Crop Cycle Production Rate (CC-PR)
CC-PR is crop yield relative to the crop cycle duration. Expressed as grams per day it indicates the rate of production. Not to be confused with long-term Annual-PR, CC-PR defines the volume at which a garden has produced over the short-term, and is used with any time-based simulations extending beyond one crop cycle.

CC-PR is not independent of a garden's scale, but rather reflects the garden's size and/or power in its rating. Unlike resource-based efficiency ratings, which level the playing field between large & small gardens, larger or more powerfully lit gardens will almost always see higher CC-PR ratings than smaller or less powerfully lit gardens.

Short-term garden designs can be radically different depending on the duties a grower wishes to perform over the long-term. Experienced forward-looking growers often consider their long-term strategy first, and then choose the scale of their garden accordingly. Take for example two growers with the same annual production. Having limited free time during the year, one grower may upscale his garden design to produce one large crop (high CC-PR) each year instead of many smaller repeat crops. While the other grower, having unlimited time on his hands, may opt for a small scale garden (low CC-PR) but will spend more time each year growing up to 8 repeat crops to make up for its smaller scale. The same applies to up-front costs. It is not uncommon for a grower to continually trade-off his personal time month after month for available space or funds he lacked at the outset, when he first conceived his garden design. When a scaling decision hangs in the balance, looking ahead to the long-term doesn't always mean one has to grow more from an upscaled garden over time, instead he can choose to grow less often (see Calendar Simulations).

Rule Of Thumb for a 100% self-sufficient design - At a bare minimum CC-PR must at least equal the grower's daily consumption rate, anything less would not maintain 100% self-sufficiency. Over time, this is the most labor intensive choice and has the least forgiving schedule, requiring the garden to be in operation 365 days a year constantly growing repeat crops. However, should CC-PR be double the grower's daily consumption rate, the garden needs to be in operation only half as often to maintain self-sufficiency. This cuts labor involvement and crops grown over time in half, and turns an unyielding rigid schedule into a flexible one. Hasty decisions over scale are often based on bare minimums, especially by new growers with little or no first hand experience scheduling repeat crops. Understandably, not having an appreciation for the long range implications of a garden's CC-PR during the planning stages has led many unsuccessful growers to construct underscaled gardens that are either too much work to maintain over time or won't deliver the expected self-sufficiency.

Every grower must devote at least some of his time to maintaining each crop, but how he chooses to use his time over the long-term is purely a matter of personal preference as long he attains the annual production he wants. This is one reason why two successful growers can have in common the same annual production but have such vastly different gardens sizes (or CC-PR ratings). In other words, CC-PR has different meanings to different growers depending on their purpose for using it over time. For all these reasons, one needs to be cautious of the significance he gives CC-PR in comparisons involving two different growers, as conflicts in personal preferences can easily put two growers and their garden designs at cross-purposes. The following examples better illustrate this.....

Comparing two of his own crops



1 6.3 60
2 6.9 70

For a grower comparing his own data, he can directly compare CC-PRs with immunity from misinterpretation. In essence, he is comparing two of his own crops, the growers of which (himself) are known to have virtually the same long-term strategy in common. There is no conflict or cross-purpose. To him, the 0.6 difference in production rates is significant, and suggests how much easier it is for his operation to meet his own long-term objective. To see all of this grower's data click the Insert Examples button in the form.

Comparing his to another grower

1 6.3 60
2 26.6 70

For the same grower comparing his data to another grower a direct comparison of CC-PR is not as straightforward as when he was comparing his own crops. The other grower's plan for having such a high CC-PR rating could be to produce 4 pounds a year from one crop, 21 pounds a year from 5 crops, or anything in between. Whatever the case, short-term strategies for these growers are running at cross-purposes, they have less in common, and it shows in their CC-PR ratings.

Although differences in strategies are purposeful, a higher rating in a two-grower comparison is often misinterpreted to mean it would be of some practical benefit for the other grower. In reality, it only means the garden is larger or more powerfully lit. There would be no benefit if, in practice, the larger garden would not fit into the other grower's available space, would consume more wattage than his budget or electrical system could handle, or would create a degree of risk that was unacceptable to the other grower, for example. Reality conflicts such as these can easily taint a two-grower comparison of CC-PR, often making it pointless. Such real-world disputes, commonly referred to as pissing contests, never occur when the two gardens being compared belong to the same grower. To avoid such personal conflicts, one must be conscious of where he draws the line between what is practical and what is hypothetical. The smaller 0.6 CC-PR increase in the single-grower scenario has more practical significance to the grower than does the larger 20 point difference in the two-grower scenario.