man derives a great deal of information from observations of the crops. Type of

soil and its condition are important to him.

Diseases can often be spotted quickly, while

the color of the plant tells a great deal about

future prospects. Variety is important in many

crops. Condition of pasture is important not

only to the livestock enterprise but is also an

indicator of moisture and general crop pros68 Ibid.

pects. An agricultural statistician will often

say that crops talk if you understand their

language.

Decentralization of the Division

When the State statistical offices were established in 1914, the statistician in charge

immediately began building up the crop reporting lists. The program of Federal-State

cooperation that started in 1917 developed rapidly. By 1922 the number of States cooperating had reached 26. As the office became better

established and clerical help and assistant statisticians were assigned, the list building and

control progressed more rapidly. States with

assessors' enumerations had an excellent source

of names. When the rural carrier surveys were

started in 1922 and later expanded to include

acreage surveys, another source of names became available. To strengthen the sampling

basis for the reports and improve the efficiency

of the organization, Callander proposed that

maintenance of the mailing lists and tabulation and analysis of the returns be delegated

to the State offices.

The idea of decentralizing the operations was

tried out in 1927 with the best equipped offices. The experiment proved successful and

although some of the staff still had reservations on some reports, the plan was continued

until by 1932 practically all lists of correspondents had been transferred to the field. At

that time, of a total list of about 250,000 voluntary reporters, only about 7,000 continued

to report to Washington. For the most part

these consisted of special lists involving dairy

and poultry processing plants, cold storage

plants, and chainstores, most of which involved

multiple State estimates.

This broad-scale delegation of responsibility

to State offices puts the reporting service in a

unique position in terms of the high degree of

decentralization achieved.

The Agricultural Census of 1925

The crop and livestock estimating program

had depended from the beginning on the agricultural census for a new base or benchmark

each 10 years. Annual estimates provided by

the crop and livestock estimating program were

basically projections from the census base by

applying the percentage change from the current samples to the preceding year.

70
Much of the statistician's effort in preparing

annual estimates was devoted to a comparison

of the sample with patterns in the census and

devising procedures to avoid the trap of cumulative bias. At times this bias led to wide divergence between the estimates and the findings

that became available subsequently for a census

year. The statisticians of the Division of Crop

and Livestock Estimates had, therefore, always

been much interested in the census and had

collaborated closely with the Bureau of the

Census.

Others, too, are interested in the census.

Those engaged in economic research, farm

management advisers, and business people are

all interested in reviewing trends, following

changes, producing patterns, the way competing crops divide the territory, and the way

supplementary or complementary enterprises

are combined in farming business by locality.

From time to time, various interested groups

had stated that 10 years was too long for factual checks on so important and complex a

business as agriculture. As far back as 1902,

the National Board of Trade had set up a

Committee of Inquiry into the census and

recommended a quinquennial census especially

for agriculture. The committee said in this

regard :

In view of the advantage to be expected from

the Census Bureau being placed on a permanent

basis, and the promise of a shortened period for

the presentation of results, the committee favors

a census report every five years, especially for

agricultural data which form a basis for calculation of area and production by other official service, government and otherwise, as to the more

prominent crops, and as to the number of farm

annuals.69

Of course, the statisticians of the Division

of Crop and Livestock Estimates were anxious

to get more frequent benchmarks. Others, however, put forth the argument that a quinquennial agricultural census could provide much

more information than would be possible to

include in the regular decennial census enumeration.

The first quinquennial census of agriculture

was taken in January of 1925. The State

Statistician's office of the Division handled

the field work, including the hiring and training of field enumerators.

The 5-year census greatly assisted the crop

and livestock estimators, since it reduced the

period over which they had to project on the

basis of samples. Only in recent years has

anyone dared to advance the theory that properly designed samples might give as good or

even better results at much less cost than a

full census enumeration.

Statistical Training

In early days, statisticians dealt with

samples largely because they realized there was

little possibility of obtaining what they considered the ideal—a complete count. Most of their

efforts were directed to extracting reliable information from data which they had or could

obtain within the limits of funds available.

The theory of probability developed around

games of chance. The mathematician dealt

with the calculus of probability in the abstract, and it was a long time before the

operating statistician recognized the powerful

tool the theory offered.

In the middle twenties, a very real interest

was developing among practicing statisticians

in sampling theory. Among the statisticians in

the Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates,

early interest in the sampling problems appear

in Becker's discussion of the problem in his

work in Wisconsin. His papers presented at the

1923 Conference pointed out that the

"samples" being used did not meet the requirements of the sampling theory of the

time.70

At the same conference John B. Shepard of

the Washington staff advanced a theory that

a properly designed sample of 4,000 or 5,000

farms in New York State, enumerated in each

of the intercensal years, could provide accurate information for livestock and crops for

about one-fourth the costs of a decennial census. He claimed such an annual enumeration

would make it possible to shorten the questionnaire used by the census.71 Shepard did not

elaborate on the idea but from later publications, intra-office memoranda, and discussions

it is amply apparent that he was thinking in

terms of sampling techniques which were to be

adopted some 40 years later.

Charles F. Sarle's duties included research.

His first project was a study of the adequacy

69 Taylor, p. 270; Nati. Bd. Trade Proc, pp. 86-

92-93. Jan. 1903.

70 Statistical Conference, Indianapolis, pp. 22-27. Oct.

22-24, 1923.

71 Ibid., p. 119.

71
and reliability of farm prices. The results were

issued in four statistical bulletins in 1926.

He recognized, as did Callander, that if the

Division was to progress, it was essential that

the competence of the statisticians be

increased. The need was particularly urgent

for training statisticians in charge of State

offices. This was not alone to equip them to do

a better job in their assigned duties but to

enable them to do a better job of training new

statisticians assigned to them. Furthermore, if

they were recognized as competent professional

statisticians in their States they could exert

more influence with the land-grant colleges

and universities to increase and upgrade the

statistical training offered, and thereby increase the pool of trained statisticians from

which the Division could recruit.

Sarle suggested to Callander that an intensive 6-week training course be established in

Washington for statisticians in charge of State

offices. The plan was to have about half of them

attend in each of the first 2 years and to have

assistant State statisticians attend in the third

year. The course was planned in consultation

with H. R. Tolley and with statisticians in the

Division and the Department.

The first school was held in 1927 and repeated the next 2 years. It was an intensive

course running from 8 a.m. to about 5 p.m.,

with heavy evening work assignments. The

group stuck with the program and was interested throughout. The program measured

up to expectations and more. It did not produce trained statisticians, but it did provide

the background for continuing interest and

stimulated further study, particularly in sampling techniques and application. Several of

the statisticians collaborated with their State

universities by teaching one or more courses

in crop and livestock estimating methods.

Correlation Techniques

In connection with the outlook work, O. C.

Stine, Chief of the Division of Statistical and

Historical Research, and H. R. Tolley, Chief

of the Division of Farm Management and

Costs, had built up a staff to study trends.

Some of the men assigned to this project were

M. J. B. Ezekiel, L. H. Bean, B. B. Smith,

G. C. Haas, E. J. Working, H. B. Illough, and

E. M. Daggitt.72 While studies produced by all

these men influenced crop and livestock estimating work, the most significant contributions were made by Ezekiel and Bean.

Ezekiel experimented with modifying the

usual multiple correlation methods to reveal

curvilinear relationships that logically must

exist in many situations. Briefly, his method

was to compute the standard linear multiple

correlation and then test the relationships

by systematic approximations to ascertain

whether a curved relationship was justified because it more nearly fit the observed data.

Ezekiel published his method in 1924.73 His

work immediately had a profound influence on

statistical research in all fields.

Sarle had reported the results of weather

and corn yield studies with H. A. Wallace at

the Indianapolis Conference in 1923. Becker

had also used simple dot charts with freehand

regression lines that reflected the curvilinear

relationship that often appeared in the relations between condition and yield. In connection with an in-service training course for

field statisticians, the Ezekiel method of

multiple curvilinear correlation was taught,

but Sarle also used a graphic approach as a

quick method of discovering the presence or

absence of relationships between variables.

Several statisticians tried fitting free hand

curves in lieu of the laborious methods required by the Ezekiel method.

L. H. Bean's experimentation with the

graphic approach led to improvements in

graphic technique. He showed that it was

possible to develop the net relations between

variables by graphic methods and do away

with the lengthy and laborious methods of the

Ezekiel method. When applied to problems

where the true relationships were known, both

methods gave the same results.74

72 Taylor and Taylor, p. 454.

73 Ezekiel, M. J. B., A Method of Handling Curvilinear Correlation for Any Number of Variables. Jour.

Amer. Statis. Assoc. 1924, 19: 431-53: M. J. B. Ezekiel,

Methods of Correlation Analysis. New York. 1930.

7

* Bean, L. H., Application of a Graphic Method of

Multiple Curvilinear Correlation. U.S. Dept. Agr.

(Mimeo.), Washington, 1929; and Bean, L. H., A Simplified Method of Graphic Curvilinear Correlation and

Application of a Simplified Method of Correlation to

Problems of Acreage and Yield Variations, Jour. Amer.

Statis. Assoc. 24: pp. 386-97, Dec. 1929, and 24: 428-

39, Dec. 1930.

72
The development of the new simplified

correlation techniques spawned a correlation

fad in which all sorts of so-called correlation

studies were made. The logic of a curve was

at times overlooked so long as a line could be

drawn to fit the observations. The advantages

of the new procedure far exceeded the occasional misuse by the "curve drawer" as some

of the inexperienced practitioners were called.

Statisticians of the Division of Crop and

Livestock Estimates extended their use of the

dot chart as a means of interpreting the reported condition figures. The dot chart often

showed that the relationship between condition and final yield was a curve. It was found

also that the use of dot charts of condition

and yield with a freehand regression line was

more useful and required less work than the

computation of the "pars," which assumed a

straight line positive relationship, for projecting probable yield.

Investigation also brought to light some

errors in the basic assumption that high condition is directly related to high yield. When the

condition of wheat in Maryland was plotted

against final yield, it was found that the relationship was negative or the reverse of the

basic assumptions. Sarle brought this to the

attention of the State Statistician. Investigagation showed that this was the result of a

disease, Septoria Nordorum, particularly on

certain varieties of wheat, which was progressively worse when rainfall and high

humidity encouraged lush growth. A farmer

observing a lush stand reported a high condition, not recognizing the development of the

disease before harvest time. The statistician

developed correlation analysis of rainfall

and temperature to aid estimates or forecasts

of Maryland wheat yields during the season.75

Weather and crop yields relationships were

developed for some other crops, particularly

early potatoes in the South and apple sizes in

the Hood River Valley of Oregon.76

F. V. Waugh made a study of the effect of

weather on yield of potatoes in Aroostook

County, Maine.

75 Newell, S. R., Factors Affecting the Yield of Wheat

in Maryland. Master's Dissertation, American Univ.,

1929. (Unpublished.)

76 Newell, S. R., Factors Affecting the Size of Apples

in the Hood River Valley of Oregon. U.S. Dept. Agr.

Mimeograph, 1929.

The Great Depression

Farm policy was an issue in the election of

1928. Arthur M. Hyde, who was appointed

Secretary of Agriculture by President Hoover

on March 6, 1929, was from Missouri. He

graduated from the University of Michigan

in 1899 and obtained a law degree from the

University of Iowa in 1900. He practiced

law, had farm and lumber interests, and

owned an automobile agency. He was elected

Governor of Missouri in 1920 where he promoted improved rural education, provided for

wider dissemination of technical information

among farmers, and carried on a vigorous

road improvement program.

During the campaign Hyde had supported

the idea of a Federal Farm Board working

through cooperative groups, as opposed to

direct farm relief such as proposed in the

McNary-Haugen proposals. He embraced the

hope that general prosperity would, with minimum help by the Government, lift the farmers

out of the economic slump that had prevailed

throughout the twenties.77

The Farm Board, President Hoover's answer to persistent urging for financial relief

to farmers, was established under the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Act

approved June 15, 1929. The Act went further

than the Administration wanted to go in

participation in agricultural affairs but not

nearly so far as farm organizations would

have liked. Congress stated that its policy was

to promote effective merchandising of agricultural products and thereby place agriculture on a basis of economic equality with other

industries.

Disaster struck in the stock market crash

of October 29, 1929, which touched off the

longest and most severe depression the Nation

ever experienced. The entire economy was

gravely affected, and agriculture sank close to

disaster. To add to the woes, floods in the

South in 1929 were followed by serious

drought in many areas in 1930. The Drought

Relief Act, approved on December 20, 1929,

was one of many emergency measures. Increased appropriations for disaster-type loans

to farmers were intended for purchase of

r Century of Service, U.S. Dept. Agr., pp. 130-31.

1963.

73
seed for planting new crops or for feed to

maintain livestock, but in actual practice some

of the money went for farm family living expense. Farmers were under extreme pressure

for immediate cash to make payments on

land, machinery, and livestock. Money was

increased for Federal-aid roads, and large

sums were appropriated for providing work

for the unemployed in construction and improvement of National Forest roads and trails.

The Secretary noted that nearly all of the increase in departmental expenditures had resulted from putting more men to work on the

roads and making direct loans to farmers

suffering from drought, flood, and unprecedented economic distress.

A Federal Drought Relief Committee was

established, headed by the Secretary, in 1930.

In addition to recommending loan policies, it

aided stricken counties to obtain reduced

railroad rates for shipment of hay, feed, and

water. In 1931 the Secretary emphasized the

need for curtailment of acreage and livestock

breeding through voluntary concerted action.

Crop and Livestock Estimates in the

Emergency

Under these depressed and extreme conditions, the problems of the Division of

Crop and Livestock Estimates were multiplied

manyfold. It became more difficult to obtain

voluntary reports from farmers in distress.

Samples required much more independent

checking to maintain comparability with the

past.

At the same time, demand for information

increased tremendously. Special reports on

flood or drought damage were immediately

required. The Washington office and the State

Statisticians were pressed into extra service.

Disaster loans were predicated on factual information the Division was best able to obtain.

Arrangements for special freight rates called

for data on where supplies were needed and

where they could be obtained.

Cooperative marketing organizations required reliable information on supplies and

prospective supplies to operate effectively.

Overall statistics would not suffice because the

need was for detail by producing areas and

often by varieties.

Special outlook reports were issued on a

number of products. Statisticians of the Division were heavily involved in all of the outlook

work of the Bureau of Agricultural

Economics. Farm labor and wage reports had

to be supplied and analyzed. Special information was also called for by administrators,

legislators, and others to develop policy and

guide action.

Despite the additional special demands, the

Division continued to make progress in the

regular program. During 1930 improved forecasts and estimates were developed for more

than 20 vegetable crops. Seven statisticians

were assigned to field investigations on these

crops. Tentative estimates of farm income by

States for the 5-year period 1924 to 1928

covering 78 crops and 14 items of livestock

and livestock products were completed.

In 1931 the regular monthly report was expanded to include milk estimates, and a new

series of reports on fruit and potato prospects

was inaugurated. Two special drought surveys

were made, one in August and another in

November.

As usual, the Division cooperated with the

Bureau of the Census on the 1930 Census

enumeration but not to the extent of performing field services as in 1925. Average

farm prices by counties were prepared for 156

crop and livestock items for the marketing

season of 1929 and values of 30 livestock items

as of April 1930.

Research Activities Curtailed

The Division did not have special or earmarked funds for research. All the improvements that had been developed, particularly

during the early twenties, had been accomplished by working in special studies between

the regular reporting programs and not a

little by the enthusiasm and interest of the entire staff in the use of considerable amounts

of "midnight oil."

There was no 5-day week in those days, and

with the depression demands for special reports

and analysis the staff often worked around the

clock. The result was that little time was left

to delve into the kind of investigations that

had resulted in the abandonment of the par

methods, statistical analysis of the samples,

74
studies of weather-crop relations, and many

other improvements.

Sarle, who had been relieved of routine work

on price reports about 1926, had given considerable attention to the research part of his

job for several years. He, too, found himself

drawn into the emergency programs until he

left in the fall of 1929 for graduate work, after

which he transferred to the Farm Board in

October 1930 and thence to the Agricultural

Adjustment Administration.

This curtailment of research, made necessary

by the general economic conditions, interrupted

the momentum that was developing in the

twenties. This was a loss to the Division that

was felt for a number of years thereafter.

75
PART IV. AN ERA OF TURBULENT EXPANSION, 1930-66

PROLOGUE

A period of transition in agricultural

estimates started with the Agricultural Ajustment Act, followed by World War II and the

second agricultural revolution.

1930 to 1966

The condition of agriculture continued to

worsen. Prices received by farmers declined

following the crash of 1929 and by 1932 had

plummeted to the lowest level since 1899. In

1930 the farm price of wheat dropped to 66

cents a bushel and reached a low of about 29

cents in 1931 and 1932. Cattle and hog prices

followed much the same pattern.

On June 15,1929, President Hoover approved

the Agricultural Marketing Act under which

the Federal Farm Board was established.

While the Board devoted the major part of its

efforts to aiding procedures to develop a strong

cooperative marketing system, it also established stabilization corporations to purchase

surplus wheat and cotton. In 1932, the Board

reported on its failure to stabilize prices. The

conclusion was that no measure of improving

prices other than increasing the effective demand of consumers can be successful over a

period of years unless it provides a more definite control of production.78

In his inaugural address on March 4, 1933,

President Franklin D. Roosevelt said: "This

Nation asks for action and action now." The

first action in the area of agriculture was not

long in coming. The Agricultural Adjustment

Act of 1933 was cleared by both Houses of

Congress on May 12 and approved by the

President on the same day.

In his message to Congress on March 16 the

President had recommended quick action on

the bill as an experiment on "an untrod path."

It was a revolutionary development. It changed

the philosophy of the Department by expanding the scope of its activities to include

authority and funds to alleviate distress situations in agriculture.

The active programs that were developed

had an immediate effect on the crop and livestock estimating work of the Bureau of

Agricultural Economics. The activities of the

Crop and Livestock Estimates Division that

were started and developed as a result of the

Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 and its

successor Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936 might be said to have

marked the beginning of a revolution in the

crop and livestock estimating work.

World War II started in Europe on

September 1, 1939. Food demand in Europe

increased rapidly. The surplus food problem

vanished and was followed by programs to increase production. The Lend-Lease Act was approved March 11, 1941. Production goals were

promulgated in 1941 and the Steagall Amendment was passed to provide price supports for

nonbasic crops. The United States entered the

war after the Pearl Harbor attack on

December 7.

Farm production reached a new high in 1942

and was maintained at close to that record

during the war years. This was accomplished

in spite of a shrinking labor supply and difficulty of obtaining machinery and farm

materials. Factors that contributed to this accomplishment were widespread progress in

mechanization, greater use of lime, fertilizer,

cover crops and other conservation practices,

use of new and improved varieties, and control

of insects and diseases. Along with the wartime need for food and the doubling of prices

received by farmers for their products, these

factors provided the driving force for increasing production and revolutionized agricultural

practices.79

78 Rasmussen, Wayne D. Readings in the History of

American Agriculture, pp. 253-254. » Ibid., p. 275.

76
Following the war, farm population continued to decline. Between 1950 and 1965, farm

population declined from 25,058,000 to 12,400,-

000. In the same period the number of farms

declined, partly as a result of increasing urban

growth, but more from the combination of

farm units. The larger farms were able to

utilize the expensive new farm machinery more

economically to meet the need for lower unit

costs of production.

Specialized farming increased and vertical

integration of the operations of production,

processing, and marketing were changing the

pattern in many agricultural enterprises.

The role of Government in agriculture was

altered to deal with critical issues arising from

each successive development. Unprecedented

demands for data accompanied the new Government programs.

CHAPTER 8. A NEW ERA STARTS WITH

HENRY A. WALLACE

A bleak, desperate situation confronted

Henry A. Wallace as he became the 11th

Secretary of Agriculture on March 4, 1933.

Like his father, the seventh Secretary of

Agriculture, and his grandfather, he had

gained nationwide attention through his editorials in "Wallace's Farmer." He was also

nationally known as an agricultural economist

and a corn breeder. His hybrid corn grown on

his farm had won the Iowa corn tests. He had

played a part in the McNary-Haugen farm relief movement, and he had also used his voice

and pen to urge Government action to help

farmers obtain equality of bargaining power.

In his writings, he spoke of complex causes

such as America's position as a creditor nation

and the relative fluctuations in farm prices as

compared with prices for industrial products.

He also wrote of the need for balanced production, the ever-normal granary, stabilization of

the purchasing power of the dollar by varying

the gold content, and better utilization of

land—all to the end of securing equality for

agriculture.80

The Agricultural Adjustment Act

Secretary Wallace believed that the farm

crisis called for immediate legislative action.

On March 8, 1933, he and Rexford Tugwell,

80 A Century of Service, pp. 143-144.

the new Assistant Secretary of Agriculture,

urged the President to ask Congress for action

at the special session called for March 9.

President Roosevelt agreed and directed the

Secretary to call a conference of farm leaders.

Representatives of the American Farm Bureau,

the National Farmers Union, and the National

Grange were among the 50 farm leaders that

appeared in Washington for the conference on

March 10. Agreement was reached and a committee from the group called on the President

on March 11, proposing that broad emergency

powers be recommended to Congress.

President Roosevelt directed the Department

to draw up the legislation. This was quickly

accomplished and on March 16 the proposed

legislation was forwarded by the President to

Congress with the recommendation that quick

action be taken. The act cleared both Houses

and was signed by the President May 12.

The emergency nature of the situation and

the variety of the proposed solutions are indicated by the fact that the Emergency Farm

Mortgage Act of 1933 and an act authorizing

the President to inflate the currency were

added as Title II and Title III of the Agricultural Adjustment Act.

To restore prices of agricultural commodities

to the 1910-14 level, the Secretary of Agriculture was authorized to secure voluntary

reduction of the acreage of basic crops through

agreements with producers and through direct

payments for participation in acreage control

programs; to regulate marketing through

voluntary agreements among processors and

distributors ; to license processors, associations

of producers, and others handling agricultural commodities to eliminate unfair practices

and charges; to determine the necessity for

and the rate of processing taxes; and to use

the proceeds of taxes and appropriated funds

for the cost of adjustment operations, for the

expansion of markets, and for the removal of

agricultural surpluses. Wheat, cotton, field

corn, hogs, rice, tobacco, and milk and its products were designated as basic commodities.

The list was expanded by the Jones-Connally

Act of April 7, 1934, to include rye, flax, barley,

grain sorghum, cattle, and peanuts. On May 9,

1934, the list was expanded to include sugarbeets and sugarcane, and on August 4, 1935,

potatoes were added.

77
Despite some reluctance on the part of

George N. Peek, the first administrator of the

act, and of coadministrator Charles J. Brand,

who favored marketing agreements and diversion of surpluses to export or other uses as

the best method, Secretary Wallace and

President Roosevelt chose production control

as the major method to be used in raising

prices. Chester Davis, who headed the Division

of Production under Peek and who later succeeded him as Administrator, and M. L. Wilson,

head of the Wheat Section, agreed with

Wallace on the decision to follow the production control route.81

There was turmoil in the Department in deciding what procedures could be put into

operation most rapidly. Everyone recognized

that the official acreage and livestock numbers

collected by the Division of Crop and Livestock

Estimates would be at the base of any allotment

program. That they would be scrutinized as

never before was a certainty. There was

serious discussion of the desirability of rushing

through a special agricultural census to precede

the actual allotment of acreage for each crop.

The idea was dropped, however, because it was

evident that a census would require too much

time to meet the pressing need for prompt

action. Consideration was also given to assigning the acreage allotment work to the Division

of Crop and Livestock Estimates. It was a

tempting idea to some of the administrators

because here was a readymade technical staff

with a well-trained field organization that

could be put into action immediately. More deliberate consideration brought out the danger

of taking what appeared to be the quick, easy

way of meeting the emergency. Callander,

Head of the Division of Crop and Livestock

Estimates, pointed out that dependable, unbiased statistics were needed to guide policy

decisions and to serve as a basis for operations.

Most members of the staff were relieved when

the Division was not assigned responsibility for

the administration of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. This did not mean they were not

involved, however. The entire Washington staff,

plus some statisticians brought in from the field,

literally went on a round-the-clock schedule.

One immediate job that loomed large was how

to handle millions of agreements or contracts

81 Ibid., pp. 145-147.

that would be sent in by the farmers. Where

to put the large clerical force that would be

required, how to instruct this large group of

inexperienced clerks, and how to process the

contracts and finally issue benefit checks were

burning questions.

The Division of Crop and Livestock

Estimates with the help of the administrative

office of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics

went to work. Stack space that had been built

for the library in the still unfinished South

Building was taken over. Punchcard equipment

was commandeered from all sources. Meanwhile, contract forms were being designed and

duplicated, instructions were being prepared,

clerks were being hired, experienced people

were called in from wherever they could be

found. In all of this the Head of the Division,

the Assistant Head, and technical staff took

the lead. Machine tabulation arrangements

were completed, and operations started.

Appropriated Funds Cut

As the workload of the Division was expanding, appropriated funds took a sharp drop

from about $804,000 in 1932 to slightly more

than $700,000 in 1934. A drastic reduction of

personnel was threatened. When the Head of

the Division and the Chief of the Bureau of

Agricultural Economics brought the serious

situation to the attention of the Department,

an allotment of money from the President's

emergency funds was immediately arranged.

In 1934, the allotment amounted to about

$750,000. This relieved the situation and permitted the Division to provide the additional

services required under the adjustment program.

A number of staff members in Washington

and the field were assigned to work as special

consultants to various program sections in the

Agricultural Adjustment Administration. Several former statisticians returned to work on

particular programs. Logan Shutz, a former

statistician for Texas, worked with the Cotton

Division ; C. F. Sarle worked with the corn-hog

program; and E. C. Paxton, former statistician

for Kansas, and more recently Agricultural

Attache in Australia, worked with the Wheat

Division. S. R. Newell was assigned as a

Special Assistant with the General Crops

78
Section for work on marketing agreements for

citrus fruits. For this work, a complete count

of tree numbers was made to provide a basis

for improving the regular estimates for this

crop. These men were all officially on the rolls

of the AAA, but worked closely with the Crop

and Livestock Estimates Division.

Farm Prices Index 83

One of the most important activities at the

time was the work on farm prices. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 set up the

objective of restoring prices to farmers at a

level that would give agricultural products the

same purchasing power they had in the base

period. The base period for most crops was

August 1909 to July 1914.

Data on prices received by farmers had been

collected since 1866, the first published attempt

at an index number of prices received by farmers was in 1910 and included 10 crops. Through

the years this index has been changed in scope

and method of computation.

An annual inquiry on prices of 74 items

bought by farmers was begun in 1910. The

Bureau of Agricultural Economics first published an index of prices paid in 1928. This

was used to measure the purchasing power

of farmers. Attention was focused on these

series as the concept of parity price was legally

formalized.

The significance of both index numbers was

greatly increased with the passage of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The Division immediately undertook a careful review of the series

to bring them up to date with the latest information available and adapt them to better meet

the contemplated requirements.

The index of prices paid received first attention. It was revised in 1933 at which time

budget weights used in combining the subgroups were shifted to averages for the period

1924-29. The report in which this revision was

published pointed out that considerable additional information regarding farmers' purchases had become available since the initial publication in 1928. Changes in the revised index resulted from the addition of a few new

83 For a detailed discussion of the price indexes, see

Stauber, B. Ralph, Koifsky, N., and Randall, C. Kyle.

The Revised Price Indexes. Agr. Econ. Res. 11(2): 33-

62, Apr. 1950 (Revised Price Indexes), published by

U.S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Agr. Econ.

commodities, revised weights in a few instances,

and additional prices for some commodities

extrapolated for years before 1927. Interest

and taxes were introduced into the index of

prices paid in August 1935. An amendment to

the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933

provided that purchasing power should reflect

interest payments per acre on indebtedness

secured by real estate and tax payment per

acre on farm real estate.

The index numbers of prices received by

farmers were revised in 1934. The principal

changes were (1) the use of improved price

series for dairy products and tobacco, (2) the

addition of prices of 20 products including a

group of truck crops, and (3) a shift in

weights from marketings during 1918-23 to

those of 1924-29.

While development of index numbers was

the responsibility of the Division of Statistical

and Historical Research of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics under the direction of

O. C. Stine, the collection of information, computation of prices, and preparation and publication of reports was the responsibility of the

Farm Price Section of the Division of Crop and

Livestock Estimates. Both divisions were under

extraordinary pressure in 1933.

Acreage AllotmentsS1

The emphasis on production adjustment

placed a heavy responsibility on the crop and

livestock estimating organization. This is well

illustrated in the cotton program of 1933, under

which farmers agreed to plow up before harvest 25 to 50 percent of their cotton acreage.

The objective was to eliminate 10 million acres,

or about one-fourth of the growing crop. Under

the second series of contracts signed early in

1934, farmers agreed to plant between 55 and

65 percent of their base acreage which was

defined as the average planted acreage for 1928-

1932. The Division of Crop and Livestock

Estimates was asked to supply county estimates

of acreage and yield in the base period and in

the current year as the basis for county quotas

and for appraising the validity of the aggregates of the contracts submitted by the

growers.

The sharp decline in the winter wheat prospects due to weather saved the wheat farmer

^A Century of Service, pp. 148-154.

79
from a plowup campaign similar to that

adopted for cotton. A formal proclamation on

the wheat program was issued on June 20,1933.

Adjustment payments of around 30 cents per

bushel were made for the crop years 1933,1934,

and 1935 on 54 percent of the average amount

of wheat produced on the growers' farms

during 1928-32. In return, the wheat farmer

agreed to reduce his wheat acreage for 1934

and 1935 by a percentage to be determined by

the Secretary, but not to exceed 20 percent.

The cut in wheat acreage required under the

contract was 15 percent for 1934 and 10 percent

for 1935. Reduction in wheat stocks resulting

from the drought of 1933 and 1934 made it

possible to avoid large cuts like those imposed

for cotton. Again, this required county estimates of acreage and yield.

Production controls for tobacco were distinguished from controls for other commodities

by the use of different base years. The period

August 1919 to July 1929 was the base for

determining the parity price goal and for acreage and quantity control. Another distinguishing feature of the program for tobacco was the

use of marketing agreements in 1933 to raise

the price of several kinds of tobacco in anticipation of the price-increasing effect of controlled production. County estimates of acreage

and yield by types of tobacco were called for.

The corn-hog program was the last of the

major adjustment programs to be launched.

The critical situation facing producers had to

be balanced against the need for two separate

but closely interrelated commodities.

By July 1933 the reduced prospects for corn

due to unfavorable weather had resulted in the

decision that corn producers not be requested

to join in a plowup campaign similar to that

applied to cotton. However, since the short

1933 corn crop would not bring about decreased hog production until 1934-35, attention was directed to finding a solution for the

heavy supplies of hogs expected to be marketed

during the winter of 1933-34. A large increase

in breeding had been stimulated by the cheap

corn of the preceding year. The decision was

to purchase and slaughter about 4 million pigs

weighing under 100 pounds and approximately

1 million sows about to farrow.

The hog slaughter and corn loan programs

were regarded as emergency measures. The

general corn-hog adjustment program was

announced by the Secretary on October 17,

1933. But the general signup campaign did not

get underway until late January 1934. Participation in the program required growers to cut

their corn acreage 20 to 30 percent below the

average acreage planted in 1932 and 1933.

Growers were also required to reduce the number of hogs produced for market by at least

25 percent. The provisions on corn were later

modified to adjust to the drought emergency.

The contracts for 1935 required 10-percent reductions in corn acreage and hog production.

County estimates for corn and hogs had to be

developed by the crop and livestock estimating

organization.

The needs for detailed data on acreage and

yield estimates, livestock numbers, prices received for commodities sold, and prices paid

for commodities bought added substantially to

the workload of the crop and livestock

statisticians.

Personnel Expansion—''Corn-Hog Juniors"

In 1934 and 1935 the farmers submitted

their contracts to the county agent's office.

The State Statisticians were responsible for

establishing the county quotas, planning and

conducting the tabulation carried on in the

county agent's office, and supervising the adjustments necessary to come within the quotas.

This sudden expansion of responsibilities

called for a fast buildup of staff, particularly

in the field offices. Beginning in the fall of 1933

and through 1935, the Civil Service register

was quickly exhausted with the hiring of some

90 junior agricultural statisticians. This was

the largest number of statisticians hired in any

comparable period in the history of the organization and probably the largest number in any

similar period since that time. Because it was

so unusual and because the corn-hog program

was the most pressing job at that particular

time, the term "corn-hog juniors" was applied

to the entire group of new recruits.

Up to 1934, the practice had been to assign

a new junior statistician to a field office where

he was trained in all operations from the mailing of schedules to editing the returns, tabulating and computing, and on to the preparation

of the report. Generally this training continued

for about a year before the employee was con80
sidered ready to make independent field trips,

observe crops, interview farmers and business

men, and handle other similar jobs independently.

With the fast moving action programs

inaugurated under the Agricultural Adjustment

Act, it was apparent that steps had to be taken

to train the large group of new employees to

assume operational responsibilities more

quickly. The State Statisticians, and many of

their assistants, had been through the inservice training classes during the 1920,

s and

were therefore better equipped to give the

young men training in technical aspects of the

work. To coordinate their efforts, the Washington office provided a series of four field

memoranda that amounted to a brief correspondence course in statistical methods used in the

service.85 These memoranda served the immediate needs but continued to be used for a

number of years by State statisticians for indoctrinating new employees. The junior

statisticians moved into action very quickly

by accepting a considerable part of the workload involved in determining quotas and reviewing and adjusting the county allotments.

After the Agricultural Adjustment Administration set up its own State and county organization in 1936, the agricultural statisticians were

relieved of much of the time-consuming

negotiations but they continued to act in an

advisory capacity to the State and county

units.

After more than 30 years the name "cornhog juniors" is still used with some pride by

many of the men who remained in the

organization. On the whole it was a rather

outstanding group. Some were enticed away by

attractive commercial offers, some hold important positions in other Government agencies but

a goodly number advanced to highly responsible

positions in the Statistical Reporting Service.

The Dust Bowl

In 1934, the woes of the crop statisticians

were compounded with the beginning of the

most severe and prolonged drought of modern

85 Newell, S. R. Field Memorandum—CEM148—Statistical Methods for New Appointees. Mimeographed in

4 parts. Files of the Statistical Reporting Service, Jan.

1934.

times. The area affected covered the Corn Belt

and southern Great Plains. The first of

numerous devastating duststorms blew up in

the "Dust Bowl" in early May. A great exodus

of farm people from the most affected areas

followed.

Yield and production of hay dropped to

the lowest point on record, starting with 1900.

Pasture and range conditions, too, reached new

lows. The yield of corn of 15.7 bushels per

acre was the lowest in the record dating back

to 1866. Conditions improved somewhat in

1935, but 1936 was almost a duplicate of 1934.

Such conditions had never been seen before nor

since. The situation in 1936 was in some ways

more serious mostly because effects of the

earlier period were cumulative. President

Roosevelt appointed an Interdepartmental

Great Plains Drought Area Committee on July

22, 1936.

In large areas crops were wiped out. There

remained the problem of saving as much livestock as possible. Relief loans mounted,

emergency field programs had to be implemented—to say nothing of coping with great

social problems evolving many sections.

Urgent requests for data confronted the crop

and livestock reporting service. How much feed

was available and where? How many cattle

and hogs were involved? Could they be moved,

and to where? What was the progress of the

drought? These were only a few of the questions put to the Division.

The urgency was such that a month was too

long to wait for regular crop reports. Semimonthly and even weekly reports were called

for. Special stocks reports giving the supply of

feed grains by position were released. Reports

on special conditions not only for the stricken

areas but for other areas were required to provide information on where livestock were suffering and where they might be shipped. These

reports had to give a great deal of information by areas within the States, mostly by

counties. Inventories of livestock, too, had to

be pinpointed by counties or groups of counties.

Those in the Department who were arranging

for special freight rates had to have this kind

of information to make arrangements with the

railroads involved.

Some State statisticians were assigned to

work with the drought committees in the

81
States. The regional livestock statisticians,

Fred Bier in Colorado and George Scott in

California, together with C. L. Harlan, in

charge of the Livestock Section in the Washington headquarters office, gave a considerable

part of their time to the drought program.

This difficult period finally abated in 1937

but scars remained for a long time. The Great

Plains Drought Committee was continued as

the Great Plains Committee. The State statisticians and the regional livestock statisticians

continued to work closely with the committee

that in a number of ways supplemented the

program of the crop and livestock reporting

service.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act Declared Unconstitutional

The Agricultural Adjustment Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court

in the Hoosac Mills case on January 6, 1936.

The Department had been alerted to the possibility of an unfavorable decision by the invalidation of the National Industrial Recovery

Act on May 27, 1935, and had worked on a

variety of plans which could be presented to

Congress. The Secretary felt a new approach

satisfactory to the Court's constitutional interpretation had to be found before the spring

planting season.

On the same day as the Court's decision,

Secretary Wallace called a meeting of farm

leaders to advise the Department. Seventy farm

leaders met in Washington on January 10 and

11. The Program Planning Division of the

Agricultural Adjustment Administration had

recommended that soil conservation be adopted

as a major objective of the adjustment program.

Representatives attending the conference

reached unanimous agreement on recommending legislation to provide for rental and withdrawal from commercial crop production of

the land necessary to promote soil conservation, and bring about a profitable balance of

domestic production with effective demand.

Other recommendations included the maintenance of valid parts of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, particularly those parts authorizing marketing agreements and orders and

Section 32 authorizing the use of 30 percent

of the customs receipts for surplus removal.

Congress adopted the soil conservation and

good farm management approach to the farm

problem in the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act. This act, passed as an

amendment to the April 27, 1935, legislation

on soil erosion control, was approved on February 29, 1936, just 54 days after the invalidation of the Agricultural Adjustment Act.86

Prom the standpoint of the work of the Crop

and Livestock Estimates Division, the whole

episode amounted to a brief interlude in the

activities with the Agricultural Adjustment

Administration. The immediate result, which

required hasty adjustments in program and

personnel, was the reduction of around $200,-

000 in the emergency funds allotted for the

work. The drought of 1936 was still making

extraordinary demands for the statistical services, and the new adjustment program rapidly

built up to even greater demand for special

services.

Adjustment Programs and Crop Reports

The acreage allotment plan and later the

soil conservation program gave rise to frequent questions as to why the crop and livestock reporting service could not simply tabulate the allotments or summarize the acreage

adjustments to determine the acreage of the

various crops. This sounded easy but in practice such a process would be far too slow to

meet the requirements of a timely reporting

service. Furthermore, all farmers did not

participate in the program and many that did

would not always plant up to the allotment.

State and local offices operating the adjustment program made the information available

to the State statistician as it became available,

and it was very useful as collateral check information. Compliance checks were slow and

not always fully dependable. In several instances the State statisticians were asked to

make special area surveys to check on compliance.

Control or adjustment programs introduced

new difficulties with voluntary crop reporting.

Individual biases were subject to change when

it became known that the official estimate

served as the basis for amending acreage allotments. Then, too, a farmer who puts his entire

farm into, say, a soil conserving program had

88 A Century of Service, pp. 166-67.

82
a tendency to stop reporting, thinking it not

important since he was not producing commercial crops. Problems such as these tended

to accentuate the need for more objective

methods for estimating acreage and yield or

estimating numbers of livestock.

The crop and livestock work, since its beginning, has been built as a cooperative undertaking with the farmer and other reporters. It

has been emphasized to respondents that their

reports are used only by technicians in the

service in combination with other reports for

estimating purposes. In fact, no figures have

ever been released or published that would disclose any individual's operation. For this reason, experience has shown that the cooperative crop and livestock reporters by and large

report accurately.

The wisdom of the decision, previously

noted, to take every precaution to keep the

crop and livestock estimating function independent of any regulatory or administrative

responsibility for the production control programs has been repeatedly demonstrated. To

preserve and further the confidence between

the reporter and the service, the heads of the

division have always resisted any suggestion

that there be a Federal law requiring the respondent to report or requiring that a field

statistician or his assistants be allowed access to a farm or place of business.

Leadership Changes

Joseph A. Becker became Head of the Division and Chairman of the Crop Reporting

Board in August 1935 when Callander resigned to become Assistant Administrator and

Comptroller of the Agricultural Adjustment

Administration. Becker had been the principal

statistician for the Division, taking over the

work Nat C. Murray had carried during the

time Estabrook had been the Chief of the old

Bureau of Crop Estimates from 1914 to 1922.

Becker took the leadership in adapting the

work of the Division to the extraordinary responsibilities falling on the Division from the

beginning of the depression in 1929, through

the drought of 1930, and the period immediately following the passage of the Agricultural Adjustment Act in 1933 when the Division was called upon to assist in setting up

methods and procedures for administration of

the Act.

On January 1, 1936, D. A. McCandliss, who

was Agricultural Statistician for Mississippi,

was transferred to Washington as Assistant

Head of the Division of Crop and Livestock

Estimates. McCandliss did not really want to

stay in Washington, and on March 1, 1937, a

personnel action was processed to transfer

him back to the position of Statistician in

Charge in Mississippi. Before this action became effective doctors ordered Becker to take

an extended period of sick leave to regain his

health.

Callander was recalled from the Agricultural

Adjustment Administration to resume the position as Head of the Crop and Livestock Estimates Division and Chairman of the Crop

Reporting Board on May 1, 1937. McCandliss

remained as Assistant Head of the Division

until March 16, 1938. On April 27, 1938,

Becker was restored to the rolls as technical

assistant, and on May 1 of that year Paul L.

Koenig, who had left the Division in July 1935

to become Executive Assistant to the Director

of the Land Utilization Program of the Resettlement Administration, returned to the

Division as Administrative Assistant to the

Head of the Division.87

The First Agricultural Marketing Service Established

By 1938 the Bureau of Agricultural Economics had grown to 20 program divisions and

three special sections. The Assistant Chief for

Marketing and Regulatory work had primary

responsibility for nine commodity divisions

and the Cold Storage reports section.

The Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates,

a functional division, was considered as a staff

division of the Bureau, but viewed operationally as a marketing service, it was linked

closely with the Assistant Chief.

By Secretary's Memorandum 783, dated October 6, 1938, the Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates and the marketing and

regulatory work were transferred to a new

organization called the Agricultural Marketing

Service, and C. W. Kitchen, who had been the

Assistant Chief of BAE in charge of this work,

was appointed chief of the new service.

With the transfer of the Division of Crop

and Livestock Estimates to the Agricultural

r Personnel records of the Statistical Reporting Service.

83
Marketing Service, the name of the division

was changed to the Agricultural Statistics

Division. Responsibility for seed statistics was

transferred to the Statistics Division from the

Hay, Feed, and Seed Division. Statistics on

hatchery production, fluid milk, and manufactured dairy products were also transferred

from the Dairy and Poultry Products Division

and the Cold Storage Reports Section

(formerly attached to the office of the Assistant Chief of the BAE) to the Agricultural

Statistics Division.

The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

was established in 1938. To ascertain insurance rates, an added demand arose for county

statistics on acreage and yield per acre of crops

to be covered by insurance. Data provided for

the soil conservation program were utilized as

far as available, but information for additional

crops and areas had to be developed. The

Corporation provided funds for the additional

work involved.

Wickard Appointed Secretary of Agriculture

Henry A. Wallace resigned as Secretary of

Agriculture on September 4, 1940, to run as

candidate for Vice President. On September 5,

1940, Claude R. Wickard was appointed

Secretary.

Secretary Wickard graduated in animal

husbandry at Purdue University, returned to

farming, and was selected as a master farmer

in 1927. He was elected to the Indiana State

Senate in 1932 where he gained the respect of

the State agricultural leaders for his sincerity

and determination in fighting for constructive

and progressive legislation. He was selected to

represent Indiana on the National Corn-Hog

Committee of Twenty-five, the group that

helped set up the original corn-hog program

of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration. Wickard went to Washington to

implement the recommendations of the Committee and in 1935 became Chief of the CornHog Section.

When the Agricultural Adjustment Administration's agricultural conservation program

started in 1936, he became Assistant Director

and then Director of the North Central Division. On March 1, 1940, he was appointed

Under Secretary of Agriculture. In his 6 years

with the Department, Wickard had proved

himself a capable protagonist of the Administration's farm program and a popular spokesman for the Midwest. His appointment as

Secretary met with congressional and public

approval.88

Wickard was to face a most difficult period

for the Department and the Nation. About 14

months after his appointment the attack on

Pearl Harbor signaled the actual entry of the

United States into World War II. He had already called for the development of war production goals and soon after made famous his

slogan, "Food will win the war and write the

peace."

Statistical Research

In the beginning of the crop estimating program the principal source of data was voluntary mail reporting by farmers. This was the

cheapest method for collecting a large volume

of statistics, but inherent weaknesses were

recognized. Through the years refinements

were introduced, collateral check information

was developed, supplementary surveys were

added, and with improved analytical techniques

remarkably accurate estimates of production of

crops and numbers of livestock were provided.

The system was still dependent upon periodic

benchmarks, census enumerations, and the

skill of the agricultural statistician in projecting basic trends during the intercensal years.

The samples with which he worked were

biased, did not meet the requirements necessary for sophisticated statistical analysis, nor

could they provide a reliable basis for estimating some of the changes taking place in

the fundamental patterns in agricultural production. The mail sample could not provide

reliable information on number of farms, size

of farms, or total land in farms, yet these

were basic factors needed in analyzing the

current samples and projecting the trend between the census periods.

The subject of research into methods of

improving the estimates, sometimes a little

dormant in the rush of meeting the current

program but always viable, sprouted quickly,

particularly when touched with the sunshine

of a bright idea, or most potent of all, a few

extra dollars. During the early days of the

Agricultural Adjustment Administration, the

urge for methodological research began to stir

vigorously. That program pointed up dramat88 A Century of Service, pp. 273-74.

84
ically the vital role of accurate statistics in

developing agricultural policy and administering the so-called action programs. Then, too,

in the operation of the programs considerable

material that could be used in studying sampling techniques began to become available. At

the top level Secretary Henry A. Wallace

understood and was sympathetic to the problems of the crop estimators. W. F. Callander,

Head of the Division, was always a strong

advocate of research, and from time to time

had managed to squeeze out a few dollars for

research. Joseph A. Becker, Assistant Head of

the Division, developed many techniques to

strengthen the work and seized any opportunity to advance research.

In 1934, Callander succeeded in getting

C. F. Sarle, who was then with the AAA,

transferred back to the Division. Sarle returned in November 1934. His job was to be

in charge of fundamental research in statistical methodology.

At about this time another development

that was to have a profound effect on the research and development of the statistical work

in the Division was taking shape at Iowa

State College at Ames, Iowa. In 1933, the

College had set up a Statistical Laboratory

with Professor George W. Snedecor as Director. One of its functions was to coordinate

all teaching activities in statistics. It was

developed, however, as a research, consulting,

and service organization that was available to

outside agencies for research on statistical

problems.89

The Bankhead-Jones Act, providing for expansion of research on basic problems confronting agriculture, was approved June 29,

1935. The possibility of securing some of these

special research funds to study the basic statistical problems involved in agricultural estimating was discussed with James Jardine

(brother of a former Secretary of Agriculture), who was charged with the administration of the act. He agreed that such research

was appropriate and expressed interest in

agricultural estimates problems.

Meanwhile, there had been a resurgence of

interest in the Crop and Livestock Estimates

Division in the possibility of an annual sample

^Statlab. Rev. II, Aug. 1957—Statis. Lab. of Iowa

State Col., Ames, Iowa.

survey of factors available only from the

census and studies of weather influence on

crop yields. Sarle pushed both of these ideas

when he returned as did other members of the

staff—notably Becker, who was appointed

Head of the Division in August 1935, and

John B. Shepard. Technicians in the Bureau

of the Census were also drawn into the discussions of the sample idea. Consideration of

this plan immediately raised the problem of

the design of the sample for making an adequate survey. Legislation to implement such

surveys was proposed on several occasions but

congressional approval was never forthcoming.

Nevertheless, with the great interest that was

developing in probability sampling, in both

the Government and private agencies, agricultural statisticians realized that the demands

for more and more accurate statistics required

the sharpening of the sampling tools.

During 1936, conferences were held between

the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Iowa

State College relative to the research needed

for the advancement of the agricultural estimates statistical program. With the active

support of Secretary Henry A. Wallace, W. F.

Callander, and Charles F. Sarle, together with

George W. Snedecor, T. W. Schultz, and others

of the Iowa State College, an allotment of

special research funds for agricultural estimates was obtained in 1938 to implement cooperative work with the Statistical Laboratory

at Ames for research on fundamental statistical problems of interest to agriculture.

The research program with the laboratory

covered a wide range of statistical activity. A

number of studies were made on the effect of

weather on crop yields. One of the earliest of

this type was a study of the "effect of the

amount and distribution of rainfall and evaporation during the growing season on the

yields of corn and wheat." Another was a

study of "climatological measurements for use

in prediction of corn yields." The problem of

yield forecasts was particularly pressing at

the time, and these studies were designed especially to aid the Division in its operating

program.

Other studies were related to immediate

service needs. One in particular was "an experiment in preharvest sampling of wheat

fields." The immediate problem came from

complaints of wheat growers with the way the

85
so-called "protein premium" was applied in

marketing wheat. S. R. Newell, who was then

Assistant to the Chief of the Agricultural

Marketing Service, had discussed the problem

with growers and the trade. Their proposal

was to get preharvest estimates of the quality

of wheat by areas as a basis for determining

the amount of premium that should be paid in

any given year. The problem was referred to

the agricultural statisticians. The Laboratory

designed a sample to implement the service.

The service was provided for 2 years for the

winter wheat area and continued in Kansas

for 1 or 2 years more. These activities were

consonant with the long-time objective of the

Division to get objective measures of acreage

and yield per acre. A. J. King from the

Laboratory and Miles McPeek from the grain

statistics section conducted the research.

Cooperative research studies conducted by

the Laboratory also involved area sampling.

Questions of sampling design, components of

sampling error, and components of cost were

thoroughly investigated.90

In 1938 a project was set up in New York

City, under the Works Progress Administration

(WPA), and a large force of clerks was

assigned to study and experiment with area

sampling techniques based on the aerial maps

provided by the Agricultural Adjustment Administration. This project, directed by Glenn

D. Simpson until 1940, led to an article in the

Journal of Farm Economics entitled "New

Developments in Agricultural Sampling" by

A. J. King and G. D. Simpson.91 A number of

other studies by Snedecor, Jessen, Strand,

King, Houseman, and others dealt with the

suitability of various political and geographic

subdivisions such as counties, townships, and

sections as sampling units. These were forerunners of the "Master Sample" which was

one of the most significant achievements of the

cooperative program with the Laboratory.

The Master Sample is Developed

During the war as manpower became more

and more limited, the assignment of Crop and

90 Jessen, Raymond J. Statistical Investigations of a

Sample Survey of Obtaining Farm Facts. Iowa State

Univ. Res. Bui. 304, June 1942.

91 King, A. J., and Simpson, G. D. New Development

in Agricultural Sampling. Jour. Farm Econ. 22(1):

341-49, Feb. 1940.

Livestock Estimates personnel to the Ames

Laboratory was reduced, but the interest in

area sampling continued to increase. Rensis

Likert, Head of the Division of Special Surveys, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, was

working on a group of Bureau-wide projects.

It became apparent that there was need for a

procedure to provide effective samples for

various studies; particularly, for accumulation

of data relating to a representative group of

farms. It occurred to Likert that by designing

a large sample, from which subsamples could

be drawn and the data systematically accumulated, many important interrelationships affecting farm production, income, and living

could be analyzed.

In April 1943 Likert discussed the idea with

the Laboratory, and it was agreed that the

Laboratory would provide a national sample oij

about 5,000 farms to which the name "Master

Sample" was applied. As a greatly increased

demand for this type of sampling became apparent, a size of 25,000 farms was considered.

Later, as the Agricultural Statistics Division

became more interested in the plan, the proposed size was expanded to 300,000 farms in

order to provide State estimates of acreages of

major crops.

About this time the Bureau of the Census

was planning for the 1945 agricultural census.

The Bureau of Agricultural Economics was interested in having the census identify the

schedules of farms in the Master Sample so the

census information could be used for subsequent sampling purposes. The Bureau of the

Census became interested in using the Master

Sample as a means for collecting supplementary

information. Accordingly, an agreement between that Bureau and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and the Statistical Laboratory

was drawn up to develop the most efficient

sample feasible. Under this agreement, the

Master Sample was completed in time to be

used in association with the agricultural

census of 1945.92

The Master Sample was broadened to include incorporated and unincorporated segments in addition to the open country, or farm,

segments. Nationally, it was broken down

92 King, Arnold J. History of Master Sample for

Agriculture. Jour. Amer. Statis. Assoc. 40(229): 38-

45, Mar. 1945.

86
between these areas about as follows: incorporated places—about 1 percent of the land

area; unincorporated places—about 3 percent;

and open country—about 96 percent. Land

areas were selected for all of the 3,070 counties

in the United States and included about

300,000 farms. It was adaptable to many different types of surveys either for use as a

whole or for the selection of smaller subsamples. The Master Sample was perfected under

the direction of Arnold King and R. J. Jessen.

The Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates

participated from the outset in drafting plans

and in preparation of the Master Sample

materials.

The University of North Carolina organized

a statistical laboratory at Raleigh, N.C. Gertrude Cox, who had been with the Ames Laboratory, was named Director. In 1940, the

Agricultural Statistics Division entered into a

contract with that Laboratory, under which a

program similar to that conducted at Ames was

inaugurated. The Raleigh Laboratory made a

number of studies on special problems, particularly in southern crops such as cotton and

peanuts.

In 1943, Earl E. Houseman, who had been

engaged in research on sampling techniques at

the Ames Laboratory since 1938, transferred

to Washington. He effectively introduced probability sampling techniques, primarily in

numerous special surveys dealing with manpower, farm labor, and employment.

During the war the Bureau was heavily

involved with furnishing information to be

used in planning for maximum agricultural

production, meeting war problems, and postwar planning.

The Department assigned responsibility to

the BAE for the development of production

goals. Statisticians of the Agricultural Statistics Division were called upon to assist in

acquiring material necessary for the production goals. Secretary Wickard announced the

goals at a series of meetings held throughout

the country with agricultural leaders during

July 1941.

Agricultural Statistics in World War II

When World War II started in Europe on

September 1, 1939, and the National Defense

Advisory Commission was formed the following spring, the Division was called upon for

inventories of food supply and appraisal of

requirements under several assumed war situations. The Division was reasonably well

equipped to meet most of the new requests until the entry of the United States into the war

after Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. As

the war progressed, many special farm surveys

quite unrelated to crops as such were called for

such as the number of tractors on farms,

requirements for repair parts, needs for steel

for farm implements and facilities. This information was needed to determine priorities for

critical materials.

All facilities of the Department were marshaled to serve the war effort. An early step

in this direction was the reorganization of

1942. By Executive Order 9069, dated

February 23, 1942, three new administrations

were established and the Agricultural Defense

Board replaced the Program Board as the top

level advisory group to the Secretary. The

three administrations were (1) Agricultural

Conservation and Adjustment Administration,

(2) the Agricultural Marketing Administration, and (3) the Agricultural Research Administration. Five line organizations were left

in their former independent status: Farm

Security Administration, Rural Electrification

Administration, Commodity Credit Corporation, Farm Credit Administration, and Forest

Service. The Agricultural Defense Board, the

name of which was changed to Agricultural

War Board on February 25, 1942, was composed of the eight group administrators and

the heads of the Office of Defense Relations,

the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, and the

Extension Service.93

The Bureau of Agricultural Economics continued as the staff agency for Planning and

Economics Research and H. R. Tolley was

named Chief of the Bureau.

In the reorganization of 1942, the Agricultural Statistics Division was transferred to

the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. On

July 1, 1942, Callander relinquished his position to become Statistician for the State of

Florida. Paul L. Koenig, who had been the

Assistant Head with primary responsibility

for administration, was appointed Head of the

Division. Joseph A. Becker, the Assistant for

' A Century of Service, pp. 283-84.

87
Technical Work, was designated Chairman of

the Crop Reporting Board where he remained

until he transferred in August 1944 to the

Office of Foreign Agricultural Relations.

The war period was difficult with manpower at a premium. Many experienced statisticians were drawn into the armed services.

Travel was difficult and at times practically

impossible. Gas and tire rationing necessitated

discontinuance of some field surveys, such as

cotton boll counts. Nevertheless, the service

conducted many special inquiries related to

war-induced problems.

Food rationing and price control required

dependable estimates of current and prospective production. These data were especially

needed by the War Food Administration, established as an adjunct to the Department of

Agriculture, to promote adequate production

of essential commodities. It also administered

the allocation of available supplies among war

agencies and domestic civilian outlets in accordance with priorities determined by the

War Production Board. Butter and cheese were

among the foods for which more frequent

reports of production and more detailed data

of stocks by location became imperative. Dr.

Harry C. Trelogan, in charge of War Food

Orders covering dairy products, turned to

agricultural statistics to acquire the data. He

arranged to finance a new dairy statistics office

in Chicago where the data could be assembled

and distributed expeditiously. He then located

butter and cheese order administrators in adjoining offices. The weekly reports later proved

indispensable for orderly decontrol of prices

and removal of subsidies. Although the War

Food Administration offices were closed thereafter, industry has insisted upon maintenance

of the Chicago dairy statistics office issuing

weekly reports to this day.

The farm labor supply became critical as

workers went into the armed service or took

high-paying jobs in war industries. Congress

appropriated $235,000 to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics in 1944 and about half

that amount the next fiscal year to obtain information on the matter. A series of nationwide mailed inquiries covering about 325,000

farms was inaugurated. These were supplemented intermittently by interview surveys of

some 20,000 farm operators in 158 counties in

42 States. With farm wage rates reaching

unrealistic levels in specialized crop areas, the

Division also made 60 local area surveys to

provide statistics needed in making decisions

regarding the stabilization of wages for farm

workers. These special crop area surveys were

conducted in 15 States and were concerned

primarily with wages paid to harvesters of

fruits and vegetables. Surveys of farm labor

supply centers or camps were made to obtain

data on migratory farm workers. An unusual

request resulted in a survey of prisoner of war

camps to obtain data needed to establish workload standards for war prisoners used in the

harvest of cotton, corn, peanuts, and similar

crops.

At the request of the Federal Communications Commission, about 2,500 farms were contacted to obtain information on program

preferences of rural radio listeners. The critical need for statistics on a wide range of

topics resulted in the inauguration of a series

of Quarterly Surveys of Agriculture made in

April, July, and October 1945 and January

1946. These involved interviews of a sample of

3,000 farmers in 101 counties and obtained

data on farm operations, family living, and

health problems. Emerson Brooks, who had

been refused a release by the Department to

serve in the Army, was in charge of the Division's survey activities.

CHAPTER 9. POST WORLD WAR II

BAE Reorganization of 1945

Germany surrendered on May 7 and Japan

on August 14, 1945. By Secretary's Memorandum 1139, dated December 12, 1945, the

Bureau of Agricultural Economics was reorganized. Program planning work was transferred to the Office of the Secretary with a

Policy and Program Committee established to

coordinate it. In the Secretary's memorandum

the Bureau of Agricultural Economics was designated as the authorized source of economic

information and assigned to supervise and coordinate economic and statistical research in

the Department. Its functions were grouped

under four Assistant Chiefs in charge, respectively, of agricultural statistics, income and

distribution research, production research, and

program analysis and rural life research. By

the same memorandum, the Outlook and Sit88
uation Board was established to provide technical review and approval of all economic

outlook and situation reports.94

Oris V. Wells was appointed Chief of the

Bureau of Agricultural Economics on May 16,

1946. Wells had been in the Department for a

number of years. He had been a Chief Program

Analyst from 1941 to January 1946 when he

was made Assistant Chief of the Bureau for

prices, income, and marketing.

On July 1, 1946, he issued a memorandum 95

setting forth the reorganization of the work of

the Division of Agricultural Statistics with

the work of the division rearranged in six divisions as follows: (1) Field Crop Statistics,

(2) Fruit and Vegetable Statistics, (3) Livestock and Poultry Statistics, (4) Dairy Statistics, (5) Agricultural Price Statistics, and

(6) Special Farm Statistics. The Crop Reporting Board was continued.

W. F. Callander, detailed from his position

as Statistician for Florida to take charge of

the agricultural census returned as chairman

of the Crop Reporting Board in January 1946.

The six new divisions reported to him. He

was authorized to appoint two principal assistants. Agricultural Estimates, Bureau of

Agricultural Economics was the term given

in Wells' memorandum to refer to the new

statistical divisions, the State statistical offices,

and other technical, supervisory, and general

operational units functioning under the direction of the Assistant Chief in Charge of Statistics.

In 1946, Callander made the following appointments : Principal Assistants—Paul L.

Koenig to have primary responsibility for direction and coordination of State statistical

offices and maintenance of State cooperation,

and to serve as Vice Chairman of the Board;

R. K. Smith to be primarily responsible for

coordination of technical policy and work programs, to be Chief Technical Consultant of the

Board, and in the absence of the Chairman

and Vice Chairman to act as Chairman of the

Board; J. E. Pallesen to continue as Secretary

of the Board; and Walter Hendricks to continue in charge of statistical methodology.

Division Chiefs appointed were : C. E. Burkhead—Field Crops; Reginald Royston—Fruit

and Vegetables; C. L. Harlan—Livestock and

Poultry; B. H. Bennett—Dairy Statistics;

B. R. Stauber—Farm Prices; and C. F. Sarle

—Special Farm Statistics.96

Marketing Act of 1946

Cooperative work with State departments of

agriculture, similar to that in crop and livestock estimating, was started in market news,

and standardization and grading shortly after

the establishment of the Bureau of Markets in

1917. In most instances, functions related to

State activities in marketing services and regulatory work were the responsibility of the

State Departments of Agriculture.

As early as 1917, commissioners of agriculture had proposed legislation to provide Federal funds for grants-in-aid to the States for

marketing and regulatory work cooperative

with USDA. The arrangement would be comparable to research grants given to State colleges of agriculture and experiment stations.

At the meeting of the National Association of

Commissioners, Secretaries, and Directors of

Agriculture in 1919, Secretary Houston in his

address to the group replied to such a request

saying, "It would be neither appropriate nor

desirable for the Federal Government to make

available to the States directly any funds for

the support of their regulatory or administrative agencies."97

The idea reappeared periodically in succeeding years, particularly, with the increased

influence of the National Association of Marketing Officials during the depression years

following 1929. Commissioner of Agriculture

W. Kerr Scott of North Carolina took the lead

in 1939 to have Senator Bailey of North

Carolina introduce Senate Bill 2212 that would

authorize an appropriation of $5 million to be

allotted to the States on a matching basis for

conducting marketing services programs in cooperation with USDA.

94 U.S. Department of Agriculture Preliminary Inventories. Record of Agricultural Economics, 1958, p. 9.

95 Bureau of Agricultural Economics—Unnumbered

memorandum dated July 1, 1946, signed by O. V. Wells,

Chief, and approved by N. E. Dodd, Acting Secretary

of Agriculture.

96 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Organization of Agricultural Estimates—C.E.M. 1255, July 26, 1946.

97 Proceedings of the National Association of Commissioners, Secretaries, and Directors of Agriculture,

1919, pp. 143-47.

89
The Bailey Bill passed the Senate without

opposition but got nowhere in the House. Congressman Harold Cooley of North Carolina,

a ranking member of the House Agricultural

Committee, introduced a similar bill, H.R.

9023, in 1940. This bill was rewritten in 1941

but it was never cleared by committee.

In 1945, Congressman Hope of Kansas

drafted a Marketing Bill that revised and expanded the bill prepared by Congressman

Cooley. At the same time Congressman John

Flannigan of Virginia, Chairman of the House

Agricultural Committee, prepared a bill to provide for expanding agricultural research. The

two bills were combined and, as cleared by the

House Agricultural Committee, were generally

referred to as the Hope-Flannigan Research

and Marketing Act. It was passed unanimously

by both Houses and was approved August 14,

1946.98 Congressman Hope's bill appeared as

Title II of the Act and was designated the

"Agricultural Marketing Act of me."

In the opinion of Congressman Hope and

many agricultural leaders, the solution of farm

income problems, particularly those relating

to perishable commodities, lay in a better system of marketing and distribution." Title II

authorized the Secretary to set up a separate

marketing agency in the Department, to bring

together, emphasize, and direct a cohesive

program of related research, service and extensions. Instead, Secretary of Agriculture

Clinton Anderson established a unit within his

office to approve projects and allot funds for

Federal and State agencies equipped to perform innovative marketing research service.

Under this scheme the BAE obtained funds

for developing new statistical series such as

market milk sales and consumption. State Departments of Agriculture received funds on a

matching basis—e.g., Federal funds were required to be matched at least 100 percent with

funds from State sources.

A variety of agricultural estimates projects

were initiated with matched funds to secure

statistics of acreage, production, and prices

for specialized producing areas. County estimates for crop and livestock were frequently

acquired. Need for such localized data was

98 60 Stat. 1082.

"Hope, Clifford R. A Visualized Program for Marketing. USDA Graduate School, 1951, 12 pp.

widely felt not only by the marketing bureaus

of the States, but also by extension agents,

experiment stations, research workers, legislators, and business organizations coping with

marketing problems.

Approved statistical projects were directed

by the State Agricultural Statisticians. Their

affiliation with the Federal Statistical Service

assured coordination in the use of uniform

methods, leading to comparability of the information with other States.

The Research and Marketing Act, as the

Hope-Flannigan Bill later became known, was

intended to initiate marketing services rather

than support services indefinitely. Accordingly, the projects were designed to explore

the feasibility and test the value of proposed

new statistical series. Proof of their acceptance came if, upon completion of a project,

another source of funding was found to continue the service. Among the statistical series

thus started as a multistate endeavor were

quarterly pig reports for Corn Belt States

which later were financed in regular appropriations. This method of trying out statistical

services prior to their acceptance in annual

appropriations was in decided contrast with

the much more common procedure whereby

interested farm or industry groups importuned

Congress to appropriate for specific data.

In 1946 Callander, to expand and strengthen

the Division's organization in this phase of the

work, established the Special Farm Statistics

Branch in the Division and brought Charles

F. Sarle back from the Weather Bureau as

Director of the new Branch. It was the work of

this Branch in conducting enumerative surveys during the next 15 years which developed

the operating procedures employed when the

expanded program got under way in the IdGO's

under the leadership of Harry C. Trelogan.

New Demands for Agricultural Estimates

Upon Callander's retirement December 31,

1949, Sterling R. Newell was appointed Assistant Chief of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics for Agricultural Estimates and Chairman of the Crop Reporting Board.

Newell had entered the Division of Crop

and Livestock Estimates in 1926. He had left

in 1934 to go into the Marketing Research

Division of the Bureau of Agricultural

90
Economics. He was later appointed Assistant

to the Chief of the first Agricultural Marketing Service in 1938 and occupied various administrative positions in succeeding years

until he returned to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics on January 1, 1950.

The most significant development in the reporting program of agricultural estimates during the forties and fifties was the increased

demand for more frequent, accurate, and detailed reports. Over the years, there had been

many requests for more timely reports particularly in emergency situations such as

drought, floods, and freezes. But the demand

that was growing in the forties and through

the fifties was for much more detailed and factual data on a broad front.

This was symptomatic of fundamental

changes occurring in agricultural production

and marketing. The peak in agricultural production reached during the Second World War

was attained despite the fact that the percentage of the total population gainfully employed

in agriculture had declined to 18 percent in

1940 as compared with 27 percent in 1920 and

21 percent in 1930. Rising farm production

was the result of many things, including the

increasing use of improved mechanical equipment, introduction of improved varieties of

crops and breeds of livestock, and many technological changes resulting in more efficient

use of resources. The capital required to engage

in farming increased greatly. The generalpurpose farmer with a quarter section of land

had to reappraise his program in light of his

land resources and changed competitive situation. Often the answer was specialization on

the land available or to obtain more land

resources either by purchase or lease. Prudent

management became more dependent upon reliable statistics for farm and market planning

and operational decisions. The accuracy of the

statistics were subjected to closer scrutiny.

Vertical Integration

Beginning in the early forties, a new set of

forces became more evident. These have been

generally referred to as vertical integration of

the production, marketing, and distribution

functions.1 The idea of integration of the production and marketing functions was not new.

1 USDA—A Chronology of American Agriculture,

1790-1965.

Cooperative marketing represented the effort

of producers to project their management beyond the farm gate into marketing. They

pooled their sales, seeking large volume to

effect economies that would accrue. Many such

organizations developed during the twenties,

particularly after the passage of the CapperVolstead Act exempting cooperatives from the

antitrust laws that was approved February 18,

1922. The extent of integration varied, often

going only as far as the shipping point or

wholesale market. The California Citrus Exchange was illustrative of a number that assembled and packed a large part of the

members' output for sale through cooperatively

operated outlets at terminal markets. A distinguishing feature of the operation of cooperative marketing associations was retention

of grower control after the product entered the

marketing system.

A limiting problem that beset cooperatives

was the purely voluntary feature of membership. Those who did not choose to join dealt

on the "outside" reaping some of the benefits,

but at the same time reducing the effectiveness of the cooperative. The Agricultural

Adjustment Act provided for marketing agreements and orders. This provided for grower

referendums whereby if an agreement was

accepted by two-thirds of the growers it became mandatory on all growers of that crop

in the area. These were effective in achieving

an acceptable degree of grower control for only

some commodities; notably milk, fruits, and

vegetables in some areas.

The vertical integration that had its beginnings around the early forties was best illustrated by the broiler chicken industry.

Agricultural research produced new breeds,

effective disease control, and feeding regimens

that enabled farmers to feed to broiler weight

in a short time in confined quarters for delivery to the market or processor on closely

estimated schedules. The industry started

out as an individual farm operation. As it

progressed, it soon became evident that the

specialized housing and feeding essential for

economical production was amenable to unified management and conducive to integration

with chick hatcheries, feed processors, and poultry dressing plants.

Old sources of data on production, movements, and prices disappeared as market ex91
change of ownership was replaced by contracted arrangements among the integrators.

At the same time needs for data were accentuated to facilitate intelligent management.

Also the operations were sufficiently synchronized to permit estimation of prospective

market supplies well in advance. Major adjustments in statistical services were necessitated

throughout the period of transition which

was characterized by variable rates of change

in different producing areas.

Market Flow Statistics

The call for new, more detailed, and more

accurate reports was frequently repeated as

vertical integration pervaded agriculture and

led to a concept of "market flow" statistics

within the Statistical Reporting Service. The

term is descriptive of an objective of reports

to provide detailed data at frequent intervals

depicting the allocation of resources to production of a commodity, the progress of

growth, and the movement from the producer

into market channels. The weekly butter and

cheese reports were forerunners of this type of

service. Weekly broiler reports and reports of

eggs set and chicks hatched were started in

1948. Weekly hatchery reports for turkeys in

the 10 principal producing States were started

in 1954. In this instance reports were increased

from a once-a-year inventory summary to

weekly reports by type of bird, representing

an increase from one to more than 100 releases

a year.

An experimental project was begun with

Research and Marketing Act funds in three

States in 1948 to develop techniques for providing quarterly reports of cattle on feed. At

the time, cattle feeding was becoming a specialized enterprise in a number of areas.

Tremendous feeding yards were operating in

Arizona, California, and Texas and increasing

rapidly in Colorado, Nebraska, and a number

of other States. Investments in these facilities

were very large and were increasing. The

operators watched the experimental work

in Iowa, Nebraska, and Illinois very closely.

When they were convinced that the techniques

were sufficiently developed to make quarterly

reports feasible, the industry made strong

representations to the Department and the

Congress that at least quarterly, and preferably monthly, reports of the number of cattle

on feed would be an important factor in

orderly production and marketing of better

grade beef. Quarterly reports of cattle on feed

were started in 13 States in 1955. By 1966,

quarterly estimates were made for 32 States

and monthly for 5 States.

Specialized weekly vegetable market-flow

type statistical reports were introduced in

1960 for Florida and Texas tomatoes. These

reports show weekly plantings, rate of development, and harvest for a perishable crop

whose price to growers fluctuates widely in

response to the supply situation. As these two

areas produced the bulk of the winter and

spring crop of tomatoes, they are highly

competitive.

Statisticians, and surely many workers in

other fields, encounter numerous instances

which show clearly that the user of a report

is often not willing to accept a figure or a statement on faith alone. Statisticians are often

asked the question, "How accurate is this

estimate?" This kind of question comes from

farmers about as often as from businessmen.

The Statistical Reporting Service is increasingly aware that statistics that were satisfactory only a few years ago do not suffice today,

and that the statistics of today will not meet

the needs of a few years hence. Therefore, the

agency is continually concerned with improving the service to meet current and future

demands.

Weekly Crop-Weather Reports

More frequent crop reports was one answer,

but not altogether an acceptable solution to an

insistent demand on the part of producers,

analysts, agricultural editors, businessmen,

and others for more accurate statistics and

faster release. Ten days from the time that

data, received from voluntary reporters, were

released as national estimates, was too long in

the eyes of many users as early as 1950. Additional crop reports would be too expensive,

and satisfactory technology for speeding data

handling and transmission to cut the time

simply did not exist. Another alternative was

advanced.

In some of the Federal-State crop reporting

offices, the statistician had developed an arrangement with the Weather Bureau and the

92
State Extension Service whereby a weekly

crop-weather report was issued. The Weather

Bureau's weekly data from cooperative observers were summarized along with observed crop conditions so that county extension

agents could distribute a weekly letter. The

statistician summarized the various parts each

Monday, and released the report Tuesday at

noon. In States having the service, the report

seemed to meet many of the immediate needs.

R. K. Smith, Director of Agricultural Estimates, took the lead in developing cooperative arrangements with additional States, and

by 1958 had expanded the plan for weekly

crop-weather reports to all States. Each State

also sent a wire report to Washington where

a statistician from the Statistical Reporting

Service, meeting with climatologists of the

Environmental Services of the Department of

Commerce (Weather Bureau), prepared and

issued a national report each week by noon on

Tuesday.

These reports have had an enthusiastic reception by a very wide range of users throughout the country. They do not carry quantitative estimates of production, but they do provide sufficient information on farm and

weather developments in specific areas to

enable the user to note significant changes occurring in the interim between monthly

reports.

Congressional Investigation of the 1951 Cotton Report

Historically, cotton estimates have been the

most volatile of all estimates handled by the

Crop Reporting Board. It was naturally so because from early days, agriculture in the

South had been most commercialized and cotton was predominant. It was the most important export crop for many years. During 1841-

60, the value of cotton exports was almost

half the value of total exports.

Changes in cotton prospects were reflected

almost immediately in highly speculative cotton exchanges. They were sensitive to rumors

of all sorts and the need for unbiased official

estimates was of greatest importance. It has

been noted that the cotton estimate set off the

demand for tighter controls and the formation of the Crop Reporting Board before there

was a forecast of probable production during

the growing season. It has been noted, too that

when Nat Murray in 1911 suggested interpreting monthly conditions for quantitative forecasts for all major crops, "Tama Jim" Wilson

approved the plan for all crops except cotton

because, as he said, "Cotton is dynamite."

In 1902, the Bureau of the Census began collecting monthly statistics on the bales of cotton

ginned. Consequently, the estimates of the

Crop Reporting Board were checked for accuracy each year by comparing them with the

amount of cotton ginned. An act of May 3, 1923

(43 Stat. L 115), required semimonthly cotton

crop reports between July 1 and December 1.

This act was superseded March 3, 1927 (44

Stat. 1372), by an act providing for a report

of the acreage of cotton in cultivation as of

July 1 and five monthly reports of production

as of August 1 to December 1. It also required

that the Census Bureau ginnings reports be

issued simultaneously with the crop report.2

Such specific legislation testified to the national

concern attached to this crop.

Through the years, with the constant checks,

the institution of various techniques such as

frontage measurements for acreage, and boll

counts, the Board's cotton forecasts and estimates became increasingly accurate. This is

not to say that variations had not occurred

from time to time and criticisms had not

arisen. By and large, though, the reports were

accepted and relied upon by all segments of

the industry.

The crop of 1951 was produced under widely

variable conditions from extremely wet

weather in the early season in some areas to

extremely dry weather in others. The season

seemed to start out very well, with the August

1 forecast indicating a crop of 17,266,000

bales, and remained favorable through the

next month so that a September 1 forecast of

17,291,000 was issued. During September,

farmers were beginning to realize that continuing drought, shedding of bolls, and bollworm damage in late cotton were causing

more damage than expected, and the October

1 forecast was reduced by 360,000 bales. Bad

weather continued and as picking of late cot2

Joseph A. Becker—memorandum to C. W. Kitchen,

Chief of the Agricultural Marketing Service, October

1940 (in files of Field Crop Statistics Branch, SRS).

93
ton got underway around November 1, farmers

became aware of extensive damage. Ginners,

too, recognized the drop, and it became evident

that abondonment of acreage exceeded expectations. The forecast dropped 1,160,000 bales

from the October 1 figure. The total decline,

amounting to about a million and a half bales

in 2 months from September 1 to November 1,

was unprecedented.3

The reaction ranged from severe criticism

from some quarters to enthusiastic commendation in others. Two prominent farmers from

Alabama discussed the situation with the

Chairman of the Board. One said he didn't see

how it was possible to make such a ridiculous

error, while the other spoke up and defended

the Board saying, "This year was one that

none of us knew what was in the field until

picking was well underway."

The House of Representatives' Agricultural

Committee was concerned and appointed a

subcommittee to investigate the Agricultural

Estimating Service. Thomas Abernethy of

Mississippi was Chairman of the subcommittee.

The committee held extensive hearings during

which the Chief of the Bureau of Agricultural

Economics, the Assistant Chief and Chairman

of the Crop Reporting Board, and staff members collaborated in a full-scale investigation

and analysis of procedures. Outside witnesses

were also invited to appear.

The problems encountered with cotton were

explored objectively, and the committee was

critical on many points. The fact that the Agricultural Estimating Service had found it

necessary, because of gasoline and tire shortages during the war, to drop the cotton boll

counts and restrict travel generally was viewed

as a serious loss. Some members of the committee were concerned that the service had

never had funds appropriated for research to

develop new estimating and forecasting methods. The chairman of the committee commented in the foreword to the report:

The members of the subcommittee which studied

this matter do not pose as experts on sampling

surveys, statistics, or crop reports. Rather than

trying to become experts on this subject and issue

a report in which the technical advantages of certain statistical methods, as compared to others,

have been thoroughly analyzed and classified, the

committee felt that it would be much more beneficial for it to go thoroughly into the methods and

procedures used by the Board on a nontechnical

basis and to make its report accordingly. . . .

When the anticipated throng of witnesses with

suggestions for improving the crop reports failed

to materialize, the committee instructed its counsel

to seek suggestions, recommendations, and comments from groups and individuals who might be

presumed to be informed on this subject and

to have information of value to the committee in

its study. . . .

The report which follows, therefore, does not

presume to make a concise series of hard and fast

recommendations which the committee finds will

improve the crop reporting service, although it

will make some very specific recommendations

which the committee believes will be of value.

In the main, the report will be a general discussion of the details of the methods and procedures

now used by the Board, with observations and

suggestions by the committee which it believes are

at least worthy of consideration by the Bureau of

Agricultural Economics and by all those who are

interested in improving the crop reporting service.

Many of the suggestions and recommendations made by the committee dealt with ways

to strengthen and improve the service. There

were several concerned with improving the reporting lists. Others emphasized the development of objective measurements of coverage

and yield, even though "such sources will

doubtless require some additional funds."

Prior efforts to carry on consistent research

relating to many of the suggestions had been

limited by both funds and urgent demands

for data. Even the research conducted in cooperation with the statistical laboratories had

been severely restricted by contingencies.

The committee summed up recommendations in the section on "Research, Analysis,

and Experimentation,,of the report.4

It is recommended that the Bureau of Agricultural Economics establish a unit devoted entirely

to research, analysis, and experimentation directed

at discovering the shortcomings in the Bureau's

present methods and developing improvements

therein. Such a unit should be free from any responsibility in connection with the issuance of current reports, should have sufficient budget and field

personnel to permit whatever field operations are

necessary to its proper functioning.

3 Summarized from a statement by O. V. Wells,

Chief of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and

S. R. Newell, Assistant Chief, before the Subcommittee

of the House Agricultural Committee investigating the

Agricultural Estimating Service of BAE, January 22,

1952 (mimeographed).

4 U.S. Congress. Crop Estimating and Reporting

Services of the Department of Agriculture Report and

Commendations of a Special Subcommittee of the Committee on Agriculture, pp. 31-32. House of Representatives, 82d. Cong., 2d Sess., June 16, 1952. (Committee

print unnumbered).

94
The committee cannot place too much emphasis

on their recommendation. Many of the other recommendations made by the committee in this report

are in the nature of suggestions which should be

thoroughly considered by such a research unit before being adopted.

CHAPTER 10. INAUGURATION OF A LONGRANGE PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF

THE STATISTICAL REPORTING SERVICE

On February 8, 1952, during the investigation by the subcommittee, Congressman Abernethy wrote to 0. V. Wells, Chief of the Bureau

of Agricultural Economics, asking two questions :

(1) Are you satisfied with the results of

your present system of crop estimating and

reporting?

(2) Do you know any steps which might

be taken to improve the accuracy of these

forecasts and reports?

In his reply, dated February 21, 1952, Wells

said, in part :

In answer to the first question, we believe that,

taking into account the number and timing of reports issued in relation to the resources available,

the Crop Reporting Service is a remarkably dependable and economical operation. Nevertheless the answer to your question is that we are

not wholly satisfied with the results of the present system. Our crop and livestock estimates are

necessarily based upon sampling data and are

also often forecasts, based upon assumption as to

average weather or probable behavior of farmers

over some specified future period. . . .

In discussing this second question in more detail,

there are some overall considerations which should

be kept in mind. The Crop and Livestock Reporting

Service was originally started for the purpose of

providing general information to farmers and

others interested in agriculture, chiefly on an annual basis. However, the Service has now become

the source of official information on many phases

of agriculture which is extensively used throughout the whole economy, with increased emphasis

upon the use of closely timed monthly and other

short-term reports as well as the need for breaking some of the annual estimates down on a county

basis.5

Wells outlined in brief a number of steps

which might be taken, such as expanding reporter lists; improving reporter response; increasing field travel; speedup of service; developing and testing new techniques, including the use of personal enumeration for certain types of reports; and strengthening the

field offices.

Wells summed up his recommendations in

these words:

To undertake a comprehensive research and testing program along the lines above indicated would

necessitate development of a unit of qualified technicians and a reasonable fund to employe enumerators. Since much of the basic office or laboratory

research has already been done, a number of

"pilot" operations should be undertaken in selected

States or areas on a sufficient scale to indicate

the feasibility of actually using such methods, both

from the viewpoint of the technical estimating

and actual administrative or operating problems

involved. . . .

Such a program adequately staffed is the most

constructive method for future development of the

service. A number of proposals have been made

for adoption of new techniques. Whether these proposals would result in any considerable improvement, whether they are adaptable to the timing

of the program, how expensive they are in relation

to the greater accuracy that might be expected,

are all problems that would have to be studied

through actual operations paralleling the methods

being used currently.

The size and scope of such a program could vary

considerably but it should be large enough to permit experimentation on a scale extensive enough

to be proven in actual operation. As a matter of

fact, it is now the laboratory findings that need

testing at a "pilot plant" stag^.

A unit set up to do this work should be separate

and free from the demands for current operations.

Its personnel should be available to aid the entire

staff in analysis of sampling problems that will

arise in the building of reporting lists on sound

sampling principles, study of weather-crop relationships and to carry out experimental work in the

field without interruption to the current program.

A unit capable of carrying out a reasonably satisfactory program would require an additional fund

of $265,000 of which around $80,000 would be

used in employing field enumerators and other

temporary personnel.6

This recommendation for a research unit

by the Chief of the Bureau was accepted by

the committee with the following comment:

. . . appropriation of the necessary funds for an

adequate research unit as outlined herein will do

more in the long run to improve the Bureau's

reports than any other similar investment which

could be made.7

Development of the research staff actually

got underway in the summer of 1952. Walter

Hendricks, the statistical consultant for agricultural estimates and the only full-time technician available, immediately turned his full

attention to planning. In the Division of Special Farm Statistics, Emerson Brooks, who had

long experience in developing and conducting

surveys, adjusted the work of his division so

he could devote a major part of his facilities

5 SRS correspondence files.

6

Ibid., pp. 49-53.

7

Ibid., pp. 32.

95
to a study of the problems. Ralph Stauber,

Chief of the Division of Agricultural Price

Statistics, as an extracurricular activity served

as head of the Mathematics and Statistics Department of the USDA Graduate School. He

was well trained in technical statistics and

had much experience in conducting surveys;

he also devoted considerable time—much of

it overtime—assisting in the planning of the

research. R. K. Smith, Assistant Chief and

Vice Chairman of the Crop Reporting Board,

was a constant counselor.

To assist in developing the research and development program, the Chief of the Bureau,

0. V. Wells; the Associate Chief, F. F. Elliott;

and the Assistant Chief, S. R. Newell, selected a panel of six consultants to study and

review the needs and advise on the program.

Three consultants, whose primary interest was

considered to be use of statistics, were Professor Thomas K. Cowden, then Head of the

Agricultural Economics Division at Michigan

State University (when he became Dean of

Agriculture, he designated Professor Lawrence L. Boger, who took his place as department head and was designated a member of

the panel) ; Professor Earl 0. Heady, Head of

Agricultural Economics at Iowa State University; and Professor Tyrus R. Timm, Head

of Agricultural Economics at Texas A. & M.

Three consultants, who were primarily statisticians, were Professor Walter T. Fédérer,

Cornell University; Professor George M. Kuznets, University of California; and Professor

Fred F. Stephan, Princeton University.

This group met periodically with the Associate and Assistant Chiefs of the Bureau and

members of the research staff of Agricultural

Estimates to advise on plans, review the results of research, and make recommendations

on future programs.

American Farm Economic Association Helps

About 1955, the American Farm Economics

Association appointed an Agricultural Data

Committee to study the agricultural data needs

of the Nation. The committee included representatives of colleges, universities, industry,

and other users. The chairman was Walter H.

Ebling, State statistician for Wisconsin. The

committee worked closely with the Marketing

Committee of the Association of State Departments of Agriculture and the Organization

and Policy Committees of the State Experiment Stations and the State Agricultural Extension Service. Ebling made two comprehensive surveys of all States. The results of these

surveys and the studies were four main recommendations: (1) More complete coverage of

agricultural data at the county or other local

level; (2) greater accuracy and refinement at

the State and national level; (3) more frequent

reports and speedier release of such reports,

and (4) additional subject-matter coverage in

sufficient detail to serve local needs.

Pilot Operations Started

Much of the research that had been done at

Ames and North Carolina, as previously discussed, was used as a foundation for a new research and development program. The Master

Sample developed at Ames was the basis for

the design of the original probability sample

put into practice.

This project is described as:

An enumerative survey was made in June of a

representative sample of some 700 agricultural

areas, covering approximately 3,000 farms, in 100

counties of the 10 (Southern) State area. Parttime enumerators obtained from the individual

farmer a record of the crops planted, the numbers

of livestock, and other factors relating to his own

farm. This survey was repeated in June 1955 and

again in 1956 when 13 additional States, mostly

in the North Central area, were added.

To develop a basis for forecasting during the

growing season, a sample of the farms covered

in the June survey was selected and fields designated for objective yield determinations to be

made later in the season. During 1954, 1955, and

1956, actual measurements of crops were made in

these fields and the final estimates of production

were obtained on those individual fields at the end

of the season. The measurements during the season

were then related to the final production. From this

work some experimental formulas were developed

that could be used during the growing season for

forecasting probable outturn. The crops covered

during the experimental period were corn, cotton,

wheat, and soybeans.8

Agribusiness Takes an Interest

Shortly after Newell was appointed Assistant Chief of BAE and Chairman of the Crop

Reporting Board in 1949, Wayne Darrow called

to discuss the crop reports. Darrow, formerly

Director of Information for the Agricultural

8 USDA. A Program for the Development of the

Agricultural Estimating Service. 3 pp., Feb. 1957

(mimeographed).

96
Adjustment Administration and Associate Director of Information for the Department, currently and for many years publisher of the

Washington Farmletter, had always taken an

active interest in the work of agricultural estimates and was an important user of the reports.

At a conference with Newell in the summer

of 1950, Darrow discussed the importance of

the crop and livestock reporting work. He

was much concerned with the urgency for

strengthening the service to improve the accuracy of the reports and speeding up the release of the information. He was particularly

concerned with developing some ways of obtaining more objective information on which

to base the estimates of acreage and yield of

crops, and estimates of livestock numbers including the expansion of the livestock reports,

particularly those relating to hogs and cattle

feeding operations. His thought was to establish offices in each agricultural county to

keep in close touch with producers and obtain

direct information by contact or enumeration

of agriculture in the county. Nevertheless, he

was anxious to have the benefit of research to

get practical recommendations on what might

be done.

As work was started on long-range plans,

Darrow kept in close touch with the various

ideas advanced and the progress of the research. To aid in attracting farm and business

interest in the program, an informal committee was set up, in consultation with and sponsored by Dana Bennett, Director of the Foundation for American Agriculture. This group

met on call to review plans and proposals and

was very helpful iii implementing the plan as

finally adopted.

Reorganization in 1953

Shortly after Ezra Taft Benson was appointed Secretary of Agriculture on January

21, 1953, a study was started of the organization of the Department. As a result of that

study, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics

and the Production and Marketing Administration were abolished. The work on farm

management and costs, land economics, and

agricultural finance that had been in BAE and

the cotton ginning research and administration of the Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act that had been under PMA, were

all transferred to the Agricultural Research

Service.

A new Agricultural Marketing Service was

composed of the agricultural estimating work,

statistical and economic research, and the outlook and situation work of BAE, and the major

part of the marketing research, services, and

regulatory activities, the school lunch, and direct distribution activities of the Production

and Marketing Administration. Oris V. Wells,

who had been Chief of BAE, was appointed

Administrator of the new Service.9

In many ways the Agricultural Marketing

Service resembled the kind of marketing

bureau that Congressman Cliiford Hope had

in mind when he sponsored the Marketing Act

of 1946. Except for the addition of the cold

storage reports, the agricultural estimating

function was continued much as under the

BAE. The name was changed to the Agricultural Estimates Division, and S. R. Newell,

formerly Assistant Chief of the Bureau, became Director of the Division and Chairman

of the Crop Reporting Board. R. K. Smith was

designated Deputy Director and Vice Chairman. Glenn D. Simpson continued as Secretary

of the Board with added responsibilities for

field operations. The six divisions under BAE

became branches in the new organization. The

chiefs of the divisions became chiefs of the

branches, as follows:

Agricultural Prices Statistics Branch—B.

Ralph Stauber

Special Statistics Branch—Emerson M.

Brooks

Dairy Statistics Branch—B. H. Bennett

Field Crop Statistics Branch—Charles E.

Burkhead

Fruit and Vegetable Statistics Branch—

Reginald Royston

Livestock and Poultry Statistics Branch—

A. V. Nordquist

The Long-Range Plan Presented to Congress

The Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations of the Committee on Appropriations,

House of Representatives, had shown interest

in the work of the Agricultural Estimates Division and had followed closely the developments since the investigation of 1952. On July

»A Century of Service, p. 377.

97
31, 1956, the Chairman of the Subcommittee,

Congressman Jamie L. Whitten of Mississippi,

wrote to Secretary of Agriculture Benson expressing the interest of the committee in the

crop and livestock estimating work. In the

closing sentence of his letter he said:

In brief, we would like to have a report that

would cover the USDA's recommendations for the

immediate and longrange program for the development and improvement of the agricultural estimating work of the Department.10

The hearing on the 1958 appropriations was

held on February 7, 1957. At that time, Newell

presented "A Program for the Development

of the Agricultural Estimating Service."11

The essence of the plan was contained in

four major segments or projects. It was recognized that all four projects could not be implemented at one time. They were therefore

listed in order of priority.

Project A contained the plan for meeting

the most fundamental needs of the service, and

at the same time provided the framework for

implementing the other projects:

OBJECT—To provide:

a. Additional and improved estimates of acreage,

yield and production of major crops and livestock

numbers by species at the county, state, and national levels that are necessary for the determination of local and national agricultural policy and

to meet the needs for local data in the administration of national programs.

b. Estimates of total cropland, changes in numbers

of farms and farms keeping livestock, and farm

employment, by States.

c. A basic organization for carrying out future

steps in the long-range development of agricultural

estimates by strengthening the system of voluntary

reporting and providing the necessary facilities

for obtaining annual interview surveys at the state

and national levels, and to conduct special surveys

as required from time to time for special studies

or investigations provided for in other agencies

of the Department.

METHOD OF PROCEDURE:

For its raw data the Division is dependent almost entirely upon the voluntary cooperation of

farmers and other reporters who submit their

questionnaires by mail. This is an economical

method and one that has worked quite well over

a period of years, but like all methods, it has

some limitations. It is anticipated that this procedure would be strengthened by more intensive work

10 Jamie L. Whitten—letter to Secretary Ezra T.

Benson, July 31, 1956. U.S. Dept. Agr. Appropriations

for 1958, Part 2, p. 886.

11 The long-range program as presented was drafted

by Sterling R. Newell and Emerson M. Brooks, but it

was of course a synthesis of ideas and proposals generated by many people over a period of several years.

on the reporting lists and supplemented with some

new procedures and methods that have proven

their dependability in other statistical agencies and

by the research that has been carried on by the

Division of Agricultural Estimates since 1954.

A sample covering some 60,000 to 75,000 farms,

scientifically distributed to be representative of

the 48 States, would be established to strengthen

the basis for state and national estimates. This

sample would be enumerated completely each spring

to obtain acreage of crops planted and livestock numbers, and partially enumerated in the

fall to obtain final acreage harvested, yields, and

end-of-the-year livestock inventories. The largescale mail inquiries presently carried on would

be improved and continued as an integrated part

of the enumerative surveys to add strength to the

total information which would be necessary in

order to arrive at more reliable estimates of crops

and livestock by counties.

The significance of this project is that it

provided the basis for a fundamental change

in the entire agricultural estimating methods.

From the beginning of the service, the methods have been based on projection between the

census years. While the system of voluntary

reports by mail had been developed to a point

where it produced remarkably accurate estimates in most years, the statisticians were

constantly bedeviled by lack of objective indications of acreage and yield. Mail techniques

could not meet the need for measuring changes

in total land in farms, or changes in the number of farms. This deficiency had been recognized back in the days of Dodge and, as noted

elsewhere, continued through the years. The

most recent effort was the proposal for an annual sample census that never developed.

Statistical science progressed substantially

in the preceding decade. The cooperative fundamental research at the statistical laboratories provided the basic research for the development of the program. Launching Project A

with the annual enumerations of a large probability sample of agricultural segments

throughout the country and the monthly objective measurements in sample fields for improving forecasts and estimates of yield enabled the Division to utilize the most sophisticated statistical techniques currently available. This project does not eliminate the use of

mailed voluntary crop reports, but it does

make available indications based on a probability sample and provide the basis for putting

the mailed inquiries on a probability basis.

Project B dealt with the improvement of

the farm price reporting work.

98
OBJECT—To strengthen Agricultural Price Statistics:

a. By initiating a thoroughly modernized method

of collecting data on prices received and prices

paid by farmers to supplement and, to some extent, replace the existing system, which is based

largely upon the use of a mailed questionnaire.

b. By expanding coverage to include prices for

important commodities for which price data are

not available or for which existing data are inadequate.

c. By providing more timely data by eliminating

delays in the present operation.

METHOD OF PROCEDURE:

The proposed plan contemplates the employment

of a corps of price enumerators in each State,

usually one enumerator to each price reporting

district (there are generally 9 districts per State).

These enumerators, operating under the guidance

of the State Statistician, would make periodic contacts with dealers and merchants selected under

a scientific sampling scheme to ascertain prices

received by farmers and prices paid by farmers

for the various commodities, and would base their

reports to the fullest extent practicable upon documents of sale. Once the new program is in operation, the mechanism would be available to remedy

the existing gaps in data and coverage consistent

with available facilities.

The collection of price information would

continue to utilize the mail questionnaire for

a considerable part of its work. Some prices

cannot be adequately covered by this method,

and many other related statistics are needed

where field enumeration should be employed.

A part of the field enumeration force set up

under Project A would be utilized in carrying

out this project. The relatively small enumeration force that would be available on a continuing monthly basis would provide a corps

of trained interviewers available for handling

quickly many of the special surveys the Division is constantly called on to carry out.

Project C deals with the ever-growing demand of the entire economy for faster handling of the statistical reports.

OBJECT—

a. To speed up transmission of data from the

State offices to Washington, data processing in

Washington, and distribution of reports to farmers

and the general public.

b. To provide more frequent reports during critical periods on situations brought about by

drought, floods, freezes, and the like.

METHOD OF PROCEDURE:

It is proposed that certain data be transmitted

to Washington from the State offices by telegraph

in secret code. This could be done before the

analysis of the data is completed in the State

offices. Data processing in the Washington office

might be expedited by modern electronic computing devices. Tests of such equipment indicate that

considerable time might be saved by the use of

these machines. As further tests are still being

made, no recommendation is made now for the

purchase of such equipment. But experience to

date indicates that a great deal of attention must

be given to mechanization in the near future.

When the plan was presented, this project

emphasized mostly the need for faster communication and processing of the information.

At that time, the subject of electronic data

handling was recognized but the full potential

of electronic equipment could not be adequately appraised. As a matter of fact, the

development of the electronic equipment was

proceeding at such a rapid rate that any appraisal at that time would not have been very

significant even for a year ahead.

As the program developed in the next few

years and changes took place when the Department was reorganized in 1961, this segment of Project C has been one of the important developments in the long-range plan.

Project D was placed in the long-range plan

to take cognizance of the demands that are

constantly being made for additional statistics.

OBJECTTO provide additional data needed at county, State,

and national levels for a wide range of subject

matter not now provided or provided with insufficient detail, accuracy, or timeliness.

METHOD OF PROCEDURE:

It is proposed to undertake additional work as

the basic organization is developed under Projects

A, B, and C. The additional personnel provided

under these projects will, after the new basic procedures are established, permit readjustment of

the entire program, and furthermore, some additional programs would be possible without expanded facilities. On the other hand, many of

the additional services would require added facilities as, for example, the periodic inventories of

fruit tree numbers, monthly employment on farms

by States, varietal breakdowns on seed crops, and

similar specialty crops. With the expanded organization it is believed that such surveys can be

carried on much more efficiently than would be

possible at the present time. To undertake any

of these services without the basic organizations

anticipated for carrying the first project would

be much more costly than would be the case otherwise.

Actually, a considerable number of the developments discussed in the preceding section

—developments of the program in the lOSO's

—would be included in this project.

The Congressional committee accepted the

plan as the blueprint for the long-range development of the crop and livestock estimating

work. No request for appropriations was made

at the time. Although Chairman Whitten expressed his interest and appreciation for the

comprehensive reply to his request, he said

that requests for funds should be presented

99
through the usual budgetary channels. Congressman Fred Marshall of Minnesota, ranking member of the subcommittee, led the discussion for the committee and became an active advocate for putting the program into operation. Other members were also interested,

particularly Congressmen William Natcher of

Kentucky and Carl Anderson of Minnesota.

The Long-Rcmge Plan Becomes a Reality

By 1957, funds for research and development work had been increased to about

$500,000. The fieldwork continued in the

Southern and North Central States on a pilot

basis. At the same time, work was progressing

on the development of models for forecasting

yields, using the objective field measurements

of cotton, corn, wheat, and some other crops.

Cooperative studies with the Ames Laboratory

were conducted on the validity of the objective

corn yield estimates and the theoretical and

applied problems relative to sample surveys

and the development of methods of making

objective forecasts of yields.

The record of appropriations for agricultural estimating work after the committee

investigation of 1952 until 1961 is interesting.

The strong recommendations made in 1952 by

Congressman Abernethy's subcommittee resulted in the inclusion of a request by the Department for an increase of $100,000 in the

appropriation of 1954. The $100,000 request

was approved by the Appropriation Committee. Efforts to increase the amount met with

little success until 1956. There were two reasons. First, the Department was following an

extremely conservative policy toward this program. A second factor was the policy of the

Division of Statistical Standards of the Bureau

of the Budget. It took the position that the

Department's function was primarily to estimate total U.S. production, regardless of legislation that required estimates by States. The

Budget Bureau also took the position that national estimates could be accomplished by enumerating a relatively small national sample.

State estimates were considered relatively unimportant for most commodities. This idea was

presented at the annual meeting of the American Farm Economic Association held at Corvallis, Oreg., in August 1953.12 A storm of protests arose from the users of statistics.

Despite the evidence of need, the Department conservatism was bolstered by the Division of Statistical Standards of the Bureau,

and for 2 years further financial support for

research and development came only from diversions of the Division's operating funds and

the help of O. V. Wells, Administrator of the

Agricultural Marketing Service, in economizing in other research to help the statistical

program. It is appropriate to say here that

Wells, a keen statistician in his own right,

had for many years been much interested in

better statistics in the whole field of economics.

A small increase of $104,000 was allowed in

the Department budget for 1956 and another

of $289,000 in 1957. These funds were used

largely in research and development. From

then until 1960, when the 1961 budget was

being prepared, no increase was allowed. This

occurred despite the fact that the Appropriations Committee had expressed interest in activating the long-range plan presented at the

appropriations hearings for 1958.

When the 1961 Department estimates were

asked for, Newell presented a request for an

increase of about $2.2 million for Project A.

The Department allowed approximately

$500,000 with a note to the Bureau of the

Budget that the Department would be willing

to recommend an additional $700,000, or a

total of $1.2 million if additional ceiling was

allowed. The Bureau of the Budget allowed

only the $500,000.13

The hearings before the House Committee

reflect quite clearly the displeasure of the committee with the handling of this item. The

very great interest of Congressman Fred

Marshall of Minnesota and Congressman William Natcher of Kentucky became clearly

evident.

Marshall, a farmer and cooperating crop reporter, had followed the agricultural estimating program for a long time. He was a user of

12 Stapp, Peyton, How the Office of Statistical Standards Can Help Develop a Program. Jour. Farm Econ.

25 (5): 865, Dec. 1953.

13 U.S. Congress. Department of Agriculture Appropriations for 1961—Hearings before the Subcommittee

on Appropriations. House of Representatives, 86th

Cong., 2d Sess., Pt. 2, pp. 124-29.

100
the reports, particularly the pig reports, and

on frequent occasions had commented on the

importance of good statistical reports. Senator

Milton Young of North Dakota likewise exhibited enthusiasm for the work.14 When the

House Bill reached the Senate subcommittee

on agricultural appropriations, Senator Young

took an active part in supporting the program.

The House bill provided an increase of

$750,000 for the long-range plan, an increase

of $250,000 over the budget allowance, which

the committee said was to be considered as

the first step in implementing the long-range

plan. This action established the legislative

policy with respect to the future development

of the agricultural estimating work. When

these additional funds became available on

July 1, 1960, steps were taken to implement

Project A on a full operational basis in 11

States. This marked the beginning of a revolutionary change in the crop and livestock estimating work in the Department of Agriculture.

Reorganization of 1961—Statistical Reporting

Service Established

Orville L. Freeman became the 16th Secretary of Agriculture on January 21, 1961. Secretary Freeman, a lawyer, had served three

terms as Governor of Minnesota. A graduate

of the University of Minnesota with bachelor

of arts and law degrees, Freeman had spent

summers on the family farm homesteaded by

his grandfather in the ISSO's. When appointed

in 1961, he was the youngest man ever to occupy the position of Secretary of Agriculture.

On February 24, 1961, Secretary Freeman

announced plans to reorganize research in

agricultural economics and statistical reporting under the guidance of a Director of Agricultural Economics, effective April 3, 1961, and

named Willard W. Cochrane, Director. The

Director of Agricultural Economics was administratively at the level of Assistant Secretary, and exercised general direction and

supervision of the newly created Economic Research Service and the Statistical Reporting

Service.

The Economic Research Service brought together the economic research functions car-

' Ibid, pp. 125-28.

ried on by the Agricultural Marketing Service, the Agricultural Research Service, and the

Foreign Agricultural Service. (O. V. Wells retired on May 31, 1961, to become Deputy

Director General of the Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations at Rome.)

Nathan M. Koffsky was designated Administrator of ERS.

Harry C. Trelogan Appointed Administrator

The Statistical Reporting Service was composed of the Agricultural Estimates Division,

including the Crop Reporting Board ; the Statistical Standards Division; and the Market

Surveys Branch of the Market Development

Research Division—all of which were units of

the Agricultural Marketing Service.

Harry C. Trelogan, Administrator of the new

service, received his doctorate in agricultural economics from the University of Minnesota in 1938. He had served in the Department of Agriculture in a number of important

positions. At the time of his appointment as

Administrator, he was Assistant Administrator for Marketing Research in the Agricultural Marketing Service. In his long association with agricultural economics, he had become thoroughly familiar with the agricultural estimating work.

Newell became Deputy Administrator and

continued as Chairman of the Crop Reporting

Board. The administration was organized in

three divisions and the Crop Reporting Board.

The Agricultural Estimates Division, with

R. K. Smith as Director, included the five

branches concerned with crop and livestock estimating, as follows:

Agricultural Price Statistics Branch—B.

Ralph Stauber, Chief

Dairy Statistics Branch—Ira E. Wissinger,

Chief

Field Crop Statistics Branch—Charles E.

Burkhead, Chief

Fruit and Vegetable Statistics Branch—

Russell P. Handy, Chief

Livestock & Poultry Statistics Branch—

Robert H. Moats, Chief.

Glenn D. Simpson was appointed Director of

the Field Operations Division, and Emerson

M. Brooks was made Deputy Director. The

Division consisted of the Survey Operations

Group with Bruce M. Graham as Chief, and

43 State offices.

101
The Standards and Research Division, under the direction of Earl E. Houseman, was

made up of the work of the Statistical Standards Division and the Market Surveys Branch

of the Market Development Research Division

transferred from AMS, and the Research and

Development staff of the Agricultural Estimates Division. The Standards and Research

Division was organized with four branches:

Research and Development Branch—Bruce

W. Kelly, Chief

Special Surveys Branch—Trienah Meyers,

Chief

Statistical Clearance Branch—J. Richard

Grant, Chief

Data Processing Branch—V. Nicholson,

Chief. This branch was the nucleus of the

Washington Data Processing Center established in 1962 with J. Frank Kendrick

as Chief.

This Division, in addition to the research

and development activities connected with the

agricultural estimates program, carried out

special market surveys, provided statistical

consultant services to other agencies of the

Department, coordinated plans for Department surveys, and cleared all questionnaires

for presentation to the Division of Statistical

Standards of the Bureau of the Budget.

The research and development program, under Bruce Kelly, expanded greatly from 1960

on. Under his direction cooperative research

with the Statistical Laboratory at Iowa State

University at Ames was concerned chiefly

with objective yields on a number of crops.

The laboratory at the North Carolina State

University at Raleigh carried on studies in response errors. Studies of the use of aerial

photography in estimating crops and livestock

were undertaken with the University of California, and Texas Agricultural and Mechanical College studied the use of multiple frame

sampling.

Washington Data Processing Center

As field enumeration increased with the extension of Project A of the long-range plan to

additional States in subsequent years, it became evident that the electronic data processing unit initiated in 1958 was entirely inadequate to meet the requirements of the growing

reporting program. At the same time, the

Department was studying various electronic

data units being set up or proposed by other

agencies of the Department. As a result of the

studies, it was concluded that it would be

more economical for all agencies to establish a

few large units where the costly equipment

could be more efficiently utilized. Accordingly,

on July 1, 1962, the Secretary of Agriculture

provided for the establishment of three data

processing centers—one at Kansas City, one at

New Orleans, and one at Washington, D.C.

The Statistical Reporting Service was the

agency in Washington with the greatest need

for such a facility and with more technically

qualified people available, so the Washington

Center was assigned to the Statistical Reporting Service.15

The Center, a Department of Agriculture

facility, is under the direction of the Administrator of the Statistical Reporting Service.

Operating costs are derived from charges made

to agencies that use the services. This applies

equally to SRS. Tabulation of the enumerative surveys made under the long-range plan,

as well as other surveys made for the use of

the Crop Reporting Board, are priced by the

Center and paid for by the SRS.

Until the enumeration of the large probability sample was expanded to a full operation

in all States, it was necessary to carry on the

older methods more or less parallel with the

new sampling methods. By 1966, funds had

been increased sufficiently to put the enumeration program, proposed in Project A, on a

full operational basis in all of the 48 contiguous States.

The development of the Center required a

great deal of planning. The first problem was

to secure satisfactory space to accommodate

the large amount of machinery required as

well as the office space to house the personnel

needed to operate the new facility. One limiting factor was the necessity for a location

adjacent to the Crop Reporting Board where

the security requirements provided by law and

the rules and regulations of the Department

could be assured. The unit had been located in

temporary space in another Government building and operations were carried on with rented

equipment and rental of time on equipment of

other agencies.

5 Secretary's Memorandum No. 1509, July 1, 1962.

102
A permanent location that could be adapted

to the requirements of the Data Processing

Center with contiguous space for the crop and

livestock estimating work and the Crop Reporting Board was finally made available in

the subbasement and basement of the second

wing of the South Building.

A complete renovation of the subbasement

was required for the Data Processing Center.

This area was transformed into an attractive

location for the extensive machine installation

and associated office facilities for the supporting personnel. Meanwhile, plans had been developed for the necessary machinery and its

procurement. Personnel operating in the temporary location were ready to move to the

permanent location as soon as it was ready.

The appropriation act for fiscal year 1966

(the fiscal year began July 1, 1965) provided

$993,000 for procuring equipment and $740,-

000 for converting operations to the new

electronic equipment. The appropriation act of

1967 (beginning July 1, 1966) provided an

additional $543,500 for conversion.

Operation of the Center actually began in

January 1966, but the official opening ceremony was held on April 1, 1966, marking the

beginning of the celebration of the 100th year

of continuous crop and livestock services to

the Nation.

The New Agricultural Estimating Service

The opening of the Washington Data Processing Center provided facilities for processing

data rapidly upon receipt from the field. Thus,

the stage was set for the most revolutionary

change that has occurred in a century.

As noted throughout this story of the service, the original objective was to measure

agricultural production. Early emphasis therefore centered on a major survey in November

and December of the acreage of crops harvested and the final yield. During the growing

season qualitative monthly reports were issued

on the condition of crops. As time went on and

commercial production became more important, these production and condition reports

did not suffice and quantitative forecasts were

made during the season. Later, it developed

that estimates of acreage planted were required and surveys were made in June to obtain this information. The information was

obtained from voluntary mail reports from

farmers. Statisticians were fully aware of the

inadequacies of the system and wished for

some way of securing samples that could be

appraised and analyzed statistically.

Under the new plan the principal emphasis

is placed on securing a statistically reliable

sample of acreage of crops planted. In June of

each year, an enumeration is made of a scientifically designed sample of some 17,000 area

segments spread throughout the United States.

The enumerator gets a complete report on

acreages within the assigned segments. Spot

checks are made currently on the work of the

enumerator by field supervisors to make sure

he is following instructions in detail.

The enumerator's report is sent to the State

statistician, who makes a check on the questionnaires, punches the data on cards, and

forwards them immediately for electronic

processing in the Washington Data Processing Center. Here the data are summarized and

expanded into State, regional, and national

indications. These summarizations are returned to the State statisticians for use in

making their recommendations. Sampling errors for each item are computed during the

processing run and are available to the State

statisticians and the Crop Reporting Board.

In each State the statistician also conducts

a mail survey. The mail survey is required to

supplement the data obtained from the probability sample, because the probability area

sample for a single State is too small to provide State and sub-State estimates with an

acceptable degree of reliability. The State statistician thus has the results of the enumerative survey and the mail survey for analysis

in making his recommendations to the Board.

At the meeting of the Board, each member

is given all the indications available on the

acreages of corn, wheat, cotton, or other crops

planted for the United States and the major

regions to enable him to exercise independent

judgment with respect to each estimate. He is

also given the standard errors computed from

the enumerative survey so that he can appraise

the degree of precision and reliability that can

be attached to these indications.

The Board first establishes the U.S. figure

and then the regional figure for the crop under

consideration. Each individual State estimate

is established on the basis of the results of the

State enumeration, the results of the State

103
mail sample, and the statistician's recommendations. The sum of the State estimates is

compared with the national estimate and usually they are in close agreement. Differences

are reconciled by appropriate adjustment in

individual State estimates within the range of

the standard error.

This procedure is just the opposite of the

former practice wherein the national figure

was built up by summing the State estimates.

The new procedure takes advantage of the

fact that sampling errors of the national totals

for major crops and livestock items are much

lower than for individual States. State data,

for example, may have a sampling error that

is several times larger than that of the national total. Therefore, in starting with the

national total, the Board is on firmer ground

than the other way around.

The June enumerative survey is also the

basis for estimating numbers of farms. It has

been found that the number of farms can be

estimated each year with a standard error of

about 1 percent for the United States. It is

also the basis for determining the number of

farms keeping livestock.

The enumerative survey in December is made

on a subsample from the June survey and

deals primarily with livestock. Supplementing

this sample is an enumeration of large livestock farms.

Visualized in the plans for the future is a

large-scale June probability mail survey.

When it is fully implemented, a fall production and acreage inquiry will be made of the

June respondents. The returns from this survey will be used for adjusting June planted

acreage estimates, for determining utilization

of the planted acreage and supplementing preharvest objective yield indications. The acreage and production survey will be large enough

to be useful in making county estimates for

specific items.

Reorganization of the Statistical Reporting

Service in 1966

To utilize the new techniques and facilities

most effectively, a careful and detailed study

of the organization was started in 1965. In the

fall of 1966, results of the study were presented and on November 10, 1966, the Administrator promulgated the new organization.16

The following organization chart of the Statistical Reporting Service shows the structure

and administrative alignment of the several

groups.

The need for this realignment evolved as

the enumerative technique increased in volume

and complexity of the data, and electronic

processing made a more comprehensive analysis possible. The four divisions shown in the

chart represent the principal responsibilities

involved in providing a particular report. (1)

The research needed to develop and guide the

statistical techniques and to continuously appraise the statistical adequacy of the results—

the Standards and Research Division. (2) The

design and preparation of survey forms, preparation of instructions relating to the collection of data by enumeration or mail procedures, and provision of technical assistance to

the field offices for data collection and processing—the Survey and Data Division. (3)

Electronic processing of the data gathered—

Washington Data Processing Center. (4) Determination of data requirements to achieve a

particular statistical output, definition of output of crop and livestock estimating surveys,

and preparation of all estimates and forecasts

—the Agricultural Estimates Division.

As in any organization, all of the divisions

work together, but defining the principal areas

of responsibility for each creates more efficient

operation within the total program because

each unit can maximize the products of its

particular skills.

The field offices—the 44 State statistical

offices—are by far the largest part of the

whole organization. More effective and better

coordinated use of these offices is provided by

a new assistant administrator. Thus, the responsibility for overall administrative direction and coordination of field operations is

placed at the top administrative level of the

whole service.

Maintenance of favorable relationships with

State statistical agencies is closely aligned

with the field office management. Gradual expansion of cooperation with States has led to

formal agreements, involving some contribution of resources from the cooperating agency,

16 USDA Statistical Reporting Service, Reorganization. SRS General Notice No. 28, Nov. 10, 1966.

104
STATISTICAL REPORTING SERVICE

ADMINISTRATOR

Harry C. Trelogon

ASSISTANT

ADMINISTRATOR

R. P. Hondy DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR

AND G-

D

- Simps»"

CHAIRMAN

CROP

REPORTING

BOARD

ASSISTANT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR

J.l. AschwegeEr

AGRICULTURAL ESTIMATES

DIVISION

DIRECTOR

B.W. Kelly

DEPUTY

DIRECTOR

: J. W. Kendall

METHODS

:STAFf

CHIEF

C. E. Coudill

SURVEY AND DATA

DIVISION

DIRECTOR

J. W. Kirkbride .*-#<H*

W m

C. E. Burkheod n

CHIEF

FIELD CROP

FRUIT, AND

VEGETABLE

STATISTICS

BRANCH

CHIEF E. B. Honrumald

CHIEF B. M. Gcoham

DATA

COLLECTION

BRANCH

LIVESTOCK,

'DAIRY,AND

POULTRY

STATISTICS

BRANCH

TT

íá -1*

CHIEF M

SYSTEMS

D, Bmllos

DEVELOPMENT 7

/" Wil AND i • «.f ¡

PROGRAMMING

BRANCH *«M^J

CHIEF B R. Si auber

AGRICULTURAL *•»

PRICES

AND €S

FARM LABOR

BRANCH ^v-è»

CHIEF M. R. Koehn

DATA SERVICES ,

BRANCH AND

SECRETARY

CROP

REPORTING

BOARD

E. M. Brooks G.D. Harrell

STAFF OFFICER

FOR CAREER

DEVELOPMENT

AND FOREIGN

PROGRAMS

ASSISTANT

STAFF

OFFICER

STAFF OFFICER

FOR PPIS

AND WORK

MEASUREMENT

STAFF

i n

STANDARDS AND RESEARCH

DIVISION

. DIRECTOR

E. E, Houseman

WASHINGTON DATA

PROCESSING CENTER

SRS Staff: Pfofcssional S30, Clerical 80S, Tatal 1,335 Federal Employees,

of these , 7] Professional and 45 Clerical or« in the Washington Doto

Processing Center.

Agriculturol Statisticians; Total 459, of those, 335 are in Slate Offices,

124 in Washington.

44 STATE STATISTICAL OFFICES

SRS-AE-USOA-JUNE 1»68
with 52 agencies in 47 States. The contributions range from a few hundred dollars to

around $400,000 in two States; aggregating

more than $3,000,000 in 1967-68. Contributions are accepted in numerous forms: Office

space $179,000, ADP equipment $128,000,

printing and reproduction $183,000, personnel

assistance $2,096,000, travel funds $177,000,

and miscellaneous items $270,000. Projects

conducted for States cover a wide range of

statistical activities including such diverse

services as State farm census, objective yield

estimates for specialty crops, surveys of

equine populations, turf grass acreage, storage

holdings of products subject to unusual hazards in particular seasons, and preparation of

annual statistical bulletins.

The Statistical Reporting Service also performs surveys, under reimbursable arrangements, for a number of other Government

agencies seeking data beyond those provided

for in the SRS appropriations. Among these

are county estimates for specified crops for the

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, wage

rates paid on farms and in food processing

plants for the Department of Labor, and grazing costs experienced with cattle and sheep for

the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land

Management. Because of its unique ability

to acquire primary data from farms and

closely related industries, requests for these

services in some years have aggregated in excess of a million dollars. Advantages accruing

from these activities include less expensive and

higher quality estimates, fewer calls upon respondents for data, and acquisitions of data

bearing a complementary relationship to crop

and livestock estimates, especially for checking the reliability of regular estimates for

particular localities.

The Statistical Reporting Service is the

chief statistical agency of the Department of

Agriculture. It is the outstanding organization

of its kind in the world. The Crop Reporting

Board is respected nationally and internationally. The vast volume of statistical information

issued by the Service constitutes the factual

base on which the complex system of production and distribution of the essential food and

fiber for the Nation is dependent. The statistics are grist for the economic analyst's mill

and the basis for innumerable national and

international programs and policy decisions

that affect the entire economy.

The Service and all of its predecessor organizations, by whatever name, have been

built by people, many people, who deserve the

real credit for its accomplishments. There always have to be leaders who must take blame

and bow nicely for the credit. The leader

nevertheless is responsible for providing ideas,

encouragement, and energy in developing the

environment that keeps the team working.

The Statistical Reporting Service of the

U.S. Department of Agriculture, under the administration of Harry C. Trelogan, with an

annual appropriation of about $14 million was,

in 1968, the largest agency in the world devoted to collecting, processing, analyzing, and

disseminating current statistics concerning

the agricultural economy. Its staff of 500 professional employees and 1,000 clerical workers

located in offices from Boston to Honolulu and

from Orlando, Fla., to Palmer, Alaska, are

carefully selected and trained in the preparation of hundreds of reports each year pertaining to the Nation's agriculture. It has come a

long way since 1866, but the words of J. R.

Dodge, written in 1887, are still true and will

probably be so for many years to come.

The statistics of this country do not now suffice

to meet the wants of legislators and businessmen . . . This pursuit of current statistical information has become so eager that data attainable, existent and nonexistent, are alike required,

in season and out of season, of a character possible and impossible. Such demands, often unreasonable and annoying, attest, nevertheless, the

growing importance of statistics.17

A century and more of grappling with problems of providing timely, accurate, and comprehensive agricultural statistics has delineated some basic concepts, principles, and

procedures that can be briefly summarized.

1. In the complex society and dynamic world

in which we live current indications on the

production, marketing, and utilization of agricultural output are essential to synchronize

manifold activities independently conducted

within agriculture and to harmonize them

with other parts of the economy. The past

cannot be studied, the present cannot be appraised, and the future cannot be forecast unless there are available meaningful statistics

concerning the economy.

"Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, 1887,

p. 523.

106
2. Public and private needs for the data are

best met with a statistical service planned and

directed by a central Government agency with

direct lines to a well-trained and adequate

field staff.

3. Integration of the Federal statistical program with related State agricultural statistical services is distinctly advantageous. A

half century of close cooperation between the

Federal and State governments in conducting

a highly coordinated statistical program has

demonstrated the value of such arrangements.

A joint Federal-State endeavor under one

supervisory head avoids duplication of effort,

saves money, reduces demand upon correspondents and provides both the Federal and

State governments with uniformly consistent

data covering a broader range than either

could provide independently.

4. A fact-finding function independent of

political and economic pressures contributes

to objectivity. Freedom from policy and program responsibilities is conducive to freedom

from bias.

5. A statistical program must be adaptable

and techniques and procedures flexible, to

meet the constantly changing and expanding

demands of a dynamic agricultural economy.

It is true of the statistical field as well as

elsewhere that "You cannot put your foot into

the same river twice."

6. A competent research staff freed of involvement in day-to-day operations is a requisite for adapting new statistical technology

to emerging requirements.

7. Recruiting, Training, Supervising, Appraising, Promoting, Awarding, Motivating,

and Servicing employees merit close attention

to maintain a competent, progressive staff

with high esprit de corps for the specialized

work entailed in agricultural statistics.

8. The lifeblood of a successful statistical

service is continuing rapport with farmers

and others who provide the primary data,

with the Department and other agency officials, and with the Congress. A statistical service based on voluntary reporting must work

continuously to assure its respondents that

their efforts yield fruitful results, that analyses are done honestly, efficiently, and skillfully, and results are disseminated equitably.

107
PART V. APPENDIX

CHAPTER 11. A CENTURY OF AGRICULTURE

IN CHARTS AND PICTURES

A Picture of Agricultural Statistics, 1866-

1966

Throughout the preceding chapters, the primary objective has been to tell the story of

the development of the crop and livestock estimating work of the Department of Agriculture. In developing that story some of the

more important factors that have influenced

the progress of the program have been discussed, The end product of the statistical reporting work is a volume of statistics that

cover almost every phase of the large and

complicated agricultural industry.

These statistical series, individually and collectively, represent the net effect of a combination of a host of factors in addition to those

mentioned in the text. For example, the general pattern of crop production has been that

of a declining acreage and rising production.

This, of course, is a reflection of a vast amount

of research into improved varieties, hybridization, soil conservation, improved fertilizer

and fertilizer practices, and better machinery.

These are but a few of the things that are

summed up in a time series chart of acreageproduction of a crop such as wheat, corn, or

potatoes. The agricultural statistician must be

cognizant of the numerous factors that go into

the reshaping of the Nation's agriculture. Discussion of such detail is not in the province of

this chronicle. Growth in the statistical series

themselves reflects the magnitude of change.

The following charts represent an effort to

provide a panoramic view of a century of

agriculture as painted by the statistician's

broad brush.

WHEAT

HARVESTED ACREAGE (MIL.) PRODUCTION (MIL. BU.)

1,200

RYE

900

600

300

1866 1886 1906 1926 1946 1966

US DEPARTMENT Of A0RICUITURE NEG SR5 145 66 (5) STATISTICAL REPORTING SERVICE

HARVESTED ACREAGE (MIL.) PRODUCTION (MIL. BU.)

1866 1886 1906 1926 1946 1966

S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG SRS 146-66 (5) STATISTICAL REPORTING SERVICE

WHEAT AND RYE

YIELD PER HARVESTED ACRE (BU.)

1866 1886 1906 1926 1946 1966

HARVESTED ACREAGE (MIL.)

CORN

PRODUCTION (MIL. BU.)

1866 1886 1906 1926 1946 1966

U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG SRS 147.66 (5) STATISTICAL REPORTING SERVICE US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG SRS 148 66 (5) STATISTICAL REPORTING SERVICE

108
HARVESTED ACREAGE (MIL.) OATS PRODUCTION (MIL. BU.)

1866 1886 1906 1926 1946 1966

BARLEY

HARVESTED ACREAGE (MIL.) PRODUCTION (MIL. BU.)

400

300

200

100

1866 1886 1906 1926 1946 1966

U 5 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG SRS 149 66 (5) STATISTICAL REPORTING SERVICE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG SRS ISO 66 (5) STATISTICAL REPORTING SERVICE

CORN AND BARLEY

YIELD PER HARVESTED ACRE (BU.)

1866 1886 1906 1926 1946 1966

HARVESTED ACREAGE (MIL.) HAY PRODUCTION (MIL. TONS)

US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG SRS 151 66 (5) STATISTICAL REPORTING SERVICE

"1866 1886 1906 1926 1946 1966'

US OfPARTMtNT Of AORICULTUIE NEG. SIS IS2 *» (5) STATISTICAL REPOITING SERVICE

HARVESTED ACREAGE (MIL.) POTATOES PRODUCTION (MIL. CWT.)

240

POTATOES

I 1 Mwu 11 \fiY

A

Production

Ar** Ha rveitad aerea19«

180

120

60

1866 1886 1906 1926 1946 1966'

US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC SRS 153 66 (5) STATISTICAL REPORTING SERVICE

YIELD PER ACRE (CWT.)

200

150

100

50 ^^m^"^

1866 1886 1906 1926 1946 1966

> DEPARTMfHT OF AGRICULTURE NEG SRS 154 66 (5) STATISTICAL REPORTING SERVICE

109
TOBACCO COTTON

HARVEST» ACREAGE (MIL.) PRODUCTION (MIL. LI.)

"1866 1886 1906 1926 1946 1966

US DII'AITMfNT Of AStlCUlTUIE NE«. SIS 155 it |5) STATISTICAL ItfOITIMG SEIVKE

HARVESTED ACREAGE (MIL.)

80

1866 1886 1906 1926 1946 1966

US DEPARTMENT Of AStlCUlTUIE NEC SIS 154 it IS) STATISTICAl IEP0ITIN6 SflVICE

COTTON BUCKWHEAT

YIELD PER HARVESTED ACRE (LB.)

600

1866 1886 1906 1926 1946 1966

U S DEPARTMENT Of AGRICUtTURE NEC SRS 157 66 (5) STATISTICAl REPORTING SERVICE

PRODUCTION (MIL. BU.)

1866 1886 1906 1926 1946 1966"

US DEPARTMENT Of AGRICULTURE NEG SRS 158 66(51 STATISTICAl REPORTING SERVICE

ALL CATTLE AND COWS

KEPT FOR MILK, JANUARY 1

NUMIK ON FARMS (Mil.)"

1866 1886 1906 1926 1946 1966

NEG SRS 159 66 15) STATISTICAl REPORTING SERVKF

MILK COWS AND PRODUCTION PER COW

NUMBER ON FARMS (MIL.) | PRODUCTION PER COW (THOUS. LB.)

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

i DEPARTMENT Of AGRICUlTURf NEG SRS 160 66 :5> STATISTICAl REPORTING SERVICE

110
ALL SHEEP AND LAMBS,

AND STOCK SHEEP, JANUARY 1

NUMIER ON FARMS (MIL.)~

HOGS, JANUARY 1

1866 1886 1906 1926 1946 1966

80

60

40

20

1866 1886 1906 1926 1946 1966

U S DEPARTMENT OE AGRICULTURE i SRS 162 66 15) STATISTKAI REPORTING SERVICE

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC SRS 161 66 |5) STATISTICAL REPORTING SERVICE

SOWS FARROWING, AND HOG PRODUCTION

NUMBER OF SOWS (MIL.) | \ I PRODUCTION (MIL. LI.)

Liveweight

20,000

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC SRS 163 66 15) STATISTICAL REPORTING SERVICE

ANNUAL AVERAGE NUMBER OF LAYERS

AND ANNUAL RATE OF LAY

AVERAGE LAYERS (MIL.) ANNUAL RATE PER LAYER

400

300

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

MEN! OF AGRICULTURE NEG SRS 164 66 (5) STATISTICAL REPORTING SERVICE

HORSES AND MULES, JANUARY 1

NUMBER ON FARMS (MIL.) ~

1866 1886 1906 1926 1946 1966

HOGS AND CATTLE, VALUE PER HEAD,

JANUARY 1

FARM VALUE PER HEAD '($)

1866 1886 1906 1926 1946 1966

U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUR NEG SRS 165 66 (5) STATISTICAL REPORTING SERVICE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG SRS 166-66 (S) STATISTICAL REPORTING SERVICE

111
PRICE ($ PER BU.)

2.00

WHEAT AND CORN: PRICE RECEIVED

BY FARMERS

1.50

1.00

"1866 1886 1906 1926 1946 1966

INDEXES OF PRICES RECEIVED AND

PAID BY FARMERS

INDEXES (1910-14x100)

400

300

1866 1886 1906 1926 1946 1966

Il S DíMHMfNT OF AGSKUlIUBf NfC SUS 1*7.66 IS) STATISTICAL REPORTING SERVICE U S DEPASTMENT OF AGRICUITURE NEC SRS 168 66 (5) STATISTICAL REPORTING SERVICE

FARM OUTPUT

100

75

50

25

OUTPUT(* OF 1957-59)

/

r*

/

AfvV/

^

i i

1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1966

NEG SRS 169 66 (5) STATISTICAL REPORTING SERVICE

FARMS AND LAND IN FARMS

UND IN FARMS (MIL ACRES) NUMIER OF FARMS (MIL.)

1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1966v

US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUITURE NEG SRS 170-66 (5) STATISTICAL REPORTING SERVICE

ü. S. POPULATION BY RESIDENCE

POPULATION (MIL.)-

200

1870 1890

iRÜRALNONFARMl

CRURAL FARMJ

1910 1930 1950 1966

US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG SRS 171 66 |5| STATISTICAL REPORTING SERVICE

112
Picture Page No.

Chart 105 DN-3068

Newton and staff 114 2085C

Olmsted and staff 115 BN 33076

WWI crop report 115 BN 33074

Agr. Statisticians Conference 1917:

Top 116 BN 33078

Center BN 33075

Bottom BN 33077

Estabrook and board 118 BN 33079

Statistical class, 1928 118 BN 33080

Conference of Agricultural Statisticians 119 BN 33081

Callander and board 120 BN 33082

Brannan signs crop report 120 N 11170

1962 Crop Reporting Board 121 BN 33083

Bollman 122 BN 33071

Dodge 122 BN 33253

Hays 122 BN 33085

Olmsted 122 BN 33084

Clark 123 3407C

Estabrook 123 BN 33086

Murray 123 BN 33087

Callander 123 BN 417

Becker 124 BN 239

Koenig 124 BN 7059

Newell 124 BN 388

Simpson 124 BN 33072

Trelogan 125 BN 33073

113
ci

It <

13

'S2

42a

0) -c C O

.2Q en

.2«

S .

S^ O M Ü •"

-M

-^ J2 m --bi s s

ra eu

00m

i5Q

S CD

0)

es^

114
Victor H. Olmsted and staff, 1910. Left to right: Nat C. Murray, W. C. Duncan, V. H. Olmsted, John J. Darg,

George K. Holmes.

The crop report was exciting news during World War I. Secretary of Agriculture Meredith looks on from far

right, and Chief Statistician Estabrook from the stairs.

115
116
i

oí ou

«H

'O13cO

03

O» IQ

C5 52

i—i O&

3 44 cö

.a ö> ^ o -^

.s^

w I >

T3 -o^

Ogw

S "S^

bç-So

tí% TH

'S «o .

I*

9

a

I) .s

SOS -

O

tíS^ a>

"a. be

'o pQ <í

ft

toU

. 0.3

ft L> r3 os r-H çô Tí o . ^

ftS +» WH g

ft~ to

g tí<í

tí <í^

«fe s g

ce S

s

^ tí

TS c«WU

> .53 ft •£

^ idS feog^

güfÄ g^^

•go oo

a)

a>

o ^^

feS2

O 03

TS tí

S» tí feS feo g w

'S

<fíö fe

S5-

0) 'ÖW >5

feS "Ss

fe<i

<1>^

03

ftfe

S]

tí .

OíS

tí "ö fe O Oí ~

feO^

^ fe "5O ! -g d

tí

O)

fe

w

5

TíO TS

F

^

08 «5 -¿5

^ CO

Q) TH tí

tí fe "SH

.2^ oá

s-^gpEP x § S o . . tí

08

-O

rÍHET

<U <D^ »7 'tí3 a¿OSW

t- i!!-< O»Ä ptí ^H^

fe TJ^g +r

^ "ëI .áS

&C^ <J Tí

^ tí

0) CO O

!S 0)

W

^ bo.

^e <j fe

tí^ Oí bO 'O cg 2 fe 08

o tíM

:ss&& ft fe tí <í g

tíg2 .2?*

«^O fe Sá tn o) w w

tí

^

W

^ tí ¿¡ « .s •*» o ^ tí

Oi '

O)

a> 1

.S 08

.fcffl

r-H tí

« .a3

"5 &> W ^1 «H

.aO

PS

. oftS

0s*

oao

+»uv

SUDO CO

2^g

« feW

^•5?

fe

2W

tí o»

tí2

as <í fe

<3 tí2

fe£,* ^ 75 ü

o;

08.

tí <N

§*

tíOü

pS

^ tí tí jr1

16 <J

O

^0? 00 fe 0

¿p

.0 +r co

119

tiSa

Ä3-S .h S 00 --S IN 13 J3

CO >H

na.o

feQ2 * «ü o M g

^.Sg

fe tí

08 -M -M Ütí fe s -s

tí

Ä

h.

c8 -4-3 c8 t>

•Sa"

"riH

ftM

CO

w

.fe

Tí^

!feS

PQ.

bfl

fep

TS

tfoüá

Li tíw

feg22

^ CQ 03 ÎT*

fe2

^d

.ES .a

id

fed

po

tíö

s ft bo 5?

'S [S

fe fe

a«08

fed

d

fe

coö

eu

bo <2

'S

fe

ö^o

ai §

•sw

^5

^5p . 0

"tí.« •s tí _l^ -p

00

.m

o.

--Ss 5 « -o

'S «H

EU

bo <

""S fe

a

2«

K" »l-H fH

t3X i2

O ai c8 © «O -M

bO

SS :fe

tí

S«

-p

tí CC'

ft >» bo fM

<<^S<«>M

H

|S|

E

E|

SiIÚ 'Sw3 .2

^ £î

co .S

CD

T3tí .

^-s

T3

"< 08

117
Leon Estabrook and Board members, 1921. Left to right: George K. Holmes, Charles Gage, Leon Estabrook, Frank

Andrews, Edward Crane, and Nat C. Murray.

Statistical class of 1928. Front row, left to right : Mrs. Ward, D.C.; C. D. Stevens, New England; J. J. Dennee,

Oregon; J. A. Becker, D.C.; M. R. Wells, Arizona; C. F. Sarle, D.C.; N. I. Nielsen, California; J. H. Jacobson,

Idaho; F. 0. Black, South Carolina; P. L. Koenig, Pennsylvania; G. S. Ray, Ohio; H. M. Taylor, Virginia; (Unknown). Second row, left to right: C. L. Harlan, D.C.; V. C. Childs, Georgia; C. E. Gage, D.C.; A. J. Surratt,

Illinois; J. B. Shepard, D.C.; V. H. Church, Michigan; J. G. Diamond, Montana; C. G. Carpenter, B.C.; S. A.

Jones, D.C. Back row, left to right: P. S. Newman, South Dakota; S. R. Newell, Maryland; F. K. Reed, Kansas;

C. H. Robinson, Texas; R. L. Gillett, New York; (Unknown).

118
LO

(M

I

3

O

M

R

o

-S-

<D |

f-i ÛJ

* (M

IN P3

43 ^

13 S w.s

CD

S i

3

. ci 'S 5 i5 -S -S "^ m « S

i m

PH m

ci o

C- 00

o es

1 1 ~

¿¿s S

ß

s

m

« _:

.S co

í^

s ¡¡s

J^

C i OS

O tí

m 1

M •

M

N

ai •*

oo M

s) do

^ QJ ^

2Í

2 =«

^ tu

oo 3

co «

SÍ ÍD

«5 es

u o

0) T-l

h

m

n ^3

r/i

i i-¡

Cl

Jl

.cl c

ÍM -Q

KJ M

1 co ^

Ü

c

es

S

o

O I

Sí

o

ü

x (N M

^s

.a ^

t-- fe

co .

IS

•a *

es *

es

<u .

« M

tí

I «=

'a

¿i

.S «

> ^

QJ CS

co

TH OS ¡>

CO «O t^

o O

II

•aCS o^

« 'S.

to m

Q a)

V I

45 ÍS *

3

o H s

3 S^o .

r-; i-j io

W co

Q

9 es

^ 3

oó «¿

CD tCS CS

9E

Ö

0) £H

c ^ i ^

M

c

_w o

^ 1? C es

Ss H

O .

CJ OS

ü .s

Ü es

o'S

i

fi

§9

be (M

ß

• 3 W d

^^

rt A!

fi iî3 à

8

o Ö

? I

S" ts

. «

«o TÍ

fi .2 "i

l¿ có ^

oo os m

. o

es O «

>D ^

| §

,2 S g a -M '^

fi ^ Ü ^ fc <:

If

• S x

y fi es

. in w

•S I œ' S .S «

o 3

o os -a

• ù o

>< . oo'

v 'Z a>

I i ^

O -^ CL-

.; os

00 «

O J3

là

I °

Sm'o

<u h

a a;

'S S

M«

S-1

. CS

ftpo fe

O I

Ü

O

fi

ai

m

a

>

* u

.<

_ 3

o

S o)

I "^fi

ta* fi ^

r; ^ os -3

I IM es

. o

00 1s

fi S

r^ ,~l

^3 . t- •

W (-H

5- O

3

H

10 ^

, «

O

I O

00

. 3

fi

fi _ ri

<

ce

d I

. es

œ es 2¿ÍÍ

£ ü

9 §

Q «

i

'S fi

O o

os en

Tf es

. O

a .

PS

es t^

m eS

Ü

. O S

O M

iè

es

Ü

co . "i

ïs d

O fi< | OJ M c

Q' eri Ht

(IH ai

„ 3

S <í Q

.S -'S

[i( fe T3

119
W. P. Callander and Board members, 1938. Left to right: Joe Orr, W. F. Callander, Asa Tuttle, Jerry Borum, John

A. Hicks, R. K. Smith, and Hubert Collins.

Secretary Charles F. Brannan signs a crop report, 1950. S. R. Newell, Assistant Chief of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and Chairman of the Crop Reporting Board (seated, right) watches the signing, as do members

of the Board (left to right) : R. S. Royston, C. E. Burkhead, H. V. Edwards (Illinois), M. M. Justin (Indiana),

D. D. Pittman, H. R. Walker, R. F. Gurtz, P. V. Graham (South Dakota), R. K. Smith, and E. C. Paxton

(Utah).

120
'S °

fe w

o P.

o

ri ^

«H 3

o 'S

s -

tí ®

S "a •3 h

" ß =H P<

o» CQ -—^

SOS

o a) Ü

I -1

o tuo^;

Ü .S ^^

. ^ t, N S o

os -g es

10" CS J

(»» g

XI

Bm

•a3

la T3 M w

m . g

-0 «^

ci m r3

-? tí o ^ S

m w -

SlC 13 OS

S "S x

«

o

C3 u

O

e

E

^^ (S

o

- ^1

S «5«

w g (H

o là

3

121
HEADS OF AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS

Lewis Bollman, 1863-65 Jacob Richards Dodge, 1866-78; 1881-93

Willet Hays, (also Assistant Secretary of Agriculture),

1905-06

122

Victor H. Olmsted, 1906-07; 1909-13
Charles C. Clark, 1907-09 Leon M. Estabrook, 1913-21

Nat C. Murray, 1921-22 William F. Callander, 1923-35; 1937-42; 1946-49

123
'J~T

f

/^A

Joseph A. Becker, 1935-37 Paul L. Koenig, 1942-46

Sterling R. Newell, 1950-61 Glenn D. Simpson, Deputy Administrator and Chairman, Crop Reporting Board, 1961-

124
Harry C. Trelogan, Administrator, 1961-

CHAPTER 12. A CHRONOLOGY OF

DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRESS,

1866-1966

Crop and Livestock Estimates

1825 Erie Canal completed—accelerated migration

and development of new agricultural lands in

western New York and Ohio Valley

1830 The beginning of the railroad era foreshadowed the decline of canals & speedup of agricultural production in the Mississippi Valley

and later the Great Plains

1836 U.S. Patent Office established as a separate

bureau and Henry Ellsworth appointed Commissioner

1837 Steel plows manufactured by John Deere

1839 Ellsworth obtained $1,000 appropriation in the

Patent Office fund for "the collection of statistics

and distribution of seed"

1840 President Van Buren's proposal to establish a

Bureau of Agriculture, resulted in inclusion of

agricultural data in the Census of 1840

1841 Ellsworth issued first crop report, based on

Census of 1840

1848 Patent Office stopped making crop reports

1855 James T. Earle, President of the Maryland

State Agricultural Society, proposed to State

agricultural societies that they appoint men in

each county to report on crops, and that these

reports be summarized by interested offices and

made available to all societies

1858 Orange Judd, Editor of "The American Agriculturalist" solicited comments on crop conditions from subscribers and published his appraisal of crop conditions. In 1862, specific questionnaires were sent to persons selected as crop

reporters

1862 U.S. Department of Agriculture established.

May 15. Land Grant College Act and Homestead Act approved

1863 USDA Division of Statistics established and

Lewis Bollman appointed Chief. Issue of monthly reports of information on condition of crops

started in July

1865 Civil War ended April 9

1866 Beginning of continuous series of annual statistics on production of major crops, livestock

numbers, and annual farm prices

1867 First chapter of National Grange organized, followed by Farmers Union in 1902 and American

Farm Bureau Federation in 1920

1875 First State agricultural experiment station established at Wesleyan University at Middletown, Connecticut

1878 Dodge resigned to take charge of agricultural statistics for the Tenth Census (1880).

Charles Worthington appointed Chief Statistician

1882 Part-time State statistical agents appointed under the direction of the Division of Statistics.

These officers were required to develop and

maintain an independent corps of voluntary

crop reporters, who would report to the State

agent

Office established in London to report on European crop prospects and other information

pertinent to USDA work

1883 Pendleton Civil Service Act approved January

16

1885 International Institute of Statistics established

1887 Hatch Experiment Stations Act approved March

2; provided for Federal Grants to States for

agricultural experimentation

1893 Jacob R. Dodge retired after 30 years of service.

Henry Robinson appointed Chief Statistician

1896 Voluntary crop reporter list expanded. The new

list was known as the "township list" because

the objective was to get at least one reporter

for each agricultural township. The reports were

mailed directly to Washington

Rural free delivery of mail started

125
1897 John Hyde appointed Chief Statistician

1898 Industrial Commission appointed to recommend

legislation to meet problems of agriculture, labor, and capital

Additional State statistical agents appointed and

the beginning of the buildup of traveling Statistical Assistants to cover a group of States,

observe agricultural conditions, and provide

some coordination of the State statistical

agents

1899 Publication of USDA "Crop Reporter" began

1902 Division of Statistics, in cooperation with the

Minnesota Experiment Station, began collection

of cost of production statistics on selected farms

to assist with farm management studies

1903 Organization of the Bureau of Statistics. The

Chief Statistician became Chief of the Bureau,

which consisted of the Division of Domestic

Crop Reports, Division of Foreign Markets, and

a Miscellaneous Division

1905 Chief Statistician Hyde resigned. Willet M.

Hays, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, designated to take charge of the Bureau of Statistics;

Victor Olmsted designated as Associate Chief

of the Bureau

Crop Reporting Board created

1906 Victor Olmsted named as Chief of the Bureau

and Chairman of the Crop Reporting Board

1907 Business depression

1908 Beginning of monthly collection of prices received by farmers for agricultural commodities

International Institute of Agriculture completed organization

1909 Laws applicable to Government workers passed

(1) making premature disclosure of crop estimates, issuance of false reports, and speculation in products of the soil a crime; (2) setting

forth contents of monthly crop reports, time of

issuance, and requiring formal approval of the

Secretary before issuance

Beginning of continuous series of wages paid

hired farm labor

1910 Collection of annual data on prices paid by

farmers for 74 commodities bought was begun.

Publication of first monthly index of prices received by farmers for 10 crops

1911 Beginning of collection of individual farm reports for estimating acreage

Beginning of quantitative production forecasts

during the growing season for major crops except cotton

1913 Office of Markets established May 16. The Appropriation Act, approved by the President on

March 4, making appropriations for fiscal year

1914, included $50,000 to acquire and diffuse

among people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with the marketing distribution of farm products, with $10,-

000 made available immediately

1914 Bureau of Statistics reorganized and renamed

Bureau of Crop Estimates. The Part-time State

Statistical Agents and special regional field

agents abolished. State Statistical Agents were

established as full-time jobs under the Federal

civil service

Leon M. Estabrook appointed Chief of the Bureau and Chairman of the Crop Reporting

Board

Commercial vegetable estimates started with reports on cabbage and onions. Cold storage reports on apples were begun on December 1.

Smith-Lever Act, which provided Federal funds

for cooperation with the States on a program

of agricultural extension work, was passed.

World War I started in Europe August 1. Urgent demand developed for more statistics on a

wide range of subjects

1915 Beginning of cotton production forecasts during

the growing season

First U.S. Department of Agriculture market

news report was issued (on strawberries) at

Hammond, La.

1917 Market news reports on livestock and meat

started

U.S. entered World War I, April 6

August 10—United States Food Administration

established

August 30—Wheat price set at $2.20 per bushel;

June 21, 1918, raised to $2.30

September 1—Grain Corporation of Food Administration began operations

November 13—Food Administration announced

hog price support based on corn price

Bureau of Crop Estimates entered 'nto first formal agreement with Wisconsin for operation of

the cooperative Federal-State Crop Reporting

Service

1918 World War I armistice signed November 11

1919 Commercial potato estimates provided for

monthly stock reports

Field counts made in South Carolina by the

State Statistician to develop a more objective

basis for determining acreage changes of crops.

Data collected on poultry numbers

1920 Sharp decline in prices of agricultural commodities

126
1921 Bureau of Markets merged with Bureau of

Crop Estimates to become Bureau of Markets

and Crop Estimates. Henry C. Taylor appointed

Chief. Leon Estabrook made associate chief and

continued to act as Chairman of the Crop Reporting Board. Nat C. Murray named Chief

of Division of Crop Estimates

1922 Bureau of Markets and Crop Estimates merged

with Office of Farm Management to form the

Bureau of Agricultural Economics with H. C.

Taylor, Chief

Division of Crop Estimates and the Crop Reporting Board became the Division of Crop and

Livestock Estimates of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics

The Division of Records and Research became

a part of the Division of Statistical and Historical Research of the Bureau of Agricultural

Economics

Bureau of Agricultural Economics continued a

number of the commodity divisions transferred

from the Bureau of Markets

Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates in

cooperation with the Post Office Department secured assistance of rural mail carriers in making first Pig Crop survey

1923 Nat C. Murray resigned and William F. Callander named Chief of Division of Crop and

Livestock Estimates. William A Schoenfield, Assistant Chief of the Bureau of Agricultural

Economics, was designated Chairman of the

Crop Reporting Board and served in that capacity until September, 1924, when Callander

was designated Chairman

Livestock reporting work reorganized and expanded

Farmers' intention-to-plant reports started in

April

The "crop meter," a device attached to an automobile, was invented by the State statistician

in Mississippi as a device to measure the frontage of crops along representative highways

from which independent indications of acreage

change could be derived

First annual Outlook Conference held in April

1924 Rural carrier collection of questionnaires on

acreage started

1925 First quinquennial agricultural census taken.

Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates made

responsible for field operations

1926 Quarterly estimates of farm stocks of grain

started

1927 Decentralization of data collection started with

discontinuance of dual inquiries from Washington and transfer of all mailing lists to the

States

Beginning of systematic in-service training of

statisticians with intensive 6-week statistical

course in Washington for a group of young

statisticians. This plan was expanded in 1928,

1929 for State Statisticians in Charge and in

1930 for Assistant State Statisticians

1928 Beginning of systematic attempt to secure objective measures for forecasting yield started

with field counts of cotton

1929 Practical application of regression approach to

interpretation of condition reports for crop forecasting and beginning of abandonment of the

"par method". Use of weather-crop relations

for yield forecasting was projected

The Great Depression began with stock market

crash on October 29

Federal Farm Board established under the

Agricultural Marketing Act approved June 15.

Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates called

on for much assistance in consultation and preparing special statistics and analysis

1932 Decentralization of reporting lists to State Statisticians' offices practically completed. By this

time the Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates had become a fully decentralized organization

1933 Banks closed in March. Gold called in

Agricultural Adjustment Act approved May 12

Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates called

on to assist in setting up the organization for

handling contracts, records, and providing special statistical basis for allotments for basic

crops. Field statisticians and Washington staff

called on to review acreage figures submitted

through AAA office and make adjustments in

total acreages and hog numbers, by counties

Price series were expanded and parity prices

computed

1934 Great drought in Corn Belt and Great Plains

lasted from 1934 to 1936 necessitating many

special services: mid-nionth crop forecasts, determination of feed needs, allocation of feed,

movement of cattle out of drought areas, etc.

1935 Joseph A. Becker appointed Chief of Division

and Chairman of the Board when Callander left

to take a position with the Agricultural Adjustment Administration. Crop and Livestock Estimates relieved of review and adjustment of individual allotment basis but continued to provide county estimates and staff members served

as consultants to AAA and directed special

surveys

127
1936 Agricultural statistics had become such a large

part of the Department yearbook, that they were

made a separate volume, Agricultural Statistics

1937 Callander returned as Chief of Division of Crop

and Livestock Estimates and Chairman of the

Crop Reporting Board

1938 Federal Crop Insurance Corporation established

February 16. Agricultural Statistics Division

provided special crop estimates by counties for

the use of insurance districts in establishing

rates of insurance on individual crops

1939 Reorganization of Department established the

first Agricultural Marketing Service

Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates transferred to the Agricultural Marketing Service

and name changed to Division of Agricultural

Statistics, and assigned responsibility for: seed

statistics of the Hay, Feed, and Seed Division;

statistics on hatchery production, manufactured

dairy products, and fluid milk statistics of the

Dairy and Poultry Division; and reports on

cold storage holdings that had been under the

office of the Chief of the Bureau

World War II started in Europe September 1

1940 National Defense Advisory Commission established May 28

Division of Agricultural Statistics called upon

for statistics and assistance on special studies

of (1) inventory of farm products and processing facilities, (2) probable requirements under each of several war defense situations, and

(3) anticipated problems of production, processing, and distribution

1941 Agricultural Division of the National Defense

Advisory Commission transferred to USDA.

Work on production goals assigned to BAE in

preparing the analysis and establishing production goals that were announced by Secretary

Wickard July 17

Chicago Dairy office established for weekly reports on butter, cheese, and other dairy reports

Pearl Harbor, December 7

1942 Division of Agricultural Statistics except Cold

Storage section transferred to Bureau of Agricultural Economics

Paul Koenig appointed Chief of the Division

and Joseph A. Becker named Chairman of the

Crop Reporting Board when Callander transferred to position of Statistician in Charge of

Florida

Participation of the U.S. in World War II and

extending thru 1945 brought many demands for

expanded statistical programs. Many special

enumerative surveys were made, special crop

reports and much greater emphasis was placed

on price reporting work

1943 Quarterly reports on estimates of stocks of grain

in all positions were initiated

Chicago dairy office of the Division of Agricultural Statistics became coordination center

for all war time reports on the dairy industry

1944 Becker transferred to Foreign Agriculture and

Paul Koenig named Chairman of the Crop Reporting Board

1945 Germany surrendered May 7 and Japan August 14

Bureau of Agricultural Economics reorganized

December 31

Chief of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics

was authorized to appoint four Assistant Chiefs

with responsibility for specific subject areas.

One Assistant Chief was placed in charge of

agricultural statistics work and was designated

Chairman of the Crop Reporting Board

Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations formally organized Oct. 16

1946 Callander returned from position as Statistician in Charge in Florida and was appointed

Assistant Chief of BAE for Agricultural Estimates and Chairman of the Crop Reporting

Board

Special Farm Statistics Division organized to

make enumerative surveys on farm labor, housing, and other special subjects

Research and Marketing Act of 1946 passed—

provided for grants-in-aid to State Department

of Agriculture on the basis of equal matching of

State and Federal Funds for projects in the

field of agricultural marketing

1947 Cooperative projects authorized by the Research

and Marketing Act began in a number of States

to provide special statistical information covering local needs for county and local market

areas. County estimates of production, pig crop

reports, cattle-on-feed reports, local area truck

crop reports, and many other services were added

1950 Callander retired. Sterling R. Newell appointed

Assistant Chief of the Bureau of Agricultural

Economics for Agricultural Estimates and Chairman of the Crop Reporting Board

1952 Congressional report of an investigation of agricultural estimates work by a special Subcommittee of the House Agriculture Committee, recommended strengthening of the reporting service, particularly by providing funds for research into methods for developing and improving statistical techniques

First appropriation of $250,000 for methodological research provided in Appropriation Act of

1952 for the fiscal year 1953. Research Staff

established

128
1953 Reorganization of the Department. The Production & Marketing Administration was abolished,

and part of its activities transferred to the reestablished Agricultural Marketing Service. At

the same time the Bureau of Agricultural Economics was discontinued, but part of its work

was organized in several divisions of the Agricultural Marketing Service

The crop and livestock estimating activities became the Division of Agricultural Estimates

and S. R. Newell named as Director and Chairman of the Crop Reporting Board

Cold Storage reports transferred from the Production and Marketing Administration to the

Agricultural Estimates Division

Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations

of the House Appropriations Committee requested the Administrator of the Agricultural

Marketing Service to prepare and submit a

long-range plan for strengthening the crop and

livestock reporting service that would meet the

needs of the Nation

1954 June Enumerative Survey started on research

basis in 10 States, 100 counties and 703 segments

Objective Yield Surveys made on cotton in 10

States, 76 counties and 200 sample units

1955 First offshore statistical office established in the

Territory of Hawaii at Honolulu

1956 Farm Expenditure Survey made in 48 States,

300 counties, and 10,720 farms

1957 Report on "A Program for the Development of

the Agricultural Estimating Service" was presented to the Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations of the House Appropriations Committee by the Director of the Agricultural Estimates Division in February

1960 Alaska office opened at Palmer, Alaska

1961 Departmental reorganization—Statistical Reporting Service established with a Division of

Field Operations, Division of Agricultural Estimates and Division of Standards and Research.

Harry C. Trelogan appointed Administrator.

S. R. Newell appointed Deputy Administrator

and Chairman of the Crop Reporting Board

Congress appropriated $750,000 as "the first

increment on the long-range plan to be followed

by later increases to meet the needs within 3 or

4 years"

1962 S. R. Newell retired. Glenn D. Simpson appointed Deputy Administrator and Chairman

of the Crop Reporting Board

1966 Washington Data Processing Center established

in South Building, consolidating units scattered

in several D.C. locations

CHAPTER 13. HEADS OF AGRICULTURAL

STATISTICS

Division of Statistics—(1863-1903)

Lewis Bollman (1863-65)

Jacob R. Dodge (1866-78)

Charles Worthington (1879-81)

Jacob R. Dodge (1881-93)

Henry A. Robinson (1893-97)

Bureau of Statistics (1903-13)

John Hyde (1897-1905)

Willet M. Hays (also Assistant Secretary)

(1905-6)

Victor Olmsted (1906-7)

C. C. Clark (Acting) (1907-9)

Victor Olmsted (1909-13)

Nat C. Murray (Acting) (1913)

Bureau of Crop Estimates (1914-21)

Leon M. Estabrook (1913-21)

Division of Crop Estimates (1921-22)

Of the Bureau of Markets and Crop Estimates

Nat C. Murray (1921-22)

Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates (1922-39)

Bureau of Agricultural Economics

W. F. Callander (1923-35)

Joseph A. Becker (1935-37)

W. F. Callander (1937-39)

Division of Agricultural Statistics (1939-42)

Of the Agricultural Marketing Service

W. F. Callander (1939-42)

Division of Agricultural Statistics (1942-53)

Of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics

Paul L. Koenig (1942-46)

W. F. Callander (1946-50)

S. R. Newell (1950-53)

Agricultural Estimates Division (1953-61)

Of the Agricultural Marketing Service

S. R. Newell (1953-61)

Statistical Reporting Service (1961- )

H. C. Trelogan, Administrator (1961- )

S. R. Newell, Deputy Administrator and Chairman, Crop Reporting Board (1961-62)

Glenn D. Simpson, Deputy Administrator and

Chairman, Crop Reporting Board (1962- )

CHAPTER 14. STATUTES ESTABLISHING

AND ENLARGING THE DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE

AN ACT to establish a Department of Agriculture18

18 Thirty-Seventh Congress of the United States at

the Second Session.

129
BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress

assembled, That there is hereby established at the seat

of Government of the United States a Department of

Agriculture, the general designs and duties of which

shall be to acquire and diffuse among the people of

the United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture in the most general and comprehensive sense of that word, and to procure, propagate, and distribute among the people new and valuable seeds and plants.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That there shall

be appointed by the President, by and with the advice

and consent of the Senate, a "Commissioner of Agriculture/' who shall be the chief executive officer of

the Department of Agriculture, who shall hold his

office by tenure similar to that of other civil officers

appointed by the President, and who shall receive for

his compensation a salary of three thousand dollars

per annum.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That it shall be

the duty of the Commissioner of Agriculture to acquire and preserve in his Department all information

concerning agriculture which he can obtain by means

of books and correspondence, and by practical and

scientific experiments, (accurate records of which experiments shall be kept in his office,) by the collection

of statistics, and by any other appropriate means

within his power ; to collect, as he may be able, new and

valuable seeds and plants; to test, by cultivation, the

value of such of them as may require such tests; to

propagate such as may be worthy of propagation, and

to distribute them among agriculturists. He shall annually make a general report in writing of his acts

to the President and to Congress, in which he may

recommend the publication of papers forming parts

of or accompanying his report, which report shall also

contain an account of all moneys received and expended by him. He shall also make special reports on

particular subjects whenever required to do so by the

President or either House of Congress, or when he shall

think the subject in his charge requires it. He shall

receive and have charge of all the property of the

Agricultural Division of the Patent Office in the Department of the Interior, including the fixtures and

property of the propagating garden. He shall direct

and superintend the expenditure of all money appropriated by Congress to the Department, and render

accounts thereof, and also of all money heretofore appropriated for agriculture and remaining unexpended.

And said Commissioner may send and receive through

the mails, free of charge, all communications and other

matter pertaining to the business of his Department,

not exceeding in weight thirty-two ounces.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Commissioner of Agriculture shall appoint a chief clerk,

with a salary of two thousand dollars, who in all

cases during the necessary absence of the Commissioner, or when the said principal office shall be vacant,

shall perform the duties of the Commissioner, and he

shall appoint such other employees as Congress may

from time to time provide with salaries corresponding

to the salaries of similar officers in other Departments of the Government; and he shall, as Congress

may from time to time provide, employ other persons,

for such time as their services may be needed, including chemists, botanists, entomologists, and other

persons skilled in the natural sciences pertaining to

agriculture. And the said commissioner, and every

other person to be appointed in the said Department,

shall, before he enters upon the duties of his office or

appointment, make oath or affirmation truly and faithfully to execute the trust committed to him. And the

said Commissioner and the chief clerk shall also, before entering upon their duties, severally give bonds

to the Treasurer of the United States, the former in

the sum of ten thousand dollars, and the latter in the

sum of five thousand dollars, conditional to render a

true and faithful account to him or his successor in

office, quarter-yearly accounts of all moneys which shall

be by them received by virtue of the said office, with

sureties to be approved as sufficient by the Solicitor

of the Treasury; which bonds shall be filed in the

office of the First Comptroller of the Treasury, to be

by him put in suit upon any breach of the conditions

thereof.

GALUSHA A. GROW

Speaker of the House of Representatives

SOLOMON FOOT

President of the Senate pro tempore

Approved May 15, 1862

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

AN ACT to enlarge the powers and duties of the

Department of Agriculture and to create an Executive

Department to be known as the Department of Agriculture.19

BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress

assembled, That the Department of Agriculture shall

be an Executive Department, under the supervision

and control of a Secretary of Agriculture, who shall

be appointed by the President, by and with the advice

and consent of the Senate; and section one hundred

and fifty-eight of the Revised Statutes is hereby

amended to include such Department, and the provisions of title four of the Revised Statutes, including

all amendments, are hereby made applicable to said

Department.

SEC. 2. That there shall be in said Department an

Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, to be appointed by

the President, by and with the advice and consent of

the Senate, who shall perform such duties as may be

required by law or prescribed by the Secretary.

SEC. 3. That the Secretary of Agriculture shall receive the same salary as is paid to the Secretary of

each of the Executive Departments, and the salary of

19 Fiftieth Congress of the United States at the

Second Session.

130
the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture shall be the

same as that now paid to the First Assistant Secretary of the Department of the Interior.

SEC. 4. That all laws or parts of laws relating to

the Department of Agriculture now in existence, as

far as the same are applicable and not in conflict with

this act, and only so far, are continued in full force

and effect.

JOHN G. CARLISLE

Speaker of the House of Representatives

JOHN J. INGALLS

President of the Senate pro tempore

Approved February 9, 1889

GROVER CLEVELAND

CHAPTER 15. LAWS GOVERNING CROP

REPORTS

(All references are to United States Code)

General

Title 5, Section 511

Establishment of Department.—There shall be at

the seat of government a Department of Agriculture,

the general design and duties of which shall be to

acquire and to diffuse among the people of the United

States useful information on subjects connected with

agriculture, in the most general and comprehensive

sense of that word, and to procure, propagate, and

distribute among the people new and valuable seeds

and plants. (R.S. § 520) (5 U.S.C. 511)

Title 5, Section 514

General duties of Secretary.—The Secretary of Agriculture shall procure and preserve all information concerning agriculture which he can obtain by means of

books and correspondence, and by practical and scientific experiments, accurate records of which experiments shall be kept in his office, by the collection of

statistics, and by any other appropriate means within

his power; he shall collect new and valuable seeds and

plants; shall test, by cultivation, the value of such of

them as may require such tests; shall propagate such

as may be worthy of propagation; and shall distribute

them among agriculturists. (R.S. § 526) (5 U.S.C.

514).

Title 7, Section 41 la

Monthly crop report; contents; issuance; approval

by Secretary of Agriculture.—The monthly crop report, which shall be gathered as far as practicable

from practical farmers, shall be printed and distributed on or before the twelfth day of each month, and

shall embrace statements of the conditions of crops by

States, in the United States, with such explanations,

comparisons, and information as may be useful for

illustrating the above matter, and it shall be submitted

to and officially approved by the Secretary of Agriculture, before being issued or published. Mar. 4, 1909,

c. 301, 35 Stat. 1053; Mar. 4, 1917, c. 179, 39 Stat. 1157

(7 U.S.C. 411a).

Title 18, Section 1902

Disclosure of crop information and speculation thereon.—Whoever, being an officer, employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States or any department or agency thereof, and having by virtue of

his office, employment or position, become possessed of

information which might influence or affect the market

value of any product of the soil grown within ttye

United States, which information is by law or by the

rules of such department or agency required to be

withheld from publication until a fixed time, willfully

imparts, directly or indirectly, such information, or

any part thereof, to any person not entitled under the

law or the rules of the department or agency to receive the same; or, before such information is made

public through regular official channels, directly or indirectly speculates in any such product by buying or

selling the same in any quantity, shall be fined not

more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten

years, or both.

No person shall be deemed guilty of a violation of

any such rules, unless prior to such alleged violation

he shall have had actual knowledge thereof. June 25,

1948, c. 645, § 1, 62 Stat. 790. (18 U.S.C. 1902.)

Title 18, Section 2072

False crop reports.—Whoever, being an officer or

employee of the United States or any of its agencies,

whose duties require the compilation or report of statistics or information relating to the products of the

soil, knowingly compiles for issuance, or issues, any

false statistics or information as a report of the

United States or any of its agencies, shall be fined

not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five

years, or both. June 25, 1948, c. 645, § 1, 62 Stat. 795.

(18 U.S.C. 2072).

Cotton

Title 7, Section 471

Statistics and estimates of grades and staple length

of cotton; collection and publication.—The Secretary of

Agriculture is authorized and directed to collect and

publish annually, on dates to be announced by him,

statistics or estimates concerning the grades and staple

length of stocks of cotton, known as the carry-over, on

hand on the 1st of August of each year in warehouses

and other establishments of every character in the continental United States; and following such publication

each year, to publish, at intervals in his discretion, his

estimate of the grades and staple length of cotton of

the then current crop: Provided, That not less than

three such estimates shall be published with respect to

each crop. In any such statistics or estimates published,

the cotton which on the date for which such statistics

are published may be recognized as tenderable on contracts of sale of cotton for future delivery under the

131
United States Cotton Futures Act, shall be stated separately from that which may be untenderable under said

act. (Mar. 3, 1927, c. 337, § 1, 44 Stat. 1372.)

Title 7, Section 475

Cotton crop reports.—The Secretary of Agriculture

shall cause to be issued as of the first of each month

during the cotton growing and harvesting season from

August to December inclusive, reports describing the

condition and progress of the crop and stating the

probable number of bales which will be ginned, these

reports to be issued simultaneously with the cottonginning reports of the Bureau of the Census relating to

the same dates, the two reports to be issued from the

same place at 11 o'clock antemeridian of the eighth day

following that to which the respective reports relate.

When such date of release falls on Sunday, a legal

holiday, or other day, which pursuant to statute or

Executive order is a nonworkday in the Department of

Agriculture at Washington generally, the report shall

be issued at 11 o'clock antemeridian of the next succeeding workday. No such report shall be approved and released by the Secretary of Agriculture until it shall

have been passed upon by a cotton-crop reporting committee or board consisting of five members or more to

be designated by him, not less than three of which shall

be supervisory field statisticians of the Department of

Agriculture located in different sections of the cottongrowing States, experienced in estimating cotton production and who shall have first hand knowledge of the

condition of the cotton crop based upon recent field

observations, and the majority of which committee or

board shall be familiar with the methods and practices

of producing cotton. May 3, 1924, c. 149, Sec. 1, 43

Stat. 115; Mar. 3, 1927, c. 337, Sec. 5, 44 Stat. 1373;

Aug. 8, 1946, c. 909, 60 Stat. 940; May 29, 1958, Sec. 2,

72 Stat. 149. (7 U.S.C. 475).

Title 7, Section 476

Acreage reports.—The Secretary of Agriculture shall

cause to be issued a report on or before the 10th day of

July of each year showing by States and in toto the

estimated acreage of cotton planted, to be followed on

August 1 with an estimate of the acreage for harvest

and December 1 with an estimate of the harvested

acreage. May 27, 1912, c. 135, Sec. 1, 37 Stat. 118;

Mar. 3, 1927, c. 337, Sec. 6, 44 Stat. 1374; May 29,

1958, Sec. 1, 72 Stat. 149. (7 U.S.C. 476).

Title 12, Section 1141 ¡(d)

Governmental publication; predictions as to cotton

prices prohibited.—The inclusion in any governmental

report, bulletin, or other such publication hereafter issued or published of any prediction with respect to

cotton prices is prohibited. Any officer or employee of

the United States who authorizes or is responsible for

the inclusion in any such report, bulletin, or other publication of any such prediction, or who knowingly

causes the issuance or publication of any such report,

bulletin, or other publication containing any such prediction, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not less

than $500 or more than $5,000, or imprisoned for not

more than five years, or both : Provided, That this subdivision shall not apply to the Governor of the Farm

Credit Administration when engaged in the performance of his duties herein provided. June 15, 1929, c. 24,

Sec. 15, 46 Stat. 18 (12 U.S.C. 1141j(d)).

Annual appropriation acts contain a similar prohibition in this form, "No part of the funds appropriated

by this Act shall be used for the payment of any officer

or employee of the Department who, as such officer or

employee, or on behalf of the Department of any division, commission, or bureau thereof, issues, or causes to

be issued, any prediction, oral or written, or forecast,

except as to damage threatened or caused by insects

and pests, with respect to future prices of cotton or the

trend of same." Pub. L. 87-879, Oct. 24, 1962.

Title 13, Section 42

Contents of reports; number of bales of linter; distribution; publication by Department of Agriculture.—

(a) The statistics of the quantity of cotton ginned shall

show the quantity ginned from each crop prior to August 1, August 16, September 1, September 16, October

1, October 18, November 1, November 14, December 1,

December 13, January 16, and March 1 ; but the Secretary may limit the canvasses of August 1 and August

16 to those sections of the cotton-growing States in

which cotton has been ginned.

(b) The quantity of cotton consumed in manufacturing establishments, the quantity of baled cotton on

hand, the number of active consuming cotton spindles,

the number of active spindle-hours, and the statistics

of cotton imported and exported shall relate to each

month, and shall be published as soon as possible after

the close of the month.

(c) In collecting and publishing statistics of cotton

on hand in warehouses and other storage establishments, and of cotton known as the "carry-over" in the

United States, the Secretary shall ascertain and publish as a separate item in the report of cotton statistics

the number of bales of linters as distinguished from

the number of bales of cotton.

(d) The Secretary shall furnish to the Department

of Agriculture, immediately prior to the publication of

each report of that Department regarding the cotton

crop, the latest available statistics hereinbefore mentioned, and the Department of Agriculture shall publish the same in connection with each of its reports

concerning cotton. Aug. 31, 1954, c. 1158, 1, 68 Stat.

1016. (13 U.S.C. 42).

Title 13, Section 43

Records and reports of cotton ginners.—Every cotton

ginner shall keep a record of the county or parish in

which each bale of cotton ginned by him is grown and

report at the March canvass of each year a segregation

of the total number of bales ginned by counties or

parishes in which grown. Aug. 31, 1954, c. 1158, 1, 68

Stat. 1016. (13 U.S.C. 43)

Title 13, Section 44

Foreign cotton statistics.—In addition to the information regarding cotton in the United States provided

132
for in this subchapter, the Secretary shall compile, by

correspondence or the use of published reports and documents, any available information concerning the production, consumption, and stocks of cotton in foreign

countries, and the number of cotton-consuming spindles

in such countries. Each report published by the Department of Commerce or agency or bureau thereof

regarding cotton shall contain an abstract of the latest

available information obtained under the provisions of

this section, and the Secretary shall furnish the same

to the Department of Agriculture for publication in

connection with the reports of that department concerning cotton in the same manner as in the case of

statistics relating to the United States. Aug. 31, 1954,

c. 1158, 1, 68 Stat. 1016. (13 U.S.C. 44).

Title 13, Section 45

Simultaneous publication of cotton reports.—The reports of cotton ginned to the dates as of which the

Department of Agriculture is also required to issue

cotton crop reports shall be issued simultaneously with

the cotton crop reports of that department, the two

reports to be issued from the same place at 11 o'clock

antemeridian on the eighth day following that on which

the respective reports relate. When such date of release

falls on Sunday, a legal holiday, or other day which

pursuant to statute or Executive order is a nonworkday

in the Department of Commerce at Washington generally, the reports shall be issued at 11 o'clock antemeridian of the next succeeding workday. August 31, 1954,

c. 1158, 1, 68 Stat. 1017. (13 U.S.C. 45).

Apples

Title 7, Section 411 b

Estimates of apple production.—Estimates of apple

production shall be confined to the commercial crop.

June 30, 1939, c. 253, Title I, 53 Stat. 968; and all

subsequent annual appropriation acts.

Naval Stores

Title 5, Section 556b

Statistics relating to turpentine and rosin.—The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized and directed to collect and/or compile and publish annually, and at such

other times, and in such form and on such date or dates

as he shall prescribe, statistics and essential information relating to spirits of turpentine and rosin produced, held, and used in the domestic and foreign commerce of the United States. (Aug. 15, 1935, c. 548, 49

Stat. 653.) (5 U.S.C. 556b).

Peanuts

Title 7, Section 951

Collection and publication; facts required; submission of report.—The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized and directed to collect and publish statistics of

raw peanuts, shelled, unshelled, and crushed, and peanut

oil, in the United States, received, processed, shipped,

and owned by or in the possession of warehousemen,

brokers, cleaners, shellers, dealers, growers' cooperative

associations, crushers, salters, manufacturers of peanut

products, and owners other than the original producers

of peanuts: Provided, That the Secretary may, in his

discretion, omit for any period of time to collect such

statistics from any or all salters of peanuts or manufacturers of peanut products who used, during the

calendar year preceding that for which statistics

are being collected, less than thirty thousand pounds of

shelled and unshelled peanuts. Such statistics shall

show the quality of peanuts in such details as to kinds

—Virginia, Runners, Spanish, and imported varieties—as the Secretary shall deem necessary for the

purposes of this chapter. All reports except those required from persons owning or operating peanut picking or threshing machines shall be submitted monthly

in each year, except as otherwise prescribed by the

Secretary. June 24, 1936, c. 745, Sec. 1, 49 Stat. 1898;

May 12, 1938, c. 199, Sec. 1, 52 Stat. 348; July 17,

1957, Sec. 1, 71 Stat. 306. (7 U.S.C. 951).

Tobacco

Title 7, Section 501

Collection and publication; facts required; deteriorated tobacco.—The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized and directed to collect and publish statistics

of the quantity of leaf tobacco in all forms in the

United States and Puerto Rico, owned by or in the

possession of dealers, manufacturers, quasi-manufacturers, growers' cooperative associations, warehousemen,

brokers, holders, or owners, other than the original

growers of tobacco. The statistics shall show the quantity of tobacco in such detail as to types, groups of

grades, and such other subdivisions as to quality, color,

and/or grade for particular types, as the Secretary of

Agriculture shall deem to be practical and necessary

for the purposes of this section and sections 502 to 508

of this title, shall be summarized as of January 1,

April 1, July 1, and October 1 of each year, and an

annual report on tobacco statistics shall be issued:

Provided, That the Secretary of Agriculture shall not

be required to collect statistics of leaf tobacco from any

manufacturer of tobacco who, in the first three quarters

of the preceding calendar year, according to the returns of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or the

record of the Treasurer of Puerto Rico, manufactured

less than thirty-five thousand pounds of tobacco, or

from any manufacturer of cigars who, during the first

three quarters of the preceding calendar year, manufactured less than one hundred and eighty-five thousand cigars, or from any manufacturer of cigarettes

who, during the first three quarters of the preceding

year, manufactured less than seven hundred and fifty

thousand cigarettes: And provided further, That the

Secretary of Agriculture may omit the collection of

statistics from any dealer, manufacturer, growers' cooperative association, warehouseman, broker, holder, or

owner who does not own and/or have in stock, in the

aggregate, fifty thousand pounds or more of leaf tobac133
co on the date as of which the reports are made. For the

purposes of this section and sections 502 to 508 of this

title, any tobacco which has deteriorated on account of

age or other causes to the extent that it is not merchantable or is unsuitable for use in manufacturing tobacco products shall be classified with other nondescript

tobacco and reported in the "N" group of the type to

which it belongs. Jan. 14, 1929, c. 69, § 1, 45 Stat.

1079; July 14, 1932, c. 480, § 1, 47 Stat. 662; Aug. 27,

1935, c. 749, § 1, 49 Stat. 893. (7 U.S.C. 501).

CHAPTER 16. CROP REPORTING

REGULATIONS

The official regulations of the Department of Agriculture concerning the preparation of the agricultural data

estimates of the Service follow:

Title 1—General Authorities and Functions

Chapter 6—Other Authorities and Functions

SECTION 1—CROP REPORTING BOARD

325. AUTHORITIES AND FUNCTIONS. (S)—There shall

be in the Statistical Reporting Service a Crop Reporting Board, the primary function of which shall be

to prepare and issue, as provided in paragraph 328 and

elsewhere in this regulation, the official State and National estimates and reports of the Department relating

to crop production, livestock and livestock products,

numbers of livestock on farms, stocks of agricultural

commodities, local market prices, value of farm products, and such other subjects as the Administrator of

the Statistical Reporting Service may direct. Among

these reports shall be a Monthly Crop Report, which

shall be issued on or before the 12th of each month

pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 411a, a Cotton Acreage Report

to be issued on or before the 10th of July, and the

Cotton Crop Report to be issued on the 8th day of each

month from August to December, or, if the 8th day is

a nonwork day, on the next succeeding workday, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 475 and 476.

326. DEFINITIONS.—As used in these regulations,

"Department" means the United States Department of

Agriculture, "Service" means the Statistical Reporting

Service staif engaged in statistical reporting work, and

"Board" means the Crop Reporting Board.

327. ORGANIZATION OF BOARD, a. Chairman.—The

Deputy Administrator of the Statistical Reporting

Service is the Chairman of the Board. He shall call and

preside over all meetings of the Board. As Deputy Administrator of the Statistical Reporting Service, he

shall issue the necessary instructions for gathering,

compiling, and summarizing data for reports specified

in paragraph 328, and shall approve the statistical

techniques and procedures to be followed by the Service

and by the Board in analyzing, interpreting, and reviewing the pertinent data and in preparing the official

estimates for each report.

b. Members.—The Chairman shall select the members

of the Board for each report from the Service. For the

Monthly Crop Report the Board shall have not less than

five members in addition to the Chairman, not less than

two of whom shall be selected from the Service field

offices. For the Cotton Report the Board shall have not

less than five members, of whom not less than three

members shall be supervisory field statisticians located

in different sections of the cotton growing States, experienced in estimating cotton production and who have

first-hand knowledge of the condition of the cotton crop

based on recent field observations, and a majority of the

Board shall be familiar with the methods and practices

of producing cotton, as provided in the Act of May 3,

1924, as amended (7 U.S.C. 475). For the Annual Cotton Crop Summary in May, the Annual Crop Production Summary in December, the Winter Wheat and Rye

Report as of December 1, the Prospective Plantings

Report as of March 1, the Annual Livestock Summary

as of January 1, and the Pig Crop Reports as of June 1

and December 1, the Board shall consist of not less than

five members, of whom not less than two shall be selected from the Service field offices.

c. Secretary of the Board.—The Board shall have a

permanent Secretary, who shall be a professional member of the Service in Washington. He shall assist in

preparing instructions and forms for collecting, compiling, summarizing, and analyzing statistical information for the use of the Board, shall arrange for suitable

means for transmission of instructions, records, and reports to and from the field offices, shall maintain records of the information assembled, including a record

of the official estimates prepared by the Board, and

shall maintain a file of the signed copies of Board reports. For each report the Secretary shall assemble

and collate information for the use of the Board, issue

proper notices of Board meetings, and make necessary

arrangements for the preparation, signing, and release

of reports in such manner and at such times as are

herein described.

328. REPORTS, a. Reports to be approved by the Secretary of Agriculture.—The following Board reports shall

be signed by the Chairman, Secretary, and members

of the Board, and shall be approved by the Secretary

of Agriculture before being issued or published:

Monthly Crop Reports, except for February,

March, and December (see paragraph 325).

Cotton Reports (see paragraph 325).

Annual Cotton Crop Summary in May.

Annual Crop Production Summary in December.

Winter Wheat and Rye Report as of December 1.

Prospective Plantings Report as of March 1.

Annual Livestock Summary as of January 1.

Pig Crop Reports as of June 1 and December 1.

b. Other Board reports.—Such other reports as are

designated by the Chairman shall be prepared and issued as Board reports. For each such report, the Chairman shall select Board members from the Service in

such manner and in such numbers as may be deemed

necessary. Such reports shall be approved by the Chairman or his désignée before being issued.

c. Annual release schedule.—On or before the first

day of December of each year there shall be prepared a

schedule for the ensuing year setting forth dates and

hours of release of all regular statistical reports listed

in subparagraph "a" above for which the approval of

134
the Secretary of Agriculture is required. The schedule

of reports shall be effective when approved by the

Secretary of Agriculture and may be amended at any

time with his approval. Subsequently, there shall also

be prepared and issued, to the extent possible, an advance listing of the reports referred to in subparagraph

"b" above, together with dates of publication or issuance.

329. COLLECTION OF INFORMATION.—For use in preparing the official estimates of the Department, information relating to agriculture shall be gathered

through the Washington and field offices of the Service,

as far as practicable, from practical farmers, as provided in 7 U.S.C. 411a; from peanut processors, as provided in 7 U.S.C. 951 et seq.; from processors, dealers,

cooperating State and local officials, agencies in the

Department; and from other sources. This information

shall be collected by mailed questionnaire, by sample

enumeration, by interviews, or by other appropriate

means (7 U.S.C. 411a, 951).

330. INFORMATION NOT TO BE RELEASED; SPECULATION ; FALSE STATISTICS, a. Withholding information.

—The contents and every part of the contents of each

and every report specified in paragraph 328a, and the

information and every part of the information utilized

in the preparation of such reports, shall be withheld

from publication until the day and hour provided for

the issuance of the reports in the schedule approved by

the Secretary of Agriculture and amendments thereto.

b. Access to information.—No member of the Board

or other persons engaged in the preparation of information for reports, shall, before the release of any

Board report provided for herein, willfully impart or

permit access to any information contained therein or

any part thereof, directly or indirectly, to any person

not entitled under the law and rules of the Department

to receive the same. The Chairman may under this

regulation notify officers in charge of field offices, in

advance of publication, of changes made by the Board

from recommendations submitted by such officers for

nonspeculative items as defined in paragraph 331a(2).

c. Statutory provisions.

(1) "Whoever, being an officer, employee or person

acting for or on behalf of the United States or any

department or agency thereof, and having by virtue of

his office, employment or position, become possessed of

information which might influence or affect the market

value of any product of the soil grown within the

United States, which information is by law or by the

rules of such department or agency required to be

withheld from publication until a fixed time, willfully

imparts, directly or indirectly, such information, or

any part thereof, to any person not entitled under the

law or the rules of the department or agency to receive

the same; or, before such information is made public

through regular official channels, directly or indirectly

speculates in any such product by buying or selling

the same in any quantity, shall be fined not more than

$10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

"No person shall be deemed guilty of a violation of

any such rules, unless prior to such alleged violation

he shall have had actual knowledge thereof.,,(June 25,

1948, ch. 645, sec. 1, 62 Stat. 790, 18 U.S.C. 1902.).

(2) "Whoever, being an officer or employee of the

United States or any of its agencies, whose duties require the compilation or report of statistics or information relating to the products of the soil, knowingly

compiles for issuance, or issues, any false statistics or

information as a report of the United States or any

of its agencies, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or

imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both." (June 25,

1948, ch .645, sec 1, 62 Stat. 795, 18 U.S.C. 2072.)

331. SPECULATIVE AND NONSPECULATIVE DATA. a. Definition.—Data used by the Board in the preparation of

the Monthly Crop Report and the Cotton Report shall

be classified as follows:

(1) Speculative data.—Speculative data are defined

to be data relating to corn, wheat, oats, cotton, or soybeans, the assembling and collating of which would

make it possible for any member, members, or assistants of the Board approximately to anticipate the

Board's forthcoming report for the United States on

the condition, yield, probable production, or farm stocks

of designated commodities, or the acreage or ginnings

of cotton. These data shall be deemed to be speculative

for:

(a) Corn in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,

Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

(b) Winter wheat in Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,

Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma,

Texas, and Washington.

(c) Spring wheat in Idaho, Minnesota, Montana,

North Dakota, South Dakota, and Washington.

(d) Oats in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,

Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota,

Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

(e) Cotton in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi,

Oklahoma, and Texas.

(f) Soybeans in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri,

Minnesota, and Ohio.

(2) Nonspeculative data.—Nonspeculative data are

defined to be any statistical data other than the speculative data defined in paragraph (1) above.

b. Transmission.

(1) Field procedure.—Summaries of speculative data

collected in the field offices, together with recommendations of the officer in charge of each such office, shall

be transmitted by mail or telegraph to the Secretary

of Agriculture. When transmitted by mail, the summaries and recommendations shall be forwarded in a

sealed envelope marked "Special A." When transmitted

by telegraph, the summary and recommendations shall

be forwarded in a secret code provided by the Secretary

of the Board. Nonspeculative data may at all times be

forwarded directly to the Secretary of the Board by the

officers in charge of the field offices.

(2) Departmental procedure.—Immediately upon its

receipt in the Department Telegraph Office, each telegram containing speculative crop report data shall be

placed in a sealed envelope marked "Special A" in the

Department Telegraph Office and delivered by special

messenger to the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture.

135
c. Custody of "Special A" envelopes.—All "Special

A" envelopes containing speculative crop report data

received in the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture

shall, immediately upon receipt and without breaking

the seals thereof, be placed in the locked box provided

for that purpose in the Office of the Secretary of

Agriculture.

d. Opening of "Special A" envelopes.—Immediately

preceding the convening of the Board on the day a

report is to be published, the locked box in the Office of

the Secretary of Agriculture containing the "Special A"

envelopes shall be opened and the envelopes removed in

the presence of a designated representative of the Secretary of Agriculture, the Chairman, Secretary, and one

other member of the Board, and a special guard provided by the General Services Administration. The

Chairman, Secretary, and other member of the Board,

accompanied by the guard, shall then proceed directly

to the Board rooms.

332. BOARD ROOMS, a. Definition.—The Board rooms

shall consist of the Board room proper and all other

rooms occupied during the locked-in session of the

Board by clerks, stenographers, and others engaged

in assisting the Board in the preparation of the report.

b. Safeguards against communication of information.—Previous to the arrival of the Board representatives and guard with the sealed "Special A" envelopes,

the Secretary of the Board shall have caused all windows in the Board rooms to be sealed in such manner as

to prevent communication between persons within the

Board rooms and persons outside. Also, previous to the

arrival, all telephones in the Board rooms and connected with the central Department telephone switchboard shall be disconnected at the central switchboard,

and any other means of communication from the Board

rooms shall be similarly disconnected. Immediately after

the entrance of the Board representatives into the

Board rooms, with the sealed "Special A" envelopes,

the guard shall lock all doors leading from the Board

rooms, and remain on watch until the report is released.

While on watch, the guard shall not permit any communication between persons within the Board rooms

and persons outside except as provided below. The

guard shall unlock the door only to permit:

(1) The entrance of:

(a) The' Secretary of Agriculture.

(b) The Administrator of the Service.

(c) Officials of the Bureau of the Census who

cooperate in issuing the Joint Cotton Ginning and

Production Report.

(d) Employees of the Service and other persons

whose presence is required in the preparation of

the report and who have written permission from

the Chairman.

(e) Other officials and employees of the Department having written authority from the Secretary

of Agriculture, or from the Administrator of the

Statistical Reporting Service.

(2) The delivery to the Board rooms of mail, telegrams, written communications, or supplies for use of

the Board.

(3) Notification by the Chairman to the guard of

delay in completion of a Board report (see subparagraph 333d) or by the Chairman or the Secretary of the

Board to convey emergency instructions essential to

completion of a report.

(4) The departure of:

(a) The Secretary of Agriculture, the Chairman,

and such other persons as may be designated at the

time by the Chairman, for the purpose of proceeding, under guard, to the room provided for the

release of the report.

(b) Any person in the case of extreme emergency, in which event a member of the guard shall

accompany and remain with such person until the

release of the report.

(c) All persons in case of fire or other serious

emergency.

333. APPROVAL AND RELEASE OF REPORTS, a. Approval.—Upon the completion of any Board reports specified

in subparagraph 328a of these regulations, a copy

must be signed by the Chairman, Secretary, and each

member of the Board, and approved in writing by the

Secretary of Agriculture before it is released. The

Chairman, accompanied by a member of the guard and

not less than two other persons, shall take copies of the

approved report from the Board rooms to the release

room before the time specified for the publication and

release of the report.

b. Release officer.—A designated representative of the

Secretary of Agriculture shall act as release officer and

shall provide in the release room suitable telegraph and

telephone facilities for all persons desiring such facilities for the transmission of the report upon its official

release.

c. Procedure.—Upon the arrival in the Board release

room of the Chairman and persons accompanying him,

the release officer shall cause all persons other than

the Chairman to remain within a prescribed area until

the release of the report, the limits of which area shall

be not less than 6 feet from the telephones, telegraph

instruments, and tables or shelves provided for distribution of copies of the report. The Chairman then

shall place copies of the report, face down, beside each

instrument, and additional copies, face down, upon the

tables or shelves provided for that purpose. At the

exact time provided for the official issuance of each

report, the release officer shall inform those present

that the report is released to the public and permit

access to the copies of the report. The release officer

then shall notify the guard at the door of the Board

rooms that the report has been released and the guard

thereupon shall unlock the doors of the Board rooms.

d. Delay in releasing reports.—In the event that the

report should not be completed and approved for issuance at the designated time, the Chairman, within

10 minutes of the time designated for the release of the

report, shall notify the guard of the time when the

report will be ready for release. The guard immediately

shall notify the release officer, who, in turn, shall notify

all persons who are present in the release room for

the purpose of receiving the report. In order that telephone communication with the Board rooms may not

be reestablished before the crop report is completed and

136
released, the release officer also shall notify the employee in charge of the central Department telephone

switchboard of the delay.

334. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF REGULATION.—The Deputy Administrator of the Statistical Reporting Service shall cause to be delivered, or exhibited, a copy of

this regulation to each employee of the Service or other

person having access to crop report data in advance

of publication. The Deputy Administrator or an authorized representative shall obtain from each such person a certification which shall be an acknowledgement

that such person has read this regulation and will be

governed by it.

CHAPTER 17. COMMISSIONERS AND

SECRETARIES OF AGRICULTURE

Commissioners

ISAAC NEWTON, of Pennsylvania (born in New Jersey) ;

Commissioner, July 1, 1862 (when Department was

activated)—June 19, 1867 (died in office) ; appointed

by President Lincoln. He had served since the spring

of 1861 as Superintendent of the Agricultural Division of the Patent Office (Department of Interior).

JOHH W. STOKES, of Pennsylvania (born in New

Jersey) ; Acting Commissioner, June 20, 1867—December 4, 1867. As Chief Clerk, he was ranking

officer of the Department.

HORACE CAPRON, of Illinois (born in Massachusetts) ;

Commissioner, December 4, 1867—July 31, 1871; appointed by President Johnson.

FREDERICK WATTS, of Pennsylvania (born in Pennsylvania) ; Commissioner, August 1, 1871—June 30,

1877; appointed by President Grant.

WILLIAM GATES LeDuc, of Minnesota (born in Ohio) ;

Commissioner, July 1, 1877—June 30, 1881; appointed by President Hayes.

GEORGJS BAILEY LORING, of Massachusetts (born in

Massachusetts) ; Commissioner, July 1, 1881—April

3, 1385; appointed by President Garfield.

NORMAN JAY COLMAN, of Missouri (born in New York) ;

Commissioner, April 3, 1885—February 15, 1889;

appointed by President Cleveland.

Secretaries

NORMAN JAY COLMAN, of Missouri (born in New

York) ; Secretary February 15, 1889—March 6, 1889;

appointed by President Cleveland.

JEREMIAH MCLAIN RUSK, of Wisconsin (born in Ohio) ;

Secretary, March 6, 1889—March 6, 1893; appointed

by President Harrison.

JULIUS STERLING MORTON, of Nebraska (born in New

York); Secretary, March 7, 1893—March 5, 1897;

appointed by President Cleveland.

JAMES WILSON, of Iowa (born in Scotland) ; Secretary,

March 6, 1897—March 5, 1913; appointed by President McKinley.

DAVID FRANKLIN HOUSTON, of Missouri (born in North

Carolina); Secretary, March 6, 1913—February 2,

1920; appointed by President Wilson. Resigned to

become Secretary of the Treasury.

EDWIN THOMAS MEREDITH, of Iowa (born in Iowa) ;

Secretary, February 2, 1920—March 4, 1921; appointed by President Wilson.

HENRY CANTWELL WALLACE, of Iowa (born in Illinois) ; Secretary, March 5, 1921—October 25, 1924

(died in office) ; appointed by President Harding.

HOWARD MASON GORE, of West Virginia (born in West

Virginia) ; Secretary, November 22, 1924—March 4,

1925; appointed by President Coolidge. Assistant

Secretary since 1923, he had served as Acting Secretary following death of Secretary Wallace.

WILLIAM MARION JARDINE, of Kansas (born in Idaho) ;

Secretary, March 5, 1925—March 4, 1929; appointed

by President Coolidge.

ARTHUR MASTICK HYDE, of Missouri (born in Missouri) ; Secretary, March 6, 1929—March 4, 1933;

appointed by President Hoover.

HENRY AGARD WALLACE, of Iowa (born in Iowa) ; Secretary, March 4, 1933—September 4, 1940; appointed

by President Roosevelt. Resigned to run for the Vice

Presidency; son of former Secretary Henry Cantwell

Wallace.

CLAUDE RAYMOND WICKARD, of Indiana (born in Indiana) ; Secretary, September 5, 1940—June 29, 1945;

appointed by President Roosevelt. Was Under Secretary at the time of his appointment; resigned to

become head of Rural Electrification Administration.

CLINTON PRESBA ANDERSON, of New Mexico (born in

South Dakota) ; Secretary, June 30, 1945.—May 10,

1948; appointed by President Truman. Resigned to

run for the United States Senate.

CHARLES FRANKLIN BRANNAN, of Colorado (born in

Colorado) ; Secretary, June 2, 1948—January 20,

1953 ; appointed by President Truman. Was Assistant

Secretary at the time of his appointment.

EZRA TAFT BENSON, of Idaho (born in Idaho) ; Secretary, January 21, 1953—January 19, 1961; appointed

by President Eisenhower.

ORVILLE LOTHROP FREEMAN, of Minnesota (born in

Minnesota) ; Secretary, January 20, 1961—January

20, 1969; appointed by President Kennedy.

CLIFFORD MORRIS HARDIN, of Indiana'(born in Indiana) ;

Secretary, January 21, 1969; appointed by President

Nixon.

#U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969 0—312^163

137




NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL LIBRARY

1022200257

iRrîcnYfHrqT Hintory Branch', BSA