|
|
|
2 0 0 2 Census of Agriculture FAQ's |
|
IV. Questions Addressing Specific Data Tables Why are there so many occurrences of “NA”'s
in "Historical
Highlights: 2002 and Earlier Census Years"? [chapter
1, table 1] 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 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. 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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. Tables will display different counts of operators: 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.
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.
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino origin is an ethnicity, not a racial category.
It has a separate breakout on the census. 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 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 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. The 2002 data include better coverage of State and Federal hatcheries. This will be reflected in increases in the totals published. top 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. 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. 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.
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. # |