Volume 15, Issue 55 (Spring 2026)
serd 2026, 15(55): 0-0 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Mokaram Zahed E, Eshraghi Samani R, Rahimibadr B, Noshary A. Analyzing the Effects of Supportive Facilities and Marketing Strategies on the Economic Performance of Rural Livestock Farms
(Case Study: Khorasan Razavi Province, Iran). serd 2026; 15 (55) : 4
URL: http://serd.khu.ac.ir/article-1-4091-en.html
URL: http://serd.khu.ac.ir/article-1-4091-en.html
1- Department of Agricultural Economics, Ka.C., Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran
2- Department of Agricultural Economics, Ka.C., Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran ,Ro.eshraghi@iau.ac.ir
3- Department of Animal Science, Ka.C., Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran
2- Department of Agricultural Economics, Ka.C., Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran ,
3- Department of Animal Science, Ka.C., Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran
Abstract: (19 Views)
Objective: This study aims to analyze and prioritize the effects of supportive facilities and marketing strategies on the economic performance of rural livestock farming units in Khorasan Razavi Province, Iran.
Methods: The research employed the Analytic Network Process (ANP), a multi-criteria decision-making approach that captures interrelationships and interdependencies among criteria and sub-criteria. The conceptual framework consisted of seven main criteria and twenty-five sub-criteria designed to comprehensively identify the determinants of livestock farms’ economic performance. Data were collected using a pairwise-comparison questionnaire completed by 237 livestock farmers across various counties in Khorasan Razavi Province. Following the construction of pairwise comparison matrices, the weights of criteria and sub-criteria were calculated, and the final analysis was conducted using Super Decisions software.
Results: The results revealed that the three most influential criteria affecting the economic performance of rural livestock farms were supportive facilities, economic costs, and marketing strategies. At the sub-criteria level, livestock feed costs received the highest priority weight, indicating the substantial financial burden imposed by feed expenses on livestock producers. Market access and the amount of loans received ranked second and third, respectively, highlighting the critical role of effective market participation and adequate financial resources in ensuring the sustainability and expansion of livestock farming activities. Other significant sub-criteria included livestock product insurance and the establishment of cooperatives, both of which contribute substantially to risk reduction and improved marketing performance.
Conclusions: Enhancing the economic performance of rural livestock farms requires a comprehensive policy approach focused on optimizing support mechanisms, reducing input costs, strengthening marketing infrastructure, and expanding insurance coverage. The findings provide a valuable scientific basis for agricultural policymakers and decision-makers to formulate targeted, evidence-based, and development-oriented strategies for the sustainable advancement of the livestock sector in rural areas.
Methods: The research employed the Analytic Network Process (ANP), a multi-criteria decision-making approach that captures interrelationships and interdependencies among criteria and sub-criteria. The conceptual framework consisted of seven main criteria and twenty-five sub-criteria designed to comprehensively identify the determinants of livestock farms’ economic performance. Data were collected using a pairwise-comparison questionnaire completed by 237 livestock farmers across various counties in Khorasan Razavi Province. Following the construction of pairwise comparison matrices, the weights of criteria and sub-criteria were calculated, and the final analysis was conducted using Super Decisions software.
Results: The results revealed that the three most influential criteria affecting the economic performance of rural livestock farms were supportive facilities, economic costs, and marketing strategies. At the sub-criteria level, livestock feed costs received the highest priority weight, indicating the substantial financial burden imposed by feed expenses on livestock producers. Market access and the amount of loans received ranked second and third, respectively, highlighting the critical role of effective market participation and adequate financial resources in ensuring the sustainability and expansion of livestock farming activities. Other significant sub-criteria included livestock product insurance and the establishment of cooperatives, both of which contribute substantially to risk reduction and improved marketing performance.
Conclusions: Enhancing the economic performance of rural livestock farms requires a comprehensive policy approach focused on optimizing support mechanisms, reducing input costs, strengthening marketing infrastructure, and expanding insurance coverage. The findings provide a valuable scientific basis for agricultural policymakers and decision-makers to formulate targeted, evidence-based, and development-oriented strategies for the sustainable advancement of the livestock sector in rural areas.
Article number: 4
Keywords: Supportive Facilities, Livestock Farming, Marketing Strategies, Analytic Network Process (ANP), Livestock Feed Costs.
References
1. Akbay, C., & Bilgiç, A. (2023). The effects of subsidies on the profitability of dairy cattle farming in Türkiye. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım ve Doğa Dergisi, 26(4), 888-901. [DOI:10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.1214182]
2. Asaadi, M. A., Najafi Alamdarlo, H., Mosavi, S. H., Ehsani, A., & Zamani, O. (2024). Productivity of Arian Broiler Industry in Kurdistan Province: Integrating ANP and DAMATEL Methods. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 259-272. [DOI:10.22034/JAST.26.2.259]
3. Asaadi, M.A., & Najafi Alamdarlo, H. (2019). Economic evaluation of optimum cultivating pattern for reducing the use of groundwater in Dehgolan plain. Agricultural Economics and Development Research, 2(13), 551-540 (In Persian). [DOI:10.22059/ijaedr.2018.249900.668543]
4. Avazpour, L., Rahimi, M., & Ghorbani, M. (2023). Economic Evaluation of Animal Husbandry Business Plan: Enhancing Meat Production Efficiency through Rangeland Ecosystem Services in Iran for Food Security. Conference: 16th International Conference on Food Industry Sciences, Organic Farming and Food Security, Iran.
5. Benti, D. W., Biru, W. T., & Tessema, W. K. (2022). The effects of commercial orientation on (Agro) pastoralists’ household food security: Evidence from (Agro) pastoral communities of Afar, Northeastern Ethiopia. Sustainability, 14(2), 731. [DOI:10.1057/s41599-025-04680-8]
6. Bilotto, F., Harrison, M. T., Vibart, R., Mackay, A., Christie-Whitehead, K. M., Ferreira, C. S., ... & Chang, J. (2024). Towards resilient, inclusive, sustainable livestock farming systems. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 104668. [DOI:10.1016/j.tifs.2024.104668]
7. Chandel, BS., Lal, P. & Kumari, B. (2019). Livestock production systems, subsidies and its implications: An investigation through review of literature. Indian J Dairy Sci., 72(2), 121-128. [DOI:10.33785/IJDS.2019.v72i02.001]
8. Eroğlu, N. A., Bozoğlu, M., & Bilgiç, A. (2020). The impact of livestock supports on production and income of the beef cattle farms: A case of Samsun province, Turkey. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 26(1), 117-129. [DOI:10.15832/ankutbd.487493]
9. FAO. (2020). The State of Food and Agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization.
10. Habib, N., Ariyawardana, A., & Aziz, A. A. (2023). The influence and impact of livelihood capitals on livelihood diversification strategies in developing countries: a systematic literature review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(27), 69882-69898. [DOI:10.1007/s11356-023-27638-2]
11. Ingenbleek, P. T., & Frambach, R. T. (2010). Marketing strategies for sustainable development. In Towards effective food chains. Wageningen Academic, 23-46. [DOI:10.3920/9789086867059_003]
12. Karami, A.A., & Barani, N. (2018). The Effects of Agricultural Credit on Livestock Development in Hirrmand County. Journal Agricultural Economics Research, 10(38), 1-14 (In Persian). [DOI:10.30490/aead.2021.353806.1314]
13. Kirechev, D. (2021). Improving access to finance for agricultural holdings as a factor for the sustainability of agricultural financing in Bulgaria. Trakia Journal of Sciences, 19(Suppl 1), 197-206. https://doi.org10.56065/IJUSV-ESS/2024.13.1.156
14. Mohaddes-Hosseini, S. A., Fahimfard, S. M., & Sadeghi, A. (2023). Evaluating the effectiveness of the banking facilities granted to plans of improved and increased livestock and poultry production in Razavi Khorasan Province of Iran. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development, 30(3), 99-121 (In Persian) [DOI:10.22067/jead.2021.70215.1041]
15. Ndiritu, S. W., & Gichuki, C. N. (2025). Pastoralist decisions to participate in livestock marketing systems during drought seasons: evidence from kenyan arid and semi-arid regions. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice, 15, 14333. [DOI:10.3389/past.2025.14333]
16. Nkadimeng, M. V., Makombe, G., Mapiye, O., Mapiye, C., Oluwatayo, I., Dzama, K., ... & Mautjana, M. H. (2021). A gross margin analysis for Nguni cattle farmers in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Plos one, 16(6), e0253657. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0253657]
17. Ojango, J. M., Audho, J., Oyieng, E., Radeny, M., Kimeli, P., Recha, J., & Muigai, A. W. (2018). Assessing actors in rural markets of sheep and goats in the Nyando Basin of Western Kenya: a key to improving productivity from smallholder farms. Tropical animal health and production, 50(8), 1871-1879. [DOI:1010.1007/s11250-018-1638-z]
18. Pourafzal, M., & Omani, A. R. (2019). Analysis of the effectiveness of facilities on the household economy of members of livestock cooperatives in villages of Ahvaz city. Journal Space Economy & Rural Development, 8(29), 109-128 (In Persian). https://serd.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3356-fa.html
19. Raholiarimanana, F., Rakotomanana, H., & Ishida, A. (2023). Does Raising Livestock Improve Household Food Security and Child Dietary Diversity in a Rural Region of Madagascar?. Children, 10(5), 765. [DOI:10.3390/children10050765]
20. Roldan, C. S., Giraldo, G. A. M., & Santana, E. L. (2023). Sustainable development in rural territories within the last decade: a review of the state of the art. Heliyon, 9(7). https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17555. [DOI:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17555.]
21. Saaty, T. L. (2004). Decision Making – The Analytic Network Process (ANP). RWS Publications.
22. Saei M, Shakeri P, Salehi A, Rahmani S. (2021). Factors Influencing the Sustainable Livestock Industry Development in Northern Rural Areas of Kerman Province. Journal Space Economy & Rural Development, 10 (37), 97-112. (In Persian)
23. Salari, S., Asaadi, M. A., & Bahrami, M. (2023). The Application of Structural Equation Modeling in Investigating Factors which affect the Purchase of Packaged Red Meat Products. Scientific Journal of Packaging Science and Art, 13(4). [DOI:20.1001.1.22286675.1401.13.52.2.7]
24. Seturi, M., & Urotadze, E. (2017). About Marketing Process Model and Relationship Marketing. In Proceedings of International Workshop „Model-Based Governance for Smart Organizational Future (pp. 169-171). [DOI:10.13140.R.G.2.2.2228328964]
25. Sudirjo, F., Sahala, J., Abidin, Z., & Baso, A. S. (2023). Analysis of the Impact of Modern Livestock Technology Implementation, Resource Availability, and Marketing Strategy on the Sustainability of Chicken Farming Business in Central Java. West Science Interdisciplinary Studies, 1(12). [DOI:10.58812/wsis.v1i12.494]
26. Xia, L., & Cheng, W. (2019). Sustainable development strategy of rural built-up landscapes in Northeast China based on ANP approach. Energy procedia, 157, 844-850. [DOI:10.1080/03080188.2021.1897748]
27. Zhao, N., & Yao, F. (2022). Innovative mechanism of rural finance: Risk assessment methods and impact factors of agricultural loans based on personal emotion and artificial intelligence. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 2022(1), 1126489. [DOI:10.1155/2022/1126489]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
