Wednesday, September 9th, 2026 — Extreme weather and stubbornly high input costs are putting pressure on farmers worldwide, while a growing share of U.S. producers are experimenting with generative artificial intelligence to make farm decisions, according to McKinsey & Company’s newly released Global Farmer Insights 2026.
The consulting firm surveyed 5,500 farmers across 10 countries between April and July. Farmers in North America and Europe identified input costs as their leading threat to profits over the next two years. In Latin America, extreme weather ranked first, cited by 58% of respondents as one of their top three profit risks. Globally, 45% identified extreme weather as a top-three risk, behind the 53% who cited increased input prices.
The regional differences matter for agricultural insurers and claims professionals because the pressures identified by farmers include several conditions associated with agricultural losses. McKinsey reported that Latin American growers are contending with weather, pest pressure and pest resistance, while farmers in Asia also ranked weather among their major concerns. The survey was conducted as El Niño conditions were developing, but before European heat waves in late July and August.
McKinsey said intense El Niño conditions were expected to persist through spring 2027, with drought, heat, wildfires and extreme rainfall affecting Latin America and the Caribbean. A Peruvian asparagus farmer interviewed for the report described high temperatures, rain, cloudy conditions and severe temperature swings that were shortening pest reproductive cycles and making them harder to control.
Financial pressure is also changing how farmers spend money on their operations. Net spending expectations fell 24 percentage points from McKinsey’s 2024 survey, although most farmers still expected to increase spending during the next 12 to 18 months. More than 35% said nutrients would be among the first expenses they reduced when profitability fell. Farm equipment is another common target for deferred spending.
Those decisions can affect agricultural risk beyond the immediate savings. McKinsey noted that under-fertilizing can reduce yield potential depending on soil fertility and fertilizer type. Farmers also reported postponing machinery purchases and shifting toward cheaper generic crop-protection products. Among North American row-crop farmers, 36% expected to move toward generics during the next two years, compared with 12% expecting to move toward branded products.
Technology adoption presents a different picture. Half of farmers surveyed reported using at least one form of agricultural technology. Global adoption increased four percentage points from 2024 among the seven countries included in both surveys. Digital agronomy was the most widely used category at 31%, followed by precision-agriculture hardware and remote sensing. McKinsey found relatively modest growth in established agricultural technology in mature markets, including the United States.
Generative AI is moving faster. In the United States, 11% of farmers surveyed said they were using paid generative AI products, a level McKinsey said matches the adoption reached by variable-rate technology within five years of its introduction. Early AI use is concentrated in farm planning and crop management. The findings suggest farmers are willing to test inexpensive tools that fit easily into existing work, even while trust in AI and its value remain unsettled.
For claims organizations handling agricultural exposures, the survey offers a view of the operating conditions surrounding future losses. Farmers are dealing simultaneously with weather volatility, expensive inputs, water concerns and tighter capital budgets, while adding digital tools to farm management. Those conditions can become relevant during claim investigation when adjusters document crop practices, inputs, equipment condition, weather effects and the decisions made before a reported loss.
The survey also shows that farmers have not abandoned human advisers as digital tools spread. Fifty-six percent cited technical agronomists as a top influence on purchasing decisions, while 36% preferred online channels for comparing suppliers, up 14 percentage points since 2024. For agricultural claims, that mix of digital information and professional advice may add more records and data sources for adjusters trying to establish what happened before and after a loss.