Sep 23, 2014
Home| Tools| Events| Blogs| Discussions Sign UpLogin

The Bottom Line: Is Growth an Objective or a Result?

February 11, 2012
By: Moe Russell, Farm Journal Farm Journal columnist

I have met a number of farmers who are obsessed with farming more acres. But remember, there is little correlation between size and profitability in terms of return on equity.

My concern is that several generations of wealth could be destroyed if an operation implodes due to rapid growth. It has happened, even recently with $6 to $7 corn.

Based on years of observing successful farm businesses grow, I feel strongly that growth should be the result of doing things right—not an objective. My partner and cofounder of Russell Consulting Group, Terry Jones, started farming in 1983 with 90 acres.

Today, he and his brother have wisely expanded their operation.

The problem with having growth as a major objective is that it often becomes the overriding objective of the farm. Other factors start slipping through the cracks, and the result is that the

bottom line deteriorates.

A better objective is profit, which should be viewed as the cost of stay-ing in business and capitalizing on your growth. You should budget for it.

When we build a pro forma operating plan with our clients, we add term debt payments, projected

operating expenses, living or operator draw, depreciation and a profit. All five added together become the gross-dollar-per-acre goal. That also cements the marketing objective for the coming year.

The minimum profit-per-acre goal should be $100 per acre, though recent profits have been better than that. In fact, many of our client plans for 2012 show $200 to $300 per acre profit. With 45% of anticipated 2012 bushels price-protected that should be attainable.

When we started to use this operating plan 13 years ago, the objec-tive was $50 per acre profit. That is not enough money today, due to increased volatility and risk exposure—more dollars are needed to grow a crop.

Oftentimes when growth is the primary objective, the farm business is not capitalized at a proper level to allow the operation to withstand unexpected adversity.

Previous 1 2 Next

See Comments

FEATURED IN: Farm Journal - Mid-February 2012

Log In or Sign Up to comment

COMMENTS (1 Comments)

Gerald - Cedar Rapids, IA
I hope you are kidding on your table. Profit is the difference between Revenue and Expense not a percent. In 2010 using your numbers the Profit would be 1.67 per bushel and in 2011 the Profit is 2.91 per bushel versus 1.40 in years 1972 and 1974. On a 180 bushel yield on 100 acres that would account for an extra 4,860 profit in 2010 and 27,180 profit in 2011. Many untrained people make the mistake of looking at ratios. I never thought I would see it in an article in farm journal.
8:29 AM Mar 24th



Receive the latest news, information and commentary customized for you. Sign up to receive the AgWeb Daily eNewsletter today!.

Enter Zip Code below to view live local results:
The Home Page of Agriculture
© 2014 Farm Journal, Inc. All Rights Reserved|Web site design and development by|Site Map|Privacy Policy|Terms & Conditions