CHAPTER-I
INTRODUCTION
Fruits play an important role in the agricultural economy of India. Fruits have a very high nutritional value and are rich in vitamins. India with its wide variability of climate and soil, produced a large range of horticultural crops such as fruits, vegetable, ornamental crops etc. Horticulture has been recognized as an important avenue for diversification in agriculture in an eco-friendly manner through efficient land use. India is the Second largest producer of fruits and vegetables each in the world after China. Its share in the world output of fruits is 11 per cent and vegetables 7 per cent (Govt. of India, 2005).
India has made remarkable progress in horticultural production. Ranked second in the world, it produced about 57.6 million tones of fruits accounting for 11 per cent of the world fruit production. However, this high ranking in horticultural production is not matched by the availability of marketing Infrastructure leading to estimated losses of 20 to 35 per cent valued at more than 30 billions of rupees annually (Meena and Yadav, 2001).   
Fruit plantations play vital role in enhancing the farm incomes. In India, the area and production under fruit crops have increased considerably over time. In India, fruits occupy an area of 4.18 million hectares during 2005-06 which accounts 22 per cent of total area under fruits. Major fruits cultivated in India are mango, share in total production in parentheses, (38.28%), banana (16.27%), citrus (13.39%), apple (16.27%) and guava (5.26%) (Mittal 2007).  
Guava is a sub tropical fruit. It is one of the most common and major fruit of India and considered the fifth most important fruit in area and production after mango, banana, citrus and apple. In India guava occupies an area of 151.3 thousand hectares with annual production of 1801 thousand tons during 2006-07. Bihar is the largest producer of guava accounting for 22.39 per cent followed by Uttar Pradesh 20.02 per cent although best quality guavas are produced in Uttar Pradesh. In India guava is widely produced in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Tamil nadu, Gujrat, Punjab, Assam, Karnataka, Orissa, kerala, Rajasthan, Jammu and Kashmir and Delhi.  
In Punjab, guava is cultivated in all the districts of Punjab. It ranks fourth in cultivation after citrus, mango and pear. Total area in the state is 8183 hectares and annual production is 155526 tons during 2006-07. (Govt. of Punjab, 2007). The district of Patiala with total area 902 hectares and annual production of 15785 tones, Amritsar 809 hectares and 14158 tons, Sangrur 977 hectares and 17097 tons and Ludhiana 632 hectares and 11060 tons followed by Ropar, Hoshiarpur and Jalandhar are known for guava cultivation.
Guava is a rich source of vitamin C, vitamin A, vitamin B2 (riboflavin) and minerals like calcium, phosphorous and iron. The vitamin content of guava fruit is four-five times higher than citrus fruits. Guava is hardy fruit tree and can be grown to wider adaptability even under marginal soil. Guava is known for its tolerance to salt so it can be grown in sandy loam to clay and having PH 6.5 to 8.5. It grows best with annual rainfall below 100 cm restricted between June to September. The optimum temperature requirement of guava ranges between 23 to 28 Celsius (Bal, 2005).   			
Guava tree normally produces as many as three crops in a year. But in Punjab and other parts of northern India, it produces two crops in a year. In Punjab its crop is divided into two season crops, ie, winter and summer. The summer season crop is harvested during August and winter season during January-February. It has been observed that quality of summer season crop is poor due to attack of fruitfly than winter season crop. The yield of guava varies due to different varieties, age of plant, fruiting season and orchard management practices. It is observed that different varieties of guava produce yield more in summer season (Allahabad safeda, Sardar guava) as compared to winter season crop.     
         In India more than 100 million tones of fruits and vegetables are produced and marketed through a number of rural, whole sale and terminal markets every year. The market reforms in agricultural commodities have been limited mainly to foodgrains only. The marketing of fruits and vegetables received little attention of the government. In Punjab too, the major constraints reported by farmers were shortage of skilled labour, higher wages and lack of mechanized centers for the operations of grading and packing of fruits and vegetables. (Kshirsaga 2006).  
        Guava is highly perishable fruit and should be marketed immediately after harvest. Under the existing marketing system most of the fruit is marketed through a long chain of intermediaries, thus price spread is quite evident. Guava fruits are used for making jam, jellies and various culinary purposes. But due to poor infrastructure facility, poor handling and lack of cold storage facilities if not sold within time, it is spoilt.
           At present, there are large number of Intermediaries in this trade between the producer and the consumer which has resulted in a wide gap in the producer and consumer price of these commodities which needs to be reduced to enable farmers receive remunerative price of their produce and boost their production and consumption in the country. Therefore, the present study has been undertaken to study the production, performance and marketing of guava in Punjab state.
The specific objectives of the study:
1.    to examine the trends in area, production, yield, market arrivals and prices of guava in Punjab; 
2.    to work out the marketable surplus at farm level;
3.    to study the marketing channels, market margins and price spread for guava fruit; and 
4.    to identify the production and marketing constraints of guava fruit   

Hypotheses to be tested
1.	There is significant increase in area and production of guava in Punjab over time.
2.	The price offered for the produce is quite low in local market as compared to distant market.
3.	The producer’s share in consumer’s rupee is higher through direct sale by the guava growers in distant markets than through pre-harvest contractor.

Scope and Limitations of the study
         The study was primarily located in Amritsar district and Patiala district of Punjab. Since the present study has been undertaken by the post-graduate student, therefore there was a usual time and resource constraint. The study relied on the information supplied by the respondents like  farmers, the pre-harvest contractors and retailers. They might have concealed some information due to fear of different enforcement agencies/departments. Sometimes, these pre-harvest contractors and retailers are also indulged in various malpractices which are not reported.

CHAPTER-II
                                  REWIEW OF LITERATURE
 These are some earlier studies on fruits have relevance with the present study are discussed in this chapter.
MARKETING
Gill et al (1980) studied the marketing pattern of citrus in Punjab state. The study found that on an average, contract price turned out to be Rs.37.73 per quintal. Regarding disposal of citrus produce 96.5 per cent of the total produce was sold by the contractors and 3.5 per cent by the farmers themselves. The Producer’s share in consumer’s rupee was the highest in local market whereas the producers share in different market was less than 22 per cent.
Patel and pawar (1980) studied the marketing of fruits in Mahatama phule market of Bombay. The study showed that there was close relationship between wholesale price and supply position, whereas there was no such pattern in case of retail prices. The producers share in consumer’s rupee was 33.07 per cent for sweet oranges. In case of apples, mangoes and grapes the share of the producer in consumer’s rupee varied according to the varieties and ranges from 33 to 54 per cent. The study also made some suggestions as standardization and grading and establishment of cooperative market societies for getting better prices for the producers.
Parhihar and Bajpai (1983) calculated price spread and market margins for four varieties of apple cultivators vis. red delicious, royal delicious, rich a red and golden delicious grown in Bhadarwah and Doda areas of Jammu and Kashmir. They pointed out that maximum sales through a contractor and find that the price spread between grower and consumer could be reduced by increasing the volume of sale directly to consumer. 
Gill et al (1985) found that the marketable surplus of citrus fruits as a percentage of total production was 95.78, 96.97 and 99.00 per cent among small, medium, and large orchards, respectively. The study found that 84 per cent of the selected orchards owners leased out their orchards to the pre-harvest contractors, who provided very low prices to the farmers compared with sales made in the wholesale markets. The majority of the farmers using this channel suffered a loss of Rs. 51.78 per quintal. Prices were always higher in distant markets like Delhi but this facility was used mainly by the pre-harvest contractors and a few large farmers. The study suggested that the small farmers should be educated to improve their per unit productivity by selling the citrus fruits on a cooperative basis in the retail market. Adequate cold storage capacity needed to be created to save the farmers from distress sale.
Auhurkar and Deole (1985) estimated that producer’s share in consumer’s rupee for banana, sweet orange, mandarin orange and sour lime in the Marathwada region of Maharashtra and reported that it ranged between 28 and 30 per cent. The margins of the intermediaries accounts for about 24 per cent of consumer’s rupee while about 46 and 48 per cent of the consumer’s price went towards marketing cost.
Mondal (1986) conducted a study on marketing of pineapples in Meghalaya State. The analysis of price spreads showed that net profit of the producers was the highest (82.22 per cent) when the produce was sold directly to the consumer. Net percentage margin received by the retailers when operating through producer-retailer-consumer channel was 28.70 to 30.19 whereas net share of wholesaler was 14.84 to 15.20 per cent. Pineapple fruit faced peculiar problem during marketing because of special features involved in the assembling, packaging, storage, transportation and distribution. Improvement in marketing methods could be done by increasing the area under pineapples, regulation of markets, protection against loses and wastage of fruit during transit, grading of pineapple under Agmark, prevention of seasonal gluts and cooperatives which would reduce marketing costs and increase farmer’s share in consumer’s rupee.  
 Chand (1986) revealed that more than 80 per cent of the kinnow orchardists in Himachal Pradesh had given their orchards either partly or wholly to the pre-harvest contractors. The reason reported by the orchardists was lack of time during fruit harvesting season and to avoid risks and uncertainties involved in the marketing of fruits. Kinnow orchardists in Kangra district received lower share in consumer’s rupee when they marketed their produce through pre-harvest contractors while it was more than 53 per cent when they adopted other marketing channels.
Gill and Sidhu (1989) conducted the study to examine the price spread in important market channels for Red blood malta. The price spreads over a period of time and suggested improvements in marketing system of malta. The study brought out that producer’s share in the consumer’s rupee remained awefully low for sales to the pre harvest contractors and varied from 19.86 to 30.18 per cent. Similarly it was 20.67 to 84.35 per cent in the year 1987. On the other hand, the share of contractors during the corresponding period increased from 26.88 per cent to 28.12 per cent for sale in Delhi markets. Similarly the retailers share showed an upward trend from 15.74 per cent to 24.16 per cent in Delhi market. But in case the orchards were retained by the producers, their share was 43.88 and 62.27 per cent during 1979 and 1987, respectively. The low returns to the producers were resulted from inefficient marketing.   
Singh and Dhillon (1988) studied the pattern of marketing of grapes in Bathinda district of Punjab State. They found that four marketing channels were adapted by the grape grower for their produce. The predominant channel was sale through pre-harvest contractors followed by sale in distant markets, sale in local markets and direct sale to consumers. Majority of the farmers expressed their dissatisfaction with the price received by them and aspired for a government agency to enter into the market. Besides, the provision for quick transport, market information and cold storage facilities were also demanded.  
 Kumar (1989) conducted study on marketing of pears (patharnakhs) in Punjab. The study brought out that there was a significant difference in the prices of pears between Delhi markets compared with Amritsar and Jalandhar markets. But there was no significant difference in the prices within the local markets of Punjab. The sale of pears in local markets of Punjab (ie Amritsar and Jalandhar ) was very low. Major portion of the produce was sold in Delhi which acted as an assembling and distributing market. The study showed that the wholesaler’s net share of consumer’s rupee varied from Rs 104.42 (ie 26.10 per cent) to Rs 97.08 (24.26 per cent) in Delhi market. The cost borne by wholesalers worked out as Rs 26.72 (ie 6.68 per cent) for one quintal of produce. It was found that retailer’s margin was higher in selected markets of Amritsar (45.68 percent) and Jalandhar (38.46 percent) than Delhi market. In case of the Delhi markets retailer’s net share in consumer’s rupee was 18.49 percent. This is because higher prices were paid for one quintal of produce by retailers in Delhi markets (Rs 302.89) compared to Amritsar market (108.50) as well as Jalandhar market (Rs 122.07).
         Singh and Sikka (1992) revealed that during marketing of apples in tribal areas of Himachal Pradesh producer’s share in consumer rupee was 33.29 per cent. The marketing cost borne by orchardists was 41.07 per cent margins of mashakhars and retailers were 2.23 and 11.85 per cent of consumer’s rupee, respectively.
        Tewari et al (1992) found that during the marketing of mango in Himachal Pradesh, pre-harvest contractors dominated the marketing channels scenario as 80 per cent of the farmers had given their orchards to them with the aim to avoid marketing risks. The remaining farmers who marketed their produce themselves adopted producers- commission agent-wholesalers-retailers-consumers as the most favoured channel through they routed more than 97 per cent of the produce.
         Sidhu (1993) conducted the study to examine the price spread of kinnow through producers to pre-harvest contractors to retailers to consumer in Delhi, Amritsar and local market. He revealed that about 70 per cent of kinnow was sold in Delhi market due to brisk demand and higher prices Only small quantity wasin Delhi market due to brisk demand and higher prices. The contractor did not prefer to sell in the local markets like Malout, Abohar,
Singh (1996) conducted the study on marketing of citrus fruits in Jammu and Kashmir and found that producer’s share in the consumer’s rupee was 35.71 and 81.25 per cent in channel I (Producer-Pre-harvest contractor-retailer-consumer) and channel II (producer-retailer-consumer) respectively in December 1993 when a major share of the produce was sold. The contractor’s share was 4.51 per cent in the first channel. The share figure of retailer was 20.76 per cent. About 69 per cent of citrus fruits were sold in Jammu market through contractor in channel I due to brisk demand and high price there. The contractors did not prefer to sell in Rajouri local market due to lower prices. A meager quantity of fruit is sold in Rajouri local market (channel II) by the farmers due to lack of perfect market information. The share of commissions’ agent is on the higher side as compared to the services provided by him in citrus fruit marketing. The study further revealed that the citrus fruits growers have large number of problems in marketing of their produce all the 60 respondents expressed risk including price fluctuations, cheating and lack of storage facility, high perishability, seasonality and absence of market intelligence as the main reason for not taking up the citrus fruits. Difficulty in credit facilities and absence of local market were another reasons quoted by about 60 and 57 per cent of the growers respectively.     
Chinnappa (1997) conducted a study on marketing of guava in Karnataka in which he investigated that total marketing costs incurred by the producers was rupees 1681 per hectare, of which commission agent charges accounted for 45 per cent of the total cost. It is concluded that the present marketing system is not efficient evidenced by the high marketing cost and the many problems faced by the growers. Market regulations and minimum support price are thus needed to safeguard the interest of growers. 
Negi et al (1997) examined the relative performance of Himachal apples in Delhi, Jalandhar, Calcutta and Mumbai market over the 1984 and 1992 reference years. The study finds that the gross price received by apple producers increased in all markets over the study periods. However, the producers share over time has decreased in all markets and the share in 1992 was less by about 4 per cent.
             Sinha and Lal (1997) examined the dynamics of marketing of litchi fruits in Bihar. The study revealed that cost of production per tone was calculated at Rs 475 while the price received by the producer came to Rs 1175 per tone. The study also revealed that most of the marketed surplus was sold directly both to wholesalers and retailers and 59 per cent of consumer price was shared by producer and remaining 41 per cent was distribution among different functionaries of marketing.
            Tomer et al (1997) studied the marketing cost for citrus (malta and kinnow) in Hisar and Sirsa disricts of Haryana. The study revealed that producer’s share in consumer’s rupee was around 50 per cent when the producers directly sold citrus in the market, however when the fruit were sold through pre-harvest contractors, the share declined to about 40 per cent. The marketing margin charged by the middleman for citrus were higher which ranged from 14 to 19 per cent of consumer’s price.  
Kumar (1999) examined the resource use and marketing of important fruit crops in the Himachal Pradesh. The study showed that forwarding agent was not important marketing agent handling large proportion of total produce sold of different fruits. Delhi was found to be the most important market for disposal of different fruits from Himachal Pradesh. The producer’s share in consumer’s rupee was found to be the highest in Ludhiana market for different fruits except for apple grown in Zone-III for which it was highest for chandigarh market.   
 Shah (2000) Conducted study on various aspects of marketing of grapes in the state of Maharashtra. The grape orchardists were seen to market their produce either through forwarding agents in wholesale markets or though commission agents or directly to the wholesaler. Some of the orchardists also sold their produce through pre-harvest contractor. The per box (4kgs) total marketing cost was estimated to the highest when the produce was sold through forwarding agents in the wholesale markets compared to produce sold through other marketing channels (without intermediaries). As far producer’s share in consumer rupee, the average category of grape orchardist had an overall average of 59.49 per cent share in the consumer rupee in the domestic market. An improvement in the efficiency of the marketing system in  grapes was suggested in this study. This will enable the producers to have a better stake in the consumer rupee involving this commodity.
Dahiya et al (2001) examined the trend and growth rate of area, production and yield of fruit crops in Haryana. The analysis indicated that area and production of guava and ber showed statistically significantly increasing trend. In case of mango, citrus and grapes, the area showed the significant increase trend but production was found to be statistically non significant. The annual growth rate for fruit crops under the state registered a positive growth.
Srivastava and Mishra (2001) conducted a study to examine the price-spread in mangowhich indicates that marketing of mango in the project area is not properly organized and that the farmer’s share in the price paid by the ultimate consumer is very small. Lack of proper storage facilities for mango forces the farmers as well as other intermediaries to sell it off immediately at lower prices. The development of proper storage and transportation facilities is the need of the project area. Apart from that mango growers may be encouraged to undertake the marketing operation also in order to get higher return of their produce.   
Punhani (2001) examined the marketing of horticulture produce in Bihar. The study showed wide range of fruits and vegetables grown in Bihar require large number of intermediaries and marketing institutions. Pre-harvest contract marketing practice was followed by most of the growers, in all fruits in general and for litchi and mango is particular. Traders usually enter into contract with fruit growers to buy mango and litchi in the field itself at negotiated prices before harvesting and sell them in the urban markets through commission.
Singh et al (2001) conducted the study on the pattern of production and marketing of fruit crops in Punjab. The proportion of the total produce marketed was the highest for the grapes about 98 per cent followed by the pear 95 per cent. However, just 75 per cent of guava  was sold in spite of high perishability and spoilage. Almost the whole produce was sold through commission agents. The cost of transportation accounted for more than the half of the total marketing cost of all the fruits. The same proportion of pear and grapes might be due to marketing immediately after harvesting. Non availability of sufficient manpower to the market the produce resulted in the practices of pre-harvest contracts ensuring the agreed returns to the farmers and eliminating the possibility of losses due to delay in the marketing. However, the agreed contact amount taken into the discount the factors like expected yield on the lower side, market price in the preceding year at peak lines, the transit and other losses. The efficient market infrastructure for horticulture crops may help the farmers in selling their produce themselves and increasing their returns.    
         Singh and Ranjan (2001) conducted a study to examine the marketing and export of litchi in Bihar in Economic environment. The study revealed that litchi is generally marketed through pre-harvest contractors for different markets and through retailer for sale in local market. The price spread analysis indicates that the litchi growers received 36.36 per cent to 54.79 per cent of the consumer price and rest was absorbed by the intermediaries. Among various cost items, the charges in absolute terms for loss of weight and spoilage in channel I (pre- harvest contractors) and II (through retailer) were Rs 52.71 and 15.19 which account for 27.55 and 25.97 per cent, packaging charges including cost of box and  Rs 40.85 and 25.20 which accounts for 22.35 and 43.06 per cent and transportation cost were Rs 45.75 and Rs 6.10 which account for 25.75 and 10.43 percent of the total cost of marketing in those two channels. The margin of profit taken by retailer is highest amongst different intermediaries which was Rs 80.00 and Rs 73.50 which accounts for 48.90 and 100 percent of total marketing margin. The marketing  efficiency of channel II(through retailer) index is higher (1.21), as compared to channel I (pre-harvest contractor) 0.43 percent, however nearly 90 percent litchi produced is marketed through channel I and only 10 percent litchi was marketed through channel II.
           Anchal(2002)  conducted study an economic analysis of litchi cultivation in Punjab. There were three market channels involved in study area for sale of litchi such as I) producer- pre- harvest contractors-retailers-consumers (local market) II) Producer-pre-harvest contractors –retailers (through commission agent) – consumer( Amritsar market) III) producer –Pre- harvest contractors-(wholesaler) –retailer ( through commission agent) – consumer (Delhi market). In the first channel of litchi market of consumer paid   Rs 1937.62 per quintal of litchi. The producer and pre-harvest contractors received Rs 1396.64 from consumer rupee. In the second channel the litchi was sold to the consumer at a price of Rs 2383.93 per quintal which was 23.03 per quintal higher than that the first marketing channels. The producer could get only Rs 1257.90 ie. 52.77 per cent of consumers purchase price. Thus there was a price spread of Rs 1126 per quintal of litchi in selected market channel. In the third marketing channel of litchi the consumers of Delhi paid  Rs 2922.09 per quintal which was 50.81 per cent higher than that in the second channel. The producer’s share in consumer’s rupee was less than  the previous  two marketing channels of litchi. Thus the first marketing channel of litchi came to be a most efficient channel from producer as well as consumer’s point of view because the producer received maximum benefit in the channel and consumer gets the litchi at the minimum price. The margins of the middleman in between producers and consumers were found to be of the order of Rs 255.80 in first channel, Rs 524.80 in the second channel and Rs 910.49 in the third marketing channel of litchi under the study.
           Sharan and Singh (2002) examined the marketing problems faced by kinnow growers in Rajasthan. The study revealed that selling of produce through self marketing by growers was found profitable in comparison to contract sale to pre-harvest contractors. Lack of support price and lack of organization were the major problems faced by all the growers in marketing their produce. The next major problem faced were delay in payment, lack of competition among buyers, lack of marketing information, lack of cold storage facilities and lack of better and cheaper packing material accounting about 95,88,83, 82 and 82 per cent respectively. The growers also reported other problems like low prices due to seasonal gluts of stay arrangements in the market, malpractice in weighing method etc.
       Ladaniya (2003) examined the price spread of pomegranate. The study highlighted that pomegranate was mainly grown in Maharashtra, Karnataka and Rajasthan in the country. Over 90 per cent of the produce was marketed in three production centers of Sangola , Malagaon, Rahuiri through the following major channels : (1) Producer- commission agent – wholesaler- retailer –consumer, (2) Producer – cooperative society –commission agent –retailer- consumer, (3) Producer- commission agent (local) – trader (distant)- wholesaler – retailer- consumer. Local channels viz. (I) Producer-consumer (ii) Producer – retailer- consumer, (iii) Producer-Pre-harvest contractor- retailer –consumer are followed through which 10 percent of the produce was marketed. Producers with small holdings preferred cooperative society and marketing of produce through forming self help groups for transportation. Packing, long distance transportation and commission charges accounted for 90 per cent of the marketing costs. Marketing efficiency was the maximum in marketing through cooperative society closely followed by private commission agent. There was not much difference in marketing efficiency in these two channels since society also marketed fruit ultimately through commission agent. Grade-I quality fruit fetched higher price thus increasing the net returns to the growers. The longer distance from production area, the marketing and transportation costs increased. More the number of functionaries in marketing channels, higher the costs and margins and lesser the efficiency. Retailer’s margin was in the range of 38.50 to 56.33 per cent in the price paid by the consumer and it was single most important factor that determined market efficiency.
            Rana et al (2003) examined the needs of profitable selling of kinnow. Study shows that Agricultural produce marketing committees (APMCs) are totally under control of government and farmers are suffering due to corruption. Market being under-developed and small is more prone to fluctuation. Middleman exploit both the farmers as well as consumers. To save the farmers from exploitation there is need for establishing more and more function farmer’s marketing co-operatives, popularizing sale and purchase in “Apni mandis” minimum support price, farm inputs and services like spray pumps, polythene sheets, refrigerated vans, pesticides, fertilizers etc. should be produced by government at subsidized rates to make kinnow selling profitable.  
           Parmar (2003) studied the marketing system of apples in Himachal Pradesh. The study revealed that apple producers marketed their produce by adopting the generally traditional method in nature. It was found that the majority of apple producers marketed their produce through forwarding agents and did not consider government agencies fit of marketing, their produce effectively. The study found that knowledge of computers among apple growers was negligible and majority of them pointed out they had never use computers. A majority of respondents favored marketing of produce after packing of apple because the operations that precede packing like plucking, grading, wrapping etc. were performed by the orchardists themselves. Some respondents were of the opinion that marketing of apples should start right from the trees because they usually faced different problems in pre-packing operations.
       Singh (2004) conducted a study to examine production, performance and marketing of kinnow in Punjab. The study brought out that on an average  sample farmer had 2.28 hectare of area under kinnow. Per holding production and productivity was about 359 quintals and 159 quintals respectively. The marketed surplus was high to the extent of about 99 per cent; about 69 per cent of the selected farmers had leased out their kinnow orchards to the pre harvest contractors while about 31 per cent retained it themselves. Majority of pre-harvest contractors sold kinnow in Delhi markets which is the biggest consuming and distribution market in the entire north India. The producer’s share in Ferozpur and Hoshiarpur districts in the consumer’s rupee was about 42 per cent and 40 per cent respectively for sale of kinnow through pre-harvest contractor in Delhi market in January, 2003.
           Meena et al (2005) conducted a study to examine the practices and channels for marketing of guava in Udaipur district of Rajasthan. The study showed that more than 93 per cent of total production of guava was sold by producer-sellers. Averages quantity sold by producer-seller was 43.45 quintals. There is positive relationship between farm size and quantity retained for home consumption as well as quantity used for sale. More than 93 per cent of total sale of guava was sold by 82 per cent of producer sellers in the lot size of more than 10 quintals. About 52 per cent producer-sellers preferred to sell guava in 5 to 10 per cent lots. Maximum quantity (71 %) of guava was sold with in the village by majority of producer-sellers (about 69%). Farmers of large size group sold maximum quantity of their produce in the regulated market. Pre-harvest contractors within the village and wholesalers in regulated market were the important agencies to whom producers sold their marketed surplus of guava. Overall quantity of guava marketed by selected farmers was 93.65 per cent of the total production. Across farm size group’s small and medium farmers sold about 93 and 94 per cent while large farmers sold 94.44 per cent quantity of guava from their total production. Thus, it appears that more than 93 per cent of the total production was sold by different size group of farms. The average quantity of guava sold per seller was 34.45 quintals. As the size of channel increases the marketing cost also increases the marketing cost also increases and vice-versa.
Randev (2005) conducted study on marketing of apple in Shimla district of Himachal Pradesh. The study shows that costs incurred on various marketing operations have been found to be having inverse relationship with the size of holding of the orchard i.e. smaller the orchard more marketing cost has been incurred in carrying out various marketing functions. Methods of sale reveal that the orchardists have now started marketing their produce by themselves and received higher price by 32.19 per cent as compared to those who gave their orchards on contract to the pre-harvest contractors. The price spread shows producer’s share in the wholesalere’s  purchase price was the highest in the case of large orchardists (68.17%) followed by medium(65.91%), marginal (64.26%) and small orchardists ((64.15%). It is reported in the study that local markets is more efficient against distant markets with additional advantages of time saving and safety. The orchardists ‘s main problem pertains to unavailability of boxes (42%), lack of transportation facilities (39%) and market intelligence (16%).      
Sekhon et al (2006) studied the production and marketing of pear in Amritsar District of Punjab state. The study revealed that 58 per cent of area under pear was leased out to pre-harvest contractors. The contractor,s share in total production was about 57 per cent. It was found that about 99 per cent of the pear was sold in Delhi markets by the contractors and farmers. The sale in the local Amritsar market was just about one per cent. It happened mainly on account of fact that Delhi is the big consuming and distribution market in the entire north India. The overall average rate of contract on per quintal basis was about rupees 604. A Comparison of price spread through different channel revealed that producer’s share in consumer‘s rupee was the highest (about 70%) in channel II (producer-wholesaler-retailer-consumer). It was due to self sale in local market where marketing costs were less.  
 It is clear from the above review of relevant studies that marketing of fruits involve many intermediaries and market margins are quite high and producer’s share low. It is also observed from the above literature that number of studies have been conducted on marketing of different fruits in various regions/states in India, but no study seems to have been conducted on marketing of guava in the state of Punjab. Thus present study is planned in Punjab state to study the marketing of guava fruit which is grown widely in Punjab state in almost all the districts. 
           .

CHAPTER – III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
	In order to achieve the objectives of the study, following methodology was used: 
SAMPLE SELECTION
	The sample of the study is based on two stage stratified random sampling technique. District provided the first stage while farmers came to be the second stage of sampling unit.
Selection of Districts
	The area under guava in Punjab was 8183 hectares during the year 2005-2006. Two categories of districts were formed on the basis of area under guava i.e. high concentration districts and low concentration groups. Then from the high concentration districts, two districts, namely Patiala and Amritsar were randomly selected. The area under guava in Patiala district was 902 hectares, which was 11.64 per cent of the total area of the state, while area under guava was 809 hectares in Amritsar district. It was 10.44 per cent of the total guava area of the state. 

Selection of Farmers
	A complete list of guava growers in Patiala and Amritsar districts was obtained from the Department of Horticulture, Punjab. The guava growers were categorized into three categories, namely, small, medium and large based on the area under guava by using cube root cumulative frequency method. The detail in this regard is as under:
Farm Category	Area in hectares	
Small	£1.85	
Medium	1.86-3.50	
Large	Above 3.50	

	A sample of 60 farmers was taken for the study. To make the sampling design self weighing the number of farmers selected from each category was in proportion to their number in that category. The category was number of farmers selected from each district are given below:

Farm category	                      Number of guava growers	Total	
	Amritsar district	Patiala district		
Small	           13	            15	     28	
Medium	           10	             12	     22	
large	           5	             5	     10	
Total	           28	             32	      60	

Selection of Pre-Harvest Contractors
	Pre-harvest contractors play an important role in the marketing of guava. A list of pre-harvest contractors was prepared for the sample districts and a random sample of 5 pre-harvest contractors from each district was taken for this study. In this way, the total sample consisted of 10 pre-harvest contractors.
Selection of Retailers
	Two local markets in the guava producing area were selected. These markets were Amritsar in Amritsar district and Patiala in Patiala district. One big guava market within the state, namely Ludhiana, was also selected for the study. Delhi is the biggest consuming market in the entire north India. Therefore, it was also selected for the present study. In this way, the total number of markets was four. From each selected market, 5 retailers were randomly selected. Thus, the total number of retailers in the sample was 20.
DATA COLLECTION
	Both primary as well as secondary data were collected to achieve the objectives of the study.
Collection of Primary Data
	The primary data were collected from the farmers, pre-harvest contractors and retailers on specially structured questionnaire. The information was collected from the selected farmers about the size of their operational holding, area under guava, production and yield of guava, source of irrigation, source of draft power, cropping pattern, quantity of guava retained for self consumption, marketed surplus, sale of the produce in local and other markets, pattern of sale, etc. The data were also collected from the farmers regarding leasing out of the guava orchards to the pre-harvest contractors, terms and conditions of the contract, etc. The relevant information collected from the farmers was related to the year 2008-09.
	The information was collected from the pre-harvest contractors regarding area under guava leased in, expenses on watch and ward, picking, grading, filling, cost of container and other packing material, transportation cost, octroi and other market charges, sale pattern of the fruit in various markets etc. The relevant information collected from the pre-harvest contractors related to the year 2008-09.
	The data were collected from the retailers regarding purchase price of guava, market charges paid in the market, transportation cost, rehri charges, spoilage and waste, packing cost, etc. The relevant information collected from the retailers related to the month of January, 2009.
Collection of Data from Secondary Sources
	Keeping in view the objectives of the study, the secondary data were obtained from the reputed published and unpublished sources. The information about area, production and yield of guava, net sown area, area under all the fruits, etc. was taken from various issues of Statistical Abstract of Punjab. The data regarding arrivals and prices of guava in the selected markets were taken from the office of the respective market committee.

STATISTICAL FRAMEWORK
	Different statistical techniques were applied to analyze the collected data.
These techniques include:
Compound Growth Rate (C.G.R.)
	The compound growth rates of area, production and yield of guava were worked out by applying the regression model in its exponential form as under:
		Yt = abt u 
Where,
		Yt = 	area/production/yield of guava for the year ‘t’
		t    =	time variable (No. of years under study)
		a  =	a constant term
                 u  =      error term
		Log transformation of the above function is:
		In Yt =	In a + t (In b) +e
Where,
		In b =		In (1 + r) and
		r       =	[antilog (In b) – 1] x 100
		CGR (%) =	[antilog (In b) – 1] x 100
	The compound growth rates were also tested to determine their statistical significance with the help of t-test.
Index Number
	The simple index number of guava prices has been worked out by using the following formula:
Index number of prices =   	Actual prices of guava in particular month	x100	
	Average price of guava in the particular year		

Price Spread	
The price spread of guava has been worked out by using the ‘Mode’ method.
Simple statistical tools like averages, frequencies, percentages, etc. were also used to analyze the primary as well as secondary data.

CHAPTER – IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Trends in Area under Total Fruits and Guava
	Punjab has not been a very big producer of fruits on account of its climatic conditions. The temperature is extremely low in the months of December and January and extremely high in the months of May and June. The information about net sown area, area under fruits as well as under guava in Punjab from 1986-87 to 2007-08 is given in Table 4.1. The net sown area was 4202 thousand hectares in 1986-87 which decreased slightly to 4174 thousand hectares in 2007-08. The area under fruits has increased from 53.23 thousand hectares in 1986-87 to 93.22 thousand hectares in 1998-99 but later declined to about 30.09 thousand hectares in 1999-2000. Further, it increased to 61.62 thousand hectares in 2007-08. The major reasons for the stagnation of area under fruits are water-logging problems in the south-western districts which has adversely affected the soil as well as fruit crops. Therefore, the farmers had uprooted their orchards on a large scale. The actual procurement at the minimum support price is done for wheat and paddy only. Hence, the farmers increased the area under wheat and paddy crops by shifting from other crops including horticultural crops. To avoid such uncertainties the farmers of Punjab shifted the area to wheat and paddy crops which are less risky and price support is also there.
	However, the area under guava increased in the state in the recent years. It was 3.67 thousand hectares in 1986-87 which increased to 7.53 thousand hectares in 1998-99. After that, it declined to 3.41 thousand hectares in 1999-2000 but increased to about 8.18 thousand hectares in 2007-08. In percentage terms also, the area under fruits was very low of the net sown area of the state. It ranged between 0.80 per cent in 2000-01 to 2.19 per cent during 1998-99. Although guava is one of the principal fruit crops in Punjab, its share in the net sown area was less than 0.20 per cent during the period under study. The area under guava increased from 6.89 per cent to 15.53 per cent of area under total fruits during 1986-87 to 2004-05 but decreased to 13.27 per cent in 2007-08.

Table 4.1 : Net sown area, area under total fruits and area under guava in Punjab, 1986-87
                   to 2007-08
Area (‘000 ha)
Year	Net area sown	Area under Fruits	Area under guava	Area fruits % of NAS	Area guava % of NAS	Area guava % of total fruits	
1986-87	4202	53.23	3.67	1.27	0.09	6.89	
1987-88	4157	56.93	3.70	1.37	0.09	6.50	
1988-89	4205	61.09	3.82	1.45	0.09	6.25	
1989-1990	4193	64.94	3.90	1.55	0.09	6.01	
1990-91	4218	68.84	4.01	1.63	0.10	5.83	
1991-92	4215	72.66	4.30	1.72	0.10	5.92	
1992-93	4139	76.52	4.69	1.85	0.11	6.13	
1993-94	4214	79.11	4.83	1.88	0.11	6.11	
1994-95	4210	81.77	5.36	1.94	0.13	6.55	
1995-96	4136	84.42	5.83	2.04	0.14	6.91	
1996-97	4223	87.68	6.40	2.08	0.15	7.30	
1997-98	4239	90.29	6.87	2.13	0.16	7.61	
1998-99	4264	93.22	7.53	2.19	0.18	8.08	
1999-2000	4211	30.09	3.41	0.71	0.08	11.33	
2000-01	4264	34.21	4.35	0.80	0.10	12.72	
2001-02	4268	34.51	5.19	0.81	0.12	15.04	
2002-03	4224	40.49	5.95	0.96	0.14	14.69	
2003-04	4201	43.72	6.69	1.04	0.16	15.30	
2004-05	4200	47.00	7.30	1.12	0.17	15.53	
2005-06	4170	51.60	7.75	1.24	0.19	15.02	
2006-07	4184	57.31	8.12	1.37	0.19	14.17	
2007-08	4174	61.62	8.18	1.48	0.19	13.27	

Table 4.2 : Production of total fruits and guava in Punjab, 1986-87 to 2007-08

Year	Total Fruit Production         (m. tons)	Guava Production        (m. tons)	Guava Production as %  of total Production	Yield of guava (kg/ha)	Yield of Total Fruit (kg/ha)	
1986-87	485044	22675	4.67	6178	9112	
1987-88	521897	23182	4.44	6265	9167	
1988-89	533653	37280	7.14	10020	8735	
1989-1990	593765	39090	6.58	10023	9143	
1990-91	628279	40150	6.39	10012	9127	
1991-92	664607	43010	6.47	10002	9147	
1992-93	693377	46940	6.77	10009	9061	
1993-94	717680	51280	7.15	10617	9072	
1994-95	736380	35670	4.84	6655	9005	
1995-96	760661	58330	8.11	10005	9010	
1996-97	789996	64050	8.39	10008	9010	
1997-98	819553	68750	8.96	10007	9077	
1998-99	841429	75380	14.26	10011	9026	
1999-2000	419371	59815	15.90	17541	13937	
2000-01	479655	76248	17.11	17528	14021	
2001-02	531719	90965	18.02	17527	15408	
2002-03	578455	104265	18.64	19676	14286	
2003-04	628170	117075	18.82	19119	14368	
2004-05	679546	127908	18.19	18593	14458	
2005-06	746331	135730	18.20	18599	14464	
2006-07	830577	142188	17.12	17511	14493	
2007-08	1055408	155526	14.74	19013	17128	

The data regarding production of all the fruits and guava have been shown in Table 4.2. The total fruit production was 485044 m tones in the state during the year 1986-87 which increased consistently to 841429 m tones in 1998-99. After that it declined to 419371 m tones in 1999-2000 but increased to 1055408 m tones in 2007-08. As far as the guava production is concerned, it was 22675 m tones in 1986-87. By the year 1993-94, it increased to 51280 m tones but declined to 35670 m tones in the next year. After that, it increased to 155526 m tones in 2007-08. Guava is one of the principal fruit crops of the state, therefore, its share in the production is considerable. The share of guava in the total fruit production was about 4.67 per cent in 1986-87. Over a period of time, it increased to about 18.20 per cent in 2005-06, but declined to 14.74 per cent in 2007-08. The yield of total fruits showed an increase from 9112 kg/ha in 1986-87 to 17128 kg/ha in 2007-08. However, the yield of guava registered a higher increase from 6178 kg/ha to 19013 kg/ha in 2007-08.
Trends in area and production of total fruits and guava in selected districts
	The trends in area and production of fruits and guava  in Amritsar and Patiala districts are shown in Table 4.3a and 4.3b. In Amritsar district the area under fruits was 5558 hectares during 1986-87 which increased to 8435 hectares in 1998-99 then declined sharply to 2466 hectares in 1999-2000 ; it further increased to 3390 and remained 2071 hectares in 2007-08 (Table 4.3a). The production of fruits was 94949 m tones during 1986-87 declined  to 62882 m tones in 1988-89 then increased and reached 99596 m tones in the year 1998-99. It was 37701 m tones during 2007-08. The average of fruits in Amritsar district was 17083 m tones in 1986-87. It fluctuated between 10280 and 11807 m tones during 1988-89 to 1998-99.it increased sharply to 16863 in 1999-2000 and then to 18204 m tones in 2007-08. the area under fruits in Patiala district was 3431 hectares in 1986-87 and increased to 5070 in 1998-99 and then declined to 2141 hectares in 2007-08. The production of fruits was 36615 m tones in 1986-87 and was maximum at  46032 m tones in 1998-99. It remained 33782 m tones in the year 2007-08. The yield of fruits was 10672 in 1986-87 declined to 9079 kgs per hectare and increased to 15778 kgs in 2007-08.
In Amritsar district, the area under guava increased from 412 hectares in 1986-87 to 881 hectares in 1998-99 which declined to 432 hectares in the next year but increased to 809  hectares in 2005-06 and substantially declined to 441hectare in 2006-07 to 411 hectare in 2007-08 which is lower than the base year Table 4.3 b).
            The production of guava in Amritsar district increased from 2548 m tones in 1986-87 to 8810 m tones in 1998-99, which declined to 7560 m tones in 1999-2000, but again increased consistently to 14158 m tones during 2005-06, but, substantially declined to 7718 m tones in 2006-07 to 7583 m tones in 2007-08. The trends in production decline in Amritsar district was in correspondence to that in area. 
In Patiala district, the area under guava was 563 hectares in 1986-87. It increased to 740 hectares in 1991-92 but declined to 681 thousand hectares in the next year. After that it consistently increased to 916 hectares in 1995-96, which again declined to 862 hectares in the next year. Then it increased for the next two years up to 942 hectares. During 1999-2000, the area under guava abruptly declined to 404 thousand hectares, which then consistently increased to 902 hectares during 2005-06 and again, declined to 782 hectare in 2006-07 followed by increase to 813 hectare in 2007-08.
	The production of guava in Patiala district was 3478 m tones in 1986-87 which increased to 7400 m tones in 1991-92 but declined to 6810 tones in 1992-93. After that, it increased to 9420  m tones in 1998- 99, but declined to 7070  m tones in the next year. Since 2000-01, it increased consistently to 15785  m  tones in 2005-06 and again decline to 13785 m tones in 2006-07and increased to 15553 m tones in 2007-08. 

Table 4.3(a) : Trends in area and production of total fruits in selected districts, 1986-87 
                   to 2007-08
Year	Amritsar	Patiala	
	Area (ha)	Prod (m tons)	Yield (kg/ha)	Area (ha)	Prod (m tons)	Yield    (kg/ha)	
1986-87	5558	94949	17083	3431	36615	10672	
1987-88	5840	99616	17057	3651	36194	9913	
1988-89	6117	62882	10280	3957	39069	9873	
1989-1990	6417	78357	12211	4245	40101	9447	
1990-91	6728	80949	12032	4559	42984	9428	
1991-92	7060	85633	12129	4812	45379	9430	
1992-93	7369	88424	12000	4177	38952	9325	
1993-94	7604	90945	11960	4393	40812	9290	
1994-95	7773	92657	11920	4514	41743	9247	
1995-96	7954	94567	11889	4738	43657	9214	
1996-97	8157	96665	11851	4805	44000	9157	
1997-98	8290	98115	11835	4930	44970	9122	
1998-99	8435	99596	11807	5070	46032	9079	
1999-2000	2466	41585	16863	1653	21551	13037	
2000-01	2575	43657	16954	2356	31016	13165	
2001-02	2684	45279	16870	2502	33216	13276	
2002-03	2862	48184	16836	2580	34563	13396	
2003-04	3016	50806	16845	2698	36352	13474	
2004-05	3146	53067	16868	2784	37656	13526	
2005-06	3390	57228	16881	2850	38649	13561	
2006-07	2033	33884	16666	2065	29179	14130	
2007-08	2071	37701	18204	2141	33782	15778	

Table 4.3(b) : Trends in area and production of guava in the selected districts, 1986-87 
      to 2007-08
Year	Amritsar	Patiala	
	Area (ha)	Prod (m tons)	Yield (kg/ha)	Area (ha)	Prod (m tons)	Yield     (kg/ha)	
1986-87	412	2548	6184	563	3478	6178	
1987-88	418	2613	6251	588	3672	6245	
1988-89	427	4270	10000	615	6150	10000	
1989-90	427	4270	10000	635	6350	10000	
1990-91	437	4370	10000	679	6790	10000	
1991-92	464	4640	10000	740	7400	10000	
1992-93	530	5300	10000	681	6810	10000	
1993-94	594	5940	10000	763	7630	10000	
1994-95	633	6330	10000	785	7850	10000	
1995-96	674	6967	10337	916	8716	9515	
1996-97	751	7510	10000	862	8620	10000	
1997-98	800	8000	10000	895	8950	10000	
1998-99	881	8810	10000	942	9420	10000	
1999-2000	432	7560	17500	404	7070	17500	
2000-01	501	8768	17500	620	10850	17500	
2001-02	567	9922	17501	701	12268	17501	
2002-03	661	11567	17499	760	13300	17500	
2003-04	723	12653	17499	829	14507	17499	
2004-05	787	13773	17501	855	14962	17499	
2005-06	809	14158	17500	902	15785	17500	
2006-07	441	7718	17501	782	13785	17627	
2007-08	411	7583	18450	813	15553	19130	

 C.G.R.s of Area, Production and Yield of Total Fruits and Guava
The compound growth rates for area, production and yield of total fruits and guava shown in Table 4.4. The overall period of 22 years i.e. 1986-87 to 2007-08 has been divided into two equal sub periods. First period belongs to 1986-87 to 1996-97 while the 2nd period to 1997-98 to 2007-08. 
Table 4.4:  CGRs of area, production and yield of total fruits and guava in Punjab.
District/Period 	Area	Production	Yield	
Total Fruits	
Punjab	
	Coefficient	 t value	Coefficient	 t value	Coefficient	 t value	
1986-87 to 1996-97	5.30*** 	20.084	5.26 **	15.962	-0.04  	-0.227	
1997-98 to 2007-08	-7.14 	-1.801	-1.33 	-0.492	6.26 ***	3.778	
1986-87 to 2007-08	-2.58** 	-2.166	0.58 	0.741	3.24***	6.103	
Amritsar	
1986-87 to 1996-97	3.99 ***	20.850	1.31 	1.038	-2.58 	-2.015	
1997-98 to 2007-08	-9.64 **	-2.980	-6.70 **	-2.705	3.25 ***	3.015	
1986-87 to 2007-08	-5.71 ***	-5.013	-4.131 ***	-5.063	1.67 **	3.038	
Patiala	
1986-87 to 1996-97	2.86 ***	4.466	1.65 **	3.196	-1.17 ***	-5.118	
1997-98 to 2007-08	-5.07 	-1.813	-0.93 	-0.449	4.36 ***	4.185	
1986-87 to 2007-08	-3.33 **	-3.891	-1.04 	-1.892	2.37***	5.764	
Guava	
Punjab	
1986-87 to 1996-97	5.32 ***	10.689	8.59***	3.768	3.10 	1.260	
1997-98 to 2007-08	2.08 	0.678	9.88***	9.47	7.38***	3.600	
1986-87 to 2007-08	3.32 ***	4.338	8.82***	14.108	5.32 ***	6.679	
                                                                             Amritsar	
1986-87 to 1996-97	6.52 ***	9.523	10.88***	9.656	4.09**	2.774	
1997-98 to 2007-08	-2.75 	-1.045	2.05***	0.849	4.94***	2.847	
1986-87 to 2007-08	1.70 ***	2.008	6.73***	8.234	4.95***	9.073	
Patiala	
1986-87 to 1996-97	4.66 ***	10.724	8.62***	5.391	3.79**	2.493	
1997-98 to 2007-08	1.83 	0.770	7.06 ***	4.896	5.14***	2.997	
1986-87 to 2007-08	1.28	2.011	6.37 ***	11.727	5.02 ***	9.054	
Figures in parentheses are  t-values
*** Significant at 1% level
** Significant at 5% level

Total Fruits 
In case of total fruits, the CGR of area came to be 5.30 per cent per annum for 1986-87 to 1996-97 significant at 1 per cent. The coefficient of area under fruits was negative during 1997-98 to 2007-08 but non significant. However, the CGR of area for the whole period of 1986-87 to 2007-08 was significantly negative, the coefficient being 2.58 per cent indicating decline in area under fruits in Punjab. Almost a similar pattern could be seen in case of production of  fruits in Punjab. The production of total fruits increased during first period at 5.26 per cent per annum. Whereas it declined significantly during 2nd period with the rate of decline of 0.492 per cent but the coefficient was non -significant. Overall the production of fruits registered a positive  growth during the period of study but the coefficient was non significant. The yield of total fruits registered a significant increase during the 2nd period  and  for the whole period at the rate of 6.26 3.24 per cent per annum respectively. 
In Amritsar district, the area under total fruits registered a significant increase of 3.99 per cent per annum in 1st period while it came to be significantly negative during 2nd period, the coefficient was 9.64 per cent significant at 5 per cent level. For the whole period the area under fruits in Amritsar district decelerated with the rate of 5.71 per cent per annum significant at 1 per cent level. The trends in production also depicted the similar pattern. The CGR of production was positive but non-significant during 1st period whereas it was negative and significant during 2nd period. The production of fruits decelerated during 2nd period with 6.7 percent per annum in Amritsar district The yield of total fruits was significantly negative during 1st period (-2.58%) while it was significantly positive during 2nd period (3.25%) and for the whole period (1.67%). 
In Patiala district, the area under total fruits increased at a significant CGR of 2.86 per cent while it was negative but insignificant during the 2nd period. However, CGR of area was significantly negative during the overall period of study. The production of total fruits also increased significantly at the rate of 1.65 percent during 1st period while there was an insignificant decline in production during 2nd period and as well as overall period. On the other hand, the yield of total fruits in Patiala district, declined significantly at the rate of 1.17 per cent during 1st year while it showed a significant increase at the rate of 4.36 per cent and 2.37 per cent during 2nd period and overall period respectively. 
Guava
In Punjab state, the area under guava showed a significant increase at the rate of 3.32 per cent during the period of study. The increase was positive and significant during 1st period ; the area under guava increased at 5.32 per cent per annum. The production of guava in Punjab registered a significant increase throughout both the periods as well as overall period. During 1st period the production of guava increased significantly because of area increase and in second period production increased because of significant increase in yield. The yield of guava turned to be significantly positive (7.38%) during 2nd period. Overall, it registered a significant increase. 
In Amritsar district, the area under guava increased significantly at the rate of 6.05 percent during 1st period while it remained stagnant during 2nd period. However, overall growth rate of area under guava came to be significantly positive. It is encouraging to note that the CGRs of production and yield of guava came to be significantly positive during both the periods as well as at overall level.
In Patiala district, the area under guava increased significantly at the rate of 4.83 percent during 1st period which remained stagnant during 2nd period. However, the overall CGR of area under guava was positive but non-significant. The production and yield in Patiala district increased significantly during both the periods as well as of overall level. 
This showed that, in general, there was a decline/stagnation in area under and production of total fruits in Punjab as well as both the selected districts. But the area under and production of guava increased significantly during the period of study in the Punjab state as a whole and also in the selected districts. This showed that guava has acquired more importance in total fruits over the period under study. 
Profile of the sample farmers
	The fruit cultivation is a specialized enterprise which is different from ordinary farming such as cultivation of cereal crops like wheat, paddy, etc. A brief profile of the guava growers is as follows:
Age group
	The study brought out that majority i.e.76.67 per cent farmers were in the age group of 30 to 50 years. As much as 43.34 per cent of them were in the age group of 30 to 40 years and 33.33 per cent were from 40- 50 years. About 7 per cent of them were less than 30 years of age and 15 per cent were of more than 50 years. A similar trend in the age was observed in both the selected district of Punjab. It is worthwhile to mention here that young farmers can manage their orchards in a better manner as compared to very old farmers.
Education level
	The study revealed that about 13 per cent of the respondents were uneducated and 87 per cent were educated. As much as 20 per cent of the respondents were educated up to primary level 21 per cent up to middle level. There was about 12 per cent respondents who were educated up to 10+2 standard while 20 and 13 per cent of the respondents were graduates and postgraduates respectively.  More number of large category of respondents had  higher education as compared to the small and medium category farmers. There was not much difference in the education level of the respondents of both Amritsar and Patiala district. It indicates that the fruit growers are generally young, progressive and educated. 
Source of draft power
	There are 9.97 lakh operational holding in Punjab. The number of tractors in the state is 4.59 lakh for the year 2007-08. Therefore every fifth holding is having tractor in Punjab. The study brought out that about 97 per cent of the respondents used their own tractor as a source of draft power. Overall all the medium and large farmers owned tractors. Only two small farmers had to hire tractor power as a draft purpose. The district-wise comparison indicated that all the respondents of Amritsar district (28) had tractors whereas 30 respondents out of the total of 32 in Patiala district had tractors. Except two small farmers of Patiala district had no tractors.

Table 4.5: Socio-economic profile of the selected guava growers, Punjab, 2008-09
Socio-Economic Profile 	Amritsar	Patiala	Total	
	S	M	L	T	S	M	L	T	S	M	L	T	
1. Age (years)			
<30	0	1
(10.00)	0	1
(3.57)	1
(6.67)	0	1
(20.00)	2
(6.25)	1
(3.57)	1
(4.55)	1
(10.00)	3
(5.00)	
30-40	5
(38.46)	6
(60.00)	2
(40.00)	13
(46.43)	6
(40.00)	5
(41.67)	2
(40.00)	13
(40.62)	11
(39.29)	11
(50.00)	4
(40.00)	26
(43.34)	
40-50	5
(38.46)	1
(10.00)	2
(40.00)	8
(28.57)	6
(40.00)	5
(41.67)	1
(20.00)	12
(37.50)	11
(39.29)	6
(27.27)	3
(30.00)	20
(33.33)	
>50	3
(23.08)	2
(20.00)	1
(10.00)	6
(21.43)	2
(13.33)	2
(16.66)	1
(20.00)	5
(15.63)	5
(17.85)	4
(18.18)	2
(20.00)	11
(18.33)	
Total	13
(100.00)	10
(100.00)	5
(100.00)	28
(100.00)	15
(100.00)	12
(100.00)	5
(100.00)	32
(100.00)	28
(100.00)	22
(100.00)	10
(100.00)	60
(100.00)	
2. Education 			
Illiterate	3
(23.08)	2
(20.00)	0	5
(17.85)	3
(20.00)	0	0	3
(9.37)	6
(21.43)	2
(9.09)	0	8
(13.33)	
Primary	5
(38.46)	1
(10.00)	1
(20.00)	7
(25.00)	3
(20.00)	2
(16.67)	0	5
(15.63)	8
(28.57)	3
(13.64)	1
(10.00)	12
(20.00)	
Middle	2
(15.38)	2
(20.00)	0	4
(14.30)	4
(26.67)	3
(25.00)	2
(40.00)	9
(28.12)	6
(21.43)	5
(22.73)	2
(20.00)	13
(21.67)	
10+2	0	2
(20.00)	1
(20.00)	3
(10.71)	3
(20.00)	1
(8.33)	0	4
(12.50)	3
(10.71)	3
(13.64)	1
(10.00)	7
(11.67)	
Graduate 	3
(23.08)	2
(20.00)	1
(20.00)	6
(21.43)	2
(13.33)	2
(16.67)	2
(40.00)	6
(18.75)	5
(17.86)	4
(18.17)	3
(30.00)	12
(20.00)
	
Postgraduate 	0	1
(10.00)	2
(40.00)	3
(10.71)	0	4
(33.33)	1
(20.00)	5
(15.63)	0	5
(22.73)	3
(30.00)	8
(13.33)	
Total	13
(100.00)	10
(100.00)	5
(100.00)	28
(100.00)	15
(100.00)	12
(100.00)	5
(100.00)	32
(100.00)	28
(100.00)	22
(100.00)	10
(100.00)	60
(100.00)	
3. Source of Draft Power
													
Own tractor	13
(100.00)	10
(100.00)	5
(100.00)	28
(100.00)	13
(86.67)	12
(100.00)	5
(100.00)	30
(94.00)	26
(100.00)	22
(100.00)	10
(100.00)	58
(97.00)	
Hiring-in Tr-Service 	0	0	0	0	2
(13.33)	0	0	2
(06.00)				2
(3.00)	
Total	13
(100.00)	10
(100.00)	5
(100.00)	28
(100.00)	15
(100.00)	12
(100.00)	5
(100.00)	32
(100.00)	26
(100.00)	22
(100.00)	10
(100.00)	60
(100.00)	
4. Source of Irrigation 
													
Only Tubewell 	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	
Tubewell + Canal	13 
(100)	10
 (100)	5 
(100)	28 
(100)	15 
(100)	12
 (100)	5 
(100)	32 
(100)	28 
(100)	22 
(100)	10 
(100)	60
 (100)	
Total	13
(100.00)	10
(100.00)	5
(100.00)	28
(100.00)	13
(86.67)	12
(100.00)	5
(100.00)	30
(94.00)	26
(100.00)	22
(100.00)	10
(100.00)	58
(97.00)	

Source of irrigation
	Tubewell and canals are the two major source of irrigation in the state. At present, about 97 per cent of the net area sown is irrigated in Punjab which is the highest in the country. About 74 per cent area was irrigated by tube-wells and about 26 per cent by canals in the state during the year 2005-06 (latest figure available). The study brought out that about all the respondents had both canal as well as tube-well irrigation. A similar trend was observed in case of all the three categories of farmers i.e. large, medium and small. The district-wise data indicated that all the respondents of Amritsar district and Patiala district had both canal as well as tube-well irrigation. The canal irrigation was not assured source of irrigation, therefore, to avoid risk, the respondents had installed tube-wells also to supplement the canal irrigation.
Size of operational holding
	The level of income of the farmers depends on the size of operational holding. Higher the size of operational holding, higher will be the level of production, higher will be the quantity of marketable surplus of various agricultural commodities. The average size of operational holding for 9.97 lakh holdings in Punjab is 3.79 hectares. The information about average size of operational holdings of the selected farmers is shown in Table 4.6. The data given in the table indicated that average size of operational holding among sample farmers was 9.38 hectares which is almost two and half time more than the state average. As already discussed, the fruit growers are generally large farmers, they can manage the orchards in a better manner as compared to the small and marginal farmers. Above all, they can also take risk. The average size of operational holdings of small, medium and large respondents was 5.45, 10.71 and 17.35 hectares respectively.
	
Table 4.6: Average Size of Operational holding of the selected farmers, 2008-09
			(hectares)	
Farm Size	Districts		
Category	Amritsar	Patiala	Overall	
Small	4.86	5.96	5.45	
Medium	10.07	11.23	10.71	
Large	16.76	17.94	17.35	
Average	8.88	9.83	9.38	

The district-wise comparison revealed that average size of operational holding of Patiala district was higher at 9.83 hectares  in the district. For Amritsar district, this figure was 8.88 hectares. The farm size category wise data indicated that the small, medium and large farmers of Patiala district operated 5.96, 11.23 and 17.94 hectares respectively. The respective figures for these three categories of farmers of Amritsar district were 4.86, 10.07 and 16.76 hectares.
Cropping pattern of the selected farmers
	The cropping pattern of the selected farmers is given in Table 4.7. A perusal of the table revealed that wheat was the principal rabi crop of all categories of farmers. It occupied 47.73 per cent of the area operated by the sample farmers. The area under wheat on small, medium and large farmers accounted for 52.77, 48.37 and 42.77 per cent of their operational area respectively. In the rabi season, fodder crops occupied 8.25 per cent of the area operated by all the respondents.
	The study revealed that paddy crop occupied 45.67 and basmati 2.27 per cent of the area operated. The kharif fodder occupied 8.99 percent of the area operated. As much as 5.10 per cent of operational area was under vegetable crops in kharif season. Similar pattern was observed among Amritsar and Patiala districts.
	The study brought out that 28.68 per cent of the area operated was allocated to guava by the sample farmers. These figures were 24.70, 29.13 and 31.47 per cent for small, medium and large farmers respectively. The respondents of Amritsar district allocated 29.45 per cent of the area operated to guava whereas this figure was 28.04 per cent for the Patiala district. The large farmers of Amritsar district allocated the highest area under guava i.e. 31.56 per cent followed by medium farmers (29.89%) and small farmers (25.93%). For Patiala district, this figure was higher for large farmers (31.38%) followed by medium farmers (28.58%) and small farmers (28.83). The other fruits like kinnow, pear, peach, mango, ber, etc. occupied 5.63 per cent of the area operated of the sample farmers. The large farmers had the maximum area (7.15%) under other fruits whereas this figure was 4.42 and 5.29 per cent for small and medium farmers, respectively. A similar trend was observed in Amritsar and Patiala district as far as other fruits were concerned. The respondents of Amritsar district allocated 5.44 per cent of area operated to other fruits whereas the figure was 5.80 per cent for Patiala district. In Amritsar district, small and medium farmers had 4.73 and 4.87 per cent area under other fruits, whereas the large farmers had 6.62 per cent area. For Patiala district, the small, medium and large farmers had 4.19, 5.61 and 7.64 per cent area under other fruits respectively.

Table 4.7: Cropping pattern of the selected farmers in Amritsar district, 2008-09 

					(hectares)	
Crops	Farm Size Category	
	Small	Medium	Large	Average	
Amritsar District	
(A) Rabi Crops	Area 	%age	Area 	%age	Area 	%age	Area 	%age	
Wheat	2.39	49.18	4.19	41.61	6.23	37.17	3.73	42.00	
Fodders	0.68	13.99	1.08	10.72	1.50	8.95	0.97	10.94	
Vegetables	0.19	3.91	0.78	7.75	1.58	9.43	0.65	7.35	
Others	0.11	2.26	0.52	5.16	1.05	6.26	0.43	4.81	
Sub-Total (A)	3.37	69.34	6.57	65.24	10.36	61.81	5.78	65.09	

(B) Kharif Crops									
Paddy	2.28	46.91	4.09	40.62	6.01	35.86	3.60	40.57	
Basmati	0.14	2.88	0.57	5.66	1.02	6.09	0.45	5.10	
Maize	0.06	1.23	0.17	1.69	0.32	1.91	0.15	1.65	
Fodders	0.61	12.55	0.92	9.14	1.39	8.29	0.86	9.71	
Vegetables	0.16	3.29	0.59	5.86	1.15	6.86	0.49	5.55	
Others	0.09	1.85	0.23	2.28	0.47	2.80	0.21	2.35	
Sub-Total (B)	3.34	68.72	6.57	65.24	10.36	61.81	5.77	64.94	

(C) Fruit Crops									
Guava	1.26	25.93	3.01	29.89	5.29	31.56	2.62	29.45	
Other Fruits	0.23	4.73	0.49	4.87	1.11	6.62	0.48	5.43	
Sub-Total ( C)	1.49	30.66	3.50	34.76	6.40	38.19	3.10	34.88	
Operational Area	4.86	100.00	10.07	100.00	16.76	100.00	8.88	100.00	

Table 4.7 Cropping pattern of the selected farmers in Patiala  district, 2008-09 (contd.)

Crops	Farm Size Category	
7	Small	Medium	Large	Average	
Patiala District	
(A) Rabi Crops	Area 	%age	Area 	%age	Area 	%age	Area 	%age	
Wheat	3.29	55.20	5.99	53.34	8.61	47.99	5.14	52.29	
Fodders	0.49	8.22	0.61	5.43	0.89	4.96	0.60	6.09	
Vegetables	0.40	6.71	0.62	5.52	1.13	6.30	0.60	6.09	
Others	0.11	1.85	0.17	1.51	0.31	1.73	0.16	1.67	
Sub-Total (A)	4.29	71.98	7.39	65.81	10.94	60.98	6.50	66.13	
(B) Kharif Crops									
Paddy	3.18	53.36	5.53	49.24	8.42	46.93	4.89	49.72	
Basmati	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	
Maize	0.02	0.34	0.09	0.80	0.16	0.89	0.07	0.69	
Fodders	0.59	9.90	0.97	8.64	1.19	6.63	0.83	8.41	
Vegetables	0.32	5.37	0.51	4.54	0.79	4.40	0.47	4.74	
Others	0.18	3.02	0.29	2.58	0.38	2.12	0.25	2.57	
Sub-Total (B)	4.29	71.98	7.39	65.81	10.94	60.98	6.50	66.13	
( C) Fruit Crops									
Guava	1.42	23.83	3.21	28.58	5.63	31.38	2.76	28.04	
Other Fruits	0.25	4.19	0.63	5.61	1.37	7.64	0.57	5.80	
Sub-Total ( C)	1.67	28.02	3.84	34.19	7.00	39.02	3.33	33.83	
Operational Area	5.96	100.00	11.23	100.00	17.94	100.00	9.83	100.00	

Table 4.7 Cropping pattern of the selected farmers in  Punjab, 2008-09  (contd.)

Crops	Farm Size Category	
	Small	Medium	Large	Average	
Overall	
(A) Rabi Crops	Area 	%age	Area 	%age	Area 	%age	Area 	%age	
Wheat	2.88	52.77	5.18	48.37	7.42	42.77	4.48	47.73	
Fodders	0.58	10.59	0.82	7.67	1.20	6.89	0.77	8.25	
Vegetables	0.30	5.57	0.69	6.46	1.36	7.81	0.62	6.65	
Others	0.11	2.02	0.33	3.06	0.68	3.92	0.29	3.07	
Sub-Total (A)	3.87	70.95	7.02	65.56	10.65	61.38	6.16	65.70	
(B) Kharif Crops									
Paddy	2.77	50.75	4.88	45.58	7.22	41.59	4.28	45.67	
Basmati	0.06	1.18	0.26	2.39	0.51	2.94	0.21	2.27	
Maize	0.04	0.70	0.13	1.18	0.24	1.38	0.11	1.12	
Fodders	0.60	10.99	0.95	8.85	1.29	7.44	0.84	8.99	
Vegetables	0.25	4.52	0.55	5.10	0.97	5.59	0.48	5.10	
Others	0.14	2.54	0.26	2.46	0.43	2.45	0.23	2.47	
Sub-Total (B)	3.85	70.70	7.02	65.56	10.65	61.38	6.16	65.63	
( C) Fruit Crops									
Guava	1.35	24.70	3.12	29.13	5.46	31.47	2.69	28.68	
Other Fruits	0.24	4.42	0.57	5.29	1.24	7.15	0.53	5.63	
Sub-Total ( C)	1.59	29.12	3.69	34.43	6.70	38.62	3.22	34.31	
Operational Area	5.45	100.00	10.71	100.00	17.35	100.00	9.38	100.00	

Area production and yield of guava with selected farmers, 2008-09
	The information about area, production and yield of guava with the selected farmers is given in Table 4.8. A perusal of the table revealed that on an average  sample farmers had 2.69 hectares area under guava. Among different farm size categories it was 1.35, 3.12 and 5.46 hectares for the small, medium and large farmers, respectively. The district-wise comparison indicated that sample farmers of Patiala district had more area (per holding) under guava i.e. 2.76 hectares as compared to 2.61 hectares in Amritsar district. The small farmers of Patiala district had 1.42 hectares area under guava, medium and large farmers had 3.21 hectare 5.63 hectares respectively. In the Amritsar district, the small farmers had 1.26 hectares area under guava, medium farmers had 3.01 hectares and large farmers had 5.29 hectares under guava.
	Per holding production of guava was 487.77 quintals. The small farmers had lower production i.e. 234.40 qtls whereas the large farmers had higher level of production i.e. 1001.52 quintals. The medium farmers had 560.40 quintals production of guava. A similar trend was observed in Amritsar and Patiala districts. Per holding production of guava came to be 463.87 qtls and 500.20 qtls in these districts, respectively. Per holding production of guava was higher in Patiala district on account of more area under the crop. For Patiala district, per holding guava production was 250.13, 583.06 and 1043.18 qtls for small, medium and large farmers, respectively. The respective figures were 215.94, 532.71 and 959.87 qtls for the Amritsar district.
	The study brought out that yield of guava was 177.56 qtls per hectare with the selected farmers. The yield of guava followed direct relationship with farm size. The yield level of large farmers was high 183.37 qtls per hectare as compared to the small farmers 173.96 qtls per hectare and medium farmers 179.54 qtls per hectare. The yield of guava was higher with the large farmers mainly on account of better input management. Moreover, the large farmers were resource rich. These factors had its positive impact on the yield.
	The district-wise analysis of yield of guava revealed that yield level of the selected farmers of Patiala district was higher 179.64 qtls per hectare as compared to the selected farmers of Amritsar districts 175.21 qtls per hectare.
	The farm category-wise analysis revealed that yield of guava for small, medium and large farmers of Amritsar district was 171.38, 176.98 and 181.45 qtls per hectare respectively. The large farmers of Patiala district had the highest yield i.e. 185.29 qtls hectares as compared to 181.64 qtls per hectare of medium farmers and 176.15 qtls per hectare of small farmers. Thus the large farmers had higher yield than their counterparts small and medium farmers in both the districts.

Table 4.8: Per holding area, production and yield of guava on selected farmers, 2008-09

Fram Size	Amritsar	Patiala	Overall	
Category	Area 	Production	Yield	Area 	Production	Yield	Area 	Production	Yield	
	(ha)	(qtls)	(qtl/ha)	(ha)	(qtls)	(qtl/ha)	(ha)	(qtls)	(qtl/ha)	
Small	1.26	215.94	171.38	1.42	250.13	176.15	1.35	234.40	173.96	
Medium	3.01	532.71	176.98	3.21	583.06	181.64	3.12	560.40	179.54	
Large	5.29	959.87	181.45	5.63	1043.18	185.29	5.46	1001.52	183.37	
Average	2.61	463.87	175.21	2.76	500.20	179.64	2.69	487.77	177.56	

Marketed surplus of guava
	The information about marketed surplus of guava with the selected farmers is given in Table 4.9. A perusal of the Table revealed that per holding consumption of guava was 1.39 per cent of the production and the marketed surplus was high to the extent of 98.61 per cent. The large categories of farmers had the highest marketed surplus (99.24%) followed by medium farmers (98.66%) and small farmers (97.55%). There is no doubt that total consumption in absolute terms was more in case of large farmers i.e. 7.61 qtls as compared to 7.52 qtls for medium farmers and 5.75 qtls for small farmers. But in percentage term, the total consumption of guava was more in case of small farmers i.e. 2.45 per cent followed by medium farmers (1.34%) and large farmers (0.76%).
	The district-wise analysis of marketed surplus of guava revealed that marketed surplus was almost 99 per cent of the production in both Amritsar and Patiala districts. The total consumption was also around one per cent of the production. The farm category-wise data related with marketed surplus revealed that except small farmers of both Amritsar and Patiala districts the marketed surplus for the medium and large farmers was around 99 per cent. It was about 98 per cent for small farmers of both these districts. The total consumption of guava comprised of family consumption, gift to relatives and payment in kid to labour.
	The ultimate income of the farmers depends on the size of marketed surplus. Higher the level of marketed surplus, the higher will be the level of income and vice-versa. Since guava is a cash horticultural crop for the farmers, therefore, its marketed surplus was about 99 per cent. Therefore, we can say that only a very small quantity of this fruit was kept for consumption and almost the entire production was sold either through pre-harvest contractor.
Disposal pattern of guava
	The guava orchards are generally leased out to the pre-harvest contractors by the fruit growers. The relevant information in this regard is given in Table 4.10. The data given in the Table clearly showed that 66.67 per cent of the selected farmers leased out their guava orchards to the pre-harvest contractors while 33.33 per cent retained it themselves. The watch and ward of the orchard was a problem for the farmers. They could not keep watch on the fruit pickers for 24 hours continuously. Therefore, to avoid the risk of theft of the fruits and other related responsibilities like picking of fruit, its grading, packing, transportation, sale etc., the majority of the sample farmers leased out their guava orchards to the contractors.

Table 4.9: Per holding production and marketed surplus of guava on the selected farmers, 2008-09 

					(qtls)	
	Farm Size Category	
Particulars	Small	Medium	Large	Average	
Amritsar District	
	Qty.	%	Qty.	%	Qty.	%	Qty.	%	
Production	215.94	100.00	532.71	100.00	959.87	100.00	463.87	100.00	
Family Consumption	2.13	0.99	3.39	0.64	3.42	0.36	2.81	0.61	
Gift to Relatives	2.37	1.10	2.69	0.50	2.71	0.28	2.55	0.55	
Kind Wages to Labour	1.22	0.56	1.79	0.34	1.81	0.19	1.53	0.33	
Total Consumption	5.72	2.65	7.87	1.48	7.94	0.83	6.89	1.49	
Marketable Surplus	210.22	97.35	524.83	98.52	951.89	99.17	456.98	98.51	
Patiala	
Production	250.13	100.00	583.06	100.00	1043.18	100.00	500.20	100.00	
Family Consumption	2.41	0.96	3.27	0.56	3.38	0.32	2.88	0.57	
Gift to Relatives	2.43	0.97	2.59	0.44	2.19	0.21	2.45	0.49	
Kind Wages to Labour	0.94	0.38	1.37	0.23	1.71	0.16	1.23	0.25	
Total Consumption	5.78	2.31	7.23	1.24	7.28	0.70	6.56	1.31	
Marketable Surplus	244.34	97.69	575.83	98.76	1035.83	99.30	493.64	98.69	
Overall	
Production	234.40	100.00	560.40	100.00	1001.47	100.00	487.77	100.00	
Family Consumption	2.28	0.97	3.33	0.59	3.40	0.34	2.88	0.59	
Gift to Relatives	2.40	1.02	2.63	0.47	2.45	0.24	2.52	0.52	
Kind Wages to Labour	1.07	0.46	1.56	0.28	1.76	0.18	1.38	0.28	
Total Consumption	5.75	2.45	7.52	1.34	7.61	0.76	6.78	1.39	
Marketable Surplus	228.65	97.55	552.38	98.66	993.86	99.24	480.99	98.61	

Table 4.10: Distribution of the selected farmers according to the disposal pattern of guava orchards, 2008-09 

				(No.)	
Farm Size Category	Retained by Farmers	Leased out to Contractor	Total	
	No.	%age	No.	%age			
Amritsar District	
Small	4	30.77	9	69.23	13	100.00	
Medium	3	30.00	7	70.00	10	100.00	
Large	1	20.00	4	80.00	5	100.00	
Total	8	26.67	20	71.43	28	100.00	
Patiala District	
Small	6	40.00	9	60.00	15	100.00	
Medium	5	41.67	7	58.33	12	100.00	
Large	1	20.00	4	80.00	5	100.00	
Total	12	37.50	20	62.5	30	100.00	
Overall	
Small	10	35.71	18	64.29	28	100.00	
Medium	8	36.36	14	63.64	22	100.00	
Large	2	20.00	8	80.00	10	100.00	
Total	20	33.33	40	66.67	60	100.00	

The category-wise data revealed that 80 per cent of the large farmers leased out their orchards as compared to about 64 per cent each of the small and medium farmers respectively. The large farmers mainly preferred to lease out the orchards on account of the fact that size of their orchards was big as compared to other categories of farmers and they don’t want to indulge in labourious activities and also try to avoid marketing risk.
	The district-wise analysis regarding disposal of guava orchard brought out that 71.43 per cent of the selected farmers of Amritsar district leased out their orchards to the contractors. The figure was 62.50 per cent for the sample farmers of Patiala district. The farm category-wise data of Amritsar district revealed that 80 per cent of the large farmers leased out their orchards as compared to about 70 per cent each of medium farmers and small farmers. In Patiala district also 80 per cent of large farmers leased out their orchards. On the other hand, 60 percent both of the small and 58.33 per cent of medium farmers leased out their orchards. Thus it is clear that the farmers prefer to lease-out their instead of harvesting it themselves. This practice is more prevalent in large farmers. 
	The information about disposal of area of guava orchards by the selected farmers is given in Table 4.11. A perusal of the table revealed that 76.95 per cent of the area under guava was leased out to the contractors. The selected farmers themselves retained 23.05 per cent area.	The farm category-wise analysis revealed that small, medium and large farmers leased out about 69.63, 75.96 and 83.15 per cent of their guava area to the contractors. The district-wise comparison brought out that the selected farmers of Patiala district leased out 77.17 per cent area under guava to the contractors. This figure was 76.63 per cent for Amritsar district. The large farmers of Patiala district leased out 83.48 per cent area of to the contractors, whereas these figures were about 70.42 and 76.32 per cent for small, and medium farmers respectively. The small farmers of Amritsar district leased out 69.05 per cent of the orchard area to the contractor, which was less in compared to 75.42 per cent by the medium farmers and 82.80 per cent of large farmers. 
Number of farmers/contractors selling in various markets
	The farmers and contractors generally sell their produce in those markets where they can get high price. The relevant information about the farmers/contractors selling in various markets is shown in Table 4.12. The maximum farmers/contractors (73.33%) in the sample sold their produce in Delhi market. Delhi is the biggest consuming market in north India. It also operates as a distribution market for the entire northern area of the country. It is worthwhile to mention here that the highest arrival of produce in Delhi market did not result in crash in price as was the case in the local market in Punjab. Therefore, it was the rational economic decision of the farmers/contractors not to sell high volume of their produce in the local market. Only 20 per cent of the large farmers/contractors sold their produce in the local market. This figure was about 32 per cent each for the medium and small farmers/contractors.

Table 4.11: Disposal pattern of orchards area by the selected farmers, 2008-09

				(Average ha)	
Farm Size Category	Retained by Farmers	Leased out to Contractor	Average Area under guava (Total)	
	Area	%age	Area	%age	Area	%age	
Amritsar District	
Small	0.39	30.95	0.87	69.05	1.26	100.00	
Medium	0.74	24.58	2.27	75.42	3.01	100.00	
Large	0.91	17.20	4.38	82.80	5.29	100.00	
Average	0.61	22.83	2.00	76.63	2.61	100.00	
Patiala District	
Small	0.42	29.58	1.00	70.42	1.42	100.00	
Medium	0.76	23.68	2.45	76.32	3.21	100.00	
Large	0.93	16.52	4.70	83.48	5.63	100.00	
Average	0.63	22.83	2.13	77.17	2.76	100.00	
Overall
Small	0.41	30.37	0.94	69.63	1.35	100.00	
Medium	0.75	24.04	2.37	75.96	3.12	100.00	
Large	0.92	16.85	4.54	83.15	5.46	100.00	
Average	0.62	23.05	2.07	76.95	2.69	100.00	

The data given in Table 4.12 clearly indicated that 100, 82 and 71 per cent of the large, medium and small farmers/contractors sold guava in Delhi market. None of the large farmers/contractors sold their guava at the orchard itself. This figure was about 5 per cent  for medium and 14 per cent for small farmers/contractors. It may be mentioned here that quantity of guava sold at the farm was meager. About 32, 22 and 30 per cent of the small, medium and large farmers/contractors, sold their produce in Ludhiana market respectively. Ludhiana is the biggest city of Punjab having a population of about 20 lakh according to the 2001 census. Therefore, being a big consuming market of Punjab, the sample farmers/contractors sold guava in Ludhiana market. This market also operates as a distribution centre for the surrounding small markets like Mullanpur, Raikot, Jagraon, Doraha, Phillaur, Samrala, Mandi Ahmedgarh, Sahnewal, Machhiwara, etc.
	As much as 15, 15 and 10 per cent of these three categories of farmers/contractors respectively sold guava in other markets like Tarantaran, Batala in Amritsar district and Nabha, Sirhind in Patiala district. The district-wise comparison of the sale pattern also indicated that highest proportion of farmers/contractors of al farm size categories of Amritsar and Patiala districts sold their guava in Delhi market.
Rate of contract
	As already stated, majority of the guava growers in the sample had leased out their orchards to the pre-harvest contractors. The information about rate of contract of guava orchard is shown in Table 4.13. The overall rate of contract on per hectare basis was about Rs. 131529 for the year 2007-08. It was directly related with the farm size i.e. Rs. 130343, Rs. 131587 and Rs. 134612 for small, medium and large farms respectively. The rate of contract for larger farmers was higher as compared to the smaller farmers, which was in direct relation to yield.

Table 4.12: Distribution of sellers according to sale of guava in different markets, 2008-09
					(Multiple Response)	
	Farm Size Category	
Markets	Small	Medium	Large	Total	
	No. 	%age	No. 	%age	No. 	%age	No. 	%age	
Amritsar District	
(a) Sale at Farm	2	15.38	0	0.00	0	0.00	2	7.14	
(b) Sale in Local Market	5	38.46	3	30.00	1	20.00	9	32.14	
(c) Sale in Distant Markets	10	76.92	9	90.00	5	100.00	24	85.71	
           (i) Delhi	9	69.23	8	80.00	4	80.00	21	75.00	
           (ii)  Ludhiana	4	30.77	2	20.00	1	20.00	7	25.00	
            (iii) Other Markets*	2	15.38	2	20.00	1	20.00	5	17.86	
Patiala District	
(a) Sale at Farm	2	13.33	1	8.33	0	0.00	3	9.37	
(b) Sale in Local Market	4	26.67	4	33.33	1	20.00	9	28.12	
(c) Sale in Distant Markets	10	66.67	9	75.00	5	100.00	24	75.00	
          (i)  Delhi	10	66.67	8	66.67	5	100.00	23	71.87	
           (ii) Ludhiana	5	33.33	3	25.00	2	40.00	10	31.25	
            (iii) Other Markets*	2	13.33	1	8.33	1	20.00	4	12.50	
Overall	
(a) Sale at Farm	4	14.28	1	4.55	0	0.00	5	8.33	
(b) Sale in Local Market	9	32.14	7	31.82	2	20.00	18	30.00	
(c) Sale in Distant Markets	20	71.43	18	81.82	10	100.00	48	80.00	
         (i)   Delhi	19	67.86	16	72.73	9	90.00	44	73.33	
          (ii)  Ludhiana	9	32.14	5	22.73	3	30.00	17	28.33	
           (iii) Other Markets*	4	14.29	3	13.64	2	20.00	9	15.00	
* Other market include : Tarantaran, Batala in Amritsar district and Nabha, Sirhind in Patiala district.

Table 4.13: Rate of contract for guava orchards of the selected farmers, 2007-08

				(Rs./ha)	
District	Farm Size Category		
	Small	Medium	Large	Average	
Amritsar	130262	130320	132611	130706	
Patiala	130412	132624	136613	132183	
Overall	130343	131587	134612	131529	
Yield (qtl/ha)	173.91	179.38	183.43	180.87	
Returns (Rs./qtl)	749.48	735.56	733.86	727.20	

	The district-wise analysis revealed that the rate of contract was higher (Rs. 132183/ha) in Patiala district as compared to Rs. 130706 per hectare in Amritsar district. As already discussed, the yield of guava on per hectare basis in Patiala district was higher as compared to Amritsar district. Therefore, the rate of contract was also high in the Patiala district.
	The farm category wise analysis indicated the similar pattern in each district as observed in total farmers. The overall return of the selected farmers from the sale of guava to the pre-harvest contractors was about Rs. 727.20 per qtl. It was inversely related with farm size. i.e. Rs. 749.48 on small farms per qtl followed by medium farmers (Rs. 735.56 per qtl) and large farmers (Rs. 733.86 per qtl). The low return to the large farmers on per qtl basis was mainly on account of large size of their guava orchards for few contractors were willing to lease in big orchards. It is a simple question of competition. For small and medium guava orchards, the magnitude of competition among the contractors was more. Therefore, the medium and small guava growers were the gainers in the form of higher return on per qtl basis.
Terms and conditions of contract
	It was reported by the sample farmers that they got one-fourth of the total amount of contract at the time of signing of the agreement. About one-fourth of the contract amount was received by the sample farmers before the start of the first picking of guava. The rest 50 per cent payment was received by the selected farmers before last picking of the fruit. However, it may be mentioned here that there was no hard and fast rule in this regard. The sample farmers had developed social relations with the pre-harvest contractors over a period of time. Most of them were local contractors and were in regular contact with the guava growers. Therefore, a delay of few days in the payment of contract amount did not pose any big problem. Most of the selected farmers did not report any problem regarding delayed payment of the contract amount by the pre-harvest contractors.

Market arrival of guava
	Amritsar and Patiala were local markets for the sale of guava by the selected farmers during year 2008-09. The market arrival of guava from 1999-2000 to 2008-09 is shown in Table 4.14. As stated earlier the guava tree normally produces as many as three crops in a year. But in Punjab and other parts of northern India, it produces two crops in a year. In Punjab its crop is divided into two season crops, ie, winter and summer. The summer season crop is harvested during August- September and winter season during January-February. It has been observed that quality of summer season crop is poor due to attack of fruitfly than winter season crop. In the period under reference, the market arrival of guava in Amritsar market varied from 5340 qtls in 1999-2000 to 6351 qtls in 2008-09. The market arrivals in the month of July and August were low and the peak market arrival period was in September for summer crop and February for winter crop.
	The market arrival data of guava of Patiala market from 1999-2000 to 2008-09 is given in Table 4.15. The lowest market arrival was 3088 qtls in the year 2000-01 and the maximum arrival was 15779 qtls in 2007-08. The market arrival was low in the month of July and August in Patiala market on the pattern of Amritsar. The arrival was more in the peak months for summer in September and winter in February. Since guava is a perishable commodity, therefore, it cannot be stored for a longer period. Hence, the arrival of guava was over in the period of few months in both the seasons months.

Table 4.14: Monthly arrival of guava in Amritsar market, 1999-2000 to 2008-2009
Qtls.
Year	July	Aug	Sept	Dec	Jan	Feb	Total	
1999-2000	509	954	1022	940	954	961	5340	
%age	9.53	17.87	19.14	17.60	17.87	18.00	100.00	
2000-01	245	368	504	487	484	489	2577	
%age	9.51	14.28	19.56	18.90	18.78	18.98	100.00	
2001-02	289	427	575	547	569	565	2972	
%age	9.72	14.37	19.35	18.41	19.15	19.01	100.00	
2002-03	301	448	594	601	606	584	3134	
%age	9.60	14.29	18.95	19.18	19.34	18.63	100.00	
2003-04	263	401	509	529	534	543	2779	
%age	9.46	14.43	18.32	19.04	19.22	19.54	100.00	
2004-05	837	1252	1661	1681	1668	1691	8790	
%age	9.52	14.24	18.90	19.12	18.98	19.24	100.00	
2005-06	1334	1996	2658	2646	2641	2692	13967	
%age	9.55	14.29	19.03	18.94	18.91	19.27	100.00	
2006-07	966	1445	1934	1928	1941	1922	10136	
%age	9.53	14.26	19.08	19.02	19.15	18.96	100.00	
2007-08	521	787	1053	1039	1059	1039	5498	
%age	9.48	14.31	19.15	18.90	19.26	18.90	100.00	
2008-09	611	917	1203	1202	1214	1204	6351	
%age	9.62	14.44	18.94	18.93	19.12	18.96	100.00	
Average	587.60	899.50	1171.30	1160.00	1167.00	1169.00	6154.40	
%age	9.55	14.62	19.03	18.85	18.96	18.99	100.00	

Table 4.15: Monthly arrival of guava in Patiala market, 1999-2000 to 2008-2009
Qtls.
Year	July	Aug	Sept	Dec	Jan	Feb	Total	
1999-2000	476	592	956	879	892	899	4694	
%age	10.14	12.61	20.37	18.73	19.00	19.15	100.00	
2000-01	303	455	523	603	599	605	3088	
%age	9.81	14.73	16.94	19.53	19.40	19.59	100.00	
2001-02	349	528	711	676	703	698	3665	
%age	9.52	14.41	19.40	18.44	19.18	19.05	100.00	
2002-03	346	515	683	691	697	671	3603	
%age	9.60	14.29	18.96	19.18	19.34	18.62	100.00	
2003-04	302	460	584	607	612	623	3188	
%age	9.47	14.43	18.32	19.04	19.20	19.54	100.00	
2004-05	924	1360	1805	1826	1812	1837	9564	
%age	9.66	14.22	18.87	19.09	18.95	19.21	100.00	
2005-06	1472	2226	2964	2951	2945	3001	15559	
%age	9.46	14.31	19.05	18.97	18.93	19.29	100.00	
2006-07	1504	2167	3054	3022	2641	3166	15554	
%age	9.67	13.93	19.63	19.43	16.98	20.35	100.00	
2007-08	1501	2270	2877	2864	3003	3264	15779	
%age	9.51	14.39	18.23	18.15	19.03	20.69	100.00	
2008-09	1521	2241	2915	2941	2915	3067	15600	
%age	9.75	14.37	18.69	18.85	18.69	19.66	100.00	
Average	869.80	1281.40	1707.20	1706.00	1681.90	1783.10	9029.40	
%age	9.63	14.19	18.91	18.89	18.63	19.75	100.00	

Index number of prices
	Index number helps to examine the behaviour of prices. The indices of guava prices in Amritsar market from 1999-2000 to 2008-09 are shown in Table 4.16. The information about indices clearly indicated that these indices were higher when the arrival of guava in the market 

Table 4.16: Index number of prices of guava in Amritsar market, 1999-2000 to 2008-09

Year	July	Aug	Sep	Dec	Jan	Feb	
1999-2000	107.98	107.19	85.62	114.83	107.19	57.19	
2000-01	113.85	112.69	93.39	117.35	85.68	57.04	
2001-02	114.06	114.87	90.43	116.08	86.20	58.34	
2002-03	111.81	116.02	95.06	113.72	85.77	57.63	
2003-04	117.24	115.29	94.21	109.90	86.58	56.78	
2004-05	115.43	113.86	94.74	113.38	85.46	57.13	
2005-06	115.64	113.45	93.67	114.18	85.74	57.31	
2006-07	113.77	114.90	94.13	114.48	85.54	57.18	
2007-08	113.39	115.57	93.39	114.91	85.89	56.86	
2008-09	113.75	114.69	93.56	113.65	86.63	57.72	
Average 	113.65	113.85	92.82	114.25	88.07	57.32	

was low. As the market arrival of guava increased in the month of September in summer season and February in winter season, the indices of prices fell to less than 100 in these months. Therefore, the arrival of guava had negative relationship with the prices. Higher was the arrival of guava in the market, lower were the prices and vice-versa.
	The index number of guava prices in Patiala market from 1999-2000 to 2008-09 are shown in Table 4.17. Similar trend of prices was observed in patiala market. The indices of prices were lower in the month of September and February  when arrival of the produce was high. The price index was lowest in the month of February in both the markets.
Table 4.17: Index number of prices of guava in Patiala market, 1999-2000 to 2008-09

Year	July	Aug	Sep	Dec	Jan	Feb	
1999-2000	114.91	114.02	92.36	122.20	75.67	60.84	
2000-01	117.55	116.39	97.16	101.62	88.41	58.87	
2001-02	114.27	115.09	90.67	116.40	86.44	57.14	
2002-03	111.74	116.07	95.07	113.74	85.76	57.62	
2003-04	117.25	115.18	94.24	109.91	86.57	56.84	
2004-05	115.24	113.68	94.55	113.24	85.32	57.97	
2005-06	115.73	113.57	93.80	114.30	85.84	56.76	
2006-07	122.13	101.88	96.57	117.81	83.59	58.02	
2007-08	124.11	114.19	98.90	109.40	86.32	57.08	
2008-09	117.96	112.12	93.12	112.12	86.19	58.50	
Average 	117.09	113.22	94.64	113.07	85.01	57.96	
 
Distribution channels and price spread
	The distribution channels are the routes through which the agricultural commodities reach from the producer to the ultimate consumers. The price spread is the gap between the price paid by the consumers and the price received by the producer at a particular point of time. It also included the costs and margins of the middleman. Delhi market was selected because majority of the pre-harvest contractors of guava sold the fruit there. Another important consuming market in Punjab namely Ludhiana and was also included in the study. Two local markets i.e. Amritsar and Patiala itself were also selected. The important channels followed by pre-harvest contactors/ producers are as follows: 
I A.	Producer (Amritsar district) – pre-harvest contractor – retailer (through commission agent)—consumer (Delhi market).
I B.       Producer (Patiala district) – pre-harvest contractor – retailer (through commission agent)—consumer (Delhi market).
II A.      Producer (Amritsar district)— pre-harvest contractor – retailer (through commission agent)—consumer (Ludhiana market). 
II B.	Producer (Patiala district) — pre-harvest contractor — retailer (through commission agent)—consumer (Ludhiana market).
III A.	Producer (Amritsar district)— pre-harvest contractor—retailer (through commission agent)—consumer (Amritsar market).
III B.    Producer (Patiala district) — pre-harvest contractor—retailer (through commission agent)—consumer (Patiala market). 
IV A.    Producer (Amritsar district)— retailer (through commission agent)—consumer (Amritsar market).
IV B.    Producer (Patiala district) — retailer (through commission agent)—consumer (Patiala market).
V A.     Producer (Amritsar district)- retailer (through commission agent)- Consumer  (Delhi market).
VB.      Producer ( Patiala district) - Retailer (through commission agent)- Consumer (Delhi market).
The price spread of guava for the channel I is shown in Table 4.18a and 4.18b. The guava growers of Amritsar district received the net price of about Rs. 732.65 per qtls which was 41.60 per cent of the price paid by the consumer of Delhi market. The margin of the contractor was 27.57 per cent. The contractor had to pay 41.60 per cent of the consumer price to the producer and 18.47 per cent was his other marketing expenses including watch and ward, picking, grading, filling, container and packing material, transportation cost, etc. The retailer’s margin was 7.53 per cent in Delhi market. The ultimate consumer in Delhi market had to pay Rs. 1761 per quintal as price of guava. The producer’s share in the consumer’s rupee has been reasonably good, i.e. about 42 per cent. Such an attractive share of producers may be attributed to the fact that production of guava had declined in Punjab in the recent year. Hence the forces of demand and supply played its own role and producers were the gainers by getting higher prices both in terms of absolute price as well as higher share in the consumer’s rupee. 
The guava growers of Patiala district got the net price of Rs. 730.44 per qtl which was 41.48 per cent of the consumer’s price for sale of the fruit in Delhi market. The margin of the contractor was 27.00 per cent. He had to bear 19.81 per cent of the consumer’s price as expenses on watch and ward, picking, grading, filling, etc. The retailer’s margin in Delhi market was 6.79 per cent. The cost borne by the retailer was 4.92 per cent of the consumer’s price.
In case of Amritsar district, the producers share was 51.44 per cent of the consumer’s price in the Channel II (Table 4.19a). The margin of the contractor was 15.57 per cent. The contractor has to bear 15.96 per cent of the consumer price as expenses on watch and ward, picking, grading, filling, etc. The absolute margin of the contractor was less for sale in Ludhiana market because his sale price was low here as compared to Delhi market on account of higher price in Delhi market. Majority of the contractors preferred to sell the fruit in Delhi. The retailer’s margin in this Channel was 6.38 per cent of the consumer’s price. The marketing cost of the retailer was 11.69 per cent of the final price paid by the consumer which was Rs. 1424.33 per qtl.

In case of Patiala district (Table 4.19b), the net price received by the producer was 51.28 per cent of the consumer price. The contractor’s margin and his costs were 15.71 per cent and 16.00 per cent respectively. The retailer’s margin and marketing cost were 6.36 and 10.67 per cent of the consumer’s rupee respectively.

Table 4.18 (a): Price spread for guava for sale in Delhi market in the month of February (2009): Channel-I: Producer -PHC-Retailer-Consumer

	Amritsar District	
Particulars	Rs/qtl	% Share in	
		consumer's rupee	
1.Net price received by producer/ contractor's purchase price	732.65	41.60	
2. Expenses borne by contractor	325.43	18.47	
    I) Watch and ward	25.53	1.45	
   ii) Picking, grading, filling, etc.	36.83	2.09	
  iii) Container	43.68	2.48	
  iv) Packing material	12.44	0.71	
   v) Transportation cost	92.62	5.26	
  vi) Octroi	0.00	0.00	
 vii) Unloading charges	5.39	0.31	
viii) Commission @ 6%	86.30	4.90	
  ix) Interest on locked up capital
       @15% per annum for 2 months	18.95	1.08	
   x) Miscellaneous charges	3.69	0.21	
3. Margin of the Contractor	485.53	27.57	
4. Contractor's sale price/	1543.61	87.66	
    retailer's purchase price			
5. Expenses borne by the retailer	84.84	4.82	
    I) Market fee @ 1%	15.43	0.88	
   ii) Transportation cost	31.20	1.77	
  iii) Rehri charges	2.15	0.12	
  iv) Cost of plastic bags	10.07	0.57	
   v) Spoilage/wastage	19.87	1.13	
  vi) Miscellaneous charges	6.12	0.35	
6. Retailer's margin	132.55	7.53	
7. Retailer' sale price/ consumer's purchase price 	1761.00	100.00	

Note: The interest on locked up capital has been worked out on net price received by the producer and watch and ward expenses.
Table 4.18 (b): Price spread for guava for sale in Delhi market in the month of February (2009): Channel-I: Producer-PHC-Retailer-Consumer 

	Patiala district	
Particulars	Rs/qtl	% Share in	
		consumer's rupee	
1.Net price received by producer/ contractor's purchase price	730.44	41.48	
2. Expenses borne by contractor	348.81	19.81	
    I) Watch and ward	26.67	1.51	
   ii) Picking, grading, filling, etc.	35.86	2.04	
  iii) Container	45.16	2.56	
  iv) Packing material	12.67	0.72	
   v) Transportation cost	87.10	4.95	
  vi) Octroi	0.00	0.00	
 vii) Unloading charges	5.28	0.30	
viii) Commission @ 6%	93.29	5.30	
  ix) Interest on locked up capital
@15% per annum for 2 months	18.93	1.07	
   x) Miscellaneous charges	3.63	0.21	
3. Margin of the Contractor	475.56	27.00	
4. Contractor's sale price/	1554.82	88.29	
    retailer's purchase price			
5. Expenses borne by the retailer	86.61	4.92	
    I) Market fee @ 1%	15.50	0.88	
   ii) Transportation cost	33.08	1.88	
  iii) Rehri charges	2.07	0.12	
  iv) Cost of plastic bags	10.40	0.59	
   v) Spoilage/wastage	19.70	1.12	
  vi) Miscellaneous charges	5.85	0.33	
6. Retailer's margin	119.57	6.79	
7. Retailer' sale price/ consumer's purchase price 	1761.00	100.00	
Note: The interest on locked up capital has been worked out on net price received by the producer and watch and ward expenses.

Table 4.19 (a): Price spread for guava for sale in Ludhiana distant market in the month of February (2009): Channel-II: Producer-PHC-Retailer-Consumer

	Amritsar District	
Particulars	Rs/qtl	% Share in	
		consumer's rupee	
1.Net price received by producer/ contractor's purchase price	732.65	51.44	
2. Expenses borne by contractor	227.29	15.96	
    I) Watch and ward	27.57	1.94	
   ii) Picking, grading, filling, etc.	39.78	2.79	
  iii) Container	47.18	3.31	
  iv) Packing material	13.44	0.94	
   v) Transportation cost	59.75	4.19	
  vi) Octroi	12.07	0.85	
 vii) Unloading charges	5.83	0.41	
 viii) Interest on locked up capital @15% per annum for 2 months	19.01	1.33	
   ix) Miscellaneous charges	2.66	0.19	
3. Margin of the Contractor	221.74	15.57	
4. Contractor's sale price/	1181.68	82.96	
    retailer's purchase price			
5. Expenses borne by the retailer	152.22	10.69	
    I) Market fee @ 2%	23.63	1.66	
   ii) Rural development fund @2%	23.63	1.66	
  iii) Commission @5%	59.08	4.15	
   ii) Transportation cost	16.01	1.12	
  iii) Rehri charges	1.90	0.13	
  iv) Cost of plastic bags	10.88	0.76	
   v) Spoilage/wastage	11.39	0.80	
  vi) Miscellaneous charges	5.70	0.40	
6. Retailer's margin	90.89	6.38	
7. Retailer' sale price/ consumer's purchase price 	1424.33	100.00	
Note: The interest on locked up capital has been worked out on net price received by the producer and watch and ward expenses.

Table 4.19 (b): Price spread for guava for sale in Ludhiana distant market in the month of February (2009): Channel-II: Producer-PHC-Retailer-Consumer

	Patiala District	
Particulars	Rs/qtl	% Share in	
		consumer's rupee	
1.Net price received by producer/contractor's purchase price	730.44	51.28	
2. Expenses borne by contractor	227.55	16.00	
    I) Watch and ward	27.67	1.94	
   ii) Picking, grading, filling, etc.	39.84	2.80	
  iii) Container	47.05	3.30	
  iv) Packing material	13.37	0.94	
   v) Transportation cost	59.95	4.21	
  vi) Octroi	12.07	0.85	
 vii) Unloading charges	5.94	0.42	
  viii) Interest on locked up capital @15% per annum for 2 months	18.95	1.33	
   ix) Miscellaneous charges	2.70	0.19	
3. Margin of the Contractor	223.72	15.71	
4. Contractor's sale price/	1181.71	82.97	
    retailer's purchase price			
5. Expenses borne by the retailer	152.08	10.67	
    I) Market fee @ 2%	24.81	1.66	
   ii) Rural development fund @2%	24.80	1.66	
  iii) Commission @5%	62.02	4.15	
   ii) Transportation cost	15.73	1.10	
  iii) Rehri charges	1.98	0.14	
  iv) Cost of plastic bags	11.00	0.77	
   v) Spoilage/wastage	11.28	0.79	
  vi) Miscellaneous charges	5.75	0.40	
6. Retailer's margin	90.54	6.36	
7. Retailer' sale price/consumer's purchase price 	1424.33	100.00	
Note: The interest on locked up capital has been worked out on net price received by the producer and watch and ward expenses.

 The price spread of guava in Channel IV is shown in Table 4.20a and 4.20b. In this channel, the pre-harvest contractor was not involved. The contractor always kept their business interest in mind. Therefore, they did not prefer to sell in the local market because on account of increase in the supply of guava there, the price would fall and it would not be economical for them to sell in the local market. Therefore, majority of the contractors sold their produce in the big consuming markets the Delhi and Ludhiana. On the other hand, producers themselves were hesitant in large number to take their produce in the distant markets like Delhi. Therefore, majority of them preferred to sell in the local market due to constraint of time and other factors. The producer’s share in the consumer’s rupee was 78.85 per cent in the local market of Amritsar.
 The producer had to bear 6.17 per cent of the consumer’s price as expenses on picking, grading, filling, etc. depreciation of containers, transportation costs, octroi including charges and miscellaneous charges. Hence the net price received by the producers was about 910.44 per qtl which was 72.68 per cent of the consumer’s price.
The marketing costs borne by the retailer were 9.84 per cent of the consumer rupee and his margin was 11.32 per cent. The retailer’s sale price to consumer was Rs. 1252.73 per qtl in Amritsar market. Therefore, the consumers in local guava producing areas were getting the produce at low price as compared to the high prices paid by the consumers in markets like Delhi and Ludhiana. The consumers of Delhi market had to pay a price of Rs. 1761 per qtl. This figure was Rs. 1424.33 per qtl for Ludhiana. The consumers had to pay higher price in these markets mainly on account of marketing costs and margin of the middlemen involved in marketing of guava. 
The net price received by the guava growers of Patiala district in Patiala market is 71.26 per cent of the consumer price. The producers had to bear the expenses to the extent of 5.96 per cent of consumer price. The producer’s sale price was higher (Rs. 20.78 per qtl) in Patiala market as compared to that in Amritsar market. As already discussed, both these markets are in the producing area of guava. The variation in price could be attributed to the forces of demand and supply of guava in the local markets.
The margin of the retailer in Patiala market was 13.16 per cent whereas his marketing costs were 9.62 per cent of the consumer’s rupee. The consumer of Patiala market had to pay the price of Rs. 1305.99 per qtl as compared to the consumer’s price of Rs. 1252.73 per qtls in Amritsar market during the same period.
From the foregone discussion about price spread through various channels, it has been found that The contractor’s margin was also higher for sale of guava in Delhi market. Keeping in view huge potential of Delhi market, guava growers may also try to sell their produce in Delhi market to enhance their returns from this fruit crop. The small and medium guava growers may form marketing groups to sell their produce there. All of them will be gainers of groups marketing. The large farmers can also join such groups. 
Table 4.20 (a): Price spread for guava for sale in local market (Amritsar market) in the month of February (2009): Channel-IV: Producer-Retailer-Consumer

	Amritsar District	
Particulars	Rs/qtl	% Share in	
		consumer's rupee	
1.Net price received by producer/ contractor's purchase price	910.44	72.68	
2. Expenses borne by producer	77.26	6.17	
   i) Picking, filling, etc.	32.69	2.61	
  ii) Depreciation of Container	6.34	0.51	
 iii) Transportation cost	15.88	1.27	
  iv) Octroi	13.31	1.06	
  v) Unloading charges	6.43	0.51	
 vi) Miscellaneous charges	2.61	0.21	
3. Producer's sale price/	987.70	78.84	
    retailer's purchase price			
4. Expenses borne by the retailer	123.27	9.84	
    I) Market fee @ 2%	19.75	1.58	
   ii) Rural development fund @2%	19.75	1.58	
  iii) Commission @5%	49.38	3.94	
   iv) Transportation cost	9.12	0.73	
   v) Rehri charges	1.95	0.16	
  vi) Cost of plastic bags	12.00	0.96	
 vii) Spoilage/wastage	5.81	0.46	
 viii) Miscellaneous charges	5.51	0.44	
5. Retailer's margin	141.76	11.32	
6. Retailer' sale price/ consumer's purchase price 	1252.73	100.00	

Table 4.20 (b): Price spread for guava for sale in local market (Patiala market) in the month of February (2009): Channel-IV: Producer-Retailer-Consumer

	Patiala District	
Particulars	Rs/qtl	% Share in	
		consumer's rupee	
1.Net price received by producer/ contractor's purchase price	930.63	71.26	
2. Expenses borne by producer	77.85	5.96	
   i) Picking, filling, etc.	33.32	2.55	
  ii) Depreciation of Container	6.19	0.47	
 iii) Transportation cost	16.13	1.23	
  iv) Octroi	13.31	1.02	
  v) Unloading charges	6.22	0.48	
 vi) Miscellaneous charges	2.68	0.21	
3. Producer's sale price/	1008.48	77.22	
    retailer's purchase price			
4. Expenses borne by the retailer	125.62	9.62	
    I) Market fee @ 2%	20.17	1.54	
   ii) Rural development fund @2%	20.17	1.54	
  iii) Commission @5%	50.42	3.86	
   iv) Transportation cost	9.19	0.70	
   v) Rehri charges	2.06	0.16	
  vi) Cost of plastic bags	12.17	0.93	
 vii) Spoilage/wastage	5.86	0.45	
 viii) Miscellaneous charges	5.59	0.43	
5. Retailer's margin	171.89	13.16	
6. Retailer' sale price/ consumer's purchase price 	1305.99	100.00	

Constraints Faced by the Guava Growers  
	The constraints faced by guava growers were categorized into two: 1) production related constraints and 2) market related constraints. 

Production Related Constraints 
Different production related constraints faced by the guava growers are shown in Table 4.22. Overall, the most common production related problem came to be long gestation period (50%) followed by low profit margin (35%), damage of fruits due to wind (30%) and lack of technical knowledge (25%) and high incidence of insect/pest attack (35.00%). The least common production related problem was found to be lack of knowledge about nursery raising (20%), followed by unavailability of labour in time (20%) lack of technical knowledge and inadequate labour availability (20%). The extent of production related constraints varied inversely with the farm size. Smaller farmers faced production related constraints more as compared to the larger ones. 
District wise analysis also registered the problem of long gestation period as the most common problem. But the problem was followed by lack of technical knowledge in Amritsar district while the problem of low profit margin was at par with long gestation period in Patiala district. The least common problem was lack of knowledge about nursery raising and unavailability of labour in time in Amritsar district while it came to be lack of knowledge about nursery raising and inadequate labour availability in Patiala district. However, the extent of production related problems was higher in Amritsar district as compared to that in Patiala district. Category wise analysis depicted the similar trend as was seen in case of overall level.
Market Related Constraints
The market related problems faced by the guava growers are summarized in Table 4.23. 
Overall, the most common market related problem came to be high transportation cost (50%), followed by lack of cooperative marketing in villages (25%) and low price and dominance of traders (25% each). The least common market related problem was under weighment of produce in the market (25.00%), followed by inaccurate grading and delay in auction (31.67% each). This shows that malpractices during marketing of guava were faced by the producers to a considerable extent. The market related problems were found to be experienced to a higher extent by smaller farmers as compared to the larger ones. The district wise analysis, by and large, showed the same pattern. However, market problems were witnessed to a larger extent by guava growers in Amritsar district as compared to those in Patiala district. 

Table 4.22: Production related constraints faced by the selected guava growers,  2008-09

					(Multiple Response)	
Production Related Constraints	Farm Size Category	
	Small	Medium	Large	Total	
Amritsar District	
1. Lack of knowledge about nursery raising	3	30.00	2	20.00	2	20.00	7	23.33	
2. Lack of technical knowledge	5	50.00	4	40.00	3	30.00	12	40.00	
3. Inadequate irrigation facilities	4	40.00	3	30.00	2	20.00	9	30.00	
4. Damage due to wind	6	60.00	4	40.00	3	30.00	13	43.33	
5. Low profit margins	5	50.00	3	30.00	2	20.00	10	33.33	
6. High incidence of insect/ pest attack	4	40.00	4	40.00	3	30.00	11	36.67	
7. Inadequate labour availability	4	40.00	3	30.00	3	30.00	10	33.33	
8. Unavailability of labour in time	3	30.00	2	20.00	2	20.00	7	23.33	
9. Long gestation period	6	60.00	5	50.00	5	50.00	16	53.33	
Patiala District	
1. Lack of knowledge about nursery raising	2	20.00	2	20.00	1	10.00	5	16.67	
2. Lack of technical knowledge	4	40.00	3	30.00	2	20.00	9	30.00	
3. Inadequate irrigation facilities	3	30.00	2	20.00	2	20.00	7	23.33	
4. Damage due to wind	4	40.00	3	30.00	3	30.00	10	33.33	
5. Low profit margins	5	50.00	4	40.00	5	50.00	14	46.67	
6. High incidence of insect/ pest attack	3	30.00	3	30.00	4	40.00	10	33.33	
7. Inadequate labour availability	3	30.00	2	20.00	1	10.00	6	20.00	
8. Unavailability of labour in time	3	30.00	2	20.00	2	20.00	7	23.33	
9. Long gestation period	5	50.00	4	40.00	5	50.00	14	46.67	
Overall	
1. Lack of knowledge about nursery raising	5	25.00	4	20.00	3	15.00	12	20.00	
2. Lack of technical knowledge	9	45.00	7	35.00	5	25.00	21	35.00	
3. Inadequate irrigation facilities	7	35.00	5	25.00	4	20.00	16	26.67	
4. Damage due to wind	10	50.00	7	35.00	6	30.00	23	38.33	
5. Low profit margins	10	50.00	7	35.00	7	35.00	24	40.00	
6. High incidence of insect/ pest attack	7	35.00	7	35.00	7	35.00	21	35.00	
7. Inadequate labour availability	7	35.00	5	25.00	4	20.00	16	26.67	
8. Unavailability of labour in time	6	30.00	4	20.00	4	20.00	14	23.33	
9. Long gestation period	11	55.00	9	45.00	10	50.00	30	50.00	
Table 4.22: Market related constraints faced by the selected guava growers,  2008-09
					(Multiple Response)	
Market Related Constraints	Farm Size Category	
	Small	Medium	Large	Total	
Amritsar District	
1. Low price 	5	50.00	4	40.00	3	30.00	12	40.00	
2. No assured market	5	50.00	3	30.00	3	30.00	11	36.67	
3. Malpractices									
i)	Under- weightment
ii)	Iaccurate grading
iii)	Delay in auction	     3
     4
     5
	30.00
40.00
50.00	3
3
3	30.00
30.00
30.00	2
2
1	20.00
20.00
10.00	9	30.00	
4. Lack of cooperative marketing	6	60.00	4	40.00	3	30.00	13	43.33	
5. Dominance of traders	4	40.00	3	30.00	3	30.00	10	33.33	
6. High transportation cost	6	60.00	6	60.00	5	50.00	17	56.67	
Patiala District	
1. Low price 	4	40.00	3	30.00	2	20.00	9	30.00	
2. No assured market	4	40.00	3	30.00	2	20.00	9	30.00	
3. Malpractices	
								
i)	Under-weightment
ii)	Inaccurate grading
iii)	Delay in auction	3
4
5	30.00
40.00
50.00		30.00	3	30.00	10	33.33	
4. Lack of cooperative marketing	4	40.00	3	30.00	2	20.00	9	30.00	
5. Dominance of traders	5	50.00	4	40.00	2	20.00	11	36.67	
6. High transportation cost	6	60.00	5	50.00	5	50.00	16	53.33	
Overall	
1. Low price 	9	45.00	7	35.00	5	25.00	21	35.00	
2. No assured market	9	45.00	6	30.00	5	25.00	20	33.33	
3. Malpractices									
i)	Inaccurate grading
ii)	Underweighment 
iii)	Delay in auction	6
8
10	30.00
40.00
50.00	5
6
6	25.00
30.00
30.00	4
5
3	20.00
25.00
15.00	19	31.67	
4. Lack of cooperative marketing	10	50.00	7	35.00	5	25.00	22	36.67	
5. Dominance of traders	9	45.00	7	35.00	5	25.00	21	35.00	
6. High transportation cost	12	60.00	11	55.00	10	50.00	33	55.00	

Suggestions
From the above analysis it may be concluded that the varieties of guava with shorter gestation period should be evolved. Similarly wind resistant and insect/pest resistant varieties need to be developed.
Special workshop, seminars and training camps of guava growers should be organized in order to provide technical knowledge to them. 
The transportation cost can be sustained by providing subsidy or making arrangements of procurement of guava at local level at the prices of distant market, mainly Delhi market. Minimum support price of guava should be there to curb the menace of low price and dominance of traders. A special squid of market officials along with the representatives of guava growers should be formed in order to check the marketing malpractices like under weigh ment, inaccurate grading and delay in auction. 
This will go a long way to achieve the goal of diversification of Punjab agriculture by encouraging the cultivation of guava, if these suggestions are implemented in their true spirit.    

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Fruits play an important role in the agricultural economy of India. Fruits have a very high nutritional value and are rich in vitamins. Horticulture has been recognized as an important avenue for diversification in agriculture in an eco-friendly manner through efficient land use. India has made remarkable progress in horticultural production. Ranked second in the world, it produced about 57.6 million tones of fruits accounting for 10 per cent of the world fruit production. Major fruits cultivated in India are mango (38.28%), banana (16.27%), citrus (13.39%), apple (16.27%) and guava (5.26%) (Mittal, 2007). Guava is a sub tropical fruit. It is one of the most common and major fruit of India. In India guava occupies an area of 151.3 thousand hectares with annual production of 1801 thousand tons (Bal, 2001). In Punjab, guava is cultivated in all the districts of Punjab. Total area in the state is 8183 hectares and annual production is 155526 m tons during 2007-08 (Govt. of Punjab, 2008). 
The marketing of fruits and vegetables has so far received little attention of the government. Guava is highly perishable fruit and should be marketed immediately after harvest. Under the existing marketing system most of the fruit is marketed through a long chain of intermediaries, thus price spread is quite evident. At present, there are large number of intermediaries in this trade between the producer and the consumer which has resulted in a wide gap in the producer and consumer price of these commodities which needs to be reduced to enable farmers receive remunerative price of their produce and boost their production and consumption in the country. Therefore, the present study has been undertaken with the following specific objectives:
1.	to examine the trends in area, production, yield, market arrivals and prices of guava in Punjab;
2.	to work out the marketable surplus at farm level;
3.	to study the marketing channels, market margins and price spread for guava  fruit; and 
4.	to identify the production and marketing constraints of guava growers.   
Keeping in view the high concentration of guava area, Patiala and Amritsar districts were selected for the present study. A sample of 60 farmers was taken for the study ( 28 From Amritsar district and 32 from Patiala district). 5 pre-harvest contractors from each district was taken for this study. In this way, the total sample consisted of 10 pre-harvest contractors. Two local markets in the guava producing area were selected. These markets were Amritsar in Amritsar district and Patiala in Patiala district. One big guava consuming markets within the state, namely Ludhiana, was also selected for the study. From each selected market, 5 retailers were randomly selected. Thus, the total number of retailers in the sample was 20.
	Both primary as well as secondary data were collected. Primary data were collected from selected guava growers, pre-harvest contractors and retailers. The secondary data were obtained from the reputed published and unpublished sources. The information about area, production and yield of guava, net sown area, area under all the fruits, etc. was taken from various issues of Statistical Abstract of Punjab. The data regarding arrivals and prices of guava in the selected markets were taken from the office of the respective market committee.
The growth rates of area, production and yield of guava have been worked out by using regression equation in its exponential form. The simple indices of guava prices have also been worked out. The price spread of guava has been worked out by using the ‘Mode’ method.
Salient Findings of the study
·	In Punjab, the area under fruits declined slightly from 53.23 thousand hectares in 1986-87 to 61.62  thousand hectares in 2007-08. The major reasons for the stagnation of area under fruits are water-logging problems in the south-western districts which has adversely affected the soil as well as fruit crops. Keeping in view the minimum support price for wheat and paddy, the farmers used to increase the area under these crops by shifting from other crops including horticultural crops. 
·	The area under guava increased in the state in the recent years. It was 3.67 thousand hectares in 1986-87 which increased to 8.18 thousand hectares in 2007-08. 
·	Total fruit production was 485044 m tonnes in the state during the year 1986-87 which increased to1055408  m tonnes in 2007-08. Guava is one of the principal fruit crops of the state, therefore, its share in the production is considerable. The share of guava in the total fruit production was about 5 per cent in 1986-87. Over a period of time, it increased to about 14 per cent in 2007-08.
·	In Amritsar district, the area under guava increased from 412 thousand hectares in 1986-87 to 809 thousand hectares in 2005-06 and then it sharply declined to 411 thousand hectares during 2007-08. The compound growth rate of area under guava in Amritsar district was 3.32 per cent per annum, which was found to be significant at one per cent level. 
·	The production of guava in Amritsar district increased from 2548 m tonnes in 1986-87 to 14158  m tonnes during 2005-06 and sharply declined to 7583 m tonnes during 2007-08. The trends in production in Amritsar district was in correspondence to that in area. Production of guava in Amritsar district increased at a significant rate of 8.82 per cent compounded annually. 
·	In Patiala district, the area under guava was 563 thousand hectares in 1986-87. It increased to 813 thousand hectares during 2007-08. The overall growth in area under guava in Patiala came to be significant at 10 per cent level during the period of study.
·	The production of guava in Patiala district was 3478 tonnes in 1986-87 which increased to 15553 tonnes in 2005-06. The production of guava in Patiala district increased at a compound growth rate of 6.37 per cent per annum, which came to be highly significant.
·	The study brought out that 28.68 per cent of the area operated was allocated to guava by the sample farmers. These figures were 24.70, 29.13 and 31.47 per cent for small, medium and large farmers respectively. 
·	The guava growers of Amritsar district allocated 31.56 per cent of the area operated to guava whereas this figure was 28.04 per cent for the Patiala district. The large farmers of Amritsar district allocated the highest area under guava i.e. 31.56 per cent followed by medium farmers (29.89%) and small farmers (25.93%).  For Patiala district, this figure was 31.38 percent for large farmers, 25.56 per cent for medium farmers and 28.83 per cent for small farmers. 
·	Each sample farmer had 2.69 hectares area under guava. This figure was 1.35, 3.12 and 5.46 hectares for the small, medium and large farmers, respectively. The district-wise comparison indicated that sample farmers of Patiala district had more area (per holding) under guava i.e. 2.76 hectares as compared to 2.62 hectares in Amritsar district.
·	Per holding production of guava was 487.77 quintals. The small farmers had lower production i.e. 234.40 qtls whereas the large farmers had higher level of production i.e. 1001.52 quintals. The medium farmers had 560.40 quintals production of guava. A similar trend was observed in both the Amritsar and Patiala districts.
·	The study brought out that yield of guava was 177.56 qtls per hectare with the selected farmers. The yield level of large farmers was high (183.37 qtls per hectare) as compared to the small farmers (173.91 qtls per hectare) and medium farmers 179.38 qtls per hectare). The yield of guava was higher with the large farmers mainly on account of better input management. Moreover, the large farmers were resource rich. These factors had its positive impact on the yield.
·	Per holding consumption of guava was 1.39 per cent of the production and the marketed surplus was high to the extent of 98.61 per cent. The large categories of farmers had the highest marketed surplus (99.24%) followed by medium farmers (98.66%) and small farmers (97.55%).  The district-wise analysis of marketed surplus of guava revealed that marketed surplus was almost 99 per cent of the production in both Amritsar and Patiala districts.
·	As high as 66.67 per cent of the selected farmers leased out their guava orchards to the pre-harvest contractors while 33.33 per cent retained it themselves. The watch and ward of the orchard was a problem for the farmers. They could not keep watch on the fruit pickers for 24 hours continuously. Therefore, to avoid the risk of theft of the fruit and other related responsibilities like picking of fruit, its grading, packing, transportation, sale etc., the majority of the sample farmers leased out their guava orchards to the contractors.
·	As high as 76.95 per cent of the area under guava was leased out to the contractors. The selected farmers themselves retained 23.05 per cent of the area under guava. This phenomenon may be attributed to the fact that large farmers mainly leased out their orchards to the contractors. The size of large farmers was more in the guava area as compared to the small and marginal farmers.
·	The maximum farmers/contractors (73.33%) in the sample sold their produce in Delhi market. Delhi is the biggest consuming market in north India. It also operates as a distribution market for the entire northern area of the country. It is worthwhile to mention here that the highest arrival of produce in Delhi market did not result in crash in price as was the case in the local market in Punjab. Therefore, it was the rational economic decision of the farmers/contractors not to sell high volume of their produce in the local market. 
·	The overall rate of contract on per hectare basis was about Rs. 131529. The rate of contract for larger farmers was higher as compared to the smaller farmers, which was in direct relation to yield. The rate of contract was higher (Rs. 132183/ha) in Patiala district as compared to Rs. 130706 per hectare in Amritsar district due to higher yield of guava in Patiala district as compared to Amritsar district. 
·	The sample farmers got one-fourth of the total amount of contract at the time of signing of the agreement. About one-fourth of the contract amount was received by the sample farmers before the start of the first picking of guava. The rest 50 per cent payment was received by the selected farmers before last picking of the fruit.
·	 Guava is a two season crop summer and winter. The  marketing season of guava started from the month of July(summer) every year and closed by the end of February (winter). In the period under reference, the market arrival of guava varied from 5340 qtls in 1999-2000 to 6351 qtls in 2008-09. 
·  In Patiala market the lowest market arrival was 3088 qtls in the year 2000-01 and the maximum arrival was 15779 qtls in 2007-08. The market arrival was low in the month of July and August in Patiala market on the pattern of Amritsar. The arrival was more in the peak months from September to February. Since guava is a perishable commodity, therefore, it cannot be stored for a longer period. Hence, the arrival of guava was over in the period of six months only.
·	The price indices were higher when the arrival of guava in the market was low. As the market arrival of guava increased in the month of September and February , the indices of prices fell to less than 100. Therefore, the arrival of guava had negative relationship with the prices. Higher was the arrival of guava in the market, lower were the prices and vice-versa. 
·	The guava growers of Amritsar district received the net price of about Rs. 732.65 per qtls which were 41.60 per cent of the price paid by the consumer of Delhi market. The guava growers of Patiala district got the net price of Rs. 730.44 per qtl which was 41.48 per cent of the consumer’s price for sale of the fruit in Delhi market. The producer’s share in the consumer’s rupee has been reasonably good, i.e. about 42 per cent. Such an attractive share of producers may be attributed to the fact that production of guava had declined in Punjab in the recent year. Hence the forces of demand and supply played its own role and producers were the gainers by getting higher prices both in terms of absolute price as well as higher share in the consumer’s rupee. 
·	In case of Amritsar district, the producers share was 51.44 per cent of the consumer’s price in the Channel II in Ludhiana market while it came to be 51.28 per cent of the consumer rupee for Patiala guava growers. In Channel III (Local Market), where pre-harvest contractor was not involved, the producer’s share in the consumer’s rupee was 72.68 per cent in the local market of Amritsar. The net price received by the guava growers of Patiala district in Patiala market 71.26 per cent of the consumer price. Both these markets are in the producing area of guava. The variation in price could be attributed to the forces of demand and supply of guava in the local markets. 
Overall it may be said that Delhi is a very big consuming as well as distribution market of guava in the entire north India. The contractor’s margin was also higher for sale of guava in Delhi market. Keeping in view huge potential of Delhi market, guava growers may also try to sell their produce in Delhi market to enhance their returns from this fruit crop. The small and medium guava growers may form marketing groups to sell their produce there. All of them will be gainers of groups marketing. The large farmers can also join such groups. The group marketing will also reduce various marketing costs. It will encourage diversification of agriculture in the state.
The most common production related problem came to be long gestation period (50.00%) followed by low profit margin (40.00%). The least common production related problem was found to be lack of knowledge about nursery raising (20.00%), followed by unavailability of labour in time (23.33%). The extent of production related constraints varied inversely with the farm size. Smaller farmers faced production related constraints upto a higher extent as compared to the larger ones. The extent of production related problems was higher in Amritsar district as compared to that in Patiala district. Category wise analysis depicted the similar trend as was seen in case of overall level.
The most common market related problem came to be high transportation cost (55.00%) followed by lack of cooperative marketing in villages (36.67%). The least common market related problem was under weighment of produce in the market (25.00%), followed by inaccurate grading and delay in auction (31.67% each). This shows that malpractices during marketing of guava were faced by the producers to a considerable extent. The market related problems were found to be experienced to a higher extent by smaller farmers as compared to the larger ones. The market problems were witnessed to a larger extent by guava growers in Amritsar district as compared to those in Patiala district. 
Suggestions
On the basis of the study, it may be suggested that the varieties of guava with shorter gestation period should be evolved. Similarly wind resistant and insect/pest resistant varieties need to be developed. Special workshop, seminars and training camps of guava growers should be organized in order to provide technical knowledge to them. The transportation cost can be sustained by providing subsidy or making arrangements of procurement of guava at local level at the prices of distant market, mainly Delhi market. Minimum support price of guava should be there to curb the menace of low price and dominance of traders. A special squid of market officials alongwith the representatives of guava growers should be formed in order to check the marketing malpractices like under weighment, inaccurate grading and delay in auction. 
This will go a long way to achieve the goal of diversification of Punjab agriculture by encouraging the cultivation of guava, if these suggestions are implemented in their true spirit.    

REFERENCES
Anchal D (2002) An economic analysis of litchi cultivation in Punjab. M.Sc. Thesis, Punjab Agricultural University Ludhiana. 
Auhurkar BW and Deol C D (1985) Producer’s share in consumer’s rupee. A case study of fruit marketing in Marathwada. Indian J Agric Econ  40:403.
Bal J S (2005) Fruit growing in India, Kalyani  Publisher New Delhi.
Chand M (1986) Economics of citrus orchards (kinnow and orange) in the lower hills of M.P., M.Sc. Thesis (unpublished), Y S Parmar, University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Solan.
Chinnappa  B (1997)Marketing of guava –An economic analysis in Karnataka, Agril Mktg 40:41-43.
 Dahiya  P, Malik D P and Singh I J (2001) Trends and growth rate of area, production and yield of fruits crops in Haryana. The Bihar J of Agril Mktg 19:170-77.
Dhillon S S and Singh R (1988) Pattern of marketing of grapes in Bathinda district of Punjab state. Punjab Agricultural University, Regional Research Station Bathinda. 
Gill K S, Sidhu  M S and Singh H (1985) Marketable surplus and disposal by citrus growers in Punjab: J  of Res, Punjab Agricultural University Ludhiana 2: 123-129.
Gill K S (1980) Marketing problem of citrus grown in Punjab State. Research report, Department of Economics and Sociology. Punjab Agricultural university  Ludhiana.
Goswami H G (1982) Production and marketing of guava in Allahabad, Agril Econ Res, Agril Univ Allahabad 4:66. 
Government of India (2005). Economic Survey 2005, Ministry of finance, Economic Division, India.
Government of Punjab (2006). Agriculture in Punjab 2006, Department of Agriculture, Punjab, Chandhigarh .
Kumar R (1989) Marketing of pears in Punjab M.Sc. Thesis, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.
Kumar S (1999) Resource use and marketing  of important high value crops in Himachal Pradesh, Phd. Dissertation, Y S Parmar University of Horticulture  and Forestry, Nauni, Solan.
Ladaniya  M S (2003) Price spread of pomegranate, Ind J Agril Econ 58: 800-11.
Meena B L, Pant D C and Sharma J D (2005) Practices and channels for marketing of guava in Udaipur district of Rajasthan, The Ind J of Agril Mktg  9:68-79.
Mittal Surbhai (2007) Marketing of fruits in India, M.Sc. Thesis, Indian Agriculture Research Institute, New Delhi.
Mondal A H (1986) Marketing of pineapples in Meghalaya State, M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Economics and Sociology, Punjab Agricultural University Ludhiana.
Negi Y S, Prasher, R S and Tewari S C (1997) Marketing of Himachal apple A spatial – Temporal Analysis,Agric Econ Res Rev:10:88-94.
Parihar N C and Bajpai P N (1983) Price spread and marketing margins for apple. Progressive Horticulture 15: 142-143.
Parmar  Jai Singh (2003) Marketing system of Himachal apples.- An empirical approach, Political Econ J India 12 : 35-41.
Patel S P and Pawar, J R (1980) A study of marketing of fruits in Mahatma Phule Market in Bombay, Horti Econ Newsletter 23 : 47.
Punhani, R (2001) Agricultural marketing with special reference to horticulture produce. The Bihar J Agri  Mktg 9: 1-6.
Rana P K, Karol A, Dahiya R S and Pande M K (2003)  Need to make kinnow selling fruitful. The Tribune 20 Janauary : 17.
Randev A K (2005) Marketing of apple in Shimla district of Himachal Pradesh. The Ind J of Agril Mktg 19: 11-19. 
Sekhon  N S (2005) Marketing of  pear in Amritsar district of Punjab, M.Sc. Thesis, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.
Shah D (2000) Production and marketing pattern of grapes in Maharashtra: An appraisal.  Ind J Agril Mktg 14: 40-53.
Sharan   S P and Singh V K  (2002)  Marketing of kinnow in Rajasthan. Agril Mrktg 45: 2-4.
Shrivastava S C and Mishra R R (2001) Price spread and marketing channels of mango in Varanasi district of Uttar Pradesh. The Bihar J Agric Mktg 7: 105-113
Sidhu M S (1993) Price spread of Kinnow in Punjab. Ind J  Agric Mktg  7 : 105-13.
Sidhu M S and Gill K S (1989) Price spread of blood- red malta in Punjab. Indian Horti 36 : 11-15.
 Singh B B and Ranjan S (2001) Marketing and export of litchi in Bihar in new economic environment. Indian J Agric Mktg 15: 142-143.
Singh R and Sikka B K (1992) Production and marketing system of apple in Tribal area of Himachal Pradesh, Agril Sit. in India 47: 595-97.
Sinha S P and Lal P (1997) Dynamics of marketing of selected fruits in Bihar: With special reference to litchi. The Bihar J of Agril Mktg 5 : 296-304.
Tomer B S, Singh S P and Khadhar R K (1997) Marketing of grapes and citrus fruits in Haryana, Ind J Agric Econ 52: 642.
Tewari S C, Chand R,  Sharma L R and Nagi Y S (1992) Economics of production and marketing of important temperate and sub- tropical fruit in Himachal Pradesh (Memo), Department of Social Sciences, Y S Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Solan.
Singh H, Grover D K and Vatta K (2001) Marketing of fruit crops in Punjab. Ind J Agril	 Mktg 15: 8-16
Singh S (2004) A study on Production performance and marketing of kinnow in                                     Punjab, M.Sc. thesis, Punjab Agricultural University Ludhiana.