ARCHIVESHISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEEDES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM(80)129
Vol.1980/0042

Disclaimer
Conformément aurèglement(CEE,Euratom)n°354/83duConseildu1erfévrier1983
concernantl'ouvertureaupublicdesarchiveshistoriquesdelaCommunauté économique
européenne etdelaCommunauté européenne del'énergieatomique(JOL43du15.2.1983,
p.1),telquemodifiéparlerèglement(CE,Euratom)n°1700/2003du22septembre2003
(JOL243du27.9.2003,p.1),cedossierestouvertaupublic.Lecaséchéant,lesdocuments
classifiésprésentsdanscedossierontétédéclassifiés conformément àl'article5dudit
règlement.
Inaccordance withCouncilRegulation(EEC,Euratom)No354/83of1February1983
concerningtheopeningtothepublicofthehistoricalarchivesoftheEuropeanEconomic
Community andtheEuropeanAtomicEnergyCommunity (OJL43,15.2.1983,p.1),as
amendedbyRegulation(EC,Euratom)No1700/2003of22September2003(OJL243,
27.9.2003,p.1),thisfileisopentothepublic.Wherenecessary,classifieddocuments inthis
filehavebeendeclassified inconformitywithArticle5oftheaforementioned regulation.
InÜbereinstimmung mitderVerordnung(EWG,Euratom)Nr.354/83desRatesvom1.
Februar1983überdieFreigabederhistorischen ArchivederEuropäischen
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft undderEuropäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI.L43vom15.2.1983,
S.1),geändertdurchdieVerordnung (EG,Euratom)Nr.1700/2003vom22.September2003
(ABI.L243vom27.9.2003,S.1),istdieseDateiderÖffentlichkeit zugänglich.Soweit
erforderlich,wurdendieVerschlusssachen indieserDateiinÜbereinstimmung mitArtikel5
dergenanntenVerordnungfreigegeben.

COMMISSION OFTHEEUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(80)129final
Brussels.25thMarch1980
THIRDREPORT
ONTHEOPERATION OFTHESYSTEMOFPREMIUMS
FORTHENON-MARKETING OFMILKAND
MILKPRODUCTS ANDFORTHECONVERSION OFDAIRYHERDS
(1979CALENDAR YEAR)
(Communication fromtheCommission totheCouncil)
C0M(80)129final

Third report ontheoperaiton ofthe system ofpremiums
forthenon-marketing ofmilk andmilk products and for
> theconversion ofdairy herds
-■ (1979 calendar year )
Article 13(1 )ofRegulation (EEC)No1078 /77requires theCommission
tosubmit totheCouncil andtheEuropean Parliament , _
v areport ontheoperation ofthepremium system ,
based upon the information supplied bytheMember States .Atthe
request ofallMember States the report covers theperiod uptoan
including December .
The Commission forwarded afirst report ontheoperation ofthe ,
premium system fortheperiod from 1'July to31December 1977 in
document C0M(78)80 final of 1March 1978 .The Commission 'ssecond
report ,document C0M(79)106 final of12March 1979 ,covered the1978
calendar year . *
Results • - • - ^ .
. 1 I
ByRegulation (EEC )No1270 /79of25^June 1979 the Council decided to
extend the system ofpremiums until the end ofthe 1979 /80milk year .
Unlike in1978 ,however ,neither thepremiums northeconditions were
amended .The first part ofthis report covers the1979 calendar year «■
andthesecond part theentire period ofapplication ofthemeasures
from 1July 1977 to31December 1979 .Thetables give information
only ontheapplications approved bythe Member States inthis period .
Itshould bepointed outthat ,atpresent ,thedeadline forapplications
is31March 19§0 andthat theCommission hasforwarded aproposal to
theCouncil that thesystem ofpremiums beextended until the end of
the 1980 /81milk year (C0M(79)710 final of17December 1979 )*

-2-
I.."1979calendaryear
2.Duringthe1979caLendaryearsome30000applications were
approved.Thiscorrespondstoabout1.5%ofthedairyfarmersin
theCommunity.Theseproducerswithdrewabout400000dairy
cows,or1.5%ofthetotalCommunitydairyherd,fromproduction.
Inactualfact,however,theherddiminished byonly0.3%.The
greaterpartofthedecreaseachievedbythesystemofpremiums
wasoffsetbyanexpansionofherdsbyfarmerscontinuing
>dairying.
Table1:Numberofsuccessful
from1Januaryto3'I
1applicants andcows
December 1979
♦'keptduring
• *
1
:MemberState :Applicants :Numberofcowskept:
Number :%:'000 V• fo •
:Belgium :538:1'8:9,0:2,3:
Denmark :2.345 :7,9 47,0:12,1 :
:-Germany :17.567 :59,1:139,6 :35,8
:France :5.924 :-19,9:87,9:22*6:
:Ireland .• :481:1,6:12,4:3,1:
:Luxembourg :65:0,2:0,9 .0,2:
:Netherlands • :933:3,1:17,6*:4,5:
:UnitedKingdom :1.891 16,4V75,7:19,4:
:Community ' »29.744:100,0.:390,1• •
:100,0 :
ItalywasexemptedfromtheschemebyDecision77/433/EECof15June1977

Thepremium system continues toreceive thegreatest response inthe '
Federal Republic ofGermany ,although itspercentage ofthetotal humber
ofcows withdrawn hasdropped from about half toone third .The reason
forthesubstantially higher percentage ofapplicants intheFederal
1Republic istobefound inthestructure ofdairy farming ,the sector
still being dominated bysmall herds .
.3.Asregards seasonal differences inthesubmission ofapplications ,there
was amarked decline inthe second half oftheyear .Agood 60% of
theapplications were approved inthe first half oftheyear ,as
»
compared with only 13.5% during the last quarter .Thedrop can be
-attributed mainly toapplicants intheFederal Republic ofGermany and
theUnited Kingdom . '
Table 2:Number ofapplications approved byMember States ineach month
of1979
Month :Β ::DK : D :F :IRL :L :NL :UK
"Community
:I :126 ::51• •
:1.053 ; :52 5:41 :147• •
:1.475 :
11 :'55 ;:52 :.1.440 : "m :46 : 8:37 :116 :1.754 ;
:III :33 ;:,53 :2.396 ; .• :32 :13 :91 :140 :2.753 :
:IV :19 ::55 :2.934' :
'w• .-:16*: 15 :167 :-168 :3.374 :
:V .:100 ::56 :2.117 :■ :54 î 6:188 :324 2.845 :
:VI :59 ::60 :1.942 : :17 :2i57 :226 :2.363 :
:VII :37 ::61 :1.125 ί : 3: 3:80 :213 :1.522 :
:VIII :29 ::62 :1.176 : :36 : 3 :71 :231:1.608 :
:IX :24 :62 : 958 : :84 : 1:43":96î1.268 :
:X :19 :65 : 740 :.m :19 : 4 :58 :79 : 984 :
:XI :10 :66 Ï 832 Î■ :78 : 3 :66 î81 :1.136 :
:XII :27 :66 : 862 : :44 : 2.:34 :70 :1.105 :
XExcluding France

"4m
4.Under Article 4ofRegulation (EEC)No1078 /77thenon-marketing
premium istobecalculated onthebasis ofthfrquantity ofmilk or
itsequivalent inmilk products delivered bytheproducer during the
twelve calendar months preceding themonth ofapplication ,provided
that hestill hasanumber ofdairy cows corresponding tothis
quantity ofmilk onthedayonwhich hisapplication isapproved .The
total eligible quantity ofmilk covered byapplications approved in
1979 was1.35 miotonnes ,equivalent to1.5% ofthemilk delivered to
dairies during theprevious year .
Asexpected ,theaverage quantity ofmilk perapplicant was *highest in
theUnited Kingdom andlowest intheFederal Republic ofGermany .By
reason ofthedifferentiated rate ofthepremium fornon-marketing ,
theaverage premium paid wasthus highest intheFederal Republic of
Germany and lowest intheUnited Kingdom .
Theamounts ofaidpayable in1979 areshown inthefollowing table .
Table 3:Amounts ofaidforthenon-marketing and "conversion premium in
1979
J
Quantity ofmilk: Non-marketing v Conversion :
/ "
kg EU*/100kg :
»
UPto 30.000 : 24,179• •
:V 21,156 x> :30.001 -50.000 : 21,761
50.001 -120.000 '
«: 16,320 ■J
120.000 : 13,298 : 13,298 :
χ)but not less than under therules onnon-marketing

Table 4:Quantity ofmilk inrespect ofwhich apremium wasapplied for in
1979 aswell asaverage quantity perapplicant
"• •»
• -
Quantity ofmilkQuantity per
« •applicant
Member Statedetermined
:Non-marketing :Conversion
: t: kg
Belgium : 28.359• •
:49.108 : 77.617
Denmark: 191,651 : 81.420 -, : 123.882
Germany , : 447.517 :24.256 :-105.711 -,
France ■, . : 251.051 : 37.892 ': 75.488 -
Ireland: 37.651 :65.916 : 108.385 _
Luxembourg : 3.243 :44.602 :130.500
Netherlands ■,: 79.121 :83.344 : 125.875
UnitedKingdom : 310.931 :159.199 :185.560
Community 5 1.349.524 •41.640 • 110.750
5.Asregards thetype ofpremium ,in1979 there was afurther shift in
.favour ofnon-marketing .Only 13%ofcows Withdrawn from milk
production were registered forconversion .Thepercentage islikely
tobesomewhat higher inreality ,however ,because anumber of
applicants converted tobeef production butbecause ofthegreater
flexibility under thenon-marketing rules preferred toaccept the
lower rate ofaid .
- *
Thepercentage participation intheconversion scheme waspredictably
higher intheMember States with single-purpose beef herds .

Table 5:Percentage ofcows registered forthenon-marketing premium and
theconversion premium respectively in1979
: Member StateNon-marketing Conversion
%
:Belgium : 80,0
v20,0 :
:Denmark : 98,1 * 1,9 :
:Germany : 95,0 5,0 :
:France : 78,7«21,3 :
:Ireland : 62,1 •• 37,9 :
:Luxembourg : 88,9 11/1 :
:Netherlands : 94,9 5,1 •:
:United Kingdom 78,0 «• 22,0 - :
:Community : 87,1 12,9 :
Non-marketing
6.Asalready indicated ,thenon-marketing Scheme hasmet with afar
greater response than theconversion scheme .InDenmark ,the Federal
Republic ofGermany ,Luxembourg and theNetherlands ,conversion is
virtually unknown .Byreason ofthediffering sizes ofherds kept by
applicants ,thecows withdrawn from milk production inGermany ,fpr
instance ,account for about two-fifths oftheCommunity total ,whereas
successful applications from German farmers account for agood three -
fifths .The ratio isthe reverse intheUnited Kingdom ,where the
proportion ofcows withdrawn from production isatleast three times
theproportion ofapproved applications .

-7-
Table6:Numberofapplicants andcowskept,togetherwiththeaverage
herdpersuccessfulapplicantforthenon-marketing premiumin
theperiodfrom1Januaryto31December1979:
"Applicants 'Cowskept
MemberState : :–■––Cows-per
^■' tu applicant:Number;%.:x1000:%•:
:Belgium :470:1,7:7,2:2,1:15,4
:DenmarkV- .i2.328:8,3:46,5:13,7:20,0
:Germany :17.304:61,5:132,7:39,0s7,7
:France :5.217:18,5:69,2:20,4:.13,3
:Ireland •341S1,2f7,7:2,3:22,6
:Luxembourg - :61:0,2:0,8:0,2:12,9
Netherlands :901:3,2:16,7:4,9:18,5
:UnitedKingdom :1.516:5,4:59,1:17,4:39,0
Community/.. :28.138:100,0:339,9'•.100,0-12,1
Conversion ; •
7.Theconversion schemewasappliedprimarilyinFranceandtheUnited"■
Kingdom,whereagood70/1ofallconversions wereregistered.The
averageherdsizesarefarmoreuniformthanunderthenon-marketing
premiumsystem:theyarealmostthesameinfourMemberStates.
ν-·-
■ '
- i■ *•" * '

-8-
ISbieJV Number ofapplicants andcowskept,together withtheaverage
herdpersuccessful applicant fortheconversion pre.iu »inthe
period from 1January to31December 1979
:Applicants : Cows kept :
Member State VrVIVfd JJCI
»:Number :% ::χ1000 ϊ% :applicant
Belgium
*• •
68 .
* «4,2 : 1,8 .3,6 ; 26,5
Denmark :: 17 .1,1::0,5 :1,0; 27,6 -
Germany .263 ,16,4 . 6,9 .13,7 ; 26,2
France , .707 .
« 444,0 ;:18,7 ;37,3 ; 26,4
Ireland:140 ;8,7 , 4,7 ; 9,4 : 33,3
Luxembourg: 4 :0,2 :0,1:0,2 : 33,3
Netherlands: 32 :2,0 ::0,9 : 1;8 : 27,2
United Kingdom 375 ;:23,4 ::16,6:33,0 : 44,3
Community• «
':Ί.606 ::100,0 :50,2 :100,0 ,: 31,3
"GeneraL survey oftheperiod from 1July1977to31'December 1979
8.Atotal of85700applications hadbeenapproved uptotheendof
December 1979 .Onthatbasis itcanbecalculated thatduring
theperiod ofapplication oftherules (July1977toDecember
1979)4.4%ofdairy farmers havegiven upthisbranch of
production andwithdrawn 1030000dairy cows,or4.10% oftotal
numbers ,fromproduction .Thepercentage offarms which have
given updairy production ,according tointerim results ,hasbeen
highest intheFederal Republic ofGermany ^Denmark andLuxembourg
with9%andlowest inIreland with0.7% .Asregards numbers of .
cowswithdrawn ,theFederal Republic ofGermany andDenmark are
weIIinthe lead . *

-9-
Table 8:Number ofapplicants andcowskept,andthepercentages ofthe
total herd -covered byapplications approved during the.period
from 1July 1977 to31December 1979 .
ir-.''.■■ ,.
• Member State: ...Applicant : Cows kept
:Number ::% :χ1000 :.% .
. Belgium :1.976■• J
:3,0 " : 27,5 :2,8
i Denmark:5.151 :9,2 : 90,6 :8,2
. Germany . :53.650 :10,3 :452,9 :8,4
France /;15.146 :2,6 :241,9 :3,2
. Ireland: 860 :0,7 :21,1t '1,4
. Luxembourg' : 327 i»'8'8 : 3,9 :5,7
.*Netherlands:2.797 3,4 : 48,3 :.2,1
., United Kingdom : :4.800 :6,7 :142,5 4,3
. Community :84.707 ::-4,4• •
:1.028,7 :4,1
9.Thequantity ofmilkmarketed byapplicants 'during thereference
i P6riod amounted tobarely 4.3%ofthequantity delivered todairies in
1978 .Thispercentage ishighest intheFederal Republic ofGermany ,
with 7.4% andlowest inIreland :1.4% . . '
Withregard tothetotal quantity ,itshould beborne inmindthatfor
applications approved before 22May1978thequantity wasrestricted
to120000 kg. - \

-10-
Table 9:Quantity ofmilk inrespect ofwhich apremium wasapproved .
.during theperiod from 1July 1977 to31December 1979 and the
percentages ofdeliveries todairies in1978
:Member State: Quant ityofmiIk :
• «
intonnes
• « :
.Belgium : 74.424 : 2,5 :
Denmark: 371.615 : 7,3 :
.Germany : 1.585.060 : 7,4 :
.France: 710.134 ; 3,1 :
.Ireland: 62.063 ; 14 .i,«» .
.Luxembourg : 13.036 ' : 5,3 •:
'Netherlands . 205.194 :: 1,9 .:
;United kingdom : 555.386 3,5 :
|Community : 3.576.912 : 4,3 :
/'
10.There hasbeen nosubstantial change since the last report in
applications forthenon-marketing premium over theentire period of
application .Thegreatest percentage isstill tobefound inthe
Federal Republic ofGermany .Onthebasis ofthetotal herd ,Danish
farmers have kept upwith their German counterparts .
4-

.-11-( t
-.■■ i
'-- . ί
Table10:NumberofaDDlicants andcows.keDt,arrdtheaveraaeherdsizeDer
successfulaoolicantforthenon-marketinaoremiumdurinathe
periodfrom1July1977to31December1979 '
« • «
Applicants Cowskept. -
MemberState " * .Cowsper•
::%.:x1000:.%:applicant .
':Belgiurn :1.734:^2,2:20,7:2,4:11,9
:Denmark :5.085:6,5:89,0;:10,4:17,5
:Germany V52.147:65,5:417,0!:48,9:8,0
:France :12.124:15,5:164,5 ::19,3 :13,6
:Ireland:.601:0,8:12,7::1,5:21,1
:Luxembourg :316:0,4:3,6::0,4::.11,4
:Netherlands:2.682:3,4:45,3:!-5,3•':12,3
7.:UnitedKingdom :3.556 4,6:100,2 !:'11,8 ::28,2
:Coitimunity' :78.245:100,0 ?853,0 ;:100,0J:10,8
»11.Inthecaseoftheconversion premiumFrenchdairyfarmerscontinueto
showmoreinterestthanthoseinotherMemberStates.InDenmark,./
Luxemboura andtheNetherlands therearestillonlyafewmoreorless
isolatedcases,whichtoaetheraccountforonly3%ofapplications and
2.8%ofcows.

Table 11:Number ofapplicants and cows kept andaverage herd per suc –
cessful applicant for the conversion premium during theperiod
from 1July 1977 to31December 1979
:Applicants
*-: Cows kept :
Cows per
Member State
:Number :% 'V
:χ1000 :I
% :applicant
:Belgium« •
: 242 3,7 : 6,8 ;' - •
î3,9 :28,1 :
:Dehmark : 66 :1,0:1,6::0,9 : 24,2 :
'Germany:1.503 :23,3 :35,9 ::20,4 : 23,9 :
•France :3.022 :46,8 :77,4 ::44,1 : 25,6 :
Ireland : 259 :4,0 :8,4 :4,8 : 32,4 :
:Luxembourg :11:0,2 :0,3 : ■0,2 : 30,3 ^
:Netherlands : 115 : 1,8 3,0 : 1,7 :26,1 :
United Kingdom :1.244 :19,2 :42,3 :24,0 : 34,0 ,:
:Community :6.462 :100,0 :175,7 ::100,0 : 27,2 :
Profile ofapplicants
12.Themajority ofapplicants are,predictably ,farmers with fairly small
herds .Where larger herds areconcerned ,applications areasarule
fortheconversion premium . *

-13-
Table 12:Total number ofapplicants and cows kept byherd size and
percentage ofthetotal herd ineach si2e category for the
applications approved intheCommunity (excluding France and
Italy )-during theperiod from July 1977 toDecember 1979
: . : Total applicants : Total cows kept
Cows per farmer
, •Number : % :χ1.000 : % :
'«
1-2 : 8.164 ;: 6,2 :14,2 * : 7,1 :
3-4 :11.914: 10,9 : 41,5 :10,9 '
5-9 :21.110 ::•10,3 :143,2 :10,2 :
10-14 :11.629: 7,9 :136,1 : 7,9 :
15-19 : 6.656 : ;7,2 .:111,1 : 7,2 :
20-29 . : 5.996: 5,6 :142,1 : 5,6 :
30-39 :2^047: 4,0 . :68,3 : 3,9 :
40-49 ; 854l 2'9 : 37,3 : 3,0 :
^50 • :1.210 :: 2,5 : 94,1 , i 2,4 :
Tota l69.580 n: 7'5 :787,9 s 5,4 :
III .Progress sofar and reasons forparticipation /non-participation in -
thepremium system "
(a)Main centres •
13.Most applications forpremiums in1979 were again submitted ,
inthose regions oftheCommunity ,inwhich theutilized
agricultural area canbeused forother purposes .T^iey are
listed inAnnex IIofthe second report anddonottherefore
need toberepeated .
' ■' ■
(b)Change oftype ofpremium ~
14.Regulation <EEC )No1799 /79laid down additional rules for
theapplication ofthesystem (Regulation (EEC)No1391 /78)
whereby uptotheendofthethird year oftheconversion '
period arecipient canchange tothenon-marketing premium ,■
theamounts ofpremiums andthenon-marketing period toeing
adjusted accordingly .
- * • .
» J

-14-
Todate25applicants havetakenadvantageofthisfacility.As
arule,however,therecipientcontinuesbeeffarming;heis
onlyexemptedfromtheobligation tokeepaspecificnumberof
livestockunits-Mostapplications weresubmittedintheUnited
Kingdom(22). - ,
/
(c)Transferoffarms
•*
15.UnderArticle2(2)(b)anapplicant must-undertakenottoallow
hisholdingoranypartthereoftobeusedbyothersfordairy
farminguntiltheendofthenon-marketing period(5years).In
-v 'ordertosimplifyandfacilitate checkswhereonlypartofthe
farmistransferred,Article9(5)ofCommission Regulation (EEC)
No1391/78providesthatthisobligationisconsidered asbeing
fulfilledifthetransferee doesnotkeepmorethanthenumberof
dairycowshehadonthedayofthetransfer.Uptotheendof
1978suchtransfers hadoccurredonlyinDenmarkinabout25
.cases.Lastyearmostcases(about80)wereagainrecordedin
^Denmark.IntheotherMemberStatestherewasatotalofaround
30applications .
(d)Methodofpayment
C16.Inanefforttofacilitate conversionforfarmerswishingtogive
updairyfarming,theCouncilhadprovidedthat50%ofthenon-
marketing premiumand60%oftheconversion premiumwouldbepaid
inthefirstthreemonthsofnon-marketing .Thetaxregulations
4of^)1e'MemberStatesmeantthataconsiderable partofthe
premiumtherefore wentintaxes,reducingfarmers'interest.
-Applicants werethereforeallowedtochoosetoreceivetheir
premiumin5or4equalannualinstalments .About3000farmers
(5.5%)hadchosenthismethoduptotheendof1978.Mostof
theseapplications camefromDenmark,theUnitedKingdomandthe
Netherlands .In1979about1500suchapplications were
submitted.Againmostofthemcamefromtheabovementioned
MemberStates.

(e)Reasons forgiving updairy farming
17.The reasons forceasing dairy farming were onthewhole the $ame
asinprevious years .Themost common reasons given were the -
following :
-availability ofalternative forms offarming ,especially
where the farmer 'swife wasoverworked -particularly in ~
spare-time farming ;
- -specialization inasingle branch ofproduction ;
-technical problems connected with milk production ;
-excessively high wage costs formilkers onlarge farms and
difficulty infinding relief staff forweekends ;
-succession problems -thenon-marketing period offive years
wassometimes seen asa^transitional period ,i.e. until the
successor hadgrown up; '
.-dairies have changed their system ofmilk collection
from churns totankers ;this method requires the producer
tobuild arefrigeration plant formilk ;smaller producers
donotfind this economical andtherefore give upmilk
' *
production ; -
-inorder tocutcosts ,dairies have stopped collecting small
amounts ofmilk daily ,forcing farmers toinstal refriger­
ation plants ; .. . .,
-for small farms ,thepremium wasusually anadded incentive
tocease farming ;
-lowmiIkyields ; '
-theapplicant 'shealth andage; •
-increased occurrence ofdiseases such astuberculosis ,
brucellosis orleucosis ; ,
-arestrictive policy ontheprices ofmilk generally led
large farms togive updairy production ;the introduction
oftheco-responsibility levy formilk was afurther
- argument putforward bythis class ; - 7
« -falling demand forfarm gate sales ;
-thegranting ofapremium wasthefinal inducement togive
upafarm ;
-lack ofcapital forinvestment inexpansion ofdairy
farming ^
loss ofconfidence in"thefuture ofdairy farming .

Reasons for thepoor response
18.Nor isthere much change inthereasons for thepoor response .
Mention should bemade inparticular ofthefollowing :
-low feedingstuf fprices and the high profitability ofmilk
production relative tothis factor continued todevelop in
favour ofnmk production in1979 ;
-the lack ofalternatives ,particularly instockrearing
areas ,asArticle 2(2 )(b)ofRegulation (EEC )No1078 /79
obliges the farmer toundertake inwriting that during the
non-marketing period hewill notallow hisholding orany
part thereof tobeused byothers fordairy farming .
Itisdifficult toletorsell grassland ifdairy farming is
forbidden ; . ...
/ »fc
-excessive loss ofvalue when breeding animals have tobe
sold for slaughter ;
>-theuncertain situation onthemarket inbeef asseen by
those considering conversion from dairy farming ;
-thegeneral recession which deters part-time farmers in
particular from applying forthepremium ,asnoother job
openings are ,avai làble ;
-thepremium for small farms with fewer than 10-cows is
.considered too low;the increase ofupto21.4% from 22May
•^ 1978 has sofar had little effect ; "
-theRegulation isadministratively toocomplicated andtoo -
restrictive ;
inflation reduces the Vfclue ofthepremium over aperiod of
four .tofive years ; .
-thenon-marketing period istoo long ;
-conversion topigorpoultry farming gives rise toenviron­
mental poblems .
The competent authorities consider the response normal inBelgium
and Ireland .

17-
(g)"Estimatedfurtherapplications upto31March1980
19.Thefutureoftheschemecanbe'seenasfollows:
,aa)Shortterm .
Inthefirstquarterof1980onecanexpecta'seriesof
"applications fromfarmerswhoarewillingto.stopmilk
production butwhoarestillusingupwinterfodder;about
75000to85000cowscanbeexpectedtobewithdrawn from
production .-Theoriginaltargetof1.3millioncowswill
thusnotquitebereached. ■*
bb)Médiumterm
> Afurtherrestrictive pricepolicyinthemilksectorcould
"leadtoadditional interest.
Conclusions *
–ii■■■■■■■ ' ■■
Participation intheschemeiss-tillbelowexpectations .Deliveries of
milktodairiesincrieasedbyabout7.5%in1978and1979.Ontheother
hand,applications approvedsofaraccountforonly4.3%ofallmilk
delivered .todairies,.i.e.agoodhalfoftheannualincreaseinrecent
yearsisoffset.TheCommission hasthereforeproposedthat-themeasurebe
extendedbeyond31March1980..TheCommissionisoftheopinionthatif
theschemeisextendeduntiltheendofthe1980/81marketingyearthe
originaltargetcouldevenbeexceeded. r

-18-
ANNEX I
ν
Breakdown byMember State ofapplicants forthetwopremiums
Table 1:Non-marketing premium forthewhole Community .
Table 2:Conversion premium forthewhole Community . **>'
Table 3:Breakdown ofapplicants inBelgium .
Table 4:Breakdown ofapplicants inGermany .
Table 5:Breakdown ofapplicants inLuxembourg .
Table 6:Breakdown ofapplicants inUnited Kingdom .
Table 7:Breakdown ofapplicants inDenmark .
Table 8:Breakdown ofapplicants inNetherlands .
Table 9:Breakdown ofapplicants inIreland .

Table 1:Number ofapplicants andcows classified bysize ofherd covered
byapplications forthenon-marketing premium approved between
July 1977 and December 1979
s ' - ; - ^
(excluding FRANCE )
Applicants * Cows
Cows per ,
producer <
i:Number : % :χ1.000 : % '
1-2 :8.161 .: 12,4•~ •
: 14,2 : 2,1
/3-4 :11.910 : 18,0 : .41,5 : 6,0
5-9 :21.100 : ;31,9 :^143,2 : 20,8
.10-14 :11.470 17,4 :134,0 : 19,4
15-19 : 5.756 : .8,7 : 95,9 : 13,9
20-29 : 4.708 ■.:7,1 :110,8 :,16,1
30-39 . î 1.470 : 2,2 : 49,2 : 7,1
40-49 : 622 :^0,9 : 27,2 i 3,9
>50 : 925 : 1,4 : 73,5 ::10,7
:Total : .66.122 :100,0 :689,5 :100,0

20-
Table 2:Numbep ofapplicants andcows classified bysize ofherd covered
byapplications fortheconversion premium approved between
July 1977 andDecember 1979
(without FRANCE )
Cows per
producerApplicants
VCows :
:Number ; % ::χ1.000 : % :
1-2• •
: 3 :0,1 : 0• •
: 0 :
3-4 ■■'> : 4 :0,1 : 0 • 0 :
5-9 :10 : 0,3 :0,1 : 0 :
10-14 : 158 : 4,6 :2,1 :2,1 :
15-19 : 900 : 26,0 : 15,2 15,5 :
20-29 :1.296 : 37,4 : ,31,3 : 31,8 :
30-39 : 576 :16,6 : 19,1 19,4 :
40-49 : 232 : 6,7 10,1 : 10,3 :
?50: 285 : 8,2 20,5 : 20,9 :
Total :3.464 :100,0 98,4• •
:100,0 :

Table 3:Number ofapplicants andcowsclassified bysizeofherdandproportion ofthetotal number ofapplications
approved inJuly 1977 -December 1979 •
BELGIUM
* i: Non-marketing : Conversion } ■ Total
4 ■ ■ -V
v
Number ofcows
; ner nrnriurpr• «
• •
Number of .Number of .Number of .Number ofApplications ' Cows „ 5
• .
Vr* –
.Appli - .
cationsCows i.Appli - •.
cationsCows Number .
*
I. . • s%1}» •
;Number ;%1)
: 1-2 : 133 ;i
239' ; 133 . 1/8* . 232 . ,2,3• *
: 3-4 •• 222
* 4*» «784 ,: 222. 5,0 , \ .784 . 5,0
: 5-9 : 538 ,;3731 : • •• 538 -: 4,7
• t . i: 3731 .
• .4,6
«
:1014V :''342 ; 3964 :■ 6 ■ 76 ; ,384 : ^3,0 : *040 / 2'9
:15-19 : 200 : 3281; 58 : 984 ; 258 3'1 :: 4265 .
♦3'1 *
v
: 20-29 : 202 : 4719 : 85 :2010:287; 2,8 . ;: 6729. 2,8
:30
\-39 ;v : 62 : 2137 ;: .58 ; 1942 :120i 2,5 .: 4079 . 2,6.-'î
:40-49 :22: 975 :22: 963 '; 44 .; 2,0 .: 1938 . 2/1t
;2-50'' 13 : 819 : 13 : 874 ; 26 : ν1/6 .: 1693 ;V
• –––
: Total ' :•1734 :20.r
676 .:
\242 : 6849 : 1976 ; 3,2 ;:27,525 2,8"6
£
1)%<Jfalldairy farms inMay1978
2)%ofalldairy cows lcepinMay1978

Table 4:Number ofapplicants andcows ,classified bysize ofherd andproportion ofthetotal number ofapplications
approved inJuly 1977 -December 1979 %
GERMANY
V * : Non-marketing : Conversion*Total
Number ofcows«
.Numher of:Number of
CowsNumber of
Appli­
cations» .. •
» *
Niimhor n# ._Applications«Cows "*
per producer
;Appli­
cations: Cows •«
Number :%1}* ' •
:Number :%Ό
: 1-2. •7903 .13773 ,► • «
-•«
7903 . 10,7 13
• -™ ;12,0*
: 3-4. 11238 .39109 ,► « 11238 .
»14,1 :39109 .13,9
«
: 5-9.18039
«.121 319 ,. . 5 , 20 .18044 .
»12,2,121339/12,0
:10-14 : 8323 :96728 ,. 98 . 1306 . 8421 .
••9,0 .98
• .034 .
<•9,0J»
: 15-19. 3523 .58
.♦577 ,. 505 /,
». ': 8583 .
• ■4028 . 7,6 .67160.
•.7,6
: 20-29 : 2267. 52584 ,: 613 :14620 .
-*2880 . 6,0 .67
*204 . 6,0
: 30-39 s.. 544 :17997 ,.201
t 1, 6661. 745 .- 4,9 ;24658 . 4,9
•• .
: 40-49 : 175 7577 :: 61 ,. 2601
♦236 . 4,7.10
•-178 .
• .4,7
!>50.144 10408 , 32
i 1. 2074 . 176 . 4,7.12482 . 6,2
-•
: Total52156 .418 072 .. 1515 .:35865 .53671 y 10,3 .453 937 . 8,4
1)%ofalldairy farms inDecember 1977
2)%ofalldairy cows kepinDecember 1977

-23-
Table 5:Number ofapplicants andcows classified bysize ofherd andproportion ofthetotal number ofapplications
approved inJuly 1977 -December 1979
LUXEMBOURG
: Non-marketing : Conversion î Total
/
Number ofcows
* perproducer.Number of» «
.Number of»
» »
.Number of .■Number ofApplications : Cows
.Appli- Cowsk <
.Appli- Cows Number .%1}• •
Number .%Ό gcations cations
: 1-215• & ;» *
» 1•
% •15 5,1 29 .
• •6,4
: 3-4• 37 136 37 13,0 136
• •13,6
/
: 5-9. 117 .Ï83» •
» •117 ,19,5 . 783
• •19,1*
: 10-14 : 56 :657: 1.11
» •57 .10,4 : 668 :10,2
*
: 15-19. 44: 741 ;: 1 ' : 16 :45 . 9,7 757 •..
• •9,7
: 20-2934: 827 :: 2 : 52 ;36 . 4,2 . 879
• •4,4
: 30-39 :10 : 3483: 92 : 13 : 2,9 440
* •2,9
: 40-49 : 2 : 83 :2 .0,1 83 ; 1'3 4
è
S 50 ; 150: 2105
• •
■ – – –––– •.3
___ . •0,3 . 155 .
« •
mm ,mm^ •Ma2,4
: Total: 314 :3571 : 11• •
359
• •325 8,7 .3930
• •5,S
«
1)%ofalldairy farms inDecember 1977
2)%ofalldairy cows kepinDecember 1977

-24-
Table 6:Number ofapplicants andcows classified bysize ofherd andproportion ofthetotal number ofapplications
approved inJuly 1977 -December 1979
UNITED KINGDOM
0 : Non-marketing : Conversion : Total«
:Number ofcows
: perproducer ,
S• «
• «
Number of Number of Number of Number ofApplications : Cows%
- _». . m
Appli­
:cations :Cows Appli­
'cations> ♦
Cows
■ •Number
i%1}Number
• •
» *%1} :
: 1-2 : 36 :
"»: 65 :\ –i ;» •
■* * 36 ::0,7 65 :1,1 =
: 3-4 :r-134 : 489 ; « * 134 :6,7 î 489 :6,1 :
: 5-9 : 627 : 4451 :: 2 : 18: 629 ::12,6 : 4469 *•13,5 =
: 10-14 : 627 : 7420 : 36 : 459 : 663 :13,3 : 7879 :12,3 •
: 15-19 515 : 8573 : 245 ::4139 : 760 :15,2 : 12712 :15,5 •
: 20-29 : 558 ::13542 : 405 ::10101: 963 :9,6 : 23643 :10,1 :
: 30-39 : 327 ::10993 : 249 :8225 .: 576 :7'2 ' 19218 :6,7 ■
: 40-49 215 : 9436 :'116 : 5088 : 331 :4,1 :: 14524 •*4,4 :
•––^–50 ; 520 ::45276 ; 191 ::14231 : 711 :2,8 59507 :2,6 =
: Total :3559 ::100 245 ::1244 :42261 4803 :6,6« •
:142 506 :4,3 :
1)%ofalldairy farms inDecember 1977
2)%ofalldairy cows kepinDecember 1977

^ble7:Numberofapplicantsandcowsclassifiedbysizeofherdandproportion .ofthetotalnumberofapplications
approvedinJuly1977*•December1979 '
DENMARK
Nuinberofcows
perproducerNon-marketing
Numberof
Appli­
cationsNumberof
CowsConversion
Numberof;Numberof
ADDII- CowsTotal
Appli­
cationsApplications
Number.«1)Cows
Number 1)
\Λ
1-2
3-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
^50
Total22
183
1157
1*374
838
935
,331
129
15939
495
8459
16206
14033
22239
11084
5664
10816
5078■-890351
7
11
35
5
3
4
66-7
85
190•
802
170
121'
,234
160922
133
1158
1381
849
970
336
132
163
51440/5
5.2
13.1
13.2
11,1
9.3
5,8
4'3
,5,8
9,239
495
8466
16291
14223
23041
11254
5785
11050
906440,6
5,5
13,3
13,1
11/0.
9,3
5,7,
■4,3
5,8
)'
8,2
1)%ofalldairyfarmsinDecember1977
2)%ofalldairycowskepinDecember1977

Table8:Numberofapplicantsandcowsclassifiedbysizeofherdandproportionofthetotalnumberofapplications
approvedinJuly1977-December1979
NETHERLANDS
• v :Non-marketing :Conversion :
. . ^––*,Total
«'«
*♦ ,• -»
« • •Applications :'Cows*
NumberofcowsNumberofNumberofNumberofNumberof
:perproducer '• - •
NumberV*«Number
• ,. * .Appli- Cows.Appli- Cows
• «
*cations cations
• ______ •.π* IV »
:4578• •
45'0,8 780,9
: 1-i•» • • « •\ * •••
:3-4 :127"460:1.2.
• •128;5/2462
• •• «3'1
:5-9.476.3353 •·' *
• ·476.6,0
«».3353.
* *3,2.....
:10-14 :632.7614 7 86.
• ■*,639.7,4.7700..
• •5,2.
:15-19540.9074:■■23-.387.
m •563.6,5
φ.94612,5.
«
20-29.616.14614:59.1446.
m •675.4,3
*.16060;
« •4,2.
30-39.153:5181:17:572;170.1,5
• 1ν.5753.
♦ •1,7
:40-49.50:2181„.4 174.
»' *x54'.0,7:2355:0,5.
:.7/50:42:2149.265.
• m
m____________ «.46:°'4.3014.
•* •0,4
:•Total ;268145304:115:29322796:3'5.48236 ■.2'2:
1)%ofalldairyfarmsmDecember1977
2)%ofalldairycowskepinDecember1977

fable9:Numberofapplicantsandcowsclassifiedbysizeofherdandproportionofthetotalnumberofapplications
approvedinJuly1977-December1979 '
IRELAND
Non-marketing Conversion Total
Numberofcows
perproducer
1-2
3-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
>50
Total*"■
•- /. ••i«•»«»m•«
'j•tfmm»»a» -–. *
••-Applications :Cows
NumberofNumberofNumberof•Number'of
.•a»«M«w–a–•»•■
• •
.Appli-'.CowsAppli- Cows Number:%1}:»Number%υ
*cations cations '•"i
"«,•––––– «
7.12.7.0 .
• »12.0
*■ •
.19 . .64...'/
19.0,1'.
•1 •640,1
146 .106812 14.148;.0,7
• •*.10820/7,
116.1397.3:40.119.0,8 .
•. •î437.0,8
.96.1601.57 932.153.1,7 .2533.'1'7
96 2259 96i2311 192:1'6:4570.1/6
.43.1440.43.1458.,
.»-86 1'41/^
• ♦2898<:1/5i,
'■■■31 ••1381.24.1057.
*55:1,8:c.2438.1/7
:46 ;:3431.39:2740y85.2,1.
<• •6171.2/1
«Β·»«Κ0· :-
:600 ;:12353;264.8552,.864.0,7.
•i *20905.:1/4
1)%ofalldairyfarmsinDecember1977 ;
2)%ofalldairycowskepinDecember1977