Assessing Economic Viability of Resilient Sheep Foraging Alternatives in Lowland Regions of Romania

Abstract

Sheep farming is an important branch of the animal husbandry sector in Europe. In 2023, Romania’s sheep and goat herds ranked third in the European Union, with more than 10 million heads, contributing substantially to the production of meat, traditional cheeses, and wool. However, in the current climate context, with extreme weather events and especially long periods of drought, providing optimal fodder ratio becomes a challenge for farmers. As animal nutritionists provide valid alternatives, consistent with the nutritional requirements of the species, the present work aims to present some economically efficient fodder alternatives to use for milk production in sheep farms of different sizes. The study brings added value to research in the field of using fodder alternatives in animal nutrition through the economic aspects researched because profitability is pursued in any activity, thus completing the technical arguments of previous studies in the literature in the field. Several economic indicators were calculated, such as the total value by categories of expenses, the value of production, the level of profit, and the rate of gross and net return. The analysis demonstrated that regardless of their size, the sheep farms located in lowland areas can reach positive values of profitability indicators when using alternative fodder in animal feeding.

Full text

Citation: Chetroiu, R.; Rodino, S.;
Dragomir, V.; Ilie, D.M.; Marin, A.
Assessing Economic Viability of
Resilient Sheep Foraging Alternatives
in Lowland Regions of Romania.
Agriculture 2024,14, 1656. https://
doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14091656
Academic Editors: Horat
,iu
Felix Arion and Camelia F. Oroian
Received: 19 August 2024
Revised: 20 September 2024
Accepted: 20 September 2024
Published: 22 September 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
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/).
agriculture
Article
Assessing Economic Viability of Resilient Sheep Foraging
Alternatives in Lowland Regions of Romania
Rodica Chetroiu 1, Steliana Rodino 1, 2, * , Vili Dragomir 1, Diana Maria Ilie 1and Ancut
,a Marin 1
1Research Institute for Agriculture Economy and Rural Development, 011464 Bucharest, Romania;
rodica.chetroiu@iceadr.ro (R.C.); dragomir.vili@iceadr.ro (V.D.); necula.diana@iceadr.ro (D.M.I.);
marin.ancuta@iceadr.ro (A.M.)
2
National Institute of Research and Development for Biological Sciences, 296 Splaiul Independen¸tei, District 6,
060031 Bucharest, Romania
*Correspondence: steliana.rodino@yahoo.com
Abstract: Sheep farming is an important branch of the animal husbandry sector in Europe. In 2023,
Romania’s sheep and goat herds ranked third in the European Union, with more than 10 million
heads, contributing substantially to the production of meat, traditional cheeses, and wool. However,
in the current climate context, with extreme weather events and especially long periods of drought,
providing optimal fodder ratio becomes a challenge for farmers. As animal nutritionists provide
valid alternatives, consistent with the nutritional requirements of the species, the present work aims
to present some economically efficient fodder alternatives to use for milk production in sheep farms
of different sizes. The study brings added value to research in the field of using fodder alternatives in
animal nutrition through the economic aspects researched because profitability is pursued in any
activity, thus completing the technical arguments of previous studies in the literature in the field.
Several economic indicators were calculated, such as the total value by categories of expenses, the
value of production, the level of profit, and the rate of gross and net return. The analysis demonstrated
that regardless of their size, the sheep farms located in lowland areas can reach positive values of
profitability indicators when using alternative fodder in animal feeding.
Keywords: sheep farming; economic efficiency; millet; climate change; Romania
1. Introduction
Climate change is among the current global challenges that is pressuring natural
ecosystems, agriculture, and economic processes [
1
]. Climate change was revealed in
recent studies as a factor that has clearly affected the productivity of agriculture in large
regions of Europe [
2
–
4
]. While this lengthening of the growing season may be positive
in some northern areas of the European Union, the southern regions are believed to be
subject to increased pressure from drought and periods of heat stress on crop yields and
animal health [
1
,
5
,
6
]. More specifically, extreme events, such as flooding and wildfires,
are also increasing, which serves only to worsen this vulnerability within the agricultural
production systems [2,7].
Being an important branch of animal husbandry, sheep farming plays a major socio-
economic role in the European area for maintaining biodiversity and supplying valuable
products to the market. Therefore, the environmental and economic performance of such
farms is of high interest and is continuously being measured and improved, both for
decision-makers and farmers [
8
]. Sheep herds are concentrated in the Mediterranean
and Black Sea areas of Europe, and their breeding systems are significant for the rural
economy of these regions [
9
]. Sheep farming is not only relevant for economic stability of
the regional business ecosystem but also for adapting the food system to environmental
challenges, making it essential to consider the impacts of external factors on this sector. In
this context, understanding and mitigating the effects of climate change becomes significant
Agriculture 2024,14, 1656. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14091656 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agriculture

Agriculture 2024,14, 1656 2 of 16
to ensuring the sustainability of agricultural systems [
10
,
11
]. Climate change has played
a significant role in the evolution of agricultural production systems affecting animal
production parameters. Sheep and goat farming is especially susceptible to heat stress,
water scarcity, and declining pasture quality [
8
]. These climatic factors directly influence
livestock productivity, reproductive success, and mortality rates. However, climate change
has been one of the major barriers to the sustainability of small ruminant farms. Heat
stress impairs milk production, feed intake, and reproduction functions in both sheep and
goats [
12
]. Several recent studies suggest that future livestock production faces multiple
challenges associated with climate change, making it necessary to study production factors
and develop targeted solutions [13,14].
Among the challenges facing sheep and goat farming in European countries, a notable
issue is related to thermal stress and livestock welfare. In Mediterranean regions, which
are the typical habitats for these livestock, elevated temperatures intensify heat stress,
consequently impacting their growth rates, milk yield, and reproductive success. The
anticipated rise in both intensity and frequency of heatwaves represents a specific risk to
the welfare and productivity of these animals [15].
Another challenge is related to the accessibility of forage and water for grazing live-
stock. Decreased precipitation coupled with elevated evaporation rates adversely impacts
the quality of pastures and water supplies, complicating efforts for farmers in sustaining
their herds. The deterioration of pastures not only influences the availability of feed but
also results in soil erosion and a reduction in biodiversity [16].
High dependency on subsidies and volatile market prices make it difficult for farmers
to invest in climate-resilient technologies and strategies. Many regions, particularly in
Southern Europe, have reported decreasing farm incomes and increasing costs of feed and
water, further stressing the financial sustainability of these farms [1,17].
Following Raza, A. et al. (2019), extreme temperatures and reduced rainfall have
affected crop productivity in Southern Europe, with the greatest effects in countries such as
Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Romania [
18
]. According to data from the National Institute
of Statistics, the production of green forages in arable land in Romania decreased during
the period 2013–2022 by 19.2%, from 13 million tons to 10.5 million tons, and the trend
remains negative. The production of perennial forages decreased in the respective interval
by 15.1%, from 9.7 million tons to 8.2 million tons, and in the case of green maize, both the
area decreased by 12.5% and production by 20.9%. These evolutions indicate the decrease
in the production of the main lactogenic fodder resources for ruminants, which are essential
for the livestock sector. In this context, designing optimal nutrition for farm animals may
allow adaptation to difficult environmental conditions, ensuring health, productivity, and
well-being throughout periods of heat load [8].
The impact of climate change on livestock farming systems depends both on the
environmental and climatic local conditions and on the economic vulnerability [
13
]. In
this context, nutritional interventions can help animals sustain the production in adverse
environmental conditions and help optimize economic profitability in sheep farms by
minimizing production costs. Therefore, any strategy and interventions must emphasize the
development of adaptation strategies that involve the decision-makers in the farms [
14
,
19
].
It is expected that the increased frequency and intensity of droughts will lower forage and
crop production worldwide. The process of aridification is likely to reduce the carrying
capacity in agropastoral and pastoral systems. Maximization of productivity of crops and
forages within the livestock systems will then become an imperative strategic response [
20
].
Among the climate change variables, heat stress, insufficient water, and low feed
quantity and quality appear to be the main limiting environmental factors in animal
production [
21
,
22
]. High temperatures affect the milk production of sheep because they
increase the maintenance energy requirement due to the increased rate of respiration [
23
,
24
].
At the same time, the relatively small body size of sheep, low water and feed requirements, a
good feed conversion ratio, and the ability to convert low-quality feed into quality products
are important characteristics in the current environmental and climatic conditions [
25
].

Agriculture 2024,14, 1656 3 of 16
Optimal nutrition can allow adaptation to adverse environmental conditions, ensuring
adequate energy intake during heatwave periods [
26
]. A promising approach to improve
the efficiency of technological processes, including those of feeding, is precision animal
breeding, which provides farmers with a real-time monitoring and management system
through technological support [
27
–
29
]. Some authors believe that these technologies could
also be introduced to extensive sheep breeding systems, with the benefits being higher
profits and better use of feed resources [
30
,
31
]. Precision feeding recommends delivering
nutrients in line with individual animal requirements based on real-time feedback from
sensors [32].
Climatic features have a significant impact on the year-round availability of pasture
and other resources for livestock [
33
,
34
]. Extensive animal husbandry depends on natural
pastures and cultivated pastures for their nutritional requirements, so low availability
of food and water during summer compromises production, especially in low-potential
small ruminants in arid and semi-arid areas [
33
]. Climate change can affect the quantity
and quality of products, the reliability of production, and the natural resources on which
livestock production depends [1,34].
On the other hand, the demand for animal products provides market and income
opportunities for farmers. However, under current environmental and climate conditions,
higher temperatures could result in lower milk production, reduced animal weight gain,
and lower forage conversion efficiency [
35
,
36
]. Nutritional interventions involving feeding
sheep in accordance with the season and supplementing with micronutrients can help
animals sustain their production in adverse environmental and climatic conditions [
37
].
This kind of intervention includes the use of alternative forages, like sorghum and millet.
Sorghum has its origin in Africa [
38
]. Due to the increased capacity to tolerate drought
and extreme temperatures, compared to other cereals and to grow on all types of soil [
39
], it
is currently the fifth most widely cultivated cereal worldwide [
40
], reaching an annual pro-
duction of 60–65 million tons [
41
]. Correlated with its multiple possibilities for valorization,
the interest in the sorghum crop has grown in Romania as well. The hybrids F 436-Prut and
F 465-Doina were analyzed from the point of view of productive and energetic potential for
Romania [
42
,
43
]. The nutritional content of sorghum grains is 10.4% protein, 1.5 fat, and
6.8% ash, similar to rice, wheat, and corn [40].
According to the previous literature, millet was first cultivated in East Asia then spread
throughout Eurasia before emerging as a significant crop in the second millennium BC [
44
].
Even in extreme heat and drought, millet thrives on land in semi-arid regions, having a brief
vegetative phase and producing large yields [
45
]. The millet crop also has the advantage of
being one of the grains that absorbs more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and converts
it to oxygen, which means it can help slow down climate change [
46
]. After sorghum, the
millet crop is the most important cereal cultivated for human and animal sustenance, with
high demand in Africa, Russia, India, and China [
47
]. This plant is regarded as a nutritious
cereal that is high in energy, containing as much or more protein than wheat, rice, corn, and
sorghum [48], and has a large economic influence on developing countries [49].
Several studies carried out so far [
43
,
50
–
52
] regarding the efficiency of sorghum and
millet use refer to the economic results of crop farms, obtained from the utilization of these
crops. But they do not extend the research to the economic efficiency of livestock farms
and especially of sheep farms, which use in their rations these resilient forage resources.
Also, the reports originated mostly in non-European countries with a semi-arid climate,
not in those with a temperate-continental climate, like Eastern European countries, which
are facing recent changes in the hydrological and climatic regime. The prior research that
referred to the use of these forages in animal rations did not aim to study the economic
aspects of animal farms that use them. So, the contribution of the present work to the
literature in the field consists of the evaluation of different types of costs and economic
effects of using these crops in lowland sheep farms, where forage crops adapted to climate
change participate in the creation of added value via animal production.

Agriculture 2024,14, 1656 4 of 16
In this context, the main aim of this work is to assess the economic feasibility of
alternative feed resources in sheep-farming enterprises in lowland areas of Romania in
view of climate change and its impacts on the number of traditional forages available. In
this respect, the research questions (RQs) of the study were as follows:
RQ1: What is the economic feasibility of incorporating sorghum as resilient fodder into the
feeding of sheep during the drought period? This research question aimed to approach the
economic sustainability related to the shift of sheep farmers from conventional fodder
toward alternative varieties resistant to drought conditions. Conventional fodder that can
be totally or partially replaced by millet and sorghum are those commonly used in sheep
feed, and here we refer to bulk fodder, such as silage corn or green corn. For ruminants,
millet hay can also replace different types of hay. Regarding grains, millet can replace corn,
barley, or wheat.
RQ2: What is the economic feasibility of incorporating millet as resilient fodder into the
feeding of sheep during the drought period? This research question aimed to approach the
economic sustainability related to the shift of sheep farmers from conventional fodder
toward alternative varieties resistant to drought conditions.
RQ3: How do resilient fodder alternatives, namely, sorghum and millet, affect profitability in
small- and medium-scale sheep farms? It was explored whether the farm size influenced the
economic outcomes of using resilient fodder.
In order to address the proposed research questions, hypotheses were formulated.
These hypotheses test the impacts that sorghum and millet may exert on farm profitability,
nutritional adequacy, and range in farm size, offering significant insight into the role of
climate resilience within farming management decisions.
H1: The use of sorghum as resilient fodder in sheep feed leads to a marked improvement in the
economic viability of the farms.
This hypothesis suggests that the replacement of traditional, drought-prone fodders
like with resilient ones like sorghum will guarantee higher economic returns in the respec-
tive sheep farms. That is because sorghum is a drought-resistant crop and can withstand
more extreme conditions, providing more seasonally stable feed availability and reducing
the costs associated with crop failures or feed shortages in the driest periods. The possible
hypothesized economic improvements in this case are related to reduced feed costs or profit
margins under drought conditions. This hypothesis of determining the financial impacts
of utilizing resilient fodder was aimed at investigating whether the sheep farmers would
either maintain their economic stability or even improve it by introducing sorghum into
animal nutrition.
H2: The use of millet as resilient fodder in sheep feed leads to a marked improvement in the economic
viability of the farms.
This hypothesis suggests that the replacement of drought-prone fodders with mil-
let will generate higher economic returns in the respective sheep farms. The possible
hypothesized economic improvements in this case are related to reduced feed costs or
profit margins under drought conditions. This hypothesis of determining the financial
impacts of utilizing resilient fodder was aimed at investigating whether sheep farmers
would either maintain their economic stability or even improve it by introducing millet into
animal nutrition.
H3: Resilient fodder alternatives yield more pronounced economic benefits in larger farms.
This proposition suggests that more extensive agricultural operations might gain greater
advantages from economies of scale when implementing resilient fodder alternatives.
Resilient forage options, such as sorghum and millet, would have higher economic
returns for medium-scale sheep farms compared to small-scale farming. This hypothesis

Agriculture 2024,14, 1656 5 of 16
suggests that the scale of farming is an important determinant of the extent to which
farms can benefit from the efficiency, production stability, and resilience values offered by
drought-tolerant forages.
These research questions and hypotheses were developed to consider the economic
and pragmatic outcomes of utilizing drought-resistant forage in ovine agriculture, in
particular, under the challenging conditions posed by climate change. This research aims
to investigate the economic and practical implications of using drought-resistant fodder in
sheep farming as a response to climate change.
2. Materials and Methods
To illustrate the economic analysis, two sheep farms of different sizes—one with
100 heads
and another with 1500 heads—were selected as case studies. The average produc-
tion for these farms was considered as being 100 L of milk/head and 60 kg live weight/head.
The farms were considered for the Western area of Romania, specifically in the Western
Plain, where the largest areas of sorghum were cultivated. The climate in those areas is
continental–moderate, with temperate–oceanic influences, and the annual temperature
averages are between 10
◦
C and 12
◦
C. Average annual precipitation amounts to 600 mm in
the plains and 700 mm in the hilly areas. Fodder rations for the summer season and for
winter were developed and include lowland forages adapted to the conditions of climate
change, like green millet and green sorghum (in summer) and millet silage and sorghum
silage (in winter) based on the norms of Milk Nutritive Units (UNL) and digestible protein
(PDIN), established according to the productive level and weight of the animal, tabular
values developed by the Institute of Animal Biology and Nutrition [
53
]. According to
Drăgotoiu et al. (2017), the objective of determining the chemical composition of forages
is to estimate their nutritional value [
54
]. UNL is a conventional nutritional unit which
expresses the energy content of a forage, necessary for the maintenance functions and
milk production needs of animals. The protein value of forages depends on their protein
content, degradability, and digestibility and is calculated using the PDI (intestine digestible
protein) system.
The nutritional content of a feed refers to the content of proteins, energy, vitamins,
minerals, etc. The nutritional unit UN represents the potential of the forage, illustrating
mainly the level and effect of its energy content, which the animal uses for its production, in
this case for milk production [
42
]. Prices for forages are average values on the free market.
The fodder rations were optimized both in terms of covering the UNL and PDI
required for the maintenance of the animals’ vital functions and for milk production, as
well as from an economic point of view, based on the specific technological allocation
requirements of inputs at average prices on the market, to obtain the necessary incomes to
cover the expenses allocated by the farmer, as well as to obtain a profit. Feed rations for
animals can be very varied, depending on local resource availability and on feed purchases
made by the farmer, etc. A ration used in an association of sheep breeders with whom we
were in contact includes in the winter season 2 kg of alfalfa hay, 1.2 kg of high-moisture
fodder like corn silage, and 0.4 kg of concentrated fodder—grains of corn and sunflower
meal—and in summer 5 kg of green fodder, like pasture or green maize, and 0.3 kg of
concentrated feed—grains of corn and sunflower meal. In the implementation of specific
measures during the preparation period for the calving campaign in winter, when sheep
are in the stable, vitamin and mineral supplements can be administered at a proportion of
1% of the concentrated feed.
Based on the estimated average yields under climate change conditions for ration
forages, the areas required for fodder cultivated on the farm were calculated. The income
and expenditures budget was drawn up, with the components of variable expenditure
(feed, biological material, energy, medicines, other material expenditure, and supply quota)
and fixed expenditure (labor, general expenditure, interest, and amortization) as well as

Agriculture 2024,14, 1656 6 of 16
with the component of income indicators: value of production, value of main production,
taxable income, net income, and income rates, following the formulas described below:
TE = VE + FE,
in which TE—total expenditures, VE—variable expenditures, Fe—fixed expenditures.
VE=F+b+e+m+o+s+in,
in which F—forage costs, b—biologic material, e—energy, m—medicines, o—other materi-
als, s—supply quota, in—insurance.
FE=l+g+i+a,
in which l—labor, g—general costs, i—interests, a—amortization.
VP = VM + VS,
in which VP—value of production, VM—value of main production, VS—value of secondary
production.
TI = VP −TE,
in which TI—taxable income.
NI = TI −t
in which NI—net income, t—taxes.
TIR = TI/EM
in which TIR—taxable income rate, EM—expenditures for main production.
The calculations in the income and expenditure budgets were carried out for a theoret-
ical model farm on the basis of data from periodic surveys that our research organization
is carrying out with farmers as part of business-as-usual work in our research team for
providing analysis for median farms across the country for supporting decision-makers.
The data were updated with inflation rates, and input prices were calculated as average
prices on the free market. Elaborating the income and expenditure budgets consisted of
the determination of different categories of expenses, the estimation of incomes, and the
analysis of profitability. Production value was determined as a product of market price and
the average production yield. Gross product was determined by adding the subsidy to the
revenue obtained from the production sale. Total expenses were calculated by summing
variable and fixed expenses. Variable expenses were determined by summing the expenses
with fodder, the young female sheep starting their first lactation (biologic material), energy,
medicines, other materials, supply quota, and insurance (if applicable). Supply expenses
represent those expenses necessary for the supply of materials. The fixed expenses include
labor costs, general costs, interests, and amortization. The production cost per product unit
was determined by dividing the total expenses for the main production by the quantity
of milk sold. The value of taxable income was calculated by the difference between the
value of total production and total production expenses. The net income was calculated by
deducting 10% tax from the taxable income. The rate of taxable income (%) was determined
by dividing the taxable income by the total expenses for the main production. The ratio of
net income plus subsidies was calculated by dividing net income plus subsidies by total
expenditure on primary production.
Moreover, that the resulting values calculated in the budgets were confirmed by
sheep breeders’ associations, as well as by specialists from the Research and Development
Institute for Sheep and Goat Breeding in Romania. On the other hand, in case studies
carried out previously, in 47 sheep farms [
55
], we found that there is a variability between
farms for the calculated economic indicators, which can reach 15–30% for the different

Agriculture 2024,14, 1656 7 of 16
categories of expenses or even 50% for labor costs. These differences are due to different
sizes of farms, different prices for inputs in different areas of the country, and prices for the
products sold by the farm (cheese, lambs).
3. Results
3.1. Sheep Farm with 100 Heads
In the summer ration, the green millet replaces part of the pasture, considered to
be affected by drought conditions. During the grazing season, animals may face growth
constraints due to limited grazing resources for pasture, determined by stocking density
and environmental and climatic conditions [56].
Extensive sheep systems have an important role in ensuring food security and the
use of pastures, which have no alternative agricultural destination, and responses to
climate challenges are decisive for economic and environmental sustainability. Low-quality
pastures can have significant implications in providing the nutrients needed by animals [
34
].
Considering the green type of foraging for the pasture and the nutritional content of the
fodders in the ration, when ensuring the PDI requirements, the UNL requirement is slightly
exceeded (Table 1).
Table 1. Green millet summer ratio/head—100 L/head, 60 kg live weight.
Forages
kg/Head/Day
UNL PDI (g) Quantity/Head/Summer Price, RON/kg Value/Head/Summer
Lowland
pasture 4.00 0.84 88.00 800 0.1 80
Green millet 5.50 1.32 106.70 1100 0.18 198
Total 2.16 194.70 278
Norm 1.93 195.00
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
The winter ration is composed of alfalfa hay, millet silage (as a substitute for corn
silage), corn cobs, and a certain amount of corn grain (Table 2). The winter ration is
composed of alfalfa hay (33.1%) and millet silage (46.7%).
Table 2. Millet silage winter ratio/head—100 L/head, 60 kg live weight.
Forages
kg/Head/Day
UNL PDI (g) Quantity/Head/Winter Price, RON/kg Value/Head/Winter
Alfalfa hay 1.56 0.89 117.00 257 0.90 231.7
Millet silage 2.20 0.64 37.95 363 0.40 145.2
Corn cobs 0.80 0.22 29.60 132 0.15 19.8
Corn grains 0.15 0.19 10.95 25 1.08 26.7
Total 1.93 195.50 423.4
Norm 1.93 195.00
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
The annual quantities are 800 kg pasture, 1100 kg green millet, 257 kg alfalfa hay,
363 kg millet silage, 132 kg corn cobs, and 25 kg corn grain. Corn cobs and corn grains can
be purchased from suppliers (Table 3).
Considering the modest average production obtained in drought conditions, it follows
that the area required for fodder is 20.47 ha, of which 8 ha is pasture (Figure 1).
The income and expenditure budget for 100 sheep for milk indicates a total expenditure
value of 99,756 RON/farm, of which 47,956 RON/farm related to the main production.
Variable expenses represent 82.1% of total costs. Of the total expenses, the cost of feed
represents 70.3% (70,139 RON/farm), and that of the variable expenses is 85.6%, being the
most important input in obtaining milk production (Table 4).

Agriculture 2024,14, 1656 8 of 16
Table 3. Total forage quantities per year/farm and surface for forages, small farm.
Forages Quantity, kg kg/ha Surface/Head, ha Surface/Farm, ha
Alfalfa hay 257 5000 0.05 5.15
Lowland pasture
800 10,000 0.08 8.00
Green millet 1100 20,000 0.06 5.50
Millet silage 363 20,000 0.02 1.82
Corn grains 25 purchase
Corn cobs 132 purchase
Total surface 20.46
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
Agriculture 2024, 14, 1656 8 of 17
Table 3. Total forage quantities per year/farm and surface for forages, small farm.
Forages Quantity, kg kg/ha
Surface/Head
, ha
Surface/Farm,
ha
Alfalfa hay 257 5000 0.05 5.15
Lowland pasture 800 10,000 0.08 8.00
Green millet 1100 20,000 0.06 5.50
Millet silage 363 20,000 0.02 1.82
Corn grains 25 purchase
Corn cobs 132 purchase
Total surface 20.46
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
Considering the modest average production obtained in drought conditions, it fol-
lows that the area required for fodder is 20.47 ha, of which 8 ha is pasture (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Necessary surface for forages, small farm.
The income and expenditure budget for 100 sheep for milk indicates a total expendi-
ture value of 99,756 RON/farm, of which 47,956 RON/farm related to the main production.
Variable expenses represent 82.1% of total costs. Of the total expenses, the cost of feed
represents 70.3% (70,139 RON/farm), and that of the variable expenses is 85.6%, being the
most important input in obtaining milk production (Table 4).
Table 4. Budget of income and expenditures of the small farm.
Indicators RON/Head RON/L Value/Farm, RON
Value of production, of which: 1068.0 10.68 106,800
Value of main production (milk) 550.0 5.50 55,000
Subsidies 0 0 0
Gross product 1068.0 10.68 106,800
Total expenditures, of which: 997.6 9.98 99,756
Expenditures for main production 479.6 4.80 47,956
Variable expenditures, of which: 819.6 8.20 81,956
Forage costs 701.4 7.01 70,139
Biologic material 66.7 0.67 6667
Energy 12.0 0.12 1200
Medicines 12.0 0.12 1200
Other materials 8.0 0.08 800
Supply quota 19.5 0.20 1950
Insurance 0 0 0
Fixed expenditures, of which: 178.0 1.78 17,800
Labor 178.0 1.78 17,800
5.15
8.00
5.50
1.82
Alfalfa for hay Lowland pasture Green millet Millet for silage
Figure 1. Necessary surface for forages, small farm.
Table 4. Budget of income and expenditures of the small farm.
Indicators RON/Head RON/L Value/Farm, RON
Value of production, of which: 1068.0 10.68 106,800
Value of main production (milk) 550.0 5.50 55,000
Subsidies 0 0 0
Gross product 1068.0 10.68 106,800
Total expenditures, of which: 997.6 9.98 99,756
Expenditures for main
production 479.6 4.80 47,956
Variable expenditures, of which: 819.6 8.20 81,956
Forage costs 701.4 7.01 70,139
Biologic material 66.7 0.67 6667
Energy 12.0 0.12 1200
Medicines 12.0 0.12 1200
Other materials 8.0 0.08 800
Supply quota 19.5 0.20 1950
Insurance 0 0 0
Fixed expenditures, of which: 178.0 1.78 17,800
Labor 178.0 1.78 17,800
General costs 0 0 0
Interests 0 0 0
Amortization 0 0 0
Taxable income 70.4 0.70 7044
Taxes 7.0 0.07 704
Net income + subsidies 63.4 0.63 6340
Taxable income rate % 14.7 14.7 14.7
Net income rate % 13.2 13.2 13.2
Production cost 479.6 4.80 47,956
Price 550.0 5.50 55,000
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.

Agriculture 2024,14, 1656 9 of 16
The level and quality of fodder are determining factors of animal production. In condi-
tions with a reduced hydrological regime and prolonged periods of drought, the countries
of the European Pannonian zone, including Romania, were the most affected, which is
why alternatives for feeding animals with crops resistant to the current environmental and
climate conditions are required.
The main production of the farm is milk, which is sold at an average price of
5.5 RON/L
(as cheese), and the secondary production is the sale of lambs and reformed animals.
The taxable income of the farm is RON 7044, specifically 14.7%, which indicates that
farm obtains a profit and overcomes the vulnerability to climatic conditions, falling within
the terms of economic sustainability (Figure 2).
Agriculture 2024, 14, 1656 9 of 17
General costs 0 0 0
Interests 0 0 0
Amortization 0 0 0
Taxable income 70.4 0.70 7044
Taxes 7.0 0.07 704
Net income + subsidies 63.4 0.63 6340
Taxable income rate % 14.7 14.7 14.7
Net income rate % 13.2 13.2 13.2
Production cost 479.6 4.80 47,956
Price 550.0 5.50 55,000
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
The level and quality of fodder are determining factors of animal production. In con-
ditions with a reduced hydrological regime and prolonged periods of drought, the coun-
tries of the European Pannonian zone, including Romania, were the most affected, which
is why alternatives for feeding animals with crops resistant to the current environmental
and climate conditions are required.
The main production of the farm is milk, which is sold at an average price of 5.5
RON/liter (as cheese), and the secondary production is the sale of lambs and reformed
animals.
The taxable income of the farm is RON 7044, specifically 14.7%, which indicates that
farm obtains a profit and overcomes the vulnerability to climatic conditions, falling within
the terms of economic sustainability (Figure 2).
Figure 2. The main economic indicators of the small farm.
3.2. Sheep Farm with 1500 Heads
For the farm of 1500 sheep, sorghum was chosen as an alternative fodder, used in the
summer ration as green sorghum and in the winter as sorghum silage. Thus, in the sum-
mer, 6 kg of green pasture and 3.8 kg of green sorghum are provided, to which 80 g of
sunflower meal is added, to ensure the necessary protein level of the ration (Table 5).
99,756
81,956
70,139
17,800
106,800
7044
14.6889
47,956
55,000
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
VARIABLE EXPENDITURES
Forages costs
FIXED EXPENDITURES
VALUE OF PRODUCTION
TAXABLE INCOME
TAXABLE INCOME RATE %
PRODUCTION COST
PRICE
Figure 2. The main economic indicators of the small farm.
3.2. Sheep Farm with 1500 Heads
For the farm of 1500 sheep, sorghum was chosen as an alternative fodder, used in the
summer ration as green sorghum and in the winter as sorghum silage. Thus, in the summer,
6 kg of green pasture and 3.8 kg of green sorghum are provided, to which 80 g of sunflower
meal is added, to ensure the necessary protein level of the ration (Table 5).
Table 5. Green sorghum summer ratio/head—100 L/head, 60 kg live weight.
Forages
kg/Head/Day
UNL PDI (g) Quantity/Head/Summer Price, RON/kg Value/Head/Summer
Lowland
pasture 6.00 1.26 132.00 1200 0.10 120.0
Green sorghum 3.80 0.61 45.60 760 0.18 136.8
Sunflower meal 0.08 0.06 18.08 16 1.17 18.7
Total 1.93 195.68 275.5
Norm 1.93 195.00
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
The winter ration contains equal amounts of 2 kg of alfalfa hay and sorghum silage, as
well as 310 g of corn grain, to complete the energy level of the ration (Table 6).
Thus, the annual requirement per sheep is 1200 kg of pasture, 760 kg of green sorghum,
16 kg of sunflower meal, 330 kg of alfalfa hay, 330 kg of sorghum silage, and 51 kg of corn
grain (Table 7).

Agriculture 2024,14, 1656 10 of 16
Table 6. Sorghum silage winter ratio/head—100 L/head, 60 kg live weight.
Forages
kg/Head/Day
UNL PDI (g) Quantity/Head/Winter Price, RON/kg Value/Head/Winter
Alfalfa hay 2.00 1.14 150.00 330 0.90 297.0
Sorghum silage 2.00 0.40 24.00 330 0.30 99.0
Corn grains 0.31 0.39 22.63 51 1.08 55.2
Total 1.93 196.63 451.2
Norm 1.93 195.00
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
Table 7. Total forage quantities per year/farm and surface for forages, medium farm.
Forages Quantity, kg kg/ha Surface/Head, ha Surface/Farm, ha
Alfalfa for hay 330 5000 0.07 99.00
Lowland pasture
1200 15,000 0.08 120.00
Green millet 760 20,000 0.04 57.00
Sorghum silage 330 25,000 0.01 19.80
Corn grains 51 purchase
Sunflower meal 16 purchase
TOTAL
SURFACE 295.80
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
The surface required for the farm of 1500 sheep, in drought conditions, is 295.8 ha, of
which 120 ha is pasture (Figure 3).
Agriculture 2024, 14, 1656 11 of 17
Figure 3. Necessary surface for forages, medium farm.
The concentrated fodders, such as sunflower meal and corn grain, are purchased. Of
course, under conditions of a normal hydrological regime, when the production of green
fodder on the pasture increases, the surface needed is significantly reduced.
For the 1500-head farm, the budget of income and expenditures indicates a total ex-
penditure value of 1,451,347 Romanian Leu (RON), of which RON 674,347 relates to the
main production. Variable expenses represent 87.7% of total expenses. Of total expenses,
the cost of feed represents 75.1%, and that of the variable expenses is 85.6% (Table 8).
Table 8. Budget of income and expenditures of the medium farm.
Indicators RON/Head
RON/
L Value/Farm, RON
Value of production, of which: 1068.0 10.68 1,602,000
Value of main production (milk) 550.0 5.50 825,000
Subsidies 22.4 0.22 33,600
Gross product 1090.4 10.90 1,635,600
Total expenditures, of which: 967.6 9.68 1,451,347
Expenditures for main production 449.6 4.50 674,347
VARIABLE EXPENDITURES, of which: 848.6 8.49 1,272,847
Forage costs 726.8 7.27 1,090,143
Biologic material 66.7 0.67 100,000
Energy 15.0 0.15 22,500
Medicines 12.0 0.12 18,000
Other materials 8.0 0.08 12,000
Supply quota 20.1 0.20 30,204
Insurance 0.0 0.00 -
FIXED EXPENDITURES, of which: 119.0 1.19 178,500
Labor 119.0 1.19 178,500
General costs 0.0 0.00 -
Interests 0.0 0.00 -
Amortization 0.0 0.00 -
TAXABLE INCOME 100.4 1.00 150,653
Taxes 10.0 0.10 15,065
NET INCOME + subsidies 112.8 1.13 169,188
TAXABLE INCOME RATE % 22.3 22.3 22.3
NET INCOME RATE % 25.1 25.1 25.1
PRODUCTION COST 449.6 4.50 674,347
PRICE 550.0 5.50 825,000
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
99.00
120.00
57.00
19.80
Alfalfa for hay Lowland pasture Green sorghum Sorghum silage
Figure 3. Necessary surface for forages, medium farm.
The concentrated fodders, such as sunflower meal and corn grain, are purchased. Of
course, under conditions of a normal hydrological regime, when the production of green
fodder on the pasture increases, the surface needed is significantly reduced.
For the 1500-head farm, the budget of income and expenditures indicates a total
expenditure value of 1,451,347 Romanian Leu (RON), of which RON 674,347 relates to the
main production. Variable expenses represent 87.7% of total expenses. Of total expenses,
the cost of feed represents 75.1%, and that of the variable expenses is 85.6% (Table 8).
The taxable income of the farm is RON 150,653, specifically 22.3%, and the net income
with subsidies (the farm meets the conditions for obtaining financial support) increases
to 25.1% (Figure 4). Taxes are 10% of gross income for both farms, but the taxable income
rate, also called the gross income rate (%), was determined by dividing taxable income
(gross income) by total expenses for the main production. On the farm with 100 heads, this
ratio is only 14.6% compared to the farm with 1500 heads, where the ratio between the
two indicators had a higher value (22.3%), and in addition, the money supply is over
21 times higher.

Agriculture 2024,14, 1656 11 of 16
Table 8. Budget of income and expenditures of the medium farm.
Indicators RON/Head RON/
LValue/Farm, RON
Value of production, of which: 1068.0 10.68 1,602,000
Value of main production (milk) 550.0 5.50 825,000
Subsidies 22.4 0.22 33,600
Gross product 1090.4 10.90 1,635,600
Total expenditures, of which: 967.6 9.68 1,451,347
Expenditures for main production 449.6 4.50 674,347
VARIABLE EXPENDITURES, of which: 848.6 8.49 1,272,847
Forage costs 726.8 7.27 1,090,143
Biologic material 66.7 0.67 100,000
Energy 15.0 0.15 22,500
Medicines 12.0 0.12 18,000
Other materials 8.0 0.08 12,000
Supply quota 20.1 0.20 30,204
Insurance 0.0 0.00 -
FIXED EXPENDITURES, of which: 119.0 1.19 178,500
Labor 119.0 1.19 178,500
General costs 0.0 0.00 -
Interests 0.0 0.00 -
Amortization 0.0 0.00 -
TAXABLE INCOME 100.4 1.00 150,653
Taxes 10.0 0.10 15,065
NET INCOME + subsidies 112.8 1.13 169,188
TAXABLE INCOME RATE % 22.3 22.3 22.3
NET INCOME RATE % 25.1 25.1 25.1
PRODUCTION COST 449.6 4.50 674,347
PRICE 550.0 5.50 825,000
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
Agriculture 2024, 14, 1656 12 of 17
The taxable income of the farm is RON 150,653, specifically 22.3%, and the net income
with subsidies (the farm meets the conditions for obtaining financial support) increases to
25.1% (Figure 4). Taxes are 10% of gross income for both farms, but the taxable income
rate, also called the gross income rate (%), was determined by dividing taxable income
(gross income) by total expenses for the main production. On the farm with 100 heads,
this ratio is only 14.6% compared to the farm with 1500 heads, where the ratio between
the two indicators had a higher value (22.3%), and in addition, the money supply is over
21 times higher.
Figure 4. The main economic indicators of the medium farm.
4. Discussion
On a farm with a total of 100 sheep heads, it can be seen that green millet, which is
used to replace some of the pasture, meets the nutritional needs of the flock quite well. It
is slightly in excess of the UNL needs and meets the standard PDI. The adjustment was
an important one, with a view to the resiliency of fodder options, such as in mitigating
adverse drought impacts in pasture-based livestock systems.
As the forage costs, accounting for 70.3% of the total farm expenses, become the most
important inputs for milk production, the previous observation underlines the im-
portance of feed management regarding the profitability of the sheep farm. Considering
that variable expenses make up 82.1% of the total and that 85.6% of those variable ex-
penses constitute forage costs, any efficiency or cost effectiveness in feeding will be di-
rectly reflected in farm profitability. This farm compensates for the deficits in grazing
brought about by the climatic conditions and increases its productivity and profitability
by replacing part of the low-quality pasture with nutrient-rich green millet.
Similarly, the income and expenditure budget for the 100-head farm provides a net
profit equivalent to RON 7044, with a taxable income rate of 14.7%. That would imply that
the farm is economically viable even in the context of climate stressors, mainly due to the
strategic use of such drought-resistant fodder as millet. Although small, the net income
rate of 13.2% shows how this farm might stay in profit under the harsh environmental
conditions.
The larger-scale farm employing sorghum as a resilient feed alternative in summer
and winter rations evidenced a higher taxable income amounting to RON 150,653 or 22.3
percent of total income. Adding subsidies, net income rose to 25.1 percent due to the eco-
nomic advantages of scaling up production and climate-resilient feed strategies.
Overall, the results showed that while millet and sorghum as resilient fodder options
could ensure economic gains accruable to a small farm and medium-scale farm, respec-
tively, the latter made better economic sense since it has the capacity to optimize resources
and leverage scale economies and thus access finance. The addition of drought-tolerant
1,451,347
1,272,847
1,090,143
178,500
1,602,000
150,653
22
674,347
825,000
- 400,000 800,000 1,200,000 1,600,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
VARIABLE EXPENDITURES
Forages costs
FIXED EXPENDITURES
VALUE OF PRODUCTION
TAXABLE INCOME
TAXABLE INCOME RATE %
PRODUCTION COST
PRICE
Figure 4. The main economic indicators of the medium farm.
4. Discussion
On a farm with a total of 100 sheep heads, it can be seen that green millet, which is
used to replace some of the pasture, meets the nutritional needs of the flock quite well. It
is slightly in excess of the UNL needs and meets the standard PDI. The adjustment was
an important one, with a view to the resiliency of fodder options, such as in mitigating
adverse drought impacts in pasture-based livestock systems.
As the forage costs, accounting for 70.3% of the total farm expenses, become the most
important inputs for milk production, the previous observation underlines the importance
of feed management regarding the profitability of the sheep farm. Considering that variable
expenses make up 82.1% of the total and that 85.6% of those variable expenses constitute

Agriculture 2024,14, 1656 12 of 16
forage costs, any efficiency or cost effectiveness in feeding will be directly reflected in
farm profitability. This farm compensates for the deficits in grazing brought about by the
climatic conditions and increases its productivity and profitability by replacing part of the
low-quality pasture with nutrient-rich green millet.
Similarly, the income and expenditure budget for the 100-head farm provides a net
profit equivalent to RON 7044, with a taxable income rate of 14.7%. That would im-
ply that the farm is economically viable even in the context of climate stressors, mainly
due to the strategic use of such drought-resistant fodder as millet. Although small, the
net income rate of 13.2% shows how this farm might stay in profit under the harsh
environmental conditions.
The larger-scale farm employing sorghum as a resilient feed alternative in summer
and winter rations evidenced a higher taxable income amounting to RON 150,653 or
22.3 percent of total income. Adding subsidies, net income rose to 25.1 percent due to the
economic advantages of scaling up production and climate-resilient feed strategies.
Overall, the results showed that while millet and sorghum as resilient fodder options
could ensure economic gains accruable to a small farm and medium-scale farm, respectively,
the latter made better economic sense since it has the capacity to optimize resources and
leverage scale economies and thus access finance. The addition of drought-tolerant fodder
species was thus justified for both cases to favor the value of livestock feeding while
ensuring economic viability for farms with severe climatic variability.
The analysis indicated the fact that the recommendations of specialists in biology
and animal nutrition regarding the use of alternative feeds, like millet and sorghum, in
conditions of a reduced water regime, represent, from an economic point of view, a solution
to reduce the vulnerability of farmers’ incomes. If farmers resort to the use of fodder
alternatives in the event that crops more sensitive to the hydrological deficit are affected,
such as green maize or maize silage, the question arises regarding the economic viability of
these decisions, in the sense of whether the resultant financial expenditure created exceeds
the level of expenses and does not reach the profitability threshold of the farm. In other
words, is there an economic risk that accompanies this choice? The current calculations
demonstrate that the farm’s activity can be carried out with profit.
Grazing is one component of a future sustainable agricultural system; it can improve
both soil health and plant biodiversity and reduce the need for artificial fertilizers [57].
Previous studies have demonstrated that well-managed grazing encourages nutri-
ent recycling through natural pathways, which improves soil structure and fertility and
subsequently supports a great diversity of plant species, including plants otherwise un-
common in grazing lands [
19
,
34
,
57
]. Millet, especially pearl millet, is fast becoming an
important forage crop in such grazing systems due to its ability to grow well in arid and
semi-arid areas where water and nutrient availability is very poor [
46
,
48
]. As previously
mentioned, one of the deep-seated aspects of millet is its potential to stabilize soil and
improve water infiltration, which eventually opens up more avenues for improving soil
health and reducing erosion [
44
,
58
,
59
]. From the standpoint of enhancing sustainability in
grazing systems, another very important value of millet is that it thrives in low-nutrient
soils and requires minimal artificial fertilization [
45
,
48
]. Other studies demonstrate the role
of millet in grazing rotation, with a shift toward an increase in forage availability and the
maintenance of soil fertility with regard to plant diversity [
58
]. This makes it a sustainable
means of improving pasture productivity.
Cultivating drought-tolerant fodder varieties in warm areas is an effective adaptive
strategy to ensure a sufficient supply of fodder during periods of scarcity [
37
]. For dry con-
tinental climates where maize is grown, alternative strategies can be suggested to produce
resilient cattle forages such as sorghum so that the feed will contain more ingredients to
cope with climate change [
60
]. It is fundamental that farmers and specialists in the field
understand the direct and indirect impacts of climate change on livestock production under
extreme weather conditions [61].

Agriculture 2024,14, 1656 13 of 16
Our findings underline the importance of climate variability adaptation in agriculture,
particularly within large-scale sheep farming systems. The results highlight that adequate
grazing management is crucial with drought-tolerant fodder plants, such as green millet
and sorghum, to maintain productivity and thus assure economic viability under drought
conditions. This is in line with previous studies showing that proper grazing land use may
alleviate some of the adverse effects of climate change on agricultural productivity [
62
–
65
].
Previous studies indicated that sorghum and millet are known to have resilience
to climate variability, more specifically in the semi-arid region. These crops proved to
have the ability to remain productive under water-stressed conditions compared to the
conventionally grown cereals such as maize and hence are suitable alternatives in drought-
prone areas [
65
,
66
]. One of the papers reported that millet and sorghum have high water-use
efficiency compared to maize, particularly if they are irrigated in a small area. The research
conducted in this study revealed that in an environment where there is limited water,
sorghum and pearl millet tend to be more efficient in sustaining forage production [67].
It has been described that the cultivation of millet as the main forage in areas like the
dry steppe zone of Northern Kazakhstan considerably enhanced the resilience of forage
and had supplementary nutritional values, thus being rather promising in adjusting to the
challenges of climate change [68].
According to Sabertanha et al. (2021), the sorghum silage of various varieties can
provide total-tract digestibility of nutrients similar to corn silage and can be considered
a reliable feed; thus, it is of great benefit. The study revealed that, under anaerobic
conditions, sorghum silage showed good fermentation quality with low levels of anti-
quality compounds, assuring that it is safe and effective in ruminant diets [69].
5. Conclusions
This study assessed the economic viability of foraging alternatives for sheep farming
in lowland regions of Romania as a response to climate change. The results showed that
regardless of farm size, implementing alternative forages could lead to positive profitability
indicators. It was found that on a small farm with 100 sheep, the use of green millet
in summer and millet silage in winter ensured proper nutritional supply and economic
stability, characterized by a taxable income of RON 7044 and a net income rate of 13.2%.
A larger farm with 1500 sheep showed even higher financial performance, with a taxable
income of RON 150,653 and a net income rate of 25.1%, and could be further supported if
subsidies are added. The presented results have value for both farmers and policymakers.
The provided data show that diversification of the fodder with climate-resilient species
would ensure that the sheep farming is able to rise above issues related to drought that
lead to low-quality pasture. At the same time, the importance of developing specific public
policy support mechanisms through subsidies or other types of technical assistance is also
a reality.
While the use of the proposed alternative fodder is economically positive, there are
limitations of the study that need to be considered. Firstly, the analysis included potential
farms in lowland areas. Hence, it may not be possible to generalize the results to other sheep
farms located in mountainous areas, which might have different conditions. Second, the
analysis is based on specified drought scenarios and climate conditions; variations in these
could significantly affect profitability outcomes. Additionally, the study focused primarily
on economic indicators such as profitability and feed costs, but there are other important
factors—such as animal health, feed conversion efficiency, and market conditions—that
can be taken into consideration. Nevertheless, the results would have been enriched with
more diverse indicators for broader geographic areas, thus offering a whole picture of the
potentiality of resilient fodder systems. Future research and policy initiatives should focus
on promoting the adoption of these practices to enhance the sustainability and economic
resilience of livestock farming.

Agriculture 2024,14, 1656 14 of 16
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.C. and S.R.; methodology, R.C.; formal analysis,
R.C., S.R. and V.D.; investigation, R.C., S.R., V.D., D.M.I. and A.M.; data curation, R.C. and V.D.;
writing—original draft preparation, R.C., S.R. and V.D.; writing—review and editing, R.C. and S.R.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the ADER 22.1.2. project “Technical-economic models for
reducing the vulnerability of livestock farms’ incomes to climate change”.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1.
Jacobs, C.; Berglund, M.; Kurnik, B.; Dworak, T.; Marras, S.; Mereu, V.; Michetti, M. Climate Change Adaptation in the Agriculture
Sector in Europe. European Environment Agency. 2019. Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2800/537176 (accessed
on 16 July 2024).
2.
Hristov, J.; Pérez Domínguez, I.; Fellmann, T.; Elleby, C. Economic impacts of climate change on EU agriculture: Will the farmers
benefit from global climate change? Environ. Res. Lett. 2023,19, 014027. [CrossRef]
3.
Sterie, C.; Dragomir, V. Global trends on research towards agriculture adaptation to climate change. Sci. Pap. Ser. Manag. Econ.
Eng. Agric. Rural. Dev. 2023,23, 759–766.
4.
Prăvălie, R.; Sîrodoev, I.; Patriche, C.; Ro
s
,
ca, B.; Piticar, A.; Bandoc, G.; Sfîcă, L.; Ti
s
,
covschi, A.; Dumitra
s
,
cu, M.; Chifiriuc, C.; et al.
The impact of climate change on agricultural productivity in Romania: A country-scale assessment. Agric. Syst. 2020,179, 102767.
[CrossRef]
5.
Ercin, E.; Veldkamp, T.; Hunink, J. Cross-border climate vulnerabilities of the European Union to drought. Nat. Commun. 2021,
12, 3322. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6.
Senapati, N.; Halford, N.G.; Semenov, M. Vulnerability of European wheat to extreme heat and drought around flowering under
future climate. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021,16, 024052. [CrossRef]
7.
Agovino, M.; Casaccia, M.; Ciommi, M.; Ferrara, M.; Marchesano, K. Agriculture, climate change and sustainability: The case of
EU-28. Ecol. Indic. 2019,105, 525–543. [CrossRef]
8.
Marino, R.; Atzori, A.S.; D’Andrea, M.; Iovane, G.; Trabalza-Marinucci, M.; Rinaldi, L. Climate change: Production performance,
health issues, greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation strategies in sheep and goat farming. Small Rumin. Res. 2016,135, 50–59.
[CrossRef]
9.
Pulina, G.; Milán, M.J.; Lavín, M.P.; Theodoridis, A.; Morin, E.; Capote, J.; Thomas, D.L.; Francesconi, A.H.D.; Caja, G. Current
production trends, farm structures, and economics of the dairy sheep and goat sectors. J. Dairy Sci. 2018,101, 6715–6729.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
10.
Rojas-Downing, M.; Nejadhashemi, A.; Harrigan, T.; Woznicki, S. Climate change and livestock: Impacts, adaptation, and
mitigation. Clim. Risk Manag. 2017,16, 145–163. [CrossRef]
11.
Joy, A.; Dunshea, F.R.; Leury, B.J.; Clarke, I.J.; DiGiacomo, K.; Chauhan, S.S. Resilience of small ruminants to climate change and
increased environmental temperature: A review. Animals 2020,10, 867. [CrossRef]
12.
Biswal, J.; Vijayalakshmy, K.; Rahman, H. Impact of climate change on small ruminants production: A review. Approaches Poult.
Dairy Vet. Sci. 2021,8, 751–756.
13.
Henry, B.K.; Eckard, R.J.; Beauchemin, K.A. Adaptation of ruminant livestock production systems to climate changes. Animal
2018,12, s445–s456. [CrossRef]
14.
Sejian, V.; Samal, L.; Soren, N.M.; Bagath, M.; Krishnan, G.; Vidya, M.K.; Archana, P.R.; Pragna, P.; Hyder, I.; Maurya, V.P.; et al.
Adaptation strategies to counter climate change impact on sheep. Sheep Prod. Adapt. Clim. Chang. 2017, 413–430. [CrossRef]
15.
Pardo, G.; del Prado, A. Guidelines for small ruminant production systems under climate emergency in Europe. Small Rumin. Res.
2020,193, 106261. [CrossRef]
16.
Sawyer, G.; Narayan, E. A review on the influence of climate change on sheep reproduction. In Comparative Endocrinology of
Animals; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2019. [CrossRef]
17.
Paraskevopoulou, C.; Theodoridis, A.; Johnson, M.; Ragkos, A.; Arguile, L.; Smith, L.; Vlachos, D.; Arsenos, G. Sustainability
Assessment of Goat and Sheep Farms: A Comparison between European Countries. Sustainability 2020,12, 3099. [CrossRef]
18.
Raza, A.; Razzaq, A.; Mehmood, S.S.; Zou, X.; Zhang, X.; Lv, Y.; Xu, J. Impact of Climate Change on Crops Adaptation and
Strategies to Tackle Its Outcome: A Review. Plants 2019,8, 34. [CrossRef]
19.
Cheng, M.; McCarl, B.; Fei, C. Climate change and livestock production: A literature review. Atmosphere 2022,13, 140. [CrossRef]
20.
Wanjala, G.; Astuti, P.K.; Bagi, Z.; Kichamu, N.; Strausz, P.; Kusza, S. A review on the potential effects of environmental and
economic factors on sheep genetic diversity: Consequences of climate change. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2023,30, 103505. [CrossRef]
21.
Wang, S.; Li, Q.; Peng, J.; Niu, H. Effects of Long-Term Cold Stress on Growth Performance, Behavior, Physiological Parameters,
and Energy Metabolism in Growing Beef Cattle. Animals 2023,13, 1619. [CrossRef]
22.
Vroege, W.; Dalhaus, T.; Wauters, E.; Finger, R. Effects of extreme heat on milk quantity and quality. Agric. Syst. 2023,210, 103731.
[CrossRef]

Agriculture 2024,14, 1656 15 of 16
23.
Gross, J.J. Limiting factors for milk production in dairy cows: Perspectives from physiology and nutrition. J. Anim. Sci. 2022,
100, skac044. [CrossRef]
24.
Slimen, I.B.; Chniter, M.; Najar, T.; Ghram, A. Meta-analysis of some physiologic, metabolic and oxidative responses of sheep
exposed to environmental heat stress. Livest. Sci. 2019,229, 179–187. [CrossRef]
25. Al-Dawood, A. Towards Heat Stress Management in Small Ruminants—A Review. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2017,17, 59–88. [CrossRef]
26.
Rivera, M.; Adams, J.; Tedeschi, L. Nutritional management for tropical-subtropical-adapted cattle receiving high-concentrate
diets. J. Anim. Sci. 2019,97, 33–34. [CrossRef]
27.
Morgan-Davies, C.; Lambe, N.; Wishart, H.; Waterhouse, T.; Kenyon, F.; McBean, D.; McCracken, D. Impacts of using a precision
livestock system targeted approach in mountain sheep flocks. Livest. Sci. 2018,208, 67–76. [CrossRef]
28.
Rodino, S.; Butu, A.; Ifrim, A. Climate smart agriculture—Concept and perspectives. Agric. Econ. Rural. Dev. Trends Chall. 2022,
12, 248–255.
29. Berckmans, D. General introduction to precision livestock farming. Anim. Front. 2017,7, 6–11. [CrossRef]
30.
Gonzalez, L.A.; Kyriazakis, I.; Tedeschi, L.O. Precision nutrition of ruminants: Approaches, challenges and potential gains.
Animal 2018,12, s246–s261. [CrossRef]
31.
Kleen, J.L.; Guatteo, R. Precision Livestock Farming: What Does It Contain and What Are the Perspectives? Animals 2023,13, 779.
[CrossRef]
32.
Zuidhof, M.J. Precision livestock feeding: Matching nutrient supply with nutrient requirements of individual animals. J. Appl.
Poult. Res. 2020,29, 11–14. [CrossRef]
33. Tüfekci, H.; Çelik, H.T. Effects of climate change on sheep and goat breeding. Black Sea J. Agric. 2021,4, 137–145. [CrossRef]
34.
Pembleton, K.G.; Cullen, B.R.; Rawnsley, R.P.; Ramilan, T. Climate change effects on pasture-based dairy systems in south-eastern
Australia. Crop Pasture Sci. 2020,72, 666–677. [CrossRef]
35.
Malhi, G.S.; Kaur, M.; Kaushik, P. Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture and Its Mitigation Strategies: A Review. Sustainability
2021,13, 1318. [CrossRef]
36.
González-Ronquillo, M.; Abecia, J.A.; Gómez, R.; Palacios, C. Effects of weather and other factors on milk production in the
Churra dairy sheep breed. Anim. Behav. Biometeorol. 2021,9, 2125. [CrossRef]
37.
Sejian, V.; Bhatta, R.; Gaughan, J.; Malik, P.K.; Naqvi, S.M.K.; Lal, R. Adapting sheep production to climate change. In Sheep
Production Adapting to Climate Change; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 1–29.
38.
Venkateswaran, K.; Elangovan, M.; Sivaraj, N. Origin, Domestication and Diffusion of Sorghum bicolor. In Woodhead Publishing
Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition; Aruna, C., Visarada, K.B.R.S., Venkatesh Bhat, B., Vilas Tonapi, A., Eds.; Breeding
Sorghum for Diverse End Uses; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2019; pp. 15–31. [CrossRef]
39.
Khalifa, M.; Eltahir, E.A.B. Assessment of global sorghum production, tolerance, and climate risk. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2023,
7, 1184373. [CrossRef]
40.
Hossain, M.S.; Islam, M.N.; Rahman, M.M.; Mostofa, M.G.; Khan, M.A.R. Sorghum: A prospective crop for climatic vulnerability,
food and nutritional security. J. Agric. Food Res. 2022,8, 100300. [CrossRef]
41.
Ran, T.; Fang, Y.; Wang, Y.T.; Yang, W.Z.; Niu, Y.D.; Sun, X.Z.; Zhong, R.Z. Effects of grain type and conditioning temperature
during pelleting on growth performance, ruminal fermentation, meat quality and blood metabolites of fattening lambs. Animal
2021,15, 100146. [CrossRef]
42.
Ci¸smileanu, A.E.; Toma, S. Digestibility of a Romanian sorghum hybridused as ensilage for ruminants. Anim. Food Sci. J. Iasi 2022,
77, 23–28.
43.
Popescu, A.; Toma, A.D.; Stoian, E. Sorghum—An Important Cereal in the World, in the European Union and Romania. Sci. Pap.
Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural. Dev. 2018,8, 271–284.
44.
Alonso, N.; Pérez-Jordà, G. The Origins of Millet Cultivation (Panicum miliaceum and Setaria italica) along Iberia’s Mediterranean
Area from the 13th to the 2nd Century BC. Agronomy 2023,13, 584. [CrossRef]
45. Fukunaga, K.; Kawase, M. Crop Evolution of Foxtail Millet. Plants 2024,13, 218. [CrossRef]
46.
Kumar, A.; Tomer, V.; Kaur, A.; Kumar, V.; Gupta, K. Millets: A solution to agrarian and nutritional challenges. Agric. Food Secur.
2018,7, 31. [CrossRef]
47.
Taylor, J.R.N. Chapter 1—Sorghum and Millets: Taxonomy, History, Distribution, and Production, In Sorghum and Millets, 2nd ed.;
Taylor, J.R.N., Duodu, K.G., Eds.; AACC International Press: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2019; pp. 1–21. [CrossRef]
48.
Paschapur, A.U.; Joshi, D.; Mishra, K.K.; Kant, L.; Kumar, V.; Kumar, A. Chapter-Millets for Life: A Brief Introduction. In Millets
and Millet Technology; Kumar, A., Tripathi, M.K., Joshi, D., Kumar, V., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 1–31. [CrossRef]
49.
Hassan, Z.M.; Sebola, N.A.; Mabelebele, M. The nutritional use of millet grain for food and feed: A review. Agric. Food Secur.
2021,10, 1–14. [CrossRef]
50.
Ibrahim, I. Economic Efficiency of Sorghum and Millet Production for Small Scale Farmers in Traditional Rainfed, North Kordofan
State, Sudan. Turk. J. Agric. Food Sci. Technol. 2018,6, 150–155. [CrossRef]
51.
Oladimeji, Y.; Offokansi, C.; Egwuma, H. Analysis of economic efficiency and its determinants in millet based production systems
in the derived savanna zone of Nigeria. Alanya Akad. Bakı¸s 2021,5, 177–192. [CrossRef]
52.
Sissoko, P.; Lebailly, P. Comparative analysis of agricultural production systems performances: Case of millet and sorghum
in Mali. In Proceedings of the VII International Scientific Agriculture Symposium, Jahorina, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
6–9 October 2016.

Agriculture 2024,14, 1656 16 of 16
53.
Burlacu, G.; Burlacu, R.; Cavache, A.; Surdu, I. Ghid Pentru Alcătuirea Ra
t
,
iilor de Hranăla Ovine
s
,
i Caprine; IBNA & SIAT S.A.:
Bucharest, Romania, 2002; pp. 69–76.
54.
Drăgotoiu, D.; Pogurschi, E.; Marin, M. Animal Nutrition and Feeding; Ex Terra Aurum Publishing House: Bucharest, Romania,
2017; pp. 37–41.
55.
Rodica, C.; Iurchevici, L.; Marin, A.; Ci
s
,
mileanu, A.E.; Cofas, E. Analize privind eficien
t
,
a economicăa fermelor de ovine din diferite
regiuni ale t
,ării; ICEADR: Bucharest, Romania, 2020; ISBN 978-973-40-1146-9.
56.
Daduwal, H.S.; Bhardwaj, R.; Srivastava, R.K. Pearl millet a promising fodder crop for changing climate: A review. Theor. Appl.
Genet. 2024,137, 169. [CrossRef]
57.
Grandin, T. Grazing Cattle, Sheep, and Goats Are Important Parts of a Sustainable Agricultural Future. Animals 2022,12, 2092.
[CrossRef]
58.
Lauriault, L.M.; Schmitz, L.H.; Cox, S.H.; Scholljegerdes, E.J. A comparison of pearl millet and sorghum–sudangrass pastures
during the frost-prone autumn for growing beef cattle in semiarid region. Agriculture 2021,11, 541. [CrossRef]
59.
Diallo, M.B.; Akponikpè, P.I.; Abasse, T.; Fatondji, D.; Agbossou, E.K. Combined effect of trees and soil fertility management
practices on millet yields in the Sahel. Agrofor. Syst. 2021,95, 717–730. [CrossRef]
60.
Tóthi, R.; Orosz, S.; Somfalvi-Tóth, K.; Babinszky, L.; Halas, V. Chapter-Effect of Climate Change on Strategy of Forage Feeding
in Cattle Farms under Dry Continental Conditions. In Latest Scientific Findings in Ruminant Nutrition—Research for Practical
Implementation; Editor Babinszky, L., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2024. [CrossRef]
61.
Wreford, A.; Topp, C.F.E. Impacts of climate change on livestock and possible adaptations: A case study of the United Kingdom.
Agric. Syst. 2020,178, 102737. [CrossRef]
62. Petcu, E.; Schitea, M.; Drăgan, L.; Bˇ
abeanu, N. Physiological response of several alfalfa genotypes to drought stress. Rom. Agric.
Res. 2019,36, 107–118. [CrossRef]
63.
Brumă, I.S.; Toader, M.; Popescu, G.; Petcu, V.; Georgescu, E. The Evolution of Alfalfa, as Important Crop in Organic Farming
System in Romania. Rom. Agric. Res. 2023,40, 297–306. [CrossRef]
64.
Yuzhi, W.A.N.G.; Yaoyu, L.I.; Tengteng, Q.U.; Siyu, W.A.N.G.; Lili, S.U.N.; Zhang, W.; Fuzhong, L.I. Construction and evaluation
of simulation model for the growth and development of millet in arid areas. INMATEH-Agric. Eng. 2023,71, 637.
65.
Dunjana, N.; Dube, E.; Chauke, P.; Motsepe, M.; Madikiza, S.; Kgakatsi, I.; Nciizah, A. Sorghum as a household food and
livelihood security crop under climate change in South Africa: A review. S. Afr. J. Sci. 2022,118, 1–6. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66.
Bhattarai, B.; Singh, S.; West, C.; Ritchie, G.; Trostle, C. Water Depletion Pattern and Water Use Efficiency of Forage Sorghum,
Pearl millet, and Corn Under Water Limiting Condition. Agric. Water Manag. 2020,238, 106206. [CrossRef]
67.
Druille, M.; Williams, A.S.; Torrecillas, M.; Kim, S.; Meki, N.; Kiniry, J.R. Modeling Climate Warming Impacts on Grain and
Forage Sorghum Yields in Argentina. Agronomy 2020,10, 964. [CrossRef]
68.
Kurbanbayev, A.; Zargar, M.; Yancheva, H.; Stybayev, G.; Serekpayev, N.; Baitelenova, A.; Mukhanov, N.; Nogayev, A.;
Akhylbekova, B.; Abdelkader, M. Ameliorating Forage Crop Resilience in Dry Steppe Zone Using Millet Growth Dynamics.
Agronomy 2023,13, 3053. [CrossRef]
69.
Sabertanha, E.; Rouzbehan, Y.; Fazaeli, H.; Rezaei, J. Nutritive value of sorghum silage for sheep. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr.
2021,105, 1034–1045. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.