In the USA, some farmers receive no subsidies, while others receive huge subsidies. Often it is the huge farms that receive the greatest subsidies that in turn depress prices further (by encouraging overproduction and razor thin margins) while the small farms receive little or no government help while they operate at breakeven (if they are lucky), or even a small loss.

I would be interested to know how they came up with the $2.50/cow subsidy in Europe. Is that a direct subsidy where if you own a cow you get $2.50? If so, then that's one hell-of-a subsidy.

As I understand it there is no direct subsidy vis-à-vis Cows in the United States, although in places like Montana, Colorado, etc… Cattle ranchers are heavily subsidized with water rights, grazing on public lands for extremely low rental fees, etc…These indirect subsidies also encourage overproduction and depress prices for those farmers who pay legitimate rental prices to landowners or those who own their own land outright.

In Iowa, the subsidies are mostly indirect and aimed at low interest government backed loans, price guarantees for those who enroll in the programs, land conservation (where the land can’t be used for cattle grazing), etc…

I need to look into this more. One thing is for certain: Farm subsidies hurt the small farmer more than they help him. They should be capped so that huge farms don't get the lion’s share of the subsidies. Unfortunately, you'll never get that to fly in Washington where the big-farm lobby masquerades as representing the interests of family farms.

Sadly, many family farmers buy into the lie as well. And they will never see their farms profitable as a result. (It’s just like the idea of means testing Social Security: The poor elderly who would benefit the most from reform of the program, are often those who are the most opposed to any changes in the program.)

Scott