Economic feasibility and cost-benefit assessment of cofs-29 fodder sorghum for intensive lamb production systems

Introduction

Feed expenditure constitutes 60-70% of total variable costs in intensive sheep production, with roughage procurement representing a substantial proportion, making cost-effective perennial fodder alternatives a priority [1,2] . COFS-29 perennial fodder sorghum has demonstrated favorable agronomic and nutritional characteristics, with Hayavadana et al. [3] reporting successful utilization in Hassan sheep lambs and subsequent research confirming its nutritional adequacy [4] . However, comprehensive economic evaluations comparing COFS-29 exclusive feeding against conventional systems remain limited [5] . This research conducted a detailed cost-benefit assessment of COFS-29 as sole roughage in intensive lamb production, benchmarked against conventional and mixed roughage approaches.

Material and Methods

Material

The research was conducted at the experimental sheep farm of the Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo, Texcoco, Mexico, from November 2025 through March 2026. Twenty-four Pelibuey × Katahdin crossbred male lambs aged 3.5 months (13.40±0.76 kg initial weight) were utilized. COFS-29 fodder sorghum was established on 1.0 hectare of irrigated farmland, with cultivation costs systematically recorded. Conventional roughage comprised a mixture of oat hay and corn stover at 50:50 ratio, procured at prevailing market prices. Concentrate ingredients included ground sorghum grain (38%), soybean meal (24%), wheat bran (18%), dried distillers grains (10%), limestone (4%), mineral premix (4%), and salt (2%).

Methods

Animals were allocated to T1 (COFS-29 sole roughage, n=8), T2 (conventional roughage, n=8), and T3 (50:50 COFS-29:conventional blend, n=8). The 16-week fattening trial recorded all cost components including feed (roughage + concentrate), labor (calculated at MXN 350/day prorated), veterinary inputs (deworming, vaccination), and housing (depreciated infrastructure costs). Revenue was calculated based on live weight sale price at the prevailing local market rate (MXN 85/kg live weight). Economic metrics computed included total production cost per lamb, feed cost per kg gain, gross revenue, net profit, benefit-cost ratio (BCR = gross revenue/total cost), and return on investment (ROI = net profit/total cost × 100). COFS-29 production cost was calculated per hectare basis including land preparation, seed, irrigation, fertilizer, harvesting labor across four cuttings per year. Data were analyzed using ANOVA in Minitab version 21 [6] .

Results

Production cost components and economic metrics are summarized in Table 1 and Figure 1. Feed cost ranged from 67.2% (T1) to 70.1% (T2) of total cost. COFS-29 (T1) achieved the lowest total production cost per lamb (MXN 2,738) versus conventional (MXN 3,112) and mixed (MXN 2,928), driven by lower roughage costs (MXN 1,842 vs MXN 2,184) attributable to higher biomass yield and reduced labor in the perennial system. 2). The mixed feeding approach showed intermediate values.

Discussion

The 12% lower total production cost and 81% higher ROI for COFS-29 stem from reduced roughage procurement costs and improved feed efficiency [7] . The perennial nature eliminates annual sowing expenses, while sustained biomass across multiple harvests substantially reduces per-unit roughage cost compared to purchased oat hay and corn stover [8,9] . The progressive improvement in feed cost per kg gain across the fattening period reflects established allometric growth relationships [10] , with the consistent cost advantage for COFS-29 indicating robust economic benefits across growth stages. Hayavadana et al. [3] observed favorable performance with COFS-29 but did not include detailed economic analysis, making these findings a valuable extension [11] .

Clinical implications

The demonstrated economic superiority carries direct implications for veterinary extension services. Livestock advisors can recommend COFS-29 establishment as a strategic intervention for improving financial viability of sheep fattening enterprises, particularly where roughage procurement costs are escalating.

Ethical considerations

The protocol was approved by CICUAE, Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo (Approval CICUAE-2025-042). All animals received humane treatment in compliance with Mexican Official Standard NOM-062-ZOO-1999.

Conclusion

COFS-29 fodder sorghum as the exclusive roughage source demonstrated clear economic superiority in intensive lamb production, generating 12% lower production costs, 30% higher net profits, and a benefit-cost ratio of 1.68 compared to 1.38 for conventional roughage. The findings provide compelling economic justification for the adoption of COFS-29 perennial fodder systems in commercial lamb fattening operations, with the mixed feeding approach offering an intermediate alternative for producers transitioning from conventional roughage programs.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementThe authors acknowledge funding from the Consejo Nacional de Humanidades, Ciencias y Tecnologías (CONAHCYT, Project No. CF-2025-I-2486) and the administrative support of the Department of Animal Production at the Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo.

References

1. Estrada-Angulo A, Castro-Pérez BI, Urías-Estrada JD. Feed cost analysis in intensive sheep fattening systems in northwestern Mexico. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2023;55(1):34-42.
2. Parthasarathy Rao P, Birthal PS, Ndjeunga J. Croplivestock interaction and livelihood strategies in the semi-arid tropics. Agric Syst. 2022;107:36-46.
3. Hayavadana GR, Sangam P, Jaishankar N, Chethan KP, Shivakumar MC, Ramachandra B, et al. Utilization of perennial fodder COFS-29 as sole roughage source in Hassan sheep lambs under intensive rearing system. Int J Vet Sci Anim Husb. 2024;9(1):76-78.
4. Sultana N, Hossain SMJ, Islam M. Performance evaluation of fodder sorghum varieties under tropical management conditions. Grassl Sci. 2023;69(1):48-56.
5. Mwai O, Hanotte O, Kwon YJ. African indigenous cattle: Unique genetic resources in a rapidly changing world. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2022;35(2):183194.
6. Minitab LLC. Minitab Statistical Software. Version 21. State College (PA): Minitab LLC; 2023.
7. Khan MA, Sarwar M, Nisa M. Feeding value of ureatreated corncobs ensiled with additives for lactating crossbred dairy cows. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2022;35(4):486-494.
8. Mapiye C, Chimonyo M, Dzama K. Opportunities for improving goat production in communal farming systems in southern Africa. Livest Sci. 2022;258:104878.
9. Thornton PK, Herrero M. Potential for reduced methane and carbon dioxide emissions from livestock production systems. Agric Syst. 2023;205:103546.
10. Ponnampalam EN, Dunshea FR, Warner RD. Use of lucerne hay in ruminant diets: Economic and quality perspectives. Anim Prod Sci. 2023;63(4):328-340.
11. Speedy AW. Global production and consumption of animal source foods. J Nutr. 2022;152(11 Suppl):3042S-3048S.
12. Delgado CL, Rosegrant MW, Steinfeld H. Livestock to 2020: The Next Food Revolution. Washington (DC): International Food Policy Research Institute; 2021.
13. Díaz-López EA, Aranda-Osorio G, Mendoza-Nazar P. Economic analysis of hair sheep production systems in southeastern Mexico. Trop Subtrop Agroecosyst. 2023;26(1):Article 12.
14. Ørskov ER. Recent advances in understanding of microbial transformation in the rumen. Livest Prod Sci. 2022;259:104918.
15. Mueller JP, Rischkowsky B, Haile A. Communitybased livestock breeding programmes: Essentials and examples. J Anim Breed Genet. 2023;140(1):12-28.