That's not strictly true. The practice of applying the value of subsidies and applying it to retail cost of a product is bad-faith. Not saying some of these subsidies shouldn't be changed.

For example, many of these subsidies just give "Big Ag" an advantage over smaller farms, and actually lower the quality and value of meat on the shelves while raising prices (by hurting competition).

And depending on where the numbers come from, one of the "subsidies" generally included in numbers is the "lease" cost of letting animals graze on national parks. This is an incredibly complicated "subsidy" because it is a net good for the National Parks and for the environment to allow that to happen.

Finally, people generally consider "animal products purchased by government" to be a subsidy. Technically it is, but you can imagine that the army buying what it needs isn't giving an industry an unearned advantage.

Most importantly, these subsidies aren't the government giving ranchers money.

There's no question that some of these subsidies need to be changed dramatically. But you're very likely to NOT see a massive or long-term price jump when they do. (ref)

For me, I buy meat from places that don't benefit from these subsidies, and I generally pay within the range of $1 more or less per pound than stuff from "Big Ag" in my grocery store.