USDA ERS · CONSERVATION-LED · HEAVY · MS

Mississippi 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
$266M
Conservation
$136M
Disaster aid
$128M
Net farm income (2023)
$1.9B
Subscribe (RSS)

Conservation share inside Mississippi's $266M 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.

Mississippi: conservation leads a heavy ERS book

Mississippi stamps CONSERVATION-LED · HEAVY: conservation $136M inside $266M ERS total for FY2023 (#15/50).

Conservation dollars (CRP / EQIP / CSP families in this extract) are the standing policy signal here; net farm income $1.9B and cash receipts $7.4B 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.

Payment history behind Mississippi's conservation stamp

Latest release change: -8.7% · Mississippi's total government payments moved from $266M in FY2023 to $243M in FY2024, the change between the two most recent finalized USDA ERS years. USDA publishes each release on its own; the movement between them is computed here.

Year Total
2024 $243M
2023 $266M
2022 $276M
2021 $469M
2020 $766M
2019 $599M
2018 $366M
2017 $312M
2016 $322M
2015 $174M

Crop insurance loss ratio 374% ($211M on $56M premiums); secondary to the CONSERVATION-LED payment stamp.

Mississippi 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) →: $140.4M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 221.6%Colorado, Premiums paid ($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) →: $39.9M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 185.8%Kentucky, Premiums paid ($M) →: $84.4M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 172.7%North Carolina, Premiums paid ($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) →: $5.6M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 78%Mississippi, Premiums paid ($M) →: $56.3M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 374.1%
Mississippi pays $56M in crop-insurance premiums (#30 of 47 rankable states) against a 374% loss ratio (#9 by claims relative to premiums): a small payer, outsized payout 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

Top counties in Mississippi by commodity sales

Top 5 Mississippi counties, commodity sales Horizontal bar chart of the top 5 items by value (USD). Top 5 Mississippi counties, commodity sales 1. Leake $421M 2. Sunflower $349M 3. Bolivar $347M 4. Scott $340M 5. Washington $324M Top 5 counties in Mississippi ranked by total commoditysales (USDA NASS Census of Agriculture). Source: USDA NASSCensus of Agriculture + USDA ERS Farm Income.

Counties in Mississippi (82)

County Farms
Wilkinson 163
Adams 180
Lauderdale 283
Choctaw 200
Harrison 318
Tishomingo 183
Franklin 216

Showing 76-82 of 82 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 $8.3B · net cash $2.3B · net farm $1.9B · ARC $0M / PLC $0M

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

Nearest ERS payment peer (CONSERVATION-LED · HEAVY): Colorado · CONSERVATION-LED · Browse conservation-family programs · Leake County NASS table

What to do with Mississippi's numbers

Mississippi ranks #15 of 50 states by total ERS farm payments. Three places to take that further:

  • See how Mississippi compares against the 4 closest South states by payment volume. Compare states
  • Drill into Leake County, Mississippi'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.