Slaughterings outside slaughterhouses (HU)

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

Compiling agency:  HCSO (Hungarian Central Statistical Office)


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

 HCSO (Hungarian Central Statistical Office)
1.2. Contact organisation unit

Statistics Directorate, Sectoral Statistics Department, Agriculture statistics section
1.5. Contact mail address

H-1024, Budapest, Keleti Károly u. 5-7.


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 (monthly), 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 year 2010 on the statistical processes used to meet the Regulation (EC) No 1165/2008.
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

See item 3.1.1. and 3.1.2.
3.1.1. Labelling of the statistical processes

Identification of the process used to meet regulation EC N°1165/2008

Label SPx (x=1,2,3,4,5,6,7)

Short description of process identified

SP3

 Slaughterings outside slaughterhouses
3.1.2. Data Sources for the defined process

Data sources used to meet Regulation (EC) No 1165/2008 for the defined process in 3.1.1.

A. Main source
List of statistical units, frequency of revision (decimal years): 

0.5
Institution in charge of data collection NSI = National Statistical Institute
First year of data availability by (current) source

2010
Type of source Ad hoc survey-Interview
If Administrative source, please specify
If Other source, please specify
Does this main source cover All the respondents (sample)
If the main source is a source other than a statistical survey, please attach a short description of the source
B. Additional source of information
Additional source of information
Institution in charge of data collection
First year of data availability by source
C. Additional comments
Livestock
Slaughtering
3.2. Frequency of data collection

Twice a year. The table covers information on the monthly slaughterings outside slaughterhouses.
3.3. Data collection

In the case of private holdings: the December 2019 representative agricultural survey implemented between 25
November and 15 December 2019. The questionnaires could be filled in electronically between 15 and 24
November. Filling in the questionnaire electronically was obligatory for key private holdings. The private
holdings in a sample district which reached a special threshold of a holding in the 2016 farm structure survey
(FSS 2016), furthermore, those whose e-mail address was known to us from information gathered in earlier
surveys also had the opportunity for supplying data this way.
Methodology of sampling: the sample of the survey is based on the 2010 agricultural census (AC 2010) and FSS
2016. Out of the 13,633 agricultural survey districts in Hungary 648 were designated, which were fully observed
by enumerators (house-to-house method). A questionnaire was filled in for all holdings surveyed in the June 2019
survey, irrespective of whether on 1 December they met the criterion of the concept of an agricultural holding. A
questionnaire was filled in also for new holdings established in the preceding half-year.
An agricultural holding (holding) means a single unit, both technically and economically, which has a single
management and which produces agricultural products and
used at least
1,500 m2 of productive area (arable land, kitchen gardens, orchards, vineyards, grassland (meadows + pastures), forests, fish-ponds and reeds together), or
500 m2 of orchards and vineyards altogether (where the criterion of plantation size should
also be met: at least 400 m2 of fruit trees area or at least 200 m2 of berries area or vineyards), or
a total 500 m2 of arable land area for plantation-type crop production, or
a total 100 m2 of land area under cover, or
50 m2 of basic area used for mushroom growing, or
kept at least
one head of bigger live animals (cattle, buffaloes, pigs, horses, sheep, goats, emus, ostriches,
donkeys or mules), or
50 heads of poultry (chickens, geese, ducks, turkeys and guinea fowls altogether), or
25 heads of rabbits, or
25 heads of furry animals, or
25 heads of slaughter pigeons (carrier pigeons should not be taken into consideration!), or
5 beehives.
Thus a total of 103 thousand households, within which 21 thousand holdings were included in the sample, which
was 5.0% of all private holdings.
Besides the above another group – of 'key' private holdings – was designated. They were selected according to the
following criteria or thresholds: 150 cattle, 300 pigs, 25 horses, 500 sheep, 40 goats, 20,000 chickens, 5,000
geese, 10,000 ducks, 5,000 turkeys, 120 guinea fowls, 300 rabbits, 200 slaughter pigeons, 300 beehives, 50
ostriches, 10 emus, 200 furry animals, 250 hectares of arable land, 17 hectares of vineyards, 20 hectares of
orchards, 100 hectares of forests or 150 hectares of grassland. The number of key private holdings selected upon
completion of at least one of the criteria was 3,423.

Calculation of the slaughtering outside slaughterhouses data:
Data on private holdings are estimated by sample estimation of means, by county and stratum. This completed
with data on fully-observed key private holdings is equal to slaughterings outside 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 main users of the data are the followings: Ministry of Agriculure, Agricultural Research Institute, other
departments of the Hungarian Central Statistical Office, Ecconomic Accounts of Agriculture, National Accounts,
media, international organizations (Eurostat, FAO), individual person.
The planning of next year's questionnaires begins in the middle of each year. These are circulated among the
members of the Official Statistical Service and other departments of the Hungarian Central Statistical Office.

The used definitions and requirements are following the recent Regulation of the Commission. In order to satisfy
to national data needs we are asking for data on more species than it is laid down in the gentlemens agreement.
5.2. Relevance - User Satisfaction

User satisfaction survey is not carried out.
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

See the items 6.2., 6.3., 6.5. and 6.6.
6.1. Accuracy - overall

Information requested in the metadata file on general questions.
6.2. Sampling error

See the item 6.2.1.1.
6.2.1. Sampling error - indicators

See the item 6.2.1.1.
6.2.1.1. Sample design

Sample design to be reported for the process reported in item 3.1.1.

Questionnaire
Random sampling
Multi-stage sample
Clustered sample
Stratified sample
Stratification criteria
Location
Size of unit (animals/production level)
Legal status of unit
Specialisation (farm type/species slaughtered)
Total number of strata

2


Are some strata surveyed exhaustively? (Exhaustive strata)

% of units in exhaustive strata

Animal

% of units in exhaustive strata

Bovine animals

11

Pigs

0.4

Sheep

4.0

Goats

1.6

 

 
% of animals/meat produced

Animal

% of animals produced in exhaustive strata

Bovine animals

16

Pigs

8.9

Sheep

13.8

Goats

6.7
Allocation method Other
6.3. Non-sampling error

See the items 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and 6.3.4
6.3.1. Coverage error

See item 6.3.1.3
6.3.1.1. Over-coverage - rate

See item 6.3.1.3
6.3.1.2. Common units - proportion

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

Coverage error to be reported for the process reported in item 3.1.1.

Questionnaire:

Geographical coverage
All separate territories and only them 1
Threshold or other conditions
Small farms/slaughterhouses
Farms/slaughterhouses which have just started/ceased
Empty farms/buildings 2
Farms without milk quotas
Emergency slaughtering
Non-agricultural units are excluded (e.g. slaughterhouses or animal traders)
A2: Rate of over coverage (%)
The rate of over coverage is the proportion of units accessible in the frame that do not belong to the target population (i.e. are ‘out of scope’).

0
Further comments

1 Some countries may cover or exclude some specific territories, either remote or kept out of some studies because of their status, for instance French overseas "departments", neighbour micro-states, Mount Athos, etc.
2 On the date of the survey, some farms or holding can be provisionally empty, for instance for sanitary emptying, whereas they have normally an activity and take part to the frame.
6.3.2. Measurement error

See the item 6.3.2.1.
6.3.2.1. Survey questionnaire

Survey questionnaire for the process reported in item 3.1.1

Number of surveys already performed with the current questionnaire (or a slightly amended version of it)

20
Interviewers having already performed the same survey: is there a stable group of interviewers? As far as possible
Handbook for surveyors/explanatory notes: Year

2019
Hot-line support for surveyors/respondents?
On-line FAQ for surveyors/respondents?
Number of units participating in field testing (If relevant)
Average/normal number of days’ training for new interviewers

1
Questionnaire based on usual concepts for respondents
Cross-check of results
Pre-filled questionnaires
6.3.3. Non response error

See items 6.3.3.1, 6.3.3.2, 6.3.3.3 and 6.3.3.4
6.3.3.1. Unit non-response - rate

See item 6.3.3.1.1.
6.3.3.1.1. Unit non-response – rate by process

Non-response error for the process reported in item 3.1.1.

A4. Unit response rate in % 

98
Whatever this rate is, do you need to improve it?
Treatment of non-response: Imputation
6.3.3.2. Item non-response - rate

See item 6.3.3.2.1.
6.3.3.2.1. Item non-response – rate by process

Non-response for the process reported in item 3.1.1.

A5. Item response rate in % 

98
Whatever this rate is, do you need to improve it?

Yes
Treatment of non-response: Imputation
6.3.3.3. Unit non-response analysis

Unit non-response analysis for the process reported in item 3.1.1.

 Have the non-responses been analysed yet? Yes, for this survey
 Risk of bias due to non-response
 Further explanations/comments
6.3.3.4. Imputation procedure

Imputation procedure for the process reported in item 3.1.

Imputation, based on
Other
Imputation is not used
A6. Imputation rate (%)   

2
6.3.4. Processing error

See items 6.3.4.2., 6.3.4.3. and 6.3.4.4.
6.3.4.1. Imputation - rate

Not requested for reference year 2019
6.3.4.2. Internal processing error
No change
6.3.4.3. Transmission processing errors

Transmission processing errors -Use of EDAMIS Webforms

 In the department responsible for animal production statistics
 At the central level of the organisation (in charge of livestock and meat statistics) in a specialised department responsible for data transmission
 At central NSI level (if different from the organisation)
6.3.4.4. Control procedure- processing errors

Under this item a "control set" is understood as a sequence of checks conducted by the same stakeholder/service at a given stage. Whether the sequence is interrupted has no impact if the data are not used or disseminated meanwhile.

Interactive on the interview/electronic form
Number of controls sets from field work to transmission to Eurostat

4
Cross-validation against Previous survey
Sample Survey for control
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

See item 6.5.1.
6.5.1. Data revision for each process

Data revision for the process reported in item 3.1.1.

Revision policy
The data are subject to revision
Update of Eurostat data is covered
Number of revisions for previous reference year

1
The time series are revised after census results
The statistics previously published are revised after a census (rebasing)
A8: Average size of revisions
The average, over a period, of the revisions of a key indicator 

1
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

See the items 7.1.1. and 7.1.2.
7.1.1. Time lag - first result

See item 7.1.1.1.
7.1.1.1. Time lag - first result for each process

Time lag - first result for the process reported in item 3.1.1.

Time lag between the end of the reference period and date of first/preliminary results/statistics (days)

75 days
No preliminary results published
7.1.2. Time lag - final result

See item 7.1.2.1.
7.1.2.1. Time lag - final result for each process

75 days
7.2. Punctuality

See item 7.2.1.1.
7.2.1. Punctuality - delivery and publication

See item 7.2.1.1.
7.2.1.1. Punctuality - delivery and publication for each process

Availability of data to national users for the process reported in item 3.1.1.

In comparison with transmission to Eurostat, the statistical results are usually available to the national users: At about the same time
The national legislation sets an earlier deadline than the EU legislation


8. Coherence and comparability Top
8.1. Comparability - geographical

Information requested in the metadata file on general questions.
8.1.1. Asymmetry for mirror flow statistics - coefficient

Not requested for reference year 2019.
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. Reasons for non-comparability
8.3. Coherence - cross domain

See item 8.3.1.
8.3.1. Coherence between selected statistical domains and livestock and meat statistics

Coherence between selected statistical domains and livestock and meat statistics for the process reported in item 3.1.1. Choose the concepts which are the same in livestock and meat statistics and in the following other domains:

National accounts (Including Economic Accounts for Agriculture)
Farm structure survey
Administrative source
Foreign trade
Prices coverage of agricultural products
Further explanations
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

See item 8.6.1.
8.6.1. Coherence – between concepts

Coherence between concepts for national livestock and meat statistics and those in Regulation 1165/2008 for the process reported in item 3.1.1.

Population (statistical units)
Population (coverage)
Reference period
Classification
Geographical coverage
Further explanations


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

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

See item 9.2.1.
9.2.1. Dissemination format – Publications by process

Dissemination via publications for the process reported in item 3.1.1.

Dissemination via publications on:
Press release
Specific analyses/specialised papers
9.3. Dissemination format - online database

See item 9.3.1.
9.3.1. Data tables - consultations

See item 9.3.1.1.
9.3.1.1. Public access to data for each process

Public access to the data for the process reported in item 3.1.1.

On-line dissemination: Public access to the data
Website giving access to the data
9.4. Dissemination format - microdata access

See item 9.4.1.
9.4.1. Access to confidential data by process

Access to confidential data (if relevant) for researchers
9.5. Dissemination format - other

See item 9.5.1 
9.5.1. Publications available in English for each process

Publications available in English for the process

Publications available in English
If yes, specify links to the publications: 
9.6. Documentation on methodology

It is not available in English.
9.7. Quality management - documentation

See item 9.7.2.
9.7.1. Metadata completeness - rate

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

See item 9.7.2.1.
9.7.2.1. Available metadata for each process

Available metadata for the process reported in item 3.1.1.

National methodology report - national standard Electronic information
National methodology report - EU standard Electronic information
Reference metadata (Recommendation 2009/498/EC) Electronic information
Definitions Electronic information
Classifications Electronic information
Quality report Electronic information


10. Cost and Burden Top

Information requested in the metadata file on general questions.


11. Confidentiality Top
11.1. Confidentiality - policy

See item 11.1.1.
11.1.1. Confidentiality policy for each process
Systematically for some variables
11.2. Confidentiality - data treatment

See item 11.2.1.
11.2.1. Criteria for treatment of confidentiality for each process

Criteria for treatment of confidentiality for the process reported in item 3.1.1. (the following answers will be treated as confidential)

Results are published subject to the following rules:
Minimum number of statistical units

3
Maximum weight of the only dominant record11 (%)
Maximum weight of the two dominant records11(%)
11 Dominance thresholds: please fill in only the relevant percentage. The non-relevant cells should be left empty.
11.2.2. Indirect Identification
11.2.3. Indirect Identification comments


12. Comment Top


Related metadata Top


Annexes Top
Questionnaire