People like eating meat, so there will be protests etc, but it's not threatening famine.

> In the olden times some considered it a good measure to secure food production by subsidies. You know, hungry people get restless. If that is your intent or you don't have to face the consequences, it's fine. But for the most part to keep the masses fed is a basic measure.

Which 'olden times' are you talking about? When and where?

Direct subsidies for growing food are probably one of the least efficient ways for that goal.

Just imagine what would happen without the subsidies: the agricultural land in question wouldn't just leave the country. Mostly people just grow different things with and without subsidies.