Marketing Strategies of Different Local, Domestic and Multinational Brands of Pesticides in Nizamabad District of Telangana

MARKETING STRATEGIES OF DIFFERENT
LOCAL, DOMESTIC AND MULTINATIONAL

BRANDS OF PESTICIDES IN NIZAMABAD
DISTRICT OF TELANGANA.
B. PRAVEEN REDDY
B.Sc. (CA&BM)
THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE PROFESSOR JAYASHANKAR

TELANGANA STATE AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE
DEGREE OF
MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

(AGRIBUSINESS MANAGEMENT)
CHAIRPERSON: DR. B. GANESH KUMAR
SCHOOL OF AGRIBUSINESS MANAGEMENT

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
RAJENDRANAGAR, HYDERABAD-500030
PROFESSOR JAYASHANKAR TELANGANA STATE AGRICULTURAL
UNIVERSITY
2020
DECLARATION
I, B. PRAVEEN REDDY, hereby declare that the thesis entitled “MARKETING

STRATEGIES OF DIFFERENT LOCAL, DOMESTIC AND MULTINATIONAL
BRANDS OF PESTICIDES IN NIZAMABAD DISTRICT OF TELANGANA” submitted to
the Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University for the degree of
Master of Business Administration in School of Agribusiness Management in the major field
of Agribusiness Management is the result of the original research work done by me. I also
declare that no material contained in the thesis has been published earlier in any manner.
Place: Hyderabad (B. PRAVEEN REDDY)

Date: I.D. No. RMBA/2017-13
CERTIFICATE
Mr. B. PRAVEEN REDDY has satisfactorily prosecuted the course of research and that thesis
entitled “MARKETING STRATEGIES OF DIFFERENT LOCAL, DOMESTIC AND
MULTINATIONAL BRANDS OF PESTICIDES IN NIZAMABAD DISTRICT OF
TELANGANA” submitted is the result of original research work and is of sufficiently high
standard to warrant its presentation to the examination. I also certify that neither the thesis nor its
part thereof has been previously submitted by her for a degree of any university.
Date: (Dr. B. GANESH KUMAR)

Place: Hyderabad Chairperson
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the project report entitled “MARKETING STRATEGIES OF

DIFFERENT LOCAL, DOMESTIC AND MULTINATIONAL BRANDS OF
PESTICIDES IN NIZAMABAD DISTRICT OF TELANGANA” submitted in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of ‘Masters of Business Administration’ in the
Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University, Hyderabad, is a record of the
bonafide original research work carried out by Mr. B. PRAVEEN REDDY under our
guidance and supervision.
No part of the project report has been submitted by the student for any other degree or
diploma. The published part and all assistance received during the course of investigations
have been duly acknowledged by the author of the project report.
Thesis approved by the Student Advisory Committee
Chairperson Dr. B. GANESH KUMAR

Principal Scientist
NAARM
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad – 500030
Member DR. P. RADHIKA

Associate Professor & Head
School of Agribusiness Management
College of Agriculture, PJTSAU
Member DR. D. SRINIVASA CHARY

Associate Professor
Department of Statistics & Mathematics
College of Agriculture
Date of final viva voce:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I want to thank GOD for his abundant blessing that has helped me in each step of
the progress towards successful completion of the research. At the very outset, I submit the
commodious and indefinite thanks to my beloved parents, family members, teachers and friends
for the successful accomplishment of two years in this university and to present this diminutive
piece of work.
It gives me great pleasure to humbly place on record my profound sense of gratitude,
indebtedness and heartfelt thanks to my chairperson of my advisory committee, Dr. B. GANESH
KUMAR, Principal Scientist, NAARM, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad for his initiative,
benevolence, constant encouragement, warm affection, caring nature and ready help which
enabled me to overcome several stumbling blocks during the period of my investigation and also
in writing of this thesis.
With respectful regards and indebtedness I profess my deep sense of gratitude and
sincere thanks to the members of my advisory committee Dr.P. Radhika, Associate Professor &
Head, School of Agribusiness Management, College of Agriculture, Professor Jayashankar
Telangana State Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad and Dr. D. Srinivasa
chary, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Statistics and Mathematics, College of Agriculture,
Hyderabad for their co-operation, technical guidance and kindness during my study period.
I am in dearth of words to express my sense of gratitude to my beloved parents Smt.
Narsavva and Sri. Pedda ganga reddy for giving me this wonderful life and my siblings
Prashanth reddy, sravanthi and soumya, who have encouraged and motivated me in every stage
of my life and have always strived for my wellbeing. I shall always remain grateful for their
unforgettable efforts in bringing me to this stage, without whom I could not have achieved my
success in my life.
I owe a deep sense of honour, regards and cordial love to my grandparents Smt.
Mallavva and Sri. Gangaram and my family members Shyam reddy, Satish reddy, Harish
reddy, Saritha and relatives for their blessings, love, affection and valuable moral support
throughout my life.
Everyone has to get a little help from friends for one or another work, so I owe my
heartfelt gratitude towards Mounika, Ravinder, Anand, Ramu, Badugu Dilip, Pramod reddy,
Koka Nagaraj, Kranthi reddy, Achyuth reddy, Srikanth varma, Govardhan, Brahmam,
Prasad, Vamshi singaram, Ganga reddy ankapuram, Ram reddy, Suresh reddy, Naresh and
my juniors and seniors Sathya Dheeraj, Gangamohan, Naresh thogaru, Harish lenkalapally,
for their cooperation, support and help during these two years of study which I cherish for
lifetime.
I extend my gratitude and thanks to all the teaching staff Srinivas Reddy, Appa Rao and
non-teaching staff of Department of Agribusiness Management, for extending a warm helping
hand and valuable suggestions throughout the research work.
I feel elated to express my thanks to those who directly or indirectly helped me in
successful completion of thesis work.
Date:
(B. PRAVEEN REDDY)
Place:
LIST OF CONTENTS
Chapter No. Title Page No.
I INTRODUCTION
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE
III MATERIAL AND METHODS
IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
LITERATURE CITED
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page No.
1.1 Key pesticide industry players in India
1.2 Major products in different categories of pesticides
1.3 Pesticides consumption in India (2000-2015)
3.1 Land use pattern in Nizamabad district
4.1 Pesticide consumption in India (2000-2015)
4.2 Pesticide consumption in Telangana (2000-2015)
4.3 Extent of availability
4.4 Promotional activities of different companies
Corteva company products and crops on which

4.5
they are used
Syngenta company products and crops on which

4.6
they are used
Bayer company products and crops on which they

4.7
are used
IIL company products and crops on which they
4.8
are used
Dhanuka company products and crops on which they
4.9
are used
SWAL company products and crops on which they

4.10
are used
Nova agri tech company products and crops on

4.11
which they are used
Shanmukha agri tech company products and crops on
4.12
which they are used
Srikar bio tech company products and crops on

4.13
which they are used
Prices of pesticides of various companies in the

4.14
study area.
Value of business done by each selected company

4.15
in the study area
Distribution of sample farmers under different age

4.16
Groups
Distribution of sampled farmers based on

4.17
educational level
4.18 Place of purchase of pesticide by farmer
4.19 Usage pattern of pesticide
Awareness of the farmer about the various brands

4.20 of pesticides and rating of various brands of
pesticides
4.21 Ranking of the different information sources
Factors influencing farmers in purchase of a

4.22
particular brand of pesticide
4.23 Ranking of the problems faced by the farmers
Distribution of sample dealers under different age

4.24
Groups
Distribution of sampled dealers based on

4.25
educational level
Distribution of sampled dealers based on business
4.26
Experience
4.27 Product lines dealt by the sample dealers
Parameters considered by companies to give

4.28
dealership, dealer’s perception
4.29 Terms of credit provided by the companies
Awareness of the trader about the various brands of

4.30
pesticides and rating of various brands of pesticides
Rating of various attributes of different companies

4.31
by dealers
Ranking of different factors which a farmer

4.32 considers for purchasing a pesticide and dealer’s
perception
Ranking of common promotional tools that a

4.33
selected companies adopt
Ranking of many different problems faced by the

4.34
dealers in pesticide business
Suggestions given by dealers for improvement in

4.35
the marketing and distribution of pesticides.
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure No. Title Page No.
1.1 Share of different classes of pesticides
1.2 Market share of agrochemical companies in the FY 2013-

14
1.3 Pesticide consumption over the years in India
3.1 Map representing Nizamabad district
4.1 Pesticide consumption in India (2000-2015)
4.2 Pesticide consumption in Telangana (2000-2015)

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
% : Per cent
@ : At the rate of
± : Plus or minus
> : Greater than

µl : Microlitre
µg : Microgram
µm : Micrometre
µmol : Micromole
o
C : Degree Celsius
cm : Centimetre
dia : Diametre
et al. : and other people
g : Gram
h : Hour
i.e : that is
mg : Milligram
ml : Millilitre
mm : Milimetre
No. : Number
SEm : Standard Error of Mean
vis-a-vis : in relation to
viz. : Namely
AUTHOR : B. PRAVEEN REDDY
TITLE OF THE : MARKETING STRATEGIES OF LOCAL, DOMESTIC

PROJECT WORK AND MULTINATIONAL BRANDS OF PESTICIDES IN
NIZAMABAD DISTRICT OF TELANGANA
DEGREE : MBA(ABM)
FACULTY : AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT : SCHOOL OF AGRIBUSINESS MANAGEMENT
CHAIRPERSON : DR. B. GANESH KUMAR
UNIVERSITY : PROFESSOR JAYASHANKAR TELANGANA
STATE AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
YEAR OF
SUBMISSION : 2020
ABSTRACT
In view of the fact that nearly 22-25 per cent of the potential food production is lost in
India (The Hindu, 2015) due to the damage caused by the insect pest, plant pathogens,
weeds, rodents, birds etc., the use of pesticides has become absolutely essential. Hence, the
pesticide industry in India has a vital role in the economy of the country. The Indian crop
protection industry is estimated to be USD 4.25 billion in FY14 and is expected to grow at
a CAGR of 12 per cent to reach USD 7.5 billion by FY19. The industry is dominated by
insecticides which contribute to 60 per cent of the overall demand, followed by fungicides,
herbicides and rodenticides/nematicides which account for 18 per cent, 16 per cent and 6
per cent of the demand respectively. Top 20 agro chemical companies share 80 per cent in
the Indian agro chemical market. The market share of large players depends primarily on
product portfolio and introduction of new molecules. The study has been taken up with the
following objectives. - To estimate the trends in pesticide consumption in maize and rice
crops in India, Telangana and Nizamabad district. - To assess the market share of
multinational brands, domestic and local brands of pesticides in study area. - To compare
four Ps of marketing of multinational companies, domestic players and local players in the
pesticide industry. - To assess the preference pattern of farmers and dealers towards
various pesticide brands. For the study, four mandals in Nizamabad district are selected
based on the cultivated area of paddy and maize. From each mandal five villages are
selected based on the cultivated area of paddy and maize. From each village six farmers are
selected randomly. From each mandal five pesticide dealers are selected randomly. Data
was also collected from one salesperson each from three top MNC’s, domestic companies
and local companies in the study area. Primary data is collected from farmers, dealers and
salesperson using separate questionnaires. Secondary data relating to usage of pesticides
and firms information was collected from Agriculture Commissionerate office, Hyderabad,
journals, company websites and other relevant reports. The data collected was analysed by
using percentages and other statistical tools like Garrett’s ranking technique, Compound
annual growth rate in order to draw valid conclusions. Compound annual growth rate of
pesticide consumption in India was 1.9 with level of significance at 1 per cent. That
implies positive trend in pesticide consumption in India and that was significant.
Percentage change in 2015 over 2001 was 24 per cent. Compound Annual Growth Rate of
pesticide consumption in Telangana was 2.9 with level of significance at 1 per cent. That
implies positive trend in pesticide consumption in Telangana and that was significant.
Percentage change in 2015 over 2001 was 18 per cent. MNC’s majorly focusing on crash
campaigns, demonstrations, trainings, paintings, banners, hoardings, literature and dealer’s
general meetings. Domestic companies promotional activities majorly focus on
demonstrations, trainings, exhibitions, posters, banners, crash campaigns, regional mela
participation and dealer’s general meetings. Local companies promotional activities are
majorly dealer oriented, they mainly focus on dealer’s general meetings. It can be noticed
that most of the multinational company products are applied on all crops. All the
companies are majorly focusing on paddy, maize, cotton, fruits and vegetables in the study
area. Most of domestic company products are majorly focusing on paddy and maize in the
study area, apart from this they are also focusing on fruits and vegetables. Among the
selected local companies, Nova agri tech has products suitable for specific crops, whereas
the other two companies products are suitable for all crops. From the table it can be noticed
that there is not very high variation in prices among the prices of multinational and
domestic companies. It can be noticed that the average usage of pesticide in liquid form is
more in paddy crop, where as in granules form it is more in cotton crop in the study area.
Farmers are not happy with the quality of products of local companies and they are mostly
satisfied with the products of multinational and domestic companies. Peer farmers and
sales personnel are an important sources of information for farmers. Credit is the most
influencing factor to purchase a particular brand of pesticide in case of farmers, as can be
noticed from the table 4.22 . Price, performance of the product are second and third most
influencing factors. On the whole, 90 per cent of dealers in the study area were dealing
with three product lines i.e., pesticides, fertilizers and seeds, 10 per cent dealers are dealing
with pesticides and seeds. The multinational companies and domestic companies compete
on the basis of their product strength, promotional activities and giving trainings to the
dealers, where as the local companies compete on the basis of promotional activities and
maintaining good relation with the dealers given them good margins. Though these
activities are also taken up by domestic companies and multinational companies their focus
is not majorly on these activities.
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
Pesticides are chemical compounds that are used to kill pests, including insects,
rodents, fungi and unwanted plants which are widely used in agriculture (Banerjee,
2016).
Agriculture is an important sector for economic development in India. Crop

production is an important income source for millions of farmers in some cases with
few cropping alternatives due to ecological constraints. All over the world majority
of farmers rely on pesticides and fertilizers to increase yields. Pesticide use in most
Indian agriculture is an essential part of production technology (Shetty et al, 2010).
Indian economy is largely agrarian in nature, which is contributing about 16.1
per cent (Economy of India, 2015) of the total GDP. The occupation of nearly 58 per
cent (Economy of India, 2015) of the population is agriculture. In the modern world,
inter dependence of agriculture and industry is a well-known fact. The green
revolution was made possible only through the supply of agri inputs viz., seeds,
fertilizers and pesticides provided by the industry. Agriculture development in the
21st century faces some unprecedented challenges with a steady growth in the world
population. The population in India is expected to reach 1329 million in 2020
(Indiastat.com, 2014). In order to meet the food grain requirement for the increasing
population, there must be intensive agriculture with judicious use of inputs like
fertilizers, pesticides, seeds, irrigation etc.
The pesticide usage in India has increased from green revolution period in
India. Because of high yielding varieties the pest attack has increased and to get the
proper yield the usage of pesticide also increased. Even though the usage is more in
India we are still at very low level of usage in comparison to many countries.
In view of the fact that nearly 22-25 per cent of the potential food production is lost
in India (The Hindu, 2015) due to the damage caused by the insect pest, plant
pathogens, weeds, rodents, birds etc., the use of pesticides has become absolutely
essential. Apart from high dependency on monsoon and irrigation facilities, the
situation becomes critical as about 15-25 per cent potential crop production is lost
due to pests, weeds and diseases.Thus in order to enhance productivity, the usage of
pesticides play a vital role (CARE Ratings).
The Indian pesticide market is the twelfth largest in the world with a value of US $
0.6 billion, which is 1.6 per cent of the global market pie. Western Europe and USA
are the world leaders with shares of about 30.2 per cent and 22.7 per cent
respectively. Currently there is a boom in the global pesticide market and new
insecticides, herbicides and fungicides and their formulations are being introduced
with greater level of activity.
1.1 CLASSIFICATION OF PLANT PROTECTION CHEMICALS

The crop protection chemicals can be broadly classified into five types
Insecticides: Insecticides provide protection to the crops from the insects by
either killing them or by preventing their attack. They help in controlling the pest
population below a desired threshold level.
Fungicides: Fungicides protect the crops from the attack of fungi and can be of
two types – protectants and eradicates. Protectants prevent or inhibit fungal growth
and eradicates kill the pests on application.
Herbicides: Herbicides also called as weedicides are used to kill undesirable
plants. They can be of two types - selective and non-selective.
Bio-pesticides: Bio-pesticides are new age crop protection products manufactured
from natural substances like plants, animals, bacteria and certain minerals. They are
ecofriendly, easy to use; require lower dosage amounts for same performance as
compared to chemical based pesticides.
Others (Fumigants, Rodenticides, Plant growth regulators etc.):

Fumigants and rodenticides are the chemicals which protect the crops from pest
attacks during crop storage. Plant growth regulators help in controlling or modifying
the plant growth process and are usually used in cotton, rice and fruits.
1.2 WORLD PESTICIDE INDUSTRY
Pesticide industry is one of the prominent developing industries in the
world. The expected CAGR of this industry per annum is 5.4 per cent. Global
market size of the industry is USD 48 billion. The market size is expected to reach
USD 71.38 billion by the year 2018. Europe has largest share in agro chemical
market followed by Asia,Latin America and North America. Herbicides are most
widely used agro chemicals globally with 44 per cent followed by fungicides 27
per cent and insecticides 22 per cent. Germany, France, America and China are
the major exporters of crop protection products. Brazil, Canada, Italy and Spain
are the major importers globally (FICCI, 2015).
1.3 AGROCHEMICAL MARKET OVERVIEW IN INDIA
The Indian crop protection industry is estimated to be USD 4.25 billion in

FY14 and is expected to grow at a CAGR of 12 per cent to reach USD 7.5 billion
by FY19. Exports currently constitute almost 50 per cent of Indian crop protection
industry and are expected to grow at a CAGR of 16 per cent to reach USD 4.2
billion by FY19, resulting in 60 per cent share in Indian crop protection industry.
Domestic market on the other hand would grow at 8 per cent CAGR, as it is
predominantly monsoon dependent, to reach USD 3.3 billion by FY19. Globally,
India is fourth largest producer of crop protection chemicals, after United States,
Japan and China. The crop protection companies in India can be categorized into
three types Multi-National, Indian including public sector companies and small
sector units (FICCI, 2015).
The industry is dominated by insecticides which contribute to 60 per cent

of the overall demand, followed by fungicides, herbicides and
rodenticides/nematicides which account for 18 per cent, 16 per cent and 6 per cent
of the demand respectively (FICCI, 2015).
(Source: FICCI, 2015)
Figure 1.1. Share of different classes of pesticides
The Indian agrochemical value chain comprises of technical grade

manufacturers, formulators producing the end products, distributors and end use
customers. According to the Pesticide Monitoring Unit, GOI, there are about 125
technical grade manufacturers, including about 10 multinationals, more than 800
formulators and over 145,000 distributors in India. More than 60 technical grade
pesticides are being manufactured indigenously.
Top 20 agro chemical companies share 80 per cent in the Indian agro
chemical market (Agropages, 2018). The market share of large players depends
primarily on product portfolio and introduction of new molecules. In India Larger
companies are acquiring/ entering into strategic alliances with smaller companies
to increase their market reach (Religare Institutional Research, 2017).
Table 1.1. Key pesticide industry players in India
Company Insecticide Herbicide Fungicide Others

BASF India ✓ ✓ ✓ Seed treatment
Seed treatment, plant
Bayer crop science Ltd. ✓ ✓ ✓
growth regulators
Dhanuka Agritech Plant growth
✓ ✓ ✓
Limited regulators, Surfactants
Dow agro science Plant growth
✓ ✓ ✓
India.Ltd. Regulators
Dupont ✓ ✓ ✓ Growth enhancer
Seed treatment, home
Excel Crop care Ltd. ✓ ✓ ✓ & garden related
Pesticides
plant growth
Gharda Chemicals Ltd. ✓ ✓ ✓
regulators
Meghmani organics Pesticide
✓ ✓ ✓
Ltd. Intermediates
Monsanto India Ltd. ✓ ✓ ✓ Maize seeds
Fertilizers, micro
Nagarjuna Agrichem
✓ ✓ ✓ nutrients, liquid
Ltd.
fertilizers
PI Industries Ltd. ✓ ✓ ✓ Speciality products
Rodenticides, seed
Rallis India ✓ ✓ ✓
Treatment
Syngenta India ✓ ✓ ✓ Seed treatment
United Phosphorous Fumigants,
✓ ✓ ✓
Ltd. Rodenticides
(Source: FICCI, 2015)
1.4 CONSUMPTION PATTERN OF PESTICIDES IN INDIA
The per capita consumption of pesticides in India is 0.6 kg/ha which is the
lowest in the world. The per capita pesticide consumption in China and USA is 13
kg/ha and 7 kg/ha respectively (FICCI, 2015).The main reason for low per capita
consumption of pesticides in India is low purchasing power of farmers and small
land holdings. The large scale farming is increasing and therefore, there is good
scope for increase of per capita consumption of pesticides in India. This presents
an immense opportunity for the crop protection industry to grow in India.
Cotton and Paddy are the major consumers of crop protection chemicals
accounting for 50 per cent and 18 per cent respectively of the total domestic crop
protection chemicals market. Fruits and vegetables also account for a significant
share of the crop protection chemicals market. Cotton, which accounts for just 5
per cent of the cropped area consumes about 50 per cent of the pesticides. Rice
grown over 24 per cent of the cropped area uses nearly 18 per cent, fruits and
vegetables raised over three per cent of cropped area consume 14 per cent,
plantation crops covering two per cent of
the area consume eight per cent and cereals, millets and oilseeds extending over
58 per cent of the area consume seven per cent. Sugarcane uses two per cent of
pesticides and other crops grown over six per cent of the cropped area account for
another one per cent.
Maharashtra, Punjab, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh account for 45 per

cent of the total pesticide consumption in India. Telangana and Andhra Pradesh
are the largest consumer of pesticides with a combined share of 24 per cent
(FICCI, 2015).
The consumption of technical grade pesticides in India from 2000-01 to
2014-15 is shown in the table 1.2.
Table 1.2. Pesticides consumption in India (2000-2015)
Sl.No Year Consumption (Metric tonnes)
1 2000-01 43.58
2 2001-02 47.02
3 2002-03 48.3
4 2003-04 41
5 2004-05 40.67
6 2005-06 39.77
7 2006-07 41.51
8 2007-08 44.77
9 2008-09 43.86
10 2009-10 41.82
11 2010-11 55.54
12 2011-12 52.98
13 2012-13 45.62
14 2013-14 60.28
15 2014-15 57.35
(Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, 2015)
1.5 DISTRIBUTION OF DOMESTIC CROP PROTECTION

MARKET BY PRODUCT CATEGORY
The Indian crop protection market is dominated by Insecticides, which
form almost 60 per cent of domestic crop protection chemicals market. The major
applications are found in rice and cotton crops. Fungicides and Herbicides are the
largest growing segments accounting for 18 per cent and 16 per cent respectively
of total crop protection chemicals market respectively. As the weeds grow in
damp and warm weather and die in cold seasons, the sale of herbicides is
seasonal. Rice and wheat crops are the major application areas for herbicides.
Increasing labour costs and labour shortage are key growth drivers for herbicides.
The fungicides find application in fruits, vegetables and rice. The key
growth drivers for fungicides include a shift in agriculture from cash crops to
fruits and vegetables and government support for exports of fruits and vegetables.
Bio-pesticides include all biological materials organisms, which can be used to
control pests. Currently bio- pesticides constitute only 3 per cent of Indian crop
protection market; however there are significant growth opportunities for this
product segment due to increasing concerns of safety and toxicity of pesticides,
stringent regulations and government support.
1.6 STRENGTHS OF AGROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY

India is one of the largest producers of pesticides in Asia. Indian
companies have developed process technologies for more than 30 pesticides and
pesticide exports from India are steadily on the rise, many Indian companies have
opened offices and stock depots in Europe and Australia to ensure quick delivery,
and exports have been increasing since 2010 (FICCI, 2013).
India, due to its inherent strength of low cost manufacturing and qualified
low cost manpower, is a net exporter of pesticides to countries such as USA and
some European and African countries. The global market in generic pesticides is
likely to increase in coming years. It is expected that the strong fundamentals of
the Indian pesticide industry, such as cheap availability of raw materials, process
expertise, low operating costs and R and D strengths will attract many foreign
companies. This in turn
should boost investment in research, and thus there seems to be a bright future for
agrochemical companies in India.
1.7 CHALLENGES FACED BY THE INDIAN CROP

PROTECTION CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
1. Non-genuine products
There is a significant share of non-genuine pesticides which include
counterfeit, spurious, adulterated or sub-standard products. According to industry
estimates the non- genuine pesticides could accounted for more than 40 per cent
of the pesticides sold in India in FY14. These products are inferior formulations
which are unable to kill the pests or kill them efficiently.
2. Stringent regulations
Stringent environmental regulations across the world are increasing the
cost of developing new products and simultaneously delaying the introduction of
new products in the market.
3. Low focus on R and D by domestic manufacturers due to high costs

The industry is facing a serious challenge owing to the rising R and D
costs. R and D associated with new product development amounts to
approximately USD 250 million in costs. This prevents the companies from
investing in R and D activities and they tend to focus more on the generic
products which require low investments in research and development.
4. Lack of education and awareness among farmers

It is important to educate the farmers about the appropriate kind of
pesticide, its dosage and quantity and application frequency. Only 25-30 per cent
of farmers are aware of agrochemicals products and the usage, therefore; large
numbers of farmers are unaware of the cost benefit that could be gained by using
agrochemicals.
5. Need for efficient distribution systems

The large number of end users and the predominantly generic nature of the
market makes a strong and efficient distribution network essential for the crop
protection market. However, the industry has been plagued by problems arising
out of supply chain inefficiencies and inadequate infrastructure which result in
post-harvest losses estimated at INR 45,000 crore every year. The lack of an
efficient distribution system also makes it difficult for the agrochemical
companies to reach the farmers to promote their products and educate them about
their usage and benefits.
6. Long gestation period for new products
It takes almost 10 years to bring a new molecule into the market. Even for
the generic products, it can take up to 5 years to get the product registered. The
regulatory bodies do not have adequate resources and infrastructure to execute
timely registration of products. Sometimes the rules are not clearly defined
creating interpretation challenges for the regulatory bodies, leading to confusion
thereby adding to the complexities for the crop protection chemical companies.
1.8 PROMOTION OF PESTICIDES BY COMPANIES

To make the farmers buy their product farmer and dealer promotion must
be taken up by the companies. The promotional activities taken up for farmers
would be different from those done for dealers.
1.8.1 Promotion activities taken up for farmers by the companies

1.8.1.1 Demonstrations
Sales promotion method shows the performance of a product in actual use
conditions or encourages trail purchase and use of the product for evaluation by
customer.
1.8.1.2 Training
Trainings are conducted to farmers by company personnel aimed at
imparting information and/or instructions to improve the productivity of crop and
also to improve their knowledge about the products of the company.
1.8.1.3 Advertisement
Advertisements are given by companies in various media from time to
time. An advertisement is a paid, non personal public communication about
causes, goods and services, ideas, organizations, people, place through means
such as direct mail, telephone, print, radio, television and internet. An integral part
of marketing, advertisements are public notices designed to inform and motivate.
Their objective is to change the thinking pattern of the recipient.
1.8.1.4 Campaigning
Full – scale implementation of sales strategy for a product in a particular
or in a market segment in a geographical area to achieve the objective of
increasing sales.
1.8.1.5 Burra kathalu
It is type of a promotional activity where the company people will explain
about their product by playing a short play.
1.8.2. Promotion activities taken up by the companies to influence the

dealers
1.8.2.1 Credit notes

Companies give credit notes to dealer to increase the stocking of their
products. A credit note is a receipt given by a company to a dealer who has return
goods, which can be offset against future purchases.
1.8.2.2 Cash discounts

Pesticide companies give cash discounts to dealers, who pay in time.
1.8.2.3 Channel financing

The companies sometimes finance the channel partners to help them
sustain their business.
1.8.2.4 Product discounts

Product discounts are given to dealers if they stock the products beyond
certain level fixed by the company.
1.8.2.5 Special packages

In this company offers gifts, special tour package to dealers for promoting
their sales.
1.9 CLASSIFICATION OF PESTICIDE FIRMS BASED ON

THE OPERATIONS OF BUSINESS
In pesticide industry the business is divided into three types majorly

according to spread of operations carried out by the companies.
1.9.1 Multinational companies
Multinational companies carry business operations in more than one
country. They have their own market in at least one country other than home
country. The head office would be located in home country; by the marketing
offices they run business in other countries. The assets are more to these
companies, technology wise also they are fully developed. These companies
majorly focus on product portfolio and introduction of new molecules. These
companies have focused research in each country, they are doing business in.
1.9.2 Domestic companies

Domestic company does business only in the country of the origin. All the
offices are located within the country. When compared to multinational
companies these companies have less assets. These companies concentrate on the
necessities of the domestic farms and plan their R and D activities accordingly.
1.9.3 Local companies

The company which markets its products in the local area is called local
company. These companies manufacture the most demanded pesticides and some
of them are also into manufacturing bio-pesticides. These companies give more
credit time and more margins to the dealers for increasing their sales and give
unlimited stock to dealers for sales without any strict terms and conditions. They
usually will not focus on training and demonstrations for dealers and farmers.
1.10 THE OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ARE

1. To estimate the trends in pesticide consumption in maize and rice crops in
India, Telangana and Nizamabad district.
2. To assess the market share of multinational brands, domestic and local brands
of pesticides in the study area.
3. To compare four Ps of marketing of multinational companies, domestic players

and local players in the pesticide industry.
4. To study the preference pattern of farmers and dealers towards various

pesticide brands.
1.11 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The study is aimed at knowing the 4Ps of marketing adopted by the
pesticide companies in the study area. It also focuses on understanding the factors
influencing the preference of farmers and dealers towards specific company
products. The study tries to establish the market share of few to pesticide
companies in the study area. Hence the results of the study would be useful to the
pesticide companies to formulate strategies relating to marketing.
1.12 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The data was collected from dealers and the dealers were reluctant to share
the formation. However after lot of persuasion they gave the data related to the
project work. Hence some bias may have crept in to data provided by dealers.
1.13 STRUCTURE OF THE PROJECT REPORT

The study is presented in five chapters as follows,
I. Introduction: Introduction to the topic, objectives, scope and limitations
of study are covered.
II. Review of literature: The available and relevant literature is thoroughly

reviewed.
III. Material and Methods: The methods and materials encompassing

sampling methods, data collection, analytical tools, concepts and terms are
explained.
IV. Results and Discussion: The results and discussion presents the results
obtained after analysis of the data collected.
V. Summary and Conclusions: Summary and conclusions are presented

along with suggestions in this chapter.
Chapter II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Review of literature is of paramount importance for any research study as it

helps to acquire a board general background in a given field. This will help to find
out the available information, which is related to the objectives of the proposed
research and assists in delineation of the problem area besides providing a basis for
theoretical framework for interpretation of the findings. It facilates to find out the
gaps in selecting topics for research studies besides making available the techniques,
which can be used to measure the factors under study and to compare the present
results with that of the results of previous research.
An attempt has been made to review the relevant literature which is presented
in a systematic manner under following sub headings.
1. Trends in pesticide consumption and usage pattern.
2. Promotion and other strategies of pesticide companies.
3. Preference pattern of farmers and dealers with regard to agriculture inputs.
2.1 TRENDS IN PESTICIDE CONSUMPTION AND USAGE

PATTERN
Khai (2014) in his study on farmer perceptions and demand for pesticide use
reported that most of farmers declared that they asked for information or instructions
related to pesticide use and pest prevention from retailers (72.5 per cent) and over
half of them (52.5 per cent) sold their pesticide empty packages. The study also
revealed that farmers who had knowledge on natural enemies or took part in short
trainings or workshops applied less pesticides than others.
Sharma et al. (2014) conducted a case study on attitude of vegetable growing

farmers towards pesticides use in Nepal. The study revealed that 95.3 per cent of
farmers used chemical pesticides in their vegetable crops. Majority of farmers (51
per cent) mainly depended on pesticide dealers for advice, followed by public
extension system (32 per cent), fellow farmers/friends (31.5 per cent) and News/FM
(15.5 per cent).
Selvarajanah and Thiruchevalam (2007) said that the estimated average

amount of active ingredient of pesticide applied were 1.9 kg and 11.5 kg/ha/yr for
paddy and chilli respectively. About 60 per cent farmers had applied 40 per cent
higher concentrations than recommended level. Econometric analysis revealed that
high prices of chemicals minimizes pesticide use and use of family labour in
spraying tends to increase the use of pesticide. There were no significant
relationships found between the strength of spray mixture use with farmers
education, experience and crop extent. Farmers perceived high yield losses are due to
pest attack. None of the farmers were well aware about the long term and short term
effects on their health by wrong practices of pesticide usage. Improvement in the
awareness and the training programmes on the safe use of pesticides are
indispensible for sustainable agriculture.
Shakirullah et al. (2006) studied the nature and extent of adoption of

pesticides among small, medium and large farmers in Union Council Palosi,
Peshawar. The results revealed that the pesticides were used by 78.75 per cent of the
farmers, while 2.25 per cent did not use them. Majority of the farmers (41.25 per
cent) started using pesticides 6-15 years ago for different pests. The per annum
average cost of pesticide purchase was significantly higher at 1 per cent level for
large farmers than medium and small farmers. This shows that the larger farms
applied more pesticides.
Jeyanthi (2005) studied pest management practices in four important

vegetable crops, viz. chillies, cauliflower, brinjal and bhendi using farm level cross-
sectional data. Average pesticide usage has been estimated at 5.13, 2.77, 4.64 and
3.71 kg active ingredient per hectare on chillies, cauliflower, brinjal and bhendi
crops, respectively. On an average, cauliflower and brinjal are each given 15
applications, chillies is given 13 and bhendi is given 12 applications. The study has
suggested that for reducing pesticide-use, farmers need to be educated about different
nonchemical control methods and should be encouraged to adopt integrated pest
management (IPM) practices.
Rehman (2003) examined the farmers’ awareness of beneficial and harmful
effects of pesticides and factors determining use of pesticides were analyzed using
survey data from 21 villages in three agro-ecological regions of Bangladesh.
Pesticide cost accounts for about 7.7% of the gross value of output in cotton, 3.6% in
vegetables, 2.5% in potato, 1.8% in modern rice, 1.6% in spices and less than 1% in
other cereal and non-cereal crops. About 77% of farmers (highest 94% in Comilla)
used pesticides at least once (37% applied once and 31% applied twice, and the rest
applied for 3-5 times) in a crop season. Cultivation of traditional and modern rice
varieties, potatoes, spices, vegetables and cotton are the prime determinants of
pesticide use. Farmers seem to treat pesticides as substitutes for fertilizers, indicated
by the positive influence of fertilizer prices on pesticide use. Also, increases in pulse
and jute prices increase pesticide use. Among the socio-economic variables, land
ownership and agricultural credit are positively related to pesticide usage. Pesticide
use is higher in underdeveloped regions. Sharp regional variations also exist in
pesticide usage. Major policy thrusts for devising pesticide regulation and effective
implementation, increasing farmers’ awareness of the effects of pesticide use, and
expansion of IPM practices are suggested to safeguard poor farmers in their pursuit
of agricultural livelihoods.
Varma (1990) in the study reported that in the village of Ghaziabad on an

average 20.5 per cent farmers used insecticides, 13.6 per cent used fungicides and
none had ever used any weedicide. Availability of easy and cheaper control
measures, availability of skilled labour and finance in time influences plant
protection use.
Perritt (1989) revealed that 95 per cent of farmers purchase and apply
pesticides to protect food crops in the field and during storage. The use of pesticides is
more complicated because it requires appropriate training to identify the pest, to
select the appropriate pesticide and to use it in required quantities at the right time.
Because of this, the use of pesticides continue to be at a lower level and
disproportionate to fertilizers used in the country.
Srivastava and Patel (1988) reported that farmers get substandard quality of
product from local formulators. Non-availability of credit, shorter credit period and
farmers illiteracy, which lead to cheating by dealers are some problems in pesticide
usage. Dealer loyalty is another significant factor which influences the buying
behaviour of farmers.
Verma (1988) identified nine major constraints for slow adoption of

pesticides such as lack of knowledge, not convinced by extension agency, high cost,
untimely availability, lack of curiosity for spraying entire area, high cost of
application, lack of finance, problems in preparation of correct solution and scarcity
of labour. High cost was the major impediment to the adoption of pesticides among
small farmers.
Prabhu (1985) examined the relevance of production function framework for

the analysis of pesticide use behavior in cotton cultivators in Coimbatore district of
Tamil Nadu. It was argued that production functions frame work based on the
assumption of perfect certainty and suitability of inputs was not suitable for yield
saving, inputs like pesticides, the use of which was influenced by uncertainty
regarding yield and technical complementarily with yield increasing inputs. The
argument was sustained by the conclusion derived from empirical production
function.
Sagar and Pal (1984) made an attempt to identify the problems and observed
that more attention has to be paid on adequate quantity and timely supply of
pesticides. Skilled labour for pesticide application are needed to make the farmers to
adopt plant protection. Farmers are facing numerous problems in the purchase of
pesticides at a nominal price, when most needed in desired quantity and quality.
Farmers were also dissatisfied regarding the steps taken by government agencies in
handling cost-free pesticides.
Duffy (1983) studied the use and practices of pesticides in USA. The study
reported the nature and extent of pesticides use by crop, using data from the ERS-
USDA's 1982 crop and livestock pesticide usage survey. The survey covered 13
major field crops in 33 states with data from 6520 respondents. It was reported that
11per cent of farmers used professional scouting for pest problems, 59 per cent self
scouted their fields, and 12 per cent were aware of beneficial insects and diseases.
Almost 70 per cent of the farmers with livestock used insecticides for livestock insect
control.
2.2 PROMOTION AND OTHER STRATEGIES OF PESTICIDE

COMPANIES
Sandhu and Mahasan (2015) in their study on the impact of brand image and
firm’s name on buyer’s purchase for agri inputs in Pakistan reported that brands give
feeling of satisfaction but their functional superiority was found to be more
important. Additionally, firm’s name is very helpful to get attention to brand but they
cannot guarantee final purchase preference.
Tiwari (2015) has conducted a study on impact of branding on purchase

decision and why agro chemicals firms need to build brand loyalty amongst farmers.
Results indicated that a dealer highly dependent on its manufacturer for its goal
attainment frequently used influence strategies based on perceptual change, that is,
information exchange and recommendations. A dealer having low dependency in the
relationship was more inclined to use direct behavior modification strategies such as
requests, legalistic pleas, promises, and threat.
Shanthini and Karthirvel (2013) in their study mentioned that several brands
of fertilizers exists in the market. In the study an attempt was made to study the
leading eight fertilizer manufacturing concerns and to know which is more popular,
preferred and purchased by the farmers. Expectation and the level of satisfaction of
farmers is an essential one for withstanding a brand. The factors influencing the
farmers for purchasing branded fertilizer are quality, price, availability and
advertisement. Today, consumer market is flooded with various brands of fertilizers.
Each branded fertilizer stands out distinctly when grouped with other branded
fertilizer. Farmers have specific preference or choice and they analyze the price,
quality, packaging aspects etc. before they buy the product and hence, it is up to the
different brands of fertilizers manufacturers to concentrate on those aspects and
workout better strategy to attract more farmers for their brands.
Solanki et al. (2013) studied about the consumer buying behavior towards
agriculture inputs in Bardoli, Gujarat. In their study they identified the factors that
affect consumers purchasing behavior towards agriculture inputs like fertilizer, seeds,
agrochemicals, oils and lubricants and also durables like tractor and other
agricultural machineries and implements. The study mentioned that price, product
quality, brand and credit facility are the important factors which customers consider
while purchasing agriculture inputs. The study also highlighted that 43 per cent of
the respondents preferred T.V. as their main source of information for the purchase
of agriculture inputs, next came posters with 26 per cent, 19 per cent by magazines,
radio with seven per cent, internet sources with only three per cent of the total and
lastly two per cent for other sources.
Mali et al. (2012) has studied the promotional activities of an agro-chemical

company, Bayer Crop Science Ltd, in marketing of two of its products, viz. ‘Admire’
and ‘Confidor’ used for controlling mealy bug and sucking pest in grape crop. The
study is based on the data collected from 257 grape-farmers in 5 tehsils of Sangli
district in Maharashtra during the year 2010-11. It was reported that the farmers’
acceptance is based on quality, timely availability, price and packing material. For
the promotion of these pesticides, the marketing team arranges field visits, farmers’
meetings and field demonstrations and also extends soil testing services. The study
has also identified the close competitive companies of Bayer in marketing of its
products ‘Admire’ and ‘Confidor’. Using linear business approach model the study
has forecasted that Syngenta will be a strong competitor to Bayer in marketing of
these pesticides.
Peng et al. (2011) said that with the development of agricultural machinery
industry in the modern market economy, brand variety of agricultural machinery will
face an increasing strong competition in China, so a consumer-based brand research
on agricultural machinery will be necessary. A questionnaire survey was conducted
in this paper focusing on Chinese farmers’ perception toward brands of agricultural
machinery. The empirical study with tractor brands indicated that farmers showed
different awareness to domestic and foreign agricultural machinery brands. National
tractor brands got more attention from consumers and Dong Fang Hong (YTO) brand
gained the most familiarity. Foreign brands, New Holland and John Deere had higher
perceptive price, but Chinese brands, Dong Fang Hong (YTO) and Foton acquired
higher perceptive value, and domestic brands, Dong Fang Hong (YTO) and Shi Feng
got more preference and purchase intention from consumers.
Shetty et al. (2010) had conducted intensive survey involving 1039 farmers
belonging to 28 districts in 12 Indian states which was carried out in pesticide use
predominant regions to study the influence of farmer’s awareness, education and
practices related to pesticide use as well as Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
measures. Only 20 per cent of the respondents obtained their information on plant
protection aspect from the agricultural extension officer and the rest of 80 per cent of
the farmers used unreliable information with respect to the crop protection in the
surveyed areas.
George and Lahiri (2009) studied the company and dealers relationship in
agrochemicals business and reported that in appointing dealers by the agrochemicals
companies’ security deposit has varied to a great extent in providing credit limit to
the dealers. The agrochemicals companies has not followed any uniform policy,
maximum period of credit limit has been up to 50 days. Beyond this period, interest
is charged. Regarding return of unsold stocks companies have a varied policy,
control of promotional expenses followed an unauthorized and decentralized
approach.
Rao et al. (2009) revealed that in India 52.00 per cent of farmers got their
plant protection advice from pesticide dealers, while in Nepal the majority of the
farmers (69.00%) make their plant protection decisions through agricultural officers.
Ali et al. (2008) investigated empirical analysis of pesticide import trend,

marketing margins and incentives of various intermediaries, price index of common
insecticides and total outlay of farmers on purchase of pesticides. Local companies
offered high profit margins (up to 30%) and incentive schemes to dealers to get
maximum market share as compared to multinationals (up to 15%). Multinational
firms imparted effective training programs for the capacity building of farmers and
dealers.
Chandrashekara (2007) reported that the farmers consulted input dealers

because of their ability to supply credit for different inputs and also due to non-
availability of information with them in time.
Gregory and Bumb (2006) identified five pillars that are required to develop
agriculture input markets and achieve market efficiency. Increasing supplies and
market efficiency can reduce input prices. These five pillars are the policy
environment; human capital development; access to finance; market information; and
regulatory frame works. These generic components need to be adopted in the context
of country-specific situations. Holistic improvements in all areas will reduce
transaction costs and improve accessibility to fertilizers in rural areas.
Grover and Lunach (2006) reported that the private dealers were the major
source of the purchase of pesticides by the sample farmers. Among all the identified
channels manufacturers-distributor-farmers was found to be higher in case of
weedicides .The average time of clearance of stock was 2 months and 17 days and
respondent dealers also suggested that the training should be given to pesticides
dealers for fixing dealers sale price and quality control.
Hiralal et al. (2006) conducted a study on adoption of various sale promotion
methods by agricultural input retailers in West Bengal to assess the relative
importance of different sales promotion methods based on the perception of
agricultural input-retailers. The study resulted that the major sales promotion
methods adopted by agricultural input retailers were individual contact to farmers (97
per cent), selling products on credit (95 per cent), diagnosing and prescribing (95 per
cent) and participating in dealers' meetings (45 per cent).
NSSO (2005) reported that 80.00 per cent of farmers who obtained
information from input dealers or other progressive farmers have either tried or
adopted them. At all India level the input dealers stood second (13.10%) in access to
farming community for providing information on agriculture technology, first being
the progressive farmers.
Bara (2002) conducted a study to analyse the agrochemicals market strategy of

Dhanuka vis-a-vis its competitors in Sriganganagar area of Rajasthan and found that
brand image is the perception and belief held by consumers, as reflected in the
associations held in his memory. Brands signal a certain level of quality that satisfies
the buyers and it attracts the buyer to select the product again and again for his use. As
a company’s major enduring asset, a brand needs to be carefully managed so that its
value does not depreciate. Brands that fail to do so, find that their market leadership
dwindles with time, thus brand strengthening and brand repositioning are of prime
importance.
Kumar (2002) studied the promotional activities and proposed ways of

effective field work to enhance demand for agri inputs in hybrid paddy growing areas
of Uttaranchal state. According to him, only few farmers take decision of purchasing
by themselves. Farmers’ decision in general is influenced by fellow farmers,
demonstrations and other sources. The best ways of promotion are farmers meeting
and dealers’ dialogues.
Padmanaban (2002) in his study brought to light that private dealers,
extension officials and advertisements were the major source of information to the
farmers. More than half of the respondents continue to purchase the same brand and
quantity even if the price increases. The regression analysis indicated that the price
of preferred brand, efficiency of the preferred brand and advertisement were highly
significant, implying the crucial role they play in the brand loyalty of the farmers
towards pesticides.
Mele et al. (2002) had conducted a empirical research work in1998-99, about
150 citrus farmers and 120 pesticide sellers in Can Tho and Dong Thap province,
Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Media, pesticide sellers and extension staff had different
influences on farmers’ pest perception and management practices depending on the
region and intensity of the cropping system. Pesticide sellers were notified by about
95 per cent of the farmers about their major pest problems, and the type of pesticides
sold in their shop was primarily based on farmers’ demand (87 per cent) and then on
company promotion (56 per cent).
Rohini and Padmanaban (2000) studied farmers’ brand and dealer loyalty to
pesticides in Coimbatore district. The results showed that price and efficiency of the
preferred brand were significant at one per cent level for brand loyalty. The factor
advertisement also influenced the brand loyalty at five per cent level. With regard to
dealer loyalty, factors such as credit availability and quality of product were
significant at one per cent level. The study showed that farmers are loyal to pesticide
brands and also to pesticide dealers.
Padmanaban (1999) studied the market structure for pesticides in Tuticorin

district in South Tamil Nadu. In this study, he made an attempt to analyze the market
structure of pesticides at retail level and degree of concentration. The market
structure of pesticide at retail level was identified as oligopoly implying that major
shares of pesticides sale was concentrated with few dealers. Based on brand name,
symbols and color of packing material offered by the firms, farmers were able to
differentiate the pesticides. Competition between the existing retailers in retaining the
market share and high investment acted as barrier to entry.
Padmanaban (1999) conducted a study on knowledge, factors influencing the

pesticides use and expenditure on plant protection in South Tamil Nadu, and revealed
that the price and efficiency of preferred brand influenced the brand loyalty. Only
when the price of a particular brand is competitively lower to price of other brands in
the markets, the farmers would naturally prefer low price brand, otherwise farmers
would naturally continue to purchase the same brand.
Reddy and Raju (1999) studied about buying motives of rural consumers
towards purchase of seeds and different sources of information about brands with
regard to seeds. Factors influencing brand loyalty of farmers were dealer’s
suggestion, quality product and co-farmers. The problems faced by farmers with
regard to seed are supply of poor quality of seed, adulteration and irregular supply of
seeds.
Sabur (1999) examined marketing system and marketing efficiency of

pesticides in Bangladesh. For this study, 81 traders and 22 regional officers of
company were interviewed from four greater districts in Bangladesh. Company sells
pesticides through their regional office to the appointed distributors who thereby sell
to either wholesaler cum retailers or retailers. Finally, wholesalers and retailers
dispose of their product directly to the farmers. Distributors enjoy more facilities
than other traders. Both cash and credit sale are common at all levels of marketing.
Generally pesticides are sold at a price lower than Maximum Retail Price (MRP) to
the farmers.
2.3 PREFERENCE PATTERN OF FARMERS AND DEALERS
WITH REGARD TO AGRICULTURE INPUTS
Adejum et al. (2014) in his study on factors influencing choice of pesticide
used by grain farmers in Southwest Nigeria mentioned that the age of household
head, education, farming experience, price of grains and quantity of grains consumed
were significant factors that influence the choice of pesticides used by the grain
farmers in the study area. It was recommended that farmers should be educated on the
use of pesticides to avoid hazards.
Bandara et al. (2013) conducted a study on farmers’ perception and

willingness to pay for pesticides concerning quality and efficacy. The results
revealed that four variables namely; age, average monthly income, pest intensity and
action have a significant relationship with farmers' perception and willingness to pay
for pesticides concerning quality and efficacy.
Mirani (2013) studied about perception of farmers and extension and research
personnel regarding use and effectiveness of sources of agricultural information in
Sindh province of Pakistan. In the study he found out that farmers perceived
neighboring farmers and agricultural suppliers were very much effective sources of
agricultural information. The study further reveals that the farmers perceived
training, farmer field schools, demonstration, radio and face to face interaction as
effective approaches for technology transfer. Also the study highlighted that
extension and research personnel perceived that farmers used radio on an almost
always basis and also perceived that radio, television and agricultural suppliers are
very effective sources of information.
Krausova and Banful (2010) in their study reported that the majority of
agricultural input dealers perceive lack of available capital (79.00%), followed by
cost of transporting products (47.00%) and low customer demand (32.00%) as key
challenges to business operations.
Sivakumar (1994) analysed buying behaviour of farmers with respect to
pesticides, considering the factors influencing loyalty of farmers towards dealer and
brand. Friends, neighbours and relatives were the major source of information about
dealers.In case of brands, it was extension personnel of the department of
agriculture. The price, quality and advertisements of the brand contributed
significantly to brand loyalty. Credit availability, advertisements and price of
products available with dealer contributed significantly to dealer loyalty.
Chapter III
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The methodology followed for conducting any study plays an important role
in obtaining reliable results. The methodology includes general characteristics of the
study area, selection of sample, method of collection of data, evaluation techniques
of data and scope of the study.
3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA

The study area selected for the study is Nizamabad of Telangana state.
3.1.1 Geographical aspects
Nizamabad district is one of the 10 districts of Telangana, with a total
geographical area of 4288 sq.km. It has a total population of 15,77,108 as per 2011
census. The district lies between North latitudes 18° 05’ and 19° 0’ and between
East longitudes 77° 40’ and 78° 37’. It is bounded on North by Nirmal district and
on the East by Jagitial district, on the South by Kamareddy district on the West by
Nanded district of Maharastra state.
3.1.2 Climate
The climate of the district is tropical with three main seasons being rainy,
winter and summer. The maximum temperature attained during April-June was 43°C
and daily average temperature fluctuates within the range of 16-42°C.
3.1.3 Rainfall
The major amount of rainfall is during the South West monsoons and North
East monsoons which contributes about 86% of annual rainfall. The normal rainfall
of the district is 1035.5 mm.
3.1.4 Soils
The important soils are black soils and chalka soils (sandy loamy) and they
constitute 52 per cent and 48 per cent of total area of the district respectievely. The
erstwhile block of Bodhan, are predominantly covered by black soils and other blocks
are covered by chalka soils.
3.1.5 Agro climatic region
Nizamabad district is situated in North Telangana plateau, hot moist semi arid
agro ecological sub region as per ICAR and as per planning commission Nizamabad
district belongs to southern plateau hills region in agro climatic region.
3.1.6 Cropping pattern

Kharif and Rabi are the cropping seasons in the district. The cropping pattern
is practiced based on climatic conditions and availability of irrigation sources. The
cropping intensity of the district is nearly 129.5 per cent. Paddy and Maize are the
major crops of the district. The production and productivity are more in paddy crop
compared to maize and sugarcane. Melons and vegetables are also grown in this
district.In dry lands crops like jowar, ragi, groundnut are cultivated.
3.1.7 Irrigation
The major irrigation source in the district is bore wells which occupies major
per cent of irrigated area. Tanks and open wells are in next position in the district and
five per cent of net area irrigated was under surface water, while the rest 95% was
irrigated by ground water during 2012.
3.1.8 Land Utilization

The information on land utilization helps to get a comprehensive idea of
agro-economy of the region, which provides scope to understand the potentialities of
the area and nature of the economy. The details of land utilization are presented in
the table 3.1.
Table 3.1. Land use pattern in Nizamabad district
Sl. No Particulars Area (lakh ha)
1 Total geographical area 7.95
2 Forest area 1.69
3 Land under non agricultural use 0.88
4 Permanent pastures 0.24
5 Cultivable waste land 0.15
6 Land under Misc. tree crops and groves 0.03
7 Barren and uncultivable land 0.47
8 Current fallows 1.19
9 Other fallows 0.74
(Source: Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture,

Government of Telangana. 2014)
Figure 3.1. Map representing Nizamabad district
3.2 SAMPLE SIZE
Sample is the true representation of the population. For the study, four
mandals in Nizamabad district are selected based on the cultivated area of paddy and
maize. From each mandal five villages are selected based on the cultivated area of
paddy and maize. From each village six farmers are selected randomly. From each
mandal five pesticide dealers are selected randomly. Data was also collected from
one salesperson each from three top MNC’s, domestic companies and local
companies in the study area. Thus the sample would consist of 120 farmers, 20
dealers and nine sales personnel.
3.3 DATA SOURCES

3.3.1 Primary data
Primary data is collected from farmers, dealers and salesperson using separate
questionnaires. Data relating to the factors affecting the choice of a particular brand
of pesticide by farmers, strategies relating to marketing adopted by pesticide
companies and market share of various companies was collected from framers,
dealers and sales personnel of the companies.
3.3.2 Secondary data

Secondary data relating to usage of pesticides and firms information was
collected from Agriculture Commissionerate office, Hyderabad, journals, company
websites and other relevant reports.
3.4 DATA COLLECTION

Research approach followed for the collection of primary data is personal
interview method. Information is gathered from the selected farmers, dealers and
sales personal. The schedule was never handed over to the respondents irrespective
of their level of education. This facilitated in preventing incomplete questionnaire
and inscrutable handwriting. This helped in maintaining the uniformity in data
collection.
3.5 STUDY PERIOD

The present study corresponds to the agricultural year 2018-19.
3.6 EVALUATION TECHNIQUES
The data collected was analysed by using percentages and other statistical
tools like Garrett’s ranking technique, Compound annual growth rate in order to
draw valid conclusions.
3.6.1 Garrett’s ranking technique

To find out the most significant factor which influences the respondent,
Garrett’s ranking technique was used. As per this method, respondents have been
asked to assign the rank for all factors and the outcome of such ranking have been
converted into score value with the help of the following formula:
Per cent position = 100 (Rij - 0.5)/Nj
Where, Rij = Rank given for the i th variable by j th respondents
Nj = Number of variable ranked by j th respondents
With the help of Garrett’s table, the percent position estimated is converted
into scores. Then for each factor, the scores of each individual are added and then
total value of scores and mean values of score is calculated. The factors having
highest mean value is considered to be the most important factor.
3.6.2 Compound Annual Growth Rate

A trend analysis has been employed to analyze the data for India, Telangana
and Nizamabad. Compound growth rates were estimated to study the trends in growth
of pesticide consumption in India, Telangana and Nizamabad separately. The data has
been collected for a period of ten years i.e., from 2001-02 to 2014-2015.
The compound growth rates were calculated as follows:
Y = abt
log y = log a + t x log b
Where,
t = base period in number of years (1, 2, 3….n)
y = number of factors
b = (1 + r)
r = compound growth rate
a = constant
In log form b was calculated by using the formula,
log b = ∑ t x log y – ( ∑ t x ∑ log )

∑ t2 - ( ∑ t )2
n
Where,
n = number of years
The per cent of compound growth rate is,
[(Anti log of b) – 1] × 100
The standard error of growth rate (SEr) was estimated by using the following
formula.
Where,
T=t-t
The student‘t’ test was used to test the significance of growth rates.
T=
3.8 CONCEPTS USED IN THE STUDY

3.8.1 Pesticide
A substance used for destroying insects or other organisms harmful to
cultivated plants or animals. Pesticide is any substance or mixture of substances
specially intended to prevent or repel or destroy or lessen pest. Pesticide can be
chemical, biological agent, anti microbial and disinfectant etc. Pesticides include
insecticides, fungicides, herbicides etc.
3.8.2 Trend analysis

A trend analysis is an aspect of technical analysis that tries to predict the
future movement of a stock based on past data. Trend analysis is based on the idea
that what has happened in the past gives traders an idea of what will happen in the
future. There are three main types of trends, short term trends and long term trends.
3.8.3 Market share
Out of total purchases of a customer of a product or service, what percentage
goes to a company defines its market share. In other words, there are various types of
market share. Market shares can be in value or volume terms. Value market share is
based on the total share of a company out of total segment sales. Volumes refer to the
actual number of units that a company sells out of total units sold in the market.
3.8.4 Marketing mix

The marketing mix is a business tool used in marketing by marketers. The
marketing mix is often crucial when determining a product or brand's offer, and is
often associated with the four Ps: Price, Product, Promotion and Place.
3.8.5 Price
Pricing strategy in marketing is the pursuit of identifying the
optimum price fo a product. This strategy is combined with the other marketing
principles known as the four P's (product, place, price and promotion) market
demand, product characteristics, competition and economic patterns. Pricing is
also a key variable in micro economic price allocation theory. Pricing is a
fundamental aspect of financial modelling. Price is the only revenue generating
element amongst the four Ps, the rest being cost centres.
3.8.6 Place
The process of moving products from the producer to the intended user is
called place. In other words, it is how a product is bought and where it is bought.
This movement could be through a combination of intermediaries such as
distributors, wholesalers and retailers.
3.8.7 Product
Product is anything that can be offered to a market that might satisfy a want
or need. In retailing, products are called merchandise. In manufacturing, products are
bought as raw materials and sold as finished goods.
3.8.8 Promotion
Promotions refer to the entire set of activities, which communicate the
product, brand or service to the user. The idea is to make people aware, attract and
induce to buy the product, in preference over others. There are several types of
promotions. Above the line promotions include advertising, press releases, consumer
promotions (schemes, discounts, contests), while below the line include trade
discounts, freebies, incentive trips, awards and so on. Sales promotion is a part of the
overall promotion effort.
3.8.9 Preference of customers

Preferences refer to certain characteristics any consumer wants to have in a
good or service to make it preferable to him. This could be the level of happiness,
degree of satisfaction, utility from the product etc. Preferences are the main factors
that influence consumer demand. Economists study preferences to perceive the
demand for each commodity and the future implications it may cause.
Chapter IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The information gathered from sample respondents were tabulated, processed

and analysed. The finding of the project study are presented and discussed in this
chapter under the following sections.
4.1 Trends in pesticide consumption in India, Telangana and Nizamabad district.

4.2 The 4P’s of marketing of various pesticide companies and market share of
various companies in the study area.
4.3 General profile of farmers and analysis of farmer’s perception with regard to
various pesticide companies.
4.4 General profile of dealers and analysis of dealer’s perception with regard to
4.1 TRENDS IN PESTICIDE CONSUMPTION IN INDIA,

TELANGANA AND NIZAMABAD DISTRICT
4.1.1 Trend in pesticide consumption in India.
The pesticide consumption in India in 2000-01 was 43584 metric tonnes. In
2001-02 the consumption increased to 47020 metric tonnes i.e., 7.88 per cent increase
over the previous year. In 2002-03 consumption has increased to 48350 metric tonnes
i.e., 2.82 per cent increase over 2001-02. There was a decrease in the pesticide
consumption in India from 2004 to 2006. The per cent decreases were 15.1, 0.84 and
2.21 respectively and the consumption of pesticides were 41020, 40672 and 39773
metric tonnes respectively. In 2006-07 the consumption had increased by 4.37 per cent
and it was 41515 metric tonnes, this increase continued up to 2009, in 2007-08 the
consumption was 43630 metric tonnes and per cent increase was 5.09 and in 2008-09
the consumption was 43860 metric tonnes and per cent increase was 0.52. With 4.6 per
cent decrease the pesticide consumption of India in 2009-10 was 41822 metric tonnes.
There was huge increase in the pesticide consumption in 2010-11 with 32.8 per cent
increase and the consumption was 55540 metric tonnes. In 2012 and 2013 the pesticide
consumption decreased by 5.5 per cent and 13 per cent respectively and pesticide
consumption in these years was 52479 metric tonnes and 45619 metric tonnes
respectively. There was a very huge increase in the pesticide consumption in India in
2013-14 and pesticide consumption was 60282 metric tonnes. The per cent change over
previous year was 32.1 per cent. In 2014-15 pesticide consumption decreased by 4.8 per
cent and consumption was 57353 metric tonnes.
Compound annual growth rate of pesticide consumption in India was 1.9 with
level of significance at 1 per cent. That implies positive trend in pesticide consumption
in India and that was significant. Percentage change in 2015 over 2001 was 24 per cent.
Table 4.1. Pesticide consumption in India (2000-2015)
Pesticide consumption Per cent change over

Sl. No Year
(metric tonnes) previous year
1 2000-01 43584
2 2001-02 47020 7.88
3 2002-03 48350 2.82
4 2003-04 41020 -15.1
5 2004-05 40672 -0.84
6 2005-06 39773 -2.21
7 2006-07 41515 4.37
8 2007-08 43630 5.09
9 2008-09 43860 0.52
10 2009-10 41822 -4.6

11 2010-11 55540 32.8
12 2011-12 52479 -5.51
13 2012-13 45619 -13.0
14 2013-14 60282 32.14
15 2014-15 57353 -4.85
Figure 4.1. Pesticide consumption in India (2000-2015)
4.1.2 Pesticide consumption in Telangana
Pesticide consumption of Telangana in 2000-01 was 1715 metric tonnes. In
2001-2002 it has decreased to 1650 metric tonnes and per cent decrease when compared
to previous year was 3.7 per cent. This decrease continued up to 2003-04. In 2002-03
the consumption was 1257 metric tonnes and per cent decrease was 23.81 per cent. In
2003-04 the pesticide consumption was 818 metric tonnes and per cent decrease was
34.9. In 2004-05 consumption has increased to 880 metric tonnes and per cent change
was 7.57 per cent. Again in 2005-06 and 2006-07 decrease has been noticed in pesticide
consumption and it was 863 metric tonnes and 344 metric tonnes respectively. The per
cent change in the pesticide consumption was 1.9 per cent and 60.1 per cent
respectively. In 2007-08 consumption increased to 385 metric tonnes and per cent
change also increased to 11.9 when compared to previous year. In 2008-09 and 2009-10
again the consumption of pesticide decreased to 354 metric tonnes and 260 metric
tonnes respectively and per cent change was 8 per cent and 26.5 per cent respectively.
In 2010-11 and 2011-12 pesticide consumption is very high increase in Telangana can
be noticed. In 2010-11 the consumption was 3724 metric tonnes and per cent increase
from previous year was 1332.3, 2011-12 pesticide consumption was 3947 metric tonnes
and per cent change from previous year was 5.9 per cent. This increase was to the new
pest attack on cotton, which were in control till 2010 due to BT cotton. In 2012-13
pesticide consumption of Telangana decreased to 1107 metric tonnes and per cent
change from previous year was 71.9. 2013-14 pesticide consumption was 1828 metric
tonnes and per cent increase from previous year was 65.1 per cent. 1674 metric tonnes
was the pesticide consumption of Telangana in 2014-15 and there was a decrease in
percentage compared to previous year by 8.4 per cent.
Compound Annual Growth Rate of pesticide consumption in Telangana was 2.9
with level of significance at 1 per cent. That implies positive trend in pesticide
consumption in Telangana and that was significant. Percentage change in 2015 over
2001 was 18 per cent.
Table 4.2. Pesticide consumption in Telangana (2000-2015)
Pesticide consumption Per cent change over
Sl. No Year
(metric tonnes) previous year
1 2000-01 1715
2 2001-02 1650 -3.79
3 2002-03 1257 -23.8
4 2003-04 818 -34.9
5 2004-05 880 7.57
6 2005-06 863 -1.9
7 2006-07 344 -60.1
8 2007-08 385 11.9
9 2008-09 354 -8.05
10 2009-10 260 -26.5
11 2010-11 3724 1332.3
12 2011-12 3947 5.98
13 2012-13 1107 -71.9
14 2013-14 1828 65.1
15 2014-15 1674 -8.4
Figure 4.2. Pesticide consumption in Telangana (2000-2015)
4.2 THE 4P’S OF MARKETING OF VARIOUS PESTICIDE
COMPANIES AND MARKET SHARE OF VARIOUS
COMPANIES IN THE STUDY AREA
4.2.1 Extent of availability of pesticides of various companies
In the study area, it was noticed that the products of all selected companies were
not available in all dealer outlets. The extent of availability is shown in the following
table.
Table 4.3. Extent of availability of pesticides of various companies

Sl. No Firm Company Extent of availability
Available in all the surveyed dealers outlets
Corteva
in the study area
Multinatio
1 nal Syngenta
in the study area
companies
Bayer
in the study area
IIL
in the study area
Domestic Available in 18 (90 per cent) dealers outlets
2 Dhanuka
companies in the study ar ea
Available in 17 (85 per cent) dealers outlets
SWAL
in the study area
Nova Agri Tech
in the study area
Local Available in 13 (65 per cent) dealers outlets
3 Shanmukha Agri
companies in the study area
Tech
Srikar Bio Tech
in the study area
The extent of availability of pesticides brands of various companies are differing

from each other. The products of multinational companies Corteva, Syngenta and Bayer
are available in all surveyed dealers outlets. Domestic company products, extent of
availability is less in comparison to multinational company brands. In the domestic
companies IIL company products are available in all the surveyed dealer’s outlets.
Whereas, Dhanuka products are available in eighteen dealer’s (90 per cent) shops and
SWAL products are available in seventeen (85 per cent) dealer’s shops. The extent
of availability of local company brands was less than domestic company products.
Among these companies Nova agri tech products are available to higher extend when
compared to Shanmukha Agri Tech and Srikar Bio Tech. Shanmukha Agri Tech brands
are available in thirteen (65 per cent) dealer’s shops and Srikar Bio Tech brands are
available in ten (50 per cent) dealer’s shops, where as Nova agri tech products are
available in 75 per cent shops. Multinational companies see that their products are
available in all the outlets.
All the multinational companies are mostly conducting similar kind of promotional
activities in the study area. They are majorly focusing on crash campaigns,
demonstrations, trainings, paintings, banners, hoardings, literature and dealer’s general
meetings. When compared to other companies Dupont is a step ahead in the
promotional activities with it placing advertisements in radio, print and television.
Domestic companies promotional activities majorly focus on demonstrations,

trainings, exhibitions, posters, banners, crash campaigns, regional mela participation
and dealer’s general meetings. Unlike multinational companies they are not
concentrating on wall and shop paintings. The promotional activities which are taken up
by the domestic companies are mostly done to attract farmers.
Local companies promotional activities are majorly dealer oriented, they mainly
focus on dealer’s general meetings. Apart from dealer’s general meetings they also
distribute literature about the product, posters, melas and exhibitions. They are not
focusing much on demonstrations and trainings in the study area.
4.2.2 Promotional activities
Different companies use different type of promotional activities to promote their products in the market. The promotional activities
range depends on the strategy followed by the company. The promotional activities taken up the sample companies are listed in the
following table.
Table 4.4 promotional activities of different companies
S.No Promotional activity Corteva Syngenta Bayer IIL Dhanuka SWAL Nova agri tech Shanmukha agri Srikar
tech Bio tech
1 Crash campaigns ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ * * *
2 Crop seminars ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ * * *
3 Demonstrations ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ * * *
4 Stop demonstrations ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ * * *
5 Trainings ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ * * *
6 Regional mela ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ * * *
7 Exhibitions ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ * * *
8 Crop folders ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ * * *
9 Product literature ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
10 Posters ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
11 Pole posters ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
12 Banners ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
13 T shirt campaign use ✓ ✓ ✓ * * * * * *
14 Wall painting ✓ ✓ ✓ * * * * * *
15 Shop painting ✓ ✓ ✓ * * * * * *
16 Retailer boards ✓ ✓ ✓ * * * * * *
17 Retailer gates ✓ ✓ ✓ * * * * * *
18 Trolley painting ✓ ✓ ✓ * * * * * *
19 Hoardings ✓ ✓ ✓ * * * * * *
20 Radio (spots) * * ✓ * * * * * *
21 Prints(Ads) * * ✓ * * * * * *
22 TV(spots) * * ✓ * * * * * *
23 Dealer’s general meeting ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
(note: “ ✓ “ mark indicates that the promotional activity is taken up the company, where as a ‘*’ mark indicates that the promotional
activity is not taken up by the company)
4.2.3 Product
The products of each company chosen and the crops on which they are applied are
shown in the following tables.
4.2.3.1 Multinational company products

4.2.3.1.1 Corteva
Table 4.5. Corteva company products and crops on which they are used
Various products of Corteva
Sl. No Crop applied on
available in the study area
1 Delegate Maize, Vegetables, Chilli, Cotton
2 Tracer Vegetables, Chilli, Cotton
3 Pexalon Paddy
4 Galileo sensa Chilli, Paddy
5 Galileo way Paddy
6 Coreon Paddy
7 Assret Paddy
8 Londox power Paddy
9 Transform Cotton, Vegetables
10 Magister Chilli, Cotton, Vegetables
11 Curzate Vegetables
Most of the Corteva brands are useful for all crops that are cultivated in the study
area. They also have some products which can be applied on fruits and vegetables.
4.2.3.1.2 Syngenta products
Table 4.6. Syngenta company products and crops on which they are used
Various products of
Sl. No Syngenta available in the Crop applied on
study area
1 Ampligo Maize, Cotton, Vegetables
2 Actara Cotton
3 Polo Cotton, Vegetables
4 Pegasus Cotton
5 Virtako Paddy
6 Amistar top Vegetables
7 Redmil gold All crops
8 Refit Paddy
9 Refit plus Paddy
10 Alika Cotton, Vegetables
11 Matador Maize, Cotton, Vegetbles
12 Chess Paddy
Most of Syngenta products are useful to apply on all crops cultivated the study
area, however the company is mainly on Cotton, Chilli and Paddy.
4.2.3.1.3 Bayer products
Table 4.7. Bayer company products and crops on which they are used
Various products of Bayer
1 Guacho Chilli, Cotton, Pulses
2 Bilsyp Pulses, Fruits, Vegetables, Cotton, Chilli
3 Calypso Fruits, Vegetables, Cotton, Chilli

4 Tamaron All crops
5 Spintor Fruits, Vegetables, Cotton, Chilli
6 Fame Fruits, Vegetables
7 Bayrusil All crops
8 Metalyx All crops
10 Admire Cotton and Grapes
11 Sevin All crops
12 Cybil All crops
13 Decis All crops
14 Regent All crops
15 Confidor All crops
16 Oberon Cotton and vegetables
17 Spark All crops
18 Glamour Paddy and chilli
A high percentage of Bayer products are suitable for application on cotton, chilli,
paddy and vegetables.
It can be noticed that most of the multinational company products are applied on
all crops. All the companies are majorly focusing on paddy, chilli, cotton, fruits and
vegetables in the study area.
4.2.3.2 Domestic company products
4.2.3.2.1 IIL products
Table 4.8. IIL company products and crops on which they are used
Various products of IIL
1 Thimet Paddy, Cotton and Vegetables
2 Nuvan Paddy, Cotton and Vegetables
3 Lethal Paddy, Sugarcane
4 Monocil All crops
5 Victor Cotton, Chilli, Fruits and Vegetables,
6 Pluto All crops
7 Hijack All crops
8 Hakama Cotton, Soyabean, Black and Green gram
9 Pulsor Paddy
10 Lethal 50 Paddy and Sugarcane
11 Victor plus Paddy
12 Avone Paddy, Cotton and Chilli
13 Force 11 Paddy, Chilli, Cotton, Fruits and Vegetables
14 Selector All crops
Most of the IIL products are targeted for use on Paddy crop, followed by Cotton and
Chilli.
4.2.3.2.2 Dhanuka products
Table 4.9. Dhanuka company products and crops on which they are used
Various products of
Sl. No Dhanuka available in the Crop applied on
study area
1 Largo Maize, Cotton and Vegetables
2 D one Cotton and Vegetables
3 Cover All crops
4 Sempra Maize and sugarcane
5 Dhanu top Paddy, Cotton and Vegetables
6 Cover Gr Paddy
7 Caldan Paddy
8 Dhanuka M-45 Paddy, Cotton and Vegetables
9 Barrier All crops
10 Cursor All crops
Maximum number of Dhanuka products are suitable for application on Paddy,

Maize, Cotton and vegetables.
4.2.3.2.3 SWAL products
Table 4.10. SWAL company products and crops on which they are used
Various products in the
study area
1 Star thene Cotton, Chilli and vegetables
2 Star thene power Paddy, Cotton, Chilli and Vegetables
3 Monster All crops
4 Panama Paddy and cotton
5 Starclaim Cotton, Chilli, Fruits and Vegetables
6 MIT plus Cotton and Chilli
7 Relay 101 Brinjal and Cotton
8 Starchlor All crops
9 Double star Paddy and cotton
10 Trazostar Paddy and cotton
11 Star gazette Paddy, Cotton, Chilli
12 Imida star Paddy, Cotton, Chilli, Fruits and Vegetables
13 SWAL trust Paddy, Cotton, Chilli
14 Starmidon Paddy, Cotton, Chilli and Vegetables
15 Starphor 10G Paddy
16 Battalion All crops
17 Startop Paddy
SWAL products are mainly meant for use on Paddy, Cotton and Chilli crops.
Most of domestic company products are majorly focusing on paddy, cotton and chilli in
the study area, apart from this they are also focusing on fruits and vegetables.
4.2.3.3 Local company products
4.2.3.3.1 Nova agri tech products
Table 4.11. Nova agri tech company products and crops on which they are used
Various products of Nova agri
tech available in the study area
Paddy, Cotton, Chilli, Fruits and
1 N counter
Vegetables
2 Sniper Fruits and Vegetables
3 Terminator Field and horticulture crops
4 Attack Chilli, tomato
5 Swarna Pulses
6 Cosmo Fruits and vegetables
7 N kick Paddy, Cotton and chilli
8 N shooter Paddy and Cotton
9 Kin nova Paddy, Cotton and Chilli
Most of Nova agri tech products are suitable for application on paddy, cotton
and chilli crops. Few products of this company are also suitable for application on fruits
and vegetable crops.
4.2.3.3.2 Shanmukha agri tech products

Table 4.12. Shanmukha agri tech company products and crops on which they are used
Various products of Shanmukha
Sl. No agri tech available in the study area Crop applied on
1 Terminator All crops

2 Jaagruth All crops
3 Garuda All crops
4 Dhanya All crops
5 Ekalavya All crops
6 Saviour All crops
7 Bhaagya All crops
8 Kingzymme All crops
The Shanmukha agri tech company products are not targeted at a particular crop.
The company promotes these products as the products that can be used on any crop.
They have insecticide, fungicides, growth regulators and soil health regulators.
4.2.3.3.3 Srikar bio tech products

Table 4.13. Srikar bio tech company products and crops on which they are used
Various products of Srikar bio
Sl. No tech company products available Crop applied on
in the study area
1 Srikar prime All crops
2 Srikars’s super All crops
3 Srikars’s khaleja All crops
4 Srikars’s sixer plus All crops
5 Srikars’s kalinga All crops
6 Srikars’s polymer All crops
7 Srikars’s race All crops
8 Srikars’s supreme All crops
As like Shanmukha agri tech products, Srikar bio tech products are also suitable for
any crop. They also have insecticidal, fungicidal, growth regulators and soil health
developers.
Among the selected local companies, Nova agri tech has products suitable for
specific crops, whereas the other two companies products are suitable for all crops.
Among the multinational companies, the range of availability of products is more

in Bayer when compared to other two companies, Corteva and Syngenta. Where as in
case of domestic companies IIL and SWAL have wide range of products than Dhanuka
and in case of local companies all the companies selected almost have same range
of products.
4.2.4 Prices of pesticides of various companies in the study area.
The prices of various formulations sold by various selected companies in the
study are collected and are shown in the following table.
Table 4.14 Prices of pesticides of various companies in the study area.
Shanmukha
Sl. No Technical name Corteva Syngenta Bayer IIL Dhanuka SWAL Nova agri agri tech Srikar bio
tech tech
1 Acephate 792/kg 785/kg - 775/kg 760/kg 782/kg - - -
2 Monocrophos - - - 680/lit 660/lit 690/lit - - -
3 Imidoprid - 1420/lit - 1340/lit 1210/lit 1310/lit - -
Cartap
4 - - - 92/kg 84/kg 87/kg - - -
Hydroclride
5 Phorate - - - 58/kg 62/kg 68/kg
6 Buprofenzin - 1125/lit 1120/lit 1050/lit 1015/lit 1020/lit - - -
7 Traizophos 860/lit 375/lit - 500/lit 460/lit 480/lit - - -
8 Fipronil - 900/kg - 860/lit - 890/lit - - -
9 Cholopyryphos - - - 258/lit 246/lit 260/lit - - -
10 Dicholovos 635/lit - - 620/lit 610/lit 650/lit - - -
Emamectin
11 1900/lit - - 1880/lit - 1860/lit - - -
benzoate
12 Bifenthrin - - - 1150/lit - 1180/lit - -
13 Thiomethaxim 4580/kg - - 1600/kg 1046/kg - - -
16 Flubenzamide - 100/10ml - 95/10ml - - - - -
17 Acetamaprid - - 1996/kg - 1890/kg 1920/lit - - -
18 Profenophos 960/lit - - - 940/lit 945/lit - - -
19 Lamdacyhalothrin 930/lit - - - 890/lit 910/lit - - -
From the table it can be noticed that there is not very high variation in prices
among the prices of multinational and domestic companies except in case of
Thiomethaxim, where a difference in prices to the extent of 270 per cent is noticed. It
can also noticed that except in a few cases, the prices of domestic companies’ products
are lesser than the prices of multinational companies.
The prices of local companies have not been mentioned in the table because, these
companies products do not fall under a particular formulation. The local companies
products are targeted for all the crops and have no specific formulations and they are
priced in the range Rs.350 to Rs.500 per litre in the study area.
4.2.5 Market share of various companies in the study area

The total pesticide business in the Warangal area in 2017-18 was approximately
300 crores. In the study area the business was approximately 110 crores. The business
done by selected companies in value terms in the study area is given in the following
table.
Table 4.15. Value of business done by each selected company in the study area
Value of business (crores)
Sl. No Company Company name
Corteva 16.25
1 Multinational company Syngenta 12.75
Bayer 8.50
IIL 9.50
2 Domestic company Dhanuka 6.25
SWAL 5.50
Nova agri tech 4.50
3 Local company Shanmukha agri 3.20
tech
Srikar bio tech 2.30
It can be noticed from the table 4.15 that multinational companies are doing more
business than domestic companies except in case of IIL. Corteva is the market leader
in the multinational category, whereas IIL is the market leader in case of domestic
companies. The local companies have their share of business in the study area, Nova
agri tech is the market leader among local companies. All the selected companies
contribute 62.5 per cent to the total business in the study area. The market share of
Corteva is 14.8 per cent, whereas the market share of Syngenta and Bayer are 11.6 per
cent and 7.7 per cent respectively. The market share of IIL, Dhanuka and SWAL in the
study area is 8.6 per cent, 5.7 per cent and 5.0 per cent respectively. The market share of
Nova agri tech, Shanmukha agri tech and Srikar bio tech are 4.1 per cent, 2.9 per cent and
2.1 per cent in the study area.
4.3 GENERAL PROFILE OF FARMERS AND ANALYSIS OF
FARMER’S PERCEPTION WITH REGARD TO VARIOUS
PESTICIDE COMPANIES
4.3.1 General characteristics of sampled farmers
Age, educational level, farm holding, cropping pattern, usage of pesticides and
place of purchase of pesticides with regard to farmer respondents are analysed in this
sub- section.
4.3.1.1 Age
The analysis revealed that about 15.8 per cent of sample farmers were in the age
group of 30-35 years, while 32.5 per cent belonged to the age group of less than 35-40
and the rest 51.7 per cent were above 40 years of age. Most of the farmers are above 35
years of age in the study area. The following table shows the age group details of
farmers in Nizamabad district.
Table 4.16. Distribution of sample farmers under different age groups

Sl. No Age in years Number of respondents Percentage
1 30-35 19 15.8
2 35-40 39 32.5
3 >40 62 51.7
Total 120 100
4.3.1.2 Educational level
It can be inferred from data that 60.8 per cent of farmers had secondary education
and remaining 39.2 per cent had collegiate education. The table shows the education
level details of dealers in Nizamabad district.
Table 4.17. Distribution of sampled farmers based on educational level

Number of
Sl. No Educational level Percentage
respondents
1 Primary - -
2 Secondary 73 60.8
3 Collegiate 47 39.2
Total 120 100
As all the sampled farmers had minimum education, they will be in a position to
understand the promotional activities conducted by the pesticide companies.
4.3.1.3 Place of purchase

The sampled farmers were asked to give their preference for place of purchase
of pesticide. The given details were interpreted in the following table.
Table 4.18. Place of purchase of pesticide by farmer

No. of
Sl. No Place of purchase Percentage
respondents
1 Dealer 109 90.8
2 Retailer 11 9.2
3 Cooperatives - -
Total 120 100
One hundred and nine (90.8 per cent) farmers in the study were interested to buy
pesticide from dealers outlets. Remaining eleven (9.2 per cent) farmers preferred
retailer outlets.
4.3.1.4 Usage pattern of pesticide
In the study area sampled farmers were asked to give the usage pattern of
pesticide. The given data is tabulated and explained as below.
Table 4.19. Usage pattern of pesticide

Sl. No Crop Season Pesticide usage
Granules /
Liquids (lit)
Powder (kgs)
1 Kharif 4 - 4.5 5
Cotton
2 Rabi 3.5 - 4 4.5
3 Kharif 13 -15 0.5-1
Maize
4 Rabi 11 -13 0.7
5 Kharif 21 -23 2.5
Paddy
6 Rabi 20 -21 2
The pesticides in the study are used both in liquid form and granules or powder
form. The average pesticide usage in cotton crop was 4-4.5 lit and 5 kg of granules in
kharif season and pesticide usage in rabi season was 3.5-4 lit and 4.5 kg of powder or
granules. The average pesticide usage in maize crop was 13-15 lit and 0.5 kg to 1 kg of
powder in kharif season and pesticide usage in rabi season was 11-13 lit and 500 -700
gm of granules. The pesticide average usage in paddy crop was 21-23 lit and 2 kg to 2.5
kg of powder in kharif season and pesticide usage in rabi season was 20 -21 lit and 1.5-
2 kg of powder. It can be noticed that the average usage of pesticide in liquid form is
more in paddy crop, where as in granules form it is more in cotton crop in the study
area.
4.3.2 Awareness of the farmers about the various brands of pesticides and rating
of various brands of pesticides
The farmers in the study area are aware about all the brands listed under three
categories of companies i.e multinational companies, domestic companies and local
companies, as shown in the following table. All the farmers gave rating of five to the
brands of Corteva, whereas most of the farmers (hundred per cent and eighty per cent)
gave a high rating to products i.e Polo and Ampligo of Syngenta respectively.
Similarly, five rating was given to Bayer products also by most of the farmers. In
case of domestic companies all the products of the three companies IIL, Dhanuka
and SWAL received a rating of good mostly. Some of the products of IIL, Dhanuka and
SWAL received very good ranking from the farmers. In case of local companies the
products of the three companies listed received a rating of very poor to average, with
most of the rating of products falling in the very poor and poor category. This shows
that farmers are not happy with the quality of products of local companies and they are
mostly satisfied with the products of multinational and domestic companies.
Table 4.20. Awareness of the farmers’ about the various brands of pesticides and rating of various brands of pesticides
Sl. No Firm Company name Brand Aware/ not aware Rating given by farmers
Delegate Aware 120(100%)-5
Corteva
Pexalon Aware 120(100%)-5
Multinaltional Polo Aware 96(80%)-5; 24(20%)-4
1 Syngenta
companies Ampligo Aware 102(85%)-5 18(12%)-4
Spintor Aware 120(100%)-5
Bayer
Confidor Aware 120(100%)-5
Thimet Aware 96(80%)-4 24(20%)-3
IIL
Nuvan Aware 112(93.3%)-4 8(6.7%)-3
Largo Aware 115(95.8%)-5 5(4.1%)-4
2 Domestic companies Dhanuka
D one Aware 117(97.5%)-5 3(2.5%)-4
Monstar Aware 102(85%)-4 18(15%)-3
SWAL
Starthene Aware 106(90%)-514(11.7%)-4
Shanmukha agri Terminator Not aware 90(75%)-2; 30(25%)-1
tech
Garuda Not aware 96(80%)-2; 24(20%)-1
KinNova Aware 108(90%)-3; 12(10%)-2
3 Local companies Nova agri tech
N power Aware 108(90%)-3; 12(10%)-2
Srikars’s super Not aware 110(91.6%)-2;10(8.4%)-1
Srikar bio tech
Srikars’s khaleja Not aware 115(95.8%)-2; 5(4.2%)-1
4.3.3 Ranking of the different information sources
In the study area farmers were asked to mention the sources of information
about various pesticides. The details gathered are shown in the following table.
Table 4.21. Ranking of the different information sources
Sl. No Sources of Information Total score Mean score Rank

1 Television/ Radio 4567 38.05 9
2 Dealer 7874 65.61 6
Peer farmers/
3 8375 69.79 4
relatives
4 Newspaper 3727 31.05 11
5 Pamphlets 8125 67.7 5
6 Hoardings 7445 62.04 7
7 Progressive farmer 8896 74.13 1
8 Demonstrations 8628 71.9 3
Company sales
9 8654 72.11 2
personnel
Extension workers of
10 4306 35.88 10
Govt. departments
11 NGOs 5306 44.21 8
Among all factors farmers have given 1 st rank to progressive farmer as best source
of information with mean score of 74.13. Company sales personnel, demonstrations,
Peer farmers/ relatives, pamphlets, dealers are ranked 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th important
sources of information to farmers with regard to information on about pesticides with
mean scores of 72.11, 71.9, 69.79, 67.7 and 65.61 respectively. 7 th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th
ranked information sources were hoardings, NGO’s, television/ radio, extension works
of government departments and newspapers with mean scores of 62.04, 44.21, 38.05,
35.88 and 31.05 respectively. Thus it can be noticed that company sales personnel are
an important source of information for farmers.
4.3.4 Factors influencing purchase of a particular brand
The farmers were asked about factors which influence them to purchase a particular
brand of pesticide. The data was tabulated and ranks were given to each factor by using
Garrett ranking method.
Table 4.22. Factors influencing farmers in purchase of a particular brand of

pesticide
Sl. No Factors Total score Mean score Rank
1 Credit 8700 72.5 1
2 Performance of product 6833 56.94 3
3 Price 8350 69.58 2
4 Dealers’ impact 4516 37.63 6
5 Crops grown 5588 46.56 5
6 Brand image 6033 50.27 4
Credit is the most influencing factor to purchase a particular brand of pesticide in

case of farmers, as can be noticed from the table 4.22 . Price, performance of the
product are second and third most influencing factors. Brand image, crops grown and
dealers’ impact with mean scores of 50.27, 46.56 and 37.63 which were least
influencing factors and were given a rank of 4th, 5th and 6th respectively.
4.3.5 Ranking of the problems faced by the farmers in purchase of a particular
brand of MNC’s, domestic and local company’s pesticide
In the study area the sampled farmers were asked to give ranks to the problems
faced by them in purchase of a particular brand of pesticide based on the intensity of the
problem. The sampled farmers rankings are summarised in the following table.
Table 4.23. Ranking of the problems faced by the farmers

Sl. No Sources of Information Total score Mean score Rank
1 High price 8824 75.33 2
Non availability of pesticide when
2 4207 35.03 8
required
3 Quality issues 8067 67.22 4
4 Non availability of credit facilities 8920 74.33 1
5 Dealer’s wrong advice 7922 66.01 5
Lack of knowledge about use of
6 3847 32.05 9
pesticide
7 Spurious products 5351 44.59 7
8 Imitation products 8289 69.07 3
Non availability in required
9 7436 61.96 6
package sizes
Non availability of credit facilities was ranked as the most important problem
among all the problems listed. High price and imitation products were ranked as the 2nd
and 3rd problems with mean score of 75.33 and 69.07 respectively. Quality issues,
dealer’s wrong advice and non-availability in required package sizes were the 4th, 5th
and 6th ranked problems. Spurious products, non-availability of product when required
and lack of knowledge about use of pesticide were the least important problems faced
by the farmers as they were ranked as 7 th, 8th and 9th problems with mean scores of
44.59, 35.03 and 32.05 respectively.
Farmers in the study area are educated, they are aware about various products of
selected pesticide companies and for them credit availability is the major factor
influencing them to buy a particular product. They rely more on fellow farmers to gain
information about various available products.
4.4 GENERAL PROFILE OF DEALERS AND ANALYSIS OF
DEALER’S PERCEPTION WITH REGARD TO VARIOUS
PESTICIDE COMPANIES
4.4.1 General characteristics of sampled dealers
Age, educational level, business experience in pesticide sales and product lines
dealt by dealers were analysed and discussed as they influence pesticide sales.
4.4.1.1 Age
The analysis revealed that about 10 per cent of sample dealers were in the age
group of 30-35 years, while 80 per cent belonged to the age group of less than 35-40
and the rest 10 per cent were above 40. The following table shows the age group
details of dealers in Nizamabad district.
Table 4.24. Distribution of sample dealers under different age groups

Sl. No Age in years Number of respondents Percentage
1 30-35 2 10
2 35-40 16 80
3 >40 2 10
Total 20 100
4.4.1.2 Educational level

It can be inferred from data that 80 per cent of dealers had secondary education
and remaining 20 per cent had collegiate education. The table shows the education level
details of dealers in Nizamabad district.
Table 4.25. Distribution of sampled dealers based on educational level

Sl. No Educational level Number of respondents Percentage
1 Primary - -
2 Secondary 16 80
3 Collegiate 4 20
Total 20 100
As all the sampled dealers had minimum education, they will be in a position to
understand the market pulse and farmer’s perception.
4.4.1.3 Business experience

Among the dealers, 60 per cent of them had experience of 10 - 15 years where as
20 per cent were with less than 5 years experience, 10 per cent had 5 -10 years of
experience in the pesticide business and the remaining 10 per cent had more than 15
years of experience. Thus it can be concluded that majority of the dealers had 10-15
years of experience in the pesticide business in the selected district which indicates that
they had through knowledge about the market behaviour and brands available. The table
gives the details about the dealers experience in the business.
Table 4.26. Distribution of sampled dealers based on business experience

Pesticide Business Number of
Sl. No Percentage
experience (years) respondents
1 <5 4 20
2 5-10 2 10
3 10-15 12 60
4 >15 2 10
Total 20 100
Most of the dealers are well established in the field and they know the pros and
cons of the business. They have a clear understanding of local conditions in terms of
crop, season, and exact time of appearance of pest and diseases and the movement of
different chemicals for the control of these.
Dealers understand the farmer’s requirement. Furthermore, they maintain good

rapport with the villagers. Farmers also have belief in such kind of dealers who are in
the business for the long period.
4.4.1.4 Product lines dealt by the sample dealers
On the whole, 90 per cent of dealers in the study area were dealing with three
product lines i.e., pesticides, fertilizers and seeds, 10 per cent dealers are dealing with
pesticides and seeds. Thus it can be inferred that 100 per cent of the dealers were
dealing with more than one product line, so that their income levels can be more
consistent and also they can deliver goods to the farmers under single roof.
Table 4.27. Product lines dealt by the sample dealers

Sl. No Product line No. of respondents Percentage
1 Pesticides - -
2 Fertilizers - -
3 Seeds -
4 Pesticide and seeds 2 10
5 Pesticide, fertilizers and seeds 18 90
Total 20 100
4.4.1.5 Parameters considered by companies to give dealership, dealer’s perception
Dealers were asked to rate the parameters considered by companies to give dealership to them. The resulted obtained are
summarised in the following table.
Table 4.28. Parameters considered by companies to give dealership, dealer’s perception
Most Factor not

Important Neutral Moderate
Requirements important considered at Total
Sl. No Factor factor factor
factor all
Financially strength 20 20
1 - - - -
of the dealer (100%) (100%)
Experience of the 20
2 - - 4 (20%) 16 (80%) -
dealer (100%)
Educational 20
3 - - - - 20 (100%)
qualification (100%)
Accessibility of the 16 20
4 - 4(20%) - -
shop to the customers (80%) (100%)
Payment terms 5 20
5 - 15(75%) -- -
(25%) (100%)
Twenty (100 per cent) dealers opined that financial strength of the dealer is
most important factor considered by the company for giving the dealership, where as
experience of the dealers is considered as neutral factor by four (20 per cent) dealers and
it is rated as moderate factor by the sixteen (80 per cent) dealers. Twenty (100 per
cent) dealers said that educational qualification is not at all a factor for getting a
dealership from company. Accessibility of the shop to the farmers is the important
factor for giving dealership as rated by sixteen (80 per cent) dealers for getting
dealership, where as it is a neutal influencing factor for four (20 per cent) dealers.
Payment terms is rated as neutral influencing factor for fifteen (75 per cent)
dealers and it is important factor for five (25 per cent) dealers for getting dealership.
Hence financial strength of the dealer and accessibility of the shop to the
customers are the major factors considered by companies for giving dealership and
education of the traders is not considered by the companies to give dealership.
4.4.2 Credit facilities provided by the companies

Dealers of pesticides were asked whether the companies provide credit facility. All
the sample dealers mentioned that all companies they deal with provide them credit
facility.
4.4.2.1 Terms of credit provided by the companies

All the dealers mentioned that they get credit for a period of one to six months,
without any interest charged by the company. The period of credit varies from company
to company. Usually multinational companies give less credit period. Companies give
discount in the payment the dealers have to make, depending on the number of days in
which the dealers make payment. Less the number of days in which they make
payment, they get more discount. Usually companies decrease an amount of Rs1.40
paise for every hundred rupees the dealers have to pay, if dealers make payment with in
fifteen days. The amount of discount decreases as the payment period increases. The
terms of local companies are more liberal than multinational companies and domestic
companies. Since the credit terms and period are more benefitting the dealers in case of
local companies, dealers show inclination to stock the products of these companies.
Table 4.29. Terms of credit provided by the companies
Sl. No Period of credit No. of respondents Terms of credit
1 <1 month
Decreasing rate of
2 1-6 months 20 (100%) discount with increasing
period
3 >6 months
4.4.3 Awareness of the traders about the various brands of pesticides and rating of
various brands of pesticides
The dealers in the study area are aware about all the brands listed under three
categories of companies i.e., multinational companies, domestic companies and local
companies, as shown in the following table. All the dealers gave rating of five to the
brands of Corteva, whereas most of the dealers (eighty per cent and ninty per cent)
gave a high rating to products Polo and Ampligo of Syngenta respectively. Similarly
five rating was given to Bayer products also by most of the dealers. In case of domestic
companies all the products of the three companies IIL, Dhanuka and SWAL received a
rating of good mostly, where as in case of local companies the products of the three
companies listed received a rating of very poor to average, with most of the products
ranked in the very poor and poor category, this shows that dealers are not happy with the
quality of products of local companies.
Table 4.30.Awareness of the trader about the various brands of pesticides and rating of various brands of pesticides
Sl. No Firm Company name Brand Aware/ not aware Rating given by dealers
Delegate Aware 20(100%)-5
Corteva
Pexalon Aware 20(100%)-5
Multinaltional Polo Aware 16(80%)-5 4(20%)-4
1 Syngenta
companies Ampligo Aware 18(90%)-5 2(10%)-4
Spintor Aware 20(100%)-5
Bayer
Confidor Aware 20(100%)-5
Thimet Aware 18(90%)-4 2(10%)-3
IIL
Nuvan Aware 17(85%)-4 3(15%)-3
Domestic Largo Aware 16(80%)-5 4(20%)-4
2 Dhanuka
companies D one Aware 18(90%)-5 2(10%)-4
Monstar Aware 18(90%)-4 2(10%)-3
SWAL
Starthene Aware 16(80%)-5 4(20%)-4
Terminator Not aware 16(80%)-2 4(20%)-1
Shanmukha agri
tech Garuda Not aware 17(85%)-2 3(15%)-1
3 Local companies Kin Nova Aware 18(90%)-3 2(10%)-2
Nova agri tech
N power Aware 16(80%)-3 4(20%)-2
Srikars’s super Not aware 18(90%)-2 2(10%)-1
Srikar bio tech
Srikars’s khaleja Not aware 19(95%)-2 1(5%)-1
4.4.4 Rating of various parameters of selected pesticide companies by dealers

The dealers were asked to rate various parameters related to three major companies each in multinational, domestic and local
companies. The ratings are tabulated and are shown in the following table
Table 4.31. Rating of various attributes of different companies by dealers
(Please indicate 1 for Very Poor , 2 for Poor, 3 for Average, 4 for Good and 5 for Very Good)
Sl.No Attributes Multi National Companies Domestic companies Local companies
Nova agri Shanmukha
Corteva Syngenta Bayer IIL Dhanuka SWAL agri Srikar bio
tech tech
tech
4(20%)-3 2(10%)-5 2(10%)-5 3(15%)-5
1 Credit facility 17(85%)-2 17(85%)-3 16(80%)-4 17(85%)-5 16(80%)-5
16(80%)-2 14(70%)-4 16(80%)-4 17(85%)-4
3(15%)-1 3(15%)-2 4(20%)-3 3(15%)-4 4(20%)-4
4(20%)-3 2(10%)-3
13(65%)-3
2 Training to the 20(100%) 20(100%) 20(100%) 4(20%)-5 17(85%)-4 3(15%)-5 15(75%)-3 15(75%)-3
7(35%)-2
dealers -5 -5 -5 16(80%)-4 3(15%)-3 17(85%)-4 5(25%)-2 5(25%)- 2
2(10%) -5 14(70%)-4 16(80%)-5 2(10%)-5 1(5%)-5 2(10%)-5

3 Promotional 14(70%)-5 17(85%)-5 19(95%)-5
12(60%)-4 6(30%)-3 2(10%)-4 16(80%)-4 13(65%)-4 15(75%)-4
activities 6(30%)-4 3(15%)-4 1(5%) - 4
6(30%)-3 2(10%)-3 2(10%)-3 6(30%)-3 3(15%)-3
2(10%)-5 2(10%)- 5 2(10%)-5
4 Dealer’s margin 20(100%)- 4(20%)-5 16(80%)-5 18(90%)-5 18(90%)-5 17(85%)-5
14(70%)-4 13(65%)-4 14(70%)-4
3 16(80%)-4 4(20%)-4 2(10%)-4 2(10%)-4 3(15%)-4
4(20%)-3 5(25%)-3 4(20%)-3
Product 4(20%)-5 4 (20%)-5 4(20%)-5 3(15%)-4 4(20%)-5
5 5(25%)-5 19(95%)-5 2(10%)-5 15(75%)-3
availability to 14(70%)-4 8(40%)-4 13(65%)-4 15(75%)-3 12(60%)-3
15(75%)-4 1(5%)-4 18(90%)-4 5(25%)-2
the farmers 2(10%)-3 8(40%)-3 3(15%)-3 2(10%)-2 4(20%)-2
2(10%)-5 16(80%)-5 2(10%) - 5
6 Awards to the 18(90%)-4 17(85%)-4 2(10%)-5 15(75%)-5 17(85%)-5 14(70%)-5
13(65%)-4 2(10%)-4 6(30%)-4
dealers 2(10%) -3 3(15%)-3 18(90%)-4 5(25%)-4 3(15%)-4 6(30%)-4
5(25%)-3 2(10%)-3 12(60%)-3
Terms and 6(30%)-5 3(15%)-5 5(25%)-5 4(20%)-4 5(25%)-4 5(25%)-4 15(75%)-2 19(95%)-2 16(80%)-2
7
conditions 14(70%)-4 17(85%)-4 15(75%)-4 16(80%)-3 15(75%)-3 15(75%)-3 5(25%)-1 1(5%)-1 4(20%)-1
Special
8 7(35%)-4 5(25%)-4 3(15%)-4 15(75%)-4 13(65%)-4 14(70%)-4 14(70%)-5 6(30%)-5 16(80%)-5
discounts , gifts
13(65%)-3 15(75%)-3 17(85%)-3 5(25%)-3 7(35%)-3 6(30%)-3 6(30%)-4 14(70%)-4 4(20%)-4
and tours
* The figure in parenthesis represent percentages and the figures in bold represent rating given by the dealers
4.4.4.1 Credit facilities
Most of the dealers rated the multinational companies from very poor to average in
giving credit facilities. These companies majorly focus on product portfolio and innovation
of new chemical formulations. In the study, dealers said that Bayer is better in giving
credit facilities when compared to Corteva and Syngenta.
When it comes to domestic companies these companies are good in giving credit
facilities to dealers but not like local companies. The local companies main focus is to
attract more customers towards their products, for this reason they give more credit
facilities to dealers when compared to multinational companies. In the study area dealers
said that all the domestic companies credit facilities are good and among the domestic
companies SWAL is better than other companies.
According to dealers all local companies are very good in giving credit facilities.
They mainly focus on sale of the product and would like to push the product by giving
benefits to the dealers.
4.4.4.2 Training to the dealers

All the dealers said that multinational companies are very good in giving training to
the dealers to improve the business skills. With regard to this criteria all the multinational
companies got a rating of very good from the dealers.
All domestic companies are also same like multinational companies in giving
training to dealers. These companies are also good in giving training to dealers. When
compared to domestic companies and multinational companies, local companies are very
poor in giving training to dealers.
4.4.4.3 Promotional activities

In case of multinational companies, dealers gave a rating of very good to good for
the attribute promotional activities, indicating that these companies concentrate on
promotional activities to reach the farmers and influence them to buy the product. The
rating given to domestic companies ranged from average to very good. Most of dealers
gave a rating of good to these companies. This suggests that domestic companies are good
in promoting their products, but dealers felt they are little less than multinational
companies. The dealers gave a rating of average to very good for the promotional activities
conducted by the local companies also, indicating that local companies are also promoting
their products on par with domestic companies.
4.4.4.4 Dealer’s margin

In case of multinational companies and domestic companies dealers gave a ranking
of average to very good for the margin provided by these companies to dealers. Where as in
case of local companies ratings ranged between good and very good. This shows that local
companies give higher margins to dealers in comparison to multinational companies and
domestic companies.
4.4.4.5 Product availability to the farmers

In case of multinational companies, the product availability factor received ratings
of good to very good from almost all the dealers, showing that these products are available
to the farmers when they require them. This attribute received a rating of average to very
good in case of domestic companies, implying that the products sometimes are not
available to the farmers when they need them. The rating received by local
companies ranged from poor to good mostly, indicating that availability of the product is an
issue with these companies.
4.4.4.6 Awards to dealers

The ratings received for the attribute awards to the dealers ranged between average
to very good for multinational companies. Eighty per cent of the dealers gave ratings of
very good to the awards given by the Syngenta. The rating for domestic companies ranged
between average and good, where as the rating for the local companies ranged from good to
very good. This shows that local companies are keen in giving awards to the dealers to
promote their products.
4.4.4.7 Terms and conditions
With regard to the terms and conditions, dealers mentioned that multinational
companies are good in framing and executing them. The rating of domestic companies
ranged from average to good and rating given to local companies ranged from very poor to
poor, indicating that local companies do not have strict terms and conditions and their
conditions are flexible and change according to the dealer’s requirements.
4.4.4.8 Specific discounts, gifts and tours

According to the dealers local companies are very good in giving them special
discounts, gifts and sending them to tours, where as the rating of domestic companies
ranged from average to good and the rating was similar in case of multinational companies.
The multinational companies and domestic companies compete on the basis of their
product strength, promotional activities and giving trainings to the dealers, where as the
local companies compete on the basis of promotional activities and maintaining good
relation with the dealers by given them good margins. Though these activities are also
taken up by domestic companies and multinational companies their focus is not majorly on
these activities.
4.4.5 Ranking of different factors which a farmer considers for purchasing a pesticide
and dealer’s perception
Dealers were asked to rank the different factors, which a farmer considers to
purchase a particular brand of pesticide. The results obtained are summarised in the
following table.
Table 4.32. Ranking of different factors which a farmer considers for purchasing a
pesticide and dealer’s perception
1 Credit 1975 79 1
2 Crops grown 1026 41.04 6
3 Information regarding the product 1271 50.84 4
4 Low price 1910 76.4 2
5 Easy availability 1446 57.84 3
6 Previous performance 1134 45.36 5
7 Quality of the product 950 38 7
According to the dealers, credit is the most important factor with the mean score of
79 per cent. With mean score of 76.4 per cent, low price is next important factor. The next
important factors are easy availability, information regarding the product, previous
performance and crops grown with mean score of 57.84 per cent, 50.84 per cent, 45.36 per
cent and 41.04 per cent respectively. Quality of the product is least important factor with a
mean score of 38 per cent.
4.4.6 Ranking of common promotional tools that a company adopts
Dealers were asked to give ranks to the different promotional activities which are
taken up by the companies. The results were furnished in the following table.
Table 4.33. Ranking of common promotional tools that the companies adopt
1 Demonstrations 1581 63.24 3
2 Pamphlets 1698 67.92 2
Newspapers/ Magazines
3 1221 48.84 5
advertisements
4 Television/Radio advertisements 1188 47.52 6
5 Kisan melas/Fairs 1277 51.08 4
6 Trainings 1758 70.32 1
With a mean score of 70.32 per cent trainings are chosen by the dealers as top most
important promotional activity adopted by the company. Pamphlets and demonstrations are
in the 2nd and 3rd position with mean score of 67.92 per cent and 63.24 per cent
respectively. Kisan melas/fairs, newspapers / magazines advertisements and
television/radio advertisements are the least important promotional activities adopted by the
companies according to the dealers with mean scores of 51.08 per cent, 48.84 per cent and
47.52 per cent respectively.
4.4.7 Ranking of many different problems faced by the dealers in pesticide business
In the study area dealers were asked to rank various problems being faced by them
in doing pesticide business and the ranks obtained are summarised in the following table.
Table 4.34. Ranking of many different problems faced by the dealers in pesticide
business
Sl. No Problems Total score Mean score Rank
1 Payment problems from customers 1796 71.84 4
2 Late delivery of the company 1758 70.32 5
Company do not take care of the
3 1487 59.48 8
dealer
Less credit period given by the
4 2014 80.56 2
company for stocking brand
5 Bandhs and strikes 709 28.36 10
6 High prices of pesticides 1966 78.64 3
7 Variation in pesticide brands 1689 67.56 6
No promotional support from
8 1344 53.76 9
companies
9 Performance issues of the brand 1547 61.8 7
10 Constant changing of the packaging 2220 88.8 1
Constant changing of the packaging is the top most problem faced by the dealers in
the study area with mean score of 88.8. Less credit period given by the company for
stocking brand, high prices of pesticides and payment problems from customers are the 2nd.
3rd and 4th ranked problems faced by the dealers with mean score of 80.56, 78.64 and 71.84
respectively. Dealers ranked late delivery of the company, variation in pesticide brands,
performance issues of the brand and company do not take care of the dealer as 5 th, 6th, 7th
and 8th problems with mean score of 70.32, 67.56, 61.8 and 59.48 respectively. No
promotional support from the companies and bandhs and strikes are considered as least
affecting problems faced by the dealers in the study area with rank of 9 th and 10th and mean
scores of 53.76 and 28.36 respectively.
4.4.8 Suggestions given by dealers for improvement in the marketing and distribution
of pesticides.
The dealers were asked to give their suggestions to improve the marketing and
distribution of pesticides in the study area. the ranks were assigned to the suggestions based
on the number of dealers giving a particular suggestion.
Table 4.35. Suggestions given by dealers for improvement in the marketing and
distribution of pesticides.
Sl. No Suggestions Rank
1 Finance facilities should be from all banks to the dealers 2
2 Company must maintain regular contact with customers 7
3 Company personnel must spend more time in high sales area 5
4 Company should give more promotions in local language 8
5 Company should give more offers and discounts 1
6 Company should provide credit facility for at least six months 4
7 Company should know customer need and pass the information 6
8 Timely and proper distribution is required 3
Company should give more offers and discounts, finance facilities should be from all
banks to the dealers and timely and proper distribution is required are the top most
suggestions, ranked as 1st, 2nd and 3rd in the study area. 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th ranked
suggestions are : company should provide credit facility for at least six months, company
personnel must spend more time in high sales area, company should know customer need
and pass the information to dealers and company must maintain regular contact with
customers. The last suggestion they have given is that company should give more
promotions in local language which received 8th rank.
Chapter V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The Indian agriculture sector remains the backbone of the nation’s economy
accounting for about 15.35 per cent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product, however
Indian agriculture is highly monsoon dependent and out of the 142 million hectares of net
sown area, only 45 per cent or 64 million hectares have access to irrigation facilities.
Apart from high dependency on monsoon and irrigation facilities, the situation becomes
critical as about 15-25 per cent potential crop production is lost due to pests, weeds and
diseases.Thus in order to enhance productivity, the usage of pesticides play a vital role
(CARE Ratings).
Currently, India is the fourth largest global producer of pesticides with an

estimated market size of around $4.9 billion in the Financial year 2016 after United
States, Japan and China. insecticides cover the major part, about 60 per cent of the market
share, whereas fungicides 18 per cent, herbicides 16 per cent and the rest 6 per cent is
shared by others. Bio-pesticides are an emerging category and are currently a small
proportion of the market but have a huge growth potential considering its non-toxic
nature. The per capita consumption of pesticides in India is 0.6 kg/ha which is the lowest
in the world. The per capita pesticide consumption in China and USA is 13 kg/ha and 7
kg/ha respectively. It is estimated that only 35-40 per cent of the total Indian farm land
has crop protection products applied to it (FICCI, 2017).
Top 20 agro chemical companies 80 per cent share in the Indian agro chemical
market (Agropages, 2018). Among these companies UPL ltd, Bayer crop science, Indofil
and Rallis India ltd have emerged as the market leaders by following strategies like strong
research capability, releasing of new brand chemicals and providing specific product
packages according to crop and market demand. In India Larger companies are acquiring/
entering into strategic alliances with smaller companies to increase their market reach.
This poses a threat to local companies who are forced to reduce prices in order to
compete, thereby leading to lower margins (Religare Institutional Research, 2017).
Since consumption of agrochemicals is low in India, there is a scope for plant

protection industry to grow and this provides an immense opportunity for the
agrochemical companies to flourish.
The study was undertaken to know the dealers’ and farmer’s perception of
agrochemical products and promotional activities of selected companies and 4P’s
marketed of selected companies in Nizamabad district of Telangana state with the
following specific objectives.
Objective of investigation
1) Trends in pesticide consumption in maize and rice crops in India, Telangana
and Nizamabad district.
2) The 4P’s of marketing of various pesticide companies and market share of
various companies in the study area.
3) General profile of farmers and analysis of farmer’s perception with regard to
4) General profile of dealers and analysis of dealer’s perception with regard to
For the study, four mandals in Nizamabad district were selected based on the
cultivated area of paddy and maize. From each mandal five villages were selected
based on the cultivated area of paddy and maize. From each village six farmers were
selected randomly. From each mandal five pesticide dealers were selected randomly.
Data was also collected from one salesperson each from three top MNC’s, domestic
companies and local companies in the study area. Thus the sample consisted of 120
farmers, 20 dealers and nine sales personnel. The data was collected through personal
interview method from both farmers, dealers and sales personnel with the help of pre-
tested schedules.
Various analytical tools were employed for analysis of collected data. As for the
analysis of factors affecting pesticide purchase, sources of information about pesticide,
effectiveness of promotional activities, problems of the dealers and their suggestions
and the problems of the farmers, Garrett Ranking was used. For calculation of trends in
pesticide consumption in India and Telangana Compound Growth Rate (CGR) was
used.
5.1 MAJOR FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
Trends in pesticide consumption
In the pesticide consumption India showed a significant compound growth rate
of 1.9 per cent during 2000-01 to 2014-15 and during the same period Telangana state
also showed an increase trend in the pesticide consumption with 2.9 per cent compound
growth rate.
4 P’s of Marketing Mix and market share
Product:- All the multinational companies had their own brand with unique
technical names, whereas most of the domestic companies products were same in
technical names but different in trade names. Local companies don’t have any specific
technical names products. These products are bio in nature.
Price:- The price of multinational companies products prices are high when
compared to domestic and local companies products because of unique formulations.
All domestic company products face in the same price range. Local companies’ prices
are very low because these companies want to penetrate into the market with low prices.
Place:- The extent of availability of multinational companies products is 100 per
cent in the study area. Domestic companies and local companies have 60- 80 per cent of
extent of availability in the study area.
Promotion:- Trainings, demonstrations, crash campaigns are major promotional
activities taken up by the multinational and domestic companies. Product literature,
posters, banners and dealer’s general meeting are the promotional activities taken up
multinational, domestic and local companies.
Market share:- Corteva, IIL, Nova argri tech are the market leaders in the
study area in the respective categories.
General profile of farmers and analysis of farmer’s perception with regard to
Age:- 52 per cent of the farmers in the study area are above 40 years. 32 per
cent of farmers are between 35-40 years and 16 per cent of farmers are between 30-35
age group.
Educational qualification:- 61 per cent of farmers in the study area are studied
up to secondary school education and remaining farmers completed collegiate
education.
Place of purchase:- 91 per cent of farmers purchase required pesticide from
dealer’s outlets, remaining are purchasing from retailer’s outlets.
Usage pattern of pesticide:- The usage of pesticide is more in paddy crop with
20-23 litres of liquid formulation and 2-2.5 kg of powder form of pesticide used in
Kharif in comparison with other crops . Cotton and maize are the next crops which need
more pesticides. The usage is more in Kharif compared to Rabi.
Awareness of the farmers about various brands of pesticides:- All
respondent farmers are fully aware of multinational and domestic companies products,
where as they don’t have much awareness about local company products.
Information sources:- Progressive farmers, company sales personnel,
demonstrations and peer farmers are the most important sources of information to the
farmers about a particular brand of pesticide.
Factors influencing purchase of a particular brand:- Credit is most important
factor influencing purchase of a particular brand of pesticide, followed by price,
performance of product and brand image.
Problems faced by the farmers:- Non availability of credit facilities is top
most problem faced by the farmer in the study area. High price, imitation products,
quality issues and dealer’s wrong advice are the other problems faced by the farmers.
General profile of dealers and analysis of dealer’s perception with regard to
various pesticide companies
Age:- 80 per cent of dealers in the study area are in the age group of 35-40
years, 10 per cent of dealers are above 40 years and remaining are in the 30-35 age
group.
Educational level:- 80 per cent dealers in the study area are completed
secondary education, remaining have completed their college level education.
Business experience:- 60 per cent of dealers had the experience of 10-15 years
in the pesticide business in the study area. 10 per cent dealers had above 15 years
experience. 20 per cent dealers had below 5 years of experience in the pesticide
business. 10 per cent of dealers had a range of 5-10 years of experience in the pesticide
business.
Product lines dealt by dealers:- 90 per cent of dealers are dealing with
pesticides, fertilizers and seeds. Remaining are dealing with only pesticides and
seeds.
Parameters considered by companies to give dealership:- 100 per cent
dealers agreed that financial strength of dealer is the most important factor for getting
dealership. Accessibility of the shop to the customers is considered as important factor
by 80 per cent dealers for getting a dealership. For 75 per cent of dealers payment terms
is the neutral factor for dealership. Experience of the dealers is the moderate factor
moderate factor for getting dealership as stated by 80 per cent of dealers. There is no
need for any educational qualification for getting a dealership as said by 100 per cent
dealers.
Credit facilities:- 100 per cent dealers said that the company should give credit
period of 1-6 months without any strict terms and conditions.
Awareness of dealers about various brands of pesticides:- All the dealers
have a clear awareness on multinational and domestic companies products, but they
don’t have a clear awareness on local companies products.
Rating of attributes of companies by dealers:- Most of the dealers said that
when compared to multinational companies domestic companies and local companies
are giving more credit facilities. When it comes to training to dealers multinational
companies are top in this attribute when compared to domestic and local companies. All
three companies are good in the promotional activities said by dealers. Local companies
are giving more dealer’s margin than multinational companies and domestic companies.
The extent of availability of multinational companies and domestic companies are 100
per cent whereas the extent of availability of local companies up to 75 per cent. All
three companies give awards to the dealers but in these local companies are a step ahead
in giving awards to the dealers. Multinational companies put strict terms and conditions
to the dealers in purchase of stock, whereas domestic companies and local companies
terms and conditions are flexible change according to the dealer’s requirements.
Factors considered by farmers in purchasing of pesticide from dealer’s
point of view:- In dealer’s point of view credit is the most important factor that farmer
considers in purchase of a particular brand of pesticide. Low price, easy availability of
product and information regarding the product are the next important factors considered
by the farmers in purchase of a particular brand of pesticide in dealer’s point of view.
Promotional tools that company adopts:- Trainings, pamphlets and
demonstrations are the major promotional tools adopted by the companies in the study
area. Promotional tools like news papers/ magazins advertisements, television/ radio
advertisements and kisan melas/ fairs are also adopted by the companies in the study
area.
Problems faced by the dealers:- constant changing of the packaging is the
ranked first problem by the dealers in the study area. Less credit period given by the
company for stocking the brand and high prices of pesticides are the 2nd and 3rd ranked
problems faced by the dealers in the study area. Payment problems from customers, late
delivery of the company and variation in pesticide brand are also problems faced by the
dealers in the study area.
Suggestion given by dealers:- Company should give more offers and discounts
is ranked as highest among suggestions given by the dealers. Finance facilities should
be from all banks to the dealers, timely and proper distribution is required are the 2 nd
and 3rd ranked suggestions given by the dealers. Company should provide credit facility
for at least six months, company personnel must spend more time in high sales area,
company should know customer need and pass the information, company must maintain
a regular contact with customers and company should give more promotions in local
language are the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th ranked suggestions given by the dealers.
5.2 CONCLUSIONS
• In the study area farmers and dealers are educated and these are in a
position to understand the promotional activities of the companies.
• Multinational companies products are rated as the best by the dealers and
farmers. Farmers are not happy with the quality of products of local
companies.
• The pesticide consumption is showing an increasing trend both in India

as well as Telangana.
• Multinational companies because of their well defined products focus

more on demonstrations and training of dealers, whereas local companies
mostly rely on dealer’ margins, flexible credit terms and awards to
dealers to promote their products.
• Most of the farmers are relying on farmers to gain knowledge
regarding a pesticide. This may lead to the same pesticide being used by
most farmers and pests may develop resistance.
5.3 SUGGESTIONS
• Awareness is one of the initial steps which influence the purchasing

behaviour.So enhancing awareness by adopting different promotional tools
and focussing on promoting in local language can increase the
effectiveness of the promotional activities.
• The companies may take feedback and try to maintain good contact with the
customers on dealership from time to time so as to know the behaviours of the
dealers.
• The companies may organise a campaign for the dealers, so that companies’
officials can explain/address various issues which are related to customer
satisfaction.
• Since company personnel are the second most important source of information
for farmers, companies can concentrate on creating more interactions
between the farmers and company personnel.
• The companies while promoting their products, can also focus on exposing
imitation products and spurious products.
• Local companies can think of increasing their distribution network.

LITERATURE CITED
Adejumo, O.A., Ojoko, E.A. and Yusuf. 2014. Factors Influencing Choice of Pesticides
Used by Grain Farmers in Southwest Nigeria. Journal of Biology, Agriculture
and Healthcare. 4: 28-30.
Agro news. Market share of agrochemical companies. 12 June 2019

http://www.agropages.com.
Agropages. Pesticide supplier guide, 12 December 2018

http://www.agropages.com/magazine/detail-209.htm.
Ali, A.K., Ali,M.Raja. and Mallah,U.M.. 2008. An emphirical analysis of pesticide

marketing in Pakistan. Pakistan Economic and Social Review.46: 57-74.
Bandara, B.M., Abeynayake, D.P., Bandara, N.R and Anjalee, G.H.I. 2013. Farmer’s
perception and willingness to pay for pesticides concerning quality and efficacy.
Journal of Agricultural Sciences (Sri Lanka). 8(3):153-160.
Bara, S. 2002. Analyseis of agrochemicals market strategy of Dhanuka vis-a-vis its

competitors in Sriganganagar area of Rajasthan. Unpublished project report.
Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, India.
Care Ratings. Outlook of Indian pesticide Industry. 5 December 2018

http://www.careratings.com/upload/NewsFiles/SplAnalysis/Outlook%20of%20In
dian%20Pesticide%20Industry.pdf.
Chandrashekara, P. 2007. Private Extension: Indian Experiences. National Institute of

Agriculture Extension Management. Andhra Pradesh. 1-3.
Duffy, M., 1983, Pesticide use and practices. Agricultural Information Bulletin, US
Department of Agriculture. (AIB-462) 20.
Economy of India. Agriculture GDP in India, 2015. www.stastics .com
Federation of Indian Chambers Of Commerce and Industry. Industry structure. 16 April

2013. http://www.ficci.com/events/20563/Add_docs/SectorBrief.pdf.
FICCI (n,d), Indian Agrochemical Industry, Retrieved on: 25 December 2015,

Retrieved from: http://www.ficci.com/events/20563/Add_docs/SectorBrief.pdf.
George, V.D and Lahiri, D. 2009. A study on company and dealer relationships in
agrochemical business. Indian Journal of Agricultural Marketing. 23: 66-74.
Gregory, D. I and Bumb B.L 2006. Factors affecting supply of sub- saharan fertilizer in
Africa. Agriculture and Rural Development, Discussion paper 24, World Bank,
Washington, DC.
Grover, R.K and Lunach, M.S. 2006. Study on marketing of pesticides in Haryana,
India. Journal of agricultural marketing. 20 (1): 46-56.
Hiralal Jana., Adhikary, M.M and Basu, D. 2006. Adoption of various sale promotion
methods of agricultural input retailers in West Bengal. Environment and
Ecology. 24 (3): 599-601.
Indian Institute of Statistics. Population and food grain production. 01 March 2014.
www.indiastat.org.
Jeyanthi, H. and Kombairaju, S. 2005. Pesticide use in vegetable crops frequency

intensity amd determinant factors. Agricultural Economics Research Review. 18
(July-Dec): 209-221.
Khai, H. K. 2014. Farmer Perceptions and demand for pesticides. Journal of Economics
and Behavioral Studies. 6 (11): 868-873.
Krausova Marika and Banful Afua Branoah. 2010. Overview of agricultural input
dealers in Ghana. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Discussion paper 01024 Development Strategy and Governance Division.
Kumar, S. 2002. Estimation of market potential of agrochemicals for paddy and

vegetables in different districts of Uttaranchal. Unpublished project report.
Rajasthan Agricultural University Bikaner.
Mali, R.R., Gawade, B.B., Jadhav, M.M and Surywanshi, R.R. 2012. The promotional
activities of an agro-chemical company. Agricultural Economics Research
Review. 25: 537-539.
Mirani Zaheeruddin. 2013. Perception of farmers and extension personnel regarding use
and effectiveness of sources of agricultural information in Sindh province of
Pakistan. Journal of Community Informatics. 9 (1): 33-38.
Mele, P.V., Hai, T.V., Thas, O and Van Huis. 2002. Influence of pesticide information
sources on citrus farmer’s knowledge, perception and practices in pest
management Mekonj, Vietnam. International Journal of Pest Management. 48
(2): 169-177.
NSSO. 2005. Modern Technology for Farming. National Sample Survey Organization.
New Delhi. June: 1-6.
Padmanaban, N.R and Sankaranarayana. 1999. Brand and dealers loyalty of farmers to
pesticides in southern Tamil Nadu. Indian Journal of Agricultural Marketing. 13
(1): 24-29.
Padmanaban, N.R. 1999. Brand and dealers loyalty of farmers to pesticides in Tamil
Nadu. Indian Journal of Agricultural Marketing. 13 (3): 69-74.
Padmanaban, N.R. 2002. Brand loyalty of farmers towards pesticides in southern Tamil
Nadu. Indian Journal of agricultural marketing. 26 (2): 40-45.
Peng, L., Feng Jianying., Mu Weisong., Zhang Xiaoshuan and Fu Zetian. 2011.
Farmer’s brand perception toward agricultural machinery in China. African
Journal of Agricultural Research. 6 (8): 1966-1971.
Perritt, R.W 1989. Small farmers resource management: A case study of pesticide use
in Rio Grande Dosul, Brazi Dissertation Abstracts. 49 (7): 1919.
Prabhu, S.K. 1985. The treatment of pesticides production function frame work: A
skeptical note. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 38: 585-590.
Rao, G.V.R., Rao, V.R., Prasanth, V.P and Khannal, N.P. 2009. Farmers perception on
plant protection in India and Nepal: case study. International Journal of
Tropical Insect Science. 29 (3): 158-168.
Reddy and Raju.1999. Rural consumer behaviour for seeds. Journal of Agricultural
Marketing. 29 (10): 14-23.
Rehman. 2003. Farm-level pesticide use in Bangladesh: Determinants and awareness.

Agriculture Ecosystem and Environment. 95 (1): 241-252.
Rohini, A and Padmanaban. 2000. Farmers brand and dealers loyalty to pesticides in
Coimbatore district. Madras Agricultural Journal. 87 (3): 133-137.
Religare Institutional Research. Indian Agrochemicals on fertile ground.5 December

2018
https://www.dsij.in/productAttachment/premarketreports/Market_Agrochemicals
_Religare_10.01.17.pdf
Sabur, S.A. 1999. Pesticide marketing system in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of

Agricultural Economics. 22: 57-78.
Sagar, R.L. and Pal, M.K. 1984. Farmers perception on plant protection problems and
their suggestion for increasing the yield of crops under jute based multiple
cropping system. Pesticides Information. 10 (2): 18.
Sandhu, M.A and Syeda. 2015. The impact of brand image and firm’s name (as part of
branding) on buyer’s purchase preference for agriculture products in Pakistan.
International Journal of Basic Sciences and Applied Research. 4: 358-366.
Selvarajanah, A. And Thiruchevalami.S.2007. Factors affecting pesticide use by farmers

in vavuniya district Tropical Agriculrure research, 19: 380-38.
Sharma, D.R., Thapa, R.B., Manandhar, H.K and Pradhan, S.B. 2014. A case study on
attitude of vegetable growing farmers towards pesticide use in Nepal. Annals of
Plant Protection Sciences. 22 (2): 414-417.
Shakirullah, K., Muhammad, I., Khalid, N., Shams, R and Khan, N.M. 2006. Pesticides
(biochemical) use: comparative study of small, medium and large farmers in
Union Council Palosi, District Peshawar. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture. 22 (3):
573-577.
Shanthini, P and Kathirvel, N. 2013. A study on farmers brand preference on the

consumption of fertilizer in Tiruppur district, Tamil Nadu, Global Research
Analysis. 2 (9): 21-24.
Shetty. P.K., Murugan, M., Hiremath, M.B and Sreeja, K.G. 2010, Farmer’s education
and perception on pesticide use and crop economies in Indian agriculture.
Journal of Experimental Sciences. 1 (1): 3-8.
Sivakumar. 1994. Buying behaviour of farmers with reference to pesiticides. Journal of

Agricultural Marketing. 8 (1): 127-133.
Solanki Dharmraj., Panchal, V., Nilay and Desai Pratik. 2013. Consumer buying
behaviour towards agriculture inputs. An empirical study in rural area of
Bardoli. Global Research Analysis. 2 (6): 117-118.
Srivastava, U.K and Patal, N.T. 1988. An overview of pesticide industry in India.
Pesticide Information. 13 (4): 19-28.
The Hindu. Losses due to pests and diseases. 15 February 2015. http://
www.thehindu.com.
Tiwari, J.B. 2015. Impact of branding on purchase decision: why agro chemicals firms
need to build brand loyalty amongst farmers. Elk Asia Pacific Journal of
Marketing and Retail Management. 6: 10-12.
Total chemical pesticide consumption, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India.
August 2015.
Varma, R.K. 1990. Plant protection problems and farmers awareness to pesticides in
Ghaziabad Rural Urban Continuum. Pesticides Information. 24 (2): 9-11.
Verma, R.P. 1988. Adoption of cane growers towards plant protection resources in
central Uttar Pradesh. Pesticides Information.14 (3): 16.

Marketing Strategies of Different Local, Domestic and Multinational Brands of Pesticides in Nizamabad District of Telangana

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marketing Strategies of Different Local, Domestic and Multinational Brands of Pesticides in Nizamabad District of Telangana

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MARKETING STRATEGIES OF DIFFERENT

LOCAL, DOMESTIC AND MULTINATIONAL

THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE PROFESSOR JAYASHANKAR

MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

CHAIRPERSON: DR. B. GANESH KUMAR

SCHOOL OF AGRIBUSINESS MANAGEMENT

I, B. PRAVEEN REDDY, hereby declare that the thesis entitled “MARKETING

Place: Hyderabad (B. PRAVEEN REDDY)

Date: (Dr. B. GANESH KUMAR)

This is to certify that the project report entitled “MARKETING STRATEGIES OF

Thesis approved by the Student Advisory Committee

Chairperson Dr. B. GANESH KUMAR

Member DR. P. RADHIKA

Member DR. D. SRINIVASA CHARY

Date of final viva voce:

Chapter No. Title Page No.

III MATERIAL AND METHODS

IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Table No. Title Page No.

1.1 Key pesticide industry players in India

1.2 Major products in different categories of pesticides

1.3 Pesticides consumption in India (2000-2015)

3.1 Land use pattern in Nizamabad district

4.1 Pesticide consumption in India (2000-2015)

4.2 Pesticide consumption in Telangana (2000-2015)

4.3 Extent of availability

4.4 Promotional activities of different companies

Corteva company products and crops on which

Syngenta company products and crops on which

Bayer company products and crops on which they

SWAL company products and crops on which they

Nova agri tech company products and crops on

Srikar bio tech company products and crops on

Prices of pesticides of various companies in the

Value of business done by each selected company

Distribution of sample farmers under different age

Distribution of sampled farmers based on

4.18 Place of purchase of pesticide by farmer

4.19 Usage pattern of pesticide

Awareness of the farmer about the various brands

4.21 Ranking of the different information sources

Factors influencing farmers in purchase of a

4.23 Ranking of the problems faced by the farmers

Distribution of sample dealers under different age

Distribution of sampled dealers based on

4.27 Product lines dealt by the sample dealers

Parameters considered by companies to give

Awareness of the trader about the various brands of

Rating of various attributes of different companies

Ranking of different factors which a farmer

Ranking of common promotional tools that a

Ranking of many different problems faced by the

Suggestions given by dealers for improvement in

Figure No. Title Page No.

1.1 Share of different classes of pesticides

1.2 Market share of agrochemical companies in the FY 2013-

1.3 Pesticide consumption over the years in India

3.1 Map representing Nizamabad district

4.1 Pesticide consumption in India (2000-2015)

4.2 Pesticide consumption in Telangana (2000-2015)

> : Greater than