An impact of Uzhavar Sandhai (farmer’s market) on livelihood empowerment on farmers in Trichy District, Tamil Nadu

Introduction

Almost 60-70 percent of the rural population in India depends on agriculture and allied activities, as it supports millions of families for earning their livelihood. Agricultural development is a continuous process which in the long run depends on the marketing of agricultural produce in an organized manner to benefit both the farmers and the consumers. Direct marketing by farmers is being encouraged as an innovative channel. Some examples of these channels are Apni Mandi, Rythu Bazars and Uzhavar Sandis. These channels are mostly adopted in sales transactions of agricultural commodities like fruits, vegetables and flowers, which are highly perishable. In this channel, the produce moves quickly from farmers to consumers due to lack of middlemen. Uzhavar Sandhai had its birth in the concept of Kal Ghoj in Russia. The former Union agriculture secretary, MS Gill on his visit to this country was impressed by this concept of farmers' market and he replicated this concept by initiating Apni Mandis in Punjab and Haryana in early 1987. The Government of Tamil Nadu introduced this new concept of agricultural marketing for vegetables and fruits, namely "Uzhavar Santhai" in 1999. Uzhavar Sandhai are maintained by the District Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee of the Department of Agricultural Marketing and Agribusiness. Presently there are more than 141 Uzhavar Sandhai working in different parts of the state Tamil Nadu.

The objectives of the study includes

• To study the Socio-economic profile and farmers classification who participated in Uzhavar Sandhai.

• To analyze the impact of Uzhavar Sandhai on livelihood empowerment of farmers.

Material and Methods

Research design constitutes the blue print of collection, measures and analysis of data. The study is based on the primary and the secondary data. The process of selection of sample was purposive random sampling. The primary data are the data that are collected afresh for the first time and that is original in nature. Secondary data here have been collected from newspapers, magazines, websites, and general discussions with local municipal government officials. Samples were collected from producers (80 Members) and buyers (80 Members) in whom the total sample size of respondents is 160. For the purpose of the survey, a structured questionnaire was prepared and distributed to the consumers and buyers to study the objectives.

For achieving the impact of Uzhavar Sandhai on livelihood empowerment of farmers, the livelihood security is calculated by using Multiple linear regression. It helps to determine the magnitude and direction of the relationship between each explanatory variable and the Livelihood Security Index. The formula is: As shown in Table 2, almost all producers 98.75 percent are married. This may reflect the cultural and social norms of rural communities and also suggests the involvement of family members in farming activities. Table 5 shows a wide variation in profit levels. A significant proportion 26.25 percent earn less than Rs.10,000, while only 2.50 percent earn above Rs.1,00,000. The concentration of producers in the lower-and middle-income categories suggests that while farming provides livelihood security, high profitability remains limited. As per Table 6, most producers are small farmers 46.25 percent or marginal farmers 27.50 percent. Leased land is used by 21.25 percent of producers, while semi-medium landholders are rare 5 percent. This smallholding dominance may limit economies of scale but encourages intensive cultivation practices. Table 7 shows that, 78.75 percent of producers are ownercultivators, while 21.25 entirely on leased land, indicating a blend of traditional ownership and tenancy-based farming. Table 8 highlights that, vegetables dominate the product category 78.75 percent, followed by fruits 10 percent, food items 8.75 percent and flowers 2.50 percent. This reflects a focus on perishable and high-demand commodities. Table 9 reveals that over half the producers 52.50 percent travel 1-10 km to the market, indicating accessibility. However, a small segment 2.50 percent travels more than 50 km, potentially incurring higher transport costs. Tables 10 shows that, most families have 3-5 members 68.75 percent followed by less than 3 members 17.50 percent then more than 5 members 13.75 percent. This suggests reduced availability of family labour compared to traditional joint family setups. Table 13 indicates that buses are the primary transport mode 73.75 percent, reflecting dependence on public transport. Only 11.25 percent use their own vehicles, which could limit flexibility in marketing. As per Table 14 composting 55 percent is the most common waste disposal method, followed by using waste as cattle feed 27.50 percent. A small portion 3.75 percent leaves waste unmanaged, highlighting a need for improved waste management practices. Table 17 shows that 41.25 percent have education below fifth grade and only 6.25 percent hold a degree. This low educational profile could affect adoption of modern agricultural practices. Table 18 shows that most producers 46.25 percent earn between Rs.61,000-80,000 annually, with 18.75 percent earning over Rs.1,00,000. However, 10 percent earn less than Rs.40,000, highlighting economic disparity among producers. Table 21 shows that transport support is the most significant assistance 65 percent, followed by storage facilities 21.25 percent. Limited shop facilities 6.25 percent indicate scope for infrastructure improvement. Table 23 shows that, infrastructure improvement 33.75 percent and cleanliness 27.50 percent are top expectations, followed by increased shop numbers 22.50 percent and cold storage facilities 16.25 percent. These reflect a strong demand for better market facilities and hygiene standards.

Socio-economic profile of consumer

Table 24 it is clear that about 60 percent of the respondents belong to the age group 41 to 59 years while 22.50 percent belong to 21 to 40 years and only 17.50 percent belong to the above 60 years. So, it is well clear that most of consumers who are bought their commodity here are those who have their age in between 41 to 60. Table 25 shows that about 82.50 percent among the respondents were male and 17.50 percent were female. Thus, it can be interpreted that male constitute most among the respondents. Table 27 shows that about 43.75 percent of the consumers are receiving an income below 10000. About 17.50 percent of the consumers fall between Rs. 11000 to 20000 and Rs. 41000 to 50000. Among the remaining 12.50 percent comes between Rs.31000 to 40000 and 8.75 percent comes Rs. 21000 to 30000. From this we can understand that those who receive remunerative prices below 10000 are very large and those who receives remunerative price Rs. 21000 to 30000 are very low. Table 28 shows that, 98.75 percent of the consumers are married whereas remaining 1.75 percent of the consumers are unmarried. From this we can understand that most of the consumers are married. Table 30 shows that, we can understand that 53.75 percent of consumers are known the information through friends and relatives, 18.75 percent of the consumers through TV and Radio, 13.75 percent of the consumers through Newspaper, 7.50 percent of consumers through Panchayat, 6.25 percent of the consumers through Agriculture office. Most of the consumers knew about the information through friends and relatives. Table 31 shows that, 93.75 percent of the consumers can get good quality of commodity and remaining 6.25 percent of consumers can get poor quality of commodity. From this we can understand that most of the consumers are get the good quality of commodity. Table 33 shows that, 68.75 percent of the consumers are purchased the country vegetables, 12.50 percent of the consumers are purchased the English vegetables and greens and the remaining 6.25 percent of the consumers are purchased the fruits. From this above table we can understand that most of the consumers are purchased the country vegetables. www.extensionjournal.com Table 34 shows that 65 percent of the consumers are around 1 to 5 km distance from the market, 17.50 percent of the consumers are around 6 to 10 km distance from the market, 12.50 percent of the consumers are around less than 1 km distance from the market, 5 percent of the consumers are around 11 to 15 km distance from the market. Most of the consumers are around less than 1 to 5 km distance from the market.

Livelihood empowerment on farmers

In order to study the nature of relationship between the selected independent variables and livelihood security of the farmers in uzhavar sandhai, regression analysis was computed and the values are presented in Table 36. The values of regression coefficients were then tested for their statistical significance. The scale of indicator ranged from 1 to 5. Distance to the market, mode of transportation, monthly income, assistance received, problems faced in the market and expectations and suggestions showed a significant relationship with livelihood empowerment. The significance of distance and mode of transportation indicates that accessibility and logistical convenience play a critical role in farmers' ability to benefit from the market. The positive association of monthly income and assistance highlights the economic and institutional support as key contributors to improved livelihood outcomes. The significance of problems and expectations suggests that challenges within the uzhavar sandhai system, along with farmers' aspirations for improvement, directly influence their perception of empowerment and satisfaction. These findings underline the importance of addressing operational barriers and enhancing support systems to strengthen the role of uzhavar sandhai in promoting sustainable and empowered livelihood or farmers.

Age, marital status, gender, educational qualification, type of vegetables and fruits sold, reason for selling products, category of sellers and whether the produce was cultivated or purchased did not exhibit a meaningful association with livelihood empowerment. The non significance suggests that these factors do not substantially affect the extent to which farmers feel empowered through their participation in uzhavar sandhai. This may suggest that the advantages offered by the scheme are distributed fairly uniformly among farmers from different demographic backgrounds, irrespective of their personal characteristics or the type of produce they sell.

Conclusion

The socio-economic profile of producers revealed that most were in the middle age group (41-60 years), married and largely women, reflecting the significant role of female farmers. The majority were small or marginal landholders www.extensionjournal.com cultivating vegetables, with open wells serving as the primary irrigation source. Public transport, especially buses, was the most common means of commuting to the market. Earnings for many producers were modest, often below ₹20,000 showing that farming served more as livelihood support than a high-income activity. While provisions such as stall allotments and free transportation were beneficial, producers also faced problems with bargaining pressure and the need to sell under compulsion. On the consumer side, most were male, middle-aged and moderately educated, belonging predominantly to lowerincome groups (< Rs.10,000). Freshness, affordability and quality were the main reasons for shopping at the market and word-of-mouth through friends and relatives was the chief source of information. Although the system addressed both producer and consumer had issues like poor parking facilities and sanitation still required attention. Regression analysis indicated that accessibility-related factors such as distance to the market and transport mode had significant influence on farmers' livelihood empowerment.

Monthly income and institutional support also played a strong role, showing that economic and logistical backing improved farmer empowerment. Market-related challenges and farmers expectations were also determining factors. Demographic variables such as age, gender, marital status and education, no measurable effect, which suggests that Uzhavar Sandhai benefits farmers across different social categories in an inclusive way. Nevertheless, strengthening infrastructure and institutional support is crucial for sustaining long-term empowerment.

References

1. Balakrishnan N. Factors influencing the agriculture market (Uzhavar Sandhai) in Karur District. Int J Res. 2018;5:1750-1754.
2. Elangovan A, Yazhini S. Direct agricultural marketing: a study of Uzhavar Sandhai (Farmers' Market) in Salem District. Agric Mark. 2015;15:18-21.
3. Girish CE, Kadian KS, Meena BS, Kalyan Mandi. An assessment of livelihood security of farmers practicing sericulture based dairy farming in Karnataka State. Int J Livest Res. 2020;10:43-50.
4. Gottimukkula SP, Singh AK, Lal SP, Baruah B. Livelihood security and its determinants among farmers during COVID-19 pandemic in Telangana, India. Indian Res J Ext Educ. 2023.
5. Gwandi O, Adewuyi KA. An empirical assessment of farmer's livelihood security in the North-Eastern region of Nigeria. Int J Agric Environ Bioresearch. 2022;7:116129.
6. Indmathy K, Rajasekaran R, Suganthi N. Impact of Uzhavar Sandhai on livelihood empowerment of farmers. Agric Update. 2016;11:374-379.
7. Jayaprakash K, Chitra N, Sivaraj C. A study on direct agriculture market (Uzhavar Sandhai) in Coimbatore District. Int J Bus Adm Res Rev. 2016;3:33-37.
8. Shakeel-UI-Rehman, Selvaraj M. Determinants of customer perception towards Uzhavar Santhais (Farmers' Market) in Salem District, Tamil Nadu. Eur J Soc Sci. 2012;35:490-503.