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?

245. Is EU food and agriculture about to become a museum?

Posted on September 29, 2025 by Christophe Pelletier

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

I was speaking recently at an event in Spain and by the end of my presentation, I had a slide on which I indicated which regions I saw as the winners of the future. The title and subtitle of the slide were:

“Winners: Conquerors

Bold, ambitious and determined fighters”

Being in Spain with many Europeans in the audience, I got the question of why I did not mention the EU among the winners. Fair question, and by the way, Canada, my second country of citizenship, did not appear among the winners, either.

About the case of the EU, I shared my concerns about EU policies which I find counterproductive. Although I find the idea of a Green Deal to make agriculture more sustainable a good idea full of good intentions, I do not have the same enthusiasm about the policies and means used to achieve improvements. I find the policies too much into the ideological and dogmatic and not enough into the practical and realistic, as I mentioned some time ago in one of my YouTube videos on the subject.

As the conversation was progressing with the audience, I lamented that the future would not be for the timid and that in particular that the EU does not seem to know how to stand up to the Putins and Trumps of this world. The EU has a leadership problem. Everyone can see that every day. I went as far as to say that if the EU does not wake up soon, it will end up being a museum. Apparently, this statement had impact. It obviously created a shock, and from a few one-on-one conversations I had later, it sounded like it was a useful shock. The argument of the quality of foods from the EU and their heritage was raised and I confirmed that I, for one, always appreciate these traditional products. Since we were in Spain, I mentioned one of my all-time favorites which is the Jamón Ibérico (I truly am a total fan). Every time I am in Europe I certainly love to go shopping on markets and I love the quality of the foods that I find.

My point about the EU turning into a museum was not that I do not consider the EU as a future winner because of its quality of foods. My point was because of the policies, EU farmers and producers are less competitive and will not be able to grow. The EU market share and influence will decrease because of such policies.

And this is a huge pity because European farmers are at the top when it comes to efficiency, high technical performance, low waste and, yes, product quality. European farmers and the associated industry are actually incredibly innovative and resourceful. Unfortunately, they often do not have access to the same amount of resources or of political support as in some other regions of the world. Personally, it really hurts my feelings when I see such top farmers being bought out and leave agriculture mostly for dogmatic reasons. Just imagine a company where the Human Resource Department would systematically get rid of its top performers for reasons that have nothing to do with performance. It would be stupid, wouldn’t it? Well, truth is that such idiotic actions actually happen in some companies, but that is another story. What is the result down the road? It is a leveling down of the sector, which follows by a weakened competitive position, a loss of market share, of presence and eventually of viability. And that is exactly what I fear is going to happen to EU food and agriculture.

The original European food and agriculture policies were about food security, which made a lot of sense after the harsh time of World War II. It is a good philosophy. It must never be removed for the top priority of the EU, or of any country that wants to play an influential role. I have been thinking of whether there ever was an economic powerhouse that did not have food security, and I cannot think of any. Often, it feels like the critics of food and agriculture take food for granted and do not even understand what it takes to bring it onto tables. My advice here is simple: do not ever take food for granted and make sure that those producing it can keep doing so!

For these reasons and to be among the winners, the EU must have bold, ambitious and determined food and agriculture policies. The food and agriculture sector must be vocal about this and must force every EU politician to answer a simple question: do they want to support their farmers or do they want to set them up to fail? It is either one. I cannot be both or neither. Just that simple. Further, the EU should also distantiate itself from the UN FAO goals of all sorts, most of which are more anchored in wishful thinking and ideology than they are in pragmatic reality. Fact is that most of them are lagging and will not be met on time. It is good to have goals, but when they are not realistic or attainable, they should see it as a duty to amend them and readjust goals and timelines. Just a look at the state of the European automobile industry is enough to see the damage that wrong policies, as I describe above, can generate. That nonsense simply must not happen to EU food and agriculture.

So, how to make the EU among the winners and avoid it to become a museum? Well, a couple of principles must be applied:

The EU must produce the quantity (and quality) of food that the EU consumers need, so that there is less need for imports. A market-driven approach is key. Unfortunately, all food and agriculture policies always seem built from a production-driven angle.
EU farmers and producers must be supported by their politicians, so that they are at least as competitive as their counterparts from third countries, which would make it easier for EU buyers to choose EU products first. Saying “choose EU” or “EU has the best food in the world” has about no impact with buyers. In the end, price always plays a major role and often is the major parameter. When it comes to competition, things are very simple: those who do not have a strong competitive position will lose. Like it or not, that is the way it is. And it is even more so with undifferentiated commodities for markets such as foodservice and processing industry for which the product is only an ingredient. For niches such as traditional products or regional specialties, it is possible for producers to protect their turf better, but such niches are not the lion’s share of consumption. Such niches will make a great museum, but what about the bulk of the EU market?

Nonetheless, there might be a silver lining about some of the policies. For example, The Netherlands have struggled with their nitrogen emissions reduction policies. After spending a few years persisting in error and wasting several billions of Euros with no result by buying out farmers and for those who could continue trying to force them into a rigid frame of rules telling them what is allowed and what is not, policymakers are rethinking the approach. Of course, anyone who understands farming knows that such rigid frames based on dos and don’ts simply do not work because agriculture is the opposite of rigid. It constantly faces changes, fluctuations and unexpected events. The Dutch farmers knew that. They wanted a more pragmatic and feasible approach, and opposed the policies but to no avail. Personally, I find essential to involve farmers to work on solutions fir a better agriculture. That was the topic of another video of mine. Farmers know the work. They know what works and what does not. Yet and too often, policymakers do not seem al that interested in listening to their input. That is a mistake.

In The Netherlands, the approach is now changing. Instead of imposing a script, the government now wants to focus on goals of nitrogen emissions reduction and leave it up to farmers to decide how they want to achieve the goals in the most effective manner. They will have to show progress and depending on the results might have to take corrective action if needed. To me, this makes sense. It is about results and that is all that matters. The how is secondary. Now, the thing is that elections are coming next month in The Netherlands and, depending on who wins, the new policies might be abandoned. We will see.