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. Lampe, Hannes W. & Hilgers, Dennis, 2015. "Trajectories of efficiency measurement: A bibliometric analysis of DEA and SFA," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(1), pages 1-21.
    3. 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).
    4. 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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Irena Krisciukaitiene & Ahmad Bathaei, 2025. "Developing a tailored sustainable supply chain framework for dairy SMEs in Lithuania using Best-Worst Method," Transformations and Sustainability, Centre for Productivity and Sustainability Analysis, vol. 1(1), pages 43-62.

    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. Khan, Ashraf & Goodell, John W. & Hassan, M. Kabir & Paltrinieri, Andrea, 2022. "A bibliometric review of finance bibliometric papers," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 47(PA).
    2. Thiago Victorino & Carlos Rosano Peña, 2023. "The Development of Efficiency Analysis in Transportation Systems: A Bibliometric and Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-32, June.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Rishika Khetan & Varda Sardana & Shubham Singhania & Jagvinder Singh, 2025. "Financial stability through a global perspective: an in-depth integrative review," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 16(8), pages 2912-2929, August.
    6. Lonwabo Mlawu & Frank Ranganai Matenda & Mabutho Sibanda, 2025. "Incentives for Accrual-Based Earnings Management in Emerging Economies—A Systematic Literature Review with Bibliometric Analysis," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-41, May.
    7. Sujeeth Ungratwar & Dipasha Sharma & Satish Kumar, 2025. "Mapping the digital banking landscape: a multi-dimensional exploration of fintech, digital payments, and e-wallets, with insights into current scenarios and future research," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, December.
    8. Migliavacca, Milena & Goodell, John W. & Paltrinieri, Andrea, 2023. "A bibliometric review of portfolio diversification literature," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    9. Shivani Yadav & Saurav Ambastha & Harsh Pipil & Anil Kumar Haritash & Krishna R. Reddy, 2025. "Deciphering the Sustainable Stormwater Management Strategies for Urban Areas: a Review," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 39(7), pages 2971-2991, May.
    10. Quintano, Claudio & Mazzocchi, Paolo & Rocca, Antonella, 2021. "Evaluation of the eco-efficiency of territorial districts with seaport economic activities," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Ling Bai & Tianran Guo & Wei Xu & Kang Luo, 2022. "The Spatial Differentiation and Driving Forces of Ecological Welfare Performance in the Yangtze River Economic Belt," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-21, November.
    14. Charlie Karlsson & Björn Hammarfelt, 2025. "Correction: The growth and development of Nordic regional science research 1982–2022: bibliometric evidence from thirteen regional science journals," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 74(2), pages 1-1, June.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Md. Nazmus Sakib & Md. Akmol Uddin & Towhida Akter Kona & Kanta Sharmin & Md. Mizanur Rahman & Mohammad Sahabuddin, 2025. "A twenty-two-year journey of sustainable human resource management research: bibliometric analysis," Future Business Journal, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, December.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Francisco Díez-Martín & Giorgia Miotto & Cristina Del-Castillo-Feito, 2024. "The intellectual structure of gender equality research in the business economics literature," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 1649-1680, June.

    More about this item

    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.