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...

April 17, 2015

Sakata Seed Uses California Spring Trials Display Plants To Give Back

Sakata Seed America is putting its post-CAST (California Spring Trials) plants and flowers to good use to support events in local California communities of Salinas and Morgan Hill. The plants, along with donations through Sakata's Charitable Giving Program, will support three fun-filled community events that promote healthy lifestyles and support the agricultural industry.

Read More
Hakonochloa macra Aureola v

April 17, 2015

Ornamental Grasses — A Few Thoughts

Grasses have been embraced by growers, landscape architects and retailers, and are an important component in wholesale and resale sales. Allan Armitage shares some popular grasses, one to avoid and a few to use with caution.

Read More
PW_CAST15

April 17, 2015

Allan Armitage’s Favorite Plants From Proven Winners, Syngenta And Danziger

Between visiting California Spring Trial giants like Proven Winners, Syngenta and Danziger, Allan Armitage saw a lot of great plants in one day. Despite the size of the challenge, Dr. Armitage finds a few favorites he thinks you should try.

Read More
Latest Stories
Syngenta logo

April 15, 2015

Syngenta Names Chris Freeman Senior Key Account Manager…

Chris Freeman is the new senior key account manager for Syngenta Flowers, Home & Garden's Commercial Sales business in the Americas, effective March 2015. Freeman, who joined Syngenta in 2006, carries more than 25 years of experience in the agriculture and floriculture business.

Read More
Lake Buchanan_LCRA

April 10, 2015

USDA Designates Areas Of West And Southwest As Drought …

The ongoing drought has resulted in disaster area designations in counties across nine Western and Southwestern states, including Texas, where some reservoirs are at or near historically low levels.

Read More

April 9, 2015

Altman Plants’ Online Cactus Shop Shows Strong Sa…

Altman Plants recently opened its new Cactus Shop, an online retail store that sells a variety of cactus and succulents. The store is a take-off of Altman’s original wholesale business, as the company started as a mail order catalog.

Read More
Dummen

April 8, 2015

Dümmen Group Welcomes Jim Devereux And Andrew Konicki T…

Dümmen group recently announced the addition of Jim Devereux and Andrew Konicki to its team. They are the newest members of the Key Account and Broker Support team for Dümmen, and will be responsible for building, developing and maintaining current broker and grower customer relationships.

Read More
Gov._Jerry_Brown_California

April 8, 2015

California Institutes First Ever Statewide Mandatory Wa…

California Gov. Jerry Brown announced April 1 that, for the first time in state history, action will be taken to implement mandatory water restrictions, with the ultimate goal of reducing water usage by 25 percent. As Californians are pushed to conserve more, growers will need to think about how demand for products will be affected.

Read More
DNA-logo

March 31, 2015

DNA Green Group Will Acquire Rijnplant

DNA Green Group and Riknplant have finalized DNA Green Group's acquisition of Rijnplant, meaning that the breeding and propagation activities in pot and cut anthurium, bougainvillea and heliconia will transfer to DNA Green Group.

Read More
AFE scholarship_Ryan Dickson

March 25, 2015

AFE Educational Grant And Scholarship Application Deadl…

Apply now for American Floral Endowment (AFE) scholarships or educational grants. Applications can be found online. For educational grants for 2015-2016, applications must be submitted no later than June 1. Scholarship applications are due May 1. AFE will award $40,000 in scholarships for 2015.

Read More

March 23, 2015

UF/IFAS Appoints Joseph Albano As Director Of Mid-Flori…

The University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) has a new directors for its Mid-Florida Research and Education Center (REC) on Apopka, Fla. The role has been filled by Joseph Albano, a research horticulturist from the U.S. Department of Agriculture with more than 25 years of experience.

Read More

March 17, 2015

Pike Nurseries Implements Employee Stock Ownership Plan

Independent garden retailer Pike Nurseries has announced it will become an employee-owned company. Pike Nurseries management has combined with its sister corporation in California, Armstrong Garden Centers, to operate under an established Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP).

Read More
GrowIt! App Wins Gold At Design100 2014 US Mobile & App Design Awards

March 10, 2015

GrowIt! Mobile App Now Available For Android

The mobile app GrowIt! Garden Socially can now be used by gardeners with Android-based smartphones. Now available on the Google Play Market, GrowIt! helps users find plants to fit their lifestyle and connect them with other local gardeners.

Read More

March 4, 2015

Second Annual GreenhouseConnect Will Bring Growers and …

Following a successful inaugural event in Tampa last fall, Greenhouse Grower has announced the dates of its second annual GreenhouseConnect: October 26-29, 2015. Representatives of an expected two dozen leading greenhouse operations from across the U.S. will join senior-level suppliers at Rancho Bernardo Inn in San Diego for several days of one-on-one strategic meetings, a growers-only roundtable, informational sessions and a variety of networking events.

Read More

March 4, 2015

Maryland Green Industry Associations Unite

The Maryland Nursery and Landscape Association recently announced that it is expanding its reach to include the greenhouse industry, meaning it has become The Maryland Nursery, Landscape and Greenhouse Association (MNLGA). The change comes as a result of the planned dissolution of the former Maryland Greenhouse Growers Association and the invitation for those members to join the existing and renamed association.

Read More
IPPS Sharing Plant Production Knowledge Globally Logo

February 25, 2015

International Plant Propagators Western Region Sets Ann…

The annual meet for the International Plant Propagators' Society (IPPS) Western Region has been set for this September. It will take place September 23 to 26 in Modesto, Calif., and will include learning sessions, tours to local nurseries, a research poster display and poster presentations, various networking opportunities and an awards banquet to close the event.

Read More
myers industries Lawn and Garden Logo

February 24, 2015

Myers Industries, Inc. Lawn And Garden Business Sold, N…

The management of Myers Lawn and Garden Group, along with Wingate Partners V, L.P. have recently acquired the Myers Industries, Inc. Lawn and Garden business. The new company is named The HC Companies, and will continue as a North American leading provider of horticulture containers supplying the greenhouse, nursery and retail markets.

Read More
american-hort-logo

February 17, 2015

AmericanHort Announces New Board Members

AmericanHort recently announced the election of new officers and members to the board of directors. Each will assume their positions on the board during Cultivate’15, July 11 to 14 in Columbus, Ohio.

Read More
All American Selections

February 17, 2015

All-America Selections Elects New Officers, Names New J…

While meeting during the Flower and Vegetable Seed Conference in Tampa, Fla., hosted by the American Seed Trade Association, All-America Selections elected new officers for a two-year term. Read on to learn about the new officers, as well as all of the new judges that were added in 2014.

Read More
Greenhouse Grower.com on your desktop, on your phone, on your tablet

February 11, 2015

GreenhouseGrower.com Relaunches With Responsive Design …

Greenhouse Grower magazine, the nation’s leader in profits, production and education for greenhouse growers, announces the launch of its completely redesigned website, GreenhouseGrower.com. The new design is the product of direct user feedback and GreenhouseGrower.com analytics, and includes responsive design for ease of mobile use.

Read More
Andy Higgins

February 3, 2015

MasterTag Names Andy Higgins As Its New President

Former CEO and president of Ecke Ranch, Andy Higgins, joins MasterTag as its new president. He brings more than two decades of industry experience to the position.

Read More