Market Gains in Spink County, South Dakota, 1995-2023
Subsidy Recipients 41 to 60 of 312
Recipients of Market Gains from farms in Spink County, South Dakota totaled $5,300,000 in from 1995-2023.
Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Market Gains 1995-2023 |
---|---|---|---|
41 | Kenneth John Nowell | Hitchcock, SD 57348 | $38,457 |
42 | William Klebsch | Redfield, SD 57469 | $36,884 |
43 | Charles Ira Gilbert | Hitchcock, SD 57348 | $36,826 |
44 | Robert Irwin Meier | Doland, SD 57436 | $34,723 |
45 | Cole Farms Partnership | Hitchcock, SD 57348 | $34,095 |
46 | Michael Ray Binger | Tulare, SD 57476 | $33,733 |
47 | Daniel Lee Akin | Ashton, SD 57424 | $33,302 |
48 | Belle Plaine Hutterian Brethren I | Doland, SD 57436 | $32,099 |
49 | S & K Farms Inc | Northville, SD 57465 | $31,620 |
50 | Roy Eldon Buchholz | Hitchcock, SD 57348 | $30,896 |
51 | Sylvester Dean Hofer | Doland, SD 57436 | $30,731 |
52 | Doyle George Harms | Redfield, SD 57469 | $29,730 |
53 | Wendell Ivan Sandbulte | Hull, IA 51239 | $29,550 |
54 | Alan Ray Williams | Frankfort, SD 57440 | $29,545 |
55 | Albert Ray Williams | Frankfort, SD 57440 | $29,545 |
56 | Thomas Dean Gilbert | Hitchcock, SD 57348 | $28,957 |
57 | Gregory Dean Boekelheide | Northville, SD 57465 | $27,992 |
58 | Ellen Jean Boekelheide | Northville, SD 57465 | $27,992 |
59 | Gary Dean Wipf | Frankfort, SD 57440 | $27,870 |
60 | Carol Anne Wipf | Frankfort, SD 57440 | $27,870 |
* 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.”