2014 Chicago Data Users Meeting

National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

October 20, 2014

Introductions and Opening Remarks from agency representatives within USDA

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)

Economic Research Service (ERS)

Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS)

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)

World Agricultural Outlook Board (WAOB)

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

Questions & Answers

Attendee: Regarding pork export sales reporting, specifically there has been a big jump in numbers 

the last month to month and a half. Is that because of better reporting? If so, are we going 

to continue to receive better reporting? We are still at only about 30 to 40 percent of 

what Census is coming up with.

FAS: Pork is relatively new and we knew from the beginning that it would grow over time. We 

have been adding exporters along the way and have seen a big jump. Recently there was 

a sizable exporter added to the program. We are hoping that it continues. We track our 

data compared to Census data as well. We look at it every month and know there are 

differences. We believe there are items in the Census data that are not reportable to us. 

For example, we only collect fresh muscle cuts, I know there is trim and processed pork 

that is included in the Census number that is not reportable to us. Our goal for all of our 

commodities is to have every exporter reporting to us; it is difficult, but we are working 

on it. We hope the pork number continues to improve.

Attendee: Each year at this conference you give us the percentage of test plots that have been 

harvested. Can you provide that information again this year?

NASS: We have that information and it was also included in the October Crop Production 

Report. The lab percent of test plots harvested for corn was at 89 percent and soybeans 

were at 35 percent.

Attendee: How did the lack of FSA certification of acres affect your October numbers and what are 

the implications of getting an accurate number on the January report?

NASS: That is an excellent question. As you know, every October we look at the FSA data and 

typically make adjustments for crops such as corn, soybeans, sorghum, canola, 

sunflowers, and dry edible beans. We reviewed the FSA information this year more 

closely than usual. We looked at it nationally, by state, and by county. We also looked at 

satellite imagery and survey data from the June quarterly Agricultural Survey, which had 

a sample of more than 70,000 producers. The June Area Survey, which had

approximately 11,000 1-square mile segments with an additional 30,000 plus farmer 

interviews, were also used to make our October estimates. . . The baseline for us is our 

scientifically drawn samples but we use all the other information to support any board 

decisions on acreage. 
Attendee: There have been a lot of rumors floating around about situations at the county level in 

various FSA offices concerning issues with computers. Can you address any of those 

issues?

NASS: It is difficult for us to comment on what is going on in a county FSA office. FSA was in 

the middle of implementing a new Farm Bill, they also had some livestock disaster issues 

they were working on. Our staff worked very closely with FSA. We had numerous 

meetings and looked at the data in various ways including counts of plots this year 

compared to last year. We put a lot of time and effort in working with FSA to ensure we 

had the most up-to-date information available. We will continue to look at this 

information as we move forward to our December Agricultural Survey and continue to 

finalize 2014 numbers.

Attendee: Was the survey participation rate early in the year exceptionally low compared to other 

years and did that force you to take a look at some of the other information?

NASS: For the June Area Survey we have trained enumerators that go out to all 11,000 segments

in person. They either talk to a farmer or observe what is happening in those segments. 

Response rates for our June Area quarterly survey were in line with response rates in 

prior years. 

Attendee: A lot of samples were lost last year during October due to the government shutdown and

no one was surprised by a negative residual and higher yields. In the quarterly stocks 

report NASS released a change in acreage. What was the thought process behind 

changing acreage instead of just giving them a yield bump? What kind of data did you get 

nine months after the fact that drove these changes?

NASS: We look at all components, acreage and yield, when we make our determination and let 

the data drive the direction we go. If adjustments are needed, we make sure they are data 

driven. . For crops such as soybeans, we receive crushing data and look at the information 

as it becomes available. It is not always new data. There are ranges around the data. In 

reviewing the crushing data, we knew we had to adjust both acreage and yield. 

Attendee: A follow-up on the FSA question. The data don’t seem to be as complete this year for the 

October report. Is there any plan for updating the data in November prior to the January 

report?

NASS: When the board meets to review this information we look at all available information at 

that time. If we later get more complete information, we always look at it to update what 

we have. As of now, we are working with FSA and receiving information on a weekly 

basis and will continue to evaluate the information as we receive it.

Attendee: The soybean supply and demand balance sheet during the last three or four years has run 

marginal residuals. . That is quite a big change from 60 to 90 thousand bushel residuals in 

the past. What has changed that we are so much finer on residuals now than a decade 

ago?

WAOB: One of the things we have been seeing the last few years is the strong demand from 

China. You have really tight balance sheets and changes in the use of soybeans over the 

last few years. When you look back at 2003 with the aphid problems, you have similarly

tight balance sheets and discussions similar to those we have had in the last few years 
related to corn stocks and feed residual. The numbers look somewhat different when you 

have tight balance sheets.

Attendee: If NASS’ new Current Agricultural Industrial Reports (CAIR) on ethanol shows that 

yield from feed stocks is significantly different than what has been used recently, will 

there be an attempt to revise some of the history to match that up to the corn residual?

WAOB: We are going to look at the data as they come in. We don’t know what the data are going 

to tell us, but we don’t anticipate that the data will tell us anything different than what we 

have been using. In the end disappearance is disappearance, it will change how we look 

at feed residual but any change in ethanol use just changes feed residual. We will have to 

look at how we forecast and what to do looking back. There will not be back data from 

any source so we would have to interpolate data back to 2002 or 2004 to make 

adjustments. The bigger question is how we adjust looking at feed residual based on a 

different conversion factor. We will know more once we receive data from the ethanol 

report.

Attendee: Along the same lines, will we get a breakdown of sorghum that goes into that mix?

NASS: We will be collecting that data but we have not seen anything yet.

Attendee: Does NASS have the same or similar authority that Census Bureau had requiring 

reporting by all soybean crushers on the new Current Agricultural Industrial Reports?

NASS: This program is conducted under umbrella of the Census of Agriculture. We will have 

mandatory reporting authority for this program.

Attendee: Will you be working with the same universe as the Census Bureau for CAIR?

NASS: The information that we publish should be comparable to what the Census Bureau 

published. . We have worked with Census Bureau on our list building activity. We are 

working with our different industry partners so that we can have a complete enumeration 

of those firms and facilities. 

Attendee: Is there any update on where USDA is at with tracking the porcine epidemic diarrhea 

(PED) virus and what kind of public notification is going to be made with regard to the 

program?

NASS: That is a question for AHPIS and I don’t think anyone here would have that information.

Attendee: On the Hogs and Pigs Report that is quarterly if you look at the initial estimates ignoring 

the farrowing intentions, I have noticed that in the past NASS would revise breeding herd 

and pigs per litter. Now it seems that the only thing you do is wait until we have slaughter 

data and revise the farrowing rate. I find this a little bit odd considering we just had a 

disease kill off 8 percent of our pigs. Last September we all know we lost a lot of pigs 

and NASS did not lower or revise the pig per litter significantly. In my mind it raises the 

question: what are we looking at?

NASS: We have had some difficulty keeping up with and tracking the disease through our 

survey. We go out to about 7,500 producers on a quarterly basis. The survey was very 

slow in picking up the effects of the PED virus. We have had to go back and rely on 

slaughter to make revisions to stay in line with slaughter data. Some revisions have been 
larger than what we would like to see. It has been a tough disease for us to manage in our 

estimation program. When we revise a number we have to revise based on something. 

Currently the only thing we have is slaughter data. We don’t typically adjust pigs per 

litter because we do not have new information. The pigs per litter are a pretty tight 

indication for us.

Attendee: The world changed last October and it was not farrowing that changed. It was litter size. I 

understand you have procedures but when the world changes maybe you should change 

your procedures. We are now trying to guess what the litter size is going to be this winter 

based on published litter size that is too high from last year. I understand you need to 

revise numbers but I don’t understand how you determined the reason the pig crop was 

off was due to farrowing being off when there is a disease that affects litter size. When 

something like this happens you have to adjust to what is going on. 

NASS: Those are some good points and we are here to get feedback on our programs. We are 

continuing to evaluate our programs and if there are additional ways we can ask these 

questions or there are other tools that can help us identify these changes we will evaluate 

them. We need to take a look at this and see if there is a better way for us to capture this 

information. 

Attendee: There have been two major diseases in the hog and pig industry for several years and 

every producer in the industry can answer how many pigs died. Just ask them pigs saved 

per litter or market pigs that have died, they all know how many died.

NASS: We do currently collect information on weaned pigs that have perished on the 

questionnaire. It is a fairly weak indication and we typically have low response to this 

question. We do utilize it for our end-of-season estimates on Production, Disposition, and 

Income (PDI).

Attendee: Why don’t we publish that data? Providing the series over time will tell us something 

about death loss in a given quarter?

NASS: Thank you. We will take that comment back.

Attendee: FSA data seem to come out at varying times on the scheduled release day, can that be 

changed to a precise time and how does the group feel about the noon release time for 

crop reports?

NASS: We had a Federal Register notice to receive comments on the change of crop production 

report release time. We received 147 different responses and we looked at ways to have 

equal access and liquidity in the market. That is how we arrived at the noon release time. 

As for the timing of the release of FSA data, that is their call and I can’t provide any 

additional detail related to that. I will, however, share the comment with FSA.

Attendee: A follow-up on the FSA issue. You noted that there were all kinds of data looked at when 

you made your October adjustment. Did you also look at the Census of Agriculture 

information?

NASS: The Census of Agriculture data are for 2012 so that was not part of our review process 

for the 2014 crop year. We include that information in our charting system and use it for 

historical trends. There is a lot more information in the FSA data than just total acres. Our 
staff went through all the FSA information very thoroughly and think we extracted some 

important pieces that assisted with the October report. 

Attendee: Do you have an idea of how complete the FSA data are?

NASS: We have an idea of how many fields were reported and how many fields are normally 

reported from the dataset. We even looked at counties, major corn and soybean producing 

counties. As already mentioned, the FSA data were used along with all the other 

information for the October report. We asked a random sample of counties how many 

acres they had left to report to get a feel for how complete the data were.

Attendee: EIA Bio Diesel reports have been delayed for months. Is there any discussion of NASS 

taking those reports over?

NASS: We have not had any discussion about taking over those reports. We have met with EIA 

to discuss their reports and release procedures but nothing related to NASS taking them 

over.

Attendee: Given technology related to trading and all that has changed, has there been any 

discussion of leaving the press out of lockup and having equal access to information for

everyone at the same time?

NASS: We have talked about that and we discuss it each year. We are reviewing our security 

procedures for the press and the NASS release process. We are comfortable that we have 

a strong handle on both. We will continue to review the question as we move forward. 

OMB is also holding discussions with all federal statistical agencies about release 

procedures. 

Attendee: Soybean crop estimates for both yield and acreage have been changed on multiple 

occasions. Is there anything that you go back and look at for corn? Why no revisions for 

corn? 

NASS: In the case of corn, we do not have any new information like the crushing data we receive 

for soybeans. There is not much new information on which to base a revision to corn. 

The corn and soybean data are reported independently of each other on the same survey 

instrument. One could possibly make some inferences but we do not have any solid data 

to make those changes.

Attendee: Earlier you asked for feedback on ending the collection of biotech adoption rate. Just a 

thought that with the recent labeling concerns it may be of value to know if those 

numbers start to move in the opposite direction. 

NASS: Thank you for that comment.

Attendee: When the time comes to put together the January Crop Report, if FSA data are still 

running behind, how will you handle a disagreement in the data in major corn-producing 

areas?

NASS: We have already talked through our process and we will continue to wait for and evaluate 

FSA data but we will not have any new information except for the December Agricultural 

Survey, which will allow us to take one last look. If additional FSA data are available, we 

will review them.
Attendee: Has there been any comparison made between the numbers coming from CAIR and the 

current ethanol numbers coming from EIA in an effort to bring the numbers into 

alignment?

NASS: We haven’t seen any data from CAIR yet. Currently we do not have any information to 

compare. Once the information starts to come in we are going to look at all sources to see 

if we are on track. We have met with EIA to discuss their program; this gave us a better 

understanding of their dataset. We have also discussed with EIA the data NASS plans to 

publish. 

Attendee: Is there plan to report ethanol on rail? I have spoken with EIA and was told they cannot

afford to look at the weekly numbers. Is this something NASS could afford?

NASS: I think this is an area that EIA could explore. We focus on the collection of feedstock 

used to produce alcohol and co-products.

Attendee: The quality of foreign data varies and is sometimes questionable. Is satellite imagery 

helping with the quality of estimates in the WASDE reports or does FAS provide some 

other information to help with that?

WAOB: When the WASDE estimates are put together FAS participates at the World Board and 

makes a significant input to the process. We also use a combination of other things 

including meteorologists within the board. Satellite imagery is one tool, and we are also 

looking at government reports and the consistency of those reports. On the demand side,

we are paying attention to a broad spectrum of information. Everything from the Chinese 

reporting numbers on cotton and what’s going into their reserve programs and whether 

that fits with our expectation about production numbers. The WAOB also works with 

other countries to explain the board process and provides guidance on their statistical 

programs.

FAS: In terms of international efforts, just last week I was at a meeting that is part of the G20 

designed to help the members publish more international data and strengthen their 

forecasting methods. The capacity building efforts will be a key component to assist 

countries with developing and publishing better data in the future.

NASS: In the long term, NASS’ International Program Office works with other countries to help 

strengthen their statistical programs. It is an ongoing process to help countries strengthen 

their agricultural statistics programs.

Attendee: There is a current request to allow fresh beef products from Brazil and Argentina. Where

does that proposal stand and who is the champion behind that request?

FAS: I can’t answer that question, I am not sure that is in my area of expertise. APHIS handles 

that area. We can chat afterwards and I can give you some contacts at APHIS who should

be able to address your question.

Attendee: My groups, along with many others here, look at a lot of data that you produce. It can be 

time consuming to extract the data from the USDA website. Our company has been 

working on APIs to connect to USDA data. Is there going to be any more progress from 

USDA in the coming year to expand the APIs and make the data more accessible?
NASS: Our system is available for use and if you need a technical contact I can provide you with 

that information.

AMS: That is what the AMS presentation was trying to convey. We understand the challenge 

you noted and we are trying to get all of our data on one platform with easier access. We 

just launched this project in October; over the next several months we will be gathering 

information. It will likely be a year before we have anything available. It is a long-term 

project; we have many things across the agency related to market news that need to be 

addressed and it will take some time to get everything in place.

Census: Much of our data are currently on our website and available in API format. 

Attendee: For district data at the state level, four states currently report agricultural district data for 

acreage and yields in the crop reports. Do you see this as something that will be phased 

out or expanded?

NASS: The data that currently exist have external funding. There is no federal funding for NASS 

to produce district-level forecasts during the growing season. Whether this is expanded, 

reduced or continues depends on whether external funding is available. 

Attendee: What process is used for mandatory price reporting recertification? How will the lacking 

information be addressed during the process?

AMS: It is scheduled to be re-authorized in September of 2015. The law is set to renew every 

five years. The industry groups are working through that process. The public makes the 

request to Congress for the law to be re-authorized. Once that is done, we address any 

changes for implementation. After it has been re-authorized we will begin the rulemaking process. All the entities that are covered under the law are reporting; however, 

due to confidentiality we are not always able to release data for some regions.

Attendee: With the CAIR on ethanol starting up, will WAOB do anything different with the feed 

residual on the corn balance sheet once they have some hard data on distiller’s dried grain

(DDG) production? 

WAOB: It’s DDGs; we are not going to add it to or change the corn balance sheet. We will adjust 

feed residual to account for any change in DDGs.

Attendee: A question about dairy farm inventory, percent of milk production and percent of cow 

inventory by farm size. Until 2007, these data were published nationally and by state. In 

2007, state-level data were discontinued annually but the plan was to publish them every 

five years. On the Quick Stats site there is not any information available at a state level 

but national-level information has continued. Are state-level data going to be available?

NASS: The information is available through the Census of Agriculture dataset. 

Attendee: We get an estimate for what beef and pork production is for the week. There is an 

estimate on slaughter numbers and carcass weight. In the case of hogs, it seems like the 

estimate that has been provided is always lagging by a certain amount. Now that 

mandatory price reporting is coming in, I think we could calculate a better number using 

the mandatory price reporting. Has there been any thought given to using that to come up 

with a carcass weight? 
AMS: I don’t think that is anything that we have looked at. Meat production data are driven 

from FSIS slaughter data reported to NASS and published by AMS. The mandatory price 

reporting data is a different dataset and it is not all FSIS slaughter facilities. It includes 

only those firms large enough to qualify for mandatory reporting. We have never looked 

at blending those two reports for that purpose. 

Attendee: These numbers are calculated using a five-week moving average so every turning point in 

the livestock sector is missed in the preliminary data. We have requested in the past that 

the process be re-thought. We could do better without the five-week moving average.

Attendee: I don’t have any questions but have some recommendations. ERS’s ARMS is a 

burdensome survey and response burden for big producers needs to be addressed. ERS 

needs to re-think and re-evaluate grain-consuming animal units, roughage-consuming 

animal units, and retail prices, those have not been re-visited for 25 to 35 years. We think

NASS should stop putting out monthly data with percent changes in chickens. Those 

numbers are misleading when they are due only to difference in the number of days in the 

month. At the top of releases, NASS should put a daily average. NASS also should revisit cold storage; more detail is needed on the meat side. We have many market sensitive 

reports but we do not need to add on additional non-market sensitive reports released at 

the same time.

NASS: Thank you. We will take those recommendations and follow-up with you if needed.

Attendee: With the revamp of the website and the effort to reach out for more reports, we have a 

good series on cull cows but lack a quality series on replacement cows or heifers. Would 

there be any way to get a quality cow price series? 

AMS: We would have to look at that. A lot of the work we do in the auction markets is to gather 

feeder cattle information and we use states to capture that information.