The largest group of farmers describes its financial situation as neither good nor bad, but neutral — 32.9%. Positive assessments account for a total of 36.6%, ranging from very good to rather good — 9.1% and 27.5%, respectively. Negative opinions total 30.5%, from rather bad to very bad — 19.3% and 11.2%, respectively. The authors of the report emphasise that the dominance of neutral responses means operating without financial buffers and in direct dependence on external factors. It is also clear that every third farm has problems maintaining liquidity or is experiencing debt pressure. Meanwhile, fewer than one in ten farmers can truly invest freely.
A study by UCE RESEARCH, prepared as part of the report entitled “The Financial Condition of Polish Farmers. 2026” and conducted on a sample of nearly one thousand farmers, showed that the largest group assessed its financial situation as neither good nor bad — 32.9%. This means that income covers costs, but there are no surpluses. The authors of the report explain that this is not a situation of economic security. Rather, it reflects farms operating in conditions of balance-sheet equilibrium.
“The sector is operating on the edge, without financial buffers. Such a situation is typical for agricultural economies during periods of cost pressure, particularly when prices of production inputs are high and revenue predictability is limited. In this sense, neutrality — meaning the absence of either a positive or negative assessment — is not comfort. It is rather an economic zero point, relatively stable but only seemingly so,” emphasises Adrian Parol, a market expert on agricultural sector debt, attorney-at-law and restructuring adviser, and one of the substantive consultants for the study.
Looking more broadly at the results, the overall picture is more ambiguous than the dominance of the neutral category alone might suggest. Positive assessments account for 36.6% in total. Among them, 9.1% are very good, which is associated with high income, no liquidity problems and the ability to invest. In 27.5% of cases, the situation is assessed as rather good, indicating stability and only occasional financial tensions. As analysts from UCE RESEARCH point out, this clearly shows that more than one third of farms operate in conditions of stability or even genuine investment capacity.
“The low share of very good assessments indicates that only a small proportion of farms are in a position of financial comfort, allowing them to invest freely and build safety buffers. The sector has a limited upper capital layer, meaning that relatively few farms act as investment and modernisation leaders,” says Łukasz Goszczyński, attorney-at-law and restructuring adviser at GKPG law firm, the second substantive consultant for the study.
At the same time, as many as 30.5% of assessments are negative. Among them, 19.3% are rather bad, which means frequent liquidity problems or growing debt. A further 11.2% of opinions are very bad. This points to serious difficulties and the risk of losing liquidity. It also shows that almost every third farm is experiencing real financial problems. In some cases, these problems are very serious.
“In a sector so strongly dependent on external factors, this percentage of negative assessments translates not only into problems for individual entities, but also into greater instability of the entire agricultural market. This may result in reduced investment, rising debt and a decline in farms’ ability to respond to crises,” comments Łukasz Goszczyński.
At the same time, the expert notes that the figure of 30.5% should be interpreted more broadly — in connection with the dominance of neutral assessments, which suggest operating on the edge of stability. This means that the at-risk group is in practice larger, because some neutral farms may quickly shift into the negative category if market conditions deteriorate. In other words, the sector is not in a deep crisis, but it is operating under conditions of heightened vulnerability. This is a warning that without measures to strengthen farms’ financial resilience, the scale of the problem may increase.
“The share of rather bad and very bad assessments should be treated as a clear signal of structural risk in the sector. It means that every third farm has problems maintaining liquidity or is experiencing debt pressure, which is particularly important in agriculture because it limits the ability to invest and increases sensitivity to price fluctuations. This is not yet a picture of a systemic crisis. However, it is a level that reacts sensitively to any deterioration in the macroeconomic environment,” warns Adrian Parol.
According to Łukasz Goszczyński, the neutral responses in the study show that even minor shocks may push these farms towards negative assessments. The prevailing sentiment in agriculture depends mainly on the stability of production costs, purchase prices and regulatory predictability. At present, the most likely scenario is further polarisation. Some farms will continue to develop, while others will feel increasing financial pressure.
“The neutral group is crucial from the point of view of the dynamics of future change. It is this group that will have the greatest impact on the direction of the entire distribution in subsequent periods. In the event of a deterioration in the macroeconomic environment — such as rising production costs, higher borrowing costs or falling purchase prices — this group may be the first to move towards negative assessments, which would relatively quickly worsen the overall picture of the sector. On the other hand, an improvement in market conditions could just as quickly transform it into a positive segment,” says Adrian Parol.
In his opinion, the advantage of positive assessments over negative ones, although relatively small, is important from an interpretative perspective, as it suggests that the system as a whole still maintains adaptive capacity. In other words, there are more farms coping well than farms experiencing a deterioration in their situation. However, this does not signal a growth trend. Rather, it indicates that the sector is being supported by a group of relatively stable farms that balance out the scale of the remaining difficulties.
“The sector is operating under conditions of limited financial resilience. This means a lower willingness to invest, more cautious consumption decisions and high sensitivity to regulatory and cost changes. For public policy, it is therefore crucial not only to support the weakest group, but also to stabilise the conditions in which it operates, because this group will determine the future dynamics of the entire sector to the greatest extent,” concludes Adrian Parol.
Description of the Analytical and Research Method
The study carried out as part of the project “The Financial Condition of Polish Farmers. 2026” was conducted in the second half of April this year using the CAWI method, or Computer Assisted Web Interviewing, which involves computer-supported online surveys. The study was conducted by the analytical and research platform UCE RESEARCH on a nationwide sample of nearly one thousand farmers aged 18–65. Respondents had to meet six basic model criteria. They were selected using a quota-random method, taking into account age and region, with the use of a research panel. Participation in the study was anonymous.
Source: CEO.com.pl
