It really depends. Last year under the farm program, most of the plains states (South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa) were encouraged to increase their corn base (percentage of crops grown per year). This affects not only subsidies but other farm business as well (like crop insurance). Farm bases are not adjusted every year or even every farm bill, so if ethanol is cut then many farmers are going to be hurt.
It is easy to say ‘conservatives shouldn’t support subsidies’ but reality is much more complicated (and only farmers really understand this - sorry). As a farmer, I am of two minds. I oppose price controls in general, and I object to welfare being part of the farm bill. But I also understand the history of it (subsidies were to help keep farmers afloat and the excess product bought was given to the poor - now it is cash funds not product which I object to).
The other side, is subsidies overall help the larger farms, and some do abuse the system but it does keep smaller farms like my tenants (I no longer drive the tractor but either sharecrop or cash rent the land) going and keeps the monopoly farms from taking over a lot of the family farms.
Actually, subsidies hurt recipients, too. There was a great piece on this topic at the website of the foundation for economic education (I think that was the name, can’t find the piece now).
Why do subsidies hurt recipients? Because it prevents them from seeing their mistakes. They continue to make bad decisions because there is no correction. It’s rather like what would happen if you couldn’t feel pain. Sounds great, but then you wouldn’t know when you touched a hot burner.
The free market is the only thing that works. Everything the government does to tinker with that hurts everyone.