2025

This report investigates how potentially ending New Zealand’s GE-Free (Genetically Engineered-free) status could affect the nation’s Organic Food and Fibre sector. The organic industry currently depends on its GE-Free reputation for market access and premium pricing. Potential Policy changes allowing genetically engineered organisms raise important questions about the sector’s future integrity, perception, and economic viability.

Given the growth of organic markets globally and in New Zealand, it is vital to assess both risks and opportunities of these policy changes. As the industry faces possible change, understanding these impacts will inform growers, exporters, policymakers, and consumers navigating this transition.

The methodology for this report was a literature review of already completed work in this area, which was then complemented and challenged through 10 semi-structured interviews with a mixture of professionals and experts related to the topic.

Key Findings:

Loss of GE-Free status may impact the premium currently being achieved in New Zealand organic products, threatening both current margins and future growth.

A reduction in market trust from a cotamination issue can result in less streamlined trading environments and potentially fewer customers; New Zealand establishing more organic product equivalency agreements could counteract this to a degree.

Uncertainty over coexistence and allowable GE presence increases costs and risks for organic farmers, discouraging new entrants.

Moving away from GE-Free could create market uncertainty and lead to questions about the organic sector’s identity, its values and possibly result in unsatisfactory narratives in the market.

If confidence and investment decline post-GE policy change towards an already small-scale sector, it will struggle to achieve economies of scale.

Globally, the organic sector is rapidly growing, offering major opportunities for New Zealand’s organic and food industries if they respond effectively.

Recommendations:

To the Stakeholder and Policy Makers – Create a clear, government-backed pathway for farmers to transition to organics, modelled on the USDA’s TOPP, making the process easier and more appealing.

Integrate organic farming directly into environmental programmes like CarboNZero Toitu, build a fast-track way / reduce crossover for small Organic farms to achieve certification.

The government should fast-track the completion of the Organics Standards Bill so NZ can secure more Organic equivalency agreements to strengthen global market access. it should also, set clear GMO rules on buffer zones, liability, compensation, and labelling to give organic farmers certainty.

MPI and MfE should actively promote a trusted national food and fibre brand focused on integrity, traceability, and innovation.

To the Organic Farmer – Learn about the GE Bill, GM farming, collaborate with neighbours, and minimise contamination risks.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

New Zealand dairy farming is globally recognised for its predominantly pasture-based, low-input systems. As individual cow monitoring technologies such as Halter and Sensehub become more prominent, questions remain about whether the aspects of the technologies originally designed for housed systems (behavioural monitoring) can deliver sufficient financial returns in New Zealand’s unique grazing environment. This research assessed the financial viability of these technologies using three large-scale case study farms, each milking more than 700 cows and performing at or above industry averages for pasture and crop harvested and reproductive performance.

Scenario modelling was undertaken for two dominant and representative players in the New Zealand market, Halter (behavioural monitoring + virtual fencing) and Sensehub (behavioural monitoring only). Financial results were calculated by applying modelled labour, reproductive, pasture utilisation, and animal health benefits against the capital and subscription costs of each system. While both technologies produced clear biological and operational improvements, none of the baseline scenarios delivered a positive financial return on investment for the case study farms, predominantly due to the baseline performance of the subject farms. Sensitivity testing showed that modest changes in cost or performance, such as a 25% reduction in hardware cost, greater improvements in animal health metrics or increased pasture utilisation, could shift several farm scenarios into positive territory, highlighting that financial outcomes are highly dependent on baseline performance and structure.

Wearable technologies offer genuine value in animal monitoring, labour efficiency, heat detection, and staff safety. However, their financial performance depends heavily on the baseline performance of each farm, the nature of existing constraints, and the extent to which labour savings can be realised within practical operational limits. For many New Zealand farms, particularly those already performing strongly, alternative investments in infrastructure, stockmanship, or system improvements may provide more reliable or higher financial returns than wearable adoption.

Key Findings:

• Financial returns were negative across all baseline scenarios for both Halter and Sensehub when applied to the three high-performing case study farms.
• Labour efficiency was the largest driver of benefit, particularly for Halter, but realworld labour restructuring is limited by minimum milking staff requirements, roster sustainability, and capability needs.
• Animal health improvements provided meaningful but not transformative gains. Early detection reduced cost and severity, but prevention (infrastructure, cow flow, staff capability) remains a more powerful driver of economic return.
• Reproductive gains were modest, largely because all farms already achieved high heat detection efficiency.
• Pasture utilisation benefits were limited to non-flat land and only for Halter; impacts were modest due to all farms already carrying out regular pasture monitoring.
• Technology costs are a major determinant of ROI. A 25% reduction in hardware cost was sufficient to shift several farm scenarios into positive outcomes in sensitivity testing.
• Wearables deliver non-financial value including improved safety, reduced cognitive load during mating, better traceability, and potential for reduced bull power. These may justify adoption for some businesses even when financial ROI is marginal.
• Farms with poorer baseline performance would likely see higher benefits, meaning ROI is strongly farm-specific rather than technology-specific.

Recommendations:

1. Adopt wearable technologies only where clear, quantifiable performance gaps exist, particularly in lameness, mastitis, reproductive performance, labour efficiency, or contour-limited pasture utilisation.
2. Prioritise system improvements before technology investment—for example, cow flow, races, yard surfaces, transition management, and staff competency, as these often produce higher returns than detection tools.
3. Evaluate labour savings realistically, ensuring roster sustainability, minimum shed staffing, and leave cover can be maintained without compromising staff wellbeing or animal welfare.
4. Compare wearables against alternative investments such as automatic cup removers, drafting improvements, additional subdivision, pasture monitoring tools, or track upgrades, which may deliver more reliable returns.
5. Expect transparent sales practices from technology providers, seeking clear differentiation between product features and scientifically validated financial benefits; require scenario-based modelling using farm-specific baseline data.
6. Reassess technology viability periodically, recognising that hardware cost reductions, improved algorithms, integration with other systems, and evolving labour challenges may shift ROI over time.

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.

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.