Individuals act differently in learning, this being due to the difference in learning styles of persons. Learning styles affect optimum learning and the efficiency in educational output. Therefore an identification of the learning styles of learners as related to teaching and learning activities is most important. The purpose of this study was to investigate the learning styles of agricultural students (n=160) of Islamic Azad University, Takestan Branch, during the years 2005-2006. This research was done through survey method as a non experimental research. The learning styles index of Felder and Soloman was employed as the tool for identification of student learning style. The instrument reliability was checked by calculating Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient which stood between 0.70 and 0.84 for different parts of the questionnaire and the validity was confirmed by comparing results with the justified test of VARK. Data were analyzed through SPSS/win software. The findings of the study revealed that from the dimension of processing 52% of students benefit from reflective learning style while 47% enjoy active learning style. In perception dimension, 86% of the respondents were among the sensing, while about 14% were intuitive. In the presentation dimension, 79% of students benefited from visual learning of style and 20% verbal learning of style. From a perception dimension there was a kind of harmony observed among frequency distributions. About 42% of respondents' learning style was sequential and 58% global. There was a significant difference observed between using textbooks as educational material and the score of students in the reflective learning style (at 5% significance level). The results showed that there was a positive and meaningful relationship between problem solving and intuitive learning style at 5% significance level. Also there was a positive and significant relationship between satisfaction from the teaching method and the active learning of style. There was a positive and significant relationship observed between satisfaction with evaluation methods and sequential style of learning on the one hand, and applicability of themes with global learning style on the other. Also satisfaction with accessibility to library sources and sequential dimension of learning style benefits from a significant relationship at a 1% significance level. The results finally indicated that there weren’t significant differences between male and female students and neither among technician graduates, B.S. and M.S. level students. Neither was significant differences observed among students of different majors in all the learning styles.