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...

Report tags: Technology

2024 Nuffield NZ Farming Scholarship reports.

Rural Leaders is pleased to be able to share the 2024 Nuffield Scholars’ Individual Research Reports.

Our four 2024 Scholars have undertaken research on a diverse range of topics, each addressing a topical and significant challenges in Food and Fibre, from sustainable land use to succession, and from the future of farming to genetic technology.

The Nuffield Scholarship is about impact – so, we hope you find these reports inspiring and thought-provoking.

We’d like to acknowledge those of you who have contributed your time and experience to the Scholars, a Nuffield Scholarship is after all, a team effort.

This year we have included a one-page summary of each report. You will find these short report summaries via the buttons below.

Carlos Bagrie – Beyond the farm gate: Rethinking New Zealand’s economic future.

Agriculture and tourism in New Zealand face growth limits, threatening export earnings. With global trade shifting and land constraints increasing, we must rethink NZ’s economic future; exploring high-value industries, supply chain control, and innovation.

It’s time to ask: what comes after agriculture and tourism to sustain long-term prosperity?

View Carlos' report summary

Rachel Baker – Coding for Change: Navigating adoption of gene editing in the New Zealand primary sector.

Gene editing in New Zealand’s primary sector offers opportunities to address climate change, sustainability, and productivity. Proposed legislation aims to align regulations with trading partners, balancing innovation with public trust.

Early engagement, investment in innovation, and leadership in regulatory frameworks are essential to enhance competitiveness and drive sector growth.

View Rachel's report summary

Jenna Smith – Changing the Bog-Standard: Repeatable solutions for Aotearoa’s Peatlands.

Occupying only 1% of Aotearoa’s land yet holding close to a fifth of the nation’s ecosystem carbon, New Zealand’s peatlands are indispensable but rapidly degrading. This report does not offer a silver bullet, but a new way of looking at what we’ve long called marginal land. It suggests that peatlands, when managed well, can be part of our productivity, our identity, and our climate response—not in spite of their wetness, but because of it.

View Jenna's report summary

Peter Templeton – Putting the Success back into Succession.

New Zealand’s farm succession faces challenges due to aging farmers, rising land prices, and financial barriers. The report explores alternative models like share-farming and equity partnerships, emphasising the need for early planning, government support, and industry leadership.

Innovative succession pathways are crucial for sustaining the agricultural sector’s future.

View Peter's report summary

Esther Donkersloot on leading research into cooler cows.

In this podcast, Esther Donkersloot, 2024 Kellogg Scholar, talks to Bryan Gibson, Managing Editor at Farmers Weekly, about her research with LIC on breeding heat tolerant cows.

Esther came to New Zealand to do her Masters’ thesis and never left. Good thing too. Having studied at the prestigious Wageningen University, she has steadily built a career looking into better genetic outcomes for our dairy herd – especially as the planet gets warmer.

Along with her research at LIC, Esther discusses her Kellogg report insights on genetics’ social licence to operate.

Listen to the podcast here.

Bryan Gibson – Managing Editor of Farmer’s Weekly.
You’ve joined Rural Leaders’ Ideas That Grow podcast. In this series, we’ll be drawing on insights from innovative rural leaders to help plant ideas that grow so our regions can flourish. Ideas that Grow is presented in association with Farmers Weekly.

Bryan Gibson, Managing Editor of Farmers Weekly.
You’re with Ideas That Grow, the Rural Leaders podcast. I am Farmers Weekly Managing Editor, Bryan Gibson. This week, our special guest is Esther Donkersloot, who is a recent Kellogg Scholar and works with LIC. G’day Esther, how’s it going?

Esther Donkersloot, 2024 Kellogg Scholar, Scientist LIC.
ED: Yeah, really good thank you.

BG: I usually start these conversations by just getting a bit of life history, I guess. Now, you’ve come a long way to your life in New Zealand and your role at LIC.

The Netherlands’ loss, New Zealand’s gain.

ED: Yeah, this was an overseas experience for six months that turned out to be a bit of a life move to the other side of the world. So, my background is Dutch. I grew up in rural Netherlands, and I was always very interested in doing my master’s thesis somewhere else. Just by chance, I ended up in New Zealand with LIC, and have been here for 10 years now. So yeah, it’s been great.

BG: I understand you went to Wageningen, if I say that correctly.

ED: Yeah, it’s a tricky one. Wageningen University research centre. It was very close to home for me, probably about 20ks away from where I grew up. I I studied animal sciences there. Wageningen University is our main agricultural university in the Netherlands. It’s a highly regarded university, and it’s all around food, sustainability, and environment studies.

BG: Yeah, I used to work at Massey University, and they had a lot of partnerships with that university, and I always wanted to go and visit because it just sounded like an amazing place, that food valley environment.

ED: It’s an interesting place because it’s actually a very small town that the University is based in. So the town is the University, and it’s the combined effort of the University side as well as a big arm for research, which is a great environment to learn in. Definitely look back at it very fondly.

BG: So you came over here to do your master’s?

ED: To do my master’s thesis yeah. In our master’s, we had the opportunity to either do two thesis or to do a thesis inside an internship. I did two thesis. So, it took away the opportunity to learn outside of the University. I was still keen to get my main thesis done in a company somewhere else. By chance, my professor did his PhD with our head of research at LIC, Richard Spellman.

So, I ended up with the chance to do my (main) thesis over here in New Zealand with LIC, on gestation length. And then from there, I just enjoyed it so much that I rolled into a temporary contract, then a fixed-term contract. Now I’m well and truly settled in.

LIC research into heat stress in cattle.

BG: I understand your role here now is related to heat stress in cattle.

ED: Yes. I started my career with LIC in animal evaluation, and then had a little time in our international team. I got the opportunity to travel around a bit and learn a lot more about dairy around the world. I then came back to the research and development team to lead the Slick Heat Tolerant Breeding Programme, which I’ve been doing for the last six and a half years, alongside my colleagues. Nothing in research is ever an individual piece. It’s always a team effort.

BG: Could you just tell us a little bit about the work you do and why it’s important? I mean, we know things are warming up, so I guess it’s finding ways to get genetic markers for animals that are more tolerant of the warming world.

ED: Exactly. We found the slick gene. The slick is a dominant gene that we found in the Senepol breed in 2014. It is originally a beef breed from the Caribbean. Then we started the breeding programme to incorporate that into our New Zealand dairy animals.

Back then in 2014, the focus was very much around the potential of this gene for international, knowing that a lot of our dairy still comes out of tropical environments, and this is a huge opportunity for growth.

Then when we started to focus a lot more on environment and climate change, we changed the breeding objective to focus on what this gene could do for New Zealand. Because especially here in New Zealand, where animals are outside 24/7, we don’t have the opportunity to shelter them so much from heat stress as they would be in barn-based systems. So the opportunity of having a genetic solution was just amazing.

So, we started incorporating it by just traditional breeding into our crossbred animals in LIC with the hope of launching this as a commercial product in 2029.

BG: Obviously, a lot of this stuff goes above my head, but I do know that when you’re looking at these genes for certain traits, the first thing you’ve got to look at is, does it cancel out other traits you’re after as well? Like, I guess, milk production and mastitis tolerance, that sort of thing.

ED: Yes, absolutely. I’ve been leading the breeding side, where we’ve been trying to dilute this beef breed that we got the gene originally from, into our dairy animals. We’re trying to get the genetic merit and the genetic gain up to be producing milk and getting all those traits that we require for our New Zealand dairy systems.

Then alongside, my colleague has been looking at the effects of this specific gene, not just on heat tolerance, because we know that it does create a benefit for heat tolerance, but also what could this mean to the cold sensitivity of these animals?

We’ve been doing some research ourselves as well as a project in collaboration with Lincoln University, to understand, especially in calves, when they’re born in winter here in New Zealand or very early spring, what this gene would mean to them. Because we know it did create a shorter hair coat.

We found there’s been no negative consequences to this gene, and we’re hoping to publish some of this data very early in 2025. It’s very important for us that we make sure that before we commercialise, especially knowing that we’re on a seasonal system here, once it’s out there, you can’t control what animals are being born. So, we need to totally understand everything we need to know about this gene and making sure there’s no negative consequences.

BG: Well, we look forward to reading some of your research findings and then seeing some of this technology hit the market.

ED: Yeah, it’s a super exciting project. Having being part of it now for this last six and a half years, we just see these animals produce more and more. It’s so exciting to follow them from the sideline and being able to do research on them in different locations in New Zealand.

Kellogg research into genetics’ social licence to operate.

BG: If that didn’t sound like a lot of work, you were part of the first cohort of Kellogg Scholars this year.

ED: Yeah. I was part of Cohort 51, and lucky enough to be there on an LIC Scholarship.

BG: Oh, nice. Tell us a little bit about what you focused your scholarship studies on.

ED: Yeah, that’s an interesting one. Being a scientist, doing social science in leadership is quite different to my normal day-to-day activities. But what I was interested in is this aspect of this term ‘social licence to operate’ and how that applied to my area of expertise, which is genetics.

I was keen to understand how people were, first of all, to learn from other technologies. Other examples of things out there that we can learn from how people discovered and built this social licence to operate. Then understanding how people felt about genetics and what that social licence looked like. That was the main focus of my Kellogg Individual Research Project.

BG: I’m a journalist, and that seems very newsworthy because in New Zealand we’re right in the middle of having a rethink of our gene editing laws. One of the big issues that we’re all grappling with is, even though you can do it, should you? That comes down to social licence. It comes down to the marketing of your food story and all that thing, doesn’t it?

ED: Yeah. Part of why I was really interested doing this is that I felt quite often that social licence or that public perspective always came in during the commercialisation stage, and not that much during the research stage. But especially when you’re in a cooperative like LIC, everything we do is returning value to our farmers. If it doesn’t tick that social licence box, we need to pivot.

For me, it was how do we bring that conversation all the way through our research phases, from brainstorming to commercialisation? And then how do we also keep a finger on the pulse? How do we understand that the market is reacting to when we have a product in market? Because as you know, things change.

We’re living in a world where everything is changing faster than ever. So we can’t just put a product out there and just assume everything is all right. So, how do we do that? And who do we involve? Who are our stakeholders? And how do we carry that as an industry? Big questions.

BG: Oh, big questions. Did you manage to come up with some insight about how the licence was going for genetic technology?

The Kellogg research insights.

ED: It was a big question. I only scraped the surface. But one of the things that, first of all, really captured me, all the stakeholders I talked to were very passionate about genetics. Everybody understands the value of it, and it’s something that’s a cumulative that we can create and maintain. But not everybody felt like they were part of the conversation. So there’s definitely work to do there.

Then it brought up a lot of conversations around New Zealand Inc. How can we collectively take responsibility of all the aspects of our dairy towards not just our direct community here in New Zealand, but also our consumers overseas? That was really fascinating. Also, one of the other things that came up was the term ‘trust’. How do we build trust? But also what level of transparency do we get down to?

As I said, I’m Dutch. I like to think I’m a very open and almost, oversharing person. For me, a big learning curve was that sometimes by creating almost too much transparency, you actually raise more questions, or you highlight probably the negatives a bit too much. How do you balance that?

By building that trust, having transparency, but not oversharing where you just create confusion. There was some really interesting learnings in there.

BG: I was going to ask that because you’re uniquely placed to give insight into things. The Netherlands is one of the big food tech, animal production powerhouses of the world. I guess the general population on the street probably has a pretty fair idea about what’s going on over there. I wondered how it differed from New Zealand.

ED: Probably not at all. I would think that there’s a closer connection here to our farming communities just because a lot more people live rural. There’s a real urban-rural divide in the Netherlands, where a lot of people probably wouldn’t really understand where their food is coming from.

Then for me as well, I was very interested in that stakeholder piece around consumer versus customer, versus your direct community. But because we’re an export country here in New Zealand, what does that look like and how do we do that? In the Netherlands, it’s similar. Here, people feel very connected to farmers. They see it on their way to school, they see it on their way to work. Probably not so much in the Netherlands.

Food security and farming systems – Netherlands vs New Zealand.

BG: That’s interesting. I guess another thing to think about is that because we export so much of our food, we kind of don’t have the same food security concerns that places like the Netherlands do, and who have relatively recent major issues in terms of keeping everyone fed.

ED: Absolutely. Animal health as well, and diseases, things like that. This is a very different ball game. That’s what makes it so fascinating to be here in New Zealand. Also just the seasonal pasture system, I think it’s absolutely fantastic what we’re doing here and how we convert our basics into profit.

But at the same time, it brings its own challenges. As I mentioned before, when we have a product like genetics going out and it’s being used in spring, next year, we get millions of calves, and it could be thousands of the same sire line, for example.

That brings very different complex systems with it than we have in Netherlands where you have barn-based systems and you get a calf every second or third day. It’s just absolutely fascinating to compare the systems and understand the strengths and weaknesses.

Connecting with the Kellogg network.

BG: How did you find the Kellogg programme on the whole? It’s quite a big deal. There’s a bit of work involved. Of course, you’ve got cohort of people doing it with you.

ED: You walk in that room the first day and you get really bad imposter syndrome. Being a scientist, I’m like, wow, there’s all these leaders here in the room, what am I doing here? But I think the beauty of Kellogg is not just the content and the amazing speakers you get, but it is that cohort.

Just being able to banter with others, understand what they do, what drives them, understand their farming systems or their organisations. Especially for somebody like me that didn’t grow up in this industry. It was really important to set those networks and understand a bit more about the drivers of other people on the course.

BG: You’re here in Aotearoa to stay, you reckon?

ED: Yeah, I am a permanent resident. I’m living just outside of Te Awamutu rurally, so absolutely here to stay.

BG: It’s been great chatting to you, Esther. All the best for the rest of your work there at LIC.

Thanks for listening to Ideas That Grow, a Rural Leaders podcast presented in association with Farmers Weekly.

For more information on Rural Leaders, the Nuffield New Zealand Farming Scholarships, the Kellogg Rural Leadership Programme, the Engage Programme, or the Value Chain Innovation Programme, please visit ruralleaders.co.nz

Dr Alison Stewart – FAR and the role of arable systems in agriculture.

Read More →

Dan Eb – Moving to citizen-connected food and farming.

Read More →

Dr Scott Champion – Seeing beyond the boundary fence: Strategic leadership development for Food and Fibre now.

Read More →

Hamish Marr – Glyphosate, Nuffield, and cropping today.

Read More →

Lynsey Stratford: Changing how we work for better outcomes.

Read More →

Dame Jenny Shipley: On Leadership. On Point.

Read More →

Time for a change? How contract milking supports the progression of NZ dairy farmers.

Executive summary

The current contract milking business model is no longer effective as a progression pathway in the NZ dairy industry. Research shows that 27% of contract milkers would be financially better off as a manager (Lee, 2024). This is an alarming amount and provides minimal incentive or ability for our farmers to progress within the industry.

Throughout the literature reviewed for this project, there is some slight variation in people’s opinions regarding contract milking and its place in the business structure. This is primarily due to publications regarding contract milking, often coming from the voices of high-level corporates and rural professionals and seldom from contract milkers out in the field experiencing the highs and lows of the contract milking business model.

For business people, who would invest significant money and time and shift their family to go into business with someone they have only met for maybe two hours? The answer is very few if any, so why are contract milkers going into business under these conditions? Therefore, this project addresses whether the current business model of contract milking is fit for purpose and how it enables progression.

The key findings from this project are;

  • There is a large skills gap for a large proportion of people taking the step to contract milking well before they are ready. To upskill, currently, the formal training available for farmers entering contract milking is unaffordable, challenging to access, and not timely according to events occurring on-farm.
  • A role that bridges the gap between a manager and a herd-owning share milker is needed. This role needs to be a win-win for all parties involved.
  • The views of farm owners, contract milkers, and rural professionals interviewed for this project are all very similar, and they feel that contract milking is a real issue in the industry that needs reviewing. The key findings of what needs to be reviewed within the current contract milking business model are:
    • a) the relationship between the farm owner and contract milker frequently breaks down due to a misalignment of values and expectations, which begins at the recruitment stage.
    • b) Contract milkers need to be paid a premium above what a manager of the same scale farm would receive to compensate for the risks involved in being self-employed.
    • c) there are many options to reward contract milkers other than monetary that supports the growth and progression of the contract milker.
    • d) the lack of legal protection for contract milkers, particularly when compared to a VOSM who is protected under the Sharemilking Act 1937. This was seen as an issue as the responsibilities of a CM and VOSM are equal, therefore, should have the same protection.
  • The critical components of a role that would benefit both the farm owner and contract milker are legal protection, the need for a premium, clarity within contracts, fair compensation, professionalisation, ownership and autonomy.
  • When looking into the business structures in the Australian dairy industry and the absence of contract milking within it, the concerns raised in relation to CM are the precise issues New Zealand’s dairy industry is having with it. For example, small unviable positions, ‘sham’ contracts, and the unclear and risk of whether the role is one of an employee or a contractor.

Just some of the recommendations made as a result of this research are to:

  • Dissolve the title and role of contract milker. Following this, there will be a blending of the good points from the current variable order sharemilking and contract milking agreements, which will help form a new role that will be more suited to the current climate of dairy farming and encourage progression and retention within the industry. Additionally, a new name for the new role will be created, which could be titled an ‘Operational Sharemilker’ or ‘Business Sharemilker’.
  • The addition of the word ‘sharemilker’ into the title of the new role is essential to ensure inclusion and coverage under the Sharemilker Act, which is a crucial piece of legislation to support both the sharemilker and the farm owner.

Ashlea Kowalski

Pasture-based corporate dairy farming in Zimbabwe – a concept plan.

Executive summary

Context

The market for dairy products in Zimbabwe, East Africa, and Southern Africa is growing and undersupplied. This paper investigates the dairy foods market, produces three years of financial projections, and investigates the critical success factors behind a greenfield large-scale pasture dairy operation. Investors from the New Zealand dairy industry have developed several projects worldwide, allowing relevant lessons to be used in Zimbabwe.

Aims

This study produces a concept plan for a corporate dairy farming company in Zimbabwe. It investigates the domestic and regional markets and the general business environment. The final focus is on discovering the critical success factors in developing a corporate pasture-based dairy company.

Methodology

A mixed method of interviews and secondary financial data was used to investigate the market in Zimbabwe, produce financial projections and develop an understanding of the critical success factors behind foreign direct investment into the dairy farming industry.

Key Findings

The market analysis indicates that Zimbabwe is a good country in which to develop pasture-based dairy farming on a corporate scale. The domestic milk market is in deficit, land with water is available, and the physical climate is the best in the region for pasture-based production.

The financial projects show attractive returns on capital, a substantial profit margin, and good cash flow. The returns consider the additional risk of operating in Africa, specifically Zimbabwe.

Careful choice of site, understanding of possible grass production, and the availability of supplements are vital in adapting the New Zealand pasture production system. Realistic budgets from the point of view of physical production and financial performance are essential. At the same time, leadership and an understanding of profit drivers are required from the director and farm management levels.

Recommendations

  1. The author should develop the proposal further.
  2. The author needs to identify the region of Zimbabwe in which to operate as a prerequisite.
  3. The promoter should project Conservative budgets.
  4. The promoter must find capital that fits the returns profile.
  5. A knowledgeable team must be assembled.

Rob Shaw, Robert

Understanding a future with genetic technologies in New Zealand agriculture.

Executive summary

New Zealand is at a pivotal time as genetic technologies become an increasingly important tool in global agriculture to help address issues such as food security, environmental impact, and changing consumer preferences. The current New Zealand regulatory framework in this space, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996, imposes stringent restrictions, effectively prohibiting the use of these technologies outside of controlled laboratory environments. However, significant advancements in the genetic technology space have outpaced this legislation. The Government is reviewing the framework with new regulations expected by the end of 2025. The proposed reforms aim to create a dedicated biotech regulator, streamline approvals, and align with international standards to enhance economic and environmental benefits.

This report examines the integration of genetic technologies into New Zealand agriculture, focusing on their benefits and risks, the regulatory changes needed, and the support required for adoption by the public and farmers. Prior to the new legislation being implemented, it is important to have a clear understanding of these benefits and risks in relation to New Zealand and our export markets, as well as understanding public perspectives. The research methodology included a comprehensive literature review and semi-structured interviews with 16 key stakeholders.

The findings highlight continued public apprehension and emphasise the need for a national dialogue to clarify the technologies’ benefits and implications. Identified potential risks include environmental impacts, unintended consequences, and export market, economic and social issues, though the
adoption of these technologies is unlikely to harm New Zealand’s export reputation.
A clear understanding of export market preferences and genetic modification (GM) product definitions is essential.

The findings emphasise the need for a robust, adaptable, trait-based regulatory system to mitigate these risks, and an initial focus on genetic technology tools that address emissions reduction and environmental sustainability in New Zealand agriculture, noting that public acceptance is likely to be higher for environmental applications than for production improvements.

Key Recommendations:

  • Engage public and stakeholders early in discussions on genetic technology regulations and use, clearly outlining associated risks and benefits.
  • Use unbiased, fact-based communication from trusted sources.
  • Focus on technologies that offer environmental, animal welfare, or consumer benefits.
  • Understand our export market perceptions and preferences.
  • Clearly define and explain the types and implications of genetic technologies for our export markets.
  • Develop adaptive regulations centred on product risk rather than process.
  • Implement technologies promptly to maintain a competitive edge.
  • Rural supplies merchants will have a role to educate and support farmers in the responsible adoption of genetic technologies.

Lisa Lunn

Navigating genetic technology – supporting dairy farmers through regulatory reform and adoption.

Executive summary

Background
There have been significant advancements in genetic technology over the last ten years. Modern genetic technology is now more precise and capable of producing genetically modified organisms with changes similar to those that could have been achieved naturally. The world is responding to these advancements, prompting many countries to adopt more liberal and precise regulatory frameworks.

New Zealand is one of these countries and is now beginning its own regulatory reform process. New Zealand aims to use this reform to harness these technological advancements to improve agricultural productivity, sustainability, and competitiveness in global markets. However, these advancements also bring complexities and challenges that must be carefully managed through regulation and surrounding processes and mechanisms to ensure their safe and effective implementation.

Aims and Objectives
To navigate these complexities and ensure a smooth transition, this work aims to identify possible actions and strategies to support New Zealand dairy farmers as modern genetic technology becomes permissible on farms.

Methodology
This research involved a literature review and seven semi-structured interviews with dairy farmers. The literature review primarily focused on documented impacts from modern genetic technology use overseas and the actions and strategies taken to mitigate these impacts. The interviews were conducted with a range of participants, covering small- to large-scale dairy operations, and a variety of views on the use of genetic technology. The interview data was analysed using thematic analysis. These findings were compared and evaluated against the literature review to develop the key findings.

Key Findings
The data collected from the literature review and interviews were analysed and found:

  • Regulatory reform is needed to keep pace with technological advancements and meet international standards. However, consideration should be given to ensuring that regulations are not more permissive than those of our key markets.
  • Collaborative governance and inclusive decision-making are critical, particularly integrating farmers’ practical knowledge to create effective and trusted policies.
  • Farmers require effective coexistence measures and regulatory alignment with export market standards to mitigate economic impact.
  • Farmers and industry will need certainty and clarity about genetic technology’s impacts in a New Zealand-specific context.
  • Clear communication and collaboration between government, industry, and research institutions, along with robust education and training programs, are essential for effective technology adoption.
  • A gradual and controlled approach to adopting genetic technology, starting with low-risk modifications, can build knowledge, capabilities, and trust.


Recommendations for Decision-Makers:

  1. Foster collaboration and inclusive decision-making: Create a regulatory environment incorporating diverse perspectives and building public trust. Consider establishing a semi-independent body or commission to ensure all stakeholders, including farmers, scientists, consumers, and Maori, have input in the regulatory reform process.
  2. Develop coexistence measures: Work closely with stakeholder groups to develop and enforce mandatory coexistence measures such as buffer zones and isolation distances.
  3. Enhance farmer education and support: Invest in demonstration farms, early adopter programs, and robust extension services to provide hands-on training and support.
  4. Ensure clear and transparent communication: Build public and market confidence in using modern genetic technology through consistent and accurate information dissemination. This may require a unified communication strategy involving government, industry, and research institutions to clearly explain genetic technology’s benefits, risks, and regulatory requirements.
  5. Align market differentiation with export markets: Align New Zealand’s labelling and standards for GM products with those of major export markets to facilitate trade and avoid market access issues.
  6. Gradual and controlled adoption strategy: Start with low-risk applications of genetic technology, such as those with environmental or biosecurity benefits, and gradually expand to more complex modifications.

Sophie MacAskill

Cultivating the sun – challenges and opportunities of solar farming for dry stock farm diversification.

Executive summary

Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) has attracted significant interest as a potential location for solar farming in recent years. Solar panels located on land presents both opportunities and challenges to conventional pastoral farming systems.

This report investigates the challenges and opportunities of solar farming as a potential diversification strategy for drystock farming (beyond just self-sufficiency for powering homes or farm energy demands). The objectives of this study were to:

  • Investigate and analyse the current challenges and opportunities in NZ.
  • Inform policy makers, drystock farmers, and other agricultural stakeholders about the potential implications of integrating solar farming as part of a diversified farm strategy, and
  • Propose future recommendations for industry, Government, and drystock farmers looking to potentially diversify with solar farming.

A literature review was undertaken to understand existing knowledge. To gain a better understanding in a NZ context, thirteen semi-structured interviews were completed. An inductive thematic analysis method was used to interpret themes in the context of Rogers diffusion of innovations theory.

Findings reveal that solar farming has potential to be a viable diversification strategy, however, based on location and network limitations, it will not be a silver bullet solution for every drystock farmer. For farmers that can viably consider it, lease terms with solar development companies can provide significant returns compared to traditional drystock farming. Agrivoltaics has potential to address environmental, economic and social effects associated with solar farming. However, it needs to be appropriately managed through regulation and collaboration, to address challenges and optimise solar integration with NZ agriculture.

Recommendations for industry and Ministry for the Environment, Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment, and Ministry for Primary Industries include:

  • NZ based research to inform policy and challenges and opportunities for NZ pastoral systems and climate. Investment in research is needed.
  • Development of publicly available resources for both drystock farmers and communities. This should include a guide to solar farming and agrivoltaics for farmers, which should share learnings of solar farming and agrivoltaics to date in NZ. There is also a need for resources including performance standards.

For drystock farmers specifically, recommendations include:

  • Having clarity on long-term aspirations for farming operation and community.
  • Having discussions with developers, or local Electricity Distribution Business.
  • Due diligence is important, such as finding a developer that aligns with aspirations, and seeking legal and financial advice where appropriate.
  • Thinking about how diversification with solar may change management practices moving forward and talking to other farmers to understand the practicalities of going down this path.

Jesse Brennan

How does New Zealand ensure we do not get complacent in long-term disease control, specifically Bovine Tuberculosis?

Executive summary

Bovine Tuberculosis (TB) has been a persistent concern for New Zealand’s agricultural sector since the 1880’s and is still ongoing today in some parts of the country. While considerable progress has been made in reducing the prevalence of bovine TB, complacency in both farmers and industry representatives poses a threat to its effective control and eradication.

New Zealand Inc. must be bold in the fight for TB freedom. Eradicating Complacency looks at the historical journey New Zealand has been on with the disease, the efforts taken to reduce possum numbers and infected herd numbers, and what the current state of play of the disease is currently at in 2023.

This report, Eradicating Complacency, investigates the current perception and understanding of Bovine TB with farmers and industry, to gauge if there is a level of complacency happening with the disease in NZ. The aims of this study were to:

– Investigate the current perception and knowledge of Bovine TB and the TBfree programme with farmers and industry in NZ.
– From the above findings, determine what is needed to make TB visible in regions where there aren’t infected herds or wildlife.
– Review what story telling has already been done with farmers and industry representatives that have been impacted by TB in the past.
– Determine a people centred strategy going forward to ensure complacency does not occur with farmers and industry, and efforts are sustained the closer we get to eradication of TB in herds by 2026.

To carry this out a literature review was done on the international efforts of eradication of Bovine TB in other countries, the stories that have already been told of those impacted by the disease and how story telling can impact recovery in adverse events. A digital survey focusing on knowledge and perception of the TBfree programme was created and had 71 responses from farmers and industry professionals around NZ. A thematic analysis was used to theme the perception responses. One interview with a Senior Vet from OSPRI NZ was conducted to understand how the TBfree programme has evolved over time.

The research highlights that farmers and industry have a relatively sound understanding of the TBfree programme, however farmers feel there are not enough stories being told on the human and farming impacts of being TB infected. More literature reviews were conducted on the impacts of storytelling in recovery from adverse events.

Recommendations to eradicate complacency, the closer we get to Bovine TB eradication are:

– Human centred communications focusing on the people impacts, alongside the technical information.
– Increase story telling of impacted farmers and industry professionals to help make TB visible in non-visible areas of NZ.
– Education with younger generations, lifestylers on impacts of TB, and what it means to be TB free in New Zealand.

Eradicating Complacency shows valuable insights into what the next few years could look like as we move closer to 2026. It’s human-centred and has the people in the industry at its core.

Tessa Appleby

Dairying horizons. Exploring the potential for New Zealand’s dairy expansion in Nigeria.

Executive summary

In the face of market volatility and increasing uncertainty in international trade, New Zealand as an exporting nation, must adopt forward-thinking strategies to protect its interests. Market diversification within the dairy industry holds significant impacts on New Zealand dairy farmers, processors, and the wider economy. This report analyses the potential for expanding New Zealand’s dairy partnership with Nigeria, a market with untapped opportunities.

Report objectives:

  • Investigate the current landscape of Nigeria to set the context in which the dairy sector operates.
  • Analyse the structure and dynamics of the Nigerian dairy sector.
  • Examine the relationship between demographic factors, economic growth, urbanisation, and the political landscape on the demand for and consumption patterns of dairy products in Nigeria.
  • Propose recommendations for New Zealand dairy exporters to explore further growth between New Zealand and Nigeria.

The research methodology involved a situational analysis through a comprehensive literature review to assess the current state of Nigeria and the structure of its dairy sector. Semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders were conducted to gain an understanding of the consumption trends and drivers.

Critical analysis of the literature review and interviews revealed four drivers impacting the growth of Nigerian dairy consumption these were: the force of population growth and demographic shifts, economic recovery, political stability, and rate of urbanisation.

As Nigeria’s population continues to grow, urbanise, and the working age demographic expands the demand for dairy products is projected to substantially increase. This increased demand is driven by an emerging middle class, youthful and urban population. However, the Nigerian dairy market’s potential hinges on the country’s political stability and sustained economic recovery. Given global market uncertainties and geopolitical dynamics, New Zealand’s commitment to diversification is paramount. Underscoring the significance of engagement with Nigeria to ensure that future growth opportunities remain open.

Recommendations for New Zealand’s engagement with Nigeria:

  1. Establish relationships:
    The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to proactively build relationships in Nigeria and West Africa. Through establishing representation across the country to prepare for future growth opportunities.
  2. Cultivate market familiarisation:
    New Zealand Trade and Enterprise to invest in building expertise and knowledge to gain a greater understanding of the Nigerian market. Enabling New Zealand to make informed decisions.
  3. Prioritise Nigeria as a long term future trading partner:
    The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to develop a strategic plan to build engagement with Nigeria by dedicating resources and diplomatic presence.
  4. Facilitate exchange and capacity building:
    Industry bodies to facilitate the exchange of knowledge and expertise. By bringing Nigerian dairy stakeholders to New Zealand to familiarise themselves with New Zealand dairy processes, quality standards and market dynamics.
  5. Diversify commodity offerings:
    Encourage New Zealand dairy processors to consider expanding their product range to include Fat Filled Milk Powder to target a broader and growing consumer base.

Anna Gower-James

What are the impacts on germplasm importers if regulations get harder to comply with and what are the consequences for NZ?

Executive summary

New Zealand is an exporting nation with its primary sectors being some of the biggest contributors. There is a lot to protect ourselves from in the way of biological incursion that could crush our primary industries, in particular, horticulture.

Protecting our country is done in the way of border controls and monitoring what is entering the country through government created biosecurity systems. The new germplasm import pathways has its own biosecurity system which for users is fraught with complex and multi-layered challenges, all with the primary goal of protecting New Zealand from biological incursions.

This report aims to help support ongoing work in the germplasm import industry and to find beneficial solutions for importing pathways while keeping New Zealand safe from biological threats. This report will explore three key research questions.

  • What is the history of the quarantine system in New Zealand, and how does the system now work?
  • What are the most common barriers to entry of new plant germplasm material into New Zealand?
  • What are the solutions to assist with the simplification of the import process?

The methodology comprises a literature review to provide context around the key barriers faced with the importation of germplasm. A thematic analysis is then conducted from ten anonymous semi-structured interviews of four people from fruit and vine, two that work across multiple horticultural production sectors, one from the ornamental sector, one from the arable sector and two from a non-governmental organisation. The questions were grouped into five high-level themes:

  • Business involvement with plant germplasm
  • Introduction of new plant germplasm
  • The impact and understanding of import barriers
  • Challenges, improvements and impacts
  • Other opinions brought to light

After analysing various themes related to import systems, four major discussion areas emerged from the literature. These areas include the need for simplified operational processes to improve the import system’s usability, economic feasibility to address the potential implications of increased import costs, and New Zealand’s competitive advantage in both domestic and international markets for horticultural products.

Recommendations to improve import pathways for New Zealand and the users:

  • Plant importers, NGO’s and the government need to implement better collaboration between themselves for the improvement of importation frameworks and legislation.
  • To build better capability with MPI and provide comprehensive training for biosecurity officers and relevant personnel involved with the import processes.
  • The need to streamline and standardise New Zealand’s import processes to reduce inconsistency between imports and decrease time delays.
  • Industry and government’s continual investment in advanced diagnostic technologies to reduce testing time and cost.

Jake Kitson, Jacob