This EnviroAtlas data set depicts estimates for mean cash rent paid for land by farmers, sorted by county for irrigated cropland, non-irrigated cropland, and pasture by for most of the conterminous US. This data comes from national surveys which includes approximately 240,000 farms and applies to all crops. According to the USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), these surveys do not include land rented for a share of the crop, on a fee per head, per pound of gain, by animal unit month (AUM), rented free of charge, or land that includes buildings such as barns. For each land use category with positive acres, respondents are given the option of reporting rent per acre or total dollars paid. This dataset was produced by the US EPA to support research and online mapping activities related to EnviroAtlas. EnviroAtlas (https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas) allows the user to interact with a web-based, easy-to-use, mapping application to view and analyze multiple ecosystem services for the contiguous United States. The dataset is available as downloadable data (https://edg.epa.gov/data/Public/ORD/EnviroAtlas) or as an EnviroAtlas map service. Additional descriptive information about each attribute in this dataset can be found in its associated EnviroAtlas Fact Sheet (https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas/enviroatlas-fact-sheets).

This coverage contains estimates of land in agricultural production in counties in the conterminous United States as reported in the 1987 Census of Agriculture (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1989a). Land in agriculture data are reported as either a number (for example, number of Farms), acres, or as a percentage of county area. Land in agriculture estimates were generated from surveys of all farms where $1,000 or more of agricultural products were sold, or normally would have been sold, during the census year. Most of the attributes summarized represent 1987 data, but some information for the 1982 Census of Agriculture also was included. The polygons representing county boundaries in the conterminous United States, as well as lakes, estuaries, and other nonland-area features were derived from the Digital Line Graph (DLG) files representing the 1:2,000,000-scale map in the National Atlas of the United States (1970). Agricultural land Census of Agriculture Counties United States

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

Abstract (en): This collection includes county-level data from the United States Censuses of Agriculture for the years 1840 to 2012. The files provide data about the number, types, output, and prices of various agricultural products, as well as information on the amount, expenses, sales, values, and production of machinery. Most of the basic crop output data apply to the previous harvest year. Data collected also included the population and value of livestock, the number of animals slaughtered, and the size, type, and value of farms. Part 46 of this collection contains data from 1980 through 2010. Variables in part 46 include information such as the average value of farmland, number and value of buildings per acre, food services, resident population, composition of households, and unemployment rates. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. Response Rates: Not applicable. Datasets:DS0: Study-Level FilesDS1: Farm Land Value Data Set (County and State) 1850-1959DS2: 1840 County and StateDS3: 1850 County and StateDS4: 1860 County and StateDS5: 1870 County and StateDS6: 1880 County and StateDS7: 1890 County and StateDS8: 1900 County and StateDS9: 1910 County and StateDS10: 1920 County and State, Dataset 1DS11: 1920 County and State, Dataset 2DS12: 1925 County and StateDS13: 1930 County and State, Dataset 1DS14: 1930 County and State, Dataset 2DS15: 1935 County and StateDS16: 1940 County and State, Dataset 1DS17: 1940 County and State, Dataset 2DS18: 1940 County and State, Dataset 3DS19: 1940 County and State, Dataset 4 (Water)DS20: 1945 County and StateDS21: 1950 County and State, Dataset 1DS22: 1950 Crops, County and State, Dataset 2DS23: 1950 County, Dataset 3DS24: 1950 County and State, Dataset 4DS25: 1954 County and State, Dataset 1DS26: 1954 Crops, County and State, Dataset 2DS27: 1959 County and State, Dataset 1DS28: 1959 Crops, County and State, Dataset 2DS29: 1959 County, Dataset 3DS30: 1964 Dataset 1DS31: 1964 Crops, County and State, Dataset 2DS32: 1964 County, Dataset 3DS33: 1969 All Farms, County and State, Dataset 1DS34: 1969 Farms 2500, County and State, Dataset 2DS35: 1969 Crops, County and State, Dataset 3DS36: 1974 All Farms, County and State, Dataset 1DS37: 1974 Farms 2500, County and State, Dataset 2DS38: 1974 Crops, County and State, Dataset 3DS39: 1978 County and StateDS40: 1982 County and StateDS41: 1987 County and StateDS42: 1992 County and StateDS43: 1997 County and StateDS44: 2002 County and StateDS45: 2007 County and StateDS46: State and County Data, United States, 1980-2010DS47: 2012 County and State Farms within United States counties and states. Smallest Geographic Unit: FIPS code The sample was the universe of agricultural operating units. For 1969-2007, data were taken from computer files from the Census Bureau and the United States Department of Agriculture. 2018-08-20 The P.I. resupplied data and documentation for 1935 County and State (dataset 15) and 1997 County and State (dataset 43). Additionally, documentation updates and variable label revisions have been incorporated in datasets 22, 26, 28, 31, 35, and 38 at the request of the P.I.2016-06-29 The data and documentation for 2012 County and State (data set 47) have been added to this collection. The collection and documentation titles have been updated to reflect the new year.2015-08-05 The data, setup files, and documentation for 1964 Dataset 1 have been updated to reflect changes from the producer. Funding insitution(s): National Science Foundation (NSF-SES-0921732; 0648045). United States Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health (R01 HD057929).

The Census of Agriculture, produced by the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA), provides a complete count of America's farms, ranches and the people who grow our food. The census is conducted every five years, most recently in 2017, and provides an in-depth look at the agricultural industry.This layer summarizes cattle production from the 2017 Census of Agriculture at the county level.This layer was produced from data downloaded using the USDA's QuickStats Application. The data was transformed using the Pivot Table tool in ArcGIS Pro and joined to the county boundary file provided by the USDA. The layer was published as feature layer in ArcGIS Online. Dataset SummaryPhenomenon Mapped: 2017 Cattle ProductionCoordinate System: Web Mercator Auxiliary SphereExtent: 48 Contiguous United States, Alaska, and HawaiiVisible Scale: All ScalesSource: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service QuickStats ApplicationPublication Date: 2017AttributesThis layer provides values for the following attributes. Note that some values are not disclosed (coded as -1 in the layer) to protect the privacy of producers in areas with limited production.Cattle - Operations with SalesCattle - Sales in US DollarsCattle - Sales in HeadDairy - Operations with SalesDairy - Sales in US DollarsAdditionally attributes of State Name, State Code, County Name and County Code are included to facilitate cartography and use with other layers.What can you do with this layer?This layer can be used throughout the ArcGIS system. Feature layers can be used just like any other vector layer. You can use feature layers as an input to geoprocessing tools in ArcGIS Pro or in Analysis in ArcGIS Online. Combine the layer with others in a map and set custom symbology or create a pop-up tailored for your users.For the details of working with feature layers the help documentation for ArcGIS Pro or the help documentation for ArcGIS Online are great places to start. The ArcGIS Blog is a great source of ideas for things you can do with feature layers.This layer is part of ArcGIS Living Atlas of the World that provides an easy way to find and explore many other beautiful and authoritative layers, maps, and applications on hundreds of topics.

The Census of Agriculture is a complete count of U.S. farms and ranches and the people who operate them. Even small plots of land - whether rural or urban - growing fruit, vegetables or some food animals count if $1,000 or more of such products were raised and sold, or normally would have been sold, during the Census year. The Census of Agriculture, taken only once every five years, looks at land use and ownership, operator characteristics, production practices, income and expenditures. For America's farmers and ranchers, the Census of Agriculture is their voice, their future, and their opportunity. The Census Data Query Tool (CDQT) is a web-based tool that is available to access and download table level data from the Census of Agriculture Volume 1 publication. The data found via the CDQT may also be accessed in the NASS Quick Stats database. The CDQT is unique in that it automatically displays data from the past five Census of Agriculture publications. The CDQT is presented as a "2017 centric" view of the Census of Agriculture data. All data series that are present in the 2017 dataset are available within the CDQT, and any matching data series from prior Census years will also display (back to 1997). If a data series is not included in the 2017 dataset, then data cells will remain blank in the tool. For example, one of the data series had a label change from "Operator" to "Producer." This means that data from prior Census years labelled "Operator" will not show up where the label has changed to “Producer” for 2017. The new Census Data Query Tool application can be used to query Census data from 1997 through 2017. Data are searchable by Census table and are downloadable as CSV or PDF files. 2017 Census Ag Atlas Maps are also available for download. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: 2017 Census of Agriculture - Census Data Query Tool (CDQT). File Name: Web Page, url: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/CDQT/chapter/1/table/1 The Census Data Query Tool (CDQT) is a web based tool that is available to access and download table level data from the Census of Agriculture Volume 1 publication. The data found via the CDQT may also be accessed in the NASS Quick Stats database. The CDQT is unique in that it automatically displays data from the past five Census of Agriculture publications. The CDQT is presented as a "2017 centric" view of the Census of Agriculture data. All data series that are present in the 2017 dataset are available within the CDQT, and any matching data series from prior Census years will also display (back to 1997). If a data series is not included in the 2017 dataset, then data cells will remain blank in the tool. For example, one of the data series had a label change from "Operator" to "Producer." This means that data from prior Census years labelled "Operator" will not show up where the label has changed to "Producer" for 2017. Using CDQT:

Upon entering the CDQT, a data table is present. Changing the parameters at the top of the data table will retrieve different combinations of Census Chapter, Table, State, or County (when selecting Chapter 2). For the U.S., Volume 1, US/State Chapter 1 will include only U.S. data; Chapter 2 will include U.S. and State level data. For a State, Volume 1 US/State Level Data Chapter 1 will include only the State level data; Chapter 2 will include the State and county level data. Once a selection is made, press the “Update Grid” button to retrieve the new data table. Comma-separated values (CSV) download, compatible with most spreadsheet and database applications: to download a CSV file of the data as it is currently presented in the data grid, press the "CSV" button in the "Export Data" section of the toolbar. When CSV is chosen, data will be downloaded as numeric. To view the source PDF file for the data table, press the "View PDF" button in the toolbar.

Cropland Index The Cropland Index evaluates lands used to produce crops based on the following input datasets: Revised Storie Index, California Important Farmland data, Electrical Conductivity (EC), and Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR). Together, these input layers were used in a suitability model to generate this raster. High values are associated with better CroplandsCalifornia Important Farmland data – statistical data used for analyzing impacts on California’s agricultural resources from the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status. The maps are updated every two years (on even numbered years) with the use of a computer mapping system, aerial imagery, public review, and field reconnaissance. Cropland Index Mask - This is a constructed data set used to define the model domain. Its footprint is defined by combining the extent of the California Important Farmland data (2018) classifications listed above and the area defined by California Statewide Crop Mapping for the state of California.Prime Farmland – farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.Farmland of Statewide Importance – farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. Unique Farmland – farmland of lesser quality soils used for the production of the state’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated but may include Non irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. Gridded Soil Survey Geographic Database (gSSURGO) – a database containing information about soil as collected by the National Cooperative Soil Survey over the course of a century. The information can be displayed in tables or as maps and is available for most areas in the United States and the Territories, Commonwealths, and Island Nations served by the USDA-NRCS. The information was gathered by walking over the land and observing the soil. Many soil samples were analyzed in laboratories. California Revised Storie Index - is a soil rating based on soil properties that govern a soil’s potential for cultivated agriculture in California. The Revised Storie Index assesses the productivity of a soil from the following four characteristics: Factor A, degree of soil profile development; factor B, texture of the surface layer; factor C, slope; and factor X, manageable features, including drainage, microrelief, fertility, acidity, erosion, and salt content. A score ranging from 0 to 100 percent is determined for each factor, and the scores are then multiplied together to derive an index rating.Electrical Conductivity - is the electrolytic conductivity of an extract from saturated soil paste, expressed as Deci siemens per meter at 25 degrees C. Electrical conductivity is a measure of the concentration of water-soluble salts in soils. It is used to indicate saline soils. High concentrations of neutral salts, such as sodium chloride and sodium sulfate, may interfere with the adsorption of water by plants because the osmotic pressure in the soil solution is nearly as high as or higher than that in the plant cells. Sodium Adsorption Ratio - is a measure of the amount of sodium (Na) relative to calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) in the water extract from saturated soil paste. It is the ratio of the Na concentration divided by the square root of one-half of the Ca + Mg concentration. Soils that have SAR values of 13 or more may be characterized by an increased dispersion of organic matter and clay particles, reduced saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) and aeration, and a general degradation of soil structure.

We present a dataset for an agricultural production typology for counties across the contiguous United States, derived from a cluster analysis of the most recently available (2012) county-level crop data from the United States Department of Agriculture's 2012 Agricultural Census. This dataset has been submitted as a Data Note to BMC Research Notes.

The Quick Stats Database is the most comprehensive tool for accessing agricultural data published by the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). It allows you to customize your query by commodity, location, or time period. You can then visualize the data on a map, manipulate and export the results as an output file compatible for updating databases and spreadsheets, or save a link for future use. Quick Stats contains official published aggregate estimates related to U.S. agricultural production. County level data are also available via Quick Stats. The data include the total crops and cropping practices for each county, and breakouts for irrigated and non-irrigated practices for many crops, for selected States. The database allows custom extracts based on commodity, year, and selected counties within a State, or all counties in one or more States. The county data includes totals for the Agricultural Statistics Districts (county groupings) and the State. The download data files contain planted and harvested area, yield per acre and production. NASS develops these estimates from data collected through:

hundreds of sample surveys conducted each year covering virtually every aspect of U.S. agriculture

the Census of Agriculture conducted every five years providing state- and county-level aggregates Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Quick Stats database. File Name: Web Page, url: https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/ Dynamic drill-down filtered search by Commodity, Location, and Date range, beginning with Census or Survey data. Filter lists are refreshed based upon user choice allowing the user to fine-tune the search.

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 Philippines were selected based on the following criterion: (a) smallholder rice growers Location: Luzon - Mindoro (Southern Luzon) mid-tier (sub-optimal CP/SE use): mid-tier growers use generic CP, cheaper CP, non hybrid (conventional) seeds
Smallholder farms with average to high levels of mechanization
Should be Integrated Pest Management advocates
less accessible to technology: poor farmers, don't have the money to buy quality seeds, fertilizers,... Don't use machinery yet
simple knowledge on agronomy and pests
influenced by fellow farmers and retailers
not strong financial status: don't have extra money on bank account and so need longer credit to pay (as a consequence: interest increases) 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.

Success.ai’s Agricultural Data provides unparalleled access to verified profiles of agriculture and farming leaders worldwide. Sourced from over 700 million LinkedIn profiles, this dataset includes actionable insights and contact details for professionals shaping the global agricultural landscape. Whether your objective is to market agricultural products, establish partnerships, or analyze industry trends, Success.ai ensures your outreach is powered by accurate, enriched, and continuously updated data.

Why Choose Success.ai’s Agricultural Data? Comprehensive Professional Profiles

Access verified LinkedIn profiles of farm owners, agricultural consultants, supply chain managers, agribusiness executives, and industry leaders. AI-validated data ensures 99% accuracy, minimizing wasted outreach and improving communication efficiency. Global Coverage Across Agricultural Sectors

Includes professionals from crop farming, livestock production, agricultural technology, and sustainable farming practices. Covers key regions such as North America, Europe, APAC, South America, and Africa. Continuously Updated Dataset

Real-time updates reflect role changes, organizational shifts, and emerging trends in agriculture and farming. Tailored for Agricultural Insights

Enriched profiles include professional histories, areas of specialization, and industry affiliations for deeper audience understanding. Data Highlights: 700M+ Verified LinkedIn Profiles: Gain access to a global network of agricultural and farming professionals. 100M+ Work Emails: Communicate directly with decision-makers in agribusiness and farming. Enriched Professional Histories: Understand career trajectories, expertise, and organizational affiliations. Industry-Specific Segmentation: Target professionals in crop farming, agtech, and sustainable agriculture with precision filters. Key Features of the Dataset: Agriculture and Farming Professional Profiles

Identify and connect with farm operators, agricultural consultants, supply chain managers, and agribusiness leaders. Engage with professionals responsible for farm management, equipment procurement, and sustainable farming initiatives. Detailed Firmographic Data

Leverage insights into farm sizes, crop or livestock focus, geographic distribution, and operational scales. Customize outreach to align with specific farming practices or market needs. Advanced Filters for Precision Targeting

Refine searches by region, type of agriculture (crop farming, livestock, horticulture), or years of experience. Customize campaigns to address unique challenges such as climate adaptation or supply chain optimization. AI-Driven Enrichment

Enhanced datasets deliver actionable data for personalized campaigns, highlighting certifications, achievements, and key projects. Strategic Use Cases: Marketing Agricultural Products and Services

Promote farm equipment, crop protection solutions, or livestock management tools to decision-makers in agriculture. Engage with professionals seeking innovative solutions to enhance productivity and sustainability. Collaboration and Partnerships

Identify agricultural leaders for collaborations on sustainability programs, research projects, or community initiatives. Build partnerships with agribusinesses, cooperatives, or government bodies driving agricultural development. Market Research and Industry Analysis

Analyze trends in crop yields, livestock production, and agricultural technology adoption. Use insights to refine product development and marketing strategies tailored to evolving industry needs. Recruitment and Talent Acquisition

Target HR professionals and agricultural firms seeking skilled farm managers, agronomists, or agtech specialists. Support hiring for roles requiring agricultural expertise and leadership. Why Choose Success.ai? Best Price Guarantee

Access industry-leading Agricultural Data at the most competitive pricing, ensuring cost-effective campaigns and strategies. Seamless Integration

Easily integrate verified agricultural data into CRMs, recruitment platforms, or marketing systems using APIs or downloadable formats. AI-Validated Accuracy

Depend on 99% accurate data to minimize wasted outreach and maximize engagement outcomes. Customizable Solutions

Tailor datasets to specific agricultural segments, regions, or areas of focus to meet your strategic objectives. Strategic APIs for Enhanced Campaigns: Data Enrichment API

Enhance existing records with verified agricultural profiles to refine targeting and engagement. Lead Generation API

Automate lead generation for a consistent pipeline of qualified professionals in the agriculture sector, scaling your outreach efficiently. Success.ai’s Agricultural Data empowers you to connect with the leaders and innovators transforming global agriculture. With verified contact details, enriched professional profiles, and global reach, your marketing, partn...

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 data set represents the estimated percentage of the 1-km grid cell that is covered by or subject to the agricultural conservation practice (CPIS05), Combination of Irrigation Sources (CIS) on agricultural land by county. A combination of irrigation sources means one or more sources of irrigation, such as wells, ponds, or streams are used on agricultural land. (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1995) This data set was created with geographic information systems (GIS) and database management tools. The acres on which CIS's are applied were totaled at the county level in the tabular NRI database and then apportioned to a raster coverage of agricultural land within the county based on the Enhanced National Land Cover Dataset (NLCDe) 1-kilometer resolution land cover grids (Nakagaki, 2003). Federal land is not considered in this analysis because NRI does not record information on those lands.

USA Cropland is a time-enabled imagery layer of the USDA Cropland Data Layer dataset from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). The time series shows the crop grown during every growing season in the conterminous US since 2008. Use the time slider to select only one year to view, or press play to see every growing season displayed sequentially in an animated map.The USDA is now serving the Cropland Data Layer in their own application called CropCros which allows selection and display of a single product or growing season. This application will eventually replace their popular CropScape application.This dataset is GDA compliant. Compliancy information can be found here.Why USA Cropland masks out NLCD land cover in its default templateUSDA Cropland Data Layer, by default as downloaded from USDA, fills in the non-cultivated areas of the conterminous USA with land cover classes from the MRLC National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD). The default behavior for Esri's USA Cropland layer is a little bit different. By default the Esri USA Cropland layer uses the analytic renderer, which masks out this NLCD data. Why did we choose to mask out the NLCD land cover classes by default?While crops are updated every year from USDA NASS, the NLCD data changes every several years, and it can be quite a bit older than the crop data beside it. If analysis is conducted to quantify landscape change, the NLCD-derived pixels will skew the results of the analysis because NLCD land cover in a yearly time series may appear to remain the same class for several years in a row. This can be problematic because conclusions drawn from this dataset may underrepresent the amount of change happening to the landscape.Since the 2018 Cropland Data Layer was posted (early 2019), MRLC issued an update to the NLCD Land Cover dataset. The 2019 and 2020 cropland frames have this more current NLCD data, but the years before that contain NLCD land cover data from 2011 or older.To display the most current land cover available from both sources, add both the USA NLCD Land Cover service and USA Cropland time series to your map. Use the analytical template with the USA Cropland service, and draw it on top of the USA NLCD Land Cover service. When a time slider is used with these datasets together, the map user will see the most current land cover from both services in any given year.Variable mapped: Crop grown in each pixel since 2008.Data Projection: AlbersMosaic Projection: AlbersExtent: Conterminous USACell Size: 30mSource Type: ThematicVisible Scale: All scales are visibleSource: USDA NASSPublication Date: 2/2/2022This layer and the data making up the layer are in the Albers map projection. Albers is an equal area projection, and this allows users of this layer to accurately calculate acreage without additional data preparation steps. This also means it takes a tiny bit longer to project on the fly into web Mercator, if that is the destination projection of the layer.Processing templates available with this layerTo help filter out and display just the crops and land use categories you are interested in showing, choose one of the thirteen processing templates that will help you tailor the symbols in the time series to suit your map application. The following are the processing templates that are available with this layer:Analytic RendererUSDA Analytic RendererThe analytic renderer is the default template. NLCD codes are masked when using analytic renderer processing templates. There is a default esri analytic renderer, but also an analytic renderer that uses the original USDA color scheme that was developed for the CropScape layers. This is useful if you have already built maps with the USDA color scheme or otherwise prefer the USDA color scheme.Cartographic RendererUSDA Cartographic RendererThese templates fill in with NLCD land cover types where crops are not cultivated, thereby filling the map with color from coast to coast. There is also a template using the USDA color scheme, which is identical to the datasets as downloaded from USDA NASS.In addition to different ways to display the whole dataset, some processing templates are included which help display the top 10 agricultural products in the United States. If these templates seem to overinclude crops in their category (for example, tomatoes are included in both the fruit and vegetables templates), this is because it's easier for a map user to remove a symbol from a template than it is to add one.Corn - Corn, sweet corn, popcorn or ornamental corn, plus double crops with corn and another crop.Cotton - Cotton and double crops, includes double crops with cotton and another crop.Fruit - Symbolized fruit crops include not only things like melons, apricots, and strawberries, but also olives, avocados, and tomatoes. Nuts - Peanuts, tree nuts, sunflower, etc.Oil Crops - Oil crops include rapeseed and canola, soybeans, avocado, peanut, corn, safflower, sunflower, also cotton and grapes.Rice - Rice crops.Sugar - Crops grown to make sugars. Sugar beets and cane are displayed of course, but so are corn and grapes.Soybeans - Soybean crops. Includes double crops where soybeans are grown at some time during the growing season.Vegetables - Vegetable crops, and yes this includes tomatoes. Wheat - Winter and spring wheat, durum wheat, triticale, spelt, and wheat double crops.In many places, two crops were grown in one growing season. Keep in mind that a double crop of corn and soybeans will display in both the corn and soybeans processing templates.Index to raster values in USA Cropland:0,Background (not a cultivated crop or no data)1,Corn2,Cotton3,Rice4,Sorghum5,Soybeans6,Sunflower10,Peanuts11,Tobacco12,Sweet Corn13,Popcorn or Ornamental Corn14,Mint21,Barley22,Durum Wheat23,Spring Wheat24,Winter Wheat25,Other Small Grains26,Double Crop Winter Wheat/Soybeans27,Rye28,Oats29,Millet30,Speltz31,Canola32,Flaxseed33,Safflower34,Rape Seed35,Mustard36,Alfalfa37,Other Hay/Non Alfalfa38,Camelina39,Buckwheat41,Sugarbeets42,Dry Beans43,Potatoes44,Other Crops45,Sugarcane46,Sweet Potatoes47,Miscellaneous Vegetables and Fruits48,Watermelons49,Onions50,Cucumbers51,Chick Peas52,Lentils53,Peas54,Tomatoes55,Caneberries56,Hops57,Herbs58,Clover/Wildflowers59,Sod/Grass Seed60,Switchgrass61,Fallow/Idle Cropland62,Pasture/Grass63,Forest64,Shrubland65,Barren66,Cherries67,Peaches68,Apples69,Grapes70,Christmas Trees71,Other Tree Crops72,Citrus74,Pecans75,Almonds76,Walnuts77,Pears81,Clouds/No Data82,Developed83,Water87,Wetlands88,Nonagricultural/Undefined92,Aquaculture111,Open Water112,Perennial Ice/Snow121,Developed/Open Space122,Developed/Low Intensity123,Developed/Med Intensity124,Developed/High Intensity131,Barren141,Deciduous Forest142,Evergreen Forest143,Mixed Forest152,Shrubland176,Grassland/Pasture190,Woody Wetlands195,Herbaceous Wetlands204,Pistachios205,Triticale206,Carrots207,Asparagus208,Garlic209,Cantaloupes210,Prunes211,Olives212,Oranges213,Honeydew Melons214,Broccoli215,Avocados216,Peppers217,Pomegranates218,Nectarines219,Greens220,Plums221,Strawberries222,Squash223,Apricots224,Vetch225,Double Crop Winter Wheat/Corn226,Double Crop Oats/Corn227,Lettuce228,Double Crop Triticale/Corn229,Pumpkins230,Double Crop Lettuce/Durum Wheat231,Double Crop Lettuce/Cantaloupe232,Double Crop Lettuce/Cotton233,Double Crop Lettuce/Barley234,Double Crop Durum Wheat/Sorghum235,Double Crop Barley/Sorghum236,Double Crop Winter Wheat/Sorghum237,Double Crop Barley/Corn238,Double Crop Winter Wheat/Cotton239,Double Crop Soybeans/Cotton240,Double Crop Soybeans/Oats241,Double Crop Corn/Soybeans242,Blueberries243,Cabbage244,Cauliflower245,Celery246,Radishes247,Turnips248,Eggplants249,Gourds250,Cranberries254,Double Crop Barley/Soybeans

Introduction and Rationale: Due to our increasing understanding of the role the surrounding landscape plays in ecological processes, a detailed characterization of land cover, including both agricultural and natural habitats, is ever more important for both researchers and conservation practitioners. Unfortunately, in the United States, different types of land cover data are split across thematic datasets that emphasize agricultural or natural vegetation, but not both. To address this data gap and reduce duplicative efforts in geospatial processing, we merged two major datasets, the LANDFIRE National Vegetation Classification (NVC) and USDA-NASS Cropland Data Layer (CDL), to produce an integrated land cover map. Our workflow leveraged strengths of the NVC and the CDL to produce detailed rasters comprising both agricultural and natural land-cover classes. We generated these maps for each year from 2012-2021 for the conterminous United States, quantified agreement between input layers and accuracy of our merged product, and published the complete workflow necessary to update these data. In our validation analyses, we found that approximately 5.5% of NVC agricultural pixels conflicted with the CDL, but we resolved a majority of these conflicts based on surrounding agricultural land, leaving only 0.6% of agricultural pixels unresolved in our merged product. Contents: Spatial data Attribute table for merged rasters Technical validation data Number and proportion of mismatched pixels Number and proportion of unresolved pixels Producer's and User's accuracy values and coverage of reference data Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Attribute table for merged rasters. File Name: CombinedRasterAttributeTable_CDLNVC.csvResource Description: Raster attribute table for merged raster product. Class names and recommended color map were taken from USDA-NASS Cropland Data Layer and LANDFIRE National Vegetation Classification. Class values are also identical to source data, except classes from the CDL are now negative values to avoid overlapping NVC values. Resource Title: Number and proportion of mismatched pixels. File Name: pixel_mismatch_byyear_bycounty.csvResource Description: Number and proportion of pixels that were mismatched between the Cropland Data Layer and National Vegetation Classification, per year from 2012-2021, per county in the conterminous United States.Resource Title: Number and proportion of unresolved pixels. File Name: unresolved_conflict_byyear_bycounty.csvResource Description: Number and proportion of unresolved pixels in the final merged rasters, per year from 2012-2021, per county in the conterminous United States. Unresolved pixels are a result of mismatched pixels that we could not resolve based on surrounding agricultural land (no agriculture with 90m radius).Resource Title: Producer's and User's accuracy values and coverage of reference data. File Name: accuracy_datacoverage_byyear_bycounty.csvResource Description: Producer's and User's accuracy values and coverage of reference data, per year from 2012-2021, per county in the conterminous United States. We defined coverage of reference data as the proportional area of land cover classes that were included in the reference data published by USDA-NASS and LANDFIRE for the Cropland Data Layer and National Vegetation Classification, respectively. CDL and NVC classes with reference data also had published accuracy statistics. Resource Title: Data Dictionary. File Name: Data_Dictionary_RasterMerge.csv

This metadata report documents tabular data sets consisting of items from the Census of Agriculture. These data are a subset of items from county-level data (including state totals) for the conterminous United States covering the census reporting years (every five years, with adjustments for 1978 and 1982) beginning with the 1950 Census of Agriculture and ending with the 2012 Census of Agriculture. Historical (1950-1997) data were extracted from digital files obtained through the Intra-university Consortium on Political and Social Research (ICPSR). More current (1997-2012) data were extracted from the National Agriculture Statistical Service (NASS) Census Query Tool for the census years of 1997, 2002, 2007, and 2012. Most census reports contain item values from the prior census for comparison. At times these values are updated or reweighted by the reporting agency; the Census Bureau prior to 1997 or NASS from 1997 on. Where available, the updated or reweighted data were used; otherwise, the original reported values were used. Changes in census item definitions and reporting as well as changes to county areas and names over the time span required a degree of manipulation on the data and county codes to make the data as comparable as possible over time. Not all of the census items are present for the entire 1950-2012 time span as certain items have been added since 1950 and when possible the items were derived from other items by subtracting or combining sub items. Specific changes and calculations are documented in the processing steps sections of this report. Other missing data occurs at the state and (or) county level due to census non-disclosure rules where small numbers of farms reporting an item have acres and (or) production values withheld to prevent identification of individual farms. In general, caution should be exercised when comparing current (2012) data with values reported in earlier censuses. While the 1974-2012 data are comparable, data prior to 1974 will have inflated farm counts and slightly inflated production amounts due to the differences in collection methods, primarily, the definition of a farm. Further discussion on comparability can be found the comparability section of the Supplemental Information element of this metadata report. Excluded from the tabular data are the District of Columbia, Menominee County, Wisconsin, and the independent cities of Virginia with the exception of the three county-equivalent cities of Chesapeake City, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach. Data for independent cities of Virginia prior to 1959 have been included with their surrounding or adjacent county. Please refer to the Supplemental Information element for information on terminology, the Census of Agriculture, the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), table and variable structure, data comparability, all farms and economic class 1-5 farms, item calculations, increase of farms from 1974 to 1978, missing data and exclusion explanations, 1978 crop irregularities, pastureland irregularities, county alignment, definitions, and references. In addition to the metadata is an excel workbook (VariableKey.xlsx) with spreadsheets containing key spreadsheets for items and variables by category and a spreadsheet noting the presence or absence of entire variable data by year. Note: this dataset was updated on 2016-02-10 to populate omitted irrigation values for Miami-Dade County, Florida in 1997.

The Farmland Protection Policy Act, part of the 1981 Farm Bill, is intended to limit federal activities that contribute to the unnecessary conversion of farmland to other uses. The law applies to construction projects funded by the federal government such as highways, airports, and dams, and to the management of federal lands. As part of the implementation of this law, the Natural Resources Conservation Service identifies high quality agricultural soils as prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of statewide or local importance. Each category may contain one or more limitations such as Prime Farmland if Irrigated. For more information of farmland classification see the National Soil Survey Handbook. Dataset SummaryPhenomenon Mapped: FarmlandGeographic Extent: Contiguous United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, Republic of Palau, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and American Samoa.Projection: Web Mercator Auxiliary SphereData Coordinate System: WKID 5070 USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic USGS version (contiguous US, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands), WKID 3338 WGS 1984 Albers (Alaska), WKID 4326 WGS 1984 Decimal Degrees (Guam, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, Republic of Palau, Federated States of Micronesia, American Samoa, and Hawaii).Units: ClassesCell Size: 30 metersSource Type: DiscretePixel Type: Unsigned integerSource: Natural Resources Conservation ServiceUpdate Frequency: AnnualPublication Date: December 2024 Data from the gNATSGO database was used to create the layer. This layer is derived from the 30m rasters produced by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The value for farmland class is derived from the gSSURGO map unit table field Farm Class(farmlndcl). What can you do with this layer?This layer is suitable for both visualization and analysis acrossthe ArcGIS system. This layer can be combined with your data and other layers from the ArcGIS Living Atlas of the World in ArcGIS Online and ArcGIS Pro to create powerful web maps that can be used alone or in a story map or other application. Because this layer is part of the ArcGIS Living Atlas of the World it is easy to add to your map:In ArcGIS Online, you can add this layer to a map by selecting Add then Browse Living Atlas Layers. A window will open. Type "farmland" in the search box and browse to the layer. Select the layer then click Add to Map.In ArcGIS Pro, open a map and select Add Data from the Map Tab. Select Data at the top of the drop down menu. The Add Data dialog box will open on the left side of the box, expand Portal if necessary, then select Living Atlas. Type "farmland" in the search box, browse to the layer then click OK. In ArcGIS Pro you can use the built-in raster functions or create your own to create custom extracts of the data. Imagery layers provide fast, powerful inputs to geoprocessing tools, models, or Python scripts in Pro. The ArcGIS Living Atlas of the World provides an easy way to explore many otherbeautiful and authoritative maps on hundreds of topics like this one. Data Dictionary"All areas are prime farmland" 1;"Farmland of local importance" 2;"Farmland of statewide importance" 3;"Farmland of statewide importance, if drained" 4;"Farmland of statewide importance, if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season" 5;"Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated" 6;"Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and drained" 7;"Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season" 8;"Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium" 9;"Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60" 10;"Farmland of statewide importance, if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season" 11;"Farmland of statewide importance, if warm enough" 12;"Farmland of statewide importance, if warm enough, and either drained or either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season" 13;"Farmland of unique importance" 14;"Not prime farmland" 15;"Prime farmland if drained" 16;"Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season" 17;"Prime farmland if irrigated" 18;"Prime farmland if irrigated and drained" 19;"Prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season" 20;"Prime farmland if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium" 21;"Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60" 22;"Prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season" 23;"Prime farmland if subsoiled, completely removing the root inhibiting soil layer" 24;"Farmland of local importance, if irrigated" 25" Questions?Please leave a comment below if you have a question about this layer, and we will get back to you as soon as possible.

The spatial extents of verified irrigated lands were compiled from various federal and state sources across the nation and combined into a single Geographic Information System (GIS) geodatabase for the purpose of model training and validation. In cooperation with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), researchers at the University of Wisconsin (UW) generated a nation-wide map of irrigated lands using remote-sensing techniques that will be incorporated into future irrigation water-use models. The verified spatial data varies in scope, accuracy, and time period represented, but in general represents GIS coverages (polygons) of agricultural land irrigated for at least some period during 2002–17. Data from 14 states were provided to UW (Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming). It is important to validate that the remote sensing techniques correctly identify both irrigated and non-irrigated land. Varying data sources prevent this approach from being applied throughout the United States, but most datasets used for validation include at least some “non irrigated” land identification.

The Cropland Data Layer (CDL), hosted on CropScape, provides a raster, geo-referenced, crop-specific land cover map for the continental United States. The CDL also includes a crop mask layer and planting frequency layers, as well as boundary, water and road layers. The Boundary Layer options provided are County, Agricultural Statistics Districts (ASD), State, and Region. The data is created annually using moderate resolution satellite imagery and extensive agricultural ground truth. Users can select a geographic area of interest or import one, then access acreage statistics for a specific year or view the change from one year to another. The data can be exported or added to the CDL. The information is useful for issues related to agricultural sustainability, biodiversity, and land cover monitoring, especially due to extreme weather events. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: CropScape and Cropland Data Layer - National Download. File Name: Web Page, url: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Research_and_Science/Cropland/Release/index.php Downloads available as zipped files at https://www.nass.usda.gov/Research_and_Science/Cropland/Release/index.php --

National CDL's -- by year, 2008-2020. Cropland Data Layer provides a raster, geo-referenced, crop-specific land cover map for the continental United States. The CDL also includes a crop mask layer and planting frequency layers, as well as boundary, water and road layers. The Boundary Layer options provided are County, Agricultural Statistics Districts (ASD), State, and Region. National Cultivated Layer -- based on the most recent five years (2013-2020). National Frequency Layer -- the 2017 Crop Frequency Layer identifies crop specific planting frequency and are based on land cover information derived from the 2008 through 2020CDL's. There are currently four individual crop frequency data layers that represent four major crops: corn, cotton, soybeans, and wheat. National Confidence Layer -- the Confidence Layer spatially represents the predicted confidence that is associated with that output pixel, based upon the rule(s) that were used to classify it. Western/Eastern/Central U.S.

Visit https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/ for the interactive map including tutorials and basic instructions. These options include a "Demo Video", "Help", "Developer Guide", and "FAQ".

In the two files available, File A presents data for number and size of all farms and for farms having gross sales of $2,500 or more. Data also include farm acreage, farm operations, land in farms, land use practices, income and sales, expenditure, machinery, and equipment. In addition, information is presented for livestock, poultry, livestock and poultry products, crops harvested, nursery and greenhouse products, and forest products. File B presents selected crops and livestock not availabl e in File A, and also shows race and ethnicity of farm operators. Comparable data from the 1969 census of agriculture are shown where applicable. "On File A, summaries are provided for states and for each county with 10 farms or more. File B presents county and state data for miscellaneous crops and livestock that are grown primarily in localized areas or in relatively few counties. The data are presented by product for counties having sufficient farms reporting the product to avoid disclosure of information for any individual operator. Counties not reporting the product in sufficient cases to be published separately are combined i nto an ""all other"" category when disclosure rules permit."