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...

2025

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.

Hamish Marr – Glyphosate, Nuffield, and cropping today.

Read More →

Ben Todhunter: Farming, conservation and Nuffield.

Read More →
Kate Scott podcast

Kate Scott: Front footing the fast-moving regulatory environment.

Read More →

Katie Vickers: Banking on a sustainable future.

Read More →

Julia Galwey. By-product to buy product – Pearl Veal NZ.

Read More →

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

Read More →

Hamish Gow – Inside the Value Chain Innovation Programme

In this episode of The CountryWide Podcast, Sarah Perriam-Lampp talks with Lincoln University’s Professor Hamish Gow about the Value Chain Innovation Programme, delivered by Rural Leaders.

Hamish explains how the programme takes participants inside New Zealand’s dairy, kiwifruit, apple and red meat sectors to understand how value is created, captured and shared, and why the real learning happens on the bus as farmers, entrepreneurs and industry leaders connect and challenge their thinking.

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

CountryWide Podcast Transcript

Sarah Perriam-Lampp, CEO and Editor-in-Chief, CountryWide:
Welcome to another episode of the CountryWide podcast, and catching up with one of my favourite people, Hamish Gow from Lincoln University. Today we’re going to talk about the Value Chain Innovation Programme, something that I absolutely loved doing a few years ago. I’m sure it’s evolved a little bit from the first one?

But I’m really keen to hear about what everyone gets up to on the programme because the deadline to submit your application for 2026 is coming up soon. So, Hamish, can you tell us a little bit about the programme and how it’s evolved?

Hamish Gow, Professor, Lincoln University:
Well, it hasn’t really evolved a lot, right? Because it’s designed to give the participants a model or framework to be able to understand and evaluate value chains and how we create value in those value chains. Then we walk through the four major value chains in New Zealand, two in the livestock sector and two in horticulture.

The Four Value Chains

HG: We walk through the dairy value chain and analyse and evaluate how Fonterra creates economic value for farmers and how that comes back to them. We then walk through the Zespri value chain and look at how that brings value back to both the orchard owners as well as into the other members of it, which are the packhouses, and understand that model. We then look at the apple industry and how that creates value for the growers.

Then finally, we look at the red meat sector and understand how value comes back to farmers and producers in the red meat sector. And around the edges of that, we look at government support, regulation, and legislation, and how that’s enabled some of them and caused constraints on them, and then technology, and how that’s supporting it as well.

It hasn’t changed a lot from when you went on, the only difference is, we’ve gone in reverse. We used to start in Hamilton with the dairy sector and work to the Hawke’s Bay and end with apples. Now we’re starting in the Hawke’s Bay with apples and working our way through to Hamilton and ending with the dairy sector.

Target Participants

SPL: For those who are unfamiliar with it, this is a programme run as part of the Rural Leaders organisation (they look after Kellogg and Nuffield). It is really for quite a wide range of people, getting farmers and growers to look beyond the farm gate, isn’t it? As well as those who work in the sector to fully understand the vertical integration of a value chain.

HG: Yes, it’s aimed at both people who are directors and senior leaders within the industry. So it could be farmers, it could be people inside the processing facilities, it could be marketers who are trying to understand it, it could be entrepreneurs, as well as the government players who are supporting as well as the input providers, bankers, insurance providers, fertilisers, etc.

Core Learning Framework

HG: It really gives you this end-to-end understanding all the way from the basic inputs all the way through to understanding the market and how we really create economic value for our customer in the market. It’s also, what’s the mechanisms that we use to be able to capture that value and then share that across everyone in the value chain? And that’s the key piece is really understanding not just that this is how it all operates, but then this is the mechanisms that are used to be able to create value, capture that value, and then share that value and how that gets shared back to everyone.

And what makes some channels work in one way versus other channels work in a different manner or form. We look at three basic models of value chains.

Intellectual Property Insights

SPL: It really does open your eyes, particularly if you are quite industry-centric in your day-to-day – If you’re really in the dairy industry or sheep and beef and don’t really understand as much about horticulture. I took away so much, and there’s lots of little gems, Hamish, but one of them was I’d never appreciated plant licencing and breeding and how that IP is controlled and how that flows through the value chain.

HG: Absolutely. In the horticulture industry, that’s the key way that they capture value, because it stops people trying to copy them. We’ve got two different models. We’ve got a model that operates within the kiwifruit industry, which is everyone combined within Zespri. And then Zespri owns the IP. Zespri doesn’t own a lot of things, but it owns all the IP around the plant variety rights for the gold kiwifruit, for the Sungold. And then it also operates in a slightly different model in the apple industry. And that’s the real two key pieces. It’s those plant variety rights which give them protection for an extended period of time and allow them to build a value chain that creates economic value, allows them to capture it and then return it back to the owners of their IP. But also they have a sharing mechanism which allows them to share it across the growers and the other players along that channel.

Rethinking Value Creation

SPL: The other major thing I realised, which is really interesting timing with the sale of Fonterra’s consumer brands, is how a lot of these supply chains are built to not actually have value, because it’s more around operational efficiency and that is the value.

HG: Yes, lots of people are only now coming to the grips with this. In New Zealand government, we’ve had this whole idea about value add, but we don’t actually understand it. Our naïve perspective of value add, is just put a brand on things and sell it to a customer. But there’s a whole lot of value to be created by being the provider of the highest quality ingredients. Therefore, that allows your customers, the processor/food manufacturer, to be able to run their systems a lot more efficiently and deliver a lot more consistent product to their customer.

It’s very expensive to go and work with a final consumer, but stepping back from that and delivering the best quality inputs to them, which are really, really consistent, allows them to operate way more efficiently. There’s huge value opportunities there, which is what Fonterra does. Fonterra is this amazing producer of high-quality specialty ingredients that the top food companies absolutely require from us. And that’s always one of the ‘a-ha moments’ that comes out of it. People realise we don’t actually need all of these brands. We actually spend a lot of money on them.

Global Market Reality

HG: It’s easy to do branding when you’re selling to your own domestic consumers. But New Zealand is the only developed country in the world for which their primary market is not a domestic consumer. Therefore, there’s 180 countries in the world that we sell to. And there’s thousands, well, actually tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of different markets across all those countries that we sell to. It’s very difficult from a branding standpoint to really understand who that customer is and what we need to do with them.

They’re in a different country, different culture, different language, different institutional structures. Often, it’s an ingredient space that actually creates us the greatest value. That’s where we’re creating most of our economic wealth in New Zealand, without us knowing that.

Preparation for International Engagement

SPL: For those who have been fortunate to go in market overseas, what I’ve taken away from it, is how you’ve structured it so that the Nuffielders do the Value Chain tour before they do go overseas, which means that you actually understand your own backyard. So, you’re informed on a value chain before you go in market overseas. Many of us don’t actually understand that piece, do we?

HG: Yes, we often know our little wee piece of the value chain, but we don’t actually understand how a whole value chain operates or works. We know how to make money in our piece, but we don’t actually understand how all the pieces of the puzzle all connect together and collectively how they create value. Then, because we don’t understand that, we don’t actually understand our adjacent value chains, how they operate and how they make money.

Mental Models for Analysis

HG: And so we make assertions about them, which are really assumptions, and they’re actually incorrect. And so it’s only when you walk and understand those different models that they have, that you’ve got this ability to be able to engage and learn and understand how you make money in your value chain. But then you can start looking at other value chains that are operating out there in the world, both in New Zealand, but also overseas. Because effectively, we simplify it down to basically three different models that run.

And that’s the key thing.  Once you get it down to that level, you can look at almost any value chain and go, ‘that’s this type of value chain. How’s that different from the ones we’ve looked at? It’s different in this way.’ Suddenly, you’ve got this mental model that you can use and make sense of.

Programme Success Stories

SPL: What have been some of the highlights for you on the programme? It’s been three times you’ve run it? If you think about the people that have been through the programme, that you’ve seen real ‘a-ha moments’ or anything that’s come from it that’s been impressive?

HG: We’ve had a couple of key players who came through, were both chairmen of the boards of a startup on this last programme with a range of farmer suppliers coming into it. They had a massive answer to a-has, and you watched them as their mind changed with the way that they could articulate what they were doing and how they could share that to all of their constituent farmer suppliers.

But also how they could communicate what they were doing to their key industry partners who were processing for them to help them understand how they were doing stuff and the way they were running their business model and value chain and how that differentiated from their market partners, so they weren’t actually in competition with each other.

Organisational Alignment

HG: So that was a really important a-ha, and they suddenly had the power to be able to have a conversation with all those different stakeholders and help them understand how they were different and what that meant for them strategically. And what that meant for them as far as investment goes, how they could communicate with everyone. I’ve watched that happen since the last programme.

They came through… it was this a-ha moment. Now you just watch how their communication and the alignment and getting everyone to… it’s like a rowing eight. They’ve got everyone rowing together in the same direction at the same stroke rate, and they’re just pulling ahead as a result of that. It’s fantastic. It’s got everyone throughout the organisation, all the way from the board through management, to all of their strategic partners, all the way back to the farmers.

They are now all lifting together as they row that eight forward all in the same direction. Before, they were actually going against each other and they were crabbing at times. Now, it’s a smooth drive forward.

Learning Environment

SPL: Lovely analogy. The power is in the visits, but the magic happens on the bus, isn’t it?

HG: Yes, the experience where you look at things is on the visits, but the power and the real engagement and magic is on the bus and the group of people on the bus. The bus becomes our learning environment, it’s our safe haven. What I act as is the ‘honest broker’ to be able to facilitate the discussion and the debate as we go on the bus and we unpack what we’ve seen. But we also help set up what we’re expecting to see. Then people go in there and they look at it and they go, ‘actually, that’s not what I expected’.

Then we unpack where that conflict occurs. That’s really powerful. It’s those discussions and debates as you go along on the bus, that’s where all the power is. That’s where everyone has that real aha moment as they make sense of that. And not only make sense of what they’ve seen, but it’s this application of ‘how does that apply to my business that I run and my value chain that I’m operating in’ and asking hard questions about how you do things and how they need to operate.

Programme Details and Networking

SPL: And you make some fantastic friends. I ended up going to one of their weddings because he married my friend. So that was really nice. But really great networking as well of different people across the city that you probably wouldn’t meet otherwise. For those who are interested, it will run between the 8-14 of February, 2026. Applications will close on the 23rd of November 2025. We’ll put a link in the description below so that you can get all of the information.

It is a five-day tour, and as Hamish said, starting in the Hawke’s Bay and ending in Hamilton. You’re with your group the entire time, staying at various places, and then on the bus, as he was saying there. Thank you very much for your time, Hamish. I look forward to following who ends up on the programme next year. There’s lots of familiar faces, and just Hearing from them firsthand afterwards is pretty inspiring, and just around how much their mind has been blown.

To apply for the 2026 Value Chain Innovation Programme (runs 8-14 February) head to the Rural Leaders site.

Lynsey Stratford: Changing how we work for better outcomes.

Read More →
Kate Scott podcast

Kate Scott: Front footing the fast-moving regulatory environment.

Read More →

Julian Reti Kaukau – Bridging the connection between our people and the whenua.

Read More →

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

Read More →

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

Read More →

Mel Poulton – Transformation before transaction: The potential of NZ’s Food and Fibre IP.

Read More →

Kellogg Rural Scholars Series. Leadership issue.

Supported by our investing partners, the New Zealand Rural Leadership Trust is privileged to help grow many of our sector’s capable and purpose-driven leaders.

A key aspect of the Kellogg Programme (and the Nuffield Scholarship) is research based learning. The clarity of thought and confidence the research component of Kellogg promotes can be hugely transformative.

The Kellogg Rural Scholars Series booklets are distillations of this research – each focussing on a selection of reports covering one industry or topic.

Currently, there are five booklets in the series, with this latest issue being ‘Leadership Insights’.

Leadership Insights contains twelve reports spanning the last 7 years.

The reports in ‘Leadership Insights’ cover such topics as: Leadership During a Crisis, Emotional Intelligence, the Qualities and Characteristics of Good Leadership, and the Effect of Good Leadership on Staff Engagement and Retention.

These reports were written by scholars: Jack Dwyer, Jordi Hoult, Cheyenne Wilson, Louis Batley, Brian Henderson, Melisssa King, Henry MacIntosh, Jason Halford, Sophie Malone, Joanna Greaves, Hayden Dunne, Nick de Ridder.

You can view Leadership Insights here.

If you would like to grow as a leader; exploring research into a food and fibre topic of your choosing, apply for 2026 Kellogg Programme One by 19 October.

To learn more head here.

Kerry Worsnop shares Scholarship experience at Nuffield 75th.

Nuffield Farming Scholarships celebrated 75 years in New Zealand last Thursday.

100+ Scholars and their partners gathered for dinner, to hear from an excellent line-up of speakers and of course, chat.

Kate Scott, NZRLT Board Chair (2018 Scholar) opened and spoke on the impact of Nuffield Scholars before introducing host Hon Todd McClay. 

Julian Raine (1997 Scholar) and Kerry Worsnop (2023 Scholar), spoke about their Nuffield experiences including some of the challenges overcome and unique opportunities encountered.

You can read Kerry’s speech below.

One of the most important moments of the night was an announcement by the Hopkins family.

John Hopkins,1979 Nuffield Scholar, passed in 2022. John and wife Elaine, gave generously to the Nuffield Programme over the years. This generosity included providing a Scholarship for Ben Anderson, 2021 Nuffield Scholar.

John and Elaine’s son and granddaughter, Andrew and Chelsea Hopkins, attended the dinner. Chelsea announced they would again support a Scholar onto Nuffield.

Here’s an excerpt from Chelsea’s LinkedIn post that echoes her excellent speech on the night:

“… My grandfather, John Hopkins was a 1979 Nuffield Scholar. I have fond memories of him telling me how the scholarship transformed him and the lasting impact it had on his life. I was lucky enough to share his story with the attendees last night and for this I am truly grateful.

To give back to the programme that gave us so much, we are providing a scholarship for 2026 Nuffield Scholars to support the next generation of agricultural leaders.

Being a part of last night’s celebration was super special for Dad and I. It was a reminder that life’s moments, although sometimes small, can have big impacts. This is a night I won’t forget.

A big thank you to Lisa Rogers, Rural Leaders and Kate Scott for the invite and making us feel so welcome.”

Andrew and Chelsea Hopkins are pictured below (image 4).

Images are: 1 – Hon Todd McClay. 2 – Owen Jennings (1980), Craige Mackenzie (2008). Lucy Griffiths (2014) Ben Hancock (2019). 3 – Gavan Herlihy (1985), Nick Tripe (1967), Richard Davison (1986). 4. Andrew and Chelsea Hopkins. 5 – Ian Mackenzie (1993). 6 – Marise James (1998), Don McFarlane (1981). 7 – Hon Damien O’Connor, Allan Richardson (1998). 8 – Don McFarlane, Ronny Percy, Nick Tripe, Elizabeth Davison, Richard Davison. 9 – Hon Denis Marshall (1983), Martin Nelson (1983). Bryn James, Brian Smith.

You can read Kerry Worsnop’s speech from the 75th Dinner below. It was an excellent speech that may be useful for those considering a Nuffield NZ farming Scholarship in 2026.

Take a read, it gives some great insight into what to expect.

Scholarships are open until 17 August.

Kerry Worsnop, 75th Nuffield dinner speech, Parliament.

I applied for a Nuffield scholarship at one minute to midnight on the night that applications closed in 2022, having pitched it to my husband at about 9.30 that night.

Now because he’s used to me doing random things, Marcus just rolled his eyes, sort of shrugged, told me to do what I wanted and said he was going to bed.

On reflection, had my application not been so last minute, I would likely never have submitted it. The fact that I did set in chain a sequence of events that will forever make 2023 a pivotal year in my life. And that is without accounting for the two cyclones.

That’s another story.

Now for you poor souls who have had two- or maybe five doses of my research, you’ll be pleased to know that I’m not going to ram it down your throats again. But what I am going to do, is give you a little bit of my journey and in it, hopefully you recall some of your own.

I left New Zealand like many of you will have, wondering what in the hell I was doing, feeling overwhelmed with the magnitude of what I was attempting, and amazing that anyone was crazy enough to fund it.

I had no idea how to hustle meetings with foreign dignitaries, executives, scholars and all the others whose knowledge I would need to augment my own.

But like all of you – I would learn.

I learned that every no, was one step closer to a yes. That every connection can yield three more and most remarkably, that my own knowledge would become a form of currency, the medium of exchange valued by those whose own curiosity would draw them into a room with me.

I learned the value of being able to trade in ideas, to appreciate something I can only describe as intellectual alchemy.

My questions took me to Washington, Pennsylvania, Canada, the UK, the Netherlands and others. 11 countries in all.

I stayed in basements, slept in hostels – had one very dodgy experienced accidentally being the only female in a sardine can room with 7 men from all corners of the world.

I missed flights, misplaced luggage and got lost on numerous occasions – but only once did I end up in the wrong city attempting to board the wrong ferry. Naturally – another Nuffielder put me up for night on half-an-hours’ notice, and on I went.

I met people like Guy Peters, the godfather of public policy research who himself had no real reason to meet me – beyond the fact that New Zealand was fascinating to him.

I found myself in incredible situations, an exclusive cocktail party with US senators, meeting the UK’s agriculture minister, in rooms with countless officials, public servants and farmer organisations and farmers themselves.

I marvelled at how many people made time for me and the generosity of spirit that every Nuffielder I met seemed to share.

For the rest of my life I will never forget the two days I spent with Dorothy Fairburn in Yorkshire, or the lengths that Katlyn Cruiskburg went to, to host me in Canada.

Of course no Nuffield would be complete without someone being sick in a suitcase after too many vodka shots (it wasn’t me) and the painful test of everyone’s social endurance that is the GFP program.

It doesn’t matter if you visited Argentina, Ireland, Poland and France as I did, or India, China and Zimbabwe as others have, the universal truth is that our humanity and the land itself connects us.

I applaud Nuffield NZ for ensuring the GFP’s are an integral part of the journey and I maintain the ultimate test of your capacity – is can you still be talking some kind of sense at midnight when your host is still in fine form but you’re on day 26 of your GFP and it’s your turn to be leader, so you can’t go to bed.

And this is where the rubber hits the road. As New Zealand scholars, we have a clear expectation set for us and we understand our role as ambassadors for our country and for this organisation.

I expect that of all the scholars world wide, New Zealanders are the least likely to go to bed when the host still wants to talk, and we are the most likely to ask questions when someone needs to show an interest, even if it’s the 500th dairy farm visit.

New Zealand Rural Leaders Trust sets the standard and it’s Nuffield program stands alone in offering a truly life changing experience. Much like the Greek myth of Odysseus, once we have wondered the word in search of answers we can not help but return changed.

In accepting a New Zealand Nuffield scholarship you agree to explore parts of the word, and parts of yourself that you may never have reached alone.

In return Nuffield in this country defends the space for your conclusions. They did this for me, and likely, for most of you.

I can not emphasise enough the value in this.

Not every country offers this. I spent time with scholars agonising over the fact that their conclusion were increasingly at odds with the business model of their sponsor, I spent time with others for whom getting the sponsorship itself predetermined their research topic.

In New Zealand our most curious minds are entirely free to search the world for answers and when they return, they are free to speak whatever truth they find.

This is exceptionally rare in a world where research funding is thin and increasingly political and where commercial interests often guard the doors.

Our sponsors deserve great recognition and immense gratitude for their willingness to support such impartiality, which no doubt at times may have been at odds their own interests.

So my message to all those who deliver this program and to those who support it, you have created something precious and rare, and this country is ultimately the better for it.

Thank you.

 

Water quality in the Amuri Basin

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adam Williamson

Evaluating the Potential of Increased Carbon Stocks and Biodiversity Outcomes to Fund Native Vegetation Management on NZ Properties

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cameron Walker

Softer Crop Protection, the Way of the Future?

Executive summary

This report addresses the incorporation of biopesticides and integrated pest management (IPM) strategies into the horticultural sector in New Zealand. A combination of a literature review and semi-structured interviews were undertaken and analysed using PESTLE analysis.

The New Zealand horticultural sector is diverse and export-focused. Each crop sector has different crop strategies to control pests and diseases to meet export market requirements. Globally, consumers are more connected to the source of their food with each market focusing on different components. This is complex for growers to meet most market demands. Biopesticides and IPM is investigated to determine if these are viable options for crop protection.

The final recommendations were split into People and Mechanics.

People

People do not like change which is a large barrier to the use of biopesticides and IPM. Change often occurs when market requirements are altered or in a ‘crisis’. Many growers have been misinformed on IPM or biopesticides before putting them into practise, which can result in a false sense of perception and a lack of trust. This results in many not willing to try again and spreading misinformation. Biopesticides are often more expensive with less efficacy than synthetic chemicals. There is little incentive for growers to change with no perceived economic value.

IPM is more welcomed within the industry. Knowledge was also identified as a barrier. There is more motivation toward this approach as there is a perceived view that there may be less chemical costs.

Knowledge domestically is lacking in IPM and biopesticides. Key experts in these fields must be identified. Clear messaging is important. Experts must collaborate to produce a strategic approach to build a network of knowledgeable and trustworthy industry leaders. The use of international tools and other experts should be seriously considered to reduce costs and accelerate learning. Science-based decisions on crop protection are important to set growers expectations to reduce mistrust. Growers will need considerable support and industry must be ready to provide this.

Currently, there is no formal training for people who provide agronomic advice to growers. These people hold a large influence. Agricultural retailers and agronomists should collaborate and set a formal standard incorporating the entire ‘toolbox’ to build consistency within this sector and build confidence in growers.

NZ growers need to be adaptive to obtain market access with more markets aligning with a whole farm holistic approach. Ethical, sustainability and low residues in food are likely to trend with markets. IPM and biopesticides fit well for this market.

Chemical resistance management was one of the largest concerns. There is high reliance on chemicals and different controls should be integrated to build adaptability. The need to educate the entire industry is critical to protecting the current chemical controls. Slow regulatory agencies have a negative compounding effect on chemical resistance.

Mechanics

Regulatory agencies are a considerable barrier to crop protection. The current cost recovery strategy is low and ecotox models are outdated. Increasing the cost recovery for new products to enter New Zealand per application is advised to enable more funds to be utilised to upgrade internal risk assessment tools such as the ecotox models. Participants in this study were open to this recommendation if the timeframes were quicker and more reliable. This hinders both chemical and biopesticides entry to the New Zealand market.

Technology was a key tool identified to compliment IPM and biopesticides. The use of technology to predict pest pressure will enable growers to make informed decisions. These tools can also justify crop protection decisions to export markets. Research farms with demonstration abilities can help growers make crop protection decisions when they are particularly risk-averse before investing. They also ensure methods can be implemented practically before reaching growers.

Implementation of biopesticides and IPM will not be easy with the largest hurdles being the knowledge gap and the regulation of products. As an industry, it is important to move toward these approaches to maintain a strong future market share.

Jess Ross, Jessica

Balancing Profit and Environment: Insights From New Zealand’s Leading Dairy Farms

Executive summary

This research project explores the balance between profitability and environmental sustainability in New Zealand’s top-performing dairy farms. By analysing DairyBase data and conducting qualitative interviews with leading farmers, this report identifies key management practices, values, and philosophies that contribute to both economic and environmental success. The study highlights that profitability and sustainability are not mutually exclusive. The top-performing farms don’t have to choose between making a profit and looking after the environment. The best farmers show that smart choices and caring for the land can go hand-in-hand. But it’s not all straightforward. Farmers still face plenty of hurdles like changing rules, unpredictable weather, and tight budgets.

The findings reveal that efficient pasture management, attention to animal health and welfare, detailed monitoring, and data-driven decision-making are common practices among high-performing farms. These farms also prioritise financial prudence, keeping farm working expenses low and focusing on profitability. Core values such as integrity, honesty, hard work, and family involvement play a significant role in their success. Community and knowledge sharing through participation in discussion groups and industry organisations foster continuous improvement.

Environmental sustainability practices, such as reducing nitrogen use, maintaining soil health, and minimising environmental impact, are crucial for the long-term viability of dairy farms. The study emphasises the importance of a balanced approach that integrates profitability with sustainability. The research highlights the need for ongoing education and support for farmers to adopt best practices, highlighting the role of community and social interactions in shaping farmers’ decisions.

The interviews provide practical examples of how farmers implement these practices, such as adopting organic farming methods or low input systems, which align with the literature’s emphasis on environmental sustainability. Farmers use tools like DairyBase and Overseer to track performance and make informed decisions, ensuring that their practices are both economically viable and environmentally responsible. The focus on reducing nitrogen use and maintaining soil health is evident in the interviews, aligning with the literature’s emphasis on sustainability indicators.

By adopting best practices and leveraging shared knowledge, farmers can achieve a balance between profitability and sustainability, ensuring the long-term success of their farming operations. This holistic approach not only benefits the environment but also enhances the resilience and economic viability of dairy farms. The collective effort of farmers, industry leaders, and policymakers will be essential in achieving a resilient and prosperous dairy sector in New Zealand.

Jodie Goudswaard

Smart Nutrition, Stronger Herds: A Holistic Approach to Dairy Excellence

Executive summary

This report explores the critical yet underutilised role of nutrition in New Zealand’s pasture-based dairy systems. Despite its foundational importance to animal health, productivity, and environmental sustainability, dairy cow nutrition remains inconsistently applied and poorly integrated into broader farm decision-making. The project investigates the current state of dairy nutrition through a combination of semi-structured interviews with 18 key stakeholders—including nutritionists, educators, industry professionals, and rural advisors, and a comprehensive literature review.

The research identifies six core themes that represent both challenges and opportunities for the sector: (1) education and training, (2) young stock rearing, (3) precision feeding and technology integration, (4) holistic farm management, (5) financial and economic analysis, and (6) the development of new initiatives and programs. Across these themes, the report highlights significant gaps in practical training, credentialing, and the translation of scientific knowledge into on-farm practice.

Key findings include the need for standardised, modular training programs that blend theoretical and practical knowledge; the critical importance of early-life nutrition for long-term productivity of livestock; the underutilisation of wearable technologies and data tools in decision-making around nutrition; and the lack of integration between financial and nutritional advice. The report also emphasises the need for a systems-thinking approach that aligns nutrition with environmental goals, farm infrastructure, and economic viability.

Recommendations are targeted at multiple stakeholder groups. Farmers are encouraged to build foundational nutrition knowledge and adopt data-informed practices. Rural professionals should pursue micro-credentials and collaborate across disciplines. Education providers are urged to revise curricula to include more applied, pasture-based nutrition content. Industry bodies are called upon to revive and modernise the FeedRight equivalent programs, support credentialing pathways, and foster collaboration to unify messaging and improve knowledge transfer.

Ultimately, this report calls for a cultural and structural shift in how nutrition is valued and applied within the dairy sector. By investing in capability, collaboration, and evidence-based practice, New Zealand can build a more resilient, productive, and sustainable dairy industry, one where smart nutrition is not just a technical input, but a strategic cornerstone of success.

Kaitlin Bates, Kaitlyn, Katelyn

Dairy Farmer-Female Veterinary Adviser Relationships in New Zealand

Executive summary

Strong relationships between farmers and rural advisors, in particular veterinarians, lead to better implementation of advice and adoption of recommendations. Farmers value evidence-based advice from their veterinarians, but veterinarians are often criticised by farmers for not thinking about the big picture. For veterinarians, strong relationships with farmers can contribute to job satisfaction and retention. However, there is limited research on the key attributes of a successful farmer-rural advisor relationship from the perspective of both farmer and veterinarian. The aims of this project were to identify the key attributes of successful farmer-veterinary advisor relationships from both perspectives, specifically for female veterinarians who are in a paid advisory relationship with a dairy farmer.

A review of the literature revealed that a successful advisory relationship between a dairy farmer and veterinarian had benefits both from management and business perspectives and from a well-being and job satisfaction perspective, for farmers and veterinarians alike. For the farmer, a successful advisory relationship may lead to improvements in management of farm operations, animal health, and profitability. For the veterinary advisor and business, successful advisory relationships may be seen as beneficial for job satisfaction, retention of veterinarians and improved client loyalty.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted separately with seven dairy farmerfemale veterinary advisor pairs, that were self-reported as successful relationships by both parties. Five owners or senior managers of these veterinary businesses were also interviewed. Open-ended questions were asked to understand the positive components of a thriving and flourishing farmer-veterinarian relationship. Thematic analysis was used to identify core themes and sub-themes, commonalities, and differences between the farmers, advisors, and business owners/managers.

Key findings from these interviews:

  • Personal connection was highlighted as the most important theme contributing to the successful relationship between the veterinarian and farmer for all interviewees. This connection was created over time by mutual trust and respect, honoured by open and honest communication between the veterinary advisor and farmer, with a genuine understanding of the farmer and their business by the veterinarian.
  • Value is provided by the veterinarian to the farmer in the form of support, expertise, growth and development, and accountability. Furthermore this value provision is not all one way; in order for the partnership to thrive, growth and development, and accountability go both ways.
  • A strong understanding of personality characteristics (self-awareness) by both the veterinarian and farmer, and awareness of what was needed by the farmer to complement their strengths, was part of the success.
  • Veterinary businesses clearly saw the value in supporting their veterinarians to work with farmers as advisors, citing benefits to the veterinary business, the veterinarians, and the farmer clients. The factors that need to be considered for veterinary businesses to be successful encouraging the development of these flourishing advisory relationships are time, support, interpersonal skills, building of trust, monetisation of the work, emotional and personal investment, and gender.

Recommendations:

  • Communicate to the veterinary industry the importance of personal connection as the pillar of flourishing advisory relationships. Clearly describe how the value in these partnerships is provided to (and from) the farmer by the advisor.
  • Improve the emotional intelligence of veterinarians wanting to work as advisors through training and education.
  • Communicate to the veterinary profession the complexity of the advisory role, and the different skillset required by veterinarians that are successful in this space.
  • Veterinary businesses need to provide a range of resources to support their veterinarians to develop as advisors including time allocation, a structure to the advisory service but also the flexibility to adapt with each relationship.
  • Identify farmer-veterinary advisory relationships that are not flourishing and make recommendations for changes based on the findings from this project.

Katrina Roberts