Agritourism statistics at a glance
Agritourism sits at the intersection of farm income, visitor demand, and rural business development. The numbers show a market that is still relatively small at the national level, but meaningful enough to reshape how many farms think about revenue, staffing, and investment.
Table of contents
- What the current agritourism numbers show
- How common agritourism is on U.S. farms
- Income, receipts, and profitability
- County concentration and geographic pattern
- Farm size and income class patterns
- What operators plan to do next
- Operator and survey snapshots
- What these statistics mean for agritourism strategy
What the current agritourism numbers show
The best way to read agritourism statistics is as a business signal rather than a single industry total. The dataset points to a sector that is widespread enough to matter, uneven enough to create local opportunity, and mature enough that many farms are already making concrete plans around it.
A few numbers frame the story clearly.
- Nearly 1.5% of U.S. farms and ranches engaged in agritourism and recreational services in 2022 (USDA Agritourism Resource Manual).
- Those operations generated nearly $1.3 billion in agritourism receipts in 2022 (USDA Agritourism Resource Manual).
- Average agritourism receipts per operation were $44,004 in 2022 (USDA Agritourism Resource Manual).
- 57% of U.S. counties reported agritourism income in 2022 (ERS, 2022 Census of Agriculture county chart).
That combination matters because it shows both reach and concentration. Agritourism is not a niche that exists in only a handful of places. At the same time, only a small share of farms participate directly, which means many farms still have room to test the model, scale it carefully, or specialize around a specific visitor experience.
Fast facts
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. farms and ranches engaged in agritourism and recreational services | Nearly 1.5% | USDA Agritourism Resource Manual |
| Agritourism receipts | Nearly $1.3 billion | USDA Agritourism Resource Manual |
| Average receipts per operation | $44,004 | USDA Agritourism Resource Manual |
| Counties reporting agritourism income | 57% | ERS, 2022 Census of Agriculture county chart |
| Median county agritourism income | $161,000 | ERS, 2022 Census of Agriculture county chart |
How common agritourism is on U.S. farms
The participation rate is low in absolute terms, but it is high enough to show that agritourism is not experimental in a narrow sense. The 1.5% figure suggests that most farms still do not operate in this space, yet the business model has already crossed the threshold from novelty to recurring farm diversification strategy (USDA Agritourism Resource Manual).
This matters because a low participation rate does not mean low relevance. It often means the opposite: a large pool of farms is still not participating, so the sector can grow through adoption, not just through expansion among existing operators.
The manual also breaks participation down by income class and farm size. Those splits are useful because they show who is already using agritourism and where the uptake is strongest.
- Middle-income farms had a 5% agritourism participation rate (USDA Agritourism Resource Manual).
- Small farms had a 1% agritourism participation rate (USDA Agritourism Resource Manual).
- Large farms had a 2% agritourism participation rate (USDA Agritourism Resource Manual).
That pattern suggests that agritourism is not just a function of scale. Middle-income farms show the strongest participation among the farm-size categories listed here, which may indicate that agritourism works best when farms have enough operational flexibility to host visitors, but are still close enough to the economics of diversification to need added revenue streams.
Participation by farm group
| Farm group | Participation rate | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Middle-income farms | 5% | USDA Agritourism Resource Manual |
| Large farms | 2% | USDA Agritourism Resource Manual |
| Small farms | 1% | USDA Agritourism Resource Manual |
The participation profile also tells you where agritourism is not yet saturated. If only 1% of small farms and 2% of large farms participate, then many operators still have not decided whether agritourism fits their land, labor, or customer base. That is an opportunity, but it is also a reminder that success likely depends on operational discipline rather than just adding a visitor-facing activity.
Income, receipts, and profitability
Receipts are only part of the picture. The dataset also shows how much agritourism contributes to farm income and how variable profitability can be.
The average agritourism receipts per operation were $44,004 in 2022 (USDA Agritourism Resource Manual), but that average should not be treated as a guaranteed earnings target. The income distribution is clearly uneven. For example, the manual says 50% of agritourism participants reported zero net income from agritourism in 2021, while the average net farm income from agritourism activities was $11,110 in 2021 (USDA Agritourism Resource Manual).
Those two figures can coexist because agritourism income is likely concentrated among farms that have built scale, repeat visitation, or stronger ancillary services. In practice, the median experience may be far below the average, which is why the count of zero-profit operations matters so much.
The dataset also gives a useful clue about who depends on agritourism most heavily. Low-income agritourism farms derived 34% of their income from agritourism in a 2021 ARMS study, compared with 9% for middle-income agritourism farms and 10% for high-income agritourism farms (USDA Agritourism Resource Manual).
That spread shows agritourism is not equally important across income classes. For some farms, it is a core component of the business model. For others, it is a supplemental channel that helps smooth revenue or improve overall utilization of land and facilities.
Profitability snapshot
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Average net farm income from agritourism activities in 2021 | $11,110 | USDA Agritourism Resource Manual |
| Participants reporting zero net income | 50% | USDA Agritourism Resource Manual |
| Specialty crop agritourism farms average net farm income | $26,807 | USDA Agritourism Resource Manual |
| Low-income farms’ share of income from agritourism | 34% | USDA Agritourism Resource Manual |
| Middle-income farms’ share of income from agritourism | 9% | USDA Agritourism Resource Manual |
| High-income farms’ share of income from agritourism | 10% | USDA Agritourism Resource Manual |
Two more comparisons sharpen the picture. Low-income agritourism farms and ranches had 7% higher gross cash farm income than other low-income farms (USDA Agritourism Resource Manual). But participating middle-income farms had 3% lower gross cash farm income than non-participants in the same class, and participating high-income farms had 19% lower gross cash farm income than non-participants in the same class (USDA Agritourism Resource Manual).
Those are not simple success-or-failure signals. They suggest agritourism is being adopted by farms with different underlying income structures, and the financial effect depends on existing farm economics, not just on the visitor offering itself.
County concentration and geographic pattern
The county-level numbers matter because agritourism is strongly shaped by local geography. Visitor demand, road access, tourism corridors, regional culture, and farm density can all affect whether the business works.
The 2022 county chart from ERS shows that 57% of U.S. counties reported agritourism income, with median county agritourism income at $161,000 (ERS, 2022 Census of Agriculture county chart). That median is helpful because it shows a typical county-level level of activity, not just the most successful outliers.
But the upper end is where the concentration becomes obvious. The 50 counties with the most agritourism income were spread across 23 states (ERS, 2022 Census of Agriculture county chart). That means top-performing counties are geographically diverse, not locked into one region. Still, some states show notable clustering. Texas had eight of the top 50 counties, while California, Colorado, and Hawaii each had four of the top 50 agritourism counties (ERS, 2022 Census of Agriculture county chart).
County concentration table
| County-level measure | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Counties reporting agritourism income | 57% | ERS, 2022 Census of Agriculture county chart |
| Median county agritourism income | $161,000 | ERS, 2022 Census of Agriculture county chart |
| Top 50 counties spread across states | 23 states | ERS, 2022 Census of Agriculture county chart |
| Texas counties in top 50 | 8 | ERS, 2022 Census of Agriculture county chart |
| California counties in top 50 | 4 | ERS, 2022 Census of Agriculture county chart |
| Colorado counties in top 50 | 4 | ERS, 2022 Census of Agriculture county chart |
| Hawaii counties in top 50 | 4 | ERS, 2022 Census of Agriculture county chart |
| Income generated by the top 50 counties | $352 million | ERS, 2022 Census of Agriculture county chart |
The top 50 counties generated $352 million in income, and that was more than a quarter of total U.S. agritourism income (ERS, 2022 Census of Agriculture county chart). That is one of the clearest concentration signals in the dataset. A relatively small set of counties accounts for a disproportionately large share of total income, which means local strategy can matter as much as farm-level execution.
The practical takeaway is straightforward. If a farm sits in a county with strong agritourism receipts, it may benefit from traffic already created by nearby operations, tourism infrastructure, or a recognized regional identity. If it sits outside those clusters, the farm may need to build demand more deliberately through events, niche programming, or partnerships.
Farm size and income class patterns
The income-class data is useful because it separates participation from financial dependence. A farm can be involved in agritourism without deriving much of its total income from it. A farm can also depend on agritourism heavily even if its total receipts remain modest.
Here the statistics show three distinct patterns. First, 86% of agritourism operations had farm sales and government payments below $250,000 (USDA Agritourism Resource Manual). Second, 65.4% of agritourism-participating farms and ranches were in the low-income class below $50,000 (USDA Agritourism Resource Manual). Third, 20.4% were in the middle-income class from $50,000 to $250,000, while 14.2% were in the high-income class above $250,000 (USDA Agritourism Resource Manual).
These figures show agritourism is not limited to a single income tier. Most participating operations are still below the $250,000 level, but the business model spans low-, middle-, and high-income farms. That spread is important because it suggests agritourism can work as a supplement, a stabilizer, or a core line of business depending on the farm.
Income-class breakdown
| Income class | Share of agritourism-participating farms and ranches | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Below $50,000 | 65.4% | USDA Agritourism Resource Manual |
| $50,000 to $250,000 | 20.4% | USDA Agritourism Resource Manual |
| Above $250,000 | 14.2% | USDA Agritourism Resource Manual |
Another useful angle is how much agritourism contributes within those classes. Low-income agritourism farms derived 34% of their income from agritourism in the ARMS study, compared with 9% for middle-income farms and 10% for high-income farms (USDA Agritourism Resource Manual). That suggests a stronger dependence among lower-income operations, which may mean agritourism is filling an income gap rather than simply adding a nice extra revenue stream.
The same pattern also explains why the average net farm income of $11,110 in 2021 should be read carefully. For some operators, that amount may represent a useful margin. For others, it may only offset the cost of staffing, equipment, insurance, or facility upkeep. The 50% zero-net-income figure reminds readers that topline receipts are not the same as profit (USDA Agritourism Resource Manual).
What operators plan to do next
The survey data is useful because it reveals forward-looking intent, not just backward-looking results. And the intent is clearly expansionary.
- 69% of surveyed farms planned to expand their agritourism services over the next five years (UVM US Overview).
- 55% planned to invest in more buildings or equipment for agritourism (UVM US Overview).
- 36% planned to hire more employees in the next five years (UVM US Overview).
- 4% intended to decrease the number of services offered over the next five years (UVM US Overview).
That is a strong directional signal. Far more operators are planning to grow than to contract. The gap between expansion intent and contraction intent suggests many farms view agritourism as a strategic growth area, not a temporary side venture.
The revenue and profitability survey adds more nuance. Over three-quarters of respondents reported positive profits from agritourism enterprises (UVM Revenue & Profitability), while about one-quarter reported no profit from agritourism (UVM US Overview). That split makes sense in a developing market: some farms are clearly finding a profitable formula, while others are still working through implementation, pricing, or demand generation.
Expansion intent at a glance
| Planned action | Share of surveyed farms | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Expand agritourism services | 69% | UVM US Overview |
| Invest in buildings or equipment | 55% | UVM US Overview |
| Hire more employees | 36% | UVM US Overview |
| Decrease services | 4% | UVM US Overview |
The staffing figure is especially important. If 36% expect to hire more employees, agritourism is not just a marketing idea. It is an operational model that can require labor capacity, visitor management, maintenance, scheduling, and guest service. That also helps explain why some farms report no profit: labor-intensive visitor experiences can create costs before they create margin.
Operator and survey snapshots
The survey data also gives a sense of who is responding to agritourism opportunities and how farm characteristics vary among participants.
In one gender comparison, 58% of respondents were female operators (UVM Gender Comparison). Female operators had a median farm size of 50 acres, while male operators had a median farm size of 75 acres (UVM Gender Comparison). The same comparison found that 28% of female operators reported no profit from agritourism, compared with 22% of male operators (UVM Gender Comparison).
Those numbers should not be overread as a standalone causal story. They do, however, show that operator profile and farm size differ across groups, and that profit outcomes also vary. That matters for program design, training, financing, and advisory support.
The Vermont survey snapshot adds another layer. Respondents had an average age of 57 and ranged from age 26 to 83 (UVM Vermont Survey Report). Fifty-six percent were female, 41% had a 4-year college degree, and respondents reported an average farm acreage of 247 acres with a median of 82 acres (UVM Vermont Survey Report). Across the responding farms, there were 47,225 total acres (UVM Vermont Survey Report).
Vermont survey snapshot
| Measure | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Average respondent age | 57 | UVM Vermont Survey Report |
| Age range | 26 to 83 | UVM Vermont Survey Report |
| Female respondents | 56% | UVM Vermont Survey Report |
| Respondents with a 4-year college degree | 41% | UVM Vermont Survey Report |
| Average farm acreage | 247 acres | UVM Vermont Survey Report |
| Median farm acreage | 82 acres | UVM Vermont Survey Report |
| Total acres across responding farms | 47,225 | UVM Vermont Survey Report |
Taken together, these snapshots suggest agritourism is being managed by a broad mix of operators, not one stereotyped farm profile. That matters because future growth will likely depend on how well the sector adapts to different farm sizes, different staffing levels, and different degrees of experience with direct-to-visitor business models.
What these statistics mean for agritourism strategy
The dataset points to a simple strategic frame. Agritourism is still limited in reach, but it is already large enough to support meaningful farm income, county-level concentration, and operator expansion plans.
The most important signals are these.
- Participation is still modest, at nearly 1.5% of U.S. farms and ranches, so the sector is not saturated (USDA Agritourism Resource Manual).
- Income is real, but uneven, with nearly $1.3 billion in receipts and a substantial share of participants reporting zero net income (USDA Agritourism Resource Manual).
- County concentration is strong, with the top 50 counties producing $352 million and more than a quarter of total U.S. agritourism income (ERS, 2022 Census of Agriculture county chart).
- Growth intent is high, with 69% of surveyed farms planning to expand services and 55% planning more investment (UVM US Overview).
For a farm, that means agritourism works best when it is treated like a real business line. The statistics support careful planning around labor, facility investment, service mix, and location. They also suggest that operators who already have visitor flow, regional tourism appeal, or a clear farm identity may be better positioned to convert agritourism from a side activity into a durable source of receipts.
For readers comparing opportunities, the broad pattern is clear. Some farms will use agritourism to diversify modest income. Some will use it to strengthen a larger operation. A few counties will capture outsized income because geography and tourism already favor them. The common thread is that agritourism tends to reward farms that can combine visitor experience with disciplined execution, and the statistics here show that many operators are already trying to do exactly that.