INTRODUCTION:

There is growing interest in how livestock-based agribusiness can drive economic development and enhance food security in developing countries, particularly in Bangladesh (Rashid et al., 2023). As a critical component of Bangladesh’s agricultural economy, livestock-based agribusiness significantly contributes to rural livelihoods and national food security (Rahman et al., 2020). The sector is currently undergoing a significant transformation, shifting from traditional small-scale farms to more strategically located commercial livestock farms integrated with modern production techniques, processing units, and market linkages (Mujeri et al., 2021). This evolution is driven by technological advancements, digitalization, and changing consumer preferences, all of which are collectively pushing the livestock sector toward higher levels of performance and innovation (Mujeri et al., 2021). Despite these advancements, the potential for further growth in livestock-based agribusiness in Bangladesh remains substantial, highlighting the need for a deeper exploration of the factors that could enable or hinder this potential.

However, while the existing literature has extensively examined the growth and transformation of livestock farming in Bangladesh, significant challenges remain unresolved (Mujeri et al., 2021, Herrero et al., 2013). Issues such as limited access to modern technology, inadequate financial resources, and insufficient training infrastructure continue to impede the full realization of the sector’s potential (Sarker et al., 2021; Rahman et al., 2023; Usha and Devakumar, 2018). Moreover, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated these challenges, disrupting traditional business operations and highlighting the need for more resilient and adaptive strategies within the sector (Haque et al., 2022). These unresolved challenges underscore the importance of examining how the livestock-based agribusiness sector can overcome these barriers and contribute more effectively to Bangladesh’s economic and food security goals.

The central question guiding this research is: What is the current status, key challenges, and future growth potential of livestock-based agribusiness farms in Bangladesh? To answer this question, this study employs a cross-sectional questionnaire survey to collect data from livestock farmers across Bangladesh. The findings offer critical insights that can inform policy formulation, investment decisions, and strategic development initiatives aimed at enhancing the competitiveness and sustainability of the livestock agribusiness sector. By addressing these key issues, this research can contribute to the robust development of livestock-based agribusiness in Bangladesh, ultimately strengthening the sector’s role in the national economy and food security.

The remainder of this study is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews the relevant literature. Section 3 explains the research methodology. Section 4 presents and discusses the research findings. Finally, Section 5 concludes with an examination of the implications and limitations, along with recommendations for future research.

LITERATURE REVIEW:

The livestock-based agribusiness sector is a crucial part of Bangladesh’s agricultural landscape, contributing 1.60% to the national gross domestic product (GDP) and 14.31% to the agricultural GDP in the fiscal year 2016-17, with an average annual growth rate of 3.31% (Bhuiyan et al., 2017). This sector includes cattle, buffalo, goats, sheep, horses, and pigs, all of which have shown steady population growth over the past eight years (DLS, 2016). Although indigenous breeds are predominant, about 20% of cattle are crossbred with exotic varieties, reflecting ongoing improvements in livestock management (Bhuiyan et al., 2017). Smallholders, who typically manage 1-2 cattle, 2-4 goats or sheep, and some poultry, dominate the sector. Livestock is a vital asset for rural communities, providing nutrition, income, employment, and empowerment, especially for women. Notably, up to 70% of Bangladesh’s livestock is owned by non-farm and smallholder households, underscoring the significance of small-scale farming (Khan et al., 2009; Bhuiyan et al., 2017).

Entrepreneurship plays a crucial role in fostering economic growth by creating jobs and reducing global unemployment rates (Hashmi, 2024; Sagar et al., 2023; Aggarwal and Malhotra, 2018; Dutta, 2018). In Bangladesh, the livestock-based agribusiness sector, particularly poultry farming, is a cornerstone of the agricultural economy, with women significantly contributing alongside their household duties (Begum et al., 2019; Patel, 2024; Ahmed et al., 2018, Akoijam, 2017). This sector, known for its rapid expansion and profitability, has transformed many small-scale operations into large industrial ventures. The income generated from the sale of poultry and eggs is vital for supporting households, enabling them to meet financial challenges and enhance their quality of life. Women’s active participation in poultry farming not only boosts household finances but also plays a critical role in strengthening the broader national economy, indicating significant potential for further growth in this sector (Begum et al., 2019). Additionally, the effective management of poultry waste, an inevitable byproduct, has gained importance, with programs such as Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and the Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP) promoting sustainable practices. The entrepreneurial qualities of risk-taking, expertise, and innovation, especially among women (Palanivelu and Manikandan, 2018), are essential in driving the continued success and expansion of livestock-based agribusinesses, contributing to both the economic and social progress of Bangladesh (Karimi, 2018; Das et al., 2008; Begum et al., 2019).

The livestock production system in Bangladesh is undergoing significant changes (Huque and Huda, 2016). Rising demand, driven by population growth, urbanization, and changes in income and dietary habits, is shifting traditional farming practices to more input-intensive, commercial systems amidst growing concerns about climate change (Thornton, 2010). Both farm and non-farm households are engaged in livestock rearing, with small-scale operations accounting for 67.1% to 82.6% of the livestock population, which includes 43.98 million farm animals and 137.2 million poultry (Huque and Huda, 2016). The recent expansion of commercial ventures, such as poultry farming, cattle fattening, and dairy production, is altering the traditional link between landholding size and livestock ownership. Even landless farmers are integrating dairy farming into their livelihoods, showing adaptability to changing economic conditions (Huque, 2014; Bhuiyan et al., 2017). However, challenges such as limited financial resources, inadequate technology, and insufficient training infrastructure persist.

These issues are further compounded by economic and nutritional disparities. Per capita consumption of milk and meat in Bangladesh is low, at 14.3 kg and 8.9 kg annually, meeting only 15.6% and 20.3% of nutritional needs, significantly below the averages in other developing nations (BBS, 2012; Thornton, 2010; Bhuiyan et al., 2017). Conversely, per capita egg consumption, at 115 annually, is close to the average in other developing countries (BBS, 2012). These nutritional gaps highlight the need for targeted interventions to improve food security and public health. Although previous studies have explored the contribution of the livestock sector to Bangladesh’s economy, they have overlooked the challenges that exist in this sector. Therefore, understanding the current status, challenges, and opportunities in the livestock sector is essential for effective policy development. This study aims to provide an empirical analysis of the sector, offering insights for policymakers, investors, and stakeholders, with the goal of contributing to the sustainable development of livestock-based agribusiness in Bangladesh, thereby enhancing the sector’s role in the national economy and improving food security.

METHODOLOGY:

Study area: The research was conducted in two distinct regions of Bangladesh: Mymensingh and Gazipur.

Sample selection: A purposive sampling technique was employed to select a group of sixty (60) participants from livestock-focused agribusiness enterprises. The participants were primarily business owners within the sector.

Questionnaire preparation: Data collection was carried out using a structured questionnaire divided into two sections: Section I and Section II. Section I collected demographic information, including gender, age, education level, and marital status. Section II comprised 29 questions designed to explore the current status, opportunities, and challenges faced by major livestock-oriented agribusinesses in Bangladesh, such as dairy farms, poultry farms, feed production facilities, meat processing units, and similar operations. Before implementation, the questionnaire was thoroughly reviewed by distinguished academics from Bangladesh Agricultural University to ensure clarity and accuracy of language and questions.

Data collection: We used both primary and secondary data sources in this study. Primary data were collected using the prepared questionnaire over an eight-month period from July 2021 to February 2022. The English-language questionnaires were distributed to key stakeholders in the livestock agribusiness sector, who then provided their responses. The distribution was managed by authors and enumerators, with participants being informed of their right to withdraw at any time. Participation was entirely voluntary, with no financial incentives provided. Secondary data were sourced from books, academic journals, and relevant research publications.

Analytical technique: The study adopted a qualitative research approach to explore the current conditions, challenges, and future potential of the livestock agribusiness sector. The collected data were analyzed using IBM SPSS 20.0 software (Armonk, NY, USA). Frequency distribution tables were created to align with the study’s objectives, and the findings were presented using descriptive statistical methods.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

Demographic characteristics of respondents:

Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the respondents. The gender distribution is highly skewed, with an overwhelming majority of male respondents (98.3%) and only one female respondent (1.7%), indicating a significant gender imbalance among the participants. In terms of age distribution, the largest group of respondents falls within the 36 to 50-year age range, making up 51.7% of the sample. Specifically, 13 respondents (21.7%) are aged 36 to 40 years, while 9 respondents each (15%) are in the 41 to 45 and 46 to 50-year age brackets. Around a quarter of the respondents (26.6%) are younger than 31 years, with equal representation (13.3% each) in the under-25 and 26 to 30-year categories. A smaller segment, 9 individuals (15%), are over 50 years old, indicating that while the sample includes a broad age range, it is primarily concentrated in the mid-30s to 50-year range. Regarding educational qualifications, the data reveals that the majority of respondents (51.7%) have education levels below the Secondary School Certificate (SSC), highlighting a lower level of formal education among the participants. Another 26.7% have completed SSC, 15% have achieved a Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC), 5% hold an Honors degree, and only 1 respondent (1.7%) has a Master’s degree. This distribution suggests that most respondents have limited formal education, which may impact their farming practices and business decisions. Finally, the marital status data indicates that a significant majority of respondents (88.3%) are married, with only 7 respondents (11.7%) being single. This suggests that most participants have family responsibilities, which could influence their approach to managing their farms and making long-term decisions. Overall, the data provides a clear picture of a predominantly male, middle-aged, and married group with limited formal education, which may have implications for the dynamics of livestock farming in the studied region.

Table 1. Demographics of respondents

		Frequency	Percent
Gender	Male	59	98.3
Gender	Female	1	1.7
Age range	Less than 25	8	13.3
	26-30	8	13.3
	31-35	4	6.7
	36-40	13	21.7
	41-45	9	15
	46-50	9	15
	More than 50	9	15
	Total	60	100
Educational qualification	Below SSC	31	51.7
	SSC	16	26.7
	HSC	9	15
	Honors	3	5
	Masters	1	1.7
	Total	60	100
Marital status	Single	7	11.7
	Married	53	88.3
	Total	60	100

Type of ownership and number of employees in the farms

Table 2 presents the types of ownership and the number of employees in the respondents’ farms. The table shows that 53 respondents (88.3%) operate their enterprises as sole proprietorships. Additionally, it indicates that 55 respondents (91.7%) employ fewer than 10 workers. This suggests that most of these farms are likely small or medium-sized enterprises, potentially reflecting the overall scale and nature of livestock-based agribusiness in the studied region.

Table 2. Type of ownership and number of employees in the farms

		Frequency	Percent
Ownership type	Sole Proprietorship	53	88.3
	Partnership	7	11.7
	Total	60	100
Number of employees	Less than 10	55	91.7
	10-20	5	8.3
	Total	60	100

Duration of experience in running farms

Table 3 illustrates the duration of experience among respondents in running livestock-based farms. Of the 60 respondents, the largest group—29 respondents (48.3%)—have between 5 and 10 years of experience. This is followed by 15 respondents (25%) with less than 5 years of experience. Eleven respondents (18.3%) have been running farms for 11 to 15 years, while 4 respondents (6.7%) have more than 20 years of experience. Only 1 respondent (1.7%) has been managing a farm for 16 to 20 years. This distribution reflects a diverse range of experience levels among the respondents, with a predominant concentration in the 5 to 10 years bracket.

Table 3. Duration of experience in running farms.

	Frequency	Percent
Less than 5 years	15	25
5-10 years	29	48.3
11-15 years	11	18.3
16-20 years	1	1.7
More than 20 years	4	6.7
Total	60	100

Reasons for starting the own farm

Table 4 illustrates the reasons respondents started their own farms. The majority, 38 respondents (63.3%), indicated that their primary motivation was survival. Additionally, 9 respondents (15%) mentioned that they were driven by a desire to try something new. Other motivations included wanting to be a role model, cited by 5 respondents (8.3%), and fulfilling a childhood dream, mentioned by 3 respondents (5%). A smaller group of respondents started their farms to make a difference in society (3 respondents, 5%) or to carry on a passed-on legacy (2 respondents, 3.3%). This diversity of motivations highlights the various personal and practical factors influencing the decision to start a farm.

Table 4. Reasons for starting the own farm.

	Frequency	Percent
Make a difference in society	3	5
To accept passed on legacy	2	3.3
To survive	38	63.3
To try something new	9	15
Childhood dream	3	5
To be a role model	5	8.3
Total	60	100

Level of satisfaction in running own farms and recommendation to youth for engagement in Agribusiness

Table 5 presents the respondents’ levels of satisfaction in running their own farms and their recommendations to youth regarding engagement in agribusiness. The data indicates that a significant portion of the respondents—21 individuals (35%)—are satisfied with their farming businesses, with an additional 9 respondents (15%) reporting being very satisfied. This suggests that half of the respondents have a positive outlook on their farming ventures. However, 17 respondents (28.3%) are neutral, indicating that they neither feel satisfied nor dissatisfied, possibly reflecting mixed feelings or uncertainty about their experiences. On the other hand, 13 respondents (21.7%) expressed dissatisfaction with their farming activities, highlighting a notable level of discontent among some participants. Regarding the encouragement of youth engagement in agribusiness, the table shows a generally positive sentiment, with 25 respondents (41.7%) agreeing that young people should be encouraged to start agribusinesses and 14 respondents (23.3%) strongly agreeing. This majority support indicates a favorable view of agribusiness as a viable career path for the younger generation. However, 18 respondents (30%) are neutral, possibly reflecting indecision or a lack of strong opinion on the matter. A small minority—3 respondents (5%)—disagree with recommending agribusiness to youth, suggesting that some may perceive challenges or risks in the industry that make it less attractive for new entrants. Overall, the data portrays a generally positive outlook on both satisfaction with farming and the potential for youth involvement in agribusiness, albeit with some reservations among certain respondents.

Table 5. Level of satisfaction in running own farms and recommendation to youth for engagement in agribusiness.

		Frequency	Percent
Satisfaction level of entrepreneurs	Dissatisfied	13	21.7
	Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied	17	28.3
	Satisfied	21	35
	Very satisfied	9	15
	Total	60	100
Whether to recommend agribusiness to the youth or not	Disagree	3	5
	Neutral	18	30
	Agree	25	41.7
	Strongly agree	14	23.3
	Total	60	100

Challenges faced by the owners of livestock farms

Table 6 presents the challenges faced by the owners of livestock farms, categorized into start-up challenges and challenges related to exporting their products. For start-up challenges, the data shows that a significant majority of respondents, 37 individuals (61.7%), encountered financial crises when starting their businesses. This highlights financial difficulty as the most common obstacle for new livestock farm owners. Additionally, 7 respondents (11.7%) reported a lack of information as a challenge, and another 7 respondents (11.7%) indicated that they relied on support from their families to overcome initial difficulties. A smaller number of respondents, 2 individuals (3.3%), struggled with balancing domestic and professional life, while 1 respondent (1.7%) experienced doubts about their self-confidence. Interestingly, 6 respondents (10%) reported facing no obstacles at all during the start-up phase. In terms of challenges related to exporting, the table reveals that the majority of respondents, 32 individuals (53.3%), identified a lack of experience as the main barrier to exporting their products to international markets. Additionally, 12 respondents (20%) cited difficulty in finding buyers, and another 12 respondents (20%) mentioned the lack of high-quality livestock as a significant challenge. A smaller proportion, 4 respondents (6.7%), reported difficulties in obtaining an export license. Overall, the data indicates that financial and informational challenges are significant at the start-up stage, while experience and market access are critical barriers to exporting.

Table 6. Challenges faced by the owners of livestock farms.

		Frequency	Percent
Challenges of start-up	Combining domestic and professional life	2	3.3
	Doubt of self-confidence	1	1.7
	Financial crisis	37	61.7
	Lack of information	7	11.7
	No obstacles	6	10
	Support from family	7	11.7
	Total	60	100
Challenges to export	Difficulty in finding buyers	12	20
	Difficulty in getting export license	4	6.7
	Lack of experience	32	53.3
	Lack of high-quality livestock	12	20
	Total	60	100

Ways of advertisement of livestock by the respondents.

Table 7 presents the methods used by respondents to advertise their livestock. The data reveals that the vast majority of respondents, 52 individuals (86.7%), rely on word of mouth as their primary advertising method. This indicates a strong preference for informal, personal communication channels within the livestock community. In contrast, only 4 respondents (6.7%) use paid search advertising, and another 4 respondents (6.7%) use social media advertising to promote their livestock. This suggests that while digital advertising methods are present, they are far less common compared to traditional word-of-mouth approaches.

Table 7. Ways of advertisement of livestock by the respondents.

	Frequency	Percent
Paid search advertising	4	6.7
Social media advertising	4	6.7
Word of mouth	52	86.7
Total	60	100

Investment, sources of fund, and break-even scenarios of respondents.

Table 8 provides an overview of the respondents’ investment levels, sources of funding, and break-even scenarios for their livestock farms. The data reveals that a significant majority of respondents, 40 individuals (66.7%), invested less than 5 lacs in starting their farms. Smaller groups made higher investments, with 10 respondents (16.7%) investing between 5 and 10 lacs, 7 respondents (11.7%) investing between 11 and 15 lacs, 2 respondents (3.3%) investing between 16 and 20 lacs, and only 1 respondent (1.7%) investing between 26 and 30 lacs. Notably, no respondents reported investments above 30 lacs or between 21 and 25 lacs. Regarding sources of funding, the table shows that the most common source was personal savings, with 22 respondents (36.7%) financing their farms through this method. Friends and family members were another significant source of funds, cited by 18 respondents (30%). Commercial banks provided funding for 10 respondents (16.7%), while commercial finance companies funded 7 respondents (11.7%). A smaller number of respondents, 3 individuals (5%), relied on partners for their funding. None of the respondents obtained funds from brokerage houses. In terms of break-even scenarios, 22 respondents (36.7%) reported reaching the break-even point within less than two years of starting their farms. Another 20 respondents (33.3%) achieved break-even within 2 to 3 years. A smaller group, 13 respondents (21.7%), reached break-even in 4 to 5 years, while 4 respondents (6.7%) did so within 6 to 7 years. Only 1 respondent (1.7%) took more than 7 years to reach the break-even point. Overall, the data reflects a cautious investment approach, reliance on personal and informal funding sources, and varied timelines for financial viability among livestock farm owners.

Table 8: Investment, sources of fund, and break-even scenarios of respondents

		Frequency	Percent
Investment	Less than 5 lacs	40	66.7
	5-10 lacs	10	16.7
	11-15 lacs	7	11.7
	16-20 lacs	2	3.3
	21-25 lacs	0	0
	26-30 lacs	1	1.7
	More than 30 lacs	0	0
	Total	60	100
Sources of fund	Brokerage House	0	0
	Commercial banks	10	16.7
	Commercial Finance Companies	7	11.7
	Friends and family members	18	30
	Partners	3	5
	Personal savings	22	36.7
	Total	60	100
Break-Even	2-3 years	20	33.3
	4-5 years	13	21.7
	6-7 years	4	6.7
	Less than 2 years	22	36.7
	More than 7 years	1	1.7
	Total	60	100

Use of websites by respondents

This research finds that an overwhelming majority of respondents, 59 individuals (98.3%), indicated that they do not have a website for their farms. Only 1 respondent (1.7%) reported having a website. This data suggests that the use of digital platforms, specifically websites, is extremely limited among the respondents for managing and promoting their livestock farms. The lack of an online presence could be a significant barrier to reaching broader markets, enhancing visibility, and potentially improving business operations. This finding highlights an opportunity for these businesses to modernize and expand their reach through the adoption of digital tools and platforms.

Regarding the adoption of e-commerce

The study reveals that 56 respondents (93.3%) have not adopted e-commerce for selling their products, while only 4 respondents (6.7%) have done so. This low adoption rate suggests that many livestock farm owners may be missing opportunities to expand their customer base and improve sales through digital channels. The reluctance to adopt e-commerce may stem from factors such as lack of knowledge, perceived complexity, or limited resources. Encouraging the adoption of e-commerce could help these businesses reach broader markets and enhance their competitiveness.

Impacts of COVID-19 on farms

Table 9 presents the impacts of COVID-19 on livestock farms. The most significant effect reported by respondents was a decrease in profitability, with 28 individuals (46.7%) indicating that their farms became less profitable due to the pandemic. This suggests that nearly half of the farm owners experienced financial difficulties during this period, likely due to disruptions in supply chains, reduced market demand, or increased operational costs. Other notable impacts include a reduction in salaries, as reported by 7 respondents (11.7%), and an increase in layoffs, with 6 respondents (10%) indicating they had to let go of employees. These figures highlight the broader economic strain faced by farm owners, affecting both their ability to maintain workforce levels and pay wages. Interestingly, none of the respondents reported undergoing digital transformation as a response to the pandemic, which could suggest a missed opportunity to adapt to changing market conditions and consumer behaviors. Additionally, 11 respondents (18.3%) stated that COVID-19 had no significant impact on their operations, indicating variability in how different farms were affected. A smaller number of respondents reported more severe outcomes, with 5 individuals (8.3%) indicating that they were forced to close their farms, and 3 respondents (5%) seeking funding through relief programs to sustain their operations. Overall, the data illustrates the varied and significant impacts of COVID-19 on livestock farms, with decreased profitability being the most common challenge. The absence of digital transformation among respondents may point to a need for greater support and resources to help farms adapt to future disruptions.

Table 9: Impact of COVID-19 on farms.

	Frequency	Percent
Decreasing profitability	28	46.7
Decreasing salaries	7	11.7
Digital transformation	0	0
Increasing layoffs	6	10
No impacts	11	18.3
Seek funding through the relief	3	5
Closing the farm	5	8.3
Total	60	100

Current position of farms compared to competitors

The study reveals that a significant majority of respondents, 42 individuals (70%), find it difficult to assess whether their farms are performing better than their competitors, likely due to a lack of market intelligence or benchmarking tools. Meanwhile, 12 respondents (20%) believe their farms are better positioned, while 6 respondents (10%) feel they are not outperforming their competitors. This underscores the need for improved access to market information and competitive analysis to help farm owners make more informed decisions and enhance their market position.

Current conditions of farms

The research shows that 36 respondents (60%) reported their farms are running normally, indicating stability without significant growth. Meanwhile, 14 respondents (23.3%) said their farms are blooming, reflecting substantial growth, while 10 respondents (16.7%) are facing losses. This highlights a divide between thriving farms and those struggling, emphasizing the need to address factors driving both success and challenges in the sector.

Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis of the farms

The study conducts a SWOT analysis of the farms, highlighting the respondents’ views on their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The data shows that 33 respondents (55%) identified excellent customer service as their primary strength, while 35 respondents (58.3%) pointed to a lack of capital as their main weakness. Additionally, 27 respondents (45%) see expanding their market share as the most significant opportunity, and 23 respondents (38.3%) consider price fluctuations the biggest threat to their operations. This analysis underscores the importance of financial resources and market stability for the success of these farms, as well as the value placed on customer service and market expansion.

Required academic degrees and skills to be an entrepreneur in the Agribusiness sectors

This study presents the academic degrees and essential skills identified by respondents as necessary for entrepreneurship in the agribusiness sector. The data shows that 29 respondents (48.3%) hold a BSc or higher degree in Veterinary Medicine (DVM), making it the most common academic qualification among the respondents. Additionally, 23 respondents (38.3%) have a BSc or higher degree in Agribusiness or Husbandry, while 8 respondents (13.3%) possess a BBA or higher degree in Management. Notably, none of the respondents have a degree in Agriculture. Regarding essential skills for entrepreneurship, 25 respondents (41.7%) highlighted courage and risk-taking as the most crucial traits for success in the agribusiness sector. Perseverance was identified by 10 respondents (16.7%), ambition by 9 respondents (15%), self-confidence by 8 respondents (13.3%), and willingness to learn by 6 respondents (10%). Creativity was deemed important by only 2 respondents (3.3%). This analysis indicates that higher education in Veterinary Medicine and Agribusiness/Husbandry is highly valued among livestock-based agribusiness entrepreneurs. Furthermore, the emphasis on courage and risk-taking suggests that these traits are perceived as vital for navigating the challenges and uncertainties inherent in the agribusiness sector.

Availability of enough training institutions to train the entrepreneurs

The study reveals respondents’ views on the availability of sufficient training institutions for entrepreneurs in the agribusiness sector. The data shows that an overwhelming majority, 55 respondents (91.7%), believe that there are not enough training institutions to adequately support and promote their farms. Only 5 respondents (8.3%) indicated that they believe the available training institutions are sufficient. This significant gap in perceived availability suggests a widespread need for more accessible and comprehensive training opportunities for agribusiness entrepreneurs. The lack of adequate training institutions could hinder the development and growth of farms by limiting entrepreneurs’ ability to acquire essential skills and knowledge. Addressing this issue by establishing more training centers or enhancing existing ones could play a crucial role in improving the overall performance and sustainability of the agribusiness sector.

Ways of teaching entrepreneurial roles to other potential entrepreneurs

The study finds that a majority, 43 respondents (71.7%), consider conducting public seminars as the most effective method. Other methods, such as sharing educational materials and motivational videos on social media or personal websites, were each favored by 8 respondents (13.3%), while developing interactive applications for mobile devices was the least preferred, with only 1 respondent (1.7%) supporting this approach. This suggests a strong preference for in-person, interactive learning experiences over digital methods.

Regarding the government policies whether these are favorable or not

The study finds that 31 respondents (51.7%) are unsure whether the existing government policies are favorable for their farms. Only 9 respondents (15%) believe that the policies are favorable, while 20 respondents (33.3%) feel they are not. This indicates a significant level of uncertainty and skepticism among farm owners regarding the impact of government policies on their operations.

Regarding the export of livestock-based products in international markets

The study finds that all 60 respondents (100%) reported that they do not export their livestock-based products, which include dairy items (such as milk, cheese, and yogurt), meat products (including beef, mutton, and goat meat), poultry products (such as chicken, duck, and eggs), and leather goods. This suggests that the current farming methods employed by these respondents may not be sufficient to support or enable international exports, indicating a significant barrier to accessing global markets.

Regarding the ways of maintaining the quality of livestock

The research finds the most common method for maintaining livestock quality among respondents is focusing on continuous improvement, with 27 respondents (45%) adopting this approach. This is followed by inspecting livestock throughout the farming process, chosen by 14 respondents (23.3%), and testing livestock, used by 11 respondents (18.3%). Developing specifications for quality livestock is less common, with only 8 respondents (13.3%) employing this method, while none of the respondents (0%) audit potential and existing suppliers. The data suggests a strong emphasis on internal practices for quality maintenance, with less focus on formal specifications or supplier audits.

IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS, FUTURE RESEARCH, AND CONCLUSION

Implications for research and practice

This research makes a significant contribution to the study of agribusiness within the livestock sector in Bangladesh. From a theoretical standpoint, it evaluates the current status, challenges, and future potential of agribusiness at the foundational level. A notable gap exists in the research exploring the development prospects of the livestock sector in Bangladesh. This study addresses that gap by thoroughly examining the status, challenges, and growth opportunities for livestock-based agribusinesses in the country. Consequently, it enhances theoretical understanding by providing a comprehensive overview of the livestock farming landscape.

The empirical findings of this study offer valuable insights that could inform the development of practical guidelines for expanding and advancing livestock-based farms in Bangladesh. The study reveals that many entrepreneurs in this sector face financial difficulties during the start-up phase, often relying heavily on personal savings for funding. As a result, there is a clear need for government intervention to facilitate access to bank loans and to encourage entrepreneurship in the sector. Additionally, the study identifies price fluctuations as a major threat to the success of livestock-based farms. Policymakers should take appropriate measures, such as regular market monitoring, to stabilize prices and thereby enhance the sustainability of these farms. The research also highlights a significant lag in the adoption of digital tools, with most farms lacking websites and e-commerce capabilities, relying predominantly on word-of-mouth for advertising. To address this, policymakers should ensure better internet access and provide training for agribusiness entrepreneurs, enabling them to leverage electronic advertising methods and establish an online presence. This would likely boost overall sales and profitability for these farms. Furthermore, the study finds that nearly all the farms surveyed do not engage in exporting their products to international markets, primarily due to a lack of experience and insufficient product quality. Respondents also expressed concerns that current government policies do not favor the development of their farms. To address these issues, there is a need to produce higher-quality livestock-based products and revise government policies to facilitate access to international markets. Additionally, the establishment of more training institutions would help equip new entrepreneurs with the skills needed to overcome challenges and ensure the long-term sustainability of their farms.

Limitations and future research

There are several limitations to the present study that should be acknowledged. First, data collection from livestock-based farms posed challenges due to the diversity of farm types and the limited time available for the study. Second, the sample size was selected using purposive sampling, which, while useful in some contexts, is not ideal for gathering data from a large population. This method is prone to researcher and sampling biases. Future studies could benefit from using a sample size determined by an established formula that considers the total population size. Third, the cross-sectional design of this study may not fully capture the actual conditions of livestock-based farms in Bangladesh. To gain a more accurate understanding of the sector, future research should consider using longitudinal data to observe changes in these farms over time. Fourth, this study was limited to only two regions of Bangladesh, which means the findings may not be generalizable to the entire country. Future research should aim to collect data from a broader range of regions across Bangladesh. Additionally, this study relied on voluntary participation, which could introduce self-selection bias. Finally, the sample size of livestock-based farms in this study was relatively small, with only 60 farms included. Increasing the sample size in future research could provide more robust and generalizable results.

CONCLUSION:

This study underscores the crucial role that livestock-based agribusiness plays in advancing Bangladesh’s economic growth, ensuring food security, and generating employment. By assessing the current status, challenges, and future potential of the livestock agribusiness sector, the research brings to light the complex challenges entrepreneurs face. These challenges include financial difficulties during the start-up phase, price volatility, reduced revenues due to the COVID-19 pandemic, limited access to modern technologies, substandard production quality, insufficient training opportunities, and inadequate government support. The findings offer valuable insights for entrepreneurs, planners, and policymakers, emphasizing the importance of implementing targeted strategies to address these issues and promote the rapid growth of the livestock agribusiness sector in Bangladesh. Key recommendations include establishing new training facilities, adopting advanced technologies, maintaining price stability, and improving access to bank loans. With effective strategies and policies, the livestock-based agribusiness sector in Bangladesh holds substantial potential to drive future growth, contributing to broader objectives such as economic development, poverty reduction, and improved nutritional outcomes for the population.

DATA AVAILABILITY:

The data generated or analyzed during this study is available upon request.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the Bangladesh Agricultural University Research System (BAURES) for this project (Project No. BAU-2020-149). Additionally, special thanks are extended to the enumerators and respondents for their participation in the data collection process, as well as to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable and constructive feedback.

REFERENCES:

1. Aggarwal, M., and Malhotra, K. Antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions among management graduates: An empirical investigation. Asian Journal of Management. 2018; 9(2): 983–989. https://doi.org/10.5958/2321-5763.2018.00155.5

2. Ahmed, N. Socio-economic impact of women entrepreneurship in Bangladesh. Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. 2018; 9(1): 317-324. https://doi.org/10.5958/2321-5828.2018.00057.8

3. Akoijam, S. L. Sustainable Livelihood Business Strategies of Village Women: A case study of WWAGS in Manipur. Asian Journal of Management. 2017; 8(3): 516–522. https://doi.org/10.5958/2321-5763.2017.00083.x

4. Barua, P., Rahman, S. H., and Barua, M. Sustainable value chain approach for livestock-based livelihood strategies for communities of the southeastern coast of Bangladesh. Modern Supply Chain Research and Applications. 2021; 3(3): 191-225.

5. BBS. The Statistical Year Book of Bangladesh, Statistics Division, Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS), Ministry of Planning, the Govt. of Bangladesh. 2012

6. Begum, M., Sultana, T., and Islam, I. B. A critical overview on women entrepreneurship through poultry farming in Bangladesh. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR). 2019; 6(6): 888-896.

7. Bhuiyan, M. S. A., Bhuiyan, A. F. H., Lee, J. H., and Lee, S. H. Community based livestock breeding programs in Bangladesh: Present status and challenges. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genomics. 2017; 1(2): 1-8.

8. Das, S. C., Chowdhury, S. D., Khatun, M. A., Nishibori, M., Isobe, N., and Yoshimura, Y. Poultry production profile and expected future projection in Bangladesh. World's Poultry Science Journal. 2008; 64(1): 99-118.

9. DLS. Annual report. Department of Livestock Services, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. 2016

10. Dutta, S. Understanding the needs of young budding entrepreneurs: Empirical evidence from Assam. Asian Journal of Management, 2018; 9(4): 1325–1328. https://doi.org/10.5958/2321-5763.2018.00210.x

11. Haque, M. K., Zaman, M. R. U., Rahman, M. A., Hossain, M. Y., Shurid, T. I., Rimi, T. A., and Rabbany, M. G. A review on impacts of COVID-19 on global agricultural system and Scope for Bangladesh after pandemic. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2022; 29(36): 54060-54071.

12. Hashmi, I. Fostering Economic Prosperity in India: The Role of Innovation Catalysts in Nurturing Entrepreneurship. International Journal of Reviews and Research in Social Sciences. 2024; 2(1): 28-34.

13. Herrero, M., Grace, D., Njuki, J., Johnson, N., Enahoro, D., Silvestri, S., and Rufino, M. C. The roles of livestock in developing countries. Animal. 2013; 7(1): 3-18.

14. Huque, K. S. A performance profile of dairying in Bangladesh-programs, policies and way forwards. Bangladesh Journal of Animal Science. 2014; 43(2): 81-103.

15. Huque, K. S., and Huda, N. Agriculture census-based dynamics of changes in livestock farming of Bangladesh-A review. Bangladesh Journal of Animal Science. 2016; 45(1): 1-6.

16. Karimi, M. K. Role of women in Rural Entrepreneurship Development A-study in India and Afghanistan. Asian Journal of Management. 2018; 9(3): 1126–1128. https://doi.org/10.5958/2321-5763.2018.00180.4

17. Khan, M. J., Peters, K. J., and Uddin, M. M. Feeding strategy for improving dairy cattle productivity in small holder farm in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Animal Science. 2009; 38(1-2): 67-85.

18. Mujeri, M. K., Mujeri, N., Mujeri, M. K., and Mujeri, N. Bangladesh’s Rural Transformation. Structural Transformation of Bangladesh Economy: A South Asian Perspective. 2021: 117-170.

19. Palanivelu, V. R., and Manikandan, D. A study on prospects and challenges of woman entrepreneurs in Erode District of tamil nadu. Asian Journal of Management. 2018; 9(1): 297–301. https://doi.org/10.5958/2321-5763.2018.00044.6

20. Patel S. V. Role of Rural Women in Socio-Economics. International Journal of Reviews and Research in Social Sciences. 2024; 12(1): 15-18.

21. Rahman, K. M., Hossain, M. J., and Rana, M. S. Livestock and poultry rearing by smallholder farmers in haor areas in Bangladesh: Impact on food security and poverty alleviation. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2020; 41(1): 73-86.

22. Rahman, M. S., Rahman, M. H., and Hasan, M. Exploring the development scope of crop-based agribusiness farms in Bangladesh. Asian Journal of Management. 2023; 14(3): 171–177. https://doi.org/10.52711/2321-5763.2023.00029

23. Rashid, M. H., Bokhtiar, S. M., Khan, M. A. S., and Ali, M. S. Bangladesh Livestock Research Priorities. 20 Bangladesh Livestock Research Priorities. 2023: 978-984.

24. Sagar, G., Anand, B., Perumalla Varalaxmi, A. S., and Raj, S. The role of entrepreneurship in economic growth and development. Journal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences. 2023; 10(1): 5940-5955.

25. Sarker, M. R., Galdos, M. V., Challinor, A. J., and Hossain, A. A farming system typology for the adoption of new technology in Bangladesh. Food and Energy Security. 2021; 10(3): Article 287.

26. Thornton, P. K. Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2010; 365(1554): 2853-2867.

27. Thornton, P. K. Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2010; 365(1554): 2853-2867.

28. Usha, N., and Devakumar, G. An analysis on the critical parameters influencing sustainability for Agribusiness Industry: A systematic review and conceptual framework. Asian Journal of Management. 2018; 9(1): 464–470. https://doi.org/10.5958/2321-5763.2018.00072.0

Received on 13.08.2024 Revised on 07.10.2024

Accepted on 25.11.2024 Published on 18.12.2024

Available online on December 27, 2024

Int. J. of Reviews and Res. in Social Sci. 2024; 12(4):233-243.

DOI: 10.52711/2454-2687.2024.00040

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Creative Commons License.