About the data here
Last updated: 2026-05-28
UFFDA surfaces ag data that someone else produced. We don't make the data. We don't certify it. We're not the system of record for any of it.
None of this is legal advice. For decisions that actually matter, verify against the original source.
What we do
We pull together open agricultural data from government agencies, research institutions, satellite missions, and open-data publishers. We label each dataset with its source, its license, and our plain-English read of what you're allowed to do with it.
The original source is the authority. Always. We tell you who that is and link you there.
What we don't do
- —We don't produce the data. We don't lab-measure soil. We don't fly satellites.
- —We don't relicense anything. Whatever the original license says, that's what controls.
- —We don't certify accuracy. The number you see came from somewhere; we link you to where.
- —We don't promise it's current. We tell you when we fetched it; the upstream source may have updated since.
Don't rely on UFFDA data alone for decisions that matter
Specifically, don't rely on UFFDA data, by itself, for:
- —Regulatory or compliance filings — USDA program eligibility, EPA reporting, state permits, conservation-program enrollment.
- —Financial decisions — lending, insurance underwriting, land valuation, crop-futures trading.
- —Insurance claims — of any kind.
- —Legal proceedings or disputes.
- —Safety-critical decisions — pesticide application, food safety, livestock health.
- —Anything where being wrong matters and you can't fix it afterward.
For any of these, go to the upstream source, confirm the value against the authoritative record, and document what you checked.
About the licenses we describe
We run a license decoder over every dataset in the catalog — a plain-English read of what each license allows: commercial use or not, attribution required or not, share-alike or not.
That decoder is informational. Not legal advice. We run an internal check before we publish, but we are not your lawyer. If you're building something commercial on top of a dataset, read the actual license, or have a lawyer read it.
If we got a license characterization wrong, tell us. We'll correct it.
When you're not sure: assume the most restrictive reasonable interpretation and attribute the source.
About combining data from multiple sources
If you join data from two upstream sources, your result inherits the most restrictive license between them.
Joins also create new ways to be wrong. A value that's correct in one source can be misleading when joined against a different source's coordinate system, time window, or assumptions. Treat joined results with extra skepticism.
About the field data specifically
A “field” doesn't have one definition — every boundary source comes at it from a different angle. We label which source produced each boundary and what that source means by “field.” A USDA crop-history zone is not the same thing as a curated field polygon is not the same thing as what you'd draw by hand. Treat the boundaries as a useful approximation, not a survey.
For soil values: most of what we surface comes from public soil surveys (USDA SSURGO for the US, ISRIC SoilGrids globally). These are interpolations and surveys, not lab measurements of your specific field. Useful for orientation, not a substitute for a soil test.
Found something wrong?
Email us. Tell us the source, the value you saw, and what you think is correct. We'll investigate, fix what we can, and point you upstream where the issue lives there.
◆ The shortest version
UFFDA is a starting point. For anything that matters, verify against the source. If we got something wrong, tell us; we'll fix it.