Farm Subsidy information
Sweet Grass County, Montana
Total Subsidies in Sweet Grass County, Montana, 1995-2023
Subsidy Recipients 41 to 60 of 584
Recipients of Total Subsidies from farms in Sweet Grass County, Montana totaled $23,811,000 in from 1995-2023.
Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Total Subsidies 1995-2023 |
---|---|---|---|
41 | Edward H Clement | Salisbury, NC 28144 | $126,855 |
42 | Justin Tye Cumin | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $125,031 |
43 | Gary Arlian | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $123,526 |
44 | Jon Grosfield | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $122,083 |
45 | Hobble Diamond Land & Cattle LLC | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $121,984 |
46 | Rein Anchor Ranch Lllp | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $121,385 |
47 | Keewaydin Rch | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $118,218 |
48 | Stimpson Inc | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $117,219 |
49 | Kenneth D Gilbert | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $113,603 |
50 | K A Enterprises Inc | Livingston, MT 59047 | $111,932 |
51 | Roger Dean Indreland | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $111,493 |
52 | Claude Joe Beley | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $111,267 |
53 | Paul A Becken | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $107,947 |
54 | Engle Ranch Inc | Mc Leod, MT 59052 | $105,668 |
55 | David Breck | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $104,451 |
56 | Michael Lehman | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $102,697 |
57 | Suzanne Wilson | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $102,389 |
58 | Cosgriff Cattle LLC | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $100,107 |
59 | T Bar U Ranch LLC | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $96,453 |
60 | Pitchfork Cattle LLC | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $95,579 |
* 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.”