Farming incomes

Benoit, writing in 2002, felt that organic sheep have a profitable future in France. He calculated that with a 20% to 30% higher price for organic lamb and by extensifying the area of forage crops so that the farm is self-sufficient for food, then farm income can be maintained or even increased. 

Kotnik, T. Kopke, U. (2000) Efficient use of turnip (Brassica rapa L.var.rapa) for nitrogen management and enhancement of farm income. Proceedings of the 13th International IFOAM Scientific Conference, Basel, Switzerland, p. 81. 

It has been reported that in the UK the external costs of agriculture in 1996 amounted to a staggering 89% of the average net farm income (Pretty et al. 2000), that annual damage by pesticides and fertilizers to water quality is suspected to range in the billions of dollars (Doran et al. 1996) and that annual off-site damages from soil erosion by water in the USA are over US 7 billion (Pimentel et al. 1993). 

When agricultural surplus was used for the production of ethanol in the United States, it provided economic benefits to farmers and to the farming economy. In 1990, almost 360 million bushels of surplus grain were used to produce ethanol. In that year, it is estimated that ethanol production increased farm income by 750 million while federal farm program costs dropped by 600 million and crude oil imports fell by over forty million barrels. 

Whereas a reduction in production may actually increase the aggregate farm income and produce serious income distribution problems, the consequent reduction in marketable surplus would cause a significant rise in the cost to consumers, because of the inelastic consumer demand for most agricultural crops. Therefore, at the consumer level, losses based on farm prices are not appropriate and are likely to be conservative. Because of percentage markups and fixed wholesale and retail marketing costs, the cost to the consumer of agricultural losses could be twice as great as that observed at the farm level—i.e., a 300 million loss at the farm level in 1974 could represent a 600 million loss to the consumer. 

The same Australian study estimated total farm incomes under the assumption of an adoption rate of 30%. Under the worst-case scenario, where premiums for crops were assumed to decrease from 15% to 0% with no premiums for livestock products at all stages (extreme assumptions) total returns to the sector would drop by 7% when 30% of farmers had converted. In the best-case scenario, with premiums decreasing from 15% to 7.5% (probably more realistic), total returns to the cereal-livestock sector would have a 3% decrease at the 30% adoption rate. 

The technology-driven corporate industrial model of farming remains dominant today, but energy, chemicals and large-scale equipment have proved expensive to supply and consequently the farm economy has been badly depressed in recent years. Net farm income in 2003 was lower than it had been in 1929. 

Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Farm Income Situation, bimonthly, 1940-. Data on cash receipts, home consumption, net farm income, government payments, indexes of farm production, and outlook for farm income. 

Profit = Family farm income . Exception in the UK net farm income was used. 

Such a program would elicit widespread support and accomplish several things simultaneously. First, it would reduce public, farmer, and farmworker exposure to pesticides. Second, it would reduce the cost of production for farmers and thereby improve farm income and profitability. Farmers currently spend an estimated 18 billion annually for purchased feed, 7.4 billion for fertilizer, 4 billion for pesticides and 4 billion for seed. That adds up to national cost-of-production bill of at least 33 billion, without including other related input costs. Any reduction in these costs would certainly improve farm income, and presumably, U. S. agricultural competitiveness. Moreover, the public health and environmental costs of using many of these farm inputs are also high, and could be decreased accordingly with a reduction in use. 

Y - farm income from the apple trees where DNOK was used ( /ha). 

Non-organic producers in Europe are also dependent to varying degrees on government support for their farm income and profit. 

---