Will slaughter curbs lead to cattle surplus? Indian academicians have been debating this since 1926

As the Centre looks to modify the rules on cattle trade, it would do well to consult experts about how the changes would affect farmers.

With the government’s assurance to the Supreme Court on Tuesday that it would suspend implementation of new regulations on cattle trade, the nation’s cows, bullocks, bulls and buffaloes are back on the front page. The new rules, notified in May, had been greeted by vociferous protests from some state governments. As many pointed out, the regulations made it virtually impossible for cattle to be sold for slaughter – leaving farmers with the enormous burden of feeding old, fallow animals that are of little economic value.

In the intense debate around the new regulations, it became clear that the government had failed to consult livestock economists and animal husbandry experts before notifying the new regulations. There are indications even Chief Economic Advisor was taken by a surprise, when the Livestock Market (Regulation) Rules were notified. As Chief Economic Advisor Arvind Subramanyam noted in a recent interview, “If social policies impede the workings of the livestock market, the impact on the economics of the livestock farming could be considerable.”

As it turns out, the nation’s surplus cattle have been a focus of study for Indian academicians for more than a century. They seem to have debated them almost as much as they’ve discussed the sacred cow. The two ideas are closely related. Livestock economists have frequently suggested that India’s social attitudes towards the cow are linked to cattle that livestock experts during the British Raj classified as surplus – animals that were viewed as useless, failing to offer any economic service to a farming household or society at large.


Perhaps the first academic study of India’s cattle was undertaken in 1893, when John A Voelcker of the Royal Agricultural Society of England submitted his “Report on the Improvement of Indian Agriculture”. He referred to free roaming Brahmani bulls as a “standing religious menace” to crops in the country.

The concerns over whether surplus cattle were consuming resources that could be used to feed more promising milch and draught animals were reiterated in 1928 by the Royal Commission on Agriculture. It said that even as there had been an increase in area sown, this had been accompanied by subdivision and fragmentation of land holdings. This had led to a greater demand for draught cattle or beasts of burden,which in turn meant more competition with humans for the food resources.

During the second phase of surplus cattle debate between 1920 and 1950, the arguments were followed by estimations based on available statistics and experimental data. Economists CN Vakil and SK Muranjan wrote in 1927 that slaughter of one-fifth of existing cattle would not have any detrimental effect on foodgrain availability. However, in 1926 a book written by Nilanda Chatterjee had attributed the deterioration of cattle to “excessive rather than insufficient slaughter”.

During this period, concerns about cattle slaughter did not rest on religious and cultural logic only and the lobbyists were not motivated by cow worship arguments alone. There were diverse groups that wrote and spoke about cattle slaughter. For instance, members of the Humanitarian League argued that milch stables in cities operated in such adverse conditions as to effect drain of the best indigenous milch breeds of cows and buffaloes.

The policy discussions during 1920s suggested not a legislation to ban cattle slaughter and beef consumption, but an effort by municipalities to remove the milch stables out of the city limits and encouraged the establishment of milk supply routes from rural centres.

Optimal numbers

The optimal number of cattle India required was constantly being questioned. The first all-India livestock census in 1919-’20 showed that in a total cattle population of 113 million in British India, there were 5.1 million breeding bulls. But by 1966, there were only 0.4 million breeding bulls, even as the cattle population had grown to 176 million.

Artificial insemination had made it possible to support breeding operations with fewer bulls. But also, as economist SN Mishra observed, “Religious considerations which seemed to have helped in swelling their numbers beyond economic necessity (half a century ago), definitely yielded ground in the long run to inescapable economic compulsions.”

The 1960s found several economists estimating the extent of surplus number of bullocks and cows. I Chatterjee in an essay published in 1962 argued that reducing the number of adult female cattle by 20% of their present level would bring their numbers to optimal level. VM Dandekar in 1964 analysed 1961 livestock census figures for Maharashtra and proposed that nearly 50% cows were redundant, if one kept in mind the stock required to reproduce the existing bullock population. Dandekar had asked his readers, “True, slaughter of cattle is not in consonance with our cultural traditions and values. But what is more humane and more in harmony with our cultural traditions and values, slaughter or killing through starvation?”

In 1971, K N Raj found it curious that “there were only 47 adult female cattle for every 100 male cattle in Uttar Pradesh”. He commented that “this high rate of elimination in the heartland of India, where the Hindu feelings about the cow were apparently strongest is not something that can be brushed aside”. He also said, “Whether one regards it as a reflection of the pragmatism of the peasant or as another evidence of Hindu hypocrisy, at least no one can say that the technique adopted for cattle stock adjustment is ineffective”.

Varying estimates

The surplus cattle debate had seen so much of writing from different viewpoints that the estimates on surplus had ranged from 80 million useless cattle to scarcely any surplus at all.

A lot of milk – and in recent times blood of innocent people too – has flown in India since 1980s. India has now emerged as the world’s largest milk producer. Meat export earnings for 2016-’17 were Rs 26,303 crores. However, what India sadly lack today is an engagement by policymakers with livestock economists.

The rise of hooliganism in the name of cow protection, drastic changes in the policies on cattle slaughter and beef, and now a knee-jerk intervention in the functioning of cattle markets will not only affect the nation’s cattle but also communities and livelihoods that are so intricately linked with the after-life usefulness of sacred cow.

As it revises the rules, as it has promised to, the government would do well to revisiting the long history of discussion about sacred and hence surplus cattle, rather than allowing policy to be hijacked by the politics of polarisation.

Himanshu Upadhyaya teaches at Azim Premji University, Bangalore.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

How sustainable farming practices can secure India's food for the future

India is home to 15% of the world’s undernourished population.

Food security is a pressing problem in India and in the world. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), it is estimated that over 190 million people go hungry every day in the country.

Evidence for India’s food challenge can be found in the fact that the yield per hectare of rice, one of India’s principal crops, is 2177 kgs per hectare, lagging behind countries such as China and Brazil that have yield rates of 4263 kgs/hectare and 3265 kgs/hectare respectively. The cereal yield per hectare in the country is also 2,981 kgs per hectare, lagging far behind countries such as China, Japan and the US.

The slow growth of agricultural production in India can be attributed to an inefficient rural transport system, lack of awareness about the treatment of crops, limited access to modern farming technology and the shrinking agricultural land due to urbanization. Add to that, an irregular monsoon and the fact that 63% of agricultural land is dependent on rainfall further increase the difficulties we face.

Despite these odds, there is huge potential for India to increase its agricultural productivity to meet the food requirements of its growing population.

The good news is that experience in India and other countries shows that the adoption of sustainable farming practices can increase both productivity and reduce ecological harm.

Sustainable agriculture techniques enable higher resource efficiency – they help produce greater agricultural output while using lesser land, water and energy, ensuring profitability for the farmer. These essentially include methods that, among other things, protect and enhance the crops and the soil, improve water absorption and use efficient seed treatments. While Indian farmers have traditionally followed these principles, new technology now makes them more effective.

For example, for soil enhancement, certified biodegradable mulch films are now available. A mulch film is a layer of protective material applied to soil to conserve moisture and fertility. Most mulch films used in agriculture today are made of polyethylene (PE), which has the unwanted overhead of disposal. It is a labour intensive and time-consuming process to remove the PE mulch film after usage. If not done, it affects soil quality and hence, crop yield. An independently certified biodegradable mulch film, on the other hand, is directly absorbed by the microorganisms in the soil. It conserves the soil properties, eliminates soil contamination, and saves the labor cost that comes with PE mulch films.

The other perpetual challenge for India’s farms is the availability of water. Many food crops like rice and sugarcane have a high-water requirement. In a country like India, where majority of the agricultural land is rain-fed, low rainfall years can wreak havoc for crops and cause a slew of other problems - a surge in crop prices and a reduction in access to essential food items. Again, Indian farmers have long experience in water conservation that can now be enhanced through technology.

Seeds can now be treated with enhancements that help them improve their root systems. This leads to more efficient water absorption.

In addition to soil and water management, the third big factor, better seed treatment, can also significantly improve crop health and boost productivity. These solutions include application of fungicides and insecticides that protect the seed from unwanted fungi and parasites that can damage crops or hinder growth, and increase productivity.

While sustainable agriculture through soil, water and seed management can increase crop yields, an efficient warehousing and distribution system is also necessary to ensure that the output reaches the consumers. According to a study by CIPHET, Indian government’s harvest-research body, up to 67 million tons of food get wasted every year — a quantity equivalent to that consumed by the entire state of Bihar in a year. Perishables, such as fruits and vegetables, end up rotting in store houses or during transportation due to pests, erratic weather and the lack of modern storage facilities. In fact, simply bringing down food wastage and increasing the efficiency in distribution alone can significantly help improve food security. Innovations such as special tarpaulins, that keep perishables cool during transit, and more efficient insulation solutions can reduce rotting and reduce energy usage in cold storage.

Thus, all three aspects — production, storage, and distribution — need to be optimized if India is to feed its ever-growing population.

One company working to drive increased sustainability down the entire agriculture value chain is BASF. For example, the company offers cutting edge seed treatments that protect crops from disease and provide plant health benefits such as enhanced vitality and better tolerance for stress and cold. In addition, BASF has developed a biodegradable mulch film from its ecovio® bioplastic that is certified compostable – meaning farmers can reap the benefits of better soil without risk of contamination or increased labor costs. These and more of the company’s innovations are helping farmers in India achieve higher and more sustainable yields.

Of course, products are only one part of the solution. The company also recognizes the importance of training farmers in sustainable farming practices and in the safe use of its products. To this end, BASF engaged in a widespread farmer outreach program called Samruddhi from 2007 to 2014. Their ‘Suraksha Hamesha’ (safety always) program reached over 23,000 farmers and 4,000 spray men across India in 2016 alone. In addition to training, the company also offers a ‘Sanrakshan® Kit’ to farmers that includes personal protection tools and equipment. All these efforts serve to spread awareness about the sustainable and responsible use of crop protection products – ensuring that farmers stay safe while producing good quality food.

Interested in learning more about BASF’s work in sustainable agriculture? See here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of BASF and not by the Scroll editorial team.