III MAR KET ING OF AONLA IN RAJASTHAN

Progressive Research 8 (Special) : 738-741 (2013) Society for Sci. Dev. in Agric. and Tech. III MAR KET ING OF AONLA IN RAJASTHAN R.P. Sharma Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Research Station, Navgaon (Alwar) Key words : ABSTRACT A random sampling of 30 Aonla growers from 6 villages of Alwar district suggested that the estimated producer share in consumer rupee was more in direct sales as compared to long chain of middle men. Two marketing channels mostly adopted were: producer-retailer-consumer (channel I) and producer-local trader-whole seller-retailer-consumer (channel II). More than 75% of Aonla was marketed by channel I and only merely 10 15% by channel I. The studies indicate that the marketing cost was far greater, the margin was drastically reduced and the marketing efficiency was low in channel I having long chain of middle men. Channel II consisting retailer as the only middle men involved lower marketing cost and resulted in higher margin and marketing efficiency. Marketing cost and the margin of middle men clearly indicated that the producer share in the consumer rupee can be increased significantly by decreasing the number of intermediaries in the existing marketing system of Aonla growers. Marketing, aonla, efficiency, cost, margin, problems. Fruits are important sources of vitamins and minerals. Fruit production in India, which is the second largest in the world (9 percent), is growing at a significant growth of 3.75 percent per annum from 28.63 million tons in 1991-92 to 63.50 million tones in 2007-08. The per capital availability of fruits even with this increase is lower at 107g per day. The recommended level is of 120g. Fruits are among the major commercial horticultural crops growing India. Among the fruits, Aonla is important crop in India as the demand for its consumption is very high due to the nutritional, medicinal value and its availability at cheaper price in Rajasthan state. The total area of Aonla crop during the year 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 were 1730, 1705, 1838 and 170 ha. The productivity were also recorded 7673, 7517, 4861 and 5260 kg/ha during the same period respectively (Table-1). In Alwar district (Rajasthan) 1253, 1330, 1364 and 1305 ha area was covered by the Aonla crop during the period of 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. It is calculated 72.43, 78.00, 74.21 and 76.71 percent of state Aonla area. It is grown in arid and semi arid regions in Rajasthan. The tree is medium in height. The fruits are attractive light green smooth and composed in six pieces. The fruits are a rich, source of vitamin C, Carbohydrates minerals and salt. With rapid increase in the state area under the crop, several problems of production and marketing have emerged with needed careful investigation. Efficient marketing play an important role in the development of any enterprise. Hence it is found necessary to investigate the prevalent marketing systems and channels in different markets and general problems faced by Aonla growers in selling their produce. This in turn would help in developing proper measures required to benefit the Aonla growers. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The selection of the crop (fruit crop Aonla) and area to assess the marketing and their problem in fruit was done on the basis of the importance of crop, area of production and marketing. The Aonla was selected based on their medicinal, domestic and area point of view. Alwar district of Rajasthan was selected purposively as the percentage of total area under Aonla production in Alwar is higher in Rajasthan state (Table-1). Shekhambas, Navgaon, Ramgarh village from Ramgarh Tehsil and Akbarpur, Umrain, Kangalhatha village from Alwar tehsil of Alwar district were selected. Five Aonla growers from each village were selected i.e. 30 farmers for the study. The purposive random sampling technique was used for selection of the villages and farmers. Selection of the market was done on the basis of major assembly market/ wholesale market and local market. Production and consumption center for Aonla crop was identified as Alwar district regulated mandi and local mandi in Ramgarh. Relevant information in data were collected from the Aonla growers by conducting the personal approach on a specific designed schedule. The required data on marketing cost, purchase

R.P. Sharma 739 price, sales prices etc. were collected from the selected intermediaries involved in the selected marketing channels of regulated mandi of Alwar and local market i.e. Ramgarh Tehsil of Alwar district. Data Anal y sis The simple tabular analysis i.e. averages and percentage was used for analysis of marketing cost and margin at different stages of marketing. For estimation of efficiency of marketing, the following ratio as suggested by (1) was used : Marketing Efficiency MME = FP (MC + MM) MME = [RP (MC + MM)] -1 RP = FP + MM + MC Where, MME = Modified measure of marketing Efficiency MC = Marketing cost MM = Marketing Margin RP = Price paid by consumer FP = Price received by famer An increase in the ratio represents improved efficiency and vice verse. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The marketing practices of selected fruit were formed distinctly different from other fruits. The practice of hedging was dominant in marketing of Aonla. Local trader practice was common among farmers. Farmers/ Local traders transported Aonla to assembly market mostly by own tractor / Mini trucks. Auctioning of fruits (Aonla) was by open type and the payment to seller made immediate. The numbers of channels of marketing were observed. Only two major channels which together Table-1: Area and Productivity of Fruits. accounted for more then 80 to 90 percent of trade, are depicted below : Channel : (1) Producer - Retailer - Consumer (2) Producer - Local traders - Whole seller - Retailer - Consumer More than 75 percent of Aonla was marketed by channel-ii and 10-15 percent by channel-i. The study of marketing margin and price spread is an important base for knowledge of nature, extent and genuineness of various market charges. The study of market margin and price spread can be utilized to develop the appropriate price policy that aims to provide incentive prices to producer and assure him of legitimate share in consumer s price or consumer rupees. It is helpful in the development and evaluation of the market policy, like regulation of market charges for different functionaries and functions. The marketing margin and cost may very from channel to channel and market to market. The marketing margins and cost for different channels have been presented the given tables i.e. 2, 3 and 4 respectively. Marketing costs Margin and Efficiency The costs, margins efficiency of marketing depend primarily on the channels of the marketing. The channels selected for Aonla were the producer- retailer- consumer channel and the producer-local trader-whole sellerretailer-consumer channel. The description of different efficiency parameters are given below : Cost : For marketing of Aonla the major cost was calculated in packing material i.e. Rs. 20/qt followed by transportation charges (Rs. 10/qt) which was borne by producer. Highest marketing charges was borne by whole seller (Rs. 123.6) followed by retailer (Rs. 60.80), Producer (Rs. 40.00) and lowest by local traders (Rs. 29.40) per qts and in term of percentage was calculated Alwar State (Rajasthan) Area (ha) 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Aonla 1253 1330 1364 1305 1730 1705 1838 1701 % (58.17) (56.59) (61.55) (47.27) (5.97) (5.57) (5.72) (5.07) Total Fruit (ha) 2154 2350 2216 2761 28995 30601 32129 33534 Productivity (kg/ha) Aonla 12530 13300 13640 13050 7673 7517 4861 5260 (Figure in parenthesis is percentage of total fruit area of Aonla area) Source: department of Horticulture, Alwar district of Raj.

740 III Mar ket ing of aonla in Rajasthan Table-2: Marketing cost and Margin of Aonla (2013-14) per Qtl. S.No. Item Channel-II Channel-I Market at Alwar Percentage to consumer price i.e. 1500 Rs/qt. Market at Ramgarh Percentage to consumer price i.e. 1250 Rs/qt. Charges paid by Producer (I) Cleaning & grading @ 5 Rs/qt 05.00 0.333 05.00 0.40 (II) Loading & unloading charge @ 5 Rs/qt 05.00 0.333 05.00 0.40 (III) Packing (polythene) Material cost @ 20 Rs/qt 20.00 1.333 20.00 1.60 (IV) Transportation charge 10 Rs/qt 10.00 0.666 20.00 1.60 Total charges by producer Rs/qt 40.00 2.666 50.00 4.00 Price received by Producer or Local trader purchase price= 900 Rs/qt 1. Producer s Net price =LT price-charges paid by producer 860.00 57.33 850.00 68 Charges paid by Local Trader (I) Loading & unloading charge @ 5 Rs/qt 05.00 0.333 (II) Transportation charge 10 Rs/qt 10.00 0.666 (III) Mandi Fee@ 1.6% value of /qt(900x16/100) 14.40 0.960 Total charge born by local traders 29.40 1.962 Total Purchase Price of local traders(900+29.40) 929.40 61.96 Local traders Sale price/ whole seller purchase price/qt 1100.00 73.33 2. Margin of Local traders = (Rs 1100-929.40)= 170.6 11.373 Charges paid by (borne)whole Sellers (I) Loading & unloading charge @ 5 Rs/qt 05.00 0.333 (II) Transportation charge 10 Rs/qt 10.00 0.666 (III) Grading & Repacking@ Rs 25/qt 25.00 1.666 (IV) Mandi Fee@ 1.6% value of produced i.e. (1100x1.6/100) 17.60 1.173 (V) Commission @ 6% value of produced i.e. (1100x6/100) 66.00 4.400 Total charges born by Whole sellers (Rs/qt) 123.60 8.24 Total Purchase Price of Whole sellers(rs 1100+123.60) 1223.60 81.573 Whole sellers, Sale price/retailers price Purchase Rs/qt 1300.00 86.666 3. Net margin of whole seller(1300-1223.60) 76.40 5.093 Charges born by Retailers Grading charges 05.00 0.40 transportation charge @ 15 Rs/qt 15.00 1.000 15.00 1.20 Loading & unloading charge @ 5 Rs/qt 05.00 0.333 05.00 0.40 Packaging charges @ Rs 20/qt 20.00 1.333 Mandi Fee@ 1.6value of produce (1300x1.6/100) 20.80 1.386 14.40 1.152 Total charges born by Retailers(Rs/qt) 60.80 4.053 39.40 3.152 Total Purchase Price of Retailers (Rs 1300+60.80) 1360.80 90.733 939.40 75.152 Consumer purchase price/retailers sale price Rs 1500.00 1250.00 Margin of Retailer 139.00 9.2666 310.00 24.848 8.24, 4.05, 2.66 and 1.96 respectively in channel II (Table 2). In channel I, only one middle man was involved in marketing. Therefore, marketing cost was workout cost 3.15 percent. Margin : Net margin in the consumer price (Rs. 1500 /qt) was ranked first as 11.37 percent (Rs. 170.6) in case of local traders followed by retailers (9.27 percent) and wholesales (5.09 percent) in II channel. The retailer was the only middle man in first channel, therefore marketing margin was estimated only 24.85 percent which was highest in both channels. (Table 3) Marketing Efficiency : It could be seen table 4 that marketing channel-i (Producer-Retailer- Consumer) was found to be more efficient (1.00) than channel II (Producer-Local trader-wholesaler-retailer- consumer) i.e. 0.74 because of single middle man and marketing cost was lowest. The producers share in consumer s rupee was observed more in channel I qt i.e. 68 percent (Producer Retailer-Consumer) as compared to channel II i.e. 57.33 percent due to the single intermediaries. So this analysis of marketing cost and margin indicate that the

R.P. Sharma 741 Table-3: Percentage share in Consumer s Rupee. S.No. Items Channel-I Channel-II 1. Producers share in consumers Rupee 850x100/1250 68% 860x100/1500 57.33% 2. Charges paid by Producers 50x100/1250 4.00% 40x100/1500 2.67% 3. Charges paid by Middle man (I)- local Traders (II)- Whole sellers (III)- Retailers 4. Middle man Margin (I)- local Traders (II)- Whole sellers (III)- Retailers 39.4x100/1250 310.6x100/1250 3.15 24.85 29.40x100/1500 123.6x100/1500 60.8x100/1500 170.6x100/1500 76.4x100/1500 139x100/1500 5. Total= 100% 99.99% 1.96 8.24 4.05 11.37 5.09 9.27 Table-4: marketing Efficiency of different Marketing Channels S.No. Items Units Marketing channel-i Marketing channel-ii 1. Price paid by consumer/retailer s sale price (RP) Rs/qt 1250 1500 2. Total Marketing cost (MC) Rs/qt 89.40 253.80 3. Total Middle man Margin (MM) Rs/qt 310.60 386.00 4. Producers or farmer s price (FP) Rs/qt 850.00 860.00 5. Marketing cost increased during Marketing (1-4) Rs/qt 400.00 640.00 6. Modified Marketing Efficiency [4/(2+3)] Rs/qt 1.00 0.74 producers share in consumer rupee may be increased by decreasing the number of intermediaries in the existing marketing system. The result are in consistence with the studies conducted by (2,3,4). Constraints / Problems in Marketing of Aonla crop The study revealed that several problems faced by the fruits (Aonla) growers in selling their produce by self marketing. These problems required to be tackled to enable the grower to get higher returns. Some problems of marketing are given below : Problems can occur in the field, in packing areas, in storages, during transportation and in wholesale and retail market. Several losses occur because of poor facilities, lack of know how, poor management and improper marketing facilities or due to careless handling of produce by farmer, market intermediaries and consumers. Lack of support price & of lack organization were the major problems faced by the farmer in marketing their produce. Another problem faced by the farmer was delay in payment, lack of competition among buyers, lack of marketing information, cold storage facilities, financing policy of banking. The grower also reported some other problem like lower price due to seasonal gults, malpractices in marketing functions. CONCLUSION Results of study predicted that some conclusion may be drawn from this study. The producer share in consumer rupee was estimated more in direct sales as compared to long Channel of middle man (II Channel). Marketing cost and margin of middleman indicate that producers share in consumer rupee may be increased by decreasing the number of intermediaries in the existing marketing system. It is suggested to remove all problems faced by the producer to make their vital enterprises a more paying venture. This may by made through creating efficient marketing and processing infrastructure. REFERENCES 1. Murthy D. Shree Nivasa. Et al (2009), Marketing and post harvests losses in fruits: Its implications on availability and economy, Indian journal of Agril Econo Vol 64, No2, April-June 2009. 2. Acharya S.S. and Agrawal N.L. (2004) Agril marketing in India, oxford &IBH Publishing company Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi, PP 390-910. 3. Tomer, B.S. et al 1995. An economic analysis of citrus (Malta & Kinnow) Cultivation in Haryana. Dept. Agril Econ, CCS HAU Hisar. 4. Sharan, S.P and Singh V.K. (2002), Marketing of Kinnow in Rajasthan, Agril marketing Oct-Dec, PP 2-4.

412 Naresh et al.,