USDA ERS · COMMODITY-LED · HEAVY · WI

Wisconsin farm subsidy data

Commodity-family 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
$408M
Conservation
$75M
Disaster aid
$70M
Net farm income (2023)
$3.5B
Subscribe (RSS)

Wisconsin: commodity / ARC-PLC families lead a heavy book

Wisconsin stamps COMMODITY-LED · HEAVY: commodity / ARC-PLC / MFP families carry most of $408M in FY2023, led by Conservation.

Cash-receipt leadership is Cattle and Corn ($2.9B) inside $15.5B total receipts; the commodity ledger, not the disaster or conservation line, is the first read for this stamp.

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 for Wisconsin's commodity-led book

Latest release change: -59.9% · Wisconsin's total government payments moved from $408M in FY2023 to $163M 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 $163M
2023 $408M
2022 $223M
2021 $823M
2020 $1.6B
2019 $501M
2018 $301M
2017 $134M
2016 $285M
2015 $306M

Cash receipts that anchor Wisconsin's commodity-led stamp

Cattle $2.9B (18.7%)
Corn $2.4B (15.3%)
Soybeans $1.5B (9.6%)
Poultry $170M (1.1%)
Wheat $104M (0.7%)
Total cash receipts: $15.5B

Crop insurance loss ratio 181% ($295M on $163M premiums); secondary to the COMMODITY-LED payment stamp.

Wisconsin 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) →: $212.2M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 200.2%Illinois, Premiums paid ($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) →: $39.9M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 185.8%Kentucky, Premiums paid ($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) →: $5.6M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 78%Wisconsin, Premiums paid ($M) →: $163M · ← Loss ratio (indemnities ÷ premiums): 180.8%
Wisconsin pays $163M in crop-insurance premiums (#14 of 47 rankable states) against a 181% loss ratio (#32 by claims relative to premiums): a heavy 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

Top counties in Wisconsin by commodity sales

Top 5 Wisconsin counties, commodity sales Horizontal bar chart of the top 5 items by value (USD). Top 5 Wisconsin counties, commodity sales 1. Grant $656M 2. Dane $653M 3. Fond DU Lac $612M 4. Marathon $579M 5. Clark $568M Top 5 counties in Wisconsin ranked by total commoditysales (USDA NASS Census of Agriculture). Source: USDA NASSCensus of Agriculture + USDA ERS Farm Income.

Counties in Wisconsin (72)

County Farms
Crawford 899
Marquette 391
Ozaukee 292
Rusk 454
LA Crosse 676
Kenosha 368
Waukesha 439
Burnett 302
Washburn 317
Lincoln 419
Price 357
Ashland 209
Oneida 139
Sawyer 144
Bayfield 355
Douglas 213
Vilas 34
Milwaukee 100
Forest 108
Iron 57
Florence 80
Menominee 1

Showing 51-72 of 72 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

Commodity-led income stack

Gross cash $16.9B · net cash $4.5B · net farm $3.5B · ARC $0M / PLC $0M

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

Nearest ERS payment peer (COMMODITY-LED · HEAVY): Illinois · CONSERVATION-LED · Compare commodity cash-receipt accounts · Grant County NASS table

What to do with Wisconsin's numbers

Wisconsin ranks #11 of 50 states by total ERS farm payments. Three places to take that further:

  • See how Wisconsin compares against the 4 closest Midwest states by payment volume. Compare states
  • Drill into Grant County, Wisconsin's top county by commodity sales in the 2022 NASS Census. County detail
  • Compare commodity cash-receipt accounts 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.