I think you are talking about 2 different things.

When you attribute feed, vet bills, breeding fees etc to any specific livestock because you are going to sell them later and deduct those items from the final sale price/profit, that is due to an accounting concept called Cost of Goods Sold. It lowers your tax liability to do so.
You can also attribute your “wages” to those specific products as long as you document how much was directly tied to that product. There is nothing unusual about the end result being a break-even (no profit, no loss) or a loss scenario (i.e., your ‘wages’ combined with vet bills, feed, etc. equal more costs than what you sold for.)

It just means your tax liability on that product is at or near zero, which is generally what one is aiming for if they are going COGS. On a balance sheet, COGS is deducted directly from Gross Profit, which means that your Net Income (from a tax liability standpoint) is significantly less. General Expenses are deducted from Net Income the end result of which is your net profit (and resulting tax liability.)
On the other hand, there’s nothing wrong with continuing your current set up either. It sounds like you add up ALL of your expenses, plus your wages, and add up ALL of your gross sales and what’s left over is tax liability (or not) .
In the long run, if one area of the farm is doing phenomenally well (like, you start selling a million dollars of honey) you might want to organize to a COGS set up. Or if you start doing well enough that you hire help. It’s worth talking about the long term effects of going to a COGS set up with your accountant. From an IRS standpoint, it’s not hard to go from a General Income-General Expenses setup to COGS, but it’s harder (I think) to justify leaving COGS.

Scroll to Top