This summary was prepared by Hamed Kioumarsi, EBM at Springer Nature, in collaboration with Houshang Dehghanzadeh of the Animal Science Research Department, Gilan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Rasht, Iran, and Fatemeh Moazzezi of the Social and Extension Research Department, Gilan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Rasht, Iran.
Citation: Kioumarsi, H., Dehghanzadeh, H., & Moazzezi, F. (2026). Monensin versus Other Feed Additives: Economic Evaluation Essay. Springer Nature Communities. https://go.nature.com/4xTETD4
Note: The authors have attempted to examine monensin from a different perspective. However, it should be clearly emphasized that this article is not intended as a guideline or recommendation to support the use of monensin; rather, it presents a scientific narrative and discussion of the topic from a particular perspective. Regarding the use of monensin or any other feed additive, greater consideration should be given to broader and more important issues, including human health, animal health, planetary health, sustainable development, environmental impacts, and climate change. Further research and evidence-based guidelines are needed to evaluate monensin and other feed additives comprehensively from these interconnected perspectives. Such assessments should consider not only their effects on animal production and performance but also their potential implications for sustainability, environmental protection, climate change mitigation, and overall health.
There was a time when no livestock producer would think of raising animals without using monensin. It was a highly efficient feed additive, which could be used to alter rumen fermentation, prevent specific metabolic and gastrointestinal diseases, and increase farm profits due to higher efficiency. At the same time, agriculture has changed significantly in recent years, and the use of this additive is now questioned because of various factors, including antimicrobial resistance, consumer demands, and the need for sustainable and low-residue technologies. However, the main question that a producer should ask himself is whether other feed additives are able to replace monensin while being economically justified.
Monensin is an ionophore that can greatly affect metabolism in some livestock, thereby improving feed efficiency and reducing the risk of certain diseases. When used in beef cattle, particularly finishing cattle, it can improve feed conversion efficiency, alter volatile fatty acid production patterns, and reduce the incidence of certain disorders. When it comes to dairy cows, the addition of this ionophore to the ration can also be beneficial because of similar mechanisms, which allow the dairy farmer to obtain more milk with a given amount of feed. In both cases, the benefits are due to better feed conversion and hence reduced amounts of feed per unit of meat or milk. Therefore, the economic value of this additive in the cattle production is clear, as lower expenditures on feed can be the primary source of profit for a cattle owner.
At the same time, when comparing the economic value of various feed additives, one should focus on the cost per unit production rather than the cost per unit weight. Thus, a lower price of a feed additive that only marginally improves the cattle performance is not economically justified, while a higher-priced alternative with greater benefits can be more economically viable. This is especially true for the alternatives to monensin, which have been subject to extensive research in recent years. Some of them have proven to be economically viable, while others did not stand out against the backdrop of more beneficial options. For instance, a variety of products have been developed, including probiotics, prebiotics, yeast cultures, essential oils, plant extracts, organic acids, tannins, saponins, enzymes, and combinations of these products.
The biological effectiveness of these alternatives varies greatly, depending on the species, dietary regimen, stages of production, additive inclusion rates, husbandry practices, and climatic conditions. Therefore, when speaking of their economic viability, it is necessary to consider these factors as well. For instance, when considering the option of using an alternative to monensin, a producer should look at the information on the effectiveness of the proposed additive, taking into account the biological response of his animals to it. If the alternative is twice as expensive but only moderately improves the performance, it may be uneconomical compared to the established practice of using monensin. On the other hand, an additive, which is slightly more expensive but offers similar improvements in productivity while providing other benefits, can be economically viable.
Another aspect that needs to be considered when comparing the economic value of various feed additives is risk. Monensin has been used for many years, and cattle owners know its effects well, including the ways this additive impacts animal productivity and the expected changes in the animal husbandry practices. When it comes to the alternatives, the experience of a cattle owner is much more limited, and the variability of results can be much higher. This fact alone makes some additives less attractive, even though they may offer better productivity gains and other benefits. Thus, when speaking of the economic viability of various feed additives, it is essential to pay attention to the range of possible results and weigh it against the potential benefits.
In addition, it is essential to consider the changing dynamics of the market forces when comparing the economic value of additives. In the modern agricultural market, consumers are becoming increasingly interested in knowing how their food is being produced. Products obtained from cattle with the use of certain additives are less desirable to some consumers because of potential antimicrobial resistance and other factors. Although monensin is an ionophore antimicrobial rather than a conventional antibiotic used for therapeutic treatment, some consumers do not differentiate between various antimicrobial agents. Therefore, for cattle owners, it can be more economically viable to switch to alternatives, which would help them meet the specific demands of some consumers.
Moreover, there has been an increasing interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in recent years, and methane emissions from cattle are a significant contributor to them. Some additives can reduce these emissions, which might be economically beneficial when the livestock producers adopt specific carbon reduction measures. Again, when comparing the economic value of various feed additives, an alternative to monensin can be more advantageous, especially when a producer takes into account his own production costs and expected revenues. The source and price of the additive and the size of the methane reduction are also important, as this reduction itself may be economically beneficial if there are carbon markets that allow an agricultural producer to sell these reductions as credits.
It is also essential to keep in mind that some additives can be beneficial when combined with each other and when combined with more traditional interventions. Thus, the cattle owner should look at the overall effects of using a specific feed additive rather than analyze the changes in isolation. There are many ways to optimize production in order to reduce expenditures and hence increase profits, and they go beyond altering the feed regimen. These interventions include the selection of more appropriate forages, improvements to the nutritional balance, increased reproductive efficiency, and enhanced herd health. When speaking of feed additives, their economic value can be higher when they combine several traditional technologies that are beneficial for cattle production.
When assessing the economic value of a feed additive, a cattle owner should focus on the changes in his net profit margins, which should be the ultimate criterion for such an assessment. The main source of these changes will be his expenditure changes, which should also be weighed against the changes in yield, health status, and other factors related to farm income. One of the tools that can help a cattle owner to carry out this analysis is partial-budget analysis, which focuses on the incremental costs and revenues associated with a specific business function or decision. In this case, the decision will be to switch from monensin to an alternative feed additive, and the costs-benefits of this switch will be determined with regard to these factors.
In conclusion, the economic value of any feed additive should be weighed against the potential benefits and costs associated with its use. The comparative economic evaluation of additive options, from the perspective of a cattle owner, should be focused on the net profit margins, taking into consideration the risk factors associated with any changes in the livestock production. Monensin, despite the pressure to find alternatives, is a viable option because of its well-established effects and predictability in terms of cattle production. Nevertheless, the current trends in agriculture suggest that such alternatives may become more economically viable in the future, as some of them offer a variety of benefits.
The future of cattle production is not in replacing monensin with another additive but optimizing the production process in order to make it as economically efficient as possible. Thus, there are many ways to help a cattle owner in achieving his goals, including the use of various feed additives and the implementation of more traditional methods. The most economically viable options will depend on the specific cattle owner and his business, as he should match his needs against the available options to find the ones that are the most profitable for him.
References
Bowman-Schnug, S. M., Fuerniss, L. K., Cameron, J. D., Beckett, J. L., Ahsin, M., van Vliet, S., Hufstedler, G. D., & Johnson, B. J. (2025). Replacement of Monensin with a Proprietary Tannin-Blend Additive in Calf-Fed Holstein Steer Diets. Veterinary sciences, 12(2), 166. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci12020166
Carresi, C., Marabelli, R., Roncada, P., & Britti, D. (2024). Is the Use of Monensin Another Trojan Horse for the Spread of Antimicrobial Resistance?. Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 13(2), 129. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13020129
Chapman, H. D., Jeffers, T. K., & Williams, R. B. (2010). Forty years of monensin for the control of coccidiosis in poultry. Poultry science, 89(9), 1788–1801. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-00931
Khorshidi, K. J., Karimnia, A., Gharaveisi, S., & Kioumarsi, H. (2008). The effect of monensin and supplemental fat on growth performance, blood metabolites and commercial productivity of Zel lamb. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 11(20), 2395–2400.
https://doi.org/10.3923/pjbs.2008.2395.2400
Neethirajan, S. (2024). Innovative Strategies for Sustainable Dairy Farming in Canada amidst Climate Change. Sustainability, 16(1), 265. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010265
Poletti, G., Grigoletto, N. T. S., Takiya, C. S., Nunes, A. T., de Carvalho, V. V., Cortinhas, C. S., Turner, T. D., & Rennó, F. P. (2025). Effects of monensin, phytogenic compounds, or a blend of feed additives on health and performance of dairy cows. Translational animal science, 9, txaf140. https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txaf140
Ribeiro, I. G., Gonçalves, A. C. N., Oliveira, L. G., Menezes, G. L., Lana, Â. M. Q., Souza, R. C., & de Oliveira, A. F. (2026). Comparative effects of monensin and alternative feed additives on productive performance and rumen fermentation in Zebu beef cattle: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Research in veterinary science, 201, 106072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2026.106072