kellogg

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.

Background

Farmers are facing challenges such as environmental regulations, inflation, and price volatility, leading many to seek land use changes and diversification. Agritourism has emerged as a popular option, integrating tourism into farming and providing opportunities for experiencing real farming life in New Zealand and re-connecting with nature.

Aims & Objectives

The research aimed to understand why farmers diversify into agritourism and what opportunities exist in this sector. The question addressed was, “What opportunities lie in New Zealand agritourism?” The goal was to provide information for farmers considering agritourism to diversify their farming businesses and investigate how the agritourism sector could grow.

Methodology

A literature review established definitions, drivers, benefits, and challenges of agritourism globally and compared them to New Zealand. Qualitative interviews with agritourism operators and stakeholders identified motivations, benefits, challenges, and success factors in the sector.

Key Findings

• Agritourism diversification is driven by financial and social factors.
• Diversified income and resource optimization enhance business resilience and facilitate business growth.
• Agritourism provides opportunities for non-farming partners and family members, enabling personal growth and offering flexibility.
• Challenges include operational considerations such as balancing farming and tourism activities, health and safety, weather implications and staffing requirements.
• Authenticity is the key to success in the agritourism sector. Providing experiences unique to individual businesses and the resources they have available.
• Agritourism helps bridge the rural-urban divide and helps educate urban people on the primary sector.
• Agritourism can also help promote New Zealand farming and products on an international scale.
• New Zealand lacks agritourism leadership compared to countries like Australia and Scotland. No national strategy exists to support sustainable growth of agritourism.

Recommendations For Farmers

• Investigate agritourism as an option to optimise land use, improve profitability and create a role for non-farming partners or other family members.
• Undertake robust business planning and market research to and develop products that suit the land, region and people in the business.
• Ensure offerings are unique and authentic to avoid “cookie cutter” experiences.
• Consider the effects on your local community, both positive and negative. Minimise any negative impacts to maintain social license.
• Connect with Regional Tourism Organisations for local tourism information and collaboration opportunities.

Recommendations to stakeholders

• New Zealand government needs to recognise the opportunity within agritourism and develop an agritourism strategy for sustainable growth. Pulling inspiration from existing international strategies such as the Australian “Agritourism 2030” national framework.
• Tourism New Zealand needs to redirect funding from marketing to destination management and infrastructure development in the regions to support sustainable growth of agritourism.

Veterinarians in the Ministry for Primary Industries’ (MPI) Verification Services (VS) are essential to New Zealand’s food safety, biosecurity, and export assurance systems. Despite their essential role, MPI faces ongoing challenges in attracting, retaining, and supporting veterinarians, especially in rural, shift-based, and sole-charge positions. This research, conducted through the Kellogg Rural Leadership Programme, explores these challenges and identifies practical strategies to enhance veterinary retention, engagement, and workforce resilience.

Key Findings

Eight interrelated factors influence veterinary retention at MPI:

• Leadership visibility and recognition: Limited connection with senior leadership and inconsistent recognition practices.
• Line manager capability: The quality of local leadership significantly shapes daily job satisfaction.
• Career development: Limited clear pathways for progression and inconsistent access to Continuing Professional Development (CPD).
• Organisational structure and agency: Centralised decision-making reduces veterinarians’ ability to influence their work environments.
• Workload and flexibility: Rigid rostering and inadequate relief cover negatively impact wellbeing.
• Onboarding and early attrition: Inconsistent induction processes lead to early disengagement.
• Career adaptability and return: Opportunities for flexible roles can retain veterinarians who initially leave.
• Purpose alignment: Lack of clarity regarding the regulatory nature of roles contributes to early dissatisfaction.

Recommendations

To strengthen veterinary retention and resilience, MPI could:

• Reinstate structured onboarding and mentorship programmes.
• Develop transparent, flexible career pathways across VS and MPI.
• Standardise and promote equitable access to CPD, focusing on both technical and soft skills.
• Enhance rostering, relief planning, and leave management.
• Empower Veterinary Technical Supervisor 1s (VTS1s) and provide comprehensive leadership training.
• Encourage peer-led innovation to increase frontline agency and ownership.
• Reassess the requirement for full-time on-site veterinary presence.
• Strengthen recruitment communication and purpose alignment during onboarding.
• Align Remuneration and Responsibility for VTS1 Roles

Additionally, veterinarians themselves are encouraged to proactively engage in professional development, peer support networks, and contribute positively to team culture.

Improving retention involves more than keeping staff, it requires designing supportive, engaging systems where veterinarians thrive. Addressing these structural and cultural factors will enable MPI to sustain a resilient, future-ready veterinary workforce.

As the New Zealand dairy sector navigates increasing consumer scrutiny, technological disruption, and regulatory expectations, the role of on-farm event data has come into sharper focus. This research set out to answer a simple but nuanced question: Are dairy farmers incentivised to know about and share accurate on-farm event data, or do they prefer to present data that is favourable in the eyes of downstream consumers?

Drawing on interviews with dairy farmers, milk processors, and agri-tech firms, this study reveals a nuanced landscape shaped by incentives, trust, control, value perception, and the broader data ecosystem. It introduces the “make/save/comply” framework, a practical model that captures the motivations behind farmer engagement with data.

Key Finding: Farmers Are Rational, Not Resistant

The overwhelming conclusion is that farmers are willing to share data however it is conditional, based on a rational assessment of:

• Control over who sees the data and for what purpose.
• Trust in the requesting party and the data’s intended use.
• Tangible value returned from sharing, whether financial, operational, cultural or strategic.

Data sharing occurs within a spectrum rather than a binary choice. When these three conditions are met, farmers demonstrate a high degree of professionalism and transparency. When they are not, farmers may lean toward selective or minimal disclosure, not to deceive, but to protect their business from misinterpretation or unintended consequences.

Introducing the “Make/Save/Comply” Framework

A central contribution of this research is the “make/save/comply” framework, which emerged from interviews across all stakeholder groups. It categorises the perceived value of data sharing as:

• Make – Increasing productivity, accessing incentive programmes, genetic gains, or market premiums.
• Save – Reducing cost, time, and complexity (e.g., lower vet bills, automated compliance).
• Comply – Meeting industry, regulatory, or processor obligations to operate.

This model resonates strongly with both farmers and agri-tech firms and provides a common language for discussing the incentives underpinning data sharing. Importantly, compliancerelated data (the “comply” category) was identified as the most sensitive, often invoking hesitation unless communication and support are strong.

Trust and Control as prerequisites

Across interviews, trust consistently emerged as a key enabler of accurate data sharing. Farmers are more willing to share when:

• They understand the purpose of the request.
• There are clear boundaries around data usage.
• They receive insights or benefits in return.
• They can provide context around the data to avoid misinterpretation.

Trust underpins the Make/Save/Comply framework. Where trust is low or the requesting party is seen as overreaching, farmers become more cautious. Examples include fears that lameness or mastitis data, without context, could unfairly disadvantage them. Some processors and agri2 tech firms are actively addressing this by developing “managed connections” features, improving transparency and ensuring farmers retain control.

Evolving customer expectations and their impact

One of the forces driving increased interest in farm-level data is the shift in customer expectations, particularly among key corporate commodity buyers such as Nestlé and Mars. While end consumers are not always seen as the direct drivers, major commodity customers now demand proof of sustainability, traceability, and animal welfare.

Milk processors have responded with incentive frameworks like Fonterra’s Co-operative Difference, Synlait’s Lead With Pride, and Miraka’s Te Ara Miraka, all of which depend on farmer-supplied data. These programmes offer financial bonuses (up to $0.20/kgMS in some cases) and signal market alignment but also raise the stakes for farmers in terms of the nature and accuracy of what they report.

Favourable vs. accurate: a subtle tension

There exists a delicate tension between sharing accurate data and presenting favourable data. This is not rooted in deceit, but in defensiveness, farmers want to avoid being penalised for anomalies that may be beyond their control or misunderstood without context. Selective data reporting is most likely when:

• Incentives or penalties are tied to thresholds.
• The data’s interpretation is unclear.
• There is a lack of trust in the party requesting it.

However, where there are strong relationships and mutual benefit (particularly with agri-tech firms providing operational insights), farmers tend to provide complete and accurate data. This reveals the importance of framing the request for data as a tool for support, not surveillance.

The role of agri-tech firms and system design

Agri-tech firms play a pivotal role in shaping the data-sharing environment. Farmers show high levels of trust when these firms:

• Focus on enabling decision-making, not just data collection.
• Design products around practical value rather than compliance pressure.
• Prioritise interoperability and reducing duplication.

Integration across systems remains a major frustration for farmers. Despite progress from platforms like LIC’s MINDA Integrations, many still report the burden of manually transposing data between platforms. This duplication erodes the incentive to share and diminishes data quality.

Reframing relationships: the coaching analogy

To help clarify roles and expectations, this research introduces a novel “coaching team” analogy to describe how farmers interact with various stakeholders, processors, agri-tech firms, consultants, and regulators. Just as a professional athlete works with a team of specialised coaches (e.g., performance analyst, strength and conditioning coach, nutritionist), so too do farmers engage with domain-specific experts.

Each coach has a role and a time horizon:

• Attach coach: Supporting national branding and premium market access.
• Sports psychologist: Driving long-term innovation.
• Rehabilitation coach: Supporting animal health.
• …and others.

This analogy helps stakeholders contextualise data requests in a way that aligns with their role and relationship with the farmer. It also gives farmers a useful mental model for evaluating the relevance of requests, helping to reduce friction and increase cooperation.

Final reflections

This research finds that data sharing is neither inherently problematic nor universally embraced. Rather, it depends on:

• Relevance: The data request must align with the role and relationship of the requester.
• Value: The farmer must see a clear and proportionate benefit.
• Trust and control: The data must be handled ethically, securely, and transparently.

Where these conditions are met, farmers are willing and even eager, to share data that is accurate, timely, and actionable. Where they are not, favourable data or minimum compliance becomes the fallback.

The challenge for the dairy sector, and the broader agri-food industry, is to build a shared data culture grounded in trust, clarity, and mutual benefit. This includes:

• Aligning incentives with outcomes.
• Investing in interoperability.
• Standardising data governance practices.
• Educating farmers on data value and sovereignty.
• And above all, respecting the farmer’s role as a steward of both land and information.

In a world where market access, compliance, and competitive advantage are increasingly data-dependent, creating a farmer-centric data ecosystem is not optional, it’s essential.

Leadership in New Zealand Agriculture, with a focus on people management has only become a widespread discussion topic in recent years. There is a need for effective people management as the sector relies heavily on manual labour to achieve business success. Managers in the sector have historically been promoted from within the sector based on good technical capabilities. What may not be well understood is that the knowledge capability associated with being technically proficient, does not necessarily correspond with being an effective manager.

This report aims to describe a small qualitative study conducted on a group of farm owners, managers and leaders. It will also describe the qualities and attributes identified in these leaders and how the learnings can be utilized and applied by novice or first-time managers.

The research show that good managers prioritise the care and welfare of their employees. They ensure that good communication about work and home life is enacted to better understand how their employees are feeling. This leads to a relationship of increased trust, which helps the leader to engage with staff about the business and its operations. Leaders ensure they behave consistently with all of their staff to role model good behaviour and understand conflict. The leaders interviewed have all grown in their leadership skills and have come to value reflection and introspection. This has been used to improve further on their leadership traits.

The leaders interviewed have largely learnt and refined the skills, knowledge and tools they use to lead well through trial and error. Finding out what works and what doesn’t has been an individualistic progression for them. On top of trial-and-error learning, some of the interviewees had attended short form courses, as well as using their respective industries for support. All of the interviewees have over the course of their leadership journey, relied heavily on trusted mentors to help guide them. The ability for a leader to utilize the knowledge and advice of a more experienced leader has helped all interviewees grow.

The leaders interviewed in this study all displayed transformational leadership qualities. These qualities revolved around empowerment through trust in their employees. They recognized that they needed to understand each employee as individuals to get the best out of them, and once they truly appreciated them individually, it was easier to empower them. The leaders interviewed all dealt with conflict management as part of their role, however, most admitted to being non-confrontational people. They understood the need to display positive leadership traits during conflict management in order to have a functioning business. They had learnt to put more effort in to doing it better as they moved through their leadership journey.

The leaders interviewed recognized that good leadership was not always the easy choice when managing people, but the long-term gain made it worth it. They recognized that time, effort and focus had to be implemented on a daily basis in order to achieve good management practices. The structure and financial constraints of a business might also impact a manager’s capabilities to practice good leadership. They also warned that a manager’s ego would quickly ruin hopes of good leadership, as it restricted individualism and ingenuity of employees.

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.