Tag Archives: IPM

Operational Inefficiencies in Commercial Cannabis Cultivation

By Drew Plebani
2 Comments

From the perspective of sustainable cannabis cultivation models, it seems clear that outside of the particular cultivation methodology adopted, that operational efficiency and the implementation of lean manufacturing principles will be necessary for successful and truly “sustainable” businesses, in the current, ever growing, cannabis space.

Implementing lean manufacturing principles as an integral part of the cannabis cultivation facility just makes sense- it is a manufacturing operation after all. From a lean perspective, doing away with the non-value-added costs in the supply chain and production model are quite important.

Let’s look at this case study as evidence for the necessity of operational efficiency:

A 300-light flowering, indoor cultivation facility in Colorado.

The system was purchased with ongoing pest/disease issues, recent updates to Colorado’s approved pesticide list, had prompted the implementation of an updated integrated pest management (IPM) program, which had been moderately successful in developing an albeit short-term solution to keeping ongoing root aphids, powdery mildew, and botrytis, to name a few, at bay.

This existing facility was producing roughly 60 pounds of trimmed cannabis per week, equivalent to almost $6M annual gross, however they were losing a percentage of their yields to product that did not pass Colorado’s contaminant testing requirements.

It is important to note that any deviation from the existing manufacturing schedule and system would create a change to the potential productivity of the system, for better or worse.

At the most basic level, one would hope that a new operator taking over an existing facility would analyze the system and implement incremental or perhaps major changes to create more efficient and profitable outcomes. That being said, currently the average grower likely doesn’t have much understanding of the lean manufacturing process. That will undoubtedly change.

When we look at basic manufacturing facility operations, on an annual gross potential basis, each daily task not completed on the existing manufacturing timeline is, at least, a 0.3% (1/365) loss in potential productivity. In monetary terms, for this particular facility, each 0.3% equates to a potential $18,000 in lost productivity.

The information that follows is taken from observations during the first week of this facility ownership transition and below is a generalized outline representing just one aspect of the operational inefficiencies (created or existing) that were observed :

  • Plant group A put into flowering 4 days behind schedule (4 days x 0.3%) =1.2%
  • Plant group B transplanted 3 days behind =0.9%
  • Plant group C transplanted 7 days behind =2.1%
  • Plant group D (clones) taken 7 days behind =2.1%
  • IPM applications not completed for 7+ days

That equals a 6.3% loss in potential annual productivity, which translates into a rough estimate of up to $378,000 in lost revenue.

Changes to the nutrient program in the midst of the plant’s life cycle had created nutrient deficient plants in all stages of vegetative and flowering growth, coupled with changes to the existing IPM program, all add to the potential losses incurred. Deviations in the plant nutrition program and IPM scheduling are hard to quantify mid-cycle, but will certainly be quantifiable when the hard numbers come home to roost.

These inefficiencies, once compounded, could potentially equal more than a 20% loss in potential productivity during the subsequent 3.5 month plant cycle. The current 60 pounds-per-week would likely be reduced for the next 2 months, down to roughly 50 pounds, or even much less, per-week. This could become a loss upwards of $500,000 in annual potential revenue in the first quarter of operation alone.

These seemingly small and incremental delays in the plant production cycle are all greatly compounded. The end result is that each subsequent cycle of plants is slightly smaller due to delays in transplanting and less days at maximized vegetative growth, etc. Undoubtedly, the cumulative effect of these operational inefficiencies creates a significant drop in the existing level of productivity, with the end result being a significant, undesired loss of revenue.

The sum of the lessons learned from this cultivation facility, is this: a sustainable operation, in the most pragmatic sense, is an efficient one both in terms of productivity and in terms of the carbon footprint and waste generated. The more streamlined and successful the operations are, the greater likelihood of success. Perhaps all of this is to say don’t forget about all the little parts that make up the whole, and strive to create a work environment/corporate culture that empowers your employees, your managers and all involved to participate and contribute to the process of improving the operations for mutual benefit.

Lessons learned from the aerospace manufacturing industry: Even the smallest zip tie on a spaceship matters! Some food for thought: If it’s truly beneficial it should stick around… If it is beneficial and it’s not sticking around, then there are limiting factors in the system that need to be addressed.

durnagofacility

Solutions for Cannabis Cultivation: Integrated Pest Management

By Aaron G. Biros
2 Comments
durnagofacility

Pest problems in cultivating cannabis such as spider mites and powdery mildew are major concerns facing growers on a daily basis. Colorado’s ongoing recalls for cannabis products containing pesticides serve as a reminder that pest problems continue to plague growers. Utilizing integrated pest management (IPM) can help reduce the need to use any pesticides, as well as mitigate the risk of unwanted pests wreaking havoc on a cannabis harvest. urban-gro, a solutions provider for commercial cannabis cultivation, builds IPM plans for large-scale cannabis growers tailored to meet specific needs in regulatory compliance for different states.

durnagofacility
urban-gro helped design this facility in Durango, Colorado.

Biological controls are essential to any proper IPM solution for growers. Beneficial living organisms such as insects, mites, nematodes or entomopathogenic fungi can all be applied as a method for controlling pests. Biological controls like those can reduce the need to use pesticides on cannabis. John Chandler, vice president of cultivation technologies at urban-gro, believes IPM requires a broad, systematic approach to eliminate the need for pesticides. “IPM is a combination of cultural, chemical and biological control,” says Chandler. “We start by evaluating the air flow of the facility, how plants are transported, any exclusion barriers and air filtration.” A robust IPM plan begins in the design phase of a new facility. “We can make key adjustments in floor plans, layouts and mechanical systems to optimize that first line of defense that is critical to mitigating the risk of pest issues.” Incorporating good agricultural practices can also help mitigate those risks.

durangopot
A close-up of a plant entering flowering at the Durango facility

“We help develop standard operating procedures with good agricultural practices in mind, including preventing cross contamination, which is the biggest pest issue facing cannabis growers,” says Chandler. “I encourage clients to set up harvest and vegetative rooms so that the plants are moving in one specific direction between rooms rather than back and forth.” Using positive air pressure with proper ventilation can further prevent cross contamination. Chandler also recommends scrubbing air coming into the building with gaseous hydrogen peroxide to keep filtering air in ventilation.

urban-gro
IPM plans require thinking in terms of systems to find the right balance of biological controls.

According to Mark Doherty, director of sales at urban-gro, their IPM plans are customized to meet different states’ rules and regulations, including each list of approved pesticides. “We work to design a system that meets each individual grower’s needs, while helping them navigate regulations in any given state,” says Doherty. “It is important to make cannabis safe for patients and IPM is critical in building a healthy ecosystem for plants to be grown in a safe, yet cost-effective manner.” Proper use of IPM can reduce the need to use pesticides, which could impact a cultivator’s bottom line, but ultimately protect patients’ wellbeing by providing safe and pesticide-free cannabis.

prosodic
Procidic works on contact and with residual action.

When all else fails and pests still find their way onto cannabis, there is a solution to address major losses. urban-gro distributes a product called Procidic2®, a broad-spectrum bactericide and fungicide compound, manufactured by Greenspire Global. The advanced commercial formula is designed to eliminate pathogenic bacteria and fungi. Procidic2® can be applied as a preventive and a curative. WSDA Organic Program has approved Procidic2® for use in organic agriculture production and handling. According to Steve Knauss, president of Greenspire Global, “Procidic2® works in sync with the plant through two modes of action: First it controls powdery mildew and gray mold on contact, and secondly it is absorbed systemically into the plant to control disease infection such as root rot,” says Knauss.

Implementing a comprehensive IPM system requires making key changes in cultural, biological and chemical controls. In doing so, growers can successfully mitigate the risk of pest problems, thus reducing the need for potentially harmful pesticides.