Adjustment Processes in Selected Types of Farms Depending on Their Income Situation

This article presents the development capacities of farms in groups divided according to the level of income from farm per unit of work of a farmer and farmer’s family members. According to the income criterion, farms were separated into:<br><br>– auxiliary in which income from the farm per hour of family work input in the owned farm was lower than the level of payment for employed labor in agriculture;<br><br>– transitional (“at the crossroads”) in which this income was higher than the level of payment for employed labor in agriculture, but lower than the rate of payment in the national economy;<br><br>– developmental in which this income was equal to or higher than the rate of payment for labor in the national economy.<br><br>The analysis covered types of farms specialized in: field crops, permanent crops, vegetable crops, dairy cattle raising, granivores raising, and mixed production. The source of research materials was the panel of farms covered by the monitoring of the Polish FADN in 2009-2016. Groups were separated according to the FADN methodology. The development capacities of the analyzed farm groups were determined with the competitiveness index (CI). In the analyzed period, the share of auxiliary farms was significant, ranging from 24.5% (dairy farms) to 43.1% (farms with mixed production). This share increased in subsequent periods. These farms did not have development capacities. The share of transitional farms was small, ranging from 8.5% (field crops) to 13% (with mixed production). Farms in this group also did not show developmental capacities. The share of developmental farms was quite varied, ranging from 44.4% (with mixed production) to 69% (with field crops). The applied criterion for the division of farms according to the level of income from farm per unit of work of a farmer and farmer’s family members increases the possibilities of their analysis.


Introduction
The integration of Poland with the European Union in 2004 increased the pace of economic changes initiated by the change in the political and economic system in 1989. The essence of the changes was the implementation of market economy principles. The introduction of the market system caused a diversification of the growth rate of prices of production factors and prices of products, including agricultural ones. Labour costs in the national economy were increasing the most significantly (wages are their main component), resulting in increased labour costs in agriculture. The increase in prices of means of production purchased by farmers was slightly weaker, and in the sales prices of agricultural products sold by farmers the least dynamic. This is illustrated by the following figures: in 1995-2016, labour costs in the national economy increased more than six times, prices of means of production more than three times, and sales prices of agricultural products more than two times (Runowski, 2018;Ziętara and Mirkowska, 2019). The diverse rate of price increase caused a decrease in the unit profitability of agricultural production. Farmers were subjected to strong pressure to increase production efficiency. The phenomenon of the so-called technology treadmill of W. Cochrane also occurred, according to which, despite an increase in agricultural productivity, farmers' incomes do not increase at the same pace, and even decrease (Czyżewski, 2017). One of the ways to increase production efficiency is specialisation of agricultural holdings, which is additionally forced by recipients of products, demanding large, uniform batches. Brinkmann already took note of this issue formulating the "force theory" 1 affecting farms (Brinkmann, 1922). The importance of specialisation in Zagadnienia Ekonomiki Rolnej / Problems of Agricultural Economics improving the farming efficiency was also emphasised by Manteuffel who stated: "Specialisation is aimed at increasing the size of the basic activity, the one which defines the specialisation and thus increases the productivity of work in the activity determining specialisation" (Manteuffel, 1981, p. 160).
Therefore, the questions about specialisation processes in Polish agricultural holdings become valid. What directions of production are there? What is the degree of competitiveness of farms pursuing given directions of production?
In order to find answers, the systematics of farms used by the Polish FADN was used 2 (Bocian, Osuch and Smolik, 2018). For research purposes, the following types of farming (TF8) of holdings were identified: field crops (1), horticultural (vegetable) crops (2), permanent crops (4), dairy cattle raising (5), herbivores raising (6), granivores raising (7), and mixed productions (8). Vineyards, which are scarce in Poland and not included in the monitoring of the Polish FADN, have been omitted. Table 1 presents the number and structure of agricultural holdings in Poland in 2013-2016 by types of farming. Due to the lack of data, dairy cattle and herbivores are included in Table 1 as "raising of grazing animals." Table 1 Number and structure of farms by type of farming in [2013][2014][2015][2016] Years Types of farming of holdings (number in thous. and structure in %)

Total
Field crops The numbers presented in Table 1 allow the following statements: -in 2013-2016, the total number of farms decreased by 18.3 thous. (1.3%), from 1429.0 thous. in 2013, to 1410.7 thous. in 2016; -the number of unclassified farms and farms with mixed production decreased the most -by 19.3% and 22.0%, respectively. The number of farms in the "permanent crops" and "herbivorous animals" types decreased by 9.1% and 9.2%, respectively, while in the "horticultural (vegetable) crops" and "graz-

4(361) 2019
Wojciech Józwiak, Zofia Mirkowska, Jolanta Sobierajewska, Marek Zieliński, Wojciech Ziętara ing animals" types by 1.5% and 4.7%, respectively. However, the number of farms in the "field crops" type increased by 13.4%; -the structure of farms changed. The share of farms in the "field crops" type dominated and increased in the studied years: from 49.2% to 56.5%. The share of farms in the "mixed" type was significant, and in extreme years amounted to 28.5% and 22.6%. The participation of the "vegetable crops," "permanent crops," "granivores" types and unclassified farms was stable or relatively stable, and amounted to 1.9%; 4.5% and 4.1%; 2.5% and 2.3% and 2.1% and 2.7%, respectively. The share of farms with "grazing animals" type was larger and quite stable. This share was 11.3% and 10.9%; -the economic size of farms in the specified types was expressed in thous. EUR of SO. 3 The average economic size of farms in total in 2016 was 16.1 thous. EUR of SO. According to this criterion, the largest farms were those in the "granivorous" type (115.9 thous. EUR of SO) and with vegetable crops (70.4 thous. EUR of SO). Farms with raising of grazing animals and permanent crops were similar in terms of their economic size, where it amounted to 30.9 and 25.8 thous. EUR of SO, respectively. Farms with field crops and mixed production were the smallest -their average size was 8.3 and 15.7 thous. EUR of SO; -the degree of diversity of the area of farms in the separated agricultural types was definitely lower. In 2016, the average area of farms in total was 9.4 ha of utilised agricultural area. Farms raising grazing animals and granivorous animals were larger than the average with an area of 16.0 and 11.8 ha of UAA, respectively. The area of other farms was smaller than the average. Unclassified farms had the smallest area -3.0 ha of UAA. It is worth emphasising the small area of farms in the "field crops" type which in 2016 was 8.6 ha. Over 50% of farms in this type was using less than 5 ha of UAA. They had the character of auxiliary farms .

Objective of research, research methods and sources of research materials
The objective of the study is to determine the development capacities of selected types of farming of agricultural holdings, taking into account the level of income obtained from farm per unit of work of a farmer and farmer's family members on the owned farm. The research covered the following types of farming: field crops, dairy cattle, permanent (orchard) crops, horticultural (vegetable) crops and mixed production, in accordance with the methodology of the Polish FADN. 4 The develop-3 SO -Standard Output -standard production value expressed in thous. EUR, calculated as the average value of production from individual production activities over a period of five years in a given region. According to the economic size, six classes of farms were distinguished: very small (2-8 thous. EUR of SO), small (8-25 thous. EUR of SO), medium small (25-50 thous. EUR of SO), medium large (50-100 thous. EUR of SO), large (100-500 thous. EUR of SO) and very large (>=500 thous. EUR of SO) (Bocian, Osuch and Smolik, 2018). 4 Analysis within the "grazing" type covered "dairy cattle" as the basic type. The "granivorous" type was omitted as including poultry and pigs.
Zagadnienia Ekonomiki Rolnej / Problems of Agricultural Economics ment capacities of farms of the studied types of farming were determined according to the level of income from farm per unit of work of a farmer and farmer's family members. The full justification for such a classification of farms is presented in the article "The level of labour profitability and development opportunities of agricultural holdings in Poland" (Józwiak, Sobierajewska, Zieliński and Ziętara, 2019).
Calculation of income from farm per family work unit (man-hour, MH) makes it possible to assess its level by reference to the remuneration of employed labour in agriculture (income parity A) and in the national economy (income parity B). Considering the level of income from farm per unit of work of a farmer and farmer's family members on the farm, the studied entities were divided into three classes: auxiliary, transitional and developmental. "Auxiliary" farms are those in which income from farm per family work unit is lower than the payment for employed labour in agriculture, which means that the farmer does not achieve parity A. In this class, the share of income from farm was less than 50% of total income of a farming family (Józwiak, Mirkowska and Ziętara, 2018).
Due to the fact that a unit income obtained from the work on the farm is smaller than the level of parity A, the farmer is confronted with the problem of whether to continue running the farm or give up and try to take up a job as a hired worker. The possibilities for farmers using farms in this class to find work outside the farm are limited, although they have been growing recently. They depend on the qualifications and the condition of the economy in the immediate environment (Sikorska, 2013). A farmer who resigns from running a farm may take up a job as a hired worker at another farmer, accepting the level of remuneration of employed workers in agriculture (parity A). There is also a situation that a farming family receiving a unit income from work on the farm owned lower than the level of parity A does not give up running their farm, but its members undertake paid employment outside it as employed people, and at the same time the production is reorganised or modernised with support from the RDP . In the first case observed more frequently (Dudek, 2016), the production is simplified resulting in a reduction of labour input on the farm and an increase in agricultural income per unit of labour input. However, the income from farm is decreasing. The second case occurs less frequently (Dudek, 2016;Żmija, 2016), but results in an increase in income from farm.
In "transitional" farms "at the crossroads" the income from farm is higher than the level of parity A, but lower than parity B, whereas in "developmental" farms, the income from farm is equal to or higher than the level of parity B. A characteristic feature of the auxiliary class is that their number decreases over longer periods . Transitional farms (at the crossroads) have limited development capacities. Analysing the group of transitional farms in longer periods, it is hard not to see that its number is supplied by developing auxiliary farms, and the economically active part of transitional farms goes to the developmental group. The number of developmental farms usually increases year by year .

4(361) 2019
The panel of farms covered by the monitoring of the Polish FADN in 2009--2017 was used as the basic source of research materials. The panel includes 5471 farms, i.e. 45.6% of the population of farms covered by the monitoring of the Polish FADN every year. The study was carried out taking into account mean values from the following three-year periods: 2009-2011; 2012-2014 and 2015--2017. Three-year periods were adopted to avoid annual fluctuations. The number of farms in the analysed types and years including the economic size is given in Table 2. The distribution of the number of the studied farms was strongly asymmetrical. About 98.6% of farms were in the economic size classes from small (EUR 8-25 thous. of SO) to large (EUR 100-500 thous. of SO). The class of very small farms (EUR 2-8 thous. of SO) included 73 farms (1.3%), while the class of very large farms (EUR 500 thous. of SO and more) only 5 farms. Due to the small number, these extreme groups were excluded from the studied population. Ultimately, the population numbered 5,393 farms.
Farms with the mixed production type were the most numerous in the studied population. Their share was 36.9%. The share of farms with field crops and raising dairy cattle was slightly lower, and in the analysed period amounted to 27.0% and 21.3%, respectively. Farms with permanent and vegetable crops were the least numerous; their number was 180 and 164 farms, respectively, and their share was 3.3% and 3.0%, respectively. Small farms (up to EUR 25 thous. of SO), medium small (EUR 25-50 thous. of SO) and medium large (EUR 50-100 thous. of SO) were more strongly represented in all types analysed. The distribution of farms with vegetable crops was more even. In all types except for vegetable crops and mixed production, the number and share of large farms increased in subsequent periods. Table 3 shows the unit payment for hired labour on farms by type of farming, the level of payment for work in the national economy and the interest rate on long-term bonds in 2009-2017. For the distinguished 3-year periods, the average payment for hired labour in agriculture and in the national economy was calculated per 1 hour of work of FWU.  The interest rate on 10-year bonds was also determined as the basis for determining the cost of using equity, being the basis for calculating the competitiveness index. The analysis of the costs of employed labour in agriculture indicates that in 2009-2017: -in individual three-year periods, the lowest costs of employed labour were observed in orchard farms and were lower than the highest costs in the case of dairy farms by 9%, 15% and 9%, respectively; -in the analysed periods, there was an increase in the cost of employed labour in the range of 40% to 60%; the largest in mixed farms and with field crops (60%), while smallest in vegetable farms (40%). Payment for work in the national economy increased 30% in this period; -the difference between payment for employed labour in agriculture and payment for work in the national economy decreased. In the first three years (2009)(2010)(2011), payment for employed labour in the studied types of farms was on average 28% lower, and in the last three years (2015-2017) 17% lower than payment in the national economy; -the interest rate on 10-year bonds also decreased from 5.9% to 2.6%, i.e. by 3.

Adjustment processes on farms with field crops
The numbers characterising changes that occurred on farms with field crops are presented in Tables 4 and 5. They allow the following statements: -in the analysed periods, the structure of farms changed: the share of auxiliary farms increased from 17.7% to 32.2%, of transitional farms decreased from 9.1% to 3.9%. The share of developmental farms remained at a stable level of about 69.0%; -the studied farms differed in economic size. The average economic size of auxiliary farms was EUR 24.7 thous. of SO and showed a downward trend in subsequent periods. The average size of transitional farms was EUR 28.6 thous. of SO. It showed an upward trend and was 16% larger than that of auxiliary farms. The average economic size of developmental farms was EUR 77.3 thous. of SO, it showed an upward trend and was about twice as large as that of auxiliary farms; Zagadnienia Ekonomiki Rolnej / Problems of Agricultural Economics -the area of farms was related to the economic size. Their average area in subsequent groups was 23.5, 27.4 and 75.8 ha of UAA, respectively, and was stable; -farms of all groups used leased land whose average share in subsequent groups increased from 23.7% to 34.9%; -total labour input expressed in AWU per farm on auxiliary and transitional farms was similar and amounted to 1.68 AWU on average, while on developmental farms it was 19% higher (2 AWU); -the studied farms used employed labour. Its share in total outlays of auxiliary and transitional farms was similar and amounted to 7.5% and 7.3%, respectively, while in developmental farms it was 19.1%; -the analysed farms differed in technical equipment of labour. On auxiliary and transitional farms it was similar and amounted to 193.6 and 204.9 thous. EUR/ UAA, respectively. However, on developmental farms it was more than twice as high and amounted to 434 thous. EUR/AWU; -payment for employed labour showed an increasing tendency in subsequent periods and groups. It was the lowest on auxiliary farms, where it amounted to 9.44 PLN/h on average, on transitional farms it was about 6% higher, and on developmental farms it amounted to 10.6 PLN/h and was by 12.3% higher than on auxiliary farms; -income from farm per hour of family work varied considerably. It was the lowest on auxiliary farms where it amounted to 5.3 PLN/h on average, and on transitional farms 12 PLN/h. So it was 126% higher than in the previous group. It was definitely higher on developmental farms where it amounted to 48.5 PLN/h. In all groups it showed a growing tendency in subsequent periods; -the parity A and B indicators on auxiliary farms were 50.9% and 38.6%, respectively. This means that income from farm per hour of family work was significantly lower than parity income, by 49.1 and 61.3 percentage points, respectively. In the case of transitional farms, this income was higher than payment for employed labour in agriculture, on average by 16%, but lower than payment for work in the national economy by 12.7% on average. Income parity A and B indicators on developmental farms amounted to 360% and 324.2%, respectively; -auxiliary and transitional farms did not have the ability to compete. Their competitiveness index was 0.35 and 0.74, respectively. Only developmental farms showed this ability, with the competitiveness index amounting to 1.77 on average.

Adjustment processes on farms specialising in dairy cattle
The numbers characterising changes in the organisation of dairy farms in the analysed periods are presented in Tables 6 and 7. Based on them, the following statements can be made: -in the studied periods, the structure of the analysed dairy farms was quite stable. The average share of auxiliary farms was about 24.5%, showing a slight upward trend. The share of transitional farms was definitely lower, which was 10.3% on average, with a downward trend: from 12.9% to 6.4%. The share of developmental farms was by far the highest and stable, and amounted to 65.2% on average;  -the area of the dairy farms studied was related to the economic size, but not as strongly as on farms with field crops. The average area of auxiliary dairy farms was 19.2 ha, and of transitional farms 22.7 ha of UAA, showing a growing tendency in subsequent periods. The average area of developmental dairy farms was 38.5 ha of UAA, with an increasing tendency. It was two times larger than the size of auxiliary farms; -the analysed farms used leased land but to a fairly moderate extent. Its share was in the range of 25.7% (transitional) to 31% (developmental); -labour inputs were stable over time and not very diverse between groups: on developmental farms they amounted to 2.1 AWU and were by 12% higher than on auxiliary farms. Auxiliary and transitional dairy farms made little use of employed labour (1.25%). The share of employed labour on developmental farms was slightly higher, at 6.8%; -there were distinct differences in technical equipment of labour. On developmental farms, the value of assets per AWU was on average EUR 431 thous. and was twice as high as in both other groups; -payment for employed labour showed a growing tendency in subsequent periods. The highest increase occurred in the case of transitional farms in which it was 58.7%, while in developmental farms 48%, and in auxiliary farms 45%. The diversification of payment between the groups was small. The difference between the extreme groups was 8.6%; -income from farm per hour of family work (FWU) increased in subsequent periods, in the range of 36.9% (developmental farms) to 47% (auxiliary farms). There were distinct differences between the groups. On auxiliary farms, the income was on average 6.6 PLN/h, on temporary farms 12.

Adjustment processes on farms with permanent crops
The numbers characterising changes occurring on farms with permanent crops are presented in Tables 8 and 9. They allow the following statements: -the structure of the analysed orchard farms is polarised. Extreme groups occupy the dominant position. The average share of auxiliary farms was 39.5% and developmental farms 47.6%. There was an upward trend in the group of auxiliary farms, from 37.0% to 46.1%, and a downward trend in the group of developmental farms, from 50% to 44%. The average share of transitional farms was 12.8%, with a downward trend in subsequent periods, from 13.0% to 9.9%; -the economic size of auxiliary and transitional farms was similar and amounted to EUR 25.3 and 26.9 thous. of SO, respectively, showing a downward trend in subsequent periods. The average economic size of developmental farms amounted to EUR 42.7 thous. of SO. It was stable in subsequent periods and by about 64% larger than that of farms from other groups; -similar trends occurred in the UAA which on auxiliary and transitional farms amounted to 11 ha on average, while in developmental farms -17.8 ha of UAA, and was by about 73% larger than in other groups. The area of farms in all groups was stable in subsequent periods; -even though the analysed orchard farms used leased land, it was to a small extent -from 6.7% on auxiliary farms to 12.1% on transitional farms; -labour input on auxiliary and transitional farms was similar, amounted to 2.3 and 2.5 AWU per farm, respectively, and showed a downward trend in subse-Zagadnienia Ekonomiki Rolnej / Problems of Agricultural Economics quent periods. Labour input on developmental farms was 3.4 AWU on average and showed an upward trend. Farms of all groups used employed labour. Its share in total labour input of auxiliary and transitional farms was similar and amounted to 30.8% and 28.1%, respectively. On developmental farms it was definitely higher and quite stable, amounting to 52.3% on average; -technical equipment of labour on auxiliary and transitional farms was similar and amounted to 187.9 and 172.2 thous. EUR/AWU, respectively, however on developmental farms it was by about 35% higher. In the first two groups of farms, there was a downward trend, while in developmental farms an upward trend;  -the degree of diversification of payment for employed labour was low, ranging from PLN 9.4/h on transition farms to 9.7 PLN/h on developmental farms. There was an upward trend in all groups in subsequent periods, the largest on auxiliary farms in which this payment increased 54.6%, and the lowest on transitional farms in which it was 34.3%; -income from farm per hour of family work varied considerably. It was the lowest on auxiliary farms with 3.4 PLN/h on average, and the highest on developmental farms with 36.7 PLN/h. In all groups, income increased in subsequent periods: the most on auxiliary farms in which it increased 150%, while on transition and development 31.3% and 32.2%, respectively. Income parity indicators varied strongly between groups of farms. On auxiliary farms, the values of indicators A and B were 34.4% and 24.3%, respectively. Transitional farms exceeded the parity A income, but did not reach the level of parity B income, whose indicator was 84.5%. Developmental farms received income much higher than parity A and B income; Zagadnienia Ekonomiki Rolnej / Problems of Agricultural Economics -similarly to the previous types of farming, auxiliary and transitional farms do not have the ability to compete. Their competitiveness index (CI) was 0.23 and 0.74, respectively, with an upward trend in subsequent periods. The ability to compete was demonstrated by developmental farms.

Adjustment processes on farms with vegetable crops
The numbers characterising changes occurring on farms with vegetable crops are presented in Tables 10 and 11. They allow the following statements: -the structure of these farms was dominated by developmental farms -their average share was 53.6%, and auxiliary farms with 37.3% share. The share of transitional farms was 9.2% on average. The structure of farms was stable in subsequent periods; -the economic size of auxiliary and transitional farms was similar and amounted to 51.6 and 65.6 thous. EUR of SO, respectively. On auxiliary farms it was stable in subsequent periods, while on transitional farms it increased. The growth rate was 30.5%. The economic size of developmental farms was on average EUR 129 thous. of SO, showing an upward trend. The growth rate was 34.8%. It was about twice as large as on other farms; -the area of auxiliary and transitional farms was similar, and amounted to 5.0 and 5.6 ha of UAA, respectively. The area of developmental farms was definitely larger -about 50%. It also increased in subsequent periods from 7 to 9 ha of UAA; -the analysed vegetable farms used leased land. Its share in auxiliary and transitional farms was small and amounted to 8.3% and 6.5%, respectively. On developmental farms it was much higher, it amounted to 25.7%, showing an upward trend from 23.9% to 31.1%; -total labour input varied -it was lower on auxiliary and transitional farms in which it amounted to 2.3 and 2.8 AWU, respectively. On developmental farms it was about two times larger. It amounted to 5.2 AWU; -all the farms used employed labour. Its share in total input of auxiliary and transitional farms and amounted to 22.6% and 29.2%, respectively, while on developmental farms 66%, showing an upward trend from 62.1% to 68.7%; -the degree of diversification in terms of technical equipment of labour was lower than in the previously discussed types of farms. On developmental farms, the rate of technical equipment of labour amounted to 207 thous. EUR/ AWU and was 62.6% and 34.7% higher, respectively, than on auxiliary and transitional farms; Zagadnienia Ekonomiki Rolnej / Problems of Agricultural Economics  -the degree of diversification of payment for employed labour was small. It was always ranging from 9.4 to 10 PLN/h. In all groups it showed a growing tendency in subsequent periods. It increased the most considerably in auxiliary farms -51%, and 40% in developmental farms; -the degree of diversification of income from farm per hour of family work was large.

Adjustment processes on farms with mixed production
The numbers characterising changes on "mixed" type of farms are presented in Tables 12 and 13. They allow the following statements to be made: -the structure of mixed farms was dominated by auxiliary and developmental farms. Their average share was 43.1% and 44%, respectively. In the analysed period, the share of auxiliary farms showed an increasing tendency, while the share of developmental farms a decreasing tendency.  -the analysed groups of farms differed in economic size. According to this criterion, auxiliary farms were the smallest. On average, their size was EUR 24.1 thous. of SO. Transitional farms were by about 53% larger. Developmental farms were about three times larger than auxiliary farms. In all groups, the economic size of farms increased in subsequent periods; -similar relationships occurred in the UAA. The area of auxiliary farms was 17 ha, while in the case of developmental farms 44.5 ha. It was over 2.6 times larger than that of auxiliary farms and 1.8 times larger than that of transitional farms. In all groups, the area of farms increased in subsequent periods; Zagadnienia Ekonomiki Rolnej / Problems of Agricultural Economics -farms of all groups used leased land whose share was ranging from 21% (auxiliary farms) to 29% (developmental farms); -the degree of diversification of labour input was not large, the area of variation did not exceed 20%. On auxiliary farms it amounted to 1.69, and on developmental farms 2 AWU/farm. On transition and developmental farms there was a downward trend in subsequent periods; -mixed farms used employed labour to a small extent. Its share in total labour input on auxiliary and transitional farms did not exceed 2%. On developmental farms it was larger and amounted to 10%; -the analysed farms differed in technical equipment of labour. It was the smallest on auxiliary farms. Their value of assets amounted to 164.2 thous. EUR/ AWU. On transitional farms it was 24% larger and on developmental farms 121% larger. In all groups, the level of technical equipment of labour increased in subsequent years;  -the degree of diversification of payment for employed labour was small. The area of variation was about 8%. The payment was the lowest in auxiliary farms, and the highest in developmental farms, where it amounted to 10.3 PLN/h. There was an upward trend in all groups of farms. Labour costs increased the most, i.e. about 63%, on auxiliary farms and the least on transitional farms -about 52%; -income from farm per hour of family work varied considerably. On average, on auxiliary farms it amounted to 5.15 PLN/h. On transitional farms it was by 129% larger and on developmental farms by about 500% larger; -income parity A and B indicators on auxiliary farms were low and amounted to 50.9% and 37.6%, respectively. Transitional farms obtained parity A income, while the parity B income indicator was 86.1%. Developmental farms received income three times exceeding parity A and twice parity B; -auxiliary and transitional farms did not have the ability to compete. Their CI was 0.38 and 0.78, respectively. Developmental farms, in which the CI was 1.39, were able to compete. In all groups, the value of the CI showed an upward trend.

Summary and conclusions
In 2013, the Central Statistical Office in Poland changed the definition of an agricultural holding, and this precluded a retrospective analysis of the characterised phenomenon using mass statistics materials over long-term. Materials covering the period from 2013 to 2016 indicate that the number of farms decreased by 1.3%. Therefore, the process of concentration of production on the functioning agricultural holdings could occur. The number of farms with mixed production but also specialised in vegetable and orchard production, raising of grazing animals and fed with concentrated feed (granivores) decreased, but at the same time the number of farms with field crops increased. As a result, the share of farms with specialised production increased to 75.7% (by 6.3 percentage points).
The structure of farms by types of farming also changed. Farms specialised in field crops maintained their dominant position. Despite a decrease, the share of farms with mixed production was still significant. The share of farms with grazing animals and orchard farms was relatively stable. The share of vegetable farms, farms with granivorous and unclassified farms was quite stable but low.
The research, using the results of monitoring of Polish FADN for 2007-2017, allows the following conclusions. 1. The share of auxiliary farms in individual types of farming was significant. It was ranging from 24.5% (farms with dairy cattle) to 43.1% (farms with mixed production). In all types it increased in subsequent periods. The average economic size of this group included the range from EUR 24.1 thous. of SO (mixed) to EUR 51.6 thous. of SO (vegetable). The average area of farms with field crops, dairy cattle and with mixed production was 23.5, 19.2 and 17 ha of UAA, respectively. The area of orchard and vegetable farms was 5 and 11 ha of UAA, respectively. Farms in this group did not achieve income parity in relation to