CROP PRODUCTION

The Reasons Fewer Farmers Are Now Responding to USDA's NASS Surveys — And the Impact of Waning Participation

Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:17:49 GMT

U.S. taxpayer-funded government reports on the economy and agriculture have generated comments from stakeholders and others, especially since the Internet has made it easier for anyone to comment.

We decided to check in on response rates for USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reports after a new study by the American Statistical Association warned the reliability of U.S. economic data is at risk due to shrinking budgets, declining survey response rates and potential political interference (this is not the case with NASS reports). Currently, government statistics remain dependable, but the study, authored by statisticians from various institutions including George Mason University and the Urban Institute, likens the statistical system to infrastructure that is often neglected until a crisis occurs. (The New York Times addressed the matter in this article .)

Note: We contacted several current and former USDA officials and asked them to comment about the numbers and some of the responses in this special report. These individuals include Lance Honig, Director of Methodology Division, Chair, Agricultural Statistics Board, USDA-National Agricultural Statistics Service; current top USDA economist Dr. Seth Meyer; and Dr. Joe Glauber, former top USDA economist.

Here’s a breakdown of response rates for USDA’s NASS reports:

Response rates have been declining over time:

• In the early 1990s, response rates for NASS crop surveys were 80% to 85%.

• By the late 2010s, response rates had fallen below 60% in some cases.

Recent response rates for specific NASS surveys:

• The 2022 Census of Agriculture had a response rate of 61%.

• The 2017 Census of Agriculture had a response rate of 71.5%.

• For monthly NASS surveys, response rates are around 75%.

• For quarterly or annual NASS surveys, response rates are around 50% to 60%.

Factors affecting response rates:

• Increasing difficulty in accessing households due to new telephone technologies.

• Rising refusal rates from respondents — “It’s mostly inability to reach people that’s increasing. Actual refusals are fairly steady,” Honig says.

• Concerns about data privacy and time constraints from farmers.

• Increased number of people requesting information from farmers.

Impact of declining response rates:

• Reduced statistical precision of estimates, especially at the county level.

• Fewer counties for which estimates can be published.

• Potential introduction of bias if non-respondents differ from respondents.

USDA NASS efforts to address declining response rates:

• Offering online response options.

• Developing shorter questionnaires.

• Adjusting sampling and weighting procedures.

• Increasing follow-up efforts through multiple contact methods.

• Increased outreach efforts to build relationships/trust and increase transparency (i.e. #StatChat, Data Users’ Meetings, Visitors to Lockup, etc.)

Importance of response rates:

• High response rates are crucial for maintaining data quality and reliability.

• Lower response rates can lead to increased costs for data collection.

• Accurate data is essential for policymaking, research and agricultural planning.

Bottom line: NASS continues to monitor response rates and implement strategies to improve participation in their surveys, recognizing the critical importance of high-quality agricultural data.

Ag industry chimes in about the relevance of NASS reports and the response rates:

• “Accurate data primarily allows transparency in the marketplace, otherwise you get misinformation on social media and conspiracy theories due to what analyst one listens to. It does not create a level playing field for all.”

• “While people complain in the U.S. that big companies have all the information, USDA’s NASS allows one point of solid information that everyone can trade off of.”

• “While there are shortcomings, NASS provides the best source of agriculture data anywhere in the world. It has allowed U.S. agriculture to thrive. Going forward, policymakers need to understand they need to fund the service to help farmers, agribusinesses and consumers.”

• “This is a topic every year on the Pro Farmer Midwest Crop Tour because it’s a debate on how accurate NASS is with their crop estimates. Farmers want to complain NASS isn’t that accurate, but they don’t want to give NASS any insights, either (the trust issue).”

Note: NASS publishes a report each year that shows the accuracy of its estimates.

• Several growers said they don’t trust the government and they aren’t giving out their data. One said: “You just wonder with all the technology on planters and combines today, as well as all the satellite info, when NASS will have to change their approach.”

Honig response: “NASS is exploring the potential of using precision ag data, but significant hurdles currently exist, primarily around ownership/availability of the data. Satellite data are currently utilized to augment the survey and administrative data.”

• “I think the response rate is way below 50%. Some of these guys are big farmers and do not want to share data. Plus, they all think NASS’ quality has declined so why give data to a failing entity?”

• “Grain stocks on farm has been a big topic amongst the elderly grain traders I keep in touch with. Most think the basis is a much better indicator than NASS. For example: Why is the cash corn basis so strong in the WCB this year, yet ECB stocks are reported by NASS to be huge. Meanwhile, Cn/Cu is trading an inverse during delivery and the delivery points are in the ECB.”

Honig response: “NASS stocks estimates represent quantities stored by location, but do not indicate whether or not those quantities are all still available to be marketed (i.e. some/all may already be contracted/committed).”

• “Why can’t crop insurance yield data be used to compare to NASS plot data? I would argue crop insurance yield data is probably the most accurate data currently available. Since crop insurance is a federally subsidized program, let us see the data.”

Honig response: “NASS can use these data for evaluation purposes, but timing is a big issue with these data. Data are only provided once for each season, and not available until late-spring/early-summer the year following harvest. NASS publishes yield forecasts throughout the growing season and provides final season estimates in early January for most major row crops (late-September for small grain crops).”

• “Social media (SM) has turned everyone into an analyst that feels they get ‘enough’ data from SM to determine crop size. Then they go on a drive and look for confirmation of what they expect to see and, of course, they find it. Now they are armed with 4 hours of research on ‘X’ and what they saw on a 200-mile round trip, and they think they have the U.S. crop figured out. When NASS reports something different than they expected, the first thing they do is get back to SM and tell everyone how wrong NASS is. When NASS reports something in line with their expectations, the first thing they do is get back to SM to tell everyone how right they were before NASS put out its guess.”

Honig response: “Agreed — and people commonly assume because NASS estimates don’t match what many expected that they are wrong. Expectations are often based on limited information.”

• “Distrust not just of USDA’s NASS but of anything to do with or organized by the government. Some refuse to respond while others (very few, but it happens) falsely respond and then complain (loudly) about how wrong NASS is.”

Honig response: “More data always leads to increased accuracy, so responding to surveys is the best way to make things better!”

• “Few take time to understand the process and how results are generated at different times of the year. If they had a better understanding they might be more willing to participate in a constructive way.”

Honig response: “NASS works hard to be transparent and provide details about our procedures. We make ourselves readily available to answer questions and address concerns.”

• “Of course, it’s not just the NASS estimates that create the distrust ... it’s the combination of the NASS estimate and the market reaction. So, the distrust is also toward ‘the markets.’ It’s the, ‘Let them figure it out on their own’ attitude. These are the same people that don’t want any crop estimates (private or public), will say ‘Let the market figure it out’ and then complain when the market doesn’t perform like they think it should.”

• “Conspiracy theorists are taking over ... due to social media. Media isn’t meant to be social. Keyboard warriors … everyone thinks they’re an expert. They hide behind cute screen names, but no recourse for putting out wild/false claims,” said one veteran industry analyst .

• “Going to be more important going forward! These new AI models scrape data and form conclusions. Without good data, the promise for AI may be limited, or even worse, misleading.”

Comments from Lance Honig, Director of Methodology Division and Chair, Agricultural Statistics Board of USDA’s NASS:

“As a Federal statistical agency, NASS has the unique ability to level the playing field by providing unbiased and accurate information to everyone involved in agriculture — free of charge and available to everyone at the same time. The work that we do is a partnership with farmers across the Nation. Every producer who receives a NASS survey has an opportunity to improve the accuracy of the results by completing it, which leads to better decisions, better policy, and increased market efficiency. That’s a win for everyone. Response to surveys has declined in recent years, but overall rates remain very strong at NASS relative to other organizations and entities conducting survey work — a tribute to the time farmers commit to this partnership. While surveys remain the backbone of our estimates, we incorporate additional information into our process, including administrative data from across USDA, geospatial information, and more. This helps to improve accuracy while reducing the volume of survey contacts we have to make, therefore reducing the burden placed on farmers. We continue to explore additional data sources as we look to the future, but remain committed to utilizing the most reliable information available today.”

Comments from USDA top economist Dr. Seth Meyer:

“There is talk about crop insurance and use of other data sources. For RMA data, the issue is timeliness and when producers are required to report information to AIPs. By that point it has very little additive value. (Note: USDA’s Honig also commented on this as noted above.) NASS also makes extensive use of FSA data; they can pull what they need, and NASS has moved up when it more fully utilizes the FSA data as the FSA data have both improved quality and timeliness. I expect we will see more of this, and it will support crop production estimates. They will use any bit of data they think can contribute to an improved estimate.

“Indeed, earth observation (EO) data and analysis are improving. 20 years ago, EO often overpromised what it can do, but the reality is starting to meet the hype. We use EO extensively in the WASDE report, in particular this is helpful in countries which lack a strong statistical service or where data collection are challenging. However, I’m not yet willing to trade my NASS data for it and I’m going to want a couple of decades of overlapping data before I’d agree.

“Often when I’m overseas, people I meet report that they rely on USDA data more than their own government’s data. There is a level of trust that the data are unbiased, and we need to work to maintain that trust among our direct constituents in the U.S. I think important points are raised [in this report] about how to ensure that the quality of that data is maintained.

“I always try to explain to producers why responding [to surveys] is in their best interest. They might not always like the way prices move when the report is released (at least not half the time) but these reports level the playing field every 30 days. They are at a disadvantage to large grain traders able to accumulate more information; NASS reports resolve some of this information asymmetry each month.

“There is a lot of value in NASS reports, value that isn’t as flashy as a new program or initiative but lays the foundation for a lot of decision making across the country by producers and others. I think it is always important for us at USDA to make the case, and I think it is a good case, that these reports are a benefit to the sector and not only help market function but result in better policy formation in DC and in the state capitals.”

Comments from former top USDA economist Dr. Joe Glauber:

“Earth observation data and AI technologies are becoming increasingly accurate at measuring area and predicting yields. While we still ground truth a lot of those data against NASS surveys, those methodologies will become increasingly prevalent and may ultimately become the gold standard. Earth observation technologies are already the standard for evaluating crop conditions in many countries (for example, GEOGLAM’s estimation of cropland and crop conditions in occupied areas of Ukraine). But moving beyond area, yield and production, it gets more difficult. NASS is one of the few national statistical agencies that attempts to measure grain stocks. Consumption estimates are even more difficult (There is a reason the WASDE corn balance sheet includes “Feed AND RESIDUAL.”) Lastly, NASS and ERS have provided long time series on farm sector well-being and as much as I am often critical of the farm income measure, my criticism is more about how the measure is (mis)interpreted.

“USDA’s original function was providing research and development for farmers (through seed development and distribution) and providing information on prices, production, etc. These remain public goods that I would argue are still relevant today as they were in the 1860s.”

What's Your State’s Favorite Thanksgiving Side?

Fri, 13 Nov 2020 05:41:33 GMT

Note this is the opinion and statements of the author and not reflective of Farm Journal Media.

Thanksgiving is one of my favorite holidays. It’s an excuse to unabashedly eat as much as possible. Sides, main, dessert— I don’t care, I want it all.

Analytics company FiveThirtyEight recently surveyed Americans to find out what the most common Thanksgiving side dish is for their region . Of the nearly 1,000 responses six different sides rose to the top: salad, West; green beans/casserole, Midwest; cornbread, South; rolls/biscuits, Great Lakes Region; squash, Northeast; and mac and cheese, Southeast.

Of course, California would call salad a Thanksgiving side—I can tell you my family would be less than thankful if salad took the honored place alongside turkey on Thursday. I live in Missouri where green beans reign king and green bean casserole is a must-have every year. Fortunately, it’s pretty easy to make.

According to USA Today , the original recipe for green bean casserole was created in 1955 by the late Dorcas Reilly. She served as Campbell’s kitchen supervisor where the recipe’s fame skyrocketed it to the National Inventors Hall of Fame in 2002. Reilly died Oct. 15, 2018 of Alzheimer’s disease at age 92.

My family joins the millions who will enjoy the side, but admittedly I don’t follow her recipe . I enjoy cooking, so I skip the canned soup and onions and opt for a home-style version.

So, if you’d like to roll up your sleeves and make a mess in the kitchen, here’s the recipe I use. Note, I’ve never thought about it in terms of measurements (I follow the ‘that looks right’ approach) so you might have to play around with some of this to get it perfect for your family.

Green Bean Casserole

For the fried onions:

1 large or 2 medium onions
½ cup flour
¼ to ½ tsp garlic
1-2 tbsp oil
Salt and pepper to taste

For the casserole:

2 cans green beans (drained)
4 tbsp butter
2-3 tbsp flour
1 cup milk or half and half
1 cup chicken stock
¼ to ½ tsp onion salt
¼ to ½ tsp garlic
Salt and pepper to taste
OPTIONAL: sautéed mushrooms and onions
OPTIONAL: add ½ to 1 cup of cheese (because who doesn’t love cheese?!?)

First, make the fried onions. Thinly slice the onions and toss with oil, mix dry ingredients in a separate container and then add the onions (I spray additional cooking oil on top—I think it makes them crispier). Place on a cookie sheet and bake for about 20 minutes at 400 degrees Fahrenheit. Keep an eye on them, you’re looking for a brown finish. You can also fry them in oil if you prefer.

While the onions are baking start the casserole. Melt butter, then add 2 tablespoons of flour to make a rue. Next add milk, chicken stock and seasonings (if you’re using them, don’t add the sautéed vegetables or cheese yet). Let cook to gravy-like consistency (I had to add flour because I used milk, not half and half). After it hits the right texture add the sautéed vegetables.

Finally, mix the gravy with your green beans and add to a 9X13 pan (add and mix in cheese if using it). By now your onions are probably done, put them on top of the mix and pop it in the oven at 350 degrees for 30 minutes.

***I like LOTS of gravy, but if you don’t, either add another can of drained beans or trim the gravy recipe. Also, if your family isn’t partial to green beans (I have one of those) it’s good with mixed veggies and peas, too!***

I hope you and your family have a wonderful Thanksgiving. If anyone has a killer homestyle roll recipe send it my way sbegemann@farmjournal.com –or let me know how the green bean casserole worked for you!

Robot Bees? Check Out This New Pollination Innovation

Mon, 27 Jan 2025 18:56:44 GMT

Scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have developed advanced robotic insects that could aid farming through artificial pollination. They could prove especially useful in the controlled indoor environments of high-tech ‘vertical farms’.

“These type of robots will open up a very new type of use case,” co-lead author Suhan Kim, from the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS), told Reuters.

“For instance, we can think of artificial pollination. So since our robot looks like an insect, and it’s real lightweight and small, if you can really precisely control the robot we might be able to do something on top of flowers or leaves, which really requires very delicate interactions.”

The robots, each lighter than a paperclip, can hover for approximately 1,000 seconds, over 100 times longer than previous models. They are also capable of performing high-speed acrobatic maneuvers, including double aerial flips.

The new design halves the size of the team’s earlier model, with increased stability while also freeing up space for electronics.

“We want the robot to be able to have a [circuit] board, battery and the sensors on board. So to do that, we need much higher payload than now. So what we’re currently pushing very hard right now is to optimize the robot design to be able to lift more and more so that we can afford these potential payloads,” said Kim.

Long term, the team hope this will enable autonomous flight outside the lab. This technology could significantly boost crop yields in multi-level warehouses by providing a more efficient method for artificial pollination.

Vertical farming, the name given to the production of crops in a series of stacked levels, often in a controlled environment, is a fast-growing industry with billions of dollars being pumped into projects across the globe.

It is seen as part of the solution to the food security challenge posed by population expansion at a time when climate change and geopolitics threaten supply.

“This doesn’t really mean that we want to entirely replace honeybees in nature, but what we sometimes hear from the people in the relevant field is that there are really good cases where we can’t rely on honeybees anymore, such as like indoor farming, where we can’t really have honeybee homes in it because of safety issues or some environmental issues. So in that case, we can start thinking of using our robot, if it works well, for tools like indoor farming,” added Kim.

Despite the team’s improvements, the robotic insects still cannot match the capabilities of natural pollinators. However, the researchers aim to improve the robots’ flight time and precision to enable them to land and take off from the center of a flower.

The research was published in the journal Science Robotics.