253. The Future of Family Farms: Navigating Generational Changes

Posted on November 26, 2025 by Christophe Pelletier

Listen here to a Chrome AI-generated podcast type playback of the author’s article

The concept of family farm plays an important role in the perception of agriculture. Consumers definitely like the idea of a small family-run farm. It gives them a feeling of things well-cared for, and they relate better with such operations because they feel it still has the human scale they feel has disappeared in all sectors of life. Governments and industry are also rather adamant to maintain the family status of farms, as it resonates with the general public. With the many changes ahead, what future will family farms face?

A turn of generations

In most parts of the world, farmers are getting old, in their high 50’s. In many countries, the current generation of farmers is expected to retire within a decade. A number that is often mentioned is that about 50% of farmers will reach retirement age in 10 years from now, in 2035. Here in Canada, I have even read the number of 40% within 5 years.

Of course, this presents a major challenge. Replacement is needed. The question is who will and who can take over the farms. Perhaps, the most difficult challenge for new farmers is to be able to buy a farm. Agricultural land prices have increased strongly over the past two decades and farms have become unaffordable to many farming candidates. One of the reasons behind the price increase is that agricultural land is now seen as an investment by people who have no connection or activity in agriculture. Aspiring farmers cannot compete with Big Money. Then, what is left to them?

Of course, one must buy only what one can afford. This could mean that new farmers might have to settle for less land, but can it be economically viable? The type of ownership -and owner- might also bring a new type of farming structure. There will be land owners who farm. Others will not farm the land themselves. The ones working the land might not be owners, but rent the land. It is easy to imagine all sorts of constructions between ownership and actual physical farming depending on how the money flows. As such, this is not new. In all times, there have been large land owners who would not do much of the actual work. There also always have been people farming the land based on a lease contract, or remunerated on what they produce from the land they work. The difference now is that the turn of generations also comes together with the end of the farming family that established the farm.

For very long, farms have been transmitted from parents to children. This is not going to be quite the case in the future. Many farmers’ children have chosen different career paths. They are simply not attracted by the farming life, for various reasons. They have decided to leave agriculture and have a life somewhere else. In many cases, this leaves the parents with no successor. On the other hand, a substantial number of aspiring farmers are not from farming families. They come from the cities, but they want to get into agriculture, also for various reasons. The question that comes now is: how to organize the succession? And that is not an easy process, especially from a psychological point of view.

A difficult transition?

For farmers, especially those who come from families who have owned the farm for generations, this feels like an end. Often, the idea of accepting to pass the farm on to a total stranger is not easy. From numbers I have seen in Canada, it appears that initiating a succession process is something that the men rarely do. The farmers’ wives are the ones who generally start the process. Let’s face it, letting go of a farm is a heavily emotionally loaded moment. For potential buyers, the main problem is of a different nature. The most important for them is to have a solid project. That is not easy, either.

Depending on all the different situations, many outcomes are possible for how farm ownership will look like in the future. What will the new farmers be looking for? They can choose for a smaller size and focus on niche high-margin productions. But they also can choose for large efficient commodity farms if they can finance the purchase, unless they would do that as tenants paying a rent to the non-farming owner. Everything is possible. What matters the most for the future is that farmers make a decent living out of agriculture. That has always been a challenge everywhere in the world, and it has always been a challenge at any time in history. Economic viability will determine what the farms of the future will look like and what they will produce. Future business models will be key. Of course, another question that may arise is whether all the farmland that is to change hands will find a farmer. If not, what happens to the land, and what happens to production volumes?

What is a family farm and its future?

The discussion of the farm size is going to happen, one way or another. Just for illustration, here are some statistics from the USDA / National Agricultural Statistics Service: in 2022, family farms represented 95% of all US farms. Small family farms made up 85 % of all farms. They represented 39 % of the farmland and accounted for only 14 % of the value of agricultural products sold. Midsize family farms represented 6 % of farms and produced 16 % of total agricultural value. Large-scale family farms, though only 4 % of the total, generated 51 % of the value of all agricultural products.

Non-family farms represented just 5% of all farms but accounted for 19% of the value of agricultural products, so more than all 85% small family farms together. This shows another reality of agriculture, which is that the lion’s share of agricultural production comes from a minority of farms. If farms become too expensive for individuals, could it mean that the share of non-family farms will increase in the future, as being on a payroll would be an attractive alternative for aspiring farmers?

The general public may love the idea of small family farms but to feed the world, large farms play an essential role. My point is not to say whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. Reality is just reality. If we want to solve challenges for a successful future, we must not delude ourselves in a romanticized idea of agriculture, but we must make sure that agriculture does a proper work to keep doing what it is supposed to do. I have a video on YouTube in which I discuss whether the farm size matters or not. In my opinion, size does not matter, and neither should the type of ownership. What truly matters is that, regardless of size or ownership, farmers do a good job. Skills and ongoing training are essential. Of course that includes quantitative aspects (volumes, yields, etc.) but also qualitative aspects, such as minimal environmental impact (all human activities have an impact) and sustainability.

Further, what is a family farm really? As I mentioned in the introduction, everybody is a strong supporter of family-owned farms, but the reality is a bit more complex than just who owns the land and the buildings. Family-owned does not necessarily mean independent. It is not the same thing. I know that this is a sensitive topic, especially considering the difference in size between farms and their business partners. It feels like David vs. Goliath. The romantic idea of the farmer holding an ear of wheat in his mouth, happily living off the land without pressures from the rest of the world is a nice one but, once again, reality is different. A farm cannot be isolated from the production and supply chains. These chains are quite sophisticated in their organization to ensure that products find their way to the consumers because, well, that is the purpose.

The farm may be owned by the farmer but it also says nothing about all the contractual relationships that exist between the farmers and the other players in that chain. This might become even more prevalent in the future, as some agribusiness companies are already looking at helping young farmers to get in the saddle. Making sure that there will be farmers in the future is quite essential for the rest of the value chain partners. Without farmers, they do not have a business. That said, the help will not be without conditions. Future farmers who can get in the business will likely be bound contractually with the company that provided the support in the first place. it would be unlikely that businesses would bring financial support to see those farmers go to a competitor.

What the future will bring for family farms will depend greatly on government policies. What will be their idea of their respective agricultures? How do they see the future of their rural areas? What role will they want for their agricultures to play in their economies and in geopolitics, or just politics? These are some of the many questions that will have to receive answers and the place of family farms will depend on the answers.

Next week: Animal-plant hybrid products: compromise or demise?

247. The Key to Successful Tech in Agriculture: Meet Farmers’ Needs

Posted on October 23, 2025 by Christophe Pelletier

Listen here to a Chrome AI-generated podcast type playback of the author’s article

A recurrent complaint I hear in the agricultural sector is how slow and difficult it seems to have farmers embrace new technologies. Most of the time, it sounds more like a reproach than anything else, as if there was something wrong with farmers to be so reluctant. I do not agree with that thinking. To me, the main reason why some technologies have a hard time gaining the support of farmers is simply because they do not meet their needs.

I was recently viewing an old video from Steve Jobs. Basically, what he said was that if you want people to adopt a new product, you must first look at the customer’s experience and then work backwards to build the right product for them. He was also lamenting that too often, tech companies think because they have a product that is a technological beauty, the world should just adopt it. Of course it does not work this way, and certainly not in the agriculture sector. I believe a lot of technology developers should find inspiration in Steve Jobs’s statement.

In my work, I get contacted from time to time by venture capital firms who would like me to invest. Usually, with three to five questions, I know whether it is an interesting proposal. Sometimes, I already know after my first question. So far, none of the companies offered to me have survived. Some lasted a couple of years, but all failed for the exact same reasons as I will describe further in this article. This is the reason why I offer my “Second Opinion” in my services.

I recently had the opportunity (or the misfortune I should say) to attend a rather painful presentation from a venture capital operative, supposedly expert in agtech and in artificial intelligence of lately, as many claim to be. Of course, he was to complain about how slow the agriculture sector is to adopt new technologies with the same kind of criticism about farmers as I have mentioned above. The irony here was that he did a terrible job at demonstrating any added value. If this is the way the tech sector tries to sell itself to farmers, it should be no surprise that adoption will be slow.

Farmers do adopt new technologies. They do. A lot. Anyone who has actively worked in the agricultural sector with farmers and visited farms over the past decades will tell you how many things have changed on farms. Just think of GPS, satellite imagery, sensors, drones, computer vision, robots, unmanned vehicles and so on.The transformation has been amazing. They will tell you how many new tools and new technologies they have adopted and integrated in their daily work. Farmers adopt novelties, but not because it is trendy or fashionable. No, they adopt the tools that actually add value to them. Farmers are quite keen on technology. They are just not keen on snake oil. They are busy people. They have a gazillion things to take care of and their time is precious, just as well as their money. Unlike many people gravitating around agriculture, they do not have the luxury to waste time with something that is not ready.

Farmers are the perfect illustration of what Steve Jobs said. If you want farmers to adopt a product or a technology, you’d better make sure it answers an actual need and that what you offer is foolproof. Farming is a business and as such a tool must make the business better. Better can mean faster, it can mean physically easier or it can mean making better decisions and many other things depending of what the tool is about. In the end better is about having better technical and financial results without additional headaches on top of those that Nature and markets send on a regular basis. To adopt a new tool, farmers want it to save them time, otherwise what is the point? They want it to be cost-effective, otherwise what would be the point of replacing an existing trusted and reliable tool. And thirdly, farmers want peace of mind. They do not want to end up spending time to figure out how the tool works or to have to call customer support for troubleshooting all the time.

So yes, the customer experience comes first. And that is what I always insist on, and have done so since I started The Food Futurist. Innovation must be market-driven. I can imagine that in the early stages, the tech geeks need to build prototypes but then, and as soon as possible, they must team up with users to review what is useful and what is not and develop a product that meets exactly their needs. A great frustration of mine is that farmers are not involved enough in the early stages. As Steve Jobs said, the tech people build something exciting but too often try to push it. If it does not fit, there is only one result: slow adoption or just plain rejection.

There is a picture I like to show to describe what market-driven and results-oriented innovation is. It is one of these kids toys with shapes that have to pass through holes of various shapes. With innovation, it is the same game. If the farmer has a square problem, trying to push a triangular solution, even it is the most beautiful triangle ever, just does not work. Actually, it creates only frustration. If the farmer has a square problem, the solution must be square, too. That is the only way it will fit and that the farmer will adopt it.

I also see an important role for the agriculture sector: they have to say out loud what kind of problems they have and what solutions they need. If it is square, say you want a square solution. If it is star-shaped, say you want a star-shaped solution. That way, the tech geeks, who really love to build things, will also know early enough on what they must work. It will save time and money. It will strongly increase the chances of adoption, which is a win-win for both farmers and tech companies, and it will help improve agriculture faster and better.

Who will be the farmers of the future?

Posted on November 11, 2009 by Christophe Pelletier

While most of the discussions about the future of agriculture and food tend to focus about how to feed 9 billion people, and about whether it should be organic or industrial, one question seems to be left aside, though it is a very important one: who will be the farmers.

If the forecast of the UN is correct and by 2050 when we are 9 billion, 70% of the people will live in cities, while today this number is only 47%, this means that in fact the rural population will decrease by about 25% from the current numbers (2.7 billion vs. 3.6 billion today). This means that there will be a lot less farmers in the future.

Farmer of the future So, who will they be and where will they be?

A lot of the good agricultural land is in the Northern hemisphere, and in areas where not only the population numbers are stagnating, but these are regions where the average age of the population is increasing from an already rather high level of about 50% of the population older than 37. These regions, North America, Western Europe and Eastern Europe are not likely the countries where we can expect a surge in urban population. This will happen mostly in Africa, Asia and Arab countries.

These Northern hemisphere countries already have large commercial farming structures and, unless they train many new farmers, the concentration trend is likely to continue, meaning even less farms, and larger farms than today.

In countries where the agriculture infrastructure is more fragmented and farms are smaller, which are the countries where the urban population is going to increase the most, there clearly is a need to rationalize production and increase yields to feed this new population that will have very little possibilities to grow food where they live. This means a “revolution” in the way agriculture will have to be organized and structured. Asia and South America have already engaged in this process for a few decades, yet depending on the countries they will face different challenges, mostly about access to water and ensuring the sustainability of their environment.

The continent where agriculture has stayed the most traditional is Africa, where a large share of the land is used for subsistence. Many African countries have struggled for years with poor policies and a lack of investment to help a proper development. This has resulted in lower yields over time. As such, this also means that Africa is the continent with the highest potential for improvement, although this would have to be managed very carefully, as climatic and socio-cultural conditions are very sensitive.

Therefore, we can conclude that in the future, not only will we have fewer farmers, meaning fewer farms, but also in the same time, we will need to increase production and train a new generation. All of this will require a fair amount of capital that many farmers alone cannot afford, especially considering how their income situation usually is.

This will be no surprise to see more capital coming from large corporations, investors and governments. This is already happening in Africa with the land purchases and leases, and we can expect his to happen. There is a huge (rather captive) market where demand probably is going to outpace supply, and there is a lot of capital waiting to enter markets where money can be made in trade activities.

Farmers wanted!