Optimization of Laying Duck Feed Combinations Using the COCOSO Method
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55537/spk.v5i1.1577Keywords:
Duck Feed, Nutrition, MCDM, COCOSO, ProductivityAbstract
The productivity of laying ducks is highly influenced by feed composition and nutrient quality. Inappropriate feed combinations may reduce production performance and increase operational costs. This study aims to determine the optimal feed combination for laying ducks using the Combined Compromise Solution (COCOSO) method by considering nutritional, production, and economic criteria. This study evaluates 15 alternative feed combinations consisting of commercial pellets and supplementary ingredients such as fine bran, ground corn, soybean meal, mineral mix, vitamin mix, and fish meal. Seven criteria were used, including protein, calcium, feed cost, egg production (HDP), health, palatability, and Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR), which were classified into benefit and cost attributes. The analysis process includes decision matrix construction, normalization, criteria weighting, and ranking using three COCOSO aggregation strategies to obtain compromise scores. The results indicate that differences in feed performance are clearly identified through multi-criteria evaluation. The best alternative achieved the highest COCOSO score of 0,940, indicating the most optimal balance between nutritional quality, production performance, feed efficiency, and cost. This study concludes that the COCOSO-based Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) approach is effective for supporting decision-making in livestock nutrition. The proposed model provides a structured, objective, and practical tool for farmers and practitioners to optimize feed strategies and improve production efficiency.
Downloads
References
G. Su et al., “Effects of essential oil on growth performance, digestibility, immunity, and intestinal health in broilers,” Poultry Science, vol. 100, no. 8, p. 101242, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2021.101242.
Y. Jin et al., “Dietary supplementation with 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 regulates productive performance, lipid metabolism and gut microbiota in aged laying ducks,” Animal Nutrition, vol. 19, pp. 90–103, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.aninu.2024.04.029.
Y. Li et al., “Effects of adding a kind of compound bio-enzyme to the diet on the production performance, serum immunity, and intestinal health of Pekin ducks,” Poultry Science, vol. 104, no. 1, p. 104506, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2024.104506.
G. M. Pesti, M. Choct, P. V. Chrystal, M. R. Bedford, and A. F. Moss, “Teaching the principles of least-cost poultry feed formulation utilizing the Solver function within a computer software workbook,” Poultry Science, vol. 103, no. 6, p. 103636, June 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2024.103636.
O. Akintan, K. G. Gebremedhin, and D. D. Uyeh, “Animal Feed Formulation—Connecting Technologies to Build a Resilient and Sustainable System,” Animals, vol. 14, no. 10, p. 1497, 2024, doi: 10.3390/ani14101497.
A. Wilfart, F. Garcia-Launay, F. Terrier, E. Soudé, P. Aguirre, and S. Skiba-Cassy, “A step towards sustainable aquaculture: Multiobjective feed formulation reduces environmental impacts at feed and farm levels for rainbow trout,” Aquaculture, vol. 562, p. 738826, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.738826.
D. B. Akakpo, I. J. M. de Boer, S. Adjei-Nsiah, A. J. Duncan, K. E. Giller, and S. J. Oosting, “Evaluating the effects of storage conditions on dry matter loss and nutritional quality of grain legume fodders in West Africa,” Animal Feed Science and Technology, vol. 262, p. 114419, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2020.114419.
Q. Guo et al., “Genome-Wide Association Study of Feed Efficiency Related Traits in Ducks,” Animals, vol. 12, no. 12, p. 1532, 2022, doi: 10.3390/ani12121532.
G. D. Uribe-Guerra, D. A. Múnera-Ramírez, and J. D. Arias-Londoño, “Feed formulation using multi-objective Bayesian optimization,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 224, p. 109173, Sept. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2024.109173.
R. I. Sawadogo, V. Millogo, M. Sissao, M. Kere, W. A. Sawadogo, and M. Séré, “Simulation and Optimization of Available Local Feed Resources for Dairy Cattle in Burkina Faso,” Applied Sciences, vol. 14, no. 24, p. 11891, 2024, doi: 10.3390/app142411891.
A. Tighnavard Balasbaneh, S. Aldrovandi, and W. Sher, “A Systematic Review of Implementing Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) Approaches for the Circular Economy and Cost Assessment,” Sustainability, vol. 17, no. 11, p. 5007, 2025, doi: 10.3390/su17115007.
G. D. Uribe-Guerra, D. A. Múnera-Ramírez, and J. D. Arias-Londoño, “Feed formulation using multi-objective Bayesian optimization,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 224, p. 109173, Sept. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2024.109173.
N. Gupta, P. Garg, and N. Ahuja, “An integrated pythagorean fuzzy delphi-AHP-CoCoSo approach for exploring barriers and mitigation strategies for sustainable supply chain in the food industry,” Supply Chain Analytics, vol. 10, p. 100105, June 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.sca.2025.100105.
T. Zhai, D. Wang, Q. Zhang, P. Saeidi, and A. Raj Mishra, “Assessment of the agriculture supply chain risks for investments of agricultural small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) using the decision support model,” Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, vol. 36, no. 2, p. 2126991, July 2023, doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2022.2126991.
T. K. Trang Le, H. P. Nguyen, and N. Q. Nguyen, “Assessing Vietnam’s sustainable agritourism by integrated multi-criteria decision-making approach,” Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, vol. 11, no. 4, p. 100652, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.joitmc.2025.100652.
A. Eisa, M. AbouHawa, and M. Fattouh, “Multi-objective optimization of HS-WEDM for hole cutting in thin-walled CFRP composites using COCOSO and genetic algorithms,” Journal of King Saud University - Engineering Sciences, June 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.jksues.2024.06.001.
P. P. Dwivedi and D. K. Sharma, “Application of Shannon Entropy and COCOSO techniques to analyze performance of sustainable development goals: The case of the Indian Union Territories,” Results in Engineering, vol. 14, p. 100416, June 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.rineng.2022.100416.
A. Mahboob, L. Amin, M. W. Rasheed, and J. Karamat, “Multi-criteria decision making: Revealing Afinitor as the leading brain tumor drug Using CRITIC, CoCoSo, and MABAC methods combined with QSPR analysis via Banhatti indices,” Computers in Biology and Medicine, vol. 188, p. 109820, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2025.109820.
R. Mahajan, S. Biswas, V. Simic, D. Pamucar, A. Baidya, and U. K. Bera, “Emergency medical facility site selection in drone-based relief operations using an enhanced T-spherical fuzzy frank combined compromise solution method,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 161, p. 112140, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2025.112140.
S. Ashraf, W. Iqbal, M. Naeem, V. Simic, B. Batool, and D. Pamucar, “A disc-spherical fuzzy combined compromise solution for efficient smart grid energy management,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 159, p. 111196, Nov. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2025.111196.
Y. N. Alves et al., “Utilization of the Hybrid PSI-CoCoSo Method for Product Assortment Management in a Microenterprise of Handmade Cookies,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 266, pp. 456–463, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2025.08.058.
M. Maliha, T. U. Rashid, and M. M. Rahman, “Fabrication of collagen-sodium alginate based antibacterial and edible packaging material: Performance evaluation using Entropy-Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo),” Carbohydrate Polymer Technologies and Applications, vol. 8, p. 100582, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.carpta.2024.100582.
S. Huang, K. Li, M. Tan, and H. Cheng, “Evaluating Regional Agricultural Resilience Using Dynamic CoCoSo with Hybrid Weights: A Case Study of Sichuan, China,” Agriculture, vol. 15, no. 21, p. 2257, 2025, doi: 10.3390/agriculture15212257.
N. Gupta, P. Garg, and N. Ahuja, “An integrated pythagorean fuzzy delphi-AHP-CoCoSo approach for exploring barriers and mitigation strategies for sustainable supply chain in the food industry,” Supply Chain Analytics, vol. 10, p. 100105, June 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.sca.2025.100105.
S. Huang, H. Cheng, M. Tan, Z. Tang, and C. Teng, “Evaluating Regional Potentials of Agricultural E-Commerce Development Using a Novel MEREC Heronian-CoCoSo Approach,” Agriculture, vol. 14, no. 8, p. 1338, 2024, doi: 10.3390/agriculture14081338
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Harlan Kurnia AR, Raditya Abdillah Putra, Dwi Andini, Nazwa Chairunnisa Hamid Siagian, Muhammad Alfaridho, Hazlah Aqillah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
