Tom Richardson is unflappable in his plans for AgResearch even though they have not met universal approval, especially in Dunedin and Hamilton.
The AgResearch chief executive sees the future in science hubs, with scientists from different organisations interacting, exchanging ideas and thoughts, leading to better problem-solving and innovation.
It was all about getting the best bang for the research buck and for AgResearch that meant its Future Footprint Programme, which would set up science hubs at Lincoln and Palmerston North and downgrade facilities at Invermay and Ruakura.
Changes to science in recent years also extended to the number and mix of experts in science teams.
What drove those decisions was the constant need to balance limited cash with relevant science in the 800 projects done annually.
In 2013 AgResearch reported revenue of $159m made up of $39m of core funding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), $23m from other sources, $78m from commercial, $7m earned from farm produce and $12.2 from interest, dividends, royalties and rent.
A year later total revenue was $160.7m with core MBIE funding of $39m, other of $19m, and commercial of $78m. Farm produce generated $10.7m and $13.8m came from interest, dividends, royalties and rent.
In the 2014 annual report, AgResearch recorded progress on 18 projects, goals against which it measures performance, broadly targeting increased forage and animal productivity, improving animal health and farm management.
They were split into dairy onfarm, meat and fibre onfarm, dairy off-farm, meat and fibre off-farm, pan-sector and Maori agribusiness.
It found the18 projects were consistent with its statement of corporate intent.
Richardson said there were justified questions raised in recent years about whether Crown research institutes (CRIs) were competing with or helping industry.
A review by a CRI taskforce reset the sector’s thinking and approach, highlighting the expectation there needed to be genuine partnerships.
All science, including agriculture, must add value.
“Most science creates value in New Zealand when someone on a farm does something with it.”
With that in mind, science leaders asked: what did users require and what were they prepared to pay for and what science was happening internationally that might be applicable in NZ.
Richardson saw future gains for agriculture coming from research on animal and plant genetics, farm systems and animal nutrition.
While strides had been made in animal breeding, he still believed significant gains were possible.
He described plant breeding as a major opportunity for productivity and for environmental gains in the next 20 to 30 years but research into farm systems provided the biggest potential.
That meant evolving farm systems that, among other goals, could handle product price volatility, different geographic environments and livestock management.
“Farm systems are a big investment area for us.”
While the bulk of AgResearch’s 465 scientists and technicians would eventually be centralised at Palmerston North and Lincoln, small outposts would be maintained at Ruakura and Invermay to research farm systems.
The Future Footprint Programme (FFP) required staff to relocate, with the project funded from the sale of excess assets, including farms, operating surpluses and debt.
An AgResearch spokesman said assets would be sold only if they were no longer needed for research and after consultation with stakeholders.
In the last two years it had sold the Wallaceville campus, Flock House farm and sold then leased back the Kaitoke Farm in Hutt Valley. Proceeds were used to fund the FFP.
NZ had much to gain from improved animal nutrition, Richardson said.
The dominance of our pasture-based systems meant our knowledge and control of animal nutrition lagged behind other countries that used supplements and could measure and control exactly what animals ate.
“It is a lot harder in pasture based systems. You don’t get the intensity of information.”
Some of the work scientists would do included trying to predict the rumen response to feeds such ryegrass, clover, fodder beet and lucerne.
NZ was too small to have competing science bodies and he was confident there was collaboration between the various entities.
There had been a proliferation of science endeavour, Primary Growth Partnerships as well as MBIE funding and work by livestock and horticulture bodies and the universities.
“There is not more science happening but it is really positive Beef + Lamb and DairyNZ have science capability so you can talk to them and partner with them.”
There was room to improve those linkages and Richardson said the formation of science hubs should help.
Food science would be done at Massey using a pilot plant there and would also tap into the existing expertise and university students.
Farm systems including genetics would move to Lincoln alongside Plant and Food, Landcare and the university.
One of the benefits was access to the university’s natural science expertise, including land and water specialists.
“Physical proximity still matters in science.”
The process of getting that information to users was changing with greater use of digital and app technology though Richardson still saw a role for field days in displaying new methods to farmers.
Behind all of that was research to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from livestock, where AgResearch scientists were world leaders.
Initial research was trying to discover a way to reduce methane production in the rumen then apply the technology onfarm.
