Where I live, the land is hilly and rocky. Cattle is the main industry, a good percentage is suitable for hay, as well as some timberlands. It's not worth a whole lot, buy even if it's left unimproved, it just keeps going up. People here, measure their wealth by the amount of land they have. There's just something about land that is real. I guess that's why they call it real estate. You can't drive a truck or tractor across an electronic portfolio. If I ever make it big, I plan on having a spread, just so I can seek solitude, and have it for ego reasons. Of course, it wouldn't make sense to just own unused land in a highly taxed region. And you must consider that governments aren't permanent.
Land is a great disaster hedge, especially if you have a tenant farmer who you get along with, or have farming skills yourself. Even in WWI and WWII, where stocks and bonds often went to effectively zero in conquered territories, currencies collapsed, and real estate was bombed or confiscated, actual land was pretty darn secure. There's also the psychic value of owning your own land, a bit like owning your own home. However, as a way to play a sectoral boom, direct physical investment is not good unless you can get great terms, or are a skilled "hands on" businessman. Since that is about 1% of the population, the rest should just buy agriculture ETFs, ag stocks stocks, and/or grain futures if they want to speculate on it. Finally, having most of your wealth in land is insane IMO. Right now because farming is booming, you'll be fine. But that's just being a lucky fool. What if land prices fell 70%? There goes your retirement. No single asset class should be more than 50-60% of a retirement portfolio - especially not an illiquid one like land.