Evaluating profitability of beef cattle farming and its determinants among smallholder beef cattle farmers in the Baljovan District of Khatlon region, Tajikistan.

In Tajikistan, owning beef cattle is an important survival mechanism for smallholder farmers to alleviate poverty. Therefore, beef cattle farming enterprises should indeed strive to maximize profit to excel and flourish in a free economy. Nevertheless, smallholder beef cattle farmers are known for making little profit. Thus, this study was set to evaluate the profitability of beef cattle farming and its determinants to enhance profit maximization among smallholder beef cattle farmers in the Baljovan District of Khatlon region, Tajikistan. A total of 388 farming households were chosen at random and purposive for the study. The cross-sectional data collected using questionnaires was analyzed by using descriptive, gross margin (GM), and ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models. Based on the descriptive analyses, the mean age of beef cattle farmers was 52.73 years, with a household size of 7.07 members. The beef cattle farmers had an average of 18.23 cattle herd size with 8.54 years of farming experience. The average land area possessed by farmers was 10.59 hectares. Among farmers, men (98.2%) dominated beef cattle farming activities. Around 83.8% of farmers had a college grade (higher literacy). Besides, around 89.4% of farmers had access to farm credits. However, only 71.4% of farmers used farm credit points to produce beef cattle. Most of the farmers (89.7%) had access to accurate market information. Such market information enabled 75.8% of farmers to sell their beef cattle to open market (profitable) outlets rather than middlemen. About 89.4% had access to veterinary services. Additionally, about 82.7% of farmers acknowledged the availability of pasture for grazing, which motivated 87.6% of farmers to be involved in selling contracts. Furthermore, economic investigation results revealed that on average, farmers had a gross margin (GM-profit) of 353.77 US$ per cattle, with feed costs (58.6%) and medications costs (26.1%) accounting for the largest share of total variable costs. Meanwhile, the profitability of beef cattle farming among farmers was significantly influenced by education level, family size, farming experience, pasture availability, land size owned, selling contract, feed costs, medications expenses, access to credits, and sales costs (P < 0.05). This study concluded that beef cattle production is a feasible business. However, the potential for increased profitability is significant if existing resources are efficiently coordinated and production expenses, notably feed and healthcare costs, are minimized. Thus, the government should develop additional measures for addressing concerns such as capacity building, suitable and freely available pasture as well as health management, to boost beef cattle profitability among farmers in Tajikistan.

1. Introduction

In Tajikistan, owning beef cattle is an important survival mechanism for smallholder farmers [1, 2]. Beef cattle are kept by families for several purposes, which vary based on their prosperity, environment, and endowment. Beef cattle give numerous advantages to millions of agricultural households in underdeveloped countries, from monetary revenue to food, from dung to draft power in farming, benefiting people’s lives via multiple channels [1]. Beef cattle, in particular, can contribute to prosperity by generating income and in-kind revenue from the sale of cattle and/or the marketing and utilization of mammal foodstuffs including meat and milk [1]. Furthermore, cattle serve as a safety net in the form of liquid assets, and it is commonly regarded also as a form of investment and security attributed to the fact that the sale of cattle offers an immediate cash influx to cope with unanticipated financial instability [3, 4]. Additionally, owning cattle can facilitate access to legal and tacit loans since they can be used as collateral [5, 6].

Tajikistan’s turbulent history has had a negative influence on the agriculture sector’s current situation [2]. Its passage from the Soviet Union to independence had been an arduous one, hampered by a five-year civil conflict that damaged infrastructures and interrupted marketplace links. Deforestation and overgrazing have worsened soil quality and raised the danger (threats) of soil degradation, rock slides, and floods [2]. The threats have arisen as a result of low infrastructure improvements, a lack of suitable laws and policy frameworks for grazing and forest management, and restricted institutional support. This uncertainty has a significant negative impact on the beef cattle industry [2]. However, according to a study published by the Republic of Tajikistan [2], beef cattle stocks have increased to levels greater than in the immediate pre-independence period, and beef cattle husbandry is an operation in which practically almost every poor population participates. Because of the increase in stocks accompanied by the decrease in feed availability, feed per beef cattle has declined considerably, as has beef cattle performance. There are numerous barriers to the advancement of the beef cattle industry, including a lack of human resources, underprivileged pasture governance, poor planning of community beef cattle, an absence of feed during the cold season, environmental devastation, and limited access to healthy forages grains and infrastructural facilities, all of which are exacerbated by climate change [2].

Investment initiatives to address the challenges of improving beef cattle efficiencies will have an important influence on smallholders’ dietary diversity, food security status, revenue, jobs, and livelihood opportunities [7, 8]. Due to the general intense relationship between beef cattle efficiency and relevant use of pastures, a concomitant focus on grazing strategic planning components of beef cattle production is required [8]. The accessibility of wintertime fodder plus early summer pastures, which do not fulfill requirements, are the production constraining variables. Summertime grasses, on the other hand, supplied substantial grazing excess compared to present requirements. As a result, there has been a periodic imbalance between supply and demand [7, 8]. Steadily increasing beef cattle herds in certain areas have put further strain on improperly organized communal grazing. Because the growth period for calves after weaning frequently relies on this grassland and grazing on other peripheral sites, this adds to feeder calves’ poor health and productivity [9]. Despite increasing beef cattle populations, relatively low ownership implies that beef cattle production is still mostly a subsistence operation [9].

Tajikistan produces the majority of its meat from bulls born to mixed-breed cattle with a focus on dairy qualities. There are various particular beef breeds in the nation; however, the majority of beef cattle are native breeds (local breeds) mixed with dual-purpose breeds like Brown Swiss or Brown Carpathian [10].

The Tajik government recognized the need to re-establish grassland and minimize deterioration to increase pasture farmland for sustainable beef cattle production. To achieve such an initiative, the Tajik government imposed the Livestock and Pasture Development Project I & II (LPDP I & II), which was supported by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), from 2015 to 2017 [2]. The initiative addressed around 38,000 farmers in at least 200 settlements throughout five districts of the Khatlon region, all of which have significant poverty rates and the opportunity for improved beef cattle productivity. The project’s key target respondents included: (i) smallholder livestock communities; (ii) commercial veterinarian service providers and micro enterprises with the ability to assist rural families and local farmers; and (iii) women-headed families and impoverished women. The project’s overall purpose was to alleviate poverty in Khatlon Region. Moreover, the explicit purpose was to improve the nutritional status and income of about 38,000 impoverished families by increasing beef cattle output [2].

According to the Republic of Tajikistan’s press release [2], the investments and operations of Livestock and Pasture Development Project I & II (LPDP I & II) were carried out for three main purposes. The first was to realize institutional advancement by strengthening the public sector and civic groups, such as through developing reliable and successful prop-poor grassland monitoring systems. The second was to improve animal health and performance by improving access to veterinary care, which resulted in lower morbidity and improved herd performance. The third purpose was to achieve grassland advancement and expansion for disaster mitigation by improving access to more capable and climate-resilient grassland zones, as well as diverse revenue possibilities for beef cattle societies, through self-sustaining, community-led biodiversity conservation. The major aim was to improve the living standards of beef cattle farmers in selected districts of the Khatlon region and the nation as a whole.

Despite efforts to increase the economic viability of Tajikistan’s beef cattle industry and thereby eradicate poverty, Tajikistan remains a food-insecure state, having 46% of Tajiks living in extreme poverty [11]. Poverty is especially severe in rural parts, where the people are mostly reliant on farming, livestock, and remittances for a living and food supply [11]. This demonstrates the poor economic gains, effectiveness, and modernization level of beef cattle production in Tajikistan, notably in the Khatlon region, where the project was carried out. Additionally, despite 27 years of solid economic progress, Tajikistan is still the poorest and least industrialized nation in Central Asia. The economy is still in its early stage, with a low value-added (including productivity improvement to beef cattle) and a limited export foundation [11].

Profit maximization is one of the primary goals of every business company (beef cattle farming enterprise) for the long performance and sustainability [12, 13]. Profitability is the act of profit-earning abilities, which is a significant aspect of a company’s survival (beef cattle farming business) [12, 13]. Furthermore, profit has a substantial impact on the company’s achievement of other business future such as economic and social development, technology, jobs, and technical advancement [12, 13].

Beef cattle farming enterprises should indeed strive to maximize profit to excel and flourish in a free economy, or they will be forced into bankruptcy for failing to create adequate money [14]. Beef cattle farming enterprises are having difficulty achieving the requisite profit due to increased competitive pressures and inefficiency. As a result, the issue of what variables influence profitability should be a top concern for academicians and researchers, comprising decision-makers, investment companies, debtors, and policymakers dealing with beef cattle farming businesses [13].

The study of the factors of profitability has increased in popularity throughout time in a variety of research fields. Experts in business strategy, economics, and accounting believe that a company’s internal resources have a substantial influence on its profitability [12, 15, 16]. Generally, profitability (performance) is an important measure of the effectiveness of any dividend enterprise (profit-oriented beef cattle farming enterprise). The enterprise (beef cattle farming enterprise) goal (profitability) is achieved as an outcome of the effective utilization of the set of resources (determinants) for the aim of maximizing income to the greatest extent feasible.

There are almost no recorded studies that have examined the profitability of Tajikistan’s beef cattle farming enterprise among smallholder farmers. Therefore, this study was set to assess the economic benefits of beef cattle farming and its determinants among beef cattle farmers in the Baljovan District of Khatlon region, Tajikistan, specifically to (i) analyze the socioeconomic characteristics of beef cattle farmers and (ii) examine the profitability of beef cattle farming and its determinants among smallholder beef cattle farmers. Thus, the purpose of this study was to convey an awareness of how beef cattle farming (business) performs and what it contributes to the economy of the smallholder beef cattle farmer in Tajikistan for poverty reduction.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Ethical considerations

All ethical issues were addressed appropriately during the information-gathering procedures. The Jilin Agricultural University Graduate Research Ethics Committee in China originally authorized this research. The Ministry of Agriculture then authorized it for the order id (RP.2021/89/25). Thereafter, initially, the respondents’ consent was acquired orally, and then the accurate information in the consent letter was conveyed to all targeted respondents. Before their involvement in the case, the respondents were invited to fill out and execute the documents as verification of their agreement to engage in the survey. The consent was then authorized by the Zone Executive Officer (ZEO). All respondents were assured that they had the option to withdraw from the event at any stage.

2.2. Description of the study area

The study was conducted in the Baljovan District of the Khatlon Region. The region and its district were selected for this study because Tajikistan implemented Livestock and Pasture Development Project I & II (LPDP I &II). Khatlon region, particularly the selected district has a potential for increased beef cattle productivity, with a high poverty level. The Khatlon region is located in the southwest of the country, with a population of 2.64 million people, or approximately one-third of the country’s total population.

2.3. Sampling procedures and sample size

Purposive and randomized sampling was used to select participants at different phases, with a sample size of 388 beef cattle farmers generated by a multistage stage sampling technique. In the first stage, the Khatlon Region zone was purposively selected from five major beef cattle-producing regions in Tajikistan. In the second stage, Baljovan District was purposively selected from five districts of the Khatlon Region covered by Livestock and Pasture Development Project I & II (LPDP I &II). The selected district has great potential beef cattle-producing areas. In the third stage, five villages (strata) (Baljyvon, Tojikiston, Sayf Rahim, Safar Amirshoev, and Sari Hosor), were randomly selected. Finally, the number of respondents (sample size) selected from each village (stratum) was determined by utilizing the percentage proportion (see Table 1). This study applied Slovin’s formula [17] to the targeted (N = 12,761) beef cattle farmers to determine a randomly selected sample size of 388 representative beef cattle farmers. The Slovin’s formula [17] as applied by Kibona and Yuejie [18] is mathematically expressed as; Whereby N is the targeted population size, n is a sample size, and e is the error tolerance level or is the level of precision provided by Yamane [19] to determine the required sample size at a 95% confidence level and 90% level of precision.

Table 1

Distribution of the sample size.

District	Villages	Population	Percentage Proportion	Sample
Baljovan	Baljyvon	2,571	20.15	78
	Tojikiston	2,540	19.90	77
	Sayf Rahim	2,555	20.02	78
	SafarAmirshoev	2,560	20.06	78
	Sari Hosor	2,535	19.87	77
Total		12,761	100	388

2.4. Techniques for data collection

The structured questionnaire and interview approaches were used to gather cross-sectional primary data from smallholder beef cattle farmers. The structured questionnaires and interviews collected data on (i) socioeconomic characteristics of smallholder beef cattle farmers; (ii) expenses of beef cattle production (variable costs) and revenue; (iii) beef cattle ownership status (including breed types and breeding methods); (iv) sales of beef cattle (marketing); distinctively, the market outlets (the distribution channels), the number of beef cattle sold, the selling price, and the contract selling; and (v) availability of pasture and coping strategies during severe outbreaks of cattle diseases and shortage of pasture.

2.5. Theoretical framework

The theory of Resource Based Views (RBV) provided the framework for this study. According to Barney [12] and Wernerfelt [20], the RBV theory is a concept that considers resources to be critical to a better company (better beef cattle farming enterprise) performance (profitability). The resources allow the business (beef cattle farming business) to achieve and maintain a competitive edge. To be useful, resources ought to be beneficial, unique, and pricey to imitate (costly), as well as better controlled.

Beneficial: As per Wernerfelt [20], resources are beneficial if they assist firms (beef cattle farming businesses) in maximizing the price provided to consumers. This is accomplished via enhancing distinctiveness and/or lowering input costs (minimizing the cost of farming). Resources that are unable to achieve this need are at a competitive disadvantage. Unique: As per Curran et al., [21], and Wernerfelt [20], unique resources are those that can be obtained on an exceptional basis by one or a few enterprises (beef cattle farming enterprises). Competitive balance occurs when many firms (beef cattle farming enterprises) have the same resources or competence [12, 20]. Costly: If an enterprise (beef cattle farming enterprise) wishes to maintain a competitive edge, the resource ought to be costly to replicate or substitute for a competitor. Therefore, resources alone do not provide a competitive edge to an enterprise (beef cattle farming enterprise) if they are not controlled to maximize their worth. Only the enterprise that can utilize beneficial, unique, and costly imitate resources will be able to maintain a competitive edge in the long run [20, 22].

The Resources Based View (RBV) analyzes company performance in different ways, such as explaining profitability primarily based on distinct firm-level attributes, resources, and competencies [20, 23]. As per the Recourses Based View concept, enterprises take divergent historical pathways, resulting in diverse competency that impacts their capacities in various ways [20, 23]. Progressive companies (beef cattle farming enterprises) in a sector are effective since they have access to a variety of resources and use them efficiently to obtain a competitive edge. Along with this perspective, resources include all internal and external resources such as brand names (beef cattle farming method), strengths, credits, stock (herds size), cash (capital-variable costs), skilled people (education level), location (distance to the market), an appropriate management system, entity good products, information (access to market information), and skills, and even cost-effective strategies that are moderately connected to the enterprise (beef cattle farming enterprise) [20]. As a result, the functional purpose of each enterprise (beef cattle farming enterprise) is to form its distinctive mix of resources to strengthen its economic capability, resulting in increased profit (profit maximization) [12, 24]. The concept is relevant in this research because it demonstrates how an enterprise uses its internal resources, as well as its capacity to interact with the surroundings, to generate greater profit. In addition, internal resources such as wealth, skilled workforce, and expert knowledge, as well as the ability to access the market, credits, and market information through trading with the treasury, socializing with customers on social media, and other abilities such as company size, age of the firm, and firm site, are the primary resources that are linked with the determinants of profitability. In this study, determinants of profitability were investigated using resources-based theory. As a result, there is a strong relationship between theory and determinants of profitability.

2.6. Data analysis

Both descriptive statistical analysis and econometric models were used in this study. The information gathered through questionnaires and interviews was coded and analyzed using Excel and SPSS v. 22.

2.6.1. Descriptive data analysis

Descriptive statistical analysis involving means, maximum, minimum, standard deviations, frequencies, and percentages were used to examine the: (i) socioeconomic characteristics; (ii) beef cattle ownership status; (iii) market outlets (the distribution channels); (iv) selling price; (v) contract selling; and (vi) availability of pasture.

2.6.2. Economic data analysis models

The economic data were analyzed using a gross margin analysis (GMA) and ordinary least squares (OLS) multiple linear regression models as described below;

2.6.2.1. The gross margin analysis model. The gross margin analysis model was used to examine the profitability of beef cattle farming among smallholder beef cattle farmers. The gross margin (GM) was computed by subtracting the total revenue (TR) from the total variable cost of beef cattle farming (TVC). This formula is formally described as follows:

Where, TR stands for the total revenue of farming per beef cattle in US $, TVC is the total variable cost per beef cattle in US $, and GM represents the gross margin of farming per beef cattle in US$. In addition, according to Kibona and Yuejie, [25], to discover profit value, it is necessary to first determine physical values and unit prices for input and output variables, followed by a computation of producing expenses and revenues. As a result, the functional equation for the GMA model is described below.

Here; GM stands for the gross margin per beef cattle, is the total revenue (TR) of n beef cattle, Py is the beef cattle market price, Y is the total number of beef cattle sold, is the total cost of m variable inputs per beef cattle, X is the amount of the jth variable input (j = 1, 2, 3…n, m inputs), Px is the cost of inputs utilized per unit/price per unit of a variable input, and ∑ is the summation symbol.

Additionally, the TVCs were calculated by adding the expenses of husbandry labor (excluding family labor costs), medicines (treatment), feeds (silage, fodder, and other feeds like soybean meal and urea), mineral salts and vitamins, spraying or dipping, veterinary services, and some other expenses for sales and logistics. Furthermore, for this study, fixed costs were not included in gross margin estimates since fixed costs are non-quantifiable owing to the traditional managerial style utilized by smallholder beef cattle farmers [25].

2.6.2.2. The Ordinary Least Squares multiple linear regression model. The Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) model was used to analyze the determinants of profitability of the beef cattle farming business among smallholder beef cattle farmers. The model is precisely specified as follows:

Where

Yi = gross margin-GM (profit) of ith smallholder beef cattle farmer per beef cattle (US$)

β0 = constant

β1,…,.. βn = coefficients to be estimated

X1,…., Xn = independent variables

εi = error term, this represents all factors that influence the variance but are not depicted by the explanatory variables [26].

As cited by Kibona and Yuejie, [18], the OLS approach is a numerical modeling tool that is used to explain the relationship between a continuous dependent variable (gross margin- profit) and several independent factors (determinants of profitability) [27]. The multiple linear regression approach was used to determine the intensity and significance of the relationship between profitability per beef cattle and factors that are anticipated to affect profitability [26]. These include the variable costs (feed costs, husbandry labor costs, medicines (treatment) costs, and sales and logistics costs), education level of a farmer, family size, cattle herd size, land owned, experience in farming, access to veterinary services, access to credits, pasture availability, selling contract, marketing channels, and access to market information.

Therefore, the OLS regression model for the determinants of profitability of the beef cattle farming industry among smallholder beef cattle farmers was further described as follows:

According to Mlote et al., [26], a failure of the assumptions underlying OLS regression analysis may threaten the validity of the regression results. Any failure of the hypotheses (explanatory variables not having a normal distribution, autocorrelation, heteroscedasticity, and multicollinearity) renders the component estimations invalid for interpretation. Therefore, the model was verified for validity using SPSS v. 22 statistical analyses. The Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) resulted in a score of 1.31, confirming the absence of multicollinearity between the dependent and independent variables [28]. Table 2 below presents the pre-hypothesized sign effects of the independent variables on beef cattle profitability.

Table 2

The pre-hypothesized sign effects of the independent variables on beef cattle profitability.

Variables	Measurement	Hypothesized sign effects
Feed costs	US$	-
Husbandry labor costs	US$	-
Medicines(treatment) costs	US$	-
Sales and logistics costs	US$	-
Education level	Years of schooling	+
Family size	Number of members	+
Land owned	In hectare	+
Cattle herd size	Number of beef cattle	+
Experience in farming	In years	+
Access to veterinary services	If 0 = No, 1 = Yes	+
Access to credits	If 0 = No, 1 = Yes	+
Pasture availability	If 0 = No, 1 = Yes	+
Selling contract	If 0 = No, 1 = Yes	±
Marketing channels (market outlets)	If 1 = Open market, 2 = butcheries; 3 = Tajikistan Meat Commission; 4 = Middlemen	±
Access to market information	If 0 = No, 1 = Yes	+

3. Results and discussions

3.1. Descriptive results

3.1.1. The socioeconomic characteristics of smallholder beef cattle farmers based on mean scores of continuous variables

Table 3 results reveal that smallholder beef cattle farmers had an average age of 52.73 years. This suggests that farmers were of working age, which is vital in the successful implementation of intensive beef cattle production practices for more profit [18]. Farmers had an average family size of 7.07 members. This shows that farmers have a greater labor force opportunity for beef cattle production and sales operations, thereby increasing the profitability of the beef cattle farming business [18]. Moreover, the farmers had an average of 18.23 cattle herd size with 8.54 years of farming experience. It signifies that beef cattle production is pretty new in most farming households, necessitating the development of knowledge and expertise for increased efficiency. The findings of this study further indicated that the average land area possessed by beef cattle farmers was 10.59 hectares.

Table 3

Socioeconomic characteristics of smallholder beef cattle farmers based on mean scores of continuous variables.

Variables (N = 388)	Mean	Maximum	Minimum	Std.Deviation
Farmer’s age	52.73	70.00	33.00	9.37
Family size	7.07	12.00	3.00	2.07
Cattle herd size (local breed)	18.23	50.00	2.00	12.00
Experience in farming	8.54	19.00	2.00	4.64
Land owned (ha)	10.59	230.67	0.41	30.83

3.1.2. The socioeconomic characteristics of smallholder beef cattle farmers based on frequency and percentage scores of categorical variables

Table 4 results showed that men dominated beef cattle farming activities among smallholder beef cattle farmers. There were around 98.2% males and 1.8% females among the 388 sampled respondents. To eliminate gender inequalities, females should indeed be motivated to participate in beef cattle production because practically all females are active in production activities, while males relocate from rural to urban areas in search of work [25, 29]. The findings also showed that the majority of farmers had a high degree of literacy. Around 83.8% of farmers had a college degree, while 7.0% and 9.3% had elementary and secondary education, respectively. Besides, around 89.4% of farmers had access to farm credits, whereas 10.6% did not. Despite this high level of access to farm credits, only 71.4% of farmers used farm credit points to produce beef cattle. Regarding the accessibility to veterinary services, the statistics reveal that 89.4% of farmers had access. This means that there is a high level of accessibility to veterinary care. This increase in access to veterinary services is critical for lowering the cost of obtaining consultations required for increased beef cattle production [25].

Table 4

Socioeconomic characteristics of smallholder beef cattle farmers based on frequency and percentage scores of categorical variables.

Variables (N = 388)	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Gender
Male	381	98.2
Female	7	1.8
Education level
Primary Educ.	27	7.0
Secondary Educ.	36	9.3
College Educ.	325	83.8
Access to farm credits
Yes	347 (277)*	89.4 (71.4)*
No	41	10.6
Access to market information
Yes	348	89.7
No	40	10.3
Access to veterinary services
Yes	347	89.4
No	41	10.6
Pasture availability and sufficient
Yes	321	82.7
No	67	17.3
Marketing channels (Market outlets)
Open markets	294	75.8
Slaughterhouses/butcheries	73	18.8
Tajikistan Meat Commission	7	1.8
Middlemen	14	3.6
Selling contract
Yes	340	87.6
No	48	12.4

* The figures in parentheses solely represent the frequency and percentage of farmers who utilized credits for cattle production

According to the findings, 89.7% of farmers had access to market information, while only 10.3 of farmers did not. This might imply that farmers were more accessible to accurate market knowledge, allowing 75.8% of farmers to sell their beef cattle to open market outlets (profitable outlets) rather than middlemen/traders/brokers. Farmers’ revenues are eroded when beef cattle are sold to middlemen/traders/brokers. Accurate market information is critical for farmers looking to improve the performance (profitability) of their beef cattle business [18]. Additionally, about 82.7% of farmers acknowledged the availability of pasture for grazing, which encouraged 87.6% of farmers to get into a selling contract agreement. This helps to protect the interest of beef cattle. The abundance of grazing pasture is significant in beef cattle production, which increases the supply of beef cattle for sale [18].

3.2. Economic results

3.2.1. The profitability of beef cattle farming among smallholder beef cattle farmers

Profitability is the primary aim of every agricultural business, therefore profitability is determined by calculating the gross margin (GM), and it measures the operating efficiency [30]. Table 5 shows that farmers had a mean GM of 353.77 US$ per beef cattle. This indicates that beef cattle production is a viable (profitable) enterprise in the study area. This is in line with the observations of Kibona and Yuejie [25], Mafimisebi et al. [31], Nasiru et al. [32], Okoruwa et al. [33], and Nkadimeng et al. [34], who found livestock farming to be a profitable venture.

Table 5

The gross margin of beef cattle farming among smallholder beef cattle farmers (N = 388).

Parameters	The estimated value per cattle (US$) (N = 388)
Cattle production variable costs	Mean	Max.	Min.	Std.Deviation
Husbandry labor*	9.95(13.1)1	119.90	0.00	21.04
Medicines (treatment)*	19.85(26.1)	111.90	0.00	21.24
Feeds (silage, fodder, soybean meal, & urea) *	44.51(58.6)	383.70	0.00	74.66
Vitamins and mineral salts*	0.51(0.7)	6.40	0.00	1.51
Sales and logistics	1.11(1.5)	6.20	0.00	1.90
Total variable cost (TVC) *	75.92	511.50	1.80	103.36
Earn revenue and sales value
Selling price for cattle *	429.69	680.00	50.00	138.58
Total revenue (TR) per cattle*	429.69	680.00	50.00	138.58
Gross margin(GM) = (Total revenue—Total cost) *	353.77	634.30	-356.60	231.75

*At the time of sale, beef cattle on average were 4.5 years old.

1The number in parentheses is the ratio of cost-share to total variable costs.

The findings showed that feed cost was the highest operational expenditure, accounting for around 58.6% of the total variable production costs. It was followed by medications (treatment expenses) (26.1%), and husbandry labor costs (13.1%). Other expenditures were just under 2%, including vitamin and minerals salt costs (0.7%) and sales and logistics costs (1.3%). This suggests that the Livestock and Pasture Development Project I & II (LPDP I & II) undertaken in the research region had little impact on feed cost reduction; however, the potential to increase beef cattle farming profitability is great once feed costs are minimized. This implies that a decrease in production costs as a result of pasture availability (free or cheap available) would result in high profitability [25]. In addition, the significant cost of treatment or pharmaceuticals is a result of the incidence of animal illnesses in the research area. According to kibona and Yuejie [25], treating beef cattle following an outbreak of the illness is expensive. As a result, developing beef cattle-specific healthcare initiatives to address possible health issues is the greatest and only method to minimize cost; consequently increasing profitability [25].

3.2.2. Factors that influence profitability of beef cattle farming among smallholder beef cattle farmers

Table 6 presents the results of a multiple regression analysis utilizing OLS on the key parameters (variables) that determined the profitability of beef cattle farming among smallholder beef cattle farmers. The model was calculated utilizing SPSS v.22, and it fitted well and was statistically significant at P < 0.05. The model’s adjusted R—squared = 0.833, signifying that the independent variables explain 83.3% of the variance in profitability per beef cattle among beef cattle farmers.

Table 6

Multiple linear regression estimates using ordinary least squares (OLS) on the factors influencing the profitability of beef cattle farming among smallholder beef cattle farmers N = 388).

Variables	Coefficients (β)	Std. Error
Feed costs	-0.713*	0.000
Husbandry labor costs	0.205	0.001
Medicines(treatment) costs	-0.072*	0.000
Sales and logistics costs	-0.148*	0.018
Education level	0.066*	0.010
Family size	0.072*	0.004
Land owned	0.084*	0.054
Cattle herd size	-0.107*	0.001
Experience in farming	0.196*	0.002
Access to veterinary services	0.142	0.062
Access to credits	1.369*	0.179
Pasture availability	0.215*	0.016
Selling contract	-1.015*	0.197
Marketing channels (market outlets)	0.002	0.010
Access to market information	0.013	0.053
Constant	91.729 *	0.104
R Squared (R2)	0.840(84.0%)
Adjusted R squared (Adj.R2)	0.833(83.3%)

*Indicate statistical significance level at 5% (P < 0.05).

Holding other factors constant, variable costs (feed cost and sales and logistics costs) had a negative and statistically significant impact on profitability. A negative correlation reveals that as feed and logistics costs increase by 1US$, profitability per beef cattle falls by 0.713% and 0.148%, respectively. Moreover, the negative values for sales and logistics indicated that a rise in these parameters would result in a fall in interviewees’ profits, which might be attributable to the expensive cost of transportation in the research location. This observation is consistent with those of Nasiru [35] and Suleiman et al [36]. Furthermore, feed expenses, as well as sales and logistics costs, highlight the capital involved in the production and trading operations. Marketing expenditures, on the other hand, indicate apparent transaction fees that may impede profit maximization [37].

The coefficients for medications (treatment costs) had a negative influence on the profitability of beef cattle farming and were statistically significant at P < 0.05. A positive relation for medication cost indicates that cash invested in pharmaceuticals affects beef cattle profitability. This means that for every $1 increase in medication costs, profitability falls by 0.072%. It is expensive to treat beef cattle after a disease outbreak [25]. Thus, implementing beef cattle-specific health programs to address potential health issues is the best and only way to maximize profit [25].

The educational coefficient is positively significant. This validates an evident finding that almost educated farmers are quite cost-effective, and is also influential on the socio-cultural capital impacts that literacy may assist to organize. Education improves the ability to apply knowledge and the usage of ideas essential for cattle production [38]. The variable is also a predictor of the acceptance of advancements and new technologies required to boost farm output [37]. This finding contradicts the findings of Nkadimeng et al. [34], who found a negative relationship between a farmer’s education and profit earned. The study did explain, however, that more educated farmers may have other income-generating sources other than the beef cattle farming project, attempting to put less emphasis on beef cattle profit maximization [34].

The profitability of beef cattle production was positively and significantly related to family size. Huge families have the opportunities for much more family labor involved in production and sales operations, thereby boosting profitability. The number of people responsible for the day-to-day care of cattle is measured by labor. Farmers that have the personnel to care for the cattle can manage higher herd sizes, which increases the chances of improving profitability [37].

Given that grazing area, abundance is significant in beef cattle productivity and profitability, which improves the economic opportunities and effectiveness of beef cattle production [18]. This study also found that land ownership had a positive impact on the profitability of beef cattle production, and it was statistically significant at the 5% significance level. This implies that when land ownership rises in rural areas, beef cattle profitability rises. This result is consistent with the findings of Nkadimeng et al. [34].

Beef cattle herd size had a negative influence on beef cattle production profit yet was statistically significant at a 5% level of significance. The findings show that as herd size grows the profitability of beef cattle declines; it is difficult and expensive to manage larger herd sizes effectively. This finding is in line with koknaroglu et al., [39], who reported that fewer beef cattle per farm result in higher profitability per animal. Therefore, farmers should be motivated to minimize massive cattle herds, stay in grazing areas, and efficiently feed beef cattle before selling (production efficiency) for a higher return [18]. A profit-maximizing firm in agricultural production can produce and distribute superior products in the target marketplace at a financial benefit for the enterprise’s existence [40].

The coefficient for farming experience was significantly positive at the 5% level. This indicates that farmers who have been raising beef cattle for a long time generated higher money as a result of their understanding of trends in beef cattle production and marketing. This result confirms Afolabi’s previous results [41]. Farming experience highlights the power of social media platforms and linkages reinforced to improve the exploration of new clients [42]. Furthermore, farming experience provides information and producing practices that are recognized to be effective in production and marketing operations [43].

Exposure to farm credits had a positive impact on the profitability of beef cattle production, and it was statistically significant at a 5% level. The positive indication suggests that as a farmer’s exposure to farm credits increases, so does the profitability of beef cattle production. The availability of finances for agribusiness (commercial production) is captured by access to farm credit [37]. Furthermore, credit facilitates the purchasing of inputs, extension trips, and other assistance programs for diversified business activities, hence enhancing profitability [37].

Furthermore, the abundance of grazing resources for beef cattle production is represented by pasture accessibility [37]. Because stocking rates are not limited in rural areas, farmers’ perceptions of abundant grazing pastures motivate them to participate in production operations, enhancing farm operating efficiency [37]. This study also revealed that pasture availability had a positive and significant impact on beef cattle profitability. This indicates that when the grazing area expands, the profit per cattle significantly increases.

Additionally, selling contracts provide farmers with a secured market at the local retail outlet, minimizing marketing and distribution expenditures as well as price risk. However, the results of the present study revealed that participating in selling contracts was significantly but negatively correlated with the profitability of beef cattle production and was statistically significant at the 5% level of significance. This implies that a farmer, as a weaker partner, is vulnerable to exploitation by the buying company [44]. If farmers have committed significant investment into resources related to the contract commodities which are perishable and not conducive to translation into perishable items on the farm, a company can take monopoly rent in the output market. In addition, other significant negative externalities which hinder profitability are the danger of farmers engaging in extra-contractual sales, particularly when the agreed price is set and the stock value at the time of the sale is greater than the agreed price [44]. In general, selling contracts should be mutually beneficial (flexible and profitable) to increase profitability.

4. Conclusion

This study assessed the economic benefits of beef cattle farming and its determinants at the smallholder farmer’s level. As per the descriptive analyses, the majority of farmers had a high level of literacy with access to farm credits, market information, pasture, and veterinary services, resulting in high profitability (gross margin) of beef cattle farming. Meanwhile, econometric estimation showed that the profitability of beef cattle farming among farmers was significantly influenced by education level, family size, farming experience, pasture availability, land size owned, selling contract, feed costs, medications expenses, access to credits, and sales costs. This signifies that beef cattle production is a feasible (profitable) business in the study area. However, the potential for increased profitability is significant if existing resources are efficiently coordinated and production expenses, notably feed and healthcare costs, are minimized. The results have diverse implications in terms of what components need to be handled to increase the profitability of beef cattle production among Tajik smallholder farmers. Thus, the government should develop additional measures for addressing concerns such as capacity building, suitable and freely available pasture as well as health management, to boost beef cattle profitability among smallholder beef cattle farmers in Tajikistan. Due to restricted funds, this research was restricted to only one district rather than all districts covered by the project. The extent of market participation among smallholder farmers should be researched further to identify their level of beef cattle commercialization.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

15 Jun 2022

Evaluating Profitability of Beef Cattle Farming and its Determinants among Smallholder Beef Cattle Farmers in the Baljovan District of Khatlon Region, Tajikistan

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jobirov,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Dear Sir, there are the reviewers. Please adjust your paper and send it back.

Best regards

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 30 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Julio Cesar de Souza, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. During our internal checks, the in-house editorial staff noted that you conducted research or obtained samples in another country. Please check the relevant national regulations and laws applying to foreign researchers and state whether you obtained the required permits and approvals. Please address this in your ethics statement in both the manuscript and submission information. In addition, please ensure that you have suitably acknowledged the contributions of any local collaborators involved in this work in your authorship list and/or Acknowledgements. Authorship criteria is based on the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals - for further information please see here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/authorship.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

“This research is supported and funded by the National Beef Cattle Industrial Technology System and Industrial Economy Research Project under the Ministry of Agriculture in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) (CARS-37).”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“Yes;

This research is supported and funded by the National Beef Cattle Industrial Technology System and Industrial Economy Research Project under the Ministry of Agriculture in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) (CARS-37).

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Sir, there are review suggestions.

Please adjust and send it back.

Best regards.

Julio Souza

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Table 4: Results in this Table seem to be incorrect: I’m not convinced that cattle herd size, land owned and pasture availability have a negative influence on beef cattle production profit. In addition, I’m not sure that medicines costs has a positive influence on beef cattle production profit.

Reviewer #2: Farrukh et al evaluated the profitability of beef cattle farming and its determinants among smallholder farmers in the Baljovan district of Khatlon Region, Tajikistan. The issues addressed in the study seem interesting in solving the challenges of poverty at the smallholder level in Tajikistan. However, the manuscript was written poorly. Detailed comments are given inside the manuscript file uploaded herewith.

Reviewer #3: The primary goal of this paper is to evaluate the profitability of beef cattle farming and its determinants among smallholder beef cattle farmers in the Baljovan District of Khatlon Region, Tajikistan.

Because the topic is somewhat unique, I accept it as an original submission for publication. While I believe the manuscript provides a solid foundation for scientific communication, I believe the following changes should be made before publication:

General comments

-There are minor grammar errors and changes suggested in the attached.

Materials and Methods section;

-worth to consider starting the section with the theoretical framework before section 2.5 of data analysis, it should be arranged as; 2.4. Theoretical framework, followed by 2.5.Data analysis.

-Indicate the variable units of measurement, explanations/justifications, and presumed signs.

Conclusions section

- Implications and limitations of the research should be indicated, as well as the areas of further study.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-37158_reviewer.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

Submitted filename: Manuscript with grammar errors suggested.docx

Click here for additional data file.

23 Jul 2022

Response to the Reviewers’ Comments

We are grateful to the editor and reviewers for reading our manuscript and providing detailed and constructive feedback. Below is a point-by-point response to your comments and recommendations, as well as how each one was addressed in the revision.

Response to the Editors’ Comments

Comment 1: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response: We appreciate the editor's reminder. We double-checked and fulfilled all rules to ensure that our manuscript meets PLOS ONE standards.

Comment 2: During our internal checks, the in-house editorial staff noted that you conducted research or obtained samples in another country. Please check the relevant national regulations and laws applying to foreign researchers and state whether you obtained the required permits and approvals. Please address this in your ethics statement in both the manuscript and submission information. In addition, please ensure that you have suitably acknowledged the contributions of any local collaborators involved in this work in your authorship list and/or Acknowledgements. Authorship criteria is based on the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals - for further information please see here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/authorship.

Response: We appreciate the editor's comments. Firstly, I am from Tajikistan; therefore, Tajikistan is not a foreign country for me. Secondly, as a Ph.D. student at Jilin Agriculture University-China, my study field is Tajikistan, specifically the Baljovan District in the Khatlon Region. We observed all applicable national rules and got all necessary permits throughout data collection, as stated in ethics declarations. Furthermore, throughout data gathering, all local contributors were acknowledged.

Comment 3: Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

“This research is supported and funded by the National Beef Cattle Industrial Technology System and Industrial Economy Research Project under the Ministry of Agriculture in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) (CARS-37).”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“Yes;

This research is supported and funded by the National Beef Cattle Industrial Technology System and Industrial Economy Research Project under the Ministry of Agriculture in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) (CARS-37).

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response: We appreciate the editor's comments. We apologize for failing to provide financial details in our funding statement. In response, we have provided our revised statements in our cover letter.

Additional Editor Comments: Dear Sir, there are review suggestions. Please adjust and send it back.

Response: We appreciate the editor's updates. We have read and reacted to all of the editor's and reviewers' remarks and suggestions. We are currently submitting it to you for further action.

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Comment 1: Table 4: Results in this Table seem to be incorrect: I’m not convinced that cattle herd size, land owned, and pasture availability have a negative influence on beef cattle production profit. In addition, I’m not sure that medicines costs have a positive influence on beef cattle production profit.

Response: We thank the reviewer for these comments. We concur with the reviewer that some of the results in Table 4 (now Table 6) appear to be inaccurate. We apologize for the mistakes. We double-checked and discovered that both land ownership and pasture availability had a positive impact on beef cattle probability, but medicine costs had a negative influence. However, beef cattle herd size continued to have a negative influence, as mentioned in the text, since the huge stock of beef cattle may be difficult to maintain for smallholders, resulting in low profitability per cattle.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Comment 1: Farrukh et al evaluated the profitability of beef cattle farming and its determinants among smallholder farmers in the Baljovan district of Khatlon Region, Tajikistan. The issues addressed in the study seem interesting in solving the challenges of poverty at the smallholder level in Tajikistan. However, the manuscript was written poorly. Detailed comments are given inside the manuscript file uploaded herewith.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We apologize for disappointing our esteemed reviewer with the poor writing in our prior manuscript; all recommendations have been addressed in our amended version. We also appreciate the reviewer's comment that the issues addressed in the study appear to be interesting in addressing the concerns of poverty at the smallholder level in Tajikistan. We trust the updated text will satisfy the reviewer.

Responses to Specific Comments in the annotated PDF from Reviewer 1

Comment 3: for the smallholder farmers to alleviating poverty.

Response: We appreciate this comment from the reviewer. We agree with the reviewer that the phrase should read as “for the smallholder farmers to alleviating poverty”.

Comment 4: try to rewrite this phrase in a more meaningful way.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have rephrased the sentence in a more meaningful way. Currently, the phrase read as “the smallholder beef cattle farmers are known for making little profits” instead of smallholder beef cattle farmers are notorious for inefficient profit maximization.

Comment 5: data collected using questionnaires.

Response: We appreciate this comment from the reviewer. We agree with the reviewer that the phrase should read as “data collected using questionnaires”.

Comment 6: why do you repeat the same word?.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comments. To minimize repetition, we checked and removed the word farmers.

Comment 7: Delete the word “that”.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have deleted the word.

Comment 8: Stop the sentence here and start the next sentence by using connector words.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We appreciate the help provided by the reviewer in correcting the mistakes in our manuscript. We have added stop and started the next sentence by using connector words.

Comment 9: If you think the three words are the same, choose one of them to make the sentence more formal.

Response: We appreciate the comment from the reviewer. We have followed the suggestions from the reviewer to choose one to make the sentence more formal.

Comment 10: Meanwhile, the profitability of beef farming among farmers was positively and significantly influenced by education level, family size, farming experience, medications expenses, and access to credits (P<0.05).

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We appreciate the help provided by the reviewer in correcting the abstract section. We have followed the suggestions from the reviewer to present the results “Meanwhile, the profitability of beef farming among farmers was positively and significantly influenced by education level, family size, farming experience, medications expenses, and access to credits (P<0.05)”.

Comment 11: Reference No. 2 has been excessively cited.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Reference No. 2 is a government document that contains extensive information regarding Tajik Livestock and Pasture Development Projects I and II (LPDP I & II). As a result, we had to quote the original document for any project-related issues.

Comment 12: What influence? Positive or negative? describe it, please.

Response: We appreciate the comment from the reviewer. We have described it as having a negative impact on the beef cattle industry.

Comment 13: the ideas before and after this word do not support this word.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comments. We apologize for any ambiguous sentences. To produce a meaningful statement, we used the word "however" instead of "furthermore".

Comment 14: Investment initiatives to address the challenges of improving beef...

Response: We appreciate this comment from the reviewer. We agree with the reviewer that the phrase should read as “Investment initiatives to address the challenges of improving beef cattle efficiencies” instead of “Investing in initiatives to address the challenges to improved beef cattle efficiencies”.

Comment 15: a relatively!

Response We appreciate this comment from the reviewer. We agree with the reviewer that the phrase should read as “a relatively” instead of “relative”.

Comment 16: make it two sentences, it's too long!

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have rephrased the sentence based on the comments from the reviewer.

Comment 17: .was to alleviate...

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We agree with the reviewer that the phrase should read as “The project's overall purpose was to alleviate poverty in Khatlon Region.

Comment 18: not needed!

Response: We thank the reviewer's comments. As indicated by the reviewer, we eliminated the term "furthermore”.

Comment 19: write the name of the project here, because you are in a new paragraph.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this observation. We wrote the name of the project as suggested by the reviewer in the enclosed PDF file.

Comment 20: are you trying to say for three purposes? make it clear

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have made it clear by specifying three purposes.

Comment 21: better to put it after press release

Response: We thank the reviewer for the observation. We agree with the reviewer. We have put the citation after press release as suggested by the reviewer in the enclosed PDF file.

Comment 22: stop the sentence here and start the next like this: The first was to realize institutional advancement by strengthening the public sector and civic groups, such as through developing reliable and successful prop-poor grassland monitoring systems. then write as second, third...

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have rephrased the sentences as suggested by the reviewer in the enclosed PDF file. Thus, the rephrases read as “The first was to realize institutional advancement by strengthening the public sector and civic groups, such as through developing reliable and successful prop-poor grassland monitoring systems. The second was to improve animal health and performance by improving access to veterinary care, which resulted in lower morbidity and improved herd performance. The third purpose was to achieve grassland advancement and expansion for disaster mitigation by improving access to more capable and climate-resilient grassland zones, as well as diverse revenue possibilities for beef cattle societies, through self-sustaining, community-led biodiversity conservation. The major aim was to improve the living standards of beef cattle farmers in selected districts of the Khatlon region and the nation as a whole.

Comment 22: The major aim was to improve the living standards of beef cattle farmers.....

Response: We have rephrased the sentence based on the comments from the reviewer. The phrase now reads as “The major aim was to improve the living standards of beef cattle farmers in selected districts of the Khatlon region and the nation as a whole”.

Comment 23: misused

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are sorry for misusing the word “nevertheless”. We have replaced it with the word “still”.

Comment 24: stage

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The word has been rephrased as suggested by the reviewer.

Comment 25: not needed

Response: Thank you for the observation. We have deleted the word enterprise as suggested by the reviewer in the enclosed PDF file.

Comment 26: delete,

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have deleted the (,) as suggested by the reviewer in the enclosed PDF file.

Comment 27: for this study.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have rephrased the phrase to read “for this study” as suggested by the reviewer in the enclosed PDF file.

Comment 28: human or cattle

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have added the word “people” to indicate human and not cattle.

Comment 29: good if it is mentioned first (2.1).

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. The highlighted section has been moved to section 2.1 as suggested by the reviewer in the enclosed PDF file.

Comment 30: not needed in the title/sub-title...

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. The highlighted word has been removed in the title/sub-title as suggested by the reviewer in the enclosed PDF file.

Comment 31: You already abbreviated it, use the abbreviated form throughout except at the beginning of the sentence!

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's insightful observation. We have deleted the word accordingly.

Comment 32 abbreviated already!

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have deleted the word accordingly.

Comment 33: abbreviated already

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The word has been removed as suggested by the reviewer in the enclosed PDF file.

Comment 34: not needed

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We agree with the reviewer. The highlighted sentence in the enclosed PDF file has been deleted.

Comment 35: not needed.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We agree with the reviewer. The highlighted sentence in the enclosed PDF file has been deleted.

Comment 36: not needed.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We agree with the reviewer. The highlighted sentence in the enclosed PDF file has been deleted.

Comment 37 not needed.

Response We appreciate the reviewer's comments. We concur with the reviewer. In the enclosed PDF file, the highlighted word (investigation) has been removed.

Comment 38: Highlighted word (found)

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We have rewritten the word “found” to mean “showed”.

Comment 39: Besides, around...

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. The sentence has been rephrased as suggested by the reviewer in the enclosed PDF file.

Comment 40: Make it two tables. One continues variables and two, categorical variables. add N in column for each variable.

Response: We thank the reviewer's comments. We created two tables: one for continuous variables and one for categorical variables. Furthermore, as advised by the reviewer, we have inserted N in the column for each variable.

Comment 41: The highlighted word (investigation)

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comments. We concur with the reviewer. In the enclosed PDF file, the highlighted word (investigation) has been removed.

Comment 42: why don't you use one word? there are several repeated words and phrases in the text, under ().

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The highlighted section has been rewritten as suggested by the reviewer in the enclosed PDF file. We have chosen one word (profitability) to be used.

Comment 43: The findings showed that feed cost was the highest operational expenditure...

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. The highlighted words have been rewritten as suggested by the reviewer to read “The findings showed that feed cost was the highest operational expenditure” to make it clear.

Comment 44: use OLS only

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We concur with the reviewer. We have used OLS only.

Comment 45: which variables? make it clear! use comma appropriately

Response: We thank the reviewer. We agree with the reviewer. We have rephrased the sentence to read “A negative correlation reveals that as feed and logistics costs increase by 1US$, profitability per beef cattle falls by 0.713% and 0.148%, respectively.

Comment 46: This is too exaggerated. You are talking about smallholder farmers (not commercial farmers), do they have access for commercial feeds or is it profitable or even affordable?.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We are very sorry for this confusion. We double-checked and rephrased the sentence to read This study also revealed that pasture availability had a positive and significant impact on beef cattle profitability. This indicates that when the grazing area expands, the profit per cattle significantly increases.

Comment 47: not clear

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are sorry for the disappointment. We have rephrased the sentence to make it clear.

Comment 48: add a reference that support your claim of poor nutritional values of pasture grasses in your study areas.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer for this comment. We are sorry for the disappointment. We rephrased the sentence to make it more understandable.

Comment 49: correct the grammar

Response: We thank the reviewer for this close observation. We are sorry for the poor grammar. We have collected the grammar. Currently, the sentence read as “additionally, selling contracts provide farmers with a secured market at the local retail outlet, minimizing marketing and distribution expenditures as well as price risk”.

Comment 50: present study ...

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We have agreed, that the sentence has been rephrased using the phrase “present study” as suggested by the reviewer in the enclosed PDF file.

Comment 51: but negatively

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. The sentence has been rephrased using the phrase “but negatively” as suggested by the reviewer in the enclosed PDF file

Comment 52: which company you are referring to?.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are sorry for this confusion. The company we refer to here is a buying company (contracted with farmers to buy beef cattle).

Comment 53: "In general" is better.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this important comment. We have followed the suggestions from the reviewer to use the word “in general” instead of “as a results”.

Comment 54: this sentence was mentioned three times( abstract, introduction, and conclusion). Try to write the idea in different ways!. Why you repeat all these? It would have been good if you had started the conclusion as follow: This study assessed the economic benefits of beef cattle farming and its determinants at the smallholder farmers level. then continue to major findings.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are very sorry for the repetitions. We have rewritten the whole conclusion to make it clear. Currently, the conclusion read “This study assessed the economic benefits of beef cattle farming and its determinants at the smallholder farmer's level. As per the descriptive analyses, the majority of farmers had a high level of literacy with access to farm credits, market information, pasture, and veterinary services, resulting in high profitability (gross margin) of beef cattle farming. Meanwhile, econometric estimation showed that the profitability of beef cattle farming among farmers was positively and significantly influenced by education level, family size, farming experience, pasture availability, land size owned, selling contract, feed costs, medications expenses, access to credits, and sales costs. This signifies that beef cattle production is a feasible (profitable) business in the study area. However, the potential for increased profitability is significant if existing resources are efficiently coordinated and production expenses, notably feed and healthcare costs, are minimized. The results have diverse implications in terms of what components need to be handled to increase the profitability of beef cattle production among Tajik smallholder farmers. Thus, the government should develop additional measures for addressing concerns such as capacity building, suitable and freely available pasture as well as health management, to boost beef cattle profitability among smallholder beef cattle farmers in Tajikistan. Due to restricted funds, this research was restricted to only one district rather than all districts covered by the project. The extent of market participation among smallholder farmers should be researched further to identify their level of beef cattle commercialization.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

General Comments

Comment 1: The primary goal of this paper is to evaluate the profitability of beef cattle farming and its determinants among smallholder beef cattle farmers in the Baljovan District of Khatlon Region, Tajikistan.

Because the topic is somewhat unique, I accept it as an original submission for publication. While I believe the manuscript provides a solid foundation for scientific communication, I believe the following changes should be made before publication.

Response: We thank the reviewer for seeing the useful information contained in our manuscript and consider it an interesting article. We have improved our manuscript based on the reviewers’ comments. We hope the reviewer will find it more useful.

Comment 2: -There are minor grammar errors and changes suggested in the attached.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are sorry for the shortcomings in our previous manuscript. We diligently and carefully corrected grammar errors and changes suggested in the attachment to enable simple reading.

Materials and Methods section;

Comment 3: -worth considering starting the section with the theoretical framework before section 2.5 of data analysis, it should be arranged as; 2.4. Theoretical framework, followed by 2.5.Data analysis.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. The theoretical framework has been moved to section 2.5 as suggested by the reviewer.

Comment 4: -Indicate the variable units of measurement, explanations/justifications, and presumed signs.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have created a table of variables including units of measurement, explanations, and presumed signs. We hope it is clear now.

Conclusions section

Comment 5 Implications and limitations of the research should be indicated, as well as the areas of further study.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have indicated the implications and limitations of the research, as well as the areas of further study. The implication, the results have diverse implications in terms of what components need to be handled to increase the profitability of beef cattle production among Tajik smallholder farmers. Limitations of the research, Due to restricted funds, this research was restricted to only one district rather than all districts covered by the project. The areas of further study, the extent of market participation among smallholder farmers should be researched further to identify their level of beef cattle commercialization.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

28 Aug 2022

Evaluating Profitability of Beef Cattle Farming and its Determinants among Smallholder Beef Cattle Farmers in the Baljovan District of Khatlon Region, Tajikistan

PONE-D-21-37158R1

Dear Dr. Jobirov,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Julio Cesar de Souza, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

5 Sep 2022

PONE-D-21-37158R1

Evaluating Profitability of Beef Cattle Farming and its Determinants among Smallholder Beef Cattle Farmers in the Baljovan District of Khatlon Region, Tajikistan

Dear Dr. Jobirov:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Julio Cesar de Souza

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE