NASS Review

NASS Review of OMB No. 0581-0169

Farmer’s Market Questionnaire

February 6, 2013

General Comments:

This docket is well described and documented. Incorporating the market manager’s survey with the directory update is a logical step forward. The directory is a fantastic information source for all market participants. Informative public and private research based on this survey has been conducted that will encourage further market efficiencies.

2013 Supporting Statement - Introduction:

First paragraph is well and good up to the discussion of stratification. The discussion of stratification is out of place and confusing in the opening paragraph and no clear advantage is gained by positioning it here.

Part A. Justification:

Part 1.

This section is well done. I would include some discussion of food safety as a justification as well.

Part 2.

This section is well done. It’s not apparent to a casual reader what the TM-6 tool refers to. Also, is the database available to the general public? There is a long list of users who utilize both data and reports. Are there data access restrictions and if so where are the boundaries?

Part 3.

Good.

Part 4.

Good, duplication is definitely not be an issue even where the Agricultural Census is involved. This collection is specific and will improve market efficiency.

Part 5.

Okay.

Part 6.

Okay. I might include some discussion of the value of an emergency contact listing. Possibly this information is collated by some other agency in some other way, but I see the directory as a valuable communication tool in cases of emergency. Of course, the value is correlated with a good response rate.

Part 7.

Okay.

Part 8.

Okay.

Part 9.

Okay

Part 10.

This may be something to pursue for the future, if data demand and the market’s size and scope measures, such as percent of total agricultural sales, etc. warrant legal protection for respondents.

Part 11.

Okay.

Part 12.

Okay.

Part 13.

Okay.

Part 14.

Okay.

Part 15.

Okay.

Part 16.

Okay. I have further comments on this in the statistical review.

Part 17.

Okay.

Part 18.

Okay.

Part B: Collections of Information Employing Statistical Methods

Part 1.

The statistical administration of the Farmer’s Market Survey is okay. The sampling population is well defined. The allocation of participants to special modules is rational for controlling burden. More explanation is needed for the vendor number strata breaks.

Given the increasing sales volume and participation in this marketing channel, I would suggest, if manpower is available, to use the directory’s available control data for the 7,865 farmer’s markets to assign survey weights. Good control data related to sales class, number of vendors, or type of farmer’s market can be used to assign a permanent set of respondent survey weights. These initial weights can be adjusted for non-response. Final weights may then be used to calculate totals, means, proportions, and estimate variation. This would provide measures of precision and/or statements of accuracy. In general, publications and references listed on AMS’s website that used Farmer’s Market Managers survey data were not necessarily concerned with survey precision, and that’s fine, but in an industry with $1.2 billion in direct sales in 2007, at some point, someone may want to evaluate statistical precision. In addition, formal survey procedures are a means to ensure statistical quality. The process is more intensive, but the result is higher quality and reliability of published estimates.

Part 2.

The survey’s website and data collection instrument is great.

Part 3.

The study of non-response bias is okay too. The questions used to evaluate non-response are exactly the kinds that are useful to building a useful set of control data. Just as a thought, the directory to me is such a valuable marketing tool for farm market managers that I see a requirement to participate in the survey in order to be listed may not be out of the question. Another practice to encourage response is to produce outputs that are automatically shipped to respondents which gives respondents a managerial advantage over non-respondents in terms of easy access to results. Again, given the budget, this type of effort is probably not possible currently but maybe in the future.

Part 4.

Okay.

Part 5.

Okay.