Techno-Economic Analysis of Innovative Phytogenic-Based Supplements for Ruminant Health and Productivity
by
, , , , and
Maria Spilioti
1,*
,
Konstantinos Tousis
2,
Georgios Papakonstantinou
3,
Eleftherios Meletis
4,
Alexis Manouras
5,
Eleftherios Nellas
1,
Garyfalia Economou
2,
Vasileios G. Papatsiros
3
and
Konstantinos Tsiboukas
1 1
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Agricultural University of Athens, 11855 Athens, Greece
2
Faculty of Crop Science, Agricultural University of Athens, 11855 Athens, Greece
3
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Thessaly, Trikalon 224, 43100 Karditsa, Greece
4
Faculty of Public and One Health, University of Thessaly, 43100 Karditsa, Greece
5
Agricultural Cooperative of Cattle Breeders and Sheep Breeders Western Thessaly, 43100 Karditsa, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2025, 15(10), 1090; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15101090
Submission received: 15 April 2025
/
Revised: 12 May 2025
/
Accepted: 16 May 2025
/
Published: 18 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Assessing and Improving Farm Animal Welfare)
Abstract
:The aim of this study was to evaluate the technical and economic impact of using commercial phytogenic feed supplements and dried Greek Oregano leaves as feed additives on dairy sheep farms. Fifteen farms in the Greek region of Thessaly were divided into intervention and control farms, and techno-economic data were collected before and after supplementation through structured interviews and cost analysis. The results showed that the administration of certain phytogenic supplements and oregano to ewes resulted in improved animal health, higher milk yield, and lower production costs, which created a positive trend in the financial results of the farm. Further research is needed to accurately determine the ideal production stage of the animals for the interventions, the amount of supplements administered, and the selection of appropriate plant species, which would lead to better financial management of the farms.
1. Introduction
The growth of the human population and improvement in the standard of living of low-income families in many developing countries are expected to increase the global demand for animal-based food products by 65% by 2030 [1,2]. The livestock industry is challenged to meet humans’ ever-increasing nutritional requirements while conserving local resources [3]. Antibiotic usage in various livestock systems, especially intensive ones, has increased significantly among some livestock farmers [4], not only for treatment but also for disease prevention and improved feed conversion [5,6].
However, the excessive and inappropriate use of antibiotics in animal husbandry and their excretion into terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems appears to have led to serious problems, such as an increasing threat to public health and the gradual collapse of natural ecosystems [7]. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria can be transmitted through the food supply chain, jeopardizing food safety and sustainable consumption [8,9]. The World Health Organization’s One Health approach emphasizes the importance of eliminating the uncontrolled use of antibiotics in common animal husbandry practices, as it can affect the welfare of living organisms and their habitats [10]. The main concern of the Common Agricultural Policy for the period 2023–2027, through specific objective 9, is to ensure the production of safe and sustainable food while limiting the use of antibiotics to reduce society’s concerns [11,12].
Natural alternatives could replace antibiotics in animal husbandry and curb various public health problems caused by antibiotic resistance. Numerous studies have shown the effectiveness of phytogenic feed additives made from essential oils with proven anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial effects. These additives modify the pathogen load in the animals’ digestive system, reduce disease, increase yields, and improve overall health [13,14,15]. Domestic pigs, ruminants, and poultry are some of the food—producing animals in which the use of phytogenic products as feed additives has been investigated [13,14,15,16].
According to Sun et al. (2022) [17], the focus is on the beneficial effect of essential oils from cultivated Greek Oregano as a potential substitute for antibiotics in sheep. They modify intestinal flora and improve digestion and nutrient absorption. In addition, [18] emphasizes that oregano has a broad antimicrobial spectrum and combats various bacterial pathogens. Although herbal supplements can, in some cases, replace antibiotics in animal production, further research in this direction is needed, as the effective dose, bioavailability, specific needs according to animal species, and the economic situation of livestock farms after the use of such alternatives have not yet been precisely determined [19,20].
This research attempts to fill this specific gap in the literature by comparing the techno-economic aspects of administering commercial phytogenic supplements and an innovative dietary supplement containing Greek Oregano to sheep flocks. Oregano (Origanum vulgare subsp. hirtum) is an aromatic perennial herb of the Lamiaceae family and a species endemic to the Mediterranean region. Arethousa oregano (Origanum vulgare subsp. hirtum var. Arethousa), used in this trial, is the first registered variety in the Greek national catalog of cultivars and is under the legal protection of the European Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO). This oregano variety was selected due to its high production potential. Chemical analyses have shown that the main component of its essential oil, carvacrol, reaches a level of 85%. Carvacrol is the main monoterpene phenolic compound in oregano, which has strong antimicrobial and antioxidant effects [21] and can therefore replace chemical antibiotics. Carvacrol has a hydroxyl group that ruptures bacterial cell membranes and causes the release of ions and molecules, resulting in antibacterial activity [22,23]. Many studies have reported that the use of oregano alters the microbial load of ruminants and, at the same time, improves nutrient utilization by the animals [24,25,26]. A techno-economic analysis can assess whether interventions in farm enterprises can lead to economic profitability [27]. Specifically, in this study, the financial performance of sheep farming units in the region of Thessaly (Greece) is calculated based on the type of supplement administered and its dosage. Thessaly is considered the flagship of dairy production, as farms in the region produce 20% of domestic sheep milk and 16% of goat milk. The processing companies produce 40% of soft, 25% of hard cheeses, and 40% of the country’s PDO Feta [28].
This study is based on the hypothesis that the administration of phytogenic supplements can improve animal health and farm profitability in dairy sheep production. The research questions relate to how phytogenic feed supplements affect the health and performance of sheep and how phytogenic feed supplements affect the profitability of farms that use them. To test these hypotheses, we examined several research topics. In particular, we investigated how phytogenic additives could affect the assessment of animal health parameters, such as mastitis, diarrhea, and mortality. In addition, we investigated the impact of these additives on the cost of milk and meat production and the supplementation strategy that offers the greatest economic advantage under real-farm conditions. Furthermore, this study was designed as a descriptive, exploratory analysis aimed at observing trends in animal health and economic indicators under real-farm conditions. This study does not claim to establish causal relationships or statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups but rather aims to provide preliminary findings that can serve as a basis for future, more comprehensive research.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Farms
The farms that participated in this study (sample: 15 owners of dairy sheep farms) are located in the region of Karditsa, Thessaly, and were randomly selected during 2023–2024. All study farms were selected from a single geographically uniform region (Karditsa, Thessaly) and used similar intensive farming practices. The breed used on all farms was Lacaune, which ensures genetic homogeneity. In addition, the feed quality was uniform, as all farms used commercially available, standardized rations sourced from the same regional suppliers. Thus, despite the small sample size due to time and financial constraints, the deliberate selection of the controlled parameters mentioned above minimizes the differences between farms and reduces the impact of potential confounding factors such as genetics, nutrition, and management. Furthermore, given the limited number of farms involved, the study design focused on descriptive trend observations without formal statistical tests for group differences. The aim of this study was to document observable changes in health and productivity following the use of phytogenic supplements under real production conditions.
The weather conditions, soil geomorphology, and health status of the animals are similar on all farms studied (Figure 1). The management of these livestock farms is mainly based on principles similar to those of intensive farming. The main products of the farms under consideration are milk and meat. When the data were collected, milk was sold for €1.60/kg, and lamb carcasses were sold for €8.00/kg. The weight of the lamb carcass was 9 kg.
2.2. Experimental Design
Interventions were carried out on ewes and lambs to determine the effects of innovative herbal preparations on health and performance, depending on the animal’s production phase, and thus, the impact on production costs and the farm’s financial results, which are the focus of this article. For this purpose, five different farm groups were created. Each group consisted of three farms, one of which served as a control, while the interventions were carried out on the other two farms. The interventions were carried out on a part of the herd on each farm. The control and intervention farms 1 and 2 provided the same number of animals in each group for comparison. In addition, depending on the number of animals in each group, proportional adjustments were made to fixed and variable capital from the outset. Depending on the group and the instructions of the scientific team, farmers administered different amounts of phytogenic supplements to the sheep and lambs (Table 1).
2.3. Animal Health Assessment
Animal health was assessed using a combination of clinical observations, farm records, and structured interviews with farm owners. The key health indicators included the incidence of mastitis, diarrhea, and mortality rates. Data were collected both before and after the administration of phytogenic supplements. Mastitis cases were identified by visible udder inflammation and abnormal appearance of milk, while diarrhea was recorded if more than two episodes of loose stools per day were observed. The mortality rate included all deaths during the study period and was verified using the farm records. In addition, trained veterinarians conducted regular on-site assessments to confirm the reported symptoms and ensure consistent health monitoring. Any animal showing signs of illness or disease was immediately examined and treated according to standard veterinary protocols. Assessments were conducted daily by trained personnel and included both physical and behavioral observations.
2.4. Economic Assessment
A complete techno-economic analysis based on the methodology of the economics of food and agricultural businesses was carried out for the study of livestock farms [27,29,30,31]. Primary data were collected in two phases: before and after the implementation of the interventions through two-hour, face-to-face interviews with the farm owners using a structured questionnaire. The technical data questions concerned the size, composition, and management of the herd, the quantity of milk and meat produced, and the identification of the feed used. On the other hand, economic data questions were related to income, subsidies, the size and construction materials of livestock facilities, equipment used, working hours, milk and meat prices, the quantity, types, and prices of feed provided, and other production costs.
The basic formulas for the leading economic indicators used in this article are as follows:
- ➢
- The cost of producing 1 L of milk is equal to the quotient of the milk production costs divided by the total quantity produced.
- ➢
- The cost of producing 1 kg of lamb meat is equal to the quotient of the costs of producing lamb meat divided by the total quantity of lamb meat produced and sold.
- ➢
- Gross income* is the total value of sales of the agricultural production sector in a specific period, including potential subsidies.
- ➢
- Net profit* is calculated by subtracting all production costs from the gross income.
- ➢
- Gross profit* is calculated by subtracting the variable expenses from the gross income.
- ➢
- Agricultural family income* is the remainder of subtracting all apparent expenses (paid expenses + depreciation + self-insurance) from gross income [31].
* Financial results are calculated in a similar way to the FADN database [32].
- Classification of agricultural products into primary and secondary
- ➢
- The main product represents a significant percentage of the sector’s total production value (over 10%).
- ➢
- The secondary product represents a small part of the value of the industry’s total production (less than 10%) [31].
3. Results
Table 2 shows the modification in symptoms related to different diseases and the performance of the animals after the implementation of the measures with different supplements. In particular, the intervention farms showed a decrease in mastitis, diarrhea, and mortality rates, with corresponding improvements in milk production, especially when supplementary feed was given to the ewes. The following results summarize the observed trends across the control and intervention farms in all groups.
A detailed description of the techno-economic analysis is presented for the first group. In the remaining groups, the most basic parameters were selected, leading to the calculation of the costs of milk and lamb meat production, and the main economic results were selected in order to better organize the article and make it easier to understand. The techno-economic analysis for each group of livestock farms is presented below:
- Group 1, name of the phytogenic-based supplement: Herb-AllTM LIVER (Life Circle Nutrition, Switzerland)
Table 3 shows the herd sizes, and Table 4 presents the facilities and equipment of the three farms under consideration. The average capital invested in buildings and equipment for each farm is 9398.00 euros, the average capital invested in livestock is 14,900.00 euros, and the average capital invested in the farm (value of buildings/equipment + value of livestock + value of land) is 31,298.00 euros. Table 5 shows the data required to calculate the value of the milk and meat produced, the quantities of the herbal commercial supplement used, and the cost for its purchase.
The annual cost of production is calculated by adding the rent of land, employee wages, and related interest; variable costs, which include the cost of purchasing animal feed, commercial herbal preparations, and fuel; and finally, the fixed capital costs, which include depreciation, interest, maintenance, and insurance of fixed and semi-fixed capital. The cost of consumables was 11,506.30 euros for the control farm, 12,102.05 euros for intervention farm 1, and 12,837.76 euros for intervention farm 2. The increase in the cost of consumables was due to the purchase of the supplement. At the same time, the increase in milk production requires the provision of larger quantities of feed, which further increases the related costs. The costs for the provision of services by third parties amount to 955 euros for the control farm, 915 euros for intervention farm 1, and 901 euros for intervention farm 2 (see Table 6). The reduction in costs is due to the limitation of various disease symptoms, which reduces veterinary costs. Thus, the total annual production expenses for each farm are modified. European agricultural subsidies (basic payment, green payment, coupled payment, and compensatory payment) reach 1792.00 euros for each farm under consideration.
By calculating the production costs for milk and lamb meat and the main economic results for each farm, we can evaluate which intervention is the most advantageous (see Table 7 and Figure 2). The financial results are improving. The production costs of milk and lamb meat for all farms are presented in Table 8.
In Group 1, the production cost of the two products under consideration constantly decreases as the quantity of the commercial supplement administered increases. Financial results are improving.
- Group 2, name of phytogenic-based supplement: Rotacol® (OLUS PLUS, The Netherlands)
The average capital invested in buildings and equipment per farm is 3947.16 euros, the average capital invested in livestock is 6150.00 euros, and the average capital invested per farm (value of buildings/equipment + value of livestock capital + value of land) is 15,097.16 euros. The European subsidies amount to 752.00 euros for each farm under consideration. The cost of purchasing the specific commercial supplement in the given quantity administered is 9.21 euros for intervention farm 1 and 18.43 euros for intervention farm 2. Milk (share of total production: 83%) and lamb meat (share of total production: 12%) are the two main products of this farm. The total production costs amount to 12,181.69 euros for the control farm, 12,126.41 euros for intervention farm 1, and 12,117.81 euros for intervention farm 2. When analyzing the annual production costs, only the variable capital costs are modified between the three farms under consideration. Specifically, they are structured as follows: 5608.74 euros in the control farm, 5553.46 euros in the intervention farm 1, and 5544.87 euros in the intervention farm 2. However, the production costs for milk and meat remain higher than the selling price (see Table 8). The net profit is at a very low level (see Figure 3).
- Group 3, name of phytogenic-based supplement: Herb-AllTM COCC-X (Life Circle Nutrition, Switzerland)
The average capital invested in buildings and equipment per farm is 4886.96 euros, the average capital invested in livestock is 7850.00 euros, and the average capital invested in the farm (value of buildings/equipment + value of livestock + value of land) is 18,736.96 euros. European agricultural subsidies amount to 932.00 euros for each farm under consideration. The cost of purchasing the specific commercial supplement in the given quantity administered is 179.67 euros for intervention farm 1 and 269.50 euros for intervention farm 2. Milk (share of total production: 83%) and lamb meat (share of total output: 12%) are the two main products of the farm. The total production costs are 15,280.98 euros for the control farm, 15,419.82 euros for the intervention farm 1, and 15,498.25 euros for the intervention farm 2. Table 8 shows that the costs of milk production increase from the control farm to intervention farm 2 (from 1.70 to 1.71 euros per kilo). The same applies to the cost of lamb meat production (from 8.52 euros per kg on the control farm to 8.56 euros per kg on intervention farm 2). The net profit is 788.42 euros for the control farm and 709.21 euros for intervention farm 2 (see Figure 4). Although the specific herbal preparation administered contributes to treating the symptoms of the diseases, the purchase cost of the preparation is high, resulting in a negative impact on the production cost of the two products and the financial results.
- Group 4, name of phytogenic-based supplement: Arethousa oregano
The average capital invested in construction and equipment and the average capital invested in the animal population and European subsidies are the same as in Group 1, since these are farms with the same animal capacity. The cost of purchasing the specific commercial product in the given quantity administered is 11.81 euros for intervention farm 1 and 47.25 euros for intervention farm 2. Milk (share of total production: 83%) and lamb meat (share of total output: 12%) are the two main products of the farm. The total production costs amount to 26,460.98 euros on the control farm, 26,663.78 euros on intervention farm 1, and 26,802.21 euros on intervention farm 2. The variable capital costs are different on the three farms under consideration. Specifically, they are structured as follows: 13,190.75 euros on the control farm, 13,393.55 euros on intervention farm 1, and 13,531.98 euros on intervention farm 2. The costs for milk production are 1.50 euros per kilogram on the control farm and fall to 1.46 euros per kilogram on intervention farm 2. Accordingly, the production costs for lamb meat fall from 7.49 euros per kilogram on the control farm to 7.29 euros per kilogram on intervention farm 2 (see Table 8). The financial results also show an improvement. Specifically, the net profit increases from 5072.02 euros in the control farm to 5858.79 euros in the intervention farm 2 (see Figure 5).
The administration of oregano helps treat specific disease symptoms and improve milk yield, and the market price of oregano does not appear to be high. It has a positive effect on the cost of milk and meat production and financial results.
- Group 5, name of phytogenic-based supplement: Arethousa oregano
The average capital invested in construction and equipment, animal population, and European subsidies is the same as in Group 3, since the two groups correspond to farms with the same animal capacity. The cost of purchasing the specific commercial preparation in the indicated quantity administered is 6.95 euros for intervention farm 1 and 27.81 euros for intervention farm 2. Milk (share of total production: 83%) and lamb meat (share of total output: 12%) are the two main products of the farm. The total production costs fall from 15,307.65 euros for the control farm to 15,291.71 euros for intervention farm 2. The costs for milk production fell from 1.71 euros per kilo to 1.70 euros, and the costs for lamb meat production fell from 8.53 euros per kilo to 8.48 euros per kilo. The financial results also show a slight improvement (see Table 8 and Figure 6).
Overall, in groups 1 and 4, both health improvements and significant increases in milk yields were observed. These benefits are reflected in the lower production costs per unit and higher net profits, as shown in Table 8. The positive effects were dose-dependent, with higher supplementation levels resulting in greater economic returns. In contrast, groups 2 and 3, which targeted lambs, showed modest health benefits (e.g., lower mortality and diarrhea rates), but the economic results were less favorable. As shown in Table 8, the production costs in these groups were close to or above market prices, limiting profitability. Group 5, in which lambs were fed oregano, showed a small but consistent reduction in costs. Although these gains are modest, they confirm the potential of the supplement when used in younger animals in more cost-sensitive production systems.
Table 9 shows the aggregated financial results per ewe for all the groups. More specifically, groups 1 and 4, which concern interventions in ewes, are presented first, followed by the remaining groups, which concern interventions in lambs, so a comparison can be made more easily. The Table confirms that interventions targeting ewes provide the greatest benefits across all key economic indicators, underlining the importance of supplementing the most productive subpopulation within a flock.
4. Discussion
According to our study, the administration of herbal supplements to animals in all groups could have a positive effect on the financial situation of the farms, as it reduces the costs of milk and meat production of lambs to a certain extent and increases the farm’s economic results. An exception is Group 3, in which the administration of Herb-AllTM COCC-X (Life Circle Nutrition, Switzerland) in specific quantities and in the production phase of the animals appears to be less profitable, as it leads to a further increase in the costs of milk and lamb meat production, in contrast to the other groups. Accordingly, the economic results do not improve. The interventions in groups 2 and 5 appear to influence the economic results of the farms in a similar way (see Table 9 The administration of Herb-All™ LIVER (Life Circle Nutrition, Switzerland) to ewes in Group 1 and the innovative oregano formulation to Group 4, also in ewes, seems to create a positive trend in economic results. The selling prices for milk and lamb meat are the same for all farms since the products are marketed through the same cooperative. The specific intervention farms have achieved production costs for milk and lamb meat that are below the selling prices of the products under consideration. The implementation of the intervention for ewes has a direct impact on milk production, the main product with a high percentage (>83%) of the total production value of the sector.
Overall, this study provides exploratory and descriptive insights into the potential impact of phytogenic supplements on animal health and farm economics in dairy sheep production. The observed trends should be considered indicative rather than conclusive, given the non-randomized design and small number of farms in each group. Groups 1 and 4 have similar average capital investments in companies and can therefore be compared. Considering the economic indicators per ewe, it appears that Group 4 performs slightly better than Group 1 in terms of Agricultural Farm Income. The net profit of Group 4 is also significantly higher than that of Group 1 (see Table 9). Oregano is an endemic species throughout the Mediterranean region, with special properties and a high essential oil content [33]. Its cultivation could be further exploited by finding business opportunities for commercialization as a supplement to animal feed.
Particular herb species, such as oregano, exhibit strong antibacterial and antimicrobial properties that could potentially curb infections in sheep [18,34], which would significantly reduce the dependence on antibiotics and the cost of consumables, including veterinary drugs and third-party services, including veterinary costs [35]. As observed in this study, the properties of oregano and commercial herbal preparations could help reduce the incidence of disease and improve the overall health of animals, resulting in higher yields and lower mortality rates [18]. Numerous studies worldwide have claimed that various herbal preparations applied to several animal species, such as poultry, rabbits, and pigs, appear to be able to prevent or limit certain diseases, such as digestive disorders and Salmonella, further reinforcing the results of the present study [36,37,38,39].
The differences in performance observed between the supplements in this study can be attributed to their different active ingredients and the physiological state of the animals during the intervention. Herb-All™ LIVER and Arethousa Oregano produced more consistent economic and health benefits than the other supplements when administered to ewes, likely due to their high carvacrol concentration, which has been shown to improve immune modulation and lactation performance [17,18]. In contrast, Rotacol® and Herb-All™ COCC-X administered to lambs showed less pronounced effects, possibly due to young animals being less responsive to such additives at early stages of development or because of differences in absorption and metabolism [14,40]. Although environmental and herd conditions were relatively uniform across farms, subtle differences in management practices, such as feeding schedules, hygiene, and stress levels, may have contributed to the observed variation in results [20]. Compared with previous studies reporting improvements in ruminant health and performance following oregano supplementation [18,24], our results support the potential value of oregano. Thus, our findings highlight the need to standardize herbal supplement formulations (e.g., carvacrol content), adjust dosages according to the age and production stage of animals, and consider farm-specific conditions to optimize results.
The animals on all farms (control and intervention farms) were in a relatively good state of health, which meant that they hardly needed any medication. The results show that a complete replacement of antibiotics is not feasible.
However, our study also has some limitations that should be taken into account when interpreting the results. For example, although economic performance was assessed under fixed market conditions, fluctuations in milk and meat prices could significantly alter profitability results. Second, although efforts were made to standardize herd characteristics, individual variability in animal responses to the supplements may affect both health and productivity outcomes, limiting broad generalization. Furthermore, in order to validate and generalize the results of our study, it is necessary to increase the sample size and include greater geographical and farm diversity of experimental farms. Although this study focused on dairy sheep farms in the Mediterranean region, the results may also be relevant for ruminant systems in other regions. The methodological framework used here (integration of technical health outcomes and economic performance) could be adapted to evaluate phytogenic supplements in goats, cattle, or even monogastric animals. Therefore, future studies should investigate the validation of experimental supplements in different animal species and evaluate their feasibility under different environmental and commercial conditions.
5. Conclusions
The use of herbal supplements can reduce specific health problems and increase ewe and lamb yields, thereby reducing the cost of milk and lamb production and consequently improving the key economic outcomes of livestock farms. However, the effectiveness of different formulations is complex. It is not fully understood, as it depends on a number of factors, including the production phase and health status of the animal, the appropriate dosage of the herbal preparation, and its composition in the plant species. There is evidence that interventions are more effective in ewes. The development of standard procedures for the use of herbal preparations in small ruminants and the extension of the validation of the results to larger samples in the future are imperative. The effects of oregano essential oil and its main constituents on the health of sheep and lambs should be investigated. Further studies are needed to determine whether the partial replacement of antibiotics with herbal preparations can cause potential side effects that affect the profitability of a farm [39,40]. The development of partnerships linking research and production to improve the sustainability and productivity of agriculture and reduce reliance on antibiotics is a priority of the European Common Agricultural Policy 2023–2027 [41]. In this context, educational programs for livestock farmers aimed at better understanding the benefits of herbal preparations and expanding their use, as well as the funding of such initiatives by policymakers, could work synergistically to fully understand the effectiveness of such preparations.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, K.T. (Konstantinos Tsiboukas), V.G.P. and M.S.; methodology, K.T. (Konstantinos Tsiboukas), V.G.P., E.M. and M.S.; investigation, K.T. (Konstantinos Tsiboukas), V.G.P., E.M. and M.S.; writing—original draft preparation, V.G.P., M.S., G.P. and K.T. (Konstantinos Tousis); writing—review and editing, K.T. (Konstantinos Tsiboukas), V.G.P., G.P., E.M., M.S., K.T. (Konstantinos Tousis), E.N., G.E. and A.M.; visualization, V.G.P., M.S. and K.T. (Konstantinos Tousis); supervision, K.T. (Konstantinos Tsiboukas), V.G.P. and G.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of this manuscript.
Funding
This research was co-funded by Greece and the European Union in the framework: Sub-Measure 16.1–16.2–Establishment and operation of Operational Team (O.T.) of the European Innovation Partnership (EIP) for agricultural productivity and sustainability–Establishment and operation of Operational Team (O.T.) of the European Innovation Partnership (EIP) for agricultural productivity and sustainability under grant number M16SYN2-00228 Thessaly Eco-dairy farms- Development of innovative feeding methods with the use of alternatives to antibiotics (phytogenics) for the improvement of sheep and goats health and productivity.
Institutional Review Board Statement
All animal procedures regarding animal care and handling were approved by the Institutional Ethical Committee (University of Thessaly, approval number: 102, date of the approval: 16 November 2021).
Informed Consent Statement
Written informed consent was obtained from the farmers to publish this paper.
Data Availability Statement
Data supporting the conclusions of this study are available from the authors upon request.
Acknowledgments
We thank the farm owners for providing the valuable data.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Muhammad, A.; Keithly, J.; Hagerman, A. Theme Issue Overview: Emerging Issues in Global Animal Product Trade, Agribusiness; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014; Volume 30, pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Makkar, H.P.S. Review: Feed demand landscape and implications of food-not feed strategy for food security and climate change. Animal 2018, 12, 1744–1754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Herrero, M.; Thornton, P.K. Livestock and global change: Emerging issues for sustainable food systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 52, 20878–20881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cherian, T.; Ragavendran, C.; Vijayan, S.; Kurien, S.; Peijnenburg, W.J. A review on the fate, human health and environmental impacts, as well as regulation of antibiotics used in aquaculture. Environ. Adv. 2023, 13, 100411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanamoto, S.; Minami, Υ.; Thet Hnin, S.; Yao, D. Localized pollution of veterinary antibiotics in watersheds receiving treated effluents from swine farms. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 902, 166211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Crawford, P.E.; Hamer, K.; Lovatt, F.; Behnke, M.C.; Robinson, P.A. Antibiotic use in the Northern Irish sheep flock: What lessons can be learnt from medicine records and farmer attitudes to improve stewardship of these essential medicines? Prev. Vet. Med. 2024, 226, 106169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Albarano, L.; Suarez, E.G.P.; Maggio, C.; Marca, A.; Iovine, R.; Lofrano, G.; Guida, Μ.; Vaiano, V.; Carotenuto, M.; Libralato, G. Assessment of ecological risks posed by veterinary antibiotics in European aquatic environments: A comprehensive review and analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 954, 176280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, X.; Deng, R.; Warriner, K.; Ding, T. Antibiotic resistance mechanism and diagnosis of common foodborne pathogens based on genotypic and phenotypic biomarkers. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2023, 22, 3212–3253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Raka, R.N.; Zhang, L.; Chen, R.; Xue, X. Antibiotic Resistance Genes in Global Food Transformation System: Edible Insects vs. Livestock. Foods 2024, 13, 3257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ifedinezi, O.V.; Nnaji, N.D.; Anumudu, C.K.; Ekwueme, C.T.; Uhegwu, C.C.; Ihenetu, F.C.; Obioha, P.; Simon, B.O.; Ezechukwu, P.S.; Onyeaka, H. Environmental Antimicrobial Resistance: Implications for Food Safety and Public Health. Antibiotics 2024, 13, 1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freeland, G.; Hettiarachchy, N.; Atungulu, G.G.; Apple, J.; Mukherjee, S. Strategies to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance from Farm to Table. Food Rev. Int. 2021, 39, 27–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luke-Currier, A.; Moriarty, E.; Hodkinson, T. Communication of EU agricultural antibiotic use policies to farmers & implications for public health. Eur. J. Public Health 2024, 34, ckae144–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Deng, L.; Chen, M.; Che, Y.; Li, L.; Zhu, L.; Chen, G.; Feng, T. Phytogenic feed additives as natural antibiotic alternatives in animal health and production: A review of the literature of the last decade. Anim. Nutr. 2024, 17, 244–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Biswas, S.; Ahn, J.M.; Kim, I.H. Assessing the potential of phytogenic feed additives: A comprehensive review on their effectiveness as a potent dietary enhancement for nonruminant in swine and poultry. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2024, 108, 711–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rafeeq, M.; Bilal, R.M.; Alagawany, M.; Batool, F.; Yameen, K.; Farag, M.R.; El-Shall, N.A. The use of some herbal plants as effective alternatives to antibiotic growth enhancers in poultry nutrition. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 2022, 78, 1067–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karageorgou, A.; Tsafou, M.; Goliomytis, M.; Hager-Theodorides, A.; Politi, K.; Simitzis, P. Effect of Dietary Supplementation with a Mixture of Natural Antioxidants on Milk Yield, Composition, Oxidation Stability and Udder Health in Dairy Ewes. Antioxidants 2023, 12, 1571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sun, J.; Cheng, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, Y.; Wang, H.; Ren, Z. Influence of increasing levels of oregano essential oil on intestinal morphology, intestinal flora and performance of Sewa sheep. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2022, 21, 463–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cui, H.; Zhang, C.; Su, K.; Fan, T.; Chen, L.; Yang, Z.; Zhang, M.; Li, J.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, J. Oregano Essential Oil in Livestock and Veterinary Medicine. Animals 2024, 14, 1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, Q.; Liu, Z.; Liang, Z.; Zhu, C.; Li, D.; Kong, Q.; Mou, H. Development strategies and application of antimicrobial peptides as future alternatives to in-feed antibiotics. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 927, 172150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Af Sandeberg, A.; Båge, R.; Nyman, A.K.; Agenäs, S.; Hansson, H. Review: Linking animal health measures in dairy cows to farm-level economic outcomes: A systematic literature mapping. Anim. Int. J. Anim. Biosci. 2023, 17, 100971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Govaris, A.; Solomakos, N.; Pexara, A.; Chatzopoulou, P.S. The antimicrobial effect of oregano essential oil, nisin and their combination against Salmonella enteritidis in minced sheep meat during refrigerated storage. Int. J. Food Microbiol 2010, 137, 175–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burt, S.A.; Reinders, R.D. Antibacterial Activity of Selected Plant Essential Oils Against Escherichia Coli O157:H7. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2003, 36, 162–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lv, F.; Liang, H.; Yuan, Q.; Li, C. In Vitro, Antimicrobial Effects and Mechanism of Action of Selected Plant Essential Oil Combinations Against Four Food Related Microorganisms. Food Res. Intl. 2011, 44, 3057–3064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hristov, A.N.; Lee, C.; Cassidy, T.; Heyler, K.; Tekippe, J.A.; Varga, G.A.; Corl, B.; Brandt, R.C. Effect of Origanum vulgare L. leaves on rumen fermentation, production, and milk fatty acid composition in lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 1189–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lei, Z.M.; Zhang, K.; Li, C.; Wu, J.P.; Davis, D.; Casper, D.P.; Jiang, H.; Wang, X.L.; Wang, J.F. Dietary supplementation with essential-oils-cobalt for improving growth performance, meat quality and skin cell capacity of goats. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 11634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhou, R.; Wu, J.; Lang, J.X.; Liu, L.; Casper, D.P.; Wang, C.; Zhang, L.; Wei, S. Effect of oregano essential oil in vitro ruminal fermentation, methane production, and ruminal microbial community. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 2303–2314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsiouni, M.; Gourdouvelis, D.; Konstantinidis, C.; Aggelopoulos, S. Techno-economic and financial index analysis for the improvement of entrepreneurship and competitiveness strategies of Greek goat enterprises. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 6, 982307. [Google Scholar]
- Akrivouli, Z. Uniqueness of Quality Agri-Food Products Produced in the Region of Thessaly. Recording, Markets and Promotion Strategies, Small Business Institute, IME GSEVEE. 2022. Available online: https://imegsevee.gr/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/meleti_thessalia.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2025).
- Spathis, P.; Tsimpoukas, K. Business Economics. In With Applications to Food and Agriculture Businesses; Ellinoekdotiki Publishing: Athens, Greece, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Sintori, A.; Tsiboukas, K.; Zervas, G. Evaluating Socio-Economic and Environmental Sustainability of the Sheep Farming Activity in Greece: A Whole-Farm Mathematical Programming Approach. In Marta-Costa Methods and Procedures for Building Sustainable Farming Systems, Application in the European Context; Silva, A.E., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 219–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liagka, D.V.; Politis, A.P.; Spilioti, M.; Nellas, E.; Simitzis, P.; Tsiboukas, K. A Comparative Economic Analysis of Different Reproductive Management Strategies in Two Dairy Sheep Farms in Greece. Agriculture 2025, 15, 719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. FADN Database. 2025. Available online: https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/FarmEconomyFocus/FADNDatabase.html (accessed on 1 April 2025).
- Skoufogianni, E.; Solomou, A.D.; Danalatos, N.G. Ecology, Cultivation and Utilization of the Aromatic Greek Oregano (Origanum vulgare L.): A Review. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca 2019, 47, 545–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fimbres-García, J.O.; Flores-Sauceda, M.; Othon-Díaz, E.D.; García-Galaz, A.; Tapia-Rodríguez, M.R.; Silva-Espinoza, B.A.; Ayala-Zavala, J.F. Facing Resistant Bacteria with Plant Essential Oils: Reviewing the Oregano Case. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 1777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evangelista, A.G.; Corrêa, J.A.F.; Pinto, A.C.S.M.; Luciano, F.B. The impact of essential oils on antibiotic use in animal production regarding antimicrobial resistance—A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 62, 5267–5283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tamminen, L.M.; Emanuelson, U.; Blanco-Penedo, I. Systematic Review of Phytotherapeutic Treatments for Different Farm Animals Under European Conditions. Front. Vet. Sci 2018, 5, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Betancourt López, L. Oregano Essential Oils as a Nutraceutical Additive in Poultry Diets; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, G.; Hao, H.; Xie, S.; Wang, X.; Dai, M.; Huang, L.; Yuan, Z. Antibiotic alternatives: The substitution of antibiotics in animal husbandry? Front. Microbiology 2014, 5, 217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zaazaa, A.; Mudalal, S.; Alzuheir, I.; Samara, M.; Jalboush, N.; Fayyad, A.; Petracci, M. The Impact of Thyme and Oregano Essential Oils Dietary Supplementation on Broiler Health, Growth Performance, and Prevalence of Growth-Related Breast Muscle Abnormalities. Animals 2022, 12, 3065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jia, L.; Wu, J.; Lei, Y.; Kong, F.; Zhang, R.; Sun, J.; Wang, L.; Li, Z.; Shi, J.; Wang, Y.; et al. Oregano Essential Oils Mediated Intestinal Microbiota and Metabolites and Improved Growth Performance and Intestinal Barrier Function in Sheep. Front. Immunol. 2022, 13, 908015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Rural Development and Food (2025), Common Agricultural Policy Strategic Plan 2023–2027. Available online: https://www.agrotikianaptixi.gr/metra-paa-pages/katartisi-symvoules-synergasies/metro-16-synergasia/ (accessed on 1 April 2025).
Figure 1.
Map of Thessaly showing the locations of the examined farms.
Figure 2.
Financial results of the farms in Group 1.
Figure 3.
Financial results of farms in Group 2.
Figure 4.
Financial results of the farms in Group 3.
Figure 5.
Financial results of the farms in Group 4.
Figure 6.
Financial results of the farms in Group 5.
Table 1.
Methodological approach for each group.
| Group 1 → Intervention Animals: Ewes | ||
|---|---|---|
| Characterization of a Farm | Farm Capacity | Amount Administered and Name of Phytogenic-Based Supplement |
| Control farm | 50 ewes & 48 lambs | None |
| Intervention farm 1 | 50 ewes & 48 lambs | 1.5 kg of Herb-AllTM LIVER (Life Circle Nutrition, Switzerland, Wangen, Switzerland) per ton of feed |
| Intervention farm 2 | 50 ewes & 48 lambs | 2.5 kg of Herb-AllTM LIVER (Life Circle Nutrition, Switzerland) per ton of feed |
| Group 2 → Intervention Animals: Lambs | ||
| Control farm | 21 ewes & 26 lambs | None |
| Intervention farm 1 | 21 ewes & 26 lambs | 1st day of life at a dose of 1 mL Rotacol® (OLUS PLUS, Hasselt, The Netherlands)/kg body weight of lambs |
| Intervention farm 2 | 21 ewes & 26 lambs | 1st day and 3rd day of life at a dose of 1 mL Rotacol® (OLUS PLUS, The Netherlands)/kg body weight |
| Group 3 → Intervention Animals: Lambs | ||
| Control farm | 26 ewes & 32 lambs | none |
| Intervention farm 1 | 26 ewes & 32 lambs | 2 kg of Herb-AllTM COCC-X (Life Circle Nutrition, Switzerland) per ton from 15 days of age |
| Intervention farm 2 | 26 ewes & 32 lambs | 3 kg of Herb-AllTM COCC-X (Life Circle Nutrition, Switzerland) per ton from 15 days of age |
| Group 4 → Intervention Animals: Ewes | ||
| Control farm | 50 ewes & 48 lambs | None |
| Intervention farm 1 | 50 ewes & 48 lambs | 250 g of oregano food supplement per ton of food |
| Intervention farm 2 | 50 ewes & 48 lambs | 500 g of oregano food supplement per ton of feed |
| Group 5 → Intervention Animals: Lambs | ||
| Control farm | 26 ewes & 32 lambs | None |
| Intervention farm 1 | 26 ewes & 32 lambs | 250 g of oregano food supplement per ton of food from the age of 15 days |
| Intervention farm 2 | 26 ewes & 32 lambs | 500 g of oregano food supplement per ton of food from the age of 15 days |
Authors own work.
Table 2.
Changes in symptoms and animal performance after the interventions.
| Groups | Farms | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 | Control farm | Intervention farm 1 | Intervention farm 2 |
| Mastitis incidence rate (%) | 13.8 | 9.5 | 7.8 |
| Diarrhea incidence rate (%) | 6.3 | 3.8 | 2.9 |
| Percentage increase in milk production (%) | - | 4.07 | 10.45 |
| Group 2 | Control farm | Intervention farm 1 | Intervention farm 2 |
| Reduction in mortality rate (%) | 7.2 | 4.3 | 2.7 |
| Reducing the incidence of diarrhea (%) | 42.3 | 17.6 | 8.4 |
| Group 3 | Control farm | Intervention farm 1 | Intervention farm 2 |
| Reduction in mortality rate (%) | 8.2 | 4.8 | 2.3 |
| Reducing the incidence of diarrhea (%) | 27.6 | 12.7 | 7.2 |
| Group 4 | Control farm | Intervention farm 1 | Intervention farm 2 |
| Mastitis incidence rate (%) | 11.4 | 9.5 | 8.8 |
| Diarrhea incidence rate (%) | 6.6 | 6.2 | 5.9 |
| Percentage increase in milk production (%) | - | +1.9 | +2.6 |
| Group 5 | Control farm | Intervention farm 1 | Intervention farm 2 |
| Reduction in mortality rate (%) | 7.85 | 54 | 4.6 |
| Reducing the incidence of diarrhea (%) | 35.8 | 28.8 | 22.6 |
Authors own work.
Table 3.
Livestock composition on each farm in Group 1.
| Livestock | Number of Animals (n) | Average Value (Euro Per Animal) | Total Value (Euro) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ewes | 50 | 250 | 12,500 |
| Replacement lamb ewes | 10 | 150 | 1500 |
| Rams | 3 | 300 | 900 |
Authors own work.
Table 4.
Calculation of the depreciation of buildings and equipment for each farm within Group 1.
| Buildings/Equipment | Reconstruction Cost (Euro) | Useful Life (Years) | Years of Function | Depreciation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stable | 9000.00 | 25 | 10 | 360.00 |
| Feed store | 2500.00 | 25 | 10 | 100.00 |
| Milking parlor | 1600.00 | 25 | 10 | 64.00 |
| Farm equipment | 400.00 | 10 | 8 | 40.00 |
| Milking machine | 5800.00 | 15 | 10 | 387.00 |
Authors own work.
Table 5.
Various parameters used to calculate the production for each farm within Group 1.
| Parameters | Control Farm | Intervention Farm 1 | Intervention Farm 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Milk | |||
| Yield per ewe (liters) | 302.30 | 314.60 | 333.89 |
| Annual yield (liters) | 15,115.00 | 15,729.80 | 16,694.39 |
| Price (Euro per liter) | 1.60 | 1.60 | 1.60 |
| Lamb | |||
| Lambs sold (number of animals) | 48 | 48 | 48 |
| Lamb meat for sale (kg) | 433.13 | 433.13 | 433.13 |
| Carcass selling price (euro/kg) | 8.00 | 8.00 | 8.00 |
| Elderly/barren ewes (number of animals) | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Selling meat from elderly/barren ewes (kg) | 350.00 | 350.00 | 350.00 |
| Selling price of sheep carcass (euro/kg) | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 |
| Value of sheep wool (euro) | 60.00 | 60.00 | 60.00 |
| Total used amount of Herb-AllTM LIVER (kg) | - | 18.38 | 36.34 |
| Herb-AllTM LIVER expense | - | 228.97 | 381.61 |
Authors own work.
Table 6.
Annual production expenses and categorization into fixed and variable expenses for each farm in Group 1.
Table 6.
Annual production expenses and categorization into fixed and variable expenses for each farm in Group 1.
| Annual Production Expenses | Control Farm | Intervention Farm 1 | Intervention Farm 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Land | 189.00 | 189.00 | 189.00 |
| Labor | 10,455.86 | 10,455.86 | 10,455.86 |
| Expenses of variable capital | 13,180.33 | 13,759.69 | 14,512.08 |
| Expenses of fixed capital | 2625.37 | 2625.37 | 2625.37 |
| Total production expenses | 26,450.55 | 27,029.92 | 27,782.31 |
| Fixed Capital Expenses | Control Farm | Intervention Farm 1 | Intervention Farm 2 |
| Depreciation | 950.67 | 950.67 | 950.67 |
| Interest | 1466.72 | 1466.72 | 1466.72 |
| Maintenance of structures and equipment | 129.98 | 129.98 | 129.98 |
| Construction and equipment insurance | 78.00 | 78.00 | 78.00 |
| Total (euro) | 2625.37 | 2625.37 | 2625.37 |
| Variable Capital Expenses | Control Farm | Intervention Farm 1 | Intervention Farm 2 |
| Consumables (i.e., feed expenses, fuel expenses, dietary supplement expenses) | 11,506.30 | 12,102.05 | 12,837.76 |
| Insurance for livestock (ELGA) | 56.70 | 56.70 | 56.70 |
| Provision of services by third parties (veterinary expenses, electricity and water expenses) | 955 | 915 | 901 |
| Interest of variable capital | 537.33 | 560.95 | 591.62 |
| Other expenses | 125.00 | 125.00 | 125.00 |
| Total | 13,180.33 | 13,759.69 | 14,512.08 |
Authors own work.
Table 7.
Determining the cost and profit for revenue-generating products for the three farms.
| Products | Price | Revenue | Output of Production | Product Categorization | Gross Income of Primary Products | Gross Income of Primary Products (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control farm | ||||||
| Milk | 1.60 euro/kg | 24,184.00 | 83% | Primary | 24,184.00 (1) | 87% |
| Lamb meat | 8.00 euro/kg | 3465.00 | 12% | Primary | 3465.00 (2) | 13% |
| Meat from elderly/barren ewes | 4.00 euro/kg | 1400.00 | 5% | Secondary | 27,649.00 (1) + (2) | 100% |
| Sheep wool | 60 euros in total quantity | 60.00 | 0% | Secondary | ||
| Total | 29,109.00 | 100% | ||||
| Intervention farm 1 | ||||||
| Milk | 1.60 euro/kg | 25,167.68 | 84% | Primary | 25,167.68 (1) | 88% |
| Lamb meat | 8.00 euro/kg | 3465.00 | 12% | Primary | 3465.00 (2) | 12% |
| Meat from elderly/barren ewes | 4.00 euro/kg | 1400.00 | 5% | Secondary | 28,632.68 (1+2) | 100% |
| Sheep wool | 60 euros in total quantity | 60.00 | 0% | Secondary | ||
| Total | 30,092.68 | |||||
| Intervention farm 2 | ||||||
| Milk | 1.60 euro/kg | 26,711.02 | 84% | Primary | 26,711.02 (1) | 89% |
| Lamb meat | 8.00 euro/kg | 3465.00 | 11% | Primary | 3465.00 (2) | 11% |
| Meat from elderly/barren ewes | 4.00 euro/kg | 1400.00 | 4% | Secondary | 30,176.02 (1) + (2) | 100% |
| Sheep wool | 60 euros in total quantity | 60.00 | 0% | Secondary | ||
| Total | 31,636.02 | |||||
Authors own work.
Table 8.
Cost of Milk and Lamb Meat.
| Group | Supplement | Farm Type | Milk Cost (€/kg) | Lamb Meat Cost (€/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 | Herb-All™ LIVER | Control | 1.53 | 7.65 |
| Intervention 1 | 1.51 | 7.55 | ||
| Intervention 2 | 1.47 | 7.37 | ||
| Group 2 | Rotacol® | Control | 1.68 | 8.39 |
| Intervention 1 | 1.66 | 8.32 | ||
| Intervention 2 | 1.66 | 8.29 | ||
| Group 3 | Herb-All™ COCC-X | Control | 1.7 | 8.52 |
| Intervention 1 | 1.71 | 8.55 | ||
| Intervention 2 | 1.71 | 8.56 | ||
| Group 4 | Arethousa oregano (ewes) | Control | 1.5 | 7.49 |
| Intervention 1 | 1.48 | 7.42 | ||
| Intervention 2 | 1.46 | 7.29 | ||
| Group 5 | Arethousa oregano (lambs) | Control | 1.71 | 8.53 |
| Intervention 1 | 1.7 | 8.49 | ||
| Intervention 2 | 1.7 | 8.48 |
Authors own work.
Table 9.
Aggregated financial results presentation per ewe for all the studied groups.
| Group 1, Name of Phytogenic-Based Supplement: Herb-AllTM LIVER (Life Circle Nutrition, Switzerland) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Financial Results | Control Farm | Intervention Farm 1 | Intervention Farm 2 |
| Gross income per ewe | 618.02 | 637.69 | 668.56 |
| Net profit per ewe | 89.01 | 97.10 | 112.91 |
| Gross profit per ewe | 354.41 | 362.50 | 378.32 |
| Agricultural farm income per ewe | 309.59 | 318.15 | 334.58 |
| Group 4, Name of Phytogenic-Based Supplement: Arethousa Oregano | |||
| Financial Results | Control Farm | Intervention Farm 1 | Intervention Farm 2 |
| Gross income per ewe | 630.66 | 640.07 | 653.22 |
| Net profit per ewe | 101.44 | 106.80 | 117.18 |
| Gross profit per ewe | 366.84 | 372.20 | 382.58 |
| Agricultural farm income per ewe | 322.03 | 327.55 | 338.04 |
| Group 2, Name of Phytogenic-Based Supplement: Rotacol® (OLUS PLUS, The Netherlands) | |||
| Financial Results | Control Farm | Intervention Farm 1 | Intervention Farm 2 |
| Gross income per ewe | 619.47 | 622.08 | 623.52 |
| Net profit per ewe | 39.39 | 44.63 | 46.48 |
| Gross profit per ewe | 352.38 | 357.63 | 359.48 |
| Agricultural farm income per ewe | 262.96 | 268.09 | 269.92 |
| Group 3, Name of Phytogenic-Based Supplement: Herb-AllTM COCC-X (Life Circle Nutrition, Switzerland) | |||
| Financial Results | Control Farm | Intervention Farm 1 | Intervention Farm 2 |
| Gross income per ewe | 618.05 | 621.11 | 623.36 |
| Net profit per ewe | 30.32 | 28.04 | 27.28 |
| Gross profit per ewe | 350.95 | 348.67 | 347.90 |
| Agricultural farm income per ewe | 276.36 | 274.30 | 273.65 |
| Group 5, Name of Phytogenic-Based Supplement: Arethousa Oregano | |||
| Financial Results | Control Farm | Intervention Farm 1 | Intervention Farm 2 |
| Gross income per ewe | 618.37 | 620.57 | 621.29 |
| Net profit per ewe | 29.61 | 32.49 | 33.15 |
| Gross profit per ewe | 350.24 | 353.11 | 353.78 |
| Agricultural farm income per ewe | 275.69 | 278.54 | 279.20 |
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. |
© 2025 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/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Spilioti, M.; Tousis, K.; Papakonstantinou, G.; Meletis, E.; Manouras, A.; Nellas, E.; Economou, G.; Papatsiros, V.G.; Tsiboukas, K. Techno-Economic Analysis of Innovative Phytogenic-Based Supplements for Ruminant Health and Productivity. Agriculture 2025, 15, 1090. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15101090
AMA Style
Spilioti M, Tousis K, Papakonstantinou G, Meletis E, Manouras A, Nellas E, Economou G, Papatsiros VG, Tsiboukas K. Techno-Economic Analysis of Innovative Phytogenic-Based Supplements for Ruminant Health and Productivity. Agriculture. 2025; 15(10):1090. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15101090
Chicago/Turabian StyleSpilioti, Maria, Konstantinos Tousis, Georgios Papakonstantinou, Eleftherios Meletis, Alexis Manouras, Eleftherios Nellas, Garyfalia Economou, Vasileios G. Papatsiros, and Konstantinos Tsiboukas. 2025. "Techno-Economic Analysis of Innovative Phytogenic-Based Supplements for Ruminant Health and Productivity" Agriculture 15, no. 10: 1090. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15101090
APA StyleSpilioti, M., Tousis, K., Papakonstantinou, G., Meletis, E., Manouras, A., Nellas, E., Economou, G., Papatsiros, V. G., & Tsiboukas, K. (2025). Techno-Economic Analysis of Innovative Phytogenic-Based Supplements for Ruminant Health and Productivity. Agriculture, 15(10), 1090. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15101090
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
