Sustainability indicators - Agrifirm

Sustainability indicators

2012 Results

It is important for Agrifirm to be transparent about the key effects its business has on the environment and society. This is why Agrifirm publishes an annual Corporate Sustainability Report. To accompany the Corporate Sustainability Report, we also issue this report in which we explain the trends and background to the key indicators. The charts in this report give a clear impression of the trends through the years and also show the differences between the agricultural sectors. If you would like to know the exact numbers, you can find them in the appendices at the back of this report.

I would also like to you refer you to the protocol for sustainability reporting, which describes the methodology for calculating the indicators. You can also find this report on our online Sustainability Wiki.

Ruud TijssensDirector of Corporate Affairs, Agrifirm Group

Preface

1Agrifirm - 2012 results for sustainability indicators

2

A lot has happened in the past year within Agrifirm in terms of the development of indicators. These indicators give a good impression of how the company and the farming sector are improving sustainability. In 2012 Agrifirm worked with stakeholders in the sector to improve the quality of the indicators. When the methodological developments are considered, three initiatives in particular stand out:

> In 2012, Wageningen University and Research Centre and Blonk Consultants launched FeedPrint, which had been commissioned by the Dutch Animal Feed Product Board and the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs. FeedPrint is a standardised tool for the calculation of greenhouse gases that enjoys broad support. Agrifirm has based its results in this report for the greenhouse emissions of the compound feed activities on this new tool.

> Within FEFAC (the European Feed Manufacturers’ Federation), the FeedPrint methodology has been adopted as the basic instrument for the further development of a protocol for Europe. Furthermore, in connection with this an alliance has been forged with FAO (the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organisation) and there is involvement in the ENVIFOOD developments through the European Food Sustainable Consumption and Production Round Table.

> The background data for calculating land use, co-product use and feed miles has been updated and aligned with the background data in FeedPrint. The update involved a new dataset for the feed conversion ratio and economic allocation factors. In addition, a number of raw material names have been revised and brought in line with the names used in FeedPrint.− - Because the feed conversion ratio is such an important factor in the calculations, the changes in these figures are displayed in the table below. The feed conversion ratio for laying-hens has shown a particularly large change. The estimates of egg production up to 2011 for the Dutch and Hungarian farms turned out to be on the low side.

WEIGHTEDAVERAGEFEEDCONVERSIONRATIOFORAGRIFIRMGROUPASAWHOLE

FCR 2011 2012 %difference

Broilers 1,76443 1,79159 1,539307 Broiler breeder 9,65004 9,48701 1,689420 Fattening pigs 2,69945 2,74017 1,508455 Piglets 1,64571 1,64740 0,102691 Sows 5,28471 5,54844 4,990435 Dairy 0,94927 0,94927 0 Layers 2,66289 2,18094 -18,0988

- The most significant change for the economic allocation of raw materials is in the use of ‘residual co-products’. These products have an economic allocation of less than 5%, a very low economic value compared with the total value of the

Developments and changes in the methodology

Agrifirm - 2012 results for sustainability indicators

3

original raw material. No allocation is made to these raw products for land use or carbon footprint. The following products are in this category:

> Bread meal and biscuits− > Co-products from the cassava starch industry− > Co-products from the cheese industry− > Citrus pulp− > Co-products from the potato industry

1. Environmental indicators

1.1 CARbONFOOTPRINTThecarbonfootprintisthesumofthegreenhousegasemissionsduringthelifecycleofanimalproducts.ThemeasurementunitiskgofCO2equivalent/kgoffunctionalunit(milk,meatoregg).

> FeedPrint (version 2012.21) was used as the tool for calculating the carbon footprint. Previously, Blonk Consultants’ Agrifootprint tool was used. The methodology for calculating the footprint is based on the same Life Cycle Analysis approach (LCA). One difference in the new system is the use of dynamic models for calculating animal products from feed – a static approach had been chosen in Agrifootprint. There is also a difference in the approach to emissions from the use of organic or chemical fertilisers; as a result, FeedPrint gives slightly more favourable results.

> To date, FeedPrint has only been validated for production in the Netherlands. FEFAC is currently working on its validation for Europe and North America. No instrument is available at present for calculating the effects of production in Agrifirm’s foreign operations.

> In the above chart, the LuLuc (Land use and Land use change) is included in the calculations. That was not yet the case in 2011. The results for 2010 and 2011 have been adjusted to include the actual LuLuc in 2012.

> Agrifootprint and FeedPrint use different methods for calculating methane emissions and rumen fermentation. As a result there are also differences in the greenhouse gas emissions for milk.

>− Co-products from fruit and vegetable waste> Co-products from ethanol production from maize, wheat and beets> Co-products from malt houses and the brewing industry> Co-products from the sugar industry

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

Carbon footprint(Kg CO2 eq/ton product)

Feed

Farm

LuLuc

2010

2011

2012

2010

2011

2012

2010

2011

2012

2010

2011

2012

2010

2011

2012

2011

2012

Pig (dry feed)

Pig (mash feed)

Chickens Milk Eggs Eggs (organic)


4

> The biggest difference in the case of pigs and broilers is due to fewer inputs ((chemical) fertilisers) in the cultivation of raw materials. The reason for this is a difference between Agrifootprint and FeedPrint in how they deal with N2O emissions from fertilisers.> It is not yet possible in this first year to perform an analysis of the actual effects of the feed composition and origin of the raw materials for compound feed on the carbon footprint; multi-year monitoring is necessary for this. Agrifirm will provide annual information on the carbon footprint for animal products via the cycle of Corporate Sustainability Reports.> The system for calculating the carbon footprint still has its limitations. When interpreting the results, it should be noted that the system is due to undergo further development.> (The size of the) LuLuc is still the subject of much discussion within the sector. The important thing for Agrifirm is that in reducing the LuLuc, the alternative leads to gains for the environment according to the consequential LCA method.

1.2LANDUSE

> Agrifirm Belgium sources its broiler feed from the Dutch factories. The volume of dairy cattle feed from the Polish factories was small and was therefore excluded from the calculations.> A striking change in the laying-hen sector is the fall in land use for the Dutch and Hungarian feed companies (-28% and -22% respectively). These decreases are largely due to the improvement in feed conversion ratios compared with previous years.> The drop in the land use for compound feed from Hungary (e.g. -28% for pigs) is also due to the increased usage of residual co-products. For instance, the Hungarian business has for some time been processing considerable amounts of DDGS and corn gluten meal to produce animal feed. More information on this subject can be found in the section on co-product usage.

NL B

Ger Po

l

Hun N

L B

Ger Po

l

Hun N

L B

Pol

Hun N

L

Ger Po

l

Pigs (live weight)

Laying-hens (eggs)

Broilers (live weight)

Cattle (milk)

Land use(ha / ton fu)

2010

2011

2012

0.70000.60000.50000.40000.30000.20000.10000.0000


5

1.3FEEDMILES

> The change to the allocation procedure whereby a number of co-products now have a lower allocation, or even no allocation at all, has had a clear effect on the feed miles. For example, it led to sharp drops in the feed miles for the dairy cattle sector in the Netherlands (-48%) and Germany (-65%). Further explanation can be found in the section on residual co-products.> This effect of residual co-products is magnified by the lower feed conversion ratios for the Dutch and Hungarian laying-hen sector, for instance (-57% and -38% respectively). This was explained earlier in this report.> The drop for the Eastern European operations is less marked (-4% on average) as they traditionally obtain their raw materials from sources closer to the factories. The fall in the use of soy due to the higher prices in 2012 resulted in fewer feed miles. For instance, the proportion of soy meal in compound feed for pigs raised for meat fell from 17% in 2011 to 6% in 2012. This applies to a lesser degree to the other sectors for this feed company. This result is partly thanks to collaboration with the Agrifirm Innovation Center.> In Belgium too, the reduced imports of soy meal (from 12% in 2011 to 7% in 2012, due to the price developments in 2012) helped lower the feed miles for pigs (-52%). The reduced usage of soy went hand in hand with an increase in the use of grains and rapeseed meal originating in Northwestern Europe.> Fewer feed miles were recorded for the Dutch operations as no maize was imported from South America. Maize now mainly comes from the region around the Danube (chiefly Hungary, Ukraine and Romania) and France.

NL B

Ger Po

l

Hun N

L B

Ger Po

l

Hun N

L B

Pol

Hun N

L

Ger Po

l

Pigs (live weight)

Laying-hens (eggs)

Broilers Cattle

Feedmiles (km / ton fu)

2010

2011

2012

12,00010,000

8,0006,0004,0002,000

0


NL B

Ger Po

l

Hun N

L B

Ger Po

l

Hun N

L B

Pol

Hun N

L

Ger Po

l

NL B

Ger Po

l

Hun N

L B

Ger Po

l

Hun N

L B

Pol

Hun N

L

Ger Po

l

6

1.4USEOFCO-PRODUCTS

2010 2011 2012

Use of co-products (% of total compound feed) 47.5 46.3 47.9Use of residual co-products (% of total compound feed) - - 14.2Use of soy meal (% of total compound feed) 12.8 11.8 13.2Use of palm kernel shells (% of total compound feed) 5.0 4.8 5.7

> The use of co-products has remained constant over the past few years.> The figures show that residual co-products make up 14% of all raw materials in Agrifirm’s compound feed. The pig and cattle farming sectors in particular use large quantities of such co-products, for which no land use, greenhouse gas emissions or feed miles are allocated.> There has been a slight increase in the use of soy as a proportion of the overall volume of compound feed. That increase is due to the increased demand for ‘core feed’ in the poultry sector. The ‘core feed’ concept involves local grains being supplemented with a concentrated protein-rich compound feed mix. In 2012, Agrifirm built a new core feed factory in Losten (Germany) so that it would be able to roll out this product in Germany too. The use of soy for the international pig and cattle sectors has remained constant.> The use of palm kernel shells is growing slowly. This is partly due to the increasing proportion of cattle feed incorporating this product.

Pigs (live weight)

Pigs (live weight)

Laying-hens (eggs)

Laying-hens (eggs)

Broilers

Broilers

Cattle

Cattle

Co-products (%)

Residu co-producten (%)

2010

2011

2012

2012

90.080.070.060.050.040.030.020.010.00.0

90.080.070.060.050.040.030.020.010.00.0


1.5RENEWAbLEENERGY

> On average, the Agrifirm Group’s subsidiaries use as much renewable energy as in 2011 (2.7% in 2011 (after adjustment) and 2.5% in 2012).> In 2013, Agrifirm will be carrying out a project to facilitate forms of renewable energy that enable more systematic use.

1.6ENERGYEFFICIENCYINDEX> Nuscience Group’s Drongen site has achieved a notable improvement in the Energy Efficiency Index (EEI). This improvement is largely thanks to increased production levels and awareness of energy-efficient production.> Every year, Oldambt has been making an effort to save as much energy as possible by drying alfalfa first in the field. This was successful in 2012 and as a result the energy efficiency index was lower (i.e. better) than in the reference year.> A reorganisation at the NutriControl laboratory in Veghel led to a new situation for the performance of various kinds of analyses. This resulted in deterioration in the energy efficiency in 2012. Efficiency levels are expected to recover in the course of 2013.

Gro

bben

donk

Mar

goni

n

Szam

otul

y

Topo

la

Neu

ss

Kaba

Gyo

r

Bocs

Dro

ngen

Baas

rode

Vegh

el

Old

ambt

Ope

inde

Belgium Poland Germany Hungary Vitamex OldambtNutri-

control

14012010080604020

0

Inde

x

2010 (reference year)

2011

2012

7

Agrifi

rm G

roup

Agrifi

rm Fe

ed BV

Nuscien

ce N

V

Agrifi

rm D

eutsc

hland

Agrifi

rm Po

lska

Agrifi

rm H

ungary

Agrifi

rm co

-pro

ducts

BVFe

ed Be

lgium

Agrifi

rm Pl

ant

Abem

ec BV

BV O

ldam

btAgr

ifirm

Exlan

BVNutri

cont

rol B

VAgr

ifirm

Win

kel B

V

2010

2011

2012

Renewable energy

Energy efficiency index

120 %100 %80 %60 %40 %20 %

0 %


8

1.7R&DSUSTAINAbILITYSCAN

> Profit is a prerequisite for being able to work on increasing sustainability. This is clear from the figures for both the Agrifirm Innovation Center (AIC) and R&D Plant. The consideration of Profit (return on investment, managing costs and internal collaboration) remains the key driver for research. It is important for this to be accompanied by increased sustainability in the People and Planet categories.

> Within the AIC, there was a clear focus on a number of aspects in 2012:− - Alternative sources of protein. This is getting more and more attention within poultry and cattle research.− - Energy consumption in factories. More projects were carried out on this topic, in particular in the poultry and new raw materials (NRM) sector. There is a strong focus on energy costs per ton of feed.− - N and P efficiency. There is now an awareness of mineral efficiency in all sectors, as opposed to the past when that emphasis was only to be found in the pig and poultry sectors.− - Animal health. The number of projects aimed at animal health in 2012 was on a level with 2011. There were also roughly as many projects in each sector.

> Within Agrifirm Plant, there was a greater focus on the following aspects in 2012 compared with 2011:− - Air and water quality. The use of crop protection products has an impact on the quality of surface water. Much research is being done on this issue.− - Reuse of raw materials. Much attention is being given to the use of organic fertiliser components within R&D Plant. These are residual streams from a variety of processes, such as manure separation.− - Preventing adverse effects on biodiversity. By giving priority to organic fertilisers and crop protection products, we are influencing the most important factors affecting biodiversity in the soil at the local level.− - Training. This had already been an aspect that received a great deal of attention within R&D Plant, but now that item has an even more prominent place on the agenda. To give an example, much time is being invested in training field staff. A new development is the on-site training of consultants and growers for a fee.

> There is increased attention within the Business Excellence (BE) projects for what is known as margin optimisation.

NUMbEROFPROjECTS AIC AIC PLANT PLANT bE bE 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 Contribution to improving public health among consumers 0% 2% 4% 5% Contribution to avoiding human resistance to antibiotics 13% 10% Improvement of animal health and welfare 39% 20% Contribution to the training of internal and external parties 48% 28% 100% Biodiversity: improving phosphate efficiency 30% 12% 37% 28% Biodiversity: improving nitrogen efficiency 35% 22% 44% 35% Biodiversity: improving soil’s physical properties 37% Biodiversity: improving use of crop protection products 52% 51% Carbon footprint (heavy greenhouse gases) 17% 18% 22% 5% Carbon footprint (feed conversion ratio) 17% 32% Carbon footprint (energy consumption in factories and transport) 22% 10% 50% 71% Alternative sources of protein 39% 14% 4% 2% Reuse of raw materials (recycling) 30% 12% Air and water quality 44% 26% Reduction in direct costs of own operations and/or members 83% 46% 78% 72% 100% 100% Internal collaboration 83% 68% 85% 67% 100% 100% Collaboration with other parties in the supply chain 26% 34% 70% 56%

Peop

lePl

anet

Profi

t


9

2. Social indicators

Asregardssocialaspects,Agrifirmfocusesprimarilyonitsownstaff,specificallyconcentratingonsafety,trainingandabsenceduetoillness.Thefollowingsectionsgivetheresultsandfurtherexplanation.

2.1VEILIGHEID

> A total of 54 incidents resulting in absence were recorded in 2012. That was more than in 2011. Agrifirm is currently reviewing its safety policy in the ‘Safety First’ project and follow-up actions are expected in the course of 2013.> The increase in the number of accidents is probably at least in part due to improved registration.>− There were no accidents resulting in absence at NutriControl in 2012 – a good result!>− The increase in the number of accidents at Agrifirm Co-products is due to acquisitions of new companies.>− The appendix contains more safety statistics.

Agrifi

rm G

roup

Agrifi

rm Fe

ed BV

Nuscien

ce N

V

Agrifi

rm D

eutsc

hland

Agrifi

rm Po

lska

Agrifi

rm M

agya

rorsz

ág

Agrifi

rm co

-pro

ducts

BVFe

ed Be

lgium

Agrifi

rm Pl

ant

Abem

ec BV

BV O

ldam

btAgr

ifirm

Exlan

BVNutri

cont

rol B

VAgr

ifirm

Win

kel B

V

2011

2012

50.045.040.035.030.025.020.015.010.05.0

0

Accidents (Per million working hours)


10

2.2AbSENCEDUETOILLNESS

> Absence due to illness has fallen by almost 25% on average. This is due to the increased attention given to this issue within companies’ HR policy.>− Big jumps in absence due to illness at individual companies (whether increases or decreases) are caused by long-term absence due to illness cases.

Agrifi

rm G

roup

Agrifi

rm Fe

ed BV

Nuscien

ce N

V

Agrifi

rm D

eutsc

hland

Agrifi

rm Po

lska

Agrifi

rm M

agya

rorsz

ág

Agrifi

rm co

-pro

ducts

BVFe

ed Be

lgium

Agrifi

rm Pl

ant

Abem

ec BV

BV O

ldam

btAgr

ifirm

Exlan

BVNutri

cont

rol B

VAgr

ifirm

Win

kel B

V

7.06.05.04.03.02.01.0

0

Absence due to illness (%)

2010 (indicative)

2011

2012


11

2.3TRAINING

> An additional −130 per employee was spent on training in 2012 compared with 2011 (−403 in 2011 and −534 in 2012). This result is due in part to the implementation of performance management and a focus on improving employee satisfaction.> The high score for the training of employees at Abemec is due to the creation of the Abemec Academy for engineers. The first nine engineers completed the programme in 2012. Abemec set up this training programme in partnership with Helicon business training.

2.3PERFORMANCEMANAGEMENT,DIVERSITY,MObILITY,DISCRIMINATIONANDCORRUPTION> No cases of discrimination or corruption were recorded in 2012 via the whistle-blower scheme.> Information on all these aspects is to be found in the tables in the appendix.

Agrifi

rm G

roup

Agrifi

rm Fe

ed BV

Nuscien

ce N

V

Agrifi

rm D

eutsc

hland

Agrifi

rm Po

lska

Agrifi

rm M

agya

rorsz

ág

Agrifi

rm co

-pro

ducts

BVFe

ed Be

lgium

Agrifi

rm Pl

ant

Abem

ec BV

BV O

ldam

btAgr

ifirm

Exlan

BVNutri

cont

rol B

VAgr

ifirm

Win

kel B

V

2500200015001000

5000

2010 (indicative)

2011

2012

Training (€ / employee)


Carbon footprint of Dutch feed operations (Kg CO2 eq. / kg product)

PIGS(DRYFEED) PIGS(MASHFEED) CHICkENS MILk EGGS EGGS(ORGANIC)

2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012 2011 2012

Farm 1511 1511 1906,6 1511 1511 1949,8 847 847 389,5 590 590 732,5 660 659 209,2 743 219,9

Feed 2449 2607 1401,3 2018 2609 1262,7 2019 2012 1633,8 380 385 456,5 1263 1311 1156,2 1271 1293

LuLuc 432,6 432,6 432,6 403,9 403,9 403,9 613,7 613,7 613,7 72,5 72,5 72,5 435,9 435,9 435,9 524,7 524,7

Total 4392,6 4550,6 3740,5 3932,9 4523,9 3616,4 2637,1 3472,7 2637 1261,4 1801,2 2037,6 2358,9 2405,9 1801,3 2538,7 2037,6

Feed miles (km/ton fu)

PIGS(LIVEWEIGHT) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

NL 11795 6280 4006 4816 3463B 7480 4021 3498 4068 1951Ger 6961 6841 3452 3216Pol 3626 3858 2496 2623Hun 3024 3187 3141 2524LAYING-HENS(EGGS)

NL 10273 6008 9549 9006 3871B 9449 4436 4421 4730 2195Ger 5338 6662 5123 2700Pol 1311 1541 1425 1725Hun 4191 3396 4133 2562

bROILERS(LIVEWEIGHT)

NL 8012 5125 8970 7360 5294B 8415 5768 3834 6447 Pol 2842 2784 2543 3127Hun 4563 3711 3724 3053

CATTLE(MILk)

NL 5497 4255 2484 2218 1146Ger 763 1192 1619 572,57Pol 569 755 603


Land use (ha/ton fu)

PIGS(LIVEWEIGHT) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

NL 0,3661 0,3498 0,3843 0,3896 0,3697

B 0,4322 0,3810 0,3891 0,4056 0,3382

Ger 0,4502 0,4453 0,3487 0,4556

Pol 0,5528 0,5771 0,5498 0,5650

Hun 0,4674 0,5264 0,5475 0,3935

LAYING-HENS(EGGS)

NL 0,4136 0,3639 0,4704 0,5495 0,3955

B 0,4233 0,3612 0,3427 0,3936 0,3281

Ger 0,3652 0,3966 0,3453 0,3354

Pol 0,4413 0,4463 0,4007 0,4468

Hun 0,5270 0,4992 0,4534 0,3554


NL 0,3215 0,289 0,4076 0,5307 0,3961

B 0,3741 0,3191 0,3257 0,3748

Pol 0,3874 0,4185 0,4007 0,4468

Hun 0,3838 0,3807 0,3473 0,2857

CATTLE(MILk)

NL 0,1001 0,0766 0,1032 0,1139 0,1003

Ger 0,091 0,1047 0,1158 0,1357

Pol 0,1993 0,1924 0,1578


Number of co-products (%)

PIGS(LIVEWEIGHT) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 RESIDU

NL 40,5 41,7 37,4 35,8 38,1 9,2

B 31,6 33,4 34,8 43,8 41,6 8,2

Ger 47,5 46,1 36,0 46,4 6,0

Pol 37,3 39,1 28,6 33,0 4,7

Hun 35,2 35,1 32,7 33,5 7,3

LAYING-HENS(EGGS)

NL 30,7 31,5 33,5 33,5 33,1 0,0

B 33,2 34,4 31,2 32,4 30,7 0,0

Ger 26,7 33,5 23,1 24,05 0,0

Pol 31,2 29,5 26,2 30,9 4,3

Hun 44,0 39,0 35,7 31,9 4,8


NL 34,2 35,6 49,2 49,6 46,5 0,1

B 31,5 37,3 31,7 39,0

Pol 34,9 31,7 31,8 31,6 0,2

Hun 43,3 34,3 34,8 34,0 2,9

CATTLE(MILk)

NL 74,8 77,7 64,2 67,6 68,1 38,2

Ger 70,1 75,7 79,8 69,7 19,9

Pol 59,2 63,4 60,3


Share of renewable energy (%)

PIGS(LIVEWEIGHT) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

NL 0 0 0 0 0

B 0 0 100 60 35

Ger 0 0 25 16 30

Pol 0 0 10 8 0

Hun 0 0 0 9 4

LAYING-HENS(EGGS)

NL 0 0 0 0 0

B 0 0 100 60 35

Ger 0 0 25 16 30

Pol 0 0 10 8 0

Hun 0 0 0 9 0


NL 0 0 0 0 0

B 0 0 100 60 35

Pol 0 0 10 8 0

Hun 0 0 0 9 0

CATTLE(MILk)

NL 0 0 0 0 0

Ger 0 0 25 16 30

Pol 0 0 10 8 0


HR indicators (1)

LTAFREqUENCY LTAPERCENTAGE(%

LTADURATION (INCIDENTS/ AbSENCEDUETOILLNESS

NUMbEROFINCIDENTS (DAYS/INCIDENT) 100EMPLOYEES) /DUETOACCIDENTS)

2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012

Agrifirm Group 0 0 0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0,0

Agrifirm Feed 10 11 9 24 1,3 1,5 0,3 0,8

Nuscience Group 9 12 37 18 1,5 1,8 1,2 0,7

Agrifirm Deutschland 0 4 0 0 0,0 2,4 0,0 0,0

Agrifirm Polska 3 5 79 21 2,2 3,8 3,8 1,8

Agrifirm Magyarország 1 1 226 283 0,6 0,7 2,8 4,3

Agrifirm co-products 0 9 0 8 3,9 0,0 0,7

Agrifirm Belgium 1 1 6 15 2,4 2,6 0,3 0,8

Agrifirm Plant 1 1 34 139 0,3 0,4 0,3 1,1

Abemec 3 5 24 4 1,6 2,2 0,8 0,2

Oldambt 0 0 0 0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

Agrifirm Exlan 0 0 0 0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

NutriControl 6 0 8 0 6,4 0,0 1,2 0,0

Agrifirm Winkel 3 5 7 2 0,5 0,8 0,1 0,0

Total 37 54 29 21 1,1 1,5 0,7 0,7

HR indicators (2)

LTAFREqUENCYINDEX PERFORMANCE

(NUMbEROFACCIDENTSPER AbSENCEDUE MANAGEMENT

MILLIONWORkINGHOURS) TOILLNESS(%) TRAINING(€/EMPLOYEE) (%EMPLOYEES)

2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2012

Agrifirm Group 0,0 0,0 1,0 1,6 938 1523 100

Agrifirm Feed 7,2 8,7 5,4 4,5 598 651 100

Nuscience Group 8,8 10,4 4,3 1,8 182 147 0

Agrifirm Deutschland 0,0 12,6 4,4 4,1 27 515 0

Agrifirm Polska 12,3 21,7 3,2 3,8 449 463 91

Agrifirm Magyarország 3,3 3,9 3,3 3,2 140 136 20

Agrifirm co-products 0,0 23,5 3,2 3,0 475 514 0

Agrifirm Belgium 14,2 15,0 0,7 2,8 524 982 97

Agrifirm Plant 2,0 2,1 3,0 2,8 418 814 100

Abemec 8,5 13,5 2,9 2,7 1048 1950 0

Oldambt 0,0 0,0 4,6 5,3 82 106 0

Agrifirm Exlan 0,0 0,0 3,2 5,5 604 774 100

NutriControl 43,3 0,0 5,0 4,4 489 474 100

Agrifirm Winkel 4,1 6,9 3,9 2,3 260 220 0

Total 6,8 8,6 4,1 3,1 403 534 42


HR indicators (3)

MObILITY NUMbEROF NUMbEROF

(%MTFROMAGRIFIRM) EMPLOYEES(#) EMPLOYEES(FTES) MALE(%)

2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012

Agrifirm Group - 61 58 55 54 70 69

Agrifirm Feed 100 71 769 731 769 703 88 87

Nuscience Group 0 0 604 679 567 639 71 74

Agrifirm Deutschland 33 66 180 164 170 177 81 87

Agrifirm Polska 100 80 137 130 135 128 81 81

Agrifirm Magyarország 20 33 179 143 167 141 84 82

Agrifirm co-products 0 0 128 232 116 213 75 78

Agrifirm Belgium 66 66 41 39 39 37 80 82

Agrifirm Plant 83 83 286 272 281 268 85 86

Abemec 100 100 192 226 195 206 91 91

Oldambt 100 100 34 34 21 28 85 85

Agrifirm Exlan 100 100 34 36 28 33 62 67

NutriControl 40 83 94 89 77 78 48 54

Agrifirm Winkel 603 658 408 401 52 54

Total 65,1 66,8 3342 3491 3028 3106 75 76

HR indicators (4)

FEMALE(%) PERMANENTCONTRACT(%) TEMPORARYCONTRACT(%)

2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012

Agrifirm Group 30 31 80 71 20 29

Agrifirm Feed 12 13 91 91 9 9

Nuscience Group 29 26 93 96 7 3

Agrifirm Deutschland 19 21 94 100 6 0

Agrifirm Polska 19 19 96 95 4 5

Agrifirm Magyarország 16 18 94 98 6 2

Agrifirm co-products 25 22 86 94 14 6

Agrifirm Belgium 20 18 100 100 0 0

Agrifirm Plant 15 14 93 97 7 3

Abemec 9 9 81 68 19 32

Oldambt 15 15 65 65 35 35

Agrifirm Exlan 38 33 79 78 21 22

NutriControl 52 46 98 96 2 4

Agrifirm Winkel 48 46 55 64 45 36

Total 25 24 84 87 16 13


HR indicators (5)

AGE<29(%) AGE29-50(%) AGE>50(%)

2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012


Agrifirm Feed 12 14 50 48 38 38








Abemec 33 35 42 37 26 29

Oldambt 6 0 68 74 26 26




Total 24 24 52 51 24 24

HR indicators (6)

MANAGEMENT(%) MARkETINGANDSALES(%) SUPPORTSTAFF(%)

2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012










Abemec 2 1 19 12 9 10

Oldambt 6 9 3 0 12 12




Total 4 3 40 41 13 12


HR indicators (7)

NUTRITIONAND

INNOVATION(%) OPERATIONS(%) OTHER(%)

2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012










Abemec 0 0 70 53 0 23

Oldambt 0 0 79 79 0 0




Total 2 3 40 38 2 3


RA 0

4-13

Documents

Sustainability indicators - Agrifirm