Prepare once.
Keep using the context.
Reduce repeated searching, copying, comparisons and report assembly across your customer portfolio.
Keep laboratory results, field observations and farm history connected. Spend less time rebuilding the picture, bring more context into recommendations and work more closely with growers.
For agronomists, crop consultants and PCAs in the USA and Netherlands.Reduce repeated searching, copying, comparisons and report assembly across your customer portfolio.
Review measurements alongside history, observations and recent activities. Keep your professional judgement in control.
Share clear advice, explain the reasoning and connect the plan to progress and follow-up.
Explore what a connected workflow could mean for your practice. Enter your workload, then choose the reductions you want to investigate.
For each recommendation step: farmer customers × assignments per farmer per year × minutes per assignment ÷ 60. The chosen reduction is applied to that step. Weekly support and travel use your active-week count. Additional remote review is subtracted from travel savings; setup is subtracted from the first-year total only.
The per-farmer result is an average of the agronomist’s hours, not the farmer’s own time savings. Avoid counting the same work in more than one category. No yield, quality or collaboration improvement is converted into money.
The calculator runs in your browser. Your entries are not submitted by this calculator. Downloading saves a text copy to your device.
Research describes fragmented records, difficult data exchange and the need for field context. Your calculator scenario explores what improving that workflow could mean for you.
“Fifty-eight percent of farms share data with their agronomist”
A survey of 800 large US corn and soybean producers. Sharing data does not necessarily make it complete, comparable or ready to interpret.
Read the original source“only 55% of them provide an easy interoperable/exportable data format (excluding pdf)”
This finding concerns 29 software and web applications reviewed by the researchers. It measures tool capabilities, not the proportion of farms with fragmented records.
Read the original source“avoiding repeated visits to the farm or calls to the operator”
The guidance explains how preparing and organising information can reduce repeat contact. It does not quantify software time savings.
Read the original source“Comparing soil and plant analysis results can greatly assist in the interpretations.”
Diagnostic guidance supports reviewing connected evidence. It explains the agronomic rationale; it does not measure SoilBeat recommendation quality.
Read the original sourceTime is one part of the picture. SoilBeat connects evidence, recommendations and what happens next, while the agronomist reviews and approves the advice.
Explore the advisory workflowReview measurements alongside crop history, observations and recent applications. Show the evidence and reasoning behind the action.
Keep the current plan available, discuss practical constraints and make the next steps understandable.
Bring actual applications, progress and new observations back into the next decision.
Compare the completeness, reasoning, calculations and practical clarity of recommendations. For collaboration, review turnaround time, grower understanding and whether actions are recorded. Faster delivery, deeper investigation and better dialogue are outcomes to assess; this page does not assign them an unsupported percentage or financial return.
Explore SoilBeat with your own farm evidence, or talk to us about the workflow behind your estimate.