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 HENS2.4.2. Member State data2.4.2.1. Variable costsWeighted average variable costs for each Member State and for each system (with the exception ofthe semi-intensive system) are presented in Figure 2.15 to Figure 2.19. All figures are <strong>Agra</strong> <strong>CEAS</strong><strong>Consulting</strong> calculations based on industry estimates.Key points include the following in relation to each system.Traditional cage system:the most significant cost is feed accounting for around 65%-75% of total variable costs with birddepreciation contributing most of the remainder;not all Member State data separately <strong>report</strong>s veterinary and medication costs as the cost ofvaccines being given at the rearing stage may be included in the pullet price;some Member State data records miscellaneous variable costs, but these are insignificant andmost do not in any case;Greece, Ireland, Italy and Finland are high cost Member States, mainly as a result of high feedcosts, although bird depreciation is also high in Greece and Finland;The lowest cost Member States are Belgium, Portugal and the Netherlands, mainly as a result ofaccess to cheaper feed in the case of Belgium and the Netherlands and through verticalintegration in terms of pullet production in Portugal; <strong>final</strong>ly, it should be noted that for comparison purposes the feed cost in Spain has been set at €30which is considered to be a typical level as the €37 cost in 2003 was artificially high in 2003 as aresult of drought (see Appendix 1 for further details).Enriched cage system:these costs should be treated with caution as the experience with enriched cages is notwidespread and the cost figures obtained are drawn from larger, more efficient units witheconomies of scale;the Belgian figures are experimental;the UK figures are drawn from ‘enrichable’ cages operating at 630 cm 2 rather than 750 cm 2 andfrom a very efficient producer. They therefore compare well with typical variable costs fortraditional cages;there is little difference between the figures presented by Member State.33

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!