International Journal of

Emerging Research in Management &Technology

ISSN: 2278-9359 (Volume-2, Issue-3)

Research Article

March
2013

Marketing of Sweet Orange (Malta) in India

Vinay Gunwant,
Research Scholar,
Department Commerce,
MBPG Collage,Haldwani,
Kumaun University Uttarakhand- India

Mayank Raturi,
Management Trainee,
MBA, Marketing,
Uttarakhand Technical University,
Dehradun, Uttarakhand-India

Mustfa Hussain,
Ph.D. Scholar,
College of Agribusiness Management,
Govind Ballabh Pant University of Ag.
and Tech., Uttarakhand-India

Divya Rana,
Assistant Professor,
Department of Business Administration,
FEA, King Abdulaziz University,
Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Syed Md Faisal Ali Khan,

Ph.D. Scholar,
CMJ University,
Meghalaya
India
Abstract:

The present study has been conducted in order to access the marketing of sweet orange in the state of Uttarakhand, India.
Primary data was collected from various stakeholders constitute forty growers and two and three mediators operating at
each level of marketing channels. Three distribution channels were identified. More than 68 per cent of the produce was
sold directly to the village commission agent/contractor. Marketing cost varied from 0.20 per kg to 0.50 per kg in channel
III. A component of the marketing cost of the producer was cost incurred on sorting and grading. The producers were
earning 8.64 per kg marketing margin in channel I followed 6.64, 4.64, in channel II and channel III respectively. The
producers share in consumers rupee was highest 70.29 per cent in channel III while 54.93 and 42.45 per cent in channel
II and I respectively. Channel III was the most efficient channel with efficiency of 1.72. Channel I was least efficient 0.69.
The spatial price difference between the local market and distant market is very wide i.e. more than Rs. 700 per quintal.
The main component of cost of producers is the labor cost and transportation cost borne by producers. The farmers of the
hilly areas must be properly linked to the market through proper roads and other infrastructure and through co-operative
federation. There is a need to form the active Farmer Producer groups / Farmer co-operative groups which can take the
advantage of the distant and competitive markets, benefiting the members by remunerative price. To reduce the spatial
differences in the price of sweet orange, better transport, storage and processing facilities are also required.
Keywords: District horticulture office (DHO), Marketing efficiency, Marketing margins

1. Introduction
India has the unique distinction to grow almost all the varieties of fruits and vegetables. India is second largest producer of
fruits in the world (9 per cent) after China. India is the second largest producer of fruits and vegetables in the world with
74.877 million metric tonnes production of fruits and 146.554 million metric tonnes production of vegetables for the year
2010-11. Within India Tamilnadu is the largest producer of fruits accounting for 13.30 per cent of Indias total fruits
production followed by Andhra Pradesh (12.6 per cent), Maharashtra (12.2 per cent), Gujrat (9.7 per cent) and Karnataka (8.4
per cent) in 2010-11. Major fruits cultivated in India are banana (39.9 per cent), mango (20.3 per cent), Citrus (10 per cent),
papaya (5.6 per cent), apple (3.9 per cent) and guava (3.3 per cent). Citrus is the third most important tropical fruit crop of
India after mango and banana with an area of 846 thousand hectares and 7464 thousand metric tonnes of production (8.8
Mt/ha productivity). The most important Citrus growing states in India are Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Gujarat and
Uttarakhand.
In Uttarakhand, Citrus spp. occupies about 13.90 per cent (27400 ha) of total fruit area in the year 2010-11. Gharwal
region is the major Citrus growing regions of Uttarakhand with 50.20 per cent (13755 ha) of the total Citrus area in
Uttarakhand in the year 2010-11 and has got the maximum production, which was around 51.1 per cent (67729 metric
tonnes) of the total Citrus production in state in the year 2010-11. Gharwal region comprises of 7 districts and Rudrapryag
districts marks itself distinctly in production of Citrus species, with a production of 45.03 per cent (30938) metric tonnes of
the total Citrus production in Gharwal region from an area of 34.2 per cent (4704 ha) of total area under Citrus in Gharwal
region in the year 2010-11. Sweet orange is the major Citrus species of this district comprising of 35 per cent of total Citrus
species production in the district. So due to its high production in the district, it is necessary to tap the potential of citrus crop
so that farmers can earn a high return and encash their high produce. It is important to have an efficient marketing system, so
that producer gets appropriate returns for their produce and consumers get them at reasonable price.

Vinay

Page 45

International Journal of
Emerging Research in Management &Technology
ISSN: 2278-9359 (Volume-2, Issue-3)

Research Article

March
2013

The production of sweet orange (malta) being seasonal and localized to favoured agro-climatic conditions coupled with the
perishability of the produce pose several problems on marketing front. Seasonal gluts, distress sale and volatile behaviour of
price are, therefore, common trend in all assembling markets during normal production season. Then marketing and
transportation of fruit crops are other hurdles in the way of fruit growers of hilly areas who are also exploited by middlemen
resulting in the low share of farmer in the consumers rupee. Further, the continued adoption of unorganized marketing
practices also lead to high marketing costs, margins and price spread which all combine together to snatch away the
economic attraction which the crop holds and the keenness in the producer farmers to invest in the improved technology and
better inputs. Besides these factors the development in hilly areas is circumscribed by the specificities namely inaccessibility,
marginality and fatality which contribute in physical isolation distance and high transportation cost.
2. Review of Literatures
Sharma et al. (2006) emphasized on improving the availability of quality fruits and vegetables to markets and processing
units. Strategies to be adopted at production, harvesting and post harvest levels appropriate to Indian scenario are suggested
in the study. Mechanical injury, infestation and poor handling of fruits and vegetables reduce the market price drastically as
also processed product quality. It is thus imperative to develop and follow certain strategies to minimize these injuries to
fruits and vegetables for supply to markets and processing units. Horticultural produce needs special attention on two
accounts i.e. protection from sunlight and hygiene in the compound and the need of terminal markets is therefore highly
necessary.
Suryavanshi et al. (2006) conducted a study to identify marketing channels, to estimate marketing cost, marketing margin
and price elasticity. The study revealed that 80% of the tomato was sold through channel (producer-commission agent cum
wholesaler-retailer-consumer). The cost of marketing incurred was the highest (Rs. 187.45) in channel-I, where as it was the
lowest (Rs. 55.40) in channel (producer-consumer). And retailers enjoyed higher net proportion of margin as compared to
commission agent cum wholesaler. Marketing efficiency was observed to be the highest (9.70%) in channel (producerconsumer) for achieving maximum profit and to reduce intermediary charges in trade, when the produce is in small quantity
and if the produce is in large quantity channel-II should be selected to safeguard the interest of tomato growers.
Mohammed Jaffar and Namasivyam (2005) conducted marketing cost of banana in Theni district of Tamilnadu. For
the study banana growers of Theni district was selected and also the different functionaries which the farmers followed.
The study concluded that cutting, loading and unloading commission, transportation and the like were the marketing
costs of the banana growers, which amounted to Rs 805, Rs 760 and Rs 734 in the case of small, medium and large
growers, respectively. The pre-harvest contractors incurred a marketing cost of Rs 775 per tonne. Transport cost
dominated other costs. The marketing cost, excluding interest on working capital was less to pre-harvest contractors
than to the growers. Commission agents had to pay Rs 116.67 per tonne towards the marketing cost. The wholesalers
incurred a marketing cost of Rs 417.09 per acre. More than 60 per cent of the marketing cost of the retailers was due to
wastage. The total marketing cost of retailers was worked out to be Rs 336.67 per tonne.
3. Objectives
In the backdrop of above situation, the regional studies can be very helpful in identifying alternative solutions that may be
adopted by farmers, marketers and policy makers. Thus the overall objective of present paper is to examine the marketing of
sweet orange (malta) in the hilly area of Rudraprayag district of Uttarakhand and to develop proper marketing arrangement
for fruit crops. The specific objectives are:

To identify the major distribution channels involved in the marketing of sweet orange
To compute marketing costs, margins, price spread and efficiency of marketing channels.
4. Methodology

4.1 Selection of the study area

Multistage purposive and random sampling techniques were used to examine the marketing of sweet orange. In the first stage
Rudraprayag district of Gharwal region was selected purposively based on the importance and contribution in terms of area
and production of sweet orange in Uttarakhand. Five villages (Gadgu, Gaid, Burva, Giriya and Fapanj) form Ukhimath block
of Rudrapryag district were selected as it had the highest area under sweet orange production. A sample size of around forty
growers was selected randomly. To study the various aspects of marketing, 2 and 3 intermediaries are operating at each level

Vinay

Page 46

International Journal of
Emerging Research in Management &Technology
ISSN: 2278-9359 (Volume-2, Issue-3)

Research Article

March
2013

of marketing channel were identified and contacted.

4.2 Data Collection
The primary data were collected from the selected farmers, village level agents, wholesalers, retailers and various other
agencies and people involved in the marketing with the help of a pre structured schedule by personal interview method.
Secondary data was collected from various concerned district horticulture office (DHO) and organizations.

4.3

Analytical frameworks

4.3.1 Marketing cost

= +

Where,
Tc
: Total cost of Malta fruit marketing
Cp
: Cost incurred by producer
Mci
: Marketing cost increased by ith middleman
4.3.2 Marketing margins
Following marketing margins have been worked out in the study.
= ( + )
Where,
Ami
: The absolute margin of the ith middleman
Pmi
: The selling price of the ith middleman
Pp
: Producers price for his Malta produce
Mci
: Marketing cost of the ith middleman
4.3.3 Price spread
Price spread = Consumer price Producer price
4.3.4 Marketing efficiency
Marketing efficiency was calculated using Acharya and Agarwal (1998). It can be given as = /( + )
Where,
ME
: Marketing efficiency
FP
: Net price received by the producer-seller
MC
: Total marketing cost
MM
: Net marketing margin
4.3.5 Price spread
= /
Where,
Ps
: Producers share in consumers rupee
Pp
: Producers price for his vegetables produce
Pc
: Price paid by consumer
5.

Results And Discussion

5.1 Marketing system and channels

Three channels for marketing of sweet orange were identified in the study area:
Channel I: [Producer- Village level commission/contractor-Retailer -Consumer]

Vinay

Page 47

International Journal of
Emerging Research in Management &Technology
ISSN: 2278-9359 (Volume-2, Issue-3)

Research Article

March
2013

Channel II: [Producer- Local retailer - Consumer]

Channel III: [Producer- Cooperative Retailer- Consumer]
The marketing of sweet orange is dominated by village level commission/contractor. More than 68 per cent produce was
marketed through channel I. In channel II 25 per cent producers sold their produce directly to nearby local market retailer.
These channels were preferred by producers because no marketing cost was born by producer. In channel III, cooperative was
involved (rare cases) and the produce was directly purchased by the producers then goes to retailers to consumer. Although
the highest price was realized by producer in channel III, but this channel was least preferred by producers, because of three
reasons, the first reason is heterogeneity in group formation, the second reason is that farmers do not know how to retain
customers for longer period (Value addition) and the third is risk mitigation on unsold produce associated with this channel.
In channel III cooperatives sold the produce either directly to consumer or retailer.
Table 1- Marketing Cost, marketing margin, price spread and marketing efficiency under different channels
SN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Particulars

Gross price received by farmer (Rs. Per Kg)

Cost incurred by farmers (Rs. Per Kg)
Producers net price (Rs. Per Kg) (Item No.1 - Item No.2)
Marketing cost incurred by Farmers (Rs. Per Kg)
Consumers price (Rs. Per Kg)
Price Spread in different format (Rs. Per Kg)
Total
gross
marketing
margin
(Rs.
Per
Kg)
(Item No.2 + No.4 + No.6 )
8
Marketing Margin as % of consumers price (Item No.5 over Item
No.7 )
9
Producers
share
in
consumers
rupee
(% of producer net price to consumer price) Ps=(Pp/Pc)X100
10 Marketing efficiency (Item No.1 over Item No.7 )
5.2 Marketing costs, margins and efficiency

Rudraprayag
C-I
C-II
C-III
6.00
7.00
8.00
0.80
0.82
0.62
5.20
6.18
7.38
0.20
0.20
0.50
12.25
11.25
10.50
7.05
5.07
3.12
8.05

6.09

4.24

1.52

1.85

2.48

42.45
0.75

54.93
1.15

70.29
1.89

The marketing cost incurred by producers found to be Rs. 0.50 per kg in channel III followed by cannel I and II are similar
Rs. 0.20 per kg. The major component of the marketing cost of the producer was cost incurred on mules to bring fruit
produce up to the road head. Since hilly areas is circumcised by specificities especially inaccessibility due to poor road
infrastructure and isolated farms, therefore the labor cost and transportation cost borne by producers (cost on mules and jeep)
were very high. Producers share in consumer rupee is high 70.29 per cent in channel III while it was 54.93 per cent and
42.45 per cent in channel I and channels II respectively, when produce was sold in distant market. The difference between
farm gate price and retail price is very high, except in channel III of cooperative market. The price spread was found
minimum Rs. 3.12 per kg in channel III which is very good for produces while it was found high Rs. 7.05 per kg in channel I
followed by Rs. 5.07 per kg in channel II. It is real concern to policy makers recently as honorable Prime Minister has
expressed his views to reduce the price spread of agricultural commodities. In last budget (2010-11), specific strategies have
been adopted to reduce the post harvest losses and price spread of agricultural commodities.
As revealed form the table 1 the market margin of consumers price was found to be higher with the margin Rs. 8.05 (1.82%)
per kg in channel I followed by channel II Rs 6.09 (1.52%) per kg and Rs. 4.24 (2.48%) per kg in channel III. Hence, channel
III is the more admirable in terms of consumer and producers both. It is evident from table 1 that channel III was the most
efficient marketing channel with efficiency of 1.89 followed by channel II with efficiency of 1.15. The least efficient channel
was channel I with marketing efficiency of 0.75. Therefore it is concluded that cooperative cum retailer (channel III) is
performing better than other intermediaries.
6. Conclusion And Policy Implications
Present study has clearly found that marketing problems of hilly areas is different from other regions of the country. Scattered
farms, poor roads and terrains, contributed high labour and transportation cost, therefore producers are reluctant to bring their

Vinay

Page 48

International Journal of
Emerging Research in Management &Technology
ISSN: 2278-9359 (Volume-2, Issue-3)

Research Article

March
2013

produce themselves in the market and the marketing system is dominated by village traders/contractor. Producers are getting
very low price of the consumers price in case of sweet orange. Spatial price difference between local market and distant
market is very wide i.e. more than Rs. 7.00 per kg.
In order to link the farmers of hilly areas to market for remunerative prices, proper road and other infrastructure should be
developed. Keeping in view the very high price spread and low producers share, there is need to form the active marketing
self help groups/farmers producers group(FPOs), which can take the advantage of distant and competitive market and
members will be benefited by remunerative price. The other way to link more farmers with market is through co-operative
federation. To reduce the spatial differences in the price of produce, better transport, storage and village level processing unit
facilities are also required. Besides realizing remunerative price to the producers, it will narrow down the spatial price
differences and both consumers and producers will be benefitted.

REFERENCE
Indian Horticulture Data Base (2011). Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India 85, Institutional Area, Sector - 18,
Gurgaon - 122 015
Uttarakhand At A Glance (2011). Director of economics and statistics, Neshvilla Road Deharadun-248001
Sharma K.D., Pathania M.S. and Lal Harbans (2010). Value chain analysis and financial viability of agro-processing
industries in Himachal Pradesh. Agricultural Economics Research Review 23 (Conference Number) 2010 pp: 515-522
Shilpa K. (2008). Supply chain management in vegetable marketing: a comparative analysis. Thesis submitted to the
University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad
Kareemulla, K., Tewari R.K., Singh B. and Kumar K. (2007). Production and marketing of Indian gooseberry- aonla
(Emblica officinalis) in Pratapgarh district of Uttar Pradesh. Indian Journal of Agricultural Marketing. 21(2): 41
Kaur A., Sethi K. and Karan S.K. (2006). Marketing pattern of green peas in Punjab. Indian Journal of Agricultural
Marketing. 20(2): 118-123
Randev A.K. (2005). Marketing of Apple in Shimla district of Himachal Pradesh-India. Indian Journal of Agriculture
Marketing. 19(3): 13-16.
Saraswat S.P., Dahiya P.S. and Singh P. (2006). Production and marketing of peach f fruit: a case study of Rajgarh area
of district Sirmour in Himachal Pradesh. Indian Journal of Agricultural Marketing. 20 (2): 87-88
Website: www.nhb.gov.in

Acknowledgement
The authors are thankful to Dr. Ashutosh Singh, Associate Professor, College of Agribusiness Management, Gonind
Ballabh Pant University of Agricultural & Technology, Uttarakhand India for his keen interest, guidance and support.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that are no conflict of interest.

Vinay

Page 49