26-04-2003, 12:28 PM
|
|
|
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Sunday, in article
"David P" wrote:
The reviews in FBT's can be very wide. The rents may be increased on say
5yrly cycles or whatever other cycle is agreed upon from the outset.
Similarly they may be based, at review, on some totally artificial
mechanism that was, again, agreed at the outset.
It is my experience that the early FBT new lets were showing higher
levels than the more recent FBT new lets.
The is also the 'marginal cost' argument to consider. The adjoing farms
may be on the point of running at less than the two men they currently
have [say i.5 men]. It can be difficult to employ just the 0.5 when he
is needed. Hence, to retain the second full man they take on extra land
over which they can spread the costs of their present labour/machinery.
There is a lot of potential for Special Circumstances. I've heard
indirect reports of more than one case where a small piece of land on an
FBT allowed two parts of a large farm to be connected without use of the
public highway. One instance was a livestock farmer, and the shibboleth
of "biosecurity" was mentioned. The other was arable, and there was
expected to be a saving on vehicle insurance.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"Let me get this straight. You're the KGB's core AI, but you're afraid
of a copyright infringement lawsuit over your translator semiotics?"
From "Lobsters" by Charles Stross.
|