POLICY  •  NEWS  •  MARKETS

AG POLICY & MARKETS DAILY

TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 2026   |   SPECIAL REPORT & ANALYSIS

SPECIAL REPORT  |  USDA DATA MODERNIZATION

USDA’s Data Modernization Test: Turn Farmer Burden into Better Data

Illinois panel urges NASA data, later acreage counts and one farmer file

Analysis  ·  August 18, 2026

USDA’s agricultural data modernization campaign is becoming as much a trust-rebuilding exercise as a technology project. The department must preserve the timeliness and independence of public crop estimates while relying less heavily on farmers who are increasingly unwilling to complete repetitive surveys.

That tension was evident during an Aug. 14 listening session in Sherman, Illinois, held in conjunction with the Illinois State Fair. Brownfield Ag News reported that producers urged USDA Chief Scientist and Undersecretary for Research, Education and Economics Scott Hutchins to reduce reporting burdens, encourage participation and improve the accuracy of market-moving reports.

In a follow-up account, Woodford County farmer Rob Shaffer told us the one-hour panel included eight farmers from across Illinois, with several commodities represented. At the front table were Hutchins and his chief of staff, U.S. Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) and Illinois Farm Service Agency State Executive Director Bill Graff. Shaffer said Hutchins’ chief of staff took notes throughout the discussion.

Shaffer’s verdict was that the session was “just OK,” but he said the farmers clearly communicated their frustration with the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and USDA’s broader data-collection system.

He also noted that Kip Tom, the Indiana farmer and former U.S. ambassador tapped to help lead the NASS modernization review, was listed for the session but did not attend. Tom’s absence was notable because his emerging proposal closely tracks several of the ideas raised in Illinois: greater use of satellite imagery, farm-machine data and information already collected by other USDA agencies.

Recent related articles:

Link: USDA Wants to Modernize NASS. It May Have Cut the Unit Already Doing It.
Link: One Farmer’s Blunt Message to NASS: The Survey System Is Wearing Out Its Sources

The Participation Problem Is Real

Doug Coop, president of the Cass-Morgan County Farm Bureau, told the session that survey participation had fallen precipitously the last few years from high levels a decade ago. Those figures should not be read as the response rate for every NASS survey, but the direction is consistent with USDA’s own findings.

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins has said response rates for major NASS crop surveys were generally 80% to 85% in 1992 and about 50% to 55% by 2016. Recent overall response rates have fallen to roughly 38% to 44%, depending on the survey, while weighted response rates for some individual estimates are closer to 30%.

NASS’s own published data show that overall survey response rates have generally been closer to 40% recently, not 30%. For example:

• The national March Agricultural Survey response rate was 44.3% in 2025.

• The national June Agricultural Survey response rate was 43.6% in 2025.

• The December Agricultural Survey response rate was 40.2% in 2025.

• The March 2026 Prospective Plantings survey response rate dropped to 37.6%, a record low for that survey.

• The June 2026 Acreage survey response rate was reported at about 39%.

Figure 1. Farmer survey participation, 1992 to 2026. Left: the long-run decline USDA describes for Crop Production, Acreage and Grain Stocks – 80%-85% in 1992, 50%-55% by 2016 – and two readings of where it stands now. USDA’s summary characterization is about 30%; NASS’s own published rates for individual national surveys have run 37.6% to 44.3%. Right: those published rates, survey by survey. Source: USDA statements; NASS published survey response rates, 2025 and 2026.

Sending questionnaires to more producers can preserve the number of usable responses, but it is not a permanent solution. A larger mailing does not necessarily correct nonresponse bias if the farmers who decline to participate differ systematically from those who answer.

The resulting risk is not simply a wider statistical margin of error. It is that large operators, small farms, livestock producers, specialty-crop growers or farmers in particular regions may be represented unevenly in the final sample.

Strongest Idea: Use More NASA Information

Shaffer said the “best idea” raised during the Illinois session was for USDA to obtain more information from NASA.

The proposal does not require USDA to start from zero. NASS already uses satellite imagery and extensive ground-reference information to produce its Cropland Data Layer, which provides supplemental acreage estimates for major commodities. USDA and NASA also collaborate on tools that use satellite observations to monitor soil moisture, crop stress, drought and flooding.

The modernization opportunity is to move more of that information into USDA’s operational estimating system earlier, at a higher frequency and with greater transparency about how it affects published numbers.

Satellite imagery can help identify crop types, measure vegetation development, detect inundation and monitor changes in field conditions. It can also flag areas where survey responses or administrative records appear inconsistent with conditions visible from space.

But NASA data cannot independently answer every question USDA asks farmers. A satellite may identify a soybean field, but it cannot always determine the producer’s intended use, ownership share, insurance status, prevented-planting claim or whether acreage qualifies for a particular farm program. USDA acreage reports require several of those details.

The strongest system, say veteran observers, would therefore combine three sources: satellite observations for broad and frequent coverage, FSA and Risk Management Agency records for field-level administrative data, and targeted farmer surveys for yield expectations, crop conditions and unusual circumstances that machines cannot observe.

Table 1. The hybrid architecture Illinois farmers described: three sources, each doing what it does best. Source: Ag Policy & Markets Daily analysis of statements at the Aug. 14 session and USDA data cited in this report.

That approach would not eliminate farmers from the statistical process. It would reserve their time for information that only they can provide.

Should USDA Wait Until September on Acreage?

Shaffer offered a more disruptive proposal: delay USDA’s principal planted acreage count for corn and soybeans until the September report, when crop insurance and FSA records are more complete.

His reasoning is that most corn and soybean acreage is already reported through the federal crop insurance system. Shaffer estimated that approximately 93% of the two crops’ acreage is insured and said approved insurance providers had until Aug. 14 to key in 2026 acreage. USDA could then use those records for most of the crop and target surveys or other methods toward the remaining uninsured acreage.

The precise 93% figure would need to be verified for the current crop year, but Shaffer’s broader point is supported by USDA data. The Economic Research Service reported that roughly 89% of the acreage devoted to eight major U.S. field crops was enrolled in federal crop insurance in 2024, with participation particularly high for major row crops.

USDA’s own release calendar also illustrates the timing issue. FSA scheduled its first 2026 acreage file for Aug. 12, followed by an updated file on Sept. 11. USDA said it made greater use of FSA acreage information in the August Crop Production report, allowing the Agricultural Yield Survey to concentrate more heavily on producer yield expectations and current crop conditions.

Figure 2. The 2026 acreage calendar. Survey-based estimates arrive first; the administrative records that already cover most acres fill in through August and September. Source: USDA release calendar and FSA/RMA reporting dates cited in this article; ERS crop insurance participation, 2024.

The administrative-data flow is also more continuous than the public release calendar suggests. Historically, FSA acreage information has been shared with NASS on a weekly basis, allowing NASS to monitor how complete the file is as producer reporting progresses. That track record creates an opportunity to use data-completeness thresholds — not simply a fixed calendar date — to decide when FSA information is mature enough to carry more weight in the acreage estimate.

That is close to the model Shaffer described: use administrative records for information farmers have already supplied and surveys for information not available elsewhere.

There is nevertheless an important tradeoff. Eliminating the June Acreage report and waiting until September for the first official planted acreage estimate would leave a major information gap during a critical period for grain marketing, feed procurement, transportation planning, crop insurance and commodity risk management.

Private satellite companies, grain merchants and large trading firms would continue producing acreage estimates. Farmers and smaller market participants could be left with less information, not more.

A better structure, some say, would be a more clearly defined two-stage process. USDA could retain the June estimate but make its preliminary nature more explicit and consolidate the uncertainty information NASS already publishes. NASS reports the survey sample size and provides statistical precision measures such as relative root mean square error in its documentation; it also indicates how closely current estimates are expected to track final estimates. For acreage, USDA reports the amount of corn and soybean acreage that remained to be planted when the survey was taken — effectively identifying acres still at risk of changing. The transparency issue, then, is less about whether those measures exist than whether they are prominent and easy for market participants to interpret. USDA could put the survey response rate directly in the report — rather than leaving it mainly to the online briefing after release — alongside the sample size, precision measures, unplanted acreage and principal sources of uncertainty. It could then issue an administrative-data benchmark in August or September using FSA, RMA and satellite information. That would preserve timely public price discovery while making clearer that the June figure is an early-season estimate subject to revision, not a settled final count.

“One Farmer, One File” Could Become the Backbone

Shaffer also said USDA’s One Farmer, One File initiative is a useful starting point. His concern is that NASS surveys should eventually be delivered through the same producer-facing system, accompanied by email or text reminders.

USDA currently describes One Farmer, One File as an effort to unify the systems used by FSA, the Natural Resources Conservation Service and RMA. The project began in 2025 and is expected to be completed in 2028. NASS is not explicitly identified as one of the initiative’s core agencies.

Extending the concept to NASS would allow USDA to prefill acreage, location, crop and farm-structure information already held by the department. Producers could confirm or correct the information rather than starting a new questionnaire from a blank page.

USDA has already made partial progress. Acreage reports for approved crops are electronically shared between FSA and RMA, reducing duplicate entry of common information. Yet producers must still contact both FSA and their crop insurance agent to validate records, provide program-specific details, complete maps and sign reports.

That is data sharing, but it is not yet a seamless producer experience.

A fully modernized system would show farmers which agency already holds each piece of information, why additional data are needed and how long a survey should take. It should allow secure phone or tablet responses, saved drafts and text, email or portal notifications.

Electronic reporting should be treated as a central modernization goal, not an add-on. Government services are steadily moving toward digital forms, applications and filings, and some agencies no longer accept paper for selected transactions. NASS works at a far larger scale than many of those programs, but the direction is clear: routine producer reporting should increasingly be available through secure electronic channels, with paper as a fallback rather than the default.

Any expansion would also require clear confidentiality rules. Farmers would need to know which information is being reused, which agencies can access it and whether it is being used for program administration, statistical purposes or both.

Incentives Could Help, but Burden Reduction Comes First

Shane Gray of the Illinois Corn Growers Association said USDA’s statistical system is not fundamentally broken but needs improvement. He also suggested considering incentives for farmers who complete surveys.

USDA could test modest, fixed incentives that are tied solely to completion and never to the content of a producer’s answers. But incentives should not become a substitute for correcting the underlying burden, analysts stress.

A farmer who must search through records to complete several lengthy questionnaires is unlikely to view a token payment as adequate compensation. Eliminating duplicate questions, shortening forms and returning useful information to participants could prove more valuable. USDA could, for example, give respondents a confidential post-survey summary showing how their operation compares with county or regional benchmarks. That would turn participation into a more visible exchange rather than a one-way transfer of information.

Michelle Jones, a wheat producer in Montana, emailed:

“I used to religiously answer [USDA surveys]. Now because of my off-farm job, it’s rare I answer for a few reasons: 

“1) there’s no good online platform. If I could answer on my phone, I likely wouldn’t miss one. 
“2) I often don’t see the mail until it’s too late to input. Then I forget to bring it with me so I have the code. 

“3) and arguably the biggest issue is that they are relentless with phone calls. Sometimes I’ll miss 3+ calls a day on surveys. And it just annoys me. It’s worse than telemarketers. If I didn’t answer the first time, there’s probably a reason.” 

Steve Verett, a cotton farmer and former industry official, emailed:

“I religiously returned all surveys from the time I started farming in 1979 up until about ten years ago. The main reason I stopped reporting was that NASS discontinued in season District estimates for cotton, claiming lack of funds, despite the fact that Texas through TDA was subsidizing those reports. To many cotton producing states, one state estimate may be adequate, but to Texas and the cotton industry, one state number is worthless. NASS data should be a much more robust and reliable number, and I applaud at least an attempt to make it so.”

Figure 3. Where this story is coming from — the farmers, officials and analysts quoted in this report. Source: Ag Policy & Markets Daily reporting; Brownfield Ag News.

Modernization Also Requires Processing Capacity

Technology alone will not solve the problem if USDA lacks enough experienced personnel to process administrative records, reconcile conflicting sources and evaluate new models.

During the first half of 2025, FSA lost about 24% of its staff and NASS lost approximately 34%, according to government workforce data cited by Reuters. Reduced staffing slowed FSA’s processing of acreage information, delaying the data available to NASS and contributing to unusually large revisions in 2025 corn acreage.

Figure 4. Staff losses at the two agencies the modernization plan depends on. Source: government workforce data cited by Reuters; Randy Russell for the full-time equivalent figure.

Shaffer’s focus on the date by which insurance providers enter acreage therefore highlights an important dependency. Administrative data are useful only if USDA can receive, clean, reconcile and analyze them before a market report is released.

Modernization must include both improved technology and sufficient statistical, information-technology and field-office expertise to operate it.

USDA Will Be Judged by What Changes

USDA says Hutchins is coordinating a multi-agency Data Modernization Plan that will be released later in 2026. The department has announced listening sessions at several agricultural events, including the Farm Progress Show. Shaffer said he also understood that a session would be held at a Wisconsin farm.

The Illinois meeting suggests USDA should judge the plan through concrete measures: how many questions are eliminated, how much time farmers spend completing surveys, how often information is requested more than once, whether response rates improve and whether the size of later acreage revisions declines.

Table 2. The scorecard implied by the Illinois session: concrete measures against which the Data Modernization Plan can be judged. Source: recommendations and criteria described in this report.

Shaffer’s account also shows why the listening sessions must produce visible action. A one-hour panel followed by another round of internal study will do little to restore confidence unless producers can see which recommendations USDA accepted and why others were rejected.

Bottom line

The Illinois farmers were not asking USDA to choose between surveys and technology. They were describing a hybrid architecture: NASA and other satellite data for broad observation, FSA and RMA files for acreage already reported, One Farmer, One File and mobile electronic reporting for producer access, and targeted surveys for the remaining information.

That would preserve the independence of USDA statistics while changing the farmer’s role from repeatedly supplying the same basic records to providing the ground truth the department cannot obtain anywhere else.

Randy Russell, a DC/Va. based agricultural consultant and former USDA official, said: 

“You have provided some very interesting pieces on NASS… 39% full-time equivalent reduction since 2024… hard not to believe that isn’t impacting the quality of their projections. When you think about the core mission of USDA, one of its most fundamental is providing gold standard data and forecasts that the industry has confidence in, whether it be NASS or the World Agricultural Outlook Board. But in recent years the private sector forecasting capabilities have improved significantly, challenging USDA’s premier position. If you truly believe good information, data and timely forecasts are fundamental to USDA’s mission, then continued investments are essential. By the way, the response rate to USDA’s surveys follows a decades long decline in almost all government surveys. It isn’t unique to USDA… in fact their response rates are better than for most government agencies.”

Sources: Brownfield Ag News; USDA — National Agricultural Statistics Service, Farm Service Agency, Risk Management Agency and Economic Research Service; government workforce data cited by Reuters; interviews and correspondence with Rob Shaffer, Michelle Jones, Steve Verett and Randy Russell; Ag Policy & Markets Daily reporting.

AG POLICY & MARKETS DAILY   |   SPECIAL REPORT  |  USDA DATA MODERNIZATION — TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 2026