To understand the demographic profile of our study participants, we analyzed their age, gender, education level and primary occupation. The 108.901 eligible individuals, 442 participants, were used in this study. The proportion of testing was higher in the interval d≤ 37 years (48.9%), while it was lower in individuals aged 38-55 years (29.2%), 56-72 years (10.9%) and 2% older than 74 years (and in individuals aged <15 years). Men (58.9%) were higher compared to 41.1% of women in the total sample. The results of this nationwide farmer questionnaire study indicate that the proportion of males in the total sample is 58.9%, especially among younger individuals aged d£37 years in Saudi Arabia. This is due to the demand of this category for livestock farming, which requires a type of work that deals with raising animals and selling them in the markets and therefore they are best able to meet the requirements of this profession. Table 1 shows that the majority of the participants 34.2% of the respondents have a secondary education, 23.5% have a university education, 19.0% had their education in an elementary stage and 13.8% can neither read nor write. Only 0.9% of the sample had higher education. Furthermore, livestock farming is the main occupation for 61.3% of the study participants and represents the largest group of study participants. 13.8% have other occupations, while 12.0% work full-time in the public sector in addition to livestock farming, 8.8% are retired, and only 4.1% are employees in the private sector. The variables for educational background and occupation indicate that livestock farmers have a high level of education and awareness. Our results are in contrast to the findings of study by
Kasima (2019), which found that most pastoralists are illiterate and poor. This may be due to some factors such as regional differences, socio-economic changes and government policy development that may have affected the level of education and knowledge of livestock farmers. However, a small percentage of those who cannot read and write belong to the previous generation and those who have been in the livestock sector for many years and this is consistent with our findings for the different age groups and genders. According to our data, this decrease in education level leads them to be less interested in and aware of the livestock feeding system and the safety of the feed they use for their livestock, as found in the study by
Kasima (2019).
To understand the economic impact of livestock farming, we analyzed the monthly income of our study participants. Fig 1 shows the distribution of participants according to the variable of monthly income from livestock. The analysis of monthly income revealed that a significant proportion of participants (62.4%) earned less than 5000 Saudi riyals per month from livestock farming. This finding highlights the economic challenges faced by many pastoralists in the region. Despite the low income, a substantial number of participants (83.0%) identified livestock rearing as their main source of income. This indicates that livestock farming plays an important role in rural livelihoods, even though it is not necessarily highly profitable. The low income can be attributed to several factors, including high input costs, low market prices and limited access to credit and technology. To improve the economic viability of livestock production, these challenges need to be addressed and strategies implemented to increase farmers’ income. This could mean promoting the adoption of improved feeding and breeding practices, facilitating access to markets and providing financial support to farmers. Our findings are consistent with previous studies, such as
Subrahmanyeswari and Mahesh (2008), which have highlighted the importance of livestock rearing in rural households. In addition, the results showed that the main objective of livestock breeding has a positive impact on improving the sustainable livelihoods of rural families and increasing income and food security
(Young et al., 2014). However, it is important to note that the specific economic context and challenges faced by livestock farmers may vary across different regions and countries.
To understand the spatial distribution of livestock farming practices, we analyzed the geographical location of the study participants’ livestock (Table 2). We find that the majority of the study sample (16.1%) were located in Riyadh region, 14.9% of their geographical area was Makkah region, 12.7% of their livestock were in Asir region, 10.0% had their livestock in Jazan region and 9.7% of the total study had their cattle in Al-Madinah region. The geographical distribution of livestock farming practices revealed that a significant proportion of participants (59.5%) raised their livestock in the Badia. This trend can be attributed to several factors, including the availability of extensive grazing lands, traditional nomadic practices and government policies that have historically favored pastoralism. In addition, 25.1% of the total study sample raises livestock in pens outside the cities, 13.6% raises livestock on farms and 1.8% raises livestock in sheds near the location of sheep marketing. It is clear that livestock raising exists in all regions of the Kingdom, but in varying proportions. The Riyadh region constitutes the highest percentage for being the capital of the Kingdom and the most populous. As well as the region of Makkah and Madinah and this is due to the consideration of these areas within the scope of the holy sites, Hajj and Umrah, to meet the ritual sacrifice and expiations. The Badia were the majority of locations for raising livestock due to the ease of movement and grazing and the distance from urban sprawl. This is consistent with what
Henein et al., (2021) reported: 28% of livestock breeders do not own agricultural land to raise their livestock and animals are raised in the Badia.
Table 3 represents the distribution of the study sample according to the type of livestock owned by the farmers. The majority of the farmers (82.2%) own sheep and 63.3% of them own goats, while camels (21.1%) come in third place in terms of live-stock breeding in the kingdom. However, 6.6% of the total samples, their livestock were cows, which was the last rank in the livestock raising. However, the analysis of livestock ownership revealed that sheep and goats were the most commonly owned livestock species, accounting for 82.2% and 63.3% of the total sample, respectively. This trend can be attributed to several factors, including the cultural significance of sheep and goat meat, their adaptability to arid conditions and their role in providing milk and other products. These results agreed with what
Henein et al., (2021) found, as he indicated that the vast majority (93% of farmers’ holdings were sheep and goats).
Table 4 shows the distribution of the study sample s according to the variable of purpose of livestock raising; 38.0% of purpose is for trading and increasing the source of income and they were the majority of the study sample members. Of 26.2% of the purpose was a hobby and not for a commercial purpose, 14.9% for meat production, 11.2% for other commercial purposes, 6.8% of samples were interested in raising livestock for fattening and only 2.7% of them raise their livestock because of milk production. Through the results shown in Table 5, which show the years of experience in raising livestock, it is clear that the majority of the study samples (41.0%) represent their years of experience of 12 years and less, followed by the 39.8% having experiences from 13-31 years, the 6.6% were from 32-51 years and only 2.0% have experience in raising livestock for more than 52 years. From the results, it is clear that 38.0% of the total study participants mainly depend on livestock breeding as a main source of income. In addition, they have a long experience and a close association with livestock.
Table 6 shows the distribution of the study participants according to type of feeding systems, green fodder, grain and concentrate materials variable. The current study shows that the majority of the study sample members represent (32.4%) of the total samples who consider the approved feeding system for livestock, including barley and green fodder and 27.4% followed for their livestock, which was compound feed and green fodder. However, 20.1% of them and their livestock depend equally for their food on grazing and purchasing green fodder and concentrate feeds only. It means that most farmers used green fodder and barley rather than other system feeding. According to the type of forage that was used for the feeding system, the majority (34.6%) of the sample fed their livestock on green Alfalfa, 15.6% of farmers used green Alfalfa and 5.9% of the total samples used Chloris gayana. It was found that there were varying small percentages of the study sample that use other forage, including Sudanese grass, Panicum, sorghum and Pelobionic. According to the type of grain, our results indicated that 87.1% of the total studied sample preferred barley to feeding their animals and 10.3% of them used more than one type of grain by their livestock. In addition, only 1.5% used oats to feed livestock and 1.1% of the sample used diet wheat for feeding. The results showed that the main sources of green fodder and barley were traditional feeding methods, consistent with what
Al-Mutairi et_al(2023) said that feeding livestock is mostly traditional. Additionally, our results found that most of the participants in the experiment used barley (87.1%); which aligns with
Salama et al., (2019), who noted that farmers prefer feeding on cereals directly without making any processing.
Table 7 show the distribution of the studied sample according to the concentrate type, which was used for feeding livestock. The majority of farmers (86.9%) did not prefer using concentrate rations for feeding their animals. On the other hand, 5.9% of the total study samples liked to use concentrates (yellow corn) in their own feeding systems; 3.4% of the total samples used more than one type of concentrate in feeding livestock; 3.2% of them used soybeans as a type of concentrate; and only 0.6% of people used cotton seeds for animal diets. The finding indicates that a significant portion of the study participant, specifically 54.1%, do not prefer to use mixed feed for their livestock and this group represents the largest category within the study. On the other hand, 45.9% of them answered the questionnaire with using mixed feeding (yes), meaning that they mix feed to feed livestock. Regarding premix using a feed additive, which includes vitamins and mineral salts, the 57.1% of the total study sample members responded with answering (yes), while we find that 42.9% of sample respondents responded with answering (no), that is, they did not use feed additives. The results revealed that most of the participants did not prefer to use concentrated feed, likely due to several factors. key among is the high prices of raw feed materials, which reduces the financial return from feeding livestock, as observation made by Lukuyu
et al. (2011).
The results of overlay analysis distribution of the study participants according to period’s, willingness and health problems are summarized in Table 8. According to the using periods of concentrate diet, it was clear that the majority of the study sample (16.7%) started using compound feed (more than 7 years ago), followed by 16.1% of the study sample (1-2 years) and then 8.4% of the sample started using compound feed since 3-4 years old. While 6.3% of the studied sample started using compound feed 5-7 years ago. This is consistent with what
Rasyid et al., (2018) stated that livestock breeders often have limited knowledge of compound feeds, this lack of understanding is largely due to the failure to adopt modern technologies in livestock, including the use of compound feeds. The results also showed that there was 52.5% of the sample that didn’t use a concentrate diet for feeding livestock. Regarding the attitudes and willingness of the study participants to use the concentrated diet. We found that the majority of the study sample members, representing 65.7% of the total study sample, responded with (yes) about the special statement being the desire to continue using a concentrated diet, while we found that 34.2% of the total study sample responded with (no), meaning that they did not want to continue using the concentrated diet for their animals. The farmers have concerns about the welfare aspect of their flocks when using the concentrated diet. However, the results indicate that the majority (62.9%) of the total study sample didn’t notice health or other problems in their livestock by using the concentrate feed and 37.1% of the total study sample noticed health problems when using the concentrate diet. This is consistent with
Blanco et al., (2015), who stated that compound feeds do not cause health problems when used in fattening lambs. The main health problem that farmers faced was the mixed health problems (50.6%) in the first place and other problems including abscesses (7.9%), diarrhea (4.3%), thinness (8.5%), hair loss (2.4%) and reproduction problems such as abortion (2.4%), followed by productivity problems such as changes in meat- color (13.4%) and low milk production (1.2%) as in Table 9. It agrees with what
Alhidary et al., (2017) mentioned: feeding lambs on compound rations may cause the dark color of the rumen tissues. In contrast,
Zhong et al., (2020) reported compound diets improved the quality of milk in the dairy cows by increasing the proportion of milk protein and decreasing the proportion of milk fat.
