The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →USDA reported that 68% of large-scale U.S. crop-producing farms used yield monitors, yield maps, or soil maps in 2023. That is the source of the “two-thirds” headline—but it is not a measure of all U.S. farms, every type of precision technology, or whether the tools paid for themselves. The estimate appears in USDA’s 2024 edition of America’s Farms and Ranches at a Glance, published December 10, 2024, using 2023 survey data.
What the 68% figure actually measures
USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) grouped three information-generating tools for this statistic: yield monitors, yield maps, and soil maps. A yield monitor displays crop yield during harvest and can help create a yield map. Soil maps show spatial differences in field characteristics such as soil texture and nutrient levels. The reported 68% is the share of large-scale crop-producing farms using one or more of those tools—not the share using all three.
The figure comes from the 2023 Agricultural Resource Management Survey and was published in December 2024. USDA’s summary of the finding treats precision agriculture as several distinct technology categories, each with its own adoption rate.
“Large” is a USDA farm-typology category, not simply a measure of acreage. The typology considers gross cash farm income, the principal operator’s occupation, and ownership characteristics. Secondary coverage of the report describes large farms as having more than $1 million in gross cash farm income; the 68% denominator is narrower still, covering large-scale crop-producing farms rather than every large farm.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches#1 Best Overall
Adoption rises with farm size, but varies by technology
The table shows reported use among crop-producing farms by USDA size category. The available summary does not state a midsize percentage for the combined yield-monitor, yield-map, or soil-map category.
| Technology category | Small farms | Midsize farms | Large-scale farms |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yield monitors, yield maps, or soil maps | 13% | Not stated in the available USDA summary | 68% |
| Guidance autosteering | 9% | 52% | 70% |
| Variable-rate technology | 5% | 32% | 45% |
These figures come from USDA ERS’s report tables and chart summary. The pattern is not simply that bigger farms buy more sophisticated systems: autosteering, data-generating tools, and variable-rate application serve different purposes, so their adoption rates are not interchangeable.
What farmers mean by precision agriculture
Precision agriculture is better understood as a set of tools and workflows than as one product or a fully integrated digital farm. A farm might use one tool without adopting the others.
Rank #2
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
- Guidance and autosteering: Satellite-based guidance helps equipment follow a planned path; autosteering can control steering. It can reduce fatigue and overlap, but does not by itself create an agronomic prescription.
- Yield monitoring and mapping: A monitor records harvest information, which can be mapped to show differences across a field. Calibration and consistent operating settings matter if the map is to support decisions.
- Soil mapping: Sampling or sensor data can represent variation in soil properties and guide further investigation or management. Map usefulness depends on sampling design, resolution, and agronomic interpretation.
- Variable-rate technology: Equipment changes seeding, fertilizer, or pesticide rates across a field, often according to a prescription map. The system needs suitable field variation, sound prescriptions, and calibrated equipment.
- Drones and imagery: Unmanned aerial vehicles can collect field images or conduct operations such as pesticide spraying. Imagery is useful only when it informs a decision that justifies the collection and processing effort.
- Data platforms: Software can combine machine, field, and agronomic records for analysis or coordination. Connecting data is a separate challenge from collecting it.
Each step adds potential capability, but also cost and workflow demands. Using a monitor at harvest is not equivalent to changing input rates from an analyzed prescription, and neither necessarily means a farm has autonomous machinery or an integrated cloud platform.
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallOutdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchWhy adoption is more common on larger farms
ERS says adoption generally rises with farm size because larger farms can benefit more from employing the technologies. Several practical factors help explain that pattern:
- Equipment, software, training, and support costs can be spread across more acres and machines.
- More acres and greater field variation can create more opportunities to use maps or targeted application.
- Labor savings and reduced fatigue can accumulate across longer operating hours and multiple machines.
- Larger operations may have staff or advisers who can manage data, prescriptions, calibration, and support.
These are reasons the economics may differ by scale, not proof that every large farm benefits or that a smaller farm cannot. Some smaller operators can use a dealer, agronomist, or custom applicator instead of owning the equipment.
Why adopters say they use the technology
USDA asked users about their reasons for adopting different tools. These are self-reported motivations; they do not establish that a technology caused a yield increase, cost reduction, or environmental improvement.
| Technology category | Reported reasons among users |
|---|---|
| Yield monitors, yield maps, or soil maps | 55% cited increasing yields; 41% reducing purchased input costs; 40% improving soils or reducing environmental impacts; 23% saving labor time; 14% reducing operator fatigue. 33% said the technology came standard on equipment. |
| Guidance autosteering | 64% cited reducing operator fatigue; 50% saving labor time; 31% increasing yields; 28% reducing purchased input costs. |
| Variable-rate technology | 62% cited reducing purchased input costs; 58% increasing yields; 36% improving soils or reducing environmental impacts. |
The responses illustrate why “precision agriculture” is not one investment with one payoff: users of guidance often emphasize fatigue and time, while variable-rate users more often cite input costs and yields. USDA’s adoption-reason tables are in the report PDF.
Adoption does not establish profitability
The survey finding tells readers which technologies farms reported using and why users said they adopted them. It is not a controlled estimate of return on investment. Whether a system makes financial sense depends on the farm’s acres, crops, field variability, existing equipment, labor needs, data quality, input costs, support arrangements, and ability to act on the information.
Rank #4
A farm evaluating a purchase should compare expected benefits with the full cost of ownership: hardware and installation, software or data subscriptions, correction signals, training, calibration, repairs, and staff time. The payback case should account for plausible labor savings, avoided overlap, input changes, and any yield effect without assuming that an adoption motive guarantees an outcome.
Costs, compatibility, and other barriers
Secondary coverage of the USDA findings identifies cost, unreliable internet service, and device incompatibility as important obstacles. More data-intensive systems also require someone to collect, organize, interpret, and use the information. A platform that gathers data without changing a field decision may add work and recurring cost without delivering practical value.
- Connectivity: Cloud-dependent workflows can be difficult where cellular or broadband coverage is unreliable; GPS correction signals may also be a separate dependency.
- Interoperability: Displays, implements, software, and file formats may not work smoothly across brands. Confirm compatibility before purchasing, including whether prescriptions and records can be exported.
- Data quality: Miscalibrated yield monitors, GPS drift, poor soil sampling, or outdated prescriptions can create misleading maps and application plans.
- Operational upkeep: Sensors need maintenance; equipment and maps need to match the right field, crop, and season. Too many alerts can cause operators to ignore them.
- Vendor dependence: Proprietary formats, subscriptions, and support arrangements can make switching systems difficult. Ask who controls farm data and how it can be retrieved.
How to decide whether to buy, outsource, or wait
Start with a farm problem, not a product category. The right approach may be equipment ownership, a service provider, or no new system.
Best Value
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
- Choose one decision to improve. Examples include reducing overlap, easing operator fatigue, identifying field zones for investigation, or adjusting seeding or fertilizer rates.
- Check whether the field and operation support it. Consider acres covered, crop type, measurable variability, labor availability, and whether the proposed tool fits the way work is done.
- Verify the complete technical chain. Confirm machine, display, receiver, implement, correction service, software, and file-format compatibility, plus local connectivity and support.
- Compare ownership with service options. A custom applicator, dealer, or independent agronomist may supply maps, prescriptions, or application without requiring the farm to own every component.
- Calculate total cost and a realistic payback period. Include installation, recurring fees, training, calibration, maintenance, support, and the time required to manage data; use conservative estimates for savings and yield effects.
- Test the workflow before expanding it. A limited use case can reveal whether data is reliable, interoperable, and actionable before the farm commits to a wider system.
For a farm comparing platforms, vendor pages can help identify product scope but are not USDA endorsements or evidence of financial returns: John Deere Operations Center, Trimble Agriculture, Ag Leader, Climate FieldView, and Precision Planting. Products, regional availability, compatibility, and pricing vary; request a quote that itemizes hardware, installation, subscriptions, correction services, training, data export, and support.
How to read the headline alongside broader adoption claims
The 68% figure is not the national average for all farms. A broader USDA technology-use measure cited in secondary coverage put the share of farms using at least one form of precision agriculture at approximately 27%, but that measure has a different definition and population. The two percentages should not be treated as a direct comparison.
Nor does the 68% figure mean that two-thirds of large crop farms use drones, variable-rate application, autonomous machinery, or a fully integrated digital platform. USDA’s 2025 edition of the report is available, but the information establishing this particular 68% estimate is tied to the 2023 survey and 2024 publication; it does not establish a newer value for the same measure.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
