Farm Subsidy information
Maryland
Total Subsidies in Maryland, 1995-2023
Subsidy Recipients 61 to 80 of 16,362
Recipients of Total Subsidies from farms in Maryland totaled $1,738,000,000 in from 1995-2023.
Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Total Subsidies 1995-2023 |
---|---|---|---|
61 | James T Harp Jr | Hagerstown, MD 21742 | $1,717,539 |
62 | Stephen E Beckley | Sharpsburg, MD 21782 | $1,712,128 |
63 | Harold B Garner Jr | Welcome, MD 20693 | $1,712,103 |
64 | F A Holland & Sons | New Church, VA 23415 | $1,711,446 |
65 | Michael R Bostic | Church Hill, MD 21623 | $1,711,244 |
66 | Panora Acres Inc | Manchester, MD 21102 | $1,697,457 |
67 | Hunt Ray Farms | Centreville, MD 21617 | $1,683,717 |
68 | Garland T Swann & Sons LLC | Easton, MD 21601 | $1,667,002 |
69 | Neal Farms Inc | Federalsburg, MD 21632 | $1,623,830 |
70 | Harry A Eaton | Queen Anne, MD 21657 | $1,609,789 |
71 | Leager Farms | Sudlersville, MD 21668 | $1,600,856 |
72 | State Of Maryland | Annapolis, MD 21401 | $1,592,754 |
73 | Trenton Mill Farms Inc | Upperco, MD 21155 | $1,584,014 |
74 | Schmidt Farms Inc | Sudlersville, MD 21668 | $1,557,147 |
75 | Cohoke Farm LLC | West Point, VA 23181 | $1,530,264 |
76 | Clearview Farms Inc | Hurlock, MD 21643 | $1,521,449 |
77 | D Mark Eberspacher | East New Market, MD 21631 | $1,502,366 |
78 | Patterson Farms Inc | Chestertown, MD 21620 | $1,497,179 |
79 | James E Baker | Union Bridge, MD 21791 | $1,496,613 |
80 | John Swaine III | Royal Oak, MD 21662 | $1,496,082 |
* 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.”