Does the activity of producer group organizations improve the production of pigs?

Open access


There are many works dealing with the activities of small farms, however there is a lack of papers about production and economic performance of small farms associated in producer group organizations. The aim of the study was to compare the production parameters of selected pig producer groups over two years (2010-2011). The basis for the analysis were the results of surveys carried out in 174 individual farms, which were members of 4 groups of pig producers. The study was conducted through direct interviews using a personal questionnaire. The average herd size of sows increased in the next year by 18.5% and the average annual production volume of fatteners by 9.3%. Average meatiness increased from 53.8% to 54.5%. In order to estimate the revenues a model of factors dependent on the farmer was created, expressed as the production of 1 kg of raw material. Three independent variables were introduced into the model: meatiness of fatteners (X1), the size of produced fatteners (X2), weight of fatteners (X3). The model developed in the study was proposed to groups as a tool to measure the efficiency of production and is currently being used by them. The results indicate that the activities of pig producers have a positive effect on production effectiveness and confirms the validity of horizontal integration in agriculture. Managing production in accordance with the statute imposed on the producer group showed a similar quality of produced raw materials, while the average annual sales of fatteners increased, which may contribute to the ability to negotiate purchase prices.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 2011/506/EU: Commission Implementing Decision of 16 August 2011 amending Decision 2005/240/ECauthorising methods for grading pig carcasses in Poland. Act of 15 September 2000 about agricultural producer groups and their associations and other laws. Warszawa Poland pp. 1-8.

  • Anderson S. (2003). Animal genetic resources and sustainable livelihoods. Ecol. Econ. 45: 331-339.

  • Antosik K. Ko ćwin- Podsiadło M. (2000). Pork market in Poland in the light of the data and the Standards of the European Union. In: Economic assessment of the quality of agricultural production against the standards of the European Union (in Polish). Akademia Podlaska pp. 110-124.

  • Boguta W. Siekierski C. (2001). Agricultural producer groups asafactor in improving the production and marketing of agricultural products (in Polish). Zesz. Nauk. SGGW 43: 45-56.

  • Borecka A. (2004). Integration of pig producers asafactor of profitability (in Polish). Zesz. Nauk. Prz. Hod. 72: 232.

  • Defaix G. (1997). Producer organizations from protected agriculture to contract. Agricultural Information Service (in Polish). Ambasada Republiki Francuskiejw Polsce & BDPA. Warszawa.

  • Donnellan T. Chantreuil F. Erjavec E. Esposti R. Hanrahan K.F.van Leeu -wen M. Salamon P. Salputra G. (2012). EU Market Outlook. In: The Future of EU Agricultural Markets by AGMEMOD. Springer Netherlands pp. 77-96.

  • Eurostat (2012). Agriculture fishery and forestry statistics. Main results - 2010-2011.

  • Games P.A. Howell J.F. (1976). Pairwise multiple comparison procedures with unequal N’s and/or variances:a Monte Carlo study. Journal of Statistics Education 1: 113-125.

  • Gibon A. Sibbald A.R. Flamant J.C. Lhoste P. Revilla R. Rubino R. S øren-sen J.T. (1999). Livestock farming systems research in Europe and its potential contribution for managing towards sustainability in livestock farming. Livest. Prod. Sci. 61: 121-137.

  • Go ł ębiowski B. (2009). Partnership asamodel of vertical links farms to processing (in Polish). Rocz. Nauk Rol. Seria G 94: 302-310.

  • Gonet D. (1997). New forms of co-operative activities in terms of transformation of the food economy (in Polish). In: Rural cooperatives in the perspective of integration with the European Union. T. II. SIB. Zakopane pp. 39-42.

  • G órniak J. Wachnicki J. (2004). First step in data analysis - SPSSfor Windows (in Polish). SPSS Polska Kraków.

  • GUS - Central Statistical Office (2011). Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Poland GUS Warszawa.

  • Guzewicz W. Osuch D. Zdzieborska M. (2004). The results of the economic production of large-scale farms arising on the assets of the former state farms in 2000-2003 and plans for 2004 (in Polish). IERi GŻ Warszawa.

  • Jankowska- Dymet A. Piasecka J. (2005). Producer groups -achance for Polish farmers (in Polish). Pr. Kom. Nauk Rol. Biol. XLIII Bydgoszcz pp. 223-230.

  • Jensen T.B. Baadsgaard N.P. Houe H. Toft N. Østergaard S. (2008). The association between disease and profitability in individual finishing boars atatest station. Livest. Sci. 117: 101-108.

  • J ó źwiak W. (2000). Overview of the agribusiness sector output in Poland taking into account the trends in agricultural policy. In: Strategic options for the Polish agribusiness sector in the light of economic analysis. SGGW Warszawa.

  • Knecht D. Duzi ński K. (2014). The effect of parity and date of service on the reproductive performance of Polish Large White × Polish Landrace (PLW×PL) crossbred sows. Ann. Anim. Sci. 14: 69-79.

  • Knecht D. Środo ń S. (2013). Analysis of activity in swine producers group based on agricultural producers association in Biała district. J. Agribus. Rural Dev. 1: 107-117.

  • Knecht D. Janczak M. Bodkowski R. (2007). Improvement of slaughter material quality thanks to cooperation between producer groups and meat plants. Anim. Sci. 1: 66-67.

  • Knecht D. Jankowska A. Zale śny G. (2012). The impact of gastrointestinal parasites infection on slaughter efficiency in pigs. Vet. Parasitol. 184: 291-297.

  • Knoblauch L. Kisiel R. (2005). Integration processes in the pig meat sector using the example of producer groups from the area of north-eastern Polish (in Polish). UWM Olsztyn.

  • Krystallis A. Barcellos M.D. K ügler J.A. Verbeke W. Grunert K.G. (2009). Attitudes of European citizens towards pig production systems. Livest. Sci. 126: 46-56.

  • Kuku ła K. (2007). On the issue of research on agrarian structure in Poland in spatial terms (in Polish). Acta Sci. Pol. Oeconomia 6: 19-27.

  • Lamarche H. (1994). Les logiques productives. L’agriculture familiale: comparaison internacional. II Du mythe à la réalité Paris L’Harmattan.

  • Malarska A. (2005). Statistical analysis of the data supported by the program SPSS (in Polish). SPSS Polska Kraków.

  • Ordinance of the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development 15 February 2010 on the requirements and how to proceed while maintaining livestock species for which protection standards are provisions of the European Union.

  • Ostasiewicz S. Rusnak Z. Siedlecka U. (1998). Statistics - elements of the theory and tasks (in Polish). AE Wrocław.

  • Pepliński B. (2013). Impact of the profitability of pig production on changes in the pig population in Poland. Regional analysis. Rocz. Ekon. Rol. Rozwoju Wsi Obszarów Wiejskich 100: 75-77.

  • Pepliński B. Wajszczuk K. (2003). Vertical integration - way to correct yield of pork production (in Polish). Pr. Nauk. AE Wrocław 980: 421-426.

  • Polish Swine Nutrition Requirements. (1993). The Kielanowski Institute Animal Physiology and Nutrition.

  • Polish Academy of Sciences Omnitech-Press Warsaw Poland.

  • Rekiel A. Wiecek J. Wojtasik M. Ptak J. Blicharski T. Mroczko L. (2012). Effect of sex ratio in the litter in which Polish Large White and Polish Landrace sows were born on the number of piglets born and reared. Ann. Anim. Sci. 12: 179-185.

  • Roessler R. Drucker A.G. Scarpa R. Markemann A. Lemke E. Thuy L.E. Val-le - Z árate A. (2008). Using choice experiments to assess smallholder farmers’ preferences for pig breeding traits in different production systems in North-West Vietnam. Ecol. Econ. 66: 184-189.

  • Roessler R. Herold P. Willam A. Piepho H.P. Thuy L.T. Valle- Z árate A. (2009). Modelling ofarecording scheme for market-oriented smallholder pig producers in Northwest Vietnam. Livest. Sci. 123: 241-248.

  • Skar żyńska A. (2011). The scale of production of agricultural production activities and their costeffectiveness (in Polish). Rocz. Nauk Rol. Seria G 98: 7-21.

  • Skar żyńska A. Augustyńska- Grzymek I. (2001). Unit costs and profitability of agricultural production on private farms in 2000 (in Polish). Zagad. Ekon. Rol. 4-5: 79-137.

  • Skiba G. Raj S. Po ławska E. Pastuszewska B. Elminowska - Wenda G. Bogu -cka J. Knecht D. (2012). Profile of fatty acids muscle structure and shear force of musculus longissimus dorsi (MLD) in growing pigs as affected by energy and protein or protein restriction followed by realimentation. Meat Sci. 91: 339-346.

  • Szczebiot- Knoblauch L. (2005). The formation of producer groups asamanifestation of rural entrepreneurship competiveness labor market and its entity (in Polish). Katedra Mikroekonomii US Szczecin pp. 237-241.

  • Šprysl M. Čitek J. Stupka R. (2010). Interaction of selected production indicators of the economics of pork production. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 55: 1-10.

  • Tereszkiewicz K. Ruda M. Dungin - Mugler C. (2001). Meatiness and carcass weight of finishing pigs produced in different regions of Poland (in Polish). Trz. Chlewna 39: 52-53.

  • Udo H.M.J. Aklilu H.A. Phong L.T. Bosma R.H. Budisatria I.G.S. Patil B.R. Sam-dup T. Bebe B.O. (2011). Impact of intensification of different types of livestock production in smallholder crop-livestock system. Livest. Sci. 139: 22-29.

  • Urban R. (2002). Analysis of comparative advantages at the level of agri-food industry (in Polish). IERi GŻ Warszawa p. 53.

  • Wilcox R.R. (2003). Applying Contemporary Statistical Techniques. Academic Press San Diego.

  • Wysoki ńska A. Kondracki S. (2014). Assessment of sexual activity levels and their association with ejaculate parameters in two-breed hybrids and purebred Duroc and Pietrain boars. Ann. Anim. Sci. 14: 559-571.

  • ZSRIR (2011). Integrated agricultural market information system. Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development Warsaw Poland.

Journal information
Impact Factor

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.515
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.246

CiteScore 2018: 1.4

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.509
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.869

Cited By
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 222 118 6
PDF Downloads 93 57 4