Taken from Nicholas Vrousalis' book "Exploitation as Domination"

"There are a thousand peasants who own the means of production collectively. These means are tantamount to 500 units of seed corn. Each peasant wants to enjoy subsistence forever and, subject to that constraint, maximize her weekly leisure. Subsistence requires consumption of one
unit of corn per week. There are two technologies, the Factory Farm and the Forest. The input–output relations are as follows:

Factory Farm : 1c 1l = 2c

Forest : 3l = 1c

In the Factory Farm, each peasant produces two units of corn, by using up one unit of seed corn and one unit of labor—say, one day a week. In the Forest, each peasant produces one unit of corn by increasing her labor input to three days a week. Roemer shows that there is a Pareto efficient and egalitarian equilibrium in this economy. In that equilibrium, each peasant spends ½ a day
working in the Farm, using up ½ units of seed corn, producing a total of 1,000 units of corn and netting ½ corn each (for a total of 500 units of corn). Then each peasant works three or two days in the Forest, receiving ½ units of corn (for a total of 500 units). In equilibrium, each peasant works for two days. Total labor time in this economy is 2,000 days."

My Naive Question:

Why don't the peasants do the following?

500 peasants take 500 Units of seed corn, work a day in the factory, and produce 1000 units of corn. Then on day 2, 250 peasants take 250 units of the corn from yesterday's yield, work a day in the factory and produce 500 units of corn. This is 1500 units of corn over two days, that means subsistence and replenishing of the initial capital stock. And this only takes 750 labor days. Presumably, they can arrange such such that each peasants works 3/4th of a day so that the labor is equally distributed. What is wrong with this picture? Or, put another way, why does the use of the forest become required at all?

Thanks in advance. I am certain I am missing something or making some trivial error.