The Union agriculture ministry has quietly withdrawn the approval for 11 animal-derived biostimulants, citing “religious and dietary restrictions". These products made from protein hydrolysates sourced from chicken feathers, bovine hides, pig tissue, and cod scales had earlier been cleared by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research for use in paddy, tomato, chilli, and cotton. The decision, couched in cultural sensitivity, raises a critical policy dilemma: can India afford to prioritise religious sentiment over scientific and economic efficiency?
Biostimulants are not fertilisers in the conventional sense. Derived from natural materials, such as seaweed, humic acid, microbes, or protein hydrolysates, they are the cornerstone of low-input, sustainable agriculture. India’s biostimulants market is valued at USD210.4 million in 2025 and is projected to reach USD343 million by 2030.
The immediate effect of the ban will resonate within India’s circular resource systems. Protein hydrolysates were extracted from chicken feathers, bovine hides, and fish scales, the by-products of India's extensive poultry, meat, and fishery industries. By transforming these materials into biostimulants, animal waste was converted into agricultural productivity. With the loss of this market, these by-products will likely end up in low-value or environmentally harmful sites like landfills, or activities like incineration, or the manufacture of low-cost glue and animal feed. The result is not simply one of economic waste; it is also a reversal of India's goal of a circular economy.
Plant-based and microbial alternatives are available. But they come at a higher production cost and are less efficient. For instance, seaweed extracts — they dominate the Indian biostimulants market — cannot match the capability of animal-based hydrolysates. Meanwhile, amino acid-based biostimulants, anticipated to grow at a CAGR of 14%, continue to rely on both animal and plant sources, further complicating the regulatory transition.
This policy will also reorganise market dynamics. Firms will need to resort to purely plant-based inputs or imports, pushing up input and retail prices. Farmers, a price-sensitive constituency, may resort to traditional fertilisers, undoing years of effort in promoting sustainable, low-chemical farming.
The decision also weakens synergies between agriculture and livestock sectors. India’s poultry and fisheries industries will now lose a valuable outlet for waste valorisation. In effect, both farmers and processors lose: one loses affordable, efficient inputs; the other loses a circular economy lifeline.
Public policy has a role in balancing morality with efficiency. In this instance, however, efficiency has been sacrificed at the altar of belief.
Recycling protein waste into plant nutrition is not a moral compromise; it is ecological intelligence. Properly regulated, it could have positioned India as a global model for sustainable agri-innovation. Instead, a scientifically validated, low-waste system has been discarded.
It is still feasible to have a balanced path. One strategy could be allowing for dual regulatory pathways, such that animal-based biostimulants are allowed for export production and for crops for which such inputs have no cultural opposition. The government must also unveil mandatory source labelling and traceability norms, enabling farmers to make decisions being true to their ethical or religious beliefs.
The market for biostimulants is one of the fastest-growing segments of the Indian agri-tech industry. As India aims for global leadership in sustainability in agriculture, needless rigidity should not be allowed to stifle its brightest sector.
Akhil Yadav and Aditya Pratap Singh are students of Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar