At one point during the development of California agriculture, there was an idea that farms should only be 160 acres in size, since that was what was manageable and profitable for a smallholder family. I wonder what the land would be like if we had managed to enforce that. There would probably be more crop diversity at least, and habitats in between the farms.
Kind of like anti-trust enforcement for the land itself
It could have just as easily driven innovation towards efficiently working those kinds of plots, reduced topsoil loss and degradation (reducing fertilizer costs), reduced requirements for pesticides (lower costs again), and improved yields driving down prices.
Especially now with accelerating agri-robotics developments, mid-sized farms like that can take best advantage.
That kind of comment shows that you are using zero knowledge of growing, farming, or that complexities of soil chemistry and soil biology even exist. Not helpful. If you have some such actual knowledge, show some. Sheesh.
There is certainly more I could learn about soil chemistry and biology. Jaut like there seems to be plenty more you could learn about basic economics and market psychology.
Kind of like anti-trust enforcement for the land itself