Livestock and meat (apro_mt)

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

Compiling agency: Statistics Belgium


Eurostat metadata
Reference metadata
1. Contact
2. Statistical presentation
3. Statistical processing
4. Quality management
5. Relevance
6. Accuracy and reliability
7. Timeliness and punctuality
8. Coherence and comparability
9. Accessibility and clarity
10. Cost and Burden
11. Confidentiality
12. Comment
Related Metadata
Annexes (including footnotes)
 



For any question on data and metadata, please contact: Eurostat user support

Download


1. Contact Top
1.1. Contact organisation

Statistics Belgium
1.2. Contact organisation unit

Thematic Directorate Economie
1.5. Contact mail address

North Gate - Bureau 6 B 030 - Koning Albert II-laan 16 - 1000 Brussel


2. Statistical presentation Top
2.1. Data description

The livestock and meat statistics are collected under Regulation (EC) No 1165/2008 since 2009. They cover slaughtering in slaughterhouses (monthly) and other slaughtering (annual), GIP (gross indigenous production) forecast (semi-annual or quarterly data), and livestock statistics (once or twice a year), including regional statistics (annual).This template lists the questions constituting the quality report required in Article 17 of EU Regulation N°1165/2008 on livestock and meat statistics.
This quality report covers the year 2019 and all the quality indicators already reported for years 2010, 2013 and 2016.
2.2. Classification system

Not requested for reference year 2019.
2.3. Coverage - sector

Not requested for reference year 2019.
2.4. Statistical concepts and definitions

Not requested for reference year 2019.
2.5. Statistical unit

Not requested for reference year 2019.
2.6. Statistical population

Not requested for reference year 2019.
2.7. Reference area

Not requested for reference year 2019.
2.8. Coverage - Time

Not requested for reference year 2019.
2.9. Base period

Not requested for reference year 2019.


3. Statistical processing Top

Administrative sources are used for livestock (2 times a year), slaughterings in slaughterhouses (monthly) and other slaughterings (once a year).

For some subcategories of animals in the livestock statistics, not defined in the administrative source, coeff. are used. These are estimated based on survey data.

  For the bovines these coeff. are based on the results of the last Farm structure survey (2016)

  For the pigs these coeff. are based on a yearly sample survey for the pigs in November (2019).

  Coeff. are estimated on agricultural region level.

 

  coeff. for calves as : number of calves in a subcategorie/ number of calves

  coeff. for heifers as : number of heifers 1 year for slaughter/number of heifers 1 year

                                 number of heifers 2 years or over for slaughter/number heifers 2 years or over

  coeff. for cows as : number of cows in a subcategorie/ number of cows

  The other categories of bovines are calculated as the difference in number with the total of the corresponding categorie.

 

 coeff. for piglets as : number of piglets in a subcategorie/number of piglets

 coeff. for fatteningpigs as : number of fatteningpigs in a subcategorie/number of fatteningpigs

 coeff. for breedingpigs as : number of breedingpigs in a subcategorie/number of breedingpigs

 

For some subcategories of animals (bulls and heifers) in the slaughterstatistics.  Coeff. are estimated based on the results of the administrative information gathered by the Belgian organisaton responsible to follow the Belgian meat market (classifications of carcacces and market prices) - IVB.

These coeff. are revised every month and calculated on national level.

Coeff. for distinction between bulls and bullocks

Coeff. for distinction between cows and heifers

 
3.1. Source data

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
3.2. Frequency of data collection

2 times a year, in May and November
3.2.1. Reference date of the statistics

Reference date of the statistics

Livestock statistics Bovines animal Pigs Sheep Goats
November/December

01/11

01/11

01/11

01/11
November/ December - Regional

01/11

01/11

01/11

01/11
May/June

01/05

 

01/05

  
3.3. Data collection

see point 3. Statistical processing
3.3.1. Production of estimates

Estimates are limited to coeff.  to classify groups of animals in some subcategories not recoded as that in the administrative sources.
3.3.1.1. Process for GIP forecast

Is the following information taken into account to produce the GIP forecast?

  Bovines Pigs Sheep and Goats
No forecast required for sheep and goats    
Extrapolation of known results on slaughtering
Expert assessment of the market
Expert assessment of the GIP by external expert by internal expert
Models Production models (e.g. cycle of pig market) Production models (e.g. cycle of pig market)
Other
Other slaughtering covered by the GIP forecast


Additional comments (on the GIP forecast)
3.3.1.2. Process for estimate of other slaughtering

What significant source do you use to estimate other slaughtering?

 

Bovines

Pigs

 Sheep and Goats
Administrative information from veterinary service
Farm Survey
Consumer Survey
Coefficients based on ad hoc study
Year of calculation (Coefficients based on ad hoc study)
Discrepancy between slaughtering and estimated GIP (For instance, if overall GIP is directly estimated based on data at farm level)
Comprehensive study
Year of calculation (Comprehensive study)


Additional comments (on other slaughtering)

It's forbidden to slaughter bovines outside the slaughterhouses.  
3.4. Data validation

Not requested for reference year 2019.
3.5. Data compilation

Not requested for reference year 2019.
3.6. Adjustment

Not requested for reference year 2019.


4. Quality management Top
4.1. Quality assurance

Not requested for reference year 2019.
4.2. Quality management - assessment

Not requested for reference year 2019.


5. Relevance Top
5.1. Relevance - User Needs

The data available meet the need of the main users.
5.1.1. Main national users of the statistics on livestock and meat

The data produced under Regulation (EC) No 1165/2008 are used by the following users, in addition to being delivered to Eurostat:

  National accounts (National Accounts, including European Accounts of Agriculture) Supply balance sheets Gross nutrient balance
Main national users Livestock - Bovines
Livestock - Pigs
Livestock - Sheep and goats
Slaughtering - Bovines
Slaughtering - Pigs
Slaughtering - Sheep and goats
Slaughtering - Poultry
Other slaughtering		 Slaughtering - Bovines
Slaughtering - Pigs
Slaughtering - Sheep and goats
Slaughtering - Poultry
Other slaughtering		 Livestock - Sheep and goats
Livestock - Bovines
Livestock - Pigs
5.1.2. Other Main national users of the statistics on livestock and meat

Other Main national users of the statistics on livestock and meat, please specify:

Livestock

Bovines

 Institutions with agriculture activities or interests

Pigs

 Institutions with agriculture activities or interests

Sheep and goats

 Institutions with agriculture activities or interests

Slaughtering

Bovines

 Institutions with agriculture activities or interests

Pigs

 Institutions with agriculture activities or interests

Sheep and goats

 Institutions with agriculture activities or interests

Poultry

 Institutions with agriculture activities or interests

GIP forecast

Bovines

 

Pigs

 

Sheep and goats

 

Other slaughtering

 
5.1.3. Main international users of the statistics on livestock and meat

Does the department in charge of livestock and meat statistics provide data to the following international organisations at their request?

DG Agriculture and Rural Development Not known
Other EU institutions Not known
FAO YES
Other international ‘governmental’ organisation YES
5.2. Relevance - User Satisfaction

No user satisfaction survey was conducted.
5.2.1. User satisfaction survey

User satisfaction survey

  Answer
Have you already carried out a survey on user satisfaction?
If yes, how long ago (months)?
If yes, are the results available to the public?
5.3. Completeness

Not requested for reference year 2019.
5.3.1. Data completeness - rate

Not requested for reference year 2019.


6. Accuracy and reliability Top

Data are based on administrative sources, so the results are assumed to be accurate and reliable.
6.1. Accuracy - overall

Data are based on administrative sources, so the overall results are assumed to be accurate and reliable.

 The accuracy and reliability of the results  can be influenced by 2 risk factors :

-completeness of the farm register

-correctness of the coeff. used

Results are revised if problems are stated.

 
6.1.1. Thresholds and legal derogation

Thresholds and legal derogation (Article 4 of regulation N°1165/2008)

Livestock statistics Total number of animals if under the legal threshold in December 2015 (Number of Head)
Bovine animals (under 1.5 million head)  
Pigs (under 3 million head)  
Sheep (under 500 000 head)

117321
Goats (under 500 000 head)

38591
6.1.2. Quality control survey

Quality control survey

Quality control survey (livestock statistics)
Quality control survey (meat statistics)
6.2. Sampling error

not applicable because - overall data are based on administrative source - additional survey only for the calculation of  coeff. for missing animal categories
6.2.1. Sampling error - indicators

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.2.1.1. Coefficient of variation achieved for the main variables (only for sample survey)

Coefficient of variation achieved for the main variables (only for sample survey)

 Livestock statistics  Bovine animals  Pigs  Sheep  Goats
 Livestock - Nov./Dec. (in %)        
 Livestock - Nov./Dec. Regional (in %)        
 Livestock - May/June (in %)       
 Assessment method        
 Further comment

Livestock statistics is based on administrative source

 

 Livestock statistics is based on administrative source  Survey only in FSS years  Survey only in FSS years

 

 Slaughtering statistics  Bovine animals  Pigs  Sheep  Goats  Poultry
 Slaughtering statistics (in %)          
 Assessment method          
 Further comment

Slaughtering statistics is based on administrative source

Slaughtering statistics is based on administrative source

Slaughtering statistics is based on administrative source

Slaughtering statistics is based on administrative source

Slaughtering statistics is based on administrative source
6.2.1.2. Sampling rate

Sampling rate

  Non-relevant * 1. Frame (Number of units) 2. Sample size (Number of units) Sampling rate ((2/1) x 100%)
Slaughterhouses
Cattle farms
Pig farms
Sheep farms
Goat farms
Animal farms **
 
 
 


* If the main information is drawn from a census, a register or a source other than a survey, the first column is ticked ** Animal farms: if the survey is designed for all livestock together
6.3. Non-sampling error

not relevant
6.3.1. Coverage error
6.3.1.1. Over-coverage - rate

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.3.1.2. Common units - proportion

Not requested for reference year 2019.
6.3.1.3. Coverage error for each process

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.3.2. Measurement error

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.3.2.1. Checklist on measurement errors

Whereas coherence refers to the data disseminated, the measurement errors refer to the data collection.

Slaughtering:

Young cattle and calves recorded separately
Goats actually recorded
Carcass weight recorded fully compliant (Compliant with Regulation (EC) No 1165/2008)
Even for poultry
Poultry slaughtering recorded in tonnes and head
6.3.3. Non response error

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.3.3.1. Unit non-response - rate

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.3.3.2. Item non-response - rate

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.3.4. Processing error

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.3.4.1. Imputation - rate

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.3.5. Model assumption error

Not requested for reference year 2019.
6.4. Seasonal adjustment

Not requested for reference year 2019.
6.5. Data revision - policy

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.6. Data revision - practice

Not requested for reference year 2019.
6.6.1. Data revision - average size

Not requested for reference year 2019.


7. Timeliness and punctuality Top
7.1. Timeliness

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
7.1.1. Time lag - first result

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
7.1.2. Time lag - final result

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
7.2. Punctuality

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
7.2.1. Punctuality - delivery and publication

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.


8. Coherence and comparability Top
8.1. Comparability - geographical

no problem of comparability between regions
8.1.1. Asymmetry for mirror flow statistics - coefficient

Not requested for reference year 2019.
8.1.2. Comparability – geographical Calves

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the animals age and/or intended use with the ones used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition

For the slaughtering statistics there is no problem with the definition because the distinction between calves and young cattle is based on the birthday of the slaughtered animals.   For the livestock statistics  an estimation procedure is applied because of a missing code  for intended use (slaughtering or not) in the administrative source.


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 Yes

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 Coefficients  based on the farm structure survey results of 2016

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 01/11/2016

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 farm structure survey results of 2016

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

 See item 3 Statistical Processing, coeff. are used on agricultural region level.
8.1.3. Comparability – geographical Bulls

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the castration status of the animals and the ones used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition

The castration status is not coded in the administrative source.

 


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition?(Yes/No)

 Yes

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 For the Slaughterings a coefficient is based on the results of the administrative information gathered by the Belgian organisaton responsible to follow the Belgian meat market (classifications of carcacces and market prices).

For the Livestock, coefficients  are based on the farm structure survey results of 2016

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 Slaughterings : monthly

Livestock 1/11/2016

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 Interprofessional Association for the Belgian Meat (IVB)

Livestock by Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain (FASFC)

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

 See item 3 Statistical Processing, coeff. are used on agricultural region level.
8.1.4. Comparability – geographical Buffaloes

Is there any difference between the accounting of buffaloes in the different age bovine animal categories and the above referred classes?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

 The number of buffaloes is very low in Belgium.
8.1.5. Comparability – geographical Cows

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the animals age and/or purpose and the ones used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition

The status calved is not coded in the administrative source.

 


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 Yes

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

For the Slaughterings a coefficient is based on the results of the administrative information gathered by the Belgian organisaton responsible to follow the Belgian meat market (classifications of carcacces and market prices).

For the Livestock, coefficients  are based on the farm structure survey results of 2016

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 Slaughterings : monthly

Livestock 1/11/2016

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 Interprofessional Association for the Belgian Meat (IVB)

Livestock by Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain (FASFC)

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

 See item 3 Statistical Processing, coeff. are used on agricultural region level.
8.1.6. Comparability – geographical Heifers

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the age and/or the intended use and the ones used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition

The status calved is not coded in the administrative source.


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 Yes

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

For the Slaughterings a coefficient is based on the results of the administrative information gathered by the Belgian organisaton responsible to follow the Belgian meat market (classifications of carcacces and market prices).

For the Livestock, coefficients  are based on the farm structure survey results of 2016

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 Slaughterings : monthly

Livestock 1/11/2016

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 Interprofessional Association for the Belgian Meat (IVB)

Livestock by Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain (FASFC)

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

 See item 3 Statistical Processing, coeff. are used on agricultural region level.
8.1.7. Comparability – geographical Lambs

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the age and/or the purpose and the ones used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

 Belgium is under the threshold so we provide only the total number
8.1.8. Comparability – geographical Goats

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the animals status and the ones used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition

We distinguish between: Goats which have already kidded/ Female small goats for the renewal of the herd (<12 months)/other goats


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 No

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

 Belgium is under the threshold so we provide only the total number
8.1.9. Comparability – geographical Piglets

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the weight and the one used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 No

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

 For 2011, 2012 and 2013, we have compared results calculated from administrative source data and from survey and it's similar => correction not required
8.1.10. Comparability – geographical Sows

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the covered status of the animals and the ones used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition

A status for breeding is not coded in the administrative source.


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 yes

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 coefficients  are based on the Novembe survey 2018 for pigs

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 01/11/2018

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 November survey 2018 for the pigs.

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

 See item 3 Statistical Processing, coeff. are used on agricultural region level.

Coeff. are calculated on the November survey of the year before.
8.1.11. Comparability – geographical Slaughter units

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the units provided by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

 
8.1.12. Comparability – geographical Carcasses

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the animals carcass weight and the ones used by respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

 The "cold" carcass weight is obtained by subtracting 2% of the "warm" weight recorded in the administrative source.
8.1.13. Comparability – geographical Carcasses poultry

Is there any difference between the above referred definition and the one used by respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

 
8.1.14. Comparability – geographical Slaughterhouse

Is there any difference between the above referred definition and the one used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

 
8.1.15. Comparability – geographical Gross indigenous production

Is there any difference between the above referred definition and the one used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

 
8.2. Comparability - over time

no break in time
8.2.1. Length of comparable time series

Not requested for reference year 2019. 
8.2.2. First year of availability of comparable data

First year when the statistics were produced with comparable figures for all, most or only the main variables (e.g. total numbers of animals):

 

All

Most

Main variables

Number of periods per year*

Livestock

 

 

Bovines

  1969

 

 

  2

Pigs

   1969

 

 

  2

Sheep and goats

   1969

 

 

  1

Slaughtering

 

 

 

Bovines

  2010  1980

 

  12

Pigs

  2010  1980

 

  12

Sheep and goats

  2010  1980

 

  12

Poultry

  2009

 

 

  12

* Number of periods per year: according to the frequency of statistics, i.e. 12 for monthly data, 4 for quarterly data, 1 for annual data, etc.
8.3. Coherence - cross domain

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
8.4. Coherence - sub annual and annual statistics

Not requested for reference year 2019.
8.5. Coherence - National Accounts

Not requested for reference year 2019.
8.6. Coherence - internal

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.


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

Not requested for reference year 2019.
9.2. Dissemination format - Publications

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
9.3. Dissemination format - online database

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
9.3.1. Data tables - consultations

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
9.4. Dissemination format - microdata access

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
9.5. Dissemination format - other

https://statbel.fgov.be/en/themes/agriculture-fishery
9.6. Documentation on methodology

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
9.7. Quality management - documentation

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
9.7.1. Metadata completeness - rate

Not requested for reference year 2019.
9.7.2. Metadata - consultations

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.


10. Cost and Burden Top

administrative and other survey sources are used to the fullest extent possible
10.1. Burden on the respondents

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

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

Pig survey Nov 2018

1491

20

1

29880

Cattle survey Nov 2016

 20300

 10

 1

 203000

 Goat and sheep survey Nov 2016

 4000

 5

 1

 20000
         
         
         
         
         
         
         


11. Confidentiality Top

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
11.1. Confidentiality - policy

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
11.2. Confidentiality - data treatment

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.


12. Comment Top


Related metadata Top


Annexes Top
SP1 : Slaughtering (monthly)
SP2 : Other slaughtering (yearly)
SP4 : Sample survey for November on  pigs (to estimate coeff.)
SP5: Bovine register (May and November)
SP6: Pigs register (May and November)