VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS OF MAJOR PULSES IN KARNATAKA
Loading...
Files
Date
2012
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
ACHARYA N. G. RANGA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
Abstract
The present study entitled “Value Chain Analysis of Major Pulses in Karnataka”
was under taken to study conceptual frame work of pulses, costs and margins at different
stages of value chain and implication of cost and margins on farmers income. Combination
of purposive and random sampling techniques was used for selection of district, markets,
market functionaries and farmers required for the study. The data used in this study to
fulfill various objectives were collected through personal interview of selected farmers and
marketing intermediaries with the help of pre-tested schedules designed for the purpose.
The data collected was subjected to various analytical tools apart from simple averages.
Multiple regression analysis was carried out for identifying the variables influencing profit
margins. Shepherd’s formula and Acharya’s method were used to decide the marketing
efficiency of different marketing channels. Producer’s share in consumer’s rupee and price
spread were also employed.
The cost of cultivation of redgram was estimated at Rs. 28,877 per hectare on
pooled farms, Rs. 27,260 on small farms and Rs. 29,803 on large farms. Per hectare cost of
cultivation of chickpea was worked out to be Rs. 29,239 for small farmers, Rs. 31,553 for
large farmers and Rs. 30,674 for pooled farmers. On an average, the cost of cultivation of
blackgram was estimated at Rs.27, 671 for pooled farmers. The cost of cultivation
increased with the size of holding from Rs. 27,044 for small farmers to Rs. 28,307 for large
farmers in blackgram production. The cost of cultivation of greengram was estimated at
Rs. 29,325 for pooled farmers, Rs. 28,220 for small farmers and Rs. 29,986 for large
farmers. The producers incurred a cost of Rs. 172.80 per quintal of redgram in channel I
whereas in channel II, he incurred a marketing cost of Rs. 216.17 per quintal. It was
observed that the producer's share in consumer's rupee was little higher in channel I (72.65
per cent as against of 69.53 per cent in channel II). Total cost of Rs. 713.07 and Rs. 804.60
per quintal of redgram was incurred towards marketing in channel I and II respectively.
The processor incurred Rs. 201.19 per quintal of redgram towards processing.
The net price received by the chickpea farmers was Rs. 2815.39 and Rs. 2885.58
per quintal of chickpea in channel I and channel II respectively. The marketing cost
incurred by the producers was Rs. 159.61 per quintal (channel I) and Rs. 205.19 per quintal
of chickpea (channel II). The processing cost of chickpea was Rs. 175.77 and the total
marketing cost incurred in chickpea marketing was Rs. 675.52 (channel I) and Rs. 773.19
(channel II). The producers share in consumer’s rupee was more in channel II (74.23 per
cent) than in channel I (72.42 per cent).
Because of more marketing cost incurred by farmers and more margins obtained by
the middlemen, producers share in consumer’s rupee for blackgram was less in channel II
(73.29 per cent) than in channel-I (78.48 per cent). The processing cost (Rs. 198.67) was
same in both the channels. It was also revealed that the total costs (Rs. 796.50) and margins
(Rs. 632.34) were more in channel-II than channel-I, because of which the price spread was
more and producers share in consumer’s price was less in channel II. Price spread was Rs.
1093.00 and Rs. 880.58 in channel I and II respectively.
Total marketing cost per quintal of greengram incurred by the farmer was Rs.174.70
and Rs. 223.57 in channel I and II respectively. Commission agent incurred a cost of Rs.
96.99 in channel I. Further, the processor in channel I and II incurred a total marketing cost
of Rs. 109.20. In greengram marketing, processor obtained a profit margin of Rs. 735.96 in
channel I and Rs. 689.55 in channel II. The processing cost (Rs. 216.50) was same in both
the channels for greengram. The total cost incurred was more in channel II (Rs. 830.49)
than in the channel I (Rs. 731.95). Producer’s share in consumer’s price was more in
channel I (68.71 per cent) than in channel II (66.01 per cent). The results of marketing
efficiency revealed that the marketing efficiency was relatively higher in marketing channel
I (except in case of chickpea) in both the approaches, i.e. Shepherd’s method and
Acharya’s approach. The results also revealed that the marketing channel in which the
marketing costs and margins were low had the highest efficiency.
Multiple regression model was employed to study determinants of profit margin per
quintal of pulses. In redgram, the coefficient of determination (R2 = 0.96) showed that
about 96 percent of the variation in profit was explained by the variables included in the
model. Operating cost of production, fixed cost of production, marketing cost and gross
price received by the producer were found significantly influencing profit margin of the
redgram. Education level was found to be non-significant. In chickpea, it was observed that
the coefficient of determination (R2 = 0.88) showed that about 88 percent of the variation in
profit was explained by the variables included in the model. For blackgram revealed that
the coefficient of determination (R2 = 0.92) showed that about 92 percent of the variation
in profit was explained by the variables included in the model.
Description
Keywords
markets, costs, marketing margins, grain legumes, marketing, manpower, productivity, economics, chickpeas, tillage equipment