Official Statistics

Farmer Opinion Tracker for England: October 2023

Published 7 February 2024

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.

A time-series comparing the results from each survey from September 2019 to date can be found on GOV.UK as well as a dataset providing a more detailed breakdown of each question’s responses for farm ownership, size, type and region.

Key messages for October 2023

• Farmers on 64% of holdings said that they either fully (6%) or roughly (58%) understand Defra’s vision for farming, no change from 64% in April 2023.
• Farmers on 35% of holdings indicated that they are making changes to their farm business and a further 46% said they will need to make changes to their farm business in the next 3 to 5 years.
• Farmers on 83% of holdings said that Defra paying for environmental outcomes will be very (60%) or moderately (23%) important to their business in the future.
• Farmers on 65% of holdings are not at all confident that changes to schemes and regulations will lead to a successful future for farming, a decrease from 71% in April 2023.
• Farmers on 41% of holdings feel positive about their future in farming (4% very positive; 37% 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.

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. In October 2023, when asked if they know what Defra’s vision meant for farming, farmers on 64% of holdings said that they either fully (6%) or roughly (58%) understood Defra’s vision (see Figure 1). This is no change from 64% in April 2023 (fully understand 7%; roughly understand 57%). A further 33% said they didn’t know but would be interested to know more. Farmers on the remaining 3% 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, April 2022 to October 2023

Download the data for this chart

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). In October 2023, farmers on 51% of holdings said they had all (6%) or most (45%) of the information they required. This proportion is an increase from from 44% in April 2023 and an increase from 43% in October 2022. In October 2023, a further 23% indicated that they didn’t have any information but knew where they could find it. Farmers on 18% 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, April 2022 to October 2023

Download the data for this chart

In October 2023, farmers on 81% of holdings said that they are currently (35%) or that they will need to make changes (46%) to their business in the next 3-5 years. This is an increase from the proportion reported in April 2023 (Figure 3). A further 7% of farmers on all holdings indicated that they don’t need to make any changes to their farming business and the remaining 12% 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, April 2023 to October 2023

Download the data for this chart

Note: This question changed in October 2022 to include the option “I am making changes to my business”. Data collected before the introduction of the additional option cannot be directly compared with data collected after the the additional option was introduced. Therefore, responses for previous surveys are not shown, but can be found in the related dataset.

Farmers who answered that they are making changes or will need to make changes to their farm business in the next 3 to 5 years were then asked what changes they are making or will need to make (see Figure 4). In October 2023, farmers on 40% of holdings said they would stay farming but diversify their business into non-farming areas. This proportion is a decrease from 45% in April 2023. Around 22% of farmers said they will stay farming but increase productivity and a further 23% said they will stay farming and grow the business. A number of farmers indicated that they would leave farming, as 7% are planning on retiring or passing the farm onto the next generation and 5% would leave farming for other reasons. Farmers on 5% of holdings stated other changes they plan to make to their farm business which included cutting costs and participating in environmental schemes.

Figure 4: Changes to farm business, April 2023 to October 2023

Download the data for this chart

Notes:

1. Farms could select more than one option.

2. Only respondents who answered “I am making changes to my business” or “I will need to make changes to my business” to the previous question (“Do you feel you will need to make changes to your business in the next 3-5 years?”) were shown this question in the survey.

These proportions varied across farms. Compared to 23% of all holdings, 35% of Cereals holdings intend to stay farming but change the core agricultural enterprise in October 2023. Whereas 8% of farmers on Grazing Livestock LFA holdings are likely to make this change in the next 3 to 5 years (see Figure 5).

Figure 5: Proportion of holdings that plan to stay farming but change core agricultural enterprises, by farm type (October 2023)

Download the data for this chart

Figure 6: Proportion of holdings that plan to stay farming and diversify into non farming areas, by English region (October 2023)

Download the data for this chart

Notes:

1. Farms could select more than one option.

2. Only respondents who answered “I am making changes to my business” or “I will need to make changes to my business” to the previous question (“Do you feel you will need to make changes to your business in the next 3-5 years?”) were shown this question in the survey.

In October 2023, farmers on 23% of all holdings intend to stay farming and grow the business in the coming years, a decrease from 24% in April 2023. This proportion varied across farm size, with 40% of larger holdings and 21% of medium holdings selecting this option compared to 19% of small holdings (see Figure 7).

Figure 7: Proportion of holdings that plan to stay farming and grow the business, by farm size (October 2023)

Download the data for this chart

Notes:

1. Farms could select more than one option.

2. Only respondents who answered “I am making changes to my business” or “I will need to make changes to my business” to the previous question (“Do you feel you will need to make changes to your business in the next 3-5 years?”) were shown this question in the survey.

All farmers were asked whether a range of external factors led them to make changes on their farm, regardless of whether they intend to make changes to their business in the next 3 to 5 years. In October 2023, input price changes remained the most commonly selected external factor that led farmers to make changes to their business with farmers on 87% of holdings selecting this option (see Figure 8). This was followed by output price changes (59%), weather / climate change (55%) and trade agreements with other countries (26%). The least commonly selected external factor leading farms to make changes to their business was food security and supply (23%).

Figure 8: Changes to farm business due to external factors, April 2023 to October 2023

Download the data for this chart

Notes:

1. Farms could select more than one option.

2. This question was added in October 2022.

In October 2023, farmers on 56% of holdings are either very (6%) or somewhat (50%) confident that they can respond to any changes that are needed. This is an increase from 51% in April 2023 (very confident 6%; somewhat confident 45%). This proportion varies across farm types, as 61% of Dairy holdings are confident that they can make changes compared to 50% of Other crops holdings. Farmers on 34% of all holdings are not at all confident they can respond to the changes needed and the remaining 10% are unsure (see Figure 9).

Figure 9: Proportion of holdings that are confident they can respond to changes, by farm type (October 2023)

Download the data for this chart

1.3 Groups

Farming organisations and advisors have a role in helping farm businesses to adapt to the changes needed. In October 2023, farmers on 34% of holdings agreed that these organisations were helping them to make changes, with an additional 5% strongly agreeing. This is an increase from 29% and 3%, respectively, in April 2023. Approximately 39% neither agreed or disagreed and a further 21% said they either disagreed (13%) or strongly disagreed (8%) that these organisations were helping them to make changes (see Figure 10).

Figure 10: Proportion of holdings that agree farming organisations and advisors are helping them make changes to their business, April 2022 to October 2023

Download the data for this chart

The future vision for farming involves farm businesses responding to both existing and new market demand for produce. In October 2023, farmers on 68% of holdings said that producing for the end market would currently be very important for their farm business with a further 26% indicating that it would be moderately important (see Figure 11). 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 68% of holdings and 22% indicated that it would be moderately important in October 2023. Only 4% said it was not at all important and farmers on the remaining 6% of holdings were unsure.

Figure 11: Proportion of holdings that believe producing for the end market is important for their business, October 2023

Download the data for this chart

1.4 Environment

Defra’s vision for farming involves providing environmental outcomes. In October 2023, farmers on 79% of holdings said Defra paying for environmental outcomes was currently very (51%) or moderately (28%) important for their business (see Figure 12). A further 16% said that it was currently not at all important.

In October 2023, when asked how important it will be in the future for Defra to pay for environmental outcomes, farmers on 60% of holdings said it would be very important. A further 23% believed it would be moderately important and only 9% said that Defra paying for environmental outcomes in the future was not at all important.

Figure 12: Proportion of holdings that believe Defra paying for environmental outcomes would be important for their business, October 2023

Download the data for this chart

Environmental safeguards and standards in farming are maintained by both enforcing regulations and empowering individual responsibility. In October 2023, farmers on 34% of holdings either agreed (32%) or strongly agreed (2%) that the current approach balances enforcement with individual responsibility (see Figure 13). This is an increase from 30% in April 2023 and an increase from 32% in October 2022. Farmers on 38% of holdings neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. A further 15% disagreed that the current approach balances enforcement with individual responsibility and 8% strongly disagreed. Farmers on the remaining 5% of holdings were unsure.

Figure 13: Proportion of holdings that agree the current approach balances enforcement with individual responsibility, April 2022 to October 2023

Download the data for this chart

Regulations protect the environment, farmed animals and public health. In October 2023, farmers on 86% of holdings are either very (21%) or somewhat (65%) confident that they understand which regulations apply to their farm. This is an increase from 81% in April 2023 (very confident 23%; somewhat confident 58%). A further 13% are not at all confident and only 1% don’t know which regulations apply to their farm (see Figure 14).

Figure 14: Proportion of holdings that are confident they understand which regulations apply to their farm, April 2022 to October 2023

Download the data for this chart

Farmers were asked to consider the regulations that apply to their farms (outside the rules associated with any payment schemes) and 26% of all holdings indicated that they fully understood the purpose of the rules in October 2023. This proportion varied by farm ownership; 23% of mixed holdings and 27% of fully owned holdings said they fully understood the purpose of the rules compared to 32% of tenanted holdings (see Figure 15). Farmers on 62% of all holdings say that they roughly understood the purpose of the rules which apply to their farm. A further 10% don’t understand the purpose but want to know and only 2% said that they don’t need to know.

Figure 15: Proportion of holdings that understand the purpose of the regulations which apply to their farm, by farm ownership (October 2023)

Download the data for this chart

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 65% of holdings said that they are not confident at all (see Figure 16) in October 2023. Approximately 27% of holdings indicated that they are either very (0%) or somewhat (27%) confident in the changes to the schemes. This is an increase from 21% in April 2023 (very confident 0%; somewhat confident 21%). The remaining 8% of farmers on all holdings don’t know if the changes to schemes will result in a successful future for farming.

Figure 16: Proportion of holdings that are confident the changes to schemes and regulations will lead to a successful future in farming, April 2022 to October 2023

Download the data for this chart

Defra and Defra agencies such as the Rural Payments Agency and Natural England are working together to deliver planned changes to schemes and regulations. In October 2023, farmers on 57% of holdings are not at all confident in Defra and Defra agency’s ability to deliver planned changes to schemes and regulations. This proportion is a decrease from 62% in April 2023 (see Figure 17). In October 2023, a further 35% of holdings are either very (2%) or somewhat (33%) confident in Defra and Defra agency’s ability to deliver planned changes to schemes. Farmers on the remaining 8% of holdings are unsure.

Figure 17: Proportion of holdings that are confident in Defra and Defra agency’s abilities to work together to deliver changes to schemes and regulations, April 2022 to October 2023

Download the data for this chart

The October 2023 survey showed that as part of delivering the changes, farmers on 48% 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 is a decrease from 50% in April 2023. In October 2023, approximately 41% of holdings are either very (2%) or somewhat (39%) confident that their relationship with Defra will develop positively in the future. Farmers on the remaining 11% of holdings said that they were unsure (see Figure 18).

Figure 18: Proportion of holdings that believe their relationship with Defra and Defra agencies will develop positively in the future, April 2022 to October 2023

Download the data for this chart

In October 2023, when asked to consider the changes to existing payments and regulations as well as the new schemes that will be available, farmers on 32% of holdings feel either very (2%) or somewhat (30%) positive about the future of farming (see Figure 19). This is an increase from 29% in April 2023 (very positive 1%; somewhat positive 28%). In October 2023, farmers on 60% of all holdings are not at all positive about the future of farming and the remaining 8% are unsure.

Figure 19: Proportion of holdings that feel positive about the future of farming, April 2022 to October 2023

Download the data for this chart

In October 2023, farmers on 41% of holdings felt positive about their own future in farming (very positive 4%; somewhat positive 37%). This is an increase from 39% in April 2023. In October 2023, approximately 48% indicated that they are not at all positive and the remaining 11% are unsure how they feel about their own future in farming (see Figure 20).

Figure 20: Proportion of holdings that feel positive about their own future in farming, April 2022 to October 2023

Download the data for this chart

Section 2 - Open Text Comments

357 out of the 1,357 respondents provided a comment. Below is a summary of the comments, focusing on those relevant to Defra and the Agricultural Transition.

Food security was mentioned most often, regularly linked to food production and environmental concerns perceived as opposite aims. Food security was also often linked to a belief that the country is becoming too reliant on imports of food.

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. Potential salience bias may impact on responses, with those issues that received significant media attention attracting more references and respondents being less likely to comment in detail on issues that were less salient but nonetheless important. It also means that policy updates made since the survey period will not have been accounted for in responses. A couple of examples of this are included below.

2.1 High level vision and clarity of future direction

Some respondents were positive about the vision for farming, feeling it was a good direction for the future. Others were more neutral about the vision and transition, recognising that change will happen but isn’t always predictable, noting that Defra will need to address unforeseen changes as they occur.

There were also those that felt that there was not enough information on the vision or enough certainty that it will not change in future to make the business decisions they need to. Others felt that the vision would make it difficult to farm profitably e.g. for smaller farms.

Some respondents believed that the Defra vision is to “re-wild” farmland, an aim they did not agree with. There were differing views on climate change and measures to tackle it, with some saying they did not believe it was a real issue, contrasting with others saying that Defra are not doing enough to tackle it.

2.2 Food security, production, and imports

Many respondents stated that food security was of high importance and believe the changes happening through the Agricultural Transition put that security in jeopardy. Some felt that vision of the Agricultural Transition implied a need to import food and the current schemes don’t consider the food security implications of needing to import food and the reliance on external supply chains that can be disrupted.

Whilst a large number of respondents felt that there was not enough emphasis on food security, some felt that these were not sound concerns. They stated that in an emergency land turned over to biodiversity could be reclaimed for farming “within a season”, and that there weren’t any current issues with food supplies.

Strongly linked to food security, many respondents felt that there needed to be more focus on food production, with a belief that schemes were discouraging production. There was a belief for some that there is already enough land given over to wildlife and that farmers already look after the environment, which is not recognised. Others pointed to the need for balance between food production and the environment, with a feeling that the current schemes focus too much on environmental benefits and not enough on production.

That said, there were a number of respondents that felt that the environment should be more of a priority, stating reasons such as schemes not going far enough in tackling “global warming”, or feeling that farming had a detrimental effect on the environment, particularly larger “agribusinesses”.

A large number of respondents mentioned international trade. Most often this was in the context of feeling that importing food at lower standards allows an undercutting of English farming, and that there needs to be a “level playing field” to enable British farming to compete. Linked and often heard points were that by importing from countries with lower environmental standards we are shifting the negative environmental impacts of farming abroad, relinquishing control of production standards, and increasing “food miles” rather than solving the problem.

2.3 Business Viability

Continuing business viability came up as an issue for a large number of farmers with several sub-themes such as Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) withdrawal, diversification, output prices, scheme payments, market uncertainty and input costs.

There was some negative sentiment expressed around BPS withdrawal. For many of those feeling this way it was because they believed that there was not an adequate replacement source of funding to act as a safety net for low yield years, such as 2023.

There were comments that showed that diversification is key to some farm businesses surviving, although it should be noted that this was not necessarily seen as a good thing, with a few respondents believing that they should not have to diversify and would rather that farm businesses could survive based on food production alone.

Some respondents pointed to lowering farm gate prices for their produce being a negative impact on their businesses, hitting profit margins and meaning that they cannot afford to reinvest for the future success of their businesses. Some felt that output prices will remain low as what the consumer really cares about is a low food price and not the environment. There was a feeling that the public, in general, need to place more value on food and food production and be prepared to pay a fair price. Supermarkets were mentioned by some as suppressing the prices farmers could charge.

Input costs were mentioned by a few farmers, sometimes with respect to low output prices, and BPS withdrawal with the loss of guaranteed income that it provided. Some pointed to the long-term sector viability in the light of increasing cost trends and the need for government support. A few noted that it was becoming hard to maintain cashflow with banks being less likely to lend to them. Some respondents pointed to general market uncertainty as being an issue for their business’ viability with a desire for more to be done to make markets less volatile.

2.4 Specific farm types

Some of the most commonly identified farm types which were mentioned as being disproportionately affected by the Agricultural Transition were small farms, tenant farms, livestock and dairy farms, and farms on less favourable land.

Small farms were mentioned by several respondents. Most often these comments centred around a perception of a lack of support for small farms in ELM schemes, and a view that new schemes are geared towards large farms. There was worry that small farms would struggle to survive the next few years.

There were many comments around tenant farmers with most highlighting the issue of needing to pay rent to landlords, which they felt is made harder by BPS withdrawal, and a widely held belief that landlords will put up the rent in line with grant amounts. Others believed that environmental charities and landlords will buy or take land back in hand to benefit from new environmental schemes for themselves making it harder for tenants. Barriers and pressures to tenant farmers and their businesses were highlighted, such as not having the capital to exit the industry, or not being able to diversify in the same way landowners are.

A small number of respondents felt that as livestock farmers there were few ELM schemes for them, or that the available schemes were unattractive for them.

A number of respondents left comments relating to less favoured area farms, highlighting the struggles that farms such as hill farms have in farming their land to make a profit, particularly in light of BPS withdrawal, and a feeling that ELM schemes are not tailored to them. Some hill farmers felt that there was not enough recognition of the environmental benefits that they can or are already offering.

2.5 Environmental Land Management schemes

There was positivity from some around ELM schemes with respondents saying that they liked schemes such as Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) and saw them as helpful to farmers as BPS is withdrawn. Some had changed their minds after participating in schemes such as SFI which they did not initially believe were the right direction but were now enthusiastic to continue to participate.

Some respondents would like to see more gradual change and continuous reviews to ensure schemes worked and ensure a balance of environmental payments that doesn’t unfairly advantage some farmers over others. Long-term scheme stability is also needed to inspire confidence in those applying. There were a number of comments that were more negative about ELM schemes that centred around several themes.

Some respondents felt that schemes and the process for applying for schemes was too complicated and that there may be too many schemes available causing them difficulty finding the right one for them. Others took issue with the amount of administrative burden they felt new schemes placed upon them and wanted to spend less time filling in forms or felt that there was not enough action to get the schemes delivered “in a timely manner” leaving them uncertain of what they need to do and by when. A number of respondents mentioned that they thought payment rates were too low.

There were calls for more information and clarity on schemes and changes going forward from some who felt they do not understand new schemes. Others felt they needed more certainty of direction and likely changes, pointing out that the nature of farming means planning 5 or more years into the future. There was a belief for some that delays to scheme announcements and an inability to join new schemes was having a negative impact on their businesses.

There were comments that suggested that some felt that their farms were not eligible for ELM schemes due to their type of farm e.g. small farms, or that they were not attractive to farmers as landowners would be more likely to take land back in hand to enter into environmental schemes rather than farm the land.

Some respondents thought ELM schemes may have a “net negative” effect on wildlife and the environment, believing them to be environmentally damaging in practice.

2.6 Working with Defra

Several comments noted a feeling that the relationships between Defra, ALBs, and farmers has improved over time. A few noted that they were happy to engage with Defra and ALBs and be involved with making change in the industry. Several respondents stressed that getting Defra’s approach right is crucial for supporting farmers through the Agricultural Transition, for example taking a less punitive approach in favour of working together.

A few respondents felt that Defra and its ALBs lack the practical knowledge and experience of farming that is needed to make decisions about the future of farming. For some, this meant that Defra and its ALBs need a greater on-farm or physical presence and taking a friendlier and common-sense approach when interacting with farmers and land managers.

A few commented on Defra’s response to water pollution by private-sector companies feeling that Defra was placing the blame on farmers, rather than those responsible, and that this was undermining their partnership. There were expressions of concern about river maintenance, and the flooding that could result from a lack of maintenance.

Some described farming regulation as complex and emphasised the need for simpler rules, and a feeling that Defra needed to have a better understanding of the needs of farmers. Others felt that there are too many regulations on farming, with some adding that adhering to these regulations is time-consuming or costly.

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

A lower proportion and total number of respondents chose to provide comments compared to the previous survey. There were some notable differences to the previous tracker.

Food security concerns have been a growing issue for respondents, and in October 2023 food security became the most mentioned topic with a desire to prioritise food production also being very commonly mentioned. There is a common belief that ELM schemes are there to prioritise the environment over food production and therefore have a negative impact on food security.

Imports have been mentioned in past trackers but in October 2023 a higher proportion raised them than in April 2023, with the most common issues being concerns of perceived over-reliance on imports on food security, imports undercutting English farmers, and a perception that environmental negatives of farming are being offshored rather than truly dealt with.

Input costs were mentioned less often than in April 2023 continuing a lowering trend from October 2022 reflecting the easing of inflation over this period, but output prices were still often mentioned with a feeling that farmers are unable to set the prices they would like to due to retailer power and the desire of the public to buy the cheapest possible food.

There were an increased number of comments relating to rivers and waterways, likely due to increased mentions in the media. Some respondents felt that farmers are unfairly blamed for issues relating to waterways.

Since the tracker recorded these results, Defra have provided more information at both strategic policy direction and scheme specific levels, for example via their farming blog Farming (blog.gov.uk). Earlier in the year Defra released the Plan for Water. Most recently, at the Oxford farming conference in January 2024 Environment Secretary Steve Barclay gave a number of updates for farmers, with an increase in funding and focus on making processes easier.

Section 3 - What you need to know about this release

3.1 Contact details

Statistics

Responsible statistician: Charlotte McGinty

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: Peter Smith

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

Email: Farming.Research@defra.gov.uk

3.2 Official statistics status

Our statistical practice is regulated by the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR). OSR sets the standards of trustworthiness, quality and value in the Code of Practice for Statistics that all producers of official statistics should adhere to. You can read about how Official Statistics in Defra comply with these standards on the Defra Statistics website.

You are welcome to contact us directly with any comments about how we meet these standards using the contact details above. Alternatively, you can contact OSR by emailing regulation@statistics.gov.uk or via the OSR website.

Section 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 October 2023. 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 1,357 responses were received (including some partial responses), resulting in a response rate of around 23%.

There have been no question changes since the last survey was run.

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

4.6 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 Spring 2024. 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.