What? You are saying government subsidizes not actually being able to make a living is why farmers do what they do?
Yes? I think? Your sentence structure is painful to read. This would (probably) be better: Corn and soybean farmers only make a profit when the government sends them a check. Many of these farmers are multi-millionaires. So, they're doing it to make money, even though their product sells for less than it costs to produce. There are lots of economic reasons why this exists.
My interest is based on land use policy, not subsidies per se. Since the government is already providing massive subsidies to farms for producing food, supporting better farming practices seems like a good way to reduce emissions. Climate experts have shown data that incremental changes in land use policy - less tilling, improved fertilizer usage, rotational crops, avoidance of monoculture, rotational grazing etc. - can reduce methane emissions. We should do this, but we don't because politicians have to win in Iowa before they can be President.