Economics of Potato Storage: Case Studies

Keith O. Fuglie
Agricultural Economist
International Potato Center
Bogor, Indonesia

Paper presented at the

Symposium on Potato Storage, Processing and Marketing
Global Conference on Potato
New Delhi, India
December 7-9, 1999

i
 Economics of Potato Storage: Case Studies

Keith O. Fuglie
International Potato Center
Bogor, Indonesia

Abstract

Because of their storability, potatoes have become available in the market

place year-round even in areas where production is highly seasonal. But to avoid high
seasonal price instability requires good storage technology and marketing services to
help storers keep storage costs low and manage risk. This paper discusses potato
storage economics from three case studies: from the United States, Tunisia and India.
The US example represents a well-developed potato market with advanced
technology and marketing institutions. Market information services provide timely
information on prices and stocks, and forward and futures pricing mechanisms help
farmers reduce their expose to market risk. The Tunisian and Indian case studies are
examples of areas where potato production is expanding rapidly but storage and
marketing systems are not as advanced. In the Tunisian example, improvements in
rustic farm storage technology introduced in the 1980s reduced storage losses and
contributed to less seasonal supply and price variability. In India, price risk from
potato storage is high relative to the US and serves as a disincentive for the private
sector to invest in storage. New storage methods developed in the 1990s were shown
to reduce losses in small-scale farm stores but were nevertheless not economical for
most farmers.

Acknowledgements

The comments of Tom Walker and Greg Scott on an earlier draft of this paper are
gratefully acknowledged. Remaining errors are solely the responsibility of the author.

ii
 Economics of Potato Storage: Case Studies

Keith O. Fuglie

Introduction

Potatoes are a semi-perishable crop. Unlike cereal grains, potatoes cannot be

stored from one crop year to the next due to physiological deterioration. But unlike

many vegetables and fruits, potatoes can be stored for several months without serious

loss of quality. This characteristic of the potato has enabled it to become available in

markets year-round even in areas where climate conditions limit production to a few

months of the year. However, the absence of inter-year storage together with

relatively high transportation costs has meant that supplies and prices of table potatoes

are often highly variable from one year to the next. When the harvest is exceptionally

large, prices can be dismally low. And when the harvest is small, prices can be

exorbitantly high. Improved crop storage can help reduce market supply and price

volatility by allowing the harvest to be more evenly distributed throughout the year.

But storage itself is a risky enterprise – if a store is not well-managed, significant

quantity and quality losses may occur. If too much stock (in the aggregate) is held too

late in the year and storers are forced to dump their collective stocks on the market,

prices may fall sharply resulting in large losses for potato storers. To achieve an

orderly system for potato storage requires careful attention to both the technical

management of potato stores and the institutional mechanisms for price discovery and

seasonal supply allocation.

In this paper I discuss results from three case studies of the economics of

potato storage and seasonal supply management. The US case study serves as a

1
benchmark example of a well-developed potato storage and marketing system. The

other two case studies are from developing countries: Tunisia in North Africa and the

lowland Ganges Plain of northern India. These case studies are examples of areas

where potato production is expanding rapidly but storage and marketing systems are

not as advanced. In the Tunisian example, improvements in storage technology

introduced in the 1980s lowered storage costs and helped reduce seasonal supply and

price variability. In the Indian case study, price risk from potato storage is high and

serves as a disincentive for the private sector to invest in storage. New storage

methods developed in the 1990s to reduce losses in rustic, on-farm potato stores were

found to be technically feasible but not economical for most farmers. For each of the

case studies I discuss the potato cropping and storage system, storage costs, seasonal

potato prices, and seasonal supply management.

A model of the economics of seasonal potato storage

As Holbrook Working showed in his seminal 1949 article on the economics of

crop storage, in a perfectly competitive market in which future seasonal prices can be

forecast with certainty, the difference between current and near-future prices should

reflect the cost of storage. The rise in market price between seasons, which we can

call the storage price margin, is the gross benefit earned by storers on each unit of a

crop that is put into storage at harvest for sale later in the year. In order for storage to

be profitable, the storage price margin must be sufficiently high to compensate storers

for all of the costs incurred for storage, including labor and materials, interest on

foregone income from dela ying the sale of the crop, and storage losses due to

transpiration or other factors. If the storage margin is lower than the cost of storage,

then storers suffer a net loss and have little incentive to store at all. If the storage

2
margin is above the cost of storage then net benefits from storage are positive. If net

benefits are consistently large then storers will have an incentive to increase the

quantity in storage. An increase in the aggregate quantity stored will drive down

market prices during the storage season and reduce the storage price margin. An

equilibrium is reached when the storage margin is roughly equal to the costs of

storage since at this point storers have no incentive to either reduce or increase the

quantity stored.

This model of crop storage is depicted graphically in Figure 1. In the upper

diagram, total production is marketed in two seasons: at harvest (H) and during the

post-harvest, or storage, season (S). The intersection of market demand (D) and

marketed supply at harvest (SH) determines the price at harvest (P H). As time

progresses the supplies held in storage are released to the market and the market price

rises to P S to compensate for the cost of storage. The lower diagram shows the

progression of market prices over several seasons. Each year the market price rises

following harvest (H) to compensate for the cost of storage. As a new crop arrives the

market price falls and the cycle is repeated. Note that in the lower diagram, the

harvest price differs from year to ye ar, depending on whether there is a large or small

crop, but the storage price margin is about the same each year. This is because unit

storage costs remain relatively constant irrespective of the size of the total crop, with

the exception that the opportunity cost of holding stocks will be correlated with the

price at harvest (Gray, 1977).

In actuality, prices and storage conditions a few months ahead are not known

with certainty and potato storers face significant risks. Unexpected problems in

storage management may result in excessive quantity and quality losses in the store.

3
Probably an even greater source of risk is unexpected price fluctuations that could

result in a profit windfall or a net loss of income. If storers are averse to risk, then

they would implicitly include a risk premium as part of their storage costs. A risk

premium can be viewed as compensation for undertaking the risky business of potato

storage rather than selling the entire crop at the prevailing market price at harvest.

How much is demanded as a risk premium will depend on individual attitudes toward

risk-taking and the perceived significance of the risk. In the case studies below I

present some estimates of the risk premium and show that it is likely to be a much

larger part of total storage costs in India than in the US.

A reduction in the storage price margin can come about through the wide-scale

adoption of improved storage technology or marketing services. Improved storage

design and management may significantly reduce storage losses, for example. Better

marketing services can improve the allocation of seasonal supplies and reduce

seasonal price variability. By providing timely market information about total

production, quantity remaining in stores, current prices and price forecasts, marketing

services enable storers to make better judgments about future market conditions and

plan their marketing strategies accordingly. Marketing services such as forward

contracting and futures contract trading also help reduce exposure to price risk. By

reducing price uncertainty, marketing services lower the risk premium associated with

storage. Thus, better storage technology and improved marketing services can both

lower storage costs and increase the net benefits from storage. If such improvements

are widely adopted, there will likely be a noticeable increase in the aggregate quantity

stored. This will increase market supplies and lower the market price during the

storage period. This serves to reduce the storage price margin until a new market

4
equilibrium is reached. In the Tunisian case study below, improved pest control in

rustic farm potato stores reduced storage losses and led to a reduction in price

variability between seasons.

Potato storage: Three case studies

The examples concerning the economics of potato storage described below are

based on fieldwork by the author and colleagues carried out in the 1990s. The case

studies include one from the United States, specifically, the Red River Valley on the

Minnesota-North Dakota border discussed in Fuglie (1993). The second study comes

from potato growing regions in Tunisia (Fuglie et al., 1996). The third case study is

from Ganges Plain of northern India, especially the state of Uttar Pradesh, and is

described in Fuglie et al. (1997). Some of the main characteristics of the potato

production and storage systems in the case studies are given in table 1.

Cropping systems and storage seasons

Potato production in the United States is a highly commercial enterprise.

According to the 1997 Census of Agriculture, just 3,800 farms produced 99 percent of

the US potato crop, each producing an average of 5,000 tons per year. Potato

production is concentrated in three or four regions, especially Maine, the Northwest,

and the Red River Valley of Minnesota and North Dakota. About 90 percent of the

US potato crop is harvested in the fall season between September and December

(Figure 2). Potato production in these areas during the rest of the year is constrained

by low temperature but warmer states produce small crops of summer and winter

potatoes. Over time production has become more concentrated in the fall season even

though prices are still considerably higher for potatoes produced in the other seasons.

5
Most table potatoes reaching the market between January and June are supplied from

storage. Many farmers have their own cold storage facilities or rent commercial cold

storage space. A large portion of the US potato crop is marketed on a contract basis

to agro-processors, especially to frozen French fry and potato chip makers.

Consumers purchase about 60 kg/capita/year of potatoes, about 20 kg/capita/year as

table potatoes and 40 kg/capita/year in processed form. Farmers supplying table

potatoes may sell on the spot market or hedge against price risk by participating in the

potato futures market operated by the New York Commodity Exchange.

In Tunisia, potatoes are produced on small, irrigated farms of usually less than

five hectares. Potatoes can be grown year-round except during the hot summer

months between June and September (Figure 2). The main production seasons are the

Saison (spring) crop, harvested in May-June, and the Arriere-Saison (fall) crop, with

harvest beginning in November. There is also a small Primeur (winter) crop. Potato

production and consumption have increased steadily during the past three decades.

Between 1960 and 1990, per capita potato consumption in Tunisia doubled to around

20 kg/capita/year and consumers have come to except potatoes to be available year-

round. A portion of the spring harvest is stored in rustic farm stores for later sale

during the summer or for use as seed potatoes for the Arriere-Saison crop. Storage

losses after three or four months in farm stores are typically around 10 to 20 percent

of initial weight due to transpiration, but can be significantly higher if insect and other

pests and diseases are not adequately controlled.

In India, more than 85 percent of the potato crop is produced during the Rabi

(winter) season on small, irrigated farms in the Indo-Ganges Plain. Harvest begins in

November and is most concentrated during January to March. Potato production in

6
lowland areas is limited because of hot weather during the rest of the year but a

smaller Kharif (summer) crop is produced in highland areas. However, Indian

consumers have come to rely on potatoes to provide a relatively low-cost vegetable

throughout the year. Per capita consumption rose from 4 kg/capita/year in 1960 to 13

kg/capita/year in 1990. Most consumption is in the form of fresh table potatoes,

which have been incorporated into many traditional dishes.

At least 40 percent of the Rabi potato crop is placed into storage for sale later

in the season and as seed for next year’s crop. Two different systems provide potato

storage for table potatoes between April and October. The first system is small, on-

farm storage in which potatoes are kept at ambient temperatures for one to three

months following harvest. After three months of storage in farm stores, losses from

transpiration and other factors average around 20 percent of the initial storage weight.

The second system is commercial cold storage. Farmers or marketing agents may rent

space in cold storage facilities to keep potatoes for sale as late as September or

October.

Seasonal price movements and mechanisms for risk reduction

These production and storage patterns described above are reflected in

seasonal price trends. Figure 3 shows seasonal indices of prices received by farmers

in the three case studies.1 The seasonal price indices were constructed by normalizing

monthly prices by the price during the main harvest months of each year, and then

averaging the seasonal price indices over a ten-year period (1981 to 1990). Thus the

price at harvest is set to 1.00 and the index value shows the average relative price

change during the storage season. In the United States, prices rose an average of

7
about 40 percent between harvest time and the end of the storage period. In India, the

average price at the end of the storage season was more than double the price at

harvest. In Tunisia, the storage season following the harvest of the s Saison crop lasts

only four months until the Arriere-Saison crop becomes available. Potato prices

increased an average 80 percent over the storage period.

Farmers in each of these markets face risks, especially from unforeseen price

movements during the storage season. While experienced farmers may anticipate the

price trends depicted in Figure 3, it is more difficult to foresee fluctuations around

these trends. This is especially true if there is a lack of timely market information on

aggregate stocks remaining in stores or market mechanisms for price forecasting and

hedging against price risk.

In the United States, the US Department of Agriculture publishes daily price

information in major spot markets, weekly estimates of potato shipments into major

urban markets, and monthly estimates of potato production and remaining stocks

(Lucier, 1991). In addition, the New York Commodity Exchange operates a futures

market for table potatoes. In a futures market, traders agree to buy and sell a given

quantity and quality of potatoes at a specified price some months in the future.

Futures contract prices are established in open auctions and are widely published. A

farmer can use the futures market to establish a guaranteed price for his or her crop.

Futures prices also serve as a valuable price-forecasting tool since they represent the

collective judgment of traders about market conditions. Derivatives of futures

contracts, called options contracts, are also available. For these contracts, a fee is

charged for the option to sell or buy a given quantity of potatoes at a future date at an

8
established price. The holder of the options contract will only exercise the option if

the spot market price subsequently moves in an unfavorable direction.

In India, statistical services and media publish spot prices and quantities

delivered in major wholesale markets. However, there is need for accurate and timely

estimates of the size of the potato crop and remaining stocks. In addition, without a

large processing industry there are few opportunities for forward contracting available

to farmers. As a result of this and possibly other factors, there is considerably more

price variation around seasonal price trends in India than in the United States. In the

case studies, the coefficient of variation of the seasonal price index at the end of the

storage season was estimated to be 35 percent in India and 17 percent in the United

States.2 Thus, Indian potato farmers face considerably more seasonal price risk than

US farmers even if they correctly anticipate average seasonal price trends.

Comparison of storage costs in the US, India, and Tunisia

In a recent paper Fuglie and Ramaswami (1999) compared seasonal price

movements with storage costs in the three case studies. In their model, they identified

four main components of storage costs: 1) interest on stock, 2) compensation for

quantity losses during storage, 3) direct costs for labor, materials, and storage

facilities, and 4) a risk premium to compensate for price uncertainty during the

storage season.3 The US and Indian case studies are based on six to seven months of

storage in cold stores, whereas in Tunisia storage is assumed to take place in rustic

farm stores for up to four months.

An additional factor to consider in the Indian case study is government

intervention in the market for cold storage. While most cold stores are privately own,

cold storage rental rates have at times been regulated by the national or state level

9
government. While national price controls on cold storage rental rates were

withdrawn in the 1980s, the Uttar Pradesh state government maintained price controls

on cold storage until 1998. Rental rates were typically about 25 percent lower in

Uttar Pradesh compared with neighboring states that did not have price controls

(Fuglie et al., 1997). However, with the rent controls cold storage operation became

increasingly unprofitable and by 1997, more than 200 out of 916 cold stores in Uttar

Pradesh were closed to due lack of maintenance or financial insolvency. Further,

farmers often complained of inadequate enforcement of regulations and additional

charges levied by some cold storage owners (Dahiya and Sharma, 1994). The actual

average cost of cold storage rental was probably higher than the official government

rates during much of this period. Potato storage costs in India are derived for both

regulated and estimated market rates for cold storage.

The estimate of the risk premium is based on a mean-variance utility function

in which farmers are assumed to be risk averse. In this model the risk premium is a

function of the coefficient of variation of price and the Arrow-Pratt coefficient of

relative risk aversion (R). Although precise estimates of R are not available,

Binswanger (1980) found that R rarely exceeded a value of 2 in the case of Indian

small farmers, and that R declined with income. A value of R=2 is assumed to

represent the risk attitude of the typical Indian farmer, R=1.5 in the Tunisian case, and

R=1 for the typical US farmer.

The analysis of seasonal storage price margins and storage costs for the three

case studies is presented in table 2. If the economic modelof potato storage described

in Figure 1 is correct, then average storage costs should be close to the average

storage price margin. In the US and Tunisia, the estimated storage costs, including

10
the risk premium, are almost identical to the average price rise between harvest and

the end of storage. In India, the average storage price margin in Meerut district was

105.7 percent after 7 months of storage. Storage costs as a percentage of the harvest

price were estimated to be 100.7 percent at the government controlled rate for cold

storage rental and 113.2 percent at an estimated market rate (the market rate assumes

a rental rate 25 percent higher than the government regulated rate). If actual costs

borne by farmers for cold storage lies between these estimates, then the average

storage price margin is again consistent with average storage costs.

The results presented in table 2 show that high seasonal price markups in

potato markets can be fully explained by an accounting of storage costs, including the

cost of price risk, and are therefore consistent with competitive market behavior. We

may attribute the high level of seasonal price variability in the Indian potato market to

a lack of effective market mechanisms to guide the allocation of supplies throughout

the year, such as accurate and timely production estimates, stock reports, price

forecasts, and forward pricing mechanisms. This does not rule out the possibility that

non-competitive forces may occasionally manipulate supply in order to achieve some

monopolistic gains. But the dispersed nature of potato production and storage in India

would seem to rule out the possibility of wide-scale collusion among suppliers. We

think it is more likely that inadequate information lies behind the high and variable

season price trends observed between potato harvests.

The risk premium as a percent of the harvest price of potatoes was more than

nine times higher in India compared with the US (28 percent versus 3 percent). The

risk premium for Indian farmers amounted to 190 Rupees per metric ton (Rp/MT)

compared with $2.80/MT in the US. These estimates are based on seven months of

11
storage following harvest. Price risk tended to increase with the length of storage,

particularly in India. In Tunisia, the risk premium was relatively small due to a much

shorter storage season of only four months. Quantity losses in Tunisia were higher,

however, since potatoes are stored under ambient conditions in rustic farm stores

rather than under refrigeration.

The largest component of storage costs in India and the US was the direct cost

of labor, materials, and cold storage facilities. These costs were somewhat higher in

India compared with the US when evaluated at exchange rates that prevailed in the

1980s (around 10 Rupees per dollar), despite substantially lower labor costs in India

and government subsidies on the interest charged on loans for cold storage

construction. Higher electricity usage during the warm sub-tropical summers partly

explains higher costs in India. But it is also likely that out-dated cold storage

technology and sub-optimal temperature management contribute to these differences.

Many cold stores in India, for example, store both table potatoes and seed potatoes in

the same chambers even though table potatoes can be stored at higher temperatures

than seed potatoes (Fuglie et al., 1997).

The results in table 2 suggest that if seasonal price uncertainty in India could

be reduced, then a significant reduction in storage costs could be achieved since the

premium necessary to compensate storers for bearing risk would be lower. For

example, if the coefficient of variation of the seasonal price could be reduced to that

of the US, then the risk premium would fall from 190 Rp/MT to 47 Rp/MT. At the

market rental rate for cold storage, total storage costs would be reduced from 113

percent of the harvest price to 92 percent. More timely market information on

quantities harvested, stocks remaining in stores, and price forecasts, and alternative

12
pricing and marketing mechanisms such as forward and futures contracting, could

help to better coordinate the distribution of the annual harvest throughout the year and

improve price stability and efficiency in the Indian potato market.

Improvements to small-scale rustic farm storage

Small-scale rustic farm storage plays an important role in meeting potato

storage needs in many developing countries, as we have seen in the case of Tunisia.

Even where cold storage facilities are available, many developing countries also rely

on rustic, on-farm storage of potatoes to meet short-term storage needs of up to four

months following harvest. These rustic farm stores provide a low cost means of

meeting storage needs and also enable small farmers to benefit more directly from

storage. But a significant constraint facing rustic farm stores is the high rate of losses

from transpiration, pests and diseases that can occur when potatoes are stored under

ambient conditions. Storage specialists at the International Potato Center and national

agricultural research institutes have developed several new storage designs and

management methods to reduce losses and maintain quality in farm stores. If such

improvements can be successfully introduced to farmers on a wide scale, then more

stable supply allocation and prices can be achieved. Below I discuss the results of

economic evaluations of new on-farm methods for storing table potatoes in northern

India and Tunisia. In the Indian example, new methods were found to substantially

reduce losses compared with farmers’ existing methods, but construction costs may be

too high for many farmers to afford. In Tunisia, the adoption and diffusion of

improved pest control in on-farm stores significantly reduced storage costs,

encouraged more potato storage, and led to lower seasonal price variability.

13
Evaluation of on-farm evaporative cool stores in India

Beginning in the mid-1980s, scientists from the Central Potato Research

Institute and the International Potato Center began working on ways to improve on-

farm potato storage methods. Since weight and moisture losses in farm stores are due

mostly to high ambient temperatures, the scientists investigated using evaporatively

cooled structures to lower temperatures inside a store and thus reduce losses from

transpiration. In evaporative cool storage (ECS) a pan of water is maintained beneath

the store and potato tubers are cooled as evaporating water is drawn into the storage

structure. During 1993 to 1996, ECS was tested in 40 on-farm trials in Uttar Pradesh

under farmer-managed conditions and compared with farmers’ traditional, “clamp”

methods of storage.

The results of the trials verified that with good management, ECS performed

significantly better than farmers’ rustic storage methods. Average losses after three

months of storage were reduced from around 24 percent of initial weight in farmers’

clamps to only 10 percent in ECS. For a typical 10-ton store, this implies that an

additional 1.4 tons of potatoes could be marketed each year. Another advantage of

ECS is that they can extend the duration that a farmer can maintain on-farm storage

from three months to four months, enabling him or her to receive a higher price for

the potato crop. However, ECS involves higher construction and maintenance costs

compared with farmers’ methods. Capital construction costs of ECS for a 10-ton store

amounted to 2,100 Rp/MT of potatoes stored compared with only 100 Rp/MT using

farmers’ traditional methods. Acceptance of the technology by farmers depends on

whether the benefits from lower losses and higher prices are sufficient to offset the

additional storage construction costs.

14
 Benefit-cost analysis of storing potatoes in northern Indian using farmers’

traditional methods and ECS is shown in table 3. The figures indicate the net present

value of storing 10 tons of potatoes for a given number of months each year for 10

years, under various assumptions about the cost of capital. For example, the net

present valued at a 12 percent annual discount rate of storing potatoes for 3 months

each year for 10 years using farmers’ methods is Rp. 46,800 and using ECS is Rp.

41,500. If a farmer can extend storage to 4 months each year by using ECS, NPV

would increase to Rp 44,600. But at 12 percent and higher interest rates, ECS is less

profitable than farmers’ traditional methods even taking into account the possibility of

extending the duration of storage. At a 6 percent interest rate, ECS does slightly

better than farmers’ methods when the storage period is extended to four months each

year. But few farmers have access to capital at this interest rate. Thus, ECS is

unlikely to be profitable under the conditions described in the table.

The current cost of new ECS stores appears to be too high to be an attractive

option for most farmers. However, further refinements to ECS to reduce construction

costs or extend their use to store other crops would improve their profitability relative

to farmers’ rustic storage methods. Construction costs of ECS would have to be

reduced by at least 30 percent per ton of potatoes stored before many farmers would

likely find them a profitable alternative to their traditional methods (Fuglie et al.,

1997).

Market-level effects of storage improvement in Tunisia

The potato tuber moth is a major insect pest of potatoes in North Africa,

especially potatoes stored under ambient conditions during hot summer months. In

15
the late 1970s scientists from the International Potato Center and the Tunisian national

agricultural research program began research and extension activities to improve pest

control practices in rustic, on-farm stores (Fuglie et al., 1996). Farmers rapidly

adopted these techniques in the late 1980s and farm surveys verified that storage

losses from insect pests were substantially reduced. Improved practices reduced

average losses after three months of storage from around 22 percent to 11 percent of

initial storage weight. Farmers were also able to store their crop for a longer period to

take advantage of higher seasonal prices. Improved storage allowed the aggregate

supply of the crop to be more evenly distributed between harvest and storage seasons

Analysis of seasonal price data showed that the storage price margin between harvest

period and the end of the storage period fell steadily during the time in which farm

adoption of new storage technology took place (Fuglie, 1995). Between 1980 and

1990, the average storage margin was estimated to have been reduced by about 40

percent. Gross benefits to producers and consumers were estimate to be 2.3 million

Tunisian Dinars per year, or about 9 percent of the market value of the Saison potato

crop.

Summary and implications

The case studies illustrate the fundamental relationship between storage costs

and seasonal supply and price variability. When storage costs are high, price

variability between production and non-production seasons is also high. If average

storage costs can be reduced, it becomes economical to more evenly distribute supply

across seasons. Using the United States as a be nchmark, the case studies indicate that

there may be considerable scope for improving seasonal supply and price stability in

many developing countries.

16
 Reducing storage costs and providing a more orderly allocation of market

supplies among seasons requires not only good storage technology and management

but also marketing services and institutions to provide accurate and timely market

information and mechanisms for managing price risk. A comparison of monthly

farm-level potato prices in India and the US showed that Indian farmers face

considerably more price risk during the potato storage season than US farmers. The

additional price uncertainty adds to the cost of storage in the form of a risk premium

to compensate storers for undertaking the risky business of potato storage. There are

appears to be potential for improving the efficiency of cold stores in India with

improved technology and management.

There are also opportunities for improving the design and management of

small-scale, rustic farm stores. Potatoes stored under ambient conditions in simple

farm structures make an important contribution to potato storage systems in many

developing countries, though losses from transpiration, pests and diseases are often

high. Experiments with evaporative cool storage in India and improved storage pest

management in Tunisia showed that storage losses could be significantly reduced

compared with farmers’ methods. But in order for these methods to be profitable for

small farmers, any additional costs of the new technology must be kept low. In

Tunisia, new, low-cost technology to control insect pests in potato stores were rapidly

adopted by farmers and had a significant, stabilizing effect on the seasonal potato

supply and price. In India, the additional construction and maintenance costs of

evaporative cool stores proved to be too expensive for many small farmers.

17
End notes

1
US potato price data are prices received by farmers in Minnesota, reported by the
National Agricultural Statistics Service. Indian potato prices are wholesale prices in
Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, and are from the National Horticultural Board. Meerut is a
major center of potato production in India’s largest potato growing state. Tunisian
prices are from the Tunis wholesale market from the National Statistics Institute.
Tunis lies within one or two hours by road from the major potato growing areas.
Thus, prices in the Meerut and Tunis wholesale markets are likely to be closely
correlated with farm-level prices.

2
The coefficient of variation of the seasonal price index is equal to 0.00 at harvest
(since these prices are all normalized to 1.00) and then tends to increase with the
duration of storage. By calculating the coefficient of variation from the seasonal price
index rather than from the prices themselves, annual price shocks are removed from
the data. Thus, the coefficient of variation of the seasonal price index measures the
degree of deviation from the seasonal price trend once the price at harvest is known
(Fuglie and Ramaswami, 1999).

3
Another potential source of risk not considered in their model is uncertainty about
the rate of quantity or quality losses in storage. The rates of quantity losses and
quality deterioration are assumed to be fixed parameters and the same for all farmers.
If all potatoes available on the market at a given point in time are of the same quality,
then quality deterioration is already reflected in market prices.

References

Binswanger, Hans P. “Attitudes Toward Risk: Experimental Measurement Evidence

in Rural India,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 62,3 (August
1980): 395-407.

Dahiya P.M. and H.C. Sharma. Potato Marketing in India: Status, Issues, and
Outlook. Social Science Department Working Paper No. 1994-2. Lima, Peru:
International Potato Center, 1994.

18
Fuglie, K. How to Get Higher Prices for Your Potatoes, Training and Extension
Bulletin. Lima, Peru: International Potato Center (CIP), 1993.

Fuglie, K. O. “Measuring Welfare Benefits from Improved Storage Technology with

an Application to Potatoes in Tunisia,” American Journal of Agricultural
Economics 77,1 (February 1995): 162-173.

Fuglie, K., H. Ben Salah, M. Essamet, A. Ben Temime, and A. Rahmouni. “Economic
Impact of IPM Practices on the Potato Tuber Moth in Tunisia,” in Case Studies of
the Economic Impact of CIP-Related Technologies (T.S. Walker and C.C.
Crissman, eds.) Lima, Peru: International Potato Center, pp. 157-172, 1996.

Fuglie, K. O., V. Khatana, S. Ilangantileke, J.P. Singh, D. Kumar, and G. Scott.

Economics of Potato Storage in Northern India. Social Science Working Paper
No. 1997-5. Lima, Peru: International Potato Center, 1997.

Fuglie, K. O., and B. Ramaswami. “Seasonal Price Risk and the Cost of Storage in the
Indian Potato Market,” unpublished mimeo, International Potato Center, Bogor,
Indonesia, July 1999.

Gray, R.W. “The Futures Market for Maine Potatoes: An Appraisal,” in Selected
Writings on Futures Markets: Basic Research in Commodity Markets (Anne E.
Peck, ed.). Chicago, Illinois: Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, 1977.

Lucier, G., A. Budge, C. Plummer, and C. Spurgeon. U.S. Potato Statistics, 1949-89.
Statistical Bulletin No. 829. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, August 1991.

National Agricultural Statistics Service. Agricultural Prices. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture (various issues).

National Horticulture Board. Horticulture Statistics. New Delhi, India: Ministry of

Agriculture (various annual and monthly issues).

National Statistics Institute. Bulletin Mensuel de Statistique (Monthly Statistics

Bulletin). Tunis, Tunisia: Ministry of Planning (various issues).

Working, Holbrook. “The Theory of the Price of Storage,” American Economic

Review 39 (December 1949): 1249-1262.

19
Table 1. Potato production and storage systems in the case s tudies

US India Tunisia

Location Red River Valley, Meerut District, Potato growing areas

Minnesota-North Uttar Pradesh near Tunis
Dakota

Period of study 1981-1990 1981-1990 1981-1990

Main harvest period September-October January-February 1) May -June

2) November-December

Main storage season November-May March-October July -October

Storage system(s) On-farm cold stores 1) On-farm rustic stores On-farm rustic stores

2) Farmers rent cold storage

Potato utilization Table potatoes Table potatoes Table potatoes

Processing (chipping) Seed potatoes Seed potatoes

Availability of Yes No No
forward and futures
contracting

Further information on potato market prices and storage costs are given in table 2.

20
Table 2. Storage price margins and components of storage costs in three case studies

India Minnesota Tunisia

Storage price margin Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, wholesale price Price received by growers Tunis wholesale price
(Prices are 1981-1990 averages) Rupee/MT % of Ph $/MT % of Ph Dinar/MT % of Ph
Price at harvest (Ph) 688 100.0 89 100.0 156 100.0
Price at end of storage period (Ps) 1415 205.7 127 143.0 240 153.3
Storage price margin (Ps-Ph) 727 105.7 38 43.0 83 53.3
Storage cost components Controlled storage costs Market storage costs
Rupee/MT % of Ph Rupee/MT % of Ph $/MT % of Ph Dinar/MT % of Ph
Interest on stock 96 14.0 96 14.0 5 5.3 6 4.0
Storage losses 64 9.3 64 9.3 4 4.0 41 26.1
Direct costs 343 49.9 423 61.5 27 30.8 27 17.3
Risk Premium 190 27.6 190 27.6 3 3.2 8 5.0
Total Costs 693 100.7 779 113.2 38 43.2 81 52.4
Storage cost assumptions

Storage period (months) 7 7 7 4

Annual interest rate 24.0% 24.0% 9.0% 12.0%
Storage losses 4.5% 4.5% 2.8% 17.0%
Direct costs (local currency/MT) 301 371 26 26
Coefficient of Variation of Ps 34.8% 34.8% 17.3% 17.9%
Relative risk aversion coefficient 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.5

21
Table 3. Net present value of potato storage using traditional methods and evaporative cool stores

NPV (Rupees) at 6% discount rate NPV (Rupees) at 12% discount rate NPV (Rupees) at 18% discount rate
Storage Farmers’ methods Evaporative Farmers’ methods Evaporative Farmers’ methods Evaporative
period cool store cool store cool store
1 month 12,000 -9,200 8,900 -11,800 6,800 -13,600
2 months 38,600 25,600 29,800 15,700 23,700 8,800
3 months 60,400 58,300 46,800 41,500 37,300 29,900
4 months n.a. 63,000 n.a. 44,600 n.a. 31,900
NPV = net present value of storing 10 tons for indicated storage period each year for 10 years. For example, the net present valued (at a 6% annual discount
rate) of storing 10 tons of potatoes for 3 months each year for 10 years using farmers’ methods is Rp. 60,400 and using ECS is Rp. 58,300. Source: Fuglie
et al. (1996)

22
Figure 1. Economic model of potato storage

Price SS

SH
PS
Storage Cost of
margin storage
PH

QS QH Quantity
Price

P S1

P H1

H1 H2 H3 Time

23
 Figure 2. Main potato harvesting and storage seasons

US storage Fall harvest

Primeur Saison harvest storage Arriere -

Tunisia
harvest Saison

main Rabi storage early Rabi

India
harvest harvest

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

24
 Figure 3: Seasonal Potato Prices

2.5
Index (price at harvest = 1.0)

2.0

1.5 India
US
1.0 Tunisia

0.5

0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Months from harvest

25