Livestock and meat (apro_mt)

National Reference Metadata in ESS Standard for Quality Reports Structure (ESQRS)

Compiling agency: Czech Statistical Office


Eurostat metadata
Reference metadata
1. Contact
2. Statistical presentation
3. Statistical processing
4. Quality management
5. Relevance
6. Accuracy and reliability
7. Timeliness and punctuality
8. Coherence and comparability
9. Accessibility and clarity
10. Cost and Burden
11. Confidentiality
12. Comment
Related Metadata
Annexes (including footnotes)
 



For any question on data and metadata, please contact: Eurostat user support

Download


1. Contact Top
1.1. Contact organisation

Czech Statistical Office
1.2. Contact organisation unit

Agricultural and Forestry Statistics Unit
1.5. Contact mail address

Na padesátém 81

100 82 Praha 10

Czech Republic


2. Statistical presentation Top
2.1. Data description

The livestock and meat statistics are collected under Regulation (EC) No 1165/2008 since 2009. They cover slaughtering in slaughterhouses (monthly) and other slaughtering (annual), GIP (gross indigenous production) forecast (semi-annual or quarterly data), and livestock statistics (once or twice a year), including regional statistics (annual).This template lists the questions constituting the quality report required in Article 17 of EU Regulation N°1165/2008 on livestock and meat statistics.
This quality report covers the year 2019 to meet the Regulation (EC) No 1165/2008.
2.2. Classification system

Not requested for reference year 2019.
2.3. Coverage - sector

Not requested for reference year 2019.
2.4. Statistical concepts and definitions

Not requested for reference year 2019.
2.5. Statistical unit

Not requested for reference year 2019.
2.6. Statistical population

Not requested for reference year 2019.
2.7. Reference area

Not requested for reference year 2019.
2.8. Coverage - Time

Not requested for reference year 2019.
2.9. Base period

Not requested for reference year 2019.


3. Statistical processing Top
3.1. Source data

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
3.2. Frequency of data collection

See item 3.2.1.
3.2.1. Reference date of the statistics

Reference date of the statistics

Livestock statistics Bovines animal Pigs Sheep Goats
November/December

31/12

31/12

    
November/ December - Regional

31/12

31/12

    
May/June      01/04
3.3. Data collection

See item 3.3.1.
3.3.1. Production of estimates

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
3.3.1.1. Process for GIP forecast

Is the following information taken into account to produce the GIP forecast?

  Bovines Pigs Sheep and Goats
No forecast required for sheep and goats    
Extrapolation of known results on slaughtering
Expert assessment of the market
Expert assessment of the GIP by internal expert by internal expert
Models
Other
Other slaughtering covered by the GIP forecast


Additional comments (on the GIP forecast)

The expert assessment of the GIP by internal experts was made taking the recent numbers of livestock and seasonality of production cycles into account.
3.3.1.2. Process for estimate of other slaughtering

What significant source do you use to estimate other slaughtering?

 

Bovines

Pigs

 Sheep and Goats
Administrative information from veterinary service
Farm Survey
Consumer Survey
Coefficients based on ad hoc study
Year of calculation (Coefficients based on ad hoc study)
Discrepancy between slaughtering and estimated GIP (For instance, if overall GIP is directly estimated based on data at farm level)
Comprehensive study
Year of calculation (Comprehensive study)


Additional comments (on other slaughtering)

Bovines:

The number of cattle slaughtered out of slaughterhouses originated in the Animal Register. Their carcass weight was calculated using the average carcass weight for each category (i.e. technical coefficients) from the survey conducted at slaughterhouses.

Pigs:

Estimates for the number of pigs slaughtered out of slaughterhouses and their carcass weight were made by experts taking information from veterinary services and the Animal Register into account. There was information on the number of pigs sold out of the agricultural sector available in the Animal Register.

Sheep and goats:

Slaughtering of sheep and goats out of slaughterhouses was estimated by external experts taking the number of sheep, especially lambs born, and parameters of the production cycle into account.

 

The Animal Register is embodied in the information system of animal central registration kept by Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic pursuant to Act No 154/2000 Coll. (on animal breeding) with respect to Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council and the Council Directive 2008/71/EC. There is information on slaughtering on farm for cattle and pigs recorded and maintained in the Animal Register. In case of pigs, information on the movement from the registered farm are available as well (pigs fattened and slaughtered out of registered farms).
3.4. Data validation

Not requested for reference year 2019.
3.5. Data compilation

Not requested for reference year 2019.
3.6. Adjustment

Not requested for reference year 2019.


4. Quality management Top
4.1. Quality assurance

Not requested for reference year 2019.
4.2. Quality management - assessment

Not requested for reference year 2019.


5. Relevance Top
5.1. Relevance - User Needs

See items 5.1.1, 5.1.2 and 5.1.3.
5.1.1. Main national users of the statistics on livestock and meat

The data produced under Regulation (EC) No 1165/2008 are used by the following users, in addition to being delivered to Eurostat:

  National accounts (National Accounts, including European Accounts of Agriculture) Supply balance sheets Gross nutrient balance
Main national users Livestock - Bovines
Livestock - Pigs
Livestock - Sheep and goats		 Slaughtering - Bovines
Slaughtering - Sheep and goats
Slaughtering - Pigs
Slaughtering - Poultry
Other slaughtering		 Livestock - Bovines
Livestock - Pigs
Livestock - Sheep and goats
5.1.2. Other Main national users of the statistics on livestock and meat

Other Main national users of the statistics on livestock and meat, please specify:

Livestock

Bovines

Ministry of Agriculture, Agricultural Chamber

for specific analyses

Pigs

Ministry of Agriculture, Agricultural Chamber

for specific analyses

Sheep and goats

Ministry of Agriculture, Agricultural Chamber

for specific analyses

Slaughtering

Bovines

Ministry of Agriculture, Agricultural Chamber

for specific analyses

Pigs

Ministry of Agriculture, Agricultural Chamber

for specific analyses

Sheep and goats

Ministry of Agriculture, Agricultural Chamber

for specific analyses

Poultry

Ministry of Agriculture, Agricultural Chamber

for specific analyses

GIP forecast

Bovines

 

Pigs

 

Sheep and goats

 

Other slaughtering

 
5.1.3. Main international users of the statistics on livestock and meat

Does the department in charge of livestock and meat statistics provide data to the following international organisations at their request?

DG Agriculture and Rural Development YES
Other EU institutions Not known
FAO YES
Other international ‘governmental’ organisation Not known
5.2. Relevance - User Satisfaction

See item 5.2.1.
5.2.1. User satisfaction survey

User satisfaction survey

  Answer
Have you already carried out a survey on user satisfaction?
If yes, how long ago (months)?
If yes, are the results available to the public?
5.3. Completeness

Not requested for reference year 2019.
5.3.1. Data completeness - rate

Not requested for reference year 2019.


6. Accuracy and reliability Top
6.1. Accuracy - overall

See items 6.1.1. and 6.1.2.
6.1.1. Thresholds and legal derogation

Thresholds and legal derogation (Article 4 of regulation N°1165/2008)

Livestock statistics Total number of animals if under the legal threshold in December 2018 (Number of Head)
Bovine animals (under 1.5 million head)

1 365 235
Pigs (under 3 million head)

1 507 582
Sheep (under 500 000 head)

213 068 (1 April 2019)
Goats (under 500 000 head)

29 210 (1 April 2019)
6.1.2. Quality control survey

Quality control survey

Quality control survey (livestock statistics)
Quality control survey (meat statistics)
6.2. Sampling error

See items 6.2.1.1. and 6.2.1.2.
6.2.1. Sampling error - indicators

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.2.1.1. Coefficient of variation achieved for the main variables (only for sample survey)

Coefficient of variation achieved for the main variables (only for sample survey)

 Livestock statistics  Bovine animals  Pigs  Sheep  Goats
 Livestock - Nov./Dec. (in %)

0.740

0.464

    
 Livestock - Nov./Dec. Regional (in %)

1.089 to 3.028

0.791 to 1.614

    
 Livestock - May/June (in %)       
 Assessment method

Relative standard error

Relative standard error

    
 Further comment

CV is based on unbiased estimate of variance for the stratified random sampling with the equal probabilities within strata.
Regional CV values are displayed for the regions with more than 5% of the total bovine population.

CV is based on unbiased estimate of variance for the stratified random sampling with the equal probabilities within strata.
Regional CV values are displayed for the regions with more than 5% of the total pig population.

    

 

 Slaughtering statistics  Bovine animals  Pigs  Sheep  Goats  Poultry
 Slaughtering statistics (in %)

0

0

0

0

0
 Assessment method          
 Further comment

Census

Census

Census

Census

Census
6.2.1.2. Sampling rate

Sampling rate

  Non-relevant * 1. Frame (Number of units) 2. Sample size (Number of units) Sampling rate ((2/1) x 100%)
Slaughterhouses
Cattle farms

44 918

2 021

4.50
Pig farms

48 054

1 145

2.38
Sheep farms
Goat farms
Animal farms **


* If the main information is drawn from a census, a register or a source other than a survey, the first column is ticked ** Animal farms: if the survey is designed for all livestock together
6.3. Non-sampling error

See item 6.3.2.1.
6.3.1. Coverage error

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.3.1.1. Over-coverage - rate

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.3.1.2. Common units - proportion

Not requested for reference year 2019.
6.3.1.3. Coverage error for each process

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.3.2. Measurement error

See item 6.3.2.1.
6.3.2.1. Checklist on measurement errors

Whereas coherence refers to the data disseminated, the measurement errors refer to the data collection.

Slaughtering:

Young cattle and calves recorded separately
Goats actually recorded
Carcass weight recorded fully compliant (Compliant with Regulation (EC) No 1165/2008)
Even for poultry
Poultry slaughtering recorded in tonnes and head
6.3.3. Non response error

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.3.3.1. Unit non-response - rate

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.3.3.2. Item non-response - rate

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.3.4. Processing error

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.3.4.1. Imputation - rate

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.3.5. Model assumption error

Not requested for reference year 2019.
6.4. Seasonal adjustment

Not requested for reference year 2019.
6.5. Data revision - policy

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.6. Data revision - practice

Not requested for reference year 2019.
6.6.1. Data revision - average size

Not requested for reference year 2019.


7. Timeliness and punctuality Top
7.1. Timeliness

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
7.1.1. Time lag - first result

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
7.1.2. Time lag - final result

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
7.2. Punctuality

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
7.2.1. Punctuality - delivery and publication

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.


8. Coherence and comparability Top
8.1. Comparability - geographical

See items 8.1.2 to 8.1.15.
8.1.1. Asymmetry for mirror flow statistics - coefficient

Not requested for reference year 2019.
8.1.2. Comparability – geographical Calves

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the animals age and/or intended use with the ones used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

There are two interpretations of the definition of calves and young cattle for slaughter:
(1) Calves and young cattle intended for slaughter before 12 months of age
(2) Calves and young cattle intended for slaughter no matter when
CZ approach applied – as in (1) because it corresponds with domestic veal production (meat of cattle slaughtered before 12 months of age)
8.1.3. Comparability – geographical Bulls

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the castration status of the animals and the ones used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition?(Yes/No)

 

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

 
8.1.4. Comparability – geographical Buffaloes

Is there any difference between the accounting of buffaloes in the different age bovine animal categories and the above referred classes?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

Buffaloes have been considered as non-existing animals in Czechia, therefore Bovines equal Cattle.
8.1.5. Comparability – geographical Cows

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the animals age and/or purpose and the ones used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

 
8.1.6. Comparability – geographical Heifers

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the age and/or the intended use and the ones used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

 
8.1.7. Comparability – geographical Lambs

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the age and/or the purpose and the ones used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

 
8.1.8. Comparability – geographical Goats

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the animals status and the ones used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

 
8.1.9. Comparability – geographical Piglets

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the weight and the one used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

 
8.1.10. Comparability – geographical Sows

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the covered status of the animals and the ones used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

 
8.1.11. Comparability – geographical Slaughter units

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the units provided by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition

Respondents can choose slaughter units for weight and provide data either in carcass weight or in live weight.


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 Yes

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 In case of providing data on live weight, coefficients were applied as follows:

Calves

0.592

Young cattle

0.545

Bulls, bullocks

0.549

Heifers

0.529

Cows

0.515

Pigs excluding sows and boars

0.769

Sows, boars

0.654

Sheep, goats

0.446

Lambs

0.426

Chickens

0.65

Turkeys

0.73

Ducks

0.63

Geese

0.75

Ostriches

0.65

 

Percentages of slaughtered animals with the provided live weight were 20.7, 20.4, 24.7 and 100 for cattle, pigs, sheep and goats, and poultry, respectively.

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 2015 for pigs

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

Coefficiets for poultry correspond to Combine Nomenclature definitions:

Chickens - Gallus domesticus (CN 0207 11 90): Plucked and drawn, without heads and feet and without necks, hearts, livers and gizzards, known as ‘65 % chickens’, or otherwise presented
Turkeys (CN 0207 24 90):Plucked and drawn, without heads and feet and without necks, hearts, livers and gizzards, known as ‘73 % turkeys’, or otherwise presented
Ducks (CN 0207 41 80): Plucked and drawn, without heads and feet and without necks, hearts, livers and gizzards, known as ‘63 % ducks’, or otherwise presented
Geese (CN 0207 51 90): Plucked and drawn, without heads and feet, with or without hearts and gizzards, known as ‘75 % geese’, or otherwise presented
8.1.12. Comparability – geographical Carcasses

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the animals carcass weight and the ones used by respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

 
8.1.13. Comparability – geographical Carcasses poultry

Is there any difference between the above referred definition and the one used by respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

 
8.1.14. Comparability – geographical Slaughterhouse

Is there any difference between the above referred definition and the one used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

 
8.1.15. Comparability – geographical Gross indigenous production

Is there any difference between the above referred definition and the one used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

 
8.2. Comparability - over time

See item 8.2.2.
8.2.1. Length of comparable time series

Not requested for reference year 2019. 
8.2.2. First year of availability of comparable data

First year when the statistics were produced with comparable figures for all, most or only the main variables (e.g. total numbers of animals):

 

All

Most

Main variables

Number of periods per year*

Livestock

 

 

Bovines

  2002

 1997

 1945

  1

Pigs

  2002

 1997

 1945

  1

Sheep and goats

  2002

 1997

 1945

  1

Slaughtering

 

 

 

Bovines

  2009  2000

 2000

  12

Pigs

  2000  

 2000

  12

Sheep and goats

  2000  

 2000

  12

Poultry

  2009

 1998

 1998

  12

* Number of periods per year: according to the frequency of statistics, i.e. 12 for monthly data, 4 for quarterly data, 1 for annual data, etc.
8.3. Coherence - cross domain

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
8.4. Coherence - sub annual and annual statistics

Not requested for reference year 2019.
8.5. Coherence - National Accounts

Not requested for reference year 2019.
8.6. Coherence - internal

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.


9. Accessibility and clarity Top
9.1. Dissemination format - News release

Not requested for reference year 2019.
9.2. Dissemination format - Publications

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
9.3. Dissemination format - online database

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
9.3.1. Data tables - consultations

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
9.4. Dissemination format - microdata access

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
9.5. Dissemination format - other

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
9.6. Documentation on methodology

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
9.7. Quality management - documentation

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
9.7.1. Metadata completeness - rate

Not requested for reference year 2019.
9.7.2. Metadata - consultations

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.


10. Cost and Burden Top

See item 10.1.
10.1. Burden on the respondents
Restricted from publication


11. Confidentiality Top
11.1. Confidentiality - policy

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
11.2. Confidentiality - data treatment

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.


12. Comment Top


Related metadata Top


Annexes Top
SP1: Sample survey on bovines, N/D
SP2: Sample survey on pigs, N/D
SP3: Slaughtering in cattle, pigs, sheep, and goats
SP4 : Census on slaughtering in poultry