Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide


  1. 1. tqykbZ&&flrEcj] 2002 [k.M&45] vad % 2o`Ãf"k vkbZñ ,lñ ,lñ ,uñ&&0002&&1555 July—September, 2002 Vol. XLV, No. 2 I. S. S. N.—0002—1555foi.kuAGRICULTURALMARKETINGo`Ãf"k foi.ku ij jk"Vªh; Lrjdh frekgh if=dkA National Level Quarterly Journalon Agricultural Marketing lR;eso t;rs foi.ku ,oa fujh{k.k funskky; o`Ãf"k ea=ky; ¼d`f"k ,oa lgdkfjrk foHkkx½ Hkkjr ljdkj Directorate of Marketing & Inspection Ministry of Agriculture (Deptt. of Agriculture & Co-operation) Government of India
  3. 3. LET “AGRICULTURAL MARKETING” (QUARTERLY JOURNAL) BE YOUR MEDIUM OF PUBLICITY The Pre-payable rates are : Period Full page Half page Quarter page 4 Issues (Yearly) Rs. 800/- Rs. 500/- Rs. 350/- Single issue Rs. 250/- Rs. 150/- Rs. 100/- N.B.:—The rates are increased by (i) 50% for 1st Opening page and outside back cover; and (ii) 25% for Inside front Cover and Inside back cover for which full page advertisements are accepted. Apply for further particulars to :— The Controller of Publications Civil Lines DELHI-110 054 Telephone No. : 23812527October—December, 2001 3/C:/ws1/My Documents/560M&I-2002-Cover Mahabir Singh Mss No. 1
  4. 4. kq)rk vkSj DokfyVh dk ,xekdZ iSekuk],xekdZ ftl oLrq ij gks ogh pht+ ?kj ykuk]HkkbZ ogh pht+ ?kj ykukHkkjrh; mRiknAGMARKAGMARK WITH AGMARK YOU ARE SURE TO BUY BEST AND PURE PRODUCE OF INDIA izcU/kd] Hkkjr ljdkj eqnz.kky;] Qjhnkckn }kjk eqfnzr ,oa izdkku fu;a=d] fnYyh }kjk izdkfkr 2003 Printed by the Manager, Govt. of India Press, Faridabad and published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi 2003
  5. 5. SHRI P.K. AGARWAL, I.A.S. OUR NEW AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ADVISER TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Shri P.K. Agarwal, I.A.S. (Andhra Pradesh, 1975) is the new Agricultural Marketing Adviser to the Govt. of India. Before taking up the present assignment on May 14, 2001, Shri Agarwal was holding the post of Principal Secretary in the Department of Irrigation and Command Area Development Deptt., Govt. of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. Earlier, he has served in the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh in the capacity of Managing Director of the Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Ltd., Hyderabad and of Sri Vajayarama Gajapati Corporation Sugars Ltd., Bhimasinghi, Vijayanagar District. During his field postings, Shri Agarwal served as Collector and District Magistrate of Kurnool, West Godavari and Vishakhapatnam Districts and as Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. In Govt. of India, Shri Agarwal has earlier worked as Chief Executive of the National Co-operative Union of India at New Delhi.October—December, 2001 5/C:/ws1/My Documents/560M&I-2002-Cover Mahabir Singh Mss No. 1
  6. 6. ^^,xekdZ* * Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk xq.koÙkk ds izek.ku dh ,d iz.kkyh gSA6 Agricultural Marketing/C:/ws1/My Documents/560M&I-2002-Cover Mahabir Singh Mss No. 1
  7. 7. Vol. XLV–No. 2 ISSN. 0002–1555vk"kk<+&&vkfou] 1924 ¼kd½ PAMA–116, VOL–XLV, No.–2JULY—SEPTEMBER, 2002 500 o`Ãf"k foi.ku AGRICULTURAL MARKETING EDITORIAL BOARD CONTENTS Page No. 1. Hkkjr esa jch Qlyksa dk mRiknu rFkk foi.kuA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21. SHRI P. K. AGARWAL, —Hkkx pUnz tSu AGRICULTURAL MARKETING 2. Economics of Apple Marketing in Kashmir Province— . . . . . . . . . 5 ADVISER TO THE GOVERNMENT Problems & Prospects. OF INDIA. —F. A. Shaheen & S. P. Gupta 3. Promoting Agricultural Exports from India—Need of the hour. . . . . . . 14 —K. N. Ravi Kumar, Ch. Radhika Rani & K. P. C. Rao2. DR. G. R. BHATIA, 4. Sale pattern & Marketing of Groundnut—A case study in . . . . . . .. 21 ADDL. AGRICULTURAL Andhra Pradesh. MARKETING ADVISER. —G. Sunil Kumar Babu , S. Sri Hari Naidu and Y. Eswara Prasad 5. Extension issues in informal marketing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 —G. H. Dhankar, Lallan Rai,3. SHRI R. J. VERMA, D. B. Bharadwaj & Dr. Nafees Ahmed. JOINT AGRICULTURAL 6. Marketed surplus of Paddy—A regression analysis. . . . . . . . . . . 25 MARKETING ADVISER. —Virendra Kumar Chauhan & Ramesh Singh 7. Agri-Business sector in India—A SWOT Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . 2 8 —Lokesha H. Lalith Achoth, Hugar LB,4. SHRI A. P. BHATNAGAR, Amrutha C. P. & Deshmanya J. B. DIRECTOR (COLD STORAGE 8. A study of integration of markets for onion and potato in Karnataka . . . . 30 AND REFRIGERATION). State. —Balappa Shivaraya & Hugar L. B. 9. Agri-Business Co-operatives in 21st Century—Challenges. . . . . . . . 33 and opportunities.5. DR. P. K. JAISWAL, —Sanjib Kumar Hota, B. Kishor & Vinod Sharma DIRECTOR OF LABORATORIES. 10. HOME NEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 I. Scheme for the establishment and Administration of Raithara Santhegalu.6. SHRI G. H. DHANKAR, II. Transport Assistance to exporters in North-Eastern Region notified for DEPUTY AGRICULTURAL Horticulture products. MARKETING ADVISER. III. SAARC to prepare inventory of technologies vital for the region. IV. Export up by over 12% in June, 02 Indias foreign trade data for April-June, 2002-2003. EDITOR V. Post Doha negotiations must conform to our development needs. Commerce Secretary addresses IIFT Convocation. SHRI N. K. MISRA VI. Import of sensitive items : April-June 2002. MARKETING OFFICER Annual Subscription : IMPORTANT The Journal may be had by sending subscription to the Controller ofPublications, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054 by Demand Draft of any Bank taken Inland–Rs. 40.00 Foreign–£ 4.67 or $ 14.40 } Inclusive of postagein his favour. Single Copy : Inland–Rs. 10.00 Foreign–£ 1.7 or $ 3.60 } Exclusive of postageANY ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN THIS JOURNAL CAN BE REPRODUCED PROVIDED DUE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IS MADE TO THE SOURCE.THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THE ARTICLE ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHORS AND NOT NECESSARILY OF THE DIRECTORATE OF MARKETING& INSPECTION AND THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.READERS MAY SEND POPULAR ARTICLES OF TOPICAL INTEREST IN HINDI AND ENGLISH TO THE EDITOR, AGRICULTURALMARKETING, DIRECTORATE OF MARKETING & INSPECTION, NEW C. G. O. BUILDING, N. H. IV, FARIDABAD-121001.
  8. 8. Hkkjr esa jch Qlyksa dk mRiknu rFkk foi.ku —HkkxpUnz tSu*–kjrh; vFkZO;oLFkklk/kua d`f"k jh<+jg dh gSgM~ftlsdsykHkdkjh gSO;olk;"k vkthfodk dk es cudj xbZ ] Mh leku A oÃ`f fcgkjh cktis;h dh v/;{krk esa vuqeksfnr fd;k tk pqdk gSA o"kZ 2002 ls kq: gksus okyh bl iapo"khZ; ;kstuk esa ldy ?kjsyw mRikn dh o`f)cukus ds fy;s oÃf"k mRiknu ds lkFk&lkFk oÃf"k foi.ku ij iw.kZ /;ku nsuk ` ` nj 8 izfrkr izkIr djus dk y{; j[kk x;k gSA gekjk nsk oÃ`f"k iz/kkugksxkA vktdy d`f"k dk n`f"Vdks.k cktkj dh vksj gks x;k gSA vc ;g vo; gS] fdUrq ;gka dh mRikndrk 2 ls 2-5 Vu izfr gsDVs;j gS] ftlsvko;drk eglwl dh tk jgh gS fd ,d fdlku dks ,d vPNk oÃ"kd gh ` ;kstukc) rjhdksa ls lalk/kuksa ds mfpr nksgu }kjk 3-5 ls 4 Vu rdugha] cfYd ,d dqky O;kikjh Hkh gksuk pkfg;sA d`f"k mRiknksa dks mRiUu c<+k;k tk ldrk gSA o"kZ 2001 dh tux.kuk ds vuqlkj Hkkjr dhdjuk ftruk egRoiw.kZ gksrk gS] mruk gh egRoiw.kZ mudk foØ; gksrk gSA tula[;k 102 djksM+ ls vf/kd gks pqdh gSA vkt bruh cM+h vkcknh dsmUur rduhd ds mi;ksx ls d`f"k mRiknu esa fujarj o`f) gks jgh gS] ;g fy;s 24 djksM+ Vu [kk|kUu dh t:jr gS] tcfd o"kZ 2001&2002 esamRiknu esa o`f) rc lkFkZd gksxh] tc ml mRiknu dk lgh <ax ls foi.ku [kk|kUu mRiknu dk vuqeku 20-8 djksM+ Vu yxk;k x;k gSA ;g y{;fd;k tk;sA izkIr djuk rc vklku gks ldrk gS] tcfd oÃ`f"k vknkuksa dh le; ij oÃ`f"k ,d ekSleh O;olk; gS vkSj Qlysa izk;% ,d lkFk rS;kj gksrh miyC/krk lqfufpr fd;s tkus ds fy;s iz;kl fd;s tk;sa vkSj oÃ`f"kgSa] ftlls e.Mh vkSj cktkjksa esa ,d lkFk vkod c<+ tkrh gSaA oÃ`f"k foi.ku dks oÃ`"kd mi;ksxh cuk;k tk;sAmRiknksa dh vkod c<+ tkus ls muds cktkj Hkko de gks tkrs gSaA oÃ`f"k dSls c<+k;sa Qly mRiknu mit dks mfpr ewY; feys rFkk fdlkuksa dks mudh dM+h esgur dkvPNk Qy feys] blds fy;s Hk.Mkj.k O;oLFkk dks izHkkoh cukuk vko;d Hkkjrh; oÃ`f"k ekulwu ij vk/kkfjr gS] tgka [kjhQ Qlyksa dh vis{kkgSA jk"Vªh; oÃ`f"k uhfr esa oÃ`f"k mRiknksa ds foi.ku dks lq/kkjus dk izko/kku jch Qlyksa dk {ks=Qy de gSA jch esa eq[;r% xsgw¡ puk] vylh] eVj]fd;k x;k gS rFkk oÃ`f"k fodkl dh ok£"kd o`f) nj pkj izfrkr fd;s elwj] jkbZ&ljlksa dh [ksrh dh tkrh gSA rkfydk&1 ls Li"V gksrk gS fdtkus dk y{; fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gSA nloha iapo"khZ; ;kstuk esa oÃ`f"k o"kZ 1997&98 ls 1999&2000 rd xsgw¡] puk] jkbZ&ljlksa dk {ks=Qydks loksZPp izkFkfedrk nh xbZ gS] ftldk elkSnk iz/kkuea=h Jh vVy rFkk mRiknu c<+rs Øe esa jgk gSA rkfydk&1 Hkkjr esa jch Qlyksa dk {ks=Qy] mRiknu rFkk mRikndrk {ks=Qy ¼yk[k gsDVs;j½ mRiknu ¼yk[k Vu½ mRikndrk ¼fdyks@gsDVs-½Qlysa 1997&98 1998&99 1999&2000 1997&98 1998&99 1999&2000 1997&98 1998&99 1999&2000xsgw¡ 266-96 275-23 274-34 663-45 712-88 755-74 2485 2590 2755puk 75-63 84-69 63-05 61-32 68-01 50-82 811 803 806jkbZ&ljlksa 70-41 65-13 60-70 47-03 56-64 59-58 668 870 982L=ksr % bafM;k] 2002 Hkkjr esa jch Qlyksa dh [ksrh dks c<+kok nsus ds fy;s fuEufyf[kr * nygu&frygu mRiknu O;oLFkk dks izHkkoh cukuk gksxk]mik; viukus gksaxs % * oÃ`f"k mRiknu dk lqjf{kr Hk.Mkj.k djuk gksxk] * izkoÃ`frd lalk/kuksa dk leqfpr rjhds ls nksgu djuk gksxk] * moZjdksa dk larqfyr :i ls mi;ksx djuk gksxk] * vPNh xq.koÙkk okys chtksa ds mi;ksx gsrq cht fcrj.k ij /;ku * ikS/k laj{k.k gsrq lefUor ukkhtho izca/ku djuk gksxk] nsuk gksxk] * Hkw ty dk O;ofLFkr <ax ls mi;ksx djuk gksxk] * oÃ`f"k izlkj O;oLFkk dk lqn`<+hdj.k djuk gksxkA*lgk;d izk/;kid ¼izoj Js.kh½] oÃ`f"k ,oa izkoÃ`frd lalk/ku vFkZkkL= foHkkx] laiknd—vkbZ- th- ds- Ogh- U;wt ysVj] bafnjk xka/kh oÃ`f"k foofo|ky;] jk;iqj&492012 ¼NÙkhlx<+½2 Agricultural Marketing/C:/ws1/My Documents/560M&I-1 560 M & I/2002 Mss. 2 to 109 Page No. 1 to 53 REVISED & Pagination H. N. Mishra
  9. 9. [kk|kUu mRiknu vkSj Hk.Mkj.k dh tkrh gS] ftlesa e/;LFkksa }kjk ukius dk orZu fu/kkZfjr uki ls izk;% cM+k gksrk gSA nh bdksuksfed VkbEl ls feyh tkudkjh ds vuqlkj gekjs oÃ`f"k mRiknu c<+kus ds fy;s ljdkj }kjk fofHkUu dk;ZØe lapkfyr nsk ds 60 izfrkr ,sls xkao gSa] tgka ikap fdyksehVj dh ifjf/k esa e.Mhfd;s tk jgs gSa] tSls&foks"k [kk|kUu mRiknu dk;ZØe foiqy mRiknu ;k cktkj miyC/k ugha gSaA jch Qlyksa ds foi.ku esa fuEufyf[kr leL;k;sadk;ZØe] jk"Vªh; nygu ,oa frygu mRiknu dk;ZØe] jk"Vªh; tyxzg.k ck/kk igqapk jgha gSa %{ks= fodkl dk;ZØe vkfnA bu dk;ZØeksa rFkk fdlkuksa ds vFkdiz;klksa ls [k|kUu mRiknu esa o`f) gqbZ gS] ftlds Hk.Mkj.k gsrq Hkkjrh; * xzkeh.k {ks=ksa esa oÃ`f"k vk/kkfjr izfØ;k ¼Processing½ bdkb;ksa dh[kk| fuxe ds dqy 744 xksnke gSa vkSj bl fuxe }kjk yxHkx 110 la[;k ux.; gSAxksnke jkT; ljdkjksa ls fdjk;s ij fy;s gSaA dsUnzh; Hk.Mkj x`g fuxe }kjk * jch Qlyksa dh [ksrh dk QSyko NqViqV rFkk nwj&nwj gS] ftllsvius 142 xksnkeksa esa Hk.Mkj.k fd;k tk jgk gS rFkk jkT;ksa ds ikl 305 mRiknu de izkIr gksrk gS rFkk cktkj vfrjs; (Marketablexksnke gSaA Hk.Mkj.k gsrq bruh la[;k esa xksnke miyC/k gSa] fQj Hkh Surplus) cgqr de gksrk gSA cktkj ;ksX; oÃ`f"k ftUlksa dh ek=kHk.Mkj.k leL;k c<+rh tk jgh gSA ,slk vuqeku gS fd ,d Vu vukt de gksus ls mls oÃ`"kd etcwjhok LFkkuh; O;kikjh dks csp nsrs gSa,d o"kZ rd xksnkeksa esa j[kus ij 1800 #i;s [kpZ vkrk gS] bl fglkc ls rFkk mUgsa oÃ`f"k mRiknksa dk de ewY; fey ikrk gSApkj djksM+ Vu vukt ds j[k&j[kko ij kklu dks 7200 djksM+ #i;s lsvf/kd dk [kpZ mBkuk iM+sxkA kklu }kjk 340 yk[k Vu vukt dk * losZ{k.k ls Kkr gqvk gS fd oÃ`"kdksa dks viuh mit ds miHkksDrkHk.Mkj.k fd;k tk pqdk gS( vukt dh [kjhnh ds ckn ;g LVkWd vkSj c<+ ewY; esa ls dsoy 40 ls 60 izfrkr rd fgLlk izkIr gks ikrk gSAtk;sxkA vukt Hk.Mkj.k dh leL;k dks ns[krs gq;s kklu }kjk ubZ Hk.Mkj.k Qy vkSj lCth okyh Qlyksa esa ;g fgLlk blls Hkh de feyuhfr rS;kj dh tk jgh gS] ftlesa futh {ks=ksa dks kkfey fd;k tk;sxkA ikrk gSAHkkjrh; [kk| fuxe vkSj jkT;ksa dh olwyh ,tsafl;ksa ds ikl Hk.Mkj.k lq>ko{kerk dh deh eglwl dh tk jgh gS] ftlds dkj.k yk[kksa Vu vukt[kqys esa j[kuk iM+ jgk gSA dsUnz ljdkj ds foi.ku losZ{k.k ds vuqlkj * lgdkjh ;k futh {ks=ksa }kjk fodkl [k.M Lrj ij oÃ`f"k izfØ;kHkkjr esa izfro"kZ mit dk 20 yk[k Vu [k|kUu mi;qDr Hk.Mkj.k ugha bdkb;ksa dh LFkkiuk dh tkuh pkfg;sA nygu&frygu izfØ;kgksus ds dkj.k [kjkc gks tkrk gSA ,slk Hkh vuqeku gS fd xsgw¡] pkoy rFkk bdkb;ksa dks izksRlkgu nsus ds fy;s kklu }kjk ftUlksa dksvU; ftUlksa dk mfpr Hk.Mkj.k lqfo/kk miyC/k ugha gksus ds dkj.k nks miyC/k djkuk pkfg;sAizfrkr Hkkx u"V gks tkrk gSA * cktkj ;ksX; oÃ`f"k mit dh ek=k de gksus ij Hkh ;fn oÃ`"kdleFkZu ewY; laxfBr gksdj lkewfgd :i ls oÃ`f"k mRiknksa dh fcØh djrs fofHkUu ftUlksa ds leFkZu ewY; esa o`f) gsrq fdlkuksa }kjk ekax dh gSa&&rc mUgsa ifjogu rFkk vU; cktkj O;; de gksrk gS rFkk ostkrh jgh gS] ftldh iw£r dsUnz vkSj jkT; ljdkj }kjk cksul jkfk fdlh Hkh cktkj esa oÃ`f"k mRiknksa dh fcØh dj ldrs gSaAvfrfjDr nsdj dh tkrh jgh gSA kklu }kjk Qlyksa dh ykxr rFkk * fdlkuksa esa ftUl laxzg.k] Hk.Mkj.k dh izo`fÙk izk;% de ik;h tkrhmiHkksDrk dks /;ku esa j[krs gq;s gj o"kZ leFkZu ewY; esa o`f) dh xbZ gSA gSA jkT; Hk.Mkj x`g fuxe vkSj oÃ`f"k mit e.Mh lfefr;ksa }kjk Hk.Mkj.k dh lqfo/kk xzkeh.k {ks=ksa rd miyC/k djkuh pkfg;sA xzke rkfydk 2 iapk;r Lrj ij foÙkh; laLFkkvksa }kjk oÃ`f"k mRiknksa ds Hk.Mkj.k gsrq jch Qlyksa dk leFkZu ewY; vfxze jde iznku djuk pkfg;sA ¼#i;s izfr fDoaVy½ * fofHkUu iznskksa esa frygu lgdkjh lfefr;ka dsoy lks;kchu] ljlksa] lw;Zeq[kh ds foi.ku esa layXu gSa] bu lgdkjh lfefr;ksa dks lHkhQlysa 1995& 1996& 1997& 1998& 1999& 2000& izdkj dh frygu ftUlksa ds foi.ku dk dk;Z djuk pkfg;sA 96 &97 &98 99 2000 2001 * miHkksDrk ewY; esa ls mRiknd dks ewY; dk de fgLlk izkIr gksxsgw¡ 360 380 510 550 575 610 ikrk gS] bl vak dks c<+kus ds fy;s fdlku laxfBr gksa rFkk viuspuk 670 700 740 895 1015 1100 oÃ`f"k mRiknksa dh fcØh [kqys izfr;ksxh cktkj esa djsaAjkbZ&ljlksa 830 860 890 1000 1100 1200 * ;fn fdlku laxfBr gks tkrs gSa rc mUgsa foÙkh; lqfo/kk;sa vklkuh ls fey ldrh gSa rFkk os izfØ;k bdkb;ksa ls lEca/k LFkkfir dj foi.kuQlyksa ds foi.ku esa vkus okyh ck/kk;sa esa vkus okyh tksf[ke dks de dj ldrs gSaA bl rjg ds laxBu oÃ`f"k foi.ku fofHkUu leL;kvksa ls f?kjk gqvk gS] ftlesa Hk.Mkj.k] dukZVd] egkjk"Vª vkfn jkT;ksa esa lQyrkiwoZd dk;Z dj jgs gSaAJs.khdj.k] izek.khoÃ`r eki rFkk rkSy] e/;LFkksa }kjk kks"k.k dh leL;k;sa bl izdkj ds laxBuksa ls fdlku vPNs cht] laxg.k dsUnz] Js.khdj.k] zgSaA xzkeh.k {ks=ksa esa dgha&dgha vukt dh [kjhnh O;kikfj;ksa }kjk uki dj iSdsftax] ifjogu vkSj Fkksd&QqVdj cktkjksa dk ykHk izkIr djJuly—September, 2002 3/C:/ws1/My Documents/560M&I-1 560 M & I/2002 Mss. 2 to 109 Page No. 1 to 53 REVISED & Pagination H. N. Mishra
  10. 10. ldrs gSaA tSlk cksvksxs&oSlk dkVksxsA ;fn vPNk cht cks;k tkrk gS rks mldk * ,sls Qy rFkk lCth okyh Qlyksa dks ¼ftUgsa cktkj esa rqjar cspus mRiknu Hkh vPNk feyrk gSA [ksr ls gh cktkj dh fLFkfr ij fopkj ij½ de ewY; izkIr gksrk gS] mUgsa fdlkuksa&lCth mRikndksa ds fd;k tkrk gS vFkkZr~ cqvkbZ ls foi.ku dh j.kuhfr kq: gks tkrh gS] laxBu }kjk khrx`g esa j[kk tk ldrk gSA laxBu }kjk khrx`g dh blfy;s oÃ`f"k vknkuksa dh le; ij miyC/krk lqfufpr dh tkuh pkfg;s LFkkiuk Hkh dh tk ldrh gS rFkk Qy&lCth dks tYnh [kjkc vkSj foi.ku lqfo/kk;sa xkao&xkao rd igqapkus gsrq lM+d] ekxZ lq/kkj] gksus ls cpk;k tk ldrk gSA ifjogu lk/ku fodflr djuk pkfg;sA tc oÃ`f"k foi.ku izR;{k :i ls xkaoksa ls tqM+ tk;sxk&rc fdlkuksa dh vk£Fkd fLFkfr lqn`<+ gksxhA geskk ^,xekdZ* oLrq,a gh [kjhnsaA4 Agricultural Marketing/C:/ws1/My Documents/560M&I-1 560 M & I/2002 Mss. 2 to 109 Page No. 1 to 53 REVISED & Pagination H. N. Mishra
  11. 11. Economics of Apple Marketing in Kashmir Province— Problems and Prospects F. A. SHAHEEN AND S. P. GUPTA*Introduction taken into consideration. Eight villages (4 from each tehsil) are chosen for the study purpose. A 10 per cent sample ofA griculture is the mainstay of Indian economy and horti- culture is a crucial component thereof. Horticulturedevelopment has been accorded high priority during the 8th apple growers, who cultivate and market their produce, from these selected villages is considered for the purpose of study. Accordingly, 57 apple growers are selected for the presentand 9th Five Year Plans. The impact of enhanced investment study. These farmers are classified into small (less than 2.50in horticulture has been highly encouraging in terms of vastly ha), medium (2.51 to 5.00 ha) and large (above 5.00 ha) catego-improved production of 96.1 million tonnes in 1990-91 to 141.00 ries, based on area allocated by them under the apple crop. Amillion tonnes in 1996-97 in the country. The J&K produces proportionate sampling is done for the different market inter-about 1 million m.t. quantity of various fruits of which apple mediaries and thereby 17 wholesalers and 25 retailers are se-constitutes 0.86 million m.t. (90 per cent). Involving about half lected for the study purpose. All the information required wasa million households, apple plays a key role in the rural collected from these farmers, retailers and wholesalers. Theeconomy of the state with an average yearly turn over of Rs. study was conducted in the year 1999-2000.750 crores. The improvement in the production is quiteimportant, but marketing has also an equal importance to Results and Discussiondevelop a commercial crop, which is purely produced to sell in Land Use and Cropping Patternthe market. Though, there have been multi-dimensional effortsto increase the production of apple in the state but marketing Land use and cropping pattern at sampled farms have beenhas not received proper attention. The market of apple is not represented in table 1 and 2 respectively. Area under appleregulated in the state. shows a positive relationship with the total cultivated area which varied from 54.91 per cent at small farms to 86.28 perObjectives cent at large farms. Apple is the main crop of the farmers asLooking to the above facts, the present study is undertaken about 50 per cent, 78 per cent and 82 per cent of total croppedin view of the following objectives: area is allocated under this crop by small, medium and large farmers respectively. About 80 per cent area allocated under (I) To examine the marketing system prevailing in the apple orchard by medium and large farmers is clear indication apple trade, that these farmers have sufficient resources to manage this (II) To estimate the marketing cost, margins and price- crop. The financial assistance rendered by commission agents spread in the apple marketing, in this trade to these farmers may also be a reason to manage about 80 per cent area under apple cultivation. The per farm (III) To examine the different constraints in financing, production is observed to be as 31.80 tonnes, 131.22 tonnes production and marketing faced by the apple pro- and 433.56 tonnes in case of small, medium and large farms ducers and respectively. The per hectare production varies from 30 tonnes (IV) To suggest some policy interventions to improve at small, 38.03 tonnes at medium to 44.69 tonnes at large farms. the production and marketing. The sufficient use of required inputs by medium and large farmers may be a reason of relatively higher per hectare pro-Methodology duction at these farms as compared to small farms. Moreover, the age of orchard, technological gap and other natural fac- The J&K is purposively selected for study purpose as it tors may also contribute the variation in per hectare produc-has 35.92 per cent and 58.85 per cent of countrys total area tion of this crop among the categories.and production respectively. About 30 per cent area and 60per cent production of the state is in Barramulla district. Hence, The cropping pattern followed at sampled farms as shownBarramulla district is selected for the study. From Barramulla in table 2 indicates that in all the categories, most of the area isdistrict, two tehsils, one having highest production i.e, Sopore allocated under the apple cultivation, constituting 49.76 perand other having relatively less production i.e, Bandipore are cent at small, 77.81 per cent at medium and 82.28 per cent at* Research Associate and Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural & Natural Resource Economics, Indira Gandhi Agricultural University,Raipur, Chhattisgarh.July—September, 2002 5/C:/ws1/My Documents/560M&I-1 560 M & I/2002 Mss. 2 to 109 Page No. 1 to 53 REVISED & Pagination H. N. Mishra
  12. 12. large farms to total cropped area. The percentage of area un- prices prevailed in Jammu and Sopore market, while theder other kharif and rabi crops is decreasing as the size of marketing cost is proportionately higher in Delhi market.holding increases. The reason behind this fact is that the Probably this may be the reason behind this phenomenon.large farmers are purely apple growers and have allocated Marketing channels and price spreadvery less area to other crops while small farmers take more orless every crop for their livelihood. The cropping intensity is There are seven marketing channels patronized by the ap-computed as 110.36, 104.47 and 104.09 per cent at small, me- ple growers.dium and large farms respectively. These are :Market Share Channel—I Producer—Commission agent—Whole The category-wise, market-wise and variety-wise share of saler—Retailer—Consumertotal sale by sample orchardists is presented in table 3 and 4. Channel—II Producer—Forwarding agent—Commis-The main variety grown by sample farmers in all three sion agent—Whole saler—Retailer—categories is Delicious which constitute about 66 per cent of Consumertotal produce. The American, Maharaji and Bahari varietiesaccount for 14.60 per cent, 7.49 per cent and 11.93 per cent Channel—III Producer—Pre-harvest Contractor—respectively of the total produce sold by sample growers. The Commission agent—Whole saler—Re-large farmers contributed about 64 per cent of the total produce tailer—Consumermarketed, while these figures are about 24 per cent and 12 per Channel—IV Producer—Pre-harvest contractor—For-cent in case of medium and small farmers respectively. The warding agent—Commission agent—markets selected by sample farmers are Sopore (local fruit Whole saler—Retailer—Consumermarket of study area), Jammu, Delhi, Calcutta and Ahmedabad.The major share of produce sold by sample farmers is in Channel—V Producer—JKHMC—Retailer—Con-Azadpur fruit market Delhi (54.41 per cent), followed by Sopore sumer(26.11 per cent). Jammu and Calcutta markets constitute almost Channel—VI Producer—Retailer—Consumerequal share of sale (about 6.5 per cent) while this figure isleast for Ahmedabad (3.09 per cent) market to total sale. Channel—VII Producer—Contractor—Processor— Dealers—Retailers ConsumersPrice, Marketing Cost and Economics of Apple Marketing Though the channel V & VI were not identified during the Market-wise, category-wise and variety-wise marketing present study, however, these do exist in the study area.cost, price and net share are shown from table 5-7. Highestmarketing cost of Rs. 134.16 per box is estimated in case of The highest percentage (51.37 per cent) of total produce isCalcutta market followed by Ahmedabad (Rs. 114.72 per box), transacted through Channel-I followed by Channel-II (23.25while it is minimum for Sopore (Rs. 60.51 per box). The main per cent) while channel-III and IV account for 19.75 per centcomponents responsible for the variation of marketing cost and 5.63 per cent of total produce transacted by these growersacross the markets are transportation cost and commission respectively. The channel VII exists in case of culled apples.charges. The combined expenditure on these two items varied Only 20 per cent of the total unmarketable surplus (culledfrom 32.92 per cent in Sopore market to 64.00 per cent in Calcutta apples) of sample orchardists is transacted through thismarket. The on farm costs, which include cost of harvesting, channel.packaging and head load to road are same for all the markets. The price spread and marketing margins of differentThe marketing cost at different categories is almost equal intermediaries is depicted in table 8. The price spread iswithin the market. The small variation in marketing cost at estimated only for Channel-I and III which terminate withinthese categories is due to commission charges levied on the study area. The Maharaji variety is not considered tovarying prices of product. estimate the price-spread as it is not preferred by consumers The average price for all four varieties was highest in in local market. The producers share in consumers rupee isAhmedabad market followed by Calcutta, while it was lowest found to be about 54.00 per cent for Delicious and Americanin Sopore market (Table 6). The variation in average prices variety while this figure is only 33.63 per cent in case of Bahariacross the markets was maximum for American variety (Rs. varieties. The highest expenditure incurred by producer is on163.80 per box), while it was least for Maharaji variety (Rs. packaging (about 13.00 per cent) followed by commission72.28 per box). The large category farmers have got highest charges (about 7 per cent of the consumer price). Theprice of Delicious and American variety in most of the markets marketing cost incurred by all agencies constitute about 30with some exceptions. The net shares of Delicious, Maharaji per cent for Delicious and American varieties while it is 36.14and Bahari varieties are less in Delhi than the net share per cent in case of Bahari varieties. The total margin made byin Jammu and Sopore markets. The prices of these wholesalers and retailers of Bahari varieties is 31.58 per cent.varieties are not much higher in Delhi market as compared to6 Agricultural Marketing/C:/ws1/My Documents/560M&I-1 560 M & I/2002 Mss. 2 to 109 Page No. 1 to 53 REVISED & Pagination H. N. Mishra
  13. 13. Marketing Efficiency genuin. The monitoring authority are also responsible for this Shepherds Index of marketing efficiency for Delicious and grim situation faced by apple growers.American varieties are same i.e. 2.16 while this figure is low for It is observed that about 65 per cent of the farmers are inBahari varieties (1.44) as shown in table 9. The figures clearly lack of adequate farm machinery and equipments like powerindicate that the market is relatively efficient in case of Deli- tiller, power sprayer, pumps, scissors etc. Most of the farmerscious and American varieties as compared to Bahari varieties. in the study area are marginal and small orchardists which areIt is seen from table that the net margin made by retailers and not financially sound. It is suggested by the farmers that thewholesalers in case of Bahari varieties is about double than government should make available these equipments on sub-other two varieties. Being early varieties, these come early sidised rates. The financial institutions should also provide(July-August) in the market. Due to limited supply of these loans to growers at low rate of interest in order to purchasevarieties without no other option with consumers, the price of these equipments.these varieties goes high in the market. This is the main rea- Constraints in Marketingson for high share of retailers and wholesalers in the price Lack of regulated market and co-operative marketingpaid by consumers for Bahari varieties. societies were responded positively by 96 per cent of the These figures of costs and returns suggest the scope for farmers. Due to non-regulatory system of marketing, growersimproving the system both in the favour of growers as well as are at the mercy of middle men. Various malpractices such asconsumers. This is possible by strengthening and streamlin- deduction of more charges, payment by instalments, quotinging the arrangements for enforcement/and inspections to en- of lower prices than actual, deduction of undue charges etc.sure a regulated system of open auctions, trading practices are generally followed by these middle men. Moreover, theand margins of intermediaries. Moreover, co-operative mar- farmers consent is not being taken before selling the produce.keting and the direct sale from producers to consumers may The market infrastructure for the fruit crop is poor in termsimprove the producers share in consumer rupee. of cold storage, transportation facility and undependableConstraints roads. It is imperative to mention here that the failure of state The Problems faced by the apple growers in production, government in creating the cold storage facility have addedmarketing and financing are depicted in Table-10. to the crisis. Due to uncertainty of Srinagar-Jammu road, the farmers rush their crop to terminal markets, thinking the clo-Constraints in Production sure of road. This increase the supplies against a meagre de- The table reveals that majority of the farmers (95 per cent) mand which results finally in less prices. Moreover, the farm-faced the problem of irrigation water due to drought which ers are also exploited by the transporters due to non-availabil-directly reduced the apple production as well as quality of ity of sufficient trucks at the time of peak season.produce. The lack of extension services was responded The high state tax for export of apple is further adding topositively by 90 per cent of the farmers. There is technological the expenses of grower as 77 per cent of growers respondedgap because of this reason as the extension wing of to this query positively. The state tax was recently increasedDepartment of Horticulture is not making proper and sincere to Rs. 6.80 per box during current financial year 1999-2000efforts to disseminate the technical know-how from research which was Rs. 4.80 per box earlier.stations to the farmers. There is also non-availability of Constraints in Financingimproved cultivars as 63 per cent of the farmers responded tothis problem positively. Most of the apple growers in the state are marginal and small orchardists. The rising cost of imputs for maintenance The lack of resources is generally faced by small category of orchards have made the cultivation of the crop away fromfarmers, with the result, these farmers are not able to invest for their reach. They have no capacity to invest in better produc-better production technology. There is need for creation of tion technology. There access to financial institutions hasco-operative societies which can cater the needs of the farm- been beset with innumerable problems.ers. The shortage of labour is another problem as 57 per cent More than 70 per cent of the farmers have not respondedof farmers perceived it. This problem becomes more acute at to problems related with financial aspect as the loan facilitythe harvesting stage of apple when it gets synchronized with provided by banks and other government agencies are notthe paddy harvesting. Consequently, the farmers have to pay found popular among the farming community. High financialhigher wages in order to complete the work in time. cost and untimely availability of loan due to lengthy proce- At present scenario, the farmers facing with problem of dure are playing important role for this situation. Moreover,diseases and pests like apple scab, sanjose scale, red mite etc. there is lack of finance at reasonable rate of interest as well aswhich are menace to apple industry. As per the study inadequate credit as a scale of finance. The scale of finance inconducted, the common opinion among the farmers is that the Kashmir valley has not been revised for the last 7 to 8 yearsfungicides and insecticides available in the market are not due to non-existence of Technical Committees. About 23 pereffective and liable to rectify the problem. So, it is common cent of the sample growers have responded these problemsconception that the pesticides prevailing in the market are not positively.July—September, 2002 7/C:/ws1/My Documents/560M&I-1 560 M & I/2002 Mss. 2 to 109 Page No. 1 to 53 REVISED & Pagination H. N. Mishra
  14. 14. Conclusion ply and highest & lowest prices of the various vari- The average cultivated area is estimated at 1.77 ha, 3.24 ha eties in different terminal markets.and 8.95 ha at small, medium and large farms respectively of • There is need for the provision of crop insurance inwhich more than 50 percent area is allocated under apple crop. case of natural calamities like drought, hail storm etc.Maximum produce (57.41 percent) sold by sample growers is • Looking to the rising costs of inputs, there is a needin Azadpur Fruit Market, Delhi. The large farmers contributed for the revision of scale of finance, as it had not been64 percent of the total produce sold in different markets. revised from last 7 to 8 years due to non-existence ofDelicious variety constitutes about 66 percent of total produce Technical Committees appointed by NABARD.followed by American (14.60 percent), Bahari (11.93 percent)and Maharaji (7.49 percent). The highest marketing cost of • Costs like packaging and transportation should beRs. 134.16 per box (20 kg) is estimated in case of Calcutta taken into consideration by Technical Committeefollowed by Ahmedabad (Rs. 114.72 per box) market, while it while fixing the scale of finance for least for Sopore Market (Rs. 60.51 per box). The main • The procedure of financing should be made easycomponents responsible for the variation of marketing cost and convenient for the farmers in order to make itacross the markets are transportation cost and commission popular among the apple growers.charges. The over all average per box net share is maximum in REFERENCESAhmedabad market (Rs. 183.07) followed by Calcutta (Rs.154.98), Jammu (Rs. 125.55), Sopore (Rs. 113.79) and Azadpur Data Base Horticulture (1998). Ministry of Agriculture, De-fruit market Delhi (Rs. 112.98). Seven marketing channels are partment of Agriculture and Co-operation, Krishiprevailing in the apple trade. The producers share in consumer Bhavan, New Delhi, 110001.rupee is found to be about 54 percent for Delicious and Digest of statistics, (1997-98). Directorate of Economic andAmerican varieties while this figure is only 33.63 percent in Statistics Planning and Development Department,case of Bahari varieties. The Shepherds Index for marketing Jammu and Kashmir.efficiency is estimated as 2.16 for Delicious and American Mai Chand and Chand, M. C. (1997). Constraint analysis ofvarieties while it is 1.44 in case of Bahari varieties. tribal farmers of Himachal Pradesh in adoption of im- The problems are complex and ranged from agronomic proved apple cultivation. Research and Developmentaspects to pests and disease management, post-harvest Reporter, 14(1-2) : 83-87; 2 ref.handling, marketing and financing. For promotion of the crop, Nagi, V. S., Prasher, R. S. and Tiwari, S. C. (1997). Marketing ofthere is a need for creation and strengthening of such agency Himachal Apples : A spatio-temporal analysis, Agricul-which would address these problems and also train the man- ture Economic Research Review, 10(1) : 88-94.power for handling these constraints coming in the way ofgigantic job and full potential exploitation of this core sector Prasher, R. S. and Negi, Y. S. and Tewari, S. C. (1996). Econom-of the economy of state. ics of apple cultivation: a case study of tribal belt on North-Western Himalayan Region. Bihar Journal ofPolicy Suggestions Agricultural Marketing. 4(1) : 35-43; ref. The policy suggestions which evolved during the study Qadri, J. A. (1976). Some aspects of marketing of apple inare as under : Jammu and Kashmir, Indian Journal of Horticulture. • Extension services need to be streamlined in order to 33(1) : 44-45. disseminate the technical know-how about the crop. Report on Horticulture development in J & K with reference to • The government should take measures to control Kashmir valley, Paper presented to Rajya Sabha, June the spurious fungicides/pesticides prevailing in the 1997. market. Saraswat, S. P. (1995). Marketing of Himachal apple at Delhi. • Local mandies need to be established at tehsil level Agricultural-Marketing. 38(1) : 24-28. in order to make the direct sale by apple growers with minimum expenditure. Shah, G. H. (1999). Present status and future potential of fruit processing industry in J & K state, "Fruit processing in • The market infrastructure in terms of cold storage J & K state" seminar organised by FICI New Delhi and should be created in the state in order to over come J & K SIDCO on 5-6-1999, at Srinagar. the glut in the markets. • The state govt. should revive the fruit growers co- Tripathi, R. S. (1997). Economics of production and marketing operative marketing societies and activate the Horti- of apples in the Garhwal hills of Uttar Pradesh. Annals culture department as well as JKHPMC in order to of Agricultural Research. 18(1) : 5-11; 2 ref. provide better marketing facilities and also to elimi- Wani, M. H.; Mattoo, M. S. and Sofi, A. A. (1995). Resource use nate the role of middlemen. and economic efficiency of various marketing cost com- • There is need for strengthening and streamlining the ponents in apple. Agricultural Marketing. 37(4) : 38-40. arrangements for enforcement and inspection to en- Wani, M. H.; Wani, S. A. and Mir, N. A. (1998). Economic sure a regulated system of open auctions, trading analysis of different age orchards in apple. Agricul- practices and margins of intermediaries. tural Situation in India. 48(9) : 657-660; 6 ref. • The level of market intelligence should be increased with adequate current information on demand, sup-8 Agricultural Marketing/C:/ws1/My Documents/560M&I-1 560 M & I/2002 Mss. 2 to 109 Page No. 1 to 53 REVISED & Pagination H. N. Mishra
  15. 15. Table 1 Land use pattern at sampled farms Area in hectares Production in tonnesCategories Owned Leased Leased Total Irrig. Area Farm Per ha. land in out cult. area under prod. prod. area apple of apple of apple1. Small farmers 1.77 0.24 0.08 1.93 1.28 1.06 31.80 30.00 (91.97) (12.42) (4.39) (100.00) (66.25) (54.91)2. Medium farmers 3.24 1.26 0.25 4.25 2.52 3.45 131.22 38.03 (76.18) (29.69) (5.87) (100.00) (59.44) (81.23)3. Large farmers 8.95 2.50 0.20 11.24 6.19 9.70 433.56 44.69 (79.61) (22.23) (1.84) (100.00) (55.10) (86.28)Aggregate 4.65 1.33 0.18 5.80 3.33 4.73 198.86 42.04 (80.14) (22.97) (3.11) (100.00) (57.39) (81.56)Note : Figures in parentheses represent the percentage to total cultivated area. Table 2 Cropping pattern followed by sampled farmers in the study areaCROPS Small farmers Medium farmers Large farmers Area(ha) Prod.(q) Area(ha) Prod.(q) Area(ha) Prod.(q)A. Kharif Paddy 0.64 35.02 0.54 35.82 0.96 36.28 Maize + Moong 0.06 0.55 0.03 0.37 0.24 3.60 M. P. chari Neg — — — 0.05 4.91 Beans Neg — 0.03 0.26 0.08 0.96 Vegetables 0.06 5.06 0.09 9.24 0.16 30.40 Total area 0.76(35.78) 0.69(15.49) 1.49(12.76)B. Rabi Mustard 0.19 1.27 0.16 1.07 0.36 2.21 Oats 0.06 2.83 0.09 5.08 0.15 4.04 Total area 0.25(11.81) 0.25(5.65) 0.51(4.37)C. Perennial crops Apple 1.06(49.76) 1590 boxes 3.45(77.81) 6561 boxes 9.70(82.28) 21678 boxes Pear 0.04 6 boxes 0.05 18 boxes — — Cherry 0.02 0.25 — — — — Walnut 2 No. 1.95 3 No. 2.5 4 No. 3.17 Total area 1.12(52.39) 3.50(78.85) 9.70(82.28)Total cultivated area 1.93 4.25 11.24Total cropped area 2.13(100.00) 4.44(100.00) 11.70(100.00)Cropping intensity (%) 110.36 104.47 104.09Note : Figures in the parentheses represent the percentage to total cropped area.July—September, 2002 9/C:/ws1/My Documents/560M&I-1 560 M & I/2002 Mss. 2 to 109 Page No. 1 to 53 REVISED & Pagination H. N. Mishra
  16. 16. Table 3 Category-wise sale of apple in different markets (Quantity in boxes, 1 box = 20 kg)Sl. No. Market Small Medium Large Total farmers farmers farmers1. Sopore 29,040(27.37) 21,090(19.88) 55,960(52.75) 1,06,090(100.00) (60.87) (21.43) (21.51) (26.11)2. Jammu 2,850(10.82) 12,150(46.13) 11,340(43.05) 26,340(100.00) (5.97) (12.35) (4.36) (6.48)3. Delhi 12,295(5.27) 58,180(24.95) 1,62,740(69.78) 2,33,215(100.00) (25.78) (59.11) (62.56) (57.41)4. Calcutta 1,900(6.78) 7,000(24.96) 19,140(68.26) 28,040(100.00) (3.98) (7.11) (7.36) (6.91)5. Ahmedabad 1,625(12.91) — 10,960(87.09) 12,585(100.00) (3.40) (4.21) (3.09) Total sale 47,710(11.74) 98,420(24.23) 2,60,140(64.03) 4,06,270(100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00)Note : Figures in the parentheses represent the percentage to total figures. Table 4 Variety-wise and category-wise sale of apple VarietiesCategories Delicious American Maharaji Bahari Small 30,658 9,907 4,085 3,060 (64.26) (20.77) (8.56) (6.41) Medium 67,365 15,550 6,965 8,540 (68.45) (15.80) (7.08) (8.67) Large 1,70,050 33,850 19,375 36,865 (65.37) (13.01) (7.45) (14.17) Total 2,68,073 59,307 30,425 48,465 (65.98) (14.60) (7.49) (11.93)Note : Figures in parentheses represent the percentage to total produce by respective categories.10 Agricultural Marketing/C:/ws1/My Documents/560M&I-1 560 M & I/2002 Mss. 2 to 109 Page No. 1 to 53 REVISED & Pagination H. N. Mishra
  17. 17. Table 5 Marketing cost of apple in different markets (Rs./box, 1 box = 20 kg) MarketsSl.No. Particulars Sopore Jammu Delhi Ahmedabad Calcutta 1. Harvesting cost (plucking 6.43 6.43 6.43 6.43 6.43 Assembling & grading (10.63) (8.83) (6.26) (5.60) (4.79) 2. Packaging cost (cost of wooden box, 31.55 31.55 31.55 31.55 31.55 cost of nails, paddy straw, Papers, (52.14) (43.34) (30.74) (27.50) (23.52) cost of packaging, Labelling and stencilling Charges) 3. Head load to road 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 (1.65) (1.37) (0.98) (0.87) (0.75) 4. Transportation cost 3.33 15.84 30.38 41.15 56.67 (5.50) (21.76) (29.59) (35.87) (42.24) 5. Octroi 0.01 — — — — (0.02) 6. State tax — — 6.80 6.80 6.80 (6.62) (5.94) (5.07) 7. Commission charges 16.59 15.86 23.72 23.82 28.94 (27.42) (21.78) (23.11) (20.76) (21.57) 8. Mandi Association fee 0.10 0.10 — 1.25 — (0.16) (0.14) (1.09) 9. Loading and unloading charges 1.50 2.00 2.75 2.70 2.75 (2.48) (2.75) (2.68) (2.35) (2.05) 10. Communication charges 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 (0.00) (0.03) (0.02) (0.02) (0.01) Total marketing cost 60.51 72.80 102.65 114.72 134.16 (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00)Note : Figures in the parentheses represent the percentage to total figure. Table 6 Category-wise economics of marketing of apple in different markets MarketsSl.No. Particulars Sopore Jammu Delhi Calcutta AhmedabadA. Marketing cost Small 60.70 73.17 99.91 135.88 115.31 Medium 60.57 71.53 102.02 136.05 — Large 60.61 73.34 103.02 133.24 112.49 Average 60.51 72.80 102.65 134.16 114.72B. Gross price Small 183.26 188.32 205.51 299.71 308.21 Medium 185.41 197.05 211.16 301.86 — Large 165.48 202.26 218.00 283.44 296.25 Average 174.30 198.35 215.63 289.14 297.79C. Net share Small 122.56 115.15 105.60 163.83 192.90 Medium 124.84 125.52 109.14 165.81 — Large 104.87 128.92 114.98 150.20 183.76 Average 113.79 125.55 112.98 154.98 183.07July—September, 2002 11/C:/ws1/My Documents/560M&I-1 560 M & I/2002 Mss. 2 to 109 Page No. 1 to 53 REVISED & Pagination H. N. Mishra
  18. 18. Table 7 Price Spread, Marketing margin and producers share for different variety of apple, Srinagar (Rs./box, 1 bos = 20 kg)Particular Delicious Percentage American PercentageA. Producer (i) Gross return 200.45 77.75 196.20 78.40 116.39 63.13 (ii) Expenses incurred by grower — Plucking, assembling and grading 6.43 2.49 6.43 2.56 6.43 3.48 — Packing cost 31.55 12.24 31.55 12.61 31.55 17.12 — Transportation cost 4.33 1.68 4.33 1.73 4.33 2.35 — Commission of commission agent and market charges 18.14 7.04 17.75 7.10 10.57 5.74 — Loading and unloading 1.50 0.58 1.50 0.60 1.50 0.81 — Octroi and postage 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 — Marketing cost 61.96 24.03 61.57 24.60 54.39 29.50 (iii) No price received by grower 138.49 53.72 134.63 53.80 62.00 33.63B. Wholesaler (i) Wholesale price 200.45 77.75 196.20 78.40 116.39 63.13 (ii) Expenses incurred by wholesaler/ commission agent 2.50 0.96 2.50 0.99 2.50 1.35 (iii) Market margin by wholesaler 11.45 4.44 10.00 3.99 13.23 7.18 Gross margin 13.95 5.40 12.50 4.99 15.73 8.53C. Retailor (i) Retailers purchase price 214.40 83.16 208.70 83.39 132.12 71.66 (ii) Expenses incurred by retailor 6.45 2.50 6.45 2.58 6.45 3.50 (iii) Retailers loss @ 2.5% 5.36 2.08 5.21 2.08 3.30 1.79 Marketing cost 11.81 4.58 11.66 4.66 9.75 5.29 (iv) Retailers margin 31.58 12.25 29.89 11.95 42.50 23.05 Gross margin 43.31 16.84 41.55 16.61 52.25 28.34D. Consumers price 257.79 100.00 250.25 100.00 184.37 100.00 Table 8 Marketing efficiency for different varieties of Apple VarietiesParticular Delicious American Bahari1. Net producer share (Rs./box) 138.49 134.63 62.002. Total marketing cost and margins 119.30 115.62 122.373. Consumer price (Rs./box) 257.79 250.25 184.374. Shephered index of marketing efficiency 2.16 2.16 1.445. Modified index of marketing efficiency 1.16 1.16 0.4412 Agricultural Marketing/C:/ws1/My Documents/560M&I-1 560 M & I/2002 Mss. 2 to 109 Page No. 1 to 53 REVISED & Pagination H. N. Mishra
  19. 19. Table 9 Constraints in Apple Production, Marketing and Financing Problems faced No. of respondents Yes No No Response(a) Production 1. Lack of latest technical know how 32 (56) 25 (44) 0 (00) 2. Lack of improved and high yielding varieties 36 (63) 13 (23) 8 (14) 3. Lack of resources 31 (54) 26 (46) 0 (00) 4. Lack of irrigation water 54 (95) 3 (05) 0 (00) 5. Shortage of labour 21 (57) 36 (63) 0 (00) 6. Lack of extension services 51 (90) 6 (10) 0 (00) 7. Prevailing of take fungicides and pesticides 47 (82) 10 (18) 0 (00) 8. Lack of equipment and machinery 37 (65) 20 (35) 0 (00) 9. Lack of servicing facilities for equipment and 22 (39) 35 (61) 0 (00) machinery(b) Marketing 1. Lack of market facilities 27 (47) 30 (53) 0 (00) 2. Lack of transportation and road infrastructure 31 (54) 26 (46) 0 (00) 3. Lack of regulated market and co-operative 55 (96) 2 (04) 0 (00) marketing societies 4. Lack of awareness about market news and 7 (12) 50 (88) 0 (00) intelligence 5. Lack of storage facilities in growing area 45 (79) 12 (21) 0 (00) 6. Malpractice in selling method 52 (91) 3 (05) 2 (4) 7. High State tax for export of apple 44 (77) 1 (02) 12 (21)(c) Financing 1. Timely and sufficient availability of credit 5 (09) 11 (19) 41 (72) 2. Lack of finance at reasonable rate of 13 (23) 3 (05) 41 (72) interest 3. Inadequate credit as scale of finance 13 (23) 3 (05) 41 (72) 4. Problem faced by the farmer in dealing 4 (07) 9 (16) 44 (77) with banksNote : Figures in parentheses represent the percentage to total number of respondents.July—September, 2002 13/C:/ws1/My Documents/560M&I-1 560 M & I/2002 Mss. 2 to 109 Page No. 1 to 53 REVISED & Pagination H. N. Mishra
  20. 20. Promoting Agricultural Exports From India—Need of the Hour — K. N. RAVI KUMAR*, Ch. RADHIKA RANI* AND K. P. C. RAO**Introduction modities and growth rates of value of total agricultural ex- ports.W ith the changing global scenario, the Indian agri- culture is at the cross roads. It is high time now thatIndia should redesign its agricultural strategies so as to be- Though India has been importing food grains for quite sometime after Independence, it has also been exporting thecome competitive internationally. The New Agricultural Policy primary agricultural products or the products of agro-basedencompasses four dimensions viz., commercialization, diver- industries, thereby helping the country not only to pay forsification, value addition and export orientation. The same the food imports, but also for other imports which includesagenda figures in World Trade Agreement (WTA) which capital goods also. The table 1 shows the contribution ofplaces emphasis on trade liberalisation and globalisation. It Indias agricultural exports to Indias total exports.calls for introducing measures for export promotion through Table 1devaluation, relaxation of export quotas, introduction of ex-port subsidies etc., because export-led growth is now the most Share of agricultural exports in the total value of Indias exports (Rs. Crores)important strategy in the free trade regime. The Governmentof India has announced a number of liberalisation policies Year Agricultural Total Exports % sharesince July 1991 to boost the agricultural exports. As a collorary Exports (A) (B) (A/B)to this, attempts have also been made to reverse the unfa-vourable terms of trade faced by the agricultural sector in the 1960-61 284.0 642.0 44.2pre-liberalization period (during 1972-73 to 1988-89). In July1991, Indian Rupee was devalued by 18 to 19 per cent against 1965-66 334.9 805.6 41.6major currencies in the foreign exchange market. Later, thedevaluation of Rupee has been increased to 21.4 per cent and 1970-71 487.0 1535.2 31.7the total convertibility has been introduced on trade account. 1980-81 2057.0 6710.7 30.7All these measures were essentially taken up to boost theexports in the international market. In this paper an attempt 1985-86 3018.0 10895.6 27.7has been made to analyse the growth in agricultural exportsfrom the country, to work out commodity-wise shares of agri- 1990-91 3521.0 18143.0 19.4cultural exports in worlds exports and in Indias total exports,trade performance of Indian agriculture, export competitive- 1991-92 8228.0 44041.0 18.7ness of agricultural commodities in the international market 1992-93 9457.0 53688.0 17.6and to suggest suitable measures for boosting the agricul-tural exports from the country. 1993-94 13021.0 69751.0 18.7Indias share in world trade of agricultural commodities 1994-95 13710.0 82674.0 16.6 According to an estimate (UNCTAD, 1991), althoughIndia produced around 10 per cent of the worlds agricultural 1995-96 21136.0 106353.0 19.8output in 1989, its share in world trade of agricultural com- 1996-97 24241.0 118817.0 20.4modities in that year was only around 0.6 per cent. Theseestimates further reveal that Indias share in world agricultural 1997-98 23690.0 126290.0 18.8trade has been declining over the past 25 years (1966-1989),whether it is compared with the worlds agricultural trade or 1998-99 NA NA 18.5Indias international trade or Indias Gross Domestic Product.During the post-liberalisation period also, the expectations of CAGR (%)increasing the agricultural exports could not be fully realised.This is well explained in terms of the share of agricultural 1990-91 to 28.72* 28.04*exports in the total value of Indias exports, commodity-wise 1997-98Indias share in world agricultural exports, growth rates of Note: *— Significant at 1% level.volume and value of Indias agricultural exports by major com- Source: CMIE—Various Issues* and ** : Research Associates and Principal Scientist respectively, National Academy of Agricultural Research Management (NAARM), RajendraNagar, Hyderabad-50003014 Agricultural Marketing/C:/ws1/My Documents/560M&I-1 560 M & I/2002 Mss. 2 to 109 Page No. 1 to 53 REVISED & Pagination H. N. Mishra
  21. 21. It is clear from the table that in terms of value, the structural reforms period has not been very satisfactory.exports of agricultural commodities from the country hasincreased from Rs. 284 crores in 1960-61 to Rs.23690 crores The export performance of Indian agricultural com-in 1997-98. Compound growth rates were worked out to modities in terms of their share in world agricultural exportsstudy the trends in value of agricultural exports and total was also studied and the details are shown in table 2. Aexports from India for the period 1990-91 to 1997-88. It is close perusal of the table reveals that, there has been aheartening to note that, both agricultural exports and total mixed trend showing both the increasing and decreasingexports were showing increasing trend at 28.72 and 28.04 tendencies in a majority of the agricultural commodities overper cents respectively (significant at 1% level). However, the period, 1970 to 1996. The most potential items namelythe performance of export of agricultural products can be tea, spices, tobacco and fruit and vegetables have shownbest analysed with the help of their share in total exports a declining trend. Indias share in oilseeds exports hasfrom the country. As evident from the same table, the share increased to 0.8 and 0.7 per cent in 1990 and 1994 from 0.3of agricultural exports in total exports during 1960-61 was per cent in 1980. However, it rose to 1.2 and 1.1 per cent inas large as 44.2 per cent, which marginally decreased to 1995 and 1996. Similarly, the share of rice exports has steadily41.6 per cent during 1965-66. Since then, there has been a increased from 0.6 per cent in 1970 to 18.9 per cent in 1995,substantial fall in the proportion of agricultural exports to but declined to 12.0 per cent in 1996. On the whole, thetotal exports of the country. Over the period, 1990-91 to analytical results of Indias share in world agricultural exports1998-99, the share of agricultural exports varied between indicate that it has only an insignificant position in almost16.6 per cent (1994-95) and 20.4 per cent (1996-97). This all agricultural commodities.reveals that the performance of agricultural exports during Table 2 Commodity-wise Indias share (Value) in World agricultural exports (Per cent) Commodity 1970 1980 1990 1994 1995 1996 1. Tea and mate 33.4 27.7 21.1 14.3 11.2 11.1 2. Spices 20.5 14.5 7.7 9.0 8.3 11.2 3. Tobacco & its manufacturers 3.5 4.4 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.3 4. Coffee & its substitutes 1.0 2.1 1.7 2.5 2.4 2.7 5. Meat & its preparations 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.3 6. Fish & its preparations — 2.0 1.6 2.7 2.6 2.3 7. Cereals & their prep. 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.6 1.6 8. Fruit and vegetables 1.2 1.1 0.8 1.1 1.0 1.0 9. Sugar & its prep, honey 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 2.0 10. Oilseeds — 0.3 0.8 0.7 1.2 1.1 11. Rice 0.6 3.7 6.4 6.4 5.3 12.0Source : Economic Survey, 1996-97 and 1998-99.July—September, 2002 15/C:/ws1/My Documents/560M&I-1 560 M & I/2002 Mss. 2 to 109 Page No. 1 to 53 REVISED & Pagination H. N. Mishra