Economic analysis of the risk of replacing corn grains (Zea mays) with pearl millet grains (Pennisetum glaucum) in the diet of feedlot cattle

Abstract

The goal of the present study was to assess the economic viability relating to the risk of replacing corn with pearl millet in diets with 80% concentration for feedlot cattle confined for 89 days. Replacement levels were: 0, 33, 66, and 100%. The risk was estimated using Monte Carlo simulation, Spearman’s rank correlation test between input variables, stochastic dominance, and analysis of sensitivity. The expected average values ± standard deviation for net present value (R$/animal) were ± 71.74 ± 283.32, 91.23 ± 285.18, 196.05 ± 273.79, and 223.80 ± 267.96 for diets containing 0, 33, 66, and 100% of pearl millet, respectively. The probability of ≥0 net present value was 63.4, 66.1, 78.4, and 82.4%, respectively. The net present values were statistically different (P<0.05), and the higher levels dominated the lower values. The items that most influenced the net present values were, in descending order, prices of unfinished and finished cattle, initial and final weights, prices of concentrate and forage, concentrate and forage consumption. Based on the results of the simulation, diet of 100% pearl millet exhibited the best economic viability.

The nutritional use of millet grain for food and feed: a review

“…In a study by [ 126 ], the total replacement of maize with pearl millet, was found to be the most economical in the diet of feedlot cattle. The items which influenced the financial indicator were reported to be the price of lean and fat cattle, initial weight, final weight, cost of concentrate, cost of roughage, consumption of concentrate and consumption of roughage [ 130 ]. It is also logical to assume that positioning of millet as competitive grain to maize, will tilt the weight of the supply, which will consequently relieve the pressure on maize consumption, resulting in price reduction.…”