Direct Payment Program in Spink County, South Dakota, 1995-2021
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 1,363
Recipients of Direct Payment Program from farms in Spink County, South Dakota totaled $66,429,000 in from 1995-2021.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Direct Payment Program 1995-2021 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bixler Farms | Hitchcock, SD 57348 | $861,137 |
| 2 | Gatzke Farms Partnership | Hitchcock, SD 57348 | $753,900 |
| 3 | Armadale Farms Inc | Mellette, SD 57461 | $457,719 |
| 4 | Clark Hutt Breth Inc | Raymond, SD 57258 | $456,925 |
| 5 | Hillside Hutterian Brethren | Doland, SD 57436 | $445,455 |
| 6 | Klebsch Farms Inc | Redfield, SD 57469 | $444,645 |
| 7 | Camrose Hutterian Brethren Inc | Frankfort, SD 57440 | $394,570 |
| 8 | Belle Plaine Hutterian Brethren I | Doland, SD 57436 | $391,591 |
| 9 | David Morgan | Mellette, SD 57461 | $389,756 |
| 10 | Boekelheide Farms Inc | Northville, SD 57465 | $370,687 |
| 11 | Hansen Farms | Turton, SD 57477 | $364,847 |
| 12 | M & H Williams Inc | Brentford, SD 57429 | $361,998 |
| 13 | James Mccomsey | Leola, SD 57456 | $349,104 |
| 14 | Esser Farms Inc | Redfield, SD 57469 | $343,767 |
| 15 | Hahler Farms Inc | Ashton, SD 57424 | $333,339 |
| 16 | R & B Mielke Inc | Conde, SD 57434 | $332,129 |
| 17 | Mendel Farms Partnership | Doland, SD 57436 | $324,748 |
| 18 | Dettler Farms | Frankfort, SD 57440 | $317,837 |
| 19 | Red Ash Ranch Inc | Ashton, SD 57424 | $311,851 |
| 20 | K Olson Inc | Sioux Falls, SD 57101 | $310,177 |
* 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