Unlock Your Success Through Collaborative Farming

A formal lease where the tenant takes full control of the farming business in return for an agreed rent.

FBTs are legally binding agreements under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995. The landowner grants a tenancy to a farmer who becomes the business operator—taking full responsibility for crops, inputs, labour, and returns. The landowner receives a fixed rental income and has no direct involvement in farming operations.
Tenancies can be short or long term, and terms are agreed upfront, often with a rent review mechanism. FBTs are ideal for landowners who want a hands-off income-generating option, or who may be exiting active farming altogether.

Best for: Landowners wanting a secure, arm’s-length arrangement and reliable rental income, whilst accepting that some tax planning benefits may be lost.

A seasonal or short-term operational arrangement with less commitment and flexibility for both parties.

Under a stubble-to-stubble agreement, the contractor manages the land from one harvest to the next, covering everything from cultivations and drilling to harvesting and carting. These agreements tend to be informal and short-term—focused on carrying out the operations efficiently, rather than managing the wider business.

The landowner pays a fee for the service (or receives a share of the output), but remains the business owner and carries the financial risk. These are often used as transitional or interim agreements, or where landowners want minimal involvement.

Best for: Those needing short-term support or flexibility, without the formality of a full CFA.

A flexible model that blends the structure of a CFA with elements of tenancy or profit-sharing.

Hybrid CFAs are tailored agreements designed to meet specific goals—offering more flexibility than traditional CFAs or FBTs. These may include a blend of fixed fees, profit shares, and risk allocation tailored to both parties' circumstances. For example, a contractor might receive a larger bonus for performance but also contribute to input costs or take on more risk than under a standard CFA.

These models often emerge when one party is seeking more involvement than a CFA allows, but a full tenancy isn’t appropriate. It’s a bespoke solution built on transparency, strong relationships, and clearly defined roles.

Best for: Complex situations where neither a CFA nor FBT is quite the right fit.

A partnership approach where two or more farms collaborate to share resources while keeping their own businesses intact.

True Joint ventures are increasingly popular in the UK as a way to reduce costs, pool labour and machinery, and benefit from economies of scale without merging businesses. Each partner maintains ownership of their land and enterprises but works together operationally—sharing equipment, staff, and sometimes management.

Profit is not pooled, but efficiencies are shared, and each party retains responsibility for their own inputs, outputs, and commercial decisions. Joint ventures often require strong communication and trust, and work best when objectives and responsibilities are clearly defined.

Best for: Farmers looking to collaborate, share costs, and stay fully hands-on with their land and decisions.

A collaborative model where the landowner stays in control, while a contractor manages the farming operation.

In a UK context, a CFA allows a landowner or farmer to engage a contractor (often another farmer or farming business) to carry out the day-to-day farming tasks. The landowner remains the business owner—retaining Single Payment entitlements (if applicable), making key decisions (like cropping plans and input purchases), and ultimately receiving the profits.

The contractor is paid a fixed fee plus a performance-related bonus (if agreed), and provides labour, machinery, and operational expertise. This model is particularly attractive for farmers looking to step back from physical work but who still want to remain closely involved in their farming enterprise.

Best for: Landowners wanting to retain control and benefit from scale and expertise without doing the hands-on work.  This currently also remains a tax efficient way to farm.