DOCSLIB.ORG

Buy WH Group

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Deutsche Bank Markets Research Rating Company Date 27 February 2018 Buy WH Group Coverage Change Asia Hong Kong Reuters Bloomberg Exchange Ticker Price at 26 Feb 2018 (HKD) 9.65 Consumer 0288.HK 288 HK HSI 0288 Price target - 12mth (HKD) 11.50 Food & Beverage ADR Ticker ISIN 52-week range (HKD) 9.74 - 5.94 WHGLY US92890T2050 HANG SENG INDEX 31,499 Time to add more protein; resuming Mark Yuan Anne Ling coverage with Buy Research Analyst Research Analyst (+852 ) 2203 6181 (+852 ) 2203 6177 Well-positioned in pork price cycle; global trade profit to expand; Buy [email protected] [email protected] We like WH Group for three reasons. First, we expect both US and China’s segment margin to expand, backed by a lower hog price in 2018; second, we expect the global trading profit to improve in the long term, helped by Price/price relative increasing synergies within different subsidiaries; and third, product mix upgrade in China should drive sustainable sales growth. We believe the risk- Performance (%) 1m 3m 12m reward for the stock is attractive at 13.9x 2018E P/E vs. 11.4% earnings CAGR Absolute 4.0 19.1 59.2 in 2018-20. We resume coverage on the stock with a Buy. HANG SENG INDEX -5.0 5.5 31.4 Declining hog price to drive margin expansion in near-term Source: Deutsche Bank In 2018, we expect the pork price to continue to decline, by 10% in China, as the current hog-raising profit is still much higher than the historical average and should lead to increasing supply. In the US, USDA expects the pork price to fall 6% yoy in 2018, helped by a 5% yoy volume rise in 2018. We forecast WHG’s gross margin to improve 50bps in 2018, helped by a lower pork price. Global trading profit on an expanding trend We forecast US-China trading profit contribution to increase from US$297m in 2017 to US$453m in 2020, helped by a structurally lower hog-raising cost in the US and increasing import volume of by-products. The hog price has been 50% lower in the US than China in the past 6 years due to a lower feeding cost and a higher scale per farm. Meanwhile, due to different consumption habits, by-products are sold at a much lower price in the US than in China. Long-term, WHG should be able to expand global trading in other countries. Resume with Buy; target price at HK$11.50 We forecast the company to report a 5.2% sales CAGR and an 11.4% earnings CAGR in 2018-20. Our target price of HK$11.50 is based on a DCF approach (factoring in 9.3% WACC and 2% terminal growth). The stock now trades at 13.9x 2018E P/E with a dividend yield, compared with its global peers at 16.6x. We believe the risk-reward is attractive. USDA’s outlook, announced in 2018, is a potential catalyst. We resuming coverage with Buy. Downside risks: higher-than-expected pork price and food safety. This report marks the transfer of coverage to Mark Yuan; Anne Ling will remain as second analyst Forecasts And Ratios Year End Dec 31 2015A 2016A 2017E 2018E 2019E Sales (USDm) 21,209.0 21,534.0 22,129.1 23,957.8 24,979.1 EBITDA (USDm) 1,903.0 2,230.0 2,307.9 2,591.3 2,778.9 Reported NPAT (USDm) 786.0 1,036.0 1,085.3 1,251.7 1,354.4 Reported EPS FD(USD) 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 DB EPS FD (USD) 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 DB EPS growth (%) -9.9 30.9 4.7 15.1 8.1 PER (x) 10.6 10.2 16.0 13.9 12.8 EV/EBITDA (x) 5.7 5.3 7.8 6.7 6.1 DPS (net) (USD) 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 Yield (net) (%) 2.7 4.4 1.9 2.2 2.4 Source: Deutsche Bank estimates, company data 1 DB EPS is fully diluted and excludes non-recurring items 2 Multiples and yields calculations use average historical prices for past years and spot prices for current and future years, except P/B which uses the year end close _____________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ Deutsche Bank AG/Hong Kong Distributed on: 27/02/2018 12:00:00 GMT Deutsche Bank does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports. Thus, investors should be aware that the firm may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report. Investors should consider this report as only a single factor in making their investment decision. DISCLOSURES AND ANALYST CERTIFICATIONS ARE LOCATED IN APPENDIX 1. MCI (P) 083/04/2017. 7T2se3r0Ot6kwoPa 27 February 2018 Food & Beverage WH Group Model updated:27 February 2018 Fiscal year end 31-Dec 2014 2015 2016 2017E 2018E 2019E Running the numbers Financial Summary Asia DB EPS (USD) 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 Reported EPS (USD) 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 Hong Kong DPS (USD) 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 BVPS (USD) 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 Food & Beverage Weighted average shares (m) 11,904 13,666 13,666 13,669 13,669 13,669 WH Group Average market cap (USDm) 8,685 8,172 10,248 16,860 16,860 16,860 Enterprise value (USDm) 12,335 10,920 11,920 18,044 17,456 16,851 Reuters: 0288.HK Bloomberg: 288 HK Valuation Metrics P/E (DB) (x) 11.7 10.6 10.2 16.0 13.9 12.8 Buy P/E (Reported) (x) 11.7 10.6 10.2 16.0 13.9 12.8 Price (26 Feb 18) HKD 9.65 P/BV (x) 1.53 1.32 1.75 2.43 2.14 1.90 Target Price HKD 11.50 FCF Yield (%) 9.5 10.7 13.0 6.5 6.6 7.3 Dividend Yield (%) 0.0 2.7 4.4 1.9 2.2 2.4 52 Week range HKD 5.94 - 9.74 EV/Sales (x) 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 Market Cap (m) HKDm 131,902 EV/EBITDA (x) 5.9 5.7 5.3 7.8 6.7 6.1 EV/EBIT (x) 7.1 7.2 6.4 9.4 8.0 7.2 USDm 16,860 Income Statement (USDm) Company Profile Sales revenue 22,243 21,209 21,534 22,129 23,958 24,979 WH Group is the largest pork company in China (through Gross profit 3,264 4,080 4,207 4,271 4,732 4,971 Shuanghui) and the US (through Smithfield), with a fully EBITDA 2,095 1,903 2,230 2,308 2,591 2,779 integrated model from hog production and slaughtering, to Depreciation 353 384 363 381 407 435 processing into fresh pork and branded meat products. Amortisation 14 12 14 14 14 14 EBIT 1,728 1,507 1,853 1,912 2,170 2,330 Net interest income(expense) -371 -219 -183 -162 -149 -142 Associates/affiliates 63 14 33 34 37 38 Exceptionals/extraordinaries 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other pre-tax income/(expense) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Profit before tax 1,420 1,302 1,703 1,784 2,057 2,226 Price Performance Income tax expense 448 307 465 487 562 608 Minorities 206 209 202 212 244 264 11 Other post-tax income/(expense) 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Net profit 766 786 1,036 1,085 1,252 1,354 8 DB adjustments (including dilution) 17 19 18 18 18 18 6 DB Net profit 783 805 1,054 1,104 1,270 1,373 5 Cash Flow (USDm) 3 Cash flow from operations 1,560 1,613 1,850 1,571 1,617 1,749 Feb 16May 16Aug 16Nov 16Feb 17May 17Aug 17Nov 17 Net Capex -733 -737 -514 -473 -502 -523 WH Group HANG SENG INDEX (Rebased) Free cash flow 827 876 1,336 1,098 1,116 1,226 Equity raised/(bought back) 2,284 0 2 0 0 0 Margin Trends Dividends paid -191 -162 -638 -622 -543 -626 Net inc/(dec) in borrowings -2,751 -744 -1,004 -234 0 -284 12.0 Other investing/financing cash flows -10 197 302 12 15 20 11.0 Net cash flow 159 167 -2 254 588 337 10.0 Change in working capital 227 191 -145 -126 -302 -317 9.0 Balance Sheet (USDm) 8.0 Cash and other liquid assets 1,000 1,154 1,190 1,444 2,032 2,352 7.0 Tangible fixed assets 4,582 4,674 4,529 4,587 4,655 4,716 14 15 16 17E 18E 19E Goodwill/intangible assets 3,789 3,731 3,660 3,656 3,642 3,628 EBITDA Margin EBIT Margin Associates/investments 830 591 214 214 214 214 Other assets 4,519 4,151 4,018 4,319 4,822 5,160 Growth & Profitability Total assets 14,720 14,301 13,611 14,219 15,365 16,071 Interest bearing debt 4,650 3,902 2,862 2,628 2,628 2,344 120 25 Other liabilities 4,020 3,696 3,711 3,878 4,071 4,068 100 20 Total liabilities 8,670 7,598 6,573 6,506 6,699 6,412 80 Shareholders' equity 5,130 5,763 6,316 6,946 7,872 8,851 60 15 Minorities 920 940 722 767 794 808 40 10 20 Total shareholders' equity 6,050 6,703 7,038 7,713 8,666 9,659 0 5 Net debt 3,650 2,748 1,672 1,184 596 -8 -20 0 14 15 16 17E 18E 19E Key Company Metrics Sales growth (%) 97.7 -4.6 1.5 2.8 8.3 4.3 Sales growth (LHS) ROE (RHS) DB EPS growth (%) na -9.9 30.9 4.7 15.1 8.1 Solvency EBITDA Margin (%) 9.4 9.0 10.4 10.4 10.8 11.1 EBIT Margin (%) 7.8 7.1 8.6 8.6 9.1 9.3 70 20 Payout ratio (%) 0.0 28.0 44.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 60 ROE (%) 21.2 14.8 17.5 16.6 17.1 16.4 50 15 40 Capex/sales (%) 3.3 3.5 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.1 30 10 Capex/depreciation (x) 2.0 1.9 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 20 Net debt/equity (%) 60.3 41.0 23.8 15.4 6.9 -0.1 10 5 Net interest cover (x) 4.7 6.9 10.1 11.8 14.5 16.4 0 -10 0 Source: Company data, Deutsche Bank estimates 14 15 16 17E 18E 19E Net debt/equity (LHS) Net interest cover (RHS) Anne Ling +852 2203 6177 [email protected] Page 2 Deutsche Bank AG/Hong Kong 27 February 2018 Food & Beverage WH Group Investment thesis Outlook In the near term, we expect expanding margin in the US and China, helped by Figure 1: China hog price vs WHG a declining hog price in 2018.
Recommended publications
  • A Global Foresight on Food Crop Needs for Livestock Tristan Le Cotty, Bruno Dorin

    A Global Foresight on Food Crop Needs for Livestock Tristan Le Cotty, Bruno Dorin

    A global foresight on food crop needs for livestock Tristan Le Cotty, Bruno Dorin To cite this version: Tristan Le Cotty, Bruno Dorin. A global foresight on food crop needs for livestock. animal, Pub- lished by Elsevier (since 2021) / Cambridge University Press (until 2020), 2012, 6 (9), pp.1528-1536. 10.1017/S1751731112000377. hal-00800715 HAL Id: hal-00800715 https://hal-enpc.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00800715 Submitted on 14 Mar 2013 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Animal (2012), 6:9, pp 1528–1536 & The Animal Consortium 2012 animal doi:10.1017/S1751731112000377 A global foresight on food crop needs for livestock - T. Le Cotty and B. Dorin CIRAD, UMR Cired, 73 rue Jean Franc¸ois Breton, 34398 Montpellier, France (Received 21 July 2010; Accepted 27 December 2011; First published online 23 February 2012) Increasingly more studies are raising concerns about the increasing consumption of meat and the increasing amount of crops (cereals and oilseeds in particular) used to feed animals and that could be used to feed people. The evolution of this amount is very sensitive to human diets and to the productivity of feed.
  • State-Of-The-Art on Use of Insects As Animal Feed

    State-Of-The-Art on Use of Insects As Animal Feed

    State-of-the-art on use of insects as animal feed Harinder P.S. Makkar1, Gilles Tran2, Valérie Heuzé2 and Philippe Ankers1 1 Animal Production and Health Division, FAO, Rome 2 Association Française de Zootechnie, Paris, France Full reference of the paper: Animal Feed Science and Technology, Volume 197, November 2014, pages 1-33 Link: http://www.animalfeedscience.com/article/S0377-8401(14)00232-6/abstract http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2014.07.008 Abstract A 60-70% increase in consumption of animal products is expected by 2050. This increase in the consumption will demand enormous resources, the feed being the most challenging because of the limited availability of natural resources, ongoing climatic changes and food-feed-fuel competition. The costs of conventional feed resources such as soymeal and fishmeal are very high and moreover their availability in the future will be limited. Insect rearing could be a part of the solutions. Although some studies have been conducted on evaluation of insects, insect larvae or insect meals as an ingredient in the diets of some animal species, this field is in infancy. Here we collate, synthesize and discuss the available information on five major insect species studied with respect to evaluation of their products as animal feed. The nutritional quality of black soldier fly larvae, the house fly maggots, mealworm, locusts- grasshoppers-crickets, and silkworm meal and their use as a replacement of soymeal and fishmeal in the diets of poultry, pigs, fish species and ruminants are discussed. The crude protein contents of these alternate resources are high: 42 to 63% and so are the lipid contents (up to 36% oil), which could possibly be extracted and used for various applications including biodiesel production.
  • Hang Seng Indexes Announces Index Review Results

    Hang Seng Indexes Announces Index Review Results

    14 August 2020 Hang Seng Indexes Announces Index Review Results Hang Seng Indexes Company Limited (“Hang Seng Indexes”) today announced the results of its review of the Hang Seng Family of Indexes for the quarter ended 30 June 2020. All changes will take effect on 7 September 2020 (Monday). 1. Hang Seng Index The following constituent changes will be made to the Hang Seng Index. The total number of constituents remains unchanged at 50. Inclusion: Code Company 1810 Xiaomi Corporation - W 2269 WuXi Biologics (Cayman) Inc. 9988 Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. - SW Removal: Code Company 83 Sino Land Co. Ltd. 151 Want Want China Holdings Ltd. 1088 China Shenhua Energy Co. Ltd. - H Shares The list of constituents is provided in Appendix 1. The Hang Seng Index Advisory Committee today reviewed the fast expanding innovation and new economy sectors in the Hong Kong capital market and agreed with the proposal from Hang Seng Indexes to conduct a comprehensive study on the composition of the Hang Seng Index. This holistic review will encompass various aspects including, but not limited to, composition and selection of constituents, number of constituents, weightings, and industry and geographical representation, etc. The underlying aim of the study is to ensure the Hang Seng Index continues to serve as the most representative and important benchmark of the Hong Kong stock market. Hang Seng Indexes will report its findings and propose recommendations to the Advisory Committee within six months. The number of constituents of the Hang Seng Index may increase during this period. Hang Seng Indexes Announces Index Review Results /2 2.
  • Economics of Aquaculture Feeding Practices in Selected Asian Countries Economics of Aquaculture Feeding Practices in Selected Asian Countries

    Economics of Aquaculture Feeding Practices in Selected Asian Countries Economics of Aquaculture Feeding Practices in Selected Asian Countries

    ISSN 0429-9345 505 FAO FISHERIES TECHNICAL PAPER 505 Economics of aquaculture feeding practices in selected Asian countries Economics of aquaculture feeding practices in selected Asian countries This technical paper provides an analysis of the economic implications of, and the reasons for, adopting various feeding practices for different fish species and aquaculture systems in Asia. It consists of case studies in six Asian countries (Bangladesh, China, India, the Philippines, Thailand and Viet Nam) and an overall synthesis ending with conclusions and recommendations. The systems studied include extensive/traditional, semi-intensive and intensive farms for a number of different species including sutchi and pangasiid catfishes (Bangladesh and Viet Nam), hybrid catfish (Thailand), carp polyculture (India and China), prawn and milkfish polyculture (the Philippines). The work identifies the principal input costs, assesses the economic rates of return (gross and net margins), returns to labour, land and capital, gross and net total factor productivity, and break-even prices and production. For the most part, intensive farms applying industrial feeds attained the highest economic returns, although not necessarily the highest benefits. In many cases, feed costs were extremely high, accounting for over 80 percent of the total. Feed cost, feeding rate, stocking rate, recovery or survival rate and fertilizer cost were identified as the key variables in influencing production. Use of intensive farming was consistent with strong farmer education and good extension practices. It is expected that the results of these studies will assist in adopting appropriate feed management strategies depending on the availability of inputs and the level of technical know-how of the farmers.
  • Xiaomi Sews up Deals for Smart Homes

    Xiaomi Sews up Deals for Smart Homes

    16 BUSINESS Thursday, November 29, 2018 CHINA DAILY HONG KONG EDITION Xiaomi sews Shenzhen firms hike investment up deals for in R&D sector By ZHOU MO in Shenzhen, Guangdong smart homes [email protected] 20 percent of Shenzhen­registered list­ Tech tie­ups with Ikea, Microsoft and Nearly 20 percent of ed companies devoted more Shenzhen­registered listed than 10 percent of their iKongjian ‘to create better life for people’ companies devoted more operating revenue to R&D than 10 percent of their oper­ By OUYANG SHIJIA shortly after Ikea, the world’s ating revenue to research ouyangshijia@ largest furniture retailer, said and development last year, a chinadaily.com.cn last week that it would acceler­ level on par with globally ate its transformation to fully leading high­tech enterpris­ the sector that took the lead. Chinese technology giant embrace new technologies and es like Google and Apple, Of the 10 listed companies Xiaomi Corp announced on offer better user experiences. according to a report. with the biggest R&D invest­ Wednesday it has teamed up Bjorn Block, business leader In all, 256 companies cov­ ment, eight were IT compa­ with Sweden’s furniture titan for Ikea’s Home Smart divi­ Lei Jun, founder and CEO of Xiaomi Corp, delivers a speech on Wednesday during the MIDC Xiaomi ered in the Shenzhen­regis­ nies. Ikea to offer smart home prod­ sion, told during the confer­ AIoT Developer Conference in Beijing. PROVIDED TO CHINA DAILY tered Listed Companies The R&D investment of ucts. ence that the new partnership Development Report dis­ Tencent Holdings Ltd, the The tie­up is part of its larg­ marked a key step in creating a closed their R&D spending world’s largest game maker er efforts to expand into the seamless experience for cus­ partnership would benefit home renovation service plat­ in their 2017 annual reports.
  • Effects of Different Densities of Sea Grape Caulerpa Lentillifera

    Effects of Different Densities of Sea Grape Caulerpa Lentillifera

    fishes Article Effects of Different Densities of Sea Grape Caulerpa lentillifera on Water Quality, Growth and Survival of the Whiteleg Shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei in Polyculture System Khanh Van Ly, David Kamau Murungu * , Dung Phuong Nguyen and Ngoc Anh Thi Nguyen Department of Coastal Aquaculture, College of Aquaculture and Fisheries, Can Tho University, 3/2 Street, Ninh Kieu District, Can Tho City 94000, Vietnam; [email protected] (K.V.L.); [email protected] (D.P.N.); [email protected] (N.A.T.N.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The integrated aquaculture-seaweed system has been identified as a bio-mitigation strategy to overcome environmental damage, improve the efficiency of nutrient use, maintain good water quality, and ensure the system’s sustainability. This study was conducted to determine the appro- priate density of sea grape (Caulerpa lentillifera) in polyculture with whiteleg shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) in the same culture tank. Five treatments were randomly designed in triplicate tanks where shrimp was monocultured (without sea grape) as a control treatment and four polyculture treatments with different seaweed density levels (0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 kg m−3) for 56 days. The results showed that polyculture of shrimp and sea grape significantly reduced the concentrations of total − − 3− ammonia nitrogen (TAN), nitrite (NO2 ), nitrate (NO3 ), and phosphate (PO4 ) in the rearing tanks and significantly improved (p < 0.05) the growth rate (6.67–6.76% day−1), survival (73.3–78.5%), Citation: Ly, K.V.; Murungu, D.K.; and production of shrimp (3.44–3.87 kg m−3) compared to monoculture (6.24% day−1, 54.8%, and Nguyen, D.P.; Nguyen, N.A.T.
  • OUTPUT-TO-FEED RATIOS, MONTHLY Month, Continued to Demonstrate the Cost-Price Squeeze Fac- Ratio - Hogs & Ratio - Broilers & Ing Livestock and Poultry Growers

    OUTPUT-TO-FEED RATIOS, MONTHLY Month, Continued to Demonstrate the Cost-Price Squeeze Fac- Ratio - Hogs & Ratio - Broilers & Ing Livestock and Poultry Growers

    Vol. 10, No. 85/ May 5, 2011 If you are re-distributing Daily Livestock Report, please make sure that the recipients actually want it! We have received several e-mails in recent weeks from parties that are receiving DLR via fax. We do not send it via fax to anyone, so these are instances where one or more of our loyal readers are sharing a good thing (at least that is OUR opinion!) that, for some obviously peculiar reason, is not completely appreciated by the recipient. Not everyone is as smart as we are, right? Per our distribution policy, any subscriber is wel- come to share DLR with others but, given these calls, we would ask that you make sure all of the recipients want to receive the newsletter. A better solution, of course, is to ask your recipients to go to www.dailylivestockreport.com and subscribe. Their contact information is perfectly safe. We share our subscriber list with no one. We are flattered that readers believe the letter is worth sharing and appreciate your enthusiasm. Please just make sure that enthusiasm is shared by the people to whom are sending DLR. USDA’s monthly output-to-feed price ratios, published as part of the Agricultural Prices report near the end of each OUTPUT-TO-FEED RATIOS, MONTHLY month, continued to demonstrate the cost-price squeeze fac- Ratio - Hogs & Ratio - Broilers & ing livestock and poultry growers. The data for 1990 to present Cattle Turkeys appear in the chart at right. 60 12 The most dramatic shift in these numbers is clearly the Hog-Corn Fed Cattle-Corn near-record low level of the broiler:feed ratio which stood at 3.1 in 50 10 Broiler-Feed April, just 0.1 higher than its all-time low set in February.
  • 2016 Annual Report (PDF)

    2016 Annual Report (PDF)

    Table of Contents 2 Corporate Information 3 CEO’s Statement 6 Management Discussion and Analysis 23 Biographies of Directors and Senior Management 27 Corporate Governance Report 39 Report of the Directors 59 Independent Auditor’s Report 64 Consolidated Statement of Profit or Loss and Other Comprehensive Income 65 Consolidated Statement of Financial Position 67 Consolidated Statement of Changes in Equity 68 Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows 70 Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements 166 Five-year Financial Summary Corporate Information BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGISTERED OFFICE Executive Directors Maples Corporate Services Limited PO Box 309 Ms. GAO Lina (Deputy Chairman and Chief Executive Officer) Ugland House Mr. HAN Chunlin (Chief Operation Officer) Grand Cayman, KY1-1104, Cayman Islands Non-Executive Directors HONG KONG OFFICE Mr. YU Xubo (Chairman) Unit 2402, 24/F, Mr. WOLHARDT Julian Juul Alliance Building 130-136 Mr. HUI Chi Kin, Max Connaught Road Central Sheung Wan Mr. ZHANG Ping Hong Kong Mr. SUN Yugang PRINCIPAL SHARE REGISTRAR AND Independent Non-Executive Directors TRANSFER OFFICE Mr. LI Shengli Maples Finance Limited Mr. LEE Kong Wai, Conway PO Box 1093, Mr. KANG Yan Queensgate House Mr. ZOU Fei Grand Cayman, KY1-1102 Cayman Islands AUDIT COMMITTEE HONG KONG BRANCH SHARE REGISTRAR Mr. LEE Kong Wai, Conway (Chairman) AND TRANSFER OFFICE Mr. HUI Chi Kin, Max Mr. ZOU Fei Computershare Hong Kong Investor Services Limited Rooms 1712-1716, 17/F, Hopewell Centre REMUNERATION COMMITTEE 183 Queen’s Road East Wanchai Hong Kong Mr. LI Shengli (Chairman) Mr. WOLHARDT Julian Juul LEGAL ADVISORS Mr. ZOU Fei NOMINATION COMMITTEE As to Hong Kong Law Mr.
  • Farm Animal Welfare and Human Health

    Farm Animal Welfare and Human Health

    WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository 9-2016 Farm Animal Welfare and Human Health Alan M. Goldberg Johns Hopkins University Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/acwp_faafp Part of the Agribusiness Commons, Animal Studies Commons, and the Other Public Health Commons Recommended Citation Goldberg, A. M. (2016). Farm Animal Welfare and Human Health. Current Environmental Health Reports, 3(3), 313-321. This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Farm Animal Welfare and Human Health Alan M. Goldberg Johns Hopkins University KEYWORDS farm animal welfare, CAFOs, sustainable intensification, human health, aquaculture ABSTRACT The paper examines the relationship between farm animal welfare, industrial farm animal production, and human health consequences. The data suggest that when the animal welfare of land-based farm animals is compromised, there are resulting significant negative human health consequences due to environmental degradation, the use of non-therapeutic levels of antibiotics for growth promotion, and the consequences of intensification. This paper accepts that even if meat and fish consumption is reduced, meat and fish will be part of the diet of the future. Industrial production modified from the current intensified systems will still be required to feed the world in 2050 and beyond. This paper identifies the concept of sustainable intensification and suggests that if farm animal welfare is improved, many of the human health consequences of intensified industrial production can be eliminated or reduced.
  • China Pork a Meaty Task to Meet Demand 19

    China Pork a Meaty Task to Meet Demand 19

    SECTOR BRIEFING number DBS Asian Insights DBS Group45 Research • July 2017 China Pork A Meaty Task to Meet Demand 19 DBS Asian Insights SECTOR BRIEFING 45 02 China Pork A Meaty Task to Meet Demand Alison FOK Senior Research Analyst DBS Group Research [email protected] Alice HUI, CFA Research Director DBS Group Research [email protected] Produced by: Asian Insights Office • DBS Group Research go.dbs.com/research @dbsinsights [email protected] Goh Chien Yen Editor-in-Chief Jean Chua Managing Editor Geraldine Tan Editor Martin Tacchi Art Director 19 DBS Asian Insights SECTOR BRIEFING 45 03 04 Executive Summary A Middle-Class Consumption Story 06 Future Required Capacity – How Big Is the Pork Market? Income Growth and Expenditure Implications On Infrastructure And 11 Key Challenges China’s Pork Supply Chain – Who Are 17 the Players? Hog Farms Slaughtering And Fresh Pork Manufacturers Processed Pork Manufacturers Pork Distributors And Retailers Cold Chain Logistics The Raw Material Suppliers – the Feedstock Producers 37 Business Model Cost of Producing a Pig in China Costs in China Versus Other Countries 46 Case Study of a Global Player: USA Opportunities Across the Industry 51 Chain 53 Appendix DBS Asian Insights SECTOR BRIEFING 45 04 Executive Summary Pork demand still on lready the world’s largest pork market – representing around half of global demand the rise.... – China’s market is expected to sustain a steady growth of 1.3-1.4% per annum going forward. Growing income, along with a rising middle class and continual urbanisation, would drive Chinese consumers towards a diet based more heavily Aon animal protein.
  • 2007 Proceedings

    2007 Proceedings

    Sponsors Midwest Swine Nutrition Conference 2007 ADM Animal Nutrition Agri-King Ajinomoto Heartland LLC Akey Alltech Alpharma Animal Health APC Company, Inc. BASF Corporation Cooper Farms Danisco Animal Nutrition Degussa Corporation Diamond V Mills Distributors Processing DSM Nutritional Products, Inc. Elanco Animal Health Fats and Proteins Research Foundation Hubbard Feeds, Inc. International Ingredient Corporation JBS United, Inc. Kemin Land O’Lakes/Purina Mills Monsanto National Pork Board Newsham Genetics Novartis Animal Health Novus International, Inc. Pig Improvement Company Pioneer, A Dupont Company Prince Agri Products, Inc. Ralco Nutrition Zinpro Corporation Appreciation is expressed to the Indiana Farm Bureau and their staff for hosting the Midwest Swine Nutrition Conference and providing the facilities for this function. CONTENTS Animal sciences in academia: What does the future hold? Robert A. Easter; University of Illinois ......................................................... 3 Managing grouped sows Janeen L. Salak-Johnson and Stanley E. Curtis; University of Illinois ............................................................................................................ 6 Are antioxidants associated with pig and sow mortalities? D. C. Mahan, J. C. Peters, and G. M. Hill; The Ohio State University, and Michigan State University ................................................................... 13 PCVAD: When immunology goes wrong, life on the farm becomes very expensive Thomas G. Gillespie; DVM, Rensselaer Swine
  • Preferences and Adoption of Livestock Feeding Practices Dairy Kenya Final

    Preferences and Adoption of Livestock Feeding Practices Dairy Kenya Final

    Preferences and adoption of livestock feed practices among farmers in dairy management groups in Kenya Evelyne Kiptot, Steven Franzel, Judith Sinja and Eddah Nang'ole Preferences and adoption of livestock feed practices among farmers in dairy management groups in Kenya Evelyne Kiptot, Steven Franzel, Judith Sinja and Eddah Nang'ole LIMITED CIRCULATION Correct citation: Kiptot E, Franzel S, Sinja J, Nang’ole E. 2015. Preference and adoption of livestock feed practices among farmers in dairy management groups in Kenya. ICRAF Working Paper No. 208. Nairobi, World Agroforestry Centre. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5716/WP15675.PDF Titles in the Working Paper Series aim to disseminate interim results on agroforestry research and practices and stimulate feedback from the scientific community. Other publication series from the World Agroforestry Centre include: Technical Manuals, Occasional Papers and the Trees for Change Series. Published by the World Agroforestry Centre United Nations Avenue PO Box 30677, GPO 00100 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +254(0)20 722 4000, via USA +1 650 833 6645 Fax: +254(0)20 722 4001, via USA +1 650 833 6646 Email: [email protected] Website: www.worldagroforestry.org ©World Agroforestry Centre Working Paper No 208 The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the World Agroforestry Centre. Articles appearing in the Working Paper Series may be quoted or reproduced without charge, provided their source is acknowledged. ii About the authors Evelyn Kiptot is a social scientist at the World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya. Contact: [email protected] Steven Franzel is a principal agricultural economist at the World Agroforestry Centre, based in the United States of America.