CHAPTER - IV

MARKETING CHANNELS OF TOMATO : COST AND

EFFICIENCIES OF MARKETING
4.1 Introduction
India’s age-old farming practices have taken a turn in
recent decades. There has been a technological
breakthrough in the evolution of high-yielding variety seeds.
Increasing use of fertilizers, insecticides, pesticides, the
installation of pumping sets, and tractorization has led to a
substantial increase in production on the farms and to the
larger marketable and marketed surplus. To maintain this
tempo and pace of increased production through
technological development, an assurance of remunerative
prices to the farmer is a prerequisite, and the assurance can
be given to the farmer by developing an efficient marketing
system.1
Marketing is one of the important economic functions
of the society and proper marketing of agricultural products
is of greater importance in an agrarian economy. Marketing
is a comprehensive form covering business activities involve
various stages in the flow of transferring products from the
primary producer to the ultimate consumers. Agriculture
marketing is a vital sub-sector of agriculture, which
deserves as much attention as agriculture. The fruits and
vegetables marketing in particular is characterized by high
perishability, seasonality and bulkiness of the producers,
which make them distinctive from other agricultural
products like cereals and pulses.2
Maharashtra is the most developed state in India and
renders significant contribution in total national income viz.
industries and agriculture. Though Maharashtra stands
first in maximum industrial development, agriculture sector
is not far behind. It plays a crucial role in providing raw
material to various trade sectors and agro industries. Sugar
industry textile industry and fruit and vegetables processing
industry and other related trades rely mainly on agriculture.
Out of 35 districts in Maharashtra, Kolhapur district
leads regarding agricultural products. The rivers Krishna,
Panchaganga, Warana flow through this district. As a result
irrigated farming is done on a large scale. Sugarcane,

176
Soyabin, rice and other such cash crops and vegetables like
tomato, cauliflower, cabbages, brinjal, lady’s finger are
grown in this district. The farmers give more preference to
tomato. Tahasils from this district, Gadhinglaj,
Hatkanangale, Karveer, Shirol are the pioneers in tomato
production. Again among these tahasils Shirol stands at
front in tomato crop because the land, climate,
proportionate rainfall, transportation and market are
conducive to tomato crop production.
In the study area, farmers from Gadhinglaj taluka sell
tomato at cheaper rates in local markets like Gadhinglaj,
Sankeshwar and Ajara. Some farmers sell it through the
agents. Some farmers from Hatkanangale taluka sell their
crop on their own and some others to the agents in markets
like Ichalkaranji, Kolhapur and in weekly bazaars at
neighbouring villages. Kolhapur city is nearer to the farmers
from Karveer taluka. They sell it at Apani Mandi / Kisan
Mandi, some other producers sell through agents. Shirol
taluka is leading in tomato crop and it is due to all types of
conducive environment to this crop. It has accomplished
specialisation in production and marketing in tomato crop.
Farmers from this area sell the tomato either at their own or
through agents in local markets of Jaysingpur, Sangli,
Ichalkaranji and Kurundwad. In Nandani village of Shirol
taluka there is a separate Co-operative Sangh. Through it,
the tomato is sent to Kolhapur, Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur,
Ahemadabad, Delhi, etc. in up-country markets.
Consequently, the producers get good rates. There is private
purchase – sale sangh in almost every village of this taluka.
The tomato is transported to the abovesaid metropolits
through such sanghs. The advanced marketing system and
other facilities offer the farmers good prices.
4.2 Tomato Production and Marketing Scenario
A study of the agricultural marketing system is
necessary to understand the complexities involved and the
identification of bottlenecks with a view of providing efficient
services in the transfer of farm products and inputs from
producers to consumers. An efficient marketing system
minimizes costs and increases the benefits of all the
sections of the society.3

177
 The following elements are involved in tomato
production and marketing.
i) Producers – Farmers want the marketing system to
purchase their produce without loss of time and
provide the maximum share in the consumer’s rupee.
They want the maximum possible price for their
surplus produce from the system. Similarly, they want
the system to supply them the inputs at the lowest
possible price.
ii) Consumers – The consumers of tomato products are
interested in a marketing system that can provide
tomato and other items in the quantity and of the
quality required by them at the lowest possible price.
However, this objective of marketing for consumers is
contrary to the objective of marketing for the farmer
producers.
iii) Market Middlemen and Traders – Market middlemen
and traders are interested in a marketing system
which provides them a steady and increasing income
from the purchase and sale of tomato. This objective of
market middlemen may be achieved in purchasing the
tomato products from the farmers at low prices and
selling them to consumers at high prices.
iv) Co-operative and Private Vegetables Organization –
Private and co-operative vegetable producers,
purchase-sale sanghs are made available in Shirol
tahsil. Good remunerative prices are obtained through
transporting the crop to metropolitan cities. They have
successfully operated in the up-country market.
4.3 Structure of the Marketing Channels of Tomato
Marketing channels through which farm products
made from producers to consumers, a very small proportion
of farm products move to consumers through several
agencies and channels. The role played by marketing
agencies in the marketing system is quite indispensable as
these perform important marketing functions. They also
help in expanding the markets and add value to the
products.

178
 Marketing channels are routes through which
agricultural products move from producers to consumers.
The length of the channel varies from commodity to
commodity, depending on the quantity to be moved ; the
form of consumer demand and degree of regional
specialization in production.4
Most producers do not sell their tomato product
directly to the ultimate consumers, between them stands a
set of intermediaries performing a variety of functions.
These intermediaries constitute a marketing channel or
distribution channel. In the study area the marketing
channel for marketing of tomato involved retailers,
wholesalers, commission agents and private and co-
operative sanghs. In the case of tomato, the following
marketing channels were observed in study area through
which trading of tomato was taking place on a large scale by
the selected tomato growers and channels.
1) Channel – I
Producers -> Consumer.
Some small and marginal farmers, whose produce is of
small quantity, carry their tomato produce to the nearby
market and sell it directly to the buyers, particularly in
the city places. This requires marketing awareness and
work force to carry out such marketing activities every
day. In this channel-I share in consumer rupee is high
because of less marketing cost. So tomato growers get
high remunerative price for their product.
2) Channel– II
Producers -> Retailer -> Consumer.
Some farmers sell their tomato products in the big
markets in nearby cities through retailers. In turn the
retailers sell them to the ultimate consumers at retail
scale. Naturally this sale is done at higher prices and
they earn more profit. As a result, compared to
channel-I, farmers are less benefited in channel-II. Thus
producers' share in consumer rupee is naturally less.
3) Channel – III
Producers -> Marketing by Co-operative vegetable
organization / private vegetable organizations ->

179
 Wholesaler at up-country Market -> Retailers at up-
country Market -> Consumer at up-country Market.
The study area includes private and co-operative
vegetable trade sanghs, from Shirol taluka. Of the total
farmers from this area, tomato producer farmers
transport their tomato to cities like Pune, Mumbai,
Nagpur, Ahemadabad, Delhi, in up-country markets via
abovesaid sanghs. The sanghs provide vehicle facility on
hire basis to such farmers. Vehicles like truck, tempo
are uploaded and sent to various metropolitan cities.
There the wholesalers from up-country markets
purchase the tomato and pay through cheque or D.D.
Various deductions such as commission, transport
expenses, unloading charges are subtracted and then
the remaining amount is paid to the concerned farmers.
The whole process takes 5 to 7 days.
Wholesalers from up-country market sell the product
to retailers and earn maximum profit. Finally the tomato
is supplied to ultimate consumer via these retailers.
Thus the tomato marketing is channelized.
4.4 Taluka-wise Classification of Marketing Tomato
Growers
Sample tomato growers from the study tahasil – Shirol
sell out their product in up-country markets. Table No. 4.1
shows the details regarding how many respondents sell
their products in such up-country market.
Table No. 4.1
Up-Country Marketing Centers In 2006-07
Sr. Marketing Name of Taluka Total Total
No. Centers Gadhin- Hatka- Karveer Shirol to %
glaj nangale
1. Pune - - - 18 18 18
2. Mumbai - - - 28 28 28
3. Nagpur - - - 14 14 14
4. Ahemadabad - - - 30 30 30
5. Delhi - - - 10 10 10
Total - - - 100 100 100
Source – Field Work.

180
 Table No. 4.1 indicates that out of the selected tahasils
for study, tomato growers from Gadhintlaj, Hatkanangale
and Karveer do not sale their products in up-country
markets. Because there are no private and co-operative
vegetable sanghs. Hence, they dispose of their products in
local markets, weekly bazaars, and neighbouring cities.
Private and co-operative sanghs are functioning in
Shirol tahasil. Tomato growers send their tomato products
to up-country market through these sanghs.
30 out of sample growers from Shirol prefer to send
their products to up-country market in Ahemadabad, their
percentage to totals is 30 %
28 respondents sell their products in Mumbai and they
achieve the percentage of 28 % to the total.
18 respondents sell their products in Pune market
center and indicate the percentage of 18 % to the total.
14 respondents send their products in Nagpur market
centre and show the percentage of 14 % to the total.
Only 10 respondents averaging 10 % to the total send
their products to Delhi market centre for sale. Delhi market
is considerably too far away from the actual production area
and thus costs more on transportation and other expenses.
As a result, very few respondents sell their products in the
Delhi market.
Overall, most of the respondents from Shirol taluka
prefer to sell their products to Ahemadabad market. The
second preference is given to up-country markets of
Mumbai, Pune, Nagpur and Delhi. There are no private or
co-operative vegetable purchase-sale sanghs in existence in
Gadhinglaj, Hatkanangale and Karveer tahasils. As a result,
there is no facility available for tomato growers to send their
aggregate production to any up-country markets. Therefore
tomato growers from these tahasils cannot send their
production to up-country markets.
4.5 Classification of Marketing Channels
From the preliminary survey conducted in the study
area, it was observed that the marketing of tomato was done
mainly through the following three channels.

181
 Table No. 4.2
Classification Of Marketing Channels In 2006-2007
Sr. Channels Name of Taluka Total Total to
No. %
Gadhin- Hatka- Karveer Shirol
glaj nangale

1. Channel-I 10 12 8 8 38 19

2. Channel-II 20 38 12 10 80 40

3. Channel-III - - - 82 82 41

Total 30 50 20 100 200 100

Source – Field Work.

Table No. 4.2 shows the classification of up-country
marketing channel.
1) 19 % of respondents sell their tomato products through
channel-I (producer -> consumer).
2) 40 % respondents - channel-II (producer ->retailer ->
consumer)
3) 41 % of the respondents dispose their products through
channel-III (Producers -> Marketing by Co-operative
vegetable organization/private vegetable organizations ->
Wholesaler at up-country Market -> Retailers at up-
country Market -> Consumer at up-country Market.)
Since private and co-operative sanghs are at work only
in Shirol tahasil, 82 of the total (200) respondents sell their
products through channel-III.
4.6 Price Spread of Tomato
Price spread is the good indicator for determining the
producer’s share in consumer’s rupee. Price spread refers to
the consumer and the price received by the producer for
unit quantity of farm produce. Price spread consists of
marketing cost and margins of the intermediaries, which
ultimately determines the overall efficiency of marketing
system, Price spread of tomato in different marketing
channels is presented in Table No. 4.3

182
 Table No. 4.3
Price Spread In Different Channel Of Marketing Of
Tomato In 2006-2007

Sr. Particulars Rs. / Kg.

No.
Channel Channel Channel
–I – II - III

1. Producer's net share 6.00 5.80 5.20

2. Producer's cost 1.00 1.50 2.10

3. Retailer Purchase - - 7.30

Price / Producer's
Sale Price

4. Wholesaler's Cost - - 0.80

5. Wholesaler's Margin - - 1.00

6. Wholesaler's Sale - - 9.10

Price / Retailer's
Purchase Price

7. Retailer's Cost - 0.30 0.40

8. Retailer's Margin - 0.40 0.50

9. Retailer's Sale Price / 7.00 8.00 10.00

Consumer's Purchase
Price

Source – Field survey.

The study of marketing cost and marketing channels
adopted in sale of vegetable crops revealed that they were
almost similar for all the vegetable crops, hence a detailed
analysis of marketing cost and price spread through
different channels was studied only for tomato product.
From the preliminary survey conducted in the study area, it
was observed that the marketing of tomato has three
channels.
Table No. 4.3 indicates the marketing cost and margin
in three channels, identified in the study area. In channel-I,
the farmer preformed the dual function of both producer

183
and seller. In this channel tomato producers directly
disposed of their products to consumer. The total incurred
marketing cost was Rs. 1.00 per kg. for tomato. Sometimes
farmers dispose of the produce in haste even at lower prices
than that prevailed in the market in order to find time to
attend farm operations during the remaining day instead of
spending whole time on transportation and waiting for
better prices in market. This was mainly due to the non-
intervention of middlemen. Thus, with the lower prices,
consumers were attracted and formers could soon clear off
the produce. In addition to the net returns, the farmer got a
good profit. Regarding this channel, the number of marginal
and semi marginal producers is very few, having is low
marketable surplus is consisted.
The second important channel in tomato marketing is
channel-II with concerns of the tomato producers -> retailer
-> consumer. There cost was found of Rs. 1.50 paise per kg.
in channel-II. In this channel retailer stands in between the
tomato producer and ultimate consumer. The producer
takes his tomato product to weekly bazaars in neighbouring
villages and cities for sale. He sells it to the retailer directly
and then these retailers sell to the ultimate consumer by
retaining their margin profit.
The channel-III consists of tomato producer ->
private/co-operative sangh -> wholesalers -> retailers ->
finally consumer. Tomato growing farmers sell their product
to the private or co-operative sangh either at local level or in
neighbouring villages. In turn the sangh sells them to the
wholesalers from up-country market. These wholesalers sell
them to the retailers from such markets and finally the
product reaches to the ultimate consumer. Due to these
different stages in marketing and middlemen the marketing
cost leaps upto Rs. 4.80 per kg. Lower price spread occurs
in channel-I and comparatively more in channel-II and at
highest cost in channel-III.
So in conclusion, the study reveals that higher the
price spread, lower the marketing efficiency and lower the
price spread, higher the marketing efficiency.

184
4.7 Producers Share In Consumer Rupee
It is the share of producer which he actually gets out of
the amount paid by the consumer for his produce. Thus,
the tomato producer as a residual claimant of his produce
get p ercentage share of different agencies in consumer’s
rupee of tomato is shown in table No. 4.4
Table No. 4.4
Percentage Share Of Different Agencies In Consumer’s
Rupee Of Tomato In 2006-2007

Sr. Particulars Rs. / Kg.

No.
Channel Channel Channel
–I – II - III

1. Producer's Net 85.72 72.50 52.00

Share

2. Producer's Cost 14.28 18.75 21.00

3. Wholesaler's Share - - 10.00

4. Wholesaler's Cost - - 8.00

5. Retailer's Share - 5.00 5.00

6. Retailer's Cost - 3.75 4.00

Total 100.00 100.00 100.00

Source – Field survey.
It can be observed from Table No. 4.4 that the
producer received the maximum share of consumer rupee in
Channel-I (82.72 %) followed by Channel-II (72.50 %) and
Channel-III (52.00 %).
The highest share in consumer’s rupee was obtained
by the farmer in Channel-I as there was no intermediary
between producer and consumer.
In second channel, the producer received only 72.50
per cent of consumer’s rupee and retailer trader received 5
per cent of consumer rupee.

185
 In third channel, the farmers received still less i.e. 52
per cent of consumer rupee. The shares of wholesalers and
retailers were 10 and 5 percent of consumer rupee
respectively. The producer’s share was less in Channel-II
and Channel-III as producers were located at a long
distance from up-country market place. The intervention of
market intermediaries has reduced the producer’s share in
consumer’s rupee.
In Channel-I, the tomato producer sells his product
directly to the ultimate consumer. Therefore the interference
and dominance of intermediaries are removed. As a result,
there is high rate of producer share in consumer rupee.
In Channel-II, the producer share in consumer’s rupee
is 72.50 per cent, and retail trader carries 5 per cent of
consumer rupee. The producer share in consumer rupee is
less because of the chain or network of retailer in between
the producer and the consumer.
In Channel-III the producer in consumer rupee is low
upto 52 percent. The share of wholesaler and retailer is 10
to 5 per cent.
Compared to Channel-I, the producer share in
consumer’s rupee in Channel-II and III is low. The up-
country market from Channel-III is situated in remote place
from the production area and therefore there is increase in
cost of transportation, loading, unloading and commission
charges etc. As a result, there is less rate of producer share
in consumer rupee.
4.8 Marketing Efficiency
Marketing efficiency indicates to what extent the
marketing agencies are able to move the goods from
producer in the minimum cost, extending maximum service
to the consumer.5 Marketing efficiency in marketing of
tomato is also worked out and given in Table No. 4.5.

186
 Table No. 4.5
Marketing Efficiency Of Different Channels Of Tomato
In 2006-2007
Sr. Channels Value of goods sold Total Marketing Marketing
No. (Consumer’s Price) Cost (Rs. / Kg.) Efficiency
(Rs. / Kg.) (V) (I) (ME)

1. Channel – I 7 1.00 6.00

2. Channel – II 8 1.80 3.44

3. Channel - III 10 3.30 2.03

Source – Field survey.

Optimum marketing efficiency is one of the strategies
of the producers and the traders. The marketing efficiency
however, depends upon the related costs involved in
marketing. The agricultural produce conveyed from
producer to consumer. If the marketing cost comparatively
remain low, then the marketing efficiency remains high, or
the prices of the produce should be at higher level, so that,
the marketing efficiency will remain high, but consumer’s
satisfaction gets disturbed due to high prices of the
produce.6
The marketing efficiency of the different marketing
channels of tomato product was computed using Shepherds
formula. It suggested that the ratio of the total value of
goods sold in the market and the total marketing cost may
be used as a measure of marketing efficiency. This may
higher the ratio, higher is the efficiency and vice-versa.
The values of marketing efficiency for each channel are
presented in the table No. 4.5. It is highest in channel – I (6)
followed by channel-II (3.44) and channel – III (2.03)
respectively by the Shepherd’s Marketing Index. Marketing
efficiency is low in channel-II and channel-III, compared to
channel-I. This was supported by the foregoing discussion
of marketing cost and margin. This was because the
number of market functionaries was almost absent in
channel-I.

187
4.9 Cost of Marketing Through Co-operative Vegetable
Organization Channel (2006-2007)
The cost of marketing per kg is the main indicator of
efficiency of marketing. The cost of marketing of tomato
products at up-country marketing through co-operative
vegetable organization Channel is shown in table No. 4.6.

188
 Table No. 4.6
Break Up Of Cost Of Marketing Of Tomato Products (Rs./Per Box) In 2006-2007
Sr. Items of Marketing Market Centers Total Overall
No. percentage
Pune Mumbai Nagpur Ahemadabad Delhi
to total
1. Grading / Packing 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 10.00 1.43
(1.86) (1.61) (1.37) (1.39) (1.12)
2. Packing Material 48.00 48.00 48.00 48.00 48.00 240.00 34.23
(44.53) (38.59) (32.79) (33.33) (26.89)
3. Transport Cost 35.00 50.00 70.00 70.00 100.00 325.00 46.36
(32.46) (40.19) (47.81) (48.61) (56.02)
4. Hamali (Loading / Unloading) 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 25.00 3.57
(4.64) (4.01) (3.42) (3.47) (2.80)
5. Weighing 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 11.00 1.57
(1.86) (1.61) (1.37) (1.30) (1.68)
6. Commission Charges for 1box 15.00 16.50 18.50 16.00 19.00 85.00 12.12
(30 Kg.) (13.91) (13.26) (12.64) (11.11) (10.64)
7. Miscellaneous 0.80 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.50 5.10 0.73
(0.74) (0.72) (0.61) (0.69) (0.84)
8. Total Marketing cost for one 107.80 124.40 146.40 144.00 178.50 701.10 140.22
30 kg. box
9. Per K.g. Marketing Cost 3.59 4.14 4.88 4.80 5.95 23.36 4.67
Note – One box = 30 kg. Figure in the brackets indicate for percentages to the total.
Source – Field Survey.

189
 The estimated costs of tomato marketing in up-country
markets are presented in Table No. 4.6
Tomato packed in wooden boxes is sent to up-country
markets in Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahemadabad and Delhi
through co-operative purchase-sale sangh. One such
wooden box contains 30 kg. tomato. Overall cost of this box
is average Rs. 140.22 paise. Thus the marketing cost behind
per kg goes upto Rs. 4.67 paise.
Out of the total marketing cost incurred by farmers,
transport cost is 46.36 per cent followed by cost on packing
material (34.23 %), commission charges share 12.12 per
cent. The overall average cost of marketing, Hamali (loading
and unloading) (3.57 %), followed by weighing (1.57%),
Grading (1.43 %) and miscellaneous (0.73 %). The up-
country markets like Delhi and Nagpur are far away from
the production venue, hence there is extra expenditure to be
incurred on transportation and other cost. Totally cost of
marketing in Delhi market was higher than Nagpur,
Ahemadabad, Mumbai and Pune market.
4.10 Up-country Marketing Through Co-operative
Channel for tomato
4.10.1 Pune Market Centre for tomato (Rs. per kg)
Tomato from Shirol tahasil, one of the tahasil from
study area is sent for sale to up-country market in Pune
through co-operative vegetable purchase-sale sangh.
Accordingly the data regarding up-country market from
Pune for the period 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 is presented
here in table No. 4.7

190
 Table No. 4.7
Up-Country Marketing Through Co-Operative Channel to Pune Market Centre For Tomato (Rs.
Per Kg)

Sr. Year Total Retailer's Produc Price Efficiency of (%) Producer's Shepherds
Marke Selling er's Spread Marketing (1/ps share in formula of
No
ting Price Net X 100) consumer Rupee efficiency of
(2-3)
Cost Price (PNP/RSP X 100) marketing
(2-1) (V/I – 1)

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

1. 2002-2003 2.75 7.50 4.75 2.75 36.36 63.33 1.73

2. 2003-2004 2.90 8.50 5.60 2.90 34.48 65.89 1.93

3. 2004-2005 3.10 9.40 6.30 3.10 32.25 67.02 2.03

4. 2005-2006 3.50 11.25 7.75 3.50 28.57 68.88 2.21

5. 2006-2007 3.80 10.85 7.05 3.80 26.31 64.98 1.85

Total 16.05 47.50 31.45 16.05 157.98 330.10 9.75

Average 3.21 9.50 6.29 3.21 31.59 66.02 1.95

Source – Field Survey

191
 Total marketing cost of tomato in Pune up-country
market for the five year (2002-2003 to 2006-2007) was
Rs.2.75, Rs. 2.90, Rs. 3.10, Rs. 3.50 and Rs. 3.80 per kg.
respectively. In the specific year 2002-2003 the marketing
cost per kg was Rs. 2.75. It continuously increased and
reached upto Rs. 3.80 in 2006-2007. Moreover, due to the
growth in transport cost and commission charges, the total
marketing cost showed consistent increase.
The producer's net price for the five years from 2002-
2003 to 2006-2007 was Rs. 4.75, Rs. 5.60, Rs. 6.30, Rs.
7.75 and 7.05 respectively. The producer's net price
incessantly went up and reached upto Rs. 7.75 in the year
2005-2006. in the following year 2006-207 it again came
down Rs. 7.05.
The price spread of up-country market from Pune in
the study tenure of five years was 36.36 %, 34.48 %,
32.25%, 28.58% and 26.31% respectively. Due to consistent
decrease, it came down 26.31 % in the year 2006-2007.
Increase in tomato price caused decrease in price spread.
The producer's share in consumer rupee between
2002-2003 to 2006-2007 was 63.33 %, 65.89 %, 67.02 %,
68.88 % and 64.98 percent. The highest rate of producer's
share in consumer rupee appeared in the year 2005-2006 it
was 68.88 %. The overall average share in consumer rupee
was 66.02 per cent.
The marketing efficiency in up-country market from
Pune was measured with the help of Shepherd formula
index. According to it, the marketing efficiency for the five
years from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 was 1.73, 1.93, 2.03,
2.21 and 1.85 respectively. Compared to other four years,
the marketing efficiency in the year 2002-2003 (1.73) was
low. The overall average marketing efficiency for the five
years was 1.95.
4.10.2 Up-country Marketing Through Co-operative
Channel in Mumbai Market Centre for tomato
(Rs. per kg)
The following table No. 4.8 indicates the status of
tomato marketing from marketing center in Mumbai and
regarding the sale of tomato from study area made through
co-operative purchase-sale sangh.

192
 Table No. 4.8
Up-Country Marketing Through Co-Operative Channel to Mumbai Market Centre For Tomato (Rs. Per Kg)

Sr. Year Total Retailer's Produc Price Efficiency of (%) Producer's Shepherds
No Marketi Selling er's Spread Marketing (1/ps share in formula of
ng Cost Price Net (2-3) X 100) consumer Rupee efficiency of
Price (PNP/RSP X 100) marketing
(2-1) (V/I – 1)

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

1. 2002-2003 3.50 .50 5.00 3.50 28.58 58.83 1.42

2. 2003-2004 3.80 9.30 5.50 3.80 26.31 59.13 1.45

3. 2004-2005 3.90 13.00 9.10 3.90 25.64 70.00 2.33

4. 2005-2006 4.00 12.50 8.50 4.00 25.00 68.00 2.12

5. 2006-2007 4.25 12.25 8.00 4.25 23.53 65.30 1.88

Total 19.45 55.55 36.10 19.25 129.06 321.26 9.20

Average 3.89 11.11 7.22 3.85 25.81 64.25 1.84

Source – Field Survey

193
 The total marketing cost of per kg tomato production
for five years from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 in context with
up-country market in Mumbai was Rs. 3.50, Rs. 3.80, Rs.
3.90, Rs. 4.00 and Rs. 4.25 respectively. It shows mild
increase in the total marketing cost of tomato per kg.
The producer's net price in the tenure of five years of
study was respectively Rs. 5.00, Rs. 5.50, Rs. 9.10, Rs. 8.50
and Rs. 8.00. The maximum rate of producer's net price
occurred in the year 2004-2005 (Rs. 9.10).
The price spread in Mumbai market center for the five
years 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 was 28.58 %, 26.31%,
25.84%, 25.00% and 23.53% respectively. It continued to
decrease and reached the average of 25.81 per cent.
The producer's share in consumer rupee for the five
year of study from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 was 58.83%,
59.13%, 70.00%, 68.00% and 65.30% respectively.
Compared to the other four years, it was maximum upto
70.00 per cent in the year 2004-2005. And the overall
average was little more than 64.25 %.
Marketing efficiency is measured with the help of
Shepherd formula. The rate of marketing efficiency for the
five years (2002-2003 to 2006-2007) was 1.42, 1.45, 2.33,
2.12 and 1.88 respectively. Compared to the other four
years, the maximum rate appeared in the year 2004-2005,
it was 2.33 followed by decrease upto 2.12 in 2005-2006
and 1.88 in 2006-2007.
At the end of the year 2004-2005, it so appears that
due to reasonably good price offered to tomato production,
there was increase in producer's share in consumer rupee
and efficiency of marketing in Mumbai market centre.
4.10.3 Up-country Marketing Through Co-operative
Channel in Nagpur Market Center for tomato
(Rs. per kg.)
Up country marketing through co-operative channel
for tomato product in Nagpur market center is shown in
table No. 4.9.

194
 Table No. 4.9
Up-Country Marketing Through Co-Operative Channel to Nagpur Market Centre For Tomato (Rs. Per Kg)

Sr. Year Total Retailer's Produc Price Efficiency of (%) Producer's Shepherds
No Marketi Selling er's Spread Marketing (1/ps share in formula of
ng Cost Price Net (2-3) X 100) consumer Rupee efficiency of
Price (PNP/RSP X 100) marketing
(2-1) (V/I – 1)

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

1. 2002-2003 3.90 8.70 4.80 3.90 25.64 55.17 1.23

2. 2003-2004 4.50 9.00 4.50 4.50 22.22 50.00 1.00

3. 2004-2005 4.60 13.00 8.40 4.60 21.74 64.62 1.83

4. 2005-2006 4.65 11.00 6.35 4.65 21.50 57.73 1.37

5. 2006-2007 4.70 12.00 7.30 4.70 21.28 60.84 1.55

Total 22.35 53.70 31.35 22.35 112.38 288.36 6.98

Average 4.47 10.74 6.27 4.47 22.47 57.67 1.39

Source – Field Survey

195
 Tomato growers from study area sell their tomato
production through co-operative channel in up-country
market of Nagpur center. The data for five years from 2002-
2003 to 2006-2007 is presented in table No. 4.9 and it
emerges with the following conclusion.
Observation indicates that the total marketing cost of
tomato per kg and per year for the five years of study from
2002-2003 to 2006-2007 was Rs. 3.90, Rs. 4.50, Rs. 4.60,
Rs. 4.65 and Rs. 4.70. It slightly increased every year.
Hence, the average cost per kg went upto Rs. 4.47.
A keen study of the data shows that there was
decrease in the price spread. It was 25.64 %, 22.22 %,
21.74 %, 21.50% and 21.28% respectively. The lowest rate
occurred in the year 2006-2007 (21.27%)
An observation makes it clear that the producer's
share in consumer rupee in the five years was 55.17%,
50.00%, 64.62%, 57.73 and 60.84% respectively. The
average producer's share was 57.67 per cent. Comparatively
it was highest upto 64.62% in 2004-2005. The minimum
producer's share in consumer rupee was in 2003-2004.
According to Shapherd formula index used for
measuring efficiency of marketing for five years from 2002-
2003 to 2006-2007, it was 1.23, 1.00, 1.83, 1.37 and 1.55.
The average marketing efficiency was 1.39. The maximum
efficiency of marketing occurred in 2004-2005, it was 1.83.
Overall, the producer's share in consumer rupee and
efficiency of marketing was at high in the year 2004-2005 it
was 1.83.
4.10.4 Up-country Marketing Through Co-operative
Channel in Ahemadabad Market Center for
tomato (Rs. per kg.)
Tomato production from study area is sent to up-
country market in Ahemadabad for sale through co-
operative vegetable purchase-sale sangh channel. The
following table No. 4.10 shows the concerned details.

196
 Table No. 4.10
Up-Country Marketing Through Co-Operative Channel to Ahemadabad Market Centre For Tomato (Rs. Per
Kg)

Sr. Year Total Retaile'rs Produc Price Efficiency of (%) Producer's Shepherds
Marketi Selling er's Spread Marketing (1/ps share in formula of
No
ng Cost Price Net X 100) consumer Rupee efficiency of
(2-3)
Price (PNP/RSP X 100) marketing
(2-1) (V/I – 1)

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

1. 2002-2003 4.40 8.90 4.50 4.40 22.73 50.56 1.02

2. 2003-2004 4.60 11.20 6.60 4.60 21.74 58.92 1.43

3. 2004-2005 4.70 14.20 9.50 4.70 21.27 66.90 2.02

4. 2005-2006 4.50 11.00 6.50 4.50 22.22 59.09 1.44

5. 2006-2007 4.80 13.50 8.70 4.80 20.83 64.44 1.81

Total 23.00 58.80 35.80 23.00 108.79 299.91 7.72

Average 4.60 11.76 7.16 4.60 21.75 60.88 1.55

Source – Field Survey

197
 Table No. 4.10 indicates that there is fluctuation in per
kg total marketing cost of tomato in Ahemadabad market
center. Accordingly in the five years from 2002-2003 to
2006-2007, the total marketing cost per kg was Rs. 4.40,
Rs. 4.60, Rs. 4.70, Rs. 4.50 and Rs. 4.80 respectively. The
overall average marketing cost was Rs. 4.60. In the year
2004-2005. the marketing cost increased upto Rs. 4.70 and
decreased Rs. 4.50 in 2005-2006. Further it increased upto
Rs. 4.80 in 2006-2007.
Price spread in the five years of study from 2002-2003
to 2006-2007 was 22.73%, 21.74%, 21.27 %, 22.22% and
20.83% respectively. An observation indicates that there
was no much difference in the price spread.
Producer's share in consumer rupee in these five years
was 50.56%, 58.92%, 66.90%, 59.09% and 64.44%
respectively. The overall average of producer's share was
60.88% per cent. Comparatively in the year 2004-2005, the
producer's share was maximum upto 66.90%. In the years
2002-2003 and 2006-2007 the producer share was at
minimum.
Efficiency of marketing for the five years from 2002-
2003 to 2006-2007 was 1.02, 1.43, 1.02, 1.44 and 1.88
respectively. The overall average efficiency of marketing was
1.55. Comparatively it was at the lowest (1.02) in the year
2002-2003, and at the highest (2.02) in the year 2004-2005.
There was no considerable difference in the efficiency of
marketing in the year 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006.
4.10.5 Up-country Marketing Through Co-operative
Channel in Delhi Market Center for tomato (Rs.
per kg.)
Details regarding tomato marketing in Delhi market
center through co-operative marketing channel are
presented in table No. 4.11.

198
 Table No. 4.11
Up-Country Marketing Through Co-Operative Channel to Delhi Market Centre For Tomato (Rs.
Per Kg)

Sr. Year Total Retailer's Produc Price Efficiency of (%) Producer's Shepherds
Marketi Selling er's Spread Marketing (1/ps share in formula of
No
ng Cost Price Net X 100) consumer Rupee efficiency of
(2-3)
Price (PNP/RSP X 100) marketing
(2-1) (V/I – 1)

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

1. 2002-2003 5.80 11.00 5.20 5.80 17.24 47.27 0.90

2. 2003-2004 6.40 12.50 6.10 6.40 15.63 48.80 0.95

3. 2004-2005 6.50 15.00 8.50 6.50 15.38 56.67 1.30

4. 2005-2006 6.80 14.40 7.60 6.80 14.70 52.78 1.11

5. 2006-2007 6.90 14.20 7.30 6.90 14.49 51.40 1.05

Total 32.40 67.10 34.70 32.40 77.44 256.92 5.31

Average 6.48 13.42 6.94 6.48 15.48 51.38 1.06

Source – Field Survey

199
 An observational study of table No. 4.11 suggests that
the total marketing cost of tomato per kg in the period of
five years from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 in Delhi market
was Rs. 5.80, Rs. 6.40, Rs. 6.50, Rs. 6.80 and Rs. 6.90
respectively. It increased every year. Delhi market center is
far away from the tomato production area and therefore due
to the transportation and other costs, there is increase in
the total marketing cost of tomato per kg.
Price spread in Delhi market center in the above
referred years was 17.24%, 15.63%, 15.38%, 14.70% and
14.49% and average price spread was 15.48%.
Producer's share in consumer rupee during the five
years of study (2002-2003 to 2006-2007) was 47.27%,
48.80%, 56.67%, 52.78% and 51.40 percent. The average
producer's share in consumer rupee was 51.38 per cent.
Comparatively it was higher in the year 2004-2005, 56.67
per cent. It decreased in the year 2005-2006 to 52.78 per
cent. It decreased in the year 2005-2006 and came down
from 52.78% to 51.40%. At average level there was no
remarkable change.
Efficiency of marketing depends on total marketing
cost. From that attitude, the efficiency of marketing in the
five years from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 was 0.90, 0.95,
1.30, 1.11 and 1.05 per cent, and average efficiency
marketing was 1.06. It was less than average in the years
2002-2003 and 2003-2004 (0.90 and 0.95). it was
maximum upto 1.30 per cent in the year 2004-2005.
4.11 Average comparative study of tomato marketing
in co-operative channels. (2002-03 to 2006-2007)
An average comparative study of up-country at
different marketing centers through co-operative channels
of tomato is shown in table No. 4.12.

200
 Table No. 4.12
Average Comparative Study Of Up-Country at Different Marketing Centers Through Co-
Operative Channels Of Tomato From 2002-2003 To 2006-2007)
Sr. Name of Up- Total Average Average Average Average Average Producer's Shepherds
country average Retailer's Producer's Price Efficiency share in consumer formula of
No
Market Marketing Selling Net Price Spread of Rupee (PNP/RSP X efficiency of
Cost Price (2-1) Marketing 100) marketing
(2-3)
(1/ps X (V/I – 1)
100)

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

1. Pune 3.21 9.50 6.29 3.21 31.59 66.02 1.95

2. Mumbai 3.89 11.11 7.22 3.85 25.81 64.25 1.84

3. Nagpur 4.47 10.74 6.27 4.47 22.47 57.67 1.39

4. Ahemadabad 4.60 11.76 7.16 4.60 21.75 60.88 1.55

5. Delhi 6.48 13.42 6.94 6.48 15.48 51.38 1.06

Source – Field Survey

201
 Tomato production is sent for sale from the study area
to up-country market in cities like Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur,
Ahemadabad and Delhi through co-operative channels.
Marketing data from all these market centers is collected
and details about each and every component from the
period 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 alongwith aggregated
average are presented in table NO. 4.12. A comparative
consolidated study has been done of the concerned details.
Aggregate average marketing cost in marketing centers
of Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahemadabad and Delhi for the
five years from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 was Rs. 3.21, Rs.
3.89, Rs. 4.47, Rs. 4.60 and Rs. 6.48 respectively.
Compared to the other centers, the average marketing cost
in Delhi center is more. On the contrary, Pune center shows
less marketing cost. There is slight difference in marketing
cost of centers like Mumbai, Nagpur, and Ahemadabad.
The average price spread in marketing centers like
Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahemadabad and Delhi was
31.59%, 25.81%, 22.47%, 21.75% and 15.48% respectively.
Highest price spread occurred in Pune center and the lowest
price spread appeared in Delhi market center.
Average producer's share in consumer rupee in market
centers of Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahemadabad and Delhi
was 66.02%, 64.25%, 57.67%, 60.88% and 51.38 per cent
respectively. Pune center shows comparatively more rate of
producer's share in consumer rupee followed by Mumbai
center. The lowest rate of producer's share in consumer
rupee 51.38 per cent occurred in Delhi market center.
The average efficiency of marketing in market centers
of Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahemadabad and Delhi for the
five year (2002-2003 to 2006-2007) was 1.95, 1.84, 1.39,
1.55 and 1.06 respectively. Pune center shows high rate of
efficiency of marketing and Delhi market center shows low
rate.
4.12 Cost Of Marketing Through Private Trade
Channels
Tomato production is sent for sale to up-country
markets through private trade channels. Its marketing cost
is shown in table No. 4.13.

202
 Table No. 4.13
Cost Of Marketing Through Private Trade Channels In 2006-2007 Up-Country Marketing Through
Private Vegetable Organization Channels Break Up Of Cost Marketing Through Products (Rs. Per
Box) 2006-2007 For Tomato
Sr. Items of Marketing Marketing Centers Total Overall
No percentage of
Pune Mumbai Nagpur Ahemadabad Delhi
total
1. Grading/Packing 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 12.50 1.69
(2.18) (1.92) (1.64) (1.62) (1.32)
2. Packing Material 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 250.00 33.73
(43.67) (38.31) (32.89) (32.31) (26.39)
3. Transport Cost 37.00 52.00 72.00 75.00 105.00 341.00 46.00
(32.31) (39.85) (47.37) (48.46) (55.41)
4. Hamali Loading and 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 25.00 3.37
Unloading (4.37) (3.83) (3.29) (3.23) (2.64)
5. Weighing 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 3.00 11.50 1.55
(1.75) (1.53) (1.32) (1.62) (1.58)
6. Commission Charges 17.00 17.50 19.00 18.00 22.00 93.50 12.61
(14.85) (13.41) (12.50) (11.63) (11.61)
7. Miscellaneous 1.00 1.50 1.50 1.75 2.00 7.75 1.04
(0.87) (1.15) (0.99) (1.13) (1.05)
8. Total Marketing cost 114.50 130.50 152.00 154.75 189.50 741.25 148.25
9. Per/kg marketing cost 3.81 4.35 5.06 5.16 6.32 24.70 4.94
Note – 1 box = 30 kg. Survey – Field Survey. Figures in brackets show percentage.

203
 Tomato production from the study area is sent for sale
to up-country markets like Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur,
Ahemadabad and Delhi. The relevant marketing cost is
shown in table No. 4.13. The tomato production is sent to
these markets packed in wooden boxes and each box
contains 30 kgs of tomato. The average overall marketing
cost of a single box is Rs. 148.25 and average marketing
cost of per kg. is Rs.4.94.
The highest rate of marketing cost in up-country
market is incurred on transportation i.e. 46.00% followed by
packing material cost worth 33.73% is expended on
commission charges 12.61 %, on loading and unloading
charges 3.37%, on grading 1.69%, on weighing 1.55% and
miscellaneous 1.04%.
The total marketing cost increases due to the fact that
up-country market like Delhi and Ahemadabad are far away
from the production area and this fact causes additional
cost on transportation and other marketing cost.
A survey proves that the total production cost of
tomato is comparatively far more if the production is sent
through private purchase-sale sanghs than through co-
operative purchase-sale sangh.
4.13 Up-country Marketing Through Private Trade
Channels
4.13.1 Pune Market Centre for tomato (Rs. per kg)
Tomato production from Shirol, one of the sample
tahasils from study area, is sent for sale to up-country
market like Pune through private vegetable growers sanghs.
Table No. 4.14 represents details of marketing of tomato
through private trade channels.

204
 Table No. 4.14
Up-Country Marketing Through Private Trading Channels to Pune Market Centre For Tomato (Rs. Per Kg)

Sr. Year Total Retailer's Producer's Price Efficiency of (%) Producer's Shepherds formula
Marketing Selling Net Price Spread Marketing share in consumer of efficiency of
No
Cost Price (2-1) (1/ps X 100) Rupee (PNP/RSP X marketing (V/I – 1)
(2-3)
100)

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

1. 2002-2003 2.80 7.00 4.20 2.80 35.71 60.00 1.50

2. 2003-2004 2.90 8.40 5.50 2.90 34.48 65.48 1.90

3. 2004-2005 3.20 9.20 6.00 3.20 31.25 65.21 1.87

4. 2005-2006 3.60 11.00 7.40 3.60 27.78 67.27 2.05

5. 2006-2007 3.95 10.75 6.80 3.95 25.32 63.26 1.72

Total 16.45 46.35 29.9 16.45 154.54 321.22 9.04

Average 3.29 9.27 5.98 3.29 30.90 64.24 1.80

Source – Field Survey

205
 Tomato is sent to up-country market of Pune for sale
through private vegetable purchase-sale sanghs. A study of
marketing data for five years from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007
leads to the findings is shown in table No. 4.14
Total marketing cost of tomato per kg in Pune market
center for the five years was Rs.2.80, Rs. 2.90, Rs. 3.20, Rs.
3.60 and Rs. 3.95 respectively. Due to the increase in
transportation and commission charges, there is marginal
growth in market cost. The overall average marketing cost
per kg is Rs. 3.29.
The producer's net price for the five years of study
from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 was Rs. 4.20, Rs. 5.50, Rs.
6.00, Rs. 7.40 and 6.80 respectively. The average producer's
net price was Rs. 5.98.
The price spread for the five years of study was 35.71
%, 34.48 %, 31.25 %, 27.78 % and 25.32 % respectively. It
shows upstand decrease. The average price spread was
30.90 %. The maximum price spread was in the year 2002-
2003 then it decreased every year and reached 25.32 % in
the year 2006-2007. The decrease was less than the average
price spread.
The producer's share in consumer rupee for the study
period of five years was 60.00 %, 65.48 %, 65.21 %, 67.27%
and 63.26%. From the year 2002-2003, it continuously
increased and went upto 67.27% in 2005-2006 and
decreased 63.26% in 2006-2007.
The decrease is not considerable though. Due to the
increase in producer's share, the average producer's share
remained upto 64.24 per cent.
The Shepherd formula index is used to measure the
efficiency of marketing. For the study period of five years
from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 it was 1.50, 1.90, 1.87, 2.05
and 1.72 respectively. The average rate of efficiency of
marketing was 1.80. The maximum rate occurred in the
year 2005-2006 and minimum in 2002-2003 and it was less
than the average.

206
4.13.2 Up-country Marketing Through Private Trade
Channel in Mumbai Market Centre for tomato
(Rs. per kg)
The marketing condition of tomato production sent to
Mumbai market center for sale through private trade
marketing channels is shown in table No. 4.15 given below.

207
 Table No. 4.15
Up-Country Marketing Through Private Trade Channels to Mumbai Market Centre For Tomato (Rs. Per
Kg)

Sr. Year Total Retailer's Produc Price Efficiency of (%) Producer's Shepherds
Marketi Selling er's Spread Marketing (1/ps share in formula of
No
ng Cost Price Net (2-3) X 100) consumer Rupee efficiency of
Price (PNP/RSP X 100) marketing
(2-1) (V/I – 1)

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

1. 2002-2003 3.75 8.00 4.25 3.75 26.67 53.12 1.13

2. 2003-2004 3.85 9.20 5.35 3.85 25.97 58.15 1.39

3. 2004-2005 3.95 12.75 8.80 3.95 25.32 69.01 2.23

4. 2005-2006 4.10 12.00 7.90 4.10 24.39 65.83 1.93

5. 2006-2007 4.25 12.00 7.75 4.25 23.53 64.58 1.82

Total 19.90 53.95 34.05 19.90 125.88 310.69 8.50

Average 3.98 10.79 6.81 3.98 25.17 62.13 1.70

Source – Field Survey

208
 The total marketing cost for the five years of study
period from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 in Mumbai market
was Rs. 3.75, Rs. 3.85, Rs. 3.95, Rs. 4.10 and Rs. 4.25 per
kg. respectively. It shows slight increase. The average
increase was Rs. 3.98 per kg.
The price spread for the referred five year period was
26.67%, 25.97 %, 25.32%, 24.39 % and 23.53%
respectively. The average price spread was 25.17 per cent.
The maximum price spread appeared in the year 2002-2003
and minimum in 2006-2007.
The rate of producer's share in consumer rupee during
the five years of study from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 was
53.12%, 58.15 %, 69.01%, 65.83% and 64.58% per cent
respectively. The average producer's share was 62.13 per
cent. In the year 2002-2003, it was comparatively less and
in 2004-2005 comparatively more. However, there was no
significant change in producer's share.
The efficiency of marketing is measured with the help
of Shepherd formula. Accordingly the efficiency of marketing
for the five years was 1.13, 1.39, 2.23, 1.93 and 1.82
respectively. The average efficiency was 1.70. The minimum
efficiency was found in the year 2002-2003 and maximum
in the year 2004-2005. In other remaining three years there
appeared to be a slight difference.
4.13.3 Up-country Marketing Through Private Trade
Channel in Nagpur Market Center for tomato (Rs.
per kg.)
Tomato marketing data related to Nagpur up-country
market in connection with production sent there for sale is
presented in table No. 4.16.

209
 Table No. 4.16
Up-Country Marketing Through Private Trade Channels to Nagpur Market Centre For Tomato (Rs. Per Kg)

Sr. Year Total Retailer's Produ Price Efficiency of (%) Producer's Shepherds
No Market Selling cer's Spread Marketing (1/ps share in formula of
ing Price Net (2-3) X 100) consumer Rupee efficiency of
Cost Price (PNP/RSP X marketing
(2-1) 100) (V/I – 1)

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

1. 2002-2003 4.20 8.50 4.30 4.20 2381 50.59 1.02

2. 2003-2004 4.75 8.80 4.05 4.75 21.05 46.02 0.85

3. 2004-2005 4.80 12.40 7.60 4.80 20.83 61.29 1.58

4. 2005-2006 4.90 11.50 6.60 4.90 20.40 57.39 1.35

5. 2006-2007 4.90 11.50 6.60 4.90 20.40 57.39 1.35

Total 23.55 52.70 23.55 23.55 106.49 272.68 6.15

Average 4.71 10.54 10.54 4.71 21.29 54.53 1.23

Source – Field Survey

210
 Table No. 4.16 represents data regarding tomato
production sent for sale to Nagpur up-country market
through private channels. It gives details regarding tomato
marketing there for the five years from 2002-2003 to 2006-
2007.
The total marketing cost for tomato per kg in Nagpur
market center for the five years (2002-2003 to 2006-2007)
was Rs. 4.20, Rs. 4.75, Rs. 4.80, Rs. 4.90 and 4.90
respectively. There was no considerable change in
marketing cost and the average marketing cost was Rs.
4.71.
The price spread per kg for the referred five years was
23.81%, 21.05%, 20.83%, 20.40% and 20.40 respectively.
The average price spread was 21.29 per cent. There was no
considerable change in the total marketing cost. Therefore
the price spread remained almost the same.
The producer's share in consumer rupee for the
referred five years of study was 50.59%, 46.02%, 61.29%,
53.39% and 57.39 respectively. Its average was 54.53 per
cent. The maximum rate of producer's share in consumer
rupee occurred in 2004-2005 and minimum in the year
2003-2004.
The efficiency of marketing for the referred period of
five years was 1.02, 0.85, 1.58, 1.35 and 1.35 respectively.
The maximum efficiency of marketing was in the year 2004-
2005 and minimum in the year 2003-2004. The overall
average of efficiency of marketing during these five years
was 1.23.
4.13.4 Up-country Marketing Through Private Trade
Channels in Ahemadabad Market Center for
tomato (Rs. per kg.)
Up-country marketing through private trade channels
in Ahemadabad market is shown in table No. 4.17.

211
 Table No. 4.17
Up-Country Marketing Through Private Trade Channels to Ahemadabad Market Centre For
Tomato (Rs. Per Kg)
Sr. Year Total Retailer's Produc Price Efficiency of (%) Producer's Shepherds formula
Marketi Selling er's Spread Marketing (1/ps share in of efficiency of
No
ng Cost Price Net X 100) consumer Rupee marketing (V/I – 1)
(2-3)
Price (PNP/RSP X 100)
(2-1)

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

1. 2002-2003 4.75 8.75 4.00 4.75 21.05 45.71 0.84

2. 2003-2004 4.80 10.50 5.70 4.80 20.83 54.29 1.18

3. 2004-2005 4.90 14.00 9.10 4.90 20.40 65.00 1.86

4. 2005-2006 4.90 10.50 5.60 4.90 20.40 53.33 1.14

5. 2006-2007 5.00 13.00 8.00 5.00 20.00 61.54 1.60

Total 24.35 56.75 32.40 24.35 102.68 279.87 6.62

Average 4.87 11.35 6.48 4.87 20.53 55.97 1.32

Source – Field Survey

212
 Tomato production is sent to up-country market in
Ahemadabad for sale through private trade channels. The
tomato marketing data for the period of five years from
2002-2003 to 2006-2007 is analyzed here.
The total marketing cost of tomato per kg for the
referred period of five years was Rs. 4.75, Rs. 4.80, Rs. 4.90,
Rs. 4.90 and Rs. 5.00 respectively. The minimum marketing
cost appeared in 2002-2003 and maximum in 2006-2007.
There was no noticeable change in the total marketing cost.
The average marketing cost was Rs. 4.87.
The price spread for the referred period of five years
from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 was 21.05%, 20.83%,
20.40%, 20.40 % and 20.00 % respectively. Its average was
20.53. It remained constant during these five years and it
came close to the average.
The producer's share in consumer rupee for the
referred period of five years was 45.71%, 54.29%, 65.00%,
53.33 % and 61.54 % respectively. The average producer's
share was 55.97 per cent. The maximum producer's share
occurred in the year 2004-2005 and minimum in 2002-
2003. There appeared to be considerable change in the
producer's share.
The efficiency of marketing is measured with the
Shepherd formula. Accordingly the efficiency of marketing of
the concerned five years was 0.84, 1.18, 1.86, 1.14 and 1.60
respectively. Its average per kg was 1.32. There was
minimum efficiency of marketing in the year 2002-2003. It
further increased upto 1.86 in 2004-2005 and proved to be
the highest.
4.13.5 Up-country Marketing Through Private Trade
Channels in Delhi Market Center for tomato (Rs.
per kg.)
Details regarding tomato marketing in up-country
market of Delhi are given in table No. 4.18.

213
 Table No. 4.18
Up-Country Marketing Through Private Trade Channels to Delhi Market Centre For Tomato (Rs. Per Kg)

Sr. Year Total Retailer's Produc Price Efficiency of (%) Producer's Shepherds
No Marketi Selling er's Spread Marketing (1/ps share in formula of
ng Cost Price Net X 100) Consumer Rupee efficiency of
(2-3)
Price (PNP/RSP X 100) marketing
(2-1) (V/I – 1)

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

1. 2002-2003 5.90 10.50 4.60 5.90 16.95 43.81 0.77

2. 2003-2004 6.50 12.00 5.50 6.50 15.38 45.83 0.84

3. 2004-2005 6.75 14.50 7.75 6.75 14.82 53.45 1.14

4. 2005-2006 6.85 14.10 7.25 6.85 14.60 51.42 1.05

5. 2006-2007 6.90 13.50 6.60 6.90 14.50 48.89 0.95

Total 32.90 64.60 31.70 32.90 76.25 243.40 4.75

Average 6.58 12.92 6.34 6.58 15.25 48.68 0.95

Source – Field Survey

214
 Delhi up-country market is for away from the study
area and the production area. However, the surplus
production of tomato is sent for sale to Delhi up-country
market. The details regarding tomato marketing in Delhi for
the period of five years from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 were
studied and analyzed.
The total marketing cost of tomato per kg for the
concerned period of five years from 2002-2003 to 2006-
2007 was Rs. 5.90, Rs. 6.50, Rs. 6.75, Rs. 6.85 and Rs.
6.90 respectively. The average marketing cost per kg was
Rs. 6.58. Due to high rates of transportation, commission
and other charges in Delhi market center, there was
constant increase in the total marketing cost of tomato per
kg and per year. The year 2002-2003 shows minimum
marketing cost and 2006-2007 gives maximum marketing
cost.
The price spread during the study span of 5 years from
2002-2003 to 2006-2007 was 16.95%, 15.38%, 14.82%,
14.60% and 14.50 per cent. The average price spread was
15.25 per cent. Comparatively the highest price spread was
in 2002-2003 and the lowest in 2006-2007. There was no
significant change in the price spread.
The producer's share in consumer rupee for the
referred period of five years was 43.81%, 45.83%, 53.45%,
51.42% and 48.89 per cent respectively. The average
producer's share was 48.68 per cent. The maximum
producer's share occurred in the year 2004-2005 and
minimum in 2002-2003. There was significant change in
producer's share.
The efficiency of marketing was measured with the
Shepherd formula index. Accordingly the efficiency of
marketing for the concerned five years was 0.77, 0.84, 1.14,
1.05 and 0.95 respectively. The average efficiency was 0.95.
The maximum rate of efficiency accrued in the year 2004-
2005 and minimum in the year 2003-3004. In the
remaining three years 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2006-
2007, the efficiency of marketing remained normal.
Finally, the up-country market of Delhi is far away
from the respondent tomato grower. As a result, the
transportation, commission and other changes are heavy

215
and they force increase in total marketing cost of tomato per
kg. The study shows that the overall efficiency of marketing
is low.
4.14 Average comparative study of tomato marketing
through private trade channels. (2002-2003 to
2006-2007)
An average comparative study of up-country different
marketing centers through private trade channels of tomato
is shown in table No. 4.19.

216
 Table No. 4.19
Average Comparative Study Of Up-Country Different Marketing Centers Through Private
Trade Channels Of Tomato In 2002-2003 To 2006-2007)
Sr. Name of Up- Total Average Average Averag Average Average Producer's Shepherds
country average Retailer's Producer's e Price Efficiency of share in Consumer formula of
No
Market Marketin Selling Net Price Spread Marketing (1/ps Rupee (PNP/RSP X efficiency of
g Cost Price (2-1) X 100) 100) marketing
(2-3)
(V/I – 1)

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

1. Pune 3.29 9.27 5.98 3.29 30.90 64.24 1.80

2. Mumbai 3.98 10.79 6.81 3.98 25.17 62.13 1.70

3. Nagpur 4.71 10.54 10.54 4.71 21.29 54.53 1.23

4. Ahemadabad 4.87 11.35 6.48 4.87 20.53 55.97 1.32

5. Delhi 6.58 12.92 6.34 6.58 15.25 48.68 0.95

Source – Field Survey

217
 The sample tomato producers from the study area
send their surplus tomato production, to market in Pune,
Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahemadabad and Delhi for sale, through
private trade channels. The marketing cost, price spread
and efficiency of marketing etc. from these markets were
undertaken for study. The study indicates growth in their
average in the five years from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007.
This average is shown in table No. 4.19. Their observation
leads to certain inferences.
The average marketing cost of tomato per kg in the
private trade channels to Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur,
Ahemadabad and Delhi market center was Rs. 3.29, Rs.
3.98, Rs. 4.71, Rs. 4.87 and Rs. 6.58 respectively.
Compared to other market centers, the average marketing
cost of Delhi center is high, Pune and Mumbai centers have
the lowest marketing cost.
The average of price spread in Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur,
Ahemadabad and Delhi market centers was drawn. This
average price spread for the five years (2002-2003 to 2006-
2007) was 3.90%, 25.17%, 21.29%, 20.53% and 15.25%
respectively. Compared to other centers, maximum price
spread was found in Pune market center and the minimum
in Delhi market center.
The average producer's share in consumer rupee from
the market centers of Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahemadabad
and Delhi was 64.24%, 62.13%, 54.53%, 55.17% and 48.68
per cent respectively. The Pune market center showed
comparatively more producer's share in consumer rupee
followed by Mumbai center. The minimum producer's share
in consumer rupee was found in Delhi market center.
The average efficiency of marketing from market
centers of Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahemadabad and Delhi
was 1.80, 1.70, 1.23, 1.32 and 0.95 respectively. The Pune
market center had comparatively higher efficiency of
marketing followed by Mumbai, Ahemadabad, Delhi market
center had lowest efficiency of marketing, and it was due to
the fact that this center had high marketing cost. The above
observations are based on the keen study of the factual
data.

218
4.15 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DIFFERENT MARKET
CENTERS
4.15.1 Comparative Study of Different Market Centers
and Marketing Channels of Tomato in 2002-03-
A comparative study of different marketing centers and
marketing channels of tomato is shown in the following
table No. 4.20.

219
 Table No. 4.20
Comparative Study Of Market Centers Through Different Channels Of Tomato In 2002-
2003
Sr Up-country Name of Total Retaile'r Produc Price Efficiency (%) Producer's Shepherds
No market center the marketi selling er's net spreads of share in formula of
channel ng cost price price (4-5) marketing consumers efficiency of
(4-3) (1/PS* rupee marketing
100) (PNP/Rsp*100) (V/I-1)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Pune Private 2.80 7.00 4.20 2.80 35.71 60.00 1.50

2. Pune Co-op. 2.75 7.50 4.75 2.75 36.36 63.33 1.73

3. Mumbai Private 3.75 8.00 4.25 3.75 26.67 53.12 1.13

4. Mumbai Co-op. 3.50 8.50 5.00 3.50 28.58 58.82 1.42

5. Nagpur Private 4.20 8.50 4.30 4.20 23.81 50.59 1.02

6. Nagpur Co-op. 3.90 8.70 4.80 3.90 25.64 55.17 1.23

7. Ahemadabad Private 4.75 8.75 4.00 4.75 21.05 45.72 0.84

8. Ahemadabad Co-op. 4.40 8.90 4.50 4.40 22.73 50.56 1.02

9. Delhi Private 5.90 10.50 4.60 5.90 16.95 43.81 0.77

10. Delhi Co-op. 5.80 11.00 5.20 5.80 17.24 47.21 0.90

Source – Field Survey.

220
 In the table No. 4.20, a comparative study of co-
operative and private channels of marketing is done with
reference to market centers of Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur,
Ahemadabad and Delhi in specific context of the year 2002-
2003. This study includes total marketing cost per kg, price
spread, producer's share in consumer rupee and efficiency
of marketing etc. in the concerned market centers.
In the private trade channels and co-operative channel
from the concerned market centers, the total marketing cost
of tomato per kg for the year 2002-2003 was Rs. 2.80, Rs.
3.75, Rs. 4.20, Rs. 4.75, Rs. 5.90 and Rs. 2.75, Rs. 3.50,
Rs. 3.90, Rs. 4.40, Rs. 5.80. It is observed that the total
marketing cost in both the channels is increasing. However,
the total marketing cost of tomato per kg in private trade
channels is more than that of co-operative channel-
compared to other market centers the total marketing cost
of tomato per kg in both the channels of Delhi market
center was high.
The price spread in both the channels of all the
concerned market centers was keenly studied and analysed.
Accordingly the price spread in private trade channel and
co-operative channel was 35.71 %, 26.69%, 23.81%,
21.05%, 16.95% and 36.36%, 28.58%, 25.64%, 22.73%,
17.24 per cent respectively. Compared to other market
centers, the price spread in Pune market center was high,
whereas Delhi market center had minimum of price spread.
Tomato producer's share in consumer rupee in private
trade channels and co-operative channel was 60.00 %,
53.12%, 50.59%, 45.71%, 43.81% and 66.33%, 58.82%,
55.17%, 50.56%, 47.21 per cent respectively. If compared
with each other the producer's share in consumer rupee for
tomato production sold through co-operative channel was
more.
The efficiency of marketing in all the concerned market
centers and both marketing channels for the year 2002-
2003 was measured with Shepherd formula. The efficiency
of marketing in private trade channels and co-operative
channel was 1.50, 1.13, 1.02, 0.84, 0.77 and 1.73, 1.42,
1.23, 1.02, 0.90. Comparatively the efficiency of marketing
in co-operative channel was more than that of private trade

221
channels. In comparison with other market centers,
efficiency of marketing in Ahemadabad and Delhi centers
from both the channels was considerably low. Due to the
fact that Delhi market is far away from the respondent's
production area there was increase in total marketing cost
which in turn caused decline in efficiency of marketing.
4.15.2 Comparative Study of Different Market Centers
and Marketing Channels of Tomato in 2003-04.
A comparative study of different marketing centers and
marketing channels of tomato is shown in the following
table No. 4.21.

222
 Table No. 4.21
Comparative Study Of Market Centers Through Different Channels Of Tomato In 2003-
2004
Sr Up-country Name of Total Retailer's Produ Price Efficiency (%) producer's Shepherds
No market center the marketi selling cer's spreads of share in formula of
channel ng cost price net (4-5) marketing consumers efficiency of
price (I/PS* 100) rupee marketing
(4-3) (PNP/Rsp*100) (V/I-1)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Pune Private 2.90 8.40 5.50 2.90 34.48 65.48 1.90

2. Pune Co-op. 2.90 8.50 5.60 2.90 34.48 65.89 1.93

3. Mumbai Private 3.85 9.20 5.35 3.85 25.97 58.15 1.39

4. Mumbai Co-op. 3.80 9.30 5.50 3.80 26.31 59.13 1.45

5. Nagpur Private 4.75 8.80 4.05 4.75 21.05 46.02 0.85

6. Nagpur Co-op. 4.50 9.00 4.50 4.50 22.22 50.00 1.00

7. Ahemadabad Private 4.80 10.50 5.70 4.80 20.83 54.29 1.18

8. Ahemadabad Co-op. 4.60 11.20 6.60 4.60 21.74 58.92 1.43

9. Delhi Private 6.50 12.00 5.50 6.50 15.38 45.83 0.84

10. Delhi Co-op. 6.40 12.50 6.10 6.40 15.63 48.80 0.95

Source – Field Survey.

223
 The efficiency of marketing from centers like Pune,
Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahemadabad and Delhi for the year 2003-
2004 is analyzed in table No. 4.21. This analysis is based on
tomato marketing done through private trade channels and
co-operative trade channel.
Total marketing cost of tomato per kg in private trade
channel and co-operative channel from all the concerned
market centers for the year 2003-2004 was Rs. 2.90, Rs.
3.85, Rs. 4.75, Rs. 4.80, Rs. 6.50 and Rs. 2.90, Rs. 3.80,
Rs. 4.50, Rs. 4.60, Rs. 6.40 respectively. Co-operative trade
channel had more rate of total marketing cost per kg than
that of private trade channels. Pune market center had the
minimum of total marketing cost whereas Delhi center had
the maximum.
Price spread of private trade channels and co-operative
channel was measured. It was 34.48%, 25.97%, 21.05%,
20.83%, 15.38 per cent and 34.48%, 26.31%, 22.22%,
21.74%, 15.63 per cent respectively. There was no
significant difference between the two channels.
The share in consumer's rupee of private and co-
operative trade channel from all the concerned market
centers for the year 2003-2004 was 65.48%, 58.15%,
46.02%, 54.29%, 45.83 per cent and 65.89%, 59.13%,
50.00%, 58.92%, 48.80 per cent respectively. Comparatively
the producer's share in consumer rupee in both the rate
channels from Pune market center was the highest, followed
by Mumbai market center.
Efficiency of marketing indexes of private and co-
operative trade channels was 1.90, 1.39, 0.85, 1.18, 0.84
and 1.93, 1.45, 1.00, 1.43 and 0.95 respectively.
Comparatively the efficiency of marketing in co-operative
trade channel was more than that of private trade channels.
In Delhi market, in both the channels the efficiency was low.
It was satisfactory in Ahemadabad market center.
4.15.3 Comparative Study of Different Market Centers
and Market Channels of Tomato in 2004-2005
A comparative study of different marketing centers and
marketing channels of tomato producer is shown in table
No. 4.22.

224
 Table No. 4.22
Comparative Study Of Market Centers Through Different Channels Of Tomato In 2004-
2005
Sr Up-country Name of Total Retailer's Produc Price Efficiency (%) producer's Shepherds
No market center the marketi selling er's net spreads of share in formula of
channel ng cost price price (4-5) marketing consumers efficiency of
(4-3) (I/PS* 100) rupee marketing
(PNP/Rsp*100) (V/I-1)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Pune Private 3.20 9.20 6.00 3.20 31.25 65.21 1.87

2. Pune Co-op. 3.10 9.40 6.30 3.10 32.25 67.02 2.03

3. Mumbai Private 3.95 12.75 8.80 3.95 25.32 69.01 2.23

4. Mumbai Co-op. 3.90 13.00 9.10 3.90 25.64 70.00 2.33

5. Nagpur Private 4.80 12.40 7.60 4.80 20.83 61.29 1.58

6. Nagpur Co-op. 4.60 13.00 8.40 4.60 21.74 64.62 1.83

7. Ahemadabad Private 4.90 14.00 9.10 4.90 20.40 65.00 1.86

8. Ahemadabad Co-op. 4.70 14.20 9.50 4.70 21.27 66.90 2.02

9. Delhi Private 6.75 14.50 7.75 6.75 14.82 53.45 1.14

10. Delhi Co-op. 6.50 15.00 8.50 6.50 15.38 56.67 1.30

Source – Field Survey.

225
 The total marketing cost per kg in private and co-
operative trade channels from all the market centers for the
year 2004-2005 was Rs. 3.20, Rs. 3.95, Rs. 4.80, Rs. 4.90,
Rs. 6.75 and Rs. 3.10, Rs. 3.90, Rs. 4.60, Rs. 4.70, Rs. 6.50
respectively. It has been observed that there was slight
increase in total marketing cost in both the channels from
all the market centers. Compared to other centers Delhi had
a bit more total marketing cost.
It is observed that the price spread in both the
channels private and co-operative, was 31.25%, 25.32%,
20.83%, 20.40%, 14.82% and 32.25%, 25.64%, 21.74%,
21.27%, 15.38 per cent.
Producer's share in consumer rupee indicates as how
much returns the tomato producer received. In the year
2004-2005, the producer's share in consumer rupee from
both private and co-operative trade channel was 65.21%,
69.01%, 61.29%, 65.00%, 53.45 per cent and 67.02%,
70.00%, 64.62%, 66.90%, 56.67 per cent. The rate of
producer's share in both the channels from Mumbai market
center was the highest followed by Pune, Nagpur and
Ahemadabad.
The efficiency of marketing from both private and co-
operative channel in all the concerned market centers was
measured with Shepherd formula index. Accordingly the
efficiency of marketing of private trade channels was 1.87,
2.23, 1.58, 1.86, 1.14. From co-operative channel it was
2.03, 2.33, 1.83, 2.02, 1.30. Mumbai center stands high in
respect of efficiency from both channels, followed by Pune
center.
Producer's share in consumer rupee and efficiency of
marketing index from all the market centers in the year
2004-2005 was quite good.
4.15.4 Comparative Study of Different Market Centers
and Marketing Channels of Tomato Production
in 2005-2006
A comparative study of different market centers and
marketing channels of tomato production is shown in table
No. 4.23.

226
 Table No. 4.23
Comparative Study Of Market Centers Through Different Channels Of Tomato In 2005-
2006
Sr Up-country Name of Total Retailer's Produc Price Efficiency (%) producer's Shepherds
No market center the marketi selling er's net spreads of share in formula of
channel ng cost price price (4-5) marketing consumers efficiency of
(4-3) (I/PS* 100) rupee marketing
(PNP/Rsp*100) (V/I-1)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Pune Private 3.60 11.00 7.40 3.60 27.78 67.27 2.05

2. Pune Co-op. 3.50 11.25 7.75 3.50 28.57 68.88 2.21

3. Mumbai Private 4.10 12.00 7.90 4.10 24.39 65.83 1.93

4. Mumbai Co-op. 4.00 12.50 8.50 4.00 25.00 68.00 2.12

5. Nagpur Private 4.90 11.50 6.60 4.90 20.40 57.39 1.35

6. Nagpur Co-op. 4.65 11.00 6.35 4.65 21.50 57.75 1.37

7. Ahemadabad Private 4.90 10.50 5.60 4.90 20.40 53.33 1.14

8. Ahemadabad Co-op. 4.50 11.00 6.50 4.50 22.22 59.09 1.44

9. Delhi Private 6.85 14.10 7.25 6.85 14.60 51.41 1.05

10. Delhi Co-op. 6.80 14.40 7.60 6.80 14.70 52.78 1.11

Source – Field Survey.

227
 Table No. 4.23 presents details regarding price spread,
producer's share and marketing efficiency index in cost of
both private and co-operative trade channesl from all the
market centers namely Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahmedabad
and Delhi.
Total marketing cost per kg in private trade channels
from all the market centers was Rs. 3.60, Rs. 4.10, Rs. 4.90,
Rs. 4.90, Rs. 6.85. Total marketing cost per kg. of co-
operative channel was Rs. 3.50, Rs. 4.00, Rs. 4.65, Rs. 4.50,
Rs. 6.80. The total marketing cost per kg. of co-operative
channel was less than that of private channels. Compared
to each other Pune center has low marketing cost per kg
from both the channels. Delhi center has highest marketing
cost.
The price spread in all the market centers for the year
2005-2006 was calculated. It showed that price spread in
private trade channels was 27.78%, 24.39%, 20.40%,
20.40%, 14.60 per cent; and in co-operative channel it was
28.57%, 25.00%, 21.50%, 22.22%, 14.70 per cent. There
was no significant difference in the price spread of private
and co-operative channels during the year 2005-2006.
The producer's share in consumer rupee from private
trade channel in all the market centers in the year 2005-
2006 was 67.27%, 65.83%, 57.39%, 53.33%, 51.41 per
cent. In co-operative channel, it was 68.88%, 68.00%,
57.75%, 59.09%, 52.78 per cent. The overall producer's
share in both the channels of all the market centers during
the year was good enough.
The efficiency of marketing index of private trade
channels from all the market centers in the year 2005-2006
was 2.05, 1.93, 1.35, 1.14, 1.05 and of co-operative channel
was 2.21, 2.12, 1.37, 1.44, 1.11. The highest efficiency of
marketing from both the channels was found in Pune and
Mumbai centers. From observational study, it is known that
the overall efficiency of marketing in both the channels from
all the market centers in the year was satisfactory.

228
4.15.5 Comparative Study of Different Market Centers
and Marketing Channels of Tomato Production
in 2006-2007
A comparative study of different market centers and
marketing channels of tomato production is shown in table
No. 4.24.

229
 Table No. 4.24
Comparative Study Of Market Centers Through Different Channels Of Tomato In 2006-2007
Sr Up-country Name of Total Retailer's Produc Price Efficiency (%) producer's Shepherds
No market center the marketi selling er's net spreads of share in formula of
channel ng cost price price (4-5) marketing consumers efficiency of
(4-3) (I/PS* 100) rupee marketing
(PNP/Rsp*100) (V/I-1)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Pune Private 3.95 10.75 6.80 3.95 25.32 63.26 1.72

2. Pune Co-op. 3.80 10.85 7.05 3.80 26.31 64.98 1.85

3. Mumbai Private 4.25 12.00 7.25 4.25 23.53 64.58 1.82

4. Mumbai Co-op. 4.25 12.25 8.00 4.25 23.53 65.30 1.88

5. Nagpur Private 4.90 11.50 6.60 4.90 20.40 57.39 1.35

6. Nagpur Co-op. 4.70 12.00 7.30 4.70 21.28 60.84 1.55

7. Ahemadabad Private 5.00 13.00 8.00 5.00 20.00 61.54 1.60

8. Ahemadabad Co-op. 4.80 13.50 8.70 4.80 20.83 65.03 1.81

9. Delhi Private 6.90 13.50 6.60 6.90 14.90 48.89 0.95

10. Delhi Co-op. 6.90 14.20 7.30 6.90 14.49 51.40 1.05

Source – Field Survey.

230
 Table No. 4.24 gives a comparative study of cost of
marketing, price spread, producer's share in consumer
rupee and efficiency of marketing of tomato product per kg
in Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahmedabad and Delhi market
centers were analyzed in the year 2006-2007 with the help
of private trade channels and co-operative channel.
The total marketing cost of tomato per kg in private
trade channels from all the market centers in the year
2006-2007 was Rs. 3.95, Rs. 4.25, Rs. 4.90, Rs. 5.00, Rs.
6.90 and in co-operative channel it was Rs. 3.80, Rs. 4.25,
Rs. 4.70, Rs. 4.80, Rs. 6.40. Delhi market showed highest of
total marketing cost per kg in both the trade channels.
The price spread in private trade channels from all the
market centers was 25.32%, 23.53%, 20.40%, 20.00%,
14.90 per cent. From co-operative trade channel the price
spread was 26.31%, 23.53%, 21.28%, 20.83%, 14.49 per
cent. The price spread from both the private and co-
operative channels was almost the same.
Producer's share in consumer rupee in private trade
channel in the year 2006-2007 was 63.26%, 64.56%,
57.39%, 61.54%, 48.89 per cent, and in co-operative
channel it was 64.98%, 65.30%, 60.84%, 65.03%, 51.40 per
cent. The producer's share from both the channels in all
concerned market centers was good enough. But
comparatively the producer's share in co-operative channel
was found more.
Efficiency of marketing was measured with Shepherds
formula. According to it, efficiency index in private trade
channels in all the market centers in the year 2006-2007
was 1.72, 1.82, 1.35, 1.60, 0.95 and in co-operative channel
it was 1.85, 1.88, 1.55, 1.81, 1.05.
Comparatively the co-operative channel had high
efficiency index. Compared to other market centers Delhi
center showed the poor efficiency of marketing index from
both the trade channels.
4.16 Conclusion
Marketing cost, price spread, producer's share and
efficiency of marketing index was measured with the help of
data collected from Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahemadabad

231
and Delhi market centers for the span of five years from
2002-2003 to 2006-2007. The study was based on
marketing done through private trade channels and co-
operative trade channel.
It clarifies that the total marketing cost per kg was low
in Pune and Mumbai market centers. Nagpur and
Ahemadabad had slightly better and on the contrary, Delhi
center had considerably more marketing cost from both the
trade channels. This growth in Delhi center was due to high
transportation cost, commission charges, loading-unloading
charges, packing cost etc. As a result, producer's share in
consumer rupee and efficiency of marketing index are very
low in that center. But during the season time all tomato
growers have their production simultaneously and thus it
becomes excess. Having no alternative, this excess tomato
production is sent to Delhi market center for sale through
private and co-operative trade channels.

232
References

1) Acharya S.S., Agarwal N. L. (2008) ‘Agricultural

Marketing in India’, Fourth Edition, Oxford and IBH
Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, P.No.41.
2) Veerakumaran G. and Satheesh C.K. (Sept.-Dec. 2002),
‘Marketing of Fruits and Vegetables Through Co-
operatives – An Analysis of Consumer Behaviour’,
Indian Journal of Agricultural Marketing Volume 16 (2)
P.No.53.
3) Acharya S.S. and Agarwal N.L. (2008)
Opcit P.No.3
4) Acharya S. S. and Agarwal N.L. (2008)
Ibid P.No. 191
5) Mohaptra S. C. (Jan-April 1999), ‘Production and
Marketing of Onion in Bolangir District of Orrissa’
Indian Agricultural Marketing Volume XIII (1) 1999,
P.No. 43.
6) Dr. Jugale V. B. (2004), ‘Horticulture Economy of
Maharashtra’ Shruti Publications Jaipur, P. No. 68.

233