Programme: Kellogg

The Amuri Basin is a highly productive farming area in the Hurunui District in North Canterbury, New Zealand. The introduction of irrigation schemes and reliable irrigation water meant that the area has gone through a large amount of land use change and a significant increase in intensive farming in the area in the past 40 years

The increase in farming intensity has also led to an increase in nutrient concentrations in water bodies in the area over that time. This has been recognised by the farmers and measures have been put in place to mitigate some of these nutrients, mainly phosphorus and e-coli, but there is an increasing trend of nitrogen concentration in both surface water and ground water measurements.

The purpose of this report was to gain an understanding of farmer perspectives on water quality and what factors in their farming systems they were prepared to adopt to achieve better water quality outcomes, along with identifying what the barriers to implementation are. They were also asked to provide a perspective on how well their neighbours are doing regarding water quality.

The report finds that the farmers of the Amuri Basin are largely aware of their impact on water quality and understand what impact their farming system may be having. They have less water quality concerns towards the two receiving bodies, the Hurunui and Waiau Uwha Rivers, than they do about nitrogen concentrations in drains and tributaries supplying those rivers as well as increased measured nitrogen concentrations in groundwater wells. Barriers to change include, but are not limited to, financial considerations and economic prosperity, as well as regulatory uncertainty. The farmers also felt that generally other farmers were aware of the impacts their farming systems were having on water quality, but each farmer was at a different stage of that journey.

Some recommendations that could be explored as catchment wide options to help realise improvements on water quality are:

• Stocking rate reduction – Each farm to reduce their stocking rate either by setting stocking rate limit or a percentage reduction. Potential of success is high, but impact to farmers business is variable
• Overseer N loss reduction – Each farm to reduce N loss as modelled through Overseer, either by N Loss limit or percentage reduction. Provides more opportunity to utilise different input variables with the farm system to achieve result. There is a risk that modelling doesn’t reflect reality of the farm systems N loss.
• Wait and see what happens – Allow time for existing mitigation strategies to take effect
• Farm Consultants and Vets – Add an environmental lens to compliment the production lens to their advisory services
• Ongoing education and awareness – Continue providing information and resources to the community around water quality and potential mitigation strategies
• Trial and implement technological advancements – Trial and adopt new technologies as they are developed.
• Fund reverse osmosis filters on groundwater drinking wells – Where there is a measured elevated nitrate concentration on groundwater drinking wells, reduced the human health risk by funding or providing reverse osmosis filters.
• Outcome of the Amuri Basin Future Farming Fund Project – Utilise the progress made with engagement of catchment groups and potential of a dollar value mechanism to incentivise farmers.

New Zealand has experienced extensive native forest clearance since human settlement, reducing forest cover from 80.0% to 90.0% to approximately 24.0% of total land area. Introduced pest species have compounded this problem, causing significant biodiversity loss and reduced carbon sequestration capacity. While New Zealand has made international commitments to address climate change and biodiversity decline, current policy settings may be insufficient to incentivize native forest management at the scale required.

The central question in this study examined whether monetized benefits from increased carbon sequestration or positive biodiversity outcomes could o set the costs of undertaking pest management and protection of native vegetation on New Zealand properties. the aim was to evaluate the financial feasibility of using carbon credits or biodiversity credits to fund pest control and fencing infrastructure for native forest conservation, providing evidence-based recommendations for policy and landowner decision-making. This study addresses a critical knowledge gap in conservation finance, providing the first comprehensive economic analysis of both carbon and biodiversity market mechanisms for New Zealand native forest management. The findings directly inform policy development for achieving national climate and biodiversity commitments.

The study employed an embedded case study approach examining five properties in the Manawatū District’s Apiti and Pohangina localities, representing different proportions of native forest coverage. Nine scenarios were developed: six carbon additionality scenarios for regenerating forests and three biodiversity additionality scenarios for old growth forests. Management approaches included property boundary fencing, forest block fencing, and unfenced pest control, with comprehensive cost modelling for each scenario.

Carbon scenarios consistently generated negative Net Present Values (-$5,528 to -$1,607,407), demonstrating that carbon markets cannot support infrastructure intensive forest conservation. Fencing costs dominated expenses (57.7% to 98.3% of total costs), while carbon income covered only 0.2% to 19.2% of costs. Even under optimized conditions (20.0% carbon additionality, $80 per carbon unit pricing), only unfenced scenarios achieved viability. Biodiversity scenarios operated under fundamentally different cost-coverage frameworks, requiring annual credit values of $88 to $1,265 per ha but offered more viable pathways for conservation financing.

Policy frameworks should prioritize biodiversity credit scheme development over carbon market reliance for native forest conservation. Government should support landscape-scale collaborative approaches to achieve infrastructure cost efficiencies. Research investment is needed to validate carbon additionality assumptions and develop innovative pest management technologies that reduce infrastructure requirements.

Further research is required to measure actual carbon and biodiversity outcomes from pest management, develop landscape-scale conservation models, and establish robust biodiversity credit market mechanisms with stable long-term demand.

Veterinarians in the Ministry for Primary Industries’ (MPI) Verification Services (VS) are essential to New Zealand’s food safety, biosecurity, and export assurance systems. Despite their essential role, MPI faces ongoing challenges in attracting, retaining, and supporting veterinarians, especially in rural, shift-based, and sole-charge positions. This research, conducted through the Kellogg Rural Leadership Programme, explores these challenges and identifies practical strategies to enhance veterinary retention, engagement, and workforce resilience.

Key Findings

Eight interrelated factors influence veterinary retention at MPI:

• Leadership visibility and recognition: Limited connection with senior leadership and inconsistent recognition practices.
• Line manager capability: The quality of local leadership significantly shapes daily job satisfaction.
• Career development: Limited clear pathways for progression and inconsistent access to Continuing Professional Development (CPD).
• Organisational structure and agency: Centralised decision-making reduces veterinarians’ ability to influence their work environments.
• Workload and flexibility: Rigid rostering and inadequate relief cover negatively impact wellbeing.
• Onboarding and early attrition: Inconsistent induction processes lead to early disengagement.
• Career adaptability and return: Opportunities for flexible roles can retain veterinarians who initially leave.
• Purpose alignment: Lack of clarity regarding the regulatory nature of roles contributes to early dissatisfaction.

Recommendations

To strengthen veterinary retention and resilience, MPI could:

• Reinstate structured onboarding and mentorship programmes.
• Develop transparent, flexible career pathways across VS and MPI.
• Standardise and promote equitable access to CPD, focusing on both technical and soft skills.
• Enhance rostering, relief planning, and leave management.
• Empower Veterinary Technical Supervisor 1s (VTS1s) and provide comprehensive leadership training.
• Encourage peer-led innovation to increase frontline agency and ownership.
• Reassess the requirement for full-time on-site veterinary presence.
• Strengthen recruitment communication and purpose alignment during onboarding.
• Align Remuneration and Responsibility for VTS1 Roles

Additionally, veterinarians themselves are encouraged to proactively engage in professional development, peer support networks, and contribute positively to team culture.

Improving retention involves more than keeping staff, it requires designing supportive, engaging systems where veterinarians thrive. Addressing these structural and cultural factors will enable MPI to sustain a resilient, future-ready veterinary workforce.

As the New Zealand dairy sector navigates increasing consumer scrutiny, technological disruption, and regulatory expectations, the role of on-farm event data has come into sharper focus. This research set out to answer a simple but nuanced question: Are dairy farmers incentivised to know about and share accurate on-farm event data, or do they prefer to present data that is favourable in the eyes of downstream consumers?

Drawing on interviews with dairy farmers, milk processors, and agri-tech firms, this study reveals a nuanced landscape shaped by incentives, trust, control, value perception, and the broader data ecosystem. It introduces the “make/save/comply” framework, a practical model that captures the motivations behind farmer engagement with data.

Key Finding: Farmers Are Rational, Not Resistant

The overwhelming conclusion is that farmers are willing to share data however it is conditional, based on a rational assessment of:

• Control over who sees the data and for what purpose.
• Trust in the requesting party and the data’s intended use.
• Tangible value returned from sharing, whether financial, operational, cultural or strategic.

Data sharing occurs within a spectrum rather than a binary choice. When these three conditions are met, farmers demonstrate a high degree of professionalism and transparency. When they are not, farmers may lean toward selective or minimal disclosure, not to deceive, but to protect their business from misinterpretation or unintended consequences.

Introducing the “Make/Save/Comply” Framework

A central contribution of this research is the “make/save/comply” framework, which emerged from interviews across all stakeholder groups. It categorises the perceived value of data sharing as:

• Make – Increasing productivity, accessing incentive programmes, genetic gains, or market premiums.
• Save – Reducing cost, time, and complexity (e.g., lower vet bills, automated compliance).
• Comply – Meeting industry, regulatory, or processor obligations to operate.

This model resonates strongly with both farmers and agri-tech firms and provides a common language for discussing the incentives underpinning data sharing. Importantly, compliancerelated data (the “comply” category) was identified as the most sensitive, often invoking hesitation unless communication and support are strong.

Trust and Control as prerequisites

Across interviews, trust consistently emerged as a key enabler of accurate data sharing. Farmers are more willing to share when:

• They understand the purpose of the request.
• There are clear boundaries around data usage.
• They receive insights or benefits in return.
• They can provide context around the data to avoid misinterpretation.

Trust underpins the Make/Save/Comply framework. Where trust is low or the requesting party is seen as overreaching, farmers become more cautious. Examples include fears that lameness or mastitis data, without context, could unfairly disadvantage them. Some processors and agri2 tech firms are actively addressing this by developing “managed connections” features, improving transparency and ensuring farmers retain control.

Evolving customer expectations and their impact

One of the forces driving increased interest in farm-level data is the shift in customer expectations, particularly among key corporate commodity buyers such as Nestlé and Mars. While end consumers are not always seen as the direct drivers, major commodity customers now demand proof of sustainability, traceability, and animal welfare.

Milk processors have responded with incentive frameworks like Fonterra’s Co-operative Difference, Synlait’s Lead With Pride, and Miraka’s Te Ara Miraka, all of which depend on farmer-supplied data. These programmes offer financial bonuses (up to $0.20/kgMS in some cases) and signal market alignment but also raise the stakes for farmers in terms of the nature and accuracy of what they report.

Favourable vs. accurate: a subtle tension

There exists a delicate tension between sharing accurate data and presenting favourable data. This is not rooted in deceit, but in defensiveness, farmers want to avoid being penalised for anomalies that may be beyond their control or misunderstood without context. Selective data reporting is most likely when:

• Incentives or penalties are tied to thresholds.
• The data’s interpretation is unclear.
• There is a lack of trust in the party requesting it.

However, where there are strong relationships and mutual benefit (particularly with agri-tech firms providing operational insights), farmers tend to provide complete and accurate data. This reveals the importance of framing the request for data as a tool for support, not surveillance.

The role of agri-tech firms and system design

Agri-tech firms play a pivotal role in shaping the data-sharing environment. Farmers show high levels of trust when these firms:

• Focus on enabling decision-making, not just data collection.
• Design products around practical value rather than compliance pressure.
• Prioritise interoperability and reducing duplication.

Integration across systems remains a major frustration for farmers. Despite progress from platforms like LIC’s MINDA Integrations, many still report the burden of manually transposing data between platforms. This duplication erodes the incentive to share and diminishes data quality.

Reframing relationships: the coaching analogy

To help clarify roles and expectations, this research introduces a novel “coaching team” analogy to describe how farmers interact with various stakeholders, processors, agri-tech firms, consultants, and regulators. Just as a professional athlete works with a team of specialised coaches (e.g., performance analyst, strength and conditioning coach, nutritionist), so too do farmers engage with domain-specific experts.

Each coach has a role and a time horizon:

• Attach coach: Supporting national branding and premium market access.
• Sports psychologist: Driving long-term innovation.
• Rehabilitation coach: Supporting animal health.
• …and others.

This analogy helps stakeholders contextualise data requests in a way that aligns with their role and relationship with the farmer. It also gives farmers a useful mental model for evaluating the relevance of requests, helping to reduce friction and increase cooperation.

Final reflections

This research finds that data sharing is neither inherently problematic nor universally embraced. Rather, it depends on:

• Relevance: The data request must align with the role and relationship of the requester.
• Value: The farmer must see a clear and proportionate benefit.
• Trust and control: The data must be handled ethically, securely, and transparently.

Where these conditions are met, farmers are willing and even eager, to share data that is accurate, timely, and actionable. Where they are not, favourable data or minimum compliance becomes the fallback.

The challenge for the dairy sector, and the broader agri-food industry, is to build a shared data culture grounded in trust, clarity, and mutual benefit. This includes:

• Aligning incentives with outcomes.
• Investing in interoperability.
• Standardising data governance practices.
• Educating farmers on data value and sovereignty.
• And above all, respecting the farmer’s role as a steward of both land and information.

In a world where market access, compliance, and competitive advantage are increasingly data-dependent, creating a farmer-centric data ecosystem is not optional, it’s essential.

Leadership in New Zealand Agriculture, with a focus on people management has only become a widespread discussion topic in recent years. There is a need for effective people management as the sector relies heavily on manual labour to achieve business success. Managers in the sector have historically been promoted from within the sector based on good technical capabilities. What may not be well understood is that the knowledge capability associated with being technically proficient, does not necessarily correspond with being an effective manager.

This report aims to describe a small qualitative study conducted on a group of farm owners, managers and leaders. It will also describe the qualities and attributes identified in these leaders and how the learnings can be utilized and applied by novice or first-time managers.

The research show that good managers prioritise the care and welfare of their employees. They ensure that good communication about work and home life is enacted to better understand how their employees are feeling. This leads to a relationship of increased trust, which helps the leader to engage with staff about the business and its operations. Leaders ensure they behave consistently with all of their staff to role model good behaviour and understand conflict. The leaders interviewed have all grown in their leadership skills and have come to value reflection and introspection. This has been used to improve further on their leadership traits.

The leaders interviewed have largely learnt and refined the skills, knowledge and tools they use to lead well through trial and error. Finding out what works and what doesn’t has been an individualistic progression for them. On top of trial-and-error learning, some of the interviewees had attended short form courses, as well as using their respective industries for support. All of the interviewees have over the course of their leadership journey, relied heavily on trusted mentors to help guide them. The ability for a leader to utilize the knowledge and advice of a more experienced leader has helped all interviewees grow.

The leaders interviewed in this study all displayed transformational leadership qualities. These qualities revolved around empowerment through trust in their employees. They recognized that they needed to understand each employee as individuals to get the best out of them, and once they truly appreciated them individually, it was easier to empower them. The leaders interviewed all dealt with conflict management as part of their role, however, most admitted to being non-confrontational people. They understood the need to display positive leadership traits during conflict management in order to have a functioning business. They had learnt to put more effort in to doing it better as they moved through their leadership journey.

The leaders interviewed recognized that good leadership was not always the easy choice when managing people, but the long-term gain made it worth it. They recognized that time, effort and focus had to be implemented on a daily basis in order to achieve good management practices. The structure and financial constraints of a business might also impact a manager’s capabilities to practice good leadership. They also warned that a manager’s ego would quickly ruin hopes of good leadership, as it restricted individualism and ingenuity of employees.