Skip to content
Subscribe

California farm revenues up, but so are expenses

Published:

California agriculture showed increased farm revenue in 2010 but also paid more in expenses, two government reports show.  Last year, California garnered a record $37.5 billion in receipts from its 81,700 farms and ranches, a nine percent increase over 2009 income levels, reports the National Agricultural Statistics Service and Economic Research Center (NASS).

Several staple items buoyed farm earnings for the Golden State including dairy products, whose producers increased their revenue 31 percent year-over-year to earn almost $6 billion in 2010, and pistachios, which increased their receipts an impressive 95 percent – from $570 million in 2009 to $1.16 billion in 2010.

In a first for the state, three nut crops topped $1 billion in revenue last year. Walnuts, pistachios and almonds all set production records in 2010. Almonds remained California's top tree nut crop, earning an estimated $2.8 billion for producers last year. According to the report, 11 agricultural products topped the $1 billion earnings mark for the year (another first).

Farm expenditures also increased in 2010 (PDF) but not as much as earnings, a separate NASS report shows. Total farm production expenses for the year ran $30.3 billion, a 2.8 percent increase from 2009. Of important note is that the per capita expenditures of California farms in 2010 was a staggering $371,000 per operation, continuing a sharp upward trend.

A breakdown of expenditures in the NASS expense report shows that California growers allocated most of their money to farm labor, at an average of $99,000 per farm. The next highest expense for producers was farm services, a category denoting a wide range of activities such as transportation, marketing, machinery leasing and insurance costs. These costs amounted to just over $70,000 per farm. The average California farmer dished out over $54,000 worth of feed for livestock in 2010, making it the third highest expense.

Rising fuel, labor and regulation costs are to blame for tighter farm profit margins over the past six years, industry insiders say. The NASS data also dispels any confusion as to why animal agribusinesses, who spend as much as 60 percent of their budget on feed grains, continue to push for ethanol subsidy reforms to keep down corn prices.

The NASS statistics also show a rise in production expenses nationally that is consistent with California. U.S. farm expenses increased some $1.6 billion from 2009 to reach $289 billion for the year. Feed costs represented the largest expense item for American farmers in 2010, taking up an average of 15.7 percent of farmers' budgets.

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

California farm revenues up, but so are expenses

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us