Sample survey for June and December data collections for all kind of animals (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 (montly), 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

SP1: Sample survey for June and December data collections for all kind of animals
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 2009
Type of source Ad hoc survey-Post-electronic questionnaire
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 None
Institution in charge of data collection NSI = National Statistical Institute
First year of data availability by source
C. Additional comments
Livestock

Statistical data concerning the livestock have been collected in Hungary for more than one hundred and fifty years. In the beginning the livestock was surveyed concurrently with population censuses. September 1884 was the first time when an individual livestock survey was carried out, independently from the population census. The data have been based explicitly on animal surveys since 1957. In the history of Hungarian agricultural statistics the general agricultural survey conducted in 1895 was of outstanding importance, including a full-scope animal survey, too. Act XII of 1894 ordered that domestic animals had to be surveyed every spring. Annual surveys were made by administrative authorities before animals were taken out to grass. Data were recorded on questionnaires village by village. Full-scope livestock surveys were carried out by the Hungarian Statistical Office in 1911, 1935 and 1942. Between 1945 and 1947 the livestock was estimated more than once a year village by village, in order to estimate the ravages of World War II. In 1949 the questionnaire of the population census contained a lot of questions on agricultural production.  The present system of surveying livestock evolved in 1949. Agricultural enterprises reported on their livestock quarterly (by mail), while consecutive full-scope and representative surveys were conducted of the livestock of small producers. Full-scope livestock surveys were usually made in every 3-5 years, while in the period between full-scope surveys data on the livestock of small producers (households) were collected by enumerators on a representative basis quarterly.
The accession of Hungary to the European Union required the harmonisation of the statistical system of the country. Therefore, as a first step of harmonising the agricultural statistical system, the livestock was surveyed in compliance with EU requirements in 1997. The current system of livestock surveys was developed after the Agricultural Census conducted on 31 March 2000. All kinds of animals have been observed in every four months (1 April, 1 August and 1 December). From the year 2009 according to the new European legislation the livestock surveys are carried out twice a year (1 June and 1 December).
Slaughtering
3.2. Frequency of data collection

Livestock statistics

  Bovines animal Pigs Sheep Goats
November/December

01/12

01/12

01/12

01/12
November/ December - Regional

01/12

01/12

01/12

01/12
May/June

01/06

01/06

  
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.

Estimated data contain the figures of poultry, rabbit and beehive stocks of households not reaching the threshold of a holding.

In the data collection:

Agricultural enterprises: enterprises with or without legal personality.

Private holdings: households engaged in agricultural activities and private entrepreneurs with tax number.

Holdings: private holdings and agricultural enterprises.

Full-scale observation was applied in the case of agricultural enterprises keeping animals. This group supplied data compulsorily via the ELEKTRA system of HCSO.

Calculation of livestock size

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 private holdings’ livestock. Data on private holdings and data on agricultural enterprises, coming from full-scale observation, together are equal to the livestock at national level.
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 Agriculture, Agricultural Research Institute, other departments of the Hungarian Central Statistical Office, Economic Accounts of Agriculture, National Accounts, media, international organizations (Eurostat, FAO), individual person.

The pplanning 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. Sometimes we are receiving data needs from professional organizations. We are taking into account reducing respondents burden.

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 requested by the Regulation.

Sometimes we have data request e.g. on NUTS 3 level data which can not be satisfied from sample surveys.
5.2. Relevance - User Satisfaction

In case of livestock data we did not carry out user satisfaction survey. During the preparation for the Agricultural Census 2020, we were in constant consultation with professional organizations and the Ministry of Agriculture. It resulted that the livestock tables of the AC questionnaire were redesigned in order to get more reliable and more useful data for the users. Based on the experiences of the AC, the livestock tables will be redesigned after 2020. With the new methodology, and with using more data from administrative sources the respondents' burden and the budget of the surveys could be reduced.
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

Livestock statistics

Total number of animals if under the legal threshold in December 2019 (Number of Head)

Bovine animals (under 1.5 million head)

 909 thousand

Pigs (under 3 million head)

2634 thousand

Goats (under 500 000 head)

63 thousand
6.2. Sampling error

See the item 6.2.1.1.
6.2.1. Sampling error - indicators

Livestock statistics

Bovine animals

Pigs

Sheep

Goats

Livestock - Nov./Dec. (in %)

2.44

0.81

5.59

7.74

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

Közép-Magyarország 11.94

Közép-Dunántúl 7.17

Nyugat-Dunántúl 8.11

Dél-Dunántúl 7.41

Észak-Magyarország 5.85

Észak-Alföld 3.77

Dél-Alföld 4.43

Közép-Magyarország 6.39

Közép-Dunántúl 2.05

Nyugat-Dunántúl 3.59

Dél-Dunántúl 1.98

Észak-Magyarország 3.51

Észak-Alföld 1.27

Dél-Alföld 1.07

Közép-Magyarország 25.64

Közép-Dunántúl 12.75

Nyugat-Dunántúl 16.63

Dél-Dunántúl 23.02

Észak-Magyarország 15.51

Észak-Alföld 9.93

Dél-Alföld 9.13

Közép-Magyarország 25.44

Közép-Dunántúl 20.35

Nyugat-Dunántúl 21.93

Dél-Dunántúl 35.13

Észak-Magyarország 14.70

Észak-Alföld 14.45

Dél-Alföld 11.62

Livestock - May/June (in %)

2.43

0.73

 

 

Assessment method

Free text

Free text

Free text

Free text

Further comment

Free text

Free text

Free text

Free text
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

 

% of units in exhaustive strata

Cattle

14

Pig

1

Sheep

6

Goats

2
% of animals/meat produced

 

% of animals/meat produced

Cattle

76

Pig

88

Sheep

41

Goats

19
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

In case of livestock surveys the threshold is 1 animal, which means that in the selected survey districts all those are covered which keeps at least one animal.

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)

34
Interviewers having already performed the same survey: is there a stable group of interviewers? As far as possible
Handbook for surveyors/explanatory notes: Year 2010
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? TRUE
Treatment of non-response: Re-calibration
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 %  100
Whatever this rate is, do you need to improve it?
Treatment of non-response:
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
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

There is no no problem with comparability between countries and regions.
8.1.1. Asymmetry for mirror flow statistics - coefficient

Not requested for reference year 2019.
8.2. Comparability - over time

There is no problem with comparability over time.
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 statistical units
Administrative source statistical units
Foreign trade geographical coverage
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) Same
Population (coverage) Same
Reference period Same
Classification Same
Geographical coverage Same
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 All
Website giving access to the data

http://www.ksh.hu/?lang=en
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: 

http://www.ksh.hu/apps/shop.lista?p_lang=EN&p_temakor_kod=OM
9.6. Documentation on methodology

Methodology of December 2019 survey: http://www.ksh.hu/docs/eng/xftp/stattukor/allat/2019/index.html

Meta Information: http://www.ksh.hu/apps/meta.objektum?p_lang=EN&p_menu_id=110&p_ot_id=100&p_obj_id=BDAE&p_session_id=

Concepts: http://www.ksh.hu/apps/meta.menu?p_lang=EN&p_menu_id=210

 
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

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)

June - Livestock cattle

  2950  1.6  1  4720

June - Livestock pigs

  5515  1.4  1  7721

December - Livestock cattle

  2921  1.6  1  4674

December - Livestock pigs

  5009  1.4  1  7013

December - Livestock sheep

  2470  1.1  1  2717

December - Livestock goats

  979  1.0  1  929


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
Results are systematically hidden
11.2.3. Indirect Identification comments
There were no confidential data in year 2010 in case of livestock and meat statistics


12. Comment Top


Related metadata Top


Annexes Top
Questionnaire