You need to read what wasn’t said.
As soon as the subsidies were removed the farmers started to innovate. What wasn’t said is that the subsidies had caused production to stagnate. Government subsidies cause stagnation. Your hypothetical scenario is more likely when there is government subsidies, not the other way around.
The article also points out that the farmers are now more EFFICIENT (the article says “produce what people really wanted”). What wasn’t said was that subsidies are inherently INEFFICIENT. Farmers now respond better to fluctuations in demand than they did while on subsidies. So again, your scenario is more likely under government subsidies.
Finally the core of what you are asking is centralized planning which we know doesn’t work. But we do know you mean well ... comrade ;)
The reasons for me addressing this was four fold.
I don’t want family farmers brought under more pressure by yanking land bank supports. Family farms are something I care a lot about.
I don’t want our food production to take off so that each farm product is worth so little they can’t get paid enough to cover their costs.
I don’t want to see more farmers driven off their farms, and the food supply to be impacted negatively.
I do want to avoid situations like this.