Comparing survey-based and programme-based yield data: implications for the U.S. Agricultural Risk Coverage-County programme

  • Xiaofei LiEmail author
  • Zhiwei Shen
  • Ardian Harri
  • Keith H. Coble


One of the changes introduced by the U.S. 2018 Farm Bill in the Agricultural Risk Coverage-County (ARC-CO) programme is the requirement to use Risk Management Agency (RMA) programme-based data rather than National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) survey-based data. This study compares the NASS and RMA county yield data for the period 1991–2015 and finds no systematic differences between the two data sets. Additionally, using RMA or NASS yield data results in relatively small and statistically insignificant differences in the ARC-CO payments. The spatial disparities across neighbouring counties in ARC-CO payments are also similar, no matter whether NASS or RMA data are used.


Agricultural risk coverage Farm policy NASS RMA 



  1. AGWEB. 2016. Where did $7 billion in ARC-CO and PLC payments go? Accessed 30 Jan 2018.
  2. American Farm Bureau Federation. 2017. Farm bureau supports farm program fix. American Farm Bureau Federation, October 24. Accessed 5 June, 2019.
  3. Bulut, H., and K.J. Collins. 2014. Designing farm supplemental revenue coverage options on top of crop insurance coverage. Agricultural Finance Review 74 (3): 397–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campiche, J., J. Outlaw, and H. Bryant. 2014. Agricultural act of 2014: Commodity programs. Choices. Quarter 2. Accessed 5 June, 2019.
  5. Clayton, C. 2017. Declining ARC protection: Safety net needs changes in next farm bill to remain viable option for farmers. DTN Progressive Farmer, Oct 13, 2017. Accessed 5 June, 2019.
  6. Dismukes, R., K. H. Coble, J. C. Miller, and E. O’Donoghue. 2013. The effects of area-based revenue protection on producers’ choices of farm-level revenue insurance. Paper presented at the 2013 Agricultural and Applied Economics Association annual meeting, Washington, D.C., August 4–6, 2013.Google Scholar
  7. Farm Service Agency, United States Department of Agriculture. 2016. Agriculture risk coverage and price loss coverage amendment 11. Accessed 5 June, 2019.
  8. Gerlt, S., and P. Westhoff. 2013. Analysis of the supplemental coverage option. In: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association symposium on “Crop insurance and the farm bill: A new paradigm in US Agricultural Policy”, Louisville, Kentucky.Google Scholar
  9. Glauber, J.W., and P. Westhoff. 2015. The 2014 farm bill and the WTO. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 97 (5): 1287–1297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Johansson, R., A. Effland, and K. Coble. 2017. Falling response rates to USDA crop surveys: Why it matters. farmdoc daily (7):9. Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, January 19, 2017.Google Scholar
  11. Paulson, N.D., J.D. Woodard, and B. Babcock. 2013. Modelling “shallow loss” crop revenue programs. Agricultural Finance Review 73 (2): 329–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. S.1998—115th Congress: ARC-CO Improvement Act (2017). Accessed 5 June, 2019.
  13. Taylor, M.R., G.T. Tonsor, N.D. Paulson, B. Ellison, J. Coppess, and G.D. Schnitkey. 2017. Is it good to have options? The 2014 farm bill program decisions. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 39 (4): 533–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Theisse, K. 2017. Understanding the difference in ARC-CO payments. FarmProgress, March 31, 2017. Accessed 5 June, 2019.
  15. U.S. Congress. Senate. 2017. Committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry. Commodities, credit, and crop insurance: Perspectives on risk management tools and trends for the 2018 farm bill: Hearings before the committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry. 115th Cong., 1st sess., July 25, 2017.Google Scholar
  16. Zulauf, C., G. Schnitkey, N. Paulson, and J. Coppess. 2017. Comparing NASS and RMA county yields for corn. farmdoc daily (7):202. Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, November 2, 2017.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Geneva Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaofei Li
    • 1
    Email author
  • Zhiwei Shen
    • 2
  • Ardian Harri
    • 1
  • Keith H. Coble
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural EconomicsMississippi State UniversityMississippi StateUSA
  2. 2.solarisBank CompanyBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations