URL: https://postharvestreport.com/benchmarks
The numbers commercial cannabis post-harvest is held to: recovery, labor, quality, drying, dwell. Versioned, with conditions and sources.
Benchmarks · v1.0 · September 2026
Observed ranges and best-in-class targets for cannabis post-harvest at production scale. Every row carries its conditions and its source. Versioned; changes are logged at the bottom.
Anchor case: greenhouse-grown flower, 2,000-10,000 lb/month. Indoor and outdoor translate; what changes is wholesale price and labor profile.
Basis: 500+ facility visits across four continents, five independent producer evaluations, potency testing across 20 producers in four countries (34 verified lab tests), and 80M+ lb processed on Keirton equipment. Recovery is measured as A/B-grade sellable flower divided by dried biomass entering post-harvest, fan leaf included. The 75-82% range reflects defoliation: 75% with more fan leaf left on the plant, 82% heavily defoliated. The same line measured on a sugar-leaf-only basis reads higher and is not comparable to the figures here.
Labor benchmarks cover bucking, trimming, sorting and grading only, per pound of finished flower. Drying is not costed here. Curing is treated separately.
| Metric | Range or target | Conditions | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best-in-class target | 75–82% A/B | Fan-leaf-inclusive basis. 75% with more fan leaf, 82% heavily defoliated. Indoor and lit greenhouse, drying on protocol. | Post-harvest scorecard |
| Full hand processing | 70% to low 80s | Highest labor cost | Benchmark Report |
| Well-grown indoor, defoliated, hand | 75–80% | Healthy starting point for indoor | The yield you're grinding into trim |
| Hand-trim, large-scale (indoor/greenhouse/outdoor) | 65–80% | Many operations run 50–60% depending on practices | Yield gains |
| Typical hybrid (machine + QC) | 45–70% | Cost and yield inversely coupled via QC labor | Benchmark Report |
| Balanced hybrid | 55–70% | Depends on cultivar, drying discipline, finisher skill | Glossary: hybrid |
| Lean hybrid | 45–60% | Labor-cost play, not a yield play | Glossary: lean hybrid |
| Yield tax of automation alone | ~10 points | e.g., 80% → 70% with no intelligence in the loop | The yield you're grinding into trim |
| Acceptable automation loss | under 5 points | Above ~10 points, no labor saving makes up the difference | The yield you're grinding into trim |
| Recovery with intelligence in the loop | +6–8 points over dumb automation | Short dwell, AI skim, re-pass | The yield you're grinding into trim |
| Production-scale AI evaluations | +3.6% to 8% yield | Three independent evaluations, greenhouse and outdoor | Benchmark Report |
Excludes drying, curing and packaging. Compare only against a number with the same scope.
| Metric | Range or target | Conditions | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best-in-class target | $20/lb | 2,000+ lb/month; above this is usually system design, not wage rate | Post-harvest scorecard |
| Full hand processing | $35+/lb | Benchmark Report | |
| Typical hybrid | $20–30/lb | Benchmark Report | |
| Full automation floor | ~$10/lb | Lower yield, higher B-grade share; pre-roll-dominant operations | Benchmark Report |
| Post-harvest labor share of total production cost | 10–15% | Largest single cost in producing cannabis | The yield you're grinding into trim |
| Post-harvest share of production cost | 6–30% | Gross profit per pound | |
| AI vision cost basis | ~$1–2/lb added to ops cost | Production scale | Benchmark Report |
| Touch-up load after intelligent re-pass | 0–5 leaves per bud (vs 10–20) | Roughly 75% of hand work removed | The yield you're grinding into trim |
| Hand trimmer speed on properly dried flower | ~2x | RH ~57%, leaves crispy, stems bend | Drying and curing |
| Metric | Range or target | Conditions | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Visible scarring | under 2% | Above this, buyers reject on visual alone | Post-harvest scorecard |
| Potency variance vs hand-trim control | within ±1% | 20 producers, 4 countries, 34 verified lab tests, properly processed | Post-harvest scorecard |
| Terpene / cannabinoid profile | no lab-detectable loss | Properly processed | Post-harvest scorecard |
| A-grade size threshold | generally above 5/8 in | B-grade commonly below 5/8 in | Glossary: A-grade flower |
| A-to-B price gap | $150–500/lb | Depends on market | Glossary: A-grade flower |
| Metric | Range or target | Conditions | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Water activity operating line | at or below 0.60 aw | Dense/premium flower. ASTM D8197-22 allows 0.55–0.65; we dispute the 0.65 ceiling | Glossary: water activity |
| ASTM microbial risk flag | above 0.63 aw | Drying and curing | |
| Finish RH for automation | ~57% | Legacy standard 60°F / 60% RH is dated, not broken | Glossary: 60/60 drying |
| Pull point | leaves crispy, stems bend but don't snap | Drying and curing | |
| Dry protocol | Days 1–2 hard pull; days 3 to 10–12 controlled | Then trim and sort while integrity is high | Drying and curing |
| Cure | 7–14 days | Containers with environmental monitoring | Glossary: curing |
| Over-drying weight cost | up to 5% of saleable weight | Six figures/yr at commercial scale | Drying and curing |
| Metric | Range or target | Conditions | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dwell per pass | ~20 s | Skim finished flower, re-pass the rest | The yield you're grinding into trim |
| Single-pass ceiling | ≤45 s | Only if truly one pass; five 45-second passes is not a 45-second machine | Automation tradeoffs |
| Over-processed | 10–20 min in machine | Automation tradeoffs | |
| Passes | usually 2, up to 3 | Tougher lots | The yield you're grinding into trim |
| Metric | total exposure across all passes | Not advertised pass time | Glossary: dwell time |
| Maintenance | measure per pound processed | Not per hour | Automation tradeoffs |
| Metric | Range or target | Conditions | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-point recovery gain, 5,000 lb/mo greenhouse | ≈ $1.4M/yr | Greenhouse pricing | Benchmark Report |
| 70% → 75% recovery | 7.1% more sellable flower, not 5% | Ratio on the same harvest | Yield gains |
| 60% → 75% recovery, 10,000 lb/mo | 25% more sellable flower (6,000 → 7,500 lb) | Post-harvest scorecard | |
| 7 points on 1,000 lb/mo | ≈ $777K/yr (6 pts ≈ $666K, 8 pts ≈ $888K) | $1,000/lb flower, $75/lb trim | The yield you're grinding into trim |
| Documented annual value, AI systems | ~$1M–6M per producer | Five independent producer evaluations | Benchmark Report |
Results from one production line each. Reported as observed, not as targets.
| Metric | Range or target | Conditions | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defect screening (mold-affected) | ~3% of pre-pack flower removed | One production deployment | Benchmark Report |
| Value-tier sorting on smalls | 37% recovered as medium-or-larger, $150/lb uplift | One production deployment | Benchmark Report |
| AI sorting labor replacement | $750K/yr | Replaced a fifteen-person line, one deployment | Benchmark Report |
Per-facility and per-cultivar results, machine recipes and settings, and the curves that connect dwell, moisture, and yield are not published. Those are the work of getting to the numbers above, and they change by cultivar, room, and season. The targets are the standard; the method is the job. If a row here doesn't match your floor, the linked note explains what usually moves it.
Compare your line against the target row in each section. Treat the conditions as part of the number, not as a footnote. A benchmark without its conditions is a contract term, not a benchmark.
Compiled by Jay Evans, Founder & CEO, Keirton Inc. (Twister Technologies). Disclosure: Keirton manufactures the Twister T-Zero Pro and the Marvel AI grading system.