Assessment of business management and product diversification in millet enterprises

Introduction

Millets are important course cereal crops for resource-poor farmers for their nutritional and livelihood security. Millets crops comprising of sorghum, pearl millet, finger millet; comprising kodo, foxtail, banyard, proso and little millets. They are well adapted to arid and semi-arid tracts of Asia, Africa and America. Millets area cultivation in India covers an area of 16 million Ha. Several reviews (e.g., Muthamilarasan & Prasad, 2021; Anitha et al., 2020) [2, 15] highlight that millets are climate-resilient crops with a high capacity to thrive under arid and semi-arid conditions of Asia, Africa and parts of the Americas. In India, millets occupy nearly 16 million hectares and produce about 18.66 million tonnes annually. Given their rich nutrient profile especially micronutrients such as calcium, iron and zinc they have been reclassified as nutri-cereals (Devi et al., 2014;Saleh et al., 2013). Major millet-growing states include Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, where they are predominantly cultivated by small and marginal farmers under low-input systems. Despite of several positive attributes, millets have lost their importance in terms of both production and consumption in India. The reasons include easy availability of fine cereals like rice and wheat at a affordable price, the challenges in millets processing, and a lack of government support for the promotion of millets. These constraints have restricted the mainstreaming of millets in India's food systems. Recently, growing interest in value addition, diversification of processing technologies, and the commercialisation of millet-based products has renewed consumer and market attention, given the early onset of lifestyle diseases such as obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases. Enterprises engaged in millet processing and value addition will play a major role in market reach, enhancing product diversity, and improving processing efficiency (Gowda et al., 2023;Seetharam et al., 2021) [9] . Strengthening these enterprises can greatly aid in developing innovative products, improving shelf-life, standardising machinery and promoting region-specific value-added millet foods. Against this backdrop, a comprehensive assessment of millet-based entrepreneurs becomes essential. Such an assessment would www.extensionjournal.com provide insights into raw material procurement and storage, processing technologies, machinery utilisation, branding, marketing, export readiness and business sustainability. Previous studies (Meena et al., 2019;Singh & Raghuvanshi, 2012) indicate that micro-enterprises often face constraints related to technological access, quality standards, market linkages and financial stability. Understanding these issues will help design strategies to enhance efficiency, competitiveness, and entrepreneurial success within the rapidly emerging millet sector.

Methodology Study area and sample

The present study was undertaken to assess the management practices, administrative processes and product profiles of millet-based entrepreneurs. A total of 50 millet-based micro-units were selected by using purposive random sampling technique. The selected units represents different business models, product types, and operational scales. Millet-based micro-units were selected across five states Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra covering selected market centres namely Chennai, Madurai, Dindigul, Coimbatore, Tiruchirappalli, Bengaluru, Mysuru, Dharwad, Vijayapura, Bidar, Raichur, Vijayawada, Guntur, Visakhapatnam, Kurnool, Nandyal, Anantapur, Sri Sathya Sai district, East Godavari, Hyderabad and Pune were purposively selected. Based on millet markets and processing activities the locations were selected. The study selected regions includes tier-I and tier-II cities. The study reveals that the majority of Micro Unit (MU) Owners (68%) belong to the middle-aged group (36-50 years), followed by old (18%) and young (14%). This indicates the middle-aged group has strong potential for fast learning, rapid expansion, and consistency. These are the key factors required for competing in the emerging millet processing sector. Men constituted the majority (66%) of millet entrepreneurs, whereas women accounted for 34%. Despite being fewer in number, women entrepreneurs showed strong participation, especially in SHG-led and micro food-processing units. This finding underscores the existing role of women in the industry and highlights the potential to encourage greater female participation through dedicated policies and initiatives www.extensionjournal.com

Education profile of Micro Unit (MU) owners

Gender profile of Micro Unit (MU) Owners

Initial investment, source of capital, raw material and Type of Storage

Type of storage

It is clear that 98% of MUs are still using the Bags as their means of storage which are vulnerable to moisture, temperature and other risks related to rats, insects, etc. It is suggesting the need for advancing the development and study of alternative affordable storage facilities for MUs. • A limited number of MUs engage in producing readyto-cook (RTC) products such as noodles (16%), ravva (10%), multi-millet flours (10%), pasta (8%), batter (6%), and flakes (4%). • Similarly, the ready-to-eat (RTE) segment includes cookies (12%), biscuits (8%), and bread/cakes (6%). The prices and cost of production of millets products • From the above results, it can be concluded that, the raw material cost accounted for the largest share of total production cost, ranging from 33% in ragi flour to nearly 60% in premium products such as health mix, laddu, and cookies. • Processing costs, including labour wages, contributed between 10% and 25% of the total cost, depending on product complexity. Packaging and labelling expenses varied from 3-26%, with high costs observed in cookies and bakery products. • The marginal profit incorporated by entrepreneurs ranged between 5 and 50%, with higher margins recorded for products requiring greater value addition, such as cookies (₹50/kg), laddu (₹180/kg), health mix (₹73.5/kg), and millet bread (₹40/kg). • The primary processing products such as flours, rava, and instant idli, upma, kichidi mixes and dehulled minor millets, showed lesser margins of ₹6-₹25 per unit. The price is competitive for millet products such as finger millet, kodo millet, little millet, foxtail millet, and barnyard millet priced at ₹60-90 per 500 g. The price is high for value-added products like health mix

Products range of enterprises and shelf life

• (₹350/kg), cookies (₹400/kg), millet laddu (₹600/kg), and millet bread (₹140/kg) due to increased processing and ingredient costs. • The entrepreneurs gain greater economic benefits when diversifying into products such as cookies, instant mixes, pasta, noodles, health mixes, and baked items rather than focusing only on raw grain sales. • The price study in combination with product portfolio study reveals that MUs predominantly focus on lowmargin products such as millet rice (10%), instant mixes (10%), and flours (18%-25%), while not fully leveraging high-margin products like instant noodles (50%), batter (50%), millet laddu (30%), and bread (~29%). • This preference towards low-margin products indicates constraints in accessing efficient processing machineries.

• These findings reveal the importance of value addition, improved processing technologies, for sustainability of millet enterprises. The results suggest that a majority of enterprises were small to medium-scale. The higher annual turnover category (>Rs. 100 lakhs) highlights the scalability and market viability of millet processing enterprises when supported with effective labelling, branding, marketing. Majority of the Micro Units (68% and 76%, respectively) utilize grader cum aspirator cum destones and Dehuller. only 4% of MUs use millers and 16% use color sorters followed by 18% use polishers and 20% use gravity separators. This data indicates that very few MUs have a complete set of primary processing machinery which affecting their ability in cleaning, dehulling and optimal processing of grains. From the Table 12 it can be concluded that, the most commonly used secondary processing machines were blenders (12%) and roasters (12%). This indicates the both machines role in product formulation, mixing, roasting, and flavour development of millet products. Mixers (10%) were also widely used which are essential for homogenizing ingredients in instant mixes, health mixes, and composite flours. Grinders, ovens, tray dryers, chikki lines, and hammer mills were used by 8% of the enterprises each. The extruder line (4%) and baking line (4%) were used by relatively few enterprises, indicting the limited adoption of advanced technologies required for producing noodles, pasta, extruded snacks, and baked products. The category "others" (4-8%) includes less commonly used machinery such as pulverizers, dehydrators, dryers, and shifters, further.

Annual total Production, Turnover & Exports

Processing Machinery Primary Processing Machinery

Secondary Processing Machinery

The findings suggest that while most entrepreneurs possess basic and moderately advanced secondary processing machinery, the adoption of high-end technologies remains limited. This may be attributed to financial constraints, the high cost of extruders and baking lines, or limited technical knowledge. Expanding access to modern machinery could significantly improve product quality, production efficiency, and market competitiveness for millet enterprises. • From the market channels data, it is visible that a very insignificant number of MUs are able to expand through franchise sales (4%) and almost 50% of the MUs are still not adopting e-commerce platforms, indicating the need for awareness creation, training and handholding for technology adoption and business expansion.

Marketing

• The very limited B2B supply (30%) is also indicating the need for handholding MUs for building market linkages with bulk requirements from giant e-commerce, IT companies, etc.

• Furthermore, participation in B2G is completely absent among the MUs, and it's highlighting the need for proactive initiatives by government departments for sourcing and introducing millets into public-funded schemes. www.extensionjournal.com Exports to Europe and other developed markets were also observed. Triguni Foods exported ready-to-eat millet products to Singapore, the US, and Europe, while Smart Foods supplied millet noodles to Norway, Nepal, and the Netherlands. Sattva Millets & Food Products exported whole grain, rava, and flour to the Netherlands, with the highest export volume of 1100 tons, indicating strong international demand and market penetration. Some micro units established their own export networks, while others utilized intermediaries such as friends, online consultants, exhibitions, or retail chains (e.g., LuLu Group for Sri Velavan Agro). This suggests that entrepreneurs used various strategies to export, ranging from personal networks to corporate partnerships. Strengthening export facilitation by agencies like APEDA, certification support, and international marketing could further enhance the exports of Indian millet products. www.extensionjournal.com • The most commonly reported challenge is the short shelf life of millet-based products (36%, ranked #1), which affects storage, distribution, and market expansion. As observed from previous data, the lack of effective packaging solutions and preservation techniques may also limit the product longevity, affecting sales and export potential.

Export Profile of Millet-Based Enterprises

Constraints

• Majority MUs struggle with sourcing raw materials (32%, ranked #2), especially in bulk quantities, due to fragmented supply chain, indicating the need for farmer-MU linkages and strengthening the role of FPOs.

• Non-availability of effective machinery for millet processing (28%, ranked #3) is also a major constraint, as we also the lack of end-end processing Machinery in previous data.

• The lack of end product-specific cultivars (22%, ranked #4) is also a most limiting constraint for attaining the more quality RTE and RTC products, as the product composition data also suggesting the same.

• Finally, non-availability of labor (10%, ranked #5) is also a critical challenge in the emerging segments like millets, indicating a strong need for capacity building on millet processing under various schemes like PMFME.

• The other constraints such as lack of bulk sprouting machines, knowledge on RTE products, demandsupply match, automation in technology and knowledge on primary processing were reported by 6%-8% of MUs out of 50 MUs. • The highly reported constraint on marketing side is lack of government initiatives (26%, ranked #1) for procurement of millet-based products, indicating the need for revamping the procurement policies by central and state governments by providing relaxations, reservations and increased procurement orders from MUs.

• The lack of awareness on millets (24%, ranked #2) is also persisting as one of major marketing constraints, reflecting the need for increased efforts by governments, international organizations, industry bodies and celebrities.

Conclusion

The findings reveal that the millet enterprise ecosystem is driven primarily by well-educated, mid-career entrepreneurs who enter the sector with strong motivation but often limited managerial and financial support. The major source of capital was family, the low uptake of institutional credit highlights the gaps in access to formal finance from the banks and government schemes. The procurement of raw material indicates a strong dependence on farmers and traders, indicating informally structured supply chains. Long-shelf-life products such as millet rice, flours, instant mixes, noodles, and cookies prove preference for items that minimize spoilage risks, ease distribution, and cater to urban demand for convenience foods. Higher profit margins were observed for value-added products such as cookies, laddus, health mixes, and bakery items. The limited production of low shelf life products, such as batter and bread, indicates operational constraints related to cold storage facilities and working capital turnover. The adoption of primary processing machinery was widespread, but advanced secondary machinery, such as extruders, baking lines, and dehydrators, is confined to a few enterprises.

References

1. Adupa S, Shireesha K. An overview on value chain development in millets. Biol Forum Int J. 2023; 15(11):477-482.
2. Anitha S, Govindaraj M, Kane-Potaka J. Balanced amino acid and higher micronutrient contents in millets help address SDGs. Cereal Foods World. 2020; 65(3):1-8.
3. Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA). Indian millets [Internet]. New Delhi: APEDA; [cited 2025 Jun 1]. Available from: https://apeda.gov.in/IndianMillets
4. Banu MA, Ganapathy MS, Gowda VG, Siddayya, Girish MR, Begum S, et al. Value chain analysis of minor millets for improving economic status of farmers in Tumakuru district of Karnataka. Mysore J Agric Sci. 2022; 56(4):51-60.
5. Das B, Satyapriya, Singh P, Sangeetha V, Ray P. Prospects of millets and millet-based products as nutrihealth food: stakeholders' analysis. Indian Res J Ext Educ. 2020 ;( 2-3).
6. Chera M. Transforming millets: strategies and struggles in changing taste in Madurai. Food Cult Soc. 2017; 20(2):303-324. DOI:10.1080/15528014.2017.1305830.
7. Rao BD, et al. Millets for nutritional security and climate resilience. Hyderabad: ICAR-Indian Institute of Millets Research; 2017.
8. Food and Agriculture Organization. Millets and sorghum value chain development report. Rome: FAO; 2023.
9. Gowda CLL, Seetharam A, Parameswaran M. Millet's value chain modernization: opportunities for small and micro enterprises. J Millets Res. 2023;2(1):10-20.
10. Kademani S, Nain MS, Singh R, Kumar S, Parsad R, Sharma DK, Roy SK, Karjigi KD, Prabhakar I, Mahapatra A, et al. Unveiling challenges and strategizing solutions for sustainable agrientrepreneurship development. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2024; 8:1447371. DOI:10.3389/fsufs.2024.1447371.
11. Kumar A, Jat SL, Singh CM, Kumar R, Bishnoi DK. Declining trends in area, production and productivity of millets in India: reasons and remedies. Indian J Agric Sci. 2016;86(10):1383-1391.
12. Gudla M, Singh R, Nain MS, Padaria RN, Praveen KV, Tiwari S, Nath RK, Quadar SKW, Veldandi A. Critical factors hindering the millet entrepreneurial sector: strategic interventions for enterprise development. Indian J Ext Educ. 2026; 62(1):117-122.
13. Kammar MR, Vanishree S. Entrepreneurship development promotion through millet processing in Raichur district of Karnataka State, India. Plant Arch. 2017; 17(2):1460-1462.
14. Muskan F, et al. Millets in the global market: opportunities and challenges. Food Prod Process Nutr. 2025.
15. Muthamilarasan M, Prasad M. Millets for nextgeneration climate-smart agriculture. Front Plant Sci. 2021;12:1-10.
16. Palanichamy NV, Kumar MS, Kalpana M, Balakrishnan N, Rajavel M, Divya M. A review on value chain analysis of millets. J Basic Appl Res Int. 2024;30(3):76-85.
17. Palanichamy V, et al. A review on value chain analysis of millets. J Basic Appl Res Int. 2024.
18. Parthasarathy Rao P, Basavaraj G. Status and prospects of millet utilization in India and global scenario. Hyderabad: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT); 2015. www.extensionjournal.com
19. Aggarwal R, Ray S, Gore MM, Husain A, Kumar RR. Issues, challenges and opportunities: insights from feedback survey of millet industries and entrepreneurs. CSIR-NIScPR Policy Bull. 2024 Jun;(02).
20. Rao BD, et al. Millet value chain and entrepreneurship development. Indian Farming. 2021.
21. Rao BD, et al. Creation of demand through value chain development in millets. Indian Farming. 2022.
22. Sangappa, Dudekula R, Laxmi B, Charishma E, Srinivasa Babu K. Strengthening millet value chain through farmer producer organizations. Indian J Ext Educ. 2023;59(3):26-31.
23. Seetharam A, Gowda CLL, Krishne Gowda KT. Technological advances in millets processing and product diversification. J Food Process Preserv. 2021;45(2):1-12.
24. Kheya SA, Talukder SK, Datta P, Yeasmin S, Rashid MH, Hasan AK, Anwar MP, Islam AKMA, Islam AKMM. Millets: the future crops for the tropicsstatus, challenges and future prospects. Heliyon. 2023;9:e22123.
25. Millet value chain revolution for sustainability: a proposal for India. Socio Econ Plan Sci. 2023.
26. Padulosi S, Mal B, King OI, Gotor E. Minor millets as a central element for sustainably enhanced incomes, empowerment, and nutrition in rural India. Sustainability. 2015;7(7):8904-8933. DOI:10.3390/su7078904.