Farm Subsidy information
Hoke County, North Carolina
Total Subsidies in Hoke County, North Carolina, 2021
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 87
Recipients of Total Subsidies from farms in Hoke County, North Carolina totaled $1,830,000 in in 2021.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Total Subsidies 2021 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hendrix Farms | Raeford, NC 28376 | $155,449 |
| 2 | Gibson Farms Of Hoke Co Inc | Red Springs, NC 28377 | $133,637 |
| 3 | Edens Farms | Red Springs, NC 28377 | $117,634 |
| 4 | Agrifund LLC ** | Amarillo, TX 79106 | $91,373 |
| 5 | Hendrix Company | Raeford, NC 28376 | $68,506 |
| 6 | Monroe Farms | Raeford, NC 28376 | $67,012 |
| 7 | Sandhills Timber Company | Raeford, NC 28376 | $52,875 |
| 8 | Currie Forestry LLC | Raeford, NC 28376 | $52,875 |
| 9 | Kelly Edens Archambault | Red Springs, NC 28377 | $47,360 |
| 10 | Robert A Wright Jr | Raeford, NC 28376 | $41,955 |
| 11 | Hendrix Livestock Inc | Raeford, NC 28376 | $41,699 |
| 12 | Buie Family Farms | Red Springs, NC 28377 | $31,563 |
| 13 | Mcdonald Brothers | Red Springs, NC 28377 | $25,216 |
| 14 | David Miller Gillis | Fayetteville, NC 28306 | $22,564 |
| 15 | Forbis Farms Inc | Lumber Bridge, NC 28357 | $16,857 |
| 16 | Sandra B Edens | Red Springs, NC 28377 | $16,797 |
| 17 | Hagler Farms | Laurinburg, NC 28352 | $16,314 |
| 18 | Jeffrey R Hendrix | Raeford, NC 28376 | $15,921 |
| 19 | James R King Jr | Fayetteville, NC 28304 | $14,623 |
| 20 | Roger Pierce | Lumber Bridge, NC 28357 | $14,018 |
* 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