CHAPTER - IV MARKETING CHANNELS OF TOMATO...

176

CHAPTER - IV

MARKETING CHANNELS OF TOMATO : COST AND EFFICIENCIES OF MARKETING

4.1 Introduction

India’s age-old farming practices have taken a turn in recent decades. There has been a technological breakthrough in the evolution of high-yielding variety seeds. Increasing use of fertilizers, insecticides, pesticides, the installation of pumping sets, and tractorization has led to a substantial increase in production on the farms and to the larger marketable and marketed surplus. To maintain this tempo and pace of increased production through technological development, an assurance of remunerative prices to the farmer is a prerequisite, and the assurance can be given to the farmer by developing an efficient marketing system.1

Marketing is one of the important economic functions of the society and proper marketing of agricultural products is of greater importance in an agrarian economy. Marketing is a comprehensive form covering business activities involve various stages in the flow of transferring products from the primary producer to the ultimate consumers. Agriculture marketing is a vital sub-sector of agriculture, which deserves as much attention as agriculture. The fruits and vegetables marketing in particular is characterized by high perishability, seasonality and bulkiness of the producers, which make them distinctive from other agricultural products like cereals and pulses.2

Maharashtra is the most developed state in India and renders significant contribution in total national income viz. industries and agriculture. Though Maharashtra stands first in maximum industrial development, agriculture sector is not far behind. It plays a crucial role in providing raw material to various trade sectors and agro industries. Sugar industry textile industry and fruit and vegetables processing industry and other related trades rely mainly on agriculture.

Out of 35 districts in Maharashtra, Kolhapur district leads regarding agricultural products. The rivers Krishna, Panchaganga, Warana flow through this district. As a result irrigated farming is done on a large scale. Sugarcane,

177

Soyabin, rice and other such cash crops and vegetables like tomato, cauliflower, cabbages, brinjal, lady’s finger are grown in this district. The farmers give more preference to tomato. Tahasils from this district, Gadhinglaj, Hatkanangale, Karveer, Shirol are the pioneers in tomato production. Again among these tahasils Shirol stands at front in tomato crop because the land, climate, proportionate rainfall, transportation and market are conducive to tomato crop production.

In the study area, farmers from Gadhinglaj taluka sell tomato at cheaper rates in local markets like Gadhinglaj, Sankeshwar and Ajara. Some farmers sell it through the agents. Some farmers from Hatkanangale taluka sell their crop on their own and some others to the agents in markets like Ichalkaranji, Kolhapur and in weekly bazaars at neighbouring villages. Kolhapur city is nearer to the farmers from Karveer taluka. They sell it at Apani Mandi / Kisan Mandi, some other producers sell through agents. Shirol taluka is leading in tomato crop and it is due to all types of conducive environment to this crop. It has accomplished specialisation in production and marketing in tomato crop. Farmers from this area sell the tomato either at their own or through agents in local markets of Jaysingpur, Sangli, Ichalkaranji and Kurundwad. In Nandani village of Shirol taluka there is a separate Co-operative Sangh. Through it, the tomato is sent to Kolhapur, Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahemadabad, Delhi, etc. in up-country markets. Consequently, the producers get good rates. There is private purchase – sale sangh in almost every village of this taluka. The tomato is transported to the abovesaid metropolits through such sanghs. The advanced marketing system and other facilities offer the farmers good prices.

4.2 Tomato Production and Marketing Scenario

A study of the agricultural marketing system is necessary to understand the complexities involved and the identification of bottlenecks with a view of providing efficient services in the transfer of farm products and inputs from producers to consumers. An efficient marketing system minimizes costs and increases the benefits of all the sections of the society.3

178

The following elements are involved in tomato production and marketing.

i) Producers – Farmers want the marketing system to purchase their produce without loss of time and provide the maximum share in the consumer’s rupee. They want the maximum possible price for their surplus produce from the system. Similarly, they want the system to supply them the inputs at the lowest possible price.

ii) Consumers – The consumers of tomato products are interested in a marketing system that can provide tomato and other items in the quantity and of the quality required by them at the lowest possible price. However, this objective of marketing for consumers is contrary to the objective of marketing for the farmer producers.

iii) Market Middlemen and Traders – Market middlemen and traders are interested in a marketing system which provides them a steady and increasing income from the purchase and sale of tomato. This objective of market middlemen may be achieved in purchasing the tomato products from the farmers at low prices and selling them to consumers at high prices.

iv) Co-operative and Private Vegetables Organization – Private and co-operative vegetable producers, purchase-sale sanghs are made available in Shirol tahsil. Good remunerative prices are obtained through transporting the crop to metropolitan cities. They have successfully operated in the up-country market.

4.3 Structure of the Marketing Channels of Tomato

Marketing channels through which farm products made from producers to consumers, a very small proportion of farm products move to consumers through several agencies and channels. The role played by marketing agencies in the marketing system is quite indispensable as these perform important marketing functions. They also help in expanding the markets and add value to the products.

179

Marketing channels are routes through which agricultural products move from producers to consumers. The length of the channel varies from commodity to commodity, depending on the quantity to be moved ; the form of consumer demand and degree of regional specialization in production.4

Most producers do not sell their tomato product directly to the ultimate consumers, between them stands a set of intermediaries performing a variety of functions. These intermediaries constitute a marketing channel or distribution channel. In the study area the marketing channel for marketing of tomato involved retailers, wholesalers, commission agents and private and co-operative sanghs. In the case of tomato, the following marketing channels were observed in study area through which trading of tomato was taking place on a large scale by the selected tomato growers and channels.

1) Channel – I

Producers -> Consumer.

Some small and marginal farmers, whose produce is of small quantity, carry their tomato produce to the nearby market and sell it directly to the buyers, particularly in the city places. This requires marketing awareness and work force to carry out such marketing activities every day. In this channel-I share in consumer rupee is high because of less marketing cost. So tomato growers get high remunerative price for their product.

2) Channel– II

Producers -> Retailer -> Consumer.

Some farmers sell their tomato products in the big markets in nearby cities through retailers. In turn the retailers sell them to the ultimate consumers at retail scale. Naturally this sale is done at higher prices and they earn more profit. As a result, compared to channel-I, farmers are less benefited in channel-II. Thus producers' share in consumer rupee is naturally less.

3) Channel – III

Producers -> Marketing by Co-operative vegetable organization / private vegetable organizations ->

180

Wholesaler at up-country Market -> Retailers at up-country Market -> Consumer at up-country Market.

The study area includes private and co-operative vegetable trade sanghs, from Shirol taluka. Of the total farmers from this area, tomato producer farmers transport their tomato to cities like Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahemadabad, Delhi, in up-country markets via abovesaid sanghs. The sanghs provide vehicle facility on hire basis to such farmers. Vehicles like truck, tempo are uploaded and sent to various metropolitan cities. There the wholesalers from up-country markets purchase the tomato and pay through cheque or D.D. Various deductions such as commission, transport expenses, unloading charges are subtracted and then the remaining amount is paid to the concerned farmers. The whole process takes 5 to 7 days.

Wholesalers from up-country market sell the product to retailers and earn maximum profit. Finally the tomato is supplied to ultimate consumer via these retailers. Thus the tomato marketing is channelized.

4.4 Taluka-wise Classification of Marketing Tomato Growers

Sample tomato growers from the study tahasil – Shirol sell out their product in up-country markets. Table No. 4.1 shows the details regarding how many respondents sell their products in such up-country market.

Table No. 4.1

Up-Country Marketing Centers In 2006-07

Name of Taluka Sr. No.

Marketing Centers Gadhin-

glaj Hatka-nangale

Karveer Shirol

Total Total to %

1. Pune - - - 18 18 18

2. Mumbai - - - 28 28 28

3. Nagpur - - - 14 14 14

4. Ahemadabad - - - 30 30 30

5. Delhi - - - 10 10 10

Total - - - 100 100 100

Source – Field Work.

181

Table No. 4.1 indicates that out of the selected tahasils for study, tomato growers from Gadhintlaj, Hatkanangale and Karveer do not sale their products in up-country markets. Because there are no private and co-operative vegetable sanghs. Hence, they dispose of their products in local markets, weekly bazaars, and neighbouring cities.

Private and co-operative sanghs are functioning in Shirol tahasil. Tomato growers send their tomato products to up-country market through these sanghs.

30 out of sample growers from Shirol prefer to send their products to up-country market in Ahemadabad, their percentage to totals is 30 %

28 respondents sell their products in Mumbai and they achieve the percentage of 28 % to the total.

18 respondents sell their products in Pune market center and indicate the percentage of 18 % to the total.

14 respondents send their products in Nagpur market centre and show the percentage of 14 % to the total.

Only 10 respondents averaging 10 % to the total send their products to Delhi market centre for sale. Delhi market is considerably too far away from the actual production area and thus costs more on transportation and other expenses. As a result, very few respondents sell their products in the Delhi market.

Overall, most of the respondents from Shirol taluka prefer to sell their products to Ahemadabad market. The second preference is given to up-country markets of Mumbai, Pune, Nagpur and Delhi. There are no private or co-operative vegetable purchase-sale sanghs in existence in Gadhinglaj, Hatkanangale and Karveer tahasils. As a result, there is no facility available for tomato growers to send their aggregate production to any up-country markets. Therefore tomato growers from these tahasils cannot send their production to up-country markets.

4.5 Classification of Marketing Channels

From the preliminary survey conducted in the study area, it was observed that the marketing of tomato was done mainly through the following three channels.

182

Table No. 4.2

Classification Of Marketing Channels In 2006-2007

Name of Taluka Sr. No.

Channels

Gadhin-glaj

Hatka-nangale

Karveer Shirol

Total Total to %

1. Channel-I 10 12 8 8 38 19

2. Channel-II 20 38 12 10 80 40

3. Channel-III - - - 82 82 41

Total 30 50 20 100 200 100

Source – Field Work.

Table No. 4.2 shows the classification of up-country marketing channel.

1) 19 % of respondents sell their tomato products through channel-I (producer -> consumer).

2) 40 % respondents - channel-II (producer ->retailer -> consumer)

3) 41 % of the respondents dispose their products through channel-III (Producers -> Marketing by Co-operative vegetable organization/private vegetable organizations -> Wholesaler at up-country Market -> Retailers at up-country Market -> Consumer at up-country Market.)

Since private and co-operative sanghs are at work only in Shirol tahasil, 82 of the total (200) respondents sell their products through channel-III.

4.6 Price Spread of Tomato

Price spread is the good indicator for determining the producer’s share in consumer’s rupee. Price spread refers to the consumer and the price received by the producer for unit quantity of farm produce. Price spread consists of marketing cost and margins of the intermediaries, which ultimately determines the overall efficiency of marketing system, Price spread of tomato in different marketing channels is presented in Table No. 4.3

183

Table No. 4.3

Price Spread In Different Channel Of Marketing Of Tomato In 2006-2007

Rs. / Kg. Sr. No.

Particulars

Channel – I

Channel – II

Channel - III

1. Producer's net share 6.00 5.80 5.20

2. Producer's cost 1.00 1.50 2.10

3. Retailer Purchase Price / Producer's

Sale Price

- - 7.30

4. Wholesaler's Cost - - 0.80

5. Wholesaler's Margin - - 1.00

6. Wholesaler's Sale Price / Retailer's Purchase Price

- - 9.10

7. Retailer's Cost - 0.30 0.40

8. Retailer's Margin - 0.40 0.50

9. Retailer's Sale Price / Consumer's Purchase Price

7.00 8.00 10.00

Source – Field survey.

The study of marketing cost and marketing channels adopted in sale of vegetable crops revealed that they were almost similar for all the vegetable crops, hence a detailed analysis of marketing cost and price spread through different channels was studied only for tomato product. From the preliminary survey conducted in the study area, it was observed that the marketing of tomato has three channels.

Table No. 4.3 indicates the marketing cost and margin in three channels, identified in the study area. In channel-I, the farmer preformed the dual function of both producer

184

and seller. In this channel tomato producers directly disposed of their products to consumer. The total incurred marketing cost was Rs. 1.00 per kg. for tomato. Sometimes farmers dispose of the produce in haste even at lower prices than that prevailed in the market in order to find time to attend farm operations during the remaining day instead of spending whole time on transportation and waiting for better prices in market. This was mainly due to the non-intervention of middlemen. Thus, with the lower prices, consumers were attracted and formers could soon clear off the produce. In addition to the net returns, the farmer got a good profit. Regarding this channel, the number of marginal and semi marginal producers is very few, having is low marketable surplus is consisted.

The second important channel in tomato marketing is channel-II with concerns of the tomato producers -> retailer -> consumer. There cost was found of Rs. 1.50 paise per kg. in channel-II. In this channel retailer stands in between the tomato producer and ultimate consumer. The producer takes his tomato product to weekly bazaars in neighbouring villages and cities for sale. He sells it to the retailer directly and then these retailers sell to the ultimate consumer by retaining their margin profit.

The channel-III consists of tomato producer -> private/co-operative sangh -> wholesalers -> retailers -> finally consumer. Tomato growing farmers sell their product to the private or co-operative sangh either at local level or in neighbouring villages. In turn the sangh sells them to the wholesalers from up-country market. These wholesalers sell them to the retailers from such markets and finally the product reaches to the ultimate consumer. Due to these different stages in marketing and middlemen the marketing cost leaps upto Rs. 4.80 per kg. Lower price spread occurs in channel-I and comparatively more in channel-II and at highest cost in channel-III.

So in conclusion, the study reveals that higher the price spread, lower the marketing efficiency and lower the price spread, higher the marketing efficiency.

185

4.7 Producers Share In Consumer Rupee

It is the share of producer which he actually gets out of the amount paid by the consumer for his produce. Thus, the tomato producer as a residual claimant of his produce get p ercentage share of different agencies in consumer’s rupee of tomato is shown in table No. 4.4

Table No. 4.4

Percentage Share Of Different Agencies In Consumer’s Rupee Of Tomato In 2006-2007

Rs. / Kg. Sr. No.

Particulars

Channel – I

Channel – II

Channel - III

1. Producer's Net Share

85.72 72.50 52.00

2. Producer's Cost 14.28 18.75 21.00

3. Wholesaler's Share - - 10.00

4. Wholesaler's Cost - - 8.00

5. Retailer's Share - 5.00 5.00

6. Retailer's Cost - 3.75 4.00

Total 100.00 100.00 100.00


It can be observed from Table No. 4.4 that the producer received the maximum share of consumer rupee in Channel-I (82.72 %) followed by Channel-II (72.50 %) and Channel-III (52.00 %).

The highest share in consumer’s rupee was obtained by the farmer in Channel-I as there was no intermediary between producer and consumer.

In second channel, the producer received only 72.50 per cent of consumer’s rupee and retailer trader received 5 per cent of consumer rupee.

186

In third channel, the farmers received still less i.e. 52 per cent of consumer rupee. The shares of wholesalers and retailers were 10 and 5 percent of consumer rupee respectively. The producer’s share was less in Channel-II and Channel-III as producers were located at a long distance from up-country market place. The intervention of market intermediaries has reduced the producer’s share in consumer’s rupee.

In Channel-I, the tomato producer sells his product directly to the ultimate consumer. Therefore the interference and dominance of intermediaries are removed. As a result, there is high rate of producer share in consumer rupee.

In Channel-II, the producer share in consumer’s rupee is 72.50 per cent, and retail trader carries 5 per cent of consumer rupee. The producer share in consumer rupee is less because of the chain or network of retailer in between the producer and the consumer.

In Channel-III the producer in consumer rupee is low upto 52 percent. The share of wholesaler and retailer is 10 to 5 per cent.

Compared to Channel-I, the producer share in consumer’s rupee in Channel-II and III is low. The up-country market from Channel-III is situated in remote place from the production area and therefore there is increase in cost of transportation, loading, unloading and commission charges etc. As a result, there is less rate of producer share in consumer rupee.

4.8 Marketing Efficiency

Marketing efficiency indicates to what extent the marketing agencies are able to move the goods from producer in the minimum cost, extending maximum service to the consumer.5 Marketing efficiency in marketing of tomato is also worked out and given in Table No. 4.5.

187

Table No. 4.5

Marketing Efficiency Of Different Channels Of Tomato In 2006-2007

Sr. No.

Channels Value of goods sold (Consumer’s Price)

(Rs. / Kg.) (V)

Total Marketing Cost (Rs. / Kg.)

(I)

Marketing Efficiency

(ME)

1. Channel – I 7 1.00 6.00

2. Channel – II 8 1.80 3.44

3. Channel - III 10 3.30 2.03


Optimum marketing efficiency is one of the strategies of the producers and the traders. The marketing efficiency however, depends upon the related costs involved in marketing. The agricultural produce conveyed from producer to consumer. If the marketing cost comparatively remain low, then the marketing efficiency remains high, or the prices of the produce should be at higher level, so that, the marketing efficiency will remain high, but consumer’s satisfaction gets disturbed due to high prices of the produce.6

The marketing efficiency of the different marketing channels of tomato product was computed using Shepherds formula. It suggested that the ratio of the total value of goods sold in the market and the total marketing cost may be used as a measure of marketing efficiency. This may higher the ratio, higher is the efficiency and vice-versa.

The values of marketing efficiency for each channel are presented in the table No. 4.5. It is highest in channel – I (6) followed by channel-II (3.44) and channel – III (2.03) respectively by the Shepherd’s Marketing Index. Marketing efficiency is low in channel-II and channel-III, compared to channel-I. This was supported by the foregoing discussion of marketing cost and margin. This was because the number of market functionaries was almost absent in channel-I.

188

4.9 Cost of Marketing Through Co-operative Vegetable Organization Channel (2006-2007)

The cost of marketing per kg is the main indicator of efficiency of marketing. The cost of marketing of tomato products at up-country marketing through co-operative vegetable organization Channel is shown in table No. 4.6.

189

Table No. 4.6

Break Up Of Cost Of Marketing Of Tomato Products (Rs./Per Box) In 2006-2007

Market Centers Sr.

No.

Items of Marketing

Pune Mumbai Nagpur Ahemadabad Delhi

Total Overall percentage to total

1. Grading / Packing 2.00

(1.86)

2.00

(1.61)

2.00

(1.37)

2.00

(1.39)

2.00

(1.12)

10.00 1.43

2. Packing Material 48.00

(44.53)

48.00

(38.59)

48.00

(32.79)

48.00

(33.33)

48.00

(26.89)

240.00 34.23

3. Transport Cost 35.00

(32.46)

50.00

(40.19)

70.00

(47.81)

70.00

(48.61)

100.00

(56.02)

325.00 46.36

4. Hamali (Loading / Unloading) 5.00

(4.64)

5.00

(4.01)

5.00

(3.42)

5.00

(3.47)

5.00

(2.80)

25.00 3.57

5. Weighing 2.00

(1.86)

2.00

(1.61)

2.00

(1.37)

2.00

(1.30)

3.00

(1.68)

11.00 1.57

6. Commission Charges for 1box (30 Kg.)

15.00

(13.91)

16.50

(13.26)

18.50

(12.64)

16.00

(11.11)

19.00

(10.64)

85.00 12.12

7. Miscellaneous 0.80

(0.74)

0.90

(0.72)

0.90

(0.61)

1.00

(0.69)

1.50

(0.84)

5.10 0.73

8. Total Marketing cost for one 30 kg. box

107.80 124.40 146.40 144.00 178.50 701.10 140.22

9. Per K.g. Marketing Cost 3.59 4.14 4.88 4.80 5.95 23.36 4.67

Note – One box = 30 kg. Figure in the brackets indicate for percentages to the total. Source – Field Survey.

190

The estimated costs of tomato marketing in up-country markets are presented in Table No. 4.6

Tomato packed in wooden boxes is sent to up-country markets in Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahemadabad and Delhi through co-operative purchase-sale sangh. One such wooden box contains 30 kg. tomato. Overall cost of this box is average Rs. 140.22 paise. Thus the marketing cost behind per kg goes upto Rs. 4.67 paise.

Out of the total marketing cost incurred by farmers, transport cost is 46.36 per cent followed by cost on packing material (34.23 %), commission charges share 12.12 per cent. The overall average cost of marketing, Hamali (loading and unloading) (3.57 %), followed by weighing (1.57%), Grading (1.43 %) and miscellaneous (0.73 %). The up-country markets like Delhi and Nagpur are far away from the production venue, hence there is extra expenditure to be incurred on transportation and other cost. Totally cost of marketing in Delhi market was higher than Nagpur, Ahemadabad, Mumbai and Pune market.

4.10 Up-country Marketing Through Co-operative Channel for tomato

4.10.1 Pune Market Centre for tomato (Rs. per kg)

Tomato from Shirol tahasil, one of the tahasil from study area is sent for sale to up-country market in Pune through co-operative vegetable purchase-sale sangh. Accordingly the data regarding up-country market from Pune for the period 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 is presented here in table No. 4.7

191

Table No. 4.7

Up-Country Marketing Through Co-Operative Channel to Pune Market Centre For Tomato (Rs. Per Kg)

Total Marketing Cost

Retailer's Selling Price

Producer's Net Price (2-1)

Price Spread

(2-3)

Efficiency of Marketing (1/ps

X 100)

(%) Producer's share in

consumer Rupee (PNP/RSP X 100)

Shepherds formula of efficiency of marketing (V/I – 1)

Sr.

No

Year

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

1. 2002-2003 2.75 7.50 4.75 2.75 36.36 63.33 1.73

2. 2003-2004 2.90 8.50 5.60 2.90 34.48 65.89 1.93

3. 2004-2005 3.10 9.40 6.30 3.10 32.25 67.02 2.03

4. 2005-2006 3.50 11.25 7.75 3.50 28.57 68.88 2.21

5. 2006-2007 3.80 10.85 7.05 3.80 26.31 64.98 1.85

Total 16.05 47.50 31.45 16.05 157.98 330.10 9.75

Average 3.21 9.50 6.29 3.21 31.59 66.02 1.95

Source – Field Survey

192

Total marketing cost of tomato in Pune up-country market for the five year (2002-2003 to 2006-2007) was Rs.2.75, Rs. 2.90, Rs. 3.10, Rs. 3.50 and Rs. 3.80 per kg. respectively. In the specific year 2002-2003 the marketing cost per kg was Rs. 2.75. It continuously increased and reached upto Rs. 3.80 in 2006-2007. Moreover, due to the growth in transport cost and commission charges, the total marketing cost showed consistent increase.

The producer's net price for the five years from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 was Rs. 4.75, Rs. 5.60, Rs. 6.30, Rs. 7.75 and 7.05 respectively. The producer's net price incessantly went up and reached upto Rs. 7.75 in the year 2005-2006. in the following year 2006-207 it again came down Rs. 7.05.

The price spread of up-country market from Pune in the study tenure of five years was 36.36 %, 34.48 %, 32.25%, 28.58% and 26.31% respectively. Due to consistent decrease, it came down 26.31 % in the year 2006-2007. Increase in tomato price caused decrease in price spread.

The producer's share in consumer rupee between 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 was 63.33 %, 65.89 %, 67.02 %, 68.88 % and 64.98 percent. The highest rate of producer's share in consumer rupee appeared in the year 2005-2006 it was 68.88 %. The overall average share in consumer rupee was 66.02 per cent.

The marketing efficiency in up-country market from Pune was measured with the help of Shepherd formula index. According to it, the marketing efficiency for the five years from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 was 1.73, 1.93, 2.03, 2.21 and 1.85 respectively. Compared to other four years, the marketing efficiency in the year 2002-2003 (1.73) was low. The overall average marketing efficiency for the five years was 1.95.

4.10.2 Up-country Marketing Through Co-operative Channel in Mumbai Market Centre for tomato (Rs. per kg)

The following table No. 4.8 indicates the status of tomato marketing from marketing center in Mumbai and regarding the sale of tomato from study area made through co-operative purchase-sale sangh.

193

Table No. 4.8

Up-Country Marketing Through Co-Operative Channel to Mumbai Market Centre For Tomato (Rs. Per Kg)




Price Spread

(2-3)


X 100)




Sr.

No

Year

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

1. 2002-2003 3.50 .50 5.00 3.50 28.58 58.83 1.42

2. 2003-2004 3.80 9.30 5.50 3.80 26.31 59.13 1.45

3. 2004-2005 3.90 13.00 9.10 3.90 25.64 70.00 2.33

4. 2005-2006 4.00 12.50 8.50 4.00 25.00 68.00 2.12

5. 2006-2007 4.25 12.25 8.00 4.25 23.53 65.30 1.88

Total 19.45 55.55 36.10 19.25 129.06 321.26 9.20

Average 3.89 11.11 7.22 3.85 25.81 64.25 1.84


194

The total marketing cost of per kg tomato production for five years from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 in context with up-country market in Mumbai was Rs. 3.50, Rs. 3.80, Rs. 3.90, Rs. 4.00 and Rs. 4.25 respectively. It shows mild increase in the total marketing cost of tomato per kg.

The producer's net price in the tenure of five years of study was respectively Rs. 5.00, Rs. 5.50, Rs. 9.10, Rs. 8.50 and Rs. 8.00. The maximum rate of producer's net price occurred in the year 2004-2005 (Rs. 9.10).

The price spread in Mumbai market center for the five years 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 was 28.58 %, 26.31%, 25.84%, 25.00% and 23.53% respectively. It continued to decrease and reached the average of 25.81 per cent.

The producer's share in consumer rupee for the five year of study from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 was 58.83%, 59.13%, 70.00%, 68.00% and 65.30% respectively. Compared to the other four years, it was maximum upto 70.00 per cent in the year 2004-2005. And the overall average was little more than 64.25 %.

Marketing efficiency is measured with the help of Shepherd formula. The rate of marketing efficiency for the five years (2002-2003 to 2006-2007) was 1.42, 1.45, 2.33, 2.12 and 1.88 respectively. Compared to the other four years, the maximum rate appeared in the year 2004-2005, it was 2.33 followed by decrease upto 2.12 in 2005-2006 and 1.88 in 2006-2007.

At the end of the year 2004-2005, it so appears that due to reasonably good price offered to tomato production, there was increase in producer's share in consumer rupee and efficiency of marketing in Mumbai market centre.

4.10.3 Up-country Marketing Through Co-operative Channel in Nagpur Market Center for tomato (Rs. per kg.)

Up country marketing through co-operative channel for tomato product in Nagpur market center is shown in table No. 4.9.

195

Table No. 4.9

Up-Country Marketing Through Co-Operative Channel to Nagpur Market Centre For Tomato (Rs. Per Kg)




Price Spread

(2-3)


X 100)




Sr.

No

Year

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

1. 2002-2003 3.90 8.70 4.80 3.90 25.64 55.17 1.23

2. 2003-2004 4.50 9.00 4.50 4.50 22.22 50.00 1.00

3. 2004-2005 4.60 13.00 8.40 4.60 21.74 64.62 1.83

4. 2005-2006 4.65 11.00 6.35 4.65 21.50 57.73 1.37

5. 2006-2007 4.70 12.00 7.30 4.70 21.28 60.84 1.55

Total 22.35 53.70 31.35 22.35 112.38 288.36 6.98

Average 4.47 10.74 6.27 4.47 22.47 57.67 1.39


196

Tomato growers from study area sell their tomato production through co-operative channel in up-country market of Nagpur center. The data for five years from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 is presented in table No. 4.9 and it emerges with the following conclusion.

Observation indicates that the total marketing cost of tomato per kg and per year for the five years of study from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 was Rs. 3.90, Rs. 4.50, Rs. 4.60, Rs. 4.65 and Rs. 4.70. It slightly increased every year. Hence, the average cost per kg went upto Rs. 4.47.

A keen study of the data shows that there was decrease in the price spread. It was 25.64 %, 22.22 %, 21.74 %, 21.50% and 21.28% respectively. The lowest rate occurred in the year 2006-2007 (21.27%)

An observation makes it clear that the producer's share in consumer rupee in the five years was 55.17%, 50.00%, 64.62%, 57.73 and 60.84% respectively. The average producer's share was 57.67 per cent. Comparatively it was highest upto 64.62% in 2004-2005. The minimum producer's share in consumer rupee was in 2003-2004.

According to Shapherd formula index used for measuring efficiency of marketing for five years from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007, it was 1.23, 1.00, 1.83, 1.37 and 1.55. The average marketing efficiency was 1.39. The maximum efficiency of marketing occurred in 2004-2005, it was 1.83.

Overall, the producer's share in consumer rupee and efficiency of marketing was at high in the year 2004-2005 it was 1.83.

4.10.4 Up-country Marketing Through Co-operative Channel in Ahemadabad Market Center for tomato (Rs. per kg.)

Tomato production from study area is sent to up-country market in Ahemadabad for sale through co-operative vegetable purchase-sale sangh channel. The following table No. 4.10 shows the concerned details.

197

Table No. 4.10

Up-Country Marketing Through Co-Operative Channel to Ahemadabad Market Centre For Tomato (Rs. Per Kg)


Retaile'rs Selling Price


Price Spread

(2-3)


X 100)




Sr.

No

Year

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

1. 2002-2003 4.40 8.90 4.50 4.40 22.73 50.56 1.02

2. 2003-2004 4.60 11.20 6.60 4.60 21.74 58.92 1.43

3. 2004-2005 4.70 14.20 9.50 4.70 21.27 66.90 2.02

4. 2005-2006 4.50 11.00 6.50 4.50 22.22 59.09 1.44

5. 2006-2007 4.80 13.50 8.70 4.80 20.83 64.44 1.81

Total 23.00 58.80 35.80 23.00 108.79 299.91 7.72

Average 4.60 11.76 7.16 4.60 21.75 60.88 1.55


198

Table No. 4.10 indicates that there is fluctuation in per kg total marketing cost of tomato in Ahemadabad market center. Accordingly in the five years from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007, the total marketing cost per kg was Rs. 4.40, Rs. 4.60, Rs. 4.70, Rs. 4.50 and Rs. 4.80 respectively. The overall average marketing cost was Rs. 4.60. In the year 2004-2005. the marketing cost increased upto Rs. 4.70 and decreased Rs. 4.50 in 2005-2006. Further it increased upto Rs. 4.80 in 2006-2007.

Price spread in the five years of study from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 was 22.73%, 21.74%, 21.27 %, 22.22% and 20.83% respectively. An observation indicates that there was no much difference in the price spread.

Producer's share in consumer rupee in these five years was 50.56%, 58.92%, 66.90%, 59.09% and 64.44% respectively. The overall average of producer's share was 60.88% per cent. Comparatively in the year 2004-2005, the producer's share was maximum upto 66.90%. In the years 2002-2003 and 2006-2007 the producer share was at minimum.

Efficiency of marketing for the five years from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 was 1.02, 1.43, 1.02, 1.44 and 1.88 respectively. The overall average efficiency of marketing was 1.55. Comparatively it was at the lowest (1.02) in the year 2002-2003, and at the highest (2.02) in the year 2004-2005. There was no considerable difference in the efficiency of marketing in the year 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006.

4.10.5 Up-country Marketing Through Co-operative Channel in Delhi Market Center for tomato (Rs. per kg.)

Details regarding tomato marketing in Delhi market center through co-operative marketing channel are presented in table No. 4.11.

199

Table No. 4.11

Up-Country Marketing Through Co-Operative Channel to Delhi Market Centre For Tomato (Rs. Per Kg)




Price Spread

(2-3)


X 100)




Sr.

No

Year

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

1. 2002-2003 5.80 11.00 5.20 5.80 17.24 47.27 0.90

2. 2003-2004 6.40 12.50 6.10 6.40 15.63 48.80 0.95

3. 2004-2005 6.50 15.00 8.50 6.50 15.38 56.67 1.30

4. 2005-2006 6.80 14.40 7.60 6.80 14.70 52.78 1.11

5. 2006-2007 6.90 14.20 7.30 6.90 14.49 51.40 1.05

Total 32.40 67.10 34.70 32.40 77.44 256.92 5.31

Average 6.48 13.42 6.94 6.48 15.48 51.38 1.06


200

An observational study of table No. 4.11 suggests that the total marketing cost of tomato per kg in the period of five years from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 in Delhi market was Rs. 5.80, Rs. 6.40, Rs. 6.50, Rs. 6.80 and Rs. 6.90 respectively. It increased every year. Delhi market center is far away from the tomato production area and therefore due to the transportation and other costs, there is increase in the total marketing cost of tomato per kg.

Price spread in Delhi market center in the above referred years was 17.24%, 15.63%, 15.38%, 14.70% and 14.49% and average price spread was 15.48%.

Producer's share in consumer rupee during the five years of study (2002-2003 to 2006-2007) was 47.27%, 48.80%, 56.67%, 52.78% and 51.40 percent. The average producer's share in consumer rupee was 51.38 per cent. Comparatively it was higher in the year 2004-2005, 56.67 per cent. It decreased in the year 2005-2006 to 52.78 per cent. It decreased in the year 2005-2006 and came down from 52.78% to 51.40%. At average level there was no remarkable change.

Efficiency of marketing depends on total marketing cost. From that attitude, the efficiency of marketing in the five years from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 was 0.90, 0.95, 1.30, 1.11 and 1.05 per cent, and average efficiency marketing was 1.06. It was less than average in the years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 (0.90 and 0.95). it was maximum upto 1.30 per cent in the year 2004-2005.

4.11 Average comparative study of tomato marketing in co-operative channels. (2002-03 to 2006-2007)

An average comparative study of up-country at different marketing centers through co-operative channels of tomato is shown in table No. 4.12.

201

Table No. 4.12

Average Comparative Study Of Up-Country at Different Marketing Centers Through Co-Operative Channels Of Tomato From 2002-2003 To 2006-2007)

Total average

Marketing Cost

Average Retailer's Selling Price

Average Producer's Net Price (2-1)

Average Price Spread

(2-3)

Average Efficiency

of Marketing (1/ps X 100)

Average Producer's share in consumer Rupee (PNP/RSP X

100)


Sr.

No

Name of Up-country Market

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

1. Pune 3.21 9.50 6.29 3.21 31.59 66.02 1.95

2. Mumbai 3.89 11.11 7.22 3.85 25.81 64.25 1.84

3. Nagpur 4.47 10.74 6.27 4.47 22.47 57.67 1.39

4. Ahemadabad 4.60 11.76 7.16 4.60 21.75 60.88 1.55

5. Delhi 6.48 13.42 6.94 6.48 15.48 51.38 1.06


202

Tomato production is sent for sale from the study area to up-country market in cities like Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahemadabad and Delhi through co-operative channels. Marketing data from all these market centers is collected and details about each and every component from the period 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 alongwith aggregated average are presented in table NO. 4.12. A comparative consolidated study has been done of the concerned details.

Aggregate average marketing cost in marketing centers of Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahemadabad and Delhi for the five years from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 was Rs. 3.21, Rs. 3.89, Rs. 4.47, Rs. 4.60 and Rs. 6.48 respectively. Compared to the other centers, the average marketing cost in Delhi center is more. On the contrary, Pune center shows less marketing cost. There is slight difference in marketing cost of centers like Mumbai, Nagpur, and Ahemadabad.

The average price spread in marketing centers like Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahemadabad and Delhi was 31.59%, 25.81%, 22.47%, 21.75% and 15.48% respectively. Highest price spread occurred in Pune center and the lowest price spread appeared in Delhi market center.

Average producer's share in consumer rupee in market centers of Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahemadabad and Delhi was 66.02%, 64.25%, 57.67%, 60.88% and 51.38 per cent respectively. Pune center shows comparatively more rate of producer's share in consumer rupee followed by Mumbai center. The lowest rate of producer's share in consumer rupee 51.38 per cent occurred in Delhi market center.

The average efficiency of marketing in market centers of Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahemadabad and Delhi for the five year (2002-2003 to 2006-2007) was 1.95, 1.84, 1.39, 1.55 and 1.06 respectively. Pune center shows high rate of efficiency of marketing and Delhi market center shows low rate.

4.12 Cost Of Marketing Through Private Trade Channels

Tomato production is sent for sale to up-country markets through private trade channels. Its marketing cost is shown in table No. 4.13.

203

Table No. 4.13

Cost Of Marketing Through Private Trade Channels In 2006-2007 Up-Country Marketing Through Private Vegetable Organization Channels Break Up Of Cost Marketing Through Products (Rs. Per

Box) 2006-2007 For Tomato

Marketing Centers Sr.

No

Items of Marketing

Pune Mumbai Nagpur Ahemadabad Delhi

Total Overall percentage of

total

1. Grading/Packing 2.50

(2.18)

2.50

(1.92)

2.50

(1.64)

2.50

(1.62)

2.50

(1.32)

12.50 1.69

2. Packing Material 50.00

(43.67)

50.00

(38.31)

50.00

(32.89)

50.00

(32.31)

50.00

(26.39)

250.00 33.73

3. Transport Cost 37.00

(32.31)

52.00

(39.85)

72.00

(47.37)

75.00

(48.46)

105.00

(55.41)

341.00 46.00

4. Hamali Loading and Unloading

5.00

(4.37)

5.00

(3.83)

5.00

(3.29)

5.00

(3.23)

5.00

(2.64)

25.00 3.37

5. Weighing 2.00

(1.75)

2.00

(1.53)

2.00

(1.32)

2.50

(1.62)

3.00

(1.58)

11.50 1.55

6. Commission Charges 17.00

(14.85)

17.50

(13.41)

19.00

(12.50)

18.00

(11.63)

22.00

(11.61)

93.50 12.61

7. Miscellaneous 1.00

(0.87)

1.50

(1.15)

1.50

(0.99)

1.75

(1.13)

2.00

(1.05)

7.75 1.04

8. Total Marketing cost 114.50 130.50 152.00 154.75 189.50 741.25 148.25

9. Per/kg marketing cost 3.81 4.35 5.06 5.16 6.32 24.70 4.94

Note – 1 box = 30 kg. Survey – Field Survey. Figures in brackets show percentage.

204

Tomato production from the study area is sent for sale to up-country markets like Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahemadabad and Delhi. The relevant marketing cost is shown in table No. 4.13. The tomato production is sent to these markets packed in wooden boxes and each box contains 30 kgs of tomato. The average overall marketing cost of a single box is Rs. 148.25 and average marketing cost of per kg. is Rs.4.94.

The highest rate of marketing cost in up-country market is incurred on transportation i.e. 46.00% followed by packing material cost worth 33.73% is expended on commission charges 12.61 %, on loading and unloading charges 3.37%, on grading 1.69%, on weighing 1.55% and miscellaneous 1.04%.

The total marketing cost increases due to the fact that up-country market like Delhi and Ahemadabad are far away from the production area and this fact causes additional cost on transportation and other marketing cost.

A survey proves that the total production cost of tomato is comparatively far more if the production is sent through private purchase-sale sanghs than through co-operative purchase-sale sangh.

4.13 Up-country Marketing Through Private Trade Channels

4.13.1 Pune Market Centre for tomato (Rs. per kg)

Tomato production from Shirol, one of the sample tahasils from study area, is sent for sale to up-country market like Pune through private vegetable growers sanghs. Table No. 4.14 represents details of marketing of tomato through private trade channels.

205

Table No. 4.14

Up-Country Marketing Through Private Trading Channels to Pune Market Centre For Tomato (Rs. Per Kg)

Total Marketing

Cost



Price Spread

(2-3)

Efficiency of Marketing (1/ps X 100)

(%) Producer's

share in consumer Rupee (PNP/RSP X

100)

Shepherds formula of efficiency of

marketing (V/I – 1)

Sr.

No

Year

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

1. 2002-2003 2.80 7.00 4.20 2.80 35.71 60.00 1.50

2. 2003-2004 2.90 8.40 5.50 2.90 34.48 65.48 1.90

3. 2004-2005 3.20 9.20 6.00 3.20 31.25 65.21 1.87

4. 2005-2006 3.60 11.00 7.40 3.60 27.78 67.27 2.05

5. 2006-2007 3.95 10.75 6.80 3.95 25.32 63.26 1.72

Total 16.45 46.35 29.9 16.45 154.54 321.22 9.04

Average 3.29 9.27 5.98 3.29 30.90 64.24 1.80


206

Tomato is sent to up-country market of Pune for sale through private vegetable purchase-sale sanghs. A study of marketing data for five years from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 leads to the findings is shown in table No. 4.14

Total marketing cost of tomato per kg in Pune market center for the five years was Rs.2.80, Rs. 2.90, Rs. 3.20, Rs. 3.60 and Rs. 3.95 respectively. Due to the increase in transportation and commission charges, there is marginal growth in market cost. The overall average marketing cost per kg is Rs. 3.29.

The producer's net price for the five years of study from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 was Rs. 4.20, Rs. 5.50, Rs. 6.00, Rs. 7.40 and 6.80 respectively. The average producer's net price was Rs. 5.98.

The price spread for the five years of study was 35.71 %, 34.48 %, 31.25 %, 27.78 % and 25.32 % respectively. It shows upstand decrease. The average price spread was 30.90 %. The maximum price spread was in the year 2002-2003 then it decreased every year and reached 25.32 % in the year 2006-2007. The decrease was less than the average price spread.

The producer's share in consumer rupee for the study period of five years was 60.00 %, 65.48 %, 65.21 %, 67.27% and 63.26%. From the year 2002-2003, it continuously increased and went upto 67.27% in 2005-2006 and decreased 63.26% in 2006-2007.

The decrease is not considerable though. Due to the increase in producer's share, the average producer's share remained upto 64.24 per cent.

The Shepherd formula index is used to measure the efficiency of marketing. For the study period of five years from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 it was 1.50, 1.90, 1.87, 2.05 and 1.72 respectively. The average rate of efficiency of marketing was 1.80. The maximum rate occurred in the year 2005-2006 and minimum in 2002-2003 and it was less than the average.

207

4.13.2 Up-country Marketing Through Private Trade Channel in Mumbai Market Centre for tomato (Rs. per kg)

The marketing condition of tomato production sent to Mumbai market center for sale through private trade marketing channels is shown in table No. 4.15 given below.

208

Table No. 4.15

Up-Country Marketing Through Private Trade Channels to Mumbai Market Centre For Tomato (Rs. Per Kg)




Price Spread

(2-3)


X 100)




Sr.

No

Year

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

1. 2002-2003 3.75 8.00 4.25 3.75 26.67 53.12 1.13

2. 2003-2004 3.85 9.20 5.35 3.85 25.97 58.15 1.39

3. 2004-2005 3.95 12.75 8.80 3.95 25.32 69.01 2.23

4. 2005-2006 4.10 12.00 7.90 4.10 24.39 65.83 1.93

5. 2006-2007 4.25 12.00 7.75 4.25 23.53 64.58 1.82

Total 19.90 53.95 34.05 19.90 125.88 310.69 8.50

Average 3.98 10.79 6.81 3.98 25.17 62.13 1.70


209

The total marketing cost for the five years of study period from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 in Mumbai market was Rs. 3.75, Rs. 3.85, Rs. 3.95, Rs. 4.10 and Rs. 4.25 per kg. respectively. It shows slight increase. The average increase was Rs. 3.98 per kg.

The price spread for the referred five year period was 26.67%, 25.97 %, 25.32%, 24.39 % and 23.53% respectively. The average price spread was 25.17 per cent. The maximum price spread appeared in the year 2002-2003 and minimum in 2006-2007.

The rate of producer's share in consumer rupee during the five years of study from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 was 53.12%, 58.15 %, 69.01%, 65.83% and 64.58% per cent respectively. The average producer's share was 62.13 per cent. In the year 2002-2003, it was comparatively less and in 2004-2005 comparatively more. However, there was no significant change in producer's share.

The efficiency of marketing is measured with the help of Shepherd formula. Accordingly the efficiency of marketing for the five years was 1.13, 1.39, 2.23, 1.93 and 1.82 respectively. The average efficiency was 1.70. The minimum efficiency was found in the year 2002-2003 and maximum in the year 2004-2005. In other remaining three years there appeared to be a slight difference.

4.13.3 Up-country Marketing Through Private Trade Channel in Nagpur Market Center for tomato (Rs. per kg.)

Tomato marketing data related to Nagpur up-country market in connection with production sent there for sale is presented in table No. 4.16.

210

Table No. 4.16

Up-Country Marketing Through Private Trade Channels to Nagpur Market Centre For Tomato (Rs. Per Kg)

Total Market

ing Cost

Retailer's Selling

Price

Producer's

Net Price (2-1)

Price Spread

(2-3)


X 100)


consumer Rupee (PNP/RSP X

100)

Shepherds formula of

efficiency of marketing (V/I – 1)

Sr.

No

Year

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

1. 2002-2003 4.20 8.50 4.30 4.20 2381 50.59 1.02

2. 2003-2004 4.75 8.80 4.05 4.75 21.05 46.02 0.85

3. 2004-2005 4.80 12.40 7.60 4.80 20.83 61.29 1.58

4. 2005-2006 4.90 11.50 6.60 4.90 20.40 57.39 1.35

5. 2006-2007 4.90 11.50 6.60 4.90 20.40 57.39 1.35

Total 23.55 52.70 23.55 23.55 106.49 272.68 6.15

Average 4.71 10.54 10.54 4.71 21.29 54.53 1.23


211

Table No. 4.16 represents data regarding tomato production sent for sale to Nagpur up-country market through private channels. It gives details regarding tomato marketing there for the five years from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007.

The total marketing cost for tomato per kg in Nagpur market center for the five years (2002-2003 to 2006-2007) was Rs. 4.20, Rs. 4.75, Rs. 4.80, Rs. 4.90 and 4.90 respectively. There was no considerable change in marketing cost and the average marketing cost was Rs. 4.71.

The price spread per kg for the referred five years was 23.81%, 21.05%, 20.83%, 20.40% and 20.40 respectively. The average price spread was 21.29 per cent. There was no considerable change in the total marketing cost. Therefore the price spread remained almost the same.

The producer's share in consumer rupee for the referred five years of study was 50.59%, 46.02%, 61.29%, 53.39% and 57.39 respectively. Its average was 54.53 per cent. The maximum rate of producer's share in consumer rupee occurred in 2004-2005 and minimum in the year 2003-2004.

The efficiency of marketing for the referred period of five years was 1.02, 0.85, 1.58, 1.35 and 1.35 respectively. The maximum efficiency of marketing was in the year 2004-2005 and minimum in the year 2003-2004. The overall average of efficiency of marketing during these five years was 1.23.

4.13.4 Up-country Marketing Through Private Trade Channels in Ahemadabad Market Center for tomato (Rs. per kg.)

Up-country marketing through private trade channels in Ahemadabad market is shown in table No. 4.17.

212

Table No. 4.17

Up-Country Marketing Through Private Trade Channels to Ahemadabad Market Centre For Tomato (Rs. Per Kg)




Price Spread

(2-3)


X 100)



Shepherds formula of efficiency of

marketing (V/I – 1)

Sr.

No

Year

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

1. 2002-2003 4.75 8.75 4.00 4.75 21.05 45.71 0.84

2. 2003-2004 4.80 10.50 5.70 4.80 20.83 54.29 1.18

3. 2004-2005 4.90 14.00 9.10 4.90 20.40 65.00 1.86

4. 2005-2006 4.90 10.50 5.60 4.90 20.40 53.33 1.14

5. 2006-2007 5.00 13.00 8.00 5.00 20.00 61.54 1.60

Total 24.35 56.75 32.40 24.35 102.68 279.87 6.62

Average 4.87 11.35 6.48 4.87 20.53 55.97 1.32


213

Tomato production is sent to up-country market in Ahemadabad for sale through private trade channels. The tomato marketing data for the period of five years from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 is analyzed here.

The total marketing cost of tomato per kg for the referred period of five years was Rs. 4.75, Rs. 4.80, Rs. 4.90, Rs. 4.90 and Rs. 5.00 respectively. The minimum marketing cost appeared in 2002-2003 and maximum in 2006-2007. There was no noticeable change in the total marketing cost. The average marketing cost was Rs. 4.87.

The price spread for the referred period of five years from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 was 21.05%, 20.83%, 20.40%, 20.40 % and 20.00 % respectively. Its average was 20.53. It remained constant during these five years and it came close to the average.

The producer's share in consumer rupee for the referred period of five years was 45.71%, 54.29%, 65.00%, 53.33 % and 61.54 % respectively. The average producer's share was 55.97 per cent. The maximum producer's share occurred in the year 2004-2005 and minimum in 2002-2003. There appeared to be considerable change in the producer's share.

The efficiency of marketing is measured with the Shepherd formula. Accordingly the efficiency of marketing of the concerned five years was 0.84, 1.18, 1.86, 1.14 and 1.60 respectively. Its average per kg was 1.32. There was minimum efficiency of marketing in the year 2002-2003. It further increased upto 1.86 in 2004-2005 and proved to be the highest.

4.13.5 Up-country Marketing Through Private Trade Channels in Delhi Market Center for tomato (Rs. per kg.)

Details regarding tomato marketing in up-country market of Delhi are given in table No. 4.18.

214

Table No. 4.18

Up-Country Marketing Through Private Trade Channels to Delhi Market Centre For Tomato (Rs. Per Kg)




Price Spread

(2-3)


X 100)


Consumer Rupee (PNP/RSP X 100)


Sr.

No

Year

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

1. 2002-2003 5.90 10.50 4.60 5.90 16.95 43.81 0.77

2. 2003-2004 6.50 12.00 5.50 6.50 15.38 45.83 0.84

3. 2004-2005 6.75 14.50 7.75 6.75 14.82 53.45 1.14

4. 2005-2006 6.85 14.10 7.25 6.85 14.60 51.42 1.05

5. 2006-2007 6.90 13.50 6.60 6.90 14.50 48.89 0.95

Total 32.90 64.60 31.70 32.90 76.25 243.40 4.75

Average 6.58 12.92 6.34 6.58 15.25 48.68 0.95


215

Delhi up-country market is for away from the study area and the production area. However, the surplus production of tomato is sent for sale to Delhi up-country market. The details regarding tomato marketing in Delhi for the period of five years from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 were studied and analyzed.

The total marketing cost of tomato per kg for the concerned period of five years from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 was Rs. 5.90, Rs. 6.50, Rs. 6.75, Rs. 6.85 and Rs. 6.90 respectively. The average marketing cost per kg was Rs. 6.58. Due to high rates of transportation, commission and other charges in Delhi market center, there was constant increase in the total marketing cost of tomato per kg and per year. The year 2002-2003 shows minimum marketing cost and 2006-2007 gives maximum marketing cost.

The price spread during the study span of 5 years from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 was 16.95%, 15.38%, 14.82%, 14.60% and 14.50 per cent. The average price spread was 15.25 per cent. Comparatively the highest price spread was in 2002-2003 and the lowest in 2006-2007. There was no significant change in the price spread.

The producer's share in consumer rupee for the referred period of five years was 43.81%, 45.83%, 53.45%, 51.42% and 48.89 per cent respectively. The average producer's share was 48.68 per cent. The maximum producer's share occurred in the year 2004-2005 and minimum in 2002-2003. There was significant change in producer's share.

The efficiency of marketing was measured with the Shepherd formula index. Accordingly the efficiency of marketing for the concerned five years was 0.77, 0.84, 1.14, 1.05 and 0.95 respectively. The average efficiency was 0.95. The maximum rate of efficiency accrued in the year 2004-2005 and minimum in the year 2003-3004. In the remaining three years 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2006-2007, the efficiency of marketing remained normal.

Finally, the up-country market of Delhi is far away from the respondent tomato grower. As a result, the transportation, commission and other changes are heavy

216

and they force increase in total marketing cost of tomato per kg. The study shows that the overall efficiency of marketing is low.

4.14 Average comparative study of tomato marketing through private trade channels. (2002-2003 to 2006-2007)

An average comparative study of up-country different marketing centers through private trade channels of tomato is shown in table No. 4.19.

217

Table No. 4.19

Average Comparative Study Of Up-Country Different Marketing Centers Through Private Trade Channels Of Tomato In 2002-2003 To 2006-2007)

Total average Marketing Cost

Average Retailer's Selling Price

Average Producer's Net Price (2-1)

Average Price Spread

(2-3)

Average Efficiency of

Marketing (1/ps X 100)

Average Producer's share in Consumer Rupee (PNP/RSP X

100)


Sr.

No

Name of Up-country Market

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

1. Pune 3.29 9.27 5.98 3.29 30.90 64.24 1.80

2. Mumbai 3.98 10.79 6.81 3.98 25.17 62.13 1.70

3. Nagpur 4.71 10.54 10.54 4.71 21.29 54.53 1.23

4. Ahemadabad 4.87 11.35 6.48 4.87 20.53 55.97 1.32

5. Delhi 6.58 12.92 6.34 6.58 15.25 48.68 0.95


218

The sample tomato producers from the study area send their surplus tomato production, to market in Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahemadabad and Delhi for sale, through private trade channels. The marketing cost, price spread and efficiency of marketing etc. from these markets were undertaken for study. The study indicates growth in their average in the five years from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007. This average is shown in table No. 4.19. Their observation leads to certain inferences.

The average marketing cost of tomato per kg in the private trade channels to Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahemadabad and Delhi market center was Rs. 3.29, Rs. 3.98, Rs. 4.71, Rs. 4.87 and Rs. 6.58 respectively. Compared to other market centers, the average marketing cost of Delhi center is high, Pune and Mumbai centers have the lowest marketing cost.

The average of price spread in Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahemadabad and Delhi market centers was drawn. This average price spread for the five years (2002-2003 to 2006-2007) was 3.90%, 25.17%, 21.29%, 20.53% and 15.25% respectively. Compared to other centers, maximum price spread was found in Pune market center and the minimum in Delhi market center.

The average producer's share in consumer rupee from the market centers of Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahemadabad and Delhi was 64.24%, 62.13%, 54.53%, 55.17% and 48.68 per cent respectively. The Pune market center showed comparatively more producer's share in consumer rupee followed by Mumbai center. The minimum producer's share in consumer rupee was found in Delhi market center.

The average efficiency of marketing from market centers of Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahemadabad and Delhi was 1.80, 1.70, 1.23, 1.32 and 0.95 respectively. The Pune market center had comparatively higher efficiency of marketing followed by Mumbai, Ahemadabad, Delhi market center had lowest efficiency of marketing, and it was due to the fact that this center had high marketing cost. The above observations are based on the keen study of the factual data.

219

4.15 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DIFFERENT MARKET CENTERS

4.15.1 Comparative Study of Different Market Centers and Marketing Channels of Tomato in 2002-03-

A comparative study of different marketing centers and marketing channels of tomato is shown in the following table No. 4.20.

220

Table No. 4.20

Comparative Study Of Market Centers Through Different Channels Of Tomato In 2002-2003

Sr

No

Up-country

market center

Name of

the channel

Total marketing cost

Retaile'r selling price

Producer's net price (4-3)

Price spreads (4-5)

Efficiency of

marketing (1/PS* 100)


consumers rupee

(PNP/Rsp*100)

Shepherds formula of efficiency of marketing (V/I-1)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Pune Private 2.80 7.00 4.20 2.80 35.71 60.00 1.50

2. Pune Co-op. 2.75 7.50 4.75 2.75 36.36 63.33 1.73

3. Mumbai Private 3.75 8.00 4.25 3.75 26.67 53.12 1.13

4. Mumbai Co-op. 3.50 8.50 5.00 3.50 28.58 58.82 1.42

5. Nagpur Private 4.20 8.50 4.30 4.20 23.81 50.59 1.02

6. Nagpur Co-op. 3.90 8.70 4.80 3.90 25.64 55.17 1.23

7. Ahemadabad Private 4.75 8.75 4.00 4.75 21.05 45.72 0.84

8. Ahemadabad Co-op. 4.40 8.90 4.50 4.40 22.73 50.56 1.02

9. Delhi Private 5.90 10.50 4.60 5.90 16.95 43.81 0.77

10. Delhi Co-op. 5.80 11.00 5.20 5.80 17.24 47.21 0.90

Source – Field Survey.

221

In the table No. 4.20, a comparative study of co-operative and private channels of marketing is done with reference to market centers of Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahemadabad and Delhi in specific context of the year 2002-2003. This study includes total marketing cost per kg, price spread, producer's share in consumer rupee and efficiency of marketing etc. in the concerned market centers.

In the private trade channels and co-operative channel from the concerned market centers, the total marketing cost of tomato per kg for the year 2002-2003 was Rs. 2.80, Rs. 3.75, Rs. 4.20, Rs. 4.75, Rs. 5.90 and Rs. 2.75, Rs. 3.50, Rs. 3.90, Rs. 4.40, Rs. 5.80. It is observed that the total marketing cost in both the channels is increasing. However, the total marketing cost of tomato per kg in private trade channels is more than that of co-operative channel-compared to other market centers the total marketing cost of tomato per kg in both the channels of Delhi market center was high.

The price spread in both the channels of all the concerned market centers was keenly studied and analysed. Accordingly the price spread in private trade channel and co-operative channel was 35.71 %, 26.69%, 23.81%, 21.05%, 16.95% and 36.36%, 28.58%, 25.64%, 22.73%, 17.24 per cent respectively. Compared to other market centers, the price spread in Pune market center was high, whereas Delhi market center had minimum of price spread.

Tomato producer's share in consumer rupee in private trade channels and co-operative channel was 60.00 %, 53.12%, 50.59%, 45.71%, 43.81% and 66.33%, 58.82%, 55.17%, 50.56%, 47.21 per cent respectively. If compared with each other the producer's share in consumer rupee for tomato production sold through co-operative channel was more.

The efficiency of marketing in all the concerned market centers and both marketing channels for the year 2002-2003 was measured with Shepherd formula. The efficiency of marketing in private trade channels and co-operative channel was 1.50, 1.13, 1.02, 0.84, 0.77 and 1.73, 1.42, 1.23, 1.02, 0.90. Comparatively the efficiency of marketing in co-operative channel was more than that of private trade

222

channels. In comparison with other market centers, efficiency of marketing in Ahemadabad and Delhi centers from both the channels was considerably low. Due to the fact that Delhi market is far away from the respondent's production area there was increase in total marketing cost which in turn caused decline in efficiency of marketing.

4.15.2 Comparative Study of Different Market Centers and Marketing Channels of Tomato in 2003-04.

A comparative study of different marketing centers and marketing channels of tomato is shown in the following table No. 4.21.

223

Table No. 4.21


Up-country

market center

Name of

the channel


Retailer's selling price


Price spreads (4-5)

Efficiency of

marketing (I/PS* 100)

(%) producer's share in

consumers rupee

(PNP/Rsp*100)


Sr

No

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Pune Private 2.90 8.40 5.50 2.90 34.48 65.48 1.90

2. Pune Co-op. 2.90 8.50 5.60 2.90 34.48 65.89 1.93

3. Mumbai Private 3.85 9.20 5.35 3.85 25.97 58.15 1.39

4. Mumbai Co-op. 3.80 9.30 5.50 3.80 26.31 59.13 1.45

5. Nagpur Private 4.75 8.80 4.05 4.75 21.05 46.02 0.85

6. Nagpur Co-op. 4.50 9.00 4.50 4.50 22.22 50.00 1.00


8. Ahemadabad Co-op. 4.60 11.20 6.60 4.60 21.74 58.92 1.43

9. Delhi Private 6.50 12.00 5.50 6.50 15.38 45.83 0.84

10. Delhi Co-op. 6.40 12.50 6.10 6.40 15.63 48.80 0.95


224

The efficiency of marketing from centers like Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahemadabad and Delhi for the year 2003-2004 is analyzed in table No. 4.21. This analysis is based on tomato marketing done through private trade channels and co-operative trade channel.

Total marketing cost of tomato per kg in private trade channel and co-operative channel from all the concerned market centers for the year 2003-2004 was Rs. 2.90, Rs. 3.85, Rs. 4.75, Rs. 4.80, Rs. 6.50 and Rs. 2.90, Rs. 3.80, Rs. 4.50, Rs. 4.60, Rs. 6.40 respectively. Co-operative trade channel had more rate of total marketing cost per kg than that of private trade channels. Pune market center had the minimum of total marketing cost whereas Delhi center had the maximum.

Price spread of private trade channels and co-operative channel was measured. It was 34.48%, 25.97%, 21.05%, 20.83%, 15.38 per cent and 34.48%, 26.31%, 22.22%, 21.74%, 15.63 per cent respectively. There was no significant difference between the two channels.

The share in consumer's rupee of private and co-operative trade channel from all the concerned market centers for the year 2003-2004 was 65.48%, 58.15%, 46.02%, 54.29%, 45.83 per cent and 65.89%, 59.13%, 50.00%, 58.92%, 48.80 per cent respectively. Comparatively the producer's share in consumer rupee in both the rate channels from Pune market center was the highest, followed by Mumbai market center.

Efficiency of marketing indexes of private and co-operative trade channels was 1.90, 1.39, 0.85, 1.18, 0.84 and 1.93, 1.45, 1.00, 1.43 and 0.95 respectively. Comparatively the efficiency of marketing in co-operative trade channel was more than that of private trade channels. In Delhi market, in both the channels the efficiency was low. It was satisfactory in Ahemadabad market center.

4.15.3 Comparative Study of Different Market Centers and Market Channels of Tomato in 2004-2005

A comparative study of different marketing centers and marketing channels of tomato producer is shown in table No. 4.22.

225

Table No. 4.22


Up-country

market center

Name of

the channel




Price spreads (4-5)

Efficiency of



consumers rupee

(PNP/Rsp*100)


Sr

No

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Pune Private 3.20 9.20 6.00 3.20 31.25 65.21 1.87

2. Pune Co-op. 3.10 9.40 6.30 3.10 32.25 67.02 2.03

3. Mumbai Private 3.95 12.75 8.80 3.95 25.32 69.01 2.23

4. Mumbai Co-op. 3.90 13.00 9.10 3.90 25.64 70.00 2.33

5. Nagpur Private 4.80 12.40 7.60 4.80 20.83 61.29 1.58

6. Nagpur Co-op. 4.60 13.00 8.40 4.60 21.74 64.62 1.83


8. Ahemadabad Co-op. 4.70 14.20 9.50 4.70 21.27 66.90 2.02

9. Delhi Private 6.75 14.50 7.75 6.75 14.82 53.45 1.14

10. Delhi Co-op. 6.50 15.00 8.50 6.50 15.38 56.67 1.30


226

The total marketing cost per kg in private and co-operative trade channels from all the market centers for the year 2004-2005 was Rs. 3.20, Rs. 3.95, Rs. 4.80, Rs. 4.90, Rs. 6.75 and Rs. 3.10, Rs. 3.90, Rs. 4.60, Rs. 4.70, Rs. 6.50 respectively. It has been observed that there was slight increase in total marketing cost in both the channels from all the market centers. Compared to other centers Delhi had a bit more total marketing cost.

It is observed that the price spread in both the channels private and co-operative, was 31.25%, 25.32%, 20.83%, 20.40%, 14.82% and 32.25%, 25.64%, 21.74%, 21.27%, 15.38 per cent.

Producer's share in consumer rupee indicates as how much returns the tomato producer received. In the year 2004-2005, the producer's share in consumer rupee from both private and co-operative trade channel was 65.21%, 69.01%, 61.29%, 65.00%, 53.45 per cent and 67.02%, 70.00%, 64.62%, 66.90%, 56.67 per cent. The rate of producer's share in both the channels from Mumbai market center was the highest followed by Pune, Nagpur and Ahemadabad.

The efficiency of marketing from both private and co-operative channel in all the concerned market centers was measured with Shepherd formula index. Accordingly the efficiency of marketing of private trade channels was 1.87, 2.23, 1.58, 1.86, 1.14. From co-operative channel it was 2.03, 2.33, 1.83, 2.02, 1.30. Mumbai center stands high in respect of efficiency from both channels, followed by Pune center.

Producer's share in consumer rupee and efficiency of marketing index from all the market centers in the year 2004-2005 was quite good.

4.15.4 Comparative Study of Different Market Centers and Marketing Channels of Tomato Production in 2005-2006

A comparative study of different market centers and marketing channels of tomato production is shown in table No. 4.23.

227

Table No. 4.23


Up-country

market center

Name of

the channel




Price spreads (4-5)

Efficiency of



consumers rupee

(PNP/Rsp*100)


Sr

No

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Pune Private 3.60 11.00 7.40 3.60 27.78 67.27 2.05

2. Pune Co-op. 3.50 11.25 7.75 3.50 28.57 68.88 2.21

3. Mumbai Private 4.10 12.00 7.90 4.10 24.39 65.83 1.93

4. Mumbai Co-op. 4.00 12.50 8.50 4.00 25.00 68.00 2.12

5. Nagpur Private 4.90 11.50 6.60 4.90 20.40 57.39 1.35

6. Nagpur Co-op. 4.65 11.00 6.35 4.65 21.50 57.75 1.37


8. Ahemadabad Co-op. 4.50 11.00 6.50 4.50 22.22 59.09 1.44

9. Delhi Private 6.85 14.10 7.25 6.85 14.60 51.41 1.05

10. Delhi Co-op. 6.80 14.40 7.60 6.80 14.70 52.78 1.11


228

Table No. 4.23 presents details regarding price spread, producer's share and marketing efficiency index in cost of both private and co-operative trade channesl from all the market centers namely Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahmedabad and Delhi.

Total marketing cost per kg in private trade channels from all the market centers was Rs. 3.60, Rs. 4.10, Rs. 4.90, Rs. 4.90, Rs. 6.85. Total marketing cost per kg. of co-operative channel was Rs. 3.50, Rs. 4.00, Rs. 4.65, Rs. 4.50, Rs. 6.80. The total marketing cost per kg. of co-operative channel was less than that of private channels. Compared to each other Pune center has low marketing cost per kg from both the channels. Delhi center has highest marketing cost.

The price spread in all the market centers for the year 2005-2006 was calculated. It showed that price spread in private trade channels was 27.78%, 24.39%, 20.40%, 20.40%, 14.60 per cent; and in co-operative channel it was 28.57%, 25.00%, 21.50%, 22.22%, 14.70 per cent. There was no significant difference in the price spread of private and co-operative channels during the year 2005-2006.

The producer's share in consumer rupee from private trade channel in all the market centers in the year 2005-2006 was 67.27%, 65.83%, 57.39%, 53.33%, 51.41 per cent. In co-operative channel, it was 68.88%, 68.00%, 57.75%, 59.09%, 52.78 per cent. The overall producer's share in both the channels of all the market centers during the year was good enough.

The efficiency of marketing index of private trade channels from all the market centers in the year 2005-2006 was 2.05, 1.93, 1.35, 1.14, 1.05 and of co-operative channel was 2.21, 2.12, 1.37, 1.44, 1.11. The highest efficiency of marketing from both the channels was found in Pune and Mumbai centers. From observational study, it is known that the overall efficiency of marketing in both the channels from all the market centers in the year was satisfactory.

229

4.15.5 Comparative Study of Different Market Centers and Marketing Channels of Tomato Production in 2006-2007

A comparative study of different market centers and marketing channels of tomato production is shown in table No. 4.24.

230

Table No. 4.24


Up-country

market center

Name of

the channel




Price spreads (4-5)

Efficiency of



consumers rupee

(PNP/Rsp*100)


Sr

No

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Pune Private 3.95 10.75 6.80 3.95 25.32 63.26 1.72

2. Pune Co-op. 3.80 10.85 7.05 3.80 26.31 64.98 1.85

3. Mumbai Private 4.25 12.00 7.25 4.25 23.53 64.58 1.82

4. Mumbai Co-op. 4.25 12.25 8.00 4.25 23.53 65.30 1.88

5. Nagpur Private 4.90 11.50 6.60 4.90 20.40 57.39 1.35

6. Nagpur Co-op. 4.70 12.00 7.30 4.70 21.28 60.84 1.55


8. Ahemadabad Co-op. 4.80 13.50 8.70 4.80 20.83 65.03 1.81

9. Delhi Private 6.90 13.50 6.60 6.90 14.90 48.89 0.95

10. Delhi Co-op. 6.90 14.20 7.30 6.90 14.49 51.40 1.05


231

Table No. 4.24 gives a comparative study of cost of marketing, price spread, producer's share in consumer rupee and efficiency of marketing of tomato product per kg in Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahmedabad and Delhi market centers were analyzed in the year 2006-2007 with the help of private trade channels and co-operative channel.

The total marketing cost of tomato per kg in private trade channels from all the market centers in the year 2006-2007 was Rs. 3.95, Rs. 4.25, Rs. 4.90, Rs. 5.00, Rs. 6.90 and in co-operative channel it was Rs. 3.80, Rs. 4.25, Rs. 4.70, Rs. 4.80, Rs. 6.40. Delhi market showed highest of total marketing cost per kg in both the trade channels.

The price spread in private trade channels from all the market centers was 25.32%, 23.53%, 20.40%, 20.00%, 14.90 per cent. From co-operative trade channel the price spread was 26.31%, 23.53%, 21.28%, 20.83%, 14.49 per cent. The price spread from both the private and co-operative channels was almost the same.

Producer's share in consumer rupee in private trade channel in the year 2006-2007 was 63.26%, 64.56%, 57.39%, 61.54%, 48.89 per cent, and in co-operative channel it was 64.98%, 65.30%, 60.84%, 65.03%, 51.40 per cent. The producer's share from both the channels in all concerned market centers was good enough. But comparatively the producer's share in co-operative channel was found more.

Efficiency of marketing was measured with Shepherds formula. According to it, efficiency index in private trade channels in all the market centers in the year 2006-2007 was 1.72, 1.82, 1.35, 1.60, 0.95 and in co-operative channel it was 1.85, 1.88, 1.55, 1.81, 1.05.

Comparatively the co-operative channel had high efficiency index. Compared to other market centers Delhi center showed the poor efficiency of marketing index from both the trade channels.

4.16 Conclusion

Marketing cost, price spread, producer's share and efficiency of marketing index was measured with the help of data collected from Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahemadabad

232

and Delhi market centers for the span of five years from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007. The study was based on marketing done through private trade channels and co-operative trade channel.

It clarifies that the total marketing cost per kg was low in Pune and Mumbai market centers. Nagpur and Ahemadabad had slightly better and on the contrary, Delhi center had considerably more marketing cost from both the trade channels. This growth in Delhi center was due to high transportation cost, commission charges, loading-unloading charges, packing cost etc. As a result, producer's share in consumer rupee and efficiency of marketing index are very low in that center. But during the season time all tomato growers have their production simultaneously and thus it becomes excess. Having no alternative, this excess tomato production is sent to Delhi market center for sale through private and co-operative trade channels.

233

References

1) Acharya S.S., Agarwal N. L. (2008) ‘Agricultural Marketing in India’, Fourth Edition, Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, P.No.41.

2) Veerakumaran G. and Satheesh C.K. (Sept.-Dec. 2002), ‘Marketing of Fruits and Vegetables Through Co-operatives – An Analysis of Consumer Behaviour’, Indian Journal of Agricultural Marketing Volume 16 (2) P.No.53.

3) Acharya S.S. and Agarwal N.L. (2008)

Opcit P.No.3

4) Acharya S. S. and Agarwal N.L. (2008)

Ibid P.No. 191

5) Mohaptra S. C. (Jan-April 1999), ‘Production and Marketing of Onion in Bolangir District of Orrissa’ Indian Agricultural Marketing Volume XIII (1) 1999, P.No. 43.

6) Dr. Jugale V. B. (2004), ‘Horticulture Economy of Maharashtra’ Shruti Publications Jaipur, P. No. 68.

CHAPTER - IV MARKETING CHANNELS OF TOMATO...

Documents

Transcript of CHAPTER - IV MARKETING CHANNELS OF TOMATO...