Livestock and meat (apro_mt)

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

Compiling agency: Statistics Poland


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 Poland

1.2. Contact organisation unit

Agriculture Division

1.5. Contact mail address

Al. Niepodleglosci 208, 00-925 Warszawa


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 applicable.


3. Statistical processing Top
3.1. Source data

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.

3.2. Frequency of data collection

See item 3.2.1.

3.2.1. Reference date of the statistics

Reference date of the statistics

Livestock statistics Bovines animal Pigs Sheep Goats
November/December

01/12

01/12

01/12

 

November/ December - Regional

01/12

01/12

01/12

 

May/June

01/06

01/06

 01/06
3.3. Data collection

See item 3.3.1.

3.3.1. Production of estimates

See items 3.3.1.1 and 3.3.1.2.

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 internal expert
by external expert
by internal expert
by external expert
Models Recent changes in the stocks (livestock for fattening) for the forecast for the short term
Recent changes in stocks (breeding animals) for the forecast for the longer term
Recent changes in the stocks (livestock for fattening) for the forecast for the short term
Recent changes in stocks (breeding animals) for the forecast for the longer term
Other
Other slaughtering covered by the GIP forecast


Additional comments (on the GIP forecast)

External experts from Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics - National Research

Institute (IAFE-NRI) as the other source of information.

Other sourse - external trade statistics.

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)

Administrative information from the Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture (ARMA) is used to estimate the other slaughtering.

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

See items 5.1.1, 5.1.2 and 5.1.3.

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
Slaughtering - Pigs
Slaughtering - Sheep and goats
Livestock - Sheep and goats
Slaughtering - Bovines
Slaughtering - Poultry
Other slaughtering
Slaughtering - Bovines
Slaughtering - Pigs
Slaughtering - Sheep and goats
Slaughtering - Poultry
Other slaughtering
Livestock - Bovines
Livestock - Pigs
Livestock - Sheep and goats
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:

 
 

 

 

Pigs

 

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics and other central and local government administration, general public, journalists, scientists, banks, businessmen, pupils and students

Sheep and goats

Livestock

Bovines

 

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics and other central and local government administration, general public, journalists, scientists, banks, businessmen, pupils and students

 

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics and other central and local government administration, general public, journalists, scientists, banks, businessmen, pupils and students

Slaughtering

Bovines

 

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics and other central and local government administration, general public, journalists, scientists, banks, businessmen, pupils and students

Pigs

 

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics and other central and local government administration, general public, journalists, scientists, banks, businessmen, pupils and students

Sheep and goats

 

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics and other central and local government administration, general public, journalists, scientists, banks, businessmen, pupils and students

Poultry

 

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics and other central and local government administration, general public, journalists, scientists, banks, businessmen, pupils and students

GIP forecast

Bovines

 

Pigs

 

Sheep and goats

 

Other slaughtering

 

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics and other central and local government administration, general public, journalists, scientists, banks, businessmen, pupils and students

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 YES
Other EU institutions YES
FAO YES
Other international ‘governmental’ organisation Not known
5.2. Relevance - User Satisfaction

 

See item 5.2.1.

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
6.1. Accuracy - overall

See items 6.1.1. and 6.1.2.

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 2018 (Number of Head)
Bovine animals (under 1.5 million head)

6183349

Pigs (under 3 million head)

11027718

Sheep (under 500 000 head)

268541

Goats (under 500 000 head)

 49900

6.1.2. Quality control survey

Quality control survey

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

See items 6.2.1.1. and 6.2.1.2.

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 %)

0.72

0.61

1.84

 

 Livestock - Nov./Dec. Regional (in %)

 0.72

0.61

 1.84

 

 Livestock - May/June (in %)

0.72

0.56

 1.74 for sheep

 Assessment method

We applied formulas for variance estimation of total known from classical theory for stratified random sampling.

We applied formulas for variance estimation of total known from classical theory for stratified random sampling.

We applied formulas for variance estimation of total known from classical theory for stratified random sampling.

Estimates of voivodship experts

 Further comment

 

 

Livestock - May/June (in %) (1,74) concerns only sheep 

 Livestock - May/June (in %) (1,74) does not concern goats

 

 Slaughtering statistics

 Bovine animals

 Pigs

 Sheep

 Goats

 Poultry

 Slaughtering statistics (in %)

0

0

0

0

0

 Assessment method

Full survey

Full survey

Full survey

Full survey

Full survey

 Further comment

 

 

 

 

 

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

412787

30000

7.27

Pig farms

211089

30000

14.21

Sheep farms

412787

30000

7.27

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

See item 6.3.2.1.

6.3.1. Coverage error

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.

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

See item 6.3.2.1.

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

See items 8.1.2 to 8.1.15.

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


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

 Difference in the definition does not affect the data in Poland.

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


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

 

8.1.4. 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

 'Category Buffaloes are included into category bovine in Poland.

 

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


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

 

8.1.6. 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


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

 

8.1.7. 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

 

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


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?

 do uzupełnienia

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 do uzupełnienia

Any further comments, please provide them here

 

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)

 

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

 

8.1.10. 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


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

 

8.1.11. 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

 

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

See item 8.2.2.

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

 1998

 

 

 2

Pigs

 1998

 

 

 2

Sheep and goats

 1998/2015

 

 

 2 for sheep/1 for goats

Slaughtering

 

 

 

Bovines

 2003  

 

 12

Pigs

 2003  

 

 12

Sheep and goats

 2003  

 

 12

Poultry

 2003

 

 

 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

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.

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

See item 10.1.

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)

R-ZW-B

23486

13

2

610636

R-ZW-S

26771

10

 

2

535420

R-09U

666

11

12

87912

         
         
         
         
         
         
         


11. Confidentiality Top
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: Sample surveys for June/May and November/December data collection on cattle, poultry and sheep in private farms (part of R-ZW-B questionnaire)
SP2: Reports for June/May and November/December data collection on cattle, poultry and sheep in remaining farms (state and cooperative farms and companies with public and private property share) (part of R-ZW-B questionnaire)
SP3: Sample surveys for June/May and November/December data collection on pigs in private farms (part of R-ZW-S questionnaire)
SP4: Reports for June/May and November/December data collection on pigs in remaining farms (state and cooperative farms and companies with public and private property share) (part of R-ZW-S questionnaire)
SP5: Monthly reports from slaughterhouses (R-09U guestionnaire)