Special Issue:

Advancements in Animal Health and Production in Low and Middle-Income Countries

Sustainable Livestock Farming: Strategies for Environmental Conservation

Dalal Arif Salman1*, Raghda Shihab Ahmed2, Hussein Basim Furaijl3, Marwah Sami Kzar4, Mohammed Ahmed Mustafa5, Zainab Sadeq Yousif6, Hanan Shihab Ahmad7, Haider Abbas Kareem8

1Department of Medical Laboratory Techniques, College of Health and Medical Techniques, Al-Bayan University; 2Department of Medical Physics and Radiotherapy, Technical Engineering College, Sawa University, Al-Muthanna, Iraq; 3College of Pharmacy, University of Al-Ameed, Karbala, Iraq; 4College of Pharmacy Al-Farahidi University, Baghdad, Iraq; 5Department of Biology, College of Education, University of Samarra, Iraq; 6Mazaya University College, Iraq; 7Al-Dour Technical Institute, Northern Technical University, Iraq; 8Department of Biology, Al-Turath University, Baghdad, Iraq.

Received | June 14, 2025; Accepted | July 28, 2025; Published | August 07, 2025

*Correspondence | Dalal arif Salman, Department of Medical Laboratory Techniques, College of Health and Medical Techniques, Al-Bayan University; Email: [email protected]

Citation | Salman DA, Ahmed RS, Furaijl HB, Kzar MS, Mustafa MA, Yousif ZS, Ahmad HS, Kareem HA (2025). Sustainable livestock farming: Strategies for environmental conservation. J. Anim. Health Prod. 13(s1): 56-64.

DOI | https://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.jahp/2024/13.s1.56.64

ISSN (Online) | 2308-2801

Copyright: 2025 by the authors. Licensee ResearchersLinks Ltd, England, UK.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

INTRODUCTION

The implementation of sustainable livestock farming is increasingly recognized as a critical strategy to address global food shortages while minimizing ecological damage (Adesogan et al., 2020; Hsu et al., 2024; Govindarajan et al., 2023). As global demand for animal products like meat and milk rises, the livestock industry faces mounting pressure due to its environmental footprint including deforestation, carbon emissions, soil degradation, and inefficient water use (Alonso et al., 2020; Kadham et al., 2023; Karupusamy et al., 2023). To align productivity with environmental stewardship, sustainable livestock farming integrates productive agricultural practices with environmental management strategies (Saadh et al., 2024; Al-Saadi and Shwan, 2024; Ahmad et al., 2019). This approach aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, preserve biodiversity, and optimize resource use through advanced techniques, innovative technologies, and supportive government policies (Bachev, 2016; Alhaqmuhamad et al., 2019; Zangana et al., 2022).

Among sustainable practices, rotational grazing stands out as one of the most effective livestock management strategies. Unlike traditional continuous grazing, rotational grazing uses systematic movement patterns to allow pastures time for recovery, thereby improving soil quality, increasing pasture yields, and preventing overgrazing (Basso and Antle, 2020; Noman and Ahmad, 2023; Ahmad and Noman, 2023). This method significantly enhances soil organic carbon levels, reduces erosion, and fosters biodiversity among microorganisms, plants, and wildlife (Bordonal et al., 2018; Ahmad et al., 2024; Ahmad, 2023). Another important approach is agroforestry, which integrates trees and shrubs into animal farming systems. Agroforestry enhances carbon sequestration, protects habitats, and improves water retention, creating a resilient farming ecosystem capable of withstanding climate change impacts (Celi et al., 2017; Laylani et al., 2024; Ahmad, 2025).

Precision livestock farming (PLF) is another forward-looking method that applies advanced technology, including sensors, artificial intelligence, and automation, to optimize resource management and animal welfare (El-Bilali and Allahyari, 2018; Mohamad et al., 2025; Ramadhan et al., 2025). With real-time monitoring of livestock health, feeding behavior, and waste patterns, PLF enables farmers to reduce feed loss, detect diseases early, and lower methane emissions by fine-tuning feeding strategies (Evode et al., 2021; Saadoon et al., 2025; Saed et al., 2024). This technology-driven approach offers a path toward more efficient, lower-impact livestock systems (Gamage et al., 2023; Abdulateef et al., 2024; Abed et al., 2024).

Sustainable feeding systems also play a critical role in minimizing environmental harm caused by livestock production. Conventional feed production contributes to deforestation, land overexploitation, and methane emissions from rumen digestion (Gerber et al., 2015; Thabet and Alsalame, 2024; Alsalame and Laylani, 2024; Alani and Kawan, 2024). By integrating agricultural by-products, plant-based feeds, and insect proteins, farmers can reduce their reliance on traditional feed sources, cut methane emissions, and help close agricultural nutrient cycles (Gil et al., 2019; Abdulnabi et al., 2024; Al-Salame, 2020).

In addition to production practices, effective waste management is essential for achieving sustainable livestock systems. Livestock manure is a major source of methane and nitrous oxide emissions, two potent greenhouse gases (Herrero et al., 2015; Al-Salame, 2019; Al-Aameli et al., 2019). Anaerobic digestion systems convert manure into biogas for renewable energy and nutrient-rich compost, helping farms lower emissions, enhance soil quality, and reduce water pollution risks (Karnatam et al., 2023; Ahmad et al., 2019; Alhaqmuhamad et al., 2019).

Finally, government incentives and policy frameworks play a central role in advancing sustainable livestock production (Mahmud et al., 2021; Zangana et al., 2022; Noman and Ahmad, 2023). Policies that provide financial support for green innovations, research grants, tax benefits, or mandates for emission reductions and biodiversity conservation are essential to encourage widespread adoption of sustainable practices (Michalk et al., 2019; Ahmad and Noman, 2023; Ahmad et al., 2024). Public awareness campaigns and farmer education programs further help bridge knowledge gaps and drive the large-scale transformation of livestock systems toward environmental and economic sustainability (Muller et al., 2017; Ahmad, 2023; Laylani et al., 2024).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present research adopts a secondary data analysis strategy, bringing together evidence from peer-reviewed publications, government documents, industry literature, and case studies to analyze sustainable livestock farming approaches. Data sources comprise environmental impact scientific literature, reports from institutions like FAO and UNEP, and actual case studies on conservation methods. The research employs systematic literature review, comparative evaluation of sustainability approaches, policy and economic analysis, and technological influence analysis to measure greenhouse gas emissions, water savings, biodiversity, soil quality, and new technologies such as precision livestock farming and anaerobic digestion (Rockström et al., 2017). Relevance, credibility, and recent developments over the past two decades are ensured by the selection criteria. Ethical practice emphasizes correct citation, interpretational transparency, and observance of academic integrity as well as principles of fair use.

 

Study design

The study uses the secondary data analysis method, using a thorough review of the available literature, case studies, and reports to assess sustainable livestock farming practices. The study integrates results from peer-reviewed articles, government policy documents, industry reports, and environmental studies to determine the efficacy of different environmental conservation methods in livestock farming.

Data sources and selection criteria

The research mainly depends on secondary data from authentic sources, such as:

Scientific literature

Journal articles and research studies published in peer-reviewed journals that describe sustainable livestock production techniques, impacts on the environment, and new technology.

Government and institutional reports

Reports of environmental departments, agricultural ministries, and international institutions like the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Industry publications and case studies

Statistics from sustainable farming programs, livestock reports, and actual case studies of successful conservation practice application.

Selection criteria for studies reviewed here are relevance to sustainable livestock farming, credibility of source, and publication in the past two decades to ensure current information.

Data collection and analysis

Previous research: Systematic review was undertaken to understand the most effective sustainable livestock farming strategies such as rotational grazing, agroforestry, precision livestock farming, sustainable feeding methods, and waste management practices.

Comparative analysis

Various sustainability approaches were compared in terms of environmental metrics like greenhouse gas emissions, water conservation efficiency, biodiversity improvement, and improvement in soil health.

Policy and economic assessment

Government incentives, policy frameworks, and economic feasibility of sustainable livestock farming were evaluated based on secondary data from policy reports and economic analyses.

Technological impact evaluation

The potential of new technologies, such as precision livestock farming and anaerobic digestion, was assessed by examining empirical studies on their efficiency in minimizing environmental footprint.

Ethical considerations

Since the research is completely based on secondary data, ethical considerations involve proper referencing of all sources and data interpretation transparency. The study maintains academic honesty practices and uphold fair use principles in reviewing and analyzing already published items.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Incorporating sustainable livestock farming practices drastically minimizes environmental degradation while sustaining economic profitability (Salami et al., 2019). With respect to traditional practices, rotational grazing, precision livestock farming, and anaerobic digestion decrease greenhouse gas emissions, of which anaerobic digestion has the greatest reduction on methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide emissions. Soil health can benefit from agroforestry and rotational grazing through improved organic carbon levels, reduced soil erosion, and benefitting microbial activity (Schader et al., 2015). Alternative sustainable feeds, such as agricultural residues or plant-based feed, can also mitigate methane, with plant-based feed showing the greatest potential. The implementation of effective management practices protects water resources through agroforestry together with precision livestock farming which decreases livestock water requirements. Through biogas production from anaerobic digestion farmers gain improved abilities to manage livestock manure effectively. The adoption of environmentally friendly livestock practices receives support through public policies and enablers together with economic incentives that include tax credits and grants and subsidies. The enduring sustainability of livestock farming practice can best succeed through approaches which unite technological progress with natural environmental practices while receiving support from enabling policies.

Environmental impact of sustainable livestock farming

The comparison between conventional and sustainable livestock practices regarding greenhouse gas emissions appears in Table 1. Scientists demonstrate that sustainable farming practices including rotational grazing along with precision livestock farming and anaerobic digestion effectively decrease methane and carbon dioxide emissions.

 

Table 1: Greenhouse gas emissions in conventional vs. sustainable livestock farming (kg CO2-equivalent per animal per year).

Farming system	Methane (CH4)	Carbon dioxide (CO2)	Nitrous oxide (N2O)
Conventional	120	400	30
Rotational grazing	80	250	20
Precision livestock	70	200	15
Anaerobic digestion	50	180	10

 

Table 1 shows sustainable livestock production methods lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions significantly compared to conventional production systems since conventional methods produce 120 kg CH₄, 400 kg CO₂ and 30 kg N₂O per animal yearly. Whereas rotational grazing and precision livestock farming reduce these emissions gradually, with anaerobic digestion being the most effective solution, cutting emissions of methane by 50 kg CH₄, carbon dioxide by 180 kg CO₂, and nitrous oxide by 10 kg N₂O. These findings highlight the scope of sustainable processes in reducing global warming by quite substantially reducing livestock farming’s carbon footprint.

Impact of agroforestry and rotational grazing on soil health

The incorporation of agroforestry in livestock production increases soil fertility, decreases erosion, and enhances biodiversity. Table 2 displays soil health indicators in agroforestry and rotational grazing farms versus traditional livestock farms.

The information in Table 2 illustrates the beneficial effect of agroforestry and rotational grazing on soil quality over traditional livestock farming. Traditional farming records the lowest organic carbon in the soil (1.5%), the highest rate of soil erosion (12 tons/ha), and the lowest microbial biomass (200 mg C/kg soil), reflecting poor soil condition. In contrast, agroforestry demonstrated the greatest organic carbon content (3.0%), the lowest soil erosion (5 tons/ha), and the most microbial biomass (400 mg C/kg soil), which illustrated improved soil fertility and biodiversity. Rotational grazing was also supporting good soil health (2.8% organic carbon, erosion at 6 tons/ha, and microbial biomass at 380 mg C/kg soil). These results suggest that both agroforestry and rotational grazing enhance soil structure, reduce degradation, and foster microbial activity; both practices are considered sustainable alternatives to conventional livestock operations.

 

Table 2: Soil health indicators under different livestock farming methods.

Farming system	Organic carbon (%)	Soil erosion (tons/ha)	Microbial biomass (mg C/kg soil)
Conventional	1.5	12	200
Agroforestry	3.0	5	400
Rotational grazing	2.8	6	380

 

Efficiency of sustainable feed practices in reducing environmental impact

Sustainable feed sources such as farm by-products and crop-based feed, resulted in lower methane emissions and less land used. Figure 2 illustrates the comparison of methane emission from various feed sources.

 

Figure 2 data emphasizes the considerable decrease in methane emissions obtained by sustainable feed approaches. Traditional feed has the highest emissions (100 kg CH₄/animal/year), while by-products lower methane production by 25% (75 kg CH₄/animal/year), and plant-fed livestock has the greatest reduction at 40% (60 kg CH₄/animal/year). These results highlight that the transition to alternative feed sources, especially plant-based diets, can substantially reduce the environmental impact of livestock production by reducing methane emissions, thus complementing climate change mitigation strategies.

Economic and policy impact on sustainable livestock adoption

The government policies and incentives play an important role in encouraging sustainable livestock production. Table 3 gives a comparative view of policies for sustainable practices in various countries.

Table 3: Government incentives for sustainable livestock farming in selected countries.

Country	Policy framework	Key incentives
USA	Climate smart agriculture initiative	Tax credits, research grants
EU	Common agricultural policy (CAP)	Subsidies for eco-friendly farming
India	National livestock mission	Financial aid for sustainable practices

The statistics in Table 3 highlight the pivotal role of government policies and economic incentives in promoting the uptake of sustainable livestock production. Nations such as the USA, the EU, and India have had specific programs, including tax credits, research grants, and subsidies, to promote environmentally friendly farming. These incentives reduce the economic costs for farmers, making sustainable practices more viable and appealing. Consequently, areas with strong policy support are likely to have higher rates of adoption of environmentally friendly livestock farming, further emphasizing the role of government intervention in encouraging sustainable agriculture.

Water usage efficiency in sustainable livestock farming

Sustainable livestock farming systems greatly minimize water use relative to the conventional system. Table 4 indicates the mean water use per animal in various systems.

 

Table 4: Water consumption in different livestock farming systems (liters per animal per day).

Farming system	Cattle	Sheep	Poultry
Conventional	80	10	5
Rotational grazing	60	8	4
Precision livestock	55	7	3.5
Agroforestry	50	6.5	3

 

The information in Table 4 indicates that sustainable livestock production practices, especially agroforestry and precision livestock systems, use significantly less water than traditional production. Cattle in agroforestry need 50 liters per day, a 37.5% decrease from traditional systems, while sheep and poultry also show large decreases in water use. Precision livestock farming then maximizes water efficiency, proving that technology and ecological integration can maximize sustainability in animal husbandry.

 

Figure 3 supports these results by graphically illustrating the decrease in water usage gained from sustainable approaches. The significant decline in water demand in all categories of livestock indicates the significance of embracing resource-saving techniques to minimize the environmental burden of livestock production while guaranteeing long-term water preservation.

Manure management and biogas production efficiency

Anaerobic digestion not only minimizes methane emissions but also produces biogas as a renewable energy. Table 5 shows the biogas production from various sources of livestock manure.

 

Table 5: Biogas yield from different manure sources.

Livestock type	Biogas yield (m³/ton of manure)
Cattle	60
Sheep	45
Poultry	35
Mixed livestock	50

 

Table 5 data shows that cattle dung has the maximum biogas production at 60 m³ per ton, which is the most effective livestock dung source for biogas. Sheep and poultry dung produce 45 m³ and 35 m³ per ton, respectively, and mixed livestock dung produces 50 m³ per ton. These results indicate that cattle manure is a very promising material for producing renewable energy, and the efficiency of biogas production can be increased through optimizing manure management practices.

 

Figure 4 graphically displays the biogas yield differences between various sources of livestock manure. The large disparity in biogas production highlights the potential of cattle manure as a major driver of sustainable energy solutions. Promotion of anaerobic digestion in livestock farms has the potential to mitigate methane emissions while offering an alternative source of renewable energy.

The results emphasize the effective implementation of sustainable livestock farming practices minimizes environmental deterioration without compromising profitability (Stevens et al., 2018). Some benefits comprise large declines in greenhouse gases emitted via anaerobic digestion and rotational grazing, enhanced soil condition through agroforestry, and lower emissions of methane by using sustainable alternative feeds such as agricultural waste products and vegetation feedstuffs. Sustainable agricultural practices will advance water conservation practices, and manure management by anaerobic digestion for the production of renewable energy through biogas production (Van Huis and Oonionex, 2017). Financial incentives and sound policies also promote widespread adoption of conservation practices. Therefore, sustainability of livestock production in the long term can only occur with the synergism between innovative technologies, policy support, and environmental best practices.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Livestock farming that is sustainable represents a helping path to support reduced environmental impacts and productivity, as well as economic viability, with measures such as rotational grazing, agroforestry, precision livestock production, and anaerobic digestion demonstrating the ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, generate healthier soils, improve water management, and ensure biodiversity. Likewise, sustainable feed practices also mitigate methane emissions, while policy-supported incentive measures ensure widespread adoption and use with environmentally friendly options. Given the benefits to livestock and ranchers, policies should strengthen incentive structures such as subsidies and investment into research funding to attract farmers to sustainable practices. Additionally, the incorporation of new technology and people-powered programs can also enhance efficiency and scale. This calls for an integrated approach of ecological, technology, and policy structure to create a sustainable livestock industry that will last for generations.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Al-Bayan University, as well as the field technicians who helped with the study.

NOVELTY STATEMENT

The novelty of this research comes from an integrated, multi-pronged approach to sustainable livestock production that combines ecological methods, technological innovations, and policy can help catalyze changes within the sector. In comparison to traditional research on sustainability that examines indicators of sustainability in isolation, this research considers the joint outcomes of rotational grazing, agroforestry, precision livestock farming, and anaerobic digestion to illustrate collective progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, soil health improvements, and resource use efficiency increases. Further, it explores the role of alternative feed practices and policy levers in scalable adoption of sustainable practices by farmers. By providing a holistic framework to align productivity, animal welfare, and environmental protection, this research provides an innovative framework for sustainable livestock production practices.

AUTHOR’S CONTRIBUTION

All of the trials were designed by HAK, RSA and HBF. MSK, MAM and ZSY conducted all of the tests, gathered the data, and composed the manuscript draft. HSA helped with the data analysis that was done to prepare the work for submission to the journal. The final draft of the work was reviewed and approved by all authors for publication in the Journal of Animal and Health Production.

Ethical consideration

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

Abdulateef SM, Saed ZJM, Mohammed TT, Mohammed AB (2024). The impact of adding Raphanus sativus seeds to the diet of broiler breeders on egg production and quality, hatchability, and physiological traits. Anbar J. Agric. Sci., 22(2). https://doi.org/10.32649/ajas.2024.185833

Abdulnabi OW, Alsalame HA, Al-baiati MN (2024). Studying of using chitosan-cephalexin nanocomposite to induce ROS and apoptosis in colon cancer cell line HCT-29. Moroccan J. Chem., 12(3): 1270–1280.

Abed SM, Rashid SN, Al-Najar FM, Mustafa MA (2024). Comparative effects of Nd:YAG and diode laser irradiation on Escherichia coli clinical isolates: A molecular analysis. Int. J. Design Nat. Ecodyn., 19(4): 1121–1128. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijdne.190403

Adesogan AT, Havelaar AH, McKune SL, Eilittä M, Dahl GE (2020). Animal source foods: Sustainability problem or malnutrition and sustainability solution? Perspective matters. Glob. Food Secur., 25: 100325. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211912419300525, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.100325

Ahmad HS (2023). Study of the effect of chitosan and nystatin for rabbits treated with Candida krusei yeast on blood parameters, electrolytes and intestinal tissue. J. Pharma. Negative Results, 14(2).

Ahmad HS (2025). The impacts of domperidone and nanoparticals on hormones and tissues of rabbit female reproductive system. Tikrit J. Agric. Sci., 25(1): 122–131. https://doi.org/10.25130/tjas.25.1.10

Ahmad HS, Abdulwahed AS, Kamil MA (2024). Evaluation of serum levels of irisin, tumor necrosis factor and some biochemical variables in males with prostate cancer in Baghdad city. Cell. Mol. Biol., 70(12): 152–156. https://doi.org/10.14715/cmb/2024.70.12.21

Ahmad HS, Hasan AS, Al-Dulaimi FK, Abdulaqder AT (2019). Study of some hematological and biochemical among for employees of Al-Dour technical institute. Biochem. Cell. Arch., 19(1).

Ahmad HS, Noman SJ (2023). Correlation study of hemoglobin and hematocrit levels with BMI, age, and gender and determination of the risk of anemia in adult residents of Iraq. Appl. Nanosci., 13(8): 5357–5364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13204-023-02878-3

Al-Aameli MH, Al-Taee RAM, Alsalame HA (2019). Histological and physiological alterations in the aorta and heart in relation with cholesterol diet in male albino rat. Indian J. Forensic Med. Toxicol., 13: 313–318. https://doi.org/10.5958/0973-9130.2019.00135.X

Alani ZK, Kawan MH (2024). Prevalence and molecular analysis of Toxocara cati in Baghdad Province. J. Adv. Vet. Anim. Res., 11(2): 392. https://doi.org/10.5455/javar.2024.k788

Alhaqmuhamad AA, Abdulrahman MA, Ahmad HS (2019). Effect of nanoparticles on liver functions and antioxidant in female rabbits treated with domperidone. Indian J. Forensic Med. Toxicol., 13(4). https://doi.org/10.5958/0973-9130.2019.00348.7

Alonso ME, González-Montaña JR, Lomillos JM (2020). Consumers’ concerns and perceptions of farm animal welfare. Animals, 10(3): 385. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/10/3/385, https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030385

Al-Saadi AR, Shwan SA (2024). Advances in the management of cardiomyopathies: A comprehensive review. J. Rare Cardiovasc. Dis., 4(8): 185–192.

Alsalame HAAA (2019). Study the effect of Lycium barbarum polysaccharide on bone and thyroid gland in hyperlipidemic healthy male albino rats. Scopus IJPHRD Citation Score, 10(7): 764. https://doi.org/10.5958/0976-5506.2019.01667.X

Alsalame HAAA (2020). Study effects of Nigella sativa seeds oil in some physiological parameters in experimental heart failure induced by ivabradine in male rats. Indian J. Forensic Med. Toxicol., 14(3): 2609–2613. https://doi.org/10.37506/ijfmt.v14i3.10831

Alsalame HAAA, Laylani LS (2024). Evaluating the efficacy of Vernonia amygdalina on physiological parameters in ameliorating hepatic and renal injury in male rats. Tikrit J. Agric. Sci., 24(2): 298–310. https://doi.org/10.25130/tjas.24.2.21

Bachev HI (2016). What is sustainability of farms? J. Econ. Soc. Thought, 3(1): 35-48. https://journals.econsciences.com/index.php/JEST/article/view/617

Basso B, Antle J (2020). Digital agriculture to design sustainable agricultural systems. Nat. Sustain., 3(4): 254-256. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-0510-0. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0510-0

Bordonal RDO, Carvalho JLN, Lal R, De Figueiredo EB, De Oliveira BG, La Scala N (2018). Sustainability of sugarcane production in Brazil. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev., 38: 1-23. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-018-0490-x, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0490-x

Celi P, Cowieson AJ, Fru-Nji F, Steinert RE, Kluenter AM, Verlhac V (2017). Gastrointestinal functionality in animal nutrition and health: new opportunities for sustainable animal production. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 234: 88-100. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377840117306624, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2017.09.012

El-Bilali H, Allahyari MS (2018). Transition towards sustainability in agriculture and food systems: Role of information and communication technologies. Inf. Process. Agric., 5(4): 456-464. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214317318301367, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inpa.2018.06.006

Evode N, Qamar SA, Bilal M, Barceló D, Iqbal HM (2021). Plastic waste and its management strategies for environmental sustainability. Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng., 4: 100142. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666016421000645, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2021.100142

Gamage A, Gangahagedara R, Gamage J, Jayasinghe N, Kodikara N, Suraweera P, Merah O (2023). Role of organic farming for achieving sustainability in agriculture. Farm. Syst., 1(1): 100005. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949911923000059, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.farsys.2023.100005

Gerber PJ, Mottet A, Opio CI, Falcucci A, Teillard F (2015). Environmental impacts of beef production: Review of challenges and perspectives for durability. Meat Sci., 109: 2-12. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174015300139, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.05.013

Gil JDB, Reidsma P, Giller K, Todman L, Whitmore A, Van Ittersum M (2019). Sustainable development goal 2: Improved targets and indicators for agriculture and food security. Ambio, 48(7): 685-698. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-018-1101-4, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1101-4

Govindarajan S, Mustafa MA, Kiyosov S, Duong ND, Raju MN, Gola KK (2023). Retracted: An optimization-based feature extraction and machine learning techniques for named entity identification. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2022.170348

Grossi G, Goglio P, Vitali A, Williams AG (2019). Livestock and climate change: impact of livestock on climate and mitigation strategies. Anim. Front., 9(1): 69-76. https://academic.oup.com/af/article-abstract/9/1/69/5173494, https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfy034

Herrero M, Wirsenius S, Henderson B, Rigolot C, Thornton P, Havlík P, Gerber PJ (2015). Livestock and the environment: What have we learned in the past decade?. Ann. Rev. Environ. Resour., 40(1): 177-202. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-031113-093503

Hsu CY, Mustafa MA, Yadav A, Batoo KM, Kaur M, Hussain S, Nai L (2024). N2 reduction to NH3 on surfaces of Co-Al18P18, Ni-Al21N21, Fe-B24N24, Mn-B27P27, Ti-C60 and Cu-Si72 catalysts. J. Mol. Model., 30(3): 62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00894-024-05862-y

Kadham SM, Mustafa MA, Abbass NK, Karupusamy S (2023). Comparison between fuzzy partial H-transform and fuzzy partial Laplace transform in x-ray image processing of acute interstitial pneumonia. Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manage., pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-023-02001-3

Karnatam KS, Mythri B, Un Nisa W, Sharma H, Meena TK, Rana P, Sandhu S (2023). Silage maize as a potent candidate for sustainable animal husbandry development perspectives and strategies for genetic enhancement. Front. Genet., 14: 1150132. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2023.1150132/full, https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2023.1150132

Karupusamy S, Mustafa MA, Jos BM, Dahiya P, Bhardwaj R, Kanani P, Kumar A (2023). Torque control-based induction motor speed control using anticipating power impulse technique. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-023-10893-5

Koul B, Yakoob M, Shah MP (2022). Agricultural waste management strategies for environmental sustainability. Environ. Res., 206: 112285. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935121015863, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.112285

Laylani LS, Abd-Alwahab WIA, Ahmad HS, Mustafa MA (2024). The effect of carotenoids of Rhodotorula glutinis and probiotic of Lactobacillus acidophilus on physiological and histological variables of the kidney in male rats exposed to ultraviolet radiation. J. Anim. Health Prod., 12(s1): 326–331. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.jahp/2024/12.s1.326.331

Mahmud K, Panday D, Mergoum A, Missaoui A (2021). Nitrogen losses and potential mitigation strategies for a sustainable agroecosystem. Sustainability, 13(4): 2400. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/4/2400, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042400

Michalk DL, Kemp DR, Badgery WB, Wu J, Zhang Y, Thomassin PJ (2019). Sustainability and future food security. A global perspective for livestock production. Land Degrad. Dev., 30(5): 561-573. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ldr.3217, https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3217

Mohamad HS, Salah M, Albassam NH, Mdloul NS, Muhaimeed AR, Sulaiman MA (2025). Using the diverse vegetables as a filtration plants in aquaculture intensive system. Tikrit J. Agric. Sci., 25(1): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.25130/tjas.25.1.1

Muller A, Schader C, El-HageScialabba N, Brüggemann J, Isensee A, Erb KH, Niggli U (2017). Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture. Nat. Commun., 8(1): 1290. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01410-w

Nelson ME, Hamm MW, Hu FB, Abrams SA, Griffin TS (2016). Alignment of healthy dietary patterns and environmental sustainability: A systematic review. Adv. Nutr., 7(6): 1005-1025. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831322007864, https://doi.org/10.3945/an.116.012567

Noman SJ, Ahmad HS (2023). Effects of some fungal secondary metabolite against some cancer cell line. Bangladesh J. Med. Sci., pp. 133–137. https://doi.org/10.3329/bjms.v22i20.66321

Osman AI, Fawzy S, Farghali M, El-Azazy M, Elgarahy AM, Fahim RA, Rooney DW (2022). Biochar for agronomy, animal farming, anaerobic digestion, composting, water treatment, soil remediation, construction, energy storage, and carbon sequestration: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett., 20(4): 2385-2485. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/S10311-022-01424-X

Ramadhan MN, Abdulla AA, Alfaris MA (2025). Evaluation of the performance of developed combined plowing machine under different operation circumstances. Tikrit J. Agric. Sci., 25(1): 17–30. https://doi.org/10.25130/tjas.25.1.2

Rockström J, Williams J, Daily G, Noble A, Matthews N, Gordon L, Smith J (2017). Sustainable intensification of agriculture for human prosperity and global sustainability. Ambio, 46: 4-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0793-6

Röös E, Mie A, Wivstad M, Salomon E, Johansson B, Gunnarsson S, Watson CA (2018). Risks and opportunities of increasing yields in organic farming. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev., 38: 1-21. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-018-0489-3

Saadh MJ, Mustafa MA, Qassem LY, Ghadir GK, Alaraj M, Alubiady MHS, Zwamel AH (2024). Targeting hypoxic and acidic tumor microenvironment by nanoparticles: A review. J. Drug Delivery Sci. Technol., 105660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jddst.2024.105660

Saadoon SM, Khudair A, Fakhri S, Khlaf Z (2025). Effect of polymers and NPK fertilizer on the vegetative and flowering characteristics of Senna surattensis under deficit irrigation. Tikrit J. Agric. Sci., 25(1): 31–43. https://doi.org/10.25130/tjas.25.1.3

Saed ZJ, Hamad OK, Mohammed A, Al-Jumaily TK (2024). Effect of natural zeolite (Nz) on growth performance, immunity parameters and gut histology in broiler chicken. Tikrit J. Agric. Sci., 24(2): 93–101. https://doi.org/10.25130/tjas.24.2.8

Salami SA, Luciano G, O'Grady MN, Biondi L, Newbold CJ, Kerry JP, Priolo A (2019). Sustainability of feeding plant by-products: A review of the implications for ruminant meat production. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 251: 37-55. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377840118301640, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2019.02.006

Schader C, Muller A, Scialabba NEH, Hecht J, Isensee A, Erb KH, Niggli U (2015). Impacts of feeding less food-competing feedstuffs to livestock on global food system sustainability. J. R. Soc. Interface, 12(113): 20150891. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rsif.2015.0891, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2015.0891

Shah F, Wu W (2019). Soil and crop management strategies to ensure higher crop productivity within sustainable environments. Sustainability, 11(5): 1485. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/5/1485

Singh R, Singh GS (2017). Traditional agriculture: A climate-smart approach for sustainable food production. Energy, Ecol. Environ., 2: 296-316. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40974-017-0074-7

Stevens JR, Newton RW, Tlusty M, Little DC (2018). The rise of aquaculture by-products: Increasing food production, value, and sustainability through strategic utilisation. Mar. Policy, 90: 115-124. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X17305328, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.12.027

Thabet ZF, Alsalame HAAA (2024). Evaluation the effectiveness of Nephelium lappaceum (Nl) peel aqueous extract against hepatocellular carcinoma induced by thioacetamide (TAA) in Male Albino Rats. Pure Sciences International Journal of Kerbala, 1(2).

Tullo E, Finzi A, Guarino M (2019). Environmental impact of livestock farming and Precision Livestock Farming as a mitigation strategy. Sci. Total Environ., 650: 2751-2760. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969718338919, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.018

Van Huis A, Oonincx DG (2017). The environmental sustainability of insects as food and feed. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev., 37: 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0452-8

Van Zanten HH, Herrero M, Van Hal O, Röös E, Muller A, Garnett T, De Boer IJ (2018). Defining a land boundary for sustainable livestock consumption. Glob. Change Biol., 24(9): 4185-4194. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/gcb.14321, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14321

Zangana AJM, Ahmad HS, Al-Taii IAI (2022). A therapeutic attempt by water extract of Mentha piperita for amoebic dysentery in vivo and its effect on blood image. AIP Conf. Proc., 2394(1). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0127590