Economic analysis of dairy and fish farming based integrated model in Punjab

The landscape composition of organic and conventional, dairy and crop farms in two different geological regions in Denmark

The aim of this article is to investigate the relationship between size and farm growth. The existing theories of the association between size and farm growth give mixed results by countries and over time. This paper pursues a twofold objective: on one hand, to test the validity of Gibrat’s Law for French, Hungarian and Slovenian specialized dairy and crop farms during the pre- and post-accession period to the European Union membership. Dairy and crops farms are prevailing in the farming structure of these countries. Using Farm Accountancy Data Network datasets makes it necessary to avoid biases due to heterogeneous structures across the farming systems. Thus we use quantile regressions to control for farm size related heterogeneity in the samples. On the other hand, the main novelty of this paper is the comparative analysis of the relationship between farm size and farm growth between transition Hungarian and Slovenian and non-transition French farming sectors, characterized by rather different farm structures. The results reject the validity of Gibrat’s Law for crop farms in Hungary and to a lesser extent in France, and for French and Slovenian dairy farms. We provide evidence that smaller farms grew faster than larger ones over the studied period 2001-2007 for France, 2001-2008 for Hungary, and 2004-2008 for Slovenia. Conversely, the results for Slovenia suggest that the rate of growth of crop farms in terms of its land is independent from its size.

The average net farm income is $66,412 for the 62 farms included in the 1999 annual report of the Southeastern Minnesota Farm Business Management Association. This is an increase of 1% from 1998. Even though gross cash farm income increased, cash expenses and depreciation also increased and inventory values changed little. Income is still at a high level compared to the early 1990s and the 1980s. (Net farm income is an accrual measure calculated by subtracting cash farm expenses and depreciation from total cash farm income and adjusting the difference for changes in other capital and inventory items.) After subtracting an opportunity cost for equity capital, unpaid labor and management earnings follow a similar but lower pattern. As in previous years, the income levels experienced by individual farms vary greatly from the overall average. The high 20% of these farms had an average net farm income of $222,349 in 1999; farms in the low 20%, -$10,442. This is an increase for both the high group and the low group. Average gross cash farm income in 1999 was $411,665 for these 62 farms. This is a 29% increase from 1998. Together, milk, corn, hog, and soybean sales were 75% of gross income in 1999. Compared to 1998, milk sales increased by 6%; corn sales by 26%; beef finishing sales by 26%. Hog sales increased by 270% from the extremely low levels in 1997. Soybean sales decreased by 9%. Government payments (of all types) more than doubled from an average of $23,322 in 1998 to $50,700 in 1999. (They were $12,907 in 1997.) Government payments were 12% of gross income in 1999, compared to 7% in 1998 and 4% in 1997. Average total cash expenses were $314,644 in 1999. This is an increase of 31% from the 1998 average. As a percentage of both cash expenses and depreciation, feed expenses were 20% in 1999, up from 1998. Seed, fertilizer, and crop chemicals were 15% of the total, down from 1998. Interest expense was 6% of the total, lower than in 1998. Real estate taxes amounted to 2% in 1999--slightly lower in percentage but slightly higher in absolute dollar level. Both the rate of return on assets (ROA) and the rate of return to equity (ROE) remained unchanged on average. However, ROA was slightly higher than ROE indicating that debt capital was earning less than it was costing. Average total equity (of the 49 sole proprietors) was $523,529 at the end of 1999, an increase of $45,645 during the year. (Assets were valued on a cost basis.) Except for a decline during 1993, average equity has improved steadily since 1986. At the end of 1999, the average debt-asset ratio was down slightly to 34%. In 1999, crop yields were lower than the record levels of 1998 for the Association. The average corn yield was 156 bushels per acre; soybeans were at 45 bushels per acre. Results by Type of Farm The 62 farms in the report are classified as a certain type (e.g., dairy) on the basis of having 70 percent or more of their gross sales from that category. Using this 70 percent rule, there are 9 crop farms, 16 dairy farms, and 7 crop and dairy farms, and 7 crop and hog farms. There are 18 farms which do not have a single source (or pair of sources) of income over 70%. The average crop and dairy farm had the highest average net farm income ($145,058) in 1999. The average dairy farm had the second highest net farm income. In terms of the rate of return to assets (ROA), dairy farms and crop and dairy farms have the highest ROA (10%) in 1999. (Assets are valued on a cost basis.) (There were less than 5 crop and hog farms in 1998, so that information is not reported.) Crop and hog farms had an average debt-asset ratio of 48% in 1999; crop farms averaged 46%; and other farms averaged less than 40%. The report provides additional information on profitability, liquidity, and solvency as well as other whole-farm information and detailed information on crop and livestock enterprises. Also reported are whole-farm financial condition and performance by county, sales size class, and type of farm and corn and soybean returns by county.

The average net farm income is $77,672 for the 58 farms included in the 2000 annual report of the Southeastern Minnesota Farm Business Management Association. This is an increase of 17% from 1999. The median or middle income was $39,675, considerably lower than the average. Even though gross cash farm income decreased more than the decrease in cash expenses, net farm income increased because depreciation decreased and inventory values increased. Income is still at a high level compared to the early 1990s and the 1980s. As in previous years, the income levels experienced by individual farms vary greatly from the overall average. When the net farm incomes for the 58 farms in the report were ranked from lowest to highest, the resulting graph shows how much the incomes do vary. Several farms experienced negative incomes, and several experienced very high incomes. Most of the net farm income ranged from just below 0 to about $140,000. The median or middle income was $39,675. The high 20% of these farms had an average net farm income of $250,243 in 2000; farms in the low 20%, -$15,401. This was an increase for the high group and a decrease for the low group. Average gross cash farm income in 2000 was $352,354 for these 58 farms. This was a 14% decrease from 1999. Together, milk, corn, and soybean sales were 65% of gross income in 2000. Compared to 1999, milk sales decreased by 15% and corn sales by 14. Soybean sales increased by 10%. Government payments (of all types) averaged $50,496 in 2000. They were $50,700 in 1999, $23,322 in 1998, and $12,907 in 1997. Government payments were 14% of gross income in 2000, compared to 12% in 1999, 7% in 1998, and 4% in 1997. Average total cash expenses were $267,986 in 2000. This was a decrease of 15% from the 1999 average. As a percentage of both cash expenses and depreciation, feed expenses were 14% in 2000, down from 1999. Seed, fertilizer, and crop chemicals were 16% of the total, up from 1999. Interest expense was 8% of the total, higher than in 1999. Real estate taxes remained at 2% in 2000 although the absolute dollar level was slightly lower. Both the rate of return on assets (ROA) and the rate of return to equity (ROE) increased on average. ROE was slightly higher than ROA indicating that debt capital was earning more than it was costing. Average total equity (of the 46 sole proprietors) was $553,823 at the end of 2000, an increase of $39,719 during the year. (Assets were valued on a cost basis.) Except for a decline during 1993, average equity has improved steadily since 1986. At the end of 2000, the average debt-asset ratio was up slightly to 35%. In 2000, crop yields were again lower than the record levels of 1998 for the Association. The average corn yield was 154 bushels per acre; soybeans were up slightly to 49 bushels per acre. Results by Type of Farm The 58 farms in the report are classified as a certain type (e.g., dairy) on the basis of having 70 percent or more of their gross sales from that category. Using this 70 percent rule, there are 10 crop farms, 14 dairy farms, and 5 crop and hog farms. There were less than 5 crop and dairy farms so that data is not reported. There are 21 farms which do not have a single source (or pair of sources) of income over 70%. The average crop farm had the highest average net farm income ($111,775) in 2000. The average dairy farm had the second highest net farm income. In terms of the rate of return to assets (ROA), crop farms had the highest ROA (13%) in 2000. (Assets are valued on a cost basis.) Dairy farms had an average debt-asset ratio of 29% in 1999; crop farms averaged 30%. The report provides additional information on profitability, liquidity, and solvency as well as other whole-farm information and detailed information on crop and livestock enterprises. Also reported are whole-farm financial condition and performance by county, sales size class, and type of farm and corn and soybean returns by county.

The average net farm income was $60,978 for the 59 farms included in the 2001 annual report of the Southeastern Minnesota Farm Business Management Association. This was a decrease of 21% from 2000 (Figure 1). Even though gross cash farm income increased more than cash expenses, the decrease in net farm income is due in large part to a large decrease in the inventory value of crops and feed. As in previous years, the income levels experienced by individual farms vary greatly from the overall average. When the net farm incomes for the 59 farms in the report were ranked from lowest to highest, the resulting graph shows how much the incomes do vary (Figure 2). Several farms experienced negative incomes, and several experienced very high incomes. Most of the net farm income ranged from -$10,000 to $130,000. The median or middle income was $31,577, considerably lower than the average. The high 20% of these farms had an average net farm income of $213,598 in 2001; farms in the low 20%, -$16,927. This was a decrease for both groups. Average gross cash farm income in 2001 was $365,819 for these 59 farms. This was a 4% increase from 2000. Milk sales were 42% of the average gross cash farm income. Together, milk, corn, and soybean sales and government payments amounted to 82% of gross income in 2001 (Figure 3). Compared to 2000, milk sales increased by 28%. Government payments decreased by 20%. Government payments (of all types) averaged $40,227 in 2001. They were $50,496 in 2000, $50,700 in 1999, $23,322 in 1998, and $12,907 in 1997. Government payments were 11% of gross income in 2001, compared to 14% in 2000, 12% in 1999, 7% in 1998, and 4% in 1997. Average total cash expenses were $274,867 in 2001. This was a decrease of 3% from the 2000 average. As a percentage of both cash expenses and depreciation, feed expenses were 16% in 2001, up from 2000 (Figure 4). Seed, fertilizer, and crop chemicals were 17% of the total, down slightly from 2000. Interest expense was 7% of the total, lower than in 2000. Real estate taxes remained at 2% in 2001 although the absolute dollar level was slightly lower. Both the rate of return on assets (ROA) and the rate of return to equity (ROE) decreased on average (Figure 5). ROA was slightly higher than ROE indicating that debt capital was earning less than it was costing. Average total equity (of the 45 sole proprietors) was $583,049 at the end of 2001, an increase of $21,177during the year. (Assets were valued on a cost basis.) Except for a decline during 1993, average equity has improved steadily since 1986 (Figure 6). At the end of 2001, the average debt-asset ratio was down slightly to 34%. In 2001, the average corn and soybean yields were lower for the Association (Figure 6). The average corn yield was 144 bushels per acre; the soybean yield was 40 bushels per acre. Results by Type of Farm The 59 farms in the report were classified as a certain type (e.g., dairy) on the basis of having 70 percent or more of their gross sales from that category. Using this 70 percent rule, there were 19 crop farms, 15 dairy farms, and 7 crop and dairy farms. There are 18 farms which did not have a single source (or pair of sources) of income over 70%. The average crop and dairy farm had the highest average net farm income ($137,179) in 2001 (Figure 8). The average dairy farm had the second highest net farm income. In terms of the rate of return to assets (ROA), dairy farms had the highest ROA (12%) in 2001 (Figure 9). (Assets are valued on a cost basis.) Dairy farms had an average debt-asset ratio of 28% in 2001; crop farms averaged 33% (Figure 10). The report provides additional information on profitability, liquidity, and solvency as well as other whole-farm information and detailed information on crop and livestock enterprises. Also reported are whole-farm financial condition and performance by year, county, type of farm, sales size class, and age of operator.

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of diagnosing and treating phantom cows in seasonal-calving dairy herds

The article discusses the question of the financial constraints in Estonian dairy and crop farms in the transition period, and there are also identified the farms that have been mostly affected by these imperfections. For that, an investment accelerator model augmented with a cash flow variable was used. The empirical analysis is based on the unbalanced panel data containing 2263 dairy and 1762 crop farms in the period between 2000 and 2014. We have three periods of 5 years each: 2000–2004 (the pre-EU accession), 2005–2009 (being an EU member before the economic crisis), 2010–2014 (after the economic crisis). We used these periods to construct the fixed effect and random effect models for different types of farm: dairy and crop farms. In addition to the full sample estimate, we use farms characteristics to classify crop farms by area, and dairy farms by the average number of cows per year. The estimations of the standard augmented model obtained by different econometric methods for several subsamples have revealed a dissimilar level of the financial constraints. The obtained results clearly imply that the farm investment behavior is driven by the competitive output market conditions and the farm abilities to sell output and invest in such a market environment. Moreover, except for all farms farm the gross investment is positively and significantly associated with the cash flow, confirming for any farms the absence of the soft budget constraints for the farms. The results confirm that the financial variables significantly influence the farms’ investment subsidy, providing an empirical evidence of an imperfect capital market in the Estonian agriculture.

Dairy farmers in developing countries face numerous challenges, including price instability, limited credit access, outdated technology adoption, market barriers, and poverty. Cooperatives offer promising solutions to farmers’ problems and help them enhance their agricultural sustainability. Although the impact of cooperative membership has been widely investigated, little evidence is found in dairy farming households. This study estimates the impact of cooperative membership on dairy farmers’ household incomes, net returns, and profits from dairy products (processed and fresh milk). The cross‐sectional data were collected from 300 dairy farmers in East Java, Indonesia. Inverse probability weighting with regression adjustment (IPWRA) and two‐stage predictor substitution (2SPS) were used in the analysis to address the selection bias in the estimation. The findings are corroborated by a robustness check using propensity score matching. The results show that dairy farmers’ decisions to join a cooperative are positively and significantly influenced by farming experience, transportation ownership, number of cattle owned, and involvement in social activities and are negatively influenced by age. Cooperative membership significantly improves farmers’ welfare by increasing their household incomes, net returns, and profits from fresh milk products. However, the membership reduces profits from processed milk products. These findings suggest that the government should encourage farmers to participate actively in cooperatives.

An effort has been made to examine the technical efficiency in milk production and the determinants thereof for 80 dairy farmers, selected from Ludhiana and Patiala districts of Punjab state. The total number of milch animals on small, medium, and large farms was 2.71, 4.73 and 12.79, respectively with an overall average of 5.12 milch animals. Overall, of the total costs, variable costs and fixed costs accounted for 85.0 and 15.0 percent respectively. The net returns were observed to be Rs 22568.9, Rs 81784.2 and Rs 340827.5 per farm in case of small, medium and large dairy units, respectively. The net returns per litre of milk were estimated to be Rs 3.65, Rs 7.50 and Rs 10.51, respectively on the respective farms with an overall average of Rs 7.92. The farmers intended to realize 77.30 percent of the technical abilities and potential for improvement in technical efficiency in milk production was 21.3 percent. This implies that dairy farmers could enhance the milk production by 21.30 percent with existing level of technology and resources. The technical efficiency of dairy farmers determined by age of farmers, land holding, price of milk received by the farmers and training were found to be positive and significant. The study indicated that dairy farmers should be trained on a regular basis for appropriate feeding practices, rearing optimal herd size with quality animals, and new technologies in milk production to attain maximum milk production and thus achieve more benefits. Besides, strong and effective linkage of farms to market could provide incentives towards increasing their efficiency in milk production. Dairy farmers can gain considerable higher profits by increasing the efficiency in their operations.

The novel corona virus (COVID-19) which was first identified on November 17, 2019 in Wuhan city of China turned out to be a pandemic. As a preventive measure against the pandemic, the Government of India announced nationwide lockdown on 24 March, 2020 which continued till 31 May, 2020. This not only limited the movement of people across the country but also led to the implementation of the policies like quarantines, containment zones, social distancing, travel restrictions etc. These polices have affected every sector of the Indian economy including the dairy sector. Against this backdrop, the present study was undertaken to assess the economic impact of COVID-19 pandemic on dairy farmers. The study covered pre-lockdown, lockdown and post-lockdown phases up to December 2020. The data was collected from 200 dairy farmers across Bengaluru Rural and Chikkaballapura districts of Karnataka state. A large majority of the farmers from Bengaluru Rural (81%) and Chikkaballapura (87%) districts reported loss in their income from dairying during lockdown and post-lockdown periods. In both the districts the crossbred cattle were dominant (90%). In Bengaluru Rural district, the net return per litre of milk of crossbred was reduced to the extent of 33.06% during lockdown and by 48.64% during post-lockdown as compared to prelockdown period. In Chikkaballapura district, the net return per litre of milk of crossbred was reduced to the extent of 20.90% during lockdown and by 22.77% during post-lockdown as compared to pre-lockdown period. The loss in net return was attributed to reduction in procurement prices of milk, increased feed cost and decline in milk yield in that order respectively.

Background: In India dairy farming is a significant part of the rural population, providing not only supplementary income and nutritional standards but also organic manures and draught power. Andhra Pradesh ranks 5th in total milk production in India with an output of 15.04 million metric tonnes and Chittoor district is one of the leading districts for dairy farming in the state. There is an increasing trend in milk production; however, the main drawback faced by the milk producers in dairy farming is the low productivity of milch animals. Assessing the economics of milk production would be extremely beneficial in planning for the improvement of productivity of dairy animals and framing policies to increase the profitability of dairy farms. Methods: Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh was purposively selected for the present investigation. The primary data was collected from 80 respondents of which 40 each from two villages in the year 2021. The economics of milk production and the resource use efficiency of milk were computed based on collected data. Result: The per-day gross cost for maintaining local cow, crossbred cow and buffalo was found to be ₹ 161.09, ₹ 246.16 and ₹ 196.07, respectively. The overall cost per litre of milk was found to be slightly high in the case of buffalo (₹ 31.45), followed by the local cow (₹ 31.33) and crossbred cow (₹ 19.69), respectively. The net returns per litre of milk were found to be highest in the case of the crossbred cow (₹ 7.45), followed by buffalo (₹ 3.66) and local cow (₹ 0.12). It was observed that the net return per litre of milk for local cows was very less due to high feed cost, labour cost and low productivity of milk. Green fodder, dry fodder and concentrate were observed underutilized whereas labour was found to be over-utilized.

To maintain balanced biogeochemical cycles, minimizing the nutrient wastes from agricultural activities is critically important. Agricultural activities such as dairy farming produce large amounts of nitrogen waste in natural ecosystems. The increased nitrogen waste from dairy farming potentially causes environmental damage, such as eutrophication and greenhouse gas emissions. To accurately assess these changes in nitrogen wastes from dairy farming systems, measurements of variable parameters related to the nitrogen cycle (e.g., nitrogen gas emissions, nitrogen loss to water ecosystems), but these are timeconsuming. Instead, calculating farm gate-level nitrogen surplus and nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) is a practical method to estimate the nitrogen waste from dairy farming systems. The nitrogen surplus and NUE are calculated based on the difference and ratio between nitrogen input (such as fertilizer and feed) and nitrogen output (such as milk and meat) on each farm. The data needed to calculate the nitrogen input and output can be obtained by interviewing farmers. Thus it is often easier than directly measuring nitrogen cycle parameters. In addition, it is known that excess nitrogen wastes are often related to improper manure management (i.e., manure is not efficiently collected and returned to the farm as nutrients) on dairy farms. In the dairy farming regions in Japan, particularly in Hokkaido, improper manure management can occur because of the short grass growing ‡ §

<h3>Aim of the study</h3> Determination of the occupational exposure influence on asthma and COPD development among crop and dairy farmers, and evaluation of exposure characteristics by job exposure matrices. <h3>Methods</h3> A cross-sectional study was performed, including 87 crop farmers and 83 dairy farmers, exposed to respiratory hazards, compared to a control group of 80 office workers. Standard questionnaire on chronic respiratory symptoms and spirometry testing were applied, while farmers were also assessed by job exposure matrices. <h3>Results and discussion</h3> Asthma was registered in 8% of crop and 7.2% of dairy farmers, and was significantly associated with atopy, and positive family history of asthma and COPD, while association with smoking habit and duration of exposure was non-significant. The prevalence of allergic was significantly higher compared to non-allergic asthma in exposed and unexposed workers. Occupational allergic asthma was registered in 2.3% of crop and 1.2% of dairy farmers, while the frequency of work-aggravated asthma was 5.7% and 6.1% respectively. COPD prevalence was non-significantly higher in exposed (6.9% in crop and 8.4% in dairy farmers) compared to office controls (3.8%). COPD was significantly associated with age over 40 years, smoking habit, and duration of exposure in exposed subjects. According to data obtained by job exposure matrices, asthma and COPD in crop farmers were significantly related to high intensity of exposure to dust, gases, fumes and vapours on a regular basis, while among dairy farmers they were significantly related to high intensity of dust exposure on a regular basis, as well as high intensity of exposure to gases, fumes and vapours both on sporadic and regular basis. <h3>Conclusion</h3> The study results confirm the impact of occupational exposure to respiratory hazards on respiratory health impairment among farmers, including asthma and COPD, being closely related to its duration, characteristics, and intensity.

In the present study, the profitability of a dairy-farm case study evaluated over the period 2003–2004 to 2014–2015 was compared with the performance of other dairy farms and other non-agricultural investments over the same time. Investments are generally made on the expectation that a net return will be earned that justifies using capital in one particular way rather than an alternative way. The expected, and actual, returns from capital invested in different assets will differ according to the risks involved. Investors choose an investment, and mixes of investments, that align with their goals, preferences for risk and anticipated returns over time. Dairy farming involves investing in assets, such as land and improvements, water, livestock, plant and equipment, and people, which are managed to produce milk and ultimately to earn a competitive return on capital. With uncertain seasonal conditions, fluctuating costs and prices, declining terms of trade, wide ranges of equity and management abilities, and a steady decline in the number of commercial farm businesses, it may be tempting to presume that investing in farming, and dairy farming in particular, is a hard road, leading to lower and more variable returns than investing in non-agricultural investment opportunities in the economy. This need not be the case. Analysis of how a dairy business in northern Victoria performed from 2003–2004 to 2014–2015 showed that this farm did well compared with (i) other dairy businesses in Victoria and (ii) alternative investments, such as shares, bonds and property, over the same time. Compound annual return to capital for the dairy farm over the 12 years studied was 12.4% (real, before tax). Over half the return came from the farming operations and the remainder came from owning assets that appreciated in value, particularly in this case, water. The dairy business that was studied was well managed and earned higher annual average returns than the average returns of investments with similar risk elsewhere in the economy, such as shares, and matched it with the best performing of these alternative investments.

The average net farm income was $171,925 for the 38 farms included in the 2006 annual report of the Southeastern Minnesota Farm Business Management Association, an increase of 43% from 2005. In constant dollars, 2006 was the most profitable year for association members in the last twenty years (Figure 1). Higher crop prices and strong crop yields were among factors that combined to make 2006 a very profitable year for the average association farm. Dairy farms, however, experienced sharply lower profitability. As in previous years, the income levels experienced by individual farms vary greatly from the overall average. When the net farm incomes for the 38 farms in the report are ranked from lowest to highest, the resulting graph (Figure 2) shows how much the incomes vary. Only 32% earned net farm incomes over the association average; 14% of the farms experienced negative net farm incomes. The median or middle income was $106,750, considerably lower than the association average. The high 20% of these farms had an average net farm income of $537,591; farms in the low 20% averaged $-37,343. Average gross cash farm income in 2006 was $555,309 for these 38 farms, an 8% increase from 2005. Milk sales were 37% of gross income, down from 41% in 2005. Corn and soybean sales accounted for another 38% of income. Total crop sales accounted for 40% while livestock sales accounted for 47% of total cash receipts (Figure 4). Government payments (of all types) averaged $37,310 in 2006, down 33% from the previous year. LDP payments dropped dramatically from $25,778 in 2005 down to zero in 2006 as crop prices recovered Entire report is available at: http://www.cffm.umn.edu/Publications/Pubs/FBMA/SE_MN_FBMA_2006.pdffrom 2005 harvest lows and rallied into 2006 harvest. Government payments were $55,750 in 2005, $33,294 in 2004, $31,195 in 2003, and $19,375 in 2002. As a percent of gross cash income, they were 5% in 2006 as compared to 11% in 2005, 7% in 2004, 7% in 2003, and 5% in 2002. Average total cash expenses were $444,771 in 2006. This was an increase of 12% from the 2005 average. As a percentage of total expenses, seed, fertilizer, and crop chemicals and feed were the largest expense items (Figures 5 and 6). Fuel and oil expense accounted for 5% of total expenses, up from 4% in 2005. Average rate of return on assets (ROA) was 10% in 2006 with assets valued at adjusted cost basis, up from 8% in 2005 (Figure 7). Rate of return on equity (ROE) averaged 12%, up from 9% for the previous year. The fact that ROE exceeded ROA indicates that debt capital earned more than its interest cost. Average total equity (of the 25 sole proprietors) was $1,146,788 at the end of 2006, an increase of $136,106 during the year for these farms (assets valued at adjusted cost basis). Except for a slight decline in 1993, average equity has improved steadily since 1986 (Figure 8). The average debt to asset ratio decreased slightly, from 33% to 32%. The average corn yield was 176 bushels per acre, down slightly from last year’s association record yield of 179 bushels per acre. Soybeans averaged 53 bushels per acre, unchanged from 2005 (Figure 9). Results by Type of Farm The 38 farms in the report were classified as a certain type (e.g., dairy) on the basis of having 70 percent or more of their gross sales from that category. Using this criteria, there were 13 crop farms and 10 dairy farms. There were 6 farms which did not have a single source (or pair of sources) of income over 70%. The results for other types of farm are not reported because the required minimum of 5 farms in a reported group was not met. Crop farms earned strong profits in 2006 with average net farm income of $213,714, up from $105,432 in 2005 (Figure 10). Dairy farms profits fell dramatically, from $176,112 in 2005 down to $129,703 in 2006. Crop farms average rate of return on assets (ROA) was 15%, up from 8% the previous year (Figure 11). Dairy farms averaged 6%, down from 11%. (Assets are valued at adjusted cost basis for ROA calculations.) Dairy farms had an average debt-to-asset ratio of 24% at the end of 2006 (assets valued at estimated market value); crop farms averaged 31% in debt (Figure 12). The full report provides additional information on profitability, liquidity, and solvency as well as other whole-farm information and detailed information on crop and livestock enterprises. Also reported are whole-farm financial condition and performance by year, county, type of farm, farm size, and age of operator.