"The unfortunate truth is that we have so heavily subsidized and centralized food production that anyone focusing on biodiversity, sustainability, or even anima

"The unfortunate truth is that we have so heavily subsidized and centralized food production that anyone focusing on biodiversity, sustainability, or even animal welfare can compete economically." ...Compete... With what? I don't understand what you're saying. Farms can't compete with farms? To me it seems such a statement's validity would vary wildly because the value of land relative to intentions for agriculture or conservation, is dependent on geography. It's not as though all areas receive the same subsidies or even need them. Nor do we know what subsidies or amounts are even being discussed. The whole statement just seems vague and undefined to me. Say we're discussing private real estate in the context of agriculture & ecology-- Focusing on biodiversity, for example, has a much different ROI and perspective on that ROI, on the boundaries of a national park vs in a suburban neighborhood.