Original Research Perceived profitability and well-being in Australian dryland farmers and irrigators Dominic Peel, BA, GradDip, 1,2 Helen L. Berry, PhD 1 and Jacki Schirmer, PhD 1,2 1 Faculty of Health and 2 MDB Futures Collaborative Research Network, University of Canberra, Bruce, Australian Capital Territory, Australia Abstract Objective: To describe the relationship between self- reported farm profitability and farmer well-being, and to explore potential implications for farmer assistance policy. Design: Cross-sectional analysis of farmers from Regional Wellbeing Survey data (wave 1, 2013) and comparison between groups. Participants: Participants were 1172 dryland farmers (35% women) and 707 irrigators (24% women). Main outcome measure: The Personal Wellbeing Index and the Kessler 10-item measure of general psychologi- cal distress. Results: There is a consistent and significant relation- ship between higher profitability, greater well-being and less distress among dryland farmers and irrigators. Conclusions: The relationship between farm profitabil- ity and the well-being of Australian dryland farmers and irrigators has the potential to inform farmer assistance policy. Assistance programs can be more effective if they explicitly incorporate a profitability assessment into their targeting and eligibility requirements and a well- being component into program design and delivery. Setting: Rural Australia. Intervention: Not applicable. KEY WORDS: farm assistance, farm finance, farmer health, mental health, psychological distress, well- being. Introduction In May 2014, the Australian Government announced their budget for the 2014–2015 financial year. Among the many items was a $320 million package to assist drought-affected farmers. 1 The package contains a number of measures, including $280 million for concessional loans and $10.7 million for improved access to mental health and social support services. The stated purpose of the concessional loans is to ‘help farm businesses recover from and prepare for future droughts and return to profitability in the long term’. 2 Improving access to mental health has a broader set of goals, one of which is to promote ‘better general and mental health and emotional wellbeing’. 3 The announcement of this package and the focus on profitability and well-being make timely an investigation of farmer profitability and how it is linked to farmer well-being. In this paper, we explore that relationship and discuss some of the poten- tial implications for farmer assistance programs. In a review of Australian and international studies investigating the relationship between personal income and subjective well-being, Cummins found that ‘per- sonal income is a very important element in the main- tenance of [subjective wellbeing], most particularly for people who are poor’. 4 Farm profitability, particularly where farming is the primary or only source of income, will substantially influence farmers’ financial circum- stances, and therefore their well-being. Farmers also face a ‘unique set’ 5 of mental health hazards and threats to their well-being and must overcome all the difficulties typical of running a business. Australian agricultural policies have struggled to engage effectively with these challenges. A number of studies have investigated aspects relevant to the challenges, including the struc- ture of life satisfaction, 6 resilience, 7 rurality, 8 environ- mental and climate change, 9,10 stoicism, 11 and natural resource management. 12 What these studies have not focused on is the contribution that a successful farm business makes to farmer well-being. We complement the earlier work by exploring that relationship. Methods Data were taken from wave 1 (2013) of the Regional Wellbeing Survey, a survey of health, well-being and Correspondence: Dominic Peel, University of Canberra, c/o Building 22, Room B15, Bruce, Australian Capital Territory, 2617, Australia. Email: dominic.peel@canberra.edu.au Declaration of conflict of interest: The authors report no con- flict of interest. Accepted for publication 29 December 2014. Aust. J. Rural Health (2015) ••, ••–•• © 2015 National Rural Health Alliance Inc. doi: 10.1111/ajr.12176