Livestock feeding regimes and breeding practices
Published 11 June 2026
Applies to England
© Crown copyright 2026
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/farm-practices-survey-february-2026/livestock-feeding-regimes-and-breeding-practices
Cattle and sheep breeding practices can contribute to herd and flock productivity and efficiency which in turn can reduce GHG emissions. In addition to playing an important role in productivity and efficiency, livestock feeding practices such as intake and type of feed, can have an impact on GHG emissions.
Figure 1 Proportion of holdings using a ration formulation programme or expert nutritional advice when planning livestock feeding regimes
| Year | Always | Most of the time | Some of the time | Rarely | Never | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 17% | 13% | 20% | 16% | 33% | 100% |
| 2023 | 20% | 19% | 16% | 16% | 29% | 100% |
| 2024 | 24% | 12% | 16% | 15% | 34% | 100% |
| 2025 | 23% | 11% | 13% | 13% | 40% | 100% |
| 2026 | 24% | 15% | 13% | 16% | 32% | 100% |
Notes:
- The sum of the components may not equal 100% due to rounding.
In 2026, 68% of livestock holdings used a ration formulation programme or nutritional advice when planning the feeding regime of their cattle and sheep, with 52% of holdings doing so at least some of the time. This has consistently been the case for the last few years (Figure 1).
Figure 2 Proportion of holdings offering alternative forage crops to cattle and sheep
| Response | 2026 |
|---|---|
| None of these | 68% |
| Any of these | 32% |
| Maize | 16% |
| Whole-crop silage | 12% |
| Red clover | 11% |
| Lucerne | 3% |
| Triticale | 1% |
Most livestock holdings don’t offer alternative forage crops to cattle or sheep. Of the 32% that do, the most common of these forage crops were maize and whole-crop silage (Figure 2).
A Profitable Lifetime Index (PLI) is a scoring system to identify cattle with the best ‘genetic merit’ used when choosing bulls to breed with dairy cattle. The PLI uses a combination of attributes including life expectancy, health, fertility and milk production.
Figure 3 Proportion of commercial dairy holdings using bulls with a high PLI when breeding dairy cows by frequency of use
| Year | Always | Most of the time | Some of the time | Rarely | Never | Not Applicable | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 49% | 17% | 17% | 7% | 7% | 2% | 100% |
| 2023 | 44% | 24% | 15% | 4% | 5% | 8% | 100% |
| 2024 | 53% | 18% | 12% | 2% | 8% | 6% | 100% |
| 2025 | 43% | 23% | 13% | 5% | 11% | 5% | 100% |
| 2026 | 46% | 24% | 10% | 6% | 4% | 10% | 100% |
Notes:
- The sum of the components may not equal 100% due to rounding.
- “Not applicable” option added in 2022 and may previously have been included in the “Never” option for earlier years.
- Proportions are for holdings classified as dairy farms only
In 2026, 46% of commercial dairy holdings always used bulls with a high Profitable Lifetime Index (PLI) when breeding dairy cows. This was an increase from 43% in 2025 (Figure 3).
By using the June survey results sourced from the Cattle Tracing System (CTS), we can also give an indication of the proportion of dairy cattle that are covered by this practice. In 2026, the commercial dairy holdings using bulls with high PLIs at least some of the time accounted for 87% of the dairy cattle on those holdings.
Figure 4 Proportion of holdings using bulls with high EBVs when breeding beef cattle by frequency of use
| Year | Always | Most of the time | Some of the time | Rarely | Never | Not Applicable | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 18% | 14% | 14% | 5% | 24% | 25% | 100% |
| 2023 | 15% | 10% | 8% | 6% | 27% | 35% | 100% |
| 2024 | 21% | 8% | 9% | 7% | 12% | 43% | 100% |
| 2025 | 14% | 13% | 15% | 5% | 21% | 33% | 100% |
| 2026 | 15% | 10% | 8% | 9% | 26% | 31% | 100% |
Notes:
- The sum of the components may not equal 100% due to rounding.
- “Not applicable” option added in 2022 and may previously have been included in the “Never” option for earlier years.
Estimated Breeding Values (EBV) estimate the genetic worth of animals using desirable traits such as meat production. In 2026, 33% of livestock holdings used bulls with a high EBV at least some of the time when breeding beef cattle (Figure 4) and 33% used rams with a high EBV at least some of the time when breeding lambs (Figure 5).
Figure 5 Proportion of holdings using rams with high EBVs when breeding lambs by frequency of use
| Year | Always | Most of the time | Some of the time | Rarely | Never | Not Applicable | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 12% | 12% | 19% | 13% | 38% | 7% | 100% |
| 2023 | 11% | 11% | 15% | 14% | 35% | 15% | 100% |
| 2024 | 7% | 11% | 20% | 12% | 29% | 21% | 100% |
| 2025 | 7% | 9% | 19% | 11% | 31% | 23% | 100% |
| 2026 | 10% | 10% | 13% | 11% | 35% | 21% | 100% |
Notes:
- The sum of the components may not equal 100% due to rounding.
- “Not applicable” option added in 2022 and may previously have been included in the “Never” option for earlier years.