Skip to main content
Agricultural and Food Economics

Table 3 Technological characteristics and vertical integration of the projects

From: Performance and profit sensitivity to risk: a practical evaluation of the agro-industrial projects developed by Israeli companies for the CIS and Eastern European countries

â„–

Project, country,

Major technological characteristic

Vertical integration

 

Federal District

Value

Unit

Compared to country's value

Data source for the comparison

 

1

Eggs, Russia, Central

308

Eggs/layer/year (lay rate)

101%

A

Parents flock, hatchery, feed mill

2

Turkeys, Russia, Privolzhsky

2.62

Feed Consumption Ratio

61%

B

Parents flock, hatchery, feed mill

3

Fruit, Azerbaijan

38.3

Apple ton/ha

432%

C

Pack-house, fruit long storage in controlled atmosphere

4

Vegetable greenhouses, Azerbaijan

485

Tomato ton/ha/year

513%

D, E

Growing seedlings, packaging production

5

Broilers, Russia, Privolzhsky

2.0

Feed Consumption Ratio

98%

F

Parents flock, hatchery, feed mill

6

Broilers, Kazakhstan

2.0

Feed Consumption Ratio

98%

F

Parents flock, hatchery, feed mill

7

Eggs, Romania

308

Lay rate

224%

G

Parents flock, hatchery, feed mill, manure pelleting plant

8

Orchard+extraction

537

Kg of tea tree oil/hectare

363%

H

Plantation, oil extraction plant

9

Pig farm, Belarus

3.23

Feed Consumption Ratio

77%

I

Main herd, feed mill, meat products plant

10

Turkeys, Russia, Central

2.39

Feed Consumption Ratio

56%

B

Hatchery, feed mill, meat products plant

11

Turkeys, Belarus

2.62

Feed Consumption Ratio

61%

B

Parents flock, hatchery, feed mill, meat products plant

12

Soy, Russia, Far East

16%

Oil yield

102%

J

Seed storage, soy processing, bottling line, feed mill

13

Eggs, Belarus

308

Lay rate

102%

K

Parents flock, hatchery, feed mill, egg melange plant

14

Milk farm, Russia, North-West

11

Ton of milk per cow/year

262%

A

Main herd, feed center, biogas plant

  1. A) Russia’s average in 2008-2010, for agricultural enterprises (RosStat 2012).
  2. B) Turkey of Stavropol region (2012). Recommendations of this breeding center, the largest in Russia, are taken as a base for comparison for projects both in Russia and Belarus.
  3. C) FAOSTAT (2012), yield in Azerbaijan, 2008-2010: 8.87 ton/ha.
  4. D) FAOSTAT (2012), yield in Azerbaijan, 2008-2010: 17.1 ton/ha in open field. Data for greenhouse are not available for Azerbaijan.
  5. E) Moghaddam et al. (2011), report of tomato yield in greenhouse 5.52 times higher than in open field in Iran with similar climatic conditions. Comparing the projected yield 485 ton to the open field yield in Israel (81 ton/ha (2008-2010) - FAOSTAT 2012) gives the close ratio 5.99.
  6. F) Kochish et al. (2010). In this study, FCR for 5 breeding crosses of broilers raised in different production systems in one of the Russian large industrial farms are calculated. They belong to the range [1.9, 2.2] when the average FCR equals 2.03.
  7. G) Calculated by data from FAOSTAT (2012), 2008-2010. Includes estimates both for enterprises and individual (less productive) farms.
  8. H) Chudleigh and Simpson (2010). The base scenario in this evaluation of investment assumes the yield 148 kg oil of tea tree per hectare.
  9. I) Resolution 568 of the Belarus Government, http://www.government.by/ru/search-solutions/. FCR equals 4.2 for pigs in Belarus (2009).
  10. J) Amuragrocenter, the largest soybean processing plant in the Far East FD, http://amuragro.ru/ (in Russian). Climatic conditions (humidity of beans) and non-genetically modified varieties of soy are similar to those in the project. The oil yield in this extraction plant equals 15.7% (2010).
  11. K) The agro-industrial association Belptizeprom, http://www.agrobel.by/ru/node/23258 (in Russian). The lay rate in industrial poultry farmsin Belarus reached 303 in 2009.
  12. Additional data are available from the author on request.
Back to article page