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).

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.

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).

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

The Census of Agriculture provides a detailed picture every five years of U.S. farms and ranches and the people who operate them. Conducted by USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service, the 2012 Census of Agriculture collected more than six million data items directly from farmers. The Ag Census Web Maps application makes this information available at the county level through a few clicks. The maps and accompanying data help users visualize, download, and analyze Census of Agriculture data in a geospatial context. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Ag Census Web Maps. File Name: Web Page, url: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/Online_Resources/Ag_Census_Web_Maps/Overview/index.php/ The interactive map application assembles maps and statistics from the 2012 Census of Agriculture in five broad categories:

Crops and Plants – Data on harvested acreage for major field crops, hay, and other forage crops, as well as acreage data for vegetables, fruits, tree nuts, and berries. Economics – Data on agriculture sales, farm income, government payments from conservation and farm programs, amounts received from loans, a broad range of production expenses, and value of buildings and equipment. Farms – Information on farm size, ownership, and Internet access, as well as data on total land in farms, land use, irrigation, fertilized cropland, and enrollment in crop insurance programs. Livestock and Animals – Statistics on cattle and calves, cows and heifers, milk cows, and other cattle, as well as hogs, sheep, goats, horses, and broilers. Operators – Statistics on hired farm labor, tenure, land rented or leased, primary occupation of farm operator, and demographic characteristics such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, and residence location.

The Ag Census Web Maps application allows you to:

Select a map to display from a the above five general categories and associated subcategories. Zoom and pan to a specific area; use the inset buttons to center the map on the continental United States; zoom to a specific state; and show the state mask to fade areas surrounding the state. Create and print maps showing the variation in a single data item across the United States (for example, average value of agricultural products sold per farm). Select a county and view and download the county’s data for a general category. Download the U.S. county-level dataset of mapped values for all categories in Microsoft ® Excel format.

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...

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.

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.

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.

This dataset includes soil health, crop biomass, and crop yield data for a 13-year corn stover harvest trial in central Iowa. Following the release in 2005 of the Billion Ton Study assessment of biofuel sources, several soil health assessments associated with harvesting corn stover were initiated across ARS locations to help provide industry guidelines for sustainable stover harvest. This dataset is from a trial conducted by the National Laboratory for Agriculture and Environment from 2007-2021 at the Iowa State University Ag Engineering and Agronomy farm. Management factors evaluated in the trial included the following. Stover harvest rate at three levels: No, moderate (3.5 ± 1.1 Mg ha-1 yr-1), or high (5.0 ± 1.7 Mg ha-1 yr-1) stover harvest rates. No-till versus chisel-plow tillage. Originally, the 3 stover harvest rates were evaluated in a complete factorial design with tillage system. However, the no-till, no-harvest system performed poorly in continuous corn and was discontinued in 2012 due to lack of producer interest. Cropping sequence. In addition to evaluating continuous corn for all stover harvest rates and tillage systems, a corn-alfalfa rotation, and a corn-soybean-wheat rotation with winter cover crops were evaluated in a subset of the tillage and stover harvest rate treatments. One-time additions of biochar in 2013 at rates of either 9 Mg/ha or 30 Mg/ha were evaluated in a continuous corn cropping system. The dataset includes: 1) Crop biomass and yields for all crop phases in every year. 2) Soil organic carbon, total carbon, total nitrogen, and pH to 120 cm depth in 2012, 2016, and 2017. Soil cores from 2005 (pre-study) were also sampled to 90 cm depth. 3) Soil chemistry sampled to 15 cm depth every 1-2 years from 2007 to 2017. 4) Soil strength and compaction was assessed to 60 cm depth in April 2021. These data have been presented in several manuscripts, including Phillips et al. (in review), O'Brien et al. (2020), and Obrycki et al. (2018). Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: R Script for Phillips et al. 2022. File Name: Field 70-71 Analysis Script_AgDataCommons.RResource Description: This R script includes analysis and figures for Phillips et al. "Thirteen-year Stover Harvest and Tillage Effects on Soil Compaction in Iowa". It focuses primarily on the soil compaction and strength data found in "Field 70-71 ConeIndex_BulkDensityDepths_2021". It also includes analysis of corn yields from "Field 70-71 CornYield_2008-2021" and weather conditions from "PRISM_MayTemps" and "Rainfall_AEA".Resource Software Recommended: R version 4.1.3 or higher,url: https://cran.r-project.org/bin/windows/base/ Resource Title: Field 70-71 ConeIndex_BulkDensityDepths_2021. File Name: Field 70-71 ConeIndex_BulkDensityDepths_2021.csvResource Description: This dataset provides an assessment of soil strength (penetration resistance) and soil compaction (bulk density) to 60 cm depth, in continuous corn plots. Penetration resistance was measured in most-trafficked and least-trafficked areas of the plots to assess compaction from increased traffic associated with stover harvest. This spreadsheet also has associated data, including soil water, carbon, and organic matter content. Data were collected in April 2021 and are described in Phillips et al. (in review, 2022).Resource Title: Field 70-71 CornYield_2008-2021. File Name: Field 70-71 CornYield_2008-2021_ForR.csvResource Description: This dataset provides corn stover biomass and grain yields from 2008-2021. Note that this dataset is just for corn, which were presented in Phillips et al., 2022. Yields for all crop phases, including soybeans, wheat, alfalfa, and winter cover crops, are in the file "Field 70-71 Crop Yield File 2008-2020".Resource Title: PRISM_MayTemps. File Name: PRISM_MayTemps.csvResource Description: Average May temperatures during the study period, obtained from interpolation of regional weather stations using the PRISM climate model (https://prism.oregonstate.edu/). These data were used to evaluate how spring temperatures may have impacted corn establishment.Resource Title: Rainfall_AEA. File Name: Rainfall_AEA.csvResource Description: Daily rainfall for the study location, 2008-2021. Data were obtained from the Iowa Environmental Mesonet (https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/rainfall/). Title: Field 70-71 Plot Status 2007-2021. File Name: Field 70-71 Plot Status 2007-2021.xlsxResource Description: This file contains descriptions of experimental treatments and diagrams of plot layouts as they were modified through several phases of the trial. Also includes an image of plot locations relative to NRCS soil survey map units.Resource Title: Field 70-71 Deep Soil Cores 2012-2017. File Name: Field 70-71 Deep Soil Cores 2012-2017.xlsxResource Description: Soil carbon, nitrogen, organic matter, and pH to 120 cm depth in 2012, 2016, and 2017.Resource Title: Field 70-71 Baseline Deep Soil Cores 2005. File Name: Field 70-71 Baseline Deep Soil Cores 2005.csvResource Description: Baseline soil carbon, nitrogen, and pH data from an earlier trial in 2005, prior to stover trial establishment.Resource Title: Field 70-71 Crop Yield File 2008-2020. File Name: Field 70-71 Crop Yield File 2008-2020.xlsxResource Description: Yields for all crops in all cropping sequences, 2008-2020. Some of the crop sequences have not been summarized in publications.Resource Title: Field 70-71 Surface Soil Test Data 2007-2021. File Name: Field 70-71 Surface Soil Test Data 2007-2021.xlsxResource Description: Soil chemistry data, 0-15 cm, collect near-annually from 2007 to 2021. Most analyses were performed by Harris Laboratories (now AgSource) in Lincoln, Nebraska, USA. Resource Title: Iowa Stover Harvest Trial Data Dictionary. File Name: Field 70-71 Data Dictionary.xlsxResource Description: Data dictionary for all data files.

In nine of the last 10 years, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has reported that the average funds generated on-farm for farm operators to meet living expenses and debt obligations have been negative. This paper pieces together disparate data to understand why farm operators in the most productive agricultural systems on the planet are systematically losing money. The data-driven narrative we present highlights some troubling trends in US farm operator livelihoods. Though US farms are more productive than ever before, rising input costs, volatile production values, and rising land rents have left farmers with unprecedented levels of farm debt, low on-farm incomes, and high reliance on federal programs. For many US farm operators, the indicators of a “good livelihood”—stability, security, equitable rewards for work—are largely absent. We conclude by proposing three axes of intervention that would help US agriculture better sustain all farmers' livelihoods, a crucial step toward improving overall agricultural sustainability: (1) increase the diversity of people, crops, and cropping systems, (2) improve equity in access to land, support, and capital, and (3) improve the quality, accessibility, and content of data to facilitate monitoring of multiple indicators of agricultural “success.”

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 rice 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 Rice ProductionCoordinate System: Web Mercator Auxiliary SphereExtent: 48 Contiguous United StatesVisible 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.Operations with SalesOperations with Area HarvestedSales in US DollarsArea Harvested in AcresProduction in HundredweightAdditionally 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.

This coverage contains estimates of livestock holdings in counties in the conterminous United States as reported in the 1987 Census of Agriculture (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1989a). Livestock holdings data are reported as either a number (for example, number of milk cows), number of farms, or in thousands of dollars. Livestock holdings 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).

Livestock Census of Agriculture Counties United States

In the United States, agroforestry is commonly defined as a suite of land management practices that intentionally integrate woody plants (trees, shrubs, vines, etc.) with crop and/or animal production systems. Understanding agroforestry adoption in the United States is critical to serve as a baseline of existing agroforestry systems and for future planning purposes. There is growing interest in identifying where future systems are most likely to occur. Since 2017, the Census of Agriculture (COA) from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) has asked whether farm operations have agroforestry. While the COA does not differentiate the type of agroforestry used (e.g., windbreak, silvopasture, forest farming, alley cropping, riparian forest buffer) it does provide county-level numbers of farm operations practicing agroforestry. These raw numbers, available from the NASS website in tabular format, can then be joined to county-level geospatial data to provide thematic maps. This data publication includes vector polygon spatial data in multiple formats that includes the number of farm operations reporting agroforestry, the total number of farms, and the percentage of farm operations reporting agroforestry for each county in the U.S. in 2017 and 2022. The change in the proportion of farms reporting agroforestry from 2017 to 2022 is also included.The raw data were produced by the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Survey (NASS) Census of Agriculture (COA.) The COA is completed every 5 years and is a count of U.S. farms and ranches from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were produced and sold, or normally would have been sold, during the census year. It also looks at land use, ownership, production practices, income, and other characteristics. The 2017 COA was the first census to ask if producers have any of the five common agroforestry practices (windbreak, silvopasture, forest farming, alley cropping, riparian forest buffer.) NASS included the same agroforestry question in the 2022 COA, allowing for the first national-level trend analysis for agroforestry extent in the United States. The National Agroforestry Center published the first maps depicting the agroforestry results from the COA in 2017 and have now created a new series of maps to reflect newly published agroforestry data from the 2022 COA. In addition, maps showing change in agroforestry at the national scale have been created, using data from the 2017 and 2022 COA. The purpose of this project was to use the raw census numbers to create a spatial layer for visualization, mapping, and analysis purposes.For more information about these data, see Kellerman et al. (2025) and Smith et al. (2022).

The first edition of these data, Kellerman (2023, https://doi.org/10.2737/RDS-2023-0044) contains 2017 data. This second edition includes the same 2017 data, but a different source for county boundaries was used (more details below), as well as the addition to 2022 data.

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."

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

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 corn 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 Corn ProductionCoordinate System: Web Mercator Auxiliary SphereExtent: 48 Contiguous United States 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.Operations with SalesSales in US DollarsGrain - Area Harvested in AcresGrain - Operations with Area HarvestedGrain - Production in BushelsGrain - Irrigated Area Harvested in AcresGrain - Operations with Irrigated Area HarvestedSilage - Area Harvested in AcresSilage - Operations with Area HarvestedSilage - Production in TonsSilage - Irrigated Area Harvested in AcresSilage - Operations with Area HarvestedTraditional or Indian - Area Harvested in AcresTraditional or Indian - Operations with Area HarvestedTraditional or Indian - Production in PoundsTraditional or Indian - Irrigated Area Harvested in AcresTraditional or Indian - Operations with Area HarvestedAdditionally 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.

This dataset provides county-level data for Nitrogen fertilizer applied to county croplands [1000 kg N/yr]. This includes only those crops used in an assessment of greenhouse gas production from US agriculture using the DNDC agro-ecosystem model [see, for example, Li et al. (1992), J. Geophys. Res., 97:9759-9776; Li et al. (1996) Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 10:297-306]. Cropland area statistics are from the National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS) for 1990 for most crops, though some are 1992 data from the Census of Agriculture. Data represent total of irrigated and non-irrigated areas. (see NASS Crops County Data).

This is based on 'typical' nitrogen fertilization rates for each of the crops. The fertilizer application rates (see Table below) were derived from USDA NASS state agricultural statistics bulletins.

Crop Typical' N Fert. Rate (kg N/ha) Alfalfa 0 Barley 75 Corn (grain & silage) 125 Cotton 100 Edible Bean 0 Idle Cropland 0 Non-Legume Hay 25 Oats 75 Pasture 0 Peanut 0 Potatoes 250 Rice 140 Sorghum 75 Soybean 0 Spring Wheat 50 Sugarbeets 150 Sugarcane 200 Sunflower 100 Tobacco 100 Vegetables 100 Winter Wheat 75

County crop areas were multiplied by the nitrogen fertilization rates given above to determine total N-fertilization of these croplands per year. The 1990 national total N fertilizer use calculated by this method (8.5 million tonnes N/yr) is 83% of the 1990 national N-fertilizer sales (10.3 million tonnes N/yr). The sales total is expected to be larger because it will include fertilizer sold for other uses (eg. lawns, golf courses, other non-crop uses) as well as farm-use fertilizer applied to crops not included in the crop database (eg. vineyards, orchards, sod). The source for N fertilizer sales is American Assoc. of Plant Food Control Officials, 103 Regulatory Services Building; University of Kentucky; Lexington, KY 40546-0275; Phone (606)257-2668 fax (606)257-7351.

EOS-WEBSTER provides seven datasets which provide county-level data on agricultural management, crop production, livestock, soil properties, geography and population. These datasets were assembled during the mid-1990's to provide driving variables for an assessment of greenhouse gas production from US agriculture using the DNDC agro-ecosystem model [see, for example, Li et al. (1992), J. Geophys. Res., 97:9759-9776; Li et al. (1996) Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 10:297-306]. The data (except nitrogen fertilizer use) were all derived from publicly available, national databases. Each dataset has a separate DIF.

The US County data has been divided into seven datasets.

US County Data Datasets:

1) Agricultural Management 2) Crop Data (NASS Crop data) 3) Crop Summary (NASS Crop data) 4) Geography and Population 5) Land Use 6) Livestock Populations 7) Soil Properties

Livestock distribution in the United States (U.S.) can only be mapped at a county-level or worse resolution. We developed a spatial microsimulation model called the Farm Location and Agricultural Production Simulator (FLAPS) that simulated the distribution and populations of individual livestock farms throughout the conterminous U.S. Using domestic pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus) as an example species, we customized iterative proportional-fitting algorithms for the hierarchical structure of the U.S. Census of Agriculture and imputed unpublished state- or county-level livestock population totals that were redacted to ensure confidentiality. We used a weighted sampling design to collect data on the presence and absence of farms and used them to develop a national-scale distribution model that predicted the distribution of individual farms at a 100 m resolution. We implemented microsimulation algorithms that simulated the populations and locations of individual farms using output from our imputed Census of Agriculture dataset and distribution model. Approximately 19% of county-level pig population totals were unpublished in the 2012 Census of Agriculture and needed to be imputed. Using aerial photography, we confirmed the presence or absence of livestock farms at 10,238 locations and found livestock farms were correlated with open areas, cropland, and roads, and also areas with cooler temperatures and gentler topography. The distribution of swine farms was highly variable, but cross-validation of our distribution model produced an area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve value of 0.78, which indicated good predictive performance. Verification analyses showed FLAPS accurately imputed and simulated Census of Agriculture data based on absolute percent difference values of < 0.01% at the state-to-national scale, 3.26% for the county-to-state scale, and 0.03% for the individual farm-to-county scale. Our output data have many applications for risk management of agricultural systems including epidemiological studies, food safety, biosecurity issues, emergency-response planning, and conflicts between livestock and other natural resources.

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.