Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#272
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
In article , Torsten Brinch
writes No. I have checked again. Not my transcription error. Remember, these are small acreages. How do you know without knowing the source, is there a column showing the acreages traded? I think you will find my original post mentions that these are *bare land* prices, over 2ha. Large areas are not usually sold away from the farmhouse (my opinion:-). The pocket book is modestly priced:-) ISBN 0-9541201-0-8 (2001 edition) regards -- Tim Lamb |
#273
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
In article ,
says... On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 21:37:07 -0000, David P wrote: In article , says... The land value increases are relevant to this thread only to the extent they have affected farm profitability, e.g. to which extent land value increases may have increased the cost of renting land in the farmers accounts, and thereby contributed to the low UK farm profitability up to 2002. I don't have rental figures Income from let land, % on capital value (Source IPD Let land index July 2002) Putting the two together.. 1993 3,791 5.4 204.71 1994 4,229 4.7 198.76 1995 4,788 5.2 248.98 1996 6,058 4.2 254.36 1997 6,448 3.9 251.47 1998 6,134 3.9 239.26 1999 6,655 3.9 259.55 2000 7,103 4.1 291.22 2001 7,357 3.9 286.92 Something is clearly wrong there. I guess the yields that you are quoting are yields on values subject to tenancy whereas I have quoted VP [no tenancy] values. "The income return from let land has remained relatively stable at between 3 and 5% for the past decade. As rents on farms let under traditional (Agricultural Holdings Act) tenancies started to fall in the late 1990s due to the slump in farm incomes, their replacement with higher Farm Business Tenancy rents and income from diversified activities on farms and estates has helped maintain and even increase income. Residential rents have increased and land owners have diversified into commercial lettings of redundant farm buildings. It is rent from these ‘non-core’ assets that has maintained the long-term modest growth in overall income." OK, so the figures you quoted were not purely related to agricultural rents. They make more sense in that respect. Rents are certainly *not* in excess of £100/acre under AHA's. Rents under FBT's do have a tendency to hover around that level but those rents are not related to the productive capacity of the land. There is only a small number of FBTs in the IPD sample, they reported average rents of £79 per acre, while rents on traditional leases were £62 per acre. Seasonal grazing rents averaged £57 per acre in 2001. IME FBT's were much higher than £79/acre. AHA's tended to be slightly lower than the £62 you quote - but not significantly. Umm - are we actually going anywhere with this or have we simply digressed into an interesting exchange of figures? Dunno. It seems selfevident to me, that high price of farmland must be adverse to farm profitability, I need to be slightly more careful than usual here. It may be said that the rent under an AHA is a more accurate representation of the agricultural value of the land. The rent has to have regard to the productive capacity of the land and its related earning capacity. In this respect I would suggest that it may be the best guide to where the value of purely agricultural land should lie. In the UK though there are many external factors affecting the land values and it is therefore rare to come across a purely agricultural value. Indeed, I am not sure I have *ever* seen a pure ag. value. -- David Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk for your local farmgate food supplies. FAQ's, Glossary, Farming Year and more! |
#274
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
In article ,
says... Torsten Brinch wrote in message ... On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 19:58:42 +0000, Tim Lamb wrote: In article , Torsten Brinch writes Well it is undoubtedly a spike. Please. You must be able to see the '90 data point is almost certainly not a spike. I must assume you have by now checked that you didn't simply make a transcription error from John Nix. So, what is John Nix's source of the data? No. I have checked again. Not my transcription error. Remember, these are small acreages. How do you know without knowing the source, is there a column showing the acreages traded? no, but every year there are only small acreages traded, and of this small amount, only a proportion is sold publically so that the price is known. From memory didn't the Inland Revenue at one time publish figures on the amount of land sold? Yes. They still do by way of a report compiled from sales notified to the Valuation Office. -- David Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk for your local farmgate food supplies. FAQ's, Glossary, Farming Year and more! |
#275
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 19:07:53 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote: In article , Torsten Brinch writes No. I have checked again. Not my transcription error. Remember, these are small acreages. How do you know without knowing the source, is there a column showing the acreages traded? I think you will find my original post mentions that these are *bare land* prices, over 2ha. Large areas are not usually sold away from the farmhouse (my opinion:-). You may assume telling me something once is enough. What you are suggesting is that the peculiar '90 data point is representative of a few grossly atypically priced sales likely of a relatively small acreage in the year in question. But this cannot be inferred from the nature of the data as being bare land prices. Nothing in the data set indicates that it has been subject to variation of the size brought in by the odd data point itself. Compared to other data sets on bare land prices we get no indication that the data point is part of a time series which has measured bare land prices with a high degree of inter annual imprecision. The pocket book is modestly priced:-) ISBN 0-9541201-0-8 (2001 edition) But you said the data was taken from John Nix 2002? |
#276
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 20:12:39 -0000, David P
wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 21:37:07 -0000, David P wrote: Rents are certainly *not* in excess of £100/acre under AHA's. Rents under FBT's do have a tendency to hover around that level but those rents are not related to the productive capacity of the land. There is only a small number of FBTs in the IPD sample, they reported average rents of £79 per acre, while rents on traditional leases were £62 per acre. Seasonal grazing rents averaged £57 per acre in 2001. IME FBT's were much higher than £79/acre. AHA's tended to be slightly lower than the £62 you quote - but not significantly. OK. I take it that you consider the level you give, ~£100/acre as currently a more realistic estimate than the $79 given by the IPD. To be fair, the authors do make clear reservations as regards the representativeness of their FBT sample. Umm - are we actually going anywhere with this or have we simply digressed into an interesting exchange of figures? Dunno. It seems selfevident to me, that high price of farmland must be adverse to farm profitability, I need to be slightly more careful than usual here. It may be said that the rent under an AHA is a more accurate representation of the agricultural value of the land. The rent has to have regard to the productive capacity of the land and its related earning capacity. In this respect I would suggest that it may be the best guide to where the value of purely agricultural land should lie. In the UK though there are many external factors affecting the land values and it is therefore rare to come across a purely agricultural value. Indeed, I am not sure I have *ever* seen a pure ag. value. Yet, if I understand you, the concept of the agricultural value of the and is not really foreign, e.g. as that which the AHA rent must have regard to, and as that which you consider AHA rents to be relatively accurately representing. The agricultural value of land would then seem to have been about the same now as it was in 1996, with a minor peak about 1999, judging from FPDSavills Estate Benchmark survey AHA rent settlements time series: (£/acre, cvt. read from graph) 1996: 47 1997: 52 1998: 65 1999: 68 2000: 65 2001: 62 2002: 58 Such indication of a relatively constant agricultural value of land is a surprising result, when other indicators indicate that farm profitability has dropped like a rock in the same period. |
#277
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 17:13:46 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote: the world would be economically much stronger if the world's farmers only produced about 30% of the food that is actually needed - i.e. enough to feed everyone in the west, and no more. The only problem that then remains is what to produce, where, and how it gets distributed without some crazy Robin Hood type trying to give it to the poor. There is no need to reduce farm production, if we just waste more food. This will for obvious reasons inflate demand relative to supply. just as good as reducing production.Now, this means less farm subsidy will be needed, because the farmer is able to sell more of his product. Farm subsidy comes from your taxes, so this means your taxes will be less. The farmers will attempt to produce more to satisfy the artificially inflated demand. By increasing the production, the farmers will get lower relative overhead per unit of production. The lower production costs will reduce the cost of food. The lower food prices will then allow the poor to afford more food with the same money. Therefore, wasting food feeds the poor and lowers your taxes. |
#278
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 00:35:44 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 06:49:52 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: .. Agriculture is the largest single business in the US when you take is as a whole Get real. Taken as a whole, agriculture contributes less than 1 % of the US GDP, and there are very many businesses in US that contribute just as much than that or more. Telephone and telegraph alone contributes more than 2% of the US GDP, just to name one. In 2001 farm production contributed just 0.8 % of the US GDP, incidentally same as for UK. Inclued food processing, storage, hauling, meat packing, wholesale and reatil groceriers and the fuel, macherery, fertilzer and chemical industries. I think the number get a very great deal bigger. Aslo the fabric and clothing indurtries that use cotton, wool and flax. And we all must eat, so farm production can in some fuzzy way be linked to almost 100% of the GDP. Whatever, Gordon. The fact remains, that farm production contributes only 0.8 % of the US GDP. snip denigration of the service industry snip denigration of clerks |
#279
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 14:09:25 +0000 (GMT),
("David G. Bell") wrote: On Saturday, in article "Torsten Brinch" wrote: On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 07:53:16 +0000 (GMT), ("David G. Bell") wrote: On Saturday, in article "Torsten Brinch" wrote: However, looking at DEFRA data in the Agenda 2000 papers it is difficult to get them to fit that CIA figure, 1.7% of GDP for 1999. The DEFRA data series would indicate a figure close to 1 % for 1998, and there is not a single data point above 1.5 % since 1987. I don't know where the CIA gets its data from -- does it just use official figures for friendly powers? But it seems to me to be quite possible that the CIA shifts some of the food-processing element of GDP into agriculture, so as to create consistent categorization. Fascinating. You are so close, and yet you don't see it. The categories: [Agriculture,Industry,Services] = 100% From which can be concluded, dear Dr Watson, that 'Agriculture' is CIA's secret code name for [agriculture+forestry+fisheries] You are a bloody-minded little toad, aren't you. One minute you're saying that "it is difficult to get them to fit that CIA figure", and then you call your critic a fool for suggested that the category might be differently defined, when you damn well knew it was when you posted your little lies. HOLMES: Watson, look up at the stars and tell me what you deduce. WATSON: I see millions of stars, and if there are millions of stars, and if even a few of those have planets, it is quite likely there are some planets like earth, and if there are a few planets like earth out there might also be life. HOLMES: Watson, you idiot! Don't you see it? Somebody stole our tent! WATSON: You are a bloody-minded little toad, aren't you, Mr Holmes. One minute you're asking me to "look up at the stars", and then you call me an idiot for not noticing the tent is gone, when you damn well knew it, when you woke me up to tell me your little lies. |
#280
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 00:35:44 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 06:49:52 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: .. Agriculture is the largest single business in the US when you take is as a whole Get real. Taken as a whole, agriculture contributes less than 1 % of the US GDP, and there are very many businesses in US that contribute just as much than that or more. Telephone and telegraph alone contributes more than 2% of the US GDP, just to name one. In 2001 farm production contributed just 0.8 % of the US GDP, incidentally same as for UK. Inclued food processing, storage, hauling, meat packing, wholesale and reatil groceriers and the fuel, macherery, fertilzer and chemical industries. I think the number get a very great deal bigger. Aslo the fabric and clothing indurtries that use cotton, wool and flax. And we all must eat, so farm production can in some fuzzy way be linked to almost 100% of the GDP. Whatever, Gordon. The fact remains, that farm production contributes only 0.8 % of the US GDP. Agriculture is an over head cost to society like sewage, electricty, running water. But they prorduce someting were nothing was before from some substantal precentage of renewable resoruces not pusing paper, cutting hair or other things that the world can live with out and do not contribute to an very large industry that is built with food, feed and fiber production as it base. We can get along fine with out clerks, barbers, and a great many service industries but we can't get along with out food. While the direct sales may only be less than one precent the industry that that is built on food, feed and fiber production one of the largests industrise in the world. The fact that we produce it so inexpensivly is one of the reasons that we have money for other areas of our economey to grow. Commiditis are coming off all time lows when corrected for inflation. If we were getting the same price I got for my crops 40 years ago the figure would be closer to 5% or more of GDP. You can't separerate faming from the rest of agri business. It comes as a set if you break one part it all sufferes. Gordon |
#281
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.25.191.32
X-Trace: news7.svr.pol.co.uk 1041146769 31627 62.25.191.32 (29 Dec 2002 07:26:09 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Dec 2002 07:26:09 GMT X-Complaints-To: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Path: text-east!binarykiller.newsgroups.com!propagator2-la!news-in-la.newsfeeds.com!newsfeed1.bredband.com!bredband!n ews.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsfe ed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!colt.net!diablo.the planet.net!news.theplanet.net!not-for-m ail Xref: 127.0.0.1 uk.business.agricultu105314 sci.agricultu61710 Torsten Brinch wrote in message ... On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 17:13:46 -0000, "Michael Saunby" wrote: the world would be economically much stronger if the world's farmers only produced about 30% of the food that is actually needed - i.e. enough to feed everyone in the west, and no more. The only problem that then remains is what to produce, where, and how it gets distributed without some crazy Robin Hood type trying to give it to the poor. There is no need to reduce farm production, if we just waste more food. This will for obvious reasons inflate demand relative to supply. just as good as reducing production.Now, this means less farm subsidy will be needed, because the farmer is able to sell more of his product. Farm subsidy comes from your taxes, so this means your taxes will be less. sorry, but you have evidence of governments reducing taxes because of this? -- Jim Webster "The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind" 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami' |
#282
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
Torsten Brinch wrote in message The agricultural value of land would then seem to have been about the same now as it was in 1996, with a minor peak about 1999, judging from FPDSavills Estate Benchmark survey AHA rent settlements time series: (£/acre, cvt. read from graph) 1996: 47 1997: 52 1998: 65 1999: 68 2000: 65 2001: 62 2002: 58 Such indication of a relatively constant agricultural value of land is a surprising result, when other indicators indicate that farm profitability has dropped like a rock in the same period. what you are forgetting is that rents are not negociated annually, but tend to be reviewed every three years or thereabouts, so you will have a lag. Also rents are competitively negociated rather than fixed by some independant agency. Finally remember that the rent also represents the landlords investment, so if the landlord has put capital into the farm in the form of new building work to meet the latest tranche of regulation, this will be factored into the rent as an increase, regardless of underlying agricultural profitability. A final point is that from a landlords point of view getting the rent up is a long weary process. During FMD and years of total collapse, rather than reduce the rent, some landlords handed back a rebate. This means that the following year the rent was still the same and the landlord wasn't faced with trying to get the rent back up again. Trying to use agricultural rents as a guide to short term agricultural profitability is to put a lot of trust on a poor indicator. -- Jim Webster "The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind" 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami' |
#283
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
|
#284
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
In article , Torsten Brinch
writes The pocket book is modestly priced:-) ISBN 0-9541201-0-8 (2001 edition) But you said the data was taken from John Nix 2002? 32nd edition (2002) September 2001. Copyright 2001. Take your pick! regards -- Tim Lamb |
#285
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 07:44:21 +0000 (GMT),
("David G. Bell") wrote: On Sunday, in article "Torsten Brinch" wrote: Such indication of a relatively constant agricultural value of land is a surprising result, when other indicators indicate that farm profitability has dropped like a rock in the same period. Now you know why Savills are referred to by some as the "Mayfair Mafia". "Overall investment returns from UK farmland have now out-paced equity returns over the last three, five and ten years. The annualised return to let land investments over the last ten years has been 12.6% per annum. Following three years of negative returns from 1985-87, which still depress the long term results, returns to farmland investments have been consistently positive, despite the adverse conditions for British agriculture. The inflation adjusted ten-year annualised real return to let land investments has been a remarkable 10.1% a year." (quoted from IPD UK Let Land Index 2002) |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Tour-2002 vs.2009 - 2-2002-2009-Front_Walk.jpg (1/1) | Garden Photos | |||
Tour-2002 vs.2009 - 1-2002-2009-August-Front.jpg (1/1) | Garden Photos | |||
[IBC] BONSAI Digest - 8 Jun 2003 to 9 Jun 2003 (#2003-161) | Bonsai | |||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002 | sci.agriculture | |||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002 | sci.agriculture |