items in each section of the report form was conducted 

 separately; thus, assigned values for one operation could 

 come from more than one respondent. 



Prior to the imputation operation, a set of default values 

 and relationships were assigned to the possible imputation 

 variables. The relationships and values varied depending 

 on the item being imputed. For example, different default 

 values were assigned for several standard industrial clas- 

 sification and total value of sales categories when imputing 

 hired farm labor expenses. These values and item relation- 

 ships for the possible imputation variables were stored in 

 the computer in a series of matrices. The computer 

 records were sorted by reported State and county, where 

 the county sequence was based on similar types of farms 

 and agricultural practices. 



Each execution of the computer edit consisted of records 

 from only one State. For a given execution of the edit, the 

 stored entries in the various matrices were retained in the 

 computer only until a succeeding record having acceptable 

 characteristics for some sections of the report form was 

 processed by the computer. Then the acceptable responses 



of the succeeding operation replaced those previously 

 stored. When a record processed through the edit had 

 unreported or unacceptable data, the record was assigned 

 the last acceptable ratio or response from an operation 

 with a similar set of characteristics. Once each execution 

 of the computer edit for a State was completed, the 

 possible imputation variables were reset to the default 

 values and relationships for subsequent executions. 



After the initial computer edit, keyed reports not meeting 

 the census farm definition were reviewed to ensure that 

 the data were keyed correctly. Edit referrals were gener- 

 ated for about 30 percent of the reports included as farms, 

 and they were also reviewed for keying accuracy and to 

 ensure that the computer edit actions were correct. If the 

 results of the computer edit were not acceptable, correc- 

 tions were made and the record was reedited. More 

 extensive discussions of the edit and item imputation 

 methodology with measures of the extent of imputation in 

 the census estimates will be provided in a separate 

 research report. 



1987 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE 



APPENDIX C C-3 



