ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEE DES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM (77)60
V ol.1977/0026

Disclaimer
Conformément aurèglement (CEE, Euratom) n°354/83 duConseil du1erfévrier 1983
concernant l'ouverture aupublic des archives historiques delaCommunauté économique
européenne etdelaCommunauté européenne del'énergie atomique (JO L43du15.2.1983,
p.1),telque modifié parlerèglement (CE, Euratom) n°1700/2003 du22septembre 2003
(JO L243du27.9.2003, p.1),cedossier estouvert aupublic. Lecaséchéant, lesdocuments
classifiés présents dans cedossier ontétédéclassifiés conformément àl'article 5dudit
règlement.
Inaccordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No354/83 of 1February 1983
concerning theopening tothepublic ofthehistorical archives oftheEuropean Economic
Community and theEuropean Atomic Energy Community (OJ L43, 15.2.1983, p.1),as
amended byRegulation (EC, Euratom) No1700/2003 of22September 2003 (OJ L243,
27.9.2003, p.1),this fileisopen tothepublic. Where necessary, classified documents inthis
filehave been declassified inconformity with Article 5oftheaforementioned regulation.
InÜbereinstimmung mitderVerordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr.354/83 des Rates vom 1.
Februar 1983 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft undderEuropäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI. L43vom 15.2.1983,
S.1),geändert durch dieVerordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr.1700/2003 vom 22.September 2003
(ABI. L243 vom 27.9.2003, S.1),istdiese Datei derÖffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit
erforderlich, wurden dieVerschlusssachen indieser Datei inÜbereinstimmung mitArtikel 5
dergenannten Verordnung freigegeben.

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(77)60 final .
Brussels ,11February 1977 .
AGRICULTURAL INCOMES IN THE COMMUNITY
Addendum tothe 1976 Report
ontheAgricultural Situation inthe Community
COM(77)60final .

_1_
CONTENTS
Page
PRELIMINARY RMARKS 3
I.AGRICULTURAL INCOMES IN"1975 "(1975/76marketing year )FOR
THE MAIN TYPES OFFABMING 4
II.ESTIMATE OFAGRICULTURAL INCOMES INTHEMEMBER STATES IN1.976 1.1
CONCLUDING REMARKS 19
ANNEXES 21
A.FADN TABLES 22
B.FADN GRAPHS ,38
C. SOEC REPORT :FORECASTING OFRELATIVE CHANGE INTHE
VALUE ADDED OFAGRICULTURE PERPERSON EMPLOYED IN1976 ... 45

MAIN SIGNS ORABBREVIATIONS USED INTHIS DOCUMENT AND THEIR DEFINITIONS
GV A :Gross Value Added :
Value corresponding "tothe depreciation and the remuneration of
theproduction factors inagriculture (land ,labour ,capital ).
This value can "beexpressed atmarket prices oratfactor cost
.(seemethod ofcalculation ,Annex C.p.47)•
.PEA :Person Engaged inAgriculture :
Person working full-time ormost ofthe time inagriculture .
LI:Labour Income
Balance remaining after deduction from the value ofproduction
ofallinputs (including financing costs which have been paid
and/orcalculated aswell asrent and/orrental value )but
excluding labour inputs . LIcorresponds tothe remuneration
ofthe factor labour .
ALU :Annual Labour Unit :
Unit corresponding tothe labour ofaperson working onaholding
atleast 280 days or2380 hours peryear . Oneperson equals
atmost 1ALU .
LI/ALU :Labour Income per Annual Labour Unit
EUA :European Unit ofAccount
Aunit defined according toabasket consisting offixed amounts
ofthe currencies ofthe nine Member States ,asfollows :
DM:0.828 PI: 0.286 h(UK): O.O885
FF:1.15 Bfrs :3.66 b(IRL):0.00759
Lit :109 Lfrs :0.14 Dkr : 0.217
The value oftheunit ofaccount iscalculated each day by
evaluating its components atmarket exchange rates .
FADN :Farm Accountancy Data Network ofthe EEC
UAA :Utilized Agricultural Area :
Area oftheholding used foragricultural production (arable land ,
permanent pasture ,land under permanent crops ).
Type ofFarming :
System ofproduction onthe holding determined from the
composition ofthe holdings' standard gross production . A
distinction ismade between main types offarming ,specific types
offarming andspecialized activities (e.g. main type :grazing
stock ;specific type :cattle ;specialised production :milk ).
"1975 "sFADN accounting year 1975/76:
The FADN accounting year isa12-month period which begins
between 1January and 1July . The dates differ from one Member
State toanother and insome ofthe States according tothe type
ofholding .Inall oases the accounting year corresponds to
the same harvest (e.g. "1975 "relates totheharvest for 1975 )*

-3-
PRELIMINARY REMARKS
1.Since the1976 report ontheagricultural situation intheCommunity *
was prepared inOctober new data onfarm incomes have "become available .
Reports ontheagricultural situation inseveral Member States (Luxembourg ,
Netherlands ,United Kingdom )have been published .Further ,theCommission staff
have received theinitial results ofanupdating oftheavailable statistics .
This isthe first time that the Commission has had available atthis time
ofyear asubstantial ,though incomplete ,body ofFADN accounting datarelating ,onthe onehand ,to 1975/76 and,ontheother ,to
estimated movements in 1976 incertain macro –economic farm
income indicators ,produced bythe Working Group onthe "Sectoral Income
Index 1,oftheStatistical Office ofthe European Communities .
Inview ofthe fact that since 1974 farm incomes have been somewhat
unstable ,particularly in1976 ,largely onaccount oftheunusual weather
conditions ,itisappropriate toupdate information onthis subject ata
time when the Community authorities responsible for the common agricultural
policy are preparing totake their yearly decisions .
2.This report makes use ofthe new data available tocomplete
and update the chapter onagricultural incomes inthe 1976 Report onthe
Agricultural Situation inthe Community .Itdeals inturn with the
recent past (1975/76)andthepresent (1976/77)andthis covers the two
following aspects :
I. Thedevelopment ofagricultural incomes in"1975 "(1975/76marketing
year )forthemain types offarming ,according tothe Farm
Accountancy Data Network ofthe EEC (FADN )^;
II.Theestimate ofagricultural incomes inthe Member States in1976
(1976/77)according totheresults obtained bytheexpert group on
the "Sectoral Income Index ",and information collected bythe
Community Committee onthe Farm Accountancy Data Network .
See TheAgricultural Situation inthe Community –Report 1976 -Brussels -
Luxembourg ,January 1977 •
2The Commission presented tothe Council and Parliament the report on
the "1974 "FADN results on27September 1976 (see COM(76)432 final ).

-4-
I.AGRICULTURAL INCOMES IN"1975 "(1975/76marketing year )FORTHEMAIN
TYPES OFFARMING 1
3.Following "1972 "and "1973 ",which inturn topped therecords as
regards theabsolute level ofagricultural incomes ,there wasamarked
decline inagricultural incomes in •'1974 "ingeneral ,andanincrease in
disparities inparticular .
In"1975 "there wasapartial recovery inthegeneral level ofagricultural
income ,"butdisparities didnotdiminish .Insome cases ,indeed ,dueto
extraneous factors ,they even increased .Some types offarming were more
affected than others "bythe factors that disturbed economic equilibrium
in1975 (energy ,rawmaterials andmonetary crises ,soaring inflation
insome Member States ).Inaddition ,some types offarming were already
inthat year suffering from afirst onset ofdrought .
4.Theresults for"1975 "(1975/76)oftheFarm Accountancy Data Network
oftheEEC (FADN ),although incomplete andprovisional ^,give aninitial
idea ofthediversified development ofagricultural incomes ,andthe
disparities between them ,intheyear just ended (seeAnnex A).
Acomparison oftheindices oflabour income perALU (Ll/ALU)in"1974 "
and "1975 "-("1974 "=100)andofincomes obtained in"1975 "from the
main types offarming intheMember States gives rise tothefollowing
main observations :
(a)There areconsiderable divergencies between theabsolute levels of
labour income perannual labour unit (Ll/ALU)foreach group ofholdings
intheincomplete accounting sample for "1975 "*There isaspread of
1to11between Italian holdings ofless than 5haconcentrating onarable
land/permanent crops andDutch holdings ofover 50haengaged ingeneral
agricultui «. Even between groups ofholdings engaged inthesame type of
farming there areconsiderable differences inincome :forexample ,between
1to6ondairy farms of5–10 hainIreland andofover 50hainthe
Netherlands ;
(b)Theincrease intheLl/ALU (innominal terms )wasalmost general between
"1974 "and"1975 ".Theonly exceptions tothis tendency arefarms engaged
ingeneral agriculture inFrance andDenmark (their Ll/ALUhasdeclined by
about 20%atcurrent prices ),andcertain fruit farms andviticultural
holdings inFrance andItaly (down 5"to40$)(seegraphs opposite ).
Theyears minverted commas mthis Report correspond toFADN accounting
years which begin between 1January and 1July depending onthecountry
and thetype offarming .
2These results arenotyet available forGermany .They are ,moreover ,
provisional foranumber ofMember States astheaccounting data for some
divisions are still missing ,for example ,fordivisions nos400 and430
(Scotland andEngland East Region )and 310and 311 (Puglia andBasilicata ).
Thefinal results will ,asevery year ,beincluded inaspecial report
from theCommission tothe Council assoon asthey become available .

TRENDS IB "THE KE/AIU INTHE MEMBER STATES
BETWEEN "1974 "AUD "1975 "
FOR THE FOUR 1VIAI1T TYPES OF FARMING
(Constant sample available at20January 1977 )
-107?" "1975 "
ooa;i ) N '
//s*',-** 16^'"S /'"'sSS JFt'yS >DK M1- //A'si"S 'l
'/jS/ 'S// III GRAZING/ xARABLE Yy STOCKJ-'* I ' I i–– I ! ,– 1 1 0^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '–
18(0..0EUA) TI 18(000EIuA) T/7^ •**
16L Jb 16- IS SS -/s/s
12- 12k s s*' .Λ' 'Τ /// .·/X ."1 //»- / 4//X<* S--'-\ \/ s
a «
I S/"^ y
6i 6s//s//y
IIPERMANENT / .*" IVPIGS AN"Sy' CROPS 2 POULTRY
oLl ! I I ! ! I L__J 0L:_J i 1i_J I ! 1 i
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 W 16 18(000EUA )0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Í000
Cey: --regression line y=ax+"b^ part corresponding to
i survey
-extrapolated part
iso-incoine line y=x
vour/bryCharacteristics ofrégression lines V= PJC + D
Araole)land IPermanent crops Grazing stock Pigs and poultry
I(a) (b) i a (*) (a) 0> (a) ο)
I
!0,437 2.870 0,391 2.649 0,667 2.155
ï 0,936 1.667 0,586 1.142 1,185 1.461 0,678 2.740 ,
1,074 2.195 o,665 4.882 1,780 3.170
3 0,674 5.231 0,719 2.812 0,925 2.880 0,777 8.217
L 0iaWF" 2.375
.u;< 0,659 4.181 0,787 4.310
IX*\jlj I 0,587 4.833
t'rI0,644 2.145 I 0,931 3.P43 0,^5 ? /i.lr?
i '0,5.03 2.041 !0,495 2.016 0,77 - 0/-7-: n .
J• -

-6-
Theforegoing graphs confr' in "thegeneral trend although itseffect xsno
doubt lessened because t'-emain types offarming considered arecomposite
(e.g. the "arable land "type offarming includes both holdings engaged in
general agriculture ai,dhorticultural holdings ).
(c)Theincrease in~.l/ALUwaspa.rticula.rly marked in"1975"forfarms
engaged inpigprodaction (there isaspread of150to286intheindices
forgroups ofholdings ofthis type ).Holdings engaged inpigbreeding
(sows andpiglet ?)recorded thegreatest increase inincome (anindex of
nearly 300).Theholdings with thegreatest increases inincome andat
thesame time with thehighest incomes areinBelgium ,followed bythe
Netherlands and Denmark .
Pigfarms ,whose incomes hadmuch declined in"1974 "andhadasa
consequence fallen back into themiddle income ranges oftheother
types offarming ,thus hademexcellent year in"1975 ".They areonce
again well inthelead asregards their labour income perALUinabsolute
terms .This varies between 9483and17382EUA/ALUdepending onthesize
ofholding andcountries inquestion .
(d)Holdings engaged intheproduction ofgrazing stock (inparticular
cattle )have also generally increased their income inalltheMember
States .Thegreater theUAAcategory oftheholding ,thegreater has
been this increase inabsolute terms .This increase was ,however ,more
marked inIreland andtheUnited Kingdom-' -with theresult that holdings
inthese two countries equalled and even passed the income level ofFrench
holdings .TheDutch ,Belgian andDanish cattle farms maintained their
lead ,their Li/ALUremaining more orless double theincome oftheFrenoh ,
United Kingdom and Irish holdings .
Thedisparities inmilk production arewithout doubt themost typical .
Thesuperiority ofDutch andDanish holdings wasclearly confirmed ,their
Li/ALU ,depending onthesize ofholding (5–10 hato^50h&)ranging
from 6285to1284Iand6601to9920EUA/ALUrespectively ^.
(e)Indices fortheLi/ALUofother types ofholding vary considerably
depending onthetype offarming (production system ),thesize ofholding
andtheregion .Inrelation tothevalue 100=Li/ALU"1974 ",there is
arange of3*
The increase inthe income ofcattle farms inIreland and the United
Kingdom compared with theprevious badyear wasmainly due towide
fluctuations incattle prices inthese countries between theopening and
closing inventories fortheyear .Asubstantial part oftheincreased
income was thus capitalized inthe form oflivestock and was not felt as
gSuch bythefarmers concerned .
Theminimum andmaximum ofthe income bracket quoted correspond toa
,UAAof5-10 haand^50ha.
Theindices relating totypes ofholdings inIreland arevery high solely
due tothe fact that the income was atavery low level in"1974 "»
Consequently they arenot significant !they arenot taken into
consideration inthefollowing income brackets .

-7-
71to169for Vines
74 -to114for Fruit
74to170for General agriculture
92and 157for Arable land Grazing stock
.99and 178for Grazing stock Arable land
111 to129for Horticulture ,
(f)Examination ofthe change inlabour income between "1974 "and "1975"i
andthe situation in •'1975 "ofaparticular type ofagricultural holding
widely represented inthe Community ,namely cattle farms of20to50hectares ^,using aconstant sample of1219FADN returning holdings
representing this type ,gives anidea ofthe diversity offarm incomes
inEurope .
Theoveiall breakdown ofthese 1219returning holdings isasfollows :
1,According totheir individual 2.According tothe direction and
Li/ALUlevel in"1975" extent ofchange inLi/ALU
between "1974 "and "1975 "
LI/ALU Number of .LI/ALU Number of et
<HJA) holdings (ECJA) holdings/»
%15000 68 6
10to15000 180 14 »+-5000 283 19
5to 10000 483 39 0to 5000 740 61
0to 5000 476 •40 -5000 to0 218 19
< .0 121 <-5000 14 1
Total 1219 100 1219 100
The above data show that 81>ofthecattle holdings surveyed improved their
Ll/AHJinnominal terms in"1975 "«which confirms previous general
observations .
20%ofthese holdings enjoyed asubstantial increase ofmore than 5000
ECJA/ALU,butthe LI/ALUof19%oftheholdings surveyed declined compared
with the previous year .Inoomes in"1975 "range widely from –2000 upto
+17000 EQA/aIAJandabove .Nearly half theholdings had incomes between
3000 and 1000 EGA/ALU.
1
800 000,orover onequarter ofthe 3100 000holdings intheFADN field of
survey fell within this general type in"1970 ". There were about
300000holdings ofthis type (over onethird )with aUAAof20to50ha.

8
LAiOUS INCOMEPgRAWFORCATTLE HOLDINGS OF20-60h«
EVOLUTION &LEVEL"1974-■"1975"
DISTRIBUTION OFRETURNING HOLDINGS CMACCORDING TOTHE:
levelofLI/ALUmi ievolutionof Ll/ALUbetween 'levelofLI/ALUin
"1974" "1974"*r>"1975 " *1975" 0/ 197»
I /001 TDEUTSCHLAND J I
i–*0||||||||I)H|IIIIIIIMl
FRANCE 300I "I
1)03487 200Hft*b»15469# i{K_
2)*4tOI ,0°"
οI,,,ΗΗ11ίΓΗ·■ 1
.*
ITALIA .300-1
«) 20β-ΙΙι I-
ba1304J -1"1
2)s8261 "H,
0
%.ι
NEDERLAND 300-
1)αβ157 20(Η υ·
ba17255 MfM
2>«11500 10°"-ijf ~
0
1 %η1" ■'"""■"Γ
BELGIQUE/BELGIÉ 300-
1)a*80 200- |
b=78« «m
2)=8461 l0°"Jffi-fl
oI,ipirwff#wfwrm-r-
■1" %βι 11'1 Γ
LUXEMBOURG 300.
1)0=26 200-i J1
Ibal599 M
2>*69*0 ,00~ajfilwi
; oli..)mmwmH
o
« . .
UNITEDKINGDOM 300.
1)0=184 200-ff -
b=36SOS
––––––––––o-^ 1111nir-
o
'T%oI 1
IRELAND 300_ ..
1)0=151 200-fl
bs37300m
0ΓΉ'·ΥΥ·ΠΨ1 ■Πιιιιι■ιι.11
0
J%oI 'I
DANMARK 3oo-
1)0=87 200-
b-3083 ni
..„„„ loo-r'lrf4a_s rvF-'i
S 0 »»+
KEY t♦♦♦♦
OOoo ooooo oOooo On-^iao p
IΤ /*i§,1)No.of:
a=returning holdings jw-~
1b=holdingsinthefieldofsurveyvo
;2)slabourincomeperALU
.0"i975"(EUR)Categories ofincomeperII/ALU,
(1000EUA)IIMII1MIIIIIII»M
JJ.
rfW^^Wl
IIΜIIIII
Æt
rT' t
Categories ofevolutionofLI/ALU
(11000EUA)IIl'I'lVl'TITfTri IfIIIIIII0
m
rrfM
f®^fipi
ψ\ψ\\<\\\\η\\\\\\®
miIC
/»
Cotegories ofincomeperLi/ALU
(1000EUA)
ILCÊ-DGVI-G2-7701.03

(g)Intypes offarming -which include lines ofproduction dependent onths
land ,such ascattle farming ,there isarelationship between thesize of
the farm andthe level ofLI/ALU.The returning oattle farms in"1975 "
had Li/ALUs varying intheratio ofonetomore than twodepending on
their UAA category .This average income from the returning sample ofcattle farms of5-10 haincreased toslightly more than 4000 EDA/ALU
while itreached about 8500 EUA/ALUforcattle farms ofmore than 50ha.
The spread varies from country tocountry ;itvaries from 1-1.8 to1-4.1
"between Denmark and Ireland .The income spread depending onthe UAA of
cattle farms isgenerally greater the lower the average income level of
these farms .This spread isgenerally more pronounced incountries or
regions where production conditions are generally less favourable .
(h)Thedifferences between labour incomes per ALUarenotrelated only
tothe size ofthe farm asthe chart opposite concerning anumber ofcattle farms ofsimilar size (20to50ha)illustrates .Itmay beseen
that :
(1)the range ofaverage incomes forasingle size category ofthis
type offarming isconsiderable .Itplaces the Netherlands
and Denmark inaconsiderably more favourable position than other
countries ,inparticular France andIreland whose histograms
(income distribution charts )indicate aless favourable
intra-sectoral balance than inother countries ;
(2)thespread ofagricultural incomes infarming ofthetype under
consideration generally increased in"1975 "over "1974"$
(3)over 90ioofthese farms improved their nominal income in"1975 "
inthethree new Member States (Ireland ,United Kingdom and
Denmark )andinItaly .Thecorresponding percentage inFrance
and Luxembourg wasbarely 70/&.
fi)The income disparity within the group offarms under consideration
(cattle farms 20-50 ha)isdoubtless duetothenature ofthefinal
product ofthese farms ;farms specializing inmilk production donot
react toshort-term economic changes asdofarms specializing inthe
production ofbeef andveal ;this isawell-known phenomenon (see Annex
BIIp.42). The economic cycle itself isdifferent forthese twokinds
ofproduction .
(j)Income disparities between farms ofthe same type andofidentical
size and specialization are doubtless due also todifferences inthe
economic conditions ofagriculture from one country orregion to
another ;thebigger the countries orregions inquestion the more the
conditions maydiffer .However ,these conditions are only one cause
ofthe disparities noted .There are others which are due tofactors
inherent inthe farms themselves ,indeed tothe way they are run,in
short tothe farmer himself .

-10-
5.Inconclusion ,itshould notbeforgotten that themicro-eoonoado
figures atpresent available toassess theagricultural income situation
intheCommunity in"1975"(1975/76)areincomplete –inparticular they -
are lacking forGermany .Moreover ,for some countries the figures are
still provisional .Although they areincomplete andprovisional they do,
however ,point tocertain conclusions which areunlikely tobeaffected
bythefinal figures when they become available .
Apart from certain holdings engaged ingeneral agriculture ,infruit -
farming and inwine–growing ,which have suffered areduction inincome , '
the large majority offarms inthe Community hadanappreciable increase
inincomes in"1975"compared with thepoor results ofthe previous
year .Although this increase was substantial forpigfarms andputthem
back atthetopofthelist ,inmost other cases theincrease wasa
moderate oneand insufficient toprovide anincome comparable tothat
of"1972 "and "1973 "which were excellent years .The improvement in
agricultural incomes in"1975 "incomparison to"1974 "hasnot
visibly helped toreduce thedisparities inincome between agriculture
and other sectors .
Moreover ,this hasnothelped inanydecisive way toreduce theconsiderable
disparities inincome which in"1974 "increased within theagricultural
sector .Theconsiderable fluctuations inincome formost farms in"1975 "
incomparison with "1974 "even ledtogreater disparities inincome
from one farm toanother .
In"1975 ""thegeneral climate forEuropean agriculture wasgenerally
slightly better than "1974 "inview mainly ofthe increases inincome
innominal terms .Theatmosphere nevertheless remained more strained
than inprevious years duetothegalloping inflation which has almost
totally eliminated the real value ofthese income increases and has also
increased the internal income disparities within theagricultural
sector .
Such information asissofaravailable onGermany indicates that the
general increase innetfarm income perfamily ALUin1975/76wasabout
20% .

-11-
II.ESTIMATE OFAGRICULTURAL INCOMES IFTHE MEMBER STATES IN1976
6.The work recently undertaken Toythe Commission staff (Statistical Office
oftheEuropean Communities ),with theassistance ofMember States and
their experts ,toupdate certain macro –economic income indicators intheagricultural sector atnational andCommunity level (seeAnnex C)aswell
asthe information regularly collected bythe Community Committee onthe
FADN onchanges inagricultural incomes ,enable apreliminary outline to
beprovided ofthemain trends foragricultural incomes in1976 .These
trends are described for the Community asawhole andfor each individual
Member State .
These are ofcourse forecasts based onprovisional figures and onestimates
which areparticularly difficult tomake since they relate toanexceptional
year .
7.Inspite ofaserious drought andtaking into account the grants made
inthat connection ,itisestimated that the gross value added atfactor
cost'' byagriculture inthe Community will increase by&foinnominal terms
in1976 .This increase represents aslight drop inreal terms of1%.
over the previous year .
Since the labour force continued todrop in1976 ,although atasomewhat
slower rate than previous years ,thegross value added (GV A)perperson
employed inagriculture (PEA)inthe Community showed arise of10.5$
innominal terms in1976 representing anincrease inreal terms of1.0% .
8. However ,there are noticeable differences between Member States asthe
table atAnnex C(page 50)shows .
The extreme differences are between Luxembourg agriculture where ,despite thesub­
stantial grants which itreceived ,incomes were greatly reduced below
those ofthe previous year and the sharp rise enjoyed byUnited Kingdom
agriculture . Thevariations forecast for 1976 for these two countries
range from –5*6$ to+24%innominal terms and from -14*9% "to+9%inreal terms inGV A/PEA.
.Agriculture inother Member States lay between the two extremes ,insome
cases closer tothe bottom limit ofthe bracket ,asinBelgium ,France ,
Ireland ,andDenmark where areduction of2to5%inGV A/PEAinreal terms
isexpected ,and elsewhere closer tothe toplimit ,asinItaly which
appears tohave hada5%increase inGV A/PEAinreal terms ;agriculture
inGermany andthe Netherlands are inanintermediate position with
anincrease inreal terms intheir GV A/PEAofbetween 1and 2%.
Thegross value added atfactor cost includes thedepreciation offixed
capital andthereturn onagricultural inputs .Todetermine thelabour
income from this onemust therefore deduct depreciation ,thecost of
working capital andtherental and/ortenancy value oftheland and
buildings .

-12-
9. Ananalysis ofthe change inagriculture GVA/PEA inreal terms inthe
Member States since 1973 shows that Italian agriculture iswell ahead ;it
hashad anannual growth ofalmost 4fowhereas growth inUnited Kingdom ,
German andIrish agriculture has "been between 1and 1.jf0.Inallthe
other countries there has been adecline ;the growth rate isslightly -
negative fortheNetherlands (-1.7$ )and Luxembourg (-2A% )andrather
more sofor Denmark (-4.I5&),Belgium (-4.450 andFrance (-
10.The 1976 figures therefore asone can see from the graph opposite ,
accentuate the GV A/PEAspread in1975 incomparison with 1973 ;this trend
has been favourable forItaly and Germany and unfavourable for France and
Belgium .Intheother countries the 1976 figures have infact reduced the
spread oreven revised it; favourably inthe Netherlands and the
United Kingdom and unfavourably inIreland and Luxembourg . These much
simplified and very general statements require tobequalified ,however .
Ashort summary therefore follows ofthe changes inagriculture incomes in
1976 ineach Member State based onthe figures andreports given inAnnex C
and onrecent micro-economic information .
Germany ?
11.According tothe most recent provisional estimates (see Annex Cp.55)
the value offinal agricultural production and that ofintermediate
consumption increased by7«7% and13.1$ respectively in1976 over the
previous year .This represents anincrease of2.8fointhegross value
added byagriculture atmarket prices . The rise atcurrent prices inthe
gross value added atfactor cost ,was 2.9^. Thereduction inthe
agricultural labour force has slowed considerably during thelast fewyears ,
the rest ofthe economy having exerted less ofapull onitthan before ;
nevertheless ,for 1976 ,adecrease ofabout 2foisforecast .Taking these
factors into account ,the gross value added atfactor cost per person
employed full-time inagriculture increased in1976 by 5%innominal value
endabout l'foinreal value .Inreal terms ,there was a9-5$increase in
theprevious year anda6.5/0drop in1974 -
12.The improvement inincomes during the 1976/77marketing year will
probably beless than average for farms engaged ingeneral agriculture and
farms with grazing stock ;itwill ,however ,probably beabove average for
pig and poultry farms .
France :
13.According tothelatest macro-economic estimates (see Annex Cp.59)
value offinal agricultural production andthat ofintermediate consumption
increased by7,6}>and16.2/0respectively in1976 incomparison with the
previous year .This represents a2.5% increase inthegross value added
byagriculture atmarket prices .InAugust 1976 the French Government
decided togrant special aid tofarmers amounting initially to
FF2.2milliards toprevent aserious reduction inagricultural incomes .
InSeptember 1976 this amount wasincreased to6milliards .Only theinitial amount oftheaid (FF2.2milliards )hasbeen taken into account
asactually paid tofarmers in1976 inthe form offarm subsidies .
Expressed innominal value ,the gross value added atfactor cost per PEA
increased in1976 by5«9i°over 1975 j decreased by3-5% i*1real value .

-13-
15
10
12■CHANGES IN THE REAL AGRICULTURAL GROSS V ALUE
ADDED AT'FACTOR COST PER PERSON EMPLOYED IN
THE MEMBER STATES OP THE EEC*
1976/1975
4,9
1.0
|
-10
-15 "–4,9
1493.0V
15 1–
10
02:46,91975 /1973
6.6
5.5
.J'
-iOD10.57.86.0
9.5
I N B L UK IRL DK EUR 9
*Experimental estimate (see Annex C)»

-14-
Taking into account the high degree ofuncertainty in1976 surrounding
meat and milk production (atthe endoftheyear )thevalue added in
real terms per PEA may beregarded asremaining virtually stable between
1975 and 1976 .Thetrend ofvalue added atfactor cost isapoor indicator
oftheeffects ofthe drought onagriculture ,firstly ,because ofthe size
ofthespecial subsidies which were granted in1976 ,part ofwhich will be
paid in1977 ,secondly ,because theeffect onproduction capacity will not
become evident until 1977 *
14.Ananalysis ofagricultural incomes in1976 broken down into main
types offarming shows that the gross farm income calculated onthe basis
of"marketed production ",that isminus direct aid and changes instocks
and inthe value oflivestock ,showed little change over the previous
year (inconstant francs )foralltypes offarm except forfruit farms
whose 1975 income had been particularly low.
15.Ifonetakes into consideration thedirect aidactually paid to
agriculture in1976 ,itbecomes evident ontheother hand that thegross
farm income stayed atthe same level forcattle farms (ofallsizes )and
formilk producing farms ofless than 20hectares );thelatter limit
results from the fact that the ceiling for aid was 30adult bovine units .
Taking into account not only the aid granted toagriculture in 1976 but
that which will also bepaid in 1977 »itseems that most types offarm
will maintain their income level except general farms ofover 50hectares
andviticultural holdings of20-50 hectares ;the gross farm income of
thelatter twotypes will have decreased by30-40$ .
16.Thetypes offarming where income problems are infact likely to
occur in1977 areprimarily dairy farming ,pig farming and wine-growing
(table wine )which will not have been capable ofbringing their farm
account into complete balance .However ,general agriculture ,beef cattle
and mixed farming with cattle will probably not encounter anydifficulties
inthis respect .
Italy :
17.In1976 theprices paid tofarmers andbyfarmers rose very sharply .
According torecent estimates (see Annex Cp.64),thenominal value of
final agricultural production increased by21.0$ and by20.1$ for
intermediate consumption .Theresult was agrowth inthe gross value
added atmarket prices of21.4$ .Atfactor cost this means agrowth
rate of21.0$ innominal value .
Theagriculture labour force fell by-4.7$ in1975 from 1974 .In1976,
therate was–1.7$ compa.red with 1975 *T'heexodus from theagricultural
sector hasbeen curbed bythe economic recession ;consequently ,the
change innominal gross value added atfactor cost per head has slowed down
somewhat (+23.1$ in1976 against +25.3$ in1975).In 1976,thegross
value added atfactor cost increased by4.9$ per head inreal value .

-15-
18.According to "thelatest estimates thevolume ofproduction in1976 will
diminish byabout Y/ocompared with 1975 -Thedrought wasparticularly
severe inthenorth ofthe country .
Production ofcereals asawhole remained steady ;the common wheat crop
was down duetothe reduction inareas sown ,whereas the lower durum
wheat crop wastheresult ofa12$reduction inyields compared with 1975 .
Barley production was upduetohigher yields andanincrease intheareas
sown .Maize and rice production dropped also ,whereas potato production
was upinspite ofareduction ofthearea planted ;alarge share ofthis
potato production went tothe European regions affected bythe drought .
Ingeneral ,results forvegetables were negative while the increase inlivestock production (cattle andpigs )wasmainly duetothe upward movement
inthe number ofslaughterings and inthe value ofherds .
Itisstill too early toestimate the impaot ofthese developments on
incomes inthose types offarming most affected .
Netherlands :
19.According tothelatest available macro-economic estimates (see
Annexe p69 )»thevalues offinal production andintermediate consumption
inagriculture rose by13.4$ and 17.9$respectively in1976 compared with
theprevious year ,corresponding toanincrease of9^2$ inthe gross
agricultural value added atmarket prices .The increase invalue added
atfactor cost andcurrent prices isalso estimated at9*2$ .The drop
intheagricultural labour force isputat1.2$ .Onthebasis ofthese
factors the increase ingross value added atfactor cost per person
employed inagriculture isexpected tobeabout 10.5$ innominal terms
and 1.4$ inreal terms .
20.Farm incomes will have varied considerably according toregion and
type offarming ,due inthe main tothe exceptional drought inthe
summer of1976 .Forcattle holdings inparticular the accounting results
forthecurrent financial year (1May 1976 to30April 1977 )have been
seriously affected .Fodder crops have been markedly insufficient .
According toestimates for these holdings ,production will have increased
byabout 6$andinput byabout 18$.Owing principally tothevery large
increase inthe cost offeedingstuffs ,incomes ofcattle holdings in
1976/77areexpected tobeextremely low.Onthebasis oftheprice of
products forthe May/October period 1976 andinparticular owing tothe
rise inthe cost offeedingstuffs ,adrop inincomes over thepreceding
financial year isalso expected onpig andpoultry farms .Incontrast ,iftheselling price levels recorded during theAugust /October period
are maintained ,itcan beexpected that theresults ofgeneral agricultural
holdings will beupon1975/76.

-16-
Intheglasshouse horticultural sector therise ininputs value per min1976
compared with 1975 isestimated atabout 10%forvegetables andatabout
6.5%forflowers .Thehighest increase ,about 27%,hasbeen forfuel.2Forvegetables theincrease forproducts isestimated atabout 14%per m
andatabout 7%forflowers .Thus ,in1976 theprofitability ofvegetables
under glass isupon1975 ?whereas the reverse istrue for glasshouse
flowers .Theincrease ininputs^for holdings specializing inmushroomgrowing isputatabout 7%per m.Yields arealso up.Prices have
increased substantially owing inter alia tocommon agricultural policy
measures inrespect ofcanned mushroom imports from non–member countries .
Consequently ,the products ofsuch holdings have increased substantially ,
estimated at30%,compared with 1975•Thus ,in1976 incomes onthese
holdings are expeoted tobemuch upon1975 *
Belgium :
21.According tothelatest availalbe macro –economic estimates (see
Annex Cp.73)thevalues offinal production andintermediate consumption
inagriculture will have increased byJ10.5%and 18.7% respectively
in1976 compared with the preceding year .The outcome isasmall rise
of1.9% inthegross agricultural value added atmarket prices .The
increase inthe gross value added atfactor cost isexpected tobeonly
0.8% innominal terms which ,inreal terms ,represents areduction of7»5% »
Expressed inlabour units ,the 1976 reduction inthe number ofpersons
engaged in"agriculture isestimated at2.8% .On1hebasis ofthese
factors ,the gross value added atfactor cost per labour unit isexpected
tohave increased byabout 3.7% innominal terms and dropped by4.9#in
real terms .
22.Micro –economic forecasts forthecurrent financial year 1976/77a-re
notyet available for Belgium .Onthebasis ofthe current prices for
products ,the substantial rise inthe cost offeedingstuff sand the fodder
deficit owing tothe drought ,itmust beexpected that ,compared with
1975/76,incomes will drop in1976/77onholdings concentrating onlivestock
production ,particularly cattle holdings .Income disparities within the
agricultural sector ,according toregion ,size ofholding and type of
farming arelikely tobegreater in1976/77than in1975/76.
Luxembourg :
23.According tomacro-economic estimates (seeAnnexCp.78 )thevalue of
final agricultural production and ofintermediate consumption should
have increased byabout 1%and 21%respectively in1976 compared with 1975 *
Theresult isadrop of12%inthegross agricultural value added at
market prices .State subsidies have increased byabout one–third sothat
thegross value added atfactor cost isdown by9»5% innominal terms .
Thefall intheagricultural labour force in1976 isputat4»1% .Inview
ofthese factors ,the gross value added atfactor cost per person engaged
inagriculture will have dropped by5*6% innominal terms andby14.9%
inreal terms .

-17-
24.The exceptional drought inthe summer of1976 has had
substantial repercussions inall regions ofthe country .Onthe "basis
ofarepresentative sample ofLuxembourg holdings the overall effeot of
the 1976 drought has been estimated atLfrs 1214million oralmost 30%
offinal produotion inagriculture in1976 .However ,this sum covers
twofinanoial years (543million in1976 and 671million in1977).
United Kingdom
25.According tothelatest provisional estimates (see Annex Cp.81)
value offinal production and ofintermediate consumption inagriculture
areexpected tohave risen by23% and 22%respectively in1976 compared
with 1975 *Expressed incurrent prices ,the gross value added atfaotor
cost isestimated tohave risen by23%.These increases areprimarily
due tothe rise inprices .The reduction inthe agricultural labour
force ,less than inthe twopreceding years ,isexpected tobe0.7% .
Onthebasis ofthese factors the gross value added atfactor cost per
person engaged inagriculture isexpected tohave risen in1976 ,compared
with 1975 >fcyabout 24%innominal terms and 9%inreal terms .
26.Accounting samples bring out substantial differences inthe
evolution ofincomes fordifferent types offarming and byregion .
Generally ,accounts are made upinFebruary .Forthe 197^/77financial
year (estimates generally based onthesituation inNovember 1976 )it
isexpected that the net average income per holding will have increased
for most types offarming ;however ,there will have been great differences
asaresult ofthe drought ,especially for daizy ,cattle ,sheep and
crop holdings .Many farms ofsuch types inScotland ,Northern Ireland
andNorthern England (North ofthe Humber )will undoubtedly have done
better than many holdings inWales and Southern England .
Itisestimated that net incomes will increase ondairy holdings in
spite ofthehigher feedingstuff costs ,except inareas affected by
the drought .The net incomes ofcattle and sheep farmers ,inparticular
onhilly andhigh-lying land ,should increase mainly asaresult ofthe
rise inlamb and ewe prices .However the heavy bill for feedingstuffs
duetothe drought and the high cost oflambs could have reduced the
net income ofsome fatteners .High prices compensated for lowyields
onmost crop holdings andthe very high price ofpotatoes inparticular
should help toincrease the net revenue ofsuch holdings ,especially
inScotland .Incomes onpig farms ,inparticular ofpigbreeders ,and
onpoultry farms ,are expected tohave fallen .

-18-
Ireland ;
27.According tothelatest provisional estimates available (see Annex C
p.84),thevalues ofagricultural final production andintermediateconsumption arelikely tohave increased byabout 17*5 24%respectively'
in1976 compared with 1975 *Theresult isanincrease inthe agricultural
gross value added atmarket prices ofabout 14$.Onthebasis ofcurrent
prices ,the gross value added atfactor cost isalso likely tohave
increased byabout 13*4% ,In1976 the drop inthe number ofpersons employed
inagriculture ,which was curbed byeconomic difficulties ,isestimated
at1-.2%.Inthelight ofthese factors ,thegross value added atfactor
cost perperson employed inagriculture islikely tobeup14.5% in
nominal terms in1976 a^d down 3%inreal terms onthe 1975 figures .
Denmark :
28.According tothelatest macro –economic estimates available (see Annex C
p..88),agricultural final production andintermediate consumption
increased by9*7% a*1**13.1% respectively invalue in1976 compared with
1975 .Theresulting increase inthe gross value added atmarket pricesis6.7% .Expressed asanominal value ,theincrease ingross value added
atfactor cost isalso likely tobe6.7% .Itisthought that the number
offull–' time workers inagriculture will continue todecrease ,although
the drop isestimated atonly 0.4% for 1976 .Inthelight ofthese
factors ,gross value added atfactor costs per person employed full –timeinagriculture isexpected tobeup7*1% innominal terms and down 1.7%
inreal terms in1976 compared with 1975 *
29.Although thedrought particularly affected fodder production (theloss
ofnutrient ,expressed inFU,from this crop compared with the previous
year isestimated at30%),livestock production wasnotreduced correspondingly ,
large quantities offeedingstuff shaving been purchased which increased
expenditure oninputs and reduced the gross income ofthe holdings concerned
byabout 5%»
Ifaccount istaken ofthe increase inlivestock prices for stock valuations ,itisprobable that the income ofcattle farms will bebetter than in1975 *
If,onthe other hand ,these increases are ignored ,the labour income per
ALU inthese holdings will belower than in1975 *

-19-
coircLUPnra REMARKS
30.Income isacomplex factor forassessing the economic situation and
difficult toapprehend .Agricultural income isnoexception tothe
general rule ,quite thecontrary since theagricultural sector isoneof
themost complex .These difficulties ofapprehension areconsiderable
within onecountry even when ,asisfrequently the case ,ithasaproper
accounting system andmany years ofexperience inthematter .But the
difficulty "becomes extreme when onetries tograsp this factor fora
Community which hasnot "been long established .
Great efforts have "been made inobserving andanalysing farm incomes
within the framework oftheEuropean Economic Community atboth the
micrc -economic and themacro –economic level .That work has provided this
report with valuable newreference material .There is,however ,still
great scope forprogress inthis field ifcertain major gaps
shown upbythis report aretobefilled .
Substantial improvements could nodoubt bemade quickly inthis field
if,forinstance ,theMember States which submit anannual report on
theagricultural situation intheir country could apply
certain harmonised income indicators already implemented atthe
Community level todevelop acommon basis fortheir
reports andifthey could also manage tosynchronize publication ofthese
reports .This would definitely improve thechapter offarm incomes in
theCommission 'sannual report ontheagricultural situation inthe
Community .
31.Having scarcely come togrips with theenergy andrawmaterials
crises andwith itsorganization affected bythemonetary crisis and
inflation ,Community agriculture heldnot totally made good thelosses
suffered in1974 when in1976 itwasconfronted byanexceptionally severe
drought .Thelatter' smajor effect hasparadoxically notbeen adrop inincome
forthesector asawhole ,since this hasbeen inlarge part made upbyprice
increases orincome aids .Butthemajor effect ofthe drought consists above
all intheconsiderable increase inincome disparities within :the sector ,
between Member States ,between regions with aMember State ,between types of
farming ,andeven between individual holdings ,according towhether ornot
they were equipped tocope with thedifficulties daring thecritical period ,
oraccording towhether ornotthey could take advantage oftheexceptional
situation created bythis natural disaster ,forinstance bytaking advantage
ofcertain shortage situations andtheattendant price increases .
32.The effects ofthedrought ,adverse andbeneficial ,onfarm
incomes will doubtless beseen notonly inthe "1976 "accounting year
but also in"1977 "*Thedisparity infarm incomes isthus liable to
continue andmay even become worse .

_20_
33.Theresults ofthe FADN have again brought out income disparities
within the sector ;there are many reasons for these disparities ,
including the extreme dependence ofagricultural holdings onenvironmental
factors .Assoon asgeneral production conditions become more difficult ,
shortage situations arise and natural handicaps are more difficult to
"bear .The structure ofholdings isanother cause ofdifferences in
the efficiency with which the factors and means employed are made to
interact .All the accountancy data presented "bear witness toeconomies
ofscale which put large holdings atanadvantage over small ones .
Finally ,the type offarming isadeterminant factor for income .
34.The considerable divergence infarm income trends from one Member
State toanother isaspecial cause ofconcern forthe common agricultural
policy .The reasons forthis different development are many ;the
available data show ,hovever ,that most ofthem lie not somuch ,in
differences inthebehaviour andcapability offarmers aseconomic agents ,
asinthe general economic conditions which directly influence the
basic organization ofagriculture andaffect theprices actually
obtained orpaid byfarmers .
This report was completed on20January 1977 .

-21-
ANNEES
Page
ANNEX A(FADN tables )
A- I LABOUR INCOME PER ALU INTHE MAIN TYPES OP
FARMING AS REVEALED BY FADN RETURNS .
Comparison between "1974 "and "1975 "J
"1975 "level 22to25
A-II BREAKDOWN OF RETURNING CATTLE HOLDINGS OF
V ARIOUS SIZES ACCORDING TO 22CATEGORIES
OF LABOUR INCOME PER ALU
Situation "1974 "and "1975 " 26to33
A-III BREAKDOWN OF FADN RETURNING HOLDINGS
ACCORDING TO THE DIRECTION AND EXTENT OF
CHANGE INTHEIR Li/ALU FROM "1974 "TO"1975"..34to37
ANNEX B(FADN graphs )
B- I CHANGE INLABOUR INCOME PER ALU FROM "1974 "
TO"1975 "INFADN RETURNING HOLDINGS -
ACCORDING TO THE FOUR MAIN TYPES OF
FARMING
I"Arable ",II"Permanent Crops ",III "Grazing Stock ",IV"Pigs ,Poultry " 38to41
B-II CHANGE IN LABOUR INCOME PER ALU FROM
"1974 "TO"1975 "INFADN RETURNING CATTLE
HOLDINGS ACCORDING TO THEIR SPECIFIC TYPE
(MILK ,BEEF ORMIXED ) 42to44
ANNEX C(Report bythe SOEC Working Party onthesectoral
income index )
ESTIMATED RELATIVE V ARIATION IN THE
AGRICULTURAL V ALUE ADDED PER PERSON
EMPLOYED IN1976 45 -to91

-22-
ΔΚ'ΤΞΧ :Α
A-I LABOUR INCOME PER ALU
IN THE MAIN TYPES OF FARMING AS REVEALED
BY FADN RETURNS
COMPARISON BETWEE3T "1974 "AND "1975 "LEVEL
(incomplete andprovisional results )
iype
of Countiy
farircins :"1975 "index ("19M"=100 ) I TLI/ALU "19ly*(EUA )
<5ha5-10
ha10-20
ha20-;>0
haA50ha <5ha5-10
ha10–20
ha20-^0
ha>50ha
D
112 F
Horti – _>TTculture
B
L
UK
Irl
Dk114
129
111
12296
! I
I7.077
2.909
9-361
12.892i
2.879
i
D
223 F
n™1* m,
B
L
UK
Irl
Dk60
100I
74
11494 1i
I
3.921
8.169
i
i!
3.616
7.6054.423
I
D
224 F
VinesNL
<♦> L
UK
Irl
Dk145
76169
8094
7190 106 4.884
2.7053.260
3.7754.611
4.5785.0091
5.086
D
220 F
Miscella -
neous ^
perm.
crops
Irl
-Dkxx 10.397
iI
I
(+)Theaccounting sample covers only certain categories ofvine-growing
holdings ;the indices and absolute values aretherefore notvalid
for vina-growing asawhole inthe country inquestion .
xx Group ofholdings represented in"1975 "only .

-23
Type
of . Country
farminsrI"1975"index "'fi9/4"=' ÎÔÔT II0LI/ALU "1975 "(ÈUA ) J
5-10
ha10-20
ha20–50
haA50ha5-10
ha10-20
ha20-50
ha.>50ha
310 D
ΡGrazin g ^stock -
arable ™
L
UK
Irl
Dk178127
139
XX
117111
148
XX
140
115
14799
144
155
228
1503.8783.080
4.544
7.929
5-4284.017
7.495
8.048
10.225
5.654
6.9815.555
12.029
8.380
11.512
9.325
336 D
Cattle _
(tôta?) NL
B
L
UK
Irl
Dk122
147
130
127
878
136136
175
126
143
•
*
159129
172
131
133
124
242
*
171130
i
*
1542.691
4.208
5.874
4.741
2.216
6.0993.429
5.847
7.036
6.532
.3.293
6.6234.801
8.261
11.500
8.461
6.940
6.174
5.196
9.8606.454
11.264
13.045
9.508
8.394
9-019
10.856
3361 D
Cattle 1
Milk "L
NL
Β
L
UK
Irl
Dk161
142
122
323
127126
151
126
145
411
158127
165
131
137
126
227
473
177125
138
*
184
585
155i
3.750
6.285
4.392
2.228
6.6013.440
5.120
7.112
6.797
3.286
7.1535.017
7.669
11.452
9.176
7.882
6.792
5.996
9.8246.792
12.841
7.244
8.719
10.185
9.920
3362 D
Ρ
Cattle I
Beef NL
B
L
UK
Irl
Dk142
«168
273
6147
227
282
«141
163
«7.022
2.0283.421
11.858
i
3.1644.553
12.853
4.591
4.2216.241
7.246
8.417
3365 D
lûilk + ^beef L
NL
Β
L
UK
Irl
Dk138 172
122
127
505
185I
119
149
120
121
*
165
l122
XX
166
479
1554.475 :
i
i5.044
6.614
5.034
3.762
5.8214.611
7.160
7.457
6.310
5.709
10.0306.474
10.882
8.901
9.307
10.906
.
Sheep , 1
goats UK113
* , 169 I2.774
3.726 5.553
•Too fewreturning holdings ) !
*Index over 1000 ?(indices notvalid )
QLl/ALUnegative in"1974" (
xxGroup ofholdings represented in"1975 "only

-24-
Type "1975 "index ("1974 "==100 ) IifiLI/ALU "1975 "(EUA )
of «
farming .Sountxy 5-10
ha10-20
ha20-^0
ha>50ha5-10
ha10-20
ha20-50
ha>.50ha
340
Grazing stock
pigs ,poultryD
F
I
NL
B
Τ179119
173
191139
175
1697.5753.274
7.897
9-6244./16
13.915
9.902
υ
UK
Irl
Dk 156 175378
165 173 6.339 7.3677.361
9.505 11.948
430
Pigs ,poultry
Grazing stockD
F
I
KL
B
ΤI
212 187
18911.615 12.067
10.45716.495
u
UK
Irl
Dk 181 159
ι177 191 6.679 7.780 10.282 13.570
448
PigsD
F
I
NL
B
Τi
i
232
286205
215
236
I194
14-235
15*7659.483
16.691
14.24010.569
υκ
Irl
Dk 185 165 150 9.751 12.865 17.382
4481
Pig rearingNL
B299
29814-835
15-709
4432
Pig fatteningΡ
NL
Β
Dk196
277| 217
210
242
175200
162 15113-466
17-69310.292
18.489
15.261
8.88010.883
ι
12.715 17.568
4*>*X
"T-r-O
Other (pigs )Dk 195 206 131 10.297 12.327 14.826
140
Arable –
pigs ,poultryI
Dk114
123 863.728
7.055 8.953
410
Pigs ,poultiy
arableDk 132 133 122
_______ ,4.708 8.416 10.465
•Too fewholdings inthe sample togive avalid index .

-25-
lype
of Country
ffírmins " :F"1975"index ("1974 "=100 ) HJ>Ll/ALU "1975 "(EUA ) ,
'<5na>10
ha10-20
ha20-50
!ha550ha <5haD-10
ha10-20 I
ha20-50ha^0ha
111 D
FGeneral j
agricultuie ^
B
L
UK
Irl
Dk119 131
14974
140
134
i
84 I78
169
170
118
823.104 4.332
10.1424.4-10
7.661
15.271
5.1978.652
17.680
22.931
10.173
9.633
130 D
ΡArable -
grazing
stooka
L
UK
Irl
Dk136 16792
85
XX
157
12699
73
117
1083.272 4.5293.889
6.540
8.519
10.176
6.4529.100
10.645
9.463
6.925
110 I
Gen.agrie .-
Horticulture107 4.708i
i
j
i
120 I
Arable –
perm ,cropsO 142 78 1.992 3.701 2.941
210 I
Perm ,crops –
arable169 I115 110 2.300 3.597 3.807
i-
225 I
Olives104 22
I
I2.118 2.095
2j,0 I
Perm ,crops –
grazing stock153 158 168 3.947 3.185 5.292
320 I
Grazing stock –
perm ,crops113 159 3.398 4.836
i
xx Group ofholdings represented in"1975 "only .
© Sample completely renewed in"1975 ".

-26-
BREAKDOWN OPFADNRETOR1JTNG HOLDINGS
ACCORDING TO22CATEGORIES OPLABOURINCOMEPERALU
Provisional constant sample"1974–19*75"
(accounting year1974)
-» (iyp®offarming:336/Cattle
"typeofholding ;
)UAAs5-10ha
CATEGORIES OF inz Country Tol
LABOUR INCOME
EUA jDΡINL ΒLUKIRL DK %
>17000 ΓΖL­-
16000-17000
15000-16000
14ooo-15ooo
IΓΊI
ιI
13000-14000~J
12000-13000 1J 'ILH
11000-12OOOi
i i~!tΓ7!
10000-11000 1I
I1.]
~J2i'I
9000-10000
II
™IΓ^πET-i!1i!ii1i
8000-o000 Ί
W1 ίI
~'ii 1
~IΓ7·;ΓiJ■i 1
i~i-1r i
7000-8000 1I
' _I1L
I
tJ: II
I1■;2ι1|
6000-7000Ii 21
1I
ILU_Lj
i3I8'
J5J
5000-6000 IS
I^12!43II
I i-I1ί!11Π
4000-5000 g
I_II41'i1πI I
i-j!18I_12)
3000-4000 410 821II 32719!
2000-3000 1010-I4ILj_^ii!
I«I
1000τ2000 511 2j1;n 5L2i2618
0-1000L2□Ί1r8I 1
I11LJU12
-1000-0t 7 185
-2000 1000i
Ii
I2 2 1
-3000--2000 Γ"ΓΓ
<-3000 j r
TOTAL(no.holdings ) 24402320Π22I19148100

-27-
BREAKDOWN OP FADN RETURNING HOLDINGS
ACCORDING TO22CATEGORIES OF LABOUR INCOME PER ALU
Provisional constant sample "1974 -1975 "
(accounting year 1975 )
typeofholding j^peoffarain «s336/Cattle
)UAA :5-10 ha
CATEGORIES OF | Country Total •I
LABOUR INC (ME
EUA D F I KL B LΓ
υκ· !Γ
SK j* ιi
> !
•^,17000 m ν
16C00-170001 j1
J
15000-16000 1i i- !_ I_J1 1
1;ODO-15ooo ΓΊΓΠ- - I
1
13000-14000 1 1
■']
12003-13000[' IΗ-Ί - Τ_Τ[_ I
I1 I 1,
__i_j
11000 -12ουοi- I
I " I II
!- I
1- I_ l
i
10000-1100 )LJ I**i :'ι :l
"" I12 11J
9000-10000i_3JI 1
I1 I I1 !l-ILI; I_
»i2
8000-9C00□ji ;
i-
l; 1
1
irî :r 2 .71
'5 i
7000-8000 L§_i
ii-
iii π.3 7 :5
6000-7000S I~
i2I2
13 i ! !2j9!6 i
5000-6000I36i5 im!3 •17 !il 1
4000-5000 ru 9I
i1•i.rn i ;3L18i !
'12 I
3000-4000 4 13 i2 4Tljx6 2 31i I
,21 !
2000-3000 9 5r
i3i2iJCD 7 2:28 |21 |
1COO -2000 5 3 -
IΓΊΓ ! i5 13LM
0-1000 2 r^rΊΊ ι
ιI I3I1L8 !5
|-1000-01 1 .I-RT irn ι_ 21
1
-2000 1000 nr irr^ j-l
-3000 2000 LV_ IJ li-i
!-
I^-3000 El !-!
TOTAL (no.holdings )i 24 40 23 20i I
i 22 19 148 100

BREAKDOWN OP FADN RETURNING HOLDINGS
ACCORDING TO22 CATEGORIES OP LABOUR INCOME PER ALU
Provisional constant sample "1974 –19?5 "
(accounting year 1974 )
Typeofholding j^offarain «1336/Cattle
)UAA ;10-20 ha
CATEGORIES OF Country!Total j
LABOUR INCOiîE
EUA D P I KL Β L UKr
IIRLτl
jirbre1
■> I
>17000 L_LI
!-1I0
16000-17003
15000-16ODO j L.-
14000-15000
13000-14000 JL-. -
12000-13000 3- 1in_ ii
4 iι ,
i 1
11000 -12 ιΛ>0 !2π
I-I
2 jπη
10000 -110J) 0ljj2 2(-II- il6 IL.'J
9000 -100001
1 ! 4 - I - ! 1 i! 1
6 i 1 i
803D -?c:o al
CDI
1, 4 ;1
l- l^
1 :!
111 '1
2 l
7000-800D 3 I
_a11-i19 ^i !-i 1 .I
I14 !
6000-7000 _2J 1I
i14 I15n_u - I!7 !142 ILJJ
5000-6CjOO I
^3J13 9 I12 I_J±_U- i 3 '51 i
4000-5000J17l_AJ "MTI !i
- i5 i1
65 !1
10 i
3000-4000 L I35i12 15 14
II_J» !I_i_]801
13 I
2000-3000 Ί 50 I14 i10 l 8!1 !6 ::7 '961
14 |
1000 Τ2000
j4611 4 !4 I3 I
!_■ I32 2'I102 j14
0-1 000 28 I□l2 0 53 ii i
L"!1 1
!90 13
-1000-0 3 _LjJI52 - 58 9
-2000 1000
Ii-rTTi15! 1
ι17 3
-3000 2000 1 ~ [ I-I n !0
/-3000 Γ° 01
'1 Izr– !–i2I
!5 1
TOTAL (no.holding ^)j 200 63I116r* i14 163 37 673 100

-29-
BKE&KDOfflT OPFAIOT WS'TORNXNO HOLDINGS
ACCORDING TO22CATEGORIES OPLABOUR I1TCOME PER ALU
Provisional constant sample "I9T4 ■"1975 "
(accounting year 19?5 )
'y&p.'rf holding s^of
)UAA t10-20 ha
CATEGORIES OP
LABOUR INCOME '
EJAL_ Countiy Total (
D Ρ I NL Β
II
LA .UKΓ
IRL b:<j 1
:rt>ro^ i
■- ■ î
V17000 1 1~ I2 0
16000 -17000 1 1
■ ' i 2 0
15000-16000 LiJ 1 1 4 ' 1
14000-15000'' I
I Li1 .'3 irn
13000-14000 1 1 -2 ·-10 1
12000-13000 ki:-' 7 1!'Ii k^ 101... .,:
!1 •
11000-12000I- .•.2i
I7"Jk5_]-2 1
»
10000-1100'.) 1m *1 -!1:2 i>0 11
9000-10OJO_□J1
1 I2 ■!ΗΓΊi8'!
:llLII i : 1 1- !2 I2 I20 ;3 I
8000-9000.J
_3_π^1♦Γ– ΓΓΓ ;. !.. ., . ι
i13 ,16 . (-, 1 1 136 ;5 •
7000-8000 * i9 IS .Iy \r*i.18 1
Γ■ Τ'**4 :Ι!1i3,6 .54 ■'8 ;
6000-7000ta3 ■ 1_s 1I12 9j16 I !-\8j5i54 }8 î
5000-6000!S
1 17 4j13 j17 |Ij1j8;3 !63 !9 '
4000-5000 Θkoj |-9'L1JΓΓ ιLlLJ. ρ 1
I25 ,4 ;85 !13
3000-4000 39 7 '4 ί6 4 || I I31 4[95 tMJ
2000-3000 48k^i r4 »3 ir– 1
It 1 1
|4ï 1:
42 I1 108 I17 I
1000»2000 39 4 4 11I
II
I30
lI2|80 j12 {
I 0-1000
i6 3 !
!_LJ;1i nL_j11 ιI 1
1 125J
* 1
-1000-0I
I–n i
I- }2 LiJ 3 1
-2000– 1000LlMi,
i_1
iL°J
-3000-~20001
!iΓΤΊ i1
;_ ■|
! i
I 3ooo 1I i
mrMtVKvwmn'*' ,1 f
.<fwuniI^ 'LJI
1 'LJIο 1
TOTAL (no.holdiagis )f :
! ■!|2Q0 j63 116 80 14iwnwmwnd
163 Ir *1Ll7 îr00b™=dx.u Act VI-•*■■■ •»-
,5.1 I,
':>■ .. • ■ \y
.. ■ '

-30-
BREAKDOWN OPFADN RETURNING HOLDINGS
ACCORDING TO22CATEGORIES OPLABOUR ITIC0I5E PER ALU
Provisional constant sample "1974 ""1975 "
(accounting yeax 1974 )
„ ..,.. (Type offarming :336/Cattle
UÀA î20-50 haÎVpe ofholding
CATEGORIES OP
LABOUR INCOME
EUA IGountry Tôtal I
D F I KL Β L UK IRL DX1 I
>rbre *£ î
»
>17000 5 1 6
16000-17000 3 3
15000-16000 3 I 1 6 !J-J
14000-15000i
!7 1 1 I 1
I
13000-14000 2 Ρ 6 1L_J_ΓLJ_
12000-13000 1 8I-I-!- !3|12 |rj
11000 -12 CX'O 3 1i-!-i5!15 j1;
10000-11 O'J ) IL _i2
ι8 I 6
■ -'-i1Ii'' i1j
9000-10OJOI ~
II
'i Il-i23 !5 |
i : J2I-!-i4j39|3 ■I
l !– . i
1
8ooo-?c;o ;lai 7 ! 1 :18'12
• I.2 ,4 ,- •7 :51 •4 !
7000-8000I3 !15 !4 i_y_Ji 1
i!6 '
i I;2 ;3 ,- . 9 .52 :4 ,
6000-7000LSJ26 |
I3 I1
22 I
l!8;6:2i2 1I17 86 ,'M
5000-6ODO !.?]64 6 I16 l19 !5 I9i- 110 '129 !11 '
4ooo-5oooen<4I
_°J75fi 1L®Ji7j.3 j17 j-;15 ;134 ;11]
3000-4000 97 ! 3 5 7 l 2
I-30 4 10 j158 |13 |
2000-3000 104 10 j2|4|1 !|24 I15 j6 .166 j14 ;
1000 ^2000!
iΓΊΓ . 2 1 1 2Γ40I24 |7|130 j12 I
0-1000 r»: 23 i~ I I ί I
37 |2,90 |7|
i
-1000-0 3i- !11 |17 |42 !1!65 j5 I
: I
-2000--1000 61
18 - !24 2 |
1 l
-3000 2000 2 4j4 - -10 1
3000 3 !5 - I8 1
TOTAL (no.holdings ) I 487 37 157 80 26 184 151 97 11.219 100

BREAKDOWN OP FASTI RETURNING HOLDINGS
ACCORDING TO22CATEGORIES OF LABOUR INCOME PER ALU
Provisional constant sample "1974 –1975 "
(accounting year 1975 )
rn.__ v..u 4 (Type offarming s336/Cattle
UAA ;20-50 haA'
Type ofholding \ I
CATEGORIES OF Country Total V
LABOUR INCOME
EUA D F I :α, Β LΓ
UKΓ
IRL DKi
:a>re |-L
^17000 4 1 21 4 1 115|37 I
16000-17000- 13 2 >1-1 » 19 2
15ODO-16000 2 4 il2 3 12 1
1;ooo-15ooo 1 12 !il3 6 23 1 2
i
13000-14000 2 1 10 I 3 5 2 4 27 2
!12000-13000
L !5 3 I13 4 -I- !5 30;2j
11coo-12ooo 9 1[10!4|1;2|4;7I38i3J
10000-1100) 14 !
; I!3i12 l 7!- 1 8, 5i13 i62 I 5
I I ! ! L ! !
9000-10OJOI16 5116 ; 6i4|91 2j8ioo; j
8r:o-?c;D !Γ«114^ 2
I15.i°
I 93 ;14 , 2 17 :77 •
■ '
7000-8001 25 I 2
Ii13'6 :19 , 8 5.67 ! 7 i
' 1
6OOD-7000 LLJ62 8i 7 1 8;4'21 j15
! i ! L !j7|132 |11
5000-6000 [I 53 3 6 3;5 :17 !24 !6•.121 !10 I
4000-5000 L2 _67 4L_L ,5i2,24|21 ;4;129 ;11 j
3000-4000 Γ 9.1 4 2 5 1-
^ 23 j22j3|153 !13|
2000-3000 Γ 61!2l-i1[17 !18 ;-!99i8j
1000 -2000 l36 " I 5Ί
!";10 20 |- I71 6
0- 000 13_T!~J 2J . 5|3| 1|24iL_l _
-1OOO-0 3!-i-i -
_i i : .3'2 8 1
-2000 1000 3 !-i- Ί 1I-4 0
-3000 2000I
I
-3000
-lΊ
-I 1
TOTAL (no.holdings ) I 437 37 157 80 26 I184 151 01 1.21 1oo

-32-
BREAKDOWN OFFADIT REWRITING HOLDINGS
ACCORDING TO22CATEGORIES OFLABOUR INCOME PER ALU
Provisional constant sample "19*74–1975 "
ÎVpe ofholding(accounting year 19^4 )
(IVpe offarming :336/Cattleding )
)UAA :\50ha
CATEGORIES OF
LABOUR INCOME
EUACountry Total i
D F I I<~L Β LT r
UK IRL! :
D:-:|irbre }>
>=17000 1 1 1 3 0
16000-17000 1 1 0
1S000-16000 - 13 1 4_L
11003-1S000JI I- I
13000-14000 1Hj I - I22 5 1
12000-13000 1 - !- I 1!1I-!2, I
5 ■; 1i
11000- 1?ΟιΌ 2-!1!-j-;3;- I3l 9! .1;
10000 -11 ÙJ) 2l- ! 1 !- :- !
] ! i7 l- . 6 16 ! 2
500*J •-■10 wOO 2I ■
2 !- >- I- !7'-;5i16 ;2 i
: L 1
3S I, . , : r |
7 - ;2 - 2,19 . 1 ;6 •37 6 i
7000-8000 3 !L4 J!11 !- i- I
I ! !1 - ;18 ,
i . i
i 1!-'34 !-,7 .37 6 J
6000-7000 L?J !22|1- I! 1 !3 i62 | 9
3000 –60002Ί
|S
L_ i!28| ; 1
i 1i32 i3 ■-3 i67 i10 1
14 ; 4ooo-5oooE-i
fi Ii34„i1Jl
I
I 1
Ii-;47 i2;4,89 i
3000-4000 j1
I
I28i"" I54 !3j7 !95 !14 |
2000-3000 21 -i- I- I-1 I
I49 i7'5 182 112 j
1000 -τ2000 15 1 - !-ι~ί33 !6 12ι57LU
0-1000 4
i I - ι16 !£ I" I26i i
!U
- 1000 -0 - i-I- i|îî 8|1 17 I3
-2OOO 1000 3ι
1I8r-Ll .2 I
I
-3000 2000 1 - 2 3 1Lj_1
i 1 ■
j<- 3000i 1
I~ !- I1 !9 y10 i2i
TOTAL (no.holdings )j 184 I5I5|3!3 336 53 58 637 100

.... M–JM– »M– '■"'– ■i ■
-33-
BREAKDOWN OP FATOT KEOTKNTNG HOLDEJCS
ACCORDING TO22CATEGORIES OFLABOUR INCOME PER ALU
Provisional constant sample "1974 –1.*75 ;'
(accounting year 1975 )
„ (lype offarming :336/Cattle >Œ^pe ofholding )"
)UAA :>50ha
CATEGORIES OF
LABOUR INCOME
EUA–––––– –– – I ■ ■«·Ι^Ι· ^. 11■■■ Ι· »<Γ II11 ■■ I – Κι»II ■ IIII ■I– »*
' Country Total I
D F I NL Β LΊ
UKI
IRL |
5 Ii 1
s:<:jjrbrol -2 j
>17ooo 2_.:JLiJ Q-'J !7J33M
16000-170002 II1- !I_u4 4 I13 I2
15000-16000 2 10 2
1î000- 15000 4 !2Γ3 !9 I
l1
__ J
13000-14ooo | 2 _ I
l1 1 Γ" 3 l23 | -1
12000-13000 6 41
1 I- i- I12 !2 i3 I23 :4j
1100J-12ooo 8 !
t-j
"* i-i1;20 i5 i3 i37 :6
; : ,
j10000-1100)
1I3I-!i I-;- I15 i5 j4i33 I5 j
9000-10OJO !9 I- I- !-i -|32 '3 :3 147 ;7 !
8000-pc" Ihj19 ,- i-- 3'36 ,4 ■7 I69 ;10 (
7000-S00 "?2)i1° i1j-j1;- 36 ,ί~ 1, 1 ,4 .53 ;o^ ;
I10. ,
6000-7000 I<1 •LSj22 j- ;-]- ;- !5 !2 163 j
5000-6CD0g
*5 33 I- j- j- j1 33 i5 .5 !77 !11 •
4000-5000 !S I
L«_J23- ;-Γ1;-ί30 ;8 !3;65 ;10 ί
3ooo-4ooo; I
I12 I
I- !- !£4 !3 !1 !40 !
i ; i • ''JJ
i4 •
...... 11 l
2000-3000 8 iΓ- !I- It2;12 j1 ;1 124 i
1000 -r2000I8 ..
,1I !
!- I1 1|•20 jI3 I
: i
0-1000 3I
!i r r- !1|1|-|- I5|1 I
-1000-0 4I
I
!~i- 1ri-1-jm i
-2000 1000 Γ-l
I
»r-i-i- I !
-3000– 2000 1 ΓΤ!- !1 !-.
!_ - ..... __1■- 12t£ 0 !
| -3000
| : ,–27
i0
TOTAL (no.holdings ) 10i. 5 5 i 8 !33o 53 55– 1 (
O'jl j100 j
»

-34-
BHEAJCDOWIJ OP FAD!.' RSTVJKIIira KOLDINGS
ACCORDDTO TOT:IS DIRECTION AjrD EXTE7T OFCSIAI.'CE H!TIEIH LI/ALU
FROM "1974"TO."1975"
Provlaional constant saaple "1974 –1975 "
1Vpe ofholding j336/Cattlo 5-10 ha
LI/Al,U SPREAD ]
BETVEHN "1974"AI»D"1975|rSUACountry ~ITotal 1
D F I I.LI »li If–.f 13 L |UK IIHL |r>;<... ι
..ore /
100,0 I!
I l_i_d - I-I
)OOO-10000- 1 i!-i1 1
5000-9OSO–TILi -1-I
Γ"\~ ΛΛΛ
>Ον./Οβ ν.νν - I- il II1 1
6000-7C00 |I- !1 -^ i
i
!1 1
l)COD –60j0 -!--I -Mili - 11 1
io:o-5o:d -ι1 1– r
3 1 1 I 5 3
i 3o,o-;c:o |1 4 3 1"JLU 5I17 11
20Z0 –*3000i
I2 7 5 ! Ii4 2 23 16
1ooo -rcoo l 28_3 4 11 7 35I21
0-1000 3 '9 11 I5 S
i1 3 !37 25
[-1000-0 IM j9 4 2'LI1 !
iii'i'iJ
-2CC0 1000ρΊ
!e1 31!I2I7 4
-3000 2000«3 \i
iI 3 – 1– j! 1T] -l ,i -, S_1J
-4coo--3ooors ' i
t°I
I
♦ .«. Ι....Ι.η. ..·„·..··ι·.-.»· ΙΗ.ι
-5ooo-- ooo ! i- I
-6000 5000r
I
jI~7000 (>000 I-Γ-l
L-1
!-
-Sooo 7000
f -!-II Loi i
_o000 GÛ0D 1-FJ- -
i ,--m
1-10 003 9000τ-
ί L-L1
-10000 -Γ.Γ I-
"■« '> "i*■■■ '■–-* 1- *
Hio.returning Holdings
constant sairple ij24j40j2320 j22 |19 I1-;o )^00 |
i 1 ! ! s
A VERAGE LABOUR INCOME PER ALU (total available accounting sample )
-...-τ μ Λ
è.- . „
|No#retuming holdir^s
I comr /Lete sa^olo Τ24]13924 i24?
!43!21j|2ij+Ifrtal |
LÏ/ALU "1975 "
comniete srjrmieΊ–
ι
l pTôiiTÎ7203[5.874 !4.74lj2.21é >16.099jfr *133
1
;Index (Ll/ALU$»100)|'' II102 142 115t «Jt 147 II-3

-35-
BREAKDOWN OPFADII RETURNING HOLDINGS
ACCORDING TOTliE DIRECTION AiTD EXTENT OPCHANCE INTKSIR Li/ALU
FROM "1974 "TO"1975 "
Provisional constant 'sample "1974 –1975 "
Type ofholding :336/Cattle 10-20 ha
li/alusprkadr 1■
!Country Total
BETWEKN "1974 "AND "19/5
I EOA D I NL B L 0*K IliL DK ||:ror-e
>100"0 1 2I 1 I1I'51
9 -10000 LJ1 1 | 2 o
5000 –9000
Y000 -..V0.) 1 1 1n12 16f 1
6000-7COD 2 3 2 11 'i2 I20j 3
5000-6O.O1 3 4 6IΓΓ^ 14 2 30 4
4030-5 000 4 2 12 7ZL2 12 ι 2I416
3Λ-Λ <· «Ν I13 9 14 8n 32 7I84 I12
2OCO-2000 I23 13 19 12 3 35 6 I111 16
1000 -?~oo L133 14 21 17J «2 •ίΙ139'iO
0-1o:D.HJ61 4 21 14 2 12/»O 117 13
- 1COO -0 3/ I 6 11 14L2 2 72 11
-2000 1000M
_S-13 6 2L1 I 27 4
I-3C00 2000 g
_S3__5! 1 3 1 I IΓ .10η
ι
-4000 3000 g
ci1 1 n1 1 4 1
- 000--:coo 1 n1 0
-Gun--5O-O iï 1 1 0
-7000– 6cooI
I i i 0
-ô000 7000I_ IΓ i
_9000 C000 "" i L I-
-10ooD–9c:o '
....
j<-10000 j1 - 2 0
|No.returning holdings iI....o.onstant sample . ij20063 116 εοΡϊ163 31 6/3 100
A VERAGE LABOUR INCOME PER ALU (total available accounting sample )
jHo.returning holdings
|complete sample266 160 139 99
i* 231 47 942 ^Total
LI/ALU "19(5 "
Icoaplcte saaiple3.429 ! 7.0 IL036
ί ι[6*532*3.293 ί.623 t•9-fltoxal
Index (Ll/ALUf>«100) 69 118 142 132 * II i
»–■ ii ■i131^ t
*■The data available relatexo only one division

-36- .
BREAKDOWN OP FAD !IRETURNING HOLDINGS
ACCORDING TOTHE DIRECTION Airt)EXTENT OPCHANCE INTHEIR LI/ALU
FROM "1974 "TO"1975 "
Provicional constant saraple "19(4 –1975 "
lype ofholding :336/Ca-ttle 20-50 ha
1
LI/ALU SPREAD
BETWEEN "1974"AND "1975'
EUACountrv Total *
ID F I ;L Β L UX IRL D:< II.ore
„>10ΟΓ,Ο 1 4 5 9 6 31 3
OOJD -10000 3 1 1 6 3 2 16 1
8000-9000 5 1 5 1 3 6 j 26 2
7000-3COD 3 1 δ 1 ' 6 9 11 40 3
6COO-7COO 3 1 4 2 1> 15 3 4a 4
COO-6COO 14 1 11 7 16 17 11 77 6
ic:o-5ooo 15 5 17 8 2 22 23 10 1ûo 9
3o:o-4::o 41n
IΛΛ 2*1 26 11 i.;o 11
2oco-3;;3 59 6 29 9 3 M 20 12 172 1?
iodo-2 ~:o 1 34 9 17IH 5 :ïo 16o
I I1;
0-1CDD 71LMJ87 2 22I12 5 21I6IΟO 163
-io:.o -o^–
§
L >-3__77
I 2I10 7 4 9 1 11 10
-2CJD 1000M
LS I 41 4 4 4 3| 157 5
-3000 2000& !14i
I 5 1 1 21 2
-4000 3000I£
.< ■1 1 1 12 1
-5000 4CODH
10 1 11 1
-6000 5000 5 1 6 0
-7000 CC00 rr 2 2 5 0
-G000 7000 1 1 0
_9000 8i"CD
-10000 9000 1 1 2 0
<-10000 Γ1 1l- 2 0
No.returning holdings
constant sample Γ" 437 37 157 80 26T1Û]'1519'1.219I 100 I
A VERAG3 LABOUR INCOME PER ALU (total available accounting sample )
»
No.retuming holdings
complote sample587 81 !229 109 28 I242 253 |119 1.64^ïo-i:a3I
LÎ/ALU "1975 " ' !cora-'lete cs;.iole 'I |4.801 ib.261 ![îiT^ocj 8.461 |5.940 6.1745.196 !9.860 |6.3/5total !
Index (LI/ALU aa100 ) 70 120 167 123 101 90 76 143

BREAKDOWN OFFAD!?RETCRNINC HOLDINGS
ACCORDING TOTHEDIHECTIOM A1IDEXTE^.TOFCIIAN'CSINTHEIRLi/ALU
FROM"1974"TO"1975"
Provisional constant sample"1974–1975"
Typeofholding :336/Cattle^50ha
LI/ALUSPREAD
BETWEEN "1974"AND"1975'
EUACountry • Total
DFI.L3
ILiυχIRL ore
>100:0 4 1 - 1d21 549 7
O000-10000 8 2 I10 2
5OCO-9o:o ï-I-14 8I"sI27 4
7ooo-jcoo 7!0000II1*1 31|22 3
óCOO-7COO 4 1 I14i5630 5
'jOJO-•6wJO 13 1 1I2l)5655 3
:ceo->coo 14 2 45I
446911
30:0-;::o !LI15 2 1 33 566710
2000-3c:o 17 1 1 3434983□m
1ooo-2c;o_SJ23 1!* 56510I
0-1C00 33 02 139 47913
-1000-0 26 0 215 346 7
-:c.o–1c.-.o%11 -IS 1 20 3
-3coo--2:io15J5 7 2T4
-000 3coo–ri-–
7 2 9 1
-5ooo–coo12 14 1
-G000 5000 1 10
I-7000 CCOO |2: 1"I_I13o
_.1000 7000 1 2 30
_9000 C.-00I
-10ooo–9eoo
-1000 1 10
No.returning holdings
constant sample j164
I35
ι3io3J.5555-6Vi'I100
AVERAGE LABOURINCOMEPERALU(totalavailable accounting sample) ,
Ho.returning holdings
complete sampleΓ226I16I2529 ■\\9 9278|905"-1
JIJI/AIJU"1975"
coranleto smnlet~
i6.454 11.20113-04',!9-503Ρ·:;949.01io.:.^.5o.vto?al]
iIndex(LI/ALUfi=100) 76132153112 9910612;11/0j/',.s,J

«H/'Jïâ 180^1
»»?i
•i i•
«» « •••Change inlabour income per ALU from "19(4
to"1975 "inFADN returning holdings
(Constant sample available 20.1.77 )
1473 returning holdings
105*0
4*00 -•• • *1
• »•••••• •»
■ • 1» •• « •
••• • • ••
'.y• • •• •• I1• »•SA •« •
• ••• ••*•••• wy *« *1• •• • ••/' » t 1
•• • •••• *ii I•// • «• •»•• •••»•*•••»• v*A*•••(«• |• •••••» / •I•• ••«
• •t•■!••• /y»• «
•(IttI••• •• y*•• «
*• »/ ♦.•••• ••• «•t ••••»tX/ » • « 1 1
•..•••/../ .
• • •I ••••1» t•/,/ • •.
••'• **/»•»•« ••• 1* 1
*•• JT- •••• •• ••
•· · ·/ ·♦ ···· · « *»•.«/., I •
*%s'/*•y *•«•M un 11 •1 • •
f •• •••
»••• • •»t • m•»•/••••• •• ■ *
«•#••• initii • ••/ »'»••••» • • •
T•«!•*••• •« *Type offarming :X-ARABLE
Key j
regression line y«LI/ALU "1975 "
£~y *ax+b7 x«:l/ALU"1974"
a»0,803
b«2041--iso-income lineC*-*J
Signs No.hldgs . Signs No.hldgs .
1 + 8
» 2 9
1 3 // 10
4- 11
115 & 12
II 6 à 13
7 N 14
·-**η·ΙΜ »•»'*') 5000
» * J A
*» in 7?1OÌU0 \\ìi» \ys,) lvf4l M 'H M» Co^ -f-LMI > fc «tSMJ'i Tr->- C-'-STAiTt

»i/uiâ ie<>ooIX 1
1>»00
1)000
10*00
•000
S>00
>000
300
-2000•/
•/ •
••• ••/
*■ '• / •• • • • /
•• .//•• • • /
• • ••/ y
• • •/. /• · ■/·· X•· / χ/ / ·/■ ·/
•• • / • ■/• ••♦• ••/ • iX• · II·«· ···• ···*··· ♦/II · ·
·· ■ 9·· »*« ·• ·· ··./ /r/. •••••*•«»/♦•/ I ••••• • •/« « « • i••••• fIIf l/l •t •
• «il /••• y'lt 0. • • •
♦» ♦/ * • • •
••I «I I•II•»>* •• • • •
• » I »• •
I••• »•• .♦•!»♦ •i •
• • •'y* mit t» •••• «lit OI«•••• I*
l *•'••• ••
•t>*t •/••»•»»••• •• •
• · ι»"·····»»· *X. •ff•»4•« • •• M « I
fiiityti i«t t•••l•uMl |•t•|Ii •««r «»:<;« !• » ••• < •
•/•••«
••(• flll III •• •/* •I• • • ••I »•••• •
•II ♦• •/ • «• • •
•I • •/ '•• •' • tIl I•Change inlabour income perALUfrom"1974"
to"1975"inFADN returning holdings
(Constant sample available 20.1_._77)
753 returning holdings
ITypeoffarming :H-PSRI^T CROPS
Kejr s-ffr" eÏ:Ï$ïï :SI?
_-iso-income line a-0,495ry.ij o-2 016
Signs No.hldgs «
t
t
?
•t1
2
3
4
5
6
7Signs No.hldgs .
+ 8
9t ;?
A . 12#
&
&
Ν13
14
Mit wV*l 500 *000 >>00
«Tl 0 p l * t
109 210 ?i 0•0.11 tnoo nooo v,/00?cami t▼ Constant *''<• -J*5* CU,KÍ:wÍm 30..7.ÍNV3 iol6.6-.vl ?

4T*/Ufåjaooo-
I
13500•
1)000
10*00•, • •••••I• I•I••••
I I «,•••••• t•• ••••••••
•••• V * ••
• I •• ••• •»
% ••• »«•••• y•••• ••• A
• ••••«•• •••••• y•••••••»»• ••JT•••••••I••• ••/
è »t( •• •%•••X• ······*·· *♦···Α·
m•••••••••• «•••yy•à•i••• »»•••• #••• •/*
• ··· «··»······ » ·//i» ••••••• ••t»••7'•!•li•*ti•••*••••••••• ••••/>/I...//i aii••»»»>#««#»♦♦# ••••//♦•iiiI «••••••••/j•••| |••••«••?••!*•«« •M•//l•• • M»%SY •
I ii•• iy•j•/•••••»• « »/•»••
ι«·····«··<>■··· ·»·*··/··γ····iiii♦»•*•••l*••••/•y•i«i•»••t•••••«!••••• '♦•S••'••••
••••••......I u"./.•i• »i«111**••!»•••y •••••ti.•ru ..»U • •••••«•• 7»«•/.»♦ ♦•••
■··*,ιΙΙΙΙ.Ι'μΙΜΙΙΙ :1♦/«····Χ·· ·ι««·Ι·»··ίί'*·»»ί· ··/·····♦!*I··i••t••»f.«».il:I,,111:y..».♦•/ •*••#..ι·ι :"'·*/·· · ·
·,,ι·«· 11;·;(·:Λ.·ι··· ·
-····· ··.».·.»ι»♦-·/* 5··'······ ·
·*·#·Ι»··Ι ,ί·"'γΤ«··*·*■"*··»·· ··~II••••««•• SI'*I"i"*S>–5»t•/l•• i»i•y'» •.•• •••••••!i•jis•:s"•/'-'"i•''V'••1••••'••-..····...ι.:··ν^:»··ι··::»·/' ··
>500-··,.!ι::ι../ίΐ".ί":,-ιί...ι·· .·· ·..Iι·:./:"·»-.-■·/:*..·.·■·»··-»··*:··Μ!,ί/',Μ"·,,«·ί/.:Μι·•»····I*♦')τ:"*ι5·'*"♦·:»»ι»······- ».••'•/% .
-•»••■yf'\>*n\Y„%1'*1•••• ••
>000sooo-
500V*s•.Mt ;t..•••r•;»»•»♦*'JV";•'•••••••i•
»tit i!'•ii't•••»I
,î;i »U••..
• «r*••
ih»•••».i:t••/:i•.,.1•t«••ΊΙΙ.««.· ·
i!| I«II
-...t.-I*.r «••••
>•»iy ■••X•»«•••••* <»•I•:y*•••.•
•' II.-2000-ChangeinlabourinconaeperALUfrom"1974"
to"1975"inFADNreturning holdings
(Constant sampleavailable 20.1.77)
4100returning holdings
TVPeoffarming sIII-GRAZING STOCK
&Σ1
LregressionlineyKLI^ALU,*ll975rt
/"y-ax+b7x«LI/ALU"1974"
--iso-incone line,a»0,778fy*J
SignsNo.hldgs .
»
I
»
II
H1
2
3
4-
5
6
7b.3293
SignsNo.hlags .
+ 8
»
&
&
Ν8
9
10
11
12
13
14
M..«i.m.sk;?r•ì30".»J"B-ir:9"?»wn0
0 ?9l4433r5H0*•}+*0 O.fUS-2 3

IH/l'U 18000 -Wf> •
15500
13000 -
10500 «.•« • • •• .
t »i « /
• •• • • • / •
• / %
•• •• / •
• •• / •• • • • • • /
• • • • /
* • • • •/
•• • • yf• /
• • / » 'κ /··· · I··/ I /
• •f ••«tt •/ • M/ m"/••• ••/ • • *'«
• * •• •/ ••• /»t «·· · ·/ · * ··«·/
• • • •»•• «•• %y* »•• »'
• • • • / i /
• • • •»» I/ / •• • • t•• • / •••• '
•• • .••/ /•*•• • •t«••y/••♦ /.
• •••»*•« y<•• •• ••/ • y •
• • t/
• ••»••• •/ • «/
•• •••/ • ••/ I
•»»/• •• » '•»»
• » •» */ • • A m
••»/' •• •/ • a
••• •»/ ••» I* /» «
• ••»/• • ••y•• é• •••i.ylt *t». •/ •• |
1•/ «•» ••/• «•• « *•• /• •• • . ««•/ »» I«t «/*
• •/ (•••/
/ i«/♦•••••/ i••X••• • #
•/ ••I «"•/ •/•• •» ••• »•/* i f•/»i• ««• i/ •••• • »y •/·· ···»·»/» */ • '• '.* t •
y*» • ••• •/.M • • •«
•/ ·»···· / #• /• •• •• «|~/ #**/ •••••»•/ M «/ •• ♦•••• »
• •• ♦/ •T .••• ••
ooo- . #„
• ••/ • •
•« •/ «' ♦ •
/• •• • * • •
:. / *.V
500- ./ ** #" /*•
"•/*/» •
:/
:/•000
3500 -
3000
-?0ΊΛ -Change inlabour income perALUfrom "1974"
to"1975 "inFADN returning holdings
(Constant sample available 20.1.77 )
768 returning holdings
TVPeoffarming :IV-PIGS &POULTRY
m.'
régression line y»LI/ALU "1975 "/y •»ax+b_7 x=Ll/ALU"1574"
lis-incorae line a■O.874
jTy mxJ b.5 081
Signs No.hldg3 . Signs No.hldgs
1 + 8
2 Β 9
i 3 10
4 « 11
115 A 12
VI 6 & 13
7 Η 14
VJMU ilPL ,«uiîl7Μ*00 3000 55^0 «O'JO >05000 * l * L o*€U H
0UT 16 1? I 4?« 0U13000
'-CM K»' <
u.13000 15500 1*000 Î9U
CO"í^-I.Mk»'< cCARf CONOTASTE
O.H /365 5i*J*«W*jv 50*1.3

4M/Uf AI800O •
197>
15500 -
13000
10500 -
*000 -
5500 -
3000 -• •
• •• • •
Il •il •
• ι ι ι ι««ι ι
• • t*i i
•i ♦ » • •
• •• i• • • •iii *
• •• • •» y• • i•ii •• S
•• ••t y• • • • ••••••• / >
• t•>« ii• • • ••■•••« t»
• *• • ♦••
• l• » • •••
• *• •• t •
• •» I••4
■ •/'z••• »f•/ /
•·· »ι^· ·
•·· ·γτ
• •Il ll •» • • ••„• •••«• •/ •
• •*»••• »ti«»/ i/ ilin ••«••«! •I• «S|•••j •
• ••••••!•• /•#««/••tn•••*i•••••• 'y**•••/• |I•♦•I* «/.••! »• I •
•••••••« «ty,•••«</ •• •• • >•»•».» •/ ii•*/
• • « il••iti»ijr*•••• »«• • • i• ••«•••*• /t •fA ••••it "«ut/..». t/ •»iiii ••' i/« •/'1.1
•ii .ti.::«/, ,,.,i,• •••it•.yf:11i111••**t*l»•/% 11i.*.3/..!* i*.X,
I >1/lliittllll • •••yit,,II « • I•i»'/• 1iss••1«•/ •••!«
1 y/i•ιι·/ III·!!»·1!7·«··•ιχ.ιι..ι:,»./..I·I«
'it »mmIII /.. .•••I•It«I»'/fIM«IM
..li* 1•»,-f:.Mil ,• I
000 •1f<• I•• 1T•» lI1«ii •••
"/ililt 1•"»< 1i11• i«
••tI>/»II• IH»|I ty/lflII• »••• '(••••I «f»I•I•'.Â••11t I *
* 9••Y•tMII •
»0»-.."À "'• **
»- ··/■··-/
:/:/Change inlabour income per ALU from "19(4 "
to"1975 "inFADN returning cattle holdings
(Constant sample available 20.1.77 )
1470 returning holdings
TYpe offarming :3361 -MILK
m .'
régression line .y■Ll/ALU"1975"fy-ax+bj x».Ll/ALU"1974 "
--iso-income line a■0,781
f~y-x_7 'b■3449
Signs No.hldgs , Signs NOihldgSi
ι
t
?
*t1
2
3
4
5
6
7*
&
&
H8
9
10
11
12
13
14
•7000 -
... -IV * 900 3000 5*:' > *000 tosoo 1*000 1>VOO IM0 ? 1*7*tt*l *oo^ll 0 * l * L NL <\\ r.1 ClWV ri..wf?«« »-CA*f CONSTANT ?UfO 0*50 «6 t*0 l?2** 10)U*. ?79 O.MJ ) SZllAvUf

IM/UTA 18000 -W7 >Change inlabour income parALUfrom "19(4"
to"1975"inFADII returning cattle holdings
(Constant sample available 20.1.7 /)
15*00 -
670 returning holdings
15000 -
105^0< i *
0 •* ••/
• . . . •/
• * /• II • /% • I II //
0 •* II• I *
• /• • •• / I• « I• • '
«II • /
•* !_•••. / /
• »· · · X»· ·· · ♦· · / ·
•• • • /•
O ••••«» • /
O • • • • • r
• »· /
• · ··· · · Λ-
• · · χ
* •• //
J »li •
«•a• •««••• /t •
■ II V «fi •M / * ••
"M ♦ •• ••/ •– •*•4/ » • •#«/
» »•| I« •• •■^ • ••■>*«••* •y/1*1 •• /•»•
» l|•I I <•••••»• I
-· · ι ·» · ·· ίΛ
•« ·· «·····*»»· / ·
... .. i.
- tI••. •I•• »V*. • •
•• I»IM •
•» «ttt,•,*,tA •• •
3000 t. ./ »
-• j * Il I• •I t•/• •• • I
" «••••• t»^I• III•»Ml tII«I4' •!
- ••»•••*/ •• •
• 1 ····»»·'·»··· I ·
- ». »n/f t I-••••«• y..*•**• •
–· ··· * » ·300 - ../
• · ' I ·
ρ- II/ ·I- / •
:/ *5500 -
-Î000 •ÏVpe offarming :3362 -EEEF
Bl-
régression line J88LI/ALU "1975 "
f~y-ax+fc_/ Χ«LI/ALU "1974 "
--iso–inccne line a»0,418
fy-*7 b«*3446
Signs No.hldgs . Signs No.hlags .
1 + 8
2 m 9
ι 3 TP10
I 4 * 11
" 5 & 12
" 6 & 13
7 Κ 14
f »OC»T«
*70500 >000 5*A0 «000 10*00 t'00 > 15V ") 1A'J00 _1*T<,00 ok"n 4* eo.i s\'.ri .«. im cmmw
o77* 15 5 0 * *?0n l<sí sí.MM *jv*0»v*>6í

i/uïA îeooo -197>
15>00 -
tîOOO
10*00
8000• • /• * ♦ • /
« • /
• • /
• •* * */ /
• / /• ••/  •• • / /• •• • • / /•
•*••/ /•
• •• • / a• • • •• / /
•• • / /
••/ /• • / /• • »•/ 1*
• •••/*/
• • M / / •• » •••X» > *
•• • • •/ /
• • • •/ J•Il ••••/ •/
• /. ./ • •• ••*•••» A• »
•• • /
••• •♦ » y*•••/ • •
• ?••••/»/•• •
♦······ /«· / ·*
. /.
•• »»/t * •« •/ ••••/»•••
• • /•• •
I »•/««• ••.,.... /. . •
I·· ►/ »··/ ··– •«/•••.»• • • • •
: •• '
-» ./• ••••
• i »/t.•«•»•>•»• • • •
- •» ,». •• »f'i » •
- »./ «t •»/ «000~• •/•••••r'* •• / il •)•• » •
• /♦•»♦>»»- • • ••
•/ ••»/»•••-/ t. •/« • •
• ••/• •
500 - • /.. •
»/ •0- / •
:/
:/S*00 -•
5000
•ÎOOOChange inlabour income perALUfrom "19'4"
to"1975"inFADN returning cattle holdings
(Constant Baaple available 20.1.77 )
557 returning holdings
Type offanning :3365-MIXED
(beef +milk )
Key
régression line ■y«LI/ALU ,'19T5 f,£y.ax+bJ x-Ll/ALU"1974"
iso-incoae line a0,880
fy-xj b-2942
Signs No.hlag3 . Signs No.hldgs
1 + 8
2 M 9
ι
t 310
II4- « il
5 & 12
η 6 K 13
7 Ν 14
awr, ^.r «W23w

-45-
ANNEX C
ESTIMATED RELATIVE VARIATION IffTIIE AGRICULTURAL VALUE
ADDED PERPERSON EMPLOYED UsT 1976
This annex contains "inextenso "the report 01theworking party on
the Sectoral Income Index setupbythe Statistical Office ofthe
European Communities (SOEC )todetermine theexact methodological
framework for theupdating oftheeconomic accounts foragriculture
andtoprepare andcoordinate experimental estimates for 197& .
Theestimates oftheworking party relate principally tothe change in
thegross value added atfactor cost perperson employed .Thebetter
toapprehend thechange over theyears 1975 an&197^>»theworking party
has extended itsresearches over aperiod going back to1971 *
However ,between thedata already published inthereport onthe
agricultural situation and this new series quite substantial differences
canbeobserved in1973/742-nd1974/75asregards theevolution ofthe
gross value added perperson employed asdefined bytheworking party
e.nd theevolution ofthe net value added perperson employed as
published todate .These differences areduenot only todepreciations
(thefactor representing thedifference between thetwoconcepts in
question )buttotheuseofthemost recent data andamore rigorous
harmonization ofthedata supplied bytheMember States .This
harmonization has inparticular followed the evolution ofpersons
employed inagriculture more closely andbeen related tothereference
period (calendar year forallMember States ,including theUK).Thus
theevolution reflected inthis new series canberegarded ascloser
toreality .
CONTENTS Pa.^e
I.FOREWORD 46
II.COMMUNITY "RESULTS 49
III .MEMBER STATES' RESULTS
Federal Republic ofGermany 55
France 59
Italy 64
Netherlands 69
Belgium 73
Luxembourg '78
United Kingdom oI
Ireland 84
Denmark 83

-46-
X.Foreword
The problem ofupdating the Economic Accounts forAgricttlture isone,which ,
inrecent years ,ithas "become ever more vital toovercome .The most important
shortcoming has "been the lack ofup-to-date figures onincome trends inagri­
culture for the annual debates inthe Council ofMinisters onagricultural
prices and the annual Commission report onthe state ofCommunity agriculture .
Toremove this shortcoming ,the SOEC strove during 1975 "towork out the metho­
dological and technical features required toupdate the Economic Accounts for
Agriculture ,submitting apaper onthe subject atthe end ofthe year .The Agr
cultural Statistics Committee welcomed this initiative and gave its approval i
principle tothe "Sectoral Income Index "project .Aworking party was instruc­
ted toprepare and coordinate the detailed methodological framework for the up­
dating project ,and experimental estimates for 1976 .
The working party hasfulfilled its terms ofreference ,and theresults for
1976 ,approved bytheAgricultural Statistics Committee are now presented in
this report .
The following points should beborne inmind when considering the infor­
mation contained inthe report ;
–Theresults ofthis report cover therelative change ingross value
added atfactor cost inagriculture per worker inthe calendar year
1976 compared with calendar year 1975 *(Each calendar year ,ofcourse ,
comprises elements oftwocrop years ).
–The exercise isinthenature ofanexperiment ,theresults ofwhich
have still tobeevaluated .Inview ofcertain special features in
1976 (drought ),theestimates forthis year have been particularly
difficult toprepare .
–Theestimates were made bythe Member states orbyexperts inthe Member
states onthebasis ofacommon methodology .Thedata represent point esti­
mations with ,nospecified margin oferror *
'–Thechapters ofthis report dealing with individual countries aretheres­
ponsibility ofthe Member states ortheir delegates ?thechapter dealing
with "Community results "was drawn upbythe SOEC .

-47-
The estimates have "been drawn upwithin the methodological framework of
the Economic Accounts forAgriculture ,apart ofthe European System of
Economic' Accounts (ESA).Complete harmonisation ofdata maynot,hov:ever ,
yet have "been achieved .Inprinciple theresults cover the production "branch
"Products ofagriculture and hunting ",and not theactivity sector "Agri­
culture ",which may "betaken invery general terms to "bethetotal ofeco­
nomic activities .on agricultural holdings .
The gross value added atfactor cost inthe production "branch "Agriculture "
iscomputed asfollows :
Final production
–intermediate consumption
ofrross value added atmarket prices
+subsidies
–taxes linked toproduction
Bgross value added atfactor cost
4
Gross value added atfactor cost inagriculture comprises thetotal of
factor incomes inthe agricultural production "branch and fixed capital de­
preciation (=the amount offixed capital used upasaresult ofnormal wear
andtear andforeseeable obsolescence ).
Gross value added atfactor cost inagriculture isnot anindicator for the
total household income offarmers .Itshould berecalled that inaddition to
their purely agricultural income inthestrict sense ,agricultural holdings
orhouseholds may also receive incomes from other sources .
Statistical data ontherelative change ingros.s value added atfactor cost
inagriculture per worker do,however ,give animportant indication of
changes inthe most important basic factors forthe purely agricultural in­
come offarmers .

-48-
–The average rates ofchange presented inthis document foragricultural
gross value added forthe individual Member states and forthe Community
asawhole give noprecise indication ofthe differences "between regions
and types offarm within the Member states ,these differences being parti­
cularly pronounced in1976 asaresult ofthe drought .
–Hocomparison inabsolute terms ofgross value added atfactor cost per
worker can bemade atthe present time ,principally because labour statis­
tics have not yet been harmonised .Information can,however ,besupplied on
changes inrelative terms –albeit with certain reservations .
–The data onthe relative change inreal terms ofgross value added atfac­
tor cost per worker were obtained bydeflating the corresponding nominal
rates ofchange bythe implicit GDP deflator .The values forthis price
index were supplied byDirectorate-General IIofthe Commission ofthe Eurc 1-
ê
pean Communities .The real rates ofchange contained inthis document donot
therefore represent theresults ofacomputation involume terms (values iri
1970 prices ).
-The data contained inthis report ontherelative change ingross va.lue
added atfactor cost inagriculture per worker in1976 compared v/ith 1975
are based onthe best estimates available .

-49-
II*Community results
Inspite oftheserious drought ,available figures indicate that value
added^inagriculture *^in1976will "be8$upinnominal terms .After
adjusting fortheaverage Community rate ofprice increase (inflation
rate)"^,value added inagriculture will showaslight decline inreal
terms^in1976ofabout 1,0/£ascompared with theprevious year.
These figures were calculated onthebasis ofpreliminary estimates
(sometimes revised )made bythe Member States orbyexperts inthe
Member States .They take account ofthat part ofthe considerably
increased subsidies granted toagricultural holdings incertain
countries asaresult ofthe drought which isexpected tobepaid in
1976 .
Anticipated relative change inrross value added atfactor cont in
a,°Ticulture in1°76 (fo)
Country and date
oflast estimateTotal IPerperson erro!oyea
nominell reàl nominal real
D (25.11.1976 ) +2,9 0,9 +5,0 + 1,2
P (9.9*1976 ) +1,5 7,6 +5,9 3,5
I (20.10.1976 ) +21,0 +3,2 !+23,1 + 4,9
NL (17*11.1976 ) +9,2 +0,2 +10,5 + 1,4
B (17*11*1976 ) +0,8 7,5 +3,7 1 4,9
L (5.11.1976 ) 9,5 18,4 -5,6 14,9
UKa)(19.11*1976 ) +23 !+8 +24 + 9
&RL*)(17.1*1977 ) +13,5 4,0 +14,5 3,0
DK (19.11.1976 ) "h6,7 2,1 1+7,1 1,7
EUR-9 b) I+
I8.0 Γ i,o +10,5 j+ 1,0
a)Rounded tothenearest whole percent
b)Rounded tothenearest half percent

Rates ofchange ofthegross value added atfactor cost inagriculture perperson employed (70)
Countrynominal real
74 :73 75:74 76 :753-year
average 74 :73 75 :74 76 :753-year
average
D -0,1 +17,3 +5,0 +7,41
-6,5 I+9,5!+1,2 +1,4
F +6,0 +7,4 +5,9 +.6,4 -4,9 -5,9 -3,5 I-4,8
I +17,2 +25,3 +23,1 +21,9 +0,3 +6,6 +4,9 +3,9
KL -7,4 +20,1 +10,5 +7,7 -14,8 +8,2 +1,4 -1,7
-5,4 I+21,2 +3,7 +6,5 -16,1 +7,9 - 4,9 -4,4
L
UKa)
I+.4,9 +18,3 -5,6 +5,9 -7,3 +15,0 -14,9 -2,4
+12 +22 +24 •+19 . - 1 -5 +9 + 1
IRL -5,1 +46,6 '+14,5b^ +18,7 -11,5 +19,2 -3.0*) +1,6 1
DK :
i+4,1 +7,1 +5,6
i-6,5 -4,1 c'
EUR-9 « +17,6 +10,5^) +10,9 +2,1+1.0 -0,5d)
:=figure not available
a)Rounded tothenearest v;hole percent
"b)Rounded tothenearest half percent
c)Average oflast tv;oyears only
d)Weighted byusing 3-year (1973-1975 )average ofpercentage shares ofthegross value added atfactor cost
inagriculture

-51-
The number ofpersons employed inagriculture in197 ®will once again
show adecrease –although not ofthe same magnitude asinprevious
years –theresult being anominal increase of10.5$andareal in­
crease of1.0 inthe gross value added per person employed inagri­
culture inthe Community .
Acomparison ofnational rates ofchange inthereal gross value added
atfactor cost per person employed reveals considerable differences from
country tocountry in1976asinpreceding years .Thus inLuxembourg the
value added perperson employed atfactor cost fell byabout 15$inreal
terms ,despite subsidies being increased byathird ;this however followed
anincrease of15$between 1974 and 1975 *Good results are,ontheother
hand reported bythe United Kingdom andItaly where thereal value added
atfactor cost per person employed isexpected toincrease byabout 9and
5i<>respectively ,buttheformer showed a5iareduction between 1974 and
1975 *Slight increases ofbetween 0and 2$areexpected fortheFederal
Republic ofGermany and the Netherlands .Much less favourable rates of
change are anticipated inPb?ance ,Belgium ,Ireland and Denmark where
reductions ofabout 2to5$aretobeexpected .
The change inthe gross value added atfactor cost per person employed
in1976 can betraced back tothefollowing basic causes :
–Asaresult ofthe widespread drought inthe summer of1976 theagri­
cultural production volume ofmost Community Member States fell as
compared with the previous year .Only inItaly ,theNetherlands and
Belgium diditvirtually remain constant .
–The decrease inproduction volume was considerably more pronounced
forvegetable products than for animal products .Insome countries ■
the volume ofanimal products in1976 actually increased .
–Thenegative effect ofthe decrease inproduction volume onfinal pro­
duction value was,however ,compensated orover –compensated inalmost
allcountries byhigher prices foragricultural products .

-52-
Thefinal production value ofagriculture rose inall Member States
as aresult ofthis effect asfollows :
Increase invalue of
final production (nominal
rates )
0 to nust under 5 Luxembourg
5 " " " 10 )<, F.R. ofGermany ,Irance ,Denmark
10 " " M 151° Netherlands ,Belgium
15 » " " 20<f0 Ireland
20 " " " 25i° Italy ,United Kingdom
The value ofintermediate consumption inagriculture rose steeply ,
due amongst other factors tothe high level ofexpenditure onadditional
purchases ofanimal feedingstuff s.Inthe Federal Republic ofGermany
andinDenmark theincrease was "between 10and 15/^1inPrance ,the
Netherlands andBelgium itwas "between 15and 20$;andinItaly ,Luxembourg ,
the United Kingdom and Ireland between 20and 25
–Inorder toreduce the negative effects ofthe drought onagricultural
income ,subsidies inmost Member .States were raised .
–Inmost Member States ,there was afurther reduction inthe number of
workers leaving theagricultural sector in1976 *
Itmust bepointed outthat thefigures available provide noinformation
about regional ortype offanning differences inthe trend ofvalue
added inagriculture inthe individual Member States ,although these
differences may well bevery pronounced –asthe example ofLuxembourg ,
which isasmall country interms ofarea ,demonstrates .
Itispossible that thepresent statistics donotyetreflect thefull
consequences ofthe serious drought ofthe summer of1976.For example ,
the early part of1977 could seefurther shortfalls insupplies offeeding­

-53-
stuffs forlivestock dependent oncoarse fodder ifstocks prove tobe
inadequate .This could result inearlier slaughtering and/oradditional
purchases ofhigher cost feedingstuff s.Even theyears after 1977 could
still "beinfluenced "bythe consequences ofthe 1976 drought .
*
1)Gross value added atfactor cost
2)Production "branch 'Products ofagriculture andhunting *.
3)Implicit price index forthegross domestic product atmarket prices .
4)Thereal rates ofchange forvalue added ofthe Community arecalcu­
lated asaweighted average ofthenine national real rates ofchange .
The weighting factors used are the following percentage shares ofthe
gross value added atfactor cost inagriculture ofthe Community in
1975 f°reach Member State (atcurrent prices ):
D 19.2 io UL 6.55J UK 9.6 S&
P 29.6 % B 3.1 Ìo IRL 2.2i
I 26.3 % L 0.1 io DK 3.4 Ìo
The nominal rates ofchange for the Community are calculated byin­
flating the real rates ofchange .

-54-
An+iclT>atod rates ofchange for "thevarious Member states in1976 (;)
20 7° !• Nominal /rrosr .value added atfactor co~t "inagriculture
n L !
15._ fc°- . 13,,
iq- - ■ n ,. -8.0
;·-Γ– 1"- 6,7 ■'
5 ' ."S~–tp-2,9 • | ■ --
!»5 , , M jo 1,r–~1 i. ,1î–zj I 1.1 !
-5 .
10ψ . I
II.Arricultural labour Force
RT^T -4,2 ;)-1t711-1,2f[-2,0 i-4,1 1[-Ojj [-l_,2i PoTX j -2,3 M
25%III.Nominal per capita rrross value added atfactor cost
20
15.
10
5.
o
-5 .
-10ν5,05,9[23,1
10,5
3,72414,5
7,110,5
5,6
IV.Implicit Toricc index ofr,;ross dorr.estic product
Mj IIMJ A7,3j0 f9,0 Ij10,9 i14,2t l ;-J |oo i| J\|^' |! ι9,4 ι
*15 V . !?en1P<?rcapita .moss valua added atfactor COST
A\ 1
10 _
5-
o'_
-5 .
-10
-154,9
1.2J.,c.1,4
3,5 3,0 1,7
4,9
1-^,9
iD i π Β It, ' Ime 'ι,ο

--55-
III.Member State Results
IF.R. ofGEIffiîAMY
(Estimates at25November 1976 )
Thefirst preliminary estimate ofgross value added inagriculture over
acalendar year involves even greater uncertainties than had been anti­
cipated when discussions were held about making such anestimate .The
effects ofthe drought this year intensified thedifficulties ofmaking
anearly estimate "because although important data ontheharvest are
available ,itisnotyetpossible toobtain anoverall view ofthefull
extent oftheloss .Grassland and intermediate crops recovered rapidly
during the autumn ,supplying considerable additional amounts offeeding -
scuffs ;nevertheless theeffects ofthe drought onlivestock and the
extent towhich itnecessitated additional purchases offeedingstuffs
cannot yet befully appreciated .
1.Final production
Asaresult ofthe poorer harvest brought about bythe drought ,there
was –apart from afew exceptions –aclear drop incrop production .
According tothis preliminary estimate ,the quantities ofcereals soldwill be14"Jodown on1975 »with afall of18tfoforvegetables and19
forfruit .Sales ofpotatoes are expected tofall by8$andsales of
sugar beet by6$.
Inthe case ofanimal -oroducts ,onthe other hand ,the cuantities are
expected toexceed the previous years results .Deliveries ofmilk to
dairies are expected toincrease byaround 3$anddomestic slaughtering
ofcattle andpigs isexpected toshow anincrease ofmore than 2fo.
The decisive factor for final production isthat tne effect ofdecreased
quantities islargely cancelled out –inthe case ofcrop products –by
higher selling prices .Itisexpected ,for example ,that production of
cereals asawhole will fall byonly 2.7$ toDM3«77 thousand million
asaresult ofth«cle-ar rise inprices .Inthe case ofpotatoes ,thereduction indeliveries will infact bemore ,than compensated for byhigher
prices ,sothat agricultural sales value are expected torise byaround I'M1
thousand million .Afurther contributory factor isthat the 197breduction
instocks will beless severe than that in1975 *With sugar beet ,too ,
the reduced yields will befully compensated for byahigher sugar contsnt
and thus higher prices .
Trends inthe animal sector will bedetermined in1976 bythe above-
mentioned slight increase inquantities ,but mainly byhigher prices
for pork ,milk ,poultry and eggs .VZhereas final beef and veal production
barely differs from theprevious year 'sresults ,atDM8.28 thousand
million and 0.7 thousand million respectively ,higher quantities and
higher prices inpork are expected tolead toanincrease ofaround
DM1thousand million to DM11.9 thousand million .Asimilar development
isexpected inmilk ,for which final production isestimated at DM12.4 -
thousand million .

-5"6-
Intotal ,this preliminary estimate indicates that final production in
agriculture in1976 will reach approximately DM53*37 "thousand million ,
1-1°!° more than in1975 *
2.Intermediate consumption
Ontheexpenditure side therise intheamount spent onfeed isof
decisive importance .Increasing herd sizes led right from the "beginning
oftheyear toanincrease inproduction ofmixed feed ,theincrease
"being further accentuated inthe second half oftheyear "because of
the shortage ofbasic feed for "beef cattle .Atotal increase of12
inthepurchase offeedingstuffs may thus "beanticipated .Since at
the same time prices also increased byaround the same amount ,expendi­
ture byagriculture onbought –infeed will probably increase bymore
than DM2thousand million toaround DM9*90 thousand million ,afigure
never reached before .Since noreduction incosts maybeexpected in
theother intermediate consumption areas ,the total intermediate
consumption costs areestimated atDM26.67 thousand million ,13/&more
than 1975 -
3.Labour force
The drop inthenumber ofagricultural workers hasbecome distinctly
less severe inrecent years ,asthepull exerted byother branches of
theeconomy hasweakened .Nevertheless 1976 tooisexpected toshow
adrop ofaround 2fo,anestimate which must ,however ,beregarded with
considerable caution .
A.Gross value added .
Gross value added atfactor cost ,comprising theabove-mentioned final
prodtiction andintermediate consumption toge 'lv .erwith indirect taxes
and subsidies ,but excluding depreciation ,ise:.-pected toamount to
DM27.25 thousand million according tothepreliminary estimate for
1976 ;this figure represents anincrease of3%over 1975 *
Theestimated 2%drop inthenumber ofagricultural workers means that
gross value added perperson infull–time employment maybeexpected to
rise by5%jcompared with arise of17%in1975 *
Thefigure ,after deflation bytheimplicit GDPdeflator (estimated by
theECCommission tobe3.8^),produces anincrease ingross value added
perperson infull-time employment in1976 ofaround 1%inreal terms .The
1975 increase was9*5f°iwhereas in1974 gross value added inreal terms
fell by6.5J& . ■*
/
Source :Bundesministerium fürErnährung ,Landwirtschaft undForsten ,Bonn

-J 1
F.R«ofCarmany
Anticipated change innominal values oftrie economic accounts for agriculture
for 1976ascompared with theprevious yearf ).
Π
ι1975 1976Change
I a"bsolute *
ΓΙt
IFinal production . 49562 53370 +3oûo +
êi
7,7 i
ofwhich ^crop production 14672 15780 + 1103 L+7,6
livestock proauc .
!34740 37420 + 2680 +7,7
Intermediate consumption 235δθ 26665!+3085 +13,1
X3Gross value added atmarket25502
ί26705I
I+ 723 +2.G
'prtccs
HSubsidies I1300 I 1900 + '92 , +5,1
Taxes linked toproduction 1313 1360 + 47 +3,6
X3Gross value added atfactor I« .
26477 27245IJ-763L.2,9corrtT"
Evolution ofcto3s value added atfactor cost
27 ■■
26 *■
25 -■
24 ■■
23 "
22..
21
20 ••
19
18
!_DM1000 million
63 64 65 66χ χ©
67 63 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

20f/>
15
10
5
o
-5
-io .. --LU .V
251o
20
!5 _
10 _
5.
o
-5 _
-10,,
15*
10 _
5
-o _
-10
-15Ψ-58-
Evolution ofrater ,ofchange .from 1971 to1976 (7o)F.R. ofGermany
I.Nominal /*roc;s vr-lne added atfactor coct inarri c::*'fMw
" ' - - -- •+14,4
+9,5
+•7,1*
+0,6 .+2,9
3,8
II.Afirricultural laoour force
-5,6 -4,4 !1-3,8 | I-3,7 I 1-2,5 1-2,0
III .Nominal ner capita ptoss value added ptfactor cost
+17,3
+13,5 i+14,5
- •• ->«yfv
J,+4,6 +5,0
-0,1
IV.Implicit t>rice index of /rross domestic nroduct
+7,6 +5,7 +6,1 +6,9 JhL +3,8
V»Real per capita ptoss value added ni;factor cost
+8,3+9,5
±5i5
1~~-î'
+1.2
I : "–
-1,4
-6,5
1971 !I.1972 !J1973 Jrï974~ |I1975] ρΤΤΤο ]

-59-
FRAITCE
(Estimates at9September 1976 )
A/trieuItérai Production
The exceptionally -unfavourable weather in197° has had far-reaching
effects onagricultural production .
Production involume terms is2.5 i°down on1975 1which ,wasitself "badly -
affected byextremes ofweather .This drop can beattributed primarily to
crop products ,whereas supplies ofanimal products recorded arise over
the previous year .
Agricultural prices are subject tomarket forces andprices ofcrop pro­ducts andanimal products in1976 are more than 15^and 7$higher respective­
lythan in1975 *
Production ofcereals ,particularly spring sown cereals –barley and
above all maize -has been seriously affected ,with supplies ofmaize in
1976 expected tobealmost 40%down ontheprevious year .This will result
inanappreciable fall inexports ,including those toEEC countries .Anti­
cipated price rises will bebetween 13and 16fodepending ontheparticular
cereals .
Production ofvegetables has also been affected bythe drought ,the princi­
pal sufferer being potatoes ;thefall involume terms inannual sales has ,
however ,not been quite sosteep (–20%),while average prices have more
than doubled . ~)
Thefruit harvest proved tobesatisfactory following avery bad year m
1975 *Prices are 14%down ,andthe volume ofproduction 37 up.
The grape harvest isbetter than the previous year 's.Sales oftable wine
slackened off during theyear and only the implementation ofaninter-trade
agreement resulted inanannual average price increase of11 Bycontrast ,
prices forquality wines produced inspecified regions are 35i°uponlart
year .
Supplies offull –grown cattle were seriously affected bythe drought ,
being plentiful atthe beginning oftheyear and poor atthe beginning of
autumn ;itisstill not possible topredict the level atthe end ofthe
year .Over the year asawhole ,supplies will bewell above those for 1975 *
Prices have been directly affected bythe violent fluctuations insupply ,
being atvarious times below the intervention price orclose tothe guide
price .Over theyear asawhole ,therise inprices should bevery moderate
–less than 5

-60-
Production ofpigmeat isexpected tobesimilar tothat of1975 »with
prices showing anincrease inexcess of10J&despite acontinuing fall
since thespring following thevery sharp increase inthecourse of1975 *
Dairy production wasalsoadversely affected "bythedrought andisexpec­
tedto "bedown on1975 ;"this hadtheeffect of "bolstering upprices ,
which could heupbyasmuch as95^over 1975 *
Intermediate Consumption
There will probably beonly amodest increase inthevolume ofintermediate
consumption in1976 ,mainly itseems asaresult ofeconomic caution orneed
onthepart offarmers ..Even sales offertilizers ,consumption ofwhich had
fallen sharply in1975 ,shownosignificant recovery despite astrong upward
surge inthefirst fewmonths of1976 .
Items forwhich anupward trend canbereported areanimal feedingstuff s,
other services (transport costs forstraw )and ,toalesser extent ,oil–based
products andcapital equipment repairs .These increases canbeattributed
directly tothedrought .
Price increases forthemajority ofitems uncter intermediate consumption
areoftheorder of10to12 Only theprice offertilizers isexpected
toshow little ornochange on theprevious year .
Intotal ,intermediate consumption (excluding ownconsumption )shows a
rise of6.9$involume terms andof8.8$inprice terms .
Value added
Gross value added atmarket prices shows anincrease ofonly 2.5 fo.To
avoid adrop inthepurchasing power offarm incomes ,theFrench Gove ....-merit
decided inAugust 1976 togrant special financial aidtofarmers amounting
initially toFF2.2thousand n.InSeptember thiswasincreased toatc-;al
ofFF6thousand m.At29November 1976 itwas ,however ,notyetpossible
toassess what proportion ofthis aidwould actually oepaid tofarmers in
1976 intheform offarming subsidies ,since theprocedure forallocating
aidisextremely decentralised .Itwastherefore decided "coinclude under ^
theheading 'subsidies-' only theinitial amount ofFF2.2thousand m.,which ,
when added tothetotal ofordinary subsidies ofFF1.8thousand m.,makes
atotal ofFF4thousand m.
Theincrease intaxes islargely duetotherecouping ofthej-974 deficit .
Gross value added atfactor cost is1,5^upontheprevious year :+5
perperson employed inagriculture and–3«5%inreal terms .

Inview ofthe unusually high degree ofuncertainty in1576 with regard
tomeat anddairy production (atthe endoftheyear ),gross value added
inreal terms per person employed may "beregarded asremaining virtually
stable "between 1975 and 197& *
The trend ofvalue added atfactor cost isapoor indicator ofthe effect
ofthe drought onagriculture :onthe one hand ,"because ofthe size of
one–off subsidies which were necessary to "bolster upincome ,and onthe
other hand , "because ofthe effects ofthe drought onproductive capacity
whicl .will not "become evident until 1977 *
Source ;Mini stère del'Agriculture ,Paris .

-62-
France
Anticipated chnr;~ ?innorr.iml valuas oftnceconomic account !?fora,^rj.culture
for1976 ascomoared with theprevious yearf MioFF ).
I I
1f\«-7V •»/-\ ·-»ChangI
IMiJ
aosidIu te 2 !
Final production 103 072 116 241 -s-0169 t7*C \
ofwhich :crop deliveries
livestock n47
60321
75151
64285
$56 I+3
+4964
203+8,4
+6,9
Intermediate consumption 39971 !A6433 '+6402 -rl6,2
HGross value added ntmarket63101 '
I69803 +1707 !
I+2.5'prices
+Subsidies 4I
034 ! 4000
4I
84 -0,2
Taxes linked toproduction 2149 2700 T 551 I+25,6
M Gross value added atfactor70036 71103 +1072 +l.pcor.t
E1'olution ofsrross '-alue added atfactor cost
80
70 ..
60
50 ••
40 ..FP1000 million
J>
-t t-
63 6465 66 67 68 69 70 7172 73 .74 75 76

-63-Evolution ofrates ofchange from 1971 "to1976 (%)France
20%
Λ
15
10
5
o
-5
-10 .*
25
20
15
10%
*
5.
0
-5L
-104,
Vf
10.
5_
0_
-5 _
-ic ;
-ι^7I.Nomina ];;.ror;r >vrlue added atfactor c-0"t ira.^lc :1tura
+2°1,3
+6,5 I+16,9
+1,4+2,9 +1,5
II.Aexicultural lacour force
-4,1 I-=A*2–. =4*3 [1-4,3 -4,2 -4,2
III .1?0minal_"aer–cap11arposs value added p±factor cost
+11,1+25,6 –
r +22,2
+6,0 +7,4+5,9
TV.Implicit nrice index ofcross domestic product
+5,9 +6,3 +7,9 +11,5 +14,1 +9,8
V-Rea!per camita *rrrosr ;vaine add od P.t^otor cost
+4,9+18,2 .,+13,3
-4,9 -5,9
-3,5
1571 197 : 1973 11974 1975 Τ97ττ

-64-
ITALY
(Estimation at20October 1916)
Thedata collected during therelevant forecasts survey ofagricultural crop
trends andother indicators available for the first seven months oftheyear
show that value added inagriculture should amount to11 2~JoCOO million lire
atcurrent rates in1976 ,anincrease of21 over theprevious year .Inview
ofthesteep rise inprices (+24»1'^),theresults forthe "branch surveyed are
onthewhole negative ,revealing adrop invalue added 'of 2.2',' Jatconstant
prices .
luoving on "to *tneanalysis of*"theindividual sectors ,ageneral fall incruan*ti –
tative terms can "beobserved inagricultural crops ,fruit being theonly ex­
ception ,andafurther increase inlivestock production .
Theupward pressure onthegeneral price level duripg thelast twomonths of
1975 haspersisted into 1976 ,affecting some products more than others .The
steepest rise involves herbaceous crops andlivestock .
lhecereals sector hasdeclined ,with falls intheproduction ofcommon wheat ,
durum wheat ,paddy rice andmaize .Thedrop intheproduction ofdurum wheat
andhybrid maize varieties should beparticularly noted since more acreage had
been given over tothese crops .
Thelevel ofprices inthis sector israther high andtheprice ofcommon v:neai
inparticular ,wasalready moving upwards inAugust 1975 during amarketing
season which opened with initial supplies unable tomeet domestic demand on
account ofthepoor harvest that year .Nevertheless ,between August andDecem­
berprices rose rather less sharply ,demand being cautious inview oftheheav ;
financial burden ofbank credit and therefore cuts inpurchasing programmes
were necessitated .Bythebeginning of1976 ,themilling industry hadstepped
upstockpiling ,sending prices shooting up;these prices have subsequently re­
mained high asthelira' spoor performance ontheexchange market combined wit .
inflatory domestic trends have prompted holders toreduce sales .Soaring price
levelled offfollowing moves torestore abetter balance between supply andde
mand .
Durum wheat prices fell below theannual average inthelatter half of1975 >
reflecting agenerally good supply situation andanexcellent harvest .Or.ly in
February didprices begin totake anupward turn following theevents onlhe
money market andafirmer stand' byholders .

-65-
Prices ofpaddy rice also went upinthesecond half oflast year ,atrena
which isstill continuing ,even though punctuated with downward turns corres­
ponding togreater availability .
Theprice ofmaize rose steadily during 1975 without reaching significant pcr.ks
During thefirst fewmonths of1976 ,steeper rises were recorded andthese hr.ve
continued ,with peaks "being recorded inMayandJuly .
Drypulse production should "beslightly uponlast year 'swhile potato andvege­
table production should maintain thesame level .
Theprices oftheabove-mentioned products show conflicting patterns :dry
pulse prices have taken adownward turn in1976 ,while ,inthepotato and ;;
vegetable sector ,there has "been aprice explosion which canheputdown |exclusively tothecost ofpotatoes which ,inthefirst seven months of I
1976,were up1935 ^over thesame period in1975 *' k
Thedisappointing results ,inquantitative terms ,forligneous crops are ||
above allattributable tothepoor olive harvest forecast and ,albeit toa ||
lesser extent ,toadrop intheproduction ofvine products andcitrus fruits ;]!
theupturn inthe fruit sector ,particularly inpeaches andalmonds ,did not §
offset this drop . I!
Ï
Theprices ofligneous crops in1976 should show anincrease ofaround 10;'j -f
over 1975 d-ue "toaprice rise ofapproximately 11%forfruit ,6•%forvine j
products and tothevirtually stationary situation asregards olive growing
products .
The expected increase inlivestock production ascompared with last year is
based ontherise forecast inallthecomponent sectors ,especially meat and
eggs .
Theupward trend inbeef andveal and pigrneat sectors can beputdown toth«! '
increase both inslaughterings and inherd size .
Poultry meat production isexpected torise even more than last year .
Livestock production prices continued toremain generally high with signifi-' ,
cant peaks inthecase ofpigmeat partly duetodemand shifting from beef and i
veal topigmeat . ;
.i
Thebeef andveal sector can besaid tohave been conditioned bygeneral eco- :
nomic trends inItaly andbygovernment andCommunity measures tokeep these '
incheck .
I
•I

-66-
Theclosing oftheofficial exchange market bythe Italian authorities and
thereintroduction into intra-Community trade ofthe system ofcompensatory
amounts decided upon "bytheCommission oftheEuropean Communities contributed
tosubstantial uncertainty among operators inthis sector .
Inaddition ,imports continued tobesubstantial during the first sixmonths
and proved very expensive ;this obviously affected trade onour markets ,on
which prices remained high ,partly because domestic supply continued tobe
somewhat limited .
Imports have subsequently been cutback bymeasures introduced bythe Italian
government (theno-interest $0%cash deposit decreed on6May).
Source :Istituto Centrale diStatistica ,Roma

•-67- Italy
Anticipated charge innominal values ofthe economic accounts for agriculture
for1975 ascompared ,with thaprevious year (Lit .1000 million )
1975 1976Change .
aosolute
Final production
ofwhich :crop production
livestock produc .
Intermediate consumption
Gross v?-lue added a.tmarket
prices
l
Subsidies
Taxes linked toproduction
Gross value added atfactor
cost12733,0
7644,3
5032,6
3439,4
9293,6
461
56»!
9693*5.15409*0
6C03 ?0
6533 f0
4131,0
\
11278,0
522
-63,0
21 "732,0+2676,0
+1153,7
+1505,4
+691,6
->1934,4+15,2
•-29,9
*20,1
•Î-21,4
Cl vl';}2
11.9 Y *4.
033,5 21,0
Th/olution of vf,1ug r-'lclod c/ofVvo't'ov cosi *
Lit .1000 million
12ooo
llooo
loooo
9ooo
8ooo
7ooo .
6ooo
5ooo
4ooo
3ooo
63χ *X XΘ
-+-–I -+- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 μ-
6465 6667 .66 69 70 7172 73 74 -75 76C
S

%
420
15
10
5
0
-5
-iol
*
-5 !
15{
io.
5_
o
-5.
-10.
-15\'revolution of ofcharge from 1971 "to1976 (••'•)Italy
I.IToninal /rronc v?»3-aes added a'!' .fr\c+-o r.or u1^1·!\>>νχ.
i+33,9
4-^,0!ι +01+19,4
i
I1+14.3 ■+21,0
II.Acrrn cultural lacour force
-0,7 -8,1 -3,: -2,5 -4,7 -1,7
III .Nominal per cat>i"ta rress v^lue adrJ^.r !. fncto ^cost 25 11JL * -Nommai per capixa rross Vcilue ao.n^rj . cost
20 +38>3.. +25,3 - 1 ••.
' V "-+23»1
15- +17,2 ■.
10- ... . ..-.i:.... .
■5 ι4ΐ,δ . '
0 i+3,7 ; 1 !j 1 I i | | 1 I
-5.
10,,
IV.Implicit nricc index ofsrross domestic productr-1–
+7,2 +6,2
V .Real per capita
L±2_i_5+11,3 +16,8 +17,6 +17,3^l)Nation ?,
figure
',–ror>r;
+24,3value added at.factor cost
+0,3+6,6
H-4.9 ,
-3,3
1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 T97o

-69-
NETHERLANDS
(Estimates at17November 1976 )
The revised estimates show anincrease inthe gross value added atcurrent
prices of9cf°*afall of3focompared with theoriginal estimates .This fall
isdue tothe fact that more information isnow available onthe reduced
supplies ofrough fodder forthecoming winter .Because ofthis ,aconside­
rable reduction must beanticipated inhay stocks .
Thevalue offinal production isexpected toincrease toF120.9 thousand
million ,arise ofaround 13$*Intermediate consumption excluding deprecia­
tion ,will increase byaround 18^toEl10.5thousand million .
Financial results ofindividual holdings will vary greatly depending ontype
offarm andregion asaresult oftheextremely dryweather in1976.
Because oftheextended drought actual yields forfield crops ,except wheat
andsugar beet ,were below the1975 level .Alower yield level isalso ex­
pected forfield vegetables andfruit .Bycontrast ,theproduction oforna­
mental plants and shrubs isexpected toincrease involume terms ,owing
partly totheincreased area under cultivation .Keat production will also
increase involume byaround 3/&,asimilar upswing also being expected for
milk production .
Paces ofvegetable products areexpected toarise byaround 20 This in­
crease islargely due totheextremely high prices forpotatoes from the1975
harvest and–toalesser extent –from thenew harvest .Asaresult ofa
small rise insugar beet production ,together with ahigh sugar content ,
alarger volume ofsugar will probably have tobesold ontheworld market
atconsiderably lower prices .Inthemeat sector ,anaverage price increase
oftheorder ofQ%canbeexpected ,dueprimarily toanupward movement
inprices ofpigaeat andpoultry which was sustained over thewhole ofthe
year .Therise intheprice ofmilk isexpected tokeep pace with therise
intheguide price ,whereas therecovery intheprice ofeggs canbeattri­
buted toimproved export opportunities .
: 1' 'I I

-70-
Onthe costs side ,anincrease ofaround lo/oisexpected mthe value of
intermediate consumption .Some 60%ofthis increase istheresult of
price increases .Thegreatest price rise –just over 20%–isforenergy .
Therise involume terras can beattributed mainly toanimal feedingstuffs .
Thereduced supplies ofrough fodder (seeabove )will lead toanappreciable
increase intL.e consumption ofcompound feeds ;moreover considerable compound
feed was additionally consumed during the summer .Onthe other hand ,con­
sumption ofnitrates decreased asaresult ofthe drought .
Source :Ministerie van Landbouw enVisserij ,'S-Gravenhage

-71-
r.etnerlands
AnticiPTtnd chare «?eir,nornim "1.wlnas oftho economic accounts for s^ri cult 's
for1976 ascompared with the nrevioun y•10 rhi-
Π Ciis /n^
1573 •1S6
absolute 7°
Final production .
11GI
435 i 20$00 i+2465 c13,4
ofwhich :crop production 61737
1/30 +1iai ; +
livestock produc . !12260 13420 I+1160 +
i■« c:^fJ
Intermediate consumpxion δsso 10470 •+•1520 +17,9
Gross value odded atmarket
555 10430 375 9,2"Dries 3 y Γ
ι
TSuosidies 30 404*+ 10 +33,3
Taxes linked toproduction 310 340 +9,7
Gross value added atfactor
275 10130 855 00s»*-cost yt-
evolution of2T0ss value added atfactorcost
PI# 1000 million
A
11 ..
10 -■
9-■
8..
74-
6I
χX XXXX XX0
X
X
X
– i i 1 1 1 î 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1
63 64 65 66 67 6869 70 7172 73 7475 76
!

20r
15
10
5
0
-5
-10Jr
25
20
15
10%
'N
5_
0
-5.
-10,,
ai
15{
10.
5_
o
-5 _
i
>-10 L
-15i-72-
Solution ofrater ,ofchange from 1971 "to1976 rwe'therlands
I.Nominal rrons v.?ly.s p.ddod ?t.fnetp-p cor.t tnp.~p je~;li'nre
+4,2±15,1+13,7•t-18.3 !
.+9,2
»
J
-8,8
II.Am~icultYirn.l lanour force
-LlO -1,4I
J-3,1 j-1,5 i i-1,5 =1x2
III »Nominal ner caT>i*ta rvosx vri.li.ic adtfod cost
+20,1
+16,7 r"–
*5,3+10,5
* !
-7,4
IV.Iirvolicit T)rice index ofptogs dorr.eciic nrodncl
±8j4 +8,9; 1
1
1+6,2!
1+a)7 +11,0 H^o
V»Real per caoita cronr »valué added ai - "factor cost
+8.4 '" '*^8j2
+7,2
+1•4
L-27ST
1971 1972 I 1973-14,8
1974*1C975 rnr/o]

-73-
BELGIUM
(Estimates at 17November 1916 )
1.Final production
1.1 Cron -production
1575wascertainly not agood year for main orops .Theeffects ofthe
drought onproduction and supplies arenot,however ,clearly discernible
from acomparison ofthis year 'sfinal production with that ofthe pre­
vious year .Indeed ,in1975 itwas necessary tomake allowances for poor
climatic conditions ;excessive rain had led tothefailure ofwinter sowings
and the drought had already caused serious damage during the summer .
Compared with 1975 ?thearea under winter cereals increased markedly and
the damage caused "bythe drought affected spring cereals worst ofall.
While cereal production was clearly higher ,alarger proportion ofitwas
used atthe farm itself .The estimated volume ofsupplies exceeded that
oftheprevious harvest "by22fo.
*
The drought damage affected potatoes and sugar oeet less than wasinitially
expected .These crops managed to "benefit from the rain which arrived towards
the end oftiie season .Inspite otthe slow-down ingruwtn during the summer ,
the sugar "beet yield isone ofthe "best recorded inrecent years ;anaverage
of48to49tonnes perhectare ,or17%more than in1975 * average sugar
content will only "beslightly lovrer than last year 's,"but thetotal area
planted wasappreciably smaller (down 21fo)*Total production isestimated
at4.7million tonnes ,or8f>less than in1975 *
Thetotal area planted with potatoes was roughly equal tothe 1975 figure ,
huttheaverage yield perhawas 25%lower .Total production registered
is774 000 tonnes (down 25fo)*
Production ofleguminous and industrial crops was markedly lower than that
for 1975 :leguminosae (down 55f>)>flax straw ,(down 30fo),hops (down 25%)■>
chicory (down 40fo)andtobacco (down 19fo).
Forall main crops ,price increases ,sometimes substantial ,are apparent
inrelation toprices attained from theprevious harvest :wheat (up8.5f>),
rye (up13«1f>)7barley (up10.8 fo),oats (up25-3f>),leguminosae (up53/0>
sugar beet (up3*1foinrelation toreal sugar content )andpotatoes (upSifo).
Precise evaluation ofhorticultural production isnot yet possible because
themain products ^chicory ,cabbage ,apples andpears )have only been mar­
keted in.small quantities ,and surprises inthe pattern ofprice formation
cannot beruled out.Thetotal value ofvegetable products isestimated at
15«6thousand million francs (up5f°)and -that offruit production at5*1
thousand million francs (up16.5f°)»

-74-
1.2 Animal production
Inthefirst sixmonths of1976,nillc production increased "byabout
10%compared vith the same period intheprevious year .Milk supplies
declined markedly atthe onset ofthe drought which had adrastic effect
onthe supply ofprovender .Total supplies in1976 remained atthelevel
ofthe previous year from that point on.
In "thecattle meat sector areduction mtne supply offully –grovm "bovine
animals 'may "benoted (down 6.3$),except for cows (up2.1 c/o);the
supply ofcalves increased (up2.8 fo).Pigproduction exceeded "by4*6 cp
the figure for 1975 >while therise inpoultry meat production was of
theorder of4 Eggproduction declined (down 1.5 /£)•
Forall livestock farm enterprises ,prices were again animprovement
ontheprevious year :milk (up6.3^), "bovine anipals (up2.7 /o)jpigs
(up9.9 /o),poultry meat (up12.3 $)and eggs (up24f°)•
Thecattle population declined slightly ,whereas the pig population
showed avery substantial increase .
2.Interrr.ecliate consu.~r.tion
The value ofchemical fertilizers employed was 10.9 above that for
1975 *Prices wereanaverage of12$higher inrelation totheprevious
production cycle .
In1976 ,purchase ofanimal feedingstuffs ii.creasod "by11.5 onaccount
ofthe drought ,demand was abnormally high for concentrated feedstuffs
for bovine animals ,whereas ahigher quantity offeedingstuffs was
employed asaresult ofincreased production ofpigs andtable fowls .
Theprice ofanimal feedingstuffs rose by10.7focompared with 1975 «
Total expenditure increased by23»4^inrelation totheprevious year .
Expenditure onseeds andplants wasconsiderably higher (up25/«)»mainly
because ofpotato plants ,whose price more than doubled inrelation to
1975 .
Consumption ofphytopharmacological products declined due tothe drougnt ,
andtheir prices fell ,with aresulting decline inexpenditure of
approximately 16c/o.
The increased value ofintermediate consumption taken asawhole is
approximately 19fo,orvirtually double theincrease inthevalue of
final production .

-75-
3.Gross addod value
Inview ofthe unfavourable relation "between the -ns-inthe value cffinal
production andthat ofexpenditure ,the value addcj atmarket prices in
agriculture andhorticulture shows only asmall increase compared with 1975
(up1.9 ft)reaching approximately 68.7 thousand million frvr.es .
Expressed atfactor cost ,gross value added incrcfccd t' -C9«9 thousar dmillion
FB,orarise ofonly 0.8 %compared with thepreceding year ;inreal tenr.n ,thi
represents afall of7»5 i°*
The decrease occurring inagricultural income vri.ll heoffset thanVs tothe
government 'splan tocompensate forthe losses andadditional expenses
occardon-^d "bythe drought .Thetotal ofthis public aidisprovisionally
estimated at5thousand million K3.The effective ofthe availability
ofthis aid to "beneficiaries will "beduring the course of1977-
4.Sectoral Inc .on.?Index
The provisional results ofthe agricultural survey for 197o indicate that the
number ofpersons inpermanent employment inagriculture and'horticulture
declined by3-2 fo;casual labour ,onthe other hand ,»showed aslight increase .
Expressed inwork units ,the decline inthe number cfpersons employed is
estimated at2.8 The gross value added atfactor cost per work unit thus
increased byapproximately 3«7
Inrelation to1975 *"the GDP implicit price index increased by9/°jafall ,
estimated at4-9 "thereal value ofthe gross value added atfactor cost
per person employed inagriculture andhorticulture ,must therefore beexpected .
Source ;Ministère de1'Agriculture (institut Economique Agricole ),Bruxelles .

Belgium
Anticipated chants ir.r.or.in ."!!values oftno economic accounts for arriculture
for 1976 ascompared v.'ith "thepreviour .yoar ( nm).
ΓΙ
1975 1976Chanr o
absolute
I
iFinal production .I 133 431 153 007 +14576 +10,5
ofwhich :crop production te295 51832 +5537 +12.0
. livestock produc .92136 101 175 +9039 Î+9,8
Inte mediate consumption 71002 !!0Α·»λΟ Ο4Oll y-*J •+13306 +13,7
Gtos"value addod ntraarket j
'price s i67429 63699!
+1270 +1,9
+Subsidies 2408 1706 702 -29,2
Taxes linked toproduction 473 520 + 47h9,9
Gross value added atfactor69364 69885 + 521 +0,8cont
Evolution of ,<=rross value added atfactor cost
Fb.1000 million
80 --
70-·
604Θ
50
iO
1
-i 1 1 1 1– ■– t f- 1 1 5 1 1
63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

■-77-
Evolution ofrfi1 .esofchange from 19?1to1976 fy>)Belgium
20A
15 .
10
5.
oI.Nominal rrrossl value .added .at .factor ,.coat _in_agriculture
, »»
+7,6 +22,6+99 • +17",3.
+0,8
-5-7,8
25
i
20
15
10£
Η
0II.Afrricultural lacour force
-8,3 -6,1 -6,1 -2,5 -3,2 -2,8
III .Nominai 'per capita ctoss vr.lue addod atfactor cost
+17,3 +30,6t-■h-*
i- •
Y>'.■■
+17,0 .n u-i.
■+21,2 .
» ' »r■
c*-+3,7
-5
-10V
---/■-5,4
IV.Implicit -nrice index ofrrross domestic product
+6t9 1[+12J -12,3 +9,0
V.Real per capita gross value added atfactor cost
i+ll,4 +23,7 .
'+9,5 :
-16-,1
ι -.•+7,9 ---.
-4,9
1971 1972 1973 1974 1975

-78-
Luxembourg
(Estimates at 5November 1976 )
1976 has "been marked byanexceptionally serious drought affecting every
part ofthe country .'
The drought had adirect effect oncrop production ,and the inadequate pro­
duction offodder crops has inturn had repercussions onanimal products ,
particularly milk ,"beef anveal .
Total final agricultural production according toprovisional calculations
isup "byaround 1/b,due tothe fact that reduced production interms of
quantity was ,toalarge extent ,, "balanced out byincreased sale prices .
Expenses increased bymore than 20';'',d;:e inparticular tothehigher
-ί*
cost ofanimal fodder .The cost offertilizer and seed also showed asnarp
increase .
Gross value added atmarket prices is12*Jodown onthofigure recorded for
1975 *State subsidies increased bymore than athird however ,with the result
that gross added atfactor cost is9»5^down ontheprevious year 's
figure .
f
Source :Ministère del'Agriculture ,Luxembourg

Luxembourg
Antir.ipate dchange innominal values ofthe economic accounts for nr~rl c\:Iiv"n
for 1976 ascompared with theprevious year (Mio Flux).
I
1975 1976Changi
absolute■■■'
!£
Final production 4634,3 I4673,2 +33,9 +0,0
ofwhich :crop production j 939,7 847,0 -92,7 9,9
livestock produc . 3694,6 3826,2 +131,6 +3,6
Intermediate consumption 1£10,2 2137,7 +377,5 +20,9
Gross value added atmarket
prices
12824,1 2465,5 -338,6 12,0
♦;Subsidies i 163,7 • 222,4 +58,7 +35,9
Taxes linked toproduction 34,0 v o■Jr,^•M*
Gross value added atfactor
cost
I ••'2953,3 2673,9 I
ι
4 I
i
]
Ii.l-279,9mm Or IJ
Evolution ofgross value added atfactor cost
AFlux .1000 million
2,9-
2'8..
2,7 ..
2,6 ..
2,5 ..
2/
2,3
2,2
2.
2,:,
l,>
l,c .χ
X
κ *X.Θ
* v y1
1 ! 1 1 1 ( 1- « 1 ( ( 1 1 1
63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 7c

20f
15
10
5
o
-5
-10,tf
25
i
20
15
10
5
o*-80-
Evolution ofrates ofchange from 1971 to1976 (7) Luxembourg
I.Nominal r:mr >::value added atfactor cost ina.rri culturn
+16,7
+14,4 r i.ir +
+1,0I "1
.•*
-2,9; /
j! •S
I *
"V
-9,5
II.Ajrricultural lanour force
-4.M -4,0 -4,4 I I-3,7 -4,4 -4,1
III .Nominai per capita PTOSP valilo ad.dcd atfactor cost
+19'2 +18,3 -
+1,2.' */#+4,3 +4,9r •i"•
^ »
/'
-5L
-100,
15
10
5%
,\.-;•
-5,6
IV.Implicit Drice jrdex of crroGG domestic product
+0,9 +6,1 +13,4 +13,2 +2,9 +10,9
V . "rteal per cgpita .rror.s raluc added ?tfecto rcost
( '¿t-1 «5.0-I
+0,3+12-.4
}
-Sjo _-7.3'ut .
~ 7i
-14,9
1cjv1 !j107?!|1i07^ I 11Q74 I !1Q7r-i Γτ^τπ

81-
United Kingdom (Provisional Results )
(Estimates at19November 1976 )
The results presented for the United Kingdom inthis report arefirst
attempts atconstructing calendar year agricultural accounts .They
therefore differ from the crop year figures published nationally and
inthe ESC V olume ofAgricultural Account Statistics .They are very
provisional and could "besubject tomajor amendment asconcepts and
methods are refined .
United Kingdom agricultural output inboth 1975 and .1976 was badly
affected bysummer drought with theresult that crop yields inboth
years were significantly below normal ,milk yields suffered and
shortage offodder led toextra culling ofgrazing animals .The effects
were tosome extend cumulative inthe second drought year and compari­
sons between these twoyears donot reflect how far they have both
deviated from normal expectations .The reductions involume ofoutput
were inanumber ofcases compensated byhigher market prices ,parti­
cularly for potatoes ,vegetables and meat .
Incurrent value terms ,the gross value added isestimated tohave been
some 23per cent more inthe calendar year 1976 tkan in1975 *Output
and consumed inputs increased bymuch the same proportions .Inboth
cases the increases were mainly due tohigher prices .All commodities
are expected tohave contributed tothe increased value ofoutput in
1976 .Potatoes ,with adecrease involume ofover onequarter ,are
estimated tohave increased inprice by150 per cent .Cereals delivered
off thenational farm are expected tobedown by10per cent involume
in1976 compared with 1975 "but 11per cent more invalue -a20per
cent increase inaverage price .Significant reductions inthe volume
ofvarious horticulture crops have been largely compensated byprice
increases .
Onthe livestock side milk andcattle sa3.es are expected tohr^ve contri­
buted over one quarter ofthe increased value oftotal output with
another 15per cent arising equally from sheep ,pigs and poultry .Only
milk and poultry are expected toshow increase involume .
Because ofthe drought ,farmers had tobuy inadditional feeding stuffs
atever rising prices .In1976 expenditure onfeed isexpected tobe
athird higher than in1975 -Outlay onfertilisers and lime islikely
tohave increased by16per cent andmachinery costs ,including fuel ,
bybetween 20and 25per cent .
The outflow oflabour in1976 islikely tohave been less than ineither
ofthe two preceding years#
Source :Ministry ofAgriculture ,Fisheries and Food London

-82-
United KiTvjdo m
Anticipated chmyre innominal valves ofthe economic accounts for 1lure
for 1976 ascomnared with theprevious year (Mio £).
Γ
1975 1976Change
absoluteI^
Final production i4955 6074 +1110
ofv;hich :crop deliveries 1620 1999 +370JU+*o
livestock " 32ôC 3CCI ± rr }o
i+Ivj |
Intermediate consumption 2634 3213 ♦579 +22
es Cross value added atmarket
prices:
+ Subsidies : ι
ι:
Taxes linked toproduction : ι 2
2= Cross value added atfactor
icost
•,l
2321
I
I2CCI ' ♦540
i+23
Evolution ofcroso vr.luo acjiod rJifactor cod
Lthousand million
A
2,9 -
2,7 -
2,5
2,3 *
2,1 -
1.9 ■■
J"
~,5 T
□□□□□Θ
63 64 65 CC 67 C3 CO70 71 72 73 74 75 76

ζ20
15
10
5
0
-5
■ioI
25 ,
/
20
15
10
5
o
-5
-10 .%
Ϋ
15>jfio !
-10
-15ϊTîvolutnon ofrate s83~ 1)« '' – _ .»_#ν Α/
[ofchange from 1971 to1976
I.Nominal rrross \*H
+10lue ade'
+28United Kingdom
odatfact .or_cooi.in _a/rricxt!1 ura
+9+19 +23
II.Afrricultural laDOur force
[_Ζ -li4 -0,1 [-2,8 -2,3 -0,7
– i– – ■
i iv
+28
ι
a+22
0+24
L+12i+12 .
/
i iI
IV.Implicit price index ofrrrocr ;donectic product
+7,9 1+13,4 !+27,8 +8,9 +8,0
V .Beai por capitai .rrrosn 'value addod ntfactor cosi
+4+19
-1-5+9
1971 I197 1973 197 4 1975 1976
l)Rounded totheneareot whole percent

■-84-
IRELAND
(Estimates completed .17January ,1977 )
It .should berecognised that thepresent estimates are "based onprovisional
andincomplete information andaresubject torevisions ,some ofwhich r.\y
"besubstantial .Theestimates have been prepared prior totheavailability
ofcomplete information onharvested crops andofdata onproduction and
sale ofcompound feeds andpurchases ofother inputs inthefinal quarter
of1976 .Inparticular ,theendofyear stock figures were notavailable .
Users ofthese figures areadvised toconsider the "estimate^' more as -order
ofmagnit\i&e estimates than precise values .
In1976 ,thevalue oftotal final production isestimated tohave increased
by£140 millions approximately orabout 17»5 percent on1975 .This arose
from increases inthevalue offinal production ofcrops ,particularly
potatoes ,livestock andmilk .
Intermediate consumption isestimated tohave increased by£69 millior.3 or
about 24per cent onthecorresponding 1975 figure ,m?.jor increases occurred
inboth feeding stuffs and fertilisers .When allowance ismade for subsidies
and production taxes ,Gross Val\io Added atfactor cost inestimated tohave
increased bysome £75millions orover 13per cent on1975 *
»
Involume terms the expected out-turn intotal final production in197° is
over 4per cent down on1975 asaresult ofvolume declines ofover 5per
cent incrop production and over 4per cent inlivestock production .For
crops theestimated volume ofboth cereals (principally barley )androot
crops (potatoes )declined .Asthevalue increases indicate these dcclir.cs
have been more than offset byincreased prices .For livestock ,volvr.e declines
ofabout 17percent forcattle ,and20percont forsheep areestimated .
These are offset tosome extent byvoluue increases ofabout 19per cent in
pigs and some 7per cent inmilk .Asinthe ci.r.cofcrop :;,livestock prices
have shown substantial increases and the price ofmilk r.ny have increased
bymore than 12per cent .Theoverall volume and value changes for total
final production imply that prices increased byabout 23percent in1976 .
Onthe inpxits side thevolume offeedingctuffa mayhave risen byabout 11
percent .In1976 ,theinput offertilisers increased by19percent ,the
first increase infertiliser usage sine 1973 *Other inputs are not expected
toshow large volume increases following thesubstantial decline incattle
production andtheoverall volume decline infinal production .Input prices
areexpected toincrease byabout 16percent .Inthecase offeedir.gstuffs ,
*hesubstantial increases incereal prices (ofthe19/6harvest ) resultmhigher than estimated feedingstuff prices inthefinal quarter cf1976 .

-85-
Theindex ofpercapita sectoral income (i.e. gross value added atfactor
cost perperson employed inagriculture )isexpected toincrease nominally
"byalmost 15percent in1976 on1975 *Inflating thenominal change "bythe
implied price change ofCross Domestic Product atmarket prices adecrease
ofabout 3per cent i3obtained inreal terms .
Source JCentral Statistics Office .Dublin .

-86-
Ireland
Anticipated change innominal values of "theeconomic accounts foragriculture
for1976 ascompared v/iththeprevious year (^^g
t
I1975 11976 ■Change 1
absolute η
Final production 843,5 997 +148.5–– m il,. 1 1*
t17,5
ofwhich :crop production 133.4 159 . I+25.6 b*19,2
. livestock produc .715,1 ! 838 +122,9 +17,2
Intermediate consumption 289,0 358 •+ 69 +23,9U Gross .value added atmarket559,5 639 +79,5 +14,2
'prices
+Subsidies 19,4 ! 21 + 1,6 +8,3
"Taxes linked toproduction16,1 22 + 5,9 +36,6U Gross value added atfactor• 1
562,8 ' Icorvt 638 +75,2 +13,4
1
II
1
Evolution ofsrross value added atfactor cost
A
700 --
600 ..
500 --
400 --
300-
200 ..Mio £
63©
6465 66 6768 69 70 71 72 73 7475 76

20f
15
10
5
o
-5
-io ,-87-
Evolution 'ofrates 'ofchange from 1971 "to1976 f>;)Ireland .
I#Nominal /tronc voluo n/1
+32,5+28,9edatfactor co-tjn.arriculty ra
+44,8
+13,5
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10-7,4
II.Arrricultural -,labour force
Γ-3,6ι II
-2,3 -2,7 I-2,4 -1,2 ~hï _
% i25 III *Nominal per capita ^ross vnluc addcrl p.t -Tpotor cost
Λ
+35,6 +32,5 +46,6
+14,5
V
10
5
0!
-10
-15/-5,1
IV.Implicit price index ofrrross domestic product
IL5ZEJ +23,0 fl8,5
V . Realper cfinita rrosr .vaine added
+19,7 +14,8M;factor cost
+19,2
-11,5-3,0
1971 1972 1973 1974 1975Γ197^71
l)Rounded tothenearest half percent

-88-
DENMARK
(Estimates at 19November 1976 )
Asstated during discussions mthe working party dealing with the
preparation ofthe index ,therevised estimate for the Sectoral
Income Index issubject tosome uncertainty ,which isfurtKer com­
pounded this year bythepresent difficulty ofassessing fully the
effects ofthedrought onthe production ofmilk and the numbers of
cattle slaughtered onthe demand forfeedstuffs .
Y/ith few exceptions the drought has led toareduction mthe volume
ofvegetable production .However ,itisexpected that ,asaresult
ofprice increase ^for cash crops ,the production price for cash crops
will rise from 5136 m.Dkr in1975 "to5260 m.Dkr in1976 ,an
increase of2.4
Itisestimated that the price ofanimal products will rise from
15543 m.Dkrin1975 "to17427 ni.Dkrin1976 ,arise of12.1
According tothe revised estimate ,thetotal value ofproduction
shows anincrease from 20679 Dkri*11975 "to226S7 m.Dkr in
1976 ,agrowth of9*7 /&•
The cost ofbasic and auxilary materials isaffected bythe steep
increase inthe cost offeedstuffs .According tothe revised estimate ,
feedstuff costs are expected torise from 4373 m.Dkr in1975 "to
5380 m.Dkrin1976 ,anincrease of23^.This estimate issubject
toconsiderable uncertainty because ofthe drought in1976 .
According tothe revised estimate ,the total cost ofbasic and auxi-
lary materials shows anincrease from 9690 m.Dkr in1975 "to
1096I m.Dkrin1976 ,arise of13*1 %•
Itisestimated that subsidies will rise from 186 m.Dkrin1975 "to
200 m.Dkr in1976 .
Itisexpected that the decline inthe number offully employed
agricultural workers will continue ,although in1976 the estimated
reduction will beonly 0»4
The revised estimate shows anincrease ingross domestio product at
factor cost from 11175 Dkrin1975 "to11926 m.Dkr in1976 ,a
rise of6.7

-89-
The nominal relative variation ingross domestic product at
factor cost per capita intheagricultural sector from 1975 "t°
1976 shows arise of1»Vfo while thereal relative variation in
gross domestic product atfactor cost per capita inthe agricul­tural sector shows afall of1.75& from 1975 "to1976 .
Source :Danmarks Statistik ,K/benhavn
«

-90-
■Denmark
Anticip-itoA change innominal values oftne ecor.ormc accounts foragriculture
for 1976 ascompared with theprevious year ( nv-rO ♦
Π
1975 1976Change
at >solute/"
Final product îon . 20679 22687 +2003 +9,7
ofwhich :crop production 5136 5260 + 12A +2,4
livestock produc .15543 17427 +1884 !+12,1
Intermediate consumption 9690 !10961 1271 +13,1Η Gr-osn value added ntmarket10909 11726 737 6,7'pmcos+
I
+SubsidiesI
186 ! 200
4+ 14 Τ7,5
Taxes linked toproduction ! 1
e=Gross value added atfactor11175 :11926 751 C,7coc.t+ +
Evolution of£Toss value added a*tfactor cos>
Dkr »1000 million
12-- ©
Χ
11 V
10- x
9-
i
8I
ιΊ+
Ci4-<
63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 7* 76

-91-
Pvolntj.cn ofrater ,ofchar ,frofrom 1971 "to1976(,1)Denniavic J
20^ !•Nominal rross value added at.factor cost ina.rri culture
15.
10
5.
o
-5.
~io/+18,5 +18,9 - -
+13,6
+6,5 ' +6,T
II.Acrricultural
. Ιla
i ..cour forco
-oj -5,6 , -ii3 -6,5 -0T4
III .Nomi r.al_per_capita CTOGE value added aifactor cost
Α
20 +25,5r–
15 h20»5
ioL .... . : •
5I
T +7,3 l , . +7,1
0 +4'1
-5.
10,,
15
10
5
o
-5
-10Ί\1IV*Implicit price index ofp*rocs domestic product"Π
+6,1 1+8,6 J[+10,3 I+11,2 +11,4 1 +9,0
*•Real pfry–capita qrross value added atfactor cost
+1,1
I I+15,6
+9,3
-6,5ΊΖΖΙΓΪΖΤ
-1,7
-15v
1971 197? 1973 1974 1975 rr^Tô