Science Forums 2

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Cedars

no. The subsidies are price supports. Paying for land set asides is related to conservation of both land and waters.

Freeztar posted links in Post #15.

Now go back to your baker and ask how many ounces of wheat in a loaf of bread before you jump to conclusions on how rich farmers are getting off subsidies and where your actual cost increase is originating at.

Whether land is used for conservation or any other non-farm use does not matter. The fact is that reduction of arable land means less supply and higher prices. The reference you suggested confirms this no matter how noble the motive.

"Even with reduced yields because of a dry year, Grimm made a profit of about $300 an acre after expenses. CRP would have paid just over $100 an acre."