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...

A Kellogg Scholar’s insight into arable’s future in Canterbury

In this episode of Ideas That Grow, Bryan Gibson, Farmers Weekly Managing Editor, talks to Thomas Holmes, arable farmer and a 2024 Kellogg Scholar.

Thomas discusses his family farm’s evolution, overseas experience, his Kellogg research report and his Kellogg experience.

Thomas unpacks his report’s ‘what next’ view of arable farming in Canterbury.

He discusses profitability challenges, diversification, and integration with other sectors. Thomas advocates collaboration, mindset change, and leadership from younger farmers to adapt to climate, market, and technological shifts.

Listen to this episode of Ideas that Grow, or click on one of the platform icons below to listen on your favourite player:

Episode Transcript

You’ve joined the Ideas That Grow podcast, brought to you by Rural Leaders. 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’m Bryan Gibson, the Managing Editor of Farmers Weekly, your host, as always. With me on the show this week, we’ve got a very recent Kellogg scholar, Thomas Holmes, arable farmer from Canterbury. G’day, Thomas. How’s it going?

Thomas Holmes, Arable Farmer, 2024 Kellogg Scholar:
Good, thank you. How are you doing?

BG: Pretty good. You did the Kellogg programme just last year?

TH: Yes, I was in cohort one in 2024, #52 was our cohort. It’s still fairly fresh in the mind.

BG: Have you recovered?

TH: I think the brain has. It’s a lot. It’s a full-on programme. You can’t really mentally prepare for it. It’s one thing going in there with all these perceived ideas, but it’s another just sitting there and listening. It’s very eye-opening. It takes a lot of time.

Family Farm Background and Evolution

BG: You’re obviously an arable farmer. Tell me a little bit about your journey there. Did you grow up on a farm?

TH: Yes. I’m a fifth-generation mixed-growing farmer in Methven. My family has been there for coming up 150 years, one of the founding families of the local township. The farm has decreased over the generations. It started off at around 6000 acres. We’re now down to about 550. It’s the journey of succession and having a farm for a long time. It gets smaller and has changed a lot.

I guess when I was on the farm full-time, we were doing mixed arable, so just doing many crops, about 300 hectares of crops, 650 bull beef. So, finishing to 600kg plus and 2000 lambs. But recently, in the last year, we’ve downscaled. Just the family farm’s left, so it’s about 220 hectares. It’s a never-ending change, really. What’s next? There’s a lot going on in the industry, and it’s working out what, individually, you can do.

Career Path and International Experience

BG: Did you always know or want to carry on the family farm?

TH: I did the typical Lincoln Uni, Ag-Sci. I went farming straight out of uni. I did various jobs overseas and here, everything from large-scale arable farming in the UK, in Canada, and a big beef finishing farm in Scotland. I’ve dabbled in robotic milking, did a little bit of organic cropping, and then worked on a large-scale farm in Dore, which gets all the processed vegetables, and then the family farm.

I’ve always wanted to be a farmer, and I think it’s a fantastic career. Obviously, at the moment, the arable industry is at a lull. I think it’s still a fantastic industry. Growing crops, growing animals, I think it’s probably the best job in the world, but it just doesn’t pay that well at the moment, so you have to do everything that you can to make it work.

Kellogg Research Focus: The Future of Arable Farming

BG: Touching on your Kellogg report, you look to see some ways for the success of arable farming in Canterbury in the future. Obviously, as you mentioned, times are pretty tough for arable farmers right now. But what brought you to that topic?

TH: I wanted to really dive into the sector. It wasn’t necessarily the dynamics. It was more about ‘what next for the sector’ because the profitability side of things has not improved for a long time. It’s been hidden with growers increasing yield to basically beat inflation, and inflation has caught up. We’re in a situation where we can’t really out-compete inflation. There needs to be more options available to growers, whether it’s different crops or different opportunities that aren’t necessarily arable.

I guess it got me thinking, ‘where do growers see themselves in the next 25-50 years?’ I was looking at my career, lifetime and beyond. It’s really easy to look a year ahead or two years ahead. But I thought, well, why don’t we just push it to 25-50, because people don’t think like that, necessarily. And this industry is very much on the point where they are at a crossroads. They need to make some real dramatic changes to actually improve the profitability for the growers to enable them to still do what they love to do, and that’s grow crops. They’re mixed, so they have animals, but predominantly, their passions are machinery and growing crops for the end users.

I think that’s what really drove me to look at ‘what next for the industry’, where are we going and where are the opportunities as a sector as growers. To work together was my thing, being involved in a few discussion groups. With FAR Growers Leading Change groups, it’s really important to have those connections and talk to growers of similar ages and stages, and some of them are of similar sizes and bigger, but they’re all in that same boat of ‘what does the arable sector look like’, because you can’t just keep on doing what we’re doing.

Farmer Perspectives: Looking 25-50 Years Ahead

BG: You mentioned that we’re not very good at thinking further out, and you were looking 25 to 50 years. What was the range of views you got when you talked to arable farmers?

TH: For a lot of them, they were taken back by that view, because at that current time, last year, we had one of the wettest harvests in history, and people were pretty, dare I say, depressed and a little bit in a slump. It wasn’t the best timing to do a Kellogg, but I knew it was going to be a challenge to talk to them. Because from my opinion, when you’re in the lowest point, you usually make some very strategic decisions because you need to. You can’t carry on doing what you’re doing, so you’ve got to get out of the hole and change. A lot of them were like, ‘we’re looking at diversification. We’re looking at off-farm income in some way, shape, or form’.

And then there was guys that were looking at doing berry fruits or apples. They looked at the analysis. At the moment, it doesn’t work for them, but they’re looking beyond arable, a lot of them. And some of the guys that I interviewed are already at that stage, they’re doing processed vegetables, they’re doing onions, potatoes, carrots, and their specialty seeds as well. But they’re looking beyond arable because the margins just don’t stack up. But they’re important to be part of any rotation. You need your cereals, you need your grass, you need clover in your crop rotation to keep the system going, but it wasn’t necessarily their money maker. It’s a harsh reality of things and I think growers understand that. There’s a lot that do deer grazing or beef animals, a lot do lamb finishing when it stacks up financially.

So they’re always doing something different to enable them to do what they love. And I think that’s the key point. And maybe that takes away the value of ‘I’m an arable farmer’, but the reality is, you’re still an arable farmer, you’re just going to be a very diverse arable farmer – more integrated with multi-different revenues coming off farm. And Arable might not bring a lot to the table. But at the core, I think that’s where people get a bit frustrated, because it’s what they love, and it’s a hard thing to watch. But you’ve got to make the right choices.

Key Recommendations: Integration and Collaboration

BG: Obviously, there was diversity of opinion amongst the people you talked to. You wrapped it all up in your report and came up with a set of recommendations?

Integration with Other Agricultural Sectors

TH: My recommendations for the industry was looking at when you become more integrated as a sector, and we’re already well-integrated into dairy with providing your specialty seeds, so your grass, your clovers, your straw. A lot do grazing. So you’re already there. There’s opportunities to be more integrated into your chicken and pig operations. I think there’s a real opportunity for the likes of your trading of straw for nutrients. The one thing that crop farmers need is nutrients to grow crops, and it might not be the usual thing, but it’s a common practise overseas to spread cattle muck and pig muck and chicken muck. And it’s not really a common practise here in the arable sense. I think it’s that trading of nutrients. It’s looking at how we can integrate into their supply chains and be part of that because, individually, Arables is not going to do it, and we need to be smart about that.

Breaking Down Competitive Barriers

TH: Another one was probably looking at collaboration. I think the big thing with the industry being so small, we’re very competitive, we’re very individualistic. We compete for contracts. It gets pretty cutthroat at points, especially when there’s not a lot of contracts around. Some clover markets, especially, are very tightly held, very contestable, and at the moment, still in a slump overseas with oversupply from Europe and America. We’re looking at another year or so of actual tough times.

I think that’s where, in the industry, groups need to actually form to collaborate, whether that’s through sharing machinery, going together to buy input costs, to go bulk, to get a little bit cheaper deals, share chemistry. That mindset, I think, really needs to change because we’re so focused on doing our own stuff, growing our own crops. When the reality is, I’m in a group of ten people, different farms within ten kilometres of Methven, and we’re all pretty similar sizes, similar operations. There’s a little bit of difference, obviously, but there’s no reason why we can’t actually work together.

You could buy a bigger machine, cultivator, and go cultivate all these guys’ crops. We’ll do the ground prep and all that stuff. You could just do that. Builders don’t just do our own thing. It’s just very set. It comes down to control, but also it’s your farm, you do what you want to do. But that’s the mindset that I think needs to change of where we can actually work in together, help each other out, actually spread the costs over a large area. And contractors do that. That’s why they’re so successful in terms of their scale, because they’ve got so much land they’re actually covering, doing various jobs with people that don’t have time.

Overcoming Traditional Barriers

TH: Farmers just don’t do that. They don’t seem to do it. I think it becomes too hard because if you own a piece of machinery with somebody and someone breaks it, then it gets into a bit of a fight on who’s paying for what. Maybe there needs to be systems in place that you can just split the costs. That’s why a number of growers are involved in it. It’s just this simple mindset change that I just don’t think is there, but it needs to be.

The Challenge of Farm Independence Culture

BG: It comes up a lot, and it’s often a hurdle that’s hard to clear in the food and fibre sector. It goes back to that traditional feeling of whatever’s inside the boundary of these fences is mine, and I am the sovereign of what happens here. People have trouble taking advice from people that maybe they don’t trust or having the government tell them how to do things. That’s a pretty hard barrier to break through.

TH: Yes, I think so. But if you go back 100 years or so, you had 50 men and women on your farm doing your work for you. Why is that any different? It’s just in a modern context. But I feel it’s just the community has changed. Over time, obviously, you’ve got different people coming in and out. Farm communities are very tight, but they’re not tight in the respect that they’re actually working together. There’s obviously aspects of it across the country, and there’s communities that are doing really well, and they do work together, but I don’t see it enough, especially in the arable sector.

I question a lot, and it’s more what can you do about it to make some of these things actually improve the bottom line? Because ultimately, it is about the bottom line for arable. I think that was the main challenge: profitability. A lot of these opportunities are about helping to solve profitability, not necessarily entirely solve the profitability issue. It’s not going to be one thing. It’s going to have to be a magnitude of things to actually make any real change.

Personal Leadership Development Through Kellogg

BG: Now, as well as the scholar report, obviously, the Kellogg programme is focused on leadership development. How has that changed you? How do you approach life and work now you’ve got these tools in the toolkit?

TH: For me, I just take any opportunity I can to do projects. For work, to use the knowledge that I’ve got, but also to just put my hand up for things. Locally, I’m involved with my local catchment group. It’s in the farm, it goes through the farm. We’ve got a bit of a potential flooding issue with the creek. It’s just actively getting involved in the community a bit more. Also just keeping involved in those Grower Leading Change groups is really important to keep a bit more stabilisation on what’s going on on the ground. For me, long term, it’s looking at opportunities in leadership. I think there needs to be more people, dare I say, my age on those boards because we are the future.

The reality is people my age and younger than me are the ones that are going to be farming in the next 35 to 40 years, 50 years. It’s actually getting their opinions across, and I think that’s probably something that I’m very passionate about, actually getting our seat at the table and getting our opinions heard because we haven’t got 30 or 40 years life experience or business experience. You’ve got to start somewhere and I think that’s really about putting your hand up and not being afraid to actually just try things. Well, this podcast. I think it’s good to be able to get your opinion across. It’s a different way of messaging, really.

The Need for Disruption and Adaptation

BG: Like you say, your studies discovered that there needed to be some change or some new thinking in the arable sector. It takes people to usher that in or help get that message across and get the wheels turning for that to happen.

Adapting to Climate and Market Changes

TH: I think so. You’ve got to disrupt the system. It’s not necessarily about criticising what the system is. It’s about actually looking at, well, ‘are we fit for purpose? Do we actually need to change?’ And the reality is we do. And I think that’s been pretty apparent in the last decade with the likes of trade, the likes of volatility we’ve had with the weather, the way harvests have been. We need to change how we do things because we’re not getting the same climatic conditions that we had in the early 1980s and 1990s. The Nor’westers aren’t as prominent. We’re not actually getting the great harvest of those days. It’s certainly not as hot where I am in summer as it used to be.

We need to change how we farm with all that technology and what’s coming for us. I think there’s plenty of other opportunities for arable to be part of that story, whether it’s plant proteins or these new food trends that are coming forward. We need to be part of that story instead of just the guys that grow grain and seed, because we are more from that. I think that’s where we need to actually put a hand up and try. I think that’s probably really taking us off the farm a bit more than we’re comfortable with, because the reality is we need to go beyond what we’re doing. It is changing your mindset and it’s not an easy thing to do.

The Value of Being Challenged

TH: For me, Kellogg has definitely changed my mindset because you become so siloed and rigid in your own thoughts because you just get so set in what you do and how you think, and you think you’re right, and you get challenged. I think it’s fantastic to get challenged because there’s so many people with different opinions from various backgrounds, it just really gives you an open mind. Because no one’s right. It’s just actually just listening to someone else’s opinion. Regardless whether you disagree with it or not, I think it’s actually just it gives you that understanding of where they’re coming from and why they think like that.

I don’t think it’s a bad thing to be challenged. I think that in the Ag sector in New Zealand, they need to be challenged because I don’t think they’re necessarily adapting to what is happening out there. I think it is pretty hard to change at the speed that things are going, especially with the tech and the way supply chains are working and the market’s always changing. It is hard, but we need to be a bit more nimble instead of reactive, I think.

Recommendation for the Kellogg Programme

BG: Having more colleagues with that mindset, AKA, going through the Kellogg programme, would be good, so, something you’d recommend to others?

TH: Yes, 100%. I think the Kellogg programme is a fantastic programme. It not only challenges you on your thoughts and your views, but it just gives you an eye into what the food and fibre sector is beyond your sector. You’re in it with like-minded people. It’s a really enjoyable process. I think the big part of it is actually just the networking, the talking to industry leaders in the Chatham House rules sense, where you can get some real open discussions, where you don’t get that in the real world. I think that’s one of the beauties of Kellogg. It opens a lot of doors. I got a lot of interviews just based on that I was doing Kellogg, obviously, being an average farmer helped.

But I think people just love the programme. They think it’s a really great programme. It’s a good thing to do if you want to push yourself to try something different and find a project. If you got a project that you really want to find something about, just do it. I think it’s a great thing to do. Don’t be afraid to change your mind on it either because I think you get challenged, you get on it, and it’s a good learning process.

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

Find out more about Ideas That Grow.

Hugh Ritchie – Leadership, innovating in arable, and Nuffield.

In this podcast, Hugh Ritchie, 2000 Nuffield Scholar and Hawke’s Bay farmer, shares his leadership journey and insights with Bryan Gibson, Farmers Weekly Managing Editor.

Hugh discusses growing Drumpeel Farms into a diverse 2000-hectare operation, the impact of his Nuffield experience on his personal growth, on innovation in irrigation and strip tillage, and on the need for better water access and infrastructure.

Hugh emphasises collaboration, global learning, and the importance of leadership development as vital to strengthening NZ’s food and fibre future.

Listen to this episode of Ideas that Grow, or click on one of the platform icons below to listen on your favourite player:

Episode Transcript

You’ve joined the Ideas That Grow podcast, brought to you by Rural Leaders. 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’m Farmers Weekly Managing Editor, Bryan Gibson. This week on the show, we have Hugh Ritchie from Drumpeel Farms. Gidday Hugh, how’s it going?

Hugh Ritchie, Farmer, 2000 Nuffield Scholar:
Good thanks, Bryan. And yourself?

BG: Yeah, pretty good. How are things over in Hawke’s Bay?

HR: We’ve got a very nice day. Had pretty big winds last night, which was good. I know we’re just finishing off the carrot washing harvest, and then we’ll get back into maize again. But no, it was a pretty good wind last night. But other than that, we’re good. Been a good summer for growing grass, so can’t complain.

BG: Very good. You operate a pretty diverse farming system over there.

A little about Hugh and Drumpeel Farms.

HR: Yeah, we’re just over 2000 hectares in total. We do about 800 hectares of annual cropping. So half of that’s processed vegetables. The other half is seeds and cereals with a little bit of vegetable seed production as well. And then we have 1500 bull beef on a pastoral block.

We normally finish between 8500 and 10,000 lambs – winter lamb trade as well. So that keeps the business going on many fronts. We haven’t got dairy, and we had deer, but haven’t got deer anymore. So, we do most things.

BG: Has running that operation been the bulk of your farming career?

HR: It has, yes. I left school and did a Bachelor of Ag at Massey. Production and Management was more my side. Then I came home to run the block. In those days, it was 300 hectares. We’ve grown the business quite significantly in that time as a family business. We’re reasonably proud of the fact that it’s up over 2000 hectares, and it’s quite diverse and quite intense.

We have great staff helping. I have a very good stock manager who runs the livestock site, and I tend to stick to the overall management in the cropping. It gives me a wee bit of flexibility and scale to go and do other things.

I’ve been on the Federated Farmers Board. I’ve spent some time on the Nuffield Trust, and recently on the FAR board and HortNZ board as well. So yes, I have done quite a lot of off-farm stuff as well as farming. Currently trying to get water storage across the line in Hawke’s Bay, which is proving rather tricky.

BG: Yeah, that’s been years in the making, hasn’t it?

HR: Yeah, it has.

BG: You were a Nuffield scholar in 2000?

2001: A Nuffield Odyssey.

HR: Adrian (Gault) and I travelled in 2001. I looked at irrigation efficiency and direct drilling till type systems. From there, we brought back the basis of the irrigation New Zealand design and monitoring system. I came back from a course I did at Cal Poly/University with Charles Burt, the director there, on how to evaluate irrigation systems for distribution uniformity.

Went through the Midwest and strip tillage was a big thing happening there in min till. So I brought back a strip till and worked a lot with landwise, which was a sustainable cropping programme here in Hawke’s Bay, where we developed strip till to run in New Zealand.

So, the trip itself had big impact on bringing knowledge back, which I’m pretty proud about. But equally, the trip itself, in terms of forcing you to be off-farm and allow people to run the business and do it for you also created, I suppose, opportunity within to make sure that you didn’t just then beaver away with your head down and not really looking at the bigger picture. So it was a very useful journey to go on.

BG: It sounds like it was useful not only personally for you, but in terms of the way New Zealand Food and Fibre has progressed since then.

Giving back to New Zealand food and fibre.

HR: I’d like to think that that is the core of Nuffield. It’s a personal development journey in leadership, but it’s also because it is funded by people (Rural Leaders’ investing partners), I think there’s a responsibility to bring things back that can be useful. That was the whole concept of it, to my mind, was to go and learn and explore things and bring ideas back that we could utilise in New Zealand.

I know everybody says that we lead the world in agriculture, but there’s some really clever people overseas that are more than willing to share their ideas and learning. You don’t have to re-invent the wheel. You can go and learn from people. That’s a pretty good thing.

BG: And was getting out and seeing the way farming is done in other parts of the world at that young age, good for you in terms of your way of looking at things back home?

HR: It certainly got me out of my shell. I remember driving down the interstate in the US, and 2000 was when the UK had foot and mouth. So, I moved to the US pretty quickly. And again, obviously, irrigation and direct drilling was probably their forte.

Nuffield and getting out of your comfort zone.

HR: But It was quite interesting driving in the States and I’d just see something that was interesting or something going on, and I pull over to the side of the road and jump the fence. And you could see these guys looking at you a bit sideways for a while, and eventually they’d stop and you’d go and have a chat. I wouldn’t do that in New Zealand necessarily, but over there, they probably are never going to see you again. If it went badly, you could just walk away.

But it was an incredible journey to see people, they really explained what they were trying to achieve. I visited the conservation information centre, again, because timings were out with the universities, And Dan Tauri, who was running that centre, and he just rang people up and said, hey, I’ve got this New Zealander looking at these things.

I think it’ll be interesting if we talk to you and just set up a whole lot of visits. So it was very spontaneous. Which is something we probably don’t always do a lot of – and just taking the opportunities and meeting people, and then they would send you on to somebody else. I was probably not that outgoing at that stage. And so you had to get over not wanting to push people or ask for things.

It was quite a learning journey there, but it was just amazing how willing people were to give their time and information to help. I think New Zealand reflects that and does that too. It’s a two-way street, but certainly that was eye-opening to me, just how open people were to share.

BG: You’ve gone on to take on some pretty big leadership roles in the farming sector. Obviously, Nuffield might have been a good base for that, good grounding.

Nuffield and the global perspective.

HR: Certainly, I think, as I said, Nuffield gave you that broader picture of what was happening in the world. We could sit back here and moan about things or moan about pricing. You really had to understand that we are a small part of a very big system, especially within the cropping scene in terms of direct import and things like that.

There was no point moaning about price because if someone could import it cheaper, that’s what was going to happen. We had to really get on side with how do we make our systems better, more efficient, more cost-effective, and grow that way. That was very useful.

I think coming back and sitting in Fed Farmers meetings when people were trying to give the millers or the bakers a hard time about not paying enough for wheat, and you just had to say, well, occasionally it is what it is. And so we can either agree to grow or not. But there’s no point beating the guys that are going to buy your crop, because it’s probably not going to do anything for your relationship.

BG: It’s funny. I was in a conference last week talking to someone, and they thought the goal should be that all of New Zealand’s agricultural sector should be like our arable sector, which has always been small and nimble and knows its place in the world and has innovated to make sure it’s sustainable. That’s a good model.

Innovating in the arable sector.

HR: It is. But again, I’ll be the first to admit at the moment, it’s really hard work making arable pay and sitting on the HortNZ board and looking at what IP good varieties of apples can make in the market. Or you look at kiwifruit and how well that’s going with dedicated export and serious funding around marketing and driving the supply. I mean, a really good example to follow.

I am really proud that we set up the Cultivate Ventures thing and during my time with FAR to try and create that work stream to find ideas and innovation that we can be nimble about and follow. But Certainly, we do have to, I think, do things differently going forward within the arable sector because things haven’t really changed. There’s big players out there that can produce volume commodity crops.

We’ve really got to look to what is the alternative? Where’s our niche play and where can we really drive value? If there’s a frustration I have, it’s probably the fact that just in the recent times, we see the influence of the primary sector pulling New Zealand’s economy around and making trade surplus. And yet, where is the science, technology, or the resource running?

Water is the key.

HR: We’re getting better, but trying to get water on the side to provide reliable supply should be easy, especially when it’s going to backstop a primary sector that can then grow and do things. And where’s market or trade and industry helping? I just think we don’t really get a strategy that lines all the things we can do up to really make the most of it. We leave it to the individual, and sometimes that becomes a very hard push.

BG: Yeah, the water piece is really interesting. You brought back some innovative ideas in 2000, but we’re still having the same conversations about how, where, and why when it comes to water storage and that sort of thing.

HR: What I brought back was efficiency and distribution uniformity and how do we make what we’ve got go as far as it possibly can? Because as we all know, it’s not cheap to pump water and put it through irrigators. So, you have to make sure you get the best bang for your buck from that. 

So that was the efficiency side. And that, I think, goes without saying, we should be striving for that when it comes to water. But when it then comes back to at the moment, this mentality, I think, is almost how do we cut the pie up, the current pie up smaller and smaller and make all those things happen. Whereas we actually aren’t water short in New Zealand.

We’ve got a huge primary resource there. I’m not saying we waste it, but I think we shouldn’t be afraid to utilise it to the best extent. I just look across the ditch at Australia, Murray, Darling Basins somewhere like 115 % allocated. Canterbury and here in Hawke’s Bay, probably the max out at about 7% and 3% respectively. We’re not even getting close to pushing the boundaries of the available water, but absolutely, we have to do it as efficiently as we possibly can and be mindful of the environment.

I just think we shouldn’t be afraid to look at how do we grow that pie because that’s what we can then grow value and further productivity gains on.

The trickle-down effect.

BG
: Yeah, and with the climate getting a bit more unpredictable, it’s a great opportunity to build resilience into communities as well, like people who are not part of food and fibre or maybe are supported through their work.

HR: Absolutely. If you look at the Opuha Dam when that was put in, it’s about the only study that’s being done. I think that showed on a MAF report, it was about $6.50 further value created from every dollar spent on farm, on water. And a lot of that went into the businesses, the support businesses in the town.

I think Temuka Transport before Opuha was 20 odd trucks, and now it’s 100 and something. Businesses support businesses, and hence the communities that support those businesses really do grow off the back of getting good water. So to my mind, it’s the enabler. We can talk about everything we like, but it’s the first stage in the process. We’ve got great soils and good climate. We just have to manage the water.

On Nuffield and leadership.

BG
: You mentioned earlier, you’ve been part of the governance group for Rural Leaders. It’s obviously something you believe in, something you’d recommend to someone looking to get a good grounding in leadership.

HR: Look, absolutely. I mean, leadership does have to come from within, but the Nuffield Programme has developed so much from when I went through.

I remember going into my interview and there were nine primary sector leaders sitting in a semicircle, and I was sitting in the middle, and they each had a question to fire at me, and you went home.

Now, there’s still the interview process, but we’ve got the global tours that get the scholars together and look at different areas. There’s different focus tours around the world. We do a lot of training with getting the scholars ready to go on their journey. And it is a journey, and it’s a lifelong journey, and the network that you become part of and that you can link into.

It is a very big network that I think if it came together, it would be great. So absolutely I believe in it. And obviously there’s coupling it in now with some of the other programmes, like Kellogg and things, almost a progression, but it doesn’t have to be.

I think the opportunity of creating leaders or supporting leaders is more the thing. As I said, it’s time out of your life, it’s a commitment you have to make, and it’s an ongoing commitment. I’d like to think that part of the nature of the Nuffield Scholar is how to give back to the industry or the bigger picture. Certainly an opportunity not to be missed.

I know it’s difficult with a lot of people with young families and things like that. How do they make the time? And so you have to think carefully about that. But I really encourage partners to be involved because it is quite a liberating experience to go and see and visit and get your mind open to the opportunities and the scale.

You can come back quite a different thinking person. So Again, having partners involved to explore and understand that, I think, is quite critical to success.

BG: For more information on Rural Leaders, visit the pages for Nuffield New Zealand Farming Scholarships, the Kellogg Rural Leadership Programme, the HortNZ Leadership Programme, the Engage Programme, or the Value Chain Innovation Programme.

Thomas Holmes – scholarship opens doors for Canterbury arable farmer.

Kellogg Programme Scholarship Opens Doors for Canterbury Arable Farmer Focused on Industry Change.

A scholarship from the Mackenzie Charitable Foundation provided a unique opportunity for a Cantabrian to take part in the Kellogg Rural Leadership Programme. Kellogg gave Thomas Holmes the chance to expand his leadership skills and has provided him with a platform to advocate for change in the fast-evolving arable farming industry in Canterbury.

Roots in Canterbury farming and connection to the Mackenzie brothers.

Growing up on a mixed arable farm in Methven, where his family has farmed for nearly 150 years, Thomas has a deep connection to the land. He pursued an AgScience Honours degree at Lincoln University, before working for eight years across various farms in New Zealand, Canada, and the UK.

Thomas is currently employed in a Central Government role with Ministry for Primary Industries. He works to support farmers and growers navigating the increasingly complex regulatory and environmental landscape.

Thomas’s motivations for applying for the scholarship were twofold. Financial support was certainly a factor, but it was the story behind the Mackenzie Charitable Foundation that truly resonated with him. Inspired by the selflessness of two brothers who established the trust to support young people in the Canterbury region, he felt a strong personal connection to their values and desire to make a meaningful difference.

“The Trust’s foundations are all about giving back to the community, and it was the bother’s selflessness in this space that really drove me to apply,” said Thomas.

Expanding horizons with the Mackenzie Charitable Foundation Scholarship.

The Scholarship has enabled Thomas to take part in the Kellogg Programme, to engage with peers and experts across various industries and expand his professional network. For someone from a rural farming background, he explains, the opportunity to step outside his comfort zone and engage with others in the agricultural sector has been invaluable.

The role he holds with Government sees him acting as an On-Farm Support Advisor, where his primary role is to bridge the gap between farmers and the technical experts who assist them. Working closely with the arable farming community, he brings crucial information on everything from chemistry to land use changes. His expertise in arable farming allows him to provide tailored advice, helping farmers adapt to the ever-changing landscape of modern agriculture.

In a sector facing climate challenges, evolving regulations, and land use changes, Thomas believes farmers need clear, actionable guidance to make informed decisions. The shift towards new crops, such as stone fruit and apples, is one example of how quickly the Canterbury region is evolving.
“Arable farming is at a crossroads, but there’s a real opportunity to focus on the positives and identify where the silver linings are,” he explains.

The Kellogg Programme has played a pivotal role in Thomas’s professional and leadership development, particularly in his understanding of leadership. “I’ve realised that leadership isn’t about a single person at the top. It’s about collaboration and empowering teams,” he reflects. He credits the programme with expanding his thinking and helping him gain a clearer vision of where he wants to take his career in the future.

So, what does the future hold?

Looking ahead, Thomas is keen to take on more leadership responsibilities, either on-farm, in a government support role, or both. With an open mind about the potential of agri-tech and the future of the industry, he’s also considering opportunities like the Nuffield Scholarship as a way to broaden his perspective further. “I’d love to balance farming with supporting the wider sector,” he says, “and to contribute to meaningful change for the future of agriculture.”

The scholarship, he says, has given him the opportunity to reflect on the broader picture of New Zealand’s agricultural landscape and to think critically about the challenges and opportunities ahead.

“Through the Mackenzie Charitable Foundation’s support in completing the Kellogg Programme, I truly feel I am better placed to play a part in shaping the future of farming in Canterbury.”

You can view Thomas’s Kellogg report here.

Coding for Change: Navigating adoption of gene editing in the New Zealand primary sector

Gene editing is poised to reshape the New Zealand primary sector by enabling adaptation to climate change, enhancing environmental sustainability, and boosting productivity.

Advancements in faster, safer, and more precise gene editing techniques have prompted proposals for new legislation to align New Zealand’s gene technology regulations with those of key trading partners. A balanced approach is needed, harnessing scientific innovation while maintaining public trust and market access.

Gene editing can transform parts of the agricultural value chain, especially scientific research, the biotech sector, and plant breeding. In other areas, its impact may be incremental and take time to reach meaningful scale. Therefore, managing expectations is critical so stakeholders maintain realistic views of both its benefits and limitations. Independent government and primary sector research will be important for ongoing monitoring and transparent reporting.

As New Zealand develops a regulatory framework, it has the chance to embed Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles. This would broaden assessment criteria beyond standard safety and risk to include economic, societal, and environmental impacts. Though this approach would require more intensive, case-by-case evaluations from regulators and applicants, it could increase trust among the public, the sector, and international trade partners.

Leadership from the primary sector is necessary to ensure agricultural impacts and opportunities are prioritised in regulation. Coordinated strategy frameworks for gene technology will help map innovation pipelines, risks, opportunities, and commercialisation timelines.

Early engagement with stakeholders, including government, sector bodies, farmers, growers, Māori, and the public is essential. These discussions should be grounded in relatable examples to support informed public opinion, rather than dictated by a top-down expert model. It is also important to acknowledge and respect those who oppose regulatory changes.

Driving innovation will require significant investment, supported by public-private partnerships and international collaboration. A key challenge lies in enhancing scientific capability and confidence, especially during uncertain times for the science sector.

New Zealand is encouraged to adopt a ‘fast follower’ approach to gene technology legislation, allowing it to benefit from scientific advancements while preserving public and trading partner trust. By navigating the adoption of gene editing carefully and inclusively, New Zealand can boost the primary sector’s productivity, sustainability, and global competitiveness.

Keywords for Search: Rachel Baker, Rachael

Changing the Bog-Standard; repeatable solutions for Aotearoa’s Peatlands

Peatlands might look like the scruffy margins of New Zealand’s landscape, yet these water-logged soils are anything but marginal. Although they cover barely one percent of Aotearoa, they warehouse roughly 20 percent of the nation’s total biomass carbon – part of a global system that stores more carbon than all the world’s forests combined. Drain them, however, and the peat shrinks and oxidises, emitting CO₂ and nitrous oxide. Recent estimates suggest that drained peat already contributes up to seven percent of New Zealand’s greenhouse-gas inventory. Put simply, landscapes that should be carbon vaults are leaking fast – and some of our biggest customers have noticed, with companies like Nestlé now asking suppliers to avoid peat-related emissions.

With more than 90 percent of our original wetlands already drained or degraded, the challenge is clear: how do we stop the loss without undermining farm profitability or rural livelihoods?

One answer is paludiculture – production systems purpose-built for permanently wet soils. By cultivating raupō, harakeke, sphagnum moss and other water-tolerant species, landholders can keep peat saturated while generating fibre, construction materials, substrates and, potentially, carbon-credit income. International evidence is compelling: rewetted dairy pastures in northern Germany and wet-farming pilots in England’s Cambridgeshire Fens are just a few examples showing that, with supportive policy and market signals, “peat-positive” enterprises can be both profitable and resilient.

This report also underscores that peatlands – repo – are taonga for Māori. For generations they have provided kai, rongoā and weaving fibre, and their cultural narratives are embedded in the whenua. Successful restoration therefore hinges on genuine co-design with mana whenua, blending mātauranga Māori with ecological science.

Restoring peatlands under paludiculture offers a practical pathway to reduce agricultural emissions while keeping land productive. By scaling up sustainable

management practices, New Zealand can balance economic growth with its climate commitments.

Momentum is building – stronger wetland rules under the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and dozens of pilot projects are already under way. Yet this report calls for a further step-change. It urges decision-makers to treat peatlands as critical national infrastructure – carbon banks, biodiversity reservoirs and cultural landscapes worthy of sustained investment.

The bottom line is clear: the science, tools and precedents already exist; the missing ingredient is collective will. Reframing peatlands as essential ecosystems is vital to cutting emissions, improving freshwater quality and protecting native species. This report concludes with a challenge: keep the ground wet on purpose and transform the future of peatland management.

Keywords for Search: Jenna Smith, Genna

Putting the Success back into Succession

Peter Templeton's report

Farm succession in New Zealand is a critical issue, with an aging farmer demographic and rising land prices making it increasingly difficult for younger generations to enter agriculture. This report explores the barriers to farm succession and potential pathways for ensuring the long-term sustainability of New Zealand’s agricultural sector.

The report examines the challenges of family farm succession, the growing influence of corporate farming, the affordability crisis in farmland, and alternative succession models.

Historically, farm ownership has depended on intergenerational succession, but rising land values and tighter financial conditions complicate this process.

Succession typically involves three key phases: physical contribution (working on the farm), financial decision-making (taking on financial responsibilities), and equity transition (the formal transfer of farm ownership). However, many succession processes fail due to poor planning, lack of communication, and financial challenges. Key barriers include the reluctance of older farmers to relinquish control, challenges in fairly compensating multiple siblings, and the high financial burden placed on successors.

Successful succession requires early planning, clear communication, and often the involvement of external advisors.

This report highlights the dramatic shift in farmland affordability, with land values rising so quickly that it now takes up to 60 years of savings to afford a farm deposit. As a result, corporate farming structures, which have access to capital and economies of scale, are becoming more common. While these models can improve efficiency, they risk concentrating land ownership and reducing local community decision-making. Key concerns include the loss of family-owned farms, reduced reinvestment in local communities, and a focus on short-term profits over long-term land stewardship.

Alternative succession models, such as share-farming agreements, equity partnerships, lease-to-buy agreements, profit-sharing models, and crowdfunding, offer ways for younger farmers to enter the industry without the capital constraints of traditional ownership. These models enable gradual equity building, risk-sharing, and community support for funding.

To facilitate these models, this report suggests several policy changes, including incentivising banks to accept livestock and plant assets as loan security, government-backed loan programmes, tax incentives for succession planning, and support for financial education. Industry leaders should also encourage a cultural shift toward treating farm succession as a strategic business process.

In conclusion, ensuring the sustainability of New Zealand’s agricultural sector requires fostering diverse, innovative pathways to farm ownership, supported by government, financial institutions, and industry bodies. Collaboration is essential to preserving New Zealand’s farming heritage.

Keywords for Search: Peter Templeton, Tempelton

Beyond the Farm Gate: Rethinking New Zealand’s Economic Future

New Zealand’s economy has long relied on agriculture and tourism, industries that have shaped national identity and driven export earnings. However, both sectors face growth limitations: agriculture contends with land constraints, environmental regulations, and changing trade dynamics, while tourism is volatile and constrained by infrastructure and environmental capacity. If these industries are nearing their natural limits, the country must consider its long-term economic strategy.

As a small, trade-dependent nation reliant on imports for manufacturing, energy, and technology, New Zealand must prioritise strong export earnings over GDP. Historically, agriculture and tourism have underpinned this, but their uncertain future growth poses challenges.

Lessons from Global Agriculture
This report examines global agriculture for lessons. In Brazil, agriculture is seen as limitless, driven by vast land expansion and investment. In contrast, the UK and Netherlands deliberately constrain farming. The UK pays farmers not to farm under ESG policies, while the Netherlands focuses on high-value niches and supply chain dominance, rather than sheer production. Despite its small size, the Netherlands exports more food than Brazil by controlling logistics, processing, and distribution.

New Zealand aligns more with the UK and Netherlands than Brazil. It lacks vast arable land, and environmental policies limit production expansion. The country is losing farmland: since 2017, over 260,000 hectares of pastoral land have shifted to forestry. Sheep numbers are at historic lows, and processing facilities like Alliance Smithfield have closed due to declining supply. Simultaneously, global trade dynamics are shifting. The EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy tightens environmental standards on imports, and UK trade deals with Australia and South America undermine New Zealand’s competitiveness. Heavy reliance on China, buying 40% of dairy and 30% of red meat, also poses risks.

The Path Forward: A National Conversation
New Zealand’s agricultural growth is likely to be linear, not exponential. This report calls for a national conversation about the next 25–50 years. Should the country emulate Ireland by using tax incentives to attract high-value industries? Should it invest in processing and logistics to retain more export value domestically? Could it lead in renewable energy, digital innovation, or advanced manufacturing?

New Zealand must proactively shape its future. The UK’s experience warns of deprioritising food production without alternatives, while the Netherlands shows that controlling the supply chain can be as valuable as production.

It’s time to ask: What comes next?

Keywords for Search: Carlos Bagrie, Karlos, Bagree

What’s the beef? Opportunities for beef on dairy in New Zealand.

Over 2 million calves are produced from the dairy herd in NZ every year, some are either retained for herd replacements, or are raised and finished on dry stock farms. However, approximately 1.8 million non-replacement or bobby calves are slaughtered annually at 4-7 days of age.

The opportunity for beef on dairy is to shift the value chain from dysfunctional to functional. If the end product has a greater value, then financial participation and therefore functionality increases for all activities involved in creating, rearing, growing, processing, marketing, and delivering a beef product to the end consumer from the dairy industry.

Financial effectiveness is the fundamental aspect throughout any value chain, facilitating the flow of resources, transactions, and incentives at each stage.

Unless there is more money for the end product of non-replacement calves, the value chain will continue to focus on cost minimisation of the calf as a by-product of milk production.

Money saves the bobby calf, but to realise more value with the consumer a successful beef on dairy value chain requires several key changes that contribute to delivering a product that has a higher value to the consumer, and increased effectiveness and efficiency.

  1. Understand the Customer Needs: Grain fed is often a customer preference, especially in Asia markets. Short fed grain finished beef could be an opportunity to align the value chain activities with customer requirements. Grain fed also creates products that deliver value and meet customer demands of product consistency and reliable supply effectively.
  2. Improve Integration and Coordination of Farming Systems: This involves seamless communication, collaboration, and synchronization of activities to ensure smooth flow and timely delivery of products or services, dairy farms, rearers growers and finishers.
  3. Efficiency and Cost Optimisation: Using genetics designed to minimize costs and maximize efficiency at every stage of beef production optimises resource utilisation to achieve production cost advantages.
  4. Sustainability: The opportunity to communicate and validate existing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors of a low carbon beef sales platform to deliver value to the consumer.
  5. Technology: Meat grading is critical to improve value, give visibility and confidence of product quality and consistency of eating experience for the consumer.
  6. Continuous Improvement and Innovation: marketing and branding of beef on dairy needs to continuously seek ways to introduce new digital transaction functions, and data analysis to optimise processes, and innovate across all stages of the value chain.

By shifting from a production driven to a consumer demanded beef on dairy value chain there is a prospect to enhance value and provide an opportunity for beef on dairy and the non-replacement dairy calf.

Keywords for Search: Matt Iremonger

Boots on the ground are part of the solution. Transitioning agriculture towards sustainability together.

A reduction of Greenhouse gases is being demanded through our value chains. Farmers need to be at the table of change, not on the menu. The boots on the ground are part of the solution and need to be part of discussions and decisions. Farmers must remain profitable to enable change.

In the aftermath of the World Wars, nations prioritised food security and production, leading to increased international trade. Post-COVID, global discussions now revolve around food and fuel security, climate improvements, and sustainability. Agriculture is recognised as crucial in finding solutions to these challenges, with responsibility extending throughout the entire value chain, not just to farmers. Trade plays a pivotal role in resource sharing and environmental sustainability, exemplified by New Zealand’s dairy industry, which exports 95% of its products.

However, the dairy industry faces environmental pressures, both domestically and internationally. Successful mitigation programs emphasise voluntary, trusted, and measurable approaches, such as those seen in the Catskills Watershed and Arla’s 80-point programme.

To avoid dairy becoming the new coal and instead be part of the climate solution, financial solutions driven by Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) targets are crucial. Companies setting ESG targets are viewed as more successful and profitable, leading to increased access to capital. Green loan funds globally highlight the growing importance of sustainability in business.

Consumers’ demands for greenhouse gas reductions are not met with a willingness to pay, but rather through pressure from ESG stakeholders, investors, and employees. Market and capital access is now contingent on meeting social expectations, such as sustainability plans.

Transition payments through the value chain offer a solution, alleviating the burden falling solely on farmers and ensuring their economic viability during the transition to more sustainable practices that reduce greenhouse gases. Brands and customers, such as Nestle and Mars, are recognising the need to support farmers through this transition. However, structuring payments is complex, with brands currently willing to pay for greenhouse gas reductions but not yet for other nature-positive outcomes.

A reverse auction model or transition payment system could provide a platform for change, enabling farmers to choose their level of participation and providing compensation for their efforts in adopting sustainable practices. New Zealand’s unique farming system, facilitated by cooperatives like Fonterra, presents opportunities for collective action and innovative solutions.

By embracing ESG principles and transitioning towards sustainability, agriculture can ensure continued access to markets and capital while addressing environmental challenges. Early adopters stand to eliminate their risks and become experts in sustainable farming practices, shaping the future of agriculture for generations to come.

Keywords for Search: Kylie Leonard

The mountain we need to climb. Designing agricultural policy for a future in farming.

“People love innovation almost as much as they hate change.” Jack A Bobo

This report primarily addresses those in leadership, and to a lesser extent agricultural policy makers and others with an interest in how we move forward in delivering better outcomes for those on the land and the land itself. The findings and conclusions are also relevant for the wider agricultural sector as the issues at the heart of our policy landscape are not confined to Government.

New Zealand has a legacy of leadership, pioneering and innovating in the face of challenges, and culturally we are often eager to ‘lead the way’. However, we are less accomplished at reviewing ourselves objectively and understanding what about our leadership or innovations have proven effective, or where we have gone astray. This means that our perspective regarding what we do, how, and why we do it sometimes lacks clarity.

This report hopes to bring into focus some of what we must clearly comprehend about ourselves and our operating environment if we are to navigate agricultural policy more successfully going forward.

New Zealand is a unique nation amongst food producers globally, operating almost entirely without subsidies and relying on volatile variables (weather, input costs, international markets, currency movements) to underpin the national economy. We have relied heavily on market forces to guide investment decisions since deregulation in the 1980’s and this responsiveness has fostered a vigorous drive for efficiency and profitability within the primary sector, to the extent that we lead the world by many measures of primary sector success.

This leadership has not come without cost and increasingly regulators are seeking to address public concerns regarding the unintended impacts of our highly responsive primary sector, in light of the markets failure to do so. However the New Zealand approach has been to add cost via regulation, essentially undermining the on farm efficiencies which enabled the primary sector to operate in the absence of subsidies in the first place. Naturally, in the face of perceived threats to their viability, there is strong farmer resistance to such a shift.

At the heart of this issue lies the conflict between what society desires in theory and what it desires in practice. The first is advocated publicly via public narratives, media, social networks, advocacy, activism and electoral choices, while the second is advocated privately via the everyday actions of individuals making purchasing decisions on a daily basis.

Policy makers in democratic systems are bound to respond to what people say, while producers in New Zealand (more so than anywhere else) have little choice but to respond to what people pay.

This difference is currently breeding cynicism in primary producers all around the world as many grapple with how to produce food more sustainably, while facing strong resistance to higher prices and receiving immaterial incentives from corporate customers who continue to compete in the retail environment primarily on the basis of constraining price.

In Europe, subsidies are increasingly masking this discrepancy, applying farm and environmental payments for those attributes which fall into the ‘intention gap’ between what consumers want and what they will pay for. New Zealand is largely

alone in continuing to lean on regulation to deliver ‘good’ in the absence of market rewards, and this represents a massive challenge, and perhaps an opportunity.

The opportunity lies in designing a future where policy is created in service of those who will use it, working with, rather than against those whose hands will bring it to fruition. We need to better acknowledge that our growers, unlike others, are being asked to raise the bar under their own steam, from pre-existing resources.

This shift in narrative, and a determined effort to develop the best stable of agricultural policies in the world could deliver something that no one else in the world has done: Deliver world class food with increasingly higher environmental integrity from unsubsidised food systems.

New Zealand is small and innovative enough to achieve this, but it requires a shift in mindset and a commitment to delivering policy which prioritises people. This report highlights the potentially powerful possibilities that emerge if people are put at the heart of policy making, and if organisations, tools and values are designed to facilitate this.

Distinguishing between real insights with regards to what should change within the farmed environment and how change can happen, can only be achieved by investing heavily in the capacity of policy makers and the primary sector to understand one another again. This requires investment in drawing closer together, developing common language and deeper relationships based on trust and a shared long-term view of the future.

The New Zealand public service is not currently oriented in a way that would enable policy making which is capable of grappling with the myriad of complex issues across multiple portfolios with deeply social and cultural implications. However, the need for such capacity has been recognised by the previous Government and enabling features given legitimacy via the Public Service Act 2020.

Whether or not the promise of this new direction comes to fruition will depend on the final point in this report, that of political will, and its role in defending the space for change. For those in leadership, this is your batten to take up and carry. Create and then defend the space for a system wide shift from a public service which prioritises processes and outputs, toward one that prioritises people and outcomes.

The evidence is there, the benefits outweigh the risks.

Keywords for Search: Kerry Worsnop