Livestock Archives | Rural Leaders

Tim Orlando-Reep – on catchment groups, carbon credits and Kellogg.

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

In this Ideas That Grow Podcast, 2025 Kellogg Scholar Tim Orlando-Reep shares how his Waikato beef farm integrates carbon forestry, biodiversity ambitions and catchment collaboration.

While pine credits stack up financially, his research through the Kellogg Rural Leadership Programme explores how native plantings can balance profitability with environmental impacts.

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.

BG: Bryan Gibson, Managing Editor of Farmers Weekly: 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.

Welcome back to Ideas That Grow, a Rural Leaders podcast. I’m Bryan Gibson, Managing Editor of the Farmers Weekly, and our first guest for 2026, is recent Kellogg Programme graduate, Tim Orlando-Reep. Tim, how’s it going?

TO-R: Tim Orlando-Reep, Beef Farmer, 2025 Kellogg Scholar:
Hi, Bryan. How are you going? Thanks for having me.

BG: Now, you’re farming up in coastal Waikato, aren’t you?

A diverse Waikato beef farm.

TO-R: Yeah, we’re based in the Northwest Waikato. About 10k’s as a crow flies, from the Coast. So, we get some nice westerlies here. Very nice area. Lived here pretty much my whole life. We fatten cattle up here, so buying in a lot of wieners and finishing them and sending to the works.

BG: Obviously, you’ve got a pretty diverse operation. You’ve got some carbon farming going on as well?

TO-R: We’ve got about 10 to 12 hectares of pine trees and second rotation carbon. My father was a bit of a pioneer when it came to grabbing onto the carbon market. He had a love of trees, and we’re taking that to the next level. We have been doing a lot of carbon farming through the pine trees, and we also do a lot of spaced willows and poplars throughout the farm. As well as the carbon advantage, I guess, we also have the advantage of shelter for stock, which is becoming more and more prevalent and much more important.

Also, if the worst does come to the worst, we can always do a bit of pruning in the summer there and feed some of the forage. It works really well. It’s a great way of beautifying at the farm as well and providing a bit of colour in the autumn.

BG: How does the carbon farming or the forestry side of things, how does that fit into your overall strategy of farming? Is it easily done? How did you go about it?

TO-R: We identified the steeper parts of the farm. We’re quite lucky up here. We have some really good soils, but there are some fragile steep parts. Probably the only thing we could have done with that really was put it into pine trees. I remember most of my school holidays planting pine trees, especially throughout the winter, through those steep areas where the cattle were making a bit of a mess.

Even now, we’re identifying places where it should have gone into trees, but we’re looking at now how we can diversify that a bit more. But look, it’s a project, it’s about 12 hectares, and we prune it all ourselves. We thin it all ourselves.

Tell you what, on a hot summer’s day, like it has been for the last week or something, there’s nothing better than escaping to the forestry and pruning some trees 12: 00 to 3: 00 for a bit of shade and check in on a podcast and get an idea of what’s going on in the world.

BG: You mentioned natives briefly. Of course, you recently went through the Kellogg Programme, and your scholar report was about developing a more robust biodiversity credit system.

Kellogg research into carbon credits.

TO-R: It was really interesting. We’re now identifying probably not the most fragile areas on the farm, but the next layer down, so the LUC 5 stuff. Instead of putting a pine tree on there, I’m just trying to work out, well, the idea was what we put on there that could compete with the pinus radiata. How could a native stack up, I guess, as far as income per hectare.

At the moment, it’s chalk and cheese as far as that comparison goes, compared to a fast-growing exotic like a pinus radiata. I really want to delve down and see what we can do as an industry or even as a nation as far as how can we encourage farmers and landowners to be planting native instead of pinus radiata.

It might not be one to one as far as income is concerned, but something that’s close to that has a little bit more longevity and a bit more permanence compared to every 25 years, basically destroying the hillside. At the moment, I’m pruning some trees at the back of the farm So it’s 10, 12 years old, and there’s some beautiful ferns and stuff coming through.

And I think, in 15 years’ time, this is all going to be decimated if we continue this whole cycle of harvesting pinus radiata. If I could back it up before they went in and I could put in a native tree and receive the same income than I can from carbon credit, then that’d be a win-win for everybody.

And that’s what I really wanted to delve into as far as (my Kellogg research) the project was concerned. Because what do we have to do to really excite people about putting in a native plant instead of an exotic. Where is the financial reward? Because at the end of the day, the feel good factor doesn’t pay the mortgage. We need to make sure it’s feasible from a financial viewpoint.

So, what’s holding farmers back from being excited about putting in a native tree? It was really exciting going through the process of the research and understanding through a survey, through quite a large number of people, through the Waikato. A lot of people are already putting native plants in place, and they’re doing it off their own, off their own back. They’re not doing it for a financial reward.

They’re doing it for ecological or freshwater reasons. But there’s no (financial) reward for that. I just feel as though if there’s some way of supporting farmers to even bring back some of financial input they put into that so they can establish a bit more, it’s got to be a lot better than what it is at the moment, where you’re just pouring money into something that looks great and is a great thing for the environment. There’s no financial incentive, I guess, to do that. It was exciting to see that farmers are just doing it anyway. I just feel as though there’s a real opportunity here for farmers to be able to monetise or financially receive something for that.

BG: It would seem to me it’s more of a holistic way of looking at things. I mean, carbon farming is a reward system for battling greenhouse gas emissions, and you get rewarded for that.

Planting natives also combats climate change, but as you say, in a slightly slower way. But the fresh water implications, the biodiversity implications from diverse native plantings, that’s also really beneficial to everyone. Why can’t we come up with a reward system for that?

TO-R: Exactly. Look, there’s been a lot of work done around this area, and internationally, there are some good established schemes. Domestically as well, we have Maungatautari Mountain with Ekos, and they’ve done some fantastic work over there.

The thing that I’ve realised is it’s a lot more complicated to measure than carbon credit. So, carbon credit is just the species of tree times the amount of hectares of that species of tree cover. And it’s a fairly standard equation. When we come into biodiversity, how do you measure that? And that’s one of the things I got from my semi-structured interviews, is that it is so complicated.

A lot of the costs of auditing that get sucked up by our subject matter experts, our auditors, and all that thing. And does that follow through effect go back to the people who are actually putting the plants on the ground?

So, it was an interesting process to understand that, and then also, how could we pick some of the low hanging fruit there and say, right, we understand what’s probably restricting our biodiversity support or advancement in these areas already.

How can we help steady the ship, I guess, for the lack of a better phrase, and move forward and increase some of that biodiversity in some of those areas already. It was interesting.

BG: Yeah. I mean, it’s really heartening to hear that a lot of the farmers up your way are already on board ideologically with this stuff and are just doing it because they feel like it’s a good thing to do for them.

I guess some of these plantings, as you say, you’re seeing more heat events up there, the volume of rainfall is rising. I guess that work will build a bit more resilience into the farming system.

TO-R: I think a lot of farmers have realised that already. Bill Garland is a classic example. We’ve had a few open days up there, and what he’s developed over the last 20, 30 years on that property, he still has the weather events, but he’s the person who now says, well, look, we can put in something here, and it’s not going to get destroyed because we put in some mitigation.

That’s just a byproduct of what they’ve done. They’ve decided that’s the best land use for that particular gully. The flow-on effects of what’s done downstream have just been fantastic.

You’re right, it’s just building up a bit of resilience. It’s going to save you money in the long term, isn’t it? I feel so sorry for the people who have had these weather events, especially on the East Coast. You’re putting in fences again that you’ve probably only put in a couple of years ago. That can be quite a soul-destroying, and it’s hard. Until you get to that stage where you can start thinking long term, it’s a hard road.

Catchment groups.

BG: You mentioned Bill there. I mean, you’re quite a fan, I understand, of catchment groups, the catchment, collective way of thinking of things, farmers working together for a common goal. Do you think that’s the model for the future of environmental progress in New Zealand farming?

TO-R: Yeah, Bryan, I think that’s a really good point. The catchment groups tend to be very farmer-orientated. I think farmers learn a lot more by going out and seeing something and learning from someone else who’s done something compared to a group that might come in and say, right, this is how it should be done.

The catchment group, that farmer-led initiative, has a lot more clout than we give it credit for. It’s easy to see what’s going on in our area, especially. We’ve got King Country River Care down the road. West Waikato catchment just to the west of us. Our catchment, Whangapē, leads into a freshwater lake that goes into the Waikato River.

We have our challenges here, and it’s great to see a key group of people getting together and bringing other people in and saying, hey, this is what we’ve done. What do you think? And we have some informal days where people just bring their own packed lunch in a thermos and we’re just going to have a look at what people have done. I think the value in that for other farmers is to say, oh, gee, it’s not actually that hard to go and maybe just identify an area.

Now I’ve met all these people who have done a bit of work like that. Maybe I can ask them instead of asking the council if they’re nervous about getting the council involved or whatever. It is farmer-orientated action approach. Some of the things that we’ve talked about in the last month or so, it’s like, how do we go around and help other people plant out or give them advice without any external influence at all?

I spent four days planting natives last winter, and it’d be great just to spend half a day doing that and having a group come over, and then I can go and spend half a day somewhere else. I think that collaborative approach is probably a lot more beneficial for a lot more than just putting plants in the ground. It’s having a yarn and having a chat and talking about all the challenges that everyone has had.

Reflecting on Kellogg.

BG: You’ve had a month or so or so to recover from the Kellogg experience. How are you feeling about the whole thing? What was the experience like?

TO-R: It’s funny. I almost put it out of my head before Christmas. Then last week I thought, it’s actually stimulated a whole lot more thinking about the process and the project, what I learned. I think that’s one thing that Kellogg does really well, by having these blocks, you get bombarded with information and all the cool stuff that goes on, then you get a chance to go away and think on it. And then also the project in the background as well.

It just really changed my way of thinking about things and really engaging in a different way of interpreting information, I guess, for lack of a better word. And even now, I’ve got my little blue book, and I sat back and read it just so I was doing a bit of prep for this over the last couple of days, and just picked up some little bits. I seem to be using it more often than not. Some leadership programmes, you go and you do it for a day, and then I think after the second or third day, you might retain 20 % of it.

The way the Kellogg Programme was designed was just so good at reinforcing some of those things you learned before. And the crew that you end up with in your cohort. We’ve got such a wide range of people from the top of the north to the bottom of the south, and not just beef farmers! Outside my comfort zone, we’ve got dairy, we’ve got horticulture, we’ve got the wine industry, we’ve got everything going on.

It’s just a great opportunity to be able to get someone else’s point of view. Really, over those four or five days you’re together (during phases), you can really drill down into what they’re thinking and what they see the world as and share some good ideas. Yeah, no, really fantastic. We haven’t even got into mentioning the people we get to meet as far as presenters. There’s some absolute gold that we pulled out of there.

BG: Just for our listeners, I must admit that I was part of Tim’s Kellogg cohort, but I promise that all of his thoughts are his own.

TO-R: I was going to mention gentleman as well, but I wasn’t too sure if we were sharing that information. That’s great. It was an absolute blast.

BG: Yeah, it was, wasn’t it? How’s the year ahead looking for you? You got any big plans, working on any projects or just focusing on the farm? A bit of both?

TO-R: As far as we’re really We’re trying to develop our catchment, so we’ve got a catchment coordinator on board. That’s been really interesting because it’s moved me away from the day-to-day running, and now I’m looking after that part. The farm is going fantastically.

We instigated Halter a couple of years ago, so we’re increasing our stocking rate. We’re trying to balance the environmental impact of that versus the economic impact. And just trying to bring the farm up to the next level. So it’s an exciting time, and I’m really enjoying it. Excellent.

BG: Thanks, Tim.

TO-R: Thanks, Bryan.

BG: 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 Horticulture NZ Leadership Programme, the Engage Programme and the Value Chain Innovation Programme, please visit ruralleaders.co.nz.

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

Download the report »

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

Download the report »

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

Download the 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

Download the report »

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

Beef + Lamb New Zealand and Rural Leaders renew partnership.

The New Zealand Rural Leadership Trust (Rural Leaders) is pleased to announce the renewal of its partnership agreement with Beef + Lamb New Zealand (B+LNZ).

Pictured: Lisa Rogers, CEO, Rural Leaders (left). Justine Kidd, GM Extension, B+LNZ (right).

One of the New Zealand Rural Leadership Trust’s (Rural Leaders) earliest industry partners is Beef + Lamb New Zealand (B+LNZ).

The signing of a new partnership agreement between the two organisations aligns strongly with B+LNZ’s People and Capability Strategy focused on improving on-farm talent retention. Core to delivering on the objective of increasing the retention of people from their first day on farm to their third year is the role of on-farm leadership. Leadership that creates great work environments, communities and futures for people in the sector.

Justine Kidd, General Manager Extension, Beef + Lamb New Zealand, says, “On-farm leadership is critical to solving the challenge of our people’s future on farm. We are attracting enough young talent to the sector, but we aren’t holding them. Rural Leaders’ world-class delivery of leadership programmes supports our strategy, and we are looking forward to our continued joint effort growing great rural leaders across New Zealand.”

“B+LNZ’s partnership with Rural Leaders is a strong fit with two of our three investment pillars; ‘On-Farm’ focused on talent retention directly on farm and ‘Energising’ focused on growing leadership capability, celebrating and sharing stories of success.”, adds Justine Kidd.

To this end, B+LNZ recently announced farmers Richard Cameron and Natasha Cave would be the 2025 recipients of the B+LNZ Leadership Advancement Scholarships. They each receive full sponsorship to complete the Kellogg Rural Leadership Programme in 2025, along with mentorship from a B+LNZ leader aligned with their interests.

Lisa Rogers, CEO, Rural Leaders says, “The Rural Leadership Advancement Scholarships will become a flagship opportunity for the sheep and beef industry’s farmer-leaders. We look forward to playing a key role in these leaders’ development and future, both as people and as change-makers.”

—

The next available Kellogg places are for Programme Two 2025, 24 June start. Applications close April 13, 2025.

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

Download the report »

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.

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.
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.
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.
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.
Technology: Meat grading is critical to improve value, give visibility and confidence of product quality and consistency of eating experience for the consumer.
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.

Download the report »

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.

Download the report »

“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

Redefining excellence in agribusiness advisory. The role of the rural advisor in the modern world.

Download the report »

The farming world is striving to feed an ever-increasing population from a declining land area whilst at the same time reducing its environmental footprint. As farmers evolve their practices to meet these challenges, the rural advisor working alongside the farmer must also evolve to meet the needs of the industry and the wider community – or run the risk of becoming obsolete.

This Nuffield report explores the trends and issues facing the rural advisor and provides guidance for the future roles and necessary skillsets of the advisor so they can continue to add value to the primary sector.

The objectives of this Nuffield research report were:

1. To understand the trends in the use of technology in the agricultural sector, and how these trends will affect the role of the agricultural advisor.

2. To provide recommendations on the future role of the agricultural advisor, and to investigate optimal business models for the agricultural advisory sector.

The desired outcomes from this research are to redefine what excellence looks like in agribusiness consultancy, and as a result increasing productivity in the agricultural sector, whilst at the same time reducing the environmental footprint of the primary sector.

A rural advisor, also known as a farm advisor, farm consultant or rural professional, works within the agricultural sector to support farmers in the theory and practice of farming. The intention is to add value to the farming business, recognising that the definition of value will vary between clients.

To anticipate the future role of the rural advisor it was necessary to understand some of the key trends facing farmers:

i) Scale and complexity: Farms continue to increase in size, and as a result complexity. The amount of information available to each farming business is increasing each year at a rapid rate, and this makes it more challenging to analyse and interpret the data.

ii) The commodity cost-price squeeze. Farmers who are producing a commodity face the continual challenge of increasing input costs and a decreasing margin, whilst at the same time being scrutinised more closely.

iii) A declining (farm) labour force is forcing farmers to adopt new technology that will reduce labour requirements, as well as altering the skill set requirements of farmers.

iv) Social licence to farm: Farmers around the world are facing an increased level of scrutiny by the public and the consumer. This scrutiny includes the areas of animal welfare, environmental impacts and labour treatment.

v) Increasing use of technology on farm. As farmers adopt new technologies, so too must the rural advisor become proficient with the technology in order to stay relevant.

vi) Land ownership versus management. There is a worldwide trend towards a separation between the ownership of land and the management of land.

Developments in Agri-tech are impacting on both how farmers manage their farms, how rural advisors are interacting with their clients, and how they are managing their own businesses. However, for Agri-tech to have maximum impact, there are two fundamental issues that continually frustrate those working in the New Zealand primary sector:

a) Lack of internet connectivity.
b) Lack of data sharing and interoperability.

These issues are not new, but until they are resolved the ability for Agri-tech to influence farming in New Zealand will be constrained.

From an agri-tech perspective, the increasing of artificial intelligence (AI) in agriculture has the potential to have a significant impact on the role of an advisor. Around the world there are already many instances where AI is replacing the traditional knowledge transfer role of the advisor. For example, Climate FieldView is auto-scripting corn sowing rates and fertiliser recommendations for US crop farmers. Farmer. Chat is an AI system providing agronomy advice for small scale cropping farmers in Ethiopia, Kenya and India. Closer to home, wearable technologies for cattle such as Halter are providing detailed farm management insights directly to the farmer.

The role of a farm advisor or rural professional varies widely throughout the world, between sectors and between organisations. For those advisors whose role is purely focused on providing only technical advice, the impact of technology may be rapid and profound, to the point that their role may not exist in the future.

Keywords for Search: James Allen

Emma Crutchley. Finding the sheep and beef value-add.

Emma Crutchley, 2018 Kellogg Scholar, talks to Bryan Gibson, Farmers Weekly managing editor about some of the challenges sheep and beef farming faces in a water-short region.

Emma discusses her Kellogg research, the Value Chain Innovation Programme, and the work being done on ‘Puketoi’ to find value-add.

Listen to Emma’s podcast here or read the transcript below.

Bryan Gibson – Managing Editor of Farmer’s Weekly.

Kia Ora, 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.

My name is Bryan Gibson, Managing Editor of Farmers Weekly and this week, we are talking to Otago sheep and beef farmer, Emma Crutchley.

Bryan Gibson:
G’day, Emma. How’s it going?

Emma Crutchley, 2018 Kellogg Scholar, sheep, beef and arable farmer.
Good, thank you Bryan. How are you?

BG: Yeah, I’m really good. Yeah, so whereabouts in Otago are you?

EC: My husband, and I and two children live in a little inland basin called the Maniototo in Central Otago on a sheep, beef, and arable farm here called Puketoi.

BG: Sounds like a lot of work.

Maniototo sheep, beef and arable farming.

EC: Yep. So, I grew up here. My grandfather bought the farm in 1939, and we go a couple of more generations back here in the Maniototo. He’s one of the youngest sons, and he moved over from Kyeburn to Puketoi then.

I am an ’80s child, so I remember little bits of farming growing up through there. And I’m the youngest daughter out of…I’ve got an older brother. When I was younger, I had a love for animals and the farm and I could literally be found in any lamb pen, in any dog kennel, any filthy, smelly, or challenging job.

Growing up, I would be neck-deep in it. Mum and dad never really had a chance to get me out of it, and not that they ever thought that was a thing. They were very supportive of all their children, regardless of gender, being involved in the farm. I guess growing up here, I went away to boarding school and continued my love for the farm straight to Lincoln, and I never really looked anywhere else. From there, I moved on to work as a rural professional, as an agronomist, working in Christchurch for PGG Wrightson, and then later working for Pamu out of Wellington.

I knew I’d return home to the farm, but I was always a little bit hesitant because I love being around people and I love my networks and the social life side of it. I knew if I moved home, I was moving to a relatively isolated place away from a lot of the people that I really enjoyed being around.

I knew that it was the best opportunity I had and always something I really wanted to do. So I moved home in 2009, and imported a husband to the Maniototo, because it won’t come as a surprise, but being a small, rural community, everyone’s relatively related. I knew I had to find a husband before I moved home. So, yeah, he came home, and he moved here in 2010. And yeah, so we’ve worked to take over the family farm from my parents.

We’ve got just under 500 hectares of irrigation. The rainfall here is often what ‘wows’ people, it’s a 350ml rainfall. So irrigation creates the resilience we need to do what we do. We’re arable, so we grow about 100 hectares of arable crops: wheat, barley, peas, linseed, clover, rye for seed, and a few other bits-and-bobs as they come along.

We’ve got an angus stud as well. So we sell about 25 stud bulls each year. The main thing we do here, that is our main point of production, is our lambs. We have about six and a half thousand ewes. And apart from replacements, we finish all lambs born on the farm and also purchase more store lambs in January and carry them through as well to meet the demands of what we can produce and who we supply.

I do a lot in the advocacy space with Federated Farmers in Otago and also as a director for Irrigation New Zealand. My husband is very involved and he leads a lot of the rural fire stuff in this area. Being in a dry climate, it’s one of our challenges, I suppose.

BG: That sounds like a massive and diverse life you’ve got.

EC: Yeah, there’s a wee bit going on. They’ve got two kids of the mix, two, eight, and 10, so they keep us on our toes.

BG: Now, you mentioned the engagement with the Rural Leaders Programme was a Kellogg report, I think it was in 2018, that was on how to manage water efficiently and what that might mean. I guess it’s an issue that’s close to your home – and your heart. That’s why you took it on?

Kellogg research into water sharing in a water-short catchment.

EC: Well, as you know in 2017, one of the top election issues was around freshwater and how it’s managed in New Zealand. There was a lot of pressure around irrigation and the association with water quality and quantity. At that time, I was a director on our local irrigation company.

Being in this extreme climate where we are short growing season – long winters, and the value that irrigation is to our business in terms of the resilience and our adaption to climate change, I knew when I applied for the Kellogg Programme, exactly what I wanted to study in terms of a research project.

I’d been looking at it for a while, because the kids were, at the time, I think they were two and four, and at that time they’re starting to get a little bit more…I don’t know…I just went and did it!

So, my project was on water sharing in a water-short catchment, which was basically focusing in around, freshwater governance, or even crossing into environmental governance. I looked at different models from around the world and different examples of how water was managed, ownership rights, community management, and then investigated some of the policy settings we have. Also some of the solutions that might work in that space.

I think one of the learnings I got out of that was, as farmers in New Zealand we’re incredibly individualistic in how we run our businesses and that is a reflection of the challenges. The challenges we faced in the ’80s, we found ourselves then in that time of high interest rates and challenging Rogernomics type stuff. As individual farmers we had to farm our way out of it. We did that really, really well. But then that’s led us to being really innovative.

We need to understand the ‘why’ as to why the change is happening. I’m probably going a little bit off track here, but that project set the scene for me, for doing a lot of work over the last six years in the advocacy space and advocating for not only enabling farmers room to understand the ‘why’, but also those connections with stakeholders and the importance of that.

At the end of the day, the government calls the shots on policy, but the people that are voting for the government are our stakeholders, our New Zealand public, and the importance of understanding that dynamic for long-term goals rather than focusing on short-term advocacy outcomes.

BG: Yeah, I know you’ve done a lot of work. We had some stories in the newspaper this year on some of the work you’ve done to advocate for some changes to some of the water plans down your way?

Farming and the environment.

EC: I guess the thing that in Otago, we’ve worked first off the bat with land and water plans and regional policy statement, and I guess we’re also one of the most diverse regions in a Otago. For me, or for everyone really, farming systems in New Zealand are heavily intertwined with the environment. There’s always going to be public interest in farming because of our association with the environment that we farm in.

Everyone’s always looking over our fence. From that, it’s like, how do we set it up, so we enable farmers who are very good at change. So for that example, multiple challenges can be solved with one solution, and one challenge can be solved with multiple solutions. And what I mean by that is, how do you enable policy settings that enable this diverse, incredibly stunning region to actually find the scope within those policy settings to innovate around the challenge and to solve the different water quality, biodiversity, climate change challenges that we have faced.

I think advocacy is probably…I think it’s changing. We need to start learning. But it’s like communicating in a way which enables you to be understood. And my thoughts around that is we had in the Upper Taieri, one of our biggest challenges was the Upper Taieri plain and the diverse hydrology landscape that was tied up in the national wetland regulations. Then what that was the unintended consequence that that was going to create.

So, we had our big jobs for a nature project set up at that time, which involved the relationships with multiple stakeholders. I guess we always knew that if we were going to be successful in changing the settings around the wetland regulations that we needed to have a common ground with our stakeholders and what we were trying to achieve.

I know there’s a lot of narrative around, for example, the stock exclusion regulations and the huge cost they create on farmers. If you can flip that into, we need the tools in the toolbox to manage our environment, in a way that is best for the environment and best for our rural communities. We need to recognise the role that livestock can play within those systems to control our weeds and help with pest control. That was a common ground that we found.

So when we went to MFE with that case to Minister Parker, it was probably a more resonating message than just saying, ‘Oh, it’s a huge cost of fencing, and we’re going to lose all this land that we can graze’, which doesn’t resonate with everyone. They actually don’t care. They just want fresh water and they want a pristine environment. It’s explaining it in a way that actually identifies the unintended consequence of that.

So off the back of that, we managed to get that cut out of the stock exclusion rules, but it’s still a work in progress. We’ve still got to continue that conversation with our regional council as part of our water plan.

The art of making the tough conversations easier.

BG: Sounds like you’re at the forefront of a type of evolution that’s been talked quite a lot in terms of managing our natural assets – has many stakeholders who mostly want to do the same thing. It’s not an us and them farmers versus, say, fishermen or environmentalists or anything like that. And if you can in advance find those shared values, then it’s much more easy to overcome the challenge.

EC: Yeah, and I think I was talking to Julia Jones a couple of months ago and we’re brainstorming. I think she said something, and it was ‘we have a responsibility to seek to understand diverse perspectives’, then I added on the end, ‘we also need to give ourselves the personal freedom to change our minds’. I guess for me, that crosses into the fact that we are a small part of the population in New Zealand.

Like a lot of people like those in Auckland don’t really care about farming. They might want a pristine environment, but they don’t care about farmers as such. So the best way to get people to understand your perspectives is to actually listen to them and when you can create an environment which lets people feel like they’re understood – it takes away the defensiveness and the silos, and it creates more of a safe space to continue that conversation.

So when you’re really passionate, I think, and I have to be aware of this, because I’m really passionate about Ag and what we do, but passion can show up in many different ways. And when you’re passionate about a topic like farming or the environment and both, probably, most of the farmers fit into both those camps, but it’s like, how do you talk to someone and create that curiosity to let them feel like they’re heard? And then you create that connection and then that’s progress.

The Value Chain Innovation Programme and finding the value-add.

BG: Now, you’ve had a more recent Rural Leaders experience. You were on the Value Chain Innovation Programme this year. What was that all about?

EC: Yeah. So my lane, probably, in the past year has been a lot around the environmental stuff – freshwater, irrigation. But as a sheep and beef farmer, we are doing so much behind the farm gate in terms of how we farm and environmental gains on-farm. For us, because we are main point of production is lamb and finishing lambs, we’ve seen a lot of disruption within the supply chain over the past few years, especially since COVID.

Then we had another one more recently this year, where some of the guys we’ve worked really closely with over the past few years to develop our lamb supply programme. We went to them eight years ago, probably a little bit frustrated at the time, we wanted to supply a product that worked with our lamb, our supply chain, and what was actually needed within that, so we could add more value.

So they came back to us. We said to them, ‘how can we better support what you’re trying to do so we can add value to what we’re trying to do?’ They came back and they said, we need to know when your lambs are coming three to four months ahead. We need all year-round supply, and we need to have a consistent hook weight. And we went ‘righto’ and took that away. Then over the next few years, we worked really hard to actually schedule three to four months out and supply 11 to 12 months of the year and build a system around that, but then also target those specific hook rates and get it right. So, it worked really well.

Then when we had a bit of disruption within our meat company, probably three or four months ago, it blew a bit of that away. It blew away those trusted relationships, and it’s a bit of an ‘aha’ moment for me, and I realised how vulnerable we are to what happens in that supply chain and what we do. Because when your main part of your business is producing lambs and something happens in the supply chain, that’s a big issue.

I’d looked at the Value Chain Innovation Programme last year and I thought it was probably not really in my lane. And then I was like, well, actually, it really is in my lane, because if we’re doing all this other environmental stuff and trying to add value on-farm, we need a supply chain that actually supports what we’re trying to do.

So we, as farmers with our increasing costs, our sheep and beef farmers, especially the catchment limits that you’re trying to farm within, you can’t just produce your way out of it anymore. So, the real important thing that I’m seeing is, how can we value-add?

I applied for the Value Chain Innovation Programme with Hamish (Gow) and Phil (Morrison) to look at all the different value chain examples through the North Island. We got on a bus in Auckland and went down to Hamilton, explored the Fonterra markets with the Fonterra value chain around there, going to a dairy farm and then into the Fonterra factory, and also looking at LIC and DairyNZ and how those operations also support the dairy industry.

Then we investigated kiwifruit, and we also went to Robotics Plus in Tauranga. That was pretty amazing, seeing some of the tech that and the robots that they can pull in to support different production systems.

From there, we went down to Taupo and went to Pamu, and also sheep and beef there. I’m probably missing one, but over to Hawkes Bay to look at the apples as well, and also First Light Foods and a couple of others in there, just investigating what all these systems are trying to target. From there, I figured out that we are…yeah, I feel like we are lacking a little bit in leadership to support innovating the value chain to create value for what we do.

A lot of us are also limited in the land use change that we can actually do to add value. So it’s really important to me to start thinking about how we do add value through the supply chain.

BG: It seems to be like the Holy Grail. A lot of the feedback I get at the newspaper about various regulations and environmental and sustainable goals, people just go, well, we were promised it was value-add, and we’re not seeing it. We’re still slave to the schedule, that sort of thing. And so that’s a real hard nut to crack.

EC: And it’s never going to be easy. People will probably listen and say, she’s crazy. You can’t do that. But what options do we actually have in some cases? It’s like saying, well, okay, it’s hard, but what else are we going to do? Because in New Zealand, we’re actually not… I don’t know, we’re passionate about what we do, we have an amazing industry in sheep and beef.

I guess the other thing is we’ve also…when I think about, I’m very much Ag right through my life. Everything that I see as sheep and beef farmer supports what I can do behind the farm gate and creating efficiencies within the farm gate. There’s not a lot that actually looks at how we create value through the supply chain.

So I think that was probably a bit of an ‘aha’ for me throughout the (Value Chain Programme) trip, is actually realising that, yeah, we are actually stuck. There’s been amazing work done, but it’s like, how do we realise that, yes, a lot of what we do, even with our industry bodies, is focused on production, and behind the farm gate, but there’s not a lot on added value.

BG: Well, the cool thing is, I guess, that the product is amazing already, so it’s a good launching pad.

EC: Yeah, 100 %

BG: It sounds like your experience with Rural Leaders has been pretty rewarding. Is that something you’d recommend to others.

EC: Yeah, absolutely. I don’t know where we would be in New Zealand’s primary sector without Rural Leaders – there’s some great options of different programmes you can get involved with, and there’s always stuff to learn. I think even if I went back and did either of those courses again, you’d still pick up something new.

The people you meet along the way as well and I guess the networks. And I guess when I’m thinking about something and I know I don’t know the answer from those networks, I have a fairly good idea that I will know someone that will. And if they don’t, they’ll know someone that will. It’s a small, small place, the New Zealand primary sector, and there’s a lot of power and networks as well.

BG: Thanks for listening to Ideas that Grow, a Rural Leaders podcast in partnership with Massey and Lincoln Universities, AGMARDT, and FoodHQ. This podcast was presented by Farmers Weekly.

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

Data sharing to achieve data interoperability

Download the report »

New Zealand is a country of entrepreneurs and leaders in the creation of new systems and apps that can capture on farm data. A significant opportunity to automate data collection to match the systems together and see the data holistically still remains. Each company is creative and innovative in their own right, but farmers and growers want to see the data consolidated. This is how they can make robust, science-based decisions on farm.

This is becoming increasingly important as we move into a digital world where information is accessible at consumers’ fingertips – we need farm data to be in this same realm. With the new generation coming through, it is no longer enough to have values and show what farmers stand for, we also need to prove it.

During my Nuffield year I spent four months overseas visiting different agriculture companies, farmers, and governments. I came back with a strong understanding of the risks of not integrating our data. Covid-19 has changed our world faster than ever before. There are new standards and requirements to be met that are being imposed by consumers. No longer can we afford to look at siloed data systems.

We should not be afraid of transparency because the world is demanding it. Our consumers are demanding it. If we do not do it the effect will be that we will be told how to farm because we haven’t proved we are better than 10 years ago. I believe we do farm better. But belief does not cut it anymore. For the next generation coming through we need the data and the evidence of our farms to back up our claims.

No country or system I came across has a fully integrated farm data system. In New Zealand we are well placed to try something new around data interoperability because many of our companies are cooperatives and farmer owned. We are in the premium space and need to hold our premium position. We also need to have all the information available to make the best decisions on farm and enable scenario planning and modelling. We should be able to answer questions such as:

• What happens if I put 40 kilograms less fertiliser on per hectare? What does that do to my beef production and revenue line?
• What happens if I invest in cow monitoring technology and then catch mastitis and disease earlier? What does this do to production and revenue?

Consider the emerging discipline of a farm data manager. The farm data manager will work directly with farmers and growers to determine their drivers for farming and to create a data strategy. Every farmer and grower has different needs, drivers, and reasons for being. Different data points interest different farmers. Each farm and farmer or grower require a solution that matches their driver and strategy.

Farmers and growers need a bespoke solution for them – a data manager can assist with this. It is not practicable for every farm to employ a data manager. Instead, a data manager will have a portfolio of farmers and growers they work with to give them a solution that best works for them. We need to try something different to move forward on on-farm data interoperability.

This report proposes establishing a new discipline of the farm data manager. Farmers and growers are not expected to be finance experts instead they outsource this to an accountant to support them. So why are we asking them to be data experts? Instead, a farm data manager can support them.

Keywords for Search: Lucie Douma, Lucy Duma

The Kellogg Rural Leadership Programme has been developing leaders for the rural and agri-food sector since 1979.

Key Information

Our Alumni

2026 Applications

The Nuffield New Zealand Farming Scholarship is one of the most valued awards in New Zealand’s primary sector.

Key Information

Our Alumni

2027 Applications

Innovating for our fast-changing value chains.

Key Information

2027 Applications

Fast-track your food and fibre skills, knowledge, and confidence.

Key Information

2026 Applications

Develop horticulture-specific leadership knowledge and skills.

Key Information

2026 Applications

Popular Keywords

Categories

Episode Transcript

A diverse Waikato beef farm.

Kellogg research into carbon credits.

Catchment groups.

Reflecting on Kellogg.

The New Zealand Rural Leadership Trust (Rural Leaders) is pleased to announce the renewal of its partnership agreement with Beef + Lamb New Zealand (B+LNZ).

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.

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.

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

Maniototo sheep, beef and arable farming.

Kellogg research into water sharing in a water-short catchment.

Farming and the environment.

The art of making the tough conversations easier.

The Value Chain Innovation Programme and finding the value-add.

This report proposes establishing a new discipline of the farm data manager. Farmers and growers are not expected to be finance experts instead they outsource this to an accountant to support them. So why are we asking them to be data experts? Instead, a farm data manager can support them.

Rural Leader Newsletter