Market Facilitation Program (MFP) in McCook County, South Dakota, 2020
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 404
Recipients of Market Facilitation Program (MFP) from farms in McCook County, South Dakota totaled $2,068,000 in in 2020.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Market Facilitation Program (MFP) 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Golden View Hutterian Brethren Inc | Salem, SD 57058 | $84,812 |
| 2 | Orland Hutterian Brethren | Montrose, SD 57048 | $64,028 |
| 3 | David M Meyer | Elkhorn, NE 68022 | $52,418 |
| 4 | Salem Farms LLC | Pipestone, MN 56164 | $47,374 |
| 5 | Philip Keith Hofer | Bridgewater, SD 57319 | $45,144 |
| 6 | Lloyd Allen Stockwell | Parker, SD 57053 | $35,394 |
| 7 | Steve P Eichacker | Salem, SD 57058 | $32,522 |
| 8 | K & W Farm Inc | Marion, SD 57043 | $29,940 |
| 9 | Mark Jorgenson | Montrose, SD 57048 | $28,296 |
| 10 | James A Jorgenson | Montrose, SD 57048 | $28,288 |
| 11 | Jalmar Jorgenson | Montrose, SD 57048 | $28,288 |
| 12 | Ferlyn Hofer | Canistota, SD 57012 | $27,279 |
| 13 | Meadow View Hutterian Brethren | Bridgewater, SD 57319 | $25,823 |
| 14 | Tschetter Farms Partnership | Bridgewater, SD 57319 | $25,716 |
| 15 | Tusha Ag Inc | Emery, SD 57332 | $23,377 |
| 16 | David Eichacker | Salem, SD 57058 | $22,962 |
| 17 | Gerald Eichacker | Salem, SD 57058 | $22,962 |
| 18 | Barney Joseph Roling | Salem, SD 57058 | $22,860 |
| 19 | Van Winkle Dairy Lp | Canistota, SD 57012 | $22,825 |
| 20 | Shumaker Farms Inc | Sioux Falls, SD 57107 | $22,059 |
* 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