|
Source 1 |
Source 2 |
Source 3 |
Source 4 |
Have new data sources been introduced since the previous quality report? |
NO |
|
|
|
If yes, which new data sources have been introduced since the previous quality report? |
|
|
|
|
Type of source? |
|
|
|
|
To which Table (Reg 543/2009) do they contribute? |
|
|
|
|
Have some data sources been dropped since the previous quality report? |
NO |
|
|
|
Which data sources have been dropped since the previous quality report? |
|
|
|
|
Type of source? |
|
|
|
|
Why have they been dropped? |
|
|
|
|
Additional comments |
|
|
|
|
Data sources: Please indicate the data sources which were used for the reference year on which is reported
|
Type |
Name(s) of the sources |
If other type, which kind of data source? |
Table 1: Crops from arable land |
|
|
|
Early estimates for areas |
Expert estimate |
Teagasc Expert Estimate (Teagasc is the agriculture and food development authority in Ireland. Its mission is to support science-based innovation in the agri-food sector and the broader bioeconomy that will underpin profitability, competitiveness and sustainability). |
|
Final area under cultivation |
Administrative data |
IACS |
|
Production |
Other |
Not applicable |
NSI Calculation (using IACS & Teagasc Expert estimates) |
Yield |
Expert estimate |
Teagasc Expert Estimate |
|
Non-existing and non-significant crops |
Administrative data Expert estimate |
IACS Teagasc Expert Estimate
|
|
Table 2: Vegetables, melons and strawberries |
|
|
|
Early estimates for harvested areas |
Other |
|
NSI estimate, with input from crop experts in Teagasc |
Final harvested area |
Administrative data Other |
IACS |
NSI estimate with input from crop experts in Teagasc |
Production |
Other |
|
1.Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) Horticulture report. This is a summary table which we receive from the MoA listing areas and/or production for selected fruits and vegetables. This is provided directly to the NSI. 2.NSI Calculations (using IACS, MoA report & Teagasc Expert estimates) |
Non-existing and non-significant crops |
Administrative data Other |
IACS |
MoA Horticulture report. This is a summary table which we receive from the Irish MoA listing areas and/or production for selected fruits and vegetables. This is provided directly to the NSI. |
Table 3: Permanent crops |
|
|
|
Early estimates for production area |
Other |
|
NSI estimate. In the absence of early estimates from the MoA, we carry Year T-1 values until such time as we receive IACS data from the MoA. |
Final production area |
Survey Administrative data |
Orchard Survey (for apples every 5 years)
IACS
|
|
Production |
Survey |
Orchard Survey (for apples every 5 years) |
|
Non-existing and non-significant crops |
Administrative data Expert estimate Other |
IACS
Teagasc Expert Estimate
|
MoA Horticulture report. This is a summary table which we receive from the Irish MoA listing areas and/or production for selected fruits and vegetables. This is provided directly to the NSI. |
Table 4: Agricultural land use |
|
|
|
Main area |
Survey Administrative data |
June Crops & Livestock Survey
IACS
|
|
Non-existing and non-significant crops |
Administrative data |
IACS
|
|
Total number of different data sources |
7 |
|
|
Additional comments |
Data source for the humidity |
Put x, if used |
Surveyed: farmers report the humidity |
x |
Surveyed: farmers convert the production/yield into standard humidity |
|
Surveyed: whole sale purchasers report the humidity |
|
Surveyed: whole sale purchasers convert the production/yield into standard humidity |
|
Surveyed by experts (e.g. test areas harvested and measured) |
|
Estimated by experts |
x |
Other type |
|
If other type, please explain |
|
Additional information |
|
In the Teagasc survey, farmers report humidity. However, this is not converted into standard humidity. |
|
|
Which method is used for calculating the yield for main arable crops? |
production divided by harvested area |
If another method, describe it. |
|
|
Definitions |
Question |
In case yes, how do they differ? |
Do national definitions differ from the definitions in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 543/2009? |
YES |
Area under cultivation - the area under cultivation is the sown area. After the harvest, it does not exclude ruined areas (e.g. due to natural disasters). |
Are there differences between the national methodology and the methodology described in the Handbook concerning e.g. the item and aggregate calculations? |
YES |
In Ireland there is no additional information collected on the actual area harvested. This means that the reported value for area after harvest does not exclude non-harvested area (e.g. area ruined by natural disasters or area not harvested for economic reasons). |
Are special estimation/calculation methods used for main crops from arable land? |
YES |
The reported value for area after harvest does not exclude non-harvested area (e.g. area ruined by natural disasters or area not harvested for economic reasons). This means that the reported yield is lower than the real yield as ruined & non-harvested areas are not included in the calculation of yield. |
Are special estimation/calculation methods used for vegetables or strawberries? |
NO |
|
Are special estimation/calculation methods used for permanent crops for human consumption? |
NO |
|
Are special estimation/calculation methods used for main land use? |
YES |
As all Agriculture land use (principally grassland) is not registered in the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS), the Irish NSI conducts an annual crops survey in June. Results for grassland agricultural land use area are based on a matched sample methodology. A series of SAS programs are run to identify all farmers who responded to the survey in both the current year and in the previous year. Then, for each categories of grassland, the percentage change between the two years is calculated. This percentage change is then applied to the published totals for the previous year to come up with estimates for the totals for the current year. |
Do national crop item definitions differ from the definitions in the Handbook (D-flagged data)? |
YES |
|
In case yes, how do they differ? ( list all items and explanations) |
|
|
In case data are delivered for one of the items below, describe the crop species included in the item: |
R9000 - Other root crops n.e.c. G2900 - Other leguminous plants harvested green n.e.c. G9100- Other cereals harvested green (excluding green maize) G9900 - Other plants harvested green from arable land n.e.c. V1900 - Other brassicas n.e.c. V2900 - Other leafy or stalked vegetables n.e.c. V4900 - Other root, tuber and bulb vegetables n.e.c. |
R9000: fodder beet, kale, forage rape, sugar beet, radish, swede, turnips G2900: Alfalfa,Red Clover, clover, lupins, vetch, mustard G9100: rye, spring triticale, winter triticale G9900: Arable Silage, Mixed Cropping V1900: Kohl rabi, Pak Choi V2900: rhubarb, rocket, Perpetual Spinach V4900: Horseradish, Parsnips, fennel |
Population
Which measures were taken in order to make sure that the requirement stipulated in Art. 3.2 are met? (Statistics shall be representative of at least 95 % of the areas of each table in the Regulation). |
Comprehensive area data from both Census of Agriculture 2010 and IACS administrative data used to create strata and ensure adequate coverage and representativity. |
Is the data collection based on holdings? |
YES |
If yes, how the holdings were identified? |
Unique statistical farm identifier |
If not, on which unit the data collection is based on? |
|
When was last update of the holding register? (month/year) |
April 2023 in advance of conducting Integrated Farm Statistics survey 2023. |
Was a threshold applied? |
NO |
If yes, size of the excluded area |
Area excluded on the basis of the threshold in % of the total area for that crop |
Cereals for the production of grain (in %) |
|
Dried pulses and protein crops (in %) |
|
Root crops (in %) |
|
Oilseeds (in %) |
|
Other industrial crops (included all industrial crops besides oilseeds) (in %) |
|
Plants harvested green from arable land (in %) |
|
Total vegetables, melons and strawberries (in %) |
|
Cultivated mushrooms (in %) |
|
Total permanent crops (in %) |
|
Fruit trees (in %) |
|
Berries (in %) |
|
Nut trees (in %) |
|
Citrus fruit trees (in %) |
|
Vineyards (in %) |
|
Olive trees (in %) |
|
Survey method (only for census and surveys)
|
Survey 1 |
Survey 2 |
Survey 3 |
Survey 4 |
Survey 5 |
Survey 6 |
Survey 7 |
Name of the survey |
June Crops & Livestock Survey/FSS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Which survey method was used? |
Postal questionnaire filled in by respondent Telephone interview, paper questionnaire |
|
|
|
|
|
|
If 'other', please specify |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please provide a link to the questionnaire |
https://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/methods/cropsandlivestocksurveyjunefinal/Agriculture_June_Survey_Form_June_2022.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Data entry method, if paper questionnaires? |
Optical |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrative data (This question block is only for administrative data)
|
Admin source 1 |
Admin source 2 |
Admin source 3 |
Admin source 4 |
Admin source 5 |
Admin source 6 |
Name of the register |
IACS |
|
|
|
|
|
Description |
IACS -Single Payment Scheme |
|
|
|
|
|
Data owner (organisation) |
Minsistry of Agriculture |
|
|
|
|
|
Update frequency |
Every 6 months or more frequently |
|
|
|
|
|
Reference date (month/year) |
01/2022 and 09/2022 |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal basis |
Single Payment Scheme-Council Regulation No 1782/2003 |
|
|
|
|
|
Reporting unit |
Holding |
|
|
|
|
|
Identification variable (e.g. address, unique code, etc.) |
Unique Code (Herd Number) |
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of mismatches (%) |
Not recorded |
|
|
|
|
|
How were the mismatches handled? |
Matched on name, address or another variable |
|
|
|
|
|
Degree of coverage (holdings, e.g. 80%) |
97% of holdings |
|
|
|
|
|
Degree of completeness (variables, e.g. 60%) |
95% |
|
|
|
|
|
If not complete, which other sources were used ? |
June Crops & Livestock Survey |
|
|
|
|
|
Were the data used for sample frame? |
Sample frame |
|
|
|
|
|
Data used for other purposes, which? |
yes, updating register. |
|
|
|
|
|
Which variables were taken from administrative sources? |
All Crop variables (excluding strawberries) |
|
|
|
|
|
Were there any differences in the definition of the variables between the administrative source and those described in the Regulation? |
NO |
|
|
|
|
|
Please describe the differences |
|
|
|
|
|
|
What measures were taken to eliminate the differences? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
How was the reliability, accuracy and coherence (comparison to other available data) of the data originated from administrative data source (ante- and/or ex-post) checked? |
Compare with expert estimates/forecasts from Teagasc (which is the agriculture and food development authority in Ireland. Its mission is to support science-based innovation in the agri-food sector and the broader bioeconomy that will underpin profitability, competitiveness and sustainability) |
|
|
|
|
|
What were the possible limitations, drawbacks of using the data from administrative source(s)? |
Difficult to use the 'unique identifier' as some holdings may have several identifiers attached. |
|
|
|
|
|
Expert estimations (This question block is only for expert estimates)
|
Expert estimate 1 |
Expert estimate 2 |
Expert estimate 3 |
Expert estimate 4 |
Expert estimate 5 |
Expert estimate 6 |
Name of the estimation |
Crop Yield |
|
|
|
|
|
Data owner (organisation) |
Teagasc (National agricultural research body) |
|
|
|
|
|
Update frequency (e.g. 1 year or 6 months) |
Yearly |
|
|
|
|
|
Reference date (Month/Year e.g. 1/22 - 8/22) |
01/06/2022 |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal basis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use purpose of the estimates? |
Crop yields |
|
|
|
|
|
What kind of expertise the experts have? |
Crop experts/Crop advisers |
|
|
|
|
|
What kind of estimation methods were used? |
Yield readings on harvest for each NUTS4 region |
|
|
|
|
|
Were there any differences in the definition of the variables between the experts' estimates and those described in the Regulation? |
NO |
|
|
|
|
|
If yes, please describe the differences |
|
|
|
|
|
|
What measures were taken to eliminate the differences? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
How were the reliability, accuracy and coherence (comparison to other available data) of the data originated from experts' estimates (ante- and/or ex-post)checked? |
Compare against other national publications/estimates in agri sector |
|
|
|
|
|
What were the possible limitations, drawbacks of using the data from expert estimate(s)? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|