The studies I have seen on this issue lump together all different types of farms/crops/livestock. They also don't analyze the differences in management ability or the correlation/causation between farm size, land title, level of management skill and farm yields and returns on investment. I believe this is a major gap in the research.
I'm of the opinion that size of farm is not the primary causal factor in performance. Things such as management skill, knowledge and implementation of good agricultural practices, access to finance, high quality seeds, appropriate levels of fertilizer, and irrigation are much more important. With all of those things, a small farm can be just as productive as a large farm. However, and I think this is a key point, I believe that the correlation is highly positive between farm size and the availability of management skill, knowledge, access to finance, seeds, fertilizer, irrigation, etc. As a result, I think that typically larger farms have higher yields per hectare cultivated than small farms (less than 5 hectares) for a given crop.
However, I think the scale economies vary based on crop as well. It is probably much more likely that there are significant scale economies for maize, wheat, soybeans, etc. than for tomatoes and other high-value, fragile vegetables.
So, to me, the answer to this age-old question of whether large or small-scale farms are best depends on the professionalism and resources of the farmer and the type of crop/livestock he/she is operating. There is probably not a one-size-fits-all answer to this question.
It also depends on what we are trying to optimize. Are we trying to optimize yield/hectare, return on investment, return on labor, intensity of utilization of land, utilization of labor, total production of ag commodities, etc.? Each of these might yield a somewhat different answer regarding whether we should have large or small farms.
The studies I have seen on this issue lump together all different types of farms/crops/livestock. They also don't analyze the differences in management ability or the correlation/causation between farm size, land title, level of management skill and farm yields and returns on investment. I believe this is a major gap in the research.
I'm of the opinion that size of farm is not the primary causal factor in performance. Things such as management skill, knowledge and implementation of good agricultural practices, access to finance, high quality seeds, appropriate levels of fertilizer, and irrigation are much more important. With all of those things, a small farm can be just as productive as a large farm. However, and I think this is a key point, I believe that the correlation is highly positive between farm size and the availability of management skill, knowledge, access to finance, seeds, fertilizer, irrigation, etc. As a result, I think that typically larger farms have higher yields per hectare cultivated than small farms (less than 5 hectares) for a given crop.
However, I think the scale economies vary based on crop as well. It is probably much more likely that there are significant scale economies for maize, wheat, soybeans, etc. than for tomatoes and other high-value, fragile vegetables.
So, to me, the answer to this age-old question of whether large or small-scale farms are best depends on the professionalism and resources of the farmer and the type of crop/livestock he/she is operating. There is probably not a one-size-fits-all answer to this question.
It also depends on what we are trying to optimize. Are we trying to optimize yield/hectare, return on investment, return on labor, intensity of utilization of land, utilization of labor, total production of ag commodities, etc.? Each of these might yield a somewhat different answer regarding whether we should have large or small farms.