kellogg

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.

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.