K54

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.