Marketing of agricultural crops in rural indian economy a case study

Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1700 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2855 (Online)
Vol.3, No.2, 2012

Marketing of Agricultural Crops in Rural Indian Economy: A
Case Study
Nizamuddin Khan, Mohammad Muqeet Khan*
Department of Geography, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh 202002, U.P., India
* E-mail of the corresponding author: mohdkhanmail@gmail.com

Abstract
The marketing of agricultural crops plays an important role not only in stimulating production and
consumption, but also in accelerating the pace of economic development. It is not only an economic link
between the producers and consumers; it maintains a balance between demand and supply. Study examined
the transaction of agricultural crops through rural markets and the price structure of different crops in rural
markets of Ambedkarnagar District. It also highlighted the composition and structure of sellers and traders
engaged in the marketing process.
Local rural markets are the best option for the marginal and small farmers to dispose off their perishable
surplus to get quick returns. Due to the lack of good infrastructural facilities in the study area, most of the
farmers prefer local rural markets instead of going to the specialised markets or near-by town area. The
variation in the transaction of agricultural produce is mainly due to a number of factors like higher market
demand, accessibility, nature of produce, transportation facility, market-size, fair price, and so on. The
average price of individual crop also varies from market to market due to the various socio-spatial factors.
Keywords: Marketing, Agricultural crops, Rural economy, Rural markets

1. Introduction
Marketing is the performance of all business activities involved in the flow of goods and services from the
point of initial agricultural production until they are in the hands of the ultimate consumer (Khols, 1967).
Agricultural marketing system in broader terms may be defined as physical and institutional setup to
perform all activities involved in the flow of products and services from the point of initial agricultural
production until they are in the hands of ultimate consumers. Rural market systems play a crucial role in the
economic development of the area they serve. It is through the marketing systems that goods articulate and
complete the circle from production to ultimate consumption. Produce change hands from the point of
production to the destination of ultimate consumption. The longer the route from production to
consumption, the higher becomes the price range of goods. Higher the price range lesser is the profit of the
primary producer.
Marketing for consumption starts from wholesalers to consumers through retailing. However, the nature of
the system will vary according to the type of produce. Goods produced in factories need a different
marketing system. In this case, the process of collection is very short as the goods are produced in large
quantity at a single point. It needs a chain of agencies, wholesalers, distributors and retailers, etc. In case of
agricultural products, the process of collection may need a longer chain. It is because agricultural
production is scattered. From farm to wholesalers, there is a wider spatial gap. Most agriculturalists
produce a small surplus. The scattered nature of the produce necessitates several channels of collection.
Agricultural produce may reach the collection point through farmers themselves, through small traders who
act as collecting agents, through these rural markets, through public collecting agencies, etc. It is here that
the role of these small but effective trading points (rural markets) is highlighted. These markets, therefore,
act as magnates for attracting horizontal and vertical trade. Through horizontal trading, the process of
collection starts. The process of collection and distribution of goods is organised through what is termed as
marketing system (Shrivastava, 2008).
An efficient marketing system ensures higher levels if income for the farmers reducing the number of
middlemen or by restricting the cost of marketing services and the malpractices. It guarantees the farmers
1

Vol.3, No.2, 2012
better prices for farm products and induces them to invest their surpluses in the purchase of modern inputs
so that productivity and production may increase. This again results in an increase in the marketed surplus
and income of the farmers. If the producer does not have an easily accessible market-output where he can
sell his surplus produce, he has little incentive to produce more. The need for providing adequate incentives
for increased production is, therefore, very important, and this can be made possible only by streamlining
the marketing system (Acharaya & Agarwal, 2010).

1.1 Objectives
Taking into consideration the importance of agricultural marketing system in developing economy, the
study has been undertaken with the following objectives:
a) To analyse the transaction of agricultural crops through rural markets.
b) To highlight the price structure of different crops in rural markets.
c) To examine the composition and structure of sellers and traders engaged.

1.2 Database and Methodology
The study is entirely based on primary source of data collected though field survey in the year 2009-10
through direct questionnaire method using stratified random sampling technique. One rural market from
each development block has been selected for detailed study and from each rural market, 50 percent
commodity-wise sellers and traders were interviewed for detailed information regarding transaction,
marketing channels, price of different agricultural crops and the composition and structure of sellers and
traders.

1.3 Study area
For the study, the district of Ambedkarnagar in the North Indian state of Uttar Pradesh has been selected as
study area, taking into consideration its economic backwardness, agricultural base as well as presence of
large number of rural market centres. It forms a part of Ghagra basin and lies between 26o 09’ N and 26o 40’
N latitudes and between 82o 12’ E and 83o 05’ E longitudes. The study area occupies an area of 2,361 sq km
and has a population of 2,026,876. About 91 percent population lives in villages whose main occupation is
agricultural farming. About 1,677 sq km (71.03 %) of the total land area of the district are agricultural lands.
Administratively, the district has 4 sub-divisions and 9 development blocks. The district has 1780 revenue
villages as well as 232 rural markets.

2. Discussion
2.1 Transaction of Different Agricultural Crops in Rural Markets
Table 1 & 2 shows the quantity as well as proportion of marketable arrival of different agricultural crops in
the selected rural markets. Study shows that the total arrival of agricultural crops in the selected markets is
4841.90 metric tonnes in 2009-10. Vegetables are accounted for highest marketable surplus i.e. 2056.10
metric tonnes, sharing 42.46 percent of total transaction. It is followed by wheat (1007.30 metric tonnes),
paddy (825.40 metric tonnes), fruits (489.90 metric tonnes), oilseeds (330.10 metric tonnes) and pulses
(133.10 metric tonnes), with a share of 20.80 percent, 17.05 percent, 10.12 percent, 6.82 percent and 2.75
percent respectively.
The highest proportion of vegetables among different marketable surplus is due to its very perishable nature
and high local demand for daily food requirements. Perishability and freshness is the major factors, which
discourage the sellers to cover long distances for their transaction. Local rural markets are the best option
for the marginal and small farmers to dispose off their perishable surplus to get quick returns. Generally,
sellers and traders cover distance ranging between 1-7 kilometres to sell off their products. Due to the lack
of good transportation, storing, freezing and marketing facilities in the study area, most of the farmers
prefer local rural markets instead of going to the specialized markets or mandis or near-by town area. Study
2

Vol.3, No.2, 2012
found market-to-market variation from 19 percent to 60 percent in the proportion of transacted vegetables.
This variation in vegetable transaction is mainly due to a number of factors like higher market demand,
accessibility, transportation facility, market-size, fair price and so on.
Wheat and paddy are the most important crops occupying second (20.80 %) and third (17.05 %) place in
the transactional crops in these markets. They are the leading crops in cultivation and production in the
study area, but a major part of their production is carried out for selling into the regulated markets and other
agencies. Remaining surplus is saved for future needs by the market participants, and sells throughout the
year from time to time in meager quantity, for getting cash for their daily requirement and living.
Next to wheat and rice are fruits and oilseeds, with a total share of 10.12 percent and 6.82 percent
respectively. However, their low proportion but high market demand compels the producers to dispose off
their surplus into the rural markets. The proportion of pulses is very low in the transacted crops, with just
2.75 percent. It is mainly due to the fact that out of total net sown area of district, only 7.30 percent area (i.e.
11,737 hectares) is dedicated to the pulse cultivation. Inspite of this, it is the most demanded nutritional
crop of the study area. Due to high market demand and higher prices, most of the producers prefer to keep a
major part of their production for their personal use and for future sell off. Whereas, they dispose off the
remaining surplus either into the regulated markets or to the rural markets.

2.2 Price Structures of Major Agricultural Crops in Selected Rural Market
In the rural markets, the prices of commodities are affected by the location of markets, characteristics of the
hinterland, nature of demand, supply of goods, durability of commodities, accessibility and transportation
cost. Table 3 highlights the average annual retail prices of major agricultural crops, during 2009-10 in the
selected rural markets. The average price for wheat is Rs 12.61 per kg and for paddy Rs 15.99 per kg. The
average price of pulses varies according to the kind of pulses, from Rs 80.29 per kg for red gram to Rs
22.00 per kg for peas. Similarly, the average price of oilseeds varies for linseed, mustard and sesame i.e. Rs
42.20 per kg, Rs 20.21 per kg and Rs 20.14 per kg respectively.
Table 4 shows the market-wise price structure of vegetables and fruits in the selected markets. The average
price of individual crop also varies from market to market. It is mainly due to the several factors like
location of market, nature of supply and demand, road connectivity from cultivation area, characteristics of
the market hinterland, transportation cost, seasonal effects, and the socio-economic condition of market
participants. Apart from these, there are many more socio-spatial factors, which affect the price structure of
these agricultural crops in the rural markets.

2.3 Participation of Crop Producer and Non-Producer Sellers
Rural markets are generally a system of direct marketing, which is essentially economical for both producer
sellers and consumers. In these markets, there are two types of sellers i.e. producer seller and non-producer
seller or village trader. The producer who gets higher price for their commodities realizing middlemen’s
profit, sell relatively at lower price than the retail price prevailing in near-by town markets. The selling
traders, though not getting similar profit as the producer seller, also get handsome profit. It is because he
brings the commodities from the villages at lower price (Khan, 1991).
The sellers who are involved in the transaction of different agricultural crops such as wheat, paddy,
vegetables, pulses, fruits and oilseeds are called crop-sellers. Generally, agricultural crop sellers are of two
types, viz., producer seller and non-producer seller. Table 5 reveals the participation of producer sellers and
non-producer sellers to the total crop sellers in the selected rural markets. Out of total crop sellers and
traders present in the selected market, the non-producer sellers have recorded high participation i.e. 69.99
percent, whereas the crop producer sellers share only 30.01 percent. The average participation of crop non-
producer sellers have been recorded high due to the prevailing unemployment and underemployment in the
study area. Nearly 75 percent workforce in the study area is engaged in agriculture activities but majority of
them are marginal workers (District Statistical Magazine, 2009-10).
They sell different crops into the rural markets for their livelihood or to supplement their income to sustain
their lives. Their proportion varies from market to market, from 39.10 percent in Deoria to 80.73 percent in
3

Vol.3, No.2, 2012
Bandipur. Most of them purchase these marketable commodities directly from the producers or regulated
markets at a much-subsidized rate to dispose off into the rural markets. However, the participation of
producer sellers (30.01 %) is not homogenous in the selected rural markets. It also varies from market to
market between 19.27 percent in Bandipur to 60.90 percent in Deoria. Majority of the producer sellers who
are engaged in the transaction of agricultural commodities are belong to marginal and small farmers.

2.4 Holding-Wise Participation of Crop Producer Seller
Size of holding and participation of producer sellers in the rural markets has inverse relationship, i.e.,
higher concentration of producer sellers belong to lower size of land holdings (Khan et al., 2006). Table 5
highlights the holding wise participation of producer sellers in selected markets. It indicated different
categories of landholders such as landless and marginal farmers (below 1 hectare), small farmers (1-2
hectares), semi-medium farmers (2-4 hectares), medium farmers (4-10 hectares) and big farmers (above 10
hectares). Study shows that more than 93 percent crop producer sellers belong to marginal, small and
semi-medium categories of farmers who have holding less than 4 hectares while only 6 percent are from
medium and big farmers (above 4 hectares).

3. Conclusion
The study of agricultural marketing in the study area shows that most of the agricultural surplus is marked
within the district itself. The highest proportion of vegetables among different marketable surplus is due to
its very perishable nature and high local demand for daily food requirements. Local rural markets are the
best option for the marginal and small farmers to dispose off their perishable surplus to get quick returns.
Due to the lack of transportation and infrastructural facilities, most of the farmers prefer local rural markets
instead of going to the specialized markets or near-by town area. Wheat and rice are also the principal crops
in cultivation and production, but a large proportion of their production is carried out for selling into the
specialized markets whereas remaining surplus is saved for selling throughout the year for their future
needs. In addition, the prices of agricultural crops are mainly affected by the location of markets, nature of
the hinterland, nature of demand and supply, durability of crops, accessibility and transportation cost.
The peasants are more or less independent and work on individualistic basis. Rural markets are only place
for the farmers to dispose off their surplus when they are in immediate need for money. Among different
crop sellers, the average participation of non-producer sellers have been recorded high mainly due to the
prevailing unemployment and underemployment in the study area. They sell different crops into the rural
markets for their livelihood or to supplement their income to sustain their lives. Whereas among the crop
producer sellers, majority of them belongs to the marginal, small and semi-medium categories, having very
small land holdings. Indebtedness of farmers generally compels them to sell their surplus at distress rate
offered by traders who loaned money during pre-harvest period. In general, the marketing of agricultural
commodities in the study area is facing a number of difficulties. Organizational as well as infrastructural
facilities are lacking. There is an urgent need to reduce these problems, which will help the framers, thereby
helping in agricultural development of the district.

References
Acharaya, S.S. & Agarwal, N.L. (2010), Agricultural Marketing in India, New Delhi: Oxford & IBH
Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.
District Statistical Magazine (2009-10). Economic and Statistical Office, Ambedkarnagar District.
Khan, N. (1991), Agricultural Development and Marketing, Delhi: H. K. Publishers and Distributers.
Khan, N., Hashmi, S.N.I., Ahmad, A. & Hoda, M.M. (2006), Livestock Marketing and Diversification of
Agriculture, New Delhi: Vista International Publishing House.
Khols, R. L. (1967), Marketing of Agricultural Products (3rd edition), London: Macmillan.
Shrivastava, V. K. (2008), Periodic Markets and Agricultural Development, Delhi: Independent Publishing
Company.
4

Vol.3, No.2, 2012

First Author: Nizamuddin Khan is Associate Professor of Geography, Aligarh Muslim University,
Aligarh, India. He has about twenty years of teaching as well as research experience. Dr. Khan has
published six books as well as authored four dozen of research papers in journals of international and
national repute. He has also participated in more than three dozen of national and international conferences
and visited many countries like Australia, Czech Republic, South Africa, Malaysia, France, Iran, Italy, New
Zealand, Slovenia, Indonesia, and Nepal for delivering lectures. His area of research interest includes
marketing geography, rural marketing and agricultural marketing.

Second Author: Mohammad Muqeet Khan is Research Fellow in Department of Geography, Aligarh
Muslim University, Aligarh, India. He had done his M.Phil., and presently working on his doctoral thesis in
the specialized field of geo-marketing especially on spatial analysis of rural markets and rural
transformation. Mr. Khan has participated in more than three dozen of international & national conferences
and workshops and presented research papers on different themes. He has also published more than a dozen
research papers in the journals of national and international repute. His field of research specialization is
geo-marketing especially rural marketing, agricultural marketing and consumer behaviour.

Fig 1. Location Map of Study Area

Table 1. Transaction of Different Crops in Selected Rural Markets, 2009-10

5

Vol.3, No.2, 2012
Source: Field Survey, 2009-10
Figure shows weight in metric tonnes.

S.
Rural Markets Wheat Paddy Pulses Oilseeds Vegetables Fruits All
no.
1. Mijhoura 78.1 67.1 5.1 22.3 85.0 38.1 295.7
2. Pratappur 132.0 91.3 19.0 55.4 165.0 79.9 543.3
3. Kurki Bazaar 58.9 73.0 7.2 24.0 46.0 32.0 241.1
4. Mubarakpur 201.6 187.0 38.6 75.0 523.0 105.4 1130.6
5. Hanswar 176.5 85.5 22.8 61.0 656.0 85.5 1087.6
6. Indiapur 51.8 35.7 3.3 15.5 57.7 23.3 187.3
7. Deoria 43.3 56.8 2.9 11.5 122.0 19.2 255.7
8. Malipur 185.1 155.2 30.2 48.8 302.4 65.8 787.5
9. Bandipur 80.0 73.8 4.0 16.6 98.0 40.7 313.1
Total 1007.3 825.4 133.1 330.1 2056.1 489.9 4841.9

Table 2. Proportion of Different Crops in Selected Rural Markets, 2009-10

S. Total
Rural Markets Wheat Paddy Pulses Oilseeds Vegetables Fruits
no. (%)
1. Mijhoura 26.41 22.69 1.72 7.54 28.75 12.88 100.00
2. Pratappur 24.30 16.80 3.50 10.20 30.50 14.71 100.00
3. Kurki Bazaar 24.43 30.28 2.99 9.95 19.08 13.27 100.00
4. Mubarakpur 17.83 16.54 3.41 6.63 46.26 9.32 100.00
5. Hanswar 16.23 7.86 2.10 5.61 60.34 7.86 100.00
6. Indaipur 27.66 19.06 1.76 8.28 30.81 12.44 100.00
7. Deoria 16.93 22.21 1.13 4.50 47.71 7.51 100.00
8. Malipur 23.50 19.71 3.83 6.20 38.40 8.35 100.00
9. Bandipur 25.55 23.57 1.28 5.30 31.30 13.00 100.00
Average 20.80 17.05 2.75 6.82 42.46 10.12 100.00
Figure shows percentage to total crop transaction.

6

Vol.3, No.2, 2012

Table 3. Price Structures of Major Agricultural Crops in Selected Rural Market, 2009-10

Pulses Oilseeds
S. no. Rural Markets Wheat Paddy Red Green Black
Gram Lentil Peas Mustard Linseed Sesame
Gram Gram Gram
1. Mijhoura 12.75 16.10 80.00 55.00 35.00 60.00 60.00 22.50 20.00 42.50 19.30
2. Pratappur 12.30 16.20 79.50 55.00 35.50 58.00 60.00 22.00 20.50 41.50 19.50
3. Kurki Bazaar 12.60 16.50 80.00 54.50 35.20 59.00 59.50 21.80 19.80 42.00 20.00
4. Mubarakpur 12.40 15.80 79.60 55.00 35.00 60.00 60.00 22.00 20.00 42.00 20.40
5. Hanswar 12.25 16.00 80.10 56.00 34.40 59.20 59.50 22.50 20.20 43.00 20.50
6. Indaipur 13.00 16.10 81.10 54.80 35.00 60.20 61.00 22.00 20.40 42.70 19.80
7. Deoria 12.50 15.70 80.50 55.30 35.50 60.00 60.00 21.50 19.50 41.60 21.00
8. Malipur 12.50 15.60 79.80 55.10 34.50 59.00 60.00 21.00 20.00 42.50 20.80
9. Bandipur 13.20 15.90 82.00 55.20 34.80 59.50 60.50 22.70 21.50 42.00 20.00
Average 12.61 15.99 80.29 55.10 34.99 59.43 60.05 22.00 20.21 42.20 20.14
Figure shows retail price in rupee per kg.
At the time of survey, 1 US dollar = 45.65 Indian rupees.

7

Vol.3, No.2, 2012

Table 4. Price Structures of Vegetables and Fruits in Selected Rural Market, 2009-10

Vegetables Fruits
S.
Rural
no. Markets Bottle Ridge Musk
Onion Potato Brinjal Cauliflower Tomato Garlic Coriander Chilli Mango Guava Papaya Melon
Gourd Gourd Melon
1. Mijhoura 12.00 5.50 15.00 13.50 12.10 12.50 19.00 40.00 24.00 17.50 20.00 12.50 25.00 8.10 14.60
2. Pratappur 12.30 5.10 14.00 13.30 11.60 12.30 19.30 40.20 24.20 17.00 18.50 13.00 26.30 6.85 15.00
3. Kurki Bazaar 12.00 5.30 15.20 14.20 11.50 12.00 19.50 38.00 24.00 16.20 19.30 12.50 25.50 7.25 15.50
4. Mubarakpur 12.50 5.50 14.60 14.00 11.00 12.00 20.00 39.60 23.70 15.80 20.00 11.90 24.80 8.00 14.40
5. Hanswar 12.50 5.00 14.50 13.50 12.00 11.00 21.00 40.00 24.00 16.50 21.10 12.00 24.70 7.50 15.20
6. Indaipur 12.80 6.00 15.00 14.50 12.30 11.60 20.50 38.55 23.00 16.63 18.90 13.40 25.40 6.90 15.00
7. Deoria 11.50 5.80 14.00 13.80 12.00 12.00 20.90 39.00 24.80 17.00 19.50 12.50 26.50 8.00 15.40
8. Malipur 12.10 5.00 15.30 14.00 11.50 11.50 19.50 39.50 23.60 15.90 20.00 11.50 25.00 7.40 14.60
9. Bandipur 11.80 6.50 15.50 13.90 12.00 11.60 19.70 40.00 25.00 16.40 19.80 12.70 24.35 6.80 14.50
Average 12.17 5.52 14.79 13.85 11.78 11.83 20.83 39.43 24.03 16.55 19.68 12.44 25.28 7.42 14.91
Figure shows retail price in rupee per kg.
At the time of survey, 1 US dollar = 45.65 Indian rupees.

8

Vol.3, No.2, 2012

Table 5. Participation of Crop Producer and Non-Producer Sellers in Selected Rural Markets, 2009-10

S.
Rural Markets Producer Sellers Non-Producer Sellers All Traders
no.
1. Mijhoura 93 (58.13) 67 (41.88) 160 (100)
2. Pratappur 79 (26.78) 216 (73.22) 295 (100)
3. Kurki Bazaar 23 (20.72) 88 (79.28) 111 (100)
4. Mubarakpur 154 (26.19) 434 (73.81) 588 (100)
5. Hanswar 161 (30.26) 371 (69.74) 532 (100)
6. Indaipur 64 (25.30) 189 (74.70) 253 (100)
7. Deoria 81 (60.90) 52 (39.10) 133 (100)
8. Malipur 97 (27.25) 259 (72.75) 356 (100)
9. Bandipur 42 (19.27) 176 (80.73) 218 (100)
Total 794 (30.01) 1852 (69.99) 2646 (100)
Figure in brackets shows percentage to total crop sellers.

Table 6. Holding wise Distribution of Crop Producer Sellers in Selected Rural Markets, 2009-10

S. Below 1 1-2 2-4 4-8 Above 8
Rural Markets All
no. Hectares Hectares Hectares Hectares Hectares
1. Mijhoura 65 (69.89) 17 (18.28) 09 (9.68) 02 (2.15) - 93 (100)
2. Pratappur 54 (68.35) 12 (15.19) 06 (7.59) 04 (5.06) 03 (3.80) 79 (100)
3. Kurki Bazaar 14 (60.87) 04 (17.39) 04 (17.39) 01 (4.35) - 23 (100)
4. Mubarakpur 94 (63.64) 30 (19.48) 19 (12.34) 10 (6.49) 04 (5.60) 154 (100)
5. Hanswar 96 (59.63) 29 (18.01) 21 (13.04) 09 (5.59) 06 (3.73) 161 (100)
6. Indaipur 44 (68.75) 12 (18.75) 05 (7.81) 02 (3.13) 01 (1.56) 64 (100)
7. Deoria 57 (70.37) 13 (16.05) 08 (9.88) 03 (3.70) - 81 (100)
8. Malipur 62 (63.92) 18 (18.56) 10 (10.31) 04 (4.12) 03 (3.09) 97 (100)
9. Bandipur 29 (69.05) 08 (19.05) 04 (9.52) 01 (2.38) - 42 (100)
Total 515 (64.86) 143 (18.01) 86 (10.83) 36 (4.53) 17 (2.14) 794 (100)
Figure in brackets shows percentage to total producer sellers.

9

Marketing of agricultural crops in rural indian economy a case study

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Marketing of agricultural crops in rural indian economy a case study

More from Alexander Decker

Recently uploaded

Marketing of agricultural crops in rural indian economy a case study