I don’t want to speak for them, but one can interpret crops subsidized for the purposes of livestock feed AS a subsidy for livestock. If you look at the sum of the purple sections (livestock and feed), it’s the largest.
But you are right: buddy’s own chart does show a larger direct subsidy for corn than direct subsidy for beef.
You are correct, because barely any actually goes to corn we eat. Those subsidies exist just to make it cheaper to raise live stock. So while direct subsidies are higher for corn, it’s so high purely to help raise live stock. Just because we “can” eat corn doesn’t really impact the fact that we aren’t, it’s mostly live stock eating the corn the subsidies are paying for (And biofuel)
Yup, here in Iowa the vast, vast majority of corn is known as “cattle corn”, and as described it’s used for cattle (and biodiesel, and pigs). Most farmers only grow sweetcorn “for fun”, as a side thing compared to the huge subsidies for cattle corn.
I don’t want to speak for them, but one can interpret crops subsidized for the purposes of livestock feed AS a subsidy for livestock. If you look at the sum of the purple sections (livestock and feed), it’s the largest.
But you are right: buddy’s own chart does show a larger direct subsidy for corn than direct subsidy for beef.
You are correct, because barely any actually goes to corn we eat. Those subsidies exist just to make it cheaper to raise live stock. So while direct subsidies are higher for corn, it’s so high purely to help raise live stock. Just because we “can” eat corn doesn’t really impact the fact that we aren’t, it’s mostly live stock eating the corn the subsidies are paying for (And biofuel)
Yup, here in Iowa the vast, vast majority of corn is known as “cattle corn”, and as described it’s used for cattle (and biodiesel, and pigs). Most farmers only grow sweetcorn “for fun”, as a side thing compared to the huge subsidies for cattle corn.