The issue with small farms is that they can keep their owners affluent but incapable of producing enough output to feed the entire population of the country. This is the cause of repeated famines in Russian Empire and the continuing pattern in early USSR (1920s-1930s), and it is the combining of small plots that eliminated famines in the 1930s.
If we look at the current structure (and I’m not an expert, but I found what seems to be a good reference)
https://rujec.org/article/49746/
we see
well, it is the Krasnodar area that has most of the large farm and also produces most of the food!
(and of course the reason is because in most areas even large farms cannot be efficient — the land is horrible.)
So... in terms of number of farms — surely there are more small ones. In terms of feeding the population and allowing exports -— they are less important.
But in terms of the number of farms (and likely the number of people employed), then yes, you are correct. Another quote:
>> The issue with small farms is that they can keep their owners affluent but incapable of producing enough output to feed the entire population of the country. This is the cause of repeated famines in Russian Empire and the continuing pattern in early USSR (1920s-1930s), and it is the combining of small plots that eliminated famines in the 1930s.<<
What Stalinist apologist are you getting your information from? Farm collectivization caused unbelievably horrible famines in the 1930s! Meanwhile, exactly the OPPOSITE of what you say: Family food plots take up only 3% of the farm acreage, but 40% of the food production. That means that they are TWENTY times more productive than collective farms.
https://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Europe/Russia-AGRICULTURE.html