State comparisons data for agricultural output, number of farms, value of farms, etc. Data include a national ranking.

Texas was by far the leading U.S. state in terms of total number of farms, with about 231 thousand farms by the end of 2024. Iowa was ranked second, among the leading ten states, with 86.7 thousand farms as of 2023. Farms classification In the United States farms are classified based on the farm income and government payments into six sales classes. According to the USDA, about half of all farms in the U.S. were classified in the 1,000 to 9,999 U.S. dollars sales class in 2023. Farming sector in the U.S. The total number of farms in the United States has decreased steadily since 2007. As of 2022, there were about 1.89 million farms in the U.S., down slightly from 1.9 million in the previous year. Contrastingly, the average farm acreage in the United States has increased in the past few years. The number of employees, including both part-time and full-time workers, in this sector was over 965 thousand as of 2019.

State fact sheets provide information on population, income, education, employment, federal funds, organic agriculture, farm characteristics, farm financial indicators, top commodities, and exports, for each State in the United States. Links to county-level data are included when available.This record was taken from the USDA Enterprise Data Inventory that feeds into the https://data.gov catalog. Data for this record includes the following resources: Query tool For complete information, please visit https://data.gov.

This data resource is a layer in a map service. To download it, please go to the "Layers" section of this page and click the name of the dataset. This will open a new page that features a download button. Open the Map Service: https://gis.chesapeakebay.net/ags/rest/services/PriorityAgriculturalWatersheds/PAW_WW_2021/MapServer In 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and regional Land Grant Universities developed Priority Agriculture Watershed (PAW) maps to inform where to focus federal funding for agricultural conservation practices to reduce the greatest nitrogen and phosphorus loads to the tidal Chesapeake Bay. Since then, Priority Agriculture Watershed maps have been used to target implementation funds including EPA Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Implementation, Regulatory and Accountability Program grants, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) Chesapeake Bay Stewardship grants and U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Farm Bill programs. The NRCS targeting effort was the precursor to USDA creating the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative which created dedicated Farm Bill funding for the watershed. The data layers used to create the original 2009 maps were updated by a 2018 release of the USGS SPARROW model (https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20185051) for delivered loads of nitrogen or phosphorus from agricultural sources, agricultural land uses and Clean Water Act Section 303(d) 2016 reports used to emphasize local waters impaired from potential agriculture-related sources. This approach integrates modeling (SPARROW) and monitoring (303d) data to prioritize USGS 12-digit hydrologic units (HUCs) for Chesapeake Bay and local water quality benefits. The PAW analysis ranked HUCs across the Chesapeake Bay watershed in terms of their contribution of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) pollutants to Chesapeake Bay streams. HUCs that fell above a threshold to be considered an Agricultural HUC (AgHUC) were ranked across the watershed based on SPARROW modeled stream pollutant movement between catchments, or Delivered Loading Rate (DLR), for N and for P separately. These rankings were performed across the watershed as well as across each state to enable more flexible mapping comparisons, and especially to facilitate interactive web applications for the public to use to examine results. In addition, the fraction of all SPARROW-derived local catchment 303(d) assessed streams that were in SPARROW-derived agricultural catchments, and that carried 303(d) Agriculture-related pollutants within the same HUC, was produced in this analysis. Percent rankings for the fractional data was not created as it was deemed inappropriate due to the meaningful coarseness of this statistic. This dataset represents the state-specific watershed rankings. Watershed-wide rankings can be found here: https://gis.chesapeakebay.net/ags/rest/services/PriorityAgriculturalWatersheds/PAW_WW_2021/MapServer

The "State Farm Income Data" dataset contains information on farm income indicators, cash receipts by commodity groups and selected commodities, and ranking tables for the 25 leading commodities and for major commodity groups for states and the U.S. Also includes ranking tables for the top 25 states for 25 leading commodities, 50-state summary of cash receipts, and farm income and leading commodities by state. Data are updated anually.

LANGUAGE:

English ACCESS/AVAILABILITY:

Data Center: USDA Economic Research Service Dissemination Media: Diskette, Internet gopher, Internet home page File Format: ASCII, Lotus/dBase Access Instructions: Call NASS at 1-800-999-6779 for historical series data available on diskette. For historical series data available online, connect to the Internet home page at Cornell University.

    URL: 'http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda'

Access to the data or reports may be achieved through the ERS-NASS information system:

    WWW:

'http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda' Gopher client: 'gopher://gopher.mannlib..cornell.edu:70/'

For subscription direct to an e-mail address, send an e-mail message to:

     usda-reports@usda.mannlib.cornell.edu

Type the word "lists" (without quotes) in the body of the message. CONTENTS:

Cash Receipts, by Commodity Groups and Selected Commodities, 1990-1994 Farm Income Indicators for the U.S. and 50 States, 1990-94 Ranking Tables for the 25 Leading Commodities and Major Groups, 1994

In 2023, the state with the largest area cultivated with organic crops was Michoacán, with over 12 thousand hectares cultivated. Ranking second was Chiapas, with more than 11 thousand hectares cultivated with organic crops. That year, the total area cultivated with organic crops in Mexico reached over 54 thousand hectares, and around 52 thousand hectares of organic crops were harvested.

United States - Delinquency Rate on Loans to Finance Agricultural Production, Banks Ranked 1st to 100th Largest in Size by Assets was 1.68% in January of 2025, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, United States - Delinquency Rate on Loans to Finance Agricultural Production, Banks Ranked 1st to 100th Largest in Size by Assets reached a record high of 14.93 in January of 1987 and a record low of 0.97 in July of 2015. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for United States - Delinquency Rate on Loans to Finance Agricultural Production, Banks Ranked 1st to 100th Largest in Size by Assets - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on June of 2025.

Graph and download economic data for Delinquency Rate on Loans to Finance Agricultural Production, Banks Ranked 1st to 100th Largest in Size by Assets (DRFAPGT100S) from Q1 1987 to Q1 2025 about delinquencies, finance, agriculture, production, assets, loans, banks, depository institutions, rate, and USA.

United States - Loans to Finance Agricultural Production, Banks Ranked 1st to 100th Largest in Size by Assets was 20006.00000 Mil. of $ in January of 2025, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, United States - Loans to Finance Agricultural Production, Banks Ranked 1st to 100th Largest in Size by Assets reached a record high of 21704.00000 in October of 2015 and a record low of 4581.00000 in January of 1988. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for United States - Loans to Finance Agricultural Production, Banks Ranked 1st to 100th Largest in Size by Assets - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on June of 2025.

United States - Charge-Off Rate on Loans to Finance Agricultural Production, Banks Ranked 1st to 100th Largest in Size by Assets was 1.02% in October of 2024, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, United States - Charge-Off Rate on Loans to Finance Agricultural Production, Banks Ranked 1st to 100th Largest in Size by Assets reached a record high of 6.17 in January of 1987 and a record low of -2.25 in July of 1987. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for United States - Charge-Off Rate on Loans to Finance Agricultural Production, Banks Ranked 1st to 100th Largest in Size by Assets - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on June of 2025.

Comprehensive ranking data showing academic and design excellence achievements

This statistic shows the states with the highest wheat production in the United States in 2023 and 2024. North Dakota was ranked as the first leading wheat production state with about 367.7 million bushels produced in 2024 and just under 307 million bushels in 2023. Wheat production Wheat is the second most important grain that is cultivated in the United States, following only corn. Wheat is a cereal crop that can be classified into five major classes. These five wheat classes include hard red winter, hard red spring, soft red winter, white, and durum wheat. Each class has a different end-use and the cultivation tends to be region-specific. Hard red winter wheat is mainly grown in the Great Plains area ranging from Montana to Texas. This type is primarily used for the production of bread flour. Hard red spring wheat is mostly cultivated in the Northern Plains area. Their wheat ears are mainly taken for protein blending purposes. Durum wheat, which is primarily grown in North Dakota and Montana, is known for their excellent qualities for producing pasta. The wheat class everyone knows from their breakfast cereal is named white wheat. Almost every U.S. state is involved in agricultural wheat production. The latest statistics show that North Dakota, Kansas and Montana were the leading wheat producing states among the United States.

United States - Asset Quality Measures, Net Charge-Offs on All Loans and Leases, To Finance Agricultural Production, Banks Ranked 1st to 100th Largest in Size by Assets was 19.00000 Mil. of $ in January of 2025, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, United States - Asset Quality Measures, Net Charge-Offs on All Loans and Leases, To Finance Agricultural Production, Banks Ranked 1st to 100th Largest in Size by Assets reached a record high of 116.00000 in January of 2010 and a record low of -28.00000 in July of 1987. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for United States - Asset Quality Measures, Net Charge-Offs on All Loans and Leases, To Finance Agricultural Production, Banks Ranked 1st to 100th Largest in Size by Assets - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on July of 2025.

In 2023, Mato Grosso was the Brazilian state with the largest planted area for agricultural production, amounting to more than 19 million hectares. This represented around one fifth of the planted area for agricultural production in Brazil. Paraná ranked second, with around 11.5 million hectares planted with permanent and temporary crops.

Graph and download economic data for Loans to Finance Agricultural Production, Banks Ranked 1st to 100th Largest in Size by Assets (ALFAPGT100) from Q1 1985 to Q1 2025 about finance, agriculture, production, assets, loans, banks, depository institutions, and USA.

United States - Total Assets, Interest-Earning, All Loans and Leases, Gross, To Finance Agricultural Production, Other Farm Loans, Banks Ranked 1st to 100th Largest in Size by Assets was 19783.00000 Mil. of $ in January of 2025, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, United States - Total Assets, Interest-Earning, All Loans and Leases, Gross, To Finance Agricultural Production, Other Farm Loans, Banks Ranked 1st to 100th Largest in Size by Assets reached a record high of 23601.00000 in October of 2015 and a record low of 4610.00000 in January of 1989. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for United States - Total Assets, Interest-Earning, All Loans and Leases, Gross, To Finance Agricultural Production, Other Farm Loans, Banks Ranked 1st to 100th Largest in Size by Assets - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on June of 2025.

Graph and download economic data for Charge-Off Rate on Loans to Finance Agricultural Production, Banks Ranked 1st to 100th Largest in Size by Assets (CORLAGT100S) from Q1 1985 to Q1 2025 about charge-offs, finance, agriculture, production, assets, loans, banks, depository institutions, rate, and USA.

United States - Asset Quality Measures, Delinquencies on All Loans and Leases, To Finance Agricultural Production, Banks Ranked 1st to 100th Largest in Size by Assets was 368.00000 Mil. of $ in January of 2025, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, United States - Asset Quality Measures, Delinquencies on All Loans and Leases, To Finance Agricultural Production, Banks Ranked 1st to 100th Largest in Size by Assets reached a record high of 1349.00000 in April of 2010 and a record low of 124.00000 in October of 1995. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for United States - Asset Quality Measures, Delinquencies on All Loans and Leases, To Finance Agricultural Production, Banks Ranked 1st to 100th Largest in Size by Assets - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on June of 2025.

Graph and download economic data for Asset Quality Measures, Delinquencies on All Loans and Leases, To Finance Agricultural Production, Banks Ranked 1st to 100th Largest in Size by Assets (DALLFAPGT100EP) from Q1 1987 to Q1 2025 about delinquencies, leases, finance, agriculture, production, assets, loans, banks, depository institutions, and USA.

What?

A dataset containing 313 total variables from 33 secondary sources. There are 261 unique variables, and 52 variables that have the same measurement but are reported for a different year; e.g. average farm size in 2017 (CapitalID: N27a) and 2022 (N27b). Variables were grouped by the community capital framework's seven capitals—Natural (96 total variables), Cultural (38), Human (39), Social (40), Political (18), Financial (67), & Built (15)—and temporally and thematically ordered. The geographic boundary is NOAA NCEI's corn and soybean belt (figure below), which stretches across 18 states and includes N=860 counties/observations. Cover crop data for the 80 Crop Reporting Districts in the boundary are also included for 2015-2021.

Why?

Comprehensively assessing how community capital clustered variables, for both farmers and nonfarmers, impact conservation practices (and perennial groundcover) over time helps to examine county-level farm conservation agriculture practices in the context of community development. We contribute to the robust U.S. cover crop literature a better understanding of how overarching cultural, social, and human factors influence conservation agriculture practices to encourage better farm management practices. Analyses of this Dataverse will be presented as recomendations for farmers, nonfarmers, ag-adjacent stakeholders, and community leaders.

How?

Variables used in this dataset range 20 years, from 2004-2023, though primary analyses focus on data collected between 2017-2024, primarily 2017 and 2022 (NASS Ag Census years). First, JAM-K requested, accessed, and downloaded data, most of which was already publically available. Next, JAM-K cleaned the data and aggregated into one dataset, and made it publically available on Google Drive and Zenodo.

What is 'new' or corrected in version 2?

Edited/amended: Carroll, KY is now spelled correctly (two 'l's, not one); variable names, full and abbreviated, were updated to include the data year; Pike County's (IL) FIPS has been corrected from its wrong 17153 (same as Pulaski County) to 17149 (correct fips), and all Pike County (IL) data has been correctly amended; Farming dependent (ERS) updated for all variables; Data for built capital variables irrCorn17, irrSoy17, irrHcrp17, tractor17, and combine17 were incorrect for v.1, but were corrected for v.2; Several variable labels aggregated by Wisconsin University's Population Health Institute's County Health Rankings and Roadmaps were corrected to have the data's original source and years included, rather than citing CHR&R as the source (except for CHR&R's originally-produced values such as quartiles or rank scores); variables were reorganized by hypothesized community capital clusters (Natural -> Built), and temporally within each cluster.

Added: 55 variables, mostly from the 2022 Ag Census, and v2.1 added a .pdf file with descriptives of data sources and years, and a .sav file.

Omitted: Four variables deemed irrelevant to the study; V1 codebook's "years internally available" column.

CRediT: conceptualization, CBF, JAM-K; methodology, JAM-K; data aggregation and curation, JAM-K; formal analysis, JAM-K; visualization, JAM-K; supervision, CBF; funding acquisition, CBF; project administration, CBF; resources, CBF, JAM-K

Acknowledgements: This research was funded by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant No. 2021-68012-35923 from the United States Department of Agriculture National Institute for Food and Agriculture. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this presentation are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Much thanks to Corteva for granting data access of OpTIS 2.0 (2005-2019), and Austin Landini for STATA code and visualization assistance.