A farmer with 10,000 acres gets more benefit then a farmer with 1000 acres from government payments.  On a per acre basis, everything looks equal, but as all business' know, size is everything.  Just look at what has been happening in the hog industry if you don't believe it, or at Wal-Mart.

Back to the government payments.  The farmer with 10,000 acres uses his massive subsidies to pay, often above market value, for another piece of land.  Many times it involves buying the ground without need for a bank loan as his government payment is large enough to pay cash.  The farmer with 1000 acres only gets enough subsidies to make the downpayment and has to find a lender who will loan money on an above market price.  As a result he usually gets nada, not a thing.

Yes, I understand there are also increased expenses with 10,000 acres vs 1000 acres.  However if you can buy land without making payments, it is easier to pay expenses than when part of the crop has to make a land payment.

Cap government payments to say $100,000 total for all payments, conservation included, the playing field levels up real quick.  So depending on how you do the analysis, government payments do hurt smaller farmers.  Breaking down by acre looks fair, but fails to give adequate value to size variations.  Similar example, if you have $1 and I have $10 given to us everyday by the government and we want to buy a bottle of water, I can give $2 for the bottle and you get no water.  By the time you have $10 saved to raise the price, I have enough I can now double that price and you still get no water. 

Dollars will always dictate, so per acre analysis does not paint a true picture.  Which is the way BTOs want it.  They are the ones crying the loudest about EWGs website.  Bottom line, if the farm can't break even and you can't live on $100,000 maximum government check, GET OUT OF FARMING!!!  Let the real farmers take over.  There are some good young adults just looking for a chance to prove their capabilities.