PGI Dalmatian Ham in Croatia



There were only seven producers of Dalmatian prosciutto in 2016, with total production of PGI Dalmatian prosciutto of 59,730 pieces. Key technical steps in the Dalmatian prosciutto production are salting, ham pressing, smoking and drying, ripening and finally packaging and marketing. The value chain of Dalmatian prosciutto consists of animal feed producers, breeders and slaughterhouses at upstream level, prosciutto producers at processing level and retailers at downstream level. Most of the fresh ham for Dalmatian prosciutto production is imported from Hungary and Austria. Stakeholders from upstream level are therefore outside Croatia. Downstream level is related to supermarkets, HoReCa (hotels and restaurants), specialized stores and others.

Traceability is one of the major reasons which drove producers to seek a PGI denomination for this type of ham. In fact, it is now possible to remove “fake dalmatian prosciutto” from the market, as technical specifications and strong producer control prevents fraudulent use of the name Dalmatian prosciutto.

Dalmatian prosciutto tends to perform better than its non-PGI reference on economic and social aspects: it sells at a higher price, generates higher economic spillover, more employment and attracts a higher share of young workers. The PGI is however outperformed on environmental aspects: it travels more, as the meat is imported and it is drier and therefore requires more raw meat per ton of finished product. It also generates slightly more water pollution by nitrates.


  1. Bellassen, V., Giraud, G., Hilal, M., Arfini, F., Barczak, A., Bodini, A., Brennan, M., Drut, M., Duboys de Labarre, M., Gorton, M., Hartmann, M., Majewski, E., Muller, P., Monier-Dilhan, S., Poméon, T., Tocco, B., Tregear, A., Veneziani, M., Vergote, M.-H., Vitterso, G., Wavresky, P., Wilkinson, A. (2016). Strength2Food project, deliverable 3.2: Methods and indicators for measuring the social, environmental and economic impacts of food quality schemes. INRA, Dijon, France.Google Scholar
  2. Clune, S., Crossin, E., & Verghese, K. (2017). Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions for different fresh food categories. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 766–783. Scholar
  3. Croatiastočar. (2016). Fresh ham import. internal data.Google Scholar
  4. Halpern, D. (1999). Social capital: The new golden goose. Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Cambridge University. Unpublished review.Google Scholar
  5. Just, R. E., & Pope, R. D. (2001). The agricultural producer: Theory and statistical measurement. In B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (Eds.), Handbook of agricultural economics, volume 1, part A (pp. 629–741). North-Holland: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  6. Meier, M. S., Stoessel, F., Jungbluth, N., Juraske, R., Schader, C., & Stolze, M. (2015). Environmental impacts of organic and conventional agricultural products – Are the differences captured by life cycle assessment? Journal of Environmental Management, 149, 193–208. Scholar
  7. Ministry of Agriculture. (2017). Dalmatian prosciutto production, internal data.Google Scholar
  8. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone – The collapse and revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Zagreb, Faculty of AgricultureZagrebCroatia
  2. 2.University of Zagreb, Faculty of Economics & BusinessZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations