IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v14y2023i1p32-d1306358.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of the Lithuanian Pig Farming Sector via Prospective Farm Size

Author

Listed:
  • Aistė Galnaitytė

    (Institute of Economics and Rural Development, Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences, A. Vivulskio Str. 4A-13, LT 03220 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Irena Kriščiukaitienė

    (Institute of Economics and Rural Development, Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences, A. Vivulskio Str. 4A-13, LT 03220 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Virginia Namiotko

    (Institute of Economics and Rural Development, Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences, A. Vivulskio Str. 4A-13, LT 03220 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Vida Dabkienė

    (Institute of Economics and Rural Development, Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences, A. Vivulskio Str. 4A-13, LT 03220 Vilnius, Lithuania)

Abstract

Scientists, politicians, and practitioners are debating the current structure of pig farms in Lithuania, as medium and small farms have almost disappeared over the past decade. The debated problem is whether the revitalization of medium and small pig farms would sustainably contribute to self-sufficiency in pork production. Therefore, this research aims to determine which farms in terms of size could offer the best prospect for Lithuania. In order to achieve this aim, the multicriteria evaluation method TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution) was used. The production and economic indicators of the Lithuanian pig farming sector in Lithuania and in the context of the selected EU countries of Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Spain, France, Latvia, Netherlands, Austria, and Poland were analyzed. The main research period was 2004–2022. The multicriteria evaluation led to the conclusion that Danish pig farms were the best-managed. Large industrial farms were found to dominate in that country. Large pig farms (approximately two thousand sows) appeared as the best prospect in Lithuania: they took first place in the years examined (2016–2021). The criterion estimate of their assessed indicators was much higher than that of the medium (100 sows) and small (20 sows) farms. The main reasons are significantly higher labor productivity, lower cost, lower price, and better production indicators. Large pig farms generate relatively higher incomes and can meet the increasing environmental requirements and devote a larger part of the income to wages. Further research should consider the European Green Deal and the Farm to Fork Strategy, which are of great importance to farms and policymakers.

Suggested Citation

  • Aistė Galnaitytė & Irena Kriščiukaitienė & Virginia Namiotko & Vida Dabkienė, 2023. "Assessment of the Lithuanian Pig Farming Sector via Prospective Farm Size," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-19, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:14:y:2023:i:1:p:32-:d:1306358
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/1/32/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/1/32/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Donthu, Naveen & Kumar, Satish & Mukherjee, Debmalya & Pandey, Nitesh & Lim, Weng Marc, 2021. "How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 285-296.
    2. Kubala, Sebastian & Stanuch, Marcin, 2021. "An Assessment Of The Self-Sufficiency Level Of Selected Countries In Central And Eastern Europe In Poultry Meat Production," Roczniki (Annals), Polish Association of Agricultural Economists and Agribusiness - Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistow Rolnictwa e Agrobiznesu (SERiA), vol. 2021(4).
    3. Zizhong Shi & Junru Li & Xiangdong Hu, 2023. "From Large to Powerful: International Comparison, Challenges and Strategic Choices for China’s Livestock Industry," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-21, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jan Wiers & Didier Chabaud, 2022. "Bibliometric analysis of immigrant entrepreneurship research 2009–2019," Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Springer;UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship, vol. 12(1), pages 441-464, December.
    2. Katherin Carrera-Silva & Olga Maritza Rodríguez Ulcuango & Paula Abdo-Peralta & Ángel Gerardo Castelo Salazar & Carmen Amelia Samaniego Erazo & Diego Haro Ávalos, 2024. "Beyond the Financial Horizon: A Critical Review of Social Responsibility in Latin American Credit Unions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-23, September.
    3. Yucheng Zhang & Zhiling Wang & Lin Xiao & Lijun Wang & Pei Huang, 2023. "Discovering the evolution of online reviews: A bibliometric review," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-22, December.
    4. Tajana Čop & Mario Njavro, 2022. "Application of Discrete Choice Experiment in Agricultural Risk Management: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-17, August.
    5. Migliavacca, Milena & Goodell, John W. & Paltrinieri, Andrea, 2023. "A bibliometric review of portfolio diversification literature," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    6. Shuangqing Sheng & Wei Song & Hua Lian & Lei Ning, 2022. "Review of Urban Land Management Based on Bibliometrics," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-25, November.
    7. Gour Gobinda Goswami & Tahmid Labib, 2022. "Modeling COVID-19 Transmission Dynamics: A Bibliometric Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-19, October.
    8. Dzintra Atstāja & Kevin Wilclif Mukem, 2024. "Sustainable Supply Chain Management in the Oil and Gas Industry in Developing Countries as a Part of the Quadruple Helix Concept: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-18, February.
    9. Das, Kallol & Patel, Jayesh D. & Sharma, Anuj & Shukla, Yupal, 2023. "Creativity in marketing: Examining the intellectual structure using scientometric analysis and topic modeling," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    10. Majda Ćesić & Katarina Rogulj & Jelena Kilić Pamuković & Andrija Krtalić, 2024. "A Systematic Review on Fuzzy Decision Support Systems and Multi-Criteria Analysis in Urban Heat Island Management," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-42, April.
    11. Ying Liang & Wei Song, 2022. "Ecological and Environmental Effects of Land Use and Cover Changes on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau: A Bibliometric Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-23, November.
    12. Luiz Almeida & Ana Soares & Pedro Moura, 2023. "A Systematic Review of Optimization Approaches for the Integration of Electric Vehicles in Public Buildings," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-26, June.
    13. Lanzalonga Federico & Chmet Federico & Petrolo Basilio & Brescia Valerio, 2023. "Exploring Diversity Management to Avoid Social Washing and Pinkwashing: Using Bibliometric Analysis to Shape Future Research Directions," Journal of Intercultural Management, Sciendo, vol. 15(1), pages 41-65, March.
    14. Mansoureh Beheshti Nejad & Seyed Mahmoud Zanjirchi & Seyed Mojtaba Hosseini Bamakan & Negar Jalilian, 2024. "Blockchain Adoption in Operations Management: A Systematic Literature Review of 14 Years of Research," Annals of Data Science, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 1361-1389, August.
    15. Satish Kumar & Filomena Maggino & Raj V. Mahto & Riya Sureka & Leonardo Salvatore Alaimo & Weng Marc Lim, 2022. "Social Indicators Research: A Retrospective Using Bibliometric Analysis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 162(1), pages 413-448, July.
    16. Hutchinson, Mark C. & Lucey, Brian, 2024. "A bibliometric and systemic literature review of biodiversity finance," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    17. Iveta Musilová & Jiří Dvořák & Jaroslav Jánský & Vladimír Bolek, 2023. "Trends in Performance Research in Relation to Business Strategy: Bibliometric Analysis and Text Mining," Central European Business Review, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2023(3), pages 143-174.
    18. Théodore Nikiema & Eugène C. Ezin & Sylvain Kpenavoun Chogou, 2023. "Bibliometric Analysis of the State of Research on Agroecology Adoption and Methods Used for Its Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-18, November.
    19. Ballouk, Hossein & Ben Jabeur, Sami & Challita, Sandra & Chen, Chaomei, 2024. "Financial stability: A scientometric analysis and research agenda," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 70(PA).
    20. Anup Kumar & Santosh Kumar Shrivastav & Avinash K. Shrivastava & Rashmi Ranjan Panigrahi & Abbas Mardani & Fausto Cavallaro, 2023. "Sustainable Supply Chain Management, Performance Measurement, and Management: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-25, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    pig farming; farm size; TOPSIS;
    All these keywords.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:14:y:2023:i:1:p:32-:d:1306358. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.