Leverage Points: strategic prioritisation for Animal Advocacy in India (Part 1 of 3): The scale of animal use in India
- 19 hours ago
- 38 min read
Updated: 3 hours ago
This is Part 1 of Leverage Points: strategic prioritisation for Animal Advocacy in India, Animal Ask's assessment of where advocates and funders in India can achieve the most for animals. This part sets out the scale of the problem: how many animals there are, how long they live, the conditions they experience, and how Indian consumption is changing.
The executive summary and key takeaways are on the overview page. The complete report, including all three parts and the full reference list, is available as a single PDF.
Read the report
Part 1: The scale of animal use in India (you are here)
2. Animal populations
For assessing potential issues to address through campaigns and movement resource allocation, it is important to understand the overall scale of the problem. While this can in and of itself be some indication of areas in need of greater investment, the marginal opportunity may still be less competitive. The tractability of interventions either driven by winnable campaigns against sufficiently large targets or direct interventions with large effect sizes, the strength of evidence behind these interventions and the counterfactual scenario if no action is taken must all be accounted for in strategic decision-making. Still, an overview of the landscape is useful for understanding areas of high importance in which further exploration to uncover impactful interventions is most needed.
2.1. Years of life experienced by non-human animals across India
There is a wide variety of anthropogenic harms to animals in India. Compared to many other countries, there are significantly more liminal animals (wild or domestic species that live in close proximity to humans but are not directly under human care) and proportionally fewer terrestrial farmed animals per capita due to low consumption rates.
Our first estimates in the following graph focus on overall population interacting with humans, and the duration of this interaction, with an estimate of overall years of animal life represented by this. This weights certain populations more highly than their pure numbers, for example, cattle raised for meat, which may live longer than a year before slaughter, and discounts the importance of animals with short interactions or lifespans, such as broiler chickens which are killed at 5 to 7 weeks old.
For our estimates of species population and duration of interactions with humans we focused on five main groups including wild or liminal animals, farmed animals, companion animals, animals used in experimentation, and animals used in entertainment.
Notably, we have not estimated ‘true’ wild animal populations, and for wild and liminal animals we only include those with direct interactions with humans, mostly during their deaths from pest control, wild capture, or accidents. This means figures here represent a much greater intensity of potential suffering than for example one year as an average companion animal under human care.
Access to the full spreadsheet with estimates by more specific species/ groups, confidence levels, methodology and citations for figures can all be found here.
Figure 1: Proportion of animal life-years from different species
Overall, non-human animals collectively experience on the order of approximately 38 billion years of life in India each year with the vast majority of this time spent in factory farm conditions (1). The rough percentages in the graph can be thought to represent the odds of experiencing a moment of life as any one species of these animals, as if behind an impartial veil of ignorance.
From overall life years, aquaculture for farmed fish and shrimp account for the majority, followed by wild animals, then farmed chickens, then other farmed terrestrial animals (cows, buffalo, goats, sheep, pigs, etc.) and then stray liminal animals.
However, these estimates do not adjust according to the different strength of evidence for the sentience and potential welfare range of each species. These account for possible intensities of animals’ pleasures and pains relative to humans’ pleasures and pains given that the most intense conscious experience of a shrimp may not be as intense as a chicken's. We encourage readers to see broader discussion and notable limitations for interpretation from Fischer (2023) (2) and in their broader sequence of work on the topic from 2020 to 2023. If we attempt to adjust these figures by the potential relative valence of these years of life, we are given the following results.
Figure 2: Proportion of total moral weight adjusted animal life-years from different species
While still significant, farmed shrimp now account for significantly fewer valence adjusted life years relative to other animals. Instead, farmed fish now appear more significant, and terrestrial farmed animals now account for 25.2% of life-years combined. Wild/liminal animals still represent a significant amount of life years while stray animals become a more significant minority.
We must note that for both graphs if we included ‘pure’ wild animals without any interaction or with only indirect interactions with humans, wild animals would likely predominate. These have not been included due to the difficulty with estimation, the weaker evidence for interventions, and broader moral discussion about our responsibilities and/or rights regarding wild animals. Animal Ethics (2020) (3) has a broader discussion on the topic for an introduction to the area. We considered some interventions in this area, but they still largely focus on anthropogenic harms.
2.2. Conditions and anthropogenic harms for the most significant species
As part of the research process, we examined the conditions, harms, and potential reforms available for as many groups of animals as possible. While individuals in these groups experience a huge breadth of harms and unnecessary cruelty, unfortunately there may not be effective avenues to help them at this time.
2.2.1 Shrimp aquaculture
India is one of the world's largest shrimp producers (4,5) producing a reported 1,059,675 tonnes of shrimp in 2022, according to the FAO (6). The total value of production was USD 9.2 Billion in 2024 (7), representing approximately 0.24% of India’s GDP (8) and employing 120,000 shrimp farmers and 1.2 million in the wider sector (9).
The industry continues to grow year on year (10) although this has experienced large swings due to tariffs to the US (11) and developing trade deals with other jurisdictions such as the EU (12). Overall industry growth is expected at 10.1% during 2025-2033 (7).
The farming level of the shrimp value chain is the most fragmented with approximately 100,000 farms with an average of about 2 ha each. A report by Shrimp Insights (13) describes that: “A couple of thousand farms have grown to 5-10 ha, a few hundred to beyond 10 ha, but only a few dozen may have reached several hundred ha.” The total area registered as under cultivation is 174,000 ha, but not all farms are registered, so the actual number may be higher (13). There are very large markups from the raw shrimp produced by farmers to the products sold at retail. Shrimp workers in agriculture receive less than 1% of the final price consumers pay for shrimp (14).
The rest of the industry is also quite fragmented. Middle men play a large role: only 20% of the shrimp is sold at the farm gate (14). Most companies specialize in one node in the value-added chain, so there is less leverage to demand a greater share of this (15). However there are only a few vertically integrated groups, such as the BMR group (though even these are often still reliant on buying additional shrimp to meet export demands (15). BMR themselves control 900 hectares plus 500 hectares under contract farming (16). In general, 90% of the farming groups are small to mid sized, with only 10% being controlled by larger corporations like Devi and BMR (14). Hatcheries and especially feed companies are somewhat exceptions to this. There are an estimated 550 to 600 hatcheries (17) of which the BMR group controls 20% to 25% (14).
Unfortunately shrimp are only reported in production tonnage and not individuals but estimates based on meat weight at harvest (not accounting for production losses) suggest between 21 and 94 billion individuals are slaughtered each year (6). The vast majority of production takes place in Andhra Pradesh, followed by West Bengal and Gujarat. Intensity as proxied by MT per Ha also appears higher in Andhra Pradesh for both of the main species of farmed shrimp.
Table 1: Pacific whiteleg and black tiger shrimp production data (2023-24), Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA) (10,18)
State / territory | Pacific Whiteleg Shrimp | Black Tiger Shrimp | ||||||
Area under culture (Ha) | Estimated production (MT) | Number of individuals (estimated, in millions) | MT per Ha | Area under culture (Ha) | Estimated production (MT) | Number of individuals (estimated, in millions) | MT per Ha | |
Andhra Pradesh | 97,137 | 932,484 | 30,573 | 9.6 | 4,517 | 31,365 | 784 | 6.9 |
Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry | 9,188 | 41,200 | 1,351 | 4.5 | 68 | 199 | 5 | 2.9 |
Orissa (Odisha) | 8,409 | 42,637 | 1,398 | 5.1 | 252 | 402 | 10 | 1.6 |
West Bengal | 6,470 | 37,365 | 1,225 | 5.8 | 51,650 | 24,815 | 620 | 0.5 |
Gujarat | 2,768 | 18,015 | 591 | 6.5 | 6,406 | 27,430 | 686 | 4.3 |
Maharashtra | 850 | 1,968 | 65 | 2.3 | 55 | 68 | 2 | 1.2 |
Karnataka | 706 | 2,015 | 66 | 2.9 | 2,252 | 405 | 10 | 0.2 |
Kerala | 284 | 804 | 26 | 2.8 | 3,034 | 1,048 | 26 | 0.3 |
Goa | 112 | 272 | 9 | 2.4 | 21 | 20 | 0.5 | 1.0 |
Telangana | 56 | 209 | 7 | 3.7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | N.A |
Shrimp farmers still use mostly earthen ponds and have not progressed towards the most intensive systems such as recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS). However, there is a trend towards somewhat more intensive systems. In 2008, extensive shrimp farming occupied more than 70% of the area under shrimp farming (19), but Rubel et al (2019) estimated that 80% of whiteleg shrimp farms were semi-intensive (14). Broader indications from average productivity per hectare between 2015 and 2021 show average productivity (MT per Ha) increased from 3.54 in 2015 to 5.06 in 2020 (20), a trend that appears to have continued through to 2023 (10). From available data it is unclear whether this has been driven by a broader increase in intensification or from a narrow range of farmers employing much more intensive farming practises. Shrimp Welfare Project’s Indian field visits survey in Andhra Pradesh (the most productive and likely intensive Indian shrimp farming state) found all farmers were using semi-intensive stocking densities with a minority at high intensity (21).
Figure 3: Shrimp production flow charts (2022 data)
Shrimp is largely produced as a high-value export product sold frozen to the US, China, EU, Japan and South East Asia, with total exports (MT) having grown over the past decade (27). Although proportional to production, FAO data would suggest that Indian domestic consumers are the second-largest market for Indian-produced shrimp after the US with between 11 and 40% between 2019 and 2023 (26).
Figure 4: Indian shrimp production consumption by destination (2019, 2021 and 2023)
2.2.2 Fin-fish aquaculture
Globally terrestrial animal meat consumption is higher than aquatic animals, but this trend is flipped in India (28,29). To supply this consumption, fin-fish production in India predominates in pure tonnage terms, with 9,146,125 tonnes produced in 2022. State-wise, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal account for almost half of total production by tonnage. The majority of production is consumed domestically and locally, with just between 3% and 4% exported between 2019 and 2023 (30). Of the little that is exported, most is sold to China, Thailand, Bangladesh and Japan.
Figure 5: Share of India’s inland fish production by state India (2021)
As with shrimp, farmed fin-fish are not reported as individuals but by tonnage, so estimates for the total number of farmed fish use the average weight per individual. The most common species farmed are Catla, Rohu, Torpedo-shaped catfishes, Silver Carp and Striped catfish.
Table 2: Fin-fish aquaculture production in India by species (2022)
Species (Scientific name) | FAO production (Mt) | Number of Individuals (estimated, in millions) |
Other freshwater fishes | 1,550,525 | 3,200 |
Catla (Gibelion catla) | 3,866,700 | 2,900 |
Roho labeo (Labeo rohita) | 1,613,900 | 1,200 |
Other torpedo-shaped catfishes (Clarias spp.) | 168,700 | 770 |
Silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) | 646,500 | 650 |
Striped catfish (Pangasianodon hypophthalmus) | 722,000 | 600 |
Mrigal carp (Cirrhinus mrigala) | 340,700 | 530 |
Other marine fishes | 139,700 | 280 |
Common carp (Cyprinus carpio) | 30,600 | 61 |
Grass carp (white amur) (Ctenopharyngodon idella) | 34,200 | 21 |
Orangefin labeo (Labeo calbasu) | 18,300 | 19 |
Barramundi (giant seaperch) (Lates calcarifer) | 6,300 | 10 |
Manipur osteobrama (Osteobrama belangeri) | 6,700 | 7 |
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) | 1,100 | 2 |
Kelee shad (Hilsa kelee) | 200 | < 1 |
All species | 9,146,125 | 10,000 |
Figures and citations from fishcount.co.uk who estimate from FAO aquaculture production tonnages and estimated mean individual weights (EMWs) figures are from 2022 (31)
The variety of species farmed is a lot higher than for other areas discussed, so in some ways the area is more analogous to terrestrial animal farming. In India, while species may share farming systems and life stages, preferred conditions and appropriate interventions differ depending on the specific species-system combination.
Giri 2024 (32) estimates that approximately 5% of the total aquaculture area in India is under intensive cultivation which involves high stocking density and artificial feeding with mechanization with a production potential of 25 to 50 tonnes/ha. 60% is semi-intensive, largely in small ponds, with a fish stocking density of 10,000 to 15,000 fingerlings or 5,000 to 6,000 advanced fingerlings per hectare. Production potential ranges from 3.3 to 10 tonnes/ha. 35% remains extensive with a fish stocking density of less than 5,000/ha, with fish that rely solely on natural food available in the water bodies.
Examining broader species group trends, Carp (cyprinids) tend to be farmed in polyculture pond-based systems with the three common species living together; these are Catla, Rohu and Mrigal carp. Production is largely extensive or semi-extensive, with minimal feed or fertiliser. Catfish (siluriformes) tend to be raised in monoculture systems (33).
Figure 6 : Fin-Fish (Catla) production flow chart (2022 data)
2.2.3 Layer hen farming
India produced 149.11 billion eggs between March 2024 and February 2025, and is the second-largest egg producing country (36). Over the past 25 years, the rate of growth in poultry meat and egg production has exceeded the growth rate of milk. Today, the Indian egg market is worth $7.19 billion a year (37) and employs around 25,000 farmers (38).
As such, India has one of the largest farmed layer hen populations in the world. India farms around 627 million hens, according to 2025 data and between 70-85% of these birds live on commercial farms where cages are widespread. 2024-25 data shows that 97.5% of layer hens farmed on commercial farms have ‘improved’ genetics. These layers are disproportionately productive, contributing 84% of egg output in the country (39).
India has nearly 65% of its human population living in rural areas (40), though most commercial poultry production is concentrated in urban and peri-urban areas feeding these populations. The rural sector is more reliant on backyard poultry which can be as basic as a few hens and a cockerel fed with household scraps and scavenging with virtually no veterinary inputs (41). These backyard chickens are typically of indigenous breeds (known as desi birds) which are hardier and adapted to the local climate.
Table 3: Layer hen population by production system and breed
Backyard | Commercial | |
Desi | 134 million (21%) | 26 million (4%) |
‘Improved’ | 28 million (5%) | 439 million (70%) |
Commercial egg farms are typically independent (unlike broiler farms, which are generally under the contract system). They range greatly in scale, but likely house tens or hundreds of thousands of birds. It has been reported that the minimum viable size in Tamil Nadu’s Namakkal region, a historic home of the poultry industry, is 30,000 layers with some farmers raising 800,000 birds (42), and that across the nation’s layer farms, “units with a flock size of 20,000 to 50,000 birds have become common” (43). Larger farms tend to be more profitable. One study looking at layer farms in West Godavari district in Andhra Pradesh (second-greatest egg production in the state) found a rate of return of 39% for small farms and 78% for large farms.
The industry has heavy geographic concentration with four southern states, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, producing over 50% of eggs.
Table 4: Largest Layer hen population by state
Andhra Pradesh | Tamil Nadu | West Bengal | Telangana | Karnataka | |
Backyard layer population | 10 million (6%) | 8 million (5%) | 64 million (40%) | 5 million (3%) | 10 million (6%) |
Commercial layer population | 96 million (21%) | 88 million (19%) | 20 million (4%) | 68 million (15%) | 35 million (7%) |
Total layer population | 106 million (17%) | 96 million (15%) | 84 million (13%) | 73 million (12%) | 45 million (7%) |
The market opportunities vary state to state (e.g., Namakkal, Tamil Nadu produces over 95% of exported table eggs due to port access (44)), but the underlying economics are very similar. Egg farming took off in the southern belt due to a warm climate, access to feed crops, and lack of opportunity cost (agricultural land in the north had other use cases). West Bengal stands out with the largest population of backyard birds, 92% of which are indigenous breeds.
The National Egg Coordination Committee (NECC) sets egg prices every day. The NECC is a producer association which claims 25,000 members (45). Its primary function is to set daily egg prices. Membership is voluntary and the NECC has no official regulatory role, but it is the de facto price setting body for the egg industry. For layer hen farmers, the NECC provides stability in the egg market and mitigates the risk, but it has also been described as a price-fixing cartel, and was found guilty of violating the Competition Act’s rules against price fixing in 2022. It was found that the NECC was setting prices through private communications rather than a transparent formula, and that they were enforcing the prices rather than recommending them (46).
Cages remain the most salient welfare problem for layer hens in India. The majority of hens spend their lives in cages, crowded alongside around four other birds (47). It has been argued that cages violate the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (1960), which prohibits keeping any animal in a cage or receptacle that does not permit reasonable opportunity for movement (48).
Figure 7: Layer Hen production flow chart (2022-2023 data)
2.2.4 Broiler chicken farming
India’s total poultry population stood at 851.81 million birds in the 20th Livestock Census (2019) (57), of which approximately 95% are chickens. Of this total, 534.74 million are classified as commercial poultry and 317.07 million as backyard poultry, with the backyard segment having grown by 46% since the previous census (58).
However, as broiler chickens live much shorter lives, most of the chickens alive at any given time are layer hens, with a significant minority being broilers. Approximately 3.4 billion fowls and ducks were slaughtered in 2024-25 resulting in over 10 million tonnes of poultry meat (59); the vast majority of these were broiler chickens.
The broiler industry has undergone a dramatic transformation over the past four decades, evolving from traditional small-scale farming into a highly organised, vertically integrated agri-business. More than 80% of India’s chicken output is produced through contract farming arrangements, mainly through vertical integration by major companies which comprise approximately 60–70% of the total chicken production (60). The poultry integrators provide the day-old chicks, feed, vaccination, and technical and veterinary assistance. The farmers provide the capital (the land and infrastructure) and the labour to raise the chicks to market weight (61). The poultry integrators receive the majority of the profits from the sale of the chicken, and in return the contract farmers are paid either a certain percentage of the sale (such as 4.7% (61)) or a fixed amount for each kilogram of bird they raise to market weight (with farmers sometimes receiving productivity bonuses) (62). The contracts are written by the integrators and are sometimes called unfair or exploitative.
In the broiler meat trade, 60% of production is controlled by the largest five integrators, Suguna, Venky’s, CP, Sneha, and Shalimar (63). Some poultry integrators also sell branded products, such as Saguna Home Bites. Suguna even operates some retail outlets under the brand name Suguna Daily Fresh. Overall, Suguna is recognised as “a household name” in India (53). Integrators mostly sell the products in their regional market because demand is driven primarily for live birds (and therefore high transportation costs), and limited cold chain and processing facilities to produce an alternative (61).
Poultry meat production has grown at an average annual rate of approximately 8%, though this slowed to 0.47% growth in 2023-24 (64). Projected growth for the Indian poultry market is also significant, it is currently valued at approximately USD 32.93 billion in 2025 and is projected to grow at a CAGR of 8.1% to reach approximately USD 71.75 billion by 2035 (65).
Production is heavily concentrated in a small number of southern states, particularly West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Telangana (66). Many of these states have significant enough production to make them more comparable to stand alone countries. West Bengal alone would be the 35th biggest producing country comparable to the Netherlands and Myanmar (67).
Table 5: Estimated share fowl & duck meat Production by state in India (2024-25)
State/territory | Estimated production (thousand tonnes) | Number of individuals (estimated in millions) | % of total broiler production |
West Bengal | 1,307.83 | 452 | 12.45% |
Uttar Pradesh | 1,280.57 | 443 | 12.19% |
Maharashtra | 1,214.41 | 420 | 11.56% |
Andhra Pradesh | 1,137.63 | 394 | 10.83% |
Telangana | 1,101.39 | 381 | 10.48% |
Tamil Nadu | 801.81 | 277 | 7.63% |
Haryana | 729.79 | 252 | 6.95% |
Kerala | 522.76 | 181 | 4.98% |
Other states | |||
All India total | 10,504.55 | 100% |
Number of individuals estimated based on total slaughter figures for 2024-2025 and the proportion of production tonnage in that region
The majority of fowls are raised on commercial rather than backyard farms (74.12%) and most are ‘improved’ rather than desi fowl (74.56%). Backyard farms use mostly desi fowls (82.02%) whereas commercial farms use overwhelmingly fast-growing broiler breeds (97.62%) (59). The broad picture from India is the majority of broiler production comes from relatively standardised intensive commercial operations. Although there is still a significant minority from backyard and desi fowl.
The conditions these birds are raised in are also not conducive to their welfare. India has no legal limits on stocking density which can lead to massive overcrowding. High stocking densities are associated with reduced feed intake, stunted growth, decreased walking and preening behaviour, increased stress hormone (corticosterone) levels, and higher incidence of footpad dermatitis and hock burn (68,69). However, production incentives already push towards lower stocking densities regardless of welfare benefits. With the hot humid climate and relatively lower capital cost of sheds compared to ongoing operational costs, reduced stocking densities can be better for profitability. In one trial in West Bengal birds stocked at 13.45, 10.76 and 7.18 birds per meter found that birds' final weight was significantly greater at lower densities resulting in greater profit (70). Mortality was also lower at lower densities, although non-significant.
Heat stress is a particularly acute welfare concern in the Indian context, where ambient temperatures routinely exceed 40°C during summer months across much of the broiler-producing southern states. Most chicken farms in India are open sheds with little climate control or automation. Electricity is not always available (63). Chickens rely on panting to dissipate body heat, making them physiologically vulnerable to high temperatures. Heat stress in broilers leads to reduced feed intake, panting and respiratory distress, increased water consumption, immunosuppression, oxidative stress, and in severe cases organ failure and death (71). Fast-growing breeds are especially susceptible because the metabolic heat generated by their rapid growth compounds ambient heat load. An analysis from Fernando & Hao (2026) (72) examining Enthalpy Comfort Index in the Indian context found major growing regions (Tamil Nadu, Chennai, etc.) have temperatures that consistently fall outside of tolerable ranges, peaking well into the potentially lethal zone. Existing models of welfare for broilers rely on data from other contexts and thus likely fail to capture the severity of heat stress in India.
Farms tend to use deep litter sheds for broilers (73) but use cages for broilers breeders (74) in a similar fashion to commercial layer hen farming. These would face a similar legal challenge if layer hen cages are banned, but are more insulated from demand side campaigns, as the eggs are not directly sold to consumers. They are also much lower in population than layer hens with every broiler breeder producing in the range of 180 to 190 eggs per breeder (75) which, given some rate for infertile eggs, puts the broiler breeder population at approximately 20 million in India about 3% of the number of layer hens.
A concerning development in broiler chicken farming is the potential use of cages in farm grow-out stage. These would serve to further restrict broilers who may then suffer from poor bone strength due to lack of exercise, feather loss, and complete inability to express natural behavior (76). There are several companies selling these cages in India including GARTECH (77), V-Tech (78), Supreme Equipment (79), Vijayraj (80) and BigDutchman (81,82). Though fortunately the overall industry trend has not yet shifted towards widespread adoption of these systems. For example, Maruthamuthu et al. (60) samples broiler litter at 110 commercial farms with no reference to any of them having cages or that further farms not having deep litter systems was a distinct possibility.
These systems require significant capital investment compared to typical broiler barns. We see major integrators continue to use Environmentally Controlled (EC) farms, Semi EC and Open farms (83). Broadly the potential for this shift is concerning but current trends don’t provide strong evidence of adoption.
Regardless of production method, broilers tend to be transported and slaughtered at live markets. There are some large processing plants, which due to sheer total production numbers in India, still slaughter a large number of birds. However, 90% of the poultry meat in India is processed through wet markets and roadside poultry processing (84).
Figure 8: Broiler chicken production flow chart (2022-2023 data)
Broiler chicken is overwhelmingly consumed domestically. Exports of poultry products accounted for just USD 134 million in 2022-23 (88), less than 0.5% of the sector’s total value. The dominance of the live-bird wet market system restricts the geographic movement of poultry because of high mortality associated with transporting live birds (89).
2.2.5 Bovine farming
India's bovine sector is dominated by dairy, which is the single largest agricultural commodity in the country. Dairy contributes 5% to the national economy and directly employs more than 80 million farmers (90). Total milk production reached an estimated 236.35 million mt during 2023-24, having grown at a compound annual growth rate of 6% over the past decade (90). India is the world's largest producer and consumer of milk, contributing about 25% of global output (91).
The total bovine population including cattle, buffaloes, mithun and yak was 303.76 million in the most recent agricultural census (92), of this 193.46 million were cattle and 109.85 million buffalo. Buffaloes contribute approximately 45.32% of total milk production, cattle 44.51%, and goats 3.36% (93). The majority of cattle are still indigenous with 26.2% of the herd exotic/crossbred breeds (94). Buffaloes account for twice as much milk as indigenous cattle, supplying 45.32% of total milk production compared with just 21.47% from indigenous cattle; the remaining 33.21% comes from crossbred/exotic cattle (95). Unfortunately the increased productivity of cross-bred cattle comes at a cost as these breeds have higher abnormal birth rates, ranging 4.86% to 14.28%, compared to indigenous Bos indicus breeds where the range was 3.14% to 7.10% (96).
India's bovine meat production is mostly carabeef (meat derived from water buffalo) and was forecast at 4.64 million metric tonnes (MMT) carcass weight equivalent in 2025, of which 1.58 MMT is exported (97). The bovine meat sector is uniquely shaped by cattle slaughter legislation: cattle slaughter is banned in most Indian states, with Article 48 of the Constitution encouraging states to prohibit the slaughter of cows, calves, and other milk and draught cattle (98). States such as Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Haryana all prohibit cattle slaughter including bulls and bullocks of all ages, while Goa and several northeastern states have minimal or no restrictions (98). As a consequence, bovine animals for slaughter are mostly a byproduct of the dairy sector and are not reared specifically for meat production (97). Still, about 41 million bovines are slaughtered each year (97)
Table 6: Share of milk production for top 5 producing Indian states (2024)
State | Share of total milk production (%) | Estimated production (MMT) |
Uttar Pradesh | 16.21 | ~38.3 |
Rajasthan | 14.51 | ~34.3 |
Madhya Pradesh | 8.91 | ~21.1 |
Gujarat | 7.65 | ~18.1 |
Maharashtra | 6.71 | ~15.9 |
Share of total milk production from Animal Husbandry Statistics 2024 (99) estimated production figures calculated from percentage shares applied to the national total of 236.35 MMT.
Production is overwhelmingly smallholder-based. The largest proportion of cattle milk production comes from smallholder farms with an average herd size of less than two or three milking cows (100,101). Eighty-six percent of Indian farmers are classified as small-scale having herd sizes of 1 to 5 animals yet they contribute 62% of the total milk produced in the country (102).
The largely smallholder nature of dairy farming in India presents various welfare challenges. Observations on 38 farms in Kerala ranging in size from 2 to 150 cows found ad libitum water was available on only 22% of farms, and only 34% had water present during observations (103). Food was available to cows for a mean of just 4.3 hours per day, sometimes for as little as 2 hours (103). A little over half of the Indian dairy farms feed less than half of the desired minimum feed quantity to their animals (98). This is of particular concern given that dairy cattle have high water requirements and India's tropical climate exacerbates heat-related thirst. Farmers lack awareness about and have limited financial affordability of veterinary care (98) and the country has chronic lack of veterinary professionals (104,105).
The most egregious welfare harm, based on severity and duration, is likely continued tethering. For larger scale dairy farmers the predominant housing system across Indian dairy farming is tethered or tie-stall housing (103). In the sample in Kerala all cows were close-tied via nasal septum-piercing (less than 1 metre length) and 75% of cows studied spent 24 hours a day close-tied in housing (103). This includes ultra-small holder farmers (1-5 cows), while broad proportions are not reported, the majority of observations show close-tied out-door tethering and tie stalls as common practice even in such small herds (102,106,107).
This frequently leads to injury. Alam et al. (2010) found that 69% of the cattle and 54% of the water buffalo had rubbing or tearing injuries at the nostrils from nose ropes (108). Hair loss, lesions and swelling are common with 68.9% of cows experiencing this somewhere on their body driven by interaction with the rough environment and restricted movement (103). Compared to free-housing, tie-stall systems have higher prevalence of neck skin lesions (odds ratio = 2.36) and hock lesions (OR = 2.82) (109). Beyond health outcomes they also restrict natural behavior, particularly those associated with lying down, which are impaired in tie-stalls (110).
Unfortunately, the largely small holder nature of dairy farming, and the cultural and livelihood importance tied to a very large proportion of Indian citizens, makes direct work in this area difficult to achieve leverage. The area with the most scope for development is interpretation and enforcement (or cooperative education) around existing law. Section 11(1)(f) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 makes it an offence to keep "for an unreasonable time any animal chained or tethered upon an unreasonably short or unreasonably heavy chain or cord" (48). While this does not make tethering illegal, for example longer tethers used by some small holders for grazing, any reasonable interpretation of this statute would make tie-stalls illegal. Focusing on enforcement might therefore be the most the promising route to end the practise, but routine tethering practised by potentially 80 million farming households, this would be practically and politically impossible.
2.2.6 Sheep and goat farming
India has the world’s largest goat population and second or third largest sheep population. Goats and sheep are almost exclusively farmed extensively, though some semi-intensive and fully intensive systems do exist for goats (111). Worryingly, we found interest in further developing the sector (112).
Sheep are farmed predominantly in Telangana (25.7%), Andhra Pradesh (23.7%), Karnataka (14.9%) Rajasthan (10.6%) and Tamil Nadu (6.1%). Goats are farmed more commonly in Rajasthan (14.0%), West Bengal (10.9%), Uttar Pradesh (9.7%), Bihar (8.6%), and Madhya Pradesh (7.5%), but their farming is more dispersed around India (113,114).
They are used for meat, wool (sheep), skin, manure, and to some extent milk. (111). Sheep have traditionally been farmed nomadically, but this practice is becoming less common (115). 2.6 million tons of goat and sheep meat is produced per year in India. Sheep and goat meat have cultural significance and are the preferred meats for a variety of different festivals, causing corresponding spikes in demand. 95% of goat is consumed domestically, and there is also an export market to the Middle-East (the UAE accounts for around 75% of export demand) (113).
They are valued because they are inexpensive and because they can survive on marginal land, including arid or mountainous land with sparse vegetation (111). For this reason they are sometimes referred to as “the poor man’s cow” and typically raised by poorer households.
They each face similar welfare issues including lack of food and water, exposure to disease, and lack of proper veterinary care (111). Singh and Prasad 2008 (116) modeled economic losses associated with different diseases finding that pestis de petits was responsible for the largest loss at (34.5%), followed by foot and mouth disease (14.3%), sheep and goat pox (14.1%), contagious caprine pleuropneumonia (6.4%), enterotoxaemia (6.1%), facioliasis/distomatosis (5.0%) and anthrax (2.0%)
While we found no mention of sheep being tethered, goats may be tethered to fences or via pegs in the ground. This restricts the movement of the goats, and can limit access to water and shelter during the tethering. Sources portray this as a loop around the neck of the goat, which could be painful and cause injuries depending on the tie, but it is reasonable to think it may be less painful than a nasal-septum tie as seen in cows. We are unsure of the frequency of this practice. A website on Indian veterinarian services (117) describes this as a common practice in humid and subhumid regions of India while Soni et al. (118) and as a popular system.
Sheep and goats are transported live to market and this may involve very long distances. This is typically done in non-specialized vehicles and food and water are typically not provided, nor are they provided at the market. There are additional welfare issues during transport, like cramped transport,and lack of shelter at markets (115).
Sheep and goats are mainly slaughtered in municipal slaughter houses with only a small proportion destined for export slaughtered at export-oriented slaughterhouses (115). Municipal slaughterhouses are unlikely to have equipment for pre-slaughter stunning, and handling conditions may also be particularly poor.
An investigation by Animal Equality (119) found goats crammed into cages, biting at the bars; being shoved and hurled; no stunning before slaughter; and goats who had to have their throats slit multiple times. These practices clearly violate multiple Indian animal welfare laws (119,120).
While the scale of their suffering is immense, because sheep and goat farming is mostly practised extensively in small holder systems, it is unfortunately difficult to identify a leveraged way of improving their welfare. Other pressing animal welfare issues may be easier to prevent at this point.
Improving welfare at slaughterhouses through training or provision of stunning equipment is one option, but the slaughterhouses are also relatively decentralized. Improving access to veterinary care is another option, though this is also more difficult because of how spread out the farming of these animals is.
Additionally, because a large majority of sheep and goats in India are free-ranging, they already have some of the most significant welfare benefits that can easily be implemented, and other improvements for free-ranging animals becomes harder. Albeit, we expect broad enforcement work might also improve their welfare.
2.2.7 Stray dogs, cats and cows
India is home to the world's largest population of stray animals. The State of Pet Homelessness (SPH) Index estimates there are over 62 million free-roaming dogs and 9.1 million free-roaming cats (121) in the country, with approximately 5 million stray cattle according to the 2019 livestock census (122). Approximately 77% of the Indian population report seeing a stray dog at least once a week, and 68% report seeing a stray cat with similar frequency (121), making this among the most visible animal welfare issue in the country. For this reason and the nature of the relationship between these species and humans they receive disproportionately high attention from animal welfare organisations, the media, and Indian courts relative to the scale of suffering involved.
Although, even with this visibility and attention, the issue is by no means resolved - conditions for street dogs remain severe. Mortality is shockingly high with a study of free-ranging urban dogs in West Bengal finding that 67% of mortality occurred under the age of 4 months, and 82% of mortality occurred by 1 year (123). Even among the adults, year-on-year mortality is as high as 24% (123) or 30% (124). For stray cats, although there is no India specific data, mortality is also likely to be similarly high, especially when data shows that stray cats in the US have a 75% mortality rate before 6 months, mostly from trauma (125).
Stray cows often fare no better. They are typically abandoned male or unproductive female cows, a result of the dairy industry (98). Although they have greater freedom to express natural behaviors than many tethered cattle, they may suffer from wounds, illness and issues with the ingestion of inedible waste as they try to scavenge for food (98,126). One report found that 95% ingest hazardous materials such as plastics (127). For those that reach gaushalas (cow shelters), conditions are better in some regards but not consistently better overall. A cross-sectional welfare assessment of 54 gaushalas found small space allowance per cow, non-uniform flooring, little freedom of movement, and lack of access to pastures (128). As many as two-thirds of the shelters may be offering inadequate feed and water (98). They are often under-resourced, under trained and have limited access to veterinary care.
Fortunately there are numerous NGOs, municipal programmes, and judicial proceedings actively focused on this topic in India. The Indian government and judiciary has devoted significantly more attention and resources to stray dog management than for any other group of animals. The Animal Welfare Board of India maintains specific programmes, rules, and advisory frameworks for dogs. This stands in sharp contrast to all other animal issues where there is far less organised institutional activity relative to the scale of animals affected.
There may be scope to work on this problem as a movement building issue; attempting to mobilise and work with activists who are concerned for stray dogs. This could then potentially extend to more neglected and less visible groups of animals. While this theory has broad roots with progressive moral circle expansion (129) to other beings it is empirically unverified. Psychological literature offers a concrete mechanism for the inverse in that dog advocacy doesn't extend moral concern because it doesn't challenge the pet/food categorisation. Advocacy for companion animals is psychologically consistent with the same framework that enables indifference to chickens, because both treat "pet" as the trigger for moral concern rather than sentience or capacity to suffer. The case of cows is consistent with this hypothesis in that they have extraordinarily high status, sacred and with broadly higher concern (130), yet this has produced no extension of concern to other farmed animals. Even concern for cows is remarkably accepting of the ‘inevitability’ of their suffering in a way that does not seem to reflect genuine moral concern for individual welfare. The Indian context thus provides some of the evidence that a charismatic animals first approach doesn't automatically spillover in practice, with the majority (90%) of animal advocacy groups focussing on stray dogs (131), and other animal issues remaining severely underfunded and socially marginal.
2.2.8 Wild and liminal animal interactions
Outside of typically conceived stray animals there are many more liminal animal groups - animals that live in boundary spaces between human-dominated environments and nature - and a vast number of wild animals which we affect through many human activities and who experience harms in nature such as disease, adverse weather conditions, and starvation (132).
Liminal animal groups frequently come into contact and conflict with humans over crops (133,134) and livestock, with these conflicts even in some instances causing injury and death to humans (135). Major groups include rodents, birds (such as pigeons), macaques and monkeys, as well as stray dogs, cats and cows covered in 2.2.7. They rely on food waste, humans feeding them, and foraging in human settlements to survive.
Wild animal numbers are tremendous, including a relatively small number of charismatic megafauna such as tigers and elephants, smaller mammals, reptiles and birds, and a vast number of arthropods (136). However, many only directly interact with humans for a limited fraction of their lives often during death. This includes deaths through hunting and fishing, accidental deaths through road collisions, crop harvesting, deliberate population control from pesticides, or other control measures. While indirect effects occur for nearly every activity including but not limited to artificial lighting, fireworks, urban planning, domestic pets (137), pollution and air quality (138,139).
The breadth of activities and their impacts on the environment and wild animals is staggering but the field of wild animal welfare science is still in its early development (140). Some very foundational questions remain unanswered such as whether some animals’ lives in the wild might contain more suffering than wellbeing (141,142). This means while there are a large number of potential interventions to explore in this area, only a small number, often focused on anthropogenic harms, are currently well developed enough to begin work on. Instead, more expansive work in this area is often focused on developing the scientific discipline to further our understanding in this area.
2.2.9 Animals In experimentation
By far one of the most hidden animal populations are animals used for experimentation. Laboratory animals exist entirely outside public view, with limited transparency in reporting and restricted access to welfare organisations. India is the third largest producer of pharmaceuticals, accounting for approximately 20% of global generic medicine exports by volume (143). This industry drives demand for animal testing across drug development, safety testing, and biological manufacturing.
The total number of animals used in experiments in India each year is not publicly reported with the consistency or transparency seen in the EU, UK or US, where annual statistics are legally mandated. Estimates suggest the annual figure is in the hundreds of thousands to low millions, though this could undercount informal usage and non-registered facilities. The species most commonly used include mice, rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, frogs, non-human primates including rhesus macaques and bonnet macaques, dogs, zebrafish and various other species. The gap in India's reporting relative to peer nations is in and of itself a welfare concern, as it limits the ability of advocates, regulators, and the public to understand or address the problem.
The Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA), established under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, is the primary regulatory body overseeing animal experimentation, and more than 2300 laboratories are registered under it (144,145). Although, the conditions for animals used in experimentation are still by no means acceptable. A 2003 ADI/NAVS report found deplorable standards in the majority of 467 CPCSEA inspected laboratories, indicating weak follow-up (146). The very use of animals in experimentation is questionable and may amount to unnecessary suffering regardless of the ‘humaneness’ of their use (147).
2.2.10 Insects
We have kept this section short, but please reach out to us if you are interested in any insect welfare work in India.
India has several notable insect industries. It is the world’s largest producer of shellac (148), the second largest producer of silk (149,150) and has a nascent (but still extremely large in absolute terms) black soldier fly larvae population for feed industry (151,152). Lac bugs and silkworms respectively are raised to produce the first two.
While evidence for insect sentience is weaker than for vertebrate animals, we believe there is clearly non-negligible probabilities of sentience for all these species. Of these, evidence is strongest for black soldier flies (though at least somewhat weaker for their larvae). For silkworms there is some direct evidence of responses to noxious stimuli but generally there is a lack of evidence, and for lac bugs there is no direct evidence regarding their sentience, only possible extrapolation from other insect species (153). Additionally, as female adult lac bugs lose their legs and become non-motile, at that point they may be less likely to be sentient than other insect species because sentience would have less of a functional role for them.
Silk is produced through domesticated silkworms (Bombyx mori) reared on trays of mulberry leaves. By approximately 25–30 days, they spin protective cocoons made from a continuous protein filament. Before the pupa inside can metamorphose into a moth, which would break the filament, the cocoons are "stifled" by boiling, steaming, or sun-drying, killing the pupa inside. The cocoons are then softened in hot water to dissolve the binding gum (sericin) and the filaments are unwound onto reels and twisted into thread (154).
The most discussed welfare issue is the slaughter, and especially the potentially very painful method used. However, Rowe 2021 (155) suggests that slaughter might not be the primary source of welfare harm, instead it is disease. Globally silkworms live a total of between 15 trillion and 37 trillion days on farms, of which at least 180 billion to 1.3 trillion days involve some degree of potentially negative experience, such as being slaughtered or suffering from a disease. Though Indian silk production has increased since that estimate was calculated by ~25% to 41,121mt in 2023, suggesting the numbers of silkworm days on farms may have grown proportionally (154). Beyond the rearing period, the domestication of Bombyx mori itself raises concerns: domesticated females are so weighed down with eggs they can hardly walk.
Using mortality as a crude welfare indicator suggests there is significant scope for improvement across farms as mortality varies between 10% and 47% (156). In a geographic assessment of silkworm welfare campaigns by Che (2023), it was noted that India has a bigger problem with silkworm mortality than the other largest producer China which may indicate scope for improvement in the country (157).
Ahimsa silk, with which the moths are allowed to escape their cocoons before harvesting, is advertised as an ethical alternative. However, because the adults live short lives in potentially poor conditions with harmful genetics, it is unclear if this actually represents an improvement (158). Despite its scale, identifying interventions that are likely to help is challenging. Some interventions may be cost effective, but could be more difficult to implement than a first glance suggests.
Che 2023 (159) concludes that work on silkworms might be promising, either for reducing demand for silk or trying to secure welfare commitments, though it is less promising than work on insect welfare or farming, and so might not warrant an intervention just yet. See also (155) for more information on general interventions to help silkworms.
Lac is harvested by cutting the tree branches that hold lac along with the twigs they’re attached to. This is known as sticklac. The harvested sticklac is then crushed and sieved to remove impurities and repeatedly washed to remove insect parts and other material, resulting in the finished product, shellac. This process inevitably kills enormous numbers of insects - eggs, nymphs, and adults alike. An estimate from industry promotional material from 1913 suggests that it takes around 100,000 lac bugs to produce each pound of shellac, though it is not clear how this number was arrived at (160). There are other estimates of 50,000 - 300,000 per pound (158). However, some of these bugs may escape and so fewer than this number would be killed.
Dye (laccaic acid) production causes more direct harm than shellac production: the insects are kept in the sticklac for dye production because the red colour comes from their hemolymph (the insect equivalent of blood) staining the resin, so killing the insects is integral to the product. They typically die through exposure to the sun. By contrast, for shellac/seedlac production, most insects can escape because less coloured pale lac is generally more desired (158,160).
Because the industry already has an incentive to avoid killing lac bugs in the production of shellac, and because the death of the insects is essential for the production of laccaic acid, it is unclear what asks could be made of this industry. Additionally, sticklac is produced in India by large numbers of people who are often from scheduled tribes and impoverished. Working with scheduled tribes would be difficult because of how dispersed the industry is and it would carry ethical risks, requiring sensitivity (161).
The most promising route might be promotion of alternatives. Many alternative dyes already exist and a shellac alternative exists (zein) that may already outperform lac in many respects (162). Though it is not clear if there is a need for advocacy or if alternatives may just start to take over on their own. Finally, before any work on this subject commences, additional work on the sentience of lac bugs would be prudent.
The larvae of black soldier flies are raised with the principal intended market being livestock feed. The larvae are raised on a substrate of waste, byproducts or feed. Some larvae are raised to pupation and adulthood to propagate the next generation, but the majority are slaughtered as larvae.
The industry in many countries has struggled to achieve competitive price parity to enter markets, being relegated to niche markets such as premium petfood (163). Nevertheless, the industry has tried to achieve price parity with fish meal. In India this could unlock a large market, especially the Indian shrimp farming industry.
We did not find attempts to quantify the size or growth rate of the total size of the black soldier fly larvae industry in India. A next step for research on this subject in India would include our own estimates of size and growth rates based on available data.
For now, we present some indicative data points. Tracxn (164) lists 32 insect farming startups in India, of which eight have funding. Of these, GreenGrahi has recently raised $3.73m USD (165). These numbers represent very large numbers of insects being raised, though they are smaller from a global perspective with an estimated 2 billion being invested in insect farming globally (166).
While significant parts of India have a favourable climate (temperatures between 27c and 32c and 60% to 80% humidity) for the rearing of black soldier fly larvae, which significantly reduces capital costs, there is not a lack of supply of feed for livestock in India as a whole (167). Lack of supply has been a big factor making the industry more competitive in countries like Kenya, and without that the industry must either follow a premium, export orientated approach or must be cost competitive with fish meal and fish oil on its own accord. There are some indications that low value substrates that might be used in Indian black soldier fly farming have become more expensive, which could make it difficult to achieve cost parity with fish meal (168).
One approach to cost parity which has been taken in other areas such as Kenya and Nepal is to feed a variety of waste products to the animals – whatever can be easily sourced and causes reasonable growth rates. These farms sometimes regard themselves first as “waste management sites” and can resemble garbage dumps. There appear to be some forms of this kind emerging in India - for example, this farm producing 360kg of larvae per day (169) (170). This is worrying and should be monitored, although, this model does remain more susceptible to potential public health and food safety standards.
India has no regulations relating to black soldier fly larvae. This gives the industry free reign, but it likely deters investment in the industry when compared to a scenario where they had permissive regulations. This is because investors cannot be sure of the form that the regulations would take, and if their investment might run afoul of future regulations (171). The industry also currently has no standards regarding their production, limiting potential for export (171).
2.2.11 Not Covered
Comprehensive coverage of all animal populations would also cover other animal groups such as companion animals, animals in entertainment, and several other species of farmed animals including but not limited to orange mud crab, pigs, rabbits, turkeys, geese and ducks. In earlier stages of our work we considered a wide number of reforms that would also assist these groups, however, due to their relatively smaller numbers they have not been a priority in this report. Some do represent significant welfare harms such as the approximately 98 million mud crabs (6) or 9.5 million pigs raised and slaughtered each year (172). However, even at these significant figures we have been forced to focus on other areas due to their relatively higher scale and the potential for tractable reforms.
3. Consumer behaviour
Understanding consumer behavior is important for a variety of campaigns. Any private sector work tacitly relies on consumers' concern for animal welfare and willingness to pay for improvements. Second order effects for campaigns and a wide variety of policy instruments vary depending on shifts in demand between products and existing consumption levels (for example, if the price of animal product rises there may be substitution with another). All these factors can significantly alter which interventions do or do not look promising in a given context.
Baseline for concern for animals has a principled basis in major Indian religions, most notably Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism. Ahimsa, or non-violence, is a foundational principle across these religions, and this principle is taken to apply to animals as well (173). This is also reflected in high rates of vegetarianism, though a significant reason for this might be better characterized as spiritual concerns, rather than concern for the animals themselves.
Surveys on Indian public attitudes towards animals themselves appear to partially support a greater concern for animals, though this has not been found in all dimensions, and concern may not be dramatically greater than other countries. Having said this, data is limited, and this is a difficult subject to study.
Sinclair 2019 (174) conducted 17 focus groups across China, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, India and Bangladesh regarding attitudes towards animal welfare. The focus was on what kinds of benefits they perceived in improving animal welfare. Relative to these other countries, Indian respondents expressed greater concern about animal welfare for the sake of the animals themselves (though this was still not the most widely cited reason among them). They also expressed a more One Health view of animal welfare, with some stressing that human and animal welfare are the same. This is preliminary, but lends some support to use of this concept in India.
In a subsequent survey of 4,291 members of the public across 14 countries including India, Sinclair (2022) (175) found more average concern for the importance of non-human animal welfare compared to other countries. Still, 86.1% of those surveyed agreed that animal protection laws are important and 84% said that they understand the meaning of “animal welfare”. The Indian public generally think that chickens can feel pain (87.2%) and have emotions (78%) with similar numbers agreeing with this statement for fish (175). A recent survey results from India Karuna Collaborative in 2026 (176) found lower but comparable results: 70% of participants believe farmed animals are sentient beings who experience suffering.
Concerning animal welfare at slaughter, 60.8% of Indians (accurately) believe that most animals in the country are slaughtered while fully conscious, 9.8% believe that they are not and 29.2% don't know (177). Given the widespread slaughter of animals in live markets, this is a surprisingly low level of awareness. Respondents generally thought that stunning was important, would prefer to eat meat that was stunned before slaughter, and expressed one of the highest rates of discomfort at viewing an animal slaughtered in front of them (177).
India’s consumption of animal products is low by global standards at 82.6 kg per capita compared to a global average of 143 kg. Of this, milk consumption accounts for the large majority at 66.3 kg per person (178). The remaining 15.9kg of consumption of other animal products is dramatically low by global standards.
Consumption of the animal products responsible for the most suffering are aquatic animals (“seafood”) at 7.9 kg per person, eggs at 3.9 kg, and poultry at 2.6 kg (178). Indian consumers prefer to buy chickens from live bird markets and processed chicken meat represents a much smaller proportion of total chicken consumption in the country (178). The meat and eggs of indigenous chickens is also preferred, with consumers willing to pay higher prices for them (179). Chicken consumption has also become much more widespread as production has intensified and become cheaper (180).
Demand for these products is somewhat sensitive to price, with the FAO reporting own-price elasticity of demand for meat or fish or eggs of -0.75 in rural areas and -0.68 in urban areas (181). Point estimates vary across time and estimation methods, with Kumar et al (2011) finding -0.821 for the same food category (182). Still what is consistent is elasticity is moderate to high for these commodities, particularly when compared to staples such as rice and pulses, and more so in rural rather than urban areas.
Between products, there is weak evidence that fish is a substitute for poultry products (183) which is not true in most countries where terrestrial animals are substitutes for each other and aquatic animals, but not so much between categories. This pattern of substitution between fish and chicken is relevant given the welfare implications: campaigns or policies that increase the price of chicken could shift consumption towards farmed fish and vice versa.
A notable gap is the absence of India-specific cross-price elasticity estimates between animal products and plant-based alternatives. Formal estimates of cross-price relationships between poultry and other foods in India are not readily available. As the plant-based protein market is still nascent in India this is not surprising, but it means the potential of alternative proteins to displace animal product consumption cannot currently be estimated with precision. This is an important area for future research to inform the alternative proteins strategy outlined in section 5.9.
The large populations of vegetarians in India pull total per capita consumption figures down. The population of vegetarians in the country may be as high as 39% according to self identification, though other sources state this may be exaggerated and the real number might be between 20% and 30% (178). Eggs are generally considered to be a form of meat (as they are potential life), so vegetarians are generally lacto-vegetarians in practise. By far, most of the vegetarians in India are Hindu, which corresponds to their large share of the population (84%) and high rates of vegetarianism among them. Though higher than expected rates of vegetarianism can also be seen in Muslim and Christian Indians, representing perhaps a wider cultural effect, as well as the access to vegetarian options. The highest rates however, are seen in Sikhs and especially Jains.
Figure 9: Percent of Indian adults who are vegetarian 2019-2020 (178)
Rates of vegetarianism also vary by caste, with the “higher castes” of Vaishyas and especially Brahmins showing higher rates of vegetarianism, and “lower caste” Dalits having lower rates of vegetarianism (180,184). Consumption of meat is considered to be impure in this caste system, with some meats being considered more impure than others. The consumption of beef being most impure, and restrictions on the slaughter of cows is widespread in India (180).
Animal product consumption also varies considerably by region, with north western and central northern parts of India being more vegetarian, while southern and north eastern India consume more animal products (178). For example, more than 97% of the population in Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Odisha consume meat, fowl and fish (62).
Having said this, India is seeing increased rates of animal consumption following its expanding income, a pattern seen across countries, with very few exceptions (185). However, interestingly, among Brahmin castes rising income is actually associated with higher rates of vegetarianism (180).
India is currently self-sufficient in most of its animal product consumption, but rising animal product consumption is predicted to necessitate increasing imports to feed these animals, as arable land is already strained (178).
Figure 10: Per capita consumption of animal products by kilogram 1961-2020 (178)
Read the report
Part 1: The scale of animal use in India (you are here)
6.0 References
References are not reproduced here for length. All 419 sources cited across the report are listed in full in the PDF, which you can download above.
Comments