WHY ARE THERE SO MANY OCCURRENCES OF "NA"'S IN "HISTORICAL HIGHLIGHTS: 2002 AND EARLIER CENSUS YEARS"? [chapter 1, table 1]
The "Historical Highlights: 2002 and Earlier Census Years" table was expanded to include several more crops in 2002 than what was presented in 1997 and earlier years. Resources would not permit the intensive retabulation of national and state level data needed to provide these data in this table prior to 2002.
top
WHY ARE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF FARMS WITH CROPS SALES AND TOTAL NUMBER OF FARMS WITH LIVESTOCK SALES LESS THAN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF FARMS IN TABLE 2?
[chapter 1, table 2]
This question refers to the number of farms in Table 2, Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold. Numbers are shown for operations with crop sales and operations with livestock sales. If an operation had both crop and livestock sales, they are included in both categories and would lead to duplication if these subtotals are added together.
In addition, some farm operations are included in the Census of Agriculture even though they had less than $1000 of sales of agricultural products or government payments during the census year because they might normally be expected to have at least that level of sales. Because these operations had neither crop nor livestock sales they do not appear in either category. In this case, the absence of these operations would lead to an undercount if operations with crop and livestock sales are added. The way operations are shown in this table is consistent between 1997 and 2002, but the number that fall into these two situations has changed during that time period. In 2002, there were a greater number of farms showing no sales, and this number exceeded the number of farms with both crop and livestock sales. Therefore, even with duplication in these categories, the number of farms with crop sales added to the number of farms with livestock sales is less than the total number of farms.
WHY ARE EXPENSES IN 2002 SO DIFFERENT THAN EXPENSES IN 1997?
[chapter 1, table 4]
Census Farm Expenses are higher in 2002 than in 1997. Increases are also shown in the NASS annual Farm Production Expenditure numbers. The 2002 Census expenditure data and the NASS 2002 Farm Production Expenditure data are very close at the U.S. level.
top
CAN YOU TELL ME WHY AGRICULTURE LAND CONTINUES TO INCREASE? ALL WE SEE AROUND US ARE NEW HOUSING PROJECTS, GOLF COURSES, AND SHOPPING MALLS.
[chapter 1, table 9]
Overall, land in farms has decreased in the U.S. since the 1997 census. Land in farms has increased at the state level in six States: Maine, Alaska, Montana, Kansas, Wyoming, and Nebraska. In most of these States, the change is fairly small.
WHY DO FARMS, INVENTORY AND SALES NUMBERS FOR HOGS AND PIGS BY TYPE OF PRODUCER AND TYPE OF OPERATION NOT ADD TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOG AND PIG FARMS, INVENTORY AND SALES? [chapter 1, table 23-26 ]
Data for hog inventory and sales by type of producer and type of operation are new in the 2002 census. Operators were allowed to select one or more type of operator (independent grower, contractor or integrator, or contract grower (contractee)) and one or more type of operation (farrow to wean, farrow to finish, finish only, farrow to feeder, nursery, or other). For both inventory and number sold, the operation's data were included in each category for which they were categorized. Therefore, inventory and sales data added across categories will not match inventory and sales data in other Hog and Pig tables. Operators who selected "Other" as operation type in Tables 25 and 26, were not published.
The discrepancies in these data will likely be quite variable at the state level. This is the result of both the number of operations classified as more than one type of operation or producer (i.e. the structure of the hog industry in the state) and how the reports from hog operations were handled by the particular state. States likely handled the data from these operations differently, with some making greater use of additional data in attempts to classify operations as the single type most suitable for that operation.
top
WHY DO SOME ENTRIES APPEAR AS DASHES IN SOME OF THE COLUMNS OF THE TABLE LABELED "FARMS BY CONCENTRATION OF MARKET VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS SOLD: 2002"? [chapter 1, table 41]
This table is designed to show selected characteristics of the first line in the table which is Farms. If one of the listed items is not available in the farms included in the concentration group, dashes will appear. For example, suppose 15 farms were the fewest number accounting for 10 percent of sales, the data in that column would be the summation of the 15 farms. If none of the farms had any of one of the items listed in the stub, dashes appear.
WHY DO THE NUMBERS OF FARMS WITH TRACTORS MANUFACTURED FROM 1998 TO 2002 PLUS THE NUMBER OF FARMS WITH TRACTORS MANUFACTURED PRIOR TO 1998 NOT EQUAL THE TOTAL NUMBER OF FARMS WITH TRACTORS? [chapter 1, table 45]
Each of the columns of this table are tabulated independently so the numbers will not add up across the columns. An example will illustrate how this may happen - a farm with 3 tractors manufactured in 2000 and 3 tractors manufactured in 1995 will be tabulated in the "Total" column as an operation with 4 or more tractors. However, it will be tabulated as an operation with 2 or 3 tractors in the "Manufactured 1998 to 2002," and again in the "Manufactured prior to 1998" columns. This is the same way data for this item was tabulated in the 1997 Census.
top
WHY DO YOU SHOW DIFFERENT COUNTS OF OPERATORS ON DIFFERENT TABLES?
[chapter 1, table 47]
Beginning in 2002, each operation may report as many farm operators as are involved in day to day decision making for the farm operation. This number is referred to as the number of "Total Operators." We have also asked respondents to report the number of total operators who are women. We then asked respondents for demographic characteristics, such as age, race, and primary occupation for up to three of the total number of operators.
The principal operator is the senior partner, or person in charge of day to day management of the farm operation.
Tables will display different counts of operators:
Total operators (any number)
All operators (must be less than or equal to three per farm)
Principal operators (equals the number of farms and is information for the first operator reported.)
WERE THERE CHANGES TO THE RACE QUESTIONS ON THE REPORT FORM? [chapter 1, table 47]
Yes. The 1997 report form asked about the race of the senior partner or person in charge. For 1997 the categories listed were: 1) White, 2) Black, African American, or Negro, 3) American Indian , 4) Asian or Pacific Islander, 5) Other- Specify. The 2002 report form asked about multiple (up to three) operators. The OMB (Office of Management and Budget) has mandated all government agencies to use new specific racial categories for all surveys. For 2002 the categories listed were: 1)White, 2) Black or African American, 3) American Indian or Alaska Native - specify tribe, 4) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 5) Asian. The "Other race" category was no longer asked. Also new in 2002, respondents could select any number of race categories. Those that selected more than one of the categories are counted as "More than one race reported" and are not included in the individual race categories.
top
WHY ARE THERE MORE WOMEN OPERATORS REPORTED FOR 2002? [chapter 1, table 53]
The number of women principal operators has steadily increased in the published census of agriculture results since 1978. In addition, new data collected on the 2002 Census of Agriculture are related to this. We asked for the total number of operators and women operators. In addition, we also asked for demographic characteristics of up to 3 (not just 1) operator. These characteristics included gender of operator.
WHY ARE THE OPERATORS OF SPANISH, HISPANIC, OR LATINO ORIGIN NOT SHOWN IN THE RACE TABLE?
[ chapter 1, table 54 ]
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino origin is an ethnicity, not a racial category. It has a separate breakout on the census.
top
WHY THE INCREASE IN THE NUMBERS OF WOMEN AND HISPANIC ORIGIN FARMERS? [chapter 1, tables 53 and 54]
In the past, coverage evaluation has shown that minority farm operators have been missed from the census mail list more often than white operators. The total number of minority operators including estimates of undercoverage has been available for most censuses since 1978 in a statistical appendix to the full Volume 1 publication. The new coverage procedures allow NASS to present a better estimate of the total number of minority farm operators, including those not on the census mail list.
The number of respondents who reported being of Hispanic ethnicity and the number of women operators has increased from the 1997 Census. In addition, coverage adjustment increased the overall number of Hispanic operators significantly. This reflects the list
incompleteness for these operators. We did not do item imputation when the Hispanic question was not answered in 1997 but did in 2002, so this had an impact on the increase.
WHY THE CHANGE IN THE PERCENT REPORTING "FARMING" AS THEIR PRINCIPAL OCCUPATION? [chapter 1, table 60 ]
Several things may have contributed to this result. In addition, adding this question for multiple operators may have caused reporting differences between 1997 and 2002.
The U.S. economic and employment picture has changed considerably since 1997. Off farm employment in rural areas, high in 1997, was now much lower in 2002. This would naturally contribute to more people citing farming as their primary occupation in 2002 than in 1997.
More people are retiring as the baby boomers age. There is a general movement back to rural areas and it doesn't take much agricultural activity for the retirees to qualify as a farm. Since they spend their time tending to their place, their principal occupation, by default, is likely to be recorded as farming.
top
WHY DOES THE AVERAGE AGE OF PRINCIPAL OPERATORS CONTINUE TO INCREASE? [chapter 1, table 60 ]
The average age of the principal operator has increased about 1 to 1.5 years in each census since 1982. Large proportions of those farming 5 years ago in the previous census continue to farm.
Gathering information on the total number of operators and their demographic characteristics has allowed a better total picture of the age of farmers. Though the average age of the principal operator has increased, the average age of the second and third operator are substantially younger than the principal operator.
THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL INCREASES IN SOME STATES FOR AQUACULTURE SALES. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THIS? [chapter 2, table 21]
The 2002 data include better coverage of State and Federal hatcheries. This will be reflected in increases in the totals published.
top
THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL INCREASES IN SOME STATES FOR NURSERY AND GREENHOUSE SALES. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THIS? [chapter 2, table 34]
Nursery and Greenhouse production is one of the fastest growing sectors in U.S. agriculture. This is shown in the large increases from 1997 to 2002 in some states.
WHY ARE THERE DIFFERENT NUMBERS REGARDING AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE FARM OPERATORS? [chapter 2, table 43]
Data for American Indian and Alaska Native farm operators appears in Table 43 in Volume 1 and also in Appendix B. The information in Table 43 reflects data collected on individual census reports for any operators (up to the three per operation) whose race was singly identified as American Indian or Alaska Native. Operators reported as American Indian or Alaska Native and any other race are shown in the category "More than one race." Many of the individuals shown in the "More than one race" category in Table 43 reported American Indian or Alaska Native as one of their races.
Appendix B presents 3 tables of more comprehensive data and is not directly comparable to Table 43. For all tables in Appendix B, both individuals who reported only American Indian or Alaska Native and those who reported it along with any other race are included in the tables. In other words, for Appendix B individuals from the "More than one race" category of Table 43 were added to those in the American Indian or Alaska Native category if that was one of the races they reported. In addition, census data were also collected from reservations in addition to individual operators. Reservation officials reported collective information for the entire reservation on a single census report form which was counted as one operation. Reservations also reported the number of operators associated with the reservation. The reservation level reports were reviewed by NASS to remove any duplication with the individually reported data on other census forms.
Appendix B, Table A shows the counts of operators reported individually, and also reported by reservation officials. Table B shows farm characteristics of the operations where any operators (up to three per operation) were identified as American Indian or Alaska Native, either as a single race or as one of their races. Again, this includes both report forms completed by individuals and those for reservations. Table C presents characteristics of operators (up to three per operation) who were identified as American Indian or Alaska Native either singly or with any other race. Collective reservation data (beyond up to 3 operators per operation) reported by reservation officials are not included in this table.
A special pilot study was also conducted during the 2002 Census in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. This pilot study involved making special efforts to identify and contact individuals on the reservations with census forms and reducing the amount of data that was reported and accounted for on the collective reservation report form. This likely impacted the amount of data reported and how much of the data appears in the "Individually reported" and "Other" columns of the Appendix B tables. Results from this special study will be published in late summer of 2004, and will be used to develop methodology and data collection practices for the 2007 Census of Agriculture.
top
WHY ARE ORGANIC DATA FROM THE CENSUS DIFFERENT FROM DATA ON ORGANIC AGRICULTURE FROM OTHER SOURCES? [tables, 2, 8, 41, 55-61]
While the census report form asked for only "certified" organic products, analysis of reported data indicated that many respondents may have reported sales or acres of commodities that were not certified by an entity external to their farm. It was the intent of these items to collect only those products and acres certified as organic by a government, grower organization, or similar entity. Growers who raised commodities in compliance with organic standards but who did not obtain certification may have reported such commodities. So long as the value of acres of organic sales did not exceed the total value of sales or acres for an operation the organic data were not adjusted. No attempt was made to verify reports with any certifying organic organizations. This may have resulted in the number of farms and other organic data being higher than that from other sources.
In addition, data for organic sales includes both crops and livestock. Therefore, the number of farms with organic sales will be higher than the number of farms with organic crop acres.
top < 1 2 3 4 >
|