I don’t think so, but consider this: a great deal of disruption was thought to have been caused by rapidly falling farm prices in the late 1920s and into the 1930s. Indeed, most of the horrible things done by FDR’s first New Deal involved gruesome attempts to raise farm prices amidst massive unemployment (unlike anything we see today) and lots of hungry people.
It is well understood that during the 1930s America was undergoing a transition away from small-scale farms and toward larger, capital-intensive farms. This change was brought about by improvements in farm technology, aided by technologies outside of farming that allowed people to make a good living elsewhere. However, consider one thing that kept farm incomes high until the 1920s – draft animals.
It takes a lot of land and food to feed a single horse. It is estimated that it takes about 5 acres of oats to feed a single horse for a year. That was enough land to feed a family of eight people. Horses and oxen were the prime movers of carriages until the early 20th century – until Mr. Ford figured out a way to deliver internal combustion powered cars to the masses. With the rise of cars came the end of horses and oxen. Thus, Henry Ford is in no small way responsible for a reduction in demand for oats and other feedstocks, which had to put downward pressure on farm prices and farm-land prices.
Is this why the Great Depression happened? No. But it had to be a small part of it. And on another note, it is not entirely obvious to me why a decrease in demand for various grains by draft animals HAS to result in farmers being worse off. If the rise of the automobile and related industries made us richer, would we not expect to see a corresponding income effect raise the demand for different (and better) farm products? Why did this not happen? Or did it?