nacta 2019 agribusiness contest case study · citrar chinook cascade zeus amarillor willamette...

NACTA 2019 Agribusiness Contest Case Study

Date and Time: Thursday, April 11, 2019, 9:00am Location: Oakley Applied Sciences South, multiple floors Contest Directors: Dr. Michelle Santiago ([email protected]) and Dr. Naveen Musunuru ([email protected]). For questions about the contest, please email Dr. Michelle Santiago. For questions on-site the day of the contest, please speak with Dr. Naveen Musunuru. General Information Attached are pictures and some financial information about Pottertown Hops, a green hops production operation located in Western Kentucky. Pottertown Hops is a young business venture, formed two years ago when the owners decided to establish a hop yard in Western Kentucky. The operation is owned and run by two veterans that were looking to enter production agriculture as a career. Both are current part-time operators as both have outside, full-time positions. Pottertown Hops is located on a state highway, about five miles east of Murray, Kentucky. About the Operation Pottertown Hops, LLC, established in 2017, was specifically formed to establish a test plot of a specialty crop that was unique to the region. The owners’ initial goal was to determine the viability of growing hops commercially in Western Kentucky. The business was designed after consultations with the Kentucky Hops Growers Alliance and visits to other operational hops yards in the United States. An initial consideration of the owners was to join the alliance for access to machinery and equipment. For these benefits, membership would require a minimum of 100 plants. Ultimately the owners’ decided against joining the alliance as distance to access the machinery and equipment was deemed too great. Pottertown Hops operation currently consists of a 100-plant hop yard complete with poles and cross wires, on land leased from one of the owners. The 100 plants are the Cascade variety, planted in four rows of 25 plants. The design of the yard is such that the poles are 21 feet apart in row, with 14 feet between the rows, and 18 inches between each plant. The rope in the yard is coconut fiber rope as the owners initially considered harvesting by mechanical harvester. Water irrigates the hops yard in times of dry weather but is sourced from a nearby creek. Cascade hops estimated dry yield is 0.5-2lbs per mature plant. In the first year of production, Pottertown Hops yielded an average of 2 ounces per plant, for a total harvest of about 12.5lbs of hops. The first harvest was completed manually, in one day, over four hours. Five individuals, including the owners of Pottertown Hops along with two owners from a local brewery, worked together to harvest the plants. The brewery accepted seven pounds of the wet hop harvest which they used to brew 300 gallons of craft beer. Samples from the harvest were sent to a lab in Washington for analysis. During the second year in operation, Pottertown Hops faced a number of challenges. First, the business had planned to triple production by tripling the number of plantings into the next field (an available five acres), but ran into zoning issues in the form of utility easements. The local utility company is willing to work with Pottertown Hops to relocate the current power lines closer to the road but Pottertown would be responsible for clearing the adjacent land of trees and brush. This option is now a five-year goal of Pottertown Hops. Next, the operation faced rapid cone growth and was forced to harvest in early June. During this harvest they discovered the firm they had initially used for analytics was no longer running tests for small producers. A third issue surrounded the supply chain. While pleased with the product, the brewery Pottertown Hops worked with during the first season was unable to take the product due to the short window of time (roughly 72 hours) that the brewer would have to use the wet hops in the brewing process. Pottertown Hops approached a second regional brewery to sell their hops but were

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


told their price was too high and the brewer would have to incur additional transactional costs to adjust their standard recipes to include a wet hop input. In response, Pottertown Hops experimented with drying the hops on a small scale by temporarily turning a shop on one owner’s property into an oast, vacuum sealing the product, and then freezing it. 2019 will be the third year of operation for Pottertown Hops. The operation has plans to expand production by training two ropes per established plant for an additional set of bines (4 total per plant). They also plan to add an additional 100 plantings of new varieties in rows adjacent to the current 100 plants. Given these plans for expanded production, the business wants to focus on recouping expenses from the first two years by successfully marketing their commodity. Expenses In 2017 Pottertown Hops incurred the following expenses:

Item Cost

Utility Poles x20 - $1.00 per foot 460.00

Wire, Hardware and Anchors 487.80

Water plumbing supplies and containers 275.19

Plants – Great Lake Hops – Cascade filed plants 506.26

Rope – Coir coconut fiber rope 104.69

Replacement Auger 149.00

Lab testing – Alpha Analytics 143.43

Misc. costs – Fuel, trial and error items 217.48

Equipment Rental – hanging ropes 175.00

Total 2518.85

In 2018 Pottertown Hops incurred costs around $500 for additional cable, pipe and rope. Labor costs, to date, have been volunteered. U.S. Hops Production1 According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistical Service, in 2018 United States hops production was at a record high of 107 million pounds, with a production value of $583 million. While a production volume record, the rate of year over year growth was significantly slowed from previous years as 2017 and 2016 production were 106 and 87 million pounds, respectively. Hops production is mostly used for making beer and as the craft beer market has grown over the past decade, so has the demand for hop varieties. There are currently over 100 hop varieties produced in the world with over 60 produced in the United States. Washington controls most of the production at 73%, followed by Idaho (15%), and Oregon (12%). In 2016, about 650 acres were used to produce hops in Michigan, which has the largest production of any state outside of the Pacific Northwest. That same year, an estimated 17 acres across the state of Kentucky were used for hops production.

1 Wheat, Dan, “U.S. Hop Production Hits New High”, Captial Press, Dec 21, 2018, <https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors/orchards_nuts_vines/u-s-hop-production-hits-new-high/article_a85536ca-049e-11e9-8919-2b36d3b2f095.html>


Planted varieties vary by state. The top varieties in the top three producing states include the following:

Washington Idaho Oregon

Cascade Zeus Nugget

CitraR Chinook Cascade

Zeus AmarilloR Willamette

Centennial Cascade CitraR

SimcoeR CitraR

C/T/ZR MoasicR

49% of total production 70% of total production 52% of total production

In 2018, the average hops yield per acre in the U.S. was 1,943 pounds. Prices across the nation fluctuate by state. Overall prices were down, with the U.S. price per pound at $5.46 in 2018 (from $5.60 in 2017). Case Presentation Assignment:

1. Develop a 5-minute PowerPoint presentation that, at a minimum, addresses the following questions:

a. What is the business outlook of Pottertown Hops without making any changes (beyond those planned in 2019)?

b. What are some options for Pottertown Hops to develop the regional hops market, and what would be the strengths and weaknesses for each of these opportunities?

i. What are the needs of the current market and/or developing markets in the region?

1. Address the market potential and target markets for wet (green) vs. dry hops production

ii. What are some options for Pottertown Hops to market their hops production in the supply chain?

c. How should Pottertown Hops proceed under the constraint that any growth to their business be sustainable and internally financed?

2. The PowerPoint presentation will be the only part being graded. There are no other materials to turn in. The presentation should be geared toward anyone with a strong interest in the operation (i.e., owners, input suppliers, etc.)

3. The material in the packet is just the starting for building your case study presentation. Resources such as the USDA, extension offices, NGO’s, and other related websites have a variety of information available and tools that could be used to assist in the development of your presentation.

4. The attached rubric provides details about how the presentations will be scored. 5. The pictures of Pottertown Hops are being used in support of the current operation but could be

used to support any additional plans as well. Presentations on Contest Day:

Teams will have five (5) minutes to present their response to the case. Two (2) minutes will be allowed for set-up.

One-half of the teams will present their case presentations while the other half of the teams completes the individual written knowledge exam. Start times for the presentation will be assigned at random and will be provided upon check-in the morning of the contest.


A computer with access to PowerPoint and a projector will be available for teams during the presentation. A clicker will also be provided. All schools will need to bring a USB drive with their PowerPoint presentation on it.

Judging of the teams will be based on the PowerPoint and oral presentation only (no written material). Teams may create a 1-page (single-sided) handout for the judges to reference during the presentation. This handout should be distributed to the judges during the team’s 2-minute setup time. Team members should NOT shake hands with the judges before presenting.

NACTA 2019 Case Study Presentation Scoring Rubric School:____________________________________________________ Judge:________________________________________

Category/ Factor

Unacceptable (0-2.5 points)

Marginal (2.5-5 points)

Average (5-7.5 points)

Exceptional (7.5-10 points)

Raw Score

Factor Weight

Score Comments

Structure of Presentation

Not possible to understand presentation due to absence of structure.

Difficult to follow presentation due to erratic topical shifts and jumps.

Most information is presented in logical order which is easy to follow.

Presented in a logical interesting and novel sequence, which is easily followed.

1

Introduction Failed to introduce the school and team members.

Introduced just the school team name.

Introduce the team members but not the school.

Introduced both the school name and team members.

1

PowerPoint Slides

Missing or impossible to read. Misspellings and other mistakes.

Unattractive, hard to follow, either too busy or not enough information.

Ok appearance. Slightly too busy or lacking in information.

Attractive and easy to follow. Contains the right amount of information.

1

Knowledge of Subject Material

No grasp of information. Unable to answer questions about subject.

Uncomfortable with information. Capable only of answering rudimentary questions.

At ease with content and able to elaborate and explain to some degree.

Demonstration of full knowledge of the subject with explanations and elaboration.

3

Methods and Analysis

Methods and results were unclear. Hard to understand the findings of the model and implications for the problem being examined.

Methods were somewhat unclear. Results were not strongly supported by the methods used.

Methods were appropriate, but lacked in some areas or were unclear.

Methods used were appropriate. Very clear and logical approach to how the conclusions and results were reached

4

Delivery and Speaking Skills

Significant mumbling and Incorrect pronunciation of terms. Voice level too low or too high. Monotonous, no eye contact, rate of speech too fast/ slow

Occasional mispronunciation of terms. Little eye contact, uneven rate, only little expression

Voice is clear and at a proper level. Most words pronounced correctly. Some eye contact, steady rate, excessively rehearsed

Clear voice and correct, precise pronunciation of terms. Good eye contact, steady rate, enthusiasm, confidence

2

Presenter Appearance

Sweats, Shorts, flip-flops, hair uncombed

Jeans, t-shirt, polo shirt, tennis shoes

Business casual: Dockers or other dress slacks, polo shirt, blouse, dress shoes

Professional: (or suit or sport coat), shirt, tie, dress slacks, skirt, dress, dress shoes

1

Presentation Length

Too long or too short, +/- 2 minutes

+/- 1.5 minutes +/- 1 minute +/- 30 seconds 1

Citations (citations slide, footnotes, or spoken citations)

Group failed to cite sources of information throughout presentation.

Group failed to cite multiple sources within their presentation, however some credit was given.

Group addressed almost all sources where information was gathered.

Group addressed all areas where citations was needed to be given.

1

Total /150 points*

*Final team score will be found by averaging all judges’ final scores.


Photos of the Operation and Harvest:

nacta 2019 agribusiness contest case study · citrar chinook cascade zeus amarillor willamette...

Documents