Cotton Ginning Program in 9th District of North Carolina (Open Seat), 1995-2021
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 114
Recipients of Cotton Ginning Program from farms in 9th District of North Carolina (Open Seat) totaled $1,709,000 in from 1995-2021.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Cotton Ginning Program 1995-2021 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Walton Farms | Lumber Bridge, NC 28357 | $146,188 |
| 2 | T G Gibson Farms | Gibson, NC 28343 | $74,312 |
| 3 | Edens Farms | Red Springs, NC 28377 | $67,960 |
| 4 | Carmichael Farms LLC | Laurinburg, NC 28353 | $64,172 |
| 5 | Hendrix Farms | Raeford, NC 28376 | $60,006 |
| 6 | Rockdale Farms Inc | Laurel Hill, NC 28351 | $56,750 |
| 7 | Hagler Farms | Laurinburg, NC 28352 | $51,316 |
| 8 | David T Lindsay | Raeford, NC 28376 | $49,571 |
| 9 | Lindsay Farm | Raeford, NC 28376 | $47,371 |
| 10 | Kelly Edens Archambault | Red Springs, NC 28377 | $45,805 |
| 11 | Sinclair Farms Inc | Laurel Hill, NC 28351 | $44,777 |
| 12 | Nick Evans Farms | Fairmont, NC 28340 | $42,380 |
| 13 | Thomas R Mcrimmon | Rowland, NC 28383 | $41,397 |
| 14 | Newton Farms | Raeford, NC 28376 | $40,000 |
| 15 | Stonewall Farms Inc | Laurel Hill, NC 28351 | $39,964 |
| 16 | Aaron Stack | Laurel Hill, NC 28351 | $38,693 |
| 17 | Gold Hill Farms Inc | Laurel Hill, NC 28351 | $38,154 |
| 18 | Cecil Sikes Farm Inc | Ansonville, NC 28007 | $37,875 |
| 19 | Alfordsville Farms Inc | Laurel Hill, NC 28351 | $35,928 |
| 20 | Juniper Land Co | Laurel Hill, NC 28351 | $30,627 |
* 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