Confidence in USDA reporting is slipping across the agricultural economy, and it’s not just talk in the countryside.
According to Farm Journal’s January Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor, released at Top Producer Summit, the majority of economists, producers and retailers say their confidence in USDA reports has declined compared to past years.
- 68% of economists say they are less confident in USDA reports.
- 73% of producers say their confidence has declined.
- 78% of retailers report waning trust.
The findings framed a candid conversation on stage at Top Producer Summit featuring Seth Meyer, director of the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri; Grant Gardner of the University of Kentucky; and Chip Flory, host of AgriTalk.
At the center of the discussion: A June acreage “miss” and subsequent revisions left many in the industry questioning how such large shifts could occur in a short window and whether the data driving markets can be trusted.
The June Acreage Shock
Flory points to a key frustration voiced by producers: How could USDA show such a drastic acreage change in a short amount of time?
Meyer, former USDA chief economist, acknowledges the issue.
“Quite honestly, I think this is a problem,” he says. “If you’ve lost confidence, we have to ask why.”
He emphasizes, however, the issue is not political interference or hidden agendas in USDA or the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).
“It is not that these people have a political agenda,” Meyer says. “They want to do a good job. I hated being wrong.”
Instead, he pointed to structural challenges, including survey fatigue among producers and confusion about how acreage numbers are constructed and revised.
The June planted acreage miss triggered a chain reaction. Planted acreage revisions led to harvested acreage revisions. Add in larger September carryout stocks, and the cumulative effect was a bigger crop supply than the market anticipated.
Several adjustments in a row, some related, some not, all moved in the same direction.
“That September acreage adjustment gave me a better understanding of how misunderstood the process is by producers,” Meyer says. “You certify planted acres, not harvested acres. Harvested acres is where the big change occurred.”
Why Not Just Use FSA Data?
A frequent question from producers: If acreage is certified with the Farm Service Agency (FSA), why doesn’t USDA simply use those numbers?
Meyer says they do use FSA numbers and increasingly earlier in the process than in the past.
Four years ago, FSA-certified acreage data wasn’t fully incorporated until the October report. Today, USDA has moved that integration forward into August, releasing certified data alongside other reports to improve transparency and eliminate timing confusion.
If anything, Meyer argues, FSA data is being used better now than it was in the past.
He also notes private industry analysis of FSA data pushed USDA toward earlier use, increasing transparency in the process.
Can Satellites Replace Farmer Surveys?
With fewer farmers responding to surveys, another question surfaced: Why not rely more heavily on satellite imagery?
Meyer says Earth observation tools have improved, but they are not yet a substitute for field-level survey data.
Satellite tools can get close. But he warned there is a threshold effect: Once survey quality drops below a certain point, the value of the report doesn’t slowly decline, it collapses.
“You’ve got to ground-truth it,” Gardner adds. “Even if satellite data improves, you still need to go look.”
Meyer says he would want to see satellite systems consistently match field survey results for years before replacing traditional methods.
Workforce Reductions Come Into Play
Since January 2025, USDA’s workforce has been cut by more than 20,000 staff members, which former acting deputy undersecretary Spiro Stefanou says hampered FSA from processing planting data last summer and feeding it to NASS.
Meyer admits that experience can’t be replaced.
“I would say the cushion we have in terms of knowledge base is largely gone,” he says. “We wouldn’t want to go through another period of losses where I would have lost more people in those units who did the WASDE report.”
Internal Review: Will It Restore Confidence?
Following the January WASDE report, in which USDA raised harvested corn acres by 1.3 million for a record 4.5-million-acre increase since July, the agency launched an internal review of its data collection processes. Will that help?
Gardner says economists’ concerns often focus less on methodology and more on staffing and budget cuts.
“From the economist perspective, it wasn’t as much, ‘Is this the best data we have?’” Gardner explains. “It was, ‘Do we have the best people in place?’”
From the producer perspective, however, the frustration is different, involving surprise adjustments and a perception that official reports don’t match what’s happening at the farm gate.
Meyer believes the review might restore some confidence, but he doesn’t expect sweeping findings.
“It’s 100% the best data out there,” he says. “Follow it, because you’re not getting anything better.”
Still, he acknowledges the partnership between USDA and producers must be strengthened.
“This is an important partnership,” Meyer says. “USDA has to prove its value proposition to producers. They have to prove this is good for producers, and that it creates symmetry of information in the marketplace.”
Confidence Tested, Not Broken
While trust in USDA data might be eroding, panelists stopped short of declaring the system broken. The message from the stage was clear: The data remains the best available, but maintaining its credibility will require transparency, engagement and renewed participation from producers themselves.