They have library access and can be part of the discussion, but are no longer on the payroll.
They do it because they know their work is important.
In some cases, they have industry funding.
Increasingly, it is the money through companies supporting projects and initiatives that is keeping New Zealand research afloat.
AgriZero is a case in point with Fonterra, Ravensdown, Silver Fern Farms, Anzco, Synlait and various banks investing.
Of note is that co-operatives are involved, which means farmer money is supporting AgriZero.
Further, some of these co-operatives have research and development budgets, with dollars invested into their own research unit or other specialised groups.
Again, this is farmer money.
And sometimes it seems the agricultural sector can’t win.
Two years ago, Lincoln University was criticised under the heading “Fertiliser funding ‘compromises’ university”.
The explanation was that Lincoln University had taken more than $1 million in research money from the fertiliser industry in 2021, and this had been criticised by environmental activist group Greenpeace.
An OIA request revealed funding from “a who’s who of New Zealand agriculture”.
The article didn’t appear to gain traction because of simple questions posed – would you prefer that farmers didn’t invest in research to achieve improvements?
Would you prefer that research was done by people without appropriate qualifications?
The point for Lincoln University (and other universities and Crown Research Institutes) is that they have a reputation to uphold – a reputation for independent, rigorous and objective scientific research methodologies, with the outcomes independently and robustly peer-reviewed and then published in scientific journals.
From there, it becomes available for others to use as part of the platform for advances to be made.
Sometimes these advances result in a new technology – EcoPond, for instance; sometimes they result in new understanding.
Last year, researchers from the Riddet Institute, hosted by Massey University and with funding from Fonterra, published a paper on the feasibility of producing protein at a globally relevant scale through fermentation.
Listen to Jamie Mackay interview Dr Jacqueline Rowarth on The Country below:
Using the model developed by the Sustainable Nutrition Initiative, the researchers integrated life cycle analysis data with nutritional and economic data.
The result demonstrated the production of an additional 18 million tonnes of protein (about 10% of 2020 global consumption) annually via fermentation would require an extra 10 million–25 million hectares of feedstock cropland expansion/reallocation.
It would also use up to 1% of global electricity generation, produce 159 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents and have a total process input cost of US$53.77 billion ($93.7b).
Further, it would have a negligible impact on nutrient supply beyond protein.
Why would New Zealand invest in research in precision fermentation, which is already taking billions of dollars overseas with questionable outcomes, rather than focus on our comparative advantage of high-quality protein, free range and pasture fed from land that isn’t suitable for cropping?
The primary sector has been shown year on year to have higher productivity growth than any other sector.
A focus on the research and development that underpins advances will achieve a far greater impact than investment in new(ish) areas that are small.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has explained the focus of the Government this year and the rationale: “Backing our science and innovation sector, and backing economic growth, will drive productivity and make us all wealthier. It will lift incomes, help families to get ahead and also allow us to invest more in the public services Kiwis deserve.”
This “backing” needs to be in the sector that has the track record and size to be able to make a difference.
And this backing needs to be with funding as well as encouraging words.
Government investment in R&D is low in comparison with other countries – this has been pointed out repeatedly.
Government funding is needed for the foundation, the infrastructure and security for science that are absent.
Industry funding, which tends to be market-driven, can build on that foundation.
Both types of funding are needed to keep our export economy growing in productivity.
They are also needed to attract the next generation of able and dedicated scientists.
In 1817, political economist David Ricardo introduced the concept of “comparative advantage”, suggesting nations should concentrate resources only in industries where they have the greatest efficiency of production relative to their own alternative uses of resources.
Technological advances need constant consideration and might cause a change in direction, but for New Zealand investment in “alternative” proteins and precision fermentation does not yet stack up; investment in research to underpin the primary sector, and boost productivity to even greater heights, does.
