2025

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This report, developed as part of the Kellogg Rural Leadership Programme, investigates the feasibility and future potential for New Zealand dairy farmers to diversify into raw and pasteurized milk sales directly from the farm gate. In an era marked by volatile international dairy markets, increased regulatory pressures, environmental accountability, and shifting consumer expectations, the traditional reliance on milk payouts alone is becoming increasingly unsustainable for many farmers. As such, exploring alternative income streams is both timely and necessary.

The study employs a mixed-methods approach, including in-depth interviews with seven onfarm milk producers and industry experts, a consumer survey, and a comprehensive literature review. It aims to provide a practical, evidence-based overview of how direct-to-consumer milk sales can supplement farm income, enhance resilience, and support a values-driven food system.

Key findings reveal that while on-farm milk sales are still a niche sector in New Zealand, there is growing consumer appetite for local, traceable, minimally processed dairy products. Consumers purchasing directly from farms are motivated by a combination of taste, health perceptions, sustainability concerns, and a desire to support local agriculture. Products like raw milk and A2 pasteurized milk in reusable packaging appeal especially to healthconscious families and environmentally aware buyers. Many farmers report strong brand loyalty, repeat purchasing, and willingness among consumers to pay a premium for these products.

However, the report identifies significant barriers to entry, especially regarding compliance with New Zealand’s regulatory frameworks. The 2015 Raw Milk for Sale to Consumers Regulations and the Animal Products Act impose substantial financial and administrative burdens on small-scale producers. Farmers selling raw milk must register under a Regulated Control Scheme (RCS), undertake rigorous microbial testing, and restrict sales to direct, nonretail channels. For those processing pasteurized milk on-farm, compliance involves establishing a Risk Management Programme (RMP), meeting stringent facility design and hygiene requirements, and undergoing ongoing audits.

Operational demands are also considerable. Farmers must invest in fit-for-purpose infrastructure, including pasteurizers, bottling lines, cold storage, and delivery vehicles. They must also manage customer relationships, logistics, marketing, and compliance records— often requiring a shift in mindset from solely farming to running a multi-faceted small business. Many interviewees emphasized that these ventures are not “side hustles” but second full-time jobs requiring dedication, adaptability, and business acumen.

Through case studies, the report highlights a range of successful on-farm milk ventures, from Village Milk’s raw milk vending model to Canterbury’s Choice pasteurized milk delivery service, and Happy Cow Milk’s modular, tech-enabled processing concept. These case studies illustrate that success in this space depends on innovation, regulatory navigation, and strong consumer engagement. Farmers who succeed often possess an entrepreneurial mindset, a deep connection to their customer base, and the ability to differentiate their product through ethical branding and storytelling.

The study concludes that on-farm milk sales are financially viable and socially valuable, but only for farmers who can access capital, manage compliance, and build consumer trust. For broader adoption, structural support is needed. This includes more scalable and riskproportionate regulation, access to appropriate small-scale processing equipment, shared infrastructure models, and extension services or mentorship networks to reduce the steep learning curve.

Recommendations are grouped into three categories:

1. For farmers: Start with feasibility assessments and pilot models; seek peer mentorship; invest in fit-for-purpose infrastructure; and plan for intensive customer engagement.
2. For industry and policymakers: Introduce more flexible compliance models for small operators; support innovation through funding or co-design; and develop regional networks to share knowledge and infrastructure.
3. For future research: Investigate modular processing solutions, test consumer willingness-to-pay at scale, and assess the long-term sustainability and environmental impacts of on-farm milk ventures.

Ultimately, on-farm milk diversification is not a universal solution—but for the right farmer, in the right place, with the right support, it offers a compelling pathway toward financial resilience, consumer connection, and sustainable food production.