Proposed Changes in Polish Agricultural Products Consumption Structure for 2030 Based on Data from 2008–2018
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background—Chosen Aspects of Food Production, Structure and Quantity of Consumed Food Products in Poland
3. Materials and Methods
- —feature value for the year , e.g., —pork supply in g/cap/day, kcal/cap/day,
- —number of analyzed years on which the base year is calculated,
- —the first year on the basis of which the value for the base year is calculated, in the present case = 2008, and .
- α—percentage of change assumed in scenarios in (a) to (d),
- —number of the product,
- SAP—sustainable animal products, the supply of which we increase,
- SCP—sustainable crop products, the supply of which remains unchanged,
- UNSAP—unsustainable animal products, the supply of which we reduce,
- UNSCP—unsustainable crop products, the supply of which we reduce.
- (a)
- Poland’s population from 2008–2018 (population by sex and age group, n.d.) and forecasts for 2030 [32].
- (b)
- Sowing, yield and harvest for consumer plants such as: wheat, rye, barley, oats, buckwheat, seed maize, consumer leguminous plants, sugar beets, canola, other oleaginous plants (such as sunflower), cabbage, onion, carrot, beetroot, cucumbers, tomatoes, cauliflower, other root vegetables (various in total), apples, pears, plums, strawberries, raspberries, other (including chokeberry, highbush blueberry, hazelnuts, grapes), cherries, sweet cherries, other (including apricot, peaches, walnuts); triticale, crop mixtures, portions of barley, maize for seeds, and potatoes used specifically for livestock feed [20,21].
- (c)
- (d)
- (e)
- The production volume of animal products including eggs, cow’s milk, goat’s milk, sheep’s milk, beef, pork, chicken meat, duck meat, turkey meat, gees and guinea-fowl meat (classified together), rabbit meat, sheep meet, edible beef offal, edible pork offal, and honey [19]. Our analysis does not include horse meat due to the fact that it is exported. Energy value of animal production was calculated for raw products.
- (f)
- Energy value of certain plant products such as vegetables, fruits, potatoes, leguminous plants, was provided for raw products. Calculations for cereals, sugar beets and oleaginous plants were performed on the basis of the energy value of products in the form in which they are directly consumed, e.g., flour, groats, sugar, oil. Calculations for such products used data from [36].
- (g)
- Energy and protein content for each product was determined according to [37].
- (h)
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Satisfying Nutritional Needs and Changes in the Consumption Structure in the Proposed Scenarios for 2030
4.2. Contribution to Further Research and Analysis
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Pretty, J. Agriculture: Reconnecting People, Land and Nature; Earthscan: London, UK, 2002; p. 261. [Google Scholar]
- Vermeir, I.; Weijters, B.; de Houwer, J.; Geuens, M.; Slabbinck, H.; Spruyt, A.; van Kerckhove, A.; van Lippevelde, W.; de Steur, H.; Verbeke, W. Environmentally Sustainable Food Consumption: A Review and Research Agenda From a Goal-Directed Perspective. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heller, M.C.; Walchale, A.; Heard, B.R.; Hoey, L.; Khoury, C.H.; de Haan, S.; Dhar Burra, D.; Thanh Duong, T.; Osiemo, J.; Huong Trinh, T.; et al. Environmental analyses to inform transitions to sustainable diets in developing countries: Case studies for Vietnam and Kenya. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25, 1183–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brunsø, K.; Fjord, T.A.; Grunert, K.G. Consumers’ Food Choice and Quality Perception in Working Paper No. 77ISSN 0907 2101; The Aarhus School of Business: Aarhus, Denmark, 2002; pp. 1–60. Available online: https://pure.au.dk/portal/files/32302886/wp77.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2021).
- Sikora, T.; Strada, A. Safety and Quality Assurance and Management Systems in Food Industry: An Overview. In The Food Industry in Europe: Erasmus Intensive Programme in Agri-Business Management with Emphasis in Food Industry Enterprises; Soldatos, P., Rozakis, S., Eds.; Agricultural University of Athens: Athens, Greece, 2005; pp. 85–95. [Google Scholar]
- Cardello, A.V. Food quality: Relativity, context and consumer expectations. Food Qual. Prefer. 1995, 6, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kearney, J. Food consumption trends and drivers. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 2793–2807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Borowska, A. Regional aspects of contemporary food consumption trends versus globalization. Rocz. Nauk. Stow. Ekon. Rol. Agrobiz. 2009, 11, 46–49. [Google Scholar]
- Lairon, D. Nutritional quality and safety of organic food: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 30, 33–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hallmann, E.; Rembiałkowska, E. The content of selected antioxidant compounds in bell pepper varieties from organic and conventional cultivation before and after freezing process. In Proceedings of the Second Scientific Conference of the International Society of Organic Agriculture Research (ISOFAR), Modena, Italy, 18–20 June 2008; Neuhoff, D., Halberg, N., Alfldi, T., Lockeretz, W., Thommen, A., Rasmussen, I.A., Hermansen, J., Vaarst, M., Lck, L., Carporali, F., et al., Eds.; Research Institute of Organic Agriculture: Flick, Switzerland, 2008; pp. 802–805. [Google Scholar]
- Gornowicz, E.; Lewko, L.; Szablewski, T. Ecological management system as a factor influencing egg yolk quality. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Eng. 2013, 58, 161–164. [Google Scholar]
- Bryła, P. Organic food consumption in Poland: Motives and barriers. Apetite 2016, 105, 737–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends 2020; Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FIBL & IFOAM—Organic International: Frick, Switzerland, 2020; Available online: https://www.fibl.org/fileadmin/documents/shop/5011-organic-world-2020.pdf (accessed on 12 May 2021).
- FAO. Sustainable Diets and Biodiversity. Directions and Solutions for Policy, Research and Action. In Nutritional and Consumer Protection Division, Proceedings of the International Scientific Symposium Biodiversity and Sustainable Diets United against Hunger, Rome, Italy, 3–5 November 2010; Burlingame, B., Dernini, S., Eds.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2010; pp. 1–309. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/i3004e/i3004e.pdf (accessed on 12 May 2021).
- Reisch, L.; Eberle, U.; Lorek, S. Sustainable food consumption: An overview of contemporary issues and policies. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2013, 9, 7–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Household Budget Surveys in 2008. Central Statistical Office of Poland. Statistical Information and Elaboration. 2009. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/cps/rde/xbcr/gus/wz_budzety_gospodarstw_domowych_w_2008.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2021).
- Household Budget Surveys in 2018. Central Statistical Office of Poland. Statistical Information and Elaboration. 2019. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/warunki-zycia/dochody-wydatki-i-warunki-zycia-ludnosci/budzety-gospodarstw-domowych-w-2019-roku,9,14.html (accessed on 14 April 2021).
- Michalska, G.; Nowachowicz, J.; Bucek, T.; Wasilewski, P.D.; Kmiecik, M. Consumption of food products with meat and meat products. Przegląd Hod. 2013, 6, 12–15. [Google Scholar]
- FAOSTAT. Livestock Primary. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QL (accessed on 17 June 2020).
- Statistical Yearbook of Agriculture (2010; 2013; 2015; 2018; 2019). Central Statistical Office of Poland. Statistical Information. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/roczniki-statystyczne/roczniki-statystyczne/rocznik-statystyczny-rolnictwa-2020,6,14.html (accessed on 15 June 2020).
- Production of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops (2010; 2013; 2015; 2018; 2019). Central Statistical Office of Poland. Statistical Information. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/rolnictwo-lesnictwo/uprawy-rolne-i-ogrodnicze/produkcja-upraw-rolnych-i-ogrodniczych-w-2019-roku,9,18.html (accessed on 16 June 2020).
- Schader, C.; Muller, A.; El-Hage Scialabba, N.; Hecht, J.; Isensee, A.; Erb, K.-H.; Smith, P.; Makkar, H.P.S.; Klocke, P.; Leiber, F.; et al. Impacts of feeding less food-competing feed- stuffs to livestock on global food system sustainability. J. R. Soc. Interface 2015, 113, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jarosz, M.; Charzewska, J.; Wajszczyk, B.; Chwojnowska, Z. Do You Know How Much Protein You Need; Instytut Żywności i Żywienia: Warsaw, Poland, 2019; pp. 1–24. [Google Scholar]
- De Castro Cardoso Pereira, P.M.; dos Reis Baltazar Vicente, A.F. Meat nutritional composition and nutritive role in the human diet. Meat Sci. 2013, 93, 586–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Grunert, K.G. Future trends and consumer lifestyles with regard to meat consumption. Meat Sci. 2006, 74, 149–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Biesalski, H.K. Meat as a component of a healthy diet—Are there any risks or benefits if meat is avoided in the diet? Meat Sci. 2005, 70, 509–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Maj, D.; Bieniek, J.; Bekas, Z. Influence of rabbits age and sex on the indicators of their meat quality. Żywność. Nauka. Technol. Jakość 2012, 1, 142–153. [Google Scholar]
- Kowalska, D. Dietary value of rabbit meat. Wiadomości Zootech. 2006, XLIV, 72–77. [Google Scholar]
- Henchion, M.; McCarthy, M.; Resconi, V.C.; Troy, D. Meat consumption: Trends and quality matters. Meat Sci. 2014, 98, 561–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wierzejska, R. Food safety in Poland during the membership in the European Union. Przemysł Spożywczy 2015, 69, 2–6. [Google Scholar]
- Omieciuch, J. Food quality and safety in Poland. Soc. Econ. 2016, 2, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Municipal Population Forecast for 2017–2030. Central Statistical Office of Poland. Departament Badań Demograficznych i Rynku Pracy. 2017. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/ludnosc/prognoza-ludnosci/prognoza-ludnosci-gmin-na-lata-2017-2030-opracowanie-eksperymentalne,10,1.html (accessed on 30 March 2021).
- FAO. The Food Wastage Footprint. Impacts on Natural Resources. Summary Report; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2013; pp. 1–63. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/i3347e/i3347e.pdf (accessed on 29 March 2021).
- Farm Animals (2010; 2013; 2015; 2018; 2019). Central Statistical Office. Statistical Information. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/rolnictwo-lesnictwo/produkcja-zwierzeca-zwierzeta-gospodarskie/zwierzeta-gospodarskie-w-2019-roku,6,20.html# (accessed on 16 June 2020).
- Klepacki, B. Economics and Organization of Agriculture; WSiP: Warsaw, Poland, 1997; pp. 1–183.
- FAO. Technical Conversion Factors for Agricultural Commodities; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 1960; p. 346. Available online: http://www.fao.org/economic/the-statistics-division-ess/methodology/methodology-systems/technical-conversion-factors-for-agricultural-commodities/ar/ (accessed on 15 May 2021).
- Kunachowicz, H.; Nadolna, I.; Przygoda, B.; Iwanow, K. Tables of the Composition and Nutritional Value of Food; Instytut Żywności i Żywienia Człowieka; PZWL: Warsaw, Poland, 2005; p. 672. [Google Scholar]
- Population by Sex and Age Group. Central Statistical Office of Poland. Local Data Bank. Available online: https://bdl.stat.gov.pl/BDL/dane/podgrup/temat (accessed on 30 March 2021).
- Biswas, S.; Banerjee, R.; Bhattacharyya, D.; Patra, G.; Das, A.; Das, S. Technological investigation into duck meat and its products—a potential alternative to chicken. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 2019, 75, 609–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Žilić, S. Wheat Gluten: Composition and Health Effects. In Gluten: Sources, Composition and Health Effects; Walter, D.B., Ed.; Nova. Science Publisher, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2007; Chapter 4; pp. 71–86. [Google Scholar]
- Young, V.R.; Pellett, P.L. Plant proteins in relation to human protein and amino acid nutrition. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1994, 59, 1203S–1212S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- European Commision. The Future of Organics. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/farming/organic-farming/future-organics_en (accessed on 15 March 2021).
- Seufert, V.; Ramankutty, N.; Foley, J. Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 2012, 485, 229–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Ponti, T.; Rijk, B.; van Ittersum, M.K. The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture. Agric. Syst. 2012, 108, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alaru, M.; Talgre, L.; Eremeev, V.; Tein, B.; Luik, A.; Nemvalts, A.; Loit, E. Crop yields and supply of nitrogen compared in conventional and organic farming systems. Agric. Food Sci. 2014, 23, 317–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuczuk, A. Cost-, Cumulative Energy- and Emergy Aspects of Conventional and Organic Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Cultivation. J. Agric. Sci. 2016, 8, 140–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muller, A.; Schader, C.; El-Hage Scialabba, N.; Brüggemann, J.; Isensee, A.; Erb, K.-H.; Smith, P.; Klocke, P.; Leiber, F.; Stolze, M.; et al. Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Badgley, C.; Moghtader, J.; Quintero, E.; Zakem, E.; Chappell, M.J.; Avilé s-Vázquez, K.; Samulonand, A.; Perfecto, I. Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2006, 22, 86–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krystallis, A.; Chryssohoidis, G. Consumers’ willingness to pay for organic food: Factors that affect it and variation per organic product type. Br. Food J. 2005, 107, 320–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Pelsmacker, P.; Driesen, L.; Rayp, G. Do Consumers Care about Ethics? Willingness to Pay for Fair-Trade Coffee. J. Consum. Aff. 2005, 39, 363–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vapa-Tankosić, J.; Ignjatijević, S.; Kiurski, J.; Milenković, J.; Milojević, I. Analysis of Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Organic and Local Honey in Serbia. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kułyk, P.; Michałowska, M. Price and willingness to pay for specific ecological products on the example of the inhabitants of the Lubuskie Voivodeship. Zesz. Nauk. SGGW Ekon. Organ. Gospod. Żywnościowej 2015, 125, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, L.; Wang, J.; Huo, X. Consumer’s Willingness to Pay a Premium for Organic Fruits in China: A Double-Hurdle Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Animal Product | Base Year | 2030 Adjusted | +/−25% | +/−50% | +/−75% | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
cap/day | |||||||||||||||
g | kcal | g protein | g | kcal | g protein | g | kcal | g protein | g | kcal | g protein | g | kcal | g protein | |
eggs | 42 | 58 | 5 | 49 | 68 | 6 | 61 | 85 | 8 | 74 | 102 | 9 | 86 | 119 | 11 |
cow milk | 816 | 427 | 28 | 967 | 507 | 32 | 725 | 380 | 24 | 363 | 253 | 16 | 242 | 127 | 8 |
goat and sheep milk | 1 | 0.7 | 0.04 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.01 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.02 | 1 | 0.4 | 0.02 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.02 |
cattle meat | 32 | 51 | 6 | 53 | 85 | 10 | 40 | 64 | 8 | 20 | 43 | 5 | 13 | 21 | 3 |
chicken meat | 91 | 184 | 61 | 215 | 434 | 143 | 161 | 325 | 107 | 81 | 217 | 71 | 54 | 108 | 36 |
duck, goose and turkey meat | 13 | 23 | 2 | 24 | 43 | 4 | 30 | 54 | 5 | 36 | 64 | 6 | 42 | 75 | 8 |
pig meat | 137 | 464 | 21 | 157 | 534 | 24 | 118 | 400 | 18 | 59 | 267 | 12 | 39 | 133 | 6 |
rabbit meat | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.04 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.1 |
sheep meat | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.01 | 0.1 | 0.10 | 0.01 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.01 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.01 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.02 |
beef and pork edible offal | 9 | 12 | 2 | 14 | 19 | 3 | 11 | 14 | 2 | 5 | 9 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 1 |
animal edible fat | 23 | 194 | 0.6 | 27 | 223 | 0.6 | 20 | 167 | 0.5 | 10 | 111 | 0.3 | 7 | 56 | 0.2 |
honey | 1 | 4 | 0.003 | 2 | 7 | 0.01 | 3 | 8 | 0.01 | 3 | 10 | 0.01 | 4 | 12 | 0.01 |
Total animal products | 1165 | 1419 | 125 | 1508 | 1920 | 223 | 1169 | 1499 | 173 | 651 | 1078 | 122 | 490 | 657 | 72 |
Plant Product | Base Year | 2030 Adjusted | +/−25% | +/−50% | +/−75% | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
cap/day | |||||||||||||||
g | kcal | g protein | g | kcal | g protein | g | kcal | g protein | g | kcal | g protein | g | kcal | g protein | |
wheat flour | 527 | 1772 | 48 | 572 | 1921 | 74 | 429 | 1441 | 55 | 214 | 961 | 37 | 143 | 480 | 18 |
other cereal and legume products (flour, groats, grains) | 409 | 1352 | 30 | 502 | 1675 | 44 | 502 | 1675 | 44 | 502 | 1675 | 44 | 502 | 1675 | 44 |
other industrial plants such as vegetable oil | 65 | 572 | 88 | 635 | 88 | 635 | 88 | 635 | 88 | 635 | |||||
sugar beets such as sugar | 117 | 475 | 215 | 871 | 161 | 654 | 108 | 436 | 54 | 218 | 0 | ||||
vegetables total including potatoes | 777 | 396 | 13 | 825 | 293 | 11.9 | 825 | 293 | 11.9 | 825 | 293 | 12 | 825 | 293 | 12 |
fruits total | 272 | 130 | 2 | 309 | 182 | 2.2 | 309 | 182 | 2.2 | 309 | 182 | 2 | 309 | 182 | 2 |
Total plant products | 2168 | 4697 | 93 | 2511 | 5578 | 132 | 2315 | 4880 | 114 | 2046 | 4182 | 95 | 1921 | 3483 | 77 |
Base Year | 2030 Adjusted | +/−25% | +/−50% | +/−75% | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
cap/day | |||||||||||||||
g | kcal | g protein | g | kcal | g protein | g | kcal | g protein | g | kcal | g protein | g | kcal | g protein | |
TFS | 3333 | 6116 | 218 | 4019 | 7497 | 355 | 3483 | 6379 | 286 | 2697 | 5260 | 217 | 2412 | 4141 | 148 |
40% food wastage | 3670 | 131 | 4498 | 213 | 3827 | 172 | 3156 | 130 | 2485 | 89 | |||||
animal energy/total energy (%) | 23 | 26 | 23 | 20 | 16 | ||||||||||
animal protein/total protein (%) | 57 | 63 | 60 | 56 | 48 | ||||||||||
protein energy | 886 | 1441 | 1161 | 881 | 601 | ||||||||||
protein energy/total energy (%) | 14.5 | 19.2 | 18.2 | 16.8 | 14.5 | ||||||||||
TFD | 2572 | 2608 | 2608 | 2608 | 2608 |
Product | Product g/cap/day | kcal/cap/day | Proteins g/cap/day | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Base Year | +/−25% | +/−50% | +/−75% | Base Year | +/−25% | +/−50% | +/−75% | Base Year | +/−25% | +/−50% | +/−75% | |
(1); SAP; eggs | 1.26% | 0.38% | 1.23% | 1.95% | 0.95% | 0.36% | 0.95% | 1.86% | 2.40% | 0.28% | 1.83% | 4.84% |
(7); UNSAP; cow milk | 24.47% | −5.13% | −12.23% | −15.44% | 6.99% | −1.13% | −2.27% | −4.01% | 12.64% | −4.19% | −5.22% | −7.20% |
(2); SAP; goat and sheep milk | 0.03% | −0.02% | −0.01% | −0.01% | 0.01% | −0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.02% | −0.01% | −0.01% | 0.00% |
(8); UNSAP; cattle meat | 0.95% | 0.10% | −0.28% | −0.46% | 0.84% | 0.15% | −0.04% | −0.34% | 2.86% | −0.14% | −0.47% | −1.11% |
(9); UNSAP; chicken meat | 2.74% | 1.56% | −0.02% | −0.73% | 3.01% | 2.00% | 1.03% | −0.46% | 27.77% | 9.61% | 5.06% | −3.72% |
(3); SAP; duck, goose and turkey meat | 0.38% | 0.42% | 0.83% | 1.18% | 0.37% | 0.45% | 0.82% | 1.39% | 1.00% | 0.89% | 1.99% | 4.10% |
(10); UNSAP; pig meat | 4.11% | −0.96% | −2.11% | −2.64% | 7.59% | −1.41% | −2.61% | −4.45% | 9.60% | −3.28% | −4.05% | −5.54% |
(4); SAP; rabbit meat | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.01% | 0.01% | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.01% | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.01% | 0.04% |
(5); SAP; sheep meat | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
(11); UNSAP; beef and pork edible offal | 0.28% | 0.00% | −0.10% | −0.15% | 0.20% | 0.01% | −0.03% | −0.09% | 0.78% | −0.10% | −0.18% | −0.34% |
(12); UNSAP; animal edible fat | 0.69% | −0.16% | −0.36% | −0.44% | 3.17% | −0.59% | −1.09% | −1.86% | 0.25% | −0.09% | −0.11% | −0.15% |
(6); SAP; honey | 0.03% | 0.04% | 0.07% | 0.10% | 0.06% | 0.07% | 0.13% | 0.22% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.01% |
(13); UNSCP; wheat flour | 15.82% | −4.38% | −8.58% | −10.48% | 28.97% | −6.75% | −11.07% | −17.66% | 21.84% | −2.50% | −4.85% | −9.39% |
(15); SCP; other: flour, groats, grains | 12.28% | 1.13% | 4.69% | 6.49% | 22.11% | 3.72% | 9.11% | 17.34% | 13.94% | 1.49% | 6.38% | 15.83% |
(16); SCP; other industrial plants such as vegetable oil | 1.94% | 0.41% | 1.04% | 1.35% | 9.35% | 0.44% | 2.48% | 5.60% | ||||
(14); UNSCP; sugar beets such as sugar | 3.52% | 0.79% | 0.11% | −1.51% | 7.77% | 2.31% | 0.35% | −2.64% | ||||
(17); SCP; vegetables total incl. potatoes | 23.32% | −1.32% | 4.52% | 7.49% | 6.47% | −1.96% | −1.01% | 0.42% | 6.12% | −1.96% | −0.64% | 1.90% |
(18); SCP; fruits total | 8.17% | 0.07% | 2.26% | 3.38% | 2.13% | 0.69% | 1.27% | 2.17% | 0.77% | 0.01% | 0.25% | 0.73% |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kuczuk, A.; Widera, K. Proposed Changes in Polish Agricultural Products Consumption Structure for 2030 Based on Data from 2008–2018. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7536. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147536
Kuczuk A, Widera K. Proposed Changes in Polish Agricultural Products Consumption Structure for 2030 Based on Data from 2008–2018. Sustainability. 2021; 13(14):7536. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147536
Chicago/Turabian StyleKuczuk, Anna, and Katarzyna Widera. 2021. "Proposed Changes in Polish Agricultural Products Consumption Structure for 2030 Based on Data from 2008–2018" Sustainability 13, no. 14: 7536. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147536
APA StyleKuczuk, A., & Widera, K. (2021). Proposed Changes in Polish Agricultural Products Consumption Structure for 2030 Based on Data from 2008–2018. Sustainability, 13(14), 7536. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147536