Purchase behaviour of Plant Protection Chemicals

Purchase behaviour of Plant Protection Chemicals

• 1.
  A Project Reporton “A STUDY ON PURCHASE BEHAVIOR OF POTATO FARMERS FOR INDOFIL PRODUCTS IN BARPETA DISTRICT OFASSAM” A report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of degree of master of business administration in agribusiness management and food technology of north east hill university INSTITUTIONAL GUIDE GINO A SANGMA ASSISTANT PROFESSOR DEPARTMENT OF AGRIBUSINESS MANAGEMENT AND FOOD TECHNOLOGY NEHU TURA CAMPUS, MEGHALAYA ORGANIZATIONAL GUIDE RAJIB SHARMA REGIONAL SALES MANAGER INDOFIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED, GUWAHATI, ASSAM Presented By- AJIT MAJUMDER ABMFT 4th Semester Roll No : ABFT 1601 Department of ABMFT North- Eastern Hill University
• 2.
  CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 2. REVIEWOF LITERATURE 3. STUDY AREA PROFILE 4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 5. DATAANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 7. APPENDIX
• 3.
  INTRODUCTION Plant protection chemicalsare the agrochemicals used in controlling the pests and diseases that infect, consume or damage crops thereby significantly reducing the quantity and quality of food production. The crop protection chemicals can be broadly classified into five groups viz., Insecticides, Fungicides, Herbicides, Bio-pesticides, Others (Fumigants, Rodenticides, Plant growth regulators etc.). Use of crop protection chemicals can increase crop productivity by 25-50%, by mitigating crop loss due to pest attacks. Thus, crop protection chemicals are also very essential to ensure food and nutritional security. India is the fourth largest global producer of agrochemicals followed by US, Japan and China. The global crop protection market is fairly consolidated with top nine companies accounting for over 80 per cent of the market. Syngenta, Bayer, BASF and Indofil are the market leaders in the global crop protection market.
• 4.
  Conceptual framework Purchase Behavior Consumerpurchase behavior is a process of choosing, purchasing, using and disposing of products or services by the individuals and groups in order to satisfy their needs and wants. (Solomon et al, 1995) Consumer purchase behavior describe as behavior that consumers express when they select and purchase the products or services using their available resources in order to satisfy their needs and desires. (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2000) Process of Consumer Behavior 1.Need recognition by customer 4. Purchase decision 2.Searching for information 5. Purchase 3.Evaluating alternative products and suppliers 6. Post Purchase Evaluation
• 5.
  MODEL OF PURCHASEBEHAVIOR The Economic Model (Marshallian Model) The theory holds that purchase behavior is largely “rational” and conscious economic calculations. An individual buyer seeks to spend his income on such goods which give the most utility according to his tastes and at relative price. Thus, one can predict consumer behavior based on economic indicators such as the consumer’s purchasing power and the price of competitive products. Consumer tend to purchase a similar product that is being offered at a lower price to maximize the benefits (utility maximization), an increase in a consumer’s purchasing power allow him to increase the quantity and quality of the products he is purchasing. The Economical Model otherwise called as Marshallian model is related to this study as majority of the samples (farmers) show similar tendency to maximize utility of money.
• 6.
  OBJECTIVES OF THESTUDY 1. To study the general purchase behavior of plant protection chemicals of the farmer specific to potato crop. 2. To understand the brand awareness of Indofil’s products. 3. To assess satisfaction and the benefit of specific Indofil’s products. (Indofil M-45 and Moximate) 4. To study the acceptability of Indofil’s products.
• 7.
  SCOPE OF STUDY Theoverall scope of the present study considers all the variables and factors that have impact over farmers in purchasing particular brands and considering the brand for purchasing again. The result of the study provides information on farmers purchase behavior of pesticides specific to potato crop and the brand awareness. Also this comparative study attempts to evaluate the satisfaction level of the farmers towards Indofil’s products and the benefit of specific Indofil’s products. The findings of the study also focus on the marketing constraints of Indofil’s products. The outcome of the projects will be useful to company officials, farmers and academicians.
• 8.
  COMPANY PROFILE INDOFIL INDUSTRIESLIMITED, established five decades ago, headquartered in Mumbai, a research-led and fully integrated Chemical Company has emerged as a successful and vibrant enterprise, riding high on a simple philosophy of retaining loyalty and enlarging the fold of satisfied customers. Indofil industries limited is a fungicide giant in agro- chemical industry. Indofil has its presence in more than 100+ countries as suppliers of Mancozeb formulations. Indofil is one of the largest manufacturer of Mancozeb in the world. In marketing the Strategic Business Units (SBUs) are governed through, the four verticals viz., fungicide, insecticides and herbicides and new business development. VISION Global leader in growth with customer success. MISSION 1) To achieve leadership in Growth Rate with efficient R & D, Registration, Manufacturing and Marketing Competencies through Committed and proficient team. 2) To make customers successful by providing High Quality Products, services and solutions in domestic and global markets. 3) To expedite growth by Collaborations, Acquisitions and Manufacturing Proximity to the market in the segments of Crop Care, Speciality and Performance chemicals.
• 9.
  VALUES Customer Success Believing thatsuccess lies in the success of existing and potential customers. On this foundation, doing all possible to understand, fulfil and exceed customers’ stated and unstated needs, thus enabling them to succeed on a continuous basis. Knowledge Continuously upgrade skills and knowledge about technology, markets, products, customers, regulations and business processes. Encourage new ideas and their implementation across the company for commercial benefit. Prosperity Winning, doing better than others through exploiting new opportunities and enhancing the interests of every employee, share holder and stake holder. To be recognised and perceived amongst the leaders in the segment of operation. Teamwork Employee and channel partners thinking and working together across functions, business and geographies, leveraging the available resources to achieve common goals. Velocity Responding to internal and external customers with a sense of urgency by consistent, focused and accelerated growth of the organization with timely and optimal utilization of all resources.
• 10.
  Agent Plus Atom Beacon GR BeaconSP Click Dash Flash FUNGICIDES INSECTICIDES HERBICIDESACARICIDES SURFACTANTS PGR’s List of products offered by Indofil
• 11.
  Manufacturing Capabilities Indofil hastwo multi-product, state-of-the-art, PLC-based (Programmable Logic Control) manufacturing facilities and multiple toll units across various locations in India. The first plant of Indofil at Thane, commissioned in 1962, continues to possess one of the most modern production facilities in the industry. It is one of the world’s largest EBDC fungicide plants and total production capacity is 20,000 tons. Indofil’s second manufacturing facility is at Dahej and total production capacity is 30,000 tons. Environment, Health & Safety Indofil understand the importance of responsible Environment, Health and Safety (EHS) management to achieve growth, profitability and long-term success. Quality Policy Quality Management System at IIL, spearheaded by Quality Assurance Function, acknowledge customer’s need related to product, packing, documentation and timely delivery and aim to fulfil the same through well- defined and integrated processes driven by the manufacturing team, with firm conviction on: “zero tolerance for deviations and defects”.
• 12.
  REVIEW OF LITERATURE PURCHASEBEHAVIOR OF FARMERS • Niyarepola et al. (2008) examined the buying behaviour of Paddy farmers towards insecticide. Demand for insecticide depends on the impact of the extension service, price of the insecticide, brand name of chemicals and the influence of the peer farmers. Farmer also does consider the brand name of the insecticide. Farmers have also select insecticides based on the opinion of the peer farmer when farmers are not readily access to the agriculture extension services. • Belay et al. (2015) has conducted a study in Ethiopian Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia on pesticide buying behavior among smallholder vegetable farmers. A total of 220 smallholders were interviewed for the study. The results reveal that farmers dependable on private dealer and apply pesticides in violation of the recommendations: they use unsafe storage facilities, ignore risks and safety instructions, low price products are used in high dosage.
• 13.
  BRAND AWARENESS, SATISFACTIONAND THE BENEFIT PERCEIVED BY THE CUSTOMERS. • Anupam Jain et al. (2012) has conducted a study in Garhwali of Uttarakhand on brand awareness in rural area and to study the interest of consumers in branded products of Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG). The results found that majority of the consumer are aware of brand and the preference for branded product is showing increasing tendency everywhere and Garhwali Region of Uttarakhand State is not an exception to it. • Moeed and Syeda (2015) has conducted a study in Pakistan to examines the effect of brand name and perceptions of renowned firm’s name on farmers’ purchase preference in his journals “The Impact of Brand Image and Firm’s name on Buyer’s Purchase Preference for Agriculture Products in Pakistan”. A total number of 70 farmer were interviewed for this study. It was found from the study that brands give feeling of satisfaction. Additionally, firm’s name is very helpful to get attention to brand but they cannot guarantee final purchase preference.
• 14.
  ACCEPTABILITY OFAGRO CHEMICALSBY THE FARMERS • Sagar and Pal (1984) has conducted a study on the perception of farmers regarding the plant protection problems and their suggestions towards the acceptance of pesticide and its benefits in increasing the yield of crops in his journal “Farmers Perception on Plant Protection Problems and Their Suggestion for Increasing the Yield of Crops Under Jute Based Multiple Cropping System”. The study revealed that quality and timely supply of pesticides influence the farmers purchase pattern and acceptability of particular pesticides. • Sharifzadeh et al (2017) has conducted a study by surveying 411 farmers in Mazandaran, Iran. The study identify to study the farmers’ criteria for selecting and using pesticides and explaining differences in selection criteria among farmers. Performance and effectiveness had the highest importance for farmers when selecting and using pesticides followed by financial and accessibility criteria. Farmers receive training regarding pesticide usage focus on integrated pest management (IPM) practices.
• 15.
  RESEARCH GAP • Fromthe review of literature, it has been found that less studies have been done regarding the purchase behavior and brand awareness but there were no study of purchase behavior and brand awareness particularly for potato crop. Only few of the supportive studies by the researchers have been done regarding the specialty molecules and its acceptability by the farmers. Being the study area the major market of the company make it more distinguish, significant and unique in nature. • Only few of the supportive studies has focused on the acceptance of plant protection chemicals by the farmers. Even though, other studies have already considered all these different aspects like purchase behavior and brand awareness but measuring the same parameters in Barpeta district of Assam and drawing the aspects of brand acceptability will receive comparatively little more attention from the researchers.
• 16.
  STUDY AREA PROFILE-BARPETADISTRICT Sl.no. Particulars Barpeta district 1. State Assam 2. Division Lower Assam 3. Villages (Nos.) 140 4. Geographical Area (sq. Km.) 3,245 5. Temperature (°c) 26 - 41 6. Average Annual Rainfall (Cm) 360 to 400 7. Population 1,693,622 8. Sex-Ratio 1000:951 9. Population Density (Nos.) 632 10. Literacy Rate (Male) (Percent) 57.55 11. Literacy Rate (Female) (Percent) 48.15
• 17.
  RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Research Design Thetype of study done is Exploratory in nature. Source Of Data Relevant information for this study was collected from both Primary as well as Secondary Data. • Primary Data: In this project Primary data were collected from potato farmers by using a structured questionnaire. • Secondary Data: The secondary data were collected from the website, journal, newspaper, and report published by various agencies. Research Approach Questionnaire survey: The survey method was adopted for collecting the primary data from the farmers of Barpeta District of Assam through questionnaire.
• 18.
  Research Instrument The datafor this research study was collected by survey technic using interview method guided by questionnaire. Sample Design Sample design is a definite plan for obtaining a sample from a population. Since the target respondent are those farmer who cultivate potato, hence all potato farmers in Barpeta district are considered as total population. Choice of Study Area Barpeta district of Assam was purposively selected for the study since it is one of the most important vegetables growing districts in the state. The area is known for its intensive usage of pesticide for cultivation of vegetables. This district has potential for the pesticides business. From the district, top four functional areas, viz., Barpeta, Mandia, Kalgasia and Moinbari, which have higher consumption of Indofil products in Barpeta were selected.
• 19.
  Selection of PotatoFarmers from the Functional Areas Total number of potato farmers in the selected four functional areas are different, proportionate numbers of respondent were selected randomly. Thus, a total of 200 sample respondent farmers were selected. Sampling Technique The sampling technique adopted was convenience sampling. Limitations Of The Study  The study was limited to the agro chemicals specific to potato crop reported in the Barpeta district of Assam and the findings may not be appropriate to other markets.  The study has the limitations of time, limited size of the sample and resources.  The validity of the data is limited to the ability of the farmers to recall influences operating on their decisions and to recognize the sources. But utmost care has been taken in collection, analysis and presentation of data. DISTRICT FUNCTIONAL AREAS NOS. OF FARMER BARPETA 1. Barpeta 24 1. Mandia 120 1. Kalgasia 35 1. Moinbari 21
• 20.
  DATA ANALYSIS ANDINTERPRETATIONS Education Qualification Nos. of farmer Percent Degree 11 5.5 Up to 12th standard 12 6 Up to 10th standard 51 25.5 Up to 5th standard 28 14 Illiterate 98 49 SECTION 1: FARMERS’ PROFILE Table 5.1 Education status of sample farmers 5.50% 6% 25.50% 14% 49% Figure 5.1 Education status of sample farmers Degree Up to 12th standard Up to 10th standard Up to 5th standard Illiterate Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that the sample size of farmers was 200. 5.5 percent of the farmers were having qualification of degree, 14 percent were having education qualification up to 5th standard, and 49 percent of the respondents were illiterate. The educational status reveals that greater of sample farmers are illiterate. The main reasons for illiteracy of farmers are due to poverty, remote location, dependency on farming and lack of education facilities. High illiteracy is responsible for poor knowledge of farmers regarding several chemical combination, higher dependency on dealer and inability to recognize the particular product
• 21.
  Operational Holdings Nos.of farmer Per cent Marginal farmers (up to 2.5 acres) 146 73 Small farmers (2.5-5 acres) 23 11.5 Medium farmers (5-10 acres) 19 9.5 Large farmers (above 10 acres) 12 6 Total 200 100 Table 5.2 Operational holdings of farmers Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that 73 percent of the potato farmers were marginal in nature having operational holdings up to 2.5 acres and only 6 percent of the potato farmers were big in nature having operational land holdings above 10 acres. And from the previous table it is noted that illiteracy dominate majority of the farmers and therefore they tend to cultivate less area of land, as it is seen that most of the medium and large farmers are literate and tend to cultivate more area by taking land on lease as a result of agricultural awareness. 146 23 19 12 73% 11.5% 9.5% 6%0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Marginal farmers Small farmers Medium farmers Large farmers Figure 5.2 Operational holdings of farmers Nos. of farmer Per cent
• 22.
  SECTION 2: GENERALPURCHASE BEHAVIOR OF PLANT PROTECTION CHEMICALS OF THE FARMER Place Nos. of farmer Per cent Village 58 29 Town 20 10 Main market ( Business Hub) 122 61 Government sources 00 00 Total 200 100 Table 5.3 Place of purchase of plant protection chemicals 58 20 122 0 29% 10% 61% 0% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Village Town Main market Government sources Figure 5.3 Place of purchase of PPC Nos. of farmer Per cent Interpretation: A perusal of Table 5.3 shows that only 10 percent of the potato farmer purchase from town where 61 percent of the potato farmers purchase chemical from main market. The study reveals that greater percent of the farmers purchase chemical from main market. It is due to availability of required brand or product, varieties of brand, lesser price of products compare to village and credit facility in main market.
• 23.
  Mode Nos. offarmer Per cent Cash 70 35 Credit 10 5 Both 120 60 Total 200 100 Table 5.4 Mode of payment by farmers 70 10 120 35% 5% 60% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Cash Credit Both Figure 5.4 Mode of payment by farmers Nos. of farmer Per cent Interpretation: It is evaded from the Table that 35 percent of the farmers pay cash while purchasing chemicals and 5 percent of the farmers purchase on credit basis where 60 percent of the farmers buy sometimes in credit or cash term as per the understanding between farmers and dealers. This study reveals that greater percentage of the farmers purchase chemicals either in cash or credit form. The previous table reveals that greater percent of the farmers purchase chemical from main market. It is preferable for farmer to purchase if credit facility is available, as it encourages farmers to follow proper doses of chemical application in field. Hence it is seen that majority of the farmers purchase chemical from the main market for the benefit of bulk purchase and credit facility.
• 24.
  Decision of purchase Nos. of farmer Percent Dealer dependence 98 49 Past experience 91 45.5 Fellow farmers 11 5.5 Total 200 100 Table 5.5 Purchase decision by farmers 98 91 11 49% 45.5% 5.5% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Dealer dependence Past experience Fellow farmers Nos.offarmer Figure 5.5 Purchase decision by farmers Nos. of farmer Per cent Interpretation: A perusal of Table 5.5 shows that 49 percent of the potato farmers were dependent on dealer recommendation in order to purchase chemicals, 45.5 percent of the potato farmers were having clear cut idea about which chemicals to purchase based on past experience and 5.5 percent of the potato farmers take purchase decision by discussing with their fellow farmers. This study reveals that greater percentage of the farmers make chemicals purchase decision with the influence and recommendation of dealer. It is because majority of the farmers are illiterate and marginal in nature.
• 25.
  Dealer’s response toward thedemanded brand by the farmer Nos. of farmer Percent Always provide 156 78 Give available brand 30 15 Change brand 14 7 Total 200 100 Table 5.6 Dealer’s attitude toward the demanded brand by the farmer 156 30 14 78% 15% 7% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Always provide Provide available product Change brand Figure 5.6 Dealer’s attitude toward the demanded brand by the farmer Nos. of farmer Percent Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that 78 percent of the farmers were always provided with particular brand, 15 percent of the farmers were provided with whatever available brand and 7 percent of the farmers were provided with other brand with different chemical combination, when sample farmer ask for a particular brand from the dealer. This study reveals that greater percentage of the farmers are always provided with the particular brand that are asked by farmers. There is a major section of farmers who are brand loyal and only use that brand for major disease control. And an important section of the farmers depend on the choice of dealer.
• 26.
  Acceptance of other brand Nos.of farmer Percent Yes 53 26.5 No 147 73.5 Total 200 100 Table 5.7 Acceptance of dealers’ given brand against the demanded brand by the farmers 26.5% 73.5% Figure 5.7 Acceptance of dealers’ given brand against the demanded brand by the farmers 53 147 No Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that 26.5 percent of the farmers accept other brand and 73.5 percent of the farmers do not accept other brand if other brand is provided by the dealer instead of the particularly demanded brand. This study reveals that greater percentage of farmers are illiterate and due to less knowledge of variety of products, to control major diseases farmers keep few particular brands in remember that the farmers perceived better. The farmers who are very specific about the purchase of particular brand do not accept other brand and these farmer basically stick to four to six specialty brands. It is also noted that huge number of the farmer use one to three brand of same chemical for controlling major disease at a same time. Yes
• 27.
  Preferences Of PurchaseBy The Farmer Quality Nos. of farmer Percent Strongly agree 78 39 Somewhat agree 109 54.5 Neutral 13 6.5 Somewhat disagree 0 0 Strongly disagree 0 0 Total 200 100 Table 5.8 Preference of quality by the farmer 78 109 13 0 0 39% 54.5% 6.5% 0% 0% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neutral Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Figure 5.8 Preference of quality by the farmer Nos. of farmer Percent Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that 39 percent of the farmers strongly agree to prefer quality during the purchase, 54.5 percent of the farmers somewhat agree, 6.5 percent of the farmers are neutral to quality preference and no farmer is found to disagree the preference for quality. This study reveals that greater percentage of the farmers somewhat agree to prefer for quality of the product. Although several parameter has overall impact on farmers but quality or performance of chemical become priority whenever severity of disease arise.
• 28.
  Availability Nos. of farmer Percent Stronglyagree 104 52 Somewhat agree 77 38.5 Neutral 19 9.5 Somewhat disagree 0 0 Strongly disagree 0 0 Total 200 100 Table 5.9 Preference of availability 104 77 19 0 0 52% 38.5% 9.5% 0% 0% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neutral Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Figure 5.9 Preference of availability by the farmer Nos. of farmer Percent Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that 52 percent of the farmers strongly agree to prefer availability during the purchase, 38.5 percent of the farmers somewhat agree, 9.5 percent of the farmers are neutral to availability preference. This study reveals that greater percentage of the farmers strongly agree to prefer for availability of the product. Due to several supply bottleneck greater percent of the farmers don’t get required product. Hence illiterate and small farmer who prefer to purchase chemicals on credit focus on the what is available of the required combination from his favorite dealers.
• 29.
  Price Nos. of farmer Percent Stronglyagree 140 70 Somewhat agree 46 23 Neutral 14 7 Somewhat disagree 0 0 Strongly disagree 0 0 Total 200 100 Table 5.10 Preference of price by the farmer 140 46 14 0 0 70% 23% 7% 0% 0%0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neutral Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Figure 5.10 Preference of price by the farmer Nos. of farmer Percent Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that 70 percent of the farmers strongly agree to prefer price during the purchase, 23 percent of the farmers somewhat agree, 7 percent of the farmers are neutral to price preference. This study reveals that greater percentage of the farmers strongly agree to prefer for price of the product. And it is also seen that greater percent of the farmer are marginal farmers and financial performance is weak. Hence it can be understood that major focus of the farmer is on price. Price play as a most important thing when farmer purchase. Due to price difference farmers often switch to other brand(Economical Model).
• 30.
  Packing Nos. of farmer Percent Stronglyagree 24 12 Somewhat agree 41 20.5 Neutral 135 67.5 Somewhat disagree 0 0 Strongly disagree 0 0 Total 200 100 Table 5.11 Preference of packing by the farmer 24 41 135 0 0 12% 20.5% 67.5% 0% 0%0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neutral Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Figure 5.11 Preference of packing by the farmer Nos. of farmer Percent Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that 12 percent of the farmers strongly agree to prefer packing during the purchase, 20.5 percent of the farmers somewhat agree, 67.5 percent of the farmers are neutral to packing preference and no farmer is found to disagree the preference for packing. This study reveals that greater percentage of the farmers were neutral about the preference for packing of the product. Although packing of the products play a significant role as it able farmers to recognize the products as greater percent of the farmers cannot read the name of the products or brand.
• 31.
  Recommendation of government Nos. of farmer Percent Stronglyagree 0 0 Somewhat agree 0 0 Neutral 0 0 Somewhat disagree 0 0 Strongly disagree 200 100 Total 200 100 Table 5.12 Preference of recommendation of government by the farmer 0 0 0 0 200 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0 50 100 150 200 250 Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neutral Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Figure 5.12 Preference of recommendation of government by the farmer Nos. of farmer Percent Interpretation: A perusal of Table 5.12 shows that 100 percent of the farmers strongly disagree to prefer government’s recommendation during the purchase. This study reveals that greater percentage of the farmers strongly disagree to prefer for recommendation of government. This overall study about the different factors that influence the preference of purchase of the farmers reveal that greater percentage of farmers’ preference of purchase focus the price of the product followed by availability, quality, packing and recommendation of government, which are ranked first, second, third, fourth and fifth based on the basis of purchase preferences respectively. It is seen from the previous tables that majority of the farmers are marginal and small and try to stick to of his own choice. Hence it can be understood that farmers focus on price, availability and the quality. A crisis of availability of particular quality products is observed here.
• 32.
  SECTION 3: BRANDAWARENESS OF INDOFIL’S PRODUCTS. Knowledge of blight disease Nos. of farmer Percent Yes 200 100 No 00 0 Total 200 100 Table 5.13 Knowledge of “blight” disease 200 100% 0 0% 0 50 100 150 200 250 Nos. of farmer Percent Nos.offarmer Figure 5.13 Knowledge of blight Yes No Interpretation: The Table shows that 100 percent of the potato farmers can recognize blight. The previous section reveals that greater percent of the farmers depend on dealer due to lack of educational qualification and knowledge of chemical. It is also noted that farmer purchase chemical based on the severity of disease i.e. early blight and late blight. It is seen during the study that common appearance of blight is noticed by all sample farmers. Based on the severity of blight farmers proceed to make purchase decision.
• 33.
  Severity of early blight Nos.of farmer Percent Extremely severe 16 8 Somewhat severe 17 8.5 Moderate 34 17 Low 53 26.5 Very low 80 40 Total 200 100 Table 5.14 Severity of early blight disease 16 17 34 53 80 200 8% 8.5% 17% 26.5% 40% 100% 0 50 100 150 200 250 Extremely severe Somewhat severe Moderate Low Very low Total Nos.offarmer Figure 5.14 Severity of early blight Nos. of farmer Percent Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that 8 percent of early blight is extremely severe, 8.5 percent somewhat severe, 17 percent moderate, 26.5 percent low and 40 percent very low. This study reveals that greater percentage of severity of the early blight appeared on potato crop is very low. Pre application and timely application of chemical is the reason behind the protection against disease.
• 34.
  Severity of late blight Nos.of farmer Percent Extremely severe 7 3.5 Somewhat severe 35 17.5 Moderate 45 22.5 Low 35 17.5 Very low 78 39 Total 200 100 Table 5.15 Severity of late blight disease 7 35 45 35 78 3.5% 17.5% 22.5% 17.5% 39% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Extremely severe Somewhat severe Moderate Low Very low Figure 5.15 Severity of late blight Nos. of farmer Percent Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that 3.5 percent of late blight is extremely severe, 17.5 percent is somewhat severe, 22.5 percent is moderate, 17.5 percent is low and 39 percent is very low. This study reveals that greater percentage of the late blight is very low. There are few other diseases responsible for the damages of crop.
• 35.
  Products Companies Nos.of Farmer Percent Indofil M-45 Indofil Chemical Company 150 75 Ridomil Gold Syngenta India Ltd. 126 63 Saaf United Phosphorus Limited 114 57 Dithane M-45 Dow Agro Sciences 86 43 Index NACL Industries Limited 82 41 Kavach Syngenta India Ltd. 74 37 Antracol Bayer Crop Science 68 34 Moximate Indofil Chemical Company 62 31 Table 5.16 Products used for blight disease 150 126 114 86 82 74 68 6275% 63% 57% 43% 41% 37% 34% 31% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Nos.offarmer Figure 5.16 Product used for blight disease Nos. of Farmer Percent Interpretation: "Indofil M-45" is used highest among the top products used by the farmers to check blight in potato crop due to reasonable price and quality but because of lack of availability farmer shift to other brand. Ridomil Gold, Saaf, Index, Dithane M-45, Kavach, Antracol and "Moximate"are being used by 63%, 57%, 43%, 41%, 37%, 34% and 31% of the farmers respectively. The farmers use these products based on the perception received based on the price, availability and quality, farmers do not change particular products unless there is any issue with the quality or the products are not available.
• 36.
  Sources Indofil M-45Moximate Nos. of farmer Percent Nos. of farmer Percent Previously used 126 63 36 18 Company people(Indofil) 8 4 8 4 Company people(Others) 0 0 0 0 Dealer’s shop 16 8 18 9 Government sources 0 0 0 0 Total 150 75 62 31 Table 5.17 Sources of information about Indofil’s product 126 63% 36 18% 8 4% % 4%0 0% 0 0% 16 8% 18 9% 0 0% 0 0% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Nos. of farmer Percent Nos. of farmer Percent Indofil M-45 Moximate Figure 5.17 Sources of information about Indofil’s product Previously used Company people(Indofil) Company people(Others) Dealer’s shop Government sources Interpretation: Total nos. of "Indofil M-45" user is 150 and "Moximate"is 62. A perusal of Table shows that out of 63 percent of Indofil’s M-45 user and 18 percent of the "Moximate"user used the brand from previously due to presence for long span in market, whereas 4 percent of Indofil’s M-45 user, 4 percent of the "Moximate"users are informed by the Indofil company representative and 8 percent of Indofil’s M-45 user and 9 percent of the "Moximate“ user are given the brand by the dealer. Being dealer the major influencer for purchasing the particular brand, to promote the brand company must look in the sector. It is clear from the table that majority of the farmers are aware of "Indofil M-45" brand. Though it is been seen that greater percent of the farmer are not using "Moximate"due to less satisfaction and advantages perceived by them. Total nos. of farmer 200
• 37.
  Reasons Indofil M-45Moximate Nos. of farmer Percent Nos. of farmer Percent Not heard of Brand 8 4 83 41.5 Heard of Brand but not used 11 5.5 8 4 Heard of Brand but was not available 0 0 10 5 Used earlier but not satisfied with results 9 4.5 4 2 Using other molecules and satisfied 22 11 33 16.5 Total 50 25 138 69 Table 5.18 Reasons behind of not using Indofil’s product 8 4% 83 41.5% 11 5.5% 8 4% 0 0 10 5% 9 4.5% 4 2% 22 11% 33 16.5% 0 20 40 60 80 100 Nos. of farmer Percent Nos. of farmer Percent IndofilM-45Moximate Figure 5.18 Reason behind of not using Indofil’s product Using other molecules and satisfied Used earlier but not satisfied with results Heard of Brand but was not available Heard of Brand but not used Not heard of Brand Interpretation: 4 percent and 41.5 percent of the farmer never heard of "Indofil M-45" brand, 4.5 percent and 2 percent of the farmers are not satisfied with the result of "Indofil M-45" and "Moximate"brand. 11 percent and 16.5 percent of the farmers use other brand and satisfied with that. Overall 25 percent of the farmers do not use "Indofil M-45" brand and 69 percent of the farmers do not use "Moximate“ brand. Hence it is clear from the table that due to strong presence of other brand greater percent of the farmers who are not using Indofil’s products are using other and comparatively higher percent of the farmers choose alternate brand.
• 38.
  Recognition by Nos.of user (Total Indofil’s product user is 160) Percent Color/design of packet 160 100 Company name 80 50 Brand name 80 50 Company logo/picture 144 90 Hologram 144 90 Table 5.19 Recognition of Indofil’s Products by its’ user 160 80 80 144 144 100% 50% 50% 90% 90% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Color/design of packet Company name Brand name Company logo/picture Hologram Nos.offarmer Figure 5.19 Recognition of Indofil’s Products by it’s user Nos. of user Percent Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that 100 percent of the Indofil’s user recognize its products only by the color or design of the packet, 50 percent of the user recognize by company name, 50 percent of the user recognize Brand name, and 90 percent of the user recognize company logo and picture and hologram. It is seen in previous table that greater percent of the farmers are illiterate and dealer dependent. Hence it is clear from the table that majority of the user cannot read and highly depend on the color, design, logo, picture and hologram. It is stated that any changes in color and design of the packet causes confusion about originality and authenticity about the products. Hence company should take careful measures while making any changes in the color or design of the packet Note: Total user of Indofil’s product is 160
• 39.
  Products Satisfaction level Non userExtrem ely satisfied Some what satisfied Moder ate Some what dissat isfied Extre mely dissat isfied Indofil M-45 3262 20 24 12 50 Ridomil Gold 29 38 19 19 21 74 Saaf 11 58 11 16 18 86 Dithane M-45 8 40 25 9 4 114 Kavach 7 25 16 13 13 126 Index 4 24 12 21 21 118 Moximate 4 21 7 17 13 138 Antracol 2 13 11 23 19 132 Table 5.20 Satisfaction level of used products 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Indofil M- 45 Ridomil Gold Saaf Dithane M-45 Kavach Index Moximate Antracol Figure 5.20 Satisfaction level of used products Satisfaction level Extremely satisfied Satisfaction level Somewhat satisfied Satisfaction level Moderate Satisfaction level Somewhat dissatisfy Satisfaction level Extremely dissatisfied Non user Interpretation: Highest percent of the farmers are satisfied with "Indofil M-45" followed by Ridomil M-45, Saaf, Dithane m-45, Kavach, Index, "Moximate"and Antracol. The requirement of dose per acre, nos. of spray and the cost incurred due to crop protection chemical usage per acre influence the satisfaction level of any particular brand. Indofil’s M-45 is stated to be most cost effective. Failure in effectiveness of chemical and efficiency of cost effectiveness promote negative satisfaction. The similar pattern is been seen in the product usage for late blight by the farmers. Farmers prefer particular brand based on the satisfaction perceived by them. Total nos. of farmer 200 SECTION 4: SATISFACTION LEVELAND THE BENEFIT OF INDOFIL’S PRODUCTS
• 40.
  Advantages perceived/products Brand Indofil M-45 Ridomil Gold Saaf Dithane M-45 Diseasecontrol (% of farmer) 77.5 70.5 67.5 67 Increase in yield (% of farmer) 72.5 52.5 46 43 Shining/ Weight (% of farmer) 57 28 32 23 Better milling (% of farmer) 43 37 28.5 33 Over all healthy crop (% of farmer) 62.5 47 43.5 41.5 Table 5.21 Advantages of top 4 products used for potato diseases 77.5 72.5 57 43 62.5 70.5 52.5 28 36.5 47 67.5 46 32 28.5 43.5 67 43 23 33 41.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Disease control (% of farmer) Increase in yield (% of farmer) Shining/ Weight (% of farmer) Better milling (% of farmer) Over all healthy crop (% of farmer) Figure 5.21 Advantages of top 4 products used for potato diseases Indofil M-45 Ridomil Gold Saaf Dithane M-45 Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that 62.5 percent of the farmers are benefitted with over all crop growth advantage and highly valued "Indofil M-45" which is manufactured by Indofil Chemical Company. The satisfaction percent of Ridomil M-45, Saaf and Dithane M-45 are 47%, 43.5%, 41.5% respectively. It is noted from the previous table that the farmers prefer the particular brand (perceived highly valuable by farmers) based on the parameter viz., disease control, yield increase, shining, weight, better milling and overall growth of crop. Due to the existence in the market for long span, farmers acknowledge four to six particular brand highly valuable and tend to stick to those brand. (Economical Model) Total nos. of farmer 200
• 41.
  Products Nos. of farm er Perc ent Reasons for recommendation IndofilM- 45 Indofil Chemical Company 104 52  Quality  Previous experience Ridomil Gold Syngenta India Ltd. 102 51  Previous experience  Brand Popularity Saaf United Phosphorus Limited 84 42  Timely availability  Brand Popularity Dithane M- 45 Dow Agro Sciences 66 33  Competitive price  Quality Table 5.22 Major recommended fungicide by the farmers 104 102 84 66 52% 51% 42% 33% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Indofil M-45 Ridomil Gold Saaf Dithane M-45 Nos.offarmer Figure 5.22 Major recommended fungicide by the farmers Nos. of farmer Percent Interpretation: A perusal of Table 5.19 shows that 52 percent of the farmers recommend "Indofil M-45" brand. The other recommended brands which are very near to "Indofil M-45" brand are Ridomil Gold (51%), followed by Saaf (42%) and Dithane M-45 (33%). It is clear from the study that majority of the recommendation of fungicide was for "Indofil M-45" brand, followed by, very nearer to that Ridomil Gold brand. It is due to past experience, perceived satisfaction and higher disease control advantages.
• 42.
  SECTION 5: ACCEPTABILITYOF INDOFIL’S PRODUCTS Particulars Indofil M-45 Moximate Nos. of user Percent of user Nos. of user Percent of user Increase 00 0 0 0 Decrease 108 72 55 89 No change 42 28 7 11 Table 5.24 Suggestion given by the product user on price 0 108 42 0 55 7 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Increase Decrease No change Figure 5.24 Suggestion given by the user on price Indofil M-45 Nos. of user Moximate Nos. of user Interpretation: The Table shows that 28 percent of the "Indofil M-45" user has no issue with the price but 72 percent of the "Indofil M-45" user want the price of it to decrease, whereas 11 percent of the "Moximate“ user has no issue with the price but 89 percent of the "Moximate“ user want the price of it to decrease. It is clear that majority of the want the price to decrease. It is seen in the study that price influence the farmers the most. Hence the company should give attention to the price factor while framing the marketing strategy. Due to price farmers tend to shift other brand. Note: Total user of Indofil M-45 is 150 and "Moximate"is 62.
• 43.
  Availability of brand Indofil M-45Moximate Nos. of user Percent of user Nos. of user Percent of user Always available 97 65 37 60 sometimes 31 21 18 29 Never 22 14 7 11 Table 5.25 Products availability suggested by the user 97 65% 37 60% 31 21% 18 29% 22 14% 7 11% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Nos. of user Percent of user Nos. of user Percent of user Indofil M-45 Moximate Table 5.25 Products availability suggested by the user Always available sometimes Never Interpretation: 65 percent of "Indofil M-45" users suggest that the brand is always available and 14 percent of the users suggest that the band is never available. Where 60 percent of the "Moximate"users suggest that the brand is always available and 11 percent of the "Moximate"users suggest that the band is not available at all. One third of the user suggest that the products is not always available. Continuous availability of products is seen a crucial parameter for the acceptance of brand and the retention of previous user. Huge numbers of Indofil’s user are new user of products. Note: Total user of "Indofil M-45" is 150 and "Moximate"is 62.
• 44.
  Improvement of quality IndofilM-45 Moximate Nos. of user Percent of user Nos. of user Percent of user Yes 123 82 55 89 No 27 18 7 11 Table 5.26 Products Quality Suggested by the user 123 82% 55 89% 27 18% 7 11% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Nos. of user Percent of user Nos. of user Percent of user Indofil M-45 Moximate Table 5.26 Products Quality Suggested by the user Yes No Interpretation: The Table shows that 82 percent of “Indofil M-45” users and 89 percent of "Moximate“ users suggest to improve the quality of the brand. It is been seen during observation that farmers has been experiencing decreasing quality. Although majority of the total sample farmers use Indofil’s products but the company should concentrate on this segment. Note: Total user of "Indofil M-45" is 150 and "Moximate"is 62.
• 45.
  Fold of packingYes No Single 113 47 Double 61 99 Table 5.27 Package folding suggested by user 113 61 47 99 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Single Double Nos.offarmer Figure 5.27 Suggestion about fold packing Yes No Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that 113 user suggest for single fold packing, where 99 user do not require double fold packing. It is clear from the table that majority of the farmers suggest to have products with single fold packing. As farmers usually don’t carry the outer box while purchasing products and drop the packet in dealer shop itself. It also increase chance of malpractices that may harm brand image. Note: Total user of Indofil’s product is 160.
• 46.
  Improvement of packing Indofil M-45Moximate Nos. of user Percent of user Nos. of user Percent of user Yes 10 7 5 8 No 140 93 57 92 Table 5.28 Suggestion given by the user on packing 10 7% 5 8% 140 93% 57 92% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Nos. of user Percent of user Nos. of user Percent of user Indofil M-45 Moximate Figure 5.28 Suggestion given by the user on packing Yes No Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that 93 percent of "Indofil M-45" users and 92 percent of "Moximate“ users do not suggest for any improvement of the packing of the product. It is clear from the study that majority of the user do not require any improvement rather the users want the color and design to remain same. Due to illiteracy majority of the farmers greatly depend on the appearance of the products to recognize the particular brand. Note: Total user of "Indofil M-45" is 150 and "Moximate"is 62.
• 47.
  Particulars Nos. ofuser Percent of user Precautionary measure 47 23.5 After seeing the symptoms 113 56.5 Table 5.29 Farmers preference of time of chemical application for disease control 47 113 23.5% 56.5% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Precautionary measure After seeing the symptoms Table 5.29 Farmers preference of time of chemical application for disease control Percent of user Nos. of user Interpretation: The duration of chemical spray is very important in the management of disease. 23.5 percent of the farmers spray the chemicals as a precautionary measure and 56.5 percent of the farmers spray after seeing the symptoms. Majority of the user use chemical after seeing the symptoms. Hence it is very important to have sustainable availability during disease intensive period. Along with this promotional strategies can be addressed before the season of target crop and village that will improve the quality of crop production and potential purchase. Note: Total user of Indofil’s product is 160.
• 48.
  Particulars Nos. offarmer Percent Field demonstration 30 19 Field observation 81 51 Farmers meeting 49 30 Table 5.30 Extension services suggested by the farmers 30 81 49 19% 51% 30% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Field demonstration Field observation Farmers meeting Extension services suggested by the farmers Nos. of farmer Percent Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that 51 percent of farmer has suggested for the extension service called field observation followed by farmers meeting in the field or outside the field (30%) and field demonstration (19%). Field observation is suggested by the majority of the farmers from the company. More on it increase the awareness of brand and encourage potential purchase of the products. Note: Total user of Indofil’s product is 160.
• 49.
  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Thepresent study entitled “A study on purchase behavior of potato farmers for Indofil’s products in Barpeta district of Assam” was intend to study general purchase behavior of plant protection chemicals of the farmers, brand awareness of Indofil, satisfaction and benefit received by the farmers and in what extend farmer accept Indofil’s products in Barpeta district, Assam. Marketers must study the costumer’s taste, preferences, dealers’ influence, wants, purchase behavior, pattern and what influence the farmer to accept because such study provides the clues for developing the new products, price, and product improvement, overcome marketing constraints and other marketing mix elements. Brand preference and brand loyalty are now crystallizing in the farmers mind, wherever there is total satisfaction from performance of a product. Based on the parameters of price, availability, quality, packing, immediate performance of products and overall disease control, farmers accept a particular brand over other brand. Against this background, the present study has been taken up with the following findings, suggestions and recommendations and conclusions.
• 50.
  MAJOR FINDINGS OFTHE STUDY Farmers’ Profile of Krishna District i. 5.5 per cent of the sample farmer were having education qualification of degree, 6 per cent of the respondents were having education qualification up to 12th standard, 25.5 per cent of the respondents were having education qualification up to 10th standard, 14 per cent were having education qualification up to 5th standard, and 49 per cent of the respondent farmers were illiterate. ii. Majority of the Potato farmers (73%) were marginal farmer having operational holdings up to 2.5 acres, where very less potato farmers (15.5%) were medium and big farmer having operational holdings above 5 acres.
• 51.
  General Pesticide PurchaseBehavior of Farmers Specific to Potato Crop i. Majority of the potato farmers (61%) purchase chemical from main market. ii. 35 per cent of the farmers pay only on cash basis while purchasing chemicals, 5 per cent of the farmers purchase only on credit basis and 60 per cent of the farmers buy sometimes in credit or cash. iii. Majority of the potato farmers (49%) were dependent on the recommendation of the dealer to purchase chemical for disease control where 45.5 percent the potato farmer purchase based on their past experience perceived by them. iv. Whenever farmer ask for a particular brand from the dealer, majority of the farmers (78%) were always provided with particular brand by the dealer. V. Majority of the farmers (73.5%) do not accept other brand to control major diseases if other brand is provided by the dealer instead of the particularly demanded brand by the farmers. VI. Price(70%) is considered as the most crucial factor for the farmers’ preference of purchase and availability(52%) was considered next to be influencer followed by quality(39%), packing and recommendation of government.
• 52.
  Brand Awareness ofIndofil’s Products • Majority of the farmers (75%) use Indofil’s M-45 brand followed by “Ridomil Gold” (63%), “Saaf” (57%), “Index” (43%), “Dithane M-45” (41%), “Kavach” (37%), Antracol (34%) and "Moximate"(31%) for controlling major diseases control. • Majority of the Indofil’s user (63%) use Indofil M-45 brand from previously. • 18 percent of Moximate brand user use Moximate from previously. • 25 percent of the sample farmers never used Indofil M-45 brand, majority of the sample farmers (69%) never used Moximate brand and overall 20 percent of the sample farmers never used any of the Indofil’s products. • Majority of the Indofil’s brand user (100%) recognize its products only by the color or design of the packet and 90 percent of the user recognize company logo, picture and hologram where only half of the Indofil’s user (50%) recognize or read by company name and Brand name.
• 53.
  Satisfaction Level AndThe Benefit of Indofil’s Products Majority of the sample farmers was satisfied with Indofil M-45 brand for its excellent performance followed by Ridomil M-45, Saaf, Dithane m-45, Kavach, Index, Moximate and Antracol. 62.5 percent of the farmers perceived Indofil M-45 with higher value and over all advantageous followed by Ridomil M-45 (47%), Saaf (43.5%) and Dithane M-45 (41.5%). Among all recommended brand greater percent of the farmers (52%) recommended Indofil M45 followed by Ridomil Gold (51%), Saaf (42%) and Dithane M-45 (33%).
• 54.
  Acceptability of SpecialtyMolecules • Majority of the “Indofil M-45” (72%) and “Moximate” (89%) user has suggested to reduce the price of the product. • 65 percent of “Indofil M-45” users and 60 percent of the “Moximate” users said that the brand is always available where 14 percent of the “Indofil M-45” and 11 percent of the “Moximate” users said that the band is not available. • Majority of the farmers has suggested to have products with single fold packing rather double fold packing. • Majority of the farmers (56.5%) spray chemicals only after seeing the symptoms and 23.5 per cent of the farmers spray the fungicides as a precautionary measure. • Majority of the users (51%) has expressed for field observation as an extension services towards the farmers followed by farmers meeting in the field or outside the field (30%) and field demonstration (19%).
• 55.
  SUGGESTIONS Product Positioning inMain Market : Main market as it is the main hub of most purchase. Availability of all products are scarce. Although there is a huge supply gap in main market and village market, with the point of sale and product penetration, extending the product line and have sustainable existence in main market become very crucial. Dealer as a part of Brand Promotion: Majority of the farmers depend on the dealer not only for chemicals purchase decision but also for information regarding chemicals and it’s recommendation. Drawing dealer for promotional purpose should be well strategized as dealer play the major role to influence the purchase by the farmer. Company Brand Position: It is also important that company must be dedicated to enhance brand awareness. Workforce should aim to establish the brand name with reference of most popular brand of its own and to empower the brand name. Once the Brand position decision is made, Brand identity and value proposition can be translated into a suitable execution strategy in the form of an integrated advertising campaign.
• 56.
  Brand Mark: Major changesin colour and design of the packet create unnecessary confusion of its originality as majority of the farmers are illiterate and identify the products only by it’s color and design. Single packing (primary packing) other than the outer box (secondary packing) can be used to avoid malpractices during marketing. Extension service before the Initiation of every Season: Mass participation of farmers through conducting field demonstration(demo fields), farmers meeting in selective villages are needed. A progressive farmer may be selected and free samples may be given for demonstration purpose, which gives a scope to explain to other farmers and provide information easily to the farmers. Increase of field services, building farmers relationship, brand availability in all village market, product line extension in main market and dealer association ship may influence the farmer to accept the brand and it will lead to high consumption of the brand with sustainable sale growth.
• 57.
  CONCLUSION The study regardingpurchase behavior of potato farmers for Indofil’s products adopted in Barpeta district of Assam. Majority of the farmers are illiterate and marginal farmer having operational holdings up to 2.5 acres. They prefer to buy plant protection chemicals from main market both in cash and credit. More than half all farmers are totally dependent on the dealer for the information and the brands. Farmers mostly select few particular brand for major disease control. Price and availability of the products impact in choosing and accepting particular brand. Majority of the farmers are aware of Indofil’s products and using different brand of it. “Indofil M- 45” brand is most used products of Indofil Company followed by Moximate, Indofil Z-78 and Sprint. Indofil”s products are well recognized and recommended brand among majority of the farmers. Due to illiteracy majority of the farmers recognize the brands only by its color, design and logo of the products. Some of the major aspects impact acceptability of the products are viz., price, availability in main market, quality of the products and extension services viz., field observation, field demonstration and farmers meeting provided by the company. Therefore, the undertaken work will help Indofil Industries Limited in improving its market constraints and sale bottleneck.
• 58.
  BIBLIOGRAPHY  Books: • KulkarniM.V, Marketing Research (IV Edition), Everest Publication House, New Delhi, 2003. • Mamoria, C.B and Gankar, S.V (2002) “Personnel Management” Published by Himalaya Publishing House. • Philip Kotler and Kevin Lane Keller (12e), Marketing Management, Pearson Education. • Principles of Marketing – C N Sontakki, Kalyani Publishers. • Tripathi, P.; Reddy, P., Principles of Management, New Delhi, Tata Mcgraw Hill  Websites: • http://croplifeindia.org/importance-of-crop-protection-products-in-indian-agriculture • http://ipca.org.in/pesticide-regulations • http://barpeta.gov.in/index.html • https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html • https://www.indofilagro.com • http://indofilcc.com/ • http://www.academia.edu/7838224/Farmers_buying_behaviour_towards_pesticide_-_By_Ram_Ahir • https://research-methodology.net/consumer-buyer-behaviour-definition • http://indiainbusiness.nic.in/newdesign/upload/Agrochemicals-Knowledge-report-2016.pdf