Quick Stats is the National Agricultural Statistics Service's (NASS) online, self-service tool to access complete results from the 1997, 2002, 2007, and 2012 Censuses of Agriculture as well as the best source of NASS survey published estimates. The census collects data on all commodities produced on U.S. farms and ranches, as well as detailed information on expenses, income, and operator characteristics. The surveys that NASS conducts collect information on virtually every facet of U.S. agricultural production.

Longitude and latitude, state, address, name, and zip code of Farmers Markets in the United States

Farm Data Management System Market Outlook

The global farm data management system market size was valued at USD 3.2 billion in 2023 and is projected to reach USD 9.6 billion by 2032, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 12.5% during the forecast period. The market is driven by the increasing adoption of advanced technologies in agriculture to enhance productivity and efficiency, coupled with growing concerns over sustainable farming practices and food security.

The integration of sophisticated technologies such as IoT, AI, and satellite imagery in farm data management systems is significantly propelling market growth. These advanced technologies enable farmers to collect, analyze, and interpret vast amounts of data, leading to informed decision-making. For instance, IoT devices can monitor soil conditions, weather patterns, and crop health in real-time, providing valuable insights that help optimize resource utilization and crop yields. This technological shift not only enhances productivity but also contributes to sustainable farming practices by reducing waste and minimizing environmental impact.

Another major growth factor is the increasing need for efficient farm management due to the rising global population. With the world population expected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050, there is an escalating demand for food, which in turn requires farmers to maximize their output. Farm data management systems play a pivotal role in this scenario by enabling precision farming. Precision farming allows for the targeted application of inputs such as water, fertilizers, and pesticides, which ensures optimal plant growth and reduces the likelihood of overuse and wastage. Consequently, this contributes to higher crop productivity and better resource management.

Government initiatives and funding are also critical drivers of the farm data management system market. Governments worldwide are increasingly recognizing the importance of modernizing agricultural practices to ensure food security and environmental sustainability. Subsidies, grants, and policy support for the adoption of smart farming technologies are encouraging farmers to invest in farm data management systems. These government interventions not only provide financial support but also raise awareness about the benefits of advanced farming technologies, accelerating market growth.

Regionally, North America held the largest market share in 2023, attributed to the high adoption rate of advanced agricultural technologies and substantial investment in research and development. Europe follows closely, driven by stringent regulations on sustainable farming and strong government support. The Asia Pacific region is expected to witness the highest growth rate during the forecast period, fueled by rapid urbanization, increasing population, and a growing need for efficient agricultural practices. Countries like India and China are investing heavily in smart farming technologies to enhance agricultural productivity and meet the rising food demand.

Component Analysis

The farm data management system market is segmented by component into software, hardware, and services. The software segment is anticipated to hold the largest share owing to its crucial role in data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Advanced software solutions facilitate real-time monitoring and decision-making, which are integral to modern farming practices. These software solutions often integrate with IoT devices and other sensors to gather data on various parameters such as soil moisture, weather conditions, and crop health. This data is then processed using algorithms and analytics to provide actionable insights, helping farmers optimize their operations.

Hardware is another critical component, encompassing devices such as sensors, GPS units, drones, and other IoT devices. These hardware components are essential for the effective collection of data from the farm. Sensors, for instance, can measure soil moisture levels, temperature, and nutrient content, while drones offer aerial imaging and monitoring capabilities. The data collected by these devices is indispensable for precision farming, as it allows for accurate assessment and management of farming activities. The hardware segment is expected to grow steadily, driven by the increasing adoption of IoT and automation technologies in agriculture.

The services segment includes consulting, installation, maintenance, and support services. As farm data management systems become more sophisticated, the demand for professional services to support these sys

Database created for identifying mixed agriculture landscape in the framework of workpackage 3, task 3.3 Mapping mixed landscapes in Europe using existing data (top-down approach) of the MIXED project (Multi-actor and transdisciplinary development of efficient and resilient MIXED farming and agroforestry-systems)

This database is presented and used in deliverable 3.3 Identifying the potential for expansion of mixed farming in European regions.

This data record contains

• the final database used for delivererable 3.3 (databaseD3.3.csv)
• a description of the data in the database (datadescription.xlsx)
• the shapfiles to create maps from the database (map.xxx)

Note that the data description files mentions the source of the raw data. Please consult the deliverable to understand how the data was processed and how the map was created.

The Agri-Environmental Spatial Data (AESD) product from the Census of Agriculture provides a large selection of farm-level variables from the Census of Agriculture and uses alternative data sources to improve the spatial distribution of the production activities. Therefore, the AESD database offers clients the possibility to better analyze the impact of agriculture activities on the environment and produce key indicators, or for any applications where accurate location of activities matters. Variables are offered using two types of physical boundaries: by Soil Landscape of Canada polygons and by Sub-sub-drainage areas (watersheds). The focus of the redistribution of the data is on the field crops and land use variables, but the database includes all census variables related to crops, livestock and management practices. This frame can also be used to extract Census of Agriculture data by custom geographic areas. Also, users interested in this version of the Census of Agriculture database using administrative types of regions can request it. In both cases, please contact Statistics Canada. This file was produced by Statistics Canada, Agriculture Division, Remote Sensing and Geospatial Analysis section, 2022, Ottawa.

United States agricultural researchers have many options for making their data available online. This dataset aggregates the primary sources of ag-related data and determines where researchers are likely to deposit their agricultural data. These data serve as both a current landscape analysis and also as a baseline for future studies of ag research data. Purpose As sources of agricultural data become more numerous and disparate, and collaboration and open data become more expected if not required, this research provides a landscape inventory of online sources of open agricultural data. An inventory of current agricultural data sharing options will help assess how the Ag Data Commons, a platform for USDA-funded data cataloging and publication, can best support data-intensive and multi-disciplinary research. It will also help agricultural librarians assist their researchers in data management and publication. The goals of this study were to establish where agricultural researchers in the United States-- land grant and USDA researchers, primarily ARS, NRCS, USFS and other agencies -- currently publish their data, including general research data repositories, domain-specific databases, and the top journals compare how much data is in institutional vs. domain-specific vs. federal platforms determine which repositories are recommended by top journals that require or recommend the publication of supporting data ascertain where researchers not affiliated with funding or initiatives possessing a designated open data repository can publish data Approach The National Agricultural Library team focused on Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and United States Forest Service (USFS) style research data, rather than ag economics, statistics, and social sciences data. To find domain-specific, general, institutional, and federal agency repositories and databases that are open to US research submissions and have some amount of ag data, resources including re3data, libguides, and ARS lists were analysed. Primarily environmental or public health databases were not included, but places where ag grantees would publish data were considered. Search methods We first compiled a list of known domain specific USDA / ARS datasets / databases that are represented in the Ag Data Commons, including ARS Image Gallery, ARS Nutrition Databases (sub-components), SoyBase, PeanutBase, National Fungus Collection, i5K Workspace @ NAL, and GRIN. We then searched using search engines such as Bing and Google for non-USDA / federal ag databases, using Boolean variations of “agricultural data” /“ag data” / “scientific data” + NOT + USDA (to filter out the federal / USDA results). Most of these results were domain specific, though some contained a mix of data subjects. We then used search engines such as Bing and Google to find top agricultural university repositories using variations of “agriculture”, “ag data” and “university” to find schools with agriculture programs. Using that list of universities, we searched each university web site to see if their institution had a repository for their unique, independent research data if not apparent in the initial web browser search. We found both ag specific university repositories and general university repositories that housed a portion of agricultural data. Ag specific university repositories are included in the list of domain-specific repositories. Results included Columbia University – International Research Institute for Climate and Society, UC Davis – Cover Crops Database, etc. If a general university repository existed, we determined whether that repository could filter to include only data results after our chosen ag search terms were applied. General university databases that contain ag data included Colorado State University Digital Collections, University of Michigan ICPSR (Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research), and University of Minnesota DRUM (Digital Repository of the University of Minnesota). We then split out NCBI (National Center for Biotechnology Information) repositories. Next we searched the internet for open general data repositories using a variety of search engines, and repositories containing a mix of data, journals, books, and other types of records were tested to determine whether that repository could filter for data results after search terms were applied. General subject data repositories include Figshare, Open Science Framework, PANGEA, Protein Data Bank, and Zenodo. Finally, we compared scholarly journal suggestions for data repositories against our list to fill in any missing repositories that might contain agricultural data. Extensive lists of journals were compiled, in which USDA published in 2012 and 2016, combining search results in ARIS, Scopus, and the Forest Service's TreeSearch, plus the USDA web sites Economic Research Service (ERS), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS), Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), Rural Development (RD), and Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). The top 50 journals' author instructions were consulted to see if they (a) ask or require submitters to provide supplemental data, or (b) require submitters to submit data to open repositories. Data are provided for Journals based on a 2012 and 2016 study of where USDA employees publish their research studies, ranked by number of articles, including 2015/2016 Impact Factor, Author guidelines, Supplemental Data?, Supplemental Data reviewed?, Open Data (Supplemental or in Repository) Required? and Recommended data repositories, as provided in the online author guidelines for each the top 50 journals. Evaluation We ran a series of searches on all resulting general subject databases with the designated search terms. From the results, we noted the total number of datasets in the repository, type of resource searched (datasets, data, images, components, etc.), percentage of the total database that each term comprised, any dataset with a search term that comprised at least 1% and 5% of the total collection, and any search term that returned greater than 100 and greater than 500 results. We compared domain-specific databases and repositories based on parent organization, type of institution, and whether data submissions were dependent on conditions such as funding or affiliation of some kind. Results A summary of the major findings from our data review: Over half of the top 50 ag-related journals from our profile require or encourage open data for their published authors. There are few general repositories that are both large AND contain a significant portion of ag data in their collection. GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility), ICPSR, and ORNL DAAC were among those that had over 500 datasets returned with at least one ag search term and had that result comprise at least 5% of the total collection. Not even one quarter of the domain-specific repositories and datasets reviewed allow open submission by any researcher regardless of funding or affiliation. See included README file for descriptions of each individual data file in this dataset. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Journals. File Name: Journals.csvResource Title: Journals - Recommended repositories. File Name: Repos_from_journals.csvResource Title: TDWG presentation. File Name: TDWG_Presentation.pptxResource Title: Domain Specific ag data sources. File Name: domain_specific_ag_databases.csvResource Title: Data Dictionary for Ag Data Repository Inventory. File Name: Ag_Data_Repo_DD.csvResource Title: General repositories containing ag data. File Name: general_repos_1.csvResource Title: README and file inventory. File Name: README_InventoryPublicDBandREepAgData.txt

This table contains data at regional level on the number of persons employed on agricultural holdings, the corresponding annual work units (AWUs) and the number of holdings with workers.

The figures in this table are derived from the agricultural census. Data collection for the agricultural census is part of a combined data collection for a.o. agricultural policy use and enforcement of the manure law.

Regional breakdown is based on the main location of the holding. Due to this the region where activities (crops, animals) are allocated may differ from the location where these activities actually occur.

The agricultural census is also used as the basis for the European Farm Structure Survey (FSS). Data from the agricultural census do not fully coincide with the FSS. In the FSS years (2000, 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2010) additional information was collected to meet the requirements of the FSS.

Data on labour force refer to the period April to March of the year preceding the agricultural census.

In 2022, equidae are not part of the Agricultural Census. This affects the farm type and the total number of farms in the Agricultural Census. Farms with horses, ponies and donkeys that were previously classified as ‘specialist grazing livestock' could be classified, according to their dominant activity, as another farm type in 2022.

From 2018 onwards the number of calves for fattening, pigs for fattening, chicken and turkey are adjusted in the case of temporary breaks in the production cycle (e.g. sanitary cleaning). The agricultural census is a structural survey, in which adjustment for temporary breaks in the production cycle is a.o. relevant for the calculation of the economic size of the holding, and its farm type. In the livestock surveys the number of animals on the reference day is relevant, therefore no adjustment for temporary breaks in the production cycle are made. This means that the number of animals in the tables of the agricultural census may differ from those in the livestock tables (see ‘links to relevant tables and relevant articles).

From 2017 onwards, animal numbers are increasingly derived from I&R registers (Identification and Registration of animals), instead of by means of the combined data collection. The I&R registers are the responsibility of RVO (Netherlands Enterprise Agency). Since 2017, cattle numbers are derived from I&R cattle, and from 2018 sheep, goats and poultry are also derived from the relevant I&R registers. The registration of cattle, sheep and goats takes place directly at RVO. Poultry data is collected via the designated database Poultry Information System Poultry (KIP) from Avined. Avined is a branch organization for the egg and poultry meat sectors. Avined passes the data on to the central database of RVO. Due to the transition to the use of I&R registers, a change in classification will occur for sheep and goats from 2018 onwards.

Since 2016, information of the Dutch Business Register is used to define the agricultural census. Registration in the Business Register with an agricultural standard industrial classification code, related to NACE/ISIC, (in Dutch SBI: ‘Standaard BedrijfsIndeling’) is leading to determine whether there is an agricultural holding. This aligns the agricultural census as closely as possible to the statistical regulations of Eurostat and the (Dutch) implementation of the definition of 'active farmer' as described in the common agricultural policy.

The definition of the agricultural census based on information from the Dutch Business Register mainly affects the number of holdings, a clear deviation of the trend occurs. The impact on areas (except for other land and rough grazing) and the number of animals (except for sheep, and horses and ponies) is limited. This is mainly due to the holdings that are excluded as a result of the new delimitation of agricultural holdings (such as equestrian centres, city farms and organisations in nature management).

In 2011 there were changes in geographic assignment of holdings with a foreign main seat. This may influence regional figures, mainly in border regions.

Until 2010 the economic size of agricultural holdings was expressed in Dutch size units (in Dutch NGE: 'Nederlandse Grootte Eenheid'). From 2010 onwards this has become Standard Output (SO). This means that the threshold for holdings in the agricultural census has changed from 3 NGE to 3000 euro SO. For comparable time series the figures for 2000 up to and including 2009 have been recalculated, based on SO coefficients and SO typology. The latest update was in 2016.

Data available from: 2000

Status of the figures: The figures are final.

Changes as of March 28, 2025: the final figures for 2024 have been added.

When will new figures be published? According to regular planning provisional figures for the current year are published in November and the definite figures will follow in March of the following year.

Big Data Analytics in Agriculture Market Outlook

The global big data analytics in agriculture market is anticipated to witness substantial growth from 2024 to 2032. In 2023, the market size was valued at approximately USD 2.5 billion, and it is projected to reach around USD 8.2 billion by 2032, reflecting a robust compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 14.1%. Several factors are driving this impressive growth, including the increasing adoption of precision farming techniques and the heightened need for sustainable agricultural practices to meet the rising global food demand. As the agriculture industry shifts towards more data-driven methodologies, big data analytics emerges as a critical tool for enhancing productivity and efficiency.

One of the significant growth factors propelling the big data analytics in agriculture market is the rise in global population, which has resulted in an increased demand for food. To cope with this demand, farmers and agribusinesses are turning to technology-driven solutions such as big data analytics to optimize production processes and maximize yield. Big data analytics provides insights into various agricultural practices, helping to improve crop management and resource utilization. Additionally, the pressure to adopt environmentally friendly practices is encouraging the use of analytics to minimize waste and optimize resource usage, thereby supporting sustainable agriculture.

Technological advancements in data processing and analysis are also playing a crucial role in the market's expansion. The integration of the Internet of Things (IoT) with big data analytics allows for real-time data gathering from various agricultural equipment and sensors. This capability enables the precise monitoring of farm conditions, leading to data-driven decision-making processes that optimize crop growth, pest control, and harvesting schedules. Furthermore, advancements in machine learning and artificial intelligence are enhancing the predictive capabilities of big data analytics, allowing for better anticipation of weather patterns, disease outbreaks, and market trends, which are vital for strategic planning and risk management in agriculture.

Another significant growth factor is the increased investment in agricultural technology by both government and private sectors. Governments around the world are recognizing the importance of agricultural technology in ensuring food security and are therefore investing in research and development initiatives. Additionally, venture capitalists and private firms are funding startups that specialize in agricultural analytics, further propelling market growth. The collaboration between technology companies and agricultural stakeholders is resulting in the development of innovative solutions that are tailored to the specific needs of the agricultural sector, thereby enhancing the market uptake of big data analytics.

From a regional perspective, North America holds a significant share of the big data analytics in agriculture market due to the presence of advanced agricultural practices and the early adoption of technology. Meanwhile, the Asia Pacific region is projected to exhibit the highest growth rate during the forecast period. This growth can be attributed to the increasing population in countries like China and India, which is driving the demand for food and pushing the agricultural sector to adopt advanced technologies. Additionally, government initiatives in these regions to support technological integration in agriculture are further aiding market growth. Europe is also witnessing steady growth, with an increasing focus on sustainable farming practices and the utilization of analytics to enhance productivity.

Component Analysis

The component segment of the big data analytics in agriculture market comprises software, hardware, and services, each playing a vital role in the effective deployment and utilization of data analytics in agriculture. Software solutions in this market are particularly critical, as they provide the platforms and applications necessary for data collection, analysis, and visualization. These software applications range from farm management systems to predictive analytics tools that help farmers make informed decisions about crop planting, pest control, and resource management. With advancements in cloud computing and AI, software solutions are becoming more sophisticated, offering enhanced functionalities and user-friendly interfaces that cater to the specific needs of the agricultural sector.

Hardware components, such as sensors, drones, and IoT devices, are essential for the col

Abstract

Syngenta is committed to increasing crop productivity and to using limited resources such as land, water and inputs more efficiently. Since 2014, Syngenta has been measuring trends in agricultural input efficiency on a global network of real farms. The Good Growth Plan dataset shows aggregated productivity and resource efficiency indicators by harvest year. The data has been collected from more than 4,000 farms and covers more than 20 different crops in 46 countries. The data (except USA data and for Barley in UK, Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, France and Spain) was collected, consolidated and reported by Kynetec (previously Market Probe), an independent market research agency. It can be used as benchmarks for crop yield and input efficiency.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

Agricultural holdings

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

A. Sample design Farms are grouped in clusters, which represent a crop grown in an area with homogenous agro- ecological conditions and include comparable types of farms. The sample includes reference and benchmark farms. The reference farms were selected by Syngenta and the benchmark farms were randomly selected by Kynetec within the same cluster.

B. Sample size Sample sizes for each cluster are determined with the aim to measure statistically significant increases in crop efficiency over time. This is done by Kynetec based on target productivity increases and assumptions regarding the variability of farm metrics in each cluster. The smaller the expected increase, the larger the sample size needed to measure significant differences over time. Variability within clusters is assumed based on public research and expert opinion. In addition, growers are also grouped in clusters as a means of keeping variances under control, as well as distinguishing between growers in terms of crop size, region and technological level. A minimum sample size of 20 interviews per cluster is needed. The minimum number of reference farms is 5 of 20. The optimal number of reference farms is 10 of 20 (balanced sample).

C. Selection procedure The respondents were picked randomly using a “quota based random sampling” procedure. Growers were first randomly selected and then checked if they complied with the quotas for crops, region, farm size etc. To avoid clustering high number of interviews at one sampling point, interviewers were instructed to do a maximum of 5 interviews in one village.

BF Screened from Indonesia were selected based on the following criterion: (a) Corn growers in East Java - Location: East Java (Kediri and Probolinggo) and Aceh
- Innovative (early adopter); Progressive (keen to learn about agronomy and pests; willing to try new technology); Loyal (loyal to technology that can help them)
- making of technical drain (having irrigation system)
- marketing network for corn: post-harvest access to market (generally they sell 80% of their harvest)
- mid-tier (sub-optimal CP/SE use)
- influenced by fellow farmers and retailers
- may need longer credit

(b) Rice growers in West and East Java - Location: West Java (Tasikmalaya), East Java (Kediri), Central Java (Blora, Cilacap, Kebumen), South Lampung
- The growers are progressive (keen to learn about agronomy and pests; willing to try new technology)
- Accustomed in using farming equipment and pesticide. (keen to learn about agronomy and pests; willing to try new technology) - A long rice cultivating experience in his area (lots of experience in cultivating rice)
- willing to move forward in order to increase his productivity (same as progressive)
- have a soil that broad enough for the upcoming project
- have influence in his group (ability to influence others) - mid-tier (sub-optimal CP/SE use)
- may need longer credit

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Data collection tool for 2019 covered the following information:

(A) PRE- HARVEST INFORMATION

PART I: Screening PART II: Contact Information PART III: Farm Characteristics a. Biodiversity conservation b. Soil conservation c. Soil erosion d. Description of growing area e. Training on crop cultivation and safety measures PART IV: Farming Practices - Before Harvest a. Planting and fruit development - Field crops b. Planting and fruit development - Tree crops c. Planting and fruit development - Sugarcane d. Planting and fruit development - Cauliflower e. Seed treatment

(B) HARVEST INFORMATION

PART V: Farming Practices - After Harvest a. Fertilizer usage b. Crop protection products c. Harvest timing & quality per crop - Field crops d. Harvest timing & quality per crop - Tree crops e. Harvest timing & quality per crop - Sugarcane f. Harvest timing & quality per crop - Banana g. After harvest PART VI - Other inputs - After Harvest a. Input costs b. Abiotic stress c. Irrigation

See all questionnaires in external materials tab

Cleaning operations

Data processing:

Kynetec uses SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) for data entry, cleaning, analysis, and reporting. After collection, the farm data is entered into a local database, reviewed, and quality-checked by the local Kynetec agency. In the case of missing values or inconsistencies, farmers are re-contacted. In some cases, grower data is verified with local experts (e.g. retailers) to ensure data accuracy and validity. After country-level cleaning, the farm-level data is submitted to the global Kynetec headquarters for processing. In the case of missing values or inconsistences, the local Kynetec office was re-contacted to clarify and solve issues.

Quality assurance Various consistency checks and internal controls are implemented throughout the entire data collection and reporting process in order to ensure unbiased, high quality data.

• Screening: Each grower is screened and selected by Kynetec based on cluster-specific criteria to ensure a comparable group of growers within each cluster. This helps keeping variability low.

• Evaluation of the questionnaire: The questionnaire aligns with the global objective of the project and is adapted to the local context (e.g. interviewers and growers should understand what is asked). Each year the questionnaire is evaluated based on several criteria, and updated where needed.

• Briefing of interviewers: Each year, local interviewers - familiar with the local context of farming -are thoroughly briefed to fully comprehend the questionnaire to obtain unbiased, accurate answers from respondents.

• Cross-validation of the answers: o Kynetec captures all growers' responses through a digital data-entry tool. Various logical and consistency checks are automated in this tool (e.g. total crop size in hectares cannot be larger than farm size) o Kynetec cross validates the answers of the growers in three different ways: 1. Within the grower (check if growers respond consistently during the interview) 2. Across years (check if growers respond consistently throughout the years) 3. Within cluster (compare a grower's responses with those of others in the group) o All the above mentioned inconsistencies are followed up by contacting the growers and asking them to verify their answers. The data is updated after verification. All updates are tracked.

• Check and discuss evolutions and patterns: Global evolutions are calculated, discussed and reviewed on a monthly basis jointly by Kynetec and Syngenta.

• Sensitivity analysis: sensitivity analysis is conducted to evaluate the global results in terms of outliers, retention rates and overall statistical robustness. The results of the sensitivity analysis are discussed jointly by Kynetec and Syngenta.

• It is recommended that users interested in using the administrative level 1 variable in the location dataset use this variable with care and crosscheck it with the postal code variable.

Data appraisal

Due to the above mentioned checks, irregularities in fertilizer usage data were discovered which had to be corrected:

For data collection wave 2014, respondents were asked to give a total estimate of the fertilizer NPK-rates that were applied in the fields. From 2015 onwards, the questionnaire was redesigned to be more precise and obtain data by individual fertilizer products. The new method of measuring fertilizer inputs leads to more accurate results, but also makes a year-on-year comparison difficult. After evaluating several solutions to this problems, 2014 fertilizer usage (NPK input) was re-estimated by calculating a weighted average of fertilizer usage in the following years.

Graph and download economic data for Net farm income, USDA (B1448C1A027NBEA) from 1967 to 2023 about USDA, agriculture, Net, income, GDP, and USA.

This table contains data on land use, arable farming, horticulture, grassland, grazing livestock and housed animals, at regional level, by general farm type.

The figures in this table are derived from the agricultural census. Data collection for the agricultural census is part of a combined data collection for a.o. agricultural policy use and enforcement of the manure law.

Regional breakdown is based on the main location of the holding. Due to this the region where activities (crops, animals) are allocated may differ from the location where these activities actually occur.

The agricultural census is also used as the basis for the European Farm Structure Survey (FSS). Data from the agricultural census do not fully coincide with the FSS. In the FSS years (2000, 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2010) additional information was collected to meet the requirements of the FSS.

Reference date for livestock is 1 April and for crops 15 May.

In 2022, equidae are not part of the Agricultural Census. This affects the farm type and the total number of farms in the Agricultural Census. Farms with horses, ponies and donkeys that were previously classified as ‘specialist grazing livestock' could be classified, according to their dominant activity, as another farm type in 2022.

From 2020 onwards, the SO2017, based on the years 2015 to 2019, will apply (see also the explanation for SO: Standard Output).

From 2018 onwards the number of calves for fattening, pigs for fattening, chicken and turkey are adjusted in the case of temporary breaks in the production cycle (e.g. sanitary cleaning). The agricultural census is a structural survey, in which adjustment for temporary breaks in the production cycle is a.o. relevant for the calculation of the economic size of the holding, and its farm type. In the livestock surveys the number of animals on the reference day is relevant, therefore no adjustment for temporary breaks in the production cycle are made. This means that the number of animals in the tables of the agricultural census may differ from those in the livestock tables (see ‘links to relevant tables and relevant articles).

From 2017 onwards, animal numbers are increasingly derived from I&R registers (Identification and Registration of animals), instead of by means of the combined data collection. The I&R registers are the responsibility of RVO (Netherlands Enterprise Agency). Since 2017, cattle numbers are derived from I&R cattle, and from 2018 sheep, goats and poultry are also derived from the relevant I&R registers. The registration of cattle, sheep and goats takes place directly at RVO. Poultry data is collected via the designated database Poultry Information System Poultry (KIP) from Avined. Avined is a branch organization for the egg and poultry meat sectors. Avined passes the data on to the central database of RVO. Due to the transition to the use of I&R registers, a change in classification will occur for sheep and goats from 2018 onwards.

Since 2016, information of the Dutch Business Register is used to define the agricultural census. Registration in the Business Register with an agricultural standard industrial classification code (SIC), related to NACE/ISIC, (in Dutch SBI: ‘Standaard BedrijfsIndeling’) is leading to determine whether there is an agricultural holding. This aligns the agricultural census as closely as possible to the statistical regulations of Eurostat and the (Dutch) implementation of the definition of 'active farmer' as described in the common agricultural policy.

The definition of the agricultural census based on information from the Dutch Business Register mainly affects the number of holdings, a clear deviation of the trend occurs. The impact on areas (except for other land and rough grazing) and the number of animals (except for sheep, horses and ponies) is limited. This is mainly due to the holdings that are excluded as a result of the new delimitation of agricultural holdings (such as equestrian centres, city farms and organisations in nature management).

In 2011 there were changes in geographic assignment of holdings with a foreign main seat. This may influence regional figures, mainly in border regions.

Until 2010 the economic size of agricultural holdings was expressed in Dutch size units (in Dutch NGE: 'Nederlandse Grootte Eenheid'). From 2010 onwards this has become Standard Output (SO). This means that the threshold for holdings in the agricultural census has changed from 3 NGE to 3000 euro SO. For comparable time series the figures for 2000 up to and including 2009 have been recalculated, based on SO coefficients and SO typology. The latest update took place in 2016.

Data available from: 2000

Status of the figures: The figures are final.

Changes as of March 28, 2025: the final figures for 2024 have been added.

This database compiles secondary data originating from the National Statistical Offices of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
The database includes information about major agricultural statistics such as structure of the agricultural sector, land use, production of most important crops and livestock outputs as well as size of population at the level of provinces (oblasts). Most land use and production data are available for the three farm types, agricultural enterprises, individual farms, and households, and in aggregated form. Time coverage ranges from 1992 to 2014 (with few statistics additionally for 1991 and 2015), with some gaps in early years after independence.
The database is a product of the research project "AGRIWANET – Agricultural Restructuring, Water Scarcity and the Adaptation to Climate Change in Central Asia: A Five-Country Study".

These files from Statistics Canada present Census of Agriculture data allocated by standard census geographic polygons: Provinces and Territories (PR), Census Agricultural Regions (CAR), Census Divisions (CD) and Census Consolidated Subdivisions (CCS). Five datasets are provided: 1. Agricultural operation characteristics: includes information on farm type, operating arrangements, paid agricultural work and financial characteristics of the agricultural operation. 2. Land tenure and management practices: includes information on land use, land tenure, agricultural practices, land inputs, technologies used on the operation and the renewable energy production on the operation. 3. Crops: includes information on hay and field crops, vegetables (excluding greenhouse vegetables), fruits, berries, nuts, greenhouse productions and other crops. 4. Livestock, poultry and bees: includes information on livestock, poultry and bees. 5. Characteristics of farm operators: includes information on age, sex and the hours of works of farm operators. Note: For all the datasets, confidential values have been assigned a value of -1. Correction notice: On January 18, 2023, selected estimates have been corrected for selected variables in the following 2021 Census of Agriculture domains: Direct sales of agricultural products to consumers (Agricultural operations category), Succession plan for the agricultural operation (Agricultural operators category), and Renewable energy production (Use, tenure and practices category).

"The Farm Service Agency (FSA) makes farm ownership loans to farmers and ranchers who are temporarily unable to obtain private, commercial credit at reasonable rates and terms. Farm ownership loans are used to purchase farmland, construct and repair buildings, and make farm improvements. Both guaranteed and direct loans are available through this program. FSA guaranteed loans provide lenders (e.g., banks, Farm Credit System institutions, credit unions) with a guarantee of up to 95 percent of the loss of principal and interest on a loan. The maximum FSA guaranteed farm ownership loan is $1,302 ,000 (adjusted annually based on inflation). Your lender can tell you if a guarantee is the right loan for you. Applicants who are unable to qualify for a guaranteed loan may be eligible for a direct loan from FSA. Direct loans are made and serviced by FSA officials using government funds. FSA provides direct loan customers with supervision and credit counseling so that they have a greater chance to be successful. The maximum direct farm ownership loan is $300,000."

Brazil Agricultural Area: Planted: Permanent Crops: North: Palm data was reported at 1,868.000 ha in 2017. This records an increase from the previous number of 1,738.000 ha for 2016. Brazil Agricultural Area: Planted: Permanent Crops: North: Palm data is updated yearly, averaging 1,322.000 ha from Dec 1993 (Median) to 2017, with 25 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 2,693.000 ha in 2002 and a record low of 0.000 ha in 1994. Brazil Agricultural Area: Planted: Permanent Crops: North: Palm data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. The data is categorized under Brazil Premium Database’s Agriculture Sector – Table BR.RIA002: Agricultural Area: Farming: Permanent Crops: North.

United States Agricultural Price Index: Paid by Farmers: Livestock data was reported at 107.500 2011=100 in Oct 2018. This records an increase from the previous number of 107.000 2011=100 for Sep 2018. United States Agricultural Price Index: Paid by Farmers: Livestock data is updated monthly, averaging 107.000 2011=100 from Jan 2010 (Median) to Oct 2018, with 106 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 118.000 2011=100 in Sep 2014 and a record low of 88.000 2011=100 in Aug 2010. United States Agricultural Price Index: Paid by Farmers: Livestock data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by National Agricultural Statistics Service. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.I043: Agricultural Price Index.

This dataset consists of soil data for 64 field sites on paired farm sites, with 29 variables measured for soil texture and structural condition, aggregate stability, organic matter content, soil shear strength, fuel consumption, work rate, infiltration rate, water quality and hydrological condition (HOST) data. The study is part of the NERC Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU) programme. A move to organic farming can have significant effects on wildlife, soil and water quality, as well as changing the ways in which food is supplied, the economics of farm business and indeed the attitudes of farmers themselves. Two key questions were addressed in the SCALE project: what causes organic farms to be arranged in clusters at local, regional and national scales, rather than be spread more evenly throughout the landscape; and how do the ecological, hydrological, socio-economic and cultural impacts of organic farming vary due to neighbourhood effects at a variety of scales. The research was undertaken in 2006-2007 in two study sites: one in the English Midlands, and one in southern England. Both are sites in which organic farming has a 'strong' local presence, which we defined as 10 per cent or more organically managed land within a 10 km radius. Potential organic farms were identified through membership lists of organic farmers provided by two certification bodies (the Soil Association and the Organic Farmers and Growers). Most who were currently farming (i.e. their listing was not out of date) agreed to participate. Conventional farms were identified through telephone listings. Respondents' farms ranged in size from 40 to 3000 acres, with the majority farming between 100 and 1000 acres. Most were mixed crop-livestock farmers, with dairy most common in the southern site, and beef and/or sheep mixed with arable in the Midlands. In total, 48 farms were studied, of which 21 were organic farmers. No respondent had converted from organic to conventional production, whereas 17 had converted from conventional to organic farming. Twelve of the conventional farmers defined themselves as practicing low input agriculture. Farmer interview data from this study are available at the UK Data Archive under study number 6761 (see online resources). Further documentation for this study may be found through the RELU Knowledge Portal and the project's ESRC funding award web page (see online resources).

Snapshot img

Smart Agriculture Market Size 2024-2028

The smart agriculture market size is forecast to increase by USD 10.98 billion at a CAGR of 10.22% between 2023 and 2028.

The market is experiencing significant growth due to several key trends. The availability of affordable cloud services is encouraging farmers to adopt smart farming techniques. Big data is being increasingly utilized in smart farming to enhance crop yields and optimize resource usage.
However, the high initial investment required for implementing smart farming remains a challenge for many farmers. Despite this, the benefits of improved crop yields, reduced water usage, and increased efficiency are driving the market forward. Smart agriculture is revolutionizing the agricultural sector by integrating technology into traditional farming practices, leading to more sustainable and productive farming methods.

What will be the Size of the Smart Agriculture Market During the Forecast Period?

Request Free Sample

The market is experiencing significant growth as farmers and aquaculture farm owners seek to optimize production and improve crop and livestock health through the integration of advanced technologies. The Internet of Things (IoT) and machine learning are driving innovation in this space, enabling remote monitoring and automation of various farm operations.
Smart technologies, such as sensors, RFID, GPS, and Wi-Fi technology, are used to collect real-time data on crop growth, soil conditions, livestock health, and infrastructure health. Automation through robots and automatic feeders is also becoming increasingly common, allowing for more precise and efficient farming practices. Artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms are used to analyze data and provide recommendations to farmers, improving crop quality and reducing the need for manual labor.
The market for smart agriculture is expected to continue growing as the demand for protein-rich diets drives up the need for more efficient and sustainable farming practices. Smart technologies are transforming traditional agricultural practices, making farming more data-driven and automated, and enabling farmers to make informed decisions in real-time.

How is this Smart Agriculture Industry segmented and which is the largest segment?

The smart agriculture industry research report provides comprehensive data (region-wise segment analysis), with forecasts and estimates in 'USD billion' for the period 2024-2028, as well as historical data from 2018-2022 for the following segments.

Type

  Precision farming
  Smart greenhouse
  Livestock monitoring
  Others


Product

  Hardware
  Software
  Services


Geography

  North America

    Canada
    US


  Europe

    UK


  APAC

    China
    India


  South America



  Middle East and Africa

By Type Insights

The precision farming segment is estimated to witness significant growth during the forecast period.

In the realm of modern agriculture, the hardware segment holds significant importance In the implementation of smart farming practices. This segment encompasses the physical devices and equipment engineered to boost productivity, efficiency, and sustainability. Key hardware components include sensors and monitoring systems. These devices collect real-time data on environmental factors and crop conditions, measuring parameters such as temperature, humidity, soil moisture, pH levels, nutrient content, and weather conditions. Monitoring systems integrate this data, providing farmers with valuable insights for informed decision-making. Other hardware segments include Internet of Things (IoT) devices, such as remotely operated vehicles (ROVs), automatic feeders, and milking robots, which contribute to precision farming and livestock monitoring.

Additionally, machine learning and artificial intelligence technologies are integrated into hardware systems to optimize crop yields, improve livestock health, and minimize resource consumption. Farm owners of various scales, from large to small, benefit from these smart agricultural technologies, addressing challenges like land fragmentation, input and resource management, and environmental concerns, such as nitrogen cycle management, waterways protection, and land and water degradation. The hardware segment also includes services, such as precision feeding systems, robotic systems, and specialized services, which cater to the needs of farmers and livestock farmers in the decentralized agriculture industry. The software segment, which includes livestock monitoring solutions, livestock feeding systems, livestock biometrics, and fish farm monitoring, complements the hardware segment by providing real-time data analysis, variable rate technology, smart irrigation controllers, and inventory management solutions.

The integration of hardware and software in smart agriculture leads to improved c