Recent revisions to U.S. corn acreage estimates have raised doubts about the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s data-gathering and reporting processes, industry participants and former agency officials say. Once regarded as the global benchmark for crop statistics, the USDA has seen its estimates materially change between mid-year and final reports, a development that has unsettled farmers, grain traders and food manufacturers that rely on monthly production and supply figures to manage inventories and price risk.
The agency’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) is conducting an internal review after the USDA’s January final numbers for corn plantings and harvested acres were substantially higher than its June projections. Lance Honig, a senior NASS official, said the review will verify that the service’s procedures operated as intended and that the agency is exploring ways to improve harvested acreage estimates, likely without increasing the number of farmer surveys.
What changed in the acreage estimates
In its January release, the USDA raised its estimate of corn acres harvested for grain to 91.3 million acres. That figure represented a 1.3% increase from the immediately prior estimate and was 5.2% greater than the agency’s June projection. The revisions to acres fed an upward adjustment in the agency’s production estimate and were followed by a significant drop in market prices: futures fell by 5.4% in response, and industry commentary described an overall decline of more than 5% in already-low grain prices.
Planting estimates saw similar upward movement. In June the USDA had estimated farmers planted 95.2 million acres of corn, a number that at the time reflected a 5% increase from the previous year and was regarded as near-complete given planting progress. By January, the agency’s estimate for planted acres had risen to 98.8 million acres, which is 3.8% higher than the initial June figure. The USDA had increased its plantings estimate by more than 2% in August, a move that at that time pushed corn prices down roughly 3%, and the estimate was again revised upward in September before the January final.
Market and industry reaction
Analysts and market participants reacted sharply to the size and timing of the adjustments. Arlan Suderman, chief commodities economist at StoneX, said the data last month "appeared to reflect an agency in disarray," citing the changes to acreage and related estimates. Sid Love, a longtime analyst, recounted the widespread surprise among market observers: "All of a sudden we had acres popping up all over the place." Such large swings between June and final estimates are historically unusual; a Reuters analysis referenced by market participants noted that over the past 15 years harvested acreage estimates have on average declined about 0.7% from June to January.
For growers, the revisions have practical consequences. With grain prices already depressed, the unexpected increase in acres contributed to further price weakness at a time when many producers were struggling with margins. Some farmers had held off selling grain because prices were low and, according to the USDA analysis, were not aware that plantings had been larger than they had expected.
Staffing losses and statistical challenges
Agency staffing changes have become a focal point in explanations for the data shortfalls. Thousands of USDA employees left the department last year amid a White House effort to reduce federal staffing. In the first half of last year, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) lost approximately 24% of its workforce, while NASS experienced a reduction of about 34% as employees resigned, retired or were terminated, according to government data cited by agency officials.
Former officials and analysts contend those reductions affected the flow of information used to compile acreage estimates. Spiro Stefanou, who served as acting USDA deputy undersecretary and resigned last fall, said staffing constraints at the Farm Service Agency slowed the processing of planting reports last summer and delayed the transfer of that information to the statistics service. "NASS had less information to go on," Stefanou said, adding that the delayed reporting made NASS’s estimates less reliable. Stefanou, who also formerly led the USDA’s Economic Research Service, described the departures as a cascading outcome of a deferred resignation program within the agency.
Honig acknowledged the slower reporting from the Farm Service Agency but declined to point to a specific reason for the initial undercount in plantings.
Survey participation and methodological considerations
NASS’s June acreage estimate was based on responses from nearly 68,000 farmers, but participation has been declining, complicating mid-year estimates. The service used that June survey to carry forward an estimate of harvested acres until it resurveyed farmers in December and published the January update. The agency has said it will consider alternatives to improve harvested acreage estimates, and Honig indicated that any changes would likely avoid expanding farmer surveys.
Honig also noted that the January increase in harvested acres for grain aligned with observable conditions at the time: adverse weather had not reduced harvests, plantings were larger than in earlier years, and acres harvested for silage typically remain stable year to year. Still, industry figures expressed frustration that such a marked swing from June to the final estimate had not been anticipated earlier.
"Given the turmoil and turnover at the USDA at the time, there were already concerns about data quality, with the miss from June to final doing everything to reinforce those fears," said Angie Setzer, a partner at Consus Ag Consulting. She added that a swing of this magnitude in final plantings is unprecedented in modern experience and complicates risk management for farms and businesses that depend on reliable acreage data.
Calls for better coverage and accountability
Some industry observers urged the USDA to strengthen its coverage and data-validation processes so that market participants and downstream users can plan with greater confidence. Bill Lapp, president of consultancy Advanced Economic Solutions, was blunt: "They blew the coverage here on this one." The agency’s internal review at NASS will examine whether established procedures were followed and what improvements could guard against similar surprises in future acreage reports.
Analysts noted that the combination of declining survey response rates, larger-than-expected plantings and disruptions to data processing created a difficult environment for accurate mid-year estimation. Several market participants urged the USDA to publicly clarify how it will adjust methods or data flows to restore confidence.
Implications for markets and participants
The revisions and the questions they generated underscore the sensitivity of commodity markets to official data. Farmers, traders, ethanol producers and food manufacturers routinely use USDA monthly reports on production, supplies and demand to make operational and pricing decisions. When those figures change substantially after the fact, it can amplify price volatility and complicate risk management across the agricultural value chain.
How the USDA addresses the findings of its NASS internal review, and whether it implements procedural or data-source changes, will be watched closely by market participants who depend on timely and accurate acreage and production statistics.
Summary
The USDA’s substantial upward revisions to 2025 corn plantings and harvested acres, set against a backdrop of significant staff reductions, have prompted an internal review of NASS procedures and renewed concern among farmers and commodity markets about data reliability. The adjustments drove a material drop in prices and left analysts calling for improved coverage and clearer processes to prevent similar surprises.