USDA ERS · CONSERVATION-LED · MID · KY

Kentucky farm subsidy data

Conservation-weighted ERS profile for FY2023; county NASS tables below are a separate 2022 Census population.

By ·Data year 2023·USDA ERS → ·USDA NASS Census →

Total payments
$157M
Net farm income (2023)
$2.8B

Conservation share inside Kentucky's $157M ERS total

Exclusive partition of this state's fiscal-year 2023 USDA ERS total (CONSERVATION-LED). Conservation and disaster are published line items; the residual is commodity / ARC-PLC / MFP and other program families in the same extract.

Kentucky: conservation leads a mid ERS book

Kentucky stamps CONSERVATION-LED · MID: conservation $65M inside $157M ERS total for FY2023 (#26/50).

Conservation dollars (CRP / EQIP / CSP families in this extract) are the standing policy signal here; net farm income $2.8B and cash receipts $8.1B are the market counterweight for FY2023.

County farm-count and sales tables below are the separate 2022 NASS Census population and do not sum to this ERS state total. Figures follow USDA Economic Research Service Farm Income and Wealth Statistics.

Latest release change: +2.9% · $157M FY2023 → $162M FY2024 (MID book; full year table reserved for heavier states).

Cash receipts by commodity in Kentucky

Soybeans $1.4B (17.6%)
Poultry $1.3B (16.1%)
Cattle $1.3B (15.6%)
Corn $1.2B (14.9%)
Wheat $249M (3.1%)
Total cash receipts: $8.1B

Crop insurance loss ratio 173% ($146M on $84M premiums); secondary to the CONSERVATION-LED payment stamp.

Kentucky vs. every rankable state: what goes into crop insurance isn't what comes out

Each dot is a state that clears the $1M premiums floor, placed by what it pays IN (premiums, left to right) against what its indemnities return relative to that (loss ratio, bottom to top). Paying more into the program is not the same as getting more out of it, a state can sit in the small-payer / outsized-payout quadrant just as easily as the reverse.

Small payer, outsized payoutHeavy payer, heavy claimsLight footprintHeavy payer, net subsidizer$0M$206.8M$413.5M$620.3M$827.0M16.1%140.3%264.5%388.7%512.9%Premiums paid ($M) →← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums)Texas, Premiums paid ($M) →: $787.7M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 421.3%Oklahoma, Premiums paid ($M) →: $149.3M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 469.4%Kansas, Premiums paid ($M) →: $504.7M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 486.3%Iowa, Premiums paid ($M) →: $701.7M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 147.1%California, Premiums paid ($M) →: $363.6M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 342.3%Nebraska, Premiums paid ($M) →: $447.4M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 318.2%South Dakota, Premiums paid ($M) →: $410.7M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 212.5%Arkansas, Premiums paid ($M) →: $86.3M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 324.6%Minnesota, Premiums paid ($M) →: $445.7M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 193.9%Missouri, Premiums paid ($M) →: $212.2M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 200.2%Wisconsin, Premiums paid ($M) →: $163M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 180.8%Illinois, Premiums paid ($M) →: $467.9M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 54.7%North Dakota, Premiums paid ($M) →: $500M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 156.2%Montana, Premiums paid ($M) →: $140.4M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 221.6%Mississippi, Premiums paid ($M) →: $56.3M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 374.1%Colorado, Premiums paid ($M) →: $149.1M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 283.8%Louisiana, Premiums paid ($M) →: $60.8M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 313.4%Ohio, Premiums paid ($M) →: $169.2M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 51.4%Washington, Premiums paid ($M) →: $184.5M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 341.8%Georgia, Premiums paid ($M) →: $108.8M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 364.7%Oregon, Premiums paid ($M) →: $83.6M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 257.3%Pennsylvania, Premiums paid ($M) →: $29.7M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 218.7%Florida, Premiums paid ($M) →: $133.8M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 432.8%New Mexico, Premiums paid ($M) →: $91.2M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 271.5%New York, Premiums paid ($M) →: $39.9M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 185.8%North Carolina, Premiums paid ($M) →: $147.9M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 168%Michigan, Premiums paid ($M) →: $114.9M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 120.5%Indiana, Premiums paid ($M) →: $261.4M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 38.7%Tennessee, Premiums paid ($M) →: $48.3M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 222.4%Idaho, Premiums paid ($M) →: $98.5M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 200.8%Utah, Premiums paid ($M) →: $28.7M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 128.7%Wyoming, Premiums paid ($M) →: $27.9M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 119.1%Virginia, Premiums paid ($M) →: $38.2M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 190.6%Alabama, Premiums paid ($M) →: $39.9M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 271%South Carolina, Premiums paid ($M) →: $49.4M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 251.7%Arizona, Premiums paid ($M) →: $72.9M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 237.1%Vermont, Premiums paid ($M) →: $2.2M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 369.3%Maryland, Premiums paid ($M) →: $16.5M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 133.2%Nevada, Premiums paid ($M) →: $63M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 98.4%Hawaii, Premiums paid ($M) →: $1M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 402.8%West Virginia, Premiums paid ($M) →: $2.1M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 178.3%Maine, Premiums paid ($M) →: $5M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 169.5%Massachusetts, Premiums paid ($M) →: $2.6M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 486.5%New Jersey, Premiums paid ($M) →: $3.3M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 490.3%Connecticut, Premiums paid ($M) →: $3.7M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 481.9%Delaware, Premiums paid ($M) →: $5.6M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 78%Kentucky, Premiums paid ($M) →: $84.4M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 172.7%
Kentucky pays $84M in crop-insurance premiums (#25 of 47 rankable states) against a 173% loss ratio (#34 by claims relative to premiums): a small payer, net subsidizer of the program state, not simply "pays a lot" or "pays a little."

47-state rankable cohort, national medians at the crosshair

Source: USDA ERS Farm Income and Wealth Statistics As of 2026-05-15

Counties in Kentucky (120)

County Farms
Boyle 491
Hart 1,283
Metcalfe 799
Fleming 898
Casey 975
Clinton 374
Washington 998
Livingston 360
Clark 804
Mason 541
Mccracken 339
Garrard 647
Harrison 1,051
Oldham 410
Owen 674
Nicholas 467
Henry 719
Hancock 328
Bath 626
Franklin 532
Laurel 871
Lewis 489
Montgomery 528
Boone 727
Spencer 578

Showing 51-75 of 120 counties, ranked by commodity sales.

Source: USDA Economic Research Service, Farm Income and Wealth Statistics (1995-2024) County data: USDA NASS 2022 Census of Agriculture

Income beside conservation stamp

Gross cash $9.2B · net cash $2.7B · net farm $2.8B · ARC $0M / PLC $0M

USDA ERS Farm Income · FY2023 · County: 2022 NASS Census

Nearest ERS payment peer (CONSERVATION-LED · MID): North Carolina · DISASTER-HEAVY · Browse conservation-family programs · Graves County NASS table

What to do with Kentucky's numbers

Kentucky ranks #26 of 50 states by total ERS farm payments. Three places to take that further:

  • See how Kentucky compares against the 4 closest South states by payment volume. Compare states
  • Drill into Graves County, Kentucky's top county by commodity sales in the 2022 NASS Census. County detail
  • Browse conservation-family programs for the program-level context behind these totals. Learn more

State payment totals (USDA ERS) and county figures (2022 NASS Census of Agriculture) are separate populations and must not be summed together.

Read our methodology - how this data is sourced, computed, and verified.

Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.
Compiled from official public sources by the publisher.