Farm structure (ef)

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

Compiling agency: Czech Statistical Office 

Time Dimension: 2016-A0

Data Provider: CZ1

Data Flow: FSS_ESQRS_A

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: EUROPEAN STATISTICAL DATA SUPPORT


1. Contact Top
1.1. Contact organisation
Czech Statistical Office 
1.2. Contact organisation unit
Agricultural, Forestry and Environmental Statistics Department 
1.5. Contact mail address
Czech Statistical Office

Agricultural, Forestry and Environmental Statistics Department

Na padesátém 81

100 82 Praha 10

2. Statistical presentation Top
2.1. Data description
1. Brief history of the national survey 
The Farm Structure Survey 2016 was conducted during autumn 2016 as a sample survey. It was focused on obtaining detailed and complex information on the whole scale of the Czech agriculture, i.e. about the size and structure of agricultural holdings, about their equipment, specialisation of their production and other gainful activities. Its results are used in classification of agricultural holdings by their production orientation, economic size and importance of other gainful activities. The survey also serves as data source for update of the Farm Register, which is a basis for all yearly surveys in agriculture.

The Farm Structure Survey 2016 was preceded by the following surveys organized in line with the EU legislation: sample survey FSS 2013; full survey Agrocensus 2010 (= FSS & SAPM 2010); sample surveys FSS 2007, FSS 2005, and FSS 2003; and full survey Agrocensus 2000 (=FSS 2000). The first survey of this nature conducted in the Czech Republic was Agrocensus 1995. It was focused on description of deep structural changes in the Czech agriculture due to fundamental economical transformation which followed the change of the political orientation in 1989.

Former Czechoslovakia provided FAO with data from regular exhaustive surveys in the frame of the world censuses of agriculture in 1970, 1980, 1990; no special surveys were organized during this period. In 1930 a census of agricultural works was conducted as a part of world agricultural census coordinated by the International Institute of Agriculture in Rome.


2. Legal framework of the national survey 
- the national legal framework Act No. 89/1995 Coll., on the State Statistical Service, as amended. 
- the obligations of the respondents with respect to the survey Act No 89/1995 Coll., par. 10, point 3: Reporting Units are subject to the reporting duty for the statistical surveys included in the Programme of Statistical Surveys. 
- the identification, protection and obligations of survey enumerators Act No 89/1995 Coll., par. 13: 1. Agricultural censuses*) are conducted by the Czech Statisti­cal Office or by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic in co-operation with municipalities. Municipalities provide for data collection, using questionnaires received from the body carrying out the census; this body reimburses related expenses incurred by the municipalities. 2. Persons authorised by the municipality to conduct agricultural censuses are entitled to become familiar with confidential statistical data they need to perform their assignments; they may not publish these data, or communicate them to anyone but employees of the body conducting the agricultural census.

*) In the Czech Republic the term "agricultural censuses" is  traditionally used not only for exhaustive surveys but also for particular sample surveys including FSS. 

2.2. Classification system

[Not requested]

2.3. Coverage - sector

[Not requested]

2.4. Statistical concepts and definitions
List of abbreviations
CZSO              Czech Statistical Office

EC                   European Community  

EU                   European Union

EUROSTAT       Statistical Office of the European Communities

FAO                 Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations

FSS                 Farm Structure Survey

LPIS                Land Parcel Information System

LSU                 Livestock unit

NACE               Statistical Classification of Economic Activities

NUTS               Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics

RDM                Rural Development Measures

SAPM              Survey on Agricultural Production Methods

SO                  Standard Output

UAA                Utilised Agricultural Area

2.5. Statistical unit
The national definition of the agricultural holding
Agricultural holding means a single unit, both technically and economically, which has a single management and which undertakes agricultural activities based on the common statistical classification of economic activities (NACE Rev. 2), either as its primary or secondary activity. Among these activities belong:

- growing of non-perennial crops (NACE Rev. 2 code 01.1);

- growing of perennial crops (01.2) including wine production from self-produced grapes;

- plant propagation (01.3);

- animal production (01.4); agricultural holdings raising other animals (01.49) are excluded except (i) ones raising and breeding ostriches, emus and rabbits, and (ii) ones dealing with bee-keeping and production of honey and beeswax;

- mixed farming (01.5);

- support activities to agriculture and post-harvest crop activities (01.6): only holdings exclusively maintaining agricultural land in good agricultural and environmental condition (01.61).

2.6. Statistical population
1. The number of holdings forming the entire universe of agricultural holdings in the country
It is not possible to provide information on the entire number of holdings in the country but only on the number of holdings in the Farm Register.

The Farm Register includes holdings reaching the following threshold levels:

- 1 ha of utilised agricultural land own or rented, or

- area of 1 500 m2 of intensive crops (orchards, vegetables, flowers), or

- 1 000 m2 of vineyards, or 300 m2 of greenhouses or hotbeds, or

- 1 head of cattle, or 2 head of pigs, or 4 head of sheep and goats, or

- 50 head of poultry, or 100 head of rabbits or fur animals.

As at the day of generation the population in the Farm Register contained 47 416 agricultural holdings. 


2. The national survey coverage: the thresholds applied in the national survey and the geographical coverage
The survey included agricultural holdings reaching following threshold values as at the day of generating of the population:

- Area ≥ 5 ha of utilised agricultural area (own or rented) [A_3_1$ha];

- or ≥ 1 ha of orchards [B_4_1$ha];

- or ≥ 3,500 m2 of vineyards [B_4_4$ha]

- or sum of area for vegetable, strawberries and flowers [B_1_7$ha+B_1_8$ha] ≥ 2 500 m2

- or ≥ 5 head of cattle [C_2$heads], or ≥ 10 head of pigs [C_4$heads],

- or ≥ 10 head of sheep and goats [C_3_1$heads+C_3_2$heads];

- or ≥ 100 head of poultry including ostriches [C_5$heads].


Geographical coverage: the whole Czech Republic


3. The number of holdings in the national survey coverage 
26 525 holdings 


4. The survey coverage of the records sent to Eurostat
The coverage of the records sent to Eurostat is the same as the national survey coverage 


5. The number of holdings in the population covered by the records transferred to Eurostat
26 525 holdings in the population covered by the records sent to Eurostat. 


6. Holdings with standard output equal to zero included in the records sent to Eurostat
There are 23 sampled holdings (91 holdings in the population) with SO=0:

1)     12 sampled holdings (12 holdings in the population) have only animal production, especially other poultry.

2)     10 sampled holdings (67 holdings in the population) have only crop production. These holdings have fallow land and/or permanent grassland no longer used for production maintained in good agricultural and environmental conditions.

3)     1 sampled holding (12 holdings in the population) does not have any agricultural activities (not even kitchen garden). This holding grows short rotation coppices that are recorded as utilised agricultural area in the Czech Republic. Thus, it was included in the population by accident.


7. Proofs that the requirements stipulated in art. 3.2 the Regulation 1166/2008 are met in the data transmitted to Eurostat
  Farm Register (before sampling) FSS 2016 population Coverage (%) FSS 2016 results Coverage after grossing-up (%)
Utilised agricultural area (ha) 3 504 879 3 474 284 99.1 3 455 409 98.6
Livestock units (LSU) [1] 1 447 222 1 428 449 98.7 1 756 523 121.4
Agricultural holdings 47 416 26 735 x 26 525 x
Average area (ha per holding) 74 130 x 130 x


[1] Livestock unit means a standard measurement unit that allows the aggregation of the various categories of livestock in order to enable them to be compared. 1 Livestock unit represents 500 kg of live weight of an animal.


8. Proofs that the requirements stipulated in art. 3.3 the Regulation 1166/2008 are met in the data transmitted to Eurostat
All agricultural holdings reaching at least one of the thresholds specified in Annex II of the Regulation are included to the survey (for list of threshold levels used see item 2. above).  There are 40 holdings having only nurseries ranging from 1 to 5 ha; they represent 92.47 ha in total. Although they were not included either in the population or the sample, the area of nurseries recorded in FSS (2 950 ha) was higher than that recorded in the crop production statistics (2 230 ha).
The population included all holdings having vineyard area plus orchard area above 1 ha. Such holdings have either only orchards (threshold level 1 ha) or only vineyards (threshold level 0.35 ha) or both orchards and vineyards but they do not have vineyard area under the threshold level.
There are only 3 holdings having hop-garden area ranging from 0.5 to 4.99 ha (10.01 ha in total). These holdings should have been included in the population.
2.7. Reference area
Location of the holding. The criteria used to determine the NUTS3 region of the holding
(i) If the holding's headquarter = the place of its agricultural production, then the location is the headquarter address (9 169 holdings);

(ii) If the holding's headquarter ≠ the place of its agricultural production, then the location is the Territorial Technical Unit[1] where the largest parcel is placed (2 205 holdings).

[1] A Territorial Technical Unit is a unit defined as cadastral territory or part of cadastral territory separated by the border of a basic settlement unit, i.e. by the border of a municipality, city district or city part. A municipality (LAU2) consists of one or more Territorial Technical Units.

2.8. Coverage - Time
Reference periods/dates of all main groups of characteristics (both included in the EU Regulation 1166/2008 and surveyed only for national purposes)
Labour force variables: 1 October 2015 – 30 September 2016

Land use variables: 1 October 2015 – 30 September 2016

Livestock variables: 30 September 2016

Support for rural development variables: last three years (2014 – 2016)

2.9. Base period

[Not requested]

3. Statistical processing Top
1.Survey process and timetable
Main phases of the survey:

1.    Preparation, organisation, coordination, monitoring

2.    Field survey

3.    Processing of the data

4.    Data validation and dissemination

As similar surveys were conducted in 2003, 2005, 2007, 2010 and 2013, there was no pilot survey organized in the frame of FSS 2016.



o   September 2015:

  • Signature of the project agreement

o   October 2015 – May 2016:

  • Testing of questionnaires
  • Drafting of cover letters for municipal offices and respondents.
  • Drafting of contracts for work and contracts for services.
  • Printing of questionnaires with methodological notes
  • Development of population and sample, application of precision requirements

o   June 2016:

  • Staff preparation meetings
  • Training of staff of Field Surveys Units and
  • Working out of Minutes of the staff training meeting including explanatory notes and examples
  • Programming of enter data, checking, control tables

o   July – August 2016:

  • Training of interviewers at regional offices
  • Providing methodological service

o   September – November 2016:

  • Field work, collecting questionnaires, data checks
  • Providing methodological service

o   December 2016:

  • Finalisation of field work
  • Working out of a conversion between the questionnaire structure and Eurofarm structure
  • Paying-out of the interviewers

o   January - February 2017:

  • Finalisation of questionnaires’ recording mistake corrections, check runs
  • Reinvestigation of missing data at regional offices

o   March – August 2017:

  • Programming of outputs tables
  • Compiling a programme for conversion of data in Eurofarm format
  • Data validation and verification

o   24 August 2017: Data dissemination (press conference, electronic and printed publications)

o   September 2017:

  • Asking for administrative data
  • Calculation of SO 2013 coefficients
  • Working out of National Methodological Report

o   October 2017:

  • Transmission of microdata to Eurostat
  • Calculation of SO 2013 coefficients
  • Working out of National Methodological Report

o   November 2017:

  • Calculation of SO 2013 coefficients
  • Working out of National Methodological Report

o   December 2017

  • Transmission of NMR to Eurostat

o   Turn of Q1/Q2 2018

  • Final technical implementation report and financial statement


2. The bodies involved and the share of responsibilities among bodies
Czech Statistical Office:

1) Agricultural, Forestry and Environmental Statistics Department

- project administration unit

- responsible for the organisation, coordination, financial and methodological support

- generation of population and sample

- grossing up procedures

- data checks based on Eurostat validation rules

- processing of output tables

- dissemination of survey results

- delivery of the database of anonymized individual data to Eurostat.


2) Field Surveys Units

- recruitment and training of the interviewers,

- distribution of questionnaires to the interviewers and their methodological support,

- collecting of filled-in questionnaires, their coding and registering,

- data processing (data entry and checking using Dante software)


3) Unit for Processing of Agricultural and Forestry Indicators in Kind

- questionnaire collection from legal persons and large natural persons,

- centralised processing of questionnaires

- processing of questionnaires

- checks for correctness and completeness of the data files at the national level

- development of net database and its delivery to the Agricultural Statistics Dept.


Institute of Agricultural Economics and Information:  SO 2013 computation, classification of holdings by their type of farming and economic size


3. Serious deviations from the established timetable (if any)
Only minor delays with no significant influence to data quality and transmission time occurred during the course of the survey. 
3.1. Source data
1. Source of data
FSS 2016 was conducted as a sample survey. The target group consisted of agricultural holdings reaching threshold levels for the survey.

Variables on Rural Development Measures were taken from an administrative source (see item 4. below)


2. (Sampling) frame
The frame for agricultural statistical surveys is based on the Farm register managed by the Agricultural Statistics Dept.

It is a list frame.

The Farm Register is updated regularly. Data on livestock numbers and areas under crops are updated yearly after finishing particular statistical surveys. Data in the Farm Register are not subject to any quality control.

The Farm Register was updated on the basis of FSS 2016 results as well as results of other surveys.However, the Farm Register covers agricultural holdings where the agricultural area utilised for farming is one hectare or more (see Article 3, par. 1a), 1b) of Regulation (EC) No. 1166/2008 of European Parliament and of the Council). The average area per holding is 73.4 ha.

  Farm Register

before sampling

Farm Register

after the update

Utilised agricultural area (ha) 3 504 879 3 520 721
Agricultural holdings 47 416 47 989
Average area (ha per holding) 73.9 73.4


In addition, administrative sources are used for Farm Register update: (i) Land Parcel Information System (LPIS) and (ii) Livestock Register. The tables below compare data from the Farm Register and administrative sources.

Comparison of sources – utilised agricultural area (ha)

  Farm Register1) LPIS2) Cadastre3)
Utilised agricultural area, total 3 520 721 3 561 216 4 208 374
Arable land 2 483 141 2 482 782 2 965 606
Hop-gardens 5 162 5 211 10 127
Vineyards, total 15 940 14 618 19 835
Kitchen gardens 823 - 164 024
Orchards 18 100 16 143 45 390
Permanent grassland, total 993 845 989 863 1 003 393


1) Czech Statistical Office (CZSO); updated on the basis of FSS 2016 results and Final Harvest Figures

2) Ministry of Agriculture, data as at 11.1.2017

3) Czech Office for Surveying, Mapping and Cadastre (COSMC) - administrative data source; the land is registered as agricultural land with its sub-categories irrespective whether it is utilised or not; data as at 31.12. 2016



Comparison of sources – livestock (head)

  Farm Register1) Livestock Register2)
Cattle, total 1 411 119 1 412 331
Pigs, total 1 511 422 1 579 058
Sheep, total 218 681 282 561
Goats, total 27 775 44 738


1) Czech Statistical Office (CZSO); updated on the basis of FSS 2016 and Livestock Survey results

2) Ministry of Agriculture, data as at 31.12.2016


3. Sampling design
3.1 The sampling design
One-stage stratified random sampling of holdings

The sample was defined as stratified random sample from the population based on affiliation of each unit to defined grossing-up group (stratum). Specific sampling rates for all units in a group (stratum) were assigned to each stratum. Units with sampling rate under 100% were selected from the population using random sampling without replication. The units selected were not put back to the population, i.e. every unit could have been chosen only once. In consequence, the probability of selection of units in the population changed after each sampling.

3.2 The stratification variables
1. Region of holding’s headquarters or natural person’s permanent residence (NUTS3):
NUTS3 codes 11, 21, 31, 32, 41, 42, 51, 52, 53, 61, 62, 71, 72, 81

2. Agricultural production areas which are defined on the basis of their agro-ecological and economical conditions.
In the Czech Republic are five areas: maize area, sugar beet area, potato area, potato-oats area, and mountainous area.

-      Maize area and its subareas: codes 11, 12, 13,

-      Sugar beet area and its subareas: codes 21, 22, 23,

-      Potato area and its subareas: codes 31, 32,

-      Potato-oats area and its subarea: code 33,

-      Mountainous area and its subareas: codes 41, 42.

Due to insufficient total area in subareas 11, 12, and 13, units belonging to subareas 12 and 13 were affiliated to subarea 11. Similarly the subarea code 42 was replaced by 41. Therefore only codes 11, 21, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33 and 41 were allowed.

3. Size of the holding 

 Size category code Sample percentage Size of the holding
11 7% 0.00 – 9.99 ha of UAA or 0 – 1.99 LSU
12 10% 10.00 - 24.99 ha of UAA or 2 – 4.99 LSU
13 15% 25.00 - 49.99 ha of UAA or 5 – 9.99 LSU
14 20% 50.00 - 119.99 ha of UAA or 10 – 19.99 LSU
15 25% 120.00 - 199.99 ha of UAA or 20 – 49.99 LSU
99 100% 200.00 ha and more of UAA

or 50 LSU and more

or 40 head of poultry and more

or 20 head of sheep and more

or 5 head of goats and more 

or 1.50 ha of vineyards and more

or 2.00 ha of orchard and more

or 1.10 ha of vegetables and more

or 0.30 ha of flowers and more  

or 0.30 ha of strawberries and more


On the basis of above-mentioned criteria every unit from the population was assigned with a six-digit code XXYYZZ which defined its affiliation to particular stratum:

XX = size category (11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 99);

YY = abbreviated code of NUTS3 (11, 21, 31, 32, 41, 42, 51, 52, 53, 61, 62, 71, 72, 81);

ZZ = agricultural production area (11, 21, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33, 41).

Number of grossing-up strata constructed using the described way resulted in 524 combinations, although the theoretical maximum of combinations was 672 (6 x 14 x 8). The final database sent to Eurostat includes 524 strata.

3.3 The full coverage strata
All holdings belonging to the size stratum 99 (see item 3.2 above) were surveyed exhaustively. 
3.4 The method for the determination of the overall sample size
Sample size: 11 961 holdings

Variable used for calculation of the standard deviation within strata (for the optimal allocation): size of the holding (UAA, LSU); different costs across strata were not considered.

The resulting sample size was based on threshold levels for the 100% strata and on percentages of particular size categories. They were set on the basis of the methodology used for FSS 2010 sample. The final values were adjusted in order to reach the best homogeneity of the stratification categories.

The construction of the strata was analogous to that used in FSS 2013. The percentages of size categories were set in the same way as in other sample surveys.

3.5 The method for the allocation of the overall sample size
Optimal allocation considering different size of the holding across strata 
3.6 Sampling across time
A new sample is drawn in each occasion 
3.7 The software tool used in the sample selection
SAS Enterprise Guide 4.2, using random number generator. 
3.8 Other relevant information, if any


4. Use of administrative data sources
4.1 Name, time reference and updating
Name: State Agricultural Intervention Fund

Description: The State Agricultural Intervention Fund is an accredited paying agency - an administrator of financial subsidies both from the European Union and from the national financial funds.  Within the scope of the Common Agricultural Policy, the financial subsidy is granted from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), and, within the scope of the Common Fisheries Policy, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). The new Programme for Rural Development (RDP) drawing out financial resources from the EAFRD has replaced the Horizontal Rural Development Plan (HRDP) and the Rural Development and Multifunctional Agriculture Operational Programme (OP RDMA).

Legislation frame: The State Agricultural Intervention Fund is a legal entity with its residence in Prague and its activities are regulated by the Law No. 256/2000 Coll., concerning the State Agricultural Intervention Fund, as amended by the Law No. 128/2003 Coll. and the Law No. 85/2004 Coll. and the implementing regulations in the form of the Czech Government Order.

Time reference: 2014-2016

Updating of the source: after each approval of particular request.

4.2 Organisational setting on the use of administrative sources
Act No 89/1995 Coll., par. 9: Authorities performing the State Statisti­cal Service use data acquired or collected by Ministries and other administrative authorities under special Acts. Ministries and other administrative authorities are bound to provide them with the necessary data on their request on time and free of charge unless otherwise stated by this Act. 

4.3 The purpose of the use of administrative sources - link to the file
Please access the information in the file at the link: (link available as soon as possible)


4.4 Quality assessment of the administrative sources
  Method  Shortcoming detected Measure taken
- coherence of the reporting unit (holding) The database managed by the State Agricultural Intervention Fund includes all holdings which request grants in a given year, i. e. including holdings that do not meet a definition for agricultural holding in FSS. Such holdings were not included in the FSS population.    
- coherence of definitions of characteristics The definitions are given by Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005; i e. they are the same for both the administrative source and FSS.    
- coverage:      
  over-coverage 1. Non-project-based measures: 36% (19 842 holdings in total in 2015-2016; out of them 12 684 holdings belonged to the FSS population). 2. Project-based measures: 41% (3 825 holdings in total in 2014-2016; out of them 2 260 holdings belonged to the FSS population).    
  under-coverage Cannot be evaluated by the CZSO     
  misclassification Cannot be evaluated by the CZSO      
  multiple listings Not recorded    
- missing data Not recorded     
- errors in data Cannot be evaluated by the CZSO    
- processing errors Not evaluated     
- comparability Not evaluated    
- other (if any) Not available    


4.5 Management of metadata
All relevant metadata are covered by the National Methodological Report for FSS 2016. Other metadata are stored and maintained solely by the State Agricultural Intervention Fund.
4.6 Reporting units and matching procedures
The database managed by the State Agricultural Intervention Fund includes all holdings which request grants in a given year. 

Common identifiers: Unique identification number of a holding (a person in case of unregistered natural persons).

Method(s) of integration: linkage of the FSS and RDM databases using the unique holdings’ ID. In several cases the linkage for particular holding had to be searched in both databases step-by-step.

Main problems were connected with creating simple links between databases caused by lack of common identifiers.  In several cases it was not possible to create the linkage for particular holding automatically and both databases had to be searched step-by-step. 

4.7 Difficulties using additional administrative sources not currently used
Not applicable
3.2. Frequency of data collection
Frequency of data collection
Given by the Regulation (EC) No 1166/2008.
3.3. Data collection
1. Data collection modes

1) Questionnaires sent to respondents using data boxes*) (2 856 holdings of legal persons and 1 056 holdings of natural persons);

2) Questionnaires sent by regular mail (46 holdings of legal persons and 4 554 holdings of natural persons);

3) Face-to-face interviews (3 449 holdings of natural persons).

Online questionnaires were available for all holdings.

*) A secured IT tool used for receiving and sending official documents in electronic form; according to the Czech legislation, its use is obligatory for legal persons but it is voluntarily used also by natural persons.


2. Data entry modes
• Electronic data capture during personal interview;

• Electronic data capture from filled-in paper questionnaire;

• Entering the data online by the holder.


3. Measures taken to increase response rates
- call-back strategies, written / telephone reminders, contacting respondents who have only partly completed the questionnaires;
- giving priority to important holdings, e.g. large ones;
- taking care that the mailing list is based on up-to-date information;
- training the staff in handling difficult respondents.

Although the Law 89/1995 Coll., on the State Statistical Service, sets down rules for penalties to be applied in case of not providing requested data, the CZSO has never applied this approach. 


4. Monitoring of response and non-response
1 Number of holdings in the survey frame plus possible (new) holdings added afterwards

In case of a census 1=3+4+5

26 735
2 Number of holdings in the gross sample plus possible (new) holdings added to the sample

Only for sample survey, in which case 2=3+4+5

12 094
3 Number of ineligible holdings 720
3.1 Number of ineligible holdings with ceased activities

This item is a subset of 3.

4 Number of holdings with unknown eligibility status


4.1 Number of holdings with unknown eligibility status – re-weighted 0
4.2 Number of holdings with unknown eligibility status – imputed 30
5 Number of eligible holdings


11 344
5.1 Number of eligible non-responding holdings


5.1.1 Number of eligible non-responding holdings – re-weighted 0
5.1.2 Number of eligible non-responding holdings – imputed 150
5.2 Number of eligible responding holdings 11 194
6 Number of the records in the dataset 


11 374


5. Questionnaire(s) - in annex
See annex 3.3-5.

3.3-5. FSS 2016 questionnaire (including methodological notes)
3.4. Data validation
Data validation
Edit rules/checks 

completeness checks,

relational checks,

data format checks,

range/outlier checks


Tools used for data validation

Data Supplier Manual validation rules developed by Eurostat.


Level of data validation

1)  basic checks by interviewers during the collection of questionnaires in the field

2)  checks at questionnaire delivery by external interviewers at the CZSO regional offices

3)  checks during the processing (logic checks, checks for completeness, linkage to nomenclatures, duplicities, etc.),

4)  validation controls by the Dept. of Agricultural Statistics. 

3.5. Data compilation
Methodology for determination of weights (extrapolation factors)
1. Design weights
Grossing-up was performed for each grossing-up group separately. Grossing-up groups are used in their whole range only for generation of the sample (keeping the proportionality among regions) and for final aggregation by region. In grossing-up procedures, only (i) affiliation to an agricultural production area and (ii) size category was used.
2. Adjustment of weights for non-response
Re-weighting was not applied. 
3. Adjustment of weights to external data sources
No adjustment to external sources. 
4. Any other applied adjustment of weights
No adjustment of weights. 

3.5. Formulae applied for estimation methods
3.6. Adjustment

[Not requested]

4. Quality management Top
4.1. Quality assurance

[Not requested]

4.2. Quality management - assessment

[Not requested]

5. Relevance Top
5.1. Relevance - User Needs
Main groups of characteristics surveyed only for national purposes 
Group of national characteristics collected Purpose of collection Requested by
Processing of own products, provision of services Compilation of Economic Accounts for Agriculture NSI
Self-consumption of own products Compilation of Economic Accounts for Agriculture NSI
5.2. Relevance - User Satisfaction

[Not requested]

5.3. Completeness
Non-existent (NE) and non-significant (NS) characteristics - link to the file. Characteristics possibly not collected for other reasons
Please find the information on NE and NS characteristics at the following link: (link available as soon as possible)

No characteristics not collected for other reasons occurred in FSS 2016. 

5.3.1. Data completeness - rate

[Not requested]

6. Accuracy and reliability Top
6.1. Accuracy - overall
Main sources of error
No assessment was conducted; particular types of error are described in sections 6.2 and 6.3. 
6.2. Sampling error
Method used for estimation of relative standard errors (RSEs)
See the annexed file.

6.2. RSE calculation method
6.2.1. Sampling error - indicators

1. Relative standard errors (RSEs) - in annex


2. Reasons for possible cases where precision requirements are applicable and estimated RSEs are above the thresholds
It was not possible to compute the RSE for B_1_8 Flowers and ornamental plants due to low number of units in the sample (its share on the total UAA was 0.01%).

No cases where precision requirements are applicable and estimated RSEs are above the threshold occurred in FSS 2016.

6.2.1-1. Relative standard errors
6.3. Non-sampling error

See below

6.3.1. Coverage error
1. Under-coverage errors
During the survey, in total 133 newly established agricultural holdings were found. Such holdings were not involved in the sample (i.e. they were not recorded in the Farm Register) but they were surveyed as they belonged to the target population.

In the grossing-up procedure weight=1 was assigned to each of these holdings. 


2. Over-coverage errors
According to the FSS 2016 results, in total 720 agricultural holdings do not belong to the target population as they either do not reach the threshold levels for the survey or have ceased or temporarily stopped their agricultural activity. 
2.1 Multiple listings 
No multiple listing occurred. 


3. Misclassification errors
No misclassification errors were recorded.

During calculation of relative standard errors 30 units showing extreme values were identified; their weight was changed to 1 and the units were moved to 100% stratum.


4. Contact errors
In exceptional cases the correct address of the agricultural holding was not available due to moving of the holding.

These holdings were included in the population on the basis of their last available address. The CZSO staff made attempts to find new adresses using e.g. the Business Register, LPIS, information from local authorities etc. but not always succesfully. Such holdings were classified as ineligible.


5. Other relevant information, if any
Not available. Over-coverage - rate
Over-coverage - rate
5.95% (= 720/12 094*100) Common units - proportion

[Not requested]

6.3.2. Measurement error
Characteristics that caused high measurement errors
The questionnaire used in FSS 2016 was very similar to one used in previous FSS so the risk that the respondents did not correctly understand the questions was minimised.
6.3.3. Non response error
1. Unit non-response: reasons, analysis and treatment
The most common reason was overall refusal to fill-in the questionnaire. These events could not have been influenced by the way of delivery of the questionnaire – in such cases even personal interviews were unsuccessfull.

The data for non-responding holdings were imputed using two ways:

(i) Holdings with high similarity in the frame of their strata: average values for each stratum;

(ii) Holdings with extreme values: the last data available (i.e. from FSS 2013 or FSS 2010, LPIS, Livestock Register).

No comparison with another source or consistency study was conducted. Since the non-response rate is very small (1.58%) the non-response bias is expected to be negligible.


2. Item non-response: characteristics, reasons and treatment
Item non-response almost did not occur during the field work in the FSS 2016. The questionnaire contained a large proportion of variables already surveyed (in FSS 2010 and in some cases even in preceding Farm Structure Surveys) and, therefore, in most cases well known to the respondents.

In case of missing data, the responding unit was contacted again and the data was filled in. Unit non-response - rate
Unit non-response - rate
1.58% (=180/11 374*100) Item non-response - rate
Item non-response - rate
Unidentifiable (not recorded) → the final item non-response rate is 0.0 
6.3.4. Processing error
1. Imputation methods
Data imputation was conducted for agricultural holdings which did not fill in their questionnaires. The last available data (from the FSS 2013, LPIS, or Livestock Register) or average values for particular sampling strata were used for the imputation. 


2. Other sources of processing errors
Typing etc. errors may have occurred during data recording but the risk was minimised by using check rules.

No assesment of processing errors affecting individual observations was conducted.


3. Tools used and people/organisations authorised to make corrections
Corrections of processed data were made by the Agricultural, Forestry and Environmental Statistics Dept.  as experts on survey methodology or by the Unit for Processing of Agricultural and Forestry Indicators in Kind (after their consultation with the Agricultural, Forestry and Environmental Statistics Dept.).

Corrections were made also by the staff of Field Surveys Units.

Tools used: Dante software, Microsoft Visual FoxPro Imputation - rate
Imputation - rate
Data for 180 non-responding units were imputed; i.e. the ratio = 1.58% for all main characteristics 
6.3.5. Model assumption error

[Not requested]

6.4. Seasonal adjustment

[Not requested]

6.5. Data revision - policy
Data revision - policy
No planned revisions of the FSS data are conducted as the data is checked sufficiently during their processing (validation rules, comparison with other surveys). However, unplanned data revision could occur. 
6.6. Data revision - practice
Data revision - practice
No revision of FSS 2013 data was done since their dissemination until finishing the NMR. Data from FSS 2000 (recalculated using threshold values for FSS 2016) were used for comparison of trends in the period 2000–2016. 
6.6.1. Data revision - average size

[Not requested]

7. Timeliness and punctuality Top
7.1. Timeliness

See below

7.1.1. Time lag - first result
Time lag - first result
Last day of the reference period: 30 September 2016

Day of the first publication of results: 24 August 2017

Time lag = 11 months (328 days) from the last day of the reference period.

Time lag related to the last day of the survey year (31 December 2016) = 8 months (236 days)

7.1.2. Time lag - final result
Time lag - final result
First results = final results; i.e.  time lag = 11 months (see point 7.1.1) 

Time lag related to the last day of the survey year (31 December 2016) = 8 months (236 days)

7.2. Punctuality

See below

7.2.1. Punctuality - delivery and publication
Punctuality - delivery and publication
7 days (target date: 31 August 2017) 

8. Coherence and comparability Top
8.1. Comparability - geographical
1. National vs. EU definition of the agricultural holding
No difference between the national definition and the EU definition of the holding. 


2.National survey coverage vs. coverage of the records sent to Eurostat
No differences between the population in the national survey and in the records sent to Eurostat

The threshold was set up at such level, that only small agricultural holdings representing up to 2% of utilised agricultural area and up to 2% of livestock units[1] were excluded (see Article 3.2 of the Regulation No 1166/2008).

[1] Livestock unit means a standard measurement unit that allows the aggregation of the various categories of livestock in order to enable them to be compared. 1 Livestock unit represents 500 kg of live weight of an animal. 


3. National vs. EU characteristics
Handbook version: CPSA/SB/652 Rev. 10
  • EU definition: hops [B_1_6_2] are included in crops grown on arable land;
  • National definition: hop-gardens are reported as permanent crops according to the Law No 252/1997 Coll., on agriculture, as amended.

Data on total arable area and permanent crops in Eurostat database differ from the data published on the national level. Data on total utilised agricultural area (or permanent crops plus arable land) are the same.

  • EU definition: nurseries [B_4_5] are included in permanent crops;
  • National definition: nurseries are reported as crops grown on arable land.

Data in Eurostat database differ from the data published on the national level likewise.

  • EU definition: trees and bushes grown for use for energy production only [B_6_3] are included in wooded area (of which short rotation coppices);
  • National definition: they are included in other permanent crops (of which short rotation coppices).

Therefore in the Eurofarm database total utilised agricultural area is lower and wooded area is higher than in national data.

  • EU definition: in the frame of organic farming, temporary grasslands are included in permanent grasslands;
  • National definition: they are included in plants harvested green on arable land (perennial green fodder).


Number of hours per year for a full-time employee for AWU calculation: 1 800


4. Common land
4.1 Current methodology for collecting information on the common land
Common land does not exist in the Czech Republic 
4.2 Possible problems encountered in relation to the collection of information on common land and possible solutions for future FSS surveys
Not applicable 
4.3 Total area of common land in the reference year
Not applicable 
4.4 Number of agricultural holdings making use of the common land or Number of (especially created) common land holdings in the reference year
Not applicable 


5. Differences across regions within the country
The same survey methodology, definitions etc. were applied in all regions.


6. Organic farming. Possible differences between national standards and rules for certification of organic products and the ones set out in Council Regulation No.834/2007
No differences between national standards and rules set out in Reg. No. 834/2007 
8.1.1. Asymmetry for mirror flow statistics - coefficient

[Not requested]

8.2. Comparability - over time
1. Possible changes of the definition of the agricultural holding
There have been no changes. 


2. Possible changes in the coverage of holdings for which records are sent to Eurostat
There have been some changes but not enough to warrant the designation of a break in series:
  • In 2016, 2013 and 2010 higher threshold levels were applied than in 2007, 2005 and 2003.
  • In 2016 and 2013 different methods of sample construction were used than in 2007, 2005 and 2003.
  • No changes in the coverage were introduced between 2013 and 2016 as well as between 2010 and 2013.


3. Changes of definitions and/or reference time and/or measurements of characteristics
There have been some changes but not enough to warrant the designation of a break in series:
  • A_3_2_1 The total utilised agricultural area of the holding on which organic farming production methods are applied and certified according to national or European Community rules
  • A_3_2_2 The total utilised agricultural area of the holding that is under conversion to organic farming production methods to be certified according to national or European Community rules
  • FSS & SAPM 2010: including kitchen gardens.
  • FSS 2016 and 2013: kitchen gardens were not included (Handbook CPSA/SB/652, rev. 10).


There have been sufficient changes to warrant the designation of a break in series:

  • C_5_2 Laying hens and C_5_3 Other poultry
  • FSS & SAPM 2010: Pullets were included in Laying hens (Handbook CPSA/SB/652, rev. 6: „Growing pullets before point of lay are included if they have been stalled up as laying hens. Cull hens are also included. All hens which have started to lay are included, whether the eggs are for consumption or for breeding. Breeding cocks for laying hens are included“.)
  • FSS 2013: Pullets were included in Other poultry (Handbook CPSA/SB/652, rev. 10: “Poultry not mentioned under Broilers or Laying hens. Chicks are excluded“).
  • FSS 2016: A new characteristics C_5_3_x Pullets was introduced by Eurostat and used by CZ.


4. Changes over time in the results as compared to previous FSS, which may be attributed to sampling variability
FSS & SAPM 2010: census

FSS 2016 and FSS 2013: sample survey

Changes possibly attributed to sampling variability: The sample was constructed using UAA and LSU (or particular livestock numbers) as stratification variables. During the grossing-up procedure emphasis was put on these variables; it means that for other variables the data may minutely differ from those that would be obtained in case of census.


5.Common land
5.1 Possible changes in the decision or in the methodology to collect common land
Common land does not exist in the Czech Republic. 
5.2 Change of the total area of common land and of the number of agricultural holdings making use of the common land / number of common land holdings
Not applicable 


6. Major trends on the main characteristics compared with the previous FSS survey
Main characteristic Current FSS survey Previous FSS survey Difference in % Comments
Number of holdings 26 525 26 246 +1.1  
UAA (A_3_1), ha 3 455 409 3 491 472 -1.0  
Arable land, ha 2 473 217 2 492 109 -0.8  
Cereals (B_1_1), total, ha 1 356 151 1 428 930 -5.1  
Industrial crops (B_1_6), total, ha 478 506 494 825 -3.3  
Plants harvested green (B_1_9), total, ha 471 630 432 270 9.1  
Permanent grassland (B_3), ha 944 893 960 076 -1.6  
Permanent crops (B_4), ha 37 212 39 092 -4.8  
Fallow land (B_1_12),  ha 18 589 12 316 +50,9 Changes in the support policy. Generally, the farmers make efforts to minimise the fallow land/unutilised area. However, the reasons for recording the land as unutilised can also depend on e. g. bad weather conditions during the harvest year.
Unutilised Agricultural area (B_5_1), ha 4 825 6 187 -22,0
LSU in LSU*) 1 756 523 1 728 355 +1.7  
Cattle (C_2), head 1 409 773 1 368 813 +3.0  
Sheep (C_3_1), head 230 911 199 376 +15.8 Sheep and goat numbers in CZ have a long-term increasing trend since approximately 2000. This can be connected i.a. with a progress of organic production during this period. The results of livestock statistics conducted for national purposes show the same trend.
Goats (C_3_2), head 21 960 17 903 +22.7
Pigs (C_4), head 1 542 210 1 574 399 -2.0  
Poultry (C_5), head 25 103 855 25 344 798 -1.0  
Family labour force, persons 48 445 49 420 -1.9  
Family labour force, AWU 27 524 27 072 +1.7  
Non family labour force, persons 81 842 82 709 -1.0  
Non family labour force, AWU 71 437 73 999 -3.5  

*) including pullets; the number of LSU excluding pullets is 1 635 728 LSU in 2016 and 1 638 744 LSU in 2013.

8.2.1. Length of comparable time series

[Not requested]

8.3. Coherence - cross domain
1. Coherence at micro level with other data collections
 Not evaluated


2. Coherence at macro level with other data collections
Comparison of FSS 2016 results with data from the Areas under Crops Survey as at 31 May 2016 :
Utilised agricultural area (ha) Areas under Crops Survey; 31 May 2016 FSS 2016; 30 September 2016 Differences +,- Index FSS/Areas under Crops Survey (%)
Utilised agricultural area, total 3 488 788 3 455 409 -33 379 99.0
Arable land 2 497 394 2 473 217 -24 177 99.0
Hop-gardens 5 603 5 167 -436 92.2
Vineyards, total 17 088 15 020 -2 068 87.9
Kitchen gardens 748 87 -661 11.6
Orchards 20 802 18 220 -2 582 87.6
Permanent grassland, total 948 566 944 893 -3 673 99.6
Other permanent crops 1 958 1 021 -937 52.1


Arable land use (ha) Areas under Crops Survey; 31 May 2016 FSS 2016; 30 September 2016 Differences +,- Index FSS/Areas under Crops Survey (%)
Arable land utilised, total 2 497 394 2 473 217 -24 177 99.0
Cereals, total 1 351 910 1 356 151 +4 241 100.3
Pulses for grain, total 35 633 35 410 -223 99.4
Root crops, total 84 647 83 781 -866 99.0
Industrial crops, total 482 341 478 506 -3 835 99.2
Oil crops 470 178 465 642 -4 536 99.0
Plants harvested green, total 484 835 471 630 -13 205 97.3
Green maize 241 500 238 770 -2 730 98.9
Vegetables, total 10 202 9 745 -457 95.5
Strawberries, total 710 657 -53 92.5


Comparison of FSS 2016 results with data from the Livestock Survey as at 1 April 2016:

Livestock (head) Livestock Survey;

1 April 2016

FSS 2016;

30 September 2016



Index FSS/Livestock Survey (%)
Cattle, total 1 415 658 1 409 773 -5 885 99.6
Cows, total 583 747 587 283 3 536 100.6
Dairy cows 372 510 369 108 -3 402 99.1
Other cows 211 237 218 175 6 938 103.3
Pigs, total 1 609 945 1 542 210 -67 735 95.8
Sheep, total 218 493 230 911 12 418 105.7
Goats, total 26 548 21 960 -4 588 82.7
Horses, total 32 133 24 696 -7 437 76.9
Donkeys, hinnies and mules 380 359 -21 94.5
Poultry, total 21 313 958 25 103 855  +3 789 897 117.8
Hens 6 116 213 6 217 908  +101 695 101.7
Chicken for breeding 2 657 944 4 026 497  +1 368 553 151.5
Chicken for fattening 11 435 039 13 622 384  +2 187 345 119.1

 FSS 2016 data are not reconcilable with data from other domains.

8.4. Coherence - sub annual and annual statistics

[Not requested]

8.5. Coherence - National Accounts

[Not requested]

8.6. Coherence - internal

[Not requested]

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

[Not requested]

9.2. Dissemination format - Publications
1. The nature of publications
The CZSO disseminates only final results, no preliminary ones are published.

The publications are usually available in both paper version and electronic form at the website of the Czech Statistical Office ( All publications are bilingual (Czech and English) and they are gratis (paid from a grant budget).

Farm structure survey 2016: output tables for the whole agricultural sector and for selected types of legal forms, basic information on the survey, methodological notes.

Farm structure survey 2016 in regions: basic information for regions (NUTS2) for the whole agricultural sector and by two main legal forms, methodological notes (only electronic version available).

Farm structure survey 2016 – analysis: farm typology, regional results, comparison of results of FSS 2016 and FSS 2000 (co-author: Institute of Agricultural Economics and Information). 


2. Date of issuing (actual or planned)
On 24 August 2017, a press conference focused on the FSS 2016 results was held in the framework of the international agricultural fair “Bread Basket” (in Czech “Země Živitelka”) in České Budějovice. Final results of the survey were presented there and the publication “Farm Structure Survey 2016” was introduced.

Farm structure survey 2016: 24 August 2017

Farm structure survey 2016 in regions: 15 December 2017

Farm structure survey 2016 – analytical evaluation: 27 April 2018


3. References for on-line publications
Farm structure survey 2016:

Farm structure survey 2016 in regions:

Farm structure survey 2016 – analytical evaluation:

9.3. Dissemination format - online database
Dissemination format - online database
The FSS results are not available in on-line public database. 
9.3.1. Data tables - consultations
Data tables - consultations
Not applicable (see point 9.3) 
9.4. Dissemination format - microdata access
Dissemination format - microdata access
External users are not allowed to access micro-data for research purposes; for such cases, the CZSO produces “tailor-made” aggregations. 
9.5. Dissemination format - other

[Not requested]

9.6. Documentation on methodology
1. Available documentation on methodology
Eurostat, 2015: FSS WG/2015/1/11 revision 1 Handbook on implementing the FSS definitions. Luxembourg


2. Main scientific references
No scientific references were used. 
9.7. Quality management - documentation
Quality management - documentation
Quality documentation was not elaborated. 
9.7.1. Metadata completeness - rate

[Not requested]

9.7.2. Metadata - consultations

[Not requested]

10. Cost and Burden Top
Co-ordination with other surveys: burden on respondents
No co-ordination between FSS and other surveys in 2016.

11. Confidentiality Top
11.1. Confidentiality - policy
Confidentiality - policy
Act No 89/1995 Coll., par. 16: Employees of bodies carrying out the State Statistical Service or persons processing statistical surveys or collecting data for agricultural censuses shall be subject to secrecy of confidential data they have knowledge of. To this end, they must be sworn to secrecy upon entering their employment or before they start the relevant work.
11.2. Confidentiality - data treatment
Confidentiality - data treatment
The rules for providing data by the CZSO to third parties are based on national and EU legislation, especially on the Act No. 89/1995 Coll., on the State Statistical Service, as amended.

Data confidentiality during dissemination is ensured by internal directive of the CZSO which states that statistical information can be released in case it is produced as an aggregation of at least three subjects. Furthermore, sum of shares for the two greatest individual values cannot exceed 85 % of the total aggregation. In case of exceeding this value the data are treated as confidential. Aggregation on a superior level must be done or another solution must be applied. The data can be released or provided to a third party on a contractual basis if the dominant subject provides a written approval to the CZSO.

12. Comment Top
1. Possible improvements in the future
Nothing to mention.


2. Other annexes

Related metadata Top

Annexes Top