The Foundation for Research Science and Technology (FRST) last week cut funding to primary industry research projects on reproduction, textiles and beef genomics because of a lack of industry contribution.
AgResearch applied biotechnologies manager Dr Jimmy Suttie said while the research organisation had issues with the foundation's funding decision process, farmers should take heed about how pastoral research was being funded and the Government's expectations about industry involvement.
That expectation was translated loud and clear by Research Science and Technology Minister Pete Hodgson and the foundation, who both noted the lack in industry co-funding for some projects in this year's round.
Dr Suttie said AgResearch was disappointed the foundation took such a "rigid" view to allocating funds, especially given the meat and wool sector was going through a period of low profits.
But AgResearch had responded by extending that research to include lamb survivability, making it more practical for farmers, Dr Suttie said.
Initially, there was sufficient funding for a further three years of reproduction research and to relocate the Wallaceville research group south to Invermay, but after that, decisions about the future of the work would have to be made.
"But, the model the foundation uses for agricultural research demands co-funding. When we went to Meat and Wool to ask if they would fund sheep and some beef reproduction research, they said no."
Meat and Wool New Zealand had stopped funding reproduction research through its part-owned subsidiary, Ovita, because farmers said they did not want ewes to have more lambs but for there to be more live lambs.
AgResearch respected that decision and had changed its focus to include lamb survivability, but Dr Suttie said the foundation should have canvassed farmers more to see whether the broader research project it proposed was applicable.
"FRST took the fact there was no co-funding to mean the industry was not interested."
It was widely known the sheep industry was suffering a lean period financially, but Dr Suttie said there appeared to be no flexibility to exempt a sector suffering a downturn from funding criteria, even though it was still a significant export earner and the research could help its recovery.
"It is down and the system keeps it down."
Some beef industry research also missed out on FRST funding because Meat and Wool has funded genetics work in Australia, but Dr Suttie said AgResearch's proposal was tailored to the New Zealand beef scene.
He said AgResearch was not critical of Meat and Wool's decision, but its proposed research aimed to identify genes that produced beef marbling in dairy-breed cattle.
The New Zealand beef industry differed from Australia because the industry here was primarily based on dairy-breed animals, and by finding a marbling gene, it could increase the value and productivity of those animals.
Dr Suttie said markets had identified the value of grass-fed beef and demand was growing.
AgResearch has received some funding but would meet the shortfall itself.
"We actually believe in this. We believe we have got to show some industry vision."
The treatment of pastoral research funding raised wider concerns with AgResearch, especially with a lack of a science strategy to provide guidelines about the roles of Crown Research Institutions, what the Government wants professional scientists to do and funding.
"We don't believe the Government understands what CRIs are. There is no cohesive structure that says this is what the role of CRIs is."
As a result CRIs and the foundation were operating in a vacuum, he said.
The expectation was that the fund would provide a dollar for dollar subsidy, but Dr Suttie said the science community was not being included in the decision and planning process.
To access it, sectors would have to provide co-funding.