2020 USDA Fall Data Users’ Meeting 

October 28, 2020 

Question and Answer Summary 

Table of Contents

Main Session: Live Question and Answer Summary ......................................................................... 2 

Main Session: Written Question and Answer Summary ................................................................ 13 

Breakout Session 1A: Program Changes ......................................................................................... 31 

Breakout Session 1B: Foreign Production, Trade, and Imports/Exports ........................................ 36 

Breakout Session 2A: Ensuring Accuracy of Market News Reports ............................................... 44 

Breakout Session 2B: Using Satellite Data ...................................................................................... 47 

Presentation Slides ......................................................................................................................... 54

Question & Answer Summary

The following is a summary of questions and answers from the Data Users’ Meeting. Material is 

organized based on the order they were answered. There was not time to answer all questions 

but the unanswered questions were reviewed and the appropriate agency has provided a 

written response. The questions from each breakout session follow with both live and written 

responses. Finally, slides are appended at the end. 

Note: Questions and answers were lightly edited for readability. 

 
2 

Main Session: Live Question and Answer Summary

Question: Raphael Bucciarelli 

When will the historical WASDE's be available in a database format? 

Answer: Mark Jekanowski 

It is a project we have been working on for a long time. We are still working toward it and 

getting very close. I remind everyone that it is a huge undertaking. What we are trying to do, 

or what we are doing, is pulling together every piece of data from each WASDE that was 

released starting in September 1973 up until current. That’s more than 600 WASDEs in the 

time series. We have worked out most of the glitches. Cross my fingers, I anticipate we will 

have it available by the end of the year. Keep an eye on the World Board website. We are 

working on it and it is getting close and we’ll have it available soon. 

Question: Paul McAuliffe 

On the October 11 WASDE report the USDA forecast China corn imports of only 7 MMT, 

whereas the USDA export sales commitments to China exceeded that forecast. 

a. Why did the USDA choose to not reflect the exporter contracts at the Export Sales 

Department of the USDA and instead use a lower forecast of corn imports by China in 

2020/21? 

b. Did the USDA issue a written statement explaining that odd conflict of forecast China corn 

imports and existing US / China contractual purchases? 

c. Has the USDA ever chosen to ignore official USDA export sales data in the past for ANY 

corn importing country? Yes / No? 

Answer: Mark Jekanowski 

A couple of points on that. Keep in mind that export sales are not an official forecast. They do 

get canceled over time, at times, just because the sales are reported, the product is reported as 

being sold at a date in the future does not always mean those sales are going to occur. The 

other point I would make, one of the things we try not to do is forecast changes in policy, 

including changes in policy by foreign countries. In this case, China has a TRQ in place that 

seemed potentially to be limiting those imports. Even that can change. Those perceptions can 

change. The situation is fluid. I would point to those two factors as explaining why we were 

where we were on that export forecast. 

Answer: Mike Jewison 

The policy in place assumption is the primary reason for the difference. As you know with the 

China WTO accessions the corn TRQ is just over 7 million tons and our 7 million ton forecast 

assumes the full TRQ utilization. During the September WASDE chat on Twitter we also 

reiterated this policy place assumption. In addition to that, there has probably been confusion 

amongst market watchers because China’s National Development and Reform Commission, the 

government entity that has purview over the issuance of import quota issued an announcement 
3 

in mid-September that indicated unchanged import quota for calendar year 2021 despite those 

large outstanding sales. Notably, in that announcement there was no indication of additional 

quota for calendar year 2020 or 2021. All of that said, as I've said many times in this meeting 

before, in any given month, every number is on the table. We closely monitor all available 

shipment data, as we would for every WASDE. Absent announcement of additional quota 

allocation by NDRC, if there were an indication that import shipment, as opposed to the sales 

data, we are going to be above TRQ, we would do our best to reflect that. As you know, the U. 

S. corn export number is not what export sales report. If you were to look at the data of the 

Census Bureau, relative to export sales, on average over the past several years, the export sales 

number in aggregate runs about 5% below what the U. S. Census exports are in aggregate. You 

would believe Census is capturing things potentially that export sales is not. I can’t go into detail 

about why that is, it may be a question and for the Export Sales Office at FAS. As you know, our 

corn import number for China is, in the end, reported by China customs. During the year we 

look at partner country data such as shipment data from Ukraine and the U. S., but in the end, 

what it is in the PS&D is what China customs reports. I think there is one other item about the 

phase 1 purchase agreement. We released the white paper in early February that basically said 

the phase 1 agreement does not play a direct role in our market analysis and forecasts. 

Question: Joseph Lardy 

The USDA seems to have ultimate faith in their yield model and are hesitant to make changes to 

yields. Last year was historical and the crop wasn’t there, test weights were low, and every 

textbook would say yields needed to fall below where the USDA said they were. Because USDA 

won’t change yields, the public has to deal with revisions to the always mysterious feed/residual 

category. In a historic year, can you admit the yield was wrong and actually change it? 

Answer: Dan Kerestes 

I do not think it is correct to say the USDA never changes its yield. I will let Lance go into further 

detail into our revisions and our forecast during the year. He can explain that. 

Answer: Lance Honig 

First of all, I agree with what Dan said. We will change yield, in fact if you talk about revisions 

you can even look back to just the last season. In fact, I think we have a question coming up a 

little bit later on as to why we made a revision in the following January to the previous year’s 

acreage, yield, and production. So it does happen, although admittedly it does not happen a lot. 

At the end of the day, whether it’s a change, a revision, or whatever term you want to use for 

our yields, it will be data driven. If the question is looking at outside components, you feel like 

the yield should be different, that’s one thing, but our task is to estimate yield on based on all 

the data that we have. So, with the data that we have for last season did not indicate that we 

needed to make a revision to yield. So, that’s why, this last month, when the period was open 

for both corn and soybeans to make revisions to the previous year’s yields, we did not make any 

significant revisions because we did not have data that suggested we needed to do that. That is 

what drives the process for us. When we have information that says we need to, we will and I 

use last year as an example of that. 
4 

Question: Joseph Lardy 

How come the USDA has not revised corn exports higher especially the Chinese numbers. USDA 

has Chinese imports at 7mmt when there is already more sales than that on the books? 

Answer: Mark Jekanowski 

I think this is the same question that Mike addressed. 

Question: Karen Braun 

Where was it posted or mentioned that NASS in January typically reviews the previous year's 

U.S. corn crop for the final time? And where was it mentioned that the process had been moved 

to September this year? I don't feel like anyone in the market was truly aware of this procedure 

and the change, and that led to surprises both in September and in January. 

Answer: Dan Kerestes 

Our policy has not changed. Lance, do you want to reaffirm everything we’ve been doing this 

past year? 

Answer: Lance Honig 

There are two parts to this question. Asking where it was documented or conveyed in the past 

that the previous year’s crop was open to revision in January. Obviously talking about corn 

again. That practice has been in place for as long as I can remember actually. The best place I 

know to find it would be in our Guide to Products and Services that we issue each year. It is 

posted on the website. It lays out brief details to everything we do throughout the season. Each 

report is listed in there and tells you what components are open to have estimates changed or 

republished. That will be the documentation that would point to that. As far as moving that for 

corn from January earlier three months to September, that change was made to align things not 

only with what we did in soybeans, but more importantly it helped us to align to previous year’s 

production revisions with the ending stocks for that season’s crop. We initially started 

communicating this roughly a year ago, so last fall’s Data Users’ Meeting. That was probably 

when this was first widely discussed. At that point, we had not made the change. There are a lot 

of questions about why we were not looking at production revisions at the same time we were 

publishing ending stocks which is a very valid question. We talked about it again this spring in 

the most recent Data Users’ Meeting, and I talked about it in many, many venues in the 

timeframe in between there. Whether it was meetings or various media outlets and things of 

that nature. So, we did communicate it in a lot of different ways over the course of about one 

year. I was aware about the afternoon before the reports came out at the end of September 

that it sounded like there might be confusion out there. Again, we try to communicate it in as 

many ways and formats as we could over a long period of time. Based on some of the confusion 

that was there, we probably need to look and see if there are other ways we could have 

communicated that for similar decisions that get made in the future. 
5 

Question: Karen Braun 

Changes to the previous quarter's U.S. corn stocks during the final review of the previous year 

were always historically minor. The 2018/19 revision found an extra 106 million bushels in the 

stocks, and the 2019/20 adjustment came with the removal of 205 million bushels. That is 

MUCH more than ever before and it seems like something is broken somewhere. Is this only 

going to get worse next time? Is production being missed? Is feed and residual being abused? 

Answer: Lance Honig 

As far as revisions to the previous quarter stocks, let's talk about the June stocks revision that 

was made at the end of September. I think that is what started a lot of this conversation. The 

reality is, every indication we get, whether it’s stocks, acreage, yield, production, there is always 

somewhat of a range around those indications and therefore the estimates can be adjusted a 

little bit within that range. One of the things that could cause you to re-evaluate exactly where 

that estimate was is future information that you collect. In the case of stocks, when you get that 

following quarter information in addition to get a measure of the stocks, we get a measure of 

the disappearance between June and September in this case. We get some additional 

information at the end of September for the entire marketing year. As we looked at all of that 

information and looked back at June, it became apparent to us in looking at some of the 

relationships both in terms of disappearance and feed and residuals, although just to be clear, 

we do not set a feed and residual number and we did not have a feed and residual target in 

mind. However, when we looked at the relationships that existed with the new information in 

September, for September, it became apparent to us that we needed to make adjustments to 

June to make those relationships more in line with what we’ve seen historically. More in line 

with what appeared to be more appropriate for the situation that we were in. Therefore we 

made that revision to the previous quarter. It was larger than what we’ve seen historically. 

Some of the differences in those relationships we saw were larger than what we have seen 

historically. What does that mean moving forward? We do not know. Just as we always do, we 

base all of these decisions on the data that we have at the time we make the estimates. So, if 

we would be faced with a similar situation in the future, it would be very likely that you would 

see revisions again, but we do not know that we’re going to see that in the future. I cannot tell 

you this means anything in particular about the future, but that we will continue to let the data 

drive the decisions that we make for all of the estimates that we publish. 

Question: Steven Pires 

What is the chance the cotton data collection survey return to a yearly cycle? The data is useful 

and we are grateful to utilize it each year. 

Post-meeting clarification: Steven Pires 

It is possible to collect cotton data associated with the NASS Highlights: Agricultural Chemical 

Use Survey’s on a yearly basis? 

At the moment, there are sometimes significant time gaps between each survey and also 

sometimes the data is mis-used until new data becomes available. This data is highly linked to 
6 

number of acres surveyed and planted each year so comparing down acre planted years with 

higher acre planted years (2015 vs 2017, for example) can lead to flawed conclusions. Having to 

wait two years to get more representative data for comparison (in 2019) is challenging when 

trying to address some of these questions with chemical use. 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Joe Parsons 

Thanks for the question. It is possible to collect cotton chemical use data annually, but not 

likely without an additional funding source. Since 1990, NASS has surveyed U.S. farmers to 

collect information on the chemical ingredients they apply to agricultural commodities through 

fertilizers and pesticides. On a rotating basis, the program currently includes fruits; vegetables; 

major field crops such as cotton, corn, potatoes, soybeans, and wheat; and nursery and 

floriculture crops. The Agricultural Chemical Use Survey for cotton was last conducted during 

the 2019 crop year and published on May 8, 2020. Due to a limited budget, data are 

periodically collected for each major commodity and the target crops are rotated on a multiyear cycle. Cotton was previously targeted in 2017 and 2015, and is scheduled to be a target 

commodity again in 2021. The frequency of cotton chemical use data collection is similar to corn 

and soybeans. 

In certain years, the chemical use collection for cotton and other commodities is funded as part 

of the ARMS survey program. Commodity specific ARMS survey are used for generating cost of 

production estimates and other commodity-specific economic research. The ARMS survey is 

jointly funded by NASS and ERS. The rotation scheme for ARMS commodities may be found 

here. 

Question: Sadru Dada 

When was the last WASDE report on tree nuts? 

Answer: Mark Jekanowski 

The WASDE has never included any of the specialty crops. You may be asking about Outlook 

Reports on Fruit and Tree Nuts, and that is an ERS question. 

Answer: Kelly Maguire 

The last Outlook Report on fruit and tree nuts was issued in March of this year. It is available on 

the ERS website, under publications, you can search for fruit and tree nuts outlook. 

Question: Todd Prezler 

I enjoy APIs you have created over the last few years, however would be great if there was a 

common approach across agencies, or would all go through a common API. 

Answer: Dan Kerestes 

This is a timely question for NASS. We are working on redoing our QuickStats database. It is a 

big project. 
7 

Answer: Joe Parsons 

I’ll fill in till Dan comes back. Like Dan was saying, we are working on our QuickStats database 

and reimagining our dissemination, or that part of it. A lot of it is going to be built around an 

API. We are very excited about that and the Application Programming Interface is what we’re 

going to build our modernization around. It is our intention to use the USDA’s data lake, or 

EDAPT system to put that out. It is an environment that I suspect others will ultimately wind up 

making some use of as well. So, I cannot claim that we will all have a common API, but it is 

something within the Chief Data Officer community. USDA has a Chief Data Officer, and part of 

that is to make data across USDA a more strategic asset. I think, at least in spirit, we are hearing 

your question. 

Answer: Mike Lynch 

We have developed a couple of APIs as we developed our new MARS system. We also created 

one for our Livestock Mandatory Reporting data. 

Answer: Jason Karwal 

There is a higher initiative at the Secretary level to bring together what they’re referring to as a 

data lake and make that data as integrated as possible. Within our part of our agency, getting 

those APIs lined up is difficult. I’m sure as we move ahead, and more and more of us are using 

these, we’ll start to try to make those work together as easily as possible. This would be a large 

and challenging project that I am sure would take years. We are always available for anyone 

who wants to reach out who is trying to bring some of that together. We can work with NASS or 

any other groups to get it to work the best way possible. 

Answer: Patrick Packnett 

FAS is a relatively new entrant into this arena with APIs. We had one for the PS&D system for a 

couple of years now. We recently released APIs for our export sales reporting, as well as our 

GATS database. Those are all up on the API home page that we’ve released. In the future, we 

will be happy to participate in any USDA effort to put these in a standardized place and format. 

Right now, we are just happy to have these up and they are getting very good use right now. 

Answer: Joe Parsons 

You will hear more from us about the QuickStats modernization project and what are plans are 

as we have something directly to be able to show you. I know we have been reaching out to a 

few of our Data Users to get some input as well. There is more to come. 

Question: Bill Lapp 

The Food Box program has been generally very well run from what I can tell. However it has 

had a dramatic impact upon availability of some commodities (such as cheese, egg products). In 

the past six months, cheese prices have moved from $1 to $3 to $1.60 to $2.70 Question: can 

we get some data on the volumes of the key products being distributed in the 100 mm food 

boxes? 
8 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Mike Lynch 

I reached out to our Commodity Procurement (CP) Program and learned that unfortunately, the 

Food Box volume data is not available. One of the tenants of the program was to provide 

flexibility for industry to determine the contents of the box based on what was available or 

what was most needed to move off the market, and to be able to switch products as the market 

adjusted from the food service supply chain to retail. Since this flexibility was baked into the 

program, there was no easy way to get the specific product data in a reportable format. So, 

AMS is able to report on the numbers of the various boxes (produce, meat, dairy, milk, 

combination), but does not have details of the actual contents of the food boxes beyond that 

level. 

Question: Scott Sheely 

I work in the area of agriculture workforce and find that I need to go to various departments for 

information. The Ag Census gives us farmers, DOL gives us paid workers in the ag and food 

industry, and DHS and DOL gives us farmworkers and people in programs for foreign-born 

workers. Isn’t there some way that all of this information could be brought together with credit 

given to everyone who contributes? 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Kelly Maguire 

ERS uses a number of data sources on agricultural labor from other Federal agencies, as well as 

the NASS-ERS Agricultural Resource Management Survey, to provide public information about 

farm workers, farm business operations, and the role of labor in agricultural production and 

productivity growth. The variety of information we release through our data products in turn 

requires specific information not available from a single source due to differences in sampling 

frame and survey objectives as determined by the responsible agency, among other reasons. 

We combine information from multiple sources, for example, to present a complete economic 

and demographic profile of the hired farmworker population made available on our farm labor 

topic page. 

Question: Peter Meyer 

When was the error in the June Stocks corn number identified and why was that not 

communicated to the market sooner than 90 days after the fact? 

Answer: Lance Honig 

First of all, before I directly answer the question, I want to clarify there was not an error in the 

June stocks. When new information became available in September and that new information 

being information about September, it caused us to re-look at some of those relationships. At 

NASS, an error represents something, either misreported or something that went wrong in the 

process. When that occurs, which is very rare, we would literally go back, and reissue that 

report, something we would call an errata. To clarify that, as soon as we became aware of it. In 

this particular case, it is new information that became available in September as part of the 
9 

normal process of collecting September stocks, causing us to go back and look at those 

relationships and as part of our process, the previous quarter stocks being open and published 

in the September stocks report as is normally the case, and that is why it occurred in the 

timeframe that it did, and not earlier, because there was no error earlier on that was 

discovered. We did not withhold any information. It was all just part of the normal process of 

evaluating previous data as we move through the stocks season. 

Question: Sam Funk 

USDA reports have referenced the Global Trade Atlas (GTA) source for exports and imports in 

other markets, which is very important as we seek to consider timely export competition and 

global trade. There have been multiple times in years gone by when we tried to get more 

information in collaborative systems among many other nations. Will we ever be able to 

provide this information as in the GTA to provide global trade analytics in a timely basis for 

market transparency in a publicly available and free basis given the need for export 

understanding in the trade paradigm? 

Answer: Patrick Packnett 

If I understand correctly, they're talking about the Global Trade Atlas, which is a commercial 

source of international trade data. That is provided by private firms on a subscription basis. 

There are at least three companies out there that I am aware of that purchase and compile and 

make that information available through their own databases. We subscribe to one of them for 

our analytical purposes at USDA. We do not have access to, or the ability to provide that 

information, as a free service to the public. But it is available commercially. It is a private sector 

service and the companies who are involved are doing it for profit, and we’re not planning to 

enter that arena at all. Our GATS database does offer international trade data from the United 

Nations. While this is annual data as opposed to monthly, with a significant lag, it is free of 

charge and may be helpful for general analysis of international trade flows. 

Question: Jerry Gidel 

The USDA's quarterly corn stocks have had higher volatility and correction in the past two years 

vs the past 7-8 years. Any reasons or ideas for improvement of this highly important quarterly 

report? 

Answer: Lance Honig 

Specifically, no we do not know why there has been more volatility in the last couple of seasons. 

It is something that is also a concern to us. It is a topic we have discussed within NASS. We are 

in the process, just as we do for all of our programs, when the need arises or just on a frequent 

basis anyway, just re-stepping back through all of the process to see if anything has perhaps 

changed across the industry in general that means we need to make any modifications to how 

we collect the information, how we asked the questions, all the way through to how we 

evaluate the data. Something we would typically do, but anytime we see something out of the 
10 

ordinary like we have seen the last couple of seasons, it does make us look just a little bit closer 

at the processes and procedures. We haven’t changed anything in our procedures. Nothing is 

broken in terms of something that we did that’s out of the ordinary on our side of the house. 

That doesn’t mean we can’t make improvements. It doesn’t mean we can’t try to find ways to 

ensure that everything we are collecting is being reported the way that we expect it to be 

reported. As of right now, we are not aware of any particular reason in the process that would 

cause that to happen. We’ll continue to dig in and make sure, just as we would in any other 

program, that everything is being run as well as it can be and is current based on where the 

industry is at. 

Question: Joe Kleinman 

One of the biggest challenges I face as a data user when using data from multiple USDA 

agencies is the lack of standardization of metadata between agencies. This comes up with 

commodity names and geographic references very often. For example, FAS Export Sales data 

uses non-standard country names and FSA crop area data has issues with county and state FIPS 

information. What steps are you taking to standardize metadata within and across agencies? 

Answer: Patrick Packnett 

It is an area that the Chief Data Officer would be interested in as FAS and USDA advances this 

mission around data and standardization. I am not aware of any real effort to work across the 

USDA agencies to standardize metadata at this time. 

Answer: Joe Parsons 

We use the NIST FIPS standards at NASS. 

Answer: Brad Karmen 

For the most part we use standard FIPS codes but some of our counties are split. So, we have 

two county offices in one county. When we have that, we have to create a FIPS code. But I don’t 

know if we have even a dozen of those in the U. S. Other than that, they are standard FIPS 

codes. You do bring up the point about commodity codes. For example, being different 

commodity codes, commodity names. We are different across agencies. I am more familiar with 

the compatibility, or incompatibility, between FSA and RMA because we’re under the same 

mission area. We do have different commodity codes for valid reasons internally. It doesn’t help 

the user because they don’t know our reasons. But often when that occurs, we do have a 

crosswalk to get from our data to RMA data. I’m not sure if that is publicly available. It’s a lot of 

data where we talk back and forth between the two agencies, it’s at the producer level. Because 

of privacy issues we do not share those. If you’re looking at aggregated data, and to the extent 

we’re not compatible, we can probably share with you a crosswalk that will help you. 
11 

Question: Paul McAuliffe 

On Friday October 23 the USDA / USTR released an interim report emphasizing record China 

commitments of corn, beef, pork and soybeans from the US but failed to explain why the USDA 

China import forecast remains at just 7 MMT (likely about 5 MMT below US current US to China 

corn commitments and 9 MMT below world corn commitments to China (12 USA and 4 MMT 

below Ukraine). 

a. The interim report on October 23 stated China has met 71% of Phase 1 Ag. Purchase target. 

The Phase 1 Purchases are measure in terms of shipments NOT sales. The interim report adds 

to the misleading comment by the USDA on China corn imports. 

Answer: Mark Jekanowski 

I think we talked at length about the September corn export forecast I'm not sure there is too 

much more to say about that. I point out again and re-emphasize that Mike mentioned it 

specifically in his response, we do not consider the phase 1 purchase targets in our forecasts. 

Our forecasts are based on market conditions and sales and trade data to date. The phase 1 

deal is independent of our forecast. Beyond that, the report came out from USTR last Friday, 

and I do not have much to say about that. I could kick it over to Patrick if he has any comments 

on that one. 

Answer: Patrick Packnett 

The only thing I would add, FAS was involved in helping to put that report together. The 

question mentioned sales. We obviously use sales as well as import and export data to try to 

estimate what we think is going to ship to China in 2020. While sales do not count, we are using 

them to try to forecast what will happen ultimately with actual trade. 

Question: Marvin Miller 

How is NASS coming with the Census of Horticultural Specialties? How is NASS coming with the 

Floriculture Crops: 2019 Summary? What is the current anticipated release date? 

Answer: Dan Kerestes 

We are working on both reports right now. The Census of Horticulture report and the 

Floriculture crops. We plan on releasing those on December 8th. Both at the same time. 

Question: Tyler Cozzens 

The retail whole turkey price has not been released since February 2020. Why has this not been 

released and are there plans to release this information? 

Answer: Mike Lynch 

We have a weekly retail feature report that we have been reporting those prices for whole birds 

and turkey parts. Again it’s retail feature. I wonder if Tyler's question, I do not know if ERS 

published any retail prices and had a retail turkey price or not? 
12 

Clarification: Tyler Cozzens 

The question is related to the ERS Meat Price Spreads release of retail prices. The file is titled, 

"Retail prices for beef, pork, poultry cuts, eggs, and dairy products" and the specific data series 

is titled "Turkey, frozen, whole." 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Kelly Maguire 

ERS Meat Price Spreads reports the frozen turkey price from Bureau of Labor Statistics food 

price data series. With the release of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) each month, the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS) also publishes average retail prices for select utility, automotive fuel, and 

food items. The last publication of frozen turkey prices was February: 

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/APU0000706311?amp%253bdata_tool=XGtable&output_view=

data&include_graphs=true

AMS also reports some retail prices and has some turkey prices from the sources that they 

collect from at: 

https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/pywretailturkey.pdf

Question: Jenny Campbell 

There is a significant amount Renewable Diesel capacity being added in the US and that is 

expected to be very important for the US soyoil market. Can you confirm if US soyoil used in 

Renewable Diesel is included in the Biodiesel category of WASDE or if it falls under food, feed, 

other? If it is not included in the biodiesel category, do you have plans to make a separate 

category to break out the renewable diesel? 

Answer: Keith Menzie 

The first part of the question, currently renewable diesel or any soybean oil used for renewable 

diesel is included in the residual category food, feed, and other industrial. As far as how we will 

handle that in the future, that’s going to be a function of how EIA eventually reports the data. 

We are not completely clear on that yet, whether they are in a position to report soybean oil 

used for all renewables or if they will break it out by category. That remains to be seen. 

Answer: Mike Conner 

As many of you know, we have a new survey of biofuels. Historically, we have done ethanol and 

biodiesel and we’ve tracked biodiesel feedstock among other things. Our new survey is in the 

process of being rolled out. The first month of data collection is going to be the month of 

October. We are going to take a couple of months and look at the data. Our goal at this point is 

to begin publishing the new data from the survey, starting with the full calendar year of 2021. 

So, the first data to come out will be January 2021, with data to be released at the end of March 

2021. Currently, our plan is actually to report total feedstocks across all biofuel, rather than 

trying to split it out between biodiesel, renewable diesel and other things. That is our plan right 

now. We can certainly discuss that going forward as we start to roll the data out. 
13 

Question: Joseph Lardy 

Will the USDA ever consider splitting apart the feed and residual component on the corn 

balance sheet? 

Answer: Mark Jekanowski 

The answer is no, I do not think so. We do not actually have good data specifically on feed use. 

Answer: Mike Jewison 

I would just add, and I think this has come up for several years, understanding what exactly the 

feed and residual category is, right? On the supply side of the balance sheet you have the area 

harvested times the yield and beginning stocks from the prior year which make up the supplyside. On the demand side, corn used for ethanol, exports and other categories and the feed and 

residual is literally the feeding, whatever that aggregate level is, plus the residual error of all 

those categories just mentioned for the supply and demand side of the balance sheet. I've 

heard people say in the past, for example suggesting a feed survey. I'm not sure that would be 

the most prudent approach to put that out. More effort, if anything should be producer 

response rates and/or any help that NASS needs in terms of better collecting the survey data. I 

do not think it is something in the short run that will be possible. 

Question: Patrick Alkire 

Why does USDA still allow buyers to designate as 'Unknown Destination' on sales over 100,000 

tons reported through the daily system? Seems like USDA is doing itself and the trade a 

disservice by still allowing this. 

Answer: Amy Harding 

In our regulations, if a reporting exporter does not know the country of destination at the time 

the sale is made, they can report it as unknown destination. We do not discriminate on the 

amount of tonnage of the sale. Unless we change our regulations, the exporters can continue to 

report as unknown destination. 
14 

Main Session: Written Question and Answer Summary

Question: Jennie Campbell 

There have recently been large changes to previously reported Grain Stocks numbers as well as 

historical yield/production numbers, particularly corn. Has the process of determining Grain 

Stocks changed? Has the weighting of which factors to rely on when looking at stocks survey, 

yield, acres, and F&R (animal) numbers? 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig 

NASS has not changed the procedures used to establish estimates for acreage, yield, 

production, or stocks. More details on the revision process are described in other answers. 

Question: Bryce Knorr 

When will the searchable database for grain prices on the AMS website be updated on a timely 

basis? Currently, for example, data for the North Central Iowa cash corn prices ends on 

7/31/2020. Many other markets so similar lags. 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Mike Lynch

All of our Grain reporting has moved over into our new MARS collection and reporting system, 

with My Market News being the public front end. The report has moved from text format to pdf 

format and are located here: https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/ams_2850.pdf

The report data can be downloaded from My Market News site manually or via our new API. 

The User Guide for using the API to consume that data is located here

https://mymarketnews.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/resources/2019-08/MyMarketNewsAP-Excel-UserGuide_1.pdf.

Question: Joe Kleinman 

Can you describe the change in methodology/modelling of Grain Stocks that led to the 

September revision of On Farm stocks for June 1? Historically NASS has not revised previous On 

Farm stocks because farmers are not resurveyed about previous quarters. 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig

Current Quarter 

As part of the normal estimating process each quarter, NASS analyzes and considers all available 

data for the current quarter: 

 Survey Indicated Levels for both On and Off Farm Quantities Stored 

o Direct expansions of indicated stocks totals 

o Current quarter stocks as a percentage of the previous quarter stocks 

o Current quarter stocks as a percentage of production 

 Administrative Data 
15 

o Imports 

o Exports 

o Ethanol Use 

o Livestock Inventory Levels (Grain Consuming Animal Units (GCAU)) 

 Relationships compared to Historical Levels 

o Quarterly Disappearance 

o Season-to-Date Disappearance 

o Quarterly Implied Feed and Residual 

o Season-to-Date Implied Feed and Residual 

All survey indications include point estimates with a statistical range of reliability. Estimates are 

established that best satisfy all available data and relationships, as described above. 

 

Previous Quarter 

Previous quarter stocks estimates are subject to revision each quarter throughout the year. 

Revisions can be necessary due to many factors. The most common reason, which typically 

results in very small revisions, is late-reported data. Less common, but sometimes more 

impactful, is the re-analysis of previously reported data in light of new information gleaned from 

reported data for the subsequent quarter. 

NASS’ revision procedures and timelines are explained and documented in the Statistical 

Methodology section of each Grain Stocks release and in the annual Guide to Products and 

Services, available on the NASS website at www.nass.usda.gov. 

June 2020 Revisions 

In September 2020, data available for both indicated totals for September 1, 2020 inventory 

levels and administrative data for June-August 2020 and resulting supply and demand 

relationships relative to previous years, led NASS to re-evaluate the June 1, 2020 stocks levels 

and ultimately revise the previously published totals. In particular, usage and implied feed and 

residual for the June-August quarter (based on previously published June 1 estimates) were well 

outside of levels seen in previous years, suggesting that the June 1 stocks levels should be 

revised. Although data are not sufficient to establish specific disappearance or feed and residual 

levels, adjustments were deemed necessary to bring these relationships more in line with 

historical levels, while keeping the revised estimates within the statistically acceptable range of 

the June survey indicated levels.

Question: Jerry Gidel 

The impact of changes have made F/R levels quite volatile and the current 5.8 billion bu. over 

nearly 400 million Y/Y. What about quality are a factor? 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig 

I don’t believe that the estimate changes have made Feed & Residual levels volatile, but rather 

volatile Feed & Residual levels have led to revisions to estimates. As for crop quality, NASS 
16 

collects on-farm stocks directly from producers and off-farm stocks from commercial facilities. 

In both cases, respondents are asked to provide totals stored in standard units. NASS does not 

collect data on quality factors. 

Question: Marvin Hoekema 

If NASS is redoing quick stats API will you have backwards compatibility? We have extensive 

programming already in place. 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Joe Parsons and Bryan Combs 

NASS understands that many data users currently utilize our API. While we work toward 

improving our QuickStats user interface we are also creating a new more user friendly API. The 

current API will not be impacted by these activities in the short term. Long term plans have not 

yet been determined, any changes to the existing API will be widely communicated well in 

advance of any changes. 

Question: Bevan Everett 

Do you have any speculations about why the residual usage was so high in 19/20? GCAUs up 2% 

while F+R was up 7%. 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig 

NASS does not speculate on why residual levels fluctuate in any given season. 

Question: Jerry Gidel 

Please tell us what is API? 

Written Answer: 

Application Programming Interface. Often used to communicate machine to machine. 

Question: Bill Lapp 

Specific to Sept 30 stocks and final 2019 production: disappearance is a criteria for stocks 

revision, and is it also a criteria for production revisions? IMHO, the residuals for soybeans 

during 19/20 were such that a significant stocks or production revision would have been 

justified on 9/30/20. 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig 

Disappearance is one factor that NASS considers when establishing stocks levels and whether or 

not production revisions are necessary. In reviewing all available data NASS did not believe that 
17 

significant revisions were warranted for soybean production or stocks for the 2019-20 season. 

Question: Scott Irwin 

When did NASS start changing previous corn stock estimates based on "relationships in the 

data"? How is this reasoning not circular? Without an independent feed survey to measure 

true corn feed demand there is simply no way to determine if relationships that look out of 

whack are due to unresolved corn production errors or survey errors in the stocks report. Why 

not leave stock estimates alone and leave all the errors in feed and residual where they belong 

conceptually? 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig 

NASS has always considered data relationships including quarter-to-quarter disappearance, 

quarterly and annual implied residual, etc. We have not in the past, nor do we now, estimate 

actual residual levels. We use these relationships to determine the most appropriate estimates 

based on the indications provided by the surveys conducted to collect the stock inventory 

levels. 

Question: Katelyn McCullock 

Are there any plans to survey/census count for on-farm grain storage capacity? The 2012 Ag 

Census (table 43) had an update, but I did not see it in the 2017. After extensive flooding in 

recent years and derecho this year, it would be informative. 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig 

NASS publishes estimates of both on and off farm storage capacity on an annual basis in the 

January Grain Stocks report. 

Question: Wayne Stoskopf 

After NASS had resurveys of producers in 2019 with large prevent plant claims and in 2020 for 

crop conditions after the derecho, how much did the resurveys impact reports? Any lessons 

learned or future changes to producer surveys from the last two years of experiences? 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig 

The resurveyed data for both last spring and following the Derecho this summer both provided 

valuable insight that directly resulted in updated estimates. Both of these situations were the 

result of abnormal weather events and as such do not necessarily tell us anything about the 

normal estimating process. 
18 

Question: Lindsey Hendrick 

Do you anticipate that the QuickStats updates will change how developers are currently able to 

interact with the raw dataset? For example, we can currently query QuickStats via programming 

software. How might that functionality change? 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Joe Parsons and Bryan Combs

NASS does not anticipate a change to this functionality. 

Question: Tom MacFarland 

Please offer details on how the USDA will either support or at least accommodate data retrieval 

using the R language tidyUSDA package and accompanying functions. I am especially keen to 

know if larger data downloads will be supported using this set of tools, going beyond current 

limits. 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Joe Parsons and Bryan Combs 

NASS is currently actively engaged in the development and design of our new QuickStats user 

interface and API. While the specifications are still early in the development process, we 

anticipate R language packages such as the tidyUSDA package will be able to interact with the 

new system. At this time, we do not know how download limits will be impacted. 

Question: Egery Sepling 

The Agricultural Statistics Board (ASB) filed the Italian type of cheese production by product 

Parmesan in U.S. was 32,410 pounds while import from Italy the Parmigiano Reggiano was 

9,389 tons. It's negative correlation. 

In Europe, the cheese labelled Parmesan can be directly linked with Protected Designation of 

Origin P.D.O. 

a. How in the future would you assess the progress distributing Parmesan in U.S. linked with 

authentic designation of Origin which is Italy? Could it possible to overcome the divergences 

between two jurisdictions handling differently the right to produce Parmesan? 

b. How the price of milk listed in Chicago Mercantile Exchange could ascend cross-border 

collaboration in Parmesan production? Manufacturers hedging buying milk for production for 

instance? 

Answer: Answered during Breakout Session 1B by Patrick Packnett 

This is not really a data question; the United States does not provide geographic indicator 

protections for any product including Parmesan cheese. And so, we don't restrict the production 

or marketing of Parmesan. Now the U.S. does have trademark protections for Parmigiano 

Reggiano, and so it is a protected trademark, but we don't equate Parmesan with Parmigiano 

Reggiano as they do in most of the European Union. We don't anticipate any change in our 
19 

policy in that regard, and as I said Parmigiano Reggiano is a protected trademark and the market 

will have to determine what would be the production of Parmesan in the United States versus 

how much Parmigiano Reggiano we actually import. 

Question: Jose Montes 

AMS has been updating the way to research for reports. In the past, one could find reports 

using report title: LetterLetter_LetterLetterNumberNumberNumber and a date range. The 

new method is more focused on Slug ID or Slug Name, and a specific date is requested. 

Furthermore, in the past one could go back up to 5 years, whereas the new method search 

method does not go beyond 3 years back. Where can we find information on how to use the 

new research method, i.e. find corresponding Slug ID’s to Report Titles, how to search for date 

ranges and how can we request data older than 3 years? 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Mike Lynch

The search features of the new report archive page at 

https://mymarketnews.ams.usda.gov/filerepo/reports has some significant update differences 

from the previous version of the search page. The system is more dependent on the specific 

slug ID and slug name of certain reports but does also allow searches by partial report title 

names and filtering by the market type names for specific searches. The system also has 

individual landing pages for each report that are intended to provide all usable information on a 

single report. It is recommended that once users locate the landing page for a specific report, 

that they either bookmark that page or utilize features within the My Market News website to 

create a user account and save those pages as favorites or sign up to receive email updates 

when specific reports are published. There are plans in the future to update the new search 

page to allow users to search within date ranges and to allow more specific title word 

searches. There are also additional resources available to assist user in identifying specific 

report information at the following site https://mymarketnews.ams.usda.gov/generalresources. Additionally, users can always request additional support or send any questions or 

inquiries by emailing us at mymarketnews@usda.gov. 

We also want to be clear that all of the most recent copies of AMS Market News reports are still 

available on the AMS Market News website at https://www.ams.usda.gov/market-news. These 

report links are updated with the latest copies of Market News reports as soon as the reports 

are published. There is also access to downloaded able datasets with the information that is 

published on the AMS Market News reports available on our old Market News data portal sites 

that can be located at https://www.marketnews.usda.gov/mnp/ and our new My Market News 

data portal located at https://mymarketnews.ams.usda.gov/public_data. All of the data 

available at the My Market News site is also available through our API. Additional information 

on the API can be found at https://mymarketnews.ams.usda.gov/mymarketnews-api. 

AMS is planning to have 5 years of report file archives available on the new report archive site at 

https://mymarketnews.ams.usda.gov/filerepo/reports and on the individual report landing 

pages by December 31, 2020. Inquiries can be made to receive emailed copies of any archived 

Market News reports by emailing mymarketnews@usda.gov. This email can also be used for 
20 

any Market News request, as well as, to request being added to an email list for updates related 

to Market News reports and data in the future. 

Question: Bill Lapp 

What is schedule for release of renewable diesel and feedstock usage data (release date and 

beginning month of data)? 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Mike Conner 

The scheduled release date for data on renewable diesel fuel and feedstock consumption is 

Wednesday, March 31, 2021. The first data will be for the month of January 2021 with new 

monthly data released on the last business day of each month.

Question: Paul Smolen 

I noticed a difference between GATS soybean export data to certain destinations and 

corresponding Census data for vessel shipments. I would expect GATS to be higher for Mexico 

and Canada reflecting shipments by truck and rail. But I can’t explain the differences for most 

Asian destinations (Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia Vietnam. Philippines, 

Burma), that happen to be receivers of soybean vessel shipments by container as well as bulk. 

The differences are spread during the year and amount to GATS being about 5-10% higher than 

Census Vessel volumes to those destinations. 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Jason Carver

We’re able to confirm that the GATS data matches USA Trade Online data queried through their 

(HS) District-level Data. However, we note that when USA Trade Online is queried through 

HS Port-level Data, which has the capability to distinguish between Vessel and Containerized 

shipments the quantities do not match the USA Trade Online data (HS) District-level Data. 

We have a theory about why that might be. It may be the case that some shipments do not 

clearly identify mode of transport (bulk vs. containerized), thus the HS Port-level data doesn’t 

reflect the total presented in the HS District-level Data. Ultimately this is a question for Census, 

we’d be happy to work with you to coordinate a call with Census to better understand the 

differences between their Port-level and District-level data. 

Question: Joseph Lardy 

Lance, you keep mentioning new information that you find, warrants changes to the balance 

sheets. Tell us EXACTLY what this new information is. To adjust corn stocks by 200 million 

bushels, there has to be something material and certainly something that the market would like 

to understand what information could cause a change that large. 
21 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig 

Current Quarter 

As part of the normal estimating process each quarter, NASS analyzes and considers all available 

data for the current quarter: 

 Survey Indicated Levels for both On and Off Farm Quantities Stored 

o Direct expansions of indicated stocks totals 

o Current quarter stocks as a percentage of the previous quarter stocks 

o Current quarter stocks as a percentage of production 

 Administrative Data 

o Imports 

o Exports 

o Ethanol Use 

o Livestock Inventory Levels (Grain Consuming Animal Units (GCAU)) 

 Relationships compared to Historical Levels 

o Quarterly Disappearance 

o Season-to-Date Disappearance 

o Quarterly Implied Feed and Residual 

o Season-to-Date Implied Feed and Residual 

All survey indications include point estimates with a statistical range of reliability. Estimates are 

established that best satisfy all available data and relationships, as described above. 

 

Previous Quarter 

Previous quarter stocks estimates are subject to revision each quarter throughout the year. 

Revisions can be necessary due to many factors. The most common reason, which typically 

results in very small revisions, is late-reported data. Less common, but sometimes more 

impactful, is the re-analysis of previously reported data in light of new information gleaned from 

reported data for the subsequent quarter. 

NASS’ revision procedures and timelines are explained and documented in the Statistical 

Methodology section of each Grain Stocks release and in the annual Guide to Products and 

Services, available on the NASS website at www.nass.usda.gov. 

June 2020 Revisions 

In September 2020, data available for both indicated totals for September 1, 2020 inventory 

levels and administrative data for June-August 2020 and resulting supply and demand 

relationships relative to previous years, led NASS to re-evaluate the June 1, 2020 stocks levels 

and ultimately revise the previously published totals. In particular, usage and implied feed and 

residual for the June-August quarter (based on previously published June 1 estimates) were well 

outside of levels seen in previous years, suggesting that the June 1 stocks levels should be 

revised. Although data are not sufficient to establish specific disappearance or feed and residual 

levels, adjustments were deemed necessary to bring these relationships more in line with 

historical levels, while keeping the revised estimates within the statistically acceptable range of 

the June survey indicated levels. 
22 

Question: Todd Preszler 

Monthly crop yields reported in the Crop Production report have 2 to 3 input streams: Farmer 

Survey, Field Objective Observations, Remote Sensing..... Would it be possible to see the input 

from each stream, so the market can anticipate changes to the published yield from expected 

changes that may influence one or more of the streams? 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig 

NASS does not publish direct survey indications or other raw inputs contributing to individual 

estimates. We do provide detailed information regarding what inputs are used and the 

methodology used to incorporate all data sources. 

Question: Karen Braun 

Is there any way you can elaborate on specifically what the historically large discrepancies were 

with the U.S. corn stocks data between June 1 and September 1? 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig 

Current Quarter 

As part of the normal estimating process each quarter, NASS analyzes and considers all available 

data for the current quarter: 

 Survey Indicated Levels for both On and Off Farm Quantities Stored 

o Direct expansions of indicated stocks totals 

o Current quarter stocks as a percentage of the previous quarter stocks 

o Current quarter stocks as a percentage of production 

 Administrative Data 

o Imports 

o Exports 

o Ethanol Use 

o Livestock Inventory Levels (Grain Consuming Animal Units (GCAU)) 

 Relationships compared to Historical Levels 

o Quarterly Disappearance 

o Season-to-Date Disappearance 

o Quarterly Implied Feed and Residual 

o Season-to-Date Implied Feed and Residual 

All survey indications include point estimates with a statistical range of reliability. Estimates are 

established that best satisfy all available data and relationships, as described above. 

 

Previous Quarter 

Previous quarter stocks estimates are subject to revision each quarter throughout the year. 

Revisions can be necessary due to many factors. The most common reason, which typically 

results in very small revisions, is late-reported data. Less common, but sometimes more 

impactful, is the re-analysis of previously reported data in light of new information gleaned from 
23 

reported data for the subsequent quarter. 

NASS’ revision procedures and timelines are explained and documented in the Statistical 

Methodology section of each Grain Stocks release and in the annual Guide to Products and 

Services, available on the NASS website at www.nass.usda.gov. 

June 2020 Revisions 

In September 2020, data available for both indicated totals for September 1, 2020 inventory 

levels and administrative data for June-August 2020 and resulting supply and demand 

relationships relative to previous years, led NASS to re-evaluate the June 1, 2020 stocks levels 

and ultimately revise the previously published totals. In particular, usage and implied feed and 

residual for the June-August quarter (based on previously published June 1 estimates) were well 

outside of levels seen in previous years, suggesting that the June 1 stocks levels should be 

revised. Although data are not sufficient to establish specific disappearance or feed and residual 

levels, adjustments were deemed necessary to bring these relationships more in line with 

historical levels, while keeping the revised estimates within the statistically acceptable range of 

the June survey indicated levels. 

Question: Sam Funk 

The Derecho event across the Midwest has been tabbed as likely the largest ever single-day 

event for crop insurance. RMA is still gathering claims for this event and the typical data 

available publicly cannot be tied explicitly to the Derecho. Is it possible that ERS might look at 

the specific impacts for corn and soybeans and the relevant risk management protection 

provided by Federal Crop Insurance – including a fact-based provision of indemnity payments 

and losses incurred by this event? 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Kelly Maguire 

ERS has started to investigate the data and is looking into the possibility of doing some 

additional work on the impacts. 

Question: Robert Bischoff 

Is Sesame Seed production being collected and tabulated? 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig 

NASS does not estimate sesame seed on an annual basis. It is included in the Census of 

Agriculture which is conducted and published every five years. 

Question: Andrea Massetti 

How do you use satellite data on yield estimation? Does it entail validation or it is part of the 

estimation itself? Do you expect developments in the use this kind of data in the near future? 
24 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig 

Although survey-based indications of yield remain the primary sources of data, modeled yield 

indications from satellite data are used directly in the estimation process to supplement the 

survey data. There are slides detailing the use of satellite data included with this transcript. 

Question: Arlan Suderman 

Each time we harvest a wet low-test weight corn crop, we see surprisingly low stocks numbers 

show up during the year in the quarterly reports that suggest stronger usage. While such corn 

tends to have lower energy content, requiring more usage, it also tends to see more shrinkage 

in the bin (i.e. the farmer reports higher production than he ends up taking out of the bin. Have 

you considered adjusting your yield estimate procedures in these years to account for such? 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig 

NASS surveys ask producers to report actual yields after harvest. We do not collect information 

regarding moisture content, test weight, or other quality factors. Without actual data we would 

not consider adjusting yields and/or production. 

Question: Todd Preszler 

In the RMA data, double reporting of winter usage (grazing and harvest) has been allowed in the 

last 2 years. From the use/purpose data there is no way to triangulate to remove this double 

counting. Is there a way to separate this, or designate it, so we can observe true total acreages? 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from David Zanoni, RMA 

No, RMA’s publicly available data does not allow for identifying overlapping acres of dual-use 

wheat. Since RMA reports insured acres, and these acres are, in fact, insured twice as separate 

crops (no different than double cropping), RMA doesn’t consider that double counting. 

Question: Ashely Lowe 

Since mid-2018, the weekly negotiated cash slaughter cattle price for Colorado (LM_CT166) has 

not been reported on a consistent basis due to *Confidentiality* Is there anything in the works 

to remedy this issue or will we continue to go weeks/ months without knowing the official price 

for that state? 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Mike Lynch

The main issue with reporting data consistently on the Colorado cattle report is that there are 

not enough packers buying negotiated cattle in that region on a regular weekly basis. We need 

to have at least 3 packing companies buying cattle fairly regularly over a 60-day period in order 

for the data to pass the 3/70/20 Confidentiality Guideline. The LMR Act requires USDA to 

publish data collecting in a manner that preserves the identity of reporting packers, as well as 
25 

parties to contracts and proprietary business information. We use the 3/70/20 Confidentiality 

Guideline as the tool to carry this out. 

To address this issue of reporting negotiated cattle data for Colorado and other regions in the 5-

Area region while managing the confidentiality of the data, last year AMS had a study 

conducted by academia from Kansas State University and Iowa State University to explore the 

feasibility of reporting negotiated cattle in 0-14 day and 15-30 day delivery windows while also 

looking at whether the regions within the 5-Area region could be realigned to improve data 

reporting. The final report from that study was released a year ago, and AMS hosted a 

stakeholder meeting in Kansas City, MO last December to present the findings and 

recommendations. 

While these recommendations did not gain a lot of traction, they did stimulate numerous other 

ideas among members of the cattle industry. Some of these ideas included proposed legislative 

mandates for purchasing negotiated cattle, while a couple others proposed AMS establish 

regional minimum volume thresholds. These ideas are included in a couple different bills that 

have been introduced to Congress. We will have to wait and see which legislative path is taken, 

if any, when Congress takes up the LMR reauthorization bill before December 11, 2020, which is 

when the current authorization will expire. 

In addition, AMS does publish the “Colorado Weekly Direct Slaughter Cattle Report - 

Formulated, Forward Contract, And Negotiated Grid Purchases” which provides weekly values 

for cattle purchased through other means or pricing than negotiated. 

Question: Hussain Jiwani 

USDA releases crop condition data by state. Are there any plans to release crop condition data 

by regions within the states? 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig 

Although there are no plans to publish crop condition data at a more granular level that the 

State as part of the Federal program, NASS would consider publishing instances where funding 

is provided by an outside entity. There are currently a few instances where this occurs. Also, 

NASS is developing a new product that will provide a visualization of the data at more detailed 

level. 

Question: Bill Lapp 

Would NASS ever consider enlisting the help of the data users community, in developing a 

supplemental survey to support/enhance your quarterly stocks survey? 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Joe Parsons

Thanks for the question Bill. As part of continual process improvement, NASS reviews survey 

programs and processes on a periodic basis. NASS is beginning an internal review looking at 
26 

several aspects of the on farm and off farm grain stocks surveys and estimation program. If we 

were to determine such a survey was necessary, we would certainly reach out to our data users 

and other stakeholders for input. 

Question: Alan Brugler 

How is WASDE estimating Chinese corn stocks, specifically the strategic component? Record 

high prices in China suggest that stocks are extremely tight, yet WASDE shows quite large 

stocks. The public stocks used for auctions appear to have been exhausted prior to harvest. 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Mark Jekanowski

USDA’s estimate of corn stocks in China includes all stocks public and private. With corn imports 

largely policy driven, China’s domestic corn market is essentially disconnected from the world. 

High prices were also seen in 2014/15, during a time period when it was widely believed that 

they were building stocks. Adding to the uncertainty of the stock estimates were the large 

revisions in China’s corn production history that took place in the fall of 2018. These revisions by 

China’s National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) were without precedent in contemporary agricultural 

statistics and it is not clear if the changes represented an attempt to reconcile with reported 

auction totals from China’s National Grain Trade Center. 

In the end stocks represent one of several utilization categories on the demand side of the 

balance sheet but are ultimately largely constrained by supply assumptions, which in this case 

are driven by the official production estimates from NBS. Given NBS does not publish official 

estimates of stocks or utilization, forecasts of stock totals will vary. 

Question: Eric Coronel 

For the Irrigation and Water Management Survey (previously FRIS), why was the non-irrigated 

yield data collection discontinued? Is it a permanent decision? 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig 

The non-irrigated yield represented the non-irrigated yield of irrigators, not the general farming 

population, and was commonly misunderstood and mis-used. It was removed permanently. 

Question: Alan Brugler 

US ag producers are indicating soybean moisture down to 8-9% at harvest, and corn at 13%. If 

sold at those weights, scale tickets will be "light" and USDA will have fewer bushels. How is 

NASS handling this problem? 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig 

For the Objective Yield samples, moisture content is a factor that is used to determine yield at 

the standard moisture level. Producers are asked to report their actual yields, and hopefully 

account for moisture and test weight issues. 
27 

Question: Jennie Campbell 

Thanks for the answer re RD/BD. Just one follow up comment to Mike Connor is that from sbo 

perspective it's not so much a request for the RD vs BD split, it's that right now the RD is in the 

food/other non-biodiesel category as opposed to the biodiesel so it makes the non-biodiesel 

category hard to interpret. So it would be much better to have RD+BD in a combined category 

of sbo for biofuels if the two biofuels can't be broken out. 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Mike Conner 

Monthly biofuel feedstock data reported by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) 

will include feedstocks consumed for production of fuel alcohol, biodiesel, renewable diesel 

fuel, and other renewable fuels beginning with data for January 2021 scheduled for release on 

Wednesday, March 31, 2021. The one exception is that EIA biofuel feedstocks consumption 

data released in 2021 will exclude feedstocks consumed in refineries that co-process biofuel 

feedstocks with petroleum. The next regular opportunity to make survey changes to collect 

consumption of biofuel feedstocks co-processed with petroleum will be in 2023. 

Question: Gary Blumenthal 

Given the greater participation rate today, will you consider this technical approach for future 

sessions? 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Joe Parsons 

We have been very pleased with the additional turnout and engagement the virtual format has 

given us in April and again with this data user’s meeting. However, we also know from the 

feedback that many participants miss an in-person format. As the current situation evolves and 

in-person events become practical again, we expect to host at least one meeting per year in 

person. The in-person meeting may also have an option for virtual questions and a live 

feed. We also will likely continue with a second meeting each year that is virtual only. 

Question: Paul McAuliffe 

Please explain why WAOB did not limit China imports to 4 MMT rather than 7 MMT. Your 

forecast implies China will cancel some sales but you do not know when or how much they 

will cancel. 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Mark Jekanowski 

Our 20/21 corn import forecast for China of 7 mmt in the October WASDE essentially assumed 

full TRQ utilization, which is policy in place. It recognizes that demand from China is strong, but 

also that a long-standing policy exists in China that could limit total volume. It is true that we 

do not know when or how much sales they might cancel or roll into the future. We did not 

have reason to believe that a 4 MMT import level was the best forecast.
28 

Question: Paul McAuliffe 

For NASS June 1 stocks, WHY did those numbers change the most in History? On farm, Off 

farm? and in total? 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig

Although we don’t necessarily know “why” the required revisions were larger than normal for 

June 2020, following is an explanation of the process. 

Current Quarter 

As part of the normal estimating process each quarter, NASS analyzes and considers all available 

data for the current quarter: 

 Survey Indicated Levels for both On and Off Farm Quantities Stored 

o Direct expansions of indicated stocks totals 

o Current quarter stocks as a percentage of the previous quarter stocks 

o Current quarter stocks as a percentage of production 

 Administrative Data 

o Imports 

o Exports 

o Ethanol Use 

o Livestock Inventory Levels (Grain Consuming Animal Units (GCAU)) 

 Relationships compared to Historical Levels 

o Quarterly Disappearance 

o Season-to-Date Disappearance 

o Quarterly Implied Feed and Residual 

o Season-to-Date Implied Feed and Residual 

All survey indications include point estimates with a statistical range of reliability. Estimates are 

established that best satisfy all available data and relationships, as described above. 

 

Previous Quarter 

Previous quarter stocks estimates are subject to revision each quarter throughout the year. 

Revisions can be necessary due to many factors. The most common reason, which typically 

results in very small revisions, is late-reported data. Less common, but sometimes more 

impactful, is the re-analysis of previously reported data in light of new information gleaned from 

reported data for the subsequent quarter. 

NASS’ revision procedures and timelines are explained and documented in the Statistical 

Methodology section of each Grain Stocks release and in the annual Guide to Products and 

Services, available on the NASS website at www.nass.usda.gov. 

June 2020 Revisions 

In September 2020, data available for both indicated totals for September 1, 2020 inventory 

levels and administrative data for June-August 2020 and resulting supply and demand 

relationships relative to previous years, led NASS to re-evaluate the June 1, 2020 stocks levels 

and ultimately revise the previously published totals. In particular, usage and implied feed and 
29 

residual for the June-August quarter (based on previously published June 1 estimates) were well 

outside of levels seen in previous years, suggesting that the June 1 stocks levels should be 

revised. Although data are not sufficient to establish specific disappearance or feed and residual 

levels, adjustments were deemed necessary to bring these relationships more in line with 

historical levels, while keeping the revised estimates within the statistically acceptable range of 

the June survey indicated levels. 

Question: Paul McAuliffe 

One of our customers is asking if USDA can release their reports when the futures markets are 

closed. So releasing them at for example 2:30 PM Eastern time would be better so 

A) People have time to read them for one hour or so when the markets are closed 

B) Give the market time to digest what the USDA says. 

Customer Message: 

Thank you for sharing, agree w/your comments, it is an important industry and their stocks, 

acreage and yield reports have caused massive price volatility. 

 Releasing reports during markets open vs when it is closed is also ridiculous, they could release 

the reports either after the close or during the 45 minute break in the morning. I believe they 

work hard and want to do their best but the lack of transparency needs to change. 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig

Many factors are considered when determining report times. The last time a change was made, 

a Federal Register Notice was issued seeking comment before a decision was made. Different 

data users have different preferences regarding what that time should be. As for non-market 

hours, NASS does not control when the markets are open or closed, so moving the report times 

would not necessarily guarantee that market open/closed times wouldn’t move also. 

Question: Don Frahm 

Is there a range of interpretation that prevails around off farm corn stocks that you might 

elaborate on? 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig 

NASS is exploring the possibility of publishing measures of accuracy for the surveys that provide 

stocks indications. 

Question: Daniel O’Brien 

In some of the daily grain market reports (such as DC GR110 (Western Kansas Grain Markets) 

and DC_GR112 (Central Kansas Terminal and Processor Daily Grain Report), changes were made 

in the format of these reports that aggregated prices in to ranges (cash prices, basis, etc.) after 

July 31, 2020. Although the aggregate, regionalized data reported now still have some value, 
30 

now these daily reports provide no location specific information that was useful to agricultural 

producers in these regions. Now the data is "regionalized" with limited or no value to people 

that were monitoring these specific markets. And there is no way to go back into the data 

portal to find these specific locations. This change may be irreversible given tight resources, 

etc., but these reports are now only marginally of value to users, whereas they were a valuable 

logistical grain price resource prior to these changes. 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Mike Lynch

AMS transitioned the daily grain reports to regional reports for several reasons. First for 

consistency across the country. Prior to this change, some state country grain elevator reports 

were reported by location while many were reported by regions within the state. When we 

(AMS) moved our grain reporting to our new MARS reporting system this summer, we needed 

to pick a lane for one consistent reporting format to best manage our resources. One of the key 

factors taken into consideration here was that most locations did not include all of the grain 

elevators in that location. Many had several other firms in the same town/location that were 

not represented on our reports because some firms did not cooperate in reporting or there was 

a change in ownership of existing firms. Also, some locations had only one firm in town that 

had either sold, will not report, is closed, or only bids during harvest. Additionally, given the 

number of grain elevators in the major grain producing states and the limited afternoon 

timeframe to collect the data, state reporting staff do not have time to call every elevator every 

day. 

While we recognize location-specific reporting offers pinpoint values, regional reporting 

provides a more robust and consistent overall price series. The regional reporting adopted by 

AMS mirrors the existing NASS regions, which are more universally known. 
31 

Breakout Session 1A: Program Changes

Question: Jody Campiche 

To clarify, the removal of district estimates for cotton does not result in the publication of 

additional counties? 

Answer: Lance Honig 

That is correct. Not anticipated based on the 2019, estimates. That doesn't mean that they 

wouldn't have been a factor in the 2020 season, or future seasons. It just so happens that based 

on how the data all worked out in 2019, it didn't result in any additional publication. That's 

largely because we have the exception for cotton. It allows us to publish more counties in 

general. Any County with 5,000 bales of production is already able to be published regardless of 

the coverage, or standards that are in place. With fewer counties not meeting the standards you 

have fewer complementary suppressions that result from the district boundaries. 

Question: Teresa Crook 

Do you anticipate adding back into the estimates - dry edible beans or sugar beets? 

Answer: Lance Honig 

At this point we don't. It's a funding driven process. I point out we do have a number of, what 

we would call, externally funded data series out there. In any case if there is an organization out 

there that would like to fund putting these estimates back we do have a process in place. We 

can work through that process. It's dollar driven. Right now, based on the funding we have 

available, the crops that I listed that remain are the crops that we anticipate publishing moving 

forward. Just to clarify, those were only discontinued at the county level. We do continue to 

publish state and national estimates for all of those crops that I mentioned. 

Question: Bill McCary 

Will NASS consider reporting actual ear weights and pods weights from its objective yield 

survey? 

Answer: Lance Honig 

I don't anticipate that happening. There is a number of raw survey indications that we have, 

whether its ear weights, pod weights, or other indications we collect and utilize in establishing 

our estimates and we don't publish all of the raw data or raw indications that we receive. I don't 

anticipate that changing for ear weights and pod weights. 
32 

Question: John Ellis 

For the removed crops, any other sources of data at the county level? RMA. 

Answer: Lance Honig 

There is some information available specifically through FSA. It's going to be acreage. As I 

mentioned early on, typically FSA does not collect yield information. RMA does of course 

capture some yield information in addition to acreage. That data tends to be a little less readily 

available than what you will find with FSA or NASS. Exactly how available that's going to be 

would really be a question for RMA. I point out that the current process that information from 

RMA specifically when it comes to yield becomes even available internally much later in the 

process than what NASS is able to publish for their crops. 

Question: Dale Durchholz 

Would you go through the thought process in making the adjustments in the corn stocks 

numbers that extended back 3 quarters, if I remember correctly? 

Answer: Lance Honig 

Most recently the biggest change that occurred was to the June stocks when we published our 

September report. We made a fairly significant revision to the June stocks numbers. As I talked 

about in the large session, that's really due to the new information we collected in September. 

Once you learn about the September quarter, it tells you something about the disappearance 

between the two quarters. It tells you a little bit about the relationship that exists quarter by 

quarter throughout the year. Having that extra information for that next quarter sometimes 

reveals something about how you may need to re-evaluate the estimates you set for the 

previous quarter. That was the driving force behind the revision. We always have the option to 

revise the previous quarter and at the end of the season we have an option to revise all the 

quarters throughout the year. It's largely built into the process. Gives us an opportunity to make 

changes like this also it helps us have an option of including things like late reports and things of 

that nature. As far as the revision that was made, again, it was based on relationships after 

gaining information on September quarter. Very limited late information comes in, so that was 

not the driving force but it is a component, revisions. That's why I pointed out. 

Question: Marvin Miller

When you report non-harvested acreages, do you ever report reasons, e.g., natural disasters in 

certain states, drought issues, floods, etc., in the commentary? 

Answer: Lance Honig 

In each of our crop production reports, on the back part of the report, you will find individual 

crop narratives, or text portions. Sometimes we will share some commentary on things that 
33 

have occurred for various crops throughout the year. It is largely anecdotal data at that point. 

The data is what it is. If something significant happens you are probably going to find some 

reference to it in the narrative on the back but not necessarily going to tell you how much of 

that abandonment, or non-harvested area was due to a specific source. It puts context around 

why you might be seeing values that are larger than you would see in a normal year. A little bit 

of information in the commentary. Certainly we are just providing the estimate. We are not 

trying to provide too many details as to why the estimates are where they are. 

Question: Wayne Stoskopf 

For the additional counties for corn and beans, what do they typically look like? For example, 

are they smaller in total acres for those crops? Any impacts on irrigated and non-irrigated 

estimates? 

Answer: Lance Honig 

It's a generalization I’ll make, but typically yes, those additional counties are probably in most 

cases going to tend to be smaller counties. The reason for that is we have two reasons you are 

going to see more counties published. The first reason is the elimination of the district 

boundaries. Those additional counties we are talking about are complementary suppressions, 

which means they met the standards on their own, but to ensure another county that didn't 

meet the standards -- that data cannot be revealed – so we had to not disclose the 

complementary county as well. The rule of thumb typically when you go to select a county to be 

that complementary suppression is you look to one of the smaller counties within the same 

district. By default, those tend to be a bit on the smaller side than what you would have seen. 

The other reason you are likely to see more counties published in the upcoming season is 

because of that additional coverage rule we put into place. The 10 reports and 10% coverage. 

It's harder to say if that would necessarily be larger or smaller counties. Intuitively, it kind of 

feels like they would tend to be smaller. The reality is that's going to be largely driven by the 

data we collect. Those additional counties means maybe we didn't have quite 30 reports, or 

quite 25 percent coverage but we did have more than 10 reports and 10% coverage. That's kind 

of a double-edged sword because in trying to determine if they’re small or large because on the 

one hand you might think it means they are small and that's why we couldn't get more reports. 

The flip side of things is it's harder to meet coverage in the large county than it is in a small 

county. You could likely see a mix of smaller and larger counties coming into play with the 

changes to the publication standards. 

Question: Bevan Everett

Did COVID-19 have any impact on data gathering this year that may not be an impact next year? 
34 

Answer: Lance Honig 

I have no idea what next year’s going to look like relative to COVID-19. I'm not going to 

speculate on that. The biggest impact to NASS relative to data collection, and I think we 

publicized this widely, is that under current situation face-to-face enumeration is obviously not 

an option for us to keep everybody safe. We utilize multiple methods for data collection. We 

mail forms out. Everyone has an opportunity to complete this online. We do a lot of phone 

follow-up to collect data. That was a change we had to make however, it did not prevent us 

from being able to collect data on any estimates we were publishing. 

Question: Dale Durchholz 

Do you think the crop condition ratings published weekly are having an impact on your farmer 

survey for the crop report? Have you looked to see if there's a correlation? 

Answer: Lance Honig 

I don't believe we've looked specifically at whether or not there is a correlation. I personally 

don't think there is. The crop condition information we collect comes from a completely 

different source. It's mostly county extension agents, some FSA employees, and various other 

individuals across the country who, as part of their normal work, have the opportunity to come 

in contact with both producers and see for themselves firsthand progress and conditions across 

the county they work in. I would say, probably no more than any other information that 

circulates out there on an ongoing basis that may impact farmers thoughts on what yields may 

be on an ongoing basis. 

Question: Marvin Hoekema

How does the milk cow survey differ between 50 state and 24 state releases? It seems the hard 

counts come with the 48 state releases with the largest revisions and the estimates are 

provided with the monthly 24 state updates. 

Answer: Travis Averill 

The milk production report at NASS we do a monthly survey and a quarterly survey. On a 

quarterly basis January, April, July, and October we gather information from the producers on 

milk cows. How many cows they have on their facility. Those off-quarter months we actually use 

strictly administrative data from various sources through the U.S. to account the 24 state 

programs and also use the administrative data to work back into the nonpublished 26 states 

that gives us the U.S. production levels on a monthly basis. 
35 

Question: John Ellis 

Is there a summary document outlining how your estimates (yields/acreage/production) are 

made? I.e., a digital copy of what you described verbally earlier in the presentation? If so, where 

might I find that description for each crop? 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig

Although there is not a document that provides the equivalent of the slides presented for corn 

for all remaining crops, NASS does have significant documentation regarding our survey and 

estimating processes available on our website at www.nass.usda.gov. 

Question: Bill McCary 

Comment: The crop condition data for several crops has an extremely useful relationship with 

yields. 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig 

Many data analysts have developed models that utilize crop condition estimates to forecast 

yield with mixed results. 

Question: Jerry Gerlach 

Will NASS consider moving report times to non-market hours, like somewhere in the 45 minute 

pause in the AM? Humans cannot compete against the computers on split second reaction 

times at report release. 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig

Many factors are considered when determining report times. The last time a change was made, 

a Federal Register Notice was issued seeking comment before a decision was made. Different 

data users have different preferences regarding what that time should be. As for non-market 

hours, NASS does not control when the markets are open or closed, so moving the report times 

would not necessarily guarantee that market open/closed times wouldn’t move also. 
36 

Breakout Session 1B: Foreign Production, Trade, and Imports/Exports

Question: Jeff Peterson 

Will this meeting continue to be virtual in the future? 

Answer: Mark Jekanowski 

I don't think any formal decision has been made yet, but I would not be surprised if even post 

pandemic we continue to have some sort of a virtual presence, maybe one time a year virtual 

and another time in person. I don't know, but those conversations have not happened yet and 

those decisions certainly have not been made. But just the very fact that we get so much more 

participation in this kind of setting, it is something we might want to continue doing in some 

form. 

Question: Bill Lapp 

ERS provides a great report on monthly exports of beef/pork/poultry in carcass weight 

equivalent - the day after the report is released. This is extremely valuable. Is there any reason 

that we could not get the same for wheat by class? 

Answer: Bill Chambers 

We will bring it up to ERS. This has come up and honestly it has kind of fell off my radar but we 

will bring it up. I think there is a certain possibility that we could do that but I do not want to 

speak for ERS. 

Answer: Mark Simone 

It is currently an internal number shared among the ICEC committee members. 

Answer: Bill Chambers 

Yes, we do in fact have the data and so I think it could be a possibility and I will bring it up again 

with ERS and see if we can have that happen. I think ERS is considering it and moving towards 

doing it, but I am not certain. 

Question: Brian Carroll 

USDA FAS Export Sales - One item of interest from the first session were exports to unknown 

destinations. Would the FAS consider digitizing its history or future volumes switched from 

Unknown to Known countries such as is being done on the PDF 'Bell' report? 

Answer: Post-meeting follow-up from Amy Harding 

After exploring this question, I have learned that we will not be able to generate a new report 

showing this information. However, we will include this request in the update to the Export 

Sales Reporting and Maintenance System scheduled to happen in the next couple of years. 
37 

Question: Karen Braun 

Question about GATS and Census data: is there a schedule for revision of past data? For 

example, sometimes I will download some export data and I will notice that data from the 

previous year, for example, is slightly different from what I previously downloaded. 

Answer: Joe DeCampo 

We revise our data the first week of every June, commensurate with the publication of April 

statistics, and that data goes back at that point 3 years. So, for example, this past year we 

revised 2017, 2018, and 2019. Then we always do it in three-year chunks going forward. Let me 

add, in the interim, we do publish corrections onto our Census website. It is just USA Trade 

online that is only updated once a year. I can send the link to where we post other corrections. 

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/corrections/index.html 

Question: Joe Kleinman 

Is there a place where WAOB/FAS detail for which countries they use official data from foreign 

countries and for which countries you use USDA estimates/numbers? It seems that USDA 

adopts official data from some countries at different points in the reporting/forecasting cycle 

and for some counties USDA uses USDA information. 

Answer: Mike Jewison 

There is no source that we publish in terms of line by line, country by country what the official 

source is. I would say it depends on the country and the commodity, it is not one size fits all 

depending upon the country and the commodity you’re looking at. In a general sense, if we 

believe the official data to be somewhat reliable, for example on the production side, and 

consistent with our view of the weather and satellite imagery, we adopt it, right? That does not 

always fit. So, in terms of actually having that laid out, I am not aware of it existing anywhere 

and it is something we can look at potentially. 

Answer: Mark Simone 

It would be great if we had a rule, every year, people could tell each country whether we 

adopted the data or not but some years we don't know. We have good reason for not taking the 

data for that particular country. I will not name that country, but we have made those kind of 

calls, and in other years we have taken it, adopted the production data. So, I really do not want 

to get into kind of a rule, it is a judgment call ultimately and varies on year and varies on country 

and varies on each commodity so yes, I will just leave it at that. It varies, bottom line. 

Question: Egery Sepling 

The Agricultural Statistics Board (ASB) filed the Italian type of cheese production by product 

Parmesan in U.S. was 32,410 pounds while import from Italy the Parmigiano Reggiano was 

9,389 tons. It's negative correlation. 
38 

How in the future would you assess the progress manufacturing Parmesan in U.S. linked with 

authentic designation of Origin which is Italy? Could it possible to overcome the divergences 

between two jurisdictions handling differently the right to produce Parmesan? 

Answer: Patrick Packnett 

This is not really a data question; the United States does not provide geographic indicator 

protections for any product including Parmesan cheese. And so, we don't restrict the production 

or marketing of Parmesan. Now the U.S. does have trademark protections for Parmigiano 

Reggiano, and so it is a protected trademark, but we don't equate Parmesan with Parmigiano 

Reggiano as they do in most of the European Union. We don't anticipate any change in our 

policy in that regard, and as I said Parmigiano Reggiano is a protected trademark and the market 

will have to determine what would be the production of Parmesan in the United States versus 

how much Parmigiano Reggiano we actually import. 

Question: Karen Braun 

Question for FAS on daily export sales: I did not feel like the question about allowing exporters 

to list buyers as "unknown" was answered in the last session. For what reason does the policy 

allow exporters to designate a buyer as unknown? From what I understand, sounds like it is very 

uncommon that a buyer or destination is truly unknown. 

Answer: Patrick Packnett 

I think what Amy answered earlier is that the regulations that we have on the books right now 

allow for it. And unless those are changed, then that is current practice. We do review the 

regulations from time to time, and it is something we can explore, but that is where things are 

right now. 

Answer: Post-meeting follow-up from Amy Harding 

The ability to report sales to unknown destinations is a longstanding feature of the ESR 

regulations. We will look into the origins and possible rationale and consider if this is something 

we need to propose changing the next time we update the regulations. 

Question: William Tehero 

What types of analytic tools do you use for your data? Is Excel your go-to software? 

Answer: Mike Jewison 

Everybody has different tools and we all know some folks in the audience are analysts and you 

deal with a lot of data on a daily basis. Myself personally, really varies and it varies in terms of 

the interface and if you are running a meeting and interacting with committee members and 

want to be able to present data in a very fluid format, python would be an example in the last 

few years that I found to be very useful. Obviously yes, Excel is a good crutch to lean on at 
39 

times. And some other folks I know use Stata or other statistical software for crunching data, 

but I would say especially for some of our in-house weather products, Mark, you could probably 

speak to that and we have a lot of automated weather products that our meteorologists use 

that interface ArcGIS and Python and combination of that so I would say it depends, but 

generally speaking besides Excel, Python, SAS, Stata, and I probably left some out and if 

anybody has any other ones that they use feel free to jump in. 

Answer: Mark Brusberg 

As a weather group, we do use Excel, because we have developed simple regression modeling. 

We also use ArcMap for our geographical information system. That is able to provide some 

statistical data in terms of what areas are impacted say by the footprint of a hurricane or by 

drought etc. You can bring in-situ data and satellite products into the same project which is very 

valuable. Actually, we used to be able to write our own software in Visual Basic, Mike 

mentioned Python, and for some reason the powers that be decided that Visual Basic was not 

good anymore so that sort of left us in a lurch. So yes, we have forced ourselves to be adaptive. 

We do try to stay on the state of the art. We do not use Lotus 123 anymore or dBase IV, things 

like that. We have been successful in migrating. 

Answer: Patrick Packnett 

I think we are using a lot of the data products that have already been mentioned by Mike and 

others. Of course, our production guys are using a lot of geospatial data, so they are using the 

ESRI software and ArcGIS. I would just like to note here, that FAS has developed a new product 

that is available to the public called GADAS. We plugged it at this meeting in the past, but it is a 

pretty slick geospatial data tool that is pulling in all of the satellite imagery and weather, rainfall 

data, everything that we basically use to do our crop analysis is available out there to the public 

through our GADAS interface and we’re using the same interface to do our crop analysis 

internally. So, shameless plug there for that system which we put a lot of effort into developing 

that and we think it is making our work a lot more efficient. 

Answer: Bob Tetrault 

In addition to the ArcMap and Excel and Python that was all mentioned, the web GIS, Patrick 

just talked about, the GADAS system, is our latest and that is built off of the ESRI software but it 

is available, as Patrick said, to the public through a web interface. That is one of our go-to 

analytical tools right now. 

Question: Jerry Gidel 

Mike Jewison, Despite the NASS response to volatility of stocks question earlier, could the 

quality of the crop a major reason for this discrepancy. Corn's test weight and starch levels 

reducing the US ethanol conversion rate is a leading indicator. Has World Board consider this in 

its analysis. A 400 million jump in yearly feed usage seems out of place even with higher 

slaughter weights in the second half of US corn crop year. 
40 

Answer: Mike Jewison 

I mentioned in the previous session how to think of feed and residual mathematically. And I will 

say just right off the bat, I don’t think there is any right answer. There is a number of possible 

explanations for the volatility. I think to do justice to this conversation this really should involve 

NASS because we at the World Board are not privy to the survey data. So, I think a truly valuable 

discussion should obviously involve NASS, but from my perspective, yes, certainly test rates 

could be a possibility. The question is if you are going to try to capture that, how would you do 

it, in a survey? It might be hard to do. If you think through mechanically, understanding it is hard 

-- survey responses in general people do not like to respond, but NASS does fairly well in 

response rates related to other industries. But just trying to think through mechanically, and 

again I am not the NASS expert and NASS is the gold standard for collection and dissemination 

of publicly available agricultural statistics, right? They set the bar. But yes, test weight, certainly 

a possibility. Error in the other usage categories and you mention conversion weights for corn 

used for ethanol, right? Well, you're comparing EIA series to a NASS series and not quite apples 

to apples, right? And there will be some expected variabilities and that number. And obviously I 

will throw it out there because there are people that are listening here, the feed residual 

number has been quite humbling and this will probably not be the last time I say this and it is 

quite humbling to try to forecast that, obviously there are other analyst that struggle a bit with 

it too but there is certainly a rational conversation maybe we could have. Is it a stocks survey 

thing? It is a method as far as that goes? I don't know, this conversation should occur, 

unfortunately with NASS and given the time constraints, we can’t get to that deep of a 

conversation in the first session, but certainly something we should at least talk publicly about 

because I think again as NASS would say, they do the best within the tools that they are given. 

And they are trying to improve every single time, right? So, something to think about going 

forward but definitely I would prefer -- I am the guy at the World Board again, no influence, not 

privy to any of the survey collections and how that all fits together, so good question and I 

appreciate it. 

Question: Joseph Lardy 

If I query FAS weekly data for pork exports to China and compare that to the monthly GATS 

data, they are very different. On the weekly in May, net sales to china on pork is 2,949 tons. 

The GATS query has 108,869 tons. Why the difference? I was told the weekly doesn’t count the 

same things but aren’t all exports just that...exports? 

Answer: Patrick Packnett 

Our weekly export sales data has sales and shipments exports whereas the GATS is just all 

exports. And these numbers have never been exactly the same. 

Answer: Lindsay Kuberka 

I looked at this about a month ago, and if you compare GATS, you want to use the right 
41 

grouping because exports sales reporting only captures muscle cuts and does not include Offals 

and variety meats and prepared and processed products. If you use the FATUS grouping in GATS 

which is pork, fresh and frozen, you'll get a pretty good approximation of what should be in 

export sales. And when I look at the number for China in particular, year-to-date, we are at 

about 92% coverage for ESR so that means export sales reporting is capturing about 92% of 

what it should be when you compare to the official trade data. So, there is going to be a little bit 

of difference because we are comparing weekly data to monthly data and there is of course 

some different product coverage. The good news is that the export sales report for pork now 

captures a lot more trade than it did a few years ago when the requirement for pork was 

introduced. 

Question: Ken Lovett 

Follow-up on ethnaol calc ... what conversion are you using for bushels of corn vs gal of 

ethanol? 

Answer: Mike Jewison 

Obviously as I stated before, it’s EIA data relative to what the NASS survey data says and 

understanding that it is not quite apples to apples. It’s the historical relationship between the 

NASS survey data and the EIA survey data and the interplay between these two would be our 

assumption for the conversion rate, which as you know can be volatile at times, but obviously 

for consistency sake we try to maintain that month in and month out and obviously adjust as we 

see new data. 

Question: Jeff Peterson 

How is corn used for ethanol calculated in the WASDE report? 

Answer: Mike Jewison 

In a broad sense, obviously we start with assumptions for motor gasoline consumption in the 

US, trade, in terms of ethanol trade exports and imports, in addition to stocks. We rely heavily 

on what EIA says for forecast obviously they have a structural model for the short run for motor 

gasoline consumption, but we also utilize some judgment based on the latest weekly indications 

from the EIA weekly petroleum status reports. 

Question: Todd Preszler 

In Weekly Exports the data can have spikes, where the implied exports are 2-3 times higher than 

recently. Is this a lag in paperwork? 

Answer: Patrick Packnett 

It is probably not a lag in paperwork and not a lag in paperwork from the FAS perspective. I 

don't know in terms of the actual reporters, but we do have regulations that require the sales to 
42 

be reported within a specific timeframe, so they are not supposed to be saving them up and 

reporting them all at once. It is a requirement to report it timely. 

Answer: Amy Harding 

Periodically we do have late reporting, but it is not anything that is really all that large. I imagine 

that might show a little bit of a spike every now and then. But there is a definite timeframe in 

which the exporters have to report their weekly data. So, it would just be that there are more 

sales and more exports in any given timeframe. 

Question: Egery Sepling 

FAS was saying the trademark has registered successfully, so, would you anticipate to deploy IoT 

sensored GPS ID written into decentralized blocks for preventing counterfeit Parmigiano 

Reggiano manufacturing? 

Answer: Patrick Packnett 

Yes, I am not sure I really understand the question. And even if I did, I probably don't have an 

answer unfortunately. I apologize for that, but you know if the questioner wants to provide 

more clarification and send it in; it is something we can look at, but this is probably outside of 

my jurisdiction. 

Question: Joseph Lardy 

We can see inspection data and sale data each week. When we get to the end of the marketing 

year, how is the final WASDE export number derived? 

Answer: Mark Simone 

For the grains and oilseeds, we use U.S. Census data. That’s our final number. 

Answer: Mike Jewison 

The one exception being cotton, essentially cotton is in a different world, but I don't think the 

inference of this question relates to cotton. 

Question: Jerry Gidel 

Given the volatility of world weather are you keeping a close a sharp eye on conditions in 

important growing area by satellite? Unfortunately, US dryness wasn't fully calculated in the 

USDA's 181 bu corn yield in August. Are the attache leaving the office? 

Answer: Mark Brusberg 

If I understand the question correctly, it is do we use satellite information? We do use some 

composite products, one of the strongest ones we found is that vegetative health index, which 

is a combination of the bands of the satellite looking at vegetation but also temperature. And 
43 

then we could get a pretty good approximation if there is any stress due to dryness. Other than 

that, we do use a lot of the actual weather observations. If you are referring to the drought, the 

drought monitor does use in-situ data and some satellite products. The drought monitor is not 

always a good proxy for what the actual losses are, as a matter fact, I think that is one of its 

shortcomings. Having said that, you know we do use these products globally and as Patrick 

pointed out, Foreign Ag Service does have some of the products that they use operationally in 

support of the WASDE online so there is a lot of information going into the WASDE and into the 

drought monitor into other things that are monitoring international crop production. 

Question: Callie McAdams 

Could you share the website for the online geographic data analytic tool you mentioned? 

Written Answer: 

GADAS: https://geo.fas.usda.gov/GADAS/index.html 

Question: Brittney Wells 

What website can we find those (export sales reporting) reports on? 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Patrick Packnett 

https://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/export-sales-reporting-program

The link to the reports is in the middle of the page. 

Question: Joe Kleinman 

Are FAS attache s&d data available digitally? 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Patrick Packnett 

Post forecasts and PSDs are available in GAIN reports, there is not a separate digital source. 

Question: Ken Lovett 

With the monthly PS&D data set releases, the livestock portions are published for download 

later than the grains and oilseeds. Is it possible to release all the data at the same time? 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Patrick Packnett 

Livestock and poultry data are released at 3 PM on the same day as the WASDE report in 

January, April, July, and October. We currently have no plans to change the timing of the report. 
44 

Breakout Session 2A: Ensuring Accuracy of Market News Reports

Question: Jose Montes 

AMS has been updating the way to research for reports. In the past, one could find reports 

using report title: LetterLetter_LetterLetterNumberNumberNumber and a date range. The 

new method is more focused on Slug ID or Slug Name, and a specific date is requested. 

Furthermore, in the past one could go back up to 5 years, whereas the new method search 

method does not go beyond 3 years back. Where can we find information on how to use the 

new research method, i.e. find corresponding Slug ID’s to Report Titles, how to search for date 

ranges and how can we request data older than 3 years? 

Answer: Jason Karwal 

Currently we are still in the process of moving archived reports to the My Market News site. We 

had an issue with some of the metadata with those reports. We had to stop and reassess how 

we were doing that. We are back to loading them, some reports are completed and some still in 

process. We plan to have five years of archives available on My Market News by the end of the 

calendar year. There are different ways to get that data. As I just mentioned there will 

eventually be a web API to pull the files down. We also have specific report landing pages where 

the files can be found. If there are currently reports that people need, we have the ability to get 

those for you. Contact me directly or through the contact information on My Market News. If 

there are issues with searching reports or trying to figure out what IDs or reports have been 

changed to, there are resources. Again, we are available, and we can help with any questions 

related to that. 

Question: Marvin Hoekema 

Is there an easier way to search for reports on MARS? Now you either have to search by the 

slug or through the plethora of menu items. There does not seem to be a plain text 'google' 

Boolean search for reports/commodity terms. Is that possible for MARS? A common complaint 

of MARS from people I work with is that it is very difficult to find the information. Thanks. 

Answer: Jason Karwal 

The My Market News site is where the report archives are, the AMS site is still where the 

current report is housed. That would be my first suggestion if you’re looking for the most recent 

edition. If you’re looking for archives, we are still finishing that piece up and there will be a web 

API available that is specifically for searching and pulling down the report files. If you are 

searching for the data that is what is available on the data page of My Market News. There are a 

few ways to do it. If you contact us, we could walk through that. The data is by report, and I’m 

not sure if that’s where the confusion lies. 
45 

Question: Carolyn Liebrand 

Agree very hard to find data by key word. 

Answer: Jason Karwal 

There are different filters for the data itself. I am not sure if it is the data or reports you’re 

looking for. There are ways to drill into that, but it is specific. Again, we can walk anybody 

through that. 

Question: Charlie Balstad 

Is there an index to find the slug by the old report title, ie. what is the slug for SJ_LS710? 

Answer: Jason Karwal 

There are resources. There are several files on My Market News set up with that exact 

information of the reports their old slug and the new ones if they’ve changed. That’s on the 

resources page on my market news. For both dairy and livestock that have changed. 

Answer: Mike Lynch 

Under the My Market News home page there is a link on the home and it says general 

resources. There is a spreadsheet we do our darndest to keep up to date with legacy slug 

numbers to new slug numbers. Going back to the search engine, on the file repository search 

the report title input box, accepts partial keywords. If you just know the word Kentucky, or 

cattle, if you do a partial word, it will work. We are seeking to improve the flexibility of that to 

be more Google friendly. 

https://mymarketnews.ams.usda.gov/general-resources

Answer: Jason Karwal 

One thing to remember is in April and May we did discontinue a lot of the old text reports on 

LMR. A lot of those reports completely changed, which is why a lot of people get hung up on 

searching for some of those. We do have those changes and those Excel files as well. 

Question: Joel Greene 

Mandatory programs seem to have achieved goals. Any thoughts on whether or not mandatory 

programs should be extended to other commodities, e.g., specialty crops. 

Answer: Mike Lynch 

It is more of an industry driven initiative. An industry ask, if that industry wanted to do that I do 

not see AMS deciding that this works so great for livestock meat and dairy products, let’s make 

a mandate that makes other commodity areas send data to us. It would have to come from the 

stakeholders. 
46 

Question: Ashley Lowe 

Very difficult to find by keyword because the words have to be in the exact order of title. For 

example, I can type "livestock slaughter" and get reports but when I type "slaughter livestock" I 

get no results at all. 

Answer: John Gallagher 

It is finicky but we are working on enhancing flexibility. My recommendation and Jason would 

say the same, keep it simple. Do one word. Once you find the report you can always use the slug 

number. We hear your feedback. We are working to address it. I assure you that. 
47 

Breakout Session 2B: Using Satellite Data

Question: Jeff Peterson 

How much of weighting does the satellite data have in determining the objective yield? 

Answer: Lance Honig 

If you are talking about the objective yield survey, then it will be no impact. Those are 

completely independent processes. The objective yield information is based solely on the 

information that our enumerators capture from going into the fields and taking counts, 

measurements, and harvesting portions of those fields. If the question is really about how much 

weight the satellite data get in determining estimates, I’ll hold off until after my presentation 

which will hopefully shed some light on that. 

Question: Mark Nelson 

Will the PowerPoint presentations be made available? 

Answer: Lance Honig 

They will be. I think our intent is to attach them to the end of the transcript. Yes, the answer is 

the presentations will be provided after the fact. 

Question: Bill Lapp 

As I understand it, corn crop estimates are published based upon an equivalent moisture level 

(15%?). If the crop in a given area is higher in moisture (say 18%), it is adjusted DOWNWARD to 

reflect a "wetter than normal" crop. If the crop in a given area is drier than normal, would it be 

safe to assume the crop is revised UPWARD? 

Answer: Lance Honig 

Here we will be talking about the objective yield survey. The answer is yes, the way the math 

works in the models for the objective yield, everything is adjusted to that standard moisture 

level whether it needs to be adjusted up or down. That is factored in. And so, from that 

perspective, the answer is yes. 

Question: Bryce Knorr 

How many years of data do you use for your remote sensing crop yield models? 

Answer: Lance Honig 

Are you referring to internally, the work that Rick and his staff does, how many years do they 

use, I’ll let Rick answer that. Whether it is satellite information or any other indication on our 
48 

side of the house, we tend to look at 5, 10 and even in some cases, 15 years of data as we 

evaluate all the indications. 

Answer: Rick Mueller 

When we are building the model, we are going back and drilling into time back into 2006-2007. 

For the actual model of that year, we are just using the data collected for that growing season, 

beginning in April and running through till August-September-October reporting periods. 

Answer: Lance Honig 

We take all of those indications they provide to us and we evaluate them over time. We have a 

number of years available to us. Off the top of my head, I do not remember exactly how many 

years we have with the current yield model but it is quite a few. We do have a good history that 

we can draw upon for performance. 

Answer: Dave Johnson 

It really goes back to 2008. That was the year we had good land cover information for the Corn 

Belt. So, we have a number of years at hand. 

Question: Todd Preszler 

For the current growing season, how do you determine which MODIS pixels to include as a corn 

pixel? 

Answer: Dave Johnson 

That is where the CDL comes into play. Having that internally within the season helps us mask 

out the corn or soybean pixels, so using higher resolution information to mask out the coarser 

resolution. I will say just through a matter of experience that the mask can be fairly general, so 

even if you do not have a great CDL the model still works pretty wonderfully. If you have a goodlooking cornfield, the soybean field across the road is probably good-looking too. Even if there is 

a mixing of crops in the MODIS pixels, it still seems to work out. 

Question: Andrea Massetti 

Does the CDL change during the year? Is it revised? Why is it published in February? 

Answer: Rick Mueller 

The CDL is held confidentially for each production cycle/period. In June, we are focusing mainly 

on winter wheat. As we move into August and September, we are going to more and more 

states. We cannot release that because it is considered market sensitive data at that point. We 

basically release it in February when we have completed all 48 states and the markets have 

settled and everything is published. This is kind of like publishing coincident with the county 

estimates in February. 
49 

Question: Xing Liu 

Which satellite product do you use in estimating the acreage? MODIS terra? 

Answer: Rick Mueller 

I talked about basically in the beginning of my talk, we are using medium resolution satellites. 

That was the DMC satellite, Landsat, Sentinel, Resourcesat. That's all 30 meter based products. 

The MODIS terra/ MODIS aqua is used for the crop yield. That is 250 meters. That is lower 

resolution, but the premise of MODIS is daily observation. The Landsat and Sentinel gives us 

less frequent coverage, but higher resolution. 

Question: Sigurd Lindquist 

Any ideas as to how many acres are not reported at the FSA office? 

Answer: Lance Honig 

That does vary by crop and by state. As I mentioned earlier, in general we will say more than 

95% for some crops. For some it could be 98%, maybe even more. It varies geographically. 

There are some parts of the country where there are larger populations who choose not to 

participate in some of those programs, therefore, coverage may be a bit lower. There could be 

other spots where participation is even higher. Overall, I think as a general rule more than 95%, 

so very strong coverage. 

Question: Elaine Kub 

FSA acres reported by farmers should be available by mid-July, right? Couldn't those be used (as 

sample data, but not total acreage, obviously) sooner than October? 

Answer: Lance Honig 

There’s a couple of factors there, and history has taught us, you can even go out and download 

the information directly from the FSA website. They post it out there on a monthly basis, August 

through January, and you can see for yourself that’s simply not the case. There’s a variety of 

factors that can cause that. Number one, not everyone reports by the reporting deadline. There 

are reasons for that, it just is what it is. But in addition to that there’s a process they have to go 

through to have that data all uploaded and incorporated into the process. I’m not going to try to 

explain why that might take as long as it does from an FSA perspective, it’s a massive amount of 

information, but the bottom line is the data itself reveals on a reporting basis, it isn’t complete 

until early October. In an early planting season, it can be a little earlier than that but even then 

you’re still talking a September timeframe, and certainly not a July timeframe. So, the data just 

bears out the answer to that question. 
50 

Answer: Joe Parsons 

We have done some fairly large-scale investigations using FSA as a sampling frame. It results in 

some challenges. There are some other ways we can use FSA data to reduce burden and we 

have and are continuing to investigate that. It’s a complicated answer, but to simply use it as a 

sampling frame within season turns out to be pretty challenging both due to its incompleteness 

and trying to make it work in a short period of time. 

Question: Elaine Kub 

To clarify, farmers' deadline for reporting planted row crop acreage to most Midwestern county 

FSA offices is July 15, I think. I realize it's not yet official "certified" acreage, but as much info as 

is available in the system ... couldn't it be sampled and used as an indicator already in July? 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig 

NASS does review the FSA acreage totals throughout the growing season, even before the 

reporting deadlines have passed. Based on the analysis we have completed with this data, we 

have not found it to be complete enough to be reliable that early in the season. 

Question: Jeff Peterson 

What was the URL of cropscape? 

Written Answer: 

https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/ 

Question: Xing Liu 

How do you decide the threshold of calculating the NDVI integral? Same value for all the 

counties?

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Rick Mueller 

As mentioned in the presentation, our remotely-sensed yield modeling relies heavily on 

accumulating NDVI over a set threshold through the season and relating that to yield. We’ve 

spent a lot of time trying to understand the best threshold and unfortunately have not found 

there to be a single value that works universally. In other words, it varies by geography, scale, 

and crop type. Having said that however, for corn and soybeans at a Corn Belt level an NDVI 

value of between 0.55 and 0.60 is where the model optimizes. If focused more locally on a 

region that has higher average yields that value probably needs to be set greater than 0.60. 

Conversely, an area with lower yields works better with a lower value than 0.55. 
51 

Question: John Ellis 

Will the crops included in the CDL data dwindle over time as NASS efforts decline?

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Rick Mueller 

The crops included in the CDL are derived from the USDA/FSA/Common Land Unit (CLU) and are 

independent of NASS reported data. There are no expectations that the CLU data will dwindle 

since there are farm program incentives for producers to report their data to FSA. The CDL 

program uses the NASS/JAS data to produce internal estimates of acreage during the growing 

season and we are working on methods to use the CLU as the basis for modeling acreage rather 

than use NASS/JAS. So, expectations are that the CDL will continue to capture newly reported 

crops in the FSA/CLU program and expand upon the number of crops identified and will 

continue to provide NASS an independent assessment of crop acreage and inform upon 

disasters when/where possible. 

Question: Andrea Massetti 

What do you mean "satellite" indication in corn planted area slide? Visual examination?

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig 

This is in reference to the modeled acreage indications based on satellite imagery analysis 

completed by NASS. 

Question: Sigurd Lindquist 

What is the response rate of farmers surveys?

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig 

Response rates vary from survey to survey, and state by state, however in general they tend to 

average 60-75%. 

Question: Alan Brugler 

Does NASS use the satellite data to fill in holes in the farmer survey data?

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig 

NASS does not specifically substitute satellite data for gaps in farmer reported data, however 

satellite data is helpful in interpreting survey results, especially when there are multiple survey 

sources. 
52 

Question: Joe Kleinman 

Why don't you use FSA and RMA yield/production data for final production numbers? Wider 

coverage and accuracy than NASS Farm surveys.

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig 

Although producers do report their planted acreage to FSA, they do not report information 

regarding harvested area, yield, or production. NASS does not have full access to yield data from 

RMA and therefore has not been able to evaluate it as a data source. Timing is also a factor with 

RMA yield data since producers are not required to report final data until purchasing the 

following year’s policies. 

Question: Jeff Peterson 

Why would the crop yield get adjusted up if the harvested moisture is below 15% on corn?

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig 

The mathematical formula used to calculate yield for objective yield sample data includes a 

factor to adjust to standard moisture content. This only impacts the objective yield indications. 

Question: Ken Lovett 

Pertaining to future derivative products, would NASS consider leveraging the CDL to provide 

state level percentages of crop rotation combinations (such as corn-on-corn, corn-after-soy, 

soy-after-corn, etc)? Similar to the percentage of soy following another crop. 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig 

NASS is always exploring ways to provide information that is useful to the agricultural 

community subject to available resources. 

Question: Scott Irwin 

Would you consider publishing historical statistics on the accuracy of different yielding 

indications for corn and soybeans? 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig 

NASS remains committed to being as transparent as possible while maintaining the integrity of 

the data used in our estimating processes, including exploring ways of potentially providing 

more measures of accuracy for various indications. 

Question: Dale Durchholz 

How has the loss of plant population impacted the ability to project yields in August? This year's 

shift in ear pop was especially notable. Has it made the Aug forecast less valuable; should it 
53 

simply be abandoned? 

Answer: Post-meeting answer from Lance Honig 

We don’t believe that the absence of objective yield data in August has reduced the accuracy of 

the August yield forecasts and therefore don’t believe it is less valuable. 

 
54 

Presentation Slides

Following this page are the slides presented during the Data Users’ Meeting. 

 Main Session 

 Breakout Session 1A: Program Changes 

 Breakout Session 2A: Ensuring Accuracy of Market News Reports 

 Breakout Session 2B: Using Satellite Data 
United States Department of Agriculture

2020 Fall Data Users’ Meeting 

2020 

USDA Fall Data Users’ Meeting

October 28, 2020

Joe Parsons

Chair, Agricultural Statistics Board
United States Department of Agriculture

2020 Fall Data Users’ Meeting 

Agenda

12:30pm Welcome and Agency Introductions

12:40pm Open Forum

1:40pm Break

1:50pm Breakout Session #1

2:35pm Break

2:45pm Breakout Session #2

3:30pm End
United States Department of Agriculture

2020 Fall Data Users’ Meeting 

• Closed captioning links provided in registration 

confirmation, the email attachment sent yesterday, or in the 

chat window.

• The session is being recorded and will be available on our 

website: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Education_and_Outreach/Meeting/index.php

• Transcript of Q&A with any additional questions we don’t 

have time to answer will be available on our website and 

emailed to all attendees.

Housekeeping
United States Department of Agriculture

2020 Fall Data Users’ Meeting 

Asking a Question in Zoom 

Q&A – Questions will be answered live by our panelists or by 

typed response

Raise Hand – We will unmute you to ask a verbal question

Chat – Technical Issues

Email - Marisa.Reuber@usda.gov or LaKeya.Jones@usda.gov
United States Department of Agriculture

2020 Fall Data Users’ Meeting 

• Coronavirus operational information from NASS:

– The health and safety of our employees, enumerators, and 

survey respondents are our first priority.

– We have stopped in-person data collection for now and 

strongly encourage farmers and ranchers to respond online.

– All reports remain on schedule and we will announce any 

changes to our publication schedule, if there are any, as 

quickly as possible by news release, our website, and 

twitter(@usda_nass).

–USDA has a series of questions and answers regarding 

COVID-19 at USDA.gov/coronavirus across a host of topics 

and agencies. Your question may have already been 

addressed on the Q&A on the website.
United States Department of Agriculture

2020 Fall Data Users’ Meeting 

• Mike Conner, Petroleum and Biofuels Statistics Team, Energy 

Information Administration, Department of Energy 

• Statistics Canada

• INEGI – Mexico

Introductions
United States Department of Agriculture

2020 Fall Data Users’ Meeting 

• Dr. Spiro Stefanou, ERS Administrator

• Dr. Cindy Nickerson, USDA Deputy Chief Economist

• Hubert Hamer, NASS Administrator

Introductions
United States Department of Agriculture

2020 Fall Data Users’ Meeting 

• Mike Lynch, Agricultural Marketing Service 

• Kelly Maguire, Economic Research Service 

• Patrick Packnett, Foreign Agricultural Service 

• Brad Karmen, Farm Service Agency 

• Mark Jekanowski, World Agricultural Outlook Board 

• Joseph DeCampo, U.S. Census Bureau 

• Dan Kerestes, National Agricultural Statistics Service 

Panelists
United States Department of Agriculture

2020 Fall Data Users’ Meeting 

Open Forum

Q&A – Questions will be answered live by our panelists or by 

typed response

Raise Hand – We will unmute you to ask a verbal question

Email - Marisa.Reuber@usda.gov or LaKeya.Jones@usda.gov
United States Department of Agriculture

2020 Fall Data Users’ Meeting 

Breakout Sessions

Session A Session B

1:50 p.m. Program Changes Foreign Production, Trade, 

and Import/Export Data

2:35 p.m. 10 Minute Break

2:45 p.m. Ensuring Accuracy of 

Market News Reports Using Satellite Data

Links to join can be found in

• Your registration email 

• Agenda emailed yesterday

• Chat window
2020 USDA NASS Data Users’ Meeting

Program Changes

Lance Honig, Chief

Crops Branch

October 28, 2020
Agenda

October 28, 2020

Crop 

County 

Estimates

Elimination of Agricultural Statistics 

District (ASD) Estimates

Reduction of Crops & Practices

Implementation of Model-Based Estimates

Updated Publication Standards

Additional 

Published 

Estimates

Number of Acres Remaining to be Planted in 

June Acreage; Number of Acres Remaining to 

be Harvested in Annual Crop Production.
Elimination of ASD Estimates

October 28, 2020

Why?

Allows publication of more county level estimates

Consistent with Livestock and Census of Agriculture

District boundaries can be arbitrary

What Else? No in-season ASD forecasts

When? Effective with 2020 crop year
Elimination of ASD Estimates

October 28, 2020

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

Barley Corn Cotton Oats Peanuts Rice Sorghum Soybeans Wheat

Counties Published and Additional Counties Eligible

Approximate Counts for 2019 Estimates

Published Additional
Reduction of Crops and Practices

October 28, 2020

Why? Reduced Funding

What Was 

Eliminated?

Dry Edible Beans, Flaxseed, Hay, Potatoes, 

Sugarbeets, Sugarcane, Sunflower, Tobacco

Irrigated/Non-Irrigated Practices

When? Effective With 2019 Crop Year

What 

Remains?

Barley, Corn, Cotton, Oats, Peanuts, Rice, 

Sorghum, Soybeans, Wheat
Implementation of Model-Based Estimates

October 28, 2020

Why?

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and 

Medicine Panel Recommendation

Transparent and Reproducible

Allows Publication of Estimates of Precision (CVs)

When? Effective With 2020 Crop Year
Implementation of Model-Based Estimates

October 28, 2020

Key Points

Survey data remains critical

Increased transparency with ability to publish “recipe”

Model improves estimates in cases of sparse data by 

drawing strength from auxiliary data 

Utilizes Bayesian Modeling Techniques
Implementation of Model-Based Estimates

October 28, 2020

Planted

Area Inputs

Survey Planted Area Expansion and Standard Error

FSA Certified Acres

RMA Insured Acres

State Planted Estimate
Implementation of Model-Based Estimates

October 28, 2020

Harvested 

Area Inputs

Survey Harvested-to-Planted Ratio and Standard Error

FSA Failed Acres

RMA Failed Acres

Rounded Planted Estimate

State Harvested Estimate
Implementation of Model-Based Estimates

October 28, 2020

Yield

Inputs

Survey Yield Indication and Standard Error

National Commodity Crop Productivity Index (NCCPI)

State Yield Estimate

Cotton Ginnings (Covariate)
Implementation of Model-Based Estimates

October 28, 2020

Production

Not Modeled

Harvested Area Estimate x Yield Estimate (Rounded)

Modeling Technique Produces CV (Published)
Updated Publication Standards

October 28, 2020

Why Have 

Them?

Ensure individual operation data remains 

confidential

Ensure estimates are “fit for use”

Why 

Update?

Maximize Counties Published

Panel Recommendation

What Was 

New? Market Facilitation Program Data

When? Effective with 2020 crop year
Updated Publication Standards

October 28, 2020

Confidentiality

Ensures no individual’s information is revealed.

Must have at least 3 positive reports of yield.

No single operation can represent large proportion of 

total for county.

No Change to These Rules
Updated Publication Standards

October 28, 2020

Acreage 

Threshold

Small acreage is troublesome to estimate.

Estimate of Harvested Acreage must be at least 100.

Old Rule – Estimate of 

Planted Acreage must be 

at least 500.
Updated Publication Standards

October 28, 2020

Coverage

Minimum of 30 positive yield reports.

OR

Reported harvested acreage from reports with 

positive production must account for at least 25% of 

the harvested acreage estimate.

OR

Minimum of 10 positive yield reports AND Reported 

harvested acreage from reports with positive 

production must account for at least 10% of the 

harvested acreage estimate.

Third “Option” was Added
Updated Publication Standards

October 28, 2020

Cotton 

Exception

Due to the quality of administrative data for cotton 

(ginnings), coverage requirements may be disregarded 

if production is at least 5,000 bales.
Updated Publication Standards

October 28, 2020

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

Barley Corn Cotton Oats Peanuts Rice Sorghum Soybeans Wheat

Counties Eligible Under Old and New Standards

Approximate Counts for 2019 Estimates

Eligible Under Old Additional Under New
Additional Published Estimates

October 28, 2020

June Acreage

Number of Acres Remaining to be Planted

U.S. Corn and Soybeans

Added in Response to Multiple Requests

Annual Crop 

Production

Number of Acres Remaining to be Harvested

U.S. Corn and Soybeans

Added in Response to Multiple Requests
#StatChat

October 28, 2020
All Reports Available At

www.nass.usda.gov

For Questions

(202) 577-6558

Lance.Honig@usda.gov

Ensuring Accuracy of Market News 

Reports

AMS is committed to providing Timely, Accurate, 

Comprehensive, and Unbiased Market Data

https://mymarketnews.ams.usda.gov/

Review, Verification, and Correction Procedures for both 

Mandatory and Voluntary Livestock and Dairy reports

DPMRP, FMOS, Market News, and My Market News
 Weekly Procedures

 Revisions

 Annual Validations

 Audits

 Personal and regular contact with reporters

 Ongoing training for reporters, auditors, and program staff 

DPMRP: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/mmr/dmr

Dairy Product Mandatory Reporting Program (DPMRP)

7 CFR 1170
 Review Procedures

 Revisions

 My Market News

 Datamart

 API 

FMOS: https://www.ams.usda.gov/resources/marketing-order-statistics

Datamart: https://mpr.datamart.ams.usda.gov/

API User Guide: 

https://mpr.datamart.ams.usda.gov/USDA%20LMPRS%20API%20UserGuide.pdf

Federal Marketing Order Statistics (FMOS)
Livestock Mandatory Reporting (LMR)

7 CFR 59

Reporting Staff

 Daily Checklists

 Internal System Checks

 Reporters Communication With Plants

 Weekly Data Reviews & Tracking

 Report Revisions

LPGMN Reports: https://www.ams.usda.gov/market-news/livestock-poultry-grain
Livestock Mandatory Reporting (LMR)

7 CFR 59

Auditors

 Procedures

 Pre-audit Tools

 Communication With Reporters

 Scheduled Audits 

 Formal Written Reports of Audit Results

 Conduct Periodic Spot Checks

LMR: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/mmr/lmr
Voluntary Price Reporting (VPR)

Reporting Staff

 Speak with both buyers and sellers to confirm trading

 Pre-Release Report Checklist

 Post-Release Report Checklist

 Weekly / Bi-Weekly Data Review 

 Contact Visits 

 Reporter Certification (2-year cycle)

MMN Reports & Data: https://mymarketnews.ams.usda.gov/
MARS and My Market News Updates

Recent and Upcoming Changes and Updates 

 New Market Type Data Available on MMN

 New Web API for Identifying Corrections

 New Feature to for Identifying Corrected Data Sets Through MARS and LMR 

API Coming

 New Feature to Pull Report Files Through a Web API Coming

 Process of Updating Documentation on MMN

 New Market Type Data Sets Coming to MMN in Next 6 months

MMN: https://mymarketnews.ams.usda.gov/
Questions?
NASS Remote Sensing Program

Rick Mueller & Dave Johnson

Spatial Analysis Research Section
Cropland Data Layer

• Estimate crop acreage

• Monitor crops throughout 

growing season

• 30 meter spatial resolution 

• National annual landcover 

product

12+ years

• Over 100+ crop categories

• Built using machine 

learning/decision trees
Cropland Data Layer Inputs

Supplemental Ground 

Reference Data

2016 NLCD & 

Derivative 

products

Farm Service Agency: 

Common Land Unit

DMC Deimos-1 & UK2, 

Resourcesat-2, Sentinel-2 

A/B, Landsat 8 
Remote Sensing Workflow

CropScape

NRCS Geospatial Data Gateway

NASS website

Cropland Data Layer

Derivative Product Layers

Confidence

Cultivated 

Crop Frequency

Yield Modeling and Estimation

Disaster Assessments

Area Sampling Frame

June Area Survey Imputation

Land in Farms

Soil Moisture

Acreage Estimates

Ag Statistics Board
CropScape: CDL Dissemination

CropScape: https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/
Yield Goals

• Provide independent 

indications of corn and 

soybean yields utilizing 

remotely sensed data

• For inclusion into the Crop 

Production Forecasts 

– August, September, 

October, November

– National/Speculative 

region, state, and a few 

ASDs

• Follow with county-level 

indications after season is 

complete
Remote Sensing Crop Yield 

Modeling and Estimation 

• Premise

• Positive correlation between crop yield and biomass – plant 

vigor - “greenness” - NDVI

• Negative correlation between crop yield and land surface 

temperature

• Utilize time-series MODIS satellite 

data to obtain biomass and 

temperature estimates throughout 

growing season

• Construct empirically-based prediction model based on 

historical imagery and NASS county-level yield statistics

• Integrating over season

• Use Cropland Data Layer to isolate known crop areas
Relationship between available MODIS 

variables and crop yield

• County-level time-series database was 

built from 2006 -> present

• Every eight day exists a MODIS observation 

through the growing season which can be 

averaged to county-level

• For every county we also know the NASS 

published average yield historically

• Thus, we can look at the relationships and 

if strong enough build yield models

8
A relatively simple model construction

Integrate NDVI 

chart

Calculate area under the 

curve, over a threshold 

and relate to past years.

Find Optimal 

Threshold Value

9

year yield andvi

2000 136.9 1.635

2001 138.2 1.758

2002 129.3 1.639

2003 142.2 1.665

2004 160.3 1.986

2005 147.9 1.914

2006 149.1 1.988

2007 150.7 1.97

2008 153.3 1.96

2009 164.4 2.204

2010 152.6 1.962

2011 146.8 1.995

2012 123.1 1.537

2013 158.1 2.069

2014 171 2.32

2015 168.4 2.267

2016 174.6 2.357

2017 176.6 2.294

2018 176.4 2.402

y = 58.935x + 35.873

R2 = 0.9364

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 1 2 3

Integrate Season

NASS 2020 Disaster Response

Iowa

Derecho

Hurricane

Laura

Hurricane

Delta

Washington

State

Wildfires

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Research_and_Science/Disaster-Analysis/index.php
2020 USDA NASS Data Users’ Meeting

Using Satellite Data

Lance Honig, Chief

Crops Branch

October 28, 2020
Agenda

October 28, 2020

Use of 

Satellite 

Data

Short Answer

Items Satellite Data Informs On

Hierarchy of Indications

Greatest Uses of Satellite Data
Short Answer

October 28, 2020

How Are 

Satellite Data 

Used?

Satellite Data are Supplementary to Survey and 

Administrative Data

Why?

Accuracy and Bias – Relative to Other Indications

Timing
Items Satellite Data Informs On

October 28, 2020

Which 

Estimates?

Planted Acreage -- YES

Harvested Acreage -- NO

Yield -- YES

Production -- NO
Hierarchy of Indications

October 28, 2020

Varies by...

Estimate: Planted Acreage, Harvested 

Acreage, Yield, Production

Crop

State

Changes Over Time
Hierarchy of Indications

October 28, 2020

Every Indication is Evaluated 

Against Final Estimate for 

Accuracy and Bias

Year Final Estimate Indication 1 % Difference

2015 10,000 9,080 1.101

2016 12,000 11,111 1.080

2017 15,000 13,755 1.091

2018 13,000 11,929 1.090

2019 14,000 12,958 1.080

Significant Bias – But Consistent
Hierarchy of Indications

October 28, 2020

Every Indication is Evaluated 

Against Final Estimate for 

Accuracy and Bias

Year Final Estimate Indication 2 % Difference

2015 10,000 10,049 0.995

2016 12,000 11,540 1.040

2017 15,000 14,563 1.030

2018 13,000 13,026 0.998

2019 14,000 13,659 1.025

Small Bias – But Somewhat Inconsistent
Hierarchy of Indications

October 28, 2020

NASS Acreage Estimate

Satellite

FSA & RMA

• Certified 

Acres

• Failed Acres

Farmer 

Surveys

Economics

Weather
Hierarchy of Indications

October 28, 2020

Corn Planted Acreage

March June October Final
Hierarchy of Indications

October 28, 2020

Corn Planted Acreage

March June October Final

March Ag 

Survey

* Multiple Indications for Each Source
Hierarchy of Indications

October 28, 2020

Corn Planted Acreage

March June October Final

March Ag 

Survey

March Ag 

Survey

June Ag

Survey

FSA Certified 

Acres

* Multiple Indications for Each Source
Hierarchy of Indications

October 28, 2020

Corn Planted Acreage

March June October Final

March Ag 

Survey

March Ag 

Survey

March Ag 

Survey

June Ag

Survey

June Ag

Survey

FSA Certified 

Acres

FSA Certified 

Acres

Satellite

* Multiple Indications for Each Source
Hierarchy of Indications

October 28, 2020

Corn Planted Acreage

March June October Final

March Ag 

Survey

March Ag 

Survey

March Ag 

Survey

March Ag 

Survey

June Ag

Survey

June Ag

Survey

June Ag

Survey

FSA Certified 

Acres

FSA Certified 

Acres

FSA Certified 

Acres

Satellite Satellite

December Ag 

Survey

* Multiple Indications for Each Source
Hierarchy of Indications

October 28, 2020

Corn Planted Acreage

March June October Final

March Ag 

Survey

March Ag 

Survey

March Ag 

Survey

March Ag 

Survey

June Ag

Survey

June Ag

Survey

June Ag

Survey

FSA Certified 

Acres

FSA Certified 

Acres

FSA Certified 

Acres

Satellite Satellite

December Ag 

Survey

* Multiple Indications for Each Source

Generally 

Considered 

Strongest Indication
Hierarchy of Indications

October 28, 2020

Corn Planted Acreage

Why is Satellite Data Supplementary?

March No Crops Emerged (or Planted) So No Satellite 

Data Available

June Limited Emergence So No Satellite Data 

Available

October FSA Certified Acres Nearly Complete

Final FSA Certified Acres Complete
Hierarchy of Indications

October 28, 2020

NASS Yield Estimate

Satellite

Objective 

Yield

Farmer 

Surveys

Crop 

Progress

Weather
Hierarchy of Indications

October 28, 2020

Corn Yield

August September October November Final
Hierarchy of Indications

October 28, 2020

Corn Yield

August September October November Final

Ag Yield 

Survey

Satellite
Hierarchy of Indications

October 28, 2020

Corn Yield

August September October November

Ag Yield 

Survey

Ag Yield 

Survey

Ag Yield 

Survey

Ag Yield 

Survey

Satellite Satellite Satellite Satellite

Objective 

Yield Survey

Objective 

Yield Survey

Objective 

Yield Survey
Hierarchy of Indications

October 28, 2020

Corn Yield

August September October November Final

Ag Yield 

Survey

Ag Yield 

Survey

Ag Yield 

Survey

Ag Yield 

Survey

Ag Yield 

Survey

Satellite Satellite Satellite Satellite Satellite

Objective 

Yield Survey

Objective 

Yield Survey

Objective 

Yield Survey

Objective 

Yield Survey

December Ag 

Survey
Hierarchy of Indications

October 28, 2020

Corn Yield

August September October November Final

Ag Yield 

Survey

Ag Yield 

Survey

Ag Yield 

Survey

Ag Yield 

Survey

Ag Yield 

Survey

Satellite Satellite Satellite Satellite Satellite

Objective 

Yield Survey

Objective 

Yield Survey

Objective 

Yield Survey

Objective 

Yield Survey

December Ag 

Survey

Generally 

Considered 

Strongest Indication
Hierarchy of Indications

October 28, 2020

Corn Yield

Why is Satellite Data Supplementary?

August • Driven by Vegetation, Which Doesn’t 

Always Correlate with Yield

• Can’t Distinguish Between Acres To Be 

Harvested and Those Not To Be Harvested

• Can’t Distinguish Between Acres for Grain 

and Acres for Silage

September

October

November

Final December Ag Survey - Reported Harvest 

Results from Large Sample of Producers
Greatest Uses of Satellite Data

October 28, 2020

How DOES

NASS Use 

Satellite Data?

Provide Independent Indications to Help Interpret 

Survey and Administrative Data

Identify and Determine Magnitude of Extreme Events 

(i.e. Weather)

Inform for Unscheduled Estimating Periods Due to 

Unexpected Events
#StatChat

October 28, 2020
All Reports Available At

www.nass.usda.gov

For Questions

(202) 577-6558

Lance.Honig@usda.gov