Almost always, the large scape producer can get more advantage from new technology than the small-scale producer can. Even if it were possible to skew research to help the producer with 10 acres more than the one with 100 acres, the big scale operator could just split his operation into 10 parts and replicate 10 times. The small farmer grows different crops and different types of livestock, and direct markets the product to niche markets. When you add vertical integration, processing, and manufacturing, any small farmer can compete with any large farmer. I am always amused that so many university employees seem puzzled when the people of their state do not grant them increased support in tax dollars.
New technology is more beneficial to high-quality inputs.
Likewise, new technology will have a high payoff more on good bottomland than on Missouri hills. Volume of corn produced has nothing to do with quality, only quantity. I believe that if the new technology was for small fruit and fruit trees, it would have a much better payoff in the Missouri hills than on that good bottomland, where they may suffer frost damage. You can't grow corn and beans on every acre of a state, and I don't know why anyone would want to. Any technology must be applied to its best effect.