Measuring Workload on Farms More Meaningfully, Rather than Simply Calculating it

The level of burden involved in working on a farm cannot be determined solely on the basis of working hours, workforce availability or model calculations. A study involving 571 Swiss farms reveals significant differences between a measured and perceived workload burden.

Farm workload is a core component of social sustainability because it affects farmers’ wellbeing, the attractiveness of farming and the long-term viability of farm businesses. Yet sustainability assessments often rely on indicators that are easy to calculate rather than indicators that reflect how work is experienced. Treating one measure as a substitute for another can overlook farms where workload is experienced as socially unsustainable.

Three indicators, three different dimensions

The study combined data for 571 Swiss farms from the agricultural census (AGIS), the LabourScope model and a 2025 online farmer survey. It compared three measures: farmers’ self-reported working hours, the workforce available on the farm, and working hours estimated from modelled labour requirements. Farmers’ perceived workload burden was used as a proxy for the social sustainability of farm work. The analysis examined whether the measures were consistent with one another and whether they were associated with perceived workload burden, across farm types and across levels of on-farm diversification.

The indicators cannot be used interchangeably

The three measures showed poor internal consistency, confirming that they capture different aspects of farm work. Self-reported working hours had the strongest and most robust relationship with perceived burden. Modelled hours showed little or no relationship, while available workforce showed mixed and generally weaker results. Patterns also differed substantially by farm type and diversification. Self-reported hours were particularly informative in arable and suckler-cow systems. In dairy farming, none of the three measures explained perceived burden, even though dairy farms reported the longest hours. This suggests that work organisation, work routinization, time flexibility and autonomy, financial security and social connectedness may matter alongside total hours.

Policy, sector and research implications

Workload monitoring should be goal-dependent. Modelled hours are useful for estimating time requirements for specific tasks, while available workforce helps assess labour capacity and self-reported hours describe time actually worked. When the objective is to prevent excessive burden, monitoring should combine self-reported hours with a short, farmer-rated burden question, which best captures experienced workload.

National farm-monitoring and sustainability systems should therefore add a perception-based workload measure.. Future research is needed on specifically the perceived burden on dairy farms. Examining their structural and psycho-social factors can help better understand dairy farmers experience of workload burden. Advisory services can rely on workload and burden measures to distinguish whether a farm needs better planning, additional labour, work reorganisation, mechanisation or general wellbeing support.