Perceived constraints & its association with livelihood empowerment of rural stakeholders in Nadia district of West Bengal under farmers first project of ICAR, India

Introduction

Sustainable Agri-Animal Husbandry based livelihoods are crucial for strengthening the rural economy particularly among small and marginal farmers who depend on animal husbandry for income, nutrition and employment security in India. However, the extent of livelihood empowerment is significantly influenced by multiple constraints related to resources, knowledge, infrastructure, markets and institutional support. The concept of livelihood capitals i.e. human, social, physical, financial and natural provides a comprehensive framework to understand how these factors shape the sustainability of rural livelihoods. Identifying constraints perceived and assessing their association with livelihood capitals is essential for formulating effective extension strategies, which can enhance empowerment and resilience among farming communities. In this context, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers' Welfare, Govt. of India, initiated the Farmers FIRST project to promote need-based, participatory and field-oriented interventions. The present study was undertaken in three adopted villages i.e. Ayeshpur, Baksha, and Dakshin Duttapara of Haringhata Block in Nadia district, West Bengal, through a baseline survey conducted by the Dept. of Veterinary and A.H. Extension Education, Faculty of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, WBUAFS, Kolkata. The study aims to analyse the constraints perceived by rural stakeholders and examine their association with livelihood capitals in relation to

Constraints in horticulture & natural resource management (NRM)

The analysis of horticultural and NRM-related responses indicates that non-availability of credit facilities (68.5%) and lack of remunerative price due to middlemen (67.5%) were the two highest-ranked constraints, underscoring institutional and market failures that directly affect profitability. High input costs (66.0%) and poor transportation systems (62.4%) further limit the efficient production and timely marketing of perishable commodities. Although only 27.5% reported lack of quality seeds and fertilizers, and 30.4% identified pest and disease epidemics as constraints, these issues continue to impede yield stability and production efficiency. The perception of limited expert advice (28.3%) suggests relatively better technical outreach in horticulture compared to livestock; however, advisory services remain insufficient. These trends corroborate findings by Singh, Singh, and Bhandari & Kumar (2021) [11] , who documented persistent infrastructural gaps, market asymmetry, and inadequate institutional finance as key constraints affecting horticultural livelihoods in smallholder systems.

Constraints in integrated farming system (IFS) & NCF livelihoods

The IFS and non-conventional enterprises exhibited the highest proportion of respondents reporting lack of awareness and poor HRD support (82.7%-82.8%), implying that knowledge and skills for diversified enterprise management are inadequate. Lack of quality inputs and raw materials (71.8%-71.9%) and the non-availability of credit (67.6%) were also top-ranked issues, emphasizing economic barriers to adopting integrated and innovative systems. Poor transportation facilities (67.7%-67.8%) and limited expert advisory support (66.1%) highlight systemic deficiencies in multi-sector extension. Although only 23.9% perceived disease epidemics as a constraint, risks remain significant for livestock-linked components within IFS. Market-related issues such as lack of remunerative price (28.1%) and absence of organized marketing systems (21.1%) continue to restrict the commercialization potential of diversified IFS outputs. These findings resonate with the evidence provided by Mandal et al. (2017) [13] and Kumar & Singh (2019) [10] , who observed that capacity building, market infrastructure, and quality input availability are foundational requirements for IFS success. A comparative assessment reveals clear sectorial differentiation in the nature and severity of constraints. Disease incidence is predominantly severe in livestock and fishery systems, whereas credit shortages and high input costs dominate horticulture and IFS. Market-related constraints, such as-absence of organized marketing systems and non-remunerative pricing-appear consistently across all livelihood sectors, reflecting pervasive structural bottlenecks in rural markets. Similarly, lack of expert guidance and weak HRD support emerges as a common constraint, indicating systemic deficiencies in extension services and institutional support frameworks. Overall, the integrated statistical insights emphasize the need for a multi-dimensional intervention strategy focusing on (i) reliable quality input supply systems, (ii) strengthened www.extensionjournal.com veterinary, fishery, and agricultural extension services, (iii) improved transportation and rural infrastructure, (iv) enhanced institutional credit mechanisms, and (v) efficient market and value-chain linkages. Addressing these cross-cutting constraints is essential for building resilient, sustainable and economically viable livelihood systems among rural households. [5] , who reported that older farmers often face higher adaptation barriers to diversified farming practices, and Mandal et al. (2017) [13] , who highlighted the role of age and experience in determining the efficiency and constraint perception in integrated livelihood systems. (2017) [13] , who reported that gender disparities in access to resources, decision-making power, and institutional support often influence the degree and nature of perceived livelihood constraints among rural households.

Chi-square test between selected Socio-economic (Religion) attributes and perceived Constraints in relation to AH & allied livelihood practices by sample respondents (Table -04)

The Chi-square test revealed a significant association between religion and perceived constraint levels across all major livelihood sectors except with minor variation in strength of association. The results indicated that religion had a statistically significant influence on constraints in Livestock, Poultry, and Fish Farming (p = 41.906; p = 0.000**), Horticulture & Natural Resource Management (NRM) (p = 11.120; p=0.011*), IFS and other conventional farming (p=72.972; p=0.000**), and overall farm livelihood practices (p70.086; p=0.000**). Among the different religious groups, Hindu respondents recorded the highest overall constraint mean (13.85), followed by those belonging to Christian (13.20), Other (13.18), and Muslim (12.80) communities. This variation suggests that the degree of livelihood challenges may be shaped by religious and socio-cultural contexts, influencing resource ownership, community participation, and access to institutional support systems. Hindu respondents, who constitute the majority, may be more engaged in multiple livelihood components such as livestock, horticulture, and IFS, thereby facing a wider range of operational challenges. Conversely, Muslim respondents reported comparatively lower constraints, possibly due to more homogenous occupational engagement or smaller-scale operations with limited diversification. The observed pattern implies that religio cultural diversity influences perceptions and experiences of production constraints within mixed farming communities. Similar findings were reported by Rao and Natchimuthu (2020) [16] and Biswas et al. (2018) [2] , who highlighted that religion-based occupational patterns, social networks and community access to extension services significantly affect farmers' constraint perception and livelihood outcomes in rural Bengal. [10] and Biswas et al. (2018) [2] , who emphasized that married individuals, being more economically active and burdened with family responsibilities, perceive higher livelihood challenges due to greater exposure and accountability within household farming systems. [13] and Kumar & Singh (2019) [10] , who reported that occupational status strongly affects access to livelihood capitals such as physical assets, financial resources, and extension services, thereby shaping the intensity of perceived constraints among rural households in Eastern India. comparatively higher constraint perception among general caste respondents may be attributed to their higher involvement in diversified and commercialized livelihood ventures such as-integrated farming systems and marketlinked livestock production which expose them to a wider range of financial, managerial, and input-related challenges.

Conversely, the lower constraint scores among SC, ST, and OBC groups might reflect their limited scale of operations and dependence on subsistence-level activities, though they may still face underlying socio-economic vulnerabilities.

The findings clearly establish that caste as a socio-economic determinant significantly influences livelihood challenges, access to resources, and exposure to risk in rural farming systems. Social stratification often affects farmers' access to institutional support, market linkages, and technical services, thereby shaping both the extent and perception of livelihood constraints. These results are consistent with earlier findings by Rao & Natchimuthu (2020) [16] and Biswas et al. (2018) [2] , who observed that caste hierarchy plays a crucial role in determining access to livelihood capitals, extension participation, and resilience to constraints within mixed farming systems in rural West Bengal. Conversely, illiterate and less-educated respondents face multiple challenges in understanding scientific management practices, adopting innovations, and availing institutional benefits, which often results in a higher perception of livelihood constraints. Education thus acts as a crucial form of human capital, enhancing decision-making ability, awareness of government schemes, and risk management capacities among rural farmers.These findings are in agreement with the studies of Kumar et al. (2020) [12] and Islam & Nath (2017) [7] , who also highlighted that education level significantly influences farmers' ability to overcome livelihood constraints through informed participation in livestock and allied agricultural enterprises. www.extensionjournal.com [11] emphasized that family cohesion and collective participation in livestock rearing enhance productivity and sustainability of rural livelihoods.

Chi-square test between selected livelihood capital (Family Size) features and perceived Constraints in relation to AH & allied livelihood practices by respondents (Table-10)

The Chi-square test analysis revealed a significant association between family size and perceived livelihood constraints in most livelihood domains, particularly for Livestock-Poultry-Fish Farming (p = 0.000**), IFS & Conventional Farming (p = 0.000**), and Overall Farm Livelihood Practices (p = 0.000**). However, the relationship between family size and constraints in Horticulture & Natural Resource Management was not statistically significant (p = 0.263). Respondents belonging to small families (<5 members) perceived relatively higher levels of constraints (overall mean = 14.00) compared to those from medium (6-7) or large (>7) families. This pattern indicates that smaller families often face labour shortages, limited income diversification, and reduced access to social and economic support systems, which collectively heighten their perception of livelihood constraints. Conversely, larger families, with greater human resources, tend to share labour and responsibilities, thereby lowering operational constraints in animal husbandry and allied activities. These findings highlight the role of family labour and intrahousehold cooperation as crucial determinants of livelihood sustainability. Larger families often achieve better work distribution and risk management across farming enterprises, as also noted by Das and Deka (2020) [6] , who found that family size significantly influences farm resilience and resource use efficiency. Similarly, Singh et al.

(2018) [19] observed that extended family structures contribute positively to agricultural productivity and livelihood security in rural settings. www.extensionjournal.com [14] emphasized that land endowment significantly influences the sustainability and intensity of livestock-based livelihood activities in agrarian communities.

Chi-square test between selected livelihood capital (Gross Family Income) features and perceived Constraints in relation to AH & allied livelihood practices by sample respondents (Table-12)

The statistical analysis revealed a highly significant association between gross family income and perceived livelihood constraints across all livelihood domains Livestock-Poultry-Fish Farming (p = 0.000**), Horticulture & Natural Resource Management (p = 0.000**), IFS & Conventional Farming (p = 0.000**), and Overall Farm Livelihood Practices (p = 0.000**). Respondents belonging to the lower-income group (< Rs. 2000/month) perceived relatively fewer constraints (mean = 12.66) compared to those in the moderate income group (Rs. 2001-5000/month) who reported markedly higher constraint levels (mean = 14.79). This inverse trend indicates that as income rises, exposure to diversified and modern livelihood practices increases, leading to the identification of more complex or systemic barriers such as high input costs, inadequate technical support, and market constraints. In contrast, extremely low-income households may remain confined to traditional subsistence activities, thereby perceiving fewer but more basic livelihood challenges. These findings are consistent with Kumar et al. (2021) [11] , who observed that families with moderate income levels are often in transition towards improved livelihood systems but face financial, infrastructural, and institutional barriers. Similarly, Saha and Paul (2018) [17] highlighted that economic capacity influences the ability to access quality inputs, credit, and technical services, thereby affecting the perception and intensity of livelihood constraints. www.extensionjournal.com Similarly, Bordoloi and Das (2019) [3] noted that income diversification towards allied sectors, while promising higher returns, often increases vulnerability due to infrastructural and extension service gaps. (2020) [15] , who reported that access to physical assets enhances livelihood opportunities but also increases dependence on institutional and market support systems, thereby exposing users to new forms of constraints. Similarly, Chakraborty and Saha (2018) [17] highlighted that rural households with improved infrastructure face multidimensional challenges related to management efficiency, maintenance, and service delivery, particularly in livestock and allied sectors. www.extensionjournal.com Horticulture & NRM-related constraints (p < 0.05), with female respondents reporting higher limitations, reflecting gender-specific disparities in access to productive resources and extension services. Similarly, religion and marital status were strongly associated (p < 0.01) with all livelihood domains, indicating that social-cultural background and family responsibilities substantially shape constraint perception and participation in rural livelihood systems. In terms of livelihood capitals, variables such as occupation, caste, education, family type, family size, landholding, and income levels showed statistically significant influences (mostly p < 0.01) across almost all domains of AH and allied sectors. Respondents belonging to marginal landholding and lower income groups perceived higher constraints, emphasizing the role of resource scarcity and limited asset ownership in shaping livelihood vulnerability. Notably, occupation and caste emerged as particularly critical determinants, where service holders, skilled labourers, and general caste respondents exhibited higher mean constraint scores-indicating their greater awareness of input, market, and institutional deficiencies. Further, analysis of livelihood asset-related variables, including gross family income, annual income from various sources, and access to physical facilities, confirmed that economic endowment and infrastructural access significantly affect constraint perception. Interestingly, respondents with higher income or better physical facilities perceived greater constraints, possibly because they are more exposed to system inefficiencies, market volatility, and technological gaps that limit sustainable livelihood expansion. This pattern reflects a shift from basic survival concerns to systemic and institutional-level challenges among economically better-off households. Overall, the cumulative findings underscore that livelihood constraints are multidimensional, shaped jointly by personal, sociocultural, economic, and infrastructural factors. The results reaffirm that socio-economic heterogeneity determines differential access to resources, exposure to risks, and participation in livelihood activities, thereby influencing how individuals and households perceive constraints in AH and allied sectors. These results are in consonance with previous studies such as Meena et al. (2019) [14] and Sinha & Singh, who emphasized that livelihood vulnerability in rural India is a complex outcome of intersecting socio-economic attributes, resource endowment, and institutional support levels. Strengthening livelihood capitals-particularly human, physical, and financial assets-through capacity building, resource access, and infrastructure improvement could substantially mitigate these perceived constraints and enhance the resilience of rural farming communities.

Conclusion

The study revealed that rural stakeholders engaged in diverse livelihood practices under the Farmers First Project in Nadia District face multifaceted constraints influencing their empowerment and sustainability. Disease epidemics in livestock and fishery, lack of awareness and HRD support, poor input quality, limited credit access, and inadequate market linkages emerged as dominant challenges across all sectors. Socio-economic and livelihood capitals such as education, family structure, landholding, income level, and access to physical assets significantly influenced the perceived constraint levels. The results emphasize that technical limitations, institutional bottlenecks, and infrastructural deficiencies collectively hinder effective livelihood performance and empowerment. Strengthening capacity-building initiatives, ensuring input and credit accessibility, improving market organization, and enhancing extension outreach are vital for reducing these constraints and fostering inclusive, resilient, and sustainable livelihood empowerment among rural stakeholders in the region.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgmentThe authors sincerely acknowledge the technical support provided by the Block development Office, Haringhata Block, Govt. of WB, DREF, WBUAFS & financial support extended by the ICAR Farmer FIRST Project, ATARI, Min. of Agril. & FW, Govt. of India, Kolkata& New Delhi.

References

1. Bhandari H, Kumar A. Linking horticulture farmers to markets: Policy perspectives for inclusive growth. Agric Econ Res Rev. 2021;34(1):45-54.
2. Biswas S, Mandal M, Ray S. Socio-economic and www.extensionjournal.com cultural factors influencing livelihood diversification among rural households in West Bengal. J Community Mobil Sustain Dev. 2018;13(2):215-22.
3. Bordoloi R, Das D. Income diversification and livelihood vulnerability among rural households: Evidence from Assam. Agric Econ Res Rev. 2019;32(1):115-23.
4. Chakraborty S, Saha D. Role of physical infrastructure in shaping livelihood security and constraint perception among smallholders in West Bengal. J Rural Dev. 2018;37(2):287-97.
5. Chauhan TR, Sharma M, Singh S. Constraints perceived by livestock farmers in adoption of improved dairy farming practices. Indian J Ext Educ. 2015;51(3):23-27.
6. Das R, Deka CR. Socio-economic correlates of livelihood diversification among rural households in Assam. Indian J Ext Educ. 2020;56(3):76-82.
7. Islam M, Nath T. Impact of education and training on livelihood improvement of small-scale farmers in Eastern India. J Rural Dev. 2017;36(4):623-36.
8. Kaur M, Singh R. Gender dimensions of constraints in agriculture and allied sectors: A rural perspective. Indian J Ext Educ. 2017;53(2):45-49.
9. Kumar A, Singh RK, Sahoo BB. Socio-economic determinants of livelihood constraints among rural households engaged in livestock rearing. Indian J Ext Educ. 2021;57(3):89-94.
10. Kumar D, Singh N. Constraints and prospects of integrated farming systems in sustainable rural livelihoods. Agric Ext Rev. 2019;31(4):12-18.
11. Kumar N, Singh R. Socio-economic determinants of farm livelihood sustainability among rural families in Eastern India. Indian J Ext Educ. 2021;57(4):82-88.
12. Kumar S, Singh R, Pandey VK. Influence of socioeconomic factors on adoption of improved livestock practices among rural farmers. Indian J Ext Educ. 2020;56(3):45-51.
13. Mandal M, Biswas S, Ray S. Socio-economic evaluation of integrated farming systems in Eastern India. J Rural Stud. 2017;55:120-128.
14. Meena MS, Sharma P, Chauhan R. Determinants of livelihood security among livestock farmers in semiarid regions of India. J Community Mobil Sustain Dev. 2019;14(2):320-326.
15. Rao DP, Singh AK, Meena MS. Influence of access to physical assets on livelihood diversification and constraint perception among rural farmers in India. Indian J Ext Educ. 2020;56(4):105-111.
16. Rao M, Natchimuthu K. Challenges and prospects of smallholder livestock systems in India. Asian J Agric Dev. 2020;17(1):57-71.
17. Saha D, Paul S. Income-based disparities in access to agricultural resources and services among smallholders in eastern India. J Rural Dev. 2018;37(4):623-635.
18. Sharma P, Singh AK, Chauhan R. Influence of family composition on livelihood diversification among rural households. J Community Mobil Sustain Dev. 2019;14(2):354-359.
19. Singh P, Kumar R, Meena MS. Family dynamics and livelihood security among rural farming households. J Community Mobil Sustain Dev. 2018;13(2):244-249.
20. Singh P, Meena MS, Kumar R. Constraints perceived by livestock farmers in adopting improved dairy and fishery practices in eastern India. Indian J Ext Educ. 2020;56(3):92-98.
21. Singh P, Sharma P, Meena MS. Constraints perceived by farmers in adoption of horticultural enterprises in rural India. J Community Mobil Sustain Dev. 2020;15(2):254-260.
22. Singh R, Kumar A, Bhandari H. Market and infrastructural constraints in horticulture: Evidence from Eastern India. Indian J Agric Econ. 2018;73(2):244-258.
23. Sinha R, Singh PK. Landholding size and its relationship with livelihood diversification among rural households in eastern India. Indian J Ext Educ. 2020;56(4):91-96.