Yield metrics are a foundational way to examine the effects of processes, controls, equipment, and people on a cultivation operation’s efficiency. Keeping a close eye on this data can help the cultivator identify efficiencies and drive both quality and profitability. In this article, we’re going to dive into the pros and cons of various ways of reporting cultivation yield data.
The most common KPIs measured in cultivation are grams per watt, grams per square foot, and grams per plant. What you measure is what you improve, so making the right choice can have a big impact. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses.
Grams per Watt
- Running grow lighting is likely any grow’s largest cost beside payroll. Grams per watt captures this cost directly
- Translates well to other metrics thanks to the consistent/predictable square footage and light par a lighting unit provides at canopy
- Relatively easy to benchmark against almost any indoor cultivation facility
Grams per watt is a very common measurement that carries over from the oldheads who used to be worried about PG&E noticing them siphoning wattage while still needing to turn a profit. Electricity still being a huge cost for indoor growers, it exploded in popularity during commercialization of cannabis, with programs like Three a Light pushing the boundaries of what had been considered possible just 20 years ago.
Though commercial cannabis does not experience the same pressures of California home grows, Grams per watt remains a popular metric because of its specificity. It compares cultivation performance to a single hyper specific metric without any of the complexities associated with grams per square foot or plant, so benchmarking with peers is easy.
Nonetheless, the specificity of this KPI is also its weakness, unlike the more holistic KPIs below, grams per watt captures the relationship between yield and a singular cost input. This can disguise inefficiencies and overruns in other aspects of cultivation.
Grams per Square Foot
- Can be used to judge overall efficiency of a facility, both in terms of canopy and processing space
- Captures more costs than grams per watt, and has a closer relationship to profitability
- Can be complex to benchmark against peer facilities
Combined with COGM, grams per square foot provides a much more comprehensive picture of a facility’s operating costs than grams per watt.
That said, state cannabis regulations have proven that not all square feet are created equal, so it’s important to differentiate between square feet of canopy (where the previously discussed watts are going), and total facility square footage (easily capturing expenses like rent, utilities, insurance, etc).
Even then, canopy may be defined differently based on state regulations, which can influence how we deploy this metric. Wall-to-wall grow space, flowering canopy only, or any number of other standards can skew this particular metric, so be sure to know what points of comparison are important to your facility’s success before establishing this as a primary KPI.
A final benefit? This metric can compare indoor and outdoor facilities on common terms.
Grams per Plant
- Peer comparisons provide primarily methodological insights
- Internal comparisons can effectively capture trends from variables like genetics & technique
- Highly variable & difficult to interpret without additional data
Every plant is different. Every grower knows it, and it’s a big reason that cultivation yield metrics usually take on more generalized measurements like grams per harvest or grams per square foot. That said, methodological differences at the cultivation level make a huge difference in both yield and quality — influencing everything from pure poundage to flower size, to terpene and cannabinoid content, to extraction yields.
Grams per plant, especially when combined with other yield metrics, can be an especially effective way to evaluate different cultivation methods. Grams per plant allows a facility to judge how methodological constants such as lighting, nutrients, plants spacing, or cultivation timeline interact with new genetics, or how changing a technique may affect overall yield. With these kinds of insights, operational adjustments are easier to navigate and investigating anomalous events or adverse outcomes can be simplified.
Does Gram Really Know Best?
All KPIs have limitations and yield metrics are no different. Because all of these metrics focus on grams produced, none of them provide insights into product quality or facility health. Similarly, cultivators are able to achieve outsized numbers through PGRs & other practices, which often impact quality and always impact on bottom line in ways these metrics do not capture. This is where combining a yield metric with metrics like COGM and COGS can provide much more comprehensive insights.
It’s also important to note that, though all of these KPIs are expressed in 2 factors (“grams per (unit)”), for both internal and external benchmarking, a 3 factor equation is needed — grams per(unit) per (time). Typically cultivation KPIs are measured and reported on a per-harvest basis. However, while modern genetics are designed to be harvested within standardized timeframes, focusing only on per-harvest numbers may limit your ability to benchmark your performance with peer facilities and/or hide potential inefficiencies in strain selection or post-harvest processes. This is why we recommend also evaluating yield metrics on a per -harvest, quarterly, and annual basis to get a complete view of your performance over time.
What you measure is what you improve, so our goal is to help you understand which KPIs make the most sense for your business and why. Want to learn more? Reach out using our contact form below to schedule a free initial consultation.
