Towards collaborative target cost management in agriculture and food

Cost management discussion paper October 2008 From gate to plate: towards collaborative target cost management in agriculture and food

Dr Lisa Jack University of Essex

The arguments in this discussion paper arise from findings in the CIMA funded project ‘The adoption of strategic management accounting tools in agriculture post-subsidy reform’ and the pilot project ‘Perceptions of overhead cost in agriculture’ funded by the management control association.

There is scope for the development of a collaborative form of target cost management that delivers value to all parties in the food supply chain. Although the term ‘target cost management’ is not currently in use in the agricultural industry, it has been identified by several writers as a potential tool for the agricultural industry (Humenik et al, 2005; Theussven et al, 2005; Jack and Jones, 2007). In the CIMA project that forms a basis for this discussion paper, it was found that farmers and other land-based business managers are using what could be termed an intuitive form of target cost management, in that primary producers were working backwards from potential market prices to set (usually informal) cost targets and re-engineering their operating practices in order to achieve that target. However, this has not been formally termed target cost management nor developed into a methodology. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence exists that producers in contracting arrangements with corporate customers in the food supply chain – processors, distributors and retailers – are working to cost targets.

From previous research and the project undertaken here, three other factors can be identified which suggest that target cost management is a potentially attractive accounting tool for use in agriculture: 1.

There is a long established tradition of benchmarking and data collection in agriculture which could facilitate certain aspects of target cost management if adapted appropriate.

2. The logic of target cost management as a strategic management tool fits well with the

patterns of strategic decision making observed among forward looking farmers,

particularly as observed by Ohlmer et al (1998). Similarly, the intuitive nature of target

cost management is likely to make it attractive and therefore more likely to be adopted by producers (Ohlmer and Lönnstedt, 2004).

3.

Target cost management can, when used in collaborative customer-supplier arrangements, provide a basis for negotiation of price and margins that creates value for all parties in volved (Laseter et al, 2007).

The purpose of this discussion paper is to initiate development of methodologies for target cost management in agriculture and in the food chain. The discussion takes the following structure: • •

•

•

•

a brief description of the target cost management approach and the forms that it can take evidence from the project of the ways in which target cost management is being applied intuitively and informally in agriculture potential issues and problems with the implementation of target cost management in agriculture outline models for the use of target cost management for individual farm businesses and within the food supply chain final comments.

Cost management discussion paper | 1

The basic principles of target cost management As observed by Roslender and Hart (2002), target costing is better seen as a broad-based management philosophy rather than a management accounting technique, and is better designated by the phrase ‘target-cost management’. It is essentially a market driven, rather than a cost centred approach. There are three stages to target cost management: • •

•

Firstly, to establish a price that customers are likely to be willing to pay in the marketplace.

Secondly, to factor in the profits or margin that the business is seeking, in the long term; this results in floating or target cost, an upper limit which the producer must seek to accomplish.

Thirdly, to re-engineer value processes – sometimes referred to as ‘design to cost’. At this stage, managers seek to identify cost reductions in advance. If none can be identified, or it is impossible to achieve a margin on price, then the project could be abandoned at this stage. The aim is continual cost reduction over time.

The final aspect of target cost management is continual monitoring of all three stages above making continual improvements, both to individual production processes, products and the business as a whole.

Three forms of target cost management have been identified in the literature and are referred to in the discussion, namely: • • •

price based targeting cost-based targeting value-based targeting.

A variation on cost-based targeting is ABCM-based targeting, where ABCM stands for activity based cost management.

Farming practices suggest informal target cost management is practised in agriculture There has been a discernible trend in the UK over the last four years, with producers talking more frequently about profits, prices and margins when discussing decision making. Previous research has shown that profitability came low in lists of objectives and aims in business decision making, behind maintaining lifestyle, succession issues and continuing the traditions of husbandry and crops within a farm business (Robinson, 2000). Erosion of direct subsidy and increasing diversification of farm enterprises have helped to create a situation where the phrase ‘it’s all about profits now’ is said ruefully. In countries such as New Zealand and Australia, where agricultural subsidy was effectively removed twenty years ago, the language of profits, margins and returns is taken for granted more, as attested by all the interviewees from those countries in the CIMA project (Blanford and Rae, 2006).

In discussing their thought processes in making decisions, a number of farmers interviewed began with prices available or profits achievable as a starting point to explain the reduction in number of enterprises, diversification, changes in technical practice or complete change in operations.

Machinery and labour are the key overheads where operations have been ‘redesigned’ to reduce costs. There were a number of examples where ‘tight margins’ and low prices had driven producers to ‘design to cost’. In arable, these included moving to low or no tillage systems to reduce the number of passes made by vehicles over fields and therefore reducing the overhead costs of using machines; widening ploughs and drills to reduce the number of passes and reducing or eliminating spraying.

Cost management discussion paper | 2

A small number of farms have created joint ventures in the form of machinery and labour rings to reduce the costs of owning assets as well as capital expenditure. Process benchmarking systems are being developed to identify best practice in the use of machinery and labour. In dairy, one farm had moved to a block calving system which necessitated capital outlay for new buildings and redundancy of farm labourers, but which had meant that they were able to produce milk for powder at a cost below farm gate prices, unlike a number of other dairy farmers. Other dairy farms have redesigned milking systems to increase throughput and reduce overhead costs.

In consultancy practice, moves in New Zealand and the US towards farm accounting that separates ‘wealth management’ (gains and expenses related to the holding of land) from the gains and expenses related to operations, are another move which could facilitate the practice of target cost management.

General problems in applying target cost management outside manufacturing Research into the application of target cost management in non-manufacturing industries has identified a number of issues in the successful implementation of the practice. These include: •

The need for detailed costing and monitoring reports, which works well in a manufacturing environment with appropriate management information systems in place, but less where detailed standard costing and budgeting systems are not so established. The planning, costing and monitoring aspects of target cost management have been seen as time-consuming, overly bureaucratic and too linear for more flexible modes of production for goods and services.

•

Target cost management is often seen as a Japanese innovation. Okano and Suzuki (2007, p.1130) observe that the origins of target costing could be found in a number of countries including the US, if narrowly defined. However the Japanese characteristic lies in a high degree of vertical and cross-functional management where target costing acted as a common language for planning, and that the term in Japanese (‘Genka-Kikaku’) actually means ‘cost planning’. It has ‘much to do with planning, coordination and improving in advance actual production’ (Ibid) and interestingly, Okano and Suzuki (2007, p.1131) observe that ‘paradoxically, the removal of management accounting seems to characterise management and management accounting in Japan’ with target cost management being implemented by teams led by engineers and designers.

•

The methodology was developed with new product management as its central activity and where competitive market prices needed to be set. Problems have arisen where prices are imposed on suppliers by large customers, where bespoke or ‘one off’ construction projects have been entered into, or where products are complex, including a number of components that themselves are subject to target cost management. The setting of target costs requires expertise and input from multi-disciplinary teams, which may require a significant change in management and organisational behaviours.

•

Another perceived problem has been the tendency of the methodology to focus on cost drivers rather than revenue drivers. However, at its best, target cost management can drive innovation in both business operations which lead to cost reductions and to open up new sources of revenue in marketing (Okano and Suzuki, 2007, pp.1129-1132).

Cost management discussion paper | 3

Would these be problems in the agriculture industry?

One significant problem among primary producers is the lack of good record keeping systems, both for physical and financial data. Only a minority engage in what could be termed management accounting practices. However, this minority tends to be found in the larger and/or more entrepreneurial businesses, on corporate farms and among producers who have received further or higher education. One New Zealand study found that successful farmers were ‘information rich’ (Verissimo and Woodford, 2005) and it is from these farm businesses that the move towards an informal, intuitive target cost management approach has been observed.

Importantly, farmers who had begun to think about prices, profits and margins as a starting point for planning and re-designing their operations, had become more seriously engaged with management accounting data and returns, often through the influence of a benchmarking or ‘business improvement’ club. This suggests that the hard job that extensionists1, advisors and teachers have in getting farmers to keep records and know their costs would be facilitated by target cost management, which gives a very immediate and visible motivation for cost analysis.

Any system which is ‘office-based’ rather than outside, and which involves time is likely to be opposed by farmers and producers and the continual monitoring and reformulating of incremental improvements is a different approach than traditional budgetary control methods. However, given crop and livestock lifecycles, this is not necessarily onerous, as production and innovation of new products is not a constant process as in a manufacturing environment. The investment in time and effort would be ‘upfront’ and then target cost management would become part of the thinking and planning mentality of the producer, and their advisors.

One interviewee on the project noted that successful farms ran, in effect, ‘multi-disciplinary teams’ with the farmer or farm manager working with agronomists, veterinarians, business consultants and technical experts from machinery and agro-chemical firms. The smaller scale and longer time frames associated with agriculture might facilitate, rather than complicate, the implementation of target cost management. Furthermore, agricultural production is rarely ‘one-off’ or a complex amalgamation of component parts, which again facilitates the identification of target costs.

Target cost management in agriculture is the problem with any form of business and financial planning for producers. The industry is volatile. Weather, disease and accidents can eliminate a crop or herd. These events in turn affect global commodity prices, along with political decisions relating to subsidisation and tariffs. Although these factors complicate the identification of target prices and costs, they are not in themselves reasons for not engaging in target cost management. The stronger argument is that target margins and costs could drive innovative practices that in turn help to manage the associated inherent risks in the industry, as well as reducing costs and increasing revenues.

The final common problem in any target cost management scheme where a number of parties are involved involves trust and transparency (a similar problem relating to category management is explored by Free, 2008). There is reluctance among members of agricultural and food businesses to share financial information, despite open book schemes having been established in some retail chains over the last decade (Aujla et al, 2003). In order for collaborative target cost schemes to be successfuly implemented, trust and transparency will be required across the chain.

Footnote 1. ‘Agricultural extensionists are intermediaries between research (or any other source providing new information) and farmers. They operate as facilitators and communicators helping farmers in their decision making and ensuring that appropriate knowledge is implemented in order to obtain the best results in terms of sustainable production and general rural development.’ Definition from http://www.career-descriptions.co.uk/agricultural-extension-officer-career-description.htm.

Cost management discussion paper | 4

Target cost management for primary producers in agriculture The target cost equation is: anticipated price less return required = target cost. Yet, each of these elements is problematic in agriculture and needs to be examined theoretically. However, the central purpose of target cost management should not be forgotten: it is a way of thinking strategically and a means of gaining competitive advantage. Target costs are not and should not be used as comparative performance measures (although benchmarking may be used as a tool to identify potential cost reductions). They are not short term solutions, but targets to be achieved incrementally over time. Therefore, each element of the equation is examined and the practical accounting issues discussed, before strategic questions arising from the exercise are proposed. The calculations and questions associated with each element are vital for the promotion of strategic thinking in agricultural businesses.

Establishing the target price Target cost management is easier in situations where the price is fixed within a narrow band or can be set against competing products in a market place, as is the case with new products in the manufacture of electrical or automotive goods. However, that does not preclude its use elsewhere.

The key issue in agriculture is that of fluctuating price levels, which can bring great wealth one year and completely wipe out profits in another. Which price should be used to set target costs?

The issue is resolved if target cost management assumes that price levels are at the lower end of the range achieved over a period of time. The target cost formula (once the other two elements are agreed) can then be run a number of times using different prices to ascertain at what price it is viable to go ahead with production. Another possibility is to set prices based on available forward selling rates offered.

In the case where the producer is trying a new enterprise or new product (as the scenario of animal welfare in Theussven et al, 2005), prices may be available through market research. This is one area in which different members of the supply chain could collaborate to create value through target cost management.

The process of establishing the anticipated or target price gives rise to a number of strategic planning questions: • •

• •

•

Can the price be negotiated on the basis of the costs and returns?

Can market information be obtained to enable prices to be set, particularly for produce which could command a premium?

Can the price be set through the use of financial instruments?

What is the lowest price at which a return can be obtained, given the management of the target costs to the lowest possible?

What are the risks that the price might not be achieved and how can those risks be managed?

Establishing target returns Another key issue in gaining acceptance for target cost management methodologies in agriculture is that the concept of ‘return on capital’ is less used, in relation to comparative farm profits or net farm income and associated ratios, despite being taught and promoted through colleges and advisory services. Concepts of gross and net margins, gross outputs and economic farm surplus are more commonly used as measures or the basis for decision-making. Furthermore, whole farm economic approaches mean that often the profits or income from operations are not separated out from income, gains and expenses from holding land and returns to the producer are in the form of drawings, salary or a nominal return to management. Interest is typically treated as an overhead cost and tax as an expense.

Cost management discussion paper | 5

Therefore, even in the typical farm accounts layout, operating costs are difficult to ascertain.

Enterprise costings are subject to disagreements over how costs should be allocated. Typically in the UK and Australia and to some extent New Zealand, enterprise costing is performed on the basis of gross margin per enterprise – the gross margin is the output less variable costs. Fixed costs are deducted from the aggregate gross margin of all farm enterprises. The key problem with this approach is that ‘fixed costs’, particularly for labour and machinery are not really fixed and are certainly not non-manageable. In the US, a full cost approach splits costs into direct and indirect costs.

The concept of ‘returns’ or expected margin or target profit in agriculture is therefore not widely used. However it could be argued that this part of the target cost equation is potentially the most powerful strategic tool for producers. The CAM-I group prefer the term ‘target profits’ to ‘target costs’ for this methodology, as better representing the strategic outcomes available.

Operating profits are those from which interest, taxes and the owners are paid. Therefore, any target margin or profit has to cover those elements. In addition, any genuinely fixed costs, that cannot be attributed to an enterprise nor avoided nor managed, should be added to the amount of the margin or profit expected or targeted. In a single enterprise farm, this is a single figure. In a multi-enterprise organisation, a percentage rate should be applied to the target price to calculate the target profit or margin. A reasonable rate needs to be calculated for each enterprise for the operating returns and for the fixed ‘sales and administration’ costs.

Although this may sound complicated, and reminiscent of the arguments surrounding full costing and the allocation of over heads in agriculture, it should be remembered that very few producers these days have more than half a dozen enterprises and even where a producer (or corporate farm management business or contract farms) has more, then this is still not as complex as a factory producing many items continuously. Very few crops or animals are grown on daily or weekly cycles.

There are, in fact, fewer calculations involved than in manufacturing. The following table is adapted from Jack and Jones (2007), and shows a simple calculation based on figures taken from Grant thornton farm income survey 2003-2004, Harvest 2003.

Target cost profile (top 25% farm) Wheat enterprise

Price/cost element % Factor

£ Target price Profit margin 20% Enterprise target cost Overheads less contracting (see below) 40% Target direct costs

Price/acre £ 222 44 178

Price/tonne

89 89

26 26

65 13 52

Table: Margin after labour and machinery on production of a tonne of wheat, excluding subsidy.

Cost management discussion paper | 6

Farms

Top 25%

Average

Bottom 25%

Direct costs (£ per acre)

89

90

93

Paid labour (£ per acre)

23

30

42

Machinery (£ per acre)

88

95

116

Less contracting income (£ per acre) 22

17

10

Total cost per acre (£ per acre)

178

198

241

Wheat yield (tonnes per acre)

3.42

3.34

3.13

The return could be calculated as a return on capital or as return on sales (remembering that ROCE can be re-worked as return on sales x asset turn) and needs to cover the costs of capital: interest, tax, return to owner (including profits required for re-investment). Percentage returns per enterprise could be calculated on the basis of assets employed in each enterprise.

From a strategic viewpoint the following questions are then raised: •

•

•

Does the price negotiated/available allow for all the costs of capital and fixed costs of the business?

Can interest and tax be managed to reduce costs of capital and increase the returns to the owner and for re-investment? Can sales and administration costs be reduced?

What enterprises are more capital intensive? Where is the asset turn the greatest?

Establishing target costs The target cost is made up of: • • • • •

direct/variable costs (seeds, feeds, sprays, fertilisers, etc) labour (casual and salaried) machinery other direct, allocable overheads (e.g. veterinarian costs) costs associated with meeting specific production requirements: quality, animal welfare, environmental, health and safety.

The following list provides the basis for four strategic planning activities: • •

•

•

to gain competitive advantage through cost reduction/cost effective value added measures to promote innovation through ‘designing to cost’ rather than ‘designing for yields’ (which is how it is used in manufacturing) a basis for continual improvement, year on year, in costs: a tool which provides an incentive for knowing your costs and for carrying out cost budgetary control a basis for using more advanced forms of benchmarking, on individual activities including namely process benchmarking and competitive benchmarking and value chain analysis to achieve incremental improvements in individual production activities.

Both the first two areas are already in evidence in agriculture, as demonstrated above and provide the basis for the claim that target cost management is happening intuitively in the industry. The second two are natural developments that should emerge if the methodology and way of thinking is promoted. Furthermore, target cost management provides a more suitable application of net margin techniques than comparative analysis does.

Cost management discussion paper | 7

Once in place, strategic thinking can be enhanced through ‘what if’ scenario planning: •

•

• •

If this price is available, what do our costs need to be and how can we design our operations to achieve that cost over time?

If we can achieve these costs, what returns can we expect? If nil or negative, and likely to remain so over the long term, should we continue?

If we enter a new enterprise/contract, will we make a return?

Given the possible cost reductions available and the returns we need to achieve, what prices should we be aiming for?

Target cost management in the food supply chain A price-based approach to target cost management is best suited for supply chains whose relationships are characterised by open-market negotiations or simple cooperative arrangements.

Value-based target cost management is best suited for trading partners whose relationships are characterized by joint efforts to simplify the overall supply chain operations.

An ABCM-based approach is best suited for trading partners whose relationships are characterised not only by joint efforts to improve the supply chain but also by joint efforts to develop and improve products (Lockamy and Smith, 2000).

Using target cost contracts There are three components of payment in target cost contracts. The first is the actual cost incurred by the contractor. The costs eligible to be included are defined in the contract and are usually restricted to those which the employer can measure relatively easily and to which he may be able to exert some control. Second, there is a fee paid to the contractor to cover profit and all costs not included in the definition of actual cost, mainly offsite overhead cost. This fee might be a fixed amount or a percentage applied to the actual cost.

Thirdly, target cost contracts can include a share arrangement in which the contractor and the employer share the final difference between the target amount set at the beginning and the final total actual cost incurred by the contractor (p.202).

It should be noted here that the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) has a standard target cost contract which defines eligible costs (ICE, 2006).

However, this practice can have irrational outcomes: Perry and Barnes; (2000) show that the key is to set the reward criteria with the contractor share at not less than 50% to ensure that contractors are motivated to reduce actual costs rather than setting low target values. They propose that ‘precise and clear definitions of actual cost and fee, realistic tenders backed up by comprehensive estimates, realistic estimates by the employer, and reliable and fair methods of target adjustment are all important components of a successful target cost contract’. (p.207) The advantage of the target cost contract used in construction is the built-in incentive or reward for achieving the target cost and the possibility of re-negotiating the contracts to achieve greater savings and ongoing incremental improvements in practice. This makes them superior to what Laseter, Ramachandran and Volgt (2007) term ‘cost-based targeting’. In essence, this is the same as ‘cost-plus contracts’, where there was little motivation to reduce costs. The systems demand ‘openbooks’ from suppliers; when used well, customers and suppliers use open books to understand cost drivers and to seek joint improvements through the elimination of waste, a method that has achieved success in Japanese business cultures. At worst, customers use the information to squeeze Cost management discussion paper | 8

margins, leading to games play on all sides. Open book costing is becoming a feature of supermarket supply chains (Aujla et al, 2003) and could be developed to create innovative opportunities for eliminating waste and improving cost-benefits throughout the chain.

The mutual identification of cost drivers throughout the supply chain, for example in production, transportation, packing, processing, distribution, collection, and the elimination of wasteful cost activities, is what Lockamy and Smith (2000) term the ‘ABCM-based approach’, that is activity based cost management. There are links here with the value chain analysis already employed by the Food Chain Centre/Cardiff Business School in the UK and process benchmarking used in the food sector.

The possibility of value based target cost management Laseter et al (2007, p.1) comment that ‘value-based targeting is the least understood technique and the most difficult to apply. From our observations, only a handful of companies do it well. Value based costing requires a calculation of what it would cost to produce a ‘best in class’ product (which may involve recreating competitor data) and compare with the targets created from market price and internal cost estimates. Designers, market researchers and other strategic managers then look at what it would take to close the gaps. Whilst this might work well for consumer items, it is less immediately obvious for agriculture but value based targeting does have potential applications for creating value in achieving foodstuffs at a price customers will be prepared to pay but which have high quality in terms of environmental, social and welfare requirements.

Therefore, there are a number of collaborative opportunities for supply chain partners where target cost management could be implemented: • In the provision of data for setting target prices for farmers (a version of this might be the

Dunnhumby scheme run through the Kent Business School in the UK).

Details can be found on http://www.kent.ac.uk/kbs/cscr/dunnhumby.htm • In creating contracts which reward producers for achieving target costs but also recognise

the effects of weather, disease and other risks attached to land-based production.

• In discussions to create an understanding of eligible costs in target cost management for

agriculture and food.

• In formalising the identification of benefits from identifying activity cost drivers within the

producer business and between the different partners in the food supply chain.

• In creating value for customers through creation of products, quality of produce and farming

systems that meet customer requirements.

Final comments The purpose of this discussion paper is to initiate development of methodologies for target cost management in agriculture and in the food chain. Feedback is sought from interested individuals and groups. Both focus groups and direct mailings are planned to facilitate responses and it is hoped to develop the initial ideas contained in this paper into an executive report by the end of 2008.

Cost management discussion paper | 9

References Aujla, E., Hainsworth, K. and Patel, T. (2003) Factory Gate, Open Book and Beyond. Watford: IGD Free, C. (2008) Walking the talk? Supply chain accounting and trust among UK supermarkets and suppliers. Accounting, Organizations and Society, Volume 33, Issue 6, pp.629-662.

Harris, D and Allan Rae (2006). Agricultural Policy Reform and Adjustment in Australia and New Zealand. In Blandford, D. and B. Hill (eds.) Policy Reform and Adjustment in the Agricultural Sectors of Developed Countries, Wallingford: CABI Humenik, F., Chen, A., Atkinson, A., Zering, K., Liehr,S Sherman, R., Classen, J. and Rice, M. (2005) Development of Marketable Products from Alternative Swine Manure Treatment Technologies. Available online at http://www.wef.org/NR/rdonlyres/BBD6BC17-D623-425E-BCC8-58F97FB71118/0/Humenik_Paper2005.pdf. Last accessed on 27.1.08.

ICE (2006) ICE Conditions of Contract Target Cost Version, First Edition. London: Institution of Civil Engineers.

Jack, L. and Jones, J. (2007) Facing up to the new realities: the case for relevant costing and target cost management in agriculture, Journal of Applied Accounting Research, Vol. 8 (iii) pp.117-145.

Laseter, T.M., Ramachandran, C.V. and Volgt, K.H. (2007) Setting Supplier Target Costs: getting beyond the basics. Strategy+Business, available online at URL accessed on 15/10/07.

Lockamy III, A. and Smith, W.I. (2000) Target cost management for supply chain management: criteria and selection. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 100/5 pp.210-218. Öhlmér, B., Olsen, K. and Brehmer, B. (1993) Towards a model of strategic decision-making: an application to farmers’ adaptation to deregulation of agriculture and EC-membership. Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Department of Economics Report 60. Öhlmér, B., Olsen, K. and Brehmer, B. (1998) Understanding Farmers’ Decision Making Processes and Improving Managerial Assistance. Agricultural Economics 18 pp.273-290. Öhlmér, B. and Lönnstedt, L. (2004) Design of Economic Information: A Pilot Study of Accounting Information in Decision-Making Processes. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica, Section C, Vol.1 No.4. pp.222-229.

Okano, H. and Suzuki, T. (2007) A History of Japanese Management Accounting. In C. Chapman, A.G. Hopwood and M.D. Shields, Eds. (2007) A Handbook of Management Accounting Research London: Elsevier.

Perry, J.G. and Barnes, M. (2000) Target cost contracts: an analysis of the interplay between fee, target, share and price. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management Vol. 7 Issue 2 pp.202-208.

Robinson, M. (2000) ‘Clarification and identification of relevant business objectives’ in Farm Management Vol 10 No 8 Winter 2000 pp.486-498.

Roslender, R. and Hart, S. (2002) Marketing and Management Interfaces in the Enactment of Strategic Management Accounting Practices: An Exploratory Investigation. London: CIMA. Theuvsen, L., Essmann, S. and Brand-Sassen, H. (2005) Livestock Husbandry between Ethics and Economics: Finding a Feasible Way Out by Target cost management? Published in the Proceedings of the XIth International Congress of the EAAE (European Association of Agricultural Economists), ‘The Future of Rural Europe in the Global Agri-Food System’ Copenhagen, Denmark, August 24-27, 2005.

Verissimo, A. and Woodford, K. (2005) Top Performing Farmers are Information Rich: Case Studies of Sheep and Cattle Farmers in the South Island of New Zealand. Published in the Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Farm Management Association Congress, Campinas, Brazil, August 2005, Vol.

Cost management discussion paper | 10