M PRA

Munich Personal RePEc Archive

An Analysis on Problems of Vegetables

Marketing in Farmers’ Market of
Jharkhand - A Case Study in Ranchi
District

Tara Shankar and K.M. Singh

DAY-NRLM, Patna (Bihar), DRPCAU, Pusa, Bihar, India

2016

Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/78721/
MPRA Paper No. 78721, posted 23 April 2017 05:48 UTC
An Analysis on Problems of Vegetables Marketing in Farmers’ Market of Jharkhand
- A Case Study in Ranchi District
Tara Shankar1 and K. M. Singh2,

Abstract
The green revolution is one of the greatest successes that the country has observed and resultantly
achieved self-sufficiency and a good degree of stability in food grain production. However, the
country still faces the challenges of comprehensive food security and malnutrition, Thus,
vegetables will play an important role by contributing adequate vitamins, carbohydrates, minerals,
fibres etc. but it is a known fact that horticulture sector in India is constrained by low crop
productivity, limited irrigation facilities and underdeveloped infrastructure support like cold
storages, markets, roads, transportation facilities etc. There are heavy post-harvest and handling
losses, resulting in low productivity per unit area and high cost of production. Analysis shows,
there is an inverse relation between the farm size of the respondents and their overall problems of
marketing vegetables in farmers’ market. It could be noted that higher their farm size, lower their
overall problems of marketing vegetables in farmers’ market and the vice versa. It is noted that
there is an inverse relation between the caste status of the respondents and their overall
problems of marketing vegetables in farmers’ market.
Key words: Vegetables productivity, farm size, marketing costs, marketing problems.

1
Agriculture and NRM Expert, SLACC project, Lead technical support agency(WOTR) on behalf
of MoRD (Govt of India), DAY-NRLM, Patna (Bihar)
E-mail: [email protected]
2
Director, Extension Education, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa (Bihar)
E-mail: [email protected]
Introduction:
Horticultural development had not been a priority until recent years in India. It was later in the post
1993 period that focused attention was given to horticulture development through an enhancement
of plan allocation and knowledge-based technology. All taken together, India’s share of the
world’s vegetable market is 17 per cent. Presently, the horticultural crops cover 13.6 million
hectares, i.e. roughly 7 per cent of the gross cropped area and contributes 18-20 per cent of the
gross value of India’s agricultural output. India is the second largest producer of fruits and
vegetables in the world next only to China and accounts for about 16% of the world’s production
of vegetables and 10% of world’s fruits production. But we are still lagging behind in actual
exports of these produce. For example, India produces 65 per cent and 11 per cent of world’s
mango and banana respectively, ranking first in the production of both the crops. Yet our exports
of the two crops are nearly negligible of the total agricultural exports from India. Vegetables are so
common in human diet that a meal without a vegetable is supposed to be incomplete in any part of
the world. India is the second largest producer of vegetables in the world, next to China. These
are grown in about 6 million hectares forming 3% of the total cropped area. Though the
vegetable requirement is 300g/day/person as recommended by dietician, we are able to meet about
1/9th of that requirement only. Therefore, a planned development in the field of vegetable
production will not only improve the nutritional requirement for masses but can also meet the
challenge of adequate food supply to the growing population in India. The limited cultivable area
can be best utilized for growing vegetables which are known to give higher yields per unit
area. Vegetable growing being labour intensive can substantially increase employment avenues too
with good returns to its producers, if cultivation and marketing will properly do. Our country is
gifted with a wide range of agro-climatic conditions which enables the production of vegetables
throughout the year in one part of the country or the other and then maintaining a continuous
supply of fresh vegetables. These off season vegetables are in great demand in home market as
well as in the neighboring Gulf countries.
It is to be noted here that crop production has now became a big business whereas marketing of
vegetable crops is quite complex and risky due to their perishable nature, seasonal production and
bulkiness. Thus, marketing of vegetables is one of the important aspects of agricultural business.
Jharkhand is a fast emerging vegetable growing state in India. The various factors like suitable
geo-physical condition of the state, increased area under vegetable cultivation, higher profitability
of vegetables etc. has been support to grow vegetables throughout the year. Potato, cauliflower,
tomato, brinjal, lady finger etc are grown throughout the year. The vegetables of the state are not
only catered to the demand of the consumers in the local market of Ranchi but also to the regional
and extra-regional markets.
Although the future of vegetable production in the Jharkhand seems very bright with the
adaptation of some of the techniques mentioned above, but the issues that hinder a smooth walk for
the adaptation of these techniques and also in realizing the full potential of the vegetable sector of
Jharkhand, are listed below. Some of these have also been elaborated upon for better
understanding:
1. Lack of professionalism and small land holding
2. Falling water levels and lack of irrigation facilities
3. Lack of market knowledge and marketing skills
4. Expensive credit
5. Poor infrastructure
6. Controlled prices
7. Many intermediaries who increase cost but do not add much value
8. Laws that stifle private investment
9. Inappropriate R&D- agriculture is a state subject, and most states have little funds to invest
in vegetable R&D.
Vegetables are an item of daily consumption, they are essential in human diet but they are very
perishable in nature. Therefore, the cultivation of vegetables is generally concentrated around
towns and cities, so that they can be harvested and transported to the market immediately and in
fresh form. With the increase in transport and communication facilities, vegetable cultivation has
spread in interior areas where irrigation facilities are available. This is because growing vegetable
crops is more profitable than any other seasonal crop particularly the food grain crop. The spread
of vegetable cultivation in rural areas has created new problems, particularly of transport,
handling, packing and storage which are still in their formative stage. There is also regional
specialization in growing some vegetables. They are grown in one area but marketed in other areas
for creating wider market and also to fulfill the demand of some people, who have liking for them.
This also involves long distance transport. For this purpose, good roads in the interior villages are
necessary. Fortunately there are good state and national highways, but there are no good roads in
the interior. This brings us to the problem of marketing of vegetables grown. The producer cannot
go to wholesale market or long distant market and he has to depend on some intermediaries to sell
his vegetables. Therefore, in the marketing of vegetables costs are involved for grading, packing,
transport, loading/unloading, fees, etc. In addition, the intermediaries also take some margins for
them. These costs and margins determine the final price to be paid by the consumer. After
deducting market costs and margins from the final price paid by the consumer, farmer gets his net
price, which is referred to “Farmer’s share in consumer’s price”. This determines efficiency of
marketing.
Methodology:
The study aims to analyze the problems of marketing vegetables in farmers’ markets of Ranchi
District. The sample consisted of farmers selected from three blocks of Ranchi namely, Kanke,
Bero and Mandar and from each block, 50 farmers are selected. Data was collected from them with
the help of well- structured interview schedule. The collected data were then classified and
tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis to arrive at logical conclusions. The primary data for
the study was collected in the year 2008-09 which was further updated with current data and then
analyzed.
The information collected on the constraints of marketing included, perishability of product,
season of production, bulkiness of products, quality variations in production, irregular supply, high
storage cost, transportation cost, damage cost, lack of cold storage place, intermediaries
exploitative practices, lack of proper grading, lack of proper quality control, low exports, freight
charges, long marketing channel, inadequate post-harvest care, primitive method of selling and
price fixation, packing of products, monopoly of middleman, packing and loading problems,
delayed payment to growers, high carriage and other handling charges, long travel distances for
market access, advanced sales agreement and exploitation of growers by market forces.
Results and Discussion:
Out of the total chosen 25 constraints as mentioned in the section above, the respondents rated first
order constraint of marketing vegetables in farmers’ market in terms of damage cost as it secures
mean score 4.21 on a 5 point rating scale. This is the highest level problem of marketing
vegetables in farmers’ market. The respondents rate second order constraint in terms of
intermediaries exploitative practices as it secures mean score 4.08 on a 5 point rating scale. The
perishability problem of products is rated at third order priority as it secures mean score 4.05 on a
5 point rating scale. The respondents refer fourth order constraint towards transportation cost as it
secures mean score 4.02 on a 5 point rating scale. The respondents ranked the fifth order constraint
in the form of high storage cost as it secures mean score 4.00 on a 5 point rating scale.
The freight charges constraint is rated at sixth order constraint as per the perceptions of the
respondents. In this perception, the respondents secured a mean score 3.98 on a 5 point rating
scale. The respondents refer seventh order constraint with respect to lack of proper grading as it
secures mean score 3.96 on a 5 point rating scale. The constraint of high carriage and other
handling charges are rated at eighth order as per the respondent’s secured mean score 3.69 on a 5
point rating scale. The constraint of exploitation of growers by market is rated at ninth order as per
the respondents secured mean score 3.60 on a 5 point rating scale. The respondents cite tenth order
constraint in the form of lack of proper quality control as per the respondents secured mean score
3.56 on a 5 point rating scale.
The respondents rate eleventh order constraint in terms of long distance of market access as it
secures mean score 3.48 on a 5 point rating scale. The respondents rate twelfth order constraint in
terms of seasonal of production as it secures mean score 3.47 on a 5 point rating scale. The long
marketing channel constraint is rated at thirteenth order priority as it secures mean score 3.43 on a
5 point rating scale. The respondents refer fourteenth order constraint towards delaying payment as
it secures mean score 3.29 on a 5 point rating scale. The respondents rank the fifteenth order
constraint in the form of lack of cold storage place as it secures mean score 3.28 on a 5 point rating
scale. The advance sales agreement constraint is rated at sixteenth order constraint as per the
perceptions of the respondents. In this perception, the respondents secured a mean score 3.16 on a
5 point rating scale. The respondents refer seventeenth order constraint with respect to inadequate
post-harvest care as it secures mean score 3.10 on a 5 point rating scale. The monopoly of
middleman constraint is rated at eighteenth order as per the respondents secured mean score 3.09
on a 5 point rating scale. The constraint of bulkiness of products is rated at nineteenth order as per
the respondents secured mean score 3.04 on a 5 point rating scale. The respondents cite twentieth
order constraint in the form of low exports as per the respondents secured mean score 3.00 on a 5
point rating scale.
The irregular supply of vegetables is rated at twenty first order constraint as per the perceptions of
the respondents. In this perception, the respondents secured a mean score 2.84 on a 5 point rating
scale. The respondents refer twenty second order constraint with respect to primitive method of
selling and price fixation as it secures mean score 2.68 on a 5 point rating scale. The packing and
loading constraints is rated at twenty third order as per the respondents secured mean score 2.42 on
a 5 point rating scale. The constraint of quality variation in production is rated at twenty fourth
order as per the respondents secured mean score 2.41 on a 5 point rating scale. The respondents
cite twenty fifth order constraint in the form of packing of products as per the respondents secured
mean score 2.22 on a 5 point rating scale.
A study of data in Table 1 indicates the area wise respondents’ constraints on marketing vegetables
in Farmers’ market in Ranchi District and the area wise analysis reveals the following facts. The
respondents of Kanke block take the first position with respect to their overall constraints of
marketing vegetables and fruits in farmers’ market as they secured a mean score 3.84 on a 5 point
Table 1: Area Wise Respondents’ Constraints on Marketing of Vegetables in Farmers
Market
Constraint Kanke Bero Mandar Total
1. Perishability of product 4.26 3.52 4.1 4.05
2. Seasonalization of production 4.11 2.88 3.96 3.47
3. Bulkiness of products 3.52 2.65 3.44 3.04
4. Quality variation in production 2.76 2.50 2.52 2.41
5. Irregular supply 3.46 3.11 3.52 2.84
6. High storage cost 4.15 4.05 4.05 4.00
7. Transportation cost 4.26 4.10 4.1 4.02
8. Damage cost 4.39 3.98 4.15 4.21
9. Lack of cold storage place 3.89 2.88 3.77 3.28
10. Intermediaries exploitative practices 4.25 3.86 4.1 4.08
11. Lack of proper grading 4.39 3.90 3.95 3.96
12. Lack of proper quality control 3.95 3.42 3.69 3.56
13. Low exports 2.69 3.60 2.52 3.00
14. Freight charges 4.35 3.71 4.1 3.98
15. Long marketing channel 4.22 3.25 3.76 3.43
16. Inadequate post-harvest care 3.79 2.52 3.52 3.10
17. Primitive method of selling and price fixation 3.66 2.11 2.52 2.68
18. Packing of products 2.41 2.26 2.16 2.22
19. Monopoly of middleman 3.31 2.42 3.15 3.09
20. Packing and loading constraints 2.69 2.56 2.6 2.42
21. Delay payment 3.52 3.4 2.25 3.29
22. High carriage and other handling charges 3.89 3.25 2.85 3.69
23. Long distance of market access 4.10 3.44 2.97 3.48
24. Advance sales agreement 4.05 2.77 2.52 3.16
 25. Exploitation of growers by market force 3.98 3.52 3.14 3.60
Total 3.84 3.11 3.34 3.36
Source: Computed
ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F F crit

Rows 28.72373 24 1.196822 12.72109 1.669456

Columns 7.161668 3 2.387223 25.37393 2.731807
Error 6.773882 72 0.094082
Total 42.65928 99

rating scale. The respondents of Mandar block rank the second position with respect to their
overall problems of marketing vegetables and fruits in farmers’ market as they secured a mean
score 3.34 on a 5 point rating scale. The respondents of Bero block hold the third position with
respect to their overall problems of marketing vegetables and fruits in farmers’ market as they
secured a mean score 3.11 on a 5 point rating scale. The ANOVA two ways model is applied for
further discussion. At one point, the computed ANOVA value is 12.72, which is greater than its
tabulated value at 5 per cent level of significance. Hence, there is a significant variation among the
chosen areas with respect to respondents’ overall constraints of marketing vegetables in farmers’
market. At another point, the computed ANOVA value is 25.37, which is greater than its tabulated
value at 5 per cent level of significance. Hence, variation among the attributes relating to
respondents’ overall constraints of marketing vegetables in farmers’ market is statistically
identified as significant.
A study of data in Table 2 indicates the farm size wise respondents’ problems of marketing
vegetables and fruits in farmers’ market. The marginal farmers take the first position with respect
to their overall problems of marketing vegetables and fruits in farmers’ market as they secured a
mean score 3.72 on a 5 point rating scale. The small farmers rank the second position
with respect to their overall constraints of marketing vegetables and fruits in farmers’ market as
they secured a mean score 3.54 on a 5 point rating scale. The medium farmers hold the third
position with respect to their overall constraints of marketing vegetables and fruits in farmers’
market as they secured a mean score 3.22 on a 5 point rating scale. The large farmers are pushed
down to the last position with respect to their overall constraints of marketing vegetables and
fruits in farmers’ market as they secured a mean score 2.97 on a 5 point rating scale.
The ANOVA two ways model is applied for further discussion. At one point, the computed
ANOVA value 4.02, greater than its tabulated value at 5 per cent level of significance. Hence,
there is a
Table 2: Farm size Wise Respondents’ Constraints of Marketing Fruits and Vegetables in
Farmers’ Market

Constraints Marginal Small Medium Large Total

Perishability of product 3.94 3.96 4.08 4.22 4.05
Seasonalization of production 2.95 2.89 3.94 4.09 3.47
Bulkiness of products 2.69 2.45 3.56 3.46 3.04
Quality variation in production 2.38 1.97 1.51 3.78 2.41
Irregular supply 2.66 1.74 3.48 3.48 2.84
High storage cost 3.77 4.08 4.17 3.98 4.00
Transportation cost 4.1 3.65 4.28 4.05 4.02
Damage cost 4.05 4.32 4.37 4.1 4.21
Lack of cold storage place 3.33 2.16 3.87 3.76 3.28
Intermediaries exploitative practices 3.97 4.05 4.22 4.08 4.08
Lack of proper grading 3.81 3.77 4.33 3.93 3.96
Lack of proper quality control 3.64 2.96 3.97 3.67 3.56
Low exports 2.89 2.86 3.71 2.54 3.00
Freight charges 3.89 3.58 4.33 4.12 3.98
Long marketing channel 3.52 2.22 4.21 3.77 3.43
Inadequate post-harvest care 2.1 2.99 3.54 3.77 3.1
Primitive method of selling and price fixation 1.6 2.87 2.6 3.65 2.68
Packing of products 1.87 2.32 1.26 3.43 2.22
Monopoly of middleman 2.81 3.05 3.17 3.33 3.09
Packing and loading constraints 2.2 2.11 1.66 3.71 2.42
Delay payment 2.18 3.79 3.75 3.44 3.29
High carriage and other handling charges 2.45 4.4 4.1 3.81 3.69
Long distance of market access 2.09 4.42 3.9 3.51 3.48
Advance sales agreement 2.4 3.81 2.62 3.81 3.16
Exploitation of growers by market force 2.9 4.1 3.81 3.59 3.6
Total 2.97 3.22 3.54 3.72 3.36
Source: Computed

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F F crit
Rows 31.1445 24 1.297687 4.022461 1.669456
Columns 8.419731 3 2.806577 8.699588 2.731807
 Error 23.22794 72 0.32261
Total 62.79217 99

significant variation among the chosen constraints of marketing vegetables in farmers’ market. At
another point, the computed ANOVA value is 8.69, which is greater than its tabulated value at 5
per cent level of significance. Hence, variation among the farm size groups is statistically
identified as significant with respect to their overall constraints of marketing vegetables and
fruits in farmers’ market.
A study of data in Table 3 indicates the caste wise respondents’ constraints of marketing
vegetables in farmers’ market. The scheduled tribe (ST) respondents take the first position with
respect to their overall constraints of marketing vegetables in farmers’ market as they secured a
mean score 3.87 on a 5 point rating scale. The most backward caste respondents rank the second
position with respect to their overall constraints of marketing vegetables in farmers’ market as
they secured a mean score 3.42 on a 5 point rating scale.
The backward caste respondents hold the third position with respect to their overall constraints of
marketing vegetables in farmers’ market as they secured a mean score 3.40 on a 5 point rating
scale. The forward caste respondents come to the last position with respect to their overall
constraints of marketing vegetables in farmers’ market as they secured a mean score 2.77 on a 5
point rating scale.
The ANOVA two ways model is applied for further discussion. At one point, the computed
ANOVA value 5.67, greater than its tabulated value at 5 per cent level of significance. Hence,
there is a significant variation among the chosen constraints of marketing vegetables in farmers’
market. At another point, the computed ANOVA value is 22.18, which is greater than its tabulated
value at 5 per cent level of significance. Hence, variation among the caste groups is statistically
identified as significant with respect to their overall constraints of marketing vegetables in farmers’
market. A study of data in Table 4 indicates the education wise respondents’ constraints of
marketing vegetables in farmers’ market. The primary level educated respondents take the first
position with respect to their overall constraints of marketing vegetables in farmers’ market as they
secured a mean score 3.75 on a 5 point rating scale. The secondary level educated respondents
rank the second position with respect to their overall problems of marketing vegetables in farmers’
market as they secured a mean score 3.64 on a 5 point rating scale. The higher secondary level
educated respondents hold the third position with respect to their overall problems of marketing
vegetables in farmers’ market as they secured a mean score 3.35 on a 5 point rating scale. The
degree level educated respondents come to the last position with respect to their overall problems
of marketing vegetables and fruits in farmers’ market as they secured a mean score 3.24 on a 5
point rating scale.
Table 3: Caste Wise Respondents’ Constraints of Marketing Fruits and Vegetables in
Farmers’ Market
Constraints FC BC MBC ST Total Caste
Perishability of product 3.96 4.08 3.94 4.22 4.05
Seasonalization of production 2.89 3.94 2.95 4.1 3.47
Bulkiness of products 2.45 3.46 2.69 3.56 3.04
Quality variation in production 1.97 1.51 2.38 3.78 2.41
Irregular supply 1.74 3.48 2.66 3.48 2.84
High storage cost 4.08 3.98 3.77 4.17 4.00
Transportation cost 3.65 4.05 4.1 4.28 4.02
Damage cost 4.32 4.1 4.05 4.37 4.21
Lack of cold storage place 2.16 3.76 3.33 3.87 3.28
Intermediaries exploitative practices 4.05 4.08 3.97 4.22 4.08
Lack of proper grading 3.77 3.93 3.81 4.33 3.96
Lack of proper quality control 2.96 3.67 3.64 3.97 3.56
Low exports 2.86 2.54 2.89 3.71 3.00
Freight charges 3.58 4.12 3.89 4.33 3.98
Long marketing channel 2.22 3.77 3.52 4.21 3.43
Inadequate post harvest care 2.1 3.54 2.99 3.77 3.1
Primitive method of selling and price fixation 1.6 2.6 2.87 3.65 2.68
Packing of products 1.87 1.26 2.32 3.43 2.22
Monopoly of middleman 2.81 3.17 3.05 3.33 3.09
Packing and loading constraints 2.2 1.66 2.11 3.71 2.42
Delay payment 2.18 3.75 3.79 3.44 3.29
High carriage and other handling charges 2.45 4.1 4.4 3.81 3.69
Long distance of market access 2.09 3.9 4.42 3.51 3.48
Advance sales agreement 2.4 2.62 3.81 3.81 3.16
Exploitation of growers by market force 2.9 3.81 4.1 3.59 3.6
Total 2.77 3.40 3.42 3.87 3.36
Source: Computed

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F F crit
Rows 31.14662 24 1.297776 5.678821 1.669456
Columns 15.2061 3 5.068701 22.17967 2.731807
Error 16.4541 72 0.228529
Total 62.80682 99

The ANOVA two ways model is applied for further discussion. At one point, the computed
ANOVA value 36.22, greater than its tabulated value at 5 per cent level of significance. Hence,
there is a significant variation among the chosen problems of marketing vegetables in farmers’
market. At another point, the computed ANOVA value is 48.95, which is greater than its tabulated
value at 5 per cent level of significance. Hence, variation among the education groups is
statistically identified as significant with respect to their overall problems of marketing
vegetables in farmers’ market of Ranchi district..
Table 4: Education Wise Respondents’ Perceptions on Problem s Health
Problems Primary Secondary Higher sec Degree Total
Perishability of product 4.45 4.12 4.05 3.72 4.05
Seasonalization of production 3.87 3.98 3.47 3.58 3.47
Bulkiness of products 3.44 3.56 3.04 3.16 3.04
Quality variation in production 2.81 2.76 2.41 2.36 2.41
Irregular supply 3.24 3.48 2.84 3.08 2.84
High storage cost 4.4 4.16 4.0 3.76 4.0
Transportation cost 4.42 4.22 4.02 3.82 4.02
Damage cost 4.41 4.31 4.01 3.91 4.21
Lack of cold storage place 3.68 3.84 3.28 3.44 3.28
Intermediaries exploitative practices 4.48 4.11 4.08 3.71 4.08
Lack of proper grading 4.36 4.21 3.96 3.81 3.96
Lack of proper quality control 3.96 3.97 3.56 3.57 3.56
Low exports 3.4 3.69 3 3.29 3
Freight charges 4.38 4.1 3.98 3.7 3.98
Long marketing channel 3.83 3.98 3.43 3.58 3.43
Inadequate post- harvest care 3.5 3.77 3.1 3.37 3.1
Primitive method of selling and price fixation 3.08 3.62 2.68 3.22 2.68
Packing of products 2.62 2.42 2.22 2.02 2.22
Monopoly of middleman 3.49 3.39 3.09 2.99 3.09
Packing and loading problems 2.82 2.69 2.42 2.29 2.42
Delay payment 3.69 3.11 3.29 2.71 3.29
High carriage and other handling charges 4.09 3.52 3.69 3.12 3.69
Long distance of market access 3.88 3.41 3.48 3.01 3.48
Advance sales agreement 3.56 3.1 3.16 2.7 3.16
Exploitation of growers by market force 4 3.51 3.6 3.11 3.6
Total 3.75 3.64 3.35 3.24 3.36
Source: Computed

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F F crit
Rows 25.57362 24 1.065567 36.22079 1.669456
Columns 4.320356 3 1.440119 48.95255 2.731807
Error 2.118144 72 0.029419
Total 32.01212 99

CONCLUSION
It is concluded that the respondents rate high level problems of marketing vegetables in farmers’
market with reference to damage cost, intermediaries exploitative practices, perishability of
product, transportation cost and high storage cost. The respondent’s rate moderate level problems
of marketing vegetables in farmers’ market with reference to freight charges, lack of proper
grading, high carriage and other handling charges, exploitation of growers by market force, lack of
proper quality control, long distance of market access, seasonal production, long marketing
channel, delay payment, lack of cold storage place, advance sales agreement, inadequate post-
harvest care, monopoly of middleman, bulkiness of products and low exports. The respondents
rate low level problems of marketing vegetables in farmers’ market with reference to irregular
supply, primitive method of selling and price fixation, packing and loading problems, quality
variation in production, packing of products. There is an inverse relation between the farm size of
the respondents and their overall problems of marketing vegetables and fruits in farmers’ market. It
could be noted that higher their farm size, lower their overall problems of marketing vegetables in
farmers’ market and the vice versa.
Thus, the existing system of marketing of vegetables output in Ranchi has not proved to be
adequate and efficient. Farmers are not able to sell their surplus produce remuneratively and there
are widespread distress sales, particularly by marginal and small farm households. The vegetable
markets suffer from some structural weaknesses, such as the existence of unorganized small
producers as against organized buyers, weak holding capacity of the small producers, and the
absence of any storage infrastructure. The system has undergone several changes during the last
five decades owing to increasing commercialization, increase in urbanization and the consequent
change in the pattern of demand for marketing services. More than 90 per cent of the vegetable
growers sell their produce in villages, mainly to itinerant traders, at much lower prices than the
procurement price of the respective agricultural commodities. There are very few procurement
centers and a majority of them do not operate regularly.
In view of the scale and objectives of vegetables growth envisaged in the coming years, the
problems afflicting the systems and structures of vegetable marketing have to be addressed on a
priority basis. This necessitates the following measures:
1. Encouraging the collective organization of farmers with similar economic interests;
2. Timely supply of the quality inputs, especially seeds;
3. Training on modern methods of production should be provided to the farmers before vegetable
sowing/Propagation of appropriate practices suited to small & marginal farms;
4. Promotion of contract farming through vertical integration with large marketing and vegetable
processing firms;
5. Encouraging the organization of genuine cooperative marketing societies, that should be
allowed to function without bureaucratic interference and with professional management;
6. Strengthening of the marketing infrastructure by increasing the number of Market places, up-
grading the facilities at the designated marketplaces, constructing rural godowns and cold
storages, and making arrangements with the credit institutions to honour warehouse receipts
and pledges;
7. Provision of comprehensive and timely information on vegetable prices by establishing IT-
enabled village information kiosks all over the state at panchayat/block level;
8. Removal of policy hurdles by constantly reviewing legislation and government orders to meet
exigencies;
9. Launching of an awareness campaign for examining standards and sorting out products
according to well-established grades.

References
Abhay Kumar, R.K.P. Singh, K.M. Singh, R.C. Bharati, Shiv Jee, B.P. Bhatt.2016.
Agricultural transformation in VDSA villages in Jharkhand.
http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3316.0086
Abhay Kumar, R.K.P. Singh, K.M. Singh, R.C. Bharati, Shiv Jee, B.P. Bhatt.2016. Changes in
structure of labor participation and wage dynamics in Jharkhand.
http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1743.1443
Ashturker B.M and C.D. Deole (1985), Producers’ Share in Consumers Rupee: A Case Study
of Fruit Marketing in Marathwada, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 40, 3. Bhatt,
Bart,Minten, K.M Singh, and R.Sutradhar, 2013. Branding and agricultural value chains in developing
countries: Insights from Bihar (India). Food Policy (Elsevier, The Netherland), 38 (Feb 2013): 23-34

Charan, A.S., SP Seetharaman and SL Bapna (1983), Agricultural Marketing System in

Gujarat: A Perspective, Gujarat Economic Conference.
Dave, V. J. (1998), Economics of Export Oriented Horticultural Crops in Chiku (Sapota) in
Gujarat, Agro Economic Research Centre, Vallabh Vidyanagar, Gujarat.
Dattatreyulu, M. (1997), Export Potential of Fruits, Vegetables and Flowers from India,
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai.
Doshi, R.R (ed.) (1998), Agricultural Marketing in India: The Future Course, Department of
Economics, Shivaji University, Kolhapur.
Garg J. S., and J. P. Misra (1976), Costs and Margins in the Marketing of Vegetables in
Kanpur, Agricultural Marketing, 8, 2.
Jha, U.M. (1997), Economics of Export Oriented Horticultural Crop (Litchi) Bihar, Agro-
Economic Research Centre, Bihar.
Joshi, U.R. (1997), Regulated Markets in Gujarat, Vallabh Vidyanagar, SP University, 1971.
Kaul, G.L, Horticulture in India: Production, Marketing and Processing, Indian Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 52, 3.
Kazi MB Rahim and Debashis Sarkar (2002), Fruits and vegetables Mandis Located in Urban
and Semi-urban Areas of West Bengal with focus on Kolkata Market: Their Problems and
Suggestions, Agro Economic Research Centre, Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan.
Kumar P. and Mruthyunjaya (1995), Demand for Fruits and Vegetables, Agricultural
Economics Research Review, 8, 2, 64.
 M.S.Meena, K.M.Singh, R.K.P.Singh, Anjani Kumar, Abhay Kumar, and V. P. Chahal. 2017.
Inequality and determinants of income among rural households in tribal dominated areas of
Jharkhand. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 87(1):92-96.
M.S.Meena and K.M.Singh. 2009. Farmer’s attitude towards post-harvest aspects of horticultural crops.
Indian Research Journal of Extension Education, 9 (3):15-19.
Murthy, Narasimha (1988), Regulated Markets in a Rural Economy, Ajanta Publishing Co.,
Delhi.
Naik Dibakar (1985), Marketing Costs and Margins under Different Marketing Channels of
Potato Trade in Cuttack District of Orissa, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 40, 3.
Prasad Sivarama, A. (1985), Agricultural Marketing in India, Mittal Publishing Co., New
Delhi.
Rajagopal (1995), Marketing of Fruits and Vegetables in Cooperative Sector, Institute of Rural
Management, Anand.
Rao A N. (1997), Higher Employment and Income Potential of Horticultural Crops, Indian
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 52, 3.

Note: This paper has been drawn from thesis submitted by the first author for award of PhD degree
to Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur (Bihar).