Challenges in adoption of improved feeding practices among dairy farmers: A Friedman ranking analysis

Introduction

Dairy farming is an integral component of India's agricultural economy, providing both nutritional security and livelihood opportunities to millions of smallholder farmers. India has maintained its position as the world's largest milk producer through sustained growth in herd strength, productivity improvements, and cooperative as well as private sector participation. According to the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB, 2023) [13] , India contributes about 24-25 per cent of global milk production, amounting to nearly 230-235 million metric tonnes annually. Despite this impressive aggregate output, per-animal productivity remains low in many regions, particularly within smallholder systems, highlighting the need for efficiency-oriented interventions (Talukder and Tajuddin, 2000; Joshi et al., 2007) [23,9] . Scientific feeding practices represent one of the most effective pathways for improving productivity and sustainability in dairy farming. Practices such as mineral mixture supplementation, urea-treated straw, silage preparation, bypass nutrients, and probiotics have been widely reported to enhance milk yield, reproductive efficiency, and overall animal health. Empirical studies have shown that appropriate mineral supplementation reduces metabolic disorders and improves fertility, while silage and bypass nutrients improve rumen efficiency and roughage utilization (Garg et al., 2008; FAO, 2018) [6,5] . However, evidence from field conditions suggests that adoption of these practices remains uneven and sub-optimal. Although technically feasible, adoption of improved feeding practices at the farm level in India has been limited by multiple constraints. Earlier studies have consistently reported lack of awareness, high input costs, infrastructural bottlenecks, inadequate extension contact, and misconceptions regarding risks and benefits as major barriers (Kumar et al., 2014; Dhaka et al., 2017) [11,4] . Recent region-specific studies further reinforce these findings. For instance, Barman et al. (2022) [3] , in their study among Rajbanshi dairy farmers of Coochbehar district, reported that limited technical knowledge, weak extension www.extensionjournal.com support, and high cost of feed inputs significantly constrained adoption of scientific dairy practices. Similarly, Singh et al. (2023) [22] observed that farmers' attitudes toward dairy farming in the Bundelkhand region were strongly influenced by socio-economic stress, risk perception, and inadequate institutional backing. Economic limitations further compound adoption challenges. Smallholder dairy farmers typically operate with limited capital, uncertain cash flows, and high vulnerability to climatic and market risks, making them reluctant to invest in practices with upfront costs or delayed returns (Rahman and Rahman, 1991; Patel and Ashwar, 2019) [17,14] . At the institutional level, weak extension delivery, poor availability of quality feed resources, lack of training and demonstration units, and limited access to credit and insurance further restrict adoption (Imtiaz and Rana, 2014; Islam et al., 2022) [7, 8] . Given this complex context, it is insufficient merely to list adoption constraints; rather, their relative severity must be systematically assessed from farmers' perspectives. Ranking constraints helps prioritize extension and policy interventions under limited resources. The Friedman test, a non-parametric statistical tool suitable for ordinal data, is particularly appropriate for comparing perceived severity across multiple constraints. Accordingly, the present study was undertaken to identify and rank constraints faced by dairy farmers in adopting improved feeding practices, thereby generating evidence to guide targeted extension strategies and policy support.

Methodology

The present study was undertaken to systematically analyze the challenges perceived by dairy farmers in adopting improved feeding practices and to prioritize them using the Friedman ranking test. The study was carried out in Bareilly district of Uttar Pradesh, a region characterized by intensive dairy activity and a large population of smallholder farmers dependent on mixed crop-livestock systems. A total of 120 dairy farmers were selected as respondents using simple random sampling to ensure representation of different herd sizes and socio-economic categories. Twelve improved feeding practices were identified based on literature review, expert consultation, and their documented potential to improve animal health and productivity. These included: (i) salt supplementation, (ii) green fodder cultivation, (iii) utilization of sugarcane tops, (iv) mineral mixture supplementation, (v) use of fresh vegetable waste, (vi) antimethane feed additives, (vii) probiotics, (viii) bypass fat, (ix) hay making, (x) urea-treated straw, (xi) silage, (xii) improved water management. These practices together represent a mix of low-cost supplements, resource-intensive technologies, and conservation methods, allowing for a holistic assessment of adoption barriers. Data collection was conducted through a structured interview schedule administered face-to-face with the selected farmers. The schedule was pre-tested for clarity and validity before final use. Farmers were asked to identify and rank the constraints they experienced in adopting each of the practices. The constraints covered multiple dimensions, including knowledge gaps, economic limitations, infrastructural bottlenecks, input availability, and perceptual or attitudinal barriers. Respondents were instructed to assign ranks according to the relative severity of challenges as they perceived them in their day-to-day farming context. The ranking data thus obtained were subjected to the Friedman test, a non-parametric statistical procedure suited for analyzing ordinal data when multiple related samples are compared. The test evaluates whether differences in mean ranks across items are statistically significant, thereby identifying the hierarchy of challenges faced by farmers. In this study, the null hypothesis assumed no significant variation in constraint severity across practices, while the alternative hypothesis tested that at least one constraint differed. A significance level of p < 0.001 was adopted to ensure rigorous inference. The analysis was carried out using SPSS version 26. Results from the Friedman test generated mean ranks and chi-square values for each practice, which were then interpreted to identify the most critical barriers. This methodological approach provided both a statistical basis for prioritization and a practical understanding of farmer perceptions, thereby combining robustness with field relevance.

Results

The socio-economic profile (Table 1) of the dairy farmers (n = 120) revealed that a majority of respondents (61.67%) belonged to the middle-age group (38-54 years). Scheduled Caste farmers constituted 75.00 per cent of the sample. Educational status was generally low, with most respondents being illiterate (40.83%) or educated up to primary level (38.33%). Most respondents lived in nuclear families (85.00%) with small family size (83.33%). Dairy farming was primarily practiced as a subsidiary occupation, with 54.17 per cent combining animal husbandry with agriculture. Herd size was predominantly small to medium, with 97.50 per cent of farmers maintaining fewer than seven animals. Nearly half of the respondents (47.50%) earned low income from dairy farming, and the majority belonged to low to middle annual income categories. Small landholdings dominated the sample (76.67%). Milk yield was generally low, as more than half of the farmers (51.67%) produced only 3-5 litres per day. Dairy farming was mainly oriented towards both household consumption and sale of milk (67.50%). Only 50 per cent of the respondents had received training on balanced ration feeding. The Friedman ranking analysis (Table 2) revealed distinct patterns of challenges across various improved feeding practices among dairy farmers. In all cases, the chi-square statistics were significant at P < 0.001, indicating strong differences in the importance of challenges perceived by farmers. The foremost constraint identified was lack of awareness about the expected benefits of salt feeding on animal health and milk yield (Mean Rank = 4.36), followed by the perception that salt represents an extra cost without visible short-term returns (3.27). Belief that concentrates and fodders are sufficient (3.21) ranked third, while irregular availability of livestock-grade salt (2.27) and lack of knowledge regarding correct feeding quantity and method (1.99) were relatively less important. Regarding green fodder, limited landholding and preference for cash crops emerged as the top constraint (3.73), closely followed by lack of awareness about improved fodder varieties (3.56). High cost and unavailability of quality seeds (3.42) and lack www.extensionjournal.com of training on fodder planning (3.38) were also significant issues, whereas non-availability of irrigation facilities (1.00) ranked lowest. Regarding sugarcane top feeding, seasonal availability during harvest or winter months was the most critical barrier (3.83). Farmers' unawareness of the nutritive value of sugarcane tops when supplemented with concentrate (3.79) and fear of digestive problems if fed in excess (3.60) ranked second and third, respectively. Misconceptions about reproductive problems (1.97) and lack of preservation knowledge (1.92) were relatively minor. With respect to mineral mixture feeding, poor knowledge about proper dosage and feeding methods was ranked first (3.56), followed by unavailability of veterinarygrade mineral mixtures in local markets (3.44). High price compared to salt feeding (3.20) ranked third, while poor awareness of the role of minerals (3.37) was moderately important. Preference for traditional practices (1.55) was least significant. Regarding fresh vegetable waste feeding, lacking awareness about nutritive value emerged as the most pressing issue (4.56). Farmers' preference for traditional feed resources (2.72), difficulties in collection and transport (2.70), and fear of digestive disorders (2.67) occupied middle ranks. Seasonal and irregular availability was rated lowest (2.50). Regarding challenges faced in adding ante methane additives as dairy feed, farmers showed very low awareness regarding methane emissions and their environmental effects (3.88), ranking this as the primary constraint.

Discussion

The predominance of middle-aged dairy farmers observed in the present study is consistent with earlier findings, which reported that dairy farming is largely managed by economically active age groups possessing practical experience and decision-making capacity (Atreya et al., 2018) [1] . Lower representation of younger farmers indicates limited youth involvement in dairy farming, possibly due to alternative livelihood opportunities and perceived low profitability, as also reported by Prasad et al. (2017) [15] . The high proportion of farmers belonging to socially disadvantaged categories reflects the inclusive nature of dairy farming as a livelihood option. Similar socioeconomic patterns have been documented among smallholder dairy farmers in different regions of India, where dairy farming acts as a stabilizing income source for marginal and resource-poor households (Ram et al., 2018; Prasad et al., 2019) [18,16] . Low educational attainment among respondents aligns with previous studies reporting that a majority of dairy farmers possess only basic or no formal education (Koli et al., 2020) [10] . Limited education may adversely affect awareness, comprehension, and adoption of scientific dairy management practices, thereby influencing productivity and income levels. The predominance of nuclear families and small family size observed in the present study has also been reported in earlier investigations (Singh et al., 2021) [21] . This family structure may restrict the availability of family labour for dairy operations, particularly in labour-intensive activities such as feeding, milking, and animal health care. Small to medium herd size was a dominant characteristic among the respondents, confirming the subsistence to semi-commercial nature of dairy farming. Similar herd size patterns have been reported across different agro-climatic regions of India (Atreya et al., 2018; Mahesh et al., 2020) [1,12] . Small herd size often limits economies of scale, thereby constraining income generation from dairy enterprises. The low milk yield recorded by a majority of farmers is in agreement with earlier studies that attributed low productivity to imbalanced feeding, inadequate management practices, and limited access to training and advisory services (Sachan, 2013; Prasad et al., 2019) [19,16] . The finding that only half of the respondents had received training on balanced ration feeding further supports earlier observations that insufficient technical training remains a major constraint in improving dairy productivity (Koli et al., 2020) [10] . The dual purpose of dairy farming self-consumption and milk sale highlights its role in ensuring both household nutritional security and supplementary income. This semi-subsistence orientation has been consistently reported in socio-economic studies of dairy farmers across India (Prasad et al., 2017) [15] . The Friedman ranking analysis clearly demonstrated that adoption of improved feeding practices among dairy farmers is constrained primarily by knowledge gaps, cost www.extensionjournal.com considerations, infrastructural limitations, and entrenched perceptions. Across several practices mineral mixture supplementation, probiotics, bypass fat, and antimethanogenic additives lack of awareness regarding benefits and correct usage emerged as the most severe constraint. These findings are consistent with earlier studies highlighting inadequate knowledge dissemination and weak extension outreach as persistent bottlenecks in dairy development (Dhaka et al., 2017; Bardhan et al., 2005) [4,2] . Recent regional studies further substantiate these observations. Barman et al. (2022) [3] reported that dairy farmers in Coochbehar lacked access to practical training and demonstrations, resulting in poor understanding and hesitant adoption of improved feeding practices. Similarly, Singh et al. (2023) [22] found that farmers in Bundelkhand exhibited cautious attitudes toward dairy innovations due to low confidence in institutional support and limited exposure to extension services. Together, these studies reinforce the central role of extension education and attitude formation in shaping adoption behaviour. Fodder-related constraints such as land scarcity, preference for cash crops, and labour shortages were also ranked highly. Comparable findings have been reported among smallholder dairy farmers in India and neighbouring countries, where competing land uses and seasonal labour constraints limit fodder cultivation and conservation (Talukder and Tajuddin, 2000; Triveni et al., 2018) [23,24] . Preservation technologies like silage, hay, and urea-treated straw were further restricted by lack of infrastructure, fear of spoilage or toxicity, and absence of traditional practice, as also noted by FAO (2018) [5] and Sharma et al. (2021) [20] . Cost-intensive inputs such as bypass fat, probiotics, and methane-reducing additives were perceived as economically risky, with farmers expecting limited immediate returns. Similar perceptions were documented in Bundelkhand, where income instability and climatic uncertainty discouraged investment in high-cost technologies (Singh et al., 2023) [22] . Studies from Bangladesh likewise emphasize that limited access to credit and insurance significantly reduces farmers' capacity to adopt improved feeding technologies (Rahman and Rahman, 1991; Islam et al., 2022) [17,8] . Overall, the findings reveals that adoption constraints are not merely technical but deeply socio-economic and perceptual. Addressing these challenges requires integrated strategies that combine capacity-building, strengthening extension-farmer linkages, improving access to affordable inputs, and reshaping farmer perceptions through participatory demonstrations and evidence-based extension programs. Evidence from Coochbehar and Bundelkhand underscores the importance of region-specific, attitudesensitive extension approaches for enhancing adoption of improved dairy feeding practices (Barman et al., 2022; Singh et al., 2023) [3,22] .

Conclusion

The findings indicate that adoption of improved feeding practices among dairy farmers is shaped by intertwined socio-economic, technical, and infrastructural constraints. Low educational levels, small herd size, limited training exposure, and low productivity reduce farmers' capacity to understand, invest in, and sustain improved feeding interventions. Knowledge gaps regarding the benefits and correct use of inputs such as salt, mineral mixtures, probiotics, and anti-methane additives emerged as major barriers, while high cost and irregular availability constrained adoption of bypass fat and probiotics. Fodder conservation practices silage, hay, and urea-treated straw were further limited by inadequate storage facilities, labour shortages, and insufficient technical know-how, compounded by water scarcity. The significant variation in perceived constraints across practices (p < 0.001) highlights that barriers are practice-specific rather than uniform. Together, these findings underscore the need for targeted, context-specific extension strategies that combine capacity building, affordable and reliable input supply, subsidies, and basic infrastructure support to improve animal health, enhance productivity, and strengthen livelihoods in smallholder dairy systems.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementsThe study was conducted as a part of the M.V.Sc. research programme at ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI), Izatnagar. The authors gratefully acknowledge the Director, ICAR-IVRI, for providing necessary institutional support. Sincere thanks are also extended to the village farmers of the study area for their cooperation and assistance during data collection.

References

1. Atreya S, Singh P, Kumar S, Kumar M, Prashad K, Kishore K. Socio-economic profile of the dairy farmers in Sultanpur district of Uttar Pradesh. International Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2018;10(12):63686372.
2. Barman B, Mohammad A, Kisku U, Lepcha CY. Exploring dairy farming practices and perceived constraints: A study of Rajbanshi farmers in Coochbehar district of West Bengal. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 2022;22(4):45-52.
3. Dhaka BL, Meena GS, Meena NL, Bairwa RK, Nagar BL. Constraints analysis in adoption of improved dairy farming practices in Bundi district of Rajasthan. Chemical Science Review and Letters. 2017;6:995-999.
4. Food and Agriculture Organization. Silage making for smallholder farmers: A manual. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization; 2018.
5. Garg MR, Sherasia PL, Bhanderi BM, Gulati SK, Scott TW, Thomas JW. Effect of feeding bypass fat supplement on milk production in crossbred cows. Indian Journal of Dairy Science. 2008;61(3):219-223.
6. Imtiaz MA, Rana. Problems faced by small-scale dairy owners in receiving veterinary services. Bangladesh Journal of Veterinary Medicine. 2014;12(1):63-65.
7. Islam MR, Islam MR, Ali MS, Kabir MH. Impact of small enterprise loan programme on beneficiaries' www.extensionjournal.com socio-economic development in Bangladesh. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics and Sociology. 2022;40(10):1198-1205.
8. Joshi PK, Gulati A, Cummings R. Agricultural diversification and smallholders in South Asia. New Delhi: Academic Foundation; 2007.
9. Koli RT, Mankar DM, Tekale VS, Bhople PP. Personal, socio-economic, communication and psychological characteristics of dairy farmers. International Journal of Chemical Studies. 2020;8(1):490-493.
10. Mahesh M, Kumar KA, Satishkumar K, Umesh B, Sreenivas BV. Socio-economic profile analysis of dairy farmers of Yadgir district of Kalyana Karnataka region. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2020;9(4):350-353.
11. Patel N, Ashwar B. Factors influencing economics of milk production on commercial dairy farms in North Gujarat. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 2019;19(2-3):83-88.
12. Prasad K, Savale S, Mahantesh MT, Pavan M, Barman D, John A. Socio-economic profile and constraints faced by dairy farmers of Wayanad district, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2017;6(6):870-874.
13. Prasad N, Kumar S, Pandey M, Soni YK, Saha S, Chand N, Arya S. Socio-economic status and problems faced by dairy farmers of Sardhana block of Meerut district. International Journal of Livestock Research. 2019;9(4):120-128.
14. Rahman MM, Rahman MH. An economic analysis of dairy enterprise in selected villages of Bangladesh. Unpublished research report. Dhaka: Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council; 1991.
15. Ram DH, Kumar R, Chaudhari GM, Vekariya SJ, Savsani HH. A socio-economic profile of the unorganized dairy farmers. International Journal of Agricultural Science Research. 2018;8(5):49-54.
16. Sachan R. Buffalo husbandry practices among dairy farmers in Unnao district of Uttar Pradesh. M.V.Sc. Thesis. Karnal, Haryana: ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute (Deemed to be University); 2013.
17. Sharma S, Singh SK, Singh A, Rashmi. Adoption behaviour of rural youth towards dairy farming practices. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 2021;21(4):80-84.
18. Singh AK, Singh AK, Maji S. A study on socioeconomic profile of the dairy farmers in central plain zone of Uttar Pradesh. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2021;10(1):988995.
19. Singh S, Sharma P, Chauhan JK, Tripathi S, Noopur K. Exploring farmers' attitudes towards dairy farming in Bundelkhand region of Uttar Pradesh. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 2023;23(3):78-85.
20. Talukder RK, Tajuddin M. Economics of milk production in Bangladesh. Unpublished contract research report. Dhaka: Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council; 2000.
21. Triveni G, Sharma GRK, Satyanarayana C, Sarjan Rao K, Raghunandhan T. Knowledge level of dairy farmers on adoption of dairy innovations in Andhra Pradesh. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 2018;18(1):1-4.