The "obvious" is that operating a family farm as a profitable business is hard. Harder than three of the four adult children in the article are willing to work.
That doesn't mean there aren't people who want to do it, that means that a lot of family farms are going out of business because there aren't enough people who want to do it, regardless of external pressures.
that conclusion doesn't necessarily follow though. the proposed thesis by the article author is difficulty of having enough cattle to break even. you need to make enough to grow your operation, which is difficult given that you rely on external factors like creameries. the only reason you only have your family's labour to rely on could also be the difficulty of scaling up.
I think the article writer is glossing over the difficulty of keeping a farm in business without the external factors. My experience, growing up in an farming area, is that the kids of farmers are relieved when the farm is sold to a big conglomerate.
If the author cared so much about the farm, nothing stopped him from going back and dedicating his life to keeping it running.
apologies if i'm coming across condescending or am missing your point but i'm having difficulty comprehending how the author staying on the farm would've fixed anything about the trend towards monopolization fuelled by corporate subsidies and other forms of preferential treatment coupled with those larger actors facing limited responsibility for any of the consequences to surrounding communities and environment?
That doesn't mean there aren't people who want to do it, that means that a lot of family farms are going out of business because there aren't enough people who want to do it, regardless of external pressures.