International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology

Vol-9, Issue-3; May-Jun, 2024

Peer-Reviewed International Journal
Journal Home Page Available: https://ijeab.com/
Journal DOI: 10.22161/ijeab

Study on Marketing of Jowar (Sorghum) in Bareilly

District of Uttar Pradesh
Shivam Kumar1, Dr. Sanjay Kumar2
1MBA (Scholar), SHUATS, Prayagraj, UP, India
2Assistant Professor, SHUATS, Prayagraj, UP, India

Received: 01 Apr 2024; Received in revised form: 11 May 2024; Accepted: 26 May 2024; Available online: 13 Jun 2024
©2024 The Author(s). Published by Infogain Publication. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Abstract— This research paper examines the marketing channels for Jowar (Sorghum) in Bareilly District,
Uttar Pradesh, focusing on the cost, margin, efficiency, and price spread associated with each channel. The
study identifies three primary marketing pathways: direct producer-to-consumer sales (Channel I), sales
through village merchants or retailers (Channel II), and sales involving commission agents and wholesalers
(Channel III). The research utilizes a systematic multi-stage stratified random sampling technique, collecting
primary data through personal interviews and secondary data from relevant sources. The results reveal that
Channel I, the direct marketing route, is the most efficient with the lowest marketing costs and a high
efficiency of 48.81. Channels II and III, incorporating intermediaries, exhibit significantly lower efficiencies
(5.87 and 5.15 respectively) and higher price spreads, indicating greater economic burdens for producers
and consumers. These findings highlight the detrimental impact of intermediaries on market dynamics. The
study advocates for reducing intermediary involvement to enhance marketing efficiency, improve producer
profitability, and ensure fair pricing for consumers. This strategy promises to empower local farmers and
promote sustainable agricultural practices.
Keywords— Marketing channels, Jowar (Sorghum), Efficiency, Price spread, Producer profitability

I. INTRODUCTION and Joshi, 2009). In this context, the role of intermediaries

The marketing of agricultural products is crucial for the in agricultural marketing has been a critical area of
economic empowerment of farmers and the overall investigation, with findings indicating that excessive
development of rural areas. In India, Jowar (Sorghum) is a intermediary involvement often leads to inflated consumer
significant crop, particularly in regions like Uttar Pradesh, prices and reduced producer profits (Gandhi et al., 2001;
where it contributes to both food security and income Murthy et al., 2007).
generation. This research focuses on the marketing channels The research builds on these insights by providing a detailed
for Jowar in Bareilly District, a key hub for Jowar examination of the marketing channels in Bareilly District.
production and marketing. Effective marketing strategies By understanding the dynamics and efficiency of each
can significantly impact the profitability and sustainability channel, this study aims to identify strategies that can
of agricultural practices, as highlighted by Pingali and enhance market access, reduce costs, and increase
Traxler (2002) and Acharya and Agarwal (2011). profitability for Jowar producers. The findings have
The study aims to analyze the cost, margin, efficiency, and significant implications for policy-making and the design of
price spread across different marketing channels, agricultural marketing interventions, contributing to the
employing a multi-stage stratified random sampling broader goal of sustainable agricultural development in
technique to ensure comprehensive data collection. India (Chand and Kumar, 2004; Birthal et al., 2005).
Previous studies have emphasized the importance of
efficient marketing systems for improving farmer incomes
and reducing post-harvest losses (Joshi et al., 2004; Singh

ISSN: 2456-1878 (Int. J. Environ. Agric. Biotech.)

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab.93.17 151
Kumar and Kumar Study on Marketing of Jowar (Sorghum) in Bareilly District of Uttar Pradesh

II. METHODOLOGY Marketing cost, marketing margin, marketing efficiency

The research methodology employed for this study involves and price spread in the marketing of Jowar
a systematic multi-stage stratified random sampling Table 2 Price Distribution of Jowar in Channel I
technique to thoroughly investigate the marketing S.No. Particulars Value in
mechanisms of Jowar in Bareilly District, Uttar Pradesh. INR/quintal
The first stage involved the purposeful selection of Bareilly
district due to its significant role as a key hub for Jowar 1. Producer Sale Price 2,500
production and marketing. Bareilly's extensive engagement Cost Incurred by Producer:
in Jowar cultivation aligns perfectly with the study's i. Packaging Cost 5
objectives to explore the economic advantages and
empowerment derived from Jowar-related activities. In the ii. Packing material cost 7.5
second stage, Shergarh block, which comprises 121 iii. Transportation Cost 20
villages, was specifically chosen for its highest
iv. Market cost 8
concentration of Jowar cultivation and marketing groups.
For the third stage, a list of villages in the selected block v. Labour cost 5
was obtained, and 5% were randomly selected, resulting in vi. Loading and unloading charges 10
six villages: Bhaunta, Jagat, Nagla, Rohali, Bisalpur, and
vii. Weighing charges 5
Lakha. In the fourth stage, 10% of respondents from each
village were randomly selected based on their land viii. Miscellaneous charges 3
holdings, totalling 100 respondents. ix Producer additional profit 436.5
To gain an in-depth perspective on the Jowar market's Total Marketing Cost (i-vi) 63.5
structure, market functionaries including retailers like Sakar
2. Sale Price to Consumers 3000
Daily Need Mart and Raashan Express, and wholesalers
such as Rama Pansari and Deva Foods, were selected. Data A. Total Marketing Cost 500
collection comprised both primary and secondary methods. B. Total Market Margin -
Primary data was gathered through personal interviews with
C. Marketing Efficiency 48.81
respondents using a well-structured, pre-tested schedule,
while secondary data supplemented the study and was D. Price Spread 500
sourced from block and district offices, relevant
organizations, and the internet. This comprehensive
Table 3 Price Distribution of Jowar in Channel II
methodological approach ensures detailed investigation into
the economic impacts and empowerment associated with S.No. Particulars Value in
Jowar marketing, cultivation techniques, market INR/quintal
accessibility, and profitability among local farmers. 1. Producer Sale Price 2,500
2 Cost Incurred by Producer:
III. RESULT i. Packaging Cost 5
Channels of Marketing for Sorgum ii. Packing material cost 7.5
Table 1 Different marketing channels involved in the iii. Transportation Cost 20
marketing of Jowar
iv. Market cost 8
Channel Producer > Consumers
I v. Labour cost 5

Channel Producer > Village Merchant/Retailer > vi. Loading and unloading charges 10
II Consumers vii. Weighing charges 5
Channel Producer > Commission Agent > viii. Miscellaneous charges 3
III Wholesaler > Consumers Total Cost 63.5
3 Net price received by producer 2466.5
4 Sale price of producer to 3100
Merchant/Retailer

ISSN: 2456-1878 (Int. J. Environ. Agric. Biotech.)

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab.93.17 152
Kumar and Kumar Study on Marketing of Jowar (Sorghum) in Bareilly District of Uttar Pradesh

5 Cost incurred by the Village Total cost(i-v) 58

Merchant/Retailer 6 Margin of commission agent 280
Loading and unloading charges 10 7 Sale price of commission agent 3438
Packing cost 5 to wholesaler
Market fee 8 8 Cost incurred by wholesaler
Losses & Miscellaneous 5 Weighing charges 5
charges Loading and unloading charges 10
Total Cost 60 Town charges 25
Margin of Retailer 500 Carriage up to shop 15
2. Sale Price to Consumers 3660 Miscellaneous charges 5
A. Total Marketing Cost 123.5 Total cost 60
B. Total Market Margin 500 9 Wholesalers Margin 270
C. Marketing Efficiency 5.87 10. Sale Price to Consumers 3,768
D. Price Spread 1160 A. Total Marketing Cost 181.5
B. Total Market Margin 550
Table 4 Price Distribution of Jowar in Channel III
C. Marketing Efficiency 5.15
S.No. Particulars Value in
D. Price Spread 1268
INR/quintal
1. Producer Sale Price 2,500
IV. DISCUSSION
2 Cost Incurred by Producer:
The research on marketing channels for Jowar reveals three
i. Packaging Cost 5 primary pathways: Channel I (Producer > Consumers),
ii. Packing material cost 7.5 Channel II (Producer > Village Merchant/Retailer >
Consumers), and Channel III (Producer > Commission
iii. Transportation Cost 20
Agent > Wholesaler > Consumers). Each channel exhibits
iv. Market cost 8 distinct characteristics in terms of marketing cost, margin,
v. Labour cost 5 efficiency, and price spread.
vi. Loading and unloading charges 10 In Channel I, the direct sale from producer to consumer
involves minimal intermediary costs, resulting in a producer
vii. Weighing charges 5
sale price of INR 2,500 and a consumer sale price of INR
viii. Miscellaneous charges 3 3,000. The total marketing cost incurred by the producer is
Total Cost 63.5 INR 63.5, yielding a marketing efficiency of 48.81 and a
price spread of INR 500.
3 Net price received by the 2466.5
producer Channel II introduces a village merchant/retailer into the
chain. The producer still receives INR 2,500, but after
4 Sale price of producer to 3100
deducting their marketing costs (INR 63.5), the net price is
Commission Agent
INR 2,466.5. The retailer then incurs additional costs (INR
5 Cost incurred by the commission agent 60) and adds a margin of INR 500, selling the Jowar to
Loading and unloading charges 10 consumers at INR 3,660. This channel results in a
significantly lower marketing efficiency of 5.87 and a wider
Packing cost 5
price spread of INR 1,160.
Market fee 8
Channel III, which involves a commission agent and a
Commission of trader - wholesaler, shows even more complexity. The producer's
Losses & Miscellaneous 5 initial sale price remains INR 2,500, with a net price of INR
charges 2,466.5 after costs. The commission agent incurs costs (INR
58) and earns a margin of INR 280, selling to the wholesaler

ISSN: 2456-1878 (Int. J. Environ. Agric. Biotech.)

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab.93.17 153
Kumar and Kumar Study on Marketing of Jowar (Sorghum) in Bareilly District of Uttar Pradesh

at INR 3,438. The wholesaler adds further costs (INR 60) determinants, and policy implications. Economic and
and a margin of INR 270, leading to a final consumer price Political Weekly, 39(24), 2457-2467.
of INR 3,768. This channel has the lowest marketing [6] Murthy, D. S., Sudha, M., & Dakshinamoorthy, V. (2007).
Marketing costs, margins and efficiency of vegetable crops in
efficiency at 5.15 and the highest price spread of INR 1,268.
Karnataka. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 20(2),
These findings indicate that the direct marketing channel 317-326.
(Channel I) is the most efficient, with the lowest costs and [7] Pingali, P. L., & Traxler, G. (2002). Changing locus of
highest efficiency, benefiting both producers and agricultural research: Will the poor benefit from
consumers. Conversely, the involvement of multiple biotechnology and privatization trends? Food Policy, 27(3),
intermediaries in Channels II and III significantly increases 223-238.
[8] Singh, R. P., & Joshi, P. K. (2009). Institutional innovations
the price spread and reduces marketing efficiency,
in agricultural marketing in India: A smallholder perspective.
highlighting the impact of intermediary costs and margins
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
on the overall market dynamics of Jowar.

V. CONCLUSION
The research on Jowar marketing channels in Bareilly
District highlights significant disparities in marketing
efficiency, cost, and price spread across different channels.
Channel I, involving direct sales from producers to
consumers, emerges as the most efficient with minimal
costs and a high marketing efficiency of 48.81. Conversely,
Channels II and III, which include intermediaries such as
village merchants, retailers, commission agents, and
wholesalers, demonstrate substantially lower efficiencies
(5.87 and 5.15 respectively) and broader price spreads.
These findings underscore the economic burden imposed by
intermediary involvement, which inflates consumer prices
and reduces producer profits. The study advocates for
strategies that minimize intermediaries to enhance
marketing efficiency, ensuring better returns for producers
and fair prices for consumers. This approach could
significantly empower local farmers, improve market
accessibility, and foster sustainable agricultural practices in
the region.

REFERENCES
[1] Acharya, S. S., & Agarwal, N. L. (2011). Agricultural
Marketing in India (5th ed.). Oxford and IBH Publishing Co.
Pvt. Ltd.
[2] Birthal, P. S., Joshi, P. K., & Gulati, A. (2005). Vertical
coordination in high-value food commodities: Implications
for smallholders. Markets, Trade, and Institutions Division
Discussion Paper No. 85. International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI).
[3] Chand, R., & Kumar, P. (2004). Trade Liberalisation, WTO
and Indian Agriculture. Mittal Publications.
[4] Gandhi, V. P., Kumar, G., & Marsh, R. (2001).
Agroindustry for rural and small farmer development: Issues
and lessons from India. International Food and Agribusiness
Management Review, 2(3/4), 331-344.
[5] Joshi, P. K., Gulati, A., Birthal, P. S., & Tewari, L. (2004).
Agriculture diversification in South Asia: Patterns,

ISSN: 2456-1878 (Int. J. Environ. Agric. Biotech.)

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab.93.17 154