It was the same about a year ago. We check what nutrient levels remain after harvest, consider what crop will perform best in each field next year, and begin to apply appropriate nutrients (following the 4R’s of Fertility: Right Source, Right, Rate, Right Time, and Right Place) in fall and/or in spring. The crop get’s sown, produce get’s harvested, and we check the soil again. Based on what we started with, what we added, and what the crop used to through the growing season, we compare to what is left in the soil to evaluate how efficient our fertility program was.

If it wasn’t as efficient as it could have been, we examine the effects on our production (moisture, heat, disease, insects, etc.) and we examine our own role in the process by questioning if the seed tool did a good enough job; how about the sprayer? Often time we use weather as the justification to acquire bigger, newer equipment to “get the job done faster.”

What if the entire industry, not just the progressive managers but the entire industry, used that same methodology in analyzing profit and cash flow? It might look something like this:

This is the time of year when spreadsheets all over the prairie are being used to tally up the performance of the business over the last growing season. We start with the working capital we had after last harvest, consider what crop will perform best based on your crop rotation and market outlook, and begin to project input costs and yield & price for each crop. We enter expected operating and overhead costs into a projection, and convert those projections to “actuals” as the year progresses. Once harvest is complete, we evaluate working capital again.

If profitability and cash flow was insufficient to meet expectations, we examine if operating costs stayed within budget or not (and why), we examine if overhead costs were projected correctly or if we let both operating and overhead “get away” this year. What did we not foresee? What did we properly plan for? Did we market appropriately?

The practice of soil testing compliments crop and fertility planning. These are crucial steps to take to create the most efficient plan. Remember, you need to produce at the lowest cost per unit possible. Period. Hard Stop.

The practice of checking financial performance is similar to keeping score. It would be awfully tough to know what adjustments need to be made during the game (growing season) without knowing the score along the way.

To Plan for Prosperity

It’s been said by agronomists that soil testing is “seeing what’s in the bank account” and they carry on in supporting that analogy by stating that no one would write a cheque without knowing what the bank balance is first. Sadly, there any many people who do both: write cheques without knowing what’s in the bank and plant crops without knowing what’s in soil. One won’t break you, the other could.

Knowledge is power. Knowledge comes from management. Management requires measurement. Test your soil (financial performance), because if you don’t measure it, you can’t manage it.

**Side note: the photo is from my farming days, and provides a glimpse into the soil I used to farm. I found it interesting to so clearly see the A, B, and C horizons in a single core. **

I smiled at Danny’s tweet about about the lack of bites while ice-fishing and how it was contributing to crop plan changes for this spring’s upcoming seeding season (or “planting season” as it is also called.)

Thinking time is something that we seem to have less and less of these days. With the constant bombardment from numerous social media platforms, phone calls, text messages, and emails, it is amazing we are able to get anything done. Quiet time, disconnected from our “devices” is not only critical to staying sane (disclaimer: I am not a psychologist and that is not a psychological prescription) it is also required for some thinking time.

Consider the many aspects of your business, and the thousands of decisions you make every day. This doesn’t even touch on the “major” business decisions that need to get made through the course of the year. Many of those daily decisions are reactionary because the situation is something you’ve been through many times before, or you may have prepare for the decision with some planning. Other situations require that you stop what you’re doing to make the decision, whether that be from the situation being something you’ve never dealt with before, or possibly because you just hadn’t considered it and you’re therefore not prepared.

For me, thinking time happens all too frequently; it’s just how my mind is (always grinding away on something.) The challenge for me is that if I’m not prepared to record or act upon (what i think is) a brilliant thought or idea, it can get lost. It’s been suggested that I keep a note pad or recording device with me all the time. A great theory that is tough to enact when I”m driving, or when I’m laying awake in bed trying so hard to fall asleep; both are situations when my quiet time, my thinking time, seems strongest.

My new strategy is to dedicate a portion of each day to thinking time. It’s not scheduled, nor is it rigid in practice. I allow myself the time, possibly a few times each day, to do the creative thinking I need to do in my business when the juices begin to flow. This allows me to take notes of my brainstorming, to elevate my confidence in that I have captured what are (in my mind) brilliant thoughts and ideas, and reduces angst over the “I had a great idea on _____________, and I lost it!” <insert curse words here>

When I was farming, some of the best opportunity for thinking time was in the tractor; I’m sure it’s the same for many of you. The problem is that thinking time in the tractor while seeding is too late to be crop planning. Although, it is a terrific time to give thought to your financial reporting from the previous year and tactics to improve for the current year.

To Plan for Prosperity

There is an almost immeasurable amount of information coming at us from the virtual world and from the plethora of farm shows scheduled across the prairies all winter. To sort out all of the information available to you, and not be overwhelmed in the process:

1. Set aside some designated thinking time on a regular basis (unplugged, no devices, no distractions;)
2. Enlist the guidance of advisors who experts in their field;
3. Give yourself the leeway to make mistakes. Perfection is unattainable.

Thinking time should not be limited to current issues or the next three months. Also include the next three years. Your business is an ocean freighter, not a speed boat; changing course and making adjustments cannot happen quickly, they take time and deliberate action.

Ask yourself if your 2017 break-even yield is near, or well below, your 5 year production average. If it is near, then there isn’t much wiggle room, is there? Everything needs to go right, including the external factors you cannot control, like weather.

Does your 2017 crop plan include a sensitivity test? What is your sensitivity to a 10% decrease in yield? What is your sensitivity to a 10% decrease is price? How close do either, or both combined, bring you to break-even?

To Plan for Prosperity

To quote my old friend Moe Russell, “What rabbits are you chasing?” Using Moe’s analogy, the rabbits you should be chasing are found in your operations costs: machinery, labor, repairs & maintenance, fuel, etc, and in your overhead costs: interest, carrying costs, etc. These are the internal factors, the factors that you can control.  And if these have gotten out of control, even free land won’t be profitable.

• The commodity super cycle is over.
• We’re into a new era of a sluggish, more sideways rangy kind of market.
• Canola is not overvalued and Jubinville feels that $10 is the new canola floor.
• Wheat should bring $6-$7/bu this year.
• $10 for new crop yellow peas is a money making price.

This last point gets me. If I had a dollar for every article that claimed a “money making price” on a commodity in such general terms, I’d be making more money! In all the thousands of farm financial statements I’ve reviewed over the years, I can say unequivocally that there are no two farms the same.

In saying that, it is abundantly clear that what is a profitable price on one farm may not be a profitable price on another. And just because $10 yellows may have been profitable last year does not for one second mean that $10 yellows will be profitable this year. Why? It depends entirely on the choices you have made in changes to your business, as well as on the differences in a little thing called YIELD.

Yield can make a once profitable price look very inadequate very fast. In fact, a 15% decrease in yield, from an expected 45 bu/ac to 38.25bu/ac, requires a 17.65% increase in price, from $10/bu to $11.76/bu to equate to the same gross revenue per acre. This factor is not linear: an 18% decline in yield requires a 21.95% bump in price to meet revenue expectations. Alternatively, an 18% bump in yield requires a price that is 15.25% lower than expected to meet the same revenue objectives.

The point is if yield is down, achieving the objective price may not be profitable. Or at the very least, it would be LESS profitable. But the bigger issue is this: How can it be stated what is or is not profitable without intimate knowledge of a farm’s costs?

If the farm’s costs and actual yield create a Unit Cost of Production of $10.20/bu, I’m sorry Mr. Jubinville, that “money-making” $10/bu price you mentioned is not profitable!

Direct Questions

How are you determining what is an appropriate and profitable selling price for your production?

What are you doing to ensure you are including ALL costs incurred to operate your farm?

If you find that your projected Unit Cost of Production is not profitable, what measures are you taking?

From the Home Quarter

Far too often, we can get caught up in making critical business decisions based on what we “think” is appropriate, on a hunch, or on pure emotion. Using Unit Cost of Production calculations to validate your farm’s profitability is an incredibly empowering exercise. I’ve been in a meeting with a client and witnessed the entire crop plan change during the meeting based on Unit Cost of Production information.

What is not measured cannot be managed, and measuring your profit is pretty darn important.

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.

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.

Over the winter, an old colleague and friend made the following tweet through @RCGFarmWise:
Moe Russell has spent well over 30 years in farm finance
and management, and he has been tracking this kind of
info for a long time. I trust his integrity and his
information. Essentially over 5 crop years, this says that
farmers have increased equipment costs 100% faster
and land costs 400% faster than they’ve increased input
costs. In a time of high commodity prices with yields that
were typically above the long term average, this was not
uncommon.

Recently I took part in a Farm Business Development Initiative (FBDI) seminar that brought together
approved consultants and learning providers (of which I am both) to discuss updates to the program.
(Lean more at https://fbdi.gov.sk.ca/) During a conversation there, I overheard one attendee saying
how he listens to farmers “bemoaning the $60/ac they spend on seed, but nary a word to the $60/ac
increase in equipment costs they just took on.”

It is not surprising to see farmers looking to inputs first when trying to find ways to cut costs. We justify
it by lamenting increases to seed, fertilizer, and chemical prices. We validate cutting inputs by
acknowledging that inputs require the highest cash cost per acre of anything else on the farm. There are
sound ways to cut inputs; I was enjoying listening to many clients describing how they are using generic
herbicides this year, focusing heavily on scouting to verify the need for fungicides versus just spraying
anyway, etc. But when I heard one who wanted to eliminate a broadleaf herbicide in his cereals to cut
costs, even though I’m no agronomist, I quickly brought risk management to that conversation. Every
decision needs to have a risk/benefit or cost/benefit consideration. There is too much at stake!
More to the tweet above, looking under the right rock is not easy because it will force each of us to
acknowledge how and where we’ve allocated our capital. If we know we should not have increased our
“operations” cost, it’s difficult to face that reality, swallow pride, and make a better (or corrective)
decision. This is magnified in year like 2015 when excess moisture ahead of seeding turned into drought
for most of the growing season, and adding to that the late spring & early fall frosts, we could find that
many will miss their production targets. Are you confident you were using the most efficient agronomic
plan possible? Will your “operations” costs be harder to manage with missed production targets? Will
you be looking under the “inputs rock” to find ways to cut costs?

It has been said many times that “you cannot shrink your way to greatness.” Cutting inputs for the sake
of reducing costs is “shrinking” your ability to generate strong revenue. Even the best marketing cannot
make up for lost production. Your priorities need to continue for you to be:

1. The most proficient manager you can be to build a strategic and tactical plan that maximizes
ROI, personal wealth, and family values;

2. The most efficient producer you can be to lower your Unit Cost of Production;

3. The most equipped marketer you can be to hedge market risk, and generate sufficient gross
margin.

By misplacing your cost cutting priority onto the critical facets of your business as listed in the 3 points
above, you would be doing more harm than good, despite best intentions.

Direct Questions

Where have your costs experienced the greatest increase (inputs, operations, facilities)?
In recognizing the 3 critical facets above that require your full investment (management, production,
marketing,) where can you find costs that can you live without?

How confident are you in your awareness and abilities to enact appropriate cost management
strategies?

From the Home Quarter

You won’t hear me condone a general prescription of “more fertilizer,” but you will hear me advocate
for “better use of fertilizer.” It’s not about the producing biggest yield; it’s not about producing at the
lowest cost; it’s about producing the best yield at the most efficient cost. And the most efficient cost
also refers to “operations” and “facilities.” The allocation of your finite resources to those costs also
needs to be highly efficient. As a banker friend of mine likes to say, “Your crop doesn’t care what color
your equipment is.”
…or how new it is.
…or how much rent the landlord is squeezing out of you.
The purpose of your business is to grow your profits, maximize your ROI (return on investment,) and
increase your wealth. Spending over $200/ac on “operations & facilities” costs will not get you there.

This was something a friend of mine said this weekend as we were chatting about everything from our
respective businesses, to politics and religion, to parenting. He qualified his statement using the vehicle
we were riding in as his example; “Do the (car) manufacturers build an information management system
into the dash of each car that they can charge more for? Of course not, because no one would pay for
it.” Essentially his message was that vehicle buying consumers are less interested in knowing and
measuring all of the vehicle’s varying functions and processes, they only want the basics. They just want
a vessel to get them where they’re going, one that looks good and is comfortable/fun to drive, and has
the power and/or efficiency they desire. End of story.

I challenged his theory as it would relate to other entities (especially large corporations,) and without
hesitation, he stayed his course. I really thought that larger corporations, those with hundreds of
millions or even billions in net worth, would have enviable information management systems and
processes. My friend said, “The focus is primarily growth & profits and how to accomplish it, with
information management being thrown together afterwards.”

I reflected on my own time in corporate Canada and the (sometimes) hodge-podge of reports I would
receive to (supposedly) help me better manage my branch or my client portfolio. Even though I didn’t
want to admit it, I knew my friend was right.

So, now you’re thinking that if big business doesn’t make its own information management a priority,
why should you? I’ll give you 2 words: working capital.

Strong working capital gives any business the cushion to make mistakes. It allows business to do things
less than ideal. This is not giving permission to be less than adequate, but it’s the reality of finance.
Lenders won’t run from a borrower that has done a less than ideal job of information management
when that borrower’s working capital is very strong.

“Very strong” working capital for your farm would cover 100% of your annual cash expenses. If your
farm’s working capital is not very strong, then the argument to not make information management a
priority is very weak. Very strong working capital is not permission to be lax on managing your data. No
entity in any industry should allow their business data to not be highly managed. The risk that this
creates is high, but the opportunity cost is higher yet.

Why are farm equipment companies, seed companies, fertilizer companies, chemical companies, etc. all
so interested in farm data? They recognize the opportunity cost of not being highly responsive to their
clients. You need to be interested in your farm data so you can be highly responsive to your business
opportunities. No one will manage your data but you.

Direct Questions

Are you allowing data management to be an afterthought? Do you have the working capital to support
this (lack of) action?

Have you considered the opportunities you could leverage if your data was highly managed? How many
opportunities have been lost over the years?

Do you recognize that saying “I don’t want those big multi-nationals to mine my data so I won’t compile
it” is a weak excuse?

From the Home Quarter

Large firms can get away with inadequate data management because they have the working capital to
cushion them from the results of less than ideal decisions. Small firms, such as your farm, likely do not.
(Small firms, by definition, are measured by market capitalization and number of employees, and usually
are those under $100million net worth and/or those with fewer than 100 paid employees.) Any
decisions on your farm that could be “less than ideal” will affect your working capital, positively or
negatively. The questions then become,

• Was the positive impact to your working capital as good as it could have been (opportunity cost)?
• Can your existing level of working capital handle a negative impact (risk)?

At the end of the day, highly managed data will support working capital and your ability to increase it.
Working capital will support your growth strategy and your wealth goals. The two are intertwined, and
in this current environment of high risk and tight margins, you cannot afford to be without either.

If you’d like help planning your data management process or strengthening your working capital, then call me or send an email.

Merriam-Webster defines austerity as “a simple and plain quality; a situation in which there is not much
money and it is spent only on things that are necessary; austerities: things that are done to live in a
simple and plain way.” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/austerity

Based on that definition, I like what that word represents. Maybe that’s because I grew up on a small
mixed farm in Saskatchewan in the 80’s. There wasn’t a lot to be had that wasn’t “necessary.” Don’t get
me wrong, we never went without the necessities, but I wore $20 running shoes from Army & Navy, not
Nike Air. I guess I was raised under austerity.

There was an article published in Country Guide this spring titled “Have Higher Farm Incomes Changed
the Way You Think?” It opens by describing the near perfect correlation of rising farm income to rising
new farm equipment sales. The fourth paragraph reads; “So the question is, do those periods of high
incomes create a kind of euphoria or recklessness that induces farm managers to make longterm financial decisions that could seriously reduce profits in future years, especially if revenues
fall?”

I think we know the answer to that question. And, so what now?

Well, who is considering an austerity plan for their farm?

Remember, austerity is spending only on things that are necessary. It’s easy for us a humans to blur the
lines between “nice to have” and “need to have” because we allow emotion to interfere with our
decision making.

Needs

1. Bushels.
   You need to maximize yield in the most efficient way possible to produce at the lowest Unit Cost
   of Production your farm can provide. An Agrologist can help and should prove his/her value
   every year.
2. Cash Flow.
   You need positive cash flow to meet debt and lease obligations, pay for inputs, land rent, wages,
   etc, etc, etc. Grain marketing is often where the best gains can be had, or can be lost. Diligent
   marketing with quality information (or lack thereof) can make or break any farm.
3. Above Average Management.
   As you read in Growing Farm Profits Weekly Issue #17, average management was sufficient in
   the boom years, but it won’t get you through the next business cycle. Even above average
   managers find confidence in having a business advisor offer independent, unbiased advice on
   current situations, strategic plans, and risk management.

The list of “nice to have” could fill more pages that you’d care to read, or than I’d care to write. The list
of NEEDS is not exhaustive either, but in the spirit of austerity, those are the big 3 that NEED focus
(pardon the pun.)

Direct Questions

Production alone will not keep every farm afloat through the next business cycle. Are you able to
elevate your management abilities (no matter what level you’re currently at) to offer your farm its best
chance to thrive (or at least survive?)

Somebody shared a quote on Twitter that I read today: “Successful people are like a turtle on a fence
post. They didn’t get there by themselves.” -Michael Pinball Clemons
Do you have an arsenal of trusted advisors working for you to ensure you do everything it takes to be
successful?

Will your austerity plan be cutting the right costs or just the easy ones?

From the Home Quarter

It’s been said “You can’t shrink your way to greatness.” When it comes to cost cutting in an effort to
preserve cash, there is a wrong way to do it. Similar to the thinking of “good debt and bad debt,” there
are costs that should be cut, and costs that must not be cut. Interestingly enough, my phone has been
ringing lately with the voice on the other end saying, “Things are looking tough, I can’t afford to make
any mistakes. I need your help now more than ever.”
That’s what I’m here for, glad you called.

If you want help with building an austerity plan or just guidance on daily strategic decisions, call me or send an email.

Enter data management.

Why do you think retail spaces are designed the way they are? It comes from the retailer devoting
incredible resources to study the habits and behaviors of its shoppers. They take that information and
then design spaces in such a way that plays to the habits and behaviors of their shoppers so as to put
the desired products in front of their shoppers at the desired time and place during the shopping
experience. For example, they have learned that typically shoppers turn right versus left as soon as they
enter a store, and thus plan their store layout in a way that panders to a shopper’s subconscious
behavior AND the retailer’s intention to sell high margin items. Maybe it’s that shoppers turn left and
not right, but you get the point, so who cares? Business cares, that’s who.

Like that retail giant, you have the ability to make important business decisions based on specific
management data. You would use your historical agronomic data to decide which crop offers the best
profitability on each specific field (relative to rotation.) You review historical financial statements to
measure actual results versus projected results. You analyze soil test reports to determine how much
residual nutrient remains in your soil before making fertilizer purchases. This could go on and on.
I spend a lot of time working on True Cost of Production calculations and building Profit Curves for my
clients. I can only do a precise job with complete and accurate information. And when you’re using that
work to make important business decisions, it is imperative that you provide usable and accurate info.
The retailer will often hire out the collecting and compiling of data as well as the analysis and the
creation of a final report with recommendations. The final report can only be as good as the quality of
the data collected. The retailer could invest millions of dollars based on the information in that final
report.

Your business is no different: you collect and compile your own data; if you need the help, there are
qualified advisors available to help you decipher it and provide recommendations; you are then more
confident in future business decisions because you make the most informed choice available.

I am often asked for suggestions as to which data management platform to use. I liken it to exercise: you
can run, bike, jog, swim, whatever…as long as you’re exercising. Same with your farm data, there are
many platforms available; find the one that feels best for you…as long as you’re using it.

Direct Questions

Does your data management practice include data as precise as pounds of nutrient per acre by crop?
Are you retaining records of historical information to establish trend lines?
Are you recording your data at all, even if it is just a pencil and a ledger?

From the Home Quarter

There’s a lot of noise out there about “big data” and ownership/use of that data, and for good reason.
I’m not condoning the perceived risks relating to big data’s custody and/or use of your info, but in reality
we’ve been letting Google do it to us for a very long time already. Does that make it acceptable? No, of
course not. But do we let that be the excuse to not collect and manage our data? The actual harm done
to our business from not collecting data is greater than the risk of harm from potential illicit use of our
data. The cost of doing nothing in this case is far greater than the risk of doing the wrong thing.
I don’t care if you use a “big data” cloud based platform, or a spreadsheet on your Windows 95
computer. You owe it to yourself and to your business to make the most informed decisions possible.
The best decisions are made with good information. How good is your information?

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