Most grazing reports we have seen from competitors are pasture-management reports dressed up for an asset manager. They list head-days, water gallons, and dates. None of those numbers help an asset manager decide whether to renew the contract.
Here are the three we report on every site, and why.
1. Vegetation height at stow-spec compliance
The contractually meaningful number on a solar site is how often the vegetation is in spec. For most Michigan sites that means under six inches at low-stow across 100% of the array footprint.
We measure with a sward stick at 24 fixed points distributed across the array, the same points every visit, the same time of day within a two-hour window. We report:
- % of points in spec
- % within 2 inches of spec (early-warning zone)
- Any points out of spec, with photo and GPS
A site that is "in spec" 92% of weeks is doing well. 100% is suspicious — it usually means someone is rounding.
2. Soil organic matter trend
This one matters less to the asset manager and more to the next owner. Solar sites change hands, and a site whose soil organic matter has increased over the asset lifetime is worth more — both as land and as a credential for the operator's next development.
We sample at the same 6 fixed transects every spring before turnout. A well-managed grazing program typically adds 0.1 to 0.3 percentage points of soil organic matter per year for the first five years before tapering. That is the number that wins a re-zoning argument later.
3. Avoided cost vs. mechanical baseline
This is the number that gets the contract renewed. We help the operator establish a mechanical baseline in the first contract year — what would the same vegetation work have cost with the previous mowing schedule, including stow time, contractor invoices, and warranty claims attributable to debris.
Then we report the delta. On most sites the avoided cost lands between $45 and $90 per acre per year, with the larger savings on tracker arrays where stow time is meaningful.
We do not include intangibles like community perception or biodiversity credits in this number — those belong on a separate page so the headline stays defensible.
What we deliberately do not report
We get asked about a few metrics we have stopped reporting because they create more confusion than insight:
- Pounds of forage consumed — interesting to a grazier, irrelevant to an asset manager.
- Lamb weight gain — that is our P&L, not yours.
- Number of sheep on site at any given time — varies daily with rotation; the meaningful number is the seasonal head-day total, which we include in the appendix.
A good report is short, the same shape every quarter, and signs off on the things the contract was actually written to deliver. That is what we send.