1 minute read
Fig. 37: Profit margin in relation to tariff and treatment
However, in Fig. 35 three of the biggest cost drivers are not included and these are investment in lamps and bulbs, electricity and labour costs. These costs are also included in Fig. 36 and it is obvious, that especially the electricity and the investment in lamps and bulbs as well as the labour costs, are contributing much to the variable and fixed costs beside the costs for packing and marketing and CO2 costs.
A detailed composition of the variable costs at each treatment is shown in Tab. 9.
The profit margin was dependent on the treatment, whereas the tariff was only influencing profit margin slightly (Fig. 37). Profit margin was with about 6,500 ISK/m2 highest with “240 HPS, tending”, closely followed by “240 HPS, scale”. Compared to “240 HPS, pumice” profit margin was about 1,000 ISK/m2 higher, when the scale was used for watering. At higher light intensity decreased profit margin by nearly 2,000 ISK/m2 (Fig. 37). With a larger use (higher tariff) profit margin increased slightly. At a higher tariff there was a surprisingly small advantage of rural areas due to the state subsidies (Fig. 37).
) Profit margin (ISK/m2
8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0
300 HPS, ungrafted 300 HPS, grafted 240 HPS, peat 240 HPS, pumice 240 HPS, scale 240 HPS, tending
