Management practices and operational economics in entrepreneurial livestock units under the national livestock mission in Karnataka

Introduction

Livestock rearing is a cornerstone of the Indian agrarian economy, providing critical livelihood support to millions of rural households, particularly the landless, small, and marginal farmers [1] . The sector contributes significantly to the agricultural Gross Domestic Product and ensures nutritional security [2] . Recognising its transformative potential, the Government of India launched the National Livestock Mission (NLM) in 2014-15, restructured in 2021-22, with a key component being the Entrepreneurship Development Programme (EDP). The NLM-EDP aims to catalyse sustainable and inclusive growth by providing credit-linked capital subsidies for establishing viable livestock enterprises such as poultry, small ruminants, and piggery [3] . Karnataka has emerged as a leading state in implementing the NLM-EDP, accounting for the highest number of approved projects in India [4] . This transition from traditional to semi-intensive and intensive systems, while enhancing productivity, presents new challenges, including complex management requirements and higher input costs. Efficient management practices and sound operational economics are pivotal for the success and sustainability of these capitalintensive entrepreneurial ventures. While the operational www.extensionjournal.com framework of NLM has been documented, there is a scarcity of empirical studies evaluating the on-ground management practices and their economic outcomes in established units. A concurrent evaluation is particularly relevant as it provides real-time feedback for mid-course corrections. Therefore, this study was conducted to analyse the management practices, infrastructure development, investment patterns, and operational economics of livestock entrepreneurial units established under the NLM-EDP in the Bengaluru division of Karnataka.

Materials and Methods

The study was conducted in the Bengaluru division of Karnataka, which comprises nine districts and has a high concentration of NLM-EDP units. A concurrent evaluation design was employed. The study employed a complete enumeration of all 24 NLM-EDP units in the division that were functional, having received the second subsidy instalment, as of 31 March 2025. Data were collected through pre-tested, structured questionnaires and direct observation to ensure accuracy. The variables studied included: (i) Management practices: breed type, sourcing, housing (type, flooring, ventilation), feeding (source of fodder, grazing, new technologies like silage), and health care (vaccination, deworming, service providers); (ii) Infrastructure development: unit size, type of housing, and construction details; (iii) Investment and economics: financial outlay (own fund, loan, subsidy), operational costs (feed, labour, veterinary, interest), and income from the sale of animals and manure. Net income was calculated as gross income minus total cost. The collected data were systematically coded and analysed using Microsoft Excel. Descriptive statistics, viz., frequencies, percentages, means, and ranges, were used to summarise the data. The economic analysis involved the computation of cost structures and net returns for different unit sizes.

Ethical compliance:

The study involved data collection from farmers with prior informed consent. The research protocol adhered to the ethical guidelines for social science research. Results (Table 1) revealed that the majority of beneficiaries (66.67%) were male, with half being above 50 years of age. A significant proportion (87.50%) were large farmers. All respondents had access to irrigated land, predominantly utilising borewells (100%) and drip irrigation systems (87.50%). Moreover, a large majority (95.83%) cultivated fodder crops, indicating strong integration between crop and livestock production systems. Most units (70.83%) were large-scale sheep/goat units (500+25 animals), followed by 200+10 (16.67%) and 100+5 (8.33%) units and one piggery unit (100+10). The results are indicating that the scheme largely attracted individuals with substantial resource bases, who aspired for establishing large units and build capital infrastructure by availing the substantially large subsidies (50%). The results (Table 2) further indicated that majority of the beneficiaries (87.50%) had elevated housing with groundlevel open paddocks, a modern practice that improves animal health and manure management. Fibre mats were the most commonly used flooring material (66.67%). Ventilation and drainage were adequate in 95.83 per cent of the units, reflecting a significant infrastructural upgrade over the traditional system of livestock rearing.

Results and Discussion

Socio-personal profile and unit characteristics

Management practices Housing and breeding practices

With respect to breeds (Table 2 and Figure 1) the most frequently reared breeds were Banduru sheep (17.5%), Nari Suvarna sheep (15.8%), and Yalga sheep (14.0%), reflecting a preference for specific, high-demand indigenous and improved breeds. The breeds such as desi/non-descript, Nellore Jodipi, Bellary, Kenguri, etc, made the stock in small proportions. Choice of breed was predominantly driven by market demand (95.83%). A majority of beneficiaries (54.17%) sourced their initial breeding stock from local shandies, while none sourced from government breeding farms, highlighting a critical gap in the availability of quality and adequate quantity of breeding stock. This reliance on informal markets can perpetuate the use of nondescript breeds and limit genetic gains, a concern that structured missions such as the NLM aim to address [5] . Notably, all units (100%) relied exclusively on natural service with improved males for breeding, indicating that advanced reproductive technologies such as Artificial Insemination have not yet permeated these entrepreneurial models. Two-thirds (66.67%) of units reported a decrease in their breeding stock over time, especially during induction period, with an average reduction of 25%, indicating potential challenges to herd sustainability or the need for strategic culling to improve immediate income. The average purchase price for breeding stock was ₹24,416 for males and ₹14,760 for females. Notably, 87.50 per cent of beneficiaries reported paying more than the DPR-proposed value, with an average increase of ₹5,100, confirming the divergence between DPR estimates and market prices, a bottleneck already identified by the National Livestock Mission [6] that necessitates periodic revision of cost norms.

Note: Percentages indicate how often each breed was reported, not the number of farmers, since many beneficiaries keep more than one breed.

Fodder production and feeding practices

Feed and fodder management revealed (Table 3) a heavy reliance on external inputs. While 78.26 per cent grew their own green fodder, dry fodder (60.86%) and concentrates (69.56%) were largely purchased. The majority (66.67%) allocated 2-7 acres of land specifically for fodder production. However, 87.50 per cent of beneficiaries received no support for fodder cultivation under the NLM-EDP scheme, pointing to a critical area for intervention. Notably, only 33.33 per cent of beneficiaries practised exclusive stall-feeding, reflecting challenges faced by stall feeding over the traditional open grazing method. Feed cost constituted the largest share of recurring expenses (40.26-80.98%), aligning with the findings of Prasad et al. [7] . Silage making was the most adopted new technology (58.33%). In contrast, more advanced feed technologies saw minimal uptake: only a little (4.17%) of units employed Total Mixed Ration (TMR) and 8.33 per cent had adopted hydroponics for fodder production. Similarly, the niche status of hydroponics reflects its perception as a complex, capital-intensive solution, despite its potential to address fodder scarcity in water-stressed regions, a challenge noted in semi-arid areas like those in this study [9] . From observations, it was evident that fodder production in NLM EDP units was inadequate and lacked proper planning. This underlines need for capacity building programmes for beneficiaries in farm management, especially, breeding, feeding, feed formulations fodder production and conservation. The extremely low adoption of TMR suggests that, despite its proven benefits for balanced nutrition and feed efficiency [8] , barriers such as the need for specialised equipment and technical knowledge persist among small and medium entrepreneurs. Feeding regimens differed significantly by feed type. Green fodder/silage was provided most frequently, with 45.83% of beneficiaries feeding twice daily. In contrast, dry fodder and concentrates were fed primarily once a day by 70.83 per cent of beneficiaries. This divergence reflects the need for an area-specific feeding regimen and training for beneficiaries. www.extensionjournal.com

Health care management practices

Regarding healthcare management (Table 4), all beneficiaries (100%) were practising vaccination, primarily against ET and PPR (95.65%). Government veterinarians were the primary healthcare service providers (91.30%), underscoring their continued importance and affordability, as observed by Kumar et al. [10] . However, diagnosis and treatment of diseased animals remained a challenge for majority of the beneficiaries. Deworming was most frequently practised quarterly (47.82%). Reliance on faecal examination for deworming was observed only 8.69 per cent of every beneficiary. It may be due to lack of knowledge and also non-availability of diagnostic facility nearby, as also found by Ravikumar et al. [11] , suggesting room for improvement in diagnostic-based interventions. A majority (73.91%) of respondents followed bio-security measures. However, a significant gap was observed in routine disinfection, with only 39.13 per cent of units using disinfectants for their sheds. Among these, formaldehyde was the most commonly applied chemical. This low adoption of a fundamental bio security practice is a serious concern, as poor hygiene significantly increases disease risks [12] . The adoption of other modern technologies was notable, including automatic drinkers (86.95%) and weighing scales (65.21%), though record-keeping was less prevalent (30.43%), indicating a focus on physical infrastructure over data-driven management. Production and operational management The units demonstrated (Table 5) reasonable productivity, with an average mortality rate of 6.12 per cent and an Average Daily Gain (ADG) ranging from 127.86 g for local breeds to 193.8 g for improved breeds (Dorper and Nari Suvarna). The superior ADG of exotic breeds like Dorper aligns with ICAR [13] findings that such breeds fetch premium prices due to better growth rates. In terms of operational control, the management of enterprises was either joint (45.83%) or solely by men (41.66%), with only 8.33 per cent of units managed exclusively by women. This gender disparity in entrepreneurial leadership reflects broader trends in resource access and risk-taking behaviour, where women tend to have more limited access to capital and high-value enterprises, as noted by Bhatia and Singh [14] .

Investment and operational economics

The investment analysis (Table 6) revealed that for the large 500+25 units, the average total outlay was ₹1,00,00,000, constituting by an average subsidy of ₹49,34,375, a loan of ₹25,62,500, and an owner's investment of ₹25,06,250. The loan interest rate averaged at 11.66 per cent. The operational economics (Table 7) showed that feed cost was the dominant component across all units. The net income/100 animals was highest for the piggery unit (₹16,46,250), followed by the smaller sheep/goat units (combined average ₹3,07,333 for 100+5 and 200+10). The large 500+25 units had the lowest net income per 100 animals (₹1,08,807), indicating potential diseconomies of scale or higher operational inefficiencies in managing larger flocks. The high interest burden was reported as a severe constraint by 54.17 per cent of beneficiaries.

Constraints

The most severe marketing constraint was the absence of organised marketing channels or cooperatives, reported by 87.50 per cent of beneficiaries, leading to exploitation by middlemen and price fluctuations. This aligns with identified challenges in livestock sector development [15] . In running the units, the high interest burden on credit (79.16 Percentage Mean Score -PMS) and high feed costs (63.88 PMS) were major constraints. The NLM-EDP has effectively catalysed the shift towards commercial, semi-intensive livestock farming in Karnataka.

The adoption of improved housing, health care, and feeding technologies is commendable. However, the economic sustainability of these enterprises, particularly large small ruminant units, is challenged by high input costs, inadequate market linkages, and interest burdens. The discrepancy between DPR estimates and actual animal purchase costs necessitates a periodic revision of funding norms. The overreliance on local shandies for breeding stock calls for strengthening the linkage with organised breeding farms. The superior profitability of the piggery unit suggests it is a highly viable enterprise under the NLM-EDP framework in the region. The findings imply that for the NLM-EDP to achieve its goal of sustainable livelihood enhancement, policy interventions must focus beyond unit establishment. Future strategies should prioritise standardisation of feeding and reducing feeding costs, facilitating access to quality breeding stock, developing robust market infrastructure, providing refinancing options to minimise interest burdens, and regularly updating project cost norms to reflect market realities.

Conclusion

The NLM-EDP has successfully accelerated the shift toward commercial and semi-intensive livestock farming in Karnataka, with good adoption of improved housing, health care, and basic feeding practices. Piggery units emerged as the most profitable enterprise under the programme. However, the economic sustainability of especially large small-ruminant units is constrained by high feed costs, weak market linkages, interest burdens, and reliance on local shandies for breeding stock. The mismatch between DPR estimates and actual procurement costs underscores the need to periodically revise project cost norms. For the programme to deliver sustainable livelihood gains, policy attention must extend beyond unit establishment. Reducing feed costs through standardised feeding technologies, improving access to quality breeding stock, strengthening market infrastructure, providing refinancing options, and updating funding norms regularly are essential. Enhanced technical support and stronger market networks will be critical for ensuring the long-term viability of NLM-supported livestock enterprises.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementThis research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. www.extensionjournal.com K. B. Vedamurthy: Supervision, validation, writing -review & editing.

References

1. Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries (DAHD). National Livestock Policy. Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India; 2013.
2. Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying (DAHD). Annual Report 2019-20. Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India; 2020.
3. Department of Animal Husbandry & Dairying (DAHD). Operational Guidelines for National Livestock Mission (NLM). Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India; 2021.
4. Department of Animal Husbandry & Dairying (DAHD). Annual Report 2024-25. Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Government of India; 2025.
5. Birthal PS, Jha AK. Economic potential of indigenous breeds of cattle, sheep and goats. Agric Econ Res Rev. 2005;18(1):87-100.
6. Government of India (GOI). National Livestock Mission -Revised Guidelines. Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India; 2022.
7. Prasad RM, Kumar B, Singh SV. Assessment of recurring costs in livestock enterprises. Indian J Anim Sci. 2019;89(3):345-9.
8. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Feeding Strategies for Sustainable Livestock Production. FAO; 2020.
9. Birthal PS, Jha AK. Feeding strategies of Indian livestock farmers: Utilization of crop residues and common grazing lands. Indian J Anim Sci. 2005;75(11):1357-63.
10. Kumar A, Dixit SP, Sharma R. Access and use of veterinary services by small and marginal farmers. Indian J Anim Sci. 2018;88(5):612-5.
11. Ravikumar R, Kadian KS, Ponnusamy K. Scope for diagnostic-based interventions in livestock health. Vet World. 2017;10(8):936-40.
12. Dhand NK, Singh J, Sandhu KS. Hygiene practices and their impact on disease risks in dairy and small ruminant farms. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2019;51(5):1123-9.
13. Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). Market Potential of Exotic and Crossbred Small Ruminants in India. ICAR, New Delhi; 2021.
14. Bhatia N, Singh S. Gender differentials in risk-taking behaviour and investment patterns in livestock rearing. Indian J Agric Econ. 2019;74(2):245-58.
15. World Bank. Revitalising India's Agricultural Sector: Challenges and Opportunities. The World Bank Group, Washington, D.C.; 2021.