I am assuming a functioning market for farmland. As I have observed over several decades, and my father and grandfather observed for much longer, the market for

I am assuming a functioning market for farmland. As I have observed over several decades, and my father and grandfather observed for much longer, the market for farmland is brutally efficient. (Insufficiently-regulated monopsonies arrange society so that their inputs are as cheap as possible.) Lots of rural land lies fallow, and much of that has ruined some poor farmer who tried to grow or graze ground that wouldn't pay him back. My point is just that while we can draw that conclusion about empty fallow ground, we can't draw it about ground that currently sees more remunerative use than farming. I don't think we can really know anything for sure about point 2 for hypothetical internet discussion agricultural ground. It is probably true that some land has been so damaged, but it is also possible for farmer B to have better results than farmer A on the same land. This is possible even if they are in some sense equally skilled and capitalized. It doesn't rain the same every year...