The number of workers paid by farmers and agricultural services totaled 87,000 for the week of January 12
through 18. Farmers hired 70,000 workers compared with
57,000 in October 2002 and 62,000 in January 2002. Agricultural services provided 17,000 paid workers, up 12,000 from
last quarter, but down 2,000 from the number supplied a year
ago. Cold and mostly dry conditions persisted during the
survey week with freezes and frosts occurring from northern
areas through some parts of the southern Peninsula. Cattle
producers fed supplemental protein and hay to animals since
most pastures were dormant due to drying soils and the cold
temperatures. Citrus harvesting speeded ahead with growers
trying to get as much of the crop as possible before the hard
freeze that occurred at the end of the survey week and on the
two days following. Grove caretakers prepared irrigation
systems to run around the clock and dirt banked young trees as
protection from the frost, while some in more northern areas
iced fruit for cold protection. Other grove work included
mowing, discing and chopping of cover crops, and the pushing
out of dead trees which some caretakers burned in the groves
to provide some heat during the colder nights. Most centraland southern grove caretakers also applied fertilizers. Strawberry growers ran overhead sprinklers to form ice caps on
plants as protection from the cold which saved some immature
fruit and most plants. Floriculture and nursery producers
covered some plants with blankets, iced some plants with
sprinkler systems and warmed others with heaters for cold
protection with some loss occurring. Vegetable harvesting
continued during the survey week with growers harvesting as
much as possible prior to the freezing tempertatures. Other
vegetable field activities included planting of late winter and
early spring crop acreage and protecting plants from the cold
temperatures.
The January all hired worker wage rate averaged $8.90
per hour, twenty-one cents or about two percent higher than
the October 2002 wage of $8.69 and up ten cents or about one
percent from the $8.80 paid last year. Farmers paid an average
of $8.81 per hour, fourteen cents above the $8.67 paid in
October, but sixteen cents lower than the $8.97 paid last year.
Agricultural services paid workers an average of $9.35 per
hour, thirty-five cents above the $9.00 paid in October and
$1.10 above the $8.25 paid last year.
There were 884,000 hired workers on the Nation.s
farms and ranches the week of January 12-18, 2003, down 1
percent from a year ago. Of these hired workers, 724,000
workers were hired directly by farm operators. Agricultural
service employees on farms and ranches made up the remaining 160,000 workers.
Survey Procedures: These data were collected by the
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) during
the last two weeks of January using sampling procedures to
ensure every employer of agricultural workers had a chance
of being selected.
Two samples of farm operators are selected. First, NASS
maintains a list of farms that hire farm workers. Farms on
this list are classified by size and type. Those expected to
employ large numbers of workers are selected with greater
frequency than those hiring few or no workers. A second
sample consists of segments of land scientifically selected
from an area sampling frame. Each June, highly trained
interviewers locate each selected land segment and identify
every farm operating land within the sample segment's
boundaries. The names of farms found in these area segments are matched against the NASS list of farms; those not
found on the list are included in the labor survey sample to
represent all farms. This methodology is known as multiple
frame sampling, with an area sample used to measure the
incompleteness of the list. Additionally, a list of agricultural
service firms was sampled in California and Florida. The
survey reference week was January 12-18, 2003.
Reliability: Two types of errors, sampling and non-
sampling, are always present in an estimate based on a
sample survey. Both types affect the "accuracy" of the
estimates. Sampling error occurs because a complete census
is not taken. The sampling error measures the variation in
estimates from the average of all possible samples. An
estimate of 100 with a sampling error of 1 would mean that
chances are 19 out of 20 that the estimates from all possible
samples averaged together would be between 98 and 102;
which is the survey estimate, plus or minus two times the
sampling error. The sampling error expressed as a percent of
the estimate is called the relative sampling error. The
relative sampling error for number of hired workers at the
U.S. level is normally less than 5 percent. The relative
sampling error
Non-sampling errors can occur in a complete census as
well as in sample surveys. They are caused by the inability
to obtain correct information from each operation sampled,
differences in interpreting questions or definitions, and
mistakes in editing, coding or processing the data. Special
efforts are taken at each step of the survey to minimize non-
sampling errors.
Next Farm Labor Publication Date: The May 16th
report will have information for the survey week of April 6-
12, 2003. The report will include the number of All Hired
Workers, Average Hours Worked by Hired Workers and the
All Hired Worker Wage Rates at the regional and U.S.
levels. The wage rate for field, livestock, and combined field
and livestock workers will also be available at the regional
and U.S. level. The number of Agricultural Service Workers
and the corresponding wage rates will be published for
California and Florida.
Farm operators paid their hired workers an average
wage of $9.32 per hour during the January 2003 reference
week, up 35 cents from a year earlier. Field workers received
an average of $8.29 per hour, up 4 cents from last January,
while livestock workers earned $8.91 per hour compared with
$8.20 a year earlier. The field and livestock worker combined
wage rate, at $8.50 per hour, was up 27 cents from last year.
The number of hours worked averaged 37.8 hours for hired
workers during the survey week compared with 38.5 hours a
year ago.
The largest decreases in number of hired farm workers
from a year ago were in the Southern Plains (Oklahoma and
Texas), Northeast II (Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey and
Pennsylvania), Mountain I (Idaho, Montana and Wyoming)
and Corn Belt I (Indiana, Illinois and Ohio) regions. In the
Southern Plains, livestock herding activity was kept at a
minimum to reduce pasture trampling and allow grasses to
regrow. Unseasonably cold weather kept Christmas tree
activity down, and poultry production was down, whichlessened the demand for workers in the Northeast II region.
The prolonged drought in the Mountain I region kept field
work needs at a minimum, and calving, lambing and shearing
activities were just getting underway. In the Corn Belt I
region, hired worker numbers in January 2002 were much
higher than usual due to unseasonably warm weather. This
year, a return to more normal weather patterns decreased the
demand for hired workers.
The largest increases in number of hired farm workers
over last year occurred in California, Florida, and in the
Appalachian II (Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia) and
Lake (Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin) regions.
California.s hired farm work force was up considerably due to
the much warmer and drier conditions compared to the January
2002 reference week. Winter vegetable harvest was in full
swing, along with field preparation for spring vegetable
plantings. A major winter storm in Tennessee necessitated
more livestock care and feeding in the Appalachian II region,
thus increasing the need for hired workers. In the western half
of the Lake region, the relative lack of snow cover led to
increased herding activity on livestock operations and a higher
demand for hired workers.
Hired farm worker wage rates were generally above a
year ago in most regions. The largest increases occurred in
the Northeast II, Northern Plains (Kansas, Nebraska, North
Dakota and South Dakota), Southern Plains and Southeast
(Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina) regions. The higher
wages in the Northeast II and Southeast regions were mainly
due to a higher percentage of nursery and greenhouse
workers in the work force. Wages in the Northern and
Southern Plains were higher due to fewer seasonal workers
on the payroll.
Table 1 -- Florida agricultural workers, number of workers, wage
rates, and hours worked, January 12 - 18, 2003, with comparisons
Employer, Year, and
survey week
Hired Workers
Number of workers
Hours
Worked
Per
Week
Wages Paid by Type of Work
All
Expected to work
All
Field
Livestock
150 days
or more
149 days
or less
HIRED BY FARMERS
Thousands
Hours
Dollars Per Hour 1/
2003
January 12 - 18
70
.0
56
.0
14
.0
37
.2
8
.81
7.80
8.30
2002
October 6 - 12
57
.0
51
.0
6
.0
38
.9
8
.67
7.50
8.60
July 7 - 13
43
.0
38
.0
5
.0
37
.5
8
.48
7.25
7.80
April 7 - 13
52
.0
46
.0
6
.0
40
.6
8
.57
7.75
7.50
January 6 - 12
62
.0
50
.0
12
.0
37
.2
8
.97
8.15
8.55
2001
October 7 - 13
51
.0
44
.0
7
.0
41
.8
8
.84
7.70
8.00
July 8 - 14
48
.0
43
.0
5
.0
40
.8
8
.65
7.50
7.65
April 8 - 14
63
.0
52
.0
11
.0
39
.9
8
.40
7.75
7.90
January 7 - 13
55
.0
47
.0
8
.0
37
.6
8
.29
7.65
7.90
AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
2003
January 12 - 18
17
.0
32
.0
9
.35
2002
October 6 - 12
5
.0
31
.5
9
.00
July 7 - 13
4
.0
42
.5
9
.25
April 7 - 13
11
.0
34
.0
9
.00
January 6 - 12
19
.0
38
.5
8
.25
2001
October 7 - 13
5
.0
34
.0
8
.70
July 8 - 14
2
.0
43
.5
9
.54
April 8 - 14
14
.0
39
.0
8
.30
January 7 - 13
18
.0
29
.5
8
.70
AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
2003
January 12 - 18
87
.0
8
.90
2002
October 6 - 12
62
.0
8
.69
July 7 - 13
47
.0
8
.55
April 7 - 13
63
.0
8
.63
January 6 - 12
81
.0
8
.80
2001
October 7 - 13
56
.0
8
.83
July 8 - 14
50
.0
8
.69
April 8 - 14
77
.0
8
.38
January 7 - 13
73
.0
8
.37
1/ Benefits, such as housing and meals, are provided some workers but the values are not included in the wage rates.
Table 2 -- Number of workers hired by farmers, wage rates, and hours worked,
selected States, January 12 - 18, 2003, with comparisons 1/
Item
Florida
Texas &
Oklahoma
Arizona &
New Mexico
Hawaii
United
States 2/
Thousands
All hired workers
January 12 - 18, 2003
70
230
50
22
7
724
October 6 - 12, 2002
57
* 270
58
19
8
* 940
January 6 - 12, 2002
62
186
61
18
8
707
Expected to work
150 days or more
January 12 - 18, 2003
56
190
40
20
6
609
October 6 - 12, 2002
51
* 222
46
16
7
* 685
January 6 - 12, 2002
50
145
54
16
7
584
149 days or less
January 12 - 18, 2003
14
40
10
2
1
115
October 6 - 12, 2002
6
* 48
12
3
1
* 255
January 6 - 12, 2002
12
41
7
2
1
123
Dollars per hour 3/
All hired worker wage rate
January 12 - 18, 2003
8.81
9.38
8.85
8.12
11.04
9.32
October 6 - 12, 2002
8.67
* 9.39
7.57
8.25
11.02
* 8.95
January 6 - 12, 2002
8.97
9.22
8.05
8.42
10.90
8.97
Wages by type of worker
Field & Livestock
January 12 - 18, 2003
7.87
8.46
8.29
7.48
9.36
8.50
October 6 - 12, 2002
7.72
* 8.68
7.18
7.42
9.32
* 8.36
January 6 - 12, 2002
8.20
8.36
7.57
7.85
9.33
8.23
Field
January 12 - 18, 2003
7.80
8.20
8.13
6.92
9.31
8.29
October 6 - 12, 2002
7.50
* 8.60
7.05
7.07
9.25
* 8.34
January 6 - 12, 2002
8.15
8.25
7.82
7.57
9.36
8.25
Livestock
January 12 - 18, 2003
8.30
10.10
8.51
8.22
4/
8.91
October 6 - 12, 2002
8.60
* 9.30
7.32
8.24
4/
* 8.42
January 6 - 12, 2002
8.55
9.69
7.37
8.48
4/
8.20
Average hours per week
Hours worked by all hired workers
January 12 - 18, 2003
37.2
41.2
37.9
47.2
37.9
37.8
October 6 - 12, 2002
38.9
45.5
41.7
45.7
37.9
40.4
January 6 - 12, 2002
37.2
42.1
41.5
47.7
37.0
38.5
2/ United States excludes Alaska.
3/ Value of any perquisites provided are not included in wage rates.
4/ Insufficient data for this category; included in all hired wages.
* Revised.
for the number of hired workers generally ranged
between 11 and 23 percent at the regional level. The U.S. all
hired farm worker wage rate had a relative sampling error of
1.0 percent. The relative sampling error was 0.8 percent for
the combined field and livestock worker wage rate. Relative
sampling errors for the all hired farm worker wage rategenerally ranged between 2 and 6 percent at the regional
levels. Relative sampling errors for wage rates published by
type of farm and economic class of farm ranged between 1
and 21 percent at the regional level.
Revision Policy: Farm labor information is subject to
revision the next time the information is published or the
year after the original publication date. The basis for
revision must be supported by additional data that directly
affect the level of the estimate. Worker numbers and wage
rates for January 2002 and October 2002 were subject to
revision with this report. Revisions were made and previous
data are reprinted in this report for your information.
Return to the Table of Contents for Publications