Wool and Mohair Programs in California, 1995-2023
Subsidy Recipients 81 to 100 of 1,055
Recipients of Wool and Mohair Programs from farms in California totaled $8,886,000 in from 1995-2023.
Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Wool and Mohair Programs 1995-2023 |
---|---|---|---|
81 | Mendiboure Ranch | Madeline, CA 96119 | $33,448 |
82 | Luis Zallo | Dixon, CA 95620 | $33,273 |
83 | H & F Sheep Corp | Holtville, CA 92250 | $32,121 |
84 | Stewart Diversified | Mc Kittrick, CA 93251 | $30,251 |
85 | Waegell Ranch | Sacramento, CA 95830 | $29,446 |
86 | Matt Ferrini | Williams, CA 95987 | $28,412 |
87 | Julian Muguiro | Rosamond, CA 93560 | $27,794 |
88 | Bruno | Riverside, CA 92507 | $25,280 |
89 | Wesley Truax | Macdoel, CA 96058 | $22,772 |
90 | Juan Layana | Tracy, CA 95378 | $22,433 |
91 | Glannvale Seed Mill Inc | Elk Grove, CA 95758 | $22,357 |
92 | Charles M Marsh | Arbuckle, CA 95912 | $21,855 |
93 | Saturnino Araguas | Holtville, CA 92250 | $21,674 |
94 | Uc Regents | Davis, CA 95616 | $21,450 |
95 | Slaven Family Revocable Trust | Zamora, CA 95698 | $21,405 |
96 | Segundo Perez | San Bernardino, CA 92408 | $21,333 |
97 | Larry Reimers | Orland, CA 95963 | $21,251 |
98 | Dexter Mayhood | Rio Vista, CA 94571 | $21,187 |
99 | H Milton Heins | Stockton, CA 95219 | $18,421 |
100 | Robert Mcgrew | Dixon, CA 95620 | $17,386 |
* 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.”