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...

Farming families and succession.

Global food systems are experiencing unprecedented changes in the way food is produced, distributed and consumed. Food systems are highly dependent on fossil fuels, emit large quantities of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and significantly contribute to environmental problems (FAO, 2006).  Agricultural farming systems particularly in New Zealand are under increasing pressure given the growing awareness of agriculture’s contribution to GHGs and deteriorating water quality.

New Zealand’s social, environmental and economic wellbeing is linked with our ability to supply the rest of the world with protein. Animal-based protein production alone accounted for over 60% of our total 2016/17 primary export revenue (Sutton et al. 2018). A temperate climate combined with advanced production systems make the NZ dairy, sheep and beef industries among the most competitive in the world. Consequently, increasing world demand for food will be a significant factor in New Zealand’s economic growth and prosperity over the next half century (Hilborn and Tellier, 2012).

Consumer concerns around the impacts of agriculture on the climate, animal welfare and water quality are increasingly influencing their purchasing decisions as they look to reduce their environmental impact including their contribution to climate change (Goldberg, 2008). This demand has led scientists to develop alternatives to animal protein from farmed animals.  These alternatives have been coined “Alternative Proteins”.

This report outlines two types of alternative proteins, these being plant based proteins and cultured meat. Plant based proteins are currently in market, whilst cultured meat is still under development.  Cultured meat has the greatest potential to displace traditional farming as if successful it could address the environmental issues created from large scale intensive farming, by growing meat in a laboratory setting.  However to be viable and to successfully compete against real meat, cultured meat needs to overcome a number of challenges. These include issues around public perception, cost, the ability to scale and the ability to deliver on environmental benefits.

Significant financial investment is being made into the research and development of alternative proteins and current estimates predict cultured meat will be in market within the next 5 to 10 years.

A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was carried out as part of this report comparing the environmental impacts of cultured meat in comparison to NZ Beef. The results showed that production of 100g of cultured meat requires 0.021m3 water, 0.022m2 land and emits 0.207 kg CO2-eq Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. In comparison to New Zealand Beef, Cultured Meat involves approximately 91% lower GHG emissions, 99% lower land use and 99% lower water use. Despite high uncertainty, it is concluded that the overall environmental impacts of cultured meat production are substantially lower than those of conventionally produced NZ beef.

Cultured meat is still in the development phase, so it is too soon to know whether cultured meat will be a marketable product, or whether the estimated environmental impacts presented here will be able to be achieved.

In order to remain profitable and sustainable in to the future, NZ agriculture needs to work on being the best that we can be in terms of our systems and practices. We need to work collaboratively both as a country and as an industry to market our products with a strong natural, grass-fed message. We need to target our products to the markets willing to pay the highest prices for these and continually look for opportunities to add further value to these products.  Furthermore we should look for opportunities to diversify our farming and meat processing operations.  Lastly we need to continually invest in NZ agriculture, market research and our communities in order to future proof our industry.

Given the shortfall in the current food supply predictions to feed the worlds growing population by 2050, it is anticipated that there will be room in the market for both alternative proteins and traditionally farmed meat.  Nevertheless there is an increasing awareness of the impact of agriculture on the environment, on animals and on human health, which NZ Agriculture needs to stay abreast of.

Mark Stevenson

The true cost of managing a 1000 plus cow dairy farm through a single cowshed.

Defining what is the true cost of managing a large scale dairy farm in New Zealand is not just about the financial cost but also the social cost and what the perception of the industry is. Through my study I have defined each area into the financial impact and the social impact it has on people in the industry.

The financial side of running these businesses is not just what we pay for a manager but also the network that is around them or in a corporate scenario above them. This is what I would call the true cost. For example, if a manager is paid $100,000 and you have a farm consultant that charges $15,000 then the true cost of managing that farm is $115,000.

If you are running a corporate farm the same equation would apply but also the cost of governance and in some cases a central desk would be added to that cost. If the entire board is paid $10,000 per farm and a central desk is charged at $40,000 per farm then the true cost could be between $150,000 and $175,000.

I found the social impact side of my interviews the most trying and difficult of the process. The willingness and just how open my fellow farmers were with me was very humbling. The emotional journey that I went on through this process was incredible. From meeting farmers that did not have a worry in the world nor did they have any significant stress levels nor frustration around their business to then drive down the road and interview another farmer that had actually attempted suicide or had a serious relationship breakdown.

Murray Jamieson, Murry Jameson

Wintering in Canterbury/North Otago: Business Relationship between Dairy Farmers and Graziers.

Winter is a critical part of the year for dairy farming as the BCS of the cows at the end of winter will significantly affect reproduction and production on the following season, In the Canterbury and North Otago area it can represent up to 20% of the operating expenses. A common strategy is for dairy farmers to graze their cows over winter off at grazier’s properties. Graziers take dairy cows in winter as it is a more profitable and reliable option comparing to the other alternatives available to them. This study explored the business relationship between dairy farmers and graziers when buying or selling winter grazing with the aim at identifying what are the main factors that will produce a mutually beneficial relationship.

Maintaining regular contact, having a long term/on-going relationship and having good communication with the other party were the top three reasons given by farmers to explain a successful business relationship. On the other hand, graziers lack of skill to feed dairy cows, wrong assessment of the feed available, cows being lighter at the start of winter than a greed and lack of regular monitoring and communication were identified as the main reasons for unsuccessful relationships. In addition a low use of written contracts, a predominant payment method as dollars per head per week, settling the price too late in the season as well as the lack of a clear and fair system to set the price were identified as some other challenges for this business transaction.

Targeted extension events for dairy farmers, graziers and rural professionals, a standardized approach to assess feed availability, and analysis of the best strategy to decide winter grazing price are some of the suggested strategies to improve the relationship between dairy farmers and graziers.

Virginia Serra Postiglione