History and Origin
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) traces its origins to the New Deal era. Although the agency under its current name was formally established in 1939 by Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace, its roots lie in the agricultural market stabilization programs created during the Great Depression.
The Great Depression set the stage for AMS by highlighting the need for coordinated federal marketing support. Farmers in the early 1930s faced devastating price collapses and lacked market infrastructure. New Deal legislation, particularly the AAA of 1933 and the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, created the foundational marketing, grading, and market news services that would later be consolidated into AMS in 1939.
Before AMS, USDA had multiple bureaus handling commodity grading, inspection, market news, and marketing orders. These services expanded rapidly in the 1930s in response to collapsing farm prices and widespread surpluses.
What Does AMS Do Today?
Understanding the Role of The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
AMS plays a critical role in U.S. agriculture by providing:
- Standardization, grading, and inspection across commodity sectors like dairy, fruits & vegetables, livestock, cotton, tobacco, and seeds.
- Management and enforcement of laws such as the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), Federal Seed Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, and organic program standards.
- The National Organic Program (NOP), which regulates organic certification, integrity, and enforcement of the USDA Organic Seal.
- Market news and data tools—free, real-time information used by farmers, traders, and markets to make informed decisions.
- Grants, technical assistance, and initiatives that support small and regional markets, farmers markets, local food systems, and infrastructure development.
- Commodity procurement programs serving schools, food banks, and underserved communities.
Over the decades, AMS has navigated shifting agricultural landscapes. It has adapted to new regulatory demands. AMS has also expanded its programs in response to emerging needs. The agency’s evolution is marked by several key milestones. These milestones show its ongoing commitment to supporting American agriculture. They also guarantee secure food systems. The next milestones highlight the pivotal changes and achievements that have shaped AMS into the organization it is today.
Key milestones include:
• 1929 – Great Depression begins; farm prices collapse.
• 1933 – Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) introduces marketing agreements, price supports, and commodity standards.
• 1935 – USDA boosts Market News Service, first launched in 1915.
• 1937 – Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act strengthens USDA authority for marketing orders.
• 1939 – AMS established by consolidating multiple USDA programs.
• 1942–1953 – AMS functions transferred to Agricultural Marketing Administration.
• 1953–1965 – Name restored to AMS, later changed to Consumer and Marketing Service.
• 1972 – AMS re-established under its current configuration.
• 2017 – AMS absorbs Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) functions and some Farm Service Agency (FSA) programs.
Current Staffing
According to USDA’s FY 2024 budget documents, AMS employs approximately 4,132 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff. AMS’s own public-facing information describes its workforce as around 4,000 professionals engaged in commodity grading, market news, procurement, and enforcement of agricultural standards. Is the size of AMS’s payroll excessively large?
Annual Budget
AMS’s budget fluctuates by fiscal year and funding classification (appropriations versus fee-based programs).
- In FY 2021, sources report figures of approximately $3.693 billion and $1.2 billion, which may be due to the inclusion of mandatory and pass-through funds.
- For FY 2024, congressional appropriations provided around $222.9 million for AMS operations.
Overall, AMS manages a core appropriated budget in the range of hundreds of millions and oversees additional programmatic funds.
Is the size of AMS’s payroll excessively large?
The average salary for employees of the Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA) in 2023 was $56,481, which is lower than the national average for government employees. This suggests that the payroll may not be excessively large compared to other federal agencies.
Is the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) Still Needed?
Why AMS Remains Important
- Consumer trust & market fairness: The agency’s impartial grading, PACA enforcement, and organic certification help foster confidence and fair treatment throughout the supply chain.
- Transparency & decision support: AMS market news and data deliver valuable insights that support price discovery and planning—a foundational service for a functioning marketplace.
- Support for underserved producers: Grant programs and technical assistance help small farms and regional food systems thrive, especially in rural and underserved areas.
- Maintaining organic standards: The NOP provides rigorous oversight and maintains consumer confidence in what it means to be ‘USDA Organic.’
- Promoting competition: AMS supports rulemaking and enforcement to enhance transparency and fair prices in concentrated markets, for example in beef and cattle markets.
Facing Criticisms
Of course, AMS is not without its detractors. Some agricultural stakeholders cite perceived redundancies, pointing to overlapping data collection that echoes efforts by other agencies such as the Farm Service Agency (FSA) or Risk Management Agency (RMA). “They could use FSA and RMA info which is far more accurate,” one critic notes. “It’s just an exercise for NASS to justify its existence.” (NASS stands for the National Agricultural Statistics Service)
Is AMS Still Needed?
Despite its challenges, AMS remains vital to the health of American agriculture. Its offerings—from organic certification and market news to grants and enforcement—are not merely bureaucratic exercises; they are the bedrock of a transparent, fair, and competitive agricultural ecosystem.
Yet, as with any federal “service”, there is room for cost cutting measures. Ongoing efforts to reduce duplication, improve efficiency, and maximize effectiveness are paramount. The path forward lies in striking a balance: maintaining core protections and services, while embracing innovation and streamlining where possible.
In the end, the Agricultural Marketing Service’s legacy and future depend on its ability to adapt—without losing sight of the trust and transparency that has defined its mission for generations.
Our national debt is $37.3 trillion. We must cut costs.
Unpopular and difficult decisions must be made. (15 of 630 in this series) ~ Ed Haas
