But presumably we're talking about land that specifically can produce the 200bu of corn and 60bu of soybeans the the parent specified? There is most certainly cheaper land around, even locally, if you are willing to accept less production ability, but there is good reason why that land is cheaper.

The average corn yield in the US is 160 bu/acre and 49 bu/acre for soybeans, so it seems that the average land is not capable of delivering. Not to mention that there is land that wouldn't even be worth trying to grow corn and soybeans on, which would drag the average down even further if you tried.

The thing is, agriculture fertility is not the only factor in rural land price these days -- I've heard ala the linked article that investing in land for hedging / portfolio diversity purposes is popular. It's also no surprise to hear that more aesthetically attractive rural areas will fetch a premium (I would seriously doubt the area around the Grand Tetons region is just $450 an acre for instance; the linked article suggests as much).