Total Commodity Programs in Wheatland County, Montana, 2020
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 152
Recipients of Total Commodity Programs from farms in Wheatland County, Montana totaled $8,532,000 in in 2020.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Total Commodity Programs 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Springwater Colony Inc | Harlowton, MT 59036 | $935,319 |
| 2 | Martinsdale Colony | Martinsdale, MT 59053 | $613,321 |
| 3 | Duncan Ranch Colony Inc | Harlowton, MT 59036 | $548,774 |
| 4 | Miller Ranch | Harlowton, MT 59036 | $431,510 |
| 5 | Mcfarland & White Ranch Inc | Two Dot, MT 59085 | $378,996 |
| 6 | Taber Ranch LLC | Shawmut, MT 59078 | $272,040 |
| 7 | Kenneth H Yerger | Harlowton, MT 59036 | $240,696 |
| 8 | The Glennie Ranches | Two Dot, MT 59085 | $220,327 |
| 9 | Cooney Brothers LLC | Harlowton, MT 59036 | $192,283 |
| 10 | Horse Butte Ranch LLC | Two Dot, MT 59085 | $168,547 |
| 11 | Two Dot Land & Lvst Co | Harlowton, MT 59036 | $159,286 |
| 12 | C Bar J Ranch, LLC | Two Dot, MT 59085 | $141,284 |
| 13 | Debuff Farms | Shawmut, MT 59078 | $140,003 |
| 14 | Mark D Gaugler | Judith Gap, MT 59453 | $139,057 |
| 15 | Upland Farms Inc | Martinsdale, MT 59053 | $132,136 |
| 16 | E.l. Peterson Ranch Inc. | Judith Gap, MT 59453 | $125,582 |
| 17 | 9-f Ranch | Martinsdale, MT 59053 | $122,005 |
| 18 | Emerald Cross Ranch | Harlowton, MT 59036 | $118,876 |
| 19 | Moore Livestock | Two Dot, MT 59085 | $114,839 |
| 20 | Michelle L Ward | Two Dot, MT 59085 | $102,750 |
* 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