Farm structure (ef)

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

Compiling agency: Swedish Board of Agriculture

Time Dimension: 2016-A0

Data Provider: SE6

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

Download


1. Contact Top
1.1. Contact organisation
Swedish Board of Agriculture
1.2. Contact organisation unit
Statistics Division
1.5. Contact mail address
Jordbruksverket
SE-551 82, JÖNKÖPING
Sweden


2. Statistical presentation Top
2.1. Data description
1. Brief history of the national survey 
The records of agricultural statistics in Sweden date back to the beginning of the nineteenth century. In the first half of the twentieth century, established statistical methods were introduced for production of statistics on agricultural holdings, crop areas, crop production, livestock etc. In 1968, in order to improve the coordination of the statistics within the agricultural sector, Sweden established a farm register which was updated annually. The register covered:

- all agricultural holdings with more than 2 hectares of arable land,

- holdings with a large number of livestock but with less than 2 hectares of arable land, and

- holdings with horticultural production.

Since its establishment the farm register was used as a sample frame for both farm structure surveys and other agricultural statistical surveys.

During the 1990s, the farm structure surveys were subject to few methodological and technical changes. The substitution of some censuses with sample surveys, together with the processing of statistics in PC-environment, led to a reduction of the costs for producing agricultural statistics. However, the substitution of some censuses with sample surveys inevitably led to lack of agricultural statistics on municipality level for the years the substitution occurred.

The Swedish accession to the European Union in 1995 created the need for adapting national agricultural statistics to the EU legislation. Until 2001, Sweden conducted farm structure surveys annually, switching every year between EU and national legislation. The main difference between these two consisted on the number of the characteristics surveyed. The national farm structure surveys met primarily national statistical requirements and therefore were far less extensive than the ones based on EU legislation. In 2001, national farm structure surveys were abandoned, thus embracing the surveys based on EU legislation as the sole Farm Structure Survey. Before 2001, the data collection for the EU Farm Structure Surveys was made through postal questionnaires to the farmers. Since 2001, however, the data collection methods included also web questionnaires, administrative registers and telephone interviews with the farmers.

Through the Official Statistics Ordinance (SFS 2001:100), promulgated in March 2001, the Swedish Board of Agriculture became the sole authority responsible for organizing and producing all agricultural statistics in Sweden. Until March 2001, this was the responsibility of Statistics Sweden.

 

2. Legal framework of the national survey 
- the national legal framework All national agricultural statistics in Sweden refer to the Official Statistics Act (SFS 2001:99) and to the Official Statistics Ordinance (SFS 2001:100) promulgated on March 15, 2001. This ordinance appoints the Swedish Board of Agriculture as the sole responsible authority for all national agricultural statistics. This gives the Swedish Board of Agriculture sole mandate to decide which organisations and authorities can conduct agricultural statistical surveys in order to meet the statistical requirements both at national and at EU level.
- the obligations of the respondents with respect to the survey The Official Statistics Ordinance (2001:100) clarifies what statistics are compulsory for enterprises to report. In the article 5a, areas of special interest to agriculture are added. “Agricultural, forestry and horticultural operators and operators who keep livestock shall, in addition to the information specified in Section 5, provide information regarding:

1) the land register designation, area, land use and ownership and lease situation with respect to the property or part of the property where the business is carried on;

2) the occupations of the persons employed in the business and the year of engagement;

3) the keeping of livestock.

The owner of a property where another person is carrying on a business referred to in the first paragraph shall provide the name and address of that person and information concerning the area used in the business.”

In the provision SJVFS 2016:7, which took effect on April 17, 2016, the obligations of the farmers were further clarified. Through this provision, all agricultural holdings meeting the criteria set for the target population, were obligated to provide the requested information to the Swedish Board of Agriculture within the deadline set for the survey, June 23, 2016. The information provided should reflect the situation on the agricultural holding on the survey’s reference date, June 2, 2016. Holdings failing to provide the data requested could be subject to a penalty in accordance with the above mentioned act.

- the identification, protection and obligations of survey enumerators The survey was made both as a paper and web questionnaire with additional telephone interviews. Respondents, which did not answer the survey or parts of it, were later inteviewed by project assistants employed by the Statistics Division at the Swedish Board of Agriculture. The project assistans were trained to work with the survey and answer questions related to it. The Board has guidelines on how to deal with, for example, threatening situations via the telephone. A checklist and routines on how to handle such situations were communicated to the project assistants. No such situations occurred during 2016. 
2.2. Classification system

[Not requested]

2.3. Coverage - sector

[Not requested]

2.4. Statistical concepts and definitions
List of abbreviations 
CDB - Central Cattle Register

IACS - Integrated Administration and Control System

2.5. Statistical unit
The national definition of the agricultural holding
In the context of agricultural statistics, an agricultural holding is a business unit under single management, which operates in agriculture, animal husbandry or horticulture. The land is in good agricultural and environmental condition. Holdings are divided into groups in terms of legal status and management:
  • holdings operated by natural persons,
  • holdings operated by legal persons (estate of deceased person, Limited Liability Company, state, municipality, church, other).
2.6. Statistical population
1. The number of holdings forming the entire universe of agricultural holdings in the country
66 155

 

2. The national survey coverage: the thresholds applied in the national survey and the geographical coverage
The target population for FSS 2016 consisted of all agricultural holdings in Sweden (according to the definition above), which met at least one of the following criteria in June 2016:
  • more than 2.0 hectares of arable land or 5.0 hectares of UAA (A_3_1),
  • at least 200 m2 area under glass (B_1_7_2+B_1_8_2+B_4_7) or 2500 m2 outdoor horticultural cultivation (B_1_7_1+B_1_8_1+B_4_1+B_4_2+B_4_3+B_4_4+B_4_5),
  • at least 10 cattle (C_2) or 10 sows (C_4_2) or 50 pigs (C_4) or 20 sheep (C_3_1) or 1000 poultry (including chickens) (C_5).

 

3. The number of holdings in the national survey coverage
62 937

 

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

 

 5. The number of holdings in the population covered by the records transferred to Eurostat
62 937

 

6. Holdings with standard output equal to zero included in the records sent to Eurostat
There are 2 027 holdings with standard output equal to zero in the records sent to Eurostat. These holdings have mostly fallow land, except for a few cases where the holdings only have energy forest. The area for crops in the survey is collected from IACS. The IACS register contains all the holdings applying for single payment subsidies in 2016. In order to obtain subsidies, all holdings, including those with fallow land and energy forest, are obliged to keep the land in good agricultural and environmental condition.

 

7. Proofs that the requirements stipulated in art. 3.2 the Regulation 1166/2008 are met in the data transmitted to Eurostat
The UAA that is below our thresholds represents 0.21 %. The livestock units below our thresholds represent 0.31 %.

 

8. Proofs that the requirements stipulated in art. 3.3 the Regulation 1166/2008 are met in the data transmitted to Eurostat
When creating the frame for the survey we have two sets of populations, the IACS population and the rest-population. Those holdings that have not been applying for subsidies or has quit applying for subsidies will be in the rest-population. The rest-population also includes holdings that exists in the livestock registers. All holdings with livestock in Sweden have to be registered at the Swedish Board of Agriculture and to be provided with a production location number (PPN). We use all livestock registers to update the population frame, which means that no holdings with such livestock meeting the thresholds for the FSS2016 are neglected. All holdings in the rest-population have been surveyed.
2.7. Reference area
Location of the holding. The criteria used to determine the NUTS3 region of the holding
The building is determining the NUTS3 region of the holding.
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)
The reference date was set to June 2, 2016 concerning livestock characteristics. For land characteristics, the reference period was set to November 2015-October 2016. For the characteristics on the farm labour force, production methods and irrigation sectors, the reference period was June 2015 - May 2016. For rural development, the reference period was January 2014-December 2016.
2.9. Base period

[Not requested]


3. Statistical processing Top
1.Survey process and timetable
The agricultural survey FSS 2016 was planned and conducted by the Statistics Division at the Swedish Board of Agriculture. The FSS 2016 team included members who had worked with this survey since year 2003, but also new members recruited and trained especially to work with these tasks. The project team was located on the premises of the Swedish Board of Agriculture, thus no field personnel were involved. One person had one or more areas of responsibility within the project. In total 24 persons were involved in the survey team:

-          one survey manager with overall responsibility,

-          one project manager with responsibility for writing the national legislation and recruiting and leading the FSS team,

-          four statisticians responsible for designing the population and the sample frames in accordance with EU precision requirements; for setting up criteria and procedures for data controls; developing methods for handling missing or incorrect data items, estimation procedures and other methodological issues,

-          five persons working with the design of the questionnaires and the information booklets,

-          two persons working with IT-applications, scanning definitions, web applications and archive functions,

-          two persons responsible for establishing the final register and for transmission of data tables to Eurostat,

-          14 persons working with the data collection: registering the questionnaires sent in by the respondents, doing basic checks on the data collected, processing of information and collecting the complementary information by telephone calls to farmers.

As the FSS 2016 was designed in a similar way as the previous farm structure surveys (from 1993-2013), there was no need for conducting a pilot survey.

The promotion of the census was done through the website of the Swedish Board of Agriculture. Two ads were also posted in two of the largest agricultural newspapers in the country.

Calendar overview

Activity

Starting date

Final date

IT- system: development September 2015 April 2016
Construction of the questionnaire November 2015 March 2016
National legislation October 2015 March 2016
Data collection procedure-instructions January 2016 May 2016
Farm register-construction November 2015 February 2016
Population and sample design February 2016 May 2016
IT- application, scanning, verifying: development and test March 2016 May 2016
Data collection staff- recruiting February 2016 March 2016
Data collection May 2016 December 2016
Data controls and processing  May 2016 February 2017
Farm register 2016- set up November 2016 March 2017
Dissemination of national statistics October 2016 December 2017
National Methodological Report March 2017 November 2017
Transmission of final data to Eurostat:

-          FSS

 

May 2016

 

November 2016

 

2. The bodies involved and the share of responsibilities among bodies
The Swedish Board of Agriculture is the sole responsible body for this survey.

 

3. Serious deviations from the established timetable (if any)
No deviation from calendar.
3.1. Source data
1. Source of data
Different sources were used during the data collection. Further, some of the FSS characteristics were collected as a census while others were collected as a sample survey.

All agricultural holdings received a questionnaire. Questions regarding the main characteristics (on the holding, total areas, livestock excluding cattle, some important characteristics to locate the holding in registers and information on when the total holding is sold, rented or in some ways been closed) have been included in all questionnaires. A sample survey has been sent to approximately one third of the population where also questions about irrigation, other gainful activities, labour force, tillage methods, and manure application techniques have been included. 

For some characteristics, administrative registers were used to obtain data. Five administrative data sources were used during FSS 2016: IACS, the Bovine Register, the Organic Farming Register and the Register of Support for Rural Development. During the imputation process, the slaughter register, the Swedish education register, and the taxation register were also used. 

 

2. (Sampling) frame
The statistical farm register, which has been in use since 1968 as a frame for different agricultural surveys, was the frame for the FSS 2016.
The FSS 2016 frame population consisted of holdings from the FSS 2013 updated with information from holdings in the livestock survey for the years 2014 and 2015, and holdings applying for subsidies 2014, 2015 and 2016 (IACS). The frame was also updated with information from the poultry-, sheep- and pig registers. The last update of the frame was conducted in April 2016.

We combine IACS with the cattle register, and the last known value for other animal and horticulture production.

 

3. Sampling design
3.1 The sampling design
We used one-stage stratified random sampling of holdings. It is a probability design. We used simple random sampling in each stratum.
3.2 The stratification variables
The frame was divided into 129 different strata. The variables for stratification were divided into:
  • counties (NUTS 3),
  • area of agricultural land,
  • number of animals of different kinds,
  • specialised holdings with turkeys, hens, chickens, gilts,
  • new holdings according to pig-, poultry-, sheep register and the horticultural division of the federation of Swedish farmers (GRO) plus holdings from the “Register survey”,
  • holdings that do not longer exist in IACS or other registers.

The principles for building up strata were almost the same as for earlier farm structure surveys. However this time we also made a poststratification due to the fact that 634 new holdings were discovered in IACS after the frame was finalised. The total number of strata in the end in the file was 232 due to this issue.

3.3 The full coverage strata
Sampling ratios of 100% were used:
  • in the strata with holdings of large size in some respect. Total survey of these strata was important for acquiring high statistical precision and thus producing statistics with high quality.
  • in all the strata containing new holdings from different animal registers. This was done because of the lack of information for these holdings which made it difficult to use correct pre-stratification.
  • for holdings with more than 100 ha cereals + green fodder, more than 800 pigs, more than 100 sheep;
  • for holdings with a lot of labour force, holdings with a lot of irrigation, holdings with large areas of fruit trees, holdings with a lot of turkeys, holdings with a lot of hens, holdings with a lot of chickens, holdings with a lot of boars and new holdings without animals and pasture of more than 10 ha.
3.4 The method for the determination of the overall sample size
The overall sample size was determined through simulation of standard deviations with different sample sizes in strata.  Sample sizes in strata were decided from optimum allocations for different variables. The maximum sample size in each stratum for the different allocations was  chosen as the size of the stratum. The final sample size was decided when both internal demands as well as precision requirements from EU-regulation was accomplished.
3.5 The method for the allocation of the overall sample size
For each of the non-exhaustive strata, the number of holdings to be selected from each stratum was determined by Neyman allocation. This allocation was based on: area of pasture land,  area of grain land, number of bovines, number of pigs, number of sheep and number of animal units. The final sample size for each stratum was usually chosen as the highest of the sample sizes according to the different Neyman allocations.
3.6 Sampling across time
A new sample is drawn in each survey.
3.7 The software tool used in the sample selection
SAS
3.8 Other relevant information, if any
None.

 

4. Use of administrative data sources
4.1 Name, time reference and updating
The IACS register was developed based on the Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, and contains information from the applications for the single farm payments. When applying for single farm payments the farms have to declare the use of all agricultural areas on the holding; e.g. crops grown, the area for each crop, or the fallow area. The definitions of crop areas in IACS are in line with the definitions in the farm structure surveys. Further, the relevant areas in IACS can be translated to corresponding areas in the farm register. The reference data for the FSS 2016 was June 2, which corresponds with the reference time (crop year) in the IACS for single farm payment. 


The Bovine Register, in Sweden called the Central Cattle Register (CDB), was set up in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of 17 July 2000. The register’s main objective is to make it possible to trace contagious animal diseases. The Commission approved the CDB in Sweden for use in pursuing this main objective from 1 November 1999. The register has also been approved to be used for other objectives and since 2000 it has been used, and served as the basis, for various EU cattle premiums (special beef premium, slaughter premium, suckler cow premium, extensification aid, etc.).

The CDB is made up of the following two main parts:
- One part contains information on the identity of individual animals, both living and dead, such as sex, date of birth, breed and age.
- Another part contains information on events relating to individual animals, such as birth, slaughter, purchase and sale as well as transfer between different holdings, etc.

Farmers with bovine animals must report each event for each individual animal, such as birth, transfer, sale for slaughter, etc., to CDB within seven days. A calf should be tagged within 20 days of birth and then reported within seven days to CDB. Late reporting will incur additional charges for the farmer. The reference date for the transmission of the information from CDB to the farm register was June 2, which is the same date as the reference date for the FSS 2016.

The Organic Farming Register is based on the Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91. In 2016 there were three control bodies on the market working with controls of agricultural holdings on which organic farming methods are applied. The control bodies are authorised by the Swedish Board for Accreditation and Conformity Assessment. The data concerning the characteristics on organic farming in FSS 2016 are based on existing information on individual holdings in registers at the control bodies.

The register of Support for Rural Development is based on the Swedish Board of Agriculture and contains information about all holdings seeking support for different kinds of rural development.

There is also a number of registers used to build the sampling frame and to give information for having the best possible sampling design. These registers are livestock registers for pigs, sheep and poultry combined with registers on slaughtering of animals. 

During the imputation process, the slaughter register, the Swedish education register, and the taxation register were also used. 

4.2 Organisational setting on the use of administrative sources
The Official Statistics Ordinance (2001:100) states that data from registers (i.e. administrative data or registers produced within the statistical system) should be used when possible. This means that the organizations responsible for administrative registers are obliged to provide this information.

The Swedish Board of Agriculture security classifies all documents, databases etc. according to their content of information. For all information, whether it is in a database or in an Excel sheet, there is a person that is designated as the owner of the information. Risk analyses are made each year. The statistical unit is not included in the conceptual design of the administrative sources. However, due to the total response burden put on farmers we have the possibilities to make our opinion on possible deletion of data from administrative sources.

4.3 The purpose of the use of administrative sources - link to the file
 To lower respondent burden. Please find the information at the following 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) IACS, CDB: Both of registers use personal numbers (social security numbers), production place number or application ID as the key variables. IACS, CDB: There is not an exact correspondence between the responsible person/enterprise (the reporting unit) in these registers and the definition of holding in the farm structure surveys. In the farm register, one or more personal numbers, production place numbers or application IDs can be at one holding. See item 3.1-4.6 for information.
- coherence of definitions of characteristics  IACS:The definitions of crop areas and other areas in IACS are in line with the definitions in the farm structure surveys and the relevant areas in IACS can be translated to corresponding areas in the farm register. The reference date in FSS 2016 is June 2, which corresponds to the reference time (crop year) in the system for single farm payments.    
CDB:  The reported information about bovine animals in CDB, such as date of birth and sex, can together with information in a milk database on milk deliveries to dairies be translated to the definitions of the different kinds of bovines in FSS 2016.
The reference date for the transmission of information from CDB to the farm register is June 2, the same reference date as for FSS 2016.
CDB: However, as all cows on holdings delivering milk to dairies are considered to be milk cows, there will be a small overestimation of the number of milk cows and a corresponding underestimation of the number of other cows. The same method is used in the statistical surveys on cattle according to the Council Directive 93/24/EEC.  
- coverage:      
  over-coverage   IACS and CDB: There are holdings in the registers that are under our thresholds. IACS and CDB: The over-coverage holdings are removed.
  under-coverage   IACS does not contain information from all statistical holdings in the target population:  newly created holdings, which belong to the 2016 target population, which did not apply for subsidies in 2016 (and thus were not included in IACS) and also were not found in the poultry-, sheep or pig registers but were above the threshold values for inclusion in the target population, were not included in the survey. The number of such holdings is estimated to be very small, as it is considered to be very rare in Sweden to have newly established holdings which do not appear in any of the mentioned registers.  
  CDB: No under-coverage. We estimate that the number of unreported events in CDB is negligible.  
  misclassification   IACS: No misclassifications.  
CDB:  In CDB we have to use a model to distinguish milk cows from other cows however it is not a misclassification on the variable cows. IACS: No misclassifications.  
  multiple listings   There was a risk for duplicate or multiple listings in the frame. This is due to the fact that the frame consists of holdings appearing in IACS and other holdings that are not. In some cases, when creating the frame population, it was not possible to merge the two kinds of holdings. In some cases the same holding could receive two questionnaires. If the same holding received two questionnaires, the respondent was asked to respond on one of the questionnaires. However, because of non-response and partial non-response, there were still some duplicates left after the survey was conducted.
- missing data   IACS and CDB: There are no missing data in either IACS nor CDB.  
- errors in data   IACS: There are controls on a part of the holdings about the information delivered by the farmers. The farmers may also lose some part of the single farm payment if the reported areas are incorrect. IACS: In the questionnaires the holders are asked to give information about the total area of arable land and total area of pasture and meadow. The total agricultural area from IACS, for individual holdings, is not always corresponding to the information given by the holders in the questionnaires. In the end, data from IACS is used for crop areas and areas of pasture and meadows. This procedure could cause errors on individual holdings. However the procedure used should not cause any systematic errors.
We estimate that the errors in the register variables are negligible.
 
CDB: There are both administrative controls and field-controls on part of the holdings and the farmers may lose some part of the single farm payments if the reported information is incorrect. We estimate that the errors in the register variables are negligible.  
- processing errors   We estimate that the processing errors are very small.  
- comparability   The coherence to other data is very good.  
- other (if any) IACS: We are able to extract data from the register in a few days after the deadline for applications. IACS: The register is very stable.  
CDB: We are able to extract data whenever we want. The holders are to inform the register within 7 days of any changes pertaining to their cattle. CDB: The register is very stable.  

 

4.5 Management of metadata
IACS: Metadata for IACS is described in a separate database table. Here, the property is described for all values stored, type label, description, field length, type of field, if included in the xml, where it comes from device, where to save, etc. The information on metadata is saved since the beginning of IACS.

CDB: Metadata for CDB is described in a separate database table. Here, the property is described for all values stored, type label, description, field length, type of field, if included in the xml, where it comes from device, where to save, etc. The information on metadata is saved since the beginning of CDB.

Organic Register: Metadata for the organic register is described in a electronic way.

Register of Support for Rural Development: Metadata for the register of support for Rural development is described in a separate database table. Here, the property is described for all values stored, type label, description, field length, type of field, if included in the xml, where it comes from device, where to save, etc. The metadata information is saved since the beginning of register.

4.6 Reporting units and matching procedures
IACS: The reporting units are single persons and legal holdings which send applications to the Swedish Board of Agriculture.
There is no exact correspondence between the responsible person/holding (the reporting unit) applying for single farm payment and the definition of the holding in the Farm Structure Surveys. One holding can/could consist of several persons applying for the single farm payment.
The main linkage between the holdings in the statistical farm register and the reporting units in IACS is the personal number for natural persons and organisational number for legal holdings. These numbers are unique for each entity. In the farm register, there is for every holding registered one personal number for each farmer on the holding. For units mismatching according to this method, the client number for the single payment application at the Swedish Board of Agriculture followed by production location number is used. All remaining reporting units in IACS are considered to form new holdings in the farm register.

CDB: There is not an exact correspondence between the responsible person/enterprise (the reporting unit) for bovine animals and the definition of holding in the farm structure surveys. This is because the holders in the statistical farm register are not necessarily the persons responsible for the reporting to CDB. In some cases, the holding has more than one production location in the farm register with different persons responsible for reporting to CDB. 

The main linkage between the holdings in the statistical farm register and the reporting units in CDB is the personal number for natural persons and organisational number for legal enterprises. These numbers are unique for each entity. In the farm register there is for every holding registered one personal number for each farmer on the holding. For units that mismatch according to this method, the linkage characteristics production location is used.
There can be some minor problems with linking some of the cattle to the right holding. This is because we may not have details of all of the persons in each holding. In that case, we may have to start a new holding.

Organic Register: The registers at the control bodies cover all holdings applying organic farming methods or are in the conversion period. The control bodies transmit the following information to the Board of Agriculture every year:

  • the personal/organisational number of the holder or holding,
  • the client number of the holding at the control body,
  • what kind of crops are grown and the corresponding areas in combination with if the areas were under conversion or converted,
  • organic production methods applied in the animal production.

Information on addresses and telephone numbers of the holder/holding are also transmitted by the control bodies.

In the FSS questionnaires, holders were asked to fill in their client number at the control body. By using the personal/organisational number of the holding combined with the information on client number at the control body and in the FSS questionnaires, a link between the Organic Farming Register and the statistical farm register could be established. In cases of mismatch, addresses and telephone numbers were also used to link holdings in the different registers. In the end, there were only a few mismatches left.

Register of Support for Rural Development: The definition of the reporting unit is the same as for the holdings applying for the single farm payment.
Hence, the identification of the units is also the same, i.e. the personal number for natural persons and organisational number for legal holdings. Should there be a mismatch, the client number at the Swedish Board of Agriculture is used.

4.7 Difficulties using additional administrative sources not currently used
There are some registers that are currently evaluated for the possibilities to use them. Especially the sheep register is discussed. The problem at the moment is that reference day is in December and that the number of animals is not divided into different categories.
3.2. Frequency of data collection
Frequency of data collection
Data that are collected from questionnaires are collected once, in the beginning of June. These are complemented with register data collected at different points in time but reflecting the situation on the holding on the reference date for the survey.
3.3. Data collection
1. Data collection modes
Five different data collecting channels were used during the agricultural census – FSS 2016: paper questionnaires, web questionnaires, administrative registers, modelling and telephone interviews.

 

2. Data entry modes
The process of data entry for the incoming paper questionnaires could be divided into 5 stages:

1. sorting of incoming paper questionnaires (SF1, SF2, SJ1, SJ2, L),
2. registration of the questionnaires,
3. optical scanning (hereafter Scanning),
4. verifying,
5. transfer of data from the IT-system to the database.

When the questionnaires arrived at the Swedish Board of Agriculture, they were sorted by the FSS team in three different groups - one per kind of questionnaire (1). Then by scanning the barcode, each questionnaire was registered on the IT-system (2).

 

3. Measures taken to increase response rates
In order to minimise the non-response, the following measures were taken:  

Written reminders by post and by email
During the data collection procedure, three reminders were sent out to the holdings which did not provide information within the deadline for the survey (June 23, 2016). An e-mail reminder was sent to holdings we had an email-address to, on June 21, 2016. The first written reminder was sent out on June 29, the second one on July 25, while the third one was sent out in August 20, 2016.

Telephone interviews/Follow-up interviews
Telephone interviews were used to complete partly answered questionnaires in order to reduce the non-response. The highest partial non-response rate was on the section of labour force and rural development of the FSS questionnaires.
Telephone interviews and follow-up interviews were planned in such a way as to give priority to important large holdings. About 5 % of the holdings were telephone interviewed by the FSS staff. Telephone interviews were conducted between August 10- October 15, 2016.

 

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

71 524
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

3 Number of ineligible holdings 8 587
3.1 Number of ineligible holdings with ceased activities

This item is a subset of 3.

7 931
4 Number of holdings with unknown eligibility status

4>4.1+4.2

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

5=5.1+5.2

62 937
5.1 Number of eligible non-responding holdings

5.1>=5.1.1+5.1.2

3 412
5.1.1 Number of eligible non-responding holdings – re-weighted 0
5.1.2 Number of eligible non-responding holdings – imputed 3 412
5.2 Number of eligible responding holdings 59 525
6 Number of the records in the dataset 

6=5.2+5.1.2+4.2

62 937

 

5. Questionnaire(s) - in annex
There are five different questionnaires depending on the holder. In all questionnaires, we collected data to be able to link the holding to administrative data.

Questionnaire 1 - This was the smallest questionnaire where only data on areas and animals was collected. This questionnaire was received by all holdings that were not included in the FSS-sample.

Questionnaire 2 - In this questionnaire, all variables that were to be collected in the FSS were included, except data that was collected from administrative sources. The population that received this questionnaire were natural persons that were not included in a sample survey on manure and tillage methods conducted by Statistics Sweden in the same period.

Questionnaire 3 - The same questionnaire as questionnaire 2 except the question on manure and tillage methods that was deleted from this questionnaire because these holdings were included in the sample survey on the same topics conducted by Statistics Sweden. The holdings that received this questionnaire were natural persons.

Questionnaire 4 - In this questionnaire, all variables that were to be collected in the FSS were included, except data that was collected from administrative sources. The population that received this questionnaire were legal persons that were not included in a sample survey on manure and tillage methods conducted by Statistics Sweden in the same period.

Questionnaire 5 - The same questionnaire as questionnaire 2 except the question on manure and tillage methods that were deleted from this questionnaire because these holdings were included in the sample survey on the same topics conducted by Statistics Sweden. The holdings that received this questionnaire were legal persons.

The differences between questionnaires 2 and 4 and between questionnaires 3 and 5 are the questions on labour force where the questions were put in different ways. In questionnaires 3 and 5, questions on manure and tillage methods were not included.



Annexes:
3.3-5. Questionnaire 1
3.3-5. Questionnaire 2
3.3-5. Questionnaire 3
3.3-5. Questionnaire 4
3.3-5. Questionnaire 5
3.4. Data validation
Data validation
Computer checks were made of individual data on the questionnaires. Checking criteria were supplied for checking different parts of the report. These comprised:
  • completeness checks (database),
  • summation and arithmetic checks (IT-system),
  • checks of extreme values (outliers) (IT-system),
  • logic and relational checks,
  • checks of unusual combinations (database).

Data, which did not meet one or more of the checking criteria, were checked manually. In many cases, the identified errors could be corrected using data from the questionnaires. In some cases, the respondents were contacted by telephone and in those cases also such information was asked for, which had not been completed in the questionnaires. The instructions, which were in force for the total survey process, generally permitted the data to be corrected or completed by the staff directly on PC.

The software used in this part of the process was SAS, and Excel.

Data validation has been done at central collection centre.

3.5. Data compilation
Methodology for determination of weights (extrapolation factors)
1. Design weights
The extrapolation factor was calculated using Horvitz-Thompson estimation in each stratum. The extrapolation factor was N/n in each stratum.
2. Adjustment of weights for non-response
The weighing scheme was produced on the units that responded. Weights are only used for those variables included in the sample survey.
3. Adjustment of weights to external data sources
No adjustments of weights to external data sources have been done.
4. Any other applied adjustment of weights
No other adjustments of weights.
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 
The FSS 2016 was carried out as a combination of variables for national purposes and variables surveyed according to EU requirements, Regulation (EC) No 1166/2008. The agricultural survey 2016 included following information and statistical characteristics:

a) information about the holding: holder’s name, address, personal or organisational number, telephone number, e-mail address, client number in the administrative register for single farm payment, client number in the register of organic farming (at the control body), and production location number for bovine animals,

b) areas of different types of land,

c) areas of different crops,

d) set-aside areas under the EU aid programme,

e) number of livestock of different kinds,

f) organic farming: utilised agricultural area (converted and under conversion) and organic production methods in animal production,

g) farm labour force,

h) other gainful activity,

i)  irrigation,

j)  rural development,

k) soil cover,

l)  manure application techniques.

The statistical characteristics b)-l) were collected in order to produce the customary annual national statistics of farm structure as well as to fulfil the EU requirements on agricultural statistics.

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 in the file at the link: (link available as soon as possible)
5.3.1. Data completeness - rate

[Not requested]


6. Accuracy and reliability Top
6.1. Accuracy - overall
Main sources of error
The main source of error should be the item non-response rate that in some cases is quite high. In labour force there are variables that have a non-response rate as high as 50%.
6.2. Sampling error
Method used for estimation of relative standard errors (RSEs)
The extrapolation factor was calculated using Horvitz-Thompson estimation in each stratum. The extrapolation factor was N/n in each stratum. The Relative Standard Error (RSE) is for some main characteristics presented in the tables attached, even though these characteristics are collected from each population unit, in order to illustrate the overall quality of the sample. The RSE concerns extrapolation from the sample. The RSE is calculated using formula ∑Nh(Nh-nh)sh2/nh .
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
All RSEs are below the precision requirements.


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

See below

6.3.1. Coverage error
1. Under-coverage errors
Newly created holdings, belonging to the 2016 target population, and, which did not apply for subsidies in 2016 (and thus were not included in IACS), or were not found in the poultry-, sheep- or pig registers, but were above the threshold values for inclusion in the target population, were not included in the survey. The number of such holdings is estimated to be very small. It is considered to be rare in Sweden to have newly established holdings that do not appear in any of the mentioned registers.

The farm register was updated when respondents reported changes on holdings according to the instructions in the questionnaires. When the reported data were inadequate, further investigations were necessary. In general, the remaining degree of under-coverage was considered to be so small that no correction for this was needed.

  

2. Over-coverage errors
Over coverage - holdings which are not part of the 2016  target population (mainly holdings which have recently closed down)  have been identified and removed from the register and have not been included in the processing. The over-coverage in the survey is therefore negligible. These are not included in the calculation of weights.
2.1 Multiple listings 
The risk for duplication or multiple listings of holdings exists because of the fact that different sources are used for updating the farm register. The same holding can figurate in more than one register, but with different information. In other cases, more than one member of the holding can apply for subsidies for different parts of the land available within the same holding. The holdings that receive two questionnaires from the Swedish Board of Agriculture are obliged to answer only one of them, and fill in the ID-number of the unanswered questionnaire on a special field created for this purpose. Most of duplicates/multiple listings are identified at the end of the survey; however, having in mind that the survey is object of non-response and partial non-response, there is a risk that some duplications cannot be identified.

To minimise the risk for duplicates, all holdings with more than 10 hectares of arable land and not applying for single farm payment were removed. Holdings above 10 hectares are therefore assumed to apply for subsidies. Of course this assumption is not correct in every single case, but it is assumed to be the best estimate of the total number of holdings. About 600 holdings were eliminated this way.

 

3. Misclassification errors
Sweden uses an extraction from IACS and our animal registers that are very fresh (only a few weeks old compared to the survey day). If a holding was misclassified in the frame it will be reclassified with the new data. The holding will not change its stratum though. We also have low standard errors.

 

4. Contact errors
In some cases the first information on addresses was incorrect. The addresses of these holdings were found manually in most cases. However, they were very few.

 

5. Other relevant information, if any
Other coverage errors have not been detected and are estimated to be very small.
6.3.1.1. Over-coverage - rate
Over-coverage - rate
The over-coverage was 8 587 holdings. About 13.6 % of the final population and 12.0 % of the frame population.
6.3.1.2. Common units - proportion

[Not requested]

6.3.2. Measurement error
Characteristics that caused high measurement errors
The total measurement errors from questionnaires are estimated to be of insignificant magnitude. Farm structure censuses/surveys have been conducted annually in Sweden and therefore most of the holders/respondents are well acquainted with these surveys and the questionnaires used.
6.3.3. Non response error
1. Unit non-response: reasons, analysis and treatment
Some of non-responding holdings have probably been closed down, while others have been impossible to reach despite efforts with reminders by post and telephone calls. Only a few, 101 respondents, refused to fill in the questionnaire or give information at telephone contact. For part of these non-respondents, information about crops and bovines were found in IACS or CDB, which confirmed that these holdings still existed. The holdings where no information was found in administrative registers were closed down due to the risk of double counting, e.g. of crop areas.

Due to the low non-response we did not do any further analysis in the bias from the non-respondents.

The weights were recalculated for the unit non-response on the sample characteristics.

 

2. Item non-response: characteristics, reasons and treatment
Partial non-response was most frequent in the farm labour force section, other gainful activity section and the section on manure application techniques.

The partial non-response has been considered to be the most serious type of non-sampling errors.

To avoid bias from partial non-response, much work has been done to create new imputation methods minimizing the risk for bias from imputation.

6.3.3.1. Unit non-response - rate
Unit non-response - rate
2.5 % based on the part that was sampled and received a more extensive survey. 5.4 % on the total population.
6.3.3.2. Item non-response - rate
Item non-response - rate
In the farm labour force section about 72 % of the respondents had values that were imputed. However, only about 13 % had missing values for all characteristics in the labour force section.

In the section on other gainful activities, there was a non-respnonse on 27 % of the respondents.

In the section on manure application techniques, there was a non-response on 55 % of the respondents.

6.3.4. Processing error
1. Imputation methods
The methods differed depending on which part of the questionnaire needed to be imputed. The methods differed also if there were missing values in a whole section of the questionnaire or if only some single values in a section were missing. Imputation has been done for every section with help of values from other similar farms and sections.  

For the section General characteristics, general information about the holding and the holder was obtained from different registers.  These registers include: pig-, sheep- and fowl registers; registers on memberships for different horticultural associations; Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) for crop areas and CDB.

In cases where values were missing for a whole section of the questionnaire, such as the farm labour sector, the whole section was imputed with values from a similar farm which had answered this part of the questionnaire. A stratification based on the Swedish typology was used to categorise the holdings for these imputations. For the livestock section, the principle of last known value applied. For the irrigation section on the other hand, the last known values were used together with logical checks against the utilised agricultural area.

Single missing values were only imputed in few cases, and mainly within the labour force section. If for example the number of working hours was missing for one or more persons on the holding, then standard working hours on the holding were indirectly used for imputation. Further, with help of standard working hours on the holding the total expected number of hours worked on the holding was estimated. However, since the total standard working hours differs from the hours filled in by the holdings in the questionnaire, the quota between these two values on national level for 2010 was used as correction factor. These ´imputation hours´ were then distributed among the persons with missing value for the number of working hours.

The instructions, which were in force for the total survey process, generally permitted the data to be corrected or completed by the staff directly on PC.

 

2. Other sources of processing errors
Processing errors from the scanning procedure have been detected. These errors have as far as possible been taken care of through the means of different checks. Some other minor processing errors have also been detected. Overall, the errors from processing are estimated of non-significant magnitude, even though some errors can still exist on individual holdings.

 

3. Tools used and people/organisations authorised to make corrections
Interviews by telephone were written down on paper questionnaires and scanned into our IT-system. Other corrections were primarily made by SAS. The staff of the Statistics division at the Board of Agriculture made all of the corrections.
6.3.4.1. Imputation - rate
Imputation - rate
In the land characteristics, the imputation rate was between 0% and 9 % with the highest rate on forest land. However, the characteristics on irrigation were imputed at a rate of 26 %.
In the section on tillage approximately 19 % of values were imputed while in the section on soil cover aproximately 15 % of values were imputed.
In the livestock characteristics, there was no imputation on cattle as this data was taken from the cattle register. For other animals, there was an imputation rate in general between 0% and 4%. For turkeys and horses the imputation rate was 10 %.
In the farm labour force section, about 72 % of the respondents had at least one missing value. However, only about 13 % had missing values for all characteristics.
In the section on other gainful activities, there was an imputation rate of 27%.
In the section on manure application techniques there was a non-response on 55 % of the respondents.
In the section on support for rural development, all characteristics were collected from administrative data and therefore not imputed.
6.3.5. Model assumption error

[Not requested]

6.4. Seasonal adjustment

[Not requested]

6.5. Data revision - policy
Data revision - policy
If there are errors in data which has already been published, then the errors have to be documented and the data should be updated. Updated information together with a comment will be published.
6.6. Data revision - practice
Data revision - practice
Some data are published as “preliminary results” clearly informing that these can deviate from the final statistics which will be published later in accordance with the publication schedule set for national official statistics.
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
October 2016.
7.1.2. Time lag - final result
Time lag - final result
Time lag final results: 9 months.
7.2. Punctuality

See below

7.2.1. Punctuality - delivery and publication
Punctuality - delivery and publication
All publications were delivered on time.


8. Coherence and comparability Top
8.1. Comparability - geographical
1. National vs. EU definition of the agricultural holding
The national definition of holdings in SE is the same as the EU definition stated by article 2 and Annex I in Regulation 1166/2008.

 

2.National survey coverage vs. coverage of the records sent to Eurostat
There are no differences in the coverage of records for national purpose compared to the records sent to Eurostat.

 

3. National vs. EU characteristics
The version no. 11 of the handbook has been used to implement the FSS-definitions.
No difference between national and EU definitions has been used.
Full time employees are considered at 1800 hours calculation AWU.

 

4. Common land
4.1 Current methodology for collecting information on the common land
Common land is a NE characteristic in Sweden and therefore was not included in the list of the characteristics to be surveyed during FSS 2016.
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
We do not have any common land.
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
No differences.

 

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
There are no differences between national standards and rules for certification of organic products and the ones set out in Council Regulation 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 no changes.

 

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. We always have the first Thursday in June as reference day for livestock which means that the actual date has been changed from 5 June to 2 June. Other changes are always due to changes in wording more than changes in definitions. Also changes in instructions received by holdings have been done. In general definitions have not been changed but minor changes and clarifications may change the understanding of the characteristics.

 

4. Changes over time in the results as compared to previous FSS, which may be attributed to sampling variability
No changes. Both the 2013 and the 2016 farm structure surveys were conducted as sample surveys.

 

5. Common land
5.1 Possible changes in the decision or in the methodology to collect common land
Sweden does not have any common land units.
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
Sweden does not have any common land units.

 

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 62 937  67 146  -6,3 %   
Utilised agricultural area (ha) 3 021 351  3 028 623  -0,2 %   
Arable land (ha) 2 565 449 2 581 169 -0,6 %   
Cereals (ha) 1 020 228 984 984 3,6 %   
Industrial plants (ha) 102 373  131 708  -22,3 %  There was a decrease in mainly spring rape
Plants harvested green (ha) 1 118 826  1 177 375  -5,0 %   
Fallow land (ha) 172 499  161 639  6,7 %   
Permanent grassland (ha) 451 943  442 896 2,0 %   
Permanent crops (ha) 3 959  4 558 -13,1 %  There has been some changes in the reporting of cultivation of grass. Approximately 400 ha that previously was reported under permanent crops seems now to be reported under Other arable land (B_1_11). This is due to a change in IACS.
Livestock units (LSU) 1 705 792 1 711 738 -0,3 %   
Cattle (heads) 1 488 904  1 496 526 -0,5 %   
Sheep (heads) 578 174  576 769 0,2 %   
Goats (heads)       Goats is a non-significant characteristic.
Pigs (heads) 1 354 286  1 398 875 -3,2 %   
Poultry (heads) 18 784 557  16 620 232 13,0 %  The number of poultry can differ considerably between the years. This is due to some stables beeing empty on the day that we conducted the survey.
Family labour force (persons) 107 131  108 739  -1,5 %   
Family labour force (AWU) 37 606  40 616  -7,4 %   
Non family labour force regularly employed (persons) 22 146  21 971  0,8 %   
Non family labour force regularly employed (AWU) 14 212  15 052  -5,6 %   
8.2.1. Length of comparable time series

[Not requested]

8.3. Coherence - cross domain
1. Coherence at micro level with other data collections
We use administrative registers for data on areas and cattle. For these items, there is no difference between our national and the FSS results.

 

2. Coherence at macro level with other data collections
We conduct surveys of pigs, sheep and poultry each year. The results are compared to the latest surveys. The results for animals were also compared with production figures. We also compare our results with the Economic Account for Agriculture (EAA). The comparisons that were made confirmed that the results for the survey are in a reasonable level.

The FSS statistics are fully reconcilable with statistics obtained from other sources.
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 data collected during the agricultural survey FSS 2016 was disseminated free of charge in the series Statistical Reports on the official website of the Swedish Board of Agriculture www.jordbruksverket.se under the heading Statistics, and on the website of the Statistics Sweden www.scb.se. These Statistical Reports were divided by subject, and in addition to the statistical results, also included a short description of the survey methodology. For each Statistical Report, this methodological report together with a quality declaration aiming to explain the quality of the statistics was published. The results of the Farm Structure Survey are also published together with other agricultural statistics in the Agricultural Statistics Yearbook.

 

2. Date of issuing (actual or planned)
From the FSS 2016, following publications/reports have been disseminated:

 

Name of the report Reference Publication data
Livestock in June 2016. Preliminary results JO 20 1601 October 17, 2016
Use of agricultural land 2016. Final results JO 10 1701 March 23, 2017
Livestock in June 2016. Final results  JO 20 1701 March 31, 2017
Type of farming 2016. Swedish typology JO 35 1701 April 18, 2017
Holding and Holders 2016 JO 34 1701 May 5, 2017
Other gainful activities on agricultural holdings 2016 JO 47 1701 June 13, 2017
Farm labor force 2016 JO 30 1701 June 27, 2017
Full-time farming in Sweden 2016 JO 65 1701 October 17, 2017
Drainage of agricultural land 2016 JO 41 1701 November 22, 2017

 

3. References for on-line publications
The data from the FSS 2016 has also been published on the On-line Statistical Database of the Swedish Board of Agriculture, which can be found on the following link: http://statistik.sjv.se/PXWeb/pxweb/sv/Jordbruksverkets%20statistikdatabas/?rxid=5adf4929-f548-4f27-9bc9-78e127837625
9.3. Dissemination format - online database
Dissemination format - online database
http://statistik.sjv.se/PXWeb/pxweb/sv/Jordbruksverkets%20statistikdatabas/?rxid=5adf4929-f548-4f27-9bc9-78e127837625
9.3.1. Data tables - consultations
Data tables - consultations
In 2016, there was the following number of consultations in each area:
  • Livestock: 4 656;
  • Agricultural holdings and holders: 1 300;
  • Use of agricultural land: 3 872;
  • Labour force: 288;


For January-March 2017, there was the following number of consultations:

  • Livestock: 1 110;
  • Agricultural holdings and holders: 443;
  • Use of agricultural land: 1 099;
  • Labour force: 79.

In each area, there is a number of different tables to consult: 7 different for livestock, 5 for agricultural holdings and holders, 7 for use of agricultural land and 4 for labour force.
9.4. Dissemination format - microdata access
Dissemination format - microdata access
Microdata is made available to external users for research purposes only after ensuring that all identification information on the holder and the holding itself has been removed.
9.5. Dissemination format - other

[Not requested]

9.6. Documentation on methodology
1. Available documentation on methodology
Imputations, together with information on how we search for missing values are documented. We also keep meeting notes from both FSS and our methodology group meetings. All documentation is in Swedish, and can be made public if needed.

 

2. Main scientific references
Cochran, W - Sampling techniques;

Code of Practice by the Statistics division at the Swedish Board of Agriculture.

9.7. Quality management - documentation
Quality management - documentation
We work in accordance with the principles laid down on Code of Practice.

For each publication made, we have an advanced documentation, describing in-depth all the steps required until the final publication.

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
We do coordinate the survey with the survey on livestock. This means that we use the same reference date for the livestock survey and in the questionnaire (and for the register data on cattle) we make the questionnaire on the lowest category (e.g. the categories specified by the Regulation 1165/2008 on livestock statistics).

We also made a special survey on drainage and irrigation at the same time as the FSS.


11. Confidentiality Top
11.1. Confidentiality - policy
Confidentiality - policy
The confidentiality of the data was kept in accordance with Act 24, 8 § of the Swedish confidentiality law on statistics (SFS 2009:400). According to this Act, the data provided by the holdings cannot be used for other reasons than statistical and research purposes. In both these cases, information that could identify the holder and the holding itself should be hidden. The questionnaires sent in by the farmers were disclosed only for the staff of the Statistics Division, and could not be shown to anyone outside of the division. All the personnel working within the Statistical Division of the Swedish Board of Agriculture (including the ones employed to work with the FSS 2016) had to sign a statistical confidentiality form which guaranteed the use and the storage of the data in accordance with the confidentiality law.
11.2. Confidentiality - data treatment
Confidentiality - data treatment
The Swedish confidentiality law on statistics (SFS 2009:400) applies during the dissemination of the results. To ensure non-identification of individual holdings in the dissemination, the number of holdings within a region or municipality is not disclosed if the region or the municipality in question has less than three agricultural holdings. In such cases the symbol [..] is given in the table cell.


12. Comment Top
1. Possible improvements in the future
After each FSS we conduct interviews with the temporary staff employed to work the FSS. They give us valuable input in form of lesson learned that we use for planning for the next FSS. We also have something that we call "the perfect farm register", consisting of multiple checks that we perform on each holding in order to find abnormalities in the figures.

We also have a continuing improvement to collect every person that works in the holding. This is important, because we use that information to connect the holding to different registers that we have.

We are also planning to develop a completely new IT-system for data collection to be used during the Farm Structure Census 2020. The IT-system will be finished and tested for smaller surveys during 2019.

 

2. Other annexes
Not available.


Related metadata Top


Annexes Top