Price Loss Coverage Program (PLC) in Mississippi, 2021
Subsidy Recipients 21 to 40 of 5,066
Recipients of Price Loss Coverage Program (PLC) from farms in Mississippi totaled $91,810,000 in in 2021.
Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Price Loss Coverage Program (PLC) 2021 |
---|---|---|---|
21 | Community Bank North Mississippi ** | Amory, MS 38821 | $483,586 |
22 | M & M Farms | Hattiesburg, MS 39401 | $438,580 |
23 | The Cleveland State Bank ** | Cleveland, MS 38732 | $359,720 |
24 | Mississippi Land Bank Aca ** | Saltillo, MS 38866 | $358,537 |
25 | Steele Farms | Hollandale, MS 38748 | $357,935 |
26 | Red Oaks Farm | Richton, MS 39476 | $347,980 |
27 | St Rest Planting Co | Indianola, MS 38751 | $338,018 |
28 | Holmes County Bank & Trust Compan ** | Lexington, MS 39095 | $333,967 |
29 | New Hope Farms | Schlater, MS 38952 | $326,087 |
30 | Holly Ridge Planting Co | Indianola, MS 38751 | $300,916 |
31 | Griffin Farms South | Helena, AR 72342 | $300,400 |
32 | Bank Of Missouri ** | Charleston, MO 63834 | $285,512 |
33 | West Partnership II | Sardis, MS 38666 | $281,055 |
34 | Bcf-09 | Tunica, MS 38676 | $275,057 |
35 | Circle H Joint Venture | Cleveland, MS 38732 | $274,262 |
36 | Prewitt Farms | Boyle, MS 38730 | $273,654 |
37 | Fioranelli Brothers Joint Venture | Cleveland, MS 38732 | $259,500 |
38 | Satterfield Farms | Benoit, MS 38725 | $252,934 |
39 | Business First Bank ** | Houma, LA 70360 | $249,258 |
40 | Morgan Planting Co Partnership | Shaw, MS 38773 | $247,684 |
* 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.”