Socioeconomic determinants and production factors influencing beef fattening success in Bangladesh: A cross-sectional study using a multivariate approach

 Corresponding author: Priunka Bhowmik Copyright © 2025 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. Socioeconomic determinants and production factors influencing beef fattening success in Bangladesh: A cross-sectional study using a multivariate approach Priunka Bhowmik 1, *, Mahafuzul Alam 2, Aparna Datta 3 and Umme Salma Amin 4 1 Department of Animal Science and Nutrition, Chattogram Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Bangladesh. 2 Techno Sales Cattle, Paragon Group Limited, Bangladesh. 3 Teaching and Training Pet Hospital and Research Center, Chattogram Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Bangladesh. 4 Department of Dairy and Poultry Science, Chattogram Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Bangladesh. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 1834-1845 Publication history: Received on 14 October 2025; revised on 20 November 2025; accepted on 22 November 2025 Article DOI: https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2025.28.2.3932 Abstract Beef fattening is an important livelihood strategy in Bangladesh, yet limited empirical evidence exists on how farmer’s socioeconomic factors and management practices influence health outcomes and market value. This study applied multilevel statistical analyses to evaluate determinants of management procedures and high selling price of beef production. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 60 farmers and 100 fattening cattle of North-East region of Bangladesh by a pre-structured questionnaire through face-to-face interview. Descriptive statistics with 95% confidence intervals (CI), Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests were used to assess associations between categorical variables. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of high selling price. The maximum number of farmers involved in beef fattening is male (55%). About 50.82% farmers had taken training on beef fattening and rest of the portion did not have any training. All animals in the study were uncastrated males. Most of the farmers offered their beef cattle 1-5 kg green roughage (44%). Nobody used steroid drugs, but most of them used feed supplements such as multivitamins. Most of the fattened cattle (52%) sold between 100000 to 200000 takas. Training exhibited perfect association with vaccination (Fisher’s exact p = 0.00059), with all trained farmers vaccinating their animals. Crossbred cattle were significantly more likely to be sold at ≥100,000 BDT than local breeds (p = <0.05). Feed additive use was inversely associated with high selling price, whereas final weight category strongly predicted high market value (p<0.05). Therefore, the beef fattening programme can be a profitable business in Bangladesh by adopting training and better management procedures. Keywords: Beef Fattening; Market Price; Socioeconomic Status; Production Factors; Bangladesh 1. Introduction Beef fattening plays a crucial role in the livestock economy of Bangladesh, contributing significantly to rural income generation, employment creation, and the national meat supply, particularly during the Eid-ul-Adha festival when demand rises sharply. The demand of meat in Bangladesh is 74.37 lakh metric ton and 120gm/day/head but production was 84.40 lakh metric ton and availability were 136.18 gm/day/head [1]. Beef cattle fattening helps to fulfill this protein demand. The livestock subsector contributes approximately 1.9% to national GDP and supports nearly 20% of the population through direct or indirect employment [2,3]. Therefore, Beef cattle fattening has emerged as an important income-generating enterprise among smallholder farmers, who typically purchase young, lightweight bulls from local markets and fatten them over short production cycles to capture favorable seasonal prices [4,5]. In Bangladesh huge number of farmers including small scale and large scale are started bull fattening just before 3 or 4 months of Eid-ul- World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 1834-1845 1835 Adha, when they sell the animals with profitable prices. Bull fattening could be an effective program for poverty alleviation and improving food security [6]. Beef fattening in Bangladesh is traditionally based on indigenous cattle which has been chosen for their affordability, disease resistance, and adaptability to low-input systems [7]. Though crossbred cattle are getting popular day by day due to consistently achieving higher final weights and superior market prices because of improved genetic potential for growth and feed efficiency. Feeding practices also remain highly variable across farms. Many smallholders rely heavily on green roughage, straw, and homemade concentrates, with limited adoption of commercial feeds, silage, or ureamolasses-based technologies [8,9]. These feeding strategies influence carcass yield and final body weight, which in turn determine market value. The acute shortage of feeds and fodder has been identified a principal constraint to optimum livestock production in Bangladesh [10] . Farmers may not have available land to cultivate fodder for their beef cattle. The fodder production in Bangladesh is very deficient from the required amount [10]. Farmers mainly offered their cattle roadside grass and rice straw is basal feed for their beef cattle. Most of the farmers offered their beef cattle rice straw in different ways by mixing with other feed substances like as chopping the straw and mixing it with rice husk, chopping straw mixed with green grass, chopping straw mixed with wheat bran, and fresh water. They also use wheat and rice bran, molasses, and locally available resources such as vegetable by-products, rice gruel, boiled rice, oil cake etc. for cattle fattening. Farmers also face many problems in selling beef cattle. Farmers are selling their beef cattle through different marketing channels. Farmers market their cattle in various ways like directly into the local market, online, and at large district market. Different stages through intermediaries who link the farmers of fattened cattle with the ultimate customer. Main intermediaries are “Dalal” whose main job is bringing the buyers and sellers together and helping in bargaining. Finally deal takes commissions from both buyer and seller. Due to this intermediate person, farmers are not getting enough payment. Nowadays, the online market is also getting popular to sell beef cattle. Access to veterinary services, including vaccination, anthelmintic use, and basic treatments, plays an essential role in reducing mortality and improving productivity. Unfortunately, chemical hazards related to steroid misuse have been reported historically [11], although recent evidence suggests a declining trend due to stronger regulation and farmer awareness campaigns. Meanwhile, institutional support from the Department of Livestock Services (DLS), in the form of training or subsidized veterinary inputs, can significantly improve farm performance, but coverage remains inconsistent across regions [2]. Given these challenges, there is an urgent need for multivariate analytical approaches that capture the complexity of socioeconomic, management, and production interactions in beef fattening systems. Logistic regression can quantify key predictors of successful outcomes such as high selling price or effective vaccination practices, and this type of integrated analyses are now lacking in the Bangladeshi context. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the socioeconomic determinants and production factors influencing beef fattening outcomes in three major cattle-producing districts of Bangladesh. Specifically, we applied a multivariate approach using descriptive statistics and logistic regression to (i) characterize farmer socioeconomic profiles, (ii) describe feeding and management practices, (iii) evaluate health and management of beef cattle, and (iv) identify significant predictors of high market price and improved production performance. The findings provide evidence-based insight to support targeted extension programs, policy interventions, and improved fattening strategies for farmers in Bangladesh. 2. Materials and methods The cross-sectional study was completed by using data collection with a pre-structured questionnaire based through face-to-face interview with respondents. The study was carried out for periods of 6 months from both large-scale farmers and household farmers in Saidpur Upazilla, Kishorgonj Upazilla and Nilphamari Sadar under the Nilphamari district and also data was collected from Madhukhali Upazilla, Faridpur Sadar under the district of Faridpur and last one Daulodia upazilla under the Rajbari district. 2.1. Statistical analysis All data analyses were conducted in R (version 4.4.1). Descriptive statistics were calculated for all categorical variables and presented as frequency (%) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Associations between categorical variables were assessed using Chi-square (χ²) tests of independence, Fisher’s exact tests were applied where expected World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 1834-1845 1836 cell counts were <5. Effect sizes for 2×2 tables were expressed as odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI. Logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of high market price (≥100,000 BDT vs <100,000 BDT), including final weight category, use of feed additives, UMS, and vaccination status. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI were reported. 3. Results 3.1. Socio-economic status and beef fattening experience of the farmer The socio-economic status of the farmer, including age, sex, educational qualification, monthly income, and previous experience with beef fattening, is shown in Table 1. Table 1 illustrates that 55 % respondents were male (42.5–66.9%: 95%CI), the maximum number of farmers were in the age category between 36-40 years (26.67%), while the minimum number of farmers was in the age category between 46-50 years (6.67%). Among the farmers 60% were primary educated, whereas 1.67% were post-graduation. All respondents (100%) reported having previous experience with beef fattening (95% CI: 94.1–100%). Among the respondents, Half of the farmers (50.82%; 95% CI: 38.4–63.2%) reported receiving no training, though 14.75% (95% CI: 7.9–25.8%) reported long-duration training (>365 days). The majority of farmers (35.0%; 95% CI: 24.2–47.6%) earned between 21,000 and 30,000 Tk per month, while only 8.33% (95% CI: 3.6–18.1%) reported monthly earnings exceeding 100,000 Tk. Table 1 Socio-economic status and beef fattening experience of the farmer (n=60) Variables Category Frequency Percentage 95% CI Sex Male 33 55 42.5–66.9% Female 27 45 33.1–57.5% Age (Years) 25-30 6 10 4.7–20.1% 31-35 14 23.3 14.4–35.4% 36-40 16 26.7 17.1–39.0% 41-45 15 25 15.8–37.2% 46-50 4 6.7 2.6–15.9% 51-65 5 8.3 3.6–18.1% Education status Primary School (level 1-5) 36 60 47.4–71.4% Secondary school (SSC) (level 6-10) 7 11.7 5.8–22.2% Higher Secondary School (HSC) (level 11-12) 7 11.7 5.8–22.2% Graduation 8 13.33 6.9–24.2% Post-graduation 1 1.7 0.3–8.9% Monthly income (Tk/month) 10,000-20,000 9 15 8.1% – 26.1% 21,000-30,000 21 35 24.2% – 47.6% 31,000-40,000 11 18 10.6% – 29.9% 41,000-50,000 6 10 4.7% – 20.1% 51,000-60,000 4 6.67 2.6% – 15.9% 61,000-70,000 1 1.67 0.3% – 8.9% 71,000-80,000 3 5 1.7% – 13.7% 1,00,000 - >100,000 5 8.33 3.6% – 18.1% Yes 61 100 94.1–100% World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 1834-1845 1837 Previous experience of beef fattening No 0 0 0% Period of training (Days) 3 19 31.15 20.6% – 43.6% 30 2 3.28 0.9% – 11.1% Above 365 9 14.75 7.9% – 25.8% No 31 50.82 38.4% – 63.2% 3.2. Information about breed, age, color, body weight and castration status of the beef cattle: A total of 100 beef cattle were evaluated for breed type, age category, coat color, initial and final body weight, and castration status (Table 2). The population was dominated by local cattle (81.0%, 95% CI: 72.2–87.5%), while crossbred animals represented 19.0% (95% CI: 12.5–27.8%). Coat color distribution was highly variable, with reddish animals most common (47.0%, 95% CI: 37.5–56.7%), followed by black (19.0%) and gray/ash (15.0%). Age distribution revealed that nearly half the cattle were between 2.1–2.5 years (43.0%, 95% CI: 33.7–52.8%). Only 4.0% (95% CI: 1.6– 9.8%) were older than 3 years. All animals in the study were uncastrated males (100%, 95% CI: 96.3–100%), reflecting cultural consumer preference for intact bulls during Eid-ul-Adha. Initial body weight with the highest proportion of animals in the 151–200 kg (38.0%, 95% CI: 29.1–47.8%). Final body weight increased substantially across the fattening period, with 42.0% (95% CI: 32.8–51.8%) reaching 150–250 kg and only a small proportion exceeded more than 10001500 kg. Table 2 General information including breed, age, color, body weight, and castration status of the beef cattle (n=100) Variables Category Frequency Percentage 95% CI Breed Cross 19 19 12.5–27.8% Local 81 81 72.2–87.5% Color Reddish 47 47 37.5–56.7% Black 19 19 12.5–27.8% Gray/Ash 15 15 9.3–23.3% Black and White 14 14 8.5–22.1% White 3 3 1.0–8.5% Black and Red 1 1 0.2–5.4% Brown 1 1 0.2–5.4% Age (Years) 1.5-2 23 23 15.8–32.2% 2.1-2.5 43 43 33.7–52.8% 2.6-3 30 30 21.9–39.6% 3.1-3.5 4 4 1.6–9.8% Castration status Castrated 0 0 0.0–3.7% Uncastrated 100 100 96.3–100.0% Initial weight (kg) 100-150 34 34 25.5–43.7% 151-200 38 38 29.1–47.8% 201-250 19 19 12.5–27.8% 251-300 4 4 1.6–9.8% World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 1834-1845 1838 301-350 3 3 1.0–8.5% >500-1000 1 1 0.2–5.4% >1000-1500 1 1 0.2–5.4% Final weight (kg) 150-250 42 42 32.8–51.8% 251-350 32 32 23.7–41.7% 351-450 20 20 13.3–28.9% 451-550 3 3 1.0–8.5% 551-1000 2 2 0.6–7.0% >1000-1500 1 1 0.2–5.4% 3.3. Farm management procedures for beef fattening Table 3 shows the farm management practices adopted for beef fattening. Most farmers purchased cattle from the local market (78%, 95% CI: 69.0–85.0%), while only 22% (95% CI: 15.0–31.0%) selected animals from their own farms. The duration of the fattening period varied, with 4 months being the most common (31%, 95% CI: 22.4–40.8%), followed by 7 months (28%, 95% CI: 20.2–37.3%), while periods of ≥6 months were uncommon (1%; CI: 2.2–11.1%). Beef cattle were sold through a variety of marketing channels. Nearly one-third of farmers used both online and local markets (29%, CI: 20.8–38.8%), followed closely by online-only sales (28%, CI: 20.2–37.3%), whereas 20% (CI: 13.3–28.9%) relied solely on local markets. More than half of the cattle (52%, 95% CI: 42.5–61.2%) were sold at prices between 100,001 and 200,000 Tk, reflecting the premium value of fattened bulls before Eid-ul-Adha. Lower price categories (60,000–100,000 Tk) accounted for 12–13% of sales, whereas cattle achieving >300,000 Tk were uncommon (≤2%; CI: 0.6–7.0%). Housing practices varied among farms. Half of the cattle were kept in face-in housing systems (50%, CI: 40.4– 59.6%), whereas 33% (CI: 24.6–43.3%) used a combination of face-in and face-out systems. Only 17% (CI: 10.7–25.8%) maintained cattle in non-stanchion single-row barns. All farms used concrete flooring (100%, CI: 96.3–100%), and none used soil or mud floors. Table 3 Farm management procedures of the cattle for fattening Variables Category Frequency Percentage 95% CI Source of the beef cattle purchase Local market 78 78 69.0–85.0% Own farm 22 22 15.0–31.0% Period of fattening (months) 4 31 31 22.4–40.8% 7 28 28 20.2–37.3% 3.5 12 12 7.1–19.7% 3 9 9 4.8–16.3% 5 9 9 4.8–16.3% 4.5 5 5 2.2–11.1% 8 5 5 2.2–11.1% 6 1 1 0.2–5.4% Places of selling beef cattle Online and local market 29 29 20.8–38.8% Online 28 28 20.2–37.3% Local market, middleman, farm 23 23 15.8–32.5% Local market 20 20 13.3–28.9% Selling price of the beef cattle (Tk/animal) 60,000-70,000 12 12 7.1–19.7% 71,000-80,000 13 13 7.9–21.2% 81,000-90,000 12 12 7.1–19.7% 91,000-100,000 8 8 4.2–14.9% World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 1834-1845 1839 100,001-200,000 52 52 42.5–61.2% 200,001-300,000 1 1 0.2–5.4% >300,000-800,000 2 2 0.6–7.0% Housing Face in 50 50 40.4–59.6% Face in and face out 33 33 24.6–43.3% No stanchion barn (single row) 17 17 10.7–25.8% Floor of the house Concrete 100 100 96.3–100.0% Soil and mud 0 0 0.0–3.7% 3.4. Feeding management of the beef cattle Feeding practices for beef cattle are presented in Table 4. Nearly half of the cattle received 1–5 kg of green roughage per day (44%, 95% CI:34.4–54.1%), while 36% received 11–15 kg, indicating heavy reliance on moderate roughage supplementation. A minority of farms (5%) did not supply green roughage at all (5%). Feeding dry roughage (straw) was inconsistent; only 32% of animals received straw daily, whereas the majority (68%) did not receive any dry roughage. In case of readymade commercial feed feeding, about one-fifth of cattle received 0.5 kg/day (21%, 95% CI: 14.1–30.0%), while 49% were not given any commercial feed. In contrast, home-made concentrated feed was widely used. Around 4 kg/day (31%, 95% CI: 22.9–40.9%), and 22% received 3 kg/day, indicating that farmers relied mainly on self-formulated rations rather than pre-mixed commercial feed. Only 5% reported not using any homemade concentrate. The type of home-made feed ingredients also varied. The most frequently used combination was broken maize, wheat bran, and rice polish (35%, 95% CI: 26.4–44.7%), followed by wheat-based mixtures with broken maize and lentils (28%). Only a small percentage (2–8%) used single-ingredient or limited-ingredient rations, while 5% (95% CI: 2.2–11.1%) did not provide homemade feed at all. Use of silage was limited; only 20% (95% CI: 13.3–28.9%) supplied 10 kg/day, while 71% (61.5–79.0%) did not use silage. Similarly, adoption of UMS (urea–molasses–straw) was low, with only 29% (95% CI: 21.0–38.5%) of farmers providing it. No respondents reported using UMMB (Urea Molasses MultiNutrient Blocks), indicating low adoption of treated roughage technologies. Table 4 Feeding management of the beef cattle Variables Category Frequency Percentage 95% CI Green roughage (kg/day) 1-5 44 44 34.4–54.1% 6-10 3 3 1.0–8.5% 11-15 36 36 27.0–46.0% 16-20 2 2 0.6–7.0% 21-25 4 4 1.6–9.8% 26-30 4 4 1.6–9.8% 40 2 2 0.6–7.0% Not given 5 5 2.2–11.2% Dry roughage (straw_ kg/day) 12 32 32 23.4–41.7% Not given 68 68 23.4–41.7% Readymade feed (kg/day) 0.5 21 21 14.1–30.0% 1.5 3 3 1.0–8.5% 1 7 7 3.4–13.7% 2.5 1 1 0.2–5.4% 2 19 19 12.5–27.8% Not given 49 49 39.5–58.5% World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 1834-1845 1840 Home-made concentrated feed (kg/day) 1 30 30 21.9–39.6% 3 22 22 15.0–31.0% 4 31 31 22.9–40.9% 5 4 4 1.6–9.8% >5-10 8 8 4.2–14.9% Not given 5 5 2.2–11.1% Home-made feed ingredients Broken maize, wheat bran, rice polish 35 35 26.4–44.7% Maize, Rice polish, Rice bran, Wheat bran, Mustard oil cake, soya bean meal, DCP, Molasses, Salt 15 15 9.3–23.3% Wheat, Wheat Bran, Broken Maize, Lentil powder 28 28 20.1–37.5% Wheat bran, Rice bran 8 8 4.1–15.0% Wheat Bran, Rice Bran, Mustard oil cake/lentil, chickpea 7 7 3.4–13.7% Wheat bran 2 2 0.6–7.0% Not given 5 5 2.2–11.1% Silage (kg/day) 10 20 20 13.3–28.9% 16 9 9 4.8–16.2% Not given 71 71 61.5–79.0% UMS (Kg/day) 1 29 29 21.0–38.5% Not given 71 71 61.5–79.0% UMMB (Kg/day) Ye 0 0 0.0–3.7% Not given 100 100 96.3–100.0% 3.5. Health management of beef cattle Table 5 represents the health management of beef cattle. Vaccination coverage among the surveyed beef cattle was high, with 55% of animals receiving FMD-only vaccines and an additional 34% receiving multi-component vaccination protocols that included Anthrax and Black Quarter (95% CI ranges 45.0–64.6% and 22.8–40.6%, respectively). Only 11% (95% CI: 6.3–18.6%) of cattle were not vaccinated. All farmers reported administering medication during the fattening period (100%; 95% CI: 96.3–100%), while none reported withholding treatment. The most commonly used supplements were Catophos, liver tonic, and DCP (44%, 95% CI: 34.7–53.8%). Smaller proportions used micronutrient combinations including zinc, multivitamins, AD3E, and amino acid preparations (1–8%). Approximately one-third of the farms (31%; 95% CI: 22.8–40.6%) did not provide any supplement. No farmers reported the use of steroid drugs, indicating an absence of unauthorized fattening agents in the surveyed population. In case of support received from the Department of Livestock Services (DLS), majority (38%) receiving no assistance (95% CI: 29.1–47.8%) while 33% receiving anthelmintics and primary treatment (95% CI: 24.6–42.7%). Overall, the results show strong adoption of basic veterinary care and vaccination, moderate use of nutritional supplements, and no evidence of steroid misuse within surveyed beef fattening operations. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 1834-1845 1841 Table 5 Health management of beef cattle Variables Category Frequency Percentage 95% CI Vaccination FMD 55 55 45.0–64.6% FMD, Anthrax 3 3 1.0–8.5% FMD, Anthrax, BQ 31 31 22.8–40.6% No 11 11 6.3–18.6% Medication Yes 100 100 96.3–100.0% Not given 0 0 0.0–3.7% Feed supplements Catophos, liver tonic, DCP 44 44 34.7–53.8% Catophos, Multivitamin, Zinc, Liver tonic 8 8 4.1–15.0% Zinc, Liver tonic 8 8 4.1–15.0% zinc, Burga vet 2 2 0.6–7.0% Zinc, Aminovit 2 2 0.6–7.0% Zinc, Liver tonic, AD3E 2 2 0.6–7.0% Zinc, AD3E 1 1 0.2–5.4% Zinc, Liver tonic, Catophos, Aminovit 1 1 0.2–5.4% Zinc, liver tonic, Catophos 1 1 0.2–5.4% Not given 31 31 22.8–40.6% Steroid Drugs No 100 100 96.3–100.0% Yes 0 0 0.0–3.7% Incentive from DLS Anthelmintic, Primary treatment 33 33 24.6–42.7% Anthelmintic, vaccine 29 29 21.0–38.5% No 38 38 29.1–47.8% 3.6. Determination of the association between key management practices Table 6 Association between key management practices Training Not Vaccinated Vaccinated χ² df p-value (Fisher’s exact test) Odds ratio (Fisher’s exact) Yes 11 41 9.35 1 0.00059* ∞ No 0 48 Feed additive Selling price (<100k) Selling price (≥100k) No 2 29 24.76 1 0.000000065* 0.04* Yes 43 26 Breed Selling price (<100k) Selling price (≥100k) Local 45 36 17.01 (0.000037) 1 0.0000029* ∞ Crossbred 0 19 World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 1834-1845 1842 UMS use Selling price (<100k) Selling price (≥100k) No 25 46 8.16 1 0.0036* 0.24 Yes 20 9 χ² = chi-square test, df= degrees of freedom Table 6 shows the association between different management practices of the beef fattening program. All cattle owned by trained farmers were vaccinated, which represents a strong association (p<0.05) between farmer training and vaccination. There has been a significant association between feed additives and beef selling prices. Cattle without feed additives are much more likely to be in the high-price group. There has also been a significant association (p<0.05) between breed and selling price and it showed all crossbred cattle were sold for ≥100,000 Tk. The UMS feeding and selling price also significantly associated (p<0.05) where UMS-fed cattle are less often in the ≥100k group compared to those not fed UMS. Table 7 shows the association expressed as logistic regression among high selling price (≥100k) and final weight category, feed additives, UMS, Vaccination of the beef cattle. Final weight category is the dominant predictor and significantly associated (p<0.05) and showed heavier animals are far more likely to fetch high market prices. Feed additives (Yes/No) shows odds ratio (OR) 0.03 indicate animals receiving additives had lower odds of being in the highprice group after adjusting for final weight and other factors. UMS and vaccination are not statistically significant in this model once weight and additives are included, though vaccinated animals tend to more often be high-priced (OR ~7.9, but CI very wide and p > 0.05). Table 7 Logistic regression among high selling price (≥100k) and Final weight category, feed additives, UMS, Vaccination Predictor OR 95% CI p-value Final weight category 85.23 13.25–548.38 0.000003* Feed additives (Yes) 0.03 0.001–0.94 0.046* UMS use (Yes) 1.51 0.19–12.23 0.697 Vaccinated (Yes) 7.90 0.59–106.29 0.119 4. Discussion The socioeconomic of farmers who are involved in beef fattening program in Bangladesh (Table 1) illustrates that average age category of farmers between 36-40 years that is almost similar to [12] where he found that the average age of the farmers 27 to 40 years. The maximum respondents are lies between 36-40 years because in this stage of age people engaged in government or nongovernment service and some people have developed own business that’s why they have money to develop farming. Under the age of 25 in context of Bangladesh people are not enough money or financial support to build up farming. Among the respondents 60% are primary level educated that are nearly similar result with [7]. Currently in rural area, primary educated and secondary level educated people are becoming attracted in beef fattening, this result is differed from [13] reported that higher educated (graduation) people are attracting to beef fattening than before. Most of the farmers (55%) are male and female farmer participation is lower. Female respondents are mostly didn’t complete their secondary education because of their early marriage. Ahmed et al. [14] reported that only 9–15% of rural cattle fatteners had ever received technical training, while the majority depended on informal knowledge and neighbor farmers. Similarly, Mamun et al. [15] found that lack of training and technical guidance was among the top constraints in small-scale fattening programs The findings of Table 2 indicate a strong reliance on local cattle breeds for beef fattening in Bangladesh. This is consistent with earlier reports showing that smallholder farmers frequently prefer indigenous breeds due to their lower purchase cost, higher disease resistance, and better adaptability to low-input feeding systems [13,14]. Local cattle dominate rural fattening enterprises, particularly in northern districts such as Nilphamari and Rangpur, where crossbred calves are less available and more expensive [7]. The high proportion of animals aged 2–3 years aligns with typical marketing strategies aimed at maximizing weight gain while minimizing feeding duration. This age group is well recognized as ideal for rapid finishing due to active muscle deposition and efficient feed conversion [16]. The