Loan Deficiency in Minnesota, 1995-2021
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 62,251
Recipients of Loan Deficiency from farms in Minnesota totaled $2,324,000,000 in from 1995-2021.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Loan Deficiency 1995-2021 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Chs Inc | Kindred, ND 58051 | $39,376,270 |
| 2 | Hector Farms II Partnership | Hector, MN 55342 | $1,773,737 |
| 3 | Molitor Bros Farm | Cannon Falls, MN 55009 | $1,618,669 |
| 4 | Vipond Farms | Norcross, MN 56274 | $1,422,514 |
| 5 | Sunset Farms Of Freeborn County | Albert Lea, MN 56007 | $1,264,431 |
| 6 | Far Gaze Farms | Northfield, MN 55057 | $1,051,391 |
| 7 | Sanders Farms | Truman, MN 56088 | $1,042,332 |
| 8 | Steve Haen And Partners | Renville, MN 56284 | $923,532 |
| 9 | Ferrier Farms | Dover, MN 55929 | $863,224 |
| 10 | Son-d-partnership | Adrian, MN 56110 | $838,745 |
| 11 | Two Dogs Farm | Benson, MN 56215 | $826,186 |
| 12 | Deal Bros Farming Partnership | Doran, MN 56522 | $815,735 |
| 13 | Freiborg Farms | Sacred Heart, MN 56285 | $810,663 |
| 14 | Brutlag Farms Partnership | Wendell, MN 56590 | $805,453 |
| 15 | Peterson Farms | Wendell, MN 56590 | $796,812 |
| 16 | Marty Farms Ptshp | Chokio, MN 56221 | $793,376 |
| 17 | Robert And Darlene Yaggie Farms | Breckenridge, MN 56520 | $783,666 |
| 18 | Ger-bes Enterprises | Hastings, MN 55033 | $757,556 |
| 19 | Jirak Bros Farming Partnership | Breckenridge, MN 56520 | $756,019 |
| 20 | Kramer Farms Llp | Hayfield, MN 55940 | $743,102 |
* 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