Legacy nutrient deductions

[Hoytvectrix]

Crafty buyers are looking at soil tests and cropping history before buying. They aren't paying a premium for farms with 100 ppm of P compared to those with 50 ppm. They are only concerned with soils at or near deficiency. To me that is a huge distinction, especially because the IRS feels that difference is a substantial depreciation worthy of its own tax code.

Maybe we undervalue the worth of nutrients of our soil?

I think that is what @T-Max was saying.

 

[T-Max]

Yes. The way I think about it in my tiny brain is that people aren’t concerned with fertility of a soil with respect to its historical self. As fertility decreases over time (which this deduction is seeking to account for) a property’s value is nearly always increasing. So is it worth more “because” its fertility is decreasing? Surely not. So is it really important to its value? Again with respect to its historical self? I don’t think enough to have its own deduction, no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk