June 4, 2026

This case study is based on a Pinion client using real production and financial data. Names and locations have been withheld for confidentiality. Sometimes the biggest gains are already sitting inside the business When farmers hear the word “benchmarking”, they often assume it is only useful for struggling businesses. But in reality, benchmarking can be even more valuable on farms that are already performing well – because it helps uncover opportunities that are otherwise easy to miss in day-to-day management. That was exactly the case on a mixed livestock farm in the Eastern Cape. The business was already profitable, biologically efficient and well managed. Reproduction figures were strong, direct costs were controlled, and the farm was operating close to its grazing capacity. On the surface, there was very little that looked “wrong”. But once the numbers were unpacked at enterprise level, benchmarking revealed something important. The boer goat enterprise was consistently outperforming the cattle enterprise on several key profitability and efficiency measures – despite making up only a very small part of the overall system. That finding raised a bigger strategic question: Was the farm’s natural resource base being used in the most profitable and resilient way possible? A strong farming business formed the baseline The farm operates under extensive conditions and runs a combination of: The reporting year received approximately 450mm of rainfall, slightly below the long-term average. Even under those conditions, the business delivered strong results. With a total stocking rate of approximately 1,400 LSU and grazing capacity already close to fully utilised, this was not a case of unused capacity waiting to be filled. In fact, benchmarking confirmed that management quality across the business was already high. The cattle herd showed excellent reproductive performance: Under extensive conditions, figures like these generally indicate: The business also showed: That strong foundation is exactly what made the next discovery so significant. The benchmark revealed that goats were “punching above their weight” At the time of the analysis, approximately: That split is fairly common in many Eastern Cape and Karoo systems. However, once enterprise-level benchmarking was done, a very different picture emerged. Across multiple measurements, the boer goat enterprise consistently outperformed the cattle enterprise. The goats generated stronger: Importantly, the same pattern appeared across several different benchmarking methods, which strengthened confidence in the finding. Per LSU: Per hectare: Per kg product: Taken together, the numbers all pointed in the same direction: the goat enterprise was extracting more value from the resources allocated to it. Why this matters Although goats occupied only a small share of the system, they were producing disproportionately strong returns. The table below helps explain why.   Beef cattle Boer goats Sales as % of enterprise GPV 59% 52% GPV as % of total GPV 64% 7% Direct costs as % of enterprise GPV 18% 14% Gross margin as % of total GPV 91% 7% Gross production value (GPV) is the total value of production generated by an enterprise before direct costs are deducted. In a livestock enterprise, this includes the value of animals or products sold, together with changes in inventory value where relevant. Direct costs are the costs directly linked to running that specific enterprise and gross margin is what remains after those direct costs are deducted from GPV. In simple terms: Cattle still dominated total farm income because they occupied most of the grazing system. But the benchmark suggested that goats may actually have been under allocated relative to the value they were producing. For us, that is a very important distinction. The issue was not that the cattle enterprise was weak. The issue was that the goat enterprise appeared exceptionally efficient relative to the grazing capacity allocated to it. The biological reason behind the goat advantage The opportunity was not only financial – it was ecological as well. The benchmark highlighted an important biological reality of mixed veld systems: That difference becomes highly relevant in semi-arid environments where a large portion of the available feed resource exists above the grass layer. Goats are able to utilize shrubs, woody species, bush encroachment, forbs and browse material. These are feed resources that cattle often underutilise. As a result, mixed grazer-browser systems can often: This was one of the most important findings of the benchmark. On paper, the farm already appeared close to full grazing capacity. But benchmarking suggested the system may still have been underutilising part of its available feed resource – specifically browse. In other words, the opportunity was not necessarily about running more animals. It was about running a better mix of animals. Scenario modelling explored what a different livestock mix could achieve To test the possible upside, scenario modelling was done using an alternative livestock allocation. The exercise explored what could happen if the enterprise mix shifted from and to: Importantly, this was not presented as a recommendation to suddenly replace cattle with goats overnight. It was simply a strategic modelling exercise designed to test how a larger browsing component might affect whole-farm performance. What the numbers showed: The current system runs: Under the model: This effectively replaces approximately 345 cattle LSU with 345 goat LSU. The financial logic behind the model: The benchmark showed: On gross margin per LSU basis: On a net farm income per LSU basis: Once this difference was applied across the proposed LSU shift, the projected gain became meaningful. The modelling estimated that: There was also a financing benefit. Reducing cattle numbers could potentially release enough capital to reduce the farm’s overdraft by around 40%. At an 11% interest rate, this could save approximately R165,000 per year in interest. After allowing for an additional R75,000 contingency for extra goat-related management costs. The overall net farm income was projected to increase by approximately 10%, improving both profitability and cash flow. For a business that was already profitable, that is significant. The transition would need to be phased The model also highlighted the capital implications of such a shift. Selling 345 cattle units at approximately R18,000-R22,000 each could release