Cotton Ginning Program in the United States, 1995-2021
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 43,475
Recipients of Cotton Ginning Program from farms in the United States totaled $543,380,000 in from 1995-2021.
Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Cotton Ginning Program 1995-2021 |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Kelley Enterprises | Burlison, TN 38015 | $771,180 |
2 | Tohono O'odham Farming Authority | Eloy, AZ 85131 | $688,552 |
3 | Fort Mojave Indian Tribe Fmit Avi Kwa Ame Farms | Mohave Valley, AZ 86446 | $477,074 |
4 | Kitten Land Co | Slaton, TX 79364 | $427,024 |
5 | Lkh Farming An Arizona Gp | Ehrenberg, AZ 85334 | $397,635 |
6 | White Farms Ajv | Marks, MS 38646 | $390,325 |
7 | Gilkey Five | Corcoran, CA 93212 | $383,335 |
8 | Mid-south Family Farms | Ripley, TN 38063 | $374,003 |
9 | Vip Farms | Thatcher, AZ 85552 | $373,295 |
10 | Frische Farms | Dumas, TX 79029 | $365,340 |
11 | Heard Family Farm | Brinson, GA 39825 | $359,378 |
12 | Worrell Farms Partnership | Altus, OK 73521 | $341,710 |
13 | Moore Farms | Somerville, TN 38068 | $332,955 |
14 | P G C Farms | Brinson, GA 39825 | $324,765 |
15 | Ak-chin Farms | Maricopa, AZ 85138 | $318,920 |
16 | B Dawson Planting Company | Cape Girardeau, MO 63701 | $318,027 |
17 | Smith & Sons | Bishop, TX 78343 | $277,447 |
18 | Parker Brothers Farm | Sikeston, MO 63801 | $277,280 |
19 | Parker & Jones Farms | Senath, MO 63876 | $275,980 |
20 | Lakeland Planting Company | Ferriday, LA 71334 | $273,342 |
* 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 >>