The authors argued that figures
provided an insight into the volatility caused by the fair value measurement. Elad
(2004) complained that the IAS 41 is a major departure from historic cost accounting,
could signal the demise of the French Plan Comptable Général Agricole(PGCA)
model, entails the recognition of unrealized gains and increases profit volatility.
However, Argilés and Slof (2001) welcomed fair value measurement for biological
assets because it avoids the complexity of calculating their costs, given the
predominance of small family farms in Western countries, and specifically in the
European Union (EU), with no resources and skills to perform accounting procedures
and valuations. The nature of farming makes an historical-based valuation of biological
assets inherently difficult because they are affected by procreation, growth, death, as
well as typical problems, usually exceeded in agriculture, of joint-cost situations. This
complexity is a specially acute problem for small family households. Kroll (1987) and
Lewis and Jones (1980) concluded that historical costs are not very informative to users,
and allocations to assets are arbitrary in most cases