File loading ... loading ... the cost of buying cheap computers, unfit for their roles

Think about your typical workday. Do you work with spreadsheets a lot? How about doing research on Web sites? Do you work with databases? How about PDF files? How do your employees use their computers?

“Back in the day” (truthfully, not that far back … think just 25 to 30 years), computer access may have been something that many people in a company didn’t have — depending on the industry, of course. Today, nearly everyone works on a computer for part of their job — heck, we carry computers with us everywhere we go! Computers have become a necessary tool for business.

One thing that always strikes me as funny, however: Although most of us consider computers to be important tools, many still purchase them as though they were a commodity asset or an afterthought. Small operators typically run down to Walmart or over to Best Buy and pick up the cheapest one they can find. Larger companies try to strike a deal on volume. In both cases, though, rarely has anyone considered the tasks the computer will perform and purchased appropriate systems. Is it a lack of knowledge or time?

We R Food Safety! is a typical small company, one in which our people wear a lot of different hats. Yet, we all have bedrock responsibilities around which we try to offer the proper tools. To be efficient and successful, each employee — whether a programmer, consultant, sales representative, office staff, etc. — needs the right computer with appropriate power and software.

Let’s take the programming team for example. When we first started the company, we fell into the trap many new companies fall into and purchased the cheapest computers we could, in order to save money. Our programmers compiled code about three times a day, each time taking 20 minutes, and rendering the low-power processing system unusable during that time. For approximately 60 total minutes each day, they couldn’t do anything else on the computer because it was compiling code.

One day, I had brought in my home computer because my laptop had broken, and we ended up compiling code on that more powerful system. It took less than two minutes to compile, and the computer was strong enough to handle me doing other work at the same time. By purchasing and using the cheaper computing alternative, we lost led to a monthly loss of approximately $800.00 (assuming four weeks in a month at a $40/hour rate). Suffice to say, we went out and bought better systems for approximately $1,200, which paid for themselves in approximately six weeks. Those units lasted approximately three years before being replaced by even better systems — over the three-year lifespan of primary use, each unit saved approximately $30,000 in lost productivity. But this is an extreme example.

Here’s another example of how idle time adds up. Our office team processes a lot of spreadsheets. Some of these spreadsheets are quite large: Opening, saving, and closing them takes a fair amount of computer processor resources. I was curious, so I did a very unscientific study comparing an Intel Core i3 unit to an Intel Core i7 unit — neither one considered by me to be top-of-the-line computers. The i3 cost approximately $399, and the i7 approximately $899.

The i7 can open my business projections spreadsheet in less than two seconds; the i3 took eight seconds. That six-second difference piled up over a day’s worth of opening similar spreadsheets balloons to approximately four minutes a day of lost time for spreadsheets alone. Again, while not scientific by any means, I then tried to extrapolate how much additional time I would lose over the course of a day using the i3 vs. the i7 on other files, and I figured I’d lose approximately 10 minutes per day. I then attempted to estimate the time lost opening Microsoft Outlook, rendering Web pages, etc., and came up with a rough total of 20 minutes per day waiting on the slower CPU. That further equates to roughly 6.5 hours per month of lost productivity, or about seven months to recoup my investment in the i7. Over a roughly three-year lifespan, the i7 would save $3,770 in lost productivity.

So, which benchmarks should you use to determine the right computer for the right job? We have found that the i3 is a great single-task unit, used strictly as a testing unit for a probe solution we have developed. i5 units are decent for run-of-the-mill tasks like basic reception work or research online. For any heavier workload beyond those tasks, we use the basic i7. Note, we are performing tasks on some AMD units, but the office jury is still out on them. Although thin clients and remote desktops are great for controlling security, they are costing you in productivity.

The key to any of this is pinpointing the tasks you want the new computer to perform, and then investing in the best one for the job. You don’t ask your sales team to make calls in a bus or tractor trailer, and by the same token, you don’t ship product in a Corvette.

More apropos, you wouldn’t negatively impact your processing operation by short-changing your investment or using technology ill-equipped to handle the task at hand.

Don’t do it with your back-of-the-house computing systems either.

— Andrew Lorenz, president, We R Food Safety!

 

 

 

Seek out uncomfortable challenges, solve them and succeed

As this is my first blog post — and I’m one of the newest members of the We R Food Safety! team — allow me to introduce myself! My name is Sam Bibbs, and I’m going to tell you, becoming a member of this team has challenged me in ways I did not expect! However, it also has given me countless opportunities already.

Last May, I put an immense amount of pressure on myself to graduate with a job offer. My dream always was to work for a food company on its research and development (R&D) team. I found thrilling the idea of seeing a product I created on the shelf at the store. In most cases, however, the COVID-19 pandemic presented too many unknowns in the forecast for food companies to add to their R&D teams.

I was devastated but pressed on in my search, ultimately accepting a job as a microbiology lab technician in New Ulm, Minn., near my family, and in a field I enjoyed during my college courses. I quickly learned a variety of testing methods and knew what to expect from my days; so the job became comfortable, but to the point that I did not feel challenged or as if I were using my talents to their fullest extent.

I began looking for a bigger challenge and stumbled upon a Food Safety Consultant position here at We R Food Safety! As the company is growing quickly, I had to also move quickly. It would be an understatement to say that the thought of packing up my life, moving away from my family again, and starting over at a new job made me uncomfortable.

But many of us likely have heard this from someone before — and for me, it was one of my high school teachers: If something does not make you uncomfortable, then it is not challenging you. I made the move to We R Food Safety!, and so far, I think this was the right decision.

Food processors should take my example as a strong reminder of that ages-old advice. Too often it becomes easy for a business to stay comfortable and do what works now, not seeing the future and what could be changed, uncomfortable as it might seem. That might mean adding a product or equipment or employee to your plant. It may not be necessary to succeed now, and it might be met with opposition in the moment, often in the form of another old adage: If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.

However, without constant assessment and adaptation, you will fall behind — especially in the food industry, where there are new regulations and changes seemingly every day.

The pandemic and all that it brought shows how essential it is for processors and businesses of all types to stay aware and stay on their toes. Those who could not easily adapt to unprecedented changes fell behind and often fell apart. Those who looked ahead — and then made necessary and often uncomfortable changes — stayed ahead and saw record sales.

When times are great and companies are comfortably cruising along, unchallenged, this can be a fun industry in which to work. During crazy times such as these, it can still be fun, but that requires flexibility to address challenges in ways that might make your business uncomfortable.

— Sam Bibbs, Food Safety Consultant, sam@werfoodsafety.com

Beyond Meat’s ambitions have always been beyond reality

Some years ago, I spoke with the owner of the company that makes the Beyond Burger, and I asked him whom the target audience was for his product. Although I cannot remember his exact words, it truly can be summarized really easily in one word. He said, basically, “everyone” is the target audience for the Beyond Burger.

Now, I personally enjoy a big personality, so I just let that response ride, no problem. I can’t fault a person who truly believes in his product and his mission — heck, anybody would have to in order to dedicate their life to such a mission. It was the next statement, though, that stunned me.

Again, the exact words escape me after so many years — and because I was focused on keeping control of my eyes, which were trying desperately to roll — but he followed up by saying he wanted to take over the meat industry. See, there go my eyes, rolling again at that sort of ambition, which is, frankly, Napoleonic.

My background is food safety and security. I am a Midwesterner, which I like to think means I am a little more practical than our less-fortunate coastal cousins. A very important and practical part of food security is being able to obtain food (often, you hear about “food insecurity” in the news). Food security can take on many forms. I can raise and slaughter livestock. I can also grab my compound bow, head out to the stand and pull down a year supply of venison. That’s good ol’ traditional food security that people in heavily urban and suburban locales cannot possibly obtain, let alone understand. Our monstrous, efficient food supply chain makes it possible for many people to experience food security without raising or hunting for animals. The meat industry supplies enough product to meet that demand without blinking an eye.

Could everyone hunt for their meat or raise their meat in their backyard? Certainly not to the extent of the supply needed today — and that further illustrates why Beyond Burger’s desire to take over the meat industry is beyond reality. You see, I can sustain my own demand for animal protein easily enough, but not even I can raise a field of yellow peas, process them and run them through a half-million-dollar extruder the size of a Greyhound bus if I wanted a Beyond Burger. Are they planning to put a pea field in every yard or just make us dependent on the company and its pea producers? Even if I had a bazillion acres at my disposal here in the Midwest, the climate kind of gets in the way of those Napoleonic dreams. And that doesn’t even get me started on the environmental reasons why Beyond wants to take over the meat industry. My eyes are rolling again. This Missouri girl is not falling for it.

Now, I’ll say this: The Beyond Burger is not bad. They are better after a couple of stiff drinks and some mood lighting. Also, I cannot blame a guy for having big dreams. That is one of the best things about being an American. But the other thing that’s great about being an American is the fact that this Missouri girl can look at reality and tell him he can kiss her 100%-Vegan grits.

He will take over the meat industry when pigs fly.

— Martha Gore, Food Safety Consultant, martha@werfoodsafety.com

The challenges of beef production/processing from the eyes of a family farmer

Hello, my name is Nancee Emmerich, and I am relatively new to the We R Food Safety! team, having started in November as Food Safety and Quality Program Coordinator. My business career has revolved around customer service and client relations, but my life skills have been honed by helping my husband, Steve, with the ownership and operation of our Wisconsin family farm. In my contribution to this blog, I’d like to tell you about our family farm and how the daily focus on details, quality assurance and food safety parallel the vision and mission at We R Food Safety. I may not always write about the farm, but I hope the insights I can bring to you from the producer side of the equation will help you perform better in your business.

Steve Emmerich (Nancee's husband) displays a small 
gold calf gift that was sent to the family by a visitor 
from India who was impressed with the cattle operation 
at Emmerich Family Farms.

Emmerich Family Farms, Inc. was founded in 1873 by my husband’s great-great-great-grandfather, who came to the U.S. from Germany, like so many in this area of central Wisconsin. Our youngest son is the 6th generation of Emmerichs who learned many life lessons on the farm and as a member of our local 4-H club by showing steers and goats at the county fair.

Through the years, our farm has evolved from a dairy farm to a significantly diversified operation featuring a 500-head cattle feedlot, a purebred Angus herd, corn and soybean acreage and also a maple syrup sugar bush with 5,000 trees.

Of course, animal welfare and quality assurance are crucial to our operation and ultimately the meat and food we produce. For us, food safety begins on the farm with proper animal-welfare practices. We keep our animals clean and calm, and always use veterinarian-prescribed vaccinations and treatments; and we administer these products at the correct sites on the animal.

Once the animals are ready for processing, however, we face additional challenges. Finding custom-processing plants — let alone facilities that do a high-quality job we can trust — to handle our direct-to-consumer beef sales is a big challenge, because a very large number of custom processors have gone out of business or been acquired in the last five years. As a result, we currently have to schedule animals for harvest at least 12 to 18 months in advance.

The maple syrup processing operation at Emmerich Family Farms.

There are always challenges to be met on the farm. High capital and labor costs, market uncertainty and low profit margins along with unpredictable weather all add up to a high-risk adventure. But it is an adventure that we love!

By paying attention to the details and always striving for the highest quality product, whether it be market steers or maple syrup, we hope to sustain the farm for the next generation.

— Nancee Emmerich, Food Safety and Quality Program Coordinator, nancee@werfoodsafety.com