Environment, Development and Sustainability

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03538-w

Comparison of sustainability in livestock supply chain

Sasan Houshyar1 · Masoud Fehresti‑Sani1 · Ahmad Fatahi Ardakani1 ·

Morteza Bitaraf Sani2 · Mathew Cotton3

Received: 2 May 2023 / Accepted: 26 June 2023

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2023

Abstract
Livestock products and the sustainability of their production process play an important role
in food security, value addition, job creation, and the growth of related industries. There-
fore, this paper was organized to evaluate the sustainability situation in the livestock supply
chain in Pasargad City by introducing a new sustainability index. The economic, social,
and environmental conditions of the livestock supply chain by using data were collected
by completing two types of questionnaires on the status of light and heavy livestock evalu-
ated. The results obtained using the analytical hierarchy process method showed that in
this case, the economic criterion is more important than the social and environmental. For
financial evaluation, the indices of benefit–cost ratio, net profit, and return on capital were
calculated. The employment status and the level of the social status of the producers were
evaluated. In the environmental assessment, the amount of greenhouse gas emissions for
the production and consumption of feed used by livestock and transportation of inputs and
products in the production process was calculated. The production of both light and heavy
livestock has economic justification, but, in terms of environmental evaluation, light live-
stock, and, in terms of social evaluation, heavy livestock are preferable. Therefore, based
on the calculation of the sustainability index, the beef supply chain is prioritized. Invest-
ment and special support regarding the establishment of a milk processing factory and
industrial slaughterhouse in Pasargad City to increase sustainability in the supply chain of
livestock products is suggested.

Keywords Supply chain management · Financial analysis · Life cycle assessment ·

Sustainable livestock products · Greenhouse gas emissions

1 Introduction

Livestock products play a very important role in the global food system and food secu-
rity. Cattle and sheep convert non-edible materials such as grass into edible nutrients for
humans (Galloway et al., 2003). In addition, animals were used as labor in the process
of producing agricultural products, which is mostly seen in traditional societies (Steinfeld
et al., 2013). Also, livestock provides the livelihood of more than one billion people in the
world (FAO, 2009; Herrero et al., 2016).

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 S. Houshyar et al.

Animal husbandry is a core component of livelihood and job security across the devel-
oping world. This type of farming is essential to job creation and socio-economic develop-
ment through global markets for the export of livestock products. About 80% of agricul-
tural workers are directly and indirectly involved in livestock activities, and around 70%
of rural, 90% of nomads, and 10% of the urban population are involved in livestock-related
activities (Iran Statistical Yearbooks, 2020). Husbandry has an influential and determining
role in production, household income, and employment (Behmand & Alipour, 2019). As
seen in Fig. 1, in the livestock supply chain, there are the upstream part includes input sup-
pliers such as feed, equipment, and medicine, and the downstream part includes slaughter-
houses, dairy industries, and protein products.
Livestock products have remained of central significance in meeting the nutritional
needs and protein intake of households, and thus, husbandry commonly receives govern-
ment support to maintain livestock produces supply chains and consequently sustain the
rural economy. Livestock production supply chains are therefore essential to rural devel-
opment, as well as national food security, thus playing a unique role in meeting the food
needs of households, health, and community health (Jeyran & Jolayie, 2005).
The emission of greenhouse gases (for example, the emission of ­CO2 related to energy
consumption in the world) has increased (Fig. 2). Therefore, reducing the share of different
economic sectors in the emission of greenhouse gases and how to manage it is one of the
main priorities and concerns at the national and global levels for policymakers.
However, livestock products and their by-products put considerable pressure on the
environment and ecosystem (Godfray et al., 2018; Herrero et al., 2015), thereby not paying
attention to this issue will cause irreparable climate and ecological crises. On average, live-
stock emits about 14.5% of greenhouse gases in the world (Gerber et al., 2013) and uses
70% of the total agricultural land that includes cropland and grassland (Van Zanten et al.,
2018) and 58% of the total harvested biomass (Krausmann et al., 2008).
This level of use is mostly due to the process of development and industrialization of
animal breeding systems, which keep large numbers of animals in a limited space (high
density of animals), and separation of feed and animal production, is due to leakage of

Fig. 1  Upstream and Downstream sectors in the livestock supply chain

13
Comparison of sustainability in livestock supply chain

38

36

34

32

30

28

26

24

22

Fig. 2  Global energy-related ­CO2 emissions, 1990–2022 (www.​iea.​org/​world)

nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) and eventual eutrophication of surface waters occurs (Bil-
len et al., 2021).
However, under conditions of climate emergency, and growing pressures from land deg-
radation and biodiversity loss through competing land uses for farming practices, agricul-
tural research has focused increasingly upon sustainable intensification—providing mecha-
nisms to increase productivity while simultaneously minimizing the associated negative
environmental impacts of farming practices (Godfray & Garnett, 2014). Sustainable sup-
ply chain management of livestock production is one emergent research area within this
broader field. Sustainable supply chain management requires the evaluation of a multidi-
mensional approach: incorporating financial, environmental, and social components. Sus-
tainable supply chain management is a strategic parameter for business continuity, one that
allows the livestock industry to meet the current needs of society while maintaining and
improving the capacity to meet future needs (Rajeev et al., 2017).

2 Literature review

Supply chains have been the focus of researchers in different dimensions. Some studies
have measured the network efficiency of supply chains of different products (Chizari &
Fehresti-Sani, 2018; Najafi et al., 2021). Several studies in the economic literature also
focus on various supply chain optimization techniques such as cost (Camm et al., 1997),
inventory and stock levels (Altiok & Ranjan, 1995), profit (Cohen & Lee, 1989), product
demand variance (Newhart et al., 1993).
Recently, in supply chain management, the issue of sustainability has been more wel-
comed by researchers. For example, some studies design green supply chain networks
based on mathematical modeling in terms of environmental, economic, and social consid-
erations (Abbasi & Ahmadi Ghokolaei, 2023; Abbasi et al., 2023) or design sustainable
recovery networks for the end-of-life product. (Abbasi et al., 2022b).

13
 S. Houshyar et al.

Several studies have measured either sustainable supply chain performance (Abbasi
et al., 2022a; Wang et al., 2023) or investigate carbon policy response (Abbasi et al., 2023)
or carbon dioxide emissions (Abbasi et al., 2021) in the sustainable supply chain. Some
researchers have also addressed sustainability management (Morgane & Fritz, 2022; Sergio
Brandao & Godinho-Filho, 2022) or energy management (Sun et al., 2023) in the supply
chain.
There is a range of research issues raised within the study of livestock supply chains.
Research in this field commonly focuses on environmental performance: (1) feed supply
chains (FAO, 2020), (2) livestock produce supply chains (Bastas & Liyanage, 2018), and
managing uncertainty and data (Bhaskar & Lallement, 2009) to improve sustainable man-
agement practices. Specific environmental concerns related to supply chain management
include the emission of greenhouse gases and ammonia from the fertilizer management
systems of dairy cattle breeding units using survey data and life cycle tools. Other concerns
include those related to the discharge of natural resources, and the use of non-renewable
resources (Ageron et al., 2012).
Sustainability in livestock products is also observed in different studies in different
ways. In some research, the stability of livestock products or inputs has been analyzed in
a single-level mode, and in some studies, it has been analyzed as a chain. For example,
Uwizeye et al. (2016) presented a comprehensive framework for assessing the sustainabil-
ity of nutrient use in the overall livestock supply chain. In this research, the sustainability
of nitrogen and phosphorus application was evaluated based on environmental considera-
tions (life cycle).
Roux et al. (2022) tracked ecosystem pressure along the livestock chain between 1986
and 2013 considering livestock feed and livestock products. Jiang et al. (2023) investigated
environmental laws in encouraging the integration of livestock chains in livestock produc-
tion companies in China. Tsakiridis et al. (2020) studied greenhouse gas emissions and
economic outputs for seafood and livestock products.
Alary et al. (2022) evaluated the stability of livestock socio-ecosystems in drylands by
calculating a set of indicators. According to the framework of multi-scale indicators, they
investigated the sustainability of livestock-related to grazing. Akash et al. (2022) investi-
gated the relationship between the sustainability of livestock products and food security.
Acosta et al. (2019) designed the livestock vaccine supply chain according to the criteria
of on-time delivery and cost minimization along the chain. Quintero-Herrera et al. (2022)
investigated the role of fertilization in the production process of crops that are used as ani-
mal feed in improving the sustainability of dairy farms. They used the life cycle assessment
(LCA) method in their analysis. Hübel and Schaltegger (2022) examined sustainability bar-
riers in the transformation of meat production.
Hotze and Vandresen (2022) investigated the current and future challenges of the sus-
tainability of the meat industry with an emphasis on people’s attitudes toward meat con-
sumption and production in Brazil. Ponnampalam and Holman (2023) described discus-
sions in the field of sustainability of livestock products and meat products. Henchion et al.
(2022) investigated the sustainability and ethical aspects of meat production. Sievert et al.
(2022) addressed the policy and political aspects of sustainability and health in meat pro-
duction in the Australian food system. They calculated carbon footprints by using life cycle
assessments of animal food products, and their substitutes.
Maharjan et al. (2021) examined energy management in meat production and dietary pro-
tein for sustainable broiler production. Castillo et al. (2019) investigated the challenges of
food quality and sustainability in milk and meat production enterprises. Uushona et al. (2022)
reviewed studies on increasing meat quality and production and improving sustainability

13
Comparison of sustainability in livestock supply chain

through nematode suppression and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Salami et al. (2019)
investigated the sustainability of plant nutrition by-products used in animal feed through appli-
cation in meat production. In summary, more late explanations about recent research con-
ducted in the field of sustainability in the production of livestock products, and it is shown in
Table 1.

2.1 Research gap

Table 2 presents research related to the sustainability of the livestock sector, in which the
measured sustainability criteria (environmental, social, and economic) are stated separately
for each study. Also, the desired livestock product or input is mentioned in each research.
It is also considered that the LCA method or a method other than life cycle assessment is
used for environmental assessment. As can be seen from Table 2, it seems that a study that
evaluates the sustainability of livestock products based on the simultaneous measurement
of sustainability criteria (environmental, economic, and social) has not been done. There-
fore, the current study is innovative because it considers all criteria related to sustainability
at the same time and also compares the status of two livestock products, and can provide a
framework for future studies.

2.2 Problem statement

As shown in Fig. 3, the trend of the share of beef and sheep production in the total livestock
production in Iran is divided into two parts, from 2000 to 2013 and from 2014 to 2020. In
the first period, the share of cattle production compared to the second period is higher. It
seems that this is the result of applying economic policies in such a way that sheep produc-
tion activities are more attractive than cattle production. Now the question arises whether
the continuation of this process can be justified in terms of sustainability or not.
In other words, the problem is if environmental and social criteria, in addition to eco-
nomic criteria, are added to the analysis of production status evaluation in the supply chain
of livestock products, which of the livestock activities produces the main products and the
sub-sector related to cattle and sheep in Pasargad, is of a priority. Because Pasargad is one
of the most significant livestock areas in Fars province and more than 65% of the people in
this city are engaged in such activities.
This study aimed to identify the supply chain of various livestock products and provide
a framework for comparing and evaluating the sustainability of the supply chain of these
products and some techniques for its improvement. Further, the context for creating social
welfare in the form of creating employment and increasing production for the city should
be provided by strategic solutions and policies while helping to develop the supply chain
of the city’s livestock products so that it would be possible to use the legal capacities and
potentials of the livestock sector optimally and with the highest capacity in the supply of
production, trade, and supply chain.

3 Methods

The research area of this study was Pasargad in Iran. Pasargad is located between two moun-
tain ranges of Zagros mountains and is one of the cold regions of Fars province, the center of
which is Saadatshahr. The height of this city from the surface of open waters is approximately

13
 Table 1  Objectives, software, limitations, and results related to studies in the field of sustainability in livestock production
Authors Objectives and software Results and limitations

13
Roux et al. Proposing a framework supporting empirical analyses of livestock supply Despite having limitations (From 2013 onwards, some data such as feeds are
chains not published by FAO, and Data on fodder products have not been published
by FAO) in this research, they concluded that livestock production puts
pressure on the ecosystem
Uwizye et al. The sustainability assessment of nitrogen and phosphorus use by using R proposing three indicators of the sustainability of livestock supply chains
software including life-cycle-NUE, life-cycle-NNB, and NHI
Jiang et al. Calculating the degree of vertical integration of the livestock industry Livestock environmental regulations can increase the vertical integration of
chain under the constraints of livestock environmental regulations during the livestock industry chain
2008–2019 Livestock environmental regulations contribute to a 48.45% increase in capital
intensity
Tsakiridis et Estimating the emission of greenhouse gas for two aquatic and livestock Aquaculture has less environmental impact than livestock products
products
Alary et al. Giving an overview of sets of indicators to assess grazing livestock systems Proposing a multi-scale indicators framework to address the sustainability of
in drylands livestock systems
Akash et al. Reviewing the studies about the relationship between the sustainability of Food security affects the level of sustainability through factors
livestock products and food security
Acosta et al. Designing the livestock vaccine supply chain Logistics and distribution are the most important in vaccine supply chain
management
Quintero-Herrera et al. Investigating the environmental and economic impacts of the dairy industry Conflicting results were obtained between environmental and cost indicators
by using SimaPro software in the fertilizer blend
Hübel & Schaltegger Applying of pro-environmental behavior model of barriers for meat produc- The meat industry has multiple barriers to a sustainable transformation of
ers meat production. The limitation of this research was that results cannot be
applied to all countries and all industries
Hotzel & Vandresen Investigating various aspects (historical, social, and economic) of meat There is a need of accelerating changes in policies and meat production
production and consumption systems
Ponnampalam & Holman Investigating sustainable animal products and meat processing Paying special attention to increasing feed efficiency in to crease the sustain-
ability of meat production
Henchon et al. Reviewing the studies about the sustainability and ethical aspects of meat Ethical and sustainable aspects of meat production are important issues
production among academic researchers, and policymakers, and require optimization
across a far more complex landscape of production, environmental and
social justice outcomes
S. Houshyar et al.
 Table 1  (continued)
Authors Objectives and software Results and limitations

Sievert et al. Reviewing the literature on policy and political challenges of meat reduction A food systems-wide approach to meat reduction is necessary. A holistic
in Australia approach requires a multiplicity of policy and regulatory actions
Maharjan et Investigating energy management in meat production and dietary protein for Providing fully technical indicators in the field of broiler production
sustainable broiler production
Castillo et al. investigating the challenges of food quality And sustainability in milk and Being able to use animals adapted to the environment and plant resources of
meat production each area increases the economic efficiency of the system
Uushona et al. Reviewed studies on increasing meat quality and production and improving Generally, supplementing invasive Australian Acacias (IAA) leaf meals and
sustainability through nematode suppression and reduced greenhouse gas grain ruminant diets reduced bloat, nitrogen, and methane emissions to the
emission environment
Salami et al. Investigated the sustainability of plant nutrition by-products (PBP) used in In different countries, familiarization with the concepts of the environmental
animal feed through application in meat production impacts of different human-inedible feed resources concerning specific
feeding conditions should be done
Comparison of sustainability in livestock supply chain

13
 Table 2  The position of the present research about sustainable livestock supply chain

13
Authors Environmental aspect Economic Social aspect Livestock
aspect
LCA Others Meat Dairy Vaccine Holistic

Beef Sheep Holistic Milk Holistic

Roux et al. ✓ ✓
Uwizye et al. ✓ ✓
Jiang et al. ✓ ✓
Tsakiridis et ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Alary et al. ✓ ✓ ✓
Akash et al. ✓ ✓ ✓
Acosta et al. ✓ ✓
Quintero-Herrera et al. ✓ ✓ ✓
Hübel and Schaltegger ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Hotzel and Vandresen ✓ ✓ ✓
Ponnampalam and Holman ✓ ✓ ✓
Henchon et al. ✓ ✓
Sievert et al. ✓ ✓
Maharjan et ✓ ✓
Castillo et al. ✓ ✓
Uushona et al. ✓ ✓
Salami et al. ✓ ✓
Nijdam and Westhoek ✓ ✓ ✓
Current Research ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
S. Houshyar et al.
Comparison of sustainability in livestock supply chain

35
33 Cale Sheep
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15

Fig. 3  Share of cattle and sheep production in total livestock production in Iran

1700 m. Economic valuation helps executives, social and economic managers, and planners
in planning the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources by recounting the quan-
titative value of ecosystem functions, goods, and services. An economic valuation is a tool
for determining the actual value of these resources in the decision-making process in envi-
ronmental management, resulting in good governance. The evaluation of the environmental
non-market functions and services for many reasons, such as the recognition and understand-
ing of environmental and ecological benefits by humans, presenting the country’s environ-
mental issues to decision-makers and planners, providing a relationship between economic
policies and natural incomes, the role of measurement and the significance of environmental
resources is essential in supporting human well-being and sustainable development, adjusting
the national set of calculations such as GDP and preventing the degradation and inappropriate
use of natural resources (Lipton et al., 1995).

3.1 Criteria for the evaluation of supply chain sustainability

There are many criteria and indicators for the evaluation of supply chain sustainability. As
shown in Fig. 4, the three significant indicators for sustainability evaluation include social
evaluation, Environmental evaluation, and Economic evaluation.

3.2 Social evaluation

Corporate social responsibility is a set of activities to advance specific social development

goals to a broad range of affected stakeholders across the supply chain, in contrast to sim-
ply meeting the financial goals of shareholders (Harjoto, 2011). As a normative position
within CSR, firms should voluntarily engage in economic and social integration, the devel-
opment of civic responsibility both economically and socially, and environmental issues
in their activities and behavior with stakeholders (e.g., employees, customers, suppliers,
local authorities, organizations, NGOs, and environment). On the other hand, the concept
of CSR is a comprehensive and multilateral view of performance that is a complex eco-
nomic and financial concept (Hirigoyen & Thierry, 2015). Environmental performance is
one of the most significant social responsibilities of companies. Based on previous studies,

13
 S. Houshyar et al.

Social evaluation

Supply chain
sustainability
evaluation
Environmental evaluation Economic evaluation

Fig. 4  Criteria of supply chain sustainability evaluation

the main indicator which is currently regarded in assessing the social status of the produc-
tion process of a product is the amount of employment required in the production of that
product. The most significant criteria for social evaluation are decent livelihood, unem-
ployment, and indigenous knowledge that they have been analyzed in this study using the
AHP method.

3.3 Economic evaluation

For the economic evaluation of the production process, indicators include Net Present
Value (NPV), Benefit–Cost Ratio, and payback period (Ramirez Cortes & Katharina May-
rhofer, 2019; Rivers et al., 2015).
The Net Present Value (NPV) is the discounted present value is the difference between
benefits and costs (Eq. 1). This criterion must be positive and the higher its value, the bet-
ter the economic status of the project.
n
∑ Benefitt − Costt
Net Present Value (NPV) = (1)
t=1 (1 + r)t

where r discount rate, t time frame that includes 1 to n.

The Benefit–Cost Ratio is obtained by dividing the present value of benefits by the
present value of costs (Eq. 2). This index shows the profitability of the project, and when it
is greater than one, the plan has economic justification, and the higher the value, the better.
∑n Benefitt
t=1 (1+r)t
Benefit − Cost Ratio = ∑n Costt (2)
t=1 (1+r)t

where r discount rate, t time frame that includes 1 to n.

The payback period is a method commonly used by financial analysts to evaluate the
economics of a project (Eq. 3). This index calculates the time it takes for the benefits of
economic activity to cover all investment costs, and in terms of financial evaluation, the
lower of the value of this index, the more desirable.

13
Comparison of sustainability in livestock supply chain

Cost of Investment
Payback Period =
Average Annual Cash Flow (3)

3.4 Environmental performance evaluation (EPE)

Environmental performance evaluation is a management process and a tool designed for

providing reliable and verifiable information set against internally defined management cri-
teria. An organization with an environmental management system evaluates its environ-
mental performance against the policy, macro-objectives, micro-environmental objectives,
and other environmental performance criteria (Pipatprapa et al., 2016).
EPE helps the organization’s management to evaluate the state of its environmental
performance and the current process of collecting and evaluating data. EPE refers to the
information for conducting an ongoing performance evaluation over time. On the contrary,
environmental audits are conducted periodically to verify compliance with defined require-
ments. The tools which can be used by the manager to provide additional information for
the EPE include environmental reviews and life cycle assessments (LCAs). When the EPE
focuses on the explanation of the environmental performance of the organization, LCA is
a technique for evaluating the environmental aspects and potential consequences related
to products and service systems (Chithambaranathan et al., 2015). Life cycle assessment
(LCA) has been recognized as a powerful method for the environmental assessment of
livestock products in different studies (Chithambaranathan et al., 2015). LCA is specifi-
cally useful as an organizational tool to support decision-making.
LCA is defined as the development and evaluation of the input, output, and environmen-
tal effects of a production system over the life of that cycle. In other words, LCA quanti-
tatively evaluates controllable and verifiable process models, analyzes technology options,
and enhances the complex understanding of the production chain (FAO, 2020).
LCA includes three phases which are (ISO14040: 2006):

• Definition of goals and scope in the study: It includes appropriate criteria, such as
greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption, production of hazardous materials, or
the amount of generated waste.
• Product life cycle interventions: It refers to the collection of data on inputs and prod-
ucts as well as their environmental effects.
• Effect evaluation performance: The use of factors in analysis considered by common
emission groups as a standard criterion, such as global warming according to the equiv-
alent of carbon monoxide emissions.

3.5 Analytic hierarchy process (AHP)

The significance coefficient of economic, social, and environmental criteria can be calcu-
lated using the AHP method. Because in this analysis we need to calculate an index based
on which to calculate weights for social priorities, the index we can use is AHP. In deci-
sion-making where selecting an approach among the available approaches or prioritizing of
approaches is raised, decision-making methods with MADM indicators have been consid-
ered in recent years. Meanwhile, the AHP has been used more than other methods in man-
agement science. This method was introduced by Saaty in the 1970s. The AHP method is
based on three analysis principles, pairwise comparison, summarization, and prioritization

13
 S. Houshyar et al.

of options. Based on the decomposition principle, a complex problem is divided into sub-
branches by considering various criteria to solve the problem, and thus, the structure of the
decision tree is formed.
Decision-making is a process that includes priorities, and the degree of significance,
and the AHP is a theoretical methodology for doing so. In the AHP, when the elements are
compared pairwise, and a pairwise comparison matrix is formed, the relative weight of the
elements is calculated using this matrix (Pipatprapa et al., 2016).

3.6 Calculation of supply chain sustainability index

When the significance coefficient of each of the sustainability criteria (economic, social,
and environmental) was estimated, and the supply chain status of each of the examined
products was calculated, the supply chain sustainability index was calculated using Eq. 4:
3
∑
SI = IMPj × Cj (4)
j=1

in which SI supply chain sustainability index of the studied product, IMPj the coefficient of
the significance of the jth criterion in the sustainability of the supply chain of the studied
product, Cj the evaluation score of the jth criterion in the sustainability of the supply chain
of the studied product.

4 Results

4.1 An economic evaluation of light and heavy livestock production

To evaluate and compare the economic production of light and heavy livestock in Pasar-
gad, the cost, and revenues from each production were extracted and calculated after com-
pleting the questionnaires from the producers of the two sectors. Descriptive statistics on
the cost and revenues of light livestock production (sheep breeding) are shown in Tables 3
and 4, respectively.
As shown in Table 3, forage costs account for the maximum share of light livestock
production costs. Livestock sales have the maximum share of light livestock income, as
displayed in Table 4.
Table 5 shows the results of calculating the economic evaluation criteria. Accordingly,
the income of light livestock production is 538,540,000 Rials higher than the costs. The
Benefit–Cost Ratio is 1.3, indicating the economic viability of light livestock production
activities. The amount of profit is such that the capital dedicated to this activity is returned
to the investor for 3.8 years.
Descriptive statistics on the cost and revenue of heavy livestock production (cattle
breeding) are shown in Tables 6 and 7, respectively.
As indicated in Table 8, according to the information obtained from completing 25
questionnaires on livestock activities, the average net profit is 4,556,080,000 Rials. The
benefit–cost Ratio is 1.4, and the average return on investment period is 4.2 years. The
average number of livestock obtained from 40 questionnaires is 117.

13
Comparison of sustainability in livestock supply chain

Table 3  Status of light livestock Description Value (ten thousand rials)

costs per year
Costs Maximum Minimum Mean

Vet 11,500 1500 6500

Medicine 13,000 4000 8500
Water 4500 600 2550
Electricity 6500 1200 3850
Fuel consumption 8000 2000 500
workforce 80,000 20,000 40,000
Nutrition 320,000 30,000 175,000

Table 4  Status of light livestock Description Value (ten thousand rials)

revenues per year
Revenues Maximum Minimum Mean

Fertilizer 14,000 1000 7500

Wool 2000 80 1040
Livestock 480,000 40,000 260,000

Table 5  The mean indicators Criteria Mean

and criteria calculated in the
economic evaluation of sheep
PV of revenue (ten thousand rials) 217,157
breeding activity
PV of costs (ten thousand rials) 163,303
The net present value (ten thousand rials) 53,854
The benefit–cost ratio 1.3
The payback period (year) 3.8
Number of livestock 270

Table 6  Status of heavy livestock Description Value (ten thousand rials)

costs per year
Costs Maximum Minimum Mean

Vet 2000 1500 10,750

Medicine 25,000 4000 14,500
Vaccine 15,000 2000 8500
Water 2000 600 1300
Electricity 6000 1200 3600
Fuel consumption 20,000 2000 11,000
workforce 250,000 70,000 125,000
Forage 7,840,000 30,000 3,935,000
The cost of the milk truck 150,000 50,000 100,000

13
 S. Houshyar et al.

Table 7  Status of heavy livestock Description Value (ten thousand rials)

incomes per year
Revenues Maximum Minimum Mean

Fertilizer 600,000 45,000 32,250

Milk 8,640,000 540,000 4,590,000
Livestock 800,000 43,000 421,500

In the light livestock sector, the benefit–cost Ratio is 1.3, and in the heavy livestock sec-
tor, the cost–benefit ratio is 1.4, indicating that both projects in Pasargad have economic
justification and can be invested.
Since the sheep breeding period is four months and the cattle breeding period is
12 months, the return on investment period in the light livestock sector is 3.8 and in the
heavy livestock sector is 4.2, and since light livestock production in one economic crite-
rion, and heavy livestock production in the other criterion is preferred, thus it is possible to
economically consider the production situation of both products as desirable and not men-
tion an advantage over each other. Then according to these results, the score of each item
(beef and sheep production) in the economic aspect is 50 percent.

4.2 Environmental evaluation of light livestock feed consumption

Since most of the environmental effects of livestock production are related to the environ-
mental effects of feed supply, the daily feed consumption of a 50 kg fattening sheep (the
average amount of feed per day is 2 kg) was evaluated. Of this amount, 1 kg was dry forage
and 1 kg was concentrate, as given separately in Table 9.
The average amount of water consumed by a 50 kg sheep per day is 4 L, the average
amount of urine is 600 cc, while the amount of fertilizer per day is on average 1 kg and
400 g. In addition, 240 g of food consumed per day turns into meat.
By inserting the data of Table 7 in SIMAPRO software, the environmental effects of
feed consumption and the results obtained are mentioned below. Figure 5 indicates the
chain of environmental effects of converting the amount of feed of light livestock to con-
vert 1 kg of lamb meat. As can be observed, the supply of barley nutrients and calcium
carbonate has the maximum environmental effect.
Figures 6 and 7 display the environmental effects of light animal feed consumption
on human health and ecosystem quality. Barley feed has the maximum effect on human
health and calcium carbonate, mineral supplement, sodium bicarbonate, soybean, wheat

Table 8  Average indicators Criteria Mean

and criteria calculated in the
economic evaluation of cattle
PV of revenue (ten thousand rials) 2,238,176
breeding activity
PV of costs (ten thousand rials) 1,782,568
The net present value (ten thousand rials) 455,608
The benefit–cost ratio 1.4
The payback period (year) 4.2
Number of livestock 117

13
Comparison of sustainability in livestock supply chain

Table 9  The daily feed Dry forage Amount (kg) Concentrate Amount (kg)
consumption of a 50 kg fattening
sheep
Straw 0.5 Bran ‌ 0.1
Alfalfa 0.5 Barley 0.4
Soybean meal 0.1
Sodium Bicarbonate 0.05
Corn 0.15
Salt ‌ 0.05
Vitamins and minerals 0.1
Calcium carbonate 0.05

Fig. 5  Chain of environmental effects for converting feed components required to one kilogram of meat of
light livestock

Fig. 6  Environmental effects of light livestock feed on human health and ecosystem quality

13
 S. Houshyar et al.

Fig. 7  Environmental effects of light livestock feed supply from the market on human health and ecosystem
quality

straw, alfalfa, corn, and salt have the maximum effect on the quality of the ecosystem,
respectively.

4.3 Environmental evaluation of heavy animal feed consumption

For the environmental evaluation of heavy livestock, the daily feed consumption of a
500 kg fattening cow in a full day was regarded, as an average of 17 kg of feed per day, of
which 8 kg was dry forage, and 9 kg was a concentrate. The amounts of heavy livestock
feed components are given in Table 10.
The average amount of water consumed by a 500 kg cow in a full day is 50 L, the
amount of urine is 40 L on average, and the amount of fertilizer on average is 15 kg per day
and an average of 1 kg of the feed consumption per day turns into the meat. By entering the
data of Table 10 in SIMAPRO software, the environmental effects of heavy livestock feed
were calculated, as reported below.
Figure 8 displays the conversion chain of the amount of feed for a heavy animal to con-
vert to one kilogram of meat and the amount of feed required in the form of fodder and
concentrate.
Figures 9 and 10 display the environmental effects of heavy livestock feed on human
health and ecosystem quality, in the human health sector barley, feed has the maximum

Table 10  Daily feed consumption Dry forage Amount (kg) Concentrate Amount (kg)
of a 500 kg fattening cow
Straw 3 Bran‌ 2
Alfalfa 2 Barley 4
Corn silage 3 Soybean meal 0.5
Sodium Bicarbonate 0.09
Corn 2
Salt‌ 0.1
Supplements, vita- 0.2
mins, and minerals
Calcium carbonate 0.11

13
Comparison of sustainability in livestock supply chain

Fig. 8  Process of converting the amount of feed required to convert one kilogram of meat of heavy livestock

Fig. 9  Environmental effects of heavy livestock feed on human health and ecosystem quality

Fig. 10  Environmental effects of heavy livestock feed supply from the market on human health and ecosys-
tem quality

effect on human health, and in the quality ecosystem feed quality of barley, sweet corn,
alfalfa, protein, wheat, calcium carbonate, mineral supplement, sodium bicarbonate, and
salt, have the maximum effect on ecosystem quality, respectively.

13
 S. Houshyar et al.

Fig. 11  Comparison of environmental effects of light and heavy livestock production

4.4 Comparison of environmental effects of two meat products in light and heavy

livestock

Based on Fig. 11, the comparison of the environmental effects of light livestock in com-
parison with heavy livestock on human health and ecosystem quality indicates that in the
human health sector, heavy livestock has more environmental effects than light livestock
on human health. The ecosystem quality section reveals that heavy livestock has a more
significant environmental effect than light livestock on the quality of the ecosystem and the
overall result of the figure shows that heavy livestock has more environmental effects than
light livestock. Then according to these results, scores of beef and sheep production envi-
ronmental aspects are 30.7% for sheep and 69.3% for beef.

4.5 Social evaluation results

To socially evaluate the AHP method, ten questionnaires were completed by livestock
experts in Pasargad in 2021 and the following results were achieved. First, significant
criteria for social evaluation were identified and determined by reviewing different stud-
ies, and then, their pairwise comparison was reviewed and prioritized in the form of a
questionnaire.
Table 11 indicates the results of estimating the prioritization coefficients of the social
evaluation criteria of livestock products. Based on the obtained results, in the social evalu-
ation section, the criterion of decent livelihood and labor wage is more essential than other
social criteria, and each farmer is more critical in the first stage of his livelihood than the
number of the labor force, indigenous knowledge, and social status.
After that, the production of light and heavy livestock was prioritized based on the cri-
teria mentioned above in the social evaluation. As can be observed in Table 12, the social

Table 11  Priority of social Criterion Percentage of

evaluation criteria of the supply significance
chain of livestock products
Decent livelihood and laborers’ wage 66.4
Number of labor used and reduction of unemployment 11.4
Social status 10.5
Indigenous and skill knowledge 11.9

13
Comparison of sustainability in livestock supply chain

Table 12  Social evaluation of light livestock production and heavy livestock production
Criterion Light livestock Heavy livestock

Decent livelihood and labors rights 42.7 56.3

Number of labor and reduction of unemployment 68.1 31.9
Social status 11.1 88.9
Indigenous and skill knowledge 80.3 19.7
Final result 47.4 52.6

evaluation of heavy livestock production is 52.6% and the social evaluation of light live-
stock production is 47.4%, which means that heavy livestock production is more socially
significant than light livestock. Then according to these results, scores of beef and sheep
production in social aspects are 47.4% for sheep and 52.6% for beef.
Comparison and evaluation of supply chain sustainability of light and heavy livestock
products. In order not to have the same significance coefficients for economic, social, and
environmental evaluations, based on the AHP method (expert opinions), the coefficients of
the significance of these three criteria in evaluating the sustainability of the supply chain of
light, and heavy livestock products were estimated, as shown in Table 13.
Based on the achieved results, the economic evaluation criteria played a role at 72%,
environmental evaluation at 6.7%, and social evaluation at 21.3% in the sustainability of
the supply chain of livestock products.
After considering the economic, social, and environmental criteria, and estimated coef-
ficients, based on Eq. 1, the sustainability index of the light livestock supply chain was
measured at 0.51, and the sustainability index of the heavy livestock supply chain was cal-
culated at 0.49. In other words, sheep production has a more stable income than beef pro-
duction in Pasargad City, and that is in a better position by considering profitability, envi-
ronmental, and social criteria.

5 Conclusion

Livestock production and the sustainability of its production process play a key role in food
security, value-added, job creation, and the growth of relevant industries. But how to assess
the sustainability of the products’ supply chain? Decreasing the environmental impact
of livestock is a major lever to reduce agriculture’s impact on ecosystems and livestock
induced about two-thirds of agriculture’s pressure on ecosystems (Roux et al., 2022).
Most studies, such as Ramanathan (2005) to measure product supply chain sustaina-
bility, use ranking criteria and alternatives. Some other studies such as Moran and Blair
(2021) and Thompson and Nardone 1999) have explained the economic, environmental,
and social effects of livestock production and investigated Sustainable livestock systems.
However, the present study introduces a hybrid index of economic, environmental, and
social criteria, develops a framework, and based on which, calculated and compared the
sustainability of different product supply chains. Referring to extant studies, the contribu-
tion of this paper is mainly reflected in two aspects. (1) This paper expands the studies on
assessing the sustainability of livestock production. (2) This study enriches the literature on
sustainability in the livestock industry chain and compares products in the livestock supply
chain.

13
 S. Houshyar et al.

Table 13  Results of evaluation of supply chain sustainability of livestock products

Criterion Significance coefficient of each of Light livestock Heavy livestock supply
the supply chain sustainability crite- supply chain sus- chain sustainability index
ria (percentage) tainability index

Economic evalu- 0.72 0.500 0.500

ation
Social evaluation 0.213 0.474 0.526
Environmental 0.067 0.693 0.307
evaluation
Overall result 0.51 0.49

The findings have some implications for other similar regions or countries to develop
their sustainability in the livestock industry. In fact, in this paper, a framework was pre-
sented based on which the sustainability of agricultural products, including livestock prod-
ucts, can be evaluated in different regions.
The results of calculating and comparing the economic situation of light and heavy live-
stock in Pasargad indicated that in the light livestock sector, the economic evaluation crite-
rion is the benefit–cost ratio is 1.3, and for the heavy livestock sector the benefit–cost ratio
is 1.4, and both plans are economically justified and can be invested. Since the sheep breed-
ing period is four months, the cattle breeding period is 12 months, the return on investment
period in the light livestock sector is 3.8 and the return is 4.2 in the heavy livestock sector
and light livestock production in one economic criterion, and heavy livestock production in
another criterion is preferred.
Thus, the production situation of both products can be considered economically favora-
ble and no advantage should be mentioned over each other. It should be noted that the eco-
nomic justification for having an activity highly depends on the location of the activity, the
climate of the region, and the studied year. Because in similar studies, including Mirjalili
et al. (2019), the results of evaluating the profitability of light livestock breeding in Yazd
province indicated that the continuation of activities in this area is not financially justified.
In evaluating and comparing the environmental impacts in the production chain of the two
products, using the life cycle assessment approach by using the SIMAPRO software, the
results indicated that heavy livestock has more environmental effects on human health and
ecosystem quality than light livestock. These results are consistent with many studies such
as Tsakiridis et al. (2020), and Nijdam et al. (2012).
As a result, beef production has more environmental effects than lamb meat produc-
tion. According to the calculation of sustainability indicators that consider three aspects
of sustainability criteria, the sheep meet supply chain in Pasargad is in a more sustainable
status than the beef meat supply chain in this city. Based on the obtained results, the most
significant factor in the sustainability of the supply chain of livestock products is the eco-
nomic status of the production process and their processing. Therefore, the implementation
of policies that lead to cost reduction or policies that provide higher revenue opportunities
for farmers can result in a sustainable increase in the product supply chain. Furthermore,
since the criterion of livelihood and revenue has the maximum share in increasing social
status, providing more profit improves sustainability in terms of improving social status.
The results obtained regarding the comparison of sustainability criteria in light and heavy
livestock are also shown graphically in Fig. 12.

13
Comparison of sustainability in livestock supply chain

The animal husbandry industry is directly related to human nutrition, and any sudden
changes to it will have inappropriate social consequences. It seems that this industry will
face limitations in the coming years. The development of modern industrial units, increas-
ing the role of government policy-making in the livestock supply chain, direct monitoring
of the performance of animal husbandry units, and advertising to reduce meat consump-
tion, are suggested to the planners as practical solutions.

5.1 Limitations

In terms of time limitation, data collection was only possible for one period of time. There
was no data from previous years that could analyze the stability of the studied products in
a time series. Also, due to budget limitations, it was not possible to compare more products
in a wider geographical area.

5.2 Recommendations for future research

• Using the framework specified in this research to determine the sustainability status of
other livestock products, especially dairy and meat processing products.
• Investigating and calculating the coefficient related to the social dimension through
other MCDM methods such as ANP or VIKOR.
• Determining the contribution of factors affecting sustainability in the form of a multi-
variate statistical model
• Comparison of the sustainability status of other agricultural products with livestock
products

Environmental: Economic: Social:

LCA Approach Benefit-cost AHP Method
ratio Method

Fig. 12  Comparing the beef and sheep supply chains in the environmental, economic, and social aspects

13
 S. Houshyar et al.

Data availability The data sets that were analyzed in this research are available from the corresponding
author upon request which is reasonable.

Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest about any aspect of the present
research.

References
Abbasi, S., & Ahmadi Ghokolaei, H. (2023). A systematic review of green supply chain network design
literature focusing on carbon policy. Decision Analytics Journal, 6, 100189. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
dajour.​2023.​100189
Abbasi, S., Amoozad Khalili, H., Daneshmand-Mehr, M., & Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M. (2022a). Performance
measurement of the sustainable supply chain during the COVID-19 pandemic: A real-life case study.
Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2478/​fcds-​2022-​0018
Abbasi, S., Daneshmand-Mehr, M., & Ghane Kanafi, A. (2021). The sustainable supply chain of ­CO2 emis-
sions during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Journal of Industrial Engineering Inter-
national, 17(4), 83–108.
Abbasi, S., Daneshmand-Mehr, M., & Ghane Kanafi, A. (2022b). Designing a sustainable recovery net-
work of end-of-life products during the COVID-19 pandemic: A real and applied case study. Discrete
Dynamics in Nature and Society, 6967088, 1–21. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2022/​69670​88
Abbasi, S., Daneshmand-Mehr, M., & Ghane Kanafi, A. (2023). Green closed-loop supply chain network
design during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic: A case study in the iranian automotive industry.
Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 28, 69–103.
Abbasi, S., & Erdebilli, B. (2023). Green closed-loop supply chain networks’ response to various carbon
policies during COVID-19. Sustainability, 15, 3677. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su150​43677
Acosta, D., Hendrickx, S., & McKune, S. (2019). The livestock vaccine supply chain: Why it matters and
how it can help eradicate peste des petites Ruminants, based on findings in Karamoja, Uganda. Vac-
cine, 37, 6285–6290. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​vacci​ne.​2019.​09.​011
Ageron, B., Gunasekaran, A., & Spalanzani, A. (2012). Sustainable supply management: An empirical
study. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 168–182.
Akash, Hoque, M., Mondal, S., & Adusumilli, S. (2022). Sustainable livestock production and food security.
In S. Mondal & R. L. Singh (Eds.), Emerging issues in climate smart livestock production (pp. 71–90).
Academic Press. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​B978-0-​12-​822265-​2.​00011-9
Alary, V., Lasseur, J., Frija, A., & Gautier, D. (2022). Assessing the sustainability of livestock socio-ecosys-
tems in the drylands through a set of indicators. Agricultural Systems, 198, 103389. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​agsy.​2022.​103389
Altiok, T., & Ranjan, R. (1995). Multi-stage, pull-type production/inventory systems. IIE Transactions,
27(2), 190–200. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​07408​17950​89367​31
Bastas, A., & Liyanage, K. (2018). Sustainable supply chain quality management: A systematic review.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 181, 726–744. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2018.​01.​110
Behmand, D., & Alipour, Kh. (2019). Evaluating the role of animal husbandry in the development of rural
economy from the perspective of villagers in Sardasht. In 4th international congress on agricultural
development, natural resources, environment and tourism of Iran, Tabriz. https://​civil​ica.​com/​doc/​
972428 (in Persian)
Bhaskar, V., & Lallement, P. (2009). Modeling a supply chain using a network of queues. Applied Math-
ematical Modelling, 34(8), 2074–2088.
Billen, G., Aguilera, E., Einarsson, R., Garnier, J., Gingrich, S., Grizzetti, B., Lassaletta, L., Le Noë, J., &
Sanz-Cobena, A. (2021). Reshaping the European agro-food system and closing its nitrogen cycle: The
potential of combining dietary change, agroecology, and circularity. One Earth, 4(6), 839–850. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​oneear.​2021.​05.​008
Camm, J. D., Chorman, T. E., Dull, F. A., Evans, J. R., Sweeney, D. J., & Wegryn, G. W. (1997). Blending
OR/MS, judgment, and GIS: Restructuring P&G’s supply chain. Interfaces, 27(1), 128–142. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1287/​inte.​27.1.​128
Castillo, C., Abuelo, A., & Hernández, J. (2019). Ruminant (bovine, caprine, and ovine) milk and meat
production: The challenge of food quality and sustainability through the use of plant extracts.

13
Comparison of sustainability in livestock supply chain

Encyclopedia of Food Security and Sustainability, 2, 25–42. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​B978-0-​08-​

100596-​5.​22187-2
Chithambaranathan, P., Subramanian, N., Gunasekaran, A., & Palaniappan, P. K. (2015). Service supply
chain environmental performance evaluation using grey-based hybrid MCDM approach. International
Journal of Production Economics, 166(3), 163–176.
Chizari, A. H., & Fehresti-Sani, M. (2018). Evaluation of the economic efficiency of vegetable oil supply
chains. Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, 19(2), 132–141.
Cohen, M. A., & Lee, H. L. (1989). Resource deployment analysis of global manufacturing and distribution
networks. Journal of Manufacturing and Operations Management, 2, 81–104.
FAO (Ed.). (2009). Livestock in the balance. FAO (The State of Food and Agriculture, 2009). Available at:
https://​www.​fao.​org/3/​i0680e/​i0680e.​pdf
FAO. (2020). Environmental performance of feed additives in livestock supply chains. Guidelines for assess-
ment. FAO. Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance Partnership (FAO LEAP).
Galloway, J. N., Aber, J. D., Erisman, J. W., Sritzinger, S. P., Howarth, R. W., Cowling, E. B., & Cosby, B.
J. (2003). The nitrogen cascade. BioScience, 53(4), 341–356. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1641/​0006-​3568(2003)​
053[0341:​TNC]2.​0.​CO;2
Gerber, P. J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A., & Tempio, G. (2013).
Tackling climate change through livestock: A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
Godfray, H. C. J., Aveyard, P., Garnett, T., Hall, J. W., Key, T. J., Lorimer, J., Pierrehumbert, R. T., Scarbor-
ough, P., Springmann, M., & Jebb, S. A. (2018). Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science,
361(6399), eaam5324. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1126/​scien​ce.​aam53​24
Godfray, H. C. J., & Garnett, T. (2014). Food security and sustainable intensification. Philosophical Transac-
tions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1639), 20120273.
Harjoto, M. A. (2011). Corporate governance and CSR nexus. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(1), 45–67.
Henchion, M. M., De Backer, C. J. S., Hudders, L., & O’Reilly, S. (2022). Ethical and sustainable aspects of
meat production; Consumer perceptions and system credibility. In P. Purslow (Ed.), New aspects of meat
quality (2nd ed.). Woodhead Publishing. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​B978-0-​323-​85879-3.​00001-5
Herrero, M., Henderson, B., Havlík, P., Thornton, P. K., Conant, R. T., Smith, P., Wirsenius, S., Hristov, A. N.,
Gerber, P., Gill, M., & Butterbach-Bahl, K. (2016). Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock
sector. Nature Clinical Practice Endocrinology & Metabolism, 6(5), 452–461. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​
nclim​ate29​25
Herrero, M., Wirsenius, S., Henderson, B., Rigolot, C., Thornton, P., Havlik, P., de Boer, I., & Gerber, P. G.
(2015). Livestock and the environment: What have we learned in the past decade? Annual Review of Envi-
ronment and Resources, 40(1), 177–202. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1146/​annur​ev-​envir​on-​031113-​093503
Hirigoyen, G., & Thierry, P. R. (2015). Relationships between corporate social responsibility and financial per-
formance: What is the causality? Journal of Business & Management, 4(1), 18–43.
Hotze, M. J., & Vandresen, B. (2022). Brazilians’ attitudes to meat consumption and production: Present and
future challenges to the sustainability of the meat industry. Meat Science, 192, 108893. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​meats​ci.​2022.​108893
Hübel, C., & Schaltegger, S. (2022). Barriers to a sustainability transformation of meat production practices:
An industry actor perspective. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 29, 128–140. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​spc.​2021.​10.​004
Iran Statistical Yearbooks. (2020). Available at: Statistical Centre of Iran > Iran Statistical Yearbook > Iran
Statistical Yearbook 2019–2020 (www.​amar.​org.​ir)
Jeyran, A., & Jolayie, R. (2005). Investigation of comparative advantage and support indicators of meat. Agri-
cultural Economics and Development, 13(49), 167–185. (in Persian).
Jiang, G., Hu, H., & Wang, Y. (2023). How do livestock environmental regulations promote the vertical inte-
gration of the livestock industry chain? Evidence from Chinese-listed livestock enterprises. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 413, 137508. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2023.​137508
Krausmann, F., Fischer-Kowalski, M., & Eisenmenger, N. (2008). The global sociometabolic transition past and
present metabolic profiles and their future trajectories. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 12(5/6), 637–656.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1530-​9290.​2008.​00065.x
Lipton D. W., Wellman K., Sheifer I. C., & Weiher R. F. (1995). Economic valuation of natural resources: A
handbook for coastal resource policymakers, NOAA COASTAL OCEAN PROGRAM Decision Analysis
Series No. 5. NOAA Coastal Ocean Office, Silver Spring MD. 131.
Maharjan, P., Martinez, D. A., Weil, J., Suesuttajit, N., Umberson, C., Mullenix, G., Hilton, K. M., Beitia, A., &
Coon, C. N. (2021). Review: Physiological growth trend of current meat broilers and dietary protein and
energy management approaches for sustainable broiler production. Animal, 15, 100284. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​animal.​2021.​100284

13
 S. Houshyar et al.

Mirjalili, A. B., Heidari, Gh., Baghestani Meybodi, N., & Rastegar, Sh. (2019). Investigating the income and
cost of traditional livestock in dry and desert rangelands of Yazd province, a Case study of Nodoshan
rangelands. Iranian Journal of Rangeland and Desert Research, 1(6), 89–102. (in Persian).
Moran, D., & Blair, K. J. (2021). Review: Sustainable livestock systems: anticipating demand-side challenges.
Animal, 15(1), 100288. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​animal.​2021.​100288
Morgane, M., & Fritz, C. (2022). A supply chain view of sustainability management. Cleaner Production Let-
ters, 3, 100023. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​clpl.​2022.​100023
Najafi, P., Fehresti-Sani, M., Neshat, A., Nazari, M. R., & Gholamazad, M. (2021). Measuring the overall effi-
ciency of the sugar supply chain in Iran. Journal of Agriculture Science Technology, 23(4), 783–796.
Newhart, D., Stott, K. L., & Vasko, F. J. (1993). Consolidating production sizes to minimize inventory levels
for multistage production and distribution systems. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 44(7),
637–644. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1057/​jors.​1993.​113
Nijdam, D., Rood, T., & Westhoek, H. (2012). The price of protein: A review of land use and carbon foot-
prints from life cycle assessments of animal food products and their substitutes. Food Policy, 37, 760–770.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​FOODP​OL.​2012.​08.​002
Pipatprapa, A., Huang, H. H., & Huang, C. H. (2016). A novel environmental performance evaluation of Thai-
land’s food industry using structural equation modeling and fuzzy analytic hierarchy techniques. Sustain-
ability, 8(3), 246. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su803​0246
Ponnampalam, E. N., & Holman, B. W. B. (2023). Sustainability II: Sustainable animal production and meat
processing. Lawrie’s Meat Science. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​B978-0-​323-​85408-5.​00001-7
Quintero-Herrera, S., Zwolinski, P., Evrard, D., Cano-Gómez, J. J., Botello-Álvarez, J. E., & Rivas-García, P.
(2022). The role of livestock feed fertilization as an improvement of sustainability in the dairy sector. Sus-
tainable Production and Consumption, 31, 448–458. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​spc.​2022.​03.​014
Rajeev, A., Pati, R. K., Sidhartha, S., & Padhi, K. G. (2017). Evolution of sustainability in supply chain manage-
ment: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 299–314. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​
2017.​05.​026
Ramanathan, U. (2005). Aligning Supply Chain Collaboration Using Analytic Hierarchy Process. risk analy-
ses in a multi-criteria decision-making framework for the evaluation of hydropower maintenance projects.
Power Tech, IEEE Russia (pp. 1–7).
Ramirez Cortes, F., & Katharina Mayrhofer, D. (2019). Cost–Benefit Analysis, Global Program for Safer
Schools. World Bank Project. Available at: CBA Technical Note_IPF.pdf (www.​world​bank.​org)
Rivers, G., Foo, J., Ilic, D., Nicklen, P., Reeves, S., Walsh, K., & Maloney, S. (2015). The economic value of
an investment in physiotherapy education: A net present value analysis. Journal of Physiotherapy, 61(3),
148–154. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jphys.​2015.​05.​015
Roux, N., Kaufmann, L., Bhan, M., Le Noe, J., Matej, S., Laroche, P., Kastner, T., Bondeau, A., Haberl, H., &
Erb, K. (2022). Embodied HANPP of feed and animal products: Tracing pressure on ecosystem, along
trilateral livestock supply chains 1986–2013. Science of the Total Environment, 851, 158198. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2022.​158198
Salami, S. A., Luciano, G., O’Grady, M. N., Biondi, L., Newbold, C. J., Kerry, J. P., & Priolo, A. (2019). Sus-
tainability of feeding plant by-products: A review of the implications for ruminant meat production. Ani-
mal Feed Science and Technology, 251, 37–55. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​anife​edsci.​2019.​02.​006
Sergio Brandao, M., & Godinho-Filho, M. (2022). Is a multiple supply chain management perspective a new
way to manage global supply chains toward sustainability? Journal of Cleaner Production, 375, 134046.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2022.​134046
Sievert, K., Chen, V., Voisin, R., Johnson, H., Parker, C., Lawrence, M., & Baker, P. (2022). Meat production
and consumption for a healthy and sustainable Australian food system: Policy options and political dimen-
sions. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 33, 674–685. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​spc.​2022.​08.​007
Steinfeld, H., Mooney, H. A., Schneider, F., & Neville, L. E. (2013). Livestock in a changing landscape. Driv-
ers, consequences, and responses (Vol. 1). Island Press.
Sun, Y., Ding, J., Liu, Z., & Wang, J. (2023). Combined forecasting tool for renewable energy management in
sustainable supply chains. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 179, 109237. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
cie.​2023.​109237
Thompson, P. B., & Nardone, A. (1999). Sustainable livestock production: methodological and ethical chal-
lenges. Livestock Production Science, 61(2–3), 111–119. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0301-​6226(99)​00061-5
Tsakiridis, A., O’Donoghue, C., Hynes, S., & Kilcline, K. (2020). A comparison of environmental and eco-
nomic sustainability across seafood and livestock product value chains. Marine Policy, 117, 103968.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​marpol.​2020.​103968
Uushona, T., Chikwanha, O. C., Katiyatiya, C. L. F., Tayengwa, T., Strydom, P. E., & Mapiye, C. (2022).
Ruminant meat production and quality enhancement, nematode suppression and greenhouse gas emission

13
Comparison of sustainability in livestock supply chain

mitigation: A sustainable paradigm for the valorization of Acacia leaves. Animal Feed Science and Tech-
nology, 284, 115187. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​anife​edsci.​2021.​115187
Uwizeye, A., Gerber, P. J., Schulte, R. P. O., & de Boer, I. J. M. (2016). A comprehensive framework to assess
the sustainability of nutrient use in global livestock supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 129,
647–658. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2016.​03.​108
Van Zanten, H. H. E., Herrero, M., Van Hal, O., Röös, E., Muller, A., Garnett, T., Gerber, P. J., Schader, C., &
De Boer, I. J. M. (2018). Defining a land boundary for sustainable livestock consumption. Global Change
Biology, 24(9), 4185–4194. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​gcb.​14321
Wang, J., Zhu, L., Feng, L., & Feng, J. (2023). A meta-analysis of sustainable supply chain management and
firm performance: Some new findings on sustainable supply chain management. Sustainable Production
and Consumption, 38, 312–330. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​spc.​2023.​04.​015

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) 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.

Authors and Affiliations

Sasan Houshyar1 · Masoud Fehresti‑Sani1 · Ahmad Fatahi Ardakani1 ·

Morteza Bitaraf Sani2 · Mathew Cotton3

* Masoud Fehresti‑Sani
mfehresti@ardakan.ac.ir
Sasan Houshyar
sasanhushyar@gmail.com
Ahmad Fatahi Ardakani
fatahi@ardakan.ac.ir
Morteza Bitaraf Sani
mbetaraf58@gmai.com
Mathew Cotton
M.Cotton@tees.ac.uk
1
Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agriculture & Natural Resources, Ardakan
University, P.O. Box 184, Ardakn City, Iran
2
Animal Science Research Department, Yazd Agricultural and Natural Resources Research
and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO),
Yazd, Iran
3
Public Policy, School of Social Sciences, Humanities and Law, Teesside University,
Middlesbrough, UK

13