INDEX

No. Particulars Page No

Executive Summary
Ch-1 THE INDUSTRY AND ORGANISATION PROFILE 1-20
1.1 Agrochemical industry 1-13
1.1.1 Agriculture: an overview 1
1.1.2 Global Market of pesticides and agro industry 2
1.1.3 Introduction of Agrochemicals 3
1.1.4 Broadly 5 Category of Crop Protection Product 3
1.1.5 Major Global Players in the Agrochemical Industry 4
1.1.6 World consumption overview 6
1.1.7 Indian scenario 6
1.1.8 Major fact Related to Pesticide Industry in India 7
1.1.9 Top Pesticides Companies in India 7
1.1.10 Pesticide Market by Consumption 8
1.1.11 Country wise pesticides consumption 9
1.1.12 Import Scenario of Pesticides 10
1.1.13 Export Scenario of Pesticides 11
1.1.14 Export challenges 11
1.1.15 Pesticide consumption in Haryana 12
1.1.16 Use of Chemical and Bio Pesticides in Haryana 12
1.2 About the Organisation 14-16
1.2.1 Introduction 14
1.2.2 Basic information 14
1.2.3 Product landscape 15
Ch-2 CUMIN CROP AND DISTRICT PROFILE 21-32
2.1 About cumin crop 17-20
2.1.1 Introduction 17
2.1.2 National cumin scenario 19
2.1.3 Cumin Exports from India 20
2.2 About Sirsadistrict 21-23
2.2.1 District profile 21
2.2.2 Basic information of the Sirsadistrict 21
2.2.3 Major crop profile in Sirsadistrict 22
2.2.4 Map of Sirsadistrict 23
Ch-3 THE PROJECT 24-24
3.1.1 Project title 24
3.1.2 Objectives of the study 24
3.1.3 Scope of the study 24
Ch-4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 25-28
4.1.1 Research design 25
4.1.2 Area of research 25
4.1.3 Source of data 25
4.1.4 Sampling design 25
4.1.5 Sampling unit 25
4.1.6 Sampling size 25
4.1.7 Distribution of sample 26
4.1.8 Research instrument 26
 4.1.9 Analytical tools 26
4.1.10 Limitations of study 27
4.1.11 Review of Literatures 27
Ch-5 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 32-71
5.1 Objective-1 32-42
5.1.1 Age of farmers 32
5.1.2 Education level of cumin growers 33
5.1.3 Number of family member 34
5.1.4 Farming experience of farmers 35
5.1.5 Annual income of farmers 36
5.1.6 Source of income 37
5.1.7 Land holding size 38
5.1.8 Age of dealers 39
5.1.9 Education level of dealers 40
5.1.10 Business experience of dealers 41
5.1.11 Types of business 42
5.2 Objective-2 43-71
5.2.1 Cumin grower 43
5.2.2 Area under Cumin cultivated 44
5.2.3 Most grown Cumin varieties by Farmers in study area 45
5.2.4 Major other crop grown in study area 46
5.2.5 Major Pest Problem in Cumin crop 47
5.2.6 Major diseases problem in cumin crop 48
5.2.7 Major weeds problem in cumin crop 49
5.2.8 Quantity of Pesticides Requirement 50
5.2.9 Expenditure done by the farmers on Pesticides for Cumin crop 51
5.2.10 Source of purchase pesticides 52
5.2.11 Terms of purchase 53
5.2.12 Choice of alternatives in case of credit availability 54
5.2.13 Satisfaction level of farmers 55
5.2.14 Factors considered by farmers while purchasing Pesticides 56
5.2.15 Promotional activities which influence farmers 58
5.2.16 Major challenges in cumin crop Farming 59
5.2.17 New pesticide for controlling pest 60
5.2.18 Dealers have a licence of farm pesticide 61
5.2.19 Number of pesticide companies for business 62
5.2.20 No. of villages covered for a business 63
5.2.21 Total business turnover of Dealers 64
5.2.22 Highest sold pesticide from dealer 65
5.2.23 Factor considered by dealer while selling pesticide products 66
5.2.24 Most popular pesticide in area according to reason 67
5.2.25 Most popular Pesticides according to Dealers 68
Factors considered by dealers while purchasing products from
5.2.26 69
Company
5.2.27 Satisfaction levels of dealers 70
5.2.28 Dealers suggested to company 71
SUGGESTIONS 72
FINDINGS 73-74
CONCLUSION 75
BIBLIOGRAPHY 76
ANNEXURES
-Annexure for farmers
-Annexure for dealers
 Executive Summary

Modern agriculture depends on the four main factors viz: water, fertilizers, seed and
pesticides. Pesticides are the integral part of modern agriculture and it is a crop saving input
for agricultural produce. About 35-45 % crop production is lost due to insects, weeds and
diseases, while 35% crop produces are lost during storage. The per capita consumption of
pesticides in India is 0.6 Kg/ha which is the lowest in the world. Latest reports suggests that
percentage share of different pesticides in India in total usage is insecticide 65%, Fungicide
15%, Herbicides 16% and others 4%.

An ISO 9001:2008 certified Krishi Crop Science India, established in the year 2012,
is
one of the leading manufacturers, wholesalers and suppliers of a wide range of supreme
quality Agriculture Bio Organic Products. The offered product range is inclusive of Plant
Growth Promoters, Plant Nutrients and Bio Pesticides. Known for its rich attributes such as
no photo toxicity or residual toxicity, the offered range of plant promoters and bio pesticides
is processed by using advanced processing tools. In addition to this, the offered range is
appreciated for its compositional accuracy and longer shelf life. Used in agriculture,
horticulture and floriculture, the offered pesticides and growth promoters are processed from
quality assured ingredients.

Personal interview method of Survey was utilized to collect data from total 200
farmers from 5 talukas each of Sirsadistrict, 50 Pesticide dealers for the study for
attaining the objectives stated above. For the collection of primary data questionnaires were
used. Secondary data was collected from internet, department of Agriculture and other
published reports.

Most of the farmers were under the age group 35-45 years. Majority of farmers in
study area had completed SSC and primary education. 43% of the farmers had 5-7 family
members. 47% of farmers had experience of farming more than 15 years. 33% farmers had
income between 1-2 lakh. 63% farmers the major source of income was only Agriculture.
Small and medium farmers were more in study area.100% farmers were growing cumin &
80.67% preferred cotton in large area compared to others crops. Most of the dealers come
under the age group of 35-45 years. Most of the dealers had completed SSC & HSC. Most of
the dealers had business experience of 5-10 years. Dealers in study area were high business
turnover.
 Majority of farmers preferred, “No-4” and “No-2” cumin varieties. They were facing
the problem of cut worm and it was damaging the cumin crop. They were facing the problem
of damping off in disease and problem of broadleaf in weeds. Expenses incurred for pesticides
between (i.e. Rs.4000-6000) in cumin crop. 81% farmers purchased pesticides from the
dealers. Majority of the farmers were satisfied. Farmers mainly consider factors like quality,
recommendation of dealers and credit facility while purchasing agrochemicals. Farmers were
highly influenced through demonstration & dealers suggestions. Cumin farmers were facing
the problems like attack of cut worm and lack of irrigation facilities etc.

Dealers mostly considered long term credit facility, quality, margin and demand etc.
Factors while selling pesticide to the farmers. They suggested quality and product
performance were major factors affecting the purchase decision of farmers as stated by
dealers. Many dealers were suggested that companies should increase the field demonstration
activities, competitive price with other brands and increase margin.

Company having good perception among dealers and farmers. However the market
share of Molecule is quite low. It needs to improve its promotional activity that is demo plot,
campaigning, farmers meetings and visit by company representative in order to increase its
market share. Also, Company should maintain quality of products, Reasonable Price and
demonstrations by effective promotions dealers’ services and support.
 Chapter: 1
Industry and
Organizational Profile
1.1 AGROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY

1.1.1 Agriculture: An overview:

Agriculture is defined as the backbone of Indian economy. Agriculture accounts for 22

percent of India’s GDP, approximately 60-70% per cent of the population is working in
agriculture. Village farming and modern agriculture are two major components of Indian
economy. In world output, India ranks first in production of milk, fruits, cashew nuts,
coconuts and tea; second in wheat, sugar, vegetables and third in tobacco and rice. Although
India has the second largest area of arable land in the world, its agricultural output,
particularly in wheat and rice does not reflect its great potential, with rapid population growth
and industrialization being contributing factors in low agricultural production vis-à-vis
production potential.

Agriculture sector need to be on boom if the country like India wants to feed its
increasing population but it cannot be possible without solving the problems of pests, which
makes the crop hell. Economically advanced countries have plenty of good wholesome food
due to a scientific approach to agriculture which includes the use of pesticides.

Pests are an ecological problem and therefore control strategies must be ecologically
sound. Modern agriculture is a combination of two approaches i.e. prevention and cure or the
removal of the cause and human intervention is necessary, whether it be pulling out weeds by
hand, use of pesticides or genetic engineering. Control methods evolve over time as
knowledge and techniques improve. Without the use of pesticides, the production and quality
of food would be severely jeopardized with estimates that food supplies would immediately
fall to 30 to 40% due to the ravages of pests.

Agricultural chemicals are vital to our welfare and the protection of the health of our
families and pets. Unless and until, better, more efficient and more cost effective means of
pest control are developed, pesticides will remain a major weapon in our constant battle
against pests. Indian growers need to be aware about latest development in this sector.

1
The pesticides industry has grown rapidly during the last two decades. The companies like
Syngenta, Bayer, Indofil, BASF, TATA Rallis, DOW, UPL, Monsanto, Sumitomo
chemicals has undergone structural changes from producing low value products to one
producing high value specialty products. Competition is getting bigger day by day.

With the global focus of the pesticide industry shifting towards India, all agro companies
will have to pool in their resources to meet the working capital needs in the years ahead. Quite
clearly, the future will belong to players with strong in house research and development teams
that can develop innovative formulations, backed by a highly motivated sales network.

1.1.2 Global market of pesticides and agro industry:-

The global market of pesticides and agro industry is very huge ~$44 billion. Globally,
due to higher productivity, decline in the green movement, tight regulations and better crop
management, the pesticide industry is not growing very rapidly. In fact, it is stagnant or
slightly declining. In India, the agro industry has grown significantly over the last 30-40 years
from a mere Rs.400 Cr. to over Rs. 8,000 Cr. today.

The Indian Agrochemical industry is the fourth largest in the world only after the US,
Japan and China and has undergone many changes over the years. Insecticides account for the
largest share of the Indian crop protection market - 65%. Fungicides - 15%, Herbicides - 16%
and Bio-pesticides and others - 4%. The consumption pattern is: paddy pesticides - 28%,
cotton pesticides - 20% and others 52%. Exports account for over 47% of total Indian
agrochemicals industry turnover.

In India 60%-70% of the population lives on agro income. Nearly, one-third of our
GDP is agro based. We earn a very significant part of foreign exchange. The agrochemical
industry can play a very important and a very vital role. Our agro industry management is
something we should debate about, with over Rs.1, 40, 000 Cr. of food grains wasted in
transportation after production. We can always compare global numbers on the use of
pesticides in India - about 600 grams per hectare versus 7 kg. In USA and 13 kg in China, this
shows lack of pesticide usage or technology in terms of crop management.

2
1.1.3 Introduction of Agrochemical:-

Agrochemicals are used to improve crop performance, yield or control pests, etc.
Agrochemicals are substances manufactured through chemical or biochemical processes
containing the active ingredient in a definite concentration along with other materials which
improve its performance and increase safety. For application, these are diluted with water in
recommended doses and applied on seeds, soil, irrigation water and crops to prevent the
damages from pests.

1.1.4 There are broadly 5 categories of crop protection products:-

1. Insecticides: - Insecticides protect crops by killing insects or preventing their attack.

Insecticides may attack a particular type of insect or could be broad spectrum insecticides.
Insecticides are used to manage the pest population below the economic threshold level. E.g.
Chlorpyrifos is used to control insect pests in crops such as cotton, corn almonds etc.

2. Fungicides:-They are used to prevent the deterioration of crops due to fungi infestation.
Fungicides are classified as protectants or eradicants. Protectant fungicides prevent or inhibit
fungal growth and may have to be applied at regular intervals. Eradicant fungicides kill the
pests on application. E.g. Anilazine is used to control fungal attack on lawns and turfs,
cereals, coffee and various vegetables and other crops.

3. Herbicides:- Herbicides or weedicides are used to prevent the growth of unwanted

plants in a crop field. Herbicides could be selective, which kill the unwanted plants without
any harm to the crop, or non-selective which kill all the plants. E.g. Glufosinate ammonium, a
broad-spectrum contact herbicide, is used to control weeds after the crop emerges or for total
vegetation control on land not used for cultivation.

4. Bio pesticides:- These are derived from natural substances like plants, animals, bacteria
and certain minerals and control pests by nontoxic mechanisms. Bio-pesticides are considered
eco friendly and easy to use. They could be classified as microbial pesticides, plant
incorporated protestants and biological pesticides. They are of low volume and high effect
formulations and require lesser dosages as compared to chemical pesticides. A growth area
for bio-pesticides is in the area of seed treatment and soil amendments. Example of bio
pesticides includes Bacillus subtilis which is used as soil inoculant in horticulture and
agriculture.

3
5. Others (Nematocides, Rodenticides etc):- Fumigants and rodenticides are used to
prevent the attack of pests during storage of crops. Plant growth regulators control or modify
the plant growth process and are most commonly used in cotton, rice and fruits. As per Govt.
of India, crop losses due to non-usage of pesticides were 28% of the yield amounting to ~ Rs.
90,000 Cr per annum (2002 estimated). It is estimated that the present food grain production
can jump from 3 Trillion to 4 Trillion by using crop protection products. Therefore, right
usage of crop protection chemicals is essential in increasing agricultural production by
preventing crop losses before and after harvesting

1.1.5 Major Global Players in the Agrochemical Industry:

Fig no: 1.1.5: Major Global Players in the Agrochemical Industry

Global Pesticide Industry Market Share (2014)

28%
20% 18%
12% 10%
7% 6%

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome

4
Table No.1.1.5.2 Sales and Market Share of Pesticide Firms

Agrochemical Sales 2014 Market Share

Company
(US$ million) (%)
Bayer (Germany) $7,468m 18%
Syngenta (Switzerland) $7,285m 20%
BASF (Germany) $4,297m 12%
Dow Agro Sciences (USA) $3,779m 10%
Monsanto (USA) $3,599m 7%
DuPont (USA) $2,369m 6%
Makhteshim Agan (Israel) $1,895m 5%
Nufarm (Australia) $1,470m 4%
Sumitomo Chemical $1,209m 3%
Arysta Life science (Japan) $1,035m 3%
Source-Agro World Crop Protection News, August 2014

The top 10 companies control 89% of the global agrochemical market. The worldwide
market for agrochemicals was US$38.6 billion in 2007 - up 8.4% over the previous year.

The top 6 companies accounted for $28.8 billion.

Bayer is the world's biggest agrochemical company is also the world's seventh biggest seed
company.

Syngenta also world's second largest agrochemical company and third largest seed company.
Monsanto: the world's biggest seed company is the world's fifth largest agrochemical
company and DuPont: the world's second biggest seed company is also the world's sixth
largest agrochemical company. All these companies are giants in agrochemical market.

5
1.1.6 World Consumption Overview:

Table No. 1.1.2 World Pesticide Consumption:

Country Pesticide Consumption kg/ha

India 0.48
USA 4.5
Germany 3
Japan 10.7
Taiwan 17
South Korea 6.6
Italy 13.4
Hungary 12.6
China 2.25
Source-Global pesticide consumption and pollution (2013)

In the India pesticide consumption is very less (0.38kg/ha) than that of the developed
countries like South Korea (16.6Kg/ha), Italy (13.4kg/ha), Hungary (12.6Kg/ha). Pesticide
Industry has the vast potential to grow in India.

1.1.7 Indian Scenario:

The pesticides/agrochemicals industry (PAC) is a moderately important sector of the Indian

economy. The PAC industry primarily consists of insecticides, herbicides and fungicides.
India is one of the most dynamic generic pesticide manufacturers in the world with more than
60 technical grade pesticides being manufactured indigenously by 125 producers consisting
of large and medium scale enterprises (including about 10 multinational companies) and
more than 500 pesticide formulators spread over the country. India is the 4th largest producer
of agrochemicals after USA, Japan and China. The agrochemicals market in India is Rs.
45,000 million or US$978 million.

Total pesticides market in India in 2012 was around USD 3.66 bn including exports.

In FY12, overall industry witnessed a price increase of 11-13%.

There are 3 types of pesticides – insecticides, herbicides and fungicides used
worldwide.

However, use of herbicides and fungicides is also increasing rapidly.

6
1.1.8 Major facts related to Pesticide industry in India:

There are 226 pesticide products currently registered in India.

95% of these pesticides have been originally registered by multinationals.

Pesticide usage in India extends to 16.7 mn hectares.

More than 60 technical grade pesticides are manufactured indigenously.

India is the 4th largest producer of agrochemicals after USA, Japan and China.

MNCs play an important role in introducing newer molecules in the country.

1.1.9 Performance of Top Pesticides Companies in India:

Table No: 1.1.9 Performances of Top Pesticides Companies in India:

Income/Rs.
Sales/Rs. Cr PBDIT/Income/ (%) PAT/Income (%)
Cr
2012 2013 2012 2013
United
675.6 659.3 12.9 19.8 0.9 11.7
Phosphorous
Bayer 390.1 385.5 8.1 10.9 2.1 5.5
Rallis India 229.5 206.8 13.5 20.6 7.5 11.5
Meghmani
210.7 204.7 16.4 18.5 8.8 11.8
Organic
Dhanuka 224.6 196.0 24.8 21.2 11.3 10.5
Source- Industry and Economic Update Chemicals and Fertilizers, March 2013

The pesticide industry grew by 40% in PBDIT (profit before depreciation, interest, and
taxes) and a 150% net profit growth during 2013. The growth came after three consecutive
quarters of decline and is also broad-based. The industry’s sales were higher by 10% during
this quarter compared to the same period a year ago. The industry suffered a 3% fall in sales
during the previous quarter. Raw material cost, the highest cost component was down by
11%. This along with rise in other expenses pushed up the PBDIT by 40%.

7
1.1.10 Pesticide Market by Consumption:
Pesticide consumption in India is one of the lowest in the world with per hectare
consumption of less than one kg compared to US (4.5 kg/ha) and Japan (11 kg/ha).
Consumption could be low for the following reasons:

Lack of awareness among the farmers about different types of pesticides available and
their impact on environment

Pesticide is the last input in agricultural cropping operation; hence, farmers generally
have no surplus money left and start using them only after the pest attack.

Consumption is mainly driven by cotton and paddy crops.

In India pesticide use is extended to approximately 16.7 mn hectares, which is just 9% of
the total cultivable land.

Insecticide accounts for largest share in consumption in India followed by herbicide and
fungicide, unlike high herbicide and fungicide usage globally. This is probably because
India‘s tropical climate is conducive for the propagation of insects.
Fig No: 1.1.10 Pesticide Market by Consumption (2013):

Source: ppqs.gov.in/IpmPesticides_Cont.htm

8
Fig No.1.1.10.1 State Wise Share in Pesticide Consumption (2014):

State wise Agrochemicals Consumption

Others
AP
15%
West bengal 24%
5%
Haryana
5%
Tamil Nadu Maharastra
5% 13%

Haryana Punjab
7% 11%
Karnataka MP &
7% Chattisgarh
8%

Source:http://www.indiastat.com/agriculture/2/consumptionofpesticides/206872/stats.aspx

1.1.11 Consumption of Pesticide Compare to Other Countries:

Fig-No.1.1.11 Consumption of Pesticides

Pesticide Consumpition (Kg/ha) FY 2014

 17

13
12

7 7
5 5

0.6
 India UK France Korea USA Japan China Taiwan

Source: Ministry of Chemicals and Petrochemicals (2014)


India comes under the less consumption of pesticides compare to others countries so is
an opportunity for agrochemicals industry.

9

Currently, there are 226 pesticide products registered in India. Pesticides produced in
India can be broadly divided into two categories technical grade and formulated.
Technical grade pesticides are highly toxic and contain hazardous material whereas
formulations are obtained by processing the technical grade with emulsifiers or other
agents. More than 60 technical grade pesticides are manufactured mainly by
multinationals. A formulations market is highly fragmented and includes small
formulators.

1.1.12 Import Scenario:


An import consists of pesticides which are generally not manufactured in India.

Majority of imports come from countries like USA, China, Japan, Switzerland, and
Germany.

Multinational corporations active in India generally resort to importing formulations and
not the active ingredient of pesticide.
Fig No: 1.1.12 Imports of Pesticides:

Import of Pesticides

22.3

17.6

9
7.5 8.1

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Source: Ministry of Commerce EXIM data (2014)

Import of the pesticides in India is increasing with the rate of the 31%. It was 7.5 INR bn in
the year 2010 increase up to 22.3 INR bn in year 2014.

10
1.1.13 Export of Pesticide:

Exports form a huge market for domestic pesticide producers in India.

Most of the big players are engaged in exports of pesticide products to various parts
of the world.

Advantages of low manufacturing cost and low cost of qualified manpower boosts
production in India.

India is a net exporter of pesticides to countries such as USA and some European and
African countries.
Fig No: 1.1.13 Exports of Pesticides:

Indian Agrochemical Exports, FY 10-FY 14

2

CAGR 17.5% 1.66

 1.38
1.15
1.05
 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14

Source: Ministry of Commerce EXIM data (2014)

Export of the pesticides in India increased with the rate of the 17%. It was 1.05 INR bn in the
year 2010, increase up to 2 INR bn in year 2014.

1.1.14 Export Challenges:

Product registration: According to the Insecticides Act 1968, the government regulates
manufacture, sale, usage, export and import of pesticides. No pesticide is allowed to be
manufactured, exported or imported without registration. Companies face a restricted market
for exports due to the different registration procedures fixed by different countries.
Registration of pesticides in countries like US/EU is time consuming since lot of tests are
required to be carried out.

11
According to Care Rating, a leading rating agency in India, one product registration takes
about 3-5 years and costs about $10-15 million. Registration process in the domestic market
takes about 1-3 years. Hence, such an investment both in terms of time and money acts as a
virtual entry barrier. Companies with high number of product registrations, therefore, have an
edge.

1.1.15 Pesticide Consumption in Haryana:

Haryana has been the leading state in terms of attracting investment for chemicals
industry and today known as the 'Petro Capital' of India. It contributes significantly to the
country's petrochemicals production (62 %), chemicals production (51 %) and
pharmaceuticals production (35 %). Its business friendly policies have made it the first choice
for investors. In 2011 alone it signed more than 80 MoU's with an aggregate proposed
investment of Rs. 55,000 Crores.

Over the past two decades, Haryana has become one of the most preferred locations
for industrial investment in India. Haryana has achieved an annual growth rate of over 10%
p.a. over the past five years and is one of the most industrialized states of India. It accounts
for 16% of the nation's industrial production and 22% of its exports. Haryana possesses
several advantages which have enabled it to chart a path of rapid growth and industrialization
such as sound infrastructure facilities, availability of skilled and semi-skilled manpower,
excellent domestic and international connectivity and rich natural resources. The key
differentiating factor has been Haryana's investor-friendly policy towards industrial
development. These have resulted in Haryana evolving as the hub of India's chemical and
petrochemical industry - with the state accounting for more than half of India's total chemical
industry and ~63% of total national petrochemical production.

1.1.16 Use of Chemical and Bio-Pesticides in Haryana:

The use of chemical pesticides for 2012-13 is estimated at 10,563 MT. The consumption
of chemical pesticides has gone up, basically due to increased use of herbicide, plant growth
regulators, fungicides and systemic insecticides. The consumption of bio-pesticides is
estimated to be 2,650 MT. The year wise use of pesticides is given in table.

12
Table No: 1.1.16 Use of Chemical and Bio-Pesticides in Haryana

Use of Pesticides
Year Chemical Bio-Pesticides
2007-08 3,150 1,150
2008-09 3,537 1,240
2009-10 7,289 1,678
2010-11 8,217 2,210
2011-2012 8,826 1,045
2012-2013 10,363 2,450
Source-Commissioner ate of Agriculture, GOM

This table shows increase in the consumption of both chemical and Bio Pesticides. The
consumption of chemical pesticides is more in comparison to Bio pesticides while the
consumption of Bio pesticide increased. Consistently flow 2007-08 to 2012-13 as shown in
table Haryana.

13
1.2 ABOUT THE ORGANISATION
Krishi Crop Science India

1.2.1 Introduction:-

An ISO 9001:2008 certified Krishi Crop Science India, established in the year 2010,
is one of the leading manufacturers, wholesalers and suppliers of a wide range of supreme
quality Agriculture Bio Organic Products. The offered product range is inclusive of Plant
Growth Promoters, Plant Nutrients and Bio Pesticides. Known for its rich attributes such as
no photo toxicity or residual toxicity, the offered range of plant promoters and bio pesticides
is processed by using advanced processing tools. In addition to this, the offered range is
appreciated for its compositional accuracy and longer shelf life. Used in agriculture,
horticulture and floriculture, the offered pesticides and growth promoters are processed from
quality assured ingredients.
Molecules customer centric approach, ethical business polices coupled with ability bulk
demands in the most efficient manner, has helped them in winning a commendable position in
this domain. In addition to this, in zest to attain maximum client satisfaction, they have
implemented complete transparency in all the business dealings. With the aid of their
excellent packaging unit, they have been able to offer this range with tamper proof packaging.

Molecule was established as a partnership firm and is currently managed by marketing

heads, Mr. Prem Phutela and Mr. Ravi Dhanani. Backed with the in-depth experience and
vast knowledge of our marketing head of this domain, molecule have been able to cater to the
precise needs of their valuable customers in the most efficient manner.

1.2.2 Basic information:

Nature of Business Manufacturer

Additional Business Wholesaler

Trader
Company CEO Prem Phutela

Industry Manufacturing and Trading of Agriculture Bio

Organic products.
Shop no. 15, Grain Market, Dist- , Sirsa,
Registered Address Haryana, 125055, India

Year of Establishment 2010

Total Number of Employees Upto 1000 People

Legal Status of Firm Partnership Firm Registered under Indian

Partnership Act 1932
Promoter Mr. Prem Phutela

Annual Turnover Rs. 1 - 2 Crore

14
1.2.3 Product Landscape

Humparo Gold Plant Growth Stimulant Water Evaporation Reducer

Spread Adjuvants SS 80 Organic Viral Disease Con. Amino Acid Liquid 20%

Bio-PGR Fruit Special Cytokinine Liquid Amino Acid Based Formulation

15
Nitro Benzene 35% Organic Flowering Stimulant Organic And Herbal Virus Controller

Bio-PGR Cotton Special Bio Larvicide Bio-PGR Veg Special

Mix Micronutrients Gibberelic Acid Bio Miticide

Nitro Benzene 20% Organic And Herbal Fungicide Nitro Benzene 80%

16
 Chapter: 2
Cumin Crop And
District Profile

17
2.1 ABOUT CUMIN CROP
2.1.1 Introduction of Cumin Crop:

Botanical name of Cumin is Cuminum cyminum. In India, it is known as 'Jeera' or

'Zeera' in Hindi. It is an important spice used in Indian kitchens for flavoring various food
preparations. The flavor of cumin seeds is due to the presence of a volatile oil. In indigenous
varieties of cumin, this volatile oil is present up to 2.5–3.5%. Cumin seeds are extensively
used in various ayurvedic medicines also especially for the conditions like obesity, stomach
pain and dyspesia. Nutritional value of cumin seeds is as follows: 17.7% protein, 23.8% fat,
35.5% carbohydrate and 7.7% minerals.

Production Centers:
In India, cumin is mainly cultivated in western Indian states like Rajasthan and
Haryana.

Climatic Requirements:
Moderate sub-tropical climate is ideal for cumin cultivation. Moderately cool and dry
climate is best. Cumin crop does not stand high humidity and heavy rainfalls.

Soil Requirements:
Well-drained, loamy soils that are rich in organic matter are best for cumin cultivation.
For commercial cultivation of cumin, a field in which cumin crop has not been taken up at
least during last 3 years should be selected.

Commercial Varieties:-
RZ 19:
A tall variety of cumin with erect stems, pink flowers and bold pubescent grains;
tolerant to wilt as well as blight; matures in 120–140 days with an average yield of 5.6 q/ha.

RZ 209:
An erect-growing variety of cumin with pink flowers and bold, grey, pubescent grains,
resistant to wilt and blight diseases; matures in 140–150 days with an average yield of 6.5
q/ha.

GC 1:
An erect-growing variety of cumin with pink flowers and bold, linear, oblong, ash brown
colour grains; tolerant to wilt disease; matures in 105–110 days with an average yield of 7.0
q/ha.

18
Cultivation Practices:-

Propagation
Seed propagation is commercially practiced

Sowing:
Ideal time for sowing cumin seeds is November – December. A seed rate of 12–15kg/ha
is sufficient. It is sown by broadcasting and line sowing. The seeds are sown 10cm deep.

Fertilizer Schedule:
10–15 tons of farmyard manure/ha is added at the time of land preparation. Afterwards, a
dose of 20kg P2O5/ha should be applied at the time of sowing, 30 kg N/ha may be applied as
top P2O5 dressing either in single dose 30 days after sowing or in 2 equal splits.

Weed control:
Weed is a severe problem in cumin cultivation. Weeding at 30 and 60 days after sowing
is necessary. Thinning should also be done during first hoeing and weeding to remove the
excess plants. Chemical weed control by the application of herbicides may also be practiced.
Application of pre-emergent Terbutryn or Oxcadiazone @ 0.5–1.0kg/ha or pre-plant
Fluchloralin or pre-emergent Penimethalin @ 1.0kg/ha is very effective.

Irrigation:
A light irrigation is done soon after sowing and thereafter second irrigation should be
applied 8–10 days after first irrigation. Depending upon the soil type and climatic conditions
the subsequent irrigations may be given at 15–25 intervals. Last heavy irrigation must be
given at the time of seed formation. Avoid irrigation at the time of active seed filling because
it increases the incidence of powdery mildew, blight and aphid infestation.

Harvesting:
Field is cleaned and wilt affected plants are uprooted before harvesting. Harvesting is
done by cutting the plants with sickle. The plants are stacked on clean threshing floor for sun-
drying. After drying, seeds are separated by light beating with sticks by winnowing.

Yield:
An average yield of 5 q/ha is obtained under proper management. Improved varieties
may yield up to 7 – 8 Q/ha.

Postharvest Management:
Fresh seeds are sun dried and then cleaned using gravity separators. Clean seeds are
sorted and graded and then filled in sterilized gunny bags and stored in damp-free aerated
stores.

19
2.1.2 National Cumin Scenario:

Cumin is a flowering plant from the Apiaceae family, native to regions ranging from the
eastern Mediterranean to India. The cumin seed has a significant demand all around the globe
especially in places where spicy food is preferred. It is an integral part of the recipes in
various cultures. Next to pepper, cumin is considered to be the most important spice in the
world. Cumin in ground form is also part of various spicy mixtures the most important being
‘garam masala’, which is extensively used throughout South Asia. It also has a lot of
medicinal value.
India is the largest producer of cumin in the world. A particular variety of cumin seed is
also produced in Iran, Syria and Turkey but only for exports. The global consumption of
cumin seeds is quite low. Both whole and powdered seeds are internationally traded by the
exporting countries.
India is the largest producer and consumer of cumin, with annual production ranging
between 150,000 and 300,000 tonnes. The seeds are exported to Japan, Brazil, US, UK, UAE,
etc. Rajasthan and Haryana are the two major states producing an enormous quantum of
cumin, contributing 90 per cent of India’s total production. A significant percentage of the
total production is consumed domestically.


Area in Hectare/Production in Tons:-
Table No.2.1.2 Production of Cumin:

Year Area in Production in tons

hectares
2001-02 526,634 206,410
2002-03 521,250 134,753
2003-04 430,840 202,980
2004-05 367,678 176,068
2005-06 403,033 199,854
2006-07 409,033 176,511
2007-08 477,936 264,860
2008-09 527,132 283,000
2009-10 538,023 294,000

Source: http://www.efymag.com/admin/issuepdf/Cumin_May2012.pdf

20
Table no. 2.1.2.1 State Wise Production in India:
Year Rajasthan Haryana
Area Production Area Production
2000-01 199,839 76,760 115,942 62,596
2001-02 381,534 145,110 145,100 61,300
2002-03 321,201 70,478 201,000 64,300
2003-04 227,829 120,981 185,200 94,400
2004-05 159,537 69,093 208,141 106,975
2005-06 135,113 152,239 267,920 147,615
2006-07 149,816 23,666 259,217 152,845
2007-08 202,687 63,321 232,000 144,900
2008-09 158,228 40,843 271,000 128,100
2009-10 182,340 65,438 216,000 11,700
2010-11 330634 114925 292847 219215
2011-12 467976 177835 373900 283302
2012-13 220000 111000 373900 283302

Source:- http://indianspices.com/sites/default/files/Major-spice-state-wise-area-
production-web-2015.pdf

2.1.3 Cumin Exports from India 2001-02 to 2010-11:-

Table No. 2.1.2.2 Cumin Exports from India

Year Quantity (tones) Amount (Rs million)
2001-02 18,891 1783.528
2002-03 17,248 1481.800
2003-04 7957 588.400
2004-05 15,767 1152.900
2005-06 12,879 981.907
2006-07 26,042 2022.412
2007-08 28,000 2915.000
2008-09 52,550 5440.000
2009-10 49,750 5482.450
2010-11 32,500 3959.775

Source: http://www.indianspices.com/export/major-itemwise-export

21
2.2 SIRSADISTRICT
2.2.1 District Profile
Sirsais gaterway for Saurashtra Surendranager is district place and main city of
Sirsadistrict.It is developed by Maharaja Surendrasingh .Main Business of Sirsacity is cotton.
It is located between Ahmedabad and Rajkot.It has 10 Taluka (Wadhwan, Muli, Limbdi,
Sayla, Dhudhrej Lakhtar, Chuda , Dasada) Wadhwan jorawarnager Ratanpar and dhudhraj are
near by city town and village Wadhwan is one of the historical city where old historical
rankdevi temple is located.

2.2.2 Basic Information About SirsaDistrict:

Location 22.43 N Latitude and 71.43 E Longitude
Geographical Area 10436.30 Sq. Meter
Population 1515147
Literacy 62.46%
Villages 651
Taluka 10
Urban Area 7
Major Town Wadhwan, Limbdi, Dhrangdhra, Halwad, Chotila, Muli, Than
(Thangadh), Lakhtar
Main Business Cotton, Bearing, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Ceramic, Salt
Production.
Nearest Railway Station Surendranagar
Nearest Bus Station Surendranagar
Nearest Airport Ahmedabad, Rajkot

Source:-http://www.surendranagaronline.com/surendranagar/surendranagar.php

22
2.2.3 Major Crop Profile in Sirsa District
Table No.2.2.1 Major Crop Profile in Sirsa District

Sr. No Crop Growing Area Production(TON) Production in hectare

1 Groundnut 3013.42 5544.65 1839.99
2 Til 254.01 117.05 460.834
3 Castor 127.42 402.22 3156.7
4 Bajra 141.56 212.69 1502.51
5 Cumin 3187.30 7563.86 2373.13
6 Mag 41.38 18.93 457.48
7 Udad 38.64 19.65 508.58
8 Chodi 4.45 3.96 889.18
9 Tuver 5.02 7.97 1588.35
10 Wheat 1085.39 4301.82 3963.39
11 Chana 132.19 189.55 1433.96
12 Geera 252.38 196.09 776.99
13 Garlic 160.57 954.78 5942.82
14 Onion 123.08 3048.05 24764.80
15 Summer groundnut 66.10 158.97 2405.00
Source: Sirsadistrict panchayat statistics

23
24
Chapter: 3
The Project

25
3.1 THE PROJECT
3.1.1 Title of the Project Report:

Farmers’ Buying Behaviour and Dealers’ Perception towards

Use of Pesticides for Cumin Crop in Sirsa District

3.1.2 Objectives of the Study:

1. To study the socio economic profile of farmers and dealers in study area
2. To study factors influencing buying behaviour of farmers for pesticides used and
dealers perception towards sales of different pesticides in cumin crop
3. To provide suggestions to the company based on study for effective marketing

3.1.3 Scope of the Study

The study was undertaken on market potential, farmers buying behaviour and dealers
opinion towards usage of insecticides in cotton crop. Report findings and suggestions can
helpful to both organisation and dealers. Organisation can take decision based on information
related to the factors which are mostly considered by dealers and farmers while purchasing
agrochemicals. So, it could be beneficial in this competitive market. Market potential depicts
the future market demand of insecticides. Thus, organisation can take the decision on sales
target criteria.

26
 Chapter: 4
Research Methodology

27
4.1 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1.1 Research Design: Descriptive research design

4.1.2 Area of Study: - Area of study in order to proceed investigation according to

objective stated .Bhamboor, Mallekan, Kotli, Mangala, and Madhosinghana these talukas of
Sirsa district will be select purposively.

4.1.3 Source of the Data: Primary as well as secondary data were collected.

A. Primary Data: Primary data were collected from the (Farmers and dealers)
Respondents with the help of questionnaire.

B. Secondary Data: Secondary data were collected from published literature like
Reports, journals, and websites.

4.1.4 Sampling Design: Purposive sampling method were used for farmers and the

Convenience sampling method were used for the dealers.

4.1.5 Sampling Unit: To study the given objectives, Farmers and Dealers were

Selected as a sample unit and data were collected from them.

4.1.6 Sampling Size: 200 Farmers and 50 dealers were selected.

28
4.1.7 Distribution of Sample:

Name of Talukas No. of Villages No. of Farmers No. of dealers from

talukas
Bhamboor 4 40 10
Mallekan 4 40 10
Kotli 4 40 10
Mangala 4 40 10
Madhosinghana 4 40 10
Total 20 200 50

4.1.8 Research Instrument:- Questionnaire were used as research instrument.

4.1.9 Analytical Tools:


Descriptive statistics were used.

Tabular and graphical analysis were also used to achieve the
objectives of the study.

29
4.1.10 Limitations of the Study:

It was very difficult to collect primary information from farmers related to land holding
and past grown variety.

Some dealers avoid giving information related to business fearing loss of competitive
information and action by company.

The time limit within which survey had to complete was also a limitation.

The data was collected solely on the basis of information given by farmers and dealers
selected in the sample.

Many time dealers were not able to give much time for survey.

Limited area was covered for the study.

Farmers and dealers were reluctant in providing some information.

4.1.11 Review of Literatures:

The review of Literature concerned with farmers buying behaviour and dealers perception
towards usage of pesticide. it also focus on purchasing behaviour, loyalty of brand, dealers
loyalty, credit availability, quality of product, customer service, discount, advertisement,
mode of payment, level of education, land availability etc.

Solanki et al (2013) carried out a study to identify the factors that affect consumers
purchasing behavior towards Agriculture inputs like fertilizer, seeds, agrochemicals, oils and
lubricants etc. Buying behavior refers to the act of consumers obtaining and using goods and
services and the decision process that determines these acts. Price is the most important
consideration at the time of purchasing agriculture inputs followed by packaging and
branding, fair billing and home delivery are considered relatively less important.

Rohini et al (2000) farmers to analyses the factors responsible for brand and dealer loyalty
towards pesticides by the farmers. The results showed that price of the preferred brand,
efficiency of the preferred brand, advertisement influenced the brand loyalty. With regard to
dealer loyalty, factors such as credit availability, quality of product, customer service,
discount, advertisement, and distance from the farm play important role in purchasing. The
study showed that farmers are loyal to pesticide brands and also to pesticide dealers.

Bandara et al (2013) studied farmers’ perception and willingness to pay for pesticides
concerning quality and efficacy, and exploring the socio-demographic factors that influence

30
the decision to pay for pesticides. The results revealed that four variables namely; age,
average monthly income, pest intensity and action have a significant relationship with
farmers’ perception and willingness to pay for pesticides concerning quality and efficacy.
Average monthly income and action have a positive impact on perception and willingness to
pay while age and pest intensity have a negative impact.

Shetty (2010) carried out a study on farmer’s awareness, education and practices related to
pesticide use as well as Integrated Pest Management (IPM) measures. Data were collected
through pretested schedules by trained field investigators. The results revealed that though
overall consumption of pesticide decreased, the expenditure incurred on pesticides remained
high. Most of the respondents in the surveyed area followed their own spraying schedules and
pesticide doses to manage ever increasing insect pests and disease problems. More than 50 %
of the respondents applied both single and cocktail pesticides to manage their crop pests.
Greater number of the literate farmers had strong perception on the negative impacts of
pesticides on soil, water, air and beneficial organisms. Only 20 % of the respondents obtained
their information on plant protection aspect from the agricultural extension officer and the
rest of 80% of the farmers used unreliable information in crop production. The respondents in
the study regions were of the opinion that chemical methods of pest control are very effective
in combating serious pest infestation.

Srivastava and Patel (1990) reported that farmers get substandard quality of product from
local formulators. Non-availability of credit, shorter credit period and farmers illiteracy
which leads to cheating by dealers are some problems in pesticide usage. The farmers are also
not able to recognize the pest attack and type of diseases in their crops. Resistance to
insecticides developed by pests, residues left by pesticides in food and destruction of natural
pest control agents are some of the problems in pesticide usage. For this study, pesticide use
refers to the quantity of pesticides used by farmers at various stages of crop growth to get rid
of pest and disease infestation. Dealer loyalty is another significant factor which influences
the buying behaviour of farmers and through this the buying behaviour could be explained.

Bharatharaj (2012) analyzed buying behaviour of farmers with respect to pesticides,

considering the factors influencing loyalty of farmers towards dealer and brand. Friends,
neighbors and relatives were the major source of information about dealers. The price, quality
and advertisements of the brand contributed significantly to brand loyalty. Credit availability,
advertisements and price of products available with dealer contributed significantly to dealer
loyalty.

31
According to Gandhi Vasant P (2009) the pesticide industry is the most dynamic agricultural
input industry in India, being substantially in private hands. Yet the pesticide use levels in
India are among the lowest in the world. It finds that pesticide use in India is highly
concentrated by crop and geographic area, and is therefore showing declining growth rates. A
major reason appears to be very limited market development efforts by the firms leading to
poor conversion of a large potential into effective demand. Output markets/prices, input
prices, high yielding varieties and wage rates play important roles in determining use.
However, many non-price factors are also very important. Pesticides are also seen as
insurance by the farmers’ and therefore higher than optimum use is frequently reported. The
new economic environment in India will offer ample opportunities for growth. However, the
industry will need to look at the market environment more comprehensively and will need to
play a proactive role in market development

Govindarajan et al (2015) surveyed farmers applying insecticides in Virudhunagar district,

Tamil Nadu, India in Rajapalayam taluka. The survey considered those growing cotton,
groundnuts, bananas and various other crops. The main insecticide used by the farmers was
monocrotophos and Chlopyriphos. The survey showed that monocrotophos is the most
widely used insecticide. The need for further research was stressed.

P. Van Mele et al (2002) had conducted an empirical research work in 1998 – 99. About 150
citrus farmers and 120 pesticide sellers were interviewed in Can Tho and Dong Thap
province, Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Media, pesticide sellers and extension staff had different
influences on farmers’ pest perception and management practices depending on the region
and intensity of the cropping system. Pesticide sellers were notified by about 95 per cent of
the farmers about their major pest problems, and the type of pesticides sold in their shop was
primarily based on farmers’ demand (87 per cent) and then on company promotion (56 per
cent). Those farmers relying on pesticide sellers used more of the banned insecticide methyl
parathion. Probably for fear of being accused of illegal practices, none of the pesticide sellers
mentioned that they recommended this product or that farmers asked for it. Media alone
seemingly did not suffice to acquaint farmers with these small organisms. Farmers getting
advice from the media advertisements applied more different pesticide products and sprayed
insecticides more frequently, whereas the extension has stimulated the use of acaricides and
increased the number of both insecticide and fungicide sprays. The traditional practice of
biological control with the ant Oecophylla smaragdina might be endangered with growing
media influence and when extension activities remain confined to chemical pest control.

32
N. Mahantesh and Singh, Alka (2009) comment that pesticides have substantially
contributed for controlling pests and increasing crop yields. But over the years, there is
growing concern about indiscriminate use of pesticides in agriculture. The study attempted to
understand the farmers’ knowledge and perceptions of pests and pesticide use in vegetable
cultivation and analyzed the pesticide use practices and the intensity of pesticide use in
vegetable cultivation. The result shows that on an average 41 per cent of the farmers were
aware of pesticide hazards in vegetable cultivation. Most of the farmers (88%) perceived that
frequency of insects and disease infestation has increased over the past 10 years. It was also
observed that farmers have not followed adequate safety measures regarding pesticide
application. The high pesticide use cost was observed in vegetables especially in tomato and
brinjal and most of the pesticides belonged to high and moderate risk chemicals. Increasing
farmers’ awareness of pesticide hazards to the environment and promotion of alternative pest
management strategies such as use of bio-pesticides and IPM is essential for reducing adverse
effect on environment.

According to De et al (2014) the worldwide consumption of pesticides is about two million

tonnes per year. Of this 85 percent is used in agriculture. Although the largest volume of
pesticide use is in developed countries, pesticide usage is growing rapidly in developing
countries. The quantity of pesticides used per acre of land has also increased. In addition to
the increase in quantity of pesticides used, farmers use stronger concentrations of pesticides,
they have increased the frequency of pesticide applications and increasingly mix several
pesticides together to combat pesticide resistance. These trends are particularly noticeable in
Asia as well as in Africa.

In Research Report 2018 (2013) industry research report states that pesticide consumption
in India is one of the lowest in the world with per hectare consumption of less than one kg
compared to US (4.5 kg/ha) and Japan (11 kg/ha). Consumption could be low for the
following reasons: Lack of awareness among the farmers about different types of pesticides
available and their impact on environment and pesticide is the last input in agricultural
cropping operation; hence, farmers generally have no surplus money left and start using them
only after the pest attack.

According to the report “India Pesticides Industry Analysis to 2018”, India Pesticide
market is projected to reach INR 229,800 million with a CAGR of 14.7% from FY’2014-
FY’2018. The Indian crop protection market is expected to witness a growth in its
consumption owing to factors such as growing farmer awareness, farmers’ prosperity,

33
inclining demand for organic food, increased focus on R&D, expansion of the contract
farming and GDP growth.

Accoding to Wikiinvest (2016) Syngenta’s key competitors are dedicated agribusinesses or

large chemical companies headquartered in Western Europe and North America and comprise
BASF, Bayer, Dow, DuPont and its Pioneer subsidiary, and Monsanto. These companies in
2015 accounted for about 60 percent of the worldwide market for crop protection and seeds
products. Companies in the crop protection business compete on the basis of strength and
breadth of product range, product development and differentiation, geographical coverage,
price and customer service. In many countries, generic producers of off-patent crop
protection compounds are additional competitors to the research-based companies in the
commodity segment of the market.

Hexa Research (2014) market research report published on Imidacloprid provides detailed
industry analysis and in-depth market data for the period from 2012 to 2024. Imidacloprid
market has been broken down by major regions, with complete market estimates on the basis
of products/applications on a regional basis.

34
 Chapter: 5
Data Analysis And
Interpretation

35
5.1Objective-1: To study the socio economic profile of farmers
and dealers in study area
5.1.1 Age of Farmers
Table No.5.1.1 Age of Farmers:

Age of farmers No of respondents Percentages

16 8
15-25
58 29
25-35
78 39
35-45
42 21
45-55
6 3
More than 55
Grand Total 200 100.00

Fig No.5.1.1 Age of Farmers:

Age of Farmers n=200

3%
8%
21% 15-25
25-35
29%
35-45
45-55
More than 55
39%

From the study it could be concluded that mostly (39%) farmers were under the age group of
35-45 years and very few (3%) farmers were under the age group of more than 55 and others
were under the age group of (8%) 15-25, (29%) 25-35 and (21%) 45-55.

36
5.1.2 Education Level of Farmers
Table No. 5.1.2 Education Level of Farmers:

No of
No Education Level of farmers Respondents Percentages
1 Illiterate 10 5
2 Below SSC 72 36
3 SSC 66 33
4 HSC 29 14
5 UG 20 10
6 PG 3 2
Grand Total 200 100.00

Fig No. 5.1.2 Education Level of Farmers:

Education Level of Farmers

5%
10% 2% n=200

Illiterate
Below SSC
14%
36% SSC
HSC
UG
33% PG

Above the graph & table it could be concluded that Mostly 36% farmers had completed
below SSC level, 33% farmers had completed SSC, 14 % farmers had completed HSC level,
10% farmers had completed under Graduate 5% farmers were illiterate, and only 2% farmers
had completed PG level. Thus shows maximum farmers had completed only school
education.

37
5.1.3 Number of Family Member among Farmers

Table No-5.1.3 No. of Family Members:

Family Member among farmers No of respondents Percentages

8
2-3 16
29
3-5 59
43
5-7 86
20
More than 7 39
Grand Total 200 100

Fig No.5.1.3 No. of Family Members:

No. of Family Members n=200

8%
20%
2-3
29% 3-5
5-7
More than 7
43%

Above the graph it could be concluded that mostly 43% respondents had 5-7 number of
family members and other respectively family member were 3-5 (29%), more than 7 (20%)
and only few farmer’s family member were 2-3 (8%). This shows that maximum family
member were 5-7 in each family.

38
5.1.4. Farming Experience of Farmers
Table No. 5.1.4 Farming Experience of Farmers:

Year of farming experience No of Respondents Percentages

0-5 23 11

5-10 45 23

10-15 38 19

47
Above 15 94

Grand Total 200 100

Fig No.5.1.4 Farming Experience of Farmers:

Farming Experience of Farmers n=200

11%
0-5
47% 23% 5-10
10-15
Above 15
19%

Above the graph it could be concluded that mostly 47% farmers had farming experience of
more than 15 years and respectively 5-10 year (23%), 10-15 (19%) and only few number of
farmers had farming experience 0-5 years (11%). Thus so that maximum farmers were having
more than 15 year of farming experience in study area.

39
5.1.5 Source of Income
Table No.5.1.5 Source of Income:

Sources of income No. of Respondents Percentages

Agriculture 116 63
Livestock 0 0
Both 84 37
Others 0 0
Grand Total 200 100

Fig No.5.1.5 Source of Income:

Source of Income n=200

Percentage

63%

37%

0% 0%

AgricultureLivestock Both Others

Above graph it could be concluded that most of the (63%) farmers had income from only
agriculture, none of the farmers had income from only other and livestock but many farmers
had income from the both agriculture farming and others (37%).

40
5.1.6 Annual Income of Farmers
Table No. 5.1.6 Annual Income of Farmers:

Annual income of farmers (in Rs.) No. of Respondents Percentages

9
<100000 19
33
100000-200000 66
26
200000-300000 53
20
300000-400000 39
12
>400000 23
Grand Total 200 100

Fig No.5.1.6 Annual Income of Farmers:

Annual Income of Farmers n=200

Percentage
33%
26%
20%

12%
9%

<100000100000-200000200000- 300000- >400000

300000 400000

Above the graph it could be concluded that most of the farmers (33%) had annual income of
Rs.1-2 lac and have annual income Rs.2-3 lac (26%), 3-4lac (20%), more than 4 lac (12%)
and only few farmers have annual income Rs.<1 lac (9.%).

41
5.1.7 Land Holding Size
Table No. 5.1.7 Land Holding Size:

Land holding (in Acre) No. of Respondents Percentages

Marginal farmers (up to 2.5) 19 9

Small Farmers (2.5 To 5 acre) 76 38

Medium Farmers (5 to 10 acre) 70 35

Large farmers (more than 10) 35 18

Grand Total 200 100

Fig No.5.1.7 Land holding Size:

Land Holding Size n=200

18% 9% Marginal farmers (up

to 2.5)
Small Farmers (2.5 To
38% 5 acre)
35% Medium Farmers (5 to
10 acre)
Large farmers (more
than 10)

In study area 38% were small farmers, followed by 35% were medium farmers, 18% percent
large farmers were having more than 10 acre land, and 9% were marginal farmers having
land holding size up to 2.5 acre. So in study area maximum were small and medium farmers.

42
5.1.8 Age of Dealers
Table No.5.1.8Age of Dealers:

Age of dealers No. of Respondents Percentages

0
15-25 0
18
25-35 36
24
35-45 48
6
45-55 12
2
More than 55 4
Grand Total 50 100

Fig No.5.1.8 Age of dealers:

Age of Dealers n=50

Percentage

48%
36%

12%
4%
0%

15-25 25-35 35-45 45-55 More

than 55

Above graph mostly 48% dealers were under the age group 35-45 years, 36% dealers were
under the age group 25-35 years, 12% dealers were under the age group 45-55 years, only 4%
dealers were under the age group 15-25 years. So, depicts that maximum dealers were in
middle age group.

43
5.1.9 Education Level of Dealers

Table No. 5.1.9 Education Level of Dealers:

Education Level of dealers No. of Respondents Percentages

6
Below SSC 12
17
SSC 34
15
HSC 30
10
Under Graduate 20
2
Post Graduate 4
Grand Total 50 100
Fig No.5.1.9 Education Level of Dealers:

Education Level of Dealers n=50

4%

12%
Below SSC
20%
SSC
HSC
34%
Under Graduate
30% Post Graduate

Above the graph it could be concluded that most of the Dealers (34%) had completed SSC
education. 30% dealers had completed HSC, 20% Dealers had completed Under Graduation,
12% dealers had completed below SSC, and only 4% Dealers had completed post graduation.
So it concluded that maximum Dealers had completed the SSC and HSC education.

44
5.1.10 Business Experience of Dealers
Table No. 5.1.10 Business Experience of Dealers:

Year of business experience No. of Respondents Percentages

10
1-5 24
17
5-10 34
11
10-15 22
8
15-20 16
4
More than 20 8
Grand Total 50 100

Fig No.5.1.10 Business Experience of Dealers:

Business Experience of Dealers n=50

Percentage

34%

24%
22%
16%

8%

1-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 More than 20

Above graph depicts that 34% dealers had 5-10 years experience, 24% dealers had 1-5 years
experience, 22% dealers had 10-15 year experience, 16% dealers had 15-120 year experience
and only 8% dealers had more than 20 years of business experience.

45
5.1.11 Types of Business

Table no. 5.1.11 Types of Business

Particulars No. of respondents Percentages

Pesticides 0 0
Fertilizers 4 8
Seeds 2 4
Agri-services 0 0
Multiple 44 88
Grand total 50 100

Fig no. 5.1.11 Types of Business

Types of Business n=50

Percentage

88%

0% 8% 4% 0%

Above graph depicts that majority of dealers (88%) were engaged with multiple business. 8%
dealers were engaged with only fertilizers business and few dealers (4%) were engaged with
only seed business.

46
5.2 Objective-2: To Study Factors Influencing Buying Behaviour
of Farmers for Pesticides Used and Dealers Perception Towards
Sales of Different Pesticides in Cumin Crop.
5.2.1 Cumin Grower

Table no. 5.2.1 Cumin Grower

Particulars No of respondents Percentages
Yes 200 100
No 00 00
Grand total 200 100

Fig no. 5.2.1 Cumin Grower

Cumin Grower n=200

Percentage

100%

0%

Yes No

In study area 100% respondents were growing cumin.

47
5.2.2 Area Under Cumin Cultivated
Table No. 5.2.2 Area Under Cumin Cultivated:

Land holding Size (in Acre) No. of Respondents Percentages

1-2 Acre 37 18

2-3 Acre 54 27

3-4 Acre 56 28

4-5 Acre 41 21

More than 5 Acre 12 6

Grand Total 200 100.00

Fig No.5.2.2 Area Under Cumin Cultivated:

Area Under Cumin Cultivated n=200

6%
18%
21% 1-2 Acre
2-3 Acre
27% 3-4 Acre
28% 4-5 Acre
More than 5 Acre

The above table & graph shows that mostly 28% farmers were growing Cumin in 3-4 acre,
27% farmers were growing Cumin in 2-3 acre, other 21% farmers were growing Cumin in 4-
5 acre, 18% farmers were growing Cumin in 1-2 acre and only 6% farmers were growing
Cumin in more than 5 acre.

48
5.2.3 Most Grown Cumin Varieties Grown by Farmers in Study Area
Table No. 5.2.3 Cumin Varieties Grown by Farmers in Study Area:

Variety Name No. of Respondents Percentages

1 22 20
2 79 30
3 6 10
4 93 40
Grand Total 200 100

Fig No.5.2.3 Cumin Varieties Grown by Farmers in Study Area:

Variety Name n=200

10%

40% 20% 1
2
3
4

30%

the above table & graph shows the details of Cumin varieties grown by the farmers in study
area. Mostly 40% farmers were growing No-4 varieties and few 10% farmers were growing
No-3 variety. In study area were No-1 and No-2 Cumin varieties also growing by the farmers.

49
5.2.4 Major Other Crop Grown in Study Area
Table No. 5.2.4 Major Other Crop Grown in Study Area:

No. Crop Name No. of Respondents Percentages

1 Cotton 121 80.67
2 Chilli 35 23.33
3 Sesame 40 26.67
4 Wheat 66 44
5 Garlic 55 36.67
6 Coriander 91 60.67
7 Groundnut 29 19.33
8 Sorghum 54 36
9 Gram(Chickpea) 22 14.67
10 Maize 51 34
11 Others 54 36.01

Fig No.5.2.4 Major Other Crop Grown in Study Area:

Major Other Crops n=200

Percentage
80.67%
60.67%
44% 36.67% 36% 34% 36.01%
26.67%
23.33% 19.33% 14.67%

Above table & graph it could be concluded that Most of the farmers were growing Cotton
crop, only few farmers were growing Gram (chickpea) crop and some others crop were
growing by farmers. (As per table number)

50
5.2.5 Major Pest Problem in Cumin Crop
Table No. 5.2.5 Major Pest Problem in Cumin Crop:

Pest 2- Cumulati
Name 1-Low Medium 3-High ve Score Mean Rank
Cut worm 0(0) 3(6) 197(591) 597 2.98 1
Thrips 0(0) 56(112) 144(432) 544 2.72 2
Aphid 110(110) 82(164) 8(24) 298 1.49 6
Beetle 105(105) 91(182) 4(12) 299 1.5 5
Nematodes 8(8) 107(214) 85(255) 477 2.38 4
Mealy bug 7(7) 52(104) 141(423) 534 2.67 3
Others 113(113) 84(168) 3(9) 290 1.45 7

Fig No.5.2.5 Major Pest Problem In Cumin Crop:

Major Pest Problem n=200

Cumulative Score Rank
597
544 534
477

298 299 290

1 2 6 5 4 3 7

Above table & graph it could be concluded that Cut worm & Thrips were highly damaging to
Cumin crop, Beetle & aphid were low damaging to Cumin crop and other Pest also were
damaging to Cumin crop in the study area.

51
 5.2.6 Major Diseases Problem in Cumin Crop
Table No. 5.1.13 Major Diseases Problem in Cumin Crop:

Major Diseases 1- 2- 3- Cumulative Mean Rank

Low Medium High Score
Wilt 113(113) 85(170) 15(45) 328 1.64 4
Powdery mildew 64(64) 99(198) 50(150) 412 2.06 3
Altemaria blight 60(60) 88(176) 65(195) 431 2.155 2
Damping 58(58) 75(150) 80(240) 448 2.24 1
Others 128(128) 61(122) 23(69) 319 1.595 5

Fig No. 5.2.6 Major Diseases Problem in Cumin Crop:

Major Diseases Problem n=200

Mean Rank
5

2.155 2 2.24
2.06
1.64 1.595
1

Wilt Powdery Altemaria Damping Others

mildew blight

Above table & graph it could be concluded that Damping off & Altemaria blight were highly
damaging to Cumin crop, Powdery mildew & wilt were low damaging to Cumin crop and
other Diseases also were moderately damaging to Cumin crop in the study area.

52
5.2.7 Major Weeds Problem in Cumin Crop
Table No. 5.2.7 Major Weeds Problem in Cumin Crop

Parameter 3-High 2-Medium 1-low cumulative Mean Rank

score
Broadleaf 118(354) 62(186) 20(20) 560 2.8 1
Grasses 150(450) 50(100) 0 550 2.75 2
Sedges 100(300) 87(174) 13(13) 487 2.435 3
Others 62(186) 56(112) 82(82) 380 1.9 4

Fig. No. 5.2.7 Major Weeds Problem in Cumin Crop

Major Weeds Problem n=200

mean Rank

3
2.8 2.75
2.435
2 1.9

Broadleaf Grasses Sedges Others

Above table & graph it could be concluded that broadleaf & grasses were highly influence to
Cumin crop, sedges were low influence to Cumin crop.

53
5.2.8 Quantity of Pesticides Requirement
Table No. 5.2.8 Quantity of Pesticides Used by Farmer in Cumin Crop:

Quantity (per acre) No. of Respondents Percentages

1-2 Ltr 2 1
2-3 Ltr 14 7
3-4 Ltr 66 33
4-5 Ltr 107 53
>5 Ltr 11 6
Grand Total 200 100

Fig No.5.2.8 Quantity of Pesticides Used by Farmer in Cumin Crop (Per Acre):

Quantity of Pesticides Used n=200

1-2 Ltr 2-3 Ltr 3-4 Ltr 4-5 Ltr >5 Ltr

6% 1% 7%

33%
53%

Above graph shows the detail of quantity of Pesticides used by farmers in Cumin crop.
Mostly (53%) farmers were using 4-5 ltr. Pesticides in Cumin crop, (33%) farmers were using
3-4 ltr, few (1%) farmers were using 1-2 ltr. So that maximum farmers were using 4-5 Ltr.
Pesticides per acre.

54
5.2.9 Expenditure Done by The Farmers on Pesticides for Cumin Crop
Table No. 5.2.9 Expenditure Done by Farmers on Pesticides (Per Acre):

Expenditure (in Rs) No. of Respondents Percentages

<2000 11 5

2000-4000 35 18

4000-6000 96 48

>6000 58 29

Grand Total 200 100

Fig No.5.2.9 Expenditure Done on Pesticides (Per Acre):

Expenditure Done by Farmers n=200

5%

29% 18%
<2000
2000-4000
4000-6000
48% >6000

Above graph shows the details of expenditure done by the farmers on the Pesticides for
Cumin crop per acre. Mostly (48%) farmers had done expenditure Rs.4000-6000, (29%)
farmers had done expenditure more then Rs.6000 and few farmers (5%) had done expenditure
less then Rs.2000.

55
5.2.10 Source of Purchase Pesticides
Table No. 5.2.10 Source of Purchase Pesticides:

No. of
Sources of purchase pesticides Percentages
Respondents
Dealers 163 81

Distributers 32 16

Cooperatives 0 00

Agriculture dept. 0 00

Depots 5 3

Grand Total 200 100

Fig No.5.2.10 Source of Purchase Pesticides:

Source of purchase n=200

Percentage
81%

16%
0% 0% 3%
The study details that Mostly farmer 81% purchased Pesticide from the dealers.16% farmers
purchased from the distributors. 3% from depots and no one farmer purchase pesticide from
cooperatives and agriculture departments in study area. so that most of the farmer were
purchased Pesticides from the dealers.

56
5.2.11 Terms of Purchase
Table No. 5.2.11 Term of Purchase:

Condition No. of Respondents Percentages

Cash Only
15 7
Credit Only 153 77
Cash and Credit 32 16
Grand Total 200 100
 CashOnly
Fig No.5.2.11Terms of  Credit Only
Purchase:  Cash and
Terms of Purchase Credit
n=200

77% 7%

16%

According to graph it could be concluded that 77% farmers purchase on credit base followed
by 16% cash and credit both and 7% on case basis.
57
5.2.12 Choice of Alternatives in Case of Credit Availability
Table No. 5.2.12 Choice of Alternatives in Case of Credit Availability:

Conditions No. of Respondents Percentages

Switch over to a dealer who provides credit 62 31
Source credit from other 130 65
Reduce the quality of application 8 4
Grand total 200 100

Fig. No. 5.2.12 Choice of Alternatives in Case of Credit Availability

Choice of Alternatives n=200

4%

31% Switch over to a dealer

who provides credit
Source credit from other
65%
Reduce the quality of
application

According to graph shows that farmers having choice of alternatives in case of credit
availability if they not get, 65% of farmers get money from others, 31% of farmer switch over
to a dealer who provides credit and 4% of farmers reduce the quality of application in the
field.

58
5.2.13 Satisfaction Level of Farmers
Table No. 5.2.13 Satisfaction Level of Farmers:

Parameters No. of Respondents Percentages

Highly Satisfied 28 14
Satisfied 88 44
Moderately Satisfied 53 26
Dissatisfied 24 12
Highly Dissatisfied 7 4
Grand Total 200 100

Fig No.5.2.13 Satisfaction Level of Farmers:

Satisfaction Level of Farmers n=200

4%
12% 14% Highly Satisfied
Satisfied
26%
Moderately Satisfied
44%
Dissatisfied
Highly Dissatisfied

Above graph shows the details of satisfaction level based on result of Pesticides for Pest
control. 44% farmers were satisfied, 26% farmers were moderately satisfied, 12% farmers
were dissatisfied, 14% farmers were highly satisfied and few 4% farmers were highly
dissatisfied. So that maximum farmers were satisfied with Pesticides used.

59
 5.2.14 Factors Considered by Farmers While Purchasing Pesticides
Table No. 5.2.14 Factors Considered by Farmers While Purchasing Pesticides:

Factors 1- 2- 3- 4-Often 5- Cumulative Mean Rank

Never Rarely Sometimes Always score
Packaging Size 32(32) 67(134) 42(126) 41(164) 18(90) 546 2.73 14
Past Experience 26(26) 94(188) 24(72) 44(176) 12(60) 522 2.61 18
Price 15(15) 66(132) 46(138) 49(196) 24(120) 601 3.005 3
Promotional Activity 17(17) 94(188) 57(171) 27(108) 5(25) 509 2.545 19
Brand Image 13(13) 49(98) 72(216) 46(184) 20(100) 611 3.055 2
Recommendation 13(13) 49(98) 72(216) 46(184) 20(100) 616 3.08 1
Quality 22(22) 66(132) 53(159) 37(148) 19(95) 556 2.78 10
After Sales Service 22(22) 66(132) 72(159) 37(148) 22(110) 571 2.855 7
Credit 26(26) 76(152) 37(111) 39(156) 22(110) 555 2.775 12
Timely Availability 7(7) 69(138) 63(189) 44(176) 17(85) 595 2.975 4
Result 4(4) 70(140) 72(216) 40(160) 13(65) 585 2.925 5
Nature of crop 28(28) 80(160) 61(183) 23(92) 8(40) 503 2.515 20
Types of pest 9(9) 72(144) 70(210) 31(124) 16(80) 567 2.835 9
Intensity of pest and 21(21) 69(138) 53(159) 34(136) 23(115) 569 8
Disease 2.845
Stage of crop growth 21(21) 77(154) 49(147) 32(128) 21(105) 555 2.775 12
Size of land holding 19(19) 73(146) 64(192) 31(124) 13(65) 546 2.73 14
Weather condition 17(17) 69(138) 67(201) 35(140) 12(60) 556 2.78 10
Crop income 27(27) 65(130) 60(180) 32(128) 16(80) 545 2.725 16
Free sampling and 13(13) 60(120) 74(222) 35(140) 17(85) 580 6
freebies 2.9
Trial plots 27(27) 72(144) 51(153) 32(128) 18(90) 542 2.71 17

60
Fig No.5.2.14 Factors Considered by Farmers While Purchasing Pesticides:

Factors Considered by Farmers n=200

Rank Cumulative

Trial plots 17 542

Free sampling and freebies 6 580
Crop income 16 545
Weather condition 10 556
Size of land holding 14 546
Stage of crop growth 12 555
Intensity of pest and disease 8 569
Types of pest 9 567
Nature of crop 20 503
Result 5 585
Timely Availability 4 595
Credit 12 555
After Sales Service 7 571
Quality 10 556
Recommendation 1 616
Brand Image 2 611
Promotional Activity 19 509
Price 3 601
Past Experience 18 522
Packaging Size 14 546

Above graph shows the details of factors considered by farmers while purchasing Pesticides.
Most of the farmers highly consider Recommendation, Brand image, Price, Timely
availability, Result and free sampling , then other factors like , intensity of pest and disease,
types of pest, quality, weather condition, stage of crop growth, credit, packaging size, size of
holding, crop income, trial plots, Past experience and nature of crop were considered while
purchasing Pesticides.

61
 5.2.15 Promotional Activities Which Influence Farmers
Table No. 5.2.15 Promotional Activities Which Influence Farmers:

3- Cumulative Mean
Particulars 5-Always 4-Often 2-Rarely 1-Never Rank
Sometimes Score
1.93
Advertise 0(0) 3(12) 39(117) 99(198) 59(59) 386 5
4.98
Demonstrations 176(880) 24(96) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 997 1
4.27
Field Program 72(360) 111(444) 17(51) 0(0) 0(0) 855 2
1.64
Campaigning 0(0) 0(0) 12(36) 104(208) 84(84) 328 7
1.10
Wall Painting 0(0) 0(0) 2(6) 17(34) 181(181) 221 8
2.69
Exhibition 2(10) 11(44) 112(336) 73(146) 2(2) 538 5
3.03
Farmer Meeting 2(10) 45(180) 110(330) 43(86) 0(0) 606 4
Dealers 4.55
124(620) 69(276) 3(9) 2(4) 2(2) 911 3
Suggestions
1.1
Others 0(0) 0(0) 5(15) 10(20) 185(185) 220 9

Fig No.5.2.15 Promotional Activities Which Influence Farmers:

Promotional Activities n=200

Cumulative Score Rank
997 911
855
538 606
386 328
221 220
5 1 2 7 8 5 4 3 9

Above graph shows the details of promotional activities which influence farmers. Mostly
farmers gave more importance to demonstration, field programme and Dealers suggestions.
Farmers gave less importance to wall painting and campaigning.

62
5.2.16 Major Challenges in Cumin Crop Farming
Table No.5.2.16 Major Challenges in Cumin Crop Farming:

Particulars No of respondents Percentages

5
Cumin price fluctuations 11

Attack of cut worm Pest 160 80

Lack of Irrigation 22 11

Thrips attack 4 2

2
Labour issue 3

Grand Total 200 100

Fig No. 5.2.16 Major Challenges in Cumin Crop Farming:

Major challenges n=200

No of respondents

160

22
11 4 3

Cumin price Attack of cut Lack of Thrips attack Labour issue

fluctuations worm Pest Irrigation

Above graph shows the details of major challenges faced by the farmer in Cumin crop
farming. Mostly 80% farmers faced the problem of attack of cut worm Pest, 11% farmers
faced Irrigation problem, 5% farmers faced the problem of fluctuation’s Cumin price, 2%
farmers are face problem of thrips attack and few 2% farmers faced the problem of
labour issue in Cumin farming.

63
5.2.17 New Pesticide for Controlling Pest

Table no. 5.2.17 New Pesticide for Controlling Pest

Suggestion No of Respondents Percentages
Yes 150 75
No 50 25
Grand total 200 100

Fig no. 5.2.17 New Pesticide For Controlling Pest

New pesticide requirement n=200

No
25%

Yes
75%

Above graph shows the 75% farmers like to introduce new pesticide for controlling pest, and
25% farmers are not interested for introduction of new pesticide for controlling pest.

64
5.2.18 Dealers Have a Licence of Farm Pesticide
Table no. 5.2.18 Dealers Have a Licence of Farm Pesticide:

Particulars No. of respondents Percentages

Yes 42 84
No 8 16
Grand total 50 100

Fig no. 5.2.18 Dealers Have a Licence Of Farm Pesticide:

Licence of Farm Pesticide n=50

16%

Yes
No
84%

Above graph depicts that 84% Dealers have a licence for selling of farm pesticide and 16%
dealers were doing business without licence.

65
5.2.19 Number of Pesticide Companies for Business
Table no. 5.2.19 Number of Pesticide Companies for Business:

Particulars No. of respondents Percentages

One company 3 6
Two company 7 14
Three company 16 32
Multiple company 24 48
Grand total 50 100

Fig no. 5.2.19 Number of Pesticide Companies for Business:

Number of Pesticide Companies n=50

6%

14%
48% One company
Two company
32% Three company
Multiple company

Above graph depicts that 48% dealers were dealing with multiple companies while only
6% dealers were dealing with one companiy.32% were dealing with three companies and
14% were dealing with two companies.

66
5.2.20 No. of Villages Covered for A Business
Table no. 5.2.20 No. of Villages Covered for A Business:

Villages No. of respondents Percentages

1-10 16 32
11-20 28 56
21-30 6 12
>30 00 00
Grand total 50 100

Fig no. 5.2.20 No. Of Villages Covered For A Business:

No. of Villages Under Coverage n=50

Percentage

56%

32%

12%
0%

1--10 11 20-- 21-30 >30

Above graph depicts that 56% dealer had 11-20 villages under their coverage. While 32%
had 1-10 and 12% dealer had 21-30 villages under their coverage. And no one dealer covered
more then 30 villages under their coverage.

67
5.2.21 Total Business Turnover of Dealers
Table No. 5.2.21 Total Business Turnover of Dealers:

Particulars No. of Respondent Percentages

6
1-10 Lac 12.00
13
10-20 Lac 26.00
20
20-30 Lac 40.00
7
30-40 Lac 14.00
4
More than 40 Lac 8.00
Grand Total 50 100.00

Fig No.5.2.21 Total Business Turnover of Dealers:

Total Business Turnover n=50

8% 12%
1-10 Lac
14%
10-20 Lac
26% 20-30 Lac
30-40 Lac
40% More than 40 Lac

Above graph shows that 40% Dealers have turnover of 20-30 lac, 26% Dealers had turnover
of 10-20 lac, 14% Dealers had turnover of 30-40 lac, 12% Dealers had turnover of 1-10 lac
and few 8% Dealers had turnover more than 40 lac.

68
5.2.22 Highest Sold Pesticide from Dealer

Table no. 5.2.22 Highest Sold Pesticide from Dealer:

Particulars No. of Respondents Percentages

Insecticide 15 30
Herbicide 10 20
Fungicide 6 12
Plant growth regulator 12 24
Other 7 14
Grand total 50 100

Fig no. 5.2.22 Highest Sold Pesticide from Dealer:

Highest sold Pesticide n=50

14%
30% Insecticide
24% Herbicide
Fungicide
12% 20% Plant growth regulator
Other

Above graph shows that in sold out pesticide there were 30% of insecticide, 20% of
herbicide, 12% of fungicide, 24% of PGR and 14% of other pesticide were sold from dealer.

69
5.2.23 Factor Considered by Dealer while Selling Pesticide Products.
(Stated by Dealers)

Table No. 5.2.23 Factor Considered by Dealer while Selling Pesticide Products. (Stated
by Dealers):

Particulars 1- 2- 3- Cumulative Mean Rank

Low Medium High Score
Demand 12(12) 31(62) 7(21) 95 1.9 4
Quality 0(0) 26(52) 24(72) 124 2.48 2
Long term credit facility 0(0) 3(6) 47(141) 147 2.94 1
Availability 8(8) 27(54) 15(45) 107 2.14 3
Margin 25(25) 25(50) 0(0) 75 1.5 5

Fig No.5.2.23 Factors Considered by Dealer while Selling Pesticide Products. (Stated by
Dealers):

Factors n=50
Cumulative Score Rank
147
124
107
95
75

4 2 1 3 5

From above graph it could be concluded that dealer were high concern about credit facility
and then other factors were also considered like quality, availability, demand and margin etc.
while selling Pesticide stated by Dealers.

70
5.2.24 Most Popular Pesticide in Area According to Reason
Table no. 5.2.24 Most Popular Pesticide in Area According to Reason:

Particulars No. of Respondents Percentages

Packaging 5 10
Quality 18 36
Price 8 16
Availability 12 24
Others 7 14
Grand total 50 100

Fig no. 5.2.24 Most Popular Pesticide in Area According to Reason:

Most Popular Pesticide n=50

14% 10%
Packaging
24% Quality
36%
Price

16% Availability
Others

Above graph shows that 36% pesticide should be popular due to the reason of quality. Then
availability (24%), price (16%), packaging (14%) and other (10%) reason should be
considered.

71
5.2.25 Most Popular Pesticides According to Dealers
Table No.5.2.25 Most Popular Pesticides According to Dealers:

Company Name Pesticide’s Technical Name

Krishi Crop Science India Ethion 50% EC
Bayer Crop Science Imidacloprid
Profenofos
Sygenta Crop Protection Imamection Benzoate
Thaimenthoxam
Indofil Industries Ltd Novaluron
Gharada Chemicals Ltd Fenvalrate
Acetamiprid
Rallis India Ltd.
Chlorpyriphos
Molraxa Agrochemicals Pvt.Ltd Phorate
Chlorantraniliprole
Dupont
Indoxacarb
Dhanuka Agritech Ltd Bifenthrin
Krishi Rasayan Export Pvt.Ltd Acetamiprid
UPL ltd. Monocrotophos
Lemdamethrin
GSP Crop Science Pvt.Ltd
Dichlorvos
Swal Corporation Ltd Acephate
Tracer
Dow Agro Science India Pvt.Ltd
Profenofos
Coromandel Agrico Pvt.Ltd Cypermethrin
Axcent Crop Science Pvt.Ltd Fipronil
Chemet Chemicals Pvt.Ltd Methyl Parathion

72
5.2.26 Factors Considered by Dealers while Purchasing Products from
Company
Table No. 5.2.26 Factors Considered while Purchasing Agrochemicals from Company:

Particulars 1- 2- 3- 4- Cumulativ Mea Rank

Always Sometime Rarely Never e score n
s
Farmer trust 6(24) 22(66) 13(26) 9(9) 125 2.5 6
Quality 32(128 13(39) 5(10) 0(0) 177 1
) 3.54
Timely availability 0(0) 8(24) 27(54) 15(15) 93 1.86 7
Credit facility 11(44) 30(90) 7(14) 2(2) 150 3 4
Brand Image 9(36) 17(51) 21(42) 3(3) 132 2.64 5
Product performance 36(144 12(36) 2(4) 0(0) 154 3
) 3.08
After sales service 0(0) 6(18) 16(32) 28(28) 78 1.56 9
Low price 1(4) 5(15) 8(16) 36(36) 71 1.42 11
Good Margin 24(96) 14(42) 7(14) 5(5) 157 3.14 2
Effective 0(0) 2(6) 18(36) 30(30) 72 10
Administration 1.44
Others 0(0) 8(24) 18(36) 24(24) 84 1.68 8

Fig No.5.2.25 Factors Considered while Purchasing Agrochemicals from Company:

Factors n=50
Cumulative score Rank

177
150 154 157
125 132
93
78 71 72 84

6 1 7 4 5 3 9 11 2 10 8

Above graph depicts the details of factors considered by dealers while purchase the
agrochemicals from company. Dealers were high focused on quality, good margin, product
performance, and long term credit. dealers were moderately focused on brand image, farmers
trust and timely availability. Dealers were less focused on effective administration and low
price.

73
5.2.27 Satisfaction Levels of Dealers

Table No.5.2.27 Satisfaction Levels of Dealers:

Parameters No. of Respondents Percentages

Highly Satisfied 6 12

Satisfied 24 48

Moderately Satisfied 16 32

Dissatisfied 4 8

Highly Dissatisfied 0 0

Grand Total 50 100

Fig No.5.2.26Satisfaction Levels of Dealers:

Satisfaction Level of Dealers n=50

Percentage
48%
32%
12% 8%
0%

Above graph shows the details of Satisfaction level of dealers towards pesticides business.
Mostly 48% dealers were satisfied, 32% dealers were moderately satisfied, 12% Dealers were
highly satisfied, 8% Dealers were dissatisfied and none of the dealers were highly
dissatisfied.

74
5.2.28 Dealers Suggested to Company
Table No.5.2.28 Dealers Suggested to Company:

Particulars No. of respondents Percentages

16
Increase Field Demonstration 32
23
Competitive price with other brand 46
11
Increase Margin 22
Grand Total 50 100

Fig No. 5.2.27 Dealers Suggested to Company:

Dealers Suggestion n=50

22% Increase Field

32% Demonstration
Competitive price
with other brand
Increase Margin
46%

Above the table and graph depicts that dealers were gave the review of competitive price with
others brand (i.e.46%), increase field demonstration (i.e.32%) and increase the margin
(i.e.22%).

75
Objective-3 To Provide Suggestions to the Company Based on
Study for Effective Marketing.


Farmers are mainly facing the problem of cut worm and thrips, so company should find solution
to resolve this problem.


Farmers mainly get influenced by dealer’s suggestions, so company should train and
educate dealers by arranging training programme and seminars etc. So that dealers can
convenience to farmers in a better ways.


Farmers don’t get convince to buy a new product until they are given field
demonstration, so company should plan for effective field demonstration and field work.
It can gain the trust of farmers.


Farmers prefer those agrochemical products which are timely available, so company should focus
on better and regular distribution channel to ensure on timely availability.


Farmers mostly consider the packaging, so company should focus on various packages with
different sizes of agrochemical products.


Farmers and dealers both emphasised on Quality parameter while purchasing
agrochemical products, so company should highlights the quality parameter through
promotional activities.


Farmers mostly purchase agrochemicals on credit basis from the dealers so company
should define and ease the conditions for credit availability so that it should be affordable
and profitable for both farmers and dealers.


Dealers focus on margins in the agrochemical products, so company should follow the
competitive margin policy with competitors.

Company should grab the opportunity by increasing effective promotional activities.


Farmers and dealers both emphasized on Quality parameter while purchasing
agrochemical products. So, company should highlight the quality parameter through
promotional activities.


Farmers mostly purchase agrochemicals on credit basis from the dealers. So, company
should define and ease the conditions for credit availability so that it should be affordable
and profitable for both farmers and dealers.


Dealers focus on margins in the agrochemical products. So, company should follow the
competitive margin policy with competitors.

76
 FINDINGS OF FARMERS AND DEALERS:
Objective -1 To Study the Socio-Economic Profile of Farmers and Dealers in Study
Area

Most of the farmers were under the age group 35-45 years (i.e.39%) and few farmers were under
the age group of more than 55 years (i.e.3%).


Majority of farmers in study area had completed SSC (i.e.33%) and primary education (below
SSC) levels (i.e.36%).


Majority of the farmers (i.e. 43%) had 5-7 family members while only 8% of the farmers had 1-3
family members.


Majority of farmers had experience of farming (i.e. 47%) more than 15 years and only few farmers
(i.e. 11%) had 0-5 years.


In study area, Most of the farmers (i.e. 33%) had income between 1-2 lakh and only few farmers
(i.e. 8%) had income level below 1 lakh.


For the 63% farmers the major source of income was only Agriculture and some 37% farmers gain
income from both Agriculture & other source.


Small and medium farmers were more in study area. 38% farmers had small land holding and 35%
farmers had medium land holding. Only few were marginal farmers’ i.e. 9%.


(100%) farmers were growing cumin & (80.67%) preferred cotton in large area compared to others
crops.

48% dealers come under the age group of 35-45 years.


Most of the dealers had completed SSC (34%) & HSC (30%) and some dealers (18%) had
completed under graduation and Only (4%) done post graduate.

34% dealers had business experience of 5-10 years.


Dealers in study area were high business turnover. 40% had average turnover of
agrochemicals i.e.Rs.20-30 lakh in which 26% had exclusively pesticides average turnover
i.e. Rs.10-20 lakh.

77
 Objective-2 To Study Factors Influencing Buying Behavior of Farmers for Pesticides
Used and Dealers Perception towards Sales of Different Pesticides in Cumin Crop.


Majority of farmers preferred, “No-4” and “No-2” cumin varieties and other varieties were preferred by some
farmers.

Farmers were facing the problem of cut worm and it was damaging the cumin crop.


Farmers were facing the problem of damping off in disease and problem of broadleaf in weeds.

Expenses incurred for pesticides between (i.e. Rs.4000-6000) in cumin crop.

81% farmers purchased pesticides from the dealers.


Majority of the farmers were satisfied (i.e.44%) & moderately (i.e.26%) satisfied with use of
existing pesticides for crop protection.


Farmers mainly consider factors like quality, recommendation of dealers and credit facility while
purchasing agrochemicals.

Farmers were highly influenced through demonstration & dealers suggestions.


Cumin farmers were facing the problems like attack of cut worm and lack of irrigation facilities
etc.


Dealers mostly considered long term credit facility, quality, margin and demand etc. factors while
selling pesticide to the farmers.


Dealers suggestion, quality and product performance were major factors affecting the purchase
decision of farmers as stated by dealers.


Many dealers were suggested that companies should increase the field demonstration activities,
competitive price with other brands and increase margin.

78
CONCLUSION:

Cumin crop is one of the major crop of Sirsadistrict and many cumin varieties
were grown in the study area. Cumin crop is highly susceptible to pests. So, farmers had to
spend more on the pesticides, which shows high potential for sales of agrochemicals. In study
area all the farmers preferred chemical treatment for the crop protection.

In the study area farmers were quality conscious they mainly purchased the pesticides
through the recommendation of progressive farmers and dealers. Farmers mainly purchase
pesticides on credit basis from the dealers. There are certain constraints faced by farmers like
Attack of cut worm and Thrips insect. So, there is urgent need to overcome these issues.

In this regard, company should increase its field work, demonstrations and should work
out on effective schemes for promotion. The dealers mainly focus on quality, margin and
affordable credit facilities before purchasing pesticides.

Company having good perception among dealers and farmers. However the market share
of Molecule is quite low. It needs to improve its promotional activity that is demo plot,
campaigning, farmers meetings and visit by company representative in order to increase its
market share. Also, Company should maintain quality of products, Reasonable Price and
demonstrations by effective promotions dealers’ services and support.

79
BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Bandara B. M. D. P., Abeynayake N. R., Bandara L. And Anjalee G. H. I.(2013);
“Farmers’ perception and willingness to pay for pesticides concerning quality and
efficiency”;The Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2013, vol.8, no3, pp 153-160.

 Bharatharaj P. (2012); “Farmers’ buying behaviour towards pesticide and the role of
dealers in marketing the products with reference to Coimbatore district”(Unpublished
Phd thesis);Department of Commerce, Bharathiar University , Tamil Nadu

 C-DAP (2013), Comprehensive District Agricultural Plan, Department of Agricultural

& Co-operation, Government of Haryana, Gandhinagar, C-DAP/12.

 De A.; Bose R; Kumar A. and Mazumdar S. (2014), “Targeted Delivery of Pesticides

Using Biodegradable Polymeric Nanoparticles”, Springer Briefs in Molecular
Science, pp 37-52.

 Gandhi Vasant P. (1997), “Growth and Economics of Pesticide Use in India:

Overview – Analysis of the Environment, Patterns and Market Potential”, Indian
Institute of Management Ahmedabad (IIMA). Research and Publication Department,
in working paper WP 1997-05-01_01448.

 Govindarajan B. and Prabaharan V. (2015), “A survey of insecticide application in

Virudhunagar District, Rajapalayam Taluk”, Internatinal Journal of Current Science
Research; Vol: 1: 5; pp 113-115
 Hexa Research (2014), “Global Imidacloprid Market Size, Regional Outlook,
Application Analysis, Competitive Insights And Forecasts, 2014 – 2020”
rd
 Kothari, C.R. (2013). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. (3 Edition,
New Age International (P) Ltd., New Delhi).

 Published Report (2015), “District-wise Area, Production and Yield of Important

Food & Non-food Crops in Haryana State” , Directorate of Agriculture, Haryana
State, Gandhinagar, pp 01-98.
nd
 Report on Indian Agrochemical Industry (2015), “Ushering in the 2 Green
Revolution: Role of Crop Protection Chemicals”, FICCI and Tata Strategic
Management Group, pp 03-51.

 Rohini, A. Padmanaban, N. R. (2000); “Farmers brand and dealer loyalty to pesticides

in Coimbatore district, Madras Agricultural Journal, 87, 1/3, pp 133-137.

 Shetty P.K., Murugan M. , Hiremath M.B. and Sreeja K.G. (2010); “Farmers’
education and perception on pesticide use and crop economies in Indian
agriculture”;Journal of Experimental Sciences Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp 03-08

80
  Solanki Dharmraj, Panchal Nilay V., Desai Pratik (2013) “Consumer Buying
Behaviour towards Agriculture Inputs: An Empirical Study in Rural Area of Bardoli”.
The Journal of Global Research Analysis, 2013, pp 117-118.
 Solanki T. K (2012-13) “Brief industrial potentiality report of Sirsadistrict”,
MSME Report, Government of India, pp 01-13.

 Srivastava U.K. and Patel N.T. (1990), “An Overview of the Pesticide Industry and its
Marketing Environment”, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (IIMA).
Research and Publication Department; Vol.15 No.2, 13(4): pp. 19-28.
st
 Venugopal Pingali and Kaundinya Ram (2014). Agri-input Marketing in India (1
Edition, SAGE Publications Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi).
Websites & Links

 http://www.moleculeagri.in
 http://www.indianspices.com/spicecatalog/cuminhttp://www.cicr.org.in/database/d10
02.html
 https://india.gov.in/official-website-department-chemicals-and-petrochemicals
 https://surendranagardp.Haryana.gov.in/Surendranagar/english/about-district
 http://www.dgciskol.nic.in/
 https://india.gov.in/topics/agriculture/fertilizers-pesticides
 www.indiastat.com
 http://www.indiastat.com/agriculture/2/consumptionofpesticides/206872/stats.aspx
 http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome
 ppqs.gov.in/IpmPesticides_Cont.htm
 http://indianspices.com/sites/default/files/Major-spice-state-wise-area-production-
web-2015.pdf
 http://www.indianspices.com/export/major-itemwise-export
 http://www.efymag.com/admin/issuepdf/Cumin_May2012.pdf
 https://www.agra-net.com/agrow/
 http://www.biological-control.org/chemicalpest/Global-pesticide-consumption-
pollution.pdf
 http://chemicals.nic.in/
 https://rlc.Haryana.gov.in/index.htm

81
 Questionnaire for Farmer

Name of farmer-_______________________________________________

Address-

Village-______________Taluka-________________District-____________

Contact no-____________________________________________________

1. Age of farmer

(1) 15-25 (2) 25-35 (3) 35-45 (4) 45-55 (5) Above 55

2. Education level of farmer

(1) Illiterate (2) below SSC (3) SSC (4) HSC (5) Graduate

(6) Post Graduate

3. Married status:

(1)Married (2) Unmarried

4. How many members are in your family?

(1) 2-3 (2) 3-5 (3) 5-7 (4) >7

5. How many years of farming experience do you have?

(1) 0-5 (2) 5-10 (3) 10-15 (4) Above 15

6. Source of income:

(1) Agriculture (2) Livestock (3) both (4) Others

7. Annual income from farming:

(1) <100000 (2) 100000-200000 (3) 200000-300000

(4) 300000-400000 (5) >400000

8. Land holding size:

(1) Marginal <2.5 Acre (2) Small 2.5 to 5 Acre

(3) Medium 5 to 10 Acre (4) Large >10 Acre

9. Which crop taken season wise?

Season Kharif Rabi

Crop Acre Crop Acre
1.
2.
3.
10. Are you growing cumin?

(1)Yes (2) No
11. The area under cumin crop cultivation (Acre).
(1) 1-2 Acre (2) 2-3 Acre (3) 3-4 Acre (4) > 5 Acre

12. Which cumin variety are you growing?

Sr. No Cumin variety name

1.
2.
3.

13. Which are the major pest problems in cumin crop?

Major Pests Highly damage Moderate Low

Cut worm
Thrips
Aphid
Beetle
Nematodes
Mealy bugs
Others

14. Which are the major diseases problems in cumin crop?

Major Diseases Highly damage Moderate Low

Wilt
Powdery mildew
Altemaria blight
Damping off
Others

15. Which are the major weeds in cumin crop?

Major weeds Highly damage Moderate Low

Broadleaf
Grasses
Sedges
Others

16. Total requirement of pesticide for cumin crop. ( Qty used in lit/kg in acre)

(1) 1-2 (2) 2-3 (3) 3-4 (4) 4-5 (5) >5

17. Total expenditure on pesticide using for cumin crop. (Rs per acre)

(1) <2000 (2) 2000-4000 (3) 4000-6000 (4) >6000

82
18. From where you purchase pesticide?

(1) Dealer (2) Distributors (3) Cooperatives

(4) Agriculture department (5) Depots

19. Terms of purchase

(1) Cash only (2) Credit only (3) Cash and Credit

20. Choice of alternatives if credit sales are not available

(1) Switch over to a dealer who provides credit

(2) Source credit from other (3) Reduce the quality of application

21. State your responses to price changes in preferred brand

(1) Same brand same quantity (2) Same brand reduced quantity

(3) Switch over to low price brand

22. State your problem while purchasing pesticide from private dealers.

Problem Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Lack of credit availability
High interest on
credit borrowing
High price
Preferred brand are
not available
Fear of adulteration
Poor quality of products
No discount
Untimely supply
Packaging size
Quality
After sales service
Others

23. Are you satisfied with you prefer pesticide for control of pest?

(1) Highly Satisfied (2) Satisfied (3) Moderate Satisfied

(4) Dissatisfied (5) Highly Dissatisfied

If Dissatisfied

Why……………………..

83
24. Which factors do you consider while purchasing pesticide for cumin crop?

Factor Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Packaging

Price
Promotional activity
Brand Image
Recommendation
Quality
After sales service
Credit
Timely availability
Result
Nature of crop
Types of pest
Intensity of pest and disease
Stage of crop growth
Size of land holding
Weather condition
Crop income
Free sampling and freebies
Trial plots
Others

84
25. Which type of promotional activities influence you mostly at the time of purchasing
pesticide for cumin crop? (Give rating)

Factor/Scale Highly effective Effective Neutral Ineffective Highly ineffective

Advert
ise
Demonstratio
n
Field program
Campaigning
Wall painting
Exhibition
Farmer
meeting
Retailer
suggestion
Other

26. Major problem in cumin crop farming in Surendranagar district

1.__________________________2._________________________________
3.__________________________4._________________________________

27. Do you want some new pesticide for controlling pest?

(1) Yes

(2) No

If yes than….what feature

1._________________________________________________________________________

28. Any Suggestion:

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________
85
 Questionnaire for Dealer
Name of dealer-___________________________________________

Shop name-_______________________________________________

Address:

Taluka- _______________________District-______________________

Contact no-________________________________________________

1. Age of dealer:

(1) 15-25 (2) 25-35 (3) 35-45 (4) 45-55 (5) Above 55

2. Education level:

(1) Below SSC (2) SSC (3) HSC (4) Graduate (5) PG

3. Business experience:

(1) 1-5 (2) 5-10 (3) 10-15 (4) >1

4. What types of business does?

Pesticides Fertilizers
Consultation
Seeds Agri-Services

5. Are you a licensed dealer of farm pesticide?

(1) Yes (2) No

6. Number of seller and their concentration

(1) One company (2) Two companies

(3) Three Companies (4) Multiple companies

7. How much area under you coverage?

No of village-______________________________________________

8. Total business turnover of pesticide. (in lac)

(1) 5-10 (2) 10-20 (3) 20-30 (4) 30-40 (5) >40

9. Highest sold pesticide from your shop:

(1) Insecticide (2) Herbicide (3) Fungicide (4) PGR (5) Other

86
10. Give the reason for the criteria for selling pesticides: (give rank?)

(1) Demand
(2) Quality
(3) Margin
(4) Availability
(5) Long term credit facility

11. Most popular pesticide in your area according to reason

(1) Packaging (2) Quality (3) Price (4) Availability (5) Others

12. Company wise major pesticide marked by you.

Company name Pesticide

13. Which is the most popular pesticide in your area?

Sr. No Company Pesticide Reason

1.
2.
3.
4.

87
 14. Why you prefer particular product of company?

Reason Always Sometimes Rarely Never

Brand image
Farmer trust
Credit facility
Product performance
After sales service
Low price
Good margin
Timely vailability
Effective administration
Quality
Others

15. Dealers satisfaction level of current pesticide for pest control.

(1) Highly satisfied (2)Satisfied

(3) Moderate satisfied (4)Dissatisfied (5) Highly dissatisfied

16. Suggestion given by dealer.

(1) Increase field demonstration (2) Competitive price with other brand

(3) Increase margin

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

88