What Does That Production Input Really Cost You?

What Does That Production Input Really Cost You? 

 In today’s tight economy, it’s only natural that growers are carefully monitoring all their production costs and cutting back on expenses in the hopes of maximizing margins and profits. It’s easy to understand their motivation; however, some growers may perform an inadequate analysis of their cost structure. This may result in some production decisions that are penny wise and pound foolish. There are a number of approaches growers can take when analyzing production costs, and some may require additional time to conduct. Still, a proper analysis must include sufficient detail to provide growers with the information they need to make a thoughtful, informed decision.

There are three common methods used to determine what production inputs (fertilizer, pesticide, fungicide or herbicide, for example) are most likely to contribute to a higher profit margin: Cost Per Bag, Cost-In-Use and Return on Investment.

Cost Per Bag

Cost per bag is the simplest metric to understand. The entire annual budget for a production input is easily calculated by multiplying total number of bags or containers of fertilizer, pesticide, fungicide, etc. used per year times the unit cost per bag. Therefore, when taking this approach, a grower can put the annual order for these items out to a number of suppliers for bidding and choose the bid with the lowest unit cost in order to minimize expenses. This approach is fine when dealing with well-defined commodities that can easily be substituted for one another; however, when comparing different nutrition or plant protection products, formulations and/or brands, cost shouldn’t be the only determining factor.

Method 1–Cost Per Bag:

  • Product A costs $35/ 40 lb. bag
  • Product B costs $55/ 50 lb. bag

Using the Cost-Per-Bag method of analysis, Product A seems like a great value upon first glance. Obviously, the cost per bag of Product B is more than 50% higher. Product A is a great deal, right?

Not necessarily. Different products may have extremely diverse properties, values or use directions, and these differences may not show up in a simple cost-per-bag comparison. Products may differ by any combination of the following variables:

  • Product bags or containers may be of different sizes.
  • Products may have different rate recommendations.
  • Some products may require more frequent application.
  • Some products may be more labor intensive to use.
  • Some products may be easier to apply or use.
  • Different products may have varying efficiencies or waste factors.
  • Some products may contain unique components or attributes that can’t be easily substituted.
  • Some products may more frequently result in better outcomes that have economic consequences.

Cost-in-Use

Cost-in-Use is one analysis method that can account for some of the variables mentioned above. Cost-in-Use goes a few important steps beyond a simple unit bag cost comparison. Bag size, rates, number of applications and labor cost are factored into the equation in this model so a grower can calculate the true material cost per unit crop. In this case, the grower will consider the final product cost per bag, effective product rate, number of product applications per crop, application labor, etc. for a more well-rounded picture of the actual production cost per crop unit. If one product is missing some component (e.g. micronutrients), the cost analysis should include the cost of adding the additional component needed for a successful crop.

Method 2–Cost in Use:

  • Product A costs $35/ 40 lb. bag; suggested application rate is 30 grams per unit container and only one application is needed to finish the crop. Since this product contains only N-P-K and is missing micronutrients, there is an additional factor that must per accounted for. Cost-in-use of Product A = $35 ÷ 605 (number of containers treated per bag) + $0.025 (estimated cost of micronutrients) = $0.058 + $0.025 = $0.083 per container.
  • Product B costs $55/ 50 lb. bag; suggested application rate is 36 grams per unit container and only one application is needed to finish the crop. This product already contains micronutrients. Cost-in-use of Product A = $55 ÷ 630 (number of containers treated per bag) = $0.087 per container.

In this example—assuming there is no additional labor cost to apply either product (or to supplement Product A with micronutrients)—Product A still seems like a better value. Product A costs less per bag and is used at a lower rate, but the bag is smaller and it requires the addition of a micronutrient supplement. Product B costs more per bag and the suggested rate is higher, but it has a bigger bag that can treat more containers and it doesn’t require any supplements. The cost-in-use of Product B is slightly higher (by 4.8%), but the differences are nowhere as significant when considering only bag cost. Still, the grower still might be inclined to choose the less expensive option.

Again, if we’re comparing commodities with similar performance, this may be a reasonable analysis to account for varying bag sizes or rates. The Cost-in-Use method only analyzes unit production costs, but if you don’t consider the economic results of production, it’s still offering an incomplete picture of the actual scenario. If one product option will result in better crop performance (and better economic return) than another, further analysis is required to decide which is best for your operation.

Return on Investment

A wise grower will certainly always strive try to control raw material and labor costs, but the principal objective of any production operation is to invest in raw materials that will lead to the most profitable return once the crop is sold. A well designed trial can quantify the performance differences between different products. After different products are applied and crops are grown and marketed, a detailed analysis can then determine if any product treatment results in significant economic advantages—or disadvantages.

The performance of different product treatments might result in:

  • Faster average production time (days to bloom, days to desired plant size)
  • Lower than average plant loss or shrink
  • Higher than average plant grade–bigger, better, fuller, greener (tied to value)
  • More efficiency or less environmental waste

Bench space costs money. If you can turn a crop faster by using a more expensive product, it may make economic sense. A greater investment in fertilizer or pesticide, for example, might be warranted if it results in a crop with a higher percentage rated “top grade” or if reduces shrinkage (culls/ discards) in the production and post-production phases. Some products may result in less waste because more of the product is being used by the plant. In this case, the cost of losing nutrients or other active ingredients into the environment due to spillage or leaching should also be considered.

The Return on Investment analysis method looks at the relative return that any specific product treatment might bring to help you maximize profitability.

Method 3–Return on Investment (ROI):
o Product A costs $0.083 per container. Product A yields a crop that is 30 percent top grade (wholesale at $4/ plant), 55 percent second grade (wholesale at $2/ plant) and 15 percent culls (no value). The average value of the crop = ($4 x 0.3) + ($2 x 0.55) + ($0 x 0.15) = $2.30. The ROI = $2.30/ $0.083 = 27.7 or a return of approximately 28 times the product cost.
o Product B costs $0.087 per container. Product B yields a crop that is 60 percent top grade (wholesale at $4/ plant), 30 percent second grade (wholesale at $2/ plant) and 10 percent culls (no value). The average value of the crop = ($4 x 0.6) + ($2 x 0.3) + ($0 x 0.1) = $3.00. The ROI = $3.00/ $0.087 = 34.5 or a return of approximately 34 times the product cost.

In this example, if the grower is willing to invest $0.004 more per container, there will be an incremental return of $0.70 per container. Product B is a much better investment here as its use leads to a much more profitable crop.

Because it offers the most accurate data related to profitability, Scotts Professional often uses the Return on Investment analysis method when creating trial data sheets for sales purposes. Our territory managers also use the ROI method when working with growers on their own trials in the field. Here’s an example of some charts from a recent trial of our Osmocote Plus patterned nutrient release fertilizer on rhododendrons. These charts offer a good visual representation of how different quality products can impact the mix of Class 1, 2 and 3 plants within a crop as well as the sales value of these plants.

 

When analyzing the value of various products, cost per bag can be quite deceptive. For very similar products, a Cost-in-Use analysis will account for differences in bag size, rate and application difference and provide a better comparison. For more complex products, an ROI analysis is best since it accounts for differences in product performance that can significantly boost the bottom line.

Different analysis can lead to different decisions from examples above.
 Method Result  Decision Comments
 Cost Per Bag Product A Is much less expensive  Product A seems like a good choice Bag size and rate differences are disregarded
 Cost-In-Use Product A is slightly less expensive per unit container  Product A still seems like a better value Cost of product is accurate, but production results are ignored
 ROI Product B returns more profit  Product B is a much better value Grower maximizes economic return by selecting the best product that will lead to greater profitability

Leave a Reply

4 comments on “What Does That Production Input Really Cost You?

  1. Our experience has shown that restoring the health of your soil by adding a small amount of microorganisms will provide the following cost effective benefits: 1. a meaningful reduction in fertilzer usage,2. a meaningful reduction in fungicide usage, 3 a reduction in irrigation demand, 4 . shorter growing time and 5. a superior plant. For additional information visit the web site http://www.douglasspeed.com that is the key to lower input cost and higher profit margins

  2. Our experience has shown that restoring the health of your soil by adding a small amount of microorganisms will provide the following cost effective benefits: 1. a meaningful reduction in fertilzer usage,2. a meaningful reduction in fungicide usage, 3 a reduction in irrigation demand, 4 . shorter growing time and 5. a superior plant. For additional information visit the web site http://www.douglasspeed.com that is the key to lower input cost and higher profit margins

More From Finance/Operations...
Penn State Plant Bud

August 23, 2016

AmericanHort Is Helping Plant Importers Adjust To New Regulations

A report from Craig Regelbrugge at AmericanHort says the government is implementing a streamlined system for imports, in which all required data will be submitted electronically through a single window.

Read More
Plug Connection Assortment

August 9, 2016

AmericanHort’s Plug And Cutting Conference Will Feature Education, Workshops, And A Tour

This year’s conference, which takes place Sept. 19-21 in Carlsbad, CA, features discussions on water, pest and disease control, and production inputs, as well as a biocontrols workshop and tour of local cuttings facilities.

Read More
Cannabis In Greenhouse

July 27, 2016

The Top 5 Myths About Cannabis Production Cleared Up

There is a lot of misleading information going around about growing cannabis. Industry insider James Lowe makes sure you know the truth about cannabis production.

Read More
Latest Stories
Penn State Plant Bud

August 23, 2016

AmericanHort Is Helping Plant Importers Adjust To New R…

A report from Craig Regelbrugge at AmericanHort says the government is implementing a streamlined system for imports, in which all required data will be submitted electronically through a single window.

Read More
Plug Connection Assortment

August 9, 2016

AmericanHort’s Plug And Cutting Conference Will Feature…

This year’s conference, which takes place Sept. 19-21 in Carlsbad, CA, features discussions on water, pest and disease control, and production inputs, as well as a biocontrols workshop and tour of local cuttings facilities.

Read More
Cannabis In Greenhouse

July 27, 2016

The Top 5 Myths About Cannabis Production Cleared Up

There is a lot of misleading information going around about growing cannabis. Industry insider James Lowe makes sure you know the truth about cannabis production.

Read More
Joe Bischoff

July 26, 2016

SAF Partners With Cornerstone Government Affairs To Adv…

A new partnership between the Society of American Florists (SAF) and Cornerstone Government Affairs ensures that SAF will continue its highly effective work advocating for issues that affect the floriculture industry. “SAF and Cornerstone together provide experienced voices on Capitol Hill to protect our growers’ interests,” says SAF CEO Peter Moran. “We’ll continue to move major policy priorities forward on behalf of small business and agriculture.” Cornerstone is a public affairs firm specializing in government relations, strategic consulting, and advocacy. Its team of more than 50 senior professionals includes former senior professional staff from both authorization and appropriations committees and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), as well as veterans of the horticulture industry. Agricultural and horticultural issues of primary concern to SAF members include access to labor, immigration, crop protection, international trade and other matters related to the day-to-day operations of growers. Before she retired this year, SAF lobbyist Lin […]

Read More

July 26, 2016

AFE Releases New Videos Highlighting Industry Successes

The American Floral Endowment (AFE) recently released five new videos, created to highlight floriculture successes through industry collaboration, support, and participation. “Each video shares real stories from industry members on career development through scholarships and internships, and true examples of research solutions that have shaped how the industry operates today,” says Laura Shinall, President of Syndicate Sales, Inc., and AFE Public Relations and Development Chair. “We’re excited to be able to share some great success stories in an effort to increase industry participation.” The introductory video “Heard of the American Floral Endowment?” helps educate those who aren’t currently aware of AFE’s programs, while other segmented videos (retail, wholesale, grower) share how Endowment programs complement each group and why it’s so important that everyone in the industry participates: Retail Florists Share Why They Turn to AFE New Resources for Floral Wholesalers and Suppliers AFE Helping Growers Profit Ready for a Career in Floriculture or Horticulture? […]

Read More
Briscoe White, Growers Exchange

July 6, 2016

The Grower’s Exchange Unlocks The Secret to E-Commerce

In the Internet era, Briscoe and Kenan White knew they had to adapt or die and specialize to survive. Here’s how they took The Grower’s Exchange online.

Read More
Brie Arthur

July 6, 2016

5 Can’t-Miss Events To Watch For At Farwest 2016

Whether it’s classes on biocontrols and gardening trends, or networking opportunities in and around the trade show floor, there’s plenty happening at Farwest 2016 in Portland, OR, in August.

Read More
Cannabis states 2016

July 1, 2016

Adult Use Of Cannabis On The Ballot In 2016

25 states have legalized cannabis and public opinion is increasingly positive. Here’s where things may be headed as we move toward the fall elections.

Read More
Practical Software Grower Vertical

June 18, 2016

Practical Software Solutions Increases Accessibility, E…

Practical Software will demonstrate Grower Vertical, its customizable and scalable enterprise management system for the horticulture industry, at Cultivate’16 in July.

Read More
Battlefield Farms Company shot

June 14, 2016

Battlefield Farms Is A Finalist For 2016 Operation Of T…

Battlefield Farms in Rapidan, VA, is one of three finalists for Greenhouse Grower’s 2016 Operation Of The Year award and winner of the Excellence In Innovation award for 2016.

Read More

June 7, 2016

Ball Seed Offers Full Mobile Ordering Capabilities With…

The latest update for Ball Seed’s WebTrack To Go mobile app now includes full ordering capabilities for the industry’s largest assortment of seeds and plants. App users can also complete order fulfillment via seed count or package size, find product substitutions, get personalized “contact us” information, request plant tags, and more. “Upgrading WebTrack To Go to the full suite of ordering and management tools is where we’ve always wanted to be,” says Mark Morris, Director of IT for Ball Seed. “With this new roll-out, we’re keeping up with our customers on-the-go and providing them the information and access they need –- even while away from their desks.” The Ball Seed WebTrack To Go app lets customers: Check order status and shipment tracking 24-7 Access up-to-the-minute product inventory from hundreds of suppliers Place orders by seed count, packet size, and more Find product info, culture and photos when and where they […]

Read More
Gotham Greens Atrium Style Greenhouse Chicago

May 23, 2016

What’s Good For The Environment Is Good For Business [O…

Investing in technology to become more sustainable “always goes hand in hand,” says Abe VanWingerden, co-CEO of Metrolina Greenhouses. “If it is good for the environment, it normally is good for business over the long term.” That connection was abundantly clear in the responses we received to this year’s Top 100 Growers Survey. VanWingerden points to three investments Metrolina has made as good examples of how technology can reduce an operation’s carbon footprint and pay dividends financially. Its biomass system burns locally sourced waste wood — a renewable resource; its ozone water treatment system cleans irrigation water, reducing the need for fertilizers and pesticides, and improving plant quality and precision growing; and electrostatic sprayers reduce water and chemical use, and provide more targeted chemical applications. Other Top 100 Growers have found VanWingerden’s theory to be true, as well. Costa Farms’ investment in solar energy panels on three buildings at its […]

Read More
Petunia 'Supertunia Violet Star Charm' (2015 University of Georgia Field Trials)

May 10, 2016

New Southern-Centric Ornamental Production Conference T…

The 2016 Academy of Crop Production is dedicated exclusively to sharing information on advanced ornamental crop production and business management techniques for ornamental producers.

Read More
University of Florida Online Greenhouse Training Courses

April 25, 2016

University of Florida Offering Online Training Courses …

There will be five courses offered, with the first starting on May 30. Courses are available in both English and Spanish and range from beginner level to advanced education.

Read More
Sanitation programs are essential to preventing and removing food safety concerns.

April 7, 2016

USDA Launches GroupGAP Program For Fruit And Vegetable …

The new certification program is designed to help small and mid-size growers, including greenhouse vegetable producers, comply with new food safety regulations.

Read More
Young Plants Farm North Carolina

March 15, 2016

Young’s Plant Farm Obtains MPS-A Qualification

MPS, an organization that develops and manages certification for companies in the horticulture industry, has awarded MPS-A certification to Young’s Plant Farm in North Carolina and Alabama.

Read More
Charlie Hall Feature Image

March 14, 2016

Dr. Charlie Hall Will Offer Keynote Address At Farwest …

The Texas A&M economist will discuss factors affecting short- and long-term demand driving the future of the green industry.

Read More
Seed Your Future Logo

March 8, 2016

Longwood Gardens And American Society For Horticultural…

Under the direction of co-chairs Paul B. Redman of Longwood Gardens and Anna Ball of Ball Horticultural Company, the “Seed Your Future” initiative is designed to combat declining awareness of horticulture while promoting it as a viable career choice.

Read More
[gravityform id="35" title="false" description="false"]