America’s farmland is changing hands. What does that mean for the country’s food future?
American agriculture stands at an inflection point. Over the next two decades, approximately 40 percent of U.S. farmland will change hands as the current generation of farmers retires. How this land transitions and to whom will shape not only the future of farming, but the resilience of our food systems, the vitality of rural economies, and the choices available to American consumers.
The growing acquisition of farmland by large corporations, investment funds, and institutional investors represents a significant structural shift in American agriculture. Land values surged by 14 percent from 2021 to 2022 alone, reflecting intensifying competition for this finite resource. While investment capital can bring needed resources to agriculture, the concentration of land ownership raises important questions about market dynamics, corporate responsibility, and long-term economic sustainability.
What’s driving the shift in farmland ownership?
1. The rise of absentee ownership: While family farms still operate most U.S. farmland, a significant and growing portion is owned by non-farming interests, creating a “non-operator landlord” class. Approximately 39 percent of the 911 million acres of farmland in the contiguous 48 states is rented. Family farms still operate 95-96 percent of US farms but control only 90 percent of farmland area.
2. Consolidation into mega-farms: Land is rapidly consolidating into fewer, much larger operations. Large farms (those with at least $1 million in sales) now contribute upwards of 48 percent of total US farm production, which is a massive shift in market control. In 1991, the same class of large farms accounted for only a third of the value of U.S. farm production.
3. Farmland is treated as a financial asset: Investment funds own over 1 million acres of US farmland, with the number of properties held by such firms surging 231 percent from 2008 to Q2 2023, valued at $16.2 billion.
What are the effects of changing farmland ownership?
The transition in farmland ownership brings a number of impacts on the market, consumers, supply chains, and rural economies.
Impact 1: Corporate integrity and market fairness
Market concentration and diminished competition
When a few large corporations control processing, distribution, and now the land itself, they can dictate prices to both farmers and consumers. In a healthy economy, the top four firms in an industry control around 40 percent of the market; many agricultural sectors, like meatpacking, are well above these levels.
Barriers for independent and beginning farmers
Rising land prices (driven in part by investor demand) make it extremely difficult for new and smaller farmers to purchase land, accelerating consolidation. Eighty percent of rented farmland (31 percent of all U.S. farmland) is owned by non-operator landlords, who often acquire land through inheritance, making land access for new farmers more difficult.
Vertical integration and risk transfer
Corporate land ownership often favors vertical integration and contract farming, leaving independent producers with little bargaining power and shifting financial risk onto the farmer.
Impact 2: Consumer health and environment outcomes
Soil degradation, biodiversity loss, and chemical reliance
Large corporate farms often prioritize short-term efficiency through monoculture (growing one crop), which can deplete soil nutrients and increase the need for chemical inputs. A lack of diversity can also make crops more susceptible to large-scale disease and pests, leading to higher usage of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, which can contaminate local waterways. Diversified farming systems increase overall species richness by 26 percent on average relative to simplified monocultures, enhancing natural pest control and soil health.
Expansion of CAFOs
Corporate control over livestock often results in large, geographically concentrated animal operations, linked to increased use of antibiotics and localized waste management issues. The growth of CAFOs poses a risk to water quality due to the volume of waste and the presence of contaminants like antibiotics and microbial pathogens, which are often not adequately contained by conventional waste management practices.
Impact 3: Rural economic vitality
Erosion of local economies
Corporate farms purchase inputs (seeds, equipment, services) on a massive scale from distant, large providers, leading to capital flowing away from rural communities instead of circulating locally. Studies have shown that corporate farming is associated with higher rates of unemployment and poverty in rural areas compared to communities with more independent, diversified farms.
Impact 4: Supply chain resilience
Vulnerability from over specialization
Over-specialization (monoculture) can make the entire supply chain more vulnerable to a single disease outbreak or extreme weather event.
The benefits and risks of shifting farmland ownership
Investors and corporate shareholders are the most obvious beneficiaries of concentrated farmland ownership. But consumers and rural Americans may reap some benefits as well. Corporate ownership can provide capital for farm improvements, innovation, and employment opportunities; for example, Bill Gates stated his farmland investments are made “to make them more productive and create more jobs.” Considering 38 percent of non-operator landlords are retired farmers, ownership by non-operators, in this case, offers retirement options for aging farmers without heirs. Finally, at times, this trend has led to improved professional farming management and sustainable practices implemented on a large scale.
At the same time, it’s clear the increasing concentration of farmland ownership in corporate, institutional, and investor hands brings significant risks related to market fairness, rural economic health, sustainability, and supply chain strength.
What policy solutions are needed in light of this shift?
The following policy solutions could help mitigate risks of increasing corporate and institutional ownership of American farmland:
Greater ownership transparency: Mandate better, more comprehensive public disclosure of all domestic and foreign institutional land ownership.
Stronger market oversight: Strengthen antitrust enforcement in agricultural markets (e.g., meatpacking, seed, and fertilizer industries) to ensure fair competition.
Support for diversification: Incentivize biodiverse farming practices that improve soil health, regardless of farm size.
Together, these steps would help ensure that as ownership patterns evolve, American agriculture remains competitive, resilient, and grounded in the long-term interests of the country and its citizens.
