Photo © amirul syaidi | Adobe Stock

Digging around for more profitable crops for 2020? The best place to start might be with the premium crops you already grow well. While crop diversification and a deeper selection can certainly help you grow sales and expand your customer base long-term — as well as serve niche markets — selling more of what you already do best can be a quicker path to increased profit. 

You know how they always say it’s more expensive to recruit new customers and employees than it is to grow the ones you already have? The same adage can apply to your greenhouse crops. Make sure you’re capitalizing on your strengths first, before you invest in improving or marketing new or less profitable crops.

Be the go-to

There are a lot of growers growing the same plants out there. As a buyer, it can sometimes be hard to distinguish one grower’s selection from another’s. It’s understandable; everyone needs to make a profit and certain crops are in bigger demand than others. But homogeny and an abundance of commodity crops don’t help you stand out from the other growers in your region. It certainly doesn’t help you command larger margins.

When a customer has a go-to top-notch grower they trust for, say, lavender or edible crops, chances are they’re inclined to buy more of other items from said trusted grower. If you’re the only grower who offers a species, or you clearly grow it better than everyone else, you have a serious advantage with which to build your market share. Why take up valuable bench space with more new items before you leverage the premium crops you already do best?

Be the expert

When you’re considered the expert on a specific crop, you can not only expand your sales on it, but garner tailwind momentum off it for other crops. It’s typically more cost-effective to buy bigger orders from fewer vendors, if you can get more of what you need from those vendors. If buyers must come to you for your top-notch organic herbs, you have a great opportunity to increase their average sale with you on other items.

Run the numbers

It’s easy to rely on gut feelings and anecdotal observations when you’ve been growing for a long time. But if you take the time to dig into your hard inventory data to track trends over time, you might be surprised by what is or isn’t selling as well as you thought. By not regularly checking in with the data, you could be missing out on significant sales and profit opportunities.

As inventory turns slow on an item, so do your overall sales and profits. It might appear a crop is doing fine because you’re selling through production. However, in analyzing your data trends you might realize it’s taking you four more weeks to sell through the same quantity than it did three years ago. To increase profits from the same square foot of growing space, you need to get more inventory turns out of that square foot in the same time period. If you can also increase the mark-in margin (increase price relative to cost) for the item while you’re also increasing turns, even better.

You know how they always say it’s more expensive to recruit new customers and employees than it is to grow the ones you already have? The same adage can apply to your greenhouse crops.

When you find that certain items aren’t turning as much or as quickly as you need, don’t be afraid to cull them from the herd, especially if other growers in your market already offer the same item at a competitive price. Let them sell it. Wouldn’t you rather sell more of an item you can sell faster and for a higher price? You may be better off expanding production of your key top-selling item/s and removing slow turners from your production schedule. Being a good grower isn’t just about growing what you do grow well — it’s knowing when not to grow something. Good editing goes a long way.

When was the last time you did a serious analysis of your category and product sales reports? If it’s been a while, now’s a good time to do a deep dive into your data.

Risks and returns

It’s no secret that many growers are reticent to make significant changes to their offerings. Ok, let’s be real, some of you have your heels dug firmly into the ground and you’re not budging. I’ve seen availability lists that look almost identical to what they did 15 years ago. But in a changing market, consumer preferences and climate can’t be ignored. And you won’t always have the same customers you did 15 years ago. Differentiation is key to success in both good and tough markets.

Nervous about increasing availability on key items, potentially growing a smaller selection? There is always a risk associated with offering a larger quantity or longer availability period for a specific crop. No one wants to get stuck with unsold product. But that’s where good marketing comes in.

You might also consider increasing production on key items with pre-booked orders only. If you are the go-to grower for a specific crop, then customers will be willing to pre-book with you — especially if that’s the only way they can get the premium product they need from you when they need it.

The better job you do pre-marketing your go-to premium crops, the more of them you can get sold faster, or even pre-sold. How loud are you about what you do best? If you aren’t leveraging your premium crops as frontrunners in all your marketing efforts, you’re giving up premium profits.

Leslie (CPH) owns Halleck Horticultural, LLC, through which she provides horticultural consulting, business and marketing strategy, product development and branding, and content creation for green industry companies. lesliehalleck.com

Photo courtesy of Plantpeddler

‘Callie Eclipse Raspberry,’ ‘Elegant Feathers’ among standouts at Plantpeddler Variety Day

Cresco, Iowa-based grower Plantpeddler held its annual Variety Day on Friday, Aug. 2, officially opening the newly expanded trial site. This space represents an investment in grower success by “Testing the Best in the Midwest.”

The event showcased nearly 1,200 varieties of vegetative annuals in large containers, hanging baskets and beds from a global array of breeders. Growers, breeders, brokers and retailers spent the day evaluating the trial gardens, attending seminars by industry professionals and touring the greenhouses. Presenters included Jennie Smith of BASF, Dr. Carlos Bográn of OHP, Lisa Heredia representing Danziger, Bart Hayes of Westhoff and Mike Gooder of Plantpeddler. Participants had the opportunity to vote on their top three varieties.

Photo © vermontalm | Adobe Stock

Cultivate trends and holiday plants on the Green Industry Leaders Network podcast

The Green Industry Leaders Network podcast recently featured Greenhouse Management Editor Kate Spirgen for its 59th episode, “Cultivate & Holiday Plant Trends.” Spirgen and Chris Sabbarese, digital marketing and communications manager at Corona Tools, talked about their experiences at Cultivate’19, as well as holiday plant trends.

The podcast takes a look at what's hot in holiday plants outside of poinsettias and what growers can pair with the popular plant for more sales.

Canadian greenhouse operations say cannabis industry is worsening labor shortages

Canada’s labor-strapped greenhouse vegetable and flower growers are ramping up efforts to keep and recruit more workers in the face of pressure from the country’s budding cannabis industry, farm groups say.

“Many of the cannabis producers are very cash rich. They’ve got the resources to pay a very good wage,” said Andrew Morse, head of the Flowers Canada industry group.

Canada’s greenhouse, nursery and floriculture sectors employ 16% of all workers in Canadian agriculture. The industry has been grappling with a tight labor supply for years, and the current record low national unemployment rate is compounding the problem.

Water! Water! Water! Without doubt, one of the most valuable commodities on earth, water is a resource we must protect and respect in all aspects of our personal and professional lives. In container production systems, we have made tremendous advancements over the decades in water quality, water use efficiency, irrigation delivery methods and timing, water recapture/reuse/recycling, etc. Large multi-institutional projects (WateR3, for example), continue to innovate systems and educate growers on better water use technologies and management practices.

As new production practices and products enter the horticultural market, there is a continual need to evaluate and understand how water is utilized in these systems. Let’s take substrates for example. The development and use of “new” substrate materials, primarily wood products, has resulted in many growers having to relearn or rethink how they irrigate their crops. Of all the promises and potentials of wood substrate components in growing media, there are some adjustments that have to be made during crop production. In this article, we will highlight some of the things growers and researchers are seeing and learning relative to substrate hydration and wettability before and during crop production. But first, let’s review some of the common terms used (often incorrectly or interchangeably) to describe events and activities relating to substrate hydration and water.

Wettability — the preference and/or capability of a liquid (water) to be in contact with a solid (substrate). The interaction of fluids and solids

Capillarity — absorption and movement of water through/by capillary pores as a result of the forces of capillary action often against gravity. Also referred to as “wicking”

Evaporation — water loss due to vaporization that occurs on the surface of water as it changes into the gas phase. Can occur on substrate surface as well as container wall surfaces

Hydration efficiency — the ability of a substrate to capture and retain water in the fewest number of hydration events (water applications)

Hydraulic conductivity — the ability or ease with which water can move through substrate/soil pore spaces across a hydraulic gradient. Measured in saturated and unsaturated conditions

Water holding capacity — often referred to as “container capacity.” The percent volume of substrate pores filled with water after saturation and drainage. Maximum water holding capacity is rarely achieved in production, since irrigations do not saturate the substrate. “Maximum” substrate capacities are typically reported based on laboratory testing. “Achieved” water holding capacity is the amount of water held in containers after normal irrigation events that apply water on or in the containers. The achieved water capacity of a substrate after irrigation is most always less than the reported maximum water holding capacity.

Saturation — when all substrate pores are completely filled with water. Not achieved with normal irrigations (top or bottom) if drainage is allowed

Hydrophobicity — tendency to repel water; unable to be easily wetted. Refers to a substrate’s ability to be hydrated or rehydrated easily.

Hydrophilicity — tendency to be wetted by water with little or no difficulty.

Wood substrate products (fiber, chips, shavings, etc.) are now being offered by many of the largest substrate manufacturers in North America and Europe. It is projected that the number of wood products and commercial substrates containing wood will increase significantly in the next 18 to 36 months. There are three primary technologies (machine and process types) that create wood products: Disc-refiners, screw extruders and hammer mills (Fig. 1A). While there are variations within each of the processing types, the overall structure, particle size and shape and properties of wood products are fairly distinct. Regardless of the wood product, the moisture content of the material at the time it is incorporated with other components (like peat) will significantly influence how it blends and mixes. For example, a disc-refined wood fiber has visual and physical differences when wetted at different moisture levels (from left to right) of 25, 33, 50, 66 and 88% (Fig. 1B). The wetter the fiber, the more it clings and clumps to itself. When blended with peat, the clumps are difficult to uniformly blend with peat and can look (and function) unfavorably (Fig. 1C). Inadequate moisture content at the time of potting (not moist enough) can lead to shrinking and swelling of the substrate in containers (Fig. 1D) which can negatively affect water capture and movement during irrigation events.

During crop production, one of the most frequent comments from growers has to do with surface drying of substrates that contain wood products. The drying of the substrate surface is much quicker and more severe than the normal expected surface drying of peatlite mixes. The surface drying of substrates (Fig. 2A) containing wood is normally seen in late spring or summer production times when water use and demand (from the plant and from the surrounding environment) are greater. The quickness and severity of drying (and the resulting substrate color change) can often lead to premature irrigations and thereby overwatering issues during production. Just because the surface is dry it does not mean that there isn’t sufficient water in the container. The surface drying is a result of the wood particle sizes and shapes, the light and fluffy nature of the material (low bulk density), the very high air porosity and different hydraulic conductivity rates compared to peatlite mixes. During late winter or early spring production when water demand is lower, surface drying is rarely a problem and often times can remain wet and prone to algae growth (but no worse than traditional peatlite mixes) (Fig. 2B). This also occurs often in propagation substrates and systems.

As a result of container surfaces often drying faster than what is normally expected, it is important that the substrate be able to be rewetted sufficiently and easily. The wettability and hydration efficiency of wood products is a topic of much focus and interest at the moment. Substrate hydration is critically important at the time of substrate blending/mixing, at the time of pot filling, transplanting and throughout a plant’s production time.

There are many ways researchers and substrate manufacturers test substrates for their wettability, re-wettability, evaporative losses, need for surfactants, etc. At North Carolina State University, the two most common techniques we use to quantify these parameters are: 1) overhead/drip hydration efficiency test (Fig. 3B&C); and 2) capillary rise ebb-in-flood efficiency test (Fig. 3A). These techniques simulate different irrigation delivery methods to test the water capture, retention, movement and release in substrates. Based on wettability, hydration, capillary, etc., substrates can be better engineered, formulated and chosen to best function (in regard to water) based on the irrigation method, pot size and height, etc. of individual growers.

The addition of wood products (primarily fiber) has been shown to improve the wettability of peat substrates at low moisture contents. When dry, peat can be very hydrophobic and difficult to properly wet. Wood by itself is less hydrophobic and in some instances (based on fiber size) can be slightly hydrophilic. As an example, peat was tested at low (25%) and high (50%) moisture contents. Ten overhead irrigation events were applied to the substrate samples and the amount of water retained after each event was measured. After the 10 hydration events, the maximum water holding capacity of the samples was determined and are represented on the graphs (Fig 4A.) as the solid red lines across the top, while the water retention is plotted with the blue line. Peat by itself at 25% moisture only, had a maximum water capacity of 25% and the irrigation events never even got to that level. At 50% moisture, peat’s maximum water holding capacity increased to 68%, but yet again, the irrigation events were never able to achieve that capacity (Fig. 4A). When 10% (by vol) ForestGold wood fiber was added to the same peat materials, the water holding capacity increased in the dry peat to 58% (compared to 25% in peat alone) and at 50% testing moisture, maximum hydration was achieved after four irrigation events (Fig. 4B). Similar results were seen with Berger wood fiber (Hydrafiber) at both the 25% and 50% moisture tests (Fig. 4C) with maximum hydration occurring at the seventh irrigation event. Both wood products shown here are disc-refined materials. Other wood products produced with different methods or of different sizes can behave differently.

Current and future initiatives in the Horticulture Substrate Laboratory at North Carolina State University are focused on substrate-water-plant interactions. Research on irrigation water in container crop production systems is a three-pronged approach: delivery, movement and fate. Delivery encompasses the different means and methods of irrigating crops in indoor and outdoor production systems. The need for substrates to capture and retain water is a critical step in production efficiency. Water movement entails how water, once captured by the substrate, moves vertically up and down a pot and also laterally from side to side in a root ball/pot. Water movement can depend on irrigation delivery method (from top or bottom), size/height of container, substrate components, dryness or wetness of substrate at the time of irrigation, presence of wetting agent, etc. Water fate includes draining/leaching after irrigations, evaporation from the substrate surface, evaporation from the container walls (if non-plastic), bound in substrate particles unavailable to plants or transpiration from the plants themselves. Understanding water delivery, movement and fate as it relates to substrate properties and grower management practices will be critical in the future as more and more emphasis (and dare I say — regulations) will be placed on water usage and management. How can we engineer or formulate substrates to be better (more efficient) at capturing, moving and retaining water? How can we mitigate water loss from the substrate? How can we extend plant water availability in post-production environments to extend plant shelf-life and quality? Many questions. Many opportunities.

The author is an associate professor and director of the Horticultural Substrates Laboratory at North Carolina State University. You can reach him at Brian_Jackson@ncsu.edu

Photo © eoneren | iStockphoto

Glyphosate, a popular nonselective pre-emergent herbicide commonly known by the trade name Roundup, has been in the news lately due to several high-profile lawsuits. In August 2018, a jury in San Francisco ordered Roundup’s manufacturer, Monsanto, to pay $289 million in damages to a school groundskeeper who claimed the product caused his cancer. A judge upheld that decision, but reduced the payout to $78 million. Recently, another jury in San Francisco ruled against Monsanto, concluding that glyphosate was a substantial factor in causing the non-Hodgkin lymphoma in a Sonoma County man.

Bayer, the company that bought Monsanto in 2018, responded by saying there was more than four decades of extensive science and the conclusions of regulators worldwide that support the safety and non-carcinogenic nature of their glyphosate-based herbicide.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) did list glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen (Group 2A) in 2015. But that puts it on the same level as burning wood, eating red meat, high-temperature frying or late-night work shifts — other Group 2A carcinogens.

In 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency’s office of pesticide programs released a report stating there was no evidence of a correlation between glyphosate exposure and the numerous cancer claims. In 2017, EPA released a draft statement that also concluded that glyphosate was not a likely carcinogen to humans.

The difference in the two opposing conclusions comes down to the dose, said Jeffrey Derr, professor of weed science at Virginia Tech University. Derr addressed glyphosate use in nursery/landscape situations in a June 24 webinar hosted by AmericanHort. In his article in the May/June edition of the “Virginia Turfgrass Journal,” Derr said the IARC did not consider dose in their analysis, while the EPA did consider it to be relevant to the interpretation of data.

Christine Olinger of the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs also took part in the webinar to answer question about the EPA research. She said she saw some tumors in animals dosed high above the recommended levels.

Scott Senseman, head of the University of Tennesee’s Department of Plant Sciences, is the past-president of the Weed Science Society of America. In that role, he has drafted a statement on glyphosate cancer risk. However, the challenge is how to communicate science to non-scientists.

“We’re in a society that is made up of a lot of kinds of individuals,” he said. “Trying to come up with a statement that encompasses all of those is a tall challenge.”

In the June 24 webinar, Senseman said the WSSA Committee on Glyphosate Cancer Risk had also drafted a symposium proposal. The symposium would assist green industry professionals with interpreting results from long-term exposure studies, explaining the methodology used to assess toxicological risk, as well as looking at the situation from an attorney’s perspective.

Derr suggested a few alternatives to glyphosate-based herbicides.

“There’s no easy replacement for glyphosate,” he said. “There’s not one particular product that can do everything.”

Glufosinate is the top alternative he recommended. It’s a contact herbicide with some systemic action, available in the trade as Finale, Cheetah Pro and others. It offers activity within one to four days and is used at a rate of 2-4 quarts per acre. It carries a “Warning” signal word. Glufosinate is better than contact herbicides on perennial weeds, but somewhat less effective than glyphosate on them. It provides good control of cutleaf evening primrose, doveweed, dayflower and white clover. Derr cautions growers and other green industry professionals to keep glufosinate off the bark of young trees.

If you need weed control and you don’t want to wait one to four days, Derr said that diquat is an excellent option. This is the most effective contact herbicide alternative to glyphosate, he said. In fact, it’s the contact part of the popular, effective Roundup QuikPro product (which is glyphosate + diquat).

“On a warm, sunny day, if you treat an area in the morning you’ll see results by that afternoon,” he said.

Diquat carries a “Caution” signal word and is used at a rate of 1-2 pints per acre.

The author is managing editor of sister publications Nursery Management and Garden Center.