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 
Summary 3 
1. Introduction 5 
2. Pig farming in the Community: the current situation 5 
2.1. The market in pigmeat 5 
2.1.1. Production 5 
2.1.2. Prices 5 
2.1.3. Intra-Community trade 7 
2.1.4. External trade 7 
2.1.5. Consumption 8 
2.1.6. Import arrangements 8 
2.1.7. Export arrangements and WTO 9 
2.1.8. Support measures under the market organisation 10 
2.1.9. Special market support measures in response to epizootics 10 
2.2. Budget 11 
2.3. Pigmeat balance: long-term outlook 12 
3. Structural, environmental and animal health aspects 13 
3.1. Development of pig numbers 13 
3.1.1. Developments at Member State level 13 
3.1.2. Developments at regional level 13 
3.2. Structure of pig holdings 16 
3.2.1. Structure at Member State level 17 
3.2.2. Structure at regional level 18 
3.3. Environmental aspects 19 
3.4. Animal health aspects 21 
3.4.1. Disease control 21 
3.4.2. Animal health problems in densely populated areas 23 
3.4.3. Measure which can enhance disease control 24 
3.4.4. Animal disease control expenditure 25 
3.5. Animal welfare 26 
4. Structural support measures 27 
4.1. Farm investment aids 27 
4.2. Investment aid for pig farms 27 
4.3. Transitional aid for pig farms 28 
4.4. Further development of support under Regulation 950/97 29 
4.4.1. Eligibility of regions 29 
4.4.2. Eligibility of farms 31 
5. Conclusion 32 
5.1. Market 32 
5.2. Structures 32 
Annex I: 1. Development of pig numbers at Member State level 
2. Derogation from the 35% fodder clause in Germany (Brandenburg) 
Annex II: Tables 1-14 
2 -
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. 
Price 
( Ecu/100 kg) 
210 
200 4-Development of the average Community price for pig carcasses 
190 + 
180 4-
170 
160 
150 
140 4-
130 + 
120 -I—i i i i—i t i i—i t i i—i—t—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i i i—i—i i i—t—i—i—(—i—i—i i 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 
Week 
1995 (Grade U) -^ 1995 (Grade E) -e-1996 -»-1997 
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 
6 Figures quoted are for EU-15. The quantities are expressed in carcase equivalent. 
-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) 
Refunds (export) 
Storage aid 
Exceptional support 
measures (Art. 20) 
Total Eur 12 
1993 
194 
2 
5 
201 Eur 12 
1994 
259 
22 
135 
416 Eur 15 
1995 
118 
18 
7 
143 Eur 15 
1996 
101 
18 
5 
124 Eur 15 
1997 
72 
-
407 
479 Eur 15 
1998* 
116 
16 
197 
329 
Budgetary credits 
11 
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 listed according to their 
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. 
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. 
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 to the European Union touched severely 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. 
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: Bretagne (510 pigs per holding) 
In Italy: Emilia Romagna (365) 
Lombardia (297) 
In Spain: 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 in the future any Directive that follows 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. 
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), 
Luxemburg (1,27), North West/UK (1,24), Denmark (1,22), Schleswig-
Holstein/Germany (1,16), Northern Ireland/UK (1,13), Bayern/Germany (1,12) and 
Ouest France (1,11). 
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 
Austria 
Belgium 
Germany 
Italy 
Spain 
The Netherlands Number of reported outbreaks in domestic pigs 
1994 
0 
48 
117 
24 
0 
0 1995 
*' 1 
0 
54 
42 
0 
0 1996 
1 
0 
4 
49 
0 
0 1997 
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. 
23-
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. 
-24-
• 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 
Community disease reference laboratories and the strengthening of veterinary 
infrastructures. 
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 
Emergency fund 
Eradication or 
Monotoring programmes 
Total Eur 12 
1994 
Actions 
28,1 
1,5 
29,6 Eur 15 
1995 
Actions 
10,7 
3,2 
13,9 Eur 15 
1996 
Actions 
0,8 
3,4 
4,2 Eur 15 
1997 
Forecast 
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. STRUCTURAL SUPPORT MEASURES 
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 
-30-
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 
Annex I 
1. Development of pig numbers at Member State level 
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 
See Table 7. 
20 
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 
Table 1 •\.y. 
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) 
•747 
1.208 
3.142 
147 
1.772 
1.817 
160 
1.211 
1.904 
278 
953 14.289 (2) 
893 
L272 
3.786 
153 
1.869 
1.860 
169 
1.224 
1.806 
263 
995 14.T43 (2) 
934 
1.383 
3:467 
153 
. 1.902 
••••"•1.950 
189 
1.228 
1.865 
265 
1.007 15.175 (2) J15.233 (2) 
976 
1.524 
3.574 
147 
2.065 
2.134 
2Ô1 
1.265 
1.972 
476 
304 
1.014 992 
1,539 
3,462 
142 
2.197 
2.117 
207 
1.295 
1.92-7 
473 
301 
171 
308 
1.054 16.043(3) 
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 Ex-DDR 
Eur 12 with new "Lander" 
Eur 15 
-3=) 
Table 2 
•••"'•••"•-. 1 • 
Pigmeat: Exports to third countries 
(product weight .including fats and offals, in 1000 kg) 
1993 
1994 
1995 
1996 UeBL 
36.604 
42.938 
44.888 
68.836 Dk' 
401.058 
498.814 
398.092 
396.484 Deu 
73.938 
102.343 
57.694 
37.365 Ell 
4.063 
4.581 
5.620 
6.077 Esp 
40.335 
51.256 
51.650 
62.539 Fra 
.56.764 
113,608 
104.806 
121.510 Irl 
10.387 
16.539 
12.149 
15.753 Ita 
11.285 
17.723 
15.084 
18.447 Nl 
,82.735 
99.337 
103.116 
119:074 Ôst 
20.138 
22.092 Port 
-.;'. 7.192 
8.187 
11.002 
10.580 SF 
7.589 
^1842 Sve 
12.257 
13.904 U.K. 
7.239 
18.375 
28.325 
35.006 •('"••. ' 
Eur 
73L604 
973.705 
872.410 
940.509 
Table 3 
Pigmeat: Imports from third countries 
(product weight, including fats and offals, in 1000 kg) 
1993 
1994 
1995 
1996 UeBL 
2.124 
2.223 
2.243 
1.005 Dk 
1.285 
2.229 
242 
608 Deu 
16.531 
13.955 
12.386 
13.540 Ell 
1.689 
1.162 
570 
1.058 Esp 
1.274 
4.451 
2.032 
6.028 Fra 
2.810 
5.791 
3.476 
6.407 Irl 
9 
81 
42 
155 Ita 
11.580 
10.194 
10.838 
Î8.162 Nl 
12.316 
6.822 
6.218 
7.832 Ôst 
1.606 
2.488 Port 
42 
5 
278 
219 SF 
2 
1 Sve 
1.651 
1.654 U.K. 
4.917 
5.002 
4.536 
3.809 Eur 
54.576 
51.918 
46.120 
62.966 
^o 
Table4 
Import quotas for Diqmeat 
1. Association Agreements with the CEEC-countries 
(Period: 11.1997 -31.12.1997) . 
> • 
Hungary 
Polonia 
Czech Republic 
Slovak Republic 
Bulgaria 
Romania 
Lithuania * 
Latvia * 
. Estonia * 
Slovenia Quantities 
,' in tonnes 
41.768 
26.050 
4.980 
2.340 
230 
17.533 
/ 1.050 
1.260 
L575 
150 % of reduction 
of customs rate 
80% 
'80% 
80% 
80% 
80% 
80% ' 
80% 
80% 
80% 
80% 
•(Period: 1.7.1996 - 30.12.1997) 
2. ACP-countries ' 
(Period: 1.1.1997 -31.12.1997) 
Quantities 
in tonnes 
250 % of reduction 
of customs rate 
50% 
3. In the framework of the WTO 
' 
WTO - 1 
(Period: 1.1.1997-
31.12.1997) 
WTO-2 
(Period: 1.7.1996 - . 
30.6.1997) Quantities 
in tonnes 
7.000 
18.920 Customs duty 
exemption 
Final amount 
fixed per product 
tfj 
Tabled. • ':.-. , • v: ' 
Pigment supply balance in the EU-15 (in *000 t carcase weight equivalent), 
situation and outlook 
Pigmcat 
Production 
Consumption 
Imports 
Exports '..'• -
per capita 
cons, (kg) 1995 
.15:953 
15.137. 
22 
808 
40,67. 1996 
16.325 
15.527 
42 
; 87Ô; 
41,67 1997 
16.570 
15.770 
. 50 
••.;. $50 
42,20 1998 
16.684 
15,908 
V 65 
841 
42;44 1999 
16.775 
16.034 
-so 
821 
. 42.68 2000 
16.871 
16.165 
95 
• 801 
42,88 2001 
16.998 
16.317 
11.0, 
792 
43,17 2002 
17.136 
16455 
110 
. .792. 
.43,41 2003 
17.276 
16.594 
110 
792 
43,66 2004 
17.417. 
16.735 
no 
792. 
43,90 2005 
17.539 
16.857 
110 
792 
44,15 
Note: 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. " . <. 
•.- . ^ -... • •'*'.' ' '•.'•'. . • *• 
^JL 
TABLE 6: Total number of pigs per Member State 
Total number of pigs (in 
be 
dk 
de 
dw 
gr 
es 
-g ' 
fr 
ir 
it 
lu 
nl . 
pt 
uk 
e12 MS 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Germany (West)" 
Germany (East)** 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxemburg 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
United Kingdom 
EUR12 1996 
7.225 
, 11.079 
24.117 
20.958 
3.159 
> 904 
18.572 
14.968 
1.665 
8.090 
77 
14.253 
2.344 
7.600 
110.894 1000) 
+/-% 
+5,07% 
+1,92% 
•7,51% 
-5,17% 
-20,51% 
-20,91% 
+2,11% 
+4,73% 
+11,99% 
-3,09% 
+7,48% 
+1,87% 
-12,08% 
-3.41% 
-0,88% 1993 
6.876 
10.870 
26.075 
22.101 
3974 
1.143 
18.188 
14.291 
1.487 
8.348 
72 
13.991 
2.666 
7.868 
111.875 +/-% 
+7,01% 
+17,11% 
-15,39% 
+0,30% 
-54,76% 
+0,00% 
+14,04% 
+18,07% 
+19,02% 
. -5,53% 
+2,02% 
+1.47% 
+0,08% 
+6,61% 
+2,06% > 
1990 •. 
6.426 
. 9.282 
30.819 
22.035 
8.784 
"• 1.143 
15.949 
12.013 
1.249 
8.837 
.70 
13.788 
2.664 
7.380 
109.620 +/-1990/96% 
+12,43% 
+19,36% 
-2i;75% 
-4,89% 
-64,04% 
-20,91% 
' :+16,45% 
+24,60% 
+33,30% 
-8,45% 
+9,66% 
+3,37% 
-12,01% 
+2,98% 
+1,16% 
at 
n 
se 
e15 Austria 
Finland 
Sweden 
EUR15 3.663 
1.413 
2.323 
118.293 -4,11% 
+8,76% 
+2,02% 
-0.82% 3.820 
• 1300 
2277 
119.272 +3,58% 
+0,74% 
+0,57% 
+10,36% 3.688 
1.290 
2.264. 
108.078 -0,68% 
+9,56% 
+2,61% 
+9,45% A Total number of pigs 
1996(UE-15) 
6,11% 
. 9,37% 
20,39% 
.17,72% 
2,67% 
0,76% 
15,70% 
12,65% 
1,41% 
6,84% 
0,07% 
• •". 12,05% 
1,98% 
6,42% 
• •• , 
3,30% 
1,27% 
2,09% 
100,00% 1996(UE-12) 
6,52% 
9,99% 
21,75% 
18,90% 
.2,85% 
0^2% 
16,75% 
13,50% 
..•••'• 1,50% 
. 7,30% 
0,07% 
12,85% 
2,11% 
6,85% 
100,00% in percentage of EU 
1993 
6,15%' 
9,72% 
23,31% 
19,75% 
"3,55% 
.1,02% 
.16,26% 
12,77% 
1,33% 
7,46% 
.0,06% 
12,51% 
2,38% 
7t03% 
100,00% 19Ô0 •• 
• •: £.86% 
8,47% 
28,11% 
20,10% 
8,01% 
1.04% 
14,55% 
10,96% 
1,14% 
8,06% 
0,06% 
12.58% 
\ 2,43% 
6,73% 
100,00% */-'90r96(UE-12) 
• I" +0,65% 
••••<:'•"••:'•-:. +1,52% 
-6,37% 
•;•• '•::•-•; , -1,20% 
:••••>'•'".:'•••'•. -5,16% 
v -0^3% 
+2^0% 
- +2,54% 
+0,36% 
-0,77% 
•0,01% 
+0,27% 
-0,32% 
+0,12% MS.. 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Germany (West)* 
Germany (East)** 
•-,' Greece 
-Spain 
> £ France 
.Ireland 
( ; ; Italy 
Luxemburg 
Netherlands 
•; " Portugal 
United Kingdom 
EUR12 
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) 
be 
dk 
de 
dw 
es 
fr_ 
ir 
it 
lu 
nl 
Pt 
uk 
e12 
at 
fi 
se 
e15 MS 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Germany (West)' 
Germany (East)* 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxemburg 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
United Kingdom 
EUR12 1996 
2.695 
3.013 
9.148 
8.071 
1.076 
288 
7.563 
5.689 
525 
4.350 
26 
'4.965 
698 
2.701 
41.662 +/-% 
+5.24% 
+1,31% 
-5.59% 
-2.90% 
-21.92% 
-14.79% 
+3.78% 
+3,30% 
+15,68% 
-2,43% 
+15,03% 
+7,35% 
-15.50% 
+2.27% 
+0.67% 1993 
2.561 
2.974 
9.690 
8.312 
1378 
338 
7.287 
5.508 
454 
4.459 
23 
4.625 
826 
2.641 
41.385 +/-% 
+14,05% 
+19,63% 
-17,36% 
+0,78% 
-60.38% 
+7,30% 
+17,78% 
+21,99% 
+18.48% 
-7,47% 
+0,40% 
-0,62% 
-1,55% 
+8.91% 
+11,44% 1990 
2.245 
2.486 
11.726 
8.248 
3.478 
315 
6.187 
4.515 
383 
4.818 
23 
4.654 
839 
2.425 
37.138 +7-1990/96% 
Austria 
Finland 
Sweden 
EUR15 1.262 
499 
699 
44.122 -6.86% 1.355 +20,03% 
+21;20% 
-21,99% 
-2,15% 
-69,06% 
-8,57% 
+22,24% 
+26,01% 
+37,06% 
-9,72% 
+15,49% 
+6,68% 
-16,81% 
+11,38% 
+12,18% Number of fattening pigs > 50 kg as % of EU total 
1996(UE-15) 
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% 1996(UE*12) 
6,47% 
7,23% 
21,96% 
19,37% 
2,58% 
0,69% 
18,15% 
13,66% 
1,26% 
10,44% 
0,06% 
11,92% 
1,68% 
6,48% 
100,00% 1993 
6,19% 
7»19% 
23.41% 
.20,08% 
3,33% 
0,82% 
17,61% 
13,31% 
1,10% 
10,77% 
0,06% 
11,18% 
2,00% 
6.38% 
100,00% 1990 
$05% 
6,69% 
31,57% 
22,21% 
9,37% 
0,85% 
16,66% 
12,16% 
1,03% 
12,97% 
0,06% 
12,53% 
4 2,26% 
6.53% 
100,00% +/-W96(UE-12) 
+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% MS 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Germany (West)* 
Germany (East)'* 
Greece 
Spain 
Frartce 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxemburg 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
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) 
be 
dk 
de 
dw 
es 
fr 
ir 
it 
lu 
nl 
Pt 
uk 
e12 
at 
fi 
se 
e15 MS 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Germany (West)* 
Germany (East)* 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxemburg 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
United Kingdom 
EUR12 1996 
748 
1.221 
2.543 
2.141 
402 
135 
2.063 
1.453 
182 
685 
1.483 
330 
875 
11.727 +/-% 
+0.84% 
+5.08% 
-9.45% 
-6.95% 
-20,71 % 
-17,18% 
-2.18% 
•6,00% 
+8.16% 
-2,55% 
-6,53% 
+0.54% 
-9,84% 
-2,02% 
-2,03% 1993 
742 
1.162 
2.808 
2.301 
507 
163 
2.109 
1.371 
169 
703 
10 
1.475 
366 
893 
11.970 +/-% 
+1,42% 
+11,62% 
-12,10% 
-3,80% 
-36.86% 
+1,88% 
+ 12.75% 
+16.85% 
+13,31% 
-3.17% 
-0.50% 
+1,37% 
•3,39% 
+4.32% 
+9.65% 1990 
731 
1.041 
3.195 
2.392 
803 
160 
1.870 
1.173 
149 
726 
10 
1.455 
354 
856 
10:917 +/-1990/96% 
Austria 
Finland 
Sweden 
EUR15 385 
181 
262 
12.556 +1.05% 
-3.86% 381 
273 +7.08% 
+9,17% 356 
250 +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% 
+8.21% 
+4.96% Number of sows as percentage of EU total 
1996(UE-15) 
5,96% 
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% 1996(UE-12) 
6,38% 
10,41% 
21,68% 
18,26% 
3,43% 
1.15% 
17,59% 
12,39% 
1.55% 
5,84% 
0,08% 
12.65% 
2,81% 
7.46% 1993 
6,20% 
9.71% 
, 23,46% 
19,22% 
4,24% 
1,36% 
17,62% 
11,45% 
1,41% 
5,87% 
0,08% 
12,32% 
3,06% 
7,46% 
100,00% 1990 
6,V0% 
9,54% 
29,27% 
21,91% 
7,36% 
1,47% 
17,13% 
10,74% 
1.36% 
6,65% 
0,09% 
13,33% 
. 3,24% 
7,84% 
100.00% • +/-'90/'96(UE-12) 
-0,32% 
+0,88% 
-7,58% 
-3,65% 
-3.93% 
-0.31% 
+0,46% 
+1.64% 
+0.19% 
-0.81% 
-0.01% 
-0.68% 
-0.43% 
-Q.38% MS. 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Germany (West)' 
Germany (East)** 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxemburg 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
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 
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 
gr4 
es'ïS 
es1 
es11 
es12 
es13 
es2 
es21 
es22 
es23 
es24 
es3 
es4 
es41 
es42 
es43 
es5 
es51 
es52 
es53 
es6 
es61 
es62 
es63 
es7 
Mm 
fr1 
fr2 
fr3 3LE 9: Total number o 
Regions 
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 
NISIAAIGAIOU, KRITI 
ESPANA 
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 
CEUTAYMELILLA 
CAN ARIAS 
FRANCE 
ILE DE FRANCE 
BASSIN PARISIEN 
NORD-PAS-DE-CALAIS f pigs 
1995 
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 
18.125 
14.523 [in 100C 
1994 
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 
18.269 
14.593 
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 
3.277 
51 
336 
87 
2.803 
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 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 
2.758 
52 
344 
100 
2.261 
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 1991 
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 1990 
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 
L143 
419 
590 
26 
108 
16.002 
1.029! 1.076 
955; 980 
47 66 
27! 30 
2.854; 2.394 
57: 56 
370i 334 
110 93 
2.317| 1.911 
69 70 
4.461 4.355 
2.810 2.547 
6771 899 
974 ! 909 
5.546; 5.380 
4.643 
794 
108 
3.113 
1.781 
1.332 
0 
38 
12.384 
17 
1.365 
613 4.465 
815 
100 
2.674 
1.689 
985 
0 
53 
12.239 
18 
1.329 
639 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 
1.923 
78 
4.562 
2.585 
1.015 
962 
5.641 
4.721 
824 
97 
2.740 
1.671 
1.069 
0 
61 
12.366 
18 
1.341 
646 +/- ,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% 
+18,01% 
+0,02% 
EUROSTAT: New Cronos/regio (italic figures were provided by MS authorities) 
fr4 
fr5 
fr6 
fr7 
fr8 
fr9 
ie 
it 
it1 
it11 
it12 
it13 
it2 
it3 
it31 
it32 
it33 
it4 
it5 
it51 
it52 
it53 
its 
it7 
it71 
it72 
itS 
it9 
it91 
it92 
it93 
ita 
itb 
lu 
nl 
nh 
nl2 
nl3 
nl4 
ptm 
Pti 
ptn 
pt12 
pt13 
pt14 
pt15 
pt2 
pt3 
uk 
uk1 
uk2 
uk3 
uk4 
uk5 
uk6 
uk7 
uk8 
uk9 
uka 
ukb EST 
OUEST 
SUD-OUEST 
CENTRE-EST 
MEDITERRANEE 
DEPARTEMENTS D'OUTRE-MER 
IRELAND 
ITALIA 
NORD OVEST 
PIEMONTE 
VALLE D'AOSTA 
LIGURIA 
LOMBARDIA 
NORD EST 
TRENTINO-ALTO ADIGE 
VENETO 
FRIULI-VENEZIAGIULIA 
EMILIA-ROMAGNA 
CENTRO (I) 
TOSCANA 
UMBRIA 
MARCHE 
LAZIO 
ABRUZZO-MOLISE 
ABRUZZO 
MOUSE 
CAMPANIA 
SUD 
PUGLIA 
BASILICATA 
CALABRIA 
SICILIA 
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 
EAST ANGLIA 
SOUTH EAST (UK) 
SOUTH WEST (UK) 
WEST MIDLANDS 
NORTH WEST (UK) 
WALES 
SCOTLAND 
NORTHERN IRELAND 1.542 
8.061 
68 
14.397 
564 
4.845 
778 
8.211 
2.402 
7.351 
179 
1.875 
548 
1.507 
681 
786 
365 
238 
89 
548 
534 9.862 
749 
1.498 
8.023 
750 
749 
0 
1 
3.059 
774 
26 
560 
189 
1.675 
709 
234 
269 
207 
175 
158 
109 
49 
156 
224 
31 
80 
113 
92 
252 
76 
14.565 
565 
4.909 
809 
8.282 
2.416 
2.359 
196 
536 
1.156 
396 
75 
40 
17 
7.879 
181 
1.799 
653 
1.422 
802 
978 
515 
285 
96 
579 
569 306 
9.148 
1.252 
679 
160 
1.487 
8.348 
768 
766 
1 
1 
2.992 
862 
24 
636 
202 
1.797 
829 
269 
321 
238 
160 
184 
127 
57 
162 
240 
33 
77 
130 
98 
257 
72 
14.964 
585 
5.128 
879 
8.373 
2.664 
2.606 
227 
581 
1.279 
445 
74 
40 
18 
7.869 
210 
1.945 
623 
1.534 
736 
880 
403 
309 
94 
537 
597 305 
8.391 
1.290 
700 
165 
1.423 
8.244 
752 
750 
0 
2 
2.909 
851 
26 
619 
206 
1.782 
827 
280 
306 
241 
179 
189 
130 
59 
167 
231 
35 
78 
118 
99 
258 
66 
14.161 
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 
395 294 
7.983 
1.261 
686 
165 
1.346 
8.549 
741 
738 
1 
3 
2.876 
860 
35 
643 
183 
1.970 
944 
363 
341 
240 
177 
161 
95 
65 
170 
284 
38 
98 
147 
107 
260 
64 
13.217 
558 
4.570 
791 
7.298 
2.554 
2.494 
211 302 
7.775 
1.298 
697 
183 
1.249 
8.837 
745 
741 
1 
3 
2.917 
888 
39 
676 
173 
2.088 
997 
396 
354 
247 
189 
157 
95 
62 
187 
290 
44 
97 
149 
114 
265 
70 
13.915 
559 
4.818 
826 
7.712 
2.650 
2.585 
220 
597 618 
1.2021 1.295 
398 
86 
40 
20 
7.519 
183 
1.651 
607 
1.396 
852 
839 
429 
364 
109| 92 
498 
597 506 361 
91 
42 
23 
7.379 
181 
1.710 
607 
1.276 
815 
880 
410 
339 
106 
461 321 
7.738 
1.389 
702 
210 
995 
9.254 
755 
751 
1 
4 
2.970 
884 
38 
673 
173 
2.241 
1.089 
426 
388 
275 
199 
167 
97 
70 
216 
335 
48 
126 
160 
120 
280 
71 
13.729 
549 
4.819 
826 
7.535 
2.583 
2.516 
221 
548 
1.243 
403 
101 
39 
28 
7.383 
171 
1.588 
576 
1.208 
793 
869 
689 
334 
124 
431 
601j 595 602 +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% 
EUROSTAT: New Cronos/regio (italic figures were provided by MS authorities) 
at;*;;? 
at1 
at11 
at12 
at13 
at2 
at21 
at22 
at3 
at31 
at32 
at33 
at34 
f|::SïS 
fill 
fi13 
fi14 
fi15 
s«;s:-:; 
se01 
se02 
se03 
se04 
se05 
se06 
se07 
se08 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 
ÔSTRA MELLANSVERIGE 
SMALAND MED ÔARNA 
SYDSVERIGE 
VÀSTSVERIGE 
NORRA MELLANSVERIGE 
MELLERSTA NORRLAND 
ÔVRE NORRLAND 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 
19 
39 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 
17 
43 I | 
3.720 3.638 
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 
17 
41 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 
17 
41 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 
16 
39 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 
16 
41 -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% 
* 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) 
EUROSTAT: New Cronos/regio (italic figures were provided by MS authorities) 
Vf 
TABLE 10: Total number of fattening p 
Regions | 1995 f 1994 
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 
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 EUR 12 
BELGIQUE-BELGIE 
REG.BRUXELLES-CAP./BRUSSE 
VLAAMS GEWEST 
REGION WALLONNE 
DANMARK 
DEUTSCHLAND gesamt 
DEUTSCHLAND alt* 
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 
NISIAAIGAIOU, KRITI 
B^WAmm^WS^m^:/.-'-.-.^ 
NOROESTE 
GALICIA 
ASTURIAS 
CANTABRIA 
NORESTE 
PAIS VASCO 
NAVARRA 
RIOJA 
ARAGON 
MADRID 
CENTRO (E) 
CASTILLA-LEON 2.744 
-
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 2.695 
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 igs> 50 kg (in 1000) 
1993 1992 f 1991 | 1990 
40.957 
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 
i 247 
208 
! 31 
8 
1.366 
10 39.734 
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 38.3611 39.782 
2.317 2.245 
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 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 
377 783 
515 . 548 
262 527 
284 315 
112J 120 
142! 173 
«i 
21 | 24 17 
7.244 6.593 6.200 
448 419 411 
409 376; 354 
30 ! 31 ! 43 
9; 12 15 
1.107| 1.015; 857 
111 15! 16 
114 93 1211 89 
24 25! 31; 21 
] | 1.219! 977! 849! 731 
! ! 17 
i i 1.967 
963 
CASTILLA-LA MANCHA ! 242 
EXTREMADURA ! ! 762 
ESTE j ! ! 2.305 
CATALUNA ' ' 1.924 
COMUNIDADVALENCIANA '370 
BALEARES 
SUR 
ANDALUCIA 
MURCIA 
CEUTAYMELILLA 
CANARIAS 
FRANCE I I » 19: 25 27 
1.983: 1.847 1.701 1989 
36.315 
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 
549 
354 
154 
172 
4 
24 
6.330 
600 
538 
32 
30 
767 +/-,89C90y,94%'' 
+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% 
16 
106 
28 
617| 
25j 
1.710; 
1.101 I 1.122 882 831; 
362 241 315j 326 
521' 485 504! 553 
2.169; 2.017; 2.043 2.095 
1.840: 1.683 1.754! 1.773 
319' 307 270 311 
10 27; 19 11| 
i 1.385 1.509 1.262 1.149: 1.118 
! 987 896: 842 801 
398 614! 420 349 766: 
352 i 
! 0 0; 0 0 O1 
9; 9i 8 13 15 
5.380 5.128 
ILE DE FRANCE | j 8 4.869 4.6421 4.654] 4.681 +14,92% 
6\ 7 8. 7\ 
BASSIN PARISIEN \ 564 \ 525 i 500 ' 482 521 \ 
EUROSTAT- New Cronos/regio (italic figures were provided by MS authorities) 
fr3 
fr4 
fr5 
fr6 
fr7 
fr8 
fr9 
ie 
it 
it1 
it11 
it12 
it13 
it2 
it3 
it31 
it32 
it33 
it4 
it5 
it51 
it52 
it53 
it6 
it7 
it71 
it72 
it8 
it9 
it91 
it92 
it93 
ita 
itb 
lu 
nl 
nil 
nl2 
nl3 
nl4 
pt# 
pt1 
pt11 
pt12 
pt13 
pt14 
pt15 
pt2 
pt3 
uk 
uk1 
uk2 
uk3 
uk4 
uk5 
uk6 
uk7 
uk8 NORD-PAS-DE-CALAIS 
EST 
OUEST 
SUD-OUEST 
CENTRE-EST 
MEDITERRANEE 
DEPARTEMENTS D'OUTRE-MER 
IRELAND 
ITALIA 
NORD OVEST 
PIEMONTE 
VALLE DAOSTA 
LIGURIA 
LOMBARDIA 
NORD EST 
TRENTINO-ALTOADIGE 
VENETO 
FRIULI-VENEZIA GIULIA 
EMILIA-ROMAGNA 
CENTRO (I) 
TOSCANA 
UMBRIA 
MARCHE 
LAZIO 
ABRUZZO-MOUSE 
ABRUZZO 
MOUSE 
CAMPANIA 
SUD 
PUGLIA 
BASILICATA 
CALABRIA 
SICILIA 
SARDEGNA 
LUXEMBOURG (GRAND-DUCHE) 
NEDERLAND 
NOORD-NEDERLAND 
OOST-NEDERLAND 
WEST-NEDERLAND 
ZUID-NEDERLAND 
PORTUGAL 
CONTINENTE 
NORTE 
CENTRO (P) 
LISBOA E VALE DO TEJO 
ALENTEJO 
ALGARVE 
ACORES 
MADEIRA 
UNITED KINGDOM 
NORTH 
YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE 
EAST MIDLANDS 
EASTANGLIA 486 
4.340 220i 204 
133 
3.541 
342 
469 
4.316 
415 
414 
0 
1 
1.647 
412 
18 
305 
89 
908 
397 
128 
154 
115 
! 138 3.282 
540 
319 
79 
454 
4.459 
404 
402 
1 
1 
1.567 
453 
14 
353 
86 
976 
499 
150 
213 
137 
114 
102! 112 
64 72 
37; 41 
94 
136 
15 
! 51 
! 70 105 
152 
15 
57 
80 
j 34; 35 
34' 43 
21 
4.992 
146 
1.400 23 
4.096 23 
4.189 
146: 151 
1.4361 1.484 
243 244 269 
2.2211 2.271 2.284 
745 824 
727 805 
! 62 74 
150 176 
369! 391 
122 142 
24! 22 
! 13 13 
! 5. 6" 
2.586 2.665 2.642 206 
131 
3.041 
547 
332 
81 
424 
4.410 
403 
401 
0 
1 
1.518 
483 
17 
362 
104 
947 
470 
144 
186 
140 
133 
125 184 \ 192 
124 | 133 
2.903 2.869 
5331 553 
315 
76 
411 
4.577 
387 
385 
1 
2 
1.488 
491 
26 
375 
90 
1.053 
552 328 
90 
383 
4.818 
369 
366 
1 
2 
1.544 
520 
28 
409 
83 
1.135 
601 
177; 221 
231 ! 239 
144 141 
109: 121 
113; 120 
82! 66| 69 
43 47! 52 
116 ; 135 ; 147 
132 167 
161 15 
56 74 
59: 78 173 
23 
78 
73 202 
139 
2.772 
595 
327 
118 
326 
4.809 
351 
348 
1 
3 
1.542 
502 
24 
394 
84 
1.126 
566 
198 
225 
143 
138 
128 
76 
51 
158 
210 
26 
86 
98 
351 36 48 43 
49 
20 
4.001 46 42! 44 
20 
3.986 23 
3.883 22 
3.857 +9,12% 
+27,76% 
+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% 
146: 141 i 138! 140; +4,00% 
1.438! 1.395! 1.373! 1.372; +4,66% 
247 249 238 242 +0,99% 
2.170 2.201 2.134! 2.103 +7,94% 
795 805 825 784 -4,97% 
776I 782 801 ! 754 -3,58% 
75 83 100 66 -6,06% 
172 152 170! 1451 +3,45% 
395; 415| 417 4101 -10,00% 
113 112! 88| 106! +15,09% 
21; 20 26 27 -11,11% 
13 14 14 16 -18,75% 
6 9 10 14 -64,29% 
2.594 2.558 2.425 2.445 •9,00% 
73 64 70 j 59; 56| 54! 56; +14,29% 
691 
188 590 759| 584 517! 545; 496; +18,95% 
220 200 230' 226 215! 183! +20,22% 
522! 482 474 530 512: 409' 40°; +20,50% 
SOUTH EAST (UK) j 204! 262; 202 
SOUTH WEST (UK) i 300 267 266 
WEST MIDLANDS 
NORTH WEST (UK) 138: 255 
80 104 211J 258! 248! 224 +16,96% 
285 267! 272! 163! +63,80% 
132: 125 
112 159 152! 137: 307 -16,94% 
144 _ 127; 120 -13,33% 
EUROSTAT: New Cronos/regio (italic figures were provided by MS authorities) 
uk9 
uka 
ukb 
at 
at1 
at11 
at12 
at13 
at2 
at21 
at22 
at3 
at31 
at32 
at33 
at34 
ft :::¥«: 
fl11 
fi13 
fi14 
fi15 
se:;:;:;:; 
se01 
se02 
se03 
se04 
se05 
se06 
se07 
se08 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*" 
STOCKHOLM 
ÔSTRA MELLANSVERIGE 
SMALAND MED ÔARNA 
SYDSVERIGE 
VÂSTSVERIGE 
NORRA MELLANSVERIGE 
MELLERSTA NORRLAND 
ÔVRE NORRLAND 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 
5 
14 27| 31 
168 
231 
1.355 
439 
50 
389 
463 
80 
383 
453 
410 
16 
20 
7 
591 
11 
80 
54 
236 
174 
20 
4 
12 168 
213 
642 
10 
89 
61 
258 
186 
22 
4 
12 27j 34 33 
164 155 136 
235 229 226 
j 
i 
i 
627 
7 
80 648 
9 
90 
56 I 60 
269 267 
175\ 183 
22 22 
4\ 4 
73 12 617 
9 
83 
57 
262 
171 
19 
4 
13 -21,21% 
+33,82% 
-4,87% 
,:::::::;v::::::;:;;;;:;+5,12% 
+8,75% 
+22,47% 
-3,43% 
-4,53% 
+11,43% 
+22,52% 
+29,65% 
+7,55% 
* 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) 
EUROSTAT: New Cronos/regio (italic figures were provided by MS authorities) 
S7 
ill 
wm bel 
be2 
be3 
dk 
de 
J 
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 llllll Total number \ 
Regions 
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 Df.SOWi 
1995 
735 
0 
705 
30 
X147 
2.529 
* 2.124 
'405 
307 
415 
0 
.101 
0 
0 
88 
68 
.632 
518 
42 
3 
73 
79 
118 
85 
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 s (in 10 
1994 
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 00) 
1993 
12.071 
742 
0 
707 
35 
1.162 
'2.899 
2.301 
607 
323 
450 
W 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 1992 
. 12.085 
762 
. '0 
.726 
36 
'> 1,149 
2.989 
s£4p7 
«. szz 
321 
462 
o 
149 
'•: 1 
:• 1 
105 
133 
718 
599 
57 
4 
91 
111 
.'140 
99 
' 150 
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 1991 
11.624 
730 
0 
694 
36 
1.077 
,2.917 
2.333 
' 684 
310 
442 
• 0 
-144 
• : 1 
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 " 1990 
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 • 1989 
10.956 
717 
0 
677 
* 40 
1.006 
2.412 
' 2.412 
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 +/- '89 f 90)/"94 % 
+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 • 
." .. . ' 
• • • -
621 | 
391 
139 
91 
545 
424 
100 
21 
334 
165 
169 
0 
à"- 9 
1.207 
1 
138 
82 
• 29 
757 1.219 
2 
140 
83 
29 +17,7% 
-7,5% 
754 | +27,6°/ > 
EUROSTAT: 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 
af>ws. 
at1 
at11 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 176 
/ 
i 
5 
1.502 
64 
482 
71 
886 
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 
- --I- ._1V-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 
5j 5 
838 
20 
201 
69 
152 
94 
97 
42 
28 
12 
64 
61 
388 
132 
12 2 
868 
21 
208 
70 
146 
95 
116 
45 
28 
13 
66 
60 
381 
132 
12 2 
893 
22 
203 
74 
166 
99 
106 
52 
31 
12 
64 
63 
381 
134 
12 129 
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 -128 
57 
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 
I 
360 
130 
12 349 127 
v 56 
17 
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 
61 137 
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 
i 
i +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% 
EUROSTAT: New Cronos/regio (italic figures were provided by MS authorities) -T? 
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 NIEDEROESTERREICH 
WIEN 
SUEDOESTERREICH 
KAERNTEN 
STEIERMARK 
WESTOESTERREICH 
OBEROESTERREICH .... , 
SALZBURG 
TIROL 
VORARLBERG 
SJ0!Q»?MVND 
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 120 
119 
19 
' 100 
138 
129 
2 
5 
/ 2 
179 
109 
12 
53 
5 
V 120 
114 
19 
?. 95 
.134 
125 
2 
5 
2 
171 
241 
2 
39 
24 
87 
75 
8 
2 
4 122 
113 
19 
94 
134 
124 
•. 2 
6 
2 
^ 
^*>\ 
s % 273 
3 
- 43 
29 
' . 98 
84 
' 8 
2 
5 - 118 
104 
17 
87 
- 126 
117 
2 
6 
2 
,", 254 
1 
39 
29 
94 
77 
7 
2 
5 " 
247 
1 
36 
28 
93 
74 
7 
2 
• • 5 , 250 
1 
36 
28 
95 
76 
7 
2 
5 260 
2 
36 
29 
99 
81 
7 
2 
5 . 
•7,3% 
+57,5% 
+9,5% 
-15,6% 
-12,4% 
-7,7% 
+12.1% 
-2,2% 
-21,8% 
* 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) 
EUROSTAT: New Cronos/regio (italic figures were provided by MS authorities) •-> 7 
t..' 
EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures TABLE 12: The structure of piq holdings in the EU 
Belgium 
Size classes 
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 1987 
Number of 
holding^ 
5.927 
5.524 
3.416 
3.797 
3.574 
3.228 
1.047 
26.513 
4.323 
2.407 
1.541 
1.845 
1.597 
990 
279 
12.982 
5.343 
7.889 
3.199 
1^541 
17.972 Size classes 
tn'/. 
22,36% 
20,84% 
12,88% 
14,32% 
13,48% 
12.18% 
3,95% 
100,00% 
33,30% 
18,54% 
11,87% 
14,21% 
12,30% 
7,63% 
2,15% 
100,00% 
29.73% 
43,90% 
17,80% 
8.57% 
100,00% Number of 
anlrrtalS 
20.150 
145.01.5 
244.661 
540.173 
1.015.194 
1.991.286 
1.904.991 
5.861.470 
13.707 
59.267 
108.513 
257.560 
438.058 
569.358 
522.838 
1.969.301 
23.199 
195.555 
222.125 
243.077 
683.956 Size tlaiSet 
trty. ' 
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% 
100,00% 
3,39% 
28.59% 
32,48% 
35,54% 
100,00% AnTfhilsJ 
Holdtotf' 
3 
26 
72 
142 
284 
617 
1819 
221 
.3 
25 
70 
140 
274 
575 
1874 
152 
4 
25 
69 
158 
38 1995 ,'vs ' 1987/95 
tfUmberof 
h6ldfog* 
1.211 
1.340 
1.042 
1.697 
2.087 
3.369 
- 2.296 
13.042 
1.075 
852 
685 
1.287 
1.947 
t.936 
419 
8.201 
1.254 
2.700 
2.234 
2.847 
9.035 Size ddssei 
9,29% 
10,27% 
7,99% 
13,01% 
16,00% 
25,83% 
17,60% 
100,00% 
13,11% 
10,39% 
. 8,35% 
15,69% 
23,74% 
23,61% 
5.11% 
100,00% 
13,88% 
29,88% 
24,73% 
31,51% 
100,00% Ntfmberdf ' 
dnmiai*:'"\ 
4.191 
35.687 
76.425 
249.890 
604.710 
2.251.030 
4.046.550 
7.26JB.483 
'. '*'.' •'''' •••' 
3.500 
21.521 
49.375 
188.778 
559.536 
1.171.170 
688.224 
2.682.104 
5.608 
73.132 
163.385 
500.681 
742.806 ^ Size eldSSe* 
0,06% 
v .0,49% 
1,05% 
3,44% 
8,32% 
30,97% 
55,67% 
100,00% 
' 0,13% 
0,80% 
1,84% 
7,04% 
20,86% 
43,67% 
25,66% 
. 100,00% 
•^ 
0,75% 
9,85% 
22,00% 
67,40% 
100,00% ArtfmaW 
todWfo'fl , 
3 
27 
73 
147 
. 290 
• 668 
1762 
- 557 
-N 
3 
25 
72 
147 
287 
605 
1643 
327 
4 
27 
73 
176 
82 +/?Ah!mitS 
'•pirftbWIrta 
+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% 
-12,35% 
+115,59% 
+3,00% 
•9,27% 
+5,33% 
+11,49% 
+116.03% 
-
Denmark 
Sïze classes 
1-9 pigs 
10-49 pigs 
50-99 pigs 
100-199 pigs 
200-399 pigs 
400-999 pigs 
> 1000 pigs 
Total 1987 
Number of Sfcé classe* Number of s Size classes' AntmalsJ 
Jioldfng* In'/. animal* „ tn'/« «oldlntf 
3.417 
9.707 
6.084 
5.843 
5.458 
5.475 
1.706 
37.690 9,07% 
25,75% 
16.14% 
15,50% 
14,48% 
14,53% 
4,53% 
100,00% 16.306 
260.387 
436.031 
832.675 
1.566.045 
3.383.903 
2.771.071 
9.266.418 0,18% 
2,81% 
4.71% 
8.99% 
16.90% 
36.52% 
29,90% 
100,00% 5 
27 
72 
143 
287 
618 
1624 
246 % 1995 . ^ ; 
NUmWof Size classé* NUmbèi-ôf ' Site classé* Animal*/ 
hôldfriflà Itt* ^ janttnâlY-' frt% ' toldUifl 
.1.523 
4.016 
2.393 
s 2.750 
2.927 
4.398 
. 3.410 
21.417 7,11% 
18,75% 
11,17% 
12,84% 
13,67% 
20,54% 
15,92% 
100.00% 6.777 
105.810 
170.070 
394.860 
842.320 
2;851.651 
6.712.424 
11.083.912 0,06% 
0,95% 
1,53% 
3,56% 
7,60% 
25,73% 
60,56% 
. 100,00% 4 
26 
71 
144 
288 
648 
1968 
518 1987/95 ' 
•"•/-Animal* 
peMIoldmg , 
-6,75% 
-1,78% 
-0,84% 
+0,76% 
+0,30% 
+4,91% 
+21,19% 
+110,50% 
v _ • 
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 5.548 
9.824 
4.337 
3.636 
2.420 
813 
62 
26.640 20,83% 
36,88% 
16.28% 
13,65% 
9,08% 
3,05% 
0,23% 
100,00% 23.353 
237.873 
300.022 
501.940 
648.589 
442.869 
85.074 
2.239.720 1,04% 
10,62% 
13,40% 
22,41% 
28,96% 
19,77% 
3,80% 
100,00% 4 
24 
69 
138 
268 
545 
1372 
84 H 2.283 
4.537 
2.324 
2.569 
2.775 
1.851 
332 
16.671 13,69% 
27.21% 
13,94% 
15,41% 
16.65% 
11.10% 
1,99% 
. 100.00% 10.164 
110.191 
162.925 
362.888 
765.724 
1.081.387 
490.696 
2.983.975 0.34% 
3,69% 
5.46% 
12.16% 
25.66% 
t 36,24% 
x ' 16.44% 
100.00% 4 
24 
70 
141 
276 
584 
1478 
179 +5,77% 
+0,30% 
+1,34% 
+.2,32% 
+2.96% 
+7.25% 
+7,71% 
+112.90% 
- • 
1-9 sows 
10-49 sows 
50-99 sows 
> 100 sows 
Total 10.973 
9.059 
3.346 
3.034 
26.412 41,55% 
34,30% 
12.67% 
11,49% 
100,00% 44.916 
212.006 
238.773 
550.658 
1.046.353 4,29% 
20,26% 
22,82% 
52,63% 
100,00% 4 
23 
71 
. 181 
40 4.496 
3.267 
•1.850 
4.008 
13.621 33,01 % 
23,99% 
13,58% 
29,43% 
100,00% 17.251 
78.070 
134.654 
944.942 
1.174.917 1,47% 
6.64% 
11.46% 
80.43% 
100,00% 4 
24 
73 
236 
86 -6.26% 
+2.11% 
+2.00% 
+29,90% 
+117.73% 
> 
EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures 
Germany 1987-199 r 
SFze classes 
1-9 pigs 
10-49 pigs 
50-99 pigs 
100-199 pigs 
200-399 pigs 
400-999 pigs 
> 1000 pigs 
Total 1987 
Number of Size classes Number ôf SIZé classes Antittals/ -
holding* ,\f\4A animals'* fn# ' _t>*>tdft»jj[____. 
187.058 
105.383 
37.987 
28.226 
19.668 
13.094 
948 
392.364 47,67% 
26,86% 
9,68% 
7,19% 
5,01% 
3,34% 
0,24% 
100,00% 669702 
2.515.918 
2.682.893 
3.963.612 
5.545.863 
7.718.453 
1.373.305 
24.469.746 2,74% 
10,28% 
10,96% 
16,20% 
22,66% 
31,54% 
5,61% 
100,00% 4 
. 24 
71 
140 
282 
589 
1449 
62 1991 . 
Numbéfof Size classé* Numbéfcf SlZècfdssé* Animât*/ 
holding's' IhK ' anfmaf* fnV Mdfhfl , 
138.488 
68.752 
26.345 
21.731 
17.337 
13.900 
1.233 
287.786 48,12% 
23,89% 
9,15% 
7.55% 
6.02% 
4.83% 
0,43% 
100,00% 480.904 
1.642.590 
1.867.051 
3.066.631 
4.938.301 
8.285.270 
1.707.963 
21.988.710 2,19% 
7,47% 
8,49% 
13,95% 
22,46% 
37,68% 
7.77% 
100,00% 3 
24 
71 
141 
285 
596 
1385 
76 1987/91 
•/-Animais 
pér «biding 
-3,01% 
+0,07% 
+0,34% 
+0,49% 
+1.02% 
+1,12% 
-4.38% 
+22.52% 
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 192.067 66,17% 
61.432 
14.451 
10.871 21,16% 
4,98% 
3,75% 
8.212 i 2,83% 
3.071 
163 
290.267 1,06% 636.586 
1.294.444 
999.672 
1.520.857 
2.261.308 
1.660.512 
0,06% | 258.238 
100,00% 8.631.617 7,38% 
15,00% 
11,58% 
17,62% 
26,20% 
19,24% 
2,99% 
100,00% 3 
21 
69 
140 
275 
541 
1584 
30 138.304 
44.377 
11.967 
9.852 
8.639 
3.522 
175 
216.836 63,78% 
20,47% 
5,52% 
4,54% 
3,98% 
1,62% 
0,08% 
100,00% 453.766 
954.666 
831.131 
1.392.283 
2.408.281 
1.905.700 
266.011 
8.211.838 5,53% 
11,63% 
10,12% 
16,95% 
29,33% 
• 23.21% 
3,24% 
100.00% 3 
22 
69 
141 
279 
541 
1520 
38 -1,01% 
+2.10% 
+0.40% 
+1,01% 
+1,24% 
+0,07% 
-4,05% 
+27,35% 
1-9 sows 
10-49 sows 
50-99 sows 
> 100 sows 
Total 77.565 
57.526 
12.594 
2.888 
150.573 51,51% 
38,20% 
8,36% 
1,92% 
100,00% 285.048 
1.301.244 
857.571 
407.333 
2.851.196 10,00% 
45,64% 
30,08% 
14,29% 
100,00% 4 
23 
68 
141 
19 47.800 
41.244 
11.558 
3.090 
103.692 46,10% 
39,78% 
11,15% 
2,98% 
' 100,00% 178.634 
963.517 
797.603 
. 450.419 
2.390.173 7,47% 
40,31% 
33,37% 
18,84% 
100,00% 4 
23 
69 
146 
23 +1.69% 
+3,28% 
. +1.34% 
+3,35% 
+21,73% 
' West-Germany 
EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures 
Germany 
SFze classes 
1-9 pigs 
10-49 pigs 
50-99 pigs 
100-199 pigs 
200-399 pigs 
400-999 pigs 
> 1000 pigs 
Total 1993 * * ' • 
Number of Size classe* Number of Site classes. •• Ahtma'ls/ 
holdings tn % animal* ' trtft , holdfntf 
150.513 
63.692 
24.497 
20.633 
16.925 
14.858 
'2.646 
293.764 51.24% 
21,68% 
8.34% 
7.02% 
5.76% 
5,06% 
0,90% 
100,00% 501.662 
1.499.000 
1.736.778 
2.919.764 
4.823.016 
8.982.897 
6.023.346 
26.486.463 1.89% 
5.66% 
6,56% 
11.02% 
18.21% 
- 33,92% 
22.74% 
100,00% 3 
24 
71 
142 
285 
605 
2276 
90 1995 
Number of v Size classé* Number of •• Sl2e classé* " Animal*/ 
holdings fh* •• animal* fa* , holding 
119.902 
49.384 
19.619 
17.379 
15.298 
14.913 
2.821 
. . 239.316 50,10% 
20,64% 
8,20% 
7,26% 
6,39% 
6,23% 
1,18% 
100.00% 397.000 
-. 1.174.000 
1.397.000 
2.463.000 
4.379.000 
9.146.000 
5.718.000 
24.674.000 1,61% 
4,76% 
v .5,66% 
9.98% 
17,75% 
37,07% 
23.17% 
100,00% 3 
24 
71 
142 
286 
613 
2027 
103 1993/95 
+/-Ahlmal4 
per Molding 
-0,66% 
+1,01% 
+0,44% 
+0,15% 
+0.45% 
+1.44% 
-10,96% 
+14.35% 
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 148.235 
41.898 
11.437 
9.886 
8.943 
4.294 
636 
225.329 65.79% 
18,59% 
5,08% 
4,39% 
3,97% 
1,91 % 
0,28% 
100,00% 463.741 
905.346 
797.054 
1.400.306 
2.499.249 
2.385.870 
1.354.255 
9.805.821 4,73% 
9,23% 
8,13% 
14,28% 
25,49% 
24,33% 
13,81% 
100,00% 3 
^22 
70 
142 
279 
556 
2129 
44 118.509 
35.751 
10.238 
9.073 
8.637 
4.664 
603 
187.475 63.21% 
19,07% 
5,46% 
4,84% 
4,61 % 
2,49% 
0,32% 
100,00% 378.000 
776.000 
716.000 
1.283.000 
2.436.000 
2.621.000 
1.277.000 
9.487.000 3,98% 
8.18% 
7.55% 
13.52% 
25.68% 
27,63% 
13.46% 
100,00% 3 
22 
70 
141 
282 
562 
2118 
51 +1.96% 
+0.45% 
+0.35% 
-0.17% 
+0.92% 
+1,14% 
-0,54% 
+16,28% 
1 -9 sows 
10-49 sows 
50-99 sows 
> 100 sows 
Total 43.934 
37.621 
11.664 
4.830 
98.049 44,81% 
38,37% 
11,90% 
4.93% 
100,00% 158.706 
890.421 
809.849 
1.128.516 
2.987.492 5,31% 
29,80% 
27,11% 
37.77% 
100,00% 4 
24 
69 
234 
30 32.118 
29.281 
10.559 
5.110 
77.068 41,67% 
37,99% 
13.70% 
6,63% 
100,00% 117.000 
701.000 
738.000 
1.054.000 
2.610.000 4,48% 
26,86% 
28,28% 
40,38% 
100,00% 4 
24 
70 
206 
34 +0,84% 
+1,15% 
+0,66% 
-11.72% 
+ 11,15% 
•'' 
EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures 
Spain 
Sfee Classes 
1-9 pigs 
10-49 pigs 
50-99 pigs 
100-199 pigs 
200-399 pigs 
400-999 pigs 
> 1000 pigs 
Total 1987 
Number of Size classes Number of Size classes Animals? 
holding* In'/, animal* ln}{ ' holding • 
234.817 
85.414 
12.740 
10.232 
7.516 
8.065 
2.916 
361.700 64,92% 
23,61% 
3,52% 
2,83% 
2.08% 
2,23% 
0,81% 
100.00% 618.164 
1.678.308 
874.676 
1.450.814 
2.134.922 
4.860.262 
5.610.699 
17.227.845 3,59% 
9,74% 
5,08% 
8,42% 
12,39% 
28,21% 
32,57% 
100,00% 3 
20 
69 
142 
284 
603 
1924 
48 1995 
Number of Size classé* Nutnbéfûf Size classé* Animal*/ 
hotdfngs fh% animal* fit* holding 
250.000 
19.000 
9.000 
6.000 
6.000 
7.000 
4.000 
• 301.000 83,06% 
6,31% 
2,99% 
1.99% 
1.99% 
2.33% 
1,33% 
100,00% 451.000 
. 563.000 
602.000 
818.000 
1.786.000 
4.714.000 
9.192.000 
18.126.000 2,49% 
3,11% 
3,32% 
4.51% 
9.85% 
26.01% 
50,71% 
100,00% 2 
30 
67 
136 
298 
673 
2298 
60 1987/95 
•/-Animals 
per holding 
-31,47% 
+50.80% 
-2.57% 
-3,85% 
+4,79% 
+11,75% 
+19,43% 
+26.43% 
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! ' 288.898 
15.124 
5.417 
4.904 
3.697 
3.526 
799 
322.365 89,62% 
4,69% 
1,68% 
1,52% 
1,15% 
1,09% 
0,25% 
100,00% 647.222 
349.770 
378.708 
660.929 
1.000.156 
3.033.826 
1.202.680 
7.273.291 8.90% 
4.81% 
5,21% 
9.09% 
13,75% 
41,71% 
16,54% 
100,00% 2 
23 
70 
135 
271 
860 
1505 
23 72.000 
8.000 
- 5.000 
4.000 
5.000 
4.000 
2.000 
100.000 72,00% 
8,00% 
5,00% 
4,00% 
5.00% 
4.00% 
2,00% 
100.00% 196.000 
187.000 
325.000 
469.000 
1.190.000 
2.178.000 
2.923.000 
7.468.000 2.62% 
2,50% 
4.35% 
6,28% 
15,93% 
29.16% 
39.14% 
100.00% 3 
23 
65 
117 
238 
545 
1462 
75 +21.51% 
+1,07% 
-7.02% 
-13.00% 
-12.03% 
-36.72% 
-2.91 % 
+230.99% 
1-9 sows 
10-49 sows 
50-99 sows 
> 100 sows 
Total 123.093 
26.125 
4.591 
3.788 
157.597 78,11% 
16.58% 
2,91% 
2,40% 
100,00% 324.145 
552.032 
312.459 
824.611 
2.013.247 16,10% 
27.42% 
15.52% 
40,96% 
' 100.00% 3 
21 
68 
218 
13 36.000 
19.000 
4.000 
5.000 
64.000 56,25% 
29,69% 
6,25% 
7,81% 
100,00% 123.000 
395.000 
284.000 
788.000 
1.590.000 7.74% 
24.84% 
17.86% 
49.56% 
100,00% 3 
21 
71 
158 
25 +29,75% 
-1.61% 
+4.32% 
-27.60% 
+94.48% 
EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures 
France 
Size classes" 
1-9 pigs 
10-49 pigs 
50-99 pigs 
100-199 pigs 
200-399 pigs 
400-999 pigs 
> 1000 pigs ' 
Total 1987 
Number of Size classes Number of Size classes Animal*/ ,--
holdings în% animal* t(\% hbldîng 
144.500 
15.100 
5.200 
5.700 
6.600 
7.200 
2.200 
186.500 77.48% 
8.10% 
2,79% 
3,06% 
3,54% 
3,86% 
1,18% 
100,00% 318.900 
355.400 
378.400 
828.600 
1.927.500 
4.482.199 
3.623.200 
11.914.199 2,68% 
2,98% 
3,18% 
6.95% 
16,18% 
37,62% 
30,41% 
100,00% 2 
2* 
73 
145 
292 
623 
1647 
64 1995 
Numbérof Size classé* Numbérof Size" classé* Animals/ 
holding;* fa* ârtimàl* ' fa* holding 
64;395 
5.407 
2.236 
2.945 
3.927 
6.745 
4.305 
89.960 71.58% 
6.01% 
2,49% 
3,27% 
4,37% 
7,50% 
4,79% 
100.00% . 137.800 
134.500 
162.600 
442.300 
1.168.200 
4.474.600 
8.010.500 
14.530.500 0.95% 
0,93% 
^ 1,12% 
3,04% 
8,04% 
30,79% 
55,13% 
100.00% 2 
25 
73 
150 
297 
663 
1861 
162 1987/95 
•/-Ahlmals 
per holding 
-3.04% 
+5,69% 
-0,07% 
+3.31% 
+1.86% 
+6,56% 
+12,98% 
+152,84% 
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 153.600 
5.400 
2.700 
4.800 
5.500 
2.200 
300 
174.500 88,02% 
3,09% 
1,55% 
2,75% 
3,15% 
1,26% 
0,17% 
100,00% 321.600 
118.100 
160.800 
716.000 
1.527.700 
1.209.300 
402.600 
4.456.100 7.22% 
2.65% 
3,61% 
16,07% 
34,28% 
• 27,14% 
9,03% 
100,00% 2 
22 
60 
149 
278 
550 
1342 
26 44.646 
1.959 
668 
1.240 
3.306 
4.280 
1.173 
57.272 77.95% 
3,42% 
1.17% 
2.17% 
5.77% 
7.47% 
• 2,05% 
100.00% 89.200 
. 38.100 
46.600 
173.700 
924.400 
2.481.500 
1.704.900 
5.458.400 1.63% 
0,70% 
0.85% 
3,18% 
16.94% 
45.46% 
31,23% 
100,00% 2 
19 
70 
140 
280 
580 
1453 
95 -4,58% 
-11.07% 
+17.14% 
-6.09% 
+0.67% 
+5.48% 
+8.30% 
+273.22% 
1 -9 sows 
10-49 sows 
50-99 sows 
> 100 sows 
Total 18.700 
11.700 
• 5.800 
2.200 
38.400 48,70% 
30,47% 
15.10% 
5.73% 
100,00% 63.500 
302.200 
394.200 
381.900 
1.141.800 5,56% 
26.47% 
34.52% 
33,45% 
100,00% 3 
26 
68 
174 
30 7.752 
5.116 
4.415 
4.938 
22.221 34.89% 
23,02% 
19.87% 
22.22% 
100,00% 24.600 
146.200 
323.600 
936.200 
1.430.600 1.72% 
-10,22% 
22.62% 
65.44% 
100.00% 3 
29 
73 
190 
64 -6.55% 
+10,64% 
+7.84% 
+9.22% 
+116.52% 
v • 
EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures 
Greece 
Size classes 
1-9 pigs 
10-49 pigs 
50-99 pigs 
100-199 pigs 
200-399 pigs 
400-999 pigs 
> 1000 pigs 
Total 1987 
Number of size classes Number of Size classes Animals/ 
holdings In'/. animal* ln% holding '' 
48.529 
4.320 
1.456 
518 
324 
348 
185 
55.680 87,16% 
7,76% 
2.61% 
0.93% 
0,58% 
0,63% 
0,33% 
100,00% 85.293 
102.299 
97.908 
72.337 
84.247 
226.735 
469.142 
1.137.961 7,50% 
8,99% 
8,60% 
6,36% 
7,40% 
19,92% 
41 ;23% 
100,00% 2 
24 
67 
140 
260 
652 
. 2536 
20 1995 
Number of Size classé* Number of Size classe* Animal*/ 
holdings (tt% animal* ln% holding 
20.161 
1.981 
368 
277 
230 
218 
214 
23.449 85,98% 
8,45% 
1,57% 
1,18% 
0.98% 
0,93% 
0,91% 
100.00% 39.193 
42.710 
25.749 
40.728 
67.169 
136.941 
563.647 
916.137 4,28% 
4,66% 
• - 2,81% 
4,45% 
7,33% 
14.95% 
61.52% 
100.00% 2 
. 22 
70 
147 
292 
628 
2634 
39 1987/95 
*l- Animal* 
per holding 
+10,61% 
-8.95% 
+4,05% 
+5,29% 
+12.31% 
-3.59% 
+3.86% 
+91.16% 
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 36.043 
1.107 
226 
175 
241 
88 
34 
37.914 95,07% 
2,92% 
0,60% 
0,46% 
0,64% 
0,23% 
0.09% 
100.00% 53.692 
22.250 
14.223 
23.309 
62.993 
48.909 
87.478 
312.854 17,16% 
7,11% 
4,55% 
7,45% 
20,13% 
15,63% 
27,96% 
100,00% 1 
20 
63 
133 
261 
556 
2573 
8 13.259 
562 
. 134 
192 
120 
112 
54 
14.433 91,87% 
3,89% 
0,93% 
1,33% 
0,83% 
0.78% 
0.37% 
100,00% 20.127 
13.295 
8.750 
25.148 
32.936 
65.215 
116.774 
282.245 7,13% 
4.71% 
3,10% 
8,91% 
11,67% 
" 23,11% 
41,37% 
100,00% 2 
24 
65 
131 
274 
582 
2162 
20 +1,90% 
+17.70% 
+3.76% 
-1.66% 
+5.01% 
+4.77% 
-15.95% 
+136.99% 
1-9 sows 
10-49 sows 
50-99 s.ows 
> 100 sows 
Tolal 11.276 
1.620 
371 
320 
13.587 82.99% 
11,92% 
2.73% 
2,36% 
100,00% 30.388 
31.043 
24.913 
75.316 
161.660 18,80% 
19,20% 
15,41% 
46.59% 
100.00% 3 
19 
67 
235 
12 5.270 
746 
244 
290 
6.550 80,46% 
11,39% 
3,73% 
4.43% 
100,00% 12.349 
17.292 
16.496 
82.773 
128.910 9,58% 
13.41% 
12.80% 
64,21% 
100,00% 2 
23 
68 
285 
20 -13.05% 
+20,96% 
+0,68% 
+21,27% 
+65,41% 
• • t: . . . "- • l • -
. • •- J 
EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures 
1 
1 Ireland 
f Size classes i 
11-9 pigs 
j 10-4 9 pigs 
J50-99 pigs 
100-199 pigs 
200-399 pigs 
400-999 pigs 
> 1000 pigs 
Total 1987 
Number of Size classes Number of ' Size classé*- Animals/^ : 
holdings In % animal* In % holding 
2.700 
1.200 
200 
100 
100 
200 
. 200 
4.700 57,45% 
25,53% 
4,26% 
2,13% 
2,13% 
4.26% 
4,26% 
100,00% 7.100 
27.400 
16.400 
16.300 
35.800 
. 109.500 
747.700 
960.200 '0.74% 
2,85% 
1.71% 
1.70% 
3,73% 
11,40% 
77,87% 
100,00% 3 
23 
82 
163 
358 
548 
3739 
204 1995 
Numberôf Sl2e classe* . Number 6f Size classé* Animal*/ 
holding:* in* animal* ' fa* holding 
1.500 
700 
100 
100 
100 
100 
400 
3.000 50,00% 
23,33% 
3,33% 
3,33% 
3,33% 
3.33% 
13,33% 
100,00% 3.200 
15.900 
7.700 
11.800 
30.900 
100.600 
1.372.200 
1.542.300 0,21% 
1,03% 
0,50% 
0,77% 
2.00% 
6,52% 
88,97% 
100,00% 2 
23 
77 
118 
309 
1006 
3431 
514 1987/95 
•/-Animal* 
per holding 
-18,87% 
-0,52% 
-6,10% 
-27.61% 
-13.69% 
+83.74% 
-8.24% 
+151.64% 
• '.•• . " . 
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 1.500 
400 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
2.400 62,50% 
16,67% 
4,17% 
4.17% 
4.17% 
4,17% 
4.17% 
100,00% 3.600 
9.100 
7.100 
11.600 
23.000 
53.600 
227.300 
335.300 1,07% 
2,71% 
2,12% 
3,46% 
6,86% 
15.99% 
67,79% 
100,00% 2 
23 
71 
116 
230 
536 
2273 
140 800 
400 
100 
100 
200 
.200 
100 
1.900 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 0,41% 
*1,48% 
2,06% 
3,27% 
12,20% 
« 22,42% 
58,17% 
100,00% 3 
18 
100 
159 
297 
545 
2828 
256 +4,17% 
-20,88% 
+40,85% 
+37,07% 
+28,91% 
+1.68% 
+24.42% 
+83,16% 
1 -9 sows ' 
10-49 sows 
50-99 sows 
> lOOsows 
Tolal 2.000 
300 
100 
300 
2.700 74.07% 
11,11% 
3.70% 
11,11% 
100.00% 5.600 
7.500 
9.700 
85.100 
107.900 5,19% 
6,95% 
8,99% 
78,87% 
100,00% 3 
25 
97 
284 
40 1-.400 
100 
400 
1.900 73,68% 
5,26% 
21.05% 
100.00% 1.600 
5.700 
168.500' 
175.800 0,91% 
3,24% 
95,85% 
100,00% 1 
57 
421 
93 ' -59,18% 
+128.00% 
+48.50% 
+131.53% 
- . . • •: •'••• " ' •:• •••• .-: • 
EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures 
Italy 
Size classes 
1-9 pigs 
10-49 pigs 
50-99 pigs 
100-199 pigs 
200-399 pigs 
400-999 pigs 
> 1000 pigs 
Tnldl 1987 
Number of Size classes Number of Size class** Animals/ 
holdings In * animal* In •/• hfeldlng 
444.041 
31.200 
3.709 
1.550 
2.119 
2.637 
1.798 
487.054 91.17% 
6,41 % 
0,76% 
0.32% 
0.44% 
0,54% 
0,37% 
100,00% 975.400 
558.600 
266.500 
218.200 
622.000 
1.692.500 
5.049.797 
9.382.997 10,40% 
5,95% 
2,84% 
2,33% 
6,63% 
18,04% 
53,82% 
100.00% 2 
18 
72 
141 
294 
642 
2809 
19 1995 
Number of Size Classe* Number àt SlteclasSé* Animals/ 
hording:*; fa * animal* - in % holding 
252.731 
17.597 
2.422 
1.568 
1.733 
1.773 
1.727 
279.551 90,41% 
6,29% 
0,87% 
0,56% 
0,62% 
0.63% 
0.62% 
100,00% 523.812 
346.555 
168.116 
222.217 
481.174 
1.079.013 
5.242.190 
8.063.077 6,50% 
4,30% 
2,09% 
2,76% 
5,97% 
13.38% 
65,01% 
100.00% 2 
20 
69 
142 
278 
609 
3035 
29 
100-199 fattening pigs 
200-399 fattening pigs 
400-999 fattening pigs 
TntM 434.846 
10.788 
1.484 
1.235 
1.370 
1.670 
914 
452.307 96,14% 
2,39% 
0,33% 
0,27% 
0,30% 
0,37% 
0.20% 
100.00% ' 851.300 
186.800 
100.100 
>75.400 
368.800 
1.048.100 
2.081.500 
4.812.000 17,69% 
3.88% 
2.08% 
3,65% 
7,66% 
21,78% 
43,26% 
100,00% 2 
17 
67 
142 
269 
628 
•2277 
11 241.968 
8.420 
1.488 
1.166 
1.151 
1.222 
997 
256.412 94.37% 
3.28% 
0,58% 
0,45% 
0,45% 
0,48% 
0,39% 
100,00% 468.316 
147.172 
100.903 
165.662 
311.139 
746.928 
2.402.171 
4.342.291 10,78% 
3,39% 
2,32% 
3,82% 
7.17% 
?• 17,20% 
—^ 55,32% 
100,00% 2 
17 
68 
142 
270 
611 
2409 
17 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% 
. 
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% 133.190 
83.700 
67.400 
488.100 
772.390 17.24% 
10,84% 
8,73% 
-63,19% 
100.00% 2 
21 
:69 
287 
11 28.567 
3.698 
833 
1.339 
34.437 82,95% 
10,74% 
2,42% 
3.89% 
100,00% 78.421 
71.769 
55.294 
484.362* 
689.846 11,37% 
10,40% 
8,02% 
. 70,21% 
100.00% 3 
19 
66 
362 
20 +34.35% 
-7,25% 
-4.17% 
+25,99% 
- +86.37% 
EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures 
Luxemburg 
SFze classes 
1-9 pigs 
10-49 pigs 
50-99 pigs 
100-199 pigs 
200-399 pigs 
400-999 pigs 
> 1000 pigs 
Total 1987 
Number of Size classes Number of Size classe* AritmatsJ 
holdings in'/. animal* ' In* holding' 
771 
332 
138 
90 
57 
32 
8 
1.428 53,99% 
23,25% 
9,66% 
6,30% 
• 3,99% 
2,24% 
0,56% 
100,00% • 2.663 
8.427 
9.508 
12.324 
15.126 
19.311 
9.463 
76.822 3.47% 
10,97% 
12,38% 
16,04% 
19,69% 
25,14% 
12,32% 
100,00% . 3 
25 
69 
137 
265 
603 
1183 
54 1995 
Number of Size classé* Number Of Size classes" Animals/ 
• holdings' Irt* ahimal*- '. fa% holding: 
232 
122 
56 
50 
48 
41 
11 
560 . 41,43% 
21,79% 
10,00% 
8,93% 
8,57% 
7,32% 
1,96% 
100,00% 879 
3.703 
4.270 
7.576 
13.665 
26.716 
11.379 
68.188 1,29% 
5,43% 
v . 6,26% 
11,11% 
20.04% 
39.18% 
16.69% 
100.00% 4 
30 
76 
152 
285 
652 
1034 
122 1987/95 
•/-Animals 
perholdtng 
+9.69% 
+19,58% 
+10,67% 
+10.65% 
+7.28% 
+7.98% 
-12,55% 
+126,34% 
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! 929 
97 
20 
24 
17 
100 
1 
1.188 78,20% 
8,16% 
1,68% 
2,02% 
1.43% 
8.42% 
0.08% 
100.00% 3.049 
1.836 
1.423 
3.521 
4.693 
5.985 
1.150 
21.657 14,08% 
8,48% 
6,57% 
. 16,26% 
21,67% 
27,64% 
5,31% 
100,00% 3 
19 
71 
147 
276 
60 
1150 
18 261 
52 
19 
16 
14 
20 
1 
383 68,15% 
13,58% 
4,96% 
4,18% 
3,66% 
5,22% 
0,26% 
100.00% 866 
1.332 
1.095 
2.444 
4.765 
9.178 
1.067 
20.747 4.17% 
6,42% 
5,28% 
11,78% 
22,97% 
S 44,24% 
x - 5.14% 
100,00% 3 
26 
58 
153 
340 
459 
1067 
54 +1.10% 
+35.33% 
-19.00% 
+4,12% 
+23.29% 
+666.75% 
-7,22% 
+197,15% 
•.,•:. ••".'..- • • ' . 
1-9 sows 
10-49 sows 
50-99 sows 
> 100 sows 
Total 311 
284 
41 
9 
645 48.22% 
44,03% 
6,36% 
1,40% 
100,00% 1.227 
. 6.179 
. 2.806 
1.077 
11.289 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% 
EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures 
Netherland 
Size classes 
1-9 pigs 
10-49 pigs 
50-99 pigs 
100-199 pigs 
200-399 pigs 
400-999 pigs 
> 1000 pigs 
Total 1987 
Number of Size classes Number of Size classe* Animal*/ 
holding* In'/• animals In'/, v holding 
1.889 
3.866 
4.562 
6.728 
6.896 
7.837 
3.574 
35.352 5.34% 
10.94% 
12.90% 
19,03% 
19,51% 
22,17% 
10,11% 
100,00% 7.408 
108.941 
- 335.809 
969.489 
1.971.554 
5.005.660 
5.949.879 
14.348.740 0,05% 
0,76% 
2,34% 
6,76% 
13.74% 
34,89% 
41,47% 
100,00% 4 
28 
74 
144 
286 
639 
1665 
406 1995 
Numbérôf Size classé* Number©'* size classé* Artfmats/ 
hôtdlhd* fa* animai* fa* holding 
687 
1.284 
2.035 
3.670 
4.290 
5.755 
4.667 
22.388 3,07% 
5,74% 
9,09% 
16,39% 
19,16% 
25,71% 
20.85% 
> 100.00% 2.573 
38.120 
150.628 
533.460 
1.226.705 
3.718.196 
8.727.831 
14.397.513 0.02% 
0,26% 
1,05% 
3,71% 
8,52% 
25,83% 
60.62% 
100.00% 4 
30 
74 
145 
"286 
. 646 
1870 
643 1987/95 
•/-Animal* 
per holding 
-4,50% 
+5,36% 
+0.56% 
+0.87% 
+0.02% 
+1,15% 
+12,33% 
+58,44% 
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 2.704 
4.193 
3.427 
4.297 
3.967 
2.393 
361 
21.342 12,67% 
19,65% 
16,06% 
20,13% 
18,59% 
11,21% 
1.69% 
100,00% 11.570 
113.730 
247.346 
610.175 
1.099.355 
1.371.749 
561.741 
4.015.666 0,29% 
2.83% 
6,16% 
15,19% 
27,38% 
34,16% 
13,99% 
100.00% ' \4 
27 
72 
142 
277 
573 
1556 
188 1.567 
2.229 
2.070 
3.226 
. 3.605 
2.586 
• 501 
15.784 9,93% 
14,12% 
13,11% 
20,44% 
22,84% 
16.38% 
3,17% 
100.00% 7.082 
57.378 
152.054 
463.537 
1.014.037 
1.506.035 
810.294 
. 4.010:417 . 0.18% 
1,43% 
3,79% 
11,56% 
25,29% 
\ 37,55% 
^ .20,20% 
100.00% 5 
26 
73 
144 
281 
582 
1617 
254 +5,62% 
-5.10% 
+1,77% 
+1,19% 
+1,50% 
+1,60% 
+3.94% 
+35.04% 
••••''••.'"'.' • •. ' :- " ' • • •'•"—•'. . ' • '':-. •-:'•..' • - '" •'. :-•:/-: 
1-9 sows 
10-49 sows 
50-99 sows 
)> 100 sows 
Total 2.644 
5.042 
3.466 
6.161 
17.313 15,27% 
29,12% 
20,02% 
35,59% 
100,00% 11.376 
134.534 
252.482 
1.221.314 
1.619.706 0.70% 
8,31% 
15,59% 
75,40% 
100,00% 4 
27 
73 
198 
94 748 
1.526 
1.633 
- 5.716 
9.623 7,77% 
15.86% 
16,97% 
59,40% 
100.00% 1.026 
41.719 
121.947 
1.335.586 
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 
1-9 pigs 
10-49 pigs 
50-99 pigs 
100-199 pigs 
200-399 pigs 
400-999 pigs 
> 1000 pigs 
Total 1987 
Number of Size classe* Number of Size classa* Animal*/ 
holdings In % animal* tn % holding 
238.240 
19.191 
2.105 
1.789 
701 
480 
328 
262.834 90.64% 
7.30% 
0.80% 
0,68% 
0.27% 
0,18% 
0,12% 
100,00% 511.182 
349.285 
145.307 
246.337 
193.341 
295.906 
714.626 
2.455.984 20,81% 
14,22% 
5,92% 
10,03% 
7,87% 
12,05% 
29,10% 
100,00% 2 
18 
69 
138 
276 
616 
2179 
9 1995-
Number of Size classé* Number of % Sl*e ef**sés Animât*/ 
s hording* fa* animal* fa* holding" 
121.600 
13.100 
1.100 
1.900 
600 
500 
500 
. 139.300 87,29% 
9,40% 
0,79% 
1,36% 
0,43% 
0,36% 
0,36% 
100,00% 277.500 
286.200 
103.300 
257.900 
225.300 
221,500 
.1.030.100 
2.401.800 11,55% 
11,92% 
v - 4,30% 
10,74% 
9,38% 
,9,22% 
42,89% 
100,00% 2 
22 
94 
136 
376 
443 
2060 
17 1987/95 
+/-Animal* 
per holding 
+6,36% 
+20,04% 
+36,04% 
-1,42% 
+36,15% 
-28,14% 
-5,44% 
• - +84,52% 
— X 
.._.__ J : : :—: 1 : :— 
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 154.591 
3.362 
859 
430 
281 
200 
64 
159.787 96,75% 
2.10% 
0,54% 
0,27% 
0,18% 
0,13% 
0,04% 
100,00% 236.590 
74.822 
61.941 
56.153 
76.499 
123.235 
119.427 
748.667 31,60% 
9.99% 
8,27% 
7,50% 
10,22% 
16.46% 
15.95% 
100,00% 2 
22 
72 
131 
272 
616 
1866 
5 75.000 
2.800 
700 
600 
400 
200 
200 
79.900 93,87% 
3,50% 
0,88% 
0.75% 
0,50% 
0,25% 
.0,25% 
100,00% 118.800 
62.400 
38.600 
76.500 
82.500 
122.400 
229.700 
730.900 16,25% 
8,54% 
5,28% 
10,47% 
11,29% 
4 16,75% 
^ 31,43% 
100,00% •2 
22 
55 
128 
206 
612 
. 1149 
9 +3,50% 
•0,14% 
-23,53% 
-2,36% 
-24,24% 
-0,68% 
-38,45% 
+95,24% 
• . -• • ' • .--
1-9 sows 
10-49 sows 
50-99 sows 
> 100 sows 
. 
Total 67.727 
3.100 
402 
539 
71.768 94,37% 
4,32% 
0,56% 
0,75% 
100,00% 126.886 
55.655 
27.285 
109.986 
319.812 39,68% 
17,40% 
8,53% 
34,39% 
100,00% 2 
18 
68 
204 
4 41.200 
3.200 
500 
700 
45.600 90,35% 
7,02% 
1.10% 
1.54% 
100.00% 101.300 
59.700 
27.200 
144.700 
332.900 30,43% 
17,93% 
8,17% 
43,47% 
100,00% 2 
19 
54 
207 
7 +31,24% 
+3,92% 
-.19.85% 
+1,30% 
+63.83% 
r 
EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures 
United Kingdom 
Size classes 
1-9 pigs 
10-49 pigs 
50-99 pigs 
100-199 pigs 
200-399 pigs 
400-999 pigs 
> 1000 pigs 
Total 1987 
Number of Size classes Number of _ S)zec)à*sa* Animals/ 
holding* tn % animal* -.. fa % holding 
5.150 
5.266 
1.988 
1.726 
2.067 
2.321 
2.154 
20.672 24,91% 
25,47% 
9,62% 
8,35% 
10,00% 
11.23% 
10,42% 
100,00% 18.553 
127.225 
. 138.618 
248.849 
587.488 
1.527.789 
5.266.020 
7.914.542 0.23% 
1,61% 
1,75% 
3,14% 
7,42% 
19,30% 
66,54% 
100,00% 4 
24 
70 
144 
. 284 
6.58 
2445 
383 1995 , 
Number Of Size classe* Numbérof Size clëssé*.. Animât*/ 
hotdtag* - fa* animal* " fa* holding 
4.540 
2.122 
706 
. 870 
1.057 
1.966 
.2.194 
13.455 33,74% 
15,77% 
5,25% 
6,47% 
7,86% 
14,61% 
16,31% 
100,00% 14.292 
47.977 
51.977 
120.991 
. 290.180 
1.207.029 
V 5.602.071 
7.334.517 0,19% 
0,65% 
0,71% 
v 1,65% 
3,96% 
16,46% 
76,38% 
100,00% 3 
23 
74 
139 
275 
614 
2553 
. 545 1987/95 , 
•/-Animai* 
pér holding 
-12,62% 
-6,42% 
+5,59% 
-3,54% 
-3,41% 
-6,73% 
+4,44% 
+42,38% 
•' • • ~ •. •'•.,-. •.•*'•• . : 
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 2.621 
2.707 
1.128 
1.229 
1.256 
1.116 
545 
10.602 24,72% 
25,53% 
10,64% 
11,59% 
11,85% 
10.53% 
5.14% 
100,00% 10.407 
62.633 
80.336 
172.846 
356.136 
704.687 
1.128.966 
2.516.011 0,41% 
2,49% 
3,19% 
6,87% 
14,15% 
28.01% 
44,87% 
100,00% • • - 4 
23 
71 
141 
. 284 
631 
2071 
237 2.595 
1.221 
560 
695 
1.044 
1.373 
698 
8.186 31,70% 
14,92% 
6,84% 
8,49% 
••• 12,75% 
16,77% 
8,53% 
100,00% .8.525 
30.229 
36.225 
92.162 
- 315.724 
810.304 
1.288.415 
2.581.584 0,33% 
1,17% 
1,40% 
3,57% 
12,23% 
31,39% 
$ 49,91% 
A 100,00% .3 
25 
65 
133 
302 
590 
1846 
315 -17,26% 
+7,00% 
-9,17% 
• -5,71% 
+6,65% 
-6,54% 
- -10,89% 
+32,89% 
1-9 sows 
10-49 sows 
50-99 sows 
> 100 sows 
Total 7.505 
4.013 
1.674 
2.623 
15.815 47,45% 
25,37% 
10,58% 
16.59% 
100,00% 26.304 
96.123 
121.070 
657.429 
900.926 2,92% 
. 10,67% 
13,44% 
72,97% 
100,00% 4 
24 
72 
251 
57 4.528 
1.793 
872 
2.318 
9.511 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% 
I 
EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures 
Finland* 
Size classes 
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 JUH61990 , , s { \ 
Number faf 
holdings 
2.302 
.1.725 
1.667 
2.560 
2.111 
424 
28 
10.817 slid classes 
21,28% 
15,95% 
15,41% 
23,67% 
19,52% 
3,92% 
0,26% 
100.00% 
I Number of 
ftftJittt* 
. 5.798 
46.412 
122.203 
372.683 
568.479 
230.638 
35.229 
1.381.442 Site classes 
0,42% 
3,36% 
8,85% 
26,98% 
41,15% 
. 16,70% 
2,55% 
100,00% 
I 
-J. —L I I 
I 
i 
i 
i 
i 
i Arttmfclt/ 
holdfast -: 
3 
27 
73 
146 
269 
544 
1258 
128 may 1998" 
•.Humber of 
hoMttflS 
. 508 
966 
1.051 
1.970 
2.237 
595 
41 
7.368 
1.718 
1.703 
907 
706 
536 
149 
8 
5.727 
935 
3.473 
738 
91 
5.237 Sfcecfoi*** 
to* 
6,89% 
13,11% 
14,26% 
26,74% 
30,36% 
8,08% 
0,56% 
100,00% 
: 30,00% 
29,74% 
15,84% 
12,33% 
9,36% 
2.60% 
0,14% 
100,00% 
17,85% 
66,32% 
14,09% 
1,74% 
100,00% rtumhef-df 
anfttjili' " 
1.858 
26.860 
78.010 
293.594 
617.629 
322.998 
59.563 
1.400.512 
7.049 
41.561 
64.802 
98.695 
146.772 
82.367 
9.594 
450.840 
4.410 
94.602 
47.274 
14.827 
161.113 SlXe<Sld*s«s" 
ftt* 
.0,13% 
1,92% 
5,57% 
20,96% 
44,10% 
23,06% 
4,25% 
100,00% 
1,56% 
9,22% 
14,37% 
21,89% 
32,56% 
*. 18,27% 
2,13% 
100,00% 
2,74% 
58,72% 
29,34% 
9,20% 
100,00% , Arifm&te/ 
4 
28 
74 
149 
276 
543 
1453 
190 
4 
24 
71 
140 
274 
553 
1199 
79 
5 
27 
64 
163 
31 199D/96 
^-AhtHhBl4 
+45,21% 
+3,34% 
+1,25% 
+2,37% 
+2,53% 
-0,20% 
+15,47% 
+48,84% 
* Data from the national authority; different time period!!; no data on fattening pigs and sows in 1990 
EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures 
Sweden* 
Size Classes ' 
1-9 pigs" 
10-24 pigs" 
25-99 pigs" 
100-249 pigs" 
250-499 pigs" 
> 499 pigs" 
Total 1987 
Number of ,. SIZé classas Number'of Size classe* Animal*/ s 
holdings \i\% animal* fa.% 'hôldlrtà 
4.151 
2.573 
4.842 
2.773 
1.339 
1.039 
16.717 24,83% 
15,39% 
28,96% 
16,59% 
8,01% 
6,22% 
100,00% 13.930 
41.266 
262.222 
439.576 
461.215 
1.016.172 
2.234.381 0,62% 
.1,85% 
11,74% 
19,67% 
20,64% 
45,48% 
100,00% 3 
16 
54 
159 
344 
978 
134 1993 
Numbérôf S|ze classé* Numbérôf Size classé* Animal*/ 
% hotdfng* fa* animal* ,fa* - holding 
2.670 
1.755 
3.241 
2.094 
1.386 
1.195 
12.341 21,64% 
14,22% 
26,26% 
16,97% 
11,23% 
9,68% 
100,00% 9.438 
28.073 
174.744 
339.788 
484.264 
1.240.240 
2.276.547 0,41 % 
1,23% 
v 7,68% 
14,93% 
21,27% 
. 54,48% 
100,00% 4 
16 
54 
162 
349 
1038 
184 /1987/93 
•/-Animais 
per holding 
+5,33% 
-0,26% 
.-0,44% 
+2,36% 
+1.44% 
+6,12% 
+38.02% 
•v 
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 t 
v 
1-9 sows 
10-49 sows 
50-99 sows 
> 100 sows 
Total 7.301 
3.681 
1.002 
357 
12.341 59,16% 
29.83% 
8.12% 
2,89% 
100.00% 15.614 
84.728 
65.602 
75.428 
241.372 6,47% 
35,10% 
27,18% 
3"1,25% 
100,00% 2 
23 
65 
211 
20 
* 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* 
Size classes 
1-10 pigs" 
11-50 pigs" 
51-100 pigs" 
101-200 pigs" 
201-400 pigs" 
401-600 pigs" 
> 600 pigs" 
Tolal 1987 , 
Number of Size classes Number of size classes " Animals/ 
holdings \t\% animal* \<\% holding 
122.975 
23.299 
6.016 
4.665 
2.132 
.137 
73 
159.297 77,20% 
14,63% 
3,78% 
2,93% 
1,34% 
0,09% 
0,05% 
100,00% 398.573 
537.895 
432.043 
666.332 
567.141 
64.240 
77.371 
2.743.595 14,53% 
19,61% 
15,75% 
24,29% 
20,67% 
2,34% 
2,82% 
100,00% 3 
23 
72 
143 
266 
469 
1060 
• 17 1993 
Numbéfof size classe* , j Numbérôf size dusse* Animal*/ 
holding* fa* animal* fa* holding 
94.557 
.16.087 
. 5.667 
5.236 
2.959 
239 
66 
124.811 75,76% 
12,89% 
4,54% 
- 4,20% 
2,37% 
0,19% 
0,05% 
; 100,00% 289.238 
386.831 
409.437 
756.377 
797.212 
110.787 
71.971 
2.821.853 10,25% 
13,71% 
v 14,51% 
26,80% 
28,25% 
3,93% 
2,55% 
100,00% 3 
24 
72 
144 
269 
464 
1090 
23 , 1987/93 
•/-Animal* 
per holding' 
-5,62% 
+4,16% 
+0,60% 
+1,13% 
+1,28% 
-1,14% 
+2,89% 
+31,27% 
v 
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 33.120 
11.361 
347 
23 
44.851 73,84% 
25,33% 
0.77% 
0,05% 
100,00% 105.379 
258.538 
21.975 
4.336 
385.892 27,31% 
67,00% 
5,69% 
1,12% 
101,12% 3 
23 
63 
189 
9 19.725 
10.928 
. 625 
66 
31.344 62,93% 
34,86% 
1,99% 
0.21% 
100,00% 68.127 
263.228 
39.112 
10.727 
381.194 17,87% 
69,05% 
10,26% 
2,81% 
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 pig holdings în 1000 
BE1 
BE3 
DK 
DE1 
DE2 
DE4" 
DE3 
DE7 
DE8 . 
DE9 . 
DEA 
DEB 
DEC 
DED 
DEE 
DEF 
DEG 
GR11 
GR3 
GR23 
GR13 
GR21 
GR12. 
GR43 
GR22 
GR42 
GR25 
GR34 
GR14 
GR41 
ES61 
ES24 
ES12 
ES53 
ES7 
ES13 
ES42 
ES41 
ES.51 
ES52 
ES43 
ES11 
ES23 
ES3 
ES62 
ES22 
ES21 REGIONS 
VLAAMS GEWEST + BXL 
REG. WALONNE 
B 
DK 
BADEN WURTEMBERG 
BAYERN 
BRANDENBURG 
HAMBURG, BREMEN, BERLIN 
HESSEN 
MECKLENBURG-VORPOMME 
NIEDERSACHSEN 
NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN 
RHEINLAND-PFALZ 
SAARLAND 
SACHSEN 
SACHSEN-ANHALT 
SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN 
THURINGEN 
DEU 
ANATONIKI MACEDONIA & T 
ATTIKI 
DYTIKI ELLADA 
DYTIKI MAKEDONIA 
IPEIROS 
KENTRIKI MAKEDONIA 
KRITI 
NISIA IONIOU 
NOTIO AIGALO 
PELOPONNESOS 
STEREA ELLADA 
THESSALIA 
VOREIO AIGALO 
GR 
ANDALUCIA 
ARAGON 
ASTURIAS 
BALEARES 
CANARIAS 
CANTABRIA 
CASTILLA-LA-MANCHA 
CASTILLA-LEON 
ÇATALUNA 
COM. VALENCIANA 
EXTREMADURA 
GALICIA 
LARIOJA 
MADRID 
MURCIA 
NAVARRA 
PAIS VASCO 
ESP 
I 1989 
16 
4 
20 
31 
49 
87 
2 
0 
29 
2 
47 
37 
12 
1 
2 
2 
6 
2 
278 
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 
A 
e 
311 1993 
13 
2 
15 
27 
42 
79 
2 
0 
25 
1 
41 
33 
10 
1 
3 
1 
5 
2 
246 
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 
' .2 
* 
23£ +/-1989/93 % 
-20.37% 
-42,31% 
-24,65% 
-14,46% 
-14,24% 
-9,56% 
-10,00% 
-50,00% 
-13,98% 
-12,67% 
-13,04% 
-10,08% 
-15.88% 
-30.00% 
+47,14% 
-28,00% 
. -14.83% 
+12,38% 
-11,54% 
+121,00% 
+55,00% 
+67,97% 
+88,53% 
+4,44% 
+79,29% 
+110,91% 
-12,50% 
+36,09% 
+20,00% 
+81.21% 
+88.20% 
-22.78% 
+68,36% 
-29.83% 
-30,19% 
-10,88% 
-11.54% 
-28.89% 
-31.94% 
-57,72% 
-23,63% 
-13,96% 
-33,46% 
-37,50% 
-20,40% 
-18.13% 
-40,00% 
-40.00% 
-20.48% 
-25.08% 
-24.29°/ Number of pigs In 1000 
1989 
6354 
304 
6657 
9198 
2204 
3669 
1310 
25 
999 
1273 
• 7069 
5834 
500 
35 
988 
1192 
1437 
821 
27356 
54 
21 
62 
22 
122 
110 
60 
7 
24 
. 58 
212 
. 125 
40 
934 
1049 
1*512 
52 
70 
33 
13 
475 
1787 
3825 
605 
621 
' 632 
87 
38 
693 
29S 
5C 
11842 1993 
6831 
291 
7122 
11568 
2280 
3809 
923 
8 
971 
907 
7186 
5812 
461 
30 
705 
849 
1368 
732 
26041 
64 
7 
63 
38 
43 
118 
49 
4 
31 
84 
126 
172 
9 
808 
1103 
1928 
54 
73 
19 
11 
437 
1963 
4469 
691 
682 
584 
77 
51 
547 
34-4 
31 
13064 +/-1989/93% 
+7.51% 
-4.10% 
' +6,98% 
+25,76% 
+3.45% 
+3.81% 
-29.56% 
-67.59% 
-2.84% 
-28.73% 
+ 1.67% 
-0.39% 
-7.74% 
-15.37% 
-28.59% 
-28.81% 
-4.77% 
-10,91% 
-4,81% 
+ 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% 
+27,48% 
+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 Number of prgs/holdlng 
-1989 
395 
78 
333 
293 
45 
42 
596 
125 
34 
849 
151 
159 
42 
. 39 
470 
596 
239 
391 
99 
27 
105 
14 
7 
136 
39 
27 
18 
10 
26 
64 
25 
22 
29 
45 
141 
3 
11 
19 
4 
42 
31 
275 
233 
26 
5 
55 
126 
> 187 
71 
> I 
, 21 1993 
533 
129 
473 
431 
54 
48 
466 
81 
.38 
693 
177 
176 
46 
48 
228 
589 
268 
' 310 
106 
14 
23 
6 
6 
45 
24 
10 
11 
10 
32 
21 
18 
7 
15 
68 
258 
3 
13 
15 
5 
91 
44 
374 
400 
45 
e 
5S 
> 281 
r 24€ 
10: 
5 +/-1989/93% 
+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<!< 
5 +31.53°^ 
J +44.58°> 
" -16.22°> 
5 55 +45,71'/ > 
3 
) 
) 
'o 
_ 
Number of pîg-holdings in 1000 
FR42 
FR61 
FR72 
FR25 
FR26 
FR52 
FR24 
FR21 
FR83 
FR43 
FR23 
FR1 
FR81 
FR63 
FR41 
FR62 
FR3 
FR51 
FR22 
FR53 
FR82 
FR71 
IE 
IT71 
IT92 
IT311 
IT93 
IT8 
IT4 
IT33 * 
IT6 
IT13 
IT2 • 
IT53 
IT72 
IT11 
IT91 
ITB 
ITA 
IT51 
IT312 
IT52 . 
IT12 
IT32 
LU 
NL1 
NL2 
NL3 
NL4 REGIONS 
ALSACE 
AQUITAINE 
AUVERGNE 
BASSE-NORMANDIE 
BOURGOGNE 
BRETAGNE 
CENTRE 
CHAMPAGNE-ARDENNE ' 
CORSE 
FRANCHE-COMTE 
HAUTE-NORMANDIE 
ILE-DE-FRANCE 
LANGUEDOC-ROUSILLON 
LIMOUSIN 
LORRAINE 
MIDI-PYRENEES 
NORD-PAS-DE-CALAIS 
PAYS-DE-LA-LOIRE 
PICARDIE 
POITOU-CHARENTES 
PAC 
RHONÉ-ALPES 
F 
IRL 
ABRUZZI 
BASIUCATA 
BOLZANO-BOZEN 
CALABRIA 
CAMPANIA 
EMILIA ROMAGNA 
FRIULI-VENEZIA GIULIA 
LAZIO 
LIGURIA 
LOMBARDIA 
MARCHE 
MOUSE 
PIEMONTE 
PUGLIA 
SARDEGNA 
SICILIA 
TOSCANA 
TRENTO 
UMBRIA 
VALLE D'AOSTA 
VENETO 
IT 
LUX 
NOORD NL 
OOST NL 
WEST NL 
ZUID NL 
NL 1989 
4 
19 
10 
4 
4 
22 
'A 
• 2 
1 
2 
1 
0 
2 
9 
5 
22 
5 
11 
2 
8 
1 
12 
149 
3 
27 
18 
8 
37 
'•56 
11 
7 
37 
1 
15 
29 
13 
9 
3 
20 
5 
12 
1 
14 
0 
22 
346 
1 
1 
14 
4 
10 
29 1993 
3 
14 
8 
2 
3 
15 
3 
1 
1 
1 
1 
0 
1 
6 
3 
17 
4 
8 
.1 
5 
1 
8 
106 
3 
22 
16 
8 
34 
59 
5 
3 
27 
0 
10 
25 
•7 
5 
3 
18 
6 
7 
1 
14 
0 
15 
286 
1 
1 
13 
3 
10 
27 +/-1989/93 % 
-28.50% 
-24.29% 
-21,96% 
-43.41% 
-36,14% 
-30,00% 
-20,26% 
-40,00% 
-27,50% 
-26,67% 
-24,44% 
+0,00% 
-21,58% 
-33,76% 
-30.85% 
-23,78% 
-25,38% 
-30.56% 
-35.00% 
-35.36% 
-25.56% 
-34,92% 
-28,89% 
-10,69% 
-19,15% 
-12,66% 
-8,21% 
-6.29% 
+5.32% 
-53.24% 
-62.08% 
-25.92% 
. -48.75% 
-35,78% 
-14.19% 
-40,48% 
-38.86% 
+4,69% 
-8.87% 
+3.33% 
-38.38% 
-14.44% 
-3.94% 
-20,00% 
-34,37% 
-17,40% 
.-5,66% 
-14.29% 
-9.08% 
-6.94% 
-6.76% 
-8,26% Number of pig* In tOOO 
1989 
72 
472 
243 
351 
198 
6612 
290 
101 
33 
107 
148 
16 
59 
158 
74 
610 
681 
1025 
174 
332 
38 
408 
12204 
1302 
133 
75 
25 
141 
162 
1896 
207 
178 
4 
2880 
248 
58 
756 
38 
258 
100 
293 
8 
352 
1 
581 
8393 
77 
576 
4819 
824 
7630 
13849 1993 
67 
457 
280 
410 
214 
7740 
402 
86 
24 
103 
188 
14 
52 
171 
85 
629 
635 
1474 
159 
339 
32 
366 
13929 
1570 
122 
' 71 
25 
135 
150 
1896 
197 
154 
1 
2940 
234 
53 
810 
31 
255 
94 
265 
4 
322 
0 
637 
8396 
72 
585 
5128 
879 
8373 
14964 +/-1989/93 % 
-7,90% 
-3,28% 
+15.18% 
+16,66% 
+7.97% 
+ 17,05% 
+38,91% 
-14.89% 
-26.67% 
-3.37% 
+27.03% 
-13i58% 
-11,09% 
+8,64% 
+14,25% 
+3.01% 
-6.68% 
+43.77% 
-8.37% 
+2,31% 
-17.21% 
-10,11% 
+14,14% 
+20,57% 
-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% 
-6,57% 
+1,60% 
+6,40% 
+6,65% 
+9.74% 
+8.06% Number of plgttholdlng 
.1989 
18 
25 
24 
80 
• 45 
305 
76 
44 
42 
71 
165 
162 
31 
19 
16 
28 
131 
95 
1'09 
39 
43 
34 
82 
449 
5 
4 
3 
4 
3 
171 
29 
5 
5 
187 
9 
5 
•86 
12 
13 
19 
25 
9 
25 
3 
26 
24 
145 
" 411 
342 
229 
748 
473 1993 
23 
32 
35 
165 
76 
510 
133 
62 
42 
94 
. 277 
140 
35 
30 
26 
38 
164 
197 
- 153 
62 
47 
47 
132 
606 
6 
4 
3 
4 
3 
365 
72 
6 
2 
297 
9 
7 
151 
9 
14 
17 
37 
5 
24 
1 
44 
29 
144 
488 
400 
262 
880 
557 •M989/93tf 
+28,81% 
+27,76% 
+47,60% 
+106,14% 
+69.06% 
+67,22% 
+74.21% 
+41.86% 
+1,15% 
+31,77% 
. ' +68,13% 
. -13,58% 
+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% 
Source : EUROFARM ^JL 
Number of pfg-hôldings In 1000 
' 
PT2 
PT14 
PT15 
PT12 
PT13 
PT3 
PT11 
UK4 
UK3 
UK1 
UK8 
UKB 
UKA 
UK5 
UK6 
UK9 
UK7 
UK2 REGIONS 
OS 
ACORES 
ALENTEJO 
ALGARVE 
CENTRO 
USBOA&VALEDOTEJO 
MADEIRA 
NORTE 
PORT 
FIN 
SWE 
EAST-ANGUA 
EAST MIDLANDS 
NORTH 
NORTHWEST 
NORTHERN IRELAND 
SCOTLAND 
SOUTH EAST 
SOUTH WEST 
WALES 
WEST MIDLANDS 
YORKSHIRE & HUMBERSIDE 
UK 1989 
10 
13 
8 
102 
26 
•6 
74 
239 
2 
1 
0 
1 
3 
1 
2 
.3 
1 
1 
3 
17 1993 
122 
9 
8 
5 
76 
18 
5 
52 
173 
11 
12 
2 
1 
1 
1 
2 
1 
2 
3 
1 
1 
2 
16 +/. 1989/93 % 
-10,00% 
-39.02% 
-32,63% 
-25,16% 
-32,24% 
-17,81% 
-29,84% 
-27,54% 
-3,13% 
-7,27% 
+32,50% 
-26.00% 
-18.52% 
-8.89% 
- +11 .'88% 
-2.86% 
+0.00% 
+2.73% 
-0.80% 
-4,26% Number of ptgs In iOOQ 
1989 
41 
345 
74 
589 
1146 
18 
227 
2439 
1437 
601 
172 
315 
626 
459 
799 
861 
101 
416 1993 
3781 
47 
401 
56 
553 
1344 
26 
190 
2618 
1381 
2777 
. 1438 
628 
186 
293 
613 
547 
804 
849 
106 
422 
17661 1877 
7552| 7763 +/-1989/93 % 
+16,09% 
+16.19% 
-23.69% 
-6,02% 
+ 17,32% 
+39,45% 
• -16,14% 
+7,32% 
+0,08% 
+4,64% 
+8.05% 
-7,12% 
-2,13% 
+ 19,04% 
+0.58% 
-1,34% 
+4,83% 
+1,48% 
+6,33% 
+2,79% Number of pFgs/halding 
1989 
. . '• 4 
26 
10 
6 
44 
.3 
3 
10 
' 898 
546 
430 
315 
232 
510 
500 
307 
Y 84 
378 
706 
447 1993 
31 
5 
49 
11 
7 
77 
5 
4 
15 
128 
226 
928 
616 
351 
395 
278 
6.67 
. 449 
312 
88 
373 
757 
480 +M989/93% 
+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% 
Çnurco ; EUROFARM 03 
TABLE 14: Number of LSU (pigs and cattle) per ha utilised agricultural area 
LSU Cattle LSUpïgs Total LSU Changé in pig; stock 
RegFons perhaUAA perhaUAA perhaUAA beïween 1987 and S3/S4 v 
be BELGIQUE-BELGIE 1994 1,64 1,00 2,64 * •11,$3t* 
i bel 
be2 
be3 REG.BRUXELLES-CAP./BRUSSELSHFDST.GEW. 
VLAAMSGEWEST 
REGION WALLONNE 0,60 
1,91 
1,42 0.00 
2,12 
0,07 0,60 
4,03 
1,49 +23,25% 
-8,96% 
<Jk DANMARK 1994 0,54 0,68 1,22 +2t,$VA 
tie DEUTSCHLAND 1994 0,66 0,28 0,93 
del 
de2 
de3 
de4 
de5 
de6 
de7 
de8 
de9 
dea 
deb 
dec 
ded 
dee 
def 
deg BADEN-WUERTTEMBERG 
BAYERN 
BERLIN 
BRANDENBURG 
BREMEN 
HAMBURG 
HESSEN 
MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN 
NIEDERSACHSEN 
NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN 
RHEINLAND-PFALZ 
SAARLAND 
SACHSEN 
SACHSEN-ANHALT 
SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN 
THUERINGEN 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 0,26 
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 0,95 
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 -3,85% 
-4,69% 
-42,86% 
-50,00% 
-50,00% 
-21,00% 
-4,45% 
-7,39% 
-27,03% 
-32,10% 
-16,27% 
, gr ÊUADA 1993 0,11 0,05 0,17 •2,$1% 
gn 
gr2 
gr3 
gr4 VOREIA ELLADA 
KENTRIKI ELLADA 
ATTIKI 
NISIAAIGAIOU.KRITI 0,17 
0.06 
0.07 
0,06 0.04 
0.08 
0,05 
0,04 0,21 
0,14 
0,12 
0,10 
«S ÊSPANA 1993 0,15 0,14 0,29 *5,38% 
es1 
es11 
es12 
es13 
es2 
es21 
es22 
es23 
es24 
es3 
es4 
es41 
es42 
es43 
es5 
es51 
es52 
es53 
es6 
es61 
es62 
es63 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 
CEUTAYMELILLA 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 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 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 -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) 
es7 
fr 
fr1 
fr2 
fr3 
fr4 
frS 
fr6 
fr7 
fr8 
fr9 
ill 
$111 
it1 
rt11 
it12 
it13 
it2 
H3 
it31 
it32 
K33 
it4 
it5 
it51 
it52 
it53 
it6 
rt7 
it71 
it72 
it8 
it9 
it91 
it92 
it93 
ita 
itb 
lu 
ni 
nil 
nl2 
nl3 
nl4 
Pt 
pt1 
pt11 
pt12 
pt13 
pt14 
pt15 
pt2 
pt3 Regions 
CANARIAS 
FRANCE 1993 
LE DE FRANCE 
BASSIN PARISIEN 
NORD-PAS-DE-CALAIS 
EST 
OUEST 
SUD-OUEST 
CENTRE-EST 
MEDITERRANEE 
DEPARTEMENTS D'OUTRE-MER 
ï'ÊS^^MÊ^W^^^^^^^^^i^&à 
WM^^KfiM^^^Ê^^^^MMM^ÊË 
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 
BASILICATA 
CALABRIA 
SICILIA 
SARDEGNA 
LUXEMBOURG (GRAND-DUCHE) 1994 
NEDERLAND 1994 
NOORD-NEDERLAND 
OOST-NEDERLAND 
WEST-NEDERLAND 
ZUID-NEDERLAND 
PORTUGAL 1994 
CONTINENTE 
NORTE 
CENTRO (P) 
LISBOA E VALE DO TEJO 
ALENTEJO 
ALGARVE 
ACORES 
MADEIRA LSU cattle 
per ha UAA 
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 
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 LSU pigs 
per ha UAA 
0,12 
0,09 
0,01 
0,04 
0,15 
0,03 
0,34 
0,06 
0,05 
0,02 
lllilllii^osi 
llllillloli 
0,13 
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 Total LSU 
per ha UAA 
0,33 
0,58 
0,05 
0,48 
0,80 
0,65 
1,11 
0,56 
0,65 
0,13 
illlllfl 
llllltflii 
0J1 
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 Change in pig stock 
between 1987 and 93/94 
-44.20% 
' +25,21% 
-4,15% 
+33,10% 
+7,70% 
llllllIlllllllIIIIl^^M 
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiili 
+10,35% 
+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) 
LSU cattle LSU pigs Total LSU Change In pig stock 
Regions perhaUAA perhaUAA perhaUAA .between 1987 and 93/94 
Uk UNITED KINGDOM 1994 0,50 0,09 0,59 +1,91% 
uk1 
uk2 
uk3 
uk4 
uk5 
uk6 
uk7 
uk8 
uk9 
uka 
ukb NORTH 
YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE 
EAST MIDLANDS 
EAST ANGLIA 
SOUTH EAST (UK) 
SOUTH WEST (UK) 
WEST MIDLANDS 
NORTH WEST (UK) 
WALES 
SCOTLAND 
NORTHERN IRELAND 0,63 
0,47 
0,41 
0,16 
0,41 
0,98 
0,78 
1,12 
0,68 
0,25 
1,03 0,04 
0,34 
0,11 
0,31 
0,11 
0,10 
0,13 
0,13 
0,01 
0,02 
0.10 0,67 
0,81 
0,52 
0,48 
0,51 
1,08 
0,91 
1,24 
0,69 
0,27 
1,13 -5,54% 
+9,13% 
-4,21% 
+4,42% 
-16,37% 
+2,85% 
+23,80% 
-24,09% 
-26,56% 
+35,86% 
-2,88% 
at OESTERREICH 1994 0,49 0,20 0,69 
« at1 
at11 
at12 
at13 
at2 
at21 
at22 
at3 
at31 
at32 
at33 
at34 OSTOESTERREICH 
BURGENLAND 
NIEDEROESTERREICH 
WIEN 
SUEDOESTERREICH 
KAERNTEN 
STEIERMARK 
WESTOESTERREICH 
OBEROESTERREICH 
SALZBURG 
TIROL 
VORARLBERG 0,35 
0,13 
0,40 
0,00 
0,51 
0,43 
0,57 
0,59 
0,89 
0,44 
0,34 
0,41 0.20 
0.12 
0,21 
0,00 
0,27 
0,11 
0,38 
0,17 
0,38 
0,02 
0,02 
0,03 0,55 
0,25 
0,62 
0,00 
0,78 
0,54 
0,95 
0,75 
1,27 
0,46 
0,36 
0,44 
fi SUOMI/FINLAND 1994 0,32 0,10 0,42 
se SVER1GE 1993 0,28 0,08 0,36 
se01 
se02 
se03 
se04 
se05 
se06 
se07 
se08 STOCKHOLM 
ÔSTRA MELLANSVERIGE 
SMALAND MED ÔARNA 
SYDSVERIGE 
VÀSTSVERIGE 
NORRA MELLANSVERIGE 
MELLERSTA NORRLAND 
ÔVRE NORRLAND 0,15 
0,22 
0,40 
0,27 
0,32 
0,23 
0,27 
0,27 0,03 
0,05 
. 0,05 
0,17 
0,11 
0,03 
0,01 
0,03 0,18 
0,27 
0,45 
0,44 
0,43 
0,26 
0,28 
0,30 
EUROSTAT: 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