Average Crop Revenue Election Program (ACRE) in Auglaize County, Ohio, 1995-2023
Subsidy Recipients 61 to 80 of 111
Recipients of Average Crop Revenue Election Program (ACRE) from farms in Auglaize County, Ohio totaled $1,654,000 in from 1995-2023.
Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Average Crop Revenue Election Program (ACRE) 1995-2023 |
---|---|---|---|
61 | David-dupree Revocab A Peterson | Glendale, CA 91208 | $4,812 |
62 | Schulze Bros | New Bremen, OH 45869 | $4,634 |
63 | Edward C Yahl Revocable Trust | Saint Marys, OH 45885 | $4,363 |
64 | Betty Schamp | Saint Marys, OH 45885 | $4,219 |
65 | James & Roger Bruns | Maria Stein, OH 45860 | $3,988 |
66 | Monte E Berg | New Knoxville, OH 45871 | $3,988 |
67 | Sally A Becher | Wapakoneta, OH 45895 | $3,968 |
68 | Matt Dietrich | New Bremen, OH 45869 | $3,080 |
69 | James Reier | Saint Marys, OH 45885 | $3,066 |
70 | Mary Ann Brackman | Wapakoneta, OH 45895 | $2,961 |
71 | Charles W Brackman | Wapakoneta, OH 45895 | $2,961 |
72 | Mtm Farms | Lakeview, OH 43331 | $2,834 |
73 | Daryl J Bowersock | Spencerville, OH 45887 | $2,336 |
74 | Donald Nedderman | Saint Marys, OH 45885 | $2,141 |
75 | Benjamin R Seibert | Saint Marys, OH 45885 | $1,974 |
76 | A & S Pork Producers | Saint Marys, OH 45885 | $1,942 |
77 | Larry Rable | Saint Marys, OH 45885 | $1,851 |
78 | Stanley J Brown | Saint Marys, OH 45885 | $1,746 |
79 | Daniel L Seibert | Spencerville, OH 45887 | $1,687 |
80 | Michael Wright Seibert | Celina, OH 45822 | $1,687 |
* 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.”