Wool and Mohair Programs in Utah, 1995-2021
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 1,612
Recipients of Wool and Mohair Programs from farms in Utah totaled $7,324,000 in from 1995-2021.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Wool and Mohair Programs 1995-2021 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | E Ray Okelberry Joint Venture | Fountain Green, UT 84632 | $213,321 |
| 2 | Wilson Brothers Livestock | Salem, UT 84653 | $178,518 |
| 3 | Moench Livestock Company | Salt Lake City, UT 84101 | $151,293 |
| 4 | 3 Y Livestock | Tremonton, UT 84337 | $137,908 |
| 5 | Earl L Bingham Ranch LLC | Honeyville, UT 84314 | $111,923 |
| 6 | W F Goring & Son Inc | Deweyville, UT 84309 | $110,433 |
| 7 | Holtz Inc | Wells, NV 89835 | $95,228 |
| 8 | Clark Brothers | Cedar City, UT 84721 | $92,498 |
| 9 | Welby Aagard | Salt Lake City, UT 84109 | $90,829 |
| 10 | Neil J Jorgensen | Mount Pleasant, UT 84647 | $86,718 |
| 11 | Sherie H Goring Dba Mountain Shadow Livestock Co | Deweyville, UT 84309 | $84,969 |
| 12 | J D Jackson | Provo, UT 84603 | $83,839 |
| 13 | Young Bros %m Young | Brigham City, UT 84302 | $83,351 |
| 14 | Argyles' Ranch Inc | Randolph, UT 84064 | $81,178 |
| 15 | Stephen Gillmor Sheep Co | Delta, UT 84624 | $78,023 |
| 16 | Lynn Siddoway | Vernal, UT 84078 | $77,492 |
| 17 | Phillip E Allred | Fountain Green, UT 84632 | $73,169 |
| 18 | Robert E Palfreyman | Salem, UT 84653 | $65,564 |
| 19 | Paul Frischknecht | Gunnison, UT 84634 | $61,544 |
| 20 | Robert Byram & Sons | Ogden, UT 84405 | $61,261 |
* 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