Farm Subsidy information
Kingsbury County, South Dakota
Total Subsidies in Kingsbury County, South Dakota, 2021
Subsidy Recipients 21 to 40 of 744
Recipients of Total Subsidies from farms in Kingsbury County, South Dakota totaled $26,804,000 in in 2021.
Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Total Subsidies 2021 |
---|---|---|---|
21 | Hi Spirit Ranch Inc | De Smet, SD 57231 | $114,904 |
22 | Gregory Scott Albrecht | De Smet, SD 57231 | $111,886 |
23 | Jon Charles Albrecht | Howard, SD 57349 | $106,770 |
24 | Jeffrey Eschenbaum | Lake Preston, SD 57249 | $106,687 |
25 | Bradley John Albrecht | Arlington, SD 57212 | $106,281 |
26 | Jeffrey Emil Albrecht | De Smet, SD 57231 | $106,280 |
27 | Page Brothers | De Smet, SD 57231 | $101,842 |
28 | Douglas Charles Meyer | Iroquois, SD 57353 | $99,099 |
29 | Allan Rieck | Lake Preston, SD 57249 | $97,097 |
30 | Dean Marvin Tolzin | Lake Preston, SD 57249 | $95,221 |
31 | Pleasant Hill Farm | Bancroft, SD 57353 | $94,474 |
32 | Michael Tolzin | Lake Preston, SD 57249 | $91,963 |
33 | Gregory Dale Josephsen | Arlington, SD 57212 | $85,389 |
34 | Lynn D Jensen | Lake Preston, SD 57249 | $82,318 |
35 | Megan Eichler | Lake Preston, SD 57249 | $81,006 |
36 | Raymond Kerr | Lake Preston, SD 57249 | $79,774 |
37 | Peckenpaugh Ranch Inc | Carthage, SD 57323 | $77,918 |
38 | Gullickson Cattle Company Inc | Lake Preston, SD 57249 | $77,660 |
39 | Bryson Ensz | Bancroft, SD 57353 | $75,364 |
40 | James P Coughlin | Iroquois, SD 57353 | $72,494 |
* 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.”