Canola 100 fail title

Why the Canola 100 Challenge is So Wrong

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Announced two years ago around this time, the Canola 100 challenge baits farmers into taking part in a “moonshot”: an attempt to produce a verified canola yield of 100 bushels per acre. It isn’t that efforts to increase yield aren’t a good thing, because they are. But by what means are we attempting to achieve these yields?

This “contest” may be virtuous in spirit, but it overlooks the not-so-old adage that “better is better before bigger is better.” That applies to this argument too.

The rationale behind my position is supported in this Western Producer article that describes a farmer’s chase of this moonshot, throwing everything including the kitchen sink at his crop in an attempt to cash in on the Canola 100 prize. (Spoiler alert: it failed miserably.) This particular attempt can be summarized in this quote from the article:

The fertility program cost $300 per acre more than what was done to the check field but yielded only 70 bu. per acre, which was 1.4 bu. per acre more than the check field.

The driving factor behind efforts to maximize yields should be ROI (Return on Investment) and Gross Margin. Doing so would focus on maximum economic yield, not maximum production yield. There’s something about that pesky law of diminishing returns that gets overlooked when trying to shoot for the moon…

If maximum economic yield is the target, then Gross Margin is the focus. How that gross margin is achieved is up to each producer, but make no mistake about where the focus needs to be. In my experience, minimum gross margin, that is gross revenue less seed, chemicals, and fertilizers, at MINIMUM needs to be 65% to sustain the business. High cost operations need greater gross margin to cover all those costs.

To put that in reverse, if 35% of your gross revenue can go to crop inputs, then each $1.00 invested into inputs should return $2.86 in gross revenue. To apply this to the example above, the “extra $300 per acre” in fertility should have delivered $858/ac in gross revenue. If Canola was $10/bu, that’s nearly 86 bushels per acre above the check field.

Canola 100 fail

Let’s push the argument harder: if the example above actually hit 100 bushels per acre, and acknowledging the control field yielded 68.6 bu/ac, the gross margin on the Canola 100 plot was $14 per acre, or about 4.67%.

This is IF the 100 bushel yield was achieved…and face it, $14 gross margin doesn’t pay many bills; in fact, it wouldn’t even buy the fuel for the contest plot.

To Plan for Prosperity

Make no mistake about the messaging here: as a producer of commodities, you need the bushels!!! But do not lose sight of the fact that as a producer of commodities, your only chance of remaining sustainably profitable is to produce at the lowest cost per unit. Period. Chasing maximum yield at a 1:1 ROI won’t get it done.

1. What is your historical gross margin?
2. What are your operating and overhead costs?
3. Know these to be able to plan for maximum economic yield.

 

Focus

Results Focused or Activity Focused

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

Most farms will be receiving their year end financial statements from their accountants by now, if not already. Those with fiscal year ends of January 31 or later might still be waiting for their year end to be finalized.

How did your last fiscal year turn out? What were your financial results? If you are results focused, you’ll be paying attention to metrics like:

  • Net Profit
  • EBITDA
  • Gross Margin
  • Return on Equity

Activity focused operations typically don’t review financial reporting, instead directing energy towards:

  • Greasing
  • Shoveling
  • Driving
  • Anything else…

To Plan for Prosperity

There are some who will say that “money and profit aren’t everything.” Don’t listen to them. They aren’t focused on results. Yes, health and family are more important than money because money cannot buy health or a happy family, BUT without profit no one will be happy.

Profit is the fuel for your business. And like the diesel in your tractor, if you’re not making sure you have enough, things are going to stall.

Average

Don’t Settle For Average

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

It was the headline that struck me.

Don't settle for average _embedded

Settling for average in any aspect of your business will lead to certain demise. If everything was average (yields, quality, market prices, rainfall, heat units, weed pressure, disease pressure, input prices, equipment repair frequency, wages, overhead, etc, etc, etc…you get the picture) then farming would be easy.

But it’s not.

Fair to say that if you are projecting average yields and prices for 2017 you’ll be measuring those against higher-than-average costs. This is likely to total down to a negative bottom line.

I’ve never been a fan of “average.” As my old friend Moe Russell likes to say, “You can drown in a river that averages a foot deep.”

Average, to me, is nothing more than a feel good guide when looking to validate poor results. For example, acknowledging that yields were only a couple bushels below average means nothing Table for Averagewithout quantifiers like market prices (meaning we’ve calculated gross revenue), like input cost (meaning we’ve calculated gross margin), or like operating costs (meaning we’ve calculated profits from operations.) Here is a table to illustrate what I’m getting at:

If average is profitable over the long term, then we must acknowledge the need to adjust all facets of our profit calculation when one facet is below average. The problem is that generally we are seeing farms operate with higher than “average” costs and trying to pay for them with “average” yields.

To Plan for Prosperity

Our profitability is not determined by where it falls on a bell-curve, so why would we accept “average?”

 

farmer tailgate computer

Farm Profitability Indexing

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , , /by

Farm Profitability Indexing

Late in 2015, I picked up on some interesting farm financial info during a presentation I attended as a part of CAFA. This information represents farms from a geographically vast cross section and revealed some interesting trends:

1. Gross Revenue per Acre has Trended Up

Gross Revenue bar chart

With 2007 being the base year with a value of 100, and also being the first year of the bull run in commodity prices, we can clearly see that while gross revenues are trending up, there is still great volatility in gross farm receipts. True, weather anomalies had a significant effect, but that’s farming, isn’t it?

2. Investment in Crop Inputs per Acre has Trended Up

Inputs bar chart

While gross revenue has seen volatility, and for three years including 2009-2011 gross revenue was at or near 2007 revenue levels, investment in inputs has only once seen a reduction year over year. In 2013, investment in inputs was 77.5% higher per acre than it was in 2007.

3. Gross Margin per Acre has Trended Up

Gross Margin bar chart

While gross margin is trending up, there was a significant decline in 2009 from the previous year that extended right through 2011. Even by 2012, gross margin had not returned to 2008 levels.

4. Operating and Fixed Costs per Acre are Trending Up

Oper and Fixed Costs bar chart

This figure would represent operating costs such as fuel, labor, and equipment costs, as well as fixed costs such as interest, land, and building costs.  Notice the steady increase that has never went down year over year, even through the low margin years of 2009-2011 operating & fixed costs continued to rise.

5. Net Income per Acre has Rebounded from Significant Reductions

Net Income bar chart

Net Income represents what is left over after operating your business, that profit which remains to cover administrative costs, make principal loan payments, and cover that other insignificant cash requirement: living costs (that was sarcasm if you couldn’t tell.)

In this illustration, we have calculated Net Income simply as Gross Margin LESS Operating & Fixed costs. Here we see that the low margin years of 2009-2011 actually extend right to 2012 with net income still below that of our base year 2007. This is the residual effect of increasing costs during a period of low margins (2009-2011) by continuing to have a negative effect on what would otherwise be a successful year in 2012.

Everything Dips but Expenses

This chart illustrates a dangerous trend: even when income goes down, operating & fixed expenses are allowed to continue to rise.

farm profitability line chart

By the end of 2011, net income had dropped to less than 30% of 2007 levels, yet operating and fixed costs were over 145% of 2007 levels. It took 2013 bringing about the largest crop in maybe forever to elevate net income back to 2007 levels.

Direct Questions

If Net Income represents the funds you have generated to cover living costs and make loan payments, how well does your worst net income from the last 10 years cover your living and loan payments in 2016?

What does the trend of your gross income, input costs, operating costs, and net income look like since 2007? Is it similar to what’s been presented here? What changes have you made to your operation based on your own information?

Gross margin should ideally be in lock step with operating and fixed costs. If you aren’t increasing your gross margin, why are you increasing your costs?

From the Home Quarter

This is a very telling experiment, but it is not the rule on all farms. The information presented here is an average across a list that spans all regions of the prairies, but heavily weighted on Saskatchewan. The experiment gets more interesting when you apply it to your own business. To lean on the 5% Rule first promoted by Danny Klinefelter, if in 2013 you could have been 5% better than the average in gross revenue, input costs, and operating & fixed costs as presented here, your net income would be 44% better than information presented, and index to 152.14% of the 2007 base year.

How does that sound?

 

growing lentils to increase gross margin

Gross Margin or Operating & Fixed Costs – What Comes First?

/2 Comments/in , , , , /by

The question may seem redundant or nonsensical, 6 of one and a half-dozen of the other…

Do you build your crop plan in an effort to generate sufficient gross margin to cover operating and fixed expenses, or do you budget your operating and fixed expenses to fit within your typical gross margin?

For most high cost operations I speak with, they know their costs are high and then find themselves working hard to generate adequate gross margin to cover their costs and , hopefully, leave a profit at the end.

The challenge that many high cost operators are facing is the run up of their expenses during the recent string of bullish years (land, buildings, equipment, pickups, etc.) and are now trying to manage those residual expenses during a period of tighter margins. They are focusing heavily on one of two areas:

  1. Seek out every opportunity possible to increase yields and to expose marketing opportunities, or
  2. Cut expenses to a level more in line with their farm’s historical gross margins.

It seems that the most common strategy that would fall under Point 1 above is to bring lentils into the crop rotation for 2016. The high prices are just too tantalizing to bear for most high cost producers. We will see lentils being grown in non-lentil growing areas in an effort to boost gross margin. I spoke with a young seed grower this month who told me he received a call this winter from north-east of Prince Albert looking for lentil seed. Good luck with that.

I learned of another operation, in an area that is typical for lentil failures, that dabbled in lentils in 2015. While this region can typically produce 30-50 bushel pea yields, this farm enjoyed a solid 5 bu/ac lentil yield. What is the opportunity cost of using land for a 5 bu lentil crop that could have produced a 30 bu, or even 50 bu, pea crop? Chasing rainbows? I’d say so.

A number of my clients are focusing on Point 2 above, and have been quite successful in reducing the one cost that is most controllable, yet has gotten quite high over the last few years: they are selling equipment to reduce their overall equipment cost. Whether it be liquidating the extravagant tillage tool that is only needed once in a while, moving out that sprayer that is too big for the farm size, or not acquiring that “nice to have” tractor, these farms are working to bring, and keep, their costs more in line with their expected gross margin.

Moe Russell has been quoted in these articles before, and he is on record saying, “Over the long term, the price of agricultural commodities will level out at the cost of production of the highest cost producer.” Essentially, if you’re a “highest cost producer,” over the long term you’re looking at a break even.

Direct Questions

What strategies have you employed to manage costs in the wake of tightening gross margins?

Do you budget your expenses to a level your gross margin will cover, or do you try to achieve gross margin to cover existing expenses?

From the Home Quarter

One of these approaches is top-down, the other is bottom-up. If you caught my presentation at Sask Young Ag Entrepreneur’s Annual Conference earlier in January, then you’ll have already heard my explanation of why top-down is better.

Top-down is managing your farm by budgeting your operating and fixed expenses to fall in line with your typical and expected gross margin. You have likely enjoyed a regular profit.

Bottom-up is reacting to a long line of expenses that were incurred during a short period of high profitability by trying to create a gross margin that is not very likely.

The view from the top is better.

farm

Managed Risk Part 1: Harvest Sales

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

In an email last week, a farmer friend and former colleague of mine admitted to having 100% of his 2015 crop sold before harvest. It is the first time this has ever happened on his farm. From my years working in ag finance and farm management consulting, I can confidently say that virtually all farms are not 100% sold on new crop in advance of harvest.

As with anything, there are benefits and drawbacks to being 100% sold early in the crop season. It’s easy to identify the drawbacks: production risk (broken into yield risk and quality risk), opportunity risk (if the market appreciates after you’re sold), etc. etc. We’re not going to dwell on these because it’s safe to say almost every farmer has already spent more than enough time hashing and rehashing all the reasons why they shouldn’t sell too early. There are far more drawbacks that have been touted over the years (real, perceived, or otherwise) than I care to scribe. You’ll notice I didn’t put weather risk on the list; it is because we cannot influence or control weather. Why stress over that which you cannot control?

How about some of the benefits:

  • Reduced delivery risk
  • Eliminated market risk
  • Reduced storage risk
  • Controlled cash flow risk

When admitting his crop was 100% sold already, my friend and I didn’t get into the details of what was in place so that he felt comfortable making such a decision. He did acknowledge that prior to harvest the prices were too good to pass up. While price is an important factor, price alone is not sufficient to pull this trigger. Here’s more on what you need if you want to be a more aggressive price maker, instead of a passive price taker.

  1. Excellent relationship with your buyers.
    When it comes to dealing with quality and grading, delivery times, or anything in between, a solid relationship with the buyer of your grain is crucial. Try using a sense of entitlement when next dealing with your buyers and see how far you get. This one is obvious; we won’t dedicate any more space describing what you already know.
  2. Know your costs, especially Unit Cost of Production. As one of my favorite young farmers likes to say, “You can’t go broke by selling for a profit.” Such true words require that you know what it cost to produce a bushel or a tonne so that the price you accept is actually profitable. This isn’t an easy task before harvest, but those farms that have elevated management functions can clearly illustrate UnitCOP with allowances for deviation in expected yield or quality. Refer back to point #1 when dealing with those deviations.
  3. Abundant Working Capital.
    Any drawback, real or perceived, to selling most of your crop ahead of harvest is mitigated by having abundant working capital.
    The biggest selling benefit from having abundant working capital is being able to sell when you WANT to instead of when you HAVE to. The ability to sell on your own timeline affords you the opportunity to deliver in your preferred month, and to seek out your preferred price. Abundant working capital also alleviates the fear of costs incurred from not meeting contract requirements when aggressively forward selling. The hesitation felt from the potential of having to “buy out” a contract if specs aren’t met can be eliminated if working capital is abundant.

It is not unreasonable to see more reluctance this year among durum growers to forward price as aggressively as in the past. The fusarium fiasco of 2014 hurt numerous farms financially and created an air of hesitation. But if working capital was a non-issue on every farm, durum growers would not be shy to forward price after the 2014 experience. While none want to set themselves up for unnecessary cost incurrence, the ability to handle the potential cost alleviates the concern of incurring it.

Direct Questions

How would you rate your relationship with your grain buyers? What can be done to improve it?
How would you describe your knowledge of your Unit Cost of Production, and net profit margin?
What is your current level of working capital and what does it need to be to provide you with full confidence to aggressively forward price?

From the Home Quarter

Please let it be clear that this message is not encouraging everyone to sell 100% of new crop production ahead of harvest. Such a strategy takes on risks that not every farm can mitigate. But if you are desirous in forward pricing more new crop than you have in past years, then let this message offer you some tips on what you need to have in place to make that happen.
You may have noticed that working capital is a central theme to many messages delivered here weekly. If you are able to focus on only one priority, let it be working capital.
Our proprietary Farm Profit Improvement Program™ begins with working capital evaluations and True Cost of Production analysis. Please call or email to learn how this process can bring value to your farm.

grain2

Knowing Your Costs

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

My clients continually educate me on the regional anomalies relating to land prices, and specifically land
rents. The common opinion among most farmers I speak with is that some of their neighbors just don’t
understand how to measure costs, and this leaves many farmers (including some of those I speak with)
feeling left out in the cold as they watch land get snapped up by someone willing to pay a rental rate
that can appear astronomical.

Based on third party feedback, meaning info shared with me by a farmer from his/her conversation with
a friend/neighbor/competitor, most decisions to take on land are being justified under the guise of
“reducing equipment costs per acre” and/or “the drive to be bigger.”

Popular ag-economics has drilled in to everyone’s head that fixed costs, like equipment, need to be
spread out over more acres to reduce the fixed costs per acre. This is simple arithmetic, and is
mathematically correct if we stop there. Stopping there allows us to feel good about the decisions we’ve
made to increase our fixed costs because “over ‘X’ acres, we’re only spending ‘Y’ dollars per acre.”

graph16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of all the costs that farmers face, the costs they have most control over seem to be the costs that are
least controlled. MNP has coined the term LPM, and what I’ll call “operations” are a farm’s labor, power,
and machinery costs which have ballooned in recent years. Next in line is Land, Buildings, and Finance
costs, or what I’ll call “facilities,” which have also grown significantly. Increase land costs (rent) to justify
increased equipment costs: think about it, we’re increasing costs to validate increased costs…
We expect to make a profit from taking risk. The more risk we take, the more profit we expect. My
concern comes from witnessing decisions that magnify risk and leave the expectation of profit as a
secondary, or even tertiary, consideration.

Direct Questions

Take a look at your expected gross margin this harvest. How much gross margin will you have available
to contribute to “operations,” “facilities,” administration costs, and PROFIT?

What is your “operations” cost? What are your target costs for “operations?” Did you know the most
profitable farmers keep their “operations” cost below $100/ac?

Have you traced your line from gross revenue and gross margin through to costs and down to profit?
Where can you improve?

From the Home Quarter

We cannot eliminate risk, we can only manage it. We cannot eliminate expenses, we can only manage
them. We cannot manage what we do not measure. If the purpose of your business is to increase profits
and grow your wealth, should you not ensure that the risks you take and the expenses you incur fit into a plan
for profit?

 

Understanding Costs – a graphical simulation

graph17

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the example above, which illustrates a generic but common scenario on average grain farms in 2015,
a net loss of $9/ac is expected. But the top 10% of farms with a similar gross margin could show a net
profit of $40/ac, simply from excellent management of their controllable expenses: operations, facilities,
and admin.

GFP FI 2

The Drought Dilemma

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

The smoky haze we started inhaling yesterday drives home more than ever just how dry it really is.
#Drought15 is the Twitter hashtag to learn about how bad it is beyond our respective back doors. By all
accounts, crops are suffering and market prices are starting to reflect it. Those who are in an area that
has been, and/or remains, too wet just might be coyly denying that they ever complained about the
rain.

While it is too early to get a handle on any semblance of accurate yield estimates, people I’ve been
talking with have tossed around phrases such as “July harvest” on lentils, and described wheat crops
that are ready to push heads despite only being approximately 2 feet tall. What might be in those heads
if another hot dry windy week prevails?

As a farmer, you are an optimist. Even the most pessimistic ornery old codger you can imagine is still an
optimist if he’s a farmer. If he wasn’t, he’d never put a crop in the ground each spring. But as optimistic
as “Well, if we get one good rain in the next 4-5 days” sounds, it’s not going to make it rain. Despite the
drizzle we’re seeing today, one rain does not make a crop. If you’ve got payments to make, payables to
cover, even payroll to meet, you might want to start thinking about how that will all get done if
#Drought15 persists.

  1. Speak with your creditors.
    They’re not clueless; they hear the weather forecasts and read the crop reports. But they also
    won’t assume; they won’t assume that you’ll have trouble making payments because your crop
    is not going to meet expectations. As far as they’re concerned, you’ll be fully capable of
    satisfying the obligations you promised to make when you signed the loan or lease
    documents…unless they hear otherwise.
    And remember, your lenders are not problem fixers, so coming to them after the trouble gets
    real makes it far more difficult. They have more opportunity to help when they can be proactive.
  2. Consider your options.
    Do you remember Growing Farm Profits Weekly Issue #9? “Life and business can often be like
    snowmobiling: when trouble is ahead sometimes you need to pull back and sometimes you
    need to stay on the throttle.” What is your best option considering your crop’s development to
    date? I recently read an article discussing the possibility of reseeding barley on fields that have
    been froze out or droughted out. Considering the dire need for feed this year, cattlemen will be
    interested in green feed or silage barley. Is it time to consider how that might pencil out?
  3. Change your plans.
    The decisions you made last year and the year before were based on the best information you
    had at the time. The current situation differs greatly and probably requires a new decision.
    Swallowing pride and allowing yourself to change/reverse/discard old decisions could be exactly
    what your business needs. Nay, it IS what your business needs because your business is
    constantly changing and so should your decisions. Knowing when to do so is just as important.

Direct Questions

How would you rate yourself as far as being agile to your financial obligations in light of poor crop
conditions?

How would your stress level decrease if you took 10% of the time and effort you spend on worrying
about the existing crop conditions and used it to contact your strategic partners and advisors to amend
2015 expectations?

Are you staunchly sticking to your past decisions or are you being flexible and responsive to the needs of
your business?

From the Home Quarter

About 17 or 18 months ago, I blogged about how we need to reset what our expectation of success
really is. After the record 2013 crop, the 2014 crop year was poised to be a real disappointment in
comparison. Considering so far this year we generally went from adequate or excessive moisture in
March to a drought by mid-May, I’d suggest we look at 2015 for what it is and be realistic about what
we can call success. To give you a glimpse of what I mean, in 2014 I was working with a farm that
projected an operating loss due to the excessive moisture, crop quality issues, dropping grain prices, and
high fixed costs. The comment during planning was “OK, so we’re expecting to lose only about $300,000
in 2014; that’s decent considering what it could be.” They reset their expectation of success based on
what they saw.

Take a good hard look at your current year, be realistic with expectations, and make changes as
required. We can help make sense of it, take the emotion out of it, and assist with establishing new
plans.

If you’d like help planning your farm for business and personal success, then call me or send an email.

blindside

The Blindside

/0 Comments/in , , /by

No not the Hollywood movie, but the way prairie farmers have been blindsided by these late spring
frosts.

I haven’t done the research, but it’s fair to say that we’d be hard pressed to recall a year when we’ve
had such a string of days where the daily low temperatures are well below freezing. Word has it that
farmers in many areas now are beginning to prepare for reseeding.

Show of hands: how many built reseeding into their 2015 crop plan? I didn’t think so. How many of you
who are reseeding are rejigging your budget and projections? It better be all of you.

It’s not just the extra cost of seed, fuel, wages, etc. It also means later emergence and maturity which
will impact yield, and maybe quality. For how challenging it has been to deliver grain in the last few
years, if late maturity means you now cannot deliver off the combine in August or September as per
your contract, will you be forced to wait until December, or even March? Have you considered how this
could impact cash flow?

Don’t get lulled into oversimplifying the adjustments to your projections. It’s easy to just add in cost for
more seed. But a couple bucks an acre here for labor, and a couple more bucks there for fuel on the
extra pass add up. And I don’t know of too many 2015 projections that have much wiggle room.

Direct Questions

Have you provided realistic amendments to yield and price projections based on reseeding dates and
rates.

Have you considered how the later seeding dates due to reseeding will affect your new crop delivery
opportunities, and therefore, your cash flow?

Do you have sufficient working capital to get through this unplanned extra cost?

From the Home Quarter

Anyone who is dealing with Mother Nature’s blindside string of frosty nights will be significantly
impacted in all 3 critical areas of their farm: production, marketing, and financial management.
Consequentially, the other critical areas of your business will also be affected: family, wealth, and
potentially your health.

You must, at your very first chance, update your projections for 2015 with realistic and conservative
information. And for goodness sake, let your lenders know ASAP, not just next spring when you’re doing
your annual review.

This bolsters my argument for strong working capital. Every farm, your farm, is at risk of a blindside
attack at any time from a variety of sources. Adequate working capital is the best way to ensure you’ll
get through it.
If you’d like help establishing strategies to ensure you build adequate working capital,
then call me or send an email.

farm

Why Precision Farming Should Start in the Office

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

We’ve been hearing about precision farming for quite a number of years now. It’s common practice
among early adopters. It’s getting a lot of face time in the media. It is a strategic decision that should
elevate a farm’s production efficiencies to new heights not seen before.

Proponents say that variable rate is not a treatment, but a management practice. They would be correct.

I’ve watched in awe the business men and women who recognize the benefits of increasing their
acumen in a certain aspect of their farm. One of those is precision farming/variable rate and it is
awesome. In fact, I believe that in the future VR will be the second greatest determining factor affecting
gross margins, second only to marketing of course.

But what is more awesome is seeing those farms that have taken precision farming into the offices and
applied it to financial management practices. Think about this: it was early December 2013, right after
the largest harvest in almost forever, as commodity prices were already on a crazy carpet for a ride
down the trading charts. I was in a conversation with an aggressive 30-something farmer when he said,
“I’m looking forward to $8.50 canola and $4 wheat, because I know I can still make money at those
prices and a lot of guys can’t. That’s going to create opportunity for me.”

You’ll recall Issue #3 of Growing Farm Profits Weekly on Cost of Production? Well, this guy knows his
costs on everything, right down to the penny per acre. THAT is precision farming!

Now imagine how easy it is for this farmer to make the decision on if he should invest in variable rate
right now or not, considering he knows his costs to the penny across his whole farm. He can quickly and
accurately calculate the projected benefit against the capital cost to invest in the technology. He isn’t
making decisions on emotion. He isn’t making decisions on pride (being the first guy in town to VR his
whole farm.) He’s making decisions on an expectation of profit. And trust me, his net worth statement
shows that he’s made several profitable decisions.

Direct Questions

Your farm requires excellence in 3 areas: production, marketing, financial management. Are you
focusing heavily on one or two areas to the detriment of the others?

Are you meticulous where your skills and interest lie, and improvident elsewhere?
Would decisions be easier to make if you knew exactly your financial position at all times?

From the Home Quarter

It’s been said time and time again that “you can’t manage what you don’t control.” Precision farming,
whether it’s in the field or in the office, is all about taking full control; it’s about collecting and using
data. It is projected that when under full VR, your farm can reasonably expect to gain ~$35/ac in a
combination of costs savings and increased yields once the practice has been in place for a number of
years. How long will it take to achieve a $35/ac benefit from implementing precision farming in the
office? I’d say pretty quick, depending on how committed you are to it. Plus, the capital investment will
be a lot less too.