How to make farming profitable again
Minette Batters talks exclusively to James Farrell, Head of Knight Frank’s Rural Consultancy team, about her recently published review into farming profitability
In spring 2025, the then Defra Secretary Steve Reed commissioned former NFU President Minette Batters to investigate why profitability was such an issue for British farmers and what could be done about it. The result was the Farming Profitability Review. I sat down with Baroness Batters to discuss the report, its findings and why she is confident her 57 recommendations will make a difference. The following are some of the highlights of our conversation.
James Farrell – There was some delay before Defra finally published your report just before Christmas. What was behind that?
Minette Batters – It really came down to the Whitehall grid and end-of-year pressures rather than anything more troubling. Defra was keen to publish earlier and was frustrated by the delay. In some ways, though, it worked to the report’s advantage. When it did come out, it attracted more attention and scrutiny, which is no bad thing for something this important.
You’ve said some people warned you not to take on this review. Why did you go ahead anyway?
A lot of people said it would damage my reputation or wouldn’t make any difference. But there’s no point being in the House of Lords if you shy away from big, difficult issues. Farming is at a crossroads. I felt strongly that the sector needed an evidence-based assessment of where we are and what needs to change. Steve Reed asking me to do it was a bold move, and I thought it was right to step up.
How has the farming industry reacted since publication?
The reaction has been overwhelmingly positive. I’ve spoken at conferences, industry meetings and webinars, and the feedback has been supportive across the supply chain. That’s because the report reflects extensive engagement with farmers, processors, retailers and advisers. It’s not a theoretical exercise – it’s the product of real conversations with people who are living these challenges.
What do you see as the biggest challenge now?
Implementation. That’s as much a challenge for the industry as it is for government. We’ve become very good at kicking the can down the road. This report sets out what should happen within six, 12 and 18 months, with clear milestones. Partnership is essential, but it has to deliver outcomes. Otherwise, it risks becoming another talking shop.
Do you think the government will actually act on your recommendations?
The government will have to respond formally, and that matters. But delivery won’t happen by default. The evidence shows that if we don’t see real change within the next two years, we’ll end up with a very different farming industry – and not one most people would want. The recommendations are practical, phased and grounded in evidence, which makes them harder to ignore. Ultimately, progress depends on government and industry being prepared to work together properly.
What do you think are the report’s most important recommendations?
If I had to strip it back, three things really matter. First, genuine partnership between government and the industry, underpinned by proper market monitoring, so we understand supply and demand and stop repeating boom-and-bust cycles. Second, a new economic model that treats soil and nature as national assets, with investment shared across the supply chain rather than loaded onto farmers alone. And third, schemes that work on every hectare, not just pockets of the country. These recommendations are designed to work together – if you only implement parts of them, the report won’t deliver.
Why is market monitoring such a central theme in the report?
Because we don’t properly understand supply and demand across our food system. When we oversupply, prices collapse and farm businesses suffer. Better market monitoring and balanced scorecards would help stabilise markets and improve resilience. Other countries do this far better than we do. If we want a more stable and investable farming sector, we have to understand what’s coming in, what’s going out and where demand really sits.
With 57 recommendations, was there a risk of diluting the message?
I don’t think so. The review covers all sectors and land types at a time of huge change. If I’d included every ask made of me, there would have been hundreds. The Curry Commission made more than 100 recommendations. The key point is that these recommendations form a coherent package. Cherry-picking a few won’t work – they are designed to function together.
Forty years of subsidies have protected farming businesses from failure. Does it matter if some of them don’t survive?
It’s an uncomfortable question, but it’s not as simple as saying weaker businesses should fail. The evidence shows that the mid-performing farmer – not the very top or the very bottom – produces most of the nation’s food and is also the most vulnerable. Many good, well-managed businesses struggle because of volatility, scale or market failure, not because they are poorly run. If we allow that middle to collapse, we lose productive capacity, resilience and rural jobs. Change is inevitable, and businesses will have to adapt, but a managed transition is very different from pulling support without a plan.
Are you proposing a guaranteed minimum income for farmers?
Not a guaranteed income, but a new economic model. Farmers can’t be expected to absorb all the costs of environmental delivery. If the polluter pays, then everyone has to pay. Government has a crucial role because it can provide integrity and scale – something private markets haven’t managed on their own. The aim is profitability, resilience and fairness, while avoiding food inflation.
Why has farming been so consistently undervalued by policymakers?
Because it’s still framed as just 0.6% of GDP. That ignores everything agriculture underpins – food processing, retail, hospitality, rural jobs and communities. Other countries measure primary production and processing together, and the difference that makes is striking. Until we value farming properly, it won’t receive the strategic attention it deserves.
Should farming become a more formally professionalised industry?
Many farmers, particularly younger ones, want that recognition. Accreditation, skills and safety matter. Others will strongly oppose it. My view is that the opportunity should be there for those who want it, with clear benefits attached. Professionalisation should be enabled, not imposed.
Will you be actively following up to ensure the recommendations are implemented?
Absolutely. I didn’t take this on to write a report that gathers dust. The review sets out clear actions and timelines, and I intend to hold both government and industry to account against them. This isn’t about scoring points – it’s about improving resilience, profitability and long-term confidence in farming. If progress stalls, I will say so.
What excites you most about the next five years?
The potential for large-scale, commercially focused research, better use of data to balance supply and demand, and an economic model that produces more food with less environmental impact. The UK could lead globally on this. If we get it right, farming can be profitable, resilient and central to economic growth.
What is the positive story farming should now be telling?
The public cares deeply about food and farming, but understands very little. That puts responsibility on policymakers, institutions and industry leaders to engage properly. If government and retailers genuinely understand farming, we can deliver what consumers want: British food, produced sustainably, with farmers recognised as part of the solution, not the problem.
Farrell’s view
To condense the wish list of the entire farming sector, which covers a vast range of agricultural businesses from highly commercial arable enterprises to extensive upland livestock units, into 57 considered and meaningful recommendations is no small achievement.
The government’s response to Baroness Batters’ review has been encouraging so far, but the momentum will need to continue if her recommendations are going to add long-term value to an industry worryingly lacking in self-confidence.
But what the review makes very clear is that solving this crisis is not just down to the government. There needs to be a concerted effort by everybody involved in agriculture and across the food chain to cooperate more effectively towards a shared goal.
Farms and landed estates have a crucial role to play in the process, and while Baroness Batters’ recommendations, if actioned, will make the journey easier, their future, without the safety net of subsidies, lies largely in their own hands.
To read Baroness Batters’ full report: Farming Profitability Review 2025: an independent review – GOV.UK
For more information on Knight Frank’s Rural Consultancy, visit: https://www.knightfrank.co.uk/commercial/rural-property