Total Conservation Programs in Mecosta County, Michigan, 1995-2021
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 433
Recipients of Total Conservation Programs from farms in Mecosta County, Michigan totaled $4,307,000 in from 1995-2021.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Total Conservation Programs 1995-2021 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | John E Orr | Blanchard, MI 49310 | $157,365 |
| 2 | Keith Gingrich Family Trust | Mount Pleasant, MI 48858 | $129,694 |
| 3 | Marie E Gummer Rev Trust | Lakeview, MI 48850 | $117,486 |
| 4 | Leslie Gummer | Lakeview, MI 48850 | $106,462 |
| 5 | William F Cornell | Barryton, MI 49305 | $86,202 |
| 6 | Orma I Gingrich Revocable Trust | Remus, MI 49340 | $76,791 |
| 7 | Theron Moore | Six Lakes, MI 48886 | $75,966 |
| 8 | Roger Aris | Big Rapids, MI 49307 | $54,641 |
| 9 | M & S Farms | Blanchard, MI 49310 | $53,728 |
| 10 | Dean Floria | Remus, MI 49340 | $51,148 |
| 11 | Paul H Schlachter Revocable Trust | Remus, MI 49340 | $49,684 |
| 12 | Wernette Beef Farms | Remus, MI 49340 | $48,368 |
| 13 | R O Christiansen | Lakeview, MI 48850 | $47,952 |
| 14 | Louis Mcneilly | Sears, MI 49679 | $45,661 |
| 15 | Brian Winkelmann | Grand Rapids, MI 49512 | $40,979 |
| 16 | Jacob Vandersys | Weidman, MI 48893 | $40,953 |
| 17 | Bruce F Carey | Morley, MI 49336 | $40,845 |
| 18 | Gordon L Burden | Stanwood, MI 49346 | $40,589 |
| 19 | J Paul Jorgensen | Barryton, MI 49305 | $39,192 |
| 20 | Dar H Howard | Remus, MI 49340 | $37,860 |
* 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