E-mail: nass-ny@nass.usda.gov
(518) 457-5570
The New York Agricultural Statistics Service conducted
a special one-time survey in the spring of 2002 to determine the accuracy of
maple syrup estimates in New York. The Maple Validation Study was done due to
concern in the Maple Industry that the number of producers and production estimates
for New York were low. The industry felt there were producers who never got
surveyed or counted and therefore the list of producers used by the New York
Agricultural Statistics Service was not complete.
The goal of the study was to develop a list of all producers in selected counties and compare it to the existing list to determine its completeness. Counties were grouped into four size groups based on the total number of taps in each county. The size groups, taps per size group, and the number of counties per size group are shown in Table 1. Funding limited the study to the 12 counties shown in Table 2.
TABLE 1: Maple Size Groups, Taps per Size Group, and
Number of Counties
| SIZE GROUP | RANGE(TAPS) | NO.TAPS | NO. COUNTIES |
| 1 |
0-24,999 |
314,962 |
39 |
| 2 |
25,000-49,999 |
316,543 |
7 |
| 3 |
50,000-99,999 |
293,444 |
4 |
| 4 |
100,000+ |
331,636 |
2 |
| TOTAL |
1,256,585 |
52 |
SIZE GROUP 1 SIZE GROUP 2
Columbia Washington
Schuyler Otsego
Rensselaer Chautauqua
Warren
Tioga
SIZE GROUP 3 SIZE GROUP 4
Cattaraugus Wyoming
Clinton Lewis
All available resources were used to track down producers in the sampled counties. County agents, FSA personnel, maple specialists, maple association officers, and producers were contacted to compile the lists. Office staff as well as telephone and field interviewers made the contacts.
As lists were received from the contacts, names were checked against the existing list of maple producers. Any name not on this list was put on a questionnaire and the person was interviewed to determine whether or not they were in fact a commercial maple producer. The number of taps and syrup production were recorded during the contact. The number of producers not on the existing list and their total taps and production were used to calculate incompleteness and generate expanded totals.
As a result of the study, production and taps estimated by the New York Agricultural Statistics Service were determined to be low. State level estimates were revised upward 14 percent to account for previous incompleteness. Revised county estimates for number of producers, taps, and production will be published after reviewing the results of the 2002 Census of Agriculture later this year.
TABLE 3 shows by county and size group percent of names from the lists acquired that were on the existing list of producers, the percent added as producers and the percent that were not added because they were determined not to be commercial producers. Commercial producers are defined as having 100 taps. Coverage of the existing list was much better in the larger size groups. This indicates the majority of the incompleteness in the existing list was comprised of producers in the counties with fewer taps. The New York Agricultural Statistics Service will, as time and funds permit, make an extra effort to concentrate list building activities in the smaller sized counties that were not sampled for this study.
TABLE 3: PERCENT OF ACQUIRED NAMES ON THE EXISTING
LIST, PERCENT OF NAMES ADDED AS PRODUCERS AND
PERCENT NOT ADDED AS PRODUCERS
| Area | Percent of Acquired Names | ||
| Already on Current List |
Added to Current List |
Not Added - Did not produce syrup |
|
| Columbia | 10 | 19 | 71 |
| Schuyler | 71 | 0 | 29 |
| Rensselaer | 52 | 24 | 24 |
| Warren | 21 | 10 | 69 |
| Tioga | 52 | 9 | 39 |
| Size Group 1 Total | 35 | 14 | 51 |
| Washington | 52 | 19 | 29 |
| Otsego | 37 | 33 | 30 |
| Chautauqua | 40 | 9 | 51 |
| Size Group 2 Total | 41 | 16 | 43 |
| Cattaraugus | 46 | 5 | 49 |
| Clinton | 48 | 8 | 44 |
| Size Group 3 Total | 47 | 7 | 46 |
| Wyoming | 66 | 5 | 29 |
| Lewis | 66 | 16 | 18 |
| Size Group 4 Total | 66 | 11 | 23 |
The expansion factors that were calculated for
each size group to account for list incompleteness are shown in TABLE
4. Again, the largest expansions occurred in the smaller size groups.
Ironically, the expansions calculated at the state level for both producers
and production were both 14 percent. These were used to adjust the state level
estimates upward. The size group expansion factors will be used to revise county
level estimates upward following a careful review of the results of the 2002
Census of Agriculture.
TABLE 4: Expansion Factors Calculated to Cover List
Incompleteness by Size Group
| Size Group | Expansion Factors | |
| Producers | Production | |
| 1 | 1.23 | 1.22 |
| 2 | 1.13 | 1.16 |
| 3 | 1.05 | 1.11 |
| 4 | 1.07 | 1.06 |
| State | 1.14 | 1.14 |