hide and seek

Hide and Seek: How Perfection Kills Success

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

While on holidays in early July, I watched our group of 3-5 year olds playing hide and seek. They were having a ball because each of them is learning to count so being the seeker was their chance to show everyone how high they could count, because the thrill of the chase is invigorating, and because the risk of getting caught (found) adds an element of excitement.

What I found consistent while watching these children play was how all of them, no matter how long the “seeker” counted, kept moving from one hiding spot to another. Yes, these are small kids, aged 3 to 5; yes, they are too young to grasp the strategic concept of the game; yes, they were actually hoping to get found. It appeared as though they would hide, then identify a spot that looked better, so they’d leave their first hiding spot to go to another. Once there, they’d realize that it either wasn’t as good as it looked, or that they see yet a better hiding spot elsewhere. And the cycle continued until the seeker was done counting.

The point is not meant to be critical because it applies to older kids who do understand the strategy of hiding stealthily so that the seeker can’t use his other senses to pick up a hint where the hiders might be. Either by making noise while hiding, or by wasting their precious lead time looking for the ideal place to hide, they often leave themselves vulnerable by trying to find the perfect hiding spot.

These children were exhibiting a behavior that we, as adults, emulate far too often. We regularly short-change ourselves by seeking perfection, or our personal idea of it; we jeopardize success in the now because we we see something that we “think” is better.

The young children playing hide and seek spent their entire hide time, while the seeker counted, their entire hide time was spent moving from spot to spot, often giving up a great hiding spot for a poorer one. The older kids playing hide and seek waste their hide time by trying to find that perfect spot that no one has thought of, and when they can’t find it by the time the seeker announces “Ready or not, here I come,” the hiders are usually not ready and end up settling for a terrible hiding spot just so that they actually hide and aren’t caught just standing there in the open…

How does this apply to you or your business?

  • How much time over the winter is spent researching the “perfect” seed variety to grow?
  • How much time is invested into monitoring equipment prices and inventories to feed the desire of owning a seed tool (sprayer/tractor/combine) which might be “that much better” than the one on farm now?
  • How much time is spent in frustration thumbing through all the resorts available to choose from in the Caribbean so that your winter vacation will be “perfect?”

Direct Questions

Is there more analysis put into short term decisions than long-term or even permanent decision?
(It took 3 months to decide what canola to seed…but we’ll just expand that bin yard over there!)

Is there more analysis put into what we find fun and less into what we don’t enjoy?
(I know precisely how many combines like mine are for sale in Manitoba right now, but I haven’t bothered to consider if I could reduce my interest rates.)

Have you passed by a really good hiding spot because you were trying to find the perfect one?

From the Home Quarter

“Paralysis by Analysis” is a not so old adage that I lean on regularly. It is a challenge for detail guys like me because we want to be sure we’ve got everything right and in place before we take the next step. “Paralysis” because sufferers never take the next step; they justify their inaction because the “analysis” isn’t complete. News Flash: it is never complete!

I have made great strides in shucking that condition. It pokes its head out occasionally…I treat it like “Whack-A-Mole!”

Your farm will succeed if your canola variety yields 3 bushels less, but stands better than the other variety you desired. Seeking a marginally better sprayer probably won’t make enough difference in your overall profitability to cover the added cost. And take the damn vacation…you deserve it, you’ve earned it! Stressing over picking the “right resort” kills part of the fun. It’s like trying to pick the juiciest apple on the tree by looking at them from the ground.

inadequate working capital

Eat to Live, or Live to Eat

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

This week’s title is common phrasing when dealing with people who struggle with weight loss. While there are many factors that come into play for those who struggle with weight, a person’s caloric intake is often a major contributor. Making smart decisions about what to eat, when to eat, and how much to eat can be challenging for many people who are trying to do a better job of managing their health, not just those with weight issues. The question of “why” they eat gets into the psychology of the issue, which, coincidentally, leads into the real topic behind this week’s commentary.

Spending time at Canada’s Farm Progress Show in Regina each June has been something I’ve looked forward to for as long as I can recall. Remember, I knew I wanted to farm since I was less than 10 years old, so the Farm Progress Show was a more tantalizing buffet to the teenage me than even an actual buffet! (BTW, I still have an appetite like an 18 year old farm boy.)

The desire for more and new farm equipment seems almost insatiable, and begs the question:

Do we have all this equipment so we can farm, or do we farm so we can have all this equipment?

  • I recently met a young farmer who, while struggling to establish adequate cash flow, explained why another 4WD tractor on his 2,000ac farm will make him more efficient (he’s a sole operator with no hired help…how one man can drive more than one tractor at one time is something I can’t quite wrap my ahead around.)
  • You may recall from a few months ago the fictional story about “Fred” and how he NEEDED another combine. Despite his banker’s advice, he forged ahead.
  • Conversely, another farmer I speak with frequently is feverishly trying to rid himself of the over-abundance of iron on his farm.
  • Another is protecting his farm’s financial position by keeping the absolute bare minimum amount of equipment on his farm. Nowhere is there a “nice to have” piece of equipment on that farm; everything is “fully utilized.”

During the week of the June show in Regina, I read a tweet from an urban, non-farming young lady who was seeing the Farm Progress Show for the first time; it said (something along the lines of) “all this big beautiful equipment makes me want to go farming!”

Direct Questions

What circumstances must be present for you to consider additional equipment?

Does any equipment deal have to make for a sound business decision, or simply fill a desire?

Is your equipment a tool to operate your farm, or is it the reason you farm?

From the Home Quarter

In these weekly editorials, you have read about Mindset, about Strategy, and about Focus; these topics (and many of the others) challenge the conventional thinking in the industry today.

Those who bow to the mistress that is their farm equipment are only enjoying short term excitement. The mistress entices her suitor, subservient to the raucous cycle, and she soon becomes the one in charge.

Just ask anyone trying to get out of multiple leases…

dichotomy

Dichotomy

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

Here is a throwback to an article I wrote in August 2015 titled Is Data Management Really Important? where I highlighted a conversation between a friend and I that included his opinion that even large corporations let their “focus (be) primarily growth & profits and how to accomplish it, with information management being thrown together afterwards.”

While I believe that statement to still be true both for large corporations and farms alike, there is something in that statement that opens up what seems to have become the dichotomy of prairie grain farming: growth or status quo.

Let’s not get hung up on “growth’ as a single definition. In March 2015, my article Always Growing…Growing All Ways clearly described a few of the many ways we can achieve growth in our businesses that does not have to be pigeon-holed into the category of “expansion.”

So let’s clarify the dichotomy as “expansion or status quo.”

Now let’s compare a couple different scenarios.

  1. In the spring of 2016, I met with a young farmer who started out in 2000 with nothing but an ag degree and desire. As he prepared to sow his seventeenth crop this spring, he showed me his numbers while admitting that he felt good about his financial position, but didn’t really know if he was good or not. He lost almost 20% of his acres from the previous year, and was happy about it because the cost to farm that land was too high and he knew it.
    When I told him that I’d peg his operation in the top 10%, maybe even the top 5% of all grain farms on the prairies, he paused and said,”OK, so what are the top 5% doing that I’m not?”
  2. There is a farmer who has been calling me off and on for a couple years now. By all accounts, it is quite a feat that he is still operating. Although he’s been farming for well over 20 years his debts are maxed out, leases are burning up cash flow faster than the Fort McMurray wildfire is burning up bush land. He spends more time running equipment that his hired men; he has no clue what his costs are; he has aggressively built his way up to 10,000ac and wants to get to 20,000ac; one of his advisors told me that his management capability was maxed out at 4,000ac.

The first scenario has the farmer focused on growth of profitability, control, and efficiency.

The second scenario has the farmer focused on growth of the number of acres on which he produces.

One would be the envy of 95% of farmers.

The other will never in his entire career get to the point of financial success that the first farmer has already achieved.

Direct Questions

Which are you more like, the first farmer above, or the second farmer?

Which farmer do you want to be like?

What are you prepared to do to get there?

From the Home Quarter

What has been described above is actually a false dichotomy. We’ve been led to believe that farms must get larger in order to survive and that small farms were doomed. What that message failed to deliver was “At what point is a farm large enough?” I am not decrying large farms or the continued expansion of farms…as long as it makes financial sense! The false dichotomy of expansion or status quo need not be black or white, left or right, mutually exclusive. Farms that are not expanding today could be expanding next year, just like farms that are expanding today may not be next year. Some farms that have expanded over the last few years might even be looking at reducing acres in the future.

Growth (expansion) at all costs can often come with the heaviest of all costs.

Renting Farmland

Are You Renting Farmland?

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

An online article published by Country Guide about land rent contained some points that many of us have pondered. Much of the article centered on a lack of useful data on rented land, such as recent crop rotation & yield, pest pressure and pest management, soil type, residual fertility, or recent rental rates.

While this poses a challenge to those who insist on making the most informed decision possible, recent history indicates that the appetite for more land to increase a farm’s size and scale has grossly overshadowed rational analysis when making a decision whether or not to rent a piece of land. The article quoted a 2012 survey that was funded by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture which tabulated approximately 2,000 cash and share rent agreements. The article reads, “The company hired to do the survey found an astonishing range of rental rates, ranging from an almost unbelievable low of $6.25 an acre to a high of $140.60 an acre.” It’s probably fair to say that $6.25/ac isn’t “almost unbelievable,” but straight up unbelievable. My vote is that some wise-guy wanted to skew the data and provided a false figure. It’s the high figure, the astronomical $140.60/ac, that is the head-scratcher. I have lost count of the number of pencils I have used to try to pencil out a profit at that rental rate. It requires the perfect storm of yield and price to marginally make it work. The guys paying this kind of rate must have some sort of magic pencil I have yet to find.

Here’s where it really gets good. Another excerpt in this CG article reads, “In the short term, taking on more land that won’t necessarily pay for itself might still be a winner in the farmer’s eyes in that light, especially if it allows them to spread fixed costs and labour costs over a larger land base.”

So let me take a shot at paraphrasing:
“Our fixed costs are really high, so in order to justify the bad decisions we made when we took on too much debt and allowed other fixed costs to rapidly increase, we will make another bad decision by overpaying for land that won’t make us any money so that it makes our fixed costs look better by spreading them out over more acres.”

What?

OK, that was wordy, let me shorten it:
“We’ve got all this equipment so we need to run it over more acres to justify having it.”

Still too long and soft? Alright, one more try:
“Pride is more important that profit.”

Eww, ouch! That stings!

But if the thinking is that we must take on more land in order to justify high fixed costs (usually for shiny new equipment) then it is clear that the pride of possessing such equipment and the pride of farming “x” number of acres is more important that being profitable!

Here are my 3 “Growing Farm Profits” Tips for renting land:

  1. Know your costs.
    By knowing your costs, you can easily determine what is or is not a reasonable rent to pay and still remain profitable. Without knowing your costs, you’re shooting from the hip…in the dark.
  2. Invest in assets in the correct order.
    Taking on more equipment than you need, then frantically trying to “spread it out” over more acres to justify the decision is backwards. It’s like buying a seeding outfit before buying a tractor: you might end up paying more for the tractor you need, or buying more tractor than what is required because of a lack of available selection. Secure your horsepower first, then find the drill to pair to it.
    Secure your land base first, then invest in the iron to work it.
  3. Nurture your landlord relationship.
    Let them know how your year was. Explain your farming practices. Help them understand how profitable their land really is. This goes a long way to establishing goodwill at renewal time.

Direct Questions

How much at risk is your working capital if your fixed costs are too high?

What steps are you taking to ensure your investment in rented land accentuates your profitability and not diminish it?

Is the goal to be the biggest or the most profitable?

From the Home Quarter

“Better is better before bigger is better” is a phrase that I hang my hat on quite regularly. While I cannot take credit for coming up with that one, it is so remarkably accurate in its simplicity.

If we can all acknowledge that threats to working capital should be our greatest concern in the short-to-medium term, then we must also acknowledge that adding unprofitable land in an effort to justify fixed costs will only accelerate the bleed of precious working capital.

farming should be like baseball

Farm Management Could Take a Lesson From Baseball

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

If you love statistics, then you probably love baseball. Where else can you know with certainty that your starting pitcher has a propensity to throw more fast-balls than breaking pitches to left-handed batters at home during afternoon games in June under sunny skies with a slight north-west wind? While this is a bit of a tongue-in-cheek poke at the nauseating volume of stats that originate from the game of baseball, such statistics and the subsequent use of those statistics have real world applications.

I’m sure many of you have seen the movie Moneyball. (I’m sure most of you have because I watch VERY few movies, and even I’VE seen it.) As the story unfolded, there many beautiful examples of how the management team of the Oakland Athletics baseball club used statistics to improve their team. In this specific scene (I can’t recall who the player was) Assistant GM Peter Brand (played by Jonah Hill) explicitly instructs the player to “take the first pitch” during every at bat.  The reason was because through the use of statistics, and tracking the data, management knew that this player got on base more often when he took the first pitch. In the movie, it worked, and this player’s on-base-percentage increased almost immediately.

What would have happened had this team’s management not had, or used, such important information? The player may have been released, sent down to the minors, or traded to another team, the manager (bench boss) may have been fired.  Spread those “uninformed decisions” across the entire roster, and failure is sure to proliferate.

Livestock and dairy farms have been heading down the road to improved data management for years already. Average daily gain is not a new concept in beef operations. Robotics in dairy parlors bring a whole new level of data management. In conversation with a farm family that is investigating the benefits of robotics in a dairy parlor, I’ve learned that through RFID technology and a robot milker, they will be able to record and monitor milk volumes and milking frequency (a cow can come to the robot for milking whenever she chooses.) The management team can then compare results across the herd to determine which cow(s) is producing more or less than others cows under similar conditions. Informed decisions can then be made.

Grain farms having been catching up in recent years. With field mapping technology we can create yield maps; overlay that with crop inputs applied and we can tell which areas of each field are more profitable than others.

But that is way ahead of where most of the industry is generally at. By and large, many farm operations still don’t know the true profitability of a specific crop on their whole farm, let alone any given field.

The progression of profitability management, which requires stringent data management, begins at the crop level, advances to the field level, and reaches the pinnacle at the acre level.

Imagine:

  • determining which crops to exclude or include in your rotation by clearly understanding which crop makes you money and which one doesn’t;
  • deciding which fields to seed to which crop, or even which fields to renew with the landlord or which to relinquish based on profitability by field;
  • controlling your investment in crop inputs by acre to maximize your profit potential of the field, the crop, and your whole farm.

None of this is new. All the farm shows and farm publications dedicate significant space to all the tools and techniques available in the marketplace to facilitate such gathering of useful information. Equipment manufacturers and data management companies have invested enormous volumes of time and capital into creating tools and platforms to collect and manage your data. But like any tool, its value is only apparent when it is used to its full potential.

Almost all of the farms I speak with achieve greater clarity in the profitability of each crop in their rotation. I have a 13,000ac client that has taken several major steps toward measuring profitability by field. They have found that the extra work required to COLLECT this information is minimal. The extra work required to MANAGE this information is greatly offset by the benefit of clearly understanding that some of their rented land is just not profitable under any crop. Do you suppose they are looking forward to relinquishing some $90/ac rented land that just isn’t profitable enough to pay that high rent?

Direct Questions

Which of the crops in your rotation are profitable? Which are not? How profitable are they? Do they meet your expectations for return on investment?

Collecting the data is easy; managing the data takes some effort. What effort are you prepared to invest to make the most informed decisions possible?

How are you fully utilizing the tools available to you? If you’re not, why would you have them?

From the Home Quarter

Baseball collects gargantuan volumes of data on players, plays, games, and seasons. Much of it seems useless to laypeople like us, but to those who make their living in “the grand old game,” the data is what they live and breathe by. Agriculture should be no different. We should be creating consecutive series’ of data on our fertility, seed, chemicals, equipment, human resources, etc, for each year we operate, for each field we sow, for each person in our employ. Management cannot make informed decisions without adequate and accurate information. Now, with all the tools, techniques, and support readily available to help farmers collect adequate and accurate information, the last piece that may be missing is, “What to do with all that data?” While it can be boring to analyze data and create projections, I can assure everyone that the most profitable farmers I know all share one common habit: they spend time on their numbers, they know their numbers, and they make informed decisions based on those numbers.

You collect the information. I can help you use it. I’ll make tractor calls (as opposed to house calls) during seeding…as long as you have a buddy seat. Call or email to set up a time.

old school farming

Social License and Its Impact on Farming

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Last week at our local CAFA chapter meeting was the second time I got to hear a presentation from Shelley Jones. Shelley is the Manager of Agriculture Awareness with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture. Her topic, both times, was Social License. Social License is becoming as much of a buzz word in agriculture as it is becoming a major issue not to be ignored. I’ve blogged in the past (a couple years ago now) about how I feel that agriculture is “under attack” from well funded activists and industries whose gain would come at the expense of conventional agriculture. While I hoped that the activism was a fad that might fade away, clearly it hasn’t; we as players in this most remarkable and diverse industry need to understand the impact of social license, recognize our role in the discussion, and enthusiastically take action.

We in agriculture are not alone. The oil & gas industry and the coal industry, among others, are also under attack. Those industries are putting together plans of action to deal with the activism. Sadly, it seems none of us were prepared for this ahead of time, and now feel like we have to “catch up” in getting our message out.

We had a great discussion at CAFA during Shelley’s presentation. Opinions were varied. One in particular suggested that we as farmers need to take that nobility we so proudly hold and check it at the door. The mind set that we “feed the world” and the never-ending gratitude that we are entitled to because of it is actually causing us harm, said this one opinion. His point is well taken: the consumer hasn’t always been our focus because we know we produce safe quality food. We know we farm in the most sustainable manner we can. Isn’t that clear to everyone? Why would the consumer put up any resistance?

What we’ve forgotten, or maybe it is that we just haven’t taken notice, is that our population is no longer ag focused. It was said today in the meeting that “years ago, no one planned any major events in May or late August through October because of seeding and harvest respectively. Now, there is little concern to planning weddings or vacations during those times because fewer people are affected; a wedding on September long weekend might only exclude one family from the long list of guests.” Translation: fewer people are farming.

Of course we know that fewer people are farming today than 10 years ago, than 20 years ago, etc. And while we feel we’ve reacted to that trend by farming more acres and increasing yields, what we haven’t done is anticipated how severe the disconnect between John Q. Public and primary food production actually would become. The average non-farming person has almost no clue where food comes from or how it is grown.

In fact, most still sadly believe:

  • that farmers are overall wearing, pitchfork carrying, laborious people;
  • that the proverbial “little red barn” and an open tractor are normal;
  • that any farm that is bigger than said red barn and open tractor must be a “corporate farm” owned by some large eastern Canadian corporation or a US conglomerate;
  • that chocolate milk comes from brown cows.

How did this happen? How did our society swing from a primarily agricultural base to what it is today? Without getting onto a tangent of socio-economic trends, which have been debated feverishly through the 80’s and 90’s, what I’m really asking is “How did such a disconnect come about?”

It comes from taking things for granted for too long. Farmers took for granted that they were trusted, that they produced safe food in a sustainable fashion. Non-farmers took for granted that the food they purchased from their grocery stores was abundant, safe, and cheap. The internet has changed all of that by giving a platform to activists.

I felt so completely naive over the winter when on the agenda at a conference I was attending was a man who’s business it was to lobby the federal government. Wait, lobbyists are for hire? They’re not just people with conviction and a drive to change something they passionately believe in? Nope. You can hire a lobbyist. You can hire a person or firm to grind on the government, get face time in the media, and generally cause a ruckus…all for a fee, of course. These lobbyists, or activitsts as it were, represent their employer, the entity that hired them to promote a specific agenda. Fact, rationale, residual effects begone! These activists don’t need to be in Ottawa, or any provincial capital. They have the internet; where anyone can be a celebrity, spew rants of blatant falsehoods with an abundance of sensationalism to garner enough of a following that uninformed people simply believe that “it must be true.”

Combine this with how it is common among marketers to no longer promote what the consumer wants, but to promote what the consumer doesn’t yet know he wants, and we have a perfect storm. Consider technology and gadgets. Before HD television, did any of us know we wanted a 720p or a 1080p or now a 4K television? I still don’t know what the hell any of those are, but darn it all, the consumer now expects it! Did the electronics manufacturers build a few 4K TVs first to see how they’d sell, or did they go full out into producing 4K TVs and let the marketing look after creating a demand? We all know it is the latter.

Back to farming, we now have well funded activists with a platform that knows no bounds, who are free to generate as many half-truths, cherry-picked facts, and blatant falsehoods as they like in order to advance their agenda. Do they give a rat’s keester about how it affects you, your family, your community, or your industry? Nope. I believe that you or I do not matter to these activists. They don’t care one iota how you farm or if you’re still farming next year. They are only here to stir up a ruckus and gather “followers,” uninformed people who latch on to these revocable fallacies, minions who are intended to carry the momentum that the activists have started. Poor sheeple, if only they knew they were nothing more than pawns in a game.

The danger really comes into focus as the sheeple begin to do the activist’s work for them, shouting their “truth” from the rooftops and gaining more followers and momentum, convincing other people to “vote with their wallet.” I vote with my wallet regularly in how and where I chose to spend my money. We’ve been groomed to live by the old adage that “the customer is always right.” But, what about when they’re not?

Readers who have followed my writing have read it several times and will continue to for a while yet: you don’t know what you don’t know. These consumers don’t know what actually happens on your farm, in your pastures, or in your barns. They get their education from the University of Google where facts are not checked and reality is whatever you want to believe.

Are these activists, and their loyal followers, getting in front of legislators? Yup.

Will they influence future laws and regulations that will affect how you run your business? They might – – they’re sure trying!

Does getting into a fight with any of them online help? Nope.

What “we” can do in this has been well documented already in many different places. Farm & Food Care Saskatchewan is a great place to start: https://farmfoodcaresk.org/. There is also Farm & Foodcare Ontario: http://www.farmfoodcare.org/ Both of these entities are focused on informing the consumer and would benefit from your volunteerism. If you haven’t yet watched License to Farm, do it soon: http://licensetofarm.com/. The list of “to-do’s” for what you can do in this situation does not need any additions from me.

Direct Questions

How would your farm be different if the laws forbade you from using certain (or all) pesticides on your crops, certain (or all) vaccines on your livestock, or mandated how and when you managed your production?

We talk regularly about financial risk in these articles. You consider market & production risk regularly. Currency risk  and interest rate risk will become more dominant in future conversations. How will socio-economic risk affect your farm?

From The Home Quarter

One of the greatest benefits of farming is the independence, the connection with the land, and contributing to society in a way that few others can. For any of us to think that the independence we enjoy, and maybe even take for granted, is safe for us and our future generations is a bit naive. There are major factors at play, any or all of which could affect your future in this dilemma we call social license. You, me, and everyone in the industry can step up and make a positive impact. Or, we can take our way of life for granted and risk getting trampled by a stampede of sheeple.

 

ROI and ROA equipment

Farm Acronym Challenge: ROI and ROA

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

ROI (return on investment) is a metric I lean on heavily when working with clients to illustrate an expectation of profit. Each farm deploys (what feels like) unprecedented volumes of capital every year in an effort to grow a crop; there should be an expectation of profit for doing so, and I expect my clients to demand an ROI that reflects the risk they take. Accepting lesser returns is insufficient and could be realized with less risk by deploying said capital elsewhere.

We can break down ROI by measuring a return on various aspects: crop inputs, investment in equipment, annual cash costs, etc. Some of the many options against which we can measure ROI are highly useful, others less so. We try to decide which metrics to measure based on which gives us the most useful information. Of course, the ability to have an accurate measurement of ROI depends entirely on quality information and your ability to collect it.

ROA (return on assets) is a measurement I will be using more in the future than I have in the past. More and more I am finding that there are excess assets on farms, especially equipment, that are using good capital yet providing an inadequate return.  Here is what I mean.

ROA is defined as a company’s net earnings relative to total assets. By dividing net earnings by total assets, we see how efficient management is at using assets to generate profit. A company that generates $1,000,000 in net earnings on $5,000,000 in assets has a 20% ROA. A similar company generating $1,000,000 profits with $10,000,000 in assets has a 10% ROA. It’s simple math. And the question begs: if you had invested $10,000,000 elsewhere, could you get better than a 10% return on those assets?

Before the argument about land values is thrown out there, let’s just curb it right away. Yes, ROA can be manipulated (as can ROE – return on equity) by owning fewer assets. Banks do it all the time: they sell their owned real estate such as stand alone bank branches and ivory office towers in order to lower their total assets, thereby making their profitability (when measured as ROA) look fantastic.

Today, let’s focus on the asset that gets much love: farm equipment.

How would we measure ROA when it comes to farm equipment? I prefer to use Fair Market Value (FMV) because that figure represents both what it would cost you to acquire said asset and what you could reap should you sell said asset; it is arguably the asset’s intrinsic value. Online searches and blue book values are great ways to validate FMV. I summarize it as “when the auctioneer’s gavel drops, what would you get for that piece of equipment?”

Focusing on ROA as it pertains to equipment only, and excluding land, levels the playing field so to speak. All things being equal, this approach will clarify which farm management team is efficient with how it invests in equipment, and which is not.

Direct Questions

How do you measure the effectiveness of your investment in assets, specifically equipment?

Are you over-invested or under-invested in equipment? What evaluation methods do you use to validate your position?

If you were to invest your capital elsewhere, what return would you expect? What return do you expect from your farm? Is there a difference? Why?

From the Home Quarter

When calculating ROA, consider multiple criteria: all assets (land, buildings, equipment;) land and equipment only; equipment only. The ROA will obviously be much lower when including more assets, but don’t let that sway you into selling land to improve your ROA. Land ownership has been, and will continue to be, the anchor of a farm’s wealth.

What is a target ROA? The jury is still out. Simply put, there isn’t a large enough sample with adequate accurate information available to draw from.

So let’s find out!

With the utmost confidence and maintaining your privacy always, I am proposing an experiment: Email to me your net earnings, your cultivated acres, and your fair market value for each of land, buildings, and equipment for 2015. I will compile the data with no identifying criteria so that you maintain privacy. The compiled data will be available only to those who take part in the experiment. Include 2014 and 2013 as well if you’d like to see how you are trending.

As a thank you for taking part, Growing Farm Profits will offer an analysis with feedback on your ROA  and ROI calculations and trends at NO CHARGE! (Normally a $470 value!)  – Offer expires April 20

 

 

4 R's of Fertility

Easy, Efficient, Effective, or Expensive?

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

Let’s get it right out of the way first: I am not an agronomist.

I do, however, have a solid base of understanding relating to agronomy. With tongue in cheek I like to say, “I know enough to be dangerous.” Nonetheless, I took great pride in the significant attention to detail I employed while being in charge of seeding when still part of the farm. I carefully measured TKW (thousand kernel weight) and calculated seed rates accordingly. I was diligent about what fertilizer, and volume of fertilizer went into the seed row (we only had a single shoot drill.) I always slowed down to 4mph or less when seeding canola and ensured to reduce the wind speed to the lowest possible rate to minimize the risk of canola seed coat damage.

I always had a long season in spring from having to cover the whole farm twice: once with a fertilizer blend to be banded, (all of the N and whatever PKS that couldn’t go in the seed row) usually at least 2″ deep; the second pass was with seed and an appropriate PKS blend that could be be in the seed row. It’s just what I did to respect what I’d learned about the importance of fertilizer rate and placement. It took more time in applying, hauling home, storing, etc. It created operational challenges during application (it seems there were never enough trucks and augers available.) It took more time to set the drill for the correct application rate. All of that didn’t matter to me because I only had once chance to get the crop in the ground and fertilizer properly applied (at least at that time, the equipment we had made it so that all fert was applied in spring) and I wasn’t going to leave anything to chance that I could easily control.

The key point in fertilizer management is “The 4 R’s.” Right source, right rate, right place, and right time of fertilizer application make for the best use of your investment. So why over the last number of years have we seen such a boom in spreading fertilizer on top of the soil?

This article was recently published by FCC. There is no ambiguity as to the best and most effective way to apply phosphorus. I’ll ask again, “What’s with the shortcuts?”

I know the answer: time. There isn’t time to incorporate adequate volumes of fertilizer into the soil. We can use a spinner that has a 100′ spread at 10mph (or more;) this permits more fertilizer to be applied in a shorter amount of time, and it permits fewer stops to fill the drill during seeding…all of it saving precious time. I get it.

But where is the trade off? Have The 4 R’s of Fertility been tossed aside completely? Where is the balance?

Casting aside the proven science of the 4 R’s in order to save time by broadcasting is easy and efficient, but is it effective? I suppose that depends on what effectiveness you are trying to accomplish. I’m suggesting effectiveness of the fertilizer you’ve paid dearly for.

Direct Questions

When making important management decisions like fertility, what methods are you employing to determine your best strategy?

Where is your balance between ease, efficiency, effectiveness, and expense when making critical management decisions?

How has your Unit Cost of Production projection changed if you decide to accept only 80-90% effectiveness from your fertility program?

From the Home Quarter

What is easy might seem efficient, we might believe it is effective, but it is most likely expensive. Historically, decisions were made with the goal of minimizing expense with little else given to consider ease, efficiency, or effectiveness. Management decisions that do not provide adequate emphasis on effectiveness will likely see higher expenses. Your focus with your agronomy must be to produce at the lowest Unit Cost of Production possible on your farm. Choosing a fertilizer application method that places more emphasis on that which is easy versus that which is most effective is likely to create a situation that is expensive. Management decisions that focus heavily on one aspect to the detriment of the others rarely achieve results that meet or exceed expectations.

Introducing the Growing Farm Profits 4E Management System™. Details to follow.

bin row

Crop Price Rallies (will be) Few, (and) Short

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

That is the headline in the recent edition of The Western Producer. Penned by Sean Pratt and primarily sharing the views of Mike Jubinville, the article contains the usual verbiage found in most articles that get classified under “commodity outlook.” Here are some of the biggest points made by Jubinville in the article:

  • 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.

 

ic_leap

Experience: LEAP – – Leadership, Engagement, Authenticity, Passion

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

Leap year only comes around every 4 years, so to some people, it’s kind of a big deal; to others, not so much. I will have spent the 2016 leap day by taking part in a unique event, Experience: LEAP.

Experience: LEAP is an initiative of the wonderful people behind Project: SHINE Inc. Their passion is for everyone to live the fullest life possible, to be their true self, and to experience life with passion and purpose. The key message is for everyone to learn that where you are is not where you have to stay. The message applies to us personally, but also has business implications.

In the case of this event, LEAP is an acronym as follows:

Leadership

Leaders are made, they are not born. While some people are born with the characteristics that are often found in great leaders, the fact is leadership skills are learned, and therefore, leaders are made. This has 2 different aspects that apply to your farm:

  1. You are the current leader of your operation.
  2. You need to identify and develop a leader to take your place for when you’re no longer leading the business.

We often learn from experience, or learn from others’ examples, but rarely do farm business owners ever get sat down and taught how to be an effective leader. Everyone in your business will perform in direct correlation to their response to the leadership of the organization. It is like the old saying, “Would you rather be in an army of lions led into battle by a sheep, or be in an army of sheep led into battle by a lion?” If you find yourself questioning the effectiveness of your employee(s), first gauge your effectiveness as a leader.

As a leader, you need clarity in the results you expect in your business, the strategy for achieving those results, and the tactics in execution of the plan. Naturally, sharing this information with your team is critically important in effective leadership.

Engagement

One cannot expect to build a profitable business or an effective team without being engaged. A person who is disconnected and unattached will achieve sub-par results, and find the same in their team. How does one become more engaged? What can be done to increase the engagement of a team? By and large, it begins with purpose. Clarifying the “why,” which means “why are we here; why do we do what we do; why are we the best people for the job?” Clarifying purpose by answering the “why” helps teams, and individuals, recognize that they are a part of something bigger and that they have a key role to play in the organization. By turning a basic employee, a laborer per se, into an engaged and contributing member of a highly functioning team will pay dividends to your business that may astound you.

Authenticity

To be authentic is to be real or genuine. This involves interactions with your staff, your business partners, your family, your vendors, but most importantly with yourself.
I find it curious that authenticity is required for true engagement, which is required for effective leadership. Passion affects everything.

Passion

Passion can be difficult to describe because it is a feeling like few others. Passion can consume you, drive you to heights never imagined, and lead to immeasurable levels of joy or even anxiety. Passion can often create infallible commitment, which, if not balanced with sound rationale in decision making has potential to lead to undesirable outcomes. Unbridled passion sounds poetic and profound, but it can be dangerous if not balanced with reason and objectivity.
Yet, life (or business) with no passion becomes an insufferable task to endure. Most farmers I meet are passionate about their farm, about the land, about growing things, about the family legacy they are living and plan to leave behind. “Life becomes work” if there is no passion. But don’t forget balance, because “work can become life” on the opposite end of that spectrum; neither is desirable.

Direct Questions

How are you gauging the effectiveness of your leadership? (HINT: this isn’t a “self-assessment.”)

What are you doing to match your engagement to that of which you expect from your team?

How would you describe your passion?

From the Home Quarter

Recently, I listened to a presentation where the crowd was polled: If you could sell all your land for 25% above market value today, and rent it back for life at half of current rental rates, how many would take that deal? No one raised their hand. The presenter then acknowledged that no one in the crowd was a farmer, but actually a land owner. Everyone laughed in subtle agreement.
The point is to define your passion, your “Why.” Clarity in what you do, why you do it, and how you do it is no longer something that only applies to large corporations who need that “feel-good mumbo-jumbo” as part of their strategy. Make no mistake, farms of the future will require processes that were once foreign, or only found in corporate cultures. The need for social license becomes greater each day. The need for strong and committed teams becomes greater each year. The need for passionate, authentic, engaged leadership becomes greater with each new generation in the family business.