Farm Subsidy information
Calhoun County, South Carolina
Total Subsidies in Calhoun County, South Carolina, 2022
Subsidy Recipients 61 to 80 of 134
Recipients of Total Subsidies from farms in Calhoun County, South Carolina totaled $4,810,000 in in 2022.
Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Total Subsidies 2022 |
---|---|---|---|
61 | Mr Sammy T Lee Jr | Neeses, SC 29107 | $2,327 |
62 | Kyle Monroe Carson | Cameron, SC 29030 | $2,259 |
63 | Flea Bite LLC | Cameron, SC 29030 | $2,203 |
64 | Shane Carlton Weeks | Elloree, SC 29047 | $1,900 |
65 | Harvest Drive Farms | Cameron, SC 29030 | $1,840 |
66 | Lone Star Farms LLC | Cameron, SC 29030 | $1,774 |
67 | W D Whetstone III | Saint Matthews, SC 29135 | $1,700 |
68 | William P Buyck | Saint Matthews, SC 29135 | $1,609 |
69 | Douglas E Spigner | Saint Matthews, SC 29135 | $1,600 |
70 | John Olson III | Saint Matthews, SC 29135 | $1,538 |
71 | Elizabeth Prickett Olson | Saint Matthews, SC 29135 | $1,538 |
72 | Ronnie L Bozard | Saint Matthews, SC 29135 | $1,521 |
73 | Johnnie D Padgett | Cameron, SC 29030 | $1,484 |
74 | Jane L Carson | Elloree, SC 29047 | $1,291 |
75 | Charles Horger Dba Oak Lane Farm | St Matthews, SC 29135 | $1,226 |
76 | Judson Paul Smith | Swansea, SC 29160 | $1,203 |
77 | William M Shirer Jr | Cameron, SC 29030 | $1,196 |
78 | Cameron Farms LLC | Orangeburg, SC 29116 | $1,183 |
79 | John Hayden Inabinet Iv | Orangeburg, SC 29118 | $1,129 |
80 | , | $1,122 |
* 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.”