Counter Cyclical Program in Indiana, 1995-2023
Subsidy Recipients 41 to 60 of 61,292
Recipients of Counter Cyclical Program from farms in Indiana totaled $429,481,000 in from 1995-2023.
Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Counter Cyclical Program 1995-2023 |
---|---|---|---|
41 | Armes Grain & Livestock | Washington, IN 47501 | $155,062 |
42 | G & M Farms | Rochester, IN 46975 | $153,512 |
43 | Jones Farms | Palmyra, IN 47164 | $152,506 |
44 | Top Notch Farms | Francesville, IN 47946 | $152,180 |
45 | Breneman Farm Management | Clayton, IN 46118 | $151,494 |
46 | Scott Farms Family Partnership | Greenfield, IN 46140 | $151,235 |
47 | Bingham Farms | Patoka, IN 47666 | $150,944 |
48 | Dunn Brothers | Frankfort, IN 46041 | $150,418 |
49 | Kline Family Farms Partnership | Hartford City, IN 47348 | $148,453 |
50 | Slipher Farms | Thorntown, IN 46071 | $148,168 |
51 | Galloway Farms | Noblesville, IN 46060 | $145,794 |
52 | Rose Brothers Farms | Rockville, IN 47872 | $144,136 |
53 | Starkey Farms Partnership | Brownsburg, IN 46112 | $143,904 |
54 | Law Brothers Partnership | Atlanta, IN 46031 | $143,212 |
55 | Sherman Farms | Howe, IN 46746 | $142,776 |
56 | Hostetter Brothers | Lyons, IN 47443 | $141,556 |
57 | Thomas C Stewart,james G Stewart & Stephen G Gunn | Greensburg, IN 47240 | $141,495 |
58 | Shady Lane Farms | South Bend, IN 46619 | $141,422 |
59 | Long Farms Partnership | Pierceton, IN 46562 | $141,325 |
60 | Rulon Enterprises LLC | Arcadia, IN 46030 | $141,186 |
* 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.”