Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl


2018 | Volume 6 (2018) Issue No. 1: Competitiveness of the modern organization: human, ethical and innovative aspects | 19-32

Article title

Biological assets: impact of measurement on financial position and performance of SMEs


Title variants

Languages of publication



The paper focuses on the possible ways of biological assets measurement in financial reporting of SMEs. According to IFRS for SMEs, the entity uses the fair value model for biological assets with readily determinable fair values, and the cost model for all other biological assets. The nature of all kinds of biological assets differs significantly, especially that of bearer plants and living animals. The authors evaluated the application of the above-mentioned methods to the representatives of both kinds of biological assets (an apple orchard and dairy cows). According to the study the way of biological assets measurement affects the financial position and performance of SMEs in volved in the agricultural sector. The cost model is a more suitable way of measurement for bearer plants reporting, while the fair value measurement is more suitable for living animals in respect to fundamental principles of financial reporting.



  • ACCA (2000), The economic environment and the SME, available at: http://www.accaglobal.com/pdfs/smallbusiness/EESME.doc (accessed 5 December 2015).
  • Agrisportal (2013), Bulletin No. 5, Fruit market – report 2013, available at: http://www.agris.cz/Content/files/main_files/43/121582/tis_20030503ovoce.pdf (accessed 4 December 2015).
  • Amen, M. (2000), Comment letter on exposure draft E65 – Agriculture No. 13, available at: http://media.ifrs.org/CommentsE65.zip. (accessed 5 December 2015).
  • American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (1996), Audits of agricultural producers and agricultural cooperatives, New York: AICPA.
  • Argilés, J., Aliberch, A.S., Blandón, J.G. (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, 15(1): 109 -142.
  • Argilés, J., Slof, E. (2001), New opportunities for farm accounting, The European Accounting Review, 10(2): 361-383.
  • Aryanto, Y.H. (2011), Theoretical failure of IAS 41: Agriculture (April 13, 2011), available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1808413 (accessed 5 December 2015).
  • Athanasios, V., Stergios, A., Laskaridou, E.C. (2010), The importance of information through accounting practice in agricultural sector – European data network, Journal of Social Sciences, 6: 221-228.
  • Booth, P., Walker, R. (2003), Valuation of SGARAs in the wine industry: Time for sober reflection, Australian Accounting Review, 13(31): 52-60.
  • Bouška, J. (2006), Chov dojeného skotu, Praha: Profi Press.
  • Burnside, A., Schiller, S. (2005), IAS 41 and the forest industry – A study of the forest products companies’ perception of the IAS 41 today, available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277045940_IAS_41_and_the_forest_industry_-_A_study_of_the_forest_products_companies’_perception_of_the_IAS_41_today (accessed 5 December 2015).
  • CIMA (2000), Comment letter on exposure draft E65 – Agriculture No. 39, available at: http://media.ifrs.org/CommentsE65.zip. (accessed 5 December 2015).
  • Damian, M.I., Manoiu, S.M., Bonaci, C.G., Strouhal, J. (2014), Bearer plants: Stakeholders’ view on the appropriate measurement model, Accounting and Management Information Systems, 13(4): 719-738.
  • European Commission (2003), Internationalization of SMEs, observatory of European SMEs, No.4, DG Enterprise publications.
  • Elad, C.H. (2004), Fair value accounting in the agricultural sector: Some implications for international accounting harmonization, European Accounting Review, 13(4): 621- 641.
  • Elad, C.H., Herbohn, K. (2011), Implementing fair value accounting in the agricultural sector, Edinburgh: The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland.
  • Fang, L.I.N. (2015), Impact of revised FRS 41 & FRS 16 on planters. Commodities, available at: https://brokingrfs.cimb.com/ynnNwHNxn_yOkFkQVcsR8PMfCJFrdL2M vxSwOAbss8MKdIbULpfiQcD9E4RT8GJc4m2v_3p5oz41.pdf.(accessed 5 December 2015).
  • Herbohn, K.F. (2006), Accounting for SGARAs: A stock take of practice before compliance with AASB 141 Agriculture, Australian Accounting Review, 16(39): 63-77.
  • Hoffman, F., Schneider, E., Dangerfield, A. (2000), Comment letter on exposure draft E65 – Agriculture No. 5, available at http://media.ifrs.org/CommentsE65.zip (accessed 5 December).
  • IASB (2009), International financial reporting standard for small and medium-sized entities, London.
  • Institute of Agricultural Economics and Information (2013), Cost and revenues – Agricultural production, available at: http://www.uzei.cz/data/usr_001_cz_soubory/2013.pdf. (accessed 5 December 2015).
  • Institute of Agricultural Economics and Information (2014), Situational and forward-looking report – Fruit, available at: http://eagri.cz/public/web/mze/zemedelstvi/rostlinne-komodity/ovoce-a-zelenina/situacni-a-vyhledove-zpravy-ovoce/ (accessed 5 December 2015).
  • Kopeček, P. (2012), A k tualizovaná metodika hodnocení ekonomiky výroby mléka, Agritech Science, 12: 1-8.

Document Type

Publication order reference


YADDA identifier

JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.