WASHINGTON - The biggest American farmers received 71 percent of U.S. farm subsidies since 1995, environmentalists said on Tuesday in a report that could fuel the fight in Congress for tighter limits on farm supports.

The Environmental Working Group study showed that 71 percent of payments went to the biggest farmers -- far higher than the belief among agricultural experts that large farmers received about two-thirds of the money. Large operators often control thousands of acres and account for a large part of crop and livestock output.

Activists say mammoth payments to large operators gives them the cash to out-bid their smaller neighbors for land and equipment. The result is higher operating costs, they say, but no improvement in farm income.

According to the Environmental Working Group, the top 10 percent of U.S. growers collected an average $278,932 a year. Their share of payments steadily grew from 1995, when the elite group of farmers got 55 percent of government payments.

Billions of dollars are funneled to American grain, cotton and soybean growers each year. Farmers and ranchers also receive federal money to idle environmentally sensitive land or to control manure run-off from fields and feedlots.

"The ability of the family farmer to survive and make a living is plummeting," said Chuck Hassebrook of the Center for Rural Affairs in Walthill, Nebraska. "Farm programs are doing as much to subsidize large farmers as to drive smaller farmers out of business."

Iowa Republican Charles Grassley planned to ask for a Senate vote in coming weeks for a "hard" cap on farm subsidies, now set at $360,000 a year but easily circumvented. An aide said Grassley wanted a limit in the range of $275,000-$300,000 that would end ways to exceed the limit.

"It's not surprising to me that concentration is increasing," Grassley told Reuters. "Hopefully this information will prove it's time to act and enact legitimate, reasonable payment limits."

The Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based activist organization, released its report as the World Trade Organization was meeting in Mexico to discuss how to cut farm subsidies in rich nations, which spend a combined $300 billion annually on their growers.

The United States maintains its farm subsidies of about $18.7 billion this fiscal year fall within the WTO rules.

The Environmental Working Group study showed that 71 percent of payments went to the biggest farmers -- far higher than the belief among agricultural experts that large farmers received about two-thirds of the money. Large operators often control thousands of acres and account for a large part of crop and livestock output.

Environmental Working Group said the higher figure became apparent when it totaled payments for the eight years at $114 billion and divided for the 2.8 million recipients.

"Payments are more concentrated over the eight-year period than for individual years because the largest recipients tend to receive payments every year," it said in its report.

Riceland Foods Inc., a 9,000-member cooperative in Arkansas, was the largest subsidy recipient in 2002 with $110 million.

The subsidy list indirectly included Bernard Ebbers, the former chief executive of telephone company WorldCom, which filed the largest bankruptcy case in history last year. Ebbers was part-owner of Joshua Timber Co. LLC, which got $44,761 since 1995, mostly for land conservation. Ebbers was not shown as receiving money directly.

"We're not suggesting big is bad," said Ken Cook, head of Environmental Working Group. He argues that land stewardship programs should get 25 percent of farm subsidy money -- a much larger share than now allotted. Stewardship money is spread far more evenly than crop subsidies, he said, and is available to all farmers, not just those growing wheat, corn, barley, cotton, rice and oilseeds such as soybeans.

Environmental Working Group said it would make its figures, based on U.S. Agriculture Department records, available on the Internet at http://www.ewg.org/farm2/home.php

Copyright 2003 Reuters Ltd

###