2026 Nuffield NZ Farming Scholarship. Apply by 17 August 2025. Read More...

Apply for 2026 Nuffield NZ Farming Scholarship by 17 August 2025. More details...

Kellogg RT

National Treasure: Native biodiversity on-farm

Executive Summary

Sheep and beef farms are home to a quarter of New Zealand’s total national native vegetation. This means that sheep and beef property owners make up the second largest native biodiversity land holders, second only to Public Conservation land. As such, a large part of New Zealand’s conservation effort is in their hands.

Many landowners have already taken steps to protect and enhance their slice of native bush. With appreciation for what has already been achieved it encourages more progress to be made by that person and those around them.
By nurturing this connection to the land and amplifying it through our communities we are more likely to gain long term biodiversity gains. Enhancing a culture of kaitiakitanga, guardianship or feelings of being stewards of the land.

This report endeavours to discover:

The quality of the biodiversity held within the bush blocks on New Zealand sheep and beef farms.

What challenges native vegetation faces in these blocks and how best to maintain and/or improve these areas.

Recommendations

1. Manage

Where landowners’ resources are limited a pest control management regime implementation would be a cost-effective use of capital that will produce the fastest benefits. Also changes to stock grazing practices have the potential to slow deterioration until fencing can be put in place.

The problem of funding the conservation efforts around the native bush on farms needs to be quickly addressed. This could be as simple as ensuring the carbon credits of these areas are financially recognised. With an inbuilt incentive to have them fenced off within the first 5years of this financial recognition. This would enable the conservation efforts of landowners to be more easily financed, thus ensuring ongoing pest control and maintenance of these areas.

2. Lead

We need to identify potential leaders who can pass on their knowledge, learnings and techniques to others. This would be best done with a framework in place that helps ensure these leaders are supported. This will help foster a collaborative approach to ensure biodiversity gains.

3. Research

I feel research into stocks role in conservation and how grazing could help enable native regeneration is needed to establish if there are any positive effects as the Allison H.V.A survey and Longlands case study suggests there may be. This would help to decisively answer the stock exclusion argument.

The need for all the ecological significance assessments to be presented in the same way in the H.V.A surveys is a great missed opportunity. I feel that being able to successfully compare and contrast this information over a long period of time would give clarity to how native vegetation is tracking in comparison to where it started from. This would give clearer indications to how our management practices are affecting native vegetation.

The High Value Area surveys are a great source of information. However, I feel they would benefit from having more information about the options for the H.V.A, such as QE11 covenants and a list of potential funding grants that are available to help landowners with the ongoing protection of these areas.

How might government better understand farmer perspectives?

Executive Summary

The New Zealand public service is and must continue to innovate to ensure that it understands the citizens that it serves.

It could also be doing a more robust job of understanding public perspectives, including those of farmers and rural communities.

Through my research, I have sought to understand how government institutions internationally and locally are innovating and experimenting to better understand these perspectives. The value and promise of these innovations is already being demonstrated.

I have also sought to understand farmer perspectives myself, and what matters to them. Through a range of semi- formal interviews, I captured a variety of themes. Views of government, the realities of farming, Māori agribusiness, communication and engagement and community and the importance of people were expressed.

It is this range of research and insight that has informed my recommendations: three proposed solutions that seek to disrupt the status quo of government engagement with the rural sector.

vRural NZ, Rural EQ and Rural Recruit have all been inspired by the people I have spoken to and ideas explored internationally. My aim has been to not only describe their benefits, but how the benefits could operate in a New Zealand context.

I recommend that government and the rural sector:

  • Prototype vRural NZ through the Digital Government Partnership Innovation Fund. This would be led by a government department, who would undertake the role of accountable authority to trial this idea on an issue of relevance and importance to the rural sector;
  • Pilot Rural EQ to trial and test what could work under a more
    full-scale delivery model. This pilot would distinguish what planning, resourcing and co-investment would be required to realise its potential.
  • Commence Rural Recruit through planning and engagement with tertiary institutions, to sell why this proposed solution is needed. This would include identifying which issues facing the rural sector would benefit from Rural Recruit and which agencies graduates would be best placed to join.

Despite the rate of change and challenges facing society, both globally and domestically, there are opportunities to improve the way we collaborate and tackle complex problems.

My recommendations can form the foundation of solutions that address these challenges. They also challenge the public service to innovate and experiment with ideas in the complex environment in which we operate.
If we expect others to change their behaviour, first, we must consider changing our own.

Knowledge + Skills + Networks = Confidence

Executive Summary

In today’s society there remains a stigma around money and finances, possibly originating from a fear and lack of understanding, and historically this has been thought to have hindered farmers’ ability and willingness to take control of their farming operations without understanding what the figures mean for their business.

In an ever-changing world of requirements for freshwater management, biodiversity and climate change policy changes, biosecurity threats, volatile markets due to societal trends and economic fluctuations – a profitable business and a solid balance sheet is crucial in today’s farming operations in order to be prepared for anything. Due to the numerous industry pressures that farmers are faced with, it is important to have a solid foundation of financial literacy and business management skills to complement the practical, industry specific skills in the Food and Fibre industry in order to run a profitable farming business. 

Financial literacy generally is weak for many farmers (Speight, 2018), therefore financial literacy is a crucial element in farmer training in order to pave the way for increases in productivity, income and profitability and improved livelihoods (Musungwini, 2018). The benefits of this financial knowledge and improved livelihoods will overflow into our rural communities, leading to improved mental health in our farmers and collectively contributing to a positive future for generations to come.

Farmers running their day to day farming operations, most being defined as ‘small sized businesses’ in NZ, should be running their farming operations as a ‘business’ and farmers should be treated like business owners. This means structuring farming operations like a business, with a Trusted Team around them for support and guidance, coupled with being highly skilled in areas across the board in finance and business management. This will allow farming operations to effectively plan for the future, striving to meet performance goals and being in a position to make well informed decisions at any point in time.

With the aim of helping farmers by steering them in the right direction on their journey of improving their financial and business management capabilities, this report identifies the specific areas that require focus in order for farmers to competently and confidently run their farming operations like a business. It is essential that the farming operation and farmer’s benefit is front of mind throughout the up-skilling process as this will allow control of the business operations and finances back in the farmer’s hands which will hopefully be met with willingness and curiosity from the farmer.

The benefits and value of the farmer taking control over the finances will be a turning point in the industry and confidence will be gained by the farmers to harness their new skills and take the reins of the direction of their farming operations into the future. It is evident there are a number of barriers to farmers’ willingness and ability to up-skill in their financial and business management skills. These are; cost, lack of time, resistance to change and failing to see the value benefit of what these skills could create for them and their farming business. The overarching theme within the suggested approach to improve farmers’ financial and business management capability is the need to navigate potential barriers mindfully and tailor individual farmer’s needs specifically to each farmer. This will assist in broadening their knowledge and transitioning the control over the finances with guidance and support throughout, understanding that every farmer is different.

Through an analysis of data gathered from farmers in the field, from rural advisors in the industry and by carrying out a literature review across four main topics, it is evident there is definite room for improvement to raise the financial know-how of farmers in New Zealand. The positive impact of an improvement in this area will be key, to ensure the NZ Food and Fibre industry keeps up with changing demands and for farmers to be in a position with the skills and control to make informed decisions. This will allow farmers to ride the highs and endure the lows for many generations to come. It is evident that there are already steps being made in the right direction which has lead to an increase in knowledge over the past ten years, but there is an urgent need for this to continually improve given the uncertain times we find ourselves in, in a post Covid-19 world.

It is time to break down the stigma around finances and tap into farmers’ financial and business capabilities. Research shows there is a large web of resources available already, for example the Dairy NZ website, the Beef & Lamb NZ website and the work that the Agri-Womens Development Trust (AWDT) is doing, for example facilitating the Understanding Your Farming Business (UYFB) course for farming women. There is a need to bring out farmers’ willingness and curiosity to learn and take control of their business, which when combined with adequate and relevant training via tutors or mentors will result in a higher level of knowledge across the board. The outcome will be improved confidence in our farm operators and farmers will witness first-hand the value and reap the benefits of what having strong financial and business management skills and control over their financials could create for them.

A recommendation that would hugely benefit farmers is introducing an on-farm tutor or mentor initiative to boost confidence in their financial and business capability by educating farmers step by step through what they can do to be involved in their financial and business management. When farmers are confident in completing financial tasks efficiently themselves, using suitable farm finance software and with adequate training, they will gain control over the financials and be better poised to influence and execute effective business planning and strategic discussions. This entire package will be crucial for farmers to be up to speed at any point in time, with the knowledge to make informed decisions, the skills to implement these with a supportive and trusted team behind them and the confidence to put their best foot forward when seeking finance for business growth.

Sustainable Impact Investing into New Zealand’s Horticultural Sector: Is there an Opportunity and Can We Capitalise on It?

Executive Summary

The global perspective on investment is changing from traditional financial metrics to the relatively recent idea of “impact investing”. This is where investments are made with the objectives of creating a positive impact on environmental and social matters as well as receiving financial returns. The growth in this movement has raised questions on whether there is potential within New Zealand’s horticultural industry to market its perceived sustainability and therefore access this pool of capital. With this theory in mind, this report looks to quantify the sustainability of the sector as well as analysing the ability of the investment sector in New Zealand to take advantage of impact investing theory.

To achieve this aim, this study uses an analytical framework to measure the carbon footprint of orchards and vineyards as a proxy for environmental sustainability. The model uses a case study of six different orchards and vineyards, owned by Craigmore Sustainables, to get an understanding of the variability within the sector. In addition to the carbon footprint modelling, four informal interviews of leading New Zealand primary industry investment managers and large-scale corporate farmers and foresters were performed to get an understanding of the extent to which the primary industry and its investors are concerned and report on sustainability.

Using the purpose-built carbon model, the producing orchards and vineyards were shown to have a net positive impact on the environment through large sequestration by the plants and compost. The two developing apple and kiwifruit orchards were shown to have comparatively high net emissions in their early years. It was shown that there is significant variation in the sequestration potential of different crop types (apples have the greatest potential sequestration per ha). In addition, the impact of organics was tested across the kiwifruit orchards with organic management producing less emissions overall than a conventional orchard.

Across the multiple interviews and literature reviewed, it was shown that there is significant variation in the positioning of investment funds and corporate farmers on the idea of impact investing. In general, foreign, and younger investors appeared to be further advanced in the understanding of impact investment and its opportunities. However, for the New Zealand market to fully appreciate and take advantage of impact investment opportunities that will arise in the primary industry space, there needs to be changes to the consistency and transparency of sustainability reporting and fund raising.

Although this study provides a baseline understanding of the potential sustainability of the horticultural industry, there are several recommendations that need to be considered in either further research or by leading organisations within the sector. These are:

  • Where possible, the increase in establishment and use of other quantifiable sustainability metrics in addition to carbon
  • Provide actual on-orchard data to test the strength and applicability of the carbon footprint modelling.
  • Further research into the environmental sustainability of orchards in an intensity-based approach such as kg CO2-eq per tray produced or per $

In addition, there are also recommendations for the industry’s investment sector to capture the possibilities of the impact investment movement:

  • To increase the measurement and reporting of the sustainability of the industry and therefore utilise the existing foreign impact investment interest as well as being prepared for when the domestic New Zealand investor base ultimately increase their focus on impact investment.
  • For the industry to either create a universal accredited standard of reporting and measurement for sustainability of a business or to align itself to current global reporting standards and initiatives.

These recommendations will help to increase investor confidence in the industry and therefore increase the potential uptake of the opportunity for impact investment.

Projection of beef forward marketing; building partnerships between dairy farmer and beef finishers.

Executive Summary

It is time for the dairy industry to stop sweeping the bobby calf issue under the carpet. Approximately 2 million calves are surplus to dairy requirements intended for human consumption and pet food (MPI, 2015). The bobby calf numbers are trending upwards since 2000 and is causing a lot of welfare concerns from animal activists.

I believe there is significant potential for the bobby calf to be reared as quality beef, beef farmers are struggling to source good quality calves that will finish with a profitable value, calf rearers are vulnerable within the markets volatility.  Globally beef demand is rising, and Its becoming more harder for beef finishers to purchase quality young stock to carry through. I put together a questionnaire and had a reply from 30 dairy farmers. The dairy farmers are referring the issue to being to hard and to much risk.

The following was researched

  • How to create a pathway to reduce significant numbers slaughtered at 4 days old in New Zealand.
  • History, Driving force and building trust to form relationships and successful businesses.
  • Dairy beef genetic solutions for quality milk production, ease of calving traits, high carcass weights and quality marbeling.
  • The new generation beef , the dairy- origin steer slaughtered at 10 -12 months.
  • Forward marketing beef agreements, connecting producer, rearer and finisher with marginal prices to allow profitability, build incentives to share risks and gains throughout the production line till processing.

I have considered the relevance of all factors and there is an opportunity  for a beef finisher to provide to order with a dairy farmer and a contracted calf rearer.  Building relationship with incentives along the production line, the calf to be sold at a margin price to the calf rearer at 10 days old, the calf rearer to sell onto the beef finisher at agreed marginal price at agreed weight. Below or under weight the price will differ, this embeds management procedures throughout till finishing.  At finishing every share holder will receive a percentage of the carcass.

I believe zero bobby farm systems are achievable with careful thought and planning into genetics, a focus towards building relationships.  However there may still be a small percentage of bobby calves amongst our country.

 “An increasing proportion of our beef is coming from the dairy industry and there is a growing demand coming from Asia where beef is prepared and consumed in ways that are different to our traditional markets,” Nicola Schreurs – Massey University.

Key recommendations

  • A mutual support platform, engaging individual dairy and beef interests.
  • Online auctions with forward marketing beef agreements
  • Rearing calves for profit – An online platform to connect contracted calf rearers with farmers

The Circular Economy of Glass Packaging for the New Zealand Wine Industry and the Impact of a possible Container Deposit Scheme.

Executive Summary.

Glass recycling is the perfect example of the circular economy in action, right here in New Zealand.

It is becoming increasingly obvious, that to retain New Zealand’s prized clean green image and for our primary sector to remain competitive, a circular economy is an important part of our strategy.  The success of a circular economy of glass depends upon intelligent supply chain management to ensure sustainable customer demand. 

“A circular economy is a systematic approach to economic development designed to benefit businesses, society, and the environment. In contrast to the ‘take-make-waste’ linear model, a circular economy is regenerative by design and aims to gradually decouple growth from the consumption of finite resources”(MacArthur, 2018). 

Glass is the most sustainable package on earth and is the best example of the circular economy in action in New Zealand because,

  • It is infinitely recyclable and is made purely from raw natural ingredients
  • Over a tonne of natural resources are saved for every tonne of glass recycled
  • Every tonne of glass recycled saves approximately 670kg of CO2 over virgin materials

Recovery and reuse of glass contributes to a low emissions economy, with the use of recovered glass in manufacturing. This is because recycled glass can be melted at a lower temperature than virgin materials so consequently requires less energy. For every 10% of cullet used in the manufacturing process, O-I can achieve a 5% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

On average, a wine bottle is made from 67% recycled content manufactured at O-I New Zealand. The availability of recycled content primarily depends on our country’s waste collection infrastructure.  The existing voluntary product stewardship scheme for glass containers managed by the Glass Packaging Forum (GPF) is working very effectively, and is on track to meet a recycling rate of 82% by 2024. The GPF is a collaboratively designed circular economy for glass, returning cullet to O-I furnaces through a network of collection hubs, services and community facilities in order to ensure the circular benefits of glass are harnessed again and again.

In the circular economy of glass we refer to closed loop application, where we all play a part in helping a glass bottle is recycled back into a new glass bottle. There are sound economic and environmental incentives for O-I to support the recovery of high value glass and should be well understood the significance O-I have in driving the circular economy. Without a manufacturing plant with a commitment to cutting carbon reduction, using high portions of recycled content, we could not have a circular economy.  A majority of the New Zealand wine bottle supply chain of glass starts, and ends at O-I.

It is important to understand the glass recovery supply chain and the role it has within the circular economy design for glass.  To date, there are two glass recovery methods;

  1. Glass separate recovery – high value cullet
  2. Co-mingled glass recovery (problematic to the supply chain) – more complex and lower quality cullet

The cost and time it takes to separate, colour sort, grind and beneficiate the glass from co-mingled collections adds significant complexity and cost to the glass recovery system. Reduced quality glass recovery through co-mingling, can still be used with no environmental degradation for sport turfs, golf bunkers and base course for roads; however cannot ever be returned back to the glass lifecycle and therefore represents a break in the circular economy of glass.  To sustain a circular economy, Auckland council should cease co-mingling glass. 

The Ministry for the Environment has a consultation process on priority product guidelines (Ministry for the Environment, 2019) which included all beverage packaging, including glass.  Before stage one of the consultation had closed,  Minister Sage further announced work toward developing a Container Return Scheme (CRS) through a Waste Minimisation Fund application project managed by Auckland and Marlborough District council on 25th of September. The list of representatives on the working group, does not include New Zealand’s only cullet purchaser.

The basic principle of a Container Deposit Scheme is that the consumer pays a deposit at the point of purchase, and the deposit is refunded when the consumer returns the empty container.

This report highlights the Minister have not considered the market demand for glass and the impact an influx of extra glass would have on the supply chain.

Container deposit schemes are not supported by the New Zealand wine industry, or those involved in the glass recovery process, because they are expensive, are only one type of capture system for glass, can create recycling inconvenience for ratepayers, are not circular in nature, and are a particularly challenging solution for the hospitality sector. Marlborough is New Zealand’s largest wine region producing 77% of the total wine production. “Wine Marlborough supported the introduction of circular waste reduction policies where they meet the criteria under the Waste Minimisation Act; yet in the case of glass we believe those criteria are not met” is cited in their submission to the proposed priority products and priority stewardship scheme guidelines. “Wine Marlborough recommend continuation of the current voluntary scheme with government support for investing in further infrastructure”.

This research concludes that there is little supporting evidence that a container deposit scheme will increase overall glass packaging recycling rates, nor provide the recyclate needed to drive a circular economy anywhere in the world. 

The countries that have the best glass recovery rates in the world do not operate a container deposit scheme (Lee, Bell, Garcia, Lee, & Harding, 2019) indicating CDS is not the best solution to increase glass recovery rates. Denmark, Sweden and Norway are exemplar countries that have container deposit schemes, which exclude glass.   

In order to maintain a circular economy for glass within the New Zealand wine industry, CDS should exclude glass.  A circular economy is not possible without strong collaboration with all glass stakeholders and it is evident this has not happened yet with CDS. Should CDS progress, I urge the Ministry for the Environment to better consolidate the glass recovery process with O-I.

New Zealand would benefit from an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme around material flow of a specific product; in this instance glass.  The findings from my industry survey show the wine industry has expressed a keen interest to make this mandatory. This is expected to fast track GPF glass recovery efficiencies and position us as world leaders in introducing the circular economy within glass.

Economic Complexity and the New Zealand Wine Industry. Implications for Government Policy in the Primary Sector

Executive Summary

New Zealand’s (NZ) primary sectoris facing uncertainty from all angles. Brexit and the USA/China trade
war has thrown our primary sector exports in the air and we don’t know where they’ll land. Climate
change, sustainability and natural resource management ask serious questions of the sector’s
performance and its adaptability. Changing consumer preferences along with a rise of low carbon
impact lifestyles also put pressure on the sector. Global export dynamics are in flux as emerging
economies such as India and China build momentum. On top of this, a myriad of government
regulatory changes in the form of the Zero Carbon Bill, Three Waters Review, and the movement for
a living wage, to name a few, will continue to affect the primary industry sector.
New Zealand has the 51st largest global economy measured by nominal Gross National Product (GPD),
21st largest measured by nominal GDP-per capita at $41,555 (USD)). New Zealand’s GDP-per capita is
comparable to Japan, which has a population of 127 million people and is ranked 3rd in GDP but 24th
in GDP-per capita at $39,306 (USD). New Zealand’s forecast overall growth for 2019 is 2.5% which
surpasses Japan (0.9%), Australia (1.7%), the United States (2.4%) and the EU (1.2%) (IMF, 2019). Based
on these measures, New Zealand is performing well.
But there appears to be misalignment between the situation experienced by the primary sector, New
Zealand’s largest earner ahead tourism and services, and measures of the nation’s economic health.
Is this due simply to the monotony of the media’s crisis narrative as they report on the economy? Are
economists right to suggest everything is ok or are there deeper problems for primary production in
New Zealand?
There are well known limitations to GDP as a measure of economic success. For example, GDP doesn’t
account for the contribution made to the economy of people and natural resources. The NZ wine
industry’s (NZWI) performance is rolled up into a single measure of export value by economists and
other monetary observers. The dairy industry answers to only one measure which is the milk solids
price. Some argue GDP is a reductionist and reactive measure, a lagging aggregate measure of growth
that doesn’t predict how we will fare as circumstances or assumptions change. It is also not very good
at illustrating the need to simultaneously grow and be resilient. Considering current primary sector
uncertainty, these are important limitations.
To understand the economic environment of the NZWI is to understand the complex interactions of
the value chain that are required to make and sell wine. The emergence of methods to measure
economic complexity (EC) has proved to be of interest to contemporary economic researchers and
practitioners in this regard (Simoes and Hidalgo, 2011; Tacchella, et al., 2012; Battiston, et al., 2012;
Cristeli, et al., 2013; Bahar et al., 2014; Hausmann and Hidalgo, 2014; Cristeli, et al., 2015; Morrison
et al., 2017; Ortiz-Ospina and Beltekian, 2018). This is because these methods are like using a
microscope compared to the magnifying glass of GDP in its ability to measure complex interactions
and explain their value. By uncovering the actors and their connections within a value chain,
complexity analysis can tell us more about uncertainty and, more importantly, what to do about it.
This isn’t to say that GDP as a measure of the economy is useless, merely that it should be used in
conjunction with measures like EC.
Economic complexity also has the capacity to account for the productive contribution of human and
natural resources to the economy in ways that GDP can’t. But, most importantly, EC offers measures
for the economy that account for knowledge.
5
The counter to economic vulnerability and uncertainty is resilience (Briguglio, 2006). Increasing the
economy’s complexity increases its resilience which in turn reduces its vulnerability and the
uncertainty held by the industries within it. Economic complexity analysis provides insights into how
to understand, measure and build a resilient economy.

Do current extension methods cater for farmers with dyslexia?

Executive Summary

Farming has always been seen as a career for those who were never any good academically, often ridiculed as ‘dumb ‘many left school as soon as they were able and went farming. Once they became farmers they began to excel, as farming is a practical and hands on career which requires problem solving, a love of the land and little reading and writing. To gain insights on what it is like to be farming with dyslexia I undertook several interviews with farmers throughout New Zealand who were willing to share their story. From these interviews I found that most of them didn’t see their dyslexia as a disadvantage but rather an advantage as it enabled them to think differently. Many had found ways to help overcome their dyslexia. There were key themes which came out of the interviews, the main one being that the agricultural sector needs to acknowledge that dyslexia is an issue within the sector, and secondly that dyslexic people are often more creative, entrepreneurial and can see the bigger picture. Often many have the ability to look at risks and mitigate these. All those I interviewed did not see their dyslexia as a bad thing.

Many of us who work in the agricultural industry will know farmers with dyslexia. Many of whom have tried to hide it rather than embrace it. Often these are intelligent individuals, but they struggle with reading and writing and therefore could be classed as a ‘functional dyslexic’ but some dyslexics are ‘literate dyslexic’s and will persevere with reading and writing.  As a sector we need to change the way they can and do receive information and we now have the technology available to do this.

The research provides the following broad conclusions:

  • Reduce the stigma of dyslexia in the agricultural industry by having ambassadors for dyslexia and mentors to assist other farmers with dyslexia
  • Conduct research to determine the extent of dyslexia within the agricultural sector
  • Develop workshops for rural professionals to educate them about the basics of dyslexia, and how they may be able to better assist their dyslexic clients
  • Develop extension resources in dyslexic font
  • Develop more podcasts and videos on popular extension topics which don’t require dyslexic farmers to have to read to gain the information
  • Encourage Regional Council’s to provide assistance with compliance paperwork such as drop in days or help desk staff to help dyslexic farmers to complete paperwork required

I acknowledge that it isn’t going to be easy for the sector to make the changes required, as for too long this has been a topic which has been almost hidden but at the same time it is acknowledged that many farmers are dyslexic. A change in mindset will take some years to create but I believe we can do this by having an ambassador or ambassadors for dyslexia in the same way we have Doug Avery for rural mental health.

We are in both exciting and changing times in the sector. With increasing compliance and environmental changes being introduced and demands on farmers increasing, we will see some dyslexic farmers despairing and wondering how they will cope with the increase in paperwork which they already struggle with.

Dyslexia is the new stigma in the agricultural sector which needs to be broken. I hope this report helps to both challenge and change the mindset that dyslexia is something which should be embraced not ridiculed. I would love to work in this space and help bring about change in the agricultural sector and make it easier for the next generation of dyslexic farmers coming through.

Putting the food back into food: What will it take for our primary industry to produce nutrient-dense food?

Executive Summary

“Let food be thy medicine, and let medicine be thy food” – Hippocrates. The idea of food-as-medicine has been around for many years. It is not until recently that consumers are leading the charge, prioritising products and ingredients that are novel, nutritious, locally sourced and ethically produced.

In both a local and global context, primary industries are facing challenges with changes in consumer behaviour. These are often strongly driven by social media trends and awareness of environmental factors involved in the methods of growth and production of food, leading to shifting food purchasing trends. The New Zealand primary sector is no different to other global producers, however an increase in the focus by the public on ‘food-as-medicine’ is creating an opportunity for New Zealand producers to fill a potential gap in the market.

Increasing demand for nutritious, safe and healthy food grown in an ‘environmentally friendly’ way has become ever more prevalent. It is well documented there is a continued and alarming rate of increase in preventable diseases, especially of the non-communicable diseases (NCD) type such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes. This trend allied with potentially catastrophic pressures on our environment, especially in the form of climate change, gives rise to a combination of major challenges for society as a whole but especially for agriculture and medicine globally.

New Zealand is in a position to take advantage of this situation and create strong markets due to its size, relatively highly educated (by global standards) agricultural workforce, and innate ability to innovate rapidly. It can add value to its export (and domestic) markets by way of capitalising on the astonishing lack of focus that has so far been paid to the nutrient content of food by consumers and producers. This will empower farmers to become educated and focussed on healing, enhancing and protecting the soil from which they derive their livelihood. It will also pass on a worthwhile heritage to future generations, while simultaneously positioning itself as a global leader in premium nutrient-dense food production.

My aim for this commentary is to create a discussion piece for our industry leaders and to help the primary sector develop a potential common goal or value proposition. I want to challenge our thinking about how we tackle the changes that are facing our industry.

This research uses a combination of a literature review and qualitative analysis. This allowed me to apply critical thinking, draw key themes and identify areas of key importance.

From this research, my recommendations include:

  • Market a strong value proposition for our primary industry and gain support from the government, to ensure we have economic viability
  • Facilitate better education for our growers, farmers and our own consumers, so they have the ability or option to produce and/or consume nutritionally dense food
  • Create better collaboration between leaders not only within the primary industry, but across the nation
  • Implementation of soil measurement and consistent production standards so that we are genuinely producing nutrient-dense food

More work is required to understand how soon testing of our food will be economically and practically viable, thereby changing the economic landscape for our producers. The inevitable increase in value of what they produce will be reflected in what extra profit will accrue from the production of nutritionally dense food – not the volume. This will simultaneously bring enormous quantifiable benefit for the environment.

With change comes opportunity, and challenges, to evolve our market strategy and to feed our families and the world with more nutritious food. Growth occurs at the border of challenge and support.

Genetic gain opportunities: a trans-Tasman comparison.

Executive Summary

The story of the herd improvement industry in New Zealand is the story of a long history of great innovation, on a scale not replicated anywhere else.  A complex industry of science, human resources and innovation, dairy farmers wherever you go are a resourceful bunch.  They are plying their trade across many facets such as animal science, animal welfare, human resources, soil science, engineering, finance just to name a few.  Priorities over different areas of the farming business shift over time depicted by financial pressures, available resources, environmental pressures and in more recent times animal and environmental practices which are being called into question.  The purpose of this project is to try and dig deeper into some of the conversations I come across every day during the course of my work on Tasmanian dairy farms.  What is the difference between New Zealand and Tasmania?  With increased reliance on grain inputs in Australia, how does New Zealand produce what they do on just grass?   “They have better grass”  “It just grows better over there”, “Its just different”  “it’s a more even growing season”.   I wanted to find out more about these off the cuff comments, and see just how different the two industries are, from a climatic and environmental point of view, and at the core of the dairy business, the dairy herd. 

Comparing Tasmania to the West Coast, Tasman, Marlborough region, on the same latitude line, my research suggested the two areas are very similar in climate, annual rainfall volumes and temperatures, and should have reasonably similar opportunities to grow good quality grass.  Both have similar numbers of herds, and herd sizes.  Tasmania features slightly higher in per cow production, but has narrower margins.  Both regions have access to good cow genetics from around the world. 

Singling out herd improvement – one of the biggest drivers of New Zealand dairy production gains over time, I carried out a survey of 37 dairy farmers in Tasmania to find out what is influencing the breeding, and how they are reacting to the operating environment in Tasmania.   The survey population was a mixture of farm sizes and breed of cow.    I looked at the answers and attempted to seek out any correlations.

The stand out opportunity is the way dairy genetics are managed.  The lack of herd testing uptake is evident in Tasmanian herds when compared to their New Zealand counterparts, not only that, those that do herd test don’t have easy access to software that makes cow selection on performance simple and accurate.   As a direct result of the small numbers of farmers herd testing, Datagene, Australia’s dairy genetics evaluation body has placed an increased reliance on predicting genetic merit through DNA testing, as opposed to herd test data which would be the case in New Zealand.   Yes, accelerating the opportunity of genetic gain by not having to wait considerable time for bulls daughters to hit the dairy herd for proving, but placing large weighting on a system which is less reliable than that of daughter proving data. 

My findings suggest there needs to be better education and more information from industry bodies around the financial benefits of herd testing, more so the implications of not herd testing.  Tight margins and cost cutting at the farm level are partly to blame, but the immediate monetary savings of not testing are well outweighed by the production losses bought about by losing genetic gain and efficiency.  A 70% uptake in the New Zealand region versus 30% in the Tasmanian region is a stark contrast.  From my experience, the benefits of herd testing in New Zealand have never been called into question, and in tight times become even more important.  Tools such as MINDA, New Zealand’s herd management system, and herd testing have been an integral part of the dairy farmers arsenal since herd testing was rolled out 110 years ago in 1909. 

Recommendations:

  • As an industry – look at ways to increase herd testing uptake to enable targeted selection pressure on low performing animals
  • Further educate farmers and software providers the basics of sire selection indexes and daughter proven vs genomic proofs, heritability of traits vs environmental, and make visible the financial benefits of good genetics and selection pressure.
  • Streamline data on farm to record ancestry and increase outcrossing at an individual cow level.