Farm Subsidy information
Sweet Grass County, Montana
Total Subsidies in Sweet Grass County, Montana, 2021
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 143
Recipients of Total Subsidies from farms in Sweet Grass County, Montana totaled $1,373,000 in in 2021.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Total Subsidies 2021 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cayuse Livestock Co | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $269,900 |
| 2 | Cosgriff Cattle LLC | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $100,107 |
| 3 | Ds Jr. Trucking Inc. | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $52,875 |
| 4 | Tom Knoll | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $33,334 |
| 5 | Lc Cattle Company, LLC | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $33,227 |
| 6 | Green Cattle Co. LLC | Melville, MT 59055 | $31,258 |
| 7 | Hooks Ranch LLC | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $28,649 |
| 8 | Kevin D Halverson | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $25,762 |
| 9 | Agnew Livestock LLC | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $24,209 |
| 10 | Jodi R Christensen | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $22,755 |
| 11 | Greg H Langford | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $20,363 |
| 12 | Hobble Diamond Ranch, LLC | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $19,914 |
| 13 | 406 Rooney Ranch LLC | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $19,545 |
| 14 | Jason Smith | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $19,383 |
| 15 | Philip L Schuman | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $18,671 |
| 16 | Kenneth D Gilbert | Rapelje, MT 59067 | $16,831 |
| 17 | K Bar A Ranch | Melville, MT 59055 | $15,636 |
| 18 | Herbert C Bue | Reed Point, MT 59069 | $15,154 |
| 19 | Jon Grosfield | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $15,132 |
| 20 | Cole T Cumin | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $14,906 |
* 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