USDA ERS · MIXED-STEWARD · MID · PA

Pennsylvania 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
$191M
Net farm income (2023)
$2.0B

Conservation share inside Pennsylvania's $191M ERS total

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

Pennsylvania: mixed conservation share in the ERS mix

Pennsylvania stamps MIXED-STEWARD · MID: conservation $46M inside $191M ERS total for FY2023 (#22/50).

Conservation dollars (CRP / EQIP / CSP families in this extract) are the standing policy signal here; net farm income $2.0B and cash receipts $8.5B 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: -55.7% · $191M FY2023 → $84M FY2024 (MID book; full year table reserved for heavier states).

Cash receipts by commodity in Pennsylvania

Poultry $903M (10.6%)
Cattle $839M (9.8%)
Corn $438M (5.1%)
Soybeans $323M (3.8%)
Wheat $108M (1.3%)
Total cash receipts: $8.5B

Crop insurance loss ratio 219% ($65M on $30M premiums); secondary to the MIXED-STEWARD payment stamp.

Pennsylvania 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) →: $83.6M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 257.3%Florida, Premiums paid ($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) →: $5.6M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 78%Pennsylvania, Premiums paid ($M) →: $29.7M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 218.7%
Pennsylvania pays $30M in crop-insurance premiums (#36 of 47 rankable states) against a 219% loss ratio (#25 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 Pennsylvania (67)

County Farms
Columbia 688
Indiana 936
Centre 892
Bucks 871
Fulton 501
Mercer 1,023
Westmoreland 989
Butler 903
Lawrence 585
Montour 257
Lycoming 918
Cambria 451
Clinton 276
Armstrong 721
Clarion 596
Susquehanna 740
Washington 1,583
Potter 417
Northampton 421
Clearfield 439
Fayette 795
Jefferson 483
Montgomery 579
Luzerne 376
Wayne 523

Showing 26-50 of 67 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 $10.0B · net cash $1.8B · net farm $2.0B · ARC $0M / PLC $0M

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

Nearest ERS payment peer (MIXED-STEWARD · MID): Florida · DISASTER-HEAVY · Browse conservation-family programs · Lancaster County NASS table

What to do with Pennsylvania's numbers

Pennsylvania ranks #22 of 50 states by total ERS farm payments. Three places to take that further:

  • See how Pennsylvania compares against the 4 closest Northeast states by payment volume. Compare states
  • Drill into Lancaster County, Pennsylvania'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.