11.07.2015 Views

2120 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

2120 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

2120 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE VARIOUS SYSTEMS TO KEEP LAYING HENSTable A1.31: Capital (fixed) costs (€ cents per kg eggs) 2003Traditional cage Barn Free range OrganicLabour 5.12 15.89 21.27 38.39Buildings 9.33 5.88 4.16 5.64Equipment 5.76 7.46 8.32 11.29Land 0.74 0.77Manure disposal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Insurance 4.54 3.68 4.88 5.04Utilities 1.14 1.11 1.10 1.13Cleaning 0.80 1.20 1.59 2.58Miscellaneous 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40Total fixed costs 29.08 37.62 44.45 67.24Note:Source: ITAVI.A1.5.2.6. Gross marginsTable A1.32 builds on the cost data in Section A1.5.2.5 and presents revenue figures and producergross margin. Alternative production systems have higher returns resulting from available premia.This is offset to varying degrees by higher variable costs, but still results in substantially higher grossmargins for barn and free range producers than are available under the traditional caged system.Table A1.32: Egg producer gross margin (€ cents per kg) 2003Traditional cage Barn Free range OrganicEgg returns 67.34 89.79 101.01 134.69Revenue from spent hens 1.86 1.68 1.59 4.21Output (per year) 69.20 91.47 102.60 138.90Total variable costs 61.15 69.16 73.16 133.50Gross margin 8.05 22.31 29.44 5.40Source: ITAVI.In fact, if we consider the producer prices for 2003 and the costs for 2002, the end-of-year resultswould be positive for all systems, except for organic production. However, we must take intoaccount that in 2003 there was an increase in the usable surface per hen (to 550 cm 2 ), leading to anincrease in the average production costs in the conventional system.171

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!