Dairy Programs in 8th District of Minnesota (Rep. Pete Stauber), 2019
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 63
Recipients of Dairy Programs from farms in 8th District of Minnesota (Rep. Pete Stauber) totaled $419,000 in in 2019.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Dairy Programs 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Farm Services Agency ** | Washington, DC 20250 | $70,385 |
| 2 | J M Peterson Farms Inc | Pine City, MN 55063 | $25,404 |
| 3 | Watrin Farms Inc | Sandstone, MN 55072 | $25,050 |
| 4 | Kevin Belkholm | Braham, MN 55006 | $21,574 |
| 5 | Birch Creek Dairy Inc | Willow River, MN 55795 | $20,246 |
| 6 | Jonathan C Moulton | Rush City, MN 55069 | $17,904 |
| 7 | Takala Farms Inc | Iron, MN 55751 | $17,716 |
| 8 | Harris Dairy Inc | Sandstone, MN 55072 | $15,743 |
| 9 | Steve E Nelson | Hinckley, MN 55037 | $12,320 |
| 10 | Matthew Takala | Pine City, MN 55063 | $8,791 |
| 11 | Peter J Laveau | Wrenshall, MN 55797 | $8,685 |
| 12 | Marvin L Pearson | Angora, MN 55703 | $8,535 |
| 13 | Bradley J Ausmus | Hinckley, MN 55037 | $7,617 |
| 14 | Gerald Konu | Moose Lake, MN 55767 | $7,452 |
| 15 | Norman Zacharias | Hinckley, MN 55037 | $7,440 |
| 16 | B&c Dairy Llp | Fort Ripley, MN 56449 | $7,361 |
| 17 | Arnold Nelson | Hinckley, MN 55037 | $7,113 |
| 18 | James M Schumacher | Ogilvie, MN 56358 | $6,381 |
| 19 | Ryan Opsahl | Hinckley, MN 55037 | $6,277 |
| 20 | Birch Flat Farms Inc | Hinckley, MN 55037 | $6,110 |
* 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