It All Adds Up: Data Collection to Increase Profitability of Small-scale Vegetable Growers on the Northern Great Plains

It All Adds Up: Data Collection to Increase Profitability of Small-scale Vegetable Growers on the Northern Great Plains

Summary

The Entrepreneurial Center for Horticulture (ECH) has gathered a diverse group of vegetable growers and agriculture professionals to identify the most useful data and data collection methods and engage in data collection on farms across the state.  Over a three-year period data will be collected monthly and aggregated data shared online twice a year.  By the project’s end, a Northern Plains Specialty Crop Data Toolkit will be published online including all data collected and the data collection tools used.  The Data Toolkit will be a resource Northern Plains specialty crop growers will use in farm business planning for increased social, environmental, and economic sustainability.

Objectives/Performance Targets

1.     Selection of at least five data types which farmers will collect

2.     Selection of the best collection and reporting tools for those five data types

3.     Monthly data collection reports from 10 partner farmers submitted to ECH staff

4.     Two data reports per year posted to the ECH website, showing aggregated farmer data on at least five types of data.

Accomplishments/Milestones

In the first year of this grant the following activities took place:

• SARE Advisory Board met in the spring of 2016 to determine which data 10 participating producers would collect throughout the growing season for the grant.
• 5 data types were identified as potentially useful information for: service providers, start-up farmers, and current farmers. They were: Plant and Harvest Dates, Harvest Yields, Revenue and Expenses, High Tunnel Soil Tests, Market Channels (as a % of sales revenue)
• Each participant was responsible to collect two or three of the 5 data sets.
• Data collection did not begin until April/May 2016.
• About ½ of the participating farmers got their data collected and turned in monthly with ease. Others had farming difficulties and were not able to collect and disseminate their data easily.
• All of the available data was collected by the end of October 2016.
• One farmer quit farming after the 2016 growing season and was replaced with a new cooperating farmer.

Impacts and Contributions/Outcomes

The following key points were identified in 2016 through this data collection process:

o   Plant and Harvest Dates

• Farmers chose their plant and harvest dates based on personal needs first; then on weather permissibility. Most do not adjust their planting dates to capture market demand or to affect overall profitability or marketability. Collecting plant and harvest dates was easiest for farmers who used a google doc form to input the data straight from the field.  However, many of the participating farmers do not use their smart phones as farm management tools.

o   Harvest Yields

• 10 specific crops were identified at the beginning of the growing season. Seven of the ten producers were tasked to collect their harvest yields on these crops.  This was also the most difficult information for farmers to collect. 
• Data was so explicit to each farm, that it is impossible to accumulate it into a whole data set. There are too many variables that affect harvest yield from farm to farm for the data be considered useful as an aggregate.  Individual farmers would likely benefit from monitoring this data for themselves, comparing their production from year to year; but there is no simple collection system at this time that fits all or most farmers’ management systems.
• Data yields of various crops may be useful to potential start-ups and service providers (mainly lenders) by showing the yield time pattern of harvest yields throughout the growing season. For instance, farmers may be able to determine that they expect to harvest 10 pounds of tomatoes per plant throughout a growing season.  But, it would be beneficial to also realize that most of those ten pounds are harvested during a peak production week (or few) with lesser pounds being harvested before and after the peak.  We do not have data in North Dakota (or by region) showing when those peak production weeks are for various crops, so that farmers can plan their marketing or develop markets for specialty crops accordingly. 
• All participating farmers did not grow enough of each chosen crop to warrant collecting harvest yield off of them. Further, most did not want to collect harvest yield for all ten crops.  Considering we cannot accurately combine the information from farm to farm, each farmer should only collect yield data on one or two crops that they grow the most of, so that the data is functional and useful for the end user.

o   Revenue and Expenses

• The farmers collecting this data varied in the level of information they opted to share. One farmer uses Quicken and was easily able to share their monthly data.  Another uses an excel worksheet, by which they monitor their financial activity; this works well for their management and the grant’s data collection process as well.  Two farmers submitted very basic information that does not reflect a full picture of their operation.  All of the 2016 financial information is skewed, due to the timing of the producer training meeting.  Financial data should be collected from January through December.  The most valuable information we can hope to collect/disseminate through this category would be a few case studies (highlighting how much product by sales could be sold off of a given acreage) and a few pictures of potential cash flows scenarios for various marketing strategies.  It may also be useful to see how large capital expenses affect farmer’s cash flow.  For instance, if they do not borrow or already have money for capital expenses, do they expect the farm operation to pay for its operating and capital expenses each year?  If so, how does that affect their overall operation and long term stability?

o   High Tunnel Soil Tests

• Farmers had no trouble collecting their high tunnel soil data. Many were glad that they did.  Soil data from 2016 will be compared to subsequent year’s soil data to try and identify a trend.  Again, one cannot oversimplify the data collected, as each farmer manages their high tunnel differently.  Most producers add organic material (manure compost, or others) each year, whether they need the nutrients or not.  This practice skews the data collected.   Perhaps due to the arbitrary inclusion of compost type products, there is an obvious reading of high potassium in many of our tested tunnels.  A publication describing best high tunnel soil management practices, from year to year, would be useful. (After a discussion with NRCS soil specialist at the local foods conference, she is going to try to get a new soil scientist to produce this.)

 o   Market Channels (as a % of sales revenue)

• This data is reported based on sales revenue. In 2016, we only collected this information from the few farmers who were reporting their expenses and revenue.  It may be helpful to have all participants’ report what percent of their revenue comes from each marketing channels (CSA, grocery store, farmers market, etc.)  Beginning farmers and service providers may find it useful to become familiar with the various marketing mixes experienced specialty crop farmers use to sell their products.

2016 Grant Results

Through the activities of this year’s SARE grant, we have established a baseline for a few data sets that may be useful to small farm stakeholders in the Northern Plains.  We also have established a database of case studies for our farmer participants, and hope to work with them throughout the next 2 years to collect as much data and knowledge as is possible, from their working operations. The Advisory Board will meet again on February 24, 2017 via a conference call and look at ways to improve our data collection and processes, to achieve the most impact for the grant project.

Collaborators: