Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:20688–20703

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23640-2

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Risk assessment in livestock supply chain using the MCDM method:

a case of emerging economy
Waseem Khan1 · Shahbaz Khan2 · Aruna Dhamija2 · Mohammad Haseeb3 · Saghir Ahmad Ansari4

Received: 19 July 2022 / Accepted: 10 October 2022 / Published online: 18 October 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2022

Abstract
The purpose of the study is to identify and assess the risks related to the livestock supply chain. The major risk related to the
livestock supply chain are identified through the comprehensive literature review and finalized with the help of the expert’s
feedback. Initially, seventeen major livestock supply chain risks are finalized, and these risks are categorized into four major
dimensions. Further, analytical hierarchical process (AHP) is used to prioritize these identified major risks based on their sever-
ity. Finally, sensitivity analysis is conducted to check the robustness of the risk priorities. The result shows that “input supply
risk” is the most significant risk dimension followed by “production risk,” “post-harvest risk,” and “marketing & price risk.”
The finding also suggests that “poor quality and under supply of feed and fodder,” “lack of proper waste disposal,” and “absence
of certification for the quality of animals” are the major risks among all seventeen risks. The highest priority risks are input
supply risks which require the attention of the livestock supply chain partners. The proposed research framework is used to
identify and analyze the livestock supply chain risks. The findings of this research might be beneficial for the farmers and other
livestock supply chain stakeholders in developing policies/plans/strategies to control the risk in their livestock supply chain.

Keywords Risk · Risk assessment · Livestock · Supply chain · Analytical hierarchical process (AHP) · Sensitivity analysis

Introduction

Responsible Editor: Arshian Sharif The contribution of the agriculture sector to the Indian
economy has shown a decline trend in the last three decades
* Waseem Khan from 26.9% in 1990 to 16.2% in 2019 (WDI 2019). How-
waseemdbf42@gmail.com
ever, this sector has great importance in the economy due
Shahbaz Khan to its product, market, factors, and foreign exchange contri-
shahbaz.me12@gmail.com
bution (Khan and Ansari 2018). Therefore, the agriculture
Aruna Dhamija sector has been an important sector for national policymak-
aruna.dhamija@gla.ac.in
ers (Muneeb et al. 2021; Kumar et al. 2011). Livestock is a
Mohammad Haseeb significant contributor to the agriculture sector and approx-
haseeb.ecb@gmail.coml
imately a source of income for two-thirds of Indian farm
Saghir Ahmad Ansari households; additionally, it is a source of domestic fuel and
saghir63@gmail.com
manure (Birthal 2008; Cuéllar and Webber 2008). A com-
1
Department of Management, SMBS, Jamia Hamdard, pelling feature of livestock farming is that it can be initiated
New Delhi, India with a little amount of investment and due to its reproduc-
2
Institute of Business Management, GLA University, Mathura, ible nature in a short span it can be multiplied many times.
Uttar Pradesh, India 281406 Livestock can serve as a backup in the event of crop failure
3
China Institute of Development Strategy and Planning, and income shock.
and Center for Industrial Economics, Wuhan University, Growing urban population, development of transporta-
Wuhan 430072, China tion system, increasing supermarket in urban areas, shifting
4
Department of Agricultural Economics and Business population from low middle income to higher income group,
Management, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, and economic growth are leading to changes in the food
Uttar Pradesh, India

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:20688–20703 20689

consumption pattern towards animal food products (Birthal gap. Understanding of the hierarchical structure of live-
and Taneja 2012). Over the time, per capita consumption of stock risk enables the stakeholders to know the severity of
livestock products has significantly increased while the con- each risk across the supply chain. Therefore, to deal with
sumption of food grains has declined (Kumar et al. 2014). these conditions, it is crucial to investigate the livestock
Demand for livestock products has been growing across supply chain-related risks to reduce their impact on the
the world mainly in low–middle-income countries (LMIC) supply chain and other industry partners. With this objec-
(Abid et al 2020; Alexandratos and Bruinsma 2012). This tive, we have conducted a literature review and found that
increasing demand for livestock products brings prospects there has been limited research to understand the risk
for small-scale livestock farmers that can ultimately con- and their management in the context of livestock’s supply
tribute economic growth and development of the country chain. Therefore, this study is conducted to address the
(Birthal and Taneja 2012). There is the multifaceted role issue of risk management for the livestock supply chain.
of livestock in farming in rural areas; it acts as a medium Risk management has four phases: risk identification;
of transport and supports the cultivation of the field and risk assessment; risk mitigation; and risk control (Khan
provides income support as well (Khan et al. 2013). As et al. 2020, 2021). Risk identification and assessment are
compared with crop production, livestock has more power the primary and crucial steps of risk management. This
to reduce the poverty (Mellor 2003). According to Abid study focuses on risk identification and risk assessment
et al. (2020), livestock is the prime physical capital for rural for the livestock supply chain and the specific objectives
households. They can sell it at the time of immediate finan- are as follows:
cial need; in addition, it also fulfil the need of daily food
consumption and maintaining soil fertility of their agricul- • Identify the major risks related to the livestock supply
tural land (Gebremedhin et al. 2004). chain.
The small farmers in India considered livestock as pov- • Assessment of the identified risk using the MCDM
erty reduction instrument; any mishappening put farm- method
ers in a vulnerable situation such as sudden death or any • Provide the risk control measures based on the risk
other adverse condition (Chand et al. 2016). The major assessment
challenge before the policy planner is to cover the risk
to recourse poor livestock farmers. The livestock sector The above objectives are fulfilled through this study to
provides livelihood security to poor rural households, but make the livestock supply chain more resilient. The study
the sector could not reach the real contribution level due to significantly contributes to the livestock supply chain and
low productivity, unavailability of organized input supply, risk management literature, and some major contribution is
lack of technology, and involvement of high risk across provided as follows:
the supply chain. In developing countries, usually rural
small farmers are exposed to various risks and they are • The identified risk related to the livestock supply chain
unable to access risk management strategies; therefore, helps the policy planner and government to develop strat-
their situation is highly susceptible (Chand et al. 2018; egies in order to mitigate them for making the livestock
Tadesse et al. 2015; Gilligan et al. 2009). Disease epidem- supply chain more sustainable.
ics among livestock are the major cause of productivity • The prioritization of the risk in the livestock supply chain
reduction and sometimes losses of livestock at the mass enables the managers/farmers to systematically deploy
level (Thornton et al. 2008). the resources for mitigating the risks in an effective man-
Livestock diseases instigate numerous losses such as ner.
the death of the animal, treatment cost, yield loss, and • The risk assessment framework shows the application
decline in product acceptability (Govindaraj et al. 2021; of the MCDM method in livestock supply chain man-
Charlier et al. 2020). Livestock supply chain effective- agement that is easy to implement and logically sound.
ness may be hamper due to the unavailability of input and AHP-based model endorses the assessment of livestock
production risk (Abu Hatab et al. 2021; Adeyemo et al. supply chain risks for effective risk management.
2021). The risk related to the livestock supply chain is • This study addresses the issue of livestock supply chain
directly impacts the farmer’s income and their investment in the context of developing countries that are more
decision. Some studies have been done to investigate the prone to risks in comparison to developed countries.
determinants of risk as well as risk management strategies
in the livestock supply chain (Abbas et al. 2022; Adeyonu The remaining paper is structured as the “Review of lit-
et al. 2021; Faisal et al. 2021). However, studies on cre- erature” section reviews the livestock supply chain risks; the
ating a hierarchical structure of livestock risk across the “Methodology” section explains the research methodology;
livestock supply are still showing a significant research the “Data analysis” section presents the data and sensitivity

13
20690 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:20688–20703

analysis and results; findings are discussed in the “Discus- production LMIC; the absence of quality feed adversely
sion” section. Implication of the study is given in the “Impli- affects the profitability, environment, productivity, nutri-
cations of the study” section, and finally, the “Conclusion” tional status of the human, food security, and animal health
section concludes the study and provides the limitation and (Balehegn et al. 2020). Increasing input prices is considered
scope for the future research. one the main risk in the agricultural supply chain including
livestock because it limits the ability to adopt the improved
variety inputs (Abid, et al. 2020). Fifty percent of the total
Review of literature cost in livestock production is accounted by feed and fodder.
Farmers fail to provide quality fodder to their animal in the
Livestock experiences a variety of risks and this section majority of cases. According to Patel et al. (2011), the lack
deals with the major risk in this sector. Kahan (2008) cat- of quality feed and fodder significantly led to low productiv-
egorizes risk in livestock farming broadly in (1) production, ity of livestock. Shortage of animal feed is generally adjusted
(2) marketing, (3), financial (4), and institutional and (5) through low-quality fodder which is unable to lactate the
personal/human. Production includes drought-, climate-, animal or sometimes has an adverse impact on animal repro-
and disease-related risk. Financial risk cover issues of loan duction capacity (Lanyasunya et al. 2006). Arable land is
and cost. Risk regarding demand and supply of Input and continuously declining in India as well as other countries
products comes under marketing risk. Institutional risks are of the world due to the increasing population. Therefore,
policy-related issues that have impacts on the livestock sup- the availability of land for feed and fodder has been shrunk,
ply chain. The last personal and human risks in livestock which leads to a decline in production. So shortage of feed
framing are illness, accident civil unrest, and death. Farm covers up through the poor quality fodder. Therefore, the
household are either involved in crop production and live- availability and cost of feed and fodder become high risk in
stock farming exposed to various market as well as non- the livestock sector (Devaki and Senthilkumar 2011). There
market shocks; it may have a long-term and short-term shock is a huge gap in supply and demand for feed and fodder in
that impact yield, animal disease, hailstorm, price, and mar- India. The dry fodder is deficit by 21% in 2015 which is
ket availability (Abid et al. 2020). Macroeconomic indica- expected to increase by 23% in 2025. While green fodder is
tors are directly related with environmental quality (Jahanger deficited by 26% which is expected to increase by 40% in
et al. 2022). Every year, some parts of India face the heat 2025. This deficit in fodder is negatively impacted in pro-
of drought, and it exposed livestock to the environment and duction and depletion of the livestock productivity (Makkar
health-related risks (Thornton et al. 2009). For instance, 2016 and Birthal and Jha 2005).
climate changes have a significant impact on the livestock Disease in an animal is a very severe risk because the
supply chain because frequent changing of the weather expenditure of animal treatment is high; even in the case
negatively affects the productivity of livestock, quality of of small diseases, farmers are unable to pay the treatment
feed and fodder, the health of the animal, water availability, amount. In rural areas; it is difficult to bring the animal to
and reproduction (Polley et al. 2013; Henry et al. 2012 and the veterinary hospital due to unavailability of hospitals and
Chapman et al 2012). Raising temperature due to climate high transportation costs. Moreover, from an economic point
change was exposed to death risk of animals (Nardone et al. of view, disease occurrence in animals causes a significant
2010). Heat stress and other climate change issues adversely economic loss to farmers, particularly during the monsoon
affect the production and productivity of the livestock and season. In the case of India, more than 85% of farmers are
supply chain (Cao et al. 2019; Fournel et al. 2017). Fur- small and medium, and are incapable of affording veterinary
thermore, heat stress affects animal health directly which services (Ravikumar et al. 2007).
adversely affect the metabolic and immune system which In the livestock supply chain, the majority of risks are
increase the probability of death of the livestock. Death of concern with production due to various factors such as
the livestock causes severe economic loss to the farmers drought, animal disease, and untimely death. The spillo-
especially small and medium (Dua 2003). There are direct ver effect of these production risks is observed in price
and indirect implications of climate change on livestock. risk (Bishu 2014). Farmers are exposed to climate risk
Health, growth, and reproduction capabilities are directly every season and their access to insurance facilities are
affected by climatic change while indirect impacts are the very limited particularly in a developing country which
implications due to poor quality of feed and fodders grow- creates a barrier to transfer the risk to the insurance com-
ing in the result of adverse weather (Somagond et al. 2022; pany. A huge marketing risk is associated with the live-
Wreford and Topp 2020). Probability of morbidity increases stock supply chain because it is required immediate con-
with the rise in temperature (Rojas-Downing et al. 2017). sumption or converting into a non-perishable form. Most
Lack of access to quality feed has been a severe con- of the livestock products are perishable in nature; they
straint among the livestock farmers and it limits the livestock need cold storage to maintain the quality of the products;

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:20688–20703 20691

however, cold storage-embedded supply chain is in the ini- sell and purchase timing, pricing, and market interaction.
tial stage in India because a high investment is involve in Poor market information discourages smallholders to par-
cold storage-based supply chain (Nayak and Bagchi 2022). ticipate in the market (Nwafor et al. 2020 and Fafchamps
Another market-related risk in the livestock supply chain and Hill 2005). Due to lack of information, farmers depend
is low bargaining power of the small farmer because their on an informal market channel which increases farmers’
marketing surplus is small so they could not bargain in dependency on middlemen which ultimately end up with
the market (Birthal et al. 2005). Moreover rural market is a low piece to the farmers (Masutha and Rogerson 2015).
thin and farmers have to travel to the urban market to sell Table 1 represents the various livestock supply chain risk
their livestock product which increases the marketing cost and sub risks.
(Pingali et al 2005). In addition, livestock production is From the literature review of livestock risk across the sup-
not demand driven as per the requirement in urban com- ply chain, the main four broad dimensions of risk, namely
mercial market standard (Mehta et al. 2007). There is a input supply risk, production risk, post-harvest risk, and
lack of transport facilities in India (Birthal 2008). Camel marketing & price risk, are found. There are very limited
milk is the important contributor in the food consumption studies that examine the risk in the livestock sector, par-
of the rural community of some parts of country but its ticularly across the complete supply chain in the context of
production is facing the post-harvest quality and quantity India. It is imperative to analyze the risk by prioritizing it
decoration, and risk factor-associated quality and quantity across the livestock supply chain. Prioritizing the risk will
deterioration is still unidentified. enable us to judge the severity of risk in the livestock supply
A well-established post-harvest infrastructure is required chain. It will be instrumental to get an in-depth understand-
for sustainable livestock supply chain. India faces the prob- ing of the government to intervene across the livestock sup-
lem of poor infrastructure due to low public and private ply chain for the development of the livestock sector.
investment and it is ultimately exposed to marketing risk
due to poor processing. Livestock products marketing is
characterized by the intervention of the middleman (Singh Methodology
and Meena 2012) which increase the producers’ share in
consumers surplus (Ansari and Khan 2018). Middlemen The objective of this study is fulfilled through the two-phase
are more inclined towards traders benefit (Gabre-Madhin methodology. In the first phase, the preliminary risks are
2001). Information has been a key determinant for the mar- identified through the literature review. Further, these identi-
ket participation of farmers because true knowledge enables fied risks are assessed using a well-known AHP method. The
livestock farmers to take the correct decision in terms of adopted research framework for this study is shown in Fig. 1.

Table 1  Livestock supply chain Major risk in category livestock supply chain Types of sub risk in livestock supply chain
risk
Input supply risk • High cost of feed and fodder (SR1)
(SR) • Non-availability of medicines during emergency (SR2)
• Poor quality and under supply of feed and fodder (SR3)
• Absence of certification for quality of animals (SR4)
Production risk • Lack of proper living infrastructure (PR1)
(PR) • Illness/Injury/disability of animal (PR2)
• Epidemic attack such a foot and mouth disease (PR3)
• Production loss due to drought and flood (PR4)
• Theft (PR5)
Post-harvest risk • Absence of proper transport infrastructure (PH1)
(PH) • Absence of cold storage/refrigeration facility (PH2)
• Lack of measurement of quality (PH3)
• Lack of proper waste disposal (PH4)
Marketing and price risk (MR) • Lack of discriminatory pricing for quality/graded
produce (MR1)
• Lack/poor bargaining power (MR2)
• Lack of market information (MR3)
• Dominance by middlemen (MR4)

13
20692 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:20688–20703

Fig. 1  Propose research frame-

work Identify the livestock supply chain risks Literature
Review

Finalised the livestock supply chain risks and categorised into major Expert
risk dimensions feedback

Develop the structural hierarchy

Construct the pairwise comparison matrices

Measure consistency of matrices Expert

Consultation

Are all the matrices

consistent?

Determine the eigen vector of all the matrices

Calculate importance weight of risk by normalizing the eigen vectors

Rank the risk and risk dimension

Sensitivity analysis, Report the results, conclusion and future research scope

Data collection and method the experts, seventeen risks are finalized under four broad
dimensions of risk.
This study is a qualitative research based on expert opinion. Various MCDM techniques have been used to prioritize
The qualitative data has been taken from the panel of experts risk, examine critical success factor and sustainability of
using the purposive sampling technique; these experts are Table 2  Standardized comparison scale of nine levels
high-ranked academicians, experienced practitioners, and
Definition Value
industry professionals. The expert panel consists of eight
members. These experts are selected based on their working Equally important 1
experience in the livestock supply chain. The participated Moderately important 3
expert have more than 10 years of working experience at Strongly important 5
the manager level. The details of the experts are provided Very strongly important 7
in Table 13 in the Appendix. After the discussion with Extremely important 9
Intermediate values 2, 4, 6, 8

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:20688–20703 20693

Table 3  The relationship N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

between RI value and count of
criterion RI 0 0 0.58 .90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45

supply chain (Agrawal et al. 2022; Singh et al. 2022; Sufiyan of risk dimension and risk. The risk is pair-wise compared
et al. 2019). Analytical hierarchical process (AHP), a well- according to their influence and based on the specified risk
known multi-criteria decision making (MCDM), is used to dimension in the higher level using the nine-point scale
prioritize the risks. The rationale for using AHP is as fol- shown in Table 2.
lows: (i) it is very easy to implement and (ii) it requires a
smaller number of calculations and has high applicability Step 3: Compute criteria weight
in MCDM processes (Paleie and Lalic 2009; Saaty 2008). The criteria (risk dimension) are calculated as using
Further, the AHP is considered that factors are independent Eq. (1):
and this study considered the risks are independent. It also
effectively handles the inconsistency in human judgment and
AW = 𝜆max W (1)
attributes present in the expert’s input (Saaty 1980; Ishizaka where A is the priority matrix, W is the importance weight
and Labib 2009; Shaw et al. 2013). Therefore, AHP is suit- of risk dimension/risk, and λmax is the maximum eigen-
able for the prioritization of the risk dimensions and risks. value of matrix A.
A structured AHP questionnaire is used for the data collec- Step 4: Calculating the consistency
tion from the eight experts to implement the AHP method.
The step-wise process of AHP is provided in the upcoming
subsection. It is essential for the robust and reliable ranking of the
risk that matrix A should be consistent. To measure the con-
Analytical heretical process sistency of matrix A, a consistency ratio is used. The consist-
ency ratio (CR) is defined as follows:
In 1980, Saaty proposed the Analytic hierarchy process
(AHP) which is one of the powerful methods to solve the CR =
CI
(2)
MCDM problems (Saaty 1980). Among the several MCDM RI
methods, AHP is a popular method and widely applied in where CI is the consistency index (CI) and is RI is a random
different fields (Khan et al. 2019). MCDM is devoted to index. The consistency index is calculated using Eq. (3).
screening, prioritizing the factors/barriers/enablers, or
selecting an alternative under usually independent or/and
conflicting attributes (Agrawal et al. 2020; Khan et al. 2019;
Mannan and Haleem 2017). AHP method is built on three
vital stages: (i) hierarchical structure development; (ii), a
pair-wise comparison of the factors by the experts and (iii)
Prioritisation of Livestock Risk
a synthesis of priorities (Madaan and Mangla 2015). The
overall steps of the AHP are provided as follows: SR PR PH MR

Step 1: Develop the hierarchal structure SR1 PR1 PH1 MR1

The hierarchical structure is developed to organize the
factor (in this study risk dimensions) and sub-factors (in
this case risks). After the finalization of the hierarchal SR2 PR2 PH2 MR2
structure, experts were requested to make pair-wise com-
parisons among risk demotions as well as risks using a SR3 PR3 PH3 MR3
nine-point scale. All pair-wise matrices are developed,
and corresponding pair-wise comparisons are delivered
to the expert.
SR4 PR4 PH4 MR4
Step 2: Establish a pair-wise comparison decision matrix
PR5
The second step is the pair-wise comparison of risk
dimensions as well as risks to evaluate the relative weight
Fig. 2  Hierarchical structure of livestock supply chain risk

13
20694 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:20688–20703

𝜆max − n initial literature review. These risks are discussed with the
CI = (3) expert team for validation in the Indian context. The experts
n−1
suggest that four risks are not relevant to the contemporary
Further, the value of RI depends on the different count of situation and four are merged into two. Further, two risks
criteria, and value of RI is demonstrated in Table 3. are added by the experts in the risk list. In this manner, sev-
If CR is less than 0.10, the result can be acceptable, and enteen risks are finalized. Based on their nature of the risk,
experts’ input is significantly consistent. Otherwise, we these risks are categorized into four broad risk dimensions
should have returned to step 1 and repeat the process. which are shown in Table 1. Further, a hierarchal structure is
developed for the assessment of risk and the same is shown
in Fig. 2.
Data analysis After formulating the hierarchical structure of risks, pair-
wise assessment matrices are developed using the linguistic
The livestock supply chain risks are identified through the evaluation of the experts. The pair-wise matrices are final-
extensive literature review of the livestock supply chain, risk ized based on the consensus among the experts. The pair-
management strategies in livestock farming, supply chain wise assessment matrix for the livestock risk dimension is
management and animal welfare, and validated with expert shown in Table 4.
feedback. Initially, twenty-one risks are identified from the

Table 4  Pair-wise assessment Risk dimensions SR PR PH MR Weight Rank

matrix for livestock risks
dimensions SR 1 2 2 3 0.407 1
PR 1/2 1 2 4 0.305 2
PH 1/2 1/2 1 3 0.199 3
MR 1/3 1/4 1/3 1 0.089 4
CR value = 0.049

Table 5  Pair-wise assessment Supply Risk SR1 SR2 SR3 SR4 Weight Rank
matrix for input supply risks
SR1 1 1/3 1/4 1/2 0.095 4
SR2 3 1 1/2 1/2 0.201 3
SR3 4 2 1 3 0.469 1
SR4 2 2 1/3 1 0.236 2
CR value = 0.065

Table 6  Pair-wise assessment Production risk PR1 PR2 PR3 PR4 PR5 Weight Risk
matrix for production risks
PR1 1 1/2 1/3 1/3 1 0.094 4
PR2 2 1 1 1/2 3 0.202 2
PR3 3 1 1 1/4 2 0.183 3
PR4 3 2 4 1 5 0.44 1
PR5 1 1/3 1/2 1/5 1 0.082 5
CR value = 0.034

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:20688–20703 20695

Table 7  Pair-wise Assessment Post-harvest risk PH1 PH 2 PH 3 PH 4 Weight Rank

Matrix for post-harvest risk
PH 1 1 1/2 1/3 3 0.182 3
PH 2 2 1 2 2 0.376 1
PH 3 3 1/2 1 4 0.342 2
PH 4 1/3 1/2 1/2 1 0.101 4
CR value = 0.089

Table 8  Pair-wise assessment Market risk MR1 MR2 MR3 MR4 Weight Rank
matrix for marketing & price
risk MR1 1 1/2 1/4 1/3 0.10 4
MR2 2 1 1/2 1/2 0.185 3
MR3 4 2 1 1 0.37 1
MR4 3 2 1 1 0.345 2
CR value = 0.004

Table 9  Final rank of livestock Risk Dimension Weight Risk Local weight Local rank Global weight Global rank
risks
SR 0.407 SR1 0.095 4 0.0387 9
SR2 0.201 3 0.0818 4
SR3 0.469 1 0.1909 1
SR4 0.236 2 0.0961 3
PR 0.305 PR1 0.094 4 0.0287 13
PR2 0.202 2 0.0616 7
PR3 0.183 3 0.0558 8
PR4 0.440 1 0.1342 2
PR5 0.082 5 0.0250 14
PH 0.199 PH 1 0.182 3 0.0362 10
PH 2 0.376 1 0.0748 5
PH 3 0.342 2 0.0681 6
PH 4 0.101 4 0.0201 15
MR 0.089 MR1 0.100 4 0.0089 17
MR2 0.185 3 0.0165 16
MR3 0.370 1 0.0329 11
MR4 0.345 2 0.0307 12

Table 10  Preference weights for Risk dimensions Values of preference weights

sensitivity analysis of the major
risk dimension Normal S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9

SR 0.407 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
PR 0.305 0.463 0.412 0.360 0.309 0.257 0.206 0.154 0.103 0.051
PH 0.199 0.302 0.269 0.235 0.201 0.168 0.134 0.101 0.067 0.034
MR 0.089 0.135 0.120 0.105 0.090 0.075 0.060 0.045 0.030 0.015
SUM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

13
20696 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:20688–20703

Table 11  Relative weights of Risks Normal S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9

risks by sensitivity analysis for
scenario 1 to scenario 9 SR1 0.039 0.010 0.019 0.029 0.038 0.048 0.057 0.067 0.076 0.086
SR2 0.082 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.101 0.121 0.141 0.161 0.181
SR3 0.191 0.047 0.094 0.141 0.188 0.235 0.281 0.328 0.375 0.422
SR4 0.096 0.024 0.047 0.071 0.094 0.118 0.142 0.165 0.189 0.212
PR1 0.029 0.044 0.039 0.034 0.029 0.024 0.019 0.015 0.010 0.005
PR2 0.062 0.094 0.083 0.073 0.062 0.052 0.042 0.031 0.021 0.010
PR3 0.056 0.085 0.075 0.066 0.056 0.047 0.038 0.028 0.019 0.009
PR4 0.134 0.204 0.181 0.158 0.136 0.113 0.091 0.068 0.045 0.023
PR5 0.025 0.038 0.034 0.030 0.025 0.021 0.017 0.013 0.008 0.004
PH 1 0.036 0.055 0.049 0.043 0.037 0.031 0.024 0.018 0.012 0.006
PH 2 0.075 0.114 0.101 0.088 0.076 0.063 0.050 0.038 0.025 0.013
PH 3 0.068 0.103 0.092 0.080 0.069 0.057 0.046 0.034 0.023 0.011
PH 4 0.020 0.031 0.027 0.024 0.020 0.017 0.014 0.010 0.007 0.003
MR1 0.009 0.014 0.012 0.011 0.009 0.008 0.006 0.005 0.003 0.002
MR2 0.016 0.025 0.022 0.019 0.017 0.014 0.011 0.008 0.006 0.003
MR3 0.033 0.050 0.044 0.039 0.033 0.028 0.022 0.017 0.011 0.006
MR4 0.031 0.047 0.041 0.036 0.031 0.026 0.021 0.016 0.010 0.005

Similar to the risk dimensions, the pair-wise comparison each risk is provided in the pair-wise assessment matrix in
matrix is also developed for the input supply risk, production Table 9. Based on the weight of risk dimensions and risk,
risks, post-harvest risks and market risk using the expert’s the global weight of each risk is calculated by multiplying
feedback and shown in Tables 5, 6, 7, and 8 respectively. the local weight with the weight of the corresponding risk.
Finally, local and global weights have been assessed for The weight of the risk refers to the severity of the risk in the
each risk through the AHP method. The local weight of livestock supply chain. The higher value of the importance

Fig. 3  Sensitivity analysis of

livestock supply chain risk by Sensivity Analysis
their global weights 0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25
Global Weight

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
SR1 SR2 SR3 SR4 PR1 PR2 PR3 PR4 PR5 PH 1 PH 2 PH 3 PH 4 MR1 MR2 MR3 MR4
Risks

Normal S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:20688–20703 20697

Table 12  Global rank of Risks Normal S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9

livestock supply chain risk as
per sensitivity analysis for S1 SR1 9 17 16 14 9 8 5 5 4 4
to S9
SR2 4 15 11 8 4 4 3 3 3 3
SR3 1 8 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
SR4 3 14 8 6 3 2 2 2 2 2
PR1 13 10 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13
PR2 7 4 5 5 7 7 8 8 8 8
PR3 8 5 6 7 8 9 9 9 9 9
PR4 2 1 1 1 2 3 4 4 5 5
PR5 14 11 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14
PH 1 10 6 7 9 10 10 10 10 10 10
PH 2 5 2 2 3 5 5 6 6 6 6
PH 3 6 3 4 4 6 6 7 7 7 7
PH 4 15 12 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
MR1 17 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
MR2 16 13 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
MR3 11 7 9 10 11 11 11 11 11 11
MR4 12 9 10 11 12 12 12 12 12 12

Fig. 4  Sensitivity analysis of Normal

livestock supply chain risk by 18 SR1
rank 16
S9 S1 SR2
14
SR3
12
10 SR4

8 PR1
S8 6 S2 PR2
4 PR3
2
PR4
0
PR5
PH 1
S7 S3 PH 2
PH 3
PH 4
MR1
S6 S4 MR2
MR3
S5

weight of any risk can be interpreted as a high potential to Sensitivity analysis

disrupt the livestock supply chain. It should be noted that the
global weight refers importance of the risks among all the For robustness and reliability, a sensitivity analysis is also
identified risks (in this case among seventeen risks), while performed because in MCDM analyses, the results might
the local weight infers the importance of the risk among the be influenced by data imprecision, vagueness, and subjec-
specific dimension. As per the value of the local and global tive judgment of experts (Govindan et al. 2014). Some stud-
weight, the risks are locally and globally ranked. All calcu- ies show that small variations in weights may change the
lated values are presented in Table 9. final ranking. Therefore, it is necessary to assess the robust-
ness of the ranking obtained. In order to test the result’s

13
20698 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:20688–20703

robustness, a sensitivity analysis should be performed (Man- and farm managers. Under the input supply risk (SR),
gla et al. 2017; Asjad and Khan 2017). In this study, supply the priority order of the risk is as follows: “high cost
risk (SR) was prioritized as the first among the identified of feed and fodder” > “non-availability of medicines dur-
risk dimensions (refer to Table 9). Therefore, it was cho- ing emergency” > “poor quality and undersupply of feed
sen first for sensitivity analysis by varying the weight. The and fodder” > “absence of certification for the quality
weight of supply risk was varied from 0.1 to 0.9 with incre- of animals.” The highest priority risk is the “high cost
ments of 0.1 and create nine scenarios (S1 to S9). At the of feed and fodder” which could be reduced through the
same time, corresponding fluctuations in the weights of the increasing area under cultivation as well as productivity
other dimensions were also made. These changes are in the by using an advanced variety of feed/fodder. Further, the
weight of all risk dimensions are shown in Table 10. supply chain of feed/fodder should be efficiently managed
It is evident that from Table 10, the weights and rank- through improved supply chain techniques. The next risk
ings of each risk are also changed as the weights of the “non-availability of medicines during emergency” is one
risk dimensions are varied. The weights of each risk in of the major concern in case of the livestock supply chain.
different scenarios (S1,….S9) are shown in Table 11. It is Veterinary services should be available at the doorstep
apparent from Table 11 that the weight of the supply risk of the farmers. Subsidized medicine should be provided
is varied from 0.1 to 0.4, and the fluctuations in the impor- to the farmers and intervention of village-level para-vets
tance weight of risk are high and after that becomes less should be improved. Further, “poor quality and under-
varied. The weight of risks in different scenarios (S1, … supply of feed and fodder” have rank third, which could
S9) is shown in Fig. 3. Based on the weights obtained in be reduced through procuring high-quality feed/fodder.
nine scenarios, the rank of each risk is evaluated and shown In addition, standardization should be established for
in Table 12. The initial scenario (S1 to S4) shows the rank feed and fodder. District/ block level agricultural officer
fluctuation of the risks and after that, the rank is the same should ensure the organized input supply at each block.
or slightly changed. The rank of each risk is presented with Apart from this, farmers should select the supplier of the
the help web diagram and shown in Fig. 4. feed/fodder based on quality rather than cost. The next
risk is “absence of certification for the quality of animals”
which are a significant risk for the livestock supply chain.
Discussion Before the selling of animals in the market, a seller should
have a health fitness certificate from certified veterinary
The result of the AHP method shows the priority order of practitioners.
risk dimensions as input supply risk > production risk > post- The next highest risk dimension is the “production
harvest Risk > market and price risk. The global ranking of risk” among the identified risk dimensions, under the
each risk is determined based on their corresponding global “production risk” the priority of the risk is as follows:
importance weights. Further, the result of the AHP was “lack of proper living infrastructure” > “illness/Injury/
discussed with the expert’s panel to get further insights to disability of animal” > epidemic attack such as foot
mitigate the consequence of the livestock supply chain risks, and mouth disease” > “production loss due to drought
which in turn will advance the livestock supply chain robust- and flood” > “theft.” Previous studies also express that
ness, and hence improve the performances. The high priority production risk which includes the disease and climatic
risk needs immediate attention of the livestock stakeholder risk are among the top risk category across the livestock
to control these risks for the effective and efficient manage- supply chain (Govindaraj et al. 2021; Adeyemo et al.
ment of the livestock supply chain. 2021; Cao et al. 2019; Nardone et al. 2010; Meuwissen
The input supply risk (SR) has the highest prior- et al. 2001). Government should focus on environmental
ity among the identified risk dimensions. Akcaoz and quality (Rafei et al. 2022; Chen et al. 2022). The high-
Ozkan (2005) and McDermott et al. (2010) also come to est priority risk is the “lack of proper living infrastruc-
the same conclusion that input risk in terms of cost and ture” which is the major concern of livestock in devel-
availability is among the biggest risk across the supply oping countries like India. However, Central and state
chain. Some other studies also find that lack of access governments have various schemes such as a national
to input due to high cost and unavailability is the severe livestock mission, a national program for dairy devel-
risk in livestock supply chain (Abu Hatab et al. 2021; opment and animal husbandry infrastructure develop-
and Salman et al. 2010). Thus, there is a need to focus to ment fund. There is a need to make the farmers aware of
manage input supply risk (SR) and putting serious effort these schemes to develop the living infrastructure for the
to mitigate this risk by the farmers, policy planners, livestock. The next risk is “illness/Injury/disability of

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:20688–20703 20699

animal” that adversely affect the livestock productivity, Framers should be aware of national and international qual-
which has a spillover effect on farmers’ income. Fur- ity standards. The least significant risk is the “lack of proper
thermore, this risk can be mitigated through providing waste disposal” that could be controlled through the devel-
veterinary facilities and regular assessment of animal opment of effective solid waste disposal practices such as
health. In this row, the next risk is “epidemic attack such water treatment and solid waste management. Waste disposal
as foot and mouth disease” which have had been a major treatment is important from a sustainable development point
problem for the livestock supply chain. These epidemic of view.
attacks could be controlled through the proper vaccina- The “market and price risk” is the least priority risk
tion and hygienic environment. Frequently, a quarterly among broader risk dimensions. Under the “market and
village level vaccination drive should be arranged by price risk” dimension, the risk priority order are as fol-
the district veterinary department. The next risk is pro- lows; “lack of discriminatory pricing for quality/graded
duction loss due to drought and flood” that is a natural produce” > “lack/poor bargaining power” > “lack of mar-
risk. There should be an effective and efficient informa- ket information” > “dominance by middlemen.” The most
tion communication arrangement so the farmers could severe risk is the “lack of discriminatory pricing for qual-
be timely aware of the disasters. In addition, proactive ity/graded produce” which could be controlled through
measures such as vacant the place could be done in order the established mechanism to set the fair market prices
to reduce the negative consequences. The least signifi- for the livestock product. The farmers generally operate
cant risk among the production risk category is “theft” in a highly competitive business environment, and entry
that could be controlled through proper security of the and exit from the market are easy, therefore each producer
farm shed and traceability. has low bargaining power. The next risk is the “poor bar-
The third most significant risk dimension is “post- gaining power” that could be controlled through effective
harvest risk” with an importance weight of 0.199. Under market policies for the livestock industry. The next risk is
the risks related to the “post-harvest risk” dimension, “lack of market information” this is the biggest problem
the priority order is: “absence of proper transport infra- for the farmers; however, there are various online platform
structure” > “absence of cold storage/refrigeration facil- available which provides price information. In addition,
ity” > “lack of measurement of quality” > “lack of proper risk could be mitigated through effective communication
waste disposal.” Godde et al. (2021) and Rajeb (2018) also among the livestock supply chain partners and market play-
concluded that transportation and storage infrastructure is ers. Furthermore, IT support can also act as a tool to pro-
the severe challenges across the livestock supply chain. The vide credible information about the market to the various
unavailability of proper transport availability and infrastruc- stakeholder of the livestock. The least significant risk is
ture are obstacles for the livestock supply chain specifically the “dominance by middlemen” which could be a major
in the rural areas. The production takes place in rural areas issue for the livestock farmer. This risk could be reduced
and the consumption market is available in an urban area; by creating a direct marketing channel and providing train-
therefore, transport has great importance, and the lack of ing about the direct access of the market. Further, various
proper transport infrastructure creates a major challenge government initiatives have also reduced the influence of
for efficient livestock supply chain management. In order the middlemen.
to mitigate this risk, the government should develop better
rural–urban connectivity in terms of transport. A specific
amount of fuel should be provided at a subsidized rate to Implications of the study
the farming community.
The next significant risk is the “lack of cold storage/ Policy implications
refrigeration facility” which creates a big threat to the qual-
ity of the final product of the livestock industry. Livestock The findings of the research show that several risks exist
product generally has a low shelf-life; therefore, quality in the livestock supply chain that needs to be mitigated in
of the product deteriorates starts deteriorating after some order to make the supply chain resilient. The findings show
time. This risk can be controlled by building a large-scale feed and poor quality of fodder is one of the biggest risk in
cold storage that could be used for the livestock industry. In livestock supply chain As most of the farmers in developing
addition, refrigerator equipped vehicles should be used for countries are uneducated, the government should conduct a
transportation. The next place in terms of risk under post- program to create awareness about the role of feeder on ani-
harvest risk is occupied by lack of measurement of quality. mal health. Further, the subsidies should be provided for the

13
20700 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:20688–20703

good quality fodder and ensure the availability of the fodder is applied. In the first phase, the significant risks are
in the market at an affordable price. The government need to identified through the literature review. After that, these
set a minimum level of criteria for the feeder through certi- risks are validated by the experts and finalized as per the
fications in order to control the production and distribution context of emerging economies, they suggested total sev-
of poor-quality feeders. In addition, the production loss due enteen risks which are categorized into four major dimen-
to drought and flood is another issue for the livestock sup- sions for effective risk assessment. Furthermore, using
ply chain partners is significant. Therefore, there is a need the AHP, the risk dimensions and risk are prioritized as
to develop an effective transportation and communication per their severity. The highest priority risks are input
network so that correct information about disasters could be supply risks which require the attention of the livestock
reached timely to supply chain partners and consequently supply chain partners. Further, sensitivity analysis is
they could move their animals to a safer place. Animal conducted to check the robustness of the adopted model.
health is also a major concern for the livestock supply chain The result of sensitivity analysis confirms that the rank-
partners. The livestock supply chain partner needs to set a ing of the risk is robust. The findings of this study were
village level veterinary department where the health check discussed with the expert’s panel, who provided some
of animals could be done at regular intervals. For instance, useful recommendations to control the critical risks. This
prior to the purchase and sale, the health certificate of the research finding might be beneficial for the farmers and
animal should be mandatory. In addition to this, emergency other livestock stakeholders while analyzing the livestock
services should also provide in the government veterinary risks for developing policies/plans/strategies to control
hospitals to provide health support to animals. their consequences.
This study also has some limitations that will address
Managerial implications in future studies. The primary limitation of this study that
the risks are identified through the literature review and
The managers of livestock supply chain need to address there is a chance to overlook some relevant risks. This
the risk that are emerges across the supply chain in order limitation can be removed through more extensive review
to make their supply chain sustainable. Through the identi- in future studies. Additionally, the risks are assessed
fied risks, managers could formulate the mitigation strate- through the expert input that could be biased as per their
gies for controlling the risks. Further, the prioritization of belief and working organization. The biasness could be
the risks helps the managers to better utilization of their resolved through integrating the fuzzy or grey theory with
resources by focusing on the higher priority risks firstly. the AHP method. Further, this study is conducted in a
For instance, they could transfer the risk to the insurance developing country so the generalization of the finding are
company by acquiring insurance for animals. The prior- limited. We have only focused on the two phases of risk
itization of the risk dimensions also assists the managers management rather than addressing the holistic risk man-
to look at the department which is more prone to risks agement approach. In order to overcome these limitations,
and develop the strategies on time to overcome them. In this study could be validated through the data collection
addition to this, supply chain managers need to create an from multiple countries including developed countries.
awareness program about national and international quality This study could be extended to case study using other
standards, so that, supply chain partners could maintain the risk assessment methods. The other MCDM methods such
quality. This study also suggests the lack of infrastructure as analytical network process (ANP), best worst method
is another risk for the producer that need to address. The (BWM), fuzzy BWM and technique for order of preference
propose framework is also utilized for the assessment of by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), and base criteria
risks by a manager for their livestock supply chain. A better Method (BCM) can be also applied for the assessment of
assessment helps the manager to track the progress of the the risks. Additionally, some other risk assessment tech-
risk management plan. niques are fault tree analysis (FTA), failure effect mode
analysis (FEMA), and Bayesian network. A survey-based
research taking behavioral, pshychological, and socio-
Conclusion demographic variable may also provide the in-depth
understanding of broad- and subcategory-wise risk across
The objective of this study is to examine the risks in the the livestock supply chain. In future, this study could also
livestock supply chain in emerging economies context. be extended by addressing the risk mitigation strategies
In order to meet this objective, two-phase methodology for effective risk management.

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:20688–20703 20701

Appendix

Please see Table 13.

Table 13  Experts profile S. no Designation/position Education Expertise area Working

experience
(in years)

1 Livestock supply chain MBA Livestock supply chain management 16

manager
2 Operations manager Master of Operations 12
Engineeirng
3 Risk manager M.Tech Supply chain 11
4 General manager MBA Marketing 13
5 Strategic manager M.Tech Strategy 18
6 Professor PhD Supply chain 30
7 Academia PhD Food supply chain management 11
8 Academia PhD Risk management 10

Author contribution Waseem Khan: conceptualization, literature Adeyonu AG, Otunaiya AO, Oyawoye EO, Okeniyi FA (2021) Risk
review and validation Shahbaz Khan: methodology, formal analysis perceptions and risk management strategies among poultry farm-
and validation, Aruna Dhamija: literature and discussion. Mohammad ers in south-west Nigeria. Cogent Soc Sci 7(1):1891719
Haseeb: investigation and writing. Saghir Ahmad Ansari: review and Agrawal V, Mohanty RP, Agrawal AM (2020) Identification and analy-
editing. sis of enablers of SCM by using MCDM approach. Benchmark-
ing: An Int J 27(6):1681–1710
Data availability The datasets generated during and/or analyzed dur- Agrawal V, Mohanty RP, Agarwal S, Dixit JK, Agrawal AM (2022)
ing the current study are available from the corresponding author on Analyzing critical success factors for sustainable green supply
reasonable request. chain management. Environ Dev Sustain. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/​
s10668-​022-​02396-2
Declarations Akcaoz H, Ozkan B (2005) Determining risk sources and strategies
among farmers of contrasting risk awareness: a case study for
Ethical approval Not applicable. Cukurova region of Turkey. J Arid Environ 62(4):661–675
Alexandratos N, Bruinsma J (2012) World agriculture towards
Consent to Participate Not applicable. 2030/2050: the 2012 revision. https://​www.​fao.​org/3/​a-​ap106e.​
pdf. Accessed 6 Jan 2021
Consent to publish Not applicable. Ansari SA, Khan W (2018) Constraints in the marketing of wheat
and rice in Aligarh District: a case study. Indian J Econ Dev
14(4):667–674
Conflicting interests The authors declare no competing interests. Asjad M, Khan S (2017) Analysis of maintenance cost for an asset
using the genetic algorithm. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag
8(2):445–457. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13198-​016-​0448-9
Balehegn M, Duncan A, Tolera A, Ayantunde AA, Issa S, Karimou
References M, ... Adesogan AT (2020) Improving adoption of technologies
and interventions for increasing supply of quality livestock feed
Abbas Q, Han J, Bakhsh K, Ullah R, Kousar R, Adeel A, Akhtar A in low-and middle-income countries. Glob Food Secur 26:100372
(2022) Adaptation to climate change risks among dairy farmers Birthal P (2008) Linking smallholder livestock producers to markets:
in Punjab. Pakistan Land Use Policy 119:106184 issues and approaches, mimeo. Indian J Agric Econ 63(1):19–37
Abid M, Ali A, Raza M, Mehdi M (2020) Ex-ante and ex-post coping Birthal P, Jha A (2005) Economic losses due to various constraints in
strategies for climatic shocks and adaptation determinants in rural dairy production in India. Indian J Anim Sci 75(12):1470–1475
Malawi. Clim Risk Manag 27:100200 Birthal PS, Taneja VK (2012) Operationalizing the pro-poor potential
Abu Hatab A, Krautscheid L, Boqvist S (2021) COVID-19, livestock of livestock: issues and strategies. Indian J Anim Sci 82(5):441
systems and food security in developing countries: a systematic Birthal PS, Joshi PK, Gulati A (2005) vertical coordination in high-
review of an emerging literature. Pathogens 10(5):586 value food commodities: implications for smallholders, markets,
Adeyemo OK, Alarape SA, Adetunji VE, Saka AB, Adebowale OO, trade and institutions Division Discussion Paper No. 85, Interna-
Ubiogoro OO, Agbede SA (2021) Safety hazards along ani- tional Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
mal food supply chain in Nigeria. In Food Security and Safety. Bishu KG (2014) Risk management and the potential of cattle insur-
Springer, Cham ance in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia, Doctoral dissertation, CorkU-
niversity College, National University of Ireland, Cork

13
20702 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:20688–20703

Cao Y, Wu J, Zhang X, Niu B, Li M, Zhang Y, ... Wang Z (2019) Kahan D (2008) Managing risk in farming. Rome: food and agriculture
Dynamic forage-livestock balance analysis in alpine grasslands organization of the United Nations. Rome. http://​www.​fao.​org/3/​
on the Northern Tibetan Plateau. J Environ Manag 238:352-359 a-​i3229e.​pdf
Chand S, Kumar A, Bhattarai M, Saroj S (2016) Status and determi- Khan W, Ansari SA (2018) Does agriculture matter for economic
nants of livestock insurance in India: a micro level evidence from growth of Uttar Pradesh (INDIA)? Econ Region/ekonomika
Haryana and Rajasthan. Indian J Agric Econ 71(3):335–346 Regiona 14(3):1029–1037
Chand S, Narayan P, Chaudhary KR (2018) Sources of risks in live- Khan MA, Chander M, Bardhan D (2013) Willingness to pay for cat-
stock production and their management strategies in northern tle and buffalo insurance: an analysis of dairy farmers in central
India. Indian J Anim Sci 88:612–619 India. Trop Anim Health Prod 45(2):461–468
Chapman SC, Chakraborty S, Dreccer MF, Howden SM (2012) Plant Khan S, Khan MI, Haleem A, Jami AR (2019) Prioritising the risks in
adaptation to climate change—opportunities and priorities in Halal food supply chain: an MCDM approach. Journal of Islamic
breeding. Crop Pasture Sci 63(3):251–268 Marketing.
Charlier J, Rinaldi L, Musella V, Ploeger HW, Chartier C, Vineer HR, Khan S, Haleem A, Khan MI (2020) Assessment of risk in the manage-
... Claerebout E (2020) Initial assessment of the economic burden ment of Halal supply chain using fuzzy BWM method. Supply
of major parasitic helminth infections to the ruminant livestock Chain Forum An International Journal, pp 1–17
industry in Europe. Prev Vet Med 182:105103 Khan S, Haleem A, Khan MI (2021) Risk management in Halal sup-
Chen F, Ahmad S, Arshad S, Ali S, Rizwan M, Saleem MH, ... Balsa- ply chain: an integrated fuzzy Delphi and DEMATEL approach.
lobre-Lorente D (2022) Towards achieving eco-efficiency in top J Model Manag 16(1):172–214
10 polluted countries: The role of green technology and natural Kumar A, Joshi PK, Kumar P, Parappurathu S (2014) Trends in the
resource rents. Gondwana Res 110:114-127 consumption of milk and milk products in India: implications for
Cuéllar AD, Webber ME (2008) Cow power: the energy and emis- self-sufficiency in milk production. Food Security 6(5):719–726
sions benefits of converting manure to biogas. Environ Res Lett Kumar A, Kumar P, Sharma AN (2011) Rural poverty and agricultural
3(3):034002 growth in India: implications for the twelfth five year plan. Indian
Devaki K, Senthilkumar K (2011) Farm women adoption constraints in J Agric Econ 66(3):269–278
livestock farming. Indian J Fundam Appl Life Sci 1(4):361–363 Lanyasunya TP, Wang HR, Mukisira EA, Abdulrazak SA, Ayako WO
Dua K (2003) Comparative disease susceptibility of cattle and buf- (2006) Effect of seasonality on feed availability, quality and herd
falo in Punjab (India). In Proceedings of the 10th International performance on smallholder farms in Ol-Joro-Orok Location/
Symposium on Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics. Vina Nyandarua District. Kenya Trop Subtrop Agroecosyst 6(2):87–93
del Mar, Chile, 92. Available at: www.​ sciqu​est.​org.​nz/​elibr​ary Madaan J, Mangla S (2015) Decision modeling approach for eco-driven
Fafchamps M, Hill RV (2005) Selling at the farmgate or traveling to flexible green supply chain. In Systemic flexibility and business
market. Am J Agr Econ 87(3):717–734 agility (pp. 343-364). Springer, New Delhi
Faisal M, Chunping X, Abbas A, Raza MH, Akhtar S, Ajmal MA, Ali Makkar H (2016) Animal nutrition: beyond boundaries of feed and
A (2021) Do risk perceptions and constraints influence the adop- feeding. Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy
tion of climate change practices among small livestock herders in Mangla SK, Govindan K, Luthra S (2017) Prioritizing the barriers to
Punjab, Pakistan? Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(32):43777–43791 achieve sustainable consumption and production trends in sup-
Fournel S, Rousseau AN, Laberge B (2017) Rethinking environment ply chains using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process. J Clean Prod
control strategy of confined animal housing systems through pre- 151:509–525
cision livestock farming. Biosyst Eng 155:96–123 Mannan B, Haleem A (2017) Understanding major dimensions and
Gabre-Madhin EZ (2001) The role of intermediaries in enhancing determinants that help in diffusion & adoption of product innova-
market efficiency in the Ethiopian grain market. Agric Econ tion: using AHP approach. J Glob Entrep Res 7(1):1–24
25(2–3):311–320 Masutha M, Rogerson CM (2015) Business incubation for small enter-
Gebremedhin B, Pender J, Tesfay G (2004) Collective action for graz- prise development: South African pathways. In Urban Forum
ing land management in crop–livestock mixed systems in the high- (Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 223–241). Springer Netherlands
lands of northern Ethiopia. Agric Syst 82(3):273–290 McDermott JJ, Staal SJ, Freeman HA, Herrero M, Van de Steeg JA
Gilligan DO, Hoddinott J, Taffesse AS (2009) The impact of Ethiopia’s (2010) Sustaining intensification of smallholder livestock systems
productive safety net programme and its linkages. J Dev Stud in the tropics. Livest Sci 130(1–3):95–109
45(10):1684–1706 Mehta R, Saqib M, George J (2007) Challenging avenues in sanitary
Godde CM, Mason-D’Croz D, Mayberry DE, Thornton PK, Herrero and phyto-sanitary agreement for India: a case study of selected
M (2021) Impacts of climate change on the livestock food supply processed food products. 2007), Agricultural Diversification and
chain; a review of the evidence. Glob Food Sec 28:100488 Smallholders in South Asia, Academic Foundation, New Delhi
Govindan K, Kaliyan M, Kannan D, Haq A (2014) Barriers analysis for Mellor JW (2003) Agriculture growth and poverty reduction-the rap-
green supply chain management implementation in Indian indus- idly increasing role of small holder livestock. In International
tries using analytic hierarchy process. Int J Prod Econ 147:555– Workshop on Livestock and Livelihoods: Challenges and Oppor-
568. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijpe.​2013.​08.​018 tunities for Asia in the Emerging Market Environment. 10–12
Govindaraj G, Krishnamohan A, Hegde R, Kumar N, Prabhakaran November, 2003. National Dairy Development Board.
K, Wadhwan VM, ... Habibur R (2021) Foot and mouth disease Meuwissen MP, Huirne RBM, Hardaker JB (2001) Risk and risk man-
(FMD) incidence in cattle and buffaloes and its associated farm- agement: an empirical analysis of Dutch livestock farmers. Livest
level economic costs in endemic India. Prev Vet Med 190:105318 Prod Sci 69(1):43–53
Henry B, Charmley E, Eckard R, Gaughan JB, Hegarty R (2012) Live- Muneeb SM, Nomani M, Asim Z, Adhami A (2021) Assessing and
stock production in a changing climate: adaptation and mitigation optimizing decision‐making policies of India with public employ-
research in Australia. Crop Pasture Sci 63(3):191–202 ment growth as a key indicator toward sustainable development
Ishizaka A, Labib A (2009) Analytic hierarchy process and expert goals using multicriteria mathematical modeling. J Public Affairs
choice: benefits and limitations. Or Insight 22(4):201–220 e2635
Jahanger A, Usman M, Balsalobre-Lorente D (2022) Linking institu- Nardone A, Ronchi B, Lacetera N, Ranieri MS, Bernabucci U (2010)
tional quality to environmental sustainability. Sustain Dev 1–17. Effects of climate changes on animal production and sustainability
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​sd.​23451​6JAHA​NGERE​TAL of livestock systems. Livest Sci 130(1–3):57–69

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:20688–20703 20703

Nayak A, Bagchi KK (2022) Agricultural marketing infrastructure in AHP multi-objective fuzzy linear programming approach. Int J
West Bengal with special reference to cold storage facility. Indian Oper Res 17(2):215–247
J Agric Mark 36(1spl):181–196 Singh S, Agrawal V, Mohanty RP (2022) Multi-criteria decision analy-
Nwafor CU, Ogundeji AA, van der Westhuizen C (2020) Adoption of sis of significant enablers for a competitive supply chain. J Adv
ICT-based information sources and market participation among Manag Res 19(3):414–442
smallholder livestock farmers in South Africa. Agriculture Singh KM, Meena MS (2012) Livestock value chains: prospects, chal-
10(2):44 lenges and policy implications. In: Bhatt BP, Sikka AK, Mukher-
Paleie I, Lalic B (2009) Analytical hierarchy process as a tool for jee J, Islam A, Dey A (eds) Status of agricultural development
selecting and evaluating projects. Int J Simul Model 8(1):16–26. in Eastern India. ICAR Research Complex of Eastern Region,
https://​doi.​org/​10.​2507/​IJSIM​M08(1)2.​112 Patna, pp 493–508
Patel TU, Arvadia MK, Malik PK, Patel DD, Patel PS (2011) Produc- Somagond YM, Singh SV, Deshpande A (2022) Effect of dietary sup-
tivity of oat (Avena sativa) under different cutting management plementation of astaxanthin, prill fat and combination on stress
and split application of nitrogen. Indian Journal of Agronomy indicators, milk yield and composition during heat stress in buf-
56(2):164–167 faloes. Biol Rhythm Res 53(5):665–675
Pingali P, Khwaja Y, Meijer M, Meijer M (2005) Commercializing Sufiyan M, Haleem A, Khan S, Khan MI (2019) Evaluating food supply
small farms: reducing transaction costs ESA Working Paper No. chain performance using hybrid fuzzy MCDM technique. Sustain
05–08. Agricultural and Development Economics Division, The Prod Consum 20:40–57
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://​ Tadesse MA, Shiferaw BA, Erenstein O (2015) Weather index insurance
www.​fao.​org/3/​af144t/​af144t.​pdf for managing drought risk in smallholder agriculture: lessons and pol-
Polley HW, Briske DD, Morgan JA, Wolter K, Bailey DW, Brown JR icy implications for sub-Saharan Africa. Agric Food Econ 3(1):1–21
(2013) Climate change and North American rangelands: trends, Thornton PK, Jones PG, Owiyo T, Kruska RL, Herrero M, Bhadwal
projections, and implications. Rangel Ecol Manage 66(5):493–511 K, Notenbaert A, Bekele N (2008) Climate change and poverty
Rafei M, Esmaeili P, Balsalobre-Lorente D (2022) A step towards envi- in Africa: mapping hotspots of vulnerability. Afr J Agric Resour
ronmental mitigation: how do economic complexity and natural Econ 2(3311-2016–5524):24–44
resources matter? Focusing on different institutional quality level Thornton PK, van de Steeg J, Notenbaert A, Herrero M (2009) The
countries. Resour Policy 78:102848 impacts of climate change on livestock and livestock systems in
Ravikumar S, Reddy KVR, Rao BS (2007) Farmers’ choice for cost developing countries: a review of what we know and what we
recovery of veterinary services in different livestock holding sys- need to know. Agric Syst 101(3):113–127
tems-a case study of India. Education 15(19.0):1–7 WDI (2019) World Development Indicators 1960–2020. Washing-
Rejeb A (2018) Halal meat supply chain traceability based on HACCP, ton, DC: World Bank. Retrieved 30 August 2020, from https://​
blockchain and internet of things. Acta Technica Jaurinensis 11(1) datab​ank.​world​bank.​org/​source/​world-​devel​opment-​indic​ators.
Rojas-Downing MM, Nejadhashemi AP, Harrigan T, Woznicki SA Accessed 20 Jan 2021
(2017) Climate change and livestock: impacts, adaptation, and Wreford A, Topp CF (2020) Impacts of climate change on livestock
mitigation. Clim Risk Manag 16:145–163 and possible adaptations: a case study of the United Kingdom.
Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New Agric Syst 178:102737
York
Saaty TL (2008) Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Pro- Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
cess. Int J Serv Sci 1:83. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1504/​IJSSCI.​2008.​ jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
017590
Salman KK, Ashagidigbi WM, Jabar KT (2010) Correlates of risk- Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under
aversion among poultry egg farmers in Ibadan, Nigeria. J Rural a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s);
Econ Dev 19(1623-2016–134904):46–60 author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article
Shaw K, Shankar R, Yadav SS, Thakur LS (2013) Global supplier is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and
selection considering sustainability and carbon footprint issue: applicable law.

13