VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS OF PAPAYA IN BILASPUR DISTRICT OF ... · 1.2 Production of B anana 1.3...
Transcript of VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS OF PAPAYA IN BILASPUR DISTRICT OF ... · 1.2 Production of B anana 1.3...
VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS OF PAPAYA IN BILASPUR
DISTRICT OF CHHATTISGARH
M.Sc. (Ag) Thesis
by
Bhekh Ram
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, RAIPUR
FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE
INDIRA GANDHI KRISHI VISHWAVIDYALAYA,
RAIPUR (Chhattisgarh)
2017
VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS OF PAPAYA IN BILASPUR
DISTRICT OF CHHATTISGARH
Thesis
Submitted to the
Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur
by
Bhekh Ram
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF
Master of Science
in
Agriculture
(Agricultural Economics)
U.E.ID No. 20151622419 ID No. 120115005
JULY, 2017
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This Endeavour is the result of one year of hard work whereby am highly indebted to
many people who directly and indirectly helped me for its successful completion.
First and foremost I would like to place on record my ineffable indebtedness to my
major advisor Dr. A.K. Koshta Professor and head, Department of Agricultural Economics,
College of Agriculture, IGKV, Raipur for his conscientious guidance and constructive
suggestions at every step and excellent suggestions by devoting his precious time in the midst of
his busy schedule and for kind sympathetic attitude during the thesis work. I thank him for his
creative criticism and valuable suggestions for improving the quality of this work during the
whole degree programme.
I have deep regards for members of my advisory committee Dr. V.K.Choudhary
Associate professor, Department of Agricultural Economics IGKV, Raipur for their kind
supervision motivations and support by which I was pushed towards hard working and
punctuality.
I extend my heartiest thank to members of my advisory committee Dr. H. K. Panigrahi
Assistant Professor, Department of Fruit Science, IGKV, Raipur and Dr. M. L. Lakhera,
Professor, Department of Agricultural Statistics, Mathematics and Computer Science for
necessary help and guidance.
I specially extend my sincere thanks to Dr.Hulas Pathak, Assistant Professor and Dr.
B.C Jain Professor Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, IGKV,
Raipur for their unforgettable support and kind help during the course of the study.
I owe my grateful thank to Dr. S.K. Patil Hon’ble Vice Chancellor, Dr. S.S.Rao,
Director Research Services and Dr. S.S. Shaw, Director of Instructions, IGKV, Raipur for
providing necessary facilities to conduct this research work.
I am highly thankful to, Shri.S.R.Verma, Registrar, Dr. O.P. Kashyap, Dean, College
of Agriculture, Raipur ,Dr.(Major) G. K. Shrivastava, Dean Student Welfare, I.G.K.V, and
Dr. M.P. Thakur Director Extension Services for providing necessary facilities to conduct this
research work.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. M. Pandey, Librarian and Library
staffs for giving me their kind help during my present study.
I would like to thank all farmers of Bilha block and of Bilaspur district who provided
the necessary information for this study. I would also like to thank staff members of statistics
dept. and horticulture dept of Bilaspur district.
ii
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Title Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF AABBREVIATIONS
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT(HINDI)
i
iii
v
vi
vii
viii
x
I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.2 Production of Banana
1.3 Marketing of Banana
1.4 Problem focus
1.5 Specific objectives of the study
1-4
2
2
3
3
4
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Studies related to Production of Banana
2.2 Studies related to Cost and return of Banana
2.3 Studies related to Marketing of Banana
2.4 Studies related to Problems of production and
marketing of Banana
5–13
7
8
11
13
III MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Sampling procedure
3.1.1 Selection of district
3.1.2 Selection of blocks
3.1.3 Selection of villages and respondents
3.2 Method of enquiry and data collection
3.3 Tools of analysis
3.3.1 Cost concept
3.3.2 Estimates of cost and income parameters
3.3.3 Income measures
3.4 Description of the study area
3.4.1 General profile of Bemetara district
3.4.2 Location of district
3.4.3 Soil and Topography
3.4.4 Climate
3.4.5 Transport and Industry
3.4.6 Irrigation Sources in Bemetara district
3.4.7 Distribution of land holdings
3.4.8 Agriculture in Bemetara district
14-24
14-15
14
14
14
16
16-19
17
18
19
19-24
20
20
20
21
21
21
23
24
IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Socio-Economic characteristics of sample households
4.1.1 General characteristics of sample households
4.1.2 Educational status of sample households
4.1.3 Land use pattern of sample farmers
4.1.4 Cropping pattern of sample farmers
4.2 Economics of Banana
4.2.1 Cost of cultivation of Banana
25-48
25-30
25
27
29
30
32-40
33
iv
4.2.2 Different cost on the basis of cost concept
4.2.3 Yield cost and return of Banana
4.2.4 Income over different cost
4.3 Marketing of Banana
4.3.1 Disposal pattern of Banana
4.3.2 Cost and margin of various agencies in channel-I
4.3.3 Cost and margin of various agencies in channel-II
4.3.4 Cost and margin of various agencies in channel-III
4.4 Constraints in Banana
4.4.1 Problems related to production of Banana
4.4.2 Problems related to Marketing of Banana
36
38
40
41-45
42
43
44
45
46-48
47
48
V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Summary
5.2 Conclusions
5.3 Suggestions for future works
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
RESUME
49-53
52
52
53
54-56
57-65
64
65
66
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
3.1 Selected villages and Banana growers 15
3.2 Average rainfall over different years in Bemetara district 21
3.3 Different sources of irrigation of Bemetara district 23
3.4 Size of land holdings in Bemetara district 23
3.5 Area production and productivity of agricultural crop in
Bemetara district
24
3.6
Area production and productivity of horticultural crop in
Bemetara district
24
4.1 General characteristics of sampled farmers 26
4.2 Educational status of sample households 27
4.3 Land use pattern of sample farmers 29
4.4 Different sources of irrigation of sample farms 29
4.5 Cropping pattern of sample farmers 31
4.6 Cost of cultivation of Banana at sample farm 34
4.7 Break-up of cost and cost concept of Banana at sample farms 36
4.8 Yield cost and return of Banana at sample farms 39
4.9 Income over different cost at sample farms 40
4.10 Disposal pattern of Banana at sample farms 42
4.11 Cost and margin of various agencies in channel-I 43
4.12 Cost and margin of various agencies in channel-II 44
4.13 Cost and margin of various agencies in channel-III 46
4.14 Problem faced by sample farmers in production of Banana 47
4.15 Problem faced by sample farmers in marketing of Banana 48
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
3.1
4.1 Map of study area
Social status of sample households
22 27
4.2 Total family members of sample households 28
4.3 Occupation status of the sample households 28
4.4 Educational status of sample households 28
4.5 Land use pattern 30
4.6 Different sources of irrigation 30
4.7 Net cultivated area and gross cropped area 32
4.8 Cropping intensity of sample farmers 32
4.9 Total fixed, variable and total cost at sample farms 35
4.10 Cost concept at sample farms 37
4.11 Cost of cultivation gross return and net return at sample farmers 40
4.12 Income over different cost 41
4.13 Disposal pattern of Banana at sample farms 42
4.14 Marketable surplus at sample farms 42
4.15 Producers share in consumer rupees 46
vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Viz. Namely
et al. Et alii (and others/co-workers)
qt. Quintal
Rs. Rupees(Indian Currency)
Kg kilogram
Fig. Figure
HYV High yielding varieties
Ha Hectare
CACP Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices CAGR Compound annual growth rate
G-9 Grand nain B:C Benefit:Cost C.V Coefficient of Variation MT Metric tones DAP Die ammonium phosphate
Sq.km Squire kilometer mm Milimeter
viii
ix
x
the performance of value chain partners, (iii) analyze the market determinants in the
supply of papaya in the study areas and (iv) identify major constraints, opportunities of
production and supply of papaya.
The study was confined to Bilha block of Bilaspur district. Papaya growers were
scattered and they were few in numbers in the villages. So, the snowball sampling
technique was adopted for selection of villages and papaya growers. There were 60
papaya growers undertaken from 22 villages. The primary data was collected from the
papaya producers, wholesaler, retailer and processer through personal interview method
with the help of well prepared schedule and questionnaire for year of 2015-16. The
objectives were achieved by using appropriate statistical analysis tools. To understand the
factor determining the supply chain of papaya, a multiple linear regression was applied.
The result of study envisaged that papaya was cultivated in 19.92 per cent area by the
sampled farmers. The cropping intensity of sampled was 228.85 per cent, papaya farmers
were well educated and their literacy 91.94 per cent. The growth in area, production and
productivity of papaya in Bilaspur district was registered to be 18.92, 50.48 and 26.56per
cent, respectively, which was found to be significant, growth in production of papaya in
Chhattisgarh state was 11.14 per cent which was attributed significantly increase in area
of 13.15 per cent only.
The cost of cultivation of papaya worked out and noticed to be Rs 136876.26./ha. and
it ranges from small farms Rs. 124492.30 /ha. to Rs. 139403.41 /ha. at large farms. The
overall input-out ratio in papaya cultivation was 1:2.82. Overall disposal of papaya in
market was 99.72 per cent per farm.
Eight main alternative channels were identified for marketing of papaya in Bilaspur
district in which channel-VII (producer – collector– wholesaler– retailer – consumer)
carried out 32.35 per cent of production and found to be the largest a volume of papaya.
Collectors/assembler was the main receivers of produce from papaya grower and
accounted 48.81 per cent their share. The gross marketing margin was the maximum and
found to be 98.33 per cent in channel-II (producer-processer-retailer). Producer’s share in
consumer’s rupee was the highest in Channel -I (producer-consumer) which was found to
be 95.85 per cent and net market margin was 94.69 per cent.
The determinants in marketable supply of papaya reveals that land holding of farmer,
educational level of house hold and experience in papaya production was found significant
and contributed to marketable supply of papaya was5.13, 28.85, and 3.77, respectively.
Distance to market have negative impact to marketable supply of papaya and found to be
xi
negatively significance (-0.96). The family size has also been found negative effect to
marketable supply of papaya and contributed to -3.18, which was found to be non-significant.
The constraints in papaya cultivation faced by the farmers were power cut and low
voltage during the crop season that reported by 93.33 per cent farmers. Lack of improved
and high yielding variety of the papaya crop was reported by 80.00 per cent farmers,
Problem of the recommended dose of chemicals and fertilizers was reported by 58.33 per
cent farmers. Lack of sufficient number of processing unit in the villages is the major
problem faced by papaya producers (90.00 per cent), farmers were not satisfied with the
price received 71.66 per cent reported by farmer, About 76.66 per cent farmers felt that
lack of awareness about the market information.
v/;;u ds fu"d"kZ ls Kkr gqvk fd uewuk fdlkuksa }kjk iihrs dh [ksrh 19-92 izfr’kr +{ks=Qy esa dh
tkrh gSA p;fur iihrk mRikndksa dh lk{kjrk dk izfr’kr 91-74 ik;k x;kA iihrs Qly dh l?kurk izfr’kr
228-25 ik;h x;hA fcykliqj ftys esa iihrs ds {ks=Qy vkSj mRiknu dh of) nj Øe’k% 18-92 izfr’kr] 50-48
izfr’kr vkSj 26-56 izfr’kr Fkh] tks fd lkFkZd ik;h x;h] NŸkhlx<+ jkT; esa iihrk ds mRiknu esa 11-14 izfr’kr
of) ik;h x;hA ftldk Js; 13-15 izfr’kr lkFkZd {ks=Qy c<+us ls izkIr gqbZA
iihrs dh izfr gsDVs;j mRiknu ykxr :i;s 136876 ik;h x;hA tks fd y?kq d"kdksa esa :i;s 12492
izfr gsDVs;j vkSj nh?kZ d"kdksa esa :i;s 139403 izfr gsDVs;j ik;h x;hA iihrs ds izfr gsDVs;j mRiknu dk vknku
izfrQy vuqikr 1-00 % 2-82 ik;h x;hA iihrs dk leLr foi.ku cktkj esa 99-72 izfr’kr jgkA
fcykliqj ftys esa iihrs ds foi.ku ds fy, vkB eq[; oSdfYid ek/;e dh igpku dh x;h] ftlesa
ek/;e&VII ¼mRiknd&Fkksd O;kikjh&[kqnjk foØsrk&miHkksDrk½ ls 32-35 izfr’kr mRiknu dk foØ; gksrk gSA ;g
iihrs ds foØ; dk lcls cM+k ek/;e ik;k x;kA bl Ja[kyk esa iihrk mRikndksa ls muds mRiknksa dks ,d=
djus esa Fkksd O;kikjh izeq[k jgk] ftlesa bldk izfr’kr 48-81 jgkA ek/;e&II esa ldy cktkj cpr lokZf/kd
jgk] tks fd 98-33 izfr’kr ik;k x;kA miHkksDrk ds :i;ksa esa mRiknd dk fgLlk ek/;e&I ¼mRiknd&miHkksDrk½
esa lokZf/kd jgk] tks fd 95-85 izfr’kr ik;k x;k rFkk 'kq) cktkj cpr 94-69 ik;h x;hA
cktkj vkiwfrZ ds dkjdksa ls Kkr gksrk gS fd fdlkuksa dh tksr dk vkdkj] 'kS{kf.kd Lrj vkSj iihrk
mRiknu ds vuqHko dk izHkkodkjh izHkko iM+rk gS vkSj cktkj esa iihrs dh vkiwfrZ esa bu dkjdksa dk ;ksxnku
Øe’k% 5-13] 28-25 vkSj 3-77 izzfr’kr ik;k x;kA iihrs dh cktkj vkiwfrZ esa cktkj dh nwjh dk _.kkRed izHkko
ik;k x;k] tks fd ¼&0-96½ ntZ dh xbZA iihrs dh cktkj vkiwfrZ esa ifjokj ds vkdkj dk Hkh _.kkRed izHkko
ik;k x;k] ftldk ;ksxnku xSj izHkkodkjh ¼&3-18½ ik;k x;kA
iihrs dh [ksrh esa fdlkuksa dks fofHkUu leL;k,sa vkrh gSa] ftuesa fctyh dh dVkSrh dks 93-33 izfr’kr
fdlkuksa us izeq[krk ls crk;kA iihrk dh mUur ,oa foiqy mRiknu nsus okyh fdLeksa dh deh dks 80 izfr’kr
fdlkuksa us crk;kA vuq’kaflr jlk;uksa ,oa moZjdksa dh leL;k dks 58-33 izfr’kr fdlkuksa us crk;kA xkaoksa e sa
izlaLdj.k bdkbZ;ksa dh deh dks 90 izfr’kr mRikndksa us leL;k crk;k] fdlku iihrk ls izkIr ewY;ksa ij
lark"ktud ugha Fks] ,slk 71-66 izfr’kr fdlkuksa us leL;k crk;kA yxHkx 76-66 izfr’kr fdlkuksa dks cktkj dh
tkudkjh ds izfr tkx:drk ugha ik;h x;hA
1
CHAPTER – I
Introduction
1.1 Description of the crop:
Papaya (Carica papaya) is the third most important fruit crop in India next to
mango & banana. Papaya belongs to the genus Carica of the family Caricaceae with
48 species of all the species Carica papaya is the most important and best known. It is
cultivated all over the world. The original home of papaya is Tropical America. It has
been reviewed by Schroeder (1958), where archaeological, historical and biological
information have been used to pinpoint the possible origin of papaya (Singh, 1990).
The Dutch traveler Linschoten in 1598 described fruit brought from the Philippines to
Malaya and hence to India.
The importance of papaya to agriculture and the world's economy is
demonstrated by its wide distribution and substantial production in the tropical
countries. It has long been known and cultivated in the home gardens by the people of
tropics because it is one of the few fruits, which throughout the year gives quick
returns and adapts itself to diverse soil and climatic conditions. It gives one of the
highest productions in terms of fruit and net return next to banana
Papaya fruit is very popular with the farmers in general because it requires less
area per plant. Papaya is a very wholesome, refreshing and delicious fruit. Green fruits
are diuretic and mildly laxative and are used as vegetables. It has a high nutritive and
medicinal value. The ripened fruits are a rich source of carbohydrates, minerals (Ca, P
and Fe), Vitamin (carotene, thiamine, riboflavin, etc.) fibber and ascorbic acid, In
addition, papaya is a source of the digestive enzyme papain, which is used as an
industrial ingredient in brewing, meat tenderizing, pharmaceuticals, beauty products,
and cosmetics (Singh et al., 2010). Thus, it is also used in the pharmaceutical industry,
textile and garment cleaning paper and adhesive manufacture, etc. The ripe fresh
papaya fruit is tasty and used as table fruit. It has a neutral taste that can be
2
considerably improved by addition of flavours, rich fruits to make prepared to serve
beverage (RTS), Tutty fruity, pickle, squash, jams and various preserves.
1.2 Global Production of Papaya
Global Papayas are produced in about 60 countries, with the bulk of production
occurring in developing economies. Universal papaya production in 2010 was
approximate at 11.22 million tonnes, rising at an annual rate of 4.35 percent between
2002 and 2010 (global production in 2010 was 7.26% higher than 2009, and 34.82%
higher than 2002). Asia has been the leading papaya producing area, accounting for
52.55 percent of the global production between 2008 and 2010, followed by South
America (23.09%), Africa (13.16%), Central America (9.56%), the Caribbean
(1.38%), North America (0.14%), and Oceania (0.13%) Global papaya exports
exhibited an upward trend over the period 2002 to 2009, although growth was
somewhat erratic. Total exports in 2009 were estimated at 268,476 metric tonnes, a
31.5 percent rise over the volume exported in 2002, with an estimated value of about
$197.2 million (FAOSTAT 2012b)
1.3 Scenario of Papaya in India
India is the largest producer of papaya globally its share 44.4 % and 1st rank of
production followed by Brazil, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Mexico (FAOSTAT). In India
2013-14 estimates covered under papaya 1.33 lakh hectares area and its production
was 56.393 lakh tonnes (FAOSTAT.2014). Export of Papaya (Fresh/Dried) by India in
2014-15 is 11.48 thousand tonnes and obtained value in Indian currency was Rs
3826.41 Lakhs (APEDA 10 July 2015). The major Papaya producing states are
Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra. Chhattisgarh and
West Bengal.
1.4 Scenario of Papaya in Chhattisgarh state
In Chhattisgarh the total area and production of fruits are 225.76 thousand
hectare and 2154.88 thousand metric tonnes respectively. The major fruit crops grown
in Chhattisgarh state are Banana, Mango, Papaya, Jack fruit, Guava, Lime, Custard
3
apple, etc. The production of fruits in Chhattisgarh, papaya ranks third. Total
production of Papaya in Chhattisgarh 2.76 lakh metric tonnes from an area of
12.41thousand hectares forming 12% of the total fruit production in the state in 2014.
It is cultivated in almost all the districts in the state. The major papaya growing
districts are Bilaspur, Raipur, Durg, Mahasmund. Papaya production plays an
important role in Chhattisgarh state. Papaya was cultivated in an area of 12410
hectares and production was 275788 tonnes in Chhattisgarh. It has sixth in rank with
4.9% shared in India during 2014-15.
1.5 Statement of the problem
The term value chain describes the full range of activities which are essential
to bring a product or service from conception, through the different phases of
production (involving a combination of physical transformation and the input of
various producer services), delivery to final consumers, and final disposal after use
(Kaplinsky and Morris, 2001). It is relevant to conduct value chain study to have an
understanding of the market, the contribution of different partners, their relationships,
and the vital constraints that reduce the growth of papaya production and consequently
the competitiveness of farmers.
1.6 Justification of study
Value chain represents the internal activities a firm engages in when
transforming inputs into outputs. Papaya Value chain analysis (VCA) is a practice
where identified its activities that add value to its ultimate product and then analyzed
these activities to decrease costs or increase separation.
Value chains are a key structure for understanding how inputs and services are
brought jointly and then used to grow, transform, or manufacture a product; how the
product then moves actually from the producer to the consumer; and how value
increases next to the way. The value chain perspective provides an important means to
understand business-to-business relationships that connect the chain, mechanisms for
increasing efficiency, and ways to enable businesses to increase productivity and add
4
value. It also provides a suggestion point for improvements in supporting services and
the business environment. Increasingly, the value chain approach is being used to
guide and drive high-impact and sustainable initiatives purposeful on getting better
productivity, competitiveness, entrepreneurship, and the growth of farmers, small and
medium enterprises (SMEs) and processing industries. So, this study was proposed to
examine the value chain analysis of papaya produced in Bilaspur district of
Chhattisgarh. Therefore, it helps to discover the weakest connection of the chain and
to narrow the information gap on the topic.
Objectives of the study
1. To estimate the growth rate area, production and productivity of papaya in
Bilaspur district and Chhattisgarh
2. To identify papaya value chain and examine the performance of value chain
partners
3. To analyze the market determinants in the supply of papaya in the study areas
4. To identify major constraints, opportunities of production and supply of papaya
1.7 Limitation of the study
All through the course of the inquiry several difficulties were faced in the
collection of data from papaya growers. The papaya growers usually did not maintain
any farm record and supply any data on the basis of their memory. The illiteracy of the
farmer also added to this problem. Some of the farmers, wholesalers and retailers did
not co-operate in giving data because of some confusion regarding taxes, ceiling, etc.
However, adequate care was taken by cross checking with the educated neighboring
farmers and other village leaders, gram panchayat sarpanch and etc. This study is
narrow to Bilha blocks of Bilaspur districts only and therefore the result could not be
widespread in the whole state.
1.8 Setup of the study
This thesis has been separated into four chapters, together with the present chapter,
which consist introduction and objectives of the study. A review of literature of work
done in the earlier period was given in Chapter-II, deals with material and methods.
5
The results and discussion are presented in Chapter-III and Chapter-IV includes
summary, conclusion and suggestions for future explore work.
6
CHAPTER – II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
In this chapter, an attempt has been made to review pertinent literature keeping
in view the problem entitled; “Value chain analysis of papaya in Bilaspur district of
Chhattisgarh”. A brief account of the work reported by the past, researchers has been
discussed under the following heads:
2.1 Growth rate area, production and productivity of papaya
2.2 Performance of value chain partners
2.3 Determinants in the supply of papaya
2.4 Constraints in production and marketing of papaya
2.1 Growth rate area, production and productivity of papaya
Phuke et.al. (2004). Analyzed the export potential of banana in India for the
period of 1991-92 to 2001 -02. Linear growth model, Y^= a + b x and log linear
equation, log Y^= log a + log b were used to work out growth rates. At All India level,
the highest area and production was recorded in the year 2001-2002, whereas,
productivity was the highest in 2000-2001. The compound growth rate increase in the
area of the country was 2.19 per cent per annum during the study period.
Planing commission Govt. of India (2007). In Case of Papaya the growth rate
of area, production and productivity of papaya in India was 5.06 per cent, 12.40 per
cent and 6.99 per cent respectively during the period of 1991-92 -2001-02. While the
annual growth rate of area, production of papaya has decreased to -0.32 per cent and -
0.28 per cent during the period of 2001-02 -2004-05, and the annual growth rate of
productivity of papaya has marginally increased to 0.03 per cent during the same
period.
Sharma et.al. (2008). Studied the variation and instability in area, production
and productivity of major fruit crops in Jammu and Kashmir for the period from 1974-
7
75 to 1999-2000. It revealed that the growing of pear, cherry and almond were riskier
compared to other fruit crops in the state as revealed by the higher coefficient of
variation. The coefficient of area production and productivity of these were more than
78 per cent. The raising of apple in the state was less risky, which had a coefficient of
variation of less than 35 per cent.
Sawin et.al. (2011). In the Case of Papaya the annual growth rate of area and
yield of papaya in Rajasthan was 1.05 per cent and 5.24 per cent respectively, during
the period of 1980-81 -1990-91. While the annual growth rate of yield of papaya has
sharply increased to 32.09 per cent during the period of 1990-91- 2000-01, the annual
growth rate of area of papaya has marginally increased to 2.06 per cent during the
same period. The annual growth rate of yield of papaya has fallen to 13.83 per cent
during the period of 2000-01- 2008-09 but the annual growth rate of area of papaya
has registered further increase of 2.15 per cent during the period of 2000-01 -2008-09.
It may also be noted that the annual average growth rate of area of papaya was-1.68
per cent during the period of 2000-01-2004-05 that has increased to 5.52 per cent
during the period of 2004-05 -2005-06 and to 5.62 percent during the period of 2004-
05- 2007-08. However, the annual average growth rate of area of papaya has declined
to 4.38 per cent during the period of 2004 – 05 - 2008-09. On the other hand, the
annual average growth rate of yield of papaya was 11.76 per cent during the period of
2000-01- 2004-05 that has decreased to 5.65 per cent during the period of 2004-05 -
2005-06 and has further declined to -7.90 per cent during the period of 2004 -05-
2006-07. It is notable that the yield of papaya has recovered to 18.60 per cent during
the period of 2004-05-2007-08 and has fallen thereafter to -1.85 per cent during the
period of 2004-05-2008-09
Bairwa et.al. (2012). Studied the growth performance of major fruit crops have
been analyzed in India. During the period 1991 to 2007, the area under sapota was
registered highest CGR of 11.74 per cent, followed by citrus (4.98 per cent), mango
(4.58 per cent) and lowest in apple. In the case of production highest CGR was also in
sapota 7.26 per cent followed by grape (6.98 per cent), papaya (6.91 per cent) and
8
lowest in mango (2.26 per cent). Whereas in productivity CGR was highest in papaya
4.37 per cent followed by grape 2.41 per cent while negative productivity in some
perennial fruits like guava, sapota and mango. The variation in area, production and
productivity of major fruit crops has also been analysed. The variation in area was
observed to be maximum in sapota (21.65 per cent), followed by citrus (7.82 per cent),
apple (7.46 per cent), and lowest in pineapple (3.57 per cent). In case of production
maximum variability was observed in banana (14.82 percent) followed by Papaya
(13.97 per cent), litchi (13.76 per cent) and lowest in guava (6.95 per cent). As far as
yield is concerned the variability was very high in litchi (17.85 per cent), followed by
apple (14.08 per cent), grapes (10.53 per cent) and lowest in guava (4.00 per cent).
Production of major fruits indicates that the area effect is maximum in sapota (214.63
per cent), followed by mango (202.41 per cent), guava (111.54 per cent) and lowest in
papaya (30.97 per cent). The contribution of productivity is maximum in papaya
(46.46 per cent), followed by litchi (39.63 per cent), banana (36.16 per cent) whereas
productivity contribution is negative in various fruits like sapota, mango, guava.
Singh and Rani (2013). Studied the growth rate of area, production and
productivity of fruit crops in Jharkhand. The study revealed a positive growth rate in
all selected fruits (litchi, mango, guava and banana) except citrus while negative
growth rate was found in banana and citrus. The productivity growth rate was also
observed to be positive nearly 2.56 percent, 2.56 percent, 1.50 percent, 5.21 percent
respectively in litchi, mango, guava and banana. This trend resulted in positive growth
in volume of these fruits in the state. The study further revealed that variability in the
area was highest in litchi (71 percent) due to shifting in the area from other fruit crops
in the litchi area followed by mango and banana respectively. Similarly variability in
productivity was observed to be high in banana and there was no considerable
variation in the yield of other fruit crops.
Gogoi and borah (2013). Studied the area and production of all the major fruit
crops available in the Assam were increased during the period of 2001-02 to 2010-11.
The productivity of most of the fruit crops was also increased during the period,
9
except a slight decrease in the case of banana, orange and jack fruit. The highest
percentage of area increased during the period was orange (60.34 %), followed by jack
fruit (22.73%), mango (20%), litchi (20%), guava (20%), banana (8.46%), papaya
(2.58%) and pineapple (2.14%). In case of production also highest percentage increase
was found in orange cultivation (56.33 %), followed by litchi (53.66 %), guava
(39.18%), mango (38.30 %), papaya (23.82 %), jackfruit (20.90 %), and pineapple
(2.16%). Regarding yield rate, highest percentage increase was noticed in litchi (42.07
%), papaya (21.80 %) and in orange cultivation, negative growth (-10.11%) was
noticed which may be due to unfavorable weather condition.
Vinayaka et.al (2014). A study was undertaken to the trends of area,
production and productivity of fruit crops from 2000-01 to 2010–11 in the India. The
result showed that the growth rates and instability in area, production and productivity
of fruit crops. At the India growth rate of fruits crop productivity in India was positive
(1.05%) and was associated with instability index of 10.16 per cent. In the same period
a positive growth rate of the area was observed (7.34%) with high instability index of
10.16 per cent, while a positive growth rate of production (8.48 %) with an instability
index of 0.10 per cent was observed in production. The average of area, production
and productivity of fruit crops during this period were 5084.55 („000 hectares),
55364.64 („000 Million Tonnes) and 10.83 (Million tonne/ha).
Uma et al. (2017). The study examined the growth performance of area of
cultivation, production and yield of selected major horticulture crops in Tamil Nadu
State. The growth rate of major fruits such as banana, mango and grapes revealed that,
fairly large number of districts had positive growth regarding area, production and
productivity of banana and mango. Yet, few districts had negative growth. Similar
way of trends was seen in vegetables also. Hence, Tamil Nadu state needs
development strategy to boost production and productivity of fruits and vegetables.
10
2.2 Performance of value chain partners
Deliya et.al. (2006) workout the study on “differentiator in Marketing of fresh
fruits and Vegetables from Supply Chain Management Perspective” The competitive
marketplace the pressure on organizations to find new ways to shape and deliver value
to customer grows ever stronger. Supply chain management not only helps in cutting
costs, but also adds to maintain and improve the quality of fruits and vegetable
marketed. SCM is at its growing stake in marketing of fruits and vegetables.
Marketing of fruits and vegetables are challenging because of the perishability,
seasonality and bulkiness and consumption habits of the Indian consumers. The
finding indicates that the poor infrastructure, poor equity in SC & conventional small
scale unorganized retailers, make state of the art supply chain challenging in present
scenario. This paper indicates important drawbacks of the current supply chain are
number of intermediaries, high level of wastage, quality degradation, poor
infrastructural facilities & high cost. Government & private operators have to join
hands to improve the physical infrastructure, information sharing and the service
required for quality improvement of the supply chain.
Sreenivasa et.al. (2007) conducted a study on marketing losses and their
impact on marketing margins: A case study of Banana, Karnataka. They found that the
post-harvest losses were as high as 28.84 per cent in the wholesale channel;
comprising 5.53 percent of the field and assembly level, 6.65 per cent at the wholesale
level and 16.66 percent at the retail level. These losses in the co-operative marketing
channel were 18.31 percent in 7.82, 1.77 and 8.72 per cent in the corresponding
stages. The losses in co-operative channel were higher in the first stage of handling,
i.e. assembly level and lower in the later stages of marketing. The total marketing cost
for all stages was higher in the wholesale channel, which accounted to Rs 4.36/kg
compared to Rs 1.30/kg in the cooperative channel. The marketing losses incurred by
the farmers during sorting, grading and marketing were Rs 0.66/kg in the case of
wholesale channel and to Rs 0.72/kg in the co-operating channel. The farmers‟ net
share in the consumers‟ price was higher (66.77%) in the cooperative than wholesale
(52.78%) channel.
11
Emily and John (2010) studied focused on the Banana value chains in Central
Africa. The results of the study revealed that, the coordination between and among
value chain actors were characterized by weak linkages within the banana value chains
with poor integration of value chain actors and minimal involvement with regional
markets and high-value domestic chains. Finally, it was recommended that collective
marketing, penetration into high-value chains and improved processing techniques
may provide in increasing chain participation.
Kumar et al. (2011). The agriculture system in India has undergone rapid
transformations over the past few decades, particularly after the economic reforms of
1990s. The emergence of integrated agriculture and food supply and value chains is
one of the most visible market phenomena in India. Increasing concentration on
processing, marketing and export are being observed in all the segments of the chain.
The traditional way of food production is being replaced by practices more similar to
manufacturing processes, with greater co-ordination across farmers, processors,
retailers, exporters and other stakeholders in the agriculture value chain
Singh and Bhimraj (2014) conducted a study on marketing of papaya from the
supply chain management perspective: a case study of the tribal belt of South Gujarat.
They found that an average papaya farmer received the share of net price 32.05
percent, middlemen 35.89 per cent of the price paid by the consumers. Among the
various middlemen, retailer's got highest margin of 21.31per cent compared to
wholesaler 10.36 percent and post-harvest contractor got a margin of 4.21 per cent by
different marketing channels. The marketing cost incurred by different functionaries
was Rs. 577.02 per quintal of papaya, accounting for 33.87 percent of the consumer
price. Out of total marketing cost, the highest cost (14.46 %) was incurred by post-
harvest contractor, followed by retailers (10.24 %) and wholesaler (9.17 %). A major
marketing problems faced by papaya growers where low price, fluctuation in market
price, distant market and delayed payment.
12
Shafi et.al. (2014) conducted a study on market chain analysis of papaya
(Carica papaya): The case of Dugda District, Eastern Shewa Zone, Oromia National
Regional State of Ethiopia. They analyzed the factors involved in the market chain in
papaya, a total of 150 papaya producing household heads from four major papaya
producing districts were interviewed. They reported that processors (juice houses)
received the highest net market margin (42.74%), while producers got the lowest
market margin i.e. 16.84 per cent. The household‟s participation decision on the
marketing of papaya market was significantly affected by access to credit, family size,
current market price, access to market information, and non-farm income.
Sangudomet et.al. (2014) conducted studies on a Maturity index as related to
growing season and supply chain management of Musa kluai khaki in Thailand. The
objective of these studies was to describe the supply chain management practices for
Kluai khai produced in two planting areas to determine the optimum time for bunch
harvest. Kluai khai cultivar was grown in orchards in Chanthaburi through
intercropping, with an average yield of 6.25 t/ha. Bunches were harvested at ¾ full. To
find out the banana was harvested at different physiological ages 30, 33, 35, 37, 40, 45
and 50 days after debudding.
Rais and Sheoran (2015) conducted a study on scope of supply chain
management in fruits and vegetables in India. They found that a proper supply chain
management in fruits and vegetables has to be improved in all the stages of supply by
adopting best global practices in storage, packaging, handling, transportation, value
added service etc to meet the country‟s demand of fruits and vegetables. As per this
paper important drawback of the supply chain was a high level of wastage, quality
degradation, poor infrastructural facilities and high cost. They were reported that
Government and private operators had to join hands to improve the physical
infrastructure, information sharing and the service required for quality improvement of
the supply chain.
Asale et.al. (2016) conducted a study on onion market chain analysis in the
Humbo district of Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia. They identified factors affecting
13
the supply of onion. The Multiple Linear Regression Model was employed to see the
factors that determine the supply of onion. The results of the study have shown that
the productivity as well as post-harvest management was by far the poorest. However,
farmers sold a large amount of onion out of which the collectors, commission-men and
semi-wholesalers, respectively, have bought 80 %, 15% and 5 % in 2014. Sample
markets were inefficient though not characterized by oligopolistic market structure.
2.3 Determinants in the supply of papaya
Teka, G.A. et.al (2009). He observed that the econometric the eleven
hypothesized determinants of market supply of papaya, the one variable (production of
papaya) was found significant for papaya. The sign was positive, confirming the
justification put in the hypothesized and significant at 1% probability level. The
positive and significant relationship indicates that as papaya production increased by
one percent the elasticity of marketable supply of papaya increased by 1.0479 percent.
R2 Value of the model is 0.95 and adjusted R2 value is 0.92 (Table 12). This result
indicates that about 92 percent of the variation in farm level marketable supply of
papaya was attributed to the hypothesized variables.
Gessesse et.al. (2009). Identify factors that determine onion, tomato and
papaya market supply of the farm households in the area. Determinants of market
supply of papaya, one variable Age of the household head was found significant for
papaya. The sign was positive, confirming the justification put at the hypothesized and
significant at 1% probability level. The positive and significant relationship indicates
that as papaya production increased by one percent the elasticity of marketable supply
of papaya increased by 1.0479 percent
Ayalew (2015) conducted a study on factors affecting fruit supply in the
market: the case of Habru Woerda, North Wollo, Ethiopia Regional State, Ethiopia.
He identified factors affecting farm level market supply of fruit; He was employed
OLS regression analysis. About 10 variables were hypothesized to affect the farm
14
level marketable supply of fruit in the Woreda. He found that education level of
household head, market information, access to extension services, quantity of fruit
produced were factors that significantly affect the quantity of fruit supplied to the
market positively at 5%, 5%, 1% and 1% confidence level, respectively while distance
to market affects the supply negatively at 1% confidence level.
Shafi et.al. (2014). Conducted a study on market chain analysis of papaya
(Carica papaya): The case of Dugda District, Eastern Shewa Zone, Oromia National
Regional State of Ethiopia. The probit model revealed that access to credit, family size
of the household, current market price, access to market information and non-farm
income were found to exert a significant impact on the probability of the households‟
papaya market participation. However, the supply equation results indicated that land
size, age of the household headed, family size of the household, sex of the household
head, and experience in papaya production exerted significant impact on volume
marketed. The coefficient associated with the inverse mill‟s ratio was insignificant,
indicating that no unobserved factors might affect participation decision and volume
of papaya marketed. In the district, the existing situations to exploit the potential of
fruit sector with regard to papaya production and marketing sector were not
encouraging. Supportive service in line with improving papaya production and
marketing, credit service, producers and traders‟ cooperatives, and formal market
information were weak. These problems can be addressed via formation of papaya
producer unions and cooperatives and through intervention of governmental or non-
governmental organizations in terms of improving possibilities for strong and
successful collective marketing of papaya.
2.4 Constraints in papaya production
Kindie (2007). Studied and pointed out that lack of improved seed varieties,
shortage of finance; accurate market information, poor infrastructures and high cost of
transportations were the major constraints that affect the production and marketing of
sesame.
15
Asmatoddin and Pawara (2008). A survey was conducted in Hingoli district of
Maharashtra in the year 2004-05 to study economics of production of papaya in
Maharashtra. Data were collected from 60 papaya growers. Most of the papaya
growers were in the middle age group (45.6 per cent) and their main occupation was
agriculture. The highest expensive item of expenditure was rental value of land (31.28
per cent) followed by human labour (14.45 per cent), followed by bullock labour (9.04
per cent), interest on working capital (6.85 per cent), irrigation (5.72 per cent) and
family labour (5.79 per cent) the per hectare cost of cultivation of cost „C‟ was
Rs.147787.63.The net profit was Rs.129754.77. Papaya cultivation was a profitable
venture in the state. Per quintal cost of production of papaya fruit was found to be
Rs.140.16
Bezabih et.al. (2008). conducted a study on Horticultural value chain in
Eastern parts of Ethiopia identified constraints on the chain. The study identified the
major marketing constraints such as huge number of middlemen in the marketing
system, lack of markets to absorb the production, lack of marketing institutions
safeguarding farmers' interest, low price for the products, rights over their marketable
produces, imperfect pricing system, lack of coordination among producers to increase
their bargaining power, lack of transparency in market information communications
and poor product handling and packaging.
Adugna et.al. (2009). A conducted study on fruit and vegetables market chain
stated that horticultural production in the study area is highly constrained by lack of
stable seed supply system, weak extension support, lack of appropriate pre and post-
harvest handling, and limited landholding at farmer level followed by weak market
linkage and knowledge by the different marketing actors. The study also reported that
the presence of brokers in market chain is for the disadvantages of producers‟ market
margin because the brokers isolate the producers from the traders. The study suggested
that the government to improving the inefficient market chain through strengthening
institutions like cooperatives.
16
Baloyi et.al. (2010). study revealed that the participation of smallholder
farmers in high value markets was constrained due to poor access to comprehensive
agricultural support services and there are also relatively few direct linkages between
smallholder farmers and fresh produce markets, supermarkets and agro processors. In
addition, farmers‟ sales activities are also either at the local or at the farm gate level.
Abel et.al. (2011). studied on farmers‟ involvement on value added produce
finds out several issues limiting the exploitation and maximization of value-added
products. Some of them are growers sold all their produce, and therefore did not see a
clear need to become involved in adding value to the remaining produce, lack of
resources preventing them from adding value to their foods, the lack of physical
facilities to process food, the absence of financial means, sanitary and other
requirements are currently impeding many farm operators to fully optimize or
maximize their food production. And suggested that the involvement of government to
assist different growers to become beneficiary from their produces.
Ayelech et.al. (2011). studied on fruits market chain analysis reported that the
small scaling deduction, quoting of lower prices, lack of market information and
deficiency in capital and credit availability are the major problems in the study area.
suggested that if fruit producer gets educated the amount of fruit supplied to the
market increases. lack of disease control, lack of clean seedling and low yielding were
the major problems affecting the production and marketing of fruits in Gomma
woreda.
Maske and Jain (2011) conducted a study on constraints in production and
marketing of papaya in Raipur district of Chhattisgarh. They found that farmers'
perception in the production of papaya growers was reported that 77.27 percent for
farmers having the problem of diseases & pest, 75 percent farmers was the lack of
improved varieties, 70.45 percent farmers was the scarcity of labor during peak season
and 63.64 percent lack of micronutrients in soil along with soil testing facilities. And
all the farmers (100 %) felt that the lack papaya based processing industries, lack of
17
storage facility in papaya they suggested that co-operative market, especially for
should papaya be established at the block level in order to get the remunerative prices
of their products. Nearly 72.73 percent farmers felt that fluctuation of prices and 65.91
percent farmer were reported higher transportation charges.
Hemambara et.al. (2015) conducted a study on production and marketing
problems of papaya growers in North Karnataka. They found that growth in area,
production and productivity of papaya 8.78, 11.62 and –2.90 percent, respectively. On
the contrary a lower growth rate was observed in case of state as a whole, which
registered to be a positive growth rate of the area (0.80%) and negative growth rate of
production (-8.89%) and productivity (-9.23%) of papaya. They found that problem
was a virus attack (100%) along with labour intensiveness (100%) and water scarcity
(100%) during papaya cultivation. They also reported that lack of technical know-how
(79%), lack of availability of market information (79%), irregular power supply
(78%), Storage problem (76%), higher initial investment (68%), smaller holdings
(37%) price fluctuations (37%) and lack of skilled labour for packing (19%) and
duplication of seeds (20%).
18
CHAPTER – III
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The comprehensive methodological framework and background of area is
presented in this chapter. The whole chapter is divided into four sub-section i.e.
background of study area, sampling procedure, data collection, analytical procedure.
3.1 Background of study area
A research programme requires knowledge of the region in which the investigation
in being carried out. Understanding the general characteristics of the study area is very
essential to carry out the research. In this sub-section background information about
the study area is given.
3.1.1 General profile of Bilaspur District
The general profile of Chhattisgarh and Bilaspur district is presented in Table 3.1.
The district Bilaspur is in the western part of the state of Chhattisgarh. North-West
boundary is shared with the Madhya Pradesh state while district Koria marks its
North-East boundary. The district Mungeli is in the West while Durg and Raipur
district makes its South boundary. The East boundary is marked by the district Janjgir-
champa and Korba. The district lies between 23° 05" to 22º05" N latitude 80°35" to 83
º 45‖ E longitudes. Out of total villages (20306) of Chhattisgarh State, this district has
899 populated villages. The district has 8 tehsil and 7 development block. The total
geographical area of the state is 13790 thousand hectare. Out of which Bilaspur
district is spread over in 5,81,849 (4.22 per cent) hectares. The area under cultivation
in the district is 43% of the total area i.e. 3,73,426 hectares. The topography of
Chhattisgarh state is divided in three parts i.e. Chhattisgarh plain, Northern hills and
Bastar plateau. Out of this three Bilaspur district comes under plain region of
Chhattisgarh state. Shivnath, Arpa and Maniyari are the main rivers of the district.
19
Table 3.1: General profile of Chhattisgarh and Bilaspur district
S.No. Particulars Chhattisgarh Bilaspur district Bilha block
1. Geographical Area 13790 (000) ha.
(100%)
581.84 (000) ha.
(4.22%) 38596
2. Latitude 17°46' to 24°50' 21037" to 23007" 21°57′N
3. Longitude 80°15' to 84°20' 80°35" to 83 º 45 82°03′E
4. No. of Tehsils 149
(100%)
8
(5.36) -
5. Populated Villages 20306
(100%)
900
(4.43)
125
(0.61)
6. Forest village 210
(100%)
5
(2.38) 0
7. No. of Gram
Panchayats
9139
(100%)
555
(6.07)
84
(0.91)
8. No. of Janpad
Panchayats
146
(100%)
10
(6.84)
1
(0.68)
9.
Total Population
(According to 2011
Census
24795956
(100%)
2,663,629
(100%)
156766
(100%)
10. Total Male Population 12452426
(50.21%)
1,351,574
(50.74%)
79275
(50.57%)
11. Total Female
Population
12343530
(49.79%)
1,312,055
(49.26%)
77491
(49.43%)
12. Total Literates (%) 71.04 70.78 57.23
13. Sex ratio 991 971 977
14. Child Sex Ratio 969 956 982
15. Density/km2 189 154 154
Source: Census 2011, District Statistical Office, Bilaspur (C.G.), 2013-14
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages to the total population
20
Fig3.1: - Map of India and Chhattisgarh
21
Bilaspur District
Study Block
Fig 3.2:- Map of study area
22
3.1.2 Rainfall distribution
The distribution of rainfall over the year 2014-15 in Bilaspur district is
presented in table 3.2. The average annual rainfall for the year was found to be
1164.6 mm. The area receives good rainfall, which should be harvested efficiently
to create irrigation facilities.
Table 3.2: Rainfall distribution in Bilaspur district ( 2014-15) in mm
Rainfall Normal RF(mm)
Sauth West monsoon (June-Sep): 1007.8
Narth East Monsoon(Oct-Dec): 80.1
Winter (Jan- March) 40.2
Summer (Apr-May) 36.2
Annual 1164.6
Source: Department of Meteorology, College of Agriculture, Bilaspur, (C.G.)
3.1.3 Soil and topography
The topography of this district indicates abundance of granite rocks of the
Archean Period to stratified rocks of Cuddupah group of upper Cambrian age, and
alluvial soil and sand of recent age are found in abundance in the district. Also found
in the region are Neo-granite, Dolerite and Quartz in intrusive forms. The soil in the
Block is composed at clay, clay loam and alluvial soil from Arpa river is mainly
responsible for making. The clay soil is locally known as “Matiyar” and “Domat”, the
soil is fertile and grows a variety of crops both in Kharif and Rabi season.The other
type of soil found in the Block are sandy loam, concrete and saline soils. The soil is
fertile alluvial in character and suited for cultivation of large varieties.
23
3.1.4 Distribution of land holding
The distribution of land holdings in Bilha block and Bilaspur district is given
in table 3.3. The distribution of land holdings according to size and the total cultivated
area falling in each category are given in table 3.3. The largest number of holdings
falls under marginal farmer‟s category both in block and district. However, farmers in
this category owned only a small proportion of the cultivated land.
Table 3.3: Distribution of land holdings
S.No. Particulars Bilaspur
district Bilha block
1. Marginal farmers (< 1.0 ha) 74056 8004
(38.72%) (41.39%)
2. Small farmers (1.0 - < 2.0 ha) 67116 7276
(35.09%) (37.63%)
3. Medium farmers (2.0 - < 4.0 ha) 41929 3411
(21.92%) (17.64%)
4. Large farmers (Above 4.0 ha) 8181 645
(4.28%) (3.34%)
Total
191282 19336
(100%) (100%)
Source: District Statistical Office, Bilaspur (C.G.), 2013-14
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages to the total.
3.1.5 Land utilization pattern
The land utilization pattern of Chhattisgarh and Bilaspur district presented in
table 3.4. It is clear from the table that the geographical area of Chhattisgarh
13789836 ha and Bilaspur District is 581849. The net area sown in Chhattisgarh
4710000 ha (34.16 per cent) and Bilaspur district is 231823 ha (39.84 per cent) and
share in C.G. 4.92 per cnt. Cropping intensity of Chhattisgarh and Bilaspur district is
131.27 percent and 136.33 per cent respectively.
24
Table 3.4: Land utilization pattern of Chhattisgarh and Bilaspur district
S.No. Particulars Chhattisgarh
area (ha.)
Bilaspur
District (ha.) Share in C.G
1. Total geographical area 13789836 581849
4.22
100 100
2. Forest area 6349000 107244
1.69
46.04 18.43
3. Area not available for
cultivation 1004000 4825 0.48
7.28 0.83
4. Other uncultivated land
excluding fallow Land 855000 6432 0.75
6.20 1.11
5. Cultivable waste land 346000 10903
3.15
2.51 1.87
6. Fallow land (old +
current) 523000 25890 4.95
3.79 4.45
7. Net area sown 4710000 231823
4.92
34.16 39.84
8. Grossed cropped area 6183000 285195
4.61
44.84 49.02
9. Cropping intensity (%) 131.27 136.33 Source: District Statistical Booklet (2013-14), District Statistical Office, Bilaspur (C.G.), 2013-14. Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages to the total geographical pattern
3.1.6: Source of irrigation:
The area under various sources of irrigation is presented in table 3.5. Figures
presented in the table indicate that tube well is main source of irrigation in this district
as it has 64.02 per cent irrigation in Bilaspur district. These figures show that farmers
25
are keen interested to create their own irrigation facility at their farm in order to ensure
the irrigation in the crop. Canal, tanks and wells are other source of irrigation which
contributes 19.64 per cent, 9.38 per cent and 0.32 per cent respectively in Bilaspur
district.
Table 3.5: Sources of irrigation and irrigated area
S. No Sources of irrigation Bilaspur district
No. Area (ha)
1. Canal 105 19692
(19.64)
2. Tubewells 8138 64180
(64.02)
3. Wells 2304 321
(0.320)
4. Tank 4849 9412
(9.38)
5. Others - 6641
(6.62)
Total 100246
(100)
Source: District Statistical Booklet (2014-15), District Statistical Office, Bilaspur (C.G.), 2013-14. Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages to the total area.
3.1.7 Cropping pattern in the study area
Being a mono-cropped region, paddy is the main cereal crop of the district
during kharif season. Nearly 60.67 per cent area is allocated under paddy crop in
kharif season. However, several other crops are also being grown in kharif as well as
during rabi season in this district, although the area under cultivation is very less.
26
Table 3.6: Area under different crops in the study area
S.N. Season/Crops Area (000 ha.) % share
Kharif
1 Rice 191.766 60.674
2 Jowar 0.356 0.113
3 Maize 3.013 0.953
4 Millets 1.906 0.603
5 Pigeonpea 2.308 0.730
6 GreenGram 0.081 0.026
7 BlackGram 1.542 0.488
8 Soybean 0.205 0.065
9 Groundnut 0.011 0.003
10 Seasamum 0.637 0.202
11 Vegetables 19.8 6.265
12 Papaya 1.785 0.565
13 Banana 2.425 0.767
Other 5.15 1.629
Sub Total 230.985
73.083
Rabi
12 Gram 2.578 0.816
13 Wheat 8.231 2.604
14 GreenGram 0.031 0.010
15 BlackGram 0.092 0.029
17 HorseGram 0.744 0.235
18 Pea 0.73 0.231
19 Lentil 0.38 0.120
20 Lathyrus 33.253 10.521
27
21 Rapeseed-mustard 1.804 0.571
22 Linseed 1.746 0.552
24 Seasamum 0.011 0.003
26 Sunflower 0.012 0.004
27 Safflower 0.022 0.007
28 Niger 0.328 0.104
29 Vegetables 13.8 4.366
30 Pigeonpea 2.308 0.730
33 Other 3.12 0.987
Sub Total 73.4
21.891
Summer
34 Vegetable 5.014 1.586
35 Other 2.45 0.775
Sub Total 11.674 2.362
Total cropped area 316.059 100
Net area sown 231.823
Cropping intensity % 136.33
Source: District Statistical Office, Bilaspur (C.G.), 2013-14.
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages to the total respective crop.
The cropping pattern and area under different crops in Bilaspur district is presented in
table 3.6. The total area under different crops in kharif and rabi season is observed as
73.08 per cent and 21.89 per cent respectively. Remaining 2.36 per cent of the total
cropped area is allocated during summer season in the district. The area under paddy is
observed to be as 60.67 per cent of the total cropped area of the district, remaining
area is allocated under other crops like urd, groundnut, wheat, kodo, lathyrus, mustard,
sesame, gram, and maize of the net cropped area in this district.. However, a total of
230.89 thousand hectare amounting to 0.565 per cent of the total cropped area was
covered under papaya at 1.78 thousand hectare in Bilaspur district.
28
3.2 Sampling procedure:
The detailed sampling procedure of selection of the district, block, villages
papaya growers, wholesalers, retailers and processing industries are presented under
following sub-section
3.2.1 Selection of district
Chhattisgarh state have consists 27 districts. Among them Bilaspur district
contributed 7.9 per cent area in papaya cultivation during 2014-15 and ranked first in
area and production of papaya. So, Bilaspur district was selected for study. Papaya
was cultivated in 1875 hectare area and production was 47880 tons in Bilaspur district
during 2014-15.
3.2.2 Selection of block
The Bilaspur district has seven blocks, i.e. Bilha, Takhatpur, Masturi, Gaurella,
Kota, Pendra, and Marwahi. Among them Bilha blocks was selected on the basis of
maximum area contributed in the cultivation of papaya.
Table 3.7: Block wise area of papaya in Bilaspur district in 2013-2014
Source: Directorate of Horticulture (2014-15), Bilaspur
3.2.3 Selection of villages and papaya growers
Bilha Block is having 90 villages, the papaya growers are so scattered over the
entire block and they are few in numbers in the villages of the block. So, the
S.N. Blocks Area of papaya (ha.)
1. Bilha 375.0
2. Takhatpur 281.2
3. Masturi 331.5
4. Gaurella 243.7
5. Kota 262.5
6. Pendra 225.0
7. Marwahi 156.1
Total 1875
29
snowball sampling technique was adopted for selection of village and papaya
growers. 60 papaya growers have been undertaken from 22 villages in the study.
Table 3.8 selected villages and papaya grower
S/no. Villages Small Medium Large
1 Bitkuli 0 1 1
2 Nagraudi 1 1 2
3 Nipnia 1 2 1
4 Bitkuli 0 0 1
5 Fanda 1 1 2
6 Uslapur 1 1 1
7 Limtri 0 2 2
8 Hatmudi 1 0 1
9 Sardha 1 0 0
10 Kunwa 1 0 0
11 Mohtara 2 1 1
12 Hardi Kalan 1 1 0
13 Pondi 1 1 2
14 Tilsara 0 0 1
15 Silyari 1 2 1
16 Umariya 0 2 2
17 Hathni 1 1 0
18 Hirri 1 1 2
19 Bartori 0 0 1
20 Atarra 1 1 2
21 Churaghat 1 0 2
22 Piperiya 0 0 1
Total 16 18 26
30
3.2.4 Selection of wholesalers
The Bilaspur district having 27 wholesaler deals for different fruits available by
season between them 5 wholesalers were selected randomly.
3.2.5 Selection of retailers
From all the retailers who are functioning in the study area out of them 10 papaya
retailers have taken randomly for the study
3.2.6 Selection processing industry
There are 2 firms involved in the processing of papaya in Bilaspur district and 2
firms in Raipur district. So, that all the firms have been undertaken for the analysis
of value addition in papaya for the study.
3.3 Collection of Data:
The study required both primary and secondary data for fulfillment of the
objectives of the study. The primary data were collected at different levels of
objectives on all the relevant aspects for the agriculture year 2015-16. And, the
secondary data was recorded on area, production and productivity of papaya by
district and Chhattisgarh state for the period of 2005-06 to 2014-15 from the
official website of the Chhattisgarh Horticulture Department.
3.4 Analytical tools:
The simple averages and percentages statistal method were used to persent the
results of study. As per the suitability of the specific method of analysis was
applied which is given as fallows
3.4.1 Growth rate
The compound Growth Rate (CGR) in area, production and productivity of papaya
was computed in Bilaspur district and Chhattisgarh state, the semi-log expontial
function was used to comput the CGR which is given as:
Y= α βt
Log Y= log α+ t log β
Where,
Y= Area/ production /productivity of papaya
α= Constant
31
β= Regression coefficient
t= time in year
Compound growth rate (%) = (Antilog β-1)100
The equation can be rewritten in the logarithmic form as follows
logYt = log a + t log b+ log Ut
Where,
U = estimated error
3.4.2 Value chain analysis
As products move successively through the various stages, transactions take place
between multiple chain actors, money and information are exchanged and value was
progressively added. The analysis of papaya value chains highlights the need for
enterprise development, enhancement of product quality, and quantitative
measurement of value addition along the chain, promotion of coordinated linkages
among producers and improvement of the competitive position of individual
enterprises in the marketplace.
Moreover, individual enterprises may feed into numerous chains; hence, which chain
(or chains) was/were targeted depends largely on the point of entry for the research
inquiries (Kaplinsky and Morris, 2001). The following four steps of value chain
analysis were applied to this study:
3.4.2.1 Mapping the value chain to understand the characteristics of the chain actors
and the relationships among them, including the study of all actors in the chain, of the
flow of papaya through the chain, of employment features, and of the destination and
volumes of domestic. This information can be obtained by conducting surveys.
Identifying the distribution of partners benefits in the chain. This involves
analyzing the margins and profits within the chain and therefore determined benefits
from participating in the chain and who needed support to improve performance and
gains.
3.4.2.2 Cost of cultivation of papaya
The costs and returns of papaya cultivation was estimated through standard
cost concepts given by the CACP. It is calculated in Rs. /ha.
32
Cost A1: All actual expenses in cash and kind incurred in production, which Consist
of following 16 items of cost as under.
1. Value of hired human labour
2. Value of owned bullock labour
3. Value of hired bullock labour
4. Value of owned machinery
5. Hired machinery charged
6. Value of fertilizers
7. Value of manure (produced on farm and purchased)
8. Value of seed (both farm-produced and purchased)
9. Value of insecticides and fungicides.
10. Irrigation charges (both of the owned and hired tube wells, pumping sets etc.)
11. canal-water charges
12. Land revenue, and other taxes
13. Depreciation on farm implements
14. Depreciation on farm building, farm machinery.
15. Interest on the working capital.
16. Miscellaneous expenses (wages of artisans, and repairs to small farm implements)
Cost A2 = Cost A1+ Rent paid for leased in land
Cost B= Cost A1+ Interest on fixed capital + rental value of own land
Cost B1 = Cost A1+ Interest on value of owned capital assets (excluding land)
Cost B2 = Cost B1+ Rental value of owned land and rent paid for leased-in land
Cost C= Cost B + Family labour
Cost C1 = Cost B1+ Imputed value of family labour
Cost C2 = Cost B2+ Imputed value of family labour
Cost C3 = Cost C2 + 10% of Cost C2 on account of managerial function performed by
farmer
33
Interest on working capital
It was calculated @ 4% per annum for half of the crop period.
Interest on fixed capital
It was calculated @ 10% of fixed assets excluding land.
Rental value of owned land
It was calculated based on the prevailing rates in the sampling blocks.
3.4.3 Income measures
(a) Gross income:
It includes the final price of main product and by product of the crop.
(b) Net income:
Net income = Gross income - Cost C
(c) Input-output ratio
It can be expressed as the ratio of output to input. The ratio was calculated
as
Input-output ratio = O/I
Where,
I = Total input
O = Total output
3.4.3 Analysis of papaya value chain performance
The Total Gross Marketing Margin (TGMM) was useful to calculate producer‟s
gross margin (GMMp) which is the portion of the price paid by the consumer that
goes to the producer.
TGMM =
Consumer price − Farmer's price
×100 Consumer price
Where TGMM - Total Gross Marketing Margin
Producers‟ participation or producers‟ gross margin is the proportion of the price paid
by the end consumer that belongs to the farmer as a producer.
34
GMMp =
Producers margin
×100 Total marketing Gross Margin
Where,
GMMp- Producers‟ participation (farmers‟ portion)
Producer’s share
PS =
Px
= 1 −
MM
Pr Pr
Or GMMp = 1- TGMM
Where,
PS- Producer‟s share
Px- Producer‟s price of papaya
Pr-Consumers paid price
MM – Marketing margin
3.4.4 Determinants of Papaya market supply analysis
Multiple linear regression model will be used to analyze factors affecting farm
level papaya supply to the market. Multiple linear regression models are specified as
Y=f (xi)
The specification of model the variables is as follows.
Yi=F(X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6, X7, X8, X9, X10, X11)
where: Yi = quantity of papaya supplied to market
X1 = distance to nearest market
X2 = Sex of household head
X3 = Access to market information
X4 = extension services
X5 = Total land holding of the household head
X6 = Educational level of household head
X7 = Access to credit
X8 = Age of household head
35
X9 = family size
X10 = Experience in papaya production
X11 = Active family labor
Definition of variables and Hypothses
I. Dependent variable:
Quantity of papaya supplied to market : It is a continuous variable that
represents the dependent variable; the actual supply of papaya by individual
households to the market, which is measured in quintals.
II. Independent (Explanatory) variables:
1. Distance to nearest market : It is a continuous variable that is measured in
kilometers which farmer waste time to sell their product to the market.
2. Sex of the household head - Sex of the household head dictated that it is
dummy variable that takes a value of one if the household head is male and
zero otherwise
3. Access to market information: It is a dummy variable with a value of one if a
household head has access to market information and zero otherwise. The
general idea is that maintaining a competitive advantage requires a sound
business plan. Again, business decisions are based on dynamic information
such as consumer needs and market trends. This requires that an enterprise is
managed with due attention to new market opportunities, changing needs of
the consumer and how market trends influence buying.
4. Extension service – This is a dummy variable with a value of one if a
household has access to extension contact and zero otherwise. The aim of the
extension service is introducing farmers with new and improved agricultural
inputs for better methods of increasing production and productivity in turn
increase marketable supply.
5. Total land holding of the household - This is a continuous variable in hectare
indicating the total land owned by a farmer. It is expected to take positive sign
implying that the larger land size a farmer owns the more land size would be
36
allocated for the crop at interest. Increase in size of land assumes direct
influence on marketable surplus.
6. Education of household head - This is a dummy variable with a value of one
if a household head is literate and zero otherwise. Education increases farmers‟
ability to get and use information. Since households who have better
knowledge are assumed to adopt better production practices, this variable is
assumed to have positive relation with farm level marketable supply of papaya.
7. Access to credit - Would enhance the financial capacity of the household to
purchase the necessary inputs and increases output. Moreover, get hold of good
transportation, post-harvest handling, and alleviating marketing problems.
8. Age of the household head - It is a continuous variable and measured in
years. Age is a proxy measure of farming experience of household. Aged
households are believed to be wise in resource use, and it is expected to have a
positive effect on market participation and marketable surplus. On the other
hand, older households may also be tradition bound and reluctant to take up
new technologies, hence negatively affecting papaya production.
9. Family size – This is the total number of family members that can be taken as
a proxy for level of consumption. This continuous variable is expected to
influence participation decision and supply negatively
10. Experience in papaya production -It was a continuous variable measured by
number of years stayed in papaya production and marketing which is different
from age influence marketed surplus positively. Household with better
experience in papaya production was expected to produce more amount of
papaya than those with only less experience.
11. Active family labor – This is a continuous variable representing the
availability of economically active labor force in the household (male and
female). It is expected to take positive coefficients explaining an increase in
economically active labor force to increase the farmer‟s participation in the
crop farming.
37
CHAPTER - V
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The present chapter deals with the results and discussion of different objectives
of the study. The chapter is arranged in different sub-sections according to objectives
of the study. The demographic features of the sampled households and growth rate in
papaya and in terms of area, production and productivity are described in sub-section
4.1 and 4.2 respectively. Section 4.3 discusses about cost and returns in cultivation of
papaya. Papaya value chain and performance of value chain partners of papaya in the
study area is discussed section 4.4. Determinants in the supply of papaya in the study
areas in section 4.5 discusses about the constraints faced by the farmers in papaya
production and marketing.
4.1.Socioeconomic and demographic profile of the sample farmer in the study
area
The present study covers a sample of 60 farmers in farm size group, i.e. 1 to 2
hectare, 2 to 4 hectare and above 4 hectare. The study of arrangement of sample farms
and farms family is most important because of the fact that it influences the resource
use pattern as well as marketing of farm produce. Further, age, sex and education wise
distribution of family members, farm family, and intensity of cropping etc. also affect
the production. Therefore, in the present chapter an attempt has been made to analyzed
data on distribution of farms and cultivated area under different size group of farms.
4.1.1 General characteristics of sample household
The general characteristics of the sampled households are presented in Table
4.1.and figures 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3. It reveals that the male population was seen to some
extent higher than female being 53.37 per cent and in case of female it was 46.63 per
cent. The overall family size was found to be 5.68 it was maximum in small and
lowest in medium farms. About 70.08 per cent population belonged to 15-60 years
38
age group in this sample. The population below the 15 years of age consists
about 17.30 per cent while remaining of 13.48 per cent population fall in the group of
above 60 years. The overall per thousand male to female ratio was observed low
1000:933 in this population. The schedule caste, schedule tribes, other backward caste
and general caste consists 7.40, 12.03, 61.11 and 19.44 per cent, respectively of the
total sampled farmers.
Table 4.1: General characteristics of household
S.
no Particulars Small Medium Large Over all
1 Total no. of
households 16 18 26 60
2 Total family member 98 99 144 341
(100) (100) (100) (100)
a. Male 50 54 78 182
(51.02) (54.55) (54.17) (53.37)
b. Female 48 45 66 159
(48.98) (45.45) (45.83) (46.63)
Average family
member 6.13 5.50 5.54 5.68
Per thousand male to
female ratio 980 909 917 933
3 Age groups (years) Small Medium Large Overall
a. Below 15 years
i Male 8 9 12 29
(8.16) (9.09) (8.33) (8.50)
ii Female 7 9 9 30
(7.14) (9.09) (6.25) (8.79)
b. 15-60 Years
i Male 35 45 53 133
(35.71) (45.45) (36.80) (39.00)
ii Female 33 30 49 106
(33.67) (30.30) (34.02) (31.08)
c. Above 60 years
i Male 8 0 13 21
(8.16) (0.00) (9.02) (6.15)
39
ii Female 7 6 8 25
(7.14) (6.06) (5.56) (7.33)
4 Social group Small Medium Large Overall
a. Schedule caste 3 2 3 8
(18.75) (11.11) (10.34) (7.40)
b. Schedule tribe 3 5 5 13
(18.75) (27.77) (17.24) (12.03)
c. Other backward
caste
6 7 16 66
(37.5) (38.88) (55.17) (61.11)
d. General 4 4 5 21
(25) (22.22) (17.24) (19.44)
Total 16 18 29 108
(100) (100) (100) (100)
5 Occupation Small Medium Large Overall
a. Agriculture 52 63 62 177
(65.000) (84.00) (80.51) (76.29)
b. Agricultural
worker
25 0 0 25
(31.250) (0.00) (0.000) (10.77)
c. Govt. & private
service
3 8 6 17
(3.750) (10.66) (7.79) (7.32)
d. Business 0 4 9 13
(0) (5.33) (11.68) (5.60)
Working members 80 75 77 232
(100) (100) (100) (100)
Note: Figures in the parentheses indicate the percentages to total number of family
members
It is clear from this table that about 76 per cent of working group is involved in
agriculture at sample farms. The percentage of agriculture as the main occupation
(76.29%) at about 84.00, 80.51, and 76.29per cent in case of small, medium and large
farmers, respectively. Business which pottery, grocery shops, cycle repair shops etc is
the second important source of income where 5.60 per cent people depend on
business. The other source of income of the farmers is government and private service,
and wages in the study area which noticed to be 7.32 per cent.
40
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
small medium large overall
No
um
be
r o
f m
amb
er
Fig: 4.1 Total family member of sample farmer
total
male
female
7%
12%
61%
20%
Fig: 4.2 Social status of the farmers at sample household
Schedule caste
Schedule tribe
Other backward caste
General
76%
11%
7%6%
Fig: 4.3 Occupation status of the farmers at sample household
Agriculture
Agricultural worker
Govt. & private service
Business
41
4.1.2 Educational status of the sample farmer
Educational status of the respondents presented in Table 4.2 and figure 4.4 as it is one
of the most important pre-requisites for the development the individual as well as for
the society, community and nation. The education gained by the individual of any
society and community reflects the overall situation of that particular community. On
an overall literacy percentage was found 91.49 per cent among sampled households.
Category wise education percentage was found highest 93.93 per cent in case of
medium farms in which 9.09 per cent were found graduates and post graduates. It has
been also observed in case of large and medium categories that no one works as an
agricultural labour in others fields.
Table 4.2: Educational status of the sample farmer
S.n Education Small Medium Large
1. Illiterate 11 6 12
(11.22) (6.06) (8.33)
2. Primary school 39 38 21
(39.79) (38.38) (14.58)
3. Middle school 32 26 28
(32.65) (26.28) (19.44)
4. Higher secondary 12 20 51
(12.24) (20.20) (35.47)
5. Graduate/ post
Graduate
4 9 33
(4.08) (9.09) (22.06)
Total 98 99 144
(100) (100) (100)
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to total education
42
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Illiterate Primary
School
Middle
School
Higher
secondary
Graduate
11
3932
12
46
38
2620
912
2128
51
3329
98
8683
46
Fig 4.4: Educational status of the farmers at sampled
households.
Small
Medium
Large
Over all
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Total
cultivated
Area
Area under
cultivation
Irrigated
area
Un
irrigated
area
Area under
Papaya
1.81 1.81 1.64
0.160.29
3.68 3.683.42
0.260.55
7.27 7.27
6.64
0.631.62
4.74 4.744.34
0.40.94
Fig 4.5: Land use pattern (ha./farm)
Small
Medium
Large
Over all
43
4.1.3 Land use pattern of sample farmer
Size of holding and irrigated area at sampled farms is presented in Table 4.3
and fig 4.5. The per farm total cultivated area is observed to be during kharif season at
1.81, 3.68, and 7.27 hectare at small, medium and large farms, respectively overall
4.74 hectare area is under cultivation. The overall irrigated area is 91.66 per cent to the
total cultivated land. The percentage of irrigated area varied from 91.00 per cent at
small farms, 92.91 per cent at medium farms and 91.32 per cent at large farms. The
overall allocation of area under papaya was found to be 19.92 per cent of the total
cultivated area. Which was noticed to be 15.92, 14.93, and 22.28 per cent area of
papaya at small, medium and large farms respectively.
Table 4.3: Size of land use pattern at sampled farms (ha/farm)
S. No. Particulars Small Medium Large Over all
1 Total cultivated
Area
1.81 3.68 7.27 4.74
(100) (100 (100) (100)
2 Area under
cultivation
1.81 3.68 7.27 4.74
(100) (100) (100) (100)
3 Irrigated area 1.64 3.42 6.64 4.34
(91.00) 92.91) (91.32) (91.66)
4 Un irrigated area 0.16) 0.26 0.63 0.40
(9.00) (7.09) (8.68) (8.34)
5 Area under
Papaya
0.29 0.55 1.62 0.94
(15.92) (14.93) (22.28) (19.92)
Note: Figures in the parentheses indicate the percentages to the total cultivated area.
4.1.4 Source of irrigation
Category wise area under various sources of irrigation is presented in table 4.4
and figure 4.6. Table shows that tube well and canals are the main sources of irrigation
as 89.51 per cent of the area is irrigated by these two sources in the sampled farms.
These figures are clear indication that farmers of this region are very cautious about
the irrigation in agriculture. Remaining area is covered by wells as another source of
irrigation in the district. On an overall tube wells contributed 62.04 per cent area under
44
irrigation which was highest at 64.54 per cent at large farms and lowest at small farms
56.32 farms respectively.
Table 4.4: Source wise irrigated area at sampled farms (ha./farm)
S. No. Source Small Medium Large Over all
1 Tube well
0.92 1.97 4.28 2.69
(56.32) (57.47) (64.54) (62.04)
2 Canal
0.41 1.25 1.63 1.19
(25.29) (36.53) (24.57) (27.47)
3 pond
0.17 0.00 0.00 0.05
(10.34) (0.00) (0.00) (1.04)
4 Stop dam
0.13 0.21 0.72 0.41
(8.05) (6.01) (10.89) (9.45)
Total
1.63 3.42 6.64 4.34
(100) (100) (100) (100)
Note: Figures in the parenthesis indicate the percentage to total irrigated area.
4.1.5 Cropping pattern followed by sampled papaya farmers
The cropping pattern and cropping intensity represent the diversity of crop
grown and it computed on per farm area under crops which is presented in Table 4.5.
and fig. 4.7. It may be seen that the total cropped area is observed to be 1.81, 3.68,
7.27 and 4.74 hectare at small, medium large farms and overall farms respectively.
The highest cropped area is found in kharif season among. The area under different
crops in kharif season is observed to be 47.07, 45.69, 42.58 and 43.70 per cent at
small, medium, large and overall farms respectively. It is evident that with 19.16 per
cent (2.08 hectare) area was under rice and it is the principal crop followed by papaya
at 8.70 per cent (0.94 ha.) area for the sampled farms in kharif season. The area under
different crops in rabi season accounted 40.05 per cent area at overall farm. The
overall cropping intensity was 228.85 per cent at sampled household. It is concluded
that the cropping intensity of small, medium and large farm is 212.46, 218.85
and234.87 per cent. The area under papaya was observed at 0.29 (7.49 per cent), 0.55
(6.82 per cent), 1.62(9.48 per cent) and 0.94 (8.70 per cent) hectare are accounted and
at small, medium, large and overall farms area, respectively.
45
Table 4.5: Cropping pattern followed by sampled farmers (ha/farm)
S. N. Particulars Small Medium Large Overall
1. Kharif
a. Rice 0.79 2.21 2.78 2.08
(20.52) (27.43) (16.26) (19.16)
b. Tomato 0.25 0.21 0.70 0.43
(6.51) (2.55) (4.08) (3.97)
c. Papaya 0.29 0.55 1.62 0.94
(7.49) (6.82) (9.48) (8.70)
d. Brinjal 0.09 0.11 0.53 0.29
(2.28) (1.31) (3.11) (2.63)
e. Chilly 0.11 0.09 0.16 0.13
(2.77) (1.17) (0.95) (1.17)
f. Pigeon pea 0.11 0.19 0.51 0.31
(2.77) (2.41) (2.97) (2.83)
g. Soyabean 0.18 0.32 0.98 0.57
(4.72) (3.93) (5.72) (5.23)
Sub total 1.81 3.68 7.27 4.74
(47.07) (45.69) (42.58) (43.70)
2. Rabi
h. Chick pea 0.80 2.00 3.19 2.20
(20.85) (24.81) (18.68) (20.25)
i. Wheat 0.19 0.52 0.56 0.45
(4.89) (6.48) (3.27) (4.14)
j. Papaya 0.29 0.52 1.62 0.93
(7.49) (6.41) (9.48) (8.61)
k. Vegetables 0.26 0.38 0.71 0.49
(6.84) (4.76) (4.17) (4.55)
l. Pigeon pea 0.11 0.19 0.56 0.33
(2.77) (2.41) (3.29) (3.04)
Sub total 1.64 3.42 6.64 4.34
(42.83) (42.45) (38.88) (40.05)
3. Summer
m. Vegetables 0.10 0.41 1.62 0.85
(2.61) (5.03) (9.48) (7.84)
n. Papaya 0.29 0.55 1.55 0.91
(7.49) (6.82) (9.06) (8.41)
Sub total 0.39 0.96 3.17 1.76
(10.10) (11.85) (18.54) (16.25)
Grass Cropped area 3.84 8.06 17.07 10.84
(100) (100) (100) (100)
Net cultivated Area 1.81 3.68 7.27 4.74
Cropping intensity 212.46 218.85 234.87 228.85
Note: Figures in the par cent indicate the percentages to the total cropped area
46
0
1
2
3
4
5
Tube well Canal pond Stop dam
Fig. 4.6:Source wise irrigated area at sampled
households(h/farm)
Small
Medium
Large
Over all
0
5
10
15
20
SmallMedium
LargeOver all
Fig. 4.7: Net cultivated area and gross cropped area at
different farms (ha./farm)
Grass Cropped area
Net cultivated Area
200
210
220
230
240
Small Medium Large Over all
Fig. 4.8: Cropping intensity at different farms (%)
Cropping intensity (%)
47
4.2 Compound growth rates in area, production and productivity of papaya
The development and growth in area, production and productivity of papaya is
presented by present status trend and growth in area, production and productivity of
papaya with consideration of secondary data from 2005-6 to 2014-15 and it is
presented in fallowing sub section:
4.2.1 Status of papaya:
The present status of papaya in depicted by district and Chhattisgarh as a
whole through tabulation of area, production and productivity for the year 2014-15
which is given in table 4.6 it reveal that total area under and production of papaya
cultivation in Chhattisgarh state is observed as 12410 ha and 318888 metric tonnes.
Table 4.6: Area, production and productivity of papaya in CG state (2014- 15)
District Area Production Productivity
Bilaspur 1810 47888 26.46
(14.59) (15.02)
Raipur 985 39723 40.33
(7.94) (12.46)
Balodabazar 760 16575 21.81
(6.12) (5.20)
Gariyaband 0 0 0.00
(0.00) (0.00)
Mahasamund 1329 19771 14.88
(10.71) (6.20)
Dhamtari 355 2954 8.32
(2.86) (0.93)
Durg 1268 49944 39.39
(10.22) (15.66)
Balod 158 6332 40.08
(1.27) (1.99)
Bemetara 625 25125 40.20
(5.04) (7.88)
Rajnandgoan 301 5568 18.50
(2.43) (1.75)
Kabirdham 206 3090 15.00
(1.66) (0.97)
48
Jagdalpur 80 2000 25.00
(0.64) (0.63)
Kondagoan 294 7078 24.07
(2.37) (2.22)
Kanker 315 5081 16.13
(2.54) (1.59)
Dantewada 43 860 20.00
(0.35) (0.27)
Sukma 21 210 10.00
(0.17) (0.07)
Mungeli 473 13008 27.50
(3.81) (4.08)
Janjgeer 752 14927 19.85
(6.06) (4.68)
Korba 101 3552 35.17
(0.81) (1.11)
Raigarh 260 10325 39.71
(2.10) (3.24)
Jashpur 105 2468 23.50
(0.85) (0.77)
Surguja 450 8522 18.94
(3.63) (2.67)
Surajpur 50 1130 22.60
(0.40) (0.35)
Balrampur 798 15113 18.94
(6.43) (4.74)
Koria 580 13050 22.50
(4.67) (4.09)
Narayanpur 132 3960 30.00
(1.06) (1.24)
Bijapur 159 634 3.99
(1.28) (0.19)
Total 12410 318888 25.70
(100) (100)
Source: Directorate of Horticulture, Chhattisgarh
Note: Figures in the parenthesis indicate the percentage area of papaya.
49
Bilaspur, Mahasamund and Durg district are major papaya growing districts
which are jointly contributing more than 35.52 per cent area to total area and 36.88 per
cent production of papaya in the Chhattisgarh state. The area under papaya cultivation
in these three districts is observed as 1810 ha, 1329 ha and 1268 ha area respectively
of total area of the state. Similarly, the production of these three districts is estimated
at 117603 metric tonnes of the total production in the state. Bilaspur is the highest
papaya producing district of Chhattisgarh however it is due to large area under papaya
cultivation.
4.2.2. Trend in Area, production and productivity of papaya in Bilaspur district
and Chhattisgarh state
The trend in area, production and productivity of papaya was estimated by computing
linear equation for the period of 2005-06 to2014-15 and which is presented in table
4.7, Figure 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13 and 4.14. The area of papaya increased from 500
ha. in 2005-06 to 1810 ha. in 2014-15 showing a tremendous increasing in the area of
papaya, the Production of papaya also increased from 5500 metric tonnes in 2005-06
to 47885 metric tonnes in 2014-15. The productivity of papaya varied from 11.00 t/ha.
to 26.46 t/ha. during this period. The improvement in productivity was due to new
improved variety of papaya, availability and inputs in the study area.
4.2.3 Compound growth rate in area, production and productivity of papaya
The compound growth rate was computed on the basis of 10 years secondary data of
area, production and productivity of papaya (2005-06 to 2014-15). It is presented in
growth in area, production and productivity of papaya in Bilaspur district was found
18.92, 50.48 and 26.56per cent respectively which were significant at 5 per cent
probability level of distribution. It can be inferred from the result that significance
increased in growth of production was due to significance increase in area and
productivity of papaya.
The growth in production of papaya in Chhattisgarh state was found in 11.14 per cent
which was attributed by significantly increase in area by 13.15 per cent only whole
growth in productivity was found to be negative and non- significant.
50
Table 4.7: Area, production and productivity of papaya in Bilaspur district and Chhattisgarh State
S.
N Years Bilaspur district Chhattisgarh state
Area
Production
(mt)
Productivity
(t/ha.) Area
Production
(mt)
Productivity
(t/ha.)
1 2005-06 500 5500 11.00 4223.75 119090 28.20
2 2006-07 152 456 3.00 4426 136699 30.89
3 2007-08 1602 2282 1.42 7409 136077 18.37
4 2008-09 1750 32147.5 18.37 8063 148117 18.37
5 2009-10 1785 32243.94 18.06 3341 211734 63.37
6 2010-11 1785 40341 22.60 10597.3 247051 23.31
7 2011-12 1578 43480.5 27.55 11042.8 268308 24.30
8 2012-13 1626 44133 27.14 11884 289886 24.39
9 2013-14 1785 44195 24.76 11459 286844 25.03
10 2014-15 1810 47885 26.46 12410 245788 19.81
Table 4.8: Compound growth rate of area, production and productivity of papaya in Bilaspur district and Chhattisgarh state
S.No. Particular Compound growth rate (2005-06 to 2014-2015)
Bilaspur district Chhattisgarh state
A. Area 18.92** 13.15*
B. Production 50.48** 11.14*
C. Productivity 26.56** -2.04
Note: *significant in 1% level of probability, **significant in 5% level of probability
51
Fig. 4.9: Area of papaya in Bilaspur District
Fig. 4.10: Production of papaya in Bilaspur District
Fig. 4.11: Productivity of papaya in Bilaspur District
y = 5690.x - 2033.R² = 0.820
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
production(MT)
Линейная (production(MT))
y = 5690.x - 2033.R² = 0.820
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
production(MT)
Линейная (production(MT))
y = 2.74x + 2.967R² = 0.718
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
Productivity(t/ha.)
Линейная (Productivity(t/ha.))
52
Fig. 4.12: Area of papaya in Chhattisgarh
Fig. 4.13: Production of papaya in Chhattisgarh
Fig. 4.14: Productivity of papaya in Chhattisgarh
y = 138.3x + 676.4R² = 0.491
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Area(ha)
Линейная (Area(ha))
y = 5690.x - 2033.R² = 0.820
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
production(MT)
Линейная (production(MT))
y = 2.74x + 2.967R² = 0.718
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
Productivity(t/ha.)
Линейная (Productivity(t/ha.))
53
4.3. Identification of Value Chain partners in papaya:
4.3.1. Papaya value chain map in Bilaspur district
Fig 4.15 Papaya market channel in Bilaspur district
Source: Own sketch from survey result, 2017
54
4.3.2 Value chain partners and their role in papaya marketing
The value chain map highlighted the participation of diverse actors who are
participated directly or indirectly in the value chain. According to KIT et al. (2006),
the direct actors are those involved in commercial activities in the chain (input
suppliers, producers, traders, consumers) and indirect actors are those that make
available financial or non-financial support services, such as credit agencies, business
service providers, government, NGOs, cooperatives, researchers and extension agents.
4.3.2.1. Primary partner
The primary partners in papaya value chain in Bilaspur were seed and other
input suppliers, farmers, traders and consumers. Each of these partners adds value in
the process of changing product title. Some functions or roles are performed by more
than one partner, and some partner performs more than one role.
Input Suppliers
At this phase of the value chain, there are many partners who are concerned
directly or indirectly in agricultural input supply in the study area. Currently primary
cooperatives/ union and private input suppliers are the main source of input supply.
Fruit growing farmers also participated in this stage especially for papaya plant supply
in Bilaspur district. All such partners are responsible to supply agricultural inputs like
improved seed varieties, fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides and farm implements which
are essential inputs at the production stage for major fruit produced in Bilaspur
district. Regarding fertilizers, some farmers used only organic fertilizer (FYM and
compost) while some farmers used both inorganic and organic fertilizers depending on
the land size allocated to fruit.
Collectors/Assemblers
These are traders in assembly markets who collect papaya from farmers in
village markets and farmer‟s farms for the purpose of reselling it to wholesalers and
retailers. They use their financial resources and their local knowledge to bulk papaya
from the surrounding area. They play important role and they do know areas of surplus
well. Collectors are the key partner in the papaya value chain, responsible for the
trading of 46.1 percents of papaya from production areas to wholesale and retail
55
markets in the study areas. The trading activities of collectors include buying and
assembling, repacking, sorting, transporting and selling to wholesale markets.
Wholesalers
Wholesalers are mainly involved in buying papaya from collectors and
producers in larger volume than any other partners and supplying them to exporters,
retailers and consumers. Survey result indicates that wholesale markets are the main
assembly centers for papaya in their respective surrounding areas. They have better
storage, transport and communication access than other traders. Almost all
wholesalers have a warehouse in a market either self owned or rental basis. They are
located in New Sabji Mandi and Vaypar Vihar market in Bilaspur district.
Retailers
Retailer involvement in the chain includes buying of papaya, transport to retail
shops, trading, displaying and selling to consumers. Retailers are key partner in
papaya value chain in Bilaspur district. They are the last link between producers and
consumers. They mostly buy from wholesalers and sell to urban consumers.
Sometimes they could also directly buy from the producers. Consumers usually buy
the product from retailers as they offer according to requirement and purchasing
power of the buyers. Papaya is not traded in large scale so retailers can be divided in
to urban and rural in Bilaspur district. Rural retailers are based in village market and
mainly purchase Papaya from farmers, and sell to consumers and urban retailers.
Urban retailers purchase from framers and rural retailers in village market and sale to
urban consumers.
Exporters
Exporters are identified in New Sabji Mandi and Vaypar Vihar they are
exporting their papaya to other districts and states.
Consumers
Consumers are those purchasing the papaya for consumption. Consumers
purchase papaya directly from producers, retailers and wholesalers though most of the
consumers purchase from retailers. Farmers also make important part of the rural
consumers since they consume part of their produces.
56
4.3.2.2. Supporting partners
Such partners are those who give supportive services including training and
extension, information, financial and research services. According to Martin et al.
(2007), access to information or knowledge, technology and finance determines the
state of success of value chain. Primary cooperatives, micro finance, NGOS and
Agriculture University are main supporting partners who play a central role in the
provision of such services.
Training and Extension Services
Agriculture University was the main sources of papaya training in Bilaspur
district. The most of the trainings were given on fertilizer application and the other
trainings such as crop management, harvesting and post harvest handling are given in
composition. Trainings were not given on papaya marketing and seed preparation.
Regarding extension service, among the total sample farmers 81.44% have been taken
extension services on the papaya value chain in Bilaspur district.
Financial services
In the study area, cooperatives, Credit and Saving Institution and individual
lenders have been identified as a potential source for credit both in kind or on a cash
basis. The survey result showed that only 68.33 percent of sample respondents from
Bilaspur district took credit (Table 15). Some of the respondents‟ reasons for not
participating in credit market were religious which is related to taking or giving
interest. Sources of credit for traders are also the same as producers except some big
traders get credit from banks.
57
4.3.3 Profitability analysis of papaya production.
4.3.3.1 Physical input and labour use in papaya cultivation
Table 4.9: Materials input and labour use in cultivation of papaya
Sn Particular Farm size
small medium large overall
A. Material input
1. Planting material (no. of
pants in 1.8 X1.8m
distance)
3000 3000 3000 3000
2. Manure (t/h)
FYM 18.62 23.29 25.35 24.43
3. Fertilizer (gm/plant)
Urea
DAP
MOP
SSP
400
250
350
450
450
350
300
400
450
350
300
450
445.90
341.81
304.09
441.26
4. Irrigations 25 25 25 25
5. Miscellaneous
B. Human labour use in operations (no. of man days)
1. Family labour 83 89 148 132
2. Haired labour 128 71 45 57
Total labour 211 161 194 189
C. Power use
1. Tractors hours (hours) 7 6 8 7
58
Table:4.10. Average labour used by household in different operations of papaya cultivation (in
numbers)
S.n Operations
Small Medium Large Overall
Haired labour
Family labour
Haired labour
Family labour
Haired labour
Family labour
Haired labour
Family labour
1. Digging of pits
M 4.2 5.0 5.6 3.4 8.9 2.0 7.9 2.5
F 4.8 4.0 5.9 2.7 8.5 0.1 7.7 0.9 2.
Transplanting M 6.9 8.1 9.4 4.7 14.1 2.4 12.7 3.3
F 6.0 6.9 8.3 7.3 10.3 0.0 9.6 1.8 3. Intercultural
operation
M 3.8 11.0 7.4 5.4 8.8 6.7 8.1 6.8
F 5.4 10.4 7.2 8.8 0.5 0.0 2.1 2.4 4.
Irrigation M 3.8 4.0 5.9 3.2 7.5 6.5 6.9 5.7
F 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 5. Application of
fertilizer &
manure
M 6.0 6.0 7.2 3.2 10.8 6.1 9.8 5.6
F 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
6. Plant protection
M 5.0 7.9 4.9 6.2 9.0 5.7 8.0 6.0
F 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.
Harvesting M 17.3 29.2 13.8 9.6 37.7 15.9 31.8 15.9
F 12.9 21.0 11.9 10.4 27.5 0.0 23.6 3.6 8.
Transportation M 3.3 6.7 1.8 3.4 2.0 0.0 2.1 1.2
F 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 9. Machine labour M 4.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.5 0.0 2.2 0.5
Total labour F 54.2 77.1 56.0 42.2 101.3 45.3 89.4 47.5
M 29.2 50.4 33.5 29.2 46.8 0.1 43.0 9.4
59
4.3.3.2 Cost of cultivation of papaya
The cost of inputs used for papaya cultivation under sample farms was estimated in
Rs. per hectare and partners in table 4.11 and figure 4.16. Table reveals that overall
cost of input used for papaya was found to be Rs. 110345.28 per ha. (80.62 per cent),
which varies from Rs. 102140.85 (82.05per cent), 105996.91 (80.22 per cent) and
112303.23 (82.05 per cent) per ha at small, medium and large farms respectively.
The most costly input for cultivation of papaya was planting material which
was found to be Rs 29744.72 per ha (21.73). The overall share of planting material
cost was noticed to be Rs. 29744.72 per ha. and 29127.08, 29403.03 and 29895.49 Rs.
per ha. at small, medium and large farms respectively.
Manure & Fertilizer was the next input in papaya cultivation which accounted
17.69 per cent cost fallowed by plant protection chemicals 9.76 per cent cost. It was
observed that the papaya cultivators had not applied the recommended dose of
fertilizers there by resulting in reduced yield of papaya. In view of this, it is imperative
to educate and create awareness about the proper application of inputs in order to
increase production and productivity of papaya in the study area.
60
Table 4.11: Input wise cost of cultivation of papaya (Rs/h)
S.n. Particulars Small Medium Large Over All
A. Variable cost
1. Human labour
Family labour 13275.00 10148.48 8811.16 9421.48
(10.66) (7.68) (6.44) (6.88)
Hired labour 9406.25 12284.85 16323.99 15035.39
(7.56) (9.30) (11.93) (10.98)
Total human labour 22681.25 22433.33 25135.15 24456.87
(18.22) (16.98) (18.36) (17.87)
2. Machine charge 7062.50 6625.25 6703.80 6720.42
(5.67) (5.01) (4.90) (4.91)
3. Plant cost(1.8 X 1.8m) 29127.08 29403.03 29895.49 29744.72
(23.40) (22.25) (21.84) (21.73)
4. Manure & Fertilizer cost 21175.00 23858.59 24641.69 24212.24
(17.01) (18.06) (18.00) (17.69)
5. Plant Protection
Chemicals 11129.17 12191.92 13893.11 13363.03
(8.94) (9.23) (10.15) (9.76)
6. Irrigation charges 5105.21 5090.91 5125.65 5117.87
(4.10) (3.85) (3.74) (3.74)
7. Miscellaneous 830.50 968.50 1050.30 1017.47
(0.67) (0.73) (0.77) (0.74)
8. Interest on working
capital 5030.14 5425.38 5858.04 5712.67
(4.04) (4.11) (4.28) (4.17)
Sub total 102140.85 105996.91 112303.23 110345.28
(82.05) (80.22) (82.05) (80.62)
B. Fixed cost
9. Land revenue 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
(0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01)
10. Depreciation on
implements 107.50 365.00 425.00 387.71
(0.09) (0.28) (0.31) (0.28)
11. Rental value of owned
land 20200.00 23383.84 24199.52 23719.37
(16.23) (17.70) (17.68) (17.33)
12. Interest on fixed capital 2031.95 2376.08 2463.65 2411.91
(1.63) (1.80) (1.80) (1.76)
Sub total 22351.45 26136.92 27100.18 26530.99
(17.95) (19.78) (19.80) (19.38)
Total (A+B) 124492.30 132133.84 139403.41 136876.26
(100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00)
Note: Figure in parenthesis was percentage to the total cost of cultivation.
61
Fig. 4.16: Input wise cost of cultivation of papaya (Rs/ha)
4.3.3.2.1 Cost on the basis of cost concept at sample households
The cost of cultivation has also be computed on the basis of cost concept
used by the Commission of Agriculture Cost and Price (CACP) presented in Table
4.12 and Fig 4.17. It reveals that estimated cost A1 was maximum at large farm and
found to be Rs103929.07 per ha fallowed by medium (Rs 96255.43 per ha) and small
(Rs 88985.35 per ha), respectively. Overall cost A1, was estimated to be Rs 101323.51
0.00
5000.00
10000.00
15000.00
20000.00
25000.00
30000.00
9421.48
15035.39
6720.42
29744.72
24212.24
13363.03
5117.87
1017.47
5712.67
Rs.
/ha
62
per ha. As already being noted that cost A1 actual expenses or variable cost in papaya
cultivation. Cost A2 include the rent paid for leased in land which was found to be
same as Cost A1 because the sample farmer haven‟t taken any land in leased. Cost B
include the rental value of owned land and interest on fixed capital which was found to
be incurred up to 25.79 per cent over cost A1. Interest on fixed capital was 2.38 per
cent interested of Cost A1. Cost of family labour was found to be 35.09 despite of Cost
A1. Cost C3 was noted noticed to be Rs. 150563.88 which include 10 per cent of Cost
C2 as accounted of managerial function perform by farmers and same was noted to be
increase of 48.60 over cost A1.
Fig. 4.17: Cost of cultivation of papaya on cost concept used by CACP.
0.00
20000.00
40000.00
60000.00
80000.00
100000.00
120000.00
140000.00
160000.00
Cost A1 Cost A2 Cost B Cost B1 Cost B2 Cost C Cost C1 Cost C2 Cost C3
101323.51
101323.51
127454.78
103735.42
127454.78
136876.26
113156.90
136876.26
150563.888
63
Table 4.12: Break-up of cost, cost concept wise cost in papaya at the sample farm (Rs/ha)
Sn Costs/Category Small Medium Large Overall
Break up cost
1. Cost A1(All actual expenses) 88985.35 96225.43 103929.07 101323.51
2. Cost A2=Cost A1+ Rent paid for leased
in land 88985.35 96225.43 103929.07 101323.51
3. Cost B = A1 + Rental value of owned
land + interest on fixed capital 111217.30 121985.35 130592.25 127454.78
4. Cost B1=Cost A1+ Interest on value of
owned fixed capital 91017.30 98601.51 106392.72 103735.42
5.
Cost B2=Cost B1+Rental value of
owned land & Rent paid for leased in
Land
111217.30 121985.35 130592.25 127454.78
6. Cost C= cost B +family labour 124492.30 132133.84 139403.41 136876.26
7. Cost C1=Cost B1 + imputed value of
family labour 104292.30 108750.00 115203.89 113156.90
8. Cost C2= Cost B2 + imputed value of
family labor 124492.30 132133.84 139403.41 136876.26
9.
Cost C3= Cost C2 + 10% of Cost C2 on
account of managerial function
performed by farmer
136941.5309 145347.2188 153343.7535 150563.888
64
4.3.3.2.2 Yield, cost and return of papaya at the sampled farms
The above table 4.13 represents the Yield, cost and return of papaya. The average
yield from the sample farms was maximum in large 765.00 q/ha followed by medium
750.00 q/ha and small farms 720.00 q/ha. The average price was 502.57, 504.60, and
510.80 for small medium and large farmers respectively. The maximum cost of
cultivation occurred in large farms Rs. 124492.30, followed by medium farms Rs.
132133.84 and small farms Rs. 124492.30, which resulted due to farm size and
amounts of input expenditure.
Table 4.13: Yield, cost and return of papaya of the sample farm (Rs./ha.)
S/No. Particular Small Medium Large Overall
1. Average Yield(qu.) 720.00 750.00 765.00 758.58
2. Average price (Rs./qu.) 502.57 504.60 510.80 509.07
3. Cost of cultivation 124492.30 132133.84 139403.41 136876.26
4. cost of production/qt 244.40 261.19 434.73 252.42
5. Gross return 361854.17 378454.55 390762.47 386174.30
6. net return 242041.75 251798.95 257292.70 255046.35
Input output ratio 1:2.91 1:2.86 1:2.80 1:2.82
As far as cost of production per quintal is concerned, it was minimum in small
farms Rs.244.40, followed by medium farms Rs. 261.19 and maximum in large farms
Rs. 434 per quintal. This resulted because of large farm size could more expend in
input applications, and use of outside labors rather than family labors, which
ultimately increased cost of production.
Although, gross return was highest in large farms Rs. 390762.42 followed by
medium and small farms with Rs. 378454.55 and Rs. 361854.17, respectively. Still,
net returns was maximum in small farms Rs. 242041.75 followed by medium farms
Rs. 251798.95 and minimum in large farms Rs. 257292.70, which resulted because of
more amount of cost C in large farms and minimum in small farms.
The input output ratio is maximum for small farms, 1:2.91, followed by medium
farms, 1:2.86 and minimum in large farms with ratio of 1:2.82. Increased return from
65
input in small farms is maximum due to increased productivity aroused due to
minimum cost incurred. Also, in small farms , family labors are more active and do
farm operations more efficiently, whereas in medium and large farms contribution of
family labors decreases with increasing farm size and more labors are to be employed
from outside and paid.
Fig. 4.18: cost and return in cultivation of papaya
Fig. 4.19: Input output ratio of sample house hold
Small Medium Large Overall
361854.17378454.55 390762.47 386174.3
124492.3 132133.84 139403.41 136876.26
242041.75 251798.95 257292.7 255046.35
Gross return cost of cultivation Net return
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Small Medium Large Over All
1 1 1 1
2.91 2.86 2.80 2.82
input
output
66
4.3.3.2.3 Income over different cost at sampled farms
Income over different cost was also calculated for the sample farms (table 4.12
and fig 4.20). Income over cost A1 was maximum in small farms (Rs. 272868.82)
followed by medium farms (Rs. 282229.12) and minimum in large farms (Rs.
286833.40). Income over cost A2 was also same as income over cost A1 following
similar trend. Income over Cost B1 was Rs.270836.87, Rs. 279853.04 and Rs.
284369.75for small, medium and large farms respectively.
Table 4.14: Income over different cost at sampled farms (Rs./ha.)
S.n Income over different cost Small Medium Large Overall
1. Income over Cost A1 272868.82 282229.12 286833.40 284850.79
2. Income over Cost A2 272868.82 282229.12 286833.40 284850.79
3. Income over Cost B 250636.87 256469.20 260170.22 258719.52
4. Income over Cost B1 270836.87 279853.04 284369.75 282438.88
5. Income over Cost B2 250636.87 256469.20 260170.22 258719.52
6. Income over Cost C 237361.87 246320.71 251359.06 249298.04
7. Income over Cost C1 257561.87 269704.55 275558.58 273017.40
8. Income over Cost C2 237361.87 246320.71 251359.06 249298.04
9. Income over Cost C3 224912.64 233107.33 237418.72 235610.41
Income over Cost B2 was Rs.250636.87, Rs. 256469.20, Rs. 260170.22 for
small, medium and large farms respectively. Income over Cost C1 was maximum in
small farms followed by medium and minimum in large farms with Rs.257561.87, Rs.
269704.55 and Rs. 275558.58 respectively. Income over Cost C2 was maximum in
small farms Rs.237361.87, followed by medium farms Rs.246320.71 and minimum in
large farms Rs.251359.06. Income over Cost C3 also follows similar trend with
Rs.224912.64, Rs. 233107.33 and Rs. 237418.72 in small, medium and large farms
respectively. The overall income over Cost A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2 and C3 was Rs.
284850.79, Rs. 258719.52, Rs. 282438.88, Rs. 258719.52, Rs. 273017.40, Rs.
249298.04, and Rs. 235610.41 respectively.
67
Fig. 4.20: Income over different cost at sampled farms
4.3.3.2.4 Disposal Patten of papaya
The disposal pattern of papaya from different sample farms worked out and presented
in Table 4.16. It reveals that the total production per farm was maximum in large
farms and noted to be 1238.71 q/farm.
Table 4.15 Disposal pattern of Papaya Q/farm
Farm Size Total production Home consumption Marketable surplus
Small 216.00 2.00 214.00
(100.00) (0.93) (99.07)
Medium 412.50 2.00 410.50
(100.00) (0.48) (99.52)
Large 1238.71 2.00 1236.71
(100.00) (0.16) (99.84)
Overall 718.12 2.00 716.12
(100.00) (0.28) (99.72)
Note: Figures in parenthesis indicated percentage of total production
0.00
50000.00
100000.00
150000.00
200000.00
250000.00
300000.00
Small
Medium
Large
Over All
68
The farmer under small size was used more for farm consumption i.e. 0.93 %
than that of farmers under medium and large farms size. Marketable surplus was
highest in large farms i.e.1238.71 q/farm followed by medium (412.50 q/farm) and
lowest in small farms (216.00 q/farm). The total production of papaya 216.00, 412.50
and 1238.71 at small, medium and large farm size, respectively. It has been found that
the quantity used for home consumption was decreasing with farm size of land
holdings, respectively simultaneously.
4.3.3.3 Average cost of papaya processer
Papaya processer are playing important role with regards to change their farm
of papaya and earned comparatively more profit than that of other papaya value chain
partners. At the time of adding the value in papaya namely tutty-fruity and papaya
jam. For adding the value in papaya, there are cost on purchased of cost of raw
papaya, sugar, citric acid, LPG, labour, rent of store, taxes paid and other
miscellaneous expenses, which is work out and presented in Table 4.15. It reveals to
process the raw papaya into tutti-fruity and papaya jam, There was involvement of
cost 6157.67 per quintal. Among the different cost component, cost of sugar was the
maximum and found to be 51.96 per cent followed by LPG gas (19.48 %), cost of raw
papaya(10.76 %), labour charges (7.30 %) and minimum cost on store rent which
found to be (0.22%), respectively. Thus, could be conducted that the major cost has
gone to sugar LPG gas, raw papaya and labour charges in processing in papaya into
tutti- fruity jam.
Table 4.16: Average cost of papaya processer
S.n. List of expenses cost per quintal Per cent share
1. Average papaya purchase price 662.67 10.76
2. Sugar (1 qu.) 3200 51.97
3. Citric acid 130.3 2.12
4. Gas 1200 19.49
6. Labour (3 man days) 450 7.31
7. Store rent 13.3 0.22
8. Tax paid 300.53 4.88
9. Other cost 201.54 3.27
10 Total cost 6157.67 100.00
Source, Survey result, 2017
69
4.4. Performance of value chain partners
In the study area there were number of value chain partners involved in
papaya. The most dominating partners were papaya producer, assembler/ collectors,
papaya processor, wholesaler, retailer and consumers. The performance of partners in
value chain in papaya asserted individually and some is presented in following heads :
4.4.1. Marketing channels of papaya
A marketing channel is a business structure of interdependent organizations
that reach from the point of product origin to the consumer with the purpose of
moving products to their final consumption destination (Kotler and Armstrong, 2003).
The analysis of marketing channels is intended to provide a systematic knowledge of
the flow of the goods and services from their source (producer) to the final destination
(consumer). Since the channels to papaya was analysis in the study area.
Eight main alternative channels were identified for papaya marketing which is
demonstrated in the flowchart fig 4.22. It was estimated that 716.12 quintals per farm
of papaya were supplied by producer It has been found that main receivers of papaya
from producers were collectors/assembler, wholesaler and retailer with an estimated
percentage share of 48.81, 27.63 and 11.20 respectively.
The comparison of channel comparison was based on volume of papaya that pass
through each channel. The channel of producer – collector– wholesaler– retailer –
consumer i.e., channel - VIII carred on the largest volume of papaya followed by
producer– wholesaler– retailer –consumer (channel-V) and producer – collectors –
retailer – consumer (channel-VI) and it was found to be that carry a volume of 231.7,
185.8 and 94.61quintal of papaya per farm was carried on.
I. Producers -Consumers (40.38Qts)
II. Producers -Processer -Retailers -Consumers (22.30Qts)
III. Producers -Retailers -Consumers (80.22Qts)
IV. Producers -Wholesalers -Processer-Consumers (12.27Qts)
V. Producers -Wholesalers -Retailers -Consumers (185.8Qts)
VI. Producers-Collectors –Retailers-Consumers (94.61Qts)
VII. Producers-Collectors-Wholesalers-Consumers (23.26Qts)
70
VIII. Producers-Collectors-Wholesalers-Retailers-Consumers (231.7 4Qts)
Fig4.21: Papaya market channel in Bilaspur District
4.4.2 Quantity of papaya sold by producer at sampled farms
In the study area there were four marketing intermediaries i.e. collectors, wholesalers,
retailers and processer involved in papaya trading Table no. 4.17. It reveals that
quantity of produce was increasing with farm size in case of collectors, where it was
Producer (716.12 qu.)
Wholesalers Collectors
Retailers
Processer
11.20%
48.81%
5.64%
3.11%
5.13%
27.07%
72.93%
35.49%
100%
2.7%
27.63%
92.15%
64.51%
Consumers
71
decreasing with increasing farm size of holding in case of retailer and wholesaler. It
implies that processer was more popular among larger farms. The quantity of papaya
sold to consumer was 12.23, 14.76 and 7.37 per cent at small, medium and large
farms, respectively. The quantity sold to collectors was 52.69 per cent at medium
farms followed by small farm (48.83 per cent) and large farms (47.92 per cent). The
quantity of papaya sold 23.08 and 31.63 per cent at medium and large farms in case of
wholesalers respectively. The quantity sold to processer was 4.17 per cent. Overall
quantity of papaya sold by farmers to consumers, collectors, wholesalers, retailers and
processer of marketing intermediaries was noted to be 9.31, 48.81, 11.22, 27.64 and
3.12 per cent, respectively.
4.4.3. Price received by producers from different marketing functionaries
The price received by producers from different intermediaries is shown in Table 4.16
and fig. 4.23. The producers who have been disposed off their produce directly to the
consumer received better price as compared to other marketing functionaries.
Irrespective to the farm size, papaya grower sold their at Rs 824.67 per quintal price.
Collectors/ assembler were directly involved in purchase of papaya just harvesting the
crop. They purchased most of the quantity of produce at Rs. 443.07 per quintal. Some
of the large farmers sold their produce on contract basis.
72
Table 4.17: Quantity of papaya sold by producer to different marketing functionaries of the sample household
Sn Farm
size Consumer Collectors Retailers Wholesalers Processer Total
Q/ha. Q/farm Q/ha. Q/farm Q/ha. Q/farm Q/ha. Q/farm Q/ha. Q/farm Q/ha. Q/farm
1 Small 151.03 45.31 348.31 104.49 214.00 64.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 713.33 214.00
(12.23) (12.23) (48.83) (48.83) (30.00) (30.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (100.00) (100.00)
2 Medium 91.31 50.22 393.23 216.28 89.56 49.26 172.26 94.74 0.00 0.00 746.36 410.50
(14.76) (14.76) (52.69) (52.69) (12.00) (12.00) (23.08) (23.08) (0.00) (0.00) (100.00) (100.00)
3 Large 56.31 91.18 366.01 592.65 68.02 110.15 241.58 391.18 31.84 51.56 763.76 1236.71
(7.37) (7.37) (47.92) (47.92) (8.91) (8.91) (31.63) (31.63) (4.17) (4.17) (100.00) (100.00)
4 Overall 70.41 66.66 369.26 349.56 84.11 79.63 209.08 197.93 23.60 22.34 756.47 716.13
(9.31) (9.31) (48.81) (48.81) (11.12) (11.12) (27.64) (27.64) (3.12) (3.12) (100.00) (100.00)
Note: Fig uses in parentheses indicate percentage to total production.
Table 4.18: Price received by producer‟s from different marketing functionaries
S.n Farm size Consumer Collectors Retailers Wholesalers Processer Average price
1 Small 820.00 405.62 436.30 0.00 0.00 502.56
2 Medium 832.51 435.49 462.17 510.61 0.00 504.60
3 Large 823.10 449.05 463.62 524.83 662.54 510.80
4 Overall 824.67 443.07 457.48 522.79 662.54 509.07
73
Fig 4.22: Overall quantity sold of papaya through different intermediaries by sampled
farmers
Fig 4.23: Price received by producer from different marketing partners
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Consumer Collectors Retailers wholesalers Processer
70.41
369.26
84.11
209.08
23.6
66.66
349.56
79.63
197.93
22.34
Q/ha.
Q/farm
824.67
443.07
457.48
522.79
662.54
Consumer
Collectors
Retailers
Wholesalers
Processer
74
4.4.4 Marketing cost of papaya in different channels
The marketing cost of papaya was involve in weighing, loading/unloading,
transportation, packaging, commission charges of mandi and other miscellaneous
charges, which was computed in Rs/q and presented in Table 4.19 and figures 4.25.
The marketing cost incurred by producers in Channel-I was the highest Rs. 32.2 per
quintal because of that they sold to their product directly to consumer. The marketing
charges paid by the producer, processer and retailer were estimated as Rs. 21.34 per
quintal, Rs. 939.8 per quintal and Rs. 34.59 per quintal in Channels-II. The marketing
cost of producer and retailer were Rs. 27.1 per quintal and Rs. 31.82 per quintal in
Channel-III respectively. Marketing cost of producer, wholesaler, processer and
retailer was Rs.28.74, 34.11, 939.8 and 34.59 per quintal in Channel-IV respectively.
The marketing charges paid by the producer, wholesaler and retailer were estimated as
Rs. 32.5 per quintal, Rs. 44.78 per quintal and Rs. 61.82 per quintal in Channels-V.
The marketing cost of producer, collector and retailer was Rs.32.5, 32.31 and 44.78
per quintal in Channel-VI respectively. The marketing cost of producer, collector and
wholesaler was Rs. 42.3, 32.1, and 52.98 per quintal in Channel-VI respectively. And
marketing cost of producer, collector, wholesaler and retailer was Rs. 42.3, 32.1, 52.98
and 61.82 per quintal in Channel-VII. Most of the papaya producers sold their
marketable surplus through the Channel-VII.
Thus, it could be concluded that maximum marketing cost incurred in papaya was in
channel-IV fallowed by channel-VIII and maximum marketing cost was incurred in
channel-I. it confirms that small marketing channel are more efficient than that of
large marketing channels.
75
Table 4.19: Marketing cost incurred by producer and different partners in different channels in Bilaspur district (Rs/q)
Channels Weighting
Cost
Loading and
Unloading
Cost
Transportation
charge Cost
Commission
charge Cost
Packing
charges Miscellaneous
total
Cost
Channel I Producer 0.4 5 14 0 12.5 2.3 34.2
Channel II
Producer 0.4 5 0 0 14.32 1.62 21.34
Processer 3.6 7.3 35.7 0 890 3.2 939.8
Retailers 0 10.67 3.5 0 17.2 3.22 34.59
Channel III
Producer 0.4 5 9.2 0 12.5 0 27.1
Retailers 0.73 10.67 0 0 17.2 3.22 31.82
Channel IV
Producer 0.4 12.4 0 0 14.32 1.62 28.74
Wholesalers 0.56 0 0 30 0 3.55 34.11
Processer 3.6 7.3 35.7 0 890 3.2 939.8
Retailers 0 10.67 3.5 0 17.2 3.22 34.59
Channel V
Producer 0.4 5 14.6 0 12.5 0 32.5
Wholesalers 0.56 10.67 0 30 0 3.55 44.78
Retailers 0.73 10.67 0 30 17.2 3.22 61.82
Channel VI
Producer 0.4 5 14.6 0 12.5 0 32.5
Collector 0 0 0 30 0 2.31 32.31
Retailers 0.56 10.67 0 30 0 3.55 44.78
Channel VII
Producer 0.4 5 14.6 0 22.3 0 42.3
Collector 0 0 0 30 0 2.31 32.31
Wholesalers 0.56 10.67 8.2 30 0 3.55 52.98
Channel
VIII
Producer 0.4 5 14.6 0 22.3 0 42.3
Collector 0 0 0 30 0 2.31 32.31
Wholesalers 0.56 10.67 8.2 30 0 3.55 52.98
Retailers 0.73 10.67 0 30 17.2 3.22 61.82
76
Fig 4.24: Marketing cost of papaya of different partners in different Channel
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Channel IChannel II
Channel IIIChannel IV
Channel VChannel VI
Channel VIIChannel VIII
Processer
Retailers
Wholesalers
Collector
Producer
77
4.4.5 Marketing margin and price spread of papaya in Bilaspur district
The difference between price paid by consumer and price received by producers is
price spread and the share that goes to the different functionaries in the market is
marketing margin. It was worked out with use of theoretical concept and it is
presented in (Table 4.20).
In Channel-I, It was simplest marketing channel in which no market
intermediaries were involved and producer sold directly to consumer in under this
channel there was 34.20 per quintal market incurred by producer and price receive by
Rs.824.67 per quintal.
In Channel –II, the papaya producers sold produce to the processer at the rate
of Rs. 662.54 per and get market margin Rs. 482.11and profit margin Rs. 460.77. The
producer spent Rs. 21.34 per quintal for different operations like transportation,
loading and unloading charges and packaging charges etc. Processer sold this produce
with some value addition to retailer at the rate of Rs. 10300 per quintal and received
the total margin as Rs. 4142.33 per quintal and profit margin Rs. 3202.53. Retailer
sold this produce to the consumer at the rate of Rs. 10800 per quintal and received the
market margin as Rs. 500 per quintal.
In Channel III, the retailer bought the produce at the rate of Rs. 457.48 per
quintal from producer and sold it at the rate of Rs. 1430.62 per quintal. The retailer
incurred Rs. 31.82 per quintal as marketing cost and receives Rs. 941.32 per quintal of
net margin and producer receive the market margin Rs 277.05 and profit margin Rs.
249.95. The total marketing cost is estimated as Rs. 58.92 per quintal in Channel- III.
In Channel –IV, the papaya producers sold their produce to wholesaler at the
rate of Rs. 522.79 per and got market margin Rs. 342.36 and profit margin Rs. 313.62.
The producer spent Rs. 28.74 per quintal as marketing cost for different operations
like transportation, loading and unloading charges and packaging charges etc.
Wholesaler sold this produce to processer Rs 851.54 and they got market margin Rs
328.75 per quintal and profit margin Rs 294.64. Processer sold their product with
some value addition to retailer at the rate of Rs. 10300 per quintal and received the
total margin as Rs. 4142.33 per quintal and profit margin Rs. 3202.53. Retailer sold
78
this produce to the consumer at the rate of Rs. 10800 per quintal and received the
market margin as Rs. 500 per quintal.
In Channel V, the papaya producer sold his produce to the wholesalers at the rate of
Rs. 522.79 per quintal and get market margin Rs. 342.36 and profit margin Rs. 309.86
The wholesaler sold to retailer the rate of Rs. 820.3 per quintal and get market margin
Rs. 297.51 and profit margin Rs. 252.73 in Channel V, retailer incurred Rs. 61.82 per
quintal as marketing cost and received Rs. 1430.62 per quintal as net margin which
was 548.5 of the price received.
In Channel VI, in marketing channel the collector himself comes to producer
and purchase their produce at field level directly at the rate 443.07 and takes produce
and dispose it in retail market in which he cost incurred Rs32.31 and gain market
margin Rs 177.23 and profit margin Rs 144.92. Retailer incurred Rs. 44.78 per quintal
as marketing cost and received Rs. 1406.2 per quintal as market margin which was
785.9 and profit margin 741.12 of the price received.
In Channel VII, the papaya producer sold his produce to the collators at the
rate of Rs. 443.07 per quintal and get market margin Rs. 262.64 and profit margin Rs.
220.34 The collectors sold to wholesaler the rate of Rs. 620.3per quintal and get
market margin Rs. 177.23 and profit margin Rs. 144.92 in Channel VII, wholesaler
incurred Rs. 52.98 per quintal as marketing cost and received Rs. 376.92 per quintal as
net margin which was 1050.2of the price received.
In Channel VIII, in marketing channel the collector himself comes to producer and
purchase their produce at field level directly at the rate 443.07 and takes produce and
dispose it in wholesaler market in which he cost incurred Rs 32.31 and gain market
margin Rs 177.23 and profit margin Rs 144.92. Wholesaler incurred Rs. 52.98 per
quintal as marketing cost and received Rs. 820.3 per quintal from retailer as market
margin which was 200 and profit margin 147.02 of the price received. Retailer got
highest margin in this channel Rs 679.7 per quintal.
79
4.4.6 Producer’s share in consumer’s rupee under different marketing channels
From Table 4.18 and figure 4.25 it is evident that out of all the intermediaries involved
in marketing of papaya, producer‟s share in consumer‟s rupee has been found to be
highest in Channel -I (95.85 per cent) whereas it was found to be minimum in Channel
IV i.e. (4.57 per cent). It was estimated as 38.16, 34.27, 30.08, 29.20, 26.72, 5.94 and
4.57 per cent for Channel VII, Channel V, Channel VI, Channel VI, Channel VIII
Channel II and Channel III.
4.4.7 Marketing margins of papaya in different channels
Marketing margins of papaya in the eight channels for each group of market player are
shown Table 21. GMMp, GMMc, GMMr, GMMw and GMMpr are Gross Marketing
Margins of producers, collectors, retailers and wholesalers, processer respectively.
NMMc, NMMr, NMMw and NMMpr are Net Marketing Margins of collectors,
retailers wholesalers and processer respectively.
Total Gross Marketing Margin (TGMM) is the highest in channel II and IV
which was about 98.33 and 98.32 per cent respectily. Without considering any
intermediaries in channel I producers sell directly to consumer producer‟s share
(GMMp) is highest 100 per cent and lowest 6.68 per cent in channel IV because of the
involvement of many middlemen in these channel. Processer has got the highest gross
marketing margin 80.86 and 77.15 per cent in channel II and VI respectively, whereas
wholesalers and collector have got the highest gross marketing margin 49.43 and
20.38 per cent in channel VII and lowest 6.42 and 14.46 per cent in channel IV and VI
respectively. Retailer have got highest gross market margin 77.84 per cent in channel
VIII and lowest 9.41 per cent in channel IV.
Processer has got high NMM 74.17 and 73.73 in channel II and IV. Collector
was not sold the papaya direct to consumer they sold to wholesaler or retailer so they
has not got more NMM as compare to other intermediaries they got highest NMM
19.53 per cent in channel VI and lowest 12.82 per cent in channel VIII
80
Table 4.20: Marketing margins and price spread (Rs. /Quintal) under various identified marketing channels
Channels Marketing
partners
Price
paid
Marketing
cost
Total
cost
Price
received
Market
margin
Profit
margin
Producer share in
consumer's rupee in
per cent
Channel I Producer 180.43 34.2 214.63 824.67 644.24 610.04 95.85
Channel
II
Producer 180.43 21.34 201.77 662.54 482.11 460.77
5.94 Processer 6157.67 939.8 7097.47 10300 4142.33 3202.53
Retailers 10300 34.59 10334.59 10800 500 465.41
Channel
III
Producer 180.43 27.1 207.53 457.48 277.05 249.95 30.08
Retailers 457.48 31.82 489.3 1430.62 973.14 941.32
Channel
IV
Producer 180.43 28.74 209.17 522.79 342.36 313.62
4.57 Wholesalers 522.79 34.11 556.9 851.54 328.75 294.64
Processer 6346.67 939.80 7286.47 10300.00 3953.33 74.40
Retailers 10300 34.59 10334.59 10800 500 465.41
Channel
V
Producer 180.43 32.5 212.93 522.79 342.36 309.86
34.27 Wholesalers 522.79 44.78 567.57 820.3 297.51 252.73
Retailers 820.3 61.82 882.12 1430.62 610.32 548.5
Channel
VI
Producer 180.43 32.5 212.93 443.07 262.64 230.14
29.20 Collector 443.07 32.31 475.38 620.3 177.23 144.92
Retailers 620.3 44.78 665.08 1406.2 785.9 741.12
Channel
VII
Producer 180.43 42.3 222.73 443.07 262.64 220.34
38.16 Collector 443.07 32.31 475.38 620.3 177.23 144.92
Wholesalers 620.3 52.98 673.28 1050.2 429.9 376.92
Channel
VIII
Producer 180.43 42.3 222.73 443.07 262.64 220.34
26.72 Collector 443.07 32.31 475.38 620.3 177.23 144.92
Wholesalers 620.3 52.98 673.28 820.3 200 147.02
Retailers 820.3 61.82 882.12 1500 679.7 617.88
81
Table 4.21. Marketing margins of partners in different marketing channels of papaya in Bilaspur district
Particular Channel I Channel II Channel III Channel IV Channel V Channel VI Channel VII Channel VIII
TGMM 78.12 98.32 87.39 98.33 87.39 87.17 82.82 87.97
GMMp 100.00 9.41 22.16 6.68 27.38 21.43 30.20 19.90
GMMc - - - - - 14.46 20.38 13.43
GMMw - - - 6.42 23.80 - 49.43 15.16
GMMr - 9.76 77.84 9.76 48.82 64.11 - 51.51
GMMpr - 80.83 - 77.15 - - - -
NMMp 94.69 11.16 20.98 7.67 27.89 20.62 29.69 19.50
NMMc - - - - - 12.98 19.53 12.82
NMMr - 11.27 79.02 11.39 49.37 66.40 - 54.67
NMMw - - - 7.21 22.75 - 50.79 13.01
NMMpr - 77.57 - 73.73 - - - -
82
Fig 4.25: Total gross marketing margin
Fig 4.26: Producer share in consumer's rupee in per cent
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Channel I
Channel II
Channel III
Channel IV
Channel V
Channel VI
Channel VII
Channel VIII
78.12
98.32
87.39
98.33
87.39 87.1782.82
87.97
Total Gross Market Margin
0
20
40
60
80
100
Channel
I
Channel
II
Channel
III
Channel
IV
Channel
V
Channel
VI
Channel
VII
Channel
VIII
95.85
5.94
30.08
4.57
34.2729.2
38.16
26.72
Producer share in consumer's rupee in per cent
83
4.5. Determinants of papaya market supply
Papaya is an important crop among the farmer of Bilaspur district and mostly supplied
the market and little quantity used for home consumption. The sample farmer suffered
with factors for supplying of papaya in the market. There were determinants were
noticed which affects the supplied of papaya in the market. To understand their effects
to supply of papaya in market the multiple regression analysis was done to represent
their contribution and some is presented in Table 4.22, 4.23, 4.24
4.5.1. The quantity supply of papaya by producer in market:
The quantity of papaya was differing in accordance of their Socio-economic and
demographic characteristics of farmer. In average papaya producer market supply
were 756.8 quintals per hectare. The study shows that 38 papaya producers‟ market
supplies were below the average supply of papaya and 22 papaya producers‟ were
supply above the average in the market.
Table 4.22 continuous variables by the level of market supply
S.n Variables
Papaya producer (n=60)
Below
mean(n=38)
Above
mean(n=22)
1. Distance to nearest market 18.87 15.77
2. land holding 3.57 6.75
3. Age of household head 41.13 44.50
4. Family size 5.82 5.45
5. Experience in papaya production 1.97 2.32
6. Active family labor 3.32 2.95
84
Table 4.23 Dummy variables by the level of market supply
S.n Variables
Papaya producer (N=60)
Below mean (N=38) Above Mean (N=22)
N Per cent N Per cent
1. Sex of household Male 33.00 86.84 21.00 95.45
Female 5.00 13.16 1.00 4.55
2. Market information Yes 26.00 68.42 20.00 90.91
No 12.00 31.58 2.00 9.09
3. Extension services Yes 31.00 81.58 2.32 10.54
No 7.00 18.42 2.95 13.43
4. Educational level Literate 33.00 86.84 22.00 100.00
Illiterate 5.00 13.16 0.00 0.00
5. Access to credit Yes 25.00 65.79 16.00 72.73
No 13.00 34.21 6.00 27.27
Table 4.24: Determinants of probability of participation in papaya market.
Note: Dependent variable is amount of papaya supply in quintal. ***, ** and * are
statistically significant at 1%, 5% and 10%, respectively.
S.n Variable Coefficients Standard
Error T Stat P-value
Intercept 690.6095*** 33.42947 20.6587 1.57E-25
1. Distance to nearest
market -0.96155** 0.471142 -2.04088 0.046783
2. Sex of household 8.196647 11.079 0.739836 0.463003
3. Market information 7.697871 7.668234 1.003865 0.320478
4. Extension services 9.680362 9.499358 1.019054 0.313286
5. Land holding 5.133848*** 1.238345 4.145732 0.000137
6. Educational level 28.85395** 12.67361 2.276696 0.027303
7. Access to credit 1.158478 8.010473 0.14462 0.885616
8. Age of household
head 0.067999 0.280229 0.242656 0.809305
9. Family size -3.18937 3.223552 -0.9894 0.327431
10. Experience in papaya
production 3.771446* 2.30772 1.634274 0.108744
11. Active family labor 1.544045 4.054291 0.380842 0.705001
R2
= 0.456046, Observations= 60, F= 3.41
85
Distance from the Nearest Market: It affects papaya marketable surplus negatively
and significantly at less than 5% significance level as expected. The result shows that
as the distance from the nearest market increased by one kilo meter the quantity of
papaya supplied to the market decreased by 0.96 quintal. This is may be due to the
reason that as the distance to the market center increases transportation cost increases;
since papaya is highly perishable and bulky product its loss and other marketing costs
increased.
Sex of the household head: It had a non significant and positive of volume of papaya
marketed. The model output showed that being male headed household would increase
sales volume of papaya by 8.19 quintal. The reason can be related with the weight
carrying capacity of female in market and usage of papaya for home consumption as
family.
Access to market information: The marketed supply of papaya affect positively and
non significantly. On average if a papaya producer gets market information, the
amount of papaya supplied to the market increase by 7.69 quintals. This suggests that
access to market information reduces farmers risk aversion behavior of getting a
market and decreases marketing costs of farmers that affects the marketable surplus.
The implication is that obtaining and verifying information helps to supply more
quantity of papaya. Updated or current market information accessed through different
sources like radio programs, telephone services, personal observations, other traders or
from extension agents, reduces risk perceptions and encourages market participation
decision of farmers
Access to Extension Service: It was positive and non significant associated with
papaya sale volume. The result shows that on average, if papaya producer gets
extension service the amount of papaya supplied to the market increase by 9.68
quintals. Extension service given to the farmers increase papaya quantity produced
and this in turn increase papaya supplied to the market.
Educational Level of Household Head: It was positive and significant related with
supply of papaya in market at 1% significance level. The result also confirmed that, if
the household head is educated the probability of supply of papaya increase by 28.85
86
quintals. Education is believed to give individuals with the necessary knowledge that
can be used to collect information, interpret the information received, and make
productive and marketing decision.
Land holding: As expected, this variable had a positive sign and significant at less
than 1% level. The significant and positive sign indicate that the larger land size
households allocate for papaya production the more would be the marketed surplus.
The model output predicts that as the household allocation of land for papaya
production increased by one hectare, the volume marketed increased by 5.133 quintal.
Access to Credit: As expected, this variable had positive relationship with household
papaya market participation decision and statistically non significant probability level.
Access to credit would enhance the financial capacity of the household to purchase the
necessary inputs and increases output. Moreover, get hold of good transportation,
post-harvest handling, and alleviating marketing problems. The marginal effect
confirms that as the household access to get credit increase the supply of papaya
increase 1.15 quintal.
Age of the household head: It was a continuous variable measured in number of
years. As expected, this variable had a positive relationship with household papaya
marketed surplus and it was found to be statistically non significant. The positive
relationship indicates that age is a proxy measure of farming experience of
households. Therefore, as the age of household increased, they would have better
knowledge, experience and decide to allocate more size of land for papaya production,
produce more and supply more. The model output predicts that as the age of the
household head increase by one year, the volume marketed increase by 0.067 quintal.
Family size of the household: this variable was statistically non significant and had a
negative effect on the household market participation decision. The negative
relationship indicated that as the number of family increases, some may involve in
non-papaya production activities; while others may be idle, their labor could be
unproductive. Because of this reason, some of the labor force for sure shifted to other
activities, which could be alternative sources of income. The marginal effect of the
variable also confirms that for every increase in the household, the probability of
87
papaya market participation decision decreases by 3.18 quintal. Moreover, as
consumption of papaya at home increases, market supply decreases.
Experience in papaya production: As expected, it had a positive effect on papaya
volume marketed and statistically significant at 10% level. Moreover, it was a
continuous variable measured by number of years stayed in papaya production and
marketing which is different from age influence marketed surplus positively.
Household with better experience in papaya production was expected to produce more
amount of papaya than those with only less experience. The model output predicts that
an increase in household experience by one year volume marketed increased by 3.77
quintal.
Active family labour: It had a non significant and positive of volume of papaya
marketed. The model output showed that if active family labour would increase sales
volume of papaya by 1.54 quintal.
4.6 Major constraints in papaya production and marketing
4.6.1 Constraints in production of papaya
The constraints in papaya production are presented in Table 4.25. Majority of papaya
farmers were of the view that there was lack of improved and high yielding variety of
the papaya crop in the region (80.00 per cent). Even if it were there, it was not
available to them. Looking to this, there is a need to develop and make available
improved and high yielding varieties of papaya crop in the study area.
There is also a gap as far as the awareness and adoption of latest technical
knowledge about the papaya crop is concerned in the study area. Majority of the
papaya growers (75.00 per cent) faced this particular constraint. In view of this,
effective and strengthened extension efforts are very much needed in the study area.
Lack of recommended package and practices, particularly, doses of fertilizer,
insecticides and pesticides were perceived by 58.33 per cent of papaya farmers.
Timely advice in this direction may improve the production of papaya in the study
area, in particular.
88
Table 4.25 Constraints in production of papaya N=60
S.No.
Constraints Number of Respondents
Yes No
1. Problem about the latest technical knowledge
of the crop
45
(75.00)
15
(25.00)
2. Lack of any improved hybrid varieties 48
(80.00)
12
(20.00)
3. Problem of the recommended dose of
different chemical fertilizer in this crop
35
(58.33)
25
(41.66)
4. Are there sufficient soil testing facilities in
your areas
38
(63.33)
22
(36.66)
5. Problem of sufficient irrigation water for the
crop
5
(8.33)
55
(91.66)
6. Have you problem of availability of labour
during the crop
49
(81.66)
11
(18.34)
7. Problem of sufficient fund to purchase
different inputs for crop cultivation
32
(53.33)
28
(46.66)
8. Do you face any problem in financing from
the financial institution
36
(60)
24
(40)
9. Are you aware about the crop insurance of
crop
25
(41.66)
35
(58.33)
10. Whether you face problem of power cut and
low voltage during the crop season
56
(93.33)
4
(6.66)
Lack of sufficient soil testing facilities was also a major constraint as about
63.33 per cent papaya growers faced this problem. An immediate step should be taken
at the level of government to establish soil testing labs at panchayat level in order to
estimate and apply appropriate doses of fertilizers in the papaya crop. This step will
89
reduce the cost of cultivation on one side and will improve the soil fertility on the
other side.
About 8.33 % respondents face the problem of sufficient water. These problem faced
by few farmers because of use of drip irrigation system in cultivation of papaya.
The scarcity of labour is another problem as 81.66 per cent of papaya farmers
perceived it. This problem becomes more acute at the time of sowing, intercultural and
harvesting stage of the crop. Consequently, the farmers have to pay higher wages in
order to complete the work in time.
About 41.66 per cent papaya farmers reported that they were not aware about the crop
insurance scheme, lack of sufficient fund to purchase different inputs for papaya crop
cultivation (53.33 per cent), generally faced by small category farmers.
About 58.33 per cent papaya farmers reported that they were not aware about the
name and quantity of needed insecticides and pesticides in case, their papaya crop was
infested by any disease or pest. In such conditions, they were completely dependent on
the shopkeeper who sold the insecticides/pesticides.
4.6.2 Constraints in marketing of papaya
Marketing constraints of papaya are presented in table 4.23. As much as 71.66
per cent farmers were not satisfied with the price received. About 76.66 per cent
farmers felt that lack of awareness about the market information was also a problem. It
may be suggested that the news about the prices and other aspects of papaya in the
daily newspaper, television and radio should be disseminated in the study area.
Lack of sufficient number of processing unit in the villages is the major problem faced
by papaya producers (90.00 per cent) in the study area. Papaya sector has potential to
grow by improving productivity and production for which institutional credit is a
must. Credit is needed for setting up of processing units, export credit, etc,. Banks
should provide credit to the farmers/processors/exporters for the purpose keeping in
view the Banking Plans by NABARD.
90
Table 4.27 Constraints in marketing of papaya N=60
S.No.
Constraints Number of Respondents
Yes No
1. Problem of low price of produce 43
(71.66)
17
(28.33)
2. Lack of transportation facilities and road
from village to market
28
(46.66)
32
(53.33)
3. Whether you face problem because the
quantity is small
48
(80.00)
12
(20)
4. Lack of storage facilities in growing area 52
(86.66)
8
(13.33)
5. Lack of papaya based processing industries 54
(90.000)
6
(10.00)
6. Problem of awareness about marketing news 46
(76.66)
14
(23.33)
7. Problem of involvance of middleman in
marketing
53
(88.33)
7
(11.66)
Problem of selling the small quantity of produce sometime become problem for
papaya grower because of less quantity producer was not able to sell their produce in
distance market due to transportation charge for less quantity.
About 46.66 percent of papaya grower face the problem of transportation facility to
sell their produce in distance market at high price Involve of market middleman was
the major problem in marketing of papaya in study area about 88.33% of grower face
these problem involve of middleman denied fare return to producer from there
produce and 76.66 % grower faced storage facility.
91
CHAPTER – V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Summary
Papaya (Carica papaya) is the third most important fruit crop in India next to
mango & banana. Papaya fruit is very popular with the farmers in general because it
requires less area per plant. It has a high nutritive and medicinal value. The ripened
fruits are rich source of carbohydrates, minerals (Ca, P and Fe), Vitamin (carotene,
thiamine, riboflavin, etc.) fiber and ascorbic acid. The ripe fresh papaya fruit is tasty
and used as table fruit. It has a neutral taste that can be considerably improved by
addition of flavors, to make prepared to serve beverage (RTS), Tutty-fruity, pickle,
squash, jams and various preserves.
In Chhattisgarh, the production of papaya 2.76 lakh metric tonnes from an area
of 12.41thousand hectares which was 12% of the total fruit production in the state in
2014. Papaya was cultivated in an area of 12410 hectares and production was 275788
tonnes in Chhattisgarh.
Looking to the priorities of enhancing agricultural income through crop
diversification the imperative investigation as carried out on growth, value chain and
determinants of supply papaya in the present study to ful fill the following specific
objectives.
5. To estimate the growth rate area, production and productivity of papaya in
Bilaspur district and Chhattisgarh
6. To identify papaya value chain and examine the performance of value chain
partners
7. To analyze the market determinants in the supply of papaya in the study areas
8. To identify major constraints, opportunities of production and supply of papaya
Out of the seven blocks of Bilaspur district Bilha block was selected on the
basis of maximum area contributed in the cultivation of papaya. Out of the 90
92
villages of Bilha block 27 Village were for the study because of papaya
growers were so scattered and few in numbers in the villages So, the snowball
sampling technique was adopted for selection of villages and papaya growers.
There were 60 papaya growers undertaken for the study.
The primary data related to value chain map, costs and returns, marketing,
determinants for supply etc of papaya crop were collected through personal
interview method.The primary data were collected from the respondents,
wholesaler, retailer and processer. The secondary data with regards to area,
production and productivity of papaya in Bilaspur district and Chhattisgarh state
were collected since 2005-06 to 2014-15 from published sources, government
websites and offices etc. To work out the status of papaya crop in Bilaspur district
and Chhattisgarh, compound growth rates were estimated, to work out the cost of
cultivation the CACP standard method of cost of cultivation was adopted, to work
out the marketing pattern of papaya, the multiple linear regression model was used
to find out determinants of papaya supply, constraints in production and marketing
of papaya etc, standard methods including tabular, arithmetic and statistical
analyses were used.
5.2 Conclusion
1. About 70.08 per cent population belonged to 15-60 years age group in this sample.
The overall per thousand male to female ratio was observed low 1000:933 in this
population.
2. The schedule caste, schedule tribes, other backward caste and general caste
consists 7.40, 12.03, 61.11 and 19.44 per cent, respectively of the total sampled
farmers.
3. The agriculture as the main occupation 76.29 per cent of sampled farmer.
4. Overall literacy percentage was found to be 91.49 per cent among sampled
households.
93
5. On an average irrigated area was 91.66 per cent to the total cultivated land. The
percentage of irrigated area varied from 91.00 per cent at small farms, 92.91 per
cent at medium farms and 91.32 per cent at large farms.
6. Allocation of area under papaya was found to be 19.92 per cent of the total
cultivated area ,which was noticed to be 15.92, 14.93, and 22.28 per cent area of
papaya at small, medium and large farms, respectively.
7. On an overall tube wells contributed 62.04 per cent area under irrigation ,which
was highest at 64.54 per cent at large farms and lowest at small farms 56.32 farms,
respectively.
8. Total cropped area was observed to be 1.81, 3.68, 7.27 and 4.74 hectare at small,
medium large farms ,respectively. The highest cropped area was found in kharif.
The area under different crops in kharif season is observed to be 47.07, 45.69,
42.58 and 43.70 per cent at small, medium, large and overall farms, respectively.
9. Overall cropping intensity was found to be 228.85 per cent at sampled
household.The cropping intensity of small, medium and large farm was 212.46,
218.85 and234.87 per cent.
10. Growth in area, production and productivity of papaya of Bilaspur district was
registard to be 18.92, 50.48 and 26.56per cent, respectively, which were
significant at 5 per cent probability level of distribution.
11. Growth in production of papaya in Chhattisgarh state was found to be 11.14 per
cent which was attributed by significantly increase in area by 13.15 per cent only.
12. The main value chain partners were input suppliers, papaya producers,
wholesalers, retailers, collectors, exporters and consumers.
13. The overall cost of input used for papaya was found to be Rs. 110345.28 per ha.
(80.62 per cent), which varied from Rs. 102140.85 to 112303.23 per ha at small,
medium and large farms.
14. Cost-A1, Cost-A2, Cost B, Cost-B1, Cost-B2, Cost-C, Cost-C1, Cost-C2 and Cost-
C3 were notice to be as Rs. 101323.51, 127454.78, 127454.78, 103735.42,
127454.78, 136876.26, 113156.90, 136876.26 and 150563.88 per hectare for
papaya respectively, on the sample farms.
94
15. The overall value of gross income, net income and family labour income per
hectare came to Rs. 386174. per ha., Rs. 255046.35 per ha., and Rs. 258719.51per
ha. per ha. in papaya cultivation, respectively.
16. The overall input-output ratio in the papaya cultivation was found to be 1:2.82.
its maximum in small farms, 1:2.91, followed by medium farms, 1:2.86 and
minimum in large farms with ratio of 1:2.82
17. The overall income over Cost A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2 and C3 was Rs.
284850.79, Rs. 258719.52, Rs. 282438.88, Rs. 258719.52, Rs. 273017.40, Rs.
249298.04, and Rs. 235610.41 respectively.
18. The total production 718.12 q/farm and its maximum in large farms
(1238.71q/farm). Small farms have more home consumption (0.93 q/farm) as
compared to medium and large farms. Marketable surplus was highest in large
farms 1238.71 q/farm followed by medium 412.50 q/farm and 216.00 q/farm small
farms respectively.
19. The marketable surplus of produced was 216.00, 412.50 and 1238.71 for small
medium and large group farms respectively.
20. Eight main alternative channels were identified for papaya marketing. It was
estimated that 716.12 quintals per farm of papaya are supplied in market by overall
sample respondents in Bilaspur district . The main receivers from producers were
collectors, wholesaler and retailer with an estimated percentage share of 48.81,
27.63 and 11.20 per cent respectively.
21. Channel-VIII (producer – collector– wholesaler– retailer – consumer) carried out
the largest followed by channel-V (producer– wholesaler– retailer –consumer),
and channel VI (producer – collectors – retailer - consumer that carry a volume of
231.7, 185.8 and 94.61quintal per farm in that order.
22. In Bilaspur district on an overall the quantity of papaya sold by farmer to
consumer, collectors, wholesalers, retailers and processer was estimated at 9.31,
48.81, 11.22, 27.64 and 3.12 per cent of the study area.
95
23. An average price received farmer 824.67, 443.07, 457.48, 522.79 662.54 and
509.07 from Consumer, Collectors, Retailers, Wholesalers, Processer and overall average
price respectively.
24. The Total Gross Marketing Margin (TGMM) was the highest in channel II and IV
which was about 98.33 and 98.32 per cent.
25. Producer has got highest NMM 94.69 per cent in channel I and lowest 7.67 per
cent in channel IV. Processer has got the highest gross marketing margin 80.86
and 77.15 per cent in channel II and VI respectively, whereas wholesalers and
collector have got the highest gross marketing margin 49.43 and 20.38 per cent in
channel VII and lowest 6.42 and 14.46 per cent in channel IV and VI respectively.
Retailer have got highest gross market margin 77.84 per cent in channel VIII and
lowest 9.41 per cent in channel IV.
26. On an average papaya producer market supply were 756.8 q/ha quintals per
hectare. The study shows that 38 papaya producers‟ market supplies were below
the average supply of papaya and 22 papaya producers‟ were supply the papaya
above the average in market.
27. Estimation of determinants of marketable supply with help of multiple linear
regression model revealed that Land holding of farmer, Educational level of house
hold and Experience in papaya production was found positive significant, and
Distance to nearest market was negative significance.
28. The most important constraints in papaya cultivation faced by the farmers were
power cut and low voltage during the crop season 93.33 per cent. lack of improved
and high yielding variety of the papaya crop in the region 80.00 per cent. Problem
of the recommended dose of different chemical fertilizer in this crop 58.33 per
cent
29. In marketing 71.66 per cent farmers were not satisfied with the price received.
About 76.66 per cent farmers felt that lack of awareness about the market
information. Lack of sufficient number of processing unit in the villages is the
major problem faced by papaya producers (90.00 per cent). About 46.66 percent of
papaya grower face the problem of transportation facility
96
5.3 Suggestions for future works:-
1. Electricity facility develop in village level
2. Planting materials should be selected carefully so as to maintain proper plant
population in later stages.
3. Proper cultivation practices should be followed in accordance with the latest
techniques.
4. Small scale processing units for producing processed products from papaya
will ultimately help the producers for making money and this will also reduce
the problem of unemployment for youth in villages and also will encourage
women empowerment.
5. Easy and efficient finance service from different financing agencies is very
important to promote area and production of papaya is study area.
6. Efficient use of input and resources so as to gain maximum output with
minimum cost.
7. Farmers should be met with facilities of fund for using as input, this will prove
beneficial for risk reduction of crop failure or poor yield.
8. Improvement in post harvest handling techniques will help in reducing post
harvest losses which is very huge in case of papaya.
9. Efficient marketing is most urgently needed in case of papaya crop.
10. Proper acknowledgement of marketing information is needed for the marketing
of this crop.
11. The agriculture and horticulture research centres should work for developing
new techniques covering each step of cultivation practices and its proper
dissemination should be ensured
97
References
Abel, D. A. (2011) Farmers ‟Involvement in Value-Added Produce: the Case of
Alabama Growers, School of Marketing, Tourism and Leisure, Edith Cowan
University, Joondalup, Australia, and School of Management, University of
Western Sydney, Penrith South DC, Australia, British Food Journal, Emerald
Group Publishing Limited, Vol. 113 No. 2, pp 187-204.
Adugna, G. (2009) Analysis of Fruit and Vegetable Market Chains in Alamata,
Southern Zone of Tigray: The Case of Onion, Tomato and Papaya, An MSc
Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University.
Asale, A., D. Yhanes and T. Buke (2016). Onion market chain analysis in Humbo
District of Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia. International Journal of Scientific
Research Engineering Technology .Vol 2(1):7-16
Asmatoddin, Mo and B.R. Pawar (2008). Economics of production of papaya in
Maharashtra, India. International Journal Agriculture Science. Vol.4 (1): 95-
98
Ayalew, Y. (2015). Factors affecting fruit supply in the market: The case of Habru
Woerda,
Ayelech Tadesse (2011) Market chain analysis of fruits for Gomma woreda, Jimma
zone, Oromia National Regional State, M.Sc thesis presented to School of
Graduate Studies, Haramaya University, p110.
Bairwa, Kailash Chand, Rajesh Sharma and Taresh Kumar (2012). Economics of
growth and instability: fruit crops of india. Raj. J. Extn. Edu. 20 : 128-132,
Baloyi, J. (2010) An Analysis of Constraints Facing Smallholder Farmers in
Agribusiness Value Chain: A case Study of Farmers in Limpopo Province. A
Master thesis in Agricultural Economics submitted to University of Pretoria.
pp 104.
Deliya, M. and C. Thakor 2006. Differentiator in Marketing of Fresh Fruits and
Vegetables from Supply Chain Management Perspective in India. Journal of
Research in Commerce & Management in India. (1): 40-42
98
Emily, O. and John J. (2010) Banana value chains in central Africa: constraints and
opportunities. Paper presented at the 3rd Africsn Association of Agricultural
Economists (AAAE) and 48th Agricultural Economists Association of South
Africa (AEASA) conference, Capetown, South Africa, pp 12.
Gessesse A. (2009). Analysis of fruit and vegetable market chains in Alamata,
southern zone of Tigray: the case of onion, tomato and papaya. M.Sc. Thesis,
Haramaya University, Ethiopia. P 55-59
Gogoi, Moromi and Debajit (2013). Baseline Data on Area, Production and
Productivity of Horticulture Crops in North -East and Himalayan States - A
Study in Assam Borah Agro-Economic Research Centre for North-East India
Assam Agricultural University. Vol 142:25-27
Kaplinsky, R., and M. Morris(2007). A Handbook For Value Chain Research.
International Development Research Centre. P 4-6
Kindei Aysheshm, 2007. Sesame market chain analysis: the case of Metema Woreda,
north gondar zone, Amhara national regional state. An M.Sc. thesis presented
to school of graduate studies of haramaya university. 123p.
Kumar, Anjani, Harbir Singh, Sant Kumar and Surabhi Mittal (2011). Value chains of
agricultural commodities and their role in food security and poverty
alleviation: A synthesis. Agricultural Economics Research Review, Vol. 24:
169-181.
Maske, M. and B.C.Jain (2011). Constraints in production and marketing of papaya in
Raipur District of Chhattisgarh. International Research Journal of Applied and
Basic Sciences, Vol 2 (1):17-19
North Wollo, Ethiopia Regional State, Ethiopia, Journal of Marketing and Consumer
Research vol 7:37-44
Papaya area production in Chhattisgarh (2016). Retrieved from ………………
http://cghorticulture.gov.in/statistcs.htm
Papaya export by India (2015). Retrieved from ………………………… ………
http://apeda.gov.in/apedawebsite/six_head_product/FFV.htm
Phuke, K.D., Pawarand N.D. and Waghmare P.R. (2004). Export potential of Banana
in India. Agriculture Marketing. Vol 47(3): 16-22.
99
Planing commission Govt. of India (2007). Report of the Working Group on
Horticulture, Plantation Crops and Organic Farming for the XI Five Year Plan
(2007-12). pp 6-14
Rais, M and A. Sheoran (2015). Scope of supply chain management in fruits and
vegetables in India. Journals of Food Process Technol, vol. 6(1):30-42
Sagar, S. B., H. C. Parmar and V. B. Darji (2012). Economics of Production of
Papaya In Middle Gujarat Region Of Gujarat, India, Global Journal of
Biology, Agriculture & Health Sciences Vol. 1(2): 10-17
Sangudom, T., T. Wasusri , C. Wongs-Aree, V. Srilaong, and S. Kanlayanarat(2014).
Maturity index as related to growing season and supply chain management of
musa (aa group) 'kluai khai' in Thailand.International Society for Horticultural
Science. Vol 10(7):26-33
Shafi, T., L. Zemedu and E. Geta (2014). Market chain analysis of papaya (Carica
papaya): The case of Dugda District, Eastern Shewa Zone, Oromia National
Regional State of Ethiopia, Journal of Agricultural Economics and
Development Vol. 3(8):120-130,
Sharma, Amod and D.C. Kalita (2008)Trends of area, production and productivity of
major fruit crops in Jammu and Kashmir. Agric. Situ. India. 66(1): 15-17.
Singh, N. and K. S. Bhimraj, Marketing of papaya from supply chain management
perspective: A case study of tribal belt of South Gujarat. National Academy of
Agricultural Research Management, pp 54-63
Singh, P, Mishra, AK and Tripathi, NN 2012, Assessment of mycoflora associated
with post harvest losses of papaya fruits, Journal of Agricultural Technology,
8: 961-968
Singh, R.P. and Nimmy Rani (2013). To study growth rate of area, production and
productivity of fruit crops in Jharkhand. Journal of Economic & Social
Development, Vol – 9 (1) :53-61
Singh, V.B., 1990. Papaya: Fruits of North East Region. Wiley Eastern Limited, New
Delhi, pp: 121-130.
Sreenivasa, D. M., T.M. Gajanana, M. Sudha and V. Dakshinamoorthy (2007).
Marketing losses and their impact on marketing margins: A case study of
Banana in Karnataka, Agriculture Economics Review, Vol. 20(1): 49-60
100
Swain, Mrutyunjay, Ramesh H. Patel and Manish Kant Ojha(2011). Impact of
National Horticulture Mission Scheme in Rajasthan. Agro-Economic Research
Centre Sardar Patel University Vallabh Vidyanagar. Vol 142:45-48
Teka,G.A.(2009). Analysis of fruit and vegetable market chains in Alamata, southern
zone of Tigray: the case of onion, tomato and papaya. M.Sc. Thesis, Haramaya
University, Ethiopia. P 78-82
Uma, M. Gowri R. Prabhu, A. Anbarassan and M. Govindraj (2017). Growth and
Trend Analysis of major Horticulture Crops in Tamil Nadu
Vinayaka, Kadli, Sameer lokapur2, Ravi Gurikar and Roopa Hosali (2014). Growth
and Instability Analysis of fruits crops in India. Journal of Environmental
Science, Computer Science and Engineering & Technology. Vol.3 (4): 1808-
1813.
Warsanga, W. 2014. Coordination and Structure of Agri-Food Value Chains: Analysis
of Banana Value Chain Strands in Tanzania. Journal of Economics and
Sustainable Development. 7(5): 1-8.
101
102
APENDIX A
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREAL ECONOMICS
INDIRA GANDHI KRISHI VISHWA VIDYALAYA, RAIPUR (C.G.)
“VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS OF PAPAYA IN BILASPUR DISTRICT OF
CHHATTISGARH”
FARMER/HOUSE HOLD SCHEDULE
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Name of farmer ………………….. 2. Age Year)…………………........…
3. Education………………………… 4. Sex (male/ Female) ………….....…
5. Village……………………………. 6. Post …………………….......…….
7. Block …………………………….. 8. District……………........……….
9. State……………………………… 10. Distance from market………….
11. Distance from pacca road (km.) …… 12.Date of interview ………………
B. Information of the family members including attached labours
Sr. No. Name Sex Relation Age Education Occupation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
C. Source of Irrigation :
Sr.No. Source Number Area irrigated (ha)
Kharif Rabi Always
1. Well
2. Canal
3. Tank
4. Other
103
A. Land Ownership:
B. Cropping pattern
S. No. Particulars Area (ha) Production
(quintals)
Total sold
(qu.)
Sale price
(Rs /qu.)
I Kharif
A
B
C
D
II Rabi
A
B
C
D
III Summer
A
B
C
S.No. Land Ownership Area (ha.) No. of
Fragment
Source
of Irrigation
Irrigated Land
(ha)
1. Owned Land
2. Lease in Land
3. Lease out Land
4. Total Cultivated Area
104
C. Marketing Channels used for selling the produce (last one year)
S.No.
Marketing
channels
Quantity of Produce Sold
(qu.)
Value of Produce Sold
(Rs/qu.)
Unripe Unripe Mature Ripe Mature Ripe
1. Village Traders
2. Retailer
3. Cooperative Society
4. Whole seller
5. Processing industry
D. Total Product for selling
S. no Product sold Quantity Sold
1. Unripe Papaya
2. Mature
3. Ripe papaya
4. Total
E. Cost of cultivation
a) Material input cast
S.n Material input Unit Quantity Cost (Rs)
1. Seed
2. Poly bags
3. Manure
4. Fertilizer
1.
2.
3.
5. Plant protection chemicals
1.
2.
3.
4.
105
b) Operational cast
S.n. Name of
Operation
Human
Labours
(No.)
Bullo
ck
Labou
rs
(Days
)
Machi
ne
Labou
rs
(hours
)
Labour Costs (Rs)
Total
cast
M F T M F T
Bulloc
k
Machi
ne
1. land preparation
2. Pit digging
3. Pit filling
4. Seed treatment
5.
Poly bag filling
& seed sowing
6. Transplanting
7.
Weeding and
Interculture
8.
Manure and
Fertilizer
application
9. Plant protection
10. Harvesting
11. Packaging and
shorting
12. Marketing
c) Irrigation charges ----------------------------------------------------per ha
d) Interest on working capital………………..
e) Fixed costs
1. Rental value of land--------------------------------------------
106
2. Land revenu ----------------------------------------------------
Total cost (a + b + c + d + e) --------------------------------------------------------
7). Production
Particulars Quantity
Produced
(Qts.)
Consump
tion
(Kg)
Quantity
Sold
(Qts.)
Rate (Rs) Value (Rs)
Unripe
Papaya
Mature
Ripe papaya
Total
Marketing Cost of papaya
Variety…………………………. Total Production:………………..
S.N. Particulars
1. Quantity to be sold(kg)
2. Whom to be sold (Type of agency)
3. Where it is sold (Name of market)
4. Price (Rs./ton)
5. Means of transportation
6. Distance from field to market
7. Transportation cost (Rs./ton.)
8. Mandi fees (Rs.)
9. Loadings/unloading charges
10. (Rs./ton.)
11. Commission charges (Rs./ton.)
Other expenses (Rs.)
107
Constraints in production of crop:
1. Are you aware about the latest technical knowledge of the crop –? Y/N
If yes, then from where you obtained it- ?
a. Television
b. Radio
c. Krishi diary
d. Friends
e. Farmers fair
f. IGKV/University
If no, then what the reason is for not obtained -?
a. Not frequent visit of RAEO
b. Not frequent visit of KVK scientist
c. Not my visit to farmers fair
d. Not my visit to research station
Any other …………………………………………………
2. Lack of any improved hybrid varieties Y/N
If yes then?
a) Non availability of good varieties.
b) Non availability of seeds of prevailing varieties
c) Lack of package and practices of different crops in the region.
3. Do you know the recommended dose of different chemical fertilizer in
this crop - Y/N
If yes, then
a. What is the recommended dose ………………………..
b. What dose you apply ………………………………….
If no, why
a. No, such type of recommendation are available
b. Not frequent visit of extension workers
c. Unavailability of chemical fertilizer during the crop period
Any other constrains
108
If no, then how you irrigate your crop -
a. Hired irrigation water
b. Completely depends on rains
c . Any other ………………………………………………
Constraints in production of crop:
4. Are you aware about the latest technical knowledge of the crop –? Y/N
If yes, then from where you obtained it- ?
g. Television
h. Radio
i. Krishi diary
j. Friends
k. Farmers fair
l. IGKV/University
If no, then what the reason is for not obtained -?
e. Not frequent visit of RAEO
f. Not frequent visit of KVK scientist
g. Not my visit to farmers fair
h. Not my visit to research station
i. Any other ……………………………………………………………
5. Lack of any improved hybrid varieties
Y/N
If yes then?
d) Non availability of good varieties.
e) Non availability of seeds of prevailing varieties
f) Lack of package and practices of different crops in the region.
6. Do you know the recommended dose of different chemical fertilizer in this
crop -? Y/N
If yes, then
a. What is the recommended dose ………………………..
b. What dose you apply ………………………………….
If no, why
109
d. No, such type of recommendation are available
e. Not frequent visit of extension workers
f. Unavailability of chemical fertilizer during the crop period
g. Any other constrains
7. Are there sufficient soil testing facilities in your areas -Y/N
If yes, then
how you come to know the nutrient requirement of plant-?
………………………………………………………………
8. Have you sufficient irrigation water for the crop-?Y/N
If no, then how you irrigate your crop -
c. Hired irrigation water
d. Completely depends on rains
d . Any other
…………………………………………………………………
…….
9. Have you problem of availability of labour during the crop?
Y/N
If yes, then in which operation
a.
b.
c.
d.
10. Have you sufficient fund to purchase different inputs for crop
cultivation -?
Y/N
110
11. Do you face any problem in financing from the financial
institution -
Y/N
If yes, then what are those problems -?
a. Complicated procedure
b. Long procedure
c. Any other specify
……………………………………………………….
12. Are you aware about the crop insurance of crop -?
Y/N
If yes, then
a. From where you get knowledge of crop insurance
b. Are you under crop insurance scheme?
c. Have you claim for crop failure during past year?
d. What you suggest to improve the system
……………………………………………………………
13. Whether you face problem of power cut and low voltage during
the crop season?
If yes, then how you manage this problem?
Y/N
a. By hiring generator
b. By purchasing generator
c. What is your suggestion to reduce this problem?
………………………………………………………
111
Constraints in marketing of crop:
Are you satisfied with the price received? Y/N
If no, then what should be done
a. Sale after grading
b. Sale during slack season
c. Any other …………………………………………………………..
1. Lack of transportation facilities and road from village to market-? Y/N
2. Whether you face problem because the quantity is small –
Y/N
If yes, then
What steps you have taken in this situation?
a. Sharing the cost of transportation
c. Sale to the village trader/kochia in order to reduce the time and cost Sale
to village retailer in small quantity
d. Sale to the nearest PACS
e. Any other………………………………………………………
3. Whether you visit organized market regularly - Y/N
If no, then give the reason for not going to the regulated market
a. Small quantity of produce
b. Time and distance constraints
c. Availability of kochia in village level
d. Lack of awareness about regulated market
e. Any other…………………………………………………
If yes, then what is problem in organized market?
a. Delay in purchasing
b. Weighing default
c. Lack of sufficient market yard/platform to put the produce
d. Delay in payment
e. High marketing charges
4. Lack of storage facilities in growing area -? Y/N
112
If yes, then how you manage the produce?
a. Store in own storage structure
b. Sale just after harvesting
c. Any other
………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………
5. Lack of papaya based processing industries Y/N
6. What media do you have for marketing news? Y/N
a. News paper c. Radio
b. Television d. Other (specify)
7. Whether you are satisfied with present method of sale and purchase of
produce prevailing in mandi.
Y/N
If No, then give you suggestion.
a. ................................................................................................
113
APENDIX B
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREAL ECONOMICS
INDIRA GANDHI KRISHI VISHWA VIDYALAYA, RAIPUR (C.G.)
“VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS OF PAPAYA IN BILASPUR DISTRICT OF
CHHATTISGARH”
SCHEDULE FOR RETAILER SURVEY
1. Name of retailer………………………………..
2. Name of market …………………………………..
3. Date of interview …………………………………
4. Distance from market to selling place…………….
Table 1: Quantity purchase
S. No. Name of variety Quantity
purchased(ton)
Price paid (Rs/ton)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total
Table 2: Quantity sold
S. No. Name of variety Quantity sale(ton) Price received
(Rs/ton)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total
5. Marketing cost incurred by retailers
114
S.n. Particular Cast (Rs)
1. cost of transportation
2. Loading/unloading charge
3. Rent of shop
4. Capital invested in business
5. Interest on capital
6. Approx. Price of wastage/unsold quantity
7. Mandi fees
8. Other expenses
6. Constraints faced by retailer
Y/N
a) Availability of papaya
b) Fluctuation of prices
c) Storage
d) Packing
115
APENDIX C
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREAL ECONOMICS
INDIRA GANDHI KRISHI VISHWA VIDYALAYA, RAIPUR (C.G.)
“VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS OF PAPAYA IN BILASPUR DISTRICT OF
CHHATTISGARH”
SCHEDULE FOR WHOLESALER SURVEY
5. Name of Wholesaler ………………………………..
6. Name of market …………………………………..
7. Date of interview …………………………………
8. Distance from market to selling place…………….
Table 1: Quantity purchase
S.No. Name of variety Quantity
purchased(ton)
Price paid (Rs/ton)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total
Table 1: Quantity sold
S.No. Name of variety Quantity sale(ton) Price received
(Rs/ton)
1.
2.
116
3.
4.
5.
Total
5. Marketing cost incurred by wholesaler
S.n. Particular Cast (Rs)
9. cost of transportation
10. Loading/unloading charge
11. Rent of shop
12. Capital invested in business
13. Interest on capital
14. Approx. Price of wastage/unsold quantity
15. Mandi fees
16. Other expenses
6. Constraints faced by wholesaler
e) Availability of papaya
f) Fluctuation of prices
g) Storage
h) Packing
117
APENDIX A
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREAL ECONOMICS
INDIRA GANDHI KRISHI VISHWA VIDYALAYA, RAIPUR (C.G.)
“VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS OF PAPAYA IN BILASPUR DISTRICT OF
CHHATTISGARH”
SCHEDULE FOR PROCESSING INDUSTRY SURVEY
9. Name of processing industry ………………………………..
10. Date of interview …………………………………
11. Distance from market to selling place…………….
Table 1: Quantity purchase
S.No. Name of variety Quantity
purchased(ton)
Price paid
(Rs/ton)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total
Table 1: Quantity sold productd
S.No. Name of Product Quantity sale(Qu.) Price received
(Rs/Qu.)
1.
2.
3.
4.
118
5.
Total
5. Value addition cost incurred by processing industry
S.n. Particular Cast (Rs)
17. Machinery
18. Chemicals
19. Labour
20. transportation cost
21. Loading/unloading charge
22. Capital invested in business
23. Interest on capital
24. Approx. Price of wastage/unsold quantity
25. Other expenses
Other expenses
i. License fees (Rs.)………………………………………….
ii. Maintenance expenditure…………………………………
iii. Rent on shop/Month……………………………………….
119
120