|
For any question on data and metadata, please contact: Eurostat user support |
|
|||
1.1. Contact organisation | Central Statistics Office |
||
1.2. Contact organisation unit | Agriculture Surveys Section |
||
1.5. Contact mail address | Central Statistics Office, Skehard Road, Cork, Ireland |
|
|||
2.1. Metadata last certified | 03/06/2024 | ||
2.2. Metadata last posted | 03/06/2024 | ||
2.3. Metadata last update | 03/06/2024 |
|
|||
3.1. Data description | |||
The data describe the structure of agricultural holdings providing the general characteristics of farms and farmers and information on their land, livestock and labour force. They also describe production methods, rural development measures and agro-environmental aspects that look at the impact of agriculture on the environment. The data are used by public, researchers, farmers and policy-makers to better understand the state of the farming sector and the impact of agriculture on the environment. The data follow up the changes in the agricultural sector and provide a basis for decision-making in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and other European Union policies. The statistical unit is the agricultural holding (farm). The aggregated results are disseminated through statistical tables. The data are presented at different geographical levels and over periods. |
|||
3.2. Classification system | |||
Data are arranged in tables using many classifications. Please find below information on most classifications. The classifications of variables are available in Annex III of Regulation (EU) 2018/1091 and in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1874. The farm typology means a uniform classification of the holdings based on their type of farming and their economic size. Both are determined on the basis of the standard gross margin (SGM) (until 2007) or standard output (SO) (from 2010 onward) which is calculated for each crop and animal. The farm type is determined by the relative contribution of the different productions to the total standard gross margin or the standard output of the holding. The territorial classification uses the NUTS classification to break down the regional data. The regional data is available at NUTS level 2. |
|||
3.3. Coverage - sector | |||
The statistics cover agricultural holdings undertaking agricultural activities as listed in item 3.5 below and meeting the minimum coverage requirements (thresholds) as listed in item 3.6 below. |
|||
3.4. Statistical concepts and definitions | |||
The list of core variables is set in Annex III of Regulation (EU) 2018/1091. The descriptions of the core variables as well as the lists and descriptions of the variables for the modules collected in 2020 are set in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1874. The following groups of variables are collected in 2020:
|
|||
3.5. Statistical unit | |||
See sub-category below. |
|||
3.5.1. Definition of agricultural holding | |||
The agricultural holding is a single unit, both technically and economically, that has a single management and that undertakes economic activities in agriculture in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1893/2006 belonging to groups: - A.01.1: Growing of non-perennial crops - A.01.2: Growing of perennial crops - A.01.3: Plant propagation - A.01.4: Animal production - A.01.5: Mixed farming or - The “maintenance of agricultural land in good agricultural and environmental condition” of group A.01.6 within the economic territory of the Union, either as its primary or secondary activity. Regarding activities of class A.01.49, only the activities “Raising and breeding of semi-domesticated or other live animals” (with the exception of raising of insects) and “Bee-keeping and production of honey and beeswax” are included. |
|||
3.6. Statistical population | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
3.6.1. Population covered by the core data sent to Eurostat (main frame and if applicable frame extension) | |||
The thresholds of agricultural holdings are available in the annex. Annexes: 3.6.1. Thresholds of agricultural holdings |
|||
3.6.1.1. Raised thresholds compared to Regulation (EU) 2018/1091 | |||
No | |||
3.6.1.2. Lowered and/or additional thresholds compared to Regulation (EU) 2018/1091 | |||
No | |||
3.6.2. Population covered by the data sent to Eurostat for the modules “Labour force and other gainful activities”, “Rural development” and “Machinery and equipment” | |||
The same population of agricultural holdings defined in item 3.6.1 i.e. above at least one of the thresholds set in Regulation (EU) 2018/1091. The above answer holds for the modules ‘Labour force and other gainful activities’ and ‘Rural development’. The module ‘Machinery and equipment’ is not collected in 2020. |
|||
3.6.3. Population covered by the data sent to Eurostat for the module “Animal housing and manure management” | |||
The subset of the population of agricultural holdings defined in item 3.6.2 with at least one of the following: bovine animals, pigs, sheep, goats, poultry. |
|||
3.7. Reference area | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
3.7.1. Geographical area covered | |||
The entire territory of the country. |
|||
3.7.2. Inclusion of special territories | |||
Not applicable. |
|||
3.7.3. Criteria used to establish the geographical location of the holding | |||
The most important parcel by physical size | |||
3.7.4. Additional information reference area | |||
Not applicable. |
|||
3.8. Coverage - Time | |||
A Farm Structure Survey (FSS) is carried out between Censuses to measure changes in Farm Structure. The first Census of Agriculture (COA) in Ireland was carried out in 1847, and annually thereafter until 1953. Between 1960 and 1980 Censuses were carried out at 5 yearly intervals. From 1980 Censuses were carried out at 10 yearly intervals. There is an available time series from the 1850s to the present day for the number of holdings, livestock totals and utilised agricultural area. |
|||
3.9. Base period | |||
The 2020 data are processed (by Eurostat) with 2017 standard output coefficients (calculated as a 5-year average of the period 2015-2019). For more information, you can consult the definition of the standard output. |
|
|||
Two kinds of units are generally used:
|
|
|||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
5.1. Reference period for land variables | |||
The use of land refers to the reference year 2020, as land variables are obtained from the IACS system, the 12-month reference period is January 1 2020 to December 31 2020. In the case of successive crops from the same piece of land, the land use refers to a crop that is harvested during the reference year, regardless of when the crop in question is sown. |
|||
5.2. Reference period for variables on irrigation and soil management practices | |||
The 12-month reference for total irrigable area is January 1 2020 to December 31 2020. |
|||
5.3. Reference day for variables on livestock and animal housing | |||
The reference day of 1 June within the reference year 2020. |
|||
5.4. Reference period for variables on manure management | |||
The 12-month period ending on 31 December 2020. This period includes the reference day used for livestock and animal housing. |
|||
5.5. Reference period for variables on labour force | |||
The 12-month period ending on 31 December within the reference year 2020. |
|||
5.6. Reference period for variables on rural development measures | |||
The three-year period ending on 31 December 2020. |
|||
5.7. Reference day for all other variables | |||
The reference day of 1 June within the reference year 2020. |
|
|||
6.1. Institutional Mandate - legal acts and other agreements | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
6.1.1. National legal acts and other agreements | |||
Legal act | |||
6.1.2. Name of national legal acts and other agreements | |||
The statistical activities for the CSO are governed by the Statistics Act, 1993. This act provides the legislative framework for the CSO. It sets put the right of the Office to conduct statistical inquiries (See Part III – Collection of Information of the Act). Part III (Section 25) of the Statistics Act specifies that a ministerial order can be put in place to prescribe persons and undertakings to provide information under the Act. Such an order was deemed necessary for the Census of Agriculture and was published before data collection commenced. The Order is named the Statistics (Census of Agriculture) Order 2020. Part II (Section 20, 21 and 22) of the Statistics Act specifies the responsibilities of the CSO staff. It should be noted that as the COA is a Paper Data Collection and Computer Assisted Web Interviewing (CAWI) Census, enumerators do not directly visit farms/respondents. |
|||
6.1.3. Link to national legal acts and other agreements | |||
https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1993/act/21/enacted/en/html https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/si/281/made/en/print |
|||
6.1.4. Year of entry into force of national legal acts and other agreements | |||
The Statistics Act entered into force in 1993 and the Statistics (Census of Agriculture) Order entered into force in 2020. |
|||
6.1.5. Legal obligations for respondents | |||
Yes | |||
6.2. Institutional Mandate - data sharing | |||
Part IV of the Statistics Act, 1993, mentioned above grants the CSO right of access to records of public authorities for statistical purposes (with a number of exceptions). Specifically under the Act, the CSO may request any public authority to provide data that they hold as a source of statistical information and, where appropriate and practical, developing its recording methods and systems for statistical purposes. This underpins co-operation with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) on the subject of its farm registers. (See Part IV – Use of Records of Public Authorities for Statistical Purposes of the Act above.) DAFM and the CSO have strengthened their relationship over the previous number of years and a Memorandum of Understanding underpins the data sharing agreements. |
|
|||
7.1. Confidentiality - policy | |||
All information returned on COA questionnaires is treated as strictly confidential and is used for statistical purposes only. This is guaranteed by both Irish and EU law. Section 33 of the Statistics Act 1993 states: 33.(1) No information obtained in any way under this Act or the repealed enactments which can be related to an identifiable person or undertaking shall, except with the written consent of that person or undertaking or the personal representative or next-of-kin of a deceased person, be disseminated, shown or communicated to any person or body except as follows: ( a ) for the purposes of a prosecution for an offence under this Act; ( b ) to officers of statistics in the course of their duties under this Act; ( c ) for the purposes of recording such information solely for the use of the Office in such form and manner as is provided for by a contract in writing made by the Director General which protects its confidentiality to his satisfaction. The Act guarantees the confidentiality of all data provided, expressly prohibiting the disclosure of information which can be related to any identifiable person or enterprise. (See Part V - Protection of Information of the Act above). It specifies the offences and penalties occurred for breaching this confidentiality. (See Part VI - Offences, Penalties and Evidence of the Act above). |
|||
7.2. Confidentiality - data treatment | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
7.2.1. Aggregated data | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
7.2.1.1. Rules used to identify confidential cells | |||
Threshold rule (The number of contributors is less than a pre-specified threshold) Dominance rule (The n largest contributions make up for more than k% of the cell total) Secondary confidentiality rules |
|||
7.2.1.2. Methods to protect data in confidential cells | |||
Table redesign (Collapsing rows and/or columns) Cell suppression (Completely suppress the value of some cells) |
|||
7.2.1.3. Description of rules and methods | |||
In the national release, a category is primary confidential if any one of the following conditions applies:
A category is secondary confidential if publishing that category indirectly reveals information about a confidential category. |
|||
7.2.2. Microdata | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
7.2.2.1. Use of EU methodology for microdata dissemination | |||
Not applicable | |||
7.2.2.2. Methods of perturbation | |||
None | |||
7.2.2.3. Description of methodology | |||
Not applicable. |
|
|||
8.1. Release calendar | |||
The release calendar for all statistical publications in the CSO is agreed at the beginning of each year. In 2021, the agriculture team agreed to release preliminary results from the Census in December 2021, and in 2022, the team agreed to release final results in May 2022. |
|||
8.2. Release calendar access | |||
The release calendar can be publicly accessed on the CSO website using the following link. |
|||
8.3. Release policy - user access | |||
The CSO’s standard practice is that statistics are released to all users at the same time unless they have pre-release access. Pre-release access is limited, controlled, and publicised. The CSO standard is the release of results at 11:00am, with no pre-release access. A policy on pre-release access is in place which gives effect to the principle of Objectivity and Impartiality as set out in the European Statistics Code of Practice (ESCOP). For the IFS preliminary and final releases, the CSO standard release of results at 11:00am on the date entered into the release calendar was followed. Named individuals also had the opportunity to be granted pre-release access to advance notification of the release at 10:00am by following the procedure outlined in the pre-release access policy. |
|||
8.3.1. Use of quality rating system | |||
No | |||
8.3.1.1. Description of the quality rating system | |||
Not applicable. |
|
|||
Statistics on the structure of farming in Ireland are generally published every 3/4 years depending on the Farm Structure Survey (FSS) or IFS planned schedule. The FSS was most recently carried out in 2016 and IFS surveys will take place in 2023 and 2026. |
|
|||
10.1. Dissemination format - News release | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
10.1.1. Publication of news releases | |||
Yes | |||
10.1.2. Link to news releases | |||
10.2. Dissemination format - Publications | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
10.2.1. Production of paper publications | |||
No | |||
10.2.2. Production of on-line publications | |||
Yes, in English also | |||
10.2.3. Title, publisher, year and link | |||
Census of Agriculture 2020 - Preliminary Results CSO statistical publication, 09 December 2021, 11am On-line ISSN: 2009-5716 https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-coa/censusofagriculture2020-preliminaryresults/ |
|||
10.3. Dissemination format - online database | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
10.3.1. Data tables - consultations | |||
Not available. |
|||
10.3.2. Accessibility of online database | |||
Yes | |||
10.3.3. Link to online database | |||
Census of Agriculture statistics for 2020 can be viewed using the CSOs online database (PXSTAT) the relevant tables are AVA24 through to AVA40 at the link below. |
|||
10.4. Dissemination format - microdata access | |||
See sub-category below. |
|||
10.4.1. Accessibility of microdata | |||
No | |||
10.5. Dissemination format - other | |||
Not available. |
|||
10.5.1. Metadata - consultations | |||
Not requested. |
|||
10.6. Documentation on methodology | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
10.6.1. Metadata completeness - rate | |||
Not requested. |
|||
10.6.2. Availability of national reference metadata | |||
No | |||
10.6.3. Title, publisher, year and link to national reference metadata | |||
Not applicable - private documentation. |
|||
10.6.4. Availability of national handbook on methodology | |||
No | |||
10.6.5. Title, publisher, year and link to handbook | |||
Not applicable - private documentation. |
|||
10.6.6. Availability of national methodological papers | |||
No | |||
10.6.7. Title, publisher, year and link to methodological papers | |||
Not applicable - private documentation. |
|||
10.7. Quality management - documentation | |||
Not available. |
|
|||
11.1. Quality assurance | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
11.1.1. Quality management system | |||
Yes | |||
11.1.2. Quality assurance and assessment procedures | |||
Training courses Use of best practices Quality guidelines Self-assessment |
|||
11.1.3. Description of the quality management system and procedures | |||
Training courses – the CSO has a dedicated Statistical Training Unit in place to ensure that statisticians are supported when performing their work. Each particular statistician role has an essential statistical requirements and an office skills register per statistician is used to determine a statisticians training needs. Training needs are determined with a gap analysis and training is supplied early in the term of the statistician. Use of best practices – the CSO has a dedicated Methodology team who assist with the design of procedures to be implemented throughout Official Statistics. Quality guidelines – the CSO began implementation of a Quality Management Framework in 2016 and a new quality strategy 2020-2023 has recently been published. Statistical procedures within the office are required to adhere to the guidelines with the Framework and policy. Self-assessment – there is an annual requirement in the CSO to complete a self-assessment quality questionnaire on all statistical products that statisticians are responsible for. |
|||
11.1.4. Improvements in quality procedures | |||
The CSO Quality Strategy 2020-2023 has led to a number of improvements in quality procedures. A new metadata management application (Colectica) is being utilised across the office which has modernised and standardised the processes around questionnaire design, variable specifications, and metadata management. This will be very valuable over the remainder of the decade for IFS data collections. |
|||
11.2. Quality management - assessment | |||
Not available. |
|
|||
12.1. Relevance - User Needs | |||
The main users of the data are individuals from the DAFM, the Irish FADN liaison agency, environmental agencies, agricultural press (print and online), farming organisations and the public. These groups were consulted during planning and a small number of additional variables (not in Regulation (EU) No. 2018/1091) were collected for national purposes. The need for these variables was identified through a consultation process with the main stakeholders prior to the survey design stage. Specifically these variables related to: Sheep: A more detailed breakdown of sheep required to continue time series from past data collections. Poultry: Further sub-division of IFS characteristics to continue past time series. Equidae: Equidae in Ireland are generally part of the horse racing industry but are kept on in-scope IFS farms. Farm Succession: Information on farm succession planned for Ireland was requested, as Ireland has an aging farming population, this information will feed into agricultural policy beyond CAP. Manure Management: There was interest from the users for manure application methods on tillage farms when manure was being spread was also an important user need. Information was also collected and collated for out-of-scope IFS farms, these farms make little contribution to the total Utilised Agricultural Area and total Livestock Units but receive farm supports under CAP and cover approximately 3% of holdings. |
|||
12.1.1. Main groups of variables collected only for national purposes | |||
Sheep: Rams, ewes (under and over 2 years) and other sheep (under and over 1 year). Poultry: Sub-division of both broilers and turkeys into breeding birds and table birds. Equidae: Sub-division of Equidae into thoroughbred, other horses and mules, jennets and asses. Farm Succession: Farm holders were asked if a succession plan was in place and if the person to succeed was a family member or not and their gender. Manure Management: Application methods were split into grassland and tillage methods and a Spring, Summer and Autumn breakdown was determined. |
|||
12.1.2. Unmet user needs | |||
Some users requested Labour and Manure Management statistics as a more detailed geographical level than NUTS3. This is not possible as this information was collected via sample surveys and designed to meet the precision requirements as set out in Annex V of Regulation No. 2018/1091. |
|||
12.1.3. Plans for satisfying unmet user needs | |||
It may be possible to meet some of the regional need for the Agriculture Labour Force by matching across non-agricultural administrative sources. This will be explored in the lead up to and during processing of IFS 2023.
|
|||
12.2. Relevance - User Satisfaction | |||
It may be possible to meet some of the regional need for the Agriculture Labour Force by matching across non-agricultural administrative sources. This will be explored in the lead up to and during processing of IFS 2023. |
|||
12.2.1. User satisfaction survey | |||
No | |||
12.2.2. Year of user satisfaction survey | |||
Not applicable. |
|||
12.2.3. Satisfaction level | |||
Not applicable | |||
12.3. Completeness | |||
Information on low- and zero prevalence variables is available on Eurostat's website . |
|||
12.3.1. Data completeness - rate | |||
Not applicable for Integrated Farm Statistics as the not collected variables, not-significant variables and not-existent variables are completed with 0. |
|
|||
13.1. Accuracy - overall | |||
See categories below. |
|||
13.2. Sampling error | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
13.2.1. Sampling error - indicators | |||
Please find the relative standard errors for the main variables in the annex. Annexes: 13.2.1. Relative Standard Errors |
|||
13.2.2. Reasons for non-compliant precision requirements in relation to Regulation (EU) 2018/1091 | |||
Of the 65 eligible cases, five were non-compliant (7.69%). Some land variables in the LAFO module had large RSEs, two eligible cases, “Cereals” and “Plants harvested green from arable land” in IE06 had RSEs over 5%. The "cereals / IE06" pair has an RSE of 6.33% and the "plants harvested green / IE06" pair has an RSE of 5.07% so a larger sample size in future data collections for the LAFO module should lower these RSEs. In the IE06 region for the LAFO module, there were two RSEs for two eligible cases the “Dairy Cows” LSU and “Sheep and Goats” LSU variables. These RSEs were 5.20% and 5.68%, dairy farming and sheep farming are not predominant in this region and a larger sample size for these modules in future data collections should be adequate to lower the RSEs. In the IE06 region for the AHMM module, these was one non-compliant RSE (8.7%), for the "Sheep and Goats" eligible case. As stated above sheep farming is not predominant in this region and a larger sample size will be required for repeat AHMM modules in future IFS data collections. Finally, the IE06 region has the fewest farms of Irelands NUTS2 regions but is also a predominant region for arable land and most of the common Irish livestock classifications will be eligible cases in this region. Future sampling designs will incorporate this information and ensure that IE06 eligible cases are compliant. |
|||
13.2.3. Methodology used to calculate relative standard errors | |||
see annex Annexes: 13.2.3 RSE Method IE |
|||
13.2.4. Impact of sampling error on data quality | |||
None | |||
13.3. Non-sampling error | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
13.3.1. Coverage error | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
13.3.1.1. Over-coverage - rate | |||
The over-coverage rate is available in the annex. The over-coverage rate is unweighted. Annexes: 13.3.1.1 Over-coverage rate and Unit non-response rate |
|||
13.3.1.1.1. Types of holdings included in the frame but not belonging to the population of the core (main frame and if applicable frame extension) | |||
Below thresholds during the reference period Ceased activities Merged to another unit |
|||
13.3.1.1.2. Actions to minimize the over-coverage error | |||
Other | |||
13.3.1.1.3. Additional information over-coverage error | |||
Over Coverage described in 13.3.1.1 is based on the dataset of farm holdings that are above threshold as per ANNEX II of Regulation (EU) No. 2018/1091. There are approximately 5,000 active below threshold farm holdings in Ireland that are included in the national publication of results. Remaining over coverage farm holdings are ones that have ceased activity or have merged with other units. |
|||
13.3.1.2. Common units - proportion | |||
Not requested. |
|||
13.3.1.3. Under-coverage error | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
13.3.1.3.1. Under-coverage rate | |||
Under-coverage errors are likely to be very low for Irish farm holdings. The Department of Agriculture manages a number of administrative databases and data sharing agreements ensure that the CSO can obtain and use these databases to ensure minimal under-coverage. For Irish farm holders to receive CAP payments, they must have a registered herd number with the Department. |
|||
13.3.1.3.2. Types of holdings belonging to the population of the core but not included in the frame (main frame and if applicable frame extension) | |||
New births | |||
13.3.1.3.3. Actions to minimise the under-coverage error | |||
All necessary steps are taken to ensure full coverage of the population. The Agricultural Register, finalised after FSS 2016, was updated further annually and in April 2020 (prior to the Census) to add 4 687 new births which had been identified as newly-active holdings on the Department of Agriculture’s administrative databases. Administrative databases include, IACS, Bovine, Ovine, Poultry and Organic farming Registers. The only holdings that could have been excluded were those farming but not registered on the databases referenced. The likelihood of a new farm not falling into these databases was considered low. |
|||
13.3.1.3.4. Additional information under-coverage error | |||
Not available |
|||
13.3.1.4. Misclassification error | |||
No | |||
13.3.1.4.1. Actions to minimise the misclassification error | |||
Modular samples were taken towards the end of 2020 from the main frame of eligible holdings. For this reason, classifications used to form strata were close to final. Allocation of holdings to strata did not change after data collection of the LAFO and AHMM modular data for the vast majority of holdings. |
|||
13.3.1.5. Contact error | |||
No | |||
13.3.1.5.1. Actions to minimise the contact error | |||
The contact data was provided by the Agriculture Register. In some cases, the holder could not be reached at that address and the questionnaire was returned unopened. This occurred in 1,328 cases, many of these cases were followed up by telephone and it was found that some of the holdings had merged with another of that the holding was inactive. |
|||
13.3.1.6. Impact of coverage error on data quality | |||
None | |||
13.3.2. Measurement error | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
13.3.2.1. List of variables mostly affected by measurement errors | |||
Temporary (G1000T) and Permanent Grasslands (J1000T & J2000T). Areas declared for the above characteristics on IACS differed substantially from the returns on the Census instrument. The breakdown of grasslands obtained from respondents on the instrument was assumed valid, particularly given the geographical location of the Rough grazing returns. |
|||
13.3.2.2. Causes of measurement errors | |||
Other | |||
13.3.2.3. Actions to minimise the measurement error | |||
Explanatory notes or handbooks for enumerators or respondents | |||
13.3.2.4. Impact of measurement error on data quality | |||
None | |||
13.3.2.5. Additional information measurement error | |||
The measurement errors in grassland, were found in the IACS declarations and were corrected for the Census and are considered correct in the dataset sent to Eurostat. |
|||
13.3.3. Non response error | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
13.3.3.1. Unit non-response - rate | |||
The unit non-response rate is in the annex of item 13.3.1.1. The unit non-response rate is unweighted. |
|||
13.3.3.1.1. Reasons for unit non-response | |||
Failure to make contact with the unit | |||
13.3.3.1.2. Actions to minimise or address unit non-response | |||
Reminders Imputation Weighting Other |
|||
13.3.3.1.3. Unit non-response analysis | |||
Administrative data within the reference year of 2020 was available for close to 100% of the unit non-responders. The nature of the core data collected using the Census instrument and the available auxiliary information meant that accurate deductive imputation could be performed. Unit deductive imputation was performed for the demographic characteristics of the holder and manager of the holding, the legal personality of the holding, the location of the holding, presence of and heads of livestock (sheep, goats and poultry). |
|||
13.3.3.2. Item non-response - rate | |||
Item non-response rate on the paper survey instrument could be detected for certain characteristics that should be on most if not all holdings – characteristics of the holder or manager, grassland. It was more difficult to determine if there was item non-response for livestock characteristics but administrative data could be used to deduce if responding units were active sheep or poultry holdings. If item non-response was found, it was controlled for and corrected with edits and imputation. |
|||
13.3.3.2.1. Variables with the highest item non-response rate | |||
There was more item non-response on the paper questionnaire than the electronic questionnaire. Variables such as the year the manager started (Y_FARM_MAN) and the level of training of the manager (TNG_MAN) were the characteristics with the highest item non-response. Processing staff could edit these during processing by contacting the holder or by using previous returns if available. |
|||
13.3.3.2.2. Reasons for item non-response | |||
Skip of due question | |||
13.3.3.2.3. Actions to minimise or address item non-response | |||
Reminders Imputation Other |
|||
13.3.3.3. Impact of non-response error on data quality | |||
None | |||
13.3.3.4. Additional information non-response error | |||
Adjusting non-response was handled at two stages during the process, staff would edit returned questionnaires if it was possible to determine with follow-up or previous information. The second stage to handle non-response was with imputation - for many characteristics it was possible to use administrative data as a source for deductive imputation. If it was not possible to deduce a value, donor imputation (both hot deck and cold deck) was implemented. |
|||
13.3.4. Processing error | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
13.3.4.1. Sources of processing errors | |||
Imputation methods Data processing |
|||
13.3.4.2. Imputation methods | |||
Deductive imputation Cold-deck imputation Random hot deck imputation |
|||
13.3.4.3. Actions to correct or minimise processing errors | |||
Due to the sheer number of paper questionnaires to be processed, it can be assumed that some errors took place during processing. To minimise these errors, different team members worked on the same questionnaires at each stage of the process i.e no team member assess the same form at different stages of processing. The deductive imputation methods implemented were considered to be an excellent solution to missing data and were always the first method (before probabilistic methods) to be implemented where appropriate. |
|||
13.3.4.4. Tools and staff authorised to make corrections | |||
Processing staff used optical scanning to capture each return electronically, this software was configured to flag errors or erroneous data at scanning. Staff then used the CSOs Data Management System (DMS) software to correct data. Ineligible digits and data are highlighted and corrected on screen by referring to previous returns or by deduction. The data then enters the edit phase where data is passed through a range of pre-programmed edit checks. Here, arithmetic checks, range checks and consistency checks (with previous returns) are carried out and the data is examined. These edits are processed through the DMS before more edits are carried out in SAS. The majority of the imputation was performed in SAS with imputation of the a small proportion of INSPIRE grid cell codes performed using SAS in parallel with R-Studio. |
|||
13.3.4.5. Impact of processing error on data quality | |||
None | |||
13.3.4.6. Additional information processing error | |||
Not available. |
|||
13.3.5. Model assumption error | |||
Not applicable |
|
|||
14.1. Timeliness | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
14.1.1. Time lag - first result | |||
Preliminary COA results were published in December 2021, this was 11 months after the end of the reference year. |
|||
14.1.2. Time lag - final result | |||
Final publication of the results is planned for May 2021 which will be a lag of 17 months after the end of the reference year. |
|||
14.2. Punctuality | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
14.2.1. Punctuality - delivery and publication | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
14.2.1.1. Punctuality - delivery | |||
Not requested. |
|||
14.2.1.2. Punctuality - publication | |||
The preliminary publication of results was delivered on schedule, there was no difference between the actual and planned dates. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
15.1. Comparability - geographical | |||||||||||||||||||
See sub-categories below. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.1.1. Asymmetry for mirror flow statistics - coefficient | |||||||||||||||||||
Not applicable, because there are no mirror flows in Integrated Farm Statistics. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.1.2. Definition of agricultural holding | |||||||||||||||||||
See sub-categories below. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.1.2.1. Deviations from Regulation (EU) 2018/1091 | |||||||||||||||||||
There was no deviation in the definition of an agricultural holding as defined in Regulation (EU) 2018/1091. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.1.2.2. Reasons for deviations | |||||||||||||||||||
Not applicable |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.1.3. Thresholds of agricultural holdings | |||||||||||||||||||
See sub-categories below. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.1.3.1. Proofs that the EU coverage requirements are met | |||||||||||||||||||
The data sent to Eurostat is for units with at least one characteristic above the thresholds stated in Annex II of Regulation (EU) 2018/1091, data is also available for 4,845 under threshold active farms. The table below summarises the UAA and LSU breakdown for the above threshold farm holdings.
There is close to 100% coverage provided by the farm holdings sent to Eurostat for UAA and LSUs on Irish farm holdings. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.1.3.2. Differences between the national thresholds and the thresholds used for the data sent to Eurostat | |||||||||||||||||||
Approximately 3.6% of Irish farm holdings are below the Regulatory thresholds. Outside of the thresholds, any farm holding registered with a herd number in receipt of farm payments is included in national publications. Livestock and Utilised Agriculture Area on these smaller farm holdings is also included in regular data transmissions to Eurostat throughout the year. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.1.3.3. Reasons for differences | |||||||||||||||||||
Data collection in Ireland is primarily carried out using agricultural administrative data so it is possible to capture information on the above and below threshold farmers. Information on these small farms is important, they may not contribute a large number of LSUs or farm a large portion of land but these farm holdings are in receipt of farm payments and national users are interested. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.1.4. Definitions and classifications of variables | |||||||||||||||||||
See sub-categories below. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.1.4.1. Deviations from Regulation (EU) 2018/1091 and EU handbook | |||||||||||||||||||
Definitions and classifications of the characteristics in the IFS 2020 data sent to Eurostat match those in Regulation (EU) 2018/1091, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1874 and the IFS 2020 manual. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.1.4.1.1. The number of working hours and days in a year corresponding to a full-time job | |||||||||||||||||||
The information is available in the annex. Annexes: 15.1.4.1.1. AWU |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.1.4.1.2. Point chosen in the Annual work unit (AWU) percentage band to calculate the AWU of holders, managers, family and non-family regular workers | |||||||||||||||||||
The information is available in the annex of item 15.1.4.1.1. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.1.4.1.3. AWU for workers of certain age groups | |||||||||||||||||||
The information is available in the annex of item 15.1.4.1.1. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.1.4.1.4. Livestock coefficients | |||||||||||||||||||
The Livestock unit coefficient definition matches the regulatory definition for Ireland and the definition contained in Regulation (EU) 2018/1091. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.1.4.1.5. Livestock included in “Other livestock n.e.c.” | |||||||||||||||||||
Equidae |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.1.4.2. Reasons for deviations | |||||||||||||||||||
Not applicable |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.1.5. Reference periods/days | |||||||||||||||||||
See sub-categories below. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.1.5.1. Deviations from Regulation (EU) 2018/1091 | |||||||||||||||||||
The reference period/days match those set in Regulation (EU) 2018/1091. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.1.5.2. Reasons for deviations | |||||||||||||||||||
Not applicable. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.1.6. Common land | |||||||||||||||||||
The concept of common land exists | |||||||||||||||||||
15.1.6.1. Collection of common land data | |||||||||||||||||||
Yes | |||||||||||||||||||
15.1.6.2. Reasons if common land exists and data are not collected | |||||||||||||||||||
Not applicable. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.1.6.3. Methods to record data on common land | |||||||||||||||||||
Common land is included in separate records representing virtual entities without managers. | |||||||||||||||||||
15.1.6.4. Source of collected data on common land | |||||||||||||||||||
Administrative sources | |||||||||||||||||||
15.1.6.5. Description of methods to record data on common land | |||||||||||||||||||
Irish common land is collected at the county (local government areas) geographical level and recorded per county in the data sent to Eurostat. Land use administrative data from the Department of Agriculture is transmitted separately with and without common land thus alleviating the risk of double counts. All survey instruments sent to holdings also specify that common land should not be included. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.1.6.6. Possible problems in relation to the collection of data on common land and proposals for future data collections | |||||||||||||||||||
We do not experience problems to collect data on common land. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.1.7. National standards and rules for certification of organic products | |||||||||||||||||||
See sub-categories below. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.1.7.1. Deviations from Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 | |||||||||||||||||||
There are no deviations in the national standards and rules for certification of organic products from Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.1.7.2. Reasons for deviations | |||||||||||||||||||
Not applicable. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.1.8. Differences in methods across regions within the country | |||||||||||||||||||
There are no differences in the methods used across regions within the country. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.2. Comparability - over time | |||||||||||||||||||
See sub-categories below. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.2.1. Length of comparable time series | |||||||||||||||||||
There is a comparable farm structural time series available nationally for the previous 40 years in Ireland with comparable livestock, land use and holding number time series back to the 1850s. The current data sent to Eurostat differs slightly in format from the 2016 FSS data as thresholds were not applied to the 2016 data. This only results in a slight difference in farm numbers (as discussed in section 15.1.3.1) as the 4,785 farm holdings below threshold farms are now not included. Farm structure based on the above threshold farm holdings only is not considered as a considerable break in the time series as land utilisation, livestock and farm labour are comparable between 2016 and 2020. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.2.2. Definition of agricultural holding | |||||||||||||||||||
See sub-categories below. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.2.2.1. Changes since the last data transmission to Eurostat | |||||||||||||||||||
There have been no changes | |||||||||||||||||||
15.2.2.2. Description of changes | |||||||||||||||||||
Regulation (EU) 2018/1091 newly considers agricultural holdings with only fur animals. However our country does not raise fur animals. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.2.3. Thresholds of agricultural holdings | |||||||||||||||||||
See sub-categories below. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.2.3.1. Changes in the thresholds of holdings for which core data are sent to Eurostat since the last data transmission | |||||||||||||||||||
There have been some changes but not enough to warrant the designation of a break in series | |||||||||||||||||||
15.2.3.2. Description of changes | |||||||||||||||||||
The only change that applying the thresholds is to remove the smaller farm holdings from the Eurostat data, this has impacted the number of Irish farm holdings but has had no impact on the LSUs, UAA and farm labour statistics. The farms below threshold account for 0.24% of national UAA and 0.03% of national LSUs. Therefore, we do not consider the application of thresholds to cause a break in time series. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.2.4. Geographical coverage | |||||||||||||||||||
See sub-categories below. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.2.4.1. Change in the geographical coverage since the last data transmission to Eurostat | |||||||||||||||||||
There have been no changes | |||||||||||||||||||
15.2.4.2. Description of changes | |||||||||||||||||||
Not applicable. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.2.5. Definitions and classifications of variables | |||||||||||||||||||
See sub-categories below. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.2.5.1. Changes since the last data transmission to Eurostat | |||||||||||||||||||
There have been some changes but not enough to warrant the designation of a break in series | |||||||||||||||||||
15.2.5.2. Description of changes | |||||||||||||||||||
Legal personality of the agricultural holding In IFS, there is a new class (“shared ownership”) for the legal personality of the holding compared to FSS 2016, which trigger fluctuations of holdings in the classes of sole holder holdings and group holdings.
Other livestock n.e.c. In FSS 2016, deer were included in this class, but in IFS they are classified separately. Also in FSS 2016, there was a class for the collection of equidae. That has been dropped and equidae are included in IFS in "other livestock n.e.c."
Livestock units In FSS 2016, turkeys, ducks, geese, ostriches and other poultry were considered each one in a separate class with a coefficient of 0.03 for all the classes except for ostriches (coefficient 0.035). In IFS 2020, the coefficients were adjusted accordingly, with turkeys remaining at 0.03, ostriches remaining at 0.35, ducks adjusted to 0.01, geese adjusted to 0.02 and other poultry fowls n.e.c. adjusted to 0.001.
Organic animals While in FSS only fully compliant (certified converted) animals were included, in IFS both animals under conversion and fully converted are to be included. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.2.6. Reference periods/days | |||||||||||||||||||
See sub-categories below. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.2.6.1. Changes since the last data transmission to Eurostat | |||||||||||||||||||
There have been some changes but not enough to warrant the designation of a break in series | |||||||||||||||||||
15.2.6.2. Description of changes | |||||||||||||||||||
The 12-month reference period for land variables and labour force variables has changed since the 2016 FSS. The land variable reference has changed as planned to January 2020 to December 2020 given the reliance on IACS administrative sources. LAFO reference period was adapted due to the pandemic – data was collected in December 2020, so it was logical to determine from farm holders labour in the previous year - a reference period of January 2020 to December 2020. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.2.7. Common land | |||||||||||||||||||
See sub-categories below. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.2.7.1. Changes in the methods to record common land since the last data transmission to Eurostat | |||||||||||||||||||
There have been no changes | |||||||||||||||||||
15.2.7.2. Description of changes | |||||||||||||||||||
Not applicable. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.2.8. Explanations for major trends of main variables compared to the last data transmission to Eurostat | |||||||||||||||||||
the most significant variations (between 2016 and 2020)
in animal production statistics:
- A4210K goats. Larger specialised goat herds now exist in IE and an administrative source is also used to determine the number of these herds.
- A5000X5100. In general, in IE, there has been a well-publicised explosion in poultry in the past number of years. Also, the poultry frame used during IFS 2020 was improved compared with the frame in FSS 2016. Growth in poultry was seen across all poultry categories.
in Crops production statistics:
- ARA99T. The variable now contains a new variable (wild bird cover). Farm holders have started to grow this crop due to an extra subsidy.
- C1600T/C1700T/C1900T. Only C1900T is not NE for IE, there are small parcels of millet and canary seed grown, this leads to a large proportional increase but for small areas relatively.
- J3000TE. A smaller and smaller proportion of farm holders had permanent grassland not in use, permanent grassland was classified as in use or as rough grazing in IE.
- K0000T. Own consumption Kitchen Gardens are now NE in IE.
- V0000_S0000TK. This is an administrative source and faced a natural decrease.
Labour Force:
- MOGA_NFAM_RH. For IFS 2020, IE introduced the “HLD_GRP” LEG_FORM category for the first time. There was also a sharp increase in the “PER_LEG_EG/PER_LEG_NEG” farm holdings. In an Irish context these farms are still “family farms” and reported family labour but this labour could not be placed as family labour in the ESTAT data. For this reason, this labour was placed as non-family labour in the IFS 2020 dataset which can explain why there has been an increase in these variables.
- in IFS 2020, IE obtained improved administrative records from the Department of Agriculture as well as using the Census as an opportunity to gather the legal status of farm holdings on a wide scale. The better administrative source allowed IE to record HLD_GRPs for the first time hence there has been an increase. There has also been quite an increase in the PER_LEG_EG/PER_LEG_NEG type farms mainly driven by dairy farm holdings that are not limited companies.
Increase of OGA_RH in 2020 compared to 2016:
IFS 2020 data had clearly more farm diversification activities than FSS 2016 data and these activities make sense regarding Irish agriculture (forestry). There is a larger proportion of farms in 2020 where the holder has OGA_NRH but it should also be noted the that 2016 data would have included the newly formed IE
PER_LEG_EG/PER_LEG_NEG and HLD_GRP farm holding. These farm holdings have a lower proportion of farm holdings where the manager had OGA_NRH.
increase of share of working time manager 100% in 2020 compared to 2016:
Farm holders/managers are generally doing more farm work and many farm holders/managers who were in the 75-99% band have moved to the 100%. IE also added an option for farm holders/managers to state if they worked over 72 hours per week and this was an option selected by many indicating the large workload for Irish farmers in 2020.
The information is available here: (Eurostat to insert the link after the validation of the data file). |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.2.9. Maintain of statistical identifiers over time | |||||||||||||||||||
No | |||||||||||||||||||
15.3. Coherence - cross domain | |||||||||||||||||||
See sub-categories below. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.3.1. Coherence - sub annual and annual statistics | |||||||||||||||||||
Not applicable to Integrated Farm Statistics, because there are no sub annual data collections in agriculture. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.3.2. Coherence - National Accounts | |||||||||||||||||||
Not applicable, because Integrated Farm Statistics have no relevance for national accounts. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.3.3. Coherence at micro level with data collections in other domains in agriculture | |||||||||||||||||||
See sub-categories below. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.3.3.1. Analysis of coherence at micro level | |||||||||||||||||||
Yes | |||||||||||||||||||
15.3.3.2. Results of analysis at micro level | |||||||||||||||||||
In an IFS year, the annual programme for statistics in Ireland is built around the IFS data collection so micro level analysis is built into the process for both preparing the IFS data and creating “Annual Crop Statistics” and “Animal Production Statistics” aggregates for Eurostat. The Irish statistics are based on a combination of administrative data and survey/census data and our analysis has shown that there are some classification errors (see 13.3.2.1) for the temporary and permanent grasslands breakdown from the administrative data. The “Animal Production Statistics” sheep data that is transmitted to Eurostat is for a reference date in December whereas the IFS sheep data is for a reference date in June so there is no directly comparable source for sheep data. Nationally, there is an annual release of sheep data and the IFS sheep are coherent with this data. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.3.4. Coherence at macro level with data collections in other domains in agriculture | |||||||||||||||||||
See sub-categories below. |
|||||||||||||||||||
15.3.4.1. Analysis of coherence at macro level | |||||||||||||||||||
Yes | |||||||||||||||||||
15.3.4.2. Results of analysis at macro level | |||||||||||||||||||
The main discrepancies between annual crops/ animal production statistics 2020 and IFS 2020:
- G0000 and G1000. IFS 2020 determined incorrect classification of temporary grasses and grazings as per the administrative data that had been used in 2016 and annually. A new method to classify grasslands was developed during IFS 2020 and will be used for future delivers of G0000 and it’s associated variables annually. IE has carried out a body of work to revise G0000 for 2020 and previous years.
- I5000. The ACS value for I5000 will be updated to reflect the IFS 2020 value.
- V0000_S0000. The ACS delivery contains both under glass and market garden vegetables and strawberry’s. It is more meaningful to compare V0000_S0000 with V0000_S0000T/V0000_S0000S
- A4100 NUTS1 and NUTS2. The reference day for IFS sheep data collection is the 1st of June 2020 but the annual sheep data reference day in the “Animal Population” transmission is December 30th. Sheep data fluctuates greatly between these two days.
- A2000 NUTS1 and NUTS2. The Animal production figures 2020 are for the December reference, if the June reference is examined the values match IFS 2020.
- A3100 NUTS2. During the detailed georeferencing as part of IFS a small number of pig farm holdings (with large numbers of pigs) switched region. The IFS data can be considered correct and the “Animal Population” data will be updated by IE.
- UAA Commanage is included in the IFS and this accounts for the observed difference.
- Q0000, V0000_S0000, L0000, F0000 (Main area) differences predominantly appear to be at regional level and are all variables that contibute a low hectare total for Ireland. Discrepencies arise for these variables due to the classification of farm location in IFS vs the classification of agricultural area in APRO
|
|||||||||||||||||||
15.4. Coherence - internal | |||||||||||||||||||
The data are internally consistent. This is ensured by the application of a wide range of validation rules. |
|
|||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
16.1. Coordination of data collections in agricultural statistics | |||
While the IFS data is not collected in another CSO survey, the annual June agriculture survey is replaced by the IFS in IFS years. The utilisation of administrative data – Bovine Register, IACS, Organic Register and Rural Development Measures eliminates the need for farmers to provide this data. The combination of this data and the fact that the Labour data was collected as a sample survey meant that the survey instrument for Core IFS data collection was halved in size. The CSO is focused on continuously reducing the response burden on farmers. The final section of the IFS questionnaires, and indeed every agricultural survey, asks the respondent to indicate, in minutes, how long it took to complete the form. This allows CSO to measure the change in response burden from year to year. |
|||
16.2. Efficiency gains since the last data transmission to Eurostat | |||
On-line surveys Increased use of administrative data |
|||
16.2.1. Additional information efficiency gains | |||
Not applicable. |
|||
16.3. Average duration of farm interview (in minutes) | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
16.3.1. Core | |||
Mean time in minutes to complete the Core questionnaire (online & paper together) was 16.70 minutes and the median was 15 minutes. |
|||
16.3.2. Module ‘Labour force and other gainful activities‘ | |||
Mean time in minutes to complete the Labour Force questionnaire (paper only) was 16.02 minutes and the median was 10 minutes. |
|||
16.3.3. Module ‘Rural development’ | |||
Not relevant. |
|||
16.3.4. Module ‘Animal housing and manure management’ | |||
Mean time in minutes to complete the AHMM questionnaire (paper only) was 20.48 minutes and the median was 15 minutes. |
|
|||
17.1. Data revision - policy | |||
The revision policy for the CSO can be found in the following link. The policy relates to revisions on both online publications and the PxStat (CSOs online database). The policy considers a scheduled revision of the form preliminary to final as a “Planned Routine revision”. When the revisions are made the new data will be labelled with a code of “2” indicating a routine revision. The policy considers an unplanned revision to correct a mistake as an “Unplanned revision”. When this type of revision is made, the new data will be labelled with a code of “4” indicating an unplanned revision. An explanatory note stating the reason for the revision and the date the revision took place must also accompany the data. The policy considers conceptual or methodological changes that cause changes in data values requiring revision of historical data, or a break in series as a “Planned Major revision”. When this type of revision is made, the new data will be labelled with a code of “3” indicating a major revision. An explanatory note stating the reason for the revision and the date the revision took place must also accompany the data. Data prior to and post revision must be stored in a secure location so that it can be easily found, referenced, and analysed as appropriate. |
|||
17.2. Data revision - practice | |||
There are no planned revisions for the 2020 IFS data in Ireland. If any unplanned revisions arise, the policy mentioned in 17.1 will be followed. |
|||
17.2.1. Data revision - average size | |||
Not requested. |
|
|||
Annexes: 18. Timetable_statistical_process |
|||
18.1. Source data | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
18.1.1. Population frame | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
18.1.1.1. Type of frame | |||
List frame | |||
18.1.1.2. Name of frame | |||
The frame is housed in the CSOs Data Management System and is named the “Agriculture Register”. |
|||
18.1.1.3. Update frequency | |||
Annual | |||
18.1.2. Core data collection on the main frame | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
18.1.2.1. Coverage of agricultural holdings | |||
Census | |||
18.1.2.2. Sampling design | |||
Not applicable for 2020. |
|||
18.1.2.2.1. Name of sampling design | |||
Not applicable | |||
18.1.2.2.2. Stratification criteria | |||
Not applicable | |||
18.1.2.2.3. Use of systematic sampling | |||
Not applicable | |||
18.1.2.2.4. Full coverage strata | |||
Not applicable for 2020. |
|||
18.1.2.2.5. Method of determination of the overall sample size | |||
Not applicable for 2020. |
|||
18.1.2.2.6. Method of allocation of the overall sample size | |||
Not applicable | |||
18.1.3. Core data collection on the frame extension | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
18.1.3.1. Coverage of agricultural holdings | |||
Not applicable | |||
18.1.3.2. Sampling design | |||
Not applicable. |
|||
18.1.3.2.1. Name of sampling design | |||
Not applicable | |||
18.1.3.2.2. Stratification criteria | |||
Not applicable | |||
18.1.3.2.3. Use of systematic sampling | |||
Not applicable | |||
18.1.3.2.4. Full coverage strata | |||
Not applicable |
|||
18.1.3.2.5. Method of determination of the overall sample size | |||
Not applicable. |
|||
18.1.3.2.6. Method of allocation of the overall sample size | |||
None | |||
18.1.4. Module “Labour force and other gainful activities” | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
18.1.4.1. Coverage of agricultural holdings | |||
Sample | |||
18.1.4.2. Sampling design | |||
A one-stage stratified sampling design was implemented for the “Labour and other gainful activities” module. Irish NUTS 3 regions were incorporated into the sampling design as well as the strata mentioned below in 18.1.4.2.2. |
|||
18.1.4.2.1. Name of sampling design | |||
Stratified one-stage random sampling | |||
18.1.4.2.2. Stratification criteria | |||
Unit size Unit location Unit specialization |
|||
18.1.4.2.3. Use of systematic sampling | |||
No | |||
18.1.4.2.4. Full coverage strata | |||
There were no full coverage strata included in the sampling design for the Labour force and other gainful activities module. |
|||
18.1.4.2.5. Method of determination of the overall sample size | |||
The sample size was designed and calculated at NUTS 2 to meet the precision requirements set out in Annex V of Regulation (EU) 2018/1091, that is: The RSE was required to be < 5% for variables in the precision table where 7.5% or more of the UAA in the region or 7.5% or more of the livestock units in the region and 5% or more of the variable in the country. |
|||
18.1.4.2.6. Method of allocation of the overall sample size | |||
Proportional allocation | |||
18.1.4.2.7. If sampled from the core sample, the sampling and calibration strategy | |||
Not applicable | |||
18.1.5. Module “Rural development” | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
18.1.5.1. Coverage of agricultural holdings | |||
Census | |||
18.1.5.2. Sampling design | |||
Not applicable. |
|||
18.1.5.2.1. Name of sampling design | |||
Not applicable | |||
18.1.5.2.2. Stratification criteria | |||
Not applicable | |||
18.1.5.2.3. Use of systematic sampling | |||
Not applicable | |||
18.1.5.2.4. Full coverage strata | |||
Not applicable. |
|||
18.1.5.2.5. Method of determination of the overall sample size | |||
Not applicable. |
|||
18.1.5.2.6. Method of allocation of the overall sample size | |||
Not applicable | |||
18.1.5.2.7. If sampled from the core sample, the sampling strategy and calibration strategy | |||
Not applicable | |||
18.1.6. Module “Animal housing and manure management module” | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
18.1.6.1. Coverage of agricultural holdings | |||
Sample | |||
18.1.6.2. Sampling design | |||
A one-stage stratified sampling design was implemented for the “Animal Housing and Manure Management” module. Irish NUTS 3 regions were incorporated into the sampling design as well as the strata mentioned below in 18.1.6.2.2. |
|||
18.1.6.2.1. Name of sampling design | |||
Stratified one-stage random sampling | |||
18.1.6.2.2. Stratification criteria | |||
Unit size Unit location Unit specialization |
|||
18.1.6.2.3. Use of systematic sampling | |||
No | |||
18.1.6.2.4. Full coverage strata | |||
Intensive pig and poultry enterprises were selected as full coverage strata. |
|||
18.1.6.2.5. Method of determination of the overall sample size | |||
The sample size was designed and calculated at NUTS 2 to meet the precision requirements set out in Annex V of Regulation (EU) 2018/1091, that is: The RSE was required to be < 5% for variables in the precision table where 7.5% or more of the UAA in the region or 7.5% or more of the livestock units in the region and 5% or more of the variable in the country. |
|||
18.1.6.2.6. Method of allocation of the overall sample size | |||
Proportional allocation | |||
18.1.6.2.7. If sampled from the core sample, the sampling strategy and calibration strategy | |||
Not applicable | |||
18.1.12. Software tool used for sample selection | |||
The software used for sample selection was SAS EG version 7.15. |
|||
18.1.13. Administrative sources | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
18.1.13.1. Administrative sources used and the purposes of using them | |||
The information is available on Eurostat's website. |
|||
18.1.13.2. Description and quality of the administrative sources | |||
See the attached Excel file in the Annex. Annexes: 18.1.13.2 Description_quality_administrative sources |
|||
18.1.13.3. Difficulties using additional administrative sources not currently used | |||
Other | |||
18.1.14. Innovative approaches | |||
The information on innovative approaches and the quality methods applied is available on Eurostat's website. |
|||
18.2. Frequency of data collection | |||
The agricultural census is conducted every 10 years. The decennial agricultural census is complemented by sample or census-based data collections organised every 3-4 years in-between. |
|||
18.3. Data collection | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
18.3.1. Methods of data collection | |||
Postal, non-electronic version Telephone, electronic version Use of Internet |
|||
18.3.2. Data entry method, if paper questionnaires | |||
Optic | |||
18.3.3. Questionnaire | |||
Please find the questionnaire in annex. Annexes: 18.3.3 Core Questionnaire 18.3.3 Labour Questionnaire 18.3.3 AHMM Questionnaire |
|||
18.4. Data validation | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
18.4.1. Type of validation checks | |||
Completeness checks Range checks Comparisons with previous rounds of the data collection Comparisons with other domains in agricultural statistics |
|||
18.4.2. Staff involved in data validation | |||
Staff from local departments | |||
18.4.3. Tools used for data validation | |||
The CSO Data Management System was utilised for verification and edits of each questionnaire that was returned. Further data validation took place using SAS and R-Studio. |
|||
18.5. Data compilation | |||
Design weights were obtained by taking the inverse of the inclusion probabilities. Weights were then adjusted based on non-response within the sampling strata. |
|||
18.5.1. Imputation - rate | |||
Administrative data within the reference year of 2020 was available for close to 100% of the unit non-responders. This also meant that it could be determined if there was true item non-response when data was missing. The nature of the core data collected using the Census instrument and the available auxiliary information meant that accurate deductive imputation could be performed There was more item non-response on the paper questionnaire than the electronic questionnaire. Variables such as the year the manager started (Y_FARM_MAN) and the level of training of the manager (TNG_MAN) were the characteristics with the highest item non-response. Processing staff could edit these during processing by contacting the holder or by using previous returns if available. |
|||
18.5.2. Methods used to derive the extrapolation factor | |||
Design weight Non-response adjustment |
|||
18.6. Adjustment | |||
Covered under Data compilation. |
|||
18.6.1. Seasonal adjustment | |||
Not applicable to Integrated Farm Statistics, because it collects structural data on agriculture. |
|
|||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
19.1. List of abbreviations | |||
CAP – Common Agricultural Policy CAPI – Computer Assisted Personal Interview CATI – Computer Assisted Telephone Interview CAWI – Computer Assisted Web Interview DAFM – Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine DMS – Data Management System EPA – Environmental Protection Agency FSS – Farm Structure Survey IACS – Integrated Administration and Control System IFS – Integrated Farm Statistics LSU – Livestock units NACE – Nomenclature of Economic Activities NUTS – Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics PAPI – Paper and Pencil Interview SO – Standard output UAA – Utilised agricultural area |
|||
19.2. Additional comments | |||
No additional comments. |
|
|||
|
|||