You're missing a really big point.
Couple of big points.
(1) Climate and weather and local growing conditions vary considerably from one place to another. While trees may be optimum in one location, field crops may be a much better choice in another location.
(2) Your analysis completely omits adequate economic modelling, that any prospective farmer would do before determining what to grow.
What specific labor and machinery required for one crop versus another. Do I have access to that machinery or labor. Soil and cultivation requirements. Weather factors. How much water it needs and do I have access to that much water. How long it takes the crop to mature. How many crops per year can I grow on my land. How harvested. Other operations required post-harvest? Potential markets for the crops. Pest problems and if any, how controlled.
Bottom line of this very complicated equation: how much profit in it?
Most farmers are not going to wait 50 years for a crop to mature. Depending on what part of the country you're in, timber may be the best crop. Other places, field crops will be the choice.
You keep pushing your ideas without adequate modelling to support your thesis. It makes you look really, REALLY dumb.