Knowledge level and adoption status of scientific cattle rearing practices among livestock farmers in NTR District of Andhra Pradesh

Introduction

The livestock sector is a foundational pillar of global and national agriculture, providing essential sustenance, raw materials, and economic stability. Globally, it contributes significantly to food security through the supply of milk, meat, and eggs, and serves as a natural capital asset and a www.extensionjournal.com safety net for millions of marginal and landless farmers. In developing countries, particularly in India, livestock acts as a vital source of supplementary income, employment, and organic manure. The dairy industry, centered on cattle rearing, holds immense potential for poverty alleviation and nutritional security, often functioning as a critical component of climate resilience in mixed farming systems. India is home to one of the largest livestock populations in the world, positioning cattle rearing as a socio-economic priority. The sector contributes substantially to the Gross Value Added (GVA) from agriculture and allied sectors. However, despite the large numbers, the average productivity per animal remains low compared to global standards. This productivity deficit is primarily attributed to traditional, non-scientific management practices regarding feeding, breeding, health, and housing. Bridging this gap requires the effective transfer and adoption of scientific cattle rearing practices developed by research institutions. The successful uptake of these practices, such as balanced feeding, timely vaccination, artificial insemination (AI), and hygienic milking, is key to enhancing the genetic potential of the animals and ensuring sustainable production growth. Scientific cattle rearing practices are systematically designed to minimize risks, maximize resource use efficiency, and optimize animal health and productivity. The non-adoption or partial adoption of these practices results in substantial economic losses due to lower milk yield, higher mortality rates, and increased susceptibility to diseases. Therefore, a critical challenge for agricultural extension systems is to understand the factors that facilitate or impede the adoption of these beneficial technologies. Research in this area is crucial for formulating targeted intervention strategies that can effectively overcome socio-economic, infrastructural, and perceptual barriers faced by farmers.

Need of the study

The present study focuses on the NTR District, a region characterized by its unique agro-climatic conditions and its contribution to the state's dairy economy. The district's livestock farmers operate within a specific set of resource constraints, market access issues, and prevailing traditional knowledge systems. To date, a systematic and localized investigation into the level of knowledge possessed by the farmers regarding scientific cattle rearing, and the corresponding extent of adoption of these practices, remains limited. Understanding the specific context of NTR District is essential, as adoption patterns are highly dependent on local factors such as feed availability, access to veterinary services, and prevailing extension mechanisms.

Study Area and Livestock Profile

The study was conducted in NTR District, Andhra Pradesh, a region reorganized from the former Krishna District. Characterized by a significant agricultural base and diverse agro-climatic conditions, the district provides an ideal ecosystem for both crop and livestock farming. While the district's poultry population is vast, the traditional livestock sector is primarily defined by Buffaloes (235,052) and Sheep (234,933). Cattle, the focal point of this research, represent a specialized segment of 28,397 head. Interestingly, the demographic distribution is highly regional; the Nandigama Division alone accounts for a significant portion of the district's cattle (11,428), justifying it as a primary focal point for this study.

Methodology

By considering above factors the present study under taken with objectives of investigate the profile characteristics, knowledge level, and adoption status of livestock farmers about scientific cattle rearing practices, by using an Ex-post facto research design. The study involved a total sample of 120 respondents selected from the NTR District of Andhra Pradesh through a multi-stage random sampling procedure. This sampling process began with the purposeful selection of Six Mandals-Nandigama, Jaggayyapeta, Vastavai, Penuganchiprolu, Chandharlapadu, and Kanchikacherlafrom which two villages were selected by using randomly chosen each Mandal, followed by the selection of ten livestock farmers from each village. Data were systematically collected using a structured interview schedule, which was administered in the local language, Telugu, by an interviewer proficient in the dialect to ensure accuracy and contextual comprehension. The collected information will be subjected to analysis using appropriate descriptive statistical measures, including Mean, Median, Percentage, and Arithmetic Mean, to effectively interpret and present the findings.

Arithmetic Mean

It is defined as the sum of the observations divided by its number. Arithmetic mean was used for categorization of respondents on all the profile characterstics of the study.

Standard Deviation

It is positive square root of the mean of the squared observation taken from arithmetic mean. It was used to find out the variation in the score in the dependent variable and for categorization of respondents.

Frequencies and Percentages

Frequency and percentages were used to know the distribution pattern of respondents according to objectives under study. Percentages were used for standardization of sample size by calculating the number of individuals that would be under a given category, if the total number of cases were hundred. Frequency was represented by 'n' and percentage was represented by '%' in the results of the study. (2020) [1] and Kachhawaha et al. (2021) [2] .

Results and Discussion Profile Characteristics of livestock farmers

B. Education

The overall educational attainment of the respondents is low to medium. The single largest group (30.00%) has only primary education (up to 4th grade). When combined with those who have middle school education (24.17%), over half (54.17%) have a middle-school level of formal schooling or less. Furthermore, 10.00% of the respondents are illiterate. Conversely, only a small fraction (10.00%) have completed higher secondary or attained a graduation degree, suggesting potential challenges in absorbing complex, technical information or modern extension recommendations. Similar type of findings were identified by Dhayal et al. (2015) [3] .

C. Family Size

The respondents predominantly belong to medium or small family sizes. The medium family size is the most common (43.33%), closely followed by small families (40.00%).

Together, these two categories account for 83.33% of the total respondents. Only a minority (16.50%) belong to large families, indicating a trend towards nuclear or smaller joint households.

D. Herd Size

The enterprise is characterized by small-scale operations. A significant majority of the respondents (62.50%) maintain a small herd of fewer than 4 animals. This overwhelming prevalence of small herds, with only 10.83% managing a large herd (more than 6 animals), strongly suggests that www.extensionjournal.com cattle rearing functions primarily as a supplementary, subsistence-level activity rather than a large commercial business for the majority of the population studied. In line findings were identified by DAHD (2019) [4] in the 20th Livestock Census and Rao et al. (2022) [5] .

E. Milk Production

Regarding milk production, the majority of farmers fall into the low-production category, with 62.50% producing less than 5 liters. Only a small fraction (10.83%) achieves high production levels of more than 9 liters, suggesting that most cattle rearing in the study area is small-scale or subsistencebased. Similar types of findings were identified by Singh et al. (2021) [6] , Meena et al. (2025) [7] and Gopi et al. (2020) [8] .

F. Annual Income

In terms of annual income, the data shows that 62.50% of the farmers earn a medium income ranging from 0.75 to 1.50 Lakh. While nearly 31% belong to the high-income group (above 1.5 Lakh), only a very small minority (6.67%) survives on a low income of less than 0.75 Lakh, indicating a relatively stable economic standing for most participants. Similar type of findings were identified by Kumar et al.

(2021) [9] , Chavan et al. (2023) [10] .

G. Land Holding

The land holding patterns are diverse, with marginal farmers (25.00%) and semi-medium farmers (21.67%) making up the largest segments. Notably, 20.00% of the cattle farmers are landless, highlighting that land ownership is not a strict requirement for cattle rearing. Conversely, medium and large-scale landholders represent the smallest portions of the community, totaling roughly 16.66% combined. Similar type of findings were identified by Birthal et al. (2012) [11], Patil et al. (2024) [12] . The data presented in the table 2 reflects the availability and utilization of various communication channels by the 120 respondents for obtaining scientific livestock information.

H. Information sources availability and utilization of livestock farmers

The sources are categorized into Personal Localite, Personal Cosmopolite, and Impersonal Cosmopolite channels.

Personal Localite Channels

Among the personal localite sources, fellow farmers were found to be the most available (89.17%) and most utilized (70.00%) source of information. This was followed by progressive farmers, who were available to 67.50 percent of respondents and utilized by 65.00 percent. Family members were available to 65.00 percent but utilized by only 46.67 percent, indicating that while family is present, they may not always be viewed as the primary source of technical expertise.

Personal Cosmopolite Channels

In this category, extension workers/veterinarians emerged as the most significant source, with 72.50 percent availability and 68.33 percent utilization. This highlights the critical role of formal technical support in the region. Conversely, scientists (25.00%) and NGOs (12.50%) showed very low availability and utilization, suggesting a lack of direct contact between research institutions and the farming community. . This suggests a reliance on conventional feeding methods without planning for year-round feed quality and availability.

Impersonal Cosmopolite Channels

Knowledge about Health Care Practices

In the case of Health care practices, knowledge of veterinary intervention and colostrum feeding was exceptionally high Treatment by qualified veterinarian (100.00%), Feeding of www.extensionjournal.com colostrum to new born within 3 hrs of birth (95.83%). Other health measures showed strong knowledge, Timely Vaccination (74.17%), Isolation of sick animals from healthy animals (60.00%), Knowledge was exactly half or below for Regular deworming (51.67%). Most critically, 0.00 per cent of respondents had knowledge of Cutting of naval cord and applying tincture to newly born calves. While there is excellent knowledge regarding seeking veterinary intervention and ensuring colostrum feeding (the two most critical practices for immediate survival), respondents show a substantial deficiency in basic neonatal hygiene (naval cord care) and consistent parasite control (deworming). This suggests a focus on reactive treatment rather than comprehensive preventative care.

Knowledge about Management Practices

The data for Management practices revealed that 100.00 per cent of respondents had knowledge about four practices: From the table it could be concluded that majority of the respondents (65.84%) possessed a medium level of knowledge, followed by 18.33 percent with a low level, while the remaining 15.83 percent fell into the high knowledge category regarding scientific livestock rearing practices. Similar types of findings identified by Sharma et al., (2020) [1] , Makarabbi et al. (2025) [13] , Mondal et al. (2025) [14] , Patel et al. (2022) [15] , Rajkumar et al. (2025) [16] , Sabapara et al. (2016) [17] , sharma et al. (2020) [1] . Full hand milking 120 100 0 0 0 0 www.extensionjournal.com

III. Adoption of Scientific Cattle rearing practices in the livestock (N=120)

Analysis of Adoption of Dairy Farming Management Practices

The findings from the Table No: 5 regarding the adoption of improved dairy management practices revealed a diverse landscape of adherence across breeding, feeding, health, and general management.

A. Breeding Practices: It was observed that a significant majority of respondents (76.67%) adopted pregnancy diagnosis by a veterinarian after three months, and 74.17% followed the practice of treating anoestrus animals. While AI (Artificial Insemination) was adopted by 60.00% of farmers, a critical gap remains in the treatment of repeat breeders, where 100% of the respondents fell into the nonadoption category, indicating a total reliance on traditional methods or a lack of access to specialized veterinary intervention for chronic breeding issues.

B. Feeding Practices:

The data showed that high-value practices like feeding extra rations to pregnant animals (91.67%) and chaffing green fodder (88.33%) were widely adopted. However, modern practices such as the cultivation of Azolla for supplemental protein saw 0% adoption. Similarly, a staggering 87.5% of respondents did not practice fodder preservation through hay or silage, suggesting that farmers in the study area rely primarily on fresh fodder and lack a "buffer" strategy for seasonal fodder scarcity.

C. Health Care Practices:

A highlight of the study was the 100% adoption rate for seeking treatment from qualified veterinarians, showing a strong trust in professional medical help. Furthermore, 95.83% of respondents followed the vital practice of feeding colostrum to newborns within 3 hours. Conversely, a major gap was identified in neonatal care: 100% of respondents failed to adopt the practice of cutting the naval cord and applying tincture to newly born calves, posing a significant risk for naval-related infections.

D. Management Practices: General cleanliness practices saw the highest levels of success. 100% of respondents regularly cleaned animal sheds, washed hands and udders before milking, and utilized the full-hand milking method. The data reflected high adoption for correct milking methods (94.17%) and washing animals before milking (71.67%). However, record-keeping remains a weakness, with 65.00% of respondents not maintaining any formal records of their dairy operations. The findings reveal that the majority of the respondents (53.33%) fell into the Medium Adoption category. This was followed by 27.50% (33 respondents) in the Low Adoption group, while only 19.16% of the farmers were categorized under High Adoption. These results are in conformity with the findings of Boarte and Gimhavanekar (2020) [3] , Kachhawaha et al. (2021) [7] , Makarabbi et al. (2025) [12] , Mondal et al. (2025) [16] , Sabapara et al. (2016) [26] , and Singh et al. (2021) [28] , all of whom observed that dairy farmers typically operate at a medium level of adoption due to varying socio-economic and resource constraints.

Distribution of respondents of respondents according to their adoption level

E.

Lack of credit facility 89 74.17 2.

High cost of milch animals 109 90.83 3.

Non-availability of reliable source for cattle purchasing 89 74.17 4.

Poor economic condition 79 65.83 5.

Middle men not providing remunerative price 71 59.17

A. Breeding Constraints

The primary limitation in breeding practices is the low productivity of local breeds (91.67%), which affects the vast majority of farmers. Compounding this genetic limitation is a significant lack of knowledge about improved breeding practices (84.17%). Furthermore, production is hindered by the repeat breeding problem (60.00%), while the adoption of modern techniques like Artificial Insemination (AI) is hampered by the distant location of AI centres (43.33%) and a low conception rate of AI (34.17%), suggesting issues with both access and technical success of the procedure. These findings in line with the findings of Yadav et al.

(2016) [32] , Meena et al. (2022) [13] , Patel et al. (2022) [18] , Sreeram et al. (2024) [29] .

B. Feeding Constraints

The most frequently reported challenge in livestock is related to feeding is the non-availability of green fodder throughout the year (76.67%), indicating a substantial seasonal nutritional gap. Farmers also suffer from a lack of knowledge and unavailability of seeds of High Yielding Varieties (HYV) of fodder crops (71.67%), which is key to year-round fodder production. Knowledge deficits further extend to not knowing about mineral mixture feeding (60.83%) and balanced feeding (46.67%). The physical constraint of unavailability of grazing pasture land (57.50%) necessitates higher reliance on costly purchased feeds. These findings were in line with the findings of Kishore et al. (2021) [9] , Meena et al. (2022) [13], Rajkumar and Kavitha (2025) [21] , Sharma et al. (2020) [27] .

C. Health Care Constraints

While grouped under health care, the most severe constraint in this section is the high cost of concentrates (88.33%), which significantly impacts the ability to maintain animal health through proper nutrition. In terms of direct health management, a major concern is the lack of knowledge about vaccination, deworming, and disease control measures (61.67%). Access to professional help is also an issue, with a considerable percentage of farmers reporting a lack of proper veterinary services in time (48.33%). Finally, basic biosafety is compromised by the unavailability of a separate place for the isolation of sick animals (40.83%). These type of findings in line with the findings of Gopi et al. (2025) [6] , Kishore et al. (2021) [9] , Meena et al. (2022) [13] , Patel et al.

(2022) [18] , Sreeram et al. (2024) [29] .

D. Management Constraints

Management challenges center heavily on knowledge gaps, with farmers reporting nearly equal difficulty with inadequate knowledge of scientific housing (68.33%) and lack of knowledge about clean milk practices and its importance (68.33%). The adoption of scientific housing is also restricted by the high cost associated with it (65.00%). Furthermore, the ability to make informed decisions is hindered by poor knowledge and difficulty in maintaining records due to illiteracy (52.50%), and a substantial portion of farmers also exhibit poor knowledge regarding calf rearing practices (43.33%). Similar type of findings were in line with findings of Rajkumar and Kavithaa (2025) [21] , Sabapara et al. (2016) [26] , Yadav et al. (2016) [32] and Sharma et al. (2020) [27] .

E. Other Problems

The overarching economic hurdle is the high cost of milch animals (90.83%), which serves as a major barrier to entry or expansion for farmers. This high capital requirement, combined with a lack of credit facility (74.17%) and the farmers' overall poor economic condition (65.83%), severely limits investment. Furthermore, issues in the value chain, such as the non-availability of a reliable source for cattle purchasing (74.17%) and the problem of middlemen not providing remunerative prices (59.17%), further constrain the economic viability of the operation. Similar type of findings were identified by Meena et al. (2022) [13] , Kishore et al. (2021) [9] , Patel et al. (2022) [18] and Mondal et al. (2025) [16] .

IV. Suggestions to overcome the constraints faced by the livestock farmers Based on the data provided, the dairy farmers' suggestions to overcome constraints in accessing veterinary services reveal a clear prioritization of foundational support and resource availability. The highest priority, expressed by 93.33% of respondents, is the need for the supply of updated extension literature and technical information, highlighting a critical knowledge gap and thirst for formal guidance. Closely following this is the demand for provision of adequate medicines and infrastructure facilities (91.67%), underscoring the severe operational constraint caused by a www.extensionjournal.com lack of basic supplies in existing veterinary centers. Furthermore, 81.67% of farmers urgently request an increase in the number of Veterinarians, recognizing that the limited availability of expert staff directly restricts service access. High percentages also validated the need for practical, door-step services, including emergency treatment (72.50%) and the provision of AI and Pregnancy Diagnosis services (60.00%). Intriguingly, 76.67% of suggestions focused on the non-veterinary issue of an increase in the milk price at the collection center, which reflects the fundamental economic constraint that prevents farmers from affording existing services. Collectively, these findings show that farmers view the constraints as stemming less from technical complexity and more from systemic failures in infrastructure, staffing, and financial viability. The findings were in line with the findings of Gopi et al. (2025) [6] , Kishore et al. (2021) [9] , Meena et al. (2018) [14] , Sreeram et al. (2024) [29] , Vinya Kumar et al. (2017) [31] .

References

1. Anjana NS, Subrahmanyeswari B, Triveni G, Lavanya M, Vinood R. Profile of dairy farmers, the adopters of sex sorted semen technology: a study in Andhra Pradesh. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2023;SP12(9):809-813.
2. Birthal PS, Taneja VK. Livestock sector in India: progress and prospects. New Delhi: Indian Council of Agricultural Research; 2012:45-50.
3. Boarte HV, Gimhavanekar SS. Extent of knowledge and adoption of livestock rearing practices by the farmers from South Konkan. International Journal of Chemical Studies. 2020;SP-8(2):04-09.
4. Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying. 20th livestock census: all India report. New Delhi: Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India; 2019.
5. Dhayal BL, Meena JP, Patel ML, Mehta BM. A study on knowledge and adoption level of improved animal husbandry practices by milk producers in Vadodara district of Gujarat. Agriculture Update. 2015;10(2):144148.
6. Gopi R, Senthilkumar S, Venkataramanan R. Perception of livestock farmers on the effectiveness of veterinary extension services. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 2025;61(1):112-116.
7. Kachhawaha S, Kalash P, Jangid BL, Rathore BS, Sharma SK, Patel AK. Adoption of scientific dairy practices by crossbred cow rearers in Jodhpur district. International Journal of Livestock Research. 2021;11(10):177-183.
8. Khalangre KD, Khan AI, Suryawanshi MV. Socioeconomic profile of dairy farmers in Maharashtra: a case study of Latur district. Advances in Dairy Research. 2023;11(3):1-4.
9. Kishore K, Singh SP, Roy R, Singh MK. Constraints perceived by goat farmers in adoption of improved goat husbandry practices in Bihar. The Journal of Research ANGRAU. 2021;49(3):45-51.
10. Kumar S, Singh R, Kumar A. Socio-economic profile of dairy farmers in central plain zone of Uttar Pradesh. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 2021;57(2):112115.
11. Makarabbi G, Sabu A, Saxena N, Sharma ML. An analysis of knowledge, attitude and practice gaps in scientific buffalo husbandry. The Journal of Research ANGRAU. 2025;53(1):44-52.
12. Makarabbi G, Sabu A, Saxena N, Sharma ML. An analysis of knowledge, attitude and practice gaps in scientific buffalo husbandry. PLoS ONE. 2025;20(7):e0327208-e0327208.
13. Meena GL, Sharma L, Burark SS. Economic constraints in adoption of scientific dairy farming practices in tribal area of Rajasthan. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 2022;58(2):142-146.
14. Meena HR, Singh YP, Meena KL. Analysis of dairy farming constraints and suggestions for its improvement in Rajasthan. Journal of Animal Research. 2018;8(3):495-500.
15. Meena HR, Ram H, Singh K, Mahapatra S. Socioeconomic profile and dairy farming practices of tribal dairy farmers. Indian Journal of Dairy Science. 2015;68(4):400-405.
16. Mondal HA, Dana SS, Sarkar RM. Knowledge level and extent of adoption of scientific fish farming practices among members of fish farmers producer organizations. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika. 2025;40(1):64-71.
17. Mondal S, editor. Genetic and reproductive approaches for sustainable livestock production. 1st ed. Elsevier; 2025.
18. Patel PK, Mallappa V, Mattoo FA. Knowledge level and constraints faced by livestock owners in Kashmir valley. The Journal of Research ANGRAU. 2022;50(2):55-59.
19. Patil CND, Kadian KS, Jarial S, Bellagi RD, Patil D, Jha SK, et al. Farmers' preferences and breeding practices for indigenous cattle breeds in breeding tract of Karnataka. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences. 2024;94(11):1000-1005.
20. Patil JV. Socio-economic status of dairy farmers in Latur district. Guntur: Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University; 2024.
21. Rajkumar NV, Kavithaa NV. Constraints in adoption of scientific sheep and goat rearing practices in Tamil Nadu. The Indian Journal of Veterinary Sciences and Biotechnology. 2025;21(1):112-115.
22. Rajkumar NV, Elamaran A, Sangamitra RKR. Adoption of improved scientific goat rearing practices and constraints perceived by goat farmers. Indian Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences Research. 2025;50(5):70-75.
23. Rajkumar R, Sawant MN, Chavan AA, Bhanotra AK. Animal welfare management practices followed by dairy farmers in Konkan region of Maharashtra. International Journal of Agriculture Extension and Social Development. 2025;8(10S):21-25.
24. Rao SBVV, Anitha A, Rao JS, Subrahmanyeswari B. Demographic studies and constraints of buffalo farming in East Godavari district of Andhra Pradesh. Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences. 2022;53(3):392-400.
25. Rathod PK, Patil SS. Socio-economic profile of dairy farmers in North Karnataka. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2011;24(4):479-483.
26. Sabapara GP, Deshpande SB, Kharadi VB. Scientific www.extensionjournal.com rearing practices followed by dairy farmers in South Gujarat. International Journal of Science, Environment and Technology. 2016;5(3):1205-1213.
27. Sharma A, Kumar R, Singh P. Extent of knowledge and adoption of livestock rearing practices by farmers from South Konkan. International Journal of Chemical Studies. 2020;8(2):343-346.
28. Singh P, Singh MK, Verma RK. Constraints perceived by dairy farmers in adoption of improved dairy management practices. Journal of Community Mobilization and Sustainable Development. 2021;16(1):215-220.
29. Sreeram V, Jha SK, Raj S. Evaluation of veterinary service delivery systems: a multi-stakeholder analysis. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2024;13(2):341-345.
30. Tomar DS, Lathwal SS, Singh P, Devi I. Socioeconomic factors influencing the adoption of scientific dairy animal feeding and breeding practices: a case of Muzaffarnagar in Uttar Pradesh. Biological Forum -An International Journal. 2023;15(2):768-773.
31. Vinaya Kumar HM, Shivamurthy M, Ganesamoorthi S. Information needs and suggestions for strengthening extension activities in livestock rearing. Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2017;51(2):388-393.
32. Yadav JP, Pramanik PS, Maurya SK, Yadav S. Constraints perceived by farmers in adoption of improved buffalo husbandry practices. Journal of Animal Research. 2016;6(5):937-941.
33. Jogal M, Madke PK, Gohil BS. Adoption level of scientific dairy farming practices by dairy farmers of Haryana. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2022;11(5):241-247.
34. Hazarika N, Kalita HK, Borah P. Extent of knowledge and adoption of improved dairy management practices among farmers: a study in North-Eastern India. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 2024;60(2):115-119.
35. Kumar S, Singh R, Kumar A. Socio-economic factors influencing the adoption of scientific dairy farming: a study on human capital and decision-making capacity. Journal of Community Mobilization and Sustainable Development. 2019;14(3):412-416.