Marcus Ellington | 2026.09.08
https://www.agrolatam.com/amp/farmers-generative-ai-agtech-adoption-2026/
Farmers are adopting generative artificial intelligence at a rapid pace, with 17% now using the technology for farm-related tasks, according to McKinsey & Company’s Global Farmer Insights 2026 report released Tuesday, September 8. Based on a survey of 5,500 farmers, the findings show AI advancing as growers search for practical, relatively accessible tools to support daily decisions after several years of squeezed margins. The shift matters for U.S. agriculture because North America is among the leading regions for adoption, even as producers remain cautious about capital spending on machinery, fertilizer and other expensive inputs.
The numbers reveal an important distinction between experimenting with AI and paying for it. Globally, 17% of surveyed farmers use generative AI for agricultural tasks, but only 4% pay for AI tools, while 12% use free versions, with rounding accounting for the difference in the total. North America stands out: 23% report using Gen AI, including 10% who pay for tools and 13% who use free options. Latin America has the highest overall adoption at 26%, followed by North America, Europe at 13% and Asia at 7%. That pattern suggests farmers are willing to test technologies that can be deployed without the major upfront investment required for hardware.
The adoption is occurring against a difficult economic backdrop. McKinsey found that farmer profitability peaked in 2021-22, while fertilizer, energy, labor, equipment and financing costs have remained high or volatile. Commodity prices have also come under pressure as relatively strong yields increased supplies. Farmers are responding by conserving cash, delaying purchases where possible and demanding a clearer short-term return before committing capital. Globally, net spending sentiment fell 24 percentage points compared with 2024, illustrating how selective growers have become even as they remain open to innovations that can demonstrate practical value.
That caution is particularly visible in fertilizer and machinery. Thirty-six percent of farmers identify fertilizer as a leading category to cut when profitability deteriorates, while 48% prioritize funding it again as profits recover. Farm machinery shows an even larger swing between retrenchment and recovery: 16% identify machinery among the first areas for spending reductions, but 35% expect to prioritize it when profitability improves. McKinsey argues that machinery purchases are relatively easy to postpone, potentially creating pent-up demand once replacement can no longer be delayed or farm economics improve enough to justify new investment.
AI Is Growing, but Farmers Still Put Their Trust in Agronomists
Perhaps the strongest signal for the future of agricultural AI is not current adoption but what farmers expect it to deliver. Nearly three-quarters anticipate at least some impact from Gen AI on farm operations during the next three to five years. The survey found 37% expect “some” impact, 20% anticipate a moderate effect and 15% expect a significant impact, while 28% foresee little or none. AI’s advantage over many other forms of agtech is straightforward: general-purpose software can be tested quickly without installing specialized equipment, potentially lowering the financial barrier to adoption for farms operating under tight capital constraints.
Yet rapid AI adoption does not mean farmers are ready to replace human expertise. Only 6% cite Gen AI chatbots as an advice source, compared with 56% who turn to technical agronomists and 56% who rely on sales representatives. The influence of sales representatives has nevertheless fallen sharply, from 67% in 2024 to 56% in 2026, while technical agronomists increased slightly from 54% to 56%. The contrast points toward a hybrid model for agricultural decision-making: digital tools increasingly help producers discover and compare information, while trusted technical experts remain central when growers need to validate decisions before putting money at risk.
Digital behavior is changing well beyond AI. The share of farmers preferring digital channels for product research increased from 23% in 2024 to 31% in 2026, while digital preference for evaluating and comparing products jumped from 22% to 36%. Online preferences also increased for obtaining quotes, purchasing, support and repeat purchases. This matters for input suppliers, co-ops, equipment companies and agtech developers because the traditional agricultural sales process is becoming more digital at the top of the purchasing funnel, even while personal relationships and agronomic expertise remain important when producers make final decisions.
Biological crop inputs are another area where farmers continue to invest despite economic pressure. Globally, 36% of row-crop farmers use biological controls and 43% use biostimulants, compared with 52% and 59%, respectively, among specialty-crop growers. In North America, biological-control adoption reaches 36% among row-crop producers and 56% among specialty growers, while biostimulant use stands at 41% and 59%. McKinsey says higher-value specialty crops can make the additional investment easier to justify, reinforcing a broader finding of the survey: innovation is attracting capital when farmers can connect it to a specific operational problem and measurable return.
For U.S. agriculture, the message is less that AI is replacing conventional farm technology than that the threshold for technology investment is changing. Producers facing uncertain commodity prices, elevated input costs, labor shortages and tighter margins increasingly want solutions that can fit existing workflows and demonstrate value without requiring large capital commitments. That gives generative AI an unusual opening. Unlike a tractor, robot or precision agriculture hardware system, a farmer can experiment with AI almost immediately, evaluate its usefulness and abandon it with relatively little financial exposure if it fails to deliver.
McKinsey’s findings also suggest the next agricultural spending recovery may not lift every segment equally. Farmers indicate they intend to reinvest as profitability improves, but they are becoming more disciplined about where those dollars go. The technologies most likely to gain ground will be those that solve identifiable farm-level problems, integrate easily into existing operations and produce tangible economic results. For agtech companies, equipment manufacturers, input suppliers and co-ops, that means the competition is increasingly about measurable return on investment rather than technology alone. For farmers, AI appears to be earning an early place in that calculation.
Below this article: Global Farmer Insights 2026 – the full report, including detailed tables on farmer spending, biologicals, generative AI adoption, digital purchasing and trusted agricultural advisers.
Global Farmer Insights 2026- September 8, 2026 | Report
Our biennial global survey of 5,500 farmers reveals that, amid economic pressures, farmers are becoming more selective in their spending. AI is gaining ground, although respondents continue to rely on trusted advisers for guidance on their purchases.
Each growing season, farmers make decisions whose consequences last for months or years: what to plant, what inputs to use, what machinery to buy, which technologies to trust, where to sell, and how much risk to take. These decisions are shaped by factors ranging from the deeply local, such as soils, microclimates, and labor dynamics, to the profoundly global, such as commodity prices or access to trade routes. Taken together, these decisions underpin the livelihoods of billions of people in rural areas and the global food system.
This fourth edition of our biennial Global Farmer Insights survey, conducted with 5,500 farmers between April and July 2026 (see sidebar “Survey methodology”), reflects how farmers around the world make decisions in a complex and constantly changing environment. Pressure on agriculture is high and supply chains are exposed, affecting how farmers manage risk and allocate scarce capital.
Since farmer profitability peaked in 2021-22, commodity prices have declined, while the cost of fertilizer, labor, land, equipment, and financing has remained elevated or volatile. Geopolitical tensions and conflicts, particularly in the Strait of Hormuz, have disrupted trade flows and contributed to rising energy and input costs. These factors, combined with local policy uncertainty, increasingly unpredictable weather, and labor shortages, are making farm-level decision-making more difficult and risky.
These factors affect not only farmers but also the companies that serve them. Globally, companies face supply chain disruptions, persistent price volatility, and changing competitive dynamics, particularly amid the proliferation of lower-cost products from Asia. The sector is at a critical moment, increasing the importance of agricultural companies investing, innovating, and supporting their customers.
Here are some of the highlights from the full report.
Economic outlook
The agricultural economy has been affected across the sector’s value chain. Yields have remained relatively high since the last survey, contributing to lower commodity prices, while input costs have remained elevated. Fertilizer, energy, labor, equipment, and financing costs rose sharply during the last inflationary cycle, a situation compounded by geopolitical uncertainty. Farmers are responding to these lower margins by preserving cash, delaying purchases where possible, and demanding a clear short-term return on any new investment.
Farmers are proceeding cautiously
Responses indicate that farmers are acting cautiously. Despite the turbulence facing the agricultural industry, respondents in nearly every country indicate that they remain open to future spending. That said, spending intent has declined significantly since 2024. The largest decline is seen in net spending sentiment. Sentiment is most favorable in Argentina (49 percentage points), followed by Canada, India, and Brazil (29, 28, and 24 percentage points, respectively) (Table 1).
In Argentina, the decline may be influenced by persistent macroeconomic and political uncertainty, which can make farmers more cautious about committing additional capital. Spain and France sit at opposite ends of the confidence spectrum. Spain’s larger specialty-crop base and strong export markets may support a more positive outlook, while French farmers face greater pressure from costs, regulation, climate uncertainty, and, particularly in the wine sector, weaker demand.
Table 1. Spending intent has cooled sharply since 2024 but remains positive in most geographies
Net spending sentiment by country, 2024 vs. 2026, percentage pointsCountry/Region2026 sentimentChange vs. 2024
| United States | 12 | -17 |
| Canada | 9 | -29 |
| Germany | 44 | -12 |
| France | -12 | +4 |
| Spain | 78 | n/a |
| Brazil | 13 | -25 |
| Argentina | 22 | -49 |
| Peru | 49 | n/a |
| China | 12 | n/a |
| India | 45 | -28 |
| Global | 22 | -24 |
Question: How do you expect the current economic environment to affect your planned spending over the next 12-18 months? Net spending sentiment = share of respondents expecting to increase spending minus share expecting to decrease spending.
Note: Reflects the seven countries surveyed in both the 2024 and 2026 editions: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, and the United States. China, Peru, and Spain were surveyed only in 2026.
Source: McKinsey Global Farmer Insights (2024, n = 4,053; 2026, n = 5,500).
Preserving cash is a priority
With margins under pressure, farmers are maximizing short-term return on investment. Fertilizer is the clearest example: it is often the first major input they reduce when margins tighten and the first they bring back when profits recover (Table 2). While this may preserve cash in the short term, insufficient fertilization could reduce loterm yield potential.
Although our survey may have coincided with heightened concern about fertilizer supplies following the conflict in the Middle East, the conclusion remains the same: when margins tighten, farmers scrutinize even basic inputs if the outlay is high and the short-term return on investment is uncertain. They may also choose crops that require fewer inputs.
Farm machinery shows a similar dynamic. Sixteen percent of farmers consider machinery the first area in which to cut spending, while 36 percent expect to invest in it first as profits recover; this represents the largest rebound among all categories. Machinery purchases are often relatively easy to postpone, setting the stage for a faster recovery when profitability improves or replacement can no longer be delayed.
Table 2. Fertilizer and farm equipment are most sensitive to spending cuts but lead reinvestment when profits recover
CategoryCut under margin pressureFund as profits recover
| Fertilizer (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium) | 36% | 48% |
| Farm equipment | 16% | 35% |
| Seeds (biotech/genetically modified traits) | 9% | 15% |
| Fungicide | 15% | 13% |
| Farm equipment replacement parts | 10% | 13% |
| Herbicide | 12% | 12% |
| Insecticide | 11% | 11% |
| Note: Figures may not sum due to rounding. |
Question: During periods of lower profitability, including recent downturns, in which categories do you decrease spending? As profits improve, which actions do you prioritize?
Source: McKinsey Global Farmer Insights 2026 (n = 5,500).
Innovation adoption
Innovation remains a priority for farmers despite the difficult economic environment. However, as with investment in established products, technology adoption is becoming increasingly focused. The categories gaining the most ground are those that address specific farm problems, integrate into existing workflows, and demonstrate their value under local conditions.
We surveyed farmer adoption and attitudes across three innovation categories: biological products, established agtech solutions, and general artificial intelligence.
Biological products are a bright spot
Biological products represent an important area of innovation in agriculture, encompassing a wide range of technologies, from products such as plant extracts that precede conventional chemical inputs to emerging platforms such as engineered proteins and peptides. Innovation in this category is therefore driven not only by new product classes but also by improvements in consistency, formulation, and specificity.
Our 2026 survey examines the adoption of biostimulants-which support plant growth, nutrient uptake, stress tolerance, and crop quality-and biological control agents, which manage pests and diseases through biological modes of action.
More than half of specialty-crop farmers currently use at least one biological product, either a biological control agent or a biostimulant. Adoption among row-crop farmers is lower globally, with 36 percent using biological control agents and 43 percent using biostimulants. The higher commercial value of specialty crops may help justify the greater investment in biological products.
Latin America, led by Peru, has the highest adoption rates, supported by an established input-distribution network and high pest and disease pressure in tropical cropping systems (Table 3). Across all regions, biostimulant adoption exceeds biological-control adoption, partly because many biostimulants have broader applicability; biological controls are much more targeted to specific pests and diseases.
Table 3. Most specialty-crop growers use at least one biological product
Biological control adoption by region and crop type, % of respondentsRegionRow cropsSpecialty crops
| North America | 36% | 56% |
| Europe | 34% | 53% |
| Latin America | 45% | 67% |
| Asia | 30% | 42% |
| Global | 36% | 52% |
Biostimulant adoption by region and crop typeRegionRow cropsSpecialty crops
| North America | 41% | 59% |
| Europe | 41% | 50% |
| Latin America | 52% | 72% |
| Asia | 39% | 55% |
| Global | 43% | 59% |
Question: For biological controls, respondents were asked to indicate their level of use of biological crop-protection technologies as part of their pest and disease management programs. Options include naturally occurring microbial products, pheromones, plant extracts, microbial insecticides and fungicides, macroorganisms, engineered proteins, and peptides.
For biostimulants, respondents were asked to indicate their level of use across product categories. Options include seaweed extracts, organic acids such as humic or fulvic acid, amino acids, and microbial biostimulants.
Source: McKinsey Global Farmer Insights 2026 (n = 5,500).
Gen AI is advancing rapidly to support everyday decisions
Generative AI, while relatively new to the agricultural technology landscape since the previous edition of the survey, has quickly gained popularity among farmers. Currently, 17 percent use generative AI for agricultural tasks, although only 4 percent pay for solutions, which may include paid general-purpose AI subscriptions not specific to agriculture. Adoption is highest in Latin America and North America (Table 4).
Farmers are demonstrating notable openness toward general AI. Both overall and paid use have increased in the United States, at a pace comparable with the fastest-adopting agricultural technologies. General AI is, of course, easier to adopt than technologies that depend on equipment or hardware and has broader applications. Even so, farmers’ willingness to pay suggests they find general AI useful and expect it to have at least some impact on farm operations.
Table 4. Gen AI use among farmers is rising
Gen AI adoption, 2026, % of respondentsRegionPay for toolsUse free tools
| Latin America | 7% | 19% |
| North America | 10% | 13% |
| Europe | 1% | 12% |
| Asia | 0% | 7% |
| Global | 4% | 12% |
Total adoption shown in the original data: Latin America, 26%; North America, 23%; Europe, 13%; Asia, 7%; Global, 17%. Figures may not sum because of rounding.
Anticipated impact of Gen AI on farm operations over the next 3-5 yearsExpected impactRespondentsClassification
| Little to none | 28% | Little to none |
| Some | 37% | Some |
| Moderate | 20% | Moderate |
| Significant | 15% | Significant |
Question: When thinking about Gen AI and tools for farm-related tasks or decisions, to what extent do you use free versus paid versions? Asked only of respondents who said they had used an AI tool to find farm-related information.
Source: McKinsey Global Farmer Insights 2026 (overall n = 5,500; Gen AI question, n = 4,296).
The purchasing process
As the range of agricultural products and technologies expands, the purchasing process becomes more complex. Farmers need tools to research options, compare prices, validate performance, and build confidence before investing scarce capital. Digital channels play an increasingly important role in this process, especially during the early stages of research and evaluation, but trusted advisers remain critical in converting interest into action.
The purchasing process is becoming increasingly digital
Preference for digital channels increased at every stage of the purchasing process between 2024 and 2026, with the largest gains occurring in the early stages, when farmers research new products, evaluate alternatives, and compare purchasing options among suppliers.
Thirty-one percent of farmers say they use digital channels to research products, and even more-36 percent-say they use them to evaluate and compare products, an increase of 14 percentage points from 2024 (Table 5). At these early stages of the sales funnel, digital and AI tools offer convenient access to information, rapid analysis, transparent price comparisons, and third-party validation. Digital adoption has also increased for repeat purchases, likely because established products and supplier relationships make repeat online transactions easier.
Table 5. Digital preference increased at every buying stage between 2024 and 2026
Share of farmers who prefer a digital channel by journey stage, % of respondentsPurchasing stage20242026
| Research | 23% | 31% |
| Evaluate/compare | 22% | 36% |
| Quote | 20% | 28% |
| Buy | 14% | 21% |
| Support | 18% | 26% |
| Repurchase | 27% | 32% |
Note: Reflects the seven countries surveyed in both the 2024 and 2026 editions: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, and the United States.
Question: In an ideal world, how would you interact with companies for each type of activity? Digital-channel options include self-service, AI chatbot, or instant-messaging channel. AI chatbots were introduced as an option in the 2026 survey and account for approximately 3-7 percentage points of digital preference at each stage.
Source: McKinsey Global Farmer Insights (2024, n = 4,053; 2026, n = 4,094).
Trusted advisers are critical in purchasing decisions
With the rise of AI, competition for farmers’ attention has increased, and for the first time in our survey, we observe a significant decline in the influence of sales representatives-a drop of 11 percentage points globally.
At the same time, in-person technical experts continue to play an important role in conversion, trust building, and information validation. Agronomists remain a key figure for 56 percent of farmers and are particularly important to younger farmers, a trend that holds across regions (Table 6). While digital channels are growing, only 6 percent of farmers cite AI tools or AI-based search as a trusted source for decision-making.
In interviews, farmers said that because product information is widely available online, they are less likely to rely on potentially biased sales representatives when making purchasing decisions. Instead, they turn to agronomic experts with specific knowledge to validate their choices and receive advice.
Table 6. Sales representatives and agronomists remain the top purchase influencers
Advisers and sales channels growers look to for advice, % of respondentsChannel/adviser20242026
| Online: Gen AI chatbot | 1% | 6% |
| Online: social media | 6% | 9% |
| Online: web search | 16% | 18% |
| Neighbor/peer/colleague | 49% | 50% |
| Sales representative | 67% | 56% |
| Technical agronomist | 54% | 56% |
Breakdown by age group, 2026Channel/adviserUnder 4040-54 / Over 54
| Online: Gen AI chatbot | 6% | 8% / 5% |
| Online: social media | 8% | 11% / 7% |
| Online: web search | 17% | 18% / 19% |
| Neighbor/peer/colleague | 48% | 52% / 50% |
| Sales representative | 55% | 57% / 57% |
| Technical agronomist | 66% | 54% / 51% |
Note: Reflects the seven countries surveyed in both the 2024 and 2026 editions: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, and the United States. Visual elements are not exhaustive.
Question: Which people or sources do you regularly use when making agricultural product purchasing decisions? In 2026, respondents selecting web search were grouped to ensure comparability.
Source: McKinsey Global Farmer Insights (2024, n = 4,053; 2026, n = 4,094; age <40, n = 1,214; age 40-54, n = 1,147; age >54, n = 1,403).
Looking ahead
This agricultural cycle raises a fundamental question: Are current pressures creating a new normal for agriculture, characterized not only by pressure on commodity prices, rising input costs, and geopolitical volatility, but also by a lasting change in how farmers make decisions? Farmers will adapt to the conditions they face, but many in the sector are asking whether the downturn has changed their behavior. As profitability improves, will spending rebound quickly, and which categories will benefit first?
Our survey reveals a consistent pattern. In the face of volatility, farmers are becoming more disciplined, postponing short-term spending and planning to reinvest as profitability improves. They remain open to innovation but demand tangible results. And although they rely less on nontechnical advisers, they continue to seek expert guidance, even as the volume of information available online grows.
For agricultural industry players, this implies that the spending recovery will likely be uneven. The companies best positioned to support farmers will be those that help them identify where value lies, with the level of detail required for each crop, geographic region, farm type, product category, and season.
Taken together, these imperatives point back to the farmer. The success of the agricultural sector will depend on helping farmers make better decisions: where to invest, where to innovate, and where value truly lies. Feeding the world ultimately depends on millions of local decisions made on every farm, acre by acre and season by season.
This report reflects our perspective on the most important issues influencing farmer decision-making today but does not encompass the full results of our survey. For more information about this research, including other topics explored, or to speak with our team, contact Global_Farmer_Insights_2026@mckinsey.com.
About the authors
David Fiocco and Owen Stockdale are senior partners in McKinsey’s Minneapolis office, Tom Brennan is a partner in the Philadelphia office, Vasanth Ganesan is a partner in the New York office, Julia Kalanikes is a senior client activation manager in the Chicago office, and Rudolf Henkell-von Ribbentrop is an associate partner in the Washington, DC, office.
The authors wish to thank Amy Yang, Ana Luiza Mokodsi, Ata Tezel, Avinash Goyal, Chase Daneker, Constanza Tapparelli, Daniela Nuscheler, David Sprengel, Elena Gorbunova, Emma Galeucia, Evania Hong, Felipe Boaretto, Jake Pawlowski, Javier Portuguez, Julien Revellat, Justin Rosenthal, Lucas Le Toullec, Madeleine Versteeg, Magdalena Rojek, Mallya Perdur, Marie Klaeyle, Medha Verma, Mehul Sharma, Michael Taksyak, Mikael Djanian, Nelson Ferreira, Nitika Nathani, Nora Wiktorowicz, Rafael Amaral, Roberto Uchoa de Paula, Ryan McCullough, Sergio Rubini, Sheng Hong, Sol Puente, Tim Lillie, and Yuan Tian for their contributions to this article.
Overall report and table source: McKinsey & Company, Global Farmer Insights 2026, published September 8, 2026. Survey of 5,500 farmers conducted between April and July 2026