Department of Agricultural Economics and Statistics, C.S. Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur-208 002, Uttar Pradesh, India
*Email of corresponding author: jharakhande_9csauk@rediffmail.com
Online published on 13 October, 2015.
The investigation was carried out by survey method in Kon block of district Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh during 2009–10. Producers disposed off their surplus vegetables in three marketing channels, viz. channel I (producers-consumers), channel II (producers-retailers-consumers) and channel III (producers-wholesalers-retailers-consumers). Major share of the vegetable surplus was sold through marketing channel II (P-R-C), followed by channel III (P-W-R-C) and very small quantity in channel I (P-C). Producers ’share of the price paid by the consumers varied between 97.2 to 67.4% in potato, 97 to 62.6% in tomato, 98 to 73.5% in green pea and 95.3 to 56.6% in cauliflower. Marketing cost included for producers ’share in consumers ’rupees varied between 5.6 to 4.7% in cauliflower, 5.4 to 3% in tomato, 4.3 to 2.8% in potato and 2.9 to 2% in green pea crop. Retailers ’margin varied between 7.7 to 9.7% in cauliflower, 7.3 to 8.8% in tomato, 6 to 7.1% in potato and 5.5 to 6.2% in green pea crops. Share of wholesaler varied between 13.5% in cauliflower, 11% in tomato, 9.3% in potato and 7.6% in green pea crops. About 13–21% of the producers ’share moved to retailers ’pocket, while 10–16% in wholesalers ’account.
Marketing channel, Marketing cost, Market margin, Price spread