Farm Subsidy information
Isanti County, Minnesota
Total Subsidies in Isanti County, Minnesota, 2019
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 249
Recipients of Total Subsidies from farms in Isanti County, Minnesota totaled $4,457,000 in in 2019.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Total Subsidies 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Vance Anton Senlycki | Princeton, MN 55371 | $172,464 |
| 2 | Scott Larowe | Cambridge, MN 55008 | $143,793 |
| 3 | Haubenschild Farm Dairy Inc | Princeton, MN 55371 | $111,216 |
| 4 | Anderson Farms Inc | Princeton, MN 55371 | $106,885 |
| 5 | Mn Production Ag LLC | Stanchfield, MN 55080 | $102,041 |
| 6 | Tim Laman | Stanchfield, MN 55080 | $89,059 |
| 7 | Lane Selin | Princeton, MN 55371 | $88,586 |
| 8 | David G Stamm | North Branch, MN 55056 | $64,473 |
| 9 | Philip Rodriguez | Dalbo, MN 55017 | $62,583 |
| 10 | Dean Bondeson | Stanchfield, MN 55080 | $58,933 |
| 11 | Bruce Wyatt & Nelson Wyatt Ptr | Bethel, MN 55005 | $53,023 |
| 12 | Jacob Pohl | North Branch, MN 55056 | $51,186 |
| 13 | Bradley Bismark | Stanchfield, MN 55080 | $45,474 |
| 14 | John K Swanson | North Branch, MN 55056 | $43,456 |
| 15 | Craig S Bjorklund | Isanti, MN 55040 | $43,189 |
| 16 | Roger Vavra | Cambridge, MN 55008 | $40,772 |
| 17 | Michael Szczech | Cambridge, MN 55008 | $39,539 |
| 18 | John Pearson | Stanchfield, MN 55080 | $39,272 |
| 19 | Donald Pearson | Stanchfield, MN 55080 | $38,385 |
| 20 | Ryan Carpenter | Isanti, MN 55040 | $37,287 |
* 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