Official Statistics

Farmer Opinion Tracker for England: April 2022

Published 28 July 2022

Applies to England

This report contains estimates from the Farmer Opinion Tracker providing a snapshot of views and opinions towards Defra’s vision for farming at this time. Farmers were asked questions about business planning, relationships with farming organisations and Defra, new schemes and the future of farming.

Key messages for April 2022

  • Farmers on 66% of holdings said that they either fully (9%) or roughly (57%) understand Defra’s vision for farming, an overall increase from 61% in October 2021.
  • Farmers on 68% of holdings indicated that they will need to make changes to their farm business in the next 3 to 5 years, an increase from 64% in October 2021 and 60% in April 2021.
  • Farmers on 80% of holdings said that Defra paying for environmental outcomes will be very (56%) or moderately (24%) important to their business in the future.
  • Farmers on nearly two thirds of holdings (65%) are not at all confident that changes to schemes and regulations will lead to a successful future for farming, a decrease from 68% in October 2021.
  • Just under half of farmers on all holdings (47%) feel positive about their future in farming (7% very positive; 40% somewhat positive).

Farmers had the opportunity to share their thoughts on farming i.e., what was on their mind at the time of the survey. The open text comments analysis in section 2 provides context around the statistics.

  • The most frequently occurring theme in the comments was food security, often linked to the war in Ukraine. There continued to be calls for further information and clarity both on the Future Farming vision and Environmental Land Management Schemes. Apprehension about business viability was evident, often linked to the removal of Basic Payments. Calls were made for less regulation and bureaucracy. There was mixed sentiment on the relationship between Defra, its Arm’s Length Bodies, and farmers.

Section 1 - Detailed Results

1.1 Vision

Defra is setting out what they think the future for farming would look like. In this vision, England’s farmers improve the health of our environment and animals as part of a sustainable, productive agricultural sector. When asked if they know what Defra’s vision meant for farming, farmers on 66% of holdings said that they either fully (9%) or roughly (57%) understood Defra’s vision (see Figure 1). This is an overall increase from 61% in October 2021 (fully understand 7%; roughly understand 54%). In April 2022, a further 30% said they didn’t know but would be interested to know more. Farmers on the remaining 4% of holdings didn’t need to know what the future vision meant for farming.

Figure 1: Proportion of holdings that understand Defra’s vision for farming, October 2020 to April 2022

Proportion of holdings that understand Defra’s vision for farming, October 2020 to April 2022

1.2 Changes

In 2021, DEFRA started the transition away from the EU Common Agriculture Policy which will involve changes to the payments farmers receive and the regulations their businesses must follow. Farmers were asked whether they had all the information they needed at this point to help with their business planning (see Figure 2). Farmers on 48% of holdings said they had all (7%) or most (41%) of the information they required. This proportion has increased overall from 37% in October 2021 and 40% in April 2021. In April 2022, a further 19% indicated that they didn’t have any information but knew where they could find it. Farmers on a quarter of holdings said they didn’t have any of the information they needed for their business planning and were unsure where to find it. The remaining 8% of all holdings didn’t know if they had all the information they needed.

Figure 2: Proportion of holdings that have the information they need to inform business planning, October 2020 to April 2022

Proportion of holdings that have the information they need to inform business planning, October 2020 to April 2022

Farmers on 68% of holdings believe they will need to make changes to their business in the next 3 to 5 years. This is an increase from 64% in October 2021 and 60% in April 2021 (see Figure 3). Approximately 11% of farmers on all holdings indicated that they don’t need to make any changes to their farming business and the remaining 21% don’t know what changes they need to make.

Figure 3: Proportion of holdings that need to make changes to their farm business in the next 3 to 5 years, October 2020 to April 2022

Proportion of holdings that need to make changes to their farm business in the next 3 to 5 years, October 2020 to April 2022

Farmers who answered that they will need to make changes to their farm business in the next 3 to 5 years were then asked what changes they will need to make (see Figure 4). Farmers are most likely to stay farming but diversify their business into non-farming areas with 38% of farmers on all holdings selecting this option. This proportion has decreased significantly from 53% in October 2021, where it was also the most popular option. Nearly a third (31%) will stay farming but increase productivity and farmers on 22% of holdings will stay farming and grow the business. Fewer farmers indicated that they would leave farming, as 9% are planning on retiring or passing the farm onto the next generation and 4% would leave farming for other reasons. Farmers on 5% of holdings stated other changes they plan to make to their farm business which included maximising environmental schemes and reduce costs.

Figure 4: Changes to farm business, October 2021 to April 2022

Changes to farm business Apr-22 Oct-21
Stay farming but diversify business into non-farming areas 38% 53%
Stay farming but increase productivity 31% 32%
Stay farming and grow the business 22% 30%
Stay farming but change core agricultural enterprises 1 22% 28%
Stay farming but reduce the size of the business 18% 13%
Leave farming (planned retirement or pass onto next generation) 9% 9%
Other 5% 3%
Leave farming (exit for other reasons) 4% 3%

Note: Farms could select more than one option.

1 for example, change crops and/or livestock

These proportions varied quite significantly across farms. Compared to 22% of all holdings, a higher proportion of cereal holdings (33%) intend to stay farming but change the core agricultural enterprise. Whereas only 9% of farmers on LFA grazing livestock holdings are likely to make this change in the next 3 to 5 years.

Farmers in the East of England and the South East including London are more likely to stay farming but diversify their business into non-farming areas in the next 3 to 5 years (49% and 48% of holdings respectively). This option was not as popular for farmers in the North East & Yorkshire, with only 16% selecting this option compared to 38% of all holdings (see Figure 5).

Farmers on 22% of all holdings intend to stay farming and grow the business in the coming years, a decrease from 30% in October 2021. This proportion varied across farm size, with 36% of larger holdings and 28% of medium holdings selecting this option compared to 15% of small holdings (see Figure 6).

Figure 5: Proportion of holdings that plan to stay farming and diversify into non farming areas, by English region

Farm type Proportion of holdings
East of England 49%
South East including London 48%
West Midlands 41%
South West 39%
East Midlands 37%
North West 29%
North East & Yorkshire and The Humber 16%
All farms 38%

Note: Farms could select more than one option.

Figure 6: Proportion of holdings that plan to stay farming and grow the business, by farm size

Farm size Proportion of holdings
Small 15%
Medium 28%
Large 36%
All farms 22%

Note: Farms could select more than one option.

Farmers on 60% of holdings are either very (8%) or somewhat (52%) confident that they can respond to any changes that are needed. This is an overall decrease from 62% in October 2021 (fully confident 12%; somewhat confident 50%). In April 2022 this proportion varied across farm types, as 71% of Pigs and Poultry holdings are confident that they can make changes compared to 51% of LFA Grazing livestock holdings. Farmers on over a quarter of all holdings (28%) are not at all confident they can respond to the changes needed and the remaining 12% are unsure (see Figure 7).

Figure 7: Proportion of holdings that are confident they can respond to changes, by farm type

Proportion of holdings that are confident they can respond to changes, by farm type

1.3 Groups

Farming organisations and advisors have a role in helping farm businesses to adapt to the changes needed. Farmers on 31% of holdings agreed that these organisations were helping them to make changes, with an additional 4% strongly agreeing (these proportions remain relatively unchanged from October 2021). Approximately 44% neither agreed or disagreed and a further 20% said they either disagreed (11%) or strongly disagreed (8%) that these organisations were helping them to make changes (see Figure 8).

Figure 8: Proportion of holdings that agree farming organisations and advisors are helping them make changes to their business

Proportion of holdings that agree farming organisations and advisors are helping them make changes to their business

The future vision for farming involves farm businesses responding to both existing and new market demand for produce. Farmers on over two thirds of holdings (69%) said that producing for the end market would currently be very important for their farm business with a further 24% indicating that it would be moderately important (see Figure 9). Only 3% said that it was not at all important.

Looking to the future, producing for the end market was said to be very important by 72% of holdings and 18% indicated that it would be moderately important. Only 3% said it was not at all important and farmers on the remaining 8% of holdings were unsure.

Figure 9: Proportion of holdings that believe producing for the end market is important for their business

Producing for the end market is important for business Currently In the future
Very important 69% 72%
Moderately important 24% 18%
Not at all important 3% 3%
Unsure/ I don’t know 4% 8%

1.4 Environment

Defra’s vision for farming involves providing environmental outcomes. Farmers on 77% of holdings said Defra paying for environmental outcomes was currently very (44%) or moderately (33%) important for their business (see Figure 10). A further 16% said that it was currently not at all important.

When asked how important it will be in the future for Defra to pay for environmental outcomes, farmers on 56% of holdings said it would be very important. A further 24% believed it would be moderately important and only 10% said that Defra paying for environmental outcomes in the future was not at all important (see Figure 10).

Figure 10: Proportion of holdings that believe Defra paying for environmental outcomes would be important for their business

Defra paying for environmental outcomes is important for business Currently In the future
Very important 44% 56%
Moderately important 33% 24%
Not at all important 16% 10%
Unsure/ I don’t know 7% 9%

Environmental safeguards and standards in farming are maintained by both enforcing regulations and empowering individual responsibility. Farmers on 35% of holdings either agreed (33%) or strongly agreed (2%) that the current approach balances enforcement with individual responsibility (see Figure 11). This is an overall increase from 33% in October 2021 and decrease from 37% in April 2021. Farmers on 37% of holdings neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. A further 15% disagreed that the current approach balances enforcement with individual responsibility and 9% strongly disagreed.

Figure 11: Proportion of holdings that agree the current approach balances enforcement with individual responsibility

Proportion of holdings that agree the current approach balances enforcement with individual responsibility

Regulations protect the environment, farmed animals and public health. Farmers on 87% of holdings are either very (26%) or somewhat (60%) confident that they understand which regulations apply to their farm. This is an overall increase from 85% in October 2021 (very confident 28%; somewhat confident 57%). A further 11% are not at all confident and only 2% don’t know which regulations apply to their farm (see Figure 12).

Figure 12: Proportion of holdings that are confident they understand which regulations apply to their farm

Proportion of holdings that are confident they understand which regulations apply to their farm

Farmers were asked to consider the regulations that apply to their farms (outside the rules associated with any payment schemes) and 28% of all holdings indicated that they fully understood the purpose of the rules. This proportion varied by farm ownership, decreasing to 25% of mixed holdings and 28% of fully owned holdings compared to 36% of tenanted holdings (see Figure 13). Farmers on 62% of all holdings say that they roughly understood the purpose of the rules which apply to their farm. A further 8% don’t understand the purpose but want to know and only 2% said that they don’t need to know.

Figure 13: Proportion of holdings that understand the purpose of the regulations which apply to their farm, by farm ownership

Proportion of holdings that understand the purpose of the regulations which apply to their farm, by farm ownership

1.5 Relationships

Farmers were asked how confident they were that changes to schemes and regulations will lead to a successful future for farming and nearly two thirds of holdings (65%) said that they are not confident at all (see Figure 14). Approximately 28% of holdings indicated that they are either very (1%) or somewhat (26%) confident in the changes to the schemes. This is an overall increase from 25% in October 2021 (very confident 1%; somewhat confident 23%). The remaining 7% of farmers on all holdings don’t know if the changes to schemes will result in a successful future for farming.

Figure 14: Proportion of holdings that are confident the changes to schemes and regulations will lead to a successful future in farming

Proportion of holdings that are confident the changes to schemes and regulations will lead to a successful future in farming

Defra and Defra agencies such as the Rural Payments Agency and Natural England are working together to deliver planned changes to schemes and regulations. Farmers on 58% are not at all confident in Defra and Defra agency’s ability to deliver planned changes to schemes and regulations. This proportion has decreased from 66% in October 2021 (see Figure 15). A further 34% holdings are either very (2%) or somewhat (32%) confident in Defra and Defra agency’s ability to deliver planned changes to schemes. Farmers on the remaining 8% of holdings are unsure.

Figure 15: Proportion of holdings that are confident in Defra and Defra agency’s abilities to work together to deliver changes to schemes and regulations, October 2021 to April 2022

Proportion of holdings that are confident in Defra and Defra agency's abilities to work together to deliver changes to schemes and regulations, October 2021 to April 2022

As part of delivering the changes, farmers on 47% of holdings are not at all confident that their relationship with Defra and Defra agencies (such as the Rural Payments Agency and Natural England) will develop positively in the future. This proportion has decreased from 52% in October 2021. Approximately 39% of holdings are either very (2%) or somewhat (37%) confident that their relationship with Defra will develop positively in the future. Farmers on the remaining 13% of holdings said that they were unsure (see Figure 16).

Figure 16: Proportion of holdings that believe their relationship with Defra and Defra agencies will develop positively in the future, October 2020 to April 2022

Proportion of holdings that believe their relationship with Defra and Defra agencies will develop positively in the future, October 2020 to April 2022

When asked to consider the changes to existing payments and regulations as well as the new schemes that will be available, farmers on 37% of holdings feel either very (3%) or somewhat (34%) positive about the future of farming (see Figure 17). This is a slight overall increase from October 2021 (very positive 4%; somewhat positive 32%). Farmers on over half of all holdings (55%) are not at all positive about the future of farming and the remaining 8% are unsure.

Figure 17: Proportion of holdings that feel positive about the future of farming, October 2020 to April 2022 1

Proportion of holdings that feel positive about the future of farming, October 2020 to April 2022

1 This question changed in October 2021 as previously farmers weren’t asked to consider changes to schemes when asked about their relationship with Defra. This could explain the variation in results between April and October 2021.

Farmers on 47% of holdings felt positive about their own future in farming (very positive 7%; somewhat positive 40%). This is an overall increase from 45% in October 2021. Approximately 41% indicated that they are not at all positive and the remaining 12% are unsure how they feel about their own future in farming (see Figure 18).

Figure 18: Proportion of holdings that feel positive about their own future in farming

Proportion of holdings that feel positive about their own future in farming

Section 2 - Open Text Comments

374 out of the 1,290 respondents provided a comment. Below is a summary of the comments, focusing on those relevant to Defra and the Agricultural Transition. It should be noted that people with strong views are more likely to comment. This can result in negative comments appearing more prevalent than might be the case i.e., respondents who are relatively content are less likely to provide comments.

The survey was open for a set period and the comments reflect issues that are particularly salient at the time of completing the survey. The most frequently occurring theme in the comments was food security, often linked to the war in Ukraine. Previously this has not been mentioned to such an extent, instead other issues have been more prominent. For example, in the October 2021 tracker, international trade and imports was a more salient topic due to international trade negotiations being a focus in the media. This potential salience bias may have impacted responses, with issues receiving significant media attention gaining more coverage in the comments and farmers being less likely to comment in detail on issues that were less salient but nonetheless important.

2.1 High level vision

Most comments implied some understanding of the future direction of farming policy. However, there remained a small number of comments from farmers who remain unaware. Other comments showed some understanding but suggested that the vision remained “a little blurry” and would benefit from further clarity. A few respondents were optimistic about the future and were looking forward to a “new approach” and “future opportunities”. A larger proportion were more cautious, raising concerns about Defra’s ability to deliver the vision as well as the continued relevance of the vision considering international events, such as the war in Ukraine.

Calls for further information and clarity was a cross cutting theme, often linked to other major themes such as Environmental Land Management schemes, the Future Farming vision and business viability. Many comments highlighted the connection between a lack of clarity and the consequent impact on decision making, business planning, and wellbeing, especially in relation to future business viability. Many comments continue to focus on the differing priorities of farming. Food production and environmental management were often presented as competing priorities. There were many comments suggesting that food production should always take priority over the environment and that policy makers should not be “placing the environment above all else.” There was also evidence of support for a more balanced approach, recognising the challenges of addressing both food production and environmental management. A few farmers voiced explicit support for environmental management as a priority and its importance to a “thriving agricultural sector”.

2.2 Food security

Food security was the most common theme in the comments, ranging from farmers being “worried about food security” and suggestions that food production should be “prioritised”, to evidence of widespread frustration and concern. Farmers spoke about food security in the context of policy priorities, suggesting that environmental protection should take “a back seat” considering the current global situation. Other comments included food security as a rationale for reducing reliance on imports.

Respondents noted the environmental impact of importing food, contrasting with the environmental priorities of future schemes. Some farmers voiced frustration about the lower standards of imported food and the allowance of imports which use chemicals banned in this country, such as noenicitinoids. Comments also referred to international trade agreements and the potential negative impact they could have on English farmers.

Comments around food security were also linked to farmers’ views of Defra and the government, with worries that the prospect of a food crisis was not being “managed” and instead being “ignored.” There were also indications that the perceived mismanagement of food security could negatively impact trust in Defra and the government both now and in the future.

2.3 Business viability

Business viability was a cross cutting theme that was raised alongside other themes, including Basic Payment removal, rising production costs, food security and mental health and wellbeing. There were significant concerns among a few farmers of the future viability of their farms with some suggesting that continued financial support or price controls were required to allow their farms to remain viable. There were some concerns that payments under the new schemes will not fully compensate the loss of direct payments, and that direct payments were being phased out before replacement funding was available. Nonetheless, there were a few comments in support of the removal of direct payments, although with the caveat that the price of food should increase to account for the cost of production.

Many of the comments that related to business viability referenced a future loss of income and low payments from future schemes, most of these comments were made by dairy farmers and grazing livestock farmers. Also related to business viability were comments around diversification with a few farmers noting the challenges that they had experienced when trying to diversify their income, including planning restrictions and Covid 19. There was evidence of resignation to the failure of some farms in a few comments. According to one farmer: “Some adapt better than others. Those that don’t will fail.”.

The financial and mental pressure of the rising cost of production were both evident. Some linked business viability and BPS removal with mental health and wellbeing. Responses emphasised the impact of current uncertainties and regulatory changes. Strong language was used to describe the strength of feeling among a few farmers including referring to feelings of “pressure”, “despondency”, “depression”, “stress” and “anxiety”. A few comments suggested that food and farming were being “undervalued”. In contrast, there were also a few positive comments from farmers who felt that they were being listened to and supported by Defra.

2.4 Issues relating to specific farm types

Many farmers commented on issues relating to specific farm types. Such issues referred to business viability as well as upcoming schemes. Farmers spoke of the necessity of avoiding a “one size fits all” approach and raised concerns about the viability of small, hill and tenanted farms. For hill farms, the lack of diversification opportunities was a concern. For small farms, concerns were raised about the capacity to complete additional paperwork, and that larger farms would benefit disproportionately from scheme payments. For tenant farmers, apprehension was voiced about implementing new schemes within the timeframe of a short-term tenancy, restricted diversification opportunities, and worries that funding would be paid to landowners rather than tenants.

2.5 Environmental Land Management schemes

Environmental Land Management schemes continue to be a dominant theme. Concerns relating to payments and eligibility were mentioned most often, together with calls for further information. Sentiments expressed ranged from positive to very negative with a few neutral statements. Reservations continue to be voiced about the focus of new schemes away from food production and food security. While a few farmers welcomed the new schemes, there remained calls for “clear and precise criteria” and “simplicity”. There continued to be suggestions that payment rates were “too low”, offering limited incentive and not matching the support provided by Basic Payments. Some farmers commented on the design of the schemes with reservations about the potential positive environmental impact, and the need for flexibility to allow all farm types to benefit. Some respondents shared their difficulties in trying to navigate the details and understanding how the schemes relate to one another, voicing frustration about a need to pay advisors to understand the schemes. Comments that referred to Sustainable Farming Incentive often related to payment rates and concerns that they would not provide enough incentive. Although additional information and details about the Sustainable Farming Initiative were announced in December 2021, there remained frustrations about limited information and lack of clarity.

2.6 Relationship with the farming community

Some farmers provided feedback on Defra and its Arm’s Length Bodies (ALBs). A few comments were positive with reference to “glimmers of hope” and improvements over recent years. Co-design and the Defra helpline received positive feedback. Negative comments were more dominant. There was evidence of scepticism among some farmers of Defra’s understanding of the realities of farming. A few frustrations were also voiced about the perceived influence of certain individuals or environmental groups on farming policy. Calls were made to include farmers to a greater extent in policy making. Some farmers had lost confidence in Defra and its ALBs due to past experiences with some referring to the positive relationship that existed between farmers and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) before it was replaced by Defra in 2002.

Many comments referred to scheme administration, the majority of which voiced frustration about “too much red tape” and “bureaucracy”. A few farmers explained how they had left government schemes to avoid it and others referred to past negative experiences. Some comments referred explicitly to the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) and the need to “simplify” rules to enable farmers to comply. The need for a “friendlier” approach to regulation was also raised emphasising that mistakes are most often made in error rather than deliberately. Concerns were raised that levels of regulation would increase in the future, with reference to regulations that were considered overly “aggressive or unreasonable”.

2.7 What’s Different Now? (Comparison to previous results)

While there continues to be recurring themes, there were some differences worth noting. A slightly lower proportion of respondents chose to provide comments compared to the previous one. A slightly higher number of positive comments were received about the relationship between Defra, its ALBs and farmers.

Comments relating to food security were more prevalent. Previously, food security had been discussed within the context of supporting home production and reducing reliance on imports. The focus has shifted to the need to secure food security to avoid food shortages. This was often mentioned in the context of the war in Ukraine and its potential impact on global food supply, as well as the cost of food and production costs. The impacts associated with the war in Ukraine also led some farmers to suggest changes were needed to agricultural policy and Environmental Land Management scheme specifically. While the policy focus on environmental management has been criticised by some farmers previously, the critique was more routed in food security and the need to focus on production.

There were more comments relating to new entrants and young farmers, with farmers emphasising the need to support new entrants and “ensure” the future of the industry. There were also references made to the Lump Sum Exit Scheme (opened in April 2022) which had not been mentioned before.

In the October 2021 tracker, international trade and imports received significant coverage, but were less prominent this time.

3. What you need to know about this release

3.1 Contact details

Statistics

Responsible statistician: Emma Howat

Team: Farming Statistics - Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Email address: Farming-Statistics@defra.gov.uk

Telephone: 03000 600170

Social Research

Responsible social researcher: Rhiannon Naylor

Team: Future Farming Insights and Evaluation - Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Email: Farming.Research@defra.gov.uk

3.2 Official statistics status

Official statistics are produced to the high professional standards and comply with the United Kingdom Statistics Authority’s Code of Practice for Statistics. The Code of Practice for Statistics sets the standards that producers of official statistics should commit to. Compliance with the Code gives you confidence that our published statistics have public value, are high quality, and are produced by people and organisations that are trustworthy.

4. About these statistics

4.1 Methodology

The Farmer Opinion Tracker provides a snapshot of views and opinions towards Defra’s vision for farming as at April 2022. Farmers were asked questions about Defra’s vision for farming, business planning, relationships with farming organisations and Defra and the future of farming.

The results provided in this report are based on surveys sent to a representative sub-sample of the farming community in England, approximately 6,000 holdings. The survey was voluntary and 1,290 responses were received (including some partial responses), resulting in a response rate of 21%.

To be included in the main sample, holdings had to have at least 50 cattle, 100 sheep, 100 pigs, 1,000 poultry or 20 hectares of arable crops or orchards. Therefore, all results given in this statistical report reflect just over 60 thousand holdings that exceed these thresholds out of the total English population of almost 107 thousand commercial holdings.

4.2 Data analysis

Results have been analysed using a standard methodology for stratified random surveys to produce national estimates. With this method, all of the data are weighted according to the inverse sampling fraction.

4.3 Accuracy and reliability of the results

We show 95% confidence intervals against the results in the Farmer Opinion Tracker dataset. These show the range of values that may apply to the figures. They mean that we are 95% confident that this range contains the true value. They are calculated as the standard errors (se) multiplied by 1.96 to give the 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The standard errors only give an indication of the sampling error. They do not reflect any other sources of survey errors, such as non-response bias.

4.4 Uses and Users

The survey was set up to collect farmer opinion on the future for farming in England prior to, and during, the Agricultural Transition. The aim is to be open and transparent about what we are hearing from the farming community and then acknowledge and respond to areas where we need to improve. The data collected via this survey will be used to create a baseline dataset of farmer opinion which can then be monitored over time to see how it is changing as we move through the agricultural transition period.

4.5 Definitions

Region

This refers to the ITL1 regions in England, for the purposes of this analysis we have combined the South East with London.

Farm type

This refers to the ‘robust type’, which is a standardised farm classification system. Farms are split into Dairy, Grazing Livestock Less Favoured Areas (LFA), Grazing Livestock Lowland, Mixed, Other crops, Cereals and Pigs & Poultry (Specialist Pigs and Specialist Poultry combined).

Farm sizes

This is based on the estimated labour requirements for the holding, rather than its land area. The farm size bands used within the detailed results tables which accompany this publication are shown in the table below. Standard Labour Requirement (SLR) is defined as the theoretical number of workers required each year to run a holding, based on its cropping and livestock activities.

Farm size Definition
Small Less than 2 SLR
Medium 2 to less than 3 SLR
Large 3 or more SLR

Farm ownership

This is based on data from the June Survey of Agriculture and Horticulture. The types are split into:

  • Owned - all area on the holding is owned
  • Tenanted - All area on the holding is rented under a Full Agricultural Tenancy, Full Business Tenancy, Other agreement or is seasonally rented in (364 days or less)
  • Mixed - area on the holding is a mixture of owned and tenanted

3.6 Future publications

The Farmer Opinion Survey for England was first run in Autumn 2019. The survey was set up to collect opinion prior to, and during, the agricultural transition which is the period of the Future Farming and Countryside Programme. Therefore, it is expected the survey will run every 6 months until 2028. Please note, only one survey was run in 2020 as Covid disrupted data collection.

The next survey will be run in Autumn 2022. The publication date will be announced on the research and statistics webpage on gov.uk.

To view previous statistical releases and the full breakdown of results, please visit the Farm Opinion Tracker collection.