What investors often miss about operations, risk, and performance
Farmland is often categorised alongside other real assets, yet its behaviour differs in important ways. It is not simply owned; it is operated. Income, productivity, and asset value are therefore shaped by management execution, rather than passive market exposure alone.
Farmland is simultaneously a real asset, an operating business, and a biological system, shaped by climate, markets, and human decision-making. Yet within capital markets, it is still frequently viewed through an asset-based lens, with the operational demands often underestimated.
My own experience has spanned both perspectives. Over the past two decades, I have worked behind the farm gate across large-scale sheep, beef, and dairy operations in New Zealand, alongside roles focused on globally oriented agricultural innovation and value creation, before moving into investment strategy and management. That dual perspective has shaped a conviction I return to often: farmland is not simply an asset you own; it is an operating business you must understand. Consequently, evaluating a farm requires two complementary lenses, with one focused on asset quality and long-term value, and the other grounded in productivity, cost control, and biological performance.
This distinction is not trivial. Successful farm businesses rely on a breadth of expertise rarely encountered in other sectors. Financial management, market judgement, biological understanding, operational coordination, infrastructure oversight, and risk management must function as an integrated whole. Increasingly, data capability, KPI tracking, and compliance discipline are equally central. The challenge is not mastery of any single domain, but the ability to align them consistently.
Early in my career, it became clear that success rarely hinged on a single decision. Performance came from the consistent execution of marginal gains. In livestock systems, for example, modest improvements in feed conversion or calving percentage can significantly shift profitability, yet these outcomes depend on cumulative management decisions rather than any single intervention.
My exposure to investment advisory and management later brought a recurring tension into sharper focus - the gap between what works in a model and what works in the field. My co-founder, Charlie Hancock, a career farm business operator, often quoted Eisenhower – “You know, farming looks mighty easy when your plough is a pencil and you are a thousand miles from the corn field”.
When Eisenhower made this remark, he was highlighting a broader reality. Decisions formed far from the field, in the absence of operational context, often fail to capture the practical complexity of farming. The quote endures because agriculture resists oversimplification. Spreadsheet assumptions do not always translate cleanly into operating outcomes. Events such as late frosts, prolonged drought, seasonal yield variability, heat stress affecting livestock performance, or sudden input cost shocks can materially alter even the most conservative forecasts. Likewise, strategies that appear compelling in theory, such as precision agriculture adoption, regenerative transitions, or infrastructure optimisation, may prove difficult to execute in practice when there is intervention from biological systems, labour constraints, capital availability, and implementation risk.
For investors, agriculture presents a combination of characteristics not commonly found within a single asset class. It provides exposure to essential, income-generating assets underpinned by long-term demand for food and fibre, while offering potential for capital appreciation through productivity gains, optimised operations, and land value dynamics. Returns are shaped not only by commodity cycles, but by biological performance, cost discipline, and quality management execution.
With experienced management, value creation extends beyond production alone. Improvements in soil health, water efficiency, and system resilience can enhance both operating performance and asset durability. When natural capital outcomes are measurable and verified, they can contribute complementary revenue streams, risk mitigation benefits, or differentiated market positioning.
Rather than framing production and environmental outcomes as competing priorities, integrated agricultural strategies recognise that long-term financial performance, system resilience, and landscape stability are inherently linked.
Farmland occupies a uniquely strategic position in a world confronted by resource constraints, climate uncertainty, and the need for efficient production systems. Realising that potential requires more than capital alone. It demands management depth, operational fluency, and an understanding of agriculture’s inherent complexity.
Author Bio: Hadyn Craig is Co-Founder and CEO of Viresco Group and Head of Investment Strategy for the Viresco Queensland Farmland Fund. He has over 20 years’ experience across the agri-food sector, combining hands-on operational background, innovation development and deployment with institutional investment and advisory expertise. Having spent formative years working behind the farm gate before moving into investment strategy and asset management, Hadyn focuses on aligning agricultural performance, natural capital development, and capital allocation.
