Be careful what you wish for. You're basically buying compliance with the status quo with those subsidies and rule structures that stomp out the little guy (not just in farming but in manufacturing too).
If the hand ain't feeding these people they have no reason not to bite it, though with the way elections are going these days maybe the gig is already up.
On the contrary, you have to directly subsidize the "little guy" because they are unprofitable otherwise vs scale, but their value is such that you have to tip the scales with subsidies to enable their ongoing existence. You're internalizing the positive value not otherwise captured. Existing subsidy structures are what have encouraged "get big or get out" [1] in ag, hence the need to transform those subsidy structures to encourage supply chain resiliency and reserved capacity, at the cost of efficiency and scale. The last administration was making progress on this (without the subsidies I mention) [2].
Progress to improve systems of this scale takes time, and many will be unhappy with how long progress takes. Can you convince the electorate to keep voting for you while you try to fix it because it'll be worth the wait? Based on the evidence and the latest election cycle, I would say no after a preponderance of said evidence.
I'm saying that those subsidy structures are what give the federal government's tentacles a good grip on anything in the flyover states. If you have an interest in micro managing these people (which you clearly do) then it is in your interest that the grip remain tight.
It's really easy for you to keep ten BiCo's from dumping hazmat, over using fertilizer, running emissions noncompliant tractors, using illegal labor, etc, etc. It is much harder, much more expensive and much more politically messy to enforce your will to an equal degree upon say, a thousand medium and small businesses. And doubly so if the bigCos are dependent upon a bunch of paper pushing and box checking to qualify for subsidy in order to be profitable at all and the medium and small businesses aren't.
So if you have strong opinions about the exact details of how the beans are farmed (or whatever, the beans are metaphorical) it's in your interest to keep these agricultural economies dominated by big business and on the government teat.
How do you suggest providing the necessary support to otherwise unprofitable, distributed agricultural operations without creating the relationship you mention? I admit the federal government has incentive to potentially micromanage, and in some cases, they probably should (PFAS contaminated sludge as fertilizer comes to mind, which has contaminated tens of millions of acres of farmland in the US). A balance must be struck between fiscal policy and recipient compliance to (hopefully reasonable and data driven) ag policy imho.
If the hand ain't feeding these people they have no reason not to bite it, though with the way elections are going these days maybe the gig is already up.