Accredited official statistics

Farm business management practices in England 2022/23 - statistics notice

Updated 6 August 2024

Applies to England

This release provides statistics on the business management practices adopted by principal farmers in England, using data from the Farm Business Survey (FBS). The results cover the period 1 March 2022 to the end of February 2023, which includes the 2022 harvest.

Three areas have been examined: business planning, benchmarking and management accounting practices; risk management practices; and accessing advice.

Points which apply throughout

1. The Farm Business Survey is the source for all data presented in tables and charts.
2. All figures relate to England, unless otherwise stated, and cover a March to February fiscal year, with the most recent year shown ending in February. Fiscal years are shown in YYYY/YY format, for example, the period of 1 March 2022 to 28 February 2023 is shown as 2022/23. To ensure consistency in harvest/crop year and commonality of subsidies within any one Farm Business Survey year, only farms which have accounting years ending between 31 December and 30 April are included in the survey. Aggregate results are presented in terms of an accounting year ending on the last day of February which is the approximate average of all farms in the Farm Business Survey.
3. Farmers were able to choose more than one response option to the questions they were asked.
4. When ‘other’ farms are mentioned, this refers to the following farm types which have been combined into one group due to small sample sizes: mixed, horticulture, poultry and pig farms.
5. When percentage point changes are mentioned, this refers to the results of the McNemar statistical tests which were statistically significant. For more information, see section 5.3.
6. When likelihoods are mentioned, this refers to the results obtained from logistic regression models. These models assess the likelihood of farms to select each response from the questions asked in this survey, and compared farms based on farm type, farm size and farm economic performance band. For more information, see section 5.4.
7. Percentage point changes have been calculated using unrounded values and then rounded to the nearest whole number. Therefore, they may not match the difference between the rounded figures.
8. The acronym ‘LFA’ refers to Less Favoured Area. These areas were established in 1975 to provide support to mountainous and hill farming areas. They are areas where the natural characteristics (geology, altitude, climate, short growing season, low soil fertility, or remoteness) make it difficult for farmers to compete.
9. The principal farmer refers to the farmer who is primarily responsible for the management and operation of the farm. In cases where two or more farmers share these responsibilities equally, the principal farmer is the one who was interviewed for the survey.
10. Where dataset tables are referred to in the text, this refers to the ‘Farm business management practices in England 2022/23 - dataset’ file, which can be found here

Key results

• The vast majority of farms (86%) undertook at least one business management practice in 2022/23, and producing an informal plan was the most common practice (60% of farms).
• Less than a third of farms (28%) had no risk management strategy in 2022/23. In addition, 81% of cropping farms had no crop damage insurance, and 81% of the livestock farms had no animal health insurance.
• The leading reason for farms not undertaking more business or risk management practices was that they felt all their practices they needed were already being carried out (41% of farms).
• Both business management advice and technical advice were accessed by the majority of farms in 2022/23 at 92% and 97% respectively. Advice supplied with no direct charge was the most common business management advice source (57% of farms). Farming media was the most common technical advice source (70% of farms).

1 Business planning, benchmarking and management accounting practices

Principal farmers were asked about the business planning, benchmarking and management accounting practices that were undertaken for their business, either by themselves or by a third party. They were also asked about the barriers to undertaking more practices.

1.1 Business management practices

Farmers were asked which of the following business management practices were currently being carried out for their business by themselves or a third party:

1. No business management practices
2. Attends discussion groups on business management issues at least three times a year
3. Has an informal plan
4. Has produced a formal plan and reviews it at least once a year
5. Regularly produces budgets, gross margins, cash flows or in depth analysis of profit and loss account
6. Uses Farm Business Survey benchmarking and feedback
7. Uses benchmarking from other sources, including enterprise level, balance sheet or international benchmarking

Figure 1.1 Percentage of farm businesses undertaking business planning, benchmarking or management accounting practices in England, 2016/17 and 2022/23

Figure notes:

1. The legend is presented in the same order as the bars.
2. 95% confidence intervals are presented to illustrate the range within which the true underlying population average is likely to reside, which provides an indication for the level of uncertainty associated with the sample estimate; see section 5.5 for more details.
3. Question choices were slightly different between the 2016/17 and 2022/23 survey years; see section 4.6 for more details.

In the 2022/23 survey year, 86% of farm businesses undertook at least one of the business management practices considered (figure 1.1). General cropping farms were more likely than the other farm types to carry out at least one practice (dataset table 1). Very large farms were more likely than smaller farms to carry out at least one business management practice (dataset table 3).

The most common business management practice was having an informal plan, undertaken by 60% of farms in 2022/23. Part-time farms were less likely than other farm sizes to have an informal plan.

Attending discussion groups on business management issues was a practice adopted by 23% of farms in 2022/23. Across the farm types, lowland grazing livestock farms were less likely to have anyone attending discussion groups (dataset table 1).

In 2022/23, 20% of farms had a formal business plan, compared to 19% in 2016/17 (figure 1.1). Grazing livestock farms were less likely than other farm types to have a formal plan, while very large farms were more likely than small farms to have one (dataset tables 1 and 3).

In 2022/23, around a third of farms (31%) regularly produced financial accounts, a decrease of 2 percentage points since 2016/17 (figure 1.1). Of the farm types, general cropping farms were more likely to carry out this practice (with just over half of farms doing so), whilst grazing livestock farms were less likely (dataset table 1) with 17% and 13% of LFA and lowland grazing livestock farms respectively. Very large farms were also more likely to regularly produce financial accounts than smaller farms (dataset table 3), 50% and 25% respectively.

Figure 1.2 Percentage of farm businesses undertaking business planning or management accounting practices in England by farm economic performance band, 2022/23

Figure notes:

1. The legend is presented in the same order as the bars.
2. 95% confidence intervals are presented to illustrate the range within which the true underlying population average is likely to reside, which provides an indication for the level of uncertainty associated with the sample estimate; see section 5.5 for more details.
3. The text label for some bars have been redacted due to overlap with the error bars.

Around a fifth of low performing farms (22%) did not have any business management practices in 2022/23, compared with 9% of high performing farms (figure 1.2). High performing farm businesses saw the largest proportion (45%) of farm businesses regularly producing financial accounts in 2022/23 compared to 22% of low performing farms.

Figure 1.3 Percentage of farm businesses undertaking benchmarking practices in England by farm type, 2022/23

Figure notes:

1. The legend is presented in the same order as the bars.
2. 95% confidence intervals are presented to illustrate the range within which the true underlying population average is likely to reside, which provides an indication for the level of uncertainty associated with the sample estimate; see section 5.5 for more details.
3. The text label for some bars have been redacted due to overlap with the error bars.

Farm businesses who participate in the Farm Business Survey are provided free benchmarking results as part of their farmer feedback. This has been separated out to distinguish between other more widely available benchmarking services.

Using FBS benchmarking and feedback was the second most common business practice in 2022/23, taken up by half of all farms (figure 1.1). This practice saw a rise of 7 percentage points compared to 2016/17. Across all farm types, ‘other’ farms (mixed, horticulture, poultry and pig farms) were less likely to use FBS benchmarking and feedback (dataset table 1).

Using benchmarking from other sources was the least common business practice in 2022/23 at 15%, seeing a fall of 6 percentage points compared to 2016/17 (figure 1.1). Grazing livestock and ‘other’ farms were less likely to make use of other benchmarking compared to the other farm types, while small farms were the least likely of all farm sizes to do so (dataset tables 1 and 3).

Figure 1.4 Percentage of farm businesses undertaking business planning practices in England by farm size, 2022/23

Figure notes:

1. The legend is presented in the same order as the bars.
2. 95% confidence intervals are presented to illustrate the range within which the true underlying population average is likely to reside, which provides an indication for the level of uncertainty associated with the sample estimate; see section 5.5 for more details.
3. The text label for some bars have been redacted due to overlap with the error bars.

Figure 1.4 shows similar patterns amongst all farm sizes in 2022/23. Over half of all farms had an informal plan regardless of their size. With the exception of part-time farms, the larger the farm size the higher proportion of farms which had a formal plan.

1.2 Reasons given for not carrying out any or more business practices

Farmers were asked why they did not undertake any or additional business management practices, given the following options to choose from:

1. All needed business management practices are already being carried out
2. Does not have time to research, learn about or implement practices
3. Not interested
4. The benefits of business management practices are not clear
5. Does not have the appropriate skills or knowledge
6. The process is too expensive
7. There is insufficient information available to consider options for business management practices
8. Interested, but it is taking longer than anticipated to adopt

Figure 1.5 Reasons why farm businesses are not undertaking more business management practices in England, 2016/17 and 2022/23

Figure notes:

1. The legend is presented in the same order as the bars.
2. 95% confidence intervals are presented to illustrate the range within which the true underlying population average is likely to reside, which provides an indication for the level of uncertainty associated with the sample estimate; see section 5.5 for more details.
3. Question choices were slightly different between the 2016/17 and 2022/23 survey years; see section 4.6 for more details.
4. The text label for some bars have been redacted due to overlap with the error bars.

In 2022/23, the most common reason from farmers for not carrying out more practices was that all their needed practices were being carried out already (41% of farms). This was 24 percentage points higher than in 2016/17. Having no time to research, learn about or implement practices also saw an increase in 2022/23, rising from 22% to 30% of farms (figure 1.5).

Not being interested and lacking appropriate skills or knowledge as barriers to undertaking more practices saw decreases of 49 and 26 percentage points respectively, with practices being too expensive or benefits being unclear following a similar decreasing trend (figure 1.5). ‘Other’ farms (mixed, horticulture, poultry and pig farms) were less likely to attribute cost as a reason for not carrying out more practices compared to the other farm types (dataset table 4).

Two new response options were provided in the 2022/23 survey on reasons farmers were not undertaking more business management practices: ‘No information available to consider options for business management practices’ and ‘Interested, but taking longer than anticipated to adopt’. Information availability was a barrier for 4% of farms. Of all farms, 16% were interested in carrying out more practices but it was taking them longer than anticipated to adopt, with general cropping and dairy farms being less likely than other farm types to have this barrier (figure 1.5 and dataset table 4).

2 Risk management practices

Principal farmers were asked about the measures they were using to minimise risk for their business. For example, measures adopted to mitigate the impact of disease outbreaks or falls in market price. They were also asked about barriers to uptake.

2.1 Risk management practices

Farmers were asked which of the following practices they were undertaking to minimise risk:

1. No risk management strategy
2. Sells some commodities on contract basis with agreed price
3. Uses selling groups and pools to market some or all of commodities
4. Purchases some inputs on contract basis with agreed price
5. Makes use of ‘options’ (contractual agreements that grant the holder the right, but not the obligation, to buy or sell a financial asset at a predetermined price within a specified period of time)
6. Has animal health insurance
7. Has crop damage insurance
8. Uses buying groups and pools to purchase some or all of input
9. Other

Table 2.1 Percentage of farm businesses undertaking risk management practices in England in 2011/12, 2016/17 and 2022/23

Risk management practice	2011/12 (%)	2016/17 (%)	2022/23 (%)	Change from 2016/17 to 2022/23 (% points)	95% Confidence Interval 2022/23 (%)
None identified	20	25	28	+3	25 to 31
Sells some commodities on contract basis	36	38	36	-2	32 to 39
Uses selling groups and pools	25	26	21	-5	18 to 24
Purchases some inputs on contract basis	36	35	31	-4	28 to 35
Makes use of ‘options’	4	5	2	-3	1 to 3
Animal health insurance	16	15	13	-2	11 to 15
Crop damage insurance	11	10	10	0	8 to 13
Uses buying groups and pools	[x]	[x]	28	[x]	21 to 28
Other	[x]	[x]	28	[x]	7 to 11

Table notes:

1. 95% confidence intervals are presented to illustrate the range within which the true underlying population average is likely to reside, which provides an indication for the level of uncertainty associated with the sample estimate; see section 5.5 for more details.
2. Due to rounding, percentage point changes may not agree with the differences between columns.
3. Where ‘x’ appears, this indicates that the response was not an option in the given survey year.
4. Question choices were slightly different between the 2016/17 and 2022/23 survey years; see section 4.6 for more details.

In the 2022/23 survey year, 28% of farms had no risk management strategy, which was a rise of 3 percentage points since 2016/17 (table 2.1). Although this was a statistically significant increase, this must be treated with caution since farmers did not have the choice of answering ‘other’ in previous survey years. Amongst the farm types, cereal and general cropping farms were less likely to have no risk management strategy, while LFA grazing livestock farms were more likely (dataset table 5). Medium and larger farms were less likely than small and part-time farms to have no risk management strategy in place (dataset table 7).

The most common risk management practice in 2022/23 was selling some commodities on a contract basis with an agreed price, which was undertaken by 36% of farms (table 2.1). Across farm types, cereal, general cropping and ‘other’ farms (mixed, horticulture, poultry and pig farms) were more likely to carry out this risk management practice, with LFA grazing livestock farms being less likely (dataset table 5). Very large farms were also more likely to do so compared to small farms (dataset table 7).

Using selling groups and pools to market some or all commodities was a risk management practice adopted by 21% of farms, a decrease of 5 percentage points since 2016/17 (table 2.1). Cereal, general cropping and ‘other’ farms were more likely to carry out this practice (dataset table 5). High performing farms were more likely than medium performing farms to do so, while very large farms were more likely than smaller farms to do so (dataset tables 6 and 7).

Purchasing some inputs on contract basis with an agreed price was a practice taken up by 31% of farms, a decrease of 4 percentage points from the previous survey year (table 2.1). Grazing livestock farms were less likely to use this risk management practice than other farm types, while very large farms were more likely than small farms (dataset tables 5 and 7).

In 2022/23, using buying groups and pools to purchase some or all input was selected by 24% of farms (table 2.1). Across farm types, cereal and general cropping farms were more likely to do so, with LFA grazing livestock farms being less likely (dataset table 5). Larger farms were more likely than small and part-time farms to use buying groups as a risk management practice (dataset table 7).

Figure 2.1 Percentage of farms undertaking risk management practices by farm economic performance band in England, 2022/23

Figure notes:

1. The legend is presented in the same order as the bars.
2. 95% confidence intervals are presented to illustrate the range within which the true underlying population average is likely to reside, which provides an indication for the level of uncertainty associated with the sample estimate; see section 5.5 for more details.
3. The text label for some bars have been redacted due to overlap with the error bars.

When comparing risk management practices within performance bands, there was a similar pattern across all risk management practices in the 2022/23 survey year. A larger proportion of high performing farms undertook various risk management practices, whilst a smaller proportion of lower performing farms did (figure 2.1).

Making use of ‘options’ was a practice only taken up by 2% of farms in the 2022/23 survey year (table 2.1). High performing farms were more likely than lower performing farms to utilise this risk management practice (dataset table 6).

Figure 2.2 Percentage of farms with no animal or crop insurance by reduced farm type in England, 2022/23

Figure notes:

1. The legend is presented in the same order as the bars
2. 95% confidence intervals are presented to illustrate the range within which the true underlying population average is likely to reside, which provides an indication for the level of uncertainty associated with the sample estimate; see section 5.5 for more details.
3. Cropping farms consist of cereal, general cropping and horticulture farms.
4. Livestock farms consist of dairy, grazing livestock, pig and poultry farms.
5. Mixed farms reflect the enterprises found in the more specialist cropping and livestock farm types.

In 2022/23, 13% of farms had animal health insurance, a decrease of 2 percentage points compared to 2016/17 (table 2.1). Amongst the farm types, cereal, general cropping and lowland grazing livestock farms were less likely to have animal health insurance (dataset table 7). High performing farms were less likely than lower performing farms to have animal health insurance, while very large farms were more likely than smaller farms (dataset tables 6 and 7).

Crop damage insurance was taken up by 10% of farms in 2022/23, as shown in table 2.1. Cereal and general cropping farms were more likely to have crop damage insurance than dairy and grazing livestock farms (dataset table 5).

Figure 2.2 shows that very few farms had animal health or crop damage insurance as a risk management practice. Almost all cropping farms (98%) had no animal health insurance, and 81% of cropping farms had no crop damage insurance. Of the livestock farms, 81% had no animal health insurance, and 98% had no crop damage insurance. Amongst the mixed farms, which are farms with both cropping and livestock activities, 77% had no animal health insurance and 84% had no crop damage insurance.

Having a risk management practice in place other than those listed were taken up by 9% of farms in 2022/23 (table 2.1). Lowland grazing livestock farms were more likely than other farm types to have other risk practices (dataset table 5).

2.2 Reasons given for not carrying out any or more risk management practices

Farmers were asked why they did not undertake any or additional risk management practices, given the following options to choose from:

1. All needed risk management practices are already being carried out
2. The benefits of risk management practices are not clear
3. Does not have time to research, learn about or implement practices
4. The process is too expensive
5. There is insufficient information available to consider options for risk management practices
6. Interested, but it is taking longer than anticipated to adopt
7. Does not have the appropriate skills or knowledge
8. Other

Figure 2.3 Reasons why farm businesses are not undertaking more risk management practices in England, 2016/17 and 2022/23

Figure notes:

1. The legend is presented in the same order as the bars.
2. 95% confidence intervals are presented to illustrate the range within which the true underlying population average is likely to reside, which provides an indication for the level of uncertainty associated with the sample estimate; see section 5.5 for more details.
3. Question choices were slightly different between the 2016/17 and 2022/23 survey years; see section 4.6 for more details.
4. The text label for some bars have been redacted due to overlap with the error bars.

In 2022/23, the most common reason for farmers not carrying out more risk management practices was that all their required practices were being carried out already (41% of farms), which was only 1% more than in 2016/17 (figure 2.3). Benefits being unclear, practices being too expensive and no information being available all saw decreases as barriers to undertaking more risk management practices. Having no time and being interested but taking longer to implement had however seen a slight increase, rising to 20% and 10% respectively.

Lacking appropriate skills or knowledge was a new response option introduced in the 2022/23 survey, which was given as a reason for not undertaking more risk management practices from 4% of farms (figure 2.3). LFA grazing livestock farms were more likely to give this as a reason (dataset table 8).

In 2022/23, 10% of farms had other reasons for not having additional risk management practices, compared to 6% in the 2016/17 survey year.

3 Accessing advice

Principal farmers were asked questions on how they access business management and technical advice. Business management advice is information upon which they base their business management decisions.

3.1 Business management advice

Farmers were asked about the sources through which they access business management advice when they have needed it, from the following list of options:

1. None identified or no advice needed
2. Informal farmer to farmer discussions and conversations
3. The farming media
4. Events and demonstrations
5. Discussion groups or farm walks
6. Advice supplied with no direct charge
7. Specific business advice supplied for a charge
8. Growth hubs
9. Government provided advice

Table 3.1 Percentage of farms accessing business management advice through sources in England in 2011/12, 2016/17 and 2022/23

Business management advice source	2011/12 (%)	2016/17 (%)	2022/23 (%)	Change from 2016/17 to 2022/23 (% points)	95% Confidence Interval 2022/23 (%)
None identified or no advice needed	5	9	8	0	6 to 11
Talking to other farmers	60	43	46	+3	42 to 50
Farming media	75	61	44	-17	40 to 48
Events and demonstrations	49	45	35	-11	31 to 39
Discussion groups and farm walks	43	32	30	-2	27 to 34
Advice supplied without a charge	59	63	57	-7	53 to 61
Advice supplied with a charge	26	32	43	+12	39 to 47
Growth hubs	[x]	4	3	-1	2 to 5
Government advice	[x]	[x]	21	[x]	17 to 24

Table notes:

1. 95% confidence intervals are presented to illustrate the range within which the true underlying population average is likely to reside, which provides an indication for the level of uncertainty associated with the sample estimate; see section 5.5 for more details.
2. Due to rounding, percentage point changes may not agree with the differences between columns.
3. Where ‘x’ appears, this indicates that the response was not an option in the given survey year.
4. In the 2011/12 and 2016/17 survey years, farmers were given the option to answer ‘None identified (none of the above)’. This was changed to ‘No advice needed’ in 2022/23, so comparisons should be approached with caution.
5. Question choices were slightly different between the 2016/17 and 2022/23 survey years; see section 4.6 for more details.

In the 2022/23 survey year, 8% of farms did not feel they needed any business management advice (table 3.1). This was less likely for large farms than for other farm sizes (dataset table 11).

Just under half of farms (46%) accessed business management advice through informal farmer to farmer discussions in 2022/23, with LFA grazing livestock farms being more likely to do so (table 3.1 and dataset table 11). A similar proportion of farms (44%) got business advice from the farming media.

Around a third of farms (35%) got business management advice through events and demonstrations (table 3.1). Cereal, general cropping, LFA grazing livestock and ‘other’ farms (mixed, horticulture, poultry and pig farms) were more likely to access advice through this source than dairy farms, whilst larger farms were more likely than small and part-time farms (dataset tables 9 and 11). Discussion groups and farm walks were a business advice source for 30% of farms, with part-time farms being less likely to do so than other farm sizes (table 3.1 and dataset table 11).

Growth hubs are regional organisations supported by local and national authorities that provide tailored advice, support and resources to help businesses grow, innovate and thrive. Only 3% of farms accessed advice through growth hubs in 2022/23. In comparison, government business management advice was utilised by 21% of farms (table 3.1); this includes Defra’s Future Farming Resilience Programme and NE Catchment Sensitive farming advice.

Figure 3.1 Percentage of farms accessing business management advice supplied with or without a charge in England by farm economic performance band, 2022/23

Figure notes:

1. The legend is presented in the same order as the bars
2. 95% confidence intervals are presented to illustrate the range within which the true underlying population average is likely to reside, which provides an indication for the level of uncertainty associated with the sample estimate; see section 5.5 for more details.
3. Farm economic performance band is split into low, medium and high; see section 5.2 for more details.

Over half of farms (57%) accessed business management advice supplied without a charge, with cereal and LFA grazing livestock farms being more likely than other farm types to do so (table 3.1 and dataset table 9). Fewer farms (43%) got advice supplied at a charge. Very large farms were more likely to access business advice at a charge than small farms (dataset table 11). Figure 3.1 shows that a similar proportion of medium and high performing farms accessed advice without a charge, but high performing farms had a greater proportion accessing it at a charge.

Figure 3.2 Percentage of farms accessing business management advice through farm related events in England by farm size, 2022/23

Figure notes:

1. The legend is presented in the same order as the bars
2. 95% confidence intervals are presented to illustrate the range within which the true underlying population average is likely to reside, which provides an indication for the level of uncertainty associated with the sample estimate; see section 5.5 for more details.
3. Farm sizes are based on the estimated labour requirements for the business, rather than its land area; see section 5.2 for more details.

Figure 3.2 shows that as farm size increased, the proportion of farms that accessed business management advice through events and demonstrations or discussion groups and farm walks also generally increased.

3.2 Technical advice

Farmers were asked about the sources through which they access technical advice when they have needed it, from the following list of options:

1. None identified or no advice needed
2. Informal farmer to farmer discussions and conversations
3. The farming media
4. Events and demonstrations
5. Discussion groups or farm walks
6. Technical advice supplied with no direct charge
7. Technical advice supplied for a charge
8. Using performance indicators

Table 3.2 Percentage of farm businesses accessing technical management advice through sources in England in 2011/12, 2016/17 and 2022/23

Technical advice source	2011/12 (%)	2016/17 (%)	2022/23 (%)	Change from 2016/17 to 2022/23 (% points)	95% Confidence Interval 2022/23 (%)
None identified or no advice needed	1	1	3	+1	1 to 4
Talking to other farmers	71	74	69	-5	65 to 72
Farming media	85	81	70	-11	66 to 74
Events and demonstrations	58	62	54	-9	50 to 58
Discussion groups and farm walks	51	43	40	-3	36 to 44
Technical advice supplied without a charge	73	67	57	-10	53 to 61
Technical advice supplied with a charge	33	33	41	+8	37 to 45
Performance indicators	[x]	40	35	-5	31 to 39

Table notes:

1. 95% confidence intervals are presented to illustrate the range within which the true underlying population average is likely to reside, which provides an indication for the level of uncertainty associated with the sample estimate; see section 5.5 for more details.
2. Due to rounding, percentage point changes may not agree with the differences between columns.
3. Where ‘x’ appears, this indicates that the response was not an option in the given survey year.
4. In the 2011/12 and 2016/17 survey years, farmers were given the option to answer ‘None identified (none of the above)’. This was changed to ‘No advice needed’ in 2022/23, so comparisons should be approached with caution.
5. Question choices were slightly different between the 2016/17 and 2022/23 survey years; see section 4.6 for more details.

In the 2022/23 survey year, 3% of farms did not feel they needed any technical advice (table 3.2). This was less likely for cereal and livestock farms compared to the other farm types, and also less likely for larger farms than small farms (dataset tables 12 and 14).

The most common technical advice source was through the farming media (70%), with cereal, grazing livestock and ‘other’ farms (mixed, horticulture, poultry and pig farms) being more likely amongst the farm types to access this advice (dataset table 12). Technical advice through informal talks with other farmers was taken up by 69% of farms in 2022/23, a decrease of 5 percentage points compared to 2016/17 (table 3.2). Grazing livestock farms were more likely than the other farm types to access advice this way (dataset table 12).

Just over half of farms (54%) accessed technical advice through events and demonstrations, with cereal and grazing livestock farms being more likely to do so than other farm types (table 3.2 and dataset table 12). Discussion groups and farm walks as a technical advice source was taken up by 40% of farms, with cereal farms being more likely. Very large farms were more likely to access advice in this way compared to small and part-time farms (dataset table 14).

Figure 3.3 Percentage of farms accessing technical advice supplied with or without a charge in England by farm economic performance band, 2022/23

Figure notes:

1. The legend is presented in the same order as the bars
2. 95% confidence intervals are presented to illustrate the range within which the true underlying population average is likely to reside, which provides an indication for the level of uncertainty associated with the sample estimate; see section 5.5 for more details.

Accessing technical advice without a charge was taken up by 57% of farms, with 41% of farms accessing it at a charge (table 3.2). General cropping, LFA grazing livestock and ‘other’ farms (mixed, horticulture, poultry and pig farms) were more likely to access it without a charge, with cereal farms and larger farms being more likely to access it at a charge (dataset table 12). Figure 3.2 shows that a similar proportion of medium and high performing farms accessed technical advice without a charge, but high performing farms had a greater proportion accessing advice at a charge.

Performance indicators was a source of technical advice for 35% of farms, a decrease of 5 percentage points since the 2016/17 survey year (table 3.2). Cereal and general cropping farms were more likely to use performance indicators, while part-time farms were less likely than small farms (dataset tables 12 and 14).

4 What you need to know about this release

4.1 Contact details

Responsible statistician: Rakin Ahad

Public enquiries: [email protected]

For media queries between 9am and 6pm on weekdays:

Telephone: 0330 041 6560

Email: [email protected]

4.2 National Statistics Status

Accredited official statistics are called National Statistics in the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007. An explanation can be found on the Office for Statistics Regulation website. 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.

These accredited official statistics were independently reviewed by the Office for Statistics Regulation in January 2014. They comply with the standards of trustworthiness, quality and value in the Code of Practice for Statistics and should be labelled ‘accredited official statistics’.

You are welcome to contact us directly with any comments about how we meet these standards (see contact details above). Alternatively, you can contact OSR by emailing [email protected] or via the OSR website.

Since the latest review by the Office for Statistics Regulation, we have continued to comply with the Code of Practice for Statistics, and have made the following improvements:

• Reviewed and improved data presentation to better meet accessibility guidelines

• Automated production of the statistics using Reproducible Analytical Pipelines (RAP)

• Reviewed and improved accompanying commentary.

4.3 User engagement

As part of our ongoing commitment to compliance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics we wish to strengthen our engagement with users of these statistics and better understand the use made of them and the types of decisions that they inform.

We invite users to make contact to advise us of the use they do, or might, make of these statistics, and what their wishes are in terms of engagement. Feedback on this statistical release and enquiries about these statistics are also welcome.

4.4 Survey content, methodology and data uses

The Farm Business Survey is an annual survey providing information on the financial position, physical characteristics, and economic performance of farm businesses in England. The sample of farm businesses covers all regions of England and all types of farming.

Data for the Farm Business Survey are collected through face-to-face interviews with farmers, conducted by highly trained research officers.

The data are widely used by the industry for benchmarking and inform wider research into the economic performance of the agricultural industry, as well as for evaluating and monitoring current policies. The data will also help to monitor farm businesses throughout the Agricultural Transition period.

4.5 Availability of results

All Defra statistical notices can be viewed on the Statistics at Defra page.

More publications and results from the Farm Business Survey are available on the Farm Business Survey Collection page.

4.6 Question changes between years

Business management practices

In both the 2022/23 and 2016/17 survey years there was no change in the business management practices question itself, which asked farmers which business management practices were carried out by themselves or a third party from a given list of responses. Of this list of responses however, there was only a change between survey years on the benchmarking responses. In 2022/23, the ‘Benchmarking (whole farm business level)’ response was given more detail, changing to ‘Benchmarking (whole farm business level) - actively using FBS benchmarking and other FBS farmer feedback’. In this statistical release, it has been named ‘FBS benchmarking and feedback’ for full clarity. The other benchmarking response had changed from ‘Enterprise level/balance sheet/international benchmarking’ to ‘Benchmarking from other sources, including Enterprise level/balance sheet/international benchmarking’.

There was also no change in the question asking farmers what prevented them from carrying out business management practices from a given list of responses. While all responses saw a slight change in wording, no response meanings were changed. In the 2022/23 survey year, two new response options were added, the first related to insufficient information availability, and the other outlining having an interest but taking longer than anticipated to adopt.

Risk management practices

In both 2022/23 and 2016/17 survey years there was no change in the risk management practices question itself, which asked farmers which risk management practices they were carrying out to minimise risk from a given list of responses. Of this list of responses, the response ‘None of the above/no further knowledge required’ had changed to ‘Not applicable, farm has no risk management strategy’. Two responses were also removed entirely in 2022/23: ‘Bio-security measures’ and ‘Locking into a fixed exchange rate’. Two new responses were introduced, namely ‘Uses buying groups and pools to purchase some or all of input’ and an ‘Other’ option. Comparison between years must be treated with caution since previous years did not have an ‘Other’ option to choose from. All other response options remained the same.

There was also no change in the question asking farmers what prevented them from carrying out risk management practices from a given list of responses. There were very minor alterations in wording, but this did not change any of the meanings of the response options. There was an additional response option added in 2022/23 however, allowing farmers to select ‘Do not have the appropriate skills or knowledge’ as a reason for not carrying out risk management practices.

Accessing advice

In 2022/23 farmers were asked how they access business management advice when they have decided they need it from a given list of response options. In 2016/17, the question was phrased slightly differently, only being asked how they accessed the advice. The list of responses remained mostly the same, with minor alterations. ‘Through talking to other farmers’ had changed to ‘Through informal farmer to farmer discussions and conversations’, and an additional option of ‘Government provided advice’ was added in 2022/23. There was a major change in the neutral option however, with ‘None identified (none of the above)’ changing to ‘No advice needed’. Comparisons between these options must be treated with caution.

The question on technical advice followed the same alteration as the question on accessing business management advice. The list of responses between years had mostly stayed the same between years, with only one major change: ‘None identified (none of the above)’ changing to ‘No advice needed’. Similarly, comparisons between these options must be treated with caution.

5 Technical note

5.1 Survey coverage and weighting

The Farm Business Survey only includes farm businesses with a Standard Output of at least 25 thousand Euros, based on activity recorded in the previous June Survey of Agriculture and Horticulture. In 2022/23, the sample of 1,359 farms represented approximately 52,500 farm businesses in England.

Initial weights are applied to the Farm Business Survey records based on the inverse sampling fraction for each design stratum (farm type and farm size). Dataset table 16 from the Farm Accounts in England publication shows the distribution of the sample compared with the distribution of businesses from the 2022 June Survey of Agriculture. These initial weights are then adjusted, using calibration weighting, so that they can produce unbiased estimates of a number of different target variables. More detailed information about the Farm Business Survey can be found on the technical notes and guidance page. This includes information on the data collected, information on calibration weighting and definitions used within the Farm Business Survey.

Questions on farm business management practices were optional for the 2022/23 survey; the data used for this analysis is from the farms which answered these optional questions. In 2022/23 this subsample consisted of 995 farms (73% of the full sample). This subsample has been reweighted using a method that preserves marginal totals for populations according to farm type and farm size groups. As such, values shown in this publication may not exactly match results calculated using the main FBS weights.

5.2 Definitions

Farm type

Where reference is made to the type of farm in this document, this refers to the ‘robust type’, which is a standardised farm classification system. For this publication, mixed, horticulture, poultry and pig farms have been merged into a single farm type category called ‘other’ farms.

Farm economic performance

Economic performance for each farm is measured as the ratio between economic output (mainly sales revenue) and inputs (costs). The inputs for this calculation include an adjustment for unpaid manual labour. The higher the ratio, the higher the economic efficiency and performance. The farms are then ranked and allocated to performance bands based on economic performance percentiles:

Table 5.1: Allocation of economic performance bands

Performance band	Definition
Low	The bottom 25% of economic performers
Medium	The middle 50% of economic performers
High	The top 25% of economic performers

Farm business size

Farm business sizes are based on the estimated labour requirements for the business, rather than its land area. The farm business 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 business, based on its cropping and livestock activities.

Table 5.2: Farm business size by Standard Labour Requirement (SLR)

Farm business size	Definition
Part-time	Less than 1 SLR
Small	1 to less than 2 SLR
Medium	2 to less than 3 SLR
Large	3 to less than 5 SLR
Very large	5 or more SLR

Severely Disadvantaged Areas and Less Favoured Areas

The Severely Disadvantaged Areas (SDA) are more environmentally challenging areas. They are largely upland in character, and together with Disadvantaged Areas (DA) form the Less Favoured Areas (LFA) classification established in 1975 to provide support to mountainous and hill farming areas. LFA refers to areas where the natural characteristics (geology, altitude, climate, short growing season, low soil fertility, or remoteness) make it difficult for farmers to compete.

5.3 Comparisons between 2016/17 and 2022/23

Equivalent results from 2011/12 and 2016/17 have been presented alongside 2022/23 results in some of the charts and tables. Where specified, comparisons with the results for these earlier years should be treated with caution due to slight changes in the questions asked and their associated response options. Whilst these response options essentially remained the same, there have been minor alterations in some cases such as added detail or changed emphasis, which are mentioned in the table notes where applicable.

To enable more robust comparisons between the 2016/17 and 2022/23 results, the subset of farms that had provided responses for the Business Management Practices survey questions in both years have been examined (approximately 421 farms). For this subset of farms, significance testing using McNemar’s test was carried out at the 5% significance level to determine whether the differences observed between the two time periods are statistically significant.

Setting a 5% level of significance in statistical hypothesis testing means a willingness to accept a 5% chance of making a Type 1 error, which is the probability of rejecting a true null hypothesis. In other words, if the null hypothesis is true, there is a 5% chance that our test will incorrectly lead us to reject it.

The McNemar’s test is a statistical method to assess changes in paired nominal data between two related groups or time periods. It determines if differences in categorical data are statistically significant by comparing the frequency of occurrence of specific outcomes or categories within paired data. In the context of this publication, McNemar’s test helps determine whether the percentage change in responses between our comparison years are statistically significant, or likely due to random chance.

Only differences which were deemed statistically significant (i.e. had a p-value of less than 0.05) have been discussed in this commentary.

5.4 Regression modelling

Generalised Linear Models (GLMs) were employed to investigate the associations between three predictor variables and the response variables of interest. The three predictive variables used in this publication were: farm type, farm economic performance band and farm size. All response variables were binomial, therefore logistic regression models were employed. This is a binomial based GLM, which is fitted using a logit link function and a binomial error distribution.

A model simplification procedure was applied in order to select the optimal model by taking into account the goodness of fit as well as its complexity. This was done by producing models for all sevem unique combinations of the three predictor variables, and then selecting the combination with the lowest Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). The AIC value takes into account both the goodness of fit of the model, as well as the complexity of the model (the number of parameters). The lower the AIC value, the better the model is considered to be. This metric is commonly used in model selection procedures and is considered more statistically robust than stepwise predictor removals.

In this publication, these results are used to suggest whether a particular characteristic within a predictor variable is likely to have a statistically significant impact on a given response variable. For example, it was found that farm type was a significant predictor in determining whether a farm had crop damage insurance as one of their risk management practices. From this, it was found that cereal and general cropping farms were more likely than dairy farms to have crop damage insurance, and grazing livestock farms were less likely than dairy farms. This was simplified to say that cereal and general cropping farms were more likely than dairy and grazing livestock farms to have crop damage insurance.

Since our predictor variables are categorical with more than two levels, the logistic regression model arbitrarily designates one level of each categorical predictor as a reference variable. In the example above, dairy farms were selected by the model arbitrarily as the reference variable for the farm type predictor. Hence, when interpreting likelihoods in logistic regression modelling, it is essential to compare them with the reference variable.

These were the reference levels for each of the categorical predictors within the logistic regression models:

• Farm type: Dairy
• Farm economic performance band: Medium
• Farm size: Small

5.5 Accuracy and reliability of the results

It is not feasible to survey the entire population of farms, so the published figures from the Farm Business Survey are subject to sampling error. This is a fundamental premise of conducting statistical surveys, which by design aims to capture a representative sample of the underlying population through various sampling techniques.

The representation of data in this publication attempts to account for this sampling error by providing 95% confidence intervals as a measure of uncertainty for the estimated mean. This is provided as an interval in the tables and through error bars in the bar plots.

Narrower confidence intervals generally reflect larger sample sizes and greater homogeneity within the group and are thus ‘more precise’ of an indicator for where the true population mean may reside. Conversely, wider confidence intervals are generally characterised by smaller sample sizes and greater sample standard deviations, which are thus ‘less precise’. These estimates should be treated with caution.

A confidence interval is therefore a plausible range of values wherein the true underlying population mean lies within, based on the sample data it draws from. A 95% confidence interval hence refers to the interval in which there is a 95% probability that our true population mean resides.

For example, the results in Table 3.2 show that the percentage of farm businesses who accessed technical management advice through discussion groups and farm walks in 2022/23 was 40%, with a confidence interval of 36% to 44%, which is equivalent to 40% ± 4%. This suggests that we may be 95% confident that this range contains the true population percentage for farm businesses who accessed technical advice through discussion groups and farm walks.

For the Farm Business Survey, the confidence intervals shown are appropriate for comparing groups within the same year only; they should not be used for comparing with previous years, since they do not allow for the fact that many of the same farms will have contributed to the Farm Business Survey in multiple years. Confidence intervals only give an indication of the sampling error; they do not reflect any other sources of survey errors, such as non-response bias.

Percentage point changes may not necessarily agree with the difference of their components due to rounding.