Editorial Policy
This page explains how CropFarming.net is put together. What we publish, where the information comes from, how it is checked, and what happens when we get something wrong.
We wrote it so you can judge the site rather than take it on trust.
What this site is
CropFarming.net is an independent reference for people growing crops in the United States. The audience runs from a first raised bed to a few hundred acres.
Extension services publish a great deal of useful research. The problem is where it sits: hundreds of separate publications, split by state and by crop. We gather that work, organize it by crop, and put each figure next to the service that published it.
What this site is not
We are not a farm. Nobody here reports results from their own fields. You will not find a first-person farming claim, a claimed location, or an invented grower quote on this site.
We do not test products. Equipment coverage comes from manufacturer documentation, published specifications, and patterns across verified buyer feedback. Where a point rests on owner reports rather than a spec sheet, the article says so.
We are not a replacement for your extension office. They know your soil, your season, and your local pest pressure. This site is a starting point, not the final word.
Who writes the site
Six people research, write, verify, and edit what you read here. Each covers a defined area, which keeps the sourcing consistent within it. You can see who they are on the About page.
Articles publish under a shared Editorial Team byline. Most guides pass through more than one person, so crediting a single author would mislead. Research, drafting, verification, and editing are often split across the team.
How we choose what to write about
We write for questions growers actually ask. A topic has to clear two tests before it gets written.
Is it a real question? If nobody is asking it, a page answering it serves nobody.
Can we answer it better than what already ranks? If the first page covers it well, we need something specific to add. A comparison table nobody has built. State by state dates gathered in one place. A calculation worked through. A failure mode nobody explains.
If neither test passes, we do not publish. Filling a content grid is not a reason to write a page.
Where our information comes from
Sources are used in this order.
University extension services. Land grant universities run field trials in their own growing regions and publish what they find. This is the backbone of the site.
We draw on Kansas State Research and Extension, Iowa State University Extension, Penn State Extension, UF/IFAS Extension, NDSU Extension, University of Georgia Extension, Texas A&M AgriLife, and University of California ANR, among others.
Federal agencies. USDA NASS for production statistics. USDA NRCS for soil survey data. USDA ARS for research. EPA for pesticide registration and label records.
Manufacturer documentation. Product labels, operator manuals, and published specifications, used for equipment and input coverage.
Aggregated buyer feedback. Patterns across verified purchase reviews, used only for durability and usability points, and always identified as owner reports.
What must carry a source
Any claim that changes by region, crop, or product names its source in the sentence where it appears.
That covers planting and harvest windows, seeding rates and depths, fertilizer rates, pesticide rates and cutoffs, yield figures, disease thresholds, nutrition claims, and equipment specifications.
Attribution sits in the text, not in a footnote. You should see which service backs a number as you read it.
How a figure gets verified
Every number is opened in the publication it cites and checked before the article goes live. Not a summary. Not a secondary article quoting it. The publication itself.
If a claim cannot be traced to a named source, it comes out of the draft. A shorter guide beats a confident one built on something we could not confirm.
When sources disagree
Extension services test in their own soils, under their own weather. They do not always reach the same number.
A seeding rate from Iowa State can sit outside what NDSU publishes for the same crop. Neither is wrong. They answer for different ground.
Where that happens we give the range and name both services. Averaging them produces a figure nobody actually recommends.
When the research is thin
Some questions have no published answer. Newer varieties, unusual soils, and shifting pest pressure often fall into that gap.
We say so. A guide that states its limit is more useful than one that fills the space with a guess.
Tools we use
Our writers use research and drafting tools, including AI assistance, at the drafting stage.
No figure publishes on that basis. The person responsible for the article verifies every number against the publication it cites, then edits the draft before it goes live.
The tool that produced a first draft is not what makes a guide reliable. Verification is, and that is where the work goes.
How we cover products
Equipment and input guides follow stricter rules than the rest of the site. The risk of overstating is higher there.
- We do not claim hands-on testing, because we do not do it
- Specifications come from manufacturer documentation, not from other review sites
- Durability and usability points come from patterns across verified buyer feedback, and say so
- We name honest drawbacks, not decorative ones
- We do not publish prices, because they change faster than we can update them
If we cannot document a claim about a product, it does not appear.
How we make money, and what it does not buy
Some pages contain affiliate links. If you buy through one, we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. Our affiliate disclosure covers it in full.
No company pays for placement, for a rating, or for coverage. Nobody outside the editorial team sees an article before it publishes. A product that falls short is written up as falling short, link or no link.
We do not accept sponsored posts, paid guest posts, or link placements.
Corrections and updates
Corrections. If we publish something wrong, we fix it. A correction states what changed and which source the fix came from. We do not quietly edit a figure and leave the page looking untouched.
Updates. Labels, rates, and recommendations change. When a source we cite is revised, the article gets revised with it.
Reporting an error. Send the page address and the figure to editor@cropfarming.net. Telling us which publication you are comparing against speeds it up considerably.
We treat a reader correction as a favor, not a complaint.
Review schedule
Guides covering time-sensitive material get checked at least once a year. That covers anything citing a pesticide label, a fertilizer rate, or a planting window.
Articles on settled material, such as how a crop is pollinated, get reviewed when a source changes or a reader flags something.
Images
Photographs show real crops, fields, and equipment. We never present a person as the site’s author or as a grower speaking for the site. No such person exists.
Diagrams and charts are built from the same sourced figures used in the article they accompany.
Questions about this policy
Write to editor@cropfarming.net. If something here is unclear, that is worth knowing.
Last reviewed: 09/21/2026