We Have Too Many Products
in Agriculture & Agribusiness

The short answer

Each added crop or service spreads the same packing line and contract book thinner without raising total hectares. The version of this question that applies to mixed cropping farms is not the generic one. Forward contracts cover 48 percent of revenue locking prices twelve months ahead while 52 percent spot exposure leaves ebitda vulnerable to price and water volatility — so an answer that ignores 4,800 hectares will be confidently wrong. The analysis has to start from 24.9 percent gross margin and 71 percent packing utilisation rather than from revenue.

Lines accumulate because each new variety meets a contract window or uses spare intake capacity on paper, yet nothing leaves the rotation. The real cost appears in more frequent changeovers on the packing floor, greater error in matching forward volumes to actual harvest, and divided attention across groundwater allocations that must now support several water-demand profiles instead of one.

That cost falls first on the hectares already delivering steady contribution, because those blocks carry the fixed packing utilisation and the interest-cover requirement. Removing the low-volume tail therefore lifts overall margin even when the dropped lines showed a positive number on their own ledger.

The ranking that matters compares each line’s contribution per constrained hour of packing and per megalitre of licensed water, then separates those kept only to satisfy a channel buyer from those kept simply because the prior season’s plan was never revisited.

How to tell this is actually your problem

These three together are the signature. One on its own usually points somewhere else.

✓ Forward-contract coverage stays near half of revenue while the number of distinct varieties harvested keeps rising.
✓ Packing utilisation sits at 71 percent yet changeover time between crops is lengthening each season.
✓ Groundwater licence reports show the same total extraction spread across more crop types with no increase in total hectares.

The move that usually makes it worse. Dropping lines by revenue size alone, which removes the varieties that used marginal packing slots and retains the ones that lock the highest share of forward capacity and water.

Who this is for — and who it is not

It is for you if you run or finance a mixed cropping farm and a minority of lines produces the large majority of revenue. It is the situation where the numbers are available but nobody has put them in an order that produces a decision.

It is not for you if Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.

Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.

What this looks like when the analysis is actually run

Below is an excerpt from a real run of this analysis on a mixed cropping farm. It is a sample profile rather than a customer, and it is unedited engine output — this is the format you get, on your own numbers.

The subject is Halloway Fields Group, a sample company profile used for testing rather than a customer — $51.8 million revenue from 4,800 hectares.

This is one move out of a full analysis. Read a complete report — every page, no email required.

What the engine does with this question

This question routes to Matrix Strategy, one of 29 engagements the platform runs. For mixed cropping farms it works through 4,800 hectares, 24.9 percent gross margin, 71 percent packing utilisation and 4.1 times interest cover, then produces the sequence rather than a list of options — which move first, what it funds, and the observation that would say the sequence is wrong.

You watch the analysis get built before paying anything. Read a complete report here if you would rather see the depth first.

Questions people ask about this

How do I decide what to discontinue?

Contribution per unit of the binding constraint, then a check on strategic dependencies. Revenue rank alone gets this wrong in both directions.

Will customers leave if I discontinue products?

Some will, and the analysis should price that before the decision rather than after. Usually the revenue at risk is smaller than the complexity cost being removed, but it should be a finding rather than an assumption.

How much complexity cost is normal?

It is rarely tracked, which is why it grows. A workable proxy is the trend in operating cost per unit of volume; when that rises while volume rises, complexity is the usual explanation.

Is this different in agriculture & agribusiness than in other industries?

Materially, yes. Forward contracts cover 48 percent of revenue locking prices twelve months ahead while 52 percent spot exposure leaves ebitda vulnerable to price and water volatility — which changes both the diagnosis and the order of the fixes. The metrics that decide it here are 4,800 hectares, 24.9 percent gross margin, 71 percent packing utilisation, and an answer built on industry-general benchmarks will usually point at the wrong one first.

What data do I need before this analysis is worth running for a mixed cropping farm?

Less than most people expect. Your last twelve months of revenue and cost split the way you already split it, plus whatever you hold on 4,800 hectares and 24.9 percent gross margin. The analysis is explicit about what it is assuming where your data stops, which is more useful than waiting for numbers you may never have.

When is Percision the wrong tool?

Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.

Does Percision replace a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, or AI implementation team?

Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.