Market-Led Extension Practices of Paddy Manjunath.B.Kudari a & b , 2 C.Sunil a & b , 3 Swaroop. H.G a & b , 4 Pradeep.Gopakali b , 5 MohanakumaraV b , 6 Jeevan HR b & c

Introduction

Market-led extension has emerged as a vital approach for enhancing the profitability and sustainability of agriculture by enabling farmers to make informed production, post-harvest and marketing decisions. In the context of paddy cultivation, efficient marketing practices are essential for improving price realization, reducing post-harvest losses, and strengthening farmers' participation in agricultural value chains. However, the effectiveness of market-led extension depends on farmers access to market information, storage facilities, transportation infrastructure, value addition opportunities and institutional support mechanisms. Understanding the existing marketing behaviour, constraints and support requirements of farmers is therefore necessary for designing appropriate extension interventions. The present study was undertaken to examine the marketing activities, constraints, suggestions and extension strategies related to market-led extension among paddy farmers. The study assessed various dimensions including post-harvest management practices, storage and transportation facilities, marketing channels, market selection behaviour and decision-making processes. It also identified the major production, market and extension-related constraints affecting the utilization of market-led extension practices and documented farmers suggestions for improving marketing efficiency. The findings provide valuable insights for policymakers, extension agencies and development organizations in formulating strategies to strengthen marketoriented agriculture and enhance the economic well-being of paddy farmers.

Post-harvest management

Among the post-harvest management activities, cleaning was the most commonly adopted practice, reported by (28.33%) of the farmers, followed by grading (24.17%) and value addition (20.00%). The findings indicate that farmers undertake basic post-harvest operations to maintain produce quality; however, value addition activities remain relatively limited, which may reduce opportunities for obtaining higher market prices.

Place of storage of produce

Regarding storage facilities, 28.33% of the respondents stored their produce in a part of their house, while 14.17% used a farmhouse and only 7.50% stored produce in a godown. This suggests inadequate access to scientific storage facilities, compelling farmers to rely primarily on household storage arrangements.

Mode of transport

The majority of farmers (73.33%) sold their produce at the farm gate, thereby avoiding transportation costs and logistical difficulties. About (16.67%) used their own vehicles, whereas only (10.00%) depended on private transportation, which was considered costly. The predomi nance of farm-gate sales reflects the farmers preference for minimizing marketing expenses and transportation risks.

Time of sale of farm produce

A substantial proportion of farmers (71.67%) sold their produce immediately after harvest. Among the reasons cited, financial urgency (46.67%) was the most important factor, followed by the lack of storage facilities (14.17%) and poor quality of produce (10.83%). In contrast, only (11.67%) sold after initial storage, (10.00%) after a considerable storage period, and (15.00%) when market demand was high. These findings indicate that immediate cash requirements strongly influence farmers' marketing decisions.

Agencies to whom produce was sold

The majority of respondents (74.17%) sold their produce to villagelevel traders, followed by sales to rice mills (14.17%), traders through rice mills (13.33%) and wholesalers through commission agents in regulated markets (11.67%). Only (08.33%) of farmers adopted direct marketing to consumers. This highlights the dominant role of village traders in the paddy marketing system and the limited participation of farmers in direct marketing channels.

Reasons for selling to a particular agency

The most important reason for selecting a marketing agency was immediate cash payment (76.67%), followed by low marketing cost (63.33%), familiarity with the agency (57.50%) and creditworthiness of the agency (46.67%). Comparatively fewer farmers selected agencies based on better prices (19.17%) or previous agreements (08.33%). These findings suggest that convenience and liquidity needs outweigh price considerations in farmers' choice of marketing intermediaries.

Type of market used

Most farmers (71.67%) sold their produce in local or village markets, while (20.00%) sold directly to rice mills and only (08.33%) utilized wholesale markets. The preference for local markets may be attributed to their proximity, lower transaction costs and ease of access.

Reasons for selling at a particular market

The primary reason for selecting a particular market was better price coupled with immediate payment (75.83%). Other important reasons included transportation cost (37.50%), quality of produce (20.00%), distance of the market from the village (13.33%) and lack of market infrastructure (13.33%). This indicates that economic considerations, particularly price realization and prompt payment, play a major role in market selection.

Decision-making regarding marketing venue

When deciding where to market their produce, the majority of farmers considered market prices (80.83%), followed by quality of produce (49.17%) and distance to the market (47.50%). A smaller proportion sought information about demand in other areas (15.83%) or consulted family members (15.00%), while (18.33%) made decisions without considering any specific aspect. This suggests that price information remains the most influential factor in determining marketing venues. The suggestions offered by the respondents indicated the need for strengthening institutional, infrastructural and marketing support mechanisms. A majority of the respondents suggested expansion of facilities to Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies (PACS) for efficient procurement of produce at Minimum Support Price (MSP) (84.17%), followed by establishment of rural godowns (78.33%). Timely supply of agricultural inputs at subsidized rates during cultivation was suggested by 75.83 per cent of the respondents. Further, 73.33 per cent of the respondents expressed that direct procurement of rice from millers by organized retailers would help in reducing the price of rice and improve marketing efficiency. Support for enhancing cooperative processing (milling) industries in rural areas by farmers was suggested by 70.83 per cent of the respondents, while 63.33 per cent emphasized the need for financial assistance for establishing small-scale milling industries in rural areas.

The findings highlight the importance of strengthening cooperative institutions, improving rural storage infrastructure, ensuring timely input supply, and promoting decentralized processing and marketing systems to enhance farmers' income and marketing efficiency. The organization of study tours for Farmers' Interest Groups and production of video films showcasing success stories of community-specific farmers were suggested to enhance experiential learning and motivate wider adoption of improved practices. In addition, promotion of public-private partnerships in the management and development of agricultural markets was recommended to strengthen market infrastructure, improve service delivery and enhance marketing opportunities for farmers. Overall, the findings indicate the need for a comprehensive market-led extension approach focusing on collective action, information dissemination, capacity building and institutional linkages.

Results and Discussion

The component-wise utilization index showed that production practices were most utilized (82.09%), followed by post-harvest practices (54.79%) and market information services (46.83%). Export orientation and brand establishment had zero utilization, indicating very limited exposure to value chain-oriented marketing among the farmers.

Overall utilization was mostly low to medium, with (46.67%) of farmers in the low category and (39.17%) in the medium category, suggesting partial adoption of market-led extension practices.

Marketing behaviour was generally favorable, with many farmers agreeing that market information, price trends, grades, standards and alternative marketing methods are important. However, actual marketing practice remained conservative. Most farmers sold their produce to village-level traders and the major reason was immediate cash payment. This indicates that liquidity needs and accessibility outweigh price optimization in marketing decisions. The preference for local/village markets and farm-gate sales reflects both convenience and the burden of transport and storage costs. The most frequently reported constraints were unstable market price, delayed cash payment, high labour cost, lack of quality inputs and inadequate infrastructure for processing, storage and value addition. Farmers also highlighted the need for rural godowns, better PACS functioning, subsidized inputs and support for local milling and procurement systems. These findings suggest that marketing performance is constrained not only by individual awareness but also by institutional and physical infrastructure gaps.

Conclusion

The study concludes that paddy farmers in Shivamogga district possess moderate marketing awareness, but their actual use of market-led extension practices is limited by infrastructure, finance and information constraints. Strengthening market intelligence, post-harvest support, storage facilities and collective marketing can improve farmers bargaining power and returns. Extension strategies should prioritize farmer groups ICT-based market advisories, and stronger linkages among farmers, markets and processors.

References

1. Birthal PS, Joshi PK, Gulati A. Vertical coordination in highvalue commodities: Implications for smallholders. International Food Policy Research Institute, MTID Discussion Paper No. 85; 2005.
2. FAO. The future of food and agriculture: Trends and challenges. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2017.
3. Government of India. Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2022. Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, New Delhi; 2022.
4. Kahan D. Market-oriented farming: An overview. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Rome; 2013.
5. Kumar A, Singh KM, Sinha S. Institutional innovations in agricultural marketing in India. Agricultural Economics Research Review. 2011;24:495-505.
6. Lalitha N, Reddy GP. Market-led extension services and their role in improving farmers' income. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 2019;55(3):42-47.
7. Meena MS, Singh KM, Swanson BE, Burman RR. ICTs for agricultural extension: Global experiments, innovations and experiences. Agricultural Extension in South Asia. 2013:45-62.
8. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management. Market-led extension: Training manual. Hyderabad, India; 2018.
9. National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management. Market-led extension and agribusiness management. Hyderabad, India; 2020.
10. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development. Farmer Producer Organisations: Policy and operational guidelines. Mumbai; 2021.
11. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Developing sustainable value chains for agriculture. Rome; 2016.
12. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The State of Food and Agriculture 2021. Rome; 2021.
13. 2026, 9(10), Downloaded from https://www.doi.org/10.33545/2618060X.2026.v9.i10Sb.6789 by International Journal of Research in Agronomy on [06/10/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://www.agronomyjournals.com) for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License