Report on the situation in the pigmeat sector in the European Union with a view to possible changes to structural support measures
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 27. 07. 1998 COM(1998) 434 final Report on the situation in the pigmeat sector in the European Union with a view to possible changes to structural support measures (presented by the Commission) Report on the situation in the pigmeat sector in the European Union with a view to possible changes to structural support measures Contents page 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Summary Introduction Pig farming in the Community: the current situation 2. 1. Intra-Community trade The market in pigmeat 2. 1. 1. Production 2. 1. 2. Prices 2. 1. 3. 2. 1. 4. External trade 2. 1. 5. Consumption 2. 1. 6. Import arrangements 2. 1. 7. Export arrangements and WTO 2. 1. 8. Support measures under the market organisation 2. 1. 9. Special market support measures in response to epizootics Budget 2. 2. 2. 3. Pigmeat balance: long-term outlook Structural, environmental and animal health aspects 3. 1. 3. 2. 3. 3. 3. 4. Development of pig numbers 3. 1. 1. Developments at Member State level 3. 1. 2. Developments at regional level Structure of pig holdings 3. 2. 1. Structure at Member State level 3. 2. 2. Structure at regional level Environmental aspects Animal health aspects 3. 4. 1. Disease control 3. 4. 2. Animal health problems in densely populated areas 3. 4. 3. Measure which can enhance disease control 3. 4. 4. Animal disease control expenditure Animal welfare 3. 5. Structural support measures Farm investment aids 4. 1. Investment aid for pig farms 4. 2. Transitional aid for pig farms 4. 3. Further development of support under Regulation 950/97 4. 4. 4. 4. 1. Eligibility of regions 4. 4. 2. Eligibility of farms Conclusion 5. 1. Market 5. 2. Structures Annex I: Annex II: 1. Development of pig numbers at Member State level 2. Derogation from the 35% fodder clause in Germany (Brandenburg) Tables 1-14 2 - 3 5 5 5 5 5 7 7 8 8 9 10 10 11 12 13 13 13 13 16 17 18 19 21 21 23 24 25 26 27 27 27 28 29 29 31 32 32 32 SUMMARY This report gives an overview of recent developments, the current situation and outlook for the pig sector in the Community, paying particularly attention to the market situation and the regional production structures. In addition, it examines the possibilities of supporting investments in increasing individual production capacities under Regulation (EC) No 950/97 (formerly Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91), as requested by several Member States. Situation in the sector The pigmeat markets in the EU in recent years have shown a continuous growth of internal production (about 16 million tonnes in 1995), an upward trend in consumption (1995: 40,6 kg per capita), increasing exports since 1993 (730 000 - 970 000 tonnes per year) and a low level of imports (50 to 60 000 tonnes). For the future, no fundamental changes in these trends are forecast. Prices, however, in recent years have been strongly influenced by exceptional factors: BSE, with its repercussions on the beef market, as well as outbreaks of classical swine fewer in several Member States contributed in 1996 and in the first half of 1997 to a spectacular increase in prices. In 1998, pigmeat prices will be at a substantially lower level due to an expansion of production to 16. 7 million tonnes. The market regulations for pigmeat in the EU are - compared with other sectors - quite liberal. On the one hand, several arrangements concerning external trade set limits, such as tariff quotas (in the framework of the association agreements and the WTO) and limit subsidised exports (in the WTO framework). On the other hand, the common market organisation provides only for very limited support measures. EAGGF spending is largely concentrated on export refunds, but exceptional market support measures in response to epizootics can give rise to significant ad hoc expenditure. In recent years, production has continued to become more concentrated, even in those regions with already high stocking densities, and close to the principal markets. At national level, Ireland, France and Denmark have shown the most significant growth. The gap between Member States as regards the structure of pig farming persists: the average for the top group, i. e. Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK, is more than 500 pigs/holding, whilst the Community's largest suppliers - Germany and Spain - have overall a structure more based on family farms. There are also major regional differences within individual Member States. Increasing concentration of pig-keeping has led in high-density areas to pressures on the environment, particularly on the nitrogen balance and eutrophication, airborne pollution, and pollution of ground and surface waters. Animal health may suffer as well from this concentration: it is very difficult, for instance, to operate effective disease control in these regions. To some extent, the non-internalisation of the environmental costs to the production units, is one of the factors increasing sector's competitivity. These trends need to be very carefully monitored, and the Community has undertaken initiatives at various stages to counteract these negative trends. Investment aid schemes for pig holdings: also for increasing individual capacities? Investment aids to holdings are at present granted predominantly under Regulation (EC) No 950/97, which replaced the former Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91. These aids form part of Objective 5a and are therefore applicable throughout the EU. Eligible investments include, for example, environmental protection and improvement of hygiene standards. Support for expanding pig production capacity, however, has been excluded since 1991, with a few transitional derogations. Any changes to this aid scheme to allow greater production capacity should be subject to certain restrictions: • The support should be limited to spécifie areas which can prove a real need for improved production structures also for reasons of environmental, hygiene and animal welfare aspects. • The application of the aid scheme and the increase in production capacity on individual farms should not increase total pig production in the region. • The environmental and animal health situation of the region concerned should be carefully examined, with any potential aid being limited to the resolution of these problems A minimum space per animal in the farms is an essential condition for any granting of aid. Serious doubts remain, however, about certain risks inherent in such an adjustment: • distortion of the delicate balance on the pigmeat markets; • establishment, management and control of the regional capacity ceilings; • distortion of competition conditions if access is limited on a regional basis, for instance; • further pollution problems; • more difficult disease control; • other relevant factors for farm decisions on investments in pig capacities (organisation of the production chain, processing and marketing conditions etc. ) are not covered. In line with Agenda 2000 the Commission proposes a revised legal framework for rural development measures. This will enable existing investment aid measures to be integrated with measures for marketing and processing, environmental protection, hygiene, animal welfare and so on. In this way more flexible programmes, addressing particular needs in each sector or region, will be possible. 1. INTRODUCTION The rules on aid for pig farms were adjusted in 1994 when Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 was amended. In response to calls for further changes, the European Commission undertook to submit a report on the market in pigmeat and what action should be taken and, where appropriate, the possibilities for helping increase individual pigmeat production capacities without increasing production in the relevant region. This report looks at pigmeat production in the Community from the market angle and from the point of view of national and regional production structures. This dual approach enables the Commission to evaluate a possible change in the existing structural support measures for the pigmeat sector. The report focuses on the impact such a change might have on the market, structures, veterinary situation and the environment, at the same time looking at how this impact could be controlled1. 2. PIG FARMING IN THE COMMUNITY: THE CURRENT SITUATION 2. 1. The market in pigmeat 2. 1. 1. Production In 1996 gross production of pigmeat in the 15 Member States of the European Union totalled 16,3 million tonnes. Germany remained the largest producer, with 3,6 million tonnes, followed by Spain with 2,3 million tonnes, France (2,2 million tonnes) and the Netherlands (1,6 million tonnes). In 1996 EU pigmeat production was 2,2% up on 1995. 2. 1. 2. Prices Both 1993 and the first half of 1994 saw a long period of economic downturn for producers, with a marked loss of profitability. The average price during this period was ECU 127/100 kg (class U). In 1995, on the other hand, the price level rose markedly to ECU 140,3/100 kg, i. e. an increase of 10,7%, making for satisfactory profitability. It should be pointed out that since 1 July 1995 the Community market price for pig carcases in the EU, recorded each week, has related to class E in the Community scale for the classification of pig carcases (over 55% lean meat) rather than class U (between 50 and 55% lean). Class E is more representative of the EU pig herd since over 50% of the pigs slaughtered are in this class. This change of class automatically led to an increase in the average price of about 7% because class E fetches a higher price. In terms of methods, it should be pointed out that difficulties have arisen on accoimt of the differences between the data supplied by EUROSTAT and those produced by the national authorities. It has not been possible therefore to make direct comparisons between statistics at national and regional level or to do so for the figures relating to the total headage and the structures of pig farms. As far as regional figures are concerned, little information is available below the NUTS II level (NUTS = Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics, acronym taken from the French Nomenclature des unités territoriales statistiques). In 1996 there was a substantial increase in prices, the average level rising from ECU 143/100 kg in January to ECU 183/100 kg in July, making an annual average of ECU 162/100 kg. There are three reasons for this increase, which was particularly marked from the second quarter of 1996: the reduced supply of pigs for fattening, increased exports of pigmeat from Denmark to Japan, and the BSE factor, which boosted consumer demand for pigmeat in preference to beef. Development of the average Community price for pig carcasses Price ( Ecu/100 kg) 210 200 4- 190 + 180 4- 170 160 150 140 4- 1 30 + 1 20 -I—i i i i—i t i i—i t i i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—t—i—i—i—i—i 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 i—i—t—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i i—t—i—i—(—i—i—i i—i—i i i i i 1995 (Grade U) -^ 1995 (Grade E) -e-1996 -»-1997 Week After the 1996/97 winter with a quite normal price level, market prices again soared from March onwards, reaching a record of ECU 207/100 kg in May. From then on prices fell rapidly and by the mid of November 1997 they were down to ECU 154/100 kg. The spectacular rise in market prices between March and May 1997 resulted primarily from the substantial cut in supply resulting from the special market support measures for pigmeat in the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium and Spain on account of classical swine fever. Between February 1997 and May 1998, 8. 9 million fattening pigs and piglets from areas subject to veterinary and commercial restrictions were delivered to the competent authorities under these special measures and processed into products for purposes other than human consumption. The Community pigmeat market has recently begun suffering from overproduction and therefore, low prices. The exceptionally high prices of pigmeat in 1996 -6 and 1997 have encouraged the farmers to further increase their production, although they should have known from history of cyclicity in the pig production that after a high price period there will inevitably come a period of lower prices. The total production is expected to increase in 1998 by 3,2% (+520 000 tonnes) to reach a total of 16. 7 mill. tn, and the pigmeat price is expected to decrease from the 1997 figures about 20% to 130 ECU/100 kg. 2. 1. 3. Intra-Community trade For a better understanding of trade between Member States it is necessary to look at the degree of self-sufficiency. Since 1993 it has stood at about 106% for the EU as a whole with, needless to say, enormous differences from one country to another. In Denmark, where pig farming plays a vital role in the economy, the rate was some 453% in 1995. The situation is also similar in the Netherlands where the rate is 264% and in Belgium (209%). At the opposite end of the scale to these exporting countries, we find Greece (55%) and Italy (67%), but also Germany (76%) and the United Kingdom (74%). Some 3,8 million tonnes of pigmeat crossed borders in the EU in 1995. Without going into a detailed description of this trade, it can be summed up in one sentence: the small countries with surplus production, such as Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium, supply the large countries which have a deficit, such as Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom. Intra-Community trade involves live animals (piglets and fatteners), carcases and above all the main cuts, while trade in processed products remains a national or regional matter. As far as live animals are concerned, 3,8 million piglets and 4,0 million fatteners were exported within the EU in 1995. 2. 1. 4. External trade The EU is the world's largest exporter of pigmeat products (meat, preparations, offal, fat, etc. ) with a total of some 973 705 tonnes in 1994 872 410 tonnes in 1995 940 509 tonnes in 1996. In 1996, the principal exporting countries in the EU were Denmark, with 396 484 tonnes, France with 121 510 tonnes and the Netherlands with 119 074 tonnes2. The main importers of EU pigmeat were the countries of Eastern Europe (365 853 tonnes or 39%), Japan (188 903 tonnes (20%) and the USA (63 247 tonnes or 7%). In 1996 exports totalled 940 509 tonnes, 8% up on 1995. It should be pointed out that 56% of this quantity was exported without export refunds. In 1993 exports without refunds accounted for only 15% of the total quantity. As far as imports are concerned, the EU has for several years been negotiating association agreements with various countries (see point 2. 1. 6. ) enabling pigmeat to be imported into the EU at a preferential customs duty. However, these imports represent only 30% of the total quantity imported each year. The remaining 70%, consisting of offal and fat, are not covered by agreements. The EU imported a total of 62 966 tonnes in 1996 (36,5% more than in 1995). The largest importer was Germany, followed by Italy3. The main exporter to the EU See Table 2 in the Annex See Table 3 in the Annex -7 was Hungary, with 43 996 tonnes, followed by the United States with 6 649 tonnes (primarily offal and fat) and Poland with 2 217 tonnes. 2. 1. 5. Consumption Parallel to production, consumption has developed favourably in the EU in the past. For the 15 Member States consumption in 1995 amounted to 40,7 kg per head of population. However, this figure varies greatly from one Member State to another. In Northern Europe consumption has virtually reached saturation point with per capita consumption at a fairly high level: 55,0 kg per head per year in Germany and 64,3 kg in Denmark. On the other hand, it is mainly in the southern Member States that an increase in demand might be expected on account of the far lower levels of consumption and the marked increase in consumption in recent years. For instance, between 1986 and 1994, consumption in Spain rose from 37,8 to 55,3 kg (+ 46%), in Italy from 28 to 33 kg (+18%) and in Portugal from 23 to 34,7 kg (+51%); it fell in Germany and the United Kingdom, on the other hand, while in the other Member States it remained more or less stable. In 1996, pigmeat consumption has benefited to some extent from the reluctance of consumers toward beef as a consequence of the discussions on BSE. Compared to 1995 per capita consumption of pigmeat increased by 2. 3% and reached 41. 7 kg per head. A parallel observation was also made in the poultry meat sector, namely that per capita consumption increased by 6,2% between 1995 and 1996 reaching 21,5 kg per head. In 1997, a slight decline in pigmeat consumption is expected (41. 2kg) reflecting, among others, reduced supply of pigmeat due to Classical Swine Fever and a certain recovery of beef consumption. It should be stressed that these figures relating to per capita consumption are the result of calculations done in connection with establishing the supply balance and that they are therefore notional to some extent. The figures actually relate to consumption of the whole carcase and thus include those parts of the carcase that do not reach the table of the final consumer. The above figures should be reduced by 25 to 30% to determine the quantity of meat actually consumed. 2. 1. 6. Import arrangements a) Association agreements Since March 1992, the EU has established association agreements for importing meat from Poland, Hungary and the Czech and Slovak Republics. There is also an agreement between the EU and the ACP countries. In 1994, Bulgaria and Romania were added to the list of beneficiary countries, followed in 1996 by the Baltic States and in 1997 by Slovenia. In all, these agreements allowed imports into the EU of 96 936 tonnes over the period 1 January 1997 to 31 December 1997 at a greatly reduced rate of customs duty4. It should be pointed out, however, that neither the Central European nor the ACP countries are in a position at present to take full advantage of the quotas either because they do not 4 See Table 4 in the Annex have sufficient quantities of pigmeat available for export or because trade is disrupted by public and animal health problems. Only Hungary is using the quotas available to any great extent. Taking all the countries of Central Europe together, the rate of utilisation of the available quotas was only 25% for the year 1996/97, and the ACP countries have not exported a single tonne since the entry into force of the agreement with the EU. b) Imports under the WTO agreements From 1 July 1995 the tariff quotas which the EU opened under the WTO minimum access commitments were added to the agreements mentioned in point a)5. The first WTO quota of 7 000 tonnes of loins and bellies, at a zero duty, was opened in January 1994 in connection with the soya panel. For the first year of the WTO agreement, from 1 July 1995 a quota of 13 500 tonnes (including the 7 000 soya panel tonnes) was opened for third countries. This quantity amounts to 18 920 tonnes for the period 1 July 1996 to 30 June 1997 and will increase regularly over the coming years to reach a total of 75 600 tonnes in 2000. The customs duty applicable to these imports is reduced by about 60% (per 1 July 1997). 2. 1. 7. Export arrangements and WTO Exports to non-EU countries are executed partly with export refunds and partly without. In the early 90s exports totalled between 500 000 and 600 000 tonnes a year, but from 1993 on exports increased and the annual quantities have since then been between 750 000 and 950 000 tonnes. With the WTO agreements, the room for manoeuvre in export policy is now greatly reduced, for the EU has to observe quantitative and budget ceilings. During the first year of the agreements (1 July 1995 to 30 June 1996), the EU6 could not export more than 541 800 tonnes with refunds. For the year 1996/97 the maximum quantity totalled 522 100 tonnes and budget expenditure was restricted to ECU 269 million. Under the agreements, these ceilings are to be reduced gradually over the following four years, reaching a quantity of 443 500 tonnes with a financial allocation of ECU 191 million in 2000. In order to be able to observe the limits imposed under WTO it was necessary to exercise caution in the matter of refunds, simplify the list of eligible products and introduce a system of export licences from 1 July 1995. After about two years' experience of the new export arrangements it can be seen that their application has posed no particular problem in the pigmeat sector. During the period 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1996 export licences covering some 380 000 tonnes of pigmeat were issued (= 70% of the quantity available). For the period 1 July 1996 to 30 June 1997 the export licences issued could cover a total of some 300 000 tonnes of pigmeat (= 57% of the quantity available). The quantities exported with refunds are thus well below the quantitative ceiling agreed under WTO agreements. In this connection it should be pointed out that the main reason for the various cuts in refunds applied since February 1996 was market management, not compliance with quantitative obligations. As from spring 1998, export refunds have been See Table 4 in the Annex Figures quoted are for EU-15. The quantities are expressed in carcase equivalent. 6 - 9- actively used to support the community pigmeat market because of the rapidly decreasing price leveL 2. 1. 8. Support measures under the market organisation The pigmeat sector is governed by a common organisation of the market which, unlike other market organisations, is very flexible, with the possibility of a system of private storage aid as the only support instrument but with no guaranteed prices or direct premiums. The market price is formed solely on the basis of supply and demand. This liberal organisation thus places a great responsibility on producers, who decide themselves how much to produce, thus determining market equilibrium. Council Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 provides for a basic price to be fixed, the purpose of which is primarily to indicate the price level at which the market is in balance without, however, resulting in structural surpluses. The sole concrete function of the basic price is to trigger private storage aid when necessary. These measures can be introduced when the average market price is less than 103% of the basic price. After two consecutive reductions in 1994/95 and 1995/96, the level of the basic price was set at ECU 150,9/100 kg, representing a reasonable estimate of the point of equilibrium between supply and demand. It was therefore decided to keep it at the same level for the 1997/98 marketing year. As a day-to-day management tool, private storage aid enables the Commission to intervene rapidly in the market. The most recent example of this measure being used was from 27 November 1995 to 16 February 1996. This action was triggered by the safeguard clause introduced by Japan vis-à-vis pigmeat imports. The purpose. of the support measure was to protect the European market against a major drop in market prices caused by quantities normally intended for the Japanese market and thus avoid the risk of déstabilisation of the internal market in pigmeat. A total of 48 000 tonnes of pigmeat were put into store by EU operators and the objective of the measure was fully achieved. 2. 1. 9. Special market support measures in response to epizootics The Union has been confronted with a number of outbreaks of classical swine fever. The veterinary and sanitary situation concerning the pig sector remains precarious and worrying due to regular epidemics of classical swine fever (see also 3. 4). Germany and Belgium were hit by swine fever in 1993, 1994 and 1995. As a result of the measures taken by the veterinary authorities under Council Directive 80/217/EEC introducing Community measures for the control of classical swine fever, the marketing of live pigs, fresh pigmeat and non-heat-treated pigmeat products was temporarily prohibited or seriously disrupted in the areas directly affected by the disease. The restrictions on the free movement of goods resulting from the application of the veterinary measures threatened to seriously affect the market in pigmeat in the Member States concerned. The Commission therefore introduced special support measures, on several occasions, under Article 20 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75, for the market in pigmeat in the form of buying in heavy pigs and piglets, which were withdrawn from the market and for the most part sent to rendering plants. Under the measures taken in Germany, 960 000 heavy pigs and 188 000 piglets were bought in during the period from summer 1993 to the beginning of 1996. In Belgium about 330 000 heavy pigs and 180 000 piglets were bought in under the measures adopted for that country, during the period from November 1993 to January 1995. Expenditure on the special support and on compensation to farmers for the animals withdrawn was shared between the Community and the Member States concerned, 70% being provided from the Community budget and 30% from the national budget. During the three years 1993, 1994 and 1995 about ECU 147 million from the Community budget was spent on these special market support measures. The classical swine fever situation deteriorated markedly from the beginning of 1997. Starting in Germany, the disease occurred in the Netherlands in early February, spreading rapidly to the major pig-farming areas south of the large rivers. By the beginning of May the disease had reached Spain, in the region of Lerida where there is a high concentration of pig farms. In July, Belgium had some outbreaks. Due to the restrictions on the free movement of pigs resulting from veterinary measures and the risk of a serious disturbance of the pigmeat market in these four countries, but also to solve the health problems resulting from overcrowded piggeries in regions with transport restrictions, the Commission adopted special support measures whereby 8. 9 million fattened pigs and piglets were delivered to the competent national authorities between February 1997 and May 1998L at a cost to the Community budget of ECU 547 millions for this period. The final figures, however, will depend on the evolution of the disease. 2. 2. Budget Expenditure on the pig sector is normally below 1% of the total for the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF). However, it totalled ECU 416 million or 1,3% of the Guarantee budget in 1994 on account of an increase in expenditure caused by the support measures referred to in point 2:1. 9. and the granting of special refunds for the Russia I, II and III schemes. The budget can be divided into three chapters: refunds, private storage aid and special measures under Article 20 of the basic Regulation. In all, the sums allocated in 1996 amounted to ECU 124 million, broken down as follows: ECU 101 million for refunds, ECU 18 million for private storage aid and ECU 5 million for special support measures. Expenditure on pigmeat (million ECU) Eur 12 1993 Eur 12 1994 Eur 15 1995 Eur 15 1996 Eur 15 1997 Refunds (export) Storage aid Exceptional support measures (Art. 20) Total Budgetary credits 194 2 5 259 22 135 201 416 118 18 7 143 11 Eur 15 1998* 116 16 197 101 18 5 72 - 407 124 479 329 The initial budget for 1997 totalled ECU 168 million for the whole sector. However, due to the swine fever crisis, expenditure for exceptional support measures turned out to be much greater and reached. ECU 407 million for the budgetary7 year 1997. 2. 3. Pigmeat balance: long-term outlook8 Forecasts of pigmeat supply were obtained on the basis of demand forecasts and assumptions on net external trade. The demand forecasts have been established by means of a consistent and comparable econometric approach based on price and income assumptions. Results from these models have been adjusted in order to take account of the impact of the BSE crisis. On the basis of these production and consumption forecasts, a detailed balance sheet for pigmeat is presented in the Annex9. These balance sheets also incorporate the WTO commitments on imports and subsidised exports, and also estimates of the volume of non-subsidised exports for pigmeat. In 1996, pigmeat consumption per capita is estimated to have increased by around 2,3%, partly reflecting a shift from beef7veal to other meats as a consequence of the BSE crisis. A forecast increasing consumption for '97 will probably not occur due to reduced supplies with high prices and the recovery in beef consumption. In the medium and long term, pigmeat consumption should continue to grow modestly by around 0,5% per year, given the already high level of per capita consumption. As far as trade is concerned, import figures presented in the balance sheet are based on the assumption that the actual level of current access will be maintained and that, in addition, imports of pigmeat under the WTO and other market access agreements will increase by the year 2001. Current levels of subsidised exports of pigmeat are well below the WTO limits and estimates for non-subsidised exports are set at 500 000 t for 1996, which represents more than half of total exports. From 1997 onwards, it is assumed that non-subsidised exports will be somewhat lower and that the WTO limits for subsidised exports are fully used. Overall, total exports are forecast to decline over the 1997-2005 period due to the WTO constraints on subsidised exports and expected stronger competition on world markets from other exporting countries. In the light of the above assumptions, pigmeat production is expected to increase by an annual average of around 0,8% over the whole forecast period. 7 Budgetary year goes from 16 October of the previous year to 15 October of the year in question. 8 Extract from: CAP 2000 - working document. Long term Prospects - Grains, Milk & Meat Products. EU- Commission, DG VI, April 1997. 9 see also Table 5 in the Annex 12 3. STRUCTURAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ANIMAL HEALTH ASPECTS 3. 1. Development of pig numbers 3. 1. 1. Developments at Member State level The total number of pigs in the Community reached 118,3 million head in December 199610, an increase of some 9,45% (including the pig livestock of the new member states) since 1990. Five Member States account for about 75% of pig numbers: Germany, Spain, France, the Netherlands and Denmark. During the period 1990-96 Germany was the only large producer which reduced its total number of pigs significantly. The resulting loss of production share is the highest within the whole European Community. This decrease was taken up in particular by France, Denmark and Spain. The other large producers increased their share of the total Community pig numbers. The highest increase in production share was in France. Denmark and Spain also strengthened their position within the Community. The highest increases in number of pigs relative to the national totals were in Ireland (+33,3%), France (+24,6%) and Denmark (+19,4%). 3. 1. 2. Developments at regional level The following key regional trends can be observed11: regional concentration is continuing and even increasing; increases tend to be in regions with significant pig population levels; - - - even regions which already have high stocking densities show an increase - though this is slowing down; there is a relocation of production towards principal markets; - - only a few regions, with relatively low numbers of pigs, show clear increases; - there is no evidence of a uniform trend comparing developments in the total numbers of pigs, in numbers of fattening pigs or in numbers of sows. 12 Denmark In general the regional distribution of pig production in Denmark seems rather well balanced. Between 1990 and 1995 the largest increase in the number of pigs was in Jutland, which forms the continental part of Denmark. Within Jutland the most significant increases were in the Amter (Danish counties) situated in Southern Jutland. There were increases of 34% in Sonderjylland, 20% in Ribe and 18% in Vejle. In Bornholm and in Fyn the increases were also significant: 31% and 25% respectively. In contrast, in the See Tables 6 - 8 in the Annex. A more detailed description of the development of pig numbers at Community level is annexed as well. 11 See Tables 9 - 11 in the Annex; 1989-90 to 1994; Member States production share; no regional data available for Ireland, Denmark, Luxembourg. 12 The regional units are here Amter (Danish counties), which are NUTS III units for the Eurostat purposes of classification: therefore they are not present in the tables 9-11. The regional data is provided by Denmark Statistics (survey of June): the analysis is made by the Commission's sen ices. listed according to their South-East Denmark the increase was the lowest (3% in Vestsjaelland, 9% in Storstrom) and even negative in Hovedstadsregionen (-0,5%). Germany. -. The new Lander suffered from a dramatic cut in pig numbers of more than 61% between 1990 and 1994. Sachsen-Anhalt is now the most significant producer with over 712 000 pigs, the other new Lander have between 500 000 and 700 000 in total. Sachsen-Anhalt, Brandenburg and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern registered the sharpest reduction. The decline in the number of sows was, however, smaller than that of fattening pigs. Brandenburg and Sachsen-Anhalt are relatively important regions for fattening, and Brandenburg is also prominent in breeding. The old Lander were not exempt from the overall decline in numbers in Germany: clear losers (a decrease of 9,8 to 24,6% from 1989 to 1994) are those Lander which already had low pig population levels: Hessen, Rheinland-Pfalz, Saarland and Schleswig-Holstein. The leading old Lander, Niedersachsen and Nordrhein-Westfalen, show losses in line with the general trend (which was -3,76%). Baden-Wtirttemberg and Bayern recorded small increases in the total number of pigs. As regards fattening pigs, the largest producing regions Niedersachsen, Nordrhein-Westfalen and Bayern showed an increase of between 2 and 5%. Generally, there is a downward trend in the old Lander in breeding animals (-8,9%), while in fattening pigs there is an increase of 1,8%. Spain This Member State shows a general upward trend in numbers and a concentration in favour of the eastern and southern Communidades Autonomas (regions) which already have large numbers of pigs: Catalufia, C. Valenciana and Aragon. A smaller increase was registered in Extremadura. Sharp rises were noted for fattening pigs in Aragon, Extremadura, Andalucia and C. Valenciana, and for sows in Aragon and Extremadura. Altogether, breeding pigs are more evenly distributed throughout Spain than fattening pigs; fattening stock are more concentrated in Catalufia (Lerida), Aragon, Andalucia and Castilla-Leôn. France Enormous growth took place mainly in the Ouest region (especially in Bretagne): +27,8% for fattening pigs and +27,6% for sows, despite the nitrate problems associated with this region. In 1994 this region housed approximately two thirds of France's pigs. The Ouest region - though being distant from the principal markets - is important both in the breeding and fattening sectors. Growth in all pig categories can also be noted in the Centre-Est and in the second largest producing region, the Bassin Parisien, which surrounds France's most important consumer market. More than a tenth of the national pig herd is now located in this latter region. Many other regions (no data available for the DOM-TOM (overseas departments/territories)) showed no increases or declines; Nord-Pas de Calais remained unchanged. Netherlands Starting from an already high level, both fattening pigs and breeding sows are concentrated in the two regions close to the important German markets, Zuid- and Oost-Nederland. The growth of pig production increased rapidly between 1981 and 1987 but has slowed down in the last few years. Having to face huge animal health and environmental problems, the Dutch - 14 - authorities have recently submitted to the Commission a programme to reduce pig production by means of a quota system. Italy More than 50% of pig numbers are housed in the Pianura Padana (plain of the river Po), where Lombardia, an area with nitrate problems, slightly strengthened its pre-eminent position (having more than one third of sows and fattening pigs in Italy in 1994). The second largest producer region, Emilia-Romagna, showed a decline in numbers of approximately 25%. Piemonte showed the highest increase of fattening pigs (about +19%), Friuli-Venezia-Giulia of sows (+22,7%). Some southern regions registered positive trends - though on a very low level - in sow-keeping (Abruzzo, Campania, Sardegna and Sicilia) and in fattening pigs (Umbria, Abruzzo). The rest of the Italian regions saw reductions to a greater or lesser extent. United Kingdom From the point of view of evolution of pig populations the British regions could be classified into three categories. The first category includes regions with an important pig population and with a strong increase in the number of animals (13-18%): Yorkshire and Humberside and East Anglia. These two regions represent more than 40% of the British pig population in 1994. The second category is formed by regions having an average pig concentration and rather stable pig populations: e. g. East Midlands and Northern Ireland. The third category includes regions with a sharp decline in pig populations (from - 15 to - 25%): Wales, West-Midlands and North West. These three regions represent only 11% of the British pig population in 1994. Scotland is somehow an exception: it has experienced an increase of 34%. Belgium Following an increase in numbers of 9%, in 1995 more than 95% of the country's pigs were located in Vlaams Gewest, an area with nitrate problems as well; the trends in fattening and breeding pig numbers here are similar. The Wallonie region saw a slight increase of 10,1% in fattening and a significant decline of approximately 20% in sow keeping. Austria The leading Lander both for fattening and breeding pigs are Ober- and Niederôsterreich as well as Steiermark where approx. nine tenths of pigs are housed. While Niederôsterreich lost pigs, both the other regions increased their numbers slightly. In all other regions the pig population level tended to decline. Portugal The region of Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, close to the largest population centre of Portugal, is the most important pig producing region (accounting for more than 40% of the Portuguese total). The two other quite significant regions, Alentejo and Centro, registered relatively moderate decreases of 1,7 and 2,2%. Alentejo in the South noted an increase of 15,1% in fattening pigs, Centro of 3,4%; Nôrte, Algarve and the islands showed a significant decrease. In Norte fattening pig numbers decreased by 6,1%. Breeding sows developed significantly in the Centro (7,1%). 15 - Sweden Almost the entire production is located south of Stockholm. Sydsverige and Vastsverige account for about one third of the country's pigs: the former recorded a loss of 5,8%, mainly due to losses in numbers of fattening pigs; the^latter an increase of 5,1% (fattening +11,4 and sows -7,7%»). Ôstra Mellansverige also has quite significant stocks with an increase of 23,1% in the total number of pigs and of 22,5% in that of fattening pigs. The proportions between regions as a whole are quite similar for breeding and fattening pigs. to the European Union Finland Since the data of 1996 and 1997 it not yet available it is too early to make any analysis on the regional impact of the accession to the EU in 1995 on the pig production. Finland's accession the country's agriculture: nevertheless, at national and at regional level, the pig production do not seem to be one of the sectors that has suffered the most. While the period 1989-1994 was, from the point of view of the number of pigs, rather stable in the whole country, the year 1995 slightly strengthened the concentration of pig production in the western and southern part of Finland: only about 10% of the Country's pig production is located in the eastern and northern Finland. touched severely Greece About 90% of the pigs are concentrated in the regions Kentriki and Voreia Ellada. For sows and fattening pigs the proportions are quite similar. Attika and the islands have lost prominence over recent years. Annual fluctuations have been significant. 3. 2. Structure of pig holdings Pig production has become a very specialised industry, often not associated with a land area, and, geared to the purchase, fattening and sale of standardised animals meeting very precise specifications and strict delivery deadlines. The desire for maximum profit orientates this industry towards cheap purchases of piglets for fattening as well as towards the search for the best price possible for the fattened pigs, regardless of the initial origin or the final destination of the product. The commercial concerns of this kind of production are reinforced by the interests of activities related to it: trade, storage, transport, care and veterinary certification. Intensive production involving quick rotation, together with the current market infrastructure and product delivery system have a major impact on this industry as far as health aspects and problems of diseases spreading are concerned, making it a very sensitive industry. It also has to be noted that the actual structure of the sector has been influenced by the fact that the corresponding market organisation is very market-oriented without direct support measures, for instance direct aids. Furthermore, the existing production structures were developed in the main before 1987 when the policy of not vaccinating against classical swine fever was introduced. This aspect is 16- important when it comes to explaining the difficulties of adjusting production structures to the requirements of this policy. 3. 2. 1. Structure at Member State level The data and trends described in this section give rise to the following conclusions: - Differences in the structure of pig holdings, and in the development of structures, affect competition between the pig producing countries. Compared to other countries, Germany and Spain, while being the biggest producers in the Community, as regards pig farms have overall a weak structure (mainly based on family farms, which tend to be small). - In contrast Belgium and the United Kingdom, for example, whilst having only 6-7% of the Community pig herd, nevertheless have a very efficient structure. (This is also the case in Ireland, a smaller producer). - A comparison of the development of the structure of holdings and the number of animals shows that Member States which succeeded in improving their structures significantly could maintain or even increase their pig production. These countries seem prepared to maintain their market position in a competitive market. Herd size From figures giving average herd sizes on pig holdings13, it is possible to differentiate between three groups of Member States. In the first group, with an average herd size of between 514 and 643 pigs per holding are Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The second group, with an average of between 103 and 215 pigs per holding comprises France, Germany, Finland, Sweden and Luxembourg. Spain, Austria, Italy, Greece and Portugal are in the third group of smaller-sized farms with 17 to 60 pigs per holding. Developments from 1987 to 1995 show significant increases in herd sizes, although the grouping remains the same. Between groups, the difference in average herd size increased; within groups, there were only some significant position changes in the group of big-sized farms. The average herd size in the Netherlands, which was more than 400 pigs per holding in 1987, increased by 58% to 643 pigs per holding in 1995. In Denmark the increase was 111 % (from 246 pigs per holding in 1987 to 518 pigs per holding in 1995). _In percentage terms, Spain had the smallest increase, of 26% to 60 pigs per farm. The biggest increases were in Ireland (152%) and France (153%). The average farm size of these countries has now reached 162 pigs in France and 514 pigs in Ireland. Herd size classes The differentiation of holdings and herd sizes classes shows different results for the three structural groups. In the group of Member States with a large average herd size, there is a significant increase in the number of pig farms with more than 1000 animals. More than 10% of holdings and up to 89% (Ireland) of the pigs are represented in this class size; in the Netherlands, 21% of the producers have 1000 or more pigs. In Denmark the number of holdings with more than 1 000 pigs doubled between 1987 and 1995 (61% of pigs are in 13 See Table 12 in the Annex; 1987-1991/93/95 - 17- this category of farms) while in all other categories of holdings the number of holding decreased. _On the other hand, the category of farms with up to 9 pigs is of no significance for these countries (less than 1% of pigs). In the small herd-size group (Spain, Greece, Italy and Portugal) some 85%) of producers have fewer than 10 pigs, representing between 6% and 23%» of the total in these countries. In France, Luxembourg and Germany between 41% and 72% of producers are placed in the smallest size class. Concerning holdings with more than 1000 pigs, there is a significant difference between Germany and France. In Germany 1% of producers and 23% of animals are in this class, in France the corresponding figures are 5% and 55%. The development within the different herd size classes shows a general increase of holdings and animals in the bigger herd classes (200 or more pigs), and a significant decrease in the categories below 100 animals. Belgium is an example of very rapid changes in structures. 3. 2. 2. Structure at regional level 14 In Member States with a high regional concentration of production in a few regions, for example France, Spain and Italy, the calculation of average farm size at national level is strongly influenced by a large number of small, often inefficient, farms outside the main production centres and does not reflect correctly the competitiveness of national pig production. These difficulties can be overcome by adopting a regional approach. The following four types of regional structure are apparent: Group A: Good structure in most regions (e. g. UK, NL) Well-structured production at national as well as regional level is found in the Netherlands (average in the four regions is between 262 and 880 pigs per holding) and the United Kingdom (278 - 928), with the exception of Wales (88 pigs per holding). Denmark could also be included in this category: the national average is 431 pigs per holding and the average in the twelve Amter varies between 271 and 609 pigs per holding1. Group B: Good structure in production centres, weaker in other regions (e. g. F, ES, L B) Significantly divergent structures at national and regional level are found in France, Belgium, Spain and Italy, where pig production is concentrated in a few regions. At national level, these Member States are in the group of average or small pig holdings, but at regional level, the major pig farming regions have a fairly good structure. Leading regions are: In France: In Italy: In Spain: Bretagne (510 pigs per holding) Emilia Romagna (365) Lombardia (297) Aragon (258) C. Valenciana (400) In Belgium: Vlaams Gewest (533) 14 See Table 13 in the Annex. Figures from the "EUROFARM" survey; not directly comparable with the structural data for the Member States; no complete regional data available DK, IRL, LUX. A, SV and SF. 15 The regional units are here Amter (units of NUTS III level): therefore they do not figure in the table 13. The regional data is provided by Denmark Statistics (survey of June): analysis is made by the Commission services. - 18- Group C: Overall weak structure (e. g. P. GR) In Portugal and Greece, pig production is not specialised; the average herd size in all regions does not exceed 80 pigs per holding, and the structural differences between the regions are not very great. Group D: Diverse structure (Germany) In Germany, a comparison of developments in the recent years is difficult because of the inclusion of the large holdings in the East German Lander. In 1993, the average herd size was 106 pigs, but the structures vary between the old and new Lander. In spite of a sharp decrease in pig numbers in eastern Germany, the average herd size ranges from 228 to 693 pigs. In the old Lander, the holdings are much smaller. Even in the production centres of Nordrhein- Westfalen and Niedersachsen, where pig production is concentrated in certain areas, the average number of pigs per holding is only 176. A fairly good structure exists in Schleswig- Holstein with 268 pigs per holding. The other old Lander have structural deficiencies, in that the average herd size ranges from 38 (in Hessen) to 54 (in Baden-Wurttemberg) pigs per holding. 3. 3. Environmental aspects In some regions of the European Union the concentrations of pig-livestock have considerable adverse effects on the environment. These effects are caused during the storage or land application of manure and include inducing eutrophication through phosphorus and nitrogen losses, contributing to the pollution of freshwater resources with nitrates rendering the raw water used for drinking unsafe and therefore requiring treatment, and contributing to acidification through ammonia emissions. Whilst pig- livestock are obviously not the sole contributor to these pollution problems they do make a very significant contribution. In some locations attempts have been made to reduce the environmental impact of manure production through treatment, sometimes on a large-scale level. These measures, which are not compatible with the principle of prevention at source, are usually not commercially viable and require considerable levels of public subsidy. The main example of Community action to reduce the environmental impacts of intensive livestock production is the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC). This requires each Member State to identify the agricultural areas of their territory which contribute to the pollution of water by nitrates. In these areas each Member State is required to ensure that certain strict provisions are put in place concerning the land application and storage of fertilisers, and particularly livestock manure. In addition to requiring that a balance between the application of fertilisers and needs of the plants there is a restriction on the spreading of animal manure to 170 kg N per ha per year from 2003. This Directive has yet to be applied fully in most Member States (see COM (97) 473 and COM (98) 16 FINAL for details) despite deadlines for the undertaking of most measures - 19 having passed. Those countries with particularly high livestock densities, such as the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy are particularly at fault in this regard. Other Community action that influence this sector are the Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (96/61/EEC), Environmental Impact Assessment (85/337/EEC) and the Acidification Communication on Community strategy to combat acidification (COM(97)88 final). The EU policy must also be in line with the results of the Kyoto Conference on climate change, notably as regards the methane emission reductions. the future any Directive follows that in In reality, the most effective way to ensure that the environmental impacts of the pig sector are minimised is to reduce the concentration of animals in particular regions of the Community. This fact has already been acknowledged in several regions of the Community such as the Netherlands and the Flanders region of Belgium. Failure to reduce the concentration and to adress the environmental difficulties associated with the pig production results in lower costs to the sector. However, the costs associated with these elements must then be borne by society in general. This externalisation of real costs permits the sector to be more competitive. The section below on livestock densities shows ways in which areas with particular problems may be identified. Livestock Densities Livestock density per hectare can be used as an indicator of the pressure on the environment. However, these figures do not necessarily translate into pollution problems as they take no note of the environmental characteristics of the particular area (such as climate and geology), they ignore the potential impact of chemical fertilisers and their mineral losses to the environment. In addition these figures have to be aggregated over a whole region, some of which are very large, and which, as a result, effectively mask smaller problem areas. Several examples of the potential of this tool are given below. 1,4 LSU/ha corresponds roughly to a level that is considered ecologically sustainable (although not in some areas that are particularly vulnerable). Eight European regions exceed this limit just counting cattle and pigs (and therefore excluding poultry, sheep, goats and equidae). - In Netherlands (all regions): Zuid (5,42), Oost (3,62), West (1,39) and Noord (1,57), - in Belgium: Vlaanderen (4,03) and Wallonie (1,49) 16 See Table 14 in the Annex. The figures for some new Member States are incomplete. Some figures on land use had to be supplemented with data from other EUROSTAT surveys and from national authorities, so the data might not be consistent. For an acurate analysis of the local pollution levels, statistical data on the total number of livestock units (cattle, pigs, poultry, sheep, goats, equidae) and on agricultural areas would be needed at regional or local level (at least NUTS-III level). Since data provided by EUROSTAT is only on NUTS-II level and sometimes incomplete, the figures in table 14 are limited to cattle and pigs. 20 - in Italy: Lombardia (1,88) and - in Germany: Nordrhein-Westfalen (1,49) Were the figures for poultry, sheep, goats and equidae to be added to this total (which are not comprised in the following figures; see also table 14) it becomes evident that there are further potential problem areas in the Community. These include: Galicia/Spain (1,39), Madeira/Portugal (1,14), Açores/Portugal (1,25), Niedersachsen/Germany (1,27), Schleswig- Luxemburg Holstein/Germany (1,16), Northern Ireland/UK (1,13), Bayern/Germany (1,12) and Ouest France (1,11). (1,27), North West/UK (1,24), Denmark (1,22), When the figures for the livestock densities are compared with changes in the numbers of pigs between 1987 and 1993/94 (see table 14, last column) it can be seen that they increased in the Flemish Region of Belgium, South of the Netherlands and in Lombardy by 23,3%, 6,2% and 2,9% respectively. In other "problem regions" the pig stock declined: Nordrhein-Westfalen -7,4%, North Netherlands -8,4%, the East Netherlands - 6,0%, West Netherlands -16,7% and Wallonia -9,0%. While national and regional stocking densities indicate the extent of potential problems, stocking rates on individual holdings can be extremely high as pig production is often carried out on farms with limited area of land. On those farms the potential for pollution problems is considerably greater (However, it should be noted that the environmental impact of intensive production also depends on the measures taken by producers to take care of mineral losses and not solely on this area of land). 3. 4. Animal health aspects 3. 4. 1. Disease control To ensure access to markets throughout the world for live pigs, fresh pigmeat and certain pigmeat products, the origin must be a pig population in an area with a high health status. The same conditions apply to movements of live pigs and pigmeat within the European Union. In international terms a high health status means freedom from infectious diseases classed by OIE as "List A diseases". The list includes five diseases to which pigs are susceptible: African swine fever, classical swine fever, foot-and-mouth disease, swine vesicular disease and vesicular stomatitis. Most Member States have not reported outbreaks of these diseases for several years, but when considering the pig population of the European Union as a single entity, certain specific problems remain to be overcome. African swine fever is endemic in certain areas of Sardinia and classical swine fever is endemic in the wild boar population in certain areas of Germany, Italy and a small part of France; swine vesicular disease is detected at certain intervals in pigs in the southern part of Italy; since 1992, foot-and-mouth disease has been introduced from outside the EU on several occasions in 1993, 1994 and 1996. Of the diseases listed above classical swine fever has caused the greatest problems to the farming community and interruption to trade. During the period 1994 - 1997 the disease has been present in the domestic pig population in six Member States. The number of outbreaks of classical swine fever reported by the Member States affected is shown below. - 21 - Member State Number of reported outbreaks in domestic pigs Austria Belgium Germany Italy Spain The Netherlands 1994 1995 1996 1997 0 48 117 24 0 0 *' 1 0 54 42 0 0 1 0 4 49 0 0 0 8 46 55 73 424 As a result of the described outbreaks of classical swine fever the Community has made available financial assistance to Member States (see section 2. 2 and 3. 4) and the Commission has adopted a number of decisions covering special protective measures (safeguard measures) in relation to movement of pigs. The measures adopted to control the above-mentioned viral diseases include stamping-out (depopulation) of infected and contact farms and establishment of movement restrictions on pigs and pigmeat to avoid spread of the virus. Systematic vaccination is not permitted, but Community legislation allows emergency vaccination. The application of these measures has, by and large, been successful in the majority of the Member States. It is evident that success depends, to a great extent, on rapid and effective implementation of control and eradication measures by local and national authorities and the steps taken by pig producers to prevent disease entering a pig holding. In recent years, however, problems relating to the control of List A diseases, particularly classical swine fever, have been encountered in areas with a high pig density. It has always been recognised that in areas of high pig density there are a multitude of potential risk factors hampering the rapid eradication of viral diseases. Unrecognised virus replication in herds with direct or indirect contact with infected herds may lead to further spread of virus and new outbreaks within or beyond restricted areas. Control measures which are very effective in low-density areas may not be sufficient due to a shortage or lack of disease control management tools. Within a short period of time, it may become extremely difficult to take effective measures to prevent virus replication and transmission resulting in a prolonged epizootic. The potential for effective disease control in the above-mentioned high-density pig areas is likely to get worse unless the whole question of livestock density is addressed. The problem highlighted for the pig sector is to some extent also relevant for the control of poultry and cattle diseases in certain areas of the Community. It must be emphasised that the key regional trends mentioned in the point 3. 1. 2. , e. g. the continuation of the trend of concentration in regions with already significant pig population levels and relocation of production towards principal markets, might in the future result in new animal health problems. When the Council decided to support the non-vaccination policy proposed by the Commission for the control of foot-and-mouth disease and classical swine fever, it took account of cost-benefit studies showing that this policy was distinctly safer and cheaper than vaccination. Furthermore, this policy fulfils the twin objectives of ensuring a high health standard and allowing the free movement of animals and livestock products. 22 It is evident, however, that the results provided by the cost-benefit studies carried out in the 1970s and 1980s do not take into account developments in the 1990s with regard to intensified pig production with large concentrations of pigs in fairly small areas, the change in conditions for trade and advances in veterinary medicine. The studies need to be updated. Due to the recent Classical Swine Fever epidemics and progress as regards the use of biotechnology, the Commission has also addressed the problem of the use of marker vaccines which might be available in the near future. Following a request from the Commission, the Scientific Veterinary Committee has recently delivered an opinion on this matter. The Committee identified the limitation of the economic damage to the pig industry and the reduction of requirements for massive slaughter in uninfected farms as the main expected advantages of the use of marker vaccines. The use of marker vaccines should be always limited to emergency situations following outbreaks of disease. However, the Committee also identified a number of disadvantages and open questions, for which an answer can not be given until more scientific knowledge is available on these new tools. A cautious approach seems to be necessary on this matter to avoid negative effects on trade within the EU and with third countries, in particular until an agreement is reached on the criteria for their use as an additional tool in emergency situations. The Commission is in an advanced state of planning a large scale laboratory trial with the specific aim to evaluate the possibility to enable an effective use of the marker vaccine in emergency situations and the eventual negative consequences in the case of the infection in a not fully immunised pig population. The possible problems linked to the sensitivity and specificity of the discriminatory test and the consequent scenario in the case of the use of ihe marker vaccine will also be investigated. The trial itself is planned to start as soon as possible, preferably in late autumn 1998. 3. 4. 2. Animal health problems in densely populated areas With the objective of elucidating the problems encountered during 1993 and 1994 in relation to the control of infectious diseases in densely populated livestock areas, in 1995 the Commission requested the Scientific Veterinary Committee to: 1) review methods of identifying densely populated livestock areas in the Community as areas presenting a particularly high risk of major epizootics among pigs, cattle and mixed populations of pigs and cattle; 2) propose, if possible, criteria for the classification of densely populated livestock areas; 3) identify measures to prevent and control infectious diseases in densely populated livestock areas. In its report, the Scientific Veterinary Committee concluded that the spatial reference units in the current data source of the European Union (i. e. EUROSTAT) were too large to be the basis for the identification of densely populated areas. Smaller reference units are required, and geographical coordinates of single livestock holdings should be made available. The basic criteria for the identification of a densely populated livestock area is stocking density, which can be expressed by the number of livestock units per km2. In order to be able to define the number of livestock units per km2, specific data on the major species (e. g. pigs per km2) are necessary as well as conversion tables that allow the calculation of livestock units for the various animal species. The Committee also came up with some useful ideas on parameters for risk assessment in densely populated areas, including the GINI-index (statistical measure for concentration showing the degree of equality of a distribution) to measure the distribution of herd sizes and the Nearest-Neighbour-Index (NNI) to characterise the distribution of distances between livestock holdings. 2 3- Finally in the report the Committee listed needs for further research. It is of paramount importance that research is carried out concerning the identified needs. Parallel with research on the subject, certain actions concerning basic disease prevention and control measures should be considered for implementation. 3. 4. 3. Measures which can enhance disease control A number of measures which can prevent or reduce the spread of List A diseases and other diseases of importance for pig production are well recognised, but not yet applied throughout the Community. Measures to be considered for implementation in the future include: 1. Increased disease awareness • Information on transmission of infectious diseases to be provided to: - pig producers, - persons engaged in trade in pigs and pigmeat, -the public. • Well-established relationship between pig producers and veterinary services • Farm records on disease occurrence 2. Improved preparedness to cope with disease • Contingency plans to be available, rehearsed and operational at any time at: - national level - regional level - local level • Development of a geographic information system for animal health management and •disease control 3. Better protection measures at farm level • Operation of closed farms (farrow-to-finish enterprises), • Ban on feeding swill or requirement that heat-treatment of kitchen waste to be fed to pigs be carried out on premises without pigs, • Facilities for isolation of newly purchased pigs and purchase only from a limited number of suppliers, • Loading and unloading bay for pigs • Facilities for storage of feed to be accessible without feed truck entering the farm area, • Minimum distance from neighbouring pig farms, • Agreed disease protection rules to be applied by farm personnel. • Ongoing compliance with Community rules for identification of animals • Respect of a minimum space per animal as condition for any granting of aid 4. Protection measures relating to movement of pigs • 21-day rule. Movements of pigs from a holding are not allowed within 21 days of any pigs moving onto that holding. An exception to this general rule would be for pigs going directly for slaughter. • Cease/reduce the use of markets and collecting centres and promote the transport of pigs directly from the supplying farm to the receiving farm. - 2 4- • Transport of production pigs and slaughter pigs should be limited to a regional scale; only animals of high genetic value should be allowed to be transported over long distances. • Cleaning and disinfection of animal transport vehicles to be carried out at places which are subject to official control. • Ongoing compliance with Community rules on prior notification of movements and certification 5. Financing of disease eradication • Creation of an insurance scheme for emergency situations, with pig farmers contributing to the scheme, • Public financial assistance during epizootics to be conditional upon timely notification of suspect cases of disease and efficient implementation of the provisions of Community legislation concerning eradication of diseases including the provisions of Council Decision 90/424/ EEC on expenditure in the veterinary field. 3. 4. 4. Animal disease control expenditure The Council, by Decision 90/424/EEC, established the legal provisions for a fund for veterinary expenditure. Under this Decision Member States can obtain a financial contribution from the Community towards the eradication of a number of diseases of economic importance for trade. The level of assistance is normally reimbursement of up to 50% of Member States' costs relating to the slaughter of animals and cleaning and disinfecting or destruction of contaminated materials. A financial contribution can also be made available to cover expenditure on national disease surveillance and control programmes, the operation of the strengthening of veterinary Community disease reference infrastructures. laboratories and The Community financial support made available to Member States in relation to the control of pig diseases is forecast to increase exceptionally in 1997 (see below). Expenditure on control of pig diseases (Million ECU) Activity Eur 12 1994 Actions Eur 15 1995 Actions Eur 15 1996 Actions Eur 15 1997 Forecast Emergency fund Eradication or Monotoring programmes Total 28,1 1,5 29,6 10,7 3,2 13,9 0,8 3,4 4,2 173,0 6,0 179,0 This matter is at present subject of discussion in the European Parliament. - 25 3. 5. Animal welfare The European Commission considers the welfare of animals an issue of high priority. Community legislation in this field dates from 1974. In the preamble to the first Community legislation in the field of animal welfare, two fundamental reasons for legislation on the matter were identified as follows: • disparities in national legislation in the field of protection of animals could affect the functioning of the common market, • the Community should take action to prevent all forms of cruelty to animals. The responsibilities in this area fall into three broad categories: • farming practices, • transport of animals, • slaughter of animals. The existing Community legislation in this area is at present being amended to take account of changing political priorities and advances in scientific knowledge. At the end of 1991, the Council adopted the Directive laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs (Council Directive 91/630/EEC). The Directive applies to all pigs confined for rearing and fattening. It lays down detailed rules concerning the unobstructed floor area to be made available for weaner or rearing pigs kept in a group. These rules apply with effect from 1 January 1994 to all holdings newly built or rebuilt or brought into use for the first time. The minimum free space required per pig depends on the weight of the pig. All holdings have to comply with these requirements from 1 January 1998. Furthermore the tethering of sows and gilts is prohibited with effect from 31 December 1995 although, where an installation was built before that date, the competent authority may, in the light of an inspection by the competent authority in the Member State concerned, authorise the existing system on a holding to be continued, but under no circumstances beyond 31 December 2005. Appended to the Directive, and forming an integral part of it, is a technical Annex containing detailed rules on housing, care, feeding, watering and more detailed rules for several categories of pigs such as boars, gilts, sows and piglets. Article 6 of the Directive requires the Commission to submit a report to the Council, drawn up on the basis of an opinion from the Scientific Veterinary Committee, on what intensive pig-rearing systems comply with welfare requirements. Special attention is to be paid to the welfare of sows reared in varying degrees of confinement and in groups. The report is to be accompanied by proposals based on the conclusions of that report. The Commission services have requested the Scientific Veterinary Committee (SVC) to draw up this scientific report. The Committee presented this report to the Commission on 30. 9. 1997. The Commission intends to present its report accompanied by appropriate proposals in due course to the Council. 26 4. S T R U C T U R AL S U P P O RT M E A S U R ES 4. 1. Farm investment aids The investment aids provided for in Regulation (EC) No 950/97 (ex 2328/91) are designed to help individual holdings or groups of holdings to modernise their holdings and to strengthen their competitive position. Improvements in hygiene, animal welfare standards and protection of the environment are eligible as well. The aid may not lead to an increase of surplus production. Investments on an industrial scale beyond the level of the individual holding - not covered by this Regulation - are possible, in exceptional cases, under Objective 1, 5(b) and 6 operational programmes for this purpose. Provision is made, for instance, for the treatment of pig slurry outside the holding in the Objective 5(b) SPDs for the Netherlands and Belgium. The provisions of Regulation (EC) No 950/97 (ex 2328/91) fit in with the Objective 5(a) Community horizontal measures thus being applicable in the entire Union. 4. 2. Investment aid for pig farms To avoid difficulties on the market in pigmeat, the Regulation lays down specific rules concerning aid for pig farms. Development of aid arrangements for the pigmeat sector In 1972 provision was made for aid to assist the creation of production capacity for a volume of eligible investment of ECU 40 000 per holding. This scheme was replaced by new provisions in 1981 limiting aid to the number of pig places subsidised per holding. The maximum number of eligible places was successively reduced from 500 in 1981 to 300 in 1988. Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 then prohibited any aid to assist an increase in the number of pig places as from 1 January 1991. Current situation Under Regulation 950/97 it is possible to grant aid to pig farms if this does not lead to an increase in production capacity. The main purpose of this aid is environmental protection, animal welfare and improvement of hygiene on pig farms. Specific conditions have to be met. The "fodder clause" is the most significant constraint because it excludes intensive farms from the aid scheme, specifying that each beneficiary must have a sufficient utilised agricultural area to be capable of producing at least 35% of the feed consumed by the pigs on the holding. However, in exceptional cases and solely for investments aimed at reducing emissions from animal waste and disposing of slurry on existing holdings, the Commission may authorise a Member State to derogate from this condition (Regulation (EC) No 950/97; Article 6(4)). - 27 In 1995 the Netherlands applied for a derogation to support investment in reducing ammonia emissions from intensive pig farms. The Commission rejected the application on the grounds that assisting intensive pig farms could complicate the implementation of the nitrates Directive. The Netherlands therefore withdrew the application. To date, the possibility of derogation from the fodder clause has been used only once. An application submitted by Germany was approved by the Commission on 18 September 1996 (C(96) 2134, see Annex). 4. 3. Transitional aid for pig farms Specific measures to assist the new German Lander Transitional measures applicable until 31 December 1996 were adopted (Article 38 of Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91). Aid for the construction of pig places was available in connection with the restructuring of collective farms and the creation of new family farms, on condition that the number of pig places in all the new and restructured holdings did not exceed the number of pig places previously available on the old holdings. The transitional provisions were not extended after 31 December 1996. The structural problems still remaining in the new Lander could be resolved by appropriate application of the standard Regulation 950/97 scheme. Transitional aid for the new Member States (Austria and Finland) Transitional aid is authorised by the Act of Accession for investment in pig farms on condition that the aid does not involve an increase in global capacity and is within individual ceilings. This aid is not eligible for part-financing and must end on 31 December 1999. Austria The indicator of global production capacity is the number of pigs according to official Austrian censuses. An increase in pig numbers would lead to the aid scheme being halted. It is not planned to take retroactive action, i. e. demand repayment of aid already granted. The individual limits for each holding are defined by a national law ("Viehwirtschaftsgesetz") and were approved by a Commission decision (C(95) 634 of 8 September 1995). Finland The individual limits per holding were approved by the Commission (C(96) 733 of 19 April 1996). -28 4. 4. Further development of support under Regulation 950/97 In the margin of the Council discussion in November 1994 concerning the amendment of Regulation 2328/9117, some Member States suggested a further development of the existing support scheme for pigs. They argued that, given the structural deficits in the pig meat market of some regions, support for increasing production capacity at farm level should be possible. However, the economic situation of pig producers and the sensitivity of the pigmeat market impose restrictions which should be respected: The support should be limited to specific areas which can prove a real need for the improvement of their production structures also for reasons of environmental, hygiene or animal welfare aspects. The application of the aid scheme and the increase in production capacity on individual farms should not increase total pig production in the region. The environmental and animal health situation of the region concerned should be carefully examined. These suggestions and the potential problems which might arise from their implementation are discussed below. The implementation of an extended support scheme for pigs would require an amendment of Council Regulation (EC) No 950/97. As in the case of the 35% fodder clause, such a scheme could be provided for as a measure in exceptional cases. Specific provisions for the delimitation of regions, compliance with environmental legislation at farm level, and the definition and verification of production capacity ceilings would have to be fixed by the regulation. 4. 4. 1. Eligibility of regions Delimitation of zones The possibility of giving investment aid to pig farmers would have to be limited to regions which can prove a specific need for structural improvement. As pointed out in chapter III, the concentration process in some already intensive production centres is continuing, leading to increasing problems concerning the spreading and disposal of manure. This development should not be supported by aid schemes. On the other hand, less intensive regions with non-optimal structures often show a downward trend in animal numbers and production share. There might be justification for considering an aid scheme for maintaining the existing production capacity in these regions. "Eligible" regions could be defined with respect to the actual production situation within that region at local level. As described in chapter III, the production structure sometimes varies enormously within a given NUTS-II region, which makes this level of region unsuitable as a reference for determining eligibility. The requirement for structural 17 Now Regulation (EC) No 950/97. -29 improvements should be justified at at least NUTS-III or an even lower level (smaller designated zones). Environmental and animal health conditions •* The environmental impact of an aid scheme would have to be monitored very carefully. It should be noted that environmental legislation is strengthening the standards regarding acceptable levels of pollution from livestock production, and the fact that there is a limited amount of land available is putting pressure on production in intensive breeding regions. As a result, animal waste has to be transported out of the region, stocked in large-scale disposal sites or processed by cost-intensive procedures into marketable products. Requests by Member States for Community aid towards large-scale treatment of manure reveal the gravity of environmental problems in certain production centres, which may remain despite any large scale treatment unless strict policies decreasing density are implemented. The regional application of an investment aid scheme must avoid any further aggravation of the environmental and animal health situation in a given region and to guarantee compliance with existing legal rules and the legislation due to be implemented soon. Regions with surplus production of manure could not be eligible. The delimitation of eligible regions should therefore be in accordance with the conditions described in the paragraph above not only for economic reasons but also for environmental reasons. Selecting areas • that are too big would conceal environmental problems because intensive animal production is often concentrated very locally. Production capacity The production capacity of a region could be defined in two different ways: a) Indirectly, deduced from the number of pigs housed (basis: existing official livestock census): The production ceiling of a region to be respected by the aid scheme could refer to a reference period, e. g. the average of three annual censuses in that region, in order to avoid seasonal fluctuations. The livestock census of the following years would subsequently demonstrate whether that ceiling had been respected. The disadvantage of this method is that it would be impossible to determine whether a production increase had been caused by the aid scheme or whether there were other reasons for it. An increase in production would lead to a cessation of the aid scheme, because it would be contrary to the basic requirements of the aid scheme. The possibility that the aid scheme would be discontinued from one year to the next would cause administrative and budget difficulties, as well as causing problems for farmers interested in investing under the scheme. b) Directly, by counting the number of pig places (basis: register to be set up): A more accurate method would make the granting of investment aid for constructing additional pig places on a holding conditional on an equivalent number of places having been closed down elsewhere. However, this approach would require an enormous administrative effort, as Member States would have to introduce a specific production - 3 0- capacity survey which would have to be controlled and updated regularly. Besides, even this method cannot exclude totally the possibility of an increase in regional production due to the fact that farmers extending their capacities without public support would not be included in the survey or controls. 4. 4. 2. Eligibility of farms Within the above-mentioned framework, farms eligible for investment aid would have to prove: - the economic need for structural improvement, a condition which already has to be met by submitting a farm improvement plan under Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 950/97; - compliance with existing environmental rules by presenting a fertilising plan and a sufficient amount of agricultural land for spreading all the manure without resultant pollution problems or an alternative solution having an equivalent effect with regard to environmental protection; - compliance with individual farm ceilings determined by each Member State (as in the - case of Austria and Finland, see section 4. 3 above); that the number of newly constmcted pig places did not exceed the number of places closed down on other farms; - respect of a minimum space per animal in order to ensure good sanitary conditions in intensive, but also in less intensive farms. 31 - 5. CONCLUSION 5. 1. Market Major fluctuations occurred in the EU pigmeat sector between 1993 and summer 1997. In contrast to 1993 and 1994, when an excessive increase in pig numbers caused a serious crisis in the industry, supply and demand returned to equilibrium in 1995, and the WTO measures applicable to exports since 1 July 1995 have not had a negative impact on the market. 1996 was a good year on the whole, although there was a sharp increase in prices in the spring, followed by a more gradual fall in the autumn. The favourable situation in 1996 caused in particular by a higher demand for pigmeat due to the BSE crisis, led to an increase in pig numbers, so a rise in production was to be expected in 1997. However, this upturn did not come about; on the contrary, the market saw a strong decline in pigmeat supply during the first half of 1997 on account of the special market support measures,. particularly in the Netherlands and Spain, resulting in a very high price level. As a result, pig numbers increased substantially in 1997, as the census figures of August 1997 show. Further expansion of production, encouraged perhaps by national and/or Community structural aid, could lead to a new imbalance on the market, with all the adverse consequences seen in previous crises. As the production of pigmeat in the EU is,expected to increase in 1998, it is assumed that Community Market price for 1998 will be at a significantly lower level than in 1997. The Commission can help cushion the impact of temporary increases in production by making provision, as appropriate, for private storage aid or for encouraging exports. But it cannot protect the sector against the effects of a constant expansion of production well in excess of the growth of demand. It would be unwise to assume that there are unlimited external markets, always ready to absorb all the exports needed to achieve balance on the internal market. It should also be borne in mind that the Commission is required under the WTO agreements since 1 July 1995 to observe quantitative and budgetary ceilings on exports. Consequently, endorsing measures to increase capacity, even in regions with a low concentration of pigs, could destabilise the internal market, which is always somewhat precarious. Bearing in mind that intra-Community trade in pigmeat exceeds 3 million tonnes, it should be possible to achieve equilibrium between the deficit regions and those with a surplus. 5. 2. Structures As stated in Chapter 3, the average number of pigs per holding, which is the indicator of the trend in farm structures, has increased in all the Member States without the assistance of a support scheme. Comparing the structures of individual holdings and the development of herds, it can be seen that the growth in production has been particularly marked in those countries and regions which have large farms. Even if the statistics currently available do not permit a detailed and exhaustive assessment of the environmental problems, it is clear that particularly intensive production faces environmental - 32 problems in connection with the disposal of waste and emissions from intensive piggeries. This in turn requires that Member States ensure that piggeries fully respect environmental legislation. These regions are also more and more vulnerable to outbreaks of disease which can cause immense losses. What is needed is not so much public support for the creation of production capacity as action to prevent further concentration in the sector and in certain areas even a reduction of the pig population. The health status of the Community pig population has in recent years been hampered by disease eradication problems in areas with a high density of pigs. The resolution of these problems needs further research and improvement in disease control. Concerning the latter, the measures to be considered for implementation include: increased disease awareness, improved preparedness to cope with disease, better protection measures at farm level, protection measures relating to movement of pigs and financing of disease eradication. The regions where small or medium-sized pig farms predominate also show an increase in the number of pigs per holding. In some regions there is even an increase in the total number of pigs, and it does not therefore seem appropriate to reinforce the increase in regional production by Community aids. Only those regions experiencing losses in terms of market share as a result of declining pig production capacity should be eligible for aid. Chapter 4. 4. indicates the conditions and criteria to be laid down for amending the Regulation. There is evidence, however, that it is not possible to rule out permanently the risk of an increase in regional production. The development of pig farms outside an aid scheme is not subject to a system of checks and is thus difficult to predict. Registration of all regional capacities and comprehensive checks on all pig farms would not seem to be either feasible or justifiable. Furthermore, in view of the various aid possibilities - as described in chapter 4 - caution must be exercised in granting any new possibility of support. Lastly, it should be pointed out that there are substantial differences between the Member States with regard to the development of their pig production, despite the fact that the current Community support framework provides for the same rules for all. It can thus be concluded that the impact of a possible support measure for improving individual structures would be fairly low compared with that of other factors such as the degree of organisation and vertical integration, the structure of processing undertakings or marketing. In the light of the foregoing and by reason of the delicate market balance for pigmeat, there remain serious doubts as to the advisability of amending Regulation 950/97 to resolve the problems in this sector in some regions of the Community. However in line with Agenda 2000 the Commission proposes a revised legal framework for rural development measures. This will enable existing investment aid measures to be integrated with measures for marketing and processing, environmental protection and so on. In this way more flexible programmes, addressing particular needs in each sector or region, will be possible. Report on the situation in the pigmeat sector in the European Union with a view to possible changes to structural support measures Annex 3ï ANNEX Annex I: 1. Development of pig numbers at Member State level 2. Derogation from the 35% fodder clause in Germany (Brandenburg) Annex H: Tables 1 Gross indigenous production ('000 tonnes, carcase weight), 1990-1995 2 Pigmeat: Exports to third countries (tonnes, weight of products, including fats and offals), 1993-1996 3 Pigmeat: Imports from third countries (tonnes, weight of productsjncluding fats and offals), 1993-1996 4 Import quotas for pigmeat, VH/1996-XII/1997 5 Pigmeat supply balance in the EUR-15 (in '0001 carcase weight equivalent), situation and outlook 6 Number of pigs (in '000) per Member State and as percentage of EU total, 1990/1996,* 7 Number of fattening pigs (in '000) per Member State and as percentage of EU total, 1990/1996, * 8 Number of sows (in '000) per Member State and as percentage of EU total, 1990/1996, * 9 Total number of pigs (in '000), 1989-1993/94/95, at regional level* 10 Total number of fattening pigs (in '000), 1989-1993/94/95, at regional level* 11 Total number of sows (in '000), 1989-1993/94/95, at regional level* 12 The structure of pig holdings in the EU at Member State level, 1987-1991/93/95 * 13 The structure of pig holdings in the ÈU at regional level, 1989/1993 * 14 Number of LSU (pigs and cattle) per ha utilised agricultural area, 1993/94,at regional level* * Data from EUROSTA T databasis extracted between 15. 5. and 30. 6. 1997 2f 1. Development of pig numbers at Member State level Annex I Total pig population The development of pig numbers18 in the period 1990 to 1996 shows significant differences between Member States. While the number of pigs decreased significantly in Germany (down 21,75%) and Italy (down 8,45%), production increased in France in particular (up 24,6%), Denmark (up 19,36%) and Belgium (up 12,43%). The biggest increase can be seen in Ireland (33,3%>), although, since Ireland accounts for only 1,41% of total Community production (EU-15), this increase did not influence the Community livestock level significantly. In the Netherlands, the number of pigs increased slightly, by 3,37%. The trend in pig numbers influenced production and, hence, the market position of the main producers: Germany (24,1 million pigs), Spain (18,6 million pigs), France (15,0 million pigs), the Netherlands (14,3 million pigs) and Denmark (11,1 million pigs). With the exception of Germany, these producers increased their share of the total EU pig herd. The highest increase in production share was seen in France, which increased its share by 2,54% to 13,50% of the pig livestock level in the EU-12. Due to this development, France overtook the Netherlands (12,85%o) to become the third largest producer in the Community. Spain (+2,20%) and Denmark (+1,52%) also strengthened their position within the Community. In contrast to the aforementioned producers, Germany's share decreased by 6,37% to 21,75%) of the EU-12. It remained the biggest producer, but the gap between Germany and Spain, the second biggest producer, narrowed to 5%. The big decrease in the number of German pigs was mainly in the new Lander, where pig numbers fell by 64,04% between 1990 and 1996, although there was also a decrease in the old Lander, mainly because of the outbreak of the swine fever in 1993 and 1994. Fattening pigs The stock of fattening pigs19 (over 50 kg live weight) showed an increase of 12,18%, to a total of 41,7 million in the EUR-12. The new Member States increased this number by 2,46 million pigs. The biggest increases in fattening pigs were in Ireland (+37,06%), France (+26,01%), Spain (+22,24%) and Denmark (+21,20%). In Germany the number of fattening pigs fell by approximately 22%. Breeding sows The figures for breeding sows20 are an indication of the possible future development of pig production. In the EUR-12, the number of breeding sows increased by 7,42% to 11,7 million between 1990 and 1996. The new Member States (Austria, Finland and Sweden), with 829 000 sows, brought this total to 12,6 million. On the basis of these figures, some increase can be expected in European pig production. See Table 6. 19 20 See Table 7. See Table 8. 2<r As regards the five main pig producers mentioned above, the biggest increase in sows was shown by France (+ 23,86%) and Ireland (+ 22,55%). Denmark and the Netherlands enlarged their sow stock by 17,29% and 1,92% respectively. In Germany, the sow stock decreased by 20,41%). Again, this development was mainly influenced by the development in the new Lander, where the sow stock was halved. A comparison of the percentage of breeding sows kept by the 12 old Member States of the EU reveals the biggest increase in production share for France, which extended its sow stock from a percentage of 10,74% of the EU-12 breeding sows in 1990 to 12,39% in 1996, followed by Spain, with an increase of 0,46% to a share of 17,59%, and Denmark with an increase of 0,88% to a share of 10,41%. The strong decline in pig production in the new German Lander also affected the stock of breeding sows and resulted in a 7,58% decrease in production share for Germany as a whole. Nevertheless, Germany remained the biggest producer of breeding sows in Europe with 21,68% (UE-12), but as with total pig numbers, the gap narrowed between Germany and Spain, the second biggest producer in the EU. 2. Derogation from the 35% fodder clause in Germany (Brandenburg) The Commission agreed to a derogation from the 35% fodder clause for the German Land Brandenburg. Those applying for participation in this scheme have to fulfil specific conditions: 1. The scheme covers investments for reducing emissions from manure and the elimination of manure on the farms concerned. 2. The investment must not lead to an increase in the production capacity of the farm. 3. The fanner must present a manure utilisation plan, including: - identification of the surfaces under contract available for manure spreading, - description of measures taken to comply with the German law known as the "Dungeverordnung" (which transposes the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) into national legislation) concerning choice of areas, calculation of the amount of organic fertiliser per hectare and spreading time, - maximum stocking density (all livestock) per hectare of contract area of 1,4 LSU/ha. The Commission has asked for a report on the application of the derogation scheme to be submitted after one year. 2^ ANNEX II Tables 3T •\. y. Table 1 Gross indigeneous production (1000 tonnes carcase weight) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 EUR U. E. B. L Denmark, Germany Greece Spain France Ireland Italy Netherlands Austria Portugal Finland Sweden United Kingdom 13. 338 (1) 14. 289 (2) 14. T43 (2) 15. 175 (2) J15. 233 (2) 16. 043(3) •747 1. 208 3. 142 147 1. 772 1. 817 160 1. 211 1. 904 893 L272 3. 786 153 1. 869 1. 860 169 1. 224 1. 806 934 1. 383 3:467 153. 1. 902 ••••"•1. 950 189 1. 228 1. 865 278 263 265 976 1. 524 3. 574 147 2. 065 2. 134 2Ô1 1. 265 1. 972 476 304 953 995 1. 007 1. 014 992 1,539 3,462 142 2. 197 2. 117 207 1. 295 1. 92-7 473 301 171 308 1. 054 1. 029 1. 517. ,: 3. 427 142 «c 2. 172 "2. 140 • 207 1. 276 1. 885 473 "284 168 311 1. 013 0) (2) (3) Eur 12 without E x - D DR Eur 12 with new "Lander" Eur 15 -3=) Table 2 Pigmeat: Exports to third countries (product weight. including fats and offals, in 1000 kg) • • • " ' • • • " • -. 1 • UeBL D k' Deu Ell Esp Fra Irl Ita Nl Ôst Port SF Sve U. K. • ( ' " • •. ' Eur 1993 36. 604 401. 058 73. 938 4. 063 40. 335. 56. 764 10. 387 11. 285 , 8 2. 7 35 -. ;'. 7. 192 7. 239 73L604 1994 42. 938 498. 814 102. 343 4. 581 51. 256 113,608 16. 539 17. 723 99. 337 8. 187 18. 375 973. 705 1995 44. 888 398. 092 57. 694 5. 620 51. 650 104. 806 12. 149 15. 084 103. 116 20. 138 11. 002 7. 589 12. 257 28. 325 872. 410 1996 68. 836 396. 484 37. 365 6. 077 62. 539 121. 510 15. 753 18. 447 119:074 22. 092 10. 580 ^ 1 8 42 13. 904 35. 006 940. 509 Table 3 Pigmeat: Imports from third countries (product weight, including fats and offals, in 1000 kg) UeBL Dk Deu Ell Esp Fra Irl Ita Nl Ôst Port SF Sve U. K. Eur 1993 1994 1995 1996 2. 124 1. 285 16. 531 1. 689 1. 274 2. 810 9 11. 580 12. 316 2. 223 2. 229 13. 955 1. 162 4. 451 5. 791 81 10. 194 6. 822 42 5 4. 917 54. 576 5. 002 51. 918 2. 243 242 12. 386 570 2. 032 3. 476 42 10. 838 6. 218 1. 606 278 2 1. 651 4. 536 46. 120 1. 005 608 13. 540 1. 058 6. 028 6. 407 155 Î8. 162 7. 832 2. 488 219 1 1. 654 3. 809 62. 966 ^o Table4 Import quotas for Diqmeat 1. Association Agreements with the CEEC-countries (Period: 11. 1997 -31. 12. 1997). > • Quantities ,' in tonnes % of reduction of customs rate Hungary Polonia Czech Republic Slovak Republic Bulgaria Romania Lithuania Latvia. Estonia Slovenia * * * •(Period: 1. 7. 1996 - 30. 12. 1997) 41. 768 26. 050 4. 980 2. 340 230 17. 533 / 1. 050 1. 260 L575 150 80% '80% 80% 80% 80% 80% ' 80% 80% 80% 80% 2. ACP-countries (Period: 1. 1. 1997 -31. 12. 1997) ' Quantities in tonnes 250 % of reduction of customs rate 50% Quantities in tonnes Customs duty 7. 000 exemption 18. 920 Final amount fixed per product 3. In the framework of the WTO ' WTO - 1 (Period: 1. 1. 1997- 31. 12. 1997) W T O -2 (Period: 1. 7. 1996 - 30. 6. 1997). tfj Tabled. • ':. -. , • v : ' Pigment supply balance in the EU-15 (in *000 t carcase weight equivalent), situation and outlook Pigmcat 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Production. 15:953 16. 325 16. 570 16. 684 16. 775 16. 871 16. 998 17. 136 17. 276 17. 417. 17. 539 Consumption 15. 137. 15. 527 15. 770 15,908 16. 034 16. 165 16. 317 16455 16. 594 16. 735 16. 857 Imports 22 42. 50 V 65 -so 95 11. 0, 110 110 no 110 Exports '. '• - 808 ; 87Ô; ••. ;. $50 841 821 • 801 792. 792. 792 792. 792 40,67. 41,67 per capita cons, (kg) N o t e: Extract from: CAP. 2000 - working document. Long term Prospects • Grains, Milk & Méài Products. EU-Conimission. DG VI Production. U net production, i. e. gross indigenous production plus net trade in live animals. Consequently, imports and exports only refer to meat trade. Offals are excluded. ". <. 42. 68. 43,41 42,20 43,17 44,15 42;44 42,88 43,66 43,90 •. -. ^ -. • • ' * '. ' ' ' •. ' • '. • *• ^JL TABLE 6: Total number of pigs per Member State Total number of pigs (in MS 1996 1000) +/-% 1993 +/-% 1990 •. +/-1990/96% > Total number of pigs 1996(UE-15) 1996(UE-12) in percentage of EU 1993 19Ô0 •• */-'90r96(UE-12) M S. Belgium 7. 225 Denmark , 11. 079 Germany 24. 117 20. 958 +5,07% +1,92% •7,51% -5,17% 6. 876 +7,01% 6. 426 10. 870 +17,11%. 9. 282 26. 075 -15,39% 22. 101 +0,30% 30. 819 22. 035 +12,43% +19,36% -2i;75% -4,89% dw Germany (West)" Germany (East)** 3. 159 -20,51% 3974 -54,76% 8. 784 -64,04% Greece > 904 -20,91% 1. 143 +0,00% "• 1. 143 Spain France Ireland Italy 18. 572 +2,11% 18. 188 +14,04% 14. 968 +4,73% 14. 291 +18,07% 1. 665 8. 090 +11,99% -3,09% 1. 487 +19,02% 8. 348. -5,53% Luxemburg 77 +7,48% 72 +2,02% 15. 949 12. 013 1. 249 8. 837. 70 Netherlands 14. 253 +1,87% 13. 991 +1. 47% 13. 788 2. 666 7. 868 +0,08% +6,61% 2. 664 7. 380 111. 875 +2,06% 109. 620 -20,91% :+16,45% ' +24,60% +33,30% -8,45% +9,66% +3,37% -12,01% +2,98% A +1,16% Portugal United Kingdom 2. 344 7. 600 EUR12 110. 894 Austria Finland Sweden 3. 663 1. 413 2. 323 EUR15 118. 293 -12,08% -3. 41% -0,88% -4,11% +8,76% +2,02% -0. 82% be dk de ' gr es -g fr ir it lu nl. pt uk e12 at n se e15 6,11%. 9,37% 6,52% 9,99% 6,15%' • • •: £. 86% I" +0,65% 9,72% 8,47% ••••<:'•"••:'•-:. +1,52% 20,39% 21,75% 23,31% 28,11% -6,37% Belgium Denmark Germany. 1 7 , 7 2% 18,90% 19,75% 20,10% •;•• '•::•-•; , -1,20% Germany (West)* 2,67% 0,76% 15,70% 12,65%. 2,85% "3,55% 8,01% :••••>'•'". :'•••'•. -5,16% Germany (East)** 0 ^ 2%. 1 , 0 2% 1. 04% v 16,75%. 16,26% 14,55% - 0 ^ 3% +2^0% •-,' Greece -Spain 13,50% 12,77% 10,96% - +2,54% > £ France 1,41%. •••'• 1,50% 1,33% 6,84% 0,07%. 7,30% 7,46% 0,07%. 0,06% 1,14% 8,06% 0,06% • •". 12,05% 12,85% 12,51% 12. 58% 1,98% 6,42% 2,11% 6,85% 100,00% 2,38% \ 2,43% 7t03% 100,00% 6,73% 100,00% +0,36% -0,77% •0,01% +0,27% -0,32% +0,12%. Ireland ( ; ; Italy Luxemburg Netherlands •; " Portugal United Kingdom EUR12 3. 820 +3,58% • 1300 +0,74% 2277 +0,57% 3. 688 1. 290 2. 264. 119. 272 +10,36% 108. 078 -0,68% +9,56% +2,61% +9,45% • •• , 3,30% 1,27% 2,09% 100,00% Austria Finland Sweden EUR15 (December survey) * Source: Stat. Jahrbuch uber Ernahrung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten, Landwirtschaftsverlag MGnster-Hiltrup, various issues. For 1996: preliminary, source:- BML, Stat. Monatsbericht 1/97 " Calculated: Germany (East) = Germany - Germany (West) * • | EUROSTAT: New Cronos/zpa1 (the italic figures were provided by MS authorities) TABLE 7: Total number of fattening pigs > 50 kg per Member State Total number of fattening pigs > 50 kg (in 1000) +/-% 1993 +/-% 1996 MS 1990 +7-1990/96% Number of fattening pigs > 50 kg as % of EU total + / - W 9 6 ( U E - 1 2) 1993 1996(UE*12) 1996(UE-15) 1990 be dk de dw es f r_ ir it lu nl Pt uk e12 at fi se e15 Belgium Denmark Germany Germany (West)' Germany (East)* Greece Spain France Ireland Italy Luxemburg Netherlands '4. 965 Portugal United Kingdom 698 2. 701 EUR12 41. 662 2. 695 3. 013 9. 148 8. 071 1. 076 +5. 24% +1,31% -5. 59% -2. 90% -21. 92% 288 -14. 79% 7. 563 5. 689 525 4. 350 26 +3. 78% +3,30% +15,68% -2,43% +15,03% +7,35% -15. 50% +2. 27% +0. 67% +14,05% +19,63% 2. 245 2. 486 -17,36% 11. 726 2. 561 2. 974 9. 690 8. 312 +0,78% 1378 -60. 38% 338 +7,30% 7. 287 +17,78% 5. 508 +21,99% 8. 248 3. 478 315 6. 187 4. 515 +20,03% +21;20% -21,99% -2,15% -69,06% -8,57% +22,24% +26,01% 454 +18. 48% 383 +37,06% 4. 459 -7,47% 4. 818 23 +0,40% 4. 625 -0,62% 826 -1,55% 2. 641 +8. 91% 23 4. 654 839 2. 425 -9,72% +15,49% +6,68% -16,81% +11,38% 41. 385 +11,44% 37. 138 +12,18% Austria Finland Sweden 1. 262 -6. 86% 1. 355 499 699 EUR15 44. 122 6,47% 7,23% 21,96% 6,19% 7»19% 23. 41% $05% 6,69% 31,57% 19,37%. 20,08% 22,21% 2,58% 0,69% 18,15% 13,66% 1,26% 3,33% 0,82% 9,37% 0,85% 17,61% 16,66% 13,31% 12,16% 1,10% 1,03% 10,44% 10,77% 12,97% 0,06% 0,06% 11,92% 11,18% 1,68% 6,48% 2,00% 6. 38% 0,06% 12,53% 4 2,26% 6. 53% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 6,11% 6,83% 20,73% 18,29% 2,44% 0,65% 17,14% 12,89% 1,19% 9,86% 0,06% 11,25% 1,58% 6,12% 3,03% 1,20% 1,68% 100,00% MS Belgium Denmark Germany Germany (West)* Germany (East)'* Greece Spain Frartce Ireland Italy Luxemburg Netherlands Portugal +0,42% +0,54% -9,62% -2. 84% -6,78% -0. 16% +1,49% +1. 50% +0,23% -2,53% +0,00% -0,61% -0,58% r0,05% United Kingdom EUR12 Austria Finland Sweden EUR15 (December survey) ' Source: Stat. Jahrbuch uber Ernahrung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten, Landwirtschaftsverlag Munster-Hiltrup, various issues. For 1996: preliminary, source: BML, Stat. Monatsbericht 1/97 •• Calculated: Germany (East) = Germany - Germany (West) ; , ] p ; 1 EUROSTAT: New Cronos/zpa1 (the italic figures were provided by MS authorities) TABLE 8: Total number of sows (in 1000) per Member State Total number of sows (in 1000) +/-% 1996 MS 1993 +/-% 1990 +/-1990/96% 748 +0. 84% 742 +1,42% be dk de Belgium Denmark Germany dw Germany (West)* Germany (East)* Greece Spain France Ireland Italy Luxemburg Netherlands Portugal United Kingdom es fr ir it lu nl Pt uk e12 at fi se e15 1. 221 2. 543 2. 141 402 135 2. 063 1. 453 182 685 +5. 08% -9. 45% -6. 95% -20,71 % -17,18% -2. 18% •6,00% +8. 16% -2,55% -6,53% 1. 483 +0. 54% 330 875 -9,84% -2,02% -2,03% 1. 162 +11,62% 2. 808 -12,10% 2. 301 -3,80% 507 163 -36. 86% +1,88% 2. 109 + 12. 75% 1. 371 +16. 85% 169 703 10 1. 475 366 893 +13,31% -3. 17% -0. 50% +1,37% •3,39% +4. 32% 731 1. 041 3. 195 2. 392 803 160 1. 870 1. 173 149 726 10 1. 455 354 856 +2,27% +17,29% -20,41% -10,49% -49. 94% -15. 63% +10. 29% +23. 86% +22. 55% -5. 63% -7,00% +1,92% -6,78% +2,22% +7. 42% EUR12 11. 727 Austria Finland Sweden 385 181 262 EUR15 12. 556 11. 970 +9. 65% 10:917 +1. 05% 381 +7. 08% 356 +8. 21% -3. 86% 273 +9,17% 250 +4. 96% Number of sows as percentage of EU total 1996(UE-15) 5,96% 1996(UE-12) 6,38% 1990 6,V0% 6,20% 1993 • +/-'90/'96(UE-12) 10,41% 9. 71% 9,54% 21,68% , 23,46% 29,27% 18,26% 19,22% 21,91% 3,43% 1. 15% 4,24% 1,36% 7,36% 1,47% 17,59% 17,62% 17,13% 12,39% 11,45% 10,74% 1. 55% 5,84% 0,08% 1,41% 5,87% 0,08% 1. 36% 6,65% 0,09% 12. 65% 12,32% 13,33% 2,81% 7. 46% 3,06%. 3,24% 7,46% 7,84% 100,00% 100. 00% 9,72% 20,25% 17,05% 3. 20% 1. 08% 16. 43% 11,57% 1. 45% 5,46% 0,07% 11,81% 2. 63% 6,97% 3,28% 1,55% 2,23% 100. 00% -0,32% +0,88% -7,58% MS. Belgium Denmark Germany -3,65% Germany (West)' -3. 93% Germany (East)** -0. 31% +0,46% +1. 64% +0. 19% -0. 81% -0. 01% -0. 68% -0. 43% Greece Spain France Ireland Italy Luxemburg Netherlands Portugal -Q. 38% United Kingdom EUR12 Austria Finland Sweden EUR15 (December survey) * Source: Stat. Jahrbuch ûber Ernâhrung, Landwirtschaft undforsten, Landwirtschaftsverlag Mûnster-Hiltrup, various issues. For 1996: preliminary, source: BML, Stat. Monatsbericht 1/97 *• Calculated: Germany (East) = Germany - Germany (West). -. £. EUROSTAT: New Cronos/zpa1 (the italic figures were provided by MS authorities) TA 3LE 9: Total number o Regions f pigs 1995 [in 100C ) 1994 eur_ be bel be2 be3 dk de del de2 de3 de4 de5 de6 de7 de8 de9 dea deb dec ded dee def deg gr gn gr2 gr3 EUR 12 BELGIQUE-BELGIE REG. BRUXELLES-CAP. /BRUSSE VLAAMS GEWEST REGION WALLONNE OANMARK DEUTSCHLAND gesamt DEUTSCHLAND ait* DEUTSCHLAND neu~ BADEN-WUERTTEMBERG BAYERN BERLIN BRANDENBURG BREMEN HAMBURG HESSEN MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN NIEDERSACHSEN NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN RHEINLAND-PFALZ SAARLAND SACHSEN SACHSEN-ANHALT SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN THUERINGEN ELLADA VOREIA ELLADA KENTRIKI ELLADA ATTIKI gr4 es'ïS es1 NISIAAIGAIOU, KRITI ESPANA NOROESTE 7*153 0 6. 885 268 10. 709 23. 737 20. 572 3. 165 2. 176 3. 437 2 702 3 3 877 527 6. 752 5. 633 397 25 563 712 1. 269 660 917 6. 984 0 6. 707 277 10. 864 24. 698 21. 331 3. 367 2. 251 3. 722 2 762 3 3 917 609 6. 901 5. 762 435 27 614 712 1. 309 671 951 18. 125 18. 269 es11 GALICIA es12 es13 ASTURIAS CANTABRIA es2 NORESTE es21 PAIS VASCO es22 NAVARRA es23 RIOJA es24 ARAGON es3 MADRID es4 CENTRO (E) es41 CASTILLA-LEON es42 CASTILLA-LA MANCHA es43 EXTREMADURA es5 ESTE es51 CATALUNA es52 COMUNIDAD VALENCIANA es53 es6 BALEARES SUR es61 ANDALUCIA es62 MURCIA es63 CEUTAYMELILLA es7 Mm fr1 fr2 fr3 CAN ARIAS FRANCE ILE DE FRANCE BASSIN PARISIEN 14. 523 14. 593 NORD-PAS-DE-CALAIS 646 1993 112. 894 6. 876 0 6. 590 286 10. 870 26. 075 22. 101 3. 974 2. 298 3. 807 2 969 3 4 980 791 7. 215 5. 916 466 32 682 817 1. 378 715 1. 144 434 583 24 102 18. 234 687 621 45 22 1992 109. 830 6. 903 0 6. 625 278 10. 345 26. 514 22. 115 4. 400 2. 240 3. 834 2 1. 038 3 4 1. 000 970 7. 216 5. 903 486 31 754 882 1. 397 756 ^. 099 414 567 24 94 18. 260 1. 028 961 45 23 3. 277 2. 758 51 336 87 52 344 100 +/- ,89('90)/,94 % -100,00% •8,45% +0,00% +9,04% -4. 12% •18,22% +11. 43% -3,76% -61,56% +1,05% +0,45% -33,33% -62,83% -31,58% -34,69% -11,27% -69,09% -3,78% -3,89% -18,38% -24,58% -58,92% -63,60% -9,79% -48,01% -18,05% +8,03% 1991 1990 106. 233 6. 533 0 6. 264 269 9. 767 26. 063 21. 385 4. 679 2. 167 3. 693 27 1. 086 3 5 985 1. 153 6. 920 5. 675 488 34 789 932 1. 388 719 974 363 493 24 93 17. 110 1. 029! 955; 47 27! 2. 854; 57: 370i 110 110. 000 6. 426 0 6. 148 278 9,497 30. 819 22. 059 8. 760 2. 224 3. 716 27 2. 049 ' 4 5 1. 028 1. 971 7. 127 5. 938 510 36 1. 494 1. 956 1. 445 1. 291 L 1 43 419 590 26 108 16. 002 1. 076 980 66 30 2. 394 56 334 93 1989 102. 156 6. 440 0 6. 151 289 9. 190 22. 165 22. 165 2. 227 3. 706 3 4 5 1. 033 7. 172 5. 996 533 35 1. 451 1. 160 433 583 28 117 16. 911 1. 386 1. 273 60 53 2. 443 61 348 112 2. 803 2. 261 2. 317| 1. 911 1. 923 57 4. 668 2. 816 735 1. 118 6. 269 5. 237 956 76 3. 230 2. 086 1. 144 0 46 13. 684 12 1. 527 601 58 4. 977 2. 941 932 1. 105 6. 033 5. 083 873 77 3. 365 1. 972 1. 393 0 41 12. 903 14 1. 416 624 69 4. 461 2. 810 6771 974 ! 5. 546; 4. 643 794 108 3. 113 1. 781 1. 332 0 38 12. 384 17 1. 365 613 70 4. 355 2. 547 899 909 5. 380 4. 465 815 100 2. 674 1. 689 985 0 78 4. 562 2. 585 1. 015 962 5. 641 4. 721 824 97 2. 740 1. 671 1. 069 0 53 12. 239 18 61 12. 366 18 1. 329 1. 341 639 646 +18,01% +0,02% EUROSTAT: New Cronos/regio (italic figures were provided by MS authorities) fr4 fr5 fr6 fr7 fr8 fr9 ie it EST OUEST SUD-OUEST CENTRE-EST MEDITERRANEE DEPARTEMENTS D'OUTRE-MER IRELAND ITALIA 1. 542 8. 061 it1 NORD OVEST it11 PIEMONTE it12 VALLE D'AOSTA it13 LIGURIA it2 it3 LOMBARDIA NORD EST it31 TRENTINO-ALTO ADIGE it32 VENETO it33 FRIULI-VENEZIAGIULIA it4 it5 EMILIA-ROMAGNA CENTRO (I) it51 TOSCANA it52 UMBRIA it53 MARCHE its it7 LAZIO ABRUZZO-MOLISE it71 ABRUZZO it72 MOUSE itS it9 CAMPANIA SUD it91 PUGLIA it92 BASILICATA it93 CALABRIA SICILIA SARDEGNA LUXEMBOURG (GRAND-DUCHE) 68 ita itb lu nl nh nl2 nl3 nl4 NEDERLAND NOORD-NEDERLAND OOST-NEDERLAND WEST-NEDERLAND ZUID-NEDERLAND ptm Pti ptn PORTUGAL CONTINENTE NORTE pt12 CENTRO (P) pt13 USBOA E VALE DO TEJO pt14 ALENTEJO pt15 ALGARVE pt2 pt3 uk uk1 uk2 uk3 uk4 ACORES MADEIRA UNITED KINGDOM NORTH YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE EAST MIDLANDS EAST ANGLIA uk5 SOUTH EAST (UK) uk6 uk7 uk8 uk9 SOUTH WEST (UK) WEST MIDLANDS NORTH WEST (UK) WALES uka SCOTLAND ukb NORTHERN IRELAND 9. 862 749 1. 498 8. 023 750 749 0 1 306 9. 148 1. 252 679 160 1. 487 8. 348 768 766 1 1 305 8. 391 1. 290 700 165 1. 423 8. 244 752 750 0 2 294 7. 983 1. 261 686 165 1. 346 8. 549 741 738 1 3 302 7. 775 1. 298 697 183 1. 249 8. 837 745 741 1 3 321 7. 738 1. 389 702 210 995 9. 254 755 751 1 4 3. 059 2. 992 2. 909 2. 876 2. 917 2. 970 774 26 560 189 862 24 636 202 851 26 619 206 860 35 643 183 888 39 676 173 1. 675 1. 797 1. 782 1. 970 2. 088 709 234 269 207 175 158 109 49 156 224 31 80 113 92 252 76 829 269 321 238 160 184 127 57 162 240 33 77 130 98 257 72 827 280 306 241 179 189 130 59 167 231 35 78 118 99 258 66 944 363 341 240 177 161 95 65 170 284 38 98 147 107 260 64 997 396 354 247 189 157 95 62 187 290 44 97 149 114 265 70 884 38 673 173 2. 241 1. 089 426 388 275 199 167 97 70 216 335 48 126 160 120 280 71 14. 397 14. 565 14. 964 14. 161 13. 217 13. 915 13. 729 564 4. 845 778 8. 211 2. 402 7. 351 179 1. 875 548 1. 507 681 786 365 238 89 548 534 565 4. 909 809 8. 282 2. 416 2. 359 196 536 585 5. 128 879 8. 373 2. 664 2. 606 227 581 1. 156 1. 279 396 445 75 40 17 7. 879 181 1. 799 653 1. 422 802 978 515 285 96 579 569 74 40 18 7. 869 210 1. 945 623 1. 534 736 880 403 309 94 537 597 558 4. 888 825 7. 890 2. 546 2. 488 227 618 1. 178 391 74 40 18 7. 704 190 1. 769 614 1. 449 755 886 444 395 109| 498 597 558 4. 570 791 7. 298 2. 554 2. 494 211 597 559 549 4. 818 4. 819 826 7. 712 2. 650 2. 585 220 618 826 7. 535 2. 583 2. 516 221 548 1. 2021 1. 295 1. 243 398 361 86 40 20 7. 519 183 1. 651 607 1. 396 852 839 429 364 92 506 601j 403 101 39 28 91 42 23 7. 379 7. 383 181 171 1. 710 1. 588 607 1. 276 576 1. 208 815 880 410 339 106 461 595 793 869 689 334 124 431 602 EUROSTAT: New Cronos/regio (italic figures were provided by MS authorities) +27,44% +6,67% +50,598% -13,301% -0,675% -0,253% -57,143% -80,000% +3,014% -12,465% -32,813% -16,877% +9,270% -25,260% -34,870% -45. 239% -30. 730% -24. 618% -11,990% -5,436% +12,243% -29,915% -27,665% -33,154% -35,892% -36,479% -29,757% -23,161% -10,036% •8,085% +6. 088% +2,988% +1,876% -2,130% +9,909% -«,465% -6,240% -11,312% -2,190% -6,999% -1. 737% -25,743% +2,564% -39,286% •6,718% +5,848% +13,287% +13,368% +17,715% +1,135% +12,543% -25,254% -14,671% -22,581% +34,339% -5,482% -1,166% -8,012% -11,193% -7,550% -48,294% +3,237% -3,275% +4,568% +2,078% +4,322% -16,777% -23,911% -8,785% -4,489% -7,059% +3,161% -1,035% -2,784% H:;>;:i::M&&58% +25,503% +23,055% -3,211% -5,846% +5,142% +23,311% +16,763% -5,485% EUR 15 OESTERREICH OSTOESTERREICH BURGENLAND NIEDEROESTERREICH WIEN SUEDOESTERREICH KAERNTEN STEIERMARK WESTOESTERREICH OBEROESTERREICH SALZBURG TIROL VORARLBERG SUOMI/FINILAND UUSIMAA, E-SUOMI, AALAND ITÀ-SUOMI VÀLI-SUOMI POHJOIS-SUOMI SVERIGE— STOCKHOLM at;*;;? at1 at11 at12 at13 at2 at21 at22 at3 at31 at32 at33 at34 f|::SïS f i ll fi13 fi14 fi15 s«;s:-:; se01 se02 se03 ÔSTRA MELLANSVERIGE SMALAND MED ÔARNA se04 SYDSVERIGE se05 se06 VÀSTSVERIGE NORRA MELLANSVERIGE 115. 959 37. 006 1. 218 126 1. 091 1 1. 221 198 1. 023 1. 270 1. 180 27 44 19 1. 394 844 93 413 44 2. 331 117. 548 3. 729 1. 240 126 1. 113 1 1. 212 195 1. 017 1. 277 1. 181 29 48 19 1. 287 774 108 363 42 2. 329 29 372 225 857 708 80 3. 820 1. 297 134 1. 161 1 1. 226 203 1. 022 1. 297 1. 188 33 57 20 1. 300 771 90 390 48 2. 277 29 339 225 855 697 71 I 3. 720 1. 283 132 1. 150 2 1. 179 200 979 1. 257 1. 149 33 56 20 1. 309 791 95 378 45 2. 279 24 326 231 891 678 70 | 3. 638 1. 271 134 1. 135 1 1. 145 190 955 1. 222 1. 116 32 55 19 1. 357 838 103 369 46 2. 201 18 302 224 887 642 70 3. 688 1. 293 140 1. 151 2 1. 161 200 961 1. 233 1. 124 33 58 19 1. 290 790 103 350 47 2. 264 19 318 231 907 666 68 3. 773 1. 348 142 1. 204 2 1. 174 202 973 1. 251 1. 132 35 63 21 1. 348 833 104 367 43 2. 264 23 302 233 911 673 64 MELLERSTA NORRLAND ÔVRE NORRLAND 16 se07 se08 41 * Source for 1994/95: Stat. Jahrbuch uber Ernahrung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten, Landwirtschaftsverlag Munster-Hiltrup " 1994/95 is calculated: Germany(neu) = Germany(gesamt) - Germany (alt) "*The Swedish figures are calculated by GDVI/FII. 1 (since the Swedish statistic is not adjusted to the EUROSTAT definitions) 17 41 17 41 16 39 17 43 19 39 EUROSTAT: New Cronos/regio (italic figures were provided by MS authorities) Vf TABLE 10: Total number of fattening p Regions | 1995 f 1994 i g s> 50 kg (in 1000) | 1992 1993 1991 f 1990 1989 +/-,89C90y,94%'' 40. 957 39. 734 38. 3611 39. 782 36. 315 EUR 12 BELGIQUE-BELGIE REG. BRUXELLES-CAP. /BRUSSE - 2. 744 2. 695 eur be;;:;;; bel be2 be3 dk de del de2 de3 de4 de5 de6 de7 de8 de9 dea deb dec ded dee def deg gm gn gr2 gr3 gr4 VLAAMS G E W E ST REGION W A L L O N NE DANMARK DEUTSCHLAND gesamt DEUTSCHLAND alt* DEUTSCHLAND n e u" BADEN-WUERTTEMBERG BAYERN BERLIN B R A N D E N B U RG BREMEN H A M B U RG HESSEN MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN NIEDERSACHSEN NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN RHEINLAND-PFALZ SAARLAND SACHSEN SACHSEN-ANHALT SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN T H U E R I N G EN ELLADA VOREIA ELLADA KENTRIKI ELLADA ATTIKI 2. 646 98 2. 937 9. 144 8. 049 1. 095 614 1. 246 1 226 0 1 357 182 2. 837 2. 327 149 10 184 283 508 219 282 2. 593 103 3. 046 9. 498 8. 311 1. 187 624 1. 336 1 252 0 1 364 215 2. 933 2. 358 165 11 210 277 518 233 282 N I S I A A I G A I O U, KRITI B^WAmm^WS^m^:/. -'-. -. ^ N O R O E S TE es:;:;;;;;;; es1 es11 GALICIA es12 ASTURIAS es13 CANTABRIA es2 NORESTE es21 PAIS VASCO es22 NAVARRA es23 RIOJA es24 A R A G ON es3 es4 MADRID CENTRO (E) es41 CASTILLA-LEON es42 CASTILLA-LA MANCHA es43 EXTREMADURA es5 ESTE es51 CATALUNA es52 C O M U N I D A D V A L E N C I A NA es53 BALEARES es6 SUR es61 ANDALUCIA es62 MURCIA es63 C E U T A Y M E L I L LA es7 fr fr1 fr2 CANARIAS FRANCE ILE DE FRANCE BASSIN PARISIEN ! ! j ' | \ ] ! i ! ! ' I i ! ! j +17,97% +0,00% +18,30% +10,10% •31,16% • 16,32% •1,79% -66,72% +0,60% +4,97% -43,75% -68,49% -69,23% -37,50% -7,82% -72,34% +4,72% +2,28% -19,28% -19,26% -63,49% -64,65% -5,59% -55,80% 2. 285 0 2. 192 93 2. 322 8. 165 8. 165 621 1. 273 2 1 2 395 2. 801 2. 305 204 14 2. 245 0 2. 140 106 2. 425 11. 726 8. 264 3. 462 635 1. 324 19 801 1 2 397 776 2. 806 2. 332 189 13 575 783. 548 549 527 315 120 173 354 154 172 4 17 6. 200 24 6. 330 2. 561 0 2. 458 103 2. 974 9. 690 8. 312 1. 379 631 1. 321 1 324 1 1 386 267 2. 928 2. 334 175 12 241 313 523 234 338 131 178 4 24 7. 296 247 208 31 8 2. 507 0 2. 409 98 2. 845 9. 821 8. 301 1. 520 629 1. 363 1 349 1 1 388 324 2. 869 2. 323 177 12 258 329 538 259 323 117 181 3 21 | 2. 317 0 2. 229 89 2. 615 9. 534 7. 852 1. 681 600 1. 284 19 369 1 2 383 384 2. 667 2. 186 182 13 289 377 515 262 284 112J 142! «i 24 7. 244 6. 593 448 409 30 ! 9; 419 376; 31 ! 12 i ! | ! i 411 354 43 15 600 538 32 30 767 16 106 28 617| 25j 1. 710; 8 3 1; 326 553 1. 366 1. 107| 1. 015; 857 10 114 24 1. 219! 17 111 93 25! 977! 19: 15! 1211 3 1; 849! 25 16 89 21 731 27 1. 967 1. 983: 1. 847 1. 701 963 242 762 1. 101 I 1. 122 362 521' 241 485 882 315j 504! ! 2. 305 2. 169; 2. 017; 2. 043 2. 095 1. 924 1. 840: 1. 683 1. 754! 1. 773 ' 3 70 I » 319' 10 307 27; 270 19 311 1 1| 1. 385 1. 509 1. 262 1. 149: 1. 118 987 398 0 9; 896: 614! 0; 9i 842 420 0 8 801 349 0 13 766: 352 i O1 15 5. 380 5. 128 4. 869 4. 6421 4. 654] 4. 681 +14,92% 8 6\ 7 8. 7\ 564 \ 525 i 500 ' 482 521 \ EUROSTAT- New Cronos/regio (italic figures were provided by MS authorities) 220i 204 133 206 131 184 \ 124 | 192 133 202 139 +9,12% 3. 541 3. 282 3. 041 2. 903 2. 869 2. 772 +27,76% 540 319 79 454 4. 459 404 402 1 1 547 332 81 424 4. 410 403 401 0 1 5331 315 76 411 4. 577 387 385 1 2 553 328 90 383 4. 818 369 366 1 2 595 327 118 326 4. 809 351 348 1 3 342 469 4. 316 415 414 0 1 1. 647 1. 567 1. 518 1. 488 1. 544 1. 542 491 26 375 90 520 28 409 83 502 24 394 84 1. 053 1. 135 1. 126 fr3 fr4 fr5 fr6 fr7 fr8 fr9 ie it it1 NORD-PAS-DE-CALAIS EST OUEST SUD-OUEST CENTRE-EST MEDITERRANEE DEPARTEMENTS D'OUTRE-MER IRELAND ITALIA 486 4. 340 NORD OVEST it11 PIEMONTE it12 VALLE DAOSTA it13 LIGURIA it2 it3 LOMBARDIA NORD EST it31 TRENTINO-ALTOADIGE it32 VENETO it33 FRIULI-VENEZIA GIULIA it4 it5 EMILIA-ROMAGNA CENTRO (I) it51 TOSCANA it52 UMBRIA it53 MARCHE it6 it7 LAZIO ABRUZZO-MOUSE it71 ABRUZZO it72 MOUSE it8 it9 CAMPANIA SUD it91 PUGLIA it92 BASILICATA it93 CALABRIA ita SICILIA itb lu nl nil nl2 nl3 nl4 p t# SARDEGNA LUXEMBOURG (GRAND-DUCHE) NEDERLAND NOORD-NEDERLAND OOST-NEDERLAND WEST-NEDERLAND ZUID-NEDERLAND PORTUGAL pt1 CONTINENTE pt11 NORTE pt12 CENTRO (P) pt13 LISBOA E VALE DO TEJO pt14 ALENTEJO pt15 ALGARVE pt2 pt3 uk uk1 uk2 uk3 uk4 uk5 uk6 uk7 uk8 ACORES MADEIRA UNITED KINGDOM NORTH YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE EAST MIDLANDS EASTANGLIA SOUTH EAST (UK) SOUTH WEST (UK) WEST MIDLANDS NORTH WEST (UK) j i 483 17 362 104 947 470 144 186 140 133 125 82! 43 116 ; 132 161 56 59: 351 49 20 4. 001 146: 1. 438! 247 2. 170 795 776I 75 172 395; 113 21; 13 412 18 305 89 908 397 128 154 115 138 102! 64 37; 94 136 15 51 70 34; 34' 23 4. 096 146: 1. 4361 244 2. 271 745 727 62 150 369! 122 24! 13 5. 2. 665 64 590 220 4 82 262; 267 255 104 453 14 353 86 976 499 150 213 137 114 112 72 41 105 152 15 57 80 35 43 23 4. 189 151 1. 484 269 2. 284 824 805 74 176 391 142 22 13 6" 2. 642 70 j 759| 200 4 74 202 266 132: 112 ! ! ! j 21 4. 992 146 1. 400 243 2. 2211 ! ! ! 2. 586 73 691 188 522! 204! 300 138: 80 EUROSTAT: New Cronos/regio (italic figures were provided by MS authorities) +4,55% +43,60% -10,26% +18,20% +19,06% -66,67% -76,92% +6,76% -17,95% -26,67% -22,60% +6,45% -19,43% -29,80% -35,33% -31,31% -19,76% -0,43% -20,24% -15,62% -27,10% -40,53% -35,31% -44,23% -40,30% -28,59% -21,36% -22,50% •3,65% +6,20% +4,00% +4,66% +0,99% +7,94% -4,97% -3,58% -6,06% +3,45% -10,00% +15,09% -11,11% -18,75% -64,29% •9,00% +14,29% +18,95% +20,22% 552 177; 231 ! 144 109: 113; 66| 47! 135 ; 167 15 74 78 36 46 20 3. 986 141 i 1. 395! 249 2. 201 805 782 83 152 415| 112! 20 14 601 221 239 141 121 120 69 52 147 173 23 78 73 48 42! 23 3. 883 138! 1. 373! 238 2. 134! 825 801 ! 100 170! 417 88| 26 14 566 198 225 143 138 128 76 51 158 210 26 86 98 43 44 22 3. 857 140; 1. 372; 242 2. 103 784 754 66 1451 4101 106! 27 16 14 2. 445 56; 496; 183! 6 2. 594 59; 584 230' 9 2. 558 56| 517! 226 5 30 5 1 2: 211J 285 125 159 258! 267! 152! 144 10 2. 425 54! 545; 215! 4 0 9' 248! 272! 137: _ 127; 4 0°; +20,50% 224 163! 307 120 +16,96% +63,80% -16,94% -13,33% ,:::::::;v::::::;:;;;;:;+5,12% +8,75% +22,47% -3,43% -4,53% +11,43% +22,52% +29,65% +7,55% 27| 168 231 31 168 213 27j 164 235 34 155 229 33 136 226 -21,21% +33,82% -4,87% uk9 uka ukb WALES SCOTLAND NORTHERN IRELAND EUR 15 OESTERREICH OSTOESTERREICH BURGENLAND NIEDEROESTERREICH WIEN SUEDOESTERREICH KAERNTEN STEIERMARK WESTOESTERREICH OBEROESTERREICH SALZBURG TIROL VORARLBERG SUOMI/FINLAND UUSIMAA, E-SUOMI, AALAND ITÀ-SUOMI VÀLI-SUOMI POHJOIS-SUOMI SVERIGE*" at at1 at11 at12 at13 at2 at21 at22 at3 at31 at32 at33 at34 ft :::¥«: fl11 fi13 fi14 fi15 se:;:;:;:; se01 STOCKHOLM se02 ÔSTRA MELLANSVERIGE se03 SMALAND MED ÔARNA se04 SYDSVERIGE se05 VÂSTSVERIGE se06 NORRA MELLANSVERIGE 30 162 199 1. 312 411 46 365 464 79 385 437 403 12 15 7 508 303 35 153 17 26 182 215 1. 323 419 46 373 458 76 382 446 410 14 15 7 461 648 10 102 55 250 190 23 1. 355 439 50 389 463 80 383 453 410 16 20 7 j i i 591 11 80 54 236 174 20 642 10 89 61 258 186 22 627 7 80 56 I 269 175\ 22 648 617 9 90 60 267 183 22 9 83 57 262 171 19 MELLERSTA NORRLAND ÔVRE NORRLAND se07 se08 * Source for 1994/95: Stat. Jahrbuch ùber Ernâhrung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten, Landwirtschaftsverlag Munster-Hiltrup " 1994/95 is calculated: Germany(neu) = Germany(gesamt) - Germany (alt) "*The Swedish figures are calculated by GDVI/FII. 1 (since the Swedish statistic is not adjusted to the EUROSTAT definitions) 5 14 4 12 4\ 73 4 12 4 12 4 13 EUROSTAT: New Cronos/regio (italic figures were provided by MS authorities) S7 ill l l l l ll Total number \ Regions D f. S O Wi 1995 s (in 10 1994 00) 1993 1992 1991 " 1990 • 1989 +/- '89 f 90)/"94 % 10. 956 717 0 677 * 40 1. 006 2. 412 2. 412 ' wm bel be2 be3 dk de J '. , EUR 12 BELG1QUE-BELGIE REG. BRUXELLES-CAP. /BRUSSE VLAAMS GEWEST REGION WALLONNE DANWARK , DEUTSCHLAND gesamt DEUTSCHLAND alt*. * DEUTSCHLAND neu** BADEN-WUERTTEMBERG BAYERN BERLIN BRANDENBURG BREMEN HAMBURG HESSEN MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN NIEDERSACHSEN NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN RHEINLAND-PFALZ SAARLAND SAÇHSEN SACHSEN-ANHALT SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN THUERINGEN ELLADA VOREIA ELLADA KENTRIKI ELLADA ATTIKI ? NISIAAIGAIOU. KRITI E. SPANA NOROESTE GALICIA ASTURIAS CANTABRIA NORESTE PAIS VASCO NAVARRA RIOJA ARAGON MADRID CENTRO (E) CASTILLA-LEON CASTILLA-LA MANCHA EXTREMADURA ESTE CATALUNA COMUNIDAD VALENCIANA BALEARES SUR ANDALUCIA MURCIA CEUTA Y MELILLA CANARIAS FRANCE ILE DE FRANCE BASSIN PARISIEN NORD-PAS-DE-CALAIS EST OUEST. del de2 de3 de4 de5 de6 de7 de8 de9 dea deb dec ded dee def deg 9f„„, gn gr2 gr3 gr4 es es1 es11 es12 es13 es2 es21 es22 es23 es24 es3 es4 es41 es42 es43 es5 es51 es52 es53 es6 es61 es62 es63 es7 fr fr1 fr2 fr3 fr4 fr5 735 0 705 30 X147 2. 529 * 2. 124 '405 307 415 0. 1 01 0 0 88 68. 632 518 42 3 73 79 118 85 732 0 700 32 1. 131 2. S13 2,197 416 315. 440. 0 104 0 0 92 72 645 529 46 3 75 81 125 86 • i ; I i 1. 435 76 963 W 12. 071 742 0 707 35 1. 162 '2. 899 2. 301 607 323 450 0 138 1 1 99 " 100 687 557 51 4 82 92 130 95 163 59 82 •:. ;. • 7 16 2. 117 82 77 3 2 429 14 53 17 ' 345 9 674 440 102 132 570 450 101 19 345 207 138 0 8 1,347 1 163 70 27 891. 12. 085 762. '0. 726 36 '> 1,149 2. 989 s£4p7 «. szz 321 462 o 149 ' 11. 624 730 0 694 36 1. 077 ,2. 917 2. 333 684 310 442 • 0 -144 • : 1 ' • ' •: 1 :• 1 105 133 718 599 57 4 91 111. ' 1 40 99 ' 1 50 56 72 6 14 2,108 114 109 3 2 342 13 60 18 250 9 712 458 119 136 560 446 '95 19 363 208 155 0 8 1,310 1 152 79 29 844 1 104 152 700 579 56 4 94 105 138 90 137 54 66 • i 4 12 1. 919 109 104 >3 2 329 13 59 18 239 9 619 404 103 112 516 404 89 23 330 192 138 0 7 1. 241 1 146 79 28 785. 11. 774. 731 0 695 37 1. 044 3. 195 2. 392 804. 309 443 o 197 1 1 106 178 715 610 59 4 • • " 138 170 144 121 160 64 75 •• ' 6 15 1. 879 117 111 3 3 282. 14 55 19 195 8 622 402 136 84. 545 432 91 22 296 171 125 0 à"- 1. 207 1 138 82 • 29 757 ' +2,1% +0,0% +3,4% -19,5% +12,4% -'+8,4% ^8,9% 48,2% +1,8% • - -0,2% +0,0% • •. • -47,4% ' -33,3% -33,3% -14,7% -59,5% -11,6% -13,9% -24,2% -31,0% -45,9% -52,8% -12,7% -28,6% • 1 •. ". ' • • • - +17,7% -7,5% +27,6°/ > 309 441 0 • 1 \1 108 730 615 60 4 144 167 62 77 5 23 1939 138 129 5 4 282 14 56 21 191 10 621 | 391 139 91 545 424 100 21 334 165 169 0 9 1. 219 2 140 83 29 754 | E U R O S T A T: New Cronos/regio (italic figures were provided by MS authorities) <-> «J-- fr6 fr7 fr8 fr9 le it it1 it11 it12 it13 it2 it3 it31 it32 lt33 it4 it5 , itSI it52 it53 it6 it7 it71 it72 it8 its it91 it92 it93 ita itb lu nl nil nl2 nl3 nl4 ptm pt1 pfn pt12 pt13 pt14 pt15 pt2 pt3 uk uk1 uk2 uk3 uk4 uk5 uk6 uk7 uk8 uk9 uka ukb SUD-OUEST CENTRE-EST. MEDITERRANEE DEPARTEMENTS D'OUTRE-MER IRELAND , ITALfA NORD OVEST PIEMONTE VALLE D'AOSTA LIGURIA LOMBARDIA NORD EST • TRENTINO-ALTO ADIGE VENETO. FRIULI-VENEZIA GIULIA EMILIA-ROMAGNA CENTRO (I) TOSCANA UMBRIA MARCHE LAZIO ABRUZZO-MOLISE ABRUZZO MOUSE CAMPANIA SUD PUGLIA BAS ILIC ATA CALABRIA SICIUA SARDEGNA LUXEMBOURG {GRAND-DUCHE) NEDERLAND. NOORD-NEDERLAND OOST-NEDERLAND WEST-NEDERLAND ZUID-NEDERLAND PORTUGAL CONTINENTE NORTE CENTRO (P) USBOA E VALE DO TEJO ALENTEJO ALGARVE ACORES MADEIRA UNITED KINGDOM NORTH YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE EAST MIDLANDS EASTANGLIA SOUTH EAST (UK) SOUTH WEST (UK) WEST MIDLANDS NORTH WEST (UK) WALES SCOTLAND NORTHERN IRELAND EUR 15 OESTERREICH OSTOESTERREICH BURGENLAND. / ' 58 162. 678 57 57 0 0 247 64 1 44 20 '• 122 54. 20 18 15 8 12 9 3 13 15 3 5 7 10 77 9 1. 515 63 487 77 888 330 323 24 91 135 62. _1V- 5j 2 868 21 208 70 146 95 116 45 28 13 66 60 381 132 12 122 57 16 169 703 59 59 0 0 248 72 1 47 • ""• 24 126 54 21 17. 16 9 13 10 3 12 15 3 •3 8 12 83 - 10 1,570 68 508 85 908 363 356 28 94 154 70 10 5 2 893 22 203 74 166 99 106 52 31 12 64 63 381 134 12 137 56 18 115 760 64 64 0 0 225 65 2 46 16 181 75 38 17 20 13 8 4 4 11 13 5 a 6 14 91 10 1. 465 65 490 84 827 347 341 28. 85 144 70 14 4 2 838 20 190 67 124 103 107 56 34 16 56 66 129 60 17 ,172. 691 57 57 0 0 245 67 1 43 23 133 55 22 17 16 7 11 9 2 9 17 '- 4 4 9 13 78 10 1. 546 67 506 84 888 354 347 28 107 137 63 12 5 2 888 21 207 65 155 97 106 56 50 15 55 64 I 360 130 12 -128 57 17 v 127 56 17. 160 712 60. 60 0 0. 232 70 1 47 22 154 68 29 22 17 12 8 5. 3 8 22 5 ,. 4 13 14 63 9 1. 506 66 497 83 860 350 343 28 105 138 60 12 5 2 869 21 206 64 151 100 108 47 34 13 64 62 349. 149 726 67 67 0 0 228 62 2 42. 18 149 ' -68 34 18 17 12 7 5 2 5 27 6 4 17 14 87. 10 1. 498 67. 494 86 851 354 346 18 100 152 65 11 6 2 855 21 201 67 139 108 110 49 33 14 53 61 i i 176 / i 5 1. 502 64 482 71 886 - - - I- 838 20 201 69 152 94 97 42 28 12 64 61 388 132 12 +3,3% •40,7% *1D,8% -11,0% -10,7% >. -66,7% +9,6% -0,2% -63,2% »5,6% +22,7% -32,5% -29,0% -47,0% +9,0% -26,1% -37,8% +42,0% +102,3% -29,7% +10,5% +19,8% -43,5% +140,9% +24,1% -25,9% -15,6% -7,1% +3,4% -1,9% -0,6% -9. 3% +7,4% -4,9% -5. 3% -14. 3% +7,1% -6. 3% -11,4% -21,4% +25,0% +0,0% +3,6% +5. 0% +9,5% +4,5% +17,7% -7,8% +8,4% -19,6% -17,6% -18,8% +17,9% -9,1% af>ws. at1 at11 E U R O S T A T: New Cronos/regio (italic figures were provided by MS authorities) -T? / , ?. 120 122 120 - 118 119 19 ' 100 138 129 113 19 94 134 124 •. 2 6 2 114 19 95. 134 125 2 5 2 171 104 17 87 - 126 117 2 6 2 NIEDEROESTERREICH WIEN SUEDOESTERREICH KAERNTEN STEIERMARK WESTOESTERREICH OBEROESTERREICH SALZBURG TIROL VORARLBERG S J 0 ! Q » ? M V ND UUSIMAA, E-SUOMI, AALAND ITAE-SUOMI VAELI-SUOMI POHJÛIS-SUOMI SVERIGE?* , STOCKHOLM ÔSTRA MELLANSVERIGE SMÀLAND MED ÔARNA SYDSVERIGE VÀSTSVERIGE NORRA MELLANSVERIGE MELLERSTA NORRLAND ÔVRE NORRLAND y at12 at 13 at2 at21 at22 at3 at31 at32. at33 at34 mm nu fi13 fi14 fi15 se se01 se02 se03 se04 se05 se06 se07 se08 * Source for 1994/95: Stat. Jahrbuch ûber Ernëhrung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten, Landwirtschaftsverlag MGnster-Hiltrup ** 1994/95 is calculated: Germany(neu) = Germany(gesamt) - Germany (alt) ***The Swedish figures are calculated by GDVI/FII. 1 (since the Swedish statistic is not adjusted to the EUROSTAT definitions) , ", 254 1 39 29 94 77 7 2 5 , 250 1 36 28 95 76 7 2 5 s % 273 3 43 29. 98 84 ' 8 2 5 241 2 39 24 87 75 8 2 4 260 2 36 29 99 81 7 2 5 2 5 2 179 109 12 53 5 247 1 36 28 93 74 7 2 • • 5 : > ^*>\ -" ^ " - ' V. •7,3% +57,5% +9,5% -15,6% -12,4% -7,7% +12. 1% -2,2% -21,8% EUROSTAT: New Cronos/regio (italic figures were provided by MS authorities) •-> 7 TABLE 12: The structure of piq holdings in the EU Belgium 1987 t. ' 1995 ,'v s ' 1987/95 Size classes holding^ tn'/. anlrrtalS trty. ' Holdtotf' h6ldfog* dnmiai*:'"\ todWfo'fl , '•pirftbWIrta Number of Size classes Number of Size tlaiSet AnTfhilsJ tfUmberof Size ddssei Ntfmberdf ^ Size eldSSe* ' ArtfmaW +/?Ah!mitS 1-9 pigs 10-49 pigs 30-99 pigs 100-199 pigs 200-399 pigs 400-999 pigs > 1000 pigs Total 1-9 faltening pigs 10-49 fattening pigs 50-99 fattening pigs 100-199 fattening pigs 200-399 fattening pigs 400-999 fattening pigs > 1000 fattening pigs Total 1-9 sows- 10-49 sows 50-99 sows > 100 sows fota I 5. 927 5. 524 3. 416 3. 797 3. 574 3. 228 1. 047 22,36% 20,84% 12,88% 14,32% 20. 150 145. 01. 5 244. 661 540. 173 13,48% 1. 015. 194 12. 18% 1. 991. 286 3,95% 1. 904. 991 26. 513 100,00% 5. 861. 470 4. 323 2. 407 1. 541 1. 845 1. 597 990 279 33,30% 18,54% 11,87% 14,21% 12,30% 7,63% 2,15% 13. 707 59. 267 108. 513 257. 560 438. 058 569. 358 522. 838 0,34% 2,47% 4,17% 9,22% 17,32% " 33,97% 32,50% 100,00% 0,70% 3. 01% 5,51% 13. 08% 22,24% 28. 91% 26,55% 12. 982 100,00% 1. 969. 301 100,00% 5. 343 7. 889 3. 199 1^541 29. 73% 43,90% 17,80% 8. 57% 17. 972 100,00% 23. 199 195. 555 222. 125 243. 077 683. 956 3,39% 28. 59% 32,48% 35,54% 100,00% 3 26 72 142 284 617 1819 221. 3 25 70 140 274 575 1874 152 4 25 69 158 38 EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures 1. 211 1. 340 1. 042 1. 697 2. 087 3. 369 9,29% 10,27% 7,99% 13,01% 16,00% 4. 191 35. 687 76. 425 249. 890 604. 710 0,06% v. 0,49% 1,05% 3,44% 8,32%. 3 27 73 147 290 25,83% 2. 251. 030 30,97% • 668 - 2. 296 13. 042 17,60% 4. 046. 550 100,00% 7. 26JB. 483 55,67% 100,00% 1. 075 852 685 1. 287 1. 947 t. 936 419 8. 201 1. 254 2. 700 2. 234 2. 847 9. 035 13,11% 10,39%. 8,35% 15,69% 23,74% '. ' * '. ' • ' ' '' • • •' 3. 500 ' 21. 521 49. 375 188. 778 559. 536 23,61% 1. 171. 170 5. 11% 688. 224 0,13% 0,80% 1,84% 7,04% 20,86% 43,67% 25,66% 100,00% 2. 682. 104. 100,00% 13,88% 29,88% 24,73% 31,51% 100,00% 5. 608 73. 132 163. 385 500. 681 742. 806 •^ 0,75% 9,85% 22,00% 67,40% 100,00% +i;80% +1,45% +2,40% +3,51%. +2,01% +8,31% -3,14% +152,09% +2,68% +2,59%. +2,36% +5,07% +4,77% +5,19% 1762 - 557 -N 3 25 72 147 287 605 1643 327 -12,35% +115,59% 4 27 73 176 82 +3,00% •9,27% +5,33% +11,49% +116. 03% - Denmark Sïze classes Jioldfng* In'/. Number of Sfcé classe* Size classes' AntmalsJ tn'/« «oldlntf NUmWof Size classé* NUmbèi-ôf ' Site classé* Animal*/ hôldfriflà I t t* ^ janttnâlY-' frt% ' toldUifl % 1995. ^ ; 1987 Number of animal* s „ 16. 306 260. 387 436. 031 832. 675 1. 566. 045 3. 383. 903 9,07% 25,75% 16. 14% 15,50% 14,48% 14,53% 3. 417 9. 707 6. 084 5. 843 5. 458 5. 475 1. 706 4,53% 2. 771. 071 37. 690 100,00% 9. 266. 418 5. 548 9. 824 4. 337 3. 636 2. 420 813 62 20,83% 36,88% 16. 28% 13,65% 9,08% 3,05% 0,23% 23. 353 237. 873 300. 022 501. 940 648. 589 442. 869 85. 074 0,18% 2,81% 4. 71% 8. 99% 16. 90% 36. 52% 29,90% 100,00% 1,04% 10,62% 13,40% 22,41% 28,96% 19,77% 3,80% 5 27 72 143 287 618 1624 246 4 H 24 69 138 268 545 1372 84. 1. 523 4. 016 2. 393 s 2. 750 2. 927 4. 398. 3. 410 21. 417 2. 283 4. 537 2. 324 2. 569 2. 775 1. 851 332 7,11% 18,75% 11,17% 12,84% 13,67% 6. 777 105. 810 170. 070 394. 860 842. 320 20,54% 2;851. 651 15,92% 6. 712. 424 0,06% 0,95% 1,53% 3,56% 7,60% 25,73% 60,56% 100. 00% 11. 083. 912. 100,00% 13,69% 27. 21% 13,94% 15,41% 16. 65% 10. 164 110. 191 162. 925 362. 888 765. 724 11. 10% 1. 081. 387 1,99% 490. 696 t x ' v 0. 34% 3,69% 5. 46% 12. 16% 25. 66% 36,24% 16. 44% 16. 671. 100. 00% 2. 983. 975 100. 00% 26. 640 100,00% 2. 239. 720 100,00% 10. 973 9. 059 3. 346 3. 034 26. 412 41,55% 34,30% 12. 67% 11,49% 44. 916 212. 006 238. 773 550. 658 4,29% 20,26% 22,82% 52,63% 4 23 71. 181 4. 496 3. 267 •1. 850 4. 008 33,01 % 23,99% 13,58% 29,43% 17. 251 78. 070 134. 654 944. 942 100,00% 1. 046. 353 100,00% 40 13. 621 100,00% 1. 174. 917 - • 1,47% 6. 64% 11. 46% 80. 43% 100,00% > 1987/95 ' •"•/-Animal* peMIoldmg , -6,75% -1,78% -0,84% +0,76% +0,30% +4,91% +21,19% +110,50% _ • +5,77% +0,30% +1,34% +. 2,32% +2. 96% +7. 25% +7,71% +112. 90% -6. 26% +2. 11% +2. 00% +29,90% +117. 73% 4 26 71 144 288 648 1968 518 4 24 70 141 276 584 1478 179 4 24 73 236 86 1-9 pigs 10-49 pigs 50-99 pigs 100-199 pigs 200-399 pigs 400-999 pigs > 1000 pigs Total 1-9 fattening pigs 10-49 fattening pigs 50-99 fattening pigs 100-199 fattening pigs 200-399 fattening pigs 400-999 fattening pigs > 1000 fattening pigs Total 1-9 sows 10-49 sows 50-99 sows > 100 sows Total EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures G e r m a ny 1987-199 r 1987 1 9 91. Number of Size classes Number ôf SIZé classes Antittals/ - Numbéfof Size classé* Numbéfcf SlZècfdssé* Animât*/ 1987/91 •/-Animais SFze classes holding* ,\f\4A animals'* fn# ' _t>*>tdft»jj[____. holding's' IhK ' anfmaf* f nV Mdfhfl , pér «biding 4 138. 488 48,12% 480. 904 68. 752 26. 345 21. 731 17. 337 13. 900 1. 233 23,89% 1. 642. 590 9,15% 1. 867. 051 7. 55% 3. 066. 631 6. 02% 4. 938. 301 4. 83% 8. 285. 270 0,43% 1. 707. 963 2,19% 7,47% 8,49% 13,95% 22,46% 37,68% 7. 77% 287. 786 100,00% 21. 988. 710 100,00% 138. 304 44. 377 11. 967 9. 852 8. 639 3. 522 175 63,78% 20,47% 5,52% 4,54% 453. 766 954. 666 831. 131 1. 392. 283 3,98% 2. 408. 281 1,62% 0,08% 1. 905. 700 • 266. 011 5,53% 11,63% 10,12% 16,95% 29,33% 2 3. 2 1% 3,24% 216. 836 100,00% 8. 211. 838 100. 00% 47. 800 41. 244 11. 558 3. 090 46,10% 39,78% 11,15% 178. 634 963. 517 797. 603 2,98%. 450. 419 7,47% 4 0 , 3 1% 33,37% 18,84% 103. 692 ' 100,00% 2. 390. 173 100,00%. 24 71 140 282 589 1449 62 3 21 69 140 275 541 1584 30 4 23 68 141 19 3 24 71 141 285 596 1385 76 3 22 69 141 279 541 1520 38 4 23 69 146 23 - 3 , 0 1% +0,07% +0,34% +0,49% +1. 02% +1,12% -4. 38% +22. 52% - 1 , 0 1% +2. 10% +0. 40% + 1 , 0 1% +1,24% +0,07% -4,05% +27,35% +1. 69% +3,28%. +1. 34% +3,35% +21,73% 1-9 pigs 10-49 pigs 50-99 pigs 100-199 pigs 200-399 pigs 400-999 pigs > 1000 pigs Total 1-9 fattening pigs 10-49 fattening pigs 50-99 fattening pigs 100-199 fattening pigs 200-399 fattening pigs 400-999 fattening pigs > 1000 fattening pigs Total 1-9 sows 10-49 sows 50-99 sows > 100 sows Total ' West-Germany 187. 058 105. 383 37. 987 28. 226 19. 668 13. 094 948 47,67% 6 6 9 7 02 26,86% 2. 515. 918 9,68% 2. 682. 893 7,19% 3. 963. 612 5 , 0 1% 3,34% 0,24% 5. 545. 863 7. 718. 453 1. 373. 305 2,74% 10,28% 10,96% 16,20% 22,66% 31,54% 5 , 6 1% 392. 364 100,00% 24. 469. 746 100,00% 192. 067 61. 432 14. 451 10. 871 8. 212 i 3. 071 163 66,17% 21,16% 4,98% 3,75% 2,83% 1,06% 636. 586 1. 294. 444 999. 672 1. 520. 857 2. 261. 308 1. 660. 512 0,06% | 258. 238 7,38% 15,00% 11,58% 17,62% 26,20% 19,24% 2,99% 290. 267 100,00% 8. 631. 617 100,00% 77. 565 57. 526 12. 594 2. 888 5 1 , 5 1% 38,20% 8,36% 1,92% 285. 048 1. 301. 244 857. 571 407. 333 150. 573 100,00% 2. 851. 196 10,00% 45,64% 30,08% 14,29% 100,00% EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures Germany SFze classes Number of Size classe* Number of Site classes. •• Ahtma'ls/ Number of v Size classé* Number of •• Sl2e classé* " Animal*/ holdings tn % animal* ' trtft , holdfntf holdings f h* •• animal* fa* , holding 1993 * * ' • 1995 1-9 pigs 10-49 pigs 50-99 pigs 100-199 pigs 200-399 pigs 400-999 pigs > 1000 pigs Total 1-9 fattening pigs 10-49 fattening pigs 50-99 fattening pigs 100-199 fattening pigs 200-399 fattening pigs 400-999 fattening pigs > 1000 fattening pigs Total 1 -9 sows 10-49 sows 50-99 sows > 100 sows Total 150. 513 63. 692 24. 497 20. 633 16. 925 14. 858 '2. 646 51. 24% 21,68% 8. 34% 7. 02% 5. 76% 5,06% 0,90% 501. 662 1. 499. 000 1. 736. 778 2. 919. 764 4. 823. 016 8. 982. 897 6. 023. 346 293. 764 100,00% 26. 486. 463 148. 235 41. 898 11. 437 9. 886 8. 943 4. 294 636 65. 79% 18,59% 5,08% 4,39% 3,97% 463. 741 905. 346 797. 054 1. 400. 306 2. 499. 249 1,91 % 2. 385. 870 0,28% 1. 354. 255 1. 89% 5. 66% 6,56% 11. 02% 18. 21% - 33,92% 22. 74% 100,00% 4,73% 9,23% 8,13% 14,28% 25,49% 24,33% 13,81% 225. 329 100,00% 9. 805. 821 100,00% 43. 934 37. 621 11. 664 4. 830 98. 049 44,81% 38,37% 11,90% 158. 706 890. 421 809. 849 4. 93% 1. 128. 516 5,31% 29,80% 27,11% 37. 77% 100,00% 2. 987. 492 100,00% 3 24 71 142 285 605 2276 119. 902 50,10% 397. 000 49. 384 19. 619 17. 379 15. 298 14. 913 2. 821 20,64% -. 1. 174. 000 8,20% 7,26% 6,39% 6,23% 1,18% 1. 397. 000 2. 463. 000 4. 379. 000 9. 146. 000 5. 718. 000 1,61% 4,76% v. 5,66% 9. 98% 17,75% 37,07% 23. 17% 90. 239. 316 100. 00% 24. 674. 000 100,00% 3 ^22 70 142 279 556 2129 44 4 24 69 234 30 118. 509 35. 751 10. 238 9. 073 8. 637 4. 664 603 63. 21% 19,07% 5,46% 4,84% 4,61 % 2,49% 0,32% 378. 000 776. 000 716. 000 1. 283. 000 2. 436. 000 2. 621. 000 1. 277. 000 3,98% 8. 18% 7. 55% 13. 52% 25. 68% 27,63% 13. 46% 187. 475 100,00% 9. 487. 000 100,00% 32. 118 29. 281 10. 559 5. 110 77. 068 41,67% 37,99% 13. 70% 117. 000 701. 000 738. 000 6,63% 1. 054. 000 4,48% 26,86% 28,28% 40,38% 100,00% 2. 610. 000 100,00% 3 24 71 142 286 613 2027 103 3 22 70 141 282 562 2118 51 4 24 70 206 34 1993/95 +/-Ahlmal4 per Molding -0,66% +1,01% +0,44% +0,15% +0. 45% +1. 44% -10,96% +14. 35% +1. 96% +0. 45% +0. 35% -0. 17% +0. 92% +1,14% -0,54% +16,28% +0,84% +1,15% +0,66% -11. 72% + 11,15% • '' EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures Spain 1987 1995 1987/95 Sfee Classes holding* In'/, animal* ln}{ ' holding • hotdfngs fh% animal* f i t* holding per holding Number of Size classes Number of Size classes Animals? Number of Size classé* Nutnbéfûf Size classé* Animal*/ •/-Animals 1-9 pigs 10-49 pigs 50-99 pigs 100-199 pigs 200-399 pigs 400-999 pigs > 1000 pigs Total 1-t) fattening pigs 10-49 fattening pigs 50-99 fattening pigs 100-199 fattening pigs 200-399 fattening pigs 400-999 fattening pigs > 1000 fattening pigs Tola! ' 1-9 sows 10-49 sows 50-99 sows > 100 sows Total 234. 817 64,92% 618. 164 85. 414 12. 740 10. 232 7. 516 8. 065 2. 916 23,61% 1. 678. 308 3,52% 2,83% 2. 08% 2,23% 0,81% 874. 676 1. 450. 814 2. 134. 922 4. 860. 262 5. 610. 699 3,59% 9,74% 5,08% 8,42% 12,39% 28,21% 32,57% 3 20 69 142 284 603 1924 250. 000 19. 000 9. 000 6. 000 6. 000 7. 000 4. 000 83,06% 451. 000 6,31% 2,99% 1. 99% 1. 99%. 563. 000 602. 000 818. 000 1. 786. 000 2. 33% 4. 714. 000 1,33% 9. 192. 000 2,49% 3,11% 3,32% 4. 51% 9. 85% 26. 01% 50,71% 361. 700 100. 00% 17. 227. 845 100,00% 48 • 301. 000 100,00% 18. 126. 000 100,00% 288. 898 15. 124 5. 417 4. 904 3. 697 3. 526 799 89,62% 4,69% 1,68% 1,52% 1,15% 1,09% 0,25% 647. 222 349. 770 378. 708 660. 929 1. 000. 156 3. 033. 826 1. 202. 680 322. 365 100,00% 7. 273. 291 123. 093 26. 125 4. 591 3. 788 78,11% 16. 58% 2,91% 2,40% 324. 145 552. 032 312. 459 824. 611 8. 90% 4. 81% 5,21% 9. 09% 13,75% 41,71% 16,54% 100,00% 16,10% 27. 42% 15. 52% 40,96% 157. 597 100,00% 2. 013. 247 ' 100. 00% 2 23 70 135 271 860 1505 23 3 21 68 218 13 72. 000 8. 000 - 5. 000 4. 000 5. 000 4. 000 2. 000 72,00% 8,00% 5,00% 4,00% 196. 000 187. 000 325. 000 469. 000 5. 00% 1. 190. 000 4. 00% 2. 178. 000 2,00% 2. 923. 000 2. 62% 2,50% 4. 35% 6,28% 15,93% 29. 16% 39. 14% 100. 000 100. 00% 7. 468. 000 100. 00% 36. 000 19. 000 4. 000 5. 000 64. 000 56,25% 29,69% 6,25% 7,81% 123. 000 395. 000 284. 000 788. 000 7. 74% 24. 84% 17. 86% 49. 56% 100,00% 1. 590. 000 100,00% 2 30 67 136 298 673 2298 60 3 23 65 117 238 545 1462 75 3 21 71 158 25 -31,47% +50. 80% -2. 57% -3,85% +4,79% +11,75% +19,43% +26. 43% +21. 51% +1,07% -7. 02% -13. 00% -12. 03% -36. 72% -2. 91 % +230. 99% +29,75% -1. 61% +4. 32% -27. 60% +94. 48% EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures France 1987 1995 1987/95 Size classes" holdings în% animal* t(\% hbldîng holding;* fa* ârtimàl* ' fa* holding per holding Number of Size classes Number of Size classes Animal*/ ,-- Numbérof Size classé* Numbérof Size" classé* Animals/ •/-Ahlmals 1-9 pigs 10-49 pigs 50-99 pigs 100-199 pigs 200-399 pigs 400-999 pigs > 1000 pigs Total 1-9 fattening pigs 10-49 fattening pigs 50-99 fattening pigs 100-199 fattening pigs 200-399 fattening pigs 400-999 fattening pigs > 1000 fattening pigs Total 1 -9 sows 10-49 sows 50-99 sows > 100 sows Total 144. 500 15. 100 5. 200 5. 700 6. 600 7. 200 2. 200 77. 48% 8. 10% 2,79% 3,06% 3,54% 3,86% 318. 900 355. 400 378. 400 828. 600 1. 927. 500 4. 482. 199 1,18% 3. 623. 200 2,68% 2,98% 3,18% 6. 95% 16,18% 37,62% 30,41% 186. 500 100,00% 11. 914. 199 100,00% ' 153. 600 88,02% 5. 400 2. 700 4. 800 5. 500 2. 200 300 18. 700 11. 700 • 5. 800 2. 200 38. 400 3,09% 1,55% 2,75% 3,15% 321. 600 118. 100 160. 800 716. 000 1. 527. 700 7. 22% 2. 65% 3,61% 16,07% 34,28% 1,26% 1. 209. 300 • 27,14% 0,17% 402. 600 9,03% 100,00% 5,56% 26. 47% 34. 52% 33,45% 48,70% 30,47% 15. 10% 5. 73% 63. 500 302. 200 394. 200 381. 900 100,00% 1. 141. 800 100,00% 174. 500 100,00% 4. 456. 100 2 2* 73 145 292 623 1647 64 2 22 60 149 278 550 1342 26 3 26 68 174 30 64;395 71. 58%. 137. 800 5. 407 2. 236 2. 945 3. 927 6. 745 4. 305 6. 01% 2,49% 3,27% 4,37% 134. 500 162. 600 442. 300 1. 168. 200 7,50% 4. 474. 600 4,79% 8. 010. 500 0. 95% 0,93% ^ 1,12% 3,04% 8,04% 30,79% 55,13% 89. 960 100. 00% 14. 530. 500 100. 00% 44. 646 77. 95% 89. 200 1. 959 668 1. 240 3. 306 4. 280 1. 173 3,42% 1. 17% 2. 17% 5. 77% 7. 47%. 38. 100 46. 600 173. 700 924. 400 2. 481. 500 • 2,05% 1. 704. 900 1. 63% 0,70% 0. 85% 3,18% 16. 94% 45. 46% 31,23% 57. 272 100. 00% 5. 458. 400 100,00% 7. 752 5. 116 4. 415 4. 938 34. 89% 23,02% 19. 87% 22. 22% 24. 600 146. 200 323. 600 936. 200 1. 72% -10,22% 22. 62% 65. 44% 22. 221 100,00% 1. 430. 600 100. 00% 2 25 73 150 297 663 1861 162 2 19 70 140 280 580 1453 95 3 29 73 190 64 -3. 04% +5,69% -0,07% +3. 31% +1. 86% +6,56% +12,98% +152,84% -4,58% -11. 07% +17. 14% -6. 09% +0. 67% +5. 48% +8. 30% +273. 22% -6. 55% +10,64% +7. 84% +9. 22% +116. 52% v • EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures Greece 1987 1995 1987/95 Number of size classes Number of Size classes Animals/ Number of Size classé* Number of Size classe* Animal*/ *l- Animal* Size classes holdings In'/. animal* ln% holding '' holdings (tt% animal* ln% holding per holding 1-9 pigs 10-49 pigs 50-99 pigs 100-199 pigs 200-399 pigs 400-999 pigs > 1000 pigs Total 1-9 fattening pigs 10-49 fattening pigs 50-99 fattening pigs 100-199 fattening pigs 200-399 fattening pigs 400-999 fattening pigs > 1000 fattening pigs ,. Total 1-9 sows 10-49 sows 50-99 s. ows > 100 sows Tolal EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures 48. 529 4. 320 1. 456 518 324 348 185 87,16% 7,76% 2. 61% 0. 93% 0,58% 0,63% 0,33% 85. 293 102. 299 97. 908 72. 337 84. 247 226. 735 469. 142 7,50% 8,99% 8,60% 6,36% 7,40% 19,92% 2 24 67 140 260 652 41 ;23%. 2536 20. 161 1. 981 368 277 230 218 214 85,98% 8,45% 1,57% 1,18% 0. 98% 0,93% 0,91% 39. 193 42. 710 4,28% 4,66% 25. 749 • - 2,81% 55. 680 100,00% 1. 137. 961 100,00% 36. 043 1. 107 226 175 241 88 34 95,07% 2,92% 0,60% 0,46% 0,64% 0,23% 0. 09% 53. 692 22. 250 14. 223 23. 309 62. 993 48. 909 87. 478 17,16% 7,11% 4,55% 7,45% 20,13% 15,63% 27,96% 37. 914 100. 00% 312. 854 100,00% 11. 276 1. 620 371 320 82. 99% 11,92% 2. 73% 2,36% 30. 388 31. 043 24. 913 75. 316 18,80% 19,20% 15,41% 46. 59% 13. 587 100,00% 161. 660 100. 00% 20 1 20 63 133 261 556 2573 8 3 19 67 235 12 23. 449 100. 00% 13. 259 562. 134 192 120 112 54 91,87% 3,89% 0,93% 1,33% 0,83% 0. 78% 0. 37% 14. 433 100,00% 5. 270 746 244 290 80,46% 11,39% 3,73% 4. 43% 12. 349 17. 292 16. 496 82. 773 6. 550 100,00% 128. 910 100,00% 40. 728 67. 169 136. 941 563. 647 916. 137 20. 127 13. 295 8. 750 25. 148 32. 936 65. 215 " 116. 774 282. 245 4,45% 7,33% 14. 95% 61. 52% 100. 00% 7,13% 4. 71% 3,10% 8,91% 11,67% 23,11% 41,37% 100,00% 9,58% 13. 41% 12. 80% 64,21% 2 +10,61%. 22 70 147 292 628 2634 39 2 24 65 131 274 582 -8. 95% +4,05% +5,29% +12. 31% -3. 59% +3. 86% +91. 16% +1,90% +17. 70% +3. 76% -1. 66% +5. 01% +4. 77% 2162 -15. 95% 20 +136. 99% 2 23 68 285 20 -13. 05% +20,96% +0,68% +21,27% +65,41% "- • • • t: l •. -. • •- J 1 1 i f 11-9 pigs j 10-4 9 pigs J50-99 pigs Ireland Size classes 100-199 pigs 200-399 pigs 400-999 pigs > 1000 pigs Total 1-9 fattening pigs 10-49 fattening pigs 50-99 fattening pigs 100-199 fattening pigs 200-399 fattening pigs 400-999 fattening pigs > 1000 fallening pigs Total 1 -9 sows ' 10-49 sows 50-99 sows > lOOsows Tolal Number of Size classes Number of ' Size classé*- Animals/^ : Numberôf Sl2e classe*. Number 6f Size classé* Animal*/ 1987 1995 1987/95 •/-Animal* holdings In % animal* In % holding holding:* i n* animal* ' fa* holding per holding 2. 700 1. 200 200 100 100 200. 200 4. 700 1. 500 400 100 100 100 100 100 57,45% 25,53% 4,26% 2,13% 2,13% 7. 100 27. 400 16. 400 16. 300 35. 800 4. 26%. 109. 500 4,26% 100,00% 747. 700 960. 200 62,50% 16,67% 4,17% 4. 17% 4. 17% 4,17% 4. 17% 2. 400 100,00% 2. 000 300 100 300 74. 07% 11,11% 3. 70% 11,11% 2. 700 100. 00% 3. 600 9. 100 7. 100 11. 600 23. 000 53. 600 227. 300 335. 300 5. 600 7. 500 9. 700 85. 100 107. 900 '0. 74% 2,85% 1. 71% 1. 70% 3,73% 11,40% 77,87% 100,00% 1,07% 2,71% 2,12% 3,46% 6,86% 15. 99% 67,79% 100,00% 5,19% 6,95% 8,99% 78,87% 100,00% 3 23 82 163 358 548 3739 204 • 2 23 71 116 230 536 2273 140 3 25 97 284 40 1. 500 700 100 100 100 100 400 50,00% 23,33% 3,33% 3,33% 3,33% 3. 33% 3. 200 15. 900 7. 700 11. 800 30. 900 100. 600 13,33% 1. 372. 200 3. 000 100,00% 1. 542. 300 '. 42,11% 21,05% 5,26% 5,26% 10,53% 10,53% 5,26% 100,00% ••. 2. 000 7. 200 10. 000 15. 900 59. 300 109. 000 « 282. 800 486. 200 0,21% 1,03% 0,50% 0,77% 2. 00% 6,52% 88,97% 100,00% " 0,41% *1,48% 2,06% 3,27% 12,20% 22,42% 58,17% 100,00% 2 23 77 118 309 1006 3431 514 3 18 100 159 297 545 2828 256 -18,87% -0,52% -6,10% -27. 61% -13. 69% +83. 74% -8. 24% +151. 64%. +4,17% -20,88% +40,85% +37,07% +28,91% +1. 68% +24. 42% +83,16% 73,68% 5,26% 1. 600 5. 700 0,91% 3,24% 1 ' -59,18% 57 +128. 00% 21. 05% 100. 00% 168. 500' 175. 800 95,85% 100,00% 421 93 +48. 50% +131. 53% 800 400 100 100 200. 200 100 1. 900 1-. 400 100 400 1. 900 -. • •: • ' • •• " ' • :• • • ••. -: • EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures 1-9 pigs 10-49 pigs 50-99 pigs 100-199 pigs 200-399 pigs 400-999 pigs > 1000 pigs Tnldl 100-199 fattening pigs 200-399 fattening pigs 400-999 fattening pigs Italy 1987 Size classes holdings In * animal* In •/• hfeldlng Number of Size classes Number of Size class** Animals/ Number of Size Classe* Number àt SlteclasSé* Animals/ hording:*; fa * animal* - in % holding 1995 444. 041 31. 200 3. 709 1. 550 2. 119 2. 637 1. 798 91. 17% 6,41 % 0,76% 0. 32% 0. 44% 0,54% 0,37% 487. 054 100,00% 975. 400 558. 600 266. 500 218. 200 622. 000 1. 692. 500 5. 049. 797 9. 382. 997 96,14% ' 851. 300 434. 846 10. 788 1. 484 1. 235 1. 370 1. 670 914 2,39% 0,33% 0,27% 0,30% 0,37% 0. 20% 186. 800 100. 100 >75. 400 368. 800 1. 048. 100 2. 081. 500 4. 812. 000 133. 190 83. 700 67. 400 488. 100 772. 390 10,40% 5,95% 2,84% 2,33% 6,63% 18,04% 53,82% 100. 00% 17,69% 3. 88% 2. 08% 3,65% 7,66% 21,78% 43,26% 100,00% 17. 24% 10,84% 8,73% -63,19% 100. 00% 2 18 72 141 294 642 2809 19 2 17 67 142 269 628 •2277 252. 731 17. 597 2. 422 1. 568 1. 733 1. 773 1. 727 90,41% 6,29% 0,87% 0,56% 0,62% 0. 63% 0. 62% 523. 812 346. 555 168. 116 222. 217 481. 174 1. 079. 013 5. 242. 190 279. 551 100,00% 8. 063. 077 241. 968 94. 37% 8. 420 1. 488 1. 166 1. 151 1. 222 997 3. 28% 0,58% 0,45% 0,45% 0,48% 0,39% 468. 316 147. 172 100. 903 165. 662 311. 139 746. 928 2. 402. 171 4. 342. 291 ?• —^ 6,50% 4,30% 2,09% 2,76% 5,97% 13. 38% 65,01% 100. 00% 10,78% 3,39% 2,32% 3,82% 7. 17% 17,20% 55,32% 100,00% 11 256. 412 100,00%. 28. 567 3. 698 833 1. 339 82,95% 10,74% 2,42% 3. 89% 34. 437 100,00% 2 21 :69 287 11 78. 421 71. 769 55. 294 484. 362* 689. 846 11,37% 10,40% 8,02%. 70,21% 100. 00% 1987/95 •/-Animal* per folding -5. 65% +10,00% -3,40% +0. 67% -5,41% -5. 18% +8. 08% +49. 72% -1,14% +0. 94% +0,53% +0,04% +0. 42% -2. 61% +5,80% +59. 18% +34. 35% -7,25% -4. 17% +25,99% - +86. 37% 2 20 69 142 278 609 3035 29 2 17 68 142 270 611 2409 17 3 19 66 362 20 TntM 452. 307 100. 00% 10-49 sows 50-99 sows Tntal 65. 186 4. 000 973 1. 700 71. 859 90,71% 5,57% 1,35% 2,37% 100,00% EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures Luxemburg SFze classes 1987 1995 Number of Size classes Number of Size classe* AritmatsJ Number of Size classé* Number Of Size classes" Animals/ holdings in'/. animal* ' I n* holding' • holdings' Irt* ahimal*- '. fa% holding: • 2. 663 8. 427 9. 508 12. 324 15. 126 19. 311 9. 463 76. 822 3. 049 1. 836 1. 423 3. 521 4. 693 5. 985 1. 150 3. 47% 10,97% 12,38% 16,04% 19,69% 25,14% 12,32% 100,00% 14,08% 8,48% 6,57%. 16,26% 21,67% 27,64% 5,31% 100,00%. 3 25 69 137 265 603 1183 54 3 19 71 147 276 60 1150 18 232 122 56 50 48 41 11 560 261 52 19 16 14 20 1. 41,43% 21,79% 10,00% 8,93% 8,57% 7,32% 1,96% 100,00% 68,15% 13,58% 4,96% 4,18% 3,66% 5,22% 0,26% 879 3. 703 4. 270 7. 576 13. 665 26. 716 11. 379 68. 188 866 1. 332 1. 095 2. 444 4. 765 9. 178 1. 067 S x 383 100. 00% 20. 747 1,29% 5,43% v. 6,26% 11,11% 20. 04% 39. 18% 16. 69% 100. 00% 4. 17% 6,42% 5,28% 11,78% 22,97% 44,24% - 5. 14% 100,00% 4 30 76 152 285 652 1034 122 3 26 58 153 340 459 1067 54 1987/95 •/-Animals perholdtng +9. 69% +19,58% +10,67% +10. 65% +7. 28% +7. 98% -12,55% +126,34% +1. 10% +35. 33% -19. 00% +4,12% +23. 29% +666. 75% -7,22% +197,15% •. , • :. • • ". '. - • • '. 10,87% 54,73% 24,86% 9,54% 100,00%. -'• 4 22 68 120 18 81 143. 47 17 288 28. 13% 49,65% 16,32% 5,90% 100,00% 279 3. 012 2. 835 2. 501 8. 627 3,23% 34,91% 32,86% 28,99% 100,00% 3 21 60 147 30 -12,70% -3,19% -11,86% +22,94% +71. 15% 771 332 138 90 57 32 8 53,99% 23,25% 9,66% 6,30% • 3,99% 2,24% 0,56% 1. 428 100,00% 929 78,20% 8,16% 1,68% 2,02% 1. 43% 8. 42% 0. 08% 97 20 24 17 100 1 1. 188 311 284 41 9 645 100. 00% 21. 657 48. 22% 44,03% 6,36% 1,40% 100,00% 1. 227. 6. 179. 2. 806 1. 077 11. 289 1-9 pigs 10-49 pigs 50-99 pigs 100-199 pigs 200-399 pigs 400-999 pigs > 1000 pigs Total 1-9 fattening pigs 10-49 fattening pigs 50-99 fattening pigs 100-199 fattening pigs 200-399 fattening pigs 400-999 fattening pigs > 1000 fattening pigs Tola! 1-9 sows 10-49 sows 50-99 sows > 100 sows Total EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures Netherland 1987 1995 1987/95 Number of Size classes Number of Size classe* Animal*/ Numbérôf Size classé* Number©'* size classé* Artfmats/ •/-Animal* Size classes holding* In'/• animals In'/, v holding hôtdlhd* fa* animai* fa* holding per holding 1-9 pigs 10-49 pigs 50-99 pigs 100-199 pigs 200-399 pigs 400-999 pigs > 1000 pigs Total 1-9 fattening pigs 10-49 fattening pigs. 50-99 fattening pigs 100-199 fattening pigs 200-399 fattening pigs 400-999 fattening pigs > 1000 fattening pigs Total 1-9 sows 10-49 sows 50-99 sows )> 100 sows Total 1. 889 3. 866 4. 562 6. 728 6. 896 7. 837 3. 574 5. 34% 10. 94% 7. 408 108. 941 12. 90% - 335. 809 19,03% 19,51% 22,17% 10,11% 969. 489 1. 971. 554 5. 005. 660 5. 949. 879 0,05% 0,76% 2,34% 6,76% 13. 74% 34,89% 41,47% 35. 352 100,00% 14. 348. 740 100,00% 2. 704 4. 193 3. 427 4. 297 3. 967 2. 393 361 12,67% 19,65% 16,06% 20,13% 18,59% 11,21% 11. 570 113. 730 247. 346 610. 175 1. 099. 355 1. 371. 749 1. 69% 561. 741 0,29% 2. 83% 6,16% 15,19% 27,38% 34,16% 13,99% 21. 342 100,00% 4. 015. 666 100. 00% 4 28 74 144 286 639 1665 406 ' \4 27 72 142 277 573 1556 • 188 687 1. 284 2. 035 3. 670 4. 290 5. 755 4. 667 22. 388 1. 567 2. 229 2. 070 3. 226. 3. 605 2. 586 501 15. 784 3,07% 5,74% 9,09% 16,39% 2. 573 38. 120 150. 628 533. 460 19,16% 1. 226. 705 25,71% 3. 718. 196 20. 85% > 100. 00% 8. 727. 831 14. 397. 513 7. 082 57. 378 152. 054 463. 537 1. 014. 037 1. 506. 035 \ 9,93% 14,12% 13,11% 20,44% 22,84% 16. 38% 3,17% 100. 00% 0. 02% 0,26% 1,05% 3,71% 8,52% 25,83% 60. 62% 100. 00%. 0. 18% 1,43% 3,79% 11,56% 25,29% 37,55% 810. 294. 4. 010:417 ^. 20,20% 100. 00% 4 30 74 145 "286. 646 1870 643 5 26 73 144 281 582 1617 254 -4,50% +5,36% +0. 56% +0. 87% +0. 02% +1,15% +12,33% +58,44% +5,62% -5. 10% +1,77% +1,19% +1,50% +1,60% +3. 94% +35. 04% 2. 644 5. 042 3. 466 6. 161 15,27% 29,12% 20,02% 35,59% 11. 376 134. 534 252. 482 1. 221. 314 0. 70% 8,31% 15,59% 75,40% 17. 313 100,00% 1. 619. 706 100,00% • • • • ' ' • •. ' " '. ' • •. ' :- " ' • • • ' • " — • '. ' • ' ':-. • - : ' •. ' • - '" • '. : - • : / -: 4 27 73 198 94 748 1. 526 1. 633 7,77% 15. 86% 16,97% 1. 026 41. 719 121. 947 - 5. 716 59,40% 1. 335. 586 9. 623 100. 00% 1. 500. 278 0,07% 2,78% 8,13% 89,02% 100. 00% 1 27 75 234 156 -68,12% +2,46% +2,51% +17,87% +66,65% EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures •. • ' • •• • • • ' • ' : • Portugal Size classes 1987 1995- Number of Size classe* Number of Size classa* Animal*/ Number of Size classé* Number of % Sl*e ef**sés Animât*/ holdings In % animal* tn % holding s hording* fa* animal* fa* holding" 1-9 pigs 10-49 pigs 50-99 pigs 100-199 pigs 200-399 pigs 400-999 pigs > 1000 pigs Total 1-9 fattening pigs 10-49 fattening pigs 50-99 fattening pigs 100-199 fattening pigs 200-399 fattening pigs 400-999 fattening pigs > 1000 fattening pigs Total 1-9 sows 10-49 sows 50-99 sows > 100 sows Total 238. 240 19. 191 2. 105 1. 789 701 480 328 90. 64% 7. 30% 0. 80% 0,68% 0. 27% 0,18% 0,12% 511. 182 349. 285 145. 307 246. 337 193. 341 295. 906 714. 626 20,81% 14,22% 5,92% 10,03% 7,87% 12,05% 29,10% 2 18 69 138 276 616 2179 121. 600 13. 100 1. 100 1. 900 600 500 500 87,29% 9,40% 0,79% 1,36% 0,43% 0,36% 277. 500 286. 200 103. 300 257. 900 225. 300 221,500 0,36%. 1. 030. 100 262. 834 100,00% 2. 455. 984 100,00% 9. 139. 300 100,00% 2. 401. 800 — 154. 591 3. 362 859 430 281 200 64 96,75% 236. 590 2. 10% 0,54% 0,27% 0,18% 0,13% 0,04% 4,32% 0,56% 0,75% 74. 822 61. 941 56. 153 76. 499 123. 235 119. 427 748. 667 55. 655 27. 285 109. 986 319. 812 159. 787 100,00% 94,37% 126. 886 67. 727 3. 100 402 539. 71. 768 100,00% 31,60% 9. 99% 8,27% 7,50% 10,22% 16. 46% 15. 95% 100,00% 39,68% 17,40% 8,53% 34,39% 100,00% 2 22 72 131 272 616 1866 5 75. 000 2. 800 700 600 400 200 200 79. 900. _. __ 93,87% : J 118. 800 3,50% 0,88% 0. 75% 0,50% 0,25%. 0,25% 100,00% 62. 400 38. 600 76. 500 82. 500 4 ^ 122. 400 229. 700 730. 900 •. -• • ' •. -- 2 18 68 204 4 41. 200 3. 200 500 700 90,35% 101. 300 7,02% 1. 10% 1. 54% 59. 700 27. 200 144. 700 332. 900 45. 600 100. 00% r EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures 17 • - +84,52% 1987/95 +/-Animal* per holding +6,36% +20,04% +36,04% -1,42% +36,15% -28,14% -5,44% : :— +3,50% •0,14% -23,53% -2,36% -24,24% -0,68% -38,45% +95,24% +31,24% +3,92% -. 19. 85% +1,30% +63. 83% 11,55% 11,92% v - 4,30% 10,74% 9,38% ,9,22% 42,89% 100,00% X : —: : 16,25% 8,54% 5,28% 10,47% 11,29% 16,75% 2 22 94 136 376 443 2060 1 •2 22 55 128 206 612 31,43%. 1149 100,00% 9 30,43% 17,93% 8,17% 43,47% 100,00% 2 19 54 207 7 United Kingdom 1987 1995 , 1987/95 , Size classes holding* tn % animal* -. fa % holding hotdtag* - fa* animal* " fa* holding pér holding Number of Size classes Number of _ S)zec)à*sa* Animals/ Number Of Size classe* Numbérof Size clëssé*. Animât*/ •/-Animai* 1-9 pigs 10-49 pigs 50-99 pigs 100-199 pigs 200-399 pigs 400-999 pigs > 1000 pigs Total 1-9 fattening pigs 10-49 fattening pigs 50-99 fattening pigs 100-199 fattening pigs 200-399 fattening pigs 400-999 fattening pigs > 1000 fattening pigs Total 1-9 sows 10-49 sows 50-99 sows > 100 sows Total 5. 150 5. 266 1. 988 1. 726 2. 067 2. 321 2. 154 24,91% 25,47% 9,62% 8,35% 10,00% 18. 553 127. 225. 138. 618 248. 849 587. 488 11. 23% 1. 527. 789 10,42% 5. 266. 020 0. 23% 1,61% 1,75% 3,14% 7,42% 19,30% 66,54% 20. 672 100,00% 7. 914. 542 100,00% 4 24 70 144. 284 6. 58 2445 383 0,41% • • - 4 2. 621 2. 707 1. 128 1. 229 1. 256 1. 116 545 24,72% 25,53% 10,64% 11,59% 11,85% 10. 53% 10. 407 62. 633 80. 336 172. 846 356. 136 704. 687 5. 14% 1. 128. 966 2,49% 3,19% 6,87% 14,15% 28. 01% 44,87% 10. 602 100,00% 2. 516. 011 100,00% 7. 505 4. 013 1. 674 2. 623 47,45% 25,37% 10,58% 16. 59% 15. 815 100,00% 26. 304 96. 123 121. 070 657. 429 900. 926 2,92%. 10,67% 13,44% 72,97% 100,00% 23 71 141. 284 631 2071 237 4 24 72 251 57 4. 540 2. 122 706. 870 1. 057 1. 966. 2. 194 13. 455 2. 595 1. 221 560 695 1. 044 1. 373 698 8. 186 4. 528 1. 793 872 2. 318 9. 511 33,74% 15,77% 5,25% 6,47% 14. 292 47. 977 51. 977 0,19% 0,65% 0,71% 120. 991 v 1,65% 7,86%. 290. 180 14,61% 1. 207. 029 16,31% V 5. 602. 071 3,96% 16,46% 76,38% 3 23 74 139 275 614 2553 -12,62% -6,42% +5,59% -3,54% -3,41% -6,73% +4,44% 100,00% 7. 334. 517 100,00%. 545 +42,38% •' • • ~ •. • ' •. , -. •. • * ' ••. : 31,70% 14,92% 6,84% 8,49%. 8. 525 30. 229 36. 225 92. 162 ••• 12,75% - 315. 724 16,77% 810. 304 8,53% 1. 288. 415 100,00% 2. 581. 584 $ A 0,33% 1,17% 1,40% 3,57% 12,23% 31,39% 49,91%. 3 25 65 133 302 590 -17,26% +7,00% -9,17% • -5,71% +6,65% -6,54% 1846 - -10,89% 100,00% 315 +32,89% 47,61% 18,85% 9. 17% 24,37% 100,00% 15. 877 45. 336 64. 038 709. 697 834. 948 1,90% 5,43% 7. 67% 85. 00% 100,00% 4 25 73 306 88 +0. 04% +5. 56% +1. 54% +22. 15% +54. 10% EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures I Finland* JUH61990 , , s { \ may 1998" 199D/96 Number faf s l id classes Number of Site classes Arttmfclt/ •. Humber of S f c e c f o i * ** rtumhef-df SlXe<Sld*s«s" , Arifm&te/ ^-AhtHhBl4 Size classes holdings ftftJittt* holdfast -: hoMttflS to* anfttjili' " f t t* 1-9 pigs 10-49 pigs 50-99 pigs 100-199 pigs 200-399 pigs 400-999 pigs > 1000 pigs Total 1-9 fattening pigs 10-49 fattening pigs 50-99 fattening pigs 100-199 fattening pigs 200-399 fattening pigs 400-999 fattening pigs > 1000 fattening pigs Total 1-9 sows 10-49 sows 50-99 sows > 100 sows Total 2. 302. 1. 725 1. 667 2. 560 2. 111 424 28 10. 817 21,28% 15,95% 15,41% 23,67% 19,52% 3,92% 0,26%. 5. 798 46. 412 122. 203 372. 683 568. 479 230. 638 35. 229 100. 00% 1. 381. 442 0,42% 3,36% 8,85% 26,98% 41,15%. 16,70% 2,55% 100,00% 3 27 73 146 269 544 1258 128 -J. I I —L I I I i i i i i +45,21% +3,34% +1,25% +2,37% +2,53% -0,20% +15,47% +48,84%. 508 966 1. 051 1. 970 2. 237 595 41 7. 368 1. 718 1. 703 907 706 536 149 8 6,89% 13,11% 14,26% 26,74% 30,36% 8,08% 0,56% 1. 858 26. 860 78. 010 293. 594 617. 629 322. 998 59. 563. 0,13% 1,92% 5,57% 20,96% 44,10% 23,06% 4,25% 100,00% 1. 400. 512 100,00% : 30,00% 29,74% 15,84% 12,33% 9,36% 2. 60% 0,14% 7. 049 41. 561 64. 802 98. 695 146. 772 82. 367 *. 9. 594 1,56% 9,22% 14,37% 21,89% 32,56% 18,27% 2,13% 5. 727 100,00% 450. 840 100,00% 935 3. 473 738 91 5. 237 17,85% 66,32% 14,09% 1,74% 4. 410 94. 602 47. 274 14. 827 2,74% 58,72% 29,34% 9,20% 100,00% 161. 113 100,00% 4 28 74 149 276 543 1453 190 4 24 71 140 274 553 1199 79 5 27 64 163 31 * Data from the national authority; different time period!!; no data on fattening pigs and sows in 1990 EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures Sweden* 1987 1993 Size Classes ' holdings \i\% animal* fa. % 'hôldlrtà % hotdfng* fa* animal* , f a* - holding Number of ,. SIZé classas Number'of Size classe* Animal*/ s Numbérôf S|ze classé* Numbérôf Size classé* Animal*/ 4. 151 2. 573 4. 842 2. 773 1. 339 1. 039 24,83% 15,39% 28,96% 16,59% 8,01% 6,22% 13. 930 41. 266 262. 222 439. 576 461. 215 1. 016. 172 0,62%. 1,85% 11,74% 19,67% 20,64% 45,48% 3 16 54 159 344 978 2. 670 1. 755 3. 241 2. 094 1. 386 1. 195 21,64% 14,22% 26,26% 16,97% 11,23% 9. 438 28. 073 174. 744 339. 788 484. 264 9,68% 1. 240. 240. 16. 717 100,00% 2. 234. 381 100,00% 134 12. 341 100,00% 2. 276. 547 0,41 % 1,23% v 7,68% 14,93% 21,27% 54,48% 100,00% •v /1987/93 •/-Animais per holding +5,33% -0,26%. -0,44% +2,36% +1. 44% +6,12% 4 16 54 162 349 1038 184 +38. 02% t v 7. 301 3. 681 1. 002 357 59,16% 29. 83% 8. 12% 2,89% 15. 614 84. 728 65. 602 75. 428 6,47% 35,10% 27,18% 3"1,25% 12. 341 100. 00% 241. 372 100,00% 2 23 65 211 20 1-9 pigs" 10-24 pigs" 25-99 pigs" 100-249 pigs" 250-499 pigs" > 499 pigs" Total 1-9 fattening pigs 10-49 fattening pigs 50-99 fattening pigs 100-199 fattening pigs 200-399 fattening pigs 400-999 fattening pigs > 1000 fattening pigs Total 1-9 sows 10-49 sows 50-99 sows > 100 sows Total * Data from the national authority, no data on fattenning-pigs and sows (1987) available •" Definition of size-classes not consistent with EUROSTAT data EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures j Austria* 1987 , 1993 , 1987/93 Size classes 1-10 pigs" 11-50 pigs" 51-100 pigs" 101-200 pigs" 201-400 pigs" 401-600 pigs" > 600 pigs" Tolal 1-9 fattening pigs 10-49 fattening pigs 50-99 fattening pigs 100-199 fattening pigs 200-399 fattening pigs 400-999 fattening pigs > 1000 fattening pigs Total 1-10 sows** 11-50 sows" 51-100 sows" > 100 sows" Total Number of Size classes Number of size classes " Animals/ Numbéfof size classe* , j Numbérôf size dusse* Animal*/ •/-Animal* holdings \t\% animal* \<\% holding holding* fa* animal* fa* holding per holding' 122. 975 23. 299 6. 016 4. 665 2. 132. 137 73 77,20% 14,63% 3,78% 2,93% 1,34% 0,09% 0,05% 398. 573 537. 895 432. 043 666. 332 567. 141 64. 240 77. 371 14,53% 19,61% 15,75% 24,29% 20,67% 2,34% 2,82% 159. 297 100,00% 2. 743. 595 100,00% 3 23 72 143 266 469 1060 • 17. • 94. 557. 16. 087. 5. 667 5. 236 2. 959 239 66 75,76% 12,89% 4,54% - 4,20% 2,37% 0,19% 0,05% 289. 238 386. 831 409. 437 756. 377 797. 212 110. 787 71. 971 124. 811 ; 100,00% 2. 821. 853 10,25% 13,71% v 14,51% 26,80% 28,25% 3,93% 2,55% 100,00% v 3 24 72 144 269 464 1090 23 -5,62% +4,16% +0,60% +1,13% +1,28% -1,14% +2,89% +31,27% 33. 120 11. 361 347 23 44. 851 73,84% 25,33% 0. 77% 0,05% 105. 379 258. 538 21. 975 4. 336 27,31% 67,00% 5,69% 1,12% 100,00% 385. 892 101,12% 3 23 63 189 9 19. 725 10. 928. 625 66 31. 344 62,93% 34,86% 1,99% 0. 21% 68. 127 263. 228 39. 112 10. 727 17,87% 69,05% 10,26% 2,81% 100,00% 381. 194 100,00% 3 24 63 163 12 +8,55% +5,85% -1. 18% -13. 79% +41,35%. > * Data from the national authority; no data on fattenning-pigs available; figures do not include piglets! ** Definition of size-classes not consistent with EUROSTAT data EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures TABLE 13: The structure of pig holdings in the EU by region Number of pigs In 1000 Number of pig holdings în 1000 REGIONS 1989 1993 +/-1989/93 % 1989 1993 +/-1989/93% -1989 1993 +/-1989/93% Number of prgs/holdlng BE1 BE3 DK DE1 DE2 VLAAMS GEWEST + BXL REG. WALONNE B DK BADEN WURTEMBERG BAYERN DE4" BRANDENBURG DE3 DE7 HAMBURG, BREMEN, BERLIN HESSEN DE8. MECKLENBURG-VORPOMME DE9. NIEDERSACHSEN DEA DEB NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN RHEINLAND-PFALZ DEC SAARLAND DED DEE DEF SACHSEN SACHSEN-ANHALT SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN DEG THURINGEN DEU GR11 ANATONIKI MACEDONIA & T GR3 ATTIKI GR23 DYTIKI ELLADA GR13 DYTIKI MAKEDONIA GR21 IPEIROS GR12. KENTRIKI MAKEDONIA GR43 KRITI GR22 NISIA IONIOU GR42 NOTIO AIGALO GR25 PELOPONNESOS GR34 STEREA ELLADA GR14 THESSALIA GR41 VOREIO AIGALO GR ES61 ANDALUCIA ES24 ARAGON ES12 ASTURIAS ES53 BALEARES ES7 ES13 ES42 ES41 CANARIAS CANTABRIA CASTILLA-LA-MANCHA CASTILLA-LEON ES. 51 ÇATALUNA ES52 ES43 ES11 ES23 ES3 COM. VALENCIANA EXTREMADURA GALICIA LARIOJA MADRID ES62 MURCIA ES22 ES21 NAVARRA PAIS VASCO ESP I 16 4 20 31 49 87 2 0 29 2 47 37 12 1 2 2 6 2 13 2 15 27 42 79 2 0 25 1 41 33 10 1 3 1 5 2 -20. 37% 6354 6831 -42,31% 304 291 +7. 51% -4. 10% 395 78 533 129 -24,65% 6657 7122 ' +6,98% 333 473 -14,46% 9198 11568 +25,76% 293 431 -14,24% 2204 2280 -9,56% 3669 3809 -10,00% 1310 923 -50,00% -13,98% 25 999 -12,67% 1273 8 971 907 -13,04% • 7069 7186 -10,08% 5834 5812 -15. 88% -30. 00% +47,14% 500 35 988 -28,00% 1192 461 30 705 849. -14. 83% 1437 1368 +3. 45% +3. 81% -29. 56% -67. 59% -2. 84% 45 42 54 48 596 466 125 34 81. 38 -28. 73% 849 693 + 1. 67% -0. 39% -7. 74% -15. 37% -28. 59% -28. 81% -4. 77% 151 159 42. 39 470 596 239 177 176 46 48 228 589 268 +12,38% 821 732 -10,91% 391 ' 310 278 246 -11,54% 27356 26041 -4,81% 2 0 6 3 1 3 2 0 2 2 3 5 2 ' 32 23 11 19 7 2 4 11 58 14 3 24 120 2 C A 4 0 10 6 1 5 5 0 3 3 6 9 1 55 16 7 17 6 1 2 5 45 12 2 15 95 1 C 2 A e 311 '. 2 * 23£ +121,00% +55,00% +67,97% +88,53% +4,44% +79,29% +110,91% -12,50% +36,09% 54 21 62 22 122 110 60 7 24 +20,00%. 58 +81. 21% 212 +88. 20%. 125 -22. 78% +68,36% 40 934 64 7 63 38 43 118 49 4 31 84 126 172 9 808 -29. 83% 1049 -30,19% 1*512 1103 1928 -10,88% -11. 54% -28. 89% -31. 94% 52 70 33 13 54 73 19 11 -57,72% 475 437 -23,63% 1787 1963 -13,96% 3825 4469 -33,46% -37,50% 605 621 -20,40% ' 632 -18. 13% -40,00% -40. 00% -20. 48% -25. 08% 87 38 693 29S 5C 691 682 584 77 51 547 34-4 31 -24. 29°/ 11842 13064 + 19,05% -65. 50% -22. 37% +67. 46% -65. 06% +7. 81% -18. 34% -43. 00% +30. 21 % +45. 37% -40,33% +37,96% -76,48% -13,55% +5,11% 99 27 105 14 7 136 39 27 18 10 26 64 25 22 29 45 106 14 23 6 6 45 24 10 11 10 32 21 18 7 15 68 +27,48% 141 258 +2,90% +4,28% -41,92% -15,04% -8,00% +9,80% + 16,83% + 14,24% +9,86% -7,53% -11,65% +33,98% > -21,08°X + 14,97°X > -37. 23°X , + 10,317 3 11 19 4 42 31 3 13 15 5 91 44 275 233 374 400 26 5 55 45 e 5S > 281 126 r 5 187 71 24€ J 10: " 55 5 I 5 21 +35,02% +66,22% +41,98% +47,02% +20,63% " +14,79% «21,73% -35,18% +12,95% -18,39% +16,91% +10,78% +9,68% +20,90% -51,47% -1,13% +11,82% -20,72% +7,62% -46,13% -77,74% -53,78% -11,18% -66,54% -39,87% -61,28% -34,86% -4,32% +21. 14% -67,07% -26. 69% -69. 55% -48,65% +49,79% +82. 61% +15. 46% +17. 89% -18,33% +24,84% +117. 60% +43,78% +35,78% +71,69% +75,78% +16,17°X +7,91°/ +123,30<!< > +31. 53°^ 3 ) +44. 58°> ) -16. 22°> +45,71'/ 'o _ Number of pîg-holdings in 1000 Number of p i g* In tOOO Number of plgttholdlng REGIONS 1989 1993 +/-1989/93 % 1989 1993 +/-1989/93 %. 1989 1993 • M 9 8 9 / 9 3 tf FR42 ALSACE FR61 AQUITAINE FR72 AUVERGNE FR25 BASSE-NORMANDIE FR26 BOURGOGNE FR52 BRETAGNE FR24 CENTRE 4 19 10 4 4 22 'A FR21 CHAMPAGNE-ARDENNE ' • 2 -28. 50% -24. 29% -21,96% -43. 41% -36,14% 72 472 243 351 198 67 457 280 410 214 -7,90% -3,28% +15. 18% +16,66% 18 25 24 80 +7. 97% • 45 -30,00% 6612 7740 + 17,05% 305 23 32 35 165 76 510 133 62 42 94 +28,81% +27,76% +47,60% +106,14% +69. 06% +67,22% +74. 21% +41. 86% +1,15% +31,77% +27. 03% 165. 277. ' +68,13% 162 140. -13,58% 3 14 8 2 3 15 3 1 1 1 1 0 1 6 3 17 4 8. 1 5 1 8 1 2 1 0 2 9 5 22 5 11 2 8 1 12 3 27 18 8 37 '•56 11 7 37 1 15 29 13 9 3 20 5 12 1 14 0 22 3 22 16 8 34 59 5 3 27 0 10 25 •7 5 3 18 6 7 1 14 0 15 149 106 -28,89% 12204 13929 -10,69% 1302 1570 +20,57% 449 606 -30. 56% 1025 1474 +43. 77% -20,26% -40,00% -27,50% -26,67% -24,44% +0,00% -21,58% -33,76% -30. 85% -23,78% -25,38% 290 101 33 107 148 16 59 158 74 610 681 402 86 24 103 188 14 52 171 85 629 635 -35. 00% -35. 36% -25. 56% -34,92% 174 332 38 408 159 339 32 366 -19,15% 133 -12,66% -8,21% -6. 29% +5. 32% 75 25 141 162 122 ' 71 25 135 150 -53. 24% 1896 1896 -62. 08% -25. 92%. -48. 75% 207 178 4 197 154 1 -35,78% 2880 2940 -14. 19% -40,48% -38. 86% +4,69% -8. 87% +3. 33% -38. 38% -14. 44% 248 58 756 38 258 100 293 8 234 53 810 31 255 94 265 4 -3. 94% 352 322 -20,00% -34,37% 1 0 581 637 +38,91% -14. 89% -26. 67% -3. 37% 76 44 42 71 -13i58% -11,09% +8,64% +14,25% +3. 01% -6. 68% -8. 37% +2,31% -17. 21% -10,11% +14,14% 31 19 16 28 35 30 26 38 131 95 164 197 1'09 - 153 39 43 34 82 62 47 47 132 -8,56% -4,24% -0,28% -4,72% -7,30% +0. 01% -5,12% -13,06% -82. 50% +2. 09% -5. 93% -7. 75% +7,15% -17,59% -1. 07% -6. 39% -9. 33% , -45. 06% -8. 57% -54,00% +9,55% +0,04% 5 4 3 4 3 6 4 3 4 3 171 365 29 72 5 5 6 2 187 297 9 5 9 7 •86 151 12 13 19 25 9 25 3 26 24 9 14 17 37 5 24 1 44 29 346 286 -17,40% 8393 8396 1 1 14 4 10 29 1 1 13 3 10 27. -5,66% 77 72 -6,57% 145 144 -14. 29% -9. 08% -6. 94% -6. 76% 576 4819 824 585 5128 879 7630 8373 -8,26% 13849 14964 +1,60% " 411 +6,40% +6,65% +9. 74% +8. 06% 342 229 748 473 488 400 262 880 557 +13,37% +64,03% +65. 23% +35. 15% +25,07% +107,03% +40,97% +58,27% +11,21% +38,11% +60,51% +35,00% +13,10% +9,65% +8,65% +1,68% -11,99% +113. 89% +150. 24% • +17. 37% -65. 85% +58,96% +9. 63% +55,00% +75,26% -21,28% +8,56% -9,41% +47,13% -35,79% -4,82% -42,50% +66,91 % +21,12% -0,97% +18,54% +17,03% + 14,61% + 17,70% +17,78% FR83 CORSE FR43 FRANCHE-COMTE FR23 HAUTE-NORMANDIE FR1 FR81 ILE-DE-FRANCE LANGUEDOC-ROUSILLON FR63 LIMOUSIN FR41 LORRAINE FR62 MIDI-PYRENEES FR3 NORD-PAS-DE-CALAIS FR51 PAYS-DE-LA-LOIRE FR22 PICARDIE FR53 POITOU-CHARENTES FR82 PAC FR71 RHONÉ-ALPES F IRL ABRUZZI BASIUCATA IE IT71 IT92 IT311 BOLZANO-BOZEN IT93 CALABRIA IT8 IT4 CAMPANIA EMILIA ROMAGNA IT33 * FRIULI-VENEZIA GIULIA IT6 IT13 LAZIO LIGURIA IT2 • LOMBARDIA IT53 IT72 IT11 IT91 ITB ITA IT51 MARCHE MOUSE PIEMONTE PUGLIA SARDEGNA SICILIA TOSCANA IT312 TRENTO IT52. UMBRIA IT12 IT32 LU NL1 NL2 NL3 NL4 VALLE D'AOSTA VENETO IT LUX NOORD NL OOST NL WEST NL ZUID NL NL Source : E U R O F A RM ^JL Number of pfg-hôldings In 1000 Number of ptgs In iOOQ Number of pFgs/halding REGIONS 1989 1993 +/. 1989/93 % 1989 1993 +/-1989/93 % 1989 1993 +M989/93% ' OS PT2 ACORES PT14 ALENTEJO PT15 ALGARVE PT12 CENTRO PT13 USBOA&VALEDOTEJO PT3 MADEIRA PT11 NORTE PORT FIN SWE UK4 UK3 UK1 UK8 UKB UKA UK5 UK6 UK9 UK7 UK2 EAST-ANGUA EAST MIDLANDS NORTH NORTHWEST NORTHERN IRELAND SCOTLAND SOUTH EAST SOUTH WEST WALES WEST MIDLANDS YORKSHIRE & HUMBERSIDE 122 9 8 5 76 18 5 52 10 13 8 102 26 •6 74 -10,00% -39. 02% -32,63% -25,16% 41 345 74 589 3781 47 401 56 553 -32,24% 1146 1344 -17,81% -29,84% 18 227 26 190 239 173 -27,54% 2439 2618 +16,09%. '• 4 +16. 19% -23. 69% -6,02% + 17,32% 26 10 6 44 +39,45%. 3 • -16,14% +7,32% 3 10 -3,13% 1437. 1438 +0,08% ' 898 928 11 12 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 2 1 0 1 3 1 2. 3 1 1 3 1381 2777 -7,27% +32,50% -26. 00% -18. 52% -8. 89% - +11. '88% -2. 86% +0. 00% +2. 73% 601 172 315 626 459 799 861 101 416 628 186 293 613 547 804 849 106 422 -0. 80% 17661 1877 31 5 49 11 7 77 5 4 15 128 226 +28,99% +90. 54% +13,28% +25,58% +73. 14% +69,68% +19,52% +48,12% +3. 31% +12. 85%. -18,45% +25,51% +20,11% +30,66% -10,10% +1,56% +4,83% -1,21% +7,19% +7,36% +4,64% +8. 05% -7,12% -2,13% + 19,04% +0. 58% -1,34% 546 430 315 232 510 616 351 395 278 6. 67 500. 449 307 312 +4,83% Y 84 +1,48% +6,33% +2,79% 378 706 447 88 373 757 480 UK 17 16 -4,26% 7552| 7763 Çnurco ; E U R O F A RM 03 TABLE 14: Number of LSU (pigs and cattle) per ha utilised agricultural area RegFons perhaUAA perhaUAA perhaUAA beïween 1987 a nd S3/S4 v LSU Cattle LSUpïgs Total LSU Changé in pig; stock be BELGIQUE-BELGIE 1994 bel be2 REG. BRUXELLES-CAP. /BRUSSELSHFDST. GEW. VLAAMSGEWEST i be3 REGION WALLONNE <Jk DANMARK 1994 tie DEUTSCHLAND 1994 del BADEN-WUERTTEMBERG de2 BAYERN de3 BERLIN de4 BRANDENBURG de5 BREMEN de6 HAMBURG de7 HESSEN de8 de9 MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN NIEDERSACHSEN dea NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN deb RHEINLAND-PFALZ dec SAARLAND ded SACHSEN dee SACHSEN-ANHALT def SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN deg THUERINGEN , gr ÊUADA 1993 gn gr2 VOREIA ELLADA KENTRIKI ELLADA gr3 ATTIKI gr4 NISIAAIGAIOU. KRITI «S ÊSPANA 1993 es1 NOROESTE es11 GALICIA es12 ASTURIAS es13 CANTABRIA es2 NORESTE es21 PAIS VASCO es22 NAVARRA es23 RIOJA es24 ARAGON es3 MADRID es4 CENTRO (E) es41 CASTILLA-LEON es42 CASTILLA-LA MANCHA es43 EXTREMADURA es5 ESTE es51 CATALUNA es52 COMUNIDAD VALENCIANA es53 BALEARES es6 SUR es61 ANDALUCIA es62 MURCIA es63 CEUTAYMELILLA 1,64 0,60 1,91 1,42 0,54 0,66 0,69 "0791 0,56 0,39 0,99 0. 41 0. 55 0,35 0. 75 0,77 0,08 0,60 0,54 0,29 0,92 0,44 0,11 0,17 0. 06 0. 07 0,06 0,15 1,06 1,21 0,82 1,08 0,10 0,60 0,12 0,15 0,04 0,11 0,10 0,15 0,03 0,10 0,17 0,26 0,04 0,12 0,08 0,09 0,04 0,00 1,00 0. 00 2,12 0,07 0,68 0,28 0,26 0,21 0,22 0,11 0,04 0,04 0,23 0,09 0,52 0,72 0,11 0,07 0,13 0,13 0,24 0. 17 0,05 0. 04 0. 08 0,05 0,04 0,14 0,11 0,18 0,03 0,02 0,19 0,04 0,11 0,09 0,23 0,03 0,08 0,10 0,03 0,11 0,56 0,83 0,26 0,06 0,13 0,09 0,44 0,00 2,64 0,60 4,03 1,49 1,22 0,93 0,95 1,12 0,78 0,50 1,03 0,46 0,77 0,44 1,27 1,49 0,19 0,68 0,67 0,42 1,16 0,60 0,17 0,21 0,14 0,12 0,10 0,29 1,16 1,39 0,85 1,10 0,29 0,64 0,24 0,23 0,27 0,14 0,17 0,25 0,06 0,21 0,73 1,10 0,30 0,18 0. 21 0,18 0,48 0,00 * •11,$3t* +23,25% -8,96% +2t,$VA -3,85% -4,69% -42,86% -50,00% -50,00% -21,00% -4,45% -7,39% -27,03% -32,10% -16,27% •2,$1% *5,38% -61,81% -62,97% -41,36% -66,10% +22,11% -49,73% -13,24% -25,23% +33,76% -47,50% +6,82% -5,13% -2,03% +46,26% +10,77% +10,97% +23,63% -56,72% +21,69% +44,43%. -8,27% - ' EUROSTAT: New Cronos/regio (italic figures : from the 1993 survey on pig holding structures, LSU Ireland estimated) Regions per ha UAA per ha UAA per ha UAA between 1987 and 93/94 LSU cattle LSU pigs Total LSU Change in pig stock es7 fr fr1 fr2 fr3 fr4 frS fr6 fr7 fr8 CANARIAS FRANCE 1993 LE DE FRANCE BASSIN PARISIEN NORD-PAS-DE-CALAIS EST OUEST SUD-OUEST CENTRE-EST MEDITERRANEE fr9 i ll $111 it1 DEPARTEMENTS D'OUTRE-MER ï'ÊS^^MÊ^W^^^^^^^^^i^&à WM^^KfiM^^^Ê^^^^MMM^ÊË NORD OVEST rt11 PIEMONTE it12 VALLE D'AOSTA it13 LIGURIA it2 LOMBARDIA H3 NORD EST it31 TRENTINO-ALTO ADIGE it32 VENETO K33 FRIULI-VENEZIA GIULIA it4 it5 EMILIA-ROMAGNA CENTRO (I) it51 TOSCANA it52 UMBRIA it53 MARCHE it6 rt7 LAZIO ABRUZZO-MOLISE it71 ABRUZZO it72 MOUSE it8 it9 CAMPANIA SUD it91 PUGLIA it92 BASILICATA it93 CALABRIA ita itb lu ni nil nl2 nl3 nl4 Pt pt1 SICILIA SARDEGNA LUXEMBOURG (GRAND-DUCHE) 1994 NEDERLAND 1994 NOORD-NEDERLAND OOST-NEDERLAND WEST-NEDERLAND ZUID-NEDERLAND PORTUGAL 1994 CONTINENTE pt11 NORTE pt12 CENTRO (P) pt13 LISBOA E VALE DO TEJO pt14 ALENTEJO pt15 ALGARVE pt2 pt3 ACORES MADEIRA 0,12 0,09 0,01 0,04 0,15 0,03 0,34 0,06 0,05 0,02 0,33 0,58 0,05 0,48 0,80 0,65 1,11 0,56 0,65 0,13 -44. 20% ' +25,21% -4,15% +33,10% +7,70% 0,21 0,49 0,05 0,44 0,65 0,62 0,78 0,50 0,60 0. 11 - 1,05 illllllili 0,58 lllilllii^osi llllillloli 0,13 illlllfl llllltflii llllllIlllllllIIIIl^^M iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiili +10,35% 0J1 0,63 0,29 0,18 1,26 0,63 1,06 0,81 0,38 0,52 0,13 0. 11 0,16 0,14 0,30 0,17 0,15 0,20 0,35 0. 11 0,09 0,11 0,17 0,21 0. 15 1,16 1,69 1,41 2,22 1,12 2,03 0,24 0,21 0,44 0,31 0,21 0,10 0,07 1,19 0,82 0,15 0,00 0,00 0,61 0,12 0,04 0,16 0,17 0,33 0,10 0,06 0,20 0,10 0,05 0,06 0,06 0,06 0,06 0,02 0,01 0,03 0. 05 0,01 0,05 0,11 1,16 0,16 1,40 0,27 3,39 0. 11 0,12 0,05 0,17 0,42 0,04 0,10 0,06 0,32 0,78 0,30 0,19 1,88 0,75 1,10 0,98 0,55 0,85 0,23 0,17 0,36 0,24 0,35 0,23 0,21 0,26 0,41 0,14 0,10 0,14 0,22 0,22 0,20 1,27 2,85 1,57 3,62 1,39 5,42 0,36 0,33 0,49 0,47 0,63 0,14 0. 18 1,25 1,14 +10,97% -33,33% -70,00% +2,90% -3,18% -29,73% -5,64% +11,81% -20,48% -18,22% -33,01% -6,38% -12,42% -14,58% +10,08% +20,66% -5,84% -24,38% -39,42% -44,36% -45,65% -32,97% -5,69% +5,59% ' *4. 29% 4,34% -8,36% -5,97% -16,74% +6,27% +0,11% +1,06% -32,90% +5,67% +7,24% +6,01% -12,05% -19,57% -45,28% EUROSTAT: New Cronos/regio (italic figures : from the 1993 survey on pig holding structures, LSU Ireland estimated) Uk UNITED KINGDOM uk1 NORTH Regions 1994 uk2 YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE uk3 EAST MIDLANDS uk4 EAST ANGLIA uk5 SOUTH EAST (UK) uk6 SOUTH WEST (UK) uk7 WEST MIDLANDS uk8 NORTH WEST (UK) uk9 WALES uka SCOTLAND ukb NORTHERN IRELAND at OESTERREICH 1994 at1 OSTOESTERREICH at11 BURGENLAND at12 NIEDEROESTERREICH at13 WIEN at2 SUEDOESTERREICH at21 KAERNTEN at22 STEIERMARK at3 WESTOESTERREICH at31 OBEROESTERREICH « at32 SALZBURG at33 TIROL at34 VORARLBERG fi SUOMI/FINLAND 1994 se SVER1GE 1993 se01 STOCKHOLM se02 ÔSTRA MELLANSVERIGE se03 SMALAND MED ÔARNA se04 SYDSVERIGE se05 VÀSTSVERIGE se06 NORRA MELLANSVERIGE se07 MELLERSTA NORRLAND se08 ÔVRE NORRLAND LSU cattle LSU pigs Total LSU Change In pig stock perhaUAA perhaUAA p e r h a U AA. b e t w e en 1987 a nd 93/94 +1,91% -5,54% +9,13% -4,21% +4,42% -16,37% +2,85% +23,80% -24,09% -26,56% +35,86% -2,88% 0,50 0,63 0,47 0,41 0,16 0,41 0,98 0,78 1,12 0,68 0,25 1,03 0,49 0,35 0,13 0,40 0,00 0,51 0,43 0,57 0,59 0,89 0,44 0,34 0,41 0,32 0,28 0,15 0,22 0,40 0,27 0,32 0,23 0,27 0,27 0,09 0,04 0,34 0,11 0,31 0,11 0,10 0,13 0,13 0,01 0,02 0. 10 0,20 0. 20 0. 12 0,21 0,00 0,27 0,11 0,38 0,17 0,38 0,02 0,02 0,03 0,10 0,08 0,03 0,05. 0,05 0,17 0,11 0,03 0,01 0,03 0,59 0,67 0,81 0,52 0,48 0,51 1,08 0,91 1,24 0,69 0,27 1,13 0,69 0,55 0,25 0,62 0,00 0,78 0,54 0,95 0,75 1,27 0,46 0,36 0,44 0,42 0,36 0,18 0,27 0,45 0,44 0,43 0,26 0,28 0,30 E U R O S T A T: New Cronos/regio (italic figures : from the 1993 survey on pig holding structures, LSU Ireland estimated) ISSN 0254-1475 COM(98) 434 final DOCUMENTS EN 03 08 09 10 Catalogue number : CB-CO-98-446-EN-C ISBN 92-78-38034-2 Office for Official Publications of the European Communities L-2985 Luxembourg