REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL ON THE APPLICATION OF THE EARLY MARKETING AND THE CALF PROCESSING PREMIUM SCHEMES IN THE BEEF SECTOR
Date: 1997-04-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agricultural guidance, beef, marketing, slaughter of animals, veal

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels,  18.04.1997 
COM (97) 165  final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE  COUNCIL 

ON THE APPLICATION OF THE EARLY MARKETING AND THE CALF 
PROCESSING PREMIUM  SCHEMES 
IN THE BEEF SECTOR 

I. 

INTRODUCTION 

Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 states in  Article 4i, inter alia, that Member 
States must apply at least one of the  following  two premium schemes during the 
period 1 December 1996 to 30 November 1998: 

-  Early marketing premium for calves, 

-  Processing premium for young male calves. 

Furthermore, the same Article provides that after six months i.e. after  1 June 1997 
the Commission shaii verify  whether the two schemes have achieved  satisfactory 
results-  At the March meeting of the Agricultural Council it was agreed, however, 
that the Commission should present its report on this subject in April  1997.  This 
report fulfils  that obligation. 

II. 

A. 

EARLY MARKETING PREMIUM 

Aim 

The early marketing premium was and is intended to reduce  red meat production 
in 1998 and  1999 by encouraging veal producers to increase the number of calves 
used for veal production in 1997 and 1998. 

B. 

Legislation 

The premium was agreed by the Council through  Regulation (EC) No 2222/96 of 
18 November 1996. 

Due to the very short time scale available to prepare the implementing rules, the 
Commission  Regulation  on  this  subject  was not  published  until  3rd  December 
1996 (Reg. (EC) No 2311/96), although the scheme was already applicable  from 
1st December.  For various reasons a number of modifications  have subsequently 
been adopted (Regulation (EC) No  18/97, (EC) No 200/97, (EC) No 280/97 and 
(EC) No 616/97). 

The  accelerated  implementation  and  subsequent  modifications  together  with 
delayed  decisions from Member  States as to which premium  to  apply  and  the 
related  introduction  of  their  national  administration  systems  resulted  in  various 
degrees of  application in the first two months (Dec-Jan).  This  may have led veal 
producers  to  adopt  a  wait-and-see  approach  especially  in  the  context  of  a 
generally weak veal market across the Community. 

Eventually,  the early  marketing  scheme was implemented  in all  Member  States 
except Ireland, the United Kingdom and Portugal. 

C. 

Weight  limits 

In accordance  with the  Council  Regulation  the maximum  weights  were  fixed  per 
Member  State on the basis of EUROSTAT-statistics  for  1995 or any other  official 
and  published  figures  accepted  by  the  Commission.  Germany,  Denmark  and 
Luxembourg had their reference weight adjusted  as  a  result  of  applying  such 
alternative statistics (see Annex I). 

Nevertheless,  both  Denmark  and  Italy  have  repeatedly  argued  that  the  reference 
actual  veal  production  in  these  two  countries. 
weight  is  too  low  to  reflect 
Although,  alternative  official  statistics  to prove their  claims have  not  so  far  been 
provided. 

Furthermore, some Member States,  in particular France, have complained that the 
application  of a national  weight  limit  leads  to  a distorted  market  situation.  They 
argue  that  their  producers,  who  before  1997  used  to  slaughter  calves  for  a 
traditional veal market with carcase weights of  125-140 kgs, are now being  forced 
to  decide  between 
two  options;  either  to  continue  production  of  such  carcases 
without  the  premium  (in  possible  competition  with  imported  veal  which  has 
benefited  from 
the  premium)  or  to  produce  15  %  lighter  carcases  with  the 
premium  but  for  which  there  is not  an  immediate  market  K  For  slaughterings 
from  20 January onwards an increased amount of premium was made available in 
order to  alleviate  the  special  and transitional  problems  related  to the  light  weight 
carcases. 

D. 

Statistical  information 

the 
Under  the  implementing  rules  Member  States  are  required  to  notify 
Commission  on a weekly  basis  of the number  of  animals  in the  preceding  week 
which  were  subject  to  an application for  premium.  In addition,  such  information 
should  be  broken-down  according  to  weight  groups  in  order  to  calculate  the 
number  of  calves  which  are  slaughtered  well  below  the  maximum  weight  , 
thereby  enabling  an estimate to be made of the number  of animals which  receive 
the premium  "freely". 

Unfortunately,  only  a  couple  of  Member  States  have  been  correctly  notifying 
such  weekly  information.  Some countries  are still  (end  of March)  in the  process 
of revising  figures  from  December and January  and others have responded  with a 
delay  of  up  to  6  weeks.  Annex  II,  which  shows  the  total  number  of  premium 
applications  recieved  so  far  should  therefore  be  looked  upon  against  this 
background  of 
incomplete  information.  A  total  of  300,000  applications  for 
premium  have been received  from  the beginning  of December  1996 to the end  of 
March  1997 of which 6 Member States account for 94 % of the Community total : 
the Netherlands  35 %, France  21 %, Italy  12 %, Austria  11 %, Germany  8 % 
and Belgium  8 %.  By comparing these applications with the total number of veal 
calves  slaughtered  in the  same  period  (based  on  actual  statistics  where  available 

1  A French  memorandum  on this subject was  distributed to the Council  in March. 

3 

or  1996  EUROSTAT  statistics  for  the  corresponding  months)  it  appears  that  in 
the  Netherlands  premium  applications  cover  26  % of  the  total  number  of  veal 
calves  slaughtered  while the  percentage  in France  is  11 %,  in Austria  63  %,  in 
Italy 
19  %  and  in  Belgium  28  %.  For  the  sake  of 
comparison,  the  latter  set  of  percentages  refer  to  applications  and  production  in 
the period December - February  (3 months). 

8  %,  in  Germany 

Information  received  on  the  actual  weight  of  slaughter  for  the  premium  calves 
confirm  a  fairly  wide  statistical  spread  (see  Annex  III).  Furthermore,  an 
extrapolation  of  the  weight  distribution  from  the  lower  weight  groups  to  the 
weight  group just  below the maximum  weight  gives an indication  of the  number 
of animals  which  would  have been slaughtered  in that group in any  case, with  or 
without  the  introduction  of  the  premium.  For  the  sake  of  simplification  of 
calculation it is assumed 

(1) 

that  50  %  of  the  calves  in  the  10  kilogrammes  interval  just  below  the 
maximum weight would in any case have been slaughtered  at that weight and 
that 

(2) 

calves  lighter than that weight  interval all would  have been  slaughtered  at 
that  low  weight  irrespective  of  the  premium.  It  can  reasonably  be  argued 
early  slaughter  so  far  only  refer  to  20  %  of  all  premium 
that  active 
applications  in the Netherlands, 34 % in France, 25 % in Austria  and  24  % 
in  Germany.  No  or  incomplete  statistics  have been received  from  Belgium 
and Italy.  Consequently, in the 4 Member States referred  to above more than 
75 % of the  premia have been applied for in respect of animals which  in any 
case would have been slaughtered at a lower weight. 

Evaluation 

On the basis of the participation in the scheme as indicated by Member States for 
the first  4 months it is estimated that the premium may be granted  in respect of  1 
million calves in  1997.  However, on the background of the findings  above, the 
premium paid on 750.000 head would not necessarily  give rise to an active 
restructuring  of  production but may simply constitute a production  subsidy.  With 
regard to the 250.000 calves which it is estimated will be deliberately  slaughtered 
early,  savings are only obtained  if the producers turn to calf replacements in 
order to increase their throughput in terms of numbers.  Assuming a full  15 % 
replacement rate the saving can be estimated at 26 mio ECU compared with the 
total cost of the premium of+/-  65 mio ECU for  1997.  An estimate  based on the 
assumption that all calves above the one million mark will fall under the "active" 
premium definition  actually leads to the conclusion that in order for the early 
marketing premium to be cost effective  slightly more than  2 mio calves must be 
covered by the premium (Annex IV).  If there is less than a 15 %  replacement 
rate of calves the break-even number will be correspondingly  higher. 

An increase in the current average number of applications  cannot be excluded in 
particular because  veal producers obviously need some time to adapt to the new 
situation.  The scheme is still fairly young and has already gone through a number 
of modifications  in particular  with regard to the level  of the premium.  On the 
other hand, a doubling of the present rate of applications seems rather optimistic 
and the decision to go for supplementary replacements is very much a function of 
the  prevailing  and  foreseeable  market  conditions.  Those  factors  are  still  very 
much  influenced  by  the  BSE  scare  of last year  although  the  prices  admittedly 
have recovered somewhat during the month of March (see Annex V). 

In  its  Memorandum,  France  has  to  a  large  extent  blamed  so-called  premium 
subsidised imports for being responsible for the low veal prices at the beginning 
of  1997.  The Commission, however, has no statistical evidence to support that 
assumption  and notes, furthermore,  that the prices for  veal from particularly  the 
Netherlands have historically always been lower than the French veal prices. 

Concluding remarks 

On the basis of the existing incomplete statistics from  Member  States it may be 
somewhat  premature  to  draw firm conclusions  on the  cost  effectiveness  of  the 
premium  scheme  over its full  two years of application.  It seems, nevertheless, 
beyond reasonable doubt that the bulk of premium payments granted so far have 
only to  a  small  extent  complied  with the  intentions  behind  the  scheme.  If this 
tendency  is  not  quickly  reversed  a  logical. conclusion,  based  solely  on  the 
cost/effectiveness  of the early marketing premium, would be a suspension of the 
arrangements  in order to safeguard the Community finances. However, Article 4i, 
following Council's conclusions,  consists of a balanced package of two measures 
which have to be assessed together.  Therefore, any final conclusion can only be 
drawn after having analysed the global result produced by the two schemes. 

III. 

CALF PROCESSING  SCHEME 

A. 

Aim 

The concept of the calf processing premium was first introduced in the basic beef 
regulation following the 1992 reform.  With a view to reducing the use of male 
calves of dairy origin for beef production, Member States either had to apply a 
light weight intervention system or provide for a system which enabled calf 
producers to sell the abovementioned type of animals for processing subject to a 
maximum age of 10 days.  Although the light weight intervention ceased to apply 
in 1995 the calf processing premium remained as a market instrument although 
only on a voluntary basis for Member States. 

In the context of the Council's renewed intention to bring down  future beef 
production, as set out in Regulation (EC) No 2222/96, the calf processing scheme 
was made obligatory for those Member States which did not opt for the 
application of the early marketing scheme, in particular with a view to provide as 
far as possible equal distribution of efforts to adjust production.  The declared aim 
was to process one million calves per year. 

B. 

Legislation 

The  basic  rules  for  the  calf  processing  premium  are  laid  down  in  Article  4i  of 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 as amended in particular by regulation (EC) 
No  2222/96.  The  implementing  rules  are  provided  through  Commission 
Regulation (EEC) No  3886/92, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2311/96, and 
in particular at Chapter V, Section I. 

The amount of premium before  1 December  1996 was fixed at a uniform  level  of 
120  ECU  per male  animal.  After  that date  non-dairy  male  calves  also  became 
eligible  for the premium,  which  was  set  at  150  ECU,  whilst  the  premium  for 
dairy calves remained unchanged at 120 ECU. 

Statistical information f Annex VD 

Statistical information on the premium is obtained on a weekly basis and Member 
States 
applying  the  processing  premium  generally  respect  the  statistical 
requirements. 

Under the pre-December system only the United Kingdom (since the end of April 
1996),  Portugal  (since  the  end  of  May  1996)  and  France  (since  the  middle  of 
October  1996)  applied  the  premium.  A  total  number  of  445.000  calves  were 
slaughtered  for  processing  before  December  1996  with  the  United  Kingdom 
accounting for more than 80 %. 

After  1 December  1996 Uniied Kingdom has opted to continue the application of 
the  premium  along  with  Portugal  and France.  Since  February  1997  Ireland  has 
joined the other 3 countries in their choice. 

Up to the end of  March  1997  some  330.000  calves have been  slaughtered under 
the new arrangements with UK accounting  for slightly  more than 50 %.  Taking 
into  account  that Ireland  has  only  been  operating  the  scheme  for  2  months  and 
assuming  the  same  monthly  average  for  the  rest  of  the  year  the  Commission 
anticipates that the target quantity of 1  million calves  will be reached in 1997. 

D. 

Evaluation 

The  total  cost  of  granting  this  premium  in  respect  of  one  million  calves  is 
estimated  at  125  mio  ECU.  However,  the  savings  in  terms  of  lower  future 
production  and lower intervention in-take amount to an estimated 690 mio ECU 
(see Annex VII). 

It goes without  saying that the processing scheme is the most effective  measure 
for  reducing  production,  not only in terms of direct cost efficiency  but also in 
terms of providing a greater balance between consumption and production in the 
future. 

A number of Member States have not opted for this premium expressing concerns 
over possible negative reactions among consumers.  In this respect it is interesting 
to  note  that  according  to  information  from  the  4  Member  States  applying  the 
scheme no  such negative  attitudes have been expressed  and the consumption  of 
beef and veal is continuing its slow but steady recovery in all of those countries. 

The processing premium on male calves may admittedly in certain circumstances 
constitute a floor price for calves intended for veal production as the bulk of such 
calves in fact  are male  animals.  On the other hand, of the four  Member  States 
applying the premium only France has substantial veal production.  It is reported 
that calves from other Member States are also being processed in France thereby 
influencing  the prices  of very young animals  in those  countries, but no  factual 
information can be obtained as to such movements. 

Furthermore, if there is indeed  a floor price,  that price would be somewhat lower 
than  the  premium  of  120  ECU  due  to  the  cost  of  transport,  slaughter  and 
processing of the calf.  Finally, it has to be noted that prices for young calves are 
still below the level of one year ago, which means that the processing premium (at 
least until  now) does not seem to have been causing an unfair  price  increase in 
the raw material for veal and beef production. 

Concluding remarks 

Given  the  background  of  the continuing  inbalance  in the  beef  market,  effective 
measures to adjust  red meat production should be encouraged.  The Commission 
finds  that the calf processing scheme is by far  the most efficient  of such measures 
and once again urges  Member States to make use of this option. 

IV. 

CONCLUSION 

A. 

B. 

This report has been prepared in accordance with Article 4i(6) of Regulation  (EC) 
No  805/68 under which the Commission is obliged to verify  whether the two calf 
schemes  have  produced  satisfactory  results  as  measured  against  their  intended 
targets.  The  report  was  initially  due  6 months  after  the  application  of  the  two 
schemes  but  was  subsequently  advanced  at  the  request  of  the  Council. 
Unfortunately,  as  a  direct  consequence, 
the  experience  gained  as  well  as  the 
statistical  information  required  is  far  from  complete  and  the  conclusions  which 
have been  drawn should be considered in that light. 

Another unfortunate  factor at least vis-à-vis the early marketing premium was the 
timing of the start of the scheme which coincided with a very depressed  market 
situation created by the BSE scare earlier in 1996.  Decisions by veal producers 
with regard to calf replacements have definitely  been negatively influenced  by the 
weak market in the sector. 

Having  said that, the Commission can only conclude that the arrangements  for the 
early  marketing  premium  have not yet produced  the  desired  results.  In order  for 
the  premium  to  become  cost  effective  at  least  a  doubling  of  the  current  rate  of 
applications  coupled  with  increased  calf  replacements  would  be  necessary.  The 
present  rate  and  nature  of  applications  tends  to  suggest  that  3  out  of  4  calves 
simply  obtain  a  production  subsidy  decoupled  from  the  production  effort  with 
which it was intended to go hand in hand. 

The calf processing premium, on the contrary, appears to be very effective  in 
terms of actual reduction of future  production and in terms of  cost-effectiveness. 
Although the Commission appreciates some Member  States' concern about 
negative consumer reactions in the context of this premium it is still  disappointed 

*  that only 4 Member  States have decided to apply the premium on their territory. 

Since the Council introduced the two premia as part of an integrated  solution 
which was intended to result in  a balanced effort  to reduce production,  it is 
appropriate to evaluate the two premia together.  In terms of total cost 
effectiveness,  the application so far is positive, although  only because of the 
application of the processing premium.  This unfortunately  means  that the 
measures in reality have not provided equal burdens in terms of the reduction of 
the production potential.  Furthermore, if one of the two premia were to be 
suspended  (e.g. the early marketing premium) the inbalance would be even 
greater. 

The  Commission,  therefore,  proposes  that  the  Council  should  judge  the  early 
marketing  premium  on  a  period  longer 
than  the  past  4  months,  taking  into 
account  the  necessary  time  for  technical  adaptation  of  the  veal  production 
structures. Furthermore, account should be taken of the fact that the latest increase 
of the supplement paid to  low weight carcases only entered into force  on 
14 April  1997 and has therefore not yet  had any effect  on the implementation of 
the premium.  Finally, the beginnings of a recovery in veal prices in March may 
equally encourage producers to turn to more positive decision-making  in respect 
of increased calf replacements.  The Commission will continue to closely monitor 
the  level  and  distribution  of  applications  and,  depending  on  their  future 
development, as measured against both cost effectiveness  and balanced efforts  in 
Member States, it reserves its right to take steps in accordance with Article 4i (5) 
and/or (6) of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68. 

ANNEX  I 

Maximum carcase weight for the early marketing premium 

Member State of slaughter 

Maximum 
carcase weight 

Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
The Netherlands 
Austria 
Portugal 
Finland 
Sweden 
United  Kingdom 

. 

136 
110 
112 
127 
. 1 24 
108 

117 
120 
138 

. 82 

110: 
84 
88 
32 

10 

EARLY MARKETING PREMIUM FOR VEAL CALVES: 
APPLICATIONS RECEIVED 
Regulation (EEC)  No. 3886/92 

ANNEX II 

Week 

Be 

Da 

De 

El 

Es 

Fr 

It 

Lu 

NI 

Ôs 

Pt 

Fi 

Sv 

EU 

' 

96wk49  December 
96wk50  "" 
96wk51 
96wk52 
1996 TOTAL 
97wk01  January 
97wk02 
97wk03 
97wk04 
97wk05 
97wk06  February 
97wk07 
97wk08 
97wk09 
97wkl0  March 
97wkll 
97wkl2 
97wkl3 
TOTAL 
%  of EU TOTAL 

1000 
1047 
1604 
1615 
5266 
462 
1406 
2118 
1820 
2088 
1705 
1722 
1874 
1874 
1758 
675 
5 

• 

22773 
7.57 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
132 
12 
45 
76 
129 
104 
125 
101 
73 
79 
105 
74 

275 
394 
1024 
480 
2173 
1019 
1480 
4982 
1629 
2064 
1969 
1530 
1641 
1654 
1909 
1492 
1323 

n 

n 

19 
7 
3 
8 
9 
2 
2 
5 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

• 

2466 
3442 
4377 
3515 
13800 
3631 
5935 
5287 
5020 
4842 
4297 
4098 
4974 
6401 
3593 
1287 

1365 
5482 
-

3497 
4565 
2190 
2509 
2824 
2463 
3625 
3044 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
10 
10 
7 
9 
11 
7 
12 
6 
8 
9 
8 

0 
783 
7422 
1422 
9627 
5181 
10403 
4417 
9414 
5936 
7266 
10352 
4331 
13790 
8943 
4737 
11495 

0 
50 
1028 
1339 
2417 
2798 
3689 
4195 
2042 
2561 
2347 
1956 
2491 
2166 
2169 
2062 
2420 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
13 
55 
50 
118 
57 
122 
177 
205 
325 
361 
360 
326 
258 
177 
174 
92 
10 
2762 
0,92 

536 
771 
538 
60 
1905 
69 
625 
958 
926 
722 
904 
874 
907 
830 
857 
644 
373 

4277 
6500 
16059 
9846 
40799 
13349 
23682 
22189 
21139 
22192 
23536 
23217 
19174 
29885 
21958 
14812 
18839 

10594 
3.52 

300869 

NJ6* Shaded  figure  denote actual totals provided  by Member States but  which cannot be broken dowtt  by weéfcdr  Weight category* 

1055 
0.35 

24865 
8.26 

66 
0,02 

0 
0*00 

63165  • 
20.99 

36287 
12*06 

97 
0,03 

105892 
35o20 

33313 

11,07 

0 
0.00 

"1 

ANNEXE III 

APPLICATIONS  FOR EARLY MARKETING  PREMIUM 
(ACCORDING TO  WEIGHT) 

AUSTRIA* 

1 

Groups of 10 kg 
0-42kg 
42 - 52 kg 
52 - 62 kg 
62 - 72 kg 
72 - 82 kg 

TOTALS 
* : From December 96 to 97 week 12 

1 

TOTAL CALVES (I) 
121 
2082 
5186 
9424 
16500 
33313 

| 

| 

TOTAL "FREE" CALVES (II) 
121 
2082 
5186 
9424 
8250 
25063(75%) 

' 

FRANCE* 

Groups of 10 kg 
0 - 38 kg 
38-48 kg 
48 -58 kg 
58 - 68 kg 
68 - 78 kg 
78 - 88 kg 
88 - 98 kg 
98 - 108 kg 

I 

TOTAL CALVES (I) 

| 

TOTAL "FREE" CALVES (II) 

13 (+ 7) 
35 (+ 21) 
98 (+ 59) 
307 (+ 185) 
906 (+ 546) 
2686 (+ 1615) 
8907 (+ 5366) 
26469 (+ 15942) 

13 (+7) 
35 (+21) 
98 (+ 59) 
307 (+ 185) 
906 (+ 546) 
2686 (+ 1615) 
8907 (+ 5366) 
13235(4-7971) 

T O T A LS 
* : From December 96 to 97 week 8 
** : No. calves for which a premium application has been received but which cannot be broken down by weight 
( ) : Etimated distribution by weight of the 23744 calves 

1  39421+23744** =63165 

| 

26186 (+15773) « 41959 (66 %) 

GERMANY* 

I 

Groups of 10 kg 
0- 72 kg 
72- 82 kg 
82-  92 kg 
92-  102 kg 
102-112 kg 

TOTALS 
* : From December 96 to 97 week 12 

1 

TOTAL CALVES (I) 
3031 
2475 
3729 
6281 
9349 
24865 

THE  NETHERLANDS* 

I 

Groups of 10 kg 
0 - 28 kg 
28 - 38 kg 
38-48 kg 
48 - 58 kg 
58-68 kg 
68 - 78 kg 
78 - 88 kg 
88 - 98 kg 
98 - 108 kg 
108-118 kg 
118-128 kg 
128 - 138 kg 

T O T A LS 
* : From December 96 to 97 week 12 

I 

; 

TOTAL CALVES (I) 
2 
32 
79 
143 
399 
841 
1706 
3490 
7425 
16629 
32291 
42855 
105892 

I 

| 

I 

I 

M 

TOTAL "FREE" CALVES (II) 
3031 
2475 
3729 
6281 
4675 
18941(76%) 

TOTAL "FREE" CALVES (II) 
2 
32 
79 
143 
399 
841 
1706 
3490 
7425 
16629 
32291 
21428 
84464(80%) 

. 

ANNEXIV 

Earlv marketing premium / Cost effectiveness  1997 

Number of 
calves receiving 
premium 
(head) 

Estimated costs 

(mio ECU) 

Calves with 
actual reduction 
of weight 
(head) 

Increase of calf 
replacements l 

Savings on 
., intervention2 

(head) 

(mio ECU) 

(1) 

1,000,000 

1,200,000 

1,400,000 

1,600,000 

1,800,000 

2,000,000 

(2) 

64 

77 

90 

103 

115 

128 

(3) 

250,000 

450,000 

650,000 

(4) 

37,500' 

67,500 

97,500 

850,000 

127,500 

1,050,000 

157,500 

1,250,000 

187,500 

(5) 

25.9 

46.6 

67.3 

88.0 

108.7 

129.4 

1 

2 

15% of (3). 

(4) x 0,3 tonne x 2300 ECU. 

13 

-F 

550 

525 

425 

400 

375 

VEAL 
Community  Average  Price 

• 

• 

' 

i 

' 

• 

• 

• 

* 

* 

• 

• 

- j — i — i — • — i —i 

i — • —i 

i 

i 

i _ _ _i 

i 

i_ 

10 

13 

16 

19 

22 

25 

28 

31 

34 

37 

40 

43 

46 

49 

52 

Week 

ANNEX  VI 

Applications for the calf processing premium 

Applications 
received before 
1.12.96 

Applications received after 
1.12.96 

Dairy calves 

Dairy calves 

non-dairy 
calves 

Total 
applications 
received up to 
21.3.97 

370 339 

140 291 

23 535 

534 165 

12 406 

62 269 

0 

17 904 

94 005 

8 346 

89 

30 399 

20 832 

177 106 

175 

8 521 

445 014 

260 546 

44 631 

750 191 

United 
Kingdom 

Portugal 

France  l 

Ireland 1 

T O T AL 

Applications up to 15.3.1997. 

15 

ANNEX VTT 

Calf processing premium / Cost effectiveness  1997 

Cost of dairy 
calves 

Number of 
dairy calves 
receiving 
premium 

(head) 

(mio ECU) 

Number of 
non-dairy 
calves 
receiving 
premium 
(head) 

Cost of 
non-dairy 
calves 

Total cost 
(2) + (4) 

Savings on 
intervention 

(mio ECU) 

(mio ECU) 

(mio ECU) 

0) 

(2) 

(3) 

850,000 

102.0 » 

150,000 

(4) 

22.5 2 

(5) 

124.5 

(6) 

6903 

1  850,000 head x 120 ECU. 

2 

150,000 head x 150 ECU. 

3  1,000,000 head x 0,3 t x 2,300 ECU. 

16 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(97) 165 final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

03  10 

Catalogue number  :  CB-CO-97-153-EN-C 

ISBN  92-78-18660-0 

Office  for Official  Publications of the European Communities 

L-2985 Luxembourg 

il