Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Ádám Szalai
 -- 1493 2023-06-16 15:18:27 |
2 update references and layout
Rita Xu
 Meta information modification 1493 2023-06-19 03:54:04 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Farkas, J.Z.; Kőszegi, I.R.; Hoyk, E.; Szalai, �. Hungarian Agriculture and Livestock Sector. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/45723 (accessed on 18 May 2024).
Farkas JZ, Kőszegi IR, Hoyk E, Szalai �. Hungarian Agriculture and Livestock Sector. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/45723. Accessed May 18, 2024.
Farkas, Jenő Zsolt, Irén Rita Kőszegi, Edit Hoyk, Ádám Szalai. "Hungarian Agriculture and Livestock Sector" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/45723 (accessed May 18, 2024).
Farkas, J.Z., Kőszegi, I.R., Hoyk, E., & Szalai, �. (2023, June 16). Hungarian Agriculture and Livestock Sector. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/45723
Farkas, Jenő Zsolt, et al. "Hungarian Agriculture and Livestock Sector." Encyclopedia. Web. 16 June, 2023.
Hungarian Agriculture and Livestock Sector
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/agriculture13061206

Livestock farming in developed countries faces adverse environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. Moreover, economic and social issues have emerged, such as farm concentration and the aging of farmers. Consequently, the decline of small farms and household animal husbandry substantially impacted rural communities, posing challenges for rural development.

livestock sector rural development household and small-scale farming

1. Introduction

Between 1961 and 2021, global meat production increased from 69 million tons to 354 million tons, while raw milk output rose from 344 million tons to 918 million tons, according to the FAOSTAT data. This surge in production was accompanied by a significant expansion in the animal population, with the number of livestock units rising from 11.7 billion in 1961 to 23.5 billion in 2020. On one side, these processes resulted in a more considerable environmental burden, including the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and pollution from animal farms and the food industry [1][2]. On the other side, they initiated industrialization and intense farm concentration processes [3] with various potential negative impacts on rural communities [4].
As for the environmental impacts, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report [5], the agriculture sector, encompassing livestock production, is responsible for approximately 22% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from human activities. As estimated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the livestock sector contributes about 14.5% of global GHG emissions, which is equivalent to the entire transportation sector [6]. Gerber and colleagues [6] report that enteric fermentation from ruminants accounts for 39% of sector emissions, manure left on pastures accounts for 23%, manure management accounts for 10%, and feed production and processing account for 9%.
Carbon dioxide is another significant contributor to atmospheric pollution and is predominantly associated with the use of fossil fuels. Highly mechanized agricultural production systems also generate carbon dioxide, which typically account for approximately 5% of global emissions [7].
Gerber and colleagues [6] found that around 65% of human-caused nitrous oxide emissions can be attributed to livestock farming, which highlights its significant role in this type of pollution. This is mainly due to using nitrogen fertilizers for growing feed crops and handling and storing animal manure. In addition, nitrous oxide is a potent greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential of almost 300 times that of carbon dioxide [8].
Besides the environmental impacts, the livestock sector also requires significant resources. The global livestock sector accounts for 70% of all agricultural land use [3]. In addition, the sector plays a crucial role in deforestation in Latin America and the degradation of grasslands because of overgrazing in dry areas [3]. Water use in animal husbandry is also an essential environmental burden, both locally and globally [9][10]. For example, Mekonnen and Hoekstra [11] reported that, on average, 1 kg of beef production necessitates 15,400 L of water, while 1 kg of sheep production requires 10,400 L of water, from which feed production accounts for about 99%.
Recurring diseases and epidemics further compound the difficulties of animal husbandry. The intensification of animal production and the globalization of trade have facilitated the spread of animal diseases across borders and continents [12]. Climate change could exacerbate this trend by creating conditions that favor the transmission and establishment of new diseases in areas where they were previously absent or rare [13].
Because of the above processes, several studies pointed out the severe sustainability issues associated with animal husbandry [14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. Due to this reason, researchers recommend reducing the volume of animal husbandry and dairy and meat consumption [16][17]. In addition, many people recognize that reducing meat consumption can positively impact the fight against climate change. This trend is consistent with the research findings that advocate for reducing meat-centric diets and promoting consumption regulation [14][19][21].
The challenge of reducing the number of animals and outputs in the livestock sector cannot serve as a universal solution due to the dynamic growth of the world’s population, which is projected to reach 9 billion by 2050 [22]. Additionally, it does not adequately address the issues impacting rural areas, including depopulation, aging, unemployment, and reduced living standards. These problems arise from industrialization and the concentration of farms, which increase the vulnerability of rural communities. Furthermore, this approach fails to address emerging concerns about food security, such as those arising from the COVID-19 pandemic or conflicts such as the war between Russia and Ukraine. These challenges underscore the significance of food sovereignty and security, locally produced food, and short supply chains [23][24].
According to D’Souza and Ikerd’s review [25], while small farms may be less efficient than large-scale operations, they are more sustainable from environmental and social perspectives. Small farms are less susceptible to issues such as leadership succession, which frequently affect large-scale farms. Moreover, large farms are often owned by absentee landlords or agribusiness corporations who may not reinvest their profits back into the local economy to the same extent as small, family-owned farms. Small-scale livestock production is linked to the rural economy in various ways, from food production to tourism and social farming [26][27]. Small farms can better respond to changing consumer preferences, for example, in the case of organic and bio products [28]. They operate with greater transparency and can produce high-quality, delicious products that bypass the conventional supply chains maintained by large corporations [29]. Overall, these advantages are favorable for rural regions’ environmental, economic, and social sustainability.

2. Hungarian Agriculture and Livestock Sector in Focus

In the EU’s 27 member states (2020), the total agricultural industry output shows an increasing trend, which exceeded the value of EUR 536.6 billion in 2022. This represents an almost 72% increase compared to 2005 (EUR 312.7 billion). The value of output from crop production exceeds the value of livestock farming in the member states. The former was EUR 286.2 billion in 2022, while the latter was EUR 206.7 billion (Eurostat).
Among the post-socialist countries, Poland has the most significant livestock farming output, accounting for EUR 19,303 million in 2022. Romania followed but with a significantly lower contribution of EUR 5209 million. Hungary and the Czech Republic are in the middle of the pack, with EUR 4130 and 2519 million in 2022, respectively. This means Hungary has only a 2% share of European production in terms of value.
Hungarian livestock farming was considered a leading branch of agriculture in the 1980s, contributing approximately 55–60% to the total production value. However, while animal husbandry in the EU member states continued to develop, domestic livestock farming was turned down after the regime change [30] and is in continuous crisis except for cattle breeding.
Livestock farming contributed 41% to the gross output of agriculture in 2003, but after Hungary acceded to the EU, this ratio dropped to 34% (HCSO—Hungarian Central Statistical Office). After hitting its bottom in 2008, there was growth in the total agricultural production, but the difference between crop production and livestock farming is increasing in value (Figure 1a).
Agriculture 13 01206 g001
Figure 1. (a,b) Total output of the agricultural sector in Hungary and changes in the number of holdings.
The significant decline in the number of farms demonstrates that the individual farmers could not, or due to the circumstances, did not want to maintain their farms that were established after the regime change, which were often otherwise forced enterprises. After the EU accession, this process gained a new impetus, and an intense concentration started. According to the data from the agricultural census (AC) conducted in 2000 and 2020, the number of farms declined from 968,000 to 234,000 (Figure 1b) (There is a methodological difference in determining the number of farms. Unfortunately, the Hungarian Central Statistical Office (HCSO) only recalculated the data of the 2010 comprehensive census, as well as the 2013 and 2016 economic structure surveys using the new economic threshold. According to the new methodology, the data for 2000 would probably be even 20–30% lower, but this does not affect the conclusions about the trend. The recalculated values are also shown in Figure 1b for the years of 2010, 2013, and 2016).
Based on the results of the agricultural census from 2000, 40% of the agricultural organizations engaged in crop production, 38% engaged in mixed production, and 22% exclusively focused on animal husbandry. The dominant trend in the 2000s was a marked decline in the share of mixed farms. Between 2010 and 2020, the proportion of livestock holdings decreased significantly, while the share of mixed holdings fell to only 9 % (Figure 2a). The loss of animal husbandry is shown by the fact that the proportion of farms that are engaged in animal husbandry continuously decreases. It is increasingly common for animal husbandry and crop production to be separated. A total of 51% of farms have agricultural land without animal populations, while 15% of farms with animal populations do not have any agricultural land at all (AC, 2020), so they are forced to procure all of their feed from other farms, which further worsens the prospects of livestock breeding.
Agriculture 13 01206 g002
Figure 2. (a–c) Distribution of farms by their primary type of activity (%) and livestock population changes (head).
The current animal population is only a fraction of what it used to be (Figure 2c), which has upset the balance between the crop and livestock sectors. Today, the cattle and pig populations have stabilized at around 60% (902 thousand heads) and 36% (2725 thousand heads), respectively, compared to their 1990s levels (Figure 2b). The sheep population is at 53% (887 thousand heads) (Figure 2b), and the poultry population is at 70% (32.1 million heads) of their populations in the 1990s (Figure 2c).

References

  1. Herrero, M.; Thornton, P.K.; Mason-D’Croz, D.; Palmer, J.; Bogard, J.R.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Bogard, J.R.; Hall, A.; Lee, B.; Nyborg, K.; et al. Innovation can accelerate the transition towards a sustainable food system. Nat. Food 2020, 1, 266–272.
  2. Adegbeye, M.J.; Ravi Kanth Reddy, P.; Obaisi, A.I.; Elghandour, M.M.M.Y.; Oyebamiji, K.J.; Salem, A.Z.M.; Morakinyo-Fasipe, O.T.; Cipriano-Salazar, M.; Camacho-Díaz, L.M. Sustainable agriculture options for production, greenhouse gasses and pollution alleviation, and nutrient recycling in emerging and transitional nations—An overview. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 242, 118319.
  3. Steinfeld, H.; Gerber, P.; Wassenaar, T.; Castel, V.; Rosales, M.; de Haan, C. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. 2006. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2023).
  4. Welsh, R. Farm and market structure, industrial regulation and rural community welfare: Conceptual and methodological issues. Agric. Hum. Values 2009, 26, 21–28.
  5. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, Synthesis Report: Summary for Policymakers. 2023. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2023/03/Doc4_Approved_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf (accessed on 22 May 2023).
  6. Gerber, P.J.; Steinfeld, H.; Henderson, B.; Mottet, A.; Opio, C.; Dijkman, J.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G. Tackling Climate Change through Livestock—A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2013; Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e.pdf (accessed on 2 January 2023).
  7. Sauerbeck, D. CO2 emissions and C sequestration by agriculture—Perspectives and limitations. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2001, 60, 253–266.
  8. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Overview of Greenhouse Gases. 2022. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases (accessed on 20 January 2023).
  9. Legesse, G.; Ominski, K.H.; Beauchemin, K.A.; Pfister, S.; Martel, M.; McGeough, E.J.; Hoekstra, A.Y.; Kroebel, R.; Cordeiro, M.R.C.; McAllister, T.A. BOARD-INVITED REVIEW: Quantifying water use in ruminant production. J. Anim. Sci. 2017, 95, 2001–2018.
  10. FAO. Livestock and the Environment—Water Use. 2018. Available online: http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/themes/en/Environment/Water_use.html (accessed on 20 January 2023).
  11. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y.A. global assessment of the water footprint of farm animal products. Ecosystems 2012, 15, 401–415.
  12. Jones, B.A.; Grace, D.; Kock, R.; Alonso, S.; Rushton, J.; Said, M.Y.; McKeever, D.; Mutua, F.; Young, J.; McDermott, J.; et al. Zoonosis emergence linked to agricultural intensification and environmental change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 8399–8404.
  13. Jones, K.E.; Patel, N.G.; Levy, M.A.; Storeygard, A.; Gittleman, J.L.; Daszak, P. Global trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature 2017, 451, 990–993.
  14. Guyomard, H.; Bouamra-Mechemache, Z.; Chatellier, V.; Delaby, L.; Détang-Dessendre, C.; Peyraud, J.-L.; Réquillart, V. Review: Why and how to regulate animal production and consumption: The case of the European Union. Animal 2021, 15, 100283.
  15. Dumont, B.; Ryschawy, J.; Duru, M.; Benoit, M.; Chatellier, V.; Delaby, L.; Donnars, C.; Dupraz, P.; Lemauviel-Lavenant, S.; Méda, B.; et al. Review: Associations among goods, impacts and ecosystem services provided by livestock farming. Animal 2019, 13, 1773–1784.
  16. Wirsenius, S.; Hedenus, F.; Mohlin, K. Greenhouse gas taxes on animal food products: Rationale, tax scheme and climate mitigation effects. Clim. Chang. 2011, 108, 159–184.
  17. Henderson, B.; Golub, A.; Pambudi, D.; Hertel, T.; Godde, C.; Herrero, M.; Cacho, O.; Gerber, P. The power and pain of market-based carbon policies: A global application to greenhouse gases from ruminant livestock production. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 2017, 23, 349–369.
  18. Scholtz, M.M.; Maiwashe, A.; Neser, F.W.C.; Theunissen, A.; Olivier, W.J.; Mokolobate, M.C.; Hendriks, J. Livestock breeding for sustainability to mitigate global warming, with the emphasis on developing countries. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 43, 269–281. Available online: http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0375-15892013000300005 (accessed on 4 February 2023).
  19. Van Arendonk, J.A.M. Opportunities for animal breeding to meet the challenges of the future. Nauka Przyr. Technol. 2011, 5, 30. Available online: http://www.npt.up-poznan.net/pub/art_5_30.pdf (accessed on 4 February 2023).
  20. Hocquette, J.F.; Ellies-Oury, M.P.; Michel Lherm, M.; Pineau, C.; Deblitz, C.; Farmer, L. Current situation and future prospects for beef production in Europe—A review. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 31, 1017–1035.
  21. Appleby, P.N.; Thorogood, M.; Mann, J.I.; Key, T.J. The Oxford Vegetarian Study: An overview. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1999, 70, 525–531.
  22. Jouzi, Z.; Azadi, H.; Taheri, F.; Zarafshani, K.; Gebrehiwot, K.; Van Passel, S.; Lebailly, P. Organic Farming and Small-Scale Farmers: Main Opportunities and Challenges. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 132, 144–154.
  23. Weiler, A.M.; Hergesheimer, C.; Brisbois, B.; Wittman, H.; Yassi, A.; Spiegel, J.M. Food sovereignty, food security and health equity: A meta-narrative mapping exercise. Health Policy Plan. 2015, 30, 1078–1092. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/48508737 (accessed on 18 April 2023).
  24. Jarzębowski, S.; Bourlakis, M.; Bezat-Jarzębowska, A. Short Food Supply Chains (SFSC) as Local and Sustainable Systems. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4715.
  25. D’Souza, G.E.; Ikerd, J.E. Small Farms and Sustainable Development: Is small more sustainable? J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 1996, 28, 73–83.
  26. Vial, C.; Bigot, G.; Morhain, B.; Martin-Rosset, W. Territories and grassland exploitation by horses in France. Forages Grazing Horse Nutr. 2012, 132, 467–480.
  27. Schuessler, J.; Siegmund-Schultze, M.; van Elsen, T.; Zárate, A.V. Impact of support centres for social farming on benefits from livestock in northern Europe. Outlook Agric. 2011, 40, 313–322.
  28. McCluskey, J.J. Changing Food Demand and Consumer Preferences. Federal Reserve Research Papers. 2015. Available online: https://www.kansascityfed.org/documents/7025/mccluskey-paper.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2023).
  29. Arnalte-Mur, L.; Ortiz-Miranda, D.; Cerrada-Serra, P.; Martinez-Gómez, V.; Moreno-Pérez, O.; Barbu, R.; Bjorkhaug, H.; Czekaj, M.; Duckett, D.; Galli, F.; et al. The drivers of change for the contribution of small farms to regional food security in Europe. Glob. Food Secur. 2020, 26, 100395.
  30. Udovecz, G. A hazai állattenyésztés helyzete és fejlődési esélyei. Gazdálkodás 2004, 48, 1–12.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Agricultural Economics & Policy
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Jenő Zsolt Farkas
,
Irén Rita Kőszegi
,
Edit Hoyk
,
Ádám Szalai
View Times: 204
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 19 Jun 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback