Why late detection is a P&L problem

At a glance

Late visibility costs growers in labour, chemicals, lost yeild and produce quality. With labour costs on the rise, the only practical way to improve visibility without escalating costs is to automate part of the monitoring process.

By picking up changes in crop behaviour earlier than visual checks, systems like Fotenix give growers earlier signals and the ability to act with precision before issues escalate. Results that can be seen on the balance sheet.

---

When margins are tight, timing matters as much as outcome. The difference between acting early with a targeted adjustment and acting late with a widespread intervention – or not at all – can be costly.

In protected growing, the most expensive problems develop gradually, beneath the threshold of what a crop walk can reliably detect. By the time symptoms are visible to human scouts, the options to address them are fewer, and the costs to do so are higher. That visibility gap between early onset and detection is one of the biggest drivers of avoidable spend. 

The cost of poor visibility 

Detecting issues late narrows the decision window. Interventions become broader because there is less certainty about where a problem has started or how far it has spread. Whole-block treatments become the default, which means more labour and more chemicals -- and an increased risk of resistance build-up. 

Produce quality also suffers. For many buyers, consistency and shelf-life matter as much as headline yield. Produce that fails to travel well, ripens unevenly, or falls outside of tight quality tolerances is increasingly downgraded or rejected, even if overall volumes are strong.

The common thread here is timing. Late visibility forces growers to act late, with less precision, which directly impacts their balance sheet.

If late detection puts pressure on margins from every direction, the question becomes how to close that visibility gap without simply adding more labour.

Labour costs are only going one way, and routine monitoring, grading, and quality checks are already time-intensive. Increasing the frequency of manual scouting isn’t realistic for most operations. The only practical way to improve visibility without escalating costs is to automate part of the monitoring process.

The hows and whys of digital scouting

Autonomous crop monitoring systems reduce reliance on periodic, manual assessment and track how plants are behaving day to day, so changes are picked up as they occur, rather than once issues become widespread.

In practice, autonomous monitoring can take several forms, from environmental sensing through to imaging-based approaches. What these tools have in common is a move away from intermittent, subjective judgment towards earlier, objective signals that support faster decisions.

Earlier signals create the opportunity to intervene while problems are still localised and manageable, rather than acting once they’ve spread across a block.

By picking up changes in crop behaviour earlier than visual checks, systems like Fotenix give growers earlier signals and the ability to act with precision before issues escalate. This doesn’t replace crop walks or grower judgment, but it does change where attention is directed and when action is taken.

Earlier intervention reduces waste

Identifying problems at the point they begin allows for targeted intervention. Issues are less advanced, the resources needed to address them are limited, and fewer plants are disturbed.

Over time, that restraint matters. Avoiding repeated, reactive interventions reduces knock-on adjustments to irrigation, lighting, and nutrition, helping maintain steadier conditions across the crop. The result is less waste created by late reactions and fewer corrective actions needed to balance the system. 

Early visibility conserves margin

Earlier visibility also has a direct impact on how labour is used. In Fotenix deployments, we’ve seen the time taken to identify crop stress reduced by up to 80% in controlled environments. That earlier signal reduces the need for repeated confirmation walks and shifts effort towards targeted investigation and action instead. In practical terms, this changes the costs associated with monitoring.

We’ve seen a fivefold increase in labour efficiency with Fotenix, with monitoring tasks that previously took a full day completed in under two hours. At current labour rates, that’s a saving of thousands of pounds across a growing seasons, before we’ve even accounted for any impact on yield or quality.

Early signals protect quality and commercial value

Early intervention also has a knock-on effect on quality. Pre-harvest stress influences post-harvest outcomes, affecting shelf-life, uniformity, and grade.

Class II produce typically sells at around 20% less than Class I. In 2024, protected vegetable production reached 254,000 tonnes, valued at around £421 million by DEFRA estimates. If just one percent of that production were downgraded by 20%, it would cost the sector approximately £840,000 in lost value. That equates to an average of around £300 per hectare.

Earlier detection doesn’t eliminate risk, but it does improve consistency. It stabilises crop development, supports more reliable forecasting, and reduces the disruption caused by late surprises at harvest.

Where does this leave growers? 

Late detection isn’t a technical problem. It’s an economic one. Increased costs don’t come from making the wrong decisions; they come from making decisions too late or missing a problem entirely. 

The challenge in addressing the visibility gap – and the additional costs it generates – is that increasing manual scouting incurs its own costs. In many cases, the cost of spotting issues sooner outweighs the benefit.

Autonomous monitoring changes that trade off. It gives earlier visibility without increasing routine labour, allowing growers to limit intervention, increase quality, and reduce waste. In an environment where margins are increasingly under pressure, that can be the difference between profit and loss.