Farm Subsidy information
South Dakota
Total Subsidies in South Dakota, 1995-2021
Subsidy Recipients 61 to 80 of 103,000
Recipients of Total Subsidies from farms in South Dakota totaled $20,862,000,000 in from 1995-2021.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Total Subsidies 1995-2021 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 61 | Deerfield Hutt Bret Inc | Ipswich, SD 57451 | $4,041,046 |
| 62 | Greenwood Hutterian Brethren Inc | Delmont, SD 57330 | $4,038,423 |
| 63 | Jamesville Hutterian Brethren Inc | Utica, SD 57067 | $4,034,782 |
| 64 | Kyle Gross | Iroquois, SD 57353 | $4,031,887 |
| 65 | Spring Valley Hutterian Brethren Inc | Wessington Springs, SD 57382 | $4,024,672 |
| 66 | Riverside Hutterian Brethren Inc | Huron, SD 57350 | $4,022,473 |
| 67 | Sumption Farms | Frederick, SD 57441 | $4,020,701 |
| 68 | Bottum Brothers Partnership | Tulare, SD 57476 | $3,977,777 |
| 69 | Newport Hutterian Brethren Inc | Claremont, SD 57432 | $3,964,276 |
| 70 | Spink Hutterian Inc | Frankfort, SD 57440 | $3,959,801 |
| 71 | Hillside Hutterian Brethren | Doland, SD 57436 | $3,932,821 |
| 72 | Ireland Brothers | Martin, SD 57551 | $3,931,141 |
| 73 | Blooming Valley Grain Farms Inc | Watertown, SD 57201 | $3,913,063 |
| 74 | Evergreen Colony | Faulkton, SD 57438 | $3,894,894 |
| 75 | Rolland Hutterian Brethren Inc | White, SD 57276 | $3,872,972 |
| 76 | Bixler Farms | Hitchcock, SD 57348 | $3,842,379 |
| 77 | Harrell Bros | Miller, SD 57362 | $3,838,953 |
| 78 | John Emil Albrecht | De Smet, SD 57231 | $3,814,423 |
| 79 | Millerdale Hutterian Brethren Inc | Miller, SD 57362 | $3,770,572 |
| 80 | Noethlich Bros | Doland, SD 57436 | $3,755,468 |
* 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.”
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