Total Conservation Programs in 1st District of Michigan (Rep. Jack Bergman), 2019
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 105
Recipients of Total Conservation Programs from farms in 1st District of Michigan (Rep. Jack Bergman) totaled $128,000 in in 2019.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Total Conservation Programs 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mctiver Farms LLC | Newberry, MI 49868 | $7,684 |
| 2 | Virgil Freel | Millersburg, MI 49759 | $6,629 |
| 3 | Rich-lo Dairy Farms | Engadine, MI 49827 | $5,599 |
| 4 | Gage Family Farm Inc | Sault Sainte Marie, MI 49783 | $5,370 |
| 5 | Packard Farms LLC | Clare, MI 48617 | $5,208 |
| 6 | Olivine B Andrews | Sault Sainte Marie, MI 49783 | $4,860 |
| 7 | Gordon Andrews | Sault Sainte Marie, MI 49783 | $4,860 |
| 8 | Spencer Shunk Jr | Sault Sainte Marie, MI 49783 | $4,590 |
| 9 | Kenneth Lechner | Bay City, MI 48706 | $4,526 |
| 10 | Susan K Shunk | Sault Sainte Marie, MI 49783 | $3,837 |
| 11 | David J Bishop | Pickford, MI 49774 | $3,587 |
| 12 | Donald Lee Zandbergen | Caledonia, MI 49316 | $3,308 |
| 13 | Anthony Wernette | Remus, MI 49340 | $3,049 |
| 14 | Michael Andrews | Dafter, MI 49724 | $2,995 |
| 15 | Randall O Turner | Lansing, MI 48906 | $2,782 |
| 16 | Jane E Bishop | Pickford, MI 49774 | $2,542 |
| 17 | Highpoint Cattle Pickford LLC | Grand Rapids, MI 49546 | $1,826 |
| 18 | Arlene Portice | Pickford, MI 49774 | $1,788 |
| 19 | Daniel Minton | Alpena, MI 49707 | $1,761 |
| 20 | Lyle Stahl | Sault S Marie, MI 49783 | $1,686 |
* 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