Kellogg RT

This business concept works to research the potential outcome of starting and operating a successful low-tech, small scale specialty mushroom farm in the North Island of New Zealand. It is a short overview of a new business venture idea that will be further expanded into a business plan once the concept has proved probable.

Starting in Northland, the long-term idea is to be able to move around and transport the mushroom farm accordingly. The farm will be producing oyster mushrooms (Pleurotus ostreatus) for the first year and introduce more specialty varieties in the following years, such as Shiitake (Letinula novae-zealandiae) and Enoki (Flammulina velutipes).

The report explores the possible outcome of a successful mushroom farm by:

• Understanding the NZ mushroom industry dynamics and the market demand for speciality mushroom varieties and potential trends that are on the rise
• Potential challenges and risks that could arise and ways to mitigate them
• Gaining insight into the requirements needed to start the farm and the DIY options for establishing a producing fruiting room
• Other profitable ventures that arise from the production of fungi.

The New Zealand mushroom industry is small but well established. With only one fully integrated commercial mushroom farm in the country and multiple, small at home start-ups selling gourmet mushroom varieties, the industry is not yet overly saturated in terms of low-tech start-ups.

The vision is to be a major supplier of quality specialty variety mushrooms in Northland and expand into the rest of the North Island. To achieve the set vision, the intention is to practice low tech farming practices by growing edible gourmet mushrooms in a controlled environment and using locally sourced substrates as much as possible.

The recommendations will show the most achievable way to reach the goal of a successful mushroom farm is to work with small harvests with high quality fruit. The farm can be built by DIY practises that suit the grower and help to keep the costs down.

In this project I considered the question “how might we develop a food system that benefits everyone in
community?” I ask this question because there are two sides to our current food system. We have a highly productive and well-functioning export system bringing benefit to the New Zealand economy, yet domestically we have people struggling to access healthy food. Some may suggest this is a social sector issue but I’d argue that when a significant number of New Zealanders are reliant on charities for food then there is something inherently wrong with our food system.

I conducted 45 interviews with people from right across our local community including farmers, business, iwi, local government, social services, beneficiaries and youth. What was broadly evident from the interviews was that there was a dissatisfaction with our current food system and a belief that it is failing people within our community. People commented on how there seemed to be a lack of thought regarding ensuring food production is protected and that people have access to food. Many raised concerns about how health was being impacted by poor quality food. The shift from localism to a centralized food system was also a subject of concern that was regularly raised.

In looking at the personal experiences of people who had been through food insecurity and lessons from past generations a common theme was raised of the importance of self-sufficiency skills like gardening, hunting, bartering and trading. The importance of community, whanau and having good networks was also highlighted. The case study of Taumarunui Whakaarotahi Trust demonstrates at a practical level how the unique strengths of rural New Zealand can be better utilized to develop a food system that benefits everyone in the community. There is much that can be achieved by local communities in collaboration with the primary industries.

However, there are regulatory roadblocks that need to be addressed by Government to enable a thriving local food system to develop. The potential benefits of developing such a food system are wide ranging, impacting poverty, physical and mental health, increasing community connectedness and resilience, stimulating regional economies and reducing CO2 emissions. In making my recommendations I considered the enormous pressure Covid-19 has placed upon our local communities, the primary sector and Government. I therefore focused mainly on areas of collaboration, how we could build on current initiatives and better utilize our strengths.

Recommendations:

Community / Local Government / District Health Boards

• Consult widely amongst the community to avoid making assumptions about who is interested in food security and who can help bring solutions
• In designing a food system to benefit community consider the unique strengths of the area and the strengths and values of the people within your community.

Primary Industries

• Connect with Kore Hiakai and be part of food security conversations to investigate ways to better integrate current food security initiatives with education from food producers regarding how that food is grown
• Horticulture industry to partner with community and marae-based gardens and offer advice as part of
  fulfilling their vision of ‘healthy food for all, forever’
• Partner with Government and local communities in developing models to help small landowners be profitable and develop pathways for people to get into land ownership.

Government

• Increase access via changes to food safety regulations and reducing barriers to cottage food industry
• Increase regulation of processed foods high in sugar/salt and saturated fats with the aim of reducing the availability and marketing of unhealthy food – particularly to children
• Establish a national food strategy that involves enabling and facilitating the creation of local food systems
• Utilize Pamu farms to experiment with stacking enterprises appropriate to the local area to identify diversification opportunities for small landowners and increase participation in food production.

A significant challenge presented in the 21st century, will be meeting the food needs of an exponentially increasing world population, and ensuring agriculture implements the principles of sustainable development.

There is evidence to suggest, observed from environmental research such as the Climate Change Councils’ report (A low emissions future for Aotearoa, 2021), that agriculture contributes to environmental concerns, such as water quality and greenhouse gas emissions. This has been met with fierce resistance from agricultural lobbyist groups such as, ‘Groundswell Aotearoa’ and ‘50-Shades of Green’ whom promote the significant role that agriculture plays in supporting the growing demand for world food and concurrently highlighting agriculture’s significant economic and socio-economic contribution to Aotearoa, achieved through domestic and export revenue from meat, fibre and milk, in addition to the significant employment opportunities generated through these primary industry supply chains. What if, there was a way we could achieve both essential objectives?

This project explores the evolving landscape of Northland hill country farming, highlighting the current position of Northland hill country sheep and beef farming, the significant uptake of forestry competing with the sheep and beef industry for land-use on these hills, and the opportunity for integration of these industries to collaborate in meeting both our environmental, economic, and socio-economic objectives. The implication for landowners, is that the decisions we make today, will not only initiate short-term change, but may also present long-term and inter-generational implications that necessitate a need for holistic and well-informed decision-making process’.

Through my research project, it has highlighted:

• The need for hill country landowners to understand their whole farm system, including specific strengths and limitations of land, the relative profitability of all land classes on their property, and the logistical role each hectare of land plays within the business.
  
  
• Integrating indigenous and exotic forestry regimes on hill country can provide improved financial resilience, profitability, and environmental benefits with well-planned and well-executed management advice.
  
  
• Understanding your resources and the relative profitability of various land classes provides economic insight, however a need for more holistic considerations such as environmental and socio-economic implications should be adopted.
  
  
• Hill Country Farmers are going to have to continue to adapt their farming operations and become more financially and environmentally resilient through a multi-faceted continual improvement process in productivity, achieved though decisions such as genetic merit of livestock and stock classes, as well as adaptation to policy implementation and awareness of their environmental obligations under Kaitiakitanga.

My recommendations to hill country landowners are:

• It is imperative that any landowner considering land-use change engage industry expert advice to understand what the implications of land-use change decision may present to their business to encompass; financial, environmental, logistical, and socio-economic implications of change.
  
  
• Hill Country Farmers must continue to adapt and become more financially and environmentally resilient through continuous improvement in productivity achieved with improvements in areas such as the genetic merit of livestock, stock class & policies, as well as adaptation to policy implementation and awareness of their environmental footprint.

This paper presents some significant empirical findings about generational cohorts, their grocery shopping behaviors and the implications of this for retailers. Marketing has long relied on the use of market segmentation. While birth age has been a useful way to create groups, it does not help to understand cohort motivations. Environmental events experienced during one’s coming of age create values that remain relatively unchanged throughout the life of the citizen.

This study investigates what the future of grocery is for Generation Z (Gen Z) and Generation Y (Gen Y / Millennials). We will also explore what impact Branding and Big Data have on the way Gen Y and Gen Z citizens consume.

Every generation needs to eat – the act of buying food will never go away – but how we buy food will certainly evolve with future generations. The future of shopping will focus more on experience and creative more seamless experiences. The future of grocery is all about citizen-choice – giving citizens the options they want at every stage of their lives. The future of grocery will be impacted by innovation in technology, and other ways to make shopping more of an experience, whether that’s in-person or digital.

The aim of this paper is to explore how supermarkets will evolve and consume in a post-Covid environment. We will look at Shopping Malls to understand how the environment has been transformed and what the population expects from these spaces. We will study how millennials consume and what attributes they are looking for in products.

This is important and these questions need to be answered as the economic environment for grocery stores is tough. Retailers are navigating the shift in citizen behaviour and there is a fundamental shift in the environment they operate in. The year ahead is characterised by unusually high uncertainty for the grocery industry. The development and trajectory of the industry will heavily depend on the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic and how consumers will behave in response. Which consumer behaviors observed during the pandemic will stick? 

What new trends might emerge post-pandemic? Will online grocery sales continue to accelerate? How can retailers make it profitable? Will food nationalism continue, or will focus shift to trading down and price? Will safety and health be important factors? How about the broader topics of sustainability and climate change? This report aims to address these questions.

The methodology used for this report involved a literature review and thematic analysis which looks into the recurring themes of Big Data, Retailers and Citizens.

The literature review was the major component of the research including resources from domestic and international publications, opinion pieces and industry reports into the topic of groceries/supermarkets, the current environment and the future. 

Themes related to consumption patterns were discussed. Key findings were that Generational cohorts are not the same as generations 1 (Markert, 2004).

Each generation is defined by its years of birth; while a generation typically is 20–25 years in length, or roughly the time it takes a person to grow up and have children, a cohort can be as long or short as the external events which define it. Generational cohorts are set apart by cataclysmic events that produce a change in the values, attitudes, and predispositions in a society. These events create a discontinuous historical timeline; such secular change events can be characterised as a ‘sense of rupture with the past’2 Millennials and Gen Zs have grown up with technology and they are using this in their quest to purchase the perfect product in the perfect way.

We have compared Gen Z and Gen Y with Baby Boomers and Gen X who value the retail experience and in-store service. For Baby Boomers, the purchase process starts with a retailer the consumer trusts, who gives advice for choosing the right product, while for GenZ and Y, the purchase process starts with choosing a product. This study investigates retail strategies that will appeal to younger generational cohorts and considers how retailers should be building citizen relationships. The key insight for brands is that Gen Y & Z all about authenticity. They want to present themselves as they truly are. They expect a brand to take a position. To be respected for its values and demands, a brand must demonstrate them in a concrete manner, and shift from words to actions.

Other key findings:

a) Getting online will continue to be an imperative for New Zealand producers. It is hard to imagine or even remember, but as little as 18 months ago, some of the biggest food and beverage makers still had no direct-to-consumer (DTC) ecommerce channels.

b) This pandemic is driving citizens to focus on “preventative eating” or “proactive eating.” New and innovative superfoods marketed to boost immunity will be one of the top food and beverage industry trends in 2021, whether it comes in the form of mushroom coffee, algae capsules, no- or low-alcohol beverages, or bone broth.

c) The climate crisis is driving demand for plant-based products. Demand for the latest generation of plant-based products isn’t just due to health goals

d) Citizens will be more cost-conscious. Even before the recession, customers were looking for ways to cut everyday costs, with more than half looking for ways to reduce their grocery bills.

e) Citizens will continue to look for greater transparency and connection to brands. Citizens may have tighter budgets, but that doesn’t mean they’re willing to cut corners when it comes to their health or personal values systems. Instead, they’re carefully reading the labels to find out not just what goes into their food, but where and how it’s made.

f) New recipes for engagement and sales may prove more popular than familiar favorites. Citizens anticipate they’ll continue to recreate big nights out in the comfort of their homes—even post-pandemic.

g) Citizens don’t think in terms of channels—they expect an outstanding shopping experience from clicks to bricks. To meet growing customer expectations, retail store owners within malls need to focus on an omnichannel approach with a unified online-offline experience.

h) Would we be better off moving to deliveries of food from local producers and suppliers directly to the citizens? It’s not that straightforward. Many farmers choose to sell their produce to supermarkets, despite retaining under a third of the retail price on average, as it is more efficient and reliable.

My recommendations are:

Supermarkets get closer to the customer – A real opportunity exists for retailers to secure new customer data. Gleaning insights successfully can increase the lifetime value of each customer.

Retailers ‘woo’ citizens with Experiences and Speed – Coupling experience with speedy fulfillment will go a long way toward meeting this generation’s expectations.

Don’t abandon stores – Reimagine them to create a digitally connected, interactive and hyper-personalized physical shopping experience.

Introduce concepts and focus on “cool” social media – Many products are the same and have become commodities. Citizens differentiate between products by their experience with them.

Overload on feedback – Gen Zs value feedback from their family and friends, suggesting that retailers no longer own the review process. Brands should also look at collecting shopper product testimonial videos – an authentic approach that adds tremendous credibility.

Focus on Ethical and Environmentally Friendly Products – There is accumulating evidence that consumers are impacted by the perceived sustainability of [a] brand, and that consumers are willing to pay a premium for products from a sustainable brand over a non-sustainable competitor brand.

Pressures on what is deemed the appropriate use of land to create food and fibre in New Zealand are countless and seemingly coming from multiple directions. Such pressures can have the ability to inspire change, be it willing or not.

Reactive land use diversification is not new. Land holders have changed their agricultural systems to increase financial gains or access stronger markets as the result of many external influences. Often, the notion of land use change has been referenced as a complete transition of the entire land holding. However partial diversification is already prevalent amongst New Zealand agricultural enterprises, and many rely upon multiple income sources for financial viability.

When thinking of investment, an investment reliant upon a sole markets return is described as high risk, hence the often-sage advice to diversify a share portfolio. The investment of agriculture is surely deemed high risk when the return is commonly solely reliant on the sale of a single commodity.

The purpose of this report is to explore the reasons behind land use decision makers reasons for exploring land use diversification and to determine if there is a place to partially diversify agricultural enterprises in a way that both brings income and business resilience as well as reduced environmental impacts and greater compliance of regulatory frameworks. Can agricultural businesses be the same as a diverse share portfolio, with varying risk, seasonality, liquidity and return all on one land holding?

Financial, Environmental, Social, Knowledge and Regulatory opportunities or barriers appear to drive land use change, but none more so than financial. However, with the exploration of the other factors, it could be said that financial performance is heavily pursued in the land use that is desired by the land holder and that has created a narrow view of the business or lands capabilities.

There appears to be an opportunity within New Zealands’ Food and Fibre sectors to create multiple enterprise farming operations that bring increased financial resilience, lower environmental impacts whilst maintaining the “social licence to farm” and creating job satisfaction for those that own the land.

Therefore, the recommendations from the research undertaken are:

Collaboration from a variety of sectors to allow knowledge share. This could include discussion groups that are possibly hosted by the likes of Dairy NZ, Beef & Lamb, Horticulture NZ and other non-government organisations.

Research and publications in to successful and failed enterprises that have undertaken partial land use changes to establish the complications, complexities, drivers and barriers that exist in partially diversified operations.

Greater accessibility to ministry funding to enable partial diversifications where outcomes are likely to improve environmental impacts. Funding or resource to enable the collaboration of farming businesses to achieve greater market access when sole scale is not sufficient should also be explored.

Our Rural professionals (RP) are passionate people that are out having day to day interactions with our Food and Fibre Producers. Our rural community is isolated and mental health can be an issue for our industry. Are we ensuring that we are supporting the mental health of the people that are there to support our farmers?

That is what this report aims to find out, to understand the current mental health state of the RP workforce, the specific factors driving poor mental health and the access and use of MH services for our RP’s.

This report undertook a survey of 184 Rural professionals across the RP landscape, asking a range of questions to gain a quantitative analysis into their mental health and that of their workplace. They were then categorised into some key finding and recommendations below:

Key Findings:

• 67% of respondents Mental Health were currently or sometimes impacted by the requirements of their role.
• The main drivers of this were High workload, Tough conversations with Clients and Uncertainty.
• Banking roles had the highest impact on mental health.
• Respondents in Banking roles found a stressful work environment as a top factor for impact on their Mental Health.
• 92% of respondents have access to Mental Health service.
• Only 48% of respondents with negative MH impacts on their role had open workplaces that welcomed mental health discussions.
• 19% of respondents that MH is negatively impacted by the requirements of their role have not used any MH services. 59% of respondents whose MH is sometimes impacted by their role have not used any MH services.
• 85% of respondents were comfortable with using MH services.

Key Recommendations:

1. Open your Eyes:

a. To take personal responsibility for your own personal wellbeing in front of the requirements for your role.
b. To take responsibility for supporting and looking after those around you.
c. To promote positive mental health discussions and 5 ways of wellbeing.

2. Organisational Ownership:

a. Create meaningful initiatives to promote positive mental health discussions in workplaces.
b. Ensure all their people have access to some form of MH service for their employees.
c. Promote training for your people – such as Mental First Aid or Resilience Training.

3. Leaders leading change:

a. Leaders must learn to understand their team:

i. What is the mental health of their team?
ii. What affects their mental health – S.C.A.R.F model
Leaders need to constantly to check in with team members, ask questions and put initiatives in place to respond.

b. Leaning into the tough conversations.

i. Noticing when someone’s mental health is being affected.
ii. Asking your team what requirement of the role are affecting their mental health.
iii. What initiatives to drive profits and sales are driving poor mental health environments?

The issue of worker engagement is not a new one and as New Zealand strives to create more value from agriculture without increasing land footprint or environmental harm, value will be created from advancements in taking our world class raw ingredients through the supply chain. Therefore, the engagement of people throughout the supply chain is more important than ever. Worker engagement in this context is defined as the ability for an employer to connect with an employee so that a relationship is not purely a transactional time versus financial reward.

The current state of the New Zealand’s employment records show an increasing unemployed population increasing from 88,833 on the Jobseeker Support to 122,871 in the 12 months to April 2021 (Development, 2021).

There were three common themes between the literature reviewed and the people interviewed. The strong correlation demonstrates the need for Accountability, Clarity and Care across all levels of the business and how this is imperative for gaining better labour engagement. Interestingly this fits into a model presented by Simon Sinek “circle of safety” which concludes that the more clarity, accountability and care that can be given to a team they will then focus their resources solving productive issues.

Recommendation

New Zealand’s unemployment rates continue to increase and so does the minimum wage, yet New Zealand businesses continue to struggle to get new entrants into their teams.

To change this outcome businesses need to focus on:

1. Upskilling the leaders of their business (team Leader level) that share the most time with the entry level employees
2. Create clear values and business objectives for all levels of business can hold themselves to.
3. Implement the clearly articulated objectives and values with clarity, care and accountability.

A Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) outbreak would have devastating impacts on the agricultural industry, the New Zealand economy, and have severe implications for farming communities. Communication is a vital part of an emergency response, and its effectiveness has a major impact on the overall success of controlling an outbreak.

The question is, are we prepared for FMD in New Zealand, from a communications perspective? This is a disease that is well known, and we know as a nation we would act to stamp it out. With this knowledge, we can, and we should, be prepared.

This report combines a literature review with semi-structured interviews. Research articles, journals and presentations were analysed. As part of the research, several primary industry representatives from both emergency response and communications backgrounds were interviewed.

Learnings from past emergency responses were investigated, including the 2001 FMD outbreak in the UK, 2017 Mycoplasma bovis outbreak in New Zealand, and New Zealand’s communications strategy for COVID-19.

The UK FMD outbreak emphasised the value of scenario planning and having an up-to-date crisis plan. Resource requirements also weren’t recognised, leaving the communications team lacking skilled staff and being short of money.

The Mycoplasma bovis response highlighted the importance of having a well-resourced communications team, particularly at the outset of the response. Politics lead to underutilised channels, including social media.

The COVID-19 response showed the effect that a strong brand can have in banding people together. High empathy and action-based messaging led to a successful elimination strategy.

There is a communications strategy in place for an outbreak of FMD in New Zealand. It is a comprehensive plan, though developed in 2016, it is out of date. The findings of this study show that there are improvements to be made for New Zealand to be ready for a FMD outbreak, from a communications perspective.

I recommend the following actions should take place to help us prepare an effective communications response to an FMD outbreak in New Zealand:

1. Update the FMD communications strategy, keep it live and complete regular scenario testing.

2. Prepare a national brand and messaging ready for regional implementation.

3. Develop a swift sign off procedure so communications can be released quickly.

4. Have a well-resourced communications team.

5. Work to understand, engage and listen to stakeholders.

This project was intended to investigate the potential uses of remote sensor environmental data by farmers to help them improve their environmental outcomes. This could promote innovative management practices whilst making compliance easier for farmers.

The concept of ‘outcome-based’ regulation as well as environmental monitoring through sensors has been explored with some good applicable literature from case studies available to study. Several common themes emerged from this literature around benefits and risks as well as the importance of the system design.

Due to their nature of basing regulation around outcomes farmers can self-manage their environmental outcomes, removing managerial restrictions to not only allow, but encourage farmers to innovate and achieve better and more cost-effective results.

European researchers have noted farmers improve their skills over the duration of result-based schemes and form new social connections between conservationists/ecologists due to their common goals. It was also theorised that change may also occur in the relationship between farmers and the public, with farmers assuming the responsibility for management practices and the credit for
environmental improvements as opposed to merely meeting government requirements.

Better environmental monitoring data would be hugely beneficial to both regulators and farmers as the feedback would allow for better prioritisation of actions and funds. To maximise these benefits, it has been shown that the timing and frequency of water sampling is of great importance. Water quality varies greatly around storm events, within seasons and between years. Data needs to be amassed over several years to fully understand the real impact of land management practices.

The risks of outcome-based regulation have come through the literature as:

• The need for careful establishment of desired outcomes, how they are benchmarked and how they are measured.
• Possible lack of effective mitigation options and farmers exposure to events beyond their individual control e.g., large flooding events
• The issue of data ownership and how it is used and/or shared

The success of any outcome-based scheme would be greatly dependant on the identification and development of indicators. These should be carefully considered, and a balance needs to be struck between minimising the scheme complexity and having sufficient indicators to represent the objectives. If this cannot be achieved a combination of regulatory approaches may be necessary.

The last risk identified is the need for a better understanding on how farmers are likely to respond to result oriented approaches. Past examples have shown many benefits, these are mainly concerning agricultural subsidies and a switch to compliance may change the results.

With this technology still in its earlier stages of development, the cost and availability of sensors combined with poor rural connectivity make the possibility of widespread adoption purely theoretical, at least currently.

I conclude that it is too early for New Zealand to incorporate an outcome-based regulation system. Given the substantial benefits which may be achieved I don’t believe the idea should be completely abandoned and I have recommended further trails to understand and quantify any potential efficiencies. As technology develops further and becomes less prohibitive a hybrid model of ‘action’ and voluntary ‘outcome’ based regulation may be created reducing the cost of compliance and helping farmers to be seen as part of the solution and not part of the problem.

My main recommendations are as follows:

1. Address data ownership and use issues. Any increase in data capture and reporting requires a data strategy addressing data ownership and how it is to be used. In order for farmers to voluntarily give their own environmental data to a regulatory body there would need to be assurances made to address any concerns in this area.
2. Begin environmental data collection. Early trial work by regulators would provide feedback and learnings from live sensor data. This would help in designing required actions for environmental protection. It would also have value if data can be incorporated into existing models to strengthen their validity.
3. Identify indicators for monitoring. Designing a system of effective indicators should be carefully considered and would need to involve a high degree of consultation. If an environmental outcome cannot be monitored simply and effectively then an outcome-based scheme may not be appropriate for that measure.
4. Start small, proof of concept trials. This might suit larger high-country properties where it can be safely assumed that water entering the grazed areas is of high quality. Water leaving the property could then be monitored to establish agricultural impacts. This would have benefits as the cost to fence off all water ways on these properties would likely be uneconomic if required under an action-based scheme.
5. Explore options for a hybrid model between action and outcomes based environmental legislation.
6. Allow voluntary data use. Live sensor data could well be incorporated as a voluntary component of a digital farm plan, creating a ‘hybrid’ model allowing innovative farmers and regulators to test the approach before wholescale adoption.
7. Factor in future technological advances in writing regulation. Currently the technology looks to make this option cost prohibitive. Legislation could be written now to allow for its use in the future.