Yields are pretty high. Though there are many products. So you won't necessarily have high yielding corn, but you will overall have more food & materials.
The fruits tend to be more of a mixed bag that is best distributed & consumed locally.
> What would doing that for all food do to the price of food?
Note that conventional petrol agriculture is heavily subsidized. Removing the subsidy will increase the price of food. It will favor small scale, high nutrition, gardening/farming. It will reduce waste as well.
"The fruits tend to be more of a mixed bag that is best distributed & consumed locally."
Humorously, I grew up in the Texas panhandle, an area with significant agricultural production due to modern irrigation techniques. There aren't a whole lot of fruits grown there, though. The irrigation requirements would be truly ridiculous.
If you want to help poor people eat, you should give poor people money to help them eat, rather than paying farmers to make one specific type of farming easier and distorting the market to artificially favor something that's actually less efficient (and may have all sorts of crazy side effects on the rest of the world).
Favoring direct intervention to fix the actual problem should be axiomatic, really.
At this point we're producing more food in the US than we need to feed the population of the US. That's why we can divert portions of our food production to non-food products like plastic or fuel. The problem has always been and will always be making sure everyone has enough to eat, and the biggest problem there is not everyone has enough money to afford even the cheapest, nastiest food. Giving the poor more money might not be the only or even the best answer, but it is an answer.
No one in the US is starving because we can't produce enough food. People starve because their access to the food is artificially hindered. In fact, we're producing so much food the the US government pays farmers to not produce food so that prices will remain high enough to make a profit.
> The more food we can make per unit resource, the more food we have, given that resources are finite. Giving the poor more money does nothing to change that.
In the real world operating under market rules, there's not one rule that determines how much food we have. It's a function of how much you invest in the operation -- land, tractors, farm labor, irrigation, livestock feed, food processing, et cetera. People know how much food to produce and how to produce it because of PRICES. Higher food prices are encourage people to reduce food waste (by making it more expensive, making concepts like "leftovers" or "canning" more attractive) or divert resources towards producing food (e.g. by starting new farms, buying better farming equipment, or starting a garden in their backyard). It also discourages inefficient forms of feeding people by raising the price (e.g. making meat more expensive because it takes a boatload of resources to feed a cow). Lower food prices reduce the profit of farming, discouraging the over-exploitation of the land or over-investment in expensive capital like tractors.
In a subsidized environment, the real cost of things is detached from the sticker price at the supermarket. Food is still expensive, but it's not the consumer who's paying for it -- it's the taxpayer. So farms buy more heavy equipment than would naturally be efficient and burn more gasoline than is efficient, food processors waste more food than is efficient, people toss food in the trash more than is efficient, people grow rice in the California desert instead of importing it from somewhere that actually has rain, and midwestern farms destroy more prairie lands and Nature than is efficient, because why not? Taxpayers are paying for it, all crazy-indirectly, and they'd have to go through Congress and go up against big agribusiness lobbyists to get any of their money back. (Then the taxpayers find that they can't pay for other nice things they might want, because of the money going to taxes, and the economy suffers.)
By giving people who need money, money, instead of giving producers a subsidy, you avoid all that. Everyone eats, farms produce the right amount of food with a sane amount of tractors, big factory farms aren't given money that funky forest-culture farms aren't and so each style of farm prevails on its own merits, people with backyards start gardens and make preserves, et cetera.
TLDR: screw with the market's price mechanisms and you screw everything up
Postscript: This is all the fault of the FDR administration when you get down to it.
The fruits tend to be more of a mixed bag that is best distributed & consumed locally.
> What would doing that for all food do to the price of food?
Note that conventional petrol agriculture is heavily subsidized. Removing the subsidy will increase the price of food. It will favor small scale, high nutrition, gardening/farming. It will reduce waste as well.