IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ers/journl/vxxivy2021i2-part1p331-345.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring and Valuation of Biological Assets: A Research Study

Author

Listed:
  • Malgorzata Wegrzynska
  • Alina Nowotarska

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of the article is to identify the factors influencing the choice of measurement and valuation of biological assets of two selected voivodships in Poland. Design/Methodology/Approach: To achieve this goal, a survey was carried out in the Dolnośląskie and Wielkopolskie voivodships in the period from January 2018 to January 2020. The survey consisted of the following parts: part I - record and short description of agricultural production (10 questions), part II - identification of macroeconomic factors influencing the valuation of biological assets (2 questions), part III - assessment of available methods of biological assets valuation (14 questions). As a result of the survey, the next number of responses was obtained: 100 questionnaires from Lower Silesia voivodeship, 100 questionnaires from Wielkopolska voivodeship. Findings: The most important macroeconomic factors include, fuel and electricity prices, weather factors. These factors were significant regardless of the organizational and legal form or the generated revenues. On the other hand, the microeconomic factors that have the greatest impact on the choice of the method of measurement and valuation of biological assets include the financial result in companies keeping accounting records in the form of full accounting, the risk of agricultural activity in any organizational and legal form, as well as any other type of economic records. Practical Implications: The article identifies factors influencing the choice of methods for the valuation of biological assets in farms run in Poland in two selected voivodeships. These studies form the basis for further research related to the development of a method for the valuation of biological assets. Originality/Value: The results of the survey and theoretical considerations contained in the article complement the existing research in accounting, including agricultural accounting.

Suggested Citation

  • Malgorzata Wegrzynska & Alina Nowotarska, 2021. "Measuring and Valuation of Biological Assets: A Research Study," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(2 - Part ), pages 331-345.
    • Handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xxiv:y:2021:i:2-part1:p:331-345
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ersj.eu/journal/2129/download
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joshua Ronen, 2008. "To Fair Value or Not to Fair Value: A Broader Perspective," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 44(2), pages 181-208, June.
    2. Frank Gigler & Chandra Kanodia & Raghu Venugopalan, 2007. "Assessing the Information Content of Mark‐to‐Market Accounting with Mixed Attributes: The Case of Cash Flow Hedges," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(2), pages 257-276, May.
    3. Guillaume Plantin & Haresh Sapra & Hyun Song Shin, 2008. "Marking‐to‐Market: Panacea or Pandora's Box?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 435-460, May.
    4. Josep Argilés & E. Slof, 2003. "The use of financial accounting information and firm performance: an empirical quantification for farms," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(4), pages 251-273.
    5. Charles Elad, 2004. "Fair value accounting in the agricultural sector: some implications for international accounting harmonization," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 621-641.
    6. Rayman, R.A., 2007. "Fair value accounting and the present value fallacy: The need for an alternative conceptual framework," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 211-225.
    7. Carlin Dowling & Professor.Jayne Godfrey, 2001. "AASB 1037 Sows the Seeds of Change: A Survey of SGARA Measurement Methods," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 11(23), pages 45-51, March.
    8. Ross Watts, 2006. "What has the invisible hand achieved?," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(S1), pages 51-61.
    9. Pierre Jinghong Liang & Xiaoyan Wen, 2007. "Accounting Measurement Basis, Market Mispricing, and Firm Investment Efficiency," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(1), pages 155-197, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Argilés bosch, Josep M.a & Aliberch, Anna Sabata & Blandón, Josep García, 2012. "A Comparative Study of Difficulties in Accounting Preparation and Judgement in Agriculture Using Fair Value and Historical Cost for Biological Assets Valuation," Revista de Contabilidad - Spanish Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 109-142.
    2. repec:ers:journl:v:xxiv:y:2021:i:2:p:331-345 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Josep Ma. Argiles (UB) & Josep Garcia Bladon (IQS) & Teresa Monllau (UPF), 2009. "Fair value versus historic cost Valuation for Biological assets: Implications for the quality of financial information," Working Papers in Economics 215, Universitat de Barcelona. Espai de Recerca en Economia.
    4. Li Yu (Colly) He & Sue Wright & Elaine Evans, 2018. "Is fair value information relevant to investment decision-making: Evidence from the Australian agricultural sector?," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 43(4), pages 555-574, November.
    5. Vladu Alina Beattrice, 2013. "FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT IN AGRICULTURE AND THE POTENTIAL TO MISLEAD Abstract: Applying fair value measurement to tangible and intangible assets in agriculture cannot be risk free. Twofold reasons can b," Annals - Economy Series, Constantin Brancusi University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 5, pages 95-98, October.
    6. Hana BOHUSOVA & Patrik SVOBODA, 2017. "Will the amendments to the IAS 16 and IAS 41 influence the value of biological assets?," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 63(2), pages 53-64.
    7. Braun Eduard, 2019. "The Ecological Rationality of Historical Costs and Conservatism," Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-30, March.
    8. Alex Dontoh & Fayez A. Elayan & Joshua Ronen & Tavy Ronen, 2021. "Unfair “Fair Value” in Illiquid Markets: Information Spillover Effects in Times of Crisis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(8), pages 5163-5193, August.
    9. Patrik Svoboda & Hana Bohušová, 2017. "Amendments to IAS 16 and IAS 41: Are There Any Differences between Plant and Animal from a Financial Reporting Point of View?," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 65(1), pages 327-337.
    10. Liyu He & Sue Wright & Elaine Evans, 2021. "The impact of managerial discretion on fair value information in the Australian agricultural sector," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(S1), pages 1897-1930, April.
    11. Marco Fasan & Carlo Marcon, 2014. "Accounting Tradition and other drivers of the Fair Value choice: An Opportunistic Management perspective," Working Papers 13, Venice School of Management - Department of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.
    12. Roberts, John & Wang, Timothy, 2019. "Faithful representation as an ‘objective mirage’: A Saussurean analysis of accounting and its participation in the financial crisis," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    13. Zhang, Ying & Andrew, Jane, 2014. "Financialisation and the Conceptual Framework," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 17-26.
    14. Gregory Waymire & Sudipta Basu, 2011. "Economic crisis and accounting evolution," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(3), pages 207-232, August.
    15. Kalin S. Kolev, 2019. "Do Investors Perceive Marking-to-Model as Marking-to-Myth? Early Evidence from FAS 157 Disclosure," Quarterly Journal of Finance (QJF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(02), pages 1-47, June.
    16. Basu Sudipta & Waymire Gregory B., 2019. "Historical Cost and Conservatism Are Joint Adaptations That Help Identify Opportunity Cost," Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, March.
    17. Chakravarty, Sugato & Ray, Rina, 2020. "On short-term institutional trading skill, behavioral biases, and liquidity need," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    18. Beatty, Anne & Liao, Scott, 2014. "Financial accounting in the banking industry: A review of the empirical literature," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 339-383.
    19. Amir Amel-Zadeh & Geoff Meeks, 2013. "Bank Failure, Mark-to-market and the Financial Crisis," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 49(3), pages 308-339, September.
    20. Li, Jing, 2017. "Accounting for banks, capital regulation and risk-taking," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 102-121.
    21. Tobias Adrian & Hyun Song Shin, 2008. "Financial intermediaries, financial stability and monetary policy," Proceedings - Economic Policy Symposium - Jackson Hole, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, pages 287-334.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Biological assets; valuation; agricultural accounting.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M40 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - General
    • M41 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Accounting
    • M42 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Auditing

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xxiv:y:2021:i:2-part1:p:331-345. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Marios Agiomavritis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ersj.eu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.