This is the reverse of what I would recommend experiential research for. Daily routine etc is easier and faster to look up, or perhaps not even reference in your story. I don't think fiction readers read fiction to vicariously experience the correct use of a trowel or are dying to see how the use of the three field system over the two field system drives the plot. They look for things more exciting or thrilling, and that is what they are concerned with. You also have to make a resource allocation decision, is the routine of the farm important enough to the story to invest a couple of years in? Probably not. But if that is what is going to drive your series...go for it!
As I wrote above to Malik, I think there are two approaches to thinking about "experiential research." The subconscious/unconscious "research" we gain while living our lives, and the sort that is more directed, i.e., a conscious decision to experience something while doing research for a project.
I agree, allocation of time while considering what is necessary for a story seems to be key.
As for daily routine on a farm, etc....I actually think it's all those tiny details that a) add texture, depth, or the feeling of texture and depth for a reader, and b) are often the most difficult or troublesome part of writing. I can write dialogue and action easily enough; but avoiding the proverbial "white room" approach becomes more difficult when I don't have a clear idea of those tiny details of the environment and activities that are basic to the milieu. What else are people doing as they are conversing? For example, for an important one-on-one on a farm while waiting for word on their next plot-significant action: What's the owner of that farm doing while the MC speaks with him; what's the environment?