The butternuts in the Carbon Positive trial were planted on the 15th of November. Before the butternuts emerged, there was a high weed pressure in the conventional treatment. Therefore, it was sprayed with Buster, while the other two treatments were not.

Emergence

When the butternuts started to emerge, we noticed there was cutworm damage and found cutworms. Cutworms are one of the main insect pests in butternut crops. They chew through the butternut’s stem at ground level, killing the plant. Once we identified the problem, we sprayed Bestseller before the cutworms did too much damage.

Side Dressing

Before sidedressing, our fortnightly soil nitrate testing showed there was 80 kg N/ha in the Conventional treatment, 71 kg N/ha in the Hybrid, and 62 kg N/ha in the Regenerative treatment.

At sidedressing, the Conventional treatment received the ‘standard’ rate of YaraBela CAN (150 kg/ha). For the Hybrid treatment, the goal was to apply a half rate of YaraBela CAN (75 kg/ha), but the lowest the side dressing machine could be calibrated to was 113 kg/ha, so that is the rate we used. The Hybrid treatment also received a foliar application of seaweed. The Regenerative treatment only received a foliar application of seaweed, Megafol, and fulvic acid, as the soil nitrate results showed there was a sufficient level of Nitrate-N in the soil.

Weed Management

Standard weed management would use an inter-row cultivator before the butternuts start running. We felt there wasn’t a high enough weed pressure to do this, and that it could cause a weed strike if we disturb the uncultivated areas in the Hybrid and Regenerative treatments. All treatments were hand-weeded with a push hoe to remove any weeds before the butternuts started to run.

Operation Advisory Group

The Operation Avisory Group has met weekly, and they are happy with how the butternuts are growing, the low weed pressure and the disease pressure.

A big thank you to Andy for taking the time to side-dress our butternuts.

Carbon Positive is a partnership between LandWISE, the HB Future Farming Trust, McCain Foods, Heinz-Wattie’s and Process Vegetables NZ.

During the tomato crop (26/10/2023 – 6/3/2024), the Regenerative treatment had significantly lower nitrate levels than the Conventional and Hybrid treatments, despite all three receiving similar amounts of nitrogen. This lower nitrate level was likely due to the breakdown of the cover crop. Approximately 12 t/ha of cover crop, mainly oats, was incorporated into the soil two days before planting, which would have tied up nitrogen.

Since then, different amounts of nitrogen have been applied across treatments, and there has been no significant difference in soil nitrate levels, except during the period when the Conventional and Hybrid treatments were in peas, while the Regenerative treatment remained in cover crop.

Amount of Nitrogen applied during each crop, by treatment.

Butternuts

Our pre-season soil tests showed that there was 110 kg of potentially available nitrogen in the Conventional, 93. 3 in the Hybrid and 97.3 in the Regenerative treatment.

Two days before the butternuts were planted, there were 32 kg Nitrate-N/ha in the Conventional, 39 in the Hybrid, and 46 in the Regenerative treatment.

At planting, the Conventional and Hybrid treatments received 300 kg of Complex, whereas the Regenerative treatment received 150 kg of Complex. This increased the kg of Nitrate-N in the Conventional to 80, the Hybrid to 71, and the Regenerative to 63.

At side dressing, the Conventional treatment got 150 kg/ha of CAN. The Hybrid got 113 kg/ha of CAN and a foliar application of seaweed. The Regenerative treatment got a foliar application of seaweed, Megafol, and fulvic acid.

When testing for nitrate after side dressing, we avoided the area where the fertiliser was applied. The nitrate test showed similar results to last time. There is 74 Kg of Nitrate-N in the Conventional, 73 in the Hybrid and 65 in the Regenerative treatment. We can assume the conventional is 18 kg higher and the Hybrid is 13.6 kg higher, as this is how much nitrogen was applied at side dressing.

Our aim is to push the limits of regenerative cropping to understand how much nitrogen input can be reduced. Based on potentially available nitrogen and fortnightly soil nitrate results, the Operations Advisory Group decided not to apply granular fertiliser to the Regenerative treatment at side-dressing.

A similar approach was taken last season in beans, where no granular fertiliser was applied at side-dressing and a foliar approach was used instead. Soil nitrate levels remained similar across all treatments, and the Regenerative treatment produced the highest bean yield.

We will continue to monitor nitrate levels fortnightly, and we will do leaf testing during fruit set.

The Conventional treatment was planted with treated seed and 300kg/ha of Complex fertiliser.

The Hybrid treatment was planted with treated seed, coated in TrichoStart and 300kg/ha of Complex fertiliser. Mycorrcin, Biostart N and TrichoStart were applied at planting via liquid injection.

The Regenerative treatment was planted with untreated seed, and 5kg/ha of humates mixed with 150kg of Complex fertiliser. As with the hybrid treatment, mycorrcin, Biostart N, and TrichoStart were applied via liquid injection.

After planting, all treatments received Ironmax slug bait before two 50cm strips of pre-emergeence herbicide, Frontier-P and Magister, were strip-sprayed over the plant lines.

Throughout the season, the Operations Advisory Group and Heinz-Wattie’s agronomists will meet weekly to track how the butternuts are growing. Together, they’ll make the calls on crop protection, weeding, fungicide and insecticide use, and adjust management decisions as the season unfolds.

A big thank you to Gareth Holder from Redloh Horticulture for taking the time to plant our butternuts.

Carbon Positive is a partnership between LandWISE, the HB Future Farming Trust, McCain Foods, Heinz-Wattie’s and Process Vegetables NZ.

There are three scopes within carbon accounting: Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3. Scope 1 is direct GHG emissions from sources controlled or owned by a business.  Scope 2 is indirect GHG emissions from electricity purchased by a business. Scope 3, which is broken down into 15 categories, is all other indirect GHG emissions not controlled or owned by a business.

Carbon accounting calculator

We developed a carbon accounting calculator that quantifies the emissions from the different management systems. We are considering making it into a webtool for others to use.

The Scope 1 emissions we considered were fertiliser use, fuel use, and livestock. The Scope 2 emission was from the power used to run the Irrigator. Scope 3 emissions were from the manufacturing and transportation of fertilisers and agrichemicals.

We set the farm gate as our boundary for crops produced, so we have not calculated transport to the factory (the same for all treatments), food processing, sales or home cooking etc. We have included those factors that make most impact and that are within our control. This parallels the Gross Margin accounting we use to assess profitability of the different treatments in our trial.

Emission factors were used to determine the CO2 equivalent (CO2-e) for each operation within the Carbon Positive trial. An emission factor is a coefficient that converts an activity to a greenhouse gas emission. For example, 1 kilogram of non-urea nitrogen has an emission factor of 4.84 kg CO2-e; therefore, you multiply the amount of fertiliser used by the emission factor to determine total emissions.

• The emission factors for fertiliser, fuel use, livestock, and power were all sourced from the Ministry for the Environment: Te ine tukunga: He tohutohu pakihi Measuring emissions: A guide for organisations.
• The fertiliser manufacturing emission factors were sourced from Wells 2001: Total energy indicators of agricultural sustainability: Dairy farming case study.
• The fertiliser transportation emission factor is an average of different fertilisers being transported to New Zealand, sourced from Ledgard & Falconer 2019: Update of the carbon footprint of fertilisers used in New Zealand.
• The emission factors for agrichemicals manufacturing and transportation were sourced from Audsley et al. (2009): Estimation of the greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural pesticide manufacture and use, with original data from Green (1987). Emission factors for the active ingredients were used if available; otherwise, the average value was used for the agrichemical type: Herbicide, Fungicide, or Insecticide.

Carbon accounting calculator results

Over 2022-2025, the first 3 years of the Carbon Positive trial, the Conventional treatment had the highest emissions (5,906 kg CO2-e). The Hybrid treatment (4,401kg CO2-e) was next, and the Regenerative treatment (3,575 kg CO2-e) was lowest. Nitrogen fertiliser followed by fuel were the highest emission sources in all treatments.

In the first three years, only the conventional plots had sheep grazed on them. The other plots were left in ungrazed cover crops. Over later winter 2025, we did have sheep grazing on all three treatments and they will show up in our next update. Note from the chart above, that sheep had about the same emissions as our agrichemicals.

Validation and Practical Implementation of the Nitrachek 404

Have you tried to match soil test strip colours against the colours on the tin, and found yourself wondering if you’re seeing the right shade of purple? Those days of guesswork can be over.

The Nitrachek 404 is like having a portable lab right in your paddock. Instead of relying on visual colour matching, this electronic device reads test strips and displays precise digital readings. No more uncertainty about whether the lighting is affecting your colour judgment.

Proven Results

With funding from Te Ahikawariki, we worked with vegetable growers and agronomists to test the Nitrachek 404 across Hawke’s Bay, Manawatu, Pukekohe, and Gisborne. When comparing soil sample Quick Tests against Hill Labs analysis, we achieved 95.5% correlation with laboratory methods when proper protocols were followed.

The economics are compelling too. Laboratory tests cost ~$40 per sample, while Nitrachek strips are about $3 each. For farms requiring frequent monitoring, the device pays for itself very quickly – delivering 90% cost savings per sample.

We have conducted well over a thousand Nitrate Quick Test soil assessments over the last five years. We have identified four key sources of error: sample collection, sample preparation, reading the test strip accurately and reliably, and adjusting for soil moisture content. We have prepared resources for growers taking soil samples so check out our LandWISE Online Learning pages.

We had some major issues comparing our quick test results with those from the commercial laboratory. In some cases, the samples were badly affected by heat or wetness during transport to the lab, resulting in dubious results. But the biggest issue was properly applying the correct soil moisture. To get accurate results, we found that using the soil moisture percentage was critical. We used the online calculator that estimates soil moisture based on your soil type and whether you think the sample is wet, moist or dry. On our MicroFarm soils, this put us 30% out compared to Hill Labs – far too much for budgeting. We worked through issues with Matt Norris from BSI – Plant and Food and found that an equation using actual measured soil moisture made all the difference.

Getting the right answer

We make sure to measure actual soil moisture percentage. We either use a Hydrosense twin-prong soil moisture tester in the field, or we weigh the soil samples that we collect. After sieving the sample for the Quick Test, we dry 100 g of the left-over soil and weigh it again dry. That is easy to do and the most accurate method.

There are still a few maths steps to get from the test strip to the amount on nitrogen in your paddock! You need to calibrate the device, each batch of test strips, adjust for actual soil moisture, soil density, sample depth and, if you want maximum accuracy, add a final lab correction factor to have Quick Test results exactly match laboratory results. That is a bit of a nuisance and leaves lots of room for mistakes, so we developed an online calculator for you.

The online calculator eliminates the complexity of converting raw readings into useful field values. You enter your Nitrachek reading, correction factors, soil moisture content, and soil density, and it converts the data into the nitrate nitrogen values you need (kg/ha).

Practical Considerations

The device isn’t perfect for every situation. Some growers found the one-minute testing time slower than visual estimation for quick field checks. If you just need approximate values for immediate decisions, visual methods still work well.

However, for precise nutrient budgeting, regulatory compliance, or entering specific data into management software, the Nitrachek delivers laboratory-level accuracy at a fraction of the cost.

Getting Consistent Results

Success depends on following proper protocols. The research identified sample handling as crucial – keeping samples cool during transport and processing them promptly significantly improves accuracy. Device and strip calibrations are also essential, as each batch of test strips requires calibration due to manufacturing variations.

We found the device was accurate within the 2-75 ppm range we tested. That should cover most typical pre-planting conditions in New Zealand vegetable production. The graph below shows results from the MicroFarm and shows an average 7% difference between the quick test and lab results. You might not worry about 7%, but if you do, the online calculator lets you correct it.

For growers focused on precision agriculture and environmental compliance, this represents genuine progress – laboratory-quality soil testing that’s both affordable and immediate.

Download our full report here>

Many thanks to Te Ahikawariki for funding and supporting this work. And many thanks to the growers who took part, tested the method and the device, and gave us useful feedback. And special thanks to Matt Norris for helping us crack the puzzle and providing the “Norris Equation” that properly accounts for soil moisture levels.

With funding from Te Ahikawariki, we teamed up with regional agronomists to ask a number of growers about cover cropping. We wanted to learn what the barriers were to new entrants, and what the ongoing headaches were for those who do use cover crops.

Three-quarters of the 32 growers surveyed have been using cover crops for an average of 23 years. These aren’t beginners struggling with basics—these are people who’ve figured out how to make cover crops profitable, and their insights challenge everything we think we know about adoption barriers.

We were perhaps not too surprised to find the barriers everyone assumes matter most actually don’t. Equipment access scored just 1.2 out of 4 as a barrier—the lowest of everything measured. Information gaps scored only 1.6. These experienced growers have moved way beyond those basic issues.

So what are the real barriers? Three big ones that actually matter:

1. Nitrogen Tie-Up (The Technical Killer)

Cover crops locking up nutrients when your cash crop desperately needs them. This scored 2.7 out of 4—the highest barrier measured. It’s not about getting cover crops established; it’s about managing what happens to your nitrogen afterward.

2. Weed Management Gone Wrong

Getting effective suppression without creating new problems. Too often, cover crops become part of the weed problem themselves rather than solving it.

3. Operational Flexibility (The Hidden Killer)

This one was not even in our list of questions but came through loud and clear in grower comments. As a Hawke’s Bay grower put it:

“Once land is cover cropped it ties it up for a period of time and if it’s a wet season then it reduces options and we can fall behind in our planting programme.”

It’s about losing the ability to adapt when weather doesn’t cooperate. That’s a fundamental farming system challenge, not a technical problem you can solve with research.

Why Three-Quarters of These Growers Persist

Despite the barriers, 75% of surveyed growers use cover crops. What’s driving them?

Soil structure improvement absolutely dominates. It scored 3.4 out of 4, with 87% rating it as highly important. Half called it “make-or-break” for their decision.

One Pukekohe grower explained: “The difference in soil workability after a few years of cover crops is dramatic—better water infiltration, easier cultivation, improved root penetration.”

Interestingly, environmental benefits come second. Biodiversity enhancement, soil moisture management, input reduction—they all scored well, but practical farming benefits drive adoption more than environmental ideals. These growers are businesspeople first.

Species That Work (And the Ones to Run From)

After 23 years of collective experience, some clear winners and losers have emerged:

The Champions:

• Oats: Top the list for reliable establishment, easy termination, good biomass production
• Annual ryegrass: Consistent cover, works with livestock
• Vetch: Nitrogen fixation benefits

The Problem Children:

Multiple growers warned about rye—”potential to become a weed” and “difficult to remove.” Brassicas got harsh verdicts too, especially near seed crops. One grower’s blunt assessment: “Radish is a strict no no” because of contamination risks.

And those complex multi-species mixes everyone talks about? “Hard to manage and control weeds” was the verdict. The experienced growers say start simple, learn the basics, then add complexity gradually. Seed crop contamination is huge here because of our export industry. You can’t afford volunteers in the wrong places.

Land tenure creates headaches too. Landlords want to graze cover crops for income while growers want maximum biomass for soil benefits. As one frustrated grower explained:

“When cover crops are grazed we see little benefit especially over a wet period as we need more cultivation and have worse soil structure.”

These aren’t technical problems you can research your way out of—they’re structural issues that need policy solutions.

We’re Not Alone in This

The good news? Remarkably similar patterns show up internationally. US research confirms soil health is the primary driver globally—87% internationally versus our 87.5%. The same technical challenges around nitrogen management and termination timing appear everywhere. We’re not unique in our barriers, which means we can learn from solutions developed overseas.

Getting Started: Advice from the Trenches

What’s the advice for growers considering cover crops? Start simple. Pick one reliable species like oats. Begin on less critical paddocks. Most importantly, plan your termination method before you plant—that’s where many beginners fail. Expect a learning curve. One Canterbury grower with 15 years’ experience captured it perfectly:

“The first year taught me what not to do. The second year taught me what might work. By the third year, I started to see why everyone talks about soil structure benefits.”

At the bottom of this post you can download a link to a report by Charles “Merf” Merfield. We asked him to put his experience and thoughts on paper for all to see. It’s well worth your time to read. In brief, Merf says:

Simply put, cover crops are plants you grow for reasons other than selling them. Think of them as your farm’s support crew—they’re not the stars of the show, but they make everything else work better. That’s why they’re increasingly called “service crops” overseas, which honestly makes a lot more sense when you think about it. These aren’t exotic plants we’re talking about. Most cover crops use the same species you already know well—oats, ryecorn, mustards, clovers, and annual ryegrass. The difference is how and why you’re using them.

Cover crops aren’t a one-size-fits-all solution—they’re more like a Swiss Army knife with different tools for different jobs. Green manures are all about fixing nitrogen from the air using legumes. Catch crops are your nutrient insurance policy. Mulch crops suppress weeds better than most herbicides. Smother crops actually smother established problem weeds, think of them as your biological bulldozer. Then there are the conservation biocontrol crops—plants that support beneficial insects to keep pest populations in check.

The Cost Reality

Seed costs are real—they scored 2.5 out of 4 as a barrier. But the bigger challenge is demonstrating long-term value. One grower captured the economic puzzle: “How to put a value/dollar on them, especially longer term benefits.” The benefits take 2-3 years to become obvious, so you need patience and persistence.

Thanks to Daniel Sutton for initiating this research, and the regional agronomists who helped interview growers; Andrew Luxmoore in Pukekohe, Chris Lambert in Gisborne, Dan in Hawke’s Bay, Karen Coleman in Manawatu/Levin and Charles Merfield in Canterbury. And thanks, as always to the growers who gave time to share their experiences and knowledge.

Download the Full Cover Crops Survey Report

Download a supplementary report by Charles Merfield

The cover crops were direct drilled by Kettle Contracting on the 7^th of April. The Conventional treatment was planted with Moata annual ryegrass. The Hybrid treatment also has Moata with crimson and Balansa clover added. The Regenerative treatment has the same cover crop mix as the Hybrid treatment with the addition of vetch. As in previous years, the Conventional treatment will be grazed by sheep over the winter, while the Regenerative and Hybrid treatments will not.

In the chart above, the last two measurements are artificially lower than the actual covers. The Canopeo app has difficulty identifying deep shadow in bright sunshine conditions. We would expect all treatments to be very close to 100% ground cover if images were collected on a cloudy day.

The cover crops established well, with all treatments nearly reaching full canopy cover after 8 weeks. This is an improvement from last year’s cover crops, when the Hybrid and Regenerative treatments struggled to reach full canopy cover before termination.

A key difference in 2025 is that the regenerative treatment has been planted with ryegrass and three legumes, rather than multispecies mixes with oats, radishes, sunflowers, buckwheat, vetch and clovers. One reason for this is the get maximum ground cover as quickly as possible at a manageable cost. The multispecies mixes took a long time to reach 80% ground cover in 2024, and never fully covered the ground. Seed rates could have been increased, but costs were already high compared to annual ryegrass.

The 2024 ground cover chart shows the difference between the annual ryegrass (yellow line) and the multispecies (blue and green lines) cover crop growth rates. Gaps in the Hybrid and Regenerative plot covers allowed weeds to emerge but still did not cover all the soil. (The weekly dips are caused by the bright sun image analysis issue noted above.) The Conventional ryegrass was sprayed out early for process peas, hence the drop from early July. The multispecies cover crop in the Hybrid (blue line) was sprayed out later, also for peas. The Regenerative treatment (green line) stayed high because the cover crop was retained, rather than growing a pea crop.

What is next?

The 2025-2026 summer crop is butternuts for Heinz-Wattie’s, with a mid-November planting date expected. This gives a lot of time for any cover crop benefits to be captured and raises the possibility of a second crop in spring if desired. The Carbon Positive Operations Advisory Group will meet in July to confirm management plans for each treatment.

The LandWISE Conference, Getting to Carbon Positive, attracted more than 80 people who heard speakers on a wide range of topics related to ongoing sustainability.

Day 1 discussed ways to assess our emissions levels, how we can reduce our environmental impact through diverse farming techniques including regenerative practices and soil health, and new research around pest management.

Pii-Tuulia Nikula opened with an introduction to emissions accounting, which was followed by Uttam Floray outlining how Toitu certifies emissions. Ron McFetridge from WaterForce said he was asked by key clients about WaterForce’s emissions, which set them on a journey to reduce their emissions and environmental impact. Olivia’s take:

“I enjoyed listening to Ron discuss how WaterForce has been installing solar panels on their offices, putting in electric vehicle chargers, and deploying electric and hybrid vehicles for their staff. Given that they travel 4.5 million kilometres annually as a company, WaterForce saw electrification as an effective way to reduce emissions and environmental impact. By doing this, they are setting a precedent for other companies.”

Dan Bloomer presented results from the Carbon Positive trial including the 2024-2025 cropping programme and a Carbon balance for each of the treatments, which showed nitrogen fertilisers and diesel were the largest CO₂^-e contributors. The introduction of livestock added significantly to overall emissions, even if on farm for a relatively short time. Matt Norris presented results from regenerative cropping trials, including use of composts, at LeaderBrand in Gisborne, Angus McKenzie described how Wairuna Farm is applying the principles in Canterbury, the various things he had been trialing on his farm, and how they created a wetland to treat drainage water. Sam McNally addressed ways to increase soil carbon and explained fundamental changes in our understanding of soil carbon sequestration and carbon pathways. Photosynthesis feeds the whole system!    

Three speakers discussed beneficial non-crop plants. Dan talked about the lessons from growing multispecies cover crop mixes in the Carbon Positive trial. Charles Merfield provided information about cover crops for regenerative cropping and the need to ask what functions you wanted cover crops to perform. Jeff Smith presented lessons from biostrip and insectaries research through the A Lighter Touch project.

Day 1 was wrapped up with Asha Chhagan talking about new technologies to assist pest and disease management, and Bethan Shaw reporting on work done looking at earwigs recolonising orchard sites that had been devastated by Cyclone Gabrielle. Daniel Sutton and Chris Lambert reporting on trials with a camera equipped AI enabled pest trap.

Olivia’s take:

“The conference was a good opportunity for me to do my first conference presentation! I talked about the Slakes app and things we have learned from using it to assess soil aggregate strength, and I spoke about the Nitrachek device project that I have been running as a part of my Te Ahikawariki/VICE internship.”

Many thanks to all our sponsors, speakers and delegates!

The LandWISE Conference, Getting to Carbon Positive, attracted more than 80 people who heard speakers on a wide range of topics related to ongoing sustainability. Day 2 had a strong focus on electrification options to increase profitability and reduce emissions. New Zealand is reaching a point where solar power is the cheapest energy available – as Mike Casey noted, the cheapest form of energy ever.

Uttam Floray introduced Rewiring Aotearoa and the local chapter, Electrify Hawke’s Bay which are focused on helping promote and activate electrification. Mike Casey described the electrification of his cherry orchard and laid out a huge set of statistics and examples of ways New Zealanders can profitably swap fossil fuel machines for electric ones. Becks Smith now helps farmers work out how solar can add to their businesses having set up a solar system for irrigation pumping in Otago.

Lincoln University has chosen major investments in solar electricity to reduce emissions at the university, and Pieter-Wilem Hendriks is part of a team investigating ways to combine agricultural production with energy generation. At smaller scale, Aaron Duncan explained options for home and SME solar systems, using the Centre for Land and Water system as a case study. Boyd Benton discussed the way Ripple Tech transplants electric motors into fossil vehicles and, in a second talk, introduced micro-hydro as a viable option for sites with streams. Olivia said

“It was fantastic to hear Uttam Singh Floray, Mike Casey, Becks Smith, Pieter Hendriks, Boyd Benton, and Aaron Duncan discussing electrification and reducing emissions. You could sense their genuine passion for the topic, which made their talks even more engaging. I particularly enjoyed Mike Casey’s talk on his electric cherry farm. I found it fascinating that every piece of machinery used on the farm is electric, including the truck that transports the cherries to the packhouse. That means there are no fossil fuel carbon emissions until after the cherries have been transported from the farm.”

Horizons Regional Council Field Session

The field session on Thursday afternoon provided delegates with opportunity to get first-hand experience of some of the techniques and technologies that had been discussed. We thank “A Lighter Touch”, WaterForce, Freenergy, RippleTech, PowerSpout, Vegetables NZ, Autonabit, and Agovor for bringing their wares to demonstrate. Gadgets, machines and systems to excite, save time and money, and enable systemic changes. Olivia said

“I didn’t make it around to all the field event demonstrations, as I was demonstrating the Slakes app and the Nitrachek device. I did manage to see the smart trap, the off-grid hydro pump, the Govor robot, and the Avvy bird scaring robot. They offer so much, and we expect to see a lot more of these technologies in years to come!”

We gratefully acknowledge all our sponsors, presenters, demonstrators, and delegates!

Getting to Carbon Positive

Wednesday 21 – Thursday 22 May
Havelock North Function Centre

In 2025 we’re delighted to bring you a conference with focuses on regenerative crop production, carbon footprinting, and electrification. We’ll have new technologies to think about and see, we have speakers with proven track records, and we’re looking forward to catching up with old friends and new.

Do we know the footprint of our activities? How do international markets assess them and what will we need to report? We are proud to present Associate Professor Dr Pii-Tuulia Nikula to open the managing our footprints conversation. We’ve done the numbers on our Carbon Positive cropping treatments, and we’ve others talking about what they are doing to address their footprints too.

If we are going to get to Carbon Zero (or better) we need to think about both inputs and outputs from our systems. Can we soak up more than we lose? Which inputs have the greatest impact?

We will report on progress and lessons from another year of our regenerative cropping research and present some new tools for growers to assess nitrate levels and soil stability. We’ll have examples for viewing at the Horizons Regional Council Field Session. Others will update us about new technologies for pest and disease control and reintroducing insects to cyclone impacted orchards and discuss the use of bio-strips and insectaries to encourage beneficial insects.

We’ll need energy, of course, but how much can we generate on-site? Is electrification realistic now? Where to in the short to medium term? We are delighted to have Mike Casey of the Electric Cherry Orchard and CEO of Rewiring Aotearoa opening the discussion on electrification and alternative energy case studies. We’ll have electric vehicles for perusal.

Thanks to our Sponsors!

We look forward to seeing many of you again in 2025.