PGI Gyulai Sausage in Hungary
Hungary’s most popular meat product is the ‘kolbász’ (sausage). A traditional brand and PGI, ‘Gyulai’ represents about 15% of the 33.8 thousand tons over the counter market of dry sausages. The production of Gyulai pork sausage may take place within the administrative boundaries of two south-eastern towns: Gyula and Békéscsaba. Due to the restriction in processing area, there are only eight companies, authorized to produce the ‘Gyulai kolbász’ PGI and only two of them, (Gyulahús and Kaiser Food) use the PGI label on a regular basis producing 5000–6000 tons of Gyulai a year. In the GI area, several dozens of other small producers are also active, selling their sausages at the local farmers' market or at their homes. The regulation only protects the two words ‘Gyulai kolbász’ used together, but it does not prohibit the use of ‘Gyulai’ for other products even when they are produced elsewhere. Thus, it is not rare to find products with deceptive names.
Main input of Gyulai sausage is pork meat which originates mainly from Germany’s leading abattoirs. Key feature of the product is the seasoning and the special curing method applied.
Production costs of Gyulai sausage are higher than of conventional dry sausages, on account of higher intermediate consumption and higher HR-costs and this is not offset by the higher ex-factory prices which makes Gyulai production quite exposed, particularly considering that Gyulai is mainly sold to the domestic market where price premium of the PGI reveals mainly at the retail level. The main driver of the local multiplier effect of Gyulai sausage is the amount of wages paid, showing a slim local economic spillover. The PGI Gyulai sausage is less sustainable than the reference product (general, non-PGI dry sausage) both in terms of distance travelled and of emissions released at the transport stage. PGI production is slightly more water demanding than the reference product due to its lower final product ratio. The allocation of labour to production is slightly lower for Gyulai sausage than for its non-PGI reference. Bargaining power is rather unevenly vertically distributed along the PGI supply chain.
- 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). Methods and indicators for measuring the social, environmental and economic impacts of food quality schemes, Strength2Food project, deliverable 3.2. INRA, Dijon, France.Google Scholar
- Halpern, D. (1999). Social capital: The new golden goose? Institute for Public Policy Research, London.Google Scholar
- Horn, P. (2000). Állattenyésztés 3. - Sertés, nyúl, prémes állatok, hal. Mezőgazda Kiadó, Budapest.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.10.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. In L. Crothers & C. Lockhart (Eds.), Culture and politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar