Total Conservation Programs in Merced County, California, 1995-2023
Subsidy Recipients 141 to 160 of 372
Recipients of Total Conservation Programs from farms in Merced County, California totaled $8,532,000 in from 1995-2023.
Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Total Conservation Programs 1995-2023 |
---|---|---|---|
141 | Gallo Farming Company | Atwater, CA 95301 | $7,166 |
142 | Clearlake Land Cattle | Los Banos, CA 93635 | $7,000 |
143 | Live Oak Farms Lp | Le Grand, CA 95333 | $6,840 |
144 | Tim Gomes | Gustine, CA 95322 | $6,820 |
145 | Joe Soares Dairy | Delhi, CA 95315 | $6,816 |
146 | Henrik Strombotne | Merced, CA 95340 | $6,742 |
147 | Aulakh Bros | Livingston, CA 95334 | $6,631 |
148 | Sam Kooistra | Turlock, CA 95380 | $6,325 |
149 | Pattabiram Balam Iyer | Gustine, CA 95322 | $6,274 |
150 | Santokh S Takhar Dvm | Hilmar, CA 95324 | $5,986 |
151 | Riverfield Cattle Co Inc | San Marino, CA 91108 | $5,752 |
152 | Santa Cruz Land & Cattle | Santa Cruz, CA 95061 | $5,524 |
153 | Joseph Mauzy | Sutter Creek, CA 95685 | $5,250 |
154 | E Gustine Dk Cl | Santa Cruz, CA 95062 | $5,240 |
155 | Ernest G Pinheiro | Atwater, CA 95301 | $5,154 |
156 | Serrano Farms Lp | Le Grand, CA 95333 | $5,063 |
157 | Parvinder Hundal | El Nido, CA 95317 | $5,009 |
158 | Gary Tessier | Atwater, CA 95301 | $4,988 |
159 | Surinder S Rai | Atwater, CA 95301 | $4,872 |
160 | James Luker | Merced, CA 95340 | $4,857 |
* 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.”