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...

What are the Key Considerations of Weighing Technology Adoption on Sheep and Beef Farms in NZ?

Executive summary

New Zealand has a rich farming history of producing quality red meat. Over the past few decades, national sheep and beef cattle numbers have reduced significantly but red meat export revenue has continued to grow. Among other things, live weight monitoring systems have played an important role in this productivity increase. Despite productivity gains across the red-meat sector, adoption of weighing technologies remains uneven. This research explored the key considerations influencing the adoption of livestock weighing technology on New Zealand sheep and beef farms.

The current research combined a literature review and qualitative interviews to explore three core areas: where farmers access information and whom they trust, how weighing technologies must fit existing operations, and the influence of after-sales support on adoption decisions. Frameworks from Rogers’ (1995) Diffusion of Innovations and Davis’ (1989) Technology Acceptance Model provided theoretical grounding to interpret findings in a New Zealand context.

This research sought to look through the eyes of farmers to influence how manufacturers and suppliers of weighing technologies can better provide solutions to their customers. The aim of this report is to help weighing technologies be more accessible and desirable for farmers. Qualitative research was conducted ]using semi-structured interviews. Ten sheep and beef farmers with diverse farm sizes, ages and geographical locations were interviewed. A thematic analysis was applied to the insights drawn from these interviews.

The research concluded that trust, usability and responsiveness are decisive in shaping adoption. Farmers consistently prioritised reliability and ease of use over advanced digital capability. New products were found to need to integrate seamlessly with current infrastructure, work with existing complementary equipment, and perform reliably in variable conditions. After-sales support speed proved to be decisive; a single poor service experience could permanently shift brand loyalty, while prompt and personal assistance built enduring trust and brand loyalty. Peer networks were the most influential information source, often outweighing supplier messaging.

Adoption decisions were found to be financially decided within family dynamics. Farmers calculated their own return on investment, with a behavioural threshold of approximately $5,000 the tipping point for wider consultation. Financing flexibility, seasonal hire options, and low-interest terms were appealing in volatile seasons. Younger family members tended to lead research and digital use, while older generations emphasised practicality and maintained financial oversight, suggesting the need for technologies that cater to all user groups.

While interest in in-paddock autonomous weighing was strong, weight reliability and the loss of hands-on animal observation were cited as barriers to change from incumbent systems. Farmers also expressed demand for innovations that move beyond kilograms, such as body-condition scoring in sheep and products to measure marbling metrics in beef cattle.

To accelerate adoption, the research recommends that manufacturers and suppliers focus on reliability, human support, and real-yard usability rather than adding complexity. Rapid, phone-based after-sales support with service-level transparency should be prioritised. Because peer endorsement remains the strongest driver, geographical clustering of new technologies should be leveraged through independent, farmer-led demonstrations that build trust. Product design must emphasise durability, simplicity, and seamless interoperability across brands, with plug-and-play compatibility clearly communicated. Data interfaces should remain flexible, with better user training to increase confidence. Manufactures should consider paring virtual fencing and visual health checks with autonomous weighing, with no cost to farmer field trials facilitated to increase adoption.

This study concluded that adoption of weighing technologies on sheep and beef farms will depend on incremental, trustworthy innovations that respect how farmers operate and deliver proven time-saving gains.

Campbell Smith

Overcoming Barriers to Data Interoperability Within New Zealand’s Wine Industry

Executive summary

New Zealand (NZ) wine is a premium, export-led success story, within the food and fibre sector, with exports totalling ~$2.4b in 2024 (New Zealand Winegrowers, 2024). Yet, despite steady historic growth, today’s operating environment is tougher than ever; wine-buyers are increasingly cost-conscious, inventory cycles are more volatile, and producers face rising input and compliance costs. To remain competitive in the global marketplace, the industry must look to drive greater efficiency across all operations, while leveraging market insights to meet price-quality expectations.

The future success of the industry will be underpinned by data and insights that enable sharper, faster decision-making. While NZ wine has been inherently innovative and collaborative throughout its history, and the tools to collect, store, and analyse data are widely adopted, data interoperability remains a critical gap. Moving high-value data securely and reliably across vendors and organisations is still difficult, mirroring a broader agri-tech challenge (Dyckhoff, 2020; Loder, 2023; Skinner, 2023).

This study draws on two main sources of evidence; a targeted review of international and New Zealand literature on data interoperability in agri-tech and the wine sector, and semi-structured interviews with stakeholders across the New Zealand wine value chain, and broader agri-tech sector, with thematic analysis to link key ideas. Importantly, the findings from this report indicate that the limiting factors are not inherently technical in nature. APIs, cloud platforms, and open specifications are all viable solutions to the technical challenges posed by data interoperability, in theory. The real barriers lie in governance, trust, and commercial alignment (Douma, 2023; Dyckhoff, 2020; Noura et al., 2018). Encouragingly, few seem to oppose interoperability in principle, though the challenge remains making it work in practice.

This report sets out practical recommendations to bridge software vendors and software users, enabling connected data that improves traceability, strengthens market-access claims, and lays a sound foundation for emerging tools. AI can deliver advanced analytics when data is clean, portable, and well-governed; blockchain can anchor integrity and auditability across organisational boundaries but does not solve data quality, semantics, or ownership; those remain governance challenges. Accordingly, blockchain is an optional enabler to consider only after interoperable identifiers and profiles are established (Bellavista et al., 2021; de Lange et al., 2025).

The recommendations of this report aim to focus less on inventing new technical solutions, and more on aligning incentives, rules, and capability to make the existing technology work at scale, with three key action points:

  1. Intentional, pragmatic, iterative standardisation: Start small with minimum-viable interoperability and reuse what already exists; harden profiles collaboratively.
  2. Review data-ownership and incentive models: Clarify rights over raw vs derived data; make portability the default; align pricing and value flows.
  3. Build sector digital capability: Role-based training, named data stewards, and simple how-to patterns that lift everyday practice.

Together, these actions prioritise governance, incentives, and capability, rather than new technical standards to unlock safe, reliable data flow that improves efficiency, de-risks compliance, and strengthens market access, and through the enablement and use of interoperable data, serves to support continued industry growth and prosperity.

Zac Howell

News With Value

Executive summary

As long as we have had democracy, we have had journalists to inform citizens on the workings of government and industry, holding power to account. But in recent years that social contract between citizens and journalists has been eroded as more people question the motives of news media. Even more alarming is the fact that as a society, we seem to be losing a number of the agreed “truths” we previously all took for granted. One only has to observe recent debates on vaccination to see what a threat this breakdown is to society.

Against this backdrop, the news industry is still struggling to find a new model to sustain newsrooms. With the internet being the primary channel, most readers expect to access news for free. But the advertising revenue enjoyed in the days of printed newspapers has not made the move online.

The key question of this research is this: How can we build a news and data platform that farmers recognise as a vital decision-making tool that they are willing to invest in?

To find the answer, it is vital to delve into the current mindsets of news makers and news consumers. In the farming context, where this project centres, the chosen method was a survey of farmers and growers. In terms of attaining a better understanding of how successful publishers and journalists operate, free-form interviews were conducted. As these two strategies produced by qualitative and quantitative data, a convergent parallel design model was adopted, allowing the two workstreams to evolve independently, while being able to make holistic conclusions based on the entirety of the data.

A comprehensive literature review was also undertaken.

After studying the data produced in this process, it appears there is reason for optimism that the research question can be answered in the affirmative. New Zealand’s food and fibre sector values the news media that serves it. But there is work to do, as outlined in these recommendations.

For journalists and publishers:

Maintaining trust is the key to a sustainable fourth estate. Accuracy, transparency and adherence to journalistic ethics will help retain social licence.

If the food and fibre sector is to invest in news and information, it needs to see its value. Content must be tailored to meet this need.

Online channels must be reliable and frictionless. Farmers and growers access digital content across a variety of devices, so ensure news content will work for them where they want to find it.

Investigate bundling news and data with other incentives, perhaps linking with agribusinesses to offer discounts or promotions. However, impartiality and editorial independence must be retained.

For farmers, growers and agribusiness professionals:

If you regularly use news and information in your day-to-day business decision-making, treat it as you would any other farming advice. Put a value on it.

Be careful with the information you find. Check the source, and if it’s not trustworthy don’t share it. Often misinformation spreads because wellmeaning people fail to do due dilligence.

For industry leaders:

Marketing budgets are better spent in ways that benefit other New Zealand agribusinesses. Do a stocktake of how much of that spend is heading offshore to social media companies.

For government:

Increase investment in rural connectivity.

Where possible, legislate to put New Zealand content creators on a level footing with global companies, in terms of taxation and intellectual property.

Bryan Gibson

A New Fleece on Life: How the Sheep Farming Sector in Aotearoa Can Halt Terminal Decline to Secure a Sustainable and More Secure Future

Executive summary

The New Zealand sheep sector stands at a critical juncture. After decades of declining flock numbers, stagnant productivity, and diminishing profitability, producers face a choice: to continue operating under a commodity-based model or to invest in transformational change that creates genuine differentiation, resilience, and profitability. Sheep meat producers will need to make conscious and deliberate decisions around the future as sheep farmers based on variable economic landscapes. A viable sheep sector underpins rural communities, national environmental goals, and New Zealand’s international reputation for high-quality, ethical food production.

This report examines the causes and implications of decline across the sector, exploring how leadership, producer behaviour, and system design interact to shape the future of sheep farming in Aotearoa.

Interviews with industry leaders reveal a consensus that enduring change will require courage, collaboration, and a willingness to change established practices even when the outcomes are uncertain. Leadership must occur not only at industry and organisational levels, but within every farming business that wishes to remain viable.

An accompanying producer survey highlights a tendency for farmers to invest primarily within the farm gate, with limited willingness to engage in post-farm-gate opportunities – indicating a gap between control and value capture. This inward focus has come at the expense of investment in value creation beyond production, where much of the potential for higher returns lies. This mindset, while understandable, risks trapping the industry in what sector leaders described as the “valley of death”—a space between low-cost commodity production and genuine product differentiation, where costs rise but returns fail to follow.

Leadership, at both farm and sector levels, will be the decisive factor in determining whether the industry evolves or continues its decline. The capacity to make uncomfortable but necessary changes will define future success.

Key recommendations call for a sector-wide focus on genuine product differentiation, strategic investment in productivity systems, and technology adoption to close knowledge gaps at the ewe level. The sector must invest in innovation, leadership, and supply chain alignment to reverse decline. Without proactive change, the sheep industry risks following the trajectory of other commodity-based sectors that have ceded control and value beyond the farm gate. This report concludes that no one will save the sheep industry but sheep farmers themselves. The rest of the world does not need our products, and so if we would like to continue to produce them and offer them to the world, we will need to reposition our offering and evolve the perspectives we have on our sheep systems.

The future success of the industry will be determined by its willingness to lead, to invest boldly, and to evolve before the choice to do so is taken away.

Tara Dwyer

Competition vs Collaboration: A Balancing Act for Success

Executive summary

Maize grain growers along the East Coast of the North Island are facing mounting pressures, including rising input costs, weak returns, and increasing competition from imported grain. Once defined by independence and seasonal rhythm, maize grain growers now find themselves at a crossroads.

This study examines: The dynamics of collaboration and its potential to enhance maize grain production along the East Coast of the North Island.

The purpose of this report is to understand what creates, enables and sustains collaboration among maize grain growers in the region. And how this understanding could enable effective collaboration that enhances and supports maize grain production along the East Coast of the North Island.

Purpose:

  • To support rural businesses and industry bodies by providing evidence-based insights, that help to initiate and strengthen effective collaboration.
  • To guide maize grain growers by identifying the enablers and sustainers of collaboration, highlighting opportunities, and encouraging reflection on current and future collaborative potential within their cropping systems.

The research combines a literature review with semi-structured interviews conducted across growers, rural professionals, and industry body representatives. The interviews were analysed thematically to identify themes and actionable insights.

Key findings reveal that collaboration is often driven by external pressures like economic strain and market volatility, and sustained by internal factors such as trust, and shared purpose. While growers seek a united voice and better support, barriers like land competition, limited understanding, and a reluctance to be vulnerable still hinder progress.

The report concludes that now is the right time to act and initiate collaboration among maize grain growers.

Recommendations:

  • An encouragement for all East Coast maize grain growers to reflect and consider what opportunities collaboration could provide for their operations.
  • Build understanding before launching any collaborative effort.
  • Formation of a specialised collaborative group supported by industry bodies.

Tim Waehling

The Fifth Quarter: Are Farmers Paid for This?

Executive summary

The red meat industry is traditionally recognised for its production of muscle meat for human consumption, such as lamb chops and scotch fillet steak. Nevertheless, a considerable yet frequently overlooked segment of each animal is known as the “Fifth Quarter,” comprising co-products including organs, bones, hides, fats, and blood. These co-products are integral to the sector’s sustainability and profitability, as they can be processed into high-value commodities such as leather for apparel and automotive interiors, fertilisers, and pharmaceutical products. Despite their extensive applications, co-products tend to be undervalued at the farm level, with most economic gains accruing to processors who oversee extraction, refinement, and marketing once ownership transitions from farmers.

This report examines three key issues: the reasons co-products remain undervalued at the farm stage, potential strategies to improve transparency and recognition for farmers, and the implications of current management and value distribution policies across supply chain stakeholders. The analysis highlights that the existing supply chain structure, centralised processing dominance, and contemporary market dynamics collectively result in limited direct financial returns for farmers from co-products. This situation adversely affects farmers’ incomes and business viability and has broader impacts on industry transparency and consumer confidence.

Industry perspectives have been reviewed, and opportunities for collaborative ventures and enhanced business practices are explored. The report recommends the Meat Industry Association establish a template to facilitate collaboration among processing members in the marketing and development of co-products. Additionally, the introduction of a distinct share value for investment by farmers and other stakeholders is proposed, aiming to unlock and fairly distribute the latent value within the Fifth Quarter. Implementing these measures would foster local value addition, with the objective of delivering increased financial returns to both processors and farmers, thereby enhancing industry profitability and competitiveness amidst land use changes. Sustained lack of profitability threatens the industry’s overall stability.

By encouraging innovation and ensuring equitable benefit distribution, particularly to farmers, the industry must enable returns of at least $1kgCW(carcass weight profit for beef and $0.20kgCW for lamb directly to farmers to attract succession and support generational change as ownership transitions occur. The future generation demands profit not solely derived from capital gains on land but from value creation across the entire animal. Accordingly, profit generated through comprehensive utilisation of all animal components is vital for processors and essential for the long-term viability of farming.

Geoff Crawford

From Farm to Fork: Are Microplastics Putting Our Community’s Health at Risk?

Executive summary

Microplastics, tiny fragments of plastic less than five millimetres in size, are now found in water, soil, air, and increasingly, in the food we eat. For a nation built on its “clean, green” reputation, the possibility that microplastics may be entering the dairy supply chain raises serious questions about food safety, community health, and market reputation.

This project investigates whether microplastics are present in New Zealand’s dairy sector and what actions are needed to respond. It combines a literature review with a community survey of 180 participants to explore both the scientific evidence and public perception of this emerging issue.

Global studies have detected microplastics in milk, cheese, and milk powders, with fragments traced to farm plastics, polymer coated fertilisers, processing equipment, and packaging. Yet there are no published studies measuring microplastics in New Zealand milk or dairy products. The absence of data does not mean the absence of risk; without local evidence, both industry and consumers are left uncertain.

Survey results showed that awareness of microplastics is high, but understanding of local impacts remains limited. Ninety five percent of respondents viewed microplastics as a health concern, and over eighty percent wanted more local research. Participants expressed frustration about packaging waste, confusion about recycling, and a strong desire for clearer information and leadership from both government and industry.

The goal is not to alarm but to inform and lead: to understand where microplastics may be entering the dairy supply chain, what this could mean for community wellbeing, and how the sector can act before international pressure demands it.

To protect public health and maintain consumer trust in New Zealand’s dairy exports, the report recommends:

  • Building evidence: Establish national monitoring of microplastics in dairy soils, water, and milk products, supported by standardised testing and collaboration between government, science, and industry.
  • Industry leadership: Integrate plastic reduction and stewardship targets within assurance programmes such as Synlait’s Lead with Pride and Fonterra’s Co-operative Difference.
  • Policy reform: Strengthen and expand product stewardship regulations to cover all on farm plastics, including polymer coated fertilisers, and align national policy with emerging global standards on microplastic management.
  • Education and communication: Provide clear, science based information to farmers and consumers to reduce confusion and greenwashing.
  • Innovation and collaboration: Invest in research, circular economy models, and new materials that reduce plastic reliance and position New Zealand as a global leader in sustainable dairy production.

Protecting New Zealand’s dairy reputation will depend on strengthening evidence, fostering innovation, and leading with transparency and collaboration.

Nicky Halley

NZRLT (Rural Leaders) Leadership update.

After nearly nine years with Rural Leaders, including the last two and a half years as Chief Executive Officer, Lisa Rogers has decided the time is right to move on from her role, effective 9 January 2026.

During her time with the Trust, Lisa has made a significant and lasting contribution. She has led Rural Leaders through several major projects and periods of change, and now feels the time is right for someone new to build on this work and continue to advance the Trust.

While the Board is saddened by Lisa’s decision to move on, it fully supports her choice and is confident that her influence on Rural Leaders and rural leadership will continue well beyond her tenure with the organisation.

The Board will begin a recruitment process in the new year. Over the coming weeks, we will also work with the Rural Leaders’ team to ensure the continued delivery of our programmes.

The Board is very confident in the teams’ ability to continue to deliver to the high standard they are known for during this period of change.

If you would like to discuss this announcement further, please feel free to get in touch at Kate@landpro.co.nz

Kind regards,
Kate Scott
Board Chair, NZ Rural Leadership Trust

Dr. Victoria Westbrooke – Connecting agribusiness and policy professionals with farming.

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 episode of Ideas That Grow, Bryan Gibson, Farmers Weekly Managing Editor, talks to Dr. Victoria Westbrooke, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Land Management and Systems at Lincoln University.

Victoria discusses the Engage Programme, a three-day professional development initiative run in partnership between Lincoln University and Rural Leaders, designed to bridge the gap between agribusiness professionals and on-farm realities.

Victoria offers keen insight into why providing contextual farm knowledge to technology specialists, researchers, environmental professionals, and policy-makers is crucial for helping them apply their expertise effectively.

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:
I’m your host, Farmers Weekly editor, Bryan Gibson. This week, we’re talking about one of the specialist programmes Rural Leaders offers, the Engage programme run in conjunction with Lincoln University.

With me to discuss it is Dr. Victoria Westbrooke. Kia ora, how are you going?

Dr. Victoria Westbrooke, Senior Lecturer Department of Land Management and Systems, Lincoln University:
Great, thanks.

BG: Good. You’re a senior lecturer at Lincoln. What do you focus on there and what’s your work like?

VW: I’m only focused on farm management. I teach both undergraduate and postgraduate level. I also really enjoy teaching a class on consultancy and extension, again, at the undergrad and postgrad level. That class is really about students being able to use the information they’ve got at Lincoln and work with farmers and others to put their knowledge into practise when they leave Lincoln and to go out into the real world to work.

BG: What was your journey to Lincoln like? What’s your career background?

VW: Well, I actually did my degree at Lincoln a few years ago now. I then spent the first 10 years working as a farm consultant in the Waikato and then worked with AgResearch. So, helping translate science and research into practise. I enjoyed helping farmers reach objectives and just seeing that translation. I think New Zealand is really good at that, and it was great to be a part of it.

The next 10 years was cool. That was overseas. I spent a couple of years in UK, having a look at UK farming systems and indulging in my passion of travel. We then moved to Australia, where I did my PhD and had a look at some farm systems there, which were completely different, merging on tropical systems.

For the last 10 years or so, I’ve been lecturing at Lincoln, again in farm management and extension and doing some research on the side as well. I enjoy working with students and seeing their journeys as they grow.

BG: Did you always know that the food and fibre sector would be where you would work?

VW: I guess so. I really enjoy growing things. I’m a keen gardener and have this most wonderful garden at home, which I’m very lucky for. Love seeing people grow too, seeing ideas work on farms, love seeing farmers get where they want go. That sort of thing gives me a real kick.

A partnership to develop stronger connections with farmers.

BG: Rural Leaders has a pretty close relationship with Lincoln University. Tell me a little bit about how Lincoln contributes to the Rural Leaders programmes.

VW: I guess I can talk about the Engage one as a specific example. What I saw is we had a need for some really good professionals in the sector that may not necessarily have had a farm background. I’m talking about technology people, some researchers, environmental people. I thought, how can we welcome them into the sector and give them some background or context to New Zealand farming systems to turbocharge the knowledge and expertise that they already have. How can we help them to apply it.

When I was working on that, I thought Rural Leaders would be the ideal group to work with. They’ve got a good track record. I found them really excellent. We could sit down throw ideas around. That’s how it worked for me in my situation was just having their expertise, a very strong track record, strongly networked into the industry. For me, they were the ideal partner.

BG: Yeah, I guess one of the key challenges that our food and fibre sector has is that there’s often a feeling among farmers in the field that some of the bureaucrats or other people who are agribusiness professionals or at least having an input into how farming is done in New Zealand, some of them don’t have that knowledge of what it’s like to actually implement these things in the field every day.

Knowledge, confidence and connection in agriculture.

VW: The people that we’ve worked with through Engage, who have participated, are keen to work with farmers and help them work well in New Zealand Inc. That passion is really there. Part of this programme is, how can we help them with some of that context in a way that suits their professional lifestyle and their professional requirements and get them connecting directly with farmers, not through two or three other links.

Some form of experiencing the farmer’s challenges. Initially, I had thoughts of participants spending a day with a farmer in their ute. I’m not sure that was particularly practical for everybody. Again, working with rural leaders, we were able to mould that working with farmers and talking directly with farmers into a three-day, doable programme for everyone that got some of that close connection.

For example, one of the participants was actually staying with me. She came from Wellington, hadn’t spent a lot of time on farms, and simply getting her rugged up to go out for a day on farm in July – she experienced the environment the farmer worked in. Simply making sure she had gloves, hat, mittens, and that kind of thing. That was something that you can’t read about or doesn’t normally land if you read about it. But if you’re going out for a day, it does.

BG: You mentioned people being Wellington-based. A lot of people who are decision-makers or policymakers, that sort of thing, are in the cities. Having that first-hand experience of the farming life must make them a lot more confident or at least know that their day-to-day work will land better with those who are having to implement it.

VW: Yeah, it just provided a real background and that lived experience. We’ve got the Engage programme at three days. The key is the middle day, actually going on farm. They’ve spent a day working together in a discussion group format that Rural Leaders does very well. Then it’s onto a bus and going out to our wonderful host farmer. We’ve had Malcolm Cairns and Hamish Marr. The morning’s out on a mixed arable operation, family-based. Then the afternoon has been going out to Matt Iremonger’s which is more of a focus on dairy and technology.

On one of our first programmes, a lot of the participants were just quite keen to do a bit of calf feeding. We were going to talk about some really high-brow stuff. They saw the calves and they really enjoyed it. Seeing Matt operate Halter, we turned up when the cows were to go for milking. We stood in the paddock and Matt and his manager at the time were driving halter and we could see it. Seeing it then talking about the people who are actually working with it, seeing the cow’s reaction, just that really one-to-one or based experience is really important and really enjoyable.

What to expect from the Engage Programme.

BG: If someone signs up for the Engage programme, maybe just talk through what they can expect when they’re doing it.

VW: Firstly, it’s a really welcoming environment that Rural Leaders provides. It’s facilitated. There’s lots of discussions. It’s not a talk at or dare I say lecture type environment. We definitely didn’t want that. These people are professionals with really impressive skills and expertise. It’s more of a discussion, not a ‘talk to’.

Rural Leaders, through their networks, have got some excellent people for the first day, providing an overview of the global perspective of agriculture. We’ve got some people that wear both a farmer hat and professional hat talking about challenges farmers faced.

Then I talk about farming systems and farm finances. This is very much from the farmer perspective, and as much as possible, there’s people that are actually farmers and involved in there. We’re talking about the whole Ag sector. Often, we work in our own particular area that we’re passionate about. I like Ag extension and consultancy type things, but it’s important to look at the whole package because farmers are faced with a whole package, not just fertiliser, which we may work in, or environment that we may work in. Often, there’s a group dinner, and the discussions there are probably just as important as those held during the day.

Participants have actually met people from different parts of the sector as well. The highlight for me has always been the day on farm, which I’ve just briefly discussed. So out in the bus, take lunch, and talking directly with the farmers. We go and have morning tea with them. They take us around their farm. The farmers are experienced talking to groups, but they’re still at the coalface. Those visits tend to go a little bit into the areas that participants are interested in. The final day is two-thirds of a day. There’s a talk about reflection about what they found on farm, Māori land ownership and perspectives. That’s a really good session. Then we talk about rural communities. The reason for that is, again, looking at the whole picture that farmers are sitting within not just one particular aspect. Then there’s finishing up looking at environmental consulting, but that can vary depending on the group.

Looking at the whole farming system.

BG: You mentioned the rural communities. That’s really important because I think some people sitting off remotely would view a farm as a set of financial budgets or a catchment for nutrients and water cycling and that sort of thing. But in actual fact, it’s a place where a family lives. There are neighbours, there are schools, there are rugby clubs. Those things are what sustains farming communities.

VW: Yeah, it’s that whole system, that environment, looking at it, that’s really important. I think we get passionate about as a profession, our own particular area. This is a chance to look at the whole system from a farmer’s perspective. You may get an appreciation of where your particular passion area sits within the farmer’s world type thing. Why are they not as passionate as you about your area? Well, this is where it sits for a farmer and how it fits with their bigger thing.

We had one person who is looking at offering a technology service on farm, and he went away delighted because he could then see where his technology offering could fit for farmers, what from a farmer’s perspective might spin their wheels, save them time, whatever. He said, Okay, he will now develop his offering in that way to fit more with what a farmer may actually want. He understood why they may be reluctant to take his technology offering from his business.

BG: That’s amazing because you see it time and again, someone turns up with what they feel is like the latest game-changing bit of tech that’s going to change farming. But when it actually comes to implementing it on farm, they perhaps haven’t had that close contact to know if it’s working in with the other things that happen day to day on a farm.

VW: Yeah, it’s this massive load of cogs all in to react and big clockwork mechanism in an old analogue clock. They all interweave together.

Looking closer at the Engage Programme.

BG: One of the things that comes up-time and again in these chats I have with people who have been involved in Rural Leaders programmes is that the course itself is great, but one of the great pieces of value you get from it is the network and the connections you make while you’re on the course. That seems to be the case here, too.

VW: It’s not as long as Kellogg or some of the other courses. It is a three-day course. That was deliberate because when we did our initial research, we got strong feedback that because it’s a face-to-face course, we had to recognise the time limitations people have in professional life. That’s why we came up with the three-day programme because we did want to keep it face-to-face.

Rural leaders are passionate about that, which I agree with, because then you can actually talk directly to people. I think the group dinner and the way that it’s facilitated lets people meet from different aspects. We’ve had people that have reconnected or got a list of people that if they need somebody in this different area, they now have somebody that they can contact to do that. So, yeah, that’s another important part of sharing.

BG: When we pull back and look at the bigger picture of New Zealand’s food and fibre sector, we are having big conversations about how to develop people into leadership roles. Sometimes you can look at it as there’s farmers who come up through industry bodies, and there’s agribusiness professionals who maybe have a more academic path. The Engage system, to me, seems to be a way to bring that together.

VW: Yeah, it’s, again, the people that are passionate about the food and fibre sector have some wonderful skills and knowledge that we very much need. I’m really hoping we’ll provide them with the confidence to go on to some of those leadership roles with just that wee bit more contextual knowledge or the farmer’s view.

The other thing is some people coming on the programme work with one particular group of farmers, and this is, again, just broadening out for that background and context. So hopefully, it’s part of their leadership journey. They also know how Rural Leaders operate then through the programme, so they can have a taster of what our future work with Rural Leaders may look like. That’s useful as well, I think.

BG: Yeah, I guess it gives people a bit more empathy with the people who might be end users of either the product or the policy that they are working on, you get a better understanding of how that lands, what that means for someone’s day-to-day life, that thing.

If someone’s keen in finding out more about the Engage programme or perhaps signing up, what’s the next step for them?

VW: Rural Leaders They have an excellent website, and they have all of the details there. My understanding is the Engage programme will be running next year.

The other option is Rural Leaders have customised the programme and can do so for particular groups. For ASB, they work with their rural managers who really wanted to focus on environmental aspects. They took out the day on farm because those rural managers are constantly out on farm. That programme was adapted for them. They’ve also worked with the Ellett Trust and other groups there to develop a programme specifically for scientists and researchers to communicate with farmers. That customisation option is available as well.

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 Scholarship, the Kellogg Rural Leadership Programme, the Engage Programme and the Value Chain Innovation Programme, please visit ruralleaders.co.nz.

Alumni in the Spotlight – Clare Bradley, Jared Clarke, Kelly Heckler, Tracey Perkins, Erica van Reenen, Dr Jordi Hoult

Here are just a few of the media pieces covering the impact of Rural Leaders’ Programme Alumni in industries and communities across the sector. 

Clare Bradley, Jared Clarke, Kelly Heckler, Tracey Perkins, 2026 Nuffield Scholars

The four new Nuffield Scholars received their awards in Parliament on 4 November.
From Canterbury, Otago and the Bay of Plenty, and representing industries including dairy, sheep and beef and aquaculture, they join 193 Nuffield New Zealand alumni and over 2000 international alumni.

Coverage in the news includes:

Erica van Reenen, 2012 Kellogg Scholar

Erica van Reenen featured on REX (Rural Exchange) recently. Erica is the 2025 Rural Professional of the Year and AgFirst Chair. Erica spoke about her time working in government policy at the intersection of the Clarke and Key tenures. And she spoke about the lessons she learned and her time as a Kellogg Scholar. Listen to the podcast episode here.

Dr Jordi Hoult, 2024 Kellogg Scholar

Dr Jordi Hoult, discusses drawing on her Kellogg research and experience in New Zealand’s food and fibre sector with Sarah Perriam-Lampp on the CountryWide podcast. Jordi explores how to empower mid-career professionals often overlooked in leadership. She identifies her Kellogg research “the missing middle” and highlights mentorship and flexible development as key to helping people in their 30s–50s thrive and shape the sector’s future. 

Listen to the podcast episode here.