Skip to main content
Agricultural and Food Economics
Agricultural and Food Economics Cover Image

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

№ 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