<font color="blue"> so i will either have to buy more land or get a cheaper tractor </font>
I've been thinking about this thread, and in most cases, the folks with a low cost per acre are those who may or may not have spent as much for the tractor, but they have a lot more land. The only way I could get down to $146. 50 (the lowest number I noted) would be to spend only $732.50 for a tractor - not realistic.
So, obviously, in the context of this thread, the only way to justify the money I spent on a tractor is to spend more money to buy more land. For only $701,201 I can drop my cost per acre for the tractor down to the same $146.50... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif Of course, then I'd need a bigger tractor, so I'd need even more land to hold the average! /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
I've been thinking about this thread, and in most cases, the folks with a low cost per acre are those who may or may not have spent as much for the tractor, but they have a lot more land. The only way I could get down to $146. 50 (the lowest number I noted) would be to spend only $732.50 for a tractor - not realistic.
So, obviously, in the context of this thread, the only way to justify the money I spent on a tractor is to spend more money to buy more land. For only $701,201 I can drop my cost per acre for the tractor down to the same $146.50... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif Of course, then I'd need a bigger tractor, so I'd need even more land to hold the average! /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif