Around 38% of India's cattle rearers prioritise non-market uses like dung and draught power over milk sales.
This trend is particularly strong in states like Jharkhand and West Bengal.
Policies that reflect the diverse roles cattle play in rural livelihoods, beyond just milk production, are needed.
More than a third of India’s cattle rearers do not sell milk — the primary objective associated with bovine rearing — but instead prioritise non-market uses such as dung, draught power and income from selling animals, according to a new study by the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) released on 20 January 2026.
The study estimated that about 38 per cent of cattle rearers, or nearly 30 million households, do not sell milk. While 31 per cent of them still see family milk consumption as a motivation to rear bovine animals, the rest — around 5.6 million households — rear bovines entirely for purposes unrelated to milk consumption or sale. This share rose sharply in certain states, touching about 15 per cent in West Bengal and Maharashtra.
In Jharkhand, as many as 71 per cent of rearers do not prioritise milk sales, while the figure exceeds 50 per cent in West Bengal and Himachal Pradesh, according to the study, Cattle and Community in a Changing Climate.
Milk supports over 80 million livelihoods and contributes 5 per cent to India’s gross domestic product. Existing dairy policies remain largely geared towards increasing milk productivity and output, often overlooking multiple non-market roles cattle play in rural livelihoods.
The findings underlined that cattle rearing in India operates as a complex livelihood system, rather than a milk-centric economic activity, particularly in the context of climate stress and smallholder farming systems.
The study is based on a survey of over 7,300 cattle-rearing households across 15 states, representing 91 per cent of India’s bovine population (including cows, buffaloes, bulls and bullocks). Overall, in nine of the 15 states, less than half of cattle rearers cited milk sales as their primary motivation for rearing.
Most of these households typically owned 1-2 indigenous cattle, indicating the relatively critical role of indigenous cattle for non-market uses, such as household nutrition, dung and draught power, especially within integrated farming systems, the study noted.
“Aligning public investment with this diverse reality requires moving from uniform dairy strategies to differentiated, responsive policies that reflect how households actually value cattle, the constraints they face, and how climate risks for the sector are evolving. This will not only ensure acceptance of public interventions, thereby improving the effectiveness of budget allocations, but also preserve the rich diversity of rearing systems across the country,” said Abhishek Jain, fellow and director, Green Economy and Impact Innovations, CEEW.
Even in states with relatively formalised dairy sectors such as Maharashtra and Karnataka, over 30 per cent of rearers prioritised non-milk benefits, mainly dung and draught power. Socio-cultural and religious motivations also remained significant: In Himachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Assam, more than 15 per cent of rearers cited these as their foremost reason for keeping cattle.
These varied motivations were also reflected in the structure of cattle ownership across the country. The study showed that half of India’s rural cattle rearers owned just one or two animals; small herds concentrated in hilly, central and eastern regions, while larger herds (over five animals) were more prevalent in states such as Gujarat, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Punjab.
At the same time, low diversity at the household level — both in terms of bovine type and breed — shaped productivity outcomes and resilience. It was found that 82 per cent of rearers owned only one bovine type.
While such concentration can make animal-type-specific interventions easier to target, it also increases vulnerability to climatic and economic shocks, especially in regions where indigenous cattle, buffaloes or crossbreds dominate depending on agro-climatic conditions.
Meanwhile, the contribution of smallholders to aggregate output was disproportionately lower, accounting for only 29 per cent of total milk production and 22 per cent of milk sales, pointing to constraints linked to herd sizes, feed and fodder shortages, animal type and regional agro-climatic conditions.
Almost three out of four cattle rearers reported securing affordable feed and fodder as one of the biggest challenges. The report found that despite regional surpluses of green and dry fodder, affordability remained a widespread concern, particularly in Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat.
Declining grazing lands was a significant concern in Assam (around 40 per cent), Punjab, Madhya Pradesh and Odisha (around 25 per cent). Meanwhile, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Bihar reported an acute shortage of land for fodder cultivation.
Despite the challenges, adoption of key feeding interventions, such as silage (to improve green fodder availability) and ration-balancing programmes (to promote balanced animal nutrition), remained just at 5 per cent for each intervention.
“Feed and fodder shortages cut across regions, animal types and herd sizes. Yet adoption of basic feeding interventions remains low. Addressing these gaps, through stronger extension services and improved fodder supply chains, can deliver immediate gains for small rearers,” said Ruchira Goyal, Programme Associate, CEEW.
At the same time, climate stress was already affecting a large share of livestock keepers across bovine types. Over half of buffalo rearers (54 per cent), half of those keeping crossbred cattle, and more than two-fifths (41 per cent) of indigenous cattle rearers said their animals had been impacted by climate-related factors.
Rearers most commonly reported a rise in disease incidence, followed by animal deaths and behavioural stress such as increased restlessness. The scale of these impacts was significant, particularly given that many households plan to expand their herds in the future, most often by increasing numbers of the same bovine type they already keep.