Wickard v. Filburn said that the government can interfere with you staying out of the marketplace, based on the commerce clause. Filburn was ordered to destroy crops and pay a fine for growing 23 acres of wheat when the government told him he could only grow 11. The Supreme Court upheld that action as a legitimate government power to regulate interstate commerce. Mr. Filburn's wheat never left HIS farm. Thus this decision was the government telling you how to run your personal affairs, using the regulation of commerce as an excuse. Wickard presumably grew about 400 bushels of wheat. That is an entirely personal matter.
It is a pernicious overreach, and repealing it will reduce government interference in all sorts of things. Wickard has led to all manner of regulatory monstrosities, and is the bogus underpinning for Obamacare. In the case of Filburn himself, the government was enforcing inefficiency, waste, and hostility to the small operator, by telling Filburn that if he wanted to feed his chickens he would have to purchase the feed rather that grow it himself. Even if this contributed positively to America's agricultural productivity, which I doubt, it probably also contributed to the death of the family farm.