Study on marketing of Soyabean (macs 1520) in Indore district of Madhya Pradesh

Introduction

Soybean variety MACS 1520 had been developed as a highyielding and improved cultivar to meet the increasing demand for soybean production in India. The variety had been released by the researchers of the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities and had gained considerable attention due to its superior agronomic performance, adaptability, and yield potential under diverse agro-climatic conditions. MACS 1520 had been characterised by its medium maturity duration, making it suitable for cultivation in soybean-growing regions where timely harvesting and crop rotation practices were important. The variety had exhibited vigorous plant growth, good branching ability, and uniform pod development, which had contributed significantly to enhanced productivity. It had been recognised for its tolerance to major biotic and abiotic stresses, thereby reducing production risks and ensuring stable yields under varying environmental conditions. The grains of MACS 1520 had possessed desirable quality characteristics, including higher protein and oil content, which had enhanced its acceptability among farmers, processors, and consumers. Furthermore, the variety had demonstrated better resistance against prevalent diseases and pests affecting soybean cultivation, resulting in reduced expenditure on plant protection measures and increased economic returns to farmers. The adoption of MACS 1520 had been promoted through various agricultural extension programmes owing to its suitability for mechanised farming operations and its potential to improve farm income. The variety had also contributed towards strengthening the soybean value chain by providing quality raw material for the edible oil and feed industries. In regions where soybean cultivation formed a major component of agricultural production systems, MACS 1520 had emerged as a promising variety due to its yield stability, adaptability, and market-oriented traits. Consequently, it had played an important role in enhancing soybean productivity, profitability, and sustainability, thereby supporting the broader objectives of agricultural development and food security in India.

Research Methodology

The study employed a purposive-cum-random sampling technique for the selection of the district, block, villages, and respondents. Indore district of Madhya Pradesh was purposively selected for the investigation owing to considerations of accessibility, convenience, and time constraints faced by the researcher. Among the various blocks within the district, Mhow block was selected purposively due to the predominance of farmers engaged in the cultivation of Soyabean (MACS 1520). A comprehensive list of villages within the selected block was prepared, from which five per cent of the villages having a comparatively higher concentration of Soyabean (MACS 1520) cultivators were selected through random sampling. Subsequently, a complete list of Soyabean (MACS 1520) growers in the selected villages was compiled and classified into five categories based on operational landholding size, namely marginal (below 1 hectare), small (1-2 hectares), semimedium (2-4 hectares), medium (4-10 hectares), and large (above 10 hectares). A total sample of 100 Soyabean (MACS 1520) farmers was selected using the proportionate random sampling method. In addition, 10 wholesalers, 5 retailers, and 10 consumers were selected to analyse marketing costs, marketing margins, price spread, and marketing efficiency within the study area. Primary data were collected through a well-structured and pre-tested interview schedule using the personal interview method. Secondary data were obtained from various published and unpublished sources, including books, journals, reports, and records maintained at district and block headquarters. The collected data were analysed using appropriate statistical tools and techniques, and the findings were presented systematically. The study was based on data pertaining to the agricultural year 2025-2026. Channel I: Producer-wholesaler-consumer Table 2: Revealed the marketing cost, marketing margin, price spread, and marketing efficiency of soybean (MACS 1520) marketed through Channel-I (Producer-Wholesaler-Consumer). The producer sold a 20 kg bag of soybean to the wholesaler at ₹2,100 and incurred a total marketing cost of ₹120, which included expenses on packing, packing materials, transportation, market fees, labour, loading and unloading, weighing, and miscellaneous charges. After deducting these expenses, the net price received by the producer was ₹1,980 per bag. The wholesaler sold the soybean directly to the consumer at ₹2,321 per bag and incurred a total marketing cost of ₹65 towards transportation, storage, labour, loading and unloading, and miscellaneous expenses. The wholesaler earned a marketing margin of ₹156 per bag. The consumer ultimately paid ₹2,321 for the product. The total marketing cost in the channel was estimated at ₹185 per bag, while the total marketing margin www.extensionjournal.com amounted to ₹156 per bag. The price spread, representing the difference between the consumer's paid price and the net price received by the producer, was calculated at ₹341 per bag. The marketing efficiency was recorded at 5.80, indicating that the channel functioned efficiently with comparatively lower marketing costs and margins. The findings suggested that the direct movement of produce from producer to wholesaler and then to consumer minimized intermediary involvement, reduced the price spread, and enhanced marketing efficiency. Therefore, Channel-I proved to be an economically efficient marketing channel for soybean (MACS 1520), ensuring a higher return to producers and a relatively lower purchase price for consumers. Channel II: Producer -wholesaler -retailerconsumer Table 3 Depicted the marketing cost, marketing margin, price spread, and marketing efficiency of soybean (MACS 1520) marketed through Channel-II (Producer-Wholesaler-Retailer-Consumer). The producer sold a 20 kg bag of soybean to the wholesaler at ₹2,100 and incurred a total marketing cost of ₹120, comprising expenses on packing, packing materials, transportation, market fees, labour, loading and unloading, weighing, and miscellaneous charges.

Analytical

Results and Discussion

After deducting these expenses, the net price received by the producer was ₹1,980 per bag. The wholesaler sold the produce to the retailer at ₹2,250 per bag and incurred a total marketing cost of ₹65. The wholesaler earned a marketing margin of ₹85 per bag. The retailer subsequently sold the soybean to the final consumer at ₹2,450 per bag. In carrying out marketing activities, the retailer incurred a total cost of ₹40 on transportation, shop rent and storage, labour, and miscellaneous expenses, and earned a marketing margin of ₹160 per bag. The consumer ultimately paid ₹2,450 for the product. The total marketing cost in the channel amounted to ₹225 per bag, while the total marketing margin was ₹245 per bag. The price spread was estimated at ₹470 per bag, indicating a wider gap between the consumer's paid price and the net price received by the producer. The marketing efficiency was recorded at 4.21, which was lower than that observed in Channel-I. The findings indicated that the involvement of an additional intermediary increased both marketing costs and margins, resulting in a higher consumer price and lower marketing efficiency. Therefore, Channel-II was found to be comparatively less efficient due to the greater price spread and higher marketing expenses associated with the longer marketing channel. Table 4 Highlighted the differences in marketing cost, marketing margin, price spread, and marketing efficiency of soybean (MACS 1520) under two marketing channels. The net price received by the producer remained the same in both channels at ₹1,980 per 20 kg bag, indicating that the producer's earnings were unaffected by the choice of marketing channel. However, the consumer paid a lower price of ₹2,321 in Channel-I (Producer-Wholesaler-Consumer) compared to ₹2,450 in Channel-II (Producer-Wholesaler-Retailer-Consumer). The total marketing cost was lower in Channel-I (₹185) than in Channel-II (₹225), primarily due to the absence of a retailer in the former channel. Similarly, the total marketing margin was significantly lower in Channel-I (₹156) compared to Channel-II (₹245), reflecting the additional profit earned by the retailer in the longer marketing channel. Consequently, the price spread was found to be ₹341 in Channel-I and ₹470 in Channel-II, indicating that a larger portion of the consumer's rupee was absorbed by marketing expenses and intermediary margins in Channel-II. The marketing efficiency was recorded at 5.80 in Channel-I, whereas it was only 4.21 in Channel-II. The results clearly demonstrated that Channel-I was more efficient than Channel-II, as it involved fewer intermediaries, lower marketing costs and margins, a www.extensionjournal.com smaller price spread, and a lower consumer price. Therefore, Channel-I was identified as the more economical and efficient marketing channel for soybean (MACS 1520), benefiting both producers and consumers.

Conclusion

The study concluded that the marketing system of Soybean (MACS 1520) in Indore district of Madhya Pradesh was characterised by the presence of two major marketing channels, namely Producer-Wholesaler-Consumer and Producer-Wholesaler-Retailer-Consumer. The analysis revealed significant variations in marketing cost, marketing margin, price spread, and marketing efficiency between the two channels. Although a majority of the respondents preferred Channel-II due to its wider market accessibility and established trading practices, Channel-I was found to be more efficient from an economic perspective. The net price received by producers remained identical in both channels at ₹1,980 per 20 kg bag; however, the final price paid by consumers was considerably lower in Channel-I than in Channel-II. The total marketing cost and marketing margin were also lower in Channel-I, indicating that the shorter marketing chain reduced operational expenses and intermediary profits. Consequently, the price spread in Channel-I was substantially smaller than that in Channel-II, enabling a larger share of the consumer's expenditure to reach the producer. The marketing efficiency index further confirmed the superiority of Channel-I, which recorded a value of 5.80 compared with 4.21 in Channel-II. The findings demonstrated that the inclusion of an additional intermediary in Channel-II increased marketing expenses, widened the price spread, and reduced overall marketing efficiency. The study therefore established that a reduction in the number of intermediaries could enhance marketing performance and improve the distribution of returns among market participants. The results also highlighted the importance of efficient transportation, storage, handling, and market infrastructure in reducing marketing costs and improving market outcomes. Strengthening direct marketing arrangements, promoting farmer collectives and Farmer Producer Organisations, expanding market information services, and improving access to regulated markets could further enhance marketing efficiency and producer profitability. The study emphasised that efficient marketing channels play a crucial role in ensuring fair returns to farmers while maintaining reasonable prices for consumers. Overall, the Producer-Wholesaler-Consumer channel emerged as the most economical and efficient marketing pathway for Soybean (MACS 1520) in the study area. Therefore, policies and programmes aimed at minimising unnecessary intermediaries and strengthening direct market linkages would contribute significantly towards improving the profitability, competitiveness, and sustainability of soybean marketing in Madhya Pradesh.

References

1. Chauhan S, et al. Agricultural marketing channels, marketing cost, margin and producer's share in consumer's rupee. Agricultural Economics Research Study. 2024:1-18.
2. Darshan C, Kodabal PP. A holistic approach of investigating soybean market structure, conduct and performance. Journal of Farm Sciences. 2024;37(1):4554.
3. Darshan C, Kodabal PP. An empirical study of soybean marketing in Belagavi district of Karnataka, India. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports. 2025:1-15.
4. Darshan C, et al. Market bottlenecks in soybean agribusiness: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of Farm Sciences. 2025:1-12.
5. Economic Times. Data disproves allegations of cartelisation, price manipulation in Bhavantar Yojana: Madhya Pradesh Agriculture Secretary. The Economic Times. 2025:1-4.
6. ICAR-Indian Institute of Soybean Research. Extension bulletin on soybean production technologies. Extension Bulletin No. 18. Indore: ICAR-IISR; 2023. p. 1-74.
7. ICAR-Indian Institute of Soybean Research. Advances in soybean research and technology dissemination in Central India. Soybean Research Bulletin. 2024;26(1):115.
8. Indian Council of Agricultural Research-Indian Institute of Soybean Research. Extension bulletin on soybean production technologies. Indore: ICAR-IISR; 2023. p. 185.
9. Joharapurkar SM, Sharma P. Price spread of soybean in Amravati district. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology. 2023;41(11):77-86.
10. Kumar R, Singh A, Patel V. Cluster analysis for sustainable soybean production in India. International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology. 2025;13(9):2450-2462.
11. Kumawat A, Sharma P, Verma R. Quality seed production of soybean in India: Current status, challenges and future strategies. Seed Research. 2025;53(1):1-12.
12. Oharapurkar SM, Sharma P. Economic assessment of soybean production in Amravati district of Maharashtra. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology. 2024;42(12):45-54.
13. Reuters. India to buy soybeans to help farmers reeling from losses. Reuters News Service. 2024 Sep 11.
14. Satyavathi CT, Maheshwari SK, Bharadwaj C, Arora R. Pearl millet: A climate-resilient nutricereal for mitigating hidden hunger and providing nutritional security. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2021;12:659938.
15. Waghmode D, Deshmukh B, Waghmode S. The role of Farmer Producer Companies (FPCs) in creating efficient marketing of soybean in Maharashtra, India. Research on World Agricultural Economy. 2025;6(3):825-838.
16. Yadav R, Singh K, Chaudhary P. Government policies and institutional support for millet marketing in India. Journal of Rural Development and Agricultural Policy. 2024;19(3):156-175.