Livestock and meat (apro_mt)

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

Compiling agency: SE (Statistics Estonia)


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

SE (Statistics Estonia)
1.2. Contact organisation unit

Enterprise and Agricultural Statistics Department
1.5. Contact mail address

Tatari 51 EE 10134 Tallinn


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 a year). This template lists the questions constituting the quality report required under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1165/2008 on livestock and meat statistics.

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 Bovine animals Pigs Sheep Goats
November/December

31/12

31/12

  31/12  31/12
November/December – Regional        
May/June      
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)
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)
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 - Pigs
Slaughtering - Sheep and goats
Slaughtering - Poultry
Other slaughtering		 Slaughtering - Bovines
Slaughtering - Pigs
Slaughtering - Sheep and goats
Slaughtering - Poultry
Other slaughtering
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 Rural Affairs

Pigs

 Ministry of Rural Affairs

Sheep and goats

 Ministry of Rural Affairs

Slaughtering

Bovines

 Ministry of Rural Affairs

Pigs

 Ministry of Rural Affairs

Sheep and goats

 Ministry of Rural Affairs

Poultry

 Ministry of Rural Affairs

GIP forecast

Bovines

 

Pigs

 

Sheep and goats

 

Other slaughtering

 Ministry of Rural Affairs
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 YES
FAO YES
Other international ‘governmental’ organisation YES
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)?

December 2019
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)

251,900
Pigs (under 3 million head)

290,400
Sheep (under 500 000 head)

73,100
Goats (under 500 000 head)

5,200
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 %)  

 

    
 Livestock - Nov./Dec. Regional (in %)        
 Livestock - May/June (in %)       
 Assessment method  

 

    
 Further comment

Data on bovines are received from the administrative Register of Agricultural Animals.

 Data on pigs are received from the administrative Register of Agricultural Animals. Data on sheep are received from the administrative Register of Agricultural Animals. Data on goats are received from the administrative Register of Agricultural Animals.

 

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

 
 Assessment method          
 Further comment

Data on bovines are received from the Veterinary and Food Board.

Data on pigs are received from the Veterinary and Food Board.

Data on sheep are received from the Veterinary and Food Board.

Data on goats are received from the Veterinary and Food Board.

 Data on poultry are received from the Veterinary and Food Board.
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
Pig farms
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
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

Data are received from the Register of Agricultural Animals. This register does not include data on the intended use of calves and young cattle.


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?

Correction coefficients are used in livestock statistics. For calves, it is estimated that 5% of them are for slaughtering and the rest are not for slaughtering.

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

Correction coefficients are based on the previous survey and annual expert assessment (2007 and 2019, respectively).

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

Correction coefficients are based on the previous survey and annual expert assessment.

2007 was the last time when the data were asked from respondents/agricultural holdings in a survey. After a thorough analysis, it was decided that as the data remain very stable, there is no need to collect them from respondents, and a coefficient for calculation was worked out on the basis of previous surveys. The data are analysed every year (on the basis of monthly slaughtering data) to clarify whether there is a need to correct the current coefficient.

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

 
8.1.3. 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

Data on slaughterings are received from the Veterinary and Food Board. This register does not include data on the castration status.


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?

Correction coefficients are used in slaughtering statistics. Veterinary and Food Board does not have separate data about slaughtered bullocks, but only about bulls as total. It is estimated that 3,2% of the slaughtered bulls are bullocks.

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 Correction coefficients are from 2018.

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

Correction coefficients were received from the survey on slaughtering, conducted before receiving data from the register. 

2018 was the last time when the data were asked from respondents/slaughterhouses in a survey. Since 2019, the data from Veterinary and Food Board have been used for slaughtering statistics. As this register does not include data on the castration status, the data from previous surveys were thoroughly analysed and a special coefficient was worked out for the calculation of data about bullocks.

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

 There are no buffaloes in Estonia.
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

Data are received from the Register of Agricultural Animals. This register does not include data on the intended use of heifers.


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?

Correction coefficients are used within livestock statistics. For heifers it is estimated that …% of them are for slaughtering and the rest not for slaughtering.

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

Correction coefficients are based on historical survey and yearly expert estimation (2007 and 2019 accordingly).

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

Correction coefficients are based on historical survey and yearly expert estimation.

2007 was the last time when these data were within survey directly asked from respondents/agricultural holdings. After the thorough analysis it was decided that as these data remain very stable there is no need to collect them from respondents and coefficient for calculation was worked out on the basis of previous surveys. Now these data have been yearly analysed (on the basis of monthly slaughtering data) to clarify whether there is a need to correct the current coefficient.

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

 The number of sheep is below the threshold for livestock statistics.
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

 The number of goats is below the threshold for livestock statistics.
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


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

 
8.1.12. 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

  

 1980

 

  1

Pigs

  

 1980

 

  1

Sheep and goats

  

 1980

 

  1

Slaughtering

 

 

 

Bovines

    1980

 

  12

Pigs

    1980

 

  12

Sheep and goats

    1980

 

  12

Poultry

  

 1980

 

  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

Estimated burden on the respondents (in hours and minutes) to statistical surveys on livestock and meat (administrative sources are excluded)

Label statistical survey The number of respondents (average) The average time spent by the respondents to provide information (in minutes) The number of occurrences of the statistical survey over the reference year The overall yearly burden on the respondents - TOTAL (in minutes)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         


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: Livestock numbers from the Agricultural Registers and Information Board
SP2 : Monthly slaughtering data (slaughterhouses) from the Veterinary and Food Board
SP3 : Other slaughtering
SP4 : Gross indigenous production (cattle and pigs)