have under the old system a way of estimating the degree of accuracy in the estimates. Mr. SCHERLE. My next question was: Why do so many farmers resent your existence? Maybe after 1967 you have given them enough reason in that one particular year that they felt the Statistical Reporting Service was really a joke as far as they were concerned. Some probably feel it was detrimental as far as a lot of farmers were concerned. I am talking about cattle feeders Dr. TRELOGAN. Yes. Let me respond with this point. We have been demonstrating in more recent times, particularly to the hog producers, how valuable this service is in helping them anticipate substantial changes in hog numbers. Cattle-on-feed estimates are doing the same. Mr. SCHERLE. Well, doctor, there are still a lot of farmers that still do not have the faith in the agency maybe that you do. And when you pull a faux pas like you did in 1967, farmers have got a long memory, Doctor, they do not forget in a hurry. Dr. TRELOGAN. That is exactly why we are asking in this budget for the opportunity to extend improved probability sampling techniques for livestock to more States as the means to gain the accuracy desired. Dr. PAARLBERG. May I comment at this point? Last year, aware of the problem you describe regarding the fact that some farmers did not have much confidence in our work, we made a special point to invite in eight farmers from various parts of the country, including two gentlemen from your State, Iowa. They came in for one of our big crop reports and they saw the preparation from beginning to end and had an opportunity to ask questions of the people who put these numbers together. We talked with them afterward. Their confidence in the objectivity of the operation advanced a great deal, and on their own they made statements to their local papers which indicated a great deal more confidence in the operation than they had before. Mr. SCHERLE. We would hope, since you doubled your budget since I came to Congress, that you have advanced in accuracy and not go along that same line of erroneous information. Now, you are talking quite a bit about computers. How do you protect yourself from garbage in-garbage out. USE OF COMPUTERS FOR PROCESSING SURVEY DATA Dr. TRELOGAN. The data we are putting in those computers come from the surveys we have been discussing. Mr. SCHERLE. I am familiar with that. How do you protect yourself? When you put junk in, you get junk out. Dr. TRELOGAN. By making sure the survey data are reliable. That is exactly the purpose of the proposals we are dealing with here. The computer is simply processing the data obtained from the sample surveys. Its output is no more reliable than the data input. Mr. SCHERLE. I know that. I am not worried about the machine as much as I am the man who feeds them. Dr. TRELOGAN. That is correct. It is also true that the methods are more important than the men in achieving accuracy. Mr. SCHERLE. Methods are devised by man. Dr. TRELOGAN. Correct. Mr. SCHERLE. That is what worries me. Dr. TRELOGAN. You may be assured we are using the most advanced statistical methods that incorporate as much objectivity as possible. In fact, in our own research, we are leading the development of dependable sampling methods. Mr. SCHERLE. On page 2 you list the current and prospective supplies of agricultural products throughout the year. Are you more accurate on crops or livestock as far as estimates? ACCURACY OF CROP ESTIMATES Dr. TRELOGAN. Up to now we have been more accurate on crops. Mr. SCHERLE. Any particular point within the crop field that you are more accurate in, the beginning or Dr. TRELOGAN. The closer the approach to harvest the better the estimate. Mr. SCHERLE. In other words, your big susceptibility to error is intentions and prospects when the seed goes in the ground? Dr. TRELOGAN. Obviously plans and intentions are nebulous. They can't be counted in the sense of objective measurement of physical characteristics. Such an estimate depends very heavily on information people give to us. As the crop season progresses one can measure or count fields, plants, and fruits to improve reliability. Closer to harvest there is less risk from weather changes, insect infestations, and the like, because there is less time for them to occur. In general, we are quite confident we get an accurate measure or reading of the situation at the time of the survey. But we must assume normality in weather conditions between the time of observations and the actual harvest. FARM OPERATOR PRODUCTION EXPENDITURE SURVEY Mr. SCHERLE. Now on page 5-I am really impressed with this from one standpoint-progress in fiscal year 1972, you were going to conduct a nationwide farm production expenditure survey. I am glad to see you do this because maybe this will show the urban American how valuable a farmer is to the local business community. This thing should show up exactly how valuable he is. Dr. TRELOGAN. This is one of the reasons we consider this important. Mr. SCHERLE. Mr. Chairman, that is all I have. Thank you very much. REMOTE SENSING Mr. MICHEL. I'm interested in having just a little more detail on your remote sensing project. You say the additional funds are needed for data processing services to be used in determining possible uses of remote sensing data for improving accuracy and timeliness of crop estimates. What do you expect, or perhaps I should say hope at this stage, remote sensing to contribute to your efforts? How would you like to harness this new technology to help you do your job more effectively? What kinds of things will remote sensing tell you, and how accurate do you think it could be? When did you first start investigating possibilities in this area? What other agencies of the Federal Government have been doing work on remote sensing, and have you been talking with them about this? If your research effort is success ful, will you consider proposing full-scale utilization of remote sensing in the foreseeable future? Dr. TRELOGAN. The Statistical Reporting Service began investigating the use of remote sensing for crop and livestock estimating in the early 1960's. This work used aerial photographs analyzed by photo interpreters. SRS funded studies, at the University of California, to determine the best film and filter combinations and scale of photography to use in aerial photo crop and livestock surveys. These studies indicated aerial photography for measuring livestock inventories had limitations, since livestock are not detectable under manmade or dense natural cover. Thus, a combined use of aerial photography and current area sample enumeration methods must be employed to estimate livestock. Tests using ground data, to correct for bias (undercounting) in image counts, and photo image counts were made. These tests showed that aerial imagery provides: (1) easy access to remote areas, (2) a quick way to obtain information for large areas of land, (3) a technique for eliminating certain biases resulting from imperfect communication or lack of respondent knowledge or cooperation, and (4) an opportunity to make objective counts of animals. Thus, it seems likely that the use of aerial photography, to supplement conventional enumeration methods, can lead to an improvement in the quality of livestock inventory statistics. Technicians at Purdue, Michigan, and Kansas Universities have had moderate success in identifying crops using automated discrimination techniques on remotely sensed data. SRS has supported, and will continue to support and conduct, research on identifying crops from remotely sensed data as mentioned earlier under southern corn leaf blight. This agency, working with the Agricultural Research Service, had identified significant relationships between plant yield characteristics and the optical density of aerial infrared film for certain crops. This research indicates it may be possible to forecast yield from remotely sensed data as technology improves. Similar work has been performed in cooperation with Texas A. & M., Purdue, and South Dakota State Universities. Recent research in the corn blight watch experiment demonstrated that remote sensing has the capability to collect vast quantities of agricultural data over a large geographical area in a very short time. To be used efficiently these data must be analyzed using automated techniques. Techniques to collect agricultural data by remote sensing have advanced more rapidly than the ability to process and and analyze the data collected. The earth resources technology satellite, scheduled to be launched in June 1972, will provide photo coverage of the entire United States mechanically at 18-day intervals. Emphasis needs to be focused on developing procedures for processing, analyzing, and interpreting results within a reasonable time period. This new technology is not likely to replace our current data gathering systems but should provide supplemental data on land utilization, crop acreages, stage of growth and development of crops, yield potential, weather and disease damage, and harvest progress for smaller geographic areas. Current photographic methods have identified crops with about 80-percent accuracy using one overflight. This accuracy will have to be increased to better than 90 percent before the technol ogy can be used in any operating system. By using sequential photography covering date of land preparation, cultivation techniques, crop rotations, and supplemental ground data, this improvement now seems possible. As with any new system it is likely to take several years of intensive research to determine the most effective and efficient ways to utilize it in an operating system. We confidently expect to see some utilization of remote sensing in our crop estimating program within a few years. Mr. NATCHER. Dr. Trelogan, we want to thank you and the members of your staff and, Dr. Paarlberg, for appearing before us at this time on behalf of your budget request for the Statistical Reporting Service for the fiscal year 1973. Thank you very much, gentlemen. The committee will adjourn until 1 o'clock tomorrow afternoon. OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WITNESSES NATHANIEL E. KOSSACK, INSPECTOR GENERAL RICHARD E. LYNG, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE LEONARD H. GREESS, DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL WILLIAM A. SUTO, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE INSPECTOR RICHARD E. BALLARD, CHIEF, DIVISION OF BUDGET AND Mr. WHITTEN. Gentlemen, we come to the Office of the Inspector General with Mr. Kossack and his associates. Before this office was set up each agency had its own investigatory group. It was decided that for any agency to inspect itself might not be exactly the best way, so the various groups were brought together under the Inspector General. Mr. Kossack, we are glad to have you before the committee. (917) |