Marketing cost, price spread and post-harvest losses of onion: Evidence from Ghazipur district, Uttar Pradesh

Introduction

Onion (Allium cepa L.) is among the most widely cultivated and commercially important vegetable crops in India, serving as a staple ingredient across virtually every regional cuisine and forming a critical component of household food expenditure. India is the second-largest producer of onion in the world, and Uttar Pradesh contributes a significant share of national production, with eastern districts such as Ghazipur emerging as important commercial pockets owing to favourable alluvial soils and irrigation access. Unlike many other agricultural commodities, onion marketing in India continues to be dominated by a chain of intermediaries village traders, commission agents, wholesalers, and retailers each of whom adds to the marketing cost and margin before the produce reaches the final consumer. This layered structure widens the price spread between the price received by the farmer and the price paid by the consumer, and correspondingly depresses the producer's share in the consumer's rupee. Small and marginal farmers, who dominate onion cultivation numerically, are particularly disadvantaged by weak bargaining power and limited access to organised or direct marketing outlets. Compounding this marketing inefficiency is the semiperishable nature of onion, which renders it vulnerable to post-harvest losses at the stages of harvesting, curing, storage, and transportation. In the absence of scientific storage structures, farmers are frequently compelled to sell immediately after harvest, often during periods of peak market glut, resulting in distress sales and depressed price realisation. Post-harvest losses tend to vary systematically across farm-size categories, with resource-constrained marginal and small farmers typically experiencing the highest losses due to inadequate storage infrastructure and limited access to improved post-harvest technologies. While the broad contours of vegetable marketing inefficiency and post-harvest wastage in India are well documented at the national level, empirical, channel-wise and farm-sizedisaggregated evidence at the district level remains comparatively scarce, particularly for eastern Uttar Pradesh. The present study addresses this gap by evaluating the marketing cost, price spread, producer's share, and marketing efficiency of onion across the major marketing channels operating in Ghazipur district, and by quantifying postharvest losses across the five recognised farm-size categories, using primary survey data collected during 2024-26.

Materials and Methods

Study Area and Sample Design

The study was conducted in Ghazipur district of Uttar Pradesh, an important onion-producing district in the eastern www.extensionjournal.com part of the state characterised by fertile alluvial soil and welldeveloped marketing networks. Two blocks Saidpur, known for intensive onion cultivation and better market access, and Zamanian, representative of traditional small-scale farming were purposively selected. From these two blocks, ten villages were selected, and a total of 120 onion growers were selected through stratified random sampling across five landholding categories: marginal (<1 ha), small (1-2 ha), semi-medium (2-4 ha), medium (4-10 ha), and large (>10 ha). To capture the marketing side of the value chain, 23 market intermediaries were purposively selected from the Ghazipur APMC market and the Saidpur local market, comprising 7 commission agents (of 20 operating in the market), 6 wholesalers (of 15), and 10 retailers (of 30). Primary data were collected through a structured, pre-tested interview schedule covering marketing practices, costs, margins, and post-harvest handling, supplemented by secondary data from the District Agriculture Office, APMC market records, and government publications. The study period covered the agricultural years 2024-26.

Analytical Tools

Marketing cost for each channel was computed as the sum of all expenses incurred in moving the produce from the producer to the final consumer, including packing, transport, labour, market charges, and commission. Price spread was calculated as the difference between the price paid by the consumer and the price received by the producer. Producer's share in the consumer's rupee was estimated as: Producer's Share (%) = (Producer's Price / Consumer's Price) × 100 Marketing efficiency was estimated following the modified Shepherd's method as the ratio of the value of goods sold to the sum of total marketing cost and total marketing margin:

Marketing Efficiency = Value of Goods Sold / (Total Marketing Cost + Total Marketing Margin) Post-harvest losses were estimated as the percentage loss in quantity reported by sample farmers at the harvesting, storage, and transportation stages, disaggregated across the five farm-size categories, using simple percentage and averaging techniques. All primary data were processed and tabulated using MS Excel.

Results and Discussion

Price Spread across Channels

Table 2 shows that price spread the gap between the price paid by the consumer and the price received by the producer widened sharply with channel length, from Rs. 70 per quintal in Channel I to Rs. 300 per quintal in Channel II and Rs. 575 per quintal in Channel III. This widening spread reflects the cumulative effect of rising marketing cost and margin retained by successive intermediaries, and directly erodes the price realisation available to producers in longer channels.

Producer's Share in Consumer's Rupee

As presented in Table 3, the producer's share in the consumer's rupee declined systematically as the number of intermediaries increased from 95.24 percent in Channel I to 81.25 percent in Channel II and 67.61 percent in Channel III. This confirms that direct or short marketing channels allow farmers to retain a substantially larger proportion of the final consumer price, underscoring the income advantage of reducing intermediation in the onion value chain. www.extensionjournal.com

Marketing Efficiency across Channels

Table 4 indicates that marketing efficiency, computed as the ratio of the value of goods sold to the combined marketing cost and margin, was highest in Channel I (21.00) and declined sharply to 5.33 in Channel II and 3.09 in Channel III. The inverse relationship between channel length and marketing efficiency mirrors the pattern observed in producer's share and price spread, reinforcing that shorter, less intermediated channels deliver a more efficient outcome for both farmers and, ultimately, consumers.

Post-Harvest Losses across Farm-Size Categories

It could be seen from Table 5 that post-harvest losses declined consistently with an increase in farm size, from 14.0 percent among marginal farmers to 6.7 percent among large farmers. Storage-stage losses constituted the dominant component of total loss across all categories, ranging from 8.5 percent for marginal farmers to 4.0 percent for large farmers, reflecting the comparatively weaker access of small and marginal holders to scientific storage structures. Harvesting and transportation losses followed a similar, though less pronounced, declining trend with increasing farm size.

Discussion

The integrated reading of marketing performance and postharvest loss estimates offers two connected insights for the onion value chain in Ghazipur district. First, the consistent inverse relationship between channel length on the one hand, and producer's share and marketing efficiency on the other, demonstrates that intermediation, while offering farmers convenient and immediate market access, comes at a direct cost to income realisation. Farmers selling through the wholesaler-retailer chain (Channel III) retained only about two-thirds of the final consumer price, compared with over ninety-five percent for farmers able to access consumers directly. This finding lends empirical support to policy efforts aimed at strengthening direct marketing platforms, farmer producer organisations (FPOs), and farmer-retailer linkages that can shorten the value chain without displacing the market access that intermediaries currently provide. Second, the declining gradient of post-harvest losses with increasing farm size highlights that storage infrastructure, rather than harvesting or transportation practices alone, is the principal driver of loss differentials across farm categories. Since marginal and small farmers together dominate onion cultivation numerically in the study area, their disproportionately higher losses translate into a substantial aggregate loss of marketable surplus and farm income at the district level. Addressing this gap through affordable, small-scale storage technologies and community or cooperative storage facilities would likely yield a larger overall reduction in post-harvest loss than interventions targeted only at larger farms. Taken together, the results suggest that improving farmer income and reducing wastage in the onion value chain requires a combined strategy: reducing the effective length of marketing channels available to small and marginal farmers, and simultaneously expanding their access to storage infrastructure. Neither intervention in isolation is likely to substantially improve outcomes for the majority of onion growers in the district, given that both marketing inefficiency and post-harvest loss are shown here to be systematically linked to farm size and market access.

Conclusion

This study provides channel-wise and farm-sizedisaggregated evidence on the marketing performance and post-harvest losses of onion in Ghazipur district, India's important onion-growing region of eastern Uttar Pradesh. The evidence establishes that marketing cost and price spread rise, while producer's share and marketing efficiency decline, as the length of the marketing channel increases, with Channel I (direct sale) delivering the most favourable outcomes for farmers and Channel III (producer-wholesalerretailer-consumer) the least favourable. Post-harvest losses, www.extensionjournal.com dominated by storage-stage wastage, were found to be inversely related to farm size, disadvantaging marginal and small farmers most acutely. The findings support a two-pronged policy approach: (i) promoting shorter, farmer-friendly marketing channels through direct marketing platforms and farmer producer organisations to improve producer's share and marketing efficiency; and (ii) expanding access to affordable storage infrastructure for small and marginal farmers to reduce postharvest losses. Such measures would jointly enhance farmers' income realisation and strengthen the overall efficiency of the onion marketing system in the district.

References

1. Acharya SS, Agarwal NL. Agricultural marketing in India. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.; 2011.
2. Bondita S. Post-harvest losses of onion cultivation in Karnataka. Journal of Research ANGRAU. 2023.
3. Chand K, Singh H. Marketing efficiency of vegetable crops in India. Agricultural Marketing Journal. 2017;60(4):12-18.
4. Directorate of Marketing & Inspection (DMI). Agricultural marketing in India. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare; 2020.
5. Falola A, Mukaila R, Ajewole C. Post-harvest losses in onion: Causes and determinants. KŞU Journal of Agriculture and Nature. 2022.
6. Food and Agriculture Organization. Global food losses and food waste extent, causes and prevention. Rome: FAO; 2011.
7. Kumar A, et al. Survey of post-harvest losses of onion in Haryana. Indian Journal of Horticulture. 2017.
8. Kumar P, Kalita P. Reducing post-harvest losses in fruits and vegetables. Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2017;54(3):743-751.
9. Meena BS, Singh KM. Price spread and marketing efficiency of vegetables. Agricultural Economics Research Review. 2016;29(2):291-298.
10. National Sample Survey Office (NSSO). Situation assessment of agricultural households. New Delhi: Government of India; 2019.
11. Rani S, Shree S, Islam MZ. Post-harvest storage losses in onion genotypes. International Journal of Plant & Soil Science. 2024.
12. Sahu S, Sharma JP, Burman RR. Adoption of postharvest practices by onion farmers. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2021.
13. Sharma VP, Singh R. Post-harvest management and value chain of vegetables. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2015;70(3):348-360.
14. Singh DK, Meena MS. Constraints in vegetable marketing. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 2018;54(2):34-40.
15. Singh R, Singh NP. Marketing of vegetables in India: Issues and challenges. Indian Journal of Agricultural Marketing. 2018;32(2):45-58.
16. Sirtha PS, Joshi PK. Value chain analysis of vegetables in India. Agricultural Economics Research Review. 2019;32(1):45-60.