Farm Subsidy information
Madera County, California
Total Subsidies in Madera County, California, 1995-2023
Subsidy Recipients 101 to 120 of 2,610
Recipients of Total Subsidies from farms in Madera County, California totaled $580,178,000 in from 1995-2023.
Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Total Subsidies 1995-2023 |
---|---|---|---|
101 | F.m. Upton & Sons, LLC | Chowchilla, CA 93610 | $729,505 |
102 | Central Valley Grape Co LLC | Madera, CA 93637 | $724,006 |
103 | Littleton Farms | Fresno, CA 93728 | $720,070 |
104 | Philip Verwey Dairy Inc | Hanford, CA 93230 | $716,313 |
105 | Vincent Taylor | Madera, CA 93637 | $715,020 |
106 | Elizabeth Cardoza | O Neals, CA 93645 | $714,137 |
107 | Rakkar Properties L.p. | Madera, CA 93637 | $699,201 |
108 | David John Tolmachoff | Fresno, CA 93711 | $696,982 |
109 | Dalena Farms | Madera, CA 93636 | $695,767 |
110 | California Valley Land Co Inc | Fresno, CA 93711 | $694,386 |
111 | El Peco Ranch LLC | Madera, CA 93637 | $680,277 |
112 | Shawn & Miranda Dill | Chowchilla, CA 93610 | $656,521 |
113 | Alyson Lasgoity | Madera, CA 93639 | $653,866 |
114 | Brockman Farming Inc | Aptos, CA 95003 | $651,371 |
115 | Eastman Bros | Chowchilla, CA 93610 | $644,224 |
116 | Andrew J Slenders Jr | Laton, CA 93242 | $637,120 |
117 | Michele R Lasgoity | Madera, CA 93637 | $635,176 |
118 | Wes Haynes | Chowchilla, CA 93610 | $619,242 |
119 | Houlding Farms Inc | Madera, CA 93637 | $609,811 |
120 | Arunjoat Toor | Visalia, CA 93277 | $607,974 |
* 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.”