Tropical Animal Health and Production (2022) 54:292

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-022-03277-6

REGULAR ARTICLES

Sustainability of the grazing and feeding resources for sheep

during the non‑migratory period in Jammu and Kashmir
Sheikh Shubeena1 · Abdul Hai1 · S. A. Hamdani1 · A. H. Akand1 · Insha Amin2 · Subata Mahboob3 ·
Shiasta Seedat‑Un Nissa4 · Shahzada Mudasir Rashid2 

Received: 23 April 2022 / Accepted: 31 August 2022 / Published online: 12 September 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2022

Abstract
The objective of the study was to evaluate the sustainability of the grazing and feeding resources of the sheep in Kashmir,
India. The study was conducted in the Ganderbal District of Kashmir to evaluate sustainability, along with the scenario of
grazing pattern and feeding system of the sheep during the non-migratory period. The district was divided into three pro-
duction zones based on altitude, i.e., zone I (high altitude), zone II (medium altitude), and zone III (low altitude). A total
of 360 sheep farmers were interviewed from the three zones that consist of 9 blocks, with 40 sheep farmers interviewed
from each block. Majority of the sheep farmers (75.00%) follow a semi-migratory type of production system, use forest, and
low-mountain areas for grazing purposes (48.88%) and were having medium to high availability of grazing lands. The main
feeding source available to majority of the sheep farmers (60.00%) was found to be crop residues and fodder grasses, with
local markets (60.00%) and fellow farmers (71.11%) being the main source of procuring concentrates and fodders. Hybrid
entropy and TOPSIS method were used for the evaluation of sustainability of grazing and feeding system in the area. The
most influencing factors for sustainability of grazing pattern and feeding source were found to be production system followed
and the major feed sources available respectively. Most of the variables included in the grazing system were ideally best in
zone I and of feeding system were found to be ideally best in zone III. There is a need for improvement in the parameters of
the grazing pattern in zone III, i.e., in low-altitude areas or planes where grazing lands are shrinking at an alarming rate. The
parameters under the feeding system need due consideration in zone I, i.e., in the high altitudes where the socio-economic
situation of the people is comparatively poor than the other two zones.

Keywords  Sustainability · Grazing · Feeding · Sheep · Production system · Transhumance

Introduction

Sustainable development is defined by the Brundtland report,

* Shahzada Mudasir Rashid
mudasir@skuastkashmir.ac.in; drsmrashid786@gmail.com
1
Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Extension,
Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences
and Technology-Kashmir, Kashmir, India 190006
2
Department of Veterinary Biochemistry,
Faculty of Veterinary Sciences (SKUAST‑K),
Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences
and Technology-Kashmir, Shuhama, Alusteng,
Srinagar Kashmir, India 190006
3
Department of Animal Nutrition, Sher-e-Kashmir University
of Agricultural Sciences and Technology-Kashmir, Kashmir,,
India 190006
4
Department of Poultry Science, Sher-e-Kashmir University
of Agricultural Sciences and Technology-Kashmir, Kashmir,
India 190006
published by the United Nations in 1987, as development that
fulfills present demands without jeopardizing future generations’
ability to satisfy their own needs. Sheep production is the most
important economic output, accounting for a major portion of
farmers’ income in many developing countries (Ben and Smith
2008). The scarcity and changing amount and quality of conven-
tional feeds throughout the year remains a major limitation for
raising the productivity of the livestock including sheep (Bakshi
and Wadha 2007). In India, sheep husbandry performs practi-
cally in all prevailing climates, ranging from the cold tempera-
tures of Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh to the hot
and dry climates of Rajasthan and Gujarat as well as the hot and
humid climates of Odisha and West Bengal (Shinde and Sejian
2013). Sheep and goats are raised on natural vegetation and

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
292 Page 2 of 11
public grazing sites for a major period of the year in India but
cultivated green fodder and concentrate feed is fed to the animals
in semi-intensive type of farming (Kochewad et al. 2017). Arti-
ficial and natural or semi-natural pastures are commonly used
in small ruminant grazing systems. Jammu and Kashmir have a
unique legacy of Himalayan grasslands or high alpine pastures,
colloquially known as Bahaks/Margs, and their species-rich,
taxonomically diverse nature makes them a valuable resource
for maintaining the small ruminants of the region during the
migratory period (Singh et al. 2018). Although sheep farming
is a reasonable industry in Kashmir’s topographical location, it
also comes with a number of challenges (Shubeena et al. 2021).
During the winter months in Kashmir, when pastures or stubbles
are low in calories and protein, sheep must be supplemented
with grain, hay, or silage to meet their nutritional requirements.
A smart supplementary feeding program ensures that sheep con-
sume as much dry paddock feed as feasible, while still providing
enough supplementary feed for maintenance or development
(Anonymous 2020). To assure availability and future plan-
ning, an assessment of feed and fodder scenario, availability,
and demand for the sheep along with other livestock species is
required (Tanwa and Verma 2017).
Material and methods
Study area
The present study was carried out in the Ganderbal District
of Central Kashmir, India. Ganderbal is situated at 34.14° N
and 74.47° E, at an average elevation of 1,950 m (6,400 feet)
above sea level and 21 km from Srinagar City of Kashmir.
The sheep population of the Ganderbal District is 150,600
including 124,700 crossbred sheep. As per the topography
of the Ganderbal District, the study area was divided into
three production zones on the basis of altitude, viz., zone
I (high altitude), zone II (medium altitude), and zone III
(low altitude). There are nine sheep development blocks in
the Ganderbal District as categorized and formulated by the
sheep husbandry department. All nine blocks with three
blocks in every zone were chosen for the study. The blocks
included in zone I were Haqnar, Naranag, and Kangan, and
in zone II were Lar, Haripur, and Nunar. Zone III included
the block Wakura, Shuhama, and Tullulamu.
Data collection method
A survey was conducted through personal interviews with 360
sheep farmers. The snowball sampling technique was used to
choose 40 sheep farmers from each block, hence 120 farmers
from every zone under the study. A questionnaire was formu-
lated including various parameters on grazing and the feeding
system followed in the study for a personal interview.
13
Tropical Animal Health and Production (2022) 54:292
Data analysis
The data was analyzed with the GraphPad Prism version 6
software program, and the results were represented as mean
and S.D. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used
to calculate average differences in parameters between zones
I, II, and III, and Tukey’s multiple comparison test was used
to compare means. Statistical significance was defined as a P
value of less than 0.05. The SPSS software application was
used to conduct the chi-square test.
For evaluating the sustainability of the grazing and feed-
ing resources, hybrid entropy and TOPSIS method was used
(Hwang and Yoon 1981; Lei and Yanzhang 2003). For eval-
uation of the sustainability of grazing and feeding systems,
various sub-indicators were selected for these parameters.
Entropy method
The entropy method is similar to objective weighing. It cal-
culates the degree of influence of various indicators on the
system’s merits and negatives using the entropy value, which
eliminates the influence of subjective elements from experts.
This method is utilized in order to identify the weight with
good stability and relative reasonability.
TOPSIS
TOPSIS can be used to rank and calculate different options and
is a useful tool for making multi-attribute decisions (Wang et al.
2019; Bhattacharjee et al. 2017). It is a method of multi-criteria
decision analysis and is applied to rank the distance from the
evaluation object to the optimum solution and the worst solution
(Vommi 2017).
Results
Socio‑economic profile of the respondents
The socio-economic profile includes the age, income, experi-
ence in sheep rearing, educational status, and resource availabil-
ity in terms of the land and animals. The results in Table 1 reveal
that an appreciable percentage of respondents (46.67%) belong
to the middle age group (38–57 years) followed by 45.28% who
were young (18–37 years). The average age of the sheep farmers
in the study area was found to be 40.20 years and no significant
difference was between the three zones. The average income
of sheep farmers in the study area was discovered to be 151.22
dollars per month with the majority of the respondents (87.50%)
belonging to the low-income group of 32.01–288.10 dollars per
month. The average land holding in the study area was reported
to be 0.63 hectares with the highest land holding in zone II.
Tropical Animal Health and Production (2022) 54:292 Page 3 of 11 292

Table 1  Distribution of Particulates Zone I Zone II Zone III Overall

the respondents of the
Ganderbal District as per their Age (years)
demographic profile
  Low (18–37) 51 (42.50) 58 (48.33) 54 (45.00) 163 (45.28)
  Medium (38–57) 61 (50.83) 52 (43.33) 55 (45.83) 168 (46.67)
  High (58–77) 8 (6.67) 10 (8.33) 11 (9.17) 29 (8.06)
  Mean ± SD 40.95 ± 11.09 39.01 ± 12.04 40.64 ± 11.08 40.20 ± 11.41
Monthly income (Dollars)
  Low (32.01-288.10) 118 (98.33) 104 (86.67) 93 (77.50) 315 (87.50)
  Medium (288.10-543.63) 2 (1.67) 14 (11.67) 17 (14.17) 33 (9.17)
  High (543.63-799.46) 0 (0) 2 (1.67) 10 (8.33) 12 (3.33)
  Mean ± SD 93.63 ± 59.10c 151.32 ± 117.42b 208.37 ± 172.04a 151.22
± 133.16 
Total land (Hectare)
  0–0.132 (Landless–Marginal) 114 (95) 114 (95) 113 (94.17) 341 (94.72)
  0.132-0.258 (Small–Medium) 6 (5) 4 (3.33) 7 (5.83) 17 (4.72)
  0.258-0.638 (Medium–High) 0 (0) 2 (1.67) 0 (0) 2 (0.56)
  Mean ± SD 0.07 ± 0.09b 0.10 ± 0.13a 0.079 ± 0.041b 0.079 ± 0.10 
Main occupation, P value = < 0.001
  Agriculture 30 (25.00) 23 (19.16) 20 (16.66) 73 (20.27)
  Sheep rearing 75 (62.5) 60 (50.00) 48 (40.00) 183 (50.83)
  Business 5 (4.16) 13 (10.83) 25 (20.83) 43 (11.94)
  Labor 8 (6.66) 8 (6.66) 6 (5) 22 (6.11)
  Govt. service 2 (1.67) 15 (12.50) 21 (17.50) 38 (10.55)
Education background, P value = < 0.001
  Low (Middle-Primary level) 88 (73.33) 58 (48.33) 50 (41.66) 196 (54.44)
  Medium (Middle level-High 30 (25.00) 52 (43.33) 24 (45.00) 136 (37.77)
school)
  High (Graduate- Post Gradu- 2 (1.67) 10 (8.33) 16 (13.33) 28 (7.77)
ation)

Values in parenthesis indicate percentages

P value is statistically significant at the level of P < 0.05
a, b, c
  represents the significant variation between the groups while 'a' being the highest value and 'c' being
the lowest

The land holding was varying significantly between zone II zone I start migration early in the month of May while
and the other two zones. The preponderance of the respondents in zone III, majority (96.67%) revealed that migration
(50.83%) in the study area was found to be engaged with sheep of the flock starts in the month of June. The associa-
rearing as their primary source of income. However, 20.27%, tion between the zones and the start of migration was
11.94%, and 10.55% of the respondents were engaged in agri- found to be significant (P < 0.001). Majority of the
culture, business, and government service respectively as their
occupations. The educational qualification of the majority of Table 2  Migratory period followed in the study area
the respondents (54.44%) was low with illiterate to the primary Particulates Zone I Zone II Zone III Overall P value
level of education.
Start of migration  < 0.001
  May 80 (66.67) 24 (20.00) 4 (3.33) 108 (30.00)
Migratory period of the sheep flocks to high alpine
  June 40 (33.33) 96 (80.00) 116 (96.67) 252 (70.00)
pastures
End of migration  < 0.001
  September 55 (45.83) 90 (75.00) 98 (81.66) 243 (67.5)
It is shown in Table 2 that 70% of the sheep flocks start
  October 26 (21.67) 11 (9.17) 15 (12.50) 52 (14.44)
migration towards high alpine pastures in the month   November 39 (32.50) 19 (15.83) 7 (5.83) 65 (18.05)
of June while 30% of the flocks begin their migration
early in the month of May. Majority of the farmers in Values in parenthesis indicate percentages
P value is statistically significant at the level of P < 0.05

13
292 Page 4 of 11 Tropical Animal Health and Production (2022) 54:292

farmers (67.50%) reported that their sheep return back Grazing system followed during non‑migratory
from migration in the month of September followed by period of the year
18.05% and 14.44% who reported the return of sheep
from migration in November and October respectively. Table 4 deals with the average hours per day spent in graz-
The association between the zones and the end of migra- ing, production system followed, common grazing areas, and
tion was found to be significant (P < 0.001). Mir et al. their availability.
(2016) and Rather et al. (2020) reported similar findings
in their respective studies that during the months of May Grazing hours
to September–October, sheep flocks migrate to alpine
pastures and flourish on mountain meadows. A cursory look at Table 4 indicates that the average time
spent by sheep on grazing during non-migratory period
Migration to high alpine pastures was found to be 7.21 hrs. The time spent on grazing was
varying significantly between zone III and the other two
Results in Table 3 indicate that the majority of the sheep zones while no significant difference was found between
flocks migrated to high land pastures of Gangbal (28.33%) zone I and zone II in terms of Grazing hours spend per
followed by Sonamarg (12.78%), Nilnai (11.11%), Thrund- day.
khud (11.11%), Khudmarg (10.00%), and other nearby high
alpine pastures of the Ganderbal District. Figure 1 also rep- Production system followed by the sheep farmers
resents the places of the migration of the sheep flock.
The three types of production system were seen in the study
Table 3  The high land pastures in the study area where sheep flocks area, viz., sedentary, semi-migratory, and migratory. The
are migrated sedentary type is practiced by farmers living in high alti-
S. no Places of migration Number of Percentage tudes. Farmers in this type use all of their lands for their own
respondents production, while livestock are free to graze in the forest and
alpine meadows. In a semi-migratory system, a shepherd is
1 Gangbal 102 28.33
hired to take livestock to high alpine meadows for grazing
2 Godsar 30 8.33
during the summer, and intensive feeding is done during the
3 Gurez 4 1.1
winter in a semi-migratory system. In a migratory system of
4 Khudmarg 36 10.00
sheep rearing, the sheep farmers along with their livestock
5 Naranag 8 2.22
migrate from one location to another in search of food and
6 Nilnai 40 11.11
a pleasant climate. Majority of the farmers (75.00%) of the
7 Rangwand 16 4.44
study area were following semi-migratory type of produc-
8 Sokhnai 24 6.67
tion system followed by sedentary (23.33%) system in which
9 Sonamarg 46 12.78
sheep are allowed to graze for the most part of the year first
10 Taleel 4 1.11
in high land pastures and then to sub-alpine pastures due to
11 Thrundkhud 40 11.11
nearness and availability of such areas to them. The migra-
12 Trichangapur 6 1.67
tory style of production system was followed by a very small
13 Vasnasar 4 1.11
fraction of farmers (1.67%).
Values in parenthesis indicate percentages

Fig. 1  Diagrammatic represen-
30
tation of the places where sheep
flocks are migrated for grazing
25 Places off migrattion
20
in the Ganderbal District 15
10
5
0

13
Tropical Animal Health and Production (2022) 54:292 Page 5 of 11 292

Table 4  Distribution of Particulates Zone I Zone II Zone III Overall P value

respondents as per the grazing
system followed during the Average daily hours spent in grazing 7.39 ± 0.78 a
7.25 ± 0.78 a
7.00 ± 0.88 b
7.21 ± 0.83 -
non-migratory period in the
Production system 0.020
Ganderbal District
  Sedentary 44 (36.66) 30 (25.00) 10 (26.67) 84 (23.33)
  Semi-migratory 70 (58.33) 90 (75.00) 110 (91.66) 270 (75.00)
  Migratory 6 (5.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 6 (1.67)
Grazing area  < 0.001
  Own fields 3 (2.5) 6 (5.00) 8 (6.67) 17 (4.72)
  Community lands 18 (15.00) 24 (20.00) 44 (36.67) 86 (23.88)
  Forest areas/low-mountain areas 90 (80.83) 76 (63.33) 10 (8.33) 176 (48.88)
  Roadside 7 (5.83) 10 (8.33) 40 (33.33) 57 (15.83)
  Orchids 2 (1.66) 4 (3.33) 18 (15.00) 24 (6.66)
Availability of grazing 0.011
  Low 20 (16.66) 30 (25.00) 55 (45.83) 105 (29.16)
  Medium 40 (33.33) 45 (37.5) 45 (37.5) 130 (36.11)
  High 60 (50.00) 45 (37.5) 20 (16.66) 125 (34.72)

Values in parenthesis indicate percentages

P value is statistically significant at the level of P < 0.05
a
  and b represents the significant variation between the groups while 'a' being the highest value and 'b' being
the lowest

Grazing areas utilized by sheep during non‑migratory (45.83%) disclosed that there is low availability of grazing
period lands.

The results in Table 4 revealed that majority (48.88%) of
sheep farmers used forest and low-mountain areas for graz-
ing purposes. However, 23.88% and 15.83% of the respond-
ents use community lands and roadside areas respectively
for grazing purposes. Forests and low-mountain areas were
used as grazing areas by the majority (80.83%) in zone I and
(63.33%) in zone II while major grazing area in zone III was
found to be community land (36.67%) followed by roadside
grazing (33.33%). Jammu and Kashmir’s lush green wood-
lands serve as the state’s most important livestock support
land (Ahmad et al. 2018). There was a significant association
between the three zones and the grazing areas utilized by
the sheep (P < 0.01). A similar trend of availability of forest
lands and mountains was reported by Maqbool et al. (2017)
for the area under study.
Availability of grazing land during non‑migratory period
An appreciable number of respondents (36.11%) reported
that there was medium availability of grazing land in the
non-migratory period followed by 34.72 and 29.16% who
reported high and low availability of grazing land respec-
tively (Table 4). Grazing land availability and zones were
having a significant association (P < 0.05). The high avail-
ability of grazing land was reported by majority (50%) of
farmers in zone I, while in zone III majority of farmers
Feeding system followed in the study area
Feed sources available to sheep farmers of the study area
The results in Table 5 revealed that the main feed source
available to the majority of farmers (60%) was crop residues
and fodder grasses followed by forest grasses and tree leaves
(23.33%). The major source of procurement of concentrates
available to farmers (60%) was local markets being easiest
and most accessible to them. The main source of fodder
procurement was found to be fellow farmers (71.11%) who
either have a surplus of these fodder or do not rear any live-
stock of their own. The results were more or less similar to
the findings of Shah et al. (2018) who in their study found
that the major source of fodder for farmers is local markets
and homegrown feeds.
Frequency of providing feed to the sheep
during non‑migratory period
A perusal of Table 6 represents that majority of the sheep
farmers (93.61%) provide concentrates to the sheep on daily
basis. It is interesting to note that majority of the farmers
(64.44%) never provide oil cakes to the sheep followed by
19.16% and 16.39% who provide oil cakes daily and weekly
basis respectively. A significant association was found

13
292 Page 6 of 11 Tropical Animal Health and Production (2022) 54:292

Table 5  Distribution of Particulates Zone I Zone II Zone III Overall P value (χ2)

respondents according to the
feeding system followed in the Major feed source available to the sheep farmers  < 0.001
Ganderbal District
  Crop residues and fodder grasses 63 (52.50) 77 (64.17) 76 (63.33) 216 (60.00)
  Forest grasses and tree leaves 52 (43.33) 26 (21.67) 6 (5.00) 84 (23.33)
  Improved forages 0 (0.00) 9 (7.50) 12 (10.00) 21 (5.83)
  On-farm grazing 5(4.17) 8 (6.67) 26 (21.67) 39 (10.83)
Procurement source for concentrate  < 0.001
  Local markets 94 (78.33) 69 (57.50) 53 (44.17) 216 (60.00)
  Wholesalers 21 (17.50) 28 (23.33) 36 (30.00) 85 (23.61)
  Feed mills 5 (4.17) 23 (19.17) 31 (25.83) 59 (16.39)
Procurement source for fodders  < 0.001
  Own 12 (10.00) 13 (10.83) 12 (10.00) 37 (10.28)
  Fellow farmers 73 (60.83) 91 (75.83) 92 (76.67) 256 (71.11)
  Middle man 35 (29.17) 16 (13.33) 16 (13.33) 67 (18.61)

Values in parenthesis indicate percentages

P value is statistically significant at the level of P < 0.05

Table 6  Distribution of Frequency of providing feed

respondents as per frequency
of providing feeds during non- Variables Zone I Zone II Zone III Overall P value
migratory period to sheep in
Ganderbal District Frequency of providing concentrates to sheep  < 0.001
  Never 6 (5.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 6 (1.67)
  Weekly 9 (7.50) 6 (5.00) 2 (1.67) 17 (4.72)
  Daily 105 (87.50) 114 (95.00) 118 (98.33) 337 (93.61)
Frequency of providing oil cakes to the sheep  < 0.001
  Never 95 (79.17) 81 (67.50) 56 (46.67) 232 (64.44)
  Weekly 13 (10.83) 16 (13.33) 30 (25.00) 59 (16.39)
  Daily 12 (10.00) 23 (19.16) 34 (28.33) 47 (19.16)
Frequency of providing salts to the sheep 0.014
  Winter 11 (9.17) 4 (3.33) 2 (1.67) 17 (4.72)
  Summer 10 (8.33) 8 (6.67) 8 (6.67) 26 (7.22)
  Before migration 99 (82.50) 108 (90.00) 110 (91.67) 317 (88.06)

Values in parenthesis indicate percentages

P value is statistically significant at the level of P < 0.05

between the zone and frequency of providing concentrates
and oil cakes (P < 0.001). Salts were provided to sheep
before taking them for migration by majority of the farmers
(88.06%). The association between the zones and frequency
of providing salt was found to be significant (P < 0.05).
Sustainability of the sheep farming based
on the grazing system and feeding system
Sustainable development attempts to address human needs
while also maintaining the natural environment so that they
can be satisfied now and in the future (Peacock and Sher-
man 2010). With the help of research and development, the
role that sheep and goat farming will play in the future has
to be accomplished in a fully sustainable manner (Caroprese
et al. 2015). The entropy method was used for calculating the
sub-criteria weight of the variables and the variables with the
highest sub-criteria weight represent the ones with high influ-
ence on sustainability and relatively stable. The standardized
index data is calculated to arrive at the sub-criteria weight and
the zone with a high index number means that the variable is
elevated in that zone.
Results in Table 7 reveal that among the various vari-
ables under grazing pattern, the production system followed
by the availability of grazing land were having the highest
influence on the sustainability of sheep farming in the area.
While the time duration of grazing and the end of the migra-
tion period were having the lowest sub-criteria weight hence
imparting the lowest influence on the sustainability of sheep
farming among the variables under the grazing system. The

13
Tropical Animal Health and Production (2022) 54:292 Page 7 of 11 292

Table 7  Standardized index data matrix and the sub-criteria weight of the grazing pattern and feeding system followed in the Ganderbal District
Criteria/indicator Sub-criteria/variables under a graz- Standardized index data Sub-criteria weight/overall influ-
ing system ence of the variables on sustain-
Zone I Zone II Zone III ability

Grazing system Production system 0.2892 0.3333 0.3774 0.3671

Time duration of grazing 0.3413 0.3351 0.3236 0.0767
Availability of grazing land 0.3511 0.3461 0.3028 0.2472
Grazing areas accessed 0.3212 .3122 .3015 0.1331
Start of migration 0.1321 0.2018 0.2211 0.0995
End of migration 0.3445 0.3287 0.3267 0.0783
Feeding system Major feed source 0.2726 0.2982 0.4291 0.3485
Source of concentrates 0.2385 0.3478 0.4136 0.2825
Availability of feed and fodder 0.3189 0.3353 0.3458 0.1810
Price stability 0.3197 0.3320 0.3484 0.1599
Feed preservation 0.3291 0.3348 0.3362 0.0284

variability among different parameters under grazing pat-
terns is also depicted in Fig. 2.
Among the various parameters in the feeding system
(Table 7), the most influencing parameter on the sustain-
ability of sheep farming was the major feed source with the
highest sub-criteria weight (0.3485). The variable with the
least influence was found to be feed preservation with a sub-
criteria weight of (0.0284). The variability among different
parameters under grazing patterns is also depicted in Fig. 3.
Comparative sustainability of sheep framing
among the different production zones
(D −) solutions was also discovered. The zone with the ide-
ally best value denotes that the condition in this particular
zone is better and heading towards sustainability than the
other two zones. The highest values represent the ideally
best value and lowest represents the ideally worst in most
of the productive cases while the lowest value is ideally best
in cases where a lower value is required.
Table 8 represents the TOPSIS evaluation of the Graz-
ing pattern and the feeding system in the study area. The
results reveal that all variables under the grazing system
were ideally best in zone I except the production system
and end of migration which were ideally best in zone III.

The sub-criteria weight evaluated by the entropy method is

used to arrive at the criteria decision matrix that represents Discussion
ideally best (positive ideal solution) and ideally worst (nega-
tive ideal solution) between the three zones of the study Grazing system
area. The ideally best and ideally worst solution was calcu-
lated with the help of the TOPSIS method. The Euclidian The migration of the sheep to the Himalayan alpine pas-
distance between the ideally best (D +) and ideally worst tures remains the backbone of sheep farming in Jammu

Fig. 2  Diagram depicting influ-

0.5
ence of variables under grazing Feeding system
index and weight of vriables

0.45
system on the sustainability of 0.4
sheep farming in the Ganderbal 0.35
District 0.3
0.25 Zone-I
0.2
0.15 Zone-II
0.1 Zone-III
0.05
0 Sub criteria weight
major feed source of availability of price stability feed
source concentrates feed and preservaon
fodder
Variables under feed and fodder avaailability

13
292 Page 8 of 11 Tropical Animal Health and Production (2022) 54:292

Fig. 3  Diagram depicting the 0.4

influence of variables under Grazing system and sustainability of sheep farming

Index value and weight of variables

feed and fodder availability on 0.35
the sustainability of sheep farm-
0.3
ing in the Ganderbal District
0.25

0.2
Zone-I
0.15
Zone-II
0.1 Zone-III
0.05 Sub criteria weight
0
Producon me availability grazing start of end of
system duraon of of grazing areas migraon migraon
grazing land accessed

Variables under grazing pattern

Table 8  Weighed decision matrix of different sub-criteria associated with grazing pattern and feeding system followed by the respondents in the
study area
Criteria/indicator Sub-criteria/variables Weighted decision matrix of ide- D − (Euclidean distance D + (Euclidean
ally best and ideally worst from ideally worst) distance from ideally
worst)
Zone I Zone II Zone III

Grazing system Production system 0.2970 0.3422 0.3875 0.0268 0.0522

Time duration of grazing 0.0431 0.0423 0.0408 0.0014 0.0140
Availability of grazing land 0.2767 0.2728 0.2387 0.0204 0.0143
Common grazing areas 1.5933 1.3398 0.9289 0.1871 0.2694
Start of migration 0.2211 0.1917 0.1977 0.0189 0.0109
End of migration 0.1028 0.1105 0.1154 0.0130 0.0033
Feeding system Major feed source 1.1742 1.2847 1.8485 0.2380 0.0100
Source of concentrates 0.9189 1.3398 1.5933 0.1871 0.2694
Availability of feed and fodder 0.1823 0.1917 0.1977 0.0189 0.0109
Price stability 0.3378 0.3508 0.3681 0.0245 0.0330
Feed preservation 0.1420 0.1445 0.1451 0.0121 0.5832

The values in bold represent the ideally best value

and Kashmir. The hardest part of sheep rearing remains the
lean period of winters when feeding the animals is chal-
lenging and weighs heavy on the balance of economics.
During migratory phase, sheep flocks are migrated to high-
land pastures or Kashmir’s alpine pastures for 6–7 months.
It was also reported by Ahmad et al. (2018) in their study
related to high altitude pasture lands of Kashmir Himalaya
that they play an important role in livestock rearing. Dur-
ing the non-migratory period excluding the winter phase,
sheep are reared semi-intensively with mild grazing at
nearby grazing areas along with homegrown or purchased
concentrates and fodders. The average hours spent on the
grazing were found to be 7.21 hrs. The grazing intensity
is usually influenced by food availability, which is deter-
mined by the length of the grazing season and the amount
of supplementary feeding (Ross et al. 2016). Usually, the
average grazing hours spent by the sheep on grazing in
the area are 7 h and that too depends on the season and
availability of grazing lands. The study conducted by
Pokorná et al. (2013) reported the average time spent by
sheep on grazing is 8.57 h. It was reported by Chen et al.
(2013) in a study that grazing time influences the intake
time, rest time, rumination time, bite rate, and activity of
the animals. The presence of nutrient-rich pasture land in
Ganderbal is well documented by Maqbool et al. (2017) in
their study that makes this area feasible for sheep rearing.
The period of the harsh winters in the area restricts the
movement of the livestock for grazing; moreover, during
this period, the grazing areas remain covered with snow
so the animals are to be reared intensively during that time

13
Tropical Animal Health and Production (2022) 54:292
of the year. This remains the reason for majority follow-
ing the semi-migratory pattern of grazing. It was found
that people who live at medium to low altitudes utilize
semi-migratory systems while sedentary strategy is used
by people who live at high altitudes seconded by Rather
et al. (2020). Similar inferences were also made by Shah
et al. (2017) and Ahmad et al. (2018) in their respective
studies on sheep farming in different areas of Kashmir.
Small ruminant production is the main source of income
in rehabilitated regions; hence, semi-intensive production
systems are more typical (Iniguez, 2011). The presence
of uncultivated land for grazing in the form of common
and private support lands is the most significant input for
livestock production and poor people’s subsistence, and
their presence was also reported by Ahmad et al. (2018).
Common property resources (CPRs) like village pastures,
grazing land, revenue common lands or wastelands, com-
munity forest, and other woodlands within a reasonable
distance of the village, riverbanks, common threshing
fields, etc. are the main feeding source for the sheep in
India (Shinde and Sejian 2013). Zone I being at a high alti-
tude has more presence of the barren and common prop-
erty land and less influence of industrialization; hence, the
land remains available for the purpose of grazing while
in the other two zones the common property lands are
shrinking day by day under the influence of modernization
and need due consideration from the concerned authorities
towards their maintenance and conservation.
Feeding system
The major crops grown in Kashmir are mainly paddy in sum-
mer and oats in winter which form a major component of
sheep feeding during non-migratory period. The cultivable
fodders and crop residues available to farmers are either
grown on their own lands or purchased from other farmers.
Paddy hay and oats fodder supplemented with tree leaves are
the main fodders that are provided to sheep during the stall
feeding period (Mir et al. 2016: Rather et al. 2020). Kenfo
et al. (2018) also reported that natural grass and agricultural
waste were the main sources of feed for sheep during the wet
and dry seasons. The availability of fodders was found to
be a medium and main season of shortage was winter. The
farmers have a surplus of the fodders used to sell it at the
time of the harvest this eventually results in higher prices of
fodders during the lean or scarcity period. During the winter
months, there is scarcity of grazing lands and sheep had to
be kept in sheds for a long period of time (November to
March) and fed at one’s own expense. During that period, in
order to meet the nutritional demands of the animals, fodders
and concentrates are to be provided on daily basis. Similar
findings were reported by Shah et al. (2017) and Rather et al.
(2020) in their respective studies on the feeding system of
Page 9 of 11 292
livestock in Kashmir. Majority of farmers never fed oil cakes
to their animals which could probably be assigned to the
tradition held that it is given mainly to large ruminants. Fur-
thermore, farmers felt less importance on oil cakes in small
ruminants and over the years, there is a continuous decrease
in land under oil seed cultivation. Feeding of salt to the flock
before migration is very common among sheep farmers. It is
believed by the sheep farmers that feeding salt before migra-
tion improves the quality of the wool and also gives protec-
tion from various challenges faced during migration. The
feeding of salt to the sheep was also reported by Shah et al.
(2018) and Rather et al. (2020) in their respective studies.
Sustainability of the grazing and feeding
The production system followed by the majority was of semi-
migratory type that was suitable to the area as per the geo-
graphical location and climate. The availability of the grazing
lands is also good in the area except for zone III where the
grazing lands keep decreasing day by day under the shadow of
modernization. The results are in argument from the UNCCD
report that states that grazing lands are shrinking continuously
due to climate change (UNCCD 2017). Feeding source was
an important factor for the sheep rearing and the growth and
production of the sheep depended mostly on the feeding. The
least influencing factor was feed preservation as farmers were
having least knowledge about feed preservation in the area.
The most probable reason could be that the farmers of the area
were having least educational status that leads to negligence
towards adopting the new scientific methods of feed pres-
ervation. Lack of technical knowledge of farmers regarding
livestock feeding strategies was also reported by Beigh et al.
(2020) in their study on feeding practices in the Gurez Valley
of Kashmir. For the sustainable planning of the future, there
is an utmost need for the farmers to equip themselves with the
modern scientific lines of animal rearing. Zone I being at the
high altitude and availability of natural resources like grazing
lands and the engagement of the majority of the population
with this enterprise make them devote quality time to this pro-
fession. The migration starts early in zone I as it falls nearby
to the alpine pastures; hence, farmers take less time to reach
the place. Zone I performs very well on the parameters of
the grazing pattern due to more availability of such resources
while these resources are performing poorly in zone III as it
falls near the city hence much influence of the modernization
and shrinkage of the CPRs (common property resources) and
agricultural lands. In the case of the feeding system, all sub-
criteria (variables) were ideally best in zone III. Zone III can
be considered best in terms of the feeding in the non-migratory
period due to their god socio-economic profile which renders
them fit to purchase the feeds and fodders while farmers of
zone I are not economically sound; hence, this indicator of
feeding shows less performance in that zone.
13
292 Page 10 of 11
Conclusion
The grazing pattern and the resources were found to be
adequate and nearly approaching sustainability in zone I
and least sustainable in zone III that should draw the atten-
tion of the concerned stakeholders. There is an immediate
need for enactment and implementation of strong legislation
for the protection, preservation, and maintenance of CPRs,
especially in zone III. In terms of the availability of feeding
resources, during the non-migratory period, zone III was
relatively performing well on majority of the variables while
zone I was lagging behind that point towards the relation-
ship between the socio-economic conditions of the people
in respective zones. There is a need for the socio-economic
upliftment of the people of zone I through various govern-
ment and non-government avenues.
Acknowledgements  The authors sincerely acknowledge the coopera-
tion and support of the farmers for their time in responding to our que-
ries and for allowing us to visit their farms.
Author contribution  All authors contributed to the study conception
and design. SS, AH, SAH, and AHA contributed in the collection of
the data, conduction of the field survey, and compilation of the data.
SMR, IA, SM, and SSN contributed in the implementation of the study
and analysis of the study. SMR and SS contributed in the preparation
of the draft manuscript, data analysis, and final compilation of the
manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding  The authors are grateful to UGC (University Grants Commis-
sion) for providing the necessary funding for conducting this research.
Data availability  The datasets generated during the current study are
available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Declarations  Rather, M. A., Bashir, I., Shah, M. M., Ahanger, S. A., Hamadani,
Ethics approval  The manuscript does not contain clinical studies or
patient data.
Competing interests  The authors declare no competing interests.
References
Ahmad, S., Mir, N. H., Bhat, S. S., Singh J. P., 2018. High Altitude
Pasturelands of Kashmir Himalaya: Current Status, Issues and
Future Strategies in a Changing Climatic Scenario. Curr. j. appl.
sci. tech 27, 1-10.
Anonymous, 2020. Department of primary industries and regional
development, Government of Western Australia. Agriculture
and food. Supplementary feeding and feed budgeting for sheep.
2020. https://​www.​agric.​wa.​gov.​au/​feedi​ng-​nutri​tion/​suppl​ement​
ary-​feedi​ng-​and-​feed-​budge​ting-​sheep.
Bakshi, M.P.S., Wadhwa, M., 2007. Tree leaves as complete feed for
goat bucks. Small Ruminant Res. 69 , 74–78
Beigh, Y.A., Ganai, A.M., Rather, M.A., Fazili, M., Hussain H.A.,
Malik, A.A., Raja T.A. Mir, S.H. 2020. Livestock rearers socio-
economic status, feed resources, feeding and management
13
Tropical Animal Health and Production (2022) 54:292
practices in Gurez valley of Kashmir. Indian J Anim Sci 90,
1172–1178,
Ben, S. H., Smith, T., 2008. Feeding strategies to increase small rumi-
nant production in dry environments. Small Ruminant Res. 77,
174– 194.
Bhattacharjee, P., Debnath, A., Chakraborty, S., Mandal, U.K., 2017.
Selection of optimal aluminum alloy using TOPSIS method under
fuzzy environment. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 32, 871–876.
Caroprese, M., Albenzio, M., Sevi, A., 2015. Sustainability of Sheep
and Goat Production Systems. In: Vastola A. (eds) The Sus-
tainability of Agro-Food and Natural Resource Systems in the
Mediterranean Basin. Springer, Cham. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
978-3-​319-​16357-4_6
Chen, Y., Luo, H., Liu, X., Wang, Z., Zhang, Y., Liu, K., Jiao, L.,
Chang, Y., Zuo, Z. (2013). Effect of restricted grazing time on the
foraging behavior and movement of tan sheep grazed on desert
steppe. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci.26, 711–715.
Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K., 1981. Multiple attribute decision making:
Methods and Applications. Springer-Verlag.
Iniguez, L., 2011. The challenges of research and development of small
ruminant production in dry areas. Small Ruminant Res, 98, 12-20.
Kenfo, H., Mekasha, Y., Tadesse, Y., 2018. A study on sheep farming
practices in relation to future production strategies in Bensa dis-
trict of Southern Ethiopia. Trop Anim Health Prod 50, 865–874.
Kochewad, S.A., Meena, L.R., Kumara, S., Kumar, V., Meena. L.K.,
2017. Sheep Rearing Systems and their Productive Performances
–A Review. Biosci. Trends 10, 1716-1719.
Lei, C., Yanzhang, W., 2003. Research on TOPSIS integrated evalu-
ation and decision method based on entropy coefficient. Control
Decis 18, 456–459.
Maqbool, I., Wani, Z. A., Shahardar, R. A., Allaie, I. M., Shah, M. M.,
­2017a. Integrated parasite management with special reference to
gastro-intestinal nematodes. J. Parasit. Dis. 41, 1-8.
Mir, N. H., Ahmad, S., Verma, D. K., 2016. Livestock Rearing–Sec-
torial Status and Fodder-Feed Strategies in Kashmir Himalaya.
Ann. Biol. 32, 253-259.
Peacock, C., Sherman, D. M., 2010. Sustainable goat production- some
global perspectives. Small ruminant res 89:70-80.
Pokorna, P., Hejcmanova, P., Hejcman, M., Pavlu, V., 2013. Activity
time budget patterns of sheep and goats co-grazing on semi-natu-
ral species-rich dry grassland. Czech J. Anim. Sci., 58, 208–216.
A., 2020. A Brief Overview of Sheep Husbandry in Jammu and
Kashmir. Int. j. curr. microbiol. 9,1644-1651.
Ross, L. C., Austrheim, G., Asheim, L-J., Bjarnason, G., Feilberg,
J., Fosaa, A. M., Hester, A. J., Holand, O., Jonsdottir, I. S.,
Mortensen, L. E., Mysterud, A., Olsen, E., Skonhoft, A., Speed,
J. D. M., Steinheim, G., Thompson, D. B. A., Thorhallsdottir, A.
G., 2016. Sheep grazing in the North Atlantic region: A long-term
perspective on environmental sustainability. Ambio, 45, 551-566.
Shah, A. A., Khan, H, M., Dar, P. A., Mir, M. S., 2017. Socio-Eco-
nomic Profile of Sheep Rearing Community in Bandipora District
of Jammu and Kashmir. Indian J. Hill Farming 30, 307-312
Shah, A. A., Khan, H. M., Dar, P. A., Mir, M. S., Manzoor, A., 2018.
Breeding and feeding practices of sheep and constraints perceived
by farmers of Jammu and Kashmir. Indian j. small ruminants 24,
191-194.
Shinde, A. K., Sejian, V., 2013. Sheep husbandry under changing climate
scenario in India: An overview. Indian J Anim Sci 83, 998–1008.
Shubeena, S., Hai, A., Hamdani, S. A., Akand, A. H., Khan, H. M.,
Abdullah, M., Rather, M. A. (2021). Risk factors associated with
sheep farming in UT of Jammu and Kashmir, Ind. J. Pure App.
Biosci. 9,75-78.
Singh, J. P., Ahmad, S., Radotra, S., Dev, I., Mir, N.H., Debl, D., Chau-
rasiaj, R. S., 2018. Extent, mapping, and utilization of grassland
Tropical Animal Health and Production (2022) 54:292
resources of Jammu and Kashmir in western Himalaya: a case
study. Range Mgmt. and Agroforestry 39, 138-146.
Tanwa, P. S., Verma, H. K., 2017. Feed and fodder availability in Pun-
jab state vis-a-vis livestock population -An estimate. Indian J
Anim Sci 87, 879–884.
UNCCD report, 2017. Sustainable Land Management Contribution to
Successful Land-based Climate Change Adaptation and Mitiga-
tion. https://​www.​unccd.​int/​publi​catio​ns/​susta​inable-​land-​manag​
ement-​contr​ibuti​on-​succe​ssful-​land-​based-​clima​te-​change.
Vommi, V. B., 2017. TOPSIS with statistical distances: A new
approach to MADM. Decis. Sci. Lett 6, 49–66.
Wang, Z., Hao, H., Gao, F., Zhang, Q., Zhang, J., Zhou, Y., 2019.
Multi-attribute decision making on reverse logistics based on
Page 11 of 11 292
DEA-TOPSIS: A study of the Shanghai End-of-life vehicles
industry. J. Clean. Prod. 214, 730–737.
Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s);
author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article
is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and
applicable law.
13