By Chris Balemi, founder and managing director of Agvance Nutrition.

Farmers are in a critical window now to ensure optimal fertility and high in-calf rates in their dairy herds. Once lactation begins, we are aiming to get our cows to peak milk as quickly as possible and it is important this is well supported with good nutrition so that cycling and fertility do not suffer. Finding the balance between peak milk and fertility can be done, and it involves more than just feeding and breeding management. 

Many farmers ease off mineral supplementation as mating approaches and become very complacent mid-season once cows have been mated and are well into lactation. Mineral deficiencies can directly impact the health of the cow, particularly fertility and reproduction, at any time of the season. 

Conception is just the beginning – maintaining the pregnancy needs to be the goal. Mineral composition and liver health play key roles throughout the season, making sure your cows are ready for mating and that a healthy pregnancy is maintained through to the next calving.

Minerals such as selenium, copper, cobalt, iodine, manganese and magnesium all play an important role in a cow’s reproductive health and correct forms and ratios are critical in supporting fertility. 

Selenium, for example, is critical for good immune function and overall health, which impacts fertility. Copper influences enzyme systems related to fertility and energy metabolism. Selenium and iodine support thyroid function, and cobalt supports good digestive health. 

These all come together to support metabolism and reproductive cycles. Cows need to receive a balanced mineral supplement alongside quality nutrition. Regular blood tests will help monitor mineral levels and signal any necessary supplement adjustments.

A cow’s powerhouse is her liver – without healthy liver function, she’ll struggle at every step, with potentially fatal results. Central to many bodily functions, the liver supports detoxification, metabolism, and nutrient storage. 

Proper liver function drives the cow’s ability to metabolise energy efficiently. During early lactation, the liver works overtime to manage energy demands. High-energy diets, including high-quality pasture and feeds, are essential. 

Incorporating specific types of bypass fat in the diet can boost energy density without overloading the liver. Practical steps farmers can take to support a healthy liver include ensuring that the cow is eating well and maintaining healthy body condition, while monitoring liver health through regular vet checks and blood tests to catch any potential issues early on.

Body condition scoring (BCS) is a practical method for assessing whether cows are at an ideal weight and health status. A BCS of 5.0-5.5 is generally recommended for cows at the start of mating. 

Cows in this range have enough body fat reserves to support the demands of lactation and pregnancy. Energy density in their diet is crucial – ensure cows have access to high-quality pasture and supplementary feeds. 

Peak milk production places significant energy demands on cows, making it all the more important to provide balanced nutrition to maintain their body condition. 

Planned feeding that will put condition on cows during periods when the cow is still lactating, yet past the peak of lactation, works well. This ensures the fat is stored below the skin (adipose fat) and not around the organs (visceral fat). 

Adipose fat acts as a natural energy reserve and can be readily mobilised, whereas visceral fat, when mobilised, tends to clog the system and is particularly detrimental to liver function (fatty liver disease). Proper BCS management is critical and leads to better reproductive performance and overall herd health.

Correct mineral levels, healthy liver, and good body condition work together to put cows in a strong position for successful mating. Adequate mineral levels ensure all physiological processes related to reproduction are functioning correctly. Healthy liver function supports efficient energy metabolism, which is essential for maintaining body condition and supporting reproductive cycles. 

By focusing on high-quality pasture and feed and including bypass fats, you can provide the necessary energy to support peak milk production and pregnancy. When these elements are managed effectively, cows are more likely to have good fertility, be actively cycling, and be ready for mating.

Cristina Alvarado, commercial manager, data and insight at NZX.

New Zealand’s dairy industry started the 2024-25 season on a positive note, with July marking a production recovery after a slower June, though output remains on the lower side of the seasonal milk curve. 

Milk production for the month reached 27.4 million kilograms of milksolids, up 9.2% year on year (YoY) – the highest July on record, surpassing the five-year rolling average by 6.2%. In tonnage terms, production totalled 310,000 tonnes, an 8.4% YoY increase, reflecting a strong early-season performance despite the initial June dip. 

Peak production, typically occurring between September and November, is still ahead. 

According to our revised NZX milk production predictor, YoY increases of 3.7%, 1.8%, and 0.8% are expected for August, September, and October, respectively. However, weather patterns could affect pasture growth, leading to potential volatility in production levels.

Globally, dairy markets displayed mixed trends. United States milk production in July fell by -0.4% YoY, while Argentina and Uruguay saw sharper declines of -4.8% and -9.2%, respectively. Conversely, Australia reported a 1.6% YoY increase in July production, while Europe saw 1.3% growth in June.

Upcoming US and European production reports may reveal further constraints. In the US, ongoing avian flu cases, now confirmed to be spread to California dairy cattle, and a shortage of heifers are expected to weigh on production in the coming months. 

Similarly, European milk production, while recently positive, faces growing challenges, including adverse weather and disease outbreaks such as bluetongue and lungworm, which may affect output.

On the trade front, New Zealand dairy exports showed robust growth in July. Export volumes increased by 10.2% YoY, with values rising by 10.7%. Total export volumes reached 282,715 tonnes, driven by strong gains in skim milk powder (SMP), cheese, infant formula, and casein. SMP rebounded sharply, up 57% YoY, thanks to strong demand from China and other Asian markets. However, anhydrous milk fat (AMF) and butter exports saw declines in volume.

August’s Global Dairy Trade (GDT) auctions reflected this varied landscape. GDT Event 361 on August 6 saw a modest 0.5% rise in the index, driven by gains in whole milk powder (WMP) and AMF, while SMP prices continued to decline. 

The market bounced back strongly later during the next August auctions, with index growth in pulse and the GDT average index surging 5.5% at Event 362 on August 20 – marking the largest increase since March 2021. September’s first auction, Event 363, saw a slight -0.4% dip, with WMP prices easing by -2.5%, while SMP showed strength, rising 4.5% reaching US$2,753 per tonne, its fourth-highest average price in the past 12 months.

As the industry navigates these developments, stakeholders are encouraged to stay informed through events like the upcoming SGX-NZX Global Dairy Seminar, scheduled for October 7-9. This annual event offers a key platform for sharing insights and strategies in response to the evolving global dairy landscape. 

For more information or to register, click here.

By David Norton, an emeritus professor at the University of Canterbury and strategic science adviser to Pure Advantage.

Catchment groups have been incredibly successful in Aotearoa at implementing landscape-scale environmental management on private land by coordinating integrated action across multiple landowners. 

Projects undertaken have been diverse and include enhancing freshwater systems, introducing new farm production systems, native biodiversity conservation, plant and animal pest management, and exploring new income opportunities. Catchment groups also play a key role in rural extension by bringing experts in to talk to farmers and others in the area.

Recloaking Papatūānuku is an ambitious national-scale initiative to restore 2 million hectares of native forest and wetlands within the next 15-30 years, and will require collaboration with and leadership of catchment groups.

The aim of Recloaking Papatūānuku is to increase landscape resilience against increasingly severe storm events, help conserve our unique native biodiversity and permanently sequester atmospheric CO2. The initiative will directly tackle the effects of climate change and address the biodiversity crisis here in Aotearoa. 

Recloaking Papatūānuku will primarily take place across private land that is used for farming, horticulture, plantation forests and as lifestyle blocks. This land has a range of ownerships including individual Māori and pākeha, Māori land trusts and other entities, and companies, but is usually not owned by the government. While public land will be involved, Recloaking Papatūānuku will by necessity be implemented largely on private land.

For Recloaking Papatūānuku to be successful, it needs to be driven from the bottom up, a “forest-roots” initiative, led by the people on the ground, with support from local, regional and central government. 

Catchment groups will play an essential role, because these groups know the current land uses and are aware of which  parts of catchments critically require restoration to reduce flood water flows and sediment loss. 

Catchment groups are also best placed to undertake and coordinate the mahi that is required to implement restoration such as facilitating the ongoing management of restoration sites and the threats these sites face, from, for example, feral animals, weeds and fire. 

Recloaking Papatūānuku is not a “one-size-fits-all approach” – rather the initiative as a programme would always be adapted to the local context, which again catchment groups are best placed to do. 

Also, local people are the ones most directly impacted by extreme weather events such as Cyclone Gabrielle, so they have a direct incentive to do this work. The improved landscape resilience and biodiversity that will result from implementing Recloaking Papatūānuku will directly benefit local farmers, iwi, and communities – and catchment groups are fundamental for making sure that these outcomes are achieved. 

 There is a need for higher-level support of implementation from government agencies, tertiary institutions,Crown Research Institutes, and others. Support will be required for catchment mapping and prioritisation of sites for management, work programme development, ecological advice on planting sites and species choice, threat management, auditing of management inputs and biodiversity outcomes, and so on. Help will come from multiple sources and will need to be coordinated. 

Provision of full-time coordinators for catchment groups will  be essential both to ensure that appropriate support is fed through to catchment  groups and to ensure that work programmes are efficiently managed. 

Relying on voluntary catchment coordinators, who are often farmers, is unrealistic for a programme of this scale. The recently formed Aotearoa New Zealand Catchment Community presents a real opportunity to coordinate the high-level support required for catchment groups across the motu.

Recloaking Paptūanuku is “he kakano e kore e tatari kia ruia – a seed that can’t wait to be sown”, an apt phrase that came to us in a hui with Waihoroi Shortland, Te Tai Tokerau, Ngāti Hine. 

But those seeds need to be planted by the local people, not by the government, and catchment groups are in a unique position to do this. Recloaking Papatūānuku represents a key opportunity to both secure the long-term viability of catchment groups, while at the same time allowing them to make a massive contribution through weaving ecological resilience back into our landscapes that benefits all of us here in Aotearoa.

By Kate Scott, Nuffield scholar, Scott of Bannockburn Vineyard is an environmental consultant. She writes in her personal capacity. 

In this series, the team each offer a big-picture strategy for food & fibre. 

Last week’s Eating the Elephant column by David Eade was about the “how” of our sector’s strategy to double exports. I want to talk about the “who”. 

If you’re like me, all this talk of sector strategy feels like déjà vu. The fact that we’ve tried a few times to have this conversation is a sign of two things. One, that it’s a burning issue and two, we have to address the reasons previous conversations and attempts have gone nowhere.  

If we want to grow exports in a way that also takes care of our land and our people, a clear strategy has to be the first step. But a strategy without a team behind it is just words on a page. 

To build that team, let’s focus on four things – herding the politicians, building future leaders, collaboration by design and the consumer.

Firstly, herding the politicians, or “multipartisanship” for the policy wonks out there. This might sound like the least likely place to start given the past few years, but hear me out. 

Having all political parties across the spectrum agree on a regulation and investment framework to double exports would be a game-changer. No more sudden rule changes after elections, and imagine the progress we could make with guaranteed priorities and investments alongside government.  

To gently nudge the politicians through this gate, though, we first need to lock in the fundamentals of what the sector wants to achieve. What priorities can everyone, across all of our industries, agree on? Sure, there will be plenty of matters where we don’t agree (and shouldn’t). But by focusing on the shared goals (such as water quality, emissions and biodiversity), we can make agriculture one of those “bigger than politics” issues. 

The second pillar we need for a strong team is a step-change in how we invest in future leaders. Technology is going to help to double exports – no doubt about it – but it will be people who drive that change. People who intuitively understand technology and millennial and Generation Z value sets. Tomorrow’s leaders. 

A Path to Realising Leadership Potential in Aotearoa NZ’s Food and Fibre Sector, by Rural Leaders and the Food and Fibre Centre of Vocational Excellence (FFCoVE), sets out a principles-centred approach for leadership in the sector, allowing us to foster high-performing teams capable of successfully doubling exports. 

I love this wisdom from Ta Tipene O’Regan (Ngai Tahu) on the difference between “future takers” and “future makers”. Future takers, he says, “accept the future for what it is, feeling powerless to change what will be, and allowing today’s realities to obscure tomorrow’s potential”. 

Future makers, on the other hand, “shape the future by reading the signs, determined to create future spaces for people to excel, undaunted by today’s problems, and ready to lead change”. We need future makers now. 

The third bit is a tired record these days, but that doesn’t make it wrong. A focus on genuinely collaborating with each other, building on existing foundations. It’s pretty straightforward – we’re not going to succeed unless we work together. 

It’s about realising that collaboration around an ambitious future is the only way to tackle this beast of a strategy. And yes, we might bump into a few challenges along the way, but with the right high-performing teams, the right leadership ecosystem and clear areas of agreement (and disagreement), we’ll manage.  

Finally, let’s not forget who we’re doing this for – the consumer, our global oyster. Sure, doubling our exports sounds great, but even then, we won’t be feeding the whole world. Instead, we need to focus on a strategy that provides value to both our global consumers and New Zealanders at home with affordable, healthy food. Domestic food security must be a clear part of any future strategy.

Staying stuck in our ways won’t cut it. We need to anticipate what our global consumers want before they even know it themselves. We’ve got the potential to offer the best of the best. The world really is our oyster – it’s just up to us to deliver.

In the end, realising our ambition to double exports will be a team effort. If we can nail multipartisanship, nurture strong leadership, foster greater collaboration, and stay laser-focused on our consumers, we’ve got a real shot at making this strategy work. And who knows, maybe we’ll even enjoy the ride along the way.

Disclaimer – the thoughts and opinions shared here are my own and don’t represent anyone else, including any organisations or groups I’m connected with. They’re based on my personal perspectives and experiences.

Kate Scott has over 20 years’ experience working across the Food & Fibre Sector, as an Environmental Consultant, business owner, Nuffield Scholar, and proud supporter of the food and fibre sector. Kate enjoys a free-range lifestyle with her family on their Bannockburn Vineyard.

Ideas That Grow Podcast | Developing leaders in the food and fibre sector

Karl Davis didn’t set out to become New Zealand’s top rural real estate agent. In fact, he often quips that he is a rugby player who happens to sell real estate, rather than the other way around.

If you’d told the dairy farm kid from Waiktakaruru that he’d be winning awards and representing properties worth millions one day, he might have laughed it off. But Karl’s roots, grounded in the values of hard work, community, and the rugged charm of the North Waikato countryside, have shaped a remarkable career.

He learned the value of perseverance early on – a trait that served him well when he first entered the real estate industry in 2005. It wasn’t an immediate success story. 

“I didn’t start as a superstar and made just $7000 in my first year. I was only half in, still tied to my work as a Microsoft engineer. But once I was committed, results followed.”

That determination quickly paid off. Over the years, Karl has sold more than $980 million worth of rural and lifestyle property across North Waikato and Thames Valley, maintaining an impressive 85% auction sale rate.

His dedication has also earned him and his team the title of New Zealand’s Overall Rural Salesperson of the Year, across all companies, at the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand (REINZ) Awards for Excellence for three consecutive years – an achievement that firmly establishes him as a leader in the field.

But Karl’s success isn’t just measured in dollar signs and accolades. His real passion lies in his deep connection to the community, a bond that has strengthened over time.

His sports journey began in 1976 as a junior rugby player for Waitakaruru, and 48 years later, Karl played his final game for Hauraki North in 2024. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, he proudly represented Thames Valley, and for more than two decades, he has been a steadfast supporter of local sports, contributing more than $60,000 in sponsorships and coaching.

The community connection is also evident in the charity golf tournament Karl has run for nearly two decades. What started as a modest initiative raising $1500 for Guide Dogs New Zealand has grown into a significant community event that has produced more than $198,000 for various local and national causes, including the Bayleys Foundation and Make-A-Wish New Zealand.

The tournament, known for its relaxed Ambrose style and the sheer fun of it all, has seen good times, good food, and a community come together for a shared purpose. “There’s no big prize at the end, only the glory of victory, a mighty large trophy, and a charity auction at the end if you want to take home a prize.”

These charitable efforts have made a tangible difference to those around Karl, from funding the first blind Pilates instructor to get her certification in Canada to injecting over $400,000 into local and national initiatives.

Despite his success, Karl remains grounded, often meeting with clients at 5am in the milking shed or around the dinner table at night. 

“Farmers work long hours, and I adapt to their schedule. I’m grateful for their trust and believe in doing whatever it takes to make their lives easier,” he explains.

His client-centric ethos is clear – real estate is like an iceberg, with two-thirds of the work happening beneath the surface. 

By Eric Roy, chair of NZ Pork.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the statute that led to the foundation of New Zealand Pork, the organisation representing New Zealand pig farmers. NZ Pork’s recent conference provided an excellent opportunity to reflect on the many changes over the past half-century.

In 1974, the Pork Act established the Pork Industry Council, which marked the beginning of organised representation for pig farmers. 

At that time, the industry had a larger workforce and fewer regulations. Over the years, significant developments in regulation and environmental requirements have prompted the industry to adapt and evolve.

In 1997, the Pork Industry Board Act established the statutory industry board that we have today, which I am proud to chair. 

Pork production, though a small part of our primary sector, is vital. Pork consumption is increasing both in NZ and globally.  NZ Pork works to support producers in building a sustainable future and ensuring high standards of animal welfare.

Sustainability and welfare standards are critical when considering the opportunities and challenges for our pork producers. 

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from commercial pig farming are low compared to other livestock production sectors, contributing just 0.2% of NZ’s total agricultural emissions. Our goal is for the commercial pig farming sector to be carbon neutral by 2050.

We have collaborated with AgResearch to develop a tool that allows pork producers to estimate on-farm GHG emissions, and we are working with farmers to generate emissions estimation reports. 

There are many positive stories within the sector, from farmers capturing biogas and delivering organic fertiliser to pastoral farms, to a solar farm providing renewable energy to a pig farm.

NZ’s pork sector has more stringent welfare and environmental standards and enforcement regimes than are found in most other countries. 

Significant strides have been made through investment in genetic improvements, and the domestic pig herd is free of many diseases prevalent in other countries. These qualities are highly valued by consumers. 

However, maintaining high standards brings higher costs, and one of our biggest challenges is the influx of imported pork, most of which is produced more cheaply under lower welfare standards, with lower production costs, and often subsidised.

Almost two-thirds of pork consumed in NZ is imported, yet there is no requirement for it to meet our animal welfare standards. Additionally, being farther from major grain-producing countries increases our feed costs, exacerbated by global issues like war and weather.

The current country-of-origin labelling legislation is failing our pork producers and consumers, as it does not ensure accurate information about where pork has been produced. 

In 2022, the National Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) drafted a proposed new code of welfare for pigs, which outlines changes that would further increase costs for farmers. Some aspects of the proposal could negatively impact pig welfare and likely drive some farmers out of business. 

Farmers have been in limbo for more than two years awaiting a final decision, making it very difficult for them to make decisions or invest in their businesses. Some have left the industry altogether.

We are hopeful that the government lands on an evidence-based solution so NZ pig farmers can continue to do what they love.

At our conference, I acknowledged the steadfastness of our commercial pig farmers who continue to produce quality, ethically produced pork for New Zealanders despite such uncertainty.

We should be proud of this small but highly skilled part of our primary industries and support them. When you purchase products with NZ Pork’s PigCare Born & Raised in New Zealand label, you know you are choosing a product that is a cut above the rest.

By Parmjeet Parmar, ACT’s spokesperson for science, innovation, and technology. 

Years ago, as I began exploring the potential of liberalising genetic engineering laws, I was advised to use the euphemism “biotechnology” to avoid a fearful knee-jerk reaction.

 I believe New Zealanders’ attitudes have shifted. We have now elected a coalition government with all three partners signed up to freeing genetic technology from the laboratory.

Earlier this year, I surveyed New Zealand scientists with research involving genetic engineering. Their work is inspiring. Kiwis are using genetic technology to develop cancer treatments, combat crop diseases, advance new industries, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

One respondent was using genetic technology to understand the cognitive processes of insects and applying this knowledge to artificial intelligence.

In short, they are working to make both people and the planet healthier and wealthier.

They have the knowledge and the passion to make New Zealand a superpower in genetic technology. What they often lack is the permission.

A major concern reported to me is the regulation of low-risk research as high-risk. Current settings effectively bar many scientists from testing and commercialising their work, and even those working on the most mundane projects sacrifice time and resources to fulfil compliance processes.

Legislation set in Wellington has led to absurd outcomes. In one case local scientists developed a red-fleshed apple, but weren’t allowed to taste test that apple in New Zealand. They had to taste it in the United States instead.

Innovations like AgResearch’s high metabolisable energy ryegrass, which could reduce livestock methane emissions by 15% and lower nitrogen excretion, remain illegal here, even as we are told livestock emissions are a desperate problem.

New Zealand’s long-standing boast that no genetically modified crops are grown here is no longer something to be proud of. It only sends the message that we deny science and means we are stuck with the trial-and-error method of selective breeding.

For hundreds if not thousands of years, humans have modified and enhanced traits in plants and animals by selective or conventional breeding techniques to achieve desired phenotypic traits that we can see or taste. Not everything we eat has always existed naturally, and we have been growing and consuming these foods for years without questioning what those expressed traits mean in terms of changes to genetic make-up.

But now we have a government willing to do what Helen Clark, John Key, and Jacinda Ardern failed to do. We may be 24 years late, but New Zealand is entering the 21st century.

There will be some opposition. Last year, the Labour Government expressed interest in changing regulations, but it stated its proposals would not alter rules on using GMOs outside laboratory settings. This approach was not risk-proportionate and would have seen our brightest minds continue to take their research overseas.

This month, the Green Party’s Steve Abel said they would oppose the environmental release of genetically engineered crops but supported the “ethical use of GE biotechnology in containment, including medical use”. 

This position is contradictory. They trust genetic technology for use on humans (who presumably will not be required to live inside a lab) but oppose it for making animals or crops in the outside world more disease resistant. The principles of risk-proportionate regulation do not change whether applied to humans or crops.

Genetic technologies are neutral, just like all other technologies. It is their applications that make them risky or beneficial. The regulatory system should allow us to harness the potential of the technology while putting safeguards in place for applications that present real risk.

ACT aims to be closely engaged in the development of legislation and the implementation of a dedicated regulator. Regulation must be proportionate to risk. While Australia’s framework is a starting point, scientists who have worked under that regime tell me it comes with its own frustrations. Our system should not just match Australia’s but surpass it.

We should never take progress for granted. The comforts we enjoy today rest on the scientific advances of those who were allowed to question, to experiment, to test their ideas outside the laboratory, and ultimately to offer the fruits of their research to a hungry world.

 Likewise, many of our challenges in health and economics and the environment may in fact be the product of self-imposed barriers. ACT proposes to lift these barriers and give people permission to flourish.

By Nathan Flowerday, chair of the Zespri board.

Zespri’s strategy is to build demand ahead of supply and capture the value for New Zealand kiwifruit growers. With an outstanding product and continued investment in innovation, our supply chain and a strong brand, we’re able to grow value year on year.

We’ve invested in listening to our consumers. We’re led by our markets and we tell our story well, ensuring our consumers see that Zespri Kiwifruit is “worth more than it costs”, by validating and promoting the health benefits and quality of our kiwifruit with consumers all around the world, particularly in our key markets of China, the European Union and Japan, which continue to perform.

This approach has been a cornerstone of Zespri’s success; it’s how we were able to sell around 20% less kiwifruit in 2023/24 but increase revenue from $3.92 billion to $3.99bn. And it is how we will continue delivering value in the years ahead.

A good case study comes from our SunGold-led relaunch in the United States in 2015, when we used a full portfolio of quality product under a strong brand to lift value across all varieties and benefit all growers. 

Although the launch was led by SunGold, the US is now among the top returning markets for Green, with grower returns increasing 138% between 2015 and 2023 (the average increase in other markets was 81%). 

The demand that we’ve created gives us more opportunity to grow, but our competition has spotted the supply gap and is investing to fill it. 

New consortiums, brands, and varieties are entering the market and taking some of our market share. That’s business – what matters is how you respond – and for Zespri being able to supply the world’s leading portfolio of branded kiwifruit to key customers in key markets for 12 months of the year is critical. 

It helps us to build the brand, maintain our partnerships, and hold onto our shelf space in the face of this intensifying competition. The outlook for kiwifruit is positive with demand forecast to continue increasing ahead of supply and our markets telling us they want more of our fruit. We need to be able to fulfill that demand with our own supply. 

It sounds simple, but kiwifruit is seasonal, so we need to have vines in both hemispheres to provide year-round supply and hold our space. 

This is why for almost 25 years, Zespri has been growing kiwifruit in the northern hemisphere via Zespri Global Supply, or ZGS. We work with growers in Italy, France, Greece, Japan, and South Korea to produce Zespri SunGold and to procure Zespri Green kiwifruit to supply our key retailers when New Zealand fruit is out of season. 

They are subject to strict quality controls, like our New Zealand growers, so we can be confident that their fruit lives up to the brand values we have all worked so hard to create.

This northern hemisphere supply will help us to compete strongly and maintain our position as leaders in an increasingly competitive category, if we can grow more fruit. 

However, our ability to supply more is limited by the cap of 5000 Zespri SunGold hectares able to be planted in those locations. We cannot extend this cap without what’s called a Producer Vote, where all New Zealand kiwifruit producers vote whether to approve (or not) proposals put forward by Zespri. 

This is why we’ve been working with growers as we consider increasing these hectares to the level needed to keep executing our strategy and delivering value year on year to New Zealand growers. 

The industry is very engaged in the discussion, with questions not only about the opportunity but also the risks of expansion and how we can manage and mitigate those. It’s a fair challenge; these are the livelihoods of New Zealand kiwifruit growers and the future of their businesses. 

We’ll continue managing these risks the way we have for the past 25 years; my belief is that the biggest risk now is not acting to protect and grow our value. Using our tried and tested strategy that has made us the global leader in a high-potential category, more hectares will enable us to keep building for the future. 

By Gergely Toldi and Mariana Muelbert. Toldi is senior lecturer in Neonatology at the University of Auckland. Muelbert is a research fellow at the Liggins Institute, University of Auckland.

The government’s recent decision to opt out of the Australia-New Zealand joint infant formula standard is a step in the wrong direction for child health policy. 

Food Safety Minister Andrew Hoggard said New Zealand now plans to develop its own standard after Australia declined to review labelling restrictions proposed by the joint standard. 

The standard would have added controls on what statements manufacturers can make on product labels, and limited sales of specialist formula to pharmacies or healthcare professionals. This is important, as only one in 10 New Zealand babies is exclusively breastfed for six months. 

Infant formulas are a safe alternative for families who do not breastfeed. But parents have to choose a product from a wide range of manufacturers competing in a global industry worth more than US$55 billion (about $88bn). 

The financial stakes for industry players are high, and marketing is therefore key. There is no better way of doing this than appealing to the parental instinct of wanting to give the best to your child.

However, surveys show many formula companies make unsubstantiated nutritional claims about their products. Without the joint infant formula standard, addressing this becomes more difficult.

The global infant formula market is highly profitable and driven by high prices, particularly for premium and specialised formulas. 

Consumption of formula for infants under six months has risen in regions with upper and middle incomes, including in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East. 

In comparison to the size of the formula industry, which spends about US$2-3bn on marketing globally, public health investment in breastfeeding support is minimal. 

The United States spends about US$60 million per year on a nutrition programme for women, infants and children, compared to its US$3bn formula market. In the United Kingdom, public health funding for breastfeeding support is around £14m (about $29m) annually, against a £200m infant formula market.

The formula market in Australia and New Zealand is valued at about $540m a year. 

New Zealand’s Ministry of Health received $35m over four years (2020–2024) to support the maternity sector through the expansion of the Maternity Action Plan. This includes the national breastfeeding strategy, among other initiatives.

As scientists learn more about the composition of breast milk and infant development, formula companies try to match the ingredients of their products by adding new components, such as prebiotics or probiotics. 

However, the way biological systems work is not as simple, and synthetic forms of added ingredients don’t act the same way as natural ones. Formula products will never be able to fully replicate the complexity and dynamic composition of breast milk.

It is well established that breastfed children have lower rates of respiratory and gastrointestinal infections, better cognitive development and a lower prevalence of developmental delays. 

A large randomised trial of more than 17,000 infants demonstrated that breastfeeding is associated with improved cognitive development, including better performance at school age. 

Despite this, a major study published in 2023 found unsupported health claims are a common marketing practice in the formula industry. It showed most infant formulas add labels claiming the product supports brain development or a healthy immune system, without providing scientific references.

A recent survey conducted in 15 countries, including Australia, examined the specific health and nutrition claims made by infant formula manufacturers on their product labels and websites. 

The survey also examined scientific evidence cited in support of these claims, which were mostly related to positive impacts on brain development, immune health and growth.

For the majority (74%) of products making specific health claims, no scientific reference was provided. For most of the remainder, evidence was deemed to have a high risk of bias, with more than 80% of the authors affiliated with the formula industry.

On the other hand, independent reviews clearly question the benefits of added components, reporting these did not promote long-term cognitive benefits compared with standard infant formulas. And there is no robust evidence to recommend the use of prebiotic-supplemented formulas.

While infant formulas are a safe alternative, the benefits of breastfeeding are extensive, including positive impacts on infant and maternal health, society and the environment. Hence, breastfeeding is a key public health strategy. 

To protect consumers from the marketing strategies of the formula industry, the World Health Organisation established the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes in 1981. The code restricts advertising, free samples and promotional activities related to breast milk substitutes. Adherence is enforced by national regulations and local monitoring mechanisms. 

Countries such as Norway and the Philippines, with strict adherence to the code, have high exclusive breastfeeding rates (around 80%). In contrast, countries such as the US and China, where the code is not fully implemented, have much lower rates (around 20%).

New Zealand complies only partially because the code is managed primarily through voluntary agreements rather than laws and policies.

One of the proposals under the Australia-New Zealand joint infant formula standard would have addressed legislative shortfalls, particularly in the regulatory framework, product definitions, nutrient composition and limits on additives and contaminants. 

The proposed regulations would have enabled families to make unbiased, informed decisions, free from unfounded nutritional claims or unnecessary added components. The decision not to adopt the standard is a backward step.

More: This article was previously published on The Conversation.

By Nadine Tunley, chief executive of HortNZ

The Horticulture New Zealand annual conference in Mount Maunganui at the end of this month will be my final engagement with stakeholders as chief executive of the organisation. 

As I prepare to step down from a role I have thoroughly enjoyed for the past three and a half years, it seems a good time to reflect on the challenges our sector has faced in that time and the changes we have achieved or set in motion. 

I have worked in the primary sector for 30 years and I think it’s fair to say that the past four years have tested farmers and growers as much as any in those previous decades and probably more.

The covid-19 pandemic and extreme weather events, most notably cyclones Hale and  Gabrielle, came as hammer blows in rapid succession. 

All this while the rural sector was working to navigate an unprecedented flood of legislative change and increased costs, including high interest rates. 

I’m proud of the way our team sprang into action, focusing on providing continued relief, advocating for long-term support and ensuring practical resources were available to growers. 

After so many years working in the sector, I knew all about the indomitable spirit of growers, but I was still humbled by the determination and the drive of the sector to pick itself up in the wake of the devastation and set about restoring and rebuilding. 

I will never forget the many exceptional examples of resilience, passion and tenacity I encountered in those difficult times.  

Throughout all of this, there was still the “business as usual” to get on with too, as well as changes to be driven, and I have been very fortunate to have had such a passionate, skilled and dedicated team.

They have worked to facilitate sector access to government and to get ministers and officials out in the fields, to meet with growers and see the challenges and constraints they are dealing with. 

Our policy team has been dogged in its focus on working with local authorities and central government to streamline processes and outline where existing or proposed policies are untenable, unworkable – or both.

We have lobbied relentlessly for regulatory changes to reduce the bureaucratic burden on growers and have advocated strongly for long-term, sustainable solutions to support growers in the wake of natural disasters. 

This has included lobbying the government on water policies and calling for approaches that support sustainable water management practices – as well as for infrastructure investments in water storage and flood protection. 

We’re pleased with the adjustments to the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme policy settings. 

Seasonal labour is one of the major challenges for growers and this unique scheme plays such a vital role in our rural economy. 

I leave feeling very positive for the future of the horticulture sector and its ability to grow and thrive sustainably and continue to make a valuable contribution to the food security of all New Zealanders and the economy.