SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT IN VEGETABLE MARKETING : A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Thesis submitted to the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of

Master of Business Administration in Agribusiness

By SHILPA, K.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRIBUSINESS MANAGEMENT COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, DHARWAD UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, DHARWAD-580 005 JULY, 2008

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

DHARWAD July, 2008

(BASAVARAJ BANAKAR) MAJOR ADVISOR

Approved by:
Chairman: __________________________ (BASAVARAJ BANAKAR)

Members:

1. _______________________ (H.S. VIJAYAKUMAR)

2. _______________________ (L.B. KUNNAL) 3. _______________________ (A.R.S. BHAT)

CONTENTS
Sl. No. CERTIFICATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LIST OF TABLES LIST OF APPENDICES 1 2 INTRODUCTION REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3 Roles played by intermediaries and firms in the supply chain Marketing Efficiency Factors influencing the effectiveness of supply chain Problems faced by the farmers, firms and consumers Chapter Particulars Page No.

METHODOLOGY 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Description of the study area Nature and source of data Sampling procedure Analytical tools and techniques employed Terms and concepts used in the study

4

RESULTS 4.1 Comparative roles played by the intermediaries as the traditional format as well as contracting firms in the different formats of the supply chain. 4.2 4.3 Marketing efficiency of different formats in the supply chain Factors influencing the effectiveness of the supply chain

4.4 Comparison of price received by the farmers vis-à-vis price paid by the consumers. 4.5 Problems and expectations of farmers retail formats and consumers in the supply chain. 5 DISCUSSION 5.1 Comparative role played by the intermediaries in the traditional format as well as contracting firms in the different formats of the supply chain. 5.2 5.3 Marketing efficiency of different formats in the supply chain Factors influencing the effectiveness of the supply chain.

5.4 Comparison of price received by the farmers vis-à-vis price paid by the consumers. 5.5 Problems and expectations of farmers, retail formats and consumers in the supply chain. 6 7 SUMMARY AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS REFERENCES APPENDICES s

LIST OF TABLES
Table No. 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 4.27 4.28 4.29 Title Functions performed by the intermediaries in Traditional as well as the Contracting firms in the different formats of the Supply Chain of Vegetable marketing Material used for packing during the sales by the farmers in the different formats in the Supply chain in Vegetable Marketing Physical losses at the Wholesaler level in the Traditional supply chain Physical losses at the retail format level in the Traditional supply chain Physical losses at the retail format level in the Cooperative supply chain Physical losses at the retail format level in the Modern supply chain Physical loss at different levels in the supply chain of different formats Cost of Marketing Vegetables by farmers per day per farmer in Traditional supply chain Cost of Marketing Vegetables by farmers per day per farmer in Cooperative supply chain Cost of Marketing Vegetables by farmers per day per farmer in Modern supply chain Aggregate average cost of marketing Vegetables by farmers per day per farmer under different supply chain Cost and returns in Vegetable marketing by Commission agent in Traditional Supply chain Cost and returns in Vegetable marketing by Wholesaler in Traditional Supply chain Cost and returns in Vegetable marketing by retail format in Traditional supply chain Cost and returns in Vegetable marketing by retail format in Cooperative supply chain Cost and returns in Vegetable marketing by retail format in Modern supply chain Aggregate average cost and returns in Vegetable marketing under different formats in supply chain Marketing costs, Marketing margins and Producer’s share in Consumers rupee under different formats in the supply chain Disposal pattern of produce by the farmers in supply chain Reasons for sale of the produce by farmers to particular formats in the supply chain Pattern of purchases per day by different retail formats Buying Management by firms in different formats Pattern of sale of vegetables by different retail formats per day Pattern of buying by consumers in the different formats in each purchase in the Supply chain Reasons for buying vegetables from the particular formats by the consumers in the Supply chain Price received by the farmer vis-a- vis price paid by the consumer in the supply chain Problems faced by the farmers in selling the produce to different formats in the Supply chain Problems faced by different retail formats in their vegetable marketing in the Supply chain Problems faced by the consumers in buying the vegetables from different Retail formats in the supply chain Page No.

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No 1. Title Area map of the Bangalore city

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix No. 1 Questionnaire for farmers

Title

Page No.

2

Questionnaire for intermediaries

3.

Questionnaire for traditional retail outlet

4.

Questionanaire for cooperative retail outlet

5.

Questionnaire for modern retail outlet

6.

Questionnaire for consumers

1. INTRODUCTION
In today’s highly competitive global market place, the pressure on organizations to find new ways to create and deliver value grows even stronger. Gradually, in emerging economies as well as mature markets, the power of the buyer has overtaken that of the customer. The rules are different in a buyers market. In particular customer service becomes a key differentiator as the sophistication and the demands of customers continually increase. At the same time, market maturity combined with new sources of global competition has led to over capacity in many industries leading to an inevitable pressure in prices. Prices have always been a critical competitive variable in many markets and the signs are that, it becomes an issue to think upon as commoditization of markets continues. In this context, logistics and supply chain management have become the crucial areas of management and national focus. Though India spends over 12 per cent of its GDP on logistic and supply chain management, customer value provided is unsatisfactory. This area becomes even more important in the sector of agribusiness because most of the agricultural products are perishable and have a very short shelf life. Supply Chain Management (SCM) is the process of planning, implementing, and controlling the operations of the supply chain with the purpose to satisfy customer requirements as efficiently as possible. Supply chain management spans all movement and storage of raw materials, work-in-process inventory and finished goods from point-of-origin to point-of-consumption. The term supply chain management was coined by a consultant Keith Oliver, of strategy consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton in 1982. Supply Chain Management (SCM) is the oversight of materials, information, and finances as they move in a process from supplier to manufacturer to wholesaler to retailer to consumer. Supply chain management involves coordinating and integrating these flows both within and among companies. Supply chain management plays an integral role in keeping business costs at a minimum and profitability as high as possible. There are many factors involved in Supply chain management. Flow is the foremost element, the foundation for all aspects of the process. There are three main types of flow, such as the product flow, the information flow, the finances flow. The product flow includes the movement of goods from a supplier to a customer, as well as any customer returns or service needs. The information flow involves transmitting orders and updating the status of delivery. The financial flow consists of credit terms, payment schedules etc., to ensure prompt, efficient and accurate monetary transactions within these categories, various other elements falls, which includes the sourcing of raw material, coordinating, manufacturing and assembly of products, maintaining accurate warehousing and inventory accounts, researching supply and demand, and much more. The challenge for us in Supply chain management is to maintain all three flows and all three unique in an efficient manner, resulting in optimal results for the company. Components of supply chain management: Production: focuses on which suppliers to use, how much to produce, when to produce, where to produce (in source vs outsource, quantities, time, location) Inventory: decides where to store their produce and how much to store (make to order vs make to stock, consolidated vs break bulk, location). Distribution /Logistics: addresses issues about how the products should be moved and stored (Logistics methods own fleet vs 3PL). Payments: Looks for the best ways to pay suppliers and get paid to customers (Pricing policies, promotion and discounts). The concept of Agriculture supply chain refers to the activities of procurement, order fulfillment, product design and development, distribution, delivery and customer service executed by two or more separate organizations in the agribusiness industry, to fulfill customer orders. Agriculture supply chain consists of small and medium enterprises, such as farmers and raw material producers, suppliers of agricultural inputs, processors of agricultural

There is also a requirement for value addition to agricultural produce in order to maximize their returns. soil conservation. Technical efficiency 2. rural impoverishment culminating in farmers' frustrations and suicides. which is quite substantial at present. A change in the technique can result in the reduction of per unit cost. One of the most fundamental issues. Alternative methods employed in agriculture: Some of the alternative methods employed in agriculture in achieving the efficiencies in the system are 1) Contract farming 2) Direct. weather reports and best farming practices. The middlemen and poor supply chain facilities have resulted in the hike of agricultural prices up to 60 per cent without actually adding any value. An organized retailing acts as a stimulator to promote growth of agro based industries.. suppliers. is the method by which we can minimize the post harvest losses. having the production of 177. there is enormous wastages. transportation. processing. About 30per cent of the fruits and vegetables grown in India gets wasted annually resulting in instability of prices. pest control. Economic efficiency in a system can be examined as: 1. Enough attention has been paid at the pre-harvest stages for bolstering the levels of production by innovative techniques like crop rotation. irrigation. based on demand forecast. Allocative efficiency In marketing the produce. It ensures better prices to the farmers inducing them to invest more in the vital inputs so that productivity leaps frog. India is the second largest producer of fruits and vegetables with the production of 134. the technical efficiency is said to have increased when operational cost is reduced for performing a function for each unit of output. This can be achieved by reducing physical losses and improvement in the technology to carry out particular function viz. helping the farmers in production planning in advance. It widens market opportunities for products and thus helps in maintaining an ever increasing demand for the same. which actually requires research. but due to inadequate cold storage and preservation facilities and improper supply chain infrastructure. storage. As such. post harvest issues have not been addressed adequately. storage and transportation.5 MT. farmers could get latest market prices and various products. etc. who either work directly with farmers or through wholesale market 4) Purchases through government sponsored centres 5) Purchases through informal groups. Despite having achieved national food security. fertilizers. This needs the designing of efficient and cost effective and also environment friendly storage systems. farmers associations or co-operatives 6) Multiple channel India is likely to become the food basket of the world considering 52 per cent of total land under cultivation as compared to global average of 11 per cent. Having the labor cost advantage. farmers not getting remunerative prices. wholesalers and retailers. processors and consumers protects the economic interests of the producers and consumer. farmers co-operatives. organized research is growing very speedily owing to these developments. Hence. horticultural crops occupy around 13 per cent of India’s gross cropped area. mainly in the last stages of supply chain. brokers. that either tend to operate independently or in co-operation. handling and processing. the lives over 200 . An efficient supply chain can contribute to an increase in the marketable surplus by lowering down the inefficiencies in production. there is an importance of supply chain in improving marketing activities of retail business in agricultural areas in Indian economy. distributors. uncontracted purchases from farmers 3) Purchases from wholesalers. but.41 million metric tones during 2005-06.outputs. Allocative efficiency of farm products either over time or across the space among the traders.

value added service etc.million Indian farmers and farm workers and their well-being who have been the backbone of Indian agriculture continues to be a matter of grave concern. India is endowed with abundance of skilled labour and very favourable agro climatic conditions for the cultivation of a wide variety of fruits and vegetables and has the distinction of being the second largest fruits and vegetable producer in the world with significant increase in the production which has been made possible with the support of government and use of technology to increase the farm output. Increasing of sales 3. excluding the leading metros. Large investments and risks are shared among partners in the chain 8. The supply chain management in vegetables has to be improved in all the stages of the supply by adopting global best practices in storage. supply chain management is defined as the design and operation of physical. Customer satisfaction Hence. The supply is the part of retail operations that ensures that the right product is in the right place. lack of temperature controlled vehicles. . It is only recently that they are opening up in other Tier A cities. markets and technologies 5. bulkiness and delicate nature of the products coupled with inadequate storage and transport facilities the supply chain can make efficient by reducing the length of the chain improving cold chain facilities. processors. capital and knowledge among chain partners 4. And also by disintermediation and participation of organized players i. The penetration of these retailing experiences is very low in smaller cities and towns. introduction of uniform tax rates. modern supply chain with a view to benefit both farmers as well as ultimate consumers. Reduction product losses in transportation and storage 2. All of them are based out of major urban centres in India. advanced techniques. Agriculture and its allied industries sector employs 67 per cent of the country's population. By practicing improved supply chain management practices. retailers etc linked with material. there will be significant reduction in the wastages of fruits and vegetables which in turn will benefit both the farmers as well as the consumers by means of increased returns and decrease in prices respectively. modernization of farm production technologies and usage of IT in Agri-business needs to be enhanced. Given the characteristics of fruits and vegetables such as perishability. Tracking and tracing to the source 6. packaging. Better control of product safety and quality 7. Increasing efficiencies and increasing the volume of trade 9. no cold chain facilities for preserving the produce. transportation. Important advantages of supply chain management are: 1.. thus enabling the retail organization to have an efficient supply chain. management information and financial systems needed to transfer goods and services from point of production to point of consumption in an efficient and effective manner. Procurement cost must decrease. transporters. Better information about the flow of products. value adding factors and liability factors are identified and addressed. coupled with significant processing of the agricultural produce resulting in enormous losses to the nation. The entire supply chain management process is a value chain where bottlenecks. traders. information and financial flows. handling. But on the other side there is a colossal waste during the post harvest storage and handling due to improper bagging without crating.e. The reason for success of modern supply chain in India is two fold as illustrated below. Scope of supply chain An organized retailing penetration/ modern supply chain is very low in India as to other developing countries. Dissemination of technology. seasonality. at the right time and at the right cost. There are several players involved in fulfilling the needs of the consumer in the supply chain management of vegetables like farmers.

Contract farming has been traditionally a common practice for paper industry. iii) iv) v) Benefits to producers i) ii) iii) iv) Opportunity to show case brands to a wide target audience A single point distribution network suffices. Considering that traditional supply chain is fragmented. Reduction in distribution costs translates to higher opportunity spend on promotion and advertising Helps them to easily understand market trends and hence forecast sales Since modern chain provides the right kind of benefits to the customers and producers/manufacturers. it has been widely accepted. through which the products get distributed to all areas of the city. But most of the growth has happened through the major urban centres.000 stock keeping units. with the entry of Food World in 1996 and also many new players like Fab Mall. the operating and distribution costs are kept low. Contract farming lowers transaction cost for the company and reduces market risks for the farmers. they have not yet been involved in cut throat competition amongst each other. Though the amount of investment in smaller towns is substantially less today. Despite several advantages of contract farming.Benefits to customer i) ii) Option of bulk purchases at discount rates Due to effective supply chain management at these retail stores. and existing market yards are dominated by the association of a few traders. etc. Besides the market is far from being completely tapped by these players and hence there is a immense scope for entry of newer players with very low entry barriers. . bakery products. Also since there are comparatively fewer big retail players as compared to some of the western countries. there is a presence of large number of intermediaries. dairy products as well as frozen meat have different sections devoted for them. reliance Fresh. It brings in new technical know how in marketing and reduces inefficiency in supply chain. The organized sector is using contract farming model for meeting its requirements for retailing. It also helps in achieving international quality standards and thus boost exports leading to increase in farmers income. match stick manufacturers. As and when these centres get saturated. The spiraling in the super market chains can also be attributed to many national and international players showing interest for starting their retail outlets in Bangalore. In 1971 Nilgiris Super market got established paving way for the starting up of the food retail chains in Bangalore. the growth of organized retail provides several advantages. What the current retail players have done is build upon a strong pile of cash reserves from their operation in the urban centres and hence is now in a position to expand into others areas and formats of retailing. Namdhari Fresh. There was no much growth of food retail chains for the next two decades as there were no new players in this field. and now in seed production and to few extent in vegetable marketing. the existing players will move into smaller cities and towns. A typical food retail chain has about 6. Subiksha. reflecting in lower product prices for customers. Continuous stock availability Good quality control Good overall ambience and positive shopping experience in terms of ease of shopping. processing or export purposes. It improves quality of services to the consumers and creates employment for youth.. Fresh fruits and vegetables. But there has been a rapid expansion of organized food retail chains. In Bangalore the modern food retail chains are self service stores having a wider range of products and also own brands for groceries and home products. entering the market and opening up their outlets in the city. the coverage continues to be limited. Trinethra. it is projected to grow at a much faster pace in near future.

At the end. This ranges from 35-65 paise per rupee. Chapter-V discusses the results of the study. the data collected by survey method. Chapter-II describes the comprehensive review of the relevant research work done in the past related to the present study. the estimates were provided by recall memory on account of the nonmaintenance of the records with regard to quantity sold by farmer. nature and source of data. Presentation of the study The study has been presented in six chapters as indicated below. . Chapter-III outlines the features of the study area. Even though. Mainly the study is limited to Bangalore city only. important references have been listed relating to the present study. Quantity unsold by the intermediaries. hence to counter this problem what is needed is a development of a proper supply chain so that farmers. quantity purchased by the consumers. that is farmer get proper price realization in consumer rupee. Similarly at retail formats the quantity sold at lower prices at the end of the day hence price variation with in a day was a major limitation. chapter-I deals with the nature. the degree of discrepancy if any would be negligible as the estimates presented are in averages and aggregate averages. the inherent lacunae associated with this type of inquiry have crept into the study.India is land of agriculture diversity. intermediaries get their required margins and consumer get good service and product at affordable price. However. Chapter-VI provides the summary of the of the whole study and also suggests the policy implication based on findings of the study. intermediary and consumer get their objectives fulfilled. sincere efforts have been made to elicit accurate and reliable information as far as possible by cross questioning. 4) To compare the price received by farmers vis-a-vis price paid by the consumers in the traditional and modern supply chain 5) To identify the problems and expectations of producers in transacting under traditional and modern supply chain. The main reason for this can be accounted due to poor price realization by the farmers in consumer rupee. importance and specific objectives of the study. But. Keeping the above aspects in consideration the study was carried out with the following objectives Specific objectives of investigation 1) To study the comparative roles played by the intermediaries in the traditional and modern supply chains in vegetable marketing. This low realization can be attributed to large number of intermediaries present in the chain between producers farmer and ultimate consumer. Chapter-IV is devoted to present the main findings of the study through tables. the condition of Indian farmers is still miserable. With 2/3 of population still dependent on agriculture and contributing about 20 per cent to Indian GDP. sampling procedure and analytical tools and techniques employed in the study. 2) To compare the marketing efficiency between traditional and modern supply chain 3) To compare the factors influencing the effectiveness of supply chain in the modern formats as compared to traditional formats. quantity procured by intermediaries. Limitation of the study Since.

3 2. Moreover.1 2. the US wheat industry does little to regulate the intrinsic quality of new cultivars.4 Roles played by intermediaries and firms in the supply chain Marketing Efficiency Factors influencing the effectiveness of supply chain Problems faced by the farmers. broadly categorized into physical and intrinsic quality attributes. The complexity of wheat quality places limitations on the effectiveness of industry grading schemes in assuring end use quality. a brief review of literature is presented here under the following headings. Those people operating at the start of the supply chain – the producers of raw materials need to accept the fact that the financial benefits which come from partnerships will invariably be distributed in relation to distribution of value added. private and public sectors in Karnool district of Andhra Pradesh. Many of the features of the livestock partnerships reported in this study are specific to the UK. 2. flour industry. wheat quality is defined by many different characteristics. milling wheat industry. The costs and benefits of wheat segregation are illustrated with a case study of wheat procurement taken from the U. wheat market. it focuses on supply chain management in the grain industry by investigating the effects of wheat quality on marketing arrangements between producers. Pendleton flour mills Inc. a case study from the U. operates a stringent testing program to segregate wheat supplies with specific intrinsic quality attributes from the U. a. encouraging some individual processors to segregate wheat based on their own quality specifications. The paradox of power as the power of food retailers increases along with their interest in own label products. grain handling companies and processors. whereas in private sector it was high. They found that monthly variation in milk prices was almost constant in case of cooperatives.2. Successful partnership should deliver cost savings and higher value but it is essential that all members of the partnership are actively engaged in finding ways to achieve them. Hence.S.S.K. wheat market. In accordance with the objectives of the study.S.S. developing research design. during three months of the study period that is April to June. interpreting the results and in drawing meaningful conclusions. In the US wheat grading factors mostly reflect physical characteristics. so they become increasingly dependent on fewer and fewer larger suppliers who can deliver safe products of consistently high quality on a large scale at competitive prices and who have the potential (and desire) to innovate and add value to the commodity oriented categories. Andrew (1994) in his study building effective partnership in the meat supply chain which was conducted in U. However there are three important features of livestock partnership in the UK which we feel apply to most sectors of the food industry in most developed countries. REVIEW OF LITERATURE The review of past studies helps us in framing objectives. While the public sector prices varied quarterly. (1994) in the study of supply chain management in cereal grains. as retailers seek to establish competitive advantage by creating closer links with their upstream trading partners. c. b.2 2. Julie et al. The paper concludes that the inadequacy of the US grading . in seeking to exploit the opportunities which partnerships provide. Consequently. there is functional quality uncertainty in the U. The learning supply chain competition between firms within firms within supply chains is being replaced by competition between supply chains themselves.1 Roles played by intermediaries and firms in the supply chain Singh and Sharma (1983) studied the management of milk procurement from three villages by cooperative. considerable care needs to be given to the treatment of costs and prices. the degree of retailer dominance. firms and consumers 2. variable selection.

The aim of this study was to understand the interest and matching behaviour of the various stakeholders in the supply chain for vegetables in Thailand and to recommend appropriate strategies for chain development. Bulk breaking and storage. He suggested that farmers and growers should directly link with other sector of the marketing chain in order to supply the right and consistent quantity and quality of different products. Monthly price information was analyzed by testing for . Burma et al. taking the respective interests into account. Raghuvir Vedhantham (1998) Conducted a study in order to trace the chain of intermediaries between the manufacture and the end consumer in the marketing story. After 1960s. display. The stakeholders considered in the vegetables supply chain are the general management of the super market organization. the irregular supply of vegetables. credit. This involved the supply of products balanced with demand in the same seasonal years and over a period of several years. The various stakeholders perceive weaknesses and threats in the misuse of pesticide. (2000) in studying the development of a sustainable agri supply chain which requires commitment of the various stakeholders like growers. and the emphasis switched towards marketing. found that power of retailer increases along with their interest on own label products. the power of manufacturers grew as thee size of their operations increased. service performance. These weaknesses and threats can be surmounted by certification growers association and production system innovation along with cost monitoring. which comes from partnership will invariably distributed in relation to value added Ricks (1999) in his study revealed that the appropriate combination of vertical coordination arrangements like contracts. This process went too far resulting in over supply. the delusion of good quality vegetables. traders and supermarkets. Product training. Helen (2000) in his study on “Buyer-Supplier relationships in the UK fresh produce industry” found out that the relationship development in fresh produce retailing is dependent on product. levels of trust and commitment. So they become increasingly dependent on fewer larger suppliers who can deliver safe products on a large scale at a competitive price. value added by dealer and joint sales calls. local knowledge and feed back. including type of product and listed some of the distribution function like transport. Price – Discount structures. delivery speed relationship between intermediary and buyer.system in guaranteeing functional quality provides some processors with an incentive to manage the supply chain for milling wheat. the obscurity of cost of production and handling. It was identified that the number or types of distributors involved in a particular system will depend on various factors. describing the history of distribution is a story of shifting power structure. An important condition or even prerequisite for commitment is mutual understanding and benefit. primarily due to innovations in production processes. Both the suppliers and retailers gain more profit if they attain a mature supply chain stage Ricks (2000) in his study revealed that the important area of need for fruit industry supply chain is consistent but not excessive supply of products to meet the market demand. This evolutionary process also had effect on distribution function itself. informal agreement and joint venture can improve supply chain performance by providing adequate supplies to the shippers from packers and growers. advertising. In the study. manufacturer credibility. As production became a dominant factor in seeking competitive advantage manufacturer designed brands came to be offered more widely. the vegetable growers and the input suppliers of the vegetable growers. The producer of raw material need to accept the fact that the financial benefit. the vegetable suppliers. The average life expectancy of relation measured was 8 years and one third of relationships were more than 10 years. packers and growers. Documentation. the buying of the super market organization. the strong price fluctuations for vegetables and the strong competition in the market for inputs. Ioanna Reziti (2003) in a study “An investigation into the relationship between producer. aiding standardization and packaging of fruit products and risk sharing between the shippers. the management of the distribution centre. wholesale and retail prices of Greek agricultural products” verified the nature of the response of the wholesale price to changes in the producer price and also the response to the retail price to producer price changes. Fearne (1999) in his study on Success factors in the fresh produce supply chain: insights from the UK.

17 per quintal respectively in the supply chain of producer to consumer with the involvement of wholesalers and retailers. Suneel Arora and Mukesh Vyas (2006) discussed the importance of IT in organized retail management.62 and Rs. Only 13 per cent of the retailers get their requirements on credit and 19 per cent get credit partly from the suppliers. He found out that changes in the price at one stage need some time to be transmitted to another stage for various reasons. a retailer can provide better customer service and manage the inventory and get value propositions of such investments. exercise caution in implementing supply in their organization and it will definitely be able to enjoy a competitive position in the market. (1981) the study valuated Mandi milk scheme which collected milk from hundred villages covering a distance of fifty kms with five chilling centres. When companies create vision. 9. The share of the producer in the consumer rupee was found to be higher in the direct sales to oil miller i. 7. Naidu and Tirupathaiah (1991) worked out prices spread in groundnut marketing under different chains in vijayanagaram district of Andhra Pradesh. This was mainly due to lower rate of commission charged by cooperative society as compared to wholesaler or commission agents.73. 8.2 Marketing efficiency Hugar (1980) in his study on marketing of vegetables in Belgaum city found that marketing cost incurred by producer – sellers for cabbage.the existence of a long-run equilibrium between the price series. 6.e. the study conclude that seeking sustainable and defensible competitive advantage has become the concern of every manager who is alert to the realities of the market place. The cost incurred by producer seller in the cooperative supply chain was lower as compared to traditional supply chain.63 per cent compared to chain followed that is sales through village merchant . Rs. Over 17 per cent of the selected retailers get their goods from more than one source. Narayana Reddy (2004) in his study “efficiency benefits pass on to consumers. With small cost increments. Jairath et al.00 per quintal of cabbage. In most markets the causality runs from retailers to wholesalers and to producers. Apart from this. 7. The study facilitated that markets should be integrated in the long run. the study also shows that the organized retailers and super markets get wholesalers margin plus concession as they buy in bulk. Subha (2004) in a study of managing supply chain. Suresh (2005) supply chain management (SCM) is the management of upstream and downstream relationships with suppliers and customers to deliver superior customer value at less cost to the supply chain as a whole. 8. a retailer can link with supplier order and planning systems to enable more accurate forecasting and production planning. such as policies. storage and inventory holding and delays caused in transportation and processing. 86. in the supply chain of producer to consumer with involvement of cooperative society and retailers the marketing cost was Rs. New development in retail market environment in India. But. With the use of information technology. 2. From the side of the terms of supply 67 per cent of retailers get their requirement by paying cash.. Rs. 15 per cent from the large and other retailers. Thus the focus of supply chain management is upon the management of the relationships in order to achieve a more profitable outcome for all parties in the chain. brinjal and tomato was Rs. This suggested that relatively more efficient performance of cooperative supply chain over traditional supply chain. By suitably integrating the members of the supply chain and maintaining the information flow within the organization will surely help it to meet the demand in the market place providing satisfaction to the customer.65. brinjal and tomato respectively. They found that a large proportion of their produce through the village merchant followed by direct sale to oil miller. he reported that most (61per cent) of the retailers get their requirements from wholesalers. Adding value through differentiation is a powerful means of achieving an edge in the market place. Organizations use SCM to reduce or eliminate the buffers of inventory that exists between organization in a chain through the sharing of information on demand and current stock levels. because in the long-run equilibrium relation exists between prices at different levels and price transmission is incomplete in the short-run. They found that the milk procurement cost worked out to be 40 per cent of the total cost of marketing milk. but a small per centage of retailers get some of their requirements from producers. try to restructure their organizational structure.40 and Rs.

15 and 52. It was interesting to note that all the sample farmers sold their produce at their nearest markets in Mysore district. The study revealed that for the total marketing charges (including cost of transport0 payable. it was conducted during 1993-94. the consumer’s rupee was the highest.86 per cent and 21.e. the share of the producers was highest for vegetables with less perishability or with facilities of cold storage while it was lowest for vegetables with greater perishability. Totally.. Devaraja (1998) conducted a study in Hassan district on channels and price spread in potato marketing.92 per cent and 66. 65. The price spread analysis revealed that producers got the net price of 48. Hence selling of produce at the distant market was found to be more profitable to the farmers.66 per cent. Finally. The study results explicitly indicate that Jasmine flower trade is a profitable venture with a price spread of nearly 49 per cent among all the intermediaries the net return per kg of flower trade was the highest in case of retailers due to creation of form utility. he selected 200 farmers from 30 village and 40 market intermediaries indexing 15 commission agent. The study followed two supply chains one was producer to consumer with the involvement of wholesaler and retailer and other one was directly from producer to consumer. 15 retailer vendors and 10 cart vendors. highly perishable nature of the vegetable. Gupta and Rathore (1999) they conducted a study on disposal pattern and constraints in vegetable marketing in Raipur district of Madhya Pradesh in 1995-96. 51.32 per cent of the consumers rupee in first. Second chain included commission agent and retailer for the movement of produce from producer and consumer but distant market of Bangalore and third chain included commission agent and cart vendor from producer to consumer. By the study it also observed that the producers share in consumers rupee for the vegetables was the lowest for tomato and highest for brinjal in both the markets.84 per cent by wholesalers and 21. Anil Kumar and Arora (1999) conducted study on post-harvest management of vegetable in Uttar Pradesh hills found that non-availability of cold storages. low marketing demand for the produce at the time of storage are the major problems as perceived by farmers.22 per cent and 11. The commodity passes through from producer to mills and consumers appeared to be a crucial factors in influencing the magnitude of marketing cost and margins. The study identified 3 supply chain. the price spread accounted for more than 33 per cent of the price paid by the consumer for major vegetables under study. price in direct sale from producer to consumer was higher than the .i. Vedini (1997) conducted the study on cost and margins in Jasmine flower marketing. The constraints call for orderly marketing by establishing co-operative for flower marketing. Sen and Maurya (1998) for studying the marketing of vegetables in Sewapuri block of Varanasi city it included ten sample villages for 10 vegetables and 150 sample farmers.98 per cent are payable by the sellers (producers) 12. They compared the pricing in both the supply. The foregoing studies revealed a considerable variation in the size of the marketing costs and margins in oilseeds.57. While studying price spread between the price received by producers in selected villages and that paid by the consumers in Varanasi city included all the marketing charges (including commission and transport charges) paid by the wholesalers and retailers. It was significant to note that the trader cum commission agents are playing a very crucial role in Jasmine flower marketing than the direct sale to consumer. The study also revealed that the producer’s net price could be increased by taking suitable measures by government like (a) providing cold storage facilities to producers (b) present system of commission charges being collected from producers should be stopped (c) providing support price facilities to producers when there is heavy price fluctuations in peak seasons (d) efficient and cheap means of transportation by the market committee (e) fluctuations in the market prices of potatoes may be eliminated by regulating and streamlining the supply by establishing potato processing plants in the production centres of manufacturing of processed potato products. greenpea) was highest. The margin of wholesalers and retailers for such vegetables (like tomato.18 per cent by retailers in Chandwa and Kamachcha markets respectively and a little more than 28 per cent and 31 per cent of the marketing charges are accounted for by the cost of transport in the two respectively. 79. first chain included commission agent and retailer for the movement of produce from producer and consumer in the nearby market of Hassan. In third chain representing distant market Bangalore. The study was conducted in Mysore city. second and third supply chain respectively.

combinedly were about 4-5 per cent of total marketing cost. Whereas it was 11.e. The wastage cost of fruits and vegetables is estimated to be Rs. In UK until the mid 2002. The unnecessary wastage of valuable commodities can be checked if they are processed into value added products or adequately distributes in different apart of the country and by improving the post harvest distribution and processing facility.63 per cent transportation cost constituted 22 to 39 per cent of total marketing cost. The efficient use of means of transportation and distance covered by farmers may influence the transportation cost.5 and 8.33 Baht/Kg and 16. Susanta (2000) Conducted the study on integrated post production management and food processing in India with the national objective. (2004) conducted the study of economics of production and marketing of vegetables.. It estimated that the marketing cost and margin of middlemen for vegetables at different level i. chilli and cauliflower.31 Baht/kg and for Tomato it was 18. The farmers spent almost equal amount for these two operations.e. But as Wal-Mart cut the cost to £ 0. brinjal and chilli. Angela Maria and Mathias Von Oppen (2002) study was conducted to know the efficiency of vegetable market in Northern Thailand and it indicated that wholesale markets present outside the cities have strong influence on price determination for retailers.94 per kg.e. (2003) the study estimated the price spread and producers and market intermediaries share in the consumer price in the channel: Producer – commission agent – retailer – consumer in potato marketing at Shimla. On the marketing cost incurred by vegetable producers in different marketing operations include charges taken by commission agent as commission constituted to more than 60 per cent to 46. for Onion 22. The minimum difference i. cool/cold chain etc. Sainsbury’s Safeway and other retailers were made to lower the price.. If fresh fruits and vegetables and also processed fruits are evenly marketed from the place of abundance to the place of scarcity not only will the consumer get the produce at a reasonable price but also the producer will not be found to sell at throw away prices and identified some of the techniques which are not followed in our country like primary processing packing station. where this difference varies from 24 to 35 per cent in both prices. loose bananas were priced at £ 1. The various marketing costs incurred by wholesalers and retailers along with 8 per cent commission charged by commission agent was the main reason for lower prices realization by farmers in supply chain of direct sale of produce from producers to consumers. for Carrot it was 19. 000 each year in our country. Pandey et al. The maximum difference between the two prices was observed in case of tomato where producers received 6 to 59 per cent higher price in supply chain where wholesalers and retailers where involved followed by brinjal. 10 commission agents and 25 retailers were selected purposively. 23. The retailer and commission agent earned profit of about 3. The study was conducted at Maccapahar and Calicut of the south Andaman island of Andaman district. 11 to 18 per cent between two prices was observed in case of chilli. 20. Tesco. and lastly concluded that post harvest losses are more economically viable in future if they are not targeted. Other expenditure incurred on octroi and mandi. On farm storage. containerization. packaging.65 Baht/Kg.price in sale of produce from producer to consumer with the involvement of wholesaler and retailer for all the crops they covered i. For the present study samples of 25 potato growers.07 Baht/Kg in retail shops in the city. The average price for Cabbage was 12. The result showed that the producer realized around 73 per cent share in consumers price. tomato. palletisation. They generally used gunny bag to pack the vegetables like brinjal. 17.63 Baht/Kg. They also noted that the major retailers fight price wars both by accepting lower margins themselves and by demanding deep cuts in costs from suppliers. marketing . The study findings identifies that India produces over 200 million tones of food grains and about 132 million tones of fruits and vegetables. The price spread and marketing efficiency was found to be about 27 per cent and 3 respectively.42 Baht/Kg. while bamboo baskets were used by them for tomato. expenditure incurred by farmers on packaging shared about 8 to 9 per cent of total marketing cost.. Carrot. the major retailers extracted more favorable terms from suppliers in order to deliver price deflation to the customers. Ganesh et al.06 Baht/Kg. wholesalers and retailers level and found out that. Tom Fox and Bill Vorley (2003) study was conducted in UK and studied on the retail food chains pricing policy and found out that. Onion and Tomato respectively for the outskirt retail shops.34 Baht/Kg for Cabbage.0 per cent of the consumer’s rupee.08 per KG for around six years.

The sources of fertilizers were retailers. Rs 760 and Rs 734 in the case of small.5 million workers. Commission agents had to pay Rs 116. which amounted to Rs 805. Food retailers employ more than 3.50 per kg respectively) and lowest in basal and Marsa (Rs. The next most popular source was the cooperatives because the farmers get fertilizers on loan with low rate of interest. More than 60 per cent of the marketing cost of the retailers was due to wastage. The pre-harvest contractors incurred a marketing cost of Rs 775 per tonne. The marketing cost.90 and Rs. the study was conducted in USA and found that in USA food retailing. transportation and the like were the marketing costs of the banana growers. The two leading food retail chains increased their market share from 55 per cent in 1990 to nearly 80 per cent in 2005. They found out that there was lower elasticity of substitution among products within each chain than among chains and also that price promotion was highly effective in increasing product-level market share and variety had a strongly positive impact on sales volume in a particular product line. accounting for half the industry’s expenses beyond the farm. medium and large growers. Anonymous (2006) in the study food retailing in the 21 century riding a consumer revolution”. The chain in which the farmers pay the lowest price for the particular product is the most efficient chain having the smallest price spread. 2. Anand and Ramesh (2006) in the study marketing distribution and marketing channel for fertilizer in Karnataka and for fertilizer passes through different marketing collected the observation from 400 farmers and studied the chain as fertilizer passes through different marketing intermediaries to reach the final consumers.0per cent) and transportation and energy (combined 7. Recent trends such as high energy costs and the rising demand for more convenient packaging have increased all these expenses. For the study banana growers of Theni district was selected and also the different functionaries which the farmers followed. Farmers share for pork chops have declined from 19. Marjatta Sihvonen (2005) in a study on retail-farm price the study was conducted in Finland and noted that the share of retail trade in consumers’ price of food has increased rapidly over the past five years.09 per acre. loading and unloading commission. respectively. The margin to both the wholesaler and the retailer was highest in ginger (Rs. There by efficiency of the chain in case of fertilizers was assessed by taking the comparative price differences which the ultimate consumer (farmers) pay to different sources for the same generic product. The main reason for the high marketing cost of certain vegetables was due to the fact that they are transported from far off islands to the main consumption point where they were located. The study concluded that cutting. Timothy and Stephen (2005) the study was conducted in the Los Angeles market observation was taken in four major retail chains. 0.5per cent). excluding interest on working capital was less to pre-harvest contractors than to the growers.10 and Rs.67 per tonne.4 per cent to 15 per cent for the same period. The study concluded that cost .00 per kg respectively. They used data of two years of weekly data. This increased concentration meant that large retail outlets exert more control over others in food supply chain. The industry’s next highest costs were for packaging (8. cooperatives. 14. 32. But this does not hold good in case of fertilizers because the producers (fertilizer manufacturers) are given sufficient subsidy on production. The total marketing cost of retailers was worked out to be Rs 336. most of the farmers purchased fertilizers from retailers even though the price of fertilizers were highest in case of retailers because of the reason that the retailers were the most accessible source as it is located in the village itself. When Market margin was calculated found that the share of the retail price all along the supply chain has been progressive. labour was the largest single marketing cost. The wholesalers incurred a marketing cost of Rs 417. It also analyzed that efficiency of marketing of fertilizers.67 per tonne towards the marketing cost.cost was found to be highest for cabbage. it is commonly worked out by price spread which refers to the difference between the price paid by the consumer and price received by the producer. The farmers share in the price of minced meat had declined from 33. Mohammed Jaffar and Namasivyam (2005) conducted marketing cost of banana in Theni district of Tamilnadu. Transport cost dominated other costs.6 per cent in 1999 to 23 per cent in 2004. Farmers in turn have been receiving an increasingly lower proportion of the retail price of the food. this followed by wholesaler and fellow farmers. wholesaler and fellow farmers. followed by tomato. snakegourd. They also noted that sales at the chain level are nearly unit elastic with respect to price.

Lokanadhan (2007) conducted a study on supply chain management analysis of tomato from farm to modern retail outlet. In case of spoilage of vegetables 10 per cent at wholesaler level and 15 per cent at retail level in traditional supply chain and only 15 per cent at retail level in the modern supply chain was noticed. the major link between product and customer.operatives was the most efficient chain. for reducing cost of marketing especially the commission has to be reduced by encouraging the farmers to sell their produce without the commission agents. (2007) conducted study on “marketing losses and their impact on marketing margins : A case study of Banana Karnataka”. concluded that food industries were poised for growth. A two stage random sampling was followed to select 60 tomato growers from the study area. storing and transporting etc. especially in the phase of marketing. will help in reducing the price-spread and increasing the producers’ margin. 30 less than what they pay for the retailers. particularly the commission charges as demonstrated in the cooperative channel.75) in modern supply chain. 1200) and low (Rs. involvement of all levels of management. Acharya (1995) in a seminar on food product opportunities was organized at Bangalore by the Association of food scientist and technologist (India). 8. The study was conducted in Hoskote taluk of Bangalore rural district. The most important quality attributes which emphasized recommended external appearance were size. higher price to tomato growers and lesser price to consumers less spoilage of tomatoes than traditional system of marketing. Similarly. transit and wholesale marketing level and retail marketing level was selected for the study and they found out that the margin of the retailers’ after taking into account the physical loss during retailing has been found to be negative (loss). The specific objective of the study was (i) to identify the modern supply chain managements practices followed (ii) to evaluate the results of the first objective with traditional marketing supply of tomato through market intermediaries. shape.05) in modern supply chain. Marketing cost has been identified as the major constraint in the wholesale marketing channel and bringing down the costs. The marketing efficiency can be increased by employing the certain measures like reducing the costs of marketing and .3 Factors influencing the effectiveness of supply chain Nicholas (1993) evaluated the role of quality in the US fruit and vegetable production and marketing. 5. In studying the price difference the customer price was very high in traditional supply chain (Rs. To estimate the post harvest losses field level. the producers’ net share and wholealers’ margins also decrease substantially. The author recommended the quality attribute should be regulated for international trade. and there would be scope for the devising of appropriate equipment for manufacture. 2. margins and price spread of selected agricultural commodities in Kolhapur district of Maharashtra during 1990-92. The study concluded that cooperative societies can play a greater role in processing. Sreenivasa et al. if quality and hygiene were ensured innovative products that matched consumer needs. considering India’s competitive edge. Identified the supply chains with commodity wise with mainly involvement of cooperative. was positive (profit) in the conventional estimation. The cooperative marketing has been found to be a more efficient system in terms of both operations and price. wholesaler and millers making difference with village merchant and commission agent. In this the paramount player would be the consumer and the innovations which were necessary would constantly have to be related to consumer perception. 4. New technologies in all the axis covered in the seminar offer exciting possibilities for food product development.20) in traditional supply chain and high (Rs. which otherwise. It was reassuring to know that small processing industries appeared well placed to achieve success in the new millennium. It has been shown that marketing efficiency is inversely proportional to the marketing losses. The net price received by producer was very low (Rs. Biradar (1996) studied the marketing costs. Hence they concluded that modern retail outlet management improved transparency. Export of finished foods of impeccable quality was entirely possible. The price paid by the farmers for different fertilizers to co-operative was on an average Rs. The need for specialized transport vehicles for perishable commodities has been highlighted. The packing in plastic trays reduced mechanical damages while transport. colour and defects. Health foods of all kinds were certain to be in demand. The supply chain process of tomato sold through modern retail outlet indicate that plastic trays (25 kg each) were used by 92 per cent of farmers while the rest used bamboo basket.

Many distribution channels were available to the producers.70 per cent of the retailers believing that service was the most important requirement for salesman. it seeks to break down the barriers which exist between each of the units in the supply chain in order to achieve higher levels of service and substantial savings in costs. Wilson (1996) in his study on supply chain of perishable products in Northern Europe found out that. The most important business concerns to the retailers were the product quality and the number of locations selling the same furniture. assembly functions (90per cent). It is no exaggeration to say that our food distribution systems are dependent on refrigeration. Using the two examples of broccoli and orisping potatoes in the UK the study discusses six steps required for good supply chain management from the perspective of the primary producers. Some links have performed well but others have caused bottle necks. delinking middlemen and linking cooperative societies in the market. (1998) study revealed the factors influencing the furniture retailers purchasing decisions in Taiwan. salesmanship. introducing innovative methods of marketing practices through managerial control. A sample of 90 consumers was chosen at random. less cost throughout the chain. style of finishing (100per cent). quality control and good communication.margins through cooperative societies. He found out that integrated management through the extended supply chain is the most effective means to achieve good value provision to the end consumer. In face of . The retailers were under pressure to reconsider their management style and marketing strategy in order to obtain more profit. better in-stock service. continuity of supply. transportation and storage. the supermarket chain was more important in the retail marketing of fresh products and he suggested that increased use of supply chain management techniques could increase the margins of the innovative and competitive firms that remain in the chain. In practices. The factors influencing the retailers decision to purchase furniture were product quality (100per cent). the key success factors from the point of view. Mohamed Zairi (1998) in his study on the best practices of supply chain management in retail sector noted that the retail sector is undergoing major changes resulting from factors such as increased competition and tighter profit margins. It was observed that the personal attributes such as educational level and sex had significant influence on the quantity and frequency of purchase. The fruit and vegetable supply chain has traditionally been fragmented. in Germany and it was found that present situation on the market for vegetables was indicated by over production and an unsatisfactory price situation for the producers in Germany. which can be achieved through better product. Boklemann and Lentz (2000) conducted a study on pre-requisites for value adding partnerships between trade and producers in the vegetable growing sector. Also he found that the inherent cost of distribution networks and channels of fresh produce could be reduced substantially by using supply chain management. type and grade of the products. scale of operation. Chung et al. to recruit qualified. production/ storage flexibility. with 96. The salesman in the furniture business agreed that education and training were very important. Bridge (1996) conducted a study on supply chain management for fresh vegetable in United Kingdom. Hugar and Vijay Kumar (1996) carried out a study in Dharwad city to identify various factors that influence the consumption of vegetables. special functions (90per cent). better quality. cheap price (90per cent) and the reputation of suppliers (90per cent). Price had a high influence on quantity purchased among the lower income groups but the effect was not pronounced for high income groups. better assortment. accurate and timely information and committed business leaders. Especially the cost of marketing can be reduced by about 3 per cent if the farmers are encouraged to sell their produce without the help of the commission agents. It was concluded that supply chain management is concerned with the linkages in the supply chain from primary producers to the final consumer. Important factors of the furniture producers in choosing distribution channels were production capacity. creating awareness of regulated markets among the farmers. increasing the volume of business. trained and experienced market personnel. widening the range of activities. strategic alliance. Lars-Fek (1998) conducted the study of understanding the modern cold chain in Sweden he concluded that frozen food consumption is estimated at 40 million tonnes a year and is a necessity for millions of families and institutional consumers in both developed and developing countries.

in order to support chain effectiveness. Consequently the coordinating activities in the delivering chains also become more important to be efficient and competitive. items such as milk. Food sales accounted for 31 per cent of overall retail sales of $128 billion in 2001. Hence they conclude that. The ability to compete does no longer depend only on single stage of the delivering chain. For the future. infact organized retailing has only touched the self esteem and social recognition needs of the Maslow’s need hierarchy pyramid. This may not be as simple as it looks since the smaller retailer maintains excellent customer relationships while providing a range of services such as extending informal credit. the country won’t witness a retail revolution. The three atoms which embedded to molecule in (i) image. supermarkets and convenience stores. organized retailing has definitely made headway in the upper class. The goal of this project was to collect information from distribution chain of Dutch horticultural products. Due to this situation and to progress in the information and communication technology far reaching changes of the sales system for vegetables took place within the last year. best described as brand equity molecule. ensuring the hygiene of edible products will become an important issue concerning the suppliers. Large outlets captured a share of 13. fruits etc. which is overreaching device of retaining and attracting customers. home delivery of groceries etc. in the retail markets in India during 1995-96 large retailers followed some issues like identifying customer segments and understanding differences in the shopping habits of consumers across income groups and also cost disadvantages vis-à-vis the smaller retail formats. For that to happen. Growers should implement quality systems on their farms too. cooperation between growers and traders will be more intense. sweet peppers and organic glasshouse vegetables. All these criteria can play a role in decision making process of buying products for certain markets. Although traditional markets accounted for 67 per cent of retail food sales. except for . Somayajulu and Venkataramana (2002) in a study issues and challenges for organized retailing in India. Donald (2000) conducted study on chain management and marketing performance in fruit industry with the use of specific examples from U. (ii) value and (iii) loyalty. Poot et al. While a typical Indian housewife might pick up toiletries at the super markets. However. global competition is getting fierce information from the chain can support Dutch growers to develop competitive strategies.3per cent of overall retail sales and 26per cent of total food sales. (2000) conducted the study on chain information to support Dutch supply chain effectiveness. And until organized retailing reaches out to the base level needs. which includes how supply chain management of agricultural commodity industries can lead to performance enhancing industry which can improve the overall competitiveness and economic viability of these industries. Sangyong (2002) in his study on the growth of food retail chains in South Korea found out that following the liberalization of the food sector to allow foreign ownership during 1996. the modern formats are making a steady progress. The marketing system is increasingly driven by changing requests of consumers. exchange of information and willingness to make long term agreements was important. super markets need to replace traditional shops. it was found that India is mainly a groceries market and in this area super markets have not been able to cut into the customer base of the small retailers. Within a few years. For Dutch horticultural products.S. in this segment. Instead of this whole chains are competing with other ones. On the basis of literature and experts opinions. foreign retailers began introducing hypermarkets. fruit industries. absence of disease and damage and a good product quality price ratio are very important. Image and value perceptions pull in new customers while loyalty and value retain customer. Organised retail outlets seem to be associated with branded items and do not seem to have made an impact on the lower class. Burke (2001) has created a brand equity index comprised of three components. fruits.these conditions a great meaning be fits to the orientation on consumers demands. she continues to use her local cart pusher for her daily needs such as fresh vegetables. For horticultural products. The middle income class prefer shopping for processed food and personal care in super markets and fall back on traditional outlets for bulk shopping. a list of twenty products specific and of twenty supplier specific characteristics was developed. The list was used in a semi-structured interview among Dutch traders of roses. freshness. In identify customer segments. vegetables and a significant portion of through the month purchases seem to be done traditional outlets.

Thomas and Julio (2002) in their study on The Rapid Rise of supermarkets in Latin America found out that the percentage of retail food chains in the total food retailing has increased steadily. prices.. The malpractices prevailing at the dealers point also significantly influenced the farmer. The prime reason for their popularity among people is its ambience. quality and availability of preferred brands were significant at 5 per cent level influencing the dealer loyalty. The percentage share of retail chains was 57per cent in Argentina. The growth in Vietnam retail industry. number of outlets and location. Some of the leading chains have succeeded to have a degree in convincing consumers that their quality products come at equal. a compelling value proposition and a flexible expansion strategy also they have to invest in processes and infrastructure. went out of business. increasing number of people belonging to the middle class with higher disposable incomes. correct identification of their target segment. The winners have been the supermarkets and chains of smaller self-service stores such as the hard discounts and convenience stores. on an average. The small traditional retailers were the main losers and many thousands of small shops.e. While considering cost disadvantages vis-à-vis the smaller retail formats found that retailers have to get their strategies right i. as they can earn more profits by selling goods in bulk. 50per cent in Costa Rica and 38per cent in Columbia in the total food retailing in these respective countries. Many retailers were in favor of selling their products in supermarket. Anonymous (2003) in their study on “retail chain store” which was conducted in the retail industry of Vietnam found out that it is heading for a format. They also noted that several enterprises are preparing to start their own retail chain store system under franchise model. He concluded that scale played an important role in this market and the efficiency drivers were market share. The Indian retailers. He also noted that there was acquisition of small retail chains by the larger ones and supermarkets spreading from urban areas to intermediate cities and from upper income neighborhoods to working middle class neighborhoods. 70per cent in Brazil. it concluded that major factor that contribute to the complicated price formation process at several levels of fruit and vegetables in the US were marketing . Thus the retailer tends to gain by reducing losses due to spoilage. Carlos and Alberto (2004) Analyzed hypermarkets and supermarkets in Portugal to compare retail chains that compete in the same market. Udaya (2002) studied the marketing management of pesticides in Karnataka. The result of the study shows that the price of preferred products was significant at 0. The multiple determination was found to be 0.57 explaining the variation of 57 per cent in dealers loyalty of farmers to the variables included in the function. McLaughten (2004) in the study of the dynamics of fresh fruits and vegetable pricing in the super market channel. Credit availability. Such stores have done away with intermediaries in the supply chain. 45per cent in Mexico. In the first stage data envelopment analysis (DEA) was used and in the second stage a Tobit model was employed to estimate the efficient drivers. A two-stage procedure to benchmark the companies was adopted. discount / gift/ incentive. About 64. therefore. Bülent Sezen (2004) A study conducted on the pricing strategies for perishables products found out that Consumers are less likely to purchase perishable goods when their expiry dates are near. For this reason.‘curiosity’ shopping. 50per cent in Chile. increased business opportunities and a stable political environment. retailers frequently implement a discount pricing policy when the products have reached closer to their expiry dates. ‘mom and pop stores’. He found out that.1 per cent influencing the dealers loyalty to the large extent. if not lower. need to go through their own learning curve and get the right proposition only after some hits and misses. There is no specific international format or role model that can be easily adapted and applied in India. the efficiency of hypermarket and supermarket retail companies is high compared with that in other sectors and also that larger retail groups are more efficient than the smaller retailers. He also noted that national retailers are more efficient than regional retailers. Now. quality of products and its capability to suit the needs of the consumers. This is largely due to efficiencies achieved in supply chain management. as noted by them was due to various factors like steady economic growth. companies have to make a beginning by inventing suitable approach.198 small shops went out of business in Argentina from 1984 to 1993 and 5240 small shops were closed in Chile from 1991 to 1995.

The study firstly. 58per cent of small retailers are of the opinion that there would not have much impact on retail trade by the big retail outlets.Dealers Traders. no development can be possible without proper linkage and co-ordination among the above actors in the diagram and particularly in marketing. Retailers through mechanisms of vertical control exert a strong influence on upstream suppliers and determine the products offered in their stores. Further it concludes that the age old system of procurement of fruits and vegetables and other raw materials from mandi with involvement of middlemen or commission agents is continued by most of the small enterprises. Regulatory bodies Packaging materials Support institution By this study concluded that. advertisement and publicity and through procurement. To reduce the cost of production. Nath (2004) conducted a study on promoting small scale fruits and vegetable processing industries through cluster development programme. concentrate more on product range. identifies the impact of malls on the existing retailers i. It concluded that the small enterprises compete with each other with in a limited market segment.. and price versus value. direct purchase from the source collectively by the cluster of units by forming where farmers are benefited with remunerative prices and processors are benefited with assured supply of right quantity and quality of raw materials may be thought of. pricing techniques and promotional impacts. inevitability of promotional tools and credit sales. Cluster development programme is growing in India with the initiative of government of India and united nations development organization for the study UNIDO has identified more than 2000 Astisan and 350 industrial clusters in India in which many are in food processing sector such as food processing cluster of Pune. (2006) conducted a study on “Food retailers pricing and marketing strategies” and found out that retail grocery chains are the dominant players in the vertical market channel for many commodities.e. Muzzafarpar and Petha cluster of Agra. since their regular customers still patronize them and 24 per cent of the respondents opine that there is scope for healthy competition. Forced to widen the wide range of products. visual merchandising and store design. . Secondly.channels. The impact of malls on small retail outlets was towards cut in margins.. losing loyal customers. remaining 10 per cent. A total of 50 retailers were taken out of which 40 were kirana and 10 were super markets. market structure changes. Racsins cluster of Nasik and also some non-government agencies. The small scale producers’ revenue decreases when retailers use promotional sales as a selling strategy although the consumers are benefited. the larger market enterprises have got the advantage of catering to affluent section of the society through their brand image. identifies the impact of malls on small retail outlets i. 36 per cent of the retailers feel that there is no much impact of such mall. Venkateshwaralu and Ranjani (2006) conducted a study on small vs small in twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunadrabad. 22 per cent feel that there would be cut in margin. The study identified the linkages with various actors of any industrial cluster are shown in the diagram below. Li et al. Finally the impact of small retail outlets on malls was towards credit facility allowed by the small retailers. retail responses to supply changes. exporters Govt. They also noted that large retailers posses some degree of oligopoly. there would be unhealthy competition.e. Raw material suppliers Machinery suppliers processing unit marketing .

i. The average cost of marketing and margin are to be the lowest in jaggery as compared to other commodities under study by and large. it was found that the maximum average share of the farmer in the consumer’s rupee is found in two commodities i. common phobia to enter big shop and many customer prefer smaller ones.. About 3 per cent of customers would prefer a more environmentally friendly packing. About 40 per cent of the consumers bought a 2. The findings of the study revealed that 71per cent of purchasing of household goods and items are made from local kirana shops. For almost 85 per cent of consumers. berlin.e. irrespective of size. Biradar (1996) studied the marketing costs. the existence of middlemen. the potato quality was of primary importance. better coverage of potato growers. to study the shopping habits of 303 sample of potato consumers. This article uses a case study of the Tamil Nadu to evaluate various methods of raising marketing efficiency. The analysis suggests that the cooperatives has weakened the many small monopolies and malpractices of middlemen and has led to a considerable improvement in marketing efficiency. 2. Horneburg and Hubner (1994) a survey was carried out on markets and in shopping centres in W and E. A regression analysis was used to fit the data to determine the factors affecting the demand for fresh tomatoes. The study revealed that marketing margins. functionaries and consumers Gopalan and Gopalan (1991) with regard to agricultural marketing system in India which suffered from severe constraints like high costs. whereas price was secondary importance. However. big or small has become difficult and supermarkets are yet to get the Indian middle class and rural India in their fold. Berlin. proximity of small shop to customers residence. consumers in E Berlin were slightly more concerned about the price than those in W. the cost of marketing is found uniform in all the selected commodities. 27per cent getting goods from supermarkets and small percentage of 6per cent buy from big outlets. storage and transport bottlenecks and a lack of market information among farmers. Brumifield et al. paddy and wheat. New Jersey grown tomatoes were generally perceived to be of superior quality. (1993) found that customers is King. tomato origin significantly influenced consumer purchases. consumer perception of product characteristics such as colour. and 7 per cent demanded a higher proportion of organically grown potatoes. as compared to the food grain commodities. whereas the market margin is varying from commodity to commodity . However. The study also revealed that 54per cent of respondents visit shops because it is convenient for them to go and purchase goods. jaggery and groundnut. some consumers wished to choose between more varieties. freshness. However. among other requirements.e. being 80 per cent and 72 per cent respectively. More than 70 per cent of consumers were generally satisfied with the available offer and guatter.4 Problems faced by the farmers.personalized service rendered by the small retailers. there is a need for more timely and adequate application of farm inputs. The study ultimately concludes that survival of the retailers. being about 68 per cent and 56 per cent respectively. kg of lime potatoes once a week. Germany between June 1991 and June 1992. Vijaya (2007) conducted a study on the spread of organized retailing in India with special references to Vijaywada city. Super markets in New Jersey during the local season preferred tomatoes grown in New Jersey to tomatoes from other origins. margins and price spread of selected agricultural commodities in Kolhapur district of Maharashtra during 1990-92. However.. pests on the tomatoes or substitutes and income were important determinants of purchase of both New Jersey grown and other tomatoes. Quality of the goods is also a matter of concern for 24per cent of respondents. Unlimited timings of the small shop and they found that 54per cent per cent of big retail outlets believe there would not have much impact on small outlets on their business. Half of the consumers preferred the shopping centre than that of market. grading schemes and more efficient dispersal of information. nutrition and appearance did not appear to significantly influence tomato purchase patterns. The study was carried out at retail outlets in Vijaywada city involving primary and secondary data and data was obtained by administred questionnaires to elicit information on various issues relatively to purchases made by them from retailers. The questionnaire was administered to a sample of 275 respondents. cost and price spread of different commodities in the two common channels under study was followed.

more interactive store atmosphere. Results indicate that vegetable production is profitable despite major constraints such as the non-availability of quality seed. Singh (1997) fifteen vegetable growers were selected randomly each of three village in the Patan sabzi mandi of Patan. Merrilees et al. all the efforts in the direction of vegetable production will go waste. during 1995-96. (1998) using data collected from 90 farmers in Guntur district. brinjal. They suggested in this context that financial institutions should make easy process to sanction the loan for vegetable production. the result showed that tomato vegetable yielded the maximum return per hectare followed by brinjal and okra and in case of marketing efficiency. rationalization of the supply base and innovation are the four key driven the transformation of the fresh produce industry of UK. Sarin (1996) in his study of marketing effectiveness for industrial growth. Gupta and Rathore (1999) they conducted a study on disposal pattern and constraints in vegetable marketing in Raipur district of Madhya Pradesh in 1995-96. Producers also felt some post harvest problems. the resources use efficiency and productivity of tomato. lower prices and usually a brighter. market existing in the locality was found to be reasonably efficient though not regulated. (1997) describing the success of superstores states that “the most essential ingredient is the greater ability of the organized retail format to met the needs of the time poor consumers seeking a convenient. brinjal and okra are considered. The opinion survey revealed that problems were lack of post harvest technological services. such as grading packaging. consumer demands product innovations in foreign markets. Nonavailability of good quality seed is also a genuine problem of farmers. state should help by moderating levy of local taxes such as sales tax etc. Under super market strategy he found out that own label products accounted for closely half of all foods purchased in the UK super market. Until farmers do not get good quality seed. The cost and return in vegetable production were estimated along with marketing efficiency. costing and pricing policies. Some marginal and small farmers . The study followed two supply chains one was producer to consumer with the involvement of wholesaler and retailer and other one was directly from producer to consumer. Hence farmers should apply recommended of doses of fertilizers according to soil test. food safety legislation and supply chain intensity. They should also increase per hectare limit of loan because vegetable production is capital intensive enterprise. municipal taxes must be levied selectively. technically efficient and innovative suppliers. processing and weak linkage of institutional support. R and D work in laboratories applied to the industry. transportation.and from market to market. through greater control has resulted in the rationalization of supply base. In the study they found that the various constraints faced by vegetable producers and also expectation suggested during the production and marketing are noted such as lack of resources was the main problem in vegetables production. with retailer seeking the deal with few numbers of larger. The search for improved supply chain integrity and greater consistency in the quality of fresh produce coupled with the need to squeeze the cost out of the supply chain. Fearne (1999) in his study found that super market strategies. cauliflower and coccinia production are examined. Sailaja et al. inadequate credit and marketing facilities. unbalanced use of fertilizers due to lack of technical know-how was another problems. industry should have their own consortiums with least involvement of state. Madhya Pradesh. it concluded that marketing set up should share the following factors like product/ services development secrets. The growers all produced tomato. The various components arising from market forces were analysed. The problems faced by the vegetable growers were analysed and suitable remedial measures were suggested.12 per cent respectively. Changing the location of fresh produce within the retail store yielded 50 per cent increase in their fresh produce sales. The highest margin is claimed by the traders in wheat and paddy that is 32 and 21 per cent respectively while in groundnut and jaggery their margin being 17 per cent and 10. price preferences. guidance to change in the context of consumer needs. one stop way of shopping with benefits from a much wider range. marketing information services etc. The aim for a free economy with less state interference and also studying the marketing effectiveness for industrial growth he concluded that the industry should be make available information in respect of cost of inputs. Andhra Pradesh. shortage of water and inefficiency in post harvest handling. size of the market. cold storage.

they are unable to hire big and efficient means of transportation. prices decrease by 8 per cent in rural areas and 5 per cent in urban areas. high membership fee. The consumer barometer provided information of consumer shopping behaviour and on market shares of various competitors (retail institutions like garden centres. Qualitative research has been used to identify the key challenges facing the cherry supply chain in the UK. etc. Most of the farmers were of the opinion that vegetable based processing industries especially tomato must be established in producing areas in order to provide remunerative prices to farmers of their produce. consumers decision was varying for gifting as more substitute products/ gifts were available and easy set up of the shop by getting necessary certification from the association and some main problems of cooperative was cooperative management have difficulties in paying the producers. Poot et al. When Wal-Mart enters the market. Orth (1999) study of a consumer survey was connected in a German city of 40. Some of the farmers perceived that an adequate arrangement should also be made to disseminate the market news and rendering of grading service for vegetables in order to receive better prices of the produce. for UK stone fruit growers. The problems were determined such as seasonal fluctuations occurred in the prices inadequate grading and standardization processing expensive chair hiring. at uniform qualities at low prices with their method it is possible to get insight in price and future demands on horticultural products and on the services of their suppliers. 5 major retailers and 3 researchers. Substantial competition from imports and the variable climate are major constraints on British fruit production. particularly in the stone industry. offering real opportunities. Additional findings extended on individual strengths and weaknesses of relevant retailers structured by product groups and performance features indicating their current position in the competition. but that they have problems to supply large quantities. retailing growers. A good number of farmers complained in this regard. 5 importers/marketing organizations.). Initial result suggests that consumers are prepared to pay a price premium for home grown cherries. The ultimate result from their study was that the fruit sector in the UK is struggling to maintain its competitive position. Pankaj and Ken (2000) in their study found out that most of the value created by a company is pocketed by its consumers. Wermund and Fearne (2000): conducted a study on key challenges facing the cherry supply chain in the UK. including 10 growers. This information can be used by Dutch horticultural industry to develop customers driven production and distribution strategies. Due to lack of storage facility. For one selected garden market an adequate marketing strategy had been developed to increase its competitiveness and to ensure future existence of the company. Multiple retailers believe that increased quantities of quality domestic produce can be sold easily if current production problems such as irregular cropping for cherries can be overcome.experienced difficulty about efficient transportation from village to market. unfair competition. (2000) conducted study on chain information to support Dutch supply chain effectiveness. .000 inhabitants to assess the competition at the local market for floricultural products and services 294 out of 300 distributed questionnaires could be utilized. who charged 8 per cent of the value of produce which is quite high. retail floral shops. The paper concluded with considerations on an application of the method for evaluating marketing measures and to develop marketing controlling system. Due to small produce with them. They found that Dutch growers are able to produce high quality products. Higher delivering costs of the cut flowers to the customers. The interviews were followed by further qualitative research into consumer purchasing behaviour of stone fruit in the UK. This was mainly because the retailers source their products from the suppliers who supply the required goods at a lesser price than others. The lack of effectiveness of the cooperatives on the producers for their production decisions such as separating production on a time schedule causes price fluctuations and irregular income. the quality of the products are affected negatively due to the lack of government support for the cut flower producers. cooperatives have great financial problems. personal interviews were conducted with each link of the cherry supply chain. The study was conducted between September 1999 and April 2000. Gungor and Gungor (2000) in determining the marketing structure and developing possibilities of the cut flower sector in Turkey and while interviewing with the owners of the cut flowers shop. regulated and cooperative marketing producers are forced to sell their produce through commission agents.

The study further showed that fresh produce consumption is influenced by education level. The retail trade was U. The fresh produce consumers tend to be highly specialized in terms of their shopping patterns as compared to other food groups. the poorest people in urban areas were the lowest consumers of fruit and vegetables.S $237. They concluded that Argentinean consumers were less likely to buy fresh fruit and vegetables. other incentives and working hours were major problems from the employees’ side. This was mainly due to rising purchasing power and stable middle class income. range between 10-12 per cent the same margin in many other countries is in the range of 25-30 per cent.66 billion in 2005 of which retail food sales accounted for more than half of total retail sales with 54per cent. Study involved 524 consumers in Nairobi and 143 wholesale and retail traders involved in urban fresh produce trade. durable assets and consumer credit of the consumer. This forces the larger modern formats on wafer-thin margins. and yet have to keep prices low enough to be able to compete with the traditional sector of real estate (as high as 40-70 per cent of the total investment). (2005) in their study on fresh fruit and vegetable consumption patterns and supply chain systems in urban Kenya studied the urban consumption patterns of fresh fruits and vegetables. much bigger premises. The results showed that while there are households consuming fresh produce at levels below WHO/FAO recommended levels across all income groups. . Nageshwar Rao and Bramhanandan (2003) in their study on problems of retail traders in Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh found that increasing salary. Also. And also the retail margins for fast moving consumer goods in India. Rent on building was a problem of retail traders (62 per cent) since they were facing many problems from the building owner side like high rent. Organized retail in India is largely. They found out that those living in a northern region showed less probability of shopping at a supermarket. high cost of capital. (2002) while studying the Consumer Behaviour and Supermarkets in Argentina from the perspective of differences over regions and categories of consumers noted that the more the education. income.Elsa et al. Brazilian Consumer’s preference was changing rapidly and the preference was shifting from household consumption to personal consumption. The top 3 players accounted for more than 40per cent of the total market share. Apart from these retailers (44 per cent) also had faced many problems on media like high rates. larger organized retailers have substantially higher expenses to meet. frequent repairs and demand for more good-will. Ayieko et al. high levels of taxation etc. age and the gender of household head. cost of providing facilities such as air conditioning and backup power supply. the level of fruit and vegetable consumption increased and approached the WHO/FAO standards. Somayajulu and Venkataramana (2002) in a study issues and challenges for organized retailing in India in highlighting the challenges and impediments to growth of large retail formats. as income increases. negligible real estate and labour cost and pay little or no taxes. inadequate information and coverage of area and timing problems. it found that first challenge facing the organized retail industry in India is competition from the unorganized sector. It was interesting to note that the unorganized sector are mostly owner operated. is very competitive and offers products to consumers at a lesser price since it has low operation costs. In contrast. the greater the probability that they will shop at a supermarket. red meat. and bread at a supermarket. as they would rather buy these from shops offering personal attention and service for those products. often dominating the open-air markets and kiosks. a proposition of poor economies of scale. Mark Gehlhar (2006) conducted a study in Brazil’s retail industry noted that the industry was making a comeback after recovering from economic crisis in the previous decade.

3.560 East and covers an area of 2190 km2. Bangalore is the fastest growing Indian metropolitan city whose population is estimated to be 6.5 Description of the study area Nature and source of data Sampling procedure Analytical tools and techniques employed Terms and concepts used in the study 3. Soils of Bangalore consist of red laterite and red fine loamy to clayey soils. retail formats and consumers were also collected through a structured schedule by personal interview. selling price and commission received by the intermediaries or by any firms. Ground water occurs in silty to sandy layers of the alluvial sediments. the largest of which are Madivala tank. the data regarding the roles played by intermediaries and contracting firms. Primary data regarding the marketing efficiency of the Supply chain for the year 200708 was collected from the farmers with respect to cost of marketing.3.1 million. salubrious and unflappable climate throughout the year. value added and price received by them. problems and expectations of the farmers. Chamarajanagar district in the south and the neighbouring state of Tamil Nadu in the south east.2 3. Mandya district in the south west. Bangalore over the years has lead to growth of public sector heavy industries especially aerospace. Similarly.1 Description of the study area Bangalore is draped over the Deccan plateau in peninsular India at an altitude of 949 mts (3113 ft). above sea level.4 3. Bangalore district borders with Kolar district in the north east.1. Similarly. METHODOLOGY The present study was carried out to examine the marketing efficiencies in performance of functions in the supply chain by traditional. which contains indicators such as physical losses involved. The area map of the Bangalore city is presented in Fig. Bangalore lies in the south east of the south Indian state of Karnataka. data was collected from the primary sources. October and August. Tumkur district in the north west. 3. It is positioned at 12. quantity sold.2 Nature and source of data In order to test the specific objective of investigation. factors influencing the supply chain. Bangalore has handful of fresh water lakes and water tanks. Hebbal lake. which is the third largest city and fifth largest metropolitan city. machine tools and defence. The major city area of the city lies in the Bangalore urban district of Karnataka and surrounded by rural area and parts of Bangalore rural district. Bangalore is famous as silicon city of India due to its fastest growth in software exports which accounts for 35 per cent of India’s total software exports and is also well known as garden city of India because of its climate. 0 The summer witnessing temperatures up to 39 C and the winter witnessing a lowest 0 temperature of 8 C. the data on cost and return obtained by the market intermediaries as well as by the retail formats were obtained through interview schedule.3 3. Ulsoor lake and Sankey tank.1 3. Monsoon begins in July and carry till September. The heaviest rainfall recorded in a 24 hour period is 180 mm. heavy equipment. space. . Hence the methods and procedure followed in conducting this research is furnished under the following heads. Bangalore enjoys a pleasant. Bangalore receives rainfall from both the southwest and northeast monsoons and the windiest months are September. The city has the second highest literacy rate among the metropolitan cities in the nation. co operative and modern formats in vegetable marketing.970N 77. telecommunication. greenery and home for many public parks which also constitute the famous Lalbagh and Cubbon Park.

in the Traditional supply chain 20 farmers. in Modern Supply chain 5 farmers. contracting firms. speaking diverse languages and of different food preferences. 5 retail formats and 20 consumers were selected at random that is from the organisations of HOPCOMS and Safal which working under Cooperative units. However the total size of the sample with respect to farmers. 15 retail formats and 20 consumers was selected at random from the organisations of modern retail firms such as Subhiksha. Spencer. with industrial estates. 5 traditional retail formats and 20 consumers were selected at randomly. which is a home place of different religions. Namdhari. . many Supply chain formats have opened their outlets recently in the city at many places. 4 intermediaries. Bangalore has a pleasant climate. Similarly. resources and availability of sample for the investigator. 2005). retail formats in each type of formats was decided keeping in mind the time. in the final stage the consumer who purchased the vegetables from each chain was selected. castes. At the initial stage farmers were selected in each chain who sold their produce in selected Supply chain. Only 5 farmers were available doing direct business with these formats hence only these 5 farmers were selected. 3.5 Terms and concepts used in the study Supply Chain Management (SCM) Supply Chain Management is the management of upstream and downstream relationships with suppliers and customers to deliver superior customer value at less cost to the management as a whole (Suresh Reddy. Secondly. The retail formats have made Bangalore as their focal point of the managerial operations. Mainly three models of Supply chain techniques were selected. Firstly. Average and percentage were worked out to examine the roles played by the intermediaries. Also. Cabbage. Reliance. 4 intermediaries. factors influencing supply chain. international air ports. In the second stage. For the homogeneity of the result 4 vegetables namely Tomato. To evaluate the objective of the study multistage random sampling technique was adopted. cost and returns in the supply chains. in Cooperative supply chain 20 farmers. They were traditional. 3. Farmers growing their produce in these districts bring their produce to wholesale vegetable market and to emerging retail formats established in Bangalore. intermediaries involved in the supply chain specially in supply chain of vegetable marketing where large number of intermediaries existed. occupations. retail formats and consumers in the Supply chain was worked out.3 Sampling Procedure 3. cultures. Fabmall. Thus a total of 45 farmers. Simple conventional method of tabular analysis was used to study the marketing efficiency. many fruits and vegetable markets and numerous financial and educational institutions. In the third stage retail formats of each chain was selected. co operative and modern Supply chain. Thirdly. Carrot.1 Selection of the study area Bangalore.3. 5 retail formats and 60 consumers were selected in aggregate from all the supply chain format models.3. the capital city of Karnataka is one of the biggest cities of India and is also fastest growing metropolitan and cosmopolitan in nature. Many vegetable growing districts surrounded the Bangalore city including Bangalore rural district. Bangalore city was selected as the study area for studying Supply chain management in vegetable marketing as the city was the hub of retail revolution having many fruit and vegetable markets operating from a long period of time. It is the IT and BT hub of India.4 Analytical tools and techniques employed Detailed description of the analytical tools employed in the study is given below. problems and expectations of the producers. Capsicum which were commonly delt in large quantities in all the selected models of supply chain was selected for the study.

involved in purchase and sale of goods and move goods from producers to consumer. Cooperative Supply Chain Cooperative Supply Chain is the upstream and downstream relationships with Farmer to Cooperative unit to Retail format to Customer. Market intermediaries Market intermediaries are those individual who performs various marketing functions. Retail format’s net returns It is the difference between retail format gross returns and total marketing cost incurred by retail format. FP ME = ------------MC+ MM Where. ME FP MC MM : : : : Marketing efficiency Net price received by the producer-seller Total marketing cost Net marketing margin .Traditional Supply Chain Traditional Supply Chain is the upstream and downstream relationships with Farmer to Commission agent to Wholesaler to Retail format to Customer. Producer’s net price This refers to the price per unit that farmers realises after deducting the marketing costs from the gross price. Modern Supply Chain Modern Supply Chain is the upstream and downstream relationships with Farmer/Supplier to Consolidation centre to Retail format to Customer. Price spread= Consumer price – Producer price Marketing efficiency index The ratio of the net price received by the production-seller to the total marketing cost and total net margins of intermediaries as suggested by Acharya and Agarwal (1998). Wholesaler’s net returns It is the difference between wholesaler gross returns and total marketing cost incurred by wholesaler. Commission agent’s net returns It is the difference between commission agent gross returns and total marketing cost incurred by commission agent. Producer’s share in the consumer rupee This refers to the farmer’s net price to the retail price of the produce expressed in percentage. Price spread This refers to the difference between the net price received by the farmer and the price paid by the consumer for the produce. Marketing margin This refers to the net profit to the different market intermediaries of a particular produce after deducting costs incurred by them for handling the commodity.

Fig.. four vegetables.e.1: Area map of the Bangalore city .Aggregate average It is the respective total value of the four vegetables divided by number of vegetables i.

In case of assembling services. Problems and expectations of farmers retail formats and consumers in the supply chain. 4.3 Factors influencing the effectiveness of the supply chain 4.1 Disposal pattern and reasons for sale of the vegetables to a particular formats by the farmers in the supply chain.1 Packing materials used in the supply chain 4.3 Cost incurred in the supply chain 4.2 Physical losses in the supply chain 4.2 Pattern of purchases.3 Problems faced by consumers in buying vegetables in different formats of supply chain and their expectations.1.4 4. .4. 25 per cent packing services was provided in the traditional format by the intermediaries. cooperative and modern formats is furnished in Table 4.3.5. In case of cooperatives 100 per cent of them provided an advise with respect to the time of planting and the varieties to be planted. 4. RESULTS The results of the analysis carried out for fulfilling the objectives of the study are presented under the following heads.1 4.4 Cost and return in the supply chain 4.2.1 Problems faced by farmers in selling vegetables to different formats in the supply chain and their expectations. transport facility was not provided by the intermediaries in the traditional format. Marketing efficiency of different formats in the supply chain 4.3.2. 100 per cent was provided in cooperative format and modern format of the supply chain. 4.2.5. 100 per cent in cooperative format and 25 per cent in modern format of the supply chain.5 Marketing efficiency of vegetable marketing in the supply chain 4.1 Comparative roles played by the intermediaries and firms in the supply chain In order to have a better understanding about the different roles played by the intermediaries in traditional. Whereas.5 Comparison of price received by the farmers vis-à-vis price paid by the consumers. 100 per cent in cooperative format and modern format of the supply chain.2. Similarly in the storage services. 100 per cent in cooperative format and 25 per cent in modern formats of the supply chain. In packing services. 100 per cent of transport facility was provided in the cooperative formats of the supply chain The grading service facility was provided to the extent of 50 per cent by intermediaries in the traditional format. 4. 4. It could be seen from the table that 75 per cent of the intermediaries in the traditional format provided an advice with respect to the time of planting and varieties to be planted. buying management and sales pattern by different formats in the supply chain 4. However.3 Buying pattern and reasons for buying vegetables from a particular formats by the consumers in the supply chain.3.2 Problems faced by the retail outlets in marketing of vegetables in different formats of supply chain and their expectations. In case of service. 4.5. it was only 25 per cent of the firms provided an advice with respect to the time of planting and varieties to be planted in the modern formats.2.2 Comparative roles played by the intermediaries as the traditional format as well as contracting firms in the different formats of the supply chain. 50 per cent storage service was provided in traditional formats by intermediaries. no assembling services was provided by the intermediaries in the traditional format. 4.

2.39 kg per day and the value of the quantity loss accounted for Rs. .1232 kg and its value was found to be Rs. Table 4. 12.65 kg.47 kg per day and total quantity loss per day of 151. except for tomato majority of the farmers about 100 per cent of them used the gunny bags for packing all other vegetables.69.2.3. Reliance and Fabmall outlets in the study area the Table 4.27 percent.10 kg per day.2 Physical losses in the supply chain 4. Cooperative and Modern formats in the supply chain.40 kg was lost in the process of marketing and the total value of loss was Rs.62 per cent which was found out to be higher compared to all other farmats. 1292.16 Kg and percentage of wastage to the total quantity procured is 18. Where as.34 percent.2. 4. Finally.5 Physical losses at different levels in the supply chain of different formats Table 4. In the cooperative supply chain.2 it is presented that materials used for packing vegetables by different formats in the supply chain.2. 4. On an average quantity handled was highest in Traditional format that is 2661. cabbage.2. The percentage of wastage to the total quantity procured was 6.2 Physical losses at the traditional retail format level in the supply chain The loss at retail format level in traditional supply chain was assessed by taking five traditional retail outlets of the formats in the study area.1 Materials used for packing during the sales by the farmer in different formats In the Table 4. 0. 100 per cent of the farmers used the plastic boxes as the packing material to sell the vegetables.2. 0.6 indicates that on an aggregate average the quantity handled per day by them was 20. Quantity loss per kg of quantity handled at aggregate average level was 0. the quantity handled per day was 2650 kg of which 150 kg was lost per day in the process of marketing and the total value of loss was accounted for Rs.37 per kg. 4.16 kg per day and its value was found out to be Rs.2. 22.68 and it accounts for 9. For the total quantity handled the loss was 1. of which 3.2.2.3 Physical losses at the cooperative retail format level in the supply chain Table 4. This indicated that on an average.7 reveals the physical loss in an aggregate level at intermediaries level and at retailer levels in the Traditional format. 0. for all the vegetables such as tomato.2 Marketing efficiency of different formats in the supply chain 4.063 kg and total loss was Rs.2. Quantity loss in terms of per kg of vegetable handled was 0. The quantity loss per Kg of quantity handled at aggregate level was 0.2. 90 per cent of the farmers used plastic boxes for tomato. the total quantity handled was 11.59 per kg of quantity handled.84 per day. The percentage of wastage to the total quantity procured was 7. 4.4. In case of traditional format of the supply chain. Namdhari.28 percent.2.65. 1. At the retail outlet level the loss was 1.4 Physical losses at the modern retail format level in the supply chain The loss at the modern retail format level was assessed by taking the retail outlets of Subhiksha. The physical losses occurred at the wholesaler level in traditional format of supply chain and not in other formats because no intermediary involved in those formats of supply chain.5 indicates that the physical losses at the cooperative retail format level was assessed by considering the Safal retail outlet and Hopcoms retail outlets comprising totally 5 outlets.4 indicates that on an aggregate average. the percentage of wastage to the total quantity handled was 12. Quantity loss per kg of the quantity handled was 0.47 kg per day. in case of tomato. In the modern supply chain.1 Physical losses at the wholesaler level in the traditional supply chain The estimation of physical loss at the wholesaler level in the traditional supply chain is presented in Table 4. 4.87 per day. carrot and capsicum all the farmers that is 100 per cent of the farmers used plastic box to pack the vegetables but it was less that is 75 per cent in case of cabbage and only 25 per cent of them sold cabbage in loose form. Spencer.09 kg and the total value of loss per kg was Rs.07 kg and the total value of loss per kg was Rs.08 percent to the total quantity procured.18 per day. 10. On an aggregate average the quantity handled per day was 40. carrot and capsicum.

1: Functions performed by the intermediaries in Traditional as well as the Contracting firms in the different formats of the Supply Chain of Vegetable marketing Supply chain formats Sl N o Particulars of functions performed Traditional (n=4) Number of intermediaries provide service Advisory functions about The time of planting Varieties to be planted 3 3 75 75 4 4 100 100 1 1 25 25 Percentage to total Number of intermediaries Cooperative (n=4) Number of firms Provide service Percentage to total Number of firms Modern (n=4) Number of firms provide service Percentage to total Number of firms 1 2 Services provided Provides the transport facility Grading facilities provided at the farm level Assembling Services Packing Services Storage Services 1 2 2 50 4 4 100 100 1 1 25 25 25 50 4 4 4 100 100 100 1 4 4 25 100 100 .Table 4.

Table 4.2: Material used for packing during the sales by the farmers in the different formats in the Supply chain in Vegetable Marketing Traditional Sl No Vegetable Units Gunny Bag (n=20) Loose Wooden box Plastic Box Gunny Bag Cooperative (n=20) Loose Wooden box Plastic Box Gunny Bag Loose Modern (n=5) Wooden box Plastic Box 1 Tomato Percentag e Percentag e Percentag e Percentag e - - 10 90 - - - 100 - - - 100 2 Cabbage 100 - - - - 25 - 75 - - - 100 3 Carrot 100 - - - - - - 100 - - - 100 4 Capsicum 100 - - - - - - 100 - - - 100 .

0320 3900.00 0.00 150.75 593.00 125.00 6.50 2100.59 .50 975.80 10.34 8.20 4.0784 2550.43 1292.00 125.00 0.00 7.0892 1400.3: Physical losses at the Wholesaler level in the Traditional supply chain Name of the Vegetables Quantity Loss Per Kg ( in Kg) Total Quantity handled per day(Kg) Total Quantity of loss Per day (Kg) Percentage of wastage to the total quantity handled Procurement Price ( Rs per Kg) Total Value of loss (Rs) Total Value of loss / Kg (Rs) Tomato 0.00 1.15 Carrot 0.00 8.45 6.75 0.35 Cabbage 0.00 150.00 5.92 12.18 0.0545 2750.00 200.00 1500.00 3.063 2650.82 Capsicum 0.07 Aggregate average 0.Table 4.

1379 0.1357 0.80 1.40 1.47 1.50 16.87 14.00 2.00 13.00 10.00 7.00 10.1500 0.90 1.40 9.37 .4: Physical losses at the retail format level in the Traditional supply chain Name of the Vegetables Quantity Loss Per Kg ( in Kg) Total Quantity handled per day (Kg) Total Quantity of loss Per day (Kg) Percentage of Wastage to the total quantity handled Procurement Price ( Rs per Kg) Total Value of loss (Rs) Total Value of loss / Kg (Rs) Tomato Cabbage Carrot Capsicum Aggregate average 0.57 13.50 0.83 2.Table 4.55 0.28 8.16 6.92 15.00 12.82 6.40 10.20 1.65 0.0692 0.00 13.90 11.70 12.00 6.95 0.1232 26.

072 0.00 30.46 0.07 17.08 6.60 3.66 7.45 0.00 21.25 9.00 3.20 7.05 11.72 15.116 0.090 96.5: Physical losses at the retail format level in the Cooperative supply chain Name of the Vegetables Quantity Loss Per Kg ( in Kg) Total Quantity handled per day (Kg) Total Quantity of loss Per day (Kg) Percentage of Wastage to the total quantity handled Procurement Price ( Rs per Kg) Total Value of loss (Rs) 44.00 15.102 0.40 3.14 10.29 11.89 .84 Total Value of loss / Kg (Rs) 0.92 22.60 40.070 0.50 1.70 1.Table 4.65 7.68 Tomato Cabbage Carrot Capsicum Aggregate average 0.50 1.80 13.92 10.14 0.40 7.

In the traditional supply chain. 116.This followed by Cooperative format which handled daily 40.12.40 Kg.86 and the cost of marketing per kg per farmer was Rs.6. 4. Highest marketing cost was incurred by farmers in traditional format of supply chain as compared to cooperative and modern supply chain. 17.14 per quintals. the total cost of marketing of one quintal of vegetables at an aggregate average was worked out to be Rs.30 per quintal respectively.69.3 Cost incurred in the supply chain 4.4.2.57 and Rs.11. which was followed by packaging charges and labour charges for cleaning at farm level. Among aggregate average cost of marketing of vegetables. 1.65 Kg accounted a loss per day was 3.1. Similarly in modern format. 54.39 Kg per day and accounted the wastage to the total quantity procured was 7. The marketing cost was found out to be lower for the farmers in marketing of vegetables in the modern format.46. accounting for Rs.4 Aggregate average cost of marketing vegetables by farmers per day per farmer under different formats of supply chain Aggregate average cost of marketing vegetable is presented in Table 4.10. 17.1 Cost and return in vegetable marketing by commission agent in the traditional supply chain The cost and return incurred in the marketing of vegetable per day by various intermediaries like commission agent were worked out and are presented in Table 4. 4.85. the total marketing cost of one quintal of vegetables at an aggregate average worked out to be Rs. Hence less physical loss of produce occurred at modern supply chain and found to be more profitable followed by Cooperatives in the supply chain. Among aggregate average cost of marketing of vegetables.1 Cost of marketing vegetables by farmers in traditional supply chain The cost of marketing of vegetables per day per farmer in traditional supply chain is presented in Table 4. the service charges accounted for a maximum in the total marketing cost and it was Rs.3.70 per quintal respectively. the cost of commission charges was nil and the cost of transportation cost was higher and it was Rs.3 Cost of marketing vegetables by farmer in modern supply chain The cost of marketing vegetables per day per farmer in modern supply chain is presented in Table 4. . 9. loading and unloading charges and labour charges for cleaning at farm level. the cost of commission charge was higher and it was Rs. 39. Among the items of costs. Among the costs incurred by the farmers.57 and the cost of marketing per kg per farmer was Rs. accounting for Rs.96 per quintal. 27. 4.3. 4. Rs.2. 4. which was followed by transportation cost. the major component was found to be commission charges in the traditional and cooperative supply chain except in modern supply chain. accounting for Rs. the total cost of marketing of one quintal of vegetables at an aggregate average was worked out to be Rs.3. Among aggregate average cost of marketing of vegetables. packaging charges. Rs.80 and Rs. 42.3. 23.9. 1. 25.2.2.83.8.96 and the cost of marketing per kg per farmer was Rs.2 Cost of marketing vegetables by farmers in cooperative supply chain The cost of marketing of vegetables per day per farmer in cooperative supply chain is presented in Table 4.2. In the modern supply chain.2. which was followed by transportation cost.2.4 Cost and return in the supply chain 4. 83.27 per cent.10 Kg of vegetables with a quantity loss of 1.09 per quintal respectively.77 and Rs. handling daily 20.03. 0. 23. 21.46 per quintal. packaging charges and labour charges for cleaning at farm level. 0. Rs. transportation cost and packaging charges were found out to be a next major component in all the supply chain in the cost components. In the cooperative supply chain.

27 7.40 10.95 12.53 0.07 38.09 0.29 0.28 21.03 0.51 14.00 20.69 .00 1.33 7.54 9.90 5.66 1.39 7.84 0.60 11.09 7.6: Physical losses at the retail format level in the Modern supply chain Name of the Vegetables Quantity Loss Per Kg ( in Kg) Total Quantity handled per day (Kg) Total Quantity of loss Per day (Kg) Percentage of Wastage to the total quantity handled Procurement Price ( Rs per Kg) Total Value of loss (Rs) Total Value of loss / Kg (Rs) Tomato Cabbage Carrot Capsicum Aggregate average 0.07 0. 38 1.10 9.Table 4.40 12.56 0.20 0.80 18.10 2.70 1.00 12.90 14.37 3.14 8.09 0.

08 7.47 40.27 .65 20.063 - 2650.47 40.08 7.090 0.28 9.070 2661.07 11.16 3.27 0.16 3.39 12.65 20.39 18.10 151.40 1.090 0.1232 0.186 0.Table 4.00 - 6.40 1.00 - 150.7: Physical loss at different levels in the supply chain of different formats Wholesaler level Retailer level Aggregate Supply chain format Quantity Loss Per Kg ( in Kg) Total Quantity handled per day (Kg) Total Quantity of loss Per day (Kg) Percentage of Wastage to the total quantity Handled Quantity Loss Per Kg ( in Kg) Total Quantity handled per day (Kg) Total Quantity of loss Per day (Kg) Percentage of Wastage to the total quantity handled Quantity Loss Per Kg ( in Kg) Total Quantity handled per day (Kg) Total Quantity of loss Per day (Kg) Percentage of Wastage to the total quantity handled Traditional Cooperative Modern 0.62 9.10 1.34 - 0.

00 32.90 19.14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Qty sold (qtls) Price received (Rs per Kg) Price received (Rs per qtl) Total value (Rs) Packaging charge (Rs per qtl) Transportation cost (Rs.00 9831.77 23.86 8.95 0.09 509.69 54.73 1.34 .22 922.50 31.48 26.25 3.72 7.00 13.96 1.25 2.78 1.36 134.55 1.00 24.50 950.97 73.58 40.per qtl) Commission @ 8% (Rs per qtl) Loading and Unloading charges (Rs per qtl) 15.Table 4.73 76.65 5.8: Cost of Marketing Vegetables by farmers per day per farmer in Traditional supply chain Sl No Particular Tomato Cabbage 30.87 0.62 10963.48 6.00 Capsicum 7.64 1.50 18819.28 Aggregate average 18.92 136.00 10.25 22.40 9.62 9.85 28.00 9.85 27.00 7965.25 325.00 20.03 92.89 1.16 10 11 Total Cost (Rs per qtl) Cost of marketing per Kg per farmer (Rs) 103.76 676.00 26.00 Vegetables Carrot 20.70 116.00 7239.57 9 Labour charges for cleaning at farm level (Rs per qtl) 1.

00 17216.9: Cost of Marketing Vegetables by farmers per day per farmer in Cooperative supply chain Sl No Vegetables Particular Tomato Cabbage Carrot Capsicum Aggregate average 17.47 32.Table 4.00 21.00 9899.57 0.74 26.00 28.31 0.61 2.22 56.31 11030.20 1120.26 50.89 789.25 10512.65 0.00 17.00 2.74 92.00 6496.77 25.60 23.40 640.85 0.3 19.50 31.25 18.80 11.85 10. per qtl) Service charge @ 5% (Rs Per qtl) Labour charges for cleaning at farm level (Rs) Total Cost (Rs per qtl) Cost of marketing per Kg per farmer (Rs) 26.50 0.02 72.33 7.25 0.80 3.92 5.18 19.92 392.05 1005.00 17.46 1.90 6.00 0.43 94.94 .30 83.03 74.83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Qty sold (qtls) Price received (Rs per Kg) Price received (Rs per qtl) Total value (Rs) Packaging charge (Rs per qtl) Transportation cost (Rs.00 12.72 9.03 39.

90 44.44 0.00 0.00 5229.90 17.70 870.55 0.30 1130.00 813.72 11.50 0. per qtl) Commission (Rs Per qtl) Labour charges for cleaning at farm level (Rs per qtl) Total Cost (Rs per qtl) Cost of marketing per Kg per farmer (Rs) 14.00 6490.90 590.76 0.32 1.40 24.00 19.00 9800.09 42.00 7.40 .50 49.00 700.00 5.54 40.44 36.Table 4.00 3816.36 11.00 30.33 8.80 0.10: Cost of Marketing Vegetables by farmers per day per farmer in Modern supply chain Sl No Vegetables Particular Tomato Cabbage Carrot Capsicum Aggregate average 7.80 19.60 20.05 1.80 23.60 1060.00 22.00 18.96 1.42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Qty sold (qtls) Price received (Rs per Kg) Price received (Rs per qtl) Total value (Rs) Packaging charge (Rs per qtl) Transportation cost (Rs.34 0.86 0.49 3.00 13.60 10.

69 54.03 39.per qtl) Commission/service charge (Rs per qtl) Loading and Unloading charges (Rs per qtl) Labour charges for cleaning at farm level (Rs per qtl) Total Cost (Rs per qtl) Cost of marketing per Kg per farmer (Rs) .33 7.83 Modern 7.09 42.33 8.62 10963.46 1.77 23.16 Cooperative 17.77 25.11: Aggregate average cost of marketing Vegetables by farmers per day per farmer under different supply chain Sl No Supply chain format Particular Traditional 18.57 0.85 27.89 789.31 11030.14 9.30 83.96 1.80 23.96 1.48 6.86 0.76 676.00 5229.70 116.57 1.42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Qty sold (qtls) Price received (Rs per Kg) Price received (Rs per qtl) Total value (Rs) Packaging charge (Rs per qtl) Transportation cost (Rs.70 870.00 17.Table 4.90 17.

25. 1. The average purchase price of wholesaler per quintal was Rs. 2.57.87 per kg and it was purchased from the wholesalers.04 per quintal respectively.07 per kg. 1. the quantity sold was 18. 60.02657.3 Cost and return in vegetable marketing by traditional retail format Table 4. shop rent.80 per kg per day. the total returns per quintal was Rs.13.00062. The commission received would become income to the commission agents. However. the quantity handled was 20. Hence. Rs.0013.00 per kg.31 kg per day and the selling price was Rs. The selling price at retail level on aggregate level was Rs. 0. 0. 2.15 relates to the cost and return of the cooperative retail format in marketing of the vegetables per day.4. The purchase price per kg was Rs.2.003925. 98.5 Cost and returns in vegetable marketing by modern retail format Table 4.01 per kg and Rs. maintenance charges. .50. 2. Fabmall and Reliance retail formats were selected. 843.13.16 reflects the cost and returns associated with the marketing of vegetables per day of modern retail formats.89. 66.4 Cost and return in vegetable marketing by cooperative retail format Table 4. 5.84. This included the costs of market fee.50. they arrange for the sale of farmers produce and receive commission after the sale of farmers produce.74 per quintal per day.85 and Rs. 0.65 kg per day and Rs. 0. Hence. the net returns obtained by wholesaler was Rs. 165. At the aggregate average. 1. The aggregate average quantity of vegetables handled by the wholesaler per day was 26.47 kg and purchased the vegetables at a price of Rs. Rs.30. the net return obtained by the commission agent was Rs.69 and Rs. For the study five cooperative retail format from HOPCOMS and Safal was selected. Rs.75 per quintal which included the cost like market fee. On an aggregate average. The total marketing cost and total returns were in the order of Rs. transportation cost. 0. Rs.75 and sale price per quintal was Rs. 1. the quantity handled and purchase price of vegetables in cooperative retail format was 40. The modern retail formats on an aggregate average earned a net return of Rs. Hence. 10. 0. 4. Rs.2.90 per kg.4. license fee.2. The net returns was worked out to be Rs.27.4. For the study Namdhari. 10. 4. interest on capital invested and total value spoiled during marketing. electricity maintenance charges. licence fee. 1087. 67.94 per kg respectively for the total quantity sold that is 37.15.0. the returns per quintal per day by commission for the quantity handled were Rs. 1. 0.50 quintals. Subhiksha. 1. Rs. 1.85 per quintal respectively. Hence.88 kg per day and the selling price was Rs. shop rent. electricity. 55.14 reflects the cost and return associated with the marketing of vegetables per day in case of traditional retail format. 12. These items accounted for RS.80 per kg which included the shop rent. Rs.4. The cost incurred by the wholesaler. Rs. 0.2.92 per quintal per day. maintenance charges and labour charges. however found out to be Rs. Spencer. the total marketing cost was worked out to be 0. electricity.27 for the quantity handled per day that is 11. 12. 4.79 per kg of vegetables. The costs incurred by the commission agents were however found out to be Rs. casual and temporary labour charges and interest on own capital and borrowed capital. 7.72 and Rs.633 per kg.0021. the modern retail format.63 per kg per day.58.1 kg per day. As a commission agent. 1. The net returns per kg realized by the traditional retail format was Rs. The quantity sold however was in the range 10. packing cost.50 kg per day. value of commodity spoiled during marketing. The total returns per kg per day for the traditional retail format was worked out to be Rs.2 Cost and return in vegetable marketing by wholesaler in the traditional supply chain The cost and return accrueded in the marketing of vegetable per day by various intermediaries in the traditional supply chain at wholesaler was worked out and are presented in Table 4. 11. Rs. The total returns per kg was worked out to be Rs.89 per kg respectively.The aggregate average quantity of vegetables handled by the commission agent per day was 77 quintals. These accounted for Rs. Hence. It could be seen that the total cost of marketing on an average at aggregate level was worked out to be Rs. 4. Rs.91 per quintal. 1.

20 14.44 0.00 96.00 1200.00 4704.00 0.00 4940.00 52.0015 0.33 1.00 67750.00 2.50 67.00 38400.25 4366.028 6.018 5.37 1.18 0.00 1.48 Capsicum 32.12: Cost and returns in Vegetable marketing by Commission agent in Traditional Supply chain (Per day / Commission agent) Sl No I 1 2 3 4 5 II 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 III Particular Vegetables Aggregate average 77.02 5.03 Carrot 56.00 84.89 1.0039 2.02 0. 13) Net returns (Rs per qtl) Tomato 95.02675 5.72 0.85 .0018 0. 6 to Item No.19 1.00 4750.00 0.0006 0.69 1.0018 0.00 650.0013 0.50 0.27 9.50 0.85 11.40 0.00 1050.00 59375.41 37.70 2.00 843.00 475.75 55.14 90.70 0.51 74.08 1.09 2.00 0.30 0.20 2.Table 4.96 20.00 58800.92 17.59 Cabbage 125.00 38.003925 1.0045 3.74 Returns Qty handled (qtls) Average sale price (Rs per qtl) Total sale value(Rs) Total Commission received @ 8% (Rs) Total Returns (Rs per qtl) Marketing costs Market fee (Rs per qtl) License fee (Rs per qtl) Shop rent (Rs per qtl) Electricity (Rs per qtl) Maintenance charges (Rs per qtl) Casual and temporary labour charges (Rs per qtl) Interest on own capital (Rs per qtl) Interest on borrowed capital (Rs per qtl) Total cost of Marketing (Rs per qtl) (Item No.00 3072.052 8.75 54581.57 0.009 3.0055 1.00 0.0013 0.

0024 2.068 1.0007 0.00 20400.75 19993.27 1.0006 0.75 1600.36 0.91 98.Table 4.00062 0.17 81.00 1200.00 165.14 0.00 2925.0011 0.76 0.50 23893.86 0.14 111.11 0. 15) Net returns (Rs per qtl) Tomato 27.58 1.0038 2.00 3600.50 650.00 16800.84 0.00 106.00 257.91 0.00 800.71 3.75 600.23 0.00 20800.41 0.75 25.85 60.00 1087.00 26.00 105.29 1.0021 1.25 0.87 Capsicum 14.04 66.22 24.13 2.00 31725.92 Returns Qty handled (qtls) Average purchase price (Rs per qtl) Total purchase value (Rs) Qty sold (qtls) Average sale price (Rs per qtl) Total sale value (Rs) Total returns per day (Rs) Total Returns (Rs per qtl ) Marketing costs Market fee (Rs Per qtl) License fee (Rs Per qtl) Shop rent (Rs Per qtl) Electricity (Rs Per qtl) Maintenance charges (Rs Per qtl) Interest on capital invested (Rs Per qtl) Total value spoiled during marketing (Rs Per qtl) Total cost of Marketing (Rs per qtl) (Item No.26 107. 9 to Item No.21 15.66 2.00 12.00 26775.00 4950.13: Cost and returns in Vegetable marketing by Wholesaler in Traditional Supply chain Sl No I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 II 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 III Particular Vegetables Aggregate average 26.00 194.88 4.0001 0.00 37.35 89.00 17875.75 3900.00 475.59 Carrot 25.90 (Per day / Wholesaler) .0004 1.45 43.23 145.24 104.28 0.02 63.50 843.50 1350.002 2.78 82.33 Cabbage 39.50 1050.00 23.00 22650.16 35.00 18525.00 4125.22 1.

040 0.40 0.618 2.031 0.60 112.00 60.02 2.14: Cost and returns in Vegetable marketing by retail format in Traditional supply chain (Per day / Traditional retail format) Sl No I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 II 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 III Particular Tomato Returns Qty handled (Kg) Average purchase price (Rs per Kg) Total purchase value (Rs) Qty sold (Kg) Retailers Price (Rs Per Kg) Average sale value (Rs) Total Returns per day (Rs) Total Returns (Rs per Kg) Marketing Costs Shop rent (Rs per Kg) Transportation cost (Rs per Kg) Packing cost (Rs per Kg) Electricity (Rs per Kg) Establishment charges (Rs per Kg) Total Value spoiled during marketing (Rs per Kg) Labour Charges (Rs per Kg) Total cost (Rs per Kg) Net returns (Rs per Kg) 26.50 22.800 0.160 0.090 0.00 24.012 0.006 1.003 1.633 .140 0.27 0.00 8.47 10.006 0.900 0.50 0.036 2.129 Cabbage Vegetables Carrot Capsicum Aggregate average 11.006 0.00 34.90 16.50 9.550 0.002 1.82 0.0027 0.190 0.0029 1.009 0.260 0.31 15.004 1.05 18.50 94.22 10.40 2.056 0.20 78.00 208.0011 0.20 10.Table 4.00 6.00 8.950 0.001 2.50 56.080 0.24 20.00 13.003 0.53 18.85 3.094 0.635 0.370 0.20 18.110 10.0009 2.50 6.677 7.200 0.30 0.137 0.25 9.010 0.023 0.00 242.140 0.260 1.003 0.20 1.220 0.015 0.07 122.87 102.00 46.00 1.0022 1.

030 0.037 0.070 0.016 0.00 58.60 0.65 7.20 296.460 0.0072 0.042 0.0061 1.60 11.086 0.370 Cabbage 30.0083 0.0765 0.22 0.038 0.013 0.40 71.20 168.200 .036 0.40 176.40 89.08 0.40 85.230 3.00 375.019 0.003 0.608 1.056 0.00 3.00 10.05 19.020 0.60 246.0055 0.80 1.50 15.94 0.320 0.50 6.027 0.75 0.384 0.010 1.50 12.015 0.900 Returns Qty handled (Kg) Average purchase price (Rs per Kg) Total purchase value (Rs) Qty sold (Kg) Retailers Price (Rs Per Kg) Average sale value (Rs) Total Returns per day (Rs) Total Returns (Rs per Kg) Marketing Costs Shop rent (Rs per Kg) Transportation cost (Rs per Kg) Packing cost (Rs per Kg) Electricity (Rs per Kg) Establishment charges (Rs per Kg) Total Value spoiled during marketing (Rs per Kg) Maintenance charges (Rs per Kg) Labour Charges (Rs per Kg) Total cost (Rs per Kg) Net returns (Rs per Kg) Tomato 96.44 37.89 279.079 1.005 0.650 0.60 27.68 4.710 0.00 8.00 6.Table 4.861 2.0705 0.013 0.0745 0.35 3.05 2.060 0.00 17.40 1.014 1.77 0.80 783.50 0.140 0.31 0.70 Capsicum 15.010 0.40 614.330 Carrot 21.50 96.94 0.053 0.20 174.200 1.05 211.92 117.72 14.20 0.15: Cost and returns in Vegetable marketing by retail format in Cooperative supply chain (Per/ day ooperative retail format) Sl No I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 II 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 III Particular Vegetables Aggregate average 40.

870 Capsicum 11 14.20 36.72 1.0046 0.6700 0.0060 0.025 0.40 0.0005 0.0018 0.0230 0.88 12.58 0.16: Cost and returns in Vegetable marketing by retail format in Modern supply chain (Per day / Modern retail format) Sl No.350 0.006 0.028 0.20 83.60 7.Table 4.95 75.8 5.023 0.00 27.20 49.05 2.0340 0.660 0.65 18.0305 0.60 186.0302 0.0009 0.080 0.1 10.6 12.060 0.60 0.0008 0.200 Aggregate average 20.00 326.022 1.80 26.130 0.090 Cabbage 12.032 0.40 289.610 0.013 0.52 11.557 0.3 193.80 221.9 239.38 27.800 0.020 0.059 0.016 0.0110 0.52 8.610 0.0006 0.019 0.625 0.64 16.70 0.94 17.45 158.010 0.0062 0.00 18.30 9.64 0.790 .050 0.00 0.26 2.030 Vegetables Carrot 18.95 10.003 1.013 0.200 1.770 1.9 300. I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 II 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 III Particular Returns Qty handled (Kg) Average purchase price (Rs per Kg) Total purchase value (Rs) Qty sold (Kg) Retailers Price (Rs Per Kg ) Average sale value (Rs) Total Returns per day (Rs) Total Returns (Rs per Kg) Marketing Costs Shop rent (Rs per Kg) Transportation cost (Rs per Kg) Packing cost (Rs per Kg) Electricity (Rs per Kg) Total Value spoiled during marketing (Rs per Kg ) Maintenance charges (Rs per Kg) Labour Charges (Rs per Kg) Total cost (Rs per Kg) Net returns (Rs per Kg) Tomato 38 7.

3 Factors influencing the effectiveness in the supply chain 4.4. cooperative and modern is also presented in the Table 4.83 per cent of the consumer price. In case of carrot 100 per cent of farmers sold only once and capsicum was sold once a week only.4. In the modern supply chain all the 100 per cent of farmers sold daily for all the vegetables that is tomato. cooperative and modern supply chain respectively.32 for traditional.19 quantity sold per farmer in different formats of the supply chain is presented and it was found out that highest quantity was sold in traditional supply chain that is 18. From the above data it is clear that higher total returns and net returns were found in cooperative retail format as compared to other formats. Rs. 2. The index of marketing efficiency was found out to be 1. 0. 1. The index of marketing efficiency of the different formats indicated that modern supply chain was found to be more efficient than cooperative and traditional supply chain. In the traditional. 7. 6. 4. cooperative and modern retail format respectively.1. . 0.70 per kg and it was very low in traditional supply chain that is Rs. the highest marketing cost was incurred by traditional retail format which followed by cooperative and modern supply chain.79 in traditional. 8. Similarly.3. In case of frequency of sale of vegetables by farmers in traditional. 1. carrot and capsicum. 2.80 respectively.89 in case of cooperative format of supply chain.33 kg respectively.33 kg and 7. When compare the price per kg received by farmer in traditional.6 Aggregate average cost and returns in vegetable marketing under different formats in supply chain Table 4. Rs.5 Marketing efficiency of different formats in the supply chain It is observed from the Table 4.01 and Rs. In case of cooperative supply chain tomato was sold by 75 per cent of the farmer and 25 per cent of farmers sold daily and 2-3 days once in a week. Similarly.68 per cent of consumer net price and lowest in the traditional supply chain 37. vegetables like tomato 75 per cent of farmers sold 2-3 days in a week and remaining 25 per cent were sold 3-4 days once in a week. Whereas in cabbage 80 per cent of them sold 2-3 days once in a week and remaining 20 per cent sold 3-4 days once in a week. cooperative and modern retail format respectively.58. total returns per kg of vegetables found out to be Rs. cooperative and modern retail format was found out to be Rs.94 and Rs. 1. 0. 1.1 Disposal pattern of produce by the farmers in the supply chain In the Table 4.97.15 per cent and in cooperative supply chain it is 58.2. The cost incurred per kg of vegetables by traditional.17 reveals that per kg cost and returns in traditional retail format.10 and 4. cooperative and modern supply chain. in carrot 75 per cent of them sold daily and remaining 25 per cent sold 2-3 days once. due to less cost incurred by the modern retail format is the next highest beneficiary with high net returns than the traditional retail format.20%) when compared to traditional supply chain (4.2. But. cooperative retail format and modern retail format.40%) and modern supply chain (6. Rs. it was very high in modern format of the supply chain that is Rs. cabbage.633. It is seen from the table that in traditional supply chain. 4. In cabbage 50 per cent of them sold daily and remaining 50 per cent sold 2-3 days once.1 Disposal pattern and reasons for sale of the vegetables to a particular format by the farmers in the supply chain 4.27. but 100 per cent of farmers sold daily in case of capsicum. the producer share in the consumer rupee was highest in modern supply chain that is 64.19. But the net return realized by it for one kg of vegetables was Rs.90 and Rs.18 that marketing margins as percentage to consumer was found to be less in cooperative supply chain (3. 2.76 per kg. Hence.30%).48 kg followed by cooperative and modern supply chain that is 17.635.3. where as it was Rs.

05 2.0302 0.38 27.036 0.31 15.016 0.800 0.6700 0.3 193.094 0.260 0.72 1.80 221.50 12.006 0.0745 0.24 20.013 0.003 1.58 0.Table 4.004 1.65 18.0765 0.0340 0.635 0.1 10.0060 0.50 96.650 0.0009 0.010 1.079 1.22 10.65 7.02 2.27 0.900 20.160 0.47 10.137 0.44 37.87 102.0705 0.790 Supply chain format Cooperative Modern .00 375.07 122.88 12.89 279.0230 0.17: Aggregate average cost and returns in Vegetable marketing under different formats in supply chain Sl No I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 II 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 III Particular Traditional Returns Qty handled (Kg) Average purchase price (Rs per Kg) Total purchase value (Rs) Qty sold (Kg) Retailers Price (Rs Per Kg ) Average sale value (Rs) Total Returns per day (Rs) Total Returns (Rs per Kg) Marketing Cost Shop rent (Rs per Kg) Transportation cost (Rs per Kg) Packing cost (Rs per Kg) Electricity (Rs per Kg) Establishment charges (Rs per Kg) Total Value spoiled during marketing (Rs per Kg) Maintenance charges (Rs per Kg) Labour Charges (Rs per Kg) Total cost (Rs per Kg) Net returns (Rs per Kg) 11.633 40.94 0.0305 0.

2) Traditional 6.15 3. 1 over 7) 1.40 37.76 1.97 2. Marketing margins and Producer’s share in Consumers rupee under different formats in the supply chain (Rs / Kg) Modern 8.60 Cooperative 7.83 6.00 1.01 12.42 1.83 7.89 0.07 0.16 5. 5 over 7 ) Producer’s share in Consumers rupee (Percentage of producer net price to Consumers price) 4.79 2.68 10 Index of Marketing efficiency (Item No.63 3.90 3.30 64.42 8.per kg) Cost incurred by farmer (Rs per kg) Producers net price (Rs per kg) (Item No.06 4 5 6 7 Cost incurred by different retail format (Rs per kg) Consumers price (Rs per kg) Profit of different retail format (Rs per kg) Total gross marketing margin (Rs per kg) (Item No.18: Marketing costs.70 0.32 .28 Sl No 1 2 3 Particulars Gross price received by farmer (Rs.10 4.74 0.80 12.50 0.20 58.1 – Item No. 2+4+6) 1.Table 4.01 8 9 Marketing margin as percentage of consumers price (Item No.63 15.

00 and it was very low in modern supply chain that is Rs. the number of farmers were influenced much to reasons like spot payment 20 (100.90 and it was Rs. 279.00%).42 and Rs. In case of traditional supply chain. cooperative and modern retail format on an aggregate average was 13. 80 per cent and 100 per cent in case of traditional. 40 per cent in cooperative retail format and it was not followed in modern retail format. less charges 19 (95. but even then in daily purchase the traditional.2 Buying management by firms in different formats of the supply chain In Table 4. less charges 9 (45.00%).3. 112.. cooperative and modern retail formats respectively. cooperative and modern retail formats. the total quantity procured and total value realized was highest for cooperative retail format which followed by traditional retail format and modern retail format in the supply chain. provision for technical guidance.00%). less charges for the service. In cooperative retail formats 100 per cent procurement was directly from the farmers . correct weight 17 (85.00%).2.00%).00%). Agency from whom the retail formats buy the vegetable is given. provision for technical guidance 5 (100.00%).00%) and number of farmers were influenced less to reasons like better service rendered by them 10 (50.1 Pattern of purchases vegetables per day by different retail formats per day According to the Table 4. 193.00%). when compared the total value of the commodity sold by farmers at aggregate average.77 in case of traditional supply chain. 4.00%). The retail formats followed to buy based on coming days/weeks/months expected demand was highest in case of modern retail format that is 60 per cent and it was 20 per cent in cooperative retail formats and it was not followed in traditional retail format. 4.2 Pattern of purchases.00%).00%).2. remunerative price 17 (85.2 Reasons for the sale of produce by farmers to particular formats in the supply chain Proximity.00%). correct weight and less charges were the reasons which influenced the farmers to sell the vegetables to particular format (Table 4.00%). The retail format followed to buy based on previous days/weeks/months sale was by 20 per cent.00%).3. getting storage and transport facility by them.00%). less charges for the service 15 (75. better service rendered by them 18 (90. less physical loss 6 (30. 4. absence of middle men. spot payment (100. comparative account on the buying activities of vegetables and the sources of procurement or the agency from whom they buy is presented.21 the quantity purchased per day by traditional. less charges for the service 4 (80.00%).3. absence of middlemen 5 (100. less physical loss.00%). it was purchased daily. The total value for the quantity they procured was Rs.00%).22.10. proximity 19 (95. remunerative price 4 (80. in the pattern of purchase.e.1. correct weight 20 (100.00%). getting storage and transport facility 5 (100. 3229. it was 100 per cent of traditional retail formats buy from intermediaries that is wholesalers and commission agents. the highest percentage of farmers were influenced to reasons like better service rendered by them (100.00%). proximity 13 (65. correct weight 5 (100.10 kg respectively. As vegetable which is perishable commodity. the number of farmers were influenced much to reasons like absence of middlemen 20 (100. provision for technical guidance 1 (5.00%) and proximity 3 (60. cooperative and modern supply chain followed different buying activities like in retail formats buy the same quantity every time i. In modern supply chain.00%). 40.35 kg.00%). getting storage and transport facility by them 4 (20. less physical loss 13 (65. provision for technical guidance 16 (80. less physical loss 4 (80. buying management and sales pattern by different formats in the supply chain 4. Rs.00%).00%). less charges 5 (100.00%).20). 100 per cent in traditional retail format.00%). 11030. less charges for the service 8 (40.00%).65 in traditional.00%). In cooperative supply chain. highest was in case of cooperative supply chain that is Rs. remunerative price.00%) and getting storage and transport facility 12 (60. spot payment 5 (100. Hence. better service rendered by them.00%). less charges 18 (90. 10963. spot payment.00%) and remunerative price 12 (60.Similarly.3.65 kg and 20.

80 11.00 5.48 17.00 Capsicum 13.00 16822.33 2 Frequency of sale Cooperative Modern 3 Price per Kg received 4 Total value of the commodity sold Traditional Cooperative Modern Traditional Cooperative Modern 6.30 7208.00 10547.60 100 75 25 100 9.00 80 20 50 50 100 6.85 3.77 11030.00 3229.70 10963.00 Carrot 17.90 .50 11.Table 4.76 7.50 832.80 0.00 75 25 75 25 100 6.50 9650 Cabbage 45.00 Aggregate average 18.33 7.19: Disposal pattern of produce by the farmers in supply chain Sl No Particular Vegetables Supply chain I Quantity sold per farmer Traditional Cooperative Modern Traditional Units Qtls Qtls Qtls Daily (Percentage) 2-3 Days once (Percentage) 3-4 Days once (Percentage) Only once (Percentage) Once a week (Percentage) Daily (Percentage) 2-3 Days once (Percentage) 3-4 Days once (Percentage) Once a week (Percentage) Daily (Percentage) 2-3 Days once (Percentage) 3-4 Days once (Percentage) Once a week (Percentage) Rs Rs Rs Rs Rs Rs Tomato 25.75 6457.00 6520.92 5.22 10.69 6.00 4160.60 44207.70 26.89 8.90 14.50 10005.72 100 100 100 9.20 11.05 10.90 17782.25 3.40 7.50 9097.82 9.15 26.

2. 5. 3. 7. 11. Proximity Less charges for the service Less physical loss Better Service rendered by them Provision for technical guidance Getting storage and transport facility by them Absence of middlemen Spot payment Remunerative price Correct weight Less charges 13 8 6 10 1 4 20 12 17 9 Percentage to total Number of farmers 65 40 30 50 5 20 100 60 85 45 Co-operative (n=20) Total Number of farmers 19 15 3 18 16 12 20 20 17 20 18 Percentage to total Number of farmers 95 75 15 90 80 60 100 100 85 100 90 Total Number of farmers 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 Modern (n=5) Percentage to total Number of farmers 60 80 80 100 100 100 100 100 80 100 100 . 9. 4. 8. 10.Table 4.20: Reasons for sale of the produce by farmers to particular formats in the supply chain Supply chain Formats Sl No Reasons Traditional (n=20) Total Number of farmers 1. 6.

00 8.42 193.00 18.10 .00 211.45 41.92 5.Table 4.00 117.95 13.05 239.00 11.00 16.60 13.00 38.40 7.50 10.00 30.65 20.35 40.95 456.50 96.90 116.60 11.80 6.00 614.10 279.00 6.05 12.40 244.65 1 2 3 Traditional Cooperative Modern 14.21: Pattern of purchases per day by different retail formats Vegetables Sl No Formats Tomato Cabbage Carrot Capsicum Aggregate average Qty in Kg Price Rs/Kg Total value Qty in Kg Price Rs/Kg Total value Qty in Kg Price Rs/Kg Total value Qty in Kg Price Rs/Kg Total value Qty in Kg Total value Rs 112.40 174.90 135.76 158.00 12.60 76.90 15.90 26.00 3.94 2.16 10.20 14.00 21.

1) 2) 3) Buying activities Buy the same quantity every time Buy based on previous days/weeks/months sale Buy based on coming days / weeks / months expected demand Agency from whom they buy : Farmers Intermediaries (wholesaler/commission agent) Cooperatives 5 100 5 100 3 3 60 60 5 1 100 20 2 4 40 80 5 100 Percentage to total Number of formats Cooperative (n=5) Total Number of formats Percentage to total Number of formats Modern (n=5) Total Number of formats Percentage to total Number of formats - - 1 20 3 60 II. 1) 2) 3) .Table 4.22: Buying Management by firms in different formats Supply chain Formats Sl No Particular Traditional (n=5) Total Number of formats I.

3.00%).00%) and 6 (30.00%).00%) and the less number of consumers were influenced to reasons like timing 10 (50.00%). advertisement. the number of the consumers were most influenced to reasons like proximity 18 (90. good service rendered by the outlet 17 (85. the number of consumers were much influenced to reasons like timely availability 18 (90. quality of produce 18 (90.3 Pattern of sale of vegetables by different retail formats per day According to the Table 4. 10.50 kg and 18.00%). wide range of products are available 18 (90.00%) in traditional. cooperative and modern formats respectively. and Rs. reasonable price 12 (60.00%). 4 (20. cooperative and modern retail format.00%). 4.00%) and the number of consumers were less influenced to reasons like common phobia to enter multinational stores 8 (40. 8 (40. In the traditional supply chain. 20 per cent procured from the farmers and remaining 20 per cent has their own production unit.00%). 122.31 kg.00%). visual merchandising and store design. With respect to frequency of purchase of consumers from traditional.1 Pattern of buying by consumers in the different formats in each purchase in the supply chain Among the respondents shopping at traditional. 9.2.25).00%) and promoted by promotional tools 1 (5. In the modern supply chain. promoted by promotional tools. 37.00%). In the cooperative supply chain. quality of . high price discount. better packed vegetables which are very good 8 (40.3 Buying pattern and reasons for buying vegetables from a particular formats by the consumers in the supply chain 4. discount price 5 (25. common phobia to enter multinational stores.00%).00%) in the same order as said respectively.3.and in case of modern retail formats 60 per cent of retail formats procured from the cooperatives. common phobia to enter multinational stores 9 (45. advertisement 4 (20.00%). cooperative and modern retail formats respectively (Table 4. The number of respondents who purchased once a week was 2 (10. highest total sale value and quantity sold was by cooperative and then followed by modern and traditional retail format 4. The number of respondents who purchased thrice a week was 8 (40. 0. proximity 13 (65.00%).2 Reasons for purchase of vegetables from the particular formats by the consumers in the supply chain Timely availability. cooperative and modern formats respectively. discount price 6 (30.38 in traditional.00%). cooperative and modern retail format on an aggregate average. visual merchandising and store design 17 (85. the quantity purchased at each purchase was 0. timely availability 16 (80. reasonable price 15 (75.00%).00%) and 8 (40.00%). timing. 4. Rs. 9. better packed vegetables which are very good and better suited time were the reasons which influenced the consumers to purchase the vegetables from particular format (Table 4. quality of produce 14 (70.00%). visual merchandising and store design 6 (30. 221.09.00%).00%).00%).00%) respectively. proximity 15 (75.24). the number of respondents who purchased daily in different formats was 3 (15. The total value spent on quantity purchased in each purchase on an aggregate average was Rs. 4 (20. better packed vegetables which are very good 2 (10.91 in traditional.00%).00%). quality of produce. better suited time 12 (60. good service rendered by the outlets 8 (40. Hence. wide range of products are available 13 (65. good service rendered by the outlets. cooperative and modern retail format on an aggregate average was 10.76 kg and 0.3. 375. 7 (35.00%).00%).61 kg respectively. proximity.00%).00%). better suited time 8 (40.00%).00%) and 2 (10. Rs.23 the quantity sold per day by traditional. good service rendered by the outlets 13 (65. wide range of products are available reasonable price.00%).00%). the number of consumers were influenced much to reasons like timely availability 17 (85.00%).00%).00%) from traditional.00%).71 kg. 1 (5.3.3.24.3.07. cooperative and modern supply chain respectively. The number of respondents who purchased alternate day was 7 (35. timing 11 (55.88 kg respectively and the total value for the quantity sold on an aggregate average was Rs.50 and Rs.

80 9.00 10.20 78.25 246.31 37.2 326.00 22.50 17.80 122.23: Pattern of sale of vegetables by different retail formats per day Sl No Formats Vegetables Tomato Cabbage Carrot Capsicum Aggregate average Total value Quantity in Kg Total value Rs Quantity in Kg Price Rs/Kg Total value Quantity in Kg Price Rs/Kg Total value Quantity in Kg Price Rs/Kg Total value Quantity in Kg Price Rs/Kg 1 2 3 Traditional Cooperative Modern 24.50 14.60 9.00 36.50 27.40 289.24 375.50 221.8 8.60 56.60 15.50 18.50 17.20 16.52 6.00 8.40 7.38 .20 6.0 783.40 112.05 19.20 89.00 10.64 18.Table 4.60 18.20 2.30 10.00 83.20 176.50 11.40 186.00 242.53 296.

76 9.71 10.59 10.61 11.90 13.91 8 40 6 30 4 20 2 10 II Aggregate average Frequency of Purchase by the consumers Daily Alternate day Thrice a week Once a week Value (Rs) Quantity (Kg) Value (Rs) Quantity (Kg) Value (Rs) Number of consumers Percentage to total number of consumers Number of consumers Percentage to total number of consumers Number of consumers Percentage to total number of consumers Number of consumers Percentage to total number of consumers .68 4.92 8.09 3 15 7 35 8 40 2 10 Vegetables Tomato Cabbage Carrot Capsicum Quantity (Kg) Value (Rs) Quantity (Kg) Value (Rs) Quantity (Kg) Cooperative 0.16 0.09 0.38 0.60 5.07 8 40 7 35 4 20 1 5 Modern 0.Table 4.78 14.89 0.61 9.52 0.00 0.67 4.00 10.38 0.46 10.67 0.85 9.35 0.00 0.50 0.24: Pattern of buying by consumers in the different formats in each purchase in the Supply chain Sl No I Supply chain Formats Traditional 1.88 14.43 0.

The efficiency of the chain was assessed by taking the comparative price difference for vegetables. Lack of transportation facility (80. Lack of contracting agencies (40. Lack of cold shelf facility(10. 4. It is seen from the Table 4. advertisement 6 (30. 4. Cold shelf facilities during storage of produce and Nearness of selling unit/place should be made for better benefits to them.00%).00%).00%) and number of consumers were least influenced to reasons like promoted by promotional tools 10 (50.00%).00%)and hence they expected that no malpractices should be followed at selling unit with proper regulation in the market.00%).00%) Lack of transportation facility (20.00%). Lack of storage facility (25. Providing financial assistance from companies.10 per kg respectively and found to be more efficient when compared to that of traditional supply chain having highest spread of Rs. The difference between the price paid by the consumer and price received by the producer was referred to as price spread.00%). they expected Nearness of selling unit/place. Good transportation facility and No malpractices should be followed by buyers with proper regulation at the selling unit. Good transportation facility.00%). Lack of grading facility (40.00%). Lack of cold shelf facility (30. Table 4. Lack of grading facility (20.26 the average selling price of the farmer or price received by the farmer was compared with average price paid by the consumer was presented. 8.5. The minor problems the farmers faced was Lack of transportation facility (40. Good packing facility.produce 16 (80.00%). For the respective problems it was expected that good transportation facility. Lack of financial assistance from any company (45. Cold shelf facilities during storage of produce and getting contracting arrangements from agencies. getting contracting arrangements from agencies. Lack of packing facility (80.00%).00%). discount price 2 (10. Lack of storage facility (60.26 that. Firstly . For the respective problems. Market information at right time. reasonable price 4 (70. better suited time 4 (20. Good packing facility .00%) and and hence they expected Providing financial assistance from companies should be followed by buyers with proper regulation in the market.27 depicts that problems faced by farmers in selling the vegetables to different formats in the supply chain. Lack of market information and Lack of contracting agencies (60. 4. .00%).00%).1 Problems faced by farmers in selling the vegetables in different supply chain and their expectation. wide range of products are available 11 (55.00%). retail formats and consumers in the supply chain 4.00%).00%).00%).00%) for the respective problems they expected Market information at right time.00%).00%). Good storage facility and the minor problems they faced was Lack of market information (45.00%). modern and cooperative supply chain having the smallest price spread of Rs.00%).00%).00%).31 per kg which is not much efficient. 4.00%) and Far off location of selling unit (5. Better packed vegetables which are very good 12 (60. Lack of market information (40. Malpractices of buyers (20. In Modern supply chain the major problems they faced was Lack of financial assistance from any company (85. In the cooperative supply chain the major problems faced was lack of financial assistance from any company (85. The chain in which the farmers get higher share by reducing the price spread is considered as most efficient. Lack of packing facility(20.5 Problems faced and expectations of producers.00%) and hence they expected Providing financial assistance from companies and getting contracting arrangements from companies. in the traditional supply chain the major problems they faced was Malpractices of buyers (90. The minor problems the farmers faced was Far off location of selling unit (40. timings 8 (40.00%).10 per kg and Rs.4 Comparison of price received by the farmers vis-à-vis price paid by the consumers In Table 4.00%). Far off location of selling unit (35. Nearness of selling unit/place.

Table 4.25: Reasons for buying vegetables from the particular formats by the consumers in the Supply chain Supply chain Formats Reasons Traditional (n=20) Total Number of Consumers 17 15 14 10 9 13 12 5 13 2 8 Percentage to total number of Consumers 85 75 70 50 45 65 60 25 65 10 40 Co-operative (n=20) Total Number of Consumers 18 13 18 11 8 6 5 4 18 15 6 8 8 12 Percentage to total number of Consumers 90 65 90 55 40 30 25 20 90 75 30 40 40 60 Modern (n=20) Total Number of Consumers 16 18 16 8 17 10 6 11 14 2 17 12 4 Percentage to total number of Consumers 80 90 80 40 85 50 30 55 70 10 85 60 20 Sl No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Timely availability Proximity Quality of produce Timing Common phobia to enter multinational stores Visual merchandising and store design Promoted by promotional tools Advertisement Wide range of products are available Reasonable Price Discount price Good services rendered by the outlets Better packed Vegetables which are very good Better suited time .

31 2.50 15.40 18.38 13.07 Cooperative (n=20) 8.vis price paid by the consumer in the supply chain Selling price of the farmer Sl No Traditional (n=20) 1 2 3 4 Tomato Cabbage Carrot Capsicum Aggregate average 5.91 5.25 9.20 7.26: Price received by the farmer vis-a.10 2.00 1.20 16.50 6.15 6.00 9.90 10.30 5.60 11.70 Traditional (n=20) 10.00 5.40 3.30 8.76 Cooperative (n=20) 6.Table 4.30 4.22 9.80 6.80 7.10 .40 4.92 10.80 4.20 17.60 12.48 5.00 8.05 11.89 Modern (n=5) 7.95 9.20 18.40 2.09 3.00 7.60 12.40 15.60 22.00 Modern (n=20) Traditional Cooperative Modern Vegetable (Rs per Kg) Price paid by the Consumers (Rs per Kg) Price Spread (Rs per Kg) 9.

8. Far off location of selling unit Lack of transportation facility Lack of market information Malpractices of buyers Lack of grading facility Lack of packing facility Lack of storage facility Lack of cold storage facility Lack of financial assistance from any company Lack of contracting agencies 7 16 9 18 8 16 12 6 9 6 Percentage to total Number of farmers 35 80 45 90 40 80 60 30 45 30 Co-operative (n=20) Number of farmers 1 8 8 4 5 2 2 17 8 Percentage to total Number of farmers 5 40 40 20 25 10 10 85 40 Number of farmers 2 1 4 1 5 3 Modern (n=5) Percentage to total Number of farmers 40 20 80 20 100 60 Sl. 4.Table 4. 2. No. 3. 5.27: Problems faced by the farmers in selling the produce to different formats in the Supply chain Supply chain Formats Traditional (n=20) Number of farmers 1. 10. Particulars of problems . 6. 7. 9.

00%). Timings to be extended and Cold shelf facility to be provided. Absence of wide range of products other than Vegetables (80.00%). No proper packing (90.00%).00%).00%) and to the respective problems they expected Less physical loss of produce.00%). More physical loss of produce (100.00%). Failing in rendering service to customers (20. Less physical loss of produce. No timely availability of produce(15. Good transportation facility. Less physical loss of produce . they expected a Facility for feed back. Inconvenience / not nearness of the retail outlets(40. The minor problem they faced was Timings of the retail outlet (45. Satisfactory responses and services rendered at a retail outlet .3 Problems faced by consumers in buying the vegetables in different supply chain and their expectation.00%). No facility for feed back (40. Hence.00%) and they expected Good storage facility. The consumers who purchased from retail formats of Cooperative supply chain faced major problems like No proper promotional tools and sales on credit (75. Quality of product is unsatisfactory(40. Timely supply (20.00%).2 Problems faced by retail outlets in marketing of vegetables in different supply chain and expectations of retail outlets The problems faced by retail outlets under different formats in marketing of vegetables in the supply chain are listed in Table 4. Good packing facility and Less price for the vegetables for respective problems.Timings of the retail outlet(50. Timely availability of produce to the problems.00%) and hence they expected Adequate physical facilities.Absence of wide range of products(35.00%). More physical loss of produce (80. Timely supply of produce.00%).00%). Nearness of the retail outlets. The consumers who purchased from retail formats of traditional supply chain faced major problems like Unhygienic condition (90. Assessing of demand at right time. Rendering good service to customers and Good cold shelf facility respectively In the Modern supply chain retail formats major problem faced was Price fluctuation (80.00%) and to the respective problems they expected Good storage facility.4. Failing in assessment of demand (80. Proper planning of procurement and Less competition to exist in the market respectively. Quality of produce(40.00%). Very high prices(60. Timings (40. The minor problems they faced was No facility for feed back (55.00%)and No proper packing (60.00%) and Nonavailability of suitable weighing facilities (20. Failing in assessment of demand (100. Private competitors in the market (20. Price fluctuation (100. Lack of transportation facility (80. Procurement problems (80. Timings of the retail outlet should be extended.00%).00%). The minor problems they faced was Absence of storage facility (40.5. Less competition to exist in the market.00%). Good grading facilities and Availability of suitable weighing facilities.00%) and Lack of cold shelf facility (20.00%)and they expected Hygienic condition.00%) and Timely availability of produce(60. Rendering good service to customers.Unsatisfactory responses and services rendered at a retail outlet(30.00%).00%) and Lack of cold shelf facility (40. Failing in assessment of demand (60. Proper planning of procurement respectively and the minor problem was Absence of storage facility (40. Absence of grading facilities (20. The problems faced by consumers in buying the vegetables from different retail formats in the supply chain are listed in Table 4.00%).00%).00%). Timely supply of produce.29.00%).00%) and Private competitors in the market (60.00%). Presence of wide range of products. Failing in rendering service to customers (40. In the Cooperative supply chain retail formats major problem faced was Price fluctuation (100. In the study. assessing the demand at right time. Less price fluctuation.00%). Right planning for procurement and Availability of produce at right time respectively and the minor problem they faced was More physical loss of produce(40.00%).00%)to the respective problems they expected proper promotional tools and credit sales and proper packing facility.00%) and they expected Less price fluctuation.5.00%).00%).00%). Procurement problems (60.00%).00%). Proper planning in assessment of demand. Concentrate mainly on Vegetables.28. Good quality of produce. major problems the retail outlet in the traditional supply chain faced an Inadequate physical facilities (100.00%) and they expected Less price fluctuation.00%) Timely supply (100.00%). Quality of products should be satisfactory. 4. Inconvenience / not nearness of the . Procurement problems (60.

Table 4.28: Problems faced by different retail formats in their vegetable marketing in the Supply chain Supply chain formats Sl. No. Particulars of problems Number of formats Traditional (n=5) Co-operative (n=5) Modern (n=5) Percentage to total Number of formats 100 20 40 80 100 20 100 60 80 100 60 40 - Number of formats 2 5 4 4 5 1 1 1 1 Percentage to total Number of formats 40 100 80 80 100 20 20 20 20 Number of formats 4 3 3 2 3 4 2 2 2 Percentage to total Number of formats 80 60 60 40 60 80 40 40 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Inadequate physical facilities Absence of grading facilities Absence of storage facility Lack of transportation facility Price fluctuation (wide and low) Non-availability of suitable weighing facilities Failing in assessment of demand Procurement problems More physical loss of produce / storage loss Timely supply Private competitors in the market Failing in rendering service to customers Timely availability of produce Absence of wide range of products other than Vegetables Quality of produce Timings Lack of cold shelf facility 5 1 2 4 5 1 5 3 4 5 3 2 - .

29 Problems faced by the consumers in buying the vegetables from different Retail formats in the supply chain Supply chain formats Traditional (n=20) Sl. No facility for feed back 12. Particulars of problems Number of Consumers Percentage to total Number of Consumers 15 35 60 40 30 40 90 90 55 50 Number of Consumers Percentage to total Number of Consumers 10 10 25 10 25 75 35 25 20 60 40 45 Number of Consumers Percentage to total Number of Consumers 30 30 50 15 20 50 30 20 5 40 35 60 Co-operative (n=20) Modern (n=20) 1. 6. No proper packing 11. 9.Table 4. No timely availability of produce Absence of wide range of products Very high prices Quality of product is unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory responses and services rendered at a retail outlet No proper promotional tools Inconvenience / not nearness of the retail outlets Unhygienic condition No proper store design and visual merchandising 3 7 12 8 6 8 18 18 11 10 2 2 5 2 5 15 7 5 4 12 8 9 6 6 10 3 4 10 6 4 1 8 7 12 10. 3. No. 2. 4. 5. 7. Timings of the retail outlet . 8.

Absence of wide range of products (10. No proper packing (40.00%).retail outlets (35.00%). Timely availability of produce. The consumers who purchased from retail formats of modern supply chain faced major problem was Timings of the retail outlet (60. Hygienic condition.00%) and No proper store design and visual merchandising (5. Very high prices (25.00%) and they expected Timings of the retail outlet should be extended. Less prices.00%). Proper store design and visual merchandising.00%). . Nearness of the retail outlets. Proper packing. Facility for feed back.00%). Availability of wide range of products . No timely availability of produce(10. Hygienic condition. Quality of product is unsatisfactory (15. Quality of product should be good and proper store design and visual merchandising to the respective problems.00%). Facility for feed back.00%) and Quality of product is unsatisfactory (10.00%). No proper store design and visual merchandising(20. Unhygienic condition(20.00%). Timely availability of produce.00%).00%) and hence they expected timings to be extended and the minor problems they faced was No proper promotional tools and sales on credit (50. Good responses and services rendered at a retail outlet.00%).00%) and hence they expected Proper promotional tools and credit sales. No facility for feed bac(35.Satisfactory responses and services rendered at a retail outlet. Very high prices (50. Less prices. Unsatisfactory responses and services rendered at a retail outlet (20.00%).00%).Inconvenience / not nearness of the retail outlets (30.00%). No timely availability of produce (30. Wide range of products to be made available and Quality of product should be satisfactory to the respective problems. Unsatisfactory responses and services rendered at a retail outlet (25.00%). Nearness of the retail outlets . Unhygienic condition(25.00%). Absence of wide range of products (30.

the cooperative formats having the better relationship with farmers and provided 100 per cent services about the time of planting and varieties to be planted. in case of traditional formats due to large number of intermediaries involved loosely in the chain may made to perform few functions in the supply chain. packing service (100%) and storage services (100%). It may be because of better network with farmers. It could be seen from the Table 4.2 5. In the modern supply chain. it provided transport facility (25%) grading service facility (25%). In the cooperative supply chain. grading services facility (100%). assembling service (100%). In case of other services.1 Material used for packing vegetables in the supply chain In case of traditional format of the supply chain except for tomato majority of the farmers 100 per cent used the gunny bag for packing vegetables such as cabbage. but it was less that is 75 per cent in case of cabbage due to less perishability. for tomato. it provided services such as transport service facility (100%). but provided grading service facility (50%). cabbage.2.1 5. DISCUSSION The results of the investigation presented in the previous chapter are discussed in this chapter under the following headings. traditional. In modern supply chain. the modern formats having better relationship with farmer and provided the advice about the time planting and varieties to be planted (25%). intermediaries were involved and had a better relationship with the farmers for procuring the produces by providing an advice about the time of planting and varieties to be planted (75%). However.5. The results are in conformity with Lokanadhan (2007) it could be seen in table 4. carrot and capsicum may be due to loose organization of supply chain. Factors influencing the effectiveness of the supply chain. Similarly. In case of other services. in the traditional supply chain. 5.5 Comparative role played by the intermediaries in the traditional format as well as contracting firms in the different formats of the supply chain. Whereas 90 per cent of the farmers used plastic boxes for tomato because of high perishability as compared to other vegetables. 5. because of supply of plastic boxes by cooperatives. Hence. In the modern supply chain. carrot and capsicum 100 per cent of the farmers used plastic boxes. .1.2. the functions performed are very less because it covers less number of clients because of small size of its business in vegetable marketing as compared to cooperatives. Marketing efficiency of different formats in the supply chain.. Similarly. packing services (100%) and storage services facility (100%). 100 per cent of the farmers used the plastic boxes as the packing material to sell the vegetables due to the supply of plastic boxes and well organized chain. 5. Comparison of price received by the farmers vis-à-vis price paid by the consumers. This results are in conformity with the findings of Helen et (2000). storage service (50%).3 5. In the cooperative supply chain. retail formats and consumers in the supply chain. packing service (25%). for all the vegetable such as tomato. in case of other services such as transport facility and assembling services were not provided by the intermediaries. assembling service facility (25%). Problems and expectations of farmers.2 Marketing efficiency of different formats in the supply chain 5. since the packing plastic trays reduced the mechanical damages while transport which reduces the physical loss of the produce.4 5.1 Comparative role played by the intermediaries in the traditional format as well as contracting firms in the different formats of the supply chain In the three formats of the supply chain viz. cooperative and modern formats. carrot and capsicum. it can be see that higher percentage of functions performed by cooperative format supply chain.

2. packing material and long distance covered may influenced the cost and expenditure which was incurred by farmers. Hence. The similar results has been obtained by Gupta and Rathore (1999). It was the main reason for lower price realization in the supply chain.40 kg and it accounts for 9.2.9. The inefficient use of means of transportation.2.2.3. It may be seen from Table 4. The reason for occurrence of high wastage at traditional supply chain was due to less sophisticated packing materials used. The wastage was due to losses during transportation and loading and unloading and spoilage nature of the vegetables as well as loose organized supply chain management and performing functions.08 per cent in cooperatives and 7.34 per cent of wastage to the total quantity procured in this format (Anil Kumar and Arora.e.2.7. This may be seen from Table 4.08 per cent of the total quantity handled per day it mainly due to high perishable nature of vegetable and losses during transportation.8.2 Cost of marketing vegetables by farmers in cooperative supply chain In the Table 4. The next major component was the ransportation . the highest percentage of wastage to total quantity procured was 9. the modern retail format was 20.2.39 kg per day respectively and the total quantity handled was 40.5 Physical losses occurred at different levels in the supply chain of different formats The physical losses occurred at various level that is at wholesaler level and retailer level add upto an aggregate of 15.2. Physical losses occurred at the retail format level in the traditional supply chain As could be seen from Table 4.6. 4. which was found to be highest percentage of wastage compared to all other chains.2. the cost of marketing vegetables by farmers in traditional supply chain.4 Physical losses occurred at the retail format level in the modern supply chain The total quantity handled at aggregate average level.5 5. Hence. there was a loss of 6.31 per cent in traditional supply chain followed by 9.3. This could be seen from the Table 4. 5. The above may be seen from Table 4. in the traditional retail format losses occurred to the extent of 1. the major contribution to cost was by commission charges which was paid to commission agent. only at the retailer level due to absence of intermediaries the wastage was 3.2.2 Physical losses in the supply chain 5. 5.47 kg per day and it accounts for 12..40 kg and 1.47 kg per day in case of traditional supply chain due to too large length of the channel in the chain.16 kg per day for the total quantity handled i.2.2. 5. But in case cooperative and modern supply chain.1 Cost of marketing vegetables by farmers in traditional supply chain As shown in Table 4. out of which an aggregate average loss was 3.5. 11. The next major contribution to cost was by transportation and packing charges in the total marketing cost.30 kg per day and 7.27 per cent in modern supply chain.10 kg per day and accounts a wastage was 1.28 per cent.3 Cost incurred in the supply chain 5.4 on an aggregate average.2. 1999).2.16 kg per day for the total quantity handled that is 2661.3.3 Physical losses occurred at the retail format level in the cooperative supply chain Total quantity handled by the cooperative retail format at aggregate overall average was 40.65 kg per day. 5.2. the service charges was the major contributor to marketing cost of the farmers in the cooperative supply chain. loading and unloading and also during storage which was better than traditional supply chain management and less better than modern supply chain management.10 kg respectively.27 per cent of the total quantity handled per day may be because of better handling of vegetables in the supply chain that is packaging and transportation.1 Physical losses at the wholesaler level in the traditional supply chain Total quantity at aggregate average of vegetable handled by the wholesaler was 2650 kgs daily and out of which on an aggregate average 150 kg was lost per day because of high perishable nature of vegetables and loose organized management of supply chain as well as losses during transportation and loading and unloading levels were more in traditional supply chain. non-better methods of transportation and loading and unloading in the chain as compared to cooperative and modern supply chain.2.65 kg and 20.

5. the cost and returns of traditional retail format.15 the quantity handled on an aggregate average by cooperative format was 40. Hence with high prices and less cost they incurred.5 per quintal.2 Cost and returns in vegetable marketing by wholesaler in traditional supply chain The cost incurred by wholesaler was Rs. The same results has been obtained by Hugar (1980). This was mainly because commission agent incurs marketing fee.2. 1. the net return worked out to be Rs.1 Cost and return in vegetable marketing by commission agent in the traditional supply chain The costs incurred by commission agent in the chain was found to be Rs.50 quintal.2.10.75 per quintal.4.92 per quintal per day with an aggregate average quantity handled per day i.5 Aggregate average cost of marketing vegetables by farmers per day per farmer under different supply chain As shown in Table 4. 5. The quantity sold was less than quantity handled was because of physical loss in the chain. 5. 98. expenditure on the packaging material. labour charges and interest on capital invested. The quantity sold by it was 37.2.00 per kg.2. interest on capital invested and also the total value spoiled during marketing. This could be seen from Table 4.2. the net returns per quintal was Rs.3. 10.4 Cost and return in the supply chain 5. the major component was transportation cost followed by packing cost due to better tansport facility and good packing materials that is plastic boxes may be the reason. licence fee. maintenance charge.87. This was mainly due to lower rate of service charges incurred in cooperative society as compared to traditional supply chain where the commission charges were to the extent of 8 per cent of the value of goods. However. shop rent.4 Cost of marketing vegetables by farmers in modern supply chain From the Table 4. 55 per quintal with commission charges at 8 per cent.47 kg per day and the purchase price was Rs. the quantity handled by it was 11. 1087.66.3 Cost and returns in vegetable marketing by traditional retail format In Table 4. The purchase price was Rs. The marketing cost incurred was less compared to traditional supply chain for the above said reasons and hence higher price to growers and lesser price to consumers was made possible in this supply chain. As compared to modern supply chain highest quantity was sold by traditional chain and cooperative. packaging cost or any value incurred on spoilage of produce handled.91 per quintal which includes the cost like market fee. it incurred less cost for procurement and also cost incurred by the retail outlets in marketing vegetables was also comparatively less. The net returns was Rs. 7. 0. shop rent.2. This could be seen from Table 4. due to high cost of marketing the net returns realized by the retail format was Rs. Therefore. Since they did not incurred any transportation cost.3.50 kg per day and selling price was Rs. 11. the marketing cost of farmers in modern supply chain.65 kg per day which was higher as compared to other formats of the supply chain.4. 843. 5.e.4. It was seen from the table that the purchase price was Rs. The commission received after the sale of producer by the farmer would become income to the commission agent.cost and packaging cost. The cost incurred by producer seller in the cooperative supply was lower as compared to traditional supply chain.14. 5. due to long distance covered during transportation.4.12.4 Cost and return in vegetable marketing by cooperative retail format As shown in the Table 4.11 the highest marketing cost was incurred by farmers in traditional supply chain followed by cooperative and modern supply chain but the highest price received by them was by modern and cooperatives. 26. commission charges paid by the farmer and also due to spoilage occurred during marketing of their produce made to incur high cost by farmers in traditional supply chain.2. lincence fee.. 5.633 per kg which was very low as compared to other formats in the supply chain.89 per kg and it procured directly from their main cooperative units.13. electricity maintenance charges. The similar findings of the study was brought out by Lokanadhan (2007). electricity. 12.75 per quintal and sale price was Rs.90 . This suggested that relatively more efficient performance of cooperative supply chain over traditional supply chain.

Its procurement price was Rs. The total cost of marketing per kg of vegetables handled was lower in modern retail format of supply chain (Rs.5 Cost and return in vegetable marketing by modern retail format In modern retail format. Therefore large quantity of vegetables handling was made possible for the corporatives compared to other retail formats. the net returns per kg of vegetables was higher in case of cooperative retail format (Rs. 0. purchase price was also higher in modern retail formats may be due insistence of better quality and fresh vegetables purchased from the farmers and farmer has to deliver it to their premises.80 per kg and earned a net returns of Rs. The above results may be seen from the Table 4.10 kg per day.79/kg) and traditional (Rs.4. 0. It incurred less physical losses due to better infrastructure facilities and proper management as compared to traditional and cooperative formats of supply chain. This lower cost may be due to absence of intermediaries and very low physical losses in the supply chain when compared to other retail formats of the supply chain. However purchase price was higher in traditional formats may be due to purchases from the wholesalers of commission agents. because of quantity sold.5 Marketing cost. two factors contributing towards the widening of the gap.1. The net returns obtained in the different formats showed that. The selling price was Rs.6 Aggregate average cost and return in vegetable marketing under different formats in the supply chain Table 4.16.80 per kg.80 per kg) as compared to traditional format (Rs. The costs incurred by the farmer and retail format was higher in traditional supply chain because length of the change was lengthy as compared to the cooperative and modern .30 per kg and procured directly from the farmers as well as from the cooperative units. place where it was sold and agency whom it was sold was influenced the variations in the cost.79 per kg which was higher than traditional retail format of the supply chain but lesser than cooperative format of the supply chain because of higher purchase price of the vegetables by the modern format of the supply chain.2. Secondly.2. the quantity handled by it was 20.17 reveals that the aggregate average quantity handled was higher in cooperative format as compared to modern and traditional retail formats of the supply chain. Similarly. This may be because of cooperative got the vegetables from the safal market and HOPCOMS and it had a large network of retail outlets in the city with a convenient distance to the consumer. The retail price of vegetables was lower in cooperatives formats as compared to other retail formats owing to lower purchase price as compared to other retail formats of the supply chain. 0. as compared to other formats owing to the above said reasons. The producer share in the consumer rupee is to be increased.per kg which was found to be higher compared to all other retail formats of the supply chain because of less physical loss of produce and other costs of marketing in the supply chain. cost incurred on the various functions.63/kg) retail formats. the margin of profits obtained by the retail formats. The purchase price was low in cooperative compared to modern and traditional formats may be because of large farmer selling their produce in the HOPCOMS and safal yards directly to the cooperatives without any intermediary and hence retail outlets receive the vegetables at a cheaper price.4. first costs incurred by the farmers and cost incurred by retail formats.635/kg).18 the cost incurred by the farmer varied between different formats of the supply chain.90/kg) as compared to modern (Rs. 5. the cost of marketing needs to be cutdown on the one hand and reduce profit margins of retail formats on the other through achieving an efficiency in performance of the functions in the supply chain. 10. margins and producer share in the consumers rupee under different formats in the supply chain Marketing margins measures the gap between net price received by the cultivators and the price paid by the consumer. 1.. This higher net returns per kg of vegetables in the cooperative retail format mainly may be because of lower purchase price of vegetables and large quantity of vegetables handled by it. In the point of view of marketing efficiency this gap has to be reduced to the bearest minimum. it paid higher price to farmers. 5.2. 0. The total cost incurred by it was also less that is Rs. As could be seen in Table 4. Broadly. on an aggregate average. 0. 5. speaking. 12.

It is advisable to the farmers to sell their produce through modern supply chain and cooperative supply chain. 5.1. spot payments.07 /kg in traditional supply chain. However.20. correct weight. less charges.18. the frequency of sale of vegetables by farmers in traditional supply chain varied depending on the vegetables because to make up the transportation cost.15%). it was also to make up the demand of the firms. The farmers mainly sell the vegetables to the modern formats mainly because of better services provision for technical guidance. the farmers harvested their produce to meet the requirement of the retail formats in the supply chain. correct weight and less charges. correct weight. Modern supply chain was found to be the most efficient as indicated by index of marketing efficiency (4. Marketing margin as percentage of consumer price was found to be less in cooperative supply chain 3. remunerative price and proximity of buyers. Similarly.3.40 per cent and in modern supply chain 6. It was seen that in case of cooperative and modern retail format irrespective of the requirement they procured depending on the market condition.32) when compared to other formats of the supply chain. Therefore.2 per cent as compared to traditional supply chain 4. in case of cooperative format. The above results may seen from Table 4. However if it is seen from the Table 4. higher net producers price obtained by the farmer. spots payment. The producers share in the consumer rupee was found out to be higher in modern supply chain (64. The cooperatives linked the private sector to meet the procurement of modern firms.19) indicated that.68%) compared to cooperative supply chain (58.50/kg in modern supply chain and Rs. proximity and remunerative price which were found to be major factors.1 Disposal pattern of produce by the farmers in the supply chain The results of the analysis (Table 4. the frequency was almost daily because they transported their produce to consolidation centre of the cooperative units and modern firms on regular basis as well as easy availability of the packing materials by the firms to farmers. proximity.97 in traditional supply because of cost incurred by the farmers is higher and also received low price as compared to other supply chain. 12. 15. distant market and to some extent depending on harvesting of their produce. Similarly. . 12.83%) and traditional supply chain (37. It is because of more producers net price to the total gross marketing margin. 5.1 Disposal pattern and reasons for sale of the vegetables to a particular formats by the farmers in the supply chain 5.1. better services rendered by them. But in modern and cooperative supply chain. the farmers sell their vegetables mainly because of absence of middlemen. Rs. depending on the availability of packaging materials.2 Reason for the sale of produce by farmers to a particular formats in the supply chain The study revealed that among different factors influencing the farmers to sell their vegetables to particular format in the supply chain was due to the spot payment.formats of the supply chain.3. the farmers sell their vegetables to the traditional format chain was mainly because of spot payment. On one hand and on the other. this index is low that is 1. All these advantages available to farmers to sell their vegetables to the cooperatives. The difference in the purchase price of modern formats and traditional formats with the gross price received by the farmer is due to purchases from wholesalers. provision for technical guidance and less charges for the services. this is followed by cooperative supply chain where index of marketing efficiency was 2. Similarly. getting storage and transport facility absence of middle men. remunerative price. correct weight.10 because of higher producer’s net price to total gross marketing margins. commission agent and farmers in combination. This was mainly because of difference in the consumer price obtained that is Rs. The same results have been inferred by Hugar (1980) and Biradar (1996). farmers should sell more and more vegetables through HOPCOMS and Safal and cooperative retail formats to be encouraged to provide vegetables to consumers in the cities.3 Factors influencing the efficiency in the supply chain 5.30 per cent because of low consumer price in cooperative supply chain as compared to other formats of the supply chain.00/kg in cooperative supply chain.3.

The modern units and cooperative units purchased the vegetables as per the requirement irrespective of the market conditions and they were have the good facility in consolidation centre to fulfill the demand.10. Aggregate average of quantity purchase per day and its total value are compared in different formats of supply chain. This difference may be depending on the quantity of sale made in previous week or month or the left over stock in previous days sale they purchased the vegetables.38 per day.10 kg per day with a total value of Rs.2. Whereas. 375. 193. But buy the same quantity every time was seen only in traditional and cooperatives retail format that is to the extent of 100 per cent in traditional retail format and 40 per cent in cooperative retail format. As vegetable is a perishable commodity it was purchased daily and also it was having daily demand. The traditional retail format purchased 13. attractive measure for their sale.31 kg per day with a total sale value of Rs.22.1 Pattern of purchases of vegetables per day by different retail formats per day In this section a comparative account on the pattern of purchases by retail formats per day that is in traditional.2. 122. 6.65 kg per day with a total value of Rs.65. cooperative retail format purchased 40. buying management and sales pattern by different formats in the supply chain 5. in cooperative retail formats. 279. .2. requirements brought from intermediaries. This was mainly because of higher network of retail business of vegetables in the city by cooperatives as compared to other formats purchases large quantities from safal market and availability of vegetables at a cheaper price. in cooperative retail format it was only about 20 per cent and it was absent in traditional retail format. 80 per cent and 100 per cent in case of traditional.50 and in modern retail format it sold 18. cooperative and modern supply chain can be seen.80 kg having a sale value of Rs.23 a comparative account on the pattern of sale by retail formats per day in traditional. In the modern format.3. 112. cooperative and modern retail formats.3 Pattern of sale of vegetables by different retail formats per day From the Table 4.3.35 kg per day with a total value of Rs. It could be visualized from this is that the quantity of vegetables purchased by cooperative retail format was higher than modern retail format and traditional retail format. This is because of the reason that the price at which they sell to the consumers. the remaining 40 per cent was procured from their own production unit and from the farmers directly. cooperative and modern supply chain are presented in Table 4. cost incurred by the retail formats in marketing their produce.50 kg which accounts sale value of Rs. The retail formats buying based on previous day/weeks/months sale was only to the extent of 20 per cent. It was not followed in modern retail format. this may be because of purchases every day same quantity. 221. The retail formats buying based on coming days/weeks/months expected demand was highest in modern retail format that is 60 per cent.2 Pattern of purchases. 5.21.42 and modern retail format purchased 20.2 Buying management by firms in different formats of the supply chain A comparative account on the buying activities of vegetables and the agency from whom they buy is presented in Table 4. However. 100 per cent procurement was directly from the local farmers as they were having their sub units for purchase of produce at different villages.5.24. Quantity of buying from a particular agency indicated that 100 per cent of traditional retail formats. in cooperative retail format sold 37. The aggregate average quantity sold per day and its total values are compared.3.3. easy packaging facility and wide range of products with its quality and capacity to buy and sell which were good in cooperative formats. It could be seen from the above discussion that quantity of vegetables sold by cooperative retail format was higher in cooperative format which followed by modern retail format and traditional retail format. In case of modern retail formats 60 per cent of retail formats buying was from the cooperatives for their convenient buying and reduce their cost. The traditional retail formats sold 10.

good services rendered by the outlets. daily (15. advertisement. good service rendered by the outlets. in the modern supply chain the highest percentage of consumers visited daily (40. high price and better suited time in the same order to purchase from modern retail format.26 the aggregate average of price spread which refers to difference between the price paid by the consumer and price received by the farmer is worked out and inturn compares the aggregate average of price received by the farmer vis-à-vis aggregate average price paid by the consumers. proximity. At the same time the quantity purchased depends on the value of the vegetables and frequency of purchase of consumers. discount price. 5. in case of traditional format of the supply chain the consumers influenced mainly because of timely availability. since the majority of consumers visited the retail format at thrice a week followed by alternate day. visual merchandising and store design.00%). quantity of produce. availability. In the cooperative supply chain. This indicated a more or less the buying pattern of consumers was same irrespective of the supply chain formats.76 kg in cooperative format followed by traditional and modern formats of the supply chain that is 0. Therefore. In case of cooperative supply chain highest percentage of consumes visited daily (40. The majority of consumers visited daily and alternate day for purchase of vegetables. 8. it can be concluded that modern supply chain and cooperative supply chain are most efficient as compared to traditional supply chain whose . majority of the consumers were influenced mainly because of timely availability. visual merchandising and store design. common phobia to enter multinational stores.00%) followed by alternate day (35. thrice a week (20. 5. reasonable price.3. good service rendered by the outlet. higher percentage of consumers visited thrice a week (40. promoted by promotional tools. 4. the efficiency of the chain was assessed by taking the comparative price difference for vegetables. 4. quality of produce.00%) followed by alternate day (35.00%). cooperative and modern retail format of the supply chain as shown in Table 4.71 kg and 0.3. timely availability.3.00%) and once a week (10. thrice a week (20. The frequency of purchase.10 per kg and Rs.3.00%) followed by alternate day (35. This depends on type of customer comes to the shop. common phobia to enter multinational stores.31 per kg which followed by Rs.00%).00%). by consumers in traditional supply chain. The highest quantity purchased was in cooperative format due to lower price. the consumers were influenced by proximity. Similarly. better packed vegetables which are very good. better suited time.5.2 Reasons for purchase of vegetables from the particular formats by the consumers in the supply chain The study revealed that among the different reasons for purchase of vegetables by the consumers from the particular formats such as traditional.4 Comparison of price received by the farmers vis-à-vis price paid by the consumers As seen in Table 4. Hence. reasonable price.00%) and once a week (10. reasonable price. In the modern supply chain. quality of produce. better packed vegetables which were very good. timings.3 Buying pattern and reasons for buying vegetables from a particular formats by the consumers in the supply chain 5. wide range of products availability.1 Buying pattern of consumers in the different formats in the supply chain in each purchase In the Table 4.24 the consumers buying pattern of vegetables in aggregate average in each purchase was showed that highest quantity purchased was 0. In traditional. wide range of products are available.3. wide range of products. The price spread was highest in traditional supply chain that is Rs.00%).61 kg respectively.00%). proximity. in modern supply chain the consumers visited daily and alternate day but the prices were comparatively higher than the cooperative format and hence the quantity purchased was slightly lower. discount price which were the factors in the same order considered by the consumers to purchase from traditional retail format.00%) and once a week (5. better suited time. But the chain having the smallest price spread is most efficient.10 per kg in cooperative and modern supply chain. daily and once a week and hence the quantity purchased was higher in traditional supply chain compared to modern supply chain. Similarly.25 that.

failing in assessment of demand. These were due to large number of intermediaries and malpractices of buyers. Hence. due to improper handling and spoilage of vegetables.price spread is twice the price spread of modern and cooperative supply chain. price fluctuation. In modern supply chain the retail outlets. The problems were due to high price fluctuation which depends on the arrival and season of vegetables. no proper planning for procurement.5. no proper planning for assessment of demand. The results are in conformity with Gopalan and Gopalan (1991). the retail formats faced mainly the problems such as inadequate physical facility for the shop. retail formats and consumers in the supply chain 5.27) that the problems faced by farmers. absence of wide range of products. more physical losses of produce. less physical losses of produce with proper handling and storage facility. . inadequate transportation facility which is costlier too. In the modern supply chain. the major problems faced were malpractices of buyers. Therefore in the modern retail formats also needs to be develop the capacity to cope with price fluctuation and extending wide contractual arrangement for varied products regularly by better planning.1 Problems faced by farmers in selling the vegetables in different supply chain and their expectations It was evident from the results (Table 4. Hence it was expected to build the capacity with the cooperatives to lessen the price fluctuation with proper planning for procurement. In the cooperative supply chain. failing in assessment of demand and procurement problems. more physical losses of produce. in traditional supply chain.5 Problems and expectations of farmers. but not credit facility. Hence it expected an adequate physical shop facilities and guidance to cope with the problems by providing training in retailing activities in the urban areas. lack of market information. the financial assistance in the cooperative formats may be created by having contract farming activities.5. Hence. In the cooperative supply chain. procurement problems and timely availability of produce in the same order. assessing the demand at right time and proper planning of procurement respectively. 5.28 the problems faced by retail outlets. the retail outlets faced a major problems such as price fluctuations. in the traditional supply chain. Respective problems were due to less amount for investment. lack of transportation facility and lack of storage facility. and high competition from the outside markets. 5. This may be due to the reason that even the cooperative format provided all the services to the farmers. failing in assessment of demand. lack of transportation facility. no proper planning for assessment of demand and no proper planning for procurement respectively. procurement problems and private competitors in the market. timely supply of vegetables. Hence farmers expected proper regulation of market to avoid the malpractices. and lack of contracting agencies. companies may make needed credit facility. faced the major problems such as price fluctuation. the problems faced by the farmers mainly the financial assistance from company.2 Problems faced by retail outlets and in marketing of vegetables in different supply chain and expectation by retail outlets As shown in Table 4. provide the market facilities farmer door steps and good storage facility at the farm level and in market. company to support with market information and to procure only from the contracted farmers by providing contract agreement. improper handling and no proper storage facility leads to physical loss of produce. high price fluctuation which depends on arrival and season for that vegetables. the farmers selling their produce to modern format faced with the problems such as lack of financial assistance from any company. This was mainly because of lengthy chain in traditional format.

Hence the consumers expected hygienic condition by maintaining cleanliness in the market.3 Problems faced by consumers in buying the vegetables in different supply chain and their expectation The problems as opined by the consumers in buying the vegetables as indicated in Table 4. good packing needs to be adopted in order to influence the quantity purchased by the farmers.5.29 showed that. Respective problems faced by consumers were due to no proper cleanliness maintained in retail outlet. no proper packing. Hence it was expected to take up proper promotional tools and proper packing facility by cooperative retail outlets. in traditional supply chain.5. . The major problem was due to timings was not convenient to consumers and consumers expected to extended the timings by the modern retail formats. no proper packing facility adopted by them and to make up the high cost incurred by them in the long channel of trade. the retail formats faced the major problems such as majority are opined that there is unhygienic condition. In modern supply chain. In the cooperative supply chain the consumers buying from the cooperative retail format faced the problems such as no proper promotional tools and no proper packing. the major problem the consumers faced is timings of the retail outlet only. very high prices in the same order. The problems were due to non adoption of promotional tools by cooperative retail outlets and easy packing facility was not given by them.

With 2/3 of population still dependent on agriculture and contributing about 20% to Indian GDP. Mainly three models of Supply chain techniques were selected. The present study pertains to the Karnataka state in general and Bangalore urban district in particular. SUMMARY AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS India is land of agriculture diversity. in the final stage the consumer who purchased the vegetables from each supply chain was selected. speaking diverse languages and of different food preferences. Though India spends over 12 percent of its GDP on logistic and supply chain management customer value provided is unsatisfactory. 4) To compare the price received by farmers vis-a-vis price paid by the consumers in the traditional and modern supply chains 5) To identify the problems and expectations of producers in transacting under traditional and modern supply chain formats. Since. multistage random sampling technique was adopted. They were traditional. This area becomes even more important in the sector of agribusiness because most of the agricultural products are perishable and have a very short shelf life. cultures. the following objectives were formed for detailed study. Similarly. This ranges from 35-65 paise per rupee. At the initial stage farmers were selected in each chain who sold their produce in selected Supply chain. occupations. many fruits and vegetable markets and numerous financial and educational institutions. To evaluate the objective of the study. It is the IT and BT hub of India. 2) To compare the marketing efficiency between traditional and modern supply chains 3) To compare the factors influencing the effectiveness of supply chain in the modern formats as compared to traditional formats. Bangalore has a pleasant climate. in Bangalore city many supply chain formats have opened their outlets at many places. This low realization can be attributed to large number of intermediaries present in the chain between producers farmer and ultimate consumer. The retail formats have made Bangalore as their focal point of managerial operations many vegetable growing districts surrounded the Bangalore city farmers growing their produce in these surrounding districts bring their produce to wholesale vegetable market and to emerging retail formats established in Bangalore. the condition of Indian farmers is still miserable. management information and financial systems needed to transfer goods and services from point of production to point of consumption in an effective and efficient manner. the capital city of Karnataka is one of the biggest cities of India and is also fastest growing metropolitan and cosmopolitan in nature.6. which is a home place of different religions. In the second stage. In the third stage retail formats from each supply chain was selected. intermediary and consumer get their objectives fulfilled. Supply chain management plays an integral role in keeping business costs at a minimum and profitability as high as possible. international air ports. The main reason for this can be accounted due to poor price realization by the farmers in consumer rupee. . intermediaries involved in the supply chain specially in traditional supply chain of vegetable marketing where large number of intermediaries existed . Supply chain management and logistics have become the crucial areas of management and national focus. that is farmer get proper price realization in consumer rupee. hence to counter this problem what is needed is a development of a proper supply chain so that farmers. Bangalore. Keeping this view in order to asses the efficiency and effectiveness of supply chain management strategy followed in vegetable marketing. with industrial estates. The specific objectives of the investigation are : 1) To study the comparative roles played by the intermediaries in the traditional and modern supply chains in vegetable marketing. castes. Supply chain management is defined as the design and operation of physical. intermediaries get their required margins and consumer get good service and product at affordable price. co operative and modern Supply chain.

Simple conventional method of tabular analysis was used to study the pricing efficiency. value added and price received by them. factors influencing Supply chain. Primary data regarding the marketing efficiency of the Supply chain for the year 200708 was collected from the farmers with respect to cost of marketing. Only 5 farmers were available doing direct business with these formats hence only these 5 farmers were selected. 15 retail formats and 60 consumers were selected in aggregate from all the supply chain format models. 20 farmers. in Cooperative supply chain. Highest percentage of all functions (100%) provided by cooperative supply chain as compared to modern and traditional supply chain because of better network of cooperative organizations with farmer both backward and forward links. quantity sold. Thus a total of 45 farmers. Similarly. carrot and capsicum in modern supply chain whereas in cooperative supply chain it was 75 per cent of farmers in cabbage and 100 per cent in tomato. Namdhari. 5 traditional retail formats and 20 consumers were selected randomly. 100 per cent of the farmers used the gunny bag to pack the vegetables. in the Traditional supply chain. grading service. Comparative roles played by the intermediaries and firms in the supply chain The functions performed by the contracting firms were to provide advisory functions and services such as assembling service. Carrot. This was mainly because of the insistence of the contracting firms to the farmers to pack the vegetables in plastic boxes specially in cooperative and modern formats as compared to traditional formats. factors influencing the supply chain. retail formats and consumers in the Supply chain was worked out. Marketing efficiency of different formats in the supply chain In the material used for packing vegetables by different formats in the supply chain indicated that.34 per cent in traditional supply chain at farmers . 100 per cent of farmers in all the vegetables used the plastic boxes to pack vegetables such as tomato. The percentage of wastage to the total quantity procured was 6. the data regarding the roles played by intermediaries and contracting firms. 4 intermediaries. Similarly. carrot and capsicum. Findings of the study The most important findings of the study are summarized below. Averages and percentage analysis were used to examine the roles played by the intermediaries and contracting firms. in Modern Supply chain. no intermediary involved in the other format of supply chain. problems and expectations of the farmers. retail formats in each type of formats was decided keeping in mind the time. Reliance. Thirdly. 20 farmers. Physical losses in the supply chain Physical losses occurred at the wholesaler level in the traditional supply chain only since. retail formats and consumers were also collected through structured schedule by personal interview. Fabmall. 5 retail formats and 20 consumers were selected at random that is from the organisations of Hopcoms and Safal working under Cooperative units. However the total size of the sample with respect to farmers. Secondly. resources and availability of sample for the investigator. selling price and commission received by the intermediaries or by any firms. which contains indicators such as physical losses involved. Cabbage. problems and expectations of the producers.Firstly. Spencer. Capsicum were selected which were commonly delt in large quantities in all the selected models of supply chain for detailed analysis. For the homogeneity only 4 vegetables namely Tomato. 5 farmers. the vegetable such as tomato was packed in plastic boxes by 90 per cent of the farmers and 10 per cent of the farmers used the wooden box. 5 retail formats and 20 consumers was selected at random from the organisations of modern retail firms such as Subhiksha. In case of traditional format. the data on cost and return obtained by the market intermediaries as well as by the retail formats were obtained through interview through structured schedule. 4 intermediaries. cabbage. carrot and capsicum used plastic boxes for packaging. But for the other vegetables such as cabbage. packing services and storage service.

33 kg respectively because of better network of cooperatives.33 kg and 7. it was less in modern retail units format due to better handling facility.42 and Rs.91 per quintal respectively. 55.76 per kg. Hence. Among the costs incurred by the farmers.57 and Rs.65 kg and Rs. This variation was depending upon the spread of network of retail outlets. This difference in cost was mainly because of the length of the channel. cooperative retail format and modern retail format level in the supply chain respectively.97.00 per quintal and Rs. 0. cooperative and modern supply chain respectively. 40.28 per cent. The price per kg received by farmer was very high in modern supply chain that is Rs. On an aggregate average the value was Rs. However. Cost incurred in the supply chain Aggregate average cost of marketing per quintal by farmers was Rs. Pattern of purchases of vegetables per day by different retail formats The quantity purchased by traditional. At the retail format level aggregate average quantity handled per day and net returns obtained was highest in cooperative supply chain (40. Disposal pattern of produce Quantity sold per farmer in different supply chain showed that the highest quantity was sold in traditional supply chain that is 18. 8. This was because of small and individual units does not have a planning and organised way of purchase and selling as compared to cooperatives and modern units as to make this difference in purchase.1 kg and Rs. This may be because at retail level again the vegetables are cleaned and packed after removing the spoiled vegetables.90 per kg respectively). Marketing efficiency of different formats The index of marketing efficiency was found out to be 1. Whereas it was Rs. 179. Whereas. 42. 98.96. 1. 66. However. 7. Buying management by forms in different formats of the supply chain Traditional retail format purchased the same quantity every time but cooperative and modern retail format purchased based on previous day/week/month sale and demand. cooperative and modern supply chain respectively.75 per quintal and Rs. 6.27 per cent to the total quantity procured in the traditional retail format. All these differences mainly due to the net work of retail outlets and length of the channel in the supply chain. it was due to service charges in cooperative supply chain.10 and 4.86 in traditional. Rs. 2.633 per kg respectively).level. 116. cooperative and modern retail format on an average was 13. 9. 112. the index of marketing efficiency of the different formats indicated that modern supply chain was found to be more efficient than cooperative and traditional supply chain because of low operational cost sand physical losses in the supply chain resulted in more producers net price to total gross marketing margins.70 per kg than traditional supply chain that is Rs. cooperative and modern retail formats respectively. .65 kg and 18. 83.35 kg respectively. 279. The net returns were Rs.47 kg and Rs. This was followed by modern supply chain (20.35 kg. However. the major component was found to be commission charges which was higher in the traditional format. With higher variation in frequency of sale of vegetables by farmers was found in traditional supply chain than cooperative and modern supply chain. it was less in modern supply chain in which the farmers needs to incur only transportation and packaging costs.48 kg than in cooperative and modern supply chains that is 17. 0. physical losses at the retail format level in the supply chain was 12. Rs.92 respectively to the commission agents and wholesalers.10.32 for traditional.08 per cent and 7. Cost and return in the supply chain At the intermediary level in the supply chain on an aggregate level the cost incurred by commission agent and wholesaler was Rs.98 involved in the business of traditional. 11.79 per kg respectively) and traditional supply chain (11.89 per kg in cooperative supply chain. This was all because of the efficiency in operation by modern format of the supply chain.

Majority of consumers visited daily and alternate day in cooperative and modern supply chain and it was thrice or once a week in traditional supply chain. 37. 375. Comparison of price received by the farmers vis-à-vis price paid by the consumers The price spread was highest in traditional supply chain that is 8.10 in cooperative and modern supply chain.09. which was followed by 4. POLICY IMPLICATIONS 1.50 and Rs. Pattern of sale of vegetables by different retail formats per day The quantity sold by traditional. Which is beneficial to both for consumers and marketing system to operate effectively. 3. As the number of intermediaries get reduced with the organization of growers will lead to more and more contract cultivation and when provided with cold chain facilities will help the farmers with better bargaining power.07. the supply of vegetables by farmers to retail formats brings in new form of organizing production based on . Rs. 0. The physical losses are more in traditional format as compared to other formats due to less use of modern packaging materials. Buying pattern of consumers On an aggregate average the quantity purchased by consumers was 0. cooperative and modern retail format on an average was 10.71 kg. cooperative and modern retail formats respectively which depends on the type of vegetables and price at which the vegetable purchased by the consumers. 122. 9. Hence. Hence. Therefore all farmer should be made aware about the benefits of use of plastic crates in packaging vegetables and transportation in suitable vehicles in an organized system which may reduce heavy losses and increase the efficiency in operation of vegetable marketing. Therefore.80 kg respectively and the total value for the quantity sold on an average was Rs.50 kg and 18. Producer member are not well integrated in the supply chain. as compared to other formats of the supply chain.91 in traditional. This indicated higher quantity handled by the cooperatives because cooperative are well organized both from the point of procurement directly from the farmers and spread of retail outlet in different parts of the city as compared to other formats of supply chain. This was because of length of channel the traditional supply chain is performing in marketing vegetables.Agency from whom they buy was by the intermediaries in traditional retail format of supply chain was directly from farmers in cooperative retail format and in modern supply chain only because of traditional units procure from commission agents or wholesalers of the vegetables on daily or 2 days once basis but in cooperative was units for their procurement was mainly directly from farmers. and Rs. Hence. 5. The roles played by the different contracting firms with the farmers in production and marketing was performed to fewer extent in general and specially in traditional formats which was essential in any of the supply chain to be worked more efficiently in accordance with the demand of the domestic market in an oragnised format in general and specially in vegetable marketing. 9. Rs. The total value spent on quantity purchased in each purchase on an average was Rs. price spread was high in traditional format as compared to other formats where these working more efficiently. 221. 4. organized contracting farming activities in the vegetable production and marketing can be encouraged by providing more incentives to the cooperative organisations and companies. cooperative and modern retail formats respectively.61 kg from traditional.58 in traditional.24. cooperative and modern supply chain respectively. cooperatives and modern formats in marketing of vegetables in general and particularly in high production areas of vegetables with urban market centers on one hand and market information mechanism can be established on the other.10 and 4. Price spread was highest in traditional format. 10. by suitably integrating the members of the supply chain and maintaining the production and information flow within the organization will surely help to meet the demand in the market place providing satisfaction to the customers.31 kg.31. 2.76 kg and 0. it can be reduced by creating a network of farmers.

. This may further gives the scope for organized export business of vegetables.consumer demand.

. D. Agric.Supply Chain development. Domestic marketing channels of furniture in Taiwan. Ind.. Chain management and marketing performance in fruit industry. Brumfield. O. K. of Retail and Distribution Management. H.. Soc. and Chunhsen. Mktg. Prerequisites for value adding partnerships between trade and producers in the vegetable. channels and price spread in potato marketing. And James Stern. E. J.. I. S. Devaraja. Acharya. Food retailing in the 21 www.. of Hohenheim.. st century . Timothy Woods. 1995. and Boselie. Quarterly J. Am. L. 2000. Anil Kumar and Arora.bulcer..L. J. Agricultural Marketing in India. Anonymous. W.D. 2004. Published by Oxford and IBH. 1999. Mktg.. Retail and Distribution Management. R. D. Acta. Donald Ricks. 1996. Supply chain management for fresh vegetables: The key success factors from the producers point of view.. M. Food Packers.S.. and Fenwick. Marketing Distribution and marketing channels for fertilizers in Karnataka. Hort. 46 : 491-518. Agric. W. Strategies for Cost Management. 1974-75. D. Uni. 1998. Agric.A case study in Belgaum District. L. Anand and Ramesh.com/bmr/brand equity. . Econ.. R.12-15. Bülent Sezen.. Acta Hort. 536 : 661-658. “How store Image Affects Shopping Habits in Grocery”.. Biradar. in the Tropics and Subtropics. J. Business Today (South Anniversary Special Issue) January 7 p. 2000. 1998... Agric. J. 50 : 39-52.. 1998... 2007.. 28 (7) : 212-230.Growing sector. S. and Agarwal. Tschirley. 536 : 589-595 Bridge.. Can. Angela Maria Hau. New Delhi pp. O. 41 (1) : 19-21. Econ. Acta Hort. Ind. Fresh fruit and vegetable consumption patterns and supply chain systems in urban kenya: implications for policy and investment priorities. Sci. Agric. W. Mktg. Stakeholder perception analysis for Agri. Int. 13 (2) : 6-14.M. Hypermarket retail efficiency in Portugal. 1996. 49 (4): 53-57. and Lenz. M.. L.. D. 118 (3): 433-438. Ayieko. 37 (6) : 45-50. 2001. 2002.org. REFERENCES Acharya. Mktg. 12 (4): 251-267. ‘Food product opportunities’ A report. Brand Equity Measurement and Management. J. Buurma.. “Expected profit approach used in discount pricing decisions for perishable products”. Margins and price spread of selected Agricultural commodities in Kolhapur District. 2004. www.S.. Parrylhsiung. Matthias Von Oppen. A. Andrew Fearne. and Liminger. 1999. R. P. and Social Sci.riding a consumer revolution. Chandrashekaran. 1998. Maharastra. “Market Efficiency of Fruits and vegetables in Northern Thailand”. 536 : 625-633. Consumer tastes. 2006.. Agric.fmi.. Carlos Pestana Barros and Carlos Alberto Alves. Burke. Farm Management. and Mathenge. J.7. Chung.. Development Policy Rev. 32 (4) : 223-229.. Taiwan Uni. T. 159-162... 38 (4): 21-28. Int J.U. Doyle. 31 (11): 549-560. 1993. N. Hort. Post harvest management of Vegetables in Uttar Pradesh hills. 9 (7):357-364. 2000. The Experimental Forest of Nat. Building effective partnership in the meat supply chain: Lessons from the UK. 2005. preference and behaviour in purchasing of fresh tomatoes. Retailing. Adekya.htm. Bokelmann.. M.

J. 46 : 549-558.. MABM Thesis. The dynamics of fresh fruit and vegetable pricing in the supermarket channel. Agric. J. E. Mktg. C.. Ind. A study by Center of Planning and Econ. British Food J. S.Acta. and Shakila Nawaz. N..P. Business Performance analysis of agro-based industries in Belgaum district of Karnataka. Lars Fek.. B. 1999. Laura Garrido and Natacha Gentile. Hort.. Finland. Mane Rahul Rajaram. Mktg. B. Dynamics of consumer behavior in vegetable marketing. Sexton. and Hughes . S. 1997. 1980. Thesis. and Vijay Kumar. Fearne. S. and Rathore N. Int. Marketing efficiency of co-operative in Potato region in Tamil Nadu: an empirical study. “Retail . A.. W.A case of starch industry. Agric... 39 : 581-587. Ind. Mktg. “The revolution in retailing: from Market driven to Market driving”.. Horne Burg. Miriam Berges... wholesale and retail prices of Greek agricultural products”.. Long Range Planning. Hugar. Rosángela Di Paola. 536 : 599-605. and Gopalan. M. 28 (3) : 203-221. (2005).. Can. 45 (3) : 135-137. J... Int. G. Mc Laughlin. Preventive Medicine. Food Packers. Harvey Brookes and Pauline Molder. Murray Fulton. and Miller. Li Lan. Mark Gehlhar. J.. 102 (1) : 6 – 17.. 2004.. Waste potato quality judged by Consumers. Co-op. Development Policy Rev. 1999. D.Elsa Rodríguez. 4 (3) : 120-129. (India). Xia and Tian. Econ. and Gungor. 42 (1) : 53-59. Long Range Planning. J. Research (KEPE). 30 (6): 899-905. Uni.. Marketing of Vegetables in Belgaum city. “Success factors in the fresh produce supply chain: insights from the UK”. Agric. 2006. The Super store Formal in Australia: Opportunities and limitations. 18 (2) : 36-40. L.. “Food Retailers' Pricing and Marketing Strategies with Implications for Producers”.F. Uni. M... Agric. 1991. Pramanik.. Bangalore. B. Understanding modern cold chain. 4 (4) : 345-351. Rev. food Research. ..A case study of Mandi Milk Scheme. 30 (6): 830-835.. L. 2004. Karina Casellas. S. Richard. Food distribution Res. 2000 a & b. (2000) Buyer. "Brazil Retail Industry Forecast 2006-2010".. Julie Kenett. 2001. Rev. 1994. Merrilees.... 1996. Review of Retail. Supply chain management in cereal grains: A case study from the US milling wheat industry.. B. Hugar. Ganesh Kumar. Mktg. 1998. Agric.. White. Dharwad (India).. Supply Chain Management. Kumar. Distribution and Consumer Research. H.. J. Sci. Sci.. Economics of production and marketing of vegetables in Andaman and Nicobar islands. Beatriz Lupín. Ioanna Reziti. and Resource Econ.B.S. 2002. 2000. and Hubner. Relationship between produce supply firms and retailers in the new food supply chain. 31 (3) : 11-16. Disposal pattern and constraints in vegetable market: A case study of Raipur District of Madhya Pradesh.farm price margins growing rapidly” MTT Agric. (1999). 11: 20-30. 2006. Gupta. L.. 20 (4) : 429-439. Agric. Gungor.. Ind.Pourke..C.S. M. The Bihar J. 2003.supplier relationships in the UK fresh produce industry. D. Agric. and Raghobanshi. 1981.An economic analysis. An economic analysis of milk distribution . MSc. Gopalan. 52 (1) : 59-62. 23 (4): 45-56.. T. Marjatta Sihvonen. Jairath.. “ Consumer Behavior and Supermarkets in Argentina”.. 1997. Mc Cluskey and Desmond O’. Helen M. 11 (14) 105-123. The general structure of cutflowers marketing in Turkey and the role of auctions in marketing functions. “An investigation into the relationship between producer. H. Kartoffelbau.

Zahadnictvi Hort.. Ind. And James Stern. Quality in US fruit and vegetable marketing TAMRC. Sudha. K. A. B. Poot. Best practices in Supply chain management: The experience of the retail sector.. Sarin.. Economics of production and marketing of Vegetables: a case study in Patan black of Jabalpur district. 58 (3) : 78-81. 1998. Research paper in Institute of World Economics. Orth. K. 2004. Arun Pandit. Nath. C.. Ind. Agric. J. Mktg. Hort. 2002. Exporter USDA. 536 : 645-650. 2004. R. H. 34 (4) : 125-137. 30 (3) : 44-53. K. Agric. “Issues and challenges for organized retailing in India”. 40 (2) : 18-20. Econ. Nalini R. 26 (3) : 107115. Report. Rev. Mohammed Jaffera.. J.Mohamed Zairi. 1997. Sen.V. Mark. Mktg.. S. Food Distribution Res. Sailja. pp.P.. South Ind. Ind. Mktg. Timothy Woods. 2000. D.. M. Ind. Subha. S. J. V. K. 2003. V. Ind. Choudary. Ind... N. Ind. 1991.. 46 (1-2) : 119-121. T. M. Econ. J. Potato Assoc. 2005. Mktg. Management of milk procurement at the village by cooperative. European J. 34 (1) : 14-15. 20 (1) : 49-60. Singh. J. Ind. Agric... M. Marketing Losses and their impact on marketing margins : A case study of banana in Karnataka. Sangyong.. R. 31 (3) : 16-21. 40 (2) : 18-20. J.. Res. “An anatomy of marketing of groundnut in Andhra Pradesh”. Mktg. Somayajulu.P. J. A and Namasivayam. E.K. Singh. Mktg. Ind. Food Packers. “Marketing cost of banana in Theni district. P. Competition assessment for retail outlets... 48.. P.A. 2007. and Venkataramana.. A. P. and Rao. Resource uses efficiency on vegetable farms. K.. V. T. Singh. J. J.. U. Pankaj Ghemavat and Ken A. 25 (4) : 11-17. and Sharma. Efficiency benefits pass on to consumers: New development in retail market environment in India. Marketing effectiveness foe industrial goods. Agric. Agri. D. N. Innovation Management. Agric.. G. M.. C. Sanjeev Gupta and Rolf. Ricks Donald. 1999. Mktg. and Dakshinamoorthy.A case study. Agric. 1993. Price spread analysis of potato marketing at Shimla.R. P. Tamil Nadu”. 2002. Mueller.. Mktg. Mktg. private and public sector organisation .. Jonkman.V. J. Raju. Food Packers. Economics of production and marketing of vegetable : A case study in potato block of Jabalpur district. N. 2004. 5 (4) : 4548. and Maurya.. Sci. Pandey. Kiel. 1 (2):59-66. 1992.. 36 (1): 8-11.. 41 (2) : 29-31.. Acta Hort. Chain information to support Dutch Supply Chain effectiveness.. M. Naidu. 1982 “Inter temporal pricing efficiency in agricultural markets: The case of slaughter hogs in West Germany”. 1999. “IT @ organized retail management”. Managing supply chain management. Strategies of sourcing and pricing. Sreenivas Murthy.. 1998. (2000). R.. Consolidation Characterizes Growth in South Korea’s Retail Food Sector.M. Promoting small scale fruits and vegetables processing industries through Cluster Development Programmes... Consumer and Product Mkt.B. Kumar and Rana. Agric. 41 (2) : 32-34. Res. 1996. Suneel Arora and Mukesh Vyas. and Tirupathaiah.E..R. Marketing of vegetables in Sewapuri Block.G. B. American J. Agric. “Supply Chain Management Improving Vertical Coordination in Fruit Industries”. Dekker. . Narayana Reddy. 2006. and Splinter. 30 (1-2): 99-200. 1998.M. 1983. Nicholos. Gajanana.. 34 : 23-25. Mktg. 5 (1) : 51 -60.

. Mktg. J. and Julio.. 35 (6) : 32-34. P. Susanta. N. 2000. K..H.The National objective”.. Sci.“The Spread of organized retailing in India. Agric. Mktg. 20 (4) : 317-334. Udaya. Agric. V. “Key challenges facing the cherry supply chain in the U. Mktg.. British Food J. K.. J.H. Vijay Durga Prasad. Food Packers.V. 98 (6) : 9-1. F. J. 2005.. Agric. Tom Fox and Bill Vorley.. “The supply chain of perishable products in Northern Europe”.. Dharwad (India). 2007... Wermund.K”.. Gaining competitive advantage through Supply chain management. (1996). Timothy. H. Wilson. Ind. Venkateshwarlu. Ind. 2002.Suresh Reddy. Acta Hort. Uni. Sci. 2006. Berdegue. Rivalry in Price and Variety among Supermarket Retailers. Ind. . Marketing management of pesticide in Raichur district. 40 (3) : 4446.with special reference to Vijayawada city”. Final report of the “Race to the Top” project by International Institute for Environment and Development. Ind J.C. Agric. “Integrated Post Production Management N Food Processing. 2003. Thesis. 2007. 536 : 613-619. Vedini.. 1997 “ Cost and margins in jasmine flowers marketing”. Richards and Stephen. “The Rapid Rise of Supermarkets in Latin America : Challenges and Opportunities for Development”. MSc. 88 (3): 710-726. 47 (5) : 3-9. Thomas. and Fearne. R. J. U. Roy.. 2001. “Small vs Mall”. Development Policy Rev. 2002.A. 55 (2):76-84. 47 (10) : 29-34. and Ranjani. A.. Econ. American J.

Other specify a. Wooden boxes 3.APPENDIX – I No : Date : FARMER 1. Name of the respondent Village Taluk Name the vegetables that are grown To whom you sell vegetables : : : : : 6. 4. Gunny bag 2. 1. Are you have an agreement to sell to particular agency Yes/No. Material Total cost (per qtl) . Labour b. 2. of delivery delivered which it is at each delivered time Total value Total qty delivered in a week Total amount 8 A. No. 3. 5. Disposal of the produce to different agencies Sl. Vegetables Frequency Qty to be Price at No. Mode of packing and its costs Sl. Vegetables Frequency / time of sale Qty sold (qtls) Place of sale Agency income sold Price received (per qtl) Total amount Commission Basic Value 7. Qty packed Cost incurred a. Mode of packing No. b. If yes Sl.

Getting storage and transport facility by them g.Mode of transport B. Contract arrangement with them for quantity ii. Mode of transportation and its cost Qty Distance Hired / Transportation transported covered owned cost per qtl. Contract arrangement with them for quality . Provide credit facility b. Spot payment i. ii. Proximity c. Service rendered by them e. Remunerative price j. Less charges for the service iii. Less physical loss d. iii. a. where they sell. Any other cost incurred in selling the produce Item of cost Labour charges for cleaning at farm level Loading and unloading Weighment charges Commission charges Other specify i. Cut in margins – may be through i. Reduction in number of intermediaries ii.. Reason for the sale of produce at a particular agency i. Others specify i. Provision for technical guidance f. Amount (per bag) Total amount Remarks 9. transport Total transport cost Cost incurred Loading charges Total loading charges Unloading charges Total unloading charges C. Correct weight k. Absence of middlemen h.e. Less charges l.

Nearness of selling unit/place b. Good grading f. Other specify i. Lack of cold shelf facility i. No malpractices should be followed at selling unit e. Good transportation facility c. Dishonoring of contract iii. iii. Lack of grading facility f. Market information at right time d. Other specify – i. Lack of storage facility h.iii. Expectations of the farmer a. Lack of contracting agencies ii. Credit facilities by companies j. Lack of financial assistance from any company j. Transportation facility (i) Inadequate (ii) Costly c. Immediate payment after the sale of produce k. Delay in payment and sale proceeds k. ii. 10. Contract arrangement with them for price iv. 11. Lack of market information d. Presence of contract sales l. Good packing facility s h. . Cold shelf facilities during storage of produce i. Problems faced by the farmers a. Good storage facility g. Malpracices of buyers e. Lack of packing facility g. Far off location of selling unit b.

b. III. 9. c. II. d. 4. 5. c. if yes. a. b. Owned funds b. I. Sl. quantity for procurement / any amount Time of delivery of produce and place of delivery of produce by the clients Physical functions Assembling activities activities/ cleaning. d. i. a. grading Yes/ No Qty Price Total value Packing activities Storage activities Credit facilities .Appendix – II INTERMEDIARIES 1. 8. a. g. Borrowed funds c. : a. c. 3. From how long you are in the business : Do you make outright purchases in the field and transport on your own ? What facilities do you provide to the producer who brings his produce for sale Particulars Advisory roles The time of planting Varieties to be planted Extending physical facilities Supplying the pesticides Supplying the seeds Supplying the fertilizers Supplying the credit Procuring at the farmer door steps / Provides the transport facility Are they are grading at farmer level or by trader Quantity procured : is any fixed quantity. 7. b. f. e. Interest rate on borrowed funds Vegetables handled : : : : : Individual/partnership / any other 6. No. 2. b. II. Name of Respondent Age Education Type of ownership Investment made in business a. h.

No. Assembling and transportation Sl. c. Name of the vegetables % of waste Qty Value % of good grade Qty Value % of qty FAQ Value Remaining % Qty Value . Name of the vegetables % of waste Qty Value % of good grade Qty Value % of qty FAQ Value Remaining % Qty Value iii. Name of the vegetables % of waste Qty Value % of good grade Qty Value % of qty FAQ Value Remaining % Qty Value ii. 11. what is the basis for it a. Cleaning and grading Sl. No. V. Retailing activities Other specify a. Sales and distribution Sl. Physical loss in different activity i. b.IV. b. c. Do you grade the vegetables ? If yes. No. Yes / No Size Colour Freshness 10.

No. Mode of packing Gunny bag Wooden box Other specify i. 17. Mode of packing and its cost Sl.12. c. 18. Weighment charges Commission charges Income tax Licence fee Shop rent (including electricity and other charges Market fee Establishment charges Maintenance charges Taxes paid Any other cost (specify) . 19. No. 16. b. 15. 21. Labour employed in marketing Sl. a. 20. 23. Mode of transportation and its cost Mode of transportation Qty transported Distance covered Hired / owned Cost incurred Loading charges Total loading charges Unloading charges Total unloading charges Transportation cost per qtl Total transportation cost 13. 22. Qty packed Cost incurred Total cost (per qtl) B. Employees Number Nature of work Salary Any other cost Total cost 14. ii.

No. Assembling and transportation Sl. Vegetable transaction per day A. Sales Sl. Cleaning and grading Sl. the waste vegetables % of good grade Qty Value % of qty FAQ Value Remaining % Qty Value ii. Vegetable No. Name of % of Qty Value No. d. Purchase / Procurement Sl. Name of % of No. Qty sold To whom produce was sold Price at which it was sold Total value of the product sold Method of sale Commission charged Basis Total amount 25.a. the waste vegetables Qty Value % of good grade Qty Value % of qty FAQ Value Remaining % Qty Value . 24. Physical loss in different activity i. Vegetable Qty purchased From whom purchased Price at which it was purchased Time or frequency of purchased Total quantity Total value B. b. c.

Problems faced by intermediaries A. the waste vegetables Qty Value % of good grade Qty Value % of qty FAQ Value Remaining % Qty Value 26. . Commission agent 1. 4. 3. 2. Name of % of No. Sales and distribution Sl. 9. 3. 8.iii. 8. 6. Lack of transportation facility 2. 7. Absence of grading facility Low sale absorption capacity of market Too much price fluctuation Lack of storage facilities Lack of knowledge about neighbouring market High tax payment High licence and other market fee Other specify i. 6. 7. 5. 5. B. ii. 1. Wholesaler Wholesale market is too conjusted High rent charges Lack of transportation facility Absence of grading facility Low sale absorption capacity of market Lack of storage facilities High tax payment Too much price fluctuation Other specify i. 4. 9. ii.

a. How much Employment pattern : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Number Family Male Female Hired Male Female 13. Cost of transaction for the retailers : Yes / No. c. Yes / No. Do you grade vegetables If yes. __________/Unit 16. Sole proprietor / Partnership Rs.) Rs. 6. 8. d.Appendix III TRADITIONAL RETAIL OUTLETS 1. Do you incur any packing cost ? If yes Total cost Rs. total Cost. _______ Per _______Years Rs. 7. Rs. b. 2. 11. 12. _________ / Unit 15. Name Place Year of establishment Owned /rented/leased Ownership of the business If owned average rent for the same in that area If leased Initial investment incurred to set up the shop Vegetables usually handled Do you have cold shelf facility ? Rent Electricity Maintenance Others What are the taxes you pay to the Govt. Do you incur any transportation cost ? If yes. : : : Yes / No Yes / No Salary / month (Rs. 4. 5. Rs. basis of grading 14. 3. 10. 9. ___________ .

Total quantity sold daily i. iv. Vegetable sold : Sl. iv. No. Particulars Total quantity procured daily i. 3. Vegetable purchase Sl. No. iii. Total cost per day including cost of procurement Total cost per day including sale of procurement Commodity Qty Price Value 2. Total quantity of selected commodities handled daily and their value Sl. No. Name of vegetable Qty sold Price / unit Total value Qty unsold Wastage Qty Value To whom sold Remarks Qty Value per per month month 17. iii. 18. 4. I. ii. Name of vegetables Qty purchased Price unit Total value Frequency of purchased From whom purchased Qty purchased Values per month b. Particulars Buying activities Buy the same quantity every time Buy based on previous days/weeks/months sale Buy based on coming days / weeks / months expected demand II. 1. Planning for procurement of vegetables (or) How do you decide about the quantity of stocks to be purchased Sl.a. No. ii. Agency from whom he buys : Tomato Qty Value Qty Value Qty Value Qty Value .

d. c. grading activities Packing activities Storage activities Credit facilities Retailing activities Other specify i. iii. f. IV. b. V. ii. Intermediaries (wholesaler/commissi on agent) III. Every day ii. e. Total value 20. a. e. Particulars Yes/No Qty Price No. b. Advisory roles The time of planting Varieties to be planted Extending the physical facilities Supplying the seeds Supplying the pesticides Supplying the fertilizers Procuring at the farmer door steps / provides the transport facility Are they are grading at farmer level or by trader Quantity procured is any fixed quantity procurement / any amount Time of delivery of produce and place of delivery of produce Physical functions Assembling activities / cleaning. g. a. a. Farmers ii. Every week 19. Problems faced by the retailer Inadequate physical facilities Absence of grading facilities Absence of storage facility Lack of transportation facility Price fluctuation (wide and low) Non-availability of suitable weighing facilities . f. II. d. c. II. III. b. c. b. I.i. a. Inventory maintained i. Do you provide any facilities to the producer who brings his produce for sale Sl.

g. j. iii. e. a. c. j. 21. k. i. l. Expectation of the retailer Good physical facilities Less charges Less price fluctuation Good grading. ii. d. i. Failing in assessment of demand Procurement problems More physical loss of produce / storage loss Timely supply Other specify i. storage and packing facility Good transportation facility Meeting he customer requirement / Rendering all customer service Right planning for procurement Less handling loss of produce Right market information Timely availability of produce Timely supply to consumer Assessing the demand at right time . k. h. h. b. f.g.

5.Appendix IV COOPERATIVE RETAIL OUTLETS (HOPCOMS/SAFAL) 1. b. 4. sold Price / unit Total value Qty unsold Wastage Qty Value To whom sold Qty procured per month Value procured per month . 11. 7. 12. Vegetables Qty Price / unit Total value From whom From where Frequency of purchase b. Transaction of vegetables by cooperative outlets : : : : : : : : : : : : a. c. 8. 2. Vegetable Qty No. Vegetable sold Sl. Name Place Vegetable usually handled Transportation cost What are the taxes you pay to the Government Packing cost Maintenance cost Labour charges Loading and unloading charges Cleaning charges Any other cost a. 3. No. Vegetable purchased Sl. 10. 6. 9.

iv. II. Total cost per day including sale of procurement Price Value 15. iii. Intermediaries (wholesaler/commissi on agent) Inventory maintained i. ii. b. Total quantity procured daily i. Particulars Commodity Quantity No. No. b. a. Every week 16. How do you decide about the quantity of stocks to be purchased Sl. ii. a. Particulars Qty Buying activities Buy the same quantity every time Buy based on previous days/weeks/months sale Buy based on coming days / weeks / months expected demand Agency from whom he buys : iii. Farmers iv. No. iii. Total cost per day including cost of procurement 4. Advisory roles The time of planting Varieties to be planted Extending the physical facilities Supplying the seeds Supplying the pesticides Supplying the fertilizers Procuring at the farmer door steps / provides the transport facility Particulars Yes/No Qty Price Total value Value Qty Value Qty Value Qty Value II. d. 1. Do you provide any facilities to the producer who brings his produce for sale Sl. iv. Every day ii. .14. Total quantity of selected commodities handled daily and their value Sl. Total quantity sold daily i. III. 2. c. 3. I. I.

II. V. l. f. 18. k. j. g. ii. a. b. ii. f. g. i. c. d. Expectation of the retailer Good physical facilities Less price fluctuation . Problems faced by the cooperative retailer Inadequate physical facilities Absence of grading facilities Absence of storage facility Lack of transportation facility / private contract transporters availability Price fluctuation Procurement problems Private competitors in the market Failing in assessment of demand Handling / storage loss Timely supply Failing in rendering service to customers Other specify i. a. a.e. grading activities Packing activities Storage activities Credit facilities Retailing activities Other specify i. h. b. b. IV. 17. c. e. iii. Are they are grading at farmer level or by trader Quantity procured is any fixed quantity procurement / any amount Time of delivery of produce and place of delivery of produce Physical functions Assembling activities / cleaning. iii. III.

c. i. d. e. h. k. f. Good grading. g. storage and packing facility Good transportation facility Good procurement planning Timely availability of produce Promotional tools to e taken up Less competitors from market Timely supply to consumer Assessing the demand at right time Other specify . j.

Appendix V MODERN RETAIL OUTLET 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Name Place Year of starting Owned/Rented / Leased If leased Number of staffs Salary / Month (Rs.) Vegetable handled Recurring cost (Rs.) Rent Electricity Maintenance Other 10. 11. 12. Transportation cost Packing cost Do you grade vegetables If yes, basis of grading 13. 14. 15. Loading and unloading charges Cleaning charges Any other cost a. b. 16. Do you have cold shelf facility Transaction of vegetables by company : : : : : : Yes/No : : : : : : : : Rs. _____ per _______ years : : :

a. Vegetable purchased Sl. No. Vegetables Qty Price / unit Total value From where Frequency of purchase

b. Vegetable sold Sl. No. Vegetable Qty Price / unit Total value Qty unsold Wastage Qty Value To whom sold Qty procured per month Value procured per month

18. Total quantity of selected commodities handled daily and their value Sl. No. 1. Particulars Total quantity procured daily i. ii. iii. iv. Total quantity sold daily i. ii. iii. iv. Total cost per day including cost of procurement Total cost per day including sale of procurement Commodity Quantity Price Value

2.

3. 4.

19. How do you decide about the quantity of stocks to be purchased Sl. No. I. Particulars Qty Buying activities Buy the same quantity every time Buy based on previous days/weeks/months sale Buy based on coming days / weeks / months Value Qty Value Qty Value Qty Value

II.

III.

expected demand Agency from whom he buys : i. Farmers ii. Intermediaries (wholesaler/commission agent) Inventory maintained i. Every day ii. Every week 20. Do you provide any facilities to the producer who brings his produce for sale

Sl. No. I. a. b. II. a. b. c. d. e. f. g. II. a. b. c. III. IV.

Particulars Advisory roles The time of planting Varieties to be planted Extending the physical facilities Supplying the seeds Supplying the pesticides Supplying the fertilizers Procuring at the farmer door steps / provides the transport facility Are they are grading at farmer level or by trader Quantity procured is any fixed quantity procurement / any amount Time of delivery of produce and place of delivery of produce Physical functions Assembling activities / cleaning, grading activities Packing activities Storage activities Credit facilities Other specify i. ii. iii. Problems faced by the company Procurement problems Price fluctuation Handling and storage loss Absence of wide range of products Quality of produce Timely availability of produce Failing in assessment of demand Timely supply Timings Lack of cold shelf facility

Yes/No

Qty

Price

Total value

21. a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m.

Lack of transportation, packing, storage and grading facility Maintaining items other than vegetables Other specify

g. ii. h. iii. Expectation of the retailer Very good procuring facility Cut in margin Wide range of products for customer satisfaction Less storage and handling loss Good cold shelf facility More promotional tools to be taken Credit sales to be encouraged Assessment of demand for the product in different days and occasions Good quality of produce Good store design and visual merchandising Timely availability of produce Good transportation. ii.i. storage and grading facility Other specify i. a. j. k. . c. i. m. b. d. packing. e. f. l. 22.

4. 14. c. 10.) : From where you are buying the vegetables Particulars Qty Local vendors HOPCOMS SAFAL Modern retail outlets Value Qty Value Qty Value Qty Value : : : : <10. 8. of people employed Family income per month (Rs. Mode of payment Reason for purchasing vegetable at a particular outlet Timely availability Proximity Quality of produce : : : : : Cash / Card .000 / 10-15000 / 15-20000 / 20-25000/ 25-30000 / 30-40000 / >40000 : : : : : : Employee / Employer Male / Female Primary / School / High school / PUC / Graduate / PG Male Female Sl. 9. 3. a.) in each purchase for selected commodities : Daily / Once a week / Twice a week Vegetables Price 13. 12. No. 2. 11.Appendix VI CONSUMERS 1. Frequency of purchase Amount spent on vegetables (Rs. No.) Monthly expenditure on vegetables (Rs. 6. Name Age : ________ Yrs _________ Occupation Sex Education Family size Adults Children 7. b. 5.

ii. l. d. c.d. e. design and visual . b. Good services rendered by the outlets Vegetables which are very good Others specify i. j. iii. Timing Common phobia to enter multinational stores Visual merchandising and store design Promoted by promotional tools and credit sales Advertisement Wide range of products are available Price • • • Reasonable High Discount : : : : : : : k. m. f. Problems faced by the consumers No timely availability of produce Absence of wide range of products Very high prices Quality of product is unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory responses rendered at a retail outlet and services : No proper promotional tools and sales on credit Inconvenience / not nearness of the retail outlets Unhygenic condition No proper store merchandising No proper packing No facility for feed back Timings of the retail outlet Other specify i. h. j. l. g. h. m. k. e. a. i. i. Better suited time : : : 15. g. f.

10. 5. iii. Timely availability of produce Less price Good quality of produce Convenience/nearness of retail outlets Maintain hygienic condition Good service and response by retailers Availability of wide range of products Good sore design visual merchandising Good packing facility More credit sales Timings of retail outlets should be extended Other specify i. 9. 12. iii. 11. Expectation of consumers 1.ii. 3. 4. 8. 7. ii. 6. . 2.

Rs. But. cooperative and modern supply chain was found out to be Rs. 2008 BASAVARAJ BANAKAR MAJOR ADVISOR ABSTRACT Supply chain management is more important in the sector of agribusiness because most of the agricultural products are perishable and have a very short shelf life. 4.31 per kg.6 per kg as compared to cooperative and modern supply chain i. Among the retail formats.63.e. 4. respectively. 8.SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT IN VEGETABLE MARKETING : A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS SHILPA K.97.63 respectively. 1. Hence.79 and Rs..e.01 and Rs. 15 retail formats and 60 consumers were selected in aggregate from all the supply chain format models. 4 intermediaries. Rs. The intermediaries were involved only in the traditional supply chain. Rs. At the same time modern and cooperative supply chain is having the smallest price spread of Rs. A total of 45 farmers.10 per kg respectively. 0. 1. 1.10 per kg and Rs.10 and 4. cabbage. 1. For the homogeneity of the products in which these formats dealing 4 vegetables namely. With highest marketing cost incurred by farmers in traditional supply chain as compared to cooperative and modern supply chain. cooperative and modern supply chain.32 for traditional. 0. Among the sample farmers highest marketing cost was incurred by farmers in traditional format of the supply chain i.80. modern supply chain was found out to be more efficient than cooperative and modern supply chain. 0. 2. 0. tomato.. Mainly three models of supply chain techniques were selected.. Hence these are found out to be efficient when compared to that of traditional supply chain which is having highest price spread i.e.46 per kg respectively. The index of marketing efficiency was found out to be 1. 0. Bangalore city was selected as the study area because of different formats practicing supply chain. the net return for one kg of vegetables was highest for cooperative retail format i. Rs.90 followed by modern and traditional retail format Rs.. carrot and capsicum were selected because there were commonly delt in large quantities in all the selected models of supply chain. cooperative and modern supply chain respectively. .83 per kg and Rs. the cost incurred per kg of vegetables by traditional. they were traditional.e. Hence it is advisable to the farmers to sell their produce through modern supply chain and cooperative supply chain.