Marketing costs and Price Spread Analysis for Citrus in Samba district of Jammu region Bhat Anil1,*, Kachroo Jyoti1, Singh S. P.1, Sharma Rakesh2 1Division of Agricultural Economics, ABM and Statistics, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Jammu, India 2SMS (Agricultural Extension), KVK, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Jammu, Jammu, India *Corresponding author: anilxxb@rediffmail.com
Online published on 16 September, 2015. Abstract The present study made a detailed analysis of citrus fruit by studying its marketing costs and price spread which is the important researchable issue for the said crop in Samba district. The marketing chain of three types mainly Producer → Forwarding/Commission agent → Retailer → Consumer, Producer → Retailer → Consumer and Producer → Consumer were followed in the sample area. The average per quintal marketing cost at producers’ level varied to the extent of  438.65, 264.00 and 226.67 per quintal for channel I, II and III, respectively. The average per quintal marketing cost borne by the retailer was found to be 30.95 and 19.40 in channel I and II, respectively whereas in channel III whole of the marketing cost i.e., 226.67 was borne by the producer as there was the direct marketing of produce. As far as the price spread analysis is concerned, the per quintal net price received by the producer was about 945.90, 1036.00 and 1073.33 which was about 44.00 per cent, 51.29 per cent and 82.56 per cent of the price paid by the consumer for channel I, II and III, respectively. A comparison of different channels thus showed that producers’ share in the consumers’ rupee was the highest in case of channel III as compared to other channels. Where in the consumer also paid the lowest price i.e., 1300.00 per quintal in channel III as compared to 2150.00 per quintal and 2020.00 per quintal in channel I and II, respectively which revealed that direct sale from producer to ultimate consumer was beneficial for both producer and consumer. The channel-III with marketing efficiency 4.74 was most efficient followed by Channel-II (1.05) and channel-I (0.79). Top Keywords Citrus, marketing cost, price spread, marketing efficiency, producer, retailer, consumer, forwarding agent. Top |