Market Facilitation Program (MFP) in San Bernardino County, California, 1995-2021
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 37
Recipients of Market Facilitation Program (MFP) from farms in San Bernardino County, California totaled $2,478,000 in from 1995-2021.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Market Facilitation Program (MFP) 1995-2021 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gordon Hay Co Inc | Chino, CA 91708 | $285,061 |
| 2 | Ron Pietersma Dba Legend Dairy Farms | Chino, CA 91708 | $284,396 |
| 3 | B & E Dairy | Barstow, CA 92311 | $221,525 |
| 4 | Chino Valley Dairy | Ontario, CA 91762 | $186,046 |
| 5 | Dutch Dairy | Helendale, CA 92342 | $165,370 |
| 6 | Michael De Hoog Dairy, Lp | Ontario, CA 91762 | $165,284 |
| 7 | Northview Dairy | Ontario, CA 91761 | $130,916 |
| 8 | John & Ietie Van Leeuwen Family L | Ontario, CA 91762 | $99,684 |
| 9 | Hinkley Dairy | Hinkley, CA 92347 | $86,591 |
| 10 | Tadema Cattle Company | Norco, CA 92860 | $82,998 |
| 11 | Bert Jim Degroot | Ontario, CA 91761 | $78,885 |
| 12 | Harmsen Family Dairy | Hinkley, CA 92347 | $76,043 |
| 13 | Struikmans & Son | Ontario, CA 91762 | $74,630 |
| 14 | El Dorado Dairy | Chino, CA 91708 | $73,817 |
| 15 | Minaberry Dairy No 1 | Ontario, CA 91762 | $70,385 |
| 16 | Tiva Dairy | Chino, CA 91710 | $58,397 |
| 17 | Bosch Dairy | Ontario, CA 91761 | $45,833 |
| 18 | Bachoc Dairy | Ontario, CA 91761 | $37,179 |
| 19 | Bert Jim Degroot | Long Beach, CA 90815 | $35,857 |
| 20 | Bosch Dairy 2 | Ontario, CA 91761 | $35,036 |
* 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