Economic Analysis of Marketing of Honey in Assam

Introduction

Apiculture or beekeeping is the science which deals with the management and breeding of honey bees round the year for the production of various bee products like honey, bee wax, royal jelly, bee venom and bee propels. Besides, the production of valuable products, honey bees acts as a significant pollinating agent in cross pollination and preserves biodiversity. Honey is a high valued natural sweet substance and the primary product of apiculture made by the honeybees from the floral nectar (Midhun et al., 2022) [7] . Beekeeping is an eco-friendly way to generate income which doesn't compete for scarce land resources and provides employment opportunity to a number of individuals (Workneh, 2011) [12] . It is an essential agrobased additional activity that provides major income to the people in the rural as well as urban areas (Langthasa and Singh, 2023) [6] . Despite the advantages, beekeeping can be a complex and challenging practice that requires thorough understanding and knowledge of bee behaviour and biology. However, with proper knowledge and scientific training, beekeeping can be a rewarding and sustainable activity that offers beneficial effects to the environment and the mankind. The genus of Apis contains ten species (Arias and Sheppard, 2005) [2] , of which two species-Apis mellifera and Apis cerena are extensively domesticated (Gupta et al., 2014) [4] . Apis mellifera has an average yield upto 40 kg/hive in contrast to Apis cerena which yields just upto 10 kg/hive (Langthasa and Singh, 2023) [6] . The apiculture sector has been gradually increasing due to persistent efforts and initiatives taken by the government of India like the sweet revolution which was launched in the year 2016 to advance scientific beekeeping throughout the nation and emphasis the increase in production of honey which can be a major contributor in doubling farmer's income by 2024. To boost the sweet revolution government of India launched National Beekeeping and Honey Mission in 2020 (National Bee Board). India ranked as the sixth-largest exporter of natural honey. The export of honey increased by 109.80 per cent from 28,378.42 MTs in 2013-14 to 59536.74 MTs in 2019-20 (National Bee Board). Assam ranks 18 th in honey production in India and among the north eastern states Assam is the largest producer of honey with a production of 1400 metric tonnes in the year 2021-22 (Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Govt. of India.). The beekeepers in the state practice both modern and traditional beekeeping. Assam is endowed with highly diversified bee flora and favourable ecological condition which provides considerable potential for beekeeping www.extensionjournal.com activities. The demand for organic honey and its products have been increasing day by day in the world as well as domestic market because of its nutritional and therapeutic properties. Marketing plays an important role in disposal of produce and getting remunerative price by the producer. An effective marketing structure is of utmost important for stimulating the production and consumption process which as a result accelerate the economic development of the country (Mohapatra and Ramadas, 2023) [8] . Assam being one of the major states of honey production, it is important to analyse the marketing scenarios of honey in the state. However, no study was conducted in Assam to examine the prevailing marketing practices and marketing efficiency of different channels of honey marketing. Thus, the present study was undertaken to analyse the marketing practices and marketing efficiency of honey in Assam.

Methodology Study area and sampling

The present study was conducted in the state of Assam, India. Both Golaghat and Jorhat districts were purposively selected as they were endowed with highly diversified bee flora and highest beekeeper's density. A sample of 70 beneficiary beekeepers were selected randomly from the list of beekeepers provided by Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC) and All India Coordinated Research Project (AICRP) on Honey Bee, Assam Agricultural University. Primary data were collected from the beekeepers and the marketing intermediaries through personal interview using a well structured schedule.

Methods of data analysis

Marketed surplus, Marketing cost, Net price received by producer, Price spread, Producer's share in consumer rupee, Marketing margin and Marketing efficiency were estimated by using the following formulae

Marketed surplus

Marketed surplus = Total quantity of honey produce -(Quantity of honey used for family consumption + Quantity of honey loss if any) (Acharya and Agarwal, 2009) [1] .

Marketing cost

Where, C = C is the total cost of marketing of the commodity, Cf = cost incurred by the producer from time the produce leaves the farm till it is sold , Cm1, Cm2,...., Cmn = Cost incurred by different middleman in the process of buying and selling the product.

Net price received by producers

Net price received by producer= Price received by producer -marketing cost of producer (Chhetri, 2021) [3] Price spread Price spread = Pc -PF (Acharya and Agarwal, 2009) [1] Where, Pc = Price paid by consumer PF =Price received by producer for an equivalent quantity of farm produce Producer's share in consumer's rupee The Producer's share in consumer's rupee was estimated by using following formula% (Sirjanaa, 2020) [11] Pc = Price paid by consumer an equivalent quantity of farm produce s PF = Price received by producer

Marketing margin

Marketing margin of each intermediary in the marketing channel of honey was calculated by using following formulae (Sirjanaa, 2020) [11] Ami = PR -(PP + Cm) Where, Ami= Absolute margin of the i th middlemen PR = Sale price of i th middlemen Cm = Marketing cost per kg incurred by i th middlemen PP = Purchase price of i th middlemen

Marketing Efficiency

According to Acharya Approach (Acharya and Agarwal 2009) [1] Where, PF = Price received by producer MC= Marketing cost MM= Marketing margin

Results and discussion

Marketed surplus of honey

It is observed from the table (Table 1) that out of the total production of honey 2.37 per cent was kept for home consumption by the beekeepers and the estimated s marketed surplus was found to be 97.63 per cent in the study area. Similar trend was also as reported by Prasad et.al.

Marketing practices of honey in Assam:

Marketing practices followed by beekeepers in the marketing of honey is presented in Table 2. The study revealed that packaging and labelling were the primary practices involved in the marketing of honey. It is evident www.extensionjournal.com from the table that 55.71 per cent of the bee keepers used glass bottles for packing honey, while only 15.71 per cent beekeepers used plastic bottles for packing honey. Out of the total respondents, 28.57 per cent opted for no packaging.

Results also revealed that plastic bottle was least preferred for packaging by the bee keepers in the study area.

Labeling is an integral practice of marketing as it provides all the pertinent information about the product or the seller. Table 2 reveals that 47.14 per cent of the beekeepers used uncoated paper since it was less expensive than the waterproof labels. Of course, 35.71 per cent beekeepers was found selling their produce without any labels.

Marketing channels of honey

The total marketed surplus of honey was observed to be traded from beekeepers to the end consumer through four marketing channels.

• Channel I -Producer-Consumer • Channel II-Producer-Retailer-Consumer • Channel III-Producer-Wholesaler-Consumer • Channel IV-Producer-Processing Unit-Retailer-Consumer Figure 1 showed that maximum amount of honey (45.83 per cent) was marketed through Channel I, while 31.05 per cent of the total marketed surplus was sold through Channel II followed by Channel III (12.59 per cent). The less preferred channel was Channel IV which accounted for only 10.53 per cent of the total marketed surplus of honey. Table 3 that the average net price received for per kg of honey by the beekeepers was Rs 401.49. The highest net price was recived by the bee keepers when the quantity was sold directly to the consumer (Rs 418.44 per kg) and the least when it was sold through Channel IV (Rs 387.14 per kg). Price spread and producer's share price in consumer's rupee is presented in Table 4. The price spread was highest in Channel IV and lowest in Channel I that accounted for Rs 128.73/kg and Rs 32.90/kg respectively. Thus, it signifies that price spread increases with increase in length of the marketing channel and vice versa. Table 4 reveals that the producer share was highest in Channel I which accounted for 92.71 per cent and lowest in Channel IV at 75.05 per cent which implies producer share decreases with increase in number of intermediaries and is inversely related with consumer purchase price. Similar findings were reported by (Kalidas et al., 2021) [5] .

Conclusion

It can be concluded from the study that 97.63 per cent of the marketed surplus was sold through four different marketing channels, and packaging and labelling were the basic marketing practices prevalent in the study. Majority of the beekeepers packed the honey in glass bottles (55.71 per cent) with a label of uncoated paper (47.14 per cent) and sold it to the end consumers. The Channel I(producer to consumer) was the most efficient marketing channel of honey where the beekeepers received the highest net price (418.44 Rs /kg) , and price spread was the least (Rs 32.90 /kg).

References

1. Acharya SS, Agarwal NL. Agricultural Marketing in India. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing Company Private Limited; 2009.
2. Arias MC, Sheppard WS. Phylogenetic relationships of honey bees (Apis mellifera) inferred from nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequence data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2005;37(1):25-35.
3. Chhetri P, Sah SK, Regmi M, Baral S. Economic analysis and marketing system of Apis mellifera honey production in Dang, Nepal. Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources. 2021;4(1):154-164. DOI:10.3126/janr.v4i1.33249
4. Gupta RK, Reybroeck W, Van Veen JW, Gupta A. Beekeeping for poverty alleviation and livelihood security. Technological aspects of beekeeping. Vol. 1. [place unknown]: [publisher unknown]; 2014. p. 665.
5. Kalidas K, Mahendran K, Palanisamy NV, Senthilnathan T, Kavithambika B. Price spread and farmers share in consumer rupee of coconut value chains in Coimbatore district -a systematic analysis. Frontiers in Crop Improvement. 2022;9:2184-2188.
6. Langthasa K, Singh S. Practice of beekeeping in Kamrup district, Assam. Indian Journal of Entomology. 2023. DOI:10.55446/IJE.2023.717
7. Midhun VM, Velavan C, Palanichamy NV, Ramesh D. A study on price spread and marketing efficiency of honey value chains in Thrissur district of Kerala. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics and Sociology. 2022;40(10):668-676. DOI:10.9734/AJAEES/2022/v40i1031128
8. Mohapatra S, Ramadas S. An economic analysis of milk marketing pattern in Haryana. Indian Journal of Economics and Development. 2023;19(3):507-514. DOI:10.35716/IJED-22184
9. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India. [place unknown]: Government of India; 2021-2022.
10. Sirjana Y, Raj PB, Anish S, Bibasa B. Production and marketing economics of honey from Apis cerana in Dang district of Nepal. Reviews in Food and Agriculture. 2020;1(1):22-26. DOI:10.26480/rfna.01.2020.22.26
11. Workneh A. Financial benefits of box hive and the determinants of its adoption in selected district of Ethiopia. American Journal of Economics. 2011;1(1):21-29. DOI:10.5923/J.ECONOMICS.20110101.03