PORK

[xoxoxoBruce]

From http://card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_revi...entration.aspx

Figure 1 shows the concentration of subsidies across U.S. agricultural products. Crops and livestock products were ranked according to their share of subsidy relative to their share of value in 1999. According to this measure, rice is the most heavily subsidized crop, receiving 5 percent of U.S. subsidies but contributing only 0.7 percent of the value of U.S. agricultural production.

Cotton is next, with a 13 percent share of subsidies and a 2 percent share of value. Corn is the tenth most subsidized commodity, with a 27 percent subsidy share and a 10 percent value share. In 1999, soybeans received relatively low subsidies, with a 10 percent subsidy share and a 7 percent share of value. The reason for this low ranking is that soybeans did not qualify
for Agricultural Market Transition Assistance (AMTA) payments. In the next farm bill, soybean supporters want soybeans to be treated as a full-fledged program crop with all the resulting subsidies.

Most of U.S. agriculture receives little or no subsidies, with 60 percent of the value of U.S. agricultural production receiving a 3 percent subsidy share in 1999. This concentration of benefits on a relatively few commodities is an artifact of the way that commodity programs were initially set up in the 1930s. Tobacco, barley, corn, wheat, cotton, oats, rice, and grain sorghum were by far the most important commodity crops that had firm political backing because production was geographically concentrated in a relatively small number of states.

Livestock production was much more widely distributed throughout the states, and a significant portion of livestock products were consumed on-farm or locally. Soybeans was a relatively minor crop. Because today’s farm programs are still based largely on the reality of agriculture from 50 to 60 years ago, we see the concentration patterns shown in Figure 1.

Now that I've shown you where they came from and who gets them, tw will be along to tell you why they are evil...again, followed by rkzenrage to tell you evil doesn't exist.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Oh, and before you Europeans start snickering...

American politicians have created a wretched system of agricultural subsidies, but it seems that Europe’s lawmakers win the prize for concocting the most perverse ways to squander tax money.

That in talking about a Times article.

City dwellers are making huge profits out of an EU loophole that allows people who have never set foot on a farm to claim European farm subsidies.

The loophole allows investors to become classified officially as farmers and then buy the right to receive annual EU subsidies to cut agricultural production. Because the subsidies are decoupled from the land they relate to, investors do not need actually to own the ground they are claiming for or even go anywhere near it.

The profits to be made are enormous, with investors potentially increasing their capital nearly fivefold in 5 years.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Australia and NZ are getting much better.

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, government support for agricultural producers accounted for 31% of total farm income among its member nations in 2001. New Zealand and Australia are an entirely different story; these countries give their producers the least amount of support. Government support in New Zealand accounts for a mere 1% of farm income, and in Australia support is only 4%. New Zealand and Australia are undoubtedly models of reform.

That was not always the case, only two decades ago farmers in both countries were very dependent on government subsidies for their livelihood. According to the Federated Farmers of New Zealand, in 1984, the peak year for subsidies, nearly 40% of the average sheep and beef farmer's gross income came from the government.

But reforms were implemented quickly, avoiding the problems associated with a long and drawn-out process. By 1987, subsidies had been phased-out. Very few farmers, only 1%, lost their farms due to the transition. The vast majority survived the subsidy cuts by slashing spending, purchasing only essentials, implementing more efficient methods and through diversification. Farmers started to produce different products such as venison and wine.

Like their counterparts in New Zealand, Australian farmers survived the reduction in government subsidies by diversifying into other crops based on market demands. Farmers expanded beyond wheat, beef and wool into products more suited to Australian conditions. That diversity is now evident in Australia's agricultural exports. Whereas wheat, beef and wool dominated exports in the 1980s, their combined share of exports has fallen while there has been a surge in other products such as cotton, wine, oilseeds, dairy products and rice.