Market Facilitation Program (MFP) in the United States, 2021
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 2,557
Recipients of Market Facilitation Program (MFP) from farms in the United States totaled $19,533,000 in in 2021.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Market Facilitation Program (MFP) 2021 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Christianson Ag | Blomkest, MN 56216 | $534,668 |
| 2 | Casaca Vineyards | Five Points, CA 93624 | $420,719 |
| 3 | Baggett & Ebb Farms | Springfield, TN 37172 | $380,078 |
| 4 | Brune Farms | Fountaintown, IN 46130 | $250,702 |
| 5 | Campos Family Farms LLC | Fresno, CA 93722 | $250,000 |
| 6 | 4 S Farms LLC | Wood Lake, MN 56297 | $250,000 |
| 7 | Mac-beth Farms | Springfield, TN 37172 | $249,578 |
| 8 | Buttonwillow Land And Cattle Co | Buttonwillow, CA 93206 | $243,018 |
| 9 | Prairie River Farm Inc | Watertown, SD 57201 | $212,783 |
| 10 | Thomas Farms Inc | San Joaquin, CA 93660 | $205,404 |
| 11 | John Verwey Dairy Inc | Fresno, CA 93706 | $203,484 |
| 12 | Braden Enterprises Inc | Hughson, CA 95326 | $203,086 |
| 13 | Kootstra Dairy | Bakersfield, CA 93307 | $182,900 |
| 14 | Eastco Gp | Brewster, WA 98812 | $161,968 |
| 15 | Gardiner Farms LLC | Wasco, CA 93280 | $158,411 |
| 16 | Evan Andrew Legge | Sanborn, ND 58480 | $136,938 |
| 17 | Outback Ranch | Tulare, CA 93274 | $133,661 |
| 18 | L & J Vanderham Dairy | Riverdale, CA 93656 | $131,947 |
| 19 | Campbell Flp 2 | Noblesville, IN 46062 | $131,362 |
| 20 | Johannsen Farms Ltd | Wakeman, OH 44889 | $129,013 |
* USDA data are not "transparent" for many payments made to recipients through most cooperatives. Recipients of payments made through most cooperatives, and the amounts, have not been made public. To see ownership information, click on the name, then click on the link that is titled Ownership Information.
** EWG has identified this recipient as a bank or lending institution that received the payment because the payment applicant had a loan requiring any subsidy payments go to the lender first. In 2019, the information provided to EWG by USDA began to include the entity that received the payment, rather than the person or entity that applied for it, which was previously provided. This move to shield subsidy recipients from disclosure enables USDA to further evade taxpayer accountability. Six percent of subsidy dollars went to banks, lending institutions, or the Farm Service Agency.”
Next >>
Federal crop insurance reform vital for incentivizing climate adaptation on farms
Farm Subsidies Ballooned Under Trump
Is Federal Crop Insurance Policy Leading to Another Dust Bowl?
Double Dipping:
The "Farm Crisis" Myth
Crying Wolf