Report on the situation in the pigmeat sector in the European Union with a view to possible changes to structural support measures
Date: 1998-07-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EAGGF, investment aid, livestock farming, pigmeat, swine

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 27.07.1998 
COM(1998) 434 final 

Report on the situation in the pigmeat sector in the 
European Union with a view to possible 
changes to structural support measures 

(presented by the Commission) 

Report on the situation in the pigmeat sector in the European Union with a view 
to possible changes to structural support measures 

Contents 

page 

1. 
2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Summary 
Introduction 
Pig farming in the Community: the current situation 
2.1. 

Intra-Community trade 

The market in pigmeat 
2.1.1.  Production 
2.1.2.  Prices 
2.1.3. 
2.1.4.  External trade 
2.1.5.  Consumption 
2.1.6. 
Import arrangements 
2.1.7.  Export arrangements and WTO 
2.1.8.  Support measures under the market organisation 
2.1.9.  Special market support measures in response to epizootics 
Budget 
2.2. 
2.3. 
Pigmeat balance: long-term outlook 
Structural, environmental and animal health aspects 
3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 
3.4. 

Development of pig numbers 
3.1.1.  Developments at Member State level 
3.1.2.  Developments at regional level 
Structure of pig holdings 
3.2.1.  Structure at Member State level 
3.2.2.  Structure at regional level 
Environmental aspects 
Animal health aspects 
3.4.1.  Disease control 
3.4.2.  Animal health problems in densely populated areas 
3.4.3.  Measure which can enhance disease control 
3.4.4.  Animal disease control expenditure 
Animal welfare 

3.5. 
Structural support measures 
Farm investment aids 
4.1. 
Investment aid for pig farms 
4.2. 
Transitional aid for pig farms 
4.3. 
Further development of support under Regulation 950/97 
4.4. 
4.4.1.  Eligibility of regions 
4.4.2.  Eligibility of  farms 

Conclusion 
5.1.  Market 
5.2. 

Structures 

Annex I: 

Annex II: 

1. Development of pig numbers at Member State level 
2. Derogation from the 35% fodder clause in Germany (Brandenburg) 
Tables  1-14 

2  -

3 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
7 
7 
8 
8 
9 
10 
10 
11 
12 
13 
13 
13 
13 
16 
17 
18 
19 
21 
21 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
27 
27 
28 
29 
29 
31 
32 
32 
32 

SUMMARY 

This report gives an overview of recent developments, the current  situation and outlook  for the 
pig  sector  in  the  Community,  paying  particularly  attention  to  the  market  situation  and  the 
regional  production  structures.  In  addition,  it  examines  the  possibilities  of  supporting 
investments  in  increasing  individual  production  capacities  under  Regulation  (EC)  No  950/97 
(formerly Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91), as requested by several Member  States. 

Situation in the  sector 

The  pigmeat  markets  in the  EU  in  recent  years  have  shown  a  continuous  growth  of  internal 
production  (about  16 million tonnes in  1995), an upward  trend  in consumption  (1995: 40,6 kg 
per capita), increasing exports since 1993 (730 000 - 970 000 tonnes per year)  and  a low level 
of imports  (50  to  60 000 tonnes).  For  the future,  no  fundamental  changes  in these  trends  are 
forecast.  Prices, however,  in recent years have been strongly  influenced  by exceptional  factors: 
BSE, with its repercussions on the beef market, as well as outbreaks of classical  swine fewer in 
several  Member  States  contributed  in  1996  and  in  the  first  half  of  1997  to  a  spectacular 
increase  in  prices.  In  1998,  pigmeat  prices  will  be  at  a  substantially  lower  level  due  to  an 
expansion of production to  16.7 million tonnes. 

The  market  regulations  for  pigmeat  in  the EU  are  -  compared  with  other  sectors  -  quite 
liberal.  On  the  one  hand,  several  arrangements  concerning  external  trade  set  limits,  such  as 
tariff  quotas  (in  the  framework  of  the  association  agreements  and  the  WTO)  and  limit 
subsidised  exports  (in  the  WTO  framework).  On  the  other  hand,  the  common  market 
organisation  provides  only  for  very  limited  support  measures.  EAGGF  spending  is  largely 
concentrated  on  export  refunds,  but  exceptional  market  support  measures  in  response  to 
epizootics can give rise to significant  ad hoc expenditure. 

In recent years, production  has continued to become more concentrated,  even in those  regions 
with  already  high  stocking  densities,  and  close  to  the  principal  markets.  At  national  level, 
Ireland, France and Denmark have shown the most significant  growth. 

The gap between Member  States as regards the structure  of pig farming  persists: the average 
for  the  top  group,  i.e.  Belgium,  Denmark,  Ireland,  the Netherlands  and  the  UK,  is more  than 
500 pigs/holding,  whilst the Community's largest  suppliers  - Germany and  Spain - have overall 
a  structure  more  based  on  family  farms.  There  are  also  major  regional  differences  within 
individual Member  States. 

Increasing  concentration  of  pig-keeping  has  led  in  high-density  areas  to  pressures  on  the 
environment,  particularly  on the  nitrogen  balance  and  eutrophication,  airborne  pollution,  and 
pollution  of  ground  and  surface  waters.  Animal  health  may  suffer  as  well  from  this 
concentration:  it  is  very  difficult,  for  instance,  to  operate  effective  disease  control  in  these 
regions.  To  some  extent,  the  non-internalisation  of  the  environmental  costs  to  the  production 
units,  is  one  of  the  factors 
increasing  sector's  competitivity.  These  trends  need  to  be  very 
carefully  monitored,  and  the  Community  has  undertaken  initiatives  at  various  stages  to 
counteract  these negative trends. 

Investment  aid schemes for pig holdings: also for increasing individual  capacities? 

Investment  aids  to  holdings  are  at  present  granted  predominantly  under  Regulation  (EC) 
No 950/97, which replaced  the former  Regulation  (EEC) No  2328/91.  These  aids form  part  of 
Objective  5a and are therefore  applicable  throughout  the EU.  Eligible  investments  include,  for 
example,  environmental  protection  and  improvement  of  hygiene  standards.  Support  for 
expanding  pig  production  capacity,  however,  has  been  excluded  since  1991,  with  a  few 
transitional  derogations. 

Any  changes  to  this  aid  scheme  to  allow  greater  production  capacity  should  be  subject  to 
certain restrictions: 
•  The  support  should  be  limited  to  spécifie  areas  which  can  prove  a  real  need  for  improved 
production structures also for reasons of environmental, hygiene and animal welfare  aspects. 
•  The  application  of the aid  scheme and  the  increase  in production  capacity  on  individual  farms 

should not increase total pig production in the region. 

•  The  environmental  and  animal  health  situation  of  the  region  concerned  should  be  carefully 
examined,  with any potential  aid being limited to the resolution  of these problems  A minimum 
space per animal in the farms is an essential condition for any granting of aid. 

Serious doubts remain, however,  about  certain risks inherent  in such an  adjustment: 
•  distortion  of the delicate balance on the pigmeat markets; 
•  establishment,  management  and control  of the regional  capacity ceilings; 
•  distortion of competition conditions if access is limited on a regional basis, for  instance; 
•  further  pollution problems; 
•  more difficult  disease control; 
•  other  relevant  factors  for  farm  decisions  on  investments  in  pig  capacities  (organisation  of 

the production  chain, processing and marketing conditions etc.) are not  covered. 

In  line  with  Agenda  2000  the  Commission  proposes  a  revised  legal  framework  for  rural 
development  measures. This will enable existing investment  aid  measures to be integrated  with 
measures for  marketing and processing,  environmental  protection,  hygiene,  animal welfare  and 
so  on.  In  this  way  more  flexible  programmes,  addressing  particular  needs  in  each  sector  or 
region, will be possible. 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The rules on aid for pig farms  were  adjusted  in  1994 when Regulation  (EEC) No 2328/91 
was amended. In response to calls for further  changes, the European  Commission  undertook 
to  submit  a  report  on  the  market  in  pigmeat  and  what  action  should  be  taken  and,  where 
appropriate,  the  possibilities  for  helping  increase  individual  pigmeat  production  capacities 
without increasing production in the relevant region. 

This report  looks at pigmeat  production  in the Community from the market  angle and from 
the point of view of national  and  regional  production  structures. This dual approach enables 
the Commission to evaluate a possible change in the existing structural  support measures for 
the  pigmeat  sector.  The  report  focuses  on  the  impact  such  a  change  might  have  on  the 
market, structures, veterinary situation and the environment, at the same time looking at how 
this impact could be controlled1. 

2.  PIG  FARMING  IN THE  COMMUNITY:  THE CURRENT  SITUATION 

2.1.  The  market  in  pigmeat 

2.1.1. Production 

In 1996 gross production of pigmeat in the  15 Member States of the European Union totalled 
16,3 million  tonnes.  Germany  remained  the  largest  producer,  with  3,6  million  tonnes, 
followed  by  Spain with 2,3  million tonnes,  France  (2,2  million  tonnes)  and  the  Netherlands 
(1,6 million tonnes). In 1996 EU pigmeat production was 2,2% up on 1995. 

2.1.2. Prices 

Both  1993 and the first half of  1994 saw a long period of economic downturn for producers, 
with a marked loss of profitability.  The average price during this period was ECU  127/100 kg 
(class U). In 1995, on the other hand, the price level rose markedly to ECU  140,3/100 kg, i.e. 
an increase of 10,7%, making for satisfactory  profitability. 

It should be pointed out that  since  1 July  1995 the Community market price for pig carcases 
in  the  EU,  recorded  each  week,  has  related  to  class  E  in  the  Community  scale  for  the 
classification  of pig carcases (over  55% lean meat) rather than class U (between  50 and 55% 
lean).  Class  E  is  more  representative  of  the  EU  pig  herd  since  over  50%  of  the  pigs 
slaughtered  are  in  this  class.  This  change  of  class  automatically  led  to  an  increase  in  the 
average price of about 7% because class E fetches a higher price. 

In terms of methods, it should be pointed  out that  difficulties  have arisen  on accoimt of the differences  between 
the data supplied by EUROSTAT and those produced by the national authorities. It has not been  possible therefore to 
make direct comparisons between statistics at national and regional level or to do so for the figures  relating to the total 
headage and the structures of pig farms.  As far  as regional figures are concerned,  little information  is available below 
the  NUTS  II  level  (NUTS  =  Nomenclature  of  Territorial  Units  for  Statistics,  acronym  taken  from  the  French 
Nomenclature des unités territoriales statistiques). 

In  1996  there  was  a  substantial  increase  in  prices,  the  average  level  rising  from 
ECU  143/100 kg  in January  to  ECU 183/100  kg in  July,  making  an  annual  average of 
ECU  162/100  kg.  There are three  reasons for this increase,  which  was  particularly  marked 
from the second quarter of 1996: the reduced  supply of pigs for fattening,  increased  exports 
of pigmeat from Denmark to Japan, and the BSE factor,  which boosted consumer demand for 
pigmeat in preference to beef. 

Development of the average  Community  price for pig carcasses 

Price 
( Ecu/100 kg) 

210 

200 4-

190  + 

180 4-

170 

160 

150 

140  4-

1 30  + 

1 20 

-I—i 

i 

i 

i—i  t  i  i—i  t  i 

i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—t—i—i—i—i—i 
1  3  5  7  9  11  13  15  17  19  21  23  25  27  29  31  33  35  37  39  41  43  45  47  49 51 

i—i—t—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i 

i—t—i—i—(—i—i—i 

i—i—i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

1995 (Grade U)  -^  1995 (Grade E)  -e-1996 

-»-1997 

Week 

After  the 1996/97 winter  with  a quite  normal  price  level,  market  prices  again  soared from 
March  onwards,  reaching  a record  of ECU  207/100  kg in May.  From  then  on prices  fell 
rapidly and by the mid of November  1997 they were down to ECU  154/100 kg. 

The spectacular rise in market  prices between  March  and May  1997 resulted  primarily from 
the substantial cut in supply resulting from the special market support measures for pigmeat in 
the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium and Spain on account  of classical  swine fever.  Between 
February  1997 and May  1998, 8.9 million  fattening  pigs  and piglets  from  areas  subject to 
veterinary  and commercial  restrictions  were  delivered  to the competent  authorities  under 
these  special  measures  and  processed  into  products  for  purposes  other  than  human 
consumption.  The  Community  pigmeat  market  has  recently  begun  suffering  from 
overproduction  and  therefore,  low  prices. The  exceptionally  high  prices of pigmeat  in  1996 

-6 

and  1997  have  encouraged  the  farmers  to  further  increase  their  production,  although  they 
should  have  known  from  history  of  cyclicity  in  the  pig  production  that  after  a high  price 
period there will inevitably come a period of lower prices.  The total production is expected to 
increase in  1998 by 3,2% (+520 000 tonnes) to reach a total  of  16.7 mill.tn, and the pigmeat 
price is expected to decrease from the 1997 figures about 20% to  130 ECU/100 kg. 

2.1.3. Intra-Community trade 

For  a better  understanding  of trade  between  Member  States  it  is  necessary  to  look  at  the 
degree of self-sufficiency.  Since 1993 it has stood at about  106% for the EU as a whole with, 
needless to  say, enormous differences from one country to  another.  In Denmark, where pig 
farming  plays a vital role in the economy, the rate was some 453% in  1995. The situation is 
also  similar  in  the  Netherlands  where  the  rate  is  264%  and  in  Belgium  (209%).  At  the 
opposite end of the scale to these exporting countries, we find Greece (55%) and Italy (67%), 
but also Germany (76%) and the United Kingdom (74%). Some 3,8 million tonnes of pigmeat 
crossed borders in the EU in  1995. Without going into a detailed  description  of this trade, it 
can  be  summed  up  in  one  sentence:  the  small  countries  with  surplus  production,  such  as 
Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium, supply the large countries which have a deficit, such 
as  Germany,  Italy  and  the  United  Kingdom.  Intra-Community  trade  involves  live  animals 
(piglets and fatteners), carcases and above all the main cuts, while trade in processed products 
remains a national or regional matter. As far as live animals are concerned,  3,8 million piglets 
and 4,0 million fatteners were exported within the EU in 1995. 

2.1.4. External trade 

The EU  is the  world's  largest  exporter  of pigmeat  products  (meat,  preparations,  offal,  fat, 
etc.) with a total of some 

973 705 tonnes in 1994 
872 410 tonnes in 1995 
940 509 tonnes in 1996. 

In  1996, the  principal  exporting  countries  in the  EU  were  Denmark,  with  396 484 tonnes, 
France with  121 510 tonnes and the Netherlands with  119 074 tonnes2. The main importers of 
EU pigmeat were the countries of Eastern Europe (365 853 tonnes or 39%), Japan (188 903 
tonnes (20%) and the USA (63 247 tonnes or 7%). 

In  1996 exports totalled  940 509 tonnes, 8% up on  1995. It should be pointed  out that 56% 
of  this  quantity  was  exported  without  export  refunds.  In  1993  exports  without  refunds 
accounted for only 15% of the total quantity. 

As far  as  imports  are  concerned,  the EU  has for  several  years  been  negotiating  association 
agreements with various countries (see point 2.1.6.) enabling pigmeat to be imported into the 
EU  at  a preferential  customs  duty. However,  these imports  represent  only  30% of the total 
quantity imported  each year. The remaining 70%, consisting of offal  and fat,  are not covered 
by  agreements.  The  EU  imported  a  total  of  62 966  tonnes  in  1996  (36,5%  more  than  in 
1995). The largest importer was Germany, followed  by Italy3.  The main exporter to the EU 

See Table 2 in the Annex 
See Table 3 in the Annex 

-7 

was Hungary, with 43 996 tonnes, followed by the United States with 6 649 tonnes (primarily 
offal  and fat) and Poland with 2 217 tonnes. 

2.1.5. Consumption 

Parallel to production, consumption  has developed  favourably  in the EU in the past. For the 
15  Member  States  consumption  in  1995  amounted  to  40,7  kg  per  head  of  population. 
However,  this figure varies greatly from one Member  State to another.  In Northern  Europe 
consumption  has virtually  reached  saturation  point  with  per  capita  consumption  at  a  fairly 
high level: 55,0 kg per head per year in Germany and 64,3 kg in Denmark. On the other hand, 
it is mainly in the southern Member  States that an increase in demand might be expected  on 
account  of the  far  lower  levels  of  consumption  and  the  marked  increase  in consumption  in 
recent years. For instance, between  1986 and  1994, consumption in Spain rose from 37,8 to 
55,3 kg  (+  46%),  in  Italy  from  28  to 33  kg  (+18%)  and  in Portugal  from  23  to  34,7 kg 
(+51%); it fell  in Germany  and  the  United  Kingdom,  on the  other  hand,  while in the  other 
Member States it remained more or less stable. 

In 1996, pigmeat consumption has benefited  to some extent from the reluctance of consumers 
toward  beef  as  a  consequence  of  the  discussions  on  BSE.  Compared  to  1995  per  capita 
consumption  of  pigmeat  increased  by  2.3%  and  reached  41.7  kg  per  head.  A  parallel 
observation  was  also  made  in  the  poultry  meat  sector,  namely  that  per  capita 
consumption  increased  by  6,2%  between  1995  and  1996  reaching  21,5  kg  per  head.  In 
1997, a slight decline in pigmeat  consumption  is expected  (41.2kg) reflecting,  among others, 
reduced  supply  of  pigmeat  due  to  Classical  Swine  Fever  and  a  certain  recovery  of  beef 
consumption. 

It  should  be  stressed  that  these figures relating to  per  capita  consumption  are  the  result  of 
calculations  done  in  connection  with  establishing  the  supply  balance  and  that  they  are 
therefore  notional  to  some  extent.  The figures actually  relate  to  consumption  of  the  whole 
carcase  and  thus  include those  parts  of the  carcase  that  do  not  reach  the  table  of the final 
consumer.  The above figures should  be reduced  by 25 to  30% to  determine the  quantity of 
meat actually consumed. 

2.1.6. Import  arrangements 

a) Association  agreements 

Since March  1992, the EU  has established  association  agreements for  importing  meat from 
Poland, Hungary  and the Czech  and  Slovak Republics.  There  is also  an agreement  between 
the  EU  and  the  ACP  countries.  In  1994,  Bulgaria  and  Romania  were  added  to  the  list  of 
beneficiary  countries, followed  in  1996 by the Baltic  States  and  in  1997 by  Slovenia.  In all, 
these  agreements  allowed  imports  into  the  EU  of 96 936  tonnes  over  the  period  1 January 
1997 to 31 December  1997 at a greatly reduced rate of customs duty4. 

It should be pointed  out,  however, that  neither the Central European  nor the ACP  countries 
are  in a position  at  present  to  take  full  advantage  of the  quotas  either  because  they  do  not 

4  See Table 4 in the Annex 

have  sufficient  quantities  of  pigmeat  available  for  export  or  because  trade  is  disrupted  by 
public and  animal  health  problems.  Only Hungary  is using the quotas  available to  any great 
extent.  Taking  all  the  countries  of  Central  Europe  together,  the  rate  of  utilisation  of  the 
available  quotas  was  only  25%  for  the  year  1996/97,  and  the  ACP  countries  have  not 
exported a single tonne since the entry into force of the agreement with the EU. 

b) Imports under the WTO agreements 

From  1 July  1995 the tariff  quotas which the EU  opened  under the WTO  minimum  access 
commitments were added to the agreements mentioned  in point a)5. The first WTO quota of 
7 000 tonnes of loins and bellies, at  a zero  duty, was opened  in January  1994 in connection 
with the soya panel. For the first year of the WTO agreement, from 1 July  1995 a quota of 
13 500 tonnes  (including the  7 000  soya  panel  tonnes)  was  opened  for  third  countries. This 
quantity  amounts  to  18 920  tonnes  for  the  period  1 July  1996 to  30  June  1997  and  will 
increase  regularly  over  the  coming  years  to  reach  a  total  of  75 600  tonnes  in  2000.  The 
customs duty applicable to these imports is reduced by about 60% (per  1  July 1997). 

2.1.7. Export arrangements  and  WTO 

Exports to non-EU countries are executed  partly with  export  refunds  and  partly without. 
In  the  early  90s  exports  totalled  between  500 000  and  600 000  tonnes  a year,  but  from 
1993  on  exports  increased  and  the  annual  quantities  have  since  then  been  between 
750 000 and 950 000 tonnes. 

With  the  WTO  agreements,  the  room  for  manoeuvre  in  export  policy  is  now  greatly 
reduced,  for  the EU has to  observe quantitative  and budget  ceilings. During the first year 
of  the  agreements  (1 July  1995  to  30  June  1996),  the  EU6  could  not  export  more  than 
541 800  tonnes  with  refunds.  For  the  year  1996/97  the  maximum  quantity  totalled 
522  100  tonnes  and  budget  expenditure  was  restricted  to  ECU  269  million.  Under  the 
agreements,  these  ceilings  are  to  be  reduced  gradually  over  the  following  four  years, 
reaching  a quantity  of 443  500  tonnes  with  a  financial  allocation  of ECU  191  million in 
2000. 
In order to be able to observe the limits imposed  under WTO it was necessary to  exercise 
caution  in  the  matter  of  refunds,  simplify  the  list  of  eligible  products  and  introduce  a 
system of export  licences from  1  July  1995. After  about two years'  experience of the new 
export  arrangements  it can be seen that their  application  has posed  no particular  problem 
in  the  pigmeat  sector.  During  the  period  1  July  1995  to  30 June  1996  export  licences 
covering some 380 000 tonnes of pigmeat were issued  (= 70% of the quantity available). 
For the period  1  July  1996 to  30 June  1997 the export  licences issued  could  cover a total 
of some 300 000 tonnes of pigmeat  (= 57% of the quantity available). 

The  quantities  exported  with  refunds  are thus  well  below  the  quantitative  ceiling  agreed 
under WTO agreements. In this connection  it should be pointed  out that the main reason 
for  the various cuts in refunds  applied  since February  1996 was market  management,  not 
compliance with quantitative obligations.  As from  spring  1998, export  refunds  have been 

See Table 4 in the Annex 
Figures quoted  are for  EU-15. The quantities  are expressed  in carcase  equivalent. 

6 

- 9-

actively used to support the community pigmeat  market because of the rapidly  decreasing 
price leveL 

2.1.8. Support measures under the market  organisation 

The pigmeat sector is governed by a common organisation of the market which, unlike other 
market organisations, is very flexible, with the possibility of a system of private storage aid as 
the  only  support  instrument  but  with  no  guaranteed  prices  or  direct  premiums.  The market 
price is formed  solely on the basis of supply and demand. This liberal organisation thus places 
a  great  responsibility  on  producers,  who  decide  themselves  how  much  to  produce,  thus 
determining market equilibrium. 

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75  provides for  a basic price to be fixed, the purpose of 
which  is  primarily  to  indicate  the  price  level  at  which  the  market  is  in  balance  without, 
however,  resulting in structural  surpluses.  The  sole concrete function  of the basic price is to 
trigger  private  storage  aid  when  necessary.  These  measures  can  be  introduced  when  the 
average market price is less than  103% of the basic price. 

After two consecutive reductions in 1994/95 and  1995/96, the level of the basic price was set 
at ECU  150,9/100 kg, representing a reasonable estimate of the point of equilibrium between 
supply  and  demand.  It  was  therefore  decided  to  keep  it  at  the  same  level  for  the  1997/98 
marketing year. 

As a day-to-day  management  tool,  private  storage  aid  enables the  Commission  to  intervene 
rapidly  in  the  market.  The  most  recent  example  of  this  measure  being  used  was from 27 
November  1995  to  16 February  1996.  This  action  was  triggered  by  the  safeguard  clause 
introduced  by Japan vis-à-vis pigmeat  imports.  The purpose.of the  support  measure was to 
protect  the  European  market  against  a  major  drop  in  market  prices  caused  by  quantities 
normally  intended  for  the Japanese  market  and  thus  avoid  the risk of  déstabilisation  of the 
internal  market  in pigmeat.  A total  of 48 000 tonnes  of pigmeat  were  put  into  store by EU 
operators and the objective of the measure was fully achieved. 

2.1.9.  Special market support  measures in response to epizootics 

The Union  has been  confronted  with  a number  of outbreaks  of classical  swine fever.  The 
veterinary  and  sanitary  situation  concerning  the  pig  sector  remains  precarious  and  worrying 
due to regular epidemics of classical  swine fever  (see also 3.4).  Germany and Belgium were 
hit by swine fever in 1993, 1994 and  1995. As a result of the measures taken by the veterinary 
authorities  under  Council  Directive  80/217/EEC  introducing  Community  measures  for  the 
control of classical swine fever, the marketing of live pigs, fresh pigmeat and non-heat-treated 
pigmeat  products  was  temporarily  prohibited  or  seriously  disrupted  in  the  areas  directly 
affected  by the  disease.  The  restrictions  on  the free movement  of goods  resulting from the 
application  of the veterinary  measures threatened  to  seriously affect  the market  in pigmeat in 
the  Member  States  concerned.  The  Commission  therefore  introduced  special  support 
measures,  on several  occasions,  under  Article 20 of Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No 2759/75, 
for  the  market  in  pigmeat  in  the  form  of  buying  in  heavy  pigs  and  piglets,  which  were 
withdrawn from the market and for the most part sent to rendering plants. 

Under the measures taken in Germany, 960 000 heavy pigs and  188 000 piglets were bought 
in during the period from summer  1993 to the beginning of  1996. In Belgium about  330 000 
heavy pigs and  180 000 piglets were bought in under the measures adopted for that country, 
during the period from November  1993 to January 1995. 

Expenditure  on  the  special  support  and  on  compensation  to  farmers  for  the  animals 
withdrawn  was  shared  between  the  Community  and  the  Member  States  concerned,  70% 
being provided from the Community budget  and  30% from the national  budget.  During the 
three years  1993,  1994 and  1995 about  ECU  147 million from the  Community budget was 
spent on these special market support measures. 

The classical swine fever situation deteriorated markedly from the beginning of 1997. Starting 
in Germany, the disease occurred  in the Netherlands  in early February,  spreading rapidly to 
the major pig-farming areas south of the large rivers. By the beginning of May the disease had 
reached  Spain, in the region of Lerida where there is a high  concentration  of pig farms.  In 
July,  Belgium  had  some  outbreaks.  Due  to  the  restrictions  on  the  free  movement  of pigs 
resulting  from  veterinary  measures  and  the  risk  of  a  serious  disturbance  of  the  pigmeat 
market  in  these  four  countries,  but  also  to  solve  the  health  problems  resulting  from 
overcrowded piggeries in regions with transport restrictions, the Commission adopted special 
support  measures  whereby  8.9  million  fattened  pigs  and  piglets  were  delivered  to  the 
competent  national  authorities between  February  1997  and  May  1998L at  a  cost  to  the 
Community  budget  of ECU  547 millions for  this period.  The final  figures,  however, will 
depend  on the evolution of the disease. 

2.2.  Budget 

Expenditure on the pig sector is normally below  1% of the total for the Guarantee Section of 
the  European  Agricultural  Guidance  and  Guarantee  Fund  (EAGGF).  However,  it  totalled 
ECU  416  million  or  1,3%  of the  Guarantee  budget  in  1994  on  account  of  an  increase in 
expenditure  caused  by the  support  measures  referred  to  in  point  2:1.9.  and  the granting of 
special refunds for the Russia I, II and III schemes. 

The  budget  can  be  divided  into  three  chapters:  refunds,  private  storage  aid  and  special 
measures  under  Article 20  of  the  basic  Regulation.  In  all,  the  sums  allocated  in  1996 
amounted  to  ECU  124  million,  broken  down  as  follows:  ECU  101  million  for  refunds, 
ECU  18 million for private storage aid and ECU 5 million for special support measures. 

Expenditure on pigmeat 

(million ECU) 

Eur 12 
1993 

Eur 12 
1994 

Eur 15 
1995 

Eur 15 
1996 

Eur  15 
1997 

Refunds  (export) 
Storage aid 
Exceptional  support 
measures  (Art. 20) 
Total 
Budgetary credits 

194 
2 
5 

259 
22 
135 

201 

416 

118 
18 
7 

143 

11 

Eur 15 
1998* 
116 
16 
197 

101 
18 
5 

72 
-
407 

124 

479 

329 

The  initial  budget  for  1997  totalled  ECU  168  million  for  the  whole  sector.  However, 
due to the swine fever  crisis,  expenditure  for  exceptional  support  measures  turned  out 
to be  much  greater  and  reached.ECU 407 million  for  the budgetary7  year  1997. 

2.3.  Pigmeat balance: long-term outlook8 

Forecasts  of  pigmeat  supply  were  obtained  on  the  basis  of  demand  forecasts  and 
assumptions on net  external trade. The demand forecasts  have been established  by means 
of  a  consistent  and  comparable  econometric  approach  based  on  price  and  income 
assumptions.  Results  from  these  models have been  adjusted  in  order  to  take  account  of 
the  impact  of  the  BSE  crisis.  On  the  basis  of  these  production  and  consumption 
forecasts,  a detailed balance sheet for pigmeat is presented  in the Annex9. These balance 
sheets  also  incorporate  the  WTO  commitments  on  imports  and  subsidised  exports,  and 
also estimates of the volume of non-subsidised  exports for  pigmeat. 

In  1996,  pigmeat  consumption  per  capita  is  estimated  to  have  increased  by  around 
2,3%,  partly reflecting  a shift  from  beef7veal  to  other meats as a consequence  of the BSE 
crisis. A forecast  increasing  consumption  for  '97 will  probably not  occur  due to  reduced 
supplies with high prices and the recovery in beef consumption.  In the medium  and  long 
term, pigmeat  consumption  should  continue to grow  modestly by around  0,5% per year, 
given the already high level of per capita  consumption. 

As far  as trade is concerned,  import  figures  presented  in the balance  sheet  are based  on 
the  assumption  that  the  actual  level  of  current  access  will  be  maintained  and  that,  in 
addition,  imports  of  pigmeat  under  the  WTO  and  other  market  access  agreements  will 
increase by the year 2001.  Current levels of subsidised  exports  of pigmeat  are well below 
the  WTO  limits and  estimates  for  non-subsidised  exports  are  set  at  500  000  t  for  1996, 
which represents more than half of total  exports. From  1997 onwards,  it is assumed  that 
non-subsidised  exports  will  be  somewhat  lower  and  that  the  WTO  limits  for  subsidised 
exports  are fully  used.  Overall,  total  exports  are forecast  to  decline  over  the  1997-2005 
period  due  to  the  WTO  constraints  on  subsidised  exports  and  expected  stronger 
competition  on world  markets  from  other  exporting  countries.  In  the  light  of the  above 
assumptions,  pigmeat  production  is  expected  to  increase  by  an  annual  average  of 
around  0,8% over the whole forecast  period. 

7 

Budgetary year goes from  16 October of the previous year to  15 October of the year  in question. 

8  Extract from:  CAP 2000 - working document.  Long term Prospects - Grains, Milk  & Meat  Products.  EU-
Commission, DG VI, April  1997. 
9  see also Table  5 in the  Annex 

12 

3.  STRUCTURAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ANIMAL HEALTH ASPECTS 

3.1.  Development of pig numbers 

3.1.1. Developments at Member State level 

The total number of pigs in the Community reached  118,3 million head in December  199610, 
an increase of some 9,45% (including the pig livestock of the new member states) since 1990. 
Five Member  States  account  for  about  75% of  pig  numbers:  Germany,  Spain,  France,  the 
Netherlands and Denmark. 

During  the  period  1990-96  Germany  was  the  only  large  producer  which  reduced  its  total 
number  of pigs significantly.  The resulting  loss of production  share is the highest  within the 
whole European Community.  This decrease was taken  up  in particular by France, Denmark 
and  Spain.  The  other  large  producers  increased  their  share  of  the  total  Community  pig 
numbers. The highest  increase  in production  share was  in France.  Denmark  and  Spain also 
strengthened  their  position  within  the  Community.  The  highest  increases  in  number  of  pigs 
relative  to  the  national  totals  were  in  Ireland  (+33,3%),  France  (+24,6%)  and  Denmark 
(+19,4%). 

3.1.2. Developments at regional level 

The following key regional trends can be observed11: 

regional concentration is continuing and even increasing; 
increases tend to be in regions with significant  pig population levels; 

- 
- 
-  even regions which already have high stocking densities show an increase - though this is 

slowing down; 
there is a relocation of production towards principal markets; 

- 
-  only a few regions, with relatively low numbers of pigs, show clear increases; 
- 

there is no evidence of a uniform  trend comparing developments in the total numbers of 
pigs, in numbers of fattening pigs or in numbers of sows. 

12 

Denmark 
In  general  the  regional  distribution  of  pig  production  in  Denmark  seems  rather  well 
balanced.  Between  1990  and  1995  the  largest  increase  in  the  number  of  pigs  was  in 
Jutland,  which forms the continental  part  of Denmark.  Within Jutland the most  significant 
increases  were  in the  Amter  (Danish  counties)  situated  in  Southern  Jutland.  There  were 
increases  of  34%  in  Sonderjylland,  20%  in Ribe  and  18% in  Vejle.  In  Bornholm  and  in 
Fyn  the  increases  were  also  significant:  31%  and  25%  respectively.  In  contrast,  in  the 

See  Tables  6 - 8  in  the Annex.  A  more  detailed  description  of the  development  of  pig  numbers  at 

Community level is annexed as well. 
11  See  Tables  9 - 11  in  the  Annex;  1989-90  to  1994;  Member  States 
production  share; no regional  data available  for  Ireland,  Denmark,  Luxembourg. 
12  The  regional  units are  here Amter  (Danish  counties),  which  are NUTS  III  units for  the Eurostat  purposes of 
classification:  therefore  they  are  not  present  in  the  tables  9-11.  The  regional  data  is  provided  by  Denmark 
Statistics  (survey  of June): the analysis  is made by the  Commission's  sen ices. 

listed  according 

to  their 

South-East  Denmark  the increase was the lowest  (3% in Vestsjaelland,  9% in  Storstrom) 
and even negative in Hovedstadsregionen  (-0,5%). 

Germany 
.-. 
The  new  Lander  suffered  from  a  dramatic  cut  in  pig  numbers  of  more than  61%  between 
1990 and  1994. Sachsen-Anhalt is now the most significant  producer with over 712 000 pigs, 
the  other  new  Lander  have  between  500 000  and  700 000  in  total.  Sachsen-Anhalt, 
Brandenburg and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern registered the sharpest reduction. The decline in 
the  number  of  sows  was,  however,  smaller  than  that  of  fattening  pigs.  Brandenburg  and 
Sachsen-Anhalt  are  relatively  important  regions  for  fattening,  and  Brandenburg  is  also 
prominent in breeding. 

The old Lander were not exempt from the overall decline in numbers in Germany: clear losers 
(a decrease of 9,8 to 24,6% from 1989 to  1994) are those Lander which already had low pig 
population levels: Hessen, Rheinland-Pfalz,  Saarland and Schleswig-Holstein.  The leading old 
Lander, Niedersachsen  and Nordrhein-Westfalen,  show  losses in line with the  general  trend 
(which  was -3,76%). Baden-Wtirttemberg  and  Bayern  recorded  small increases  in the  total 
number  of  pigs.  As  regards  fattening  pigs,  the  largest  producing  regions  Niedersachsen, 
Nordrhein-Westfalen  and Bayern  showed  an increase of between 2 and 5%. Generally, there 
is a  downward  trend  in the old Lander  in breeding  animals  (-8,9%),  while in fattening  pigs 
there is an increase of 1,8%. 

Spain 
This Member State shows a general upward trend in numbers and a concentration in favour of 
the  eastern  and  southern  Communidades  Autonomas  (regions)  which  already  have  large 
numbers  of pigs: Catalufia,  C.Valenciana and  Aragon.  A smaller  increase  was  registered  in 
Extremadura.  Sharp rises were  noted  for  fattening  pigs in  Aragon,  Extremadura,  Andalucia 
and  C.Valenciana,  and for  sows  in Aragon  and  Extremadura.  Altogether,  breeding  pigs are 
more  evenly  distributed  throughout  Spain  than  fattening  pigs;  fattening  stock  are  more 
concentrated in Catalufia (Lerida), Aragon, Andalucia and Castilla-Leôn. 

France 
Enormous growth took place mainly in the Ouest region (especially in Bretagne): +27,8% for 
fattening  pigs  and  +27,6%  for  sows,  despite  the  nitrate  problems  associated  with  this 
region.  In  1994 this  region  housed  approximately  two  thirds  of  France's  pigs.  The  Ouest 
region  - though being distant from the  principal  markets  - is important both  in the breeding 
and fattening  sectors. Growth in all pig categories can also be noted  in the Centre-Est  and in 
the  second  largest  producing  region,  the  Bassin  Parisien,  which  surrounds  France's  most 
important  consumer market. More than a tenth of the national pig herd is now located in this 
latter  region.  Many  other  regions  (no  data  available  for  the  DOM-TOM  (overseas 
departments/territories))  showed  no  increases  or  declines;  Nord-Pas  de  Calais  remained 
unchanged. 

Netherlands 
Starting from an already high level, both fattening  pigs and breeding sows are concentrated in 
the  two  regions  close  to  the  important  German  markets,  Zuid-  and  Oost-Nederland.  The 
growth  of pig production  increased  rapidly between  1981 and  1987 but  has slowed  down in 
the last few years. Having to face huge animal health and environmental  problems, the Dutch 

-  14 -

authorities have recently submitted to the Commission a programme to reduce pig production 
by means of a quota system. 

Italy 
More  than  50%  of  pig numbers  are  housed  in the Pianura  Padana  (plain  of  the river Po), 
where Lombardia, an area with nitrate problems, slightly strengthened  its pre-eminent position 
(having more than one third of sows and fattening  pigs in Italy in  1994). The second largest 
producer  region,  Emilia-Romagna,  showed  a  decline  in  numbers  of  approximately  25%. 
Piemonte showed  the highest increase of fattening  pigs  (about  +19%),  Friuli-Venezia-Giulia 
of sows (+22,7%). Some southern regions registered  positive trends - though  on a very low 
level  -  in  sow-keeping  (Abruzzo,  Campania,  Sardegna  and  Sicilia)  and  in  fattening  pigs 
(Umbria, Abruzzo). The rest of the Italian regions saw reductions to a greater or lesser extent. 

United Kingdom 
From  the  point  of  view  of  evolution  of  pig  populations  the  British  regions  could  be 
classified  into three categories. The first  category  includes  regions  with  an important  pig 
population  and with a strong increase in the number  of animals (13-18%):  Yorkshire and 
Humberside and East  Anglia  . These two regions represent  more than 40% of the British 
pig population  in  1994. The second  category  is formed  by regions  having an average pig 
concentration  and rather stable pig populations: e.g. East Midlands and Northern Ireland. 
The third category includes regions with a sharp decline in pig populations (from  -  15 to -
25%):  Wales,  West-Midlands  and  North  West.  These  three  regions  represent  only 11% 
of  the  British  pig  population  in  1994.  Scotland  is  somehow  an  exception:  it  has 
experienced  an increase of 34%. 

Belgium 
Following an increase in numbers of 9%, in  1995 more than 95% of the country's pigs were 
located  in Vlaams Gewest, an area with nitrate problems as well; the trends in fattening and 
breeding pig numbers here are similar. The Wallonie region saw a slight increase of  10,1% in 
fattening and a significant decline of approximately 20% in sow keeping. 

Austria 
The leading Lander both  for  fattening  and  breeding  pigs  are  Ober-  and  Niederôsterreich  as 
well as Steiermark where approx. nine tenths of pigs are housed.  While Niederôsterreich lost 
pigs,  both  the  other  regions  increased  their  numbers  slightly.  In  all  other  regions  the  pig 
population level tended to decline. 

Portugal 
The region of Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, close to the largest population centre of Portugal, is the 
most important pig producing region (accounting for more than 40% of the Portuguese total). 
The two  other  quite  significant  regions,  Alentejo  and  Centro,  registered  relatively  moderate 
decreases of 1,7 and 2,2%. Alentejo in the South noted an increase of  15,1% in fattening pigs, 
Centro  of  3,4%;  Nôrte,  Algarve  and  the  islands  showed  a  significant  decrease.  In  Norte 
fattening  pig  numbers  decreased  by  6,1%. Breeding  sows  developed  significantly  in  the 
Centro (7,1%). 

15 -

Sweden 
Almost  the  entire  production  is  located  south  of  Stockholm.  Sydsverige  and  Vastsverige 
account for about one third of the country's pigs: the former  recorded  a loss of 5,8%, mainly 
due to losses in numbers of fattening  pigs; the^latter an increase of 5,1% (fattening +11,4 and 
sows -7,7%»). Ôstra Mellansverige also has quite significant  stocks with an increase of 23,1% 
in the total  number of pigs and  of 22,5% in that  of fattening  pigs. The proportions  between 
regions as a whole are quite similar for breeding and fattening pigs. 

to 

the  European  Union 

Finland 
Since the data of 1996 and  1997 it not yet available it is too early to make any analysis on the 
regional  impact  of  the  accession  to  the  EU  in  1995  on  the  pig  production.  Finland's 
accession 
the  country's  agriculture: 
nevertheless,  at  national  and  at  regional  level, the pig production  do  not  seem to  be one 
of  the  sectors  that  has  suffered  the  most.  While  the  period  1989-1994  was,  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  number  of  pigs,  rather  stable  in  the  whole  country,  the  year  1995 
slightly  strengthened  the  concentration  of  pig  production  in  the  western  and  southern 
part  of Finland: only about  10% of the Country's pig production  is located  in the  eastern 
and northern Finland. 

touched  severely 

Greece 
About 90% of the pigs are concentrated  in the regions Kentriki and Voreia Ellada. For sows 
and  fattening  pigs  the  proportions  are  quite  similar.  Attika  and  the  islands  have  lost 
prominence over recent years. Annual fluctuations have been significant. 

3.2.  Structure of pig holdings 

Pig production has become a very specialised  industry, often  not associated with a land area, 
and, geared  to the purchase, fattening  and  sale of standardised  animals meeting very precise 
specifications  and  strict  delivery  deadlines.  The  desire  for  maximum  profit  orientates  this 
industry towards cheap purchases of piglets for fattening as well as towards the search for the 
best price possible for the fattened  pigs, regardless of the initial origin or the final destination 
of the product. 

The commercial concerns of this kind of production are reinforced by the interests of activities 
related to it: trade, storage, transport, care and veterinary certification. 

Intensive production involving quick rotation, together with the current market  infrastructure 
and product  delivery system have a major  impact on this industry as far as health aspects and 
problems of diseases spreading are concerned, making it a very sensitive industry. 

It also has to be noted that the actual  structure  of the sector has been influenced  by the fact 
that  the  corresponding  market  organisation  is  very  market-oriented  without  direct  support 
measures, for instance direct aids. 

Furthermore,  the  existing  production  structures  were  developed  in  the  main  before  1987 
when the policy of not vaccinating against classical swine fever was introduced. This aspect is 

16-

important when it comes to explaining the difficulties  of adjusting  production structures to the 
requirements of this policy. 

3.2.1. Structure at Member State level 

The data and trends described in this section give rise to the following conclusions: 

-  Differences  in the structure of pig holdings, and in the development of structures,  affect 
competition  between  the  pig  producing  countries.  Compared  to  other  countries, 
Germany and Spain, while being the biggest producers in the Community, as regards pig 
farms  have overall  a weak  structure  (mainly  based  on  family  farms,  which  tend  to  be 
small). 

-  In contrast Belgium and the United Kingdom,  for  example, whilst having only 6-7% of 
the  Community  pig  herd,  nevertheless  have  a very  efficient  structure.  (This  is also the 
case in Ireland, a smaller producer). 

-  A comparison of the development of the structure of holdings and the number of animals 
shows that  Member  States which  succeeded  in  improving  their  structures  significantly 
could maintain or even increase their pig production.  These countries seem prepared  to 
maintain their market position in a competitive market. 

Herd size 
From figures giving average herd sizes on pig holdings13, it is possible to differentiate  between 
three groups of Member States. In the first group, with an average herd size of between 514 
and  643  pigs  per  holding  are  Belgium,  Denmark,  Ireland,  the  Netherlands  and  the  United 
Kingdom.  The  second  group,  with  an  average  of  between  103  and  215  pigs  per  holding 
comprises France, Germany, Finland, Sweden and Luxembourg.  Spain, Austria, Italy, Greece 
and  Portugal  are  in the third  group  of  smaller-sized  farms  with  17 to  60  pigs  per holding. 
Developments  from  1987  to  1995  show  significant  increases  in  herd  sizes,  although  the 
grouping  remains the  same. Between  groups,  the  difference  in average herd  size increased; 
within  groups,  there  were  only  some  significant  position  changes  in the  group  of big-sized 
farms. 

The average herd size in the Netherlands, which was more than 400 pigs per holding in 1987, 
increased  by  58% to  643  pigs  per  holding  in  1995. In  Denmark  the  increase  was  111  % 
(from  246 pigs per holding in  1987 to  518 pigs per holding in  1995)._In percentage terms, 
Spain  had the  smallest  increase,  of 26% to  60 pigs per  farm.  The biggest  increases were in 
Ireland  (152%)  and  France  (153%).  The  average  farm  size  of  these  countries  has  now 
reached  162 pigs in France and 514 pigs in Ireland. 

Herd size classes 
The  differentiation  of  holdings  and  herd  sizes  classes  shows  different  results  for  the  three 
structural  groups.  In the group  of Member  States with  a large  average herd  size, there is a 
significant  increase in the number of pig farms with more than  1000 animals. More than 10% 
of  holdings  and  up  to  89%  (Ireland)  of  the  pigs  are  represented  in  this  class  size;  in  the 
Netherlands,  21% of  the  producers  have  1000  or  more  pigs.  In  Denmark  the  number  of 
holdings with  more than  1 000 pigs doubled  between  1987 and  1995 (61%  of pigs are in 

13  See Table  12 in the Annex;  1987-1991/93/95 

-  17-

this  category  of  farms)  while  in  all  other  categories  of  holdings  the  number  of  holding 
decreased._On the other hand, the category of farms with up to 9 pigs is of no  significance 
for these countries (less than  1% of pigs). In the small herd-size group (Spain,  Greece, Italy 
and Portugal) some 85%) of producers have fewer than  10 pigs, representing between 6% and 
23%» of the total in these countries. 

In France, Luxembourg and Germany between  41%  and 72% of producers are placed in the 
smallest  size  class.  Concerning  holdings  with  more  than  1000  pigs,  there  is  a  significant 
difference  between  Germany and France. In Germany  1% of producers and 23% of animals 
are in this class, in France the corresponding figures are 5% and 55%. 

The development  within the different  herd  size classes shows  a general  increase  of holdings 
and  animals in the  bigger  herd  classes (200  or more pigs),  and  a significant  decrease  in the 
categories below 100 animals. Belgium is an example of very rapid changes in structures. 

3.2.2. Structure at regional level 14 

In  Member  States  with  a  high  regional  concentration  of  production  in  a  few  regions,  for 
example  France,  Spain  and  Italy,  the  calculation  of  average  farm  size  at  national  level  is 
strongly  influenced  by  a  large  number  of  small,  often  inefficient,  farms  outside  the  main 
production  centres  and  does  not  reflect  correctly  the  competitiveness  of  national  pig 
production.  These  difficulties  can  be  overcome  by  adopting  a  regional  approach.  The 
following four types of regional structure are apparent: 

Group A: Good structure in most regions (e.g. UK, NL) 
Well-structured  production  at  national  as well  as  regional  level  is found  in the  Netherlands 
(average  in  the  four  regions  is  between  262  and  880  pigs  per  holding)  and  the  United 
Kingdom  (278  -  928),  with  the  exception  of Wales (88  pigs per holding).  Denmark  could 
also  be  included  in  this  category:  the  national  average  is  431  pigs  per  holding  and  the 
average in the twelve Amter varies between 271 and 609 pigs per holding1 . 

Group B: Good structure in production centres, weaker in other regions (e.g. F, ES, L B) 
Significantly  divergent  structures at national  and regional level are found  in France, Belgium, 
Spain and Italy, where pig production is concentrated  in a few regions. At national level, these 
Member  States are  in the  group  of average  or  small  pig  holdings,  but  at  regional  level, the 
major pig farming regions have a fairly good structure. Leading regions are: 

In France: 
In Italy: 

In Spain: 

Bretagne (510 pigs per holding) 
Emilia Romagna (365) 
Lombardia (297) 
Aragon (258) 
C. Valenciana (400) 

In Belgium:  Vlaams Gewest (533) 

14  See  Table  13  in  the  Annex.  Figures  from  the  "EUROFARM"  survey;  not  directly  comparable  with  the 
structural  data for  the Member  States; no complete  regional  data available DK, IRL, LUX. A, SV and SF. 
15  The regional  units are here Amter  (units of NUTS III  level): therefore  they do not figure  in the table 13. 
The regional  data  is provided by Denmark  Statistics (survey of June): analysis  is made by the  Commission 
services. 

-  18-

Group C: Overall weak structure (e.g. P. GR) 
In Portugal and Greece, pig production  is not specialised; the average herd  size in all regions 
does  not  exceed  80 pigs per holding,  and  the  structural  differences  between  the regions are 
not very great. 

Group D: Diverse structure (Germany) 
In  Germany,  a  comparison  of  developments  in  the  recent  years  is  difficult  because  of  the 
inclusion of the large holdings in the East German Lander. In  1993, the average herd size was 
106 pigs, but the structures vary between the old and new Lander. In spite of a sharp decrease 
in pig numbers in eastern Germany, the average herd size ranges from 228 to 693 pigs. In the 
old  Lander,  the  holdings  are  much  smaller.  Even  in  the  production  centres  of Nordrhein-
Westfalen  and  Niedersachsen,  where  pig  production  is  concentrated  in  certain  areas,  the 
average number of pigs per holding is only  176. A fairly good  structure exists in Schleswig-
Holstein with 268 pigs per holding. The other old Lander have structural  deficiencies,  in that 
the  average  herd  size  ranges from 38  (in  Hessen)  to  54  (in  Baden-Wurttemberg)  pigs per 
holding. 

3.3.  Environmental aspects 

In  some  regions  of  the  European  Union  the  concentrations  of  pig-livestock  have 
considerable  adverse  effects  on  the  environment.  These  effects  are  caused  during  the 
storage  or  land  application  of  manure  and  include  inducing  eutrophication  through 
phosphorus  and  nitrogen  losses,  contributing  to  the  pollution  of  freshwater  resources 
with  nitrates  rendering  the  raw  water  used  for  drinking  unsafe  and  therefore  requiring 
treatment,  and  contributing  to  acidification  through  ammonia  emissions.  Whilst  pig-
livestock  are obviously not the sole contributor  to  these pollution  problems they do make 
a very significant  contribution. 

In  some locations  attempts  have been  made to  reduce  the  environmental  impact  of manure 
production  through  treatment,  sometimes  on  a large-scale  level.  These  measures, which 
are  not  compatible  with  the  principle  of  prevention  at  source,  are  usually  not 
commercially viable and require considerable levels of public subsidy. 

The  main  example  of  Community  action  to  reduce  the  environmental  impacts  of  intensive 
livestock  production  is  the  Nitrates  Directive  (91/676/EEC).  This  requires  each  Member 
State to  identify  the agricultural  areas  of their  territory  which  contribute  to  the pollution  of 
water by nitrates.  In these areas each Member  State is required  to  ensure that  certain  strict 
provisions  are  put  in  place  concerning  the  land  application  and  storage  of  fertilisers,  and 
particularly livestock manure.  In addition to requiring that  a balance between the application 
of fertilisers and needs of the plants there is a restriction on the spreading of animal manure to 
170 kg N per  ha per year from 2003. 

This Directive  has yet to be applied  fully  in most  Member  States (see COM (97) 473 and 
COM (98)  16 FINAL  for  details) despite deadlines  for  the undertaking  of most  measures 

-  19 

having  passed.  Those  countries  with  particularly  high  livestock  densities,  such  as  the 
Netherlands, Belgium and Italy are particularly at fault  in this regard. 

Other  Community  action  that  influence  this  sector  are  the  Directive  on  Integrated 
Pollution  Prevention  and  Control  (96/61/EEC),  Environmental  Impact  Assessment 
(85/337/EEC)  and 
the  Acidification 
Communication  on  Community strategy to  combat  acidification  (COM(97)88 final).  The 
EU  policy  must  also  be  in  line  with  the  results  of  the  Kyoto  Conference  on  climate 
change, notably as regards the methane emission reductions. 

the  future  any  Directive 

follows 

that 

in 

In  reality,  the  most  effective  way  to  ensure  that  the  environmental  impacts  of  the  pig 
sector  are minimised  is to reduce the concentration  of animals in particular regions of the 
Community.  This  fact  has  already  been  acknowledged  in  several  regions  of  the 
Community such as the Netherlands and the Flanders region of Belgium. 

Failure to reduce the concentration  and to adress the environmental  difficulties  associated 
with  the  pig  production  results  in  lower  costs  to  the  sector.  However,  the  costs 
associated  with  these  elements  must  then  be  borne  by  society  in  general.  This 
externalisation  of real costs permits the sector to be more competitive. 

The  section  below  on  livestock  densities  shows  ways  in  which  areas  with  particular 
problems may be  identified. 

Livestock  Densities 

Livestock  density  per  hectare  can  be  used  as  an  indicator  of  the  pressure  on  the 
environment 
.  However,  these  figures  do  not  necessarily  translate  into  pollution 
problems  as they  take  no  note  of the  environmental  characteristics  of the  particular  area 
(such as climate and geology), they ignore the potential  impact of chemical fertilisers  and 
their  mineral  losses  to  the  environment.  In  addition  these  figures  have to  be  aggregated 
over  a  whole  region,  some  of  which  are  very  large,  and  which,  as  a  result,  effectively 
mask smaller problem areas. 

Several  examples  of the  potential  of this tool  are given  below.  1,4  LSU/ha  corresponds 
roughly to  a level that  is considered  ecologically  sustainable  (although  not  in  some  areas 
that  are  particularly  vulnerable).  Eight  European  regions  exceed  this  limit just  counting 
cattle and pigs (and therefore  excluding poultry, sheep, goats and equidae). 

- In Netherlands  (all regions): Zuid (5,42), Oost  (3,62), West (1,39) and Noord  (1,57), 
- in Belgium: Vlaanderen  (4,03) and Wallonie  (1,49) 

16  See Table  14 in the  Annex.  The figures  for  some  new Member  States are  incomplete.  Some figures  on  land 
use  had  to be  supplemented  with  data  from  other  EUROSTAT  surveys and  from  national  authorities,  so  the 
data might not be consistent. For an acurate analysis of the local pollution levels, statistical data on the total number 
of livestock units (cattle, pigs, poultry, sheep, goats, equidae) and  on agricultural areas would be needed at regional 
or  local  level  (at  least  NUTS-III  level).  Since  data  provided  by  EUROSTAT  is  only  on  NUTS-II  level  and 
sometimes incomplete, the figures in table  14 are limited to cattle and pigs. 

20 

- in Italy: Lombardia (1,88) and 
- in Germany: Nordrhein-Westfalen  (1,49) 

Were the figures  for  poultry,  sheep, goats  and  equidae to  be  added  to  this total  (which 
are  not  comprised  in  the  following  figures;  see  also  table  14)  it  becomes  evident  that 
there are further  potential  problem  areas in the Community.  These include: Galicia/Spain 
(1,39), Madeira/Portugal  (1,14), Açores/Portugal  (1,25), Niedersachsen/Germany (1,27), 
Schleswig-
Luxemburg 
Holstein/Germany  (1,16),  Northern  Ireland/UK  (1,13),  Bayern/Germany  (1,12)  and 
Ouest France (1,11). 

(1,27),  North  West/UK 

(1,24),  Denmark 

(1,22), 

When the figures  for the livestock  densities are compared  with changes in the numbers of 
pigs  between  1987  and  1993/94  (see  table  14,  last  column)  it  can  be  seen  that  they 
increased  in the  Flemish  Region  of Belgium,  South  of the Netherlands  and  in Lombardy 
by  23,3%,  6,2%  and  2,9%  respectively.  In  other  "problem  regions"  the  pig  stock 
declined:  Nordrhein-Westfalen  -7,4%,  North Netherlands  -8,4%,  the  East  Netherlands  -
6,0%,  West Netherlands  -16,7% and Wallonia  -9,0%. 

While  national  and  regional  stocking  densities  indicate  the  extent  of  potential  problems, 
stocking  rates  on  individual  holdings  can  be  extremely  high  as  pig  production  is  often 
carried  out  on farms  with  limited  area  of land.  On those farms  the potential  for  pollution 
problems  is  considerably  greater  (However,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  environmental 
impact  of intensive  production  also  depends  on  the measures taken  by producers to  take 
care of mineral  losses and  not  solely on this area  of land). 

3.4. Animal  health  aspects 

3.4.1. Disease control 

To ensure access to markets throughout  the world  for  live pigs, fresh  pigmeat  and  certain 
pigmeat  products, the origin must be a pig population  in an area with  a high health status. 
The  same  conditions  apply  to  movements  of  live  pigs  and  pigmeat  within  the  European 
Union.  In international  terms a high  health  status  means freedom  from  infectious  diseases 
classed  by  OIE  as  "List  A  diseases".  The  list  includes  five  diseases  to  which  pigs  are 
susceptible:  African  swine  fever,  classical  swine  fever,  foot-and-mouth  disease,  swine 
vesicular  disease  and  vesicular  stomatitis.  Most  Member  States  have  not  reported 
outbreaks  of these  diseases  for  several  years, but  when  considering  the pig  population  of 
the  European  Union  as  a single  entity,  certain  specific  problems  remain  to  be  overcome. 
African  swine  fever  is  endemic  in  certain  areas  of  Sardinia  and  classical  swine  fever  is 
endemic in the wild  boar  population  in certain  areas of Germany,  Italy  and  a small part  of 
France; swine vesicular  disease is detected  at  certain  intervals  in pigs in the  southern  part 
of Italy; since  1992, foot-and-mouth  disease has been  introduced  from  outside the EU on 
several occasions in  1993,  1994 and  1996. 

Of the diseases  listed  above  classical  swine fever  has caused  the greatest  problems  to  the 
farming  community  and  interruption  to trade.  During the period  1994  -  1997 the disease 
has  been  present  in  the  domestic  pig  population  in  six  Member  States.  The  number  of 
outbreaks  of  classical  swine  fever 
reported  by  the  Member  States  affected  is  shown 
below. 

- 21  -

Member  State 

Number  of reported  outbreaks  in domestic pigs 

Austria 
Belgium 
Germany 
Italy 
Spain 
The  Netherlands 

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

0 
48 
117 
24 
0 
0 

*'  1 
0 
54 
42 
0 
0 

1 
0 
4 
49 
0 
0 

0 
8 
46 
55 
73 
424 

As a result of the described outbreaks  of classical  swine fever the Community has made available 
financial  assistance to Member  States  (see section  2.2  and  3.4)  and the Commission  has  adopted 
a  number  of  decisions  covering  special  protective  measures  (safeguard  measures)  in  relation  to 
movement of pigs. 

The  measures  adopted  to  control  the  above-mentioned  viral  diseases  include  stamping-out 
(depopulation)  of  infected  and  contact  farms  and  establishment  of movement  restrictions  on pigs 
and  pigmeat  to  avoid  spread  of  the  virus.  Systematic  vaccination  is  not  permitted,  but 
Community  legislation  allows  emergency  vaccination.  The  application  of these measures  has, by 
and  large,  been  successful  in  the  majority  of  the  Member  States.  It  is  evident  that  success 
depends,  to  a  great  extent,  on  rapid  and  effective  implementation  of  control  and  eradication 
measures by local and national authorities and the steps taken by pig producers to prevent  disease 
entering  a  pig  holding. 
In  recent  years,  however,  problems  relating  to  the  control  of  List  A 
diseases,  particularly  classical  swine  fever,  have  been  encountered  in  areas  with  a  high  pig 
density. 

It has always  been  recognised  that  in  areas  of high  pig density  there are a multitude  of  potential 
risk  factors  hampering  the  rapid  eradication  of  viral  diseases.  Unrecognised  virus  replication  in 
herds  with direct  or  indirect  contact  with  infected  herds  may  lead to  further  spread  of  virus  and 
new  outbreaks  within  or  beyond  restricted  areas.  Control  measures  which  are  very  effective  in 
low-density  areas  may  not  be sufficient  due to a  shortage  or  lack  of disease  control  management 
tools. Within  a short period of time,  it may  become  extremely  difficult  to take effective  measures 
to prevent virus  replication  and transmission  resulting  in a prolonged  epizootic. The potential  for 
effective  disease  control  in  the  above-mentioned  high-density  pig  areas  is  likely  to  get  worse 
unless  the whole question  of  livestock  density  is  addressed.  The  problem  highlighted  for  the  pig 
sector is to some extent also  relevant  for  the control  of poultry  and cattle diseases  in certain  areas 
of the Community. 

It  must  be  emphasised  that  the  key  regional  trends  mentioned  in  the  point  3.1.2.,  e.g.  the 
continuation  of the trend  of concentration  in regions  with already significant  pig population  levels 
and  relocation  of production  towards  principal  markets,  might  in the future  result  in new  animal 
health problems. 

When the Council decided to support  the non-vaccination  policy proposed by the Commission  for 
the  control  of  foot-and-mouth  disease  and  classical  swine  fever,  it  took  account  of  cost-benefit 
studies  showing that  this policy was  distinctly  safer  and  cheaper  than  vaccination.  Furthermore, 
this  policy  fulfils  the  twin  objectives  of  ensuring  a  high  health  standard  and  allowing  the  free 
movement of animals and livestock  products. 

22 

It is evident, however, that the results provided by the cost-benefit  studies carried out in the  1970s 
and  1980s  do  not  take  into  account  developments  in  the  1990s  with  regard  to  intensified  pig 
production  with  large  concentrations  of  pigs  in  fairly  small  areas,  the  change  in  conditions  for 
trade and advances in veterinary medicine. The studies need to be updated. 

Due  to  the  recent  Classical  Swine  Fever  epidemics  and  progress  as  regards  the  use  of 
biotechnology,  the  Commission  has  also  addressed  the  problem  of  the  use  of  marker  vaccines 
which might be available in the near  future. 
Following  a  request  from  the  Commission,  the  Scientific  Veterinary  Committee  has  recently 
delivered  an  opinion  on  this  matter.  The  Committee  identified  the  limitation  of  the  economic 
damage to the pig  industry and the reduction  of requirements  for  massive slaughter  in  uninfected 
farms  as the main expected advantages of the use of marker vaccines. The use of marker vaccines 
should  be  always  limited  to  emergency  situations  following  outbreaks  of  disease.  However,  the 
Committee  also  identified  a  number  of  disadvantages  and  open  questions,  for  which  an  answer 
can not be given until more scientific knowledge is available on these new tools. 
A  cautious  approach  seems  to  be  necessary  on  this  matter  to  avoid  negative  effects  on  trade 
within the EU and with third  countries,  in particular  until  an  agreement  is reached  on the criteria 
for their use as an additional tool in emergency  situations. 
The  Commission  is  in  an  advanced  state  of  planning  a  large  scale  laboratory  trial  with  the 
specific  aim  to  evaluate  the  possibility  to  enable  an  effective  use  of  the  marker  vaccine  in 
emergency situations  and the eventual  negative  consequences  in the case of the infection  in a not 
fully  immunised pig population. 
The possible  problems  linked  to the  sensitivity  and  specificity  of the  discriminatory  test  and the 
consequent  scenario in the case of the use of ihe marker vaccine will also be investigated. 
The trial itself is planned to start as soon as possible, preferably  in late autumn  1998. 

3.4.2.  Animal  health  problems  in densely populated  areas 

With  the objective  of elucidating  the  problems  encountered  during  1993  and  1994  in  relation  to 
the  control  of  infectious  diseases  in  densely  populated  livestock  areas,  in  1995  the  Commission 
requested the Scientific  Veterinary Committee to: 

1)  review  methods  of  identifying  densely  populated  livestock  areas  in  the  Community  as 
areas  presenting  a  particularly  high  risk  of  major  epizootics  among  pigs,  cattle  and  mixed 
populations of pigs and cattle; 
2) propose, if possible, criteria for the classification  of densely populated  livestock areas; 
3) identify  measures to prevent and control  infectious  diseases  in densely populated  livestock 
areas. 

In its report, the Scientific  Veterinary  Committee concluded  that the spatial  reference  units  in the 
current  data  source of the European  Union  (i.e.  EUROSTAT)  were too  large to be the basis  for 
the  identification  of  densely  populated  areas. 
Smaller  reference  units  are  required,  and 
geographical  coordinates  of  single  livestock  holdings  should  be  made  available.  The  basic 
criteria  for  the identification  of a densely  populated  livestock  area  is  stocking  density,  which can 
be expressed  by the number  of livestock  units  per km2.  In order  to be able to define  the  number 
of livestock  units per km2, specific  data on the major  species  (e.g. pigs per km2) are necessary  as 
well  as  conversion  tables  that  allow  the  calculation  of  livestock  units  for  the  various  animal 
species. The  Committee  also came up  with  some useful  ideas  on parameters  for  risk  assessment 
in  densely  populated  areas,  including  the  GINI-index  (statistical  measure  for  concentration 
showing the degree of equality  of a distribution)  to measure the distribution  of herd  sizes and the 
Nearest-Neighbour-Index  (NNI)  to  characterise  the  distribution  of  distances  between  livestock 
holdings. 

2 3-

Finally  in the  report  the  Committee  listed  needs  for  further  research.  It  is  of  paramount 
importance  that  research  is  carried  out  concerning  the  identified  needs.  Parallel  with 
research  on  the  subject,  certain  actions  concerning  basic  disease  prevention  and  control 
measures should be considered  for  implementation. 

3.4.3.  Measures which can enhance disease  control 

A  number  of  measures  which  can  prevent  or  reduce  the  spread  of  List  A  diseases  and 
other  diseases of importance  for  pig production  are well recognised,  but  not yet  applied 
throughout  the Community.  Measures to be  considered  for  implementation  in the  future 
include: 

1. Increased  disease  awareness 
•  Information  on transmission  of infectious  diseases to be provided to: 

- pig producers, 
- persons engaged in trade in pigs and pigmeat, 
-the  public. 

•  Well-established  relationship between pig producers and veterinary  services 
•  Farm records on disease occurrence 

2. Improved preparedness  to cope with disease 
•  Contingency plans to be available, rehearsed  and operational  at any time at: 

- national level 
- regional level 
- local level 

•  Development  of  a  geographic  information  system  for  animal  health  management  and 
•disease control 

3. Better protection  measures  at farm  level 
•  Operation  of closed farms (farrow-to-finish  enterprises), 
•  Ban  on  feeding  swill  or  requirement  that  heat-treatment  of  kitchen  waste  to  be fed  to 
pigs be carried  out on premises without pigs, 
•  Facilities  for  isolation  of  newly  purchased  pigs  and  purchase  only  from  a  limited 
number of suppliers, 
•  Loading and unloading bay for pigs 
•  Facilities for  storage of feed  to be accessible without feed truck  entering the farm area, 
•  Minimum distance from  neighbouring pig farms, 
•  Agreed  disease protection  rules to be applied by farm  personnel. 
•  Ongoing compliance with Community rules for  identification  of animals 
•  Respect  of a minimum space per animal as condition for  any granting of aid 

4. Protection  measures  relating  to movement  of pigs 
•  21-day  rule. Movements  of pigs from  a holding  are  not  allowed  within  21  days of any 
pigs moving onto that holding.  An exception to this general  rule would  be for  pigs going 
directly for  slaughter. 
•  Cease/reduce  the  use  of  markets  and  collecting  centres  and  promote  the  transport  of 
pigs directly from  the supplying farm  to the receiving  farm. 

- 2 4-

•  Transport  of  production  pigs  and  slaughter  pigs  should  be  limited  to  a regional  scale; 
only  animals  of  high  genetic  value  should  be  allowed  to  be  transported  over  long 
distances. 
•  Cleaning and  disinfection  of animal transport  vehicles to  be carried  out  at  places which 
are subject  to official  control. 
•  Ongoing  compliance  with  Community  rules  on  prior  notification  of  movements  and 
certification 

5. Financing  of disease eradication 
•  Creation  of  an  insurance  scheme  for  emergency  situations,  with  pig  farmers 
contributing to the scheme, 
•  Public financial  assistance  during  epizootics  to  be  conditional  upon  timely  notification 
of suspect  cases  of disease and  efficient  implementation  of the  provisions  of  Community 
legislation  concerning  eradication  of  diseases  including  the  provisions  of  Council 
Decision 90/424/ EEC on expenditure in the veterinary  field. 

3.4.4.  Animal  disease control  expenditure 

The  Council,  by  Decision  90/424/EEC,  established  the  legal  provisions  for  a  fund  for 
veterinary  expenditure.  Under  this  Decision  Member  States  can  obtain  a  financial 
contribution  from  the  Community  towards  the  eradication  of  a  number  of  diseases  of 
economic importance for trade. 

The level of assistance is normally reimbursement  of up to  50% of Member  States'  costs 
relating  to  the  slaughter  of  animals  and  cleaning  and  disinfecting  or  destruction  of 
contaminated  materials.  A  financial  contribution  can  also  be  made  available  to  cover 
expenditure  on  national  disease  surveillance  and  control  programmes,  the  operation  of 
the  strengthening  of  veterinary 
Community  disease  reference 
infrastructures. 

laboratories  and 

The  Community  financial  support  made  available  to  Member  States  in  relation  to  the 
control  of pig diseases is forecast  to increase exceptionally in  1997 (see below). 

Expenditure on control of pig diseases 
(Million ECU) 
Activity 

Eur 12 
1994 
Actions 

Eur 15 
1995 
Actions 

Eur 15 
1996 
Actions 

Eur 15 
1997 
Forecast 

Emergency  fund 
Eradication  or 
Monotoring  programmes 
Total 

28,1 
1,5 

29,6 

10,7 
3,2 

13,9 

0,8 
3,4 

4,2 

173,0 
6,0 

179,0 

This matter is at present subject  of discussion in the European Parliament. 

-  25 

3.5. Animal  welfare 

The  European  Commission  considers  the  welfare  of  animals  an  issue  of  high  priority. 
Community  legislation  in  this  field  dates  from  1974.  In  the  preamble  to  the  first 
Community  legislation  in  the  field  of  animal  welfare,  two  fundamental  reasons  for 
legislation on the matter were identified  as follows: 

•  disparities  in national  legislation  in the field  of  protection  of animals  could  affect  the 
functioning  of the common  market, 
•  the Community should take action to prevent  all forms  of cruelty to animals. 

The responsibilities in this area fall  into three broad  categories: 

•  farming  practices, 
•  transport  of animals, 
•  slaughter of animals. 

The  existing  Community  legislation  in  this  area  is  at  present  being  amended  to  take 
account  of changing political priorities and advances in scientific  knowledge. 

At the end of  1991, the Council  adopted  the Directive  laying down  minimum  standards  for 
the protection of pigs (Council Directive 91/630/EEC). 

The Directive applies to all pigs confined  for rearing and fattening.  It lays down detailed rules 
concerning the unobstructed floor area to be made available for weaner or rearing pigs kept in 
a  group.  These  rules apply  with  effect  from  1 January  1994  to  all  holdings  newly  built  or 
rebuilt  or  brought  into  use  for  the  first  time.  The  minimum  free  space  required  per  pig 
depends on the weight of the pig. All holdings have to comply with these requirements from 
1 January  1998. Furthermore the tethering of sows and gilts is prohibited with effect from 31 
December  1995  although,  where  an  installation  was  built  before  that  date,  the  competent 
authority  may, in the light of an inspection by the competent  authority  in the Member  State 
concerned,  authorise  the  existing  system  on  a  holding  to  be  continued,  but  under  no 
circumstances beyond 31 December 2005. 

Appended to the Directive, and forming  an integral part of it, is a technical Annex containing 
detailed  rules  on  housing,  care,  feeding,  watering  and  more  detailed  rules  for  several 
categories of pigs such as boars, gilts, sows and piglets. 

Article 6 of the Directive requires the Commission to submit  a report  to the Council,  drawn 
up  on  the basis  of an  opinion from the  Scientific  Veterinary  Committee,  on  what  intensive 
pig-rearing  systems comply with  welfare  requirements.  Special  attention  is to  be paid to  the 
welfare  of sows reared  in varying degrees of confinement  and in groups. The report  is to be 
accompanied by proposals based  on the conclusions of that report. The Commission services 
have requested  the  Scientific  Veterinary  Committee  (SVC) to  draw up this scientific  report. 
The  Committee  presented  this  report  to  the  Commission  on  30.9.1997.  The  Commission 
intends  to  present  its  report  accompanied  by  appropriate  proposals  in  due  course  to  the 
Council. 

26 

4. 

S T R U C T U R AL  S U P P O RT  M E A S U R ES 

4.1.  Farm investment aids 

The investment aids provided for in Regulation (EC) No 950/97 (ex 2328/91) are designed to 
help individual holdings or groups  of holdings to  modernise their holdings and to  strengthen 
their competitive position. Improvements in hygiene, animal welfare  standards and protection 
of  the  environment  are  eligible  as  well.  The  aid  may  not  lead  to  an  increase  of  surplus 
production. 

Investments on an industrial scale beyond the level of the individual  holding - not covered by 
this Regulation - are  possible, in exceptional cases, under Objective  1, 5(b) and 6 operational 
programmes for this purpose. Provision  is made, for  instance, for  the treatment  of pig slurry 
outside the holding in the Objective 5(b) SPDs for the Netherlands and Belgium. 

The  provisions  of Regulation  (EC)  No 950/97  (ex  2328/91)  fit  in  with  the  Objective  5(a) 
Community horizontal measures thus being applicable in the entire Union. 

4.2.  Investment aid for pig farms 

To  avoid  difficulties  on  the  market  in  pigmeat,  the  Regulation  lays  down  specific  rules 
concerning aid for pig farms. 

Development  of aid arrangements for the pigmeat sector 
In  1972 provision was made for aid to assist the creation of production capacity for a volume 
of  eligible  investment  of  ECU 40 000  per  holding.  This  scheme  was  replaced  by  new 
provisions  in  1981  limiting  aid  to  the  number  of  pig  places  subsidised  per  holding.  The 
maximum  number  of  eligible  places  was  successively  reduced  from  500  in  1981  to  300 in 
1988.  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2328/91  then  prohibited  any  aid  to  assist  an  increase  in  the 
number of pig places as from 1  January 1991. 

Current situation 
Under  Regulation  950/97  it is possible to  grant  aid  to  pig farms  if this  does not  lead  to an 
increase  in  production  capacity.  The  main  purpose  of  this  aid  is  environmental  protection, 
animal welfare and improvement of hygiene on pig farms.  Specific  conditions have to be met. 
The "fodder clause" is the most significant  constraint because it excludes intensive farms  from 
the aid scheme, specifying that each beneficiary  must have a sufficient  utilised agricultural area 
to  be capable  of producing  at  least  35% of the  feed  consumed  by the  pigs on the holding. 
However,  in exceptional  cases  and  solely  for  investments  aimed  at  reducing  emissions from 
animal waste  and  disposing  of slurry  on  existing  holdings,  the  Commission  may authorise a 
Member State to derogate from  this condition (Regulation  (EC) No 950/97; Article 6(4)). 

-  27 

In  1995 the Netherlands applied for a derogation to support investment in reducing ammonia 
emissions from intensive pig farms. The Commission  rejected  the application on the grounds 
that  assisting  intensive  pig  farms  could  complicate  the  implementation  of  the  nitrates 
Directive.  The  Netherlands  therefore  withdrew  the  application.  To  date,  the  possibility  of 
derogation  from  the  fodder  clause  has  been  used  only  once.  An  application  submitted  by 
Germany was approved by the Commission on 18 September  1996 (C(96) 2134, see Annex). 

4.3.  Transitional aid for pig farms 

Specific measures to assist the new German Lander 
Transitional  measures  applicable  until  31  December  1996  were  adopted  (Article  38  of 
Regulation  (EEC)  No 2328/91).  Aid  for  the  construction  of  pig  places  was  available  in 
connection with the restructuring of collective farms and the creation of new family farms, on 
condition  that  the  number  of  pig  places  in  all  the  new  and  restructured  holdings  did  not 
exceed  the  number  of  pig  places  previously  available  on  the  old  holdings.  The  transitional 
provisions  were  not  extended  after  31 December  1996.  The  structural  problems  still 
remaining  in  the  new  Lander  could  be  resolved  by  appropriate  application  of  the  standard 
Regulation 950/97 scheme. 

Transitional aid for the new Member States (Austria and Finland) 
Transitional aid is authorised by the Act of Accession for investment in pig farms on condition 
that the  aid  does not  involve an increase in global  capacity  and is within  individual  ceilings. 
This aid is not eligible for part-financing and must end on 31 December 1999. 

Austria 
The  indicator  of  global  production  capacity  is  the  number  of  pigs  according  to  official 
Austrian censuses. An increase in pig numbers would lead to the aid scheme being halted. It is 
not  planned  to  take  retroactive  action,  i.e.  demand  repayment  of  aid  already  granted.  The 
individual limits for  each holding are defined  by a national  law ("Viehwirtschaftsgesetz") and 
were approved by a Commission decision (C(95) 634 of 8 September 1995). 

Finland 
The individual  limits per holding were approved  by the  Commission  (C(96)  733  of  19 April 
1996). 

-28 

4.4.  Further development of support under Regulation 950/97 

In  the  margin  of  the  Council  discussion  in November  1994  concerning  the  amendment  of 
Regulation  2328/9117,  some Member  States suggested  a further  development  of the existing 
support scheme for pigs. They argued that, given the structural deficits in the pig meat market 
of some regions, support  for  increasing production  capacity at farm  level should be possible. 
However,  the economic  situation  of pig producers and the sensitivity of the pigmeat  market 
impose restrictions which should be respected: 

The  support  should  be  limited  to  specific  areas which  can prove  a  real  need  for  the 
improvement  of  their  production  structures  also  for  reasons  of  environmental, 
hygiene or animal welfare  aspects. 
The application of the aid scheme and the increase in production capacity on individual 
farms should not increase total pig production in the region. 
The  environmental  and  animal  health  situation  of  the  region  concerned  should  be 
carefully  examined. 

These suggestions and the potential  problems which might arise from their  implementation 
are discussed below. 

The implementation  of an extended  support  scheme for  pigs would  require an amendment 
of Council Regulation  (EC) No  950/97. As in the case  of the  35% fodder  clause,  such a 
scheme could be provided for as a measure in exceptional cases. Specific  provisions for the 
delimitation  of  regions,  compliance  with  environmental  legislation  at  farm  level,  and  the 
definition  and  verification  of  production  capacity  ceilings  would  have  to  be fixed by  the 
regulation. 

4.4.1.  Eligibility of regions 

Delimitation of zones 

The possibility of giving investment  aid to pig farmers would  have to be limited to  regions 
which can prove a specific  need for  structural  improvement.  As pointed  out  in chapter III, 
the  concentration  process  in  some  already  intensive  production  centres  is  continuing, 
leading  to  increasing  problems  concerning  the  spreading  and  disposal  of  manure.  This 
development  should  not  be  supported  by  aid  schemes.  On  the  other  hand,  less  intensive 
regions with  non-optimal  structures  often  show  a downward  trend  in animal  numbers and 
production  share. There might be justification  for considering an aid scheme for maintaining 
the existing production capacity in these regions. 

"Eligible"  regions  could  be  defined  with  respect  to  the  actual  production  situation  within 
that  region  at  local  level.  As described  in chapter  III,  the  production  structure  sometimes 
varies  enormously  within  a  given  NUTS-II  region,  which  makes  this  level  of  region 
unsuitable  as  a  reference  for  determining  eligibility.  The  requirement  for  structural 

17  Now Regulation  (EC) No 950/97. 

-29 

improvements  should  be justified  at  at  least  NUTS-III  or  an  even  lower  level  (smaller 
designated zones). 

Environmental and animal health conditions  •* 

The environmental  impact  of an aid  scheme would  have to be monitored  very carefully.  It 
should  be  noted  that  environmental  legislation  is  strengthening  the  standards  regarding 
acceptable levels of pollution from livestock production, and the fact that there is a limited 
amount of land available is putting pressure on production in intensive breeding regions. As 
a result, animal waste has to be transported out of the region, stocked in large-scale disposal 
sites  or  processed  by  cost-intensive  procedures  into  marketable  products.  Requests  by 
Member  States  for  Community  aid  towards  large-scale  treatment  of  manure  reveal  the 
gravity of environmental problems in certain production centres, which may remain despite 
any large scale treatment unless strict policies decreasing density are implemented. 

The regional application of an investment aid scheme must avoid any further  aggravation of 
the environmental and animal health situation in a given region and to guarantee compliance 
with  existing  legal  rules  and  the  legislation  due  to  be  implemented  soon.  Regions  with 
surplus  production  of  manure  could  not  be  eligible.  The  delimitation  of  eligible  regions 
should therefore be in accordance with the conditions described in the paragraph above not 
only for economic reasons but also for environmental reasons. Selecting areas • that are too 
big  would  conceal  environmental  problems  because  intensive  animal  production  is  often 
concentrated very locally. 

Production capacity 

The production capacity of a region could be defined  in two different ways: 

a)  Indirectly,  deduced  from  the  number  of  pigs  housed  (basis:  existing  official  livestock 
census): 

The  production  ceiling  of  a  region  to  be  respected  by the  aid  scheme  could  refer  to  a 
reference  period, e.g. the average of three annual censuses in that region, in order to avoid 
seasonal  fluctuations.  The  livestock  census  of  the  following  years  would  subsequently 
demonstrate  whether  that  ceiling  had  been  respected.  The  disadvantage  of this  method  is 
that it would be impossible to determine whether a production increase had been caused by 
the aid scheme or whether there were other reasons for it. An increase in production would 
lead to a cessation of the aid scheme, because it would be contrary to the basic requirements 
of the aid scheme. The possibility that the aid scheme would be discontinued from one year 
to the next would  cause administrative and budget  difficulties,  as well as causing problems 
for farmers interested in investing under the scheme. 

b) Directly, by counting the number of pig places (basis: register to be set up): 

A  more  accurate  method  would  make  the  granting  of  investment  aid  for  constructing 
additional  pig  places  on  a  holding  conditional  on  an  equivalent  number  of  places  having 
been  closed  down  elsewhere.  However,  this  approach  would  require  an  enormous 
administrative  effort,  as  Member  States  would  have  to  introduce  a  specific  production 

- 3 0-

capacity survey which would have to be controlled and updated regularly. Besides, even this 
method  cannot  exclude totally  the  possibility  of  an increase  in regional  production  due to 
the fact that farmers extending their capacities without public support would not be included 
in the survey or controls. 

4.4.2.  Eligibility of farms 

Within  the  above-mentioned framework, farms  eligible  for  investment  aid  would  have  to 
prove: 
- 

the economic need for  structural  improvement,  a condition which already has to be met 
by submitting a farm improvement plan under Article 5 of  Regulation (EC) No 950/97; 
-  compliance  with  existing  environmental  rules  by  presenting  a  fertilising  plan  and  a 
sufficient  amount  of  agricultural  land  for  spreading  all  the  manure  without  resultant 
pollution  problems or  an  alternative  solution  having  an  equivalent  effect  with  regard 
to environmental  protection; 

-  compliance  with  individual  farm  ceilings  determined  by  each  Member  State  (as  in  the 

- 

case of Austria and Finland, see section 4.3 above); 
that  the  number  of newly  constmcted  pig  places  did  not  exceed  the  number  of  places 
closed down on other farms; 

-  respect  of a minimum  space  per  animal  in  order  to  ensure  good  sanitary  conditions in 

intensive, but also in less intensive farms. 

31  -

5.  CONCLUSION 

5.1.  Market 

Major  fluctuations  occurred  in  the  EU  pigmeat  sector  between  1993  and  summer  1997.  In 
contrast to  1993 and 1994, when an excessive increase in pig numbers caused a serious crisis in 
the  industry,  supply  and  demand  returned  to  equilibrium  in  1995,  and  the  WTO  measures 
applicable to exports since 1 July 1995 have not had a negative impact on the market. 

1996 was a good year on the whole, although there was a sharp increase in prices in the spring, 
followed  by  a  more  gradual  fall  in  the  autumn.  The  favourable  situation  in  1996  caused  in 
particular by  a higher  demand  for  pigmeat  due  to  the  BSE  crisis,  led  to  an increase in pig 
numbers, so a rise in production was to be expected in 1997. 

However, this upturn did not come about; on the contrary, the market saw  a strong decline in 
pigmeat supply during the first half of  1997 on account of the special market support measures, 
. particularly in the Netherlands  and  Spain,  resulting  in a very  high price level.  As  a result, pig 
numbers increased  substantially in  1997,  as the  census figures of August  1997  show.  Further 
expansion  of  production,  encouraged  perhaps  by  national  and/or  Community  structural  aid, 
could  lead  to  a  new  imbalance  on  the  market,  with  all  the  adverse  consequences  seen  in 
previous crises. 

As  the  production  of  pigmeat  in  the  EU  is,expected  to  increase  in  1998,  it  is  assumed  that 
Community  Market  price  for  1998  will  be  at  a  significantly  lower  level  than  in  1997.  The 
Commission  can  help  cushion  the  impact  of  temporary  increases  in  production  by  making 
provision,  as  appropriate,  for  private  storage  aid  or  for  encouraging  exports.  But  it  cannot 
protect the sector against the effects of a constant expansion of production well in excess of the 
growth  of  demand.  It  would  be  unwise  to  assume  that  there  are  unlimited  external  markets, 
always  ready  to  absorb  all  the  exports  needed  to  achieve  balance  on  the  internal  market.  It 
should also be borne in mind that the Commission is required under the WTO agreements since 
1 July  1995 to observe quantitative and budgetary ceilings on exports. 

Consequently,  endorsing  measures  to  increase  capacity,  even  in  regions  with  a  low 
concentration  of  pigs,  could  destabilise  the  internal  market,  which  is  always  somewhat 
precarious. Bearing in mind that intra-Community trade in pigmeat  exceeds  3 million tonnes, it 
should be possible to achieve equilibrium between the deficit  regions and those with a surplus. 

5.2.  Structures 

As  stated  in Chapter  3, the  average  number of  pigs  per holding,  which  is the  indicator  of the 
trend  in  farm  structures,  has  increased  in  all  the  Member  States  without  the  assistance  of a 
support scheme.  Comparing the structures of individual  holdings and the development  of herds, 
it can be seen that the growth in production has been particularly marked in those countries and 
regions which have large farms. 

Even  if the  statistics  currently  available  do  not  permit  a detailed  and exhaustive  assessment  of 
the environmental  problems, it is clear that particularly intensive production faces environmental 

- 32 

problems in connection with the disposal of waste and emissions from intensive piggeries. This 
in turn requires that Member States ensure that piggeries fully respect environmental legislation. 

These  regions  are  also  more  and  more  vulnerable  to  outbreaks  of  disease  which  can  cause 
immense losses. What  is needed  is not  so much public support  for  the creation  of production 
capacity  as action  to  prevent  further  concentration  in the  sector  and  in  certain  areas  even  a 
reduction  of the pig population. 

The  health  status  of  the  Community  pig  population  has  in  recent  years  been  hampered  by 
disease  eradication  problems  in  areas  with  a  high  density  of  pigs.  The  resolution  of  these 
problems needs further  research and improvement  in disease control. Concerning the latter, 
the  measures  to  be  considered  for  implementation  include:  increased  disease  awareness, 
improved  preparedness  to  cope  with  disease,  better  protection  measures  at  farm  level, 
protection  measures relating to movement  of pigs and financing  of disease eradication. 

The regions where small or medium-sized  pig farms  predominate also show an increase in the 
number  of pigs per holding.  In  some regions there  is even  an increase in the total  number of 
pigs, and it does not therefore  seem appropriate to reinforce the increase in regional production 
by Community aids. Only those regions experiencing losses in terms of market  share as a result 
of declining pig production capacity should be eligible for aid. 

Chapter 4.4. indicates the conditions and criteria to be laid down for  amending the Regulation. 
There is evidence, however, that it is not possible to rule out permanently the risk of an increase 
in regional production. The development  of pig farms outside an aid scheme is not  subject to a 
system  of  checks  and  is  thus  difficult  to  predict.  Registration  of  all  regional  capacities  and 
comprehensive checks on all pig farms would not seem to be either feasible or justifiable. 

Furthermore,  in view of the various aid possibilities - as described  in chapter  4 - caution must 
be exercised in granting any new possibility of support. 

Lastly,  it  should  be  pointed  out  that  there  are  substantial  differences  between  the  Member 
States with regard to the development  of their pig production,  despite the fact  that the current 
Community  support framework provides  for  the  same  rules for  all. It  can  thus be  concluded 
that  the  impact  of  a  possible  support  measure  for  improving  individual  structures  would  be 
fairly  low compared  with that  of other  factors  such  as the degree  of organisation  and vertical 
integration, the structure of processing undertakings or marketing. 

In the  light  of the foregoing  and  by  reason  of the  delicate  market  balance  for  pigmeat,  there 
remain  serious  doubts  as  to  the  advisability  of  amending  Regulation  950/97  to  resolve  the 
problems in this sector in some regions of the Community. 

However  in  line  with  Agenda  2000  the  Commission  proposes  a  revised  legal  framework 
for  rural  development  measures.  This  will  enable  existing  investment  aid  measures  to  be 
integrated  with  measures  for  marketing  and  processing,  environmental  protection  and  so 
on.  In  this  way  more  flexible  programmes,  addressing  particular  needs  in  each  sector  or 
region, will be possible. 

Report on the situation in the pigmeat sector in the 
European Union with a view to possible 
changes to structural support measures 

Annex 

3ï 

ANNEX 

Annex I: 

1.  Development of pig numbers at Member State level 
2.  Derogation from the 35% fodder clause in Germany (Brandenburg) 

Annex H: 

Tables 

1  Gross indigenous production ('000 tonnes, carcase weight),  1990-1995 

2  Pigmeat: Exports to third countries (tonnes, weight of products, including fats and offals),  1993-1996 

3  Pigmeat: Imports from third countries (tonnes, weight of productsjncluding fats and offals),  1993-1996 

4 

Import quotas for pigmeat, VH/1996-XII/1997 

5  Pigmeat supply balance in the EUR-15 (in '0001 carcase weight equivalent), situation and outlook 

6  Number of pigs (in '000) per Member State and as percentage of EU total,  1990/1996,* 

7  Number of fattening pigs (in '000) per Member State and as percentage of EU total,  1990/1996, * 

8  Number of sows (in '000) per Member State and as percentage of EU total,  1990/1996, * 

9  Total number of pigs (in '000),  1989-1993/94/95, at regional level* 

10  Total number of fattening pigs (in '000),  1989-1993/94/95, at regional level* 

11  Total number of sows (in '000),  1989-1993/94/95, at regional level* 

12  The structure of pig holdings in the EU at Member State level,  1987-1991/93/95 * 

13  The structure of pig holdings in the ÈU at regional level,  1989/1993 * 

14  Number of LSU (pigs and cattle) per ha utilised agricultural area,  1993/94,at regional level* 

* Data from  EUROSTA  T databasis extracted between  15.5. and 30.6.1997 

2f 

1.  Development  of pig  numbers  at  Member  State  level 

Annex  I 

Total pig population 
The development  of pig numbers18  in the  period  1990 to  1996 shows significant  differences 
between Member States. While the number of pigs decreased  significantly  in Germany (down 
21,75%)  and Italy (down  8,45%),  production  increased  in France  in particular  (up 24,6%), 
Denmark (up  19,36%) and Belgium (up  12,43%). The biggest increase can be seen in Ireland 
(33,3%>),  although,  since  Ireland  accounts  for  only  1,41%  of  total  Community  production 
(EU-15),  this  increase  did  not  influence  the  Community  livestock  level  significantly.  In the 
Netherlands, the number of pigs increased slightly, by 3,37%. 

The trend  in pig numbers influenced  production  and,  hence, the market  position  of the main 
producers: Germany (24,1 million pigs), Spain (18,6 million pigs), France (15,0 million pigs), 
the Netherlands  (14,3  million pigs) and  Denmark  (11,1  million  pigs). With the  exception  of 
Germany, these producers increased their share of the total EU pig herd. The highest increase 
in production share was seen in France, which increased  its share by 2,54% to  13,50% of the 
pig livestock level in the EU-12. Due to  this development,  France overtook  the Netherlands 
(12,85%o) to  become  the  third  largest  producer  in  the  Community.  Spain  (+2,20%)  and 
Denmark (+1,52%) also strengthened their position within the Community. 

In  contrast  to  the  aforementioned  producers,  Germany's  share  decreased  by  6,37%  to 
21,75%) of the EU-12. It remained  the biggest  producer,  but the gap between  Germany and 
Spain,  the  second  biggest  producer,  narrowed  to  5%.  The  big  decrease  in  the  number  of 
German pigs was mainly in the new Lander, where pig numbers fell by 64,04% between 1990 
and  1996,  although  there  was  also  a  decrease  in  the  old  Lander,  mainly  because  of  the 
outbreak of the swine fever in 1993 and  1994. 

Fattening pigs 
The  stock  of fattening  pigs19 (over  50 kg  live weight)  showed  an increase  of  12,18%, to  a 
total  of 41,7 million in the EUR-12. The new Member  States increased  this number by 2,46 
million  pigs.  The  biggest  increases  in  fattening  pigs  were  in  Ireland  (+37,06%),  France 
(+26,01%), Spain (+22,24%) and Denmark  (+21,20%). In Germany the number of fattening 
pigs fell by approximately  22%. 

Breeding sows 
The figures for  breeding  sows20  are  an  indication  of the possible future  development  of pig 
production. In the EUR-12, the number of breeding sows increased by 7,42% to  11,7 million 
between  1990  and  1996.  The  new  Member  States  (Austria,  Finland  and  Sweden),  with 
829 000 sows, brought this total to  12,6 million.  On the basis of these figures, some increase 
can be expected in European pig production. 

See Table 6. 

19 

20 

See Table  7. 

See Table  8. 

2<r 

As regards  the five main pig  producers  mentioned  above,  the  biggest  increase  in  sows  was 
shown by France (+ 23,86%) and Ireland (+ 22,55%). Denmark and the Netherlands enlarged 
their sow stock by  17,29% and  1,92% respectively. In Germany, the sow stock  decreased by 
20,41%).  Again,  this  development  was  mainly  influenced  by  the  development  in  the  new 
Lander, where the sow stock was halved. 

A comparison  of the percentage  of breeding  sows kept  by the  12 old Member  States of the 
EU reveals the biggest increase in production  share for France, which extended  its sow stock 
from  a  percentage  of  10,74%  of  the  EU-12  breeding  sows  in  1990  to  12,39%  in  1996, 
followed  by  Spain, with  an increase  of 0,46%  to  a share of  17,59%, and  Denmark  with an 
increase  of  0,88%  to  a  share  of  10,41%.  The  strong  decline  in  pig  production  in the  new 
German Lander also affected  the stock of breeding sows and resulted in a 7,58% decrease in 
production  share  for  Germany  as  a  whole.  Nevertheless,  Germany  remained  the  biggest 
producer  of breeding  sows in Europe  with 21,68%  (UE-12), but  as with  total  pig numbers, 
the gap narrowed between Germany and Spain, the second biggest producer in the EU. 

2.  Derogation from the 35% fodder clause in Germany (Brandenburg) 

The Commission  agreed  to  a derogation from the  35% fodder  clause for  the  German Land 
Brandenburg. Those applying for participation in this scheme have to fulfil  specific conditions: 
1. The scheme covers investments for reducing emissions from manure and the elimination of 

manure on the farms concerned. 

2. The investment must not lead to an increase in the production capacity of the farm. 
3. The fanner must present a manure utilisation plan, including: 

- identification  of the surfaces under contract available for manure spreading, 
-  description  of  measures  taken  to  comply  with  the  German  law  known  as  the 
"Dungeverordnung"  (which  transposes  the  Nitrates  Directive  (91/676/EEC)  into 
national  legislation)  concerning  choice  of  areas,  calculation  of the  amount  of  organic 
fertiliser per hectare and spreading time, 

- maximum stocking density (all livestock) per hectare of contract area of  1,4 LSU/ha. 
The  Commission  has asked  for  a  report  on  the  application  of the  derogation  scheme to  be 
submitted after one year. 

2^ 

ANNEX II 

Tables 

3T 

•\.y. 

Table 1 

Gross  indigeneous  production  (1000 tonnes carcase weight) 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

EUR 

U.E.B.L 
Denmark, 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Portugal 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 

13.338 (1) 

14.289 (2) 

14.T43 (2) 

15.175 (2) J15.233 (2) 

16.043(3) 

•747 
1.208 
3.142 
147 
1.772 
1.817 
160 
1.211 
1.904 

893 
L272 
3.786 
153 
1.869 
1.860 
169 
1.224 
1.806 

934 
1.383 
3:467 
153 
. 1.902 
••••"•1.950 
189 
1.228 
1.865 

278 

263 

265 

976 
1.524 
3.574 
147 
2.065 
2.134 
2Ô1 
1.265 
1.972 
476 
304 

953 

995 

1.007 

1.014 

992 
1,539 
3,462 
142 
2.197 
2.117 
207 
1.295 
1.92-7 
473 
301 
171 
308 
1.054 

1.029 
1.517 
.,: 3.427 
142 

«c 2.172 
"2.140 

• 207 
1.276 
1.885 
473 
"284 
168 
311 
1.013 

0) 
(2) 
(3) 

Eur 12 without E x - D DR 
Eur 12 with new "Lander" 
Eur 15 

-3=) 

Table 2 

Pigmeat: Exports to third  countries 
(product weight .including fats  and  offals,  in 1000 kg) 

•

•

•

"

'

•

•

•

"

•

-. 

1 

• 

UeBL 

D k' 

Deu 

Ell 

Esp 

Fra 

Irl 

Ita 

Nl 

Ôst 

Port 

SF 

Sve 

U.K. 

•

(

' " •

•. 

' 

Eur 

1993 

36.604 

401.058 

73.938 

4.063 

40.335 

.56.764 

10.387 

11.285 

, 8 2 . 7 35 

-.;'.  7.192 

7.239 

73L604 

1994 

42.938 

498.814 

102.343 

4.581 

51.256 

113,608 

16.539 

17.723 

99.337 

8.187 

18.375 

973.705 

1995 

44.888 

398.092 

57.694 

5.620 

51.650 

104.806 

12.149 

15.084 

103.116 

20.138 

11.002 

7.589 

12.257 

28.325 

872.410 

1996 

68.836 

396.484 

37.365 

6.077 

62.539 

121.510 

15.753 

18.447 

119:074 

22.092 

10.580 

^ 1 8 42 

13.904 

35.006 

940.509 

Table 3 

Pigmeat: Imports from third  countries 
(product weight,  including fats  and  offals,  in 1000 kg) 

UeBL 

Dk 

Deu 

Ell 

Esp 

Fra 

Irl 

Ita 

Nl 

Ôst 

Port 

SF 

Sve 

U.K. 

Eur 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1996 

2.124 

1.285 

16.531 

1.689 

1.274 

2.810 

9 

11.580 

12.316 

2.223 

2.229 

13.955 

1.162 

4.451 

5.791 

81 

10.194 

6.822 

42 

5 

4.917 

54.576 

5.002 

51.918 

2.243 

242 

12.386 

570 

2.032 

3.476 

42 

10.838 

6.218 

1.606 

278 

2 

1.651 

4.536 

46.120 

1.005 

608 

13.540 

1.058 

6.028 

6.407 

155 

Î8.162 

7.832 

2.488 

219 

1 

1.654 

3.809 

62.966 

^o 

Table4 

Import quotas for Diqmeat 

1. Association Agreements with the CEEC-countries 
(Period: 11.1997 -31.12.1997) 

. 

> 

• 

Quantities 
,'  in tonnes 

% of reduction 
of customs rate 

Hungary 
Polonia 
Czech  Republic 
Slovak  Republic 
Bulgaria 
Romania 
Lithuania 
Latvia 
.  Estonia 
Slovenia 

* 
* 
* 

•(Period:  1.7.1996  -  30.12.1997) 

41.768 
26.050 
4.980 
2.340 
230 
17.533 
/  1.050 
1.260 
L575 
150 

80% 
'80% 
80% 
80% 
80% 
80%  ' 
80% 
80% 
80% 
80% 

2.  ACP-countries 
(Period: 1.1.1997 -31.12.1997) 

' 

Quantities 
in tonnes 
250 

% of reduction 
of customs rate 
50% 

Quantities 
in tonnes 

Customs  duty 

7.000 

exemption 

18.920 

Final  amount 
fixed  per  product 

3.  In  the  framework  of  the  WTO 

' 

WTO  - 1 
(Period:  1.1.1997-
31.12.1997) 

W T O -2 
(Period:  1.7.1996  - 
30.6.1997) 

. 

tfj 

Tabled. 

•  ':.-. 

,  • v

:  ' 

Pigment supply balance in the EU-15 (in *000 t carcase weight equivalent), 
situation  and  outlook 

Pigmcat 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Production 

.15:953 

16.325 

16.570 

16.684 

16.775 

16.871 

16.998 

17.136 

17.276 

17.417. 

17.539 

Consumption 

15.137. 

15.527 

15.770 

15,908 

16.034 

16.165 

16.317 

16455 

16.594 

16.735 

16.857 

Imports 

22 

42 

.  50 

V  65 

-so 

95 

11.0, 

110 

110 

no 

110 

Exports 

'..'•  -

808 

;  87Ô; 

••.;. $50 

841 

821 

• 801 

792 

.  .792. 

792 

792. 

792 

40,67. 

41,67 

per  capita 
cons,  (kg) 
N o t e:  Extract from: CAP.2000 - working document.  Long term Prospects • Grains, Milk & Méài Products.  EU-Conimission. DG VI 
Production. U net production, i.e. gross indigenous production plus net trade in live animals. Consequently, imports and exports only refer to meat 
trade. Offals are excluded. " 

.  <. 

.  42.68 

.43,41 

42,20 

43,17 

44,15 

42;44 

42,88 

43,66 

43,90 

• .- 

. 

^ 

-

.

.. 

• 

•

'

*

'

.' 

' 

'

•

.

'

•

'. 

. 

• 

*• 

^JL 

TABLE 6: Total number of pigs per Member State 

Total number of pigs (in 

MS 

1996 

1000) 
+/-% 

1993 

+/-% 

1990 •. 

+/-1990/96% 

> 

Total number of pigs 
1996(UE-15) 
1996(UE-12) 

in percentage of EU 

1993 

19Ô0 •• 

*/-'90r96(UE-12) 

M S .. 

Belgium 

7.225 

Denmark 

,  11.079 

Germany 

24.117 

20.958 

+5,07% 

+1,92% 

•7,51% 

-5,17% 

6.876 

+7,01% 

6.426 

10.870 

+17,11% 

.  9.282 

26.075 

-15,39% 

22.101 

+0,30% 

30.819 

22.035 

+12,43% 

+19,36% 

-2i;75% 

-4,89% 

dw 

Germany (West)" 

Germany (East)** 

3.159 

-20,51% 

3974 

-54,76% 

8.784 

-64,04% 

Greece 

>  904 

-20,91% 

1.143 

+0,00% 

"•  1.143 

Spain 

France 

Ireland 

Italy 

18.572 

+2,11% 

18.188 

+14,04% 

14.968 

+4,73% 

14.291 

+18,07% 

1.665 

8.090 

+11,99% 

-3,09% 

1.487 

+19,02% 

8.348 

.  -5,53% 

Luxemburg 

77 

+7,48% 

72 

+2,02% 

15.949 

12.013 

1.249 

8.837 

.70 

Netherlands 

14.253 

+1,87% 

13.991 

+1.47% 

13.788 

2.666 

7.868 

+0,08% 

+6,61% 

2.664 

7.380 

111.875 

+2,06% 

109.620 

-20,91% 
:+16,45% 

' 

+24,60% 

+33,30% 

-8,45% 

+9,66% 

+3,37% 

-12,01% 

+2,98% 

A 

+1,16% 

Portugal 

United Kingdom 

2.344 

7.600 

EUR12 

110.894 

Austria 

Finland 

Sweden 

3.663 

1.413 

2.323 

EUR15 

118.293 

-12,08% 

-3.41% 

-0,88% 

-4,11% 

+8,76% 

+2,02% 

-0.82% 

be 

dk 

de 

' 

gr 
es 
-g 
fr 

ir 

it 

lu 

nl 

. 

pt 
uk 

e12 

at 
n 
se 

e15 

6,11% 

.  9,37% 

6,52% 

9,99% 

6,15%' 

• 
• •:  £.86% 

I" 

+0,65% 

9,72% 

8,47% 

••••<:'•"••:'•-:.  +1,52% 

20,39% 

21,75% 

23,31% 

28,11% 

-6,37% 

Belgium 

Denmark 

Germany 

. 1 7 , 7 2% 

18,90% 

19,75% 

20,10% 

•;•• '•::•-•;  , 

-1,20% 

Germany (West)* 

2,67% 

0,76% 

15,70% 

12,65% 

.2,85% 

"3,55% 

8,01% 

:••••>'•'".:'•••'•. 

-5,16% 

Germany  (East)** 

0 ^ 2% 

. 1 , 0 2% 

1.04% 

v 

16,75% 

.16,26% 

14,55% 

- 0 ^ 3% 

+2^0% 

•-,'  Greece 

-Spain 

13,50% 

12,77% 

10,96% 

-  +2,54% 

> 

£  France 

1,41% 

..•••'•  1,50% 

1,33% 

6,84% 

0,07% 

.  7,30% 

7,46% 

0,07% 

.0,06% 

1,14% 

8,06% 

0,06% 

•  •". 12,05% 

12,85% 

12,51% 

12.58% 

1,98% 

6,42% 

2,11% 

6,85% 

100,00% 

2,38% 

\  2,43% 

7t03% 
100,00% 

6,73% 

100,00% 

+0,36% 

-0,77% 

•0,01% 

+0,27% 

-0,32% 

+0,12% 

.Ireland 

(  ; 

;  Italy 

Luxemburg 

Netherlands 

•; " Portugal 
United  Kingdom 

EUR12 

3.820 

+3,58% 

•  1300 

+0,74% 

2277 

+0,57% 

3.688 

1.290 

2.264. 

119.272 

+10,36% 

108.078 

-0,68% 

+9,56% 

+2,61% 

+9,45% 

• 

•• 

, 

3,30% 

1,27% 

2,09% 

100,00% 

Austria 

Finland 

Sweden 

EUR15 

(December  survey) 

* Source: Stat. Jahrbuch uber  Ernahrung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten, Landwirtschaftsverlag  MGnster-Hiltrup, various issues. For 1996: preliminary, source:- BML,  Stat. Monatsbericht 1/97 

"  Calculated: Germany (East) = Germany - Germany (West) 

* 

•  | 

EUROSTAT: New Cronos/zpa1  (the italic figures were provided by MS  authorities) 

TABLE 7: Total number of fattening pigs > 50 kg per Member State 

Total number  of fattening  pigs  > 50 kg (in  1000) 
+/-% 

1993 

+/-% 

1996 

MS 

1990 

+7-1990/96% 

Number of fattening pigs > 50 kg as % of EU total 
+ / - W 9 6 ( U E - 1 2) 
1993 

1996(UE*12) 

1996(UE-15) 

1990 

be 
dk 
de 
dw 

es 

f r_ 

ir 

it 

lu 

nl 

Pt 

uk 

e12 

at 

fi 

se 

e15 

Belgium 

Denmark 

Germany 

Germany  (West)' 

Germany (East)* 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Ireland 

Italy 

Luxemburg 

Netherlands 

'4.965 

Portugal 

United  Kingdom 

698 
2.701 

EUR12 

41.662 

2.695 
3.013 

9.148 

8.071 

1.076 

+5.24% 

+1,31% 

-5.59% 
-2.90% 
-21.92% 

288 

-14.79% 

7.563 

5.689 
525 

4.350 

26 

+3.78% 

+3,30% 

+15,68% 
-2,43% 

+15,03% 
+7,35% 

-15.50% 

+2.27% 

+0.67% 

+14,05% 

+19,63% 

2.245 

2.486 

-17,36% 

11.726 

2.561 
2.974 

9.690 

8.312 

+0,78% 

1378 

-60.38% 

338 

+7,30% 

7.287 

+17,78% 

5.508 

+21,99% 

8.248 

3.478 

315 

6.187 

4.515 

+20,03% 

+21;20% 
-21,99% 

-2,15% 
-69,06% 
-8,57% 

+22,24% 

+26,01% 

454 

+18.48% 

383 

+37,06% 

4.459 

-7,47% 

4.818 

23 

+0,40% 

4.625 

-0,62% 

826 

-1,55% 

2.641 

+8.91% 

23 

4.654 

839 
2.425 

-9,72% 
+15,49% 

+6,68% 

-16,81% 

+11,38% 

41.385 

+11,44% 

37.138 

+12,18% 

Austria 

Finland 

Sweden 

1.262 

-6.86% 

1.355 

499 
699 

EUR15 

44.122 

6,47% 
7,23% 
21,96% 

6,19% 

7»19% 

23.41% 

$05% 
6,69% 
31,57% 

19,37% 

.20,08% 

22,21% 

2,58% 

0,69% 
18,15% 

13,66% 
1,26% 

3,33% 

0,82% 

9,37% 

0,85% 

17,61% 

16,66% 

13,31% 

12,16% 

1,10% 

1,03% 

10,44% 

10,77% 

12,97% 

0,06% 

0,06% 

11,92% 

11,18% 

1,68% 

6,48% 

2,00% 

6.38% 

0,06% 
12,53% 
4  2,26% 
6.53% 

100,00% 

100,00% 

100,00% 

6,11% 

6,83% 

20,73% 

18,29% 

2,44% 

0,65% 

17,14% 

12,89% 

1,19% 

9,86% 

0,06% 

11,25% 

1,58% 

6,12% 

3,03% 

1,20% 
1,68% 

100,00% 

MS 

Belgium 

Denmark 

Germany 

Germany (West)* 

Germany (East)'* 

Greece 

Spain 

Frartce 
Ireland 
Italy 

Luxemburg 
Netherlands 

Portugal 

+0,42% 

+0,54% 

-9,62% 
-2.84% 

-6,78% 
-0.16% 
+1,49% 
+1.50% 

+0,23% 

-2,53% 

+0,00% 

-0,61% 

-0,58% 

r0,05% 

United Kingdom 

EUR12 

Austria 

Finland 

Sweden 

EUR15 

(December survey) 

'  Source: Stat. Jahrbuch uber Ernahrung, Landwirtschaft  und Forsten, Landwirtschaftsverlag  Munster-Hiltrup, various issues. For 1996: preliminary, source: BML, Stat. Monatsbericht  1/97 

•• Calculated: Germany (East)  = Germany - Germany (West) 

; 

, 

] 

p 

; 

1 

EUROSTAT: New Cronos/zpa1 (the italic figures were provided by MS authorities) 

TABLE 8: Total number of sows (in 1000) per Member State 

Total number of sows (in 1000) 
+/-% 

1996 

MS 

1993 

+/-% 

1990 

+/-1990/96% 

748 

+0.84% 

742 

+1,42% 

be 
dk 

de 

Belgium 

Denmark 

Germany 

dw 

Germany (West)* 

Germany (East)* 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Ireland 

Italy 

Luxemburg 

Netherlands 

Portugal 

United Kingdom 

es 

fr 

ir 

it 

lu 

nl 

Pt 
uk 
e12 

at 

fi 

se 

e15 

1.221 

2.543 

2.141 

402 

135 

2.063 

1.453 

182 

685 

+5.08% 

-9.45% 

-6.95% 

-20,71 % 

-17,18% 

-2.18% 

•6,00% 

+8.16% 

-2,55% 

-6,53% 

1.483 

+0.54% 

330 

875 

-9,84% 

-2,02% 

-2,03% 

1.162 

+11,62% 

2.808 

-12,10% 

2.301 

-3,80% 

507 

163 

-36.86% 

+1,88% 

2.109 

+ 12.75% 

1.371 

+16.85% 

169 

703 

10 
1.475 

366 

893 

+13,31% 

-3.17% 

-0.50% 
+1,37% 

•3,39% 

+4.32% 

731 

1.041 

3.195 

2.392 

803 

160 

1.870 

1.173 

149 

726 

10 

1.455 

354 

856 

+2,27% 

+17,29% 

-20,41% 

-10,49% 

-49.94% 

-15.63% 

+10.29% 

+23.86% 

+22.55% 

-5.63% 
-7,00% 

+1,92% 
-6,78% 

+2,22% 

+7.42% 

EUR12 

11.727 

Austria 

Finland 

Sweden 

385 

181 

262 

EUR15 

12.556 

11.970 

+9.65% 

10:917 

+1.05% 

381 

+7.08% 

356 

+8.21% 

-3.86% 

273 

+9,17% 

250 

+4.96% 

Number of sows as percentage of EU total 
1996(UE-15) 
5,96% 

1996(UE-12) 
6,38% 

1990 
6,V0% 

6,20% 

1993 

• +/-'90/'96(UE-12) 

10,41% 

9.71% 

9,54% 

21,68% 

,  23,46% 

29,27% 

18,26% 

19,22% 

21,91% 

3,43% 

1.15% 

4,24% 

1,36% 

7,36% 

1,47% 

17,59% 

17,62% 

17,13% 

12,39% 

11,45% 

10,74% 

1.55% 

5,84% 

0,08% 

1,41% 

5,87% 

0,08% 

1.36% 

6,65% 

0,09% 

12.65% 

12,32% 

13,33% 

2,81% 

7.46% 

3,06% 

.  3,24% 

7,46% 

7,84% 

100,00% 

100.00% 

9,72% 

20,25% 

17,05% 

3.20% 

1.08% 

16.43% 

11,57% 

1.45% 

5,46% 

0,07% 

11,81% 

2.63% 

6,97% 

3,28% 

1,55% 

2,23% 

100.00% 

-0,32% 

+0,88% 

-7,58% 

MS. 

Belgium 

Denmark 

Germany 

-3,65% 

Germany (West)' 

-3.93% 

Germany (East)** 

-0.31% 

+0,46% 

+1.64% 

+0.19% 

-0.81% 

-0.01% 

-0.68% 

-0.43% 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Ireland 

Italy 

Luxemburg 

Netherlands 

Portugal 

-Q.38% 

United Kingdom 

EUR12 

Austria 

Finland 

Sweden 

EUR15 

(December  survey) 

* Source: Stat. Jahrbuch ûber Ernâhrung, Landwirtschaft  undforsten,  Landwirtschaftsverlag  Mûnster-Hiltrup, various issues. For 1996: preliminary, source: BML, Stat. Monatsbericht 1/97 

*• Calculated: Germany (East) = Germany - Germany (West) 

. 

- 

. 

£ 

. 

. 

EUROSTAT: New Cronos/zpa1 (the italic figures were provided by MS authorities) 

TA 

3LE 9: Total number o 
Regions 

f  pigs 
1995 

[in 100C 
) 
1994 

eur_ 
be 
bel 
be2 
be3 
dk 
de 

del 
de2 
de3 
de4 
de5 
de6 
de7 
de8 
de9 
dea 
deb 
dec 
ded 
dee 
def 
deg 

gr 
gn 
gr2 
gr3 

EUR 12 
BELGIQUE-BELGIE 
REG.BRUXELLES-CAP./BRUSSE 
VLAAMS GEWEST 
REGION WALLONNE 
OANMARK 
DEUTSCHLAND gesamt 
DEUTSCHLAND ait* 
DEUTSCHLAND neu~ 
BADEN-WUERTTEMBERG 
BAYERN 
BERLIN 
BRANDENBURG 
BREMEN 
HAMBURG 
HESSEN 
MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN 
NIEDERSACHSEN 
NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN 
RHEINLAND-PFALZ 
SAARLAND 
SACHSEN 
SACHSEN-ANHALT 
SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN 
THUERINGEN 
ELLADA 

VOREIA ELLADA 

KENTRIKI ELLADA 

ATTIKI 

gr4 
es'ïS 

es1 

NISIAAIGAIOU, KRITI 
ESPANA 
NOROESTE 

7*153 
0 
6.885 
268 
10.709 
23.737 
20.572 
3.165 
2.176 
3.437 
2 
702 
3 
3 
877 
527 
6.752 
5.633 
397 
25 
563 
712 
1.269 
660 
917 

6.984 
0 
6.707 
277 
10.864 
24.698 
21.331 
3.367 
2.251 
3.722 
2 
762 
3 
3 
917 
609 
6.901 
5.762 
435 
27 
614 
712 
1.309 
671 
951 

18.125 

18.269 

es11 

GALICIA 

es12 
es13 

ASTURIAS 

CANTABRIA 

es2 

NORESTE 

es21 

PAIS VASCO 

es22 

NAVARRA 

es23 

RIOJA 

es24 

ARAGON 

es3 

MADRID 

es4 

CENTRO (E) 

es41 

CASTILLA-LEON 

es42 

CASTILLA-LA MANCHA 

es43 

EXTREMADURA 

es5 

ESTE 

es51 

CATALUNA 

es52 

COMUNIDAD VALENCIANA 

es53 
es6 

BALEARES 

SUR 

es61 

ANDALUCIA 

es62 

MURCIA 

es63 

CEUTAYMELILLA 

es7 
Mm 
fr1 

fr2 

fr3 

CAN ARIAS 
FRANCE 
ILE DE FRANCE 
BASSIN PARISIEN 

14.523 

14.593 

NORD-PAS-DE-CALAIS 

646 

1993 
112.894 
6.876 
0 
6.590 
286 
10.870 
26.075 
22.101 
3.974 
2.298 
3.807 
2 
969 
3 
4 
980 
791 
7.215 
5.916 
466 
32 
682 
817 
1.378 
715 
1.144 

434 

583 

24 

102 
18.234 
687 

621 
45 

22 

1992 
109.830 
6.903 
0 
6.625 
278 
10.345 
26.514 
22.115 
4.400 
2.240 
3.834 
2 
1.038 
3 
4 
1.000 
970 
7.216 
5.903 
486 
31 
754 
882 
1.397 
756 
^.099 

414 

567 

24 

94 
18.260 

1.028 

961 

45 

23 

3.277 

2.758 

51 

336 

87 

52 
344 

100 

+/- ,89('90)/,94 % 
-100,00% 
•8,45% 
+0,00% 
+9,04% 
-4.12% 
•18,22% 
+11.43% 
-3,76% 
-61,56% 
+1,05% 
+0,45% 
-33,33% 
-62,83% 
-31,58% 
-34,69% 
-11,27% 
-69,09% 
-3,78% 
-3,89% 
-18,38% 
-24,58% 
-58,92% 
-63,60% 
-9,79% 
-48,01% 
-18,05% 

+8,03% 

1991 

1990 

106.233 
6.533 
0 
6.264 
269 
9.767 
26.063 
21.385 
4.679 
2.167 
3.693 
27 
1.086 
3 
5 
985 
1.153 
6.920 
5.675 
488 
34 
789 
932 
1.388 
719 
974 

363 

493 

24 

93 
17.110 
1.029! 

955; 

47 

27! 
2.854; 

57: 

370i 

110 

110.000 
6.426 
0 
6.148 
278 
9,497 
30.819 
22.059 
8.760 
2.224 
3.716 
27 
2.049 
'  4 
5 
1.028 
1.971 
7.127 
5.938 
510 
36 
1.494 
1.956 
1.445 
1.291 
L 1 43 

419 

590 

26 

108 
16.002 

1.076 

980 
66 

30 
2.394 

56 

334 

93 

1989 
102.156 
6.440 
0 
6.151 
289 
9.190 
22.165 
22.165 

2.227 
3.706 
3 

4 
5 
1.033 

7.172 
5.996 
533 
35 

1.451 

1.160 

433 

583 

28 

117 
16.911 

1.386 

1.273 

60 

53 

2.443 

61 

348 

112 

2.803 

2.261 

2.317| 

1.911 

1.923 

57 

4.668 

2.816 

735 

1.118 

6.269 

5.237 

956 
76 

3.230 

2.086 

1.144 

0 

46 
13.684 

12 
1.527 
601 

58 

4.977 

2.941 

932 

1.105 

6.033 

5.083 

873 

77 

3.365 

1.972 

1.393 

0 

41 
12.903 
14 

1.416 
624 

69 

4.461 

2.810 

6771 

974 ! 

5.546; 

4.643 

794 

108 

3.113 

1.781 

1.332 

0 

38 
12.384 
17 
1.365 

613 

70 

4.355 

2.547 

899 

909 

5.380 

4.465 

815 

100 

2.674 

1.689 

985 

0 

78 

4.562 

2.585 

1.015 

962 
5.641 

4.721 
824 

97 

2.740 

1.671 

1.069 

0 

53 
12.239 
18 

61 
12.366 
18 

1.329 

1.341 

639 

646 

+18,01% 

+0,02% 

EUROSTAT: New Cronos/regio (italic figures were provided by MS authorities) 

fr4 

fr5 

fr6 

fr7 

fr8 

fr9 

ie 

it 

EST 

OUEST 

SUD-OUEST 

CENTRE-EST 

MEDITERRANEE 

DEPARTEMENTS  D'OUTRE-MER 

IRELAND 

ITALIA 

1.542 

8.061 

it1 

NORD  OVEST 

it11 

PIEMONTE 

it12 

VALLE  D'AOSTA 

it13 

LIGURIA 

it2 

it3 

LOMBARDIA 

NORD  EST 

it31 

TRENTINO-ALTO  ADIGE 

it32 

VENETO 

it33 

FRIULI-VENEZIAGIULIA 

it4 

it5 

EMILIA-ROMAGNA 

CENTRO  (I) 

it51 

TOSCANA 

it52 

UMBRIA 

it53 

MARCHE 

its 

it7 

LAZIO 

ABRUZZO-MOLISE 

it71 

ABRUZZO 

it72 

MOUSE 

itS 

it9 

CAMPANIA 

SUD 

it91 

PUGLIA 

it92 

BASILICATA 

it93 

CALABRIA 

SICILIA 

SARDEGNA 

LUXEMBOURG  (GRAND-DUCHE) 

68 

ita 

itb 

lu 
nl 
nh 

nl2 

nl3 

nl4 

NEDERLAND 

NOORD-NEDERLAND 

OOST-NEDERLAND 

WEST-NEDERLAND 

ZUID-NEDERLAND 

ptm 

Pti 
ptn 

PORTUGAL 

CONTINENTE 

NORTE 

pt12 

CENTRO  (P) 

pt13 

USBOA  E VALE  DO  TEJO 

pt14 

ALENTEJO 

pt15 

ALGARVE 

pt2 

pt3 

uk 

uk1 

uk2 

uk3 

uk4 

ACORES 

MADEIRA 

UNITED  KINGDOM 

NORTH 

YORKSHIRE  AND  HUMBERSIDE 

EAST  MIDLANDS 

EAST  ANGLIA 

uk5 

SOUTH  EAST  (UK) 

uk6 
uk7 

uk8 
uk9 

SOUTH  WEST  (UK) 
WEST  MIDLANDS 

NORTH  WEST  (UK) 

WALES 

uka 

SCOTLAND 

ukb 

NORTHERN  IRELAND 

9.862 

749 

1.498 

8.023 

750 

749 

0 

1 

306 

9.148 

1.252 

679 

160 

1.487 
8.348 

768 

766 

1 

1 

305 

8.391 

1.290 

700 

165 

1.423 

8.244 

752 

750 

0 

2 

294 

7.983 

1.261 

686 

165 

1.346 

8.549 

741 

738 

1 

3 

302 

7.775 

1.298 

697 

183 

1.249 

8.837 

745 

741 

1 

3 

321 

7.738 

1.389 

702 

210 

995 

9.254 

755 

751 

1 

4 

3.059 

2.992 

2.909 

2.876 

2.917 

2.970 

774 

26 

560 

189 

862 

24 

636 

202 

851 

26 

619 

206 

860 

35 

643 

183 

888 

39 

676 

173 

1.675 

1.797 

1.782 

1.970 

2.088 

709 

234 

269 

207 

175 

158 

109 

49 

156 

224 

31 

80 

113 

92 

252 

76 

829 

269 

321 

238 

160 

184 

127 

57 

162 

240 

33 

77 

130 

98 

257 

72 

827 

280 

306 

241 

179 

189 

130 

59 

167 

231 

35 

78 

118 

99 

258 

66 

944 

363 

341 

240 

177 

161 

95 

65 

170 

284 

38 

98 

147 

107 

260 

64 

997 

396 

354 

247 

189 

157 

95 

62 

187 

290 

44 

97 

149 

114 

265 

70 

884 

38 

673 

173 

2.241 

1.089 

426 

388 

275 

199 

167 

97 

70 

216 

335 

48 

126 

160 

120 

280 

71 

14.397 

14.565 

14.964 

14.161 

13.217 

13.915 

13.729 

564 

4.845 

778 

8.211 

2.402 

7.351 

179 

1.875 

548 

1.507 

681 

786 
365 

238 

89 

548 

534 

565 

4.909 

809 

8.282 

2.416 

2.359 

196 

536 

585 

5.128 

879 

8.373 

2.664 

2.606 

227 

581 

1.156 

1.279 

396 

445 

75 

40 

17 

7.879 

181 

1.799 

653 

1.422 

802 

978 
515 

285 

96 

579 

569 

74 

40 

18 

7.869 

210 

1.945 

623 

1.534 

736 

880 
403 

309 

94 

537 

597 

558 

4.888 

825 

7.890 

2.546 

2.488 

227 

618 

1.178 

391 

74 

40 

18 

7.704 

190 

1.769 

614 

1.449 

755 

886 
444 

395 

109| 

498 

597 

558 

4.570 

791 

7.298 

2.554 

2.494 

211 

597 

559 

549 

4.818 

4.819 

826 

7.712 

2.650 

2.585 

220 

618 

826 

7.535 

2.583 

2.516 

221 

548 

1.2021 

1.295 

1.243 

398 

361 

86 

40 

20 

7.519 

183 

1.651 

607 

1.396 

852 

839 

429 

364 

92 

506 

601j 

403 

101 

39 

28 

91 

42 

23 

7.379 

7.383 

181 

171 

1.710 

1.588 

607 

1.276 

576 

1.208 

815 

880 
410 

339 

106 

461 

595 

793 

869 
689 

334 

124 

431 

602 

EUROSTAT: New Cronos/regio (italic figures were provided by MS authorities) 

+27,44% 

+6,67% 

+50,598% 

-13,301% 

-0,675% 

-0,253% 

-57,143% 

-80,000% 

+3,014% 

-12,465% 

-32,813% 

-16,877% 

+9,270% 

-25,260% 

-34,870% 

-45.239% 

-30.730% 

-24.618% 

-11,990% 

-5,436% 

+12,243% 

-29,915% 

-27,665% 

-33,154% 

-35,892% 

-36,479% 

-29,757% 

-23,161% 

-10,036% 

•8,085% 

+6.088% 

+2,988% 

+1,876% 

-2,130% 

+9,909% 

-«,465% 

-6,240% 

-11,312% 

-2,190% 

-6,999% 

-1.737% 

-25,743% 

+2,564% 

-39,286% 

•6,718% 

+5,848% 

+13,287% 

+13,368% 

+17,715% 

+1,135% 

+12,543% 

-25,254% 

-14,671% 

-22,581% 

+34,339% 

-5,482% 

-1,166% 
-8,012% 
-11,193% 
-7,550% 
-48,294% 
+3,237% 
-3,275% 
+4,568% 
+2,078% 
+4,322% 
-16,777% 
-23,911% 
-8,785% 
-4,489% 
-7,059% 
+3,161% 
-1,035% 
-2,784% 
H:;>;:i::M&&58% 
+25,503% 

+23,055% 

-3,211% 
-5,846% 

+5,142% 

+23,311% 

+16,763% 
-5,485% 

EUR 15 
OESTERREICH 
OSTOESTERREICH 
BURGENLAND 
NIEDEROESTERREICH 
WIEN 
SUEDOESTERREICH 
KAERNTEN 
STEIERMARK 
WESTOESTERREICH 
OBEROESTERREICH 
SALZBURG 
TIROL 
VORARLBERG 
SUOMI/FINILAND 
UUSIMAA, E-SUOMI, AALAND 
ITÀ-SUOMI 
VÀLI-SUOMI 
POHJOIS-SUOMI 
SVERIGE— 
STOCKHOLM 

at;*;;? 
at1 
at11 
at12 
at13 
at2 
at21 
at22 
at3 
at31 
at32 
at33 
at34 

f|::SïS 
f i ll 
fi13 
fi14 
fi15 
s«;s:-:; 
se01 

se02 
se03 

ÔSTRA MELLANSVERIGE 

SMALAND MED ÔARNA 

se04 

SYDSVERIGE 

se05 

se06 

VÀSTSVERIGE 
NORRA MELLANSVERIGE 

115.959 
37.006 
1.218 
126 
1.091 
1 
1.221 
198 
1.023 
1.270 
1.180 
27 
44 
19 
1.394 
844 
93 
413 
44 
2.331 

117.548 
3.729 
1.240 
126 
1.113 
1 
1.212 
195 
1.017 
1.277 
1.181 
29 
48 
19 
1.287 
774 
108 
363 
42 
2.329 
29 

372 
225 

857 

708 

80 

3.820 
1.297 
134 
1.161 
1 
1.226 
203 
1.022 
1.297 
1.188 
33 
57 
20 
1.300 
771 
90 
390 
48 
2.277 
29 

339 

225 

855 

697 

71 

I 
3.720 
1.283 
132 
1.150 
2 
1.179 
200 
979 
1.257 
1.149 
33 
56 
20 
1.309 
791 
95 
378 
45 
2.279 

24 

326 

231 

891 
678 

70 

| 
3.638 
1.271 
134 
1.135 
1 
1.145 
190 
955 
1.222 
1.116 
32 
55 
19 
1.357 
838 
103 
369 
46 
2.201 

18 

302 
224 

887 

642 
70 

3.688 
1.293 
140 
1.151 
2 
1.161 
200 
961 
1.233 
1.124 
33 
58 
19 
1.290 
790 
103 
350 
47 
2.264 

19 

318 
231 

907 

666 

68 

3.773 
1.348 
142 
1.204 
2 
1.174 
202 
973 
1.251 
1.132 
35 
63 
21 
1.348 
833 
104 
367 
43 
2.264 

23 

302 
233 

911 

673 

64 

MELLERSTA NORRLAND 
ÔVRE NORRLAND 

16 
se07 
se08 
41 
* Source for 1994/95: Stat. Jahrbuch uber Ernahrung, Landwirtschaft  und Forsten, Landwirtschaftsverlag  Munster-Hiltrup 
"  1994/95 is calculated: Germany(neu) = Germany(gesamt) - Germany (alt) 
"*The Swedish figures are calculated by GDVI/FII.1 (since the Swedish statistic is not adjusted to the EUROSTAT definitions) 

17 
41 

17 
41 

16 
39 

17 
43 

19 
39 

EUROSTAT: New Cronos/regio (italic figures were provided by MS authorities) 

Vf 

TABLE  10: Total  number of fattening p 

Regions 

|  1995 

f  1994 

i g s>  50 kg (in  1000) 
| 
1992 

1993 

1991 

f 

1990 

1989 

+/-,89C90y,94%'' 

40.957 

39.734 

38.3611 

39.782 

36.315 

EUR 12 
BELGIQUE-BELGIE 

REG.BRUXELLES-CAP./BRUSSE 

-

2.744 

2.695 

eur 
be;;:;;; 
bel 
be2 
be3 
dk 
de 

del 
de2 
de3 
de4 
de5 
de6 
de7 
de8 
de9 
dea 
deb 
dec 
ded 
dee 
def 
deg 
gm 
gn 
gr2 

gr3 

gr4 

VLAAMS  G E W E ST 

REGION  W A L L O N NE 

DANMARK 

DEUTSCHLAND  gesamt 

DEUTSCHLAND  alt* 

DEUTSCHLAND  n e u" 

BADEN-WUERTTEMBERG 

BAYERN 

BERLIN 

B R A N D E N B U RG 

BREMEN 

H A M B U RG 

HESSEN 

MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN 

NIEDERSACHSEN 

NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN 

RHEINLAND-PFALZ 

SAARLAND 

SACHSEN 

SACHSEN-ANHALT 

SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN 

T H U E R I N G EN 

ELLADA 

VOREIA  ELLADA 

KENTRIKI  ELLADA 

ATTIKI 

2.646 
98 

2.937 

9.144 

8.049 

1.095 
614 
1.246 
1 
226 
0 
1 
357 
182 
2.837 

2.327 
149 
10 
184 
283 
508 
219 
282 

2.593 
103 
3.046 

9.498 

8.311 

1.187 
624 
1.336 
1 
252 
0 
1 
364 
215 
2.933 

2.358 
165 
11 
210 
277 
518 
233 
282 

N I S I A A I G A I O U,  KRITI 
B^WAmm^WS^m^:/.-'-.-.^ 
N O R O E S TE 

es:;:;;;;;;; 

es1 

es11 

GALICIA 

es12 

ASTURIAS 

es13 

CANTABRIA 

es2 

NORESTE 

es21 

PAIS  VASCO 

es22 

NAVARRA 

es23 

RIOJA 

es24 

A R A G ON 

es3 

es4 

MADRID 

CENTRO  (E) 

es41 

CASTILLA-LEON 

es42 

CASTILLA-LA  MANCHA 

es43 

EXTREMADURA 

es5 

ESTE 

es51 

CATALUNA 

es52 

C O M U N I D A D V A L E N C I A NA 

es53 

BALEARES 

es6 

SUR 

es61 

ANDALUCIA 

es62 

MURCIA 

es63 

C E U T A Y M E L I L LA 

es7 
fr 

fr1 

fr2 

CANARIAS 

FRANCE 

ILE  DE  FRANCE 

BASSIN  PARISIEN 

! 

! 

j 

' 

| 

\ 

] 

! 

i 

! 

! 

' 

I 

i 

! 

! 

j 

+17,97% 

+0,00% 

+18,30% 

+10,10% 

•31,16% 

•  16,32% 

•1,79% 

-66,72% 

+0,60% 

+4,97% 

-43,75% 

-68,49% 

-69,23% 

-37,50% 

-7,82% 

-72,34% 

+4,72% 

+2,28% 

-19,28% 

-19,26% 

-63,49% 

-64,65% 

-5,59% 

-55,80% 

2.285 
0 

2.192 
93 
2.322 

8.165 

8.165 

621 
1.273 
2 

1 
2 
395 

2.801 

2.305 
204 
14 

2.245 
0 

2.140 
106 
2.425 

11.726 

8.264 

3.462 
635 
1.324 
19 
801 
1 
2 
397 
776 
2.806 

2.332 
189 
13 
575 

783 

.  548 

549 

527 

315 

120 

173 

354 

154 

172 

4 

17 

6.200 

24 
6.330 

2.561 
0 

2.458 
103 

2.974 

9.690 

8.312 

1.379 
631 
1.321 
1 
324 
1 
1 
386 
267 

2.928 

2.334 
175 
12 
241 
313 
523 
234 
338 

131 

178 

4 

24 
7.296 

247 

208 

31 

8 

2.507 
0 

2.409 
98 

2.845 

9.821 

8.301 

1.520 
629 
1.363 
1 
349 
1 
1 
388 
324 

2.869 

2.323 
177 
12 
258 
329 
538 
259 
323 

117 

181 

3 

21 | 

2.317 
0 

2.229 
89 

2.615 

9.534 

7.852 

1.681 
600 
1.284 
19 
369 
1 
2 
383 
384 
2.667 

2.186 
182 
13 
289 

377 

515 

262 

284 

112J 

142! 

«i 

24 

7.244 

6.593 

448 

409 

30 ! 

9; 

419 

376; 

31 ! 

12 

i 

! 

| 

! 

i 

411 

354 

43 

15 

600 

538 

32 

30 

767 

16 

106 

28 

617| 

25j 

1.710; 

8 3 1; 

326 

553 

1.366 

1.107| 

1.015; 

857 

10 

114 

24 

1.219! 

17 

111 

93 

25! 

977! 

19: 

15! 

1211 

3 1; 

849! 

25 

16 

89 

21 

731 

27 

1.967 

1.983: 

1.847 

1.701 

963 

242 

762 

1.101  I 

1.122 

362 

521' 

241 

485 

882 

315j 

504! 

! 

2.305 

2.169; 

2.017; 

2.043 

2.095 

1.924 

1.840: 

1.683 

1.754! 

1.773 

' 3 70 

I 

» 

319' 

10 

307 

27; 

270 

19 

311 

1 1| 

1.385 

1.509 

1.262 

1.149: 

1.118 

987 

398 

0 

9; 

896: 

614! 

0; 

9i 

842 

420 

0 

8 

801 

349 

0 

13 

766: 

352 i 

O1 

15 

5.380 

5.128 

4.869 

4.6421 

4.654] 

4.681 

+14,92% 

8 

6\ 

7 

8. 

7\ 

564  \ 

525  i 

500  ' 

482 

521 \ 

EUROSTAT-  New  Cronos/regio  (italic  figures  were  provided  by  MS  authorities) 

220i 

204 

133 

206 

131 

184 \ 

124 | 

192 

133 

202 

139 

+9,12% 

3.541 

3.282 

3.041 

2.903 

2.869 

2.772 

+27,76% 

540 

319 

79 

454 
4.459 

404 

402 

1 

1 

547 

332 

81 

424 
4.410 

403 

401 

0 

1 

5331 

315 

76 

411 
4.577 

387 

385 

1 

2 

553 

328 

90 

383 
4.818 

369 

366 

1 

2 

595 

327 

118 

326 
4.809 

351 

348 

1 

3 

342 

469 
4.316 

415 

414 

0 

1 

1.647 

1.567 

1.518 

1.488 

1.544 

1.542 

491 

26 

375 

90 

520 

28 

409 

83 

502 

24 

394 

84 

1.053 

1.135 

1.126 

fr3 

fr4 

fr5 

fr6 

fr7 

fr8 

fr9 
ie 
it 

it1 

NORD-PAS-DE-CALAIS 

EST 

OUEST 

SUD-OUEST 

CENTRE-EST 

MEDITERRANEE 

DEPARTEMENTS  D'OUTRE-MER 
IRELAND 
ITALIA 

486 
4.340 

NORD  OVEST 

it11 

PIEMONTE 

it12 

VALLE  DAOSTA 

it13 

LIGURIA 

it2 

it3 

LOMBARDIA 

NORD  EST 

it31 

TRENTINO-ALTOADIGE 

it32 

VENETO 

it33 

FRIULI-VENEZIA  GIULIA 

it4 

it5 

EMILIA-ROMAGNA 

CENTRO (I) 

it51 

TOSCANA 

it52 

UMBRIA 

it53 

MARCHE 

it6 

it7 

LAZIO 

ABRUZZO-MOUSE 

it71 

ABRUZZO 

it72 

MOUSE 

it8 

it9 

CAMPANIA 

SUD 

it91 

PUGLIA 

it92 

BASILICATA 

it93 

CALABRIA 

ita 

SICILIA 

itb 
lu 
nl 
nil 
nl2 
nl3 
nl4 
p t# 

SARDEGNA 
LUXEMBOURG  (GRAND-DUCHE) 
NEDERLAND 
NOORD-NEDERLAND 
OOST-NEDERLAND 
WEST-NEDERLAND 
ZUID-NEDERLAND 
PORTUGAL 

pt1 

CONTINENTE 

pt11 

NORTE 

pt12 

CENTRO (P) 

pt13 

LISBOA  E VALE DO TEJO 

pt14 

ALENTEJO 

pt15 

ALGARVE 

pt2 

pt3 
uk 
uk1 
uk2 
uk3 
uk4 
uk5 
uk6 
uk7 
uk8 

ACORES 

MADEIRA 
UNITED KINGDOM 
NORTH 
YORKSHIRE AND  HUMBERSIDE 
EAST  MIDLANDS 
EASTANGLIA 
SOUTH  EAST (UK) 
SOUTH WEST  (UK) 
WEST  MIDLANDS 
NORTH WEST  (UK) 

j 
i 

483 

17 

362 

104 

947 

470 

144 

186 

140 

133 

125 

82! 

43 

116 ; 

132 
161 
56 

59: 
351 
49 
20 
4.001 
146: 
1.438! 
247 
2.170 
795 

776I 

75 

172 

395; 

113 

21; 

13 

412 

18 

305 

89 

908 

397 

128 

154 

115 

138 

102! 

64 

37; 

94 

136 

15 
51 

70 
34; 

34' 
23 
4.096 
146: 
1.4361 
244 
2.271 
745 

727 

62 

150 

369! 

122 
24! 
13 

5. 
2.665 
64 
590 
220 
4 82 

262; 
267 
255 
104 

453 

14 

353 

86 

976 

499 

150 

213 

137 

114 

112 

72 

41 

105 

152 

15 

57 

80 

35 

43 
23 
4.189 
151 
1.484 
269 
2.284 
824 

805 

74 

176 

391 

142 

22 

13 

6" 
2.642 

70 j 
759| 
200 
4 74 

202 
266 
132: 
112 

! 

! 
! 
j 

21 
4.992 
146 
1.400 
243 
2.2211 

! 

! 

! 
2.586 
73 
691 
188 
522! 
204! 
300 
138: 
80 

EUROSTAT:  New Cronos/regio  (italic figures were provided by MS authorities) 

+4,55% 

+43,60% 
-10,26% 

+18,20% 

+19,06% 

-66,67% 

-76,92% 

+6,76% 

-17,95% 

-26,67% 

-22,60% 

+6,45% 

-19,43% 

-29,80% 

-35,33% 

-31,31% 

-19,76% 

-0,43% 

-20,24% 

-15,62% 

-27,10% 

-40,53% 

-35,31% 

-44,23% 

-40,30% 

-28,59% 

-21,36% 

-22,50% 
•3,65% 
+6,20% 
+4,00% 
+4,66% 
+0,99% 
+7,94% 
-4,97% 

-3,58% 

-6,06% 

+3,45% 

-10,00% 

+15,09% 

-11,11% 

-18,75% 

-64,29% 
•9,00% 
+14,29% 
+18,95% 
+20,22% 

552 

177; 

231 ! 

144 

109: 
113; 

66| 

47! 

135 ; 

167 

15 

74 

78 

36 

46 
20 
3.986 

141  i 
1.395! 
249 
2.201 
805 

782 

83 

152 

415| 

112! 

20 

14 

601 

221 

239 

141 

121 

120 

69 

52 

147 

173 

23 

78 

73 

48 

42! 
23 
3.883 

138! 
1.373! 
238 
2.134! 
825 

801 ! 

100 
170! 
417 

88| 

26 

14 

566 

198 

225 

143 

138 

128 

76 

51 

158 

210 

26 

86 

98 

43 

44 
22 
3.857 

140; 
1.372; 
242 
2.103 
784 

754 

66 
1451 
4101 
106! 
27 

16 

14 
2.445 
56; 
496; 
183! 

6 
2.594 
59; 
584 
230' 

9 
2.558 
56| 
517! 
226 

5 30 

5 1 2: 

211J 
285 
125 
159 

258! 
267! 
152! 
144 

10 
2.425 
54! 
545; 
215! 

4 0 9' 

248! 
272! 
137: 
_  127; 

4 0°; 

+20,50% 

224 
163! 
307 
120 

+16,96% 
+63,80% 
-16,94% 
-13,33% 

,:::::::;v::::::;:;;;;:;+5,12% 
+8,75% 

+22,47% 

-3,43% 

-4,53% 

+11,43% 

+22,52% 

+29,65% 
+7,55% 

27| 
168 
231 

31 
168 
213 

27j 
164 
235 

34 
155 
229 

33 
136 
226 

-21,21% 
+33,82% 
-4,87% 

uk9 
uka 
ukb 

WALES 
SCOTLAND 
NORTHERN  IRELAND 
EUR 15 
OESTERREICH 
OSTOESTERREICH 
BURGENLAND 
NIEDEROESTERREICH 
WIEN 
SUEDOESTERREICH 
KAERNTEN 
STEIERMARK 
WESTOESTERREICH 
OBEROESTERREICH 
SALZBURG 
TIROL 
VORARLBERG 
SUOMI/FINLAND 
UUSIMAA,  E-SUOMI, AALAND 
ITÀ-SUOMI 
VÀLI-SUOMI 
POHJOIS-SUOMI 
SVERIGE*" 

at 
at1 
at11 
at12 
at13 
at2 
at21 
at22 
at3 
at31 
at32 
at33 
at34 
ft :::¥«: 

fl11 
fi13 
fi14 
fi15 
se:;:;:;:; 

se01 

STOCKHOLM 

se02 

ÔSTRA  MELLANSVERIGE 

se03 

SMALAND MED ÔARNA 

se04 

SYDSVERIGE 

se05 

VÂSTSVERIGE 

se06 

NORRA  MELLANSVERIGE 

30 
162 
199 

1.312 
411 
46 
365 

464 
79 
385 
437 
403 
12 
15 
7 
508 
303 
35 
153 
17 

26 
182 
215 

1.323 
419 
46 
373 

458 
76 
382 
446 
410 
14 
15 
7 
461 

648 

10 

102 

55 

250 

190 

23 

1.355 
439 
50 
389 

463 
80 
383 
453 
410 
16 
20 
7 

j 

i 
i 

591 

11 

80 

54 

236 

174 

20 

642 

10 

89 

61 

258 

186 

22 

627 

7 

80 

56 I 

269 

175\ 

22 

648 

617 

9 

90 

60 

267 

183 

22 

9 

83 

57 

262 

171 

19 

MELLERSTA  NORRLAND 
ÔVRE  NORRLAND 

se07 
se08 
* Source for 1994/95: Stat. Jahrbuch ùber Ernâhrung, Landwirtschaft  und Forsten, Landwirtschaftsverlag  Munster-Hiltrup 
"  1994/95 is calculated: Germany(neu) = Germany(gesamt) - Germany (alt) 
"*The  Swedish figures are calculated by GDVI/FII.1  (since the Swedish statistic is not adjusted to the EUROSTAT  definitions) 

4 
12 

5 
14 

4\ 
73 

4 
12 

4 
12 

4 
13 

EUROSTAT:  New Cronos/regio (italic figures were provided by MS authorities) 
S7 

ill 

l l l l ll  Total number \ 
Regions 

D f . S O Wi 
1995 

s (in 10 
1994 

00) 
1993 

1992 

1991 

"  1990 

•  1989 

+/- '89 f 90)/"94 % 

10.956 
717 
0 
677 
*  40 
1.006 
2.412 
2.412 

' 

wm 
bel 
be2 
be3 
dk 
de 
J 

' 

. 

, 

EUR  12 
BELG1QUE-BELGIE 
REG.BRUXELLES-CAP./BRUSSE 
VLAAMS GEWEST 
REGION WALLONNE 
DANWARK  , 
DEUTSCHLAND gesamt 
DEUTSCHLAND alt* 
.* 
DEUTSCHLAND neu** 
BADEN-WUERTTEMBERG 
BAYERN 
BERLIN 
BRANDENBURG 
BREMEN 
HAMBURG 
HESSEN 
MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN 
NIEDERSACHSEN 
NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN 
RHEINLAND-PFALZ 
SAARLAND 
SAÇHSEN 
SACHSEN-ANHALT 
SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN 
THUERINGEN 
ELLADA 
VOREIA ELLADA 
KENTRIKI ELLADA 
ATTIKI 
? 
NISIAAIGAIOU.KRITI 
E.SPANA 
NOROESTE 
GALICIA 
ASTURIAS 
CANTABRIA 
NORESTE 
PAIS VASCO 
NAVARRA 
RIOJA 
ARAGON 
MADRID 
CENTRO (E) 
CASTILLA-LEON 
CASTILLA-LA MANCHA 
EXTREMADURA 
ESTE 
CATALUNA 
COMUNIDAD VALENCIANA 
BALEARES 
SUR 
ANDALUCIA 
MURCIA 
CEUTA Y MELILLA 
CANARIAS 
FRANCE 
ILE DE FRANCE 
BASSIN PARISIEN 
NORD-PAS-DE-CALAIS 
EST 
OUEST 

. 

del 
de2 
de3 
de4 
de5 
de6 
de7 
de8 
de9 
dea 
deb 
dec 
ded 
dee 
def 
deg 
9f„„, 
gn 
gr2 
gr3 
gr4 
es 
es1 
es11 
es12 
es13 
es2 
es21 
es22 
es23 
es24 
es3 
es4 
es41 
es42 
es43 
es5 
es51 
es52 
es53 
es6 
es61 
es62 
es63 
es7 
fr 
fr1 
fr2 
fr3 
fr4 
fr5 

735 
0 
705 
30 
X147 
2.529 
*  2.124 
'405 
307 
415 
0 

. 1 01 

0 
0 
88 
68 
.632 
518 
42 
3 
73 
79 
118 
85 

732 
0 
700 
32 
1.131 
2.S13 
2,197 
416 
315 
.  440 
.  0 
104 
0 
0 
92 
72 
645 
529 
46 
3 
75 
81 
125 
86 

• 

i ; 
I 

i 

1.435 

76 

963 

W 

12.071 
742 
0 
707 
35 
1.162 
'2.899 
2.301 
607 
323 
450 
0 
138 
1 
1 
99 
"  100 
687 
557 
51 
4 
82 
92 
130 
95 
163 
59 
82 

•:...;.•  7 
16 
2.117 
82 
77 
3 
2 
429 
14 
53 
17 
'  345 
9 
674 
440 
102 
132 
570 
450 
101 
19 
345 
207 
138 
0 
8 
1,347 
1 
163 
70 
27 
891 

.  12.085 
762 
. 
'0 
.726 
36 
'>  1,149 
2.989 
s£4p7 
«.  szz 
321 
462 
o 
149 

' 

11.624 
730 
0 
694 
36 
1.077 
,2.917 
2.333 
684 
310 
442 
•  0 
-144 
• :  1 

' 

• 

' •:  1 

:•  1 
105 
133 
718 
599 
57 
4 
91 
111 
. ' 1 40 
99 
'  1 50 
56 
72 
6 
14 
2,108 
114 
109 
3 
2 
342 
13 
60 
18 
250 
9 
712 
458 
119 
136 
560 
446 
'95 
19 
363 
208 
155 
0 
8 
1,310 
1 
152 
79 
29 
844 

1 
104 
152 
700 
579 
56 
4 
94 
105 
138 
90 
137 
54 
66 
•  i  4 
12 
1.919 
109 
104 
>3 
2 
329 
13 
59 
18 
239 
9 
619 
404 
103 
112 
516 
404 
89 
23 
330 
192 
138 
0 
7 
1.241 
1 
146 
79 
28 
785 

.. 

11.774 
.  731 
0 
695 
37 
1.044 
3.195 
2.392 
804 
.  309 
443 
o 
197 
1 
1 
106 
178 
715 
610 
59 
4 
•  •  "  138 
170 
144 
121 
160 
64 
75 

•• 

'  6 
15 
1.879 
117 
111 
3 
3 
282 
.14 
55 
19 
195 
8 
622 
402 
136 
84 
.545 
432 
91 
22 
296 
171 
125 
0 
à"- 

1.207 
1 
138 
82 
•  29 
757 

' 

+2,1% 
+0,0% 
+3,4% 
-19,5% 
+12,4% 
-'+8,4% 
^8,9% 
48,2% 
+1,8% 
• -  -0,2% 
+0,0% 
• •  . •  -47,4% 
'  -33,3% 
-33,3% 
-14,7% 
-59,5% 
-11,6% 
-13,9% 
-24,2% 
-31,0% 
-45,9% 
-52,8% 
-12,7% 
-28,6% 

• 

1 

• 

." 

.. 

. 

' 

• 

• 

• 

-

+17,7% 

-7,5% 

+27,6°/ > 

309 
441 
0 

•  1 
\1 
108 

730 
615 
60 
4 

144 

167 
62 
77 
5 
23 
1939 
138 
129 
5 
4 
282 
14 
56 
21 
191 
10 
621  | 
391 
139 
91 
545 
424 
100 
21 
334 
165 
169 
0 
9 
1.219 
2 
140 
83 
29 
754 | 

E U R O S T A T:  New  Cronos/regio  (italic  figures  were  provided  by  MS  authorities) 

<-> «J--

fr6 

fr7 

fr8 
fr9 
le 
it 
it1 
it11 
it12 
it13 
it2 
it3 
it31 
it32 
lt33 
it4 
it5 , 
itSI 
it52 
it53 
it6 
it7 
it71 
it72 
it8 
its 
it91 
it92 
it93 
ita 
itb 
lu 
nl 
nil 
nl2 
nl3 
nl4 
ptm 
pt1 
pfn 
pt12 
pt13 
pt14 
pt15 
pt2 
pt3 
uk 
uk1 
uk2 
uk3 
uk4 
uk5 
uk6 
uk7 
uk8 
uk9 
uka 
ukb 

SUD-OUEST 
CENTRE-EST 

. 

MEDITERRANEE 
DEPARTEMENTS  D'OUTRE-MER 
IRELAND  , 
ITALfA 
NORD OVEST 
PIEMONTE 
VALLE D'AOSTA 
LIGURIA 
LOMBARDIA 
NORD EST  • 
TRENTINO-ALTO ADIGE 
VENETO. 
FRIULI-VENEZIA GIULIA 
EMILIA-ROMAGNA 
CENTRO (I) 
TOSCANA 
UMBRIA 
MARCHE 
LAZIO 
ABRUZZO-MOLISE 
ABRUZZO 
MOUSE 
CAMPANIA 
SUD 
PUGLIA 
BAS ILIC ATA 
CALABRIA 
SICIUA 
SARDEGNA 
LUXEMBOURG {GRAND-DUCHE) 
NEDERLAND. 
NOORD-NEDERLAND 
OOST-NEDERLAND 
WEST-NEDERLAND 
ZUID-NEDERLAND 
PORTUGAL 
CONTINENTE 
NORTE 
CENTRO (P) 
USBOA  E VALE DO TEJO 
ALENTEJO 
ALGARVE 
ACORES 
MADEIRA 
UNITED KINGDOM 
NORTH 
YORKSHIRE AND  HUMBERSIDE 
EAST MIDLANDS 
EASTANGLIA 
SOUTH EAST (UK) 
SOUTH WEST  (UK) 
WEST MIDLANDS 
NORTH WEST  (UK) 
WALES 
SCOTLAND 
NORTHERN IRELAND 
EUR 15 
OESTERREICH 
OSTOESTERREICH 
BURGENLAND 

. 
... 

/ 
' 58 

162 
.678 
57 
57 
0 
0 
247 
64 
1 
44 
20 
'•  122 
54 
.  20 
18 
15 
8 
12 
9 
3 
13 
15 
3 
5 
7 
10 
77 
9 
1.515 
63 
487 
77 
888 
330 
323 
24 
91 
135 
62 
. _1V-
5j 
2 
868 
21 
208 
70 
146 
95 
116 
45 
28 
13 
66 
60 

381 
132 
12 

122 
57 
16 

169 
703 
59 
59 
0 
0 
248 
72 
1 
47 
• ""•  24 
126 
54 
21 
17 
.16 
9 
13 
10 
3 
12 
15 
3 

•3 
8 
12 
83 
-  10 
1,570 
68 
508 
85 
908 
363 
356 
28 
94 
154 
70 
10 
5 
2 
893 
22 
203 
74 
166 
99 
106 
52 
31 
12 
64 
63 

381 
134 
12 

137 
56 
18 

115 
760 
64 
64 
0 
0 
225 
65 
2 
46 
16 
181 
75 
38 
17 
20 
13 
8 
4 
4 
11 
13 
5 
a 
6 
14 
91 
10 
1.465 
65 
490 
84 
827 
347 
341 
28 
.  85 
144 
70 
14 
4 
2 
838 
20 
190 
67 
124 
103 
107 
56 
34 
16 
56 
66 

129 
60 
17 

,172 
.691 
57 
57 
0 
0 
245 
67 
1 
43 
23 
133 
55 
22 
17 
16 
7 
11 
9 
2 
9 
17 

'-  4 
4 
9 
13 
78 
10 
1.546 
67 
506 
84 
888 
354 
347 
28 
107 
137 
63 
12 
5 
2 
888 
21 
207 
65 
155 
97 
106 
56 
50 
15 
55 
64 

I 
360 
130 
12 

-128 
57 
17 

v 

127 
56 
17 

.160 
712 
60 
.60 
0 
0 
.232 
70 
1 
47 
22 
154 
68 
29 
22 
17 
12 
8 
5 
.3 

8 
22 
5 

, 

.4 

13 
14 
63 
9 
1.506 
66 
497 
83 
860 
350 
343 
28 
105 
138 
60 
12 
5 
2 
869 
21 
206 
64 
151 
100 
108 
47 
34 
13 
64 
62 

349 

. 

. 

149 
726 
67 
67 
0 
0 
228 
62 
2 
42 
.18 
149 
'  -68 
34 
18 
17 
12 
7 
5 
2 
5 
27 
6 
4 
17 
14 
87 
.10 
1.498 
67 
.  494 
86 
851 
354 
346 
18 
100 
152 
65 

11 
6 
2 
855 
21 
201 
67 
139 
108 
110 
49 
33 
14 
53 
61 

i 

i 

176 

/ 

i 

5 
1.502 
64 
482 
71 
886 

- 

- - I- 

838 
20 
201 
69 
152 
94 
97 
42 
28 
12 
64 
61 

388 
132 
12 

+3,3% 

•40,7% 
*1D,8% 
-11,0% 
-10,7% 

> 

. 

-66,7% 
+9,6% 
-0,2% 
-63,2% 
»5,6% 
+22,7% 
-32,5% 
-29,0% 
-47,0% 
+9,0% 
-26,1% 
-37,8% 
+42,0% 
+102,3% 
-29,7% 
+10,5% 
+19,8% 
-43,5% 
+140,9% 
+24,1% 
-25,9% 
-15,6% 
-7,1% 
+3,4% 
-1,9% 
-0,6% 
-9.3% 
+7,4% 
-4,9% 
-5.3% 
-14.3% 
+7,1% 
-6.3% 
-11,4% 
-21,4% 
+25,0% 
+0,0% 
+3,6% 
+5.0% 
+9,5% 
+4,5% 
+17,7% 
-7,8% 
+8,4% 
-19,6% 
-17,6% 
-18,8% 
+17,9% 
-9,1% 

af>ws. 
at1 
at11 

E U R O S T A T:  New  Cronos/regio  (italic  figures  were  provided  by  MS  authorities) 

-T? 

/ 

, 

?. 

.... 

120 

122 

120 

-  118 

119 
19 
'  100 
138 
129 

113 
19 
94 
134 
124 
•.  2 
6 
2 

114 
19 
95 
.134 
125 
2 
5 
2 
171 

104 
17 
87 
-  126 
117 
2 
6 
2 

NIEDEROESTERREICH 
WIEN 
SUEDOESTERREICH 
KAERNTEN 
STEIERMARK 
WESTOESTERREICH 
OBEROESTERREICH 
SALZBURG 
TIROL 
VORARLBERG 
S J 0 ! Q » ? M V ND 
UUSIMAA, E-SUOMI, AALAND 
ITAE-SUOMI 
VAELI-SUOMI 
POHJÛIS-SUOMI 
SVERIGE?* 
, 
STOCKHOLM 
ÔSTRA  MELLANSVERIGE 
SMÀLAND MED  ÔARNA 
SYDSVERIGE 
VÀSTSVERIGE 
NORRA  MELLANSVERIGE 
MELLERSTA  NORRLAND 
ÔVRE NORRLAND  y 

at12 
at 13 
at2 
at21 
at22 
at3 
at31 
at32. 
at33 
at34 
mm 
nu 
fi13 
fi14 
fi15 
se 
se01 
se02 
se03 
se04 
se05 
se06 
se07 
se08 
* Source for 1994/95: Stat. Jahrbuch ûber Ernëhrung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten, Landwirtschaftsverlag  MGnster-Hiltrup 
** 1994/95 is calculated: Germany(neu) = Germany(gesamt) - Germany (alt) 
***The Swedish figures are calculated by GDVI/FII.1 (since the Swedish statistic is not adjusted to the EUROSTAT  definitions) 

, ",  254 
1 
39 
29 
94 
77 
7 
2 
5 

,  250 
1 
36 
28 
95 
76 
7 
2 
5 

s % 273 
3 
43 
29 
.  98 
84 
'  8 
2 
5 

241 
2 
39 
24 
87 
75 
8 
2 
4 

260 
2 
36 
29 
99 
81 
7 
2 
5 

2 
5 
2 
179 
109 
12 
53 
5 

247 
1 
36 
28 
93 
74 
7 
2 

•  •  5 

:  > 

^*>\ 

-" 

^ 

" 

- 

' 

V 

. 

•7,3% 
+57,5% 
+9,5% 
-15,6% 
-12,4% 
-7,7% 
+12.1% 
-2,2% 
-21,8% 

EUROSTAT:  New Cronos/regio (italic figures were provided by MS authorities) 

•->  7 

TABLE  12: The structure  of  piq  holdings  in the  EU 

Belgium 

1987 

t . .' 

1995 

,'v

s 

' 

1987/95 

Size  classes 

holding^ 

tn'/. 

anlrrtalS 

trty.  ' 

Holdtotf' 

h6ldfog* 

dnmiai*:'"\ 

todWfo'fl  , 

'•pirftbWIrta 

Number of 

Size classes 

Number of 

Size tlaiSet 

AnTfhilsJ 

tfUmberof 

Size ddssei 

Ntfmberdf 

^  Size eldSSe* 
' 

ArtfmaW 

+/?Ah!mitS 

1-9 pigs 

10-49 pigs 

30-99 pigs 

100-199 pigs 

200-399 pigs 

400-999 pigs 

> 1000 pigs 

Total 

1-9 faltening  pigs 

10-49 fattening pigs 

50-99 fattening pigs 

100-199 fattening pigs 

200-399 fattening pigs 

400-999 fattening pigs 

> 1000 fattening pigs 

Total 

1-9 sows-

10-49 sows 

50-99 sows 

> 100 sows 

fota I 

5.927 

5.524 

3.416 

3.797 

3.574 

3.228 

1.047 

22,36% 

20,84% 

12,88% 

14,32% 

20.150 

145.01.5 

244.661 

540.173 

13,48% 

1.015.194 

12.18% 

1.991.286 

3,95% 

1.904.991 

26.513 

100,00% 

5.861.470 

4.323 

2.407 

1.541 

1.845 

1.597 

990 

279 

33,30% 

18,54% 

11,87% 

14,21% 

12,30% 

7,63% 

2,15% 

13.707 

59.267 

108.513 

257.560 

438.058 

569.358 

522.838 

0,34% 

2,47% 

4,17% 

9,22% 

17,32% 

"  33,97% 

32,50% 

100,00% 

0,70% 

3.01% 

5,51% 

13.08% 

22,24% 

28.91% 

26,55% 

12.982 

100,00% 

1.969.301 

100,00% 

5.343 

7.889 

3.199 

1^541 

29.73% 

43,90% 

17,80% 

8.57% 

17.972 

100,00% 

23.199 

195.555 

222.125 

243.077 

683.956 

3,39% 

28.59% 

32,48% 

35,54% 

100,00% 

3 

26 

72 

142 

284 

617 

1819 

221 

.3 

25 

70 

140 

274 

575 

1874 

152 

4 

25 

69 

158 

38 

EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures 

1.211 

1.340 

1.042 

1.697 

2.087 

3.369 

9,29% 

10,27% 

7,99% 

13,01% 

16,00% 

4.191 

35.687 

76.425 

249.890 

604.710 

0,06% 

v 

.0,49% 

1,05% 

3,44% 

8,32% 

. 

3 

27 

73 

147 

290 

25,83% 

2.251.030 

30,97% 

• 

668 

-  2.296 

13.042 

17,60% 

4.046.550 

100,00% 

7.26JB.483 

55,67% 

100,00% 

1.075 

852 

685 

1.287 

1.947 

t.936 

419 

8.201 

1.254 

2.700 

2.234 

2.847 

9.035 

13,11% 

10,39% 

.  8,35% 

15,69% 

23,74% 

'. 

'

*

'

.' 

•

'

'

'' 

• • •' 

3.500 

' 

21.521 

49.375 

188.778 

559.536 

23,61% 

1.171.170 

5.11% 

688.224 

0,13% 

0,80% 

1,84% 

7,04% 

20,86% 

43,67% 

25,66% 

100,00% 

2.682.104 

.  100,00% 

13,88% 

29,88% 

24,73% 

31,51% 

100,00% 

5.608 

73.132 

163.385 

500.681 

742.806 

•^ 

0,75% 

9,85% 

22,00% 

67,40% 

100,00% 

+i;80% 

+1,45% 

+2,40% 

+3,51% 

.  +2,01% 

+8,31% 

-3,14% 

+152,09% 

+2,68% 

+2,59% 

.  +2,36% 

+5,07% 

+4,77% 

+5,19% 

1762 

-  557 
-N 

3 

25 

72 

147 

287 

605 

1643 

327 

-12,35% 

+115,59% 

4 

27 

73 

176 

82 

+3,00% 

•9,27% 

+5,33% 

+11,49% 

+116.03% 

-

Denmark 

Sïze classes 

Jioldfng* 

In'/. 

Number of 

Sfcé classe* 

Size classes' 

AntmalsJ 

tn'/« 

«oldlntf 

NUmWof 

Size classé* 

NUmbèi-ôf 

' 

Site classé* 

Animal*/ 

hôldfriflà 

I t t* 

^ 

janttnâlY-' 

frt% 

' 

toldUifl 

%  1995 

. 

^ 

; 

1987 

Number of 

animal* 

s 

„ 

16.306 

260.387 

436.031 

832.675 

1.566.045 

3.383.903 

9,07% 

25,75% 

16.14% 

15,50% 

14,48% 

14,53% 

3.417 

9.707 

6.084 

5.843 

5.458 

5.475 

1.706 

4,53% 

2.771.071 

37.690 

100,00% 

9.266.418 

5.548 

9.824 

4.337 

3.636 

2.420 

813 

62 

20,83% 

36,88% 

16.28% 

13,65% 

9,08% 

3,05% 

0,23% 

23.353 

237.873 

300.022 

501.940 

648.589 

442.869 

85.074 

0,18% 

2,81% 

4.71% 

8.99% 

16.90% 

36.52% 

29,90% 

100,00% 

1,04% 

10,62% 

13,40% 

22,41% 

28,96% 

19,77% 

3,80% 

5 

27 

72 

143 

287 

618 

1624 

246 

4 

H 

24 

69 

138 

268 

545 

1372 

84 

.1.523 

4.016 

2.393 
s  2.750 

2.927 

4.398 

. 3.410 

21.417 

2.283 

4.537 

2.324 

2.569 

2.775 

1.851 

332 

7,11% 

18,75% 

11,17% 

12,84% 

13,67% 

6.777 

105.810 

170.070 

394.860 

842.320 

20,54% 

2;851.651 

15,92% 

6.712.424 

0,06% 

0,95% 

1,53% 

3,56% 

7,60% 

25,73% 

60,56% 

100.00% 

11.083.912 

. 

100,00% 

13,69% 

27.21% 

13,94% 

15,41% 

16.65% 

10.164 

110.191 

162.925 

362.888 

765.724 

11.10% 

1.081.387 

1,99% 

490.696 

t 
x  ' 

v 

0.34% 

3,69% 

5.46% 

12.16% 

25.66% 

36,24% 

16.44% 

16.671 

.  100.00% 

2.983.975 

100.00% 

26.640 

100,00% 

2.239.720 

100,00% 

10.973 

9.059 

3.346 

3.034 

26.412 

41,55% 

34,30% 

12.67% 

11,49% 

44.916 

212.006 

238.773 

550.658 

4,29% 

20,26% 

22,82% 

52,63% 

4 

23 

71 

.  181 

4.496 

3.267 

•1.850 
4.008 

33,01 % 

23,99% 

13,58% 

29,43% 

17.251 

78.070 

134.654 

944.942 

100,00% 

1.046.353 

100,00% 

40 

13.621 

100,00% 

1.174.917 

- 

• 

1,47% 

6.64% 

11.46% 

80.43% 

100,00% 

> 

1987/95 

' 

•"•/-Animal* 

peMIoldmg 

, 

-6,75% 

-1,78% 

-0,84% 

+0,76% 

+0,30% 

+4,91% 

+21,19% 

+110,50% 

_ 

• 

+5,77% 

+0,30% 

+1,34% 

+.2,32% 

+2.96% 

+7.25% 

+7,71% 

+112.90% 

-6.26% 

+2.11% 

+2.00% 

+29,90% 

+117.73% 

4 

26 

71 

144 

288 

648 

1968 

518 

4 

24 

70 

141 

276 

584 

1478 

179 

4 

24 

73 

236 

86 

1-9 pigs 

10-49 pigs 

50-99 pigs 

100-199 pigs 

200-399 pigs 

400-999 pigs 

> 1000 pigs 

Total 

1-9 fattening pigs 

10-49 fattening  pigs 

50-99 fattening  pigs 

100-199 fattening pigs 

200-399 fattening  pigs 

400-999 fattening  pigs 

>  1000 fattening  pigs 

Total 

1-9 sows 

10-49 sows 

50-99 sows 

> 100 sows 

Total 

EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures 

G e r m a ny  1987-199  r 

1987 

1 9 91 

. 

Number of 

Size classes 

Number ôf 

SIZé classes 

Antittals/  -

Numbéfof 

Size classé* 

Numbéfcf 

SlZècfdssé* 

Animât*/ 

1987/91 

•/-Animais 

SFze classes 

holding* 

,\f\4A 

animals'* 

fn# 

' 

_t>*>tdft»jj[____. 

holding's' 

IhK 

' 

anfmaf* 

f nV 

Mdfhfl  , 

pér «biding 

4 

138.488 

48,12% 

480.904 

68.752 

26.345 

21.731 

17.337 

13.900 

1.233 

23,89% 

1.642.590 

9,15% 

1.867.051 

7.55% 

3.066.631 

6.02% 

4.938.301 

4.83% 

8.285.270 

0,43% 

1.707.963 

2,19% 

7,47% 

8,49% 

13,95% 

22,46% 

37,68% 

7.77% 

287.786 

100,00% 

21.988.710 

100,00% 

138.304 

44.377 

11.967 

9.852 

8.639 

3.522 

175 

63,78% 

20,47% 

5,52% 

4,54% 

453.766 

954.666 

831.131 

1.392.283 

3,98% 

2.408.281 

1,62% 

0,08% 

1.905.700 

• 

266.011 

5,53% 

11,63% 

10,12% 

16,95% 

29,33% 

2 3 . 2 1% 

3,24% 

216.836 

100,00% 

8.211.838 

100.00% 

47.800 

41.244 

11.558 

3.090 

46,10% 

39,78% 

11,15% 

178.634 

963.517 

797.603 

2,98% 

.  450.419 

7,47% 

4 0 , 3 1% 

33,37% 

18,84% 

103.692 

'  100,00% 

2.390.173 

100,00% 

. 

24 

71 

140 

282 

589 

1449 

62 

3 

21 

69 

140 

275 

541 

1584 

30 

4 

23 

68 

141 

19 

3 

24 

71 

141 

285 

596 

1385 

76 

3 

22 

69 

141 

279 

541 

1520 

38 

4 

23 

69 

146 

23 

- 3 , 0 1% 

+0,07% 

+0,34% 

+0,49% 

+1.02% 

+1,12% 

-4.38% 

+22.52% 

- 1 , 0 1% 

+2.10% 

+0.40% 

+ 1 , 0 1% 

+1,24% 

+0,07% 

-4,05% 

+27,35% 

+1.69% 

+3,28% 

.  +1.34% 

+3,35% 

+21,73% 

1-9  pigs 

10-49  pigs 

50-99  pigs 

100-199  pigs 

200-399  pigs 

400-999  pigs 

>  1000  pigs 

Total 

1-9  fattening  pigs 

10-49  fattening  pigs 

50-99  fattening  pigs 

100-199  fattening  pigs 

200-399  fattening  pigs 

400-999  fattening  pigs 

>  1000  fattening  pigs 

Total 

1-9  sows 

10-49  sows 

50-99  sows 

>  100  sows 

Total 

'  West-Germany 

187.058 

105.383 

37.987 

28.226 

19.668 

13.094 

948 

47,67% 

6 6 9 7 02 

26,86% 

2.515.918 

9,68% 

2.682.893 

7,19% 

3.963.612 

5 , 0 1% 

3,34% 

0,24% 

5.545.863 

7.718.453 

1.373.305 

2,74% 

10,28% 

10,96% 

16,20% 

22,66% 

31,54% 

5 , 6 1% 

392.364 

100,00% 

24.469.746 

100,00% 

192.067 

61.432 

14.451 

10.871 

8.212 i 

3.071 

163 

66,17% 

21,16% 

4,98% 

3,75% 

2,83% 

1,06% 

636.586 

1.294.444 

999.672 

1.520.857 

2.261.308 

1.660.512 

0,06% | 

258.238 

7,38% 

15,00% 

11,58% 

17,62% 

26,20% 

19,24% 

2,99% 

290.267 

100,00% 

8.631.617 

100,00% 

77.565 

57.526 

12.594 

2.888 

5 1 , 5 1% 

38,20% 

8,36% 

1,92% 

285.048 

1.301.244 

857.571 

407.333 

150.573 

100,00% 

2.851.196 

10,00% 

45,64% 

30,08% 

14,29% 

100,00% 

EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures 

Germany 

SFze classes 

Number of 

Size classe* 

Number of 

Site classes. 

••  Ahtma'ls/ 

Number of 

v  Size classé* 

Number of 

••  Sl2e classé*  " 

Animal*/ 

holdings 

tn % 

animal* 

' 

trtft 

, 

holdfntf 

holdings 

f h* 

•• 

animal* 

fa* 

, 

holding 

1993 

* 

* 

' 

• 

1995 

1-9 pigs 

10-49 pigs 

50-99 pigs 

100-199 pigs 

200-399 pigs 

400-999 pigs 

> 1000 pigs 

Total 

1-9 fattening pigs 

10-49 fattening  pigs 

50-99 fattening  pigs 

100-199 fattening pigs 

200-399 fattening pigs 

400-999 fattening  pigs 

> 1000 fattening pigs 

Total 

1 -9 sows 

10-49 sows 

50-99 sows 

> 100 sows 

Total 

150.513 

63.692 

24.497 

20.633 

16.925 

14.858 

'2.646 

51.24% 

21,68% 

8.34% 

7.02% 

5.76% 

5,06% 

0,90% 

501.662 

1.499.000 

1.736.778 

2.919.764 

4.823.016 

8.982.897 

6.023.346 

293.764 

100,00% 

26.486.463 

148.235 

41.898 

11.437 

9.886 

8.943 

4.294 

636 

65.79% 

18,59% 

5,08% 

4,39% 

3,97% 

463.741 

905.346 

797.054 

1.400.306 

2.499.249 

1,91 % 

2.385.870 

0,28% 

1.354.255 

1.89% 

5.66% 

6,56% 

11.02% 

18.21% 

-  33,92% 

22.74% 

100,00% 

4,73% 

9,23% 

8,13% 

14,28% 

25,49% 

24,33% 

13,81% 

225.329 

100,00% 

9.805.821 

100,00% 

43.934 

37.621 

11.664 

4.830 

98.049 

44,81% 

38,37% 

11,90% 

158.706 

890.421 

809.849 

4.93% 

1.128.516 

5,31% 

29,80% 

27,11% 

37.77% 

100,00% 

2.987.492 

100,00% 

3 

24 

71 

142 

285 

605 

2276 

119.902 

50,10% 

397.000 

49.384 

19.619 

17.379 

15.298 

14.913 

2.821 

20,64% 

-.  1.174.000 

8,20% 

7,26% 

6,39% 

6,23% 

1,18% 

1.397.000 

2.463.000 

4.379.000 

9.146.000 

5.718.000 

1,61% 

4,76% 

v 

.5,66% 

9.98% 

17,75% 

37,07% 

23.17% 

90 

.  .  239.316 

100.00% 

24.674.000 

100,00% 

3 

^22 

70 

142 

279 

556 

2129 

44 

4 

24 

69 

234 

30 

118.509 

35.751 

10.238 

9.073 

8.637 

4.664 

603 

63.21% 

19,07% 

5,46% 

4,84% 

4,61 % 

2,49% 

0,32% 

378.000 

776.000 

716.000 

1.283.000 

2.436.000 

2.621.000 

1.277.000 

3,98% 

8.18% 

7.55% 

13.52% 

25.68% 

27,63% 

13.46% 

187.475 

100,00% 

9.487.000 

100,00% 

32.118 

29.281 

10.559 

5.110 

77.068 

41,67% 

37,99% 

13.70% 

117.000 

701.000 

738.000 

6,63% 

1.054.000 

4,48% 

26,86% 

28,28% 

40,38% 

100,00% 

2.610.000 

100,00% 

3 

24 

71 

142 

286 

613 

2027 

103 

3 

22 

70 

141 

282 

562 

2118 

51 

4 

24 

70 

206 

34 

1993/95 

+/-Ahlmal4 

per Molding 

-0,66% 

+1,01% 

+0,44% 

+0,15% 

+0.45% 

+1.44% 

-10,96% 

+14.35% 

+1.96% 

+0.45% 

+0.35% 

-0.17% 

+0.92% 

+1,14% 

-0,54% 

+16,28% 

+0,84% 

+1,15% 

+0,66% 

-11.72% 

+ 11,15% 

• '' 

EUROSTAT:  EU pig holding structures 

Spain 

1987 

1995 

1987/95 

Sfee Classes 

holding* 

In'/, 

animal* 

ln}{ 

' 

holding  • 

hotdfngs 

fh% 

animal* 

f i t* 

holding 

per holding 

Number of 

Size classes 

Number of 

Size classes 

Animals? 

Number of 

Size classé* 

Nutnbéfûf 

Size classé* 

Animal*/ 

•/-Animals 

1-9 pigs 

10-49 pigs 

50-99 pigs 

100-199 pigs 

200-399 pigs 

400-999 pigs 

> 1000 pigs 

Total 

1-t) fattening pigs 

10-49 fattening pigs 

50-99 fattening pigs 

100-199 fattening pigs 

200-399 fattening pigs 

400-999 fattening pigs 

> 1000 fattening pigs 

Tola! ' 

1-9 sows 

10-49 sows 

50-99 sows 

> 100 sows 

Total 

234.817 

64,92% 

618.164 

85.414 

12.740 

10.232 

7.516 

8.065 

2.916 

23,61% 

1.678.308 

3,52% 

2,83% 

2.08% 

2,23% 

0,81% 

874.676 

1.450.814 

2.134.922 

4.860.262 

5.610.699 

3,59% 

9,74% 

5,08% 

8,42% 

12,39% 

28,21% 

32,57% 

3 

20 

69 

142 

284 

603 

1924 

250.000 

19.000 

9.000 

6.000 

6.000 

7.000 

4.000 

83,06% 

451.000 

6,31% 

2,99% 

1.99% 

1.99% 

.  563.000 

602.000 

818.000 

1.786.000 

2.33% 

4.714.000 

1,33% 

9.192.000 

2,49% 

3,11% 

3,32% 

4.51% 

9.85% 

26.01% 

50,71% 

361.700 

100.00% 

17.227.845 

100,00% 

48 

•  301.000 

100,00% 

18.126.000 

100,00% 

288.898 

15.124 

5.417 

4.904 

3.697 

3.526 

799 

89,62% 

4,69% 

1,68% 

1,52% 

1,15% 

1,09% 

0,25% 

647.222 

349.770 

378.708 

660.929 

1.000.156 

3.033.826 

1.202.680 

322.365 

100,00% 

7.273.291 

123.093 

26.125 

4.591 

3.788 

78,11% 

16.58% 

2,91% 

2,40% 

324.145 

552.032 

312.459 

824.611 

8.90% 

4.81% 

5,21% 

9.09% 

13,75% 

41,71% 

16,54% 

100,00% 

16,10% 

27.42% 

15.52% 

40,96% 

157.597 

100,00% 

2.013.247 

'  100.00% 

2 

23 

70 

135 

271 

860 

1505 

23 

3 

21 

68 

218 

13 

72.000 

8.000 

-  5.000 

4.000 

5.000 

4.000 

2.000 

72,00% 

8,00% 

5,00% 

4,00% 

196.000 

187.000 

325.000 

469.000 

5.00% 

1.190.000 

4.00% 

2.178.000 

2,00% 

2.923.000 

2.62% 

2,50% 

4.35% 

6,28% 

15,93% 

29.16% 

39.14% 

100.000 

100.00% 

7.468.000 

100.00% 

36.000 

19.000 

4.000 

5.000 

64.000 

56,25% 

29,69% 

6,25% 

7,81% 

123.000 

395.000 

284.000 

788.000 

7.74% 

24.84% 

17.86% 

49.56% 

100,00% 

1.590.000 

100,00% 

2 

30 

67 

136 

298 

673 

2298 

60 

3 

23 

65 

117 

238 

545 

1462 

75 

3 

21 

71 

158 

25 

-31,47% 

+50.80% 

-2.57% 

-3,85% 

+4,79% 

+11,75% 

+19,43% 

+26.43% 

+21.51% 

+1,07% 

-7.02% 

-13.00% 

-12.03% 

-36.72% 

-2.91 % 

+230.99% 

+29,75% 

-1.61% 

+4.32% 

-27.60% 

+94.48% 

EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures 

France 

1987 

1995 

1987/95 

Size classes" 

holdings 

în% 

animal* 

t(\% 

hbldîng 

holding;* 

fa* 

ârtimàl* 

' 

fa* 

holding 

per holding 

Number of 

Size classes 

Number of 

Size classes 

Animal*/ ,--

Numbérof 

Size classé* 

Numbérof 

Size" classé* 

Animals/ 

•/-Ahlmals 

1-9  pigs 

10-49 pigs 

50-99 pigs 

100-199 pigs 

200-399 pigs 

400-999 pigs 

> 1000 pigs 

Total 

1-9 fattening pigs 

10-49 fattening pigs 

50-99 fattening pigs 

100-199 fattening pigs 

200-399 fattening pigs 

400-999 fattening pigs 

> 1000 fattening pigs 

Total 

1 -9  sows 

10-49 sows 

50-99 sows 

>  100 sows 

Total 

144.500 

15.100 

5.200 

5.700 

6.600 

7.200 

2.200 

77.48% 

8.10% 

2,79% 

3,06% 

3,54% 

3,86% 

318.900 

355.400 

378.400 

828.600 

1.927.500 

4.482.199 

1,18% 

3.623.200 

2,68% 

2,98% 

3,18% 

6.95% 

16,18% 

37,62% 

30,41% 

186.500 

100,00% 

11.914.199 

100,00% 

' 

153.600 

88,02% 

5.400 

2.700 

4.800 

5.500 

2.200 

300 

18.700 

11.700 

•  5.800 

2.200 

38.400 

3,09% 

1,55% 

2,75% 

3,15% 

321.600 

118.100 

160.800 

716.000 

1.527.700 

7.22% 

2.65% 

3,61% 

16,07% 

34,28% 

1,26% 

1.209.300 

•  27,14% 

0,17% 

402.600 

9,03% 

100,00% 

5,56% 

26.47% 

34.52% 

33,45% 

48,70% 

30,47% 

15.10% 

5.73% 

63.500 

302.200 

394.200 

381.900 

100,00% 

1.141.800 

100,00% 

174.500 

100,00% 

4.456.100 

2 

2* 

73 

145 

292 

623 

1647 

64 

2 

22 

60 

149 

278 

550 

1342 

26 

3 

26 

68 

174 

30 

64;395 

71.58% 

.  137.800 

5.407 

2.236 

2.945 

3.927 

6.745 

4.305 

6.01% 

2,49% 

3,27% 

4,37% 

134.500 

162.600 

442.300 

1.168.200 

7,50% 

4.474.600 

4,79% 

8.010.500 

0.95% 

0,93% 

^  1,12% 

3,04% 

8,04% 

30,79% 

55,13% 

89.960 

100.00% 

14.530.500 

100.00% 

44.646 

77.95% 

89.200 

1.959 

668 

1.240 

3.306 

4.280 

1.173 

3,42% 

1.17% 

2.17% 

5.77% 

7.47% 

.  38.100 

46.600 

173.700 

924.400 

2.481.500 

•  2,05% 

1.704.900 

1.63% 

0,70% 

0.85% 

3,18% 

16.94% 

45.46% 

31,23% 

57.272 

100.00% 

5.458.400 

100,00% 

7.752 

5.116 

4.415 

4.938 

34.89% 

23,02% 

19.87% 

22.22% 

24.600 

146.200 

323.600 

936.200 

1.72% 

-10,22% 

22.62% 

65.44% 

22.221 

100,00% 

1.430.600 

100.00% 

2 

25 

73 

150 

297 

663 

1861 

162 

2 

19 

70 

140 

280 

580 

1453 

95 

3 

29 

73 

190 

64 

-3.04% 

+5,69% 

-0,07% 

+3.31% 

+1.86% 

+6,56% 

+12,98% 

+152,84% 

-4,58% 

-11.07% 

+17.14% 

-6.09% 

+0.67% 

+5.48% 

+8.30% 

+273.22% 

-6.55% 

+10,64% 

+7.84% 

+9.22% 

+116.52% 

v 

• 

EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures 

Greece 

1987 

1995 

1987/95 

Number of 

size classes 

Number of 

Size classes 

Animals/ 

Number of 

Size classé* 

Number of 

Size classe* 

Animal*/ 

*l- Animal* 

Size classes 

holdings 

In'/. 

animal* 

ln% 

holding  '' 

holdings 

(tt% 

animal* 

ln% 

holding 

per holding 

1-9 pigs 

10-49 pigs 

50-99 pigs 

100-199 pigs 

200-399 pigs 

400-999 pigs 

> 1000 pigs 

Total 

1-9 fattening pigs 

10-49 fattening pigs 

50-99 fattening pigs 

100-199 fattening pigs 

200-399 fattening pigs 

400-999 fattening pigs 

> 1000 fattening pigs 

, . 

Total 

1-9 sows 

10-49 sows 

50-99 s.ows 

> 100 sows 

Tolal 

EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures 

48.529 

4.320 

1.456 

518 

324 

348 

185 

87,16% 

7,76% 

2.61% 

0.93% 

0,58% 

0,63% 

0,33% 

85.293 

102.299 

97.908 

72.337 

84.247 

226.735 

469.142 

7,50% 

8,99% 

8,60% 

6,36% 

7,40% 

19,92% 

2 

24 

67 

140 

260 

652 

41 ;23% 

. 

2536 

20.161 

1.981 

368 

277 

230 

218 

214 

85,98% 

8,45% 

1,57% 

1,18% 

0.98% 

0,93% 

0,91% 

39.193 

42.710 

4,28% 

4,66% 

25.749 

•  - 

2,81% 

55.680 

100,00% 

1.137.961 

100,00% 

36.043 

1.107 

226 

175 

241 

88 

34 

95,07% 

2,92% 

0,60% 

0,46% 

0,64% 

0,23% 

0.09% 

53.692 

22.250 

14.223 

23.309 

62.993 

48.909 

87.478 

17,16% 

7,11% 

4,55% 

7,45% 

20,13% 

15,63% 

27,96% 

37.914 

100.00% 

312.854 

100,00% 

11.276 

1.620 

371 

320 

82.99% 

11,92% 

2.73% 

2,36% 

30.388 

31.043 

24.913 

75.316 

18,80% 

19,20% 

15,41% 

46.59% 

13.587 

100,00% 

161.660 

100.00% 

20 

1 

20 

63 

133 

261 

556 

2573 

8 

3 

19 

67 

235 

12 

23.449 

100.00% 

13.259 

562 

.  134 

192 

120 

112 

54 

91,87% 

3,89% 

0,93% 

1,33% 

0,83% 

0.78% 

0.37% 

14.433 

100,00% 

5.270 

746 

244 

290 

80,46% 

11,39% 

3,73% 

4.43% 

12.349 

17.292 

16.496 

82.773 

6.550 

100,00% 

128.910 

100,00% 

40.728 

67.169 

136.941 

563.647 

916.137 

20.127 

13.295 

8.750 

25.148 

32.936 

65.215 

" 

116.774 

282.245 

4,45% 

7,33% 

14.95% 

61.52% 

100.00% 

7,13% 

4.71% 

3,10% 

8,91% 

11,67% 

23,11% 

41,37% 

100,00% 

9,58% 

13.41% 

12.80% 

64,21% 

2 

+10,61% 

.  22 

70 

147 

292 

628 

2634 

39 

2 

24 

65 

131 

274 

582 

-8.95% 

+4,05% 

+5,29% 

+12.31% 

-3.59% 

+3.86% 

+91.16% 

+1,90% 

+17.70% 

+3.76% 

-1.66% 

+5.01% 

+4.77% 

2162 

-15.95% 

20 

+136.99% 

2 

23 

68 

285 

20 

-13.05% 

+20,96% 

+0,68% 

+21,27% 

+65,41% 

"- 

• 

• 

• 

t: 

l 

• 

. 

. 

-

. 

. •  •- 

J 

1 

1 

i 
f 
11-9 pigs 
j 10-4 9 pigs 

J50-99 pigs 

Ireland 

Size classes 

100-199 pigs 

200-399 pigs 

400-999 pigs 

> 1000 pigs 

Total 

1-9 fattening pigs 

10-49 fattening pigs 

50-99 fattening pigs 

100-199 fattening pigs 

200-399 fattening pigs 

400-999 fattening pigs 

> 1000 fallening pigs 

Total 

1 -9 sows  ' 

10-49 sows 

50-99 sows 

> lOOsows 

Tolal 

Number of 

Size classes 

Number of 

'  Size classé*- 

Animals/^ 

: 

Numberôf 

Sl2e classe*  . 

Number 6f 

Size classé* 

Animal*/ 

1987 

1995 

1987/95 

•/-Animal* 

holdings 

In % 

animal* 

In % 

holding 

holding:* 

i n* 

animal* 

' 

fa* 

holding 

per holding 

2.700 

1.200 

200 

100 

100 

200 

.  200 

4.700 

1.500 

400 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

57,45% 

25,53% 

4,26% 

2,13% 

2,13% 

7.100 

27.400 

16.400 

16.300 

35.800 

4.26% 

.  109.500 

4,26% 

100,00% 

747.700 

960.200 

62,50% 

16,67% 

4,17% 

4.17% 

4.17% 

4,17% 

4.17% 

2.400 

100,00% 

2.000 

300 

100 

300 

74.07% 

11,11% 

3.70% 

11,11% 

2.700 

100.00% 

3.600 

9.100 

7.100 

11.600 

23.000 

53.600 

227.300 

335.300 

5.600 

7.500 

9.700 

85.100 

107.900 

'0.74% 

2,85% 

1.71% 

1.70% 

3,73% 

11,40% 

77,87% 

100,00% 

1,07% 

2,71% 

2,12% 

3,46% 

6,86% 

15.99% 

67,79% 

100,00% 

5,19% 

6,95% 

8,99% 

78,87% 

100,00% 

3 

23 

82 

163 

358 

548 

3739 

204 

• 

2 

23 

71 

116 

230 

536 

2273 

140 

3 

25 

97 

284 

40 

1.500 

700 

100 

100 

100 

100 

400 

50,00% 

23,33% 

3,33% 

3,33% 

3,33% 

3.33% 

3.200 

15.900 

7.700 

11.800 

30.900 

100.600 

13,33% 

1.372.200 

3.000 

100,00% 

1.542.300 

'
.
42,11% 

21,05% 

5,26% 

5,26% 

10,53% 

10,53% 

5,26% 

100,00% 

•• 

. 

2.000 

7.200 

10.000 

15.900 

59.300 

109.000 

« 

282.800 

486.200 

0,21% 

1,03% 

0,50% 

0,77% 

2.00% 

6,52% 

88,97% 

100,00% 

" 
0,41% 

*1,48% 

2,06% 

3,27% 

12,20% 

22,42% 

58,17% 

100,00% 

2 

23 

77 

118 

309 

1006 

3431 

514 

3 

18 

100 

159 

297 

545 

2828 

256 

-18,87% 

-0,52% 

-6,10% 

-27.61% 

-13.69% 

+83.74% 

-8.24% 

+151.64% 

. 

+4,17% 

-20,88% 

+40,85% 

+37,07% 

+28,91% 

+1.68% 

+24.42% 

+83,16% 

73,68% 

5,26% 

1.600 

5.700 

0,91% 

3,24% 

1 

' 

-59,18% 

57 

+128.00% 

21.05% 

100.00% 

168.500' 

175.800 

95,85% 

100,00% 

421 

93 

+48.50% 

+131.53% 

800 

400 

100 

100 

200 

.200 

100 

1.900 

1-.400 

100 

400 

1.900 

- 

. 

. 

• 

•: 

•

'

•

•• 

" 

' 

•

:• 

•

•

•• 

.

-: 

• 

EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures 

1-9 pigs 

10-49 pigs 

50-99 pigs 

100-199 pigs 

200-399 pigs 

400-999 pigs 

> 1000 pigs 

Tnldl 

100-199 fattening pigs 

200-399 fattening pigs 

400-999 fattening pigs 

Italy 

1987 

Size  classes 

holdings 

In * 

animal* 

In •/• 

hfeldlng 

Number of 

Size classes 

Number of 

Size class** 

Animals/ 

Number of 

Size Classe* 

Number àt 

SlteclasSé* 

Animals/ 

hording:*; 

fa 

* 

animal*  - 

in % 

holding 

1995 

444.041 

31.200 

3.709 

1.550 

2.119 

2.637 

1.798 

91.17% 

6,41 % 

0,76% 

0.32% 

0.44% 

0,54% 

0,37% 

487.054 

100,00% 

975.400 

558.600 

266.500 

218.200 

622.000 

1.692.500 

5.049.797 

9.382.997 

96,14% 

' 851.300 

434.846 

10.788 

1.484 

1.235 

1.370 

1.670 

914 

2,39% 

0,33% 

0,27% 

0,30% 

0,37% 

0.20% 

186.800 

100.100 

>75.400 

368.800 

1.048.100 

2.081.500 

4.812.000 

133.190 

83.700 

67.400 

488.100 

772.390 

10,40% 

5,95% 

2,84% 

2,33% 

6,63% 

18,04% 

53,82% 

100.00% 

17,69% 

3.88% 

2.08% 

3,65% 

7,66% 

21,78% 

43,26% 

100,00% 

17.24% 

10,84% 

8,73% 

-63,19% 

100.00% 

2 

18 

72 

141 

294 

642 

2809 

19 

2 

17 

67 

142 

269 

628 

•2277 

252.731 

17.597 

2.422 

1.568 

1.733 

1.773 

1.727 

90,41% 

6,29% 

0,87% 

0,56% 

0,62% 

0.63% 

0.62% 

523.812 

346.555 

168.116 

222.217 

481.174 

1.079.013 

5.242.190 

279.551 

100,00% 

8.063.077 

241.968 

94.37% 

8.420 

1.488 

1.166 

1.151 

1.222 

997 

3.28% 

0,58% 

0,45% 

0,45% 

0,48% 

0,39% 

468.316 

147.172 

100.903 

165.662 

311.139 

746.928 

2.402.171 

4.342.291 

?• 
—^ 

6,50% 

4,30% 

2,09% 

2,76% 

5,97% 

13.38% 

65,01% 

100.00% 

10,78% 

3,39% 

2,32% 

3,82% 

7.17% 

17,20% 

55,32% 

100,00% 

11 

256.412 

100,00% 

. 

28.567 

3.698 

833 

1.339 

82,95% 

10,74% 

2,42% 

3.89% 

34.437 

100,00% 

2 

21 

:69 

287 

11 

78.421 

71.769 

55.294 

484.362* 

689.846 

11,37% 

10,40% 

8,02% 

.  70,21% 

100.00% 

1987/95 

•/-Animal* 

per folding 

-5.65% 

+10,00% 

-3,40% 

+0.67% 

-5,41% 

-5.18% 

+8.08% 

+49.72% 

-1,14% 

+0.94% 

+0,53% 

+0,04% 

+0.42% 

-2.61% 

+5,80% 

+59.18% 

+34.35% 

-7,25% 

-4.17% 

+25,99% 

-  +86.37% 

2 

20 

69 

142 

278 

609 

3035 

29 

2 

17 

68 

142 

270 

611 

2409 

17 

3 

19 

66 

362 

20 

TntM 

452.307 

100.00% 

10-49 sows 

50-99 sows 

Tntal 

65.186 

4.000 

973 

1.700 

71.859 

90,71% 

5,57% 

1,35% 

2,37% 

100,00% 

EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures 

Luxemburg 

SFze classes 

1987 

1995 

Number of 

Size classes 

Number of 

Size classe* 

AritmatsJ 

Number of 

Size classé* 

Number Of 

Size classes" 

Animals/ 

holdings 

in'/. 

animal* 

' 

I n* 

holding' 

•  holdings' 

Irt* 

ahimal*-  '. 

fa% 

holding: 

•  2.663 

8.427 

9.508 

12.324 

15.126 

19.311 

9.463 

76.822 

3.049 

1.836 

1.423 

3.521 

4.693 

5.985 

1.150 

3.47% 

10,97% 

12,38% 

16,04% 

19,69% 

25,14% 

12,32% 

100,00% 

14,08% 

8,48% 

6,57% 

.  16,26% 

21,67% 

27,64% 

5,31% 

100,00% 

.  3 

25 

69 

137 

265 

603 

1183 

54 

3 

19 

71 

147 

276 

60 

1150 

18 

232 

122 

56 

50 

48 

41 

11 

560 

261 

52 

19 

16 

14 
20 

1 

. 

41,43% 

21,79% 

10,00% 

8,93% 

8,57% 

7,32% 

1,96% 

100,00% 

68,15% 

13,58% 

4,96% 

4,18% 

3,66% 

5,22% 

0,26% 

879 

3.703 

4.270 

7.576 

13.665 

26.716 

11.379 

68.188 

866 

1.332 

1.095 

2.444 

4.765 

9.178 

1.067 

S 
x 

383 

100.00% 

20.747 

1,29% 

5,43% 

v 

.  6,26% 

11,11% 

20.04% 

39.18% 

16.69% 

100.00% 

4.17% 

6,42% 

5,28% 

11,78% 

22,97% 

44,24% 

- 

5.14% 

100,00% 

4 

30 

76 

152 

285 

652 

1034 

122 

3 

26 

58 

153 

340 

459 

1067 

54 

1987/95 

•/-Animals 

perholdtng 

+9.69% 

+19,58% 

+10,67% 

+10.65% 

+7.28% 

+7.98% 

-12,55% 

+126,34% 

+1.10% 

+35.33% 

-19.00% 

+4,12% 

+23.29% 

+666.75% 

-7,22% 

+197,15% 

•

.

,

•

:. 

•

•

"

.

'

.

.- 

• 

• 

' 

. 

10,87% 

54,73% 

24,86% 

9,54% 

100,00% 

..-'•  4 

22 

68 

120 

18 

81 

143 

.  47 

17 

288 

28.13% 

49,65% 

16,32% 

5,90% 

100,00% 

279 

3.012 

2.835 

2.501 

8.627 

3,23% 

34,91% 

32,86% 

28,99% 

100,00% 

3 

21 

60 

147 

30 

-12,70% 

-3,19% 

-11,86% 

+22,94% 

+71.15% 

771 

332 

138 

90 

57 

32 

8 

53,99% 

23,25% 

9,66% 

6,30% 

•  3,99% 

2,24% 

0,56% 

1.428 

100,00% 

929 

78,20% 

8,16% 

1,68% 

2,02% 

1.43% 

8.42% 

0.08% 

97 

20 

24 

17 

100 

1 

1.188 

311 

284 

41 

9 

645 

100.00% 

21.657 

48.22% 

44,03% 

6,36% 

1,40% 

100,00% 

1.227 

.  6.179 

.  2.806 

1.077 

11.289 

1-9 pigs 

10-49  pigs 

50-99  pigs 

100-199  pigs 

200-399  pigs 

400-999  pigs 

> 1000  pigs 

Total 

1-9 fattening  pigs 

10-49 fattening  pigs 

50-99 fattening  pigs 

100-199 fattening  pigs 

200-399  fattening  pigs 

400-999  fattening  pigs 

> 1000 fattening  pigs 

Tola! 

1-9  sows 

10-49  sows 

50-99  sows 

>  100 sows 

Total 

EUROSTAT:  EU pig holding  structures 

Netherland 

1987 

1995 

1987/95 

Number  of 

Size classes 

Number  of 

Size classe* 

Animal*/ 

Numbérôf 

Size classé* 

Number©'* 

size classé* 

Artfmats/ 

•/-Animal* 

Size  classes 

holding* 

In'/• 

animals 

In'/, 

v 

holding 

hôtdlhd* 

fa* 

animai* 

fa* 

holding 

per holding 

1-9 pigs 

10-49  pigs 

50-99  pigs 

100-199  pigs 

200-399  pigs 

400-999  pigs 

>  1000  pigs 

Total 

1-9  fattening  pigs 

10-49  fattening  pigs. 

50-99  fattening  pigs 

100-199  fattening  pigs 

200-399  fattening  pigs 

400-999  fattening  pigs 

>  1000  fattening  pigs 

Total 

1-9  sows 

10-49  sows 

50-99  sows 

)>  100  sows 

Total 

1.889 

3.866 

4.562 

6.728 

6.896 

7.837 

3.574 

5.34% 

10.94% 

7.408 

108.941 

12.90% 

-  335.809 

19,03% 

19,51% 

22,17% 

10,11% 

969.489 

1.971.554 

5.005.660 

5.949.879 

0,05% 

0,76% 

2,34% 

6,76% 

13.74% 

34,89% 

41,47% 

35.352 

100,00% 

14.348.740 

100,00% 

2.704 

4.193 

3.427 

4.297 

3.967 

2.393 

361 

12,67% 

19,65% 

16,06% 

20,13% 

18,59% 

11,21% 

11.570 

113.730 

247.346 

610.175 

1.099.355 

1.371.749 

1.69% 

561.741 

0,29% 

2.83% 

6,16% 

15,19% 

27,38% 

34,16% 

13,99% 

21.342 

100,00% 

4.015.666 

100.00% 

4 

28 

74 

144 

286 

639 

1665 

406 

' 

\4 
27 

72 

142 

277 

573 

1556 

• 

188 

687 

1.284 

2.035 

3.670 

4.290 

5.755 

4.667 

22.388 

1.567 

2.229 

2.070 

3.226 

. 3.605 

2.586 

501 
15.784 

3,07% 

5,74% 

9,09% 

16,39% 

2.573 

38.120 

150.628 

533.460 

19,16% 

1.226.705 

25,71% 

3.718.196 

20.85% 
> 
100.00% 

8.727.831 

14.397.513 

7.082 

57.378 

152.054 

463.537 

1.014.037 

1.506.035 

\ 

9,93% 

14,12% 

13,11% 

20,44% 

22,84% 

16.38% 

3,17% 

100.00% 

0.02% 

0,26% 

1,05% 

3,71% 

8,52% 

25,83% 

60.62% 

100.00% 

.  0.18% 

1,43% 

3,79% 

11,56% 

25,29% 

37,55% 

810.294 
.  4.010:417 

^ 

.20,20% 

100.00% 

4 

30 

74 

145 

"286 

.  646 

1870 

643 

5 

26 

73 

144 

281 

582 

1617 

254 

-4,50% 

+5,36% 

+0.56% 

+0.87% 

+0.02% 

+1,15% 

+12,33% 

+58,44% 

+5,62% 

-5.10% 

+1,77% 

+1,19% 

+1,50% 

+1,60% 

+3.94% 

+35.04% 

2.644 

5.042 

3.466 

6.161 

15,27% 

29,12% 

20,02% 

35,59% 

11.376 

134.534 

252.482 

1.221.314 

0.70% 

8,31% 

15,59% 

75,40% 

17.313 

100,00% 

1.619.706 

100,00% 

•

•

•

•

'

'

•

•

.

'

"

'

.' 

• 

•. 

' 

:- 

" 

' 

• 

• 

•

'

•

" — •

'. 

. 

' 

• 

'

':-. 

•

-

:

'

•

.

.' 

• 

- 

'" 

• '. 

:

-

•

:

/

-: 

4 

27 

73 

198 

94 

748 

1.526 

1.633 

7,77% 

15.86% 

16,97% 

1.026 

41.719 

121.947 

-  5.716 

59,40% 

1.335.586 

9.623 

100.00% 

1.500.278 

0,07% 

2,78% 

8,13% 

89,02% 

100.00% 

1 

27 

75 

234 

156 

-68,12% 

+2,46% 

+2,51% 

+17,87% 

+66,65% 

EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures 

• 

. 

• 

' 

• •• 

• 

• 

• 

' 

• 

' 

: 

• 

Portugal 

Size  classes 

1987 

1995-

Number of 

Size classe* 

Number of 

Size classa* 

Animal*/ 

Number of 

Size classé* 

Number of  % 

Sl*e ef**sés 

Animât*/ 

holdings 

In % 

animal* 

tn % 

holding 

s  hording* 

fa* 

animal* 

fa* 

holding" 

1-9 pigs 

10-49 pigs 

50-99 pigs 

100-199 pigs 

200-399 pigs 

400-999 pigs 

> 1000 pigs 

Total 

1-9  fattening pigs 

10-49 fattening pigs 

50-99 fattening pigs 

100-199 fattening  pigs 

200-399 fattening  pigs 

400-999 fattening  pigs 

> 1000 fattening  pigs 

Total 

1-9 sows 

10-49 sows 

50-99 sows 

> 100 sows 

Total 

238.240 

19.191 

2.105 

1.789 

701 

480 

328 

90.64% 

7.30% 

0.80% 

0,68% 

0.27% 

0,18% 

0,12% 

511.182 

349.285 

145.307 

246.337 

193.341 

295.906 

714.626 

20,81% 

14,22% 

5,92% 

10,03% 

7,87% 

12,05% 

29,10% 

2 

18 

69 

138 

276 

616 

2179 

121.600 

13.100 

1.100 

1.900 

600 

500 

500 

87,29% 

9,40% 

0,79% 

1,36% 

0,43% 

0,36% 

277.500 

286.200 

103.300 

257.900 

225.300 

221,500 

0,36% 

.1.030.100 

262.834 

100,00% 

2.455.984 

100,00% 

9 

.  139.300 

100,00% 

2.401.800 

— 

154.591 

3.362 

859 

430 

281 

200 

64 

96,75% 

236.590 

2.10% 

0,54% 

0,27% 

0,18% 

0,13% 

0,04% 

4,32% 

0,56% 

0,75% 

74.822 

61.941 

56.153 

76.499 

123.235 

119.427 

748.667 

55.655 

27.285 

109.986 

319.812 

159.787 

100,00% 

94,37% 

126.886 

67.727 

3.100 

402 

539 

. 

71.768 

100,00% 

31,60% 

9.99% 

8,27% 

7,50% 

10,22% 

16.46% 

15.95% 

100,00% 

39,68% 

17,40% 

8,53% 

34,39% 

100,00% 

2 

22 

72 

131 

272 

616 

1866 

5 

75.000 

2.800 

700 

600 

400 

200 

200 

79.900 

.._.__ 
93,87% 

: 

J 
118.800 

3,50% 

0,88% 

0.75% 

0,50% 

0,25% 

.0,25% 

100,00% 

62.400 

38.600 

76.500 

82.500 

4 
^ 

122.400 

229.700 

730.900 

• 

. 

-• 

• 

' 

• 

.

--

2 

18 

68 

204 

4 

41.200 

3.200 

500 

700 

90,35% 

101.300 

7,02% 
1.10% 

1.54% 

59.700 

27.200 

144.700 

332.900 

45.600 

100.00% 

r 

EUROSTAT:  EU  pig  holding  structures 

17 

• 

-  +84,52% 

1987/95 

+/-Animal* 

per holding 

+6,36% 

+20,04% 

+36,04% 

-1,42% 

+36,15% 

-28,14% 

-5,44% 

: 

:— 
+3,50% 

•0,14% 

-23,53% 

-2,36% 

-24,24% 

-0,68% 

-38,45% 

+95,24% 

+31,24% 

+3,92% 
-.19.85% 

+1,30% 

+63.83% 

11,55% 

11,92% 

v  -  4,30% 

10,74% 

9,38% 

,9,22% 

42,89% 

100,00% 
X 

: —: 

: 
16,25% 

8,54% 

5,28% 

10,47% 

11,29% 

16,75% 

2 

22 

94 

136 

376 

443 

2060 

1 

•2 

22 

55 

128 

206 

612 

31,43% 

.  1149 

100,00% 

9 

30,43% 

17,93% 

8,17% 

43,47% 

100,00% 

2 

19 
54 

207 

7 

United Kingdom 

1987 

1995 

, 

1987/95  , 

Size classes 

holding* 

tn % 

animal*  -.. 

fa  % 

holding 

hotdtag*  - 

fa* 

animal* 

" 

fa* 

holding 

pér holding 

Number of 

Size classes 

Number of  _  S)zec)à*sa* 

Animals/ 

Number Of 

Size classe* 

Numbérof 

Size clëssé*.. 

Animât*/ 

•/-Animai* 

1-9 pigs 

10-49 pigs 

50-99 pigs 

100-199 pigs 

200-399 pigs 

400-999 pigs 

> 1000 pigs 

Total 

1-9 fattening pigs 

10-49 fattening pigs 

50-99 fattening pigs 

100-199 fattening pigs 

200-399 fattening pigs 

400-999 fattening pigs 

> 1000 fattening pigs 

Total 

1-9 sows 

10-49 sows 

50-99 sows 

> 100 sows 

Total 

5.150 

5.266 

1.988 

1.726 

2.067 

2.321 

2.154 

24,91% 

25,47% 

9,62% 

8,35% 

10,00% 

18.553 

127.225 

.  138.618 

248.849 

587.488 

11.23% 

1.527.789 

10,42% 

5.266.020 

0.23% 

1,61% 

1,75% 

3,14% 

7,42% 
19,30% 

66,54% 

20.672 

100,00% 

7.914.542 

100,00% 

4 

24 

70 

144 

. 

284 

6.58 

2445 

383 

0,41% 

• 

•  - 

4 

2.621 

2.707 

1.128 

1.229 

1.256 

1.116 

545 

24,72% 

25,53% 

10,64% 

11,59% 

11,85% 

10.53% 

10.407 

62.633 

80.336 

172.846 

356.136 

704.687 

5.14% 

1.128.966 

2,49% 

3,19% 

6,87% 

14,15% 

28.01% 

44,87% 

10.602 

100,00% 

2.516.011 

100,00% 

7.505 

4.013 

1.674 

2.623 

47,45% 

25,37% 

10,58% 

16.59% 

15.815 

100,00% 

26.304 

96.123 

121.070 

657.429 

900.926 

2,92% 

.  10,67% 

13,44% 

72,97% 

100,00% 

23 

71 

141 

.  284 

631 

2071 

237 

4 

24 

72 

251 

57 

4.540 

2.122 

706 

.  870 

1.057 

1.966 

.2.194 

13.455 

2.595 

1.221 

560 

695 

1.044 

1.373 

698 

8.186 

4.528 

1.793 

872 

2.318 

9.511 

33,74% 

15,77% 

5,25% 

6,47% 

14.292 

47.977 

51.977 

0,19% 

0,65% 

0,71% 

120.991 

v 

1,65% 

7,86% 

.  290.180 

14,61% 

1.207.029 

16,31% 

V  5.602.071 

3,96% 

16,46% 

76,38% 

3 

23 

74 

139 

275 

614 

2553 

-12,62% 

-6,42% 

+5,59% 

-3,54% 

-3,41% 

-6,73% 

+4,44% 

100,00% 

7.334.517 

100,00% 

.  545 

+42,38% 

•' 

• 

• 

~ 

•. 

• ' • .

, -. 

•

.

•

*

'

•• 

. 

: 

31,70% 

14,92% 

6,84% 

8,49% 

.8.525 

30.229 

36.225 

92.162 

•••  12,75% 

-  315.724 

16,77% 

810.304 

8,53% 

1.288.415 

100,00% 

2.581.584 

$ 
A 

0,33% 

1,17% 

1,40% 

3,57% 

12,23% 

31,39% 

49,91% 

.3 

25 

65 

133 

302 

590 

-17,26% 

+7,00% 

-9,17% 

• 

-5,71% 

+6,65% 

-6,54% 

1846 

- 

-10,89% 

100,00% 

315 

+32,89% 

47,61% 

18,85% 

9.17% 

24,37% 

100,00% 

15.877 

45.336 

64.038 

709.697 

834.948 

1,90% 

5,43% 

7.67% 

85.00% 

100,00% 

4 

25 

73 

306 

88 

+0.04% 

+5.56% 

+1.54% 

+22.15% 

+54.10% 

EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures 

I 

Finland* 

JUH61990 

, 

,  s  {  \ 

may 1998" 

199D/96 

Number faf 

s l id  classes 

Number  of 

Site classes 

Arttmfclt/ 

•.Humber of 

S f c e c f o i * ** 

rtumhef-df 

SlXe<Sld*s«s" 

, Arifm&te/ 

^-AhtHhBl4 

Size classes 

holdings 

ftftJittt* 

holdfast  -: 

hoMttflS 

to* 

anfttjili'  " 

f t t* 

1-9  pigs 

10-49  pigs 

50-99  pigs 

100-199  pigs 

200-399  pigs 

400-999  pigs 

>  1000  pigs 

Total 

1-9  fattening  pigs 

10-49  fattening  pigs 

50-99  fattening  pigs 

100-199  fattening  pigs 

200-399  fattening  pigs 

400-999  fattening  pigs 

>  1000 fattening  pigs 

Total 

1-9  sows 

10-49  sows 

50-99  sows 

>  100  sows 

Total 

2.302 

.1.725 

1.667 

2.560 

2.111 

424 

28 

10.817 

21,28% 

15,95% 

15,41% 

23,67% 

19,52% 

3,92% 

0,26% 

.  5.798 

46.412 

122.203 

372.683 

568.479 

230.638 

35.229 

100.00% 

1.381.442 

0,42% 

3,36% 

8,85% 

26,98% 

41,15% 

. 

16,70% 

2,55% 

100,00% 

3 

27 

73 

146 

269 

544 

1258 

128 

-J. 

I 

I 
—L I 
I 
I 

i 

i 

i 
i 

i 

+45,21% 

+3,34% 

+1,25% 

+2,37% 

+2,53% 

-0,20% 

+15,47% 

+48,84% 

. 

508 

966 

1.051 

1.970 

2.237 

595 

41 

7.368 

1.718 

1.703 

907 

706 

536 

149 

8 

6,89% 

13,11% 

14,26% 

26,74% 

30,36% 

8,08% 

0,56% 

1.858 

26.860 

78.010 

293.594 

617.629 

322.998 

59.563 

.0,13% 

1,92% 

5,57% 

20,96% 

44,10% 

23,06% 

4,25% 

100,00% 

1.400.512 

100,00% 

: 30,00% 

29,74% 

15,84% 

12,33% 

9,36% 

2.60% 

0,14% 

7.049 

41.561 

64.802 

98.695 

146.772 

82.367 

*. 

9.594 

1,56% 

9,22% 

14,37% 

21,89% 

32,56% 

18,27% 

2,13% 

5.727 

100,00% 

450.840 

100,00% 

935 

3.473 

738 

91 

5.237 

17,85% 

66,32% 

14,09% 

1,74% 

4.410 

94.602 

47.274 

14.827 

2,74% 

58,72% 

29,34% 

9,20% 

100,00% 

161.113 

100,00% 

4 

28 

74 

149 

276 

543 

1453 

190 

4 

24 

71 

140 

274 

553 

1199 

79 

5 

27 

64 

163 

31 

* Data from the national authority; different time period!!; no data on fattening pigs and sows in 1990 

EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures 

Sweden* 

1987 

1993 

Size Classes  ' 

holdings 

\i\% 

animal* 

fa.% 

'hôldlrtà 

%  hotdfng* 

fa* 

animal* 

, f a* 

- 

holding 

Number of 

,.  SIZé classas 

Number'of 

Size classe* 

Animal*/  s 

Numbérôf 

S|ze classé* 

Numbérôf 

Size classé* 

Animal*/ 

4.151 

2.573 

4.842 

2.773 

1.339 

1.039 

24,83% 

15,39% 

28,96% 

16,59% 

8,01% 

6,22% 

13.930 

41.266 

262.222 

439.576 

461.215 

1.016.172 

0,62% 

.1,85% 

11,74% 

19,67% 

20,64% 

45,48% 

3 

16 

54 

159 

344 

978 

2.670 

1.755 

3.241 

2.094 

1.386 

1.195 

21,64% 

14,22% 

26,26% 

16,97% 

11,23% 

9.438 

28.073 

174.744 

339.788 

484.264 

9,68% 

1.240.240 

. 

16.717 

100,00% 

2.234.381 

100,00% 

134 

12.341 

100,00% 

2.276.547 

0,41 % 

1,23% 

v 

7,68% 

14,93% 

21,27% 

54,48% 

100,00% 
•v 

/1987/93 

•/-Animais 

per holding 

+5,33% 

-0,26% 

.-0,44% 

+2,36% 

+1.44% 

+6,12% 

4 

16 

54 

162 

349 

1038 

184 

+38.02% 

t 
v 

7.301 

3.681 

1.002 

357 

59,16% 

29.83% 

8.12% 

2,89% 

15.614 

84.728 

65.602 

75.428 

6,47% 

35,10% 

27,18% 

3"1,25% 

12.341 

100.00% 

241.372 

100,00% 

2 

23 

65 

211 

20 

1-9 pigs" 

10-24  pigs" 

25-99  pigs" 

100-249  pigs" 

250-499 pigs" 

> 499 pigs" 

Total 

1-9 fattening pigs 

10-49 fattening pigs 

50-99 fattening pigs 

100-199 fattening  pigs 

200-399 fattening  pigs 

400-999 fattening pigs 

> 1000 fattening  pigs 

Total 

1-9 sows 

10-49 sows 

50-99 sows 

>  100 sows 

Total 

*  Data from the national authority, no data on fattenning-pigs  and sows (1987) available 

•"  Definition of size-classes not consistent with EUROSTAT data 

EUROSTAT:  EU  pig  holding  structures 

j 

Austria* 

1987 

, 

1993 

,  1987/93 

Size classes 

1-10 pigs" 

11-50 pigs" 

51-100  pigs" 

101-200 pigs" 

201-400  pigs" 

401-600  pigs" 

> 600 pigs" 

Tolal 

1-9 fattening pigs 

10-49 fattening pigs 

50-99 fattening pigs 

100-199 fattening pigs 

200-399 fattening pigs 

400-999 fattening pigs 

>  1000 fattening  pigs 

Total 

1-10 sows** 

11-50 sows" 

51-100 sows" 

>  100 sows" 

Total 

Number of 

Size classes 

Number of 

size classes 

"  Animals/ 

Numbéfof 

size classe* 

,  j  Numbérôf 

size dusse* 

Animal*/ 

•/-Animal* 

holdings 

\t\% 

animal* 

\<\% 

holding 

holding* 

fa* 

animal* 

fa* 

holding 

per holding' 

122.975 

23.299 

6.016 

4.665 

2.132 

.137 

73 

77,20% 

14,63% 

3,78% 

2,93% 

1,34% 

0,09% 

0,05% 

398.573 

537.895 

432.043 

666.332 

567.141 

64.240 

77.371 

14,53% 

19,61% 

15,75% 

24,29% 

20,67% 

2,34% 

2,82% 

159.297 

100,00% 

2.743.595 

100,00% 

3 

23 

72 

143 

266 

469 

1060 

•  17 

..  • 

94.557 

.16.087 

. 5.667 

5.236 

2.959 

239 

66 

75,76% 

12,89% 

4,54% 

- 4,20% 

2,37% 

0,19% 

0,05% 

289.238 

386.831 

409.437 

756.377 

797.212 

110.787 

71.971 

124.811 

;  100,00% 

2.821.853 

10,25% 

13,71% 

v 

14,51% 

26,80% 

28,25% 

3,93% 

2,55% 

100,00% 
v 

3 

24 

72 

144 

269 

464 

1090 

23 

-5,62% 

+4,16% 

+0,60% 

+1,13% 

+1,28% 

-1,14% 

+2,89% 

+31,27% 

33.120 

11.361 

347 

23 

44.851 

73,84% 

25,33% 

0.77% 

0,05% 

105.379 

258.538 

21.975 

4.336 

27,31% 

67,00% 

5,69% 

1,12% 

100,00% 

385.892 

101,12% 

3 

23 

63 

189 

9 

19.725 

10.928 

.  625 

66 

31.344 

62,93% 

34,86% 

1,99% 

0.21% 

68.127 

263.228 

39.112 

10.727 

17,87% 

69,05% 

10,26% 

2,81% 

100,00% 

381.194 

100,00% 

3 

24 

63 

163 

12 

+8,55% 

+5,85% 

-1.18% 

-13.79% 

+41,35% 

.> 

*  Data from the national authority; no data on fattenning-pigs available; figures do not include piglets! 

** Definition of size-classes not consistent with EUROSTAT data 

EUROSTAT: EU pig holding structures 

TABLE  13: The  structure  of  pig  holdings  in the  EU by  region 
Number of pigs In 1000 

Number of  pig holdings în 1000 
REGIONS 

1989 

1993 

+/-1989/93 % 

1989 

1993 

+/-1989/93% 

-1989 

1993 

+/-1989/93% 

Number of prgs/holdlng 

BE1 

BE3 

DK 

DE1 

DE2 

VLAAMS GEWEST + BXL 

REG. WALONNE 

B 

DK 

BADEN WURTEMBERG 

BAYERN 

DE4" 

BRANDENBURG 

DE3 

DE7 

HAMBURG, BREMEN, BERLIN 

HESSEN 

DE8  . 

MECKLENBURG-VORPOMME 

DE9  . 

NIEDERSACHSEN 

DEA 

DEB 

NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN 

RHEINLAND-PFALZ 

DEC 

SAARLAND 

DED 

DEE 

DEF 

SACHSEN 

SACHSEN-ANHALT 

SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN 

DEG 

THURINGEN 

DEU 

GR11 

ANATONIKI MACEDONIA & T 

GR3 

ATTIKI 

GR23 

DYTIKI ELLADA 

GR13 

DYTIKI MAKEDONIA 

GR21 

IPEIROS 

GR12. 

KENTRIKI MAKEDONIA 

GR43 

KRITI 

GR22 

NISIA  IONIOU 

GR42 

NOTIO AIGALO 

GR25 

PELOPONNESOS 

GR34 

STEREA  ELLADA 

GR14 

THESSALIA 

GR41 

VOREIO AIGALO 

GR 

ES61 

ANDALUCIA 

ES24 

ARAGON 

ES12 

ASTURIAS 

ES53 

BALEARES 

ES7 

ES13 

ES42 

ES41 

CANARIAS 

CANTABRIA 

CASTILLA-LA-MANCHA 

CASTILLA-LEON 

ES.51 

ÇATALUNA 

ES52 

ES43 

ES11 

ES23 

ES3 

COM. VALENCIANA 

EXTREMADURA 

GALICIA 

LARIOJA 

MADRID 

ES62 

MURCIA 

ES22 

ES21 

NAVARRA 

PAIS VASCO 
ESP 
I 

16 

4 

20 

31 

49 

87 

2 

0 

29 

2 

47 

37 

12 

1 

2 

2 

6 

2 

13 

2 

15 

27 

42 

79 

2 

0 

25 

1 

41 

33 

10 

1 

3 

1 

5 

2 

-20.37% 

6354 

6831 

-42,31% 

304 

291 

+7.51% 

-4.10% 

395 

78 

533 

129 

-24,65% 

6657 

7122 

'  +6,98% 

333 

473 

-14,46% 

9198 

11568 

+25,76% 

293 

431 

-14,24% 

2204 

2280 

-9,56% 

3669 

3809 

-10,00% 

1310 

923 

-50,00% 

-13,98% 

25 

999 

-12,67% 

1273 

8 

971 

907 

-13,04% 

• 7069 

7186 

-10,08% 

5834 

5812 

-15.88% 

-30.00% 

+47,14% 

500 

35 

988 

-28,00% 

1192 

461 

30 

705 

849 

.  -14.83% 

1437 

1368 

+3.45% 

+3.81% 

-29.56% 

-67.59% 

-2.84% 

45 

42 

54 

48 

596 

466 

125 

34 

81 

.38 

-28.73% 

849 

693 

+ 1.67% 

-0.39% 

-7.74% 

-15.37% 

-28.59% 

-28.81% 

-4.77% 

151 

159 

42 

.  39 

470 

596 

239 

177 

176 

46 

48 

228 

589 

268 

+12,38% 

821 

732 

-10,91% 

391 

'  310 

278 

246 

-11,54% 

27356 

26041 

-4,81% 

2 

0 

6 

3 

1 

3 

2 

0 

2 

2 

3 

5 

2 

' 

32 

23 

11 

19 

7 

2 

4 

11 

58 

14 

3 

24 

120 

2 

C 

A 

4 

0 

10 

6 

1 

5 

5 

0 

3 

3 

6 

9 

1 

55 

16 

7 

17 

6 

1 

2 

5 

45 

12 

2 

15 

95 

1 
C 

2 

A 
e 
311 

' 

.2 
* 
23£ 

+121,00% 

+55,00% 

+67,97% 

+88,53% 

+4,44% 

+79,29% 

+110,91% 

-12,50% 

+36,09% 

54 

21 

62 

22 

122 

110 

60 

7 

24 

+20,00% 

.  58 

+81.21% 

212 

+88.20% 

.  125 

-22.78% 

+68,36% 

40 

934 

64 

7 

63 

38 

43 

118 

49 

4 

31 

84 

126 

172 

9 

808 

-29.83% 

1049 

-30,19% 

1*512 

1103 

1928 

-10,88% 

-11.54% 

-28.89% 

-31.94% 

52 

70 

33 

13 

54 

73 

19 

11 

-57,72% 

475 

437 

-23,63% 

1787 

1963 

-13,96% 

3825 

4469 

-33,46% 

-37,50% 

605 

621 

-20,40% 

'  632 

-18.13% 

-40,00% 

-40.00% 

-20.48% 

-25.08% 

87 

38 

693 

29S 

5C 

691 

682 

584 

77 

51 

547 

34-4 

31 

-24.29°/ 

11842 

13064 

+ 19,05% 

-65.50% 

-22.37% 

+67.46% 

-65.06% 

+7.81% 

-18.34% 

-43.00% 

+30.21 % 

+45.37% 

-40,33% 

+37,96% 

-76,48% 

-13,55% 

+5,11% 

99 

27 

105 

14 
7 
136 

39 

27 

18 

10 

26 

64 

25 

22 

29 

45 

106 

14 

23 

6 

6 

45 

24 

10 

11 

10 

32 

21 

18 

7 

15 

68 

+27,48% 

141 

258 

+2,90% 

+4,28% 

-41,92% 

-15,04% 

-8,00% 

+9,80% 

+ 16,83% 

+ 14,24% 

+9,86% 

-7,53% 

-11,65% 

+33,98% 

> 
-21,08°X 

+ 14,97°X 

> 
-37.23°X 
, 
+ 10,317 

3 

11 

19 

4 

42 

31 

3 

13 

15 

5 

91 

44 

275 

233 

374 

400 

26 

5 

55 

45 
e 
5S 

>  281 
126 
r 
5 
187 
71 

24€ 

J 

10: 
" 

55 

5 
I 
5 
21 

+35,02% 

+66,22% 

+41,98% 

+47,02% 

+20,63% 

"  +14,79% 

«21,73% 

-35,18% 

+12,95% 

-18,39% 

+16,91% 

+10,78% 

+9,68% 

+20,90% 

-51,47% 

-1,13% 

+11,82% 

-20,72% 

+7,62% 

-46,13% 

-77,74% 

-53,78% 

-11,18% 

-66,54% 

-39,87% 

-61,28% 

-34,86% 

-4,32% 

+21.14% 

-67,07% 

-26.69% 

-69.55% 

-48,65% 

+49,79% 

+82.61% 

+15.46% 

+17.89% 

-18,33% 

+24,84% 

+117.60% 

+43,78% 

+35,78% 

+71,69% 

+75,78% 

+16,17°X 

+7,91°/ 
+123,30<!< 

> 

+31.53°^ 
3 
) 
+44.58°> 
) 
-16.22°> 
+45,71'/ 
'o 

_ 

Number of pîg-holdings in  1000 

Number of  p i g*  In tOOO 

Number of plgttholdlng 

REGIONS 

1989 

1993 

+/-1989/93 % 

1989 

1993 

+/-1989/93 % 

.1989 

1993 

• M 9 8 9 / 9 3 tf 

FR42 

ALSACE 

FR61 

AQUITAINE 

FR72 

AUVERGNE 

FR25 

BASSE-NORMANDIE 

FR26 

BOURGOGNE 

FR52 

BRETAGNE 

FR24 

CENTRE 

4 

19 

10 

4 

4 

22 

'A 

FR21 

CHAMPAGNE-ARDENNE 

' 

•  2 

-28.50% 

-24.29% 

-21,96% 

-43.41% 

-36,14% 

72 

472 

243 

351 

198 

67 

457 

280 

410 

214 

-7,90% 

-3,28% 

+15.18% 

+16,66% 

18 

25 

24 

80 

+7.97% 

•  45 

-30,00% 

6612 

7740 

+ 17,05% 

305 

23 

32 

35 

165 

76 

510 

133 

62 

42 

94 

+28,81% 

+27,76% 

+47,60% 

+106,14% 

+69.06% 

+67,22% 

+74.21% 

+41.86% 

+1,15% 

+31,77% 

+27.03% 

165 

.  277 

. 

'  +68,13% 

162 

140 

.  -13,58% 

3 

14 

8 

2 

3 

15 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

6 

3 

17 

4 

8 

.1 

5 

1 

8 

1 

2 

1 

0 

2 

9 

5 

22 

5 

11 

2 

8 

1 

12 

3 

27 

18 

8 

37 

'•56 

11 

7 

37 

1 

15 

29 

13 

9 

3 

20 

5 

12 

1 

14 

0 

22 

3 

22 

16 

8 

34 

59 

5 

3 

27 

0 

10 

25 

•7 

5 

3 

18 

6 

7 

1 

14 

0 

15 

149 

106 

-28,89% 

12204 

13929 

-10,69% 

1302 

1570 

+20,57% 

449 

606 

-30.56% 

1025 

1474 

+43.77% 

-20,26% 

-40,00% 

-27,50% 

-26,67% 

-24,44% 

+0,00% 

-21,58% 

-33,76% 

-30.85% 

-23,78% 

-25,38% 

290 

101 

33 

107 

148 

16 

59 

158 

74 

610 

681 

402 

86 

24 

103 

188 

14 

52 

171 

85 

629 

635 

-35.00% 

-35.36% 

-25.56% 

-34,92% 

174 

332 

38 

408 

159 

339 

32 

366 

-19,15% 

133 

-12,66% 

-8,21% 

-6.29% 

+5.32% 

75 

25 

141 

162 

122 

'  71 

25 

135 

150 

-53.24% 

1896 

1896 

-62.08% 

-25.92% 

.  -48.75% 

207 

178 

4 

197 

154 

1 

-35,78% 

2880 

2940 

-14.19% 

-40,48% 

-38.86% 

+4,69% 

-8.87% 

+3.33% 

-38.38% 

-14.44% 

248 

58 

756 

38 

258 

100 

293 

8 

234 

53 

810 

31 

255 

94 

265 

4 

-3.94% 

352 

322 

-20,00% 

-34,37% 

1 

0 

581 

637 

+38,91% 

-14.89% 

-26.67% 

-3.37% 

76 

44 

42 

71 

-13i58% 

-11,09% 

+8,64% 

+14,25% 

+3.01% 

-6.68% 

-8.37% 

+2,31% 

-17.21% 

-10,11% 

+14,14% 

31 

19 

16 

28 

35 

30 

26 

38 

131 

95 

164 

197 

1'09 

-  153 

39 

43 

34 

82 

62 

47 

47 

132 

-8,56% 

-4,24% 

-0,28% 

-4,72% 

-7,30% 

+0.01% 

-5,12% 

-13,06% 

-82.50% 

+2.09% 

-5.93% 

-7.75% 

+7,15% 

-17,59% 

-1.07% 

-6.39% 

-9.33% 

, 

-45.06% 

-8.57% 

-54,00% 

+9,55% 

+0,04% 

5 

4 

3 

4 

3 

6 

4 

3 

4 

3 

171 

365 

29 

72 

5 

5 

6 

2 

187 

297 

9 

5 

9 

7 

•86 

151 

12 

13 

19 

25 

9 

25 

3 

26 

24 

9 

14 

17 

37 

5 

24 

1 

44 

29 

346 

286 

-17,40% 

8393 

8396 

1 

1 

14 

4 

10 

29 

1 

1 

13 

3 

10 

27 

.-5,66% 

77 

72 

-6,57% 

145 

144 

-14.29% 
-9.08% 

-6.94% 

-6.76% 

576 

4819 

824 

585 

5128 

879 

7630 

8373 

-8,26% 

13849 

14964 

+1,60% 

"  411 

+6,40% 

+6,65% 

+9.74% 

+8.06% 

342 

229 

748 

473 

488 
400 

262 

880 

557 

+13,37% 

+64,03% 

+65.23% 

+35.15% 

+25,07% 

+107,03% 

+40,97% 

+58,27% 

+11,21% 

+38,11% 

+60,51% 

+35,00% 

+13,10% 

+9,65% 

+8,65% 

+1,68% 

-11,99% 

+113.89% 

+150.24% 

•  +17.37% 

-65.85% 

+58,96% 

+9.63% 

+55,00% 

+75,26% 

-21,28% 

+8,56% 

-9,41% 

+47,13% 

-35,79% 

-4,82% 

-42,50% 

+66,91 % 

+21,12% 

-0,97% 

+18,54% 

+17,03% 

+ 14,61% 

+ 17,70% 

+17,78% 

FR83 

CORSE 

FR43 

FRANCHE-COMTE 

FR23 

HAUTE-NORMANDIE 

FR1 

FR81 

ILE-DE-FRANCE 

LANGUEDOC-ROUSILLON 

FR63 

LIMOUSIN 

FR41 

LORRAINE 

FR62 

MIDI-PYRENEES 

FR3 

NORD-PAS-DE-CALAIS 

FR51 

PAYS-DE-LA-LOIRE 

FR22 

PICARDIE 

FR53 

POITOU-CHARENTES 

FR82 

PAC 

FR71 

RHONÉ-ALPES 

F 

IRL 

ABRUZZI 

BASIUCATA 

IE 

IT71 

IT92 

IT311 

BOLZANO-BOZEN 

IT93 

CALABRIA 

IT8 

IT4 

CAMPANIA 

EMILIA  ROMAGNA 

IT33  * 

FRIULI-VENEZIA GIULIA 

IT6 

IT13 

LAZIO 

LIGURIA 

IT2 

• 

LOMBARDIA 

IT53 

IT72 

IT11 

IT91 

ITB 

ITA 

IT51 

MARCHE 

MOUSE 

PIEMONTE 

PUGLIA 

SARDEGNA 

SICILIA 

TOSCANA 

IT312 

TRENTO 

IT52  . 

UMBRIA 

IT12 

IT32 

LU 

NL1 
NL2 

NL3 

NL4 

VALLE D'AOSTA 

VENETO 

IT 

LUX 

NOORD  NL 

OOST NL 

WEST  NL 

ZUID NL 

NL 

Source  :  E U R O F A RM 

^JL 

Number  of  pfg-hôldings In  1000 

Number of ptgs In iOOQ 

Number of pFgs/halding 

REGIONS 

1989 

1993 

+/. 1989/93 % 

1989 

1993 

+/-1989/93 % 

1989 

1993 

+M989/93% 

' 

OS 

PT2 

ACORES 

PT14 

ALENTEJO 

PT15 

ALGARVE 

PT12 

CENTRO 

PT13 

USBOA&VALEDOTEJO 

PT3 

MADEIRA 

PT11 

NORTE 

PORT 

FIN 

SWE 

UK4 

UK3 

UK1 

UK8 

UKB 

UKA 

UK5 

UK6 

UK9 

UK7 

UK2 

EAST-ANGUA 

EAST  MIDLANDS 

NORTH 

NORTHWEST 

NORTHERN  IRELAND 

SCOTLAND 

SOUTH  EAST 

SOUTH  WEST 

WALES 

WEST  MIDLANDS 

YORKSHIRE  &  HUMBERSIDE 

122 

9 

8 

5 

76 

18 

5 

52 

10 

13 

8 

102 

26 

•6 

74 

-10,00% 

-39.02% 

-32,63% 

-25,16% 

41 

345 

74 

589 

3781 

47 

401 

56 

553 

-32,24% 

1146 

1344 

-17,81% 

-29,84% 

18 

227 

26 

190 

239 

173 

-27,54% 

2439 

2618 

+16,09% 

.  . 

'•  4 

+16.19% 

-23.69% 

-6,02% 

+ 17,32% 

26 

10 

6 

44 

+39,45% 

.3 

•  -16,14% 

+7,32% 

3 

10 

-3,13% 

1437 

.  1438 

+0,08% 

'  898 

928 

11 

12 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

3 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

0 

1 

3 

1 

2 

.3 

1 

1 

3 

1381 

2777 

-7,27% 

+32,50% 

-26.00% 

-18.52% 

-8.89% 

- 

+11 .'88% 

-2.86% 

+0.00% 

+2.73% 

601 

172 

315 

626 

459 

799 

861 

101 

416 

628 

186 

293 

613 

547 

804 

849 

106 

422 

-0.80% 

17661  1877 

31 

5 

49 

11 

7 

77 

5 

4 

15 

128 

226 

+28,99% 

+90.54% 

+13,28% 

+25,58% 

+73.14% 

+69,68% 

+19,52% 

+48,12% 

+3.31% 

+12.85% 

.. 

-18,45% 

+25,51% 

+20,11% 

+30,66% 

-10,10% 

+1,56% 

+4,83% 

-1,21% 

+7,19% 

+7,36% 

+4,64% 

+8.05% 

-7,12% 

-2,13% 

+ 19,04% 

+0.58% 

-1,34% 

546 

430 

315 

232 

510 

616 

351 

395 

278 

6.67 

500 

.  449 

307 

312 

+4,83% 

Y 

84 

+1,48% 

+6,33% 

+2,79% 

378 

706 

447 

88 

373 

757 

480 

UK 

17 

16 

-4,26% 

7552|  7763 

Çnurco  ;  E U R O F A RM 

03 

TABLE  14: Number  of  LSU (pigs  and cattle)  per ha utilised  agricultural  area 

RegFons 

perhaUAA 

perhaUAA 

perhaUAA 

beïween 1987 a nd S3/S4  v 

LSU Cattle 

LSUpïgs 

Total LSU 

Changé in pig; stock 

be  BELGIQUE-BELGIE 

1994 

bel 

be2 

REG.BRUXELLES-CAP./BRUSSELSHFDST.GEW. 
VLAAMSGEWEST 

i 

be3 

REGION WALLONNE 

<Jk  DANMARK 

1994 

tie  DEUTSCHLAND 

1994 

del 

BADEN-WUERTTEMBERG 

de2 

BAYERN 

de3 

BERLIN 

de4 

BRANDENBURG 

de5 

BREMEN 

de6 

HAMBURG 

de7 

HESSEN 

de8 

de9 

MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN 

NIEDERSACHSEN 

dea 

NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN 

deb 

RHEINLAND-PFALZ 

dec 

SAARLAND 

ded 

SACHSEN 

dee 

SACHSEN-ANHALT 

def 

SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN 

deg 

THUERINGEN 

,  gr  ÊUADA 

1993 

gn 
gr2 

VOREIA  ELLADA 

KENTRIKI ELLADA 

gr3 

ATTIKI 

gr4 

NISIAAIGAIOU.KRITI 

«S  ÊSPANA  1993 

es1 

NOROESTE 

es11 

GALICIA 

es12 

ASTURIAS 

es13 

CANTABRIA 

es2 

NORESTE 

es21 

PAIS VASCO 

es22 

NAVARRA 

es23 

RIOJA 

es24 

ARAGON 

es3 

MADRID 

es4 

CENTRO (E) 

es41 

CASTILLA-LEON 

es42 

CASTILLA-LA  MANCHA 

es43 

EXTREMADURA 

es5 

ESTE 

es51 

CATALUNA 

es52 

COMUNIDAD  VALENCIANA 

es53 

BALEARES 

es6 

SUR 

es61 

ANDALUCIA 

es62 

MURCIA 

es63 

CEUTAYMELILLA 

1,64 

0,60 

1,91 

1,42 

0,54 

0,66 

0,69 
"0791 
0,56 

0,39 

0,99 

0.41 

0.55 

0,35 

0.75 

0,77 

0,08 

0,60 

0,54 

0,29 

0,92 

0,44 

0,11 

0,17 

0.06 

0.07 

0,06 

0,15 

1,06 

1,21 

0,82 

1,08 

0,10 

0,60 

0,12 

0,15 

0,04 

0,11 

0,10 

0,15 

0,03 

0,10 

0,17 

0,26 

0,04 

0,12 

0,08 

0,09 

0,04 

0,00 

1,00 

0.00 

2,12 

0,07 

0,68 

0,28 

0,26 

0,21 

0,22 

0,11 

0,04 

0,04 

0,23 

0,09 

0,52 

0,72 

0,11 

0,07 

0,13 

0,13 

0,24 

0.17 

0,05 

0.04 

0.08 

0,05 

0,04 

0,14 

0,11 

0,18 

0,03 

0,02 

0,19 

0,04 

0,11 

0,09 

0,23 

0,03 

0,08 

0,10 

0,03 

0,11 

0,56 

0,83 

0,26 

0,06 

0,13 

0,09 

0,44 

0,00 

2,64 

0,60 

4,03 

1,49 

1,22 

0,93 

0,95 

1,12 

0,78 

0,50 

1,03 

0,46 

0,77 

0,44 

1,27 

1,49 

0,19 

0,68 

0,67 

0,42 

1,16 

0,60 

0,17 

0,21 

0,14 

0,12 

0,10 

0,29 

1,16 

1,39 

0,85 

1,10 

0,29 

0,64 

0,24 

0,23 

0,27 

0,14 

0,17 

0,25 

0,06 

0,21 

0,73 

1,10 

0,30 

0,18 

0.21 

0,18 

0,48 

0,00 

* 

•11,$3t* 

+23,25% 

-8,96% 

+2t,$VA 

-3,85% 

-4,69% 

-42,86% 

-50,00% 

-50,00% 

-21,00% 

-4,45% 

-7,39% 

-27,03% 

-32,10% 

-16,27% 

•2,$1% 

*5,38% 

-61,81% 

-62,97% 

-41,36% 

-66,10% 

+22,11% 

-49,73% 

-13,24% 

-25,23% 

+33,76% 

-47,50% 

+6,82% 

-5,13% 

-2,03% 

+46,26% 

+10,77% 

+10,97% 

+23,63% 

-56,72% 

+21,69% 

+44,43% 

.  -8,27% 

-  ' 

EUROSTAT: New Cronos/regio (italic figures  : from the 1993 survey on pig holding structures, LSU Ireland estimated) 

Regions 

per ha UAA 

per ha UAA 

per ha UAA 

between 1987 and 93/94 

LSU cattle 

LSU pigs 

Total LSU 

Change in pig stock 

es7 
fr 
fr1 

fr2 

fr3 

fr4 

frS 

fr6 

fr7 

fr8 

CANARIAS 

FRANCE  1993 

LE DE FRANCE 

BASSIN  PARISIEN 

NORD-PAS-DE-CALAIS 

EST 

OUEST 

SUD-OUEST 

CENTRE-EST 

MEDITERRANEE 

fr9 
i ll 
$111 
it1 

DEPARTEMENTS  D'OUTRE-MER 
ï'ÊS^^MÊ^W^^^^^^^^^i^&à 
WM^^KfiM^^^Ê^^^^MMM^ÊË 
NORD OVEST 

rt11 

PIEMONTE 

it12 

VALLE D'AOSTA 

it13 

LIGURIA 

it2 

LOMBARDIA 

H3 

NORD EST 

it31 

TRENTINO-ALTO ADIGE 

it32 

VENETO 

K33 

FRIULI-VENEZIA  GIULIA 

it4 

it5 

EMILIA-ROMAGNA 

CENTRO (I) 

it51 

TOSCANA 

it52 

UMBRIA 

it53 

MARCHE 

it6 

rt7 

LAZIO 

ABRUZZO-MOLISE 

it71 

ABRUZZO 

it72 

MOUSE 

it8 

it9 

CAMPANIA 

SUD 

it91 

PUGLIA 

it92 

BASILICATA 

it93 

CALABRIA 

ita 

itb 

lu 

ni 

nil 

nl2 

nl3 

nl4 

Pt 
pt1 

SICILIA 

SARDEGNA 

LUXEMBOURG  (GRAND-DUCHE) 1994 

NEDERLAND 1994 

NOORD-NEDERLAND 

OOST-NEDERLAND 

WEST-NEDERLAND 

ZUID-NEDERLAND 

PORTUGAL 1994 

CONTINENTE 

pt11 

NORTE 

pt12 

CENTRO (P) 

pt13 

LISBOA E VALE  DO TEJO 

pt14 

ALENTEJO 

pt15 

ALGARVE 

pt2 

pt3 

ACORES 

MADEIRA 

0,12 

0,09 

0,01 

0,04 

0,15 

0,03 

0,34 

0,06 

0,05 

0,02 

0,33 

0,58 

0,05 

0,48 

0,80 

0,65 

1,11 

0,56 

0,65 

0,13 

-44.20% 

' 

+25,21% 

-4,15% 

+33,10% 

+7,70% 

0,21 

0,49 

0,05 

0,44 

0,65 

0,62 

0,78 

0,50 

0,60 

0.11 

-  1,05 

illllllili 

0,58 

lllilllii^osi 
llllillloli 
0,13 

illlllfl 
llllltflii 

llllllIlllllllIIIIl^^M 
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiili 
+10,35% 

0J1 

0,63 

0,29 

0,18 

1,26 

0,63 

1,06 

0,81 

0,38 

0,52 

0,13 

0.11 
0,16 

0,14 

0,30 

0,17 

0,15 

0,20 

0,35 

0.11 

0,09 

0,11 

0,17 

0,21 

0.15 

1,16 

1,69 

1,41 

2,22 

1,12 

2,03 

0,24 

0,21 

0,44 

0,31 

0,21 

0,10 

0,07 

1,19 

0,82 

0,15 

0,00 

0,00 

0,61 

0,12 

0,04 

0,16 

0,17 

0,33 

0,10 

0,06 

0,20 

0,10 

0,05 

0,06 

0,06 

0,06 

0,06 

0,02 

0,01 

0,03 

0.05 

0,01 

0,05 

0,11 

1,16 

0,16 

1,40 

0,27 

3,39 

0.11 

0,12 

0,05 

0,17 

0,42 

0,04 

0,10 

0,06 

0,32 

0,78 

0,30 

0,19 

1,88 

0,75 

1,10 

0,98 

0,55 

0,85 

0,23 

0,17 

0,36 

0,24 

0,35 

0,23 

0,21 

0,26 

0,41 

0,14 

0,10 

0,14 

0,22 

0,22 

0,20 

1,27 

2,85 

1,57 

3,62 

1,39 

5,42 

0,36 

0,33 

0,49 

0,47 

0,63 

0,14 

0.18 

1,25 

1,14 

+10,97% 

-33,33% 

-70,00% 

+2,90% 

-3,18% 

-29,73% 

-5,64% 

+11,81% 

-20,48% 

-18,22% 

-33,01% 

-6,38% 

-12,42% 

-14,58% 

+10,08% 

+20,66% 

-5,84% 

-24,38% 

-39,42% 

-44,36% 

-45,65% 

-32,97% 

-5,69% 

+5,59% 

'  *4.29% 

4,34% 

-8,36% 

-5,97% 

-16,74% 

+6,27% 

+0,11% 

+1,06% 

-32,90% 

+5,67% 

+7,24% 

+6,01% 

-12,05% 

-19,57% 

-45,28% 

EUROSTAT: New Cronos/regio (italic figures : from the 1993 survey on pig holding structures, LSU Ireland estimated) 

Uk  UNITED KINGDOM 

uk1 

NORTH 

Regions 
1994 

uk2 

YORKSHIRE AND  HUMBERSIDE 

uk3 

EAST  MIDLANDS 

uk4 

EAST ANGLIA 

uk5 

SOUTH  EAST (UK) 

uk6 

SOUTH WEST  (UK) 

uk7 

WEST  MIDLANDS 

uk8 

NORTH WEST  (UK) 

uk9 

WALES 

uka 

SCOTLAND 

ukb 

NORTHERN  IRELAND 

at  OESTERREICH 

1994 

at1 

OSTOESTERREICH 

at11 

BURGENLAND 

at12 

NIEDEROESTERREICH 

at13 

WIEN 

at2 

SUEDOESTERREICH 

at21 

KAERNTEN 

at22 

STEIERMARK 

at3 

WESTOESTERREICH 

at31 

OBEROESTERREICH 

« 

at32 

SALZBURG 

at33 

TIROL 

at34 

VORARLBERG 

fi 

SUOMI/FINLAND 

1994 

se  SVER1GE 

1993 

se01 

STOCKHOLM 

se02 

ÔSTRA  MELLANSVERIGE 

se03 

SMALAND  MED ÔARNA 

se04 

SYDSVERIGE 

se05 

VÀSTSVERIGE 

se06 

NORRA  MELLANSVERIGE 

se07 

MELLERSTA  NORRLAND 

se08 

ÔVRE  NORRLAND 

LSU cattle 

LSU pigs 

Total LSU 

Change In pig  stock 

perhaUAA 

perhaUAA 

p e r h a U AA 

. b e t w e en  1987 a nd 93/94 

+1,91% 

-5,54% 

+9,13% 

-4,21% 

+4,42% 

-16,37% 

+2,85% 

+23,80% 

-24,09% 

-26,56% 

+35,86% 

-2,88% 

0,50 

0,63 

0,47 

0,41 

0,16 

0,41 

0,98 

0,78 

1,12 

0,68 

0,25 

1,03 

0,49 

0,35 

0,13 

0,40 

0,00 

0,51 

0,43 

0,57 

0,59 

0,89 

0,44 

0,34 

0,41 

0,32 

0,28 

0,15 

0,22 

0,40 

0,27 

0,32 

0,23 

0,27 

0,27 

0,09 

0,04 

0,34 

0,11 

0,31 

0,11 

0,10 

0,13 

0,13 

0,01 

0,02 

0.10 

0,20 

0.20 

0.12 

0,21 

0,00 

0,27 

0,11 

0,38 

0,17 

0,38 

0,02 

0,02 

0,03 

0,10 

0,08 

0,03 

0,05 

.  0,05 

0,17 

0,11 

0,03 

0,01 

0,03 

0,59 

0,67 

0,81 

0,52 

0,48 

0,51 

1,08 

0,91 

1,24 

0,69 

0,27 

1,13 
0,69 

0,55 

0,25 

0,62 

0,00 

0,78 

0,54 

0,95 

0,75 

1,27 

0,46 

0,36 

0,44 

0,42 

0,36 

0,18 

0,27 

0,45 

0,44 

0,43 

0,26 

0,28 

0,30 

E U R O S T A T:  New  Cronos/regio  (italic  figures  : from  the  1993  survey  on  pig  holding  structures,  LSU  Ireland  estimated) 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(98) 434 final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

03  08  09  10 

Catalogue  number  :  CB-CO-98-446-EN-C 

ISBN  92-78-38034-2 

Office  for  Official  Publications of the European  Communities 

L-2985  Luxembourg