2011 NASS Chicago Data Users Meeting

Questions & Answers

October 17, 2011

Introductions and Opening Remarks from Agencies

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Economic Research Service (ERS), USDA 

Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), USDA 

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), USDA 

World Agricultural Outlook Board (WAOB), USDA 

U.S. Census Bureau, U. S. Department of Commerce (Census)

Questions and Answers

Attendee: We know corn and soy harvest progress is slower than last year. What was the percentage 

of plots harvested this year versus last year for the Objective Yield survey? Why does 

NASS not publish this data in the crop report?

NASS: Last month, roughly 80 percent of corn samples had information going through the lab, 

but it wasn’t necessarily final harvested data. For some plots, we harvested late maturity 

code ears outside the official plot and sent them through the lab. For soybeans we had 

roughly 30 percent of plots with harvested lab data. As for why we don’t publish this 

information—if you want something published, send us a note, ask us, and we will

consider it. 

Attendee: NASS used Farm Service Agency (FSA) data to calculate planted and harvested acres. 

How does NASS use FSA data to estimate harvested acres? What percent of FSA has 

been incorporated into the current estimates? Will NASS receive updated information 

from FSA that might affect acreage in November and December? How much more 

change would we see for corn and soybeans? 

NASS: NASS uses FSA harvested/failed acres data to help calculate harvested acres. We 

consider it a minimum abandoned acreage though. The timing of FSA data usage is 

different for different crops. In September, we use it to update cotton, rice and peanuts, 

and in October for corn, soybeans, and other fall crops. For harvested acreage, we do 

look at the failed acreage from FSA, but historically those numbers are small compared 

to what is abandoned. FSA data is a huge deal for planted acres, but not much use for 

harvested acreage. Typically, in November you don’t see a lot of acreage changes. 

Attendee: Since the small grains report had issues with crops left in the field, you said you would 

resurvey some people. Will that include the wheat, corn and soybean producers or only 

barley and oat producers? 

NASS: When we conducted the original September Ag survey, we asked respondents specifically 

how many acres were still standing in the field for all small grain crops. We asked that 

question for two reasons: 1) it tells us who still has acres left to be harvested, and 2) those 

acres are included in on-farm grain stocks. When we resurvey, we’ll only go back to 
those producers who still had unharvested crops and we will only ask them about those 

crops that were still unharvested.

Attendee: Prevented plantings are an issue with FSA data. Is that concentrated on the planted acres 

side? 

NASS: Good question. NASS is only interested in what is planted for an individual crop, not 

what could be planted. We look at the principal crops total to give us an idea of total 

cropland planted in the given year and then compare that with the economic situation. 

That is where the prevented planted acres show up compared with last year. With high 

prices, you would expect to see more crops planted. But with spring flooding, the crops 

couldn’t get planted and the principal crop totals reflect less planted acreage.

Attendee: You get your information from farmer surveys? 

NASS: Yes.

Attendee: Do you have a timeline when the rule on pork export sales reporting will be published in 

the Federal Register? 

FAS: It is difficult to give a solid timeline. The rule is entering the clearance channel now, but 

we don’t know how long it will take. It could take up to 90 days for the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to review the rule. When the proposed rule is published 

there will be a 30-day comment period. A final rule will then be published to address the 

public comments and implement the change.

Attendee: We really appreciate the Mexico report the ERS published recently and are looking 

forward to the ERS variety meats and China pork production reports.

Attendee: Since we’ve had mandatory price reporting for pork, there is no morning price report due 

to confidentiality issues. Are you considering giving more time to the 9:30 a.m. cut off so 

we could get more negotiated reports? 

AMS: The law defines that we report three times per day and the times when the reports are 

published. So we can’t adjust the time. We have to put out a report of some kind but due 

to confidentiality can’t publish specific data items. The industry would have to initiate 

any change to the law or the process we follow. 

Attendee: As the U.S. Census Bureau soybean crush data set is being eliminated, what is your 

confidence level in the National Oilseed Processors Association (NOPA) data? And, how 

will that affect how you work? 

WAOB: I don’t know that I can comment on NOPA. It represents 95–96 percent of industry 

participants and we’ll have to keep in touch with them. How we use it depends on the 

quality of the NOPA data. 

Attendee: How do you measure the quality of NOPA? 

WAOB: We will have to watch it over time and stay in touch with NOPA. 

Attendee: We’re seeing a rapidly declining rate of cash cattle trade and an increase in formula and 

grid trades. Is there any way, with the agreement of the packers, to pull some kind of 
price and quality information from their contracts to add to the cash sale price and quality 

data? It is as important to know the quality of the cattle being traded as the price.

Currently high-quality cattle are being traded at the same prices as other quality cattle 

since cash sales are usually based on lower-quality cattle. Can we open the dialog to get 

some kind of change?

AMS: Any effort to change the regulation would have to come from the industry. 

Attendee: I can tell you communications between associations and packers have started and we 

need to get all other parties talking. Some cash sales are reported now, but they are 

declining. We’ve seen what happened in the pork industry and want to be ready when the 

cattle industry gets to that situation.

AMS: Like I said, any change efforts would have to come from the industry.

Attendee: With the grain stocks reports, it seems difficult to set feed and residual. The feed and 

residual seems to come from the size of the crop and not the number of animals on feed. 

Could you publish a separate report on how you calculate feed and residual? We are 

confused by the process. Is the WAOB willing to consider more transparent reporting of 

the formulas used to calculate feed and residual statistics?

WAOB: We are having some difficulty with the numbers. I don’t want to cast aspersions on

anything NASS has done. NASS publishes the stocks and those are the numbers. It used 

to be that, by knowing feed and residual for corn in the first and second quarters, you 

could estimate the third and fourth quarters. If you look at the numbers this year, the feed 

disappearance fell dramatically, especially in the third quarter. We do look at things like 

grain consuming animal units (GCAUs). Although the historic patterns are there, with 40

percent of the crop being used for ethanol, the patterns are changing. Remember, when 

we get the stocks numbers from NASS, their numbers determine feed and residual. 

Why don’t we have a more formal approach? We can’t really publish a strict formula. We 

have a committee process and look at a variety of factors. The feed and residual category 

has gotten less predictable as usage patterns have changed. Quality of corn is a factor.

Early or late crops are a factor. The monthly ERS Feed Grains report listed some of the 

factors we have looked at. The relationship between GCAUs and feed and residual 

disappearance is very poor. Dried distillers grains (DDGs) could have had an impact on 

the third and fourth quarters in 2011, but any reasonable calculation of DDG usage 

doesn’t explain the difference.

Attendee: On ethanol, are you changing the ratio you use to convert gallons to bushels? What 

reliable sources of data are available and used to calculate corn production used for 

ethanol production?

WAOB: We don’t have a reliable source of data on this. It is likely the conversion rate changes 

based on crop quality. Rather than changing the rate month to month, we use a consistent 

conversion rate of 2.7 gallons of ethanol to one bushel of corn. We are using this rate

because we think it is better to be transparent and we are trying to represent an industrywide average.
Attendee: I am concerned about the lack of crushing data for soybeans. This is a significant usage 

line in the balance sheet. Does WAOB have established criteria to determine what kind of 

official data sources are used in its balance sheet? I’m not sure NOPA is an official data 

set or should be used as a separate line item. What kind of reliability do you have to see 

in the data set before you use it as a line item? Residual is going to be a big number

without the Census numbers and if the NOPA data is added to residual.

WAOB: We were as surprised as you when we got the notice that the Census Bureau is dropping 

soybean crushing data. We weren’t consulted beforehand. NASS, the USDA Chief

Economist, and WAOB went to Capitol Hill to discuss the loss of this important data 

item. Part of the problem is the budget. There is a 50/50 chance it could be saved. I don’t 

know how, but it could be. 

The NOPA developments happened just recently. We’ve had informal discussions with 

people that care about this. Are we better off estimating residual and estimating crush 

separately? Or do we use different extraction rates? At the moment we are inclined to use 

NOPA for crush and to estimate residual. For soybeans, we have more historical 

information about residual and can keep the crush separate using NOPA data as a guide. 

In the future, we may be forced to use ―crush and residual‖ that would be 50 percent of 

the crop. Residual currently runs about 2 percent and a portion of that is food use. The 

interagency oilseeds committee will continue to work on this.

Attendee: How do you get the soybean product stocks? 

WAOB: We have good trade data on soybean meal and have good extraction rates on soybean oil. 

I’m concerned about vegetable oil stocks. There are several substitute crops that can be 

changed rapidly. We don’t have good biodiesel data anymore either. The issues keep 

snowballing.

Attendee: WAOB should consider a line usage category for which they have no official data set 

rather than throw it into residual. I also don’t think you have a case for making a soybean 

meal balance. Otherwise, you might start to become a guessing agency. 

WAOB: We don’t want to become a guessing agency nor do I think we would.

Attendee: With the Environmental Protection (EPA) not reporting anything on feedstocks, what will 

you be using for soybean oil usage in methyl esters?

WAOB: EPA has indicated it will enforce the mandate of producing a million gallons of biodiesel. 

The amount of biodiesel production has risen dramatically. We are nearly at the 15 

million gallons level mandated on corn ethanol. EPA seems to be leaving open whether 

they will let soybean oil be used to make biodiesel beyond the original 1 billion gallon 

biodiesel mandate. That confounds the situation and we get more and more unknowns 

when we are losing good data. On EPA data reported in aggregate—EPA does not tell us 

how much vegetable oil is being used to make biodiesel. We don’t really have a lot of 

information. Also, just in the last six months, we have imported more canola from 

Canada and we do not know how much of that may be converted to biodiesel.

Attendee: I disagree with putting more into the residual category and not trying to guess line items. 

I used to work for WAOB and had a sense that, even in NASS, there was educated 
estimation going on. I do know that a huge percentage of the international balance sheet

is educated estimation. Being an end user of USDA data, I would much rather see USDA 

do its best job estimating each usage line item and putting its best estimate out there to 

argue about. Maybe eventually funds are found for official data sets. But even if no funds 

are found, USDA best estimates are better than putting everything into residual. To bury 

everything in residual is an abdication of USDA’s responsibility.

Attendee: The monthly potato stocks report will go quarterly—when will those be published? 

Could we do four reports at the middle of the season rather than spread out equally over 

the year? When will these reports be instituted?

NASS: We initially were looking at December, March and June. Not really quarterly, but three

reports every four months. Talk to me afterwards about specific months you would want 

to see.

Attendee: Concerning corn stocks, on ethanol specifically, I know about the 2.7 gallons per bushel

conversion rate. Doing the math, if you change from 2.7 to 2.85, couldn’t that explain a 

lot of the residual change by itself? Why can’t we try to get a reliable conversion 

number? 

WAOB: We’ve looked at this and recognize new dry-mill plants can be engineered to produce at a 

2.85 conversion. And, we understand there are some that do better than 2.8. But there are 

also some that do worse. Would using a different conversion rate solve the residual 

problem? No. It would just raise feed and residual in all four quarters. What we are 

seeing is that feed and residual disappearance is stronger in the first two quarters relative 

to the last two than five or six years ago.

Attendee: I have Production, Supply and Distribution (PS&D) questions. The display of data based 

on a country’s marketing year makes it is difficult to compare marketing year to 

marketing year. The crop marketing years are different for the United States and 

Argentina, for example. Can FAS consider normalizing crop marketing years so we can 

compare ―apples to apples‖?

FAS: All of the country data is reported as local marketing year data. For Brazil and Argentina

in the soy complex, we normalize data to the October–September marketing year. To get 

to the local marketing year numbers, in the commodity selection panel you choose (for 

example) soybeans, local. Otherwise, you get the normalized Oct/Sep year data. The soy 

complex for Brazil and Argentina is the only situation where we have two sets of data. 

All other country data is presented on local marketing years. For grain, trade estimates 

are presented on local marketing years as well as a standardized trade year.

Attendee: Recently, I’ve been looking at the trends in the World Agricultural Supply and Demand 

Estimates (WASDE) report releases, trying to analyze patterns or changes in the countryspecific data. Could you include some kind of comparison to the previous year or 

previous month? 

FAS: Unfortunately the PSD Online system was developed to only provide the current official 

USDA estimates and not previous month’s estimates. Providing these estimates would 

require substantial reprogramming and resources are not available to undertake such an 

initiative. As an alternative users can access our archived publications on the FAS 
homepage or the Cornell University library 

(http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/homepage.do), which archives databases and 

reports for various USDA agencies. 

Attendee: With the PSD Online system is it possible to keep the query intact if I just want to change 

a country or a year? Currently it erases all previously chosen variables, and that is 

frustrating.

FAS: I understand and agree this is a frustrating quirk in the system. . This is a programming 

issue related to the back button in Microsoft Explorer which clears all the selections. We 

will need to review resources and existing priorities to determine if this is something we 

can address. 

Attendee: The grain stocks reports have made it challenging for our brokers with feedlots to stay 

with their positions due to the volatility of the futures markets after reports with 

surprising results. In January, the NASS and WAOB reports come out on the same day. 

In the other quarters, they are two weeks apart. Could we get the World Agriculture 

Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) reports in March, June and September on the 

same day as the grain stocks reports? To see the grain stocks report and the WASDE on 

the same day would be a help.

NASS and WAOB: We’ve talked about this. The real question is whether issuing reports on the same 

day is something data users would like to see. We can pursue it if this is something the 

industry wants. We can either push the grain stocks report two weeks later or move the 

WASDE up two weeks earlier. The problem is that the January lockup is a difficult 

lockup, with all of the work that has to be done in a short timeframe. We don’t get data 

from NASS until 3 a.m. and have to be finished in a few hours. In January, you don’t 

expect big changes to production. But in March, June and September, there can be big 

changes to production and it is more difficult to analyze the data, so it would take too 

long to combine the reports. You could also have a big change in production in the 

October crop report. Would NASS be willing to give the data a week early? NASS is 

prohibited from doing that. 

Attendee: Could you move the time of the reports later in the day to let WAOB do the work it needs 

to do? 

NASS: Would it be worthwhile to uncouple the stocks reports from the acreage reports? There 

are a lot of moving parts to think about. A few years ago we tried monthly hog reports, 

and it didn’t work out very well. 

WAOB: I would say we like the idea. But it is difficult to do it in Lockup the way we do Lockup 

now. We only have three hours to put the report together. We get the data at 3 a.m. NASS 

doesn’t reveal the data early and they shouldn’t. There are legalities for who NASS can

share data with, so it may not be possible. The other issue is to change the timing of the 

report. We have been approached by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) about 

changing the report time, but they haven’t made a formal request. We went to an 8:30

a.m. release time several years ago because the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT)

requested an early-in-the-day release time. Traders in Japan were trading on reports 

before U.S. traders could trade. Now, there is a 24-hour trading window. Some wholesale 
changes would be needed to change the release time. There are numbers coming from all 

different directions that have to be factored into the decision. 

I want to go back to the ―guessing game‖ comment. This is serious business and a lot of 

money is involved. I would suggest the WASDE report be terminated if our forecasts and 

estimates are based on nothing more than educated guesses. We could create havoc by 

guessing wrong. We can’t do that. 

Attendee: A lot of your reports reflect our input at data users meetings. Your sensitivity to your data 

users is reflected in your responsiveness. It is important to U.S. agriculture and has made 

us more competitive and efficient. I hate to see the July cattle report discontinued; this is 

of great concern to the cattle industry.

Attendee: Do you think it is becoming easier to find corn stocks on your surveys based on the 

changing use patterns? On the October surveys for corn yields, could you talk about the 

variability in those results and how that compares to last year? 

NASS: If you look at the way we collect on-farm grain stocks information, we contact farmers 

and ask them, ―as of September 1 (or March 1, December 1, and June 1), what are your 

corn stocks on hand.‖ There is no reason to believe it is any easier to answer the question 

in one quarter than another quarter or than in previous years. The situation is the same 

with off-farm stocks. If the corn is moving in a different pattern, it could mean the levels 

of stocks reported will be a little different. But we are collecting the data the same way. 

On the variability of the Objective Yield survey—in October there is always some 

variability. Progress is a little bit further behind than last year, but I don’t remember it 

being more variable than other years. We adjust our samples for variability and will 

increase sample sizes to control as much variability as we can.

Attendee: You said you had lab results on 80 percent of corn samples, with some final and some in 

which you stepped outside the Objective Yield plot, and that the 80 percent is normal. 

What was it made up of and what do you tend to learn from it?

NASS: I don’t have the distribution of late-maturity versus final harvest numbers on hand at the 

moment. From the earlier weight to the final lab grain weight there is some change and 

we’ll learn what that difference is. We have been contemplating publishing some of this 

information, but haven’t yet decided. 

Attendee: We’ve gone through 2011 with a continuously, inordinately large cattle on feed 

placement rate and have had monumental movement from region 6. What is your 

confidence in your reports? 

NASS: The large amount of placements does come up in every Board. We’ve seen some huge 

placement numbers. We haven’t changed anything in our procedures. We’ve done a good 

job over the years of coming out at the right level. I have no reason to doubt that things 

will come out okay this year, too. I don’t think we have the wheat pasture we should this 

year. Will some of those cattle go back to the feedlots? Maybe they will, maybe they 

won’t. We hope that placements will drop off. We have seen a lot fewer farm-fed 

animals. 
Attendee: We’ve talked about dried distiller grains taking the place of corn feeding usage. What 

would it entail to publish a DDG report or add it as a line item? Also, can we get a valid 

ethanol conversion rate? 

WAOB and NASS: We can’t just add it. There is a whole OMB approval process that must be 

followed to start asking questions and the industry would have to agree to report the 

numbers. USDA would have to have the authority to ask the questions. ERS published a 

DDG report, but there were a lot of assumptions that went into that report. You can’t put 

DDGs into the corn balance sheet. We’ve had to explain that several times. A while back, 

NASS tried to reach out to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) exploring the 

possibility of a joint USDA/Department of Energy study. That didn’t come about because 

each department had a different goal. One could argue that with the current industrial 

reports, if we had resources, USDA could tailor reports to do something with ethanol. 

The problem is how to allocate scarce resources.

Attendee: The corn stocks just came in larger than expected. We’ve been using pipeline numbers 

for stocks to use. Do you think the pipeline numbers could have changed because of the 

ethanol industry? In China, what do you think the pipeline is? 

WAOB: We were criticized for restricting our usage levels for the second quarter and not raising 

feed and residual. Our first and second quarter stocks to use were close. We don’t view 

our usage as guided by some set stocks-to-use level. But we are learning as the ethanol 

industry matures. The committee doesn’t say ―how low of a stocks-to-use level can we go

to.‖ Instead, we let the data put the stocks-to-use level where it ends up. 

Attendee: Everything we do is measured in bushels. But we’ve had two crops with light or heavy 

test weights. Why don’t we go away from measuring bushels and go to metric tons? 

WAOB and NASS: Are there any farmers in the room? Can a farmer tell me how many metric tons 

of grain they have in a grain bin? We could get weight on the commercial side because 

they weigh everything. But the farmers couldn’t report by tons. Twenty-five years ago, 

there was a big push to go metric and it didn’t go very far in farm country.

Attendee: The producers’ on-farm storage has expanded dramatically in the last five to seven years, 

but as a percent of crop size it is about the same. Is there an issue that a producer may or 

may not get 50,000 bushels out of a 50,000 bin due to the low or high test weights? Is 

there potential of getting incorrect data from the farmers? The methodologies may not be 

as good as they used to be. 

NASS: It is an interesting question. If resources weren’t an issue, NASS could do a follow up 

survey to find out how much was actually in a bin, and weigh everything as it came out. 

But given the money today, we have to rely on asking farmers about how much they have 

in the bin. The last two years have been this way, but they aren’t the only two years in the 

last twenty. Is it really dramatically different these two years than in other years? 

Attendee: I have a number of concerns with agencies talking about prioritizing programs. The quality 

of our system depends on all the sources and uses of data. The interaction to put together 

the balance sheet approach is what gives the data its integrity and we aren’t looking 

across agencies to make cuts smartly. We are losing a lot of sub-state detail, but the 
overall quality is less if you aggregate from the top down. My comment to USDA as a 

whole is to take a really comprehensive look at all data and its usage before making cuts. 

WAOB: I don’t think the problem exists within USDA. I know EIA, the Department of Commerce 

and others have a different view of agriculture. I don’t think NASS or FAS would make 

changes without talking to WAOB. However, I do think a breakdown occurs across 

Departments.